tv CNN Right Now With Brianna Keilar CNN December 9, 2019 10:00am-11:00am PST
campaign. >> he did not do that. >> and if he abused his power, most likely he would tell president zelensky that he was asking to help his presidential prospects? >> you would never engage in conduct nor explicitly say, in this case, president zelensky, i'm going to bribe you now, or i'm going to ask you for a bribe, or i'm now going to extort you. this is not the way these things work. >> getting back to you, we talked about hunter biden. hunter biden had been on the board of burisma going back to 2014, correct? >> yes. >> president trump supported ukraine with aid and otherwise in both 2017 and 2018, correct? >> president trump has done a lot for ukraine. >> yes. but sir, isn't it correct that
president trump did not raise anything about hunter bid skpn his 2017 or 2018. he donnell thiidn't raise any o issues in 2017 or 2018? >> i don't know that he did or he didn't. that's not something we looked at. >> you have no evidence that he did, do you? >> no, but i have no efvidence e did not. this video is pretty remarkable. >> you talked about lieutenant colonel vindman who is 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 listening to it, correct? >> he was. >> let's look at his reaction.
he said, i immediately went to john eisen beberg, the lead leg 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, yes or no? that was his testimony. yes? >> yes. >> yes. let me ask you this, sir. you had said that the intelligence committee majority report that mr. goldman had talked about, you said it presents as if things are clear but they're not clear. is that what you said, sir? >> that's annual -- correct. >> is it important to be fair to witnesses? >> of course. >> is it important to be fair to the american people to accurately report what they
said? >> of course. >> let me ask you about jennifer williams. she was special adviser to vice president pence on europe and russia affairs, is that correct? >> yes. >> she worked for vice president pence, correct? >> correct. and you said in your opening statement that these accusations that president trump was trying to do something for a political purpose, that was made by people who had predetermined motives for impeachment, isn't that correct? >> some of them, but i also indicated that the wntitnesses the impeachment inquiry, i think, have revised their views after the call transcript came out and the whistleblower complaint was released. >> are you calling vice president's special adviser a liar, sir? >> no, i'm not saying that. >> are you saying she was predetermined to impeachment.
>> the interesting thing about jennifer williams' testimony, she did not mention anything to the vice president's office when the vice president was meeting with zelensky, she didn't even raise it as a potential issue that might catch the vice president off guard. so her concern that she articulated during the course of the deposition and during the course of the hearing was incongruent with the facts and what she did during times relevant. >> mr. castor, lighet's look at your report. you wrote in the report about ms. williams. if we could put up slide 6, 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. >> nobody in america knew about jennifer williams' concerns
until she balked in twalked in r her deposition. >> when you said she described the call as unusual, that's not all she said, was it? >> she said it was unusual. >> that's not all she said, was it? >> okay. she was here for nine hours in the bunker, so she said a lot about the call. >> can we put the slide up better, because we can't see. >> i'm happy to read it. jennifer bill yawilliams testif that, quote, although she found the call to be unusual, 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. >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. the gentleman from florida has complained that he cannot see what the questioner is relying
on and would like to see it. >> that was not recognized as a point of order and it was read to him. >> only half of it was read to him. now, 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 do. let's slow down so we can see or hear what he is referring to. and you're not letting that happen. and that goes to the privileges of the members that you are asking to sit in this meeting and to vote. >> the gentleman will suspend the -- >> mr. chairman, i can see now. i appreciate the accommodation. the monitor is turned. now i can see. >> the gentleman will resume. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
in here it says unusual. >> but is doesn't say anything more. >> no, it says unusual. she said it was inappropriate. >> okay. >> in your testimony you left out the inappropriate part. >> she didn't raise the concerns to lieutenant kellogg. >> were you as fair to the american people in describing what ms. williams said as you were in describing everything else in your report? >> i don't have an issue with the way we described ms. williams' testimony. >> let's look at what else ms. williams said. can we put up slide 8? this is from ms. williams' public testimony at 34. she said, quote, i thought that the references to specific individuals in investigations such as former vice president biden and his son struck me as
political in nature, given that former vice president is a witness. did you leave that out of your report, yes or no? >> if you tell me that i did, yes or no, i can't tell you as i'm sitting here right now. >> i'm telling you that you did. >> okay. >> do you have an explanation, sir, where you said ms. 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 that she recognized was a political o'froent the-- affront to the
testimony. >> so you believe it was entirely appropriate that she found the call unusual, but instead she found that it was unusual and politically inappropria inappropriate, her discussion with president zelensky. >> she thought it was unusual. >> he's badgering the witness. >> the gentleman will continue. >> sir, 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 mr. -- >> that is not a recognizable motion. it does not call for a ruling and the time belongs to the gentleman. >> the committee is not in order and the chair is not in order.
