.
JISH
Y
. 
>>> THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY WILL COME TO ORDER.
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS 
AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE RECESSSES 
OF THE COMMITTEE -- 
>> I OBJECT.
>> OBJECTION NOTED.
>> DECORUM IS PRESENT.
WE ARE CONDUCTING THIS HEARING 
ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO 
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.
PRESENTATIONS FROM THE SELECT 
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660
AND A SPECIAL JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE PROCEDURES THAT ARE 
ZPLIEBD SECTION 4-A OF THAT 
RESOLUTION.
HERE'S YOU THE COMMITTEE WILL 
PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING.
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT
AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING 
STATEMENT.
AFTER THAT, WE WILL HEAR TWO 
SETS OF PRESENTATIONS.
WE WILL HEAR 30-MINUTE OPENING 
ARGUMENTS FROM COUNSELS FOR THE 
MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY.
>> JERRY NADLER AND THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY -- YOU ARE THE 
ONES, AMERICA IS DONE WITH THIS.
AMERICA DOESN'T AGREE --
>> ORDER IN THE ROOM.
>> YOU ARE REMOVING OUR VOTE.
WE VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP AND 
AMERICANS ARE SICK OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT SCANDAL.
.
>> THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO 
ORDER.
OBVIOUSLY, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO 
REMIND EVERYONE PRESENT THAT THE
AUDIENCE IS HERE TO OBSERVE BUT 
NOT TO DEMONSTRATE, NOT TO 
INDICATE AGREEMENT OR 
DISAGREEMENT WITH ANY WITNESS OR
WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE 
COMMITTEE.
THE AUDIENCE IS HERE TO OBSERVE 
ONLY AND WE WILL MAINTAIN 
DECORUM IN THE HEARING ROOM.
AFINANCE I WILL SAY HERE IS HOW 
THE COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED FOR 
THIS HEARING.
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT
AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING 
STATEMENT.
AFTER THAT, WE WILL HEAR TWO 
SETS OF PRESENTATIONS.
WE WILL HEAR 30-MINUTE OPENING 
ARGUMENTS FROM COUNSELS FOR THE 
MAJORITY AND MINORITY OF THIS 
COMMITTEE.
THEN WE WILL HEAR 45-MINUTE 
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE FROM 
THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY 
COUNSEL FROM THE PERMANENT 
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES OF 
QUESTIONING BY THE CHAIR AND 
RANKING MEMBER WHO MAY YIELD TO 
COUNSEL FOR QUESTIONING DURING 
THIS PERIOD.
FINALLY, ALL OF OUR MEMBERS WILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION
AND PRESENT THIS PRESIDENT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE UNDER THE
FIVE-MINUTE RULE.
I WOULD NOTE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WAS GIVEN 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE 
TODAY BUT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS 
DECLINED THE INVITATION.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
AN OPENING STATEMENT.
NO MATTER HIS PARTY OR HIS 
POLITICS, IF THE PRESIDENT 
PLACES HIS OWN INTERESTS ABOVE 
THOSE OF THE COUNTRY, HE BETRAYS
HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE, THE MAJORITY LEADER OF 
THE SENATE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE 
CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBERS OF 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY ALL HAVE ONE IMPORTANT
THING IN COMMON.
WE HAVE EACH TAKEN AN OATH TO 
PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
IF THE PRESIDENT PUTS HIMSELF 
BEFORE THE COUNTRY, HE VIOLATES 
THE PRESIDENT'S MOST BASIC 
RESPONSIBILITY.
HE BREAKS HIS OATH TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IF HE PUTS HIMSELF BEFORE THE 
COUNTRY IN A MANNER THAT 
THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY THEN OUR
PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
REQUIRES US TO COME TO THE 
DEFENSE OF THE NATION.
>> THAT OATH STANDS EVEN WHEN IT
IS POLITICALLY INCONVENIENT.
EVEN WHEN IT MIGHT BRING US 
UNDER CRITICISM.
EVEN WHEN IT MIGHT CAUSE US OUR 
JOBS AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT IS 
UNWILLING TO HONOR HIS OATH, I 
AM COMPELLED TO HONOR MINE.
AS WE HEARD IN OUR LAST HEARING,
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
WERE CAREFUL VISION OF THE NEW 
NATION.
THEY KNEW THE THREATS TO 
DEMOCRACY CAN TAKE MANY FORMS.
>> THAT WE MUST PROTECT AGAINST 
THEM.
THEY WARNED US AGAINST THE 
DANGERS OF WOULD BE MONARCHS, 
FAKE POPULISTS AND CHARISMATIC 
DEMAGOGUES.
THEY KNEW THE MOST DANGEROUS 
THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY MIGHT COME
FROM WITHIN IN THE FORM OF A 
CORRUPT EXECUTIVE WHO PUT HIS 
PRIVATE INTERESTS ABOVE THE 
INTERESTS OF THE NATION.
THEY ALSO KNEW THEY COULD NOT 
PRESUME EVERY THREAT AND ADOPTED
TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO 
CAPTURE THE FULL SPECTRUM OF 
POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL 
MISCONDUCT.
GEORGE MASON WHO PROPOSED THIS 
STANDARD SAID THAT IT WAS MEANT 
TO CAPTURE ALL MANNER OF GREAT 
AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES AGAINST 
THE CONSTITUTION.
THE DEBATES SURROUNDING THE 
FRAMING MADE CLEAR THAT THE MOST
SERIOUS SUCH OFFENSE INCLUDE 
ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF THE 
NATION THROUGH FOREIGN 
ENTANGLEMENTS AND CORRUPTION OF 
PUBLIC OFFICE.
ANY ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS OF 
THE PUBLIC TRUST WOULD COMPEL 
THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO
TAKE ACTION.
WHEN COMBINED IN A SINGLE COURSE
OF ACTION, THEY STATE THE 
STRONGEST POSSIBLE CASE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM 
OFFICE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF 
BEFORE COUNTRY.
DESPITE THE POLITICAL PART 
SHANSHIP THAT PUNK CHU WAITS OUR
HEARINGS, I BELIEVE THERE IS 
COMMON GROUND AROUND THESE 
IDEAS, COMMON GROUND IN THIS 
HEARING ROOM AND THE COUNTRY AT 
LARGE.
WE AGREE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT 
IMPEACHMENT IS A SOLEMN, SERIOUS
UNDERTAKING.
WE AGREE THAT IT IS MEANT TO 
ADDRESS SERIOUS THREATS TO 
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS LIKE 
YOUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
WE AGREE THAT WHEN THE ELECTION,
THEMSELVES, ARE THREATENED BY 
ENEMIES FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, WE 
CANNOT WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT 
ELECTION TO ADDRESS THE THREAT.
WE SURELY AGREE THAT NO PUBLIC 
OFFICIAL, INCLUDING AND 
ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES SHOULD USE HIS 
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN.
AND WE AGREE THAT NO PRESIDENT 
MAY PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE 
COUNTRY.
THE CONSTITUTION AND THIS OATH 
OF OFFICE IS PROMISED TO 
AMERICAN CITIZENS, TO REQUIRE 
THE PRESIDENT TO PUT THE COUNTRY
FIRST.
IF WE COULD DROP OUR BLINDERS 
FOR JUST ONE MOMENT, I THINK WE 
WOULD AGREE ON A COMMON SET OF 
FACTS AS WELL.
ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF 
UKRAINE AND ASKED HIM FOR A 
FAVOR.
>> THAT CALL WAS A PART OF A 
CONCERTED EFFORT BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 
OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN 
INVESTIGATION.
NOT AN INVESTIGATION OF 
CORRUPTION AT LARGE, BUT AN 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS.
AND ONLY HIS POLITICAL RIVALS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF 
BEFORE COUNTRY.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WITHHELD MILITARY AID, 
ALLOCATED BY THE UNITED STATES 
CONGRESS FROM UKRAINE.
IT ALSO SHOWS THAT HE WITHHELD A
WHITE HOUSE MEETING FROM 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
MULTIPLE WITNESSES, INCLUDING 
RESPECTED DIPLOMATS, NATIONAL 
SECURITY PROFESSIONALS, AND 
DECORATED WAR VETERANS, ALL 
TESTIFIED TO THE SAME BASIC 
FACT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE AID
AND THE MEETING IN ORDER TO 
PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
DO HIM THAT FAVOR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF 
BEFORE COUNTRY.
AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOT 
CAUGHT, WHEN CONGRESS DISCOVERED
THAT THE AID HAD BEEN WITHHELD 
FROM UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT TOOK
EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRECEDENTED 
STEPS TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE FROM 
CONGRESS AND FROM THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
IN FACT, MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS 
ABOUT THESE FACTS APPEAR TO BE 
BESIDE THE POINT.
AS WE REVIEW THE EVIDENCE TODAY,
I EXPECT WE WILL HEAR MUCH ABOUT
THE WHISTLE BLOWER WHO BROUGHT 
HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25th
CALL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
LET ME BE CLEAR, EVERY FACT 
ALLEGED BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS
BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES.
AGAIN AND AGAIN.
EACH OF WHOM HAS BEEN QUESTIONED
EXTENSIVELY BY DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS ALIKE.
THE ALLEGATIONS ALSO MATCH UP 
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORD AS
RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.
WORDS THAT HE STILL SAYS WERE 
PERFECT.
I ALSO EXPECT TO HEAR COMPLAINTS
ABOUT THE TERM QUID PRO QUO AS 
IF A PERSON NEEDS TO VERBALLY 
ACKNOWLEDGE THE NAME OF A CRIME 
WHILE HE IS COMMITTING IT FOR IT
TO BE A CRIME AT ALL.
THE RECORD ON THIS POINT IS ALSO
CLEAR.
MULTIPLE OFFICIALS TESTIFIED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS RIVALS
WAS A PART OF HIS PERSONAL, 
POLITICAL AGENDA AND NOT RELATED
TO THE FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES
OF THE UNITED STATES.
MULTIPLE OFFICIALS TESTIFIED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO 
WITHHOLD THE AID -- INTENDED TO 
WITHHOLD THE AID UNTIL UKRAINE 
ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS.
YES, MULTIPLE OFFICIALS 
TESTIFIED THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD 
THIS ARRANGEMENT TO BE A QUID 
PRO QUO FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF 
BEFORE COUNTRY.
THE PRESIDENT SUPPORTERS ARE 
GOING TO ARGUE THAT THIS WHOLE 
PROCESS IS UNFAIR.
THE RECORD BEFORE US IS CLEAR ON
THIS POINT AS WELL, WE INVITED 
THE PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN 
THIS HEARING, TO QUESTION 
WITNESSES AND TO PRESENT 
EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN THE 
CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
PRESIDENT TRUMP CHOSE NOT TO 
SHOW.
HE MAY NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY IN 
HIS OWN DEFENSE, BUT HE CANNOT 
CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT HAVE AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
FINALLY, AS WE PROCEED TODAY, WE
WILL HEAR A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE
SPEED WITH WHICH THE HOUSE IS 
ADDRESSING THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, AND
TO MY FELLOW CITIZENS, I WANT TO
BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THE 
INTEGRITY OF OUR NEXT ELECTION 
IS AT STAKE.
NOTHING COULD BE MORE URGENT.
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED INTO 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS INTO 2016.
HE DEMANDED IT FOR 2020.
THEN HE GOT CAUGHT.
IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE 
WILL DO IT AGAIN, LET ME REMIND 
THAT YOU THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL LAWYERS SPENT LAST WEEK
BACK IN UKRAINE MEETING WITH 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN AN 
APPARENT ATTEMPT TO GIN UP THE 
SAME SO-CALLED FAVORS THAT 
BROUGHT US HERE TODAY AND FORCED
CONGRESS TO CONSIDER THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A SITTING 
PRESIDENT.
THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT 
REPRESENTS A CONTINUING RISK TO 
THE COUNTRY.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT DONALD 
J. TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, HAS PUT HIMSELF 
BEFORE HIS COUNTRY.
HE HAS VIOLATED HIS MOST BASIC 
RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PEOPLE.
HE HAS BROKEN HIS OATH.
I WILL HONOR MINE.
IF YOU WOULD HONOR YOURS THEN I 
WOULD URGE YOU TO DO YOUR DUTY.
LET US REVIEW THE RECORD HERE IN
FULL VIEW OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND THEN LET US MOVE SWIFTLY TO 
DEFEND OUR COUNTRY.
WE PROMISED THAT WE WOULD.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
MEMBER --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA 
ALAN --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS 
CONSENT.
>> THE MEMBER FROM GEORGIA IS 
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMEN FROM GEORGIA IS 
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMEN FROM GEORGIA IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> ARE YOU NOT FINANCIAL TO 
RECOGNIZE A MOTION?
>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
O RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
>> STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER. 
>> LAST WEEK YOU WERE PRESENTED 
WITH A DEMAND 2 J 1 OF RULE 11 A
BLATANT EGREGIOUS RULES TO 
SCHEDULE A HEARING, THEREFORE, I
INSIST ON MY POINT OF ORDER 
UNLESS ARE YOU WILLING TO 
SCHEDULE A MINORITY HEARING 
DATE. 
>> THAT IS NOT A PROPER POINT OF
ORDER IN TODAY'S HEARING.
AS I HAVE TOLD THE RANKING 
MEMBER SEVERAL TIMES NOW.
>> IT'S NOT TO BE CONSIDERED MR.
CHAIRMAN. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE RANKING MEMBER THINKS WE 
WOULD BE VIOLATING THE RULES OF 
THE HOUSE, IF WE CONSIDERED 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
HOLDING A MINORITY DAY HEARING, 
HIS POINT OF ORDER WOULD BE 
TIMELY AT A MEETING WHERE WE 
CONSIDERED ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
>> THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF 
TODAY'S HEARING.
THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT 
TIMELY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
>> WELL, THAT GOT US STARTED 
AGAIN.
THE CHAIRMAN COMPLETELY NOT 
ANSWERING A QUESTION.
IT IS TIMELY AND IT'S FRANKLY 
FOUGHT UP TO HIS DISCRETION BUT 
AGAIN WE'VE NOT REALLY CARED 
ABOUT THAT FROM THE START TO 
BEGIN WITH.
SO, IF MY QUESTION IS, IS JUST 
SCHEDULE THE HEARING BUT 
UNDOUBTEDLY THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY
WANT OUT THERE.
SO LET'S START OVER.
NOW THAT THE CHAIRMAN HAS 
RECOGNIZED ME AND WE GOT THAT 
POINT.
YOU KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN FAMOUS 
MOMENTS IN IMPEACHMENT.
FAMOUS MOMENTS IN IMPEACHMENT AS
WE'VE GONE FORWARD, FAMOUS LINES
FROM NIXON LIKE WHAT DID THE 
PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE 
KNOW IT?
FROM THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
THERE WAS I DID NOT HAVE SEX 
WITH THAT WOMAN.
WHAT WOULD BE KNOWN ABOUT THIS 
ONE IS WHERE IS THE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE?
WHY ARE WE HERE?
I TELL YOU THIS MAY BE KNOWN AS 
THE FOCUS GROUP IMPEACHMENT.
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CRIME.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WE CAN 
ACTUALLY PEN, NOBODY UNDERSTAND 
WHAT IS THE MA YOERT IS TRYING 
TO DO EXCEPT INTERFERE AND 
BASICAL PLY MAKE SURE THAT THEY 
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT CAN'T WIN 
NEXT YEAR IF HE'S IMPEACHED.
THE FOCUS GROUP IMPEACHMENT 
TAKES WORD AND TAKES THEM TO 
PEOPLE AND SAY HOW CAN WE 
EXPLAIN THIS BETTER BECAUSE WE 
DON'T HAVE THE FACTS TO MATCH 
IT.
A FOCUS GROUP IMPEACHMENT SAYS 
YOU KNOW WE REALLY AREN'T 
WORKING WITH GOOD FACTS BUT WE 
NEED A GOOD PR MOVE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT AS I SAID LAST
WEEK A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR AND 
IT REALLY BECAME EVIDENT TO ME 
THAT THIS WAS TRUE BECAUSE LAST 
WEDNESDAY AFTER WE HAD A LONG 
DAY OF HEARING HERE THE NEXT 
MORNING BEFORE ANYTHING COULD 
GET STARTED THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE WALKED UP TO THE PODIUM 
AND SAID, GO WRITE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
SHE JUST QUIT.
SHE JUST STOPPED.
GO WRITE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
I APPRECIATE THAT THE MAJORITY 
PRACTICED FOR TWO DAYS THIS 
WEEKEND ON THIS HEARING.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU 
GOT TO TRY TO GET IT RIGHT TO 
TRY TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE OF YOUR PROBLEM.
BUT YOUR SPEAKER HAS ALREADY 
UNDERCUT YOU.
SHE TOOK THE THRILL OUT OF THE 
ROOM.
YOU ARE WRITING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHY COULDN'T WE JUST SAVE THAT 
TIME TODAY AND IF YOU ARE GOING 
TO WRITE THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, GO AHEAD AND WRITE 
THEM?
WELL, THERE'S PROBABLY A REASON 
FOR THAT.
BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN LAID OUT 
SOME O'AMAZING CLAIMS, NONE OF 
WHICH I THINK AFTER THIS HEARING
TODAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN 
HONESTLY LOOK AT AND SEE THAT 
THERE WAS OVERWHELMING EVERYDAY,
THERE WAS A PROBABLY REASON, HE 
ABUSED HIS POWER BECAUSE AS THE 
SPEAKER, ANOTHER STATEMENT SHE 
SAID THAT TO DO IMPEACHMENT, YOU
HAVE TO BE SO COMPELLING AND 
OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN.
ALL OF WHICH WE ARE NOT.
SO WHY NOT?
WHY ARE WE HERE?
WELL, I THINK WE CAN DO THIS.
LET'S LOOK AT THE THREE THINGS 
THAT TYPICALLY ARE ASSOCIATED 
WITH MAKING YOUR CASE OR A 
CRIME.
LET'S DO IT AGAINST WHAT THE 
MAJORITY HAS SAID.
I THINK THEY HAVE MOTIVE.
THEY HAVE MEANS AND THEY HAVE 
OPPORTUNITY.
WHAT'S THEIR MOTIVE?
IT'S NOVEMBER 2020.
IT'S BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AGAIN.
THE CHAIRMAN SAID IT AGAIN THE 
MORNING.
IT'S BEEN SAID ALL ALONG THAT WE
HAVE TO DO THIS BECAUSE IF WE 
DON'T IMPEACH HIM, HE'LL WIN 
AGAIN NEXT YEAR.
THE REASON SHOWN CLEARLY LAST 
WEEK ON THE JOBS REPORT AND THE 
ECONOMY AND AS I HAD A MAN COME 
UP TO ME IN THE GROCERY STORE 
THIS WEEKEND.
HE SAID KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE 
DOING.
I'VE NEVER SEEN AN ECONOMY THIS 
GOOD.
ME SAID PEOPLE ARE WORKING.
PEOPLE ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF.
THIS IS JUST A FATAL DISTRACTION
ON THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY DON'T
LIKE.
MOTIVE IS EASY.
NOVEMBER 2016 THEY LOST.
JANUARY 2017, JUST A FEW MINUTES
IN, "THE WASHINGTON POST" 
CONFIRMED WHAT EVERY DEMOCRAT 
HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT, NOW IS 
THE TIME FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WE SEE TWEET AFTER TWEET SAYING 
NOW LET'S GET IT -- IT'S AMAZING
THEY START WITH IMPEACHMENT AND 
SPENT TWO YEARS TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT DO WE IMPEACH HIM ON?
WELL, THE MEANS BECAME WHAT WE 
SEE NOW.
THE MEANS IS THAT TO ALWAYS TALK
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, TO ALWAYS SAY
THE PRESIDENT IS DOING WRONG, TO
SAY HE IS ILLEGITIMATE AS THE 
PRESIDENT SAID BEFORE, THAT HE'S
NOT A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT TO 
CONSTANTLY TEAR DOWN AT A 
PRESIDENT WHO IS WORKING ON 
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THIS SHAM IMPEACHMENT WHEN WE GO
THROUGH THERE I THINK THE 
CHAIRMAN SAID SOMETHING 
INTERESTING, THE PRESIDENT 
SHOULD NOT BE HELD ABOVE THE 
LAW, SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE 
FOR HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND 
CONGRESS SHOULD BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE TO RUN A PROCESS 
THAT DOESN'T FIT FAIRNESS OR 
DECORUM, TO RUN A PROCESS AND A 
FACT PATTERN THAT YOU ARE HAVING
TO FORCE AGAINST A PRESIDENT YOU
DON'T LIKE.
WELL, WHAT WAS THE OPPORTUNITY?
THE OPPORTUNITY CAME LAST 
NOVEMBER.
WHEN THEY GOT THE MAJORITY AND 
THEY BEGAN THEIR IMPEACHMENT 
RUN.
THEY BEGAN THE PROCESS EVEN AS 
THEY WERE SELECTING THE 
CHAIRMAN, THE CHAIRMAN SAID I 
WOULD BE THE BEST PERSON FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
BEFORE WE HAD ANY HEARINGS, 
BEFORE WE HAD EVEN WERE SWORN IN
TO THIS CONGRESS, FOR ANYONE, 
THE MEDIA OR WATCHING ON TV OR 
WATCHING IN THIS ROOM, FOR 
ANYONE TO THINK THAT THIS WAS 
NOT A BAKED DEAL IS NOT BEING 
HONEST WITH THEMSELVES.
YOU SEE, PRESUMPTION HAS NOW 
BECOME THE STANDARD INSTEAD OF 
PROOF.
IF SHE CALLS ANYONE TO BEGIN TO 
QUESTION BECAUSE THE ENTIRE CASE
IS BUILT ON A PRESUMPTION OR AS 
WE FOUND OUT LAST WEEK FROM 
THREE SCHOLARS, THE INFERENCE IS
OKAY.
IF YOU JUST INFER THAT THAT'S 
WHAT THEY MEAN, THEN WE'LL TACK 
THAT.
THAT WAS AN INTERESTING LINE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING THEY 
MADE THEIR WHOLE CASE BUILT ON 
GORDON SONDLAND.
YOU WILL SEE THAT A LOT TODAY.
HE TESTIFIED THE AID WAS 
PRESUMED TO THE INVESTIGATION.
HE SAID NOBODY EVER TOLD HIM 
THAT WHEN SONDLAND ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTLY.
HE SAID WHAT DO YOU WANT?
I WANT NOTHING.
I WANT WHAT HE RAN ON UKRAINE, 
DID NOTHING AND GOT THE AID 
ANYWAY.
THIS IS ALSO A PROBLEMATIC 
EXPERIENCE.
LOOK OVER THE PAST THREE WEEKS 
WHEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHO BY 
THE WAY IS ABSENT TODAY.
I GUESS HE CAN'T BACK UP HIS OWN
REPORT.
HE STARTED HIS OWN HEARING BY 
MAKING UP THE FACTUAL CALL WHEN 
HE MADE IT UP.
HE STARTED THE FAIRY TALE THAT 
WE'RE HAVING TODAY.
IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PUT THE 
TRANSCRIPT IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT.
JUST READ IT.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF COULDN'T READ 
THE TRANSCRIPT.
HE HAD TO MAKE IT UP.
IF HE DIDN'T MAKE IT UP, IT 
DIDN'T SOUND SAZ BAD.
HE SAID LET'S MAKE UP SOME DIRT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAID.
THE CHAIRMAN MISLED THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AS AN ATTORNEY AS A 
CHAIRMAN AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
WHO SWORE AN OATH TO BASICALLY 
BE HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND UPHOLD THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THAT WAS SUCH A MASSIVE 
MALPRACTICE I'VE NEVER SEEN 
BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHY, AGAIN, 
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT 
ACTUALLY WAS IN TRANSCRIPT.
THEY DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENED.
AND WE HEARD LAST WEEK FROM 
WITNESSES THEY DONE EVEN CARE 
THAT THE AID WAS RELEASED.
THEY'RE SIMPLY LOOKING AT THE 
FACTS TO MAKE IT FIT THEIR 
NARRATIVE.
BUT WHAT ELSE HAPPENED?
YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALSO THE 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WHO ALSO SAID 
THAT HE HAD SEEN COLLUSION IN 
PLAIN SIGHT.
>> THAT IT WAS ALREADY THERE 
BEFORE THE MUELLER REPORT CAME 
OUT, ALL OF THIS WAS GOING TO 
HAPPEN.
MAYBE I MIGHT NEED TO JUST NOT 
STOP COMMENTING ON CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF BECAUSE I MAY END UP ON 
THE NEXT PHONE RECORDS SUBPOENA 
AS WE GO FORWARD.
YOU SEE WE'VE TAKEN A DANGEROUS 
TURN IN THIS CONGRESS.
SUBPOENAS ARE FINE, PROPERLY 
DONE AND SHOULD BE DONE 
PROPERLY.
BUT THEY SHOULD NEVER BE AT THE 
EXPENSE OF A POLITICAL VENDETTA.
PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED LAST 
WEEK PRESUMPTION IS NO PROOF.
IT'S IN SOME RESPECTS DANGEROUS 
AND THE BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT OF 
AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.
TODAY WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO 
GET WAS LIKE WHAT I LOVE MY 
FRIENDS ON THE MAJORITY OF THIS 
COMMITTEE SAID, MUELLER, WHEN WE
GOT THE MUELLER REPORT, IT 
DIDN'T GO REAL WELL SO WE HAD A 
LOT OF HEAR DIDN'T GO REAL WELL,
THEN WE FINALLY GOT BOB MUELLER,
THIS WILL BE THE MOVIE VERSION.
WHAT HAPPENED, MY COLLEAGUES ON 
THE MAJORITY HAD LIVE READINGS 
FROM CAPITOL HILL.
THEY MADE DRAMATIC PODCAST.
THEY WROTE A COMIC BOOK ENDIGS 
THAT BREATHED LIFE INTO THE 
MUELLER REPORT.
IT DIDN'T WORK.
SO THEY BROUGHT BOB MUELLER.
THEY SAID HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE
THE THING THAT PEOPLE WATCHED 
AND WOULD BE CONVINCED.
GUESS WHAT, THEY WASN'T 
CONVINCED.
IN FACT, IT FELL FLAT.
BUT YOU KNOW TODAY IS THE MOVIE 
VERSION OF THE SCHIFF REPORT.
EXCEPT ONE THING THE STAR 
WITNESS FAILED TO SHOW UP.
MR. NUNES IS HERE.
HIS STAFF IS HERE.
THE LEADING HEADLINE IS THERE.
SCHIFF REPORT.
BUT WHERE'S MR. SCHIFF?
AND MUELLER, ROBERT MUELLER 
TESTIFIED AGAINST OUR REPORT.
THE AUTHOR OF THE SCHIFF REPORT 
IS NOT HERE.
INSTEAD, HE'S SENDING HIS STAFF 
TO DO HIS JOB FOR HIM.
I GUESS THAT'S BA WHAT YOU GET 
WHEN YOU MAKE UP IMPEACHMENT AS 
YOU GO.
WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THE 
STATEMENTS NOT MADE.
WHAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO ME, 
THOUGH, IS THIS.
THIS COMMITTEE IS NOT HEARING 
FROM A FACTUAL WITNESS.
THIS COMMITTEE IS NOT DOING 
ANYTHING PAST HEARING FROM LAW 
SCHOOL PROFESSORS AND STAFF.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN, THE 
CHAIRMAN SAID SOMETHING ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT NOT BEING ABLE TO 
COME.
SHOW ME WHERE HE WOULD HAVE A 
PROPER CLAIM IN THIS.
WE COULD CALL WITNESSES BY BOTH 
SIDES.
I WANT TO SAY THIS IN ENDING, I 
LOVE THIS INSTITUTION.
I WAS HERE AS A 19-YEAR-OLD KID,
AS AN INTERN, ALMOST 32 YEARS 
AGO.
THIS INSTITUTION AS WE SEE IT 
TODAY IS IN DANGER.
WE SEE CHAIRMAN WHO ARE ISSUING 
SUBPOENAS FOR PERSONAL 
VENDETTAS.
WE SEE COMMITTEES SUCH AS THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT HAS 
HELD MANY, MANY SUBSTANTIVE 
HEARINGS HAS BEEN THE CENTER 
POINT OF IMPEACHMENT, BEING USED
AS A RUBBER STAMP, BALLS WE GET 
NOT OUR MARCHING ORDERS FROM 
THIS COMMITTEE AND WHAT IT 
SHOULD BE DOING BUT FROM THE 
SPEAKER AND THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.
WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO WHAT WE 
NEED TO DO.
BECAUSE WE'RE A RUBBER STAMP.
I LOVE THIS INSTITUTION BUT IN 
THE LAST THREE DAYS, OVER THE 
LAST THREE OR FOUR DAYS I'VE 
SEEN STUFF THAT JUST BOTHER ME 
TO NO END AND SHOULD BOTHER 
EVERYONE.
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AFTER 
HEARING ONE DAY OF TESTIMONY IN 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID GO 
WRITE ARTICLES.
FACTS BE DAMMED.
AL GREEN ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE 
HOUSE MAJORITY SAID WE CAN KEEP 
IMPEACHING HIM OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AGAIN.
ADAM SCHIFF WHEN HE TOLD US HE 
WASN'T GOING TO COME, INSTEAD 
HIDE BEHIND HIS STAFF.
HE ALSO TOLD US THAT WE'RE GOING
TO KEEP INVESTIGATING.
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS IS GOING 
NOWHERE IN THE SENATE AND 
THEY'RE DESPERATE TO HAVE AN 
IMPEACHMENT VOTE ON THIS 
PRESIDENT.
THE ECONOMY IS GOOD.
JOB CREATION IS UP.
MILITARY IS STRONG.
OUR COUNTRY IS SAFE.
AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS 
BEEN RELEGATED TO THIS.
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MEANS, 
THEY HAVE THE MOTIVE, AND THEY 
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AND AT THE 
END OF THE DAY ALL THIS IS 
ABOUT, IS ABOUT A CLOCK AND A 
CALENDAR BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET 
OVER THE FACT DONALD TRUMP IS 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND THEY DON'T HAVE A CANDIDATE 
THAT THEY THINK CAN BEAT HIM.
IT'S ALL POLITICAL.
AND AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT 
BEFORE, THIS IS A SHOW.
UNFORTUNATELY TODAY THE WITNESS 
WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE STAR 
WITNESS CHOSE TO TAKE A PASS AND
LET HIS STAFF ANSWER FOR HIM.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
>> THANK YOU, MANY COLLINS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
POINT OF ORDER. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CLAUSE 2 J 1 OF
RULE 11 REQUIRES YOU TO SCHEDULE
A MINORITY HEARING DATE NOT TO 
CONSIDER IT.
NOT TO MEET TO DISCUSS IT.
BUT TO SCHEDULE ONE AND TO 
SCHEDULE IT AT A REASONABLE 
TIME.
NOT AFTER ARTICLES HAVE BEEN 
DRAWN, NOT AFTER THERE HAS BEEN 
A VOTE ON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
I INQUIRE AND INSIST, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY 
SCHEDULE A MINORITY HEARING DAY 
OR TELL US WHY YOU ARE IGNORING 
THE RULES.
>> THE GENTLEMAN, WE HAVE 
ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT BUT I 
WILL REPEAT THAT IS NOT A PROPER
POINT OF ORDER IN TODAY'S 
HEARING.
AS I HAVE TOLD THE RANKING 
MINORITY MEMBER SEVERAL TIMES, 
I'M CONSIDERING THE MINORITY'S 
REQUEST, IF YOU THINK WE WOULD 
BE VIOLATING THE RULES OF THE 
HOUSE BEFORE A MINORITY DAY 
HEARING THAT POINT OF ORDER 
WOULD BE TIMELY AT A MEETING 
WHERE WE CONSIDERED SUCH 
ARTICLES.
IT'S NOT THE PURPOSE U PURPOSE 
OF TODAY'S HEARING.
THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT IN 
ORDER.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE I HAVE 
BEEN IMPLICATED.
OUR COMMENTS.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
OTHER OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE
INCLUDED. 
>> I RESERVE MY POINT OF 
OBJECTION ON THAT I HAVE A 
QUESTION YOU BROUGHT MY FLAME 
INTO THIS.
YOU HAVE BROUGHT MY NAME INTO 
THIS. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
JUST TELLING MANY ETHAT YOU ARE 
CONSIDERING SOMETHING HAVE YOU 
NOTHING TO CONSIDER AND HAVE YOU
TOLD ME THAT, I'LL ADMIT ON 
RECORD, IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO 
ACTUALLY FOLLOWING YOUR DUTY AS 
A CHAIRMAN TO FOLLOW THE RULES.
AND SO I THINK THE POINT OF 
ORDER IS VERY WELL TAKEN.
I THINK THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE 
IS NOT I THINK YOUR TIMING IS, I
MEAN, SHOW ME PLEASE IN THE 
RULE, HAVE YOUR PARLIAMENTARIAN 
SHOW ME IN THE RULES WHERE YOU 
COME TO A TIME OF ACTUALLY BEING
ABLE TO DENY THIS UP TO A 
CERTAIN POINT?
>> I FURTHER RESERVE THE RIGHT 
TO OBJECT.
>> AS I HAVE SAID. 
>> FURTHER RESERVING THE RIGHT 
TO OBJECT.
>> AS I HAVE SAID, THE POINT OF 
ORDER WOULD BE AN ORDER AT THE 
MEETING WHERE WE ARE CONSIDERING
ARTICLES -- 
>> WE ARE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO
OBJECT. 
>> WE WILL NOW HEAR 
PRESENTATION. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I APPEAL THE 
DECISION OF THE CHAIR. 
>> THERE IS NO REASON TO APPEAL 
THERE WAS NO RULING AND A 
MOTION. 
>> THE RULING IS A POINT OF 
ORDER.
YOU MADE A RULING ON THE POINT 
OF ORDER. 
>> YOU MADE A RULING ON THE 
POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
YOU CAN'T ALLOW US TO REPEAL THE
RULING OF THE CHAIR. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
IT WAS NOT A RECOGNIZABLE POINT 
OF ORDER.
IT WAS NOT A COG NEWSABLE POINT 
OF ORDER.
IT IS NOT IN ORDER AT THIS TIME 
TO MAKE THAT POINT OF ORDER.
THERE IS NO RULING TO APPEAL. 
>> BUT, MR. CHAIRMAN -- IT WAS 
THE OBLIGATION NOT 
CONSIDERATION.
ARE YOU OBLIGATED TO SCHEDULE 
NOT TO CONSIDER, YOU MADE A 
RULING.
IT IS AN ORDER TO APPEAL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
WE ARE DOING WHAT WE HAVE TO DO 
UNDER THE RULES.
WE WILL NOW HEAR PRESENTATION OF
EVERYDAY --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT 
RECOGNIZED.
>> I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY. 
>> I HAVEN'T HEARD ON MY 
OBJECTION. 
>> I WILL NOT RECOGNIZE A 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY AT THIS 
TIME.
THE PRESENTATIONS OF EVIDENCE 
FROM THE COUNSELS O-- OWE.
>> IS THIS WHEN WE JUST HEAR 
STAFF ASK QUESTIONS OF OTHER 
STAFF AND THE MEMBERS GET DEALT 
OUT OF THIS HEARING FOR THE NEXT
FOUR HOURS YOU ARE GOING TO 
OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF AN 
ELECTION OF THE ELECTED PEOPLE. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THIS ORDER, THIS MEETING WILL 
BE, THIS HEARING WILL BE 
CONSIDERED IN AN ORDERLY 
FASHION.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL NOT YELL OUT.
WE WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO DISRUPT 
THE PROCEEDINGS.
WE WILL NOW HEAR PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE FROM THE COUNSEL FROM 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
>> I HAVE NOD NOT HEARD MY 
OBJECTION YET.
>> BARRY BURKE AND STEVEN CASTOR
FOR THE MINORITY.
EACH OF WILL YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES
TO PRESENT.
TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT 
TIME, THERE IS A TIMING LIGHT ON
YOUR TABLE.
WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM 
GREEN TO YELLOW, YOU HAVE ONE 
MINUTE TO CONCLUDE YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT 
SIGNALS YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.
MR. BURKE, YOU MAY BEGIN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I REALIZE I 
WILL NOT WITHDRAW MY OBJECTION.
HAVE YOU NOT TALKED TO MY 
OBJECTION.
I WANT TO HAVE AN OPENING 
STATEMENT.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL --
>> OBJECTION TO YOUR ON 
STATEMENT COMMENT.
NOTHING ELSE.
>> MR. BURKE IS RECOGNIZED.
>> STEAM ROLL CONTINUES.
>> MR. BURKE HAS THE FLOOR.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS AND ALL 
THE MEMBERS.
BEFORE I HAD THE GREAT HONOR OF 
BEING A COUNSEL FOR THIS 
COMMITTEE, MY YOUNG SON ASKED ME
A QUESTION.
HE SAID, DAD, DOES THE PRESIDENT
HAVE TO BE A GOOD PERSON?
LIKE MANY QUESTIONS BY YOUNG 
CHILDREN IT HAD A CERTAIN 
CLARITY BUT IT WAS HARD TO 
ANSWER.
I SAID, SON, IT IS NOT A 
REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
BE A GOOD PERSON BUT THAT IS THE
HOPE.
AND IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT
THE PRESIDENT BE A GOOD PERSON.
>> THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE 
TODAY.
>> THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
BUT THE JUNIOR DOCUMENT THAT 
CREATED THIS AWESOME PRESIDENCY 
AND ITS POWERS THAT WE HAVE MADE
CLEAR IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT 
THE PRESIDENT BE A PERSON WHO 
DOES NOT ABUSE HIS POWER.
IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT BE A PERSON WHO DOES 
NOT RISK NATIONAL SECURITY OF 
THIS NATION AND THE INTEGRITY OF
OUR ELECTIONS IN ORDER TO 
FURTHER HIS OWN RE-ELECTION 
PROSPECTS.
IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT NOT BE A PERSON WHO 
ACTS AS THOUGH HE IS ABOVE THE 
LAW IN PUTTING HIS PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE THE 
NATION'S INTERESTS.
IS THAT IS THE LESSON OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.
>> THAT IS THE LESSON OF THE 
FOUNDERS.
THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE
WOULD BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WHO 
WOULD USE ALL THE POWER OF THAT 
OFFICE TO SERVE HIS OWN PERSONAL
INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 
PEOPLE WHO ELECTED HIM.
THEY DECIDED THERE NEEDED TO BE 
A REMEDY BECAUSE THEY HAD 
SUFFERED THE ABUSES OF KING 
GEORGE, WHERE THEY HAD NO 
REMEDY.
THE REMEDY THEY IMPOSED WAS THAT
IF A PRESIDENT COMMITS A GRAVE 
OFFENSE, A HIGH CRIME OR 
MISDEMEANOR, THIS BODY HAS THE 
POWER TO IMPEACH THAT PRESIDENT 
F. THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT A 
PRESIDENT COULD NOT SERVE HIS 
OWN INTERESTS OVER THAT OF THE 
NATION.
IT FLOWS FROM THE VERY OATH THAT
ALL MEMBERS OF THIS BODY MUST 
TAKE TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION AND BEAR TRUE FAITH
AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME.
>> THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY
AND IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE 
OCCASION THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS 
ARE NECESSARY.
BUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS HAVE
LEFT NO CHOICE.
THE FOUNDERS WERE VERY CLEAR IN 
SPELLING OUT WHAT THEY SAW TO BE
THE GREAT ABUSES THAT WOULD 
RAISE THE MOST CONCERNS FOR OUR 
NATION.
THEY SPELLED THEM OUT AS WARNING
SIGNALS THAT IF A PRESIDENT 
VIOLATED OR COMMITTED ONE OF 
THESE, THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO
POTENTIALLY IMPEACH THAT 
PRESIDENT.
THEY WERE ABUSE OF POWER, 
BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL 
INTERESTS, CORRUPTION OF 
ELECTIONS.
AND WHAT IS SO EXTRAORDINARY IS 
THE CONDUCT WE'RE GOING TO BE 
TALKING ABOUT TODAY OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP DIDN'T VIOLATE ONE OF 
THESE BUT ALL THREE.
FIRST, THE EVIDENCE IS 
OVERWHELMING THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS POWER BY PRESSURING 
UKRAINE AND ETC. NEW PRESIDENT 
TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT THE EVIDENCE IS 
OVERWELL THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS POWER BY RAMPING UP 
THAT PRESSURE.
BY CONDITIONING A WANTED WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AND A NEEDED 
MILITARY AID THAT HAD BEEN 
APPROVED IN ORDER TO GET THAT 
PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE A 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
IT IS CLEAR AND OVERWHELMING 
THAT IN ABUSING THAT POWER THE 
PRESIDENT BETRAYED THE NATIONAL 
INTERESTS BY PUTTING HIS OWN 
POLITICAL PROSPECTS OVER THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF OUR 
COUNTRY.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT 
RISKED CORRUPTING OUR ELECTIONS 
BY INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
TO KNOCK OUT AN ADVERSARY TO 
HELP HIS PROSPECTS IN 
RE-ELECTION.
IT IS WHY IN DEBATING THE 
CONSTITUTION JAMES MADISON 
WARNED THAT BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENCY WAS TO BE 
ADMINISTERED BY A SINGLE MAN, 
HIS CORRUPTION MIGHT BE FATAL TO
THE REPUBLIC.
AND THIS SCHEME BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS SO BRAZEN, SO CLEAR, 
SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS, ACTIONS,
SWORN TESTIMONY, UNCONTRADICTED,
CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS THAT 
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT 
ANYBODY COULD DISPUTE THOSE ACTS
LET ALONE ARGUE THAT THAT 
CONDUCT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR OFFENSES.
THIS IS A BIG DEAL.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT A 
PRESIDENT OF OUR NATION IS NOT 
ALLOWED TO DO.
IT IS WHY LAST WEEK THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR PROFESSOR
MICHAEL GERHARDT SAID IF WHAT 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS 
IMPEACHABLE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS ARE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
THEY THREATEN OUR RULE OF LAW.
THEY THREATEN OUR INSTITUTIONS, 
AND AS JAMES MADISON WARNED US, 
THEY THREATEN OUR REPUBLIC.
LET ME BEGIN WHERE WE MUST WITH 
THE FACTS IN EVIDENCE.
FIRST, IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
UNDERSTAND WHY UKRAINE WAS SO 
IMPORTANT TO OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
UKRAINE WAS UNDER ATTACK BY ITS 
AFWRESIVE AND HOSTILE NEIGHBOR 
RUSSIA.
THEY HAD ALREADY ENCROACHED ON 
ITS TERRITORIES.
THE UKRAINE WAS AT GREAT RISK 
THAT RUSSIA WOULD AGAIN TAKE 
FURTHER TERRITORIAL TRY.
EUROPE HAD A STAKE IN THIS.
AND SO DID WE.
I'M GOING TO TURN TO AN EXPERT 
ON THIS, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WHO 
WAS ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY 
DECORATED DIPLOMATS FOR OVER 40 
YEARS HE SERVED OUR COUNTRY 
HONORABLY AND HE WAS APPOINTED 
BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, HIMSELF, TO 
BE IN CHARGE OF THE U.S. EMBASSY
IN UKRAINE.
>> THE RUSSIANS ARE VIOLATING 
ALL OF THE RULES, TREATIES, 
UNDERSTANDINGS, THAT THEY 
COMMITTED TO THAT ACTUALLY KEPT 
THE PEACE IN EUROPE FOR NEARLY 
70 YEARS.
>> THAT RULE OF LAW, THAT ORDER 
THAT CAN EXHIBIT THE PEACE IN 
EUROPE AND ALLOWED FOR 
PROSPERITY AS WELL AS PEACE IF 
EUROPE WAS VIOLATED BY THE 
RUSSIANS.
IT AFFECTS THE WORLD THAT WE 
LIVE IN THAT OUR CHOIRN WILL 
GROW UP IN AND OUR 
GRANDCHILDREN.
THIS AFFECTS THE KIND OF WORLD 
THAT WE WANT TO SEE ABROAD.
>> THAT IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
EXPLAINING UKRAINE WAS SO 
IMPORTANT AND WHY THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS SO 
SIGNIFICANTLY RISK HURTING OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY, OUR NATIONAL 
DEFENSE POLICY AND OUR NATIONAL 
INTERESTS.
YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD THERE IS 
SIGNIFICANT PROOF THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HIMSELF TOLD THE NEW 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE WANTED HIM
TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL 
RIVAL, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE
BIDEN.
YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THAT 
TODAY.
>> THAT PROOF IS THE TIP OF THE 
ICEBERG.
THERE ARE SO MANY MORE 
CONTEMPORANEOUS TEXT MESSAGES, 
E-MAILS, OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT 
SHOW THIS HAPPENED AND HAPPENED 
EXACTLY AS IT IS ALLEGED.
AND IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE 
SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL, 
THE PERSON AT THE CENTER OF THAT
SCHEME WAS PRESIDENT DONALD 
TRUMP.
THE FACTS CANNOT BE DISPUTED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE 
GOVERNMENT FOR POLITICALERING, 
TO PUT HIS POLITICAL INTERESTS 
ABOVE THAT OF THE NATION.
FION NA HILL, THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNSEL SENIOR DIRECTOR
IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
SHE'S GOING TO EXPLAIN WHAT 
HAPPENED.
>> BUT IT STRUCK ME ONE 
YESTERDAY WHEN YOU PUT UP ON THE
SCREEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
E-MAILS AND WHO WAS ON THESE 
E-MAILS.
HE SAID THESE ARE THE PEOPLE 
THAT NEED TO KNOW THAT HE WAS 
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BECAUSE HE WAS
BEING INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL ERRAND.
AND WE WERE BEING INVOLVED IN 
NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN POLICY
AND THOSE TWO THINGS HAD JUDY 
VERGED.
>> AND -- HAD JUST DIVERGED.
>> THAT TELLS YOU THE PRESIDENT 
PUT HIS OWN DOMESTIC POLITICAL 
INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S 
NATIONAL FOREIGN SECURITY AND 
POLICY.
A PRESIDENT CANNOT ABUSE HIS 
POWER TO SECURE AN ELECTION.
HE CANNOT DO THAT AT THE EXPENSE
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> THAT IS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO MAKE 
EXCUSES FOR HIS CONDUCT.
WHY IT'S NOT WRONGFUL OR CORRUPT
OR ABUSE OF POWER.
BUT THE TRUTH HOLDS TOGETHER.
IT MAKES SENSE, IT'S CONSISTENT 
WITH THE EVIDENCE.
WHEN SOMEBODY IS OFFERING AN 
EXCUSE IT IS FOUGHT TRUE, IT IS 
NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE 
EVIDENCE, IT DOES NOT MAKE 
SENSE, IT CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH
WHAT THE FACTS SHOW.
WILL YOU SEE THESE EXCUSES DO 
NOT MAKE SENSE.
THE FACTS ARE CLEAR THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS OWN 
POLITICAL AND PERSONAL INTERESTS
OVER THE NATION'S INTERESTS.
I'D LIKE THE GO THROUGH WHAT YOU
ARE GOING TO SEE ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S SCHEME AND YOU WILL 
HEAR ABOUT TODAY FROM THE FACTS 
THAT WE HAVE.
FIRST, YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL 
LAWYER RUDY GUILIANI PUSHED 
UKRAINE TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION
OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.
MR. GUILIANI PRIOR TO THE JULY 
25th CALL, HE MADE PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS THAT UKRAINE SHOULD 
INVESTIGATE THE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.
HE TWEETED ABOUT IT, PUTTING 
PRESSURE ON THE NEW PRESIDENT.
HE WENT TO UKRAINE AND LATER 
WENT AGAIN WITH THE ASSIST AND 
DIRECTION OF U.S. OFFICIALS, WHO
WERE TOLD TO AID THE PRESIDENT'S
PERSONAL LAWYER ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHALF.
YOU WILL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TOLD HIS AIDS THAT HE WAS 
RELYING ON FOR UKRAINE THAT HE 
WANTED THEM TO QUOTE TALK TO 
RUDY.
WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR IS 
THAT HIS CLOSE ADVISERS HAD JUST
GOTTEN BACK ON MAY 23rd FROM THE
INAUGURATION OF THE NEW 
PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
THEY TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE 
WERE IMPRESSED.
HE WAS ELECTED ON AN 
ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM, A 
REFORM PLATFORM.
YOU SHOULD SCHEDULE A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
THIS IS VERY GOOD FOR THE 
OCCUPATION AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
RESPONSE WAS, TALK TO RUDY.
WHO HAD BEEN OUT THERE CLAIMING 
WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HAD
TO DO WAS INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
YOU'LL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'SED A VOSHS TOLD PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WOULD NOT SCHEDULE THE WANTED 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING UNLESS HE 
ANNOUNCED A UKRAINIAN 
INVESTIGATION OF FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
THERE ARE DOCUMENTS, THERE ARE 
SWORN TESTIMONY, THIS HAPPENED 
AND THERE IS NO QUESTION FROM 
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID THIS.
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
DESPERATELY NEEDED A WHITE HOUSE
MEETING.
BOTH TO SHOW RUSSIA THAT THE 
U.S. WAS STILL SUPPORTING 
UKRAINE AND FOR HIS OWN 
CREDIBILITY AS A NEW PRESIDENT.
YOU WILL HEAR THEN TO RAMP UP 
THE PRESSURE, WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DID IS HE TOLD HIS 
AGENCIES TO WITHHOLD MILITARY 
AND SECURITY AID THAT HAD BEEN 
APPROVED AND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 
RELEASED TO YOU CREPE, HUNDREDS 
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ORDER 
TO PUT MORE PRESSURE ON UKRAINE.
ALL THE AGENCIES INVOLVED STATE 
DEPARTMENT, DEFENSE DETECTIVES, 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL, SAID 
IT SHOULD BE RELEASED.
IT HAD BEEN APPROVED AND WAS 
GOING TO BE RELEASED UNTIL 
PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY 
STOPPED IT.
AGAIN CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE 
AND DOCUMENTS SHOW IT AND PROVE 
IT.
PEOPLE SAID THAT THEY WERE 
SHOCKED.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID HE WAS IN
ASTONISHMENT.
A WITNESS SAID IT WAS ILL 
LOGICAL TO DO THIS.
THE PRESIDENT NEVER OFFERED AN 
EXPLANATION.
BUT AUTOMATICALLY, IT WAS 
DISCOVERED WHY HE DID IT.
THEN ON THE JULY 25th CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPLICITLY TOLD 
THEM HE WANTED HIM TO DO TWO 
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS, ONE OF
A U.S. CITIZEN AND HIS POLITICAL
RIVAL.
AND THE OTHER ABOUT ORIGINS OF 
THE 2016 ELECTION, SOME 
CONSPIRACY THEORY RUSSIA WHO ALL
THE AGENCIES AGREED INTERFERED 
WITH THE 2016 ELECT.
MAYBE IT WAS UKRAINE.
AGAIN ANOTHER INVESTIGATION 
INTENDED TO HELP THE PRESIDENT 
POLITICALLY.
>> THAT IS IT.
YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT CARED 
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
WOULD HELP HIM POLITICALLY, NOT 
UKRAINE, NOT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD.
I'M GOING TO PLAY SOMETHING FROM
DAVID HOLMES, WHO HAD WORKED IN 
THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE AND 
WAS SPEAKING TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND, WHO DONALD, WHO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP APPOINTED, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD JUST 
COME TO THE UKRAINE ON THE 26th.
HE MET WITH MR. PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
HE WENT TO A RESTAURANT WITH 
MR. HOLMES, THE UKRAINIAN 
AFFAIRS MINISTER IN UKRAINE.
HE CALLED HIM ON THAT CELL PHONE
AND HE COULD HEAR THAT CALL.
LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENED ON JULY 
26th, THE DAY AFTER THAT CALL.
HE WAS IN UKRAINE.
THE AMBASSADOR SAID YES, HE WAS 
IN UKRAINE AND WENT ON TO STATE 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, QUOTE, 
LOVES YOUR ASS.
I THEN HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ASK, SO HE'S GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION?
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED THAT
HE'S GOING TO DO IT, ADDING THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO 
ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO DO.
>> THAT IS SWORN TESTIMONY BY 
DAVID HOLMES WHO HEARD IT FROM 
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
AND IT WAS CLEAR TO EVERYONE, 
THE MOST EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN 
GOVERNMENT WHO DONALD TRUMP 
HIMSELF APPOINTED IN THEIR 
POSITIONS, THEY KNEW WHAT WAS 
GOING ON.
LET'S LOOK AT A TEXT MESSAGE 
FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AROUND 
THIS TIME ON SEPTEMBER 9th.
HE SAID, AS I SAID ON THE PHONE,
I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP 
WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
AGAIN, THAT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PUTTING HIS OWN POLITICAL AND 
PERSONAL INTERESTS OVER THE 
NATION'S INTERESTS, TO HOLD AID 
DESPERATELY NEEDED BY UKRAINE IN
ORDER TO COMBAT RUSSIA AND SHOW 
THE SUPPORT.
HE DID IT TO HELP HIS OWN 
CAMPAIGN.
NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN EXCUSES 
OFFERED BY THE PRESIDENT.
I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT 
THOSE EXCUSES.
THE FIRST EXCUSE OFFERED BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THAT THE AID 
WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH MR. 
ZELENSKY.
WE HEARD IT TODAY.
THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT, THOUGH,
AS AN EXCUSE IS THE AID WAS ONLY
RELEASED AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP 
GOT CAUGHT DOING THE SCHEME.
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THE COMMITTEES
OF THIS HOUSE STARTED THEIR 
INVESTIGATION AND ANNOUNCED THEY
WERE INVESTIGATING HIS CONDUCT 
WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE.
TWO DAYS LATER IS WHEN HE 
RELEASED THE AID.
HE ALSO -- THERE ALSO WAS A NEWS
ARTICLE WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT 
IN A MOMENT BY "THE WASHINGTON 
POST" ON SEPTEMBER 5th EXPOSING 
HIS SCHEME.
IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT THAT HE 
MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, NOT
IN THE WHITE HOUSE BUT IN NEW 
YORK.
ANOTHER EXCUSE OFFERED, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS MOTIVATED BY 
GENERAL CORRUPTION CONCERNS.
AND AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS 
THAT IS NOT TRUE THAT THAT'S 
WHAT CAUSED HIM TO WITHHOLD THE 
AID.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED 
ON AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM.
HE WAS A REFORM CANDIDATE.
HIS OWN PEOPLE TOLD HIM AGAIN 
AND AGAIN, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS
DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY.
THEY URGED HIM TO BE SUPPORTIVE.
ON HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT
TRUMP IGNORED THE TALKING POINTS
THAT WERE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT
CORRUPTION.
HE ONLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TWO
THINGS, THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT HELPED HIM POLITICALLY.
EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 
UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED RELEASING 
THE AID TO UKRAINE THAT WAS 
APPROPRIATE.
THEY DID A STUDY, A CORRUPTION 
STUDY AND SAID RELEASE IT.
THE WHITE HOUSE NEVER PROVIDED 
AN EXPLANATION.
THE AID HAD ALREADY BEEN 
APPROVED.
IT WAS NOT FOR ANY CORRUPTION 
ISSUES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WITHHELD IT.
THE NEXT IS UKRAINE WAS NOT 
PRESSURED.
AND THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT IS, 
WELL, TODAY THEY HAVEN'T SAID 
THEY WERE PRESSURED.
WELL, UKRAINE WAS PRESSURED THEN
AND STILL IS PRESSURED.
THEY ARE DESPERATELY IN NEED OF 
THE UNITED STATES' SUPPORT AS 
THEY BATTLE THE THREAT OF 
RUSSIA.
SO OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO BE 
CAREFUL WHAT THEY SAID.
BUT CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS, 
EMAILS, TEXTS FROM THE UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS THEMSELVES SHOW THE 
PRESSURE THEY FELT, SHOW THEY 
KNEW WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
DOING, SHOWED WHAT THEY HAD TO 
DO.
THIS IS ONE FROM BILL TAYLOR TO,
AGAIN, AMBASSADOR GORDON 
SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR KURT 
VOLKER.
GORDON, ONE THING KURT AND I 
TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY WAS 
SASHA, A SENIOR AIDE OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S POINT THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE 
ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN 
SERIOUSLY, NOT MERELY AN 
INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON 
DOMESTIC RE-ELECTION POLITICS.
THEY NOT ONLY FELT THE PRESSURE,
THEY GOT THE MESSAGE.
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GET A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THEY WERE 
NOT GOING TO GET MILITARY AID 
UNLESS THEY FURTHERED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION EFFORTS.
THAT IS A CORRUPT ABUSE OF 
POWER.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT'S MADE IS 
THAT TRUMP NEVER SAID QUID PRO 
QUO.
AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IS
ON A CALL WITH AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AFTER A "WASHINGTON 
POST" ARTICLE CAME OUT ON 
SEPTEMBER 5th WHICH WE WILL LOOK
AT.
AFTER THAT THERE IS A 
"WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE THAT 
CAME OUT THAT, AGAIN, EXPOSED 
THE UKRAINIAN SCHEME.
DAYS AFTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS ON A PHONE CALL WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND WITHOUT 
PROMPTING SAID THERE WAS NO QUID
PRO QUO.
BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT.
SO HE'S OFFERING HIS DEFENSE.
BUT EVEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN 
HIS SWORN TESTIMONY DIDN'T BUY 
IT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ONLY WAS NOT
DISSUADED, HE AGAIN DESCRIBED 
WHAT HE WANTED.
HE DIDN'T WANT UKRAINE TO 
ACTUALLY CONDUCT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, HE WANTED THEM 
TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF 
HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, TO HELP HIM
POLITICALLY.
HE CONTINUED, AND YOU'LL HEAR 
MORE ABOUT THAT.
AGAIN, NONE OF THESE EXCUSES 
HOLD ANY WATER AND THEY ARE 
REFUTED BY TESTIMONY, 
CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS AND 
MORE.
NOW, SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE
SHOULD WAIT TO PROCEED WITH 
THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 
BECAUSE WE'VE NOT HEARD FROM ALL
OF THE WITNESSES OR OBTAINED ALL
OF THE DOCUMENTS.
BUT THE REASON WE HAVE NOT HEARD
FROM ALL THE WITNESSES OR 
DOCUMENTS IS BECAUSE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HIMSELF HAS OBSTRUCTED THE
INVESTIGATION.
HE'S DIRECTED HIS MOST SENIOR 
AIDES WHO ARE INVOLVED IN SOME 
OF THESE EVENTS NOT TO COME 
TESTIFY.
TO DEFY SUBPOENAS.
HE HAS TOLD EVERY ONE OF HIS 
AGENCIES WITH RECORDS THAT COULD
BE RELEVANT NOT TO PRODUCE THOSE
RECORDS TO US, TO TRY TO 
OBSTRUCT OUR INVESTIGATION.
NOW, THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS REPLAYING THE
PLAYBOOK USED IN THE PRIOR 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
INVESTIGATION.
IN THAT INVESTIGATION HE 
DIRECTED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
TO CREATE A FALSE, PHONY RECORD 
AND DOCUMENT AND LIE, DENYING 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOLD 
HIM TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL.
HE DID MANY OTHER THINGS TO TRY 
TO INTERFERE WITH THAT 
INVESTIGATION.
HE ATTACKED THE INVESTIGATORS 
AND WITNESSES AND CALLED THEM 
HORRIBLE NAMES, JUST AS HE HAS 
DONE HERE.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT HE 
GOT AWAY WITH IT.
ON JULY 24th WAS THE DAY THAT 
SPECIAL COUNSEL -- THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
THE 24th.
IT WAS EXACTLY THE FOLLOWING 
DAY, THE 25th, THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SPOKE TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN FURTHERANCE OF HIS 
UKRAINIAN SCHEME.
HE THOUGHT HE GOT AWAY WITH IT.
NOT ONLY THAT, HE THOUGHT HE 
COULD USE HIS POWERS TO 
INTERFERE WITH THAT 
INVESTIGATION SO HE COULD DO 
WHAT HE WANTED.
HE COULD ACT LIKE HE WAS ABOVE 
THE LAW, AND IF HE GOT CAUGHT, 
HE WOULD AGAIN USE HIS POWERS TO
TRY TO OBSTRUCT THE 
INVESTIGATION AND PREVENT THE 
FACTS FROM COMING OUT AND THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.
BUT FORTUNATELY, FORTUNATELY, 
BECAUSE OF THE TRUE AMERICAN 
PATRIOTS WHO CAME FORWARD TO 
TESTIFY DESPITE THE THREATS BY 
THE PRESIDENT AGAINST THE PEOPLE
WHO WORKED IN HIS OWN 
ADMINISTRATION, THEY TOLD THE 
STORY.
THEY ON THEIR OWN PRODUCED 
DOCUMENTS THAT PROVIDE 
UNCONTROVERTED, CLEAR AND 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THIS SCHEME.
HE PUT HIS POLITICAL RE-ELECTION
INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE 
INTEGRITY OF ITS ELECTIONS.
HE DID IT INTENTIONALLY, HE DID 
IT CORRUPTLY, HE ABUSED HIS 
POWERS IN WAYS THAT THE FOUNDERS
FEARED THE MOST.
NO PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY HAS 
THE ABILITY TO PREVENT 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND NEITHER DOES
THE PRESIDENT.
OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW 
IT.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT.
AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS AND 
REQUIREMENTS OF FINDING AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, IS THERE AN
URGENCY, IS THERE A SENSE YOU 
HAVE TO MOVE BECAUSE IT COULD BE
REPEATED.
WELL, AGAIN, FIRST, ALL THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS WHO 
TESTIFIED RECOGNIZED THAT 
OBSTRUCTING AN INVESTIGATION IS 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
BUT HERE THE OFFENSE WE'RE 
TALKING ABOUT THAT'S BEING 
INTERFERED OR OBSTRUCTED WITH IS
INTERFERING WITH THIS VERY 
ELECTION THAT'S COMING UP.
AND I SUBMIT TO YOU GIVEN WHAT 
HAPPENED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE INVESTIGATION, GIVEN 
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, IF IN 
FACT PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN GET 
AWAY WITH WHAT HE DID AGAIN, OUR
IMAGINATION IS THE ONLY LIMIT TO
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY DO NEXT
OR WHAT A FUTURE PRESIDENT MAY 
DO NEXT TO TRY TO ABUSE HIS OR 
HER POWER TO SERVE HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTERESTS OVER THE 
NATION'S INTERESTS.
I'D LIKE TO TURN BACK TO WHAT 
THE FOUNDERS MOST CARED ABOUT 
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ABCs OF 
POTENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL ABUSES.
IT IS EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS A 
TRIFECTA CHECKING ALL THREE 
BOXES.
LET'S BEGIN WITH ABUSE OF POWER.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS TO USE THE 
POWER OF THE OFFICE TO OBTAIN AN
IMPROPER PERSONAL BENEFIT WHILE 
IGNORING OR INJURING THE 
NATIONAL INTERESTS OR ACTS IN 
WAYS THAT ARE GROSSLY 
INCONSISTENT WITH AND UNDERMINE 
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, THAT 
IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR 
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.
NOW, THESE -- THIS QUESTION OF 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN
AN ABUSE OF POWER CAME UP BEFORE
WHEN THIS CONGRESS CONSIDERED 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
NIXON.
AND AFTER ACTION WAS TAKEN, 
PRESIDENT NIXON FAMOUSLY SAID IF
THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT IS NOT
ILLEGAL.
AND THIS BODY REJECTED THAT 
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SO.
THAT GOES DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO 
WHAT THE FOUNDERS SAID.
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THE
SAME THING IN RESPONDING TO THE 
PRIOR INVESTIGATION BY THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN 
DEFENDING HIS CONDUCT.
HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.
>> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 
WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.
>> THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT.
THAT IS AS WRONG AS WHEN 
PRESIDENT NIXON SAID A SIMILAR 
THING.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE 
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY 
DEMANDS.
HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO
WHATEVER HE WANTS.
TURNING TO THE SECOND ABUSE OF 
POWER OF MOST CONCERN, BETRAYAL 
OF THE NATION WITH FOREIGN 
POWERS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE 
SUFFERED THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE 
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TREATED 
MILITARY AID THAT HAD BEEN 
APPROVED, TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AND 
DECIDED TO TREAT IT AS HIS OWN 
CHECKBOOK TO TRY TO FURTHER HIS 
OWN RE-ELECTION CHANCES.
THAT REFLECTS WHAT THE FOUNDERS 
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.
AND FINALLY, CORRUPTION OF OUR 
ELECTIONS.
THE FRAMERS KNEW THAT CORRUPT 
LEADERS OR LEADERS ACTING 
CORRUPTLY CONCENTRATE THEIR 
POWERS TO MANIPULATE ELECTIONS 
AND UNDERCUT ADVERSARIES.
THEY TALKED ABOUT IT FREQUENTLY.
THAT IS WHY THE FRAMERS THOUGHT 
ELECTORAL TREACHERY COULD LEAD 
TO IMPEACHMENT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LEARNED LAST
ELECTION HOW DANGEROUS FOREIGN 
INTERVENTION IN OUR ELECTIONS 
CAN BE.
LET ME SHOW ANOTHER CLIP FROM 
CANDIDATE TRUMP ON THE CAMPAIGN 
TRAIL.
>> RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, 
I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND THE 
30,000 EMAILS THAT ARE MISSING.
I THINK YOU WILL PROBABLY BE 
REWARDED MIGHTILY BY OUR PRESS.
>> AND RUSSIA WAS LISTENING.
WITHIN APPROXIMATELY FIVE HOURS,
FIVE HOURS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
INVITATION TO RUSSIA TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION BY 
TRYING TO HACK AND OBTAIN THE 
EMAILS OF HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT, RUSSIA IN FACT TRIED 
TO DO THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME.
THE VERY OFFICERS WHO WERE THEN 
INDICTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE FOR THAT CONDUCT, THEY 
TOOK CANDIDATE TRUMP'S 
INVITATION.
NOW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LEARNED
A LESSON.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, UNFORTUNATELY, 
APPARENTLY LEARNED A DIFFERENT 
LESSON.
LET'S LOOK.
>> WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT IF 
THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, 
THEY'D START A MAJOR 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.
THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS.
>> SO THIS WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ANSWERING A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT 
DID HE WANT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO DO.
SO EVEN AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT, HE 
IS SAYING, AGAIN, THIS 
VULNERABLE NATION, DEPENDENT ON 
U.S. SUPPORT MILITARILY AND 
OTHERWISE, AGAIN, HE'S TELLING 
THEM WHAT TO DO.
UNLIKE IN 2016 WHEN HE ONLY HAD 
A CAMPAIGN PLATFORM, WHICH TO 
EXTEND AN INVITATION TO A 
FOREIGN POWER, NOW HE HAS THE 
LEVERS OF GOVERNMENT IN HIS 
CONTROL TO NOT ONLY REQUEST IT 
AND INVITE IT BUT TO PRESSURE 
THAT COUNTRY TO DO IT.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.
YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN 
THE PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
AND WHAT'S MOST STRIKING AS WE 
COME BACK TO THIS ISSUE THAT THE
FRAMERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, IS 
THERE A CONTINUED RISK OF 
WRONGDOING?
THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID THIS AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT 
SHOWS THE RISK, SHOWS THE RISK 
OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS BODY
DOESN'T ACCOUNT  -- ACT.
HE REALLY DOES BELIEVE HE CAN 
ACT ABOVE THE LAW.
HE REALLY DOES BELIEVE THAT HE 
CAN PUT HIS PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL INTERESTS OVER THE 
NATION'S INTEREST, OVER THE 
NATION'S NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTEREST, OVER THE NATION'S 
INTEGRITY OF ITS ELECTIONS.
SO OF COURSE WE DO HAVE AN 
ELECTION COMING UP.
THAT'S NOT A REASON TO POSTPONE 
THIS DISCUSSION, THAT'S A REASON
WE MUST HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TO 
MAKE SURE IT IS NOT INTERFERED 
WITH, TO MAKE SURE THIS 
PRESIDENT DOESN'T DO IT, TO MAKE
SURE FUTURE PRESIDENTS DO NOT DO
IT.
IT IS THE HOPE THAT IN THESE 
DISCUSSIONS WE CAN PUT ASIDE 
POLITICAL RANCOR, DISAGREEMENTS,
AND HAVE A FAIR DISCUSSION ABOUT
THE FACTS AND THIS CONDUCT.
NOT JUST AS IT RELATES TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, BUT AS TO THE 
PRESIDENCY ITSELF AND FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS.
MY SON, OUR CHILDREN, OUR 
GRANDCHILDREN, THEY WILL STUDY 
THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY.
THEY WILL READ ALL OF YOUR 
REMARKS.
THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT ALL OF 
YOUR ACTIONS.
AND THAT IS NOT A REASON TO VOTE
FOR OR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT.
FOR THAT, OF COURSE, YOU MUST 
VOTE UP CONSCIENCE.
BUT THAT IS A REASON FOR US TO 
HAVE A FAIR DEBATE ABOUT WHAT 
THE UNDISPUTED FACTS SHOW, TO 
RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS WRONG, IT 
IS VERY WRONG AND IT CANNOT 
HAPPEN AGAIN WITH THIS PRESIDENT
OR ANY PRESIDENT.
IT IS A REASON TO TALK ABOUT 
WHETHER WE WANT OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN TO LIVE IN A 
COUNTRY WHERE THE PRESIDENT 
ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE CAN PUT 
HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL 
INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF 
THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM.
IT IS A REASON FOR THESE DEBATES
TO, AGAIN, FAIRLY FOCUS ON THE 
FACTS AND TO MAKE SURE THE 
PRESENTATIONS WE'RE GOING TO 
HEAR WILL NOT DISTORT THE 
RECORD, FOCUS ON PROCESS POINTS,
RAISE EXTRANEOUS MATTERS THAT 
REALLY ARE INTENDED TO DISTRACT 
RATHER THAN FOCUS ON WHAT THE 
CONDUCT WAS AT ISSUE HERE.
IT IS A REASON TO FOCUS ON THE 
FACTS AND WHAT IS IN THE 
COUNTRY'S BEST INTEREST.
HISTORY, FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL
BE THE JUDGE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BERKE.
MR. -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 30 
MINUTES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
>> MR. CASTOR IS RECOGNIZED FOR 
30 MINUTES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
THE WITNESS HAS VIOLATED RULE 17
AND MY POINT OF ORDER SHOULD BE 
HEARD. 
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> THE WITNESS HAS USED LANGUAGE
WHICH IMPUGNS THE MOTIVES OF THE
PRESIDENT AND SUGGESTS HE'S 
DISLOYAL TO HIS COUNTRY AND 
THOSE WORDS SHOULD BE STRICKEN 
FROM THE RECORD AND TAKEN DOWN.
>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT 
SUSTAINED.
WITNESSES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
RULES OF DECORUM. 
>> APPEAL THE RULING OF THE 
CHAIR. 
>> IN THE SAME WAY MEMBERS ARE.
THE TOPIC OF THE HEARING IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, SO NONE 
OF US SHOULD FIND IT SURPRISING 
THAT WE ARE HEARING TESTIMONY 
THAT IS CRITICAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT.
I DO NOT FIND THAT THE WITNESS'S
COMMENTS ARE DISORDERLY.
I FINDING THEY ARE PERTINENT TO 
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS 
HEARING.
THE WITNESS WOULD BE ABLE TO 
CONTINUE EXCEPT THAT HIS TIME 
HAS EXPIRED.
MR. CASTOR IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S NOT -- MR.
CHAIRMAN, MY POINT OF ORDER IS 
NOT THAT HIS WORDS ARE 
DISORDERLY, THEY ARE 
UNPARLIAMENTARY, THEY VIOLATE 
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE AND 
SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE MOTIVES 
AND THE CHARACTER OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE RULES OF DECORUM APPLY TO 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, NOT TO 
WITNESSES.
THE GENTLEMAN MAY PROCEED. 
>> SO I APPEAL THE RULING OF THE
CHAIR. 
>> THAT IS NOT A RULING -- THERE
WAS NO -- 
>> IT IS A RULING ON A POINT OF 
ORDER.
IT'S APPEALABLE.
THAT IS A RULING.
>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT 
SUSTAINED.
>> APPEALS THE RULING OF THE 
CHAIR. 
>> I MOVE TO TABLE THE -- 
>> THE MOTION IS MADE TO TABLE 
THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE 
CHAIR. 
>> MOVE THE MOTION TO TABLE IS 
MADE IN WRITING. 
>> IT IS NOT IN DEBATE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE -- ALL IN 
FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO TABLE SAY
AYE.
[ RESPONSE ]
>> OPPOSED?
