tv Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Hearing on Evidence in Impeachment... CSPAN December 15, 2019 12:04pm-2:02pm EST
that the president used his office for personal gain? >> yes. fact, president trump use the power of the office of the president to apply increasing pressure on the president of ukraine and ukrainian government , and that the evidence also prove that president trump withheld military aid in a change for an announcement of an investigation into his political opponent? >> yes. >> president trump, acting through his subordinates, condition to release of military assistance to ukraine on the president of ukraine's public announcement of the investigation that president trump sought. did the evidence demonstrated that president trump undermined the national security interests of the united states? >> yes. in several ways. directing and orchestrating the scheme to advance his political interests,
president trump did not implement, promote, u.s. anticorruption policies. in fact, be president sought to pressure the government of ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations, lacking legitimate predication that the u.s. government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy and around the world, in so doing, the president undermined u.s. policy supporting anticorruption reform and the rule of law in ukraine at undermined u.s. national security. the evidence also show that president trump copper mice the national security of the united states? >> yes. >> fact seven says, by withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a foreign partner government engaged in a military conflict instigated by russia, president trump, mike national security to advance his political interests. did the evidence prove that president trump engaged in a
scheme to cover up his conduct and obstruct congressional investigations? >> yes. from the outset. >> act nine says, using the power of the office of the president in exercising his authority over the executive branch, president trump ordered a campaign to conceal his conduct to the public and frustrate and up -- obstruct the impeachment inquiry. finally, the scholars from our hearing last week testified that the president conduct toward ukraine and patterns of inviting interference was a continuing risk to our free and fair elections. does the evidence prove that president trump was a threat to our elections? mr. goldman: yes it did. rep. nadler: finding of fact eight says, faced with the revelation of his actions, president trump publicly and repeatedly urgent -- purged --
toed foreign governments investigate his flickr opponent. it presents a clear and present danger that the president will continue to use the power of his office for his political gain. counsel fory additional questioning. >> thank you. as an express investigator, would you agree that it is relevant to look at evidence bearing on the president's state of mind that my desk that might help to slain presence actions? [indiscernible] >> use your microphone please. is that a relevant thing to consider? it's relative to consider? would you agree joe biden was a leading democratic contender to face president trump in 2020?
>> i disagree. >> it is your testimony that president trump did not view joe biden to be a legitimate contender? mr. castor: it is too early. >> as part of your inquiry, did you determine whether present trump tweeted about joe biden between january and july 25? and how many times? mr. castor: i did not look at twitter. >> did you know president trump tweeted about joe biden over 25 times between january and july 25? mr. castor: i did not look at those tweets. >> did you look at how many times president trump mentioned joe biden in a speech or valley reading up to the july call? mr. castor: president trump go to a lot of rallies, he does a lot of tweeting. it is difficult to draw conclusions from his tweets or statements at rallies. the judgment is not recognized. >> what is that
>> the gentleman is not recognized. >> we will ignore the rules. ask thew witnesses to questions, how many other rules will you disregard? rep. nadler: the detriment will suspend. all the metairie inquiries are not in order. >> this is not appropriate to have a witness -- [indiscernible] >> it is just wrong. i made a point of order and you will not rule on it. rep. nadler: i have not heard a point of order. if the judgment has a point of order, he will state the point of order. >> there is no rule for anybody being a witness -- [indiscernible] of order is he is inappropriate to be asking questions. rep. nadler: that is not a point
of order. he is in -- fear in accordance to the rules. -- here in accordance of the rules. >> how much money do you have to give -- rep. nadler: the detriment will not catch aspersions. -- via gentleman it will not cast aspersions. mr. burke has the time. >> a point of order. rep. nadler: the judgment will state a point of order. >> this gentleman is presenting his opinions as a witness. he is supposed to present a material fact -- [indiscernible] >> not to appear for his opinions. is that right or not? rep. nadler: that is not a point of order. it is mr. burke's time. ruled, the gentleman has the time. >> point of order. rep. nadler: the judgment will state a point of order.