>> that is not a point of order. >> would you rule on my original point of order? >> the original point of order was not recognizable and is not a ruling. ly. >> r -- i will say that sharp cross examination of a witness is not badgering the witness. the gentleman will state a 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 we're able to make? >> that is not a point of order. >> it is a point of order. >> it is not a point of order. the gentleman will continue. the gentleman will continue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. castor, you just invoked tim
morrison. let me put up slide 9 of mr. morrison's testimony on page 38 of his testimony. mr. morrison said, or the question was, question by mr. goldman: you heard the call, you recognized that president trump was not discussing the talking points that the nsc had 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 immediately to the nsc legal adviser. is that the correcting. before i ask you plrks droos. earlier in the presentation we showed the testimony of what president trump is trying to do which is running a domestic political errand.
is that what you said in your testimony? >> yes, it was about two specific investigations that president trump did ask president zelensky to do of the 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 time there was a reference to investigations, it referenced the biden investigation and the 2016 election investigation. and, in fact, ambassador volker actually said whenever he was using the term corruption, what he meant was those specific to investigations. >> and what was the significance to you that mr. morrison, who mr. castor himself has relied on and invoked twice today, where he said he understood these were the investigations that fiona hill had warned him about, 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
transition meetings, dr. hill told tim morrison about what she believed to be this irregular channel that ambassador sondland was operating where they were pushing for u kpran to do these investigations. d that was a domestic political errand and what she was working on and the council was working on was foreign policy, and those are two entirely separate things. >> was she expressing the view that president trump had chosen his own personal, political interests over the foreign policy positions that ms. hill was trying to pursue? >> at the time she said that to tim morrison, she was not aware of whether president trump had actually endorsed these investigations, but she 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 exactly what
he was referring to. >> and what is two and two? >> two and two is four. >> what about in these instances, sir? >> it was the only reason to explain why security assistance was being held from ukraine. based on all the various factors and their direct involvement in issues related to ukraine, they dhaktd and an initiation of the two investigations that are referenced here. >> i have to clear a couple things up here, if i may. first of all, morrison didn't think the call -- >> sir, there is no question. >> the gentleman has the time, not the witness. zpz s zpz. >> sir, you said -- the clock
will stop if he's interrupted. >> mr. berke is able to cross examine the witness. it's a point of inquiry. >> you don't interrupt either one of them, mr. chairman. bang it harder, it still doesn't mean you're doing it right. z >> the gentleman will continue. >> sir, i believe it was your testimony that the democrats were able to block info when they should be seeking information -- >> oh, my goodness, that is absolutely right. >> and you said the trump administration has cooperated and facilitated oversight investigations. is that right, sir? >> absolutely. the trump administration has participated in oversight the entire time until it got to the impeachment inquiry. >> so let me ask about this call, sir. robert blair who was on this call, the trump administration, the president directed him not to appear and give testimony, is that right? >> i'm just asking, is he
allowed to come under the terms set by the house intelligence committee, correct? >> i think he would have come with agency counsel. >> the trump directed him nadmi directed him not to come, correct? >> it's really expensive to hire these outside lawyers. >> but he was directed not to come, the lawyer who lieutenant colonel vindman went to, correct? >> eisenberg may have been able to come with agency counsel, but he's the chief legal adviser for. >> he may have been able to come with agency counsel but his testimony doesn't reflect.
>> was the president requesting an investigation into joe biden? >> i don't think the president was asking for an investigation into joe biden. it was just a comment. >> is that a no, it was not u.s. policy to investigate joe biden? >> you're indicating that it became u.s. policy to investigate joe biden, and i don't think that's the case. >> let me show you slide 10 of lieutenant colonel vindman. he was asked, are you aware of any written product suggesting that in the 2016 election, the bidens, or burisma are part of the official policy of the united states? he said, no, i am not. now let's go to slide 11.
mr. morrison was asked by our own congressman swalwell who was also on the intelligence committee and said -- i'm going to pick up in the middle of that long question. it said, 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 ukranians? mr. morrison said, sir, i did not understand it as a policy objective. mr. goldman, 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 that was in his prepared remarks was the anti-corruption platform of president zelensky that he ran and won on, correct? >> yes, the witness has testified that that is a consistent and persistent policy objective for the united states.