[ RESPONSE ]
>> SHE HAS TO PUT IT IN WRITING 
FIRST AND THEN YOU CAN CALL THE 
VOTE.
AT LEAST YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE 
RULES. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS 
SUSTAINED.
>> ROLL CALL.
>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. NADLER. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. NADLER VOTES AYE.
MISS LAUF GRIN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS JACKSON LEE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. COHEN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JOHNSON. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. DEUTSCH. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS BASS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RICHMOND. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JEFFRIES. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CICILLINE?
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SWALWELL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. LU. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RASKIN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS STEMMINGS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CORREIA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS GARCIA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. NAGOOSE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISCELLANEOUS McBATH. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS DEAN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS POWELL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS ESCOBAR. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. COLLINS. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SENSE BRENNER. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SHAB DOES THE OT. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. GO MERT. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. JORDAN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BUCK. 
>> MR. RATCLIFF. 
>> NO. 
>> MISS ROBY. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. GAETZ. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BIGGS MR. McCLINTOCK. 
>> NO. 
>> MISS LESCO. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. RUSHTENTHALER.
MR. KLINE. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. ARMSTRONG. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. STUBE. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW AM I 
RECORDED. 
>> MR. BIGGS, YOU ARE NOT 
RECORDED. 
>> I SAID NO. 
>> MR. BIGGS VOTES NO. 
>> HAS EVERY MEMBER VOTED WHO 
WISHES TO VOTE?
THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 24 
AYES AND 15 NOS. 
>> MOTION TO TABLE IS CARRIED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY. 
>> MR. CASTOR IS RECOGNIZED.
I WILL NOT RECOGNIZE A 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY AT THIS 
HOUR.
>>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN 
NADLER, RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND 
MEMBERS OF THE STAFF.
MY NAME IS STEVE CASTOR, I'M A 
CONGRESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER.
I SERVE WITH THE OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE ON THE REPUBLICAN 
STAFF WITH MR. JORDAN.
I'M ALSO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION, A SHARED STAFFER 
WITH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND
MR. COLLINS AND THE HOUSE 
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE AND MR. NUNES.
IT SURE IS ATYPICAL FOR A 
STAFFER TO BE PRESENTING, BUT 
AGAIN, THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING AS 
WE UNDERSTAND IT IS TO DISCUSS 
WHETHER PRESIDENT DONALD J. 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT FITS THE 
DEFINITION OF A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR.
IT DOES NOT.
SUCH THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD 
CONSIDER ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM 
OFFICE AND IT SHOULD NOT.
THIS CASE IN MANY RESPECTS COMES
DOWN TO EIGHT LINES IN A CALL 
TRANSCRIPT.
LET ME SAY CLEARLY AND 
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION IS NO.
THE RECORD IN THE DEMOCRATS' 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY DOES NOT 
SHOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED
THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE OR 
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS.
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO 63 
MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR OVER 
EIGHT LINES IN A CALL TRANSCRIPT
IS BALONEY.
DEMOCRATS SEEK TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT BECAUSE THEY
HAVE EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIMES OR 
MISDEMEANORS BUT BECAUSE THEY 
DISAGREE WITH HIS POLICIES.
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS NOT 
THE ORGANIC OUTGROWTH OF SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT.
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING 
FOR A SET OF FACTS ON WHICH TO 
IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP SINCE 
HIS INAUGURATION ON JANUARY 
20th, 2017.
JUST 27 MINUTES AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION THAT 
DAY, "THE WASHINGTON POST" RAN A
STORY THAT THE CAMPAIGN TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HAS 
ALREADY BEGUN.
THE ARTICLE REPORTED DEMOCRATS 
AND LIBERAL ACTIVISTS ARE 
MOUNTING BROAD OPPOSITION TO 
STYMIEING TRUMP'S AGENDA AND 
NOTED THAT IMPEACHMENT 
STRATEGISTS BELIEVE THE 
CONSTITUTION'S EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE
WOULD BE THE VEHICLE.
IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS DEMOCRATS
INTRODUCED ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP FROM OFFICE ON SEVERAL 
VERY DIFFERENT FACTUAL BASES.
ON JANUARY 3rd, THE VERY FIRST 
DAY OF THE NEW CONGRESS, 
CONGRESSMAN SHERMAN INTRODUCED 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
THE PRESIDENT.
THE SAME DAY REPRESENTATIVE 
TLAIB SAID WE'RE GOING TO GO IN 
THERE AND IMPEACH THE -- 
PRESIDENT.
IN MAY 2019, REPRESENTATIVE 
GREEN SAID ON MSNBC IF WE DON'T 
IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, HE WILL 
BE RE-ELECTED.
EVEN SPEAKER PELOSI, WHO HAS 
SAID THAT IMPEACHMENT IS A 
SOMBER AND PRAYERFUL EXERCISE 
HAS CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AN 
IMPOSTER AND SAID IT IS 
DANGEROUS TO ALLOW VOTERS TO 
JUDGE HIS PERFORMANCE IN 2020.
THE OBSESSION WITH IMPEACHING 
THE PRESIDENT IS REFLECTED IN 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE USED THE 
POWER OF THEIR MAJORITY IN THE 
PAST 11 MONTHS.
IN THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE THE 
DEMOCRATS FIRST ANNOUNCED 
WITNESS WAS MICHAEL COHEN, A 
DISGRACED FELON WHO PLEADED 
GUILTY TO LYING TO CONGRESS.
WHEN HE CAME BEFORE US AT THE 
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, HE THEN 
LIED AGAIN AS MANY AS EIGHT 
TIMES.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS 
DEMANDED INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL FINANCES 
AND EVEN SUBPOENAED THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACCOUNTING FIRM 
MAZARS FOR LARGE SWATHS OF 
SENSITIVE AND PERSONAL FINANCIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENTIRE 
TRUMP FAMILY.
THE SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED OVER THE
OBJECTION OF COMMITTEE 
REPUBLICANS AND WITHOUT A VOTE.
IN THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,
DEMOCRATS DEMANDED THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL TAX RETURN 
INFORMATION.
THE REASON THEY CITED FOR WANTED
THE PRESIDENT'S TAX RETURNS, 
THEY SAID, WAS TO OVERSEE THE 
IRS' AUDIT PROCESS FOR 
PRESIDENTIAL TAX RETURNS.
YOU CAN JUDGE THAT FOR YOURSELF.
IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES 
COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATS DEMANDED 
AND SUBPOENAED THE PRESIDENT'S 
BANK RECORDS GOING BACK TEN 
YEARS.
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
STAFF, THE REPUBLICANS TELL ME, 
THE INFORMATION DEMANDED WOULD 
COVER EVERY WITHDRAWAL, CREDIT 
CARD SWIPE, DEBIT CARD PURCHASE 
OF EVERY MEMBER OF THE TRUMP 
FAMILY, INCLUDING HIS MINOR 
CHILD.
THE REASON THAT THE DEMOCRATS 
GAVE FOR WHY THEY NEEDED SUCH 
VOLUMINOUS AND PERSONAL 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUMP 
FAMILY WAS, GET THIS, FINANCIAL 
INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE WITH BANKING
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.
HERE IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
DEMOCRATS SENT OUT LETTERS 
DEMANDING INFORMATION FROM OVER 
80 RECIPIENTS, INCLUDING THE 
PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN, BUSINESS 
PARTNERS, EMPLOYEES, HIS 
CAMPAIGN, BUSINESSES, AND 
FOUNDATION.
OF COURSE THE MAIN EVENT FOR THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS THE 
REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 
MUELLER, WHICH DEMOCRATS WOULD 
BELIEVE WOULD SERVE AS THE 
EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR IMPEACHING
THE PRESIDENT.
DESPITE INTERVIEWING 500 
WITNESSES, ISSUING 2800 
SUBPOENAS, EXECUTING ALMOST 500 
SEARCH WARRANTS AND SPENDING $25
MILLION, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
19 ATTORNEYS AND 40 FBI AGENTS, 
ANALYSTS AND STAFF FOUND NO 
CONSPIRACY OR COORDINATION 
BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND 
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
AFTER THE TRUMP/RUSSIA COLLUSION
ALLEGATIONS DID NOT BAN OUT, 
DEMOCRATS FOCUSED THEIR EFFORTS 
ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THEY CRITICIZED ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR FOR CONCLUDING THAT NO 
CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION HAD 
OCCURRED IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
INVESTIGATION.
BUT IN FACT WAS ENTIRELY 
APPROPRIATE FOR THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL TO MAKE THAT CALL 
BECAUSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
DECLINED TO DO SO.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE DEMOCRATS 
MUELLER HEARING WAS 
UNDERWHELMING, TO SAY THE LEAST,
AND THE SEQUEL WITH COREY 
LEWANDOWSKI, DEFINITELY DID NOT 
MOVE THE IMPEACHMENT NEEDLE 
EITHER.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TOO 
WAS HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE 
RUSSIA COLLUSION INVESTIGATION.
COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS HIRED FORMER
FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO PREPARE 
FOR THEIR ANTICIPATED EFFORTS TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
NOW THAT THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION 
ALLEGATIONS DID NOT WORK OUT, 
DEMOCRATS HAVE SETTLED ON THE 
UKRAINE PHONE CALL, EIGHT LINES 
THE PRESIDENT UTTERED ON JULY 
25th WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
BUT THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE OF 
JURISDICTION WASN'T THE 
COMMITTEE LEADING THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR HOLDING 
THE HEARINGS.
NEITHER WAS THE OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE.
THE HOUSE'S CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE 
ENTITY, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
WAS ONLY RECENTLY BROUGHT BACK 
INTO THE MIX AFTER FACT-FINDING 
CONCLUDED.
INSTEAD, THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
WAS RUN BY THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THESE
FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.
DEMOCRATS ON THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE RAN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IN A MANIFESTLY UNFAIR 
WAY.
ALL THE FACT-FINDING WAS 
UNCLASSIFIED AND THAT WAS MADE 
CLEAR AT THE TOP OF EVERY SINGLE
DEPOSITION, BUT THE DEMOCRATS 
TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE 
CLOSED-DOOR PROCESS IN THE 
CAPITOL BASEMENT BUNKER TO 
CONTROL ACCESS TO INFORMATION.
THE SECRECY EFFECTIVELY 
WEAPONIZED THE INVESTIGATION, 
ALLOWING MISLEADING PUBLIC 
NARRATIVES TO FORM AND CATCH 
HOLD WITH CAREFUL LEAKS OF 
WITNESS TESTIMONY.
DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO INVITE 
REPUBLICAN WITNESSES AND 
DIRECTED WITNESSES CALLED BY THE
DEMOCRATS NOT TO ANSWER OUR 
QUESTIONS.
IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, MANY OF 
THESE UNFAIR PROCESSES 
CONTINUED.
DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO INVITE 
NUMEROUS WITNESSES REQUESTED BY 
REPUBLICANS, INTERRUPTED 
REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING AND 
PREVENTED WITNESSES FROM 
ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS.
DEMOCRATS VOTED DOWN BY VIRTUE 
OF A MOTION TO TABLE WITH NO 
NOTICE SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS 
AND TESTIMONY REQUESTED BY 
REPUBLICANS.
I'LL NOTE THAT DEMOCRATS NEVER 
ONCE BROUGHT ANY OF THEIR 
SUBPOENAS TO A VOTE BEFORE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
THIS UNFAIR PROCESS REFLECTS THE
DEGREE TO WHICH DEMOCRATS ARE 
OBSESSED WITH IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE DEMOCRATS WENT SEARCHING FOR
A SET OF FACTS ON WHICH TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, THE 
PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS AND 
FINANCIAL RECORDS, THE MUELLER 
REPORT, ALLEGATIONS OF 
OBSTRUCTION, BEFORE LANDING ON 
THE UKRAINE PHONE CALL.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS 
CLEARLY AN ORCHESTRATED EFFORT 
TO UPEND OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM.
THE SPEAKER HAS TIGHTLY SCRIPTED
EVERY STEP OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
DEMOCRATS HAVE REPORTEDLY 
CONVENED FOCUS GROUPS TO TEST 
WHICH ALLEGATIONS, WHETHER IT BE
QUID PRO QUO OR BRIBERY OR 
EXTORTION WERE MOST COMPELLING 
TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
SPEAKER PELOSI SAID DEMOCRATS 
MUST STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS 
HOT ON IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT.
THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FROM THE 
TIME SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED IT
ON SEPTEMBER 24th UNTIL TODAY 
HAS BEEN 76 DAYS.
AS PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED 
LAST WEDNESDAY, THIS IMPEACHMENT
WOULD STAND OUT AMONG MODERN 
IMPEACHMENTS AS THE SHORTEST 
PROCEEDING WITH THE THINNEST 
EVIDENTIARY RECORD AND THE 
NARROWEST GROUNDS EVER USED TO 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.
THE ARTIFICIAL AND ARBITRARY 
POLITICAL DEADLINE BY WHICH 
DEMOCRATS ARE DETERMINED TO 
FINISH IMPEACHMENT BY CHRISTMAS 
LEADS TO A RUSHED PROCESS AND 
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES TO OBTAIN 
RELEVANT INFORMATION.
DEMOCRATS AVOIDED THE 
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS REQUIRED 
BY FEDERAL COURTS AND DISPUTES 
BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE 
EXECUTIVE.
DEMOCRATS DECLINED TO ATTEMPT TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE 
ADMINISTRATION FOR THE 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 
WITNESSES.
DEMOCRATS DID NOT EXHAUST ALL 
THEIR OPTIONS TO ENTICE 
WITNESSES OR AGENCIES TO 
COOPERATE, SUCH AS ALLOWING 
WITNESSES TO APPEAR WITH AGENCY 
LAWYERS OR INITIATING CONTEMPT 
PROCEEDINGS.
SOMETIMES THE THREAT OF A 
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING GETS YOU A 
DIFFERENT RESULT.
SOMETIMES THE WITNESSES CHOOSE 
TO APPEAR WHEN CONTEMPT IS ON 
THE TABLE.
DEMOCRATS EVEN WITHDREW A 
SUBPOENA TO ONE WITNESS WHO 
ASKED A FEDERAL COURT TO RESOLVE
CONFLICTING ORDERS FROM CONGRESS
AND THE EXECUTIVE, EITHER 
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT 
WANT TO WAIT FOR THE COURT TO 
RULE OR THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE 
PRESIDING JUDGE, JUDGE LEON.
INSTEAD, DEMOCRATS MADE THEIR 
DEMANDS AND REFUSED TO BUDGE.
DEMOCRATS TOLD WITNESSES AT THE 
OUTSET THAT THEIR REFUSAL TO 
COOPERATE IN FULL WOULD BE USED 
AGAINST THEM AND THE PRESIDENT.
DEMOCRATS THREATENED FEDERAL 
EMPLOYEES THAT THEIR SALARIES 
COULD BE WITHHELD FOR NOT 
MEETING COMMITTEE DEMANDS.
THESE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR 
AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR 
GATHERING INFORMATION IN ANY 
SERIOUS INQUIRY.
THIS RUSHED AND 
TAKE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT APPROACH IS 
CONTRARY TO HOW SUCCESSFUL 
INVESTIGATIONS TYPICALLY WORK.
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS 
TAKE TIME.
THERE IS NO EASY BUTTON.
IN THIS JOB YOU MUST TAKE THE 
INFORMATION THAT'S OFFERED EVEN 
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TERMS.
YOU SHOULD NOT SAY NO TO TAKING 
A WITNESS'S TESTIMONY BECAUSE 
YOU WOULD PREFER THE AGENCY 
COUNSEL IS NOT PRESENTING.
IF THAT'S THE ONLY MEANS OF 
OBTAINING THE TESTIMONY, YOU 
SHOULD TAKE IT.
YOUR PRIORITY MUST NOT BE ON 
BLOCKING INFORMATION OUT, IT 
MUST BE ON SEEKING INFORMATION.
IN ALL RECENT MAJOR 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS, 
FOR EXAMPLE, THE INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S 
DECISION DURING 2016, THE IRS 
TARGETING INVESTIGATION, THE 
BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION AND FAST 
AND FURIOUS, THERE HAVE BEEN 
GIVE AND TAKE BETWEEN CONGRESS 
AND THE EXECUTIVE.
IN THE GOODLATTE/GOWDY 
INVESTIGATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IT 
TOOK TWO MONTHS.
TWO MONTHS OF NEGOTIATIONS 
BEFORE THE COMMITTEES CONDUCTED 
THE FIRST WITNESS INTERVIEW WITH
DEPUTY DIRECTOR McCABE.
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ONLY 
BEGAN PRODUCING DOCUMENTS TO THE
COMMITTEE AFTER MANY MORE MONTHS
OF DISCUSSIONS.
IN NONE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
DID CONGRESS GET EVERYTHING IT 
WANTED RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, 
CERTAINLY NOT WITHIN 76 DAYS, 
BUT WITH PERSISTENCE AND 
PATIENCE WE EVENTUALLY DID 
RECEIVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO
OUR WORK.
CONTRARY TO TALKING POINTS, THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS IN FACT
COOPERATED WITH AND FACILITATED 
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND 
INVESTIGATIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, EARLIER THIS YEAR 
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE 
CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
SECURITY CLEARANCES AT THE WHITE
HOUSE.
THE CENTRAL ALLEGATION PUT 
FORWARD WAS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE
DEVIATED FROM ESTABLISHED 
PROCEDURES TO GRANT CLEARANCES 
TO CERTAIN WHITE HOUSE STAFF.
THE DEMOCRATS SOUGHT TO 
INTERVIEW CAREER STAFF WHO 
PERFORMED THESE SECURITY 
CLEARANCE REVIEWS.
BUT DECLINED THE WITNESS 
INITIALLY TO APPEAR WITH AGENCY 
COUNSEL.
THE HOUSE AND THE WHITE HOUSE 
WERE AT AN IMPASSE.
HOWEVER, AFTER A LITTLE BIT OF 
TIME, WE, THE REPUBLICAN STAFF, 
WITH THE HELP OF MR. JORDAN 
CONVINCED THE WITNESS TO APPEAR 
WITH AGENCY COUNSEL FOR OUR OWN 
TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW AND THE 
DEMOCRATS CAME ALONG.
THE SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS IN THE
SECURITY CLEARANCE INVESTIGATION
WERE CONDUCTED WITH AGENCY 
COUNSEL.
THE TESTIMONY ALLOWED THE 
COMMITTEE TO OBTAIN THE EVIDENCE
TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT WAS
GOING ON AND IT WASN'T WHAT WAS 
ALLEGED.
NOBODY OUTSIDE THE SECURITY 
CLEARANCE OFFICE WAS HANDING OUT
CLEARANCES.
CERTAINLY NOT SENIOR WHITE HOUSE
STAFFERS.
IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, 
HOWEVER, DEMOCRATS HAVE TURNED 
AWAY INFORMATION THAT COULD BE 
VALUABLE TO THE INQUIRY BY 
DISALLOWING AGENCY COUNSEL TO 
ACCOMPANY WITNESSES.
DEMOCRATS HAVE TURNED AWAY 
INFORMATION BY DECLINING TO 
NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THE SCOPE 
OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS.
AS A RESULT OF THESE FAILURES, 
THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS 
INCOMPLETE AND IN MANY PLACES 
INCOHERENT.
THE FAILURE TO EXHAUST ALL 
AVENUES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION 
SEVERELY RISKS UNDERMINING THE 
LEGITIMACY OF ANY ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
AS PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID TO THE 
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, I AM 
CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING 
IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT 
EVIDENCE IN AN ABUNDANCE OF 
ANGER.
I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT 
ONLY FAILS THE STANDARD OF PAST 
IMPEACHMENTS BUT WOULD CREATE A 
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE 
IMPEACHMENTS.
PROFESSOR TURLEY FURTHER 
ELABORATED THAT THE CURRENT LACK
OF PROOF IS ANOTHER REASON WHY 
THE ABBREVIATED INVESTIGATION 
INTO THIS MATTER IS SO DAMAGING 
FOR THE CASE OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE FOR 
IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP AS A 
RESULT OF AN ARTIFICIAL, 
ARBITRARY AND POLITICAL SCHEDULE
RELIES HEAVILY ON AMBIGUOUS 
FACTS, PRESUMPTIONS AND 
SPECULATION.
PRESIDENT TURLEY WARNED HERE TOO
THAT IMPEACHMENTS HAVE BEEN 
BASED ON PROOF, NOT 
PRESUMPTIONS.
THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE THE 
PROOF.
NOW, MY DEMOCRAT COUNTERPARTS ON
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ARE 
TALENTED ATTORNEYS.
I'M SURE THEY WILL TELL YOU A 
RIVETING STORY ABOUT A SHADOW OR
IRREGULAR FOREIGN POLICY 
APPARATUS AND A SMEAR CAMPAIGN 
DESIGNED TO EXTORT UKRAINE FOR 
THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL 
BENEFIT.
THEY'LL TELL YOU ABOUT PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND HOW HE PUT HIS OWN 
POLITICAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF 
NATIONAL SECURITY BY MENTIONING 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
BY NAME AND RAISING THE 
ALLEGATIONS OF UKRAINIAN 
INFLUENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION 
ON THE JULY 25th CALL.
HE'LL TRY TO CONVINCE YOU THAT 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE 
SAME ADMINISTRATION DEMOCRATS 
REGULARLY ACCUSE OF BEING 
INCOMPETENT, ORCHESTRATED AN 
INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY AT THE 
HIGHEST LEVELS.
NONE OF THIS ADDS UP.
IT MAY BE A GREAT SCREENPLAY, 
BUT IT'S NOT WHAT THE EVIDENCE 
SHOWS.
THE DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IGNORES ALL OF THE 
EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT ADVANCE 
THEIR STORY.
THE DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT 
NARRATIVE REVOLVES ALL AMBIGUOUS
FACTS AND CONFLICTING EVIDENCE 
IN A WAY THAT IS MOST 
UNFLATTERING TO THE PRESIDENT.
THE DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT 
NARRATIVE IGNORES PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS FROM SENIOR UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS THAT CONTRADICT THE 
NARRATIVE.
AS YOU LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRAT 
PRESENTATION LATER TODAY, I URGE
YOU TO KEEP THESE POINTS IN 
MIND.
WHAT EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN 
GATHERED IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY PAINTS A DIFFERENT 
PICTURE?
I WON'T PROVIDE A DETAILED 
PRESENTATION NOW, BUT ALLOW ME 
TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW POINTS.
FIRST, THE SUMMARY OF THE JULY 
25th PHONE CALL REFLECTS NO 
CONDITIONALITY OR PRESSURE.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER 
VOCALIZED ANY DISCOMFORT OR 
PRESSURE ON THE CALL.
CONTRARY TO DEMOCRAT 
ALLEGATIONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
NOT ASKING FOR A FAVOR THAT 
WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION.
HE WAS ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE IN 
HELPING OUR COUNTRY MOVE FORWARD
FROM THE DIVISIVENESS OF THE 
RUSSIA COLLUSION INVESTIGATION.
SECOND, SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS DECLASSIFIED AND PUBLICLY 
RELEASED THE CALL SUMMARY 75 
DAYS AGO, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS
SAID PUBLICLY AND REPEATEDLY 
THAT HE FELT NO PRESSURE.
HE SAID IT ON SEPTEMBER 25th AT 
THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY.
HE SAID IT IN AN INTERVIEW 
PUBLISHED ON OCTOBER 6th.
HE SAID IT AGAIN ON OCTOBER 
10th.
AND MOST RECENTLY, HE SAID IT 
JUST LAST WEEK IN "TIME" 
MAGAZINE.
OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
HAVE ALSO SAID THERE WAS NO 
LINKAGE BETWEEN A MEETING, 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND AN 
INVESTIGATION.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRULY 
ORCHESTRATING A PRESSURE 
CAMPAIGN TO FORCE UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN, ONE WOULD THINK
THAT UKRAINE WOULD HAVE FELT 
SOME PRESSURE.
THIRD, AT THE TIME OF THE JULY 
25th CALL, SENIOR OFFICIALS IN 
KYIV DID NOT KNOW THAT THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED.
THEY DID NOT LEARN IT WAS PAUSED
UNTIL THE PAUSE WAS REPORTED 
PUBLICLY IN THE U.S. MEDIA ON 
AUGUST 28th.
AS AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED, 
BECAUSE THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF 
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT DID NOT
KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE, THERE WAS 
NO LEVERAGE IMPLIED.
FINALLY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MET 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN NEW YORK
ON SEPTEMBER 25th AT THE UNITED 
NATIONS.
SHORTLY THEREAFTER -- OR SHORTLY
BEFORE THAT, THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FLOWED TO UKRAINE.
BOTH HAPPENED WITHOUT UKRAINE 
EVER TAKING ACTIONS OR 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THE IMPEACHMENT RECORD ALSO HAS 
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE GOING TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND, 
UNDERCUTTING THE DEMOCRATS' 
ASSERTION OF SOME MALICIOUS 
INTENT.
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A DEEPLY 
ROOTED, GENUINE AND REASONABLE 
SKEPTICISM OF UKRAINE STEMMING 
FROM ITS HISTORY OF CORRUPTION.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS SKEPTICAL OF 
U.S. TAXPAYER-FUNDED FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE AND BELIEVES THAT OUR
ALLIES SHOULD SHARE MORE OF THE 
BURDEN OF UKRAINE'S DEFENSE.
UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS OPENLY 
SPOKE OUT AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.
THESE EVENTS BEARED DIRECTLY ON 
THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RUN ON AN
ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM, BUT HE
WAS AN UNTRIED POLITICIAN WITH A
RELATIONSHIP TO A CONTROVERSIAL 
UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH.
WHEN FORMER VICE PRESIDENT PENCE
MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN 
WARSAW -- I'M SORRY, WHEN VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW ON 
SEPTEMBER 1, HE STRESSED TO HIM 
THE NEED FOR REFORM AND 
REITERATED THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING, 
ESPECIALLY AMONG EUROPEAN 
ALLIES.
IN LATE AUGUST AND EARLY 
SEPTEMBER AFTER HIS PARTY TOOK 
CONTROL OF THE UKRAINIAN 
PARLIAMENT, UKRAINE PASSED 
HISTORIC REFORMS TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION.
THESE REFORMS INCLUDING REMOVING
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY WHICH HAD
BEEN A HISTORIC SOURCE OF 
CORRUPTION.
IMAGINE IF MEMBERS OF OUR 
CONGRESS HAD IMMUNITY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP LATER LIFTED THE
PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND
MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DAYS
LATER.
THE AID WAS PAUSED FOR 55 DAYS.
VERY SIMPLY, THE EVIDENCE IN THE
DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS 
POWER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL, 
POLITICAL BENEFIT.
THERE IS SIMPLY NO CLEAR 
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ACTED WITH MALICIOUS INTENT IN 
WITHHOLDING A MEETING OR 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
INDEED THERE ARE, AND THE 
REPUBLICAN REPORT ARTICULATES 
THEM, LEGITIMATE EXPLANATIONS 
FOR THESE ACTIONS THAT ARE NOT 
NEFARIOUS AS THE DEMOCRATS 
ALLEGE.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTED THE DUTIES OF HIS 
OFFICE BY DELIVERING ON WHAT HE 
PROMISED THE AMERICAN VOTERS HE 
WOULD DO.
DEMOCRATS MAY DISAGREE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLICY DECISIONS OR 
THE MANNER IN WHICH HE GOVERNS, 
BUT THOSE DISAGREEMENTS ARE NOT 
ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 
IRREVOKABLE ACTION OF REMOVING 
HIM FROM OFFICE.
THE DEMOCRATS HYPERBOLE AND 
HISTRIONICS ARE NO GOOD REASON 
11 MONTHS OUT FROM AN ELECTION 
FROM LETTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FROM DECIDING ON THEIR OWN WHO 
IS GOING TO BE THEIR NEXT 
PRESIDENT.
THIS RECORD ALSO DOES NOT 
SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED 
CONGRESS DURING THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
FOR MANY OF THE PROCEDURAL 
DEFECTS I TOUCHED ON EARLIER.
ADDITIONALLY AS A FACTUAL 
MATTER, THE ONLY DIRECT 
TESTIMONY THE INVESTIGATION HAS 
BTAINED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
REACTION FROM THE INQUIRY IS 
FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO 
TESTIFIED PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD 
HIM TO COOPERATE AND TELL THE 
TRUTH.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO 
DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED THE 
SUMMARIES OF HIS TWO PHONES WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THAT HE
WOULD LIKE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY 
BUT HE'S BEEN FORCED TO RESIST 
THE UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE PROCESS.
I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN THE 
PREROGATIVES OF THE CONGRESS.
IT'S AWFUL TO HEAR PRESIDENT 
TURLEY'S TESTIMONY FROM LAST 
WEEK WHEN HE CRITIQUED THE HOUSE
FOR PROCEEDING ON IMPEACHMENT SO
RAPIDLY AND ON A THIN RECORD.
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID TO SET 
THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE, 
DEMAND DOCUMENTS AND THEN 
IMPEACH BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T 
BEEN TURNED OVER WHEN THEY GO TO
COURT I THINK IS AN ABUSE OF 
POWER.
THE IMPEACHMENT OF A DULY 
ELECTED PRESIDENT AS CHAIRMAN 
NADLER SAID IN 1998 IS THE 
UNDOING OF A NATIONAL ELECTION.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND DEMOCRATS 
ISSUED A REPORT OVER THE WEEKEND
ARGUING THAT CONTRARY TO THE 
CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT IN 1998, 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT UNDOING AN 
ELECTION.
I WOULD JUST RESPOND BY SAYING 
THAT I DON'T THINK MANY OF THE 
63 MILLION AMERICANS FROM ALL 
AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO VOTED FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2016 WOULD 
AGREE.
BY IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
THE HOUSE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE 
NULLIFYING THE DECISION OF THOSE
AMERICANS.
AND THE HOUSE WOULD BE DOING IT 
IN LESS THAN 11 MONTHS BEFORE 
THE NEXT ELECTION.
THERE STILL IS NO COMPELLING 
ARGUMENT FOR WHY DEMOCRATS IN 
THE HOUSE MUST TAKE THIS 
DECISION OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE
VOTERS AND DO IT BEFORE 
CHRISTMAS.
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
IN 1998, THE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT 
AT A BARE MINIMUM THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACCUSERS MUST GO 
BEYOND HAIR SAY AND INNUENDO AND
BEYOND DEMANDS THE PRESIDENT 
PROVE HIS INNOCENCE OF VAGUE AND
CHANGING CHARGES.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THOSE WORDS 
RING AS TRUE TODAY AS THE 
CHAIRMAN BELIEVED THEM TO BE IN 
1998.
THE IMPEACHMENT RECORD IS 
HEAVILY RELIANT ON HEARSAY, 
INNUENDO AND PRESUMPTIONS.
DEMOCRATS HAVE LOBBED VAGUE AND 
EVER CHANGING CHARGES FOR 
IMPEACHMENT GOING AS FAR BACK AS
THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION.
FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE 
EXTRAORDINARY EXERCISE OF THE 
HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY IS
NOT WARRANTED ON THE EVIDENTIARY
RECORD PRESENTED.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO 
PRESENT THIS INFORMATION THIS 
MORNING AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
PRESENTATIONS.
MR. BERKE, YOU ARE NOW EXCUSED 
AND WE WILL INVITE MR. GOLDMAN 
TO TAKE HIS PLACE AT THE WITNESS
TABLE. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE 
GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRE SDPLEE. 
>> STATE YOURS. 
>> THE CHAIRMAN IS ALLOWED TO 
ADMINISTER AN OATH, NOT MANDATED
TO, BUT IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE
OF THIS COMMITTEE TO ADMINISTER 
OATHS TO WITNESSES.
I'M WONDERING WHY WE HAVE NOT 
ADMINISTERED THE OATH IN THIS 
SITUATION.
>> I'M GOING TO ADMINISTER THE 
OATH TO THE TWO WITNESSES WHO 
ARE NOW COMING BEFORE US TO MAKE
PRESENTATION.
THE TWO GENTLEMEN WHO JUST 
TESTIFIED WERE NOT WITNESSES, 
THEY WERE STAFF -- THEY WERE 
MAKING OPENING STATEMENTS FOR 
THE COMMITTEES.
WE WILL NOW ADMINISTER AN OATH 
TO MR. CASTOR PLANNED GOLDMAN 
WHO ARE NOW TESTIFYING IN THE 
FORM OF WITNESSES. 
>> BUT TYPICALLY WE ADMINISTER 
OATHS BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS.
>> FOR WITNESSES, FOR WITNESSES.
MR. CASTOR, WE WILL NOW -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
MR. CASTOR WAS HERE WITH MR. 
BERKE PRESENTING THE REPORT OF 
THE COMMITTEE.
THAT IS THE OPENING STATEMENT 
FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
THEY WERE NOT WITNESSES BEFORE 
THIS COMMITTEE.
MR. CASTOR NOW AND MR. GOLDMAN 
ARE WITNESSES BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE AND I WILL ADMINISTER 
THE OATH. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THEY WERE 
MAKING PRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF 
OF MEMBERS THE RULES SHOULD 
APPLY. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT 
RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
>> WE WELCOME BOTH -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT 
OF ORDER. 
>> WHO IS SEEKING RECOGNITION?
THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
POINT OF ORDER. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, DESPITE OUR 
REPEATED REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO 
THE EVIDENCE, WE RECEIVED LESS 
THAN 48 HOURS AGO OVER 8,000 
PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THIS WERE A 
COURT OF LAW, YOU'D BE FACING 
SANCTIONS RIGHT NOW BY THE BAR 
ASSOCIATION. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
POINT OF ORDER. 
>> HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO 
PROCESS OVER 8,000 PAGES OF 
DOCUMENTS THAT CAME FROM VARIOUS
COMMITTEES. 
>> THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> I WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE 
OATH.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND AND 
NOT MAKE A SPEECH.
MR. GOLDMAN AND MR. CASTOR, 
PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT
HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER 
PERNLT P PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT
YOUR TESTIMONY -- 
>> LET THE RECORD SHOW THEY 
ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
EACH OF YOU HAVE 45 MINUTES TO 
PRESENT.
TO STAY WITHIN THAT TIME THERE 
IS A TIMING LIGHT ON YOUR TABLE.
WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM 
GREEN TO YELLOW, YOU HAVE ONE 
MINUTE TO CONCLUDE YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT 
SIGNALS YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.
MR. GOLDMAN, YOU MAY BEGIN. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT 
OF ORDER. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE TO 
RECOGNIZE -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
POINT OF ORDER. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MY POINT OF 
ORDER IS THIS.
IN THE PREVIOUS POINT OF ORDER 
ISSUED BY MR. JOHNSON OF 
LOUISIANA, YOU RULED AGAINST HIS
POINT OF ORDER BECAUSE YOU SAID 
THAT MR. BERKE WAS A WITNESS.
YOU HAVE JUST TOLD US HE WAS NOT
A WITNESS BUT HE WAS A STAFFER.
AS SUCH, A STAFFER MUST AVOID 
IMPUGNING MOTIVATIONS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. 
>> WILL YOU LET HIM FINISH HIS 
POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVEN'T 
COMPLETED YET.
THE RULE REQUIRES THAT MEMBERS 
AND STAFF NOT IMPUGN THE 
MOTIVATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT YOU RULED WAS THAT HE WAS A
WITNESS.
YOU'VE JUST TOLD US HE WASN'T A 
WITNESS.
MY POINT OF ORDER IS THAT YOU 
WERE OUT OF ORDER IN YOUR 
RULING.
>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT 
SUSTAINED.
I'VE ALREADY RULED ON IT.
HE WAS NOT A WITNESS.
THESE TWO QUESTION. 
>> I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE 
CHAIR. 
>> THAT IS NOT -- 
>> IT MOST CERTAINLY IS. 
>> IT IS APPEALABLE. 
>> MISS LOFGREN KNOWS IT IS. 
>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT 
SUSTAINED. 
>> I MOVE TO TABLE -- 
>> THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF 
THE CHAIR IS TABLED.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION 
TABLED SAY AYE.
OPPOSED.
MOTION TO TABLE IS APPROVED. 
>> I SEEK A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
>> MR. NADLER. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS LOFGREN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS JACKSON LEE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. COHEN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. DEUTSCH. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS BASS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RICHMOND. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JEFFRIES. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JEFFRIES CICILLINE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SWALWELL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. LU. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RASKIN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS DEMGZ. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CORREA.
MISS SCANLON.
MISS GARCIA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. NAGOOSE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS McBATH. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. STANTON. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS DEAN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS POWELL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS ESCOBAR. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. COLLINS. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SENSE BRENNER. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. CHABOT. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. GOMERT?
MR. JORDAN?
MR. GOMERT VOTES NO.
MR. JORDAN VOTES NO. 
>> MR. RATCLIFF. 
>> NO. 
>> MISS ROBY. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. GAETZ. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BIGGS.
MR. McCLINTOCK. 
>> NO. 
>> MISS LESCO. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. RUSHENTHALER. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. KLINE.
>> NO. 
>> MR. ARMSTRONG. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. STUBY. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BIGGS, YOU WERE NOT 
RECORDED.
MR. BIGGS VOTES NO. 
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED?
>> NO. 
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED. 
>> HOW AM I RECORDED?
>> MISS SCANLON, YOU ARE NOT 
RECORDED. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CORREA, YOU ARE NOT 
RECORDED.
HE VOTES AYE. 
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO VOTE
WHO HASN'T VOTED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 24 
AYES AND 17 NOS.
MR. GOLDMAN, YOU MAY BEGIN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>> CHAIRMAN NADLER, RANKING 
MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE, WE ARE HERE TODAY 
BECAUSE DONALD J. TRUMP, THE 
45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS 
OFFICE, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY,
FOR HIS POLITICAL AND PERSONAL 
BENEFIT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED A 
MONTHS-LONG CAMPAIGN TO SOLICIT 
FOREIGN HELP IN HIS 2020 
RE-ELECTION EFFORTS, WITHHOLDING
OFFICIAL ACTS FROM THE 
GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE IN ORDER 
TO COERCE AND SECURE POLITICAL 
ASSISTANCE AND INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.
AS PART OF THIS SCHEME, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP APPLIED 
INCREASING PRESSURE ON THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCE TWO INVESTIGATIONS 
HELPFUL TO HIS PERSONAL 
RE-ELECTION EFFORTS.
HE APPLIED THIS PRESSURE HIMSELF
AND THROUGH HIS AGENTS WORKING 
WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT BY CONDITIONING A 
DESPERATELY SOUGHT OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING AND $391 MILLION IN 
TAXPAYER-FUNDED CONGRESSALLY 
APPROPRIATED SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, VITAL TO UKRAINE'S 
ABILITY TO FEND OFF RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
HE CONDITIONED THAT ON THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE TWO 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
WERE HELPFUL TO HIS PERSONAL 
INTERESTS.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS 
WERE DISCOVERED, HE RELEASED THE
MILITARY AID, THOUGH IT WOULD 
ULTIMATELY TAKE CONGRESSIONAL 
ACTION FOR THE MONEY TO BE MADE 
FULLY AVAILABLE TO UKRAINE.
THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING STILL 
HAS NOT HAPPENED.
WHEN FACED WITH THE OPENING OF 
AN OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
INTO HIS CONDUCT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP LAUNCHED AN UNPRECEDENTED 
CAMPAIGN OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS ORDERING EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS TO DEFY SUBPOENAS FOR 
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.
TO DATE THE INVESTIGATING 
COMMITTEES HAVE RECEIVED NO 
DOCUMENTS FROM THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO OUR 
SUBPOENAS.
WERE IT NOT FOR COURAGEOUS 
PUBLIC SERVANTS DOING THEIR DUTY
AND HONORING THEIR OATH TO THIS 
COUNTRY AND COMING FORWARD AND 
TESTIFYING, THE PRESIDENT'S 
SCHEME MIGHT STILL BE CONCEALED 
TODAY.
THE CENTRAL MOMENT IN THIS 
SCHEME WAS A TELEPHONE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON 
JULY 25th OF THIS YEAR.
DURING THAT CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP
ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR A 
PERSONAL FAVOR, TO INITIATE THE 
TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HOPED COULD 
ULTIMATELY HELP HIS RE-ELECTION 
IN 2020.
THE FIRST INVESTIGATION INVOLVED
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
AND WAS AN EFFORT TO SMEAR HIS 
REPUTATION AS HE SEEKS THE DEM 
 -- DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN 
NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION.
THE SECOND INVESTIGATION SET TO 
ELEVATE A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY 
THEORY PROMOTED BY RUSSIAN 
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT 
UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE LAST 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO SUPPORT
THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.
IN TRUTH, AS HAS BEEN CLEAR BY 
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE FROM 
THROUGHOUT THE GOVERNMENT, 
RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE LAST 
ELECTION IN ORDER TO HELP THEN 
CANDIDATE TRUMP.
THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE 2016 
ELECTION ARE PATENTLY FALSE, BUT
THAT DID NOT DETER PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DURING HIS PHONE CALL WITH
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND IT 
DOES NOT APPEAR TO DETER HIM 
TODAY.
JUST TWO DAYS AGO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP STATED PUBLICLY THAT HE 
HOPES THAT HIS PERSONAL 
ATTORNEY, RUDY GIULIANI, WILL 
REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND TO CONGRESS THE 
RESULTS OF MR. GUILIANI'S 
EFFORTS IN UKRAINE LAST WEEK TO 
PURSUE THESE FALSE ALLEGATIONS 
MEANT TO TARNISH VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSISTENT AND
CONTINUING EFFORT TO COERCE A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY TO HELP HIM 
CHEAT TO WIN AN ELECTION IS A 
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR 
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND TO 
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF 
THIS SCHEME IS DESCRIBED IN 
DETAIL IN A NEARLY 300-PAGE 
DOCUMENT ENTITLED "THE 
TRUMP/UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY REPORT" FORMERLY FROM 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE TO THIS COMMITTEE A
FEW DAYS AGO.
THE REPORT RELIES ON TESTIMONY 
FROM NUMEROUS CURRENT AND FORMER
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, THE VAST 
MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE 
NONPARTISAN, CAREER 
PROFESSIONALS, RESPONSIBLE FOR 
KEEPING OUR NATION SAFE AND 
PROMOTING AMERICAN VALUES AROUND
THE GLOBE.
THE EVIDENCE FROM THESE 
WITNESSES CANNOT SERIOUSLY BE 
DISPUTED.
THE PRESIDENT PLACED HIS 
PERSONAL INTERESTS ABOVE THE 
NATION'S INTERESTS IN ORDER TO 
HELP HIS OWN RE-ELECTION 
EFFORTS.
BEFORE I HIGHLIGHT THE EVIDENCE 
AND THE FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT,
I WANT TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO 
INTRODUCE MYSELF AND DISCUSS 
TODAY'S TESTIMONY.
I JOINED THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE AS SENIOR ADVISOR AND 
DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS AT 
THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR.
PREVIOUSLY, I SERVED FOR TEN 
YEARS AS A PROSECUTOR IN THE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
WHEN I JOINED THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE UNDER THE GEORGE W. BUSH
ADMINISTRATION.
THE TEAM THAT I LED ON THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INCLUDES 
OTHER FORMER FEDERAL 
PROSECUTORS, A RETIRED FBI 
AGENT, AND INVESTIGATORS WITH 
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY 
EXPERTISE.
THE REPORT THAT I AM PRESENTING 
TODAY IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THE 
EVIDENCE THAT WE COLLECTED IN 
COORDINATION WITH THE OVERSIGHT 
AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEES 
THAT WERE GATHERED AS PART OF 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS.
NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
THE THREE INVESTIGATING 
COMMITTEES RAN A FAIR, 
PROFESSIONAL AND THOROUGH 
INVESTIGATION.
WE FOLLOWED THE HOUSE RULES FOR 
DEPOSITIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS,
INCLUDING THE RULE AGAINST 
AGENCY COUNSEL BEING PRESENT FOR
DEPOSITIONS AND MEMBERS AND 
STAFF FROM BOTH PARTIES HAD 
EQUAL TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS AND 
THERE WERE NO SUBSTANTIVE 
QUESTIONS THAT WERE PREVENTED 
FROM BEING ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THIS INVESTIGATION MOVED SWIFTLY
AND INTENSIVELY, AS ALL GOOD 
INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD.
TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHER 
WITNESSES WOULD BE ABLE TO 
PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT AND DETAIL 
ABOUT THIS SCHEME, THEIR FAILURE
TO TESTIFY IS DUE SOLELY TO THE 
FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
OBSTRUCTED THE INQUIRY AND 
REFUSED TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE.
NEVERTHELESS, THE EXTENSIVE 
EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS 
UNCOVERED DURING THIS 
INVESTIGATION LED TO THE 
FOLLOWING CRITICAL FINDING.
FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE 
POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO PRESSURE 
AND INDUCE THE NEWLY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO 
INTERFERE IN THE 2020 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL BENEFIT.
SECOND, IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE
PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
THE POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WITHHELD A COVETED OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING AND $391 OF ESSENTIAL 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE FROM 
UKRAINE.
THIRD, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT
SOUGHT TO UNDERMINE OUR FREE AND
FAIR ELECTIONS AND POSES AN 
IMMINENT THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
AND FOURTH, FACED WITH THE 
REVELATION OF HIS PRESSURE 
CAMPAIGN AGAINST UKRAINE, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED AN 
UNPRECEDENTED EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT
CONGRESS'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
INTO HIS CONDUCT.
WITH THAT CONTEXT IN MIND, I 
WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO THE 
EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT CONCERNING UKRAINE.
MY COLLEAGUE, MR. CASTOR JUST 
SAID THAT IT REVOLVES AROUND 
EIGHT LINES IN ONE CALL RECORD.
BUT THAT SORELY IGNORES THE VAST
AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE 
COLLECTED OF A MONTH'S LONG 
SCHEME DIRECTED BY THE 
PRESIDENT.
BUT I DO WANT TO START WITH THAT
JULY 25th PHONE CALL, BECAUSE 
THAT IS CRITICAL EVIDENCE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT AND 
INTENT.
IT WAS ON THAT DAY THAT HE HELD 
HIS SECOND PHONE CALL WITH THE 
NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
THE FIRST IN APRIL, WAS SHORT 
AND CORDIAL, FOLLOWING THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT'S ELECTION 
SUCCESS.
BUT THIS SECOND CALL WOULD 
DIVERGE DRAMATICALLY FROM WHAT 
THOSE LISTENING HAD EXPECTED.
NOW, JUST PRIOR TO THIS 
TELEPHONE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SPOKE TO GORDON SONDLAND, THE 
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION WHO HAD DONATED $1 MILLION
TO THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURAL 
CAMPAIGN AND WHO HAD BEEN 
DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF TO TAKE ON A LEADING 
ROLE IN UKRAINE ISSUES.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAYED THE 
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY THROUGH AMBASSADOR CURT
VOLKER WHO HAD HAD LUNCH THAT 
DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY' TOP
AIDE, URMIC WHO APPEARS 
REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THIS 
SCHEME AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
RIGHT HAND MAN.
THE AMBASSADOR TEXTED MR. URMIC 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
DIRECTION.
GOOD LUCK, THANKS.
PRESIDENT Z. ENCOURAGES TRUMP HE
WILL INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED 
AT THE ELECTION IN 2016.
WE WILL NAIL DOWN FOR A VISIT TO
WASHINGTON.
GOOD LUCK.
SEE YOU TOMORROW, KIRK.
 CURT -- EVEN BEFORE THE PHONE 
CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TOOK PLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
DIRECTED THAT UKRAINE INITIATE 
THE INVESTIGATION INTO 2016, THE
DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT 
UKRAINE HAD INTERFERED IN THE 
ELECTION IN ORDER FOR PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT THAT HE DESPERATELY 
COVETED.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CLEAR IN
HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS QUID 
PRO QUO.
>> IN THE FORM OF A -- AS I 
TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY WITH REGARD
TO THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE 
CALL AND THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.
>> DURING THIS CALL WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN LEADER PRESIDENT TRUMP
DID NOT DISCUSS MATTERS OF 
IMPORTANCE TO THE UNITED STATES 
SUCH AS UKRAINE'S EFFORTS TO 
ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.
INSTEAD PRESIDENT TRUMP VEERED 
QUICKLY INTO THE PERSONAL FAVOR 
THAT HE WANTED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO DO.
TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD 
HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
RE-ELECTION EFFORT.
WITNESSES WHO LISTENED TO THE 
CALL DESCRIBED IT AS UNUSUAL, 
IMPROPER, INAPPROPRIATE, AND 
CONCERNING.
TWO OF THEM IMMEDIATELY REPORTED
THEIR CONCERNS TO WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYERS.
NOW LET ME JUST TAKE A FEW 
MINUTES WALKING THROUGH THAT 
IMPORTANT CALL STEP BY STEP 
BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENCE THAT IS 
CENTRAL TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
SCHEME.
NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CALL, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF 
DEFENSE.
WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE TO 
COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEPS, 
SPECIFICALLY WE ARE ALMOST READY
TO BUY MORE JAVELINS FROM THE 
UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE 
PURPOSES.
THE GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF
DEFENSE INCLUDED THE NEARLY $400
MILLION OF U.S. MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WHICH ONE
WITNESS TESTIFIED WAS NEARLY 10%
OF UKRAINE'S DEFENSE BUDGET.
AND THIS SUPPORT COMES AS A 
RESULT OF RUSSIA'S INKRAGS OF 
UKRAINE IN 2014, WHEN RUSSIA 
ILLEGALLY ANNEXED NEARLY 7% OF 
UKRAINE'S TERRITORY.
SINCE THEN, THE UNITED STATES 
AND OUR ALLIES HAVE PROVIDED 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AN EMERGING
POST SOVIET DEMOCRACY, TO FEND 
OFF RUSSIA IN THE EAST.
YET JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THIS
JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD INEXPLICABLY PLACED A HOLD 
ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY 
REASON TO HIS OWN CABINET 
MEMBERS OR NATIONAL SECURITY 
OFFICIALS.
THIS SHOWED THAT THAT WAS 
UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE AID 
FROM EVERY RELEVANT AGENCY IN 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
NEVERTHELESS, DURING THE CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CLAIMED THAT 
U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS NOT
RECIPROCAL, THAT SOMEHOW UKRAINE
NEEDED TO GIVE MORE TO THE 
UNITED STATES.
WHAT DID HE MEAN?
WELL, IT BECAME CLEAR.
BECAUSE IMMEDIATELY AFTER 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BROUGHT UP 
U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT AND 
PURCHASING JAVELIN ANTI-TANK 
WEAPONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
RESPONDED, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO 
DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE 
OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A 
LOT, AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT 
ABOUT IT.
NOW, THE FAVOR THAT HE 
REFERENCED THERE INCLUDED TWO 
DEMANDS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO 
WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY OR 
FOREIGN POLICY.
FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, I 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT 
HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE.
AS YOU SAW YESTERDAY -- EXCUSE 
ME.
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR 
WEALTHY PEOPLE IT SAYS -- THE 
SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT 
WENT ON, THE WHOLE SITUATION.
I THINK YOU ARE SURROUNDING 
YOURSELF WITH SOME OF THE SAME 
PEOPLE.
AND HE WENT ON LATER, I WOULD 
LIKE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL CALL YOU OR YOUR PEOPLE,
AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GET TO 
THE BOTTOM OF IT.
AS YOU SAW YESTERDAY, THAT WHOLE
NONSENSE ENDED WITH A VERY POOR 
PERFORMANCE BY A MAN NAMED 
ROBERT MUELLER, AN INCOMPETENT 
PERFORMANCE.
BUT THEY SAY A LOT OF IT STARTED
WITH UKRAINE.
WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, IT'S VERY 
IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO IT IF 
THAT'S POSSIBLE.
HERE AGAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
REFERRING TO THE BASELESS 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, NOT 
RUSSIA, WAS BEHIND THE HACK OF 
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE IN 2016.
NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IN OUR 
INVESTIGATION TESTIFIED THAT 
THERE WAS ANY FACTUAL SUPPORT 
FOR THIS ALLEGATION.
TO THE CONTRARY A UNANIMOUS 
ASSESSMENT OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY FOUND THAT RUSSIA 
ALONE INTERFERED IN 2016 
ELECTION.
AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER WHO 
INDICTED 12 RUSSIANS FOR THIS 
CONSPIRACY TESTIFIED BEFORE 
CONGRESS THAT THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION.
DR. FIONA HILL, AN EXPERT ON 
RUSSIA AND PUTIN WHO SERVED ON 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
UNTIL JULY TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS TOLD BY HIS OWN 
FORMER SENIOR ADVISORS INCLUDING
HIS HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER 
AND HIS FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER THAT THE ALTERNATIVE 
THEORY THAT UKRAINE HAD 
INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION WAS 
FALSE.
AND ALTHOUGH NO ONE IN THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT KNEW OF ANY FACTUAL 
SUPPORT FOR THIS THEORY, IT DID 
HAVE ONE SIGNIFICANT SUPPORTER, 
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR 
PUTIN.
IN FEBRUARY OF 2017, PRESIDENT 
PUTIN SAID, SECOND, AS WE ALL 
KNOW, DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES, 
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ADOPTED
A UNILATERAL POSITION IN FAVOR 
OF ONE CANDIDATE.
MORE THAN THAT, CERTAIN 
OLIGARCHS, CERTAINLY WITH THE 
APPROVAL OF THE POLITICAL 
LEADERSHIP FUNDED THIS 
CANDIDATE, OR FEMALE CANDIDATE, 
TO BE MORE PRECISE.
AND IF THERE WAS EVER ANY DOUBT 
ABOUT WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS 
UNFOUNDED THEORY PUT FORWARD BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS 
ASSOCIATES, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PUTIN MADE IT CLEAR VERY 
RECENTLY WHEN HE SAID, THANK GOD
NO ONE IS ACCUSING US ANY MORE 
OF INTERFERING IN U.S. 
ELECTIONS.
NOWER ACCUSING UKRAINE.
IN THE FACE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE, 
NOT ONLY FROM INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY EXPERTS BUT FROM HIS 
OWN NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM THAT 
RUSSIA, NOT UKRAINE, INTERFERED 
IN THE 2016 ELECTION FOR THE 
BENEFIT OF DONALD TRUMP, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP STILL PRESSED 
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO 
ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY.
AND WHY?
BECAUSE IT WOULD HELP HIS OWN 
POLITICAL STANDING.
PRESIDENT TRUMP EVEN SOUGHT TO 
WITHHOLD AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING 
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
UNTIL HE FELL IN LINE WITH 
PRESIDENT PUTIN'S LIES.
THE LEADER, WHO HAD ACTUALLY 
INVADED UKRAINE.
THE SECOND DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP MADE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
DURING THE JULY 25th CALL WAS TO
INVESTIGATE THE FRONT-RUNNER FOR
THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR 
PRESIDENT IN 2020.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
AND HIS SON HUNTER.
PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED, THE 
OTHER THING.
THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT 
BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED 
THE PROSECUTION, AND A LOT OF 
PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT 
THAT.
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.
SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT 
SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.
WITNESSES UNANIMOUSLY TESTIFIED 
THAT THERE WAS NO FACTUAL 
SUPPORT FOR THIS CLAIM.
RATHER, THEY NOTED THAT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ACTING IN 
SUPPORT OF AN INTERNATIONAL 
CONSENSUS AND OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY TO CLEAN UP THE 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE IN 
UKRAINE.
DESPITE THESE FACTS, BY THE TIME
OF THE JULY 25th CALL, MR. 
GIULIANI HAD BEEN PUBLICLY 
ADVOCATING FOR THESE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR MONTHS WHILE 
ALSO USING BACK CHANNELS TO 
PRESS UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO 
NASHIATE THEM IN SUPPORT OF HIS 
CLIENT, DONALD TRUMP.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND UNDERSTOOD 
MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE VERY 
CLEARLY.
HE TESTIFIED, MR. GIULIANI WAS 
EXPRESSING THE DESIRES OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND WE KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS
WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.
TO OTHERS, MR. GIULIANI WAS 
WORKING AT CROSS-PURPOSES WITH 
OFFICIAL POLICY CHANNELS TOWARD 
UKRAINE, EVEN AS HE WAS WORKING 
ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ACCORDING TO FORMER NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER AMBASSADOR JOHN
BOLTON, MR. GIULIANI WAS A 
QUOTE, HAND GRENADE, WHO IS 
GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP.
UNQUOTE.
NEAR THE END OF THE JULY 25th 
CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CIRCLED
BACK TO THE PRECOOKED MESSAGE 
THAT AMBASSADOR VOLLEY KERR HAD 
RELAYED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
TOP AIDE BEFORE THE CALL.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, I ALSO 
WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED 
STATES, SPECIFICALLY, 
WASHINGTON, D.C.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO WANTED
TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE 
VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE, AND
WE WILL WORK ON THE 
INVESTIGATION.
IN OTHER WORDS, ON ONE HAND IS 
THE HOUSE VISIT.
WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, HE 
AGREED TO PURSUE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THIS STATEMENT SHOWS THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FULLY 
UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME OF THE 
JULY 25th CALL THE QUID PRO QUO 
BETWEEN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS AND
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUIRED AND 
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD 
TESTIFIED SO CLEARLY ABOUT.
NUMEROUS WITNESSES TESTIFIED 
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
SPECIFICALLY, A MEETING IN THE 
OVAL OFFICE.
AN OFFICIAL FACT -- ACT BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AS DAVID HOLMES IN UKRAINE SAID,
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT A WHITE HOUSE VISIT WAS 
CRITICAL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO 
SHOW U.S. SUPPORT AT THE HIGHEST
LEVELS IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE 
TO RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR 
PUTIN THAT HE HAD U.S. BACKING 
AS WELL AS TO ADVANCE HIS 
AMBITIOUS ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM
AGENDA AT HOME.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT WOULD HELP ZELENSKY'S 
ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS.
AND THAT SUPPORT REMAINS 
CRITICAL AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
MEETS TODAY WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN
TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT 
IN THE EAST.
NOW, THE DAY AFTER THIS PHONE 
CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO 
ENSURE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
GOT THE MESSAGE.
ON JULY 26th, U.S. OFFICIALS MET
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS IN 
KIEV.
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BROUGHT UP 
SOME QUOTE VERY SENSITIVE 
ISSUES.
AFTER THAT MEETING, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HAD A PRIVATE ONE ON 
ONE MEETING WITH YERMAK.
DURING THAT SONDLAND SAID THEY 
PROBABLY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF 
INVESTIGATIONS.
AFTER THAT AT LUNCH WITH MR. 
HOLMES AND TWO OTHER STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND PULLED OUT HIS CELL 
PHONE AND CALLED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
SOMEWHAT SHOCKED MR. HOLMES 
RECOUNTED THE CONVERSATION THAT 
FOLLOWED.
I HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
GREET THE PRESIDENT AND EXPLAIN 
HE WAS CALLING FROM KIEV.
I HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN 
CLARIFY THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
WAS IN UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED YES 
HE WAS UKRAINE AND WENT ON TO 
STATE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
QUOTE LOVES YOUR ASS, UNQUOTE.
I THEN HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK
SO HE IS GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION?
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELIED HE IS
GOING TO DO IT ADDING THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO 
ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO DO.
AFTER THE CALL, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TOLD MR. HOLMES THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT GIVE A 
LIEN BLEEP ABOUT UKRAINE AND 
ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF 
THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI 
WAS PUSHING.
TO REPEAT, AND THIS IS VERY 
IMPORTANT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE 
THE JULY 25th CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND RELAYED 
TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S REQUIREMENT OF POLITICAL
INVESTIGATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR A
WHITE HOUSE MEETING.
DURING THAT CALL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ASKED FOR THE FAVOR OF 
THESE TWO POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT BROUGHT 
UP U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD RECENTLY SUSPENDED OR PUT ON
HOLD.
AND AT THE END OF THE CALL 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MADE A POINT 
OF ACKNOWLEDGING THE LINK 
BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTED AND 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DESPERATELY 
WANTED.
AND THEN THE FOLLOWING DAY, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONFIRMED TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE TELEPHONE
IN PERSON THAT THE UKRAINIANS 
WOULD INDEED INITIATE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS DISCUSSED ON THE 
CALL.
WHICH WERE -- WHICH WAS THE ONLY
THING ABOUT UKRAINE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CARED ABOUT.
NOW, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO 
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS 
INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE 
JULY 25th CALL WAS NEITHER THE 
START NOR THE END OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO USE THE 
POWERS OF HIS OFFICE FOR 
PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.
AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF 
THE EVIDENCE IN CONTEXT AS A 
WHOLE.
PRIOR TO THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT
HAD REMOVED THE FORMER 
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVICH TO 
CLEAR THE WAY FOR HIS THREE HAND
PICKED AGENTS TO SPEARHEAD HIS 
CORRUPT AGENDA IN UKRAINE, ALL 
OF WHOM ATTENDED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION ON MAY 
20th.
ALL POLITICAL APPOINTEES, THEY 
PROVED TO BE MORE THAN WILLING 
IN WHAT DR. HILL LATER DESCRIBED
AS AN IMPROPER DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL ERRAND FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
ON APRIL 21ST, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WON THE UKRAINIAN 
ELECTION WITH 73% OF THE VOTE.
HE HAD TWO PRIMARY PLATFORMS.
TO RESOLVE THE WAR IN THE EAST 
WITH RUSSIA AND THE ROOT OUT 
CORRUPTION.
THAT SAME DAY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CALLED TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON 
HIS WIN.
EVEN THOUGH THE WHITE HOUSE 
PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWING THE CALL
STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
EXPRESSED HIS SHARED COMMIT TO 
QUOTE ROOT OUT CORRUPTION 
UNQUOTE PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT 
MENTION CORRUPTION AT ALL ON 
THIS CALL, JUST LIKE HE DID NOT 
MENTION CORRUPTION ON THE JULY 
25th CALL.
SHORTLY AFTER THIS CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO ATTEND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION.
BUT ON MAY 13th PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID AN ABOUT-FACE AND DIRECTED 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE NOT TO 
ATTEND.
AN ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE TESTIFIED THAT THE 
INAUGURATION HAD NOT BEEN 
SCHEDULED, AND THEREFORE THE 
REASON FOR THE ABRAPT CHANGE OF 
PLANS WAS NOT RELATED TO ANY 
SCHEDULING ISSUES.
SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE 
THREE WEEKS BETWEEN APRIL 21ST 
AND MAY 13th WHEN VICE PRESIDENT
PENCE WAS ORIGINALLY INVITED AND
THEN DISINVITED -- OR REMOVED 
FROM THE DELEGATION?
A FEW THING.
FIRST, ON APRIL 25th, VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN FORMALLY 
ANNOUNCED HIS BID FOR THE 
DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR 
PRESIDENT.
THEN ABOUT A WEEK LATER ON MAY 
3rd, PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT PUTIN ON THE 
TELEPHONE.
ONE SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIAL TESTIFIED THAT THE 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT PUTIN 
INCLUDED A DISCUSSION OF 
UKRAINE.
THIRD, ON MAY 9th, MR. GIULIANI 
TOLD THE "NEW YORK TIMES" THAT 
HE INTENDED TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE
ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, IN ORDER TO, 
QUOTE, MEDDLE IN AN 
INVESTIGATION, UNQUOTE.
BUT AFTER PUBLIC BACKLASH AND 
APPARENT PUSHBACK FROM THE 
UKRAINIANS, MR. GIULIANI 
CANCELED HIS TRIP THE NEXT DAY 
CLAIMING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
WAS SURROUNDED BY ENEMIES OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AT A CRITICAL MAY 23rd MEETING 
IN THE OVAL OFFICE, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID THAT UKRAINE WAS 
CORRUPT AND TRIED TO TAKE HIM 
DOWN IN 2016.
THE SAME FALSE NARRATIVE PUSHED 
BY PRESIDENT PUTIN AND MR. 
GIULIANI.
IN ORDER FOR THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING TO OCCUR, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TOLD THE DELEGATION, THEY 
MUST TALK TO RUDY TO GET THE 
VISIT SCHEDULED.
THESE COMMENTS FROM PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WERE THE FIRST OF MANY 
SUBSEQUENT INDICATIONS THAT IN 
HIS MIND, CORRUPTION EQUALS 
INVESTIGATIONS.
IN THE WEEKS AND MONTHS 
FOLLOWING, MR. GIULIANI RELAYED 
TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND -- 
OFFICIALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DESIGNATED IN THE MAY 23rd 
MEETING TO TAKE A LEAD ON 
UKRAINE POLICY.
THE DIRECTIVE FROM PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING
WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE 
ANNOUNCED THE TWO POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP REQUIRED.
AND WELL BEFORE THE JULY 25th 
CALL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
VOLKER ALSO RELAYED THIS QUID 
PRO QUO TO THE UKRAINIANS, 
INCLUDING TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HIMSELF.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER CONVEYED THE 
MESSAGE DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AT THE BEGINNING OF 
JULY URGING HIM TO REFERENCE 
INVESTIGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH 
THE GIULIANI FACTOR WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IN MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
ON JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TOLD OTHER U.S. 
OFFICIALS AND TWO OF OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ADVISORS 
INCLUDING MR. YERMAK THAT HE HAD
AN AGREEMENT WITH ACTING WHITE 
HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY THAT THE MEETING WOULD 
BE SCHEDULED IF UKRAINE 
ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATIONS.
ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT 
DURING THE SECOND OF THE 
MEETINGS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
BEGAN TO REVIEW WHAT THE 
DELIVERABLE WOULD BE IN ORDER TO
GET THE MEETING, REFERRING TO AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.
THE WITNESS TOLD THE COMMITTEE 
THAT THE REQUEST WAS EXPLICIT.
THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY.
AND THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
ALSO MENTIONED BURISMA A MAJOR 
UKRAINIAN ENERGY COMPANY THAT 
HUNTERED BIEN SAT ON THE BOARD 
OF.
TO THE WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED 
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, THE 
REFERENCES TO BURISMA WAS 
SHORTHAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE BIDENS.
BODS BOLTON AS WELL AS HIS STAFF
MEMBERS OBJECTED TO THIS MEETING
FOR AN INVESTIGATIONS TRADE AND 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD DR. HILL 
YOU GO AND TELL EISENBERG THAT I
AM NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG 
DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE 
COOKING UP ON THIS.
AND YOU GO AHEAD AND TELL HIM 
WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD AND WHAT I 
HAVE SAID.
YET, THIS WAS NOT A ROGUE 
OPERATION BY MR. GIULIANI AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER.
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TESTIFIED, EVERYONE WAS IN THE 
LOOP, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, 
SECRETARY POMPEO, SECRETARY 
PERRY, AND THEIR TOP ADVISORS.
ON JULY 19th, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND EMAILED MR. MULVANEY, 
SECRETARY PERRY, SECRETARY 
POMPEO AND OTHERS AFTER SPEAKING
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE SUBJECT WAS, I TALKED TO 
ZELENSKY JUST NOW.
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE, 
HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE 
POTUS'S CALL.
POTUS IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
WE'LL ASSURE HIM THAT HE INTENDS
TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT 
INVESTIGATION AND WILL, QUOTE, 
TURN OVER EVERY STONE, UNQUOTE.
BOTH SECRETARY PERRY AND CHIEF 
OF STAFF MULVANEY QUICKLY 
RESPONDED TO THE EMAIL NOTING 
THAT GIVEN THAT CONVERSATION, A 
DATE WOULD SOON BE SET TO 
SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE 
TELEPHONE CALL.
THE EVIDENCE ALSO UNAMBIGUOUSLY 
SHOWS THAT THE UKRAINIANS 
UNDERSTOOD THIS QUID PRO QUO AND
HAD SERIOUS RESERVATIONS, 
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HAD WON THE ELECTION ON
AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM.
IN FACT A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE 
JULY 25th CALL AMBASSADOR 
WILLIAM TAYLOR THE ABILITYING 
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE AND 
THE FORMER PERMANENT AMBASSADOR 
TO UKRAINE TEXTED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND VOLKER -- RATHER, 
HE STATED IN HIS TESTIMONY, ON 
JULY 20th, I HAD A PHONE 
CONVERSATION WITH MR. DANLEYIC 
DURING WHICH HE CONVEYED TO ME 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT 
WANT TO BE USED AS A PAWN IN A 
U.S. RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
BUT THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN ON 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT 
RELENT.
FOUR DAYS LATER PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY RECEIVED THAT MESSAGE 
VIA CURT VOLKER THAT HE NEEDED 
TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT
HE WOULD DO THE INVESTIGATIONS 
IN ORDER TO GET THAT WHITE HOUSE
MEETING.
AND AS I HAVE DESCRIBED, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TRIED TO DO 
EXACTLY THAT ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IN THE WEEKS FOLLOWING THE JULY 
25th CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HEEDED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST
SENDING HIS TOP AIDE, MR. YERMIC
TO MEET WITH GIULIANI.
THEY CONTINUED THIS PRESSURE 
CAMPAIGN TO SECURE A PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
NOW, ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND -- AND THIS IS VERY 
IMPORTANT -- PRESIDENT TRUMP DID
NOT REQUIRE THAT UKRAINE 
ACTUALLY CONDUCT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS AS A PREREQUISITE
FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.
INSTEAD, THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT NEEDED ONLY TO 
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GOAL WAS 
NOT THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THEMSELVES OR NOT ANY CORRUPTION
THAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS MIGHT 
HAVE ENTAILED, BUT THE POLITICAL
BENEFIT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WOULD ENJOY FROM AN ANNOUNCEMENT
OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS 2020 
POLITICAL RIVAL AND AGAINST A 
UNANIMOUS ASSESSMENT THAT SHOWED
THAT HE RECEIVED FOREIGN SUPPORT
IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
FOR THAT REASON, THE FACTS 
DIDN'T ACTUALLY MATTER TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE HE ONLY 
CARED ABOUT THE PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL BENEFIT FROM THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION.
OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER 
WORKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
AIDE, MR. YERMAK TO DRAFT A 
STATEMENT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
TO ISSUE.
WHEN THE AIDE PROPOSED A 
STATEMENT THAT DID NOT INCLUDE 
SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED, THE BURISMA AND 
BIDEN INVESTIGATION IN THE 2016 
ELECTION INVESTIGATION, MR. 
GIULIANI RELAYED THAT THAT WOULD
NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE A 
COMPARISON ON THE LEFT OF THE 
ORIGINAL STATEMENT DRAFTED BY 
MR. YERMAK, THE TOP AIDE TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND ON THE 
RIGHT A REVISED STATEMENT WITH 
MR. GIULIANI'S REQUIREMENTS.
AND ON -- IT SAYS WE INTEND TO 
COMPLETE AND INITIATE A 
TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION OF ALL
AVAILABLE FACTS AND EPISODES.
HERE'S THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE, 
INCLUDING BURISMA AND THE 2016 
ELECTIONS WHICH IN TURN WILL 
PREVENT THE RECURRENCE THIS 
PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE 
STATEMENT THAT GIULIANI REQUIRED
AND THE STATEMENT THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS HAD DRAFTED WAS THIS 
REFERENCE TO THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED AND TOLD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ABOUT ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL.
NOW, ULTIMATELY, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S ADMINISTRATION 
TEMPORARILY SHELVED THIS 
ANNOUNCEMENT THOUGH EFFORTS TO 
PRESS UKRAINE WOULD REMAIN 
ONGOING.
BY MID AUGUST, UKRAINE DID NOT 
MAKE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF 
THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUIRED, AND AS
A RESULT, NO WHITE HOUSE MEETING
WAS SCHEDULES.
BUT BY THIS TIME THE PRESIDENT 
WAS PUSHING ON ANOTHER PRESSURE 
POINT TO COERCE UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE
HOLD ON THE VITAL MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD PUT IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN A
MONTH STILL WITHOUT ANY 
EXPLANATION TO ANY OF THE POLICY
EXPERTS.
OUR INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT 
A NUMBER OF UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
HAD MADE QUIET INQUIRIES TO 
VARIOUS U.S. OFFICIALS ABOUT THE
AID AS EARLY AS JULY 25th THE 
DAY OF THE PHONE CALL.
INQUIRIES CONTINUED IN THE WEEKS
THAT FOLLOWED UNTIL THE HOLD WAS
REVEALED AT THE ENDS OF AUGUST.
BUT THIS WAS IMPORTANT, IT WAS 
IMPORTANT FOR THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS TO KEEP IT QUIET 
BECAUSE IF IT BECAME PUBLIC THEN
RUSSIA WOULD KNOW THAT THE U.S. 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE MIGHT BE ON 
ICE.
SO BY THE END OF THAT MONTH, THE
EVIDENCE REVEALED SEVERAL FACTS.