-- via gentleman will state a point of order. by rules.ate there is nothing in the rule permitting this, we go by president. it is unprecedented for someone to sit, who you described as a witness, to return to the bench -- rep. nadler: the gentleman has that is not a point of order. , the gentlemant has been designated by me to do this questioning, pursuant to part of the wills of the house. it is in accordance with the rules of the house. the gentleman's time it will resume. mr. burke. trump are aware president announced his candidacy for reelection in 2020 and announced the month before the july 25 call on june 21? mr. castor: ok. >> did you look at the injured
investigation as part of looking at president trump's intent on the job i-25 call? obviously: he is running for reelection. what does the date he announced his intent to run for reelection -- >> you knew joe biden had announced his intent in april? mr. castor: it has been related to me. i do not know when joe biden indicated he is going to run. ifyou would agree that ukraine announced a corruption investigation of joe biden, that would hurt his credibility as a candidate, would you agree? mr. castor: nobody -- >> would you agree? disagreer: i slightly with the premise of your question. >> [indiscernible] rep. nadler: the gentleman is not recognized. at the gentleman has the floor. >> i object to the question. rep. nadler: the question is in
order. the judgment will continue. gent -- the gentleman will continue. about eightlking ambiguous lines in a call transcript. forpresident was not asking a personal favor, he was speaking on behalf of the people -- american people. he said, i would like you to find out what happens with the whole situation in ukraine. i guess crowd strike, you have one of your wealthy people -- >> i'm not asking you to talk -- to read that. let's look at slide three. the reference to joe biden. on the july 25 call on page four, isn't it a fact that president trump and his call with president ellen ski said that he heard joe biden had stopped the prosecution of his
son? is that correct? it says the other thing, there is a lot of talk about joe biden's son, joe biden stopped the prosecution. >> point of order, he is entitled to answer the question fully. there is a video of the former vice president, i think that is what the president is referring to. the council on foreign relations. president wase audacious and how he described, he went over -- >> i am asking what it says on the transcript. is that what it says? mr. castor: it's as the other thing, there is talk about biden's son. >> and joe biden stopped the prosecution. say,so goes on to president trump asked president zelensky, if you can look into it, correct? those are the words?
mr. castor: that is what it says. askingident trump was ukrainian president zelensky to have the ukrainian officials look into vice president joe biden. correct? mr. castor: i do not think the record supports that. >> it does not say can you look into it? mr. castor: i do not think it supports that. i think it is ambiguous. >> mr. goldman, you are and explores prosecutor. asking president trump president zelensky to investigate his political rival, joe biden? mr. goldman: i do not think there is any other way to read the words on the page other than to conclude that. mr. castor, you made a point -- let me ask, as an end -- as an expert's investigator, when
someone has done something wonderful, that they state their intentions to do something wrong and corrupt? your experience as an investigator? in general. mr. castor: you are saying a schemer would talk about his scheme? >> would he admit he was doing something wrong to something -- to someone not in the scheme? mr. castor: no. >> you made a big point that donald trump on the call did not tell president zelensky that he wanted the investigation announced to help his 2020 election. mr. castor: he did not talk about 2020. >> it president trump was acting wrongfully, it was unlikely he was going to confess to president zelensky that he was asking for the investigation explicitly to help his 2020 election? , youoldman: my experience almost never have a defendant or someone engaging in misconduct who would ever explicitly say,
in this case residents a lenski, i am going to bribe you now, or i am going to ask for a bribe, or i am now going to extort you. that is not the way these things work. >> thank you. mr. castor, you said about hunter biden, hunter biden had been on the board of burisma going back to 2014, correct? mr. castor: yes. >> present some desk president -- president trump supported ukraine in 2019 -- 2017 and 2018. isn't it correct president trump did not raise anything about hunter biden and his father in 2017 or 2018? he only did it the year before his election in 2020 when both he and joe biden were leading candidates, isn't that true? mr. castor: i think what happened is the president saw this video of the former vice
president at a coalescing his might. >> please answer my question. he did not raise these questions in 2017 or 2018? mr. castor: that is not something that we have looked at. this video is pretty -- >> let me ask this. you talk about colonel vindman, a decorated purple heart recipient and worked in the trump administration, correct? mr. castor: yes sir. >> he had a reaction to the call. he was listening to it. let's look at his reaction. he said, i immediately went to the lead legal counsel, it is improper for the president to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and political opponent. that was his testimony correct? yes? mr. castor: yeah.