>> did president trump mention corruption once in his call with president zelensky? >> no, he did not. >> did he mention looking into anything other than the two investigations that were politically helpful to him, the 2016 election investigation and the investigation of his political rival, former vice president joe biden? >> no, he did not. >> may i add something there? >> no, you may not. >> are you going to let him answer? >> no. no! >> the time is the questioner's and he can ask the questions any way he wants. when you ask questions, you will be able to. >> in fairness here, president trump talks about very bad people. >> mr. castor, let me finish. let me ask you this, sir. sir, there were two lawyers mentioned on the call, mr. --
we've heard testimony already. mr. trump said to president zelensky that he should speak to two people, his personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, and the attorney general barr, correct? >> yep. >> immediately after this call memorandum was released, isn't it the case that attorney general barr and the department of justice issued a statement about his role in all this? >>. >> he did. >> let's put up the statement. slide 13, please. t from the department of justice. the president has not spoken with the attorney general about having ukraine investigate anything related to former vice president biden or his son. the president has not 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. mr. goldman, is it fair to say
that the attorney general did not want anything to do with these investigations that president trump had raised with president zelensky on the call? >> whether the attorney general wanted anything to do with it or not, the attorney general said he had nothing to do with ukraine and that there were no ongoing investigations at the time of this call and in august. 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 ukranians and they determined there was no formal ongoing investigation nor any formal request 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 and then for several months after, including, apparently, three days ago. >> and sir, mr. castor, you would agree you wrote in your report that the ukranians themselves knew that rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, was a conduit to convince president trump tan president zelensky, correct? >> rudy had the president's ear. >> and he was a conduit. let me put up slide 14, if i
may. we actually have your report here. it says the ukranians knew that he, meaning rudy giuliani, was a con git to convince president trump that president zelensky was serious about reform. >> yeah. >> and during the call, president trump asked president zelensky to speak directly to his personal lawyer about ukranian matters that president trump was interested in, correct? >> he referred him to rudy, yeah. >> yes. and, in fact, president zelensky said, oh, we already knew that and he's been in touch with my aides, correct? >> president zelensky is the one who first brings up giuliani in the call. >> right, because they knew rudy giuliani made the president happy, and if they made giuliani happy, they would make the president happy, correct? >> he said he was practically fuelling the president's views,
so they had -- there was some discussions about, hey, if you can convince rudy that president zelensky is a true reformer, the real deal, that that would be a beneficial link. >> so you agree that rudy giuliani, before the july 25th call and after, was pushing the ukranians to investigate former vice president biden, correct? >> he gave a pretty good account of his meeting in july 19th. >> if we can put up slide 16, the "new york times" one you referred to. this is dated july 19, 2019 before the call. mr. jewel july sagiuliani says
travel to kyiv in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation's president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries about two matters of intense interest to mr. trump. one is the origin of the special counsel's investigation into russia's interference, and the other is the involvement of former vice president joseph r. biden and his son. >> can we talk about the breakfast with volker? >> not yet. if we can continue to slide 17. this is the same article. and mr. giuliani was very explicit when he was interviewed. and he said, this isn't foreign policy. i'm quoting with the words that are highlighted. he says, he will be very, very helpful to my client. my only client is the president of the united states.
he's the only one i have an obligation to report to, tell him what happened. and let's go to slide 18. this is from real clear politics, and it should be on the screen in front of you as well. what mr. giuliani said about the ukraine, he said, it's a big story. it's a dramatic, and i guarantee you joe biden will not get to election day without this being vefd. collaterals to what i was doing. you agree that election day refers to the 2020 election where president trump will be running for reelection, correct? >> i guess you're right. >> so that was my only question to you. you'll have a chance to answer questions to minority counsel. now, president trump, let me show you slide 19 -- >> we're going to sidestep the volker meeting on july 19? >> you'll have a chance to fwauk that when minority counsel questions you. let's go to slide 19, please.
the president says he's being interviewed now the same day by "politico" and he's asked by mr. giuliani, he's leaving soon, i think, in the next couple days. mr. trump says, i see. well, i will speak to him about it before he leaves. he continued his pressure on president 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 ukraine still silent on the investigation of ukranian interference in the 2016 election and alleged bribery by the president. and sir, as you said, the ukranians knew mr. giuliani had the ear of his client, frumpl. is that correct, sir, yes or no?