ONE, THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED THAT
UKRAINE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE TWO 
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT HIS 
RE-ELECTION.
TWO, A COVETED WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING WAS EXPRESSLY 
CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE 
ANNOUNCING THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.
THREE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
PLACED A HOLD ON VITAL MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WITHOUT 
ANY EXPLANATION AND 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE UNIFORM 
SUPPORT FOR THAT ASSISTANCE FROM
THE RELEVANT FEDERAL AGENCIES 
AND CONGRESS.
.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT
THE QUID PRO QUO WAS CRAZY.
AND HE TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND,
AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK 
IT IS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY
ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A 
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
NOW, IN AN EFFORT TO MOVE THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE 
MILITARY AID ALONG, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WROTE AN EMAIL TO 
SECRETARY POMPEO ON AUGUST 22nd.
HE WROTE, MIKE, SHOULD WE BLOCK 
TIME IN WARSAW FOR A SHORT PULL 
ASIDE FOR POTUS TO MEET 
ZELENSKY?
I WOULD ASK ZLLZ TO LOOK HIM IN 
THE EYE AND TELL HIM THAT ONCE 
UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE 
IN PLACE, PARENTHESES, MID 
SEPTEMBER, Z, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE
FORWARD PUBLICLY AND WITH 
CONFIDENCE ON THOSE ISSUES OF 
IMPORTANCE TO POTUS AND TO THE 
U.S.
HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL BREAK THE 
LOG JAM.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED 
THERE WAS A VERCHS TO THE 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE
JULY 25th CALL WHICH SECRETARY 
POMPEO ULTIMATELY ADMITTED TO 
THAT HE LISTENED TO IN REAL 
TIME.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HOPED THAT 
THIS WOULD HELP LIFT THE LOG 
JAM, WHICH HE MEANT THE HOLD ON 
CRITICAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE AND THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING.
WHAT WAS SECOND POMPEO'S 
RESPONSE THREE MINUTES LATER?
YES.
AFTER THE HOLD ON MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE BECAME PUBLIC ON 
AUGUST 28, SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS EXPRESSED GRAVE 
CONCERN DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT THE
PRACTICAL IMPACT ON THEIR 
EFFORTS TO QUITE RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
AND ALSO, THIS GOES BACK TO WHY 
IT REMAINED CONFIDENTIAL, ALSO 
ABOUT THE PUBLIC MESSAGE THAT IT
SENT TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
ON SEPTEMBER 1ST AT A 
PREBRIEFING WITH VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE BEFORE HE MET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
HE SAID, I MENTIONED TO VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE BEFORE THE 
MEETINGS WITH THE UKRAINIANS 
THAT I HAD CONCERNS THAT THE 
DELAY IN AID HAD BECOME TIED TO 
THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE SIMPLY 
NODDED IN RESPONSE, EXPRESSING 
NEITHER SURPRISE NOR DISMAY AT 
THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND FOLLOWING VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE'S MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WENT OVER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'
TOP AIDE AND PULLED HIM ASIDE TO
EXPLAIN THAT THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO NOW
CONDITIONED ON THE PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BURISMA 
BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATIONS.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN 
EXPLAINED TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE A 
MISTAKE IN TELLING UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS THAT ONLY THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON
A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS 
BENEFICIAL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IN TRUTH, EVERYTHING, THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AND THE VITAL 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
WAS NOW CONDITIONED ON THE 
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX.
A PRIVATE COMMITMENT WAS NOT 
GOOD ENOUGH.
NEARLY ONE WEEK LATER ON 
SEPTEMBER 7th, THE HOLD 
REMAINED.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE ON THE
PHONE.
THE PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY TOLD 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THERE 
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, BUT -- AND 
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD STILL 
BE REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER FOR THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
BE LIFTED, AND HE SHOULD WANT TO
DO IT.
IN EFFECT, THIS IS THE 
EQUIVALENT OF SAYING THERE IS NO
QUID PRO QUO, KNOW THIS FOR 
THAT, BEFORE THEN DEMANDING 
PRECISELY THAT QUID PRO QUO.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS PHONE 
CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THIS 
WAS THE PRECISE MESSAGE THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PASSED 
DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID HE
TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
MR. YERMAK AND HAD TOLD THEM 
ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO
QUO IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID 
NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC, 
WE WILL BE AT A STALEMATE.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT A STALEMATE 
TOO MEAN THAT UKRAINE WOULD NOT 
RECEIVE THE MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY
ASSISTANCE.
NEEDING THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
AND HOPING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FINALLY 
RELENTED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AND 
ARRANGEMENTS WERE SOON MADE FOR 
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO MAKE 
AN STATEMENT DURING AN INTERVIEW
ON CNN WHERE HE WOULD MAKE A 
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED.
IN ORDER FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO SECURE THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING AND FOR UKRAINE TO GET 
IN A MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE.
AND ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO DOUBT 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ORDERED
THE MILITARY AID HELD UP UNTIL 
THE UKRAINIANS COMMITTED TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, ON OCTOBER 17th,
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY CONFIRMED IN PUBLIC 
THAT THERE WAS SUCH A QUID PRO 
QUO.
LET'S WATCH WHAT HE SAID.
>> THAT WAS -- THOSE WERE THE 
DRIVING FACTORS.
DID HE ALSO MENTION TO ME IN THE
PAST THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO 
THE DNC SERVER?
ABSOLUTELY.
NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S IT.
THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.
NOW THE REPORT -- 
>> SO THE DEMAND FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS
WAS PART OF THE REASON THAT HE 
ORDERED TO WITHHOLD FUNNELING TO
UKRAINE?
>> THE LOOK BACK TO WHAT 
HAPPENED IN 2016 CERTAINLY WAS 
PART OF THE THINGS THAT HE WAS 
WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH
THAT NATION.
AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY 
APPROPRIATE.
>> THERE YOU HAVE IT.
BY EARLY SEPTEMBER, THE 
PRESIDENT'S SCHEME WAS 
UNRAVELING.
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THE 
INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT AND 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEES 
ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MR. 
GIULIANI'S EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.
AND LATER THAT SAME DAY, THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LEARNED 
THAT A WHISTLE BLOWER HAD FILED 
A COMPLAINT RELATED TO SOME 
UNKNOWN ISSUE A MONTH EARLIER 
BUT WHICH THE PRESIDENT AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE KNEW WAS RELATED TO 
UKRAINE AND HAD BEEN CIRCULATING
AMONG THEM FOR SOME TIME.
THEN, TWO DAYS LATER, ON 
SEPTEMBER 11th, IN THE FACE OF 
GROWING PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL
SCRUTINY PRESIDENT TRUMP LIFTED 
THE HELD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
TO UKRAINE.
AS WITH THE IMPLEMENT OF THE 
HOLD, NO REASON WAS PROVIDED, 
BUT SIMPLY PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT 
CAUGHT, SO HE RELEASED THE AID.
BUT EVEN SINCE THIS 
INVESTIGATION BEGAN, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS DEMONSTRATED NO 
CONTRITION OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
THAT HIS DEMAND FOR A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTION IS WRONG.
IN FACT, HE HAS REPEATEDLY 
CALLED ON UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, HIS RIVAL.
THESE AND OTHER ACTIONS BY THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS ASSOCIATES 
DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS 
DETERMINATION TO SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION 
CONTINUES TODAY.
IT DID NOT END WITH RUSSIA'S 
SUPPORT FOR TRUMP IN 2016, WHICH
PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED BY 
ASKING FOR HIS OPPONENT TO BE 
HACKED BY RUSSIA.
AND IT DID NOT END WHEN HIS 
UKRAINIAN SCHEME WAS EXPOSED IN 
SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO ENGAGED 
ONCE THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN, 
IN AN UNPRECEDENTED EFFORT TO 
OBSTRUCT THE INQUIRY.
I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT 
UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION.
BUT IN CONCLUSION, I WANT TO SAY
THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
HAS PRODUCED TO YOU A NEARLY 
300-PAGE REPORT.
AND I AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU HAVE 
OFFERED ME THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY
TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE 
EVIDENCE UNDERLYING IT.
ADMITTEDLY, IT IS A LOT TO 
DIGEST.
BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME IS 
ACTUALLY QUITE SIMPLE.
AND THE FACTS ARE NOT SERIOUSLY 
IN DISPUTE.
IT CAN BE BOILED DOWN TO FOUR 
KEY TAKEAWAYS.
FIRST, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED A SCHEME TO PRESSURE 
UKRAINE INTO OPENING TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD 
BENEFIT HIS 2020 RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN, AND NOT THE U.S. 
NATIONAL INTERESTS.
SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP USED HIS
OFFICIAL OFFICE AND THE OFFICIAL
TOOLS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, 
THE WITHHOLDING OF AN OVAL 
OFFICE MEETING AND $391 MILLION 
IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO MEETING 
HIS DEMANDS.
THIRD, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
HIS CHIEF OF STAFF, THE 
SECRETARY OF STATE, AND VICE 
PRESIDENT.
AND FOURTH, DESPITE THE PUBLIC 
DISCOVERY OF THIS SCHEME WHICH 
PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO RELAYS
THE AID, HE HAS NOT GIVEN UP.
HE AND HIS AGENTS CONTINUE TO 
SOLICIT UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR ELECTION CAUSING AN 
IMMINENT THREAT THE OUR 
ELECTIONS AND OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S -- 
>> REGULAR ORDER MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> TIME HAS ELAPSED.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
MR. DEUTSCHE. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A 
MOTION. 
>> STATE HIS MOTION. 
>> I MOVE THE COMMITTEE WILL BE 
IN RECESS. 
>> I MOVE THE TABLE.
>> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION.
>> PRIVILEGED MOTION.
IT IS NOT DEBATE 
IBLE.
ALL THOSE IN -- 
>> I SEEK A RECORDED -- 
>> A VOTE. 
>> AYE, NAY. 
>> THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE COMMITTEE -- ROLL CALL.
>> MR. NADLER.
>> HI. 
>> MR. NADLER VOTES EYE, MR. 
LEE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SOEHN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA, MR. 
DEUTSCHE.
>> AYE. 
>> MISS BASS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RICHMOND. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JEFFRIES. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SIS LISTENY. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SWAL WELL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. LIU. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RASKIN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. 
>>O POLL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS DEMINGS. 
>> AYE. 
>> 234R8 CORREIA. 
>> AYE. 
>> SCANLAN. 
>> AYE. 
>> GARCIA?
>> AYE. 
>> MR. McGOOSE. 
>> AYE. 
>> McBETH. 
>> MR. STANTON. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS DEAN. 
>> AYE. 
>> ESCOBAR.
>> AYE. 
>> MR. COLLINS?
>> NO. 
>> MR. SENSE ENBRENNER?
>> MR. -- MR. SENSE BERNER NOTES
NO.
MR. SHAFRT, NO. 
>> MR. JORDAN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BUCK?
>> MR. RADCLIFFE. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. REBBE. 
>> NO.
>> MR. GATES. 
>> NO, THIS IS SO THEY CAN HAVE 
A PRESS CONFERENCE BEFORE MR. 
CASTOR GETS A TANS FOR REBUTTAL.
>> THE GENTLEMEN WILL SUSPENSE, 
ROLL CALL IN PROGRESS. 
>> MR. JOHNSON. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BIGGS. 
>> NO.
>> MR. McCLINTOCK.
>> NO. 
>> LESSCO. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. ROSEN ALL THISSER. 
>> NO.
>> KLEIN?
>> NO. 
>> ARMSTRONG. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. STUBY?
>> NO.
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES
TO VOTE?
THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, 24 AYES AND 16 
NOS.
>> THE MOTION TO RECESS AT THE 
CALL OF THE CHAIR IS -- 
>> HOW LONG DO WE ANTICIPATE. 
>> WELL, THE GENTLEMAN WILL 
SUCCESS IS END. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW 
LONG. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. 
>> IT IS UNTIL THEY ARE DONE 
WITH THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN 
RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES.
I WILL ANNOUNCE ALSO THAT WE 
HAVE BEEN IN SESSION ABOUT TWO 
AND A HALF HOURS.
AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE 
TESTIMONY THE CROSS EXAMS WILL 
BE ANOTHER TWO AND A HALF HOURS.
WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE ANOTHER 
RECESS THEN BEFORE THE 
COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIVE-MINUTE 
ROUND OF QUESTIONING.
I WOULD ASK THAT PEOPLE REMAIN 
IN THEIR SEATS WHILE THE TWO 
WITNESSES ARE GIVEN THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE.
I WOULD REMIND PEOPLE IN THE 
AUDIENCE THAT THIS THEY LEAVE 
THEY MAY NOT HAVE THEIR SEATS 
BACK WHEN WE RECONVENE.
THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN 
RECESS AND WILL RECONVENE IN 15 
MINUTES.
>>> FROM 1100 IN THE LONGWORTH 
OFFICE HOUSE BUILDING AND THE 
COMMITTEE TAKING A 15-MINUTE 
BREAK A HEARING THAT BEGAN AT 
9:08 THIS MORNING, RUNNING ABOUT
TWO AND A HALF HOURS.
THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, 
JERRY NADLER OF NEW YORK, AND 
YOU HEARD MATT GATES, REPUBLICAN
MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE 
QUESTIONING WHY THE BREAK, THE 
POSSIBILITY THAT SOME DEMOCRATS 
MAY MEET WITH REPORTERS.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WATCH THE 
ROOM F. THERE IS A NEWS 
CONFERENCE IN THE AREA KNOWN AS 
THE STAKEOUT, WE WILL COVER THAT
AS WELL.
C-SPAN'S LIVE COVERAGE HERE ON 
C-SPAN TELEVISION, ON THE WEBB 
AT C-SPAN.ORG AND ON C-SPAN 
RADIO.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE 
SCENE INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM 
AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE AS WE GET
IT.
>>> ALL RIGHTY.
HELLO EVERYBODY.
YOU RAN OUT HERE PRETTY QUICK.
I I AM GOING TO COME OUT HERE 
AND WAKE YOU UP.
AFTER 45 MINUTES OF VERY 
MONOTONE DISCUSSION ON FACTS 
THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN 
UNEARTHED, MY ONLY QUESTION IS 
WHERE IS ADAM?
IS THAT THE BEST WE HAVE?
THAT HE HAD TO HIDE BEHIND A 
VERY GOOD AND COMPETENT LAWYER 
TO MAKE HIS CASE.
SCHIFF REPORT SAYS THE SCHIFF 
REPORT.
NOT THE GOVERNMENT REPORT NOT 
ANYBODY ELSE'S REPORT.
ET CETERA NOT GO OUT AND BRING 
YOUR STAFF IN.
IT IS WHERE SHOULD HE BE?
AS I STATED IN MY OPENING 
STATEMENT, KEN STARR WHO HE IS 
CLAIMING TO TESTIFY.
COME AND TESTIFY.
ADAM SCHIFF IS NOT.
WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY IS 
NOTHING MORE THAN A CONTINUING 
RECITATION.
IT IS HARD TO WRITE ABOUT AND 
TALK ABOUT.
BUT THE U.S. ABSOLUTE 
DESTRUCTION OF HOUSE PRIORITIES 
AND HOUSE RULES IS SOMETHING 
THAT HAS GOT TO BE TAKEN INTO 
ACCOUNT.
THIS ISSUE OF A MINORITY HEARING
TODAY IS TRIVIAL TO MEDIA.
BUT THIS MINORITY HEARING DAY 
GOES TO THE HEART.
ASK SENIOR DEMOCRATS, OFF LINE, 
OFF RECORD AND THEY WILL TELL 
YOU THE DESTRUCTION OF NOT 
GIVING US A MINORITY HEARING DAY
IS THE DESTRUCTION THIS HOUSE.
SPEAKER PELOSI, NADLER AND 
SCHIFF ARE UNDERMINING THE 
INTEGRITY OF THE HOUSE WHEN THEY
DON'T DO THIS.
IT MAY NOT CHANGE THE VOTE OR AN
OPINION BUT THERE IS REASONS 
MINORITIES HAVE RIGHTS IN THIS 
BODY.
TO DO THIS IS TRAGIC AND SHOULD 
BE REPORTED ON BUT IT IS NOT 
REPORTED ON AS WE ARE RACING TO 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT.
>> WE ARE GETTING DISTRIBUTE 
ASKS DRABS ABOUT THE FISA 
REPORT. 
>> YES. 
>> CAN YOU ILLUMINATE ANY OF US 
ON THAT REPORT?
>> NO, I AM GOING BACK TO MY 
STAFF TO SEE WHAT IS COMING OUT.
HIGHLIGHTS AGAIN TODAY, ACTUAL 
ISSUES FROM A FISA REPORT WE 
HAVE BEEN WAITING ON.
IT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY ALL.
WE ARE WAITING TO SEE THE 
RESULTS.
I KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE A 
HEARING ON WEDNESDAY.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE 
RUSHING SO FAST ON OUR COMMITTEE
RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE THEY ARE 
COMPETING WITH THE ISSUES BEING 
DISCUSSED TODAY.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THAT 
OUT.
>> LAST WEEK THERE WAS RUDY 
GIULIANI IN UKRAINE APPARENTLY 
LOOKING INTO EFFORTS TO DIG UP 
DIRT POTENTIALLY AGAINST THE 
BIDENS.
DO YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT 
GIULIANI CONTINUING THIS EVIDENT
AMID THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT ON 
RUDY GIULIANI. 
>> YOU SAY THIS PROCESS IS BEING
RUSHED THAT IT NEEDS TO BE 
SLOWED DOWN.
THE BUT THE PRESIDENT SAY LET'S 
GET IT OVER WITH SO THEY CAN 
HAVE A TRIAL IN THE SENATE. 
>> HE IS SAYING I AM BEING 
MESSED OVER IN THE HOUSE, NOT 
GIVEN AN ABILITY TO PRESENT A 
CASE.
IT IS NOT A CONTRIBUTION IN 
TERMS.
WHAT HE IS SAYING IS IF I HAD 
THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE HOUSE.
IF THEY HAD A CONTEST TO PUT 
DOWN RULES INSTEAD OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BEING A 
RUBBER STAMP WHICH IS ALL WE ARE
RIGHT NOW -- 
>> [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ]. 
>> I WILL STOP ON THIS ONE AND 
COME BACK.
IT IS NOT BEING RUSHED.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- 
WHEN YOU COME -- REMEMBER 
CHAIRMAN IN ADDITION ALREADY'S 
OWN WORDS YOU SHOULD NOT ACCEPT 
A REPORT FROM ANOTHER ENTITY 
WITHOUT HAVING A FULL 
INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING.
>> COUNSEL IS NOT HERE BUT 
[ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ]
. 
>>> THAT OF COURSE IS THE STAKE 
OUT LOCATION IN THE LOBBY OF THE
LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING.
YOU CAN SEE NETWORK PRODUCERS 
INCLUDING CHAD PERFECTINGHAM OF 
FOX NEWS DOING STAND-UPS, ALSO 
GETTING THE LATEST ON THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
AS WE HEAR FROM DEMOCRATS AS 
THEY COME TO THE PODIUM AS WELL 
AS THEY COME TO THE MICROPHONE, 
WE WILL HEAR FROM THEM AS WELL.
WE ARE ALSO KEEPING AN EYE 
INSIDE THE ROOM USUALLY USED FOR
THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS 
COMMITTEE BUT TODAY THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING 
ROOM.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEETING 
WILL CONTINUE.
THEY EXPECT TO BE BACK AROUND 
11:45 EASTERN TIME.
>> I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HEARD SO
FAR IS A VERY CLERESTORY OF HOW 
THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTERESTS IN FRONT OF 
THE NATION'S INTEREST, HOW THIS 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER AND 
COERCED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INTO DIGGING UP DIRT ON HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL AND INTERFERING 
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
THAT STORY WAS VERY CLEARLY TOLD
TODAY BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
>> WE STARTED OUT THE MORNING 
WITH THE RANKING MEMBERS SAYING 
WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE PHRASE 
THAT DEFINES THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY AS WHAT DID THE 
PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE 
KNOW IT DEFINED THE NIXON ERA.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY 
QUESTION.
IT'S "I WANT YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR THOUGH".
THE PRESIDENT SLITSED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE INTO OUR ELECTIONS 
USING A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OUR FOUNDERS
FEARED.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY PUT 
IMPEACHMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
IT IS A PRETTY CLEAR CASE.
>> AND THE OTHER COMPONENT 
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO 
REMEMBER AND THAT WAS LAID OUT 
BY COUNSEL IS THAT WHAT WE'VE 
SEEN IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.
AND IT'S THAT PATTERN OF 
BEHAVIOR WELCOMING, INVITING 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR FREE
AND FAIR ELECTIONS OR WHAT 
SHOULD BE FREE AND FAIR 
N
ELECTIONS, THAT -- THAT PATTERN 
WITH RUSSIA, WITH CHINA W 
UKRAINE.
THAT PATTERN PRESENTS A CLEAR 
AND PRESENT DANGER TO THOSE FREE
AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND INDEED TO
OUR VERY REPUBLIC.
>> YOU ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE HERE AND 
PROPRIETY OF THE PRESIDENT DOING
THAT POTENTIALLY.
IT MENTIONS IN ARTICLE II 
SECTION 4 TREASON AS AN ARTICLE 
OF IMPEACHMENT.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD 
CONSIDER AS YOU GO TO WRITE THE 
ARTICLES. 
>> WE ARE NOT IN A DISCUSSION OF
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
WE ARE IN A DISCUSSION OF THE 
FACTS.
THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.
I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THE 
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL SPENT ONLY 
SEVEN OF HIS 30 MINUTES ON ANY 
KIND OF A DISCUSSION OF FACTS.
AND EVEN THOSE WERE PRETTY THIN.
IF YOU HAVE A REAL DEFENSE, THIS
IS THE TIME TO PRESENT IT, 
BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT 
UNCONTESTED FACTS BY NUMEROUS 
WITNESSES, INCLUDING BY THE WAY,
THE NUMBER ONE WITNESS, THE 
SMOKING GUN OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
THAT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES WHO HIMSELF EARLY 
ON CAME OUT AND SAID, THIS IS 
WHAT I WANT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO DO.
HE SAID THIS ON THE WHITE HOUSE 
LAWN, AND WE NEED TO STAY VERY 
FOCUSED ON THE FACTS.
>> WHEN -- MADE HIS OPENING 
ARGUMENT HE MADE A REFERENCE TO 
THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.
ONE CLEAR REFERENCE WHICH IS THE
PRESIDENT ASKING FOR THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL TO BE FIRED AND THEN 
ASKING -- AGAIN TO LATER LIE 
ABOUT IT.
DID WE ATTRIBUTE THAT THAT THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE 
LARGELY FOCUSED ON UKRAINE AND 
WILL HAVE HARDLY ANY REFERENCE 
TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION?
>> I THINK IT GOES TO THE FACT 
IN A WE HAVE A PATTERN OF 
CONDUCT FROM THIS PRESIDENT 
WHERE HE OBSTRUCTION 
INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIES TOnd 
MINE INVESTIGATORS NO MATTER WHO
THEY ARE AND THREATEN WITNESSES.
WE HAVE SEEN THAT BEFORE.
WE HAVE SEEN IT IN CONNECTION 
WITH UKRAINE. 
>> WOULD YOU FAVOR THAT BEING 
INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> I THINK THE PATTERN THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR IS WHAT 
GIVES URGENCY TO US MOVING 
FORWARD.
ANYBODY ELSE?
>> ARE THERE SPANISH LANGUAGE 
OUTLETS HERE?
NO.
OKAY.
>> THANKS, EVERYBODY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT DEMOCRATIC PERSPECTIVE 
FROM REPRESENTATIVES HILL, 
SCANLAN, AND ESCOBAR, THREE 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AGAIN FROM THE LOBBY 
OF THE LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE 
BUILDING.
INSIDE THE COMMITTEE HEARING 
ROOM WE CAN SEE THE EXCHANGE 
GOING ON SOME OF THE POSTERS AS 
WELL LOOKING FOR ADAM SCHIFF, 
REPUBLICANS DEMANDING THAT HE 
TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE JUST A 
MOMENT AGO YOU SAW 
REPRESENTATIVES RADCLIFFE AND 
NUNES DISCUSSING ISSUES WITH JIM
JORDAN, REPUBLICAN FROM OHIO A 
MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.
ALSO JAMES SENSE ENBRENNER, A 
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.
HE WAS THERE DURING THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT HEARING AS WELL.
THEY ARE IN A SHORT BREAK.
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
EXPECTED TO GAVEL BACK IN, IF 
SCHEDULES GO ACCORDINGLY WITHIN 
THE NEXT MINUTE OR TWO.
AS YOU CAN SEE A NUMBER OF THE 
MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE STILL 
NOT IN ATTENDANCE.
THIS IS A BREAK REQUESTED BY 
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THAT 
COMMITTEE.
WE WILL BE HEARING FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN LAWYERS IN JUST A 
MOMENT AS THE COMMITTEE GAVELS 
BACK IN.
LIVE COVERAGE HERE ON C-SPAN AND
C-SPAN RADIO.
>>> AS YOU SEE, A CONVERSATION 
GOING ON ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE 
OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
CAN SOME KEY MEMBERS, 
REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN AND 
RADCLIFFE TALKING ABOUT 
REPRESENTATIVE DEVIN NUNES.
THIS IS AGAIN LIVE COVERAGE FROM
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IN A SHORT BREAK, NOW EXTENDING 
BEYOND THE 15 MINUTE ALLOTMENT 
THAT WAS INITIALLY ANNOUNCED 
INTO AT THIS CHAIR OF THE 
COMMITTEE, JERRY NADLER.
WHEN THEY GAVEL BACK IN, WE 
EXPECT TO HEAR FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL TO PRESENT 
MORE OF HIS FINDINGS AND TAKE 
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE.
THERE WERE THREE REPORTED VOTES.
THE SESSION BEGAN JUST PAST 
9:00.
WE ARE TWO AND A HALF HOURS IN 
TO THE FULL DAY HEARINGS OF THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
>>> AS THE WITNESS WITNESS 
CONTINUE TO GATHER, AGAIN, A 
CONVERSATION WITH THE RANKING 
MEMBER, REPUBLICAN OF THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, DOUG 
COLLINS.
HE'S ALSO TALKING TO 
REPRESENTATIVE DEVIN NUNES, A 
FAMILIAR FACE, THE RANKING 
REPUBLICAN ON THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, 
REPRESENTATIVE RADCLIFFE AND 
REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN.
REPUBLICANS DISCUSSING THEIR 
NEXT MOVE.
THE HEARING IS EXPECTED TO 
RESUME MONETARILY AS THE 
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, JERRY
NADLER GAVELS IT IN AFTER WHAT 
HAS BEEN A 22-MINUTE BREAK, HERE
LIVE ON C-SPAN.
>>> THE COMMITTEE WILL 
RECONVENE.
WHEN WE RECESSED WE WERE ABOUT 
TO HEAR FROM MR. CASTOR.
MR. CASTOR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED 
FOR 45 MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME BACK, 
GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
TESTIFY ABOUT THE EVIDENCE 
GATHERED DURING OUR IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
AT THE OUTSET LET ME SAY THE 
EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE 
ALLEGATIONS THAT MY DEMOCRAT 
COLLEAGUES HAVE MADE.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE
LEADS TO THE CONCLUSIONS THEY 
SUGGEST.
I'M HOPEFUL TO ADD SOME 
IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE AND 
CONTEXT TO THE FACTS UNDER 
DISCUSSION TODAY.
THE CHIEF ALLEGATION THAT THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN 
TRYING TO ASSESS OVER THE LAST 
66 DAYS IS THIS -- WHETHER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWER
OF HIS OFFICE THROUGH QUID PRO 
QUO, EXTORTION OR WHATEVER, BY 
WITHHOLDING A MEETING OR 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS A WAY OF 
PRESSURING UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL, 
FORMER VP BIDEN, FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL BENEFIT IN
THE UPCOMING ELECTION.
THE SECONDARY ALLEGATION THAT 
HAS BEEN LEVIED IS WHETHER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED 
CONGRESS DURING THE INQUIRY.
THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING THE
INQUIRY DOES NOT SUPPORT EITHER 
OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS.
THE REPUBLICAN REPORT OF 
EVIDENCE LAYS OUT THE REPORT IN 
MORE DETAILS BUT I WILL 
SUMMARIZE.
I WILL BEGIN WITH THE 
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATION ABOUT AN 
ABUSE OF POWER.
THE INQUIRY HAS RETURNED NO 
DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WITHHELD A MEETING OR 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO 
PRESSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
INVESTIGATE FORMER VP BIDEN.
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE 
INQUIRY HAVE DENIED HAVING 
AWARENESS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY 
OR EVEN AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
ON THE KEY QUESTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND, THERE
IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED WITH 
MALICIOUS INTENT.
OVERALL, AT BEST, THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RECORD IS 
RIDDLED WITH HEARSAY, 
PRESUMPTIONS AND SPECULATION.
THERE ARE CONFLICTING AND 
AMBIGUOUS FACTS THROUGHOUT THE 
RECORD, FACTS THAT COULD BE 
INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
TO PARAPHRASE PROFESSOR TURLEY 
FROM LAST WEEK, THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IS HEAVY ON PRESUMPTION,
LIGHT ON TRUTH.
THAT'S NOT ME SAYING THAT.
THAT'S PROFESSOR TURLEY.
LET ME START WITH THE BEST 
DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ANY POTENTIAL
QUID PRO QUO OR IMPEACHABLE 
SCHEME.
THIS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PHONE 
CALL WITH ZELENSKY FOR WHICH THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND 
THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM 
STAFF PREPARED A CALL SUMMARY.
ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY FROM TIM 
MORRISON AT THE NSC, THE SUMMARY
WAS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE.
NSC STAFF MEMBER LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT 
ANY OMISSIONS IN THE SUMMARY 
WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT AND THAT 
EDITING WAS NOT DONE 
MALICIOUSLY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DECLASSIFIED
AND RELEASED THE SUMMARY SO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN READ IT AND 
ASSESS IT FOR THEMSELVES.
I'LL MAKE A FEW POINTS THAT SEEM
TO HAVE GONE UNDERNOTICED.
THE CALL SUMMARY REFLECTS 
ABSOLUTELY NO PRESSURE OR 
CONDITIONALITY.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY VOCALIZED NO 
CONCERNS WITH THE SUBJECT 
MATTERS DISCUSSED.
AND THERE IS NO INDICATION OF 
BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR OTHER 
ILLEGAL CONDUCT ON THE CALL.
THE CALL SUMMARY SHOWS PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
ENGAGED IN PLEASANTRIES AND 
CORDIALITIES.
THE CALL SUMMARY REVEALS 
LAUGHTER.
SIMPLY PUT, THE CALL IS NOT THE 
SINISTER MOB SHAKEDOWN SOME 
DEMOCRATS HAVE DESCRIBED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED HIS 
CONCERNS ABOUT EUROPEAN ALLIES 
PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE IN 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
A CONCERN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WOULD CONTINUE TO RAISE BOTH 
PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY.
THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THE 
CALL, I REPEAT, NO DISCUSSION ON
THE CALL ABOUT THE UPCOMING 2020
ELECTION OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
TO UKRAINE.
BEYOND THE CALL SUMMARY, THE 
NEXT BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE ARE 
THE STATEMENTS FROM THE TWO 
PARTICIPANTS ON THE CALL.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS SAID HE 
FELT NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL.
ON SEPTEMBER 25th AT THE UNITED 
NATIONS HE SAID, WE HAD A GOOD 
CALL.
IT WAS NORMAL.
NOBODY PUSHED AM HE.
ON OCTOBER 6th, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SAID, I WAS NEVER 
PRESSURED AND THERE WERE NO 
CONDITIONS BEING IMPOSED.
FOUR DAYS LATER ON OCTOBER 10th,
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID AGAIN, 
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE
CALL.
NO BLACKMAIL.
THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION.
IT WAS JUST A CALL AND JUST 
RECENTLY IN "TIME" MAGAZINE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, I NEVER
TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT FROM A 
POSITION OF A QUID PRO QUO.
BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD
BE THE TARGET OF ANY ALLEGED 
QUID PRO QUO SCHEME, HIS 
STATEMENTS DENYING ANY PRESSURE 
CARRIES SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT.
HE IS, IN FACT, THE SUPPOSED 
VICTIM HERE.
OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
CONFIRMED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
STATEMENTS.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAID ON 
SEPTEMBER 21st, I KNOW WHAT THE 
CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT AND I 
THINK THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.
OE  OLEKSANDR DANYLIUK TOLD BIL 
TAYLOR THAT THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT WAS WANT DISTURBED BY
ANYTHING ON THE CALL.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, OF COURSE, HAS 
SAID HE DID NOT PRESSURE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
ON SEPTEMBER 25th PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE.
WHEN ASKED IF HE WANTED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO MORE TO
INVESTIGATE THE FORMER VP.
PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED, NO, I
WANT HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE CAN.
WHATEVER HE CAN DO IN TERMS OF 
CORRUPTION BECAUSE CORRUPTION IS
MASSIVE, THAT'S WHAT HE SHOULD 
DO.
SEVERAL WITNESSES ATTESTED TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT 
UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION.
THE INITIAL READOUTS OF THE JULY
25th CALL FROM BOTH THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT RAISED NO 
CONCERNS.
ALTHOUGH LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN HAD CONCERNS, THOSE 
CONCERNS WERE NOT SHARED BY 
GENERAL LEADERSHIP OR SHARED BY 
KEITH KELLOGG WHO LISTENED ON 
THE CALL.
GENERAL KELLOGG SAID IN A 
STATEMENT, I HEARD NOTHING WRONG
OR IMPROPER ON THE CALL.
I HAD AND HAVE NO CONCERNS.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S 
SUPERIOR, TIM MORRISON, 
TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED 
THE CALL WOULD LEAK AND BE 
MISUSED IN WASHINGTON'S 
POLITICAL PROCESS.
BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING 
DISCUSSED ON THE CALL WAS 
ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER.
MUCH HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REFERENCE ON 
THE JULY 25th CALL TO HUNTER 
BIDEN'S POSITION ON THE BORED OF
BURISMA.
A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN ENERGY 
COMPANY.
AND THE ACTIONS OF CERTAIN JUK 
JUK OFFICIALS IN THE RUNUP TO 
THE 2016 ELECTION.
DEMOCRATS DISMISSED THESE 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES TO SUGGEST 
THE PRESIDENT HAS NO LEGITIMATE 
REASON, OTHER THAN HIS OWN 
POLITICAL INTEREST, TO RAISE 
THESE ISSUES WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
NULL THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, 
SHOWS THERE ARE LEGITIMATE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT BOTH ISSUES.
WITH RESPECT TO BURISMA, DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT 
TESTIFIED THAT THE COMPANY HAD A
REPUTATION FOR CORRUPTION.
THE COMPANY WAS FOUNDED BY 
MYKOLA ZLOCHEVSKY.
BURISMA BROUGHT HUNTER BIDEN 
ONTO ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 
ACCORDING TO "THE NEW YORK 
TIMES," AS PART OF A BROAD 
EFFORT BY BURISMA TO BRING IN 
WELL-CONNECTED DEMOCRATS DURING 
A PERIOD WHEN THE COMPANY WAS 
FACING INVESTIGATIONS BACK NOT 
JUST BY DOMESTIC UKRAINIAN 
FORCES BUT BY OFFICIALS IN THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED ABOUT 
THESE EFFORTS.
HUNTER BIDEN REPORTEDLY RECEIVED
BETWEEN $50,000 AND $83,000 A 
MONTH.
AS COMPENSATION FOR HIS POSITION
ON BURISMA'S BOARD.
AT THE TIME THAT HUNTER BIDEN 
JOINED THE BOARD, HIS FATHER, 
THE FORMER VP, WAS THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION'S POINT PERSON.
FOR UKRAINE.
BIDEN HAS NO SPECIFIC GOVERNANCE
EXPERTISE AND WE DON'T BELIEVE 
HE SPEAKS UKRAINIAN OR RUSSIAN.
WE DON'T BELIEVE HE MOVED THERE.
SO HE'S GETTING THIS GIGANTIC 
PAYCHECK FOR WHAT?
THE WASHINGTON POTION WROTE AT 
THE TIME OF BIDEN'S APPOINTMENT 
TO BURISMA'S BOARD THAT IT 
LOOKED NEPOTISMIC AT BEST.
ACCORDING TO "THE WALL STREET 
JOURNAL," ANTI-CORRUPTION 
ACTIVISTS IN UKRAINE ALSO RAISED
CONCERNS THAT THE FORMER VP'S 
SON RECEIVED MONEY FROM
ZLOCHEVSKY.
WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY NOTED HUNTER BIDEN'S 
ROLE ON THE BOARD AND HOW IT 
PRESENTED AT MINIMUM A CONFLICT 
OF INTEREST.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED HUNTER BIDEN APPEARED 
NOT QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON 
BURISMA'S BOARD.
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT HUNTER 
BIDEN'S ROLE ON THE BOARD WAS A 
LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO RAISE IN 
FACT, GEORGE KENT EXPLAINED IN 
2015 HE RAISED A CONCERN TO THE 
OFFICE OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE 
ON BURISMA'S BOARD PRESENTED A 
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
HOWEVER, HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE DID
NOT CHANGE AND FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN CONTINUED TO 
LEAD U.S. POLICY IN UKRAINE.
ON THIS RECORD THERE IS A 
LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TO HAVE CONCERN ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE ON BURISMA'S
BOARD.
THE PROSPECT SOME CONSIDER 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WORKED 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE 
RUN UP TO THE 2015 ELECTION 
DRAWS AN EVEN MORE VISCERAL 
REACTION FROM MOST DEMOCRATS.
LET ME SAY VERY, VERY CLEARLY 
THAT ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS 
BINARY.
I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS UKRAINE 
AND NOT RUSSIA.
I'M SAYING BOTH COUNTRIES CAN 
WORK TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION.
A SYSTEMATIC, COORDINATED 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE EFFORT DOES
NOT MEAN SOME UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS, SOME UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS DID NOT WORK TO OPPOSE
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CANDIDACY.
DID NOT MAKE STATEMENTS AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING THE 
ELECTION.
OBAMA VOLKER TESTIFIED IN HIS 
PUBLIC HEARING IT IS POSSIBLE 
FOR MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY TO 
SEEK INFLUENCE IN U.S. 
ELECTIONS.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED LIKEWISE AT 
HER PUBLIC HEARING.
CONTEMPORANEOUS NEWS ARTICLES IN
2016 NOTED HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CANDIDACY LEAD KIEV'S WIDER 
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP TO DO 
SOMETHING THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE 
ATTEMPTED BEFORE.
INTERVENE, HOWEVER INDIRECTLY, 
IN A U.S. ELECTION.
IN AUGUST 2016 THE AMBASSADOR TO
UKRAINE PUBLISHED AN OP-ED IN 
"THE HILL" CRITICIZING CANDIDATE
TRUMP.
OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
CALLED CANDIDATE TRUMP A CLOWN 
AND OTHER WORDS.
THEY ALLEGE HE CHALLENGED THE 
VERY FREE VALUES OF THE WORLD.
ONE PARLIAMENTARY EXPLAINED THE 
MAJORITY OF POLITICAL FIGURES 
WERE ON HILLARY CLINTON'S SIDE.
A JANUARY 2017 POLITICO ARTICLE 
LAYS OUT MORE DETAILS POLITICAL 
OFFICIALS TO OPPOSE CANDIDATE 
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN.
BY PUBLICING QUESTIONING HIS 
FITNESS FOR OFFICE.
THE ARTICLE DETAILED HOW A WOMAN
NAMED ALEXANDER CHALUPA, PAID BY
THE DNC AND WORKING WITH THE DNC
AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TRADED 
INFORMATION AND LEADS ABOUT THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH THE STAFF AT
THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IN 
WASHINGTON.
CHALUPA EXPLAINED HOW THE 
UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WORKED 
DIRECTLY WITH REPORTERS TO POINT
THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY TESTIFIED THAT THE 
ALLEGATION OF UKRAINIAN 
INFLUENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION 
WAS APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
HE THOUGHT IT WAS FINE TO 
INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT 
2016 INFLUENCE.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID, FOR 
EXAMPLE, THAT THE ALLEGATIONS 
SURPRISED AND DISAPPOINTED HIM, 
ON THIS RECORD I DO NOT BELIEVE 
ONE COULD CONCLUDE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO 
LEGITIMATE BASIS TO RAISE A 
CONCERN ABOUT EFFORTS BY 
UKRAINIANS TO INFLUENCE THE 2016
ELECTION.
LET ME NOW TURN TO THE FIRST 
ASSERTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WITHHELD A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS A WAY OF 
PRESSURING HIM TO INVESTIGATE 
THE FORMER VP.
HERE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE 
UKRAINE'S LONG, PROFOUND HISTORY
OF ENDEMIC CORRUPTION.
SEVERAL WITNESSES DURING THE 
INQUIRY HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT 
THESE PROBLEMS.
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH, 
FOR EXAMPLE, SAID UKRAINE'S 
CORRUPTION IS NOT JUST PREVALENT
BUT, FRANKLY, IS THE SYSTEM.
WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO HAVING 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DEEPLY 
SKEPTICAL OF UKRAINE HAVING 
PROBLEMS, DATING BACK YEARS, AND
THIS SKEPTICISM LED TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S INITIAL HESITANCY TO 
MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED, SO,
I KNOW HE HAD A VERY DEEP-ROOTED
SKEPTICAL VIEW, AND MY 
UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME WAS 
THAT EVEN THOUGH HE AGREED IN 
THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH 
HIM, SAY, OKAY, I'LL INVITE HIM,
I'LL INVITE HIM.
HE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO DO IT, 
VOLKER SAID.
THAT'S WHY THE MEETING KEPT 
GETTING DELAYED.
ANOTHER RELEVANT SET OF FACTS 
HERE IS THE EFFORT OF SOME 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO OPPOSE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION.
SOME REMAINED IN GOVERNMENT WHEN
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TOOK OVER.
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THESE 
UKRAINIAN EFFORTS IN 2016 
COLORED HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP 
VIEWED UKRAINE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A 
RELATIVELY UNKNOWN QUANTITY FOR 
U.S. POLICYMAKERS.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH CALLED 
HIM A UNTRIED POLITICIAN.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED THERE WERE 
CONCERNS WITHIN THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL ABOUT 
ZELENSKY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH 
IGOR, AN OLIGARCH IN UKRAINE.
THEY APPOINTED MR. BODIN AS 
CHIEF OF STAFF.
THEY NOTED THIS RAISED CONCERNS.
THESE FACTS ARE IMPORTANT IN 
ASSESSING THE PRESIDENT'S STATE 
OF MIND IN UNDERSTANDING WHETHER
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS TRULY 
COMMITTED TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION
IN UKRAINE.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MEET AT 
THE WHITE HOUSE ON THREE 
SEPARATE OCCASIONS, ALL WITHOUT 
ANY CONDITIONS.
THE FIRST WAS ON APRIL 21st 
DURING THE INITIAL 
CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL, THE 
SECOND WAS VIA LETTER, FOLLOWING
A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE 
WITH INAUGURATION TO THE DELGS.
DURING THIS MEETING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AGAIN EXPRESSED HIS 
SKEPTICISM ABOUT UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER RECALLED THE 
PRESIDENT SAYING, THESE ARE 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE AND A CORRUPT 
COUNTRY.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SIMILARLY 
TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINE IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S VIEW TRIED TO TAKE 
HIM DOWN IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
SENATOR RON JOHNSON CONFIRMED 
THIS TESTIMONY IN HIS SUBMISSION
TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
FINALLY THE THIRD TIME PRESIDENT
TRUMP INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
TO MEET AGAIN WITHOUT ANY 
PRECONDITIONS WAS DURING THE 
JULY 25th PHONE CALL.
ALTHOUGH SOME TIME PASSED 
BETWEEN MAY 2019 WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT FORMALLY INVITED 
ZELENSKY TO MEET AND SEPTEMBER 
25th WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S MET, 
THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW THAT 
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT FELT 
ADDITIONAL PRESSURE DUE TO THIS 
DELAY.
TO THE CONTRARY, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER TESTIFIED THE UKRAINIAN 
REGIME FELT PRETTY GOOD WITH ITS
RELATIONSHIP DURING THIS PERIOD.
DURING THOSE FOUR MONTHS, SENIOR
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 
HAD AT LEAST NINE MEETINGS OR 
PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, 
SECRETARY POMPEO, NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER BOLTON AND U.S.
AMBASSADORS.
THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT A 
CONCLUSION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CONDITIONED A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON 
INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
MR. YAR YERMAK SAID IN A "NEW 
YORK TIMES" ARTICLE, WHICH WAS 
PUBLISHED BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
IN THIS ARTICLE YERMAK SAID HE 
AND RUDY GIULIANI DID NOT 
DISCUSS A LINK BETWEEN 
ALLEGATIONS.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED 
THERE WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN A 
POTENTIAL MEETING AND 
INVESTIGATIONS.
ALTHOUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TESTIFIED HE BELIEVED THERE WAS 
A QUID PRO QUO, HIS TESTIMONY IS
NOT AS CLEAR AS IT HAS BEEN 
PORTRAYED.
IN HIS DEPOSITION, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TESTIFIED HE BELIEVED 
THE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON A
ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT.
NOT ON INVESTIGATIONS 
THEMSELVES.
A DISTINCTION THAT DURING HIS 
DEPOSITION HE WAS KEEN TO NOTE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THEN 
NOTHING ABOUT THE REQUEST RAISED
ANY RED FLAGS.
IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CLARIFIED 
THAT HE HAD NO FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE OF ANY LINKAGE COMING 
FROM THE PRESIDENT AND NEVER 
DISCUSSED ANY PRECONDITIONS WITH
THE PRESIDENT.
HE MERELY PRESUMED THERE WERE 
PRECONDITIONS.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE 
JULY 10th MEETING IN AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON'S OFFICE WITH TWO SENIOR 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.
ALLOW ME TO SUBMIT HERETO THERE 
ARE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT 
THE FACTS.
BOTH DR. VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED 
CONCERNS DURING THIS MEETING, 
CAUSING AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO 
ABRUPTLY END THIS MEETING.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED SHE 
CONFRONTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
OVER HIS DISCUSSION ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY 
ABOUT THIS MEETING, HOWEVER, IS 
SCATTERED.
IN HIS CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION HE
TESTIFIED NO NATIONAL SECURITY 
STAFF MEMBER EVER ONCE EXPRESSED
CONCERNS TO HIM THAT HE WAS 
ACTING IMPROPERLY AND HE DENIED 
HE RAISED INVESTIGATIONS DURING 
THIS MEETING.
BUT WHEN HE CAME HERE TO TESTIFY
IN PUBLIC, HE ACKNOWLEDGED FOR 
THE FIRST TIME THAT HE RAISED 
INVESTIGATIONS BUT HE DENIED 
THAT THE MEETING ENDED ABRUPTLY.
HE MAINTAINED DR. HILL NEVER 
RAISED CONCERNS TO HIM AND ANY 
DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS DID
NOT MENTION ANYTHING SPECIFIC 
SUCH AS BIDEN OR 2016.
LET ME LASTLY ADDRESS THE 
ALLEGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE 
NOT TO ATTEND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION AS 
ANOTHER WAY OF PRESSURING 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, A SENIOR 
ADVISER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT TESTIFIED THAT A 
COLLEAGUE, SHE SAID IT WAS THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF'S ASSISTANCE ANT 
TOLD HER, THE CHIEF OF STAFF'S 
ASSISTANT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE NOT TO 
ATTEND THE INAUGURATION.
IF, INDEED, SUCH A DIRECTION WAS
GIVEN, IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THE 
EVIDENCE WHY IT WAS DONE BECAUSE
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WAS 
JUGGLING OTHER POTENTIAL TRIPS 
DURING THAT TIME.
AND THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT 
SCHEDULED THE ELECTION ON AN 
EXTREMELY SHORT TIME FRAME.
IT WAS JUST FOUR DAYS' NOTICE.
WILLIAMS EXPLAINED THERE WAS A 
WINDOW, A WINDOW OF DATES.
MAY 30th THROUGH JUNE 1st 
THROUGH WHICH THE VICE PRESIDENT
COULD ATTEND THE INAUGURATION, 
AND THAT WAS COMMUNICATED.
IF IT WASN'T ONE OF THOSE DATES,
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT OR 
IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTEND THE 
INAUGURATION.
SEPARATELY, THE OFFICE OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS ALSO PLANNING
AN UNRELATED TRIP TO CANADA TO 
PROMOTE THE USMCA DURING THIS 
SAME WINDOW.
THE USMCA WAS AND STILL IS A 
SIGNIFICANT PRIORITY FOR THE 
ADMINISTRATION.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE HAS DONE A 
NUMBER OF PUBLIC EVENTS IN 
SUPPORT OF IT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ALSO 
PLANNING FOREIGN TRAVEL DURING 
THIS TIME PERIOD.
AND AS DR. HILL TESTIFIED, BOTH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE CANNOT BOTH BE 
OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT THE SAME 
TIME.
WILLIAMS EXPLAINED THESE FACTORS
CREATED A NARROW WINDOW FOR THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S PARTICIPATION 
IN THE INAUGURATION.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED SHE HAD NO 
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WAS DIRECTED NOT TO 
ATTEND.
ON MAY 16th THE OUTGOING 
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT SCHEDULED 
THE PARLIAMENT FOR MAY 20th, 
ONLY FOUR DAYS LATER.
MAY 20th WAS NOT ONE OF THE 
THREE DATES VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE'S OFFICE HAD PROVIDED FOR 
HIS AVAILABILITY.
WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THIS EARLY 
DATE SURPRISED THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE BECAUSE WE 
WEREN'T EXPECTING THE UKRAINIANS
TO LOOK AT THAT TIME FRAME.
GEORGE KENT AT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT SAID THIS SHORT 
NOTICE FROM THE UKRAINIANS 
FORCED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO 
SCRAMBLE TO FIND A U.S. OFFICIAL
TO LEAD THE DELEGATION, FINALLY 
SETTLING ON SECRETARY OF ENERGY 
RICK PERRY.
ON MAY 20th THE DATE OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INAUGURATION,
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WAS IN 
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, FOR AN 
EVENT PROMOTING USMCA.
FINALLY ON SEPTEMBER 25th 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY MET DURING THE UNITED 
NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
THE TWO MET WITHOUT UKRAINE EVER
TAKING ACTION ON INVESTIGATIONS 
AND, ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION 
OF INVESTIGATIONS DURING THIS 
MEETING.
I WILL NOW TURN TO THE SECOND 
ASSERTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WITHHELD TAXPAYER-FUNDED 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
AS A WAY OF PRESSURING ZELENSKY 
TO CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
HERE, TOO, CONTEXT IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN 
SKEPTICAL OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE 
IN GENERAL AND BELIEVES QUITE 
STRONGLY OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES 
SHOULD SHARE MORE OF THE BURDEN 
FOR REGIONAL DEFENSE.
THAT'S AN ASSERTION HE MADE ON 
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, SOMETHING 
HE'S RAISED CONSISTENTLY SINCE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS 
CONDITIONED TO COUNTRIES AROUND 
THE WORLD AND THAT U.S. AID, 
INCLUDING AID TO UKRAINE, HAS 
BEEN TEMPORARILY PAUSED IN THE 
PAST FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND 
EVEN FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THE 
55-DAY PAUSE ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE DID NOT STRIKE HIM AS
UNCOMMON AND THAT THE PAUSE WAS 
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
DR. HILL AND STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIAL KATHERINE CROFT BOTH 
TESTIFIED SECURITY ASSISTANT TO 
UKRAINE HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY 
PAUSED IN THE PAST.
DAVID HALE, UNDERSECRETARY OF 
STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, THE
THIRD MOST SENIOR PERSON AT THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT TESTIFIED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
LAUNCHED A REVIEW OF U.S. 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACROSS THE 
WORLD TO MAKE SURE TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS WERE SPENT IN THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST AND TO ADVANCE
THE PRINCIPLE OF BURDEN-SHARING 
BY OUR ALLIES.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT AS SHE 
WAS LEAVING THE NSC IN JULY, 
THERE HAD BEEN A DIRECTIVE FOR 
WHOLE SCALE REVIEW OF OUR 
FOREIGN POLICY ASSISTANCE.
SHE SAID THERE HAD BEEN MORE 
SCRUTINY ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
AS A RESULT.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT DATA POINT IS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WILLINGNESS TO
TAKE A STRONGER STANCE TO 
PROTECT UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
AND COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS 
ADMINISTRATION.
SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WILLINGNESS TO
PROVIDE UKRAINE WITH LETHAL 
DEFENSIVE ASSISTANCE, JAVELIN 
ANTI-TANK MISSILES, WAS A 
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, A 
STRONGER POLICY AND A 
SIGNIFICANT DECISION.
WHEN WE DISCUSSED DEMOCRAT 
ALLEGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
WITHHELD VITAL SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE DOLLARS FROM UKRAINE,
WE SHOULD ALSO REMEMBER IT WAS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NOT 
PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO PROVIDED 
UKRAINE WITH LETHAL DEFENSIVE 
WEAPONS.
I MAKE ALL OF THESE POINTS HERE 
BECAUSE THERE ARE RELEVANT 
PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT BEAR 
ON HOW THE HOUSE SHOULD VIEW THE
EVIDENCE IN QUESTION.
ALTHOUGH THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
WAS PAUSED IN JULY, THE EVIDENCE
IS VIRTUALLY SILENT ON THE 
DEFINITIVE REASON FOR THE PAUSE.
IN FACT, THE ONLY DIRECT 
EVIDENCE OF THE REASON FOR THE 
PAUSE COMES FROM OMB OFFICIAL 
MARK SANDY, WHO TESTIFIED HE 
LEARNED IN SEPTEMBER THAT THE 
PAUSE WAS RELATED TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONCERN ABOUT OTHER 
COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTING MORE TO 
UKRAINE.
HE DISCUSSED HOW OMB DISCUSSED 
WHETHER OTHER COUNTRIES WERE 
CONTRIBUTING TO UKRAINE, IN 
WHICH OMB PROVIDED IN SEPTEMBER.
THE AID, OF COURSE, WAS RELEASED
SEPTEMBER 11th.
SEVERAL WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED
THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT
LINKED TO UKRAINE'S 
INVESTIGATIONS.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY IS
PARTICULARLY RELEVANT ON THIS 
POINT BECAUSE HE WAS A KEY 
INTERMEDIARY WITH UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT AND SOMEONE WHO THEY 
TRUSTED AND SOUGHT FOR ADVICE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
HE WAS AWARE OF NO QUID PRO QUO 
AND THE UKRAINIANS NEVER RAISED 
SUCH CONCERNS TO HIM.
WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RAISED 
THE POSSIBILITY OF QUID PRO QUO 
TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER, VOLKER 
SAID HE REPLIED, THERE'S NO 
LINKAGE HERE.
DURING HIS DEPOSITION, CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF TRIED TO PIN HIM DOWN ON 
THIS POINT BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER
WAS CLEAR, THERE WAS NO 
CONNECTION.
IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER REITERATED 
THERE WAS NO LINKAGE.
SIMILARLY, GEORGE KENT AT THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT SAID HE DID NOT
ASSOCIATE AID TO INVESTIGATIONS 
AND HE RELAID HOW AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR TOLD HIM THAT TIM 
MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
ALSO BELIEVED THE TWO WERE NOT 
LINKED.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY,
AS WE HAVE SEEN ALREADY, IS A 
BIT MORE SCATTERED.
IN HIS DEPOSITION HE SAID THAT 
HE WAS NEVER AWARE OF 
PRECONDITIONS ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE OR THAT THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS TIED TO 
INVESTIGATIONS.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LATER 
PROVIDED A WRITTEN STATEMENT 
SUPPLEMENTING HIS DEPOSITION IN 
WHICH HE EXPLAINED FOR THE FIRST
TIME THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 
CLEAR EXPLANATION, HE PRESUMED A
LINK BETWEEN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, AN ANTI-CORRUPTION 
STATEMENT WERE LINKED.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO 
TESTIFIED IN HIS WRITTEN 
SUPPLEMENT HE LIKELY VOICED THIS
CONCERN TO MR. YERMAK, A CLOSE 
ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON
SEPTEMBER 1st IN WARSAW.
MR. YERMAK, HOWEVER, IN A 
SUBSEQUENT NEWS ACCOUNT 
PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 22nd 
DISPUTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
ACCOUNT AND SAYS HE DOESN'T 
REMEMBER ANY REFERENCE TO THE 
MILITARY AID.
IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REITERATED 
HIS TESTIMONY WAS BASED ON A 
PRESUMPTION, ACKNOWLEDGING TO 
CONGRESSMAN TURNER THAT NO ONE 
ON THE PLANET TOLD HIM THAT 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
WAS CONDITIONED ON 
INVESTIGATIONS.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS THE OTHER 
RELEVANT ACTOR HERE.
HE TESTIFIED IN HIS DEPOSITION 
THAT HE HAD A CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT UKRAINE WOULD
NOT RECEIVE THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE UNTIL PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
HOWEVER, IN HIS PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HIS CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING CAME FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO WAS 
MERELY PRESUMING THAT THERE WAS 
A LINK.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, TOO, REJECTED 
ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS IN 
THIS REGARD OUGHT TO BE 
PERSUASIVE BECAUSE HE MADE THE 
SAME STATEMENT IN TWO SEPARATE 
PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH TWO 
DIFFERENT U.S. OFFICIALS TEN 
DAYS APART.
THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO BE ANYTHING LESS 
THAN CANDID DURING THESE PRIVATE
CONVERSATIONS.
ON AUGUST 31st PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SPOKE BY PHONE WITH SENATOR 
JOHNSON, WHO WAS TRAVELING TO 
UKRAINE IN THE COMING DAYS AND 
SOUGHT THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERMISSION TO TELL PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY THAT THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WOULD BE FORTHCOMING.
PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED THAT 
HE WAS NOT READY TO DO THAT.
CITING UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION AND 
BURDEN SHARING.
WHEN SENATOR JOHNSON RAISED THE 
LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATION, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP VEHEMENTLY 
DENIED ANY CONNECTION, SAYING, 
NO WAY, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
IN CLOSING THE CALL PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TOLD SENATOR JOHNSON THAT 
WE'RE REVIEWING IT NOW, 
REFERRING TO THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE.
GUESS WHAT, YOU'LL PROBABLY LIKE
MY FINAL DECISION.
HE TOLD THAT TO SENATOR JOHNSON 
ON AUGUST 31st.
THIS STATEMENT STRONGLY SUGGESTS
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ALREADY
LEANING TOWARD LIFTING THE AID.
SEPARATELY ON SEPTEMBER 9th 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE BY PHONE 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM
UKRAINE?
PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED, I 
WANT NOTHING.
I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.
I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT 
THING.
IN ADDITION, SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS DENIED ANY LIJAGE 
BETWEEN U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE
AND INVESTIGATIONS.
THESE DENIALS ARE PERSUASIVE 
BECAUSE IF THERE WAS, IN FACT, 
AN ORCHESTRATED SCHEME TO 
PRESSURE UKRAINE ONE WOULD THINK
THE PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE
WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY 
COMMUNICATED TO THE UKRAINIANS.
FOREIGN MINISTER TOLD THE MEDIA 
IN NOVEMBER FOLLOWING NEWS OF 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S WRITTEN 
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY THAT 
SONDLAND NEVER LINKED SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO INVESTIGATIONS.
PRYSTAIKO SAYS I HAVE NEVER SEEN
A LINKAGE.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY
THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS FROM 
THE EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON MADE 
INFORMAL INQUIRES TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT ABOUT THESE ISSUES 
WITH SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN JULY
AND AUGUST, THE EVIDENCE DOES 
NOT SHOW PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR 
HIS SENIOR ADVISERS IN KIEV WERE
AWARE OF THE PAUSE UNTIL IT WAS 
PUBLICLY REPORTED BY POLITICO ON
AUGUST 28th.
OF SUBSEQUENT NEWS ARTICLE 
EXPLAINED THE CONFLICTING 
TESTIMONY THAT EMBASSY OFFICIALS
IN WASHINGTON HAD MADE IN FORMAL
INQUIRIES ABOUT ISSUES WITH THE 
AID WHILE SENIOR OFFICIALS IN 
KIEV DENIED AWARENESS OF THE 
PAUSE.
THE ARTICLE EXPLAINED THAT 
THEN-UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR WHO 
WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY PREDECESSOR WENT ROGUE 
AND DID NOT INFORM PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY THERE WAS ANY ISSUE 
WITH THE AID.
ACCORDING TO THE NEWS ACCOUNT, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS 
SENIOR TEAM ONLY LEARNED OF A 
PAUSE WHEN IT WAS REPORTED ON 
AUGUST 28th.
AS AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED, 
BECAUSE SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS WERE UNAWARE OF THE 
PAUSE, THERE IS NO LEVERAGE 
IMPLIED.
THE ACTIONS OF SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHILE THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED 
REINFORCES A CONCLUSION THAT 
THEY DID NOT KNOW THE AID WAS ON
HOLD.
IN THE 55 DAYS DURING WHICH THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD FIVE 
DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. SENIOR 
OFFICIALS.
ON JULY 25th HE SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE.
JULY 26th HE MET WITH AMBASSADOR
VOLKER, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN KIEV.
ON AUGUST 27th HE MET WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
SEPTEMBER 1st HE MET WITH VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE IN WARSAW.
ON SEPTEMBER 5th HE MET WITH 
SENATOR RON JOHNSON, SENATOR 
CHRIS MURPHY IN KIEV.
IN NONE OF THESE MEETINGS DID 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISE ANY 
CONCERN ABOUT LINKAGE BETWEEN 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS.
IN PARTICULAR THE SEPTEMBER 5th 
MEETING WITH SENATOR JOHNSON AND
SENATOR MURPHY IS NOTABLE 
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COULD BE 
CANDID WITH THEM.
WHAT DID OCCUR DURING THOSE 55 
DAYS WERE HISTORIC EFFORTS BY 
UKRAINE'S PARLIAMENT TO 
IMPLEMENT ANTI-CORRUPTION 
REFORM.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE PRESSED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT THESE 
REFORMS DURING THEIR SEPTEMBER 
1st MEETING.
IN THEIR DEPOSITIONS AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR LAUDED REFORNLS AND 
MORRISON TESTIFIED DURING A 
MEETING IN KIEV THEY NOTED 
EVERYONE ON THE UKRAINIAN SIDE 
OF THE TABLE WAS EXHAUSTED 
BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN UP ALL 
NIGHT WORKING ON THESE REFORPZ.
ON SEPTEMBER 11th PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, SENATOR 
PORTMAN AND ACTING CHIEF OF 
STAFF MULVANEY.
ACCORDING TO TIM MORRISON'S 
TESTIMONY THEY DISCUSSED WHETHER
UKRAINE'S PROGRESS ON 
ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM WAS 
ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY RELEASING THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE WAS OBVIOUSLY 
ARMED WITH THE CONVERSATION HE 
HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
THEY CONVINCED THE PRESIDENT 
THAT THE AID SHOULD BE DISPERSED
IMMEDIATELY.
THE PRESIDENT THEN LIFTED THE 
HOLD.
IN CONCLUDING THIS POINT, WE 
HAVE CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SKEPTICAL OF
UKRAINE DUE TO ITS KRUMGS.
WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SKEPTICAL OF 
FOREIGN AID IN GENERAL AND HE 
BELIEVED OUR ALLIES SHOULD SHARE
THE BURDEN FOR REGIONAL DEFENSE.
WE KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE WAS 
LOOKING INTO IT AND OMB PROVIDED
RESEARCH ABOUT WHICH FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES WERE CONTRIBUTING 
MONEY TO UKRAINE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD SENATOR 
JOHNSON ON AUGUST 31st, WE'RE 
REVIEWING IT NOW AND YOU'LL 
PROBABLY LIKE MY FINAL DECISION.
HE TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON 
SEPTEMBER 9th, I WANT ZELENSKY 
TO DO WHAT HE RAN ON.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHO RAN ON 
AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM, WAS
AN UNTRIED POLITICIAN WITH TIES 
TO A POTENTIAL CONTROVERSIAL 
OLIGARCH.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE REITERATED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 
1st THE NEED FOR REFORM WAS 
PARAMOUNT.
AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
PAUSED -- I'M SORRY.
AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PASSED 
HISTORIC ANTI-CORRUPTION 
REFORMS, THE PAUSE ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS LIFTED AND THE 
PRESIDENTS MET TWO WEEKS LATER.
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT NEVER 
TOOK ANY ACTION ON 
INVESTIGATIONS AT ISSUE IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
MUCH HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT A 
SHADOW OR IRREGULAR FOREIGN 
POLICY APPARATUS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS ALLEGED TO HAVE 
ORCHESTRATED AS A MECHANISM TO 
FORCE UKRAINE TO INITIATE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THE ALLEGATION IS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP CONSPIRED TO RECALL 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FROM 
UKRAINE SO HIS AGENTS COULD 
PURSUE A SCHEME TO PRESSURE 
UKRAINE TO CONDUCT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT THERE ARE LOGICAL FLAWS WITH
THESE ARGUMENTS.
FIRST, EVERY AMBASSADOR 
INTERVIEWED IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
IMHAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE PRESIDENT
HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO RECALL 
AMBASSADORS FOR ANY REASON OR NO
REASON.
IT'S APPARENT THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP LOST CONFIDENCE IN 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND IT'S 
SIMPLY NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR
HIM TO RECALL HER.
BEYOND THAT, THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION REPLACED 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WITH 
AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, WHO 
BECAME ONE OF THE FIRST STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TO VOICE 
CONCERNS DISCUSSED DURING THE 
COURSE OF OUR INQUIRY HERE.
IN FACT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
PLAYED A PROMINENT ROLE IN SOME 
OF THE HEARINGS LAST MONTH.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP TRULY SOUGHT 
TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH
AS PART OF A NEFARIOUS PLAN, HE 
CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE 
REPLACED HER WITH SOMEONE OF THE
LIKES OF AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR.
SECOND, THE THREE U.S. OFFICIALS
WHO COMPRISED THE SO-CALLED 
SHADOW FOREIGN POLICY APPARATUS,
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SONDLAND AND 
SECRETARY PERRY CAN HARDLY BE 
CALLED IRREGULAR, AND CERTAINLY 
NOT OUTLANDISH.
ALL WERE SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS 
WITH INTEREST IN UKRAINE POLICY.
THE THREE KEPT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND THE NSC INFORMED 
OF THEIR ACTIVITIES.
FINALLY, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT 
MAYOR GIULIANI DID NOT SPEAK ON 
BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT.
ACCORDING TO A NEWS STORY ON 
SEPTEMBER 22 PD, MR. YERMAK 
ASKED AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO 
CONNECT HIM WITH MAYOR GIULIANI 
BECAUSE THE ZELENSKY TEAM WAS 
SURPRISED BY THE MAYOR'S 
NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT UKRAINE.
THEY WANTED TO CHANGE HIS MIND.
BOTH AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN HIS 
DEPOSITION AND YERMAK IN AN 
AUGUST "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE 
DENIED MAYOR GIULIANI WAS 
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AS HIS AGENT.
INSTEAD AS AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
EXPLAINED, THEY SAW GIULIANI AS 
A CONDUIT THROUGH WHICH THEY 
SHOULD CHANGE THE PRESIDENT'S 
MIND.
THE SECOND ALLEGATION AT ISSUE, 
OF COURSE, IS WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY
NOT AGREEING TO ALL THE DEMANDS 
FOR DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY AS 
SOMEBODY WITH EXPERIENCE WITH 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS, 
AND STRONGLY -- I STRONGLY 
BELIEVE IN CONGRESS'S ARTICLE 1 
AUTHORITY, BUT THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY HAS DEPARTED DRASTICALLY
FROM PAST BIPARTISAN PRECEDENCE 
FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AS 
WELL AS THE FUNDAMENTAL TENETS 
OF FAIR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE 
PROCESS TO THE PRESIDENT.
IT ALLOWED SUBSTANTIVE MINORITY 
PARTICIPATION AND PARTICIPATION 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IN 
THE FACT-FINDING PROTSZ.
NEITHER ASPECT WAS PRESENT HERE.
DEMOCRAT IT IS DENIED US 
WITNESSES.
DEMOCRATS VOTED DOWN SUBPOENAS 
WE SOUGHT TO ISSUE FOR BOTH 
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.
I'LL NOTE DEMOCRATS NEVER 
BROUGHT TO A COMMITTEE VOTE ANY 
OF THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE 
ISSUED.
THEY WERE ALL TABLED.
DEMOCRATS DIRECTED WITNESSES NOT
TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AND 
THESE SORTS OF ACTIONS 
DELEGITIMIZE THE INQUIRY AND 
DON'T GIVE THE WITNESSES OR THE 
PRESIDENT CONFIDENCE THAT THE 
INQUIRY IS FAIR.
SECOND, THE PRESIDENT OR ANY 
POTENTIAL WITNESS TO THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SHOULD BE 
ALLOWED TO RAISE DEFENSES 
WITHOUT IT BEING USED AS AN 
ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST HIM.
COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION MANDATES AN 
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS BETWEEN 
THE BRANCHES.
FOR THIS REASON, CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT IS A TIME INTENSIVE 
ENDEAVOR.
CERTAINLY TAKES LONGER THAN 76 
DAYS.
HERE, HOWEVER, THE INITIAL 
LETTERS FROM THE DEMOCRATS 
INSTRUCTED POTENTIAL WITNESSES 
THAT IF THEY DID NOT COOPERATE 
IN FULL, IT SHALL CONSTITUTE 
EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION.
DEMOCRATS WANTED ALL THEIR 
DEMANDS HONORED IMMEDIATELY AND 
WERE UNWILLING TO CONSIDER 
EXECUTIVE DEFENSES OR 
PRIVILEGES.
FINALLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR 
OBSTRUCTION.
THE ONE WITNESS WHO SAID HE 
SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT 
HIS APPEARANCE AS A WITNESS, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, TESTIFIED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO 
COOPERATE AND TELL THE TRUTH.
THE PRESIDENT HAS DECLASSIFIED 
AND RELEASED THE CALL SUMMARY OF
HIS JULY 25th AND APRIL 21st 
CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE WHITE HOUSE WROTE TO SPEAKER
PELOSI TO SAY THAT IT WAS 
WILLING TO COOPERATE FURTHER IF 
THE HOUSE RETURNED TO A 
WELL-ESTABLISHED BIPARTISAN, 
CONSTITUTIONAL-BASED IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS.
AS WE KNOW, THESE PROTECTIONS 
WERE NEVER AFFORDED.
IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY 
ADDRESS THE DEMOCRATS' NARRATIVE
AS ARTICULATED IN THEIR REPORT.
THE DEMOCRAT NARRATIVE VIRTUALLY
IGNORES ANYTHING TO HELP THEIR 
CASE.
IT IGNORES AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S
TESTIMONY THAT HE PRESENTED THAT
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND 
IGNORES THE MANY PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS MADE BY UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS.
THE REPORT PRESENTS A STORY AS 
IF THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR WHEN 
REALITY IT'S ANYTHING BUT.
DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE TO GREAT 
LENGTHS TO GATHER INFORMATION TO
BUILD THEIR CASE AND THEY'VE 
EVEN OBTAINED AND RELEASED PHONE
RECORDS RELATING TO THE 
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, A
REPORTER AND A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PHONE 
RECORDS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN 
RELEASED AND OUR MEMBERS REMAIN 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF 
MORE PHONE RECORDS BEING 
RELEASED.
THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF 
HYPERBOLE, A LOT OF HYSTERIA 
OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS OVER 
THIS INQUIRY AND UNDERLYING 
FACTS.
I BELIEVE A LOT OF THIS CAN BE 
TRACED BACK TO THE ANONYMOUS 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT.
I BELIEVE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
REFRAMED A LOT OF THE FACTS AT 
ISSUE AND CAUSED WITNESSES IN 
THE INQUIRY TO RECAST THEIR 
VIEWS.
AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE 
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO INTERVIEW 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
FINALLY, SOME HAVE LIKENED 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR'S INVESTIGATION.
IF ONE ACCEPTS THAT COMPARISON, 
ONE SHOULD ALSO EXPECT THAT LIKE
KEN STARR AND ROBERT MUELLER, 
THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD TESTIFY.
AND OUR MEMBERS, ALL THE 
COMMITTEES BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY
THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SHOULD 
TESTIFY AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE 
TIME IS YOURS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN -- THE 
GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.