this, you said the intelligence committee are jordi up port -- majority report , it present as if things are clear but it is not clear. is that what you said? mr. castor: that is absolutely correct. >> you work personally on the minority report. correct? >> yes. >> was it important to be accurate in the reporting -- minority report? was it important to be there to witnesses about what they said? was important to be fair to the american people and accurately report what people said? mr. castor: of course. >> let me ask about jennifer williams. she was a special advisor to vice president pence on europe and russia affairs. she worked for vice president pence. you said in your opening statement that these accusations that president trump was trying to do something for political purposes, that was made by
people who had predetermined motors for impeachment. is that correct? mr. castor: some of them. i've also indicated some of the witnesses in the inquiry i think have revised their views after the call transcript came out and the whistleblower complaint was released. >> are you calling vice aesident pence is advisor is liar? are you saying she was predetermined to mp? mr. castor: the question about jennifer williams -- to never mentioned anything her supervisor, never mentioned anything to anybody in the vice presidents office in route to warsaw when the vice president would meet with president a lenski. it as anot raise potential issue that might catch the vice president off guard. the concern she articulated during the deposition and
with theas incongruent facts and what she did during times relevant. >> what you wrote in the report about miss williams. we could put up sly six please. -- slide six please. you made the same point you tried to make to discount her testimony, you said she testified that although she found the call unusual, she did not raise concerns to her supervisor. nobody in america to about jennifer williams' concerns until she walked into the door for her deposition. >> although she found the call unusual, that is not what she said about the call. she did not say it was just unusual. mr. castor: she said it was unusual. >> that is not all she said about it. mr. castor: she was here for nine hours so she said a lot about the call.
[indiscernible] rep. nadler: the gentleman will suspend, the gentleman has the time. testimony, williams although she found the call to be unusual, she did not raise concerns to her supervisor. isn't it a fact that ms. williams said more than that? >> i have a point of order. rep. nadler: the judgment will state's point of order. >> the judgment complained that he cannot see what the questioner is relying on at would like to see it. rep. nadler: that is not a point of order and it was read to him. >> only half of it was bad to him. bit so members a are able to fully see what is being put in support of what you are trying to do. we cannot do that without being
able to see or read it. let's slow down so that we can see or hear what he is referring to. you are not letting that happen. that goes to the privileges of the members that you are asking [indiscernible] rep. nadler: the gentleman will suspend. >> i can see now, i appreciate the accommodation. the monitor was turned, now we can see. rep. nadler: the gentleman will resume. says miss williams says she found it to be unusual and nothing more. let's look at slide seven. mr. castor: it does not say and nothing more. >> is a did fact that what miss williams says struck her as unusual and inappropriate? isn't that correct? that is what she said in her testimony. in your report, you left out the inappropriate party.
mr. castor: she thought it was unusual, she did not raise concerns. >> where you as fair to the american people in describing what miss williams said as you were in describing everything else in your report? mr. castor: i do not have an issue with the way we described miss williams testimony. >> let's look at what else miss williams said. let's put up slide eight. this is from her public testimony. she said, i thought the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former vice president struck me as political in nature. given that the former vice president is a political opponent of the president. you left that out of your staff report. ms. williams -- >> did you leave that out of the report? mr. castor: if you are telling me i did, i don't know as i sit here right now. >> i am telling you you did.
