tv Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Hearing on Evidence in Impeachment... CSPAN December 9, 2019 12:14pm-2:01pm EST
narcan to save the patient's life. this marked the fifth life saved by celine county sheriff's deputies successfully using field.in the i'd like to extend my congratulations to rochelle tewart, the celine county sheriff's office for saving lives and continuing the hard work of protecting and serving arkansas. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. tempore: the o gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house until 2:00 p.m. tmbassy 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. obama so 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. a 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 questi 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 menti 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 credible ility 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 will tlot of talk abo biden's son. that biden stopped the prosecution. >> point of order ch he's entitled to answer question ful 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 ukrainian 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 say iing 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 now 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 talk ed about lieutenant colonel vindman, a highly decorated purple heart recipient and work ed 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 work ed 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 slzelensky. 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 complained that he can't see
what the questioner is relying on and would like to see it and -- >> that is not a recognizable 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 recognizable 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 firofficial u 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 intend ed to ak
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 veinvestiga n investigatio 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 ve investigatio 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 -- sx >> 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. >> concern ed 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 xhexamine 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 coroperated 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? >>iz ize eisenberg may have bee the come with agency council. he's the chief legal adviser for ambassador bolton. >> so he was direct ed not to come, correct? >> um, he may have been able to come with agency council, but his testimony presented compl complexitie 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 invo 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 help fful 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 ukrainians 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 per spspective julian area 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 agencies 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 approve ed 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 engaging 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. show iing awareness that this h 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 crede bable thible than so 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 hear iing is here and why e 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. goldmab n is her 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 c 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 get iting the billion dolla 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 bit krrch, 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
issue d 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 sub ppoenas. 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 credorrect? >> 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
>> he doesn't want to invite zelensky to the white house. and the president, volker testified to this. the president esectionly -- doesn't order anybody to do anything. the president says talk -- volcker testified both at his deposition and at the public hearing that he didn't take it at a direction. look, if you guys think this is important and you want to work it, just go talk to rudy. very different than a direction. very ditch than the president ordering a scheme.
-- very different than the president ordering a scheme. it's very different from the president sort of collecting a bunch of agents to go do something. he simply according to ambassador volcker, go talk to rudy. state department witnesses testified about light query they had perceived. there was a article november 22 in bloomberg and the zelensky administration said they never knew about the hold in the aidlele until august 28 "politico" article. they said in the article, yarmack says they believe the
embassy was keeping information from them. another interesting thing he says in that november 22 oomberg article is thatle he recounts the meeting with sondland, which has become very significant, apparently, and the meeting he says it he doesn't recall it the way ambassador sondland recallered it. mr. yarmack speaks english. but it's not his first language. and he does not recall the meeting, which happened on the way to an escalator. >> you can continue watching the impeachment hearing live on our companion network c-span3. on our website c-span.org. and listen live on the c-span radio app. we are leaving now to go to the u.s. house. c-span has a 40 - year commitment to televising gavel to gavel coverage at the house. they'll work on several homeland security and science measures
today. live now to the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. today's prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your blessing in these days to come. you know well the contentiousness of this session. look into the hearts of all the members of this people's house to discern the goodwill within. may the goodwill you find be rewarded with your grace. may any contrary spirit be ban issued. in the days that come, help each member to understand well and interpret positively as they are able positions of those w