WE'LL PROCEED TO THE FIRST ROUND
OF QUESTIONING. 
>> POINT OF ORDER. 
>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
POINT OF ORDER.
>> WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT COUNSEL 
FOR THE DEMOCRATS WAS A WITNESS 
AND THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T HAVE TO
COMPORT WITH THE RULES OF 
DECORUM.
NOW HE'S SITTING UP HERE --
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL --
>> I'VE BEEN A JUDGE.
I KNOW YOU DON'T GET TO BE A 
WITNESS AND A JUDGE IN THE SAME 
CASE.
THAT'S MY POINT OF ORDER.
HE SHOULD NOT BE UP HERE. 
>> IT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
>> IT IS.
>> PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 
660 AND IT'S ACCOMPANYING 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS 
THERE WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF 
QUESTIONS BY CHAIRMAN AND 
FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES BY 
RANKING MEMBER OR MINORITY 
COUNSEL.
ONLY THE CHAIR AND RANKING 
MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVE 
COUNSELS MAY QUESTION WITNESSES 
DURING THIS PERIOD.
FOLLOWING THAT, UNLESS I SPECIFY
ADDITIONAL EQUAL TIME FOR 
EXTENDED QUESTIONING, WE'LL 
PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE 
RULE.
EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE THE 
CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR THE 
FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.
THE REPUBLICAN -- THE 
REPUBLICAN'S EXPERT WITNESS LAST
WEEK, PROFESSOR TURLEY, WROTE IN
AN ARTICLE THAT, QUOTE, THERE IS
NO QUESTION THAT THE USE OF 
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN 
IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, 
INCLUDING THE WITHHOLDING OF 
MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT 
HAPPENED, CLOSE QUOTE.
THAT WAS MR. TURLEY'S COMMENT.
MR. GOLDMAN, DID THE 
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES 
CONCLUDE THAT THE EVIDENCE 
PROVED THE PRESIDENT USED HIS 
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN?
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> IN FACT, FINDING OF FACT 5 
SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE 
POWER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT TO APPLY INCREASING 
PRESSURE ON THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE AND THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE THE 
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS DESIRED BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND DID THE EVIDENCE ALSO PROVE 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD 
MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION
OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT?
>> YES, IT DID. 
>> IN FACT, FINDING OF FACT 5-B 
SAID, PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTING 
THROUGH HIS SUBORDINATES 
CONDITIONED RELEASE OF THE VITAL
MILITARY ASSISTANCE HE SUSPENDED
TO UKRAINE ON THE PRESIDENT OF 
VUK'S PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE
INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SOUGHT.
AND DID THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATE
PRESIDENT TRUMP UNDERMINED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF 
THE UNITED STATES?
>> YES.
IN SEVERAL WAYS.
>> AND FINDING OF FACT 6 SAID, 
IN DIRECTING AND ORCHESTRATING 
THE SCHEME TO ADVANCE HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT 
IMPLEMENT, PROMOTE OR ADVANCE 
U.S. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES.
IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO
PRESSURE AND INDUCE THE 
GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS, LACKING 
LEGITIMATE PREDICATION THAT THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT OTHERWISE 
DISCOURAGES OR OPPOSES.
IN SO DOING, THE PRESIDENT 
UNDERMINED U.S. POLICY 
SUPPORTING ANTI-CORRUPTION 
REFORM AND THE RULE OF LAW IN 
UKRAINE AND UNDERMINED U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
AND DID THE EVIDENCE ALSO SHOW 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPROMISED
THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE 
UNITED STATES?
>> YES.
>> IN FACT, FINDING OF FACT 7 
SAID, BY WITHHOLDING VITAL 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND 
DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FROM A 
STRATEGIC FOREIGN PARTNER 
GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN AN ONGOING
MILITARY CONFLICT ILLEGALLY 
INSTIGATED BY RUSSIA, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP COMPROMISED NATIONAL 
SECURITY TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL
POLITICAL INTEREST.
DID THE EVIDENCE PROVE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN A 
SCHEME TO COVER UP HIS CONDUCT 
AND OBSTRUCT CONGRESSIONAL 
INVESTIGATORS?
>> YES, RIGHT FROM THE OUTSET. 
>> IN FACT, FINDING OF FACT 9 
SAYS, USING THE POWER OF THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND 
EXERCISING HIS AUTHORITY OVER 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ORDERED AND IMPLEMENTED A 
CAMPAIGN TO CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT 
FROM THE PUBLIC AND FRUSTRATE 
AND OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES' IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
FINALLY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLARS FROM OUR HEARING LAST 
WEEK TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARD 
UKRAINE AND PATTERN OF INVITING 
FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
WAS A CONTINUING RISK TO OUR 
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
DID THE EVIDENCE PROVE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS A THREAT TO 
OUR ELECTIONS?
>> YES, IT DID, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> IN FACT, FINDING OF FACT 8 
SAYS, FACED WITH THE REVELATION 
OF HIS ACTIONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PUBLICLY AND REPEATEDLY 
PERSISTED IN URGING FOREIGN 
INVESTMENTS -- FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING UKRAINE 
AND CHINA, TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THIS CONTINUED SOLICITATION OF 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN A U.S. 
ELECTION PRESENTS A CLEAR AND 
PRESENT DANGER THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO USE 
THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR HIS 
FIRST POLITICAL GAIN -- FOR HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN, CLOSE 
QUOTE, I WOULD ADD, IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
I NOW YIELD TO MY COUNSEL, 
MR. BERKE, FOR ADDITIONAL 
QUESTIONING.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CASTOR, AS AN EXPERIENCED 
INVESTIGATOR, WOULD MR. CHAIRMA.
AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR, 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT'S 
RELEVANT TO LOOK AT EVIDENCE 
BEARING ON THE PRESIDENT'S STATE
OF MIND THAT MAY HELP EXPLAIN 
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS?
>> EVIDENCE WE TALKED ABOUT 
SHOW -- 
>> USE YOUR MIKE, PLEASE.
>> SIR, MY ONLY QUESTION TO YOU 
IS THAT A RELEVANT THING TO 
CONSIDER?
>> RIGHT.
CALL HE HAD WITH SENATOR 
JOHNSON.
>> IT'S RELEVANT TO CONSIDER.
SIR, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT JOE 
BIDEN WAS A LEADING DEMOCRATIC 
CONTENDER TO FACE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IN 2020?
>> I WOULDN'T.
>> SO SIR, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT 
VIEW PRESIDENT BIDEN TO BE A 
LEGITIMATE CONTENDER.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP BELIEVED OR DIDN'T 
BELIEVE.
THE IT'S TOO EARLY.
>> SIR, AS PART OF YOUR INQUIRY,
DID YOU DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED ABOUT 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
BETWEEN JANUARY AND JULY 25th 
AND HOW MANY TIMES?
>> I DIDN'T LOOK AT TWITTER.
I TRY TO STAY OFF TWITTER 
LATELY.
>> DID YOU KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TWEETED ABOUT JOE BIDEN OVER 25 
TIMES BETWEEN JANUARY AND JULY 
25th?
>> I DIDN'T LOOK AT THOSE 
TWEETS.
>> DID YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY 
TIMES PRESIDENT TRUMP 
MENTIONEDED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
IN A SPEECH, RALLY LEADING UP TO
THE JULY 25th CALL?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP GOES TO A LOT
OF RALLIES.
HE DOES A LOT OF TWEETING.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT TO
DRAW TOO MANY CONCLUSIONS FROM 
HIS TWEETS OR HIS STATEMENTS AT 
RALLIES.
>> WELL, SIR -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARDON ME.
>> GENTLEMEN IS NOT RECOGNIZED 
FOR PARLIAMENTARY -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT IS -- 
>> GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.
MR. BURKE HAS THE TIME.
>> WE'RE GOING TO IGNORE THE 
RULES, ALLOW WITNESSES TO ASK 
THE QUESTION, THEN HOW MANY 
OTHER RULES ARE YOU GOING TO 
JUST DISREGARD?
>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES ARE NOT 
IN ORDER.
>> THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO 
HAVE A WITNESS BE A QUESTIONER 
OF SOMEBODY THAT WAS A WITNESS 
WHEN HE WAS.
IT'S JUST WRONG!
>> GENTLEMEN WILL REFRAIN 
FROM -- 
>> WELL I MADE A POINT OF ORDER 
AND YOU WON'T RULE ON IT.
>> I HAVE NOT HEARD A POINT OF 
ORDER.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.
>> THERE IS NO RULE NOR 
PRECEDENT FOR ANYBODY BEING A 
WITNESS AND THEN GETTING TO COME
UP AND QUESTION AND SO -- 
>> I HAVE RULED THAT -- 
>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS HE'S 
INAPPROPRIATE TO BE UP HERE 
ASKING QUESTIONS.
>> THAT IS A POINT OF ORDER.
HE'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 66.
>> HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE TO
GIVE TO GET TO DO -- 
>> GENTLEMAN WILL NOT DISPERKSS 
ON THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE.
>> BURKE HAS TIME.
>> CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
>> IS MR. BURKE A MEMBER OF THE 
COMMITTEE?
>>. 
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> MR. BURKE HAS THE TIME.
>> YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE POINT 
OF ORDER.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE THE 
POINT OF ORDER.
>> THIS GENTLEMAN IS PRESENTING 
HIS OPINIONS AS A WITNESS.
HE'S SUPPOSED TO PRESENT THE 
MATERIAL -- 
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> TO APPEAR FOR HIS OPINIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT OR NOT?
>> THERE IS NOT A POINT OF 
ORDER.
IT IS MR. BURKE'S TIME -- 
>> IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TESTIMONY 
TO THE COMMITTEE.
>> I HAVE RULED THE GENTLEMAN 
HAS THE TIME PURSUANT TO RULE 
6
660.
>> OINT OF ORDER.
>> JUST TO HELP YOU, THAT'S NOT 
RULE 660.
>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS THIS.
WE OPERATE BY RULES THAT THERE'S
NOTHING SPECIFICALLY IN THE RULE
PERMITTING THIS, WE GO BY 
PRECEDENT.
IT IS UNPRECEDENTED FOR A PERSON
TO COME AND SIT WHO YOU'VE 
DESCRIBED AS A WITNESS TO THEN 
RETURN TO THE BENCH THEN 
QUESTION.
THAT'S A POINT OF ORDER.
>> GENTLEMAN HAS STATED -- IS 
NOT A POINT OF ORDER, BUT I WILL
POINT OUT IS NOT A RECOGNIZABLE 
POINT OF ORDER.
I WILL POINT OUT THE GENTLEMAN 
HAS DESIGNATED BY ME TO DO THIS 
QUESTIONING PURSUANT TO RULE 
660, HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.
IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 
RULES OF THE HOUSE AND 
GENTLEMAN'S TIME WILL RESUME.
MR. BURKE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CASTRO, YOU AWARE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED HIS 
CANDIDACY FOR RE-ELECTION IN 
2020, THE MONTH BEFORE THE JULY 
25th CALL ON JUNE 21st?
>> OKAY.
>> DID YOU LOOK AT THAT IN YOUR 
INVESTIGATION AS PART OF LOOKING
AT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT AND 
WHAT HE INTENDED ON THE JULY 
25th CALL?
>> I MEAN, THE DATE HE 
ANNOUNCED, HE'S B OBVIOUSLY 
RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION.
WHAT IS THE DATE HE ANNOUNCED 
HIS INTENT TO RUN FOR 
RE-ELECTION?
>> AND SIR, YOU KNEW PRESIDENT 
BIDEN ANNOUNCED APRIL OF THAT 
YEAR, TOO, CORRECT?
>> IT'S BEEN RELATED TO ME.
I DON'T KNOW VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN INDICATED HE WAS GOING TO 
RUN AS I SIT HERE TODAY.
>> SO YOU WOULD AGREE IF THE 
UKRAINE ANNOUNCED AN 
INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN, THIS
WOULD HURT HIS CREDIBILITY AS A 
CANDIDATE?
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
YES OR NO.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT 
PRINCIPLE?
>> I SLIGHTLY DISAGREE WITH THE 
PREDICATE BECAUSE TALKING ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN ZBLSH GENTLEMAN IS 
NOT RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.
>> I HAVE YET THE QUESTION.
RULE ON WHETHER THE QUESTIONS IN
ORDER.
>> THE QUESTION IS IN ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.
>> WHY?
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.
IT'S HIS TIME.
>> LET'S GET BACK TO THE FACT 
THAT TALKING ABOUT EIGHT 
AMBIGUOUS LINES IN A CALL 
TRANSCRIPT.
YOU KNOW, THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT 
ASKING FOR A PERSONAL FAVOR.
HE WAS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
HE SAID AND I'LL READ IT.
I'D LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT 
HAPPENED WITH THE WHOLE 
SITUATION IN UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE.
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR 
WEALTHY PEOPLE.
>> SIR, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO 
READ THAT.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
TRANSCRIPT, I WANT TO TALK TO 
YOU, YOU SAID IT'S EIGHT LINES.
LET'S LOOK AT SLIDE THREE, THE 
REFERENCE TO BIDEN.
SIR YOU SEE ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL ON PAGE FOUR, ISN'T IT A 
FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS
CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SAID HE HEARD JOE BIDEN HAD STOP
ED THE PROSECUTION OF HIS SON?
IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
E YES OR NO.
>> IT SAYS THE OTHER THING, 
THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT 
BIDEN'S SON.
THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE 
PROSECUTION.
>> POINT OF ORDER CH HE'S 
ENTITLED TO ANSWER QUESTION 
FULLY.
>> THERE'S LIKE A -- THERE'S A 
VIDEO OF THE FORMER VP.
AT THE COUNSEL ON FOREIGN 
RELATIONS AND IT WAS A LITTLE 
BIT OF A YOU KNOW, THE FORMER VP
WAS A LITTLE BIT AUDACIOUS IN 
HOW HE DESCRIBES, HE WENT OVER 
TO -- 
>> I'M ONLY ASKING YOU WHAT IT 
SAYS ON THE TRANSCRIPT.
IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS, SIR?
>> IT SAYS THE OTHER THING, A 
WILL THE OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S 
SON.
>> AND THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE 
PROSECUTION.
IT SAYS THAT, CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> THEN IT ALSO SAYS IT GOES ON 
TO APRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IF YOU CAN 
LOOK INTO IT.
CORRECT?
IS THAT THE WORDS?
IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS THEN HE 
SAYS -- 
>> I WRITE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
ASKING UKRAIIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO HAVE THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS LOOK INTO VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.
CORRECT?
IS THAT CORRECT?
YES OR NO.
>> I DON'T THINK THE RECORD 
SUPPORTS THAT.
>> IT DOESN'T SAY CAN YOU LOOK 
INTO IT?
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT ASKING 
HIM?
>> I DON'T THINK IT SUPPORTS 
THAT.
I THINK IT'S AMBIGUOUS.
>> YOU'RE AN EXPERIENCED 
PROSECUTOR.
I KNOW THAT FIRSTHAND.
IS THIS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKING 
ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN?
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY 
OTHER WAY TO READ THE WORDS ON 
THE PAGE THAN TO CONCLUDE THAT.
>> AND MR. CASTRO, YOU MADE THE 
POINT, LET ME ASK YOU A 
QUESTION.
AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR, 
IS IT YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT WHEN 
SOMEONE HAS DONE DONE SOMETHING 
WRONGFUL, THEY STATE THEIR 
INTENTIONS?
>> THE CALL TRANSCRIPT?
>> GENERAL.
>> GENERAL.
>> GENERAL.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THE SCHEMER?
>> YES.
>> WOULD TALK ABOUT HIS SCHEME?
>> WOULD HE GENERALLY ADMIT HE 
WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONGFUL AND
CORRUPT TO SOMEONE NOT IN THE 
SCHEME.
>> NO.
>> YOU MADE A BIG POINT, SIR, IN
YOUR PRESENTATION, THAT ON THAT 
CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT GO
FURTHER AND TELL PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HE WANTED THE 
INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCED TO HELP 
HIS 2020 ELECTION.
>> HE DEFINITELY DID NOT TALK 
ABOUT 2020.
>> AND MR. GOLDMAN, WOULD YOU 
AGREE IF PRUCH WAS ACTING 
WRONGLY, ABUSING HIS POWER, THAT
IT WAS UNLIKELY HE WAS GOING TO 
CONFESS TO ZELENSKY EXPLICITLY 
TO HELP HIS 2020 PROSPECTS?
>> MY EXPERIENCE TEN YEARS AS A 
PROSECUTOR, YOU ALMOST NEVER 
HAVE A DEFENDANT OR SOMEONE 
ENGAGING IN MISCONDUCT WHO WOULD
EVER EXPLICITLY SAY IN THIS 
CASE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, I'M 
GOING TO BRIBE YOU NOW OR ASK 
FOR A BRIBE OR I AM NW GOING TO
EXTORT YOU.
THA NOT THE WAY THESE THINGS 
WORK.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CASTOR, GETTING BACK THE 
YOU.
YOU SAID ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN HAD 
BEEN ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA 
GOING BACK TO 2014.
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPORTED 
UKRAINE WITH AID AND OTHERWISE 
IN 2017 AND 2018.
CORRECT?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE A 
LOT FOR UKRAINE.
>> YES.
SIR, BUT ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT RAISE 
ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND 
FIZZ HIS FATHER IN 2017 OR 2018 
IN ONLY THE YEAR BEFORE HIS 
ELECTION IN 2020 WHEN BOTH HE 
AND VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
WERE LEADING CANDIDATES.
ISN'T THAT TRUE, SIR?
>> I THINK WHAT HAPPENED IS THE 
PRESIDENT SAW THIS VIDEO OF THE 
FORMER VP AND I THINK IT, IT 
COALESSED IN HIS MIND.
>> PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
HE DIDN'T RAISE ANY OF THESE 
ISSUES IN 2017 OR 2018.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF HE DID OR 
DIDN'T.
>> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE HE DID.
>> NO, BUT I HAVE NO EVIDENCE HE
DID NOT.
THIS VIDEO IS PRETTY REMARK 
BABLE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
YOU TALKED ABOUT LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, A HIGHLY 
DECORATED PURPLE HEART RECIPIENT
AND WORKED IN THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> HE HAD A REACTION TO THE 
CALL, DIDN'T HE?
>> HE DID.
>> HE WAS LIST B BENNING TO IT, 
CORRECT?
>> HE DID.
>> LET'S LOOK AT HIS REACTION.
HE SAID I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO 
JOHN EISENBERG, THE LEAD LEGAL 
COUNSEL.
HE SAID IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND A
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THAT WAS HIS TESTIMONY, CORRECT?
YES OR NO.
THAT WAS HIS TESTIMONY.
YES?
>> YEAH -- 
>> YES.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
YOU SAID THAT THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE MAJORITY REPORT THAT 
MR. GOLDMAN HAD TALKED ABOUT, 
YOU SAID IT PRERNTS AS IF THINGS
ARE CLEAR, BUT THEY'RE NOT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID, SIR?
>> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
>> YOU PERSONALLY WORKED ON THE 
MINORITY REPORT, CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> WAS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU TO BE
ACCURATE IN THE REPORT?
>> OF COURSE.
>> FAIR TO WITNESSES TO BE 
ACCURATE ABOUT WHAT THEY SAID?
>> OF COURSE.
>> WAS IT IMPORTANT TO BE FAIR 
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
>> OF COURSE?
>> TO ACCURATELY REPORT WHAT 
PEOPLE SAID.
>> OF COURSE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT JENNIFER
WILLIAMS.
NOW SHE WAS A SPECIAL ADVISER TO
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE ON EUROPE 
AND RUSSIA AFFAIRS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> SHE WORKED FOR R VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT THAT THESE ACCUSATIONS
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRYING 
TO DO SOMETHING FOR POLITICAL 
PURPOSE, THAT WAS MADE BY PEOPLE
WHO WERE HAD PREDETERMINED 
MOTIVES FOR IMPEACHMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SOME.
BUT I ALSO INDICATED THAT SOME 
OF THE WITNESSES IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY I THINK HAVE
REVISED THEIR VIEWS AFTER THE 
CALL TRANSCRIPT CAME OUT AND 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WAS 
RELEASED.
>> ARE YOU CALLING VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE'S SPECIAL 
ADVISER A LIAR?
>> NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
>> ARE YOU SAYING SHE WAS 
PREDETERMINED TO IMPEACH?
>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
THE QUESTION ABOUT JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS IS INTERESTING.
>> I DIDN'T ASK YOU, SIR.
>> SHE NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING 
TO HER SUPERVISOR.
NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING TO 
ANYBODY IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S 
OFFICE EN ROUTE TO WARSAW WHEN 
THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO 
MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
SHE DIDN'T EVEN RAISE IT AS A 
POTENTIAL ISSUE THAT MIGHT YOU 
KNOW CATCH THE VICE PRESIDENT 
OFF GUARD.
HER CONCERN THAT SHE ARTICULATED
TURG THE COURSE OF THE 
DEPOSITION AND HEARING WAS 
INCONGRUENT, INCONGRUENT WITH 
THE FACTS IN WHAT SHE DID DURING
TIMES RELEVANT.
>> WHAT YOU WROTE IN THE REPORT 
ABOUT MISS WILLIAMS.
IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE SIX, 
PLEASE.
AND SIR, YOU MADE THE SAME POINT
YOU TRIED TO MAKE TO DISCOUNT 
HER TESTIMONY.
YOU SAID SHE TESTIFIED THAT 
ALTHOUGH SHE FOUND THE CALL TO 
BE UNUSUAL, SHE DID NOT RAISE 
CONCERNS TO HER SUPERVISOR.
>> RIGHT.
NOBODY IN AMERICA KNEW ABOUT 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS' CONCERNS 
UNTIL SHE WALKED IN THE DOOR FOR
HER DEPOSITION.
>> WHEN YOU SAID ALTHOUGH SHE 
FOUND THE CALL TO BE UNUSUAL, 
THAT WASN'T ACCURATE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT 
THE CALL.
SHE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS JUST 
UNUSUAL, DID SHE?
>> SHE SAID IT WAS UNUSUAL.
>> THAT'S NOT ALL SHE SAID B 
ABOUT IT, WAS IT?
>> O OKAY, SHE WAS HERE FOR NINE
HOURS IN THE BUNKER, SO SHE SAID
A LOT ABOUT THE CALL.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE CAN'T SEE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME.
>> WE CAN'T SEE THE STUFF.
>> HAPPY TO READ IT.
>> JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED 
THAT QUOTE ALTHOUGH SHE FOUND 
THE CALL TO BE UNUSUAL, QUOTE, 
SHE DID NOT END OF QUOTE, SHE 
DID NOT RAISE CONCERNS TO HER 
SUPERVISOR.
ISN'T IT A FACT, SIR, THAT MISS 
WILLIAMS SAID A LOT MORE THAN 
THAT?
>> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA HAS 
COPLAINED THAT HE CAN'T SEE 
WHAT THE QUESTIONER IS RELYING 
ON AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT 
AND -- 
>> THAT IS NOT A RECOGNIABLE 
POINT OF ORDER AND IT WAS READ 
TO HIM.
GENTLEMAN WILL PROCEED.
>> ONLY HALF OF IT WAS READ TO 
HIM.
NOW LET'S SLOW DOWN A BIT HERE.
>> GENTLEMAN.
>> LET'S SLOW DOWN A BIT HERE SO
THAT MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO FULLY 
SEE WHAT IS BEING PUT IN IN 
SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
GO TO DO.
WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT BEING 
ABLE TO SEE IT OR READ IT.
MR. GATES HAS SAID THAT.
NOW LET'S SLOW DOWN SO THAT WE 
CAN SEE OR HEAR WHAT HE IS 
REFERRING TO.
YOU'RE NOT LETTING THAT HAPPEN.
AND THAT GOES TO THE PRIVILEGES 
OF THE MEMBERS -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> THAT YOU ARE ASKING ON THIS 
MEETING IN THE VOTE.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN SEE NOW.
I APPRECIATE THE ACCOMMODATION.
THE MONITOR WAS TURNED.
NOW I CAN SEE.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL RESUME.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SO IN HERE, IT SAYS MISS 
WILLIAMS SAID SHE FOUND IT TO BE
QUOTE UNUSUAL AND NOTHING MORE.
IT SAYS UNUSUAL, CORRECT?
>> BUT IT DOESN'T SAY AND 
NOTHING MORE.
>> IS IS IT A FACT THAT WHAT 
MISS WILLIAMS SAYS IT STRUCK HER
AS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE.
>> OKAY.
>> THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID IN HER 
TESTIMONY.
>> OKAY.
>> YOUR STAFF LEFT OUT THE -- 
>> IT WASN'T A QUOTE.
SHE FELT UNUSUAL.
SHE DIDN'T RAISE CONCERNS WITH 
KELLOGG.
>> WERE YOU AS FAIR TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN DESCRIBING 
WHAT MISS WILLIAMS AS YOU WERE 
IN STRIBING EVERYTHING ELSE IN 
YOUR REPORT?
>> I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH 
THE WAY WE DESCRIBED MISS 
WILLIAMS' TESTIMONY.
>> CAN WE PUT UP SLIDE EIGHT?
THIS IS FROM MISS WILLIAMS 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT 34.
SHE SAID QUOTE, I THOUGHT THAT 
THE REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC 
INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATIONS 
SUCH AS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN AND HIS SON, STRUCK ME AS 
POLITICAL IN NATURE.
GIVEN THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT
IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT.
SIR, YOU LEFT THAT OUT OF YOUR 
STAFF REPORT, TOO, DIDN'T YOU.
>> YOU KNOW, MISS WILLIAMS -- 
>> SIR, DID YOU LEAVE THAT OUT, 
YES OR NO?
>> I -- IF YOU'RE TELLING ME I 
DON'T KNOW, AS I SIT HERE RIGHT 
NOW.
>> I'M TELLING YOU YOU DID.
>> OKAY.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE AN 
EXPLANATION, SIR, WHEN YOU SAID 
MISS WILLIAMS SAID THAT THE CALL
WAS UNUSUAL WHEN IN FACT SHE 
SAID IT WAS UNUSUAL AND 
INAPPROPRIATE AND OF A POLITICAL
NATURE.
BECAUSE IT RAISED VICE 
PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, 
WHO SHE RECOGNIZED WAS A MILL 
OPPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT.
>> HER VIEWS OF THE CALL DIFFER 
REMARKABLY FROM MR. MORRISON, 
ALSO FROM LIEUTENANT GENERAL 
KELLOGG.
>> THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS WHY DID YOU 
MISQUOTE MISS WILLIAMS.
>> WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T MISQUOTE 
HER.
>> FROM THE STANDARD THAT YOU 
APPLY FROM THE FACT FINDING IN 
YOUR REPORT, YOU BELIEVE IT WAS 
ENTIRELY PROPER TO SAY THAT MISS
WILLIAMS FOUPD THE CALL TO BE 
UNUSUAL WHEN IN FACT SHE FOUND 
IT TO BE B UNUSUAL AND 
INAPPROPRIATE AND OF A POLITICAL
NATURE GIVEN THAT THE FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT IS A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT.
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR?
>> I MEAN, WE DESCRIBED WHAT 
MISS WILLIAMS SAID.
>> SIR, IS THAT YOUR 
TESTIMONY -- NO, YOU DIDN'T.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU CAN ASK -- 
I'M NOT.
HE CAN ASK OR ANSWER, NOT DO 
BOTH.
>> GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED!
CHAIRMAN I MAKE A POINT OF ORDER
THAT HE'S BADGERING THE WITNESS.
>> HE IS NOT -- GENTLEMAN WILL 
CONTINUE.
>> AND SIR, YOU, YOU INVOKED 
MR. -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU RULE ON
MY POINT OF ORDER THAT HE'S 
BADGERING THE WITNESS BECAUSE 
HE'S DOING THAT.
>> SIR, YOU INVOKED -- 
>> THAT IS NOT A REOGNIZABLE 
MOTION.
IT DOES NOT CALL FOR A RULING 
AND THE TIME BELONGS TO THE 
GENTLEMAN.
>> THE TIME OF ORDER IN THE 
COMMITTEE IS NOT AN ORDER AND 
THE CHAIRMAN IS NOT IN ORDER.
>> THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
THE COMMITTEE IS IN ORDER.
>> WELL WOULD YOU RULE ON MY 
ORNLAL POINT OF ORDER?
>> IT WAS NOT RECOGNIZABLE AND 
DOES NOT NECESSITATE A RULING.
>> THE LAWYER IS BADGERING THE 
WITNESS.
WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME DECORUM IN 
HERE AND YOU HAVE YOUR RULES OF 
DECORUM WHICH AREN'T COMPORTING 
WITH EVERYBODY ELSE'S.
>> I WOULD SAY SHARP 
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS 
IS NOT BADGERING THE WITNESS.
>> IT IS IF IT'S BY ANOTHER 
WITNESS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE THE 
POINT OF ORDER.
>> UNDER RESOLUTION 660, WE'RE 
SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL 
RULES OF EVIDENCE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NO, IT IS NOT CORRECT.
>> WHAT ARE THE RULES?
WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIONS?
>> THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
>> IT IS.
THERE'S NO RULES.
>> IT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.
>> WHERE'S THE LIST OF RULES?
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.
ZWL THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> MR. CASTOR, YOU JUST INVOKED 
TIM MORRISON.
HE WAS ON THE CALL, TOO, 
CORRECT?
>> YEAH.
>> LET ME PUT UP SLIDE ANYONE OF
HIS TESTIMONY ON PAGE 38 OF HIS 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
AND MR. MORRISON SAID, THE 
QUESTION WAS, QUESTION, MR. 
GOLDMAN.
YOU HEARD THE CALL.
YOU U RECOGNIZED THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE 
TALKING POINTS THAT THE NFC HAS 
PREPARED BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY AND WAS INSTEAD TALKING 
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
FIONA HILL HAD WARNED YOU ABOUT 
THEN YOU REPORTED IT IMMEDIATE 
LY TO THE LEGAL ADVISER.
IS THAT THE CORRECT CLAIM OF 
EVENTS HERE.
MR. MORRISON SAID THAT'S 
CORRECT.
LET ME ASK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN, 
EARLIER BEFORE YOUR 
PRESENTATION, WE SHOWED A 
TESTIMONY OF MISS HILL WHERE SHE
PREFERRED TO WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS TRYING TO DO AS 
RUNNING A DOMESTIC POLITICAL 
ERRAND.
IS THAT WHAT YOU INTENDED TO ASK
MR. MORRISON ABOUT IN YOUR 
QUESTION TO HIM?
>> YES, THE IT WAS ABOUT TWO 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY DID 
DISCUSS AND ASK MR. ZELENSKY TO 
DO.
THESE ARE THE SAME TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE 
DISCUSSED AND WERE THE ONLY TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE AT 
ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF
THE SCHEME.
AND SO WHAT OUR EVIDENCE FOUND 
WAS THAT ANYTIME THERE WAS A 
REFERENCE TO INVESTIGATIONS, IT 
REFERENCED THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION IN THE 2016 
INVESTIGATION.
AND AMBASSADOR VOLCKER ACTUALLY 
SAID WHEN HE WAS USING THE TERM 
CORRUPTION, WHAT HE MEANT WAS 
THOSE SPECIFIC TWO 
N
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> AND WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE
TO YOU THAT MR. MORRISON, WHO 
MR. CASTOR HAS INVOKED TWICE 
TODAY WHERE HE SAID HE 
UNDERSTOOD THESE WERE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT HILL HAS 
WARNED HIM ABOUT.
WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO 
MEAN?
>> WHEN DR. HILL LEFT AND TIM 
MORRISON REPLACED HER, THEY HAD 
TRANSITION MEETINGS AND DURING 
ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, DR. HILL 
TOLD MORRISON ABOUT A, WHAT SHE 
BELIEVED TO BE THIS IRREGULAR 
CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
WAS OPERATING WHERE THEY WERE 
PUSHING FOR UKRAINE TO DO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS AND DR. HILL IN 
PARTICULAR WAS VERY CONCERNED 
BECAUSE AS SHE SAID AS YOU 
POINTED OUT, THAT WAS A DOMESTIC
POLITICAL ERRAND AND WHAT SHE 
WAS WORKING ON AND THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNSEL WAS WORKING ON 
RELATED TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND
FOREIGN POLICY AND THOSE WERE 
TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS.
>> AND WAS SHE EXPEREZING THE 
VIEW TA PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
CHOSE HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL
INTERESTS OVER THE FOREIGN 
POLICY POSITIONS THAT MISS HILL 
WAS TRYING TO PURSUE?
>> AT THE TIME SHAH THEY SAID TO
TIM MORRISON, SHE WAS NOT AWARE 
OF WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
ACTUALLY ENDORSED THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, BUT DID TESTIFY 
THAT AFTER SHE READ THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT, WHICH SHE ONLY READ 
AFTER IT WAS RELEASED LIKE THE 
REST OF US, SHE SAID SHE PUT TWO
AND TWO TOGETHER AND REALIZED 
THAT WAS WHAT HE WAS TALKING 
ABOUT.
>> WHAT IS TWO AND TWO AGAIN?
>> FOUR.
>> WHAT IS FOUR IN THIS 
INVESTIGATION?
>> USED BY TWO WITNESSES, 
SONDLAND AND DAVID HOLMES AS THE
ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO 
EXPLAIN WHY THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN WITHHELD, 
WAS BEING WITHHELD FROM UKRAINE 
AND BASED ON ALL OF THE VARIOUS 
FACTORS AND THEIR DIRECT 
INVOLVEMENT IN ISSUES RELATED TO
UKRAINE, THEY CONCLUDED THAT 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING 
WITHHELD TO PUT PRESSURE AND AS 
A CONDITION ON THE INITIATION OF
THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE 
REFERENCED HERE.
>> TURNING TO YOU -- 
>> I GOT TO CLEAR A COUPLE OF 
THINGS UP HERE IF I MAY.
FIRST OF ALL, MORRISON WAS, 
MORRISON DIDN'T THINK THE 
CALL -- 
>> THERE'S NO QUESTION.
>> GENTLEMAN HAS TIME.
NOT THE WITNESS.
>> CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKS.
>> LET ME ASK YOU, SIR?
>> VOLCKER NEVER MEANT -- 
>> GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME.
THE CLOCK WILL STOP IF HE'S 
INTERRUPTED.
>> WILL THIS WITNESS BE ABLE TO 
CROSS EXAMINE MR. BURKE?
THAT'S A POINT OF INQUIRY.
>> DO NOT SHOUT OUT IN THE 
MIDDLE OF TESTIMONY.
>> YOU DON'T INTERRUPT EITHER 
ONE OF THEM, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BANG IT HARDER, STILL DOESN'T 
MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU'RE NOT 
DOING IT RIGHT!
SIR. 
>> SIR I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR 
TESTIMONY AS I WROTE IT DOWN, 
THE DEMOCRATS ARE ABOUT BLOCKING
INFO -- 
>> OH MY GOODNESS, THAT IS ABOUT
RIGHT.
>> THEN YOU SAID THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION HAS COOPERATED 
AND FACILITATED.
IS THAT CORRECT?
YES OR NO.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS 
PARTICIPATED IN OVERSIGHT DURING
THE ENTIRE CONGRESS.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS 
CALL. 
>> THE TERMS ARE JUST NOT FAIR.
>> ROBERT BLAIR WHO WAS ON THIS 
CALL, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
DIRECTED HIM NOT TO APPEAR.
DID THE PRESIDENT ASK HIM NOT TO
APPEAR?
YES OR NO.
>> I THINK HE WAS ALLOWED TO 
COME IF AGENCY COUNSEL.
>> HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COME 
UNDER THE TERMS SET BY THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
>> I THINK HE WOULD HAVE COME 
WITH AGENCY COUNCIL.
>> TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DIRECTED
HIM NOT TO COME.
CORRECT?
>> HE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED 
TESTIMONY, I THINK, IF AGENCY 
COUNSEL COULD HAVE COME.
IT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE TO HIRE 
THESE OUTSIDE LAWYERS.
>> JOHN EISENBERG WAS DIRECTED 
NOT TO COME.
>> THAT PRESENTED ANOTHER SET 
O -- 
>> HE WAS DIRECTED NOT TO COME.
THE LAWYER WHO VINDMAN WENT TO, 
CORRECT?
>> EISENBERG MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE 
THE COME WITH AGENCY COUNCIL.
HE'S THE CHIEF LEGAL ADVISER FOR
AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
>> SO HE WAS DIRECTED NOT TO 
COME, CORRECT?
>> UM, HE MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO 
COME WITH AGENCY COUNCIL, BUT 
HIS TESTIMONY PRESENTED 
COMPLEXI
COMPLEXITIES.
>> WAS IT U.S. POLICY ON JULY 
26th TO REQUEST UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN?
>> UM, I, I THINK YOU'RE READ 
ING A LITTLE TOO MUCH INTO SOME 
OF THE EIGHT LINES.
I DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS 
REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO
JOE BIDEN.
HE JUST MENTIONS AN OFFHAND 
COMMENT.
>> SIR, IS THAT A NO?
IT WAS NOT U.S. POLICY TO LOOK 
INTO JOE BIDEN?
>> YEAH, BUT YOU'RE PRESUMING 
THEN IT BECAME U.S. POLICY TO 
INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN AND I 
DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
>> SIR, LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT 
SLIDE TEN, TESTIMONY OF 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.
HE WAS ASKED ARE YOU AWARE OF 
ANY WRITTEN PRODUCT FROM THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
SHOWING THAT INVESTIGATION ARE 
PART OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF 
UNITED STATES?
NO, I'M NOT.
NOW TO TIM MORRISON, WHO YOU 
INVOKED.
SLIDE 11.
MR. MORRISON WAS ASKED BY OUR 
OWN CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL WHO WAS
ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
AND SAID JUST A GOING TO PICK UP
IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS LONG 
QUESTION.
IT SAID YOU LISTEN TO THE ONE 
CALL THAT YOU LISTENED TO 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES PRIORITIES WERE TO
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND I'M 
ASKING YOU, SIR, WHY DIDN'T YOU 
FOLLOW UP ON THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIORITIES WHEN YOU TALKED TO 
THE UKRAINIANS?
MR. MORRISON SAID SIR, I DID NOT
UNDERSTAND IT AS POLICY 
OBJECTIVE.
MR. GOLDMAN B, LET ME ASK YOU.
THERE WAS A PACKAGE PREPARED 
BEFORE THAT CALL OF WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SUPPOSED TO 
TALK ABOUT WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND AM I CORRECT SIR THAT ONE
OF THE THINGS HE WAS SUPPOSED TO
TALK ABOUT IN HIS PREPARED 
REMARKS WAS THE ANTICORRUPTION 
PLATFORM OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HE RAN AND WON ON?
>> YES, THE WITNESSES TESTIFIED 
THAT'S A CONSISTENT AND 
PERSISTENT POLICY OBJECTIVE FOR 
THE UNITED STATES.
>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTION 
CORRUPTION ONCE IN HIS CALL WITH
MR. ZELENSKY?
>> NO.
>> DID HE MENTION LOOKING INTO 
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE 
POLITICALLY HELPFUL TO HIM?
THE 2016 ELECTION VEST FWAGS AND
THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL, FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN?
>> NO, HE DID NOT.
>> MAY I ADD SOMETHING THERE?
>> NO, YOU CAN'T.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP DID 
MENTION -- 
>> ARE YOU GOING TO LET HIM 
ANSWER?
>> NO.
>> YELL.
>> THE TIME IS THE QUESTIONER'S.
YOU'LL HAVE THE SAME RULES.
>> YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER 
QUESTIONS ASKED BY MINORITY 
COUNSEL.
>> COME ON, IN FAIRNESS, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT VERY
BAD PEOPLE.
>> IF I CAN FINISH.
LET ME FINISH, SIR.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR.
THERE WERE TWO LAWYERS MENTIONED
ON THE CALL.
WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY ALREADY.
MR. TRUMP SAID TO PRESIDENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE SHOULD 
SPEAK TO TWO PEOPLE.
HIS PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY 
GIULIANI, AND THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL BARR.
CORRECT?
>> YEP.
>> OKAY.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS 
MEMORANDUM WAS RELEASED, ISN'T 
IT THE CASE THAT BARR ISSUEDED A
STATEMENT ABOUT HIS ROLE IN ALL 
OF THIS?
>> HE DID.
>> LET'S PUT UP THE STATEMENT.
SLIDE 13, PLEASE.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS NOT SPOKEN WITH 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT 
HAVING UKRAINE INVESTIGATE 
ANYTHING RELATED TO BIDEN OR HIS
SON.
HAS NOD ASKED THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL TO CONTACT UKRAINE ON 
THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NOT 
COMMUNICATED WITH UKRAINE ON 
THIS OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL DIDN'T WANT 
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD RAISED WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ON THE CALL?
>> I THINK IT GOES A BIT 
FURTHER.
I THINK IT, WHETHER THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WANTED ANYTHING TO DO OR
NOT WAS IN ADDITION TO THE FACT 
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID 
HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 
UKRAINE AND IN FACT, THAT THERE 
WERE NO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS 
AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL OR IN 
AUGUST.
AND THAT BECAME AN ISSUE IN THE 
INVESTIGATION.
THERE IS A FORMAL CHANNEL THAT 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 
AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
HAS TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE RELATED 
TO AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
THAT IS GENERALLY THE PROPER WAY
TO ENGAGE A FOREIGN COUNTRY 
THROUGH TREATIES TO GET 
INFORMATION.
BUT SEVERAL OF THE WITNESSES 
TESTIFIED THAT THEY LOOKED INTO 
THAT AT THE URGING OF THE 
UKRAINIANS AND THEY DETERMINED 
THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL ONGOING
INVESTIGATION NOR ANY FORMAL 
REQUESTS ON THESE TOPICS.
>> NOW THE OTHER LAWYER ON THE 
CALL, RUDY GIULIANI, HE HOWEVER,
HE WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO 
CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN 
TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN.
CORRECT?
>> MR. GIULIANI WAS VERY ACTIVE 
AND INVOLVED IN PUSHING FOR 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS FOR SEVERAL
MONTHS BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL
THEN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER 
INCLUDING APPARENTLY THREE DAYS 
AGO.
>> AND SIR, MR. CASTOR, YOU 
WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI, THAT THE UKRAINIANS 
THEMSELVES, KNEW THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL LAWYER, WAS A CONDUIT 
TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP OF 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A 
SERIOUS REFORMER.
CORRECT?
>> WELL, UKRAINIANS KNEW THAT --
>> SIR, ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU SAID
IN YOUR REPORT?
>> RUDY HAD THE PRESIDENT'S EAR.
>> AND HE WAS A CONDUIT.
LET ME PUT UP SLIDE 14 IF I MAY.
WE HAVE YOUR REPORT HERE.
IT SAYS THE UKRAINIANS KNEW THAT
HE MEANING RUDY GIULIANI, WAS A 
CONDUIT TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WAS SERIOUS ABOUT RER FORM.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR 
REPORT, SIR?
OKAY.
AND IN FACT DURING THE CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT 
SCLEN SKI TO SPEAK TO HIS 
PERSONAL LAWYER ABOUT UKRAINIAN 
MATTERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
INTERESTED IN.
>> YOU'RE REFERRING TO RUDY.
>> YES.
AND IN FACT, ZELENSKY SAID OH, 
WE KNEW THAT AND HE'S BEEN IN 
TOUCH WITH MY AIDES, CORRECT?
>> RIGHT.
UKRAINIANS ARE THE ONES THAT 
FIRST, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FIRST 
BRINGS UP MR. GIULIANI ON THE 
CALL.
>> BECAUSE THEY KNOW HE WAS A 
CONDUIT TO THE PRESIDENT AND IF 
THEY MADE HIM HAPPY, THEY MAKE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAPPY.
>> AMBASSADOR VOLCKER TESTIFIED 
THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD A NEGATIVE
IMPRESSION OF UKRAINE AND THAT 
HE WAS B POSSIBLY FUELLING THE 
PRESIDENT'S VIEWS AND SO THEY 
HAD, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT HEY, IF YOU CAN CONVINCE 
RUDY THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS 
A TRUE REFORMER, THE REAL DEAL, 
THAT WOULD BE A BENEFICIAL LINK.
>> SIR, YOU AGREE THAT GIULIANI 
BEFORE THE CALL AND AFTER WAS 
PUSHING FOR THE UKRAINIANS TO 
INVESTIGATION JOE BIDEN.
CORRECT?
>> THE RECORD IS SOMEWHAT SPOTTY
WITH GIULIANI.
I KNOW "THE NEW YORK TIMES" 
REPORTED IN MAY THAT AMBASSADOR 
VOLCKER GAVE A PRETTY DETAILED 
ACCOUNT OF HIS MEETING ON JULY 
19th.
>> IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE 16.
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE 
YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
RIGHT AND THE ARTICLE SAYS I'LL 
READ IT.
MR. GIULIANI, DATED MAY 9th, 20 
IS THE, BF THE CALL.
MR. GIULIANI SAYS HE PLANS TO 
TRAVEL TO KIEV AND WANTS TO MEET
WITH THE NATION'S 
PRESIDENT-ELECT TO PURSUE 
INQUIRIES AND CONTINUES THAT 
ALLIES OF THE WHITE HOUSE COULD 
YIELD INFORMATION ON TWO MATTERS
OF INTENSE INTEREST TO MR. 
TRUMP.
ONE IS THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION.
THE OTHER IS THE INVOLVEMENT OF 
JOE BIDEN'S SON.
OKAY AND NOW THAT WAS IN "THE 
NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE.
AND -- 
>> CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE 
BREAKFAST WITH VOLCKER?
>> NOT YET.
IF WE COULD CONTINUE THE REST OF
THE ARTICLE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, 
WHICH IS SLIDE 17.
THIS IS THE SAME ARTICLE.
AND MR. GIULIANI WAS VERY 
EXPLICIT WHEN INTERVIEWED.
HE SAID AND THIS ISN'T FOREIGN 
POLICY.
NOW HE'S QUOTING WITH THE WORDS 
THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED.
SAYS IT WILL BE VERY, VERY 
HELPFUL TO MY CLIENT.
MY ONLY CLIENT IS THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES.
HE'S THE ONE I HAVE AN 
OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO TO HIM 
WHAT HAPPENED REGARDING THE 
UKRAINE.
NOW SIR, WERE YOU AWARE ON THAT 
SAME DAY MR. GIULIANI GAVE AN 
INTERVIEW ABOUT WHAT HE INTENDED
TO DO AND LET'S GO TO SLIDE 18.
THIS IS FROM REAL CLEAR 
POLITICS.
AND SHOULD BE ON THE SCREEN IN 
FRONT OF YOU AS WELL.
AND WHAT MR. GIULIANI SAID ABOUT
THE UKRAINE, HE SAID IT'S A BIG 
STORY.
IT'S A DRAMATIC STORY AND I 
GUARANTEE YOU, JOE BIDEN WILL 
NOT GET TO ELECTION DAY WITHOUT 
THIS BEING INVESTIGATED.
NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE HIM 
INVESTIGATED.
THE COLLATERAL TO WHAT I WAS 
DOING.
YOU AGREE, ELECTION DAY REFERS 
TO THE 2020 ELECTION WHERE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL BE RUNNING 
AGAINST, WILL BE RUNNING FOR 
RE-ELECTION.
>> I DON'T KNOW, BUT I GUESS 
YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION TO 
YOU.
YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO ANSWER 
QUESTIONS TO THE MINORITY 
COUNSEL.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, LET ME SHOW
YOU -- 
>> WE'RE GOING TO SIDESTEP THE 
VOLCKER MEETING ON JULY 19th?
>> YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK ABOUT THAT.
SLIDE 19, PLEASE.
AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE'S 
BEING INTERVIEWED NOW THE SAME 
DAY IN A POLITICO AND HE'S ASKED
BY MR. GIULIANI, HE'S LEAVING 
SOON, I THINK IN THE NEXT COUPLE
OF DAYS.
MR. TRUMP SAYS I SEE.
WELL I WILL SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT 
IT.
BEFORE HE LEAVES.
NOW LET ME GO TO SLIDE 20 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT, EXCUSE ME, 
MR. GIULIANI CONTINUES HIS 
PRESSURE ON ZELENSKY.
IN THIS ONE, IT'S ACTUALLY A 
TWEET HE PUT OUT.
ON JUNE 21st, 2019, ROUGHLY A 
MONTH BEFORE THE CALL.
HE SAYS NEW PRESIDENT OF O 
UKRAINE.
STILL SILENT ON INVESTIGATION OF
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 
ELECTION AND ALLEGED BIDEN 
BRIBERY OF THE PRIOR PRESIDENT 
AND AGAIN, SIR, AS YOU SAID, THE
UKRAIIANS
GIULIANI HAS THE EAR OF HIS 
CLIENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, ISN'T 
THAT CORRECT, SIR?
YES OR NO.
>> THE, YOU KNOW, GIULIANI WAS 
DOING SOME THINGS YOU KNOW OUT 
HERE AND THEN HE BECAME INVOLVED
WITH THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL WITH 
VOLCKER, WITH SONDLAND.
AND AT THAT MEETING ON JULY 
19th, VOLCKER COUNSELED AGAINST 
THE PERSPECTIVE JULIAN AREA WAS 
TAKING.
>> WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, 
LET ME ASK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN, 
THIS TWEET, IS THAT REFERRING TO
A PERSONAL POLITICAL ISSUE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP OR OFFICIAL U.S.
POLICY?
>> THAT'S A PERSONAL POLITICAL 
ISSUE.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL JUST 
TAKE A MOMENT TO RESPOND TO MR. 
CASTOR.
ON THAT JULY 19th MEETING 
BETWEEN VOLCKER AND RUDY 
GIULIANI, AMBASSADOR VOLCKER 
TOLD MR. GIULIANI THAT THE 
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT JOE BIDEN WERE
COMPLETELY BOGUS AND WRONG AND 
MR. GIULIANI ACTUALLY TOLD 
ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR 
VOLCKER'S TESTIMONY, MR. 
GIULIANI SAID HE KNEW THAT AND 
YET FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS, HE 
CONTINUED TO PUSH FOR THAT SAME 
INVESTIGATION AT THE DIRECTION 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WHO HAD ALSO DIRECTED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO CONTACT MR. 
GIULIANI.
SO THAT JULY 19th MEETING HE 
BROUGHT UP IS QUITE IMPORTANT TO
THIS INVESTIGATION.
>> AND SIR, YOU ALREADY 
EXPLAINED THAT ON MAY 23rd WHEN 
THE OFFICIAL FOLKS WHO WENT TO 
THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY CAME BACK TO TELL THE 
PRESIDENT HOW IMPRESSED THEY 
WERE, THE ONLY THING HE HAD TO 
SAY TO THEM WAS TALK TO RUDY.
HE WAS TAKING HIS OFFICIAL 
GOVERNMENT PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE 
FOR UKRAINE AND HANDING THEM 
OVER TO RUDY GIULIANI SO THAT 
THEY COULD WORK WITH HIM FOR THE
ISSUES HE WAS FOCUSED ON FOR THE
PRESIDENT AS EVIDENCED IN THE 
TWEET.
>> I AGREE WITH MR. CASTOR, AT 
THAT MAY 23rd MEETING, MR. TRUMP
DELEGATED AUTHORITY OVER UKRAINE
MATTERS TO SONDLAND, VOLCKER AND
PERRY AND TOLD THEM TO WORK WITH
RUDY AND OVER THE NEXT THREE 
MONTHS, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED AT 
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.
>> IN FACT, LET ME SHOW YOU 
SLIDE 22 IF I MAY, THAT YOU 
UNDERSTOOD THE UKRAINIANS 
RECOGNIZED HOW IMPORTANT RUDY 
GIULIANI WAS AND SATISFYING HIM 
NRD TO STAY ON GOOD TERMS WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> YES.
THEY, THEY QUICKLY REALIZED IT I
THINK FROM THEIR OPEN INTERNAL 
CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE RUDY 
GIULIANI HAD BACK CHANNELS TO 
GETTING TO THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS AND AMBASSADOR VOLCKER
TOLD THE UKRAINIANS AS WELL THAT
THERE WAS THIS QUOTE GIULIANI 
FACTOR THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
TOLD IT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
THERE WAS THIS GIULIANI FACTOR 
THEY NEEDED TO DEAL WITH WITH 
THE PRESIDENT.
>> AND IN FACT, THIS IS THE 
SENIOR AIDE TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SAYING TO AMBASSADOR 
VOLCKER ON AUGUST 13th, WHICH IS
AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, THANK 
YOU FOR MEETING IN YOUR CLEAR 
AND VERY LOGICAL POSITION.
WILL BE GREAT MEET WITH YOU 
BEFORE MY DEPARTURE AND DISCUSS.
I FEEL THE KEY FOR MANY THINGS 
IS RUDY AND I'M READY THE TALK 
WITH HIM.
PLEASE LET ME NI WHEN HE CAN 
MEET.
AUDREY.
THAT'S THE UKRAINIANS RECOGNIZE 
THAT RUDY GIULIANI WHO'S 
DEMANDING THE INVESTIGATION OF 
MR. TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL WAS 
KEY.
>> I DON'T MEAN TO BE A 
STICKLER, BUT I BELIEVE THIS 
TEXT WAS JULY 10th AND IT WAS 
CRITICAL BECAUSE WHAT IT IS 
SAYING IS MR. YEARMACK AFTER 
HAVING SPOKEN TO MR. VOLCKER AND
LEARNED THE IMPORTANCE OF RUDY 
GIULIANI, REQUESTED TO MEET WITH
MR. GIULIANI.
THAT THEN PROCEEDED TO THIS JULY
19th BREAKFAST THEN A JULY 22nd 
PHONE CALL THEN ULTIMATELY THEY 
MET IN MADRID ON AUGUST 2nd.
>> THANK YOU.
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE 
METICULOUS INVESTIGATION THAT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WITH YOU DIRECT 
ED.
WE WILL STAND CORRECT.
THANK YOU AND I WILL TAKE THAT 
AND ASK THAT THE RECORD REFLECT 
THAT.
THAT THAT IS THE CORRECT DATE.
IN EITHER CASE, RUDY WAS KEY, 
WHATEVER WAS SAID.
CORRECT?
>> CERTAINLY.
>> NOW LET MANY ASK, SIR, LET ME
PUT UP SLIDE 24.
AND MR. GOLDMAN, AM I CORRECT 
THAT THERE CAME A POINT IN TIME 
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF, MR. MICK 
MULVANEY, ORDERED THAT THE 
APPROVED MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE
BE WITHHELD AS YOU PREVIOUSLY 
INDICATED?
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND THIS IS THE TESTIMONY OF 
THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED.
MR. KENT SAID WHEN THIS 
HAPPENED, THERE WAS GREAT 
CONFUSION AMONG THE REST OF US 
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY
THAT HAD HAPPENED SINCE THERE 
WAS AID WAS IN OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST.
IT JUST SURPRISED US ALL.
MR. HOLMES.
THEN YOU HAD THE ADDITIONAL HOLD
ON THE ASSISTANCE WITH NO EXMR. 
NATION AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE 
AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THAT 
HAPPENED OR IN THE WAY IT 
HAPPENED.
MISS CROFT.
THE ONLY REASON GIVEN WAS THAT 
THE ORDER CAME AT THE DIRECTION 
OF THE PRESIDENT.
SO SIR, LET ME ASK YOU A 
QUESTION.
DID ALL THE AGENIES INVOLVED 
BELIEVE THE AID SHOULD BE GIVEN?
>> YES, IT WAS THE UNANIMOUS 
VIEW OF ALL OF THE AGENCIES, 
SECRETARIES OF STATE, DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL, 
LITERALLY EVERY ONE OF THE 
INTERAGENCY AGENCIES THAT 
BELIEVED THAT THE AID WAS VITAL 
AND HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVD 
AND SHOULD BE RELEASED 
IMMEDIATELY.
>> AND IN THE MINORITY STAFF 
REPORT AND IN MR. CASTOR'S 
TESTIMONY EARLIER, HE SAID THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONVEY 
THE POLICY OF THE UKRAINIANS.
WELL THAT WASN'T CORRECT, WAS 
IT?
DIDN'T MR. SONDLAND CONVEY THAT 
ACCORDING TO HIS AFFIDAVIT AND 
TESTIMONY?
>> HE ULTIMATELY CONVEYED THAT 
THE RELEASE OF THE AID WAS 
CONDITIONED ON THE PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> AND IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE 
26.
>> IT'S WHAT HE SAID.
>> WELL IF I MAY, JUST IN 
RESPONSE -- 
>> WE'LL PUT UP THE SLIDE.
>> SURE.
>> PUT UP THE ACTUAL AFFIDAVIT 
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THAT 
HE SWORE TO UNDER PENALTIES OF 
PERJURY.
IF WE COULD READ THE HIGHLIGHT 
IN FRONT OF YOU, I NOW RECALL 
SPEAKING INDIVIDUALLY WITH MR. 
YEARMACK WHERE I SAID, WHERE I 
SAID TO THE UKRAINIAN AIDE, 
GOING BACK TO THE QUOTE, THAT 
RESUMS OF U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY 
NOT O OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE 
PROVIDED THE STATEMENT WE HAD 
BEEN DISCUSSING.
>> YES, HE SAID THAT ON A 
MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 1th. 
>> THE STATEMENT, SLIDE 27, THAT
THE STATEMENT, WAS THAT 
STATEMENT ON THEIR MINDS SO THEY
COULD GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
AND SATISFY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
HAVE THE AID RELEASED?
>> YES, SONDLAND AND VOLCKER 
TESTIFIED TO THAT.
>> AM I CORRECT THAT HE GAVE A 
STATEMENT WHERE HE DID NOT MAKE 
ANY REFERENCE TO VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN?
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> THEN WAS THAT RUDY GIULIANI 
WHO SAID IN THE SECOND ONE THAT 
IT HAD TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE 
THAT THEY WERE GOING TO 
INVESTIGATE BURISMA IN THE 2016 
ELECTION?
RIGHT?
>> AND WHAT DID BURISMA STAND 
FOR?
ALL YOUR WITNESSES HAVE AN 
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANT?
>> EVERY SINGLE WITNESS SAID 
AFTER READING THE PHONE CALL ON 
JULY 25th, THAT IT WAS CLEAR 
BURISMA EQUALLED BIDEN, THAT 
THEY WERE ONE IN THE SAME.
THERE WERE ONLY TWO WITNESSES 
WHO SAID THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT 
UNTIL THAT TIME AND THERE WAS 
AMPLE TESTIMONY.
A LOT OF TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE 
INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF 
UKRAINE POLICY.
THAT IT WAS UNLIKELY THAT ANYONE
WHO HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EWE 
UKRAINE THAT THE BURISMA 
INVESTIGATION RELATED TO THE 
BIDENS.
>> THAT'S HOW MR. GIULIANI 
REFERREDED TO IT OFTEN.
>> YES.
>> AND DID THE UKRAINIANS 
COMPLAIN REPEATEDLY, THEY DIDN'T
WANT TO BE A PAWN IN U.S. 
DEMOCRATIC POLITICS BY HELPING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN BY MAKING SUCH A 
STATEMENT.
>> THEY SAID THAT IN JULY AND IN
AUGUST, THEY DIDN'T GIVE THE 
STATEMENT IN LARGE PART BECAUSE 
THEY HAD RESERVATIONS GIVEN 
ZELENSKY WAS AN ANTICORRUPTION 
REFORMER.
THEY HAD RESERVATIONS ABOUT 
ENGAING IN U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLITICS.
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU, MR.
CASTOR.
YOU SAID WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SAID TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON 
SEPTEMBER 17th THAT HE HAD NO 
QUID PRO QUO -- 
>> SEPTEMBER 9th.
>> YOU SAID HE HAD NO REASON TO 
BE ANY LESS THAN CANDID.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.
LET ME SHOW YOU, SIR, WHAT 
HAPPENED THOUGH ON SEPTEMBER 
5th.
LET ME SHOW YOU SLIDE 52.
>> DAYS BEFORE HE MADE THAT 
STATEMENT, "THE WASHINGTON POST"
PRINTED AN ARTICLE THAT SAYS 
TRUMP TRIES TO FORCE UKRAINE TO 
MEDDLE IN THE O 2020 ELECTIONS 
AN GOES ON TO DESCRIBE SOME OF 
THOSE EFFORTS.
LET ME SHOW YOU WHETHER PRUCH 
WAS AWARE OF THAT ARTICLE BEFORE
HE VOLUNTEERED NO QUID PRO QUO 
AS A DEFENSE.
LET ME SHOW YOU A TWEET BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SLIDE 53.
SAYING THAT THEY ARE PURSUE ING 
IMPEACHMENT.
SHOWING AWARENESS THAT THIS HAS 
NOW BEEN REPORTED ON.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY WHAT MR. 
CASTOR SAID THAT HE HAD NO 
REASON TO BE LESS THAN CANDID. 
>> NO, I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD EVER REASON TO TRY TO PUT 
OUT THAT MESSAGE AT THAT POINT.
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID EVEN
IF YOU CREDIT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S VERSION OF THE 
TESTIMONY, WHICH IS CONTRADICTED
BY OTHER WITNESSES WHO TOOK 
CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES AND WERE 
MORE CREDIBLE THAN SONDLAND WHO 
RECOLLECT HAD TO AMEND HIS 
TESTIMONY, HE SAID NO QUID 
PROQUO OUT OF THE BLUE WITHOUT 
ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR 
NOT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZED THE RANKING
MEMBER FOR HIS FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 
660, THE RANKING MEMBER OR HIS 
COUNSEL HAVE 45 MINUTES TO 
QUESTION THE WITNESSES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S BECOME VERY EVIDENCE WHY 
THIS HEARING IS HERE AND WHY THE
CRAZYNESS OF THIS HEARING, BUT 
PLEASE PUT BACK UP THE LAST 
SLIDE.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT NUMBER IT 
IS.
NOT AS GOOD.
53.
DID WE CUT IT OFF AFTER WE GOT 
TO IT?
OKAY, WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS.
THE MOST AMAZING STATEMENT CAME 
OUT.
WE'RE PROOFING THE TWEET THAT 
SAID THAT DEMOCRATS WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.
THERE'S NOTHING THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE NOT BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT.
FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
SINCE AUGUST, SINCE NOVEMBER 
2016 B, THE PRESIDENT SAYING 
NOTHING NEW IN THAT TWEET DOES 
NOW BACK UP HE'S KNOWN THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN AFTER IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S WHY MR. GOLDMAN IS HERE, 
WHY WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS 
CHARADE OF STAFF AND WHEN WE 
DON'T LIKE HOW IT'S GOING, WE 
START ASKING STAFF ON STAFF AND 
GETTING INTO AN ARGUMENT.
WHERE'S ADAM?
WHERE'S ADAM?
IT'S HIS REPORT.
HIS NAME, MR. GOLDMAN, YOU'RE A 
GREAT ATTORNEY, BUT YOU'RE NOT 
ADAM SCHIFF AND YOU DOEPT WEAR A
PIN.
>> THAT'S TRUE.
>> WE GOT A PROBLEM HERE.
YOU SAID YOU WERE AN ATTORNEY.
VERY GOOD PROSECUTOR.
B I BELIEVE IT.
I'VE READ YOUR BIO.
YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT QUID PRO QUO
IS.
CORRECT?
>> I DO.
>> YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT ASKING 
FOR SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE FOR 
SOMETHING ACTUALLY MEANS.
>> I DO.
>> YOU KNOW ABOUT THE 
CONVERSATION OF MR. BIDEN, WHEN 
HE ASKED ABOUT -- 
>> THE 2000, IN 2015?
>> NO THE ONE FROM NATIONAL 
WHERE HE DID THE, I'LL READ IT 
SINCE YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE.
AS I REMEMBER GOING OVER TO THE 
UKRAINE CONVINCING OUR TEAM, OUR
LEADERS CONVINCING THEM WE 
SHOULD PROVIDE FOR LONG 
GUARANTEES.
I WENT EVER I GUESS THE 12th OR 
13th TIME.
SUPPOSED TO ANNOUNCE THERE WAS A
BILLION DOLLAR LOAN GUARANTEE 
AND GOT A COMMITMENT THAT THEY 
WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE 
STATE PROSECUTOR.
THEY DIDN'T.
SO THEY SAID THEY HAD, THEY WERE
WALKING OUT TO THE PRESS 
CONFERENCE.
I SAID, NAH, I'M NOT GOING TO OR
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE 
BILLION DOLLARS.
THEY SAID YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY.
YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT SAID I SAID CALL 
HIM, LAUGHTER.
I SAID I'M TELLING YOU YOU'RE 
NOT GETTING THE BILLION DOLLAR 
RS.
I SAID YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE 
BILLION DOLLARS.
I'M GETTING READY TO BE LEAVING 
HERE AND I THINK ABOUT SIX 
HOURS.
I LOOKED AT THEM AND SAID I'M 
LEAVING HERE IN SIX HOURS.
IF THE PROSECUTOR DIDN'T FIRED, 
YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY.
WELL SON OF A BITCH, HE GOT 
FIREDED.
DID HE ASK FOR SOMETHING, HOLD 
SOMETHING OF VALUE.
>> I'M ASKING ABOUT NOT GEORGE 
KENT.
THIS -- 
>> IT'S IMPORTANT CONTEXT.
>> IT'S NOT.
ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
DID HE OR DID HE NOT.
EITHER JOE BIDEN'S A LIAR 
TELLING A STORY TO MAKE PEOPLE 
IMPRESSED OR HE DID THIS.
>> PURSUANT TO U.S. OFFICIAL 
POLICY.
>> SO IN WITHHOLDING ACTUAL 
THING, HOLDING THIS OUT THERE.
SO JOE BIDEN IS THE ONLY ONE 
THAT'S DONE A QUID PRO QUO.
THE ONLY ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY 
THREATENED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
AND YET WE'RE SITTING HERE 
PRETENDING THIS IS NOT 
HAPPENING?
THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES NOW WOULD NOT BE 
CONCERNED?
LOOK, YOU LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.
JOE BIDEN'S A TERRIBLE 
CANDIDATE.
HE CAN DESTROY HIMSELF ON THE 
CAMPAIGN TRIAL BUT HE CAN'T GET 
BY THIS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BRINGS IT 
UP, WHO DOES IT BECAUSE THIS IS 
WHAT HAPPENED.
AND YOU CAN WHITEWASH IT ALL YOU
WANT.
YOU CAN GO OVER WHATEVER YOU 
WANT, BUT HE'S EITHER A LIAR OR 
HE DID IT AND HE DID IT.
I WANT TO CONTINUE ON.
QUESTION IS A QUESTION THAT YOU 
HAD EARLIER.
YOU RELY ON HOW MANY TIMES DO 
YOU RELY ON SONDLAND'S 
TESTIMONY?
IN YOUR REPORTING?
>> IT'S NEARLY A 300 PAGE 
REPORT.
>> WOULD YOU BE AMAZED IF IT WAS
600 TIMES OR BETTER.
>> YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA.
>> NO IDEA.
>> YOU DID.
OVER 600 TIMES.
WOULD YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND IF YOU
DO A SIMPLE CHECK OF YOUR REPORT
THAT OVER 158 TIME, MR. SONDLAND
SAID NOT KNOWING SOMETHING BEST 
OF MY KNOWLEDGE OR I DON'T KNOW.
WOULD THAT SURPRISE YOU?
>> THE REPORT OR DEPOSITION?
>> THE DEPOSITION AND THE CLOSED
DOOR TESTIMONY.
>> YES, AND OVER TIME, HE 
REMEMBERED A LOT R MORE AS HE 
WAS REFRESHED BY OTHER PEOPLE'S 
TESTIMONY!
YEAH, IT IS.
THE QUESTION WE'RE HAVING HERE 
IS MR. SONDLAND ALSO SAID, HE 
SAID HE PRESUMED WHAT ACTUALLY 
HAPPENED.
BACK TO MANAGER ELSE.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS IN 
A MOMENT.
ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, 
CLASSIFY THAT AND DETERMINE THAT
TO BE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
AND OTHER INVESTIGATION WITH THE
OTHER TWO XES.
OKAY WITH THAT?
>> CERTAINLY.
SFWL ISSUED DOZEN OF F 
SUBPOENAS.
RIGHT?
>> I'M NOT, CERTAINLY OVER A 
DOZEN, YES.
>> SOME OF THOSE WERE NOT PUBLIC
OR REPORTED UNTIL THE HIP SEE 
ISSUED THE MAJORITY REPORT.
CORRECT?
>> MOST OF SUBPOENAS.
>> ANSWER THE QUESTION AS MR. 
BURKE HAD SO MUCH FREE REIGN.
EITHER ANSWER THE QUESTION OR 
ELABORATE.
ONE OR THE OTHER.
>> SIR, I'M TRYING TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
>> DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU?
DID IT COME OUT OR NOT?
>> DID WHAT COME OUT.
>> I'LL READ IT AGAIN.
SOME OF THE SPIN IS NOT PUBLIC 
LY REPORTED UNTIL THE HIP SEE 
ISSUED THE MAJORITY REPORT.
>> YES, THEY WERE GIVEN TO THE 
MINORITY R BUT NOT THE PUBLIC.
>> DID YOU ISSUE ANY OTHER 
SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY OTHER 
THAN THE ONES PUBLICLY IDENTIFY 
ED?
>> I'M NOT SURE.
I DON'T THINK SO.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I'M NOT SURE.
>> HOW MANY SUBPOENAS FOR ISSUED
FOR RECORDS?
WELL, WE ISSUED A NUMBER OF 
SUBPOENAS FOR RECORDS.
WE DID ISSUE SIX SUBPOENAS TO 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES AND 
THEY ALL DEFIED OUR SUBPOENAS.
MOVING ON TO OTHER ISSUES HERE, 
THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
REPORTED THAT THE COMMITTEE 
ISSUES FOUR SUBPOENAS TO VERIZON
AND AT&T FOR CALL RECORDS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE -- 
>> ARE WE WONDERING?
>> YES, WE ARE BECAUSE THERE ARE
MULTIPLE NUMBERS.
IT'S, WE ONLY ISSUEDED SUBPOENAS
FOR CALL RECORDS FOR PEOPLE 
INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION 
AND WHO HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED BY 
THE COMMITTEE FOR DOCUMENTS AND 
QUESTIONING OF THEIR OWN.
>> ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL STUFF, 
BUT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
>> WELL I AM TRYING TO ANSWER 
YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> WAS IT AT LEAST FOUR?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
COULD HAVE SAVED US A LOT OF 
TIME THERE.
HOW MANY WERE ISSUED TO AT&T?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> CAN YOU CHECK YOUR RECORDS?
>> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT 
QUESTION.
BECAUSE WE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT 
THIS AND WE GOT A MASSIVE 
DOCUMENT DUMP OVER THE WEEKEND 
PREPARING FOR THIS HEARING IN 
WHICH THE CHAIRMAN AND STAFF 
ADMITTED THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO READ IT ALL ANY WAY SO 
ALL THAT MASSIVE DOCUMENT DUMP, 
WE'RE JUST SIMPLY GOING TON A 
SCHIFF REPORT, WHICH HE REFUSED 
TO TESTIFY B ABOUT, BUT SENDS 
HIS STAFF.
HOW MANY WERE ISSUED TO AT&T?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO FIND OUT.
>> THAT'S FINE, IF YOU DON'T 
KNOW, THEN AGAIN MAYBE YOUR 
CHAIRMAN COULD BE HERE TO ANSWER
THIS.
WAS IT TARK TARGETED TO A SINGLE
TELEPHONE NUMBER OR NUMBER SNS. 
>> WE SUBMITTED MULTIPLE 
NUMBERS.
>> HOW MANY.
>> I DON'T KNOW.
NONE OF -- 
>> THIS IS IMPORTANT.
>> NONE OF B MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS, NONE OF STAFF OF 
CONGRESS.
NONE OF JOURNALISTS.
WE ONLY DID IT TO THE SUBJECTS 
INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, 
WHICH IS A VERY ROUTINE AND 
STANDARD INVESTIGAIVE PRK TIS.
>> MY PROBLEM IS THIS.
WHO ON THE COMMITTEE ASK THAT 
THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU ACTUALLY 
DID PUT INTO FOR A SUBPOENA AND 
GET THOSE BACK, WHO WAS IT ASKED
THEY BE CROSS CHECKED FOR 
MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA AND 
CONGRESS?
WHO ORDERED THAT?
>> I DON'T THINK SO THAT'S HOW 
WE DID IT.
>> WHOA, WHOA.