>> rudy giuliani was doing things out here and then he became involved with the official channel, with volker, with sondland. at that meeting on july 19th, volker counseled against the perspective rudy giuliani was taking. >> 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 take a moment to respond to mr. castor -- >> please do. >> -- because in that july 19th meeting between ambassador volker and rudy giuliani, volker told mr. giuliani that the accusations were just wrong. mr. giuliani said that 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 him to contact mr. giuliani. so that meeting is actually quite important to that investigation. >> and sir, you already explained that on may 23rd, the offici only thing they said was talk to rudy. he was taking his official people of ukraine and handing them over to rudy giuliani so they could work with him on issues he was focused on in reference to the tweet. is that fair? >> i agree that's what that shows, that the july 23rd meeting he put ukraine matters with ambassador sondland and perry and told them to meet with rudy. in the next few months, that's what happened at the president's
direction. >> let me show you slide 22, if i may. you understood the ukranians recognized how important rudy giuliani was and organized him in order to stay together. >> they continued it through their own communication channels because giuliani had backchannels to getting to the ukraine officials. ambassador volker told the ukranians as well that there was this, quote, giuliani factor, that he told to president zelensky that there was this giuliani factor they needed to deal with in terms of the president. >> in fact, this is the senior aide to president zelensky saying to ambassador volker on august 13, which is obviously after the july 25th call, thank you for meeting and your clear
and very logical position. will be great to meet with you before my departure and discuss. i feel that the key far many things is rudy and i ready to talk with him at any time. please, let me know when you can meet. audrey. >> i don't mean to be a stickler, but i believe this text was actually july 10th. what it is saying is, mr. yermak, after having spoken to mr. volker the week before and learning the importance of rudy giuliani requested ambassador volker to set up a meeting with mr. giuliani. that then proceeded to this july 19th breakfast that mr. castor set and then a july 22nd phone call and ultimately they met in madrid on august 2nd. >> we will stand corrected. thank you. and i will take that and ask that the record reflect that, that is the correct date. in either case, rudy was key whenever it was said, correct?
>> certainly. >> now, let me ask, sir, let me put up slide 24. did there come a time that mick mulvaney ordered this a meeting be held, correct? >> yes. >> george kent said, there was great confusion among it is rest of us because we didn't understand why that had happened since there was unanimity that this aid was in our national interest, it just surprised all of us. and david holmes said, and then you had the additional hold of the security atsz answer with no explanation whatsoever, and we still don't have an explanation of why that happened or in the way that it happened, and miss
croft said, the only reason given was that this order came on the the drekof the direction president. was there an order given? >> yes, to the national security council, literally every one of the agencies that believed that the aid was vital and had already been approved and should be released immediately. >> in the minority staff report and in mr. castor's testimony earlier, he said the u.s. did not convey the policy of the ukranians. that wasn't correct, was it? didn't mr. sondland convey that, according to mr. sondland's testimony? >> mr. sondland conveyed that the release of the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations. >> if we could put up slide
26 -- >> he presumed that, he said. >> we'll put up the slide. president trump's ambassador to the european union that he swore to under penalties of perjury. and he says, if we read the highlighted, which is also in front of you, i now recall speaking individualy to mr. ye plrks aq -- the presumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the anti-corruption statement we've been discussing for many weeks. is that correct, sir? >> yes, he said that in a meeting on september 1st with mr. yermak in warsaw. >> let me put up a slide that we put together, slide 27. do you recall, sir, that in the draft statement that the ukranians were going to have president zelensky give so they could dai-- was that statement
their minds so they could get a white house meeting and satisfy president trump with the aid released? >> yes, ambassador sondland testified to that and ambassador volker also testified to that. >> am i correct that mr. yermak gave a statement where he did not make any reference to vice president biden, correct? >> correct. >> was that rudy giuliani who said it had to include a reference that they were going to investigate burisma in the 2020 election? >> that's correct. >> did all of your witnesses have an understanding of what burisma meant? >> every single witness said, after reading the phone call, but they were one and the same. there was only two witnesses who said they did not know that untilly that time. there was a lot of people that indicated it was completely unrealistic and unlikely that anyone who had anything to do with ukraine would not know that the burisma investigation