YOU CAME OUT WITH A REPORT THAT 
SHOWED THESE PEOPLE SUCH AS 
CHAIRMAN NUNES AND OTHERS SHOW 
THEY WERE ON THESE CALLS.
>> YES.
NOW SOMEONE AND WE'RE IN THE 
GOING TO PLAY CUTE HERE.
SOMEBODY TOOK THE FULL RECORDS 
THAT YOU ASKED FOR, AT LEAST 
FOUR, TOOK THOSE NUMBERS THEN 
SAID, HEY, LET'S PLAY MATCH 
GAME.
WHO ORDERED THE MATCH GAME FOR 
MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS AND THE 
PRESS?
WAS IT YOU?
>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE DID, 
SIR.
>> OKAY.
COME ON, THAT'S THE MOST 
RIDICULOUS I'M I'VE HEARD.
YOU DON'T PICK UP NUMBERS AND 
DON'T COME UP WITH THEM.
WHO R ORDERED THEM TO ACTUALLY 
MATCH FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
AND THE PRESS. 
>> THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT YOU JUST
DESCRIBED IS HOW IT HAPPENS.
>> WHO ORDERED THE FIND OUT IF 
NUNES' NUMBER WAS ON THE CALLS.
>> IF I COULD JUST EXPLAIN, SIR.
YOU PICK AN EVENT OF 
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE 
INVESTIGATION AND LOOK FOR 
SEQUENCING AND PATTERNS 
SURROUNDING THAT EVENT.
THEN YOU LOOK AT THE MUST 
REMEMBERS AND TRY TO IDENTIFY 
THEM AND YOU START TO BUILD THE 
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE.
>> AT THIS POINT, THAT'S A 
WONDERFUL EXPLANATION, BUT NOT 
AN ANSWER.
YOU LOOKING FOR THE FOUR NUMBERS
YOU ASKED FOR TO SEE HOW THEY'RE
CONNECTED.
MY QUESTION DIRECTLY, WAS IT YOU
OR CHAIRMAN SCHIFF THAT SAID 
WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS, LET'S 
SEE IF IT MATCHES NUNES' NUMBER.
SOMEONE JUST DIDN'T HAVE AN E 
FIFNY UNLESS YOU'RE GETTING 
READY TO THROW A LOW LEVEL 
STAFFER UNDER THE BUS THAT THESE
NUMBERS MATCH SO WHO DID IT.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF OR YOU?
BE CAREFUL, YOU'RE UNDER OATH.
>> I KNOW I'M UNDER OATH, SIR.
>> THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION IF
YOU GIVE ME A SECOND HERE.
>> SAME SECOND WAS NOT AFFORDED 
TO MY WITNESS, BY WAY.
IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TELL ME 
THE OTHER STORY, WHO DECIDED TO 
LEAK IT?
THE INFORMATION?
WHY DID YOU INCLUDE IT IN THE 
REPORT. 
>> IT'S NOT A LEAK R R SIR?
>> AFTER NOT SAYING ANYTHING B 
ELSE ABOUT THIS, SO TWO 
QUESTIONS ARE HANGING OUT THIS 
THAT EVERYBODY'S LOOKING FOR AN 
ANSWER FOR INCLUDING ME.
WHO ORDERED IT?
YOU OR CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THEN 
WHY WAS IT DECIDED EXCEPT FOR 
NOTHING BUT SMEAR PURPOSES TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE SCHIFF REPORT?
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE
DELIBERATIONS F OUR VES GAGS AND
THE REASON IT WAS INCLUDED IS 
BECAUSE THE CALLS WERE 
SURROUNDING IMPORTANT EVIDENCE 
TO OUR INVESTIGATION.
AND I THINK THAT YOUR QUESTION 
IS FRANKLY NOT BETTER DIRECTED 
NOT AT ME, BUT AT THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE HAVING CONVERSATIONS.
>> OH, NO, NO, NO.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO PLAY THIS 
GAME.
YOU'RE AS GOOD AS MR. BURKE.
YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING THE 
QUESTION AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE
MEDIA, WHEN YOU R START GOING 
INTO THE DECORUM OF THIS HOUSE, 
LOOKING AT MEMBERS TELEPHONE 
NUMBERS, REPORTERS, WHICH THEY 
OUGHT TO BE SCARED ABOUT YOU 
TOOK A SUB PEA NA FOR FOUR.
SOME DIDN'T EXIST BECAUSE YOU 
CLAIMED THEY WERE FOR THE WHITE 
HOUSE BUDGET OFFICE AND WERE 
NOT.
SO WE'RE THROWING STORIES OUT 
THERE BECAUSE NOBODY WAS OUT 
THERE.
SO I GO BACK TO MY QUESTION.
ARE YOU GOING TO GO ON RECORD IN
FRONT OF EVERYBODY HERE TODAY 
AND SAY YOU WILL NOT TELL WHO 
ORDERED THIS.
YOU OR MR. SCHIFF?
>> I AM GOING TO GO ON RECORD 
AND TELL YOU I'M NOT GOING TO 
REVEAL HOW WE CONDUCTED THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
>> AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE 
HAVE WITH THIS ENTIRE THING.
I'M DONE WITH YOU.
WE'RE DONE.
YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING THE 
QUESTION.
YOU'RE NOT BEING HONEST ABOUT 
THIS ANSWER.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHO IT IS, 
YOU'RE JUST NOT ANSWERING.
OUR MEMBERS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT 
THIS FOR THREE REASONS.
THE SUB PEA YIELDED 
INFORMATION ABOUT MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS.
WHETHER THEY WERE SUBPOENAED TO 
MEMBERS PHONE RECORDS OR NOT, 
IT'S A CONCERN WHEN THE 
INFORMATION YIELDS MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS' PHONE NUMBERS AND THEN
THE INFORMATION IS PUBLICIZED.
SECOND WITH JOURNALIST, 
GENERALLY JUST A VERY TRICKY 
AREA TO START INVESTIGATING 
JOURNALISTS CALL RECORDS.
THE THIRD IS WITH REGARD TO MR. 
GIULIANI WHO WAS SERVING AS THE 
PRESIDENT' PERSONAL ATTORNEY.
THERE WERE SIX SUBPOENAS.
FIRST ONE WENT TO AT&T FOR 
GIULIANI NUMBERS.
SECOND WAS IN REGARD TO IGOR 
FRUMAN.
THE THIRD RELATED TO MR. 
SONDLAND, OFF TO VERIZON.
THE FOURTH WAS BACK TO AT&T 
SEEKING INFORMATION ON A CERTAIN
NUMBER.
THE FIFTH WAS BACK TO AT&T.
THE SIXTH WAS SEEKING SUBSCRIBER
INFORMATION WHICH IMPACTED THE 
VETERAN JOURNALIST JOHN SOLOMON 
AND ALSO INVOLVED WITH THESE ARE
SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME ATTORNEYS 
INVOLVED.
>> COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION.
MR. CASTOR, YOU'VE BEEN A 
VETERAN OF THE HILL 
INVESTIGATION FOR 15 YEARS.
THIS IS CRAZY.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE 
THIS.
YOU HAVE NOT EITHER.
IS IT INTERESTING TO NOTE 
BECAUSE MR. GOLDMAN DOESN'T WANT
TO ANSWER BECAUSE HE DOESN'T 
WANT TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF OR 
THE CHAIRMAN OR SOMEBODY ELSE.
WOULD SOMEBODY HAVE AN EPIPHANY 
TO DO THOSE MATCH RECORDS ON 
THEIR OWN?
>> THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE 
SOMETHING OUT.
>> WAIT, I HAVE ONE THING FOR 
MR. GOLDMAN.
MR. GOLDMAN WE'RE USED FOR 
COMMITTEES AND WITNESSES TAKING 
GRATUITOUS SHOTS AT PEOPLE THEY 
DON'T LIKE.
YOU MADE A COMMENT, WHEN YOUR 
TESTIMONY YOU SAID AS YOU WERE 
DISCUSSING MR. SONDLAND YOU MADE
A SNIDE COMMENT, ACTUALLY YOUR 
FACIAL EXPRESSION SHOWED HE WAS 
A MILLION DONOR TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE IMPLICATION BEING EITHER 
BECAUSE HE GOT THE JOB BECAUSE 
HE BOUT IT OR LOYAL TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
BE VERY CAREFUL HOW YOU THROW 
AROUND DOLLARS AND GIVING 
BECAUSE YOU AND MR. BURKE ARE 
REAL HEAVY DONORS TO THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND I WON'T SAY
IT QUESTIONS YOUR MOTIVE OR 
POSITION HERE TODAY BUT WE NEED 
TO MAKE SURE THIS THING IS 
ALREADY BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.
WE'RE ALREADY NOT ANSWERING 
QUESTIONS AND YOU'RE HERE 
BECAUSE YOUR CHAIRMAN WILL NOT 
TESTIFY.
THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO HEAR.
I HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR YOU.
>> COULD I RESPOND?
ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT -- 
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?
WHAT'S THE IMPLICATION.
I DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING CLOSE TO 
A MILLION DOLLARS REMOTELY.
>> IMPLICATION IS WE WANT SCHIFF
IN THAT CHAIR NOT YOU.
THE PERSON THAT WROTE THE REPORT
SHOULD COME AND PRESENT IT.
YOU WEREN'T ELECTED BY ANYBODY.
I HOPE THAT CLEARS UP THE 
IMPLICATION.
>> GENTLEMAN HAS BEEN WARNED 
BEFORE.
CANNOT SIMPLY YELL OUT AND 
DISRUPT THE COMMITTEE.
THE GENTLEMAN, MR. COLLINS HAS 
THE TIME.
>> I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND 
EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID AND I 
CALLED IT OUT FOR JUST THE WAY 
YOU DID, YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD 
GET BY WITH IT AND YOU DIDN'T.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY -- 
>> I AM DONE.
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> STOP.
>> YOU'RE CASTING DISPERSIONS.
>> AS YOU DID MR. GOLDMAN OF MR.
SONDLAND.
ACCORDING TO THE CHAIRMAN'S OWN 
RULING I'M DONE ASKING QUESTIONS
AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO 
ELABORATE.
YOU WON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION 
WHO TOLD THE COMMITTEE TO 
ACTUALLY CHECK THESE NUMBERS.
YOU WON'T SAY IF IT'S YOU OR MR.
SCHIFF.
YOU WON'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS SO
WE'RE DONE.
AS MR. BURKE SAID YOU'LL HAVE 
PLENTY OF TIME WITH HELPFUL 
MAJORITY COUNSEL.
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD HIS 
TIME TO MISS COLLINS?
>> THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
>> IF I MAY.
>> I HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS I 
THINK I NEED TO CLEAR UP.
IF I MAY.
>> YES, CERTAINLY.
>> YOU HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME 
BECAUSE I HAVE A NUMBER OF THEM 
HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, ON THE CALL, 
TIM 
MORRISON AND GENERAL KELLOGG HAD
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE CALL 
THAN JENNIFER WILLIAMS.
THE CALL WAS AMBIGUOUS.
TIM MORRISON SAID HE HE WENT TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL 
LAWYERS FOR A DIFFERENT REASON.
HE DIDN'T SAY HE WENT TO THE NSA
LAWYERS BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED
OF THE CALL.
HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY
LAWYERS FOR TWO REASONS.
NUMBER ONE THEY WEREN'T ON THE 
CALL.
NUMBER TWO, HE WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT LEAKS.
AND HE WAS CONCERNED THAT IF 
THIS CALL LEAKED OUT, HOW IT 
WOULD PLAY IN WASHINGTON'S 
POLARIZED ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IS 
EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
HE WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT IF 
THE CALL LEAKED, THAT IT MIGHT 
AFFECT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN 
CONGRESS.
YOU KNOW, ISSUES OF UKRAINE HAD 
TRADITIONALLY BEEN ONE OF THE 
FEW ISSUES WHERE REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS SHARE INTEREST.
AND THE THIRD REASON WAS THAT HE
DIDN'T WANT THE UKRAINIANS TO 
GET A DISTORTED PERCEPTION OF 
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON THE 
CALL BECAUSE ON THE CALL WE'RE 
TALKING ABOUT EIGHT LINES OF 
CONCERN, AND A LOT OF AMBIGUITY.
THIS OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON MAY 
23rd, THERE'S THIS QUESTION, I 
GUESS IT'S AMBIGUOUS, I DIDN'T 
THINK IT WAS AMBIGUOUS BUT 
THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER
WHEN THE PRESIDENT REFERRED -- 
THE DELEGATION GOES TO THE 
INAUGURATION MAY 20th.
COME BACK, IT'S SONDLAND, IT'S 
VOLKER, AND IT'S SECRETARY PERRY
AND SENATOR JOHNSON.
AND THEY ARE BRIEFING THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT IS 
HAVING NONE OF IT.
HE SAYS UKRAINE IS CONCERNED, OR
CORRUPT.
AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO INVITE 
ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
AND THE PRESIDENT, VOLKER WAS 
THE TO THIS PRETTY DEFINITIVELY.
THE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY -- HE 
DOESN'T ORDER ANYBODY TO DO 
ANYTHING.
THE PRESIDENT SAYS TALK TO RUDY.
VOLKER TESTIFIED BOTH AT HIS 
DEPOSITION AND AT THE PUBLIC 
HEARING THAT HE DIDN'T TAKE IT 
AS A DIRECTION.
LOOK, IF YOU GUYS -- IF YOU GUYS
THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WANT
TO WORK IT, JUST GO TALK TO 
RUDY.
VERY DIFFERENT THAN A DIRECTION.
IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE 
PRESIDENT ORDERING A SCHEME.
AND IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE
PRESIDENT SORT OF COLLECTING UP 
A BUNCH OF AGENTS TO GO DO 
SOMETHING BECAUSE HE SIMPLY 
ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
SAID GO TALK TO RUDY.
NOW, WHETHER THE UKRAINIANS KNEW
OF THE AIDE GAVE US PAUSE FOR 55
DAYS, WHETHER THE UKRAINIANS 
KNEW ABOUT IT OR NOT, LAURA 
COOPER FROM DOD AND, YOU KNOW, 
SOME STATE DEPARTMENT WITNESSES 
TESTIFIED ABOUT LIGHT QUERIES 
THEY RECEIVED.
THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN 
BLOOMBERG AND THE ZELENSKY 
ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY NEVER 
KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD IN THE AID 
UNTIL AUGUST 28th POLITICO 
ARTICLE.
THEY SAID IN THE ARTICLE AND 
YERMAK IS THE PRINCIPAL PERSON 
THEY ARE RELYING ON.
YERMAK SAYS THEY BELIEVE, THE 
EMBASSY WAS KEEPING INFORMATION 
FROM THEM.
ANOTHER INTERESTING THING MR. 
YERMAK SAYS IN THAT BLOOMBERG 
ARTICLE IS HE RECOUNTS THE 
MEETING WITH SONDLAND WHICH HAS 
BECOME VERY SIGNIFICANT.
THE POOL SIDE MEETING HE SAYS HE
DOESN'T RECALL THE WAY IT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RECALLED IT.
KEEP IN MIND MR. YERMAK SPEAKS 
ENGLISH.
BUT IT'S NOT HIS FIRST LANGUAGE.
AND SO HE DOES NOT RECALL THE 
MEETING WHICH HAPPENED ON THE 
WAY THE TO AN ESCALATOR AFTER 
THE MEETING WITH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT.
HE RECALLS IT VERY DIFFERENTLY.
SO THE QUESTION, THE FACTS OF 
WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND AND MR. YERMAK ON THE 
WAY ESCALATOR REMAINS IN 
DISPUTE.
NOW, TURNING ATTENTION TO THE 
RON JOHNSON LETTER, IF I MAY -- 
>> YES.
>> ON AUGUST 31st, SENATOR 
JOHNSON IS GETTING READY TO 
TRAVEL TO UKRAINE WITH SENATOR 
MURPHY.
AND JOHNSON WANTED TO BE 
BRIEFED.
HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT.
HE SOUGHT PERMISSION TO BE THE 
BEARER OF GOOD NEWS.
>> RIGHT.
>> PRESIDENT SAID I'M NOT READY 
TO LIFT THE AID.
HE HAD THIS -- SENATOR JOHNSON, 
HE WRITES A TEN-PAGE LETTER.
VERY DETAILED.
AND HE GIVES SOME REMARKABLE 
DETAIL.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT.
IT'S ON PAGE 6.
THIS IS SENATOR JOHNSON 
SPEAKING, HE SAID, I ASKED HIM 
WHETHER THERE WAS SOME KIND OF 
ARRANGEMENT WHERE UKRAINE WOULD 
TAKE SOME ACTION AND THE HOLD 
WOULD BE LIFTED.
WITHOUT HESITATION, SENATOR 
JOHNSON SAYS, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
IMMEDIATELY DENIED SUCH AN 
ARRANGEMENT EXISTED AND HE 
STARTED CURSING.
AND HE SAID NO WAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID NO WAY.
I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
AND SENATOR JOHNSON GOES ON TO 
SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
REACTION HERE WAS ADAMANT, 
VEHEMENT AND ANGRY.
SENATOR JOHNSON GOES ON TO SAY 
THAT AS OF AUGUST 31st THE 
PRESIDENT -- YOU'RE GOING TO 
LIKE MY DECISION IN THE END.
I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT 
CONTEXT ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
STATE OF MIND WAS AT LEAST AS OF
AUGUST 31st.
>> RIGHT.
HE FULLY EXPECTED, YOU AGREE, 
THAT THE AID WOULD EVENTUALLY BE
RELEASED AFTER THE 55 DAY PAUSE.
RIGHT?
>> YES.
ABSOLUTELY.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR 
YOU PRESENTATIONS.
MR. CASTOR, I BELIEVE YOU'VE 
BEEN TALKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 
75 MINUTES TODAY.
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR 
THAT.
>> MY WIFE THANKS YOU AS WELL.
SHE LIKES IT WHEN I DO THE 
TALKING WHEN SHE'S NOT AROUND.
>> TIME PERMITTING TODAY, I 
WOULD LIKE TO COVER FOUR OR FIVE
AREAS, DISTINCT AREAS.
THE THERE'S A LOT OF FACTS THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NOT HEARD.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF 
CONTRADICTIONS IN CERTAIN 
PEOPLE'S TESTIMONY.
IS THAT FAIR TO SAY, MR. CASTOR?
 AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT 
SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS STORY
THAT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF
THE FACT.
WE HAVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SENATOR 
PERRY.
YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK 
TO TWO OF THOSE THREE PEOPLE, 
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND THE DEMOCRATS REPORT 
WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE THAT 
THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS WERE 
ENGAGED IN SOME SORT OF KABAL OR
SOME SORT OF NEFARIOUS VENTURE 
BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE, IS IT?
IN FACT, THESE THREE PEOPLE WERE
AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES AND EVEN 
TODAY ACTING IN THE BEST 
INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE, IS THAT TRUE?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
WASN'T THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK EVERYONE TESTIFIED THAT 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS ONE OF THE 
MOST EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATS IN 
OUR FOREIGN SERVICE.
>> ALL THE WITNESSES INCLUDING 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH TALKED ABOUT 
THE INTEGRITY THAT AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER BRINGS TO THE TABLE.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT WE 
DIDN'T TALK TO YOU, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
NOW, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICISM OF 
FOREIGN AID.
THE PRESIDENT VERY SKEPTICAL OF 
FOREIGN AID, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> HE IS DEEPLY SKEPTICAL OF 
SENDING U.S. TAXPAYER DOLLARS 
INTO AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS 
CORRUPT BECAUSE IT'S AS GOOD AS 
KISSING IT GOOD-BYE.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING NEW THAT HE
BELIEVES OR IS THAT SOMETHING HE
RAN ON?
>> SOMETHING HE HAS RAN ON.
SOMETHING THAT HE HAS 
IMPLEMENTED POLICIES AS SOON AS 
HE BECAME PRESIDENT.
AMBASSADOR HALE TOLD US ABOUT 
THE OVERALL REVIEW OF ALL 
FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS AND HE 
DESCRIBED IT ALMOST AS A ZERO 
BASE EVALUATION.
>> YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF MARK 
SANDY WHO IS A CAREER OFFICIAL 
AT OMB, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND, HE HAD SOME INFORMATION 
ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE PAUSE, 
IS THAT TRUE?
I THINK THAT HE HAD A 
CONVERSATION WITH AN INDIVIDUAL 
NAMED ROB BLAIR, AND MR. BLAIR 
PROVIDED SOME INSIGHT INTO THE 
REASON FOR THE PAUSE.
>> SANDY WAS ONE OF THE FEW 
WITNESSES WE HAD THAT WAS ABLE 
TO GIVE US FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT 
INSIDE OF OMB THE REASON FOR THE
PAUSE RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S
CONCERN ABOUT EUROPEAN BURDEN 
SHARING IN THE REGION.
>> AND, IN FACT, IN HIS 
CONVERSATIONS, THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATOR 
JOHNSON, HE MENTIONS HIS CONCERN
ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.
AND I BELIEVE HE REFERENCED A 
CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH 
THE CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY, AND, 
IN FACT, THE WHOLE FIRST PART OF
THE JULY 24th TRANSCRIPT HE'S 
TALKING ABOUT BURDEN SHARING AND
WANTING THE EUROPEANS TO DO 
MORE.
BUT -- 
>> SENATOR JOHNSON WAS AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THEY WERE PRETTY
CANDID AND THEY BELIEVE THAT 
ALLIES LIKE GERMANY WERE 
LAUGHING AT US BECAUSE WE WERE 
SO WILLING TO SPEND THE AID.
>> RIGHT.
NOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF 
ALLEGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IS NOT BEING CANDID 
ABOUT FEELING PRESSURE FROM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND ISN'T I WANT TRUE THAT HE 
STATED OVER AND OVER PUBLICLY 
THAT HE FELT NO PRESSURE FROM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP?
IS THAT TRUE?
>> YEAH.
HE SAID IT CONSISTENTLY.
HE SAID IT AT THE UNITED NATIONS
SEPTEMBER 25th.
HE SAID IT, YOU KNOW, IN THREE 
MORE NEWS AVAILABILITY, 
INCLUDING LAST WEEK.
>> I WANT TO CHANGE SUBJECTS AND
TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT 
PROFESSOR TURLEY RAISED LAST 
WEEK AND THAT IS THE PARTISAN 
NATURE OF THIS INVESTIGATION.
AND YOU'RE AN EXPERIENCED 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATOR.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, HE'S NO 
TRUMP SUPPORTER.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
HE IS A DEMOCRAT.
THAT'S RIGHT.
AND, BUT PROFESSOR TURLEY 
CAUTIONED THE THAT A PAR THE AT 
THE SAN INQUIRY IS NOT WHAT THE 
FOUNDERS ENVISIONED, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND -- 
>> WORSE THING YOU CAN HAVE WITH
AN IMPEACHMENT IS PARTISAN 
RANCOR BECAUSE NOBODY WILL 
ACCEPT THE RESULT ON THE OTHER 
SIDE.
>> AND OUR DEMOCRAT FRIENDS HAVE
BECOME ORIGINALALISTS AND CITING
THE FOUNDERS AND THEIR INTENT 
REPEATEDLY IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS.
>> I THINK IT GOES TO WHETHER 
THIS CONSTITUTES BRIBERY.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S CASE LAW ON 
BRIBERY.
I'M NO SUPREME COURT SCHOLAR OR 
LAWYER OR ADVOCATE, BUT, YOU 
KNOW, THERE'S NEW CASE LAW WITH 
THE McDONALD CASE WHAT 
CONSTITUTES AN OFFICIAL ACT AND 
THAT HASN'T BEEN, YOU KNOW, 
ADDRESSED IN THIS SPACE AND I 
THINK PROFESSOR TURLEY MENTIONED
IT.
>> RIGHT.
I THINK PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID 
THAT A MEETING CERTAINLY DOES 
NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL ACT.
>> IT'S THE MCDONALD NALD CASE.
>> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY POINTED 
THAT OUT FOR US LAST WEEK.
YES.
SINCE THIS INQUIRY IS UNOFFICIAL
AND UNSANCTIONED START IN 
SEPTEMBER, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN 
PARTISAN, BIASSED, UNFAIR, 
REPUBLICANS QUESTIONING HAS BEEN
CURTAILED ROUTINELY.
I THINK WE SAW THAT IN 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S 
DEPOSITION.
THERE WERE SOME, YOU KNOW -- 
>> WE WERE BARRED FROM ASKING 
HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO HE 
COMMUNICATED HIS CONCERNS TO.
>> VERY BASIC THINGS LIKE WHO, 
WHAT, WHEN, WHERE.
AND INSTEAD -- 
>> I WOULD SAY TOO, THIS 
RAPID -- YOU KNOW WE'RE IN DAY 
76, AND IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE 
TO DO A SOPHISTICATED 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION THAT
QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE 
STAKES ARE THIS HIGH BECAUSE ANY
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF 
ANY CONSEQUENCE, IT DOES TAKE A 
LITTLE BIT OF TIME FOR THE TWO 
SIDES TO STAKE OUT THEIR 
INTERESTS AND HOW HE THEY WILL 
RESPOND TO THEM.
>> RIGHT.
>> WE LEARNED WITH THE GOWDY 
PROBE THE FIRST LETTER WENT IN 
OCTOBER OF 2017, AND, YOU KNOW, 
IN DECEMBER WE FINALLY GOT A 
WITNESS, AND IT WAS THE 
FOLLOWING SPRING, AFTER A LOT OF
PUSHING AND PULLING AND A LOT OF
TUG-OF-WAR, WE REACHED A DEAL 
WITH THE DOJ WHERE WE WENT DOWN 
TO DOJ, AND THEY GAVE US ACCESS 
TO DOCUMENTS AND GAVE US ACCESS,
TO I THINK, NORTH OF 800,000 
PAGES.
BUT THEY MADE US COME DOWN 
THERE, THEY MADE US GO INTO A 
SKIFF, AND THESE DOCUMENTS 
WEREN'T CLASSIFIED, AND, YOU 
KNOW, IT WASN'T UNTIL MAY AND 
JUNE OF THAT YEAR THAT WE 
STARTED THIS PROCESS WHEN THE 
INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN ONGOING 
AND THAT IS DISAPPOINTING, 
OBVIOUSLY, WE ALL WISH THERE WAS
AN EASY BUTTON.
BUT CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
OF CONSEQUENCE TAKE TIME.
>> RIGHT.
AND IT TOOK, I THINK SIX MONTHS 
BEFORE THE FIRST DOCUMENT WAS 
EVEN PRODUCED AND LIKE YOU SAID,
YOU HAD TO GO DOWN THERE AND 
REVIEW IT IN CAMERA AND THEN 
GOING BACK FURTHER TO FAST AND 
FURIOUS, THE INVESTIGATION OF 
THE DEATH OF A BORDER PATROL 
AGENT.
>> WE ISSUED SUBPOENAS.
SUBPOENAS WERE SENT IN FEBRUARY 
OF 2011, AND WE HAD HEARING IN 
JUNE WITH EXPERTS ABOUT 
PROCEEDINGS WITH CONTEMPT.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GO TO 
CONTEMPT.
THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN JUNE 
WHEN WE EVER GOT PRODUCTION.
PRODUCTION WAS LARGELY PUBLICLY 
AVAILABLE INFORMATION.
WE WENT, WE SPENT MOST OF THE 
YEAR TRYING TO GET INFORMATION 
OUT OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
AT THE TIME WE WERE ALSO WORKING
WITH WHISTLE-BLOWERS WHO WERE 
PROVIDING US DOCUMENTS, AND 
CHAIRMAN ISSA AT THE TIME THEN 
IN OCTOBER ISSUED ANOTHER 
SUBPOENA THAT WAS TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT AND SO DID THE 
INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN ONGOING 
MOST OF THE YEAR?
WE WERE TALKING TO 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS, DOING 
INTERVIEWS AND DOING OUR BEST TO
GET DOCUMENTS OUT JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT THROUGH THAT CHANNEL,
BUT THESE THINGS TAKE TIME.
>> RIGHT.
>> CERTAINLY NOT 76 DAYS.
>> IF YOU TRULY WANT TO UNCOVER 
EVERY FACT, AS YOU SHOULD IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT, DO YOU AGREE, YOU 
HAVE TO GO TO COURT SOMETIMES 
AND ENFORCE YOUR SUBPOENAS AND 
HERE MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE
A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR 
INFORMATION, VOLUNTARY 
INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, WILL YOU 
PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH DOCUMENTS
ON X, Y AND Z AND I THINK THAT'S
GREAT.
BUT YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP WITH 
SOMETHING, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS TO 
ENFORCE YOUR REQUEST.
THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF ANY 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION IS 
YOU REALLY GET WHAT YOU'RE 
ASKING FOR UNLESS AND UNTIL THE 
ALTERNATIVE IS LESS PALATABLE 
FOR THE RESPONDENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA, YOU TRY TO GET 
DOCUMENTS.
ONE THE TECHNIQUE YOU CAN USE IS
TALK TO A DOCUMENT CUSTODIAN OR 
IN THE FUNCTION OF WHAT 
DOCUMENTS EXIST.
CHAIRMAN CHAVITZ, DURING HIS 
ERA, OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO 
BE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE SERVING 
THE INTEREST.
YOU CAN SABER RATTLE ABOUT 
HOLDING SOMEBODY IN CONTEMPT.
OFTENTIMES WITNESSES WHO ARE 
RELUCTANT TO COOPERATE AND COME 
FORWARD, WHEN YOU ATTACH A 
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING OR A 
PROSPECTIVE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING 
TO THEIR NAME A LOT OF TIMES 
THAT CHANGES THE OUTCOME AND 
WITH A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING YOU 
GOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT STEPS 
ALONG THE WAY.
YOU CAN RAISE THE PROSPECT OF A 
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, SCHEDULE A 
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.
AFTER YOU SCHEDULE A CONTEMPT 
PROCEEDING YOU CAN HOLD THE DOOR
OPEN FOR DOCUMENTS OR INTERVIEWS
OR PUSH IT OFF.
CAN YOU GO THROUGH AT THE 
COMMITTEE LEVEL.
AND THESE ARE ALL SORT OF 
MILESTONE EVENTS WHICH 
HISTORICALLY ARE UNPALATABLE OR 
LESS PALATABLE FOR THE 
ADMINISTRATION THAT SOMETIMES 
STARTS TO MOVE THE NEEDLE, AND 
WITH THESE TYPES OF DISPUTES, 
ONCE YOU GET THE BALL ROLLING, 
YOU KNOW, LIKE WITH THE GOWDY 
PROBE, THERE WAS McCABE IN AND A
COUPLE OF MONTHS.
ONCE WE GOT DIRECTOR McCABE IN, 
A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER WE GOT 
DIRECTOR COMEY'S CHIEF OF STAFF,
COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER -- ONCE 
YOU GET THE BALL ROLLING, AGAIN 
YOU DON'T ALWAYS LIKE 100% OF 
THE TERMS.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH 
AGENCY COUNSEL OR GO LOOK IN 
CAMERA.
ONCE YOU GET THE BALL ROLLING 
USUALLY IT LEADS TO POSITIVE 
RESULTS AND HISTORICALLY HAS 
ALLOWED THE CONGRESS TO DO ITS 
WORK.
>> WERE ANY OF THOSE THINGS 
HERE?
>> NO.
>> IN FACT, THEY DECIDED WE'RE 
NOT GOING TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN 
PEOPLE THAT ARE IMPORTANT, IS 
THAT FAIR THE TO SAY?
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO COURT 
AND ENFORCE THEM SO THESE FOLKS 
THAT ARE CAUGHT IN AN 
INTERBRANCH STRUGGLE AND THAT'S 
AN UNFORTUNATE POSITION FOR ANY 
EMPLOYEE.
>> ONE OF THE CONCERNING THINGS 
IS DR. KUPPERMAN WHO HAS BEEN 
DESCRIBED BY DR. FIONA HILL AND 
A NUMBER OF WITNESSES AS A SOLID
WITNESS, A GOOD WITNESS, HE 
FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE FACE OF A
SUBPOENA AND A JUDGE WAS 
ASSIGNED AND THE ISSUES THAT 
KUPPERMAN RAISED WERE DIFFERENT 
THAN DON McGAHN.
DON McGAHN WAS THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL.
KUPPERMAN IS A NATIONAL SECURITY
OFFICIAL.
KUPPERMAN, YOU KNOW, FILED THE 
LAWSUIT SEEKING GUIDANCE.
KUPPERMAN WASN'T ASKING THE 
COURT TO TELL HIM NOT COME 
TESTIFY, TO THE CONTRARY 
KUPPERMAN WAS SEEKING THE 
COURT'S GUIDANCE TO FACILITATE 
HIS COOPERATION AND ULTIMATELY 
THE COMMITTEE WITHDREW THE 
SUBPOENA.
WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 
WHETHER THE COMMITTEE IS REALLY 
INTERESTED IN GETTING TO THE 
BOTTOM OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
>> RIGHT.
INSTEAD THE COMMITTEE HAS 
CHOSEN, THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE HAS CHOSEN TO RELY ON 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND HIS 
TESTIMONY.
I THINK THEY RELIED 600 TIMES IN
THEIR REPORT.
>> ON THIS POINT -- YESTERDAY I 
OPENED THE DEMOCRAT REPORT.
AND I DID A CONTROL F.
SONDLAND'S NAME SHOWS UP 611 
TIMES.
IN FAIRNESS, IT'S GOING TO BE 
DOUBLE COUNTED BECAUSE, YOU 
KNOW, IF IT'S IN A SENTENCE AND 
THEN A FOOTNOTE THAT'S TWO BUT 
IN RELATIVE COMPARISON TO THE 
OTHER WITNESSES, SONDLAND IS 
RELIED ON BIG TIME.
>> YES.
AND I THINK DR. HILL TESTIFIED 
THAT SHE AT SOME POINT 
CONFRONTED HIM ABOUT HIS ACTIONS
AND -- 
>> THE RECORD IS MIXED ON THIS 
FRONT.
DR. HILL TALKS ABOUT RAISING 
CONCERNS WITH SONDLAND AND IN 
SONDLAND'S DEPOSITION, HE DIDN'T
SHARE THE SAME VIEW.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF INSTANCES OF
THAT, WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
RECALLS ONE THING AND OTHER 
WITNESSES RECALL ANOTHER, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> SONDLAND IS A WITNESS, HE'S A
BIT OF AN ENIGMA, LET'S JUST SAY
IT THAT WAY.
HE WAS -- YOU KNOW HE WAS PRETTY
CERTAIN IN HIS DEPOSITION THAT 
THE SECURITY WASN'T LINKED TO 
ANYTHING.
THEN HE SUBMITTED A -- HE 
SUBMITTED AN ADDENDUM.
>> I CALL THAT THE PRETZEL 
SENTENCE.
>> YES.
EVEN IN THAT ADDENDUM OR 
SUPPLEMENT OR WHATEVER IT'S 
CALLED, YOU KNOW, IT'S UP TO HIM
AND HER AND, ANYWAY, SONDLAND 
ENDS WITH, I PRESUMED.
SO IT WASN'T REALLY ANY 
FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.
>> RIGHT.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FIRSTHAND
INFORMATION HERE, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> ON CERTAIN FACTS WE DON'T.
I MEAN WE HAVE FIRST HAND 
INFORMATION ON THE MAY 23rd 
MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF FIRSTHAND TERM 
ALTHOUGH CONFLICT ON THE JULY 
10th MEETING.
THERE ARE EPISODES, I THINK, 
DURING THE COURSE OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION THAT WE HAVEN'T 
BEEN ABLE TO AT LEAST GET 
EVERYONE'S ACCOUNT.
BUT, THE INVESTIGATION HASN'T 
BEEN ABLE TO REVEAL, YOU KNOW, 
FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE RELATING TO 
THE PRESIDENT OTHER THAN THE 
CALL TRANSCRIPT.
>> I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED 
ABOUT THIS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WOULD PRESUME THINGS.
ASSUME THINGS.
AND FORM OPINIONS BASED ON WHAT 
OTHER PEOPLE TOLD HIM AND THEN 
HE WOULD USE THOSE AS FIRSTHAND,
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU KNOW, IT STARTED WITH HIS
ROLE WITH THE UKRAINE PORTFOLIO.
A LOT OF PEOPLE AT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT WERE WONDERING WHY 
THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EU WAS SO 
ENGAGED IN ISSUES RELATED TO THE
UKRAINE.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ANSWERS FOR 
THAT.
UKRAINE IS AN AASPIRA NT TO JOI 
TEMP U.
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT HAS GIVEN 
ME A LOT OF ASSIGNMENTS.
THE PRESIDENT ASSIGNED ME 
UKRAINE.
IN HIS DEPOSITION HE CONCEDED HE
WAS, IN FACT, SPINNING.
THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER 
ASSIGNED HIM TO UKRAINE, THAT HE
WAS JUST -- YOU KNOW, HE WAS 
EXAGGERATING.
>> I THINK AT THE PUBLIC 
HEARING, YOU POINTED OUT THAT IN
CONTRAST TO OTHER WITNESSES, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ISN'T A NOTE
TAKER.
HE, IN FACT, HE SAID I DO NOT 
RECALL DOZENS OF TIMES IN HIS 
DEPOSITION.
>> LET'S SAY THINK IT WAY.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WALKED US 
THROUGH HIS, HIS STANDARD 
OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR TAKING 
NOTES.
HE TALKED TO US ABOUT HAVING A 
NOTEBOOK ON HIS DESK AND A 
NOTEBOOK IN THE POCKET OF HIS 
SUIT.
SO WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
RECOUNTS TO US, YOU KNOW, WHAT 
HAPPENED, IT'S BACKED UP BY 
THESE CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND -- ON THE 
FIRSTHAND HE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE
ACCESS TO STATE DEPARTMENT 
RECORDS.
HE SAID THAT AT THE PUBLIC 
RECORD SIMULTANEOUSLY THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT ISSUED A TWEET, I 
THINK, OR A STATEMENT AT LEAST 
SAYING THAT WASN'T TRUE.
NOBODY IS KEEPING AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND FROM HIS EMAILS.
YOU KNOW, HE'S STILL A STATE 
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE.
HE CAN GO -- HE DOES HAVE ACCESS
TO HIS RECORDS.
BUT HE STATED HE DIDN'T.
HE STATED HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY 
NOTES BECAUSE HE DOESN'T TAKE 
NOTES.
HE CONCEDED THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE
RECOLLECTIONS ON A LOT OF THESE 
ISSUES.
YOU KNOW WE SORT OF MADE A LIST 
OF THEM.
I THINK AT THE HEARING I CALLED 
IT THE TRIFECTA OF 
UNRELIABILITY.
>> AND YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY 
PERSON THAT HAS CONCERNS ABOUT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY,
CONDUCT, I THINK OTHER WITNESSES
TOOK ISSUE WITH HIS CONDUCT, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH.
TIM MORRISON TALKED ABOUT 
INSTANCE WHERE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS SHOWING UP 
UNINVITED.
MORRISON DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY 
SONDLAND WAS TRYING TO GET INTO 
THE WARSAW MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 
1st.
AND DR. HILL, FIONA HILL TOLD US
ABOUT ISSUES OF THAT SORT AND A 
NUMBER OF WITNESSES, YOU'RE 
CORRECT.
>> AND AMBASSADOR WEEKER SAID HE
WAS A PROBLEM.
>> A PROBLEM.
>>  DR. HILL RAISED CONCERNS 
ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND SAID THAT
HE MIGHT BE AN INTELLIGENCE 
RISK, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SHE DID.
SHE HAD ISSUES WITH HIS TENDENCY
TO PULL OUT HIS MOBILE DEVICE 
AND MAKE TELEPHONE CALLS.
WHICH, OBVIOUSLY, CAN BE 
MONITORED.
>> YES.
>> BY THE BAD GUYS.
>> AND WE TALKED ABOUT HOW HE 
WAS SPINNING CERTAIN THINGS.
AND HE ADMITTED THAT.
HOW HE WAS SPINNING.
>> HE ADMITTED HE EXAGGERATED.
>> YES.
>> ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES
TO HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, WE TRY TO GET HIM TO 
LIST ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH
THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK HE GAVE US SIX.
AND THEN HE WALKED US THROUGH 
EACH COMMUNICATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
IT WAS ABOUT A CHRISTMAS PARTY.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF FINLAND 
WAS HERE.
THEN CONGRESSWOMAN SPEAR ASKED 
HIM THE SAME QUESTION IN THE 
OPEN HEARING AND HE SAID THAT HE
HAD TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT 20 
TIMES.
SO, THE RECORD -- 
>> I THINK MY TIME SUPER.
THANK YOU BOTH.
YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO 
RECESS 30 MINUTES PURSUANT TO 
RULE.
>> GENTLEMAN HAS -- I'M SORRY.
THE GENTLEMAN MOVED TO RECESS 
FOR HOW LONG?
>> FOR 30 MINUTES.
>> 30 MINUTES.
AS A PRIVILEGE MOTION.
IT WAS NOT DEBATABLE.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NO, NO?
>> NO.
>> NO, SIR HAVE IT.
MOTION IS NOT AGREED TO.
>> ROLL CALL VOTE REQUESTED.
[ CLERK IS TAKING A ROLE CALL 
VOTE ]
[ CLERK IS TAKING A ROLE CALL 
VOTE ]
[ CLERK IS TAKING A ROLE CALL 
VOTE ]
>>> MR. COHEN YOU'RE NOT 
RECORDED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO BE RECORDED 
AS NO.
>> ANY OTHER MEMBERS WHO HAVE 
WISHED TO VOTE WHO HAVE NOT 
VOTED?
THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN THERE ARE 15 
AYES AND 24 NOS.
>> THE MOTION IS NOT AGREED.
NOW WE'LL ENGAGING QUESTIONS 
UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE.
I'LL START WITH MYSELF.
MR. GOLDMAN CAN YOU PLEASE 
EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S REQUEST 
TO UKRAINE A FEW YEARS AGO AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST TO 
UKRAINE EARLIER THIS YEAR?
>> YES.
WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
PRESSURED THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT TO REMOVE THE CORRUPT 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL HE WAS DOING 
SO WITH AN INTERNATIONAL 
CONSENSUS AS PART OF U.S. 
POLICY, THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN 
UNION SUPPORTED THAT, THE IMF 
SUPPORT THAT, THE IMF THAT GAVE 
THE LOANS HE WAS REFERRING TO.
AND SO HE DID THAT AS PART OF 
THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMUNITY'S CONSENSUS.
AND WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP IS 
ASKING FOR THIS INVESTIGATION OF
JOE BIDEN, ALL OF THE WITNESSES,
EVERY SINGLE ONE TESTIFIED THAT 
THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.
>> AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 
REQUEST HAD NO PERSONAL, 
POLITICAL BENEFIT WHEREAS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST DID?
>> YES, IN FACT, IF THE 
WITNESSES TESTIFIED IF THAT 
CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL WERE 
ACTUALLY REMOVED, IT WOULD BE 
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PROSECUTING 
CORRUPTION.
SO THE WITNESSES SAID THAT BY 
REMOVING THAT PROSECUTOR GENERAL
AND ADDING A NEW ONE THAT THERE 
WAS AN INCREASED CHANCE THAT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE WOULD BE 
PROSECUTED INCLUDING AS IT 
RELATED TO THE BURISMA COMPANY 
WHICH HIS SON WAS ON THE BOARD 
OF.
>> MR. GOLD MAPP, CAN YOU PLEASE
EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED 
WITH THE PHONE RECORDS OBTAINED 
BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO SET THE RECORD 
STRAIGHT ON THAT.
THIS IS A VERY BASIC AND USUAL 
INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE WHERE 
PEOPLE INVOLVED IN A SCHEME OR 
SUSPECTED TO BE INVOLVED IN A 
SCHEME, INVESTIGATORS ROUTINELY 
SEEK THEIR RECORDS AND JUST TO 
BE VERY CLEAR, THIS IS META 
DATA.
IT'S ONLY CALL, TO CALL FROM AND
LENGTH.
NOT THE CONTENT OF THE CALLS.
OR THE TEXT MESSAGES.
THERE'S NO CONTENT, NO RISK OF 
INVADING ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH
LAWYERS OR JOURNALISTS OR 
ATTORNEY CLIENT THAT NONE OF 
THAT EXISTS AND NO RISK TO THAT.
WHAT WE DID IS FOR SEVERAL OF 
THE PEOPLE WE HAD INVESTIGATED 
AND SUBPOENAED AND WHO WERE 
ALLEGED TO BE PART OF THE 
SCHEME, WE GOT CALL RECORDS SO 
THAT WE COULD CORROBORATE SOME 
OF THEIR TESTIMONY OR FIGURE OUT
MAYBE THERE'S ADDITIONAL 
COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE WERE 
UNAWARE OF.
WHAT WE THEN DID IS TOOK THE 
CALL RECORDS AND MATCHED IT UP 
WITH IMPORTANT EVENTS THAT 
OCCURRED DURING THE SCHEME AND 
START TO SEE IF THERE ARE 
PATTERNS BECAUSE CALL RECORDS 
CAN BE QUITE POWERFUL 
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IN THIS CASE IT JUST SO HAPPENED
PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SCHEME WERE 
COMMUNICATING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WHO WAS ALSO 
INVOLVED IN THE SCHEME, A 
JOURNALIST, STAFF MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS AND ANOTHER MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS.
WE, OF COURSE, DID NOT AT ALL 
SEEK IN ANY WAY SHAPE, OR FORM 
TO DO ANY INVESTIGATION ON 
ANYONE, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR 
A STAFF MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE THAT THEY
WERE IN COMMUNICATION WITH 
PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.
>> AND EVERYTHING YOU DID WAS 
BASICALLY STANDARD OPERATING 
PROCEDURE.
>> EVERY INVESTIGATION WE DID WE
GOT CALL RECORDS.
>> DID WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL MAKE 
HIS VIEW CLEAR OF EVIDENCE AND 
WITNESSES REQUESTED?
>> WE NEVER HEARD FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL OTHER THAN THE 
LETTER WHICH BASICALLY JUST SAID
WE WILL NOT AT ALL COOPERATE 
WITH THIS INVESTIGATION IN ANY 
WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
THEY NEVER REACHED OUT TO 
ENGAGING THIS ACCOMMODATION 
PROCESS.
IT WAS A COMPLETE STONEWALL.
NOT ONLY WOULD THE WHITE HOUSE 
NOT PARTICIPATE OR COOPERATE AND
NOT RESPOND TO THE DULY 
AUTHORIZED SUBPOENAS OF CONGRESS
BUT THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS WE'RE 
ALSO GOING DIRECT EVERY OTHER 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY TO DEFY 
THIS.
>> I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS 
AND KEEP YOUR ANSWERS BRIEF.
DURING LAST WEEK'S HEARING MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUE SAID 
CONGRESS HAS NOT BUILT A 
SUFFICIENT RECORD TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT.
AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR YOU SPENT
YEARS BUILDING SUBSTANTIAL CASE 
RECORDS.
WHAT'S THE STRENGTH OF THIS 
RECORD HERE?
>> WE'VE MOVED FAST AND THE 
EVIDENCE IS REALLY OVERWHELMING.
WE HAVE 17 WITNESSES WITH 
OVERLAPPING -- 
>> OVERWHELMING.
THE COMMITTEE MANAGED TO COLLECT
SUCH EVIDENCE EVEN BY 
OBSTRUCTION BY THE PRESIDENT.
>> YES.
>>  WAS THE OBSTRUCTION SO 
EVASIVE AS IT WAS PLANNED TO 
HAVE COVER-UP PRESIDENT CONDUCT.
>> WE SAW THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO
CONCEAL THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED HIS 
ADMINISTRATION NOT TO COOPERATE 
WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WROTE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT PERMIT 
HIS ADMINISTRATION TO 
PARTICIPATE.
THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE HAD 
DOZENS OF WITNESSES INCLUDING 
FORMER AND CURRENT TRUMP 
OFFICIALS AND WERE STYMIED WITH 
RESPECT TO MOST THEM.
IS THAT CORRECT 
>> THERE WERE 12 WITNESSES WHO 
WERE DIRECTED NOT TO APPEAR AND 
ULTIMATELY THEY DID NOT APPEAR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD TO THE RANKING MR., MR. 
COLLINS.
>> MR. GOLDMAN, AN INTERESTING 
THING.
WE CAN COMMIT EXTORTION OR PUT 
PRESSURE ON OTHERS AS LONG AS WE
HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO THINK 
WE'RE OKAY I CAN EXTORT ANYBODY 
I WANT TO AS LONG AS ENOUGH 
PEOPLE THINK IT'S OKAY.
THAT IN ESSENCE WHAT YOU JUST 
SAID.
I WANT TO GO TO THE PHONE 
RECORDS.
IT'S A NOVEL APPROACH.
THE PHONE RECORDS ISSUED, HEAR 
ME CLEARLY.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE 
SUBPOENA AS FAR AS THE SUBPOENA 
POWER FROM CONGRESS.
NOT A PROBLEM.
MY PROBLEM AS YOU DID NOT ANSWER
IN THE PREVIOUS, THOSE IS TAKE 
META DATA.
IT'S INTERESTING YOU HAD TO GO 
AND SAY THERE'S NO -- WE HAD 
THAT DEBATE IN CONGRESS IN THE 
LAST FEW YEARS ON FISA PROGRAM.
THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD BE HEARING
THE FISA REPORT.
IT'S INTERESTING TO ME TO SEE TO
ME THAT THE CALLS IN THE META 
DATA AND NOT THE CONTENT, WHAT 
THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE IS THIS,
IF RUDY, MUNOZ, ONLY PHONE 
RECORDS RETURNED FROM THE 
SUBPOENA, WHY THESE RELEASED?
HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
YOU TOOK THE COMMITTEE AND THIS 
IS WHY I WANT TO KNOW WHO 
ORDERED IT.
THE COMMITTEE MADE A CHOICE, 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS NOT HERE OR 
YOU WHO DID GET TO COME, AT 
LEAST THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP, 
MADE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO PUT 
THESE RECORDS IN THE REPORT.
IT WAS A DRIVE BY.
IT WAS A GRATUITOUS DRIVE BY 
THAT YOU WANTED TO SMEAR THE 
RANKING MEMBER OR SMEAR THESE 
OTHERS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN 
THOSE NUMBERS THAT WERE 
CONNECTED TO IT.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU KNEW THE 
CONTENT.
YOU JUST ADMITED A SECOND AGO 
THEY WERE SIMPLY CONTACTING 
THESE PEOPLE.
THE PROBLEM I HAVE YOU COULD 
EASILY HAVE PUT IF YOU WANT TO 
DO A NONSMEAR REPORT SAY 
CONGRESS PERSON ONE OR CONGRESS 
PERSON TWO, REPORTER ONE, OR 
REPORTER TWO.
BECAUSE IF THEY DIDN'T 
CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR REPORT IT'S 
NOTHING BUT A DRIVE BY.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU 
WORKING.
NO PROBLEM WITH THE REPORT.
NO PROBLEM WITH THE SUBPOENA.
YOU CAN PRETTY IT UP ALL YOU 
WANT BUT THAT WAS NOTHING TO 
SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NATURAL
AT LEAST FOR A MOMENT THE SCHIFF
REPORT BECAME A PARTISAN SMEAR 
AGAINST OTHER MEMBERS WE DON'T 
LIKE BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER 
ALTERNATIVES FOR YOU TO DO.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM AS I SAID WITH
YOU DOING PROPER OVERSIGHT.
I HAVE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES HOW 
THIS OVERSIGHT IS DONE BUT DON'T
MAKE IT UP AND DON'T NOT TELL ME
OR THE REST OF THIS COMMITTEE 
WHO ORDERED THAT.
THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A 
SMEAR COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN GAVE YOU A CHANCE 
THE TO REHABILITATE AND YOU MADE
IT WORSE.
BY THE WAY, FULLER RECORD GOT 
LEAKED FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION 
GOT LEAKED TO "THE WASHINGTON 
POST".
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN 
SAY THIS IS OKAY.
HOW DO WE SAY THIS IS FINE.
MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY NOW MAY 
BE MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY AT 
SOME POINT AND IF WE'RE SETTING 
THE STANDARD FOR THIS IS WHERE 
WE'RE GOING WITH THESE KIND OF 
INVESTIGATIONS, THEN WE'RE IN 
TROUBLE.
WE'RE IN DEEP TROUBLE BECAUSE 
THIS IS ANOTHER THING THAT THE 
FOUNDERS YOU AND OTHERS HAVE 
SAID, FOUNDERS WERE DEEPLY 
CONCERNED ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS IS AND
MOST EVERYBODY IS AN 
ORIGINALIST.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.
A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE 
YOU DON'T LIKE HIS POLICIES.
YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT HE SAID OR 
HOW HE SAID IT.
I DON'T LIKE HOW JOE BIDEN SIDE 
IT BUT YOU BLEW THAT OFF BECAUSE
HE HAS THE BACK OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.
WE'RE A PERPETUAL STATE OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
DON'T COME HERE AND BE A PERSON 
WHO IS A WITNESS.
SWORN WITNESS AND NOT ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
ADAM SCHIFF IS DOING THAT FINE 
WITHOUT YOU.
BUT DON'T COME HERE AND SAY I'M 
NOT GOING SAY BECAUSE YOU KNOW 
GOOD AND WELL IN SOME COMMITTEE 
ROOM, SOMEBODY SAID HEY THIS IS 
INTERESTING I HAVE MUNOZ PHONE 
NUMBER AND THAT NUMBER IS IN 
THAT REPORT.
HE HAD A PHONE CALL WITH 
SOMEBODY WE'RE INVESTIGATING.
THAT'S A DRIVE BY AND IT'S 
BENEATH YOU AND THIS CONGRESS.
AND THAT IS WHY HAVE SUCH A 
PROBLEM WITH THIS.
THEN YOU LEAKED FURTHER 
INFORMATION.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE.
WE CAN BE RIGHTEOUS ABOUT TRYING
TO GET THIS PRESIDENT OR NOT.
THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE GETTING 
SO JUST TURNED OFF BY THIS WHOLE
THING.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT'S 
THE PROBLEM I HAVE BECAUSE COULD
YOU HAVE HANDLED THIS 
DIFFERENTLY.
I'LL BLAME THE CHAIRMAN, I'LL 
HOLD THE ONE WITH THE PEN 
RESPONSIBLE.
HE WAS THE ONE WHO CAN'T COME 
AND DEFEND THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, HE SENT YOU.
YOU HAD TO TAKE IT.
THAT'S WRONG AND THIS COMMITTEE 
DESERVES BETTER.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GIST OF THE QUESTION HERE IS
THE POTENTIAL OF ABUSE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S POWER TO BENEFIT 
HIMSELF IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
NOW AMERICA IS BASED ON FREE AND
FAIR ELECTIONS, AND AFTER RUSSIA
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
RIGHTFULLY CONCERNED ABOUT 
ENSURING THAT THE NEXT ELECTION 
IS REFEREE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
AND KEEPING THAT IN MIND I WOULD
LIKE TO ASK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN, 
THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED 
THAT ACCORDING TO RUDY GIULIANI,
QUOTE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED A 
PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY COMMITTING TO 
INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA IN THE
2016 ELECTION, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TESTIFIED AS THE SCREEN IN FRONT
YOU SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATION HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY
HAVE TO DO THEM.
>> CORRECT.
>> MR. GOLDMAN, YOU'RE AN 
EXPERIENCED FORMER PROSECUTOR.
IS IT COMMON TO ANNOUNCE AN 
INVESTIGATION BUT NOT ACTUALLY 
TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION?
>> NO.
USUALLY IT WORKS THE REVERSE.
NORMALLY YOU DON'T ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE YOU WANT 
TO DEVELOP AS MUCH EVIDENCE 
WHILE IT'S NOT PUBLIC BECAUSE IF
IT'S PUBLIC THEN YOU RUN INTO 
PROBLEMS OF PEOPLE MATCHING UP 
TESTIMONY AND WITNESSES 
TAILORING THEIR TESTIMONY WHICH 
IS PART OF THE REASON WHY THE 
CLOSED DEPOSITIONS IN OUR 
INVESTIGATION WERE SO IMPORTANT.
>> WHAT DID THAT EVIDENCE, THIS 
BENEFITTED THE ANNOUNCEMENT TELL
YOU ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WOULD ONLY CARE ABOUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS BUT NOT ACTUALLY 
CONDUCTING THEM.
>> THERE WERE TWO THINGS THAT IT
SAID.
ONE IS WHATEVER HE CLAIMS, THE 
PRESIDENT CLAIMS ABOUT HIS 
DESIRE TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION, 
EVEN IF YOU ASSUME THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS ARE FOR THAT 
PURPOSE AS HE HAS STATED, IT 
UNDERMINES THAT BECAUSE HE 
DOESN'T ACTUALLY CARE IF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS ARE DONE.
SO EVEN IF YOU ASSUME WHICH I 
DON'T THINK THE EVIDENCE 
SUPPORTS THAT IT'S CORRUPTION, 
THEN HE'S STILL NOT DOING THE 
CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION.
THE SECOND IS HE JUST WANTED THE
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT.
THE PRIVATE CONFIRMATION WAS NOT
ENOUGH AND THAT'S AN INDICATION 
THAT HE WANTED THE POLITICAL 
BENEFIT FROM THEM.
>> LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION COULD BENEFIT THE 
PRESIDENT POLITICALLY BECAUSE 
THE ANNOUNCEMENT ALONE COULD BE 
TWITTER FODDER BETWEEN NOW AND 
THE NEXT ELECTION TO SMEAR A 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE 
FINDINGS.
PRESIDENT NIXON ATTEMPTED TO 
CORRUPT ELECTIONS AND HIS AGENTS
BROKE INTO DEMOCRATIC PARTY 
HEADQUARTERS TO GATE LEG UP ON 
THE ELECTION.
AND THEN HE TRIED TO COVER IT 
UP, JUST AS WE'VE SEEN SOME 
OBSTRUCTION HERE.
BUT EVEN MORE CONCERNING IN THIS
CASE, PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ONLY 
APPEARS TO HAVE ABUSED THE POWER
OF HIS OFFICE TO HELP HIS OWN 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN HE USED 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS 
BIDDING AND USED MILITARY AID AS
LEVERAGE TO GET THE JOB DONE.
NOW THIS AID WAS APPROVED BY 
CONGRESS, APPROPRIATED ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS TO FIGHT RUSSIA
ON BEHALF OF UKRAINE WHO INVADE 
THEM.
THIS AID WAS WITHHELD.
PEOPLE DIED WHILE THIS AID WAS 
WITHHELD.
PEOPLE ARGUED SINCE ULTIMATELY 
THE AID WAS RELEASED THAT THERE 
WAS NOT A PROBLEM.
MR. GOLDMAN, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT 
THE AID WAS RELEASED ONLY AFTER 
THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT AND 
ONLY AFTER CONGRESS LEARNED OF 
THE SCHEME TO MAKE THIS LIFE OR 
DEATH CONDITIONAL ON THIS 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION OF
HIS POLITICAL RIVAL?
>> THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS 
THAT MADE THE PRESIDENT REALIZE 
THAT THIS WAS COMING TO A HEAD 
AND COULD NOT BE CONCEALED.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER KPLAINT WAS 
CIRCULATING AROUND THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
THE COMMITTEES ANNOUNCED THEIR 
OWN INVESTIGATION.
"THE WASHINGTON POST" OP-ED ON 
SEPTEMBER 5th LINKING THE TWO.
THEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
NOTIFIED THE COMMITTEE THERE WAS
THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT.
>> I MADE IT CLEAR THROUGHOUT 
THIS INVESTIGATION, I DON'T WANT
TO BE PART OF A THIRD 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, BUT THE 
DIRECT EVIDENCE IS VERY DAMNING 
AND THE PRESIDENT HASN'T OFFERED
ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
WE'VE ASKED, WE'VE SUBPOENAED, 
WE'VE INVITED THE PRESIDENT, AND
NOTHING HAS COME FORWARD.
IF HE HAD EVIDENCE OF HIS 
INNOCENCE, WHY WOULDN'T HE BRING
IT FORWARD?
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS
MATTER.
IT STRIKES AT THE HEART OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
AND IT'S A CONCERN THAT WE'RE 
HERE BUT I'VE HEARD OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN THAT THIS IS TOO 
FAST.
WELL, MISS JACKSON LEE AND I 
WERE TALKING, WE WERE BOTH 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE DURING
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
THAT TOOK 73 DAYS.
WE'RE HERE ON THE 76th DAY.
WE NEED THE TO PROCEED.
I THANK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN FOR 
YOUR HARD WORK AND YOUR 
PRESENTATION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> OUTOBJECTION THE HEARING WILL
STAND RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES.
[ RECESS BEING HAD.
>> THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
BEGINNING FIVE MINUTE 
QUESTIONING WITH CHAIRMAN 
JERROLD NADLER AND RANKING 
MEMBER DOUG COLLINS.
THEY ARE TAKE 15 MINUTE BREAK 
HERE.
SHOULD BE BACK AT ABOUT 3:00 
P.M. HURRICANE IRENE ON C-SPAN 
3.
WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT FROM 
YOU WHAT YOU'RE HEARING SO FAR.
OPEN UP OUR PHONE LINES TO HEAR 
FROM YOU.
THE LINES FOR DEMOCRATS IS 
202-748-8921, FOR DEMOCRATS 
202-748-920 AND FOR INDEPENDENTS
AND OTHER OTHERS 202-748-8922.
WE DON'T SCREEN OUR CALLERS.
WE WANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH 
UNFILTERED REACTION AND WOULD 
THEREOF HEAR FROM YOU.
WE'LL GET YOUR CALLS 
MOMENTARILY.
OUR CAMERAS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE 
HEARING ROOM AS THEY HAVE BEEN 
THROUGH ALL OF OUR COVERAGE IN 
CASE MEMBERS COME TO THE 
MICROPHONES FOR COVERAGE.
WE'LL TAKE YOU LIVE THERE AS 
WELL.
LET'S GET TO YOUR CALLS AND HEAR
FROM PAIGE FROM LOUISIANA.
GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: HI.
WELL FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO SAY 
THAT I'VE ONLY VOTED IN TWO 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, ONE I 
VOTED FOR A REPUBLICAN, ONE I 
VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT AND AS I 
WATCH THESE HEARINGS, THE 
THEATRICS PUT ON BY THE 
REPUBLICANS IT'S CLEAR TO ME 
THEY ARE TRYING TO DEFLECT FROM 
THE FACTS AND IT'S INSANE AND I 
CAN'T BELIEVE I'M WATCHING OUR 
COUNTRY GO THROUGH THIS.
I URGE EVERY REPUBLICAN TO GET 
ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.
>> LINDA IS NEXT ON OUR 
REPUBLICAN LINE.
>> Caller: HI.
I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS FOR 73 
DAYS.
I'M REALLY UPSET AND CONCERNED 
THAT THIS IS, AS HE SAY TEARING 
OUR COUNTRY APART.
THERE'S ALL FIRSTHAND -- NO 
FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE.
AND THERE ARE BILLS THAT ARE 
BEING HELD THAT ARE NOT BEING 
LOOKED AT AND I FEEL LIKE 
EVERYTHING HAS JUST STOPPED 
EXCEPT FOR THIS SCAM 
IMPEACHMENT.
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO 
VOICE AN OPINION.
THANK YOU, C-SPAN.
>> LOUIE, ONE OF THE 41 MEMBERS 
OF THE COMMITTEE.
THERE'S OTHER BUSINESS.
THE HOUSE COMING BACK TODAY.
THEY CAME BACK IN FOR 
LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
VOTES AFTER 6:30 THIS EVENING.
DIANE IS NEXT OGDEN, UTAH HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING THE 
REPORTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, DIANE.
>> Caller: GOOD AFTERNOON.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS 
TEARING THE COUNTRY APART AS 
WELL.
I FEEL LIKE THAT THE REPUBLICANS
ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT THE 
EVIDENCE.
THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE AND 
THAT SENATOR FROM GEORGIA THAT 
JUST WAS YELLING AT THE 
DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL WAS 
UNBELIEVABLE.
AND I JUST THINK THEY NEED TO 
GET ON BOARD, GET THIS TAKEN 
CARE OF, AND GET HIM OUT OF 
OFFICE NOW.
>> MELVILLE, NEW YORK OUR 
REPUBLICAN LINE.
THIS IS ROBERT.
GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: HI.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING MY 
CALL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR 
COVERAGE.
I DO APPRECIATE IT.
YOU KNOW, I HONESTLY I'M 
SELF-EMPLOYED, HAS BEEN FOR 20 
YEARS AND BEYOND ME HOW ANYBODY 
COULD EXPECT NORMAL PEOPLE TO 
HAVE THE TIME TO FOLLOW ALL OF 
THIS.
YET IF YOU FOLLOW IT JUST FOR AN
HOUR, ANY LOGICAL PERSON CAN SEE
WHO IS TRYING TO PULL A CHARADE.
NOT EVEN GOING SAY WHO IT IS.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
>> ROBERT, I PROMISE YOU, HANG 
ON FOR A SECOND WE'LL TAKE YOU 
WHILE WE HEAR FROM LIVE 
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS.
>> ONE THING I'M SURPRISED ABOUT
FROM THE BEGINNING IS ACTUALLY 
HOW WEAK OUR REPUBLICAN 
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN AS WELL AS 
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THEM.
I THINK THAT THE FACTS ARE 
CLEAR.
WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT, 
THERE'S OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE 
THAT HE HAS ABUSED HIS POWER.
THE BETRAYAL OF OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST IS VERY, VERY CLEAR AND
THE CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY THE 
CORRUPTION OF OUR ELECTIONS, I 
THINK, HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WHEN I LISTEN TO THE REPUBLICAN 
WITNESSES THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE
MUCH TO SAY EXCEPT FOR ARGUING 
ABOUT THE PROCESS, AND THEN 
DIMINISHING WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAS DONE, AS THOUGH IT IS NOT 
IMPORTANT.
TODAY AS WE ARE IN OUR HEARING, 
WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS MEETING 
RIGHT NOW WITH PUTIN, AND HE IS 
IN A WEAKENED STATE.
IF WE HAD GIVEN HIM THE AID THAT
HAD BEEN ALLOCATED FROM THE 
BEGINNING HE WOULD BE IN A 
DIFFERENT POSITION WITH 
PRESIDENT PUTIN.
BECAUSE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID FOR HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST 
WE'VE PUT A KEY ALLY IN A VERY 
COMPROMISING POSITION.
>> YEAH.
I WOULD JUST ADD I THINK WHAT WE
SAW CLEARLY FROM THE WITNESSES 
THIS MORNING AGAIN IS 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF HIS 
OFFICE, THE ENORMOUS POWER OF 
THE PRESIDENCY NOT TO ADVANCE 
THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR PUBLIC 
GOOD BUT FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL 
ADVANTAGE.
SADLY WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM OUR 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IS A 
CONTINUED FOCUS ON PROCESS.
NOT A SINGLE EFFORT TO IN ANY 
WAY REFUTE THIS OVERWHELMING 
EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT AND 
WRONGDOING BY THIS PRESIDENT AND
I WISH AS I LISTEN TO MY 
COLLEGES --
PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN 
LEADER TO INTERFERE IN AN 
AMERICAN ELECTION AND LEVERAGING
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ACHIEVE THAT
OBJECTIVE, IT GOES AT THE VERY 
HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
PEOPLE WAIT IN LONG LINES ALL 
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY TO VOTE TO 
HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD TO 
DETERMINE THEIR OWN FUTURE.
IT IS NOT RIGHT FOR A PRESIDENT 
TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INTERFERE IN THAT PROCESS.
THAT RIGHT BELONGS TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> VAL?
>> I THINK THE MAJORITY COUNSEL 
HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF 
REALLY LAYING OUT FOR THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THE FACTS.
WHAT WE ALL KNOW RIGHT NOW IS 
THE FACTS ARE PRETTY 
OVERWHELMING, BUT WHAT IS SIMPLY
AMAZING TO ME, WE ALL KNOW THAT 
CANDIDATE TRUMP SAID THESE 
WORDS, "RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING," WHICH MEANS HE 
INVITED A FOREIGN POWER INTO 
INTERFERING WITH WITH OUR 
ELECTION, BUT WHAT HAS BEEN 
AMAZING AFTER THE JULY 25th 
CALL, WHERE HE ASKED UKRAINE TO 
GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION, 
AFTER THAT AND AFTER GETTING 
CAUGHT, HE STANDS ON THE WHITE 
HOUSE LAWN AND DOUBLES DOWN AND 
INVITES UKRAINE AGAIN TO 
INTERFERE, BUT THAT WASN'T 
ENOUGH.
HE GOES ON TO INVITE CHINA TO 
INTERFERE.
SO FOR THE PERSONS WHO SAY, WHY 
ARE WE IN A RUSH?
WHY AREN'T WE WAITING?
WE'RE NOT WAITING BECAUSE WE 
CANNOT WAIT.
WE CANNOT WAIT AND TRUST THIS 
PRESIDENT TO NOT INTERFERE.
IF YOU QUESTION IF HE'LL DO IT 
AGAIN, THE BEST INDICATOR OF 
FUTURE PERFORMANCE, OR BEHAVIOR,
IS TO LOOK AT PAST PERFORMANCE.
THANK YOU.
>> THERE'S A THEME THAT WE'RE 
LAYING OUT TODAY, WHICH ARE 
FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
IT'S NOT DISPUTED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD RUDY GIULIANI GO 
TO UKRAINE TO SMEAR VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
IT'S NOT DISPUTED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT FIRED AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH.
IT'S NOT DISPUTED THE PRESIDENT 
SAID HE WAS GOING TO SEND VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION THEN 
PULLED HIM BACK.
st NOT DISPUTED THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WITHHOLD MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
IT'S NOT DISPUTED THAT HE MADE A
JULY 25th CALL AND BROUGHT UP 
HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, AND IT'S
NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AID WAS 
ONLY RELEASED AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT'S HAND WAS CAUGHT IN 
THE COOKIE JAR, BUT WHAT WE ALSO
NEED TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT NO 
PERSON IN AMERICA COULD GET AWAY
WITH THIS.
IF YOU WERE WORKING AT A 
RESTAURANT, WORKING HARD, DOING 
EVERYTHING THAT'S EXPECTED AND 
YOUR BOSS PULLS YOU ASIDE ONE 
NIGHT AT THE END OF YOUR SHIFT 
AND SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU'RE 
DUE FOR A RAISE, DUE FOR A 
PROMOTION, BUT BEFORE I GIVE 
THAT TO YOU, I NEED YOU TO GO TO
OUR COMPETITOR ACROSS THE STREET
AND PUT COCKROACHES IN THEIR 
SOUP, DO SOMETHING TO BRING DOWN
THEIR BUSINESS, THEN YOU CAN GET
THAT RAISE.
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT WOULD BE 
WRONG.
AND THE PRESIDENT DID EXACTLY 
THAT ON A MUCH LARGER LEVEL AND 
JUST LIKE YOU WOULD BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE AT HOME FOR DOING 
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS TO BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
>> THE EVIDENCE OF THE UKRAINE 
SHAKEDOWN IS NOT ONLY 
OVERWHELMING BUT UNCONTRADICTED 
AND UNREFUTED.
THERE'S SIMPLY NO OTHER VIABLE 
FACTUAL HYPOTHESIS OUT THERE 
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THE 
PRESIDENT HAS NO FACTUAL ALIBI 
AND HIS DEFENDERS HAVE NO LEGAL 
THEORY WHICH IS WHY OUR 
COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN POUNDING 
THE TABLE A LOT TODAY.
THEIR CHIEF COMPLAINT SEEMS TO 
BE AT THE PROCESS IS GOING FAST,
ALTHOUGH SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN 
SAYING THAT THE PROCESS HAS BEEN
GOING ON FOR YEARS.
THIS PROCESS IS MOVING AT THE 
SPEED OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
DEMOCRACY BECAUSE THERE'S A 
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THIS
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION POSED BY 
THE MISCONDUCT OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
>> ANY QUESTION -- 
>> ARE YOU CALL CONCERNED THAT 
THE METER HAS -- THE IDEA THAT 
LOOK AT SOME OF THE POLLS, THERE
HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN MORE 
MEMBERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
INFLUENCED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER,
THAT'S NOT A KEY HERE, AND THAT 
COULD INFLUENCE HOW SOME OF YOUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES AND SWING 
DISTRICTS VOTE?
>> SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I AM NOT
BECAUSE WHAT THE POLLS HAVE 
SHOWN IS THAT 50% OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE FEEL NOT ONLY 
SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT BE 
IMPEACHED BUT HE SHOULD BE 
REMOVED.
THAT IS HUGE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HEIGHT OF THE
POLLS DURING THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT, I BELIEVE IT DIDN'T
GET ABOVE 29%.
SO I THINK THE FACT THAT 50% OF 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FEEL THAT 
WAY IS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT. 
>> I WOULD SAY IN ADDITION TO 
THAT, THIS IS A DETERMINATION 
THAT MUST BE GOVERNED BY THE 
FACTS, THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS 
BEEN DEVELOPED, THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT 
APPLY.
THIS IS NOT A QUESTION ABOUT A 
POLITICAL CALCULATION.
THIS IS ABOUT HONORING OUR OATH 
OF OFFICE WE TAKE ON THE FIRST 
DAY OF OUR SERVICE TO PROTECT 
AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, SO 
I'M NOT AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT 
KIND OF WHERE POLLS ARE.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION 
ABOUT PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY, 
ENSURING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DECIDE WHO WILL BE LEADERS IN 
THIS COUNTRY AND DECIDE THEIR 
OWN FUTURE FREE FROM FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE.
>> DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY CONCERNS
AT ALL, DO NOT INCLUDE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO UNDERCUT THE
MUELLER INVESTIGATION.
DOES THIS HAVE ANY 
RAMIFICATIONS, NOT GO THAT 
ROUTE, THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T 
DESERVE TO CERTAINLY GET 
IMPEACHED -- 
>> I THINK ONE OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT THINGS IS THIS 
PRESIDENT HAS A PATTERN OF 
ABUSE, A PATTERN OF OBSTRUCTION.
WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED 
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE ARTICLES 
ARE GOING TO BE.
WHEN WE DO, YOU'LL SEE IT 
ENCOMPASSES HIS PATTERN OF 
BEHAVIOR WHICH IS UNACCEPTABLE. 
>> THE PATTERN WILL PROVE WHAT 
HE DID IN THE MUELLER 
INVESTIGATION?
>> EL WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHET
DOES.
THE PATTERN OF OBSTRUCTION, 
WHETHER HE'S OBSTRUCTING 
CONGRESS, NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO
COME FORWARD, EVERYTHING THAT HE
ASKED FOR WE HAVE DONE AND THEN 
HE REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE AND 
SAYS THAT THE PROCESS IS NOT 
FAIR.
>> I WONDER IF YOU WOULD RESPOND
TO THE TALKING POINT THAT WE 
HEARD FROM REPUBLICANS TODAY.
THEY TIED TO USE SPEAKER 
PELOSI'S PRE-WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT WORDS AGAINST HER, 
MADE THE POINT BECAUSE 
IMPEACHMENT SEEMS TO BE A 
PARTISAN PROCESS, IT DOESN'T 
SEEM TO BE A LEGITIMATE ONE.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?
>> WELL, LET ME JUST SAY, THIS 
IS -- 
>> THE MICROPHONE.
>> THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER FOR 
OUR COUNTRY.
AND LET'S GO BACK TO THE 
PATTERNS.
THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT ONCE -- 
WHO IS ALWAYS SAYING THAT HE'S 
DONE NOTHING WRONG, HAS NOT 
COOPERATED WITH ONE 
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS 
WRONGDOING.
NOT ONCE.
NOT THE MUELLER REPORT.
IF THERE WERE THINGS THAT HE 
COULD HAVE CLEARED UP, WE WOULD 
HAVE WELCOMED HIS PARTICIPATION.
JUST LIKE TODAY, IF THERE ARE 
THINGS HE CAN CLEAR UP, WE 
WELCOME HIS PARTICIPATION.
LOOK, THE SPEAKER, AS I'VE SAID 
BEFORE, SHE HAS TO HAVE THE 
ABILITY TO BE LIKE A GOOD 
QUARTERBACK.
SHE HAS TO SEE THE ENTIRE FIELD.
I KNOW SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE 
HERE TODAY.
I WANTED TO BE HERE, ACTUALLY, A
WHILE AGO, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I 
THANK GOD FOR THE SPEAKER'S 
LEADERSHIP, BUT ONE OF THE 
THINGS I REALIZE IS I LOOKED AT 
THIS PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF 
BEHAVIOR THAT HE WAS NOT GOING 
TO ALLOW US TO NOT GET TO THIS 
POINT.
>> RIGHT. 
>> I NEVER ONCE DOUBTED THAT HE 
WOULD STOP TRYING TO UNDERMINE 
AN EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, 
TRYING TO INVITE A FOREIGN POWER
INTO OUR ELECTIONS.
AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.
THANK YOU. 
>> IF I COULD JUST ADD ONE THING
TO WHAT CONGRESSWOMAN DEMMINGS 
SAID, THIS PRESIDENT HAS 
DECLARED HIS CONDUCT IN THE 
UKRAINE SHAKEDOWN PERFECT.
HE SAID THE TELEPHONE 
CONVERSATION WAS PERFECT AND 
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO 
APOLOGIZE FOR, WHICH MEANS IF HE
GETS AWAY WITH IT, HE WILL 
CONTINUE THE UKRAINE SHAKEDOWN.
WHAT IS THERE TO KEEP HIM FROM 
DEMANDING, CONTINUING TO DEMAND,
OF UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, DID HE 
COME IN TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS
ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?
AND WHAT WILL THERE BE TO 
PREVENT HIM FROM DOING THIS WITH
CHINA AS HE'S ALREADY INTIMATED 
AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS?
INDEED, HE COULD DO IT WITH 
EVERY GOVERNMENT AROUND THE 
WORLD.
AT THAT POINT, WE'VE SET A 
PRECEDENT THAT ANY PRESIDENT FOR
ALL-TIME CAN DRAG FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS INTO THE DOMESTIC 
POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES.
IT'S PRECISELY WHAT THE FOUNDERS
OF THE CONSTITUTION WARNED 
AGAINST.
THEY FEARED THAT PRESIDENTS 
WOULD TRY TO DRAG FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS INTO OUR ELECTIONS 
IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THEIR OWN 
RE-ELECTION PROSPECTS.
THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF 
DEMOCRACY.
>> THIS IS A GUY -- 
>> YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THE 
REPORT THAT CAME OUT TODAY -- 
>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE. 
>> -- THAT SAID THERE WAS 
SEVEN -- WHILE PROPERLY 
PREDICATED, THERE WERE 17 
ERRORS, INACCURACIES, 
ADMISSIONS, IN CARTER PAGE'S 
APPLICATION?
>> ON THE FISA REPORT, THERE'S 
NEVER A DOUBT THAT THE FBI 
SHOULD INVESTIGATE ANYBODY WHO'S
WORKING WITH A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT.
DAY WERE RIGHT TO DO SO WHEN 
THERE WAS SUSPICIONS ABOUT THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN DOING IT.
WHERE THERE ARE NEEDS FOR FISA 
REFORM, WE CERTAINLY HAVE 
RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AT THAT.
I'M IN THE HEARING RIGHT NOW BUT
I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE 
REPORT AND REMAIN OPEN MINDED TO
DO WHAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GOING 
FORWARD TO, YOU KNOW, ADHERE TO 
THE I.G.'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
THANK YOU, GUYS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> HEY, I WONDER IF THEY'LL 
SWITCH --
>> AND AT THIS POINT ON C-SPAN, 
WE'RE GOING TO BREAK AWAY TO 
FULFILL OUR 40-YEAR COMMITMENT 
TO LIVE COVERAGE OF THE U.S. 
HOUSE.
AND ON C-SPAN3, WE'LL CONTINUE 
WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SHOULD 
BE GAVELING BACK IN SHORTLY.
A LIVE LOOK AT THE LONGWORTH 
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING.
WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH ROBERT 
MELVILLE, NEW YORK.
I HOPE YOU'RE HANGING ON THERE, 
ROBERT.
GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
UNDERSTANDING THEY MAY GAVEL 
BACK IN MOMENTARILY.
>> Caller: OF COURSE.
NO, THANKS FOR KEEPING ME ON.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, IF 
ANYTHING, EXEMPLIFIED WHAT I WAS
TALKING ABOUT.
YOU CAN HEAR THAT SNIPPET, 
SOMEONE WHO'S NOT INFORMED IT 
MAY SEEM LONG KAJ
LOGICAL.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS FROM THE
BEGINNING.
THANK GOD I HAVE A LITTLE TIME 
TO STAY TUNED AND SEE WHAT'S 
COMING OUT OF EVERYBODY'S MOUTHS
FIRSTHAND.
WHEN I WATCH HOW THAT CHANGES 
AND TRANSFORMS THROUGHOUT THE 
DAY THROUGH THE DIFFERENT 
OUTLETS, WHETHER CNN, MSNBC, 
FOX, DOESN'T EVEN MATTER, 
IT'S -- THERE'S NO REAL WAY FOR 
ANYONE TO GAUGE WHAT'S GOING ON 
UNLESS THEY WATCH.
SO WITH THE SCHEDULE THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT FORTH AND THE
SPEED AT WHICH THEY'RE PLOWING 
THROUGH IT, THEREIN LIES THE 
PROBLEM.
IT IS GOING TO FAST NO HUMAN 
COULD PROBABLY REALLY EVER KEEP 
UP WITH IT.
SO IT'S JUST SAD TO ME AS, LIKE 
I SAID, A 20-YEAR VETERAN OF 
BUSINESS OWNERSHIP.
IT'S NOT BEEN EASY.
I WORK SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
I WORK CONSTANTLY TO BE ABLE TO 
ALMOST TAKE OFF A DAY.
AND JUST TUNE INTO THE MEDIA TO 
SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
I GOT TO GO TO OUR DEMOCRATS 
LINE.
PHOENIX CITY, ALABAMA.
THIS IS DONNA. 
>> Caller: YES.
IT'S JUST A DOWNRIGHT SHAME TO 
THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD GET 
AWAY WITH OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE 
AFTER THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE 
THAT HAS STACKED AGAINST HIM.
EVEN HE, HIMSELF, HAS CONDEMNED 
HIMSELF NATIONALLY.
IT'S PAINFUL, HURTFUL, AND 
SICKENING TO WATCH THE 
REPUBLICANS NOT HAVE A 
CONSCIENCE OR HAVE GUTS ENOUGH 
TO JUST SIMPLY DO WHAT'S RIGHT, 
WHICH IS IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
>> ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, ON OUR 
OTHERS LINE.
THIS IS DOUGLAS.
YOUR THOUGHTS SO FAR.
WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING TO GET 
OUT OF THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING?
>> Caller: HOW ARE YOU?
>> FINE, THANK YOU. 
>> Caller: OKAY.
HERE'S MY PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL.
THE PROBLEM IS IS THIS IS SO 
DIVISIVE THAT, TO ME, ME AS THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC, AND I HAVE READ
THAT 300-PAGE REPORT, OKAY?
AND -- AND TRUMP SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED.
BUT WHY NOT USE CENSURE?
CAN'T YOU USE CENSURE AS AN 
OPTION?
YOU DID THAT WITH ANDREW 
JOHNSON, BY THE WAY, AFTER THE 
IMPEACHMENT, HE WAS ACQUITTED 
FOR IMPEACHMENT IN 1866 BY 1 
VOTE.
>> DOUGLAS IN ROCHESTER, NEW 
YORK, SAYING HE'S READ THE 
REPORT.
JUST ANOTHER REPORT FOR YOU TO 
READ ON OUR WEBSITE AT 
C-SPAN.ORG IS THE JUST RELEASED 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON THE 
LEAD-UP TO THE RUSSIA 
INVESTIGATION.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM HOLDING A
NEWS CONFERENCE THIS AFTERNOON, 
4:00 EASTERN.
OUR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER, CRAIG
KAPLAN, TWEETING THAT THE 
COMMITTEE WILL HEAR THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL HEAR 
FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON 
WEDNESDAY IN THEIR HEARING.
PEORIA, KANSAS, MARK, GO AHEAD, 
WE'RE WAITING FOR THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE TO GAVEL BACK IN. 
>> Caller: BIGGEST WASTE OF 
TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS ARE THESE 
HEARINGS.
HE'S GOING TO GET ACQUITTED IN 
THE SENATE, SO WHY EVEN BOTHER?
>> WHAT HAVE YOU HEARD SO FAR 
THAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE 
SENATE WILL ACQUIT HIM?
>> Caller: WELL, THE REPUBLICANS
HAVE A MAJORITY.
PARTY LINE.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO VOTE 
AGAINST IT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
TO KEN IN SARASOTA, FLORIDA, ON 
OUR DEMOCRATS LINE.
>> Caller: I HAVE A QUESTION.
I'M JUST CURIOUS THAT THE 
REPUBLICANS ALWAYS TALK ABOUT 
THE FAKE NEWS, WHETHER IT'S A 
JOURNALIST OR A NEWS STATION.
THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY WANT 
TO QUOTE FROM THEM.
IT SEEMS KIND OF TWO-FACED TO 
ME.
WHEN I GREW UP, YOU ONLY TALKED 
OUT OF ONE SIDE OF YOUR FACE, 
NOT BOTH OF THEM.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY. 
>> YOU AS WELL, KEN.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BROKE 
FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES AGO AND 
SAYING IT WILL BE A 15-MINUTE 
BREAK.
THEY'RE GOING TO RETURN TO 
SESSION HERE SHORTLY.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET ONE MORE
CALL.
SAM ON OUR OTHERS LINE.
GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: HI.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE 
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR IN THE 
MUELLER REPORT IF YOU TALK ABOUT
THAT FIRST.
THE DEMOCRATS KEEP GOING BACK TO
THAT.
LOOKING RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE, 
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MUELLER 
REPORT, THE FOUNDINGS OF IT WITH
FUSION GPS, EVERYTHING, YOU 
COULD TELL THAT -- THE STEELE 
DOSSIER FUNDED BY THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN BASICALLY, AND YOU CAN 
GO ALL BACK TO ONE BIG QUESTION 
FOR AT LEAST THIS HEARING WHICH 
IS, WHERE IS ADAM?
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
>> DOUG COLLINS, THE RANKING 
MEMBER, TALKING TO STEVE CASTOR,
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
REPUBLICAN, HE AND DANIEL 
GOLDMAN TESTIFIED EARLIER AND 
ALSO ARE ANSWERING QUESTIONS 
FROM ALL THE MEMBERS, THE 41 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.
YOU'RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE 
HERE ON C-SPAN3.
>> COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO 
ORDER.
WE WERE -- WHEN WE RECESSED, WE 
WERE ENGAGING IN QUESTIONING OF 
THE WITNESSES UNDER THE 
FIVE-MINUTE RULE.
WE'LL CONTINUE DOING THAT.
E RECOGNIZE -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST BEFORE
WE START.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE ENTER
INTO THE RECORD THE FISA 
APPLICATIONS AND OTHER ASPECTS 
OF THE FBI'S CROSSFIRE 
HURRICANE -- 
>> I RESERVE A POINT OF ORDER --
>> I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO 
CONTINUE TO -- 
>> WHAT ARE YOU ENTERING?
>> THE FISA REPORT THAT JUST 
CAME OUT.
>> OH.
THE -- WE NEED -- 
>> THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 
REPORT -- 
>> WE'LL -- 
>> THIS WHOLE THING. 
>> WE'LL TAKE THAT UNTIL WE CAN 
REVIEW IT, WE'LL RULE ON IT LATE
E I MEAN WE'LL HOPEFULLY GRANT 
IT LATER. 
>> I WITHDRAW MY RESERVATION. 
>> MR. SENSENBRENNER. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW-UP ON THE TWO
SERIES OF QUESTIONS THE RANKING 
MEMBER MR. COLLINS DIRECTED AT 
MR. GOLDMAN RELATIVE TO THE 
TELEPHONE COMPANY SUBPOENAS AND 
THE INCLUSION OF CERTAIN 
INFORMATION IN THE MAJORITY 
REPORT FROM THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE.
LET ME SAY THAT THERE ARE TWO 
ISSUES INVOLVED.
ON THAT IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE 
LEGALITY OF THE SUBPOENA.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A 
SUBPOENA THAT IS FULLY 
AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW AND 
UNDER CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES.
WHERE I DO HAVE A PROBLEM AND 
REALLY BIG PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS 
THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY MADE A 
DECISION TO MATCH CERTAIN DATA, 
MEGADATA, METADATA, COLLECTED 
THROUGH THE SUBPOENA WITH PHONE 
MEMBERS OF JOURNALISTS AND 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND THAT IS
THE BEGINNING OF A SURVEILLANCE 
STATE WHICH I THINK IS 
OUTRAGEOUS, PARTICULARLY SINCE 
WITH THE FREEDOM ACT IN 2013, WE
CURTAILED THE NSC'S ABILITY 
ABOUT THAT.
NOW, HAD CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DECIDED
TO MAN UP AND COME HERE AND TALK
RATHER THAN HIDING BEHIND MR. 
GOLDMAN, HIS CHIEF INVESTIGATOR,
AS HIS SURROGATE, IF YOU WILL, I
THINK WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN TO 
THE BOTTOM OF THIS AND WE COULD 
HAVE TAKEN ACTION TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS THROUGH THEIR SUBPOENA 
POWER BEING ABLE TO SUBPOENA 
TELEPHONE RECORDS OF PRIVATE 
CITIZENS WILLY-NILLY WITHOUT ANY
KIND OF CAUSE OR TO MATCH THE 
NUMBERS UP WITH SOMEBODY ELSE TO
SEE WHO THEY WERE TALKING TO AND
THEN GOING THE NEXT STEP AND 
PUBLISHING THE RESULTS OF THAT 
MATCH IN A REPORT THAT THE 
MINORITY HADN'T SEEN UNTIL IT 
WAS RELEASED.
THAT I THINK IS AN ABUSE OF 
POWER.
WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT ABUSES
OF POWER HERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE
AND IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
HERE WE SEE A CLEAR ABUSE OF 
POWER ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE 
WHO ARE PROSECUTING THIS 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF 
THEMSELVES.
NOW, I COME FROM THE STATE WHERE
JOE McCARTHY CAME FROM.
I MET JOE McCARTHY TWICE WHEN I 
WAS FIRST GETTING INTO POLITICS 
AS A TEENAGER.
FOLKS, YOU HAVE MADE JOE 
McCARTHY LOOK LIKE A PIKER WITH 
WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THE 
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE 
INVOLVED.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE 
PUT A STOP TO NOW.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE 
FESSED UP TO NOW, WHETHER IT'S 
YOU, MR. GOLDMAN, THAT 
AUTHORIZED THE MATCHING AND THE 
PUBLICATION OR WHETHER IT WAS 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.
I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO PUT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF UNDER OATH SO 
THAT HE COULD BE REQUIRED TO 
ANSWER THE SAME WAY YOU HAVE, 
MR. GOLDEN, ON HOW THIS ALL 
HAPPENED.
BUT AS ONE WHO HAS SPENT QUITE A
BIT OF TIME CURTAILING THE 
EXCESSES OF THE PATRIOT ACT 
WHICH I AUTHORED WITH THE 
FREEDOM ACT WHICH I ALSO 
AUTHORED, YOU KNOW, THE 
SURVEILLANCE STATE CAN GET OUT 
OF CONTROL.
THIS IS A MAJOR STEP IN THE 
SURVEILLANCE STATE GETTING OUT 
OF CONTROL IN THE HANDS OF THE 
CONGRESS AND IN THE HANDS OF A 
MAJORITY PARTY THAT WANTS TO 
INFLUENCE POLITICAL DECISIONS 
RELATIVE TO POLITICIANS, IN THIS
CASE, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, 
THAT THEY DON'T LIKE.
AND THEY HAVEN'T LIKED HIM FROM 
THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM.
THEY HAVE TRIED TO TALK ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT SINCE THE BEGINNING 
OF HIS TERM.
THEY THOUGHT THAT THE MUELLER 
REPORT WAS GOING TO BE THE 
SMOKING GUN.
IT ENDED UP BEING CAP FISCAL.
NOW THEY'RE WORKING ON THIS.
THE STEPS THEY HAVE GONE, THE 
VIOLATION OF COMMON SENSE, THE 
PRECEDENT THAT THEY HAVE 
STARTED, AND LOOKING AT THE WAY 
THE CHAIRMAN HAS CONDUCTED THIS 
HEARING TODAY AND IN THE 
PREVIOUS HEARINGS, NOT EVEN TO 
ALLOW MR. GAETZ TO MAKE A POINT 
OF ORDER, THAT HE CAN'T SEE WHAT
YOU PUT ON THE SCREEN, I THINK 
GOES AGAINST THE ENTIRE FABRIC, 
YOU KNOW, OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
SHAME ON THOSE WHO HAVE DONE IT,
AND IF WE WANT TO GET BACK TO 
SOMETHING OBJECTIVE, MAYBE IT'S 
TIME TO PUSH THE RECESS BUTTON.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> CHAIRMAN NADLER, CAN I JUST 
RESPOND QUICKLY ON THE -- ONLY 
BECAUSE IT'S -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELDED BACK.
>> NO, NO, NO -- 
>> I DIDN'T ASK HIM A QUESTION.
I MADE A STATEMENT. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK.
MS. JACKSON-LEE IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> LET'S GET TO THE FACTS AGAIN.
DURING THE PHONE CONVERSATION ON
JULY 25th WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
NARROWLY FOCUSING ON HIS OWN 
POLITICAL SURVIVAL USING HIS 
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR A PRIVATE AND 
POLITICAL GAIN.
THE TRUTH MATTERS.
THEN WE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE 
REPUBLICANS SAY THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN AID 
BECAUSE YOU COULD KISS IT 
GOOD-BYE.
ASSUMING THAT'S REFERRING TO 
ANTI-CORRUPTION.
LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE 
JULY 25th CALL.
I HAPPENED TO HAVE READ IT JUST 
RECENTLY.
WHICH SHARPLY ILLUSTRATES THE 
PRESIDENT'S WILLINGNESS TO ABUSE
THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR HIS 
OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.
THE MEMORANDUM OF THAT CALL IS 
ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU 
AND IT SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAYS, AND BY THE WAY, 
RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SPOKE ABOUT DEFENSE SUPPORT AND 
THE JAVELINS, "I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH."
SO THIS IS A PRESIDENT'S OWN 
BEHAVIOR AND WORDS.
MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT WAS THAT 
FAVOR?
>> THE FAVOR WAS TO INVESTIGATE 
A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
RELATED TO UKRAINE INTERFERENCE 
IN THE 2016 ELECTION. 
>> MR. GOLDMAN, THE 
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES 
RECEIVED EVIDENCE FROM MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES WHO TESTIIED THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PROVIDED 
SPECIFIC TALKING POINTS IN 
PREPARATION FOR THE JULY 25th 
CALL GEARED TOWARD PROTECTING 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE TALKING POINTS CERTAINLY 
WERE PART OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY AND INCLUDED 
ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS AND 
NATIONAL SECURITY EFFORTS, YES. 
>> THOSE TALKING POINTS WERE 
PROVIDED TO HELP THE PRESIDENT 
EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE OFFICIAL
U.S. POLICY INTERESTS DURING 
CALLS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS, IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
IT'S A ROUTINE PROCESS THAT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DOES.
THE PRESIDENT IS GENERALLY ABLE 
TOO USE THEN OR NOT USE THEM.
THE WITNESSES SAID THE PRESIDENT
IS NOT REQUIRED TO USE THEM.
WHAT WAS IS A STARTLING HERE, HE
NOT ONLY VEERED OFF FROM THEM, 
HE WENT TO HIS OWN PERSONALITY 
INTERESTS. 
>> IT'S FAIR TO SAY SUCH TALKING
POINTS SIGNAL THE PURPOSE OF A 
GIVEN CALL. 
>> YES.
>> ENCOURAGED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE 
ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS IN 
UKRAINE WHICH HAS A FOCUS OF 
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN 
EASTERN EUROPE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SO TO BE CLEAR, THE TALKING 
POINTS CREATED FOR THE PRESIDENT
OR OTHER PRINCIPALS TO DISCUSS 
SPECIFIC MATTERS THAT REALLY 
PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IS 
THAT ACCURATE?
>> IS YES, GENERALLY. 
>> WITNESSES SUCH AS TIM 
MORRISON, SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR 
EUROPE, TESTIFIED ABOUT WHAT WAS
NOT IN THOSE TALKING POINTS.
>> NOW, MR. MORRISON, WERE THESE
REFERENCES TO CROWDSTRIKE TO THE
SERVERING 2016 ELECTION, AND 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDN AND HIS 
SON, WERE THEY INCLUDED IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S TALKING POINTS?
>> THEY WERE NOT.
>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT IT WAS -- 
>> NO, IT WAS NOT BEFORE AND WAS
NOT AFTER THIS CALL. 
>> ANYTHING EVER FOUND OF THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE 
OCCURRED?
>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE
QUESTION?
>> ANYTHING EVER FOUND OF THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT MAY HAVE 
OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THE 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT?
. 
>> EVERY SINGLE WITNESS SAID 
THERE'S NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR 
EITHER OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> SO MR. TRUMP DID NOT USE 
OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THERE WERE FACT WITNESSES
WHO CONFIRMED THAT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE WORDS, DO
YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT 
REQUESTING A THOUGHTFUL AND 
WELL-CALIBRATED ANTI-CORRUPTION 
PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH U.S. 
POLICY?
>> SO, MR. GOLDMAN -- 
>> WE DO NOT.
WE WERE HOPING -- WE RECOMMENDED
THE PRESIDENT VERY CLEARLY 
SUPPORT WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HAD RUN ON IN HIS OWN ELECTION 
AND WHAT HIS SERVANT OF THE 
PEOPLE PARTY HAD RUN ON IN ITS 
ELECTION WHERE IT RECEIVED A 
MAJORITY MANDATE. 
>> THAT DIDN'T COME UP IN THE 
CALL, DID IT?
>> NO, SIR. 
>> SO, MR. GOLDMAN, DID THE 
EVIDENCE PROVE THAT MR. TRUMP 
UTILIZED HIS POSITION OF PUBLIC 
TRUST IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH 
THESE GOALS, HIS GOALS, IN ORDER
TO HURT HIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL 
OPPONENT?
>> YES, THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED. 
>> I'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT 
AMERICA'S VALUES OF DEMOCRACY 
AND JUSTICE MUST HAVE THE VITAL 
PILLARS OF TRUTH, FACTUAL TRUTH,
AND TRUST.
THE FORMER JUDGE AND ONE WHO 
SAID ON THIS COMMITTEE DURING 
IMPEACHMENT IN 1998, THE TRUTH 
MATTERS.
IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT 
REALLY CARED ABOUT -- DID NOT 
REALLY CARE ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WANTED
HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS TO BE
CONSIDERED.
THAT KIND OF PUTS IN PERSPECTIVE
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THEY 
DIDN'T CARE WHETHER UKRAINE 
ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED BUT REALLY
WHETHER THEY JUST ANNOUNCED IT.
IT IS CERTAINLY WELL KNOWN THAT 
IT IS OUR DUTY AS THE PRESIDENT 
POSES A CONTINUING THREAT TO 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION PURSUE 
THE TRUTH.
THAT IS OUR TOOTH.
WE ARE NOW PROCEEDING TO DO OUR 
DUTY TO FIND THE TRUTH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING ON 
IMPEACHMENT THAT THIS COMMITTEE 
HAS HELD IN THE LAST WEEK.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT YOU'RE 
INVESTIGATING THE WRONG GUY.
LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS.
MR. CASTOR, UKRAINE THAT'S BEEN 
AT THE CENTER OF ATTENTION IN 
THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING HAS 
HISTORICALLY BEEN ONE OF THE 
WORLD'S MOST CORRUPT NATIONS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND UNDER LEGISLATION THAT 
CONGRESS PASSED, THE NATIONAL 
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, IT 
WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
RESPONSIBILITY, HIS DUTY, TO SEE
THAT U.S. TAX DOLLARS DID NOT GO
TO UKRAINE UNLESS THEY WERE 
MAKING PROGRESS IN REDUCING 
CORRUPTION.
IS THAT ALSO RIGHT?
>> YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
>> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT JOE 
BIDEN'S SON, HUNTER, HAD PLACED 
HIMSELF RIGHT SMACK DAB IN THE 
MIDDLE OF THAT CORRUPTION?
>> YES, HE DID, BURISMA WAS ONE 
OF THE MOST CORRUPT COMPANIES IN
UKRAINE. 
>> CONTRARY TO WHAT HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS AND MANY IN THE MEDIA 
WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE, THE 
CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S 
INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION, THEY WEREN'T A VAST 
RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY CONCOCTED 
BY SUPPORTERS OF THE PRESIDENT, 
ARE THEY?
THE CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN 
WERE FIRST RAISED BY THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
ALSO "WASHINGTON POST," LOT OF 
PUBLICATIONS AND THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT.
>> AND THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION'S CONCERNS ABOUT 
BIDEN DIDN'T END THERE, DID 
THEY?
FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH SAID SHE WAS 
COACHED BY THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION ON HOW TO ANSWER 
PESKY QUESTIONS RELATED TO 
HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA THAT 
MIGHT ARISE DURING HER SENATE 
CONFIRMATION PROCESS, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS SO 
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS THEY GAVE 
HER A MOCK Q&A ON THIS QUESTION.
>> AND NEARLY EVERY SINGLE 
WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED AT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGREED THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN'S BURISMA DEAL 
CREATED AT THE VERY LEAST THE 
APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT 
TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA, INTO
THEIR HEAD, AND THEY WERE TRYING
TO TRACK DOWN $23 MILLION THAT 
HE HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE 
UNITED KINGDOM.
THEY WERE WORKING, UNITED 
STATES, UNITED KINGDOM, UKRAINE 
WAS WORKING ON TRACKING THIS 
MONEY DOWN, AND THERE WAS AN 
INVESTIGATION, ACTIVE 
INVESTIGATION, GOING ON AND A 
BRIBE WAS PAID AND THAT 
PRESCRIBE WAS PAID, IT ALLOWED 
HIM TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE.
RIGHT AROUND THAT TIME IS WHEN 
BURISMA WENT ABOUT SPRUCING UP 
THEIR BOARD, SHALL WE SAY.
>> AND YET, WITH ALL THAT 
EVIDENCE, THE DEMOCRATS ON THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE UNDER 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND NOW THE 
DEMOCRATS HERE ARE DETERMINED TO
SWEEP THE BIDEN CORRUPTION UNDER
THE RUG, IGNORE IT, NOT LET US 
CALL WITNESSES ON IT AND 
INSTEAD, RUSH TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT, ALL TO SATISFY, I 
WOULD ARGUE, THE RADICAL 
LEFT-WING BASE.
THE SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY.
IMAGINE THIS, YOU GOT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IN CHARGE OF
OVERSEEING OUR UKRAINIAN POLICY 
AND HIS SON, HUNTER BIDEN, 
RECEIVING 50 GRAND A MONTH WITH 
NO IDENTIFIABLE EXPERTISE IN 
EITHER ENERGY OR UKRAINE, YET 
THE DEMOCRATS WON'T LET US 
PRESENT WITNESSES ON THAT.
SO LET'S DO THE NEXT BEST THING 
SINCE WE CAN'T BRING THE 
WITNESSES HERE.
LET'S WATCH A COUPLE OF VIDEOS.
>> YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY EXTENSIVE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NATURAL GAS OR 
UKRAINE, ITSELF, THOUGH.
>> NO. 
>> THE LIST THAT YOU GAVE ME OF 
THE REASONS WHY YOU'RE ON THAT 
BOARD, YOU DID NOT LIST THE FACT
THAT YOU WERE THE SON OF THE -- 
>> OF COURSE.
>> WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT 
PLAYED. 
>> I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR 
ME TO BE ON ANY OF THE BOARDS I 
JUST MENTIONED WITHOUT SAYING 
I'M THE SON OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
>> IF YOUR LAST NAME WASN'T 
BIDEN, DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD 
HAVEN BE ASKED TO BE ON THE 
BOARD OF BURISMA?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW.
PROBABLY NOT.
>> YOU KNOW, JOE BIDEN GOT A 
LITTLE TESTY WITH A VOTER AT ONE
OF HIS EVENTS IN IOWA LAST WEEK 
CALLING A MAN A LIAR, 
CHALLENGING HIM TO A PUSHUP 
CONTEST, AMONG OTHER THINGS.
AND FALSELY -- FALSELY STATING, 
ONCE AGAIN, THAT NOBODY SAID 
THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH 
HIS SON'S DEAL IN UKRAINE.
WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT'S A 
LOT OF MALARKY.
A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING
THAT FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW, AND 
THEY'RE RIGHT, AND WHAT'S WORSE 
IS THAT, FIRST, THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE AND NOW THIS COMMITTEE
ARE CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP BASED ON, AS PROFESSOR 
TURLEY PUT IT LAST WEEK, 
WAFER-THIN EVIDENCE AND IGNORING
EVIDENCE OF A HIGH-LEVEL U.S. 
OFFICIAL WHO ACTUALLY DID ENGAGE
IN A QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT, IN FACT, CONFESSED 
TO IT IN THIS VIDEO.
>> I SAID I'M TELLING YOU, 
YOU'RE NOT GETTING A BILLION 
DOLLARS.
I SAID, YOU'RE NOT GETTING A 
BILLION.
I'M GOING TO BE LEAVING HERE AND
I THINK IT WAS WHAT, SIX HOURS, 
I LOOKED, I SAID I'M LEAVING IN 
SIX HOURS.
IF THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED, 
YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY.
WELL, SON OF A BITCH.
GOT FIRED. 
>> YOU'RE INVESTIGATING THE 
WRONG GUY, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. GOLDMAN, I'D LIKE TO BRING 
US BACK TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT, 
NOT TO THIS PRESIDENT.
NOT THE NEXT PRESIDENT.
AND STAY FOCUSED ON THE JULY 
25th CALL.
PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR 
HIS BENEFIT, NO ONE ELSE'S.
NOW, AS MY COLLEAGUE, MS. 
JACKSON-LEE CONFIRMED, THE 
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WAS NOT AN 
OBJECTIVE OF U.S. FOREIGN 
POLICY.
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
WANTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
BIDENS, BURISMA, OR ALLEGED 
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016?
>> NO. 
>> ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT WANTING THEM?
>> NO. 
>> HOW ABOUT THE DOD?
THE DOD WANT THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. 
>> DID ANY WITNESS TELL YOU THAT
THEY WANTED UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS OF THE 
2016 ELECTION?
>> NO.
>> AND WE CERTAINLY KNOW NOW 
THAT THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT WANT
IT, EITHER, IN FACT, THEY MADE 
IT VERY CLEAR THEY DID NOT WANT 
TO BE AN INSTRUMENT, THIS IS A 
QUOTE, "AN INSTRUMENT IN 
WASHINGTON DOMESTIC RE-ELECTION 
POLITICS."
SO, THE ONLY PERSON WHO WAS A 
BENEFICIARY FROM THAT 
INVESTIGATION IS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
AND THAT'S WHY EVERYONE ON THE 
JULY 25th CALL KNEW IT WAS 
WRONG.
THEY KNEW IT WAS WRONG.
THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE 
HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THREE 
WITNESSES WHO PARTICIPATED IN 
THAT CALL.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
LISTENED TO THAT CALL.
>> RIGHT.
MR. GOLDMAN, EVEN IN REAL TIME, 
THE WITNESSES WHO LISTENED ON 
THAT CALL TESTIFIED THEY WERE 
CONCERNED BY THE CALL.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND, IN FACT, BOTH LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN AND MR. MORRISON
IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THE CALL TO
LEGAL COUNSEL, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> WHY DID THEY DO SO?
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE CALL, THAT IT 
WAS IMPROPER.
MR. MORRISON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL 
RAMIFICATIONS IF THE CALL WAS 
RELEASED BECAUSE OF THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE CALL AND THE 
POLITICAL NATURE OF THE CALL.
>> AND THEY REPORTED THE CALL 
THAT THEY ACTUALLY REPORTED THAT
TO THE INTERNAL LEGAL CHANNELS.
MR. GOLDMAN, I PLACED LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY 
ABOUT WHY HE REPORTED THE CALL 
ON THE SCREEN.
AM I CORRECT HIS CONCERN WAS 
BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ASKING A FOREIGN 
POWER TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. 
CITIZEN?
>> YES, AND HE WAS NOT THE ONLY 
WITNESS TO EXPRESS THAT CONCERN.
>> AM I ALSO CORRECT THAT HE 
REPORTED THIS CONCERN BECAUSE HE
THOUGHT IT WAS A SENSE OF DUTY?
A DUTY THAT HE FELT SOMETHING 
WAS WRONG?
>> YES.
AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN IS A PURPLE 
HEART AWARD WINNER FROM -- MEDAL
WINNER -- FROM IRAQ AND HE HAS 
BEEN IN THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE FOR 20 YEARS AND HAS A 
GREAT SENSE OF DUTY AND GREAT 
PATRIOTISM TO THIS COUNTRY AND 
FELT, HE COMPELLED TO FOLLOW 
THAT SENSE OF DUTY AND REPORT 
IT.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE'S AIDE WAS PRESENT FOR THE
CALL AND TESTIFIED AS WAS 
BROUGHT OUT EARLIER THAT IT WAS 
UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW, WHEN MR. VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN GOT INVOLVED WITH THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE IMF AND 
GERMANY AND FRANCE AND SAID YOU 
GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, THAT WAS OKAY 
BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING 
SOMETHING FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF
A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AS 
DISTINGUISHED FROM WHAT'S GOING 
ON HERE WHERE SOMEBODY'S DOING 
IT FOR THEIR PERSONAL GOOD, IS 
THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> RIGHT.
THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN 
DOING AN OFFICIAL ACT FOR AN 
OFFICIAL PURPOSE AND DOING AN 
OFFICIAL ACT FOR A PERSONAL 
PURPOSE.
IF I COULD JUST RESPOND TO 
SOMETHING MR. CASTOR SAID, WHEN 
HE SAID THAT THE -- THERE WERE 
PROBLEMS BECAUSE ZLOCHESKY PAID 
A BRIBE, HEAD OF BURISMA, THAT 
WAS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF CONTACT 
THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDE WANTED 
TO SHUT DOWN IN UKRAINE.
THAT WAS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF 
NON-ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES 
THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS 
OBJECTING TO USING THE OFFICIAL 
POLICY.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS 
THAT HE -- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW 
IF THAT WAS ONE, BUT THAT'S THE 
TYPE OF THING THAT HE BASED -- 
HE AND THE AMERICANS AND THE 
EUROPEANS -- BASED THE -- 
>> THAT'S THE ISSUE WE GOT TO 
GET IN THIS COMMITTEE, TO 
UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE 
BETWEEN DOING SOMETHING FOR THE 
NATIONAL GOOD, FOR THE 
INTERNATIONAL GOOD, FOR THE 
COMMON GOOD, AND FOR YOUR OWN 
GOODS.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
GOT TO GET THAT ACROSS.
THOSE WITNESSES, MANY CAREER 
NONPARTISAN OFFICIALS THOUGHT IT
WAS WRONG TO ASK A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
VIDEO. 
>> TO INVESTIGATE THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
OR SOMEONE WHO IS A U.S. 
OFFICIAL, I DON'T THINK WE 
SHOULD BE ASKING FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS TO DO THAT.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT'S TRUE OF 
A POLITICAL RIVAL. 
>> IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND A
POLITICAL OPPONENT?
>> IT WAS IMPROPER, IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE.
WE SAID THAT AT THE TIME IN 
REALTIME.
>> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WOULD 
GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING
AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO 
GOOD POLICY REASON, NO GOOD 
SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO GOOD 
NATIONAL SECURITY REASON, IS 
WRONG.
>> AND WE ARE GOING TO CHECK 
THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT.
WE ARE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. GOMERT. 
>> I HAD QUESTIONS FOR THE 
WITNESS, MR. BURKE, BUT HE HAS 
ABSCONDED SO I'M GOING TO USE MY
FIVE MINUTES BUT NOT TO ASK 
QUESTIONS.
IT IS INTERESTING, THOUGH, TO 
HAVE HEARD MR. GOLDMAN REFUSE TO
ANSWER QUESTION ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATION.
YET, HE COMES IN HERE AND THE 
VERY REASON HE WANTS TO SEE THE 
PRESIDENT FOR THE FIRST TIME ANY
PRESIDENT'S EVER BEEN REMOVED 
FROM OFFICE WHILE HE'S BEEN 
OBSTRUCTING.
HE DIDN'T ANSWER OUR QUESTION.
SO, PERHAPS, IF WE'RE GOING TO 
APPLY HIS SENSE OF JUSTICE TO 
HIM, IT WOULD BE TIME TO HAVE 
HIM REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION.
BUT THAT'S ONLY IF WE APPLY 
HIS -- HIS OWN STANDARDS AND IF 
IT WEREN'T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS,
SOME OF THESE FOLKS WOULDN'T 
HAVE STANDARDS AT ALL.
BUT WE WERE TOLD ALSO AT THE 
BEGINNING THAT WE WOULD HEAR 
LAWYERS PRESENT EVIDENCE.
LAWYERS ARE GOING TO COME IN 
HERE -- NOW, WHAT NORMALLY 
HAPPENS, AND I'VE BEEN IN SOME 
KANGAROO HEARINGS IN COURTS, NOT
MY OWN WHEN I WAS THERE, BUT I 
HAVE BEEN MISTREATED IN HEARINGS
BEFORE, BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN 
ANYTHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE 
DON'T ALLOW THE FACT WITNESSES 
TO COME IN HERE.
WE HAVE THE LAWYERS COME IN AND 
TELL US WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO 
KNOW ABOUT THOSE WITNESSES AND 
ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY AND ABOUT 
THEIR IMPRESSION AND WHAT THE 
LAW IS.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
MY FRIEND, JIM SENSENBRENNERé= 
SAID IN 41 YEARS HE'S NEVER SEEN
ANYTHING LIKE WHAT WE HAVE GOING
ON HERE TO TRY TO OUST A SITTING
PRESIDENT.
AND IT'S ALSO OUTRAGEOUS TO HEAR
PEOPLE SAY, WELL, THIS MAN 
THOUGHT HE WAS A KING BECAUSE HE
SAID HE COULD DO ANYTHING HE 
WANTED WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THAT 
STATEMENT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF 
WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD FIRE 
MUELLER.
AND, OF COURSE, HE COULD FIRE 
MUELLER.
HE COULD FIRE OR NOT FIRE 
MUELLER.
HE COULD APPOINT A SPECIAL 
PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE 
MUELLER AND WISEMAN.
I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE.
THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE.
HE COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING 
ABOUT THAT HE WANTED.
TO TAKE THAT OUT OF CONTEXT, SAY
HE THINKS HE'S A KING.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT A KING IS.
A KING IS SOMEONE WHO SAYS OVER 
20 TIMES, I CAN'T DO THAT, 
CONGRESS HAS TO CHANGE THE LAW 
ON IMMIGRATION THEN HE DECIDES, 
YOU KNOW WHAT, I GOT A PEN, I 
GOT A PHONE, I'LL DO WHATEVER I 
WANT, AND BY GOLLY, HE DOES.
HE MAKES NEW LAW WITH A PEN AND 
A PHONE.
NOW, THAT IS MORE LIKE A 
MONARCHY.
NOT SOMEBODY SAYING THEY CAN 
FIRE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IF 
THEY WANT TO.
REGARDING TREASON, THE 
CONSTITUTION, ITSELF, SAYS YOU 
FROM TO HAVE TWO WITNESSES.
NOT HEARSAY WITNESSES.
NONE OF THIS STUFF THAT WOULDN'T
BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY DECENT 
COURT.
NO, THAT'S TWO DIRECT EVIDENCE 
WITNESSES THAT CAN COME IN AND 
POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, 
NOT SOMETHING THEY OVERHEARD OR 
SOME -- BUT ACTUALLY BE 
WITNESSES TO TREASON.
AND YET, THIS GROUP COMES IN 
HERE, THEY TOSS TREASON OUT IN A
REPORT LIKE IT'S NO BIG DEAL.
WE CAN BRING IN A BUNCH OF 
HEARSTAY WITNESSES AND THEN 
WE'LL HAVE THE LAWYERS TESTIFY 
AND THEN THROW A PRESIDENT OUT 
OF OFFICE.
THIS IS SO ABSURD.
IT'S SO ABSURD.
NOW, WE HAVE WITNESS COME IN AND
WE'RE TOLD HE'S GOING TO BE A 
WITNESS.
THAT'S WHY HE DOESN'T HAVE TO 
FOLLOW UNDER THE RULES OF 
DECORUM.
AND THEN I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS.
HE GETS TO COME UP AND GRILL HIS
OPPOSING ADVERSARY WITNESS.
I FEEL LIKE TO BE FAIR, IF WE 
WERE GOING TO MAKE THIS THING 
FAIR, MR. CASTOR WOULD BE ABLE 
TO COME UP AND GRILL MR. BURKE.
BUT THIS ISN'T ABOUT BEING FAIR.
IT'S NOT ABOUT DUE PROCESS.
THIS IS ABOUT A KANGAROO SYSTEM 
AND LET ME TELL YOU, THOSE THAT 
THINK YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING 
SPECIAL HERE, YOU HAVE SET THE 
BAR SO LOW.
I'M AFRAID IT'S IRREPARABLE.
I MEAN, JUST THINK WE'VE HAD 
PEOPLE ALREADY MENTION, YOU 
KNOW, THE NEXT PRESIDENT, JOE 
BIDEN, WE'RE TOLD, GEE, HE MAY 
BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT.
WELL, WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE 
FORMS.
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS ELIMINATE 
DONALD TRUMP'S NAME AND PUT JOE 
BIDEN'S NAME IN THERE BECAUSE 
HE'S ON VIDEO.
HE AND HIS SON.
HE BASICALLY HAS ADMITTED TO THE
CRIME THAT'S BEING HOISTED ON 
THE PRESIDENT IMPROPERLY.
SO, I'M SCARED FOR MY COUNTRY 
BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING
LIKE THIS.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE 
CONGRESS.
I CAME UP HERE FROM A COURT 
WHERE WE HAD ORDER AND WE HAD 
RULES AND I'VE SEEN NOTHING OF 
THE KIND IN HERE TODAY.
AND IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT WE'RE 
TRYING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT 
WITH A KANGAROO COURT LIKE THIS.
I YIELD BACK.
>> CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST 
CLARIFY, TREASON IS NOT IN OUR 
REPORT.
I JUST WANT -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK. 
>> YEAH, AND IT IS MENTIONED IN 
THE REPORT WE GOT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> GENTLE MAN YIELDED BACK.
MR. JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO GET US BACK TO THE 
UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER.
.
MR. GOLDMAN, AS A PROSECUTOR IN 
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW 
YORK, WHEN YOU PROSECUTED DRUG 
CONSPIRACY CASES, WAS IT 
STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DRUG 
KINGPINS TO TRY TO BEAT THE CASE
BY DISTANING THEMSELVES FROM 
THE CONSPIRACY AND BLAMING THEIR
ACCOMPLICES FOR THE CRIME?
>> ALL THE TIME.
CONSPIRACIES HAVE DIFFERENT 
LAYERS AND THE TOP LAYERS MAKE 
THE BOTTOM LAYERS DO THE WORK SO
THAT THEY'RE FURTHER REMOVED 
FROM THE ACTUAL CONDUCT.
>> OKAY.
I'D LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IN 
WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON REFERRED 
TO AS A DRUG DEAL.
DID THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE 
COMPILED BY THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE ESTABLISH THE FACT 
THAT WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE, 
RUDY GIULIANI WAS AT ALL TIMES 
WORKING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP?
>> YES.
MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT TO A 
NUMBER OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
AND THEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, ALSO SAID THAT. 
>> THANK YOU.
MAY 9th, 2019, RUDY GIULIANI ON 
BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, SPOKE WITH A "NEW YORK 
TIMES" REPORTER ABOUT HIS 
PLANNED TRIP TO UKRAINE AND ON 
THAT TRIP, HE PLANNED TO MEET 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE 
SAID, AND URGED -- AND URGED HIM
TO PURSUE INVESTIGATIONS 
RELATING TO THE BIDENS AND TO 
THE DEBUNK THEORY THAT UKRAINE, 
AND NOT RUSSIA, INTERFERED IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> MR. GIULIANI TOLD THE 
REPORTER THAT HIS TRIP WAS NOT 
ABOUT OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN 
POLICY AND THAT THE INFORMATION 
HE SOUGHT WOULD BE VERY, VERY 
HELPFUL TO HIS CLIENT MEANING IT
WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
IS THAT CORRECT. 
>> YES, IF IT'S NOT OFFICIAL 
FOREIGN POLICY, IT WOULD BE HELD
HELPFUL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
PERSONAL INTERESTS. 
>> THERE'S NO DOUBT 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND
2016 ELECTION MEDDLING WERE, IN 
FACT, NOT ABOUT U.S. POLICY BUT 
ABOUT BENEFITING TRUMP'S 
RE-ELECTION.
CORRECT?
>> YES.
EVEN THE UKRAINIANS REALIZED 
THAT. 
>> ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP
PLACED THAT FATEFUL PHONE CALL 
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HE 
ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND ON THAT CALL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TOLD ZELENSKY, "I WILL 
HAVE MR. GIULIANI TO GIVE YOU A 
CALL."
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND ON OCTOBER 2nd AND 
OCTOBER 3rd, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ONCE AGAIN MADE EXPLICIT THAT HE
AND MR. GIULIANI WERE INTENT ON 
MAKING THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
HAPPEN.
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND JUST SO YOU KNOW -- 
>> AND -- 
>> WE'VE BEEN INVESTIGATING ON A
PERSONAL BASIS THROUGH RUDY AND 
OTHERS, LAWYERS, CORRUPTION IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION.
WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY
WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, THEY'D 
START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO
THE BIDENS.
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.
>> MR. GOLDMAN, THE EVIDENCE 
SHOWS THE COURSE OF CONDUCT BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS AGENTS, 
DOES IT NOT?
>> IT DOES, AND CLEARLY, IT 
CONTINUED LONG AFTER OUR 
INVESTIGATION BEGAN.
>> IT SHOWS A COMMON PLAN, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT, YES. 
>> IT SHOWS A COMMON GOAL.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THE GOAL WAS TO GET 
FOREIGN HELP FOR THE 2020 
ELECTION, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS -- THAT'S WHAT ALL 
THE WITNESSES SAID.
>> AND, MR. GOLDMAN, WHO WAS THE
KINGPIN OF THAT PLAN?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> THANK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON CALLED IT A 
DRUG DEAL.
AS A KINGPIN, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TRIED TO FORCE A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN THE 
UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THE EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTED AND 
OVERWHELMING THAT RUDY GIULIANI 
ACTED AS PART OF A CONSPIRACY 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP TO OBTAIN 
UKRAINIAN HELP FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IN THE 2020 ELECTION.
THIS WAS NOT JUST A HURTFUL DRUG
DEAL.
THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE
THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR 
DEMOCRACY.
THE FRAMERS FEARED MOST HOW 
FOREIGN INFLUENCE COULD TURN A 
PRESIDENT INTO A DESPOT.
SO THEY ADOPTED IMPEACHMENT AS A
BACKSTOP TO PROTECT OUR 
DEMOCRACY.
THE FACTS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
DEMAND THAT WE USE THAT REMEDY 
TODAY, AND WITH THAT, I YIELD 
BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JORDAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CASTOR, I WANT TO GO TO THE 
DOCUMENT THAT STARTED IT ALL, 
THE AUGUST 12th WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT.
BULLETPOINT 1 ON PAGE 1 OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S COMPLAINT, HE 
SAYS THIS.
"OVER THE PAST FOUR MONTHS MORE 
THAN HALF A DOZEN U.S. OFFICIALS
HAVE INFORMED ME THE VARIOUS 
FACTS RELATED TO THIS EFFORT."
MR. CASTOR, WHO ARE THESE HALF A
DOZEN U.S. OFFICIALS?
>> WE DON'T KNOW. 
>> WE DON'T KNOWING DO WE?
WE HAD NO CHANCE TO KNOW FOR 
SURE WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE 
BECAUSE WE NEVER GOT TO TALK TO 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> WE NEEDED TO TALK TO THE GUY 
WHO STARTED IT ALL, WE NEEDED TO
TALK TO HIM TO FIGURE OUT WHO 
THESE MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN 
PEOPLE WERE WHO FORMED THE BASIS
OF HIS COMPLAINT AND NEVER GOT.
ADAM SCHIFF'S STAFF GOT TO.
ADAM SCHIFF KNOWS WHO HE IS.
THEREFORE, WE DON'T KNOW THE SIX
ORIGINAL PEOPLE THAT FORMED THE 
BASIS OF THIS ENTIRE THING WE'VE
BEEN GOING THROUGH FOR SIX 
MONTHS.
WE DID TALK TO 17 PEOPLE, RIGHT,
MR. CASTOR?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> 17 DEPOSITIONS AND YOU WERE 
IN EVERY SINGLE ONE, LAWYER 
DURING THE WORK FOR THE 
REPUBLICANS IN EVERY SINGLE ONE,
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES SIR. 
>> ONE WITNESS THEY RELIED ON 
AND BUILT THEIR REPORT AROUND.
ONE WITNESS.
I READ THE REPORT.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY ONE WITNESS.
WHO'S THAT WITNESS, MR. CASTOR?
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
I THINK YOU SAID EARLIER HIS 
NAME WAS MENTIONED, I DON'T 
,
KNOW, WHAT DID YOU SAY?
>> MORE THAN -- 
>> THEIR STAR WITNESS, FIR 
HEARING IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE, RELIED ON SONDLAND.
NOT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
NOT THE MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN 
PEOPLE WHO INFORMED THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
THEY RELIED ON AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND.
WHY DID THEY PICK SONDLAND, MR. 
AMBASSADOR?
>> THE BEST THEY GOT. 
>> THAT'S THE BEST THEY GOT.
THE GUY WHO HAD TO FILE AN 
A 
ADDONE ADDENDUM TO HIS 
TESTIMONY.
SAID TWO WEEKS AGO IN THE SAME 
CHAIR YOU'RE SITTING IN, MR. 
CASTO, HE SAID THIS, "UNLESS 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCES AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA AND 
THE BIDENS, THERE'D BE NO CALL 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, NO 
ASSISTANCE SECURITY MONEY GOING 
TO UKRAINE."
MR. CASTOR, WAS THERE AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT BY PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE
BIDENS OR BURISMA?
>> NO. 
>> NO ANNOUNCEMENT?
>> NO. 
>> DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GET A 
CALL FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> YES. 
>> DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GET A 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> YES. 
>> DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GET 
THE MEETING WITH THE UNITED 
STATES?
>> YES. 
>> GOT THE CALL JULY 25th.
THEY GOT THE MEETING ON 
SEPTEMBER 25th.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> THE GUY WHO SAID NONE OF THAT
IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE GUY 
THEY BUILT THEIR CASE AROUND?
>> YES. 
>> IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. SONDLAND?
>> THEY BUILT THEIR CASE AROUND 
A LOT OF HEARSAY, DIDN'T THEY?
THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THE HEARSAY,
SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH, IS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
IT'S AMAZING.
BUILT A CASE AROUND THIS 
AMBASSADOR AND BUILT A CASE 
AROUND HEARSAY AND THE BEST 
EXAMPLE OF BOTH IS MR. SONDLAND.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BECAUSE HE 
FILED HIS ADDENDUM, HIS 
CLARIFICATION, WHERE HE SAS 
THIS.
WE READ THIS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
HE SAYS THIS IN BULLET POINT 
NUMBER 2, IN HIS CLARIFICATION, 
HE SAYS "AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
RECALLS THAT MR. MORRISON TOLD 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT I TOLD 
MR. MORRISON THAT I CONVEYED 
THIS MESSAGE TO MR. YARMAK ON 
SEPTEMBER 1st, 2019, IN 
CONNECTION WITH VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE'S MEETING IN WARSAW AND 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY."
AMAZING, SIX PEOPLE AS I SAID 
BEFORE HAVING FOUR CONVERSATIONS
IN ONE SENTENCE.
IN CONNECTION WITH VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE'S VISIT TO 
WARSAW AND A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION.
THAT'S THEIR STAR WITNESS WHO 
THEY BUILT THEIR CASE AROUND.
SO-AND-SO TELLS SO-AND-SO WHAT 
SOMEBODY SAID TO SOMEONE ELSE 
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT.
THAT'S THEIR CASE.
THEY FORGET THE FOUR KEY FACTS.
THEY FORGET THE FACT THAT WE 
HAVE THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND 
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.
THEY FORGET THE FACT THAT TWO 
GUYS ON THE CALL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, SAID 
REPEATEDLY THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, THEY 
FORGET THE FACT THAT AID WAS 
HELD AT THE TIME OF THE CALL.
MOST IMPORTANT, THEY DID NOTHING
TO GET THE AID RELEASED, NO 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY TYPE OF 
INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER.
THEY FORGET ALL THAT.
THOSE KEY FACTS.
THEY BUILD THEIR CASE AROUND THE
GUY WHO HAD TO CLARIFY HIS 
TESTIMONY WITH THAT AMAZING 
SENTENCE.
MR. GOLDMAN, MR. GOLDMAN, THE 
DEMOCRATS -- DID THE DEMOCRATS 
PUBLISH PHONE RECORDS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY?
>> MR. GIULIANI, YES. 
>> DID THE DEMOCRATS PUBLISH 
PHONE RECORDS OF A MEMBER OF THE
PRESS?
>> YES, WHO WAS ALSO INVOLVED 
IN -- 
>> DID THE DEMOCRATS PUBLISH 
PHONE RECORDS OF A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS?
>> YES, WHO WAS TALKING TO 
PEOPLE -- 
>> DID THE DEMOCRATS -- THAT 
MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAPPENS TO BE
YOUR BOSS' POLITICAL OPPONENT 
THAT THOSE PHONE RECORDS WERE 
PUBLISHED OF.
SO THE DEMOCRATS, THEY RUN THIS 
KIND OF INVESTIGATION, IGNOING 
THE FACTS.
NOT LETTING THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COME IN AND, THEREFORE, NOT 
HEING US KNOW IF WE TALKED TO 
MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN ORIGINAL 
SOURCES FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S
COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE GUY WHO HAS TO FILE AN 
ADDENDUM WITH THAT CLARIFICATION
SENTENCE, BUT ONE THING THEY DID
DO, ONE THING THEY DID DO IN 
THEIR REPORT, IS THEY PUBLISHED 
THE PHONE RECORDS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, THE
PHONE RECORDS OF A MEMBER OF THE
PRESS AND THE PHONE RECORDS OF 
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE'S POLITICAL OPPONENT, 
REPRESENTATIVE NUNES.
THAT'S WHAT THESE GUYS DID AND 
THAT'S THEIR EFFORT TO IMPEACH 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
11 MONTHS BEFORE AN ELECTION.
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO FOCUS 
ON THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE 
PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER -- 
>> GENTLEMAN -- GENTLEMAN -- 
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE 
REPORT BY THE MAJORITY STAFF OF 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY PRESIDENTIAL GROUNDS 
OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, 
TALKS ABOUT TREASON AND BRIBERY,
BE ADMITTED TO THE RECORD. 
>> BE WHAT?
>> BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. 
>> MAJORITY REPORT, WITHOUT 
OBJECTION.
>> THANKS.
>> THANK YOU.
GETTING BACK TO THE FACTS 
SURROUNDING THE PRESIDENT'S 
ABUSE OF POWER USING THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AS LEVERAGE FOR 
HELPING HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, 
MR. GOLDMAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
OFFERED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY A MEETING IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE, BUT FIRST, HE WANTED 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS 
AND A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT 
MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 
COMMITTEES FOUND EVIDENCE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WORKED TO 
EXCHANGE OFFICIAL ACTIONS FOR 
PERSONAL BENEFIT AND I WANT TO 
TALK ABOUT THAT.
ON MAY 23rd, 2019, A DELEGATION 
OF OFFICIALS RETURNED FROM 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION AND 
BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT.
IN THAT BRIEFING, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DIRECTED GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS TO WORK WITH HIS 
PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND TRUMP'S HANDPICKED 
UKRAINE OPERATOR, GORDON 
SONDLAND, TESTIFIED THAT THEY 
FACED A CHOICE, EITHER WORK WITH
GIULIANI OR ABANDON THE GOAL OF 
A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.
WHAT CHOICE DID THEY MAKE, MR. 
GOLDMAN?
>> THEY DECIDED TO WORK WITH MR.
GIULIANI.
>> RIGHT.
AND SIX DAYS LATER ON MAY 29th, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT THE NEW 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT A LETTER 
THAT SAID AMERICA STOOD WITH 
UKRAINE AND INVITED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO VISIT THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, THAT WAS THE SECOND TIME
THAT HE INVITED HIM TO THE WHITE
HOUSE. 
>> SO AT THIS POINT THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT EXPECTED 
THAT MEETING.
>> CORRECT.
>> BUT THEN THEY LEARN THAT THEY
GOT TO DO SOMETHING MORE FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT THERE 
WAS A PREREQUISITE OF 
INVESTIGATIONS.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> AND NSC STAFFER LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT 
SONDLAND TOLD THE UKRAINIANS IN 
A JULY 10th MEETING THAT THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS WAS 
A DELIVERABLE, NECESSARY, TO GET
THAT MEETING, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> YES.
IF I COULD TAKE A SECOND TO 
CORRECT WHAT MR. CASTOR SAID 
ABOUT THAT MEETING, THERE REALLY
IS NO INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS 
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND RAISED THE ISSUE OF 
INVESTIGATIONS IN CONNECTION TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE.
EVEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN HIS 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY WAS FORCED TO 
ADMIT HE DID HEAR THAT AND SAID 
IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
INAPPROPRIATE HAVE SOME AND, IN 
FACT, ON JULY 9 19TH SONDLAND 
TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIRECTLY
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO 
HEAR A COMMITMENT TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> THAT SAME DAY, SONDLAND 
UPDATED SENIOR MULTIPLE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS THAT 
ZELENSKY WAS, QUOTE, PREPARED TO
RECEIVE POTUS'S CALL AND WOULD 
OFFER ASSURANCES ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, ISN'T THAT 
RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> AND ON THAT SAME DAY, STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL VOLKER HAD 
BREAKFAST WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND
HE REPORTED TO SONDLAND BY TEXT 
MESSAGE. 
MOST IMPORTANT IS FOR ZELENSKY 
TO SAY HE WILL HELP 
INVESTIGATION, RIGHT?
>> YES. 
AND ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC 
PERSONNEL ISSUES. 
>> RIGHT. 
AND LATER THAT DAY, AFTER 
GIULIANI SPOKE WITH YERMAK, 
EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT GIULIANI 
GAVE A GREEN LIGHT TO THAT JULY 
25th CALL. 
THEN ON THE MORNING OF THE CALL,
VOLKER TEXTED ZELENSKY AIDE 
YERMAK AND THAT TEXT TO HIS AIDE
SAID, AND I QUOTE, HEARD FROM 
WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT 
"Z" CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL 
INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM 
OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE 
WILL NAIL DOWN A VISIT, A DATE 
FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON. 
AND THE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOWS TRUMP 
REQUESTED INVESTIGATING AND 
ZELENSKY AGREES, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES. 
AND THAT TEXT MESSAGE WAS 
ACTUALLY A DIRECTION, A MESSAGE 
RELAYED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HIMSELF. 
>> AND THEN AFTER THE JULY 25th 
CALL, MEMBERS OF THE 
ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED TO 
FOLLOW-UP WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS TO PREPARE FOR THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS.
THEY CONTACTED SONDLAND NOTING 
THAT POTUS REALLY WANTS THE 
DELIVERABLE. 
NOW IT'S JUST ONE OF MANY 
MESSAGES DURING A FLURRY OF 
FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITY, THERE WERE 
MEETINGS AND CALLS AND TEXTS ON 
JULY 26th AND JULY 27th AND 
AUGUST 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 
9th, AUGUST TENTH, 11th, 12th, 
13th, 15th, MR. GOLDMAN ON 
AUGUST 16th, SEVEN TOONth, AND 
AUGUST NINE TEETH, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES, INCLUDING TO SECRETARY 
POMPEO AS WELL. 
>> THESE ARE GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS WHO WORK FOR US. 
INSTEAD, THEY WERE WORKING HARD 
TO HELP THE PRESIDENT ADVANCE 
HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL 
INTERESTS, ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU 
FOUND, MR. GOLDMAN?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> THIS ISN'T A CLOSE CALL. 
WE HAD A UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AT 
WAR WITH RUSSIA DESPERATE FOR A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING. 
THE PRESIDENT PROMISED A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING. 
BUT THEN HE BLOCKED THE OVAL 
OFFICE.
HE BLOCKED IT AND SAID I NEED A 
FAVOR. 
NOT A FAVOR TO HELP AMERICA, A 
FAVOR TO HELP ME GET RE-ELECTED.
OUR FRAMERS FEARED ONE DAY WE 
WOULD FACE A MOMENT LIKE THIS.
THEY GAVE US AN IMPEACHMENT -- 
THEY GAVE US IMPEACHMENT AS I 
SAFETY VALVE NOT TO PUNISH THE 
PRESIDENT, BUT TO DEFEND OUR 
ELECTIONS AND OUR CONSTITUTION 
AND THAT'S WHAT WE MUST DO. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
MR. BUCK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. CASS CASTOR, I WANT TO 
DIRECTION YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE
3. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP STATES I WOULD 
LIKE YOU DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, 
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY BEEN THROUGH
A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT 
ABOUT IT. 
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND BOUGHT 
HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SWAUTION WITH UKRAINE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL CALL YOU AND 
YOUR PEOPLE AND I WOULD LIKE YOU
TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. 
THE MAJORITY REPORT ON PAGE 13 
SAYS, THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY HAD UNANIMOUSLY 
DETERMINED THAT RUSSIA, NOT 
UKRAINE, INTERFERED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION TO HELP THE CANDIDACY 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
MR. CASTOR, THERE APPEARS TO BE 
A CONFLICT THERE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ASKING THE 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE SOMETHING
THE MAJORITY HAS DECIDED THAT 
IT'S AN ILLEGITIMATE REQUEST 
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO 
INTERFERENCE IN AN ELECTION BY 
THE UKRAINE. 
IS THAT HOW YOU READ THIS?
>> YES. 
>> AND THE PRESS RELEASE FROM 
THE MAJORITY ON THEIR REPORT 
SAYS, AS PART OF THIS SCHEME, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTING IN HIS 
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND USING HIS 
POSITION OF PUBLIC TRUST 
PERSONALLY AND DIRECTLY 
REQUESTED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF 
UKRAINE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO SUBSECTION 
TWO A BASELESS THEORY PROMOTED 
BY RUSSIA ALLEGING THAT UKRAINE,
RATHER THAN RUSSIA, INTERFERED 
IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION. 
IS THAT TRUE?
>> YES. 
>> AND, MR. CASTOR, I WANT TO 
ASK YOU SOMETHING. 
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS ARTICLE FROM 
"POLITICO" DATED JANUARY 11th, 
2017?
>> YES, I HAVE. 
>> AND THE TITLE OF THAT ARTICLE
IS UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO THE SABA
TAJH TRUMP BACKFIRE. 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. 
>> I WANT TO READ YOU THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH. 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 
TRIED TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON 
AND UNDERMINE TRUMP BY PUBLICLY 
QUESTIONING HIS FITNESS FOR 
OFFICE.
THEY ALSO DISSEMINATED DOCUMENTS
IMPLA INDICATING TOP TRUMP AIDE 
IN CORRUPTION AND SUGGESTED THEY
WERE INVESTIGATING THE MATTER 
ONLY TO BACK AWAY AFTER THE 
ELECTION. 
AND THEY HELPED CLINTON'S ALLIES
RESEARCH DAMAGING INFORMATION ON
TRUMP AND HIS ADVISERS. 
A "POLITICO" INVESTIGATION 
FOUND. 
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO
REQUEST HELP FROM THE UKRAINE 
ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION?
AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING FOR A 
MINUTE THAT RUSSIA DIDN'T 
INTERFERE, OF COURSE THEY 
INTERFERED. 
BUT THE UKRAINE OFFICIALS TRIED 
TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION?
>> YES. 
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND. 
I ONLY HAVE TEN FINGERS AND TEN 
TOES SO I CAN'T COUNT ABOVE 20, 
MR. CASTOR. 
BUT DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT HE
DID NOT KNOW, DID NOT RECALL, 
HAD NO RECOLLECTION, HAD LIMITED
MEMORY OR FAILED TO REMEMBER 
SOMETHING IN HIS OCTOBER 17th 
TESTIMONY?
YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES?
325. 
DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU?
325. 
>> BIG NUMBER. 
>> AND THEN FILES A CLARIFYING 
STATEMENT AND HE CLARIFIES A FEW
THINGS, I GUESS. 
BUT DID YOU HAVE ANY -- DO YOU 
HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND BETWEEN THE TIME OF HIS
DEPOSITION AND THE TIME OF HIS 
CLARIFYING STATEMENT?
>> NO. 
>> DID THE MAJORITY. 
>> I HAVE NO IDEA. 
>> YOU HAVE NO IDEA. 
SO THEY MAY HAVE HAD INFLUENCE 
ON HIS TESTIMONY?
>> I -- 
>> AND THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF
BIAS, THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF 
CREDIBILITY, THAT WOULD BE 
EVIDENCE THAT WE SHOULD TAKE 
INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE. 
BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW, WILL WE?
BECAUSE THE MAJORITY COUNSEL HAS
A RIGHT TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE, 
AS TO INFORMATION THAT'S 
RELEVANT TO THIS COMMITTEE'S 
DECISION. 
THE MAJORITY COUNSEL HAS A RIGHT
TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE IN ANY 
COMMUNICATIONS HE HAS WITH THE 
CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF, DOESN'T 
HE?
>> YEAH. 
>> AS DOES MINORITY COUNSEL. 
THAT'S A PRIVILEGE THAT WE 
RESERVED NEAR CONGRESS, ISN'T 
IT. 
>> YEAH. 
>> AND THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF
FOYA, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO MEMOS THAT
MAJORITY COUNSEL WRITES, ISN'T 
THAT TRUE?
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO WE'VE -- WE'VE DEMANDED OF
THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BUT 
WE HAVE ALLOWED OURSELVES NOT TO
BE PART OF FOIA, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> OKAY. 
SO THE MAJORITY HAS A PRIVILEGE.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO HAS A 
PRIVILEGE, IT'S CALLED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
HE CAN MEET WITH THE SECRETARY 
OF STATE AND THAT'S A PRIVILEGED
CONVERSATION.
HE CAN MEET WITH THE SECRETARY 
OF DEFENSE, THAT'S A PLACHBLINGD
CONVERSATION. 
HE CAN MEET WITH THE SECRETARY 
OF ENERGY, THAT'S A PRIVILEGED 
CONVERSATION. 
NOW, WHEN THE MAJORITY HAS 
SUBPOENAED THOSE WITNESSES AND 
THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO 
PRODUCE THOSE WITNESSORS 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OR WHAT THEY 
CONSIDER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, 
THEY ARE CHARGING HIM WITH AN 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT FOR 
OBSTRUCTION. 
IN FACT, THEIR REPORT SAYS 
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BY 
INSTRUCTING WITNESSES TO IGNORE 
SUBPOENAS. 
WHY?
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MS. BASS. 
>> MR. GOLDMAN, I WANT TO PICK 
UP ON THE PRESIDENT USING THE 
POWERS OF HIS OFFICE. 
IN THIS CASE AT 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 ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVAL TO BENEFIT HIS RE-ELECTION
CAMPAIGN?
>> I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION 
IN A MINUTE, BUT I WOULD LIKE 
JUST TO COMMENT TO MR. BUCK THAT
THE MAJORITY STAFF AND NO ONE 
HAD ANY CONTACT WITH AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AFTER HIS DEPOSITION. 
BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION 
IS, YES, MS. BASS. 
>> MY COLLEAGUE, MR. DEUTSCHE, 
MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THE PERIOD 
PRIOR TO THE JULY 25th CALL. 
I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE PERIOD 
AFTER. 
FOLLOWING THE CALL, DID 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COME TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE FOR A 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 U.N. 
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 MID-AUGUST WHEN 
THE UKRAINIANS, MR. YERMAK AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DECIDED THAT
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO ISSUE 
THAT STATEMENT THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI WANTED TO INCLUDE 
BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTIONS, 
THERE WAS NO WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING. 
IT SOON BECAME CLEAR TO THEM 
THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS
ALSO AT RISK AND THAT TOOK ON A 
RENEWED IMPORTANCE FOR THEM. 