related to the bidens. >> and is that how mr. giuliani publicly referred to it often, is burisma and vice president biden, correct? >> yes. >> did the ukranians complain repeatedly that they didn't want to be a pawn in u.s. democratic politics by helping mr. trump's campaign by making such a statement. >> they said that in july. in august they didn't give a statement in large part because they had resolutions about engaging in u.s. domestic politics. >> i want to go back to you, mr. castor. you said that when president trump said to ambassador sondland on september 17th that he had no quid pro quo, you said he had no reason -- >> september 9th. >> -- september 9th, you said he had no reason to be any less than candid. that's what you said. no reason to be anything less than candid. let me show you, sir, what happened, though, on 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 2020 elections and goes on to describe some of those efforts. and, sir, let me show you whether president trump 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. now, and again, this is -- he is putting out a tweet that is essentially saying the democrats -- he followed up the article that they are pursuing impeachment. again, showing awareness that this has now been reported on. so, mr. goldman, is it fair to say what mr. castor said, that
president trump had no reason to be anything less than candid about saying no quid pro quo? >> no, i think president trump had every 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 far more credible flthan mr. sondland who had to amend his testimony, he said no quid pro quo out of the blue without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the chair now recognizes the ranking members for his first round of questions. pursuant to house resolution 660, the house or his counsel have 45 minutes to question the witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it has become evident why this hearing is here and the
craziness of this hearing, especially not having mr. schiff here. please put back up that last slide. i have no idea what number it is. >> 53. >> 53. did we cut it off after they got food? i think it's just the most amazing statement came out. he said he thought the democrats were concerned about impeachment. there is nothing the democrats have not been concerned about for two and a half years, since november 2016. the president is saying nothing new in that tweet. he's known they've been after impeachment. that's why mr. goldman is here, that's why mr. berke is here. that's why we're going through staff, asking staff questions, and then we start asking staff and getting into an argument.
it's his report. mr. goldman, you're a great attorney but you don't wear a pen. >> that's true. >> we have a problem here. you're a very good prosecutor, i believe t. i've read your bio. you're a good attorney. you understand what quid pro quo is, correct? >> i do. >> you knew all about the conversation with mr. biden who said i'm not going to give you the million dollars. >> are you talking about in 2015? >> no, i'm talking about the one from the national -- i'll read it to you. as i remember, going to ukraine, our leaders are convincing them we should provide for long guarantees. i went over the twelfth or 13th's time that they would take action against the state prosecutor.
they didn't. so they said they had. they were walking out of a press conference. they said, we're not going to give you the billion dollars f. many i said, call him. laughter. he said, you're not getting the billion dollars. i looked at them and said, i'm leaving here in six hours. if the prosecutor isn't fired, you're not getting the money. well, son of a bitch, he got fired. did he request something or hold something of value? >> he did. george can't testify that -- >> i'm not asking about george kent, i'm asking about this -- >> it's important -- >> it's not. either joe biden is a liar telling people to make them impressed or he actually did this. which is it? >> he did it pursuant to u.s. official policy. >> he did it by withholding
actual dollars,. he's the only one using a billion dollars for the federal government. we're sitting here pretending a president right now wouldn't be concerned? he can destroy himself on the campaign trail but he can't get by this. it doesn't matter who brings it up, it doesn't matter who does it, because this is what happened. you can whitewash it all you want, you can go over it any way you want. he's either a liar or he did it, and he did it. i want to continue on. the question is a question you had earlier. you rely on how many -- approximately how many times do you rely on gordon sondland's testimony in your report? >> it's nearly a 300-page report. it would be impossible to count. >> would you be able to say 600 times or better? >> i would -- >> you have no idea or not? >> i have no idea. >> you did.