>> WELL, FOLLOWING THE 25th 
CALL, THE JULY 25th CALL, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER 
WORKED CLOSELY WITH MR. GIULIANI
AND THE UKRAINIANS TO HELP DRAFT
A STATEMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COULD MAKE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
WASN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
AND THE REPORT STATE THAT THEY 
WORKED CLOSELY AND THEN THERE 
WERE ALSO PHONE CALLS WITH THE 
WHITE HOUSE AROUND THE SAME TIME
THAT THEY WERE WORKING CLOSELY. 
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT 
STATEMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY, 
ACCORDING TO MR. GIULIANI AND 
THE U.S. OFFICIALS?
>> WELL, THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS 
THAT IT HAD TO INCLUDE THAT 
UKRAINE WOULD DO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA, WHICH
EQUALED THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION 
AND THE 2016 UKRAINE 
INTERFERENCE. 
>> BUT WAS THERE A CONCERN ABOUT
DOING THE INVESTIGATIONS OR 
WHAT?
WERE THEY JUST SUPPOSED TO MAKE 
A STATEMENT ABOUT IT, WHAT?
>> AMBASSADOR AND IS LEERILY 
SONDLAND CLEARLY EVIDENCE THAT 
ALL HE HEARD THEM SAY WAS THEY 
ONLY NEEDED THE PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> SO DID THE COMMITTEE FIND 
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 
ON THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT BEING 
CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> IT SHOWED THAT HE NOT ONLY 
PLAYED A ROLE, BUT HE WAS THE 
PRESIDENT'S AGENT.
HE WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE 
PRESIDENT, EXPRESSING THE 
PRESIDENT'S WISHES, DESIRES 
AND -- 
>> SO WHAT -- WHAT EVIDENCE DID 
THE COMMITTEE FIND THAT 
CORROBORATED THE QUOTE, EVERYONE
WAS IN THE LOOP?
>> WELL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
PRODUCED FOR HIS PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY, 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. SONDLAND
DID NOT REMEMBER IN HIS 
DEPOSITION. 
WE AGREE, IT WAS EGREGIOUS. 
BUT THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING 
CLOSED DEPOSITIONS IS THAT MR. 
SONDLAND COULD NOT MATCH UP HIS 
TESTIMONY. 
SO AS OTHER WITNESSES CAME IN, 
THEN HE REALIZED THAT HE HAD TO 
ACTUALLY ADMIT TO MORE AND MORE 
STUFF. 
SO DID HE ADMIT TO -- TO AN 
EMAIL THAT INCLUDED POMPEO, 
MULVANEY -- 
>> DWIENT TO MAKE A POINT BEFORE
MY TIME GOES OUT. 
WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S 
GOING ON TODAY. 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS MEETING 
WITH PUTIN TODAY. 
AND BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ACTIONS, ZELENSKY IS IN A 
WEAKENED POSITION TO NEGOTIATE 
WITH THE LEADER OF THE NATION 
THAT INVADED HIS COUNTRY. 
IF OUR MILITARY ASSISTANCE HAD 
BEEN PROVIDED AS CONGRESS 
ORDERED IT AND THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WOULD BE MEETING WITH PUTIN FROM
A POSITION OF STRENGTH. 
IF YOU WANT THE SUPPORT -- WHAT 
IS WE ARE TO REALIZE IS THAT THE
MESSAGE THAT SENDS TO OUR ALLIES
AND TO OUR STANDING IN THE 
WORLD, IF YOU WANT THE SUPPORT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, BE 
PREPARED TO HELP WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION. 
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
WHISTLE-BLOWER MADE STATEMENTS 
TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL UNDER 
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NOT
TRUE AND CORRECT. 
THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER FIRST 
MADE STATEMENTS IN WRITING UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NOT
TRUE AND CORRECT. 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THEN MADE 
STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF 
PERJURY THAT WERE NOT TRUE AND 
CORRECT IN HIS OR HER VERBAL 
RESPONSES TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL'S INVESTIGATIVE TEAM. 
BECAUSE OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S 
STATEMENTS IN WRITING AND 
VERBALLY TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL THAT WERE NEITHER TRUE, 
CORRECT, OR ACCURATE, PAGES 53 
TO 73 OF THAT SWORN TESTIMONY 
REVEAL THAT THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL WAS NOT ABLE TO ANSWER 
ANY QUESTIONS, NONE, FROM ME 
ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S 
CONTACT OR COMMUNICATION WITH 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF OF WHICH
MR. GOLDMAN IS A MEMBER. 
MR. CASTOR, DO YOU REMEMBER 
ANYWHERE IN THIS 299-PAGE REPORT
THAT MAKES REFERENCE TO THE FACT
THAT WHEN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
STARTED THIS INQUIRY, HE OR SHE 
DID SO BY MAKING STATEMENTS 
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT 
WERE NEITHER TRUE OR CORRECT IN 
WRITING AND THEN DID SO AGAIN 
VERBALLY?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. 
>> AFTER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
TESTIFIED ON OCTOBER 4th AND 
AFTER MEDIA REPORTS REVEALED 
THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DID NOT DISCLOSE
THEIR PRIOR CONTACTS OR 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER,
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER CONTACTED THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO EXPLAIN WHY
HE OR SHE MADE STATEMENTS UNDER 
PENALTY OF PERJURY IN WRITING 
AND VERBALLY THAT WERE NOT TRUE,
CORRECT, AND ACCURATE. 
MR. CASTOR, IS THAT 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER -- FROM THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL TO EXPLAIN PRIOR 
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS 
REFLECTED ANYWHERE IN THE 
299-PAGE REPORT?
>> NO. 
>> ON OCTOBER 2nd, CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF'S SPOKESMAN PATRICK 
BOWLLAND ACKNOWLEDGE BACK UPLY 
THAT THE OUTLINES OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S ACCUSATIONS 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN 
DISCLOSED TO THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE STAFF AND SHARED 
WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. 
MR. CASTOR, IS THAT DISCLOSURE 
AND MR. BOLLEN'S ADMISSION 
ANYWHERE IN THIS REPORT?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT. 
>> IT'S NOT. 
I THINK ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN 
THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. 
SO THAT END IF I HAVE MADE ANY 
FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER OR THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL, THIN 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 WHISTLE-BLOWER'S 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 
WHISTLE-BLOWER MADE STATEMENTS 
THAT WEREN'T TRUE OR ACCURATE 
ABOUT HIS CONTACT OR HER CONTACT
WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IN WRITING 
AND THEN AGAIN VERBALLY. 
MAYBE THERE'S A GOOD EXPLANATION
FOR WHY THE WORDS CONGRESS OR 
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WAS 
CONFUSING OR NOT CLEAR TO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
MAYBE THERE'S A GOOD EXPLANATION
FOR WHY HE MISLED THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL IN WRITING ON AUGUST 
12th BY STATING I RESERVE THE 
OPTION TO EXERCISE MY LEGAL 
RIGHT TO CONTACT THE COMMITTEES 
DIRECTLY WHEN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
HAD, IN FACT, ALREADY CONTACTED 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE TWO 
WEEKS BEFORE HE OR SHE WROTE 
THAT. 
MAYBE THERE'S A BELIEVABLE 
REASON WHY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS 
NOT INITIALLY TRUTHFUL ABOUT HIS
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
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 WHISTLE-BLOWER AND CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF. 
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WE SHOULD 
ALL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND NEXT
NOVEMBER EVERY MEMBER OF THE 
HOUSE WILL BE ASKED THIS 
QUESTION. 
DID YOU VOTE TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY 
INVESTIGATION INTO WHY THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER THAT STARTED IT 
ALL DID SO BY MAKING STATEMENTS 
IN WRITING AND VERBALLY UNDER 
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NOT
TRUE?
DEMOCRATS MAY NOT CARE IF THAT 
QUESTION EVER GETS ANSWERED, BUT
THE VOTERS WILL. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> 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. 
AND I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE MY 
COLLEAGUES MR. DEUTSCHE AND 
MS. BASS LEFT OFF.
THEY WALKED US THROUGH HOW THE 
PRESIDENT USED THE WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT TO APPLY PRESSURE ON 
UKRAINE TO DO HIS PERSONAL 
BIDDING. 
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE 
PRESIDENT DID THE SAME THING 
WITH ALMOST 400 MILLION TAXPAYER
DOLLARS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE 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 AND THE 
TRANSCRIPT SUBMITTED BY HIM 
REVEALS THAT AFTER YOU CRANE 
ASKED FOR MILITARY AID, TRUMP 
SAYS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US 
A FAVOR, THOUGH. 
>> AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
THANKS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE 
MILITARY SENTENCE, THEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKS FOR A 
FAVOR. 
AND OF COURSE BY THIS POINT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ALREADY 
PLACED THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE. 
>> NOW, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS DID NOT EVEN KNOW 
ABOUT THE MILITARY AID BEING 
WITHHELD. 
IS THAT TRUE?
>> NO. 
THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE 
THAT EVEN AS EARLY AS JULY 25th 
AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL THAT 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HAD 
SUSPECTED THAT THE AID WAS BEING
WITHHELD AND THERE WAS A "NEW 
YORK TIMES" ARTICLE 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 
ZELENSKY'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'D LIKE, THEN, TO -- 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 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 HOLD. 
AND, OF COURSE, IT WAS GIVEN AT 
THAT POINT AS THIS -- THE GIG 
WAS UP, SO TO SPEAK. 
>> SO THAT WAS AFTER EVERYTHING 
CAME OUT TO LIGHT?
>> IT WAS -- HE WASN'T SURE OF 
THE TIMING, BUT HE WAS 
ULTIMATELY TOLD THAT THE REASON 
FOR THE HOLD AFTER OF IT WAS 
LIFTED WAS FOR THAT REASON. 
BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK AN
AFTER THE FACT EXCUSE BASED ON 
OUR EVIDENCE. 
BECAUSE NO OTHER WITNESSES WERE 
EVER TOLD OF THAT REASON DURING 
THE ENTIRE TIME THAT IT WAS 
HELD. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'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 ASKED 
YOU UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL. 
ALSO ON JULY 25th, IN THE HOURS 
FOLLOWING THAT CALL BOTH THE 
UKRAINIANS AND THE AMERICANS 
TOOK ACTIONS SPECIFICALLY 
RELATED TO THAT MILITARY AID. 
THE UKRAINIANS BEGAN ASKING 
ABOUT THE STATUS OF 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 AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO 
MEMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS, I 
WOULD ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM 
IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM THAT 
ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS
ARE IN PLACE, ZELENSKY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD PUBLICLY 
AND WITH CONFIDENCE ON THOSE 
ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED STATES 
HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BREAK THE 
LOGJAM. 
DID THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES
UNCOVERED ANY EVIDENCE ON WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MEANT WHEN 
HE SUGGESTED THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE 
FORWARD PUBLICLY ON, QUOTE, 
ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE 
PRESIDENT TO RECEIVE MILITARY 
AID?
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID 
THOSE WERE THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MENTIONED ON THE JULY 25th
CALL WHICH SECRETARY POMPEO WHO 
RECEIVED THAT EMAIL LISTENED IN 
TO. 
>> SO THE PRESIDENT WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND THAT WAS THE PREDICATE FOR 
RELEASING MILITARY AID TO OUR 
ALLY?
>> AT THE TIME OF THAT EMAIL, 
YES. 
>> THANK YOU, AND I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
>> LITTLE EARLIER, MR. ARMSTRONG
HAD ASKED UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST TO ASSERT 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. 
MS. ROBY. 
>> I'M ACTUALLY STUNNED BY THE 
PROCESS OR LACK THEREOF THAT IS 
TAKE 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, 
HARDWORKING STAFF AND WITHOUT 
THESE INDIVIDUALS WE MOST 
CERTAINLY COULDN'T DO OUR JOBS 
EFFECTIVELY. 
BUT WE HAVE NOT AND WE WILL NOT 
HEAR FROM ANY FACT WITNESSES. 
WHETHER YOU IDENTIFY AS A 
REPUBLICAN, A DEMOCRAT, OR AN 
INDEPENDENT, WOULD 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 MEMBERS 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 CONDOUNGTD
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 
THEREON. 
THE WORDING HERE IS THAT THE 
MINORITY SHALL BE ENTITLED, NOT 
IF THE CHAIRMAN DEEMS THE 
MINORITY WORTHY. 
BUT SHALL BE ENTITLED. 
MR. CASTOR, WITH ALL OF YOUR 
EXPERIENCE IN INVESTIGATIONS 
HERE IN THE CONGRESS, IS IT YOUR
BELIEF BASED ON THAT EXPERIENCE 
THAT IGNORING THE MINORITY'S 
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 IN HIS OPENING 
COMMENTS IF THE IS THE HOPE THAT
IN THESE DISCUSSIONS WE CAN PUT 
ASIDE POLITICAL RANK OR 
DISAGREEMENTS AND HAVE A FAIR 
DISCUSSION. 
THAT IS FAR FROM WHAT HAS 
HAPPENED HERE TODAY OR THE DAYS 
LEADING UP TO THIS. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
BETTER THAN THIS. 
AND I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY 
TIME TO MR. COLLINS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MR. CASTOR, WE'VE HEARD A LOT, 
IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD TIME I THINK 
TO GO BACK AND REMIND PEOPLE 
THAT THERE ARE FOUR THINGS THAT 
REALLY HAVEN'T CHANGED WOULD THE
YOU LIKE TO REMIND US OF 
EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN 
DISCUSSED.
>> THERE'S FOUR THINGS THAT WILL
NEVER CHANGE. 
STRIPT COMPLETE AND ACCURATE, IT
SHOWS NO QUID PRO QUO, NO 
CONDITIONALITY, THAT'S NUMBER 
ONE. 
NUMBER TWO, THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE. 
ZELENSKY AND TRUMP HAVE SAID 
THAT REPEAT PLITD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SAID THAT AT UNITED 
NATIONS AT SEPTEMBER 25th. 
HE SAID IT IN SUBSEQUENT NEWS 
ARTICLE ON OCTOBER 6th, OCTOBER 
10th, AND DECEMBER 1st. 
NUMBER 3, THE UKRAINIANS AND 
ZPLENS DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE 
PAUSE IN AID, 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 PRESIDENT TRUMP 
MET WITH ZELENSKY IN NEW YORK. 
>> DO YOU FIND IT AMAZING THAT 
THE MAJORITY IS 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?
>> UM. 
>> BECAUSE IF HE SAYS THERE'S NO
PRESSURE, HE'S DONE IT ON MANY, 
MANY OCCASIONS SINCE THEN, THEN 
UNDOUBTEDLY THEY BELIEVE HIM NOT
TO BE TRUTHFUL, DON'T YOU FIND 
THAT STRIKING?
>> IT'S UNFORTUNATE. 
>> IT'S SAD WE'RE CALLING AN 
ELECTED LEADER WHO IS 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 YIELD BACK. 
MR. JEFFRIES. 
>> LET'S FOCUS ON THE AID TO 
UKRAINE. 
MR. GOLDMAN, CONGRESS ALLOCATED 
ON THE BIPARTISAN BASIS 
$391 MILLION IN TIDE UKRAINE, 
CORRECT?
>> YES, IT 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. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS 
DEFENDERS CLAIM 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 USE.
 THE WORD CORRUPTION ON THAT 
APRIL 21st CALL, TRUE?
>> THAT IS TROUPE. 
AND THE READOUT FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE AFTER THE CALL DID SAY 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION. 
>> THAT READOUT WAS INACCURATE. 
IN A MAY 23rd LETTER, TRUMP'S 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONCLUDED 
THAT UKRAINE MET THE 
ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARKS 
REQUIRED TO RECEIVE MILITARY AID
FROM THE UNITED STATES, TRUE?
>> YES. 
IF I COULD TAKE A SECOND TO TALK
ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S 
IMPORTANT AND IT GOES BACK TO 
WHAT MR. COLLINS WAS TALKING 
ABOUT WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY 
CONDITIONALITY ON AID ROUTINELY 
BUT IT'S DONE THROUGH OFFICIAL 
POLICY.
AND THESE ANTICORRUPTION 
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 INTERAGENCIES CERTIFIED 
THAT UKRAINE WAS MAKING THE 
NECESSARY PROGRESS ON 
ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS TO MERIT 
THE AID. 
>> AND YET THE AID 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 EVIDENCE REALLY SUPPORTS THE
FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP VIEWS 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE TO BE 
SYNONYMOUS WITH THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANTS. 
>> WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID CARE 
ABOUT WAS A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, AND 
THAT IS WHY HE WITHHELD THE 
MILITARY AID, TRUE?
>> HE TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HIMSELF THAT THAT IS THE ONLY 
THING THAT HE CARES ABOUT. 
>> 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 A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN 
MADE NO SENSE IF THE 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. 
>> ILLOGICAL, UNEXPLAINABLE, 
CRAZY. 
MR. GOLDMAN, ACCORDING TO THE 
TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
ARE THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THE
WITHHELD AID THAT MADE SENSE IS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING 
HELP WITH THE POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL 
EXPLANATION AS MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES SAID. 
>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO 
GAVE A MILLION DOLLARS TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION, 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 VINDMAN 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 INVESTIGATE A
U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT, CORRECT?
>> YEAH, THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH 
UNANIMOUS VIEW OF ALL 17 
WITNESSES 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 THAT -- THE SCHEME PART IS 
VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE 
MINORITY WANTS TO FOCUS ON THESE
FOUR VERY NARROW FACTS THAT 
IGNORE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE 
EVIDENCE. 
AND SO THE FACT THAT YOU USE 
SCHEME IS 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. GAETZ. 
>> THE LAST PUBLIC OPINION POLL 
I SAW SHOWED CONGRESS HAD AN 
APPROVAL RATING OF 9%. 
BY CONTRAST, KA DOFF IF I HAD AN
APPROVAL RATING OF 13% AND HIS 
OWN PEOPLE DRAGGED HIM INTO THE 
ZREETS AND KILLED HIM. 
THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DEM 
MONTH STRATSS 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.
MATTER OF FACT, WHEN WE OPENED 
THE INQUIRY, NO REPUBLICANS VOTE
WITH THE DEMOCRATS, AND YOU HAD 
DEMOCRATS VOTING WITH US IN THE 
ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE TO SHUT 
DOWN THIS IMPEACHMENT. 
THAT BRINGS TO US YOUR ROLE, MR.
GOLDMAN. 
ARE YOU HERE AS A PARTISAN 
ADVOCATE FOR THE DEMOCRAT 
POSITION OR ARE 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. CASTOR, HOW LONG HAVE YOU
WORKED FOR THE HOUSE?
>> SINCE 2005. 
>> AND SAME QUESTION, MR. 
GOLDMAN. 
>> FOR THE HOUSE?
SINCE EARLIER THIS YEAR. 
>> MR. CASTOR, 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 -- 
>> MATTER OF FACT, YOU'VE GIVEN 
TEN OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO 
DEMOCRATS, RIGHT?
>> THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
SUPPORT OFFICE -- 
>> I JUST WANT KNOW THE NUMBER. 
>> YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT IT. 
>> THE BASIS, I JUST WANT THE 
NUMBER. 
IT'S TENS -- 
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY. 
>> DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY 
MR. BURKE HAS GIVEN DEMOCRATS?
>> I DON'T KNOW. 
>> WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF IT'S
MORE THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND?
>> I'M HERE TO BUCK THIS REPORT.
I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT 
THIS REPORT. 
>> YOU GAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS, 
MR. BURKE GAVE MORE THAN A 
HUNDRED THOUSAND. 
DO YOU THINK IF YOU GAVE MORE 
MONEY YOU'D BE ABLE TO ANSWER 
QUESTIONS LIKE MR. BURKE DID?
I GUESS IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE 
STILL PONDERING. 
MR. CASTOR, HAVE YOU EVER 
TWEETED ANYTHING AT THE 
PRESIDENT?
>> NO. 
>> 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 THE
DOSSIER SAID THERE WAS A RUSSIAN
CONSULATE IN MIAMI, WHEN THERE 
ISN'T. 
THE DOSSIER SAID THAT MICHAEL 
COHEN HAD A MEETING IN PRAGUE 
WHEN HE DIDN'T. 
THE DASSIER SAID THAT MICHAEL 
COHEN'S WIFE WAS RUSSIAN, SHE'S,
IN FACT, UKRAINIAN. 
AND SO, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, 
WHERE YOU I GUESS GOT A TWEET 
MENTIONING A P TAPE PRESENTING 
YOURSELF NOT AS A PARTISAN, 
HIRED BY THE DEMOCRATS TO 
PURSUIT PRESIDENT, DO YOU REGRET
THIS TWEET?
>> SIR, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PUT 
MY -- THIS INVESTIGATION UP WITH
ANY OF THE NONPARTISAN 
INVESTIGATIONS -- 
>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF YOU 
REGRET THE TWEET. 
>> DURING MY TEN YEARS AS A 
PROSECUTOR. 
>> DO YOU REGRET IT?
>> I HOPE YOU READ THE EVIDENCE 
AND JUDGE FOR YOUR SELF WHETHER 
IT'S PARTISAN OR NOT. 
>> I GUESS YOU DON'T WANT TO 
ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
MR. CHAIRMAN, EARLIER IN THIS 
HEARING YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING 
MORE URGENT THAN IMPEACHMENT 
RIGHT NOW. 
THIS IS THE MOST URGENT THING WE
COULD POSSIBLY DO. 
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 USMCA, THAT IS MORE URGENT. 
IF YOU'RE A FARMER WHO WANTS TO 
OPEN MARKETS SO THAT YOUR FAMILY
CAN SURVIVE AND THRIVE, THAT'S 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 CRAS CHRISTMAS 
TREE FOR MOST AMERICANS WOULD BE
A LUMP OF COAL, BUT THINK 
THEY'RE AGAINST COAL TOO.
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, 266,000 JOBS 
CREATED. 
80,000 OVER THE AVERAGE. 
HALF A MILLION MORE 
MANUFACTURING JOBS IN THE TRUMP 
PRESIDENCY. 
700,000 CONSTRUCTION JOBS. 
WE ARE DOING BETTER THAN EVER 
BEFORE. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
THRIVING. 
WHY WON'T YOU HELP US MOVE ALONG
THE CRITICAL ISSUES THAT ARE FAR
MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT?
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> LET ME BEBEGIN BY DISPELLING 
THE CLAIM MA MR. GAETZ JUST MADE
IN THE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST 
PRO DUKTTIVE CONGRESS'S IN 
HISTORY. 
WE'VE PASSED 400 PIECES OF 
LEGISLATION THAT RESPOND TO THE 
URGENT PRIORITIES OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, DRIVING DOWN 
HEALTH CARE COSTS, RAISING WAGE 
SPORTS AMERICAN WOKKER ARE 
RESPONDING TO GUN VIOLENCE, 
PROVIDING EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL 
WORK, RESPOND TOGETHER 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 ARE 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 ADVANCE SOMETHING 
THERE'S A LOT OF AMERICANS WHO 
ARE WATCHING DON'T KNOW A LOT 
ABOUT UKRAINE, DON'T KNOW ABOUT 
THE GEOPOLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
>> THE WITNESSES WERE QUITE 
CLEAR ABOUT THIS 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 II. 
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 PART OF THE 
CALL ON JULY BETWEEN THE 5th 
CONGRESS HAD APPROVED THE AID, 
CORRECT?
>> CONGRESS HAD APPROVED THE AID
AND THEN THE PRESIDENT HELD THE 
AID. 
>> AND THE DEFENSE PENT E 
 
DEPARTMENT AANNOUNCED THE 
SUPPORT OF THE AID. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND THEY HAD TAKEN 
SUBSTANTIAL STEPS TO COMBAT 
CORRUPTION, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND THAT NORMALLY LEADS TO 
THE RELEASE OF THE AID. 
>> ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE OF AID, 
YES.
>> AND THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONED 
WITNESSES FROM THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT, STATE DEPARTMENT, 
OMB, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD
AID, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND I'D LIKE TO PLAY A CLIP 
OF SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE. 
>> FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSES, DID 
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 
THIS SECURITY ASSISTANCE, ISN'T 
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> I AND OTHERS SAT IN 
ASTONISHMENT. 
UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING 
RUSSIANS AND COUNTED ON NOT ONLY
THE TRAINING AND WEAPONS, BUT 
ALSO THE ASSURANCE OF U.S. 
SUPPORT. 
>> AM I CORRECT THAT THE 
WITNESSES THAT APPEARED BEFORE 
YOUR COMMITTEE CONFIRMED THAT 
THERE WAS NO CREDIBLE 
EXPLANATION FOR WITHHOLDING THE 
MILITARY AID AND THAT IT WAS, IN
FACT, AGAINST OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS DO SO?
>> EVERYONE AGREED IT WAS 
AGAINST OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTERESTS TO DO SO. 
THE ONLY EXPLANATION THAT ANY 
WITNESS PROVIDED WAS MR. SANDY 
WHO SAID HE HAD HEARD FROM ROB 
BLAIR, I BELIEVE, THE ASSISTANT 
TO MICK MULVANEY THAT THE REASON
WAS BECAUSE OF OTHER COUNTRY'S 
DONATIONS OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
UKRAINE. 
BUT THAT WAS ONLY IN SEPTEMBER 
AND, OF COURSE, THERE WERE NO 
FURTHER COMMIT FLENTS ANY OTHER 
COUNTRY. 
>> AND AS WE HEARD FROM BILL 
TAYLOR WHO SAY GRADUATE OF WEST 
POINT AND 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 
WEAKENING UKRAINE WOULD ONLY 
BENEFIT RUSSIA. 
HERE'S WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
SAID. 
>> AFTER OUR MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER AND I TRAVELED TO THE 
FRONTLINE IN NORTHERN DOM BASS 
TO RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE 
FORCES ON 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. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I COULD 
SEE THE ARMED AND HOSTILE 
RUSSIAN-LED FORCES ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE DAMAGED BRIDGE 
ACROSS THE LINE OF CONTACT. 
RUSSIAN-LED FORCES CONTINUE TO 
KILL UKRAINIANS IN THE WAR ONE 
OR TWO A WEEK. 
MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD 
UNDOUBTEDLY DIE WITHOUT THE U.S.
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. 
>> 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 71/2 
HOURS. 
I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN IF MR. 
BURKE WAS APPEARING AS A STAFF 
MEMBER OR AS A WITNESS. 
BUT THE CHAIRMAN GAVE STRANGELY 
CONFLICTING ANSWERS TO THAT 
IMPORTANT QUESTION. 
WHEN I OBJECTED UNDER HOUSE RULE
17 THAT MR. BURKE WAS REPEATEDLY
AND BRAZENLY STEAM ROLLING OVER 
HOUSEDAY CORE RUM RULES AND 
USING LANGUAGE THAT IMPUND THE 
MOAT TIFDS OF THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND SUGGESTED 
HE IS DISLOYAL TO HIS COUNTRY, 
CHAIRMAN NADLER INSISTED THOSE 
WORDS COULD NOT BE TAKEN DOWN AS
STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD SAYING,
QUOTE, THE RULES DON'T APPLY 
HEREHERE BECAUSE MR. BURKE IS 
MERELY APPEARING AS A STAFFER. 
BUT LATER, CHAIRMAN NADLER 
STATED THE OPPOSITE AND DECLARED
MA MR. BURKE WAS APPEARING TO 
PRESENT THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS 
REPORT AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE 
WHICH WOULD 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 
EVER, OF COURSE, BUT IT'S 
ENTIRELY KIPTD BEEN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS. 
AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, INTEL 
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 660, MR. BURKE WAS 
ALLOWED TO JOIN THE MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS ON THIS DAIS AND ASK 45
MINUTES OF HIS QUESTIONS OF MR. 
CASTOR. 
WHEN HE WAS ARGUMENTATIVE, 
ASSUMED CRITICAL FACTS NOT IN 
EVIDENCE, ENGAGE IN SPECULATION 
AND COMMITTED COUNTLESS OTHER 
VIOLATIONS OF REGULAR HOUSE 
RULES AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF 
CIVIL PROCEDURE, I OBJECTED. 
WAS THEN RULED OUT OF ORDER BY 
CHAIRMAN NADLER WHO INFORMED ALL
OF US THAT WHILE HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 660 SPECIFICALLY 
PROVIDES FOR OBJECTIONS, IT 
LISTS NONE OF THEM AND THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE IGNORED EVERY 
REQUEST OF OURS TO OBTAIN A LIST
OF WHAT RULES AND OBJECTIONS 
WOULD BE ENFORCED AND APPLICABLE
TODAY. 
AGAIN, SO MUCH FOR DUE PROCESS 
AND 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 NADLER AND SCHIFF 
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 OUNCE WHILE WE 
WERE BACK HOME IN OUR DIRECTS.
THEY DISTRICTS.
THEY MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US 
TO REVIEW ALL MATERIAL IN ANY 
MEANINGFUL WAY. 
WHAT'S WORSE IS THE DOCUMENTS 
THEY DECIDED TO DUMP ON US ARE 
NOT ALL OF THE UNDERLYING 
RECORDS WE NEED TO REVIEW BUT A 
PARTIAL, REDACTED AND BIASED 
SUBSET OF INFORMATION THAT THEY 
THINK WILL ADVANCE THEIR FALSE 
NARRATIVE AND AS HAS BEEN 
MENTIONED HERE, WE'RE BEING 
ALLOWED NO MINORITY DAY HEARING 
HAD WHICH IS REQUIRED BY REGULAR
HOUSE RULES. 
I'D LOVE TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. 
BURKE HIM SEX, BUT CHAIRMAN 
NADLER SPECIAL AND STILL 
MYSTERIOUS RULES FOR THIS 
HEARING WON'T ALLOW IT. 
I NOTICE 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
$99,000 TO THE DEMOCRATIC 
CANDIDATES OVER YEARS INCLUDING 
SIZEABLE DONATIONS FOR 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 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 WALL OF 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 IN THE MAJORITY
TEAMS JERSEYS.
THE REPORT OF EVIDENCE RELEASED 
BY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE STAFF ON
DECEMBER 2nd CAREFULLY DOCUMENTS
THAT IN THE HEARINGS THAT LED 
TOUSS THIS POINT TODAY CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF DIRECTED WITNESSES CALLED
BY THE DEMOCRATS NOT TO ANSWER 
REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS. 
HE REJECTED WITNESSES IDENTIFIED
RAPS WHO HAVE ABOUT HAVE 
INJECTED SOME SEMBLANCE OF 
FAIRNESS AND OBJECTIVITY AND 
DENIED REPUBLICAN SUBPOENAS FOR 
TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS 
VIOLATING THE DEMOCRATS' OWN 
RULES TO VOTE DOWN THOSE 
SUBPOENAS WITH NO NOTICE TO 
REPUBLICANS. 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALSO PUBLICLY 
FABRICATED EVIDENCE ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25th 
PHONE CALL AND HE MISLED THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT HIS 
INTERACTIONS WITH THE ANONYMOUS 
WHISTLE-BLOWER TO SELECT 
INFORMATION TO PAINT MISLEADING 
NARRATIVES. 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER REPORTEDLY 
ACKNOWLEDGED HAVING A PERSONAL 
RELATIONSHIP WITH VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN AND HIS MOTIVES, BIASES 
AND CREDIBILITY ARE ESSENTIAL TO
THIS CASE BUT WE CAN'T QUESTION 
IT. 
THIS IS NOT DUE PROCESS THERE 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 WERE -- THEY WERE 
PREJUDICED BEFORE WE 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. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
MR. SWALWELL. 
>> MR. GOLDMAN, WOULD YOU 
WELCOME THE PROBLEM OF HAVING 
8,000 DOCUMENTS GIVEN TO YOU 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL 
PROBLEM TO HAVE. 
>> HOW MANY HAVE THEY GIVEN YOU?
>> ZERO. 
>> MR. CASTOR, 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?
>> NO, BUT THEY DID A STUDY. 
>> OH, A STUDY. 
BUT THEY DIDN'T KICK IN NEW 
MONEY, YOU AGREE ON THAT. 
>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DISCUSSED 
THAT THEY -- 
>> OKAY. 
>> RESEARCHED. 
>> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 
ANTICORRUPTION 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 
ANTICORRUPTION PRESIDENT OF 
OURS. 
TAKE A WILD GUESS, MR. CASTOR, 
HOW MANY TIMES HAS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MET WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN OR
TALKED TO HIM?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER. 
IT'S -- 
>> IT'S 16. 
>> OKAY. 
HOW MANY TIMES HAS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MET AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?
>> UM. 
>> IT'S ZERO. 
AND WHO IS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
MEETING WITH AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
TOMORROW?
DO YOU KNOW?
>> I'M NOT -- I'M NOT -- 
>> IT'S RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER
LAVROV. 
>> OKAY. 
>> 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 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY?
>> YES. 
>> DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT 
HOW IT WOULD HARM OUR 
CREDIBILITY, I WOULD TURN YOU TO
A CONVERSATION VOLKER HAD ON 
SEPTEMBER 14th OF THIS YEAR 
WHERE AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
SEMIPRESSING UPON THAT OFFICIAL 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD 
NOT INVESTIGATE HIS OWN 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS?
WHAT WAS THROWN BACK IN THE FACE
OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER?
>> AFTER VIDEO VOLKER SUGGESTED 
TO MR. YERMAK AGAIN WHO'S HERE, 
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT INVESTIGATE
THE PRIOR PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, 
MR. YERMAK SAID BACK TO HIM, OH,
LIKE WE -- YOU'RE ENCOURAGING US
TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND 
CLINTONS?
>> DURING WATERGATE, THE FAMOUS 
PHRASE FROM SENATOR HOWARD BAKER
WAS ASKED, WHAT DID THE 
PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE 
KNOW IT?
THERE'S A REASON THAT NO ONE 
HERE HAS REPEATED THOSE 
QUESTIONS DURING THESE HEARINGS.
WE KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID. 
AND WE KNOW WHEN HE KNEW IT. 
MR. GOLDMAN, WHO SENT RUDY 
GIULIANI TO UKRAINE TO SMEAR JOE
BIDEN?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> WHO FIRED THE ANTICORRUPTION 
AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE, MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> WHO TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO WORK 
WITH RUDY GIULIANI ON UKRAINE?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> WHO TOLD VICE PRESIDENT PENCE
TO NOT GO TO ZELENSKY'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 ZELENSKY IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> WHO IGNORED ON JULY 25 HIS 
OWN NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S 
ANTICORRUPTION TALKING POINTS?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> WHO ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
FOR A FAVOR?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> WHO PERSONALLY ASKED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL 
JOE BIDEN?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> WHO STOOD ON THE WHITE HOUSE 
LAWN AND CONFIRMED THAT HE 
WANTED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?
>> 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 AND 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 COMMITTEE'S 
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. 
>>. 
>> Reporter: YIELDS BACK. 
MR. BIGGS. 
>> MR. CASTOR, WHAT'S DIRECT 
EVIDENCE?
>> WHEN A WITNESS PERSONALLY ON 
SERVES A 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 LEARN IN LAW SCHOOL.
>> AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF 
EVIDENCE ADOPT BUILDING MOST 
STATES, HEARSAY IS INADMISSIBLE 
UNLESS IT FALLS UNDER DEFINED 
EXCEPTIONS, IS THAT RIGHT. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
THERE'S ABOUT 23. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOUR PRESENT 
WHEN EVERYONE TESTIFIED 
INCLUDING MR. SOND SONDLAND, 
RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> AND THAT'S A YES?
>> YES. 
>> MUCH OF THEM REPORT THE 
IMPEACHMENT IS BASED ON A -- IS 
THAT A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION?
>> A LOT OF IT IS, YES. 
>> HOW MANY TIMES DID MR. 
SONDLAND OMISSION IN THE INTEL 
COMMUNITY REPORT?
>> I DID A REPORT AND THE NAME 
SONDLAND SHOWS UP 611 TIMES. 
>> JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MIND. 
SONDLAND HIMSELF TOLD THE WORLD 
THAT BASICALLY NOBODY ELSE ON 
THE PLANET TOLD HIM THAT DONALD 
TRUMP WAS TRYING TO TIE AID TO 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
IN FACT, HE ALSO SAID EVERYTHING
THAT HE HAD BEEN TESTIFYING TO 
IS SIMPLY HIS PRESUMPTIONS, IS 
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 
SPECULATION, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> DO COURTS ALLOW SPECULATION 
IN?
>> NO. 
>> WHY NOT?
>> BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELIABLE. 
>> IT'S INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE. 
IT YOU NAME ANY DEMOCRATIC 
WITNESS WHO ASSERTED THAT HE OR 
SHE HAD DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THOSE
17 THAT WE HEARD FROM?
>> WE HAD SOME DIRECT EVIDENCE 
ON CERTAIN THINGS. 
WE HAD SOME DIRECT EVIDENCE ON 
THE MAY 23rd MEETING. 
AND SONDLAND GAVE SOME DIRECT 
EVIDENCE. 
BUT A LOT OF WHAT WE OBTAINED 
HAS BEEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL. 
>> HOW ABOUT WITH REGARD TO 
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 TOO. 
>> HOW ABOUT POLITICAL MOTIVES 
IN ASKING FOR INVESTIGATIONS?
>> THE FACTS SURROUNDING THAT 
ARE AMBIGUOUS. 
>> IN THE NONLEGALISTIC WORLD 
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SPECULATION, 
WE TYPICALLY USE WORDS LIKE 
GOSSIP, RUMOR, INUKWEND 
WEDNESDAY DOE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE 
ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE WE HAVE IS 
THAT UKRAINE RECEIVED THE AID 
WITHOUT GIVING ANYTHING IN 
RETURN. 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPEATEDLY 
STATED NO PRESSURE, NO PROBLEM 
WITH THE PHONE CALL AND THE 
RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. TRUMP, AND
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A 
LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT UKRAINE
CORRUPTION?
>> HE DID. 
AND THE BURDEN SHARING OF 
EUROPEAN ALLIES. 
>> SO MUCH HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT 
THE ALLEGED DESIRE ON IF AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION, BUT, AGAIN, 
THERE'S NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT 
SUPPORTS THE ALLEGATION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED MERELY 
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> LIKE I SAID, THERE'S EIGHT 
LINES IN THE CALL TRANSCRIPT 
THAT GOES GO TO WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
EIGHT LINES. 
>> AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS 
HEARSAY, INCUE WEDNESDAY DOE, 
RUMOR, GOSSIP, RIGHT?
>> INCONCLUSIVE, CERTAINLY. 
>> WHEN WE GET INTO THIS EVENT 
TODAY AND THE PROCESS, WE START 
TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS, WERE 
YOU SURPRISED TO SEE MR. BURKE, 
GET OUT OF HIS CHAIR, MOVE TO 
THE SEAT AND SIT DOWN NEXT TO 
THE CHAIRMAN AND START ASKING 
QUESTIONS?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS 
SURPRISED OR NOT. 
>> I TELL YOU I WAS. 
AND IT 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 
FROM 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, CORRECT?
>> YES. 
>> TEN DAYS THE ATTORNEY FOR 
THE -- TWEETED OUT LET THE 
IMPEACHMENT BEGIN, COUP BEGIN, 
AND KUDOS TO THE LAWYERS?
>> I'VE SEEN THAT. 
>> THEY SAID THEY WENT ON TV AND
SAID WE WANTED TO START 
IMPEACHMENT EARLIER BUT THE 
SPEAKER HELD US BACK. 
DID YOU SEE THAT?
>> I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT, NO. 
I HAVEN'T SEEN NEWS REPORTS 
TODAY. 
>> YOU WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED 
ABOUT THAT, 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 UKRAINIANS. 
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
MR. WILL YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER. 
LET'S CUT THROUGH THE REPUBLICAN
ARGUMENTS TODAY AND MAKE THINGS 
SIMPLE. 
NO ONE ELSE IN AMERICA COULD DO 
WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID AND GET 
AWAY WITH IT. 
NO AMERICAN ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN
CALL UP A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIAL AND ASK FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT. 
NO ONE SITTING ON THIS JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CAN CALL UP A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL AND ASK FOR 
HELP IN A RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. 
IF WE DID THAT AND GOT CAUGHT, 
WE WOULD LIKELY BE INDICTED. 
NOW, LET'S FOCUS ON THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSE OF POWER IN THIS
CASE, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY 
WORSE THAN THE EXAMPLES I JUST 
GAVE. 
AND I KNOW THAT I FIRST SWORE AN
OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN I 
JOINED THE UNITED STATES AIR 
FORCE AND ACTIVE DUTY. 
AND THREE CORE VALUES I LEARNED 
WERE INTEGRITY FIRST, SERVICE 
BEFORE SELF, EXCELLENCE IN ALL 
WE DO. 
I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE FIRST 
TWO. 
INTEGRITY FIRST AND SERVICE 
BEFORE SELF BECAUSE IT'S 
ENGRAINED IN OUR MILITARY 
MEMBERS THAT WE CANNOT MIX 
PERSONAL DUTIES WITH PERSONAL 
PRIVATE GAIN. 
MR. GOLDMAN, IN THIS CASE THE 
$391 MILLION AT ISSUE, THAT 
WASN'T DONALD TRUMP'S MONEY, 
THAT WAS U.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 SOME RE-ELECTION
CAMPAIGN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
YOU CANNOT SOLICIT FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE FOR A RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN.
IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL 
ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT.
MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO 
PRISON FOR VIOLATING VARIOUS 
SECTIONS OF THAT ACT.
A REASONABLE PERSON COULD ALSO 
CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
VIOLATED THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL
ACT OF 1974 WHICH CONGRESS 
PASSED AS A RESPONSE TO 
PRESIDENT NIXON'S ABUSE OF 
POWER.
I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT A 
LITTLE FURTHER WITH YOU, 
MR. GOLDMAN.
IN THIS CASE, CONGRESS WITH 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT APPROPRIATED 
TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR THE SPECIFIC 
PURPOSE OF AIDING UKRAINE IN ITS
WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> NOT ONLY HAD THAT MONEY BEEN 
APPROPRIATED, THE MONEY HAD BEEN
RELEASED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THEY WERE ABOUT TO RELEASE 
IT, YES.
>> AND THEN SUDDENLY WITHOUT 
EXPLANATION THE PRESIDENT 
DEMANDED THAT THOSE TAXPAYER 
FUNDS BE WITHHELD FROM AN ALLY 
WHO DESPERATELY NEEDED AID.
MR. GOLDMAN, DID THE PRESIDENT 
NOTIFY CONGRESS ABOUT HIS 
DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID?
>> NO, HE DID NOT. 
>> THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT 
WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE 
PRESIDENT FROM TAKING 
APPROPRIATED FUNDS AND DOING 
WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH THEM.
SO IS IT TRUE THAT IN YOUR 
INTELLIGENCE REPORT YOU FOUND 
THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED THE 
SUSPENSION OF $391 MILLION IN 
VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
URGENTLY NEEDED BY UKRAINE AND 
THE PRESIDENT DID SO DESPITE HIS
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE 
EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT.
DID YOU FIND THAT?
>> YES. 
>> NOT ONLY DID THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSE HIS POWERS FOR PERSONAL 
GAIN AND NOT ONLY WAS IT 
ILLEGAL, HIS ACTIONS ALSO HARMED
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.
SO IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL TENANT OF 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY TO PUSH 
BACK AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
UKRAINE'S AT THE TIP OF THE 
SPEAR PUSHING BACK AGAINST 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
IS IT TRUE, MR. GOLDMAN, THAT 
HARMING THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY 
ALSO HARMS U.S. NATIONAL 
SECURITY?
>> THAT'S WHAT PRETTY MUCH EVERY
WITNESS SAID. 
>> LAST WEEK PROFESSOR CAR LAN 
CONFIRMED THAT IT IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE TO SACRIFICE
THE NATIONAL INTERESTS FOR HIS 
OWN PRIVATE ENDS, A SLIDE SHOW 
OF WHICH HE SAID.
MR. GOLDMAN, BASED ON THE 
EVIDENCE THAT YOU FOUND IN YOUR 
REPORT, IS IT FAIR TO CONCLUDE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS, 
BOTH LEVERAGED TAXPAYER FUNDS 
FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE GAIN, AND 
SACRIFICE OF NATIONAL INTEREST 
FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE ENDS?
>> THAT IS WHAT WE FOUND. 
>> I WAS PERFECTLY STRUCK BY 
MR. HOLMES' TESTIMONY BECAUSE IT
MAKES CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID NOT CARE ABOUT FOREIGN 
POLICY OR U.S. NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
HE ONLY CARED ABOUT 
INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
HERE'S WHAT MR. HOLMES SAID.
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES 
ABOUT BIG STUFF.
I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF 
GOING ON IN UKRAINE, LIKE A WAR 
WITH RUSSIA.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 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 USED 
OFFICIAL ACTS FOR PERSONAL GAIN,
THAT MEMBER WOULD NO LONGER BE 
PART OF THE MILITARY, AND IN 
FACT LAST YEAR A NAVY COMMANDER 
WAS CONVICTED FOR TAKING THINGS 
OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR 
OFFICIAL ACTS.
THE U.S. ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED
THE CASE SAID TO THE COMMANDER, 
QUOTE, HE PUT HIS OWN SELFISH 
INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE NAVY AND 
THAT OF OUR NATION, END QUOTE.
WE SHOULDCOMMANDER 
TO A LOWER STANDARD AND WE 
SHOULD NOT HOLD THE PRESIDENT TO
A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN ANY 
ELECTED OFFICIAL.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. McCLINTOCK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
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.
THAT'S ONLY HAPPENED TWICE IN 
OUR NATION'S HISTORY.
IT HAPPENED IN 1860 WHEN THE 
DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO ACCEPT A 
LEGITIMATE ELECTION OF ABRAM 
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 MUELLER 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 CRIMES 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 
WITNESSS PROVIDED ANY FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT 
ORDERING A QUID PRO QUO, AND TWO
WITNESSES, SONDLAND 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 ITS 
OFFICIALS DID NOT BELIEVE THERE 
WAS SUCH A LINKAGE.
THE TESTIMONY OF THEIR WITNESSES
CRUMBLED UNDER QUESTIONING AND 
WE WERE LEFT WITH CAREER 
BUREAUCRATS WHO ADMITTED THAT 
THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEY OFFERED 
WAS PRESUMPTION, SPECULATION AND
WHAT THEY READ IN THE NEW YORK 
TIMES.
IT'S THIS FLIMSY EVIDENCE THAT 
THE DEMOCRATS JUSTIFIED 
NULLIFYING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
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 ACCUSER'S 
PRIVACY.
THEY'VE ARGUED THAT APPEALING TO
THE COURTS TO DEFEND YOUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS THE 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS IPSO FACTO
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND 
EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
THEY'VE ASSERTED THE POWER TO 
DETERMINE WHAT WITNESSES THE 
DEFENSE IS ALLOWED TO CALL, AND 
THEY'VE ARGUED THAT A CRIME IS 
NOT NECESSARILY TO IMPEACH, ONLY
IMPURE MOTIVES IN PERFORMING 
OTHERWISE LAWFUL ACTS, MOTIVES 
OF COURSE TO BE DEFINED ENTIRELY
BY THE ACCUSERS.
THESE ARE THE LEGAL DOCTRINES OF
DESPOTS BUT THE ONLY ONE WHO 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 TO COME.
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 ABOVE THE LAW BUT THEY 
HAVE ONE UNSPOKEN CAVEAT, EXCEPT
FOR THEMSELVES.
THE SPEAKER'S 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 OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT 
THIS COMMITTEE HEARING FROM A 
SINGLE FACT WITNESS.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT MR. SCHIFF
DOESN'T DARE TO APPEAR BEFORE 
THIS COMMITTEE TO DEFEND HIS 
WORK, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT 
HIS REPORT AT FACE VALUE AND OH 
OBEDIENTLY FOLLOW HIS ORDERS.
WE CAN ONLY PRAY THE SENATE 
STILL ADHERES TO THE JUDICIAL 
PRINCIPLES OF OUR FOUNDERS.
IF THEY DO, PERHAPS THEN WE CAN 
BEGIN REPAIRING THE DAMAGE THAT 
THIS TRAVESTY HAS DONE TO OUR 
DEMOCRACY, OUR INSTITUTIONS, OUR
PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE, OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND OUR COUNTRY.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> 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 TYRANT'S BOUNDLESS 
THIRST FOR POWER, THE PEOPLE'S 
REPRESENTATIVES HERE IN CONGRESS
AND THE PEOPLE'S OWN DEMOCRATIC 
AMBITIONS, OUR SELF-RESPECT, OUR
LOVE FOR FREEDOM AND THE RULE OF
LAW, OUR FIERCE CONSTITUTIONAL 
PATRIOTISM.
NOW, IT LOOKED LIKE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MIGHT GET AWAY WITH HIS 
UKRAINE SHAKEDOWN.
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, 17. 
>> I COUNTED DOZENS OF STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND NATIONAL SECURITY
OFFICIALS WHO SERVED DEMOCRAT 
AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS OVER 
DECADES WHO CAME TO TESTIFY.
IN FACT, FOUR OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OWN NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNSEL STAFFERS, HILL, VINDMAN,
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 VINDMAN WENT TO 
THE LAWYERS AS SOON AS THEY 
LEARNED IT, YES. 
>> 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.
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. 
>> SHE WAS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR 
FOR THE EUROPE AND RUSSIA 
DIRECTORATE AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL UNTIL JULY OF 
THIS YEAR.
>> AND SHE WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
SENIOR ADVISER ON RUSSIA?
>> CORRECT.
>> HER FAMILY HAD FLED BOTH NAZI
GERMANY AND SOVIET RUSSIA. 
>> I THINK HER FAMILY ACTUALLY 
CAME FROM ENGLAND.
MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS -- 
>> OH, THAT WAS AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH.
DR. HILL VOICED HER CONCERNS TO 
THE NSC'S LAWYERS ON JULY 10 AND
JULY 11, 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 CONCERNED THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 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.
>> 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.
HE WROTE OR UPDATED NOTES TO 
FILE ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS
TO RECORD HIS GRAVE 
CONTEMPORANEOUS CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.
MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT WERE THE 
EVENTS THAT LED MR. KENT TO 
DRAFT THESE NOTES TO HIS FILE?
>> THERE WERE SEVERAL.
THERE WAS A CONVERSATION AT THE 
END OF JUNE WHERE SEVERAL 
AMERICAN OFFICIALS HAD INDICATED
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 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 SONDLAND TOOK 
UNBELIEVABLE METICULOUS NOTES.
I WOULD HAVE DREAMED FOR A 
WITNESS LIKE THAT AS A 
PROSECUTOR.
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, 
EMAILS.
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. 
>> 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES A LOT OF 
PEOPLE ARE NOT AFRAID EVEN 
THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED
TO INTIMIDATE OR SILENCE THEM.
HE IS TRYING TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY
MORE LIKE RUSSIA, AND WE CAN BE 
THANKFUL THAT YOU FOUND A LOT OF
HEROS WHO STOOD UP FOR THE TRUTH
IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MS. LESS CO. 
>> 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?
I SHOULD WOULD.
MR. CASTOR, THE REST OF THE 
QUESTIONS ARE FOR YOU.
I WOULD LIKE YES OR NO ANSWERS 
IF POSSIBLE.
MR. CASTOR, 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. 
>> GOODHEAVENENS, NO. 
>> 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 WORRIED ABOUT 
LEAKS. 
>> SEVERAL DEMOCRATS 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 VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
THIS HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE
TO UKRAINE WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT, 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, A NUMBER OF WITNESSES 
ALSO SAID THE SAME THING.
>> FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 
UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH, 
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. CASTOR, BURISMA HOLDINGS 
HAD A REPUTATION IN UKRAINE AS A
CORRUPT COMPANY, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> BIG TIME.
>> ACCORDING TO "THE NEW YORK 
TIMES," HUNTER BIDEN WAS PART OF
A BROAD EFFORT BY BURISMA TO 
BRING IN WELL CONNECTED 
DEMOCRATS DURING A PERIOD WHEN 
THE COMPANY WAS FACING 
INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH, "THE NEW YORKER" HAD AN
EXTENSIVE REPORT ON THAT AS 
WELL. 
>> OBAMA'S DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE KENT,
TESTIFIED THAT HE RAISED 
CONCERNS DIRECTLY TO VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OFFICE ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN'S SERVICES ON 
BURISMA'S BOARD, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
YES OR NO.
>> YES. 
>> MR. CASTOR, 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 BRAGGED 
ABOUT HOW HE TOLD UKRAINE IF THE
PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED, YOU'RE 
NOT GETTING THE MONEY.
MR. CASTOR, IS THIS THE SAME 
PROSECUTOR THAT LOOKED INTO 
BURISMA?
>> 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. CASTOR, HERE IS ANOTHER KEY 
QUESTION.
GIVEN THAT, ONE, BURISMA HAD A 
REPUTATION OF BEING A CORRUPT 
COMPANY, TWO, OBAMA'S OWN STATE 
DEPARTMENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN SERVING ON 
BURISMA'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 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 
BIDEN/BURISMA POTENTIAL 
CORRUPTION SCHEME?
>> YES.
>> MR. CASTOR, THERE ARE FOUR 
INDISPUTABLE FACTS THAT WILL 
NEVER CHANGE THAT PROVE THERE IS
NO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO ON THE
JULY 25 CALL.
UKRAINE LEADERSHIP DID NOT KNOW 
THE AID WAS HELD UP AT THE TIME 
OF THE JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL.
UKRAINE RECEIVED THE WHITE HOUSE
MEETING, PHONE CALL AND AID EVEN
THOUGH, FOUR, 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. CASTOR, DID MR. TURLEY 
TESTIFY IN THE PAST HEARING THAT
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS NOT
PASSED CHAIRMAN NADLER'S 
THREE-PRONG TEST?
>> HE DID.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, THE GENTLE WOMAN 
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 
TEN AND AS WE WILL SEE ON 
TELEVISION, HE TOLD US HIMSELF 
EXACTLY WHAT HIS INTENT WAS.
>>
. 
>>> FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES 
NOT EVEN MENTION THE WORD 
CORRUPTION DURING EITHER OF HIS 
CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
SECOND, INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 
BIDENS AND A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY
THEORY ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION 
WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY OFFICIAL 
U.S. 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 ANONYMOUS 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.
BETWEEN THE TIME THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP PUT A HOLD ON THE AID AND 
THEN RELEASED THE AID, THE 
PRESIDENT NEVER CONDUCTED AN 
ACTUAL REVIEW OR CORRUPTION 
ASSESSMENT ON UKRAINE, DID HE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE WAS NO WITNESS TESTIMONY 
THAT THERE WAS ANY REVIEW OR 
INVESTIGATION OF ANY SORT 
RELATED TO THE UKRAINE AID.
>> ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT HAD 
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED 
NOT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW BECAUSE 
UKRAINE HAD ALREADY MET ALL OF 
THE CRUTCHES BENCHMARKS IN MAY 
OF 2019?
>> YES, AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IN
UKRAINE POLICY BELIEVED THAT 
THEY WERE ON THE RIGHT PATH, AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN 
PARTICULAR. 
>> IN ADDITION TO UKRAINE HAVING
SATISFIED ALL THE RELEVANT 
CORRUPTION ASSESSMENTS PRIOR TO 
U.S. 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 ZELENSKY 
WOULD HELP FURTHER AN 
ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENDA, CORRECT?
>> BOTH THE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
AGENDA AND THE AGGRESSION -- 
FIGHTING THE AGGRESSION FROM 
RUSSIA. 
>> IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
BUDGET ACTUALLY CUT FUNDING FOR 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
NOW, MR. CASTOR 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. GOLDMAN, THE PRESIDENT
WAS PERFECTLY FINE GIVING 
MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE IN 2017 
AND 2018 BUT SOMEHOW NOT IN 
2019, SO WHAT CHANGED?
>> JOE BIDEN STARTING RUNNING 
FOR PRESIDENT. 
>> VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN STARTED 
RUNNING SO -- 
>> AND I WOULD ADD THE MUELLER 
REPORT CAME OUT WHICH DID NOT --
EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT CHARGE 
THE PRESIDENT, 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 
THAT 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 SONDLAND PICKED UP 
THE PHONE, CALLED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND THEN MR. HOLMES ASKED 
HIM WHAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT 
ABOUT UKRAINE AND QUICKLY WHAT 
WAS MR. SONDLAND'S ANSWER?
>> MR. SONDLAND 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.
BY THE WAY, JUST TO ADD, THAT IS
A DIRECT EVIDENCE CONVERSATION 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON THAT DAY 
AND THERE ARE MANY THAT WE HAVE 
NOT TALKED ABOUT ON THE MINORITY
SIDE. 
>> 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 U.S. 
MILITARY AID 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.
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 THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
IS GOING TO WIN RE-ELECTION.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS CALL 
COMES DOWN TO.
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 ARE 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 
RENEGOTIATED TRADE DEALS THAT 
BENEFIT AMERICAN WORKERS, HOW 
HE'S ELIMINATED BURDENSOME 
REGULATIONS THAT HURT THE 
ECONOMY AND THAT HELP JOB 
CREATORS.
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS DON'T 
WANT TO BE REMINDED THAT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT THE 
DEMOCRATIC 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.
SCHIFF'S REPORT CLAIMS THE 
ADMINISTRATION FROZE MILITARY 
AID FOR UKRAINE WITHOUT 
EXPLANATION, YET THE FACTS ARE 
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, UKRAINIANS ATTEMPTS TO 
INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION
ARE WELL DOCUMENTED BY POLITICO,
BY FINANCIAL TIMES AND THE HILL.
THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO 
INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS, AND 
THAT'S TROUBLING AND THAT'S WHY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP BROUGHT IT TO 
THE ATTENTION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOSE 
FACTS DON'T SEEM TO MATTER TO MY
DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS DON'T CARE THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS 
REPEATEDLY SAID THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE.
IT'S NOT IMPORTANT THAT THE 
SCRIPT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE WE 
HAVE, IT'S THE ACTUAL PRIMARY 
DOCUMENT.
THAT TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO QUID 
PRO QUO, NO BRIBERY.
I GOT TO REMEMBER WE'RE CALLING 
IT BRIBERY AFTER AN OLD LATIN 
PHRASE DIDN'T POLL WELL OR TEST 
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.
THE FACT IS THE DEMOCRATS WERE 
CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
THIS INVESTIGATION EVEN BEGAN.
REPRESENTATIVE TALIB SAID IN 
JANUARY, I DON'T EVEN THINK WE 
WERE SWORN IN YET, SHE SAID IN 
JANUARY, IMPEACH THE MOTHER.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN SAID IN 
MAY -- AND I QUOTE -- I'M 
CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T 
IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, HE WILL 
GET RE-ELECTED.
THESE PROCEEDINGS, THIS ENTIRE 
PROCESS, IS NOTHING MORE THAN A 
POLITICAL HIT JOB.
I'M TROUBLED THAT OUR COMMITTEE 
DID NOT HEAR FROM A SINGLE FACT 
WITNESS THIS ENTIRE TIME.
WE SHOULD BE HERE HEARING FROM 
HUNTER BIDEN.
WE SHOULD BE HEARING FROM 
SCHIFF'S STAFF.
WE KNOW THAT SCHIFF'S STAFF 
COORDINATED WITH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER, AND AGAIN, WE 
NEED TO HEAR FROM THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
LAST WEEK I OFFERED A MOTION TO 
SUBPOENA THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO 
TESTIFY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, 
MEANING THAT HE OR SHE COULD 
TESTIFY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES VOTED MY 
MOTION DOWN IN A PARTISAN 
FASHION.
MR. CASTOR, CAN YOU WALK US 
THROUGH THE INACCURACIES IN THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S COMPLAINT?
>> 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 A CASE 
LIKE AN ADVOCATE ABOUT WHAT 
HAPPENED ON THE CALL.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 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.
THERE'S A LOT OF -- I'M RUNNING 
OUT OF TIME HERE BUT THERE'S A 
REFERENCE TO LUTSENKO IN THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WHERE 
WITNESSES HAVE TOLD US IT'S 
LIKELY SHOKIN.
VINDMAN AND MORRISON'S TESTIMONY
ABOUT WHY THEY WENT TO TALK TO 
THE LAWYERS, VERY DIFFERENT 
REASONS.
MR. BREK BUL -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS ON THE
CALL.
>> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE WOMAN 
FROM FLORIDA FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> MR. GOLDMAN, AS A MEMBER OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, I 
SAW SIGNIFICANT FIRSTHAND 
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CONDITIONED OUR MILITARY AID ON 
UKRAINE ANNOUNCING 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION AND THE BIDENS AND 
BETRAYED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTERESTS IN THE PROCESS.
FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
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
SONDLAND WHO SPOKE TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND ANDRIY YERMAK ON 
SEPTEMBER 7 AND TOLD THEM WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD CONFIRMED TO
HIM THAT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED
ON THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> BY THE END OF AUGUST 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID IN FACT 
COMMIT TO MAKING THAT STATEMENT 
ON CNN, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
FINALLY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
RELENTED AFTER MONTHS OF TRYING 
TO NOT GET INVOLVED IN WHAT HE 
CALLED THE DOMESTIC U.S. 
POLITICAL PROCESS AND ULTIMATELY
RECOGNIZING THAT HE HAD NO 
CHOICE TO BREAK THE STALEMATE, 
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD 
THEM, THAT HE ULTIMATELY AGREED 
TO GO ON TELEVISION BEFORE 
THE -- BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
GOT CAUGHT AND RELEASED THE AID.
>> I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR 
ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN IN FRONT
OF YOU WHICH DISPLAYS AGAIN A 
"WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE FROM 
SEPTEMBER 5.
THE HEADLINE SAYS, TRUMP TRIES 
TO FORCE UKRAINE TO MEDDLE IN 
THE 2020 ELECTIONS.
THE ARTICLE REPORTS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS -- AND I 
QUOTE -- ATTEMPTING TO FORCE 
ZELENSKY TO INTERVENE IN THE 
2020 U.S. 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 AM I CORRECT, MR. GOLDMAN, 
THAT BY SEPTEMBER 25 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 5. 
>> YES, WIDELY REPORTED, 
CERTAINLY THE AID BEING WITHHELD
WAS WIDELY REPORTED. 
>> BY SEPTEMBER 9 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 RELEASE 
THE MILITARY AID?
>> TWO DAYS AFTER 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 TIMELINE ON THE SCREEN IN 
FRONT OF YOU SHOWS, IT WASN'T 
UNTIL AFTER THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT, AFTER THE "WASHINGTON
POST" REPORT, AND AFTER CONGRESS
LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP FINALLY RELEASED
THE AID?
>> 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. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED THAT PEOPLE AT THE NSC
DISCUSSED THAT CONGRESS' 
INVESTIGATION, QUOTE, MIGHT HAVE
THE EFFECT OF RELEASING THE HOLD
ON UKRAINE'S MILITARY AID 
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY 
POLITICALLY CHALLENGING TO 
JUSTIFY THE AID, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> THAT WAS THE TESTIMONY, YES. 
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE AID WAS 
RELEASED AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT
CAUGHT, AND WHAT MAKES ME ANGRY 
IS THAT THIS PRESIDENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THINKS HE CAN 
GET AWAY WITH IT.
BUT HE GOT CAUGHT AND HE TRIED 
TO COVER IT UP, BUT WE WON'T LET
HIM DO THAT.
WE THANK GOD, MR. GOLDMAN, FOR 
THE TRUE COURAGEOUS PUBLIC 
SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD IN 
SPITE OF INTIMIDATION AND 
OBSTRUCTION FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
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 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 7 IN A CALL WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
MR. GOLDMAN, DID YOU RECEIVE 
TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS SEPTEMBER 7
CALL?
>> YES.
WE RECEIVED TESTIMONY FROM THREE
WITNESSES ABOUT IT AND IT GETS A
LITTLE COMPLICATED BUT THAT WAS 
A CONSISTENT REFRAIN THROUGH ALL
THE WITNESSES, IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID SAY NO QUID PRO 
QUO. 
>> LET'S TRY TO CLARIFY IT.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED 
THAT CALL TO MR. MORRISON THAT 
SAME DAY, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> 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.
>> THAT SET OF NOTES WAS BLOCKED
CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
DIRECTION?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND IN HIS RECITATION TO 
MR. MORRISON, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HIMSELF BROUGHT UP THE 
WORDS QUID PRO QUO.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID 
THAT TOO, YES. 
>> 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.
WHAT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IS 
THAT WHAT HE SAID IMMEDIATELY 
AFTER THAT, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY
CONDUCT THAT AMOUNTS TO A 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 SONDLAND THAT 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE 
MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN AND THE 
2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD 
WANT TO DO THAT HIMSELF.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
WE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT 
ACCOUNTS OF THIS AND I THINK 
THIS IS -- 
>> THEY'RE UP ON THE BOARD HERE.
>> RIGHT, I SEE THAT, YES.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT.
MR. MORRISON SAID SOMETHING 
SIMILAR.
THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT 
CONVERSATION IS THAT THERE WAS A
CLEAR DIRECTIVE THAT THERE WAS A
QUID PRO QUO, FACTUALLY FROM THE
CONDUCT, FROM THE ACTIONS.
WE'VE TALKED A LOT TODAY ABOUT 
THE WORDS AND THAT ZELENSKY 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.
THAT'S WHY THIS CALL IN 
PARTICULAR IS SO IMPORTANT.
>> LET'S GO FURTHER.
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED MULTIPLE 
INDIVIDUALS REACTED WITH CONCERN
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
DO YOU RECALL MR. MORRISON'S 
REACTION?
>> MR. MORRISON SAID THAT HE WAS
SHOCKED, I THINK, AND THAT -- 
>> SINKING FEELING?
>> SINKING FEELING, CORRECT, AND
THEN HE WENT AND 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 ZELENSKY 
ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS 
AND HE TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS 
ILLOGICAL, CRAZY AND WRONG, IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
TESTIFIED TO, YES. 
>> MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALSO 
POINTED OUT THAT ON SEPTEMBER 9 
A TEXT MESSAGE FROM SONDLAND 
REFLECTING THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAS BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT 
THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO.
MR. GOLDMAN, AM I CORRECT THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAS NOW 
TESTIFIED THAT PRIOR TO SENDING 
HIS TEXTS, HE HIMSELF CAME TOO 
 
BELIEVE THAT THE AID WAS 
CONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF INVESTIGATIONS?
>> YES.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 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 THERE ABSOLUTELY 
ASSUREDLY WAS AS IT RELATED TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING. 
>> THIS SEPTEMBER 7 CALL AND THE
SEPTEMBER 9 TEXT OCCURRED AFTER 
THE PRESS REPORTS THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS CONDITIONING MILITARY 
AID ON INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES, AND ALSO THIS TEXT 
OCCURRED AFTER AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND RELAYED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
>> MR. GOLDMAN, DID THE 
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE RECEIVE 
ANY OTHER EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO 
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION THAT THERE
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO?
>> WE RECEIVED A LOT OF EVIDENCE
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 
ANONYMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
OR MADAM CHAIRMAN. 
>> CAN YOU PLEASE HOLD IT UNTIL 
AFTER I DO MY QUESTIONS, THANK 
YOU. 
>> IT WILL BE VERY BRIEF.
IT'S JUST ANONYMOUS CONSENT. 
>> 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 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE PRESIDENT
SAID IN HIS JULY 25 CALL TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
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 THE SLIDE ABOUT 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S 
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 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 ZELENSKY COULD NOT IN 
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.
NOT ONLY DOES THE U.S. PROVIDE 
10% OF THEIR MILITARY BUDGET BUT
THE UNITED STATES IS A CRITICAL 
ALLY IN RALLYING OTHER COUNTRIES
TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.
EUROPE ACTUALLY GIVES -- THE 
EUROPEAN UNION I THINK GIVES 
FOUR TIMES AS MUCH MONEY AS THE 
UNITED STATES OVER ALL TO 
UKRAINE. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW THAT THE
UKRAINIAN'S BACK WAS AGAINST THE
WALL AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
NEEDED U.S. VALIDATION AND 
SUPPORT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> ACCORDING TO THE U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE AND WE
HAVE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S 
TESTIMONY UP THERE, IT WASN'T 
UNTIL AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TOLD THE UKRAINIANS THAT THERE 
WOULD BE A, QUOTE, STALEMATE, 
END QUOTE, ON THE AID, THAT 
ZELENSKY AGREED TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS DEMANDING, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT, YES.
>> FURTHERMORE, THE COMMITTEE 
HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS FELT THEY HAD, QUOTE,
NO CHOICE 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 ZELENSKY 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.
>> 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 
ZELENSKY?
>> WE DID.
AND WE FOUND THAT THE STATEMENTS
OF WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY AN 
EXTORTION VICTIM ARE NOT 
PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE 
ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
CANNOT IN REALITY FOR THE SAME 
REASONS THAT 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.
>> ONE COULD ALMOST SAY IT'S 
SIMILAR TO A HOSTAGE TESTIFYING 
UNDER DURESS. 
>> IT IS CERTAINLY A -- DURESS 
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 IS, AND DAVID 
HOLMES TESTIFIED PERSUASIVELY 
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND OF THE 
RELATIONSHIP TO UKRAINE EVEN 
AFTER THE AID WAS LIFTED, 
INCLUDING POINTING TO TODAY WHEN
PRESIDENT PUTIN AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY MET TO DISCUSS THE WAR 
IN THE EAST.
>> SO THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT
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 SONDLAND THAT 
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO WITH 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
THERE'S BEEN SOME DEBATE AND 
SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, BUT 
THAT IS ONE THING THAT THE 
EVIDENCE SHOWS BASED ON THE 
MORRISON TESTIMONY, THE TAYLOR 
TESTIMONY, THE SONDLAND 
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. 
>> MADAM CHAIR, YOU INDICATED TO
ME THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TO 
MAKE MY UNIFORM CONSENT AFTER 
YOU HAD ASKED YOUR QUESTIONS, SO
I'D ASK FOR UNIFORM CONSENT -- 
EXCUSE ME, ANONYMOUS CONSENT TO 
INTRODUCE TWO LETTERS -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
WHO IS SPEAKING ANONYMOUS 
CONSENT?
FOR WHAT ARE YOU SEEKING 
ANONYMOUS CONSENT?
>> I HAVE TWO LETTERS ADDRESSED 
TO YOU ON DECEMBER 4, 2019 AND 
DECEMBER 5, 2019. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA. 
>> I HAVE A BRIEF PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY REGARDING SCHEDULING. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA 
IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LAST WEEK I EXPRESSED 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 IMT IMPEACHMENT WOULD 
CALL INTO 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 
SPECULATIONS.
I'M ESPECIALLY OUTRAGED THAT THE
PURPORTED AUTHOR OF IT, CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF, 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 ZELENSKY SAY THERE WAS
NO PRESSURE.
SECOND, THE CALL TRANSCRIPT 
SHOWS NO 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 
RECEIVED 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. CASTOR, 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 WENT THROUGH AND COUNTED 
OVER 50 INSTANCES OF KEY FACTS.
>> CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES
OF THE HEARSAY BEING RELIED ON 
BY THE MAJORITY TO MAKE THEIR 
CASE?
>> A LOT OF THE INFORMATION FOR 
EXAMPLE THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
WAS COMMUNICATING, HE VERY 
DILIGENTLY RECORDED NOTES ABOUT 
WHAT SOME OF THE VARIOUS 
OFFICIALS TOLD HIM, BUT IT WAS 
ABOUT -- IT WAS ONE AND TWO 
STEPS REMOVED FROM THE ACTUAL 
FACTS AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM 
WITH HEARSAY.
IT'S A WHISPER DOWN THE LANE 
SITUATION AND IF SOME OF THE 
PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE 
WHISPERING HAVE A -- ARE 
PREDISPOSED TO NOT LIKE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN WHAT 
THEY'RE WHISPERING DOWN THE LANE
BECOMES EVEN MORE DISTORTED.
>> DID YOU ALSO FIND INSTANCES 
WHERE THE DEMOCRATS' REPORT USED
WITNESSES' SPECULATIONS AND 
PRESUMPTIONS?
>> IN THE BIGGEST ONES OF COURSE
AND THE BIG DADDY IS SONDLAND 
PRESUMING THAT THE AID WAS TIED 
TO THE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE AS
HE ENGAGED IN A BACK AND FORTH 
WITH MR. TURNER, NOBODY ON THE 
PLANET TOLD HIM THAT THAT WAS 
THE CASE.
>> MR. CASTOR, I WANT TO MOVE ON
TO FOREIGN POLICY AND THE IDEA 
THAT SOMEHOW THE PRESIDENT WAS 
ABUSING FOREIGN POLICY.
REPEATEDLY WITNESSES CAME BEFORE
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND 
TALKED ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT 
WAS OPERATING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS
OF THE PROCESS FOR USING NORMS.
THE PRESIDENT SETS FOREIGN 
POLICY, CORRECT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> AND FROM WHERE DOES HE DERIVE
THAT POWER?