it's over 600 times. would you also understand if you did a simple check of your report that over 158 times, mr. sondland said either not knowing something, to the best of my knowledge or i don't know. would that surprise you? >> are you talking about the report or his deposition. >> the deposition in closed door testimony. >> yes, and over time he remembered a lot more as he was refreshed by testimony. let's go to something else. we're going to continue this in just a moment. according to your report, we'll determine that to be the intelligence committee and the other investigation with the other two committees. we okay with that? >> certainly. >> issued dozens of subpoenas. is that right? >> some of their subpoenas were not publicly reported until this majority report, correct? >> most of the subpoenas were not -- >> answer the question.
mr. berke had so much free rein. either answer the question or elaborate, one or the other. >> sir, i'm trying to answer the question. >> did it come out or not? >> did what come out? >> i'll read it again. some of the subpoenas were not publicly reported until they reported this report, correct? >> yes, they were given to the minority but not the public. >> putting aside the witnesses who were publicly identified. did you issue any other subpoenas for testimony other than the ones publicly identified? >> i don't -- i'm not sure. i don't think so. >> thank you. >> but i'm not sure. >> how many subpoenas were 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 issued at least 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. we only issued subpoenas for call records for people who were involved in the investigation and who had already been subpoenaed by the committee for documents and testimony of their own. >> answer the question. four? >> i'm trying to answer your question. >> was it at least four? >> yes. >> thank you. could have saved a lot of time here. was there information released from at&t? we got a massive document dump over the weekend preparing for this hearing and the staff admitted they'll not be able to read it all, anyway. we're just simply going on the schiff report which was released
by at&t. how many reports released by at&t? >> i don't know. >> was it targeted with certain numbers? >> we received multiple numbers -- >> how many? >> this is very important, though. none of members of docongress, none of staff of congress, no journalis journalists. we only did it for -- >> who on the committee asked for the numbers you actually used in a subpoena, who asked for it to be cross checked for members of the -- >> you came out with a report
that showed nunes and others were actually on these calls. >> yes. >> now someone -- we're not going to play cute here -- someone took the four records you asked for, at least four, took those numbers and they said, hey, let's play match game. who ordered the match game for members of congress and the press? was it you? >> i don't think anyone did, sir. >> that's the most ridiculous item i've ever heard. you don't all of a sudden pick up nnz where you have to announce members of the press? who ordered to find out if nu s nunes' number was on that report? >> you look at the numbers and try to identify what those numbers are and then you start to build the circumstantial case. sdp >> at this point that's an excellent explanation but not an
answer to my question. i understand the subpoena you issued. my question -- was it you or was it chairman schiff that said while we're doing this, let's see if this matches chairman nunes' number, let's see if this matches pa member of the press number. who did it? was it chairman schiff or was it you? >> be careful, you're under oath. >> i know i'm under oath, sir. >> answer the question. >> i will answer the question if you'll give me a second here. it's not a simple answer. >> the same second that was not afforded my witness, by the way. who decided to leak it, the information? why did you include it in the report? after not saying anything. who ordered it? was it you or was it chairman
schiff, and why was it decided, except for nothing but smear purposes, to be included in this report? >> i'm not going to get into our deliberations of the report with you. the reason why it wasn't included in the kporreport, i d think your question is directed at me but the people involved in this scheme. >> you're as good as mr. berke. you're not playing that game. you're not answering the question. when you start going into the de dec decorum of the house, you start looking at member numbers, you found numbers that actually didn't exist because they claimed they were for the white house budget office and they were not, so we're throwing stories out there because nobody was out there, actually. i go fwook my question.