>> THE CONSTITUTION. 
>> ARTICLE 2 SECTION 2. 
>> 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?
>> FOR EXAMPLE, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT 
HE HAD PREPARED TALKING POINTS 
AND A CALL PACKAGE AND HE WAS 
VISIBLY COMPLETELY DEFLATED WHEN
HE REALIZED THAT HIS CALL NOTES 
WEREN'T BEING REFERENCED BY THE 
PRESIDENT.
A LOT OF THE INNER AGENCY 
OFFICIALS I THINK BECAME VERY 
SAD THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T 
REVERE THEIR POLICY-MAKING 
APPARATUS. 
>> IS IT SAFE TO SAY THERE'S 
ANOTHER REASON THE PRESIDENT IS 
SKEPTICAL OF RELYING ON SOME OF 
THESE INDIVIDUALS TO CARRY OUT 
HIS FOREIGN POLICY GOALS LIKE 
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE?
>> I THINK THE PRESIDENT IS 
SKEPTICAL OF THE INTER AGENCY 
BUREAUCRACY. 
>> IS THAT MAYBE WHY HE RELIED 
ON SECRETARY PERRY AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER?
>> CORRECT.
ALL THREE OF THOSE OFFICIALS ARE
NOT THAT FAR OUTSIDE OF THE 
CHAIN OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. 
>> WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE IN 
ANY INVESTIGATION OF CORRUPTION 
IN THE UKRAINE TO EXEMPT OR 
REMOVE, SAY, A POLITICAL 
SUPPORTER?
>> IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE. 
>> WOULD IT BE INAPPROPRIATE TO 
REMOVE A POLITICAL OPPONENT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH. 
>> WOULD IT BE INAPPROPRIATE TO 
REMOVE THE SON OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT FROM ANY INVESTIGATION?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
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 DISPUTE.
WHAT YOU CONTEND ARE FACTS ARE, 
IN FACT, NOT.
THEY ARE WITNESS PRESUMPTIONS, 
HEARSAY, AND SPECULATION.
THE FACTS HERE ARE, IN FACT, 
THAT THIS IS THE SHORTEST 
IMPEACHMENT IN U.S. HISTORY, 
BASED ON THE THINNEST OF 
EVIDENTIARY RECORDS AND ON THE 
NARROWEST GROUNDS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS IS A AS FAR AS AND A 
STAIN ON THE COMMITTEE AND ON 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MS. GARCIA. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AS WE JUST HEARD, THE PRESIDENT 
AND HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE CLAIMED 
THAT THE INVESTIGATING 
COMMITTEES ARE RELYING ON 
HEARSAY AND THAT THEY HAVE 
FAILED TO OBTAIN FIRSTHAND 
ACCOUNTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT.
NOW, I'M A FORMER JUDGE AND YOU,
MR. GOLDMAN, A 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 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 SONDLAND AND 
MR. VOLKER BOTH TESTIFIED THAT 
ON MAY 23, 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.
>> THEN WE HAVE THE MEMORANDA OF
THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
IS THAT DIRECT EVIDENCE?
>> YES, THAT IS. 
>> SO THERE IS DIRECT EVIDENCE 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO LOOK INTO 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND 
DIRECTED BOTH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
AND U.S. OFFICIALS TO TALK TO 
HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY ABOUT 
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT?
>> YES, AND IF I COULD JUST JUMP
IN HERE, ON THE JULY 25th CALL, 
BECAUSE THESE FOUR FACTS THAT WE
KEEP HEARING ABOUT THAT ARE NOT 
IN DISPUTE, THREE OF THEM ARE 
COMPLETELY WRONG.
ONE OF THEM HAPPENS TO BE THAT 
THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO 
MENTIONED IN THE JULY 25 CALL.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A QUID PRO 
QUO WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS
I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR INVITATION TO VISIT THE 
UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY 
WASHINGTON D.C.
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 ZELENSKY 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.
THEN FINALLY, THERE WAS NO WHITE
HOUSE MEETING EVER PROVIDED, SO 
THE THIRD OR FOURTH FACT, SO I 
THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED
PARTICULARLY AS WE'RE FOCUSING 
ON WHAT DIRECT EVIDENCE IS. 
>> WELL, LET'S GET SOME MORE 
EXAMPLES.
WE ALSO HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF 
THREE 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, 
DAVID HOLMES TESTIFIED THAT ON 
JULY 26 HE OVERHEARD THE 
PRESIDENT ASK AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WHETHER PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY 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 OPPONENT'S 
FAMILY, THE BIDENS.
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?
>> 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 RELY WHAT SOMEONE
ELSE SAID, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY.
THAT WOULD BE IN COURT A 
CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT AND 
THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE.
LET'S NOT GET TOO FAR AFIELD ON 
DIRECT EVIDENCE -- 
>> WE DON'T WANT TO RELIVE -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND IT'S IMPORTANT 
BECAUSE ANYTHING AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND OR RUDY GIULIANI SAYS, 
ANYTHING THESE PEOPLE SAY IS NOT
HEARSAY AND WOULDN'T BE 
PERMITTED UNDER THE FEDERAL 
RULES OF EVIDENCE, OF COURSE WE 
DON'T FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULES 
OF EVIDENCE BUT THAT'S AN 
IMPORTANT POINT. 
>> IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG 
WITHDRAWING 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 SONDLAND 
DRAWS INFERENCES FROM THE FACT 
THAT THERE'S 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. 
>> I AGREE WITH YOU, I'M JUST 
DISAPPOINTED THAT RATHER THAN 
RESPOND TO THE SERIOUS FACTUAL, 
DIRECT AND UNDISPUTED 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 ABOVE THE LAW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. NAGOOSE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AS WE APPROACH THE NINTH HOUR OF
THIS HEARING I WANT TO THANK 
MR. GOLDMAN AND MR. CASTOR FOR 
BEING HERE TODAY AND FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION 
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTS 
OF THIS MATTER ARE CONTESTED.
I BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT CONTESTED
SO I'D LIKE TO LEVEL SET HERE 
AND GIVE YOU BOTH AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE FACTS 
THAT I BELIEVE ARE NOT IN 
DISPUTE.
I WANT TO BEGIN BY ADDRESSING 
SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE ALL 
KNOW FOR CERTAIN, AND THAT'S 
THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN OUR 
2016 ELECTION.
AFTER TWO YEARS OF 
INVESTIGATION, THE RUSSIANS 
INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTIONS. 
>> YES. 
>> MR. GOLDMAN, AM I CORRECT 
THAT ZERO INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES 
HAVE PUBLICLY STATED THAT 
UKRAINE ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS 
IN 2016, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
I DON'T EVEN THINK THE MINORITY 
IS ALLEGING THAT THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT SYSTEMATICALLY IN ANY
MEANINGFUL WAY INTERFERED.
I THINK THIS IS JUST BASED ON A 
COUPLE OF NEWS ARTICLES. 
>> MR. CASTOR, CORRECT?
>> THE PRESIDENT HAD A GOOD 
FAITH BELIEF THERE WERE SOME 
SIGNIFICANT UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS -- 
>> I HEAR YOU AND YOU'VE SAID 
THAT PREVIOUSLY.
I'M ASKING YOU -- 
>> THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT -- 
>> THERE ARE NO INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 
THAT PUBLICLY STATED THAT 
UKRAINE ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS.
YOU'RE NOT TESTIFYING THAT 
THAT'S THE CASE?
>> I'M NOT, CORRECT. 
>> IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY 
ADVISER, TOM BOSSERT, SAID THAT 
THE IDEA OF UKRAINE FOR EXAMPLE 
HACKING THE DNC SERVER WAS, 
QUOTE, NOT ONLY A CONSPIRACY 
THEORY, IT IS COMPLETELY 
DEBUNKED.
THAT'S PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER THAT 
SAID THOSE WORDS THAT YOU SEE ON
THE SCREEN.
IS THAT RIGHT, MR. GOLDMAN?
>> YES, I SAW THAT INTERVIEW. 
>> MR. CASTOR, YOU SAW THAT 
INTERVIEW?
>> I'M AWARE OF IT. 
>> IN FACT, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT 
NONE OF THE WITNESSES THAT 
APPEARED BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE 
TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF THE 
THEORY THAT UKRAINE SOMEHOW 
INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT, MR. GOLDMAN?
>> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. 
>> MR. CASTOR?
>> THAT'S CORRECT BUT -- 
>> THANK YOU.
NO WITNESSES TESTIFIED IN 
SUPPORT OF THAT THEORY BEFORE 
YOUR COMMITTEE.
MR. GOLDMAN, ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE 
THAT YOUR COMMITTEE, IN FACT, 
RECEIVED TESTIMONY INDICATING 
THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT 
RUSSIA IS IN PART PERPETRATING 
THIS FALSE THEORY THAT UKRAINE 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS
BECAUSE RUSSIA WANTS TO DEFLECT 
BLAME FOR ITS OWN INVOLVEMENT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
WE HAD EVIDENCE OF THAT AND I 
THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO 
EMPHASIZE WHAT IS EVIDENCE AND 
WHAT IS PURE MEDIA REPORTS OR 
SPECULATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO 
EVIDENCE IN OUR INVESTIGATION 
THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED INTHAT E
INTERFERED IN THE 2016
ELECTION.
>> IN FACT, I'D LIKE TO PUT
SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU
MIGHT BE REFERENCING, MR.
GOLDMAN, ON THE STREET IN FRONT
OF YOU, BOTH FOR MR. HOLMES, AS
WELL AS DOCTOR FIONA HILL. AND
I WILL QUOTE FROM HER TESTIMONY,
I AM CONFIDENT, BASED ON ALL
THE ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN DONE,
AND AGAIN I DON'T WANT TO START
GETTING INTO INTELLIGENCE
MATTERS, THAT THE UKRAINE
GOVERNMENT DID NOT INTERFERE IN
OUR ELECTION IN 2016. THIS IS A
FICTIONAL NARRATIVE. IT'S BEING
PERPETRATED AND PROPAGATED BY
THE RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES
THEMSELVES. YOU RECALL THE
TESTIMONY, MR. GOLDMAN?
>> I DO, I ALSO RECALL HER
TESTIFYING THAT IN ADDITION TO
THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO
MADE A COUPLE OF DISPARAGING
COMMENTS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP,
THERE ARE OFFICIALS FROM
COUNTRIES ALL OVER THE WORLD
WHO ALSO MADE DISPARAGING
COMMENTS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP,
AND AS DOCTOR HILL SAID, THEIR
MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT PUT
ON HOLD.
>> GIVEN YOUR TESTIMONY, AND
GIVEN YOUR -- MR. CASTOR, IS
STRESSING THAT THERE IN FACT
FOR UNCONTESTED FACTS. FIRST,
RUSSIA ATTACKED OUR 2016
ELECTIONS. SEVERAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES HAVE INDEPENDENTLY
CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS TRUE.
SECOND, UKRAINE DID NOT
INTERFERE IN OUR 2016
ELECTIONS. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY
NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS FACES --
OF THIS BASELESS CONSPIRACY
THEORY. THIRD, THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA
PERPETRATED THE ALLEGATION THAT
UKRAINE INTERFERED IN OUR 2016
ELECTIONS. AND FINALLY, THAT
RUSSIA BENEFITS FROM THE U.S.
INVESTIGATING UKRAINE. WHICH
WAS MADE CLEAR THROUGH PUBLIC
TESTIMONY BEFORE YOUR
COMMITTEE. SO MR. GOLDMAN, IS
IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AGREES
WITH THESE FOR CONCLUSIONS?
>> THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
DEFINITELY AGREES WITH ONE AND
TWO. DOCTOR HILL TESTIFIED TO
THREE, AS WELL AS, THE PUBLIC
STATEMENT FROM MR. PUTIN, AND
YES, CERTAINLY THE WITNESSES
EMPHASIZE NUMBER FOUR, THAT
RUSSIA BENEFITS FROM THIS. AND
WE SAW, IN MY OPENING STATEMENT,
PRESIDENT PUTIN'S COMMENTS THAT
IT'S GOOD NOW THAT UKRAINE IS
ALL THE TALK.
>> AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, IT
BEGS THE QUESTION, WHY WOULD
PRESIDENT TRUMP PERPETUATE THIS
CONSPIRACY THEORY ALREADY
DISPROVEN BY THE ENTIRETY OF
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT
ACTUALLY HELPS OUR ADVERSARY, A
COUNTRY THAT IS ATTACKING OUR
ELECTIONS IN REALTIME? WITH
THAT I YIELD.
>> THE GENERALS. BACK MR. SUUBI?
>> A BRIEF PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY ABOUT SCHEDULE. HE HAS
THE TIME.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO RECOGNIZE
HIM AFTER FOR HIS PARLIAMENTARY
DEGREE AFTER MY QUESTION?
>> I WILL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT
ABOUT THE SCHEDULE SHORTLY.
>> THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIRMAN.
I'VE NEVER SEEN A MORE PARTISAN
SPECTACLE THAN WHAT I'VE MISSED
HERE TODAY. DEMOCRATS WANT THE
RULES TO APPLY WHEN IT BENEFITS
THEM AND NOT TO APPLY WHEN
REPUBLICANS INVOKED THEM, NINE
HOURS AGO NOW, A HIRED GUN FOR
THE GOVERNMENT'S GOT THREE
MINUTES TO SPREAD HIS PARTISAN
RHETORIC, AND THEN 45 MINUTES
ACROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.
THAT'S 70 MINUTES MORE THAN
MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE, WHO'VE BEEN ELECTED
BY THEIR DISTRICTS TO SERVE IN
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. MR.
BURKE IS AN UNELECTED NEW YORK
LAWYER SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT IN
BY THE DEMOCRATS TO GIVE HIS
OPINION. A POLITICALLY BIASED
CONSULTANT WHO HAS GIVEN
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS TO
THE LIKES OF ACT BLEW, HILLARY
CLINTON, OBAMA, AND BIDEN. --
NO WONDER WHY HE HAS AN AX TO
GRIND. MR. BURKE IS A WHITE
COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
WHO BRAGS ON HIS WEBSITE OF
GETTING NEW YORK FINANCIAL
BROKERS DEFERRED PROSECUTION
FOR TAX FRAUD, AND FUND MANAGER
-- AND MR. BARR WAS ABLE TO SAY
WHATEVER HE WANTED TO SAY
WITHOUT SWEARING AN OATH TO HIS
TESTIMONY THAT IT WOULD BE
TRUTHFUL SO HE COULD SIT BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE, NOT AS A FACT
WITNESS, AND DIRECTLY LIED TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT ANY
THREAT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
MAKES SENSE, HE'S A WHITE
COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER.
I'M SURE HE DID NOT WANT TO
INCRIMINATE IN SOUTH. THIS IS
THE SAME MR. BURKE WHO AUTHORED
A SERIES OF REPORTS AS EARLY AS
OCTOBER 2017, TWO YEARS AGO, ON
HIS OPINION AS TO WHETHER
PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED
JUSTICE, AND COLLUDED WITH
RUSSIA. HE ALSO REPRESENTED
MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO IN A
FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF HIS
FUND-RAISING ACTIVITIES. FOR MY
FELLOW AMERICANS AND FLORIDIANS,
WATCHING THIS CHARADE, THIS IS
WHO WAS SITTING AT THE TOP OF
THE -- ACTING LIKE A MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE. A PARTISAN NEW
YORK LAWYER WITH WRITTEN BIAS
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO
GAVE THOUSANDS TO HILLARY
CLINTON'S PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN.
 ALL OF THE SPECTACLE, NOT A
SINGLE FACT WITNESS HAS
APPEARED IN FRONT OF THIS
COMMITTEE. WE HAVE BEEN DENIED
A MINORITY HEARING DAY, WHICH I
ASKED FOR IN THE LAST HEARING.
ALL WE HAVE HAD TESTIFIER
PARTISAN LAWYERS GIVING THEIR
OPINIONS. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT
THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE BEFORE
US. WE HEARD FROM MUELLER, NO
EVIDENCE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
-- NO DESTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
AFTER DENYING THE PRESIDENT TO
CALL WITNESSES IN CLOSED DOOR
SECRET PROCEEDINGS AND THE MANY
REPUBLICANS FROM CALLING ALL
THEIR WITNESSES IN CLOSED DOOR
PROCEEDINGS, DENYING THE
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL TO CROSS
EXAMINE WITNESSES, THE FACTS
ARE THIS. -- DID THE PRESIDENT
TELL YOU ABOUT ANY
PRE-CONDITIONS FOR ANYTHING?
>> HIS ANSWER, NO. FOR THE AID
TO BE REFUSED. NO. FOR A WHITE
HOUSE? MEETING NO. THE MASTER
ALSO TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP WANTED NOTHING FROM
UKRAINE. TIM MORRISON, WHEN
QUESTIONED, AND THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO, ANSWERED,
CORRECT. THE AID WAS RELEASED,
FOR FACTS NEVER CHANGE. BOTH
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY SAY THERE WAS NO
PRESSURE, THE CALL TRANSCRIPT
SHOWS NO DIFFERENT REALITY TO
THE AID IN THE INVESTIGATION.
NO QUID PRO QUO. THE UKRAINIANS
WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE AID WAS
WITHHELD WHEN THE PRESIDENT
SPOKE. UKRAINE DID NOT OPEN
INVESTIGATION, BUT STILL
RECEIVED EIGHT AND A MEETING
WITH THE PRESIDENT. MR. CASTOR,
HAS ANY COMMITTEE HEARD FROM
THE WHISTLEBLOWER, EITHER IN
CLOSED OR HEARINGS OR AN OPEN
HEARINGS?
>> NO.
>> DID CHAIRMAN SCHIFF STATE
THAT HE WOULD CALL THE
WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY?
>> HE DID.
>> HAS IT HAPPENED?
>> IT HAS NOT.
>> IS IT GOING? TO
>> I HOPE SO.
>> HAVE OTHER COUNTRIES --
>> YES.
>> MR. GOLDMAN. ON OCTOBER 2ND,
THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER QUOTE,
APPROACH A HOUSE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE AIDE WITH HIS
CONCERNS ABOUT MR. TRUMP. IS
THAT ACCURATE?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> ON OCTOBER 2ND, THE NEW YORK
TIMES REPORTED THAT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER -- IS THAT
ACCURATE?
>> I THINK THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT
ARE FROM THE THREATS --
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.
DID THE WHISTLEBLOWER APPROACH
A HOUSE INTELLIGENCE? LET ME
ASK YOU A DIFFERENT WAY. HAVE
YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH
THE WHISTLEBLOWER?
>> AS I SAID EARLIER IN
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM HER
COLLEAGUES, I'M NOT GOING TO
GET INTO --
>> SO YOU ARE FUSING TO ANSWER
WHETHER COMMUNICATED WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER?
>> THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS NOT
RELEVANT TO THIS REPORT.
>> HE IS THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE
BEGINNING OF THIS
INVESTIGATION. HE IS ABSOLUTELY
RELEVANT.
>> HE'S NOT RELIED UPON, THE
RISK BLOWERS COMPLAINTS, FOR
THE RACE THAT MR. CASTRO SAID,
ARE NOT INCLUDED. HIS
ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN
OUR REPORT. BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OUTSTRIPPED
AND SURPASSED BY THE 17
WITNESSES THAT WE'VE HAD COMING
IN TO TESTIFY DIRECTLY ABOUT
THE CONDUCT THAT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER BLEW THE WHISTLE
ABOUT.
>> AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO
YOU KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER?
>> AND I GO TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE IDENTITY -- YOU
>> ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER
WHETHER YOU'VE HAD
COMMUNICATIONS -- THAT'S MY
TIME, NOT YOURS. YOU ARE
REFUSING TO ANSWER WHETHER YOU
HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER, HAS ANY OTHER
STAFF IN THE INTEL COMMUNITY
HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER?
>> IN THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY --
>> YOU REFUSING TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. UNFORTUNATELY, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE --
>> CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT --
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN? COULD WE
HAVE ORDER?
>> THE GENTLEMAN WANTS TO SPEND
-- THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN
HAS EXPIRED.
>> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN, I ASKED FOR
AN INITIAL DOCUMENT ENTITLED
UKRAINE EFFORTS TO SEPARATE
TRUMP BACKFIRE, -- DATED 2017.
>> IF YOU GIVE IT TO OUR STAFF,
WILL TAKE A LOOK AT, IT AND WE
WILL MAKE IT --
>> SHOULD I MAKE A MOTION TO
INSERT INSTEAD, MISTER CHAIRMAN?
>> BEFORE I RECOGNIZE MISS
MCBATH, I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE
THAT, WITH RESPECT TO
SCHEDULING, THAT THIS HEARING
WILL PROCEED UNTIL THE VOTES
ARE CALLED. IT MAY AND BE FOR
VOTES ARE CALLED, WHICH WOULD
BE NICE. IF IT DOES NOT END
BEFORE VOTES ARE CALLED, THEN
WE WILL RECESS FOR THE VOTES,
AND WE WILL RECONVENE HERE AS
SOON AS THE VOTES ON THE FLOOR
ARE OVER. IT'S GOING TO BE A
CLOSE CALL. WE WILL SEE. I WILL
FURTHER ANNOUNCE I'M NOT
PREPARED TO SAY ANYTHING
FURTHER ABOUT THE SCHEDULE OF
THE COMMITTEE BEYOND TODAY'S
HEARING.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MISTER
CHAIRMAN --
>> WHO HAS -- WHO SEES
RECOGNITION?
>> I DO, MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> YOUR RIGHT, MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> TO ASK -- I WANTED TO
CONFIRM, A POINT OF, ORDER THE
RULES OF THE COMMON, I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA MEANT TO VIOLATE THEM,
KNOW WHAT TO GIVE HIM THE
BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. BUT MORE
THAN, ONCE HE REFERRED TO A NEW
YORK LAWYER, AND IF YOU JUST
EXPLAIN WHY HE MEANT THEN, I'M
PREPARED TO WITHDRAW MY POINT
OF ORDER.
>> IT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
THAT'S NOT A RECOGNIZABLE POINT
OF ORDER.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN, THE POINT
OF ORDER, REGARDING THE
SCHEDULE, THERE'S NO POINT OF
ORDER REGARDING THE SCHEDULE.
>> IN THIS CASE THERE IS,.
>> THERE'S NO POINT OF ORDER
REGARDING THE SCHEDULE.
>> WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION?
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THERE IS NO RECOGNIZABLE POINT
OF ORDER REGARDING THE FUTURE
SCHEDULE.
>> WILL HE RECOGNIZE --
>> MISS MCBATH IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK, YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
MR. GOLDMAN, I WANT TO FOLLOW
UP ON JUST ONE PART OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT THAT
-- I ASKED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLARS ABOUT LAST WEEK. THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES FOUND
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
INTIMIDATED, THREATENED, AND
TAMPERED WITH PERSPECTIVE AND
ACTUAL WITNESSES IN THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND MR. GOLDMAN, IT IS A
FEDERAL CRIME TO INTIMIDATE, OR
TO SEEK TO INTIMIDATE ANY
WITNESS APPEARING BEFORE
CONGRESS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT
MORE TO, IT BUT THAT'S THE GIST
OF, IT YES.
>> MR. GOLDMAN, AM I CORRECT
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PUBLICLY
ATTACKED WITNESSES BEFORE,
AFTER, AND EVEN DURING THEIR
TESTIMONY?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I'D LIKE TO QUICKLY GO
THROUGH SOME EXAMPLES. ON
TWITTER, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO
SMEAR AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, A
FORMER MILITARY OFFICER WHO
GRADUATED AT THE TOP OF HIS
CLASS AT WEST POINT. HE SERVED
AS AN INFANTRY COMMANDER IN
VIETNAM, AND EARNED A BRONZE
STAR, AND AN AIR MEDAL WITH A V
DEVICE FOR VALOR. HE WAS
ATTACKED FOR DOING HIS DUTY TO
TELL THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, CORRECT?
>> HE DID HIS DUTY, BY
TESTIFYING, YES.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO
ATTACKED OTHER TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE,
INCLUDING LIEUTENANT COLONEL
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, WHO IS THE
DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE ON THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, THE SPECIAL
ADVISOR ON EUROPE AND RUSSIA
WITH THE OFFICE OF THE VICE
PRESIDENT. AM I RIGHT?
>> THAT IS, RIGHT YES. MR.
GOLDMAN, I THINK ANOTHER
TROUBLING EXAMPLE OF THIS IS
THE PRESIDENT'S TREATMENT OF
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. WHEN
YOU QUESTIONED A BACHELOR
YOVANOVITCH, YOU ASKED HER
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS
THAT SHE WOULD, AND I QUOTE, GO
THROUGH SOME THINGS. SHE TOLD
YOU THAT THAT REMARK SOUNDED
LIKE A THREAT. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, IN THE JULY 25TH CALL,
THAT IS WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAID THAT.
>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IS A
CAREER PROFESSIONAL WHO SERVED
IN REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
ADMINISTRATIONS. SHE WAS ONCE
CAUGHT IN A LIVE CROSS FIRE
DURING A COUP ATTEMPT, AND
HERE'S HOW SHE DESCRIBED THAT
EXPERIENCE IN HER VERY OWN
WORDS.
>> I LATER SERVED IN MOSCOW, IN
1993, DURING THE ATTEMPTED COUP
IN MOSCOW, IN RUSSIA, I WAS
CAUGHT IN CROSS FIRE BETWEEN
PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY
FORCES. IT TOOK US THREE TRIES.
ME WITHOUT A HELMET, OR BODY
ARMOR, TO GET INTO A VEHICLE TO
GET TO THE EMBASSY. WE WENT
BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR ASKED US
TO COME. AND WE WENT BECAUSE IT
WAS OUR DUTY.
>> IT WAS OUR DUTY. EVEN UNDER
SUCH DURESS, THIS IS A PUBLIC
SERVANT WHO DID HER DUTY. AND
AS SHE TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU AND
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THE
PRESIDENT TWEETED YET ANOTHER
ATTACK AGAINST HER. IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> DURING THE TESTIMONY, YES.
>> AT A RALLY, THE PRESIDENT
FURTHER ATTACKED AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO
GEORGE KENT, FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OFFICIAL WITH DECADES OF
BIPARTISAN SERVICE. I JUST HAVE
TO SAY, I AM SO DEEPLY SADDENED
THAT OUR PRESIDENT HAS ATTACKED
OUR BRAVE AND PUBLIC SERVANTS.
THESE ATTACKS ARE AND ABUSE OF
HIS POWER, AND THEY BETRAY OUR
NATIONAL INTERESTS. MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, UNTIL
NOW, HAVE AGREED WITH ME THAT
THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT OKAY. THAT
IN AMERICA, WE PROTECT
WITNESSES AND PEOPLE WHO TELL
THE TRUTH. WE WANT PEOPLE TO
COME FORWARD, WE PROTECT
WITNESSES IN OUR COMMUNITY. I
MYSELF HAVE NO STRANGER TO
THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS. THEY
ARE NOT OKAY. I WANT TO READ A
PARTIAL STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN, WHO IS A
MILITARY OFFICER AND PUBLIC
SERVICE, AND IT IS --
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, MR.
VINDMAN SAID, AND I QUOTE, I
WANT TO SAY THAT THE CHARACTER
ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED
AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS
IS REPREHENSIBLE. I RAN FOR
CONGRESS BECAUSE I CARE
URGENTLY ABOUT HEALTH CARE, GUN
VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AND OUR
VETERANS. THOSE ARE THE URGENT
POLICIES FOR ME AND MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES, BUT THESE WITNESSES,
THESE PUBLIC SERVANTS STOOD UP
AND COURAGEOUSLY TOLD THE TRUTH
AND I MUST BE COURAGEOUS AND
STAND UP FOR THEM AS WELL, I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
>> THEY GENTLY DEALS BACK
BOUNCE OVER TIME, A FEW MINUTES
AGO HE ASKED FOR CONTENTION TO
POLITICO FOR THAT OBJECTION, I
THINK IT MISTER CHAIRMAN WE'VE
HEARD TODAY FROM SOME
SUGGESTING THAT THIS PROCESS
HAS SOMEHOW BEEN UNFAIR, MR.
GOLDMAN LET'S CLEAR OF THAT
RECORD. MINORITY MEMBERS ON THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES HAVE
ACCESS TO ALL WITNESS
DEPOSITIONS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS
AND WERE THEY ALLOWED TO ASK
QUESTIONS OF EVERY WITNESS?
>> THEY WERE GIVEN EQUAL TIME
TO THE MAJORITY FOR EVERY
SINGLE INTERVIEW, DEPOSITION OR
HEARING THAT WE DID.
>> WE ARE ALLOWED TO CALL THE
OWN WITNESSES TO THE HEARINGS.
>> YES, THEY DID, THEY GOT
THREE WITNESSES THEY'RE ALSO
ALLOWED TO CALL THEIR OWN
WITNESSES FOR THE DEPOSITIONS
AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT,
THE ONLY WITNESS THEY REQUESTED
FOR THE DEPOSITION WAS CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF WHO WAS NOT A WITNESS TO
THIS INVESTIGATION.
>> MR. GOLDMAN WHY DID THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES
DECIDED TO CONDUCT THIS BEHIND
CLOSED DOORS?
>> VEST INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE
WHEN YOU'RE DOING A FACT
FINDING MISSION IS TO KEEP THE
INFORMATION CLOSED AND THE
REASON IS EXACTLY WHAT I
DESCRIBED EARLIER WITH
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, FIRST OF
ALL THE DAY BEFORE HIS
DEPOSITION HE SPOKE WITH
SECRETARY PERRY ABOUT HIS
TESTIMONY, THAT IS THE TYPE OF
TAILORING THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN
PEOPLE ARE ENGAGED IN
MISCONDUCT AND THEY TRY TO LINE
UP THEIR STORIES. SO IF YOU
KEEP THE INFORMATION CLOSED
THEY CAN'T LINEUP THEIR STORIES
AND I THINK FRANKLY PART OF THE
REASON WHY AMBASSADOR VOLKER
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY WAS SO
DIFFERENT FROM THEIR DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY IS BECAUSE THE
INITIAL DEPOSITIONS WERE IN
CLOSED SESSION BEFORE WE
RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPTS TO THE
PUBLIC.
>> THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED
BECAUSE IN BOTH IN NIXON AND
CLINTON INQUIRIES THERE WERE
CLOSE STORE GRAND JURY AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE INQUIRIES.
>> IN CONGRESS IT'S A RULE, IN
THE HOUSE RULES THAT WAS PASSED
BY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IS IT
WAS USED IN BENGHAZI, USED BY A
NUMBER OF COMMITTEES IN THE
PAST DECADE OR SO.
>> FOR CLARITY PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS RECEIVED ALL PROTECTIONS
AFFORDED TO OTHER PRESIDENTS
FACING IMPEACHMENT, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HE HAS HAD ALL THE OPTIONS,
THAT WERE ANGRY WAS NOT THE
INDUSTRIES INVESTIGATION IT WAS
THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE, OF COURSE IF
THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE HE COULD'VE PROVIDED
DOCUMENTS, PROVIDED THE
WITNESSES THAT WE ASKED FROM
HIM, BUT HE OBSTRUCTED RATHER
THAN COOPERATED.
>> THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN
INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY,
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> ANY DECLINED THE INVITATION?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> TWICE?
>> TWICE THIS FAR.
>> THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO
PARTICIPATE WOULD TRY TO STOP
CONGRESS FROM OBTAINING
EVIDENCE, IS IT TRUE THAT HE
HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY
EVIDENCE SUBPOENA TO THE WHITE
HOUSE.
>> YES.
>> NOT A SINGLE? ONE
>> NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT.
>> HE ALSO GOT ALL OF HIS
AGENCIES TO REFUSE TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS ALSO TRUE.
>> BASED ON THE PRESIDENTS
ORDER FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE
IGNORED MORE THAN 70 SPECIFIC
REQUESTS OR DEMAND FROM RECORDS
FROM THE INVESTIGATIVE
COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES AND IF I CAN JUST ADD.
>> QUICKLY PLEASE.
>> THIS WOULD ORDINARILY BE A
DOCUMENT CASE, IF YOU'RE
PROSECUTING THIS CASE AND
BASING IT ON THE DOCUMENTS, SO
THE FACT THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS
ARE BEING WITHHELD IS QUITE
SIGNIFICANT AND IT'S QUITE
REMARKABLE THAT WE BUILT THE
RECORD WE HAD ON THE WITNESSES.
>> THE PRESIDENTS ORDER TO
OBSTRUCT CAUGHT -- DIDN'T JUST
GO WITH WITNESSES, WITNESSES
ALSO REFUSED TO TESTIFY, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> YES THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IN TOTAL MORE THAN A DOZEN
MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION
DEFIED A LAWFUL SUBPOENAS OR
REQUEST FOR A TESTIMONY OR A
DOCUMENTS AS WE SEE ON THE
SIDE.
>> RIGHT, BETWEEN TESTIMONY AND
DOCUMENTS THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IS IT ALSO TRUE THAT WHEN
WITNESSES CHOSE TO FOLLOW LAWS
AND TESTIFY THE PRESIDENT
DENIED THOSE WITNESSES ACCESS
TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY
NEEDED TO PROPERLY PREPARE FOR
THEIR TESTIMONY.
>> FOR SOME OF, THEM THAT IS
CORRECT.
>> I ALSO MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN
CHALLENGING. IN MANY RESPECTS,
LESS THAN FAIR. I HAVE NOT HAD
ACCESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE
RECORDS. THE STATE DEPARTMENT
EMAILS, AND MANY OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS. AND I WAS
TOLD I COULD NOT WORK WITH MY
EU STAFF TO PULL TOGETHER THE
RELEVANT FILES AND INFORMATION.
THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT
CLASSIFIED. AND IN FAIRNESS,
AND IN FAIRNESS, SHOULD HAVE
BEEN MADE AVAILABLE.
>> THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS
CALLED ALL MATERIALS IN
RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 27TH
SUBPOENA, THAT MAY CONTAIN
FACTS RELEVANT TO MY TESTIMONY.
I HAVE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS OR
MATERIALS WITH ME TODAY.
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT DENIED
THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE, QUITE
THE OPPOSITE. THE PRESIDENT HAS
CHOSEN NOT TO PARTICIPATE, AND
HE IS CONSISTENTLY TRYING TO
OBSTRUCT THE IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION TO ENSURE KNOWN
TESTIFIES AGAINST THEM, THAT
KNOWN PRODUCES A DOCUMENT THAT
MAY INCRIMINATE HIM, AND TO
ENGAGE IN A COVER-UP TO PREVENT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM
LEARNING THE TRUTH. I YIELD
BACK.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN, MAY I JUST
SAY SOMETHING FOR FIVE SECONDS
-- WAS A CHAIRMAN, PLEASE? JUST
SOMETHING FOR FIVE SECONDS.
>> NO. THE GENTLE LADY --
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
MR. GOLDMAN, SOME HAVE ARGUED
THAT WE SHOULD WAIT, THAT WE
ARE MOVING TOO FAST, THAT WE
SHOULD TRY TO GET MORE
EVIDENCE. LET'S EXAMINE WHY
THESE ARGUMENTS ARE WITHOUT
MERIT. -- ALL MEMBERS OF THE
WHITE HOUSE STAFF WILL APPEAR
VOLUNTARILY WHEN REQUESTED BY
THE COMMITTEE. THEY WILL
TESTIFY UNDER OATH, AND THEY
WILL ANSWER FULLY ALL PROPER
QUESTIONS, AND QUOTE. DURING
THE INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
CLINTON, KEN STARR INTERVIEWED
WHITE HOUSE STAFF. PRESIDENT
CLINTON ALSO PROVIDED WRITTEN
RESPONSES TO 81 INTERROGATORIES
FROM THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. UNLIKE HIS
PREDECESSORS, PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS CATEGORICALLY STONEWALLED
CONGRESS IS INVESTIGATION AT
EVERY TURN, INTO THIS FAR BACK
IS APRIL, THE PRESIDENT
PRESENTED HIS --
>> WE ARE FIGHTING ALL THE
SUBPOENAS.
>> MORE RECENTLY, ON SEPTEMBER
-- OCTOBER 8TH, WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL PAT SEEM ALONE ECHOED
THE SENTIMENT, IN THE LETTER
REFLECTING THE PRESIDENT AND
TRACKING THAT ALL EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TESTIFY IN
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. ARE
YOU AWARE OF THAT LETTER, MR.
GOLDMAN.
>> YES I AM.
>> AND MR. GOLDMAN, IS IT FAIR
TO SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
THE ONLY PRESIDENT IN THE
HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY TO SEEK
THE COMPLETELY -- UNDERTAKEN BY
THIS HOUSE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. IT IS
UNPRECEDENTED.
>> AND IN, FACT PURSUANT TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERED, 12
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS
REFUSED TO TESTIFY AS PART OF
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
TEN OF WHOM DEFY CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS. AM I RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> GIVEN THE PRESIDENT'S
SWEEPING DIRECTIVE, NOT TO
COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS, DO THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES
BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANY
CHANCE THAT OTHER
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WOULD
COME FORWARD IF SUBPOENAED?
>> NO, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO BLOCK
EVERYTHING, AND BLOCK EVERYONE,
AND EVENTUALLY, THEY CAME UP
WITH AN ALTERNATIVE REASON TO
WRITE AN OPINION TO PREVENT
PEOPLE FROM COMING IN, WHICH IS
QUITE AN AGGRESSIVE VIEW THAT
THEY TOOK. BUT IT WAS QUITE
CLEAR THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO
BLOCK EVERY SINGLE WITNESS.
>> SOME HAVE SAID THAT THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE SHOULD
HAVE GONE TO COURT. DID YOU
DECIDE NOT TO GO TO COURT?
>> WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LOT,
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND WE
WANT THIS TO BE AS THOROUGH AND
INVESTIGATION. AS YOU CAN SEE
FROM THE DEUTSCHE BANK CASE OR
THE MCGAHN CASE, IT TAKES
MONTHS AND MONTHS TO GO THROUGH
THE APPEALS COURT, AND THAT'S
EFFECTIVELY WHAT THE PRESIDENT
WANTS, TO DELAY THIS AS LONG AS
POSSIBLE --
>> LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT
EXACT CASE, THE MCGAHN CASE. WE
ARE ALL INTIMATELY AWARE OF IT.
ON APRIL 22ND, THIS JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE SERVED A SUBPOENA FOR
TESTIMONY. TO WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL, DON MCGAHN. AND AFTER
MCGAHN REFUSED TO TESTIFY ON
MAY 21ST, THE COMMITTEE FILED A
LAWSUIT ON AUGUST THE 7TH, TO
COMPEL HIS TESTIMONY. AND EVEN
THOUGH WE DID REQUEST EXPEDITED
RULING, IT WAS ANOTHER THREE
AND A HALF MONTHS BEFORE JUDGE
JACKSON FOUND THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO
KNEECAP CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE, AS THE
JUDGE WROTE, AND THEY PUT IT UP
ON THIS SCREEN, QUOTE,
PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS. AS
YOU KNOW, MCGAHN HAS APPEALED.
A HEARING IS SET FOR JANUARY
THE 3RD OF NEXT YEAR. AS WE SIT
HERE TODAY, EIGHT MONTHS SINCE
WE ISSUED THAT SUBPOENA, WOULD
YOU AGREE IT'S LIKELY WE WILL
NOT HAVE AN APPEALS COURT
RULING FOR MANY MONTHS TO COME?
>> IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT IT
COULD BE SEVERAL MORE MONTHS,
AND THEN THERE MAY BE THE
SUPREME COURT.
>> EXACTLY. MCGAHN MAY APPEAL
TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND
CONCEIVABLY, THAT COULD TAKE
ANOTHER MANY MONTHS, A YEAR,
MORE.
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER IT'S
THE STORM OR GETS PUSHED OVER
TO THE NEXT TERM? GIVEN US TO
LAY ILLUSTRATED MCGAHN EXAMPLE
SPECIFICALLY, WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT IF WE GO TO COURT TO
ENDORSE THE INVESTIGATIVE
COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS WE COULD
FACE ANOTHER MONTH OR YEAR LONG
DELAY TO HEAR TESTIMONY?
>> ABSOLUTELY THERE IS AN
ONGOING THREAT BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO CHEAT TO
WIN THE NEXT ELECTION, IT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE
PAST IT'S CONTINUING IN THE
FUTURE SO WE CANNOT DELAY IT
JUST WAIT FOR THE COURTS TO
RESOLVE THIS ONE THE REASON WE
WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE COURTS
IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS
OBSTRUCTING AN INVESTIGATION
INTO HIMSELF.
>> THE URGENCY IS NOT JUST
ABOUT OUR ELECTIONS BUT ALSO
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND MY
RIGHT?
>> THAT IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT
TO IT LET ME AND WITH THIS WHAT
IS PLAIN IS WE CANNOT WAIT,
WAIT MEANS NEVER, WE MUST NOT
LET THIS PRESIDENT DISREGARD,
DEFY, AND DELAY JUSTICE, THIS
PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN THAT HE
REPEATEDLY ABUSES THE POWER
INTERESTED HIM BY THE PEOPLE
EVERY MOMENT WE WAIT IS ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY TO CHIP AWAY AT THE
FOUNDATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION
SO CAREFULLY CRAFTED BY OUR
FOUNDERS, I THINK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN ANY OLD FACT.
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK AND
YOU'LL TO MISS JACKSON LEE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER
CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT OR
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REFER
TO THE RECORD IN MY QUESTIONING
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
POLICY PROPER -- WITHOUT
OBJECTION I WOULD LIKE TO. AND
THEY CALL DATED.
>> MR. ARMSTRONG, THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIRMAN. MR. CASTOR
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, IT'S BEEN
ALL LONG COUPLE OF MONTHS,
YOU'VE BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF
THIS AND I KNOW PRIVACY WANTED
TO SAY SOMETHING SO.
>> THANK YOU I RESISTED ON MY
WILLINGNESS TO BE THIS THIS
AFTERNOON, BUT FIRST OF ALL THE
REPUBLICANS ON THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE GAVE OUT A NUMBER --
RANKING MEMBER NUNES SENT A
LETTER ASKING FOR WITNESSES
RANKING MEMBER COLIN SENT A
LETTER ON DECEMBER SIX ASKING
FOR WITNESSES SOME OF THEM
WOULD'VE TOUCH AT PART OF THE
ISSUES AND THAT IS COULD
UKRAINIANS TRY TO INTERFERE
WITH OUR ELECTIONS THIS IS A
FACT THAT IT IS MERITORIOUS OF
THE INVESTIGATION OF THE
INGREDIENTS ARE INVESTIGATED
AND WE ARE BEING INVESTIGATED
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT HASN'T
HAPPENED REPUBLICANS HAVE
ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT DURING
THIS PROCESS SO, I'D LIKE TO
SAY THAT AND I HAVE A COUPLE
OTHER THINGS MR. ARMSTRONG. YOU
KNOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS A
WITNESS WHO WENT FROM BEING NOT
VERY FAVORABLE TO VERY
FAVORABLE IN HIS HEARING. ONE
OF HIS REMARKABLE STATEMENTS IT
IS HEARING WAS THAT EVERYONE
WAS IN THE LOOP, HE TYPES OF
THIS EMAIL TO POMPEO, TO THE
SECRETARY AND THE EMAILS THAT
HE USED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
EVERYONE IS IN THE LOOP IS NOT
CONCLUSIVE AT ALL, YOU KNOW HE
TALKS ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT
WAS GOING BACK AND FORTH
ESPECIALLY THE EARLY PART OF
AUGUST, FIRST OF ALL THEY SAID
ALL ALONG IN THINK THE
STATEMENT WAS A VERY GOOD IDEA
TRIED TO WRITE THIS STATEMENT
AND ULTIMATELY BOTH SIDES
DECIDED THAT IT WASN'T A GOOD
PLAN SO THEY DIDN'T DO IT, SO
THE FACT THAT THE SONDLAND IS
EMAILING THE SECRETARY TALKING
ABOUT THE STATEMENT AND SO
FORTH IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT
EVERY ONCE IN A LOOP AMBASSADOR
HILL TESTIFIED WITH US AND THEY
DON'T JUST EMAIL THE SECRETARY
THE SECRETARY GETS AN EMAIL OF
COURSE BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THIS
THERE'S A WHOLE SECRETARIAT
THAT FILTERS THE EMAIL AND SO
IT'S NOT EMAILING THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, IT'S NOT QUITE AS
SIMPLE AS I THINK AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND MADE IT SEEM HERE. SO
I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT
AND WE TALKED A COUPLE TIMES
ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF GEORGE
KENT'S NOTES, ONE OF AMBASSADOR
VOLKER'S ASSISTANCE CATHERINE
CROFT TESTIFIED AND IT WAS
RATHER STARTLING PIECE OF
TESTIMONY. SHE WAS ASKED
WHETHER CANS NOTES WOULD BE
RELIABLE, SORT OF A TYPICAL
QUESTION, EVERYONE EXPECTING
THE ANSWER TO BE YES, THEY SAID
SHE SAID NO, I DON'T THINK
KEN'S NOTES WOULD BE RELIABLE
SO I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO
PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THERE IS
EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW PERHAPS MR.
KENT FELT SOME OCEANS ABOUT
SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND HIS
NOSE ACCORDING TO ONE STATE
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL LIGHT NOT
IN FACT BE RELIABLE. THE CNN
INTERVIEW THAT THERE HAS BEEN
DISCUSSION ABOUT, OKAY THERE IS
DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBLY DOING
A STATEMENT WHICH WAS CANNED,
MAYBE THERE IS DISCUSSION OF A
CNN INTERVIEW BUT WE DID NOT
REALLY GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
THAT, THAT WAS THIS IS A MORE
SURFACE FACT THAT WAS OUT THERE,
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS WORRIED
IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BUT WE
DIDN'T REALLY TALK TO ANYONE
THAT COULD TELL US PRECISELY
WHAT WAS GOING TO OCCUR WITH
THE CNN INTERVIEW AND WHETHER
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ACTUALLY
GOING TO DO IT. IF YOU LOOK
BACK AT THE STATEMENTS THAT
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT YOU ARE
NO WASN'T COMFORTABLE DOING IT,
SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE CNN
INTERVIEW IT'S POSSIBLE THAT
YOU ARE MACRO DAVID VICE
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NOT TO SAY
WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT HE WAS
GOING TO SAY SO I'M SORRY MR.
ARMSTRONG.
>> KNOW YOU WORKED HARD AND I
WANT TO SUMMARIZE THIS, YOU CAN
AND BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PROOF
THIS ENTERTAINMENT ON TV IT'S
THEY GET A CONVICTION IN THREE
MINUTES BUT MY QUESTION IS FOR
WHAT CRIME? A MUELLER
CONSPIRACY FELL FLAT, THE
OBSTRUCTION CHARGE WAS A BANDED,
CAMPAIGN FINANCES IS A
NONSTARTER, VICTIM OF
CONSPIRACY OR THE VICTIM OF
BRIBERY AND EXTRAORDINARY
CITIES NOT A VICTIM, SO YOU CAN
PROVES ANY OF IT DOESN'T MEAN
YOU CAN USE ALL OF IT AND
THAT'S NO WAY TO PROSECUTE A
CASE IT IS NO WAY TO PROCEED
WITH IMPEACHMENT, THANK YOU ALL.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN,
MR. GOLDMAN I WANT TO COME BACK
AND HIGHLIGHT WHAT I THINK IS
THE BIGGEST NATIONAL SECURITY
THREAT AND THAT IS FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE INTO OUR
ELECTIONS. I CAN TELL YOU IN
FLORIDA WE ARE EXTREMELY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE SECURITY OF
OUR ELECTIONS AND THE POTENTIAL
FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ESPECIALLY
RUSSIA BECAUSE FLORIDA MY HOME
STATE WAS THE VICTOR VICTIM OF
RUSSIAN HACKING, THERE IS EVERY
INDICATION THAT THEY ARE TRYING
TO DO THE SAME THING RIGHT NOW,
OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE
PREMISE THAT THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS ARE ELECTED BY THE
PEOPLE BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
DOESN'T SHARE THESE IDEAS, HE
HAS AND CONTINUE TO INTERFERE
HE DOESN'T WANT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE TO DECIDE AND HE'S
INVITING FOREIGN EFFORT TO
FEAR. IT'S ON MR. GOLDMAN IT'S
BEEN CONFIRMED THAT HE ACTUALLY
SAW THE INTERFERENCE IN THE
2016 ELECTION, IS CORRECT.
>> WHAT SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER
SAID IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
DID INVITE THEM AND SOLICIT
THEM TO HACK HILLARY CLINTON'S
EMAILS ULTIMATELY THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN I THINK IT WAS WELCOME,
KNEW ABOUT THE INTERFERENCE,
WELCOMED IT AND UTILIZED IT.
>> RIGHT AND IN 2016 TRUMP
 IT BECAME QUITE CLEAR IN ALL
OF HIS COMMENTS AND ALL THE
OTHER WITNESSES AT ANY MENTION
OF CORRUPTION OR ANTI
CORRUPTION WAS REALLY MEANT IN
THE EVIDENCE SHOW THIS IT WAS
REALLY A EUPHEMISM FOR THE
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> CORRECT AND TRUMP IS NOT
ONLY ASKING, EXCUSE ME
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT ONLY
ASKING UKRAINE BUT HE ALSO SAYS
CHINA SHOULD START
INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENTS, THE PRESIDENTS
PATTERN OF BEHAVIORS INCREDIBLY
DISTURBING, RUSSIA, UKRAINE
CHINA HE'S INVITING THREE
COUNTRIES TO HELP HIM IN HIS
REELECTION CAMPAIGN, MR.
GOLDMAN I DON'T SEE ANY REASON
TO BELIEVE THAT HE WOULDN'T ASK
ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTS, FOR
EXAMPLE VENEZUELA, CORRECT?
>> HE COULD AT THIS POINT HE
HAS SHOWN NOT ONLY WILLINGNESS
TO DO THIS MULTIPLE TIMES BUT I
THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR ALL
OF THE MEMBERS CONSIDERATION HE
HAS ALSO SHOWN A LACK OF
CONTRITION, A LACK OF
ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WHAT HE IS
DOING IS WRONG AND THAT IT IS
WRONG, IF YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE
IT IT IS WRONG THEN THERE'S NO
REASON BUT YOU WON'T DO IT
AGAIN, IF YOU'VE ALREADY DONE
IT.
>> EXACTLY WE SAW GIULIANI AND
UKRAINE JUST THREE DAYS AGO AND
LAST NIGHT I WANTED TO SAY THE
WASHINGTON POST BASED SAYING
THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAS BEEN NOW
ADVISING OPENING A BACK CHANNEL,
SO I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT THAT
NOW I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY
TIME TO WAIT TO SEE IF ANY
COUNTRIES ARE NOW GOING TO TAKE
HIM UP ON THE OFFER TO HELP HIM
ON HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN. MR.
GOLDMAN DID THE INVESTIGATIVE
COMMITTEES REACH ANY COMMITTEES
ABOUT THE ONGOING THREATS, HE
CONTINUING RISK THAT THE
PRESIDENT POSES.
>> YES FOR THE SAME REASONS WE
HAVE JUST DISCUSSED, I THINK
JUNE TELEVISION INTERVIEW WHERE
THE PRESIDENT INTEGRATED THAT
HE WOULD ONCE AGAIN ANNE HAVE A
DATA POINT, QUESTIONING THAT HE
IS SAYING THAT HE HAS SUCH A
GREAT RECORD AND THE DEMOCRATS
DON'T WANT HIM TO WIN, THE
QUESTION IS IF THAT IS THE CASE
AND THE VERY MAE BE THE CASE
THEN WHY DOES HE NEED TO CHEAT
TO WIN THE ELECTION, WHY CAN'T
HE JUST GO ON HIS OWN PLATFORM?
>> I THINK THEY DEMANDED IT
FOLLOWS THE RULE OF LAW AND
FIGHT TO KEEP RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE, EXCUSE ME FOR AN
INTERFERENCE, NOW I KNOW THAT I
WAS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF
FLORIDA AND I WORK ONLY FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AND I'M
NOT GOING TO LET ANYONE
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS OR
THREATEN OUR DEMOCRACY. THE
CONTINUING POWER OF BEHAVIOR
SHOULD BE A WARNING THAT IT IS
A BEGINNING OF A DICTATORSHIP
THAT I HAVE SEEN IN LATIN
AMERICA, I HAVE SEEN THE ABUSE
OF POWER, AND FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE AND ALSO
OBSTRUCTING ANY CHECKS ON THEIR
POWER. THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO
PARTISAN ALLEGIANCE, WE CANNOT
ALLOW THIS BEHAVIOR FROM THIS
PRESIDENT OR ANY FUTURE
PRESIDENT OUR DEMOCRACY DEPENDS
ON IT.
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK,
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> I RECOGNIZE MR. JORDAN FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU THE MAJORITIES
WITNESS WAS WRONGLY SAID THAT
WE WERE ABLE TO INTERVIEW
PEOPLE.
>> WE WERE NOT SO THE RECORD,
TO LETTER SANTA CHAIRMAN NADLER
AND.
>> YOU'LL MISS ESCOBAR IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
MANY THANKS TO US WHO HAVE
SPENT THE ENTIRE DAY, DESPITE
WHAT OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN
AND THEIR OWN WITNESS MR.
CASTOR HAS AGREED THAT THESE
HAVE PRODUCED DIRECT EVIDENCE,
DIRECT EVIDENCE WITH ANY
OBJECTIVE OBSERVER WOULD RECALL
AS OVERWHELMING, THAT EVIDENCE
PROVES THAT THE PRESIDENT
SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
IN THE 2020 ELECTION, PRESSURED
ON ZELENSKY TO PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCE UNFOUNDED
INVESTIGATIONS, CONDITIONED A
WHITE HOUSE MEETING, AND 391
MILLION DOLLARS ON THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE EGG
INVESTIGATIONS AND THEN THE
PRESIDENT COVERED UP HIS
CONDUCT OBSTRUCT THE
INVESTIGATION, THE FINDINGS
REFLECT A SERIOUS ABUSE OF
POWER BY THE PRESIDENT YET WE
ARE BEING ASKED TO IGNORE WE
HAVE SEEN WITH HER OWN EYES AND
WHAT WE HAVE HEARD WITH YOUR
OWN EARS. SO MR. GOLDMAN I'D
LIKE TO GET YOURSELF TO RESPOND
TO SOME OTHER CLAIMS OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE MADE TODAY.
>> HAPPILY.
>> THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES
SAY THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO,
IN OTHER WORDS THEY CLAIM THAT
THE PRESIDENT WASN'T
WITHHOLDING THE AID IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE MANUFACTURE POLITICAL
INVESTIGATION, IS IT TRUE THAT
THE AID WAS WITHHELD AND THAT
THERE HAS BEEN NO LOGICAL
EXPLANATION FOR THE WITHHOLDING
OF THAT AID?
>> THERE IS COMMON SENSE THAT
LEADS ONE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
AID WAS WITHHELD FROM THE
INVESTIGATIONS AND THEN THERE'S
ALSO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS TO
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THE
SAME THING.
>> THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP
KNEW HE HAD LEVERAGE OVER
PRESIDENT WILL ZELENSKY AND IN
FACT DAVID HOLMES TESTIFIED
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WILL QUOTE, DO
ANYTHING YOU ASK, HIM IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS WHAT AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND SAID, ACTUALLY THAT IS
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID. THAT
IS WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
SAID TO TRUMP, MY APOLOGIES.
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE
UKRAINIANS DID NO CLEAR THAT
THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD, MY
COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO SAY THAT
THERE COULDN'T BE LEVERAGE
BECAUSE THEY HAD NO IDEA THAT
THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD YET
THERE HAS BEEN EVIDENCE SHOWED
THAT --
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A
SECOND TO TAKE A STEP BACK IT
DOESN'T MATTER WHEN THEY KNEW
AS LONG AS THEY KNEW AT SOME
POINT THEN THEY REALIZED AT
THAT POINT THAT THE
INVESTIGATIONS WERE DEPENDING
ON THE AID, IN ADDITION AND
THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT
THEY KNEW BEFORE THE CABLE
PUBLIC ON AUGUST 28TH.
>> AND YOU'RE RIGHT IT DOESN'T
MATTER IF YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE
HELD UP A GUNPOINT BY A BURGLAR
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU KNOW
OR NOT. THE INTENT IS STILL
THERE BY THE CRIMINAL ABOUT TO
COMMIT THE FACT. MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES ALSO MAKE MUCH ABOUT
THE A FAMILY BEING RELEASED,
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IT WASN'T
RELEASED UNTIL THE PRESIDENT
GOT CAUGHT?
>> THERE WAS AN RELEASED INTO
THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT AND
ALL OF THE MONEY DIDN'T
ACTUALLY GET TO UKRAINE AND
THAT FISCAL YEAR AND YOU ALL
HAD TO PASS TO GET THAT MONEY
TO UKRAINE.
>> EARLIER TODAY MR. CASTRO
TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE WAY THE
REQUEST FOR FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION BY
CLAIMING THE PRESIDENT HAD
THREE CONCERNS, THAT NUMBER ONE
THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT UKRAINE CORRUPTION, THAT
NUMBER TWO HE WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT BURNING SHARING WITH
EUROPE AND NUMBER THREE HE
BROUGHT UP THE DEBUNKED
CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE
ELECTION INTERFERENCE WHICH BY
THE WAY THAT THE LAST POINT WE
KNOW IS A RUSSIAN TALKING
POINT. MR. GOLDMAN DID THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES
CONSIDER THOSE THREE
EXPLANATIONS AND IF SO WHAT DID
THE EVIDENCE SHOW ABOUT WHETHER
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST WAS
ACTUALLY MOTIVATED BY THOSE
CONCERNS?
>> IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION
THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT WERE
DISCUSSED HERE TODAY, WHAT IS
EVIDENCE AND ONE IS ASSERTIONS
AND OPINIONS, BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT ANY OF THOSE THREE
THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED,
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO THINK
THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTED
TOWARDS UKRAINE BECAUSE OF HIS
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION, EVEN
IF HE HELD THOSE CONCERNS THAT
WAS NOT THE MOTIVATING FACTOR.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HIS
CONCERN, WILL GIVING ENOUGH
MONEY MOTIVATED HIM AND THERE
IS REALLY NOT A REASONABLE
BELIEF GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE
THAT HE BELIEVED THAT UKRAINE
INTERFERED IN OUR 2016
ELECTIONS.
>> THANK YOU I'D LIKE TO CLOSE
WITH OTHER SCHOLARS EXPLAIN TO
US LAST WEEK ABOUT WHY ALL OF
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.
>> DRYING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
INTO OUR ELECTIONS ISN'T
ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF
POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES
DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
>> BECAUSE IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH
A PRESIDENT TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE
FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE WE NO
LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, WE
LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR A
DICTATORSHIP.
>> IF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE THAT NOTHING
IS IMPEACHABLE.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN I
YIELD BACK WILL.
>> CAN I RESPOND TO THAT?
>> THIS CONCLUDES THE
QUESTIONING, I --
>> I SEEK UNANIMOUS REQUEST TO
INTRODUCE MISTER CHAIRMAN IN
HIS FIRST HEARING AND THE NEW
CONGRESS WHICH WAS ON EXAMINING
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES, HIS
FIRST HEARING WAS NOT ABOUT
MICHAEL COHEN AS WAS ASSERTED
EARLIER.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION I NOW
RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER
FOR ANY CONCLUSION REMARKS HE
MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
ONE QUICK THING IT DOES MATTER
WHETHER THEY KNEW OR DIDN'T
KNOW. BECAUSE AFTER THEY
SUPPOSEDLY FOUND OUT IT DOES
MATTER BECAUSE AFTER TWO
MEETINGS WITH OFFICIALS FROM
THE UNITED STATES IT WAS NEVER
TALKED ABOUT IT NO LINKAGE WAS
MADE. THE REASON IT MATTERS IS
BECAUSE IF THERE IS NO
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS
BEING WITHHELD'S THERE IS NO
QUID PRO QUO AND ALSO GOES TO
THE STATE OF MIND OF MR.
ZELENSKY WHO SAYS I'M NOT BEING
PRESSURED, THERE IS NOTHING
HERE AND AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO
THE AMAZING THOUGHT OF THIS
MAJORITY WHO KEEPS CALLING THE
UKRAINIAN LEADER A LIAR, IS
JUST AMAZING THAT WE CONTINUE
TO PROPAGATE THAT MID HERE
TONIGHT, BUT WHAT DID WE LEARN
TODAY?
>> HERE IS SOME THINGS WE DID
LEARN, IN THE HEARING THEY TALK
ABOUT IN WHICH STAFF BASICALLY
NOT MEMBERS GAVE TESTIMONY AND
GOT INTO VERY HEATED DEBATES
WITH EACH OTHER, THIS IS NOT
WHAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SHOULD BE DOING, IT'S NOT THE
WAY THEY SHOULD BE HELD AND
AGAIN AND THE REASON IT IS MR.
GOLDMAN WHO HANDLED HIMSELF
VERY WELL BUT HE'S NOT ADAM
SCHIFF THIS IS RIDICULOUS WE
SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS, THE
INTEL COMMITTEE ALSO WHAT WE
DID FIND OUT TOOK PHONE RECORDS
AND WENT ON IT ENDEAVOR AGAINST
THE WRECKING WITH MEMBER BUT NO
IT'LL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
TELLING THE STAFF TO USE MR.
NUNEZ OR WHO DECIDED TO PUT
THIS MIRROR JOB IN THE REPORT,
WE WILL JUST ASSUME THAT MR.
SCHIFF BECAUSE I DO HOLD THE
MEMBER ACCOUNTABLE. ALSO WE
FOUND OUT TODAY WHICH IS REALLY
INTERESTING THE STAFF CAN
DETERMINE WHAT'S RELEVANT OR
NOT NOT MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT
STAFF TOLD MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
BUT THAT WASN'T RELEVANT AGAIN
GOES BACK TO THE PROBLEM IF YOU
ARE NOT MEMBERS HERE TO
ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THIS. ALSO
INTERESTING ANOTHER THING WE'VE
LEARNED THAT THE CHAIRMAN
CONTINUES TO REGARD IN -- THIS
REGARD HOUSE RULES. PLAINLY
DISREGARDING HOUSE RULES, IF I
HEAR BASICALLY ONE MORE TIME
ALL ADDRESS THAT ONE REMARK UP
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES WHAT'S THE
USE OF THE HEARING TODAY FORGOT
GONNA HAVE EVIDENCE IF YOU GET
THE CONFIRMATION OF THE MARKUP
ITSELF. EVEN YOUR MOST HEATED
DEBATE ON GETTING RID OF THIS
PRESIDENT DOESN'T SHOW ANY WAY
THAT CAN BE FAIR AND IN THE END
BOTH PARTIES ARE IN THE
MINORITY. IF YOU DESTROY THE
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY WHICH
AGAIN IN THE STAFF HAVE TALKED
ABOUT WE DESTROY THIS THERE IS
NOTHING ELSE FOR US TO DO BUT
WELL WE WERE HERE THERE WAS
SOMETHING THAT DID HAPPEN AND
AS WE WERE SITTING HERE
DISCUSSING WHETHER TO ENCOURAGE
THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALL HE
HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TO
LOOK AT HOW IT HAPPENED IN 2016
DEMOCRATS ARE SEEKING TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OVER THAT
AND WE ARE SEEING THAT PROBLEMS
WITH THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION
PLAY OUT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES.
IT'S THE SAME PLAYBOOK, A
SELECT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS
CONCLUDING AGAINST TRUMP, THEY
ARE BLOWING THROUGH EVERY
PROCEDURE TO ENSURE THEY GET
HIM IN TIME. SO WHAT HAPPENED
TODAY WHILE WE WERE STUCK HERE
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS.
OTHER ASPECTS OF THE
INVESTIGATION, HURRICANE
ADMINISTRATION HERE SOME OF THE
TOP FINDINGS THE FBI INCLUDED
INACCURATE INFORMATION, THE FBI
FAILED TO INCLUDE AN
INFORMATION IN THE FISA, THE
FBI DID NOT COOPERATE A HUGE
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. THE FBI
SHOWS TWO ON BRIEF CANDIDATE
CLINTON NOT TRUMP. AND DISCLOSE
INFORMATION THAT WAS GOING
DIRECTLY TO THE CLINTON
CAMPAIGN. THE FBI ATTORNEY ON
ALTERED AND OTHER AGENCIES
EMAIL TO MISS LEAGUE ABOUT
WHETHER THEY CARTER PAGE HAD
BANANA INTELLIGENCE ORDERS. THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IT SHOULD
NEVER HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, IF
YOU DON'T HAVE THIS THAN YOU
DON'T HAVE A RUSSIAN
INVESTIGATION, IF YOU DON'T
HAVE A RUSSIA INVESTIGATION YOU
CAN'T KNOCK OUT THE PRESIDENT
AND YOU CAN'T HAMSTRING THE
PRESIDENT'S FIRST TWO YEARS
WHERE THERE IS SPECIAL COUNSEL
INVESTIGATION. I COULD GO ON
FROM MR. TRUMP WHO HAS WAITED
AS THE NEXT BATCH OF THIS AND
WE WILL SEE WHERE IT GOES. I DO
WANT TO TAKE ONE LAST THING
FROM OUR SIDE BECAUSE THIS
UNDOUBTEDLY WILL BE THE LAST
HEARING BECAUSE WE HAVE NO
DESIRE TO HEAR ANYTHING FROM
OUR SIDE, MINORITY HEARING OR
OTHERWISE. I WANT TO TAKE THE
TIME TO THINK MR. CASTOR THE
TOP INVESTIGATORS AND THEY
COMBINED HAVE 15 TO 20 YEARS
EXPERIENCE IN THE HOUSE
CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS TO
PROTECT THE AMERICAN INTERESTS,
WHAT THESE PUBLIC SERVICE FANS
DON'T USUALLY DO IS GET
QUESTIONS FROM OTHERS WHO COME
BEFORE THEM, MISCAST AND
CAROLINE USUALLY ALONGSIDE
MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS, I'M
SORRY TODAY THAT THE MAJORITY
CHOSE TO HIGHLIGHT THEIR
INVESTIGATORS AND ALSO THE ONES
THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN OVER
THESE PUBLIC SERVANTS, I'M
SORRY TO CHOOSE THIS BUT IT'S
WHERE WERE OUT AND I WANT TO
THANK THEM FOR THEIR WORK TODAY,
I'D LIKE TO THANK THEM FOR
THEIR WORK ON OUR BEHALF BUT
ALSO THE ONES LISTENING HERE IF
YOU LOOK AROUND THE ROOM THIS
IS WHAT HAPPENING TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT THE END OF
THE DAY MOST OF THE ONES IN THE
MEMBERS OF THE MEETING ARE
BEGGING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY
ONE THING THAT KEEPS BEING SAID
FROM MR. GOLDMAN AND OTHERS IS
THESE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED THE
VERY NATURE OF THE FACT THAT I
SAY I DISAGREE AND USE IT YOU
DON'T IS A DISPUTED FACT, THESE
ARE DISPUTED FACTS AND WILL BE
THE FIRST IMPEACHMENTS THAT IS
PARTISAN AND FACTS ARE NOT
AGREE TO, THAT IS A STATE IN
WHICH THE HISTORY AS WE GO, WE
HAVE THE COVER RUBBERSTAMP JUST
AS THE CHAIRMAN PREDICTED
ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO WHEN WE
WILLINGLY EXCEPT FROM SOMEONE
ELSE A PROJECT A REPORT THAT WE
DON'T INVESTIGATE OURSELVES,
WITH THAT, THAT IS THE PROBLEM
WE HAVE AND THAT IS CALLED THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT
SCAM TODAY, YOU GO BACK.
>> AND NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
>> AFTER HEARING THE REPORTS IN
THE EVIDENCE TODAY WE NOW KNOW
SEVERAL THINGS WITH CERTAINTY.
WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
AT THE CENTER OF A SCHEME TO
PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVALS.
HE APPLIED THAT PRESSURE BY
WITHHOLDING BOTH THE WHITE
HOUSE MEETING AND VITAL
MILITARY AID, HE MADE THAT
DEMAND DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AND CONFIRMED HIS
PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT, WE KNOW
THAT THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR
THIS CONDUCT, IT IS NO EXCUSE
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP EVENTUALLY
RELEASED THE AID AFTER HIS
SCHEME WAS REVEALED TO THE
PUBLIC AND IT'S NO EXCUSE THAT
HE INSISTED THAT THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO ONLY AFTER HIS
SCHEME WAS REVEALED TO THE
PUBLIC, WE KNOW THAT HIS
ACTIONS ENDANGERED NATIONAL
SECURITY INCLUDING OUR
REPUTATION OUR SAFETY AT RISK
IN. WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT
ALSO COMPROMISED THE INTEGRITY
OF OUR ELECTIONS FOR CORRUPT
PRIVATE POLITICAL PURPOSE WE
KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A
PRESIDENT ACTIVE OBSTRUCTION
QUOTED EVERYONE IN THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DIVIDE ALL
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS FOR
DOCUMENTS AND SUBPOENAS RELATED
TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WE
KNOW THAT HIS ATTEMPTS TO
SOLICIT A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM
THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE FIT A
PATTERN OF CONDUCT THAT THE
PRESIDENT ESTABLISHED IN 2016
WHEN HE SOLICITED POLITICAL
ASSISTANCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT
OF RUSSIA. THAT PATTERN OF
MISCONDUCT UNDERMINES OR
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
UNDERMINES FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS. ABUSING HIS OFFICE
IN THIS MANNER AND IN
OBSTRUCTION THE INVESTIGATION
THAT FOLLOWED WE KNOW THE
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PUT HIMSELF
BEFORE HIS COUNTRY. I AM STRUCK
BY THE FACT THAT MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES HAVE OFFERED NO
SERIOUS SCRUTINY OF THE
EVIDENCE AND HAND. THEY'VE
TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE
BUT THEY HAVE OFFERED NO ONE
SUBSTANTIVE WORD IN THE
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE. I SUSPECT
THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO
REAL DEFENDS FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS, PRESIDENT
TRUMP PUT HIMSELF BEFORE HIS
COUNTRY. THERE IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY FOR A
PRESIDENT WHO NATIONAL SECURITY
IN OUR ELECTIONS, WHO PUTS HIS
OWN INTERESTS BEFORE THOSE OF
THE COUNTRY, THAT REMEDY IS
IMPEACHMENT. THE FACTS ARE
CLEAR, THE DANGER TO OUR
DEMOCRACY IS CLEAR, OUR DUTY IS
CLEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATED
HIS OATH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
HE PLACED HIS OWN PRIVATE
INTERESTS AHEAD OF OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF
OUR ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTES A
CONTINUING THREAT TO THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS INTO
OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT. SUCH CONDUCT IS
CLEARLY IMPEACHABLE, THIS
COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED
ACCORDING. THIS CONCLUDES
TODAY'S HEARING AND WE THANK
ALL OF OUR PRISONERS FROM
PARTICIPATING, WITHOUT
OBJECTIONS THEY HAVE FIVE DAYS
TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS ORIGINAL
INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD,
WITHOUT OBJECTION HEARING IS
ADJOURNED.
 WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP OUR
PHONES FOR YOUR THOUGHTS, WHAT
YOU HEAR ABOUT THE WITNESSES,
THE TESTIMONY, FOR REPUBLICANS
USE -- DEMOCRATS USE --. WE DO
NOT SCREEN THE PHONE CALLS AND
WILL GET YOUR CALLS MOMENTARILY
AND I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW
THAT WE ARE KEEPING OUR EYE OUT
ON THE CAMERAS OUTSIDE, THE
MICROPHONES OUTSIDE THE HEARING
ROOM AS MEMBERS COME TO MAKE
COMMENTS TO REPORTERS, AND WE
WILL LISTEN AND, WE WILL LISTEN
FIRST TO JASON IN ILLINOIS,
REPUBLICAN LINE.
>> TODAY HAS BEEN A VERY
EXHAUSTING DAY OF LISTENING TO
THE BACK AND FORTH GOING OVER
THE SAME TALKING POINTS. BOTH
DEMOCRAT TALKING POINTS,
REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS BUT
WHERE WAS ADAM SCHIFF, WHY WAS
IN ADAM SCHIFF THERE AND WHY
DID HE HAVE COUNSEL TO THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE GO
AND ANSWER FOR THE
INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WAS IN
CHARGE OF, JUST MORE EVIDENCE
THAT THIS IS JUST A KANGAROO
COURT AND THAT IT'S PURELY
PARTISAN