are you >> i am going to go on record and tell you i'm not going to reveal how we conducted this investigation. >> that's the whole problem. >> i'm going to tell you -- >> i'm done with you for right now. 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. mr. caster? >> i have some information on the subpoenas. >> let's go. >> we did receive copies of the subpoenas and we tracked this. there were six, as i understand it, and let me say at the outset. our members have concerns about this exercise for three reasons. you're -- the subpoenas yielded information about members of congress. whether they were subpoenaed the members phone records or not. it's a concern when the
information yields member of congress's phone records, and then the information is publicized. second is with journalists, it's generally a tricky area to start investigating journalist call records. and the third is with regard to mr. giuliani who was serving as the president's personal attorney. the first went to at anne t for the giuliani numbers. the second was in regard to igor froomen. to csc holdings. the third related to mr. sondland, that was off to verizon. the fourth was back to at&t. the fifth was back to at anne t. and the sixth was seeking subscriber information which impacted the veteran journalist john salmon, and also involved
with these are some of the attorneys involved -- >> can i ask you a question? >> you've been a veteran of the hill investigators for 15 years. this is crazy, i've never seen anything like this, you haven't either. would it be interesting to note, because mr. goldman chooses not to answer, because he doesn't want to incriminate himself or the chairman or anyone else. would it be interesting to you to find as you've dealt with committee staff for a long time, someone to have an epiphany, or were they understand direction by somebody to do that? >> they were trying to figure something out. >> that's it. one last -- i'm getting ready to try to -- i have one thing for mr. goldman. we're used to committees and people and witnesses taking gratuitous shots at people they don't like. earlier today in your testimony you made a comment that goes to an interesting thing, and i'll go back to the chairman questioning motives. in your testimony, you said, as you were discussing mr. sound
land, you made a snide comment, that he was a million dollar donor to the president. the implication being i either got his job because he bought it or he was loyal to the president. be careful how you throw around dollars and giving, you and mr. burke are heavy donors to the democratic party. i'm not going to say it questions your motive or your questions here today, we need to make sure -- this thing is already blown out of proportion. we're already not answering questions. you're here without a pen because your chairman will not testify. that says all we need to here. he doesn't stand behind his report so he sends you. >> can i respond? >> are you trying to say that i -- what are you trying to say? what is the implication here? by the way, i didn't give anywhere near $1 million. >> the point is, we want mr.
sondland in that chair, not you. >> the gentleman does not have the time, and can be warned before. you 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 were going to get by with it, and you didn't. that's all i'm saying. >> i would like to say one other thing. >> i am done. >> point of order -- >> i am done. stop, stop. >> you're casting aspersions. >> no, as you did, mr. goldman. >> point of order. >> now, according to the chairman's own ruling just a few minutes ago. i'm done asking questions and i'm not asking you to elaborate, because i'm not asking you any more questions. you won't answer the question on who told the committee to actually check these numbers. you won't say if it's you or mr. schiff. we're done, we're going to miss cowan. you'll have plenty of time with helpful council. >> does the gentleman yield his
time to miss cowan? >> yes. >> miss cowan if i may, so sorry. >> yes, certainly. i have a number of things i think i need to clear up. first of all on the call, tim morrison has a different view of the call than vin man and williams. going to the point that -- tim morrison testified he went back to the national security lawyers for a different reason. he did not say he went to the lawyers, because he was concerned about the call, he went to the national security lawyers for two reasons.
number two, he was concerned about leaks. i was concerned if this call played out. he was concerned if the call leaked it might affect bipartisan support in congress. issues have been one of the fewer issues where republicans and democrats share interest. he didn't want the ukrainians to get a distorted pesh exception of what he had on the call. we're talking about a lot of lines of concern and ambiguity.
this oval office meeting on may 23rd. i guess it's ambiguous. the delegation goes it's sondland, volker, perry and johnson. they're briefing the president and the president is having none of it. ukraine is concerned or corrupt. and he doesn't want to invite zelensky to the white house. and the president -- volker testifies to this 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. if you guys -- if you guys think this is important and you want to work it, just go talk to rudy. it's different than a direction,
it's different than the president ordering a scheme. and it's very different than the president collecting up a bunch of agents to do something. he simply, according to ambassador volker said go talk to rudy. whether the ukrainians knew of the aid pause -- the aid was paused for 55 days. whether they knew about it or not has been -- laura cooper from dod and some state department witnesses testified about light queries they had received. there was an article in bloomberg. the zelensky administration said they never knew about the hold on the aid until the politico article. they said in the article, and
yermak says they believe the embassy was keeping information from them. another interesting thing mr. yermak says in that article, is that he recounts, the meeting with sondland, which has become very significant apparently. the meeting, he says, mr. yermak speaks english. but it's not his first language. he does not recall the meeting which happened on the way to an escalator after the meeting with the vice president. he recalls it very differently, the question and the facts of what happened between ambassador sondland remain 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 on september 5th with senator murphy. and he wanted -- johnson wanted the aid released, he calls the president, he actually sought permission to be the bearer of good news. >> right. >> the president said, i'm not ready to lift the aid. and they had this -- senator johnson. he writes a ten page letter, very detailed. and he gives some remarkable deta detail. and i'd like to read it, it's on page 6. i add -- this is senator johnson speaking, i asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement where ukraine would take some action and the hold would be