mr. castor: ok. >> do you have an explanation, you said miss blames set the call was unusual when in fact she said it was unusual and inappropriate and of a political there because it raised vice president, who she recognized was a political opponent of the president? mr. castor: her use of the call deaf or -- >> that is not my question. why did you misquote miss williams? mr. castor: we did not misquote her. >> from the standard you apply to your fact-finding in your report, you believe it was proper to say that ms. williams found the call to be unusual but in fact she found the call 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? mr. castor: we described what miss williams said. chairman, [indiscernible]
you can ask or answer, he cannot do both. rep. nadler: the gentleman is not recognized. [indiscernible] >> yes battering the witness. -- he is nattering the witness. conjugal on my point of order that he is badgering the witness? rep. nadler: it does not call for a ruling andy time belongs to the gentleman. >> the chairman is not an order. rep. nadler: that is not a point of order. >> will you rule on my original point of order? rep. nadler: the original point of order -- ring thehairman is badge witness. your ruse are not compliant with everyone else's rules. rep. nadler: cross-examination is not badgering the witness.
the gentleman has the time. >> point of order. resolution 660, we are supposed to follow the rules of evidence. what are the rules? what are the objections? rep. nadler: that is not a point of order. >> there are no rules. rep. nadler: the judgment will continue. >> where are the rules? rep. nadler: the gentleman will continue. >> you invoke to morrison. he was someone on the call. -- invoked tim morrison. he was on the call. mr. morrison said that the goldman,was, by mr. you heard the call, you
recognize president trump was not discussing the talking points at the nsc had prepared based on u.s. policy and was instead of talking about the investigations that fiona hill had warned you about. you reported it immediately to the nsc legal advisor. events?the correct mr. morrison said, that is correct. goldman, before your presentation, we show the testimony of ms. hill where she referred to what the president was trying to do as running a domestic political errand. is that what you intended to ask esther morrison? mr. goldman: yes. it was about the investigations president trump ultimately did discuss and asked president zelensky to do. these are the same investigations that were discussed and the only two investigations at issue throughout the entirety of the scheme. what our evidence found was any
time there was a reference to investigations, it reference to the joe biden investigation and 2016 investigation. when heor volker said, was using the term corruption, what he meant was those two investigations. >> what was the significance that mr. morrison, who mr. he said herelied on, understood these were the investigations be on a hill had warned him about? what did you understand that you mean? leftoldman: when dr. hale and tim morrison replaced her, they had transition meetings. during one of those meetings, dr. hill told him about what she believes to be an irregular channel that ambassador sondland was operating where they were pushing for ukraine to do these investigations. , that wasas concerned a domestic political errand and related was working on
to national security and foreign policy and those were two separate things. >> was she expressing the view president trump chose his own personal political interests over the foreign policy positions that fiona hill was trying to pursue? mr. goldman: at the time she said that to tim morrison, she was not aware of whether president trump had endorsed these investigations, but she did testify, after she read the call transcript, which she read after it was released, she said she put two and two together and realized that is what he was talking about. >> what was to enter? -- what was to and to? ambassador sondland and david holmes, the only logical conclusion to explain why the security assistance had been withheld from ukraine.
based on the various factors and their direct involvement in issues related to ukraine, they concluded that the security assistance was being withheld to put pressure and as a condition on the initiation of the two investigations referenced here. >> i want to clear a couple things up. if i may. >> tim morrison did not -- rep. nadler: the gentleman has the time, not the witness. >> let me ask. mr. castor: volker never meant -- rep. nadler: the gentleman has the time. >> will this witness be able to cross-examine it like he is being able to cross-examine -- rep. nadler: the gentleman is not recognized. the gentleman will not call out in the middle of testimony. >> [indiscernible] does not make it you point you are doing it right. it was your
testimony, the democrats are about blocking information when they should be seeking information. mr. castor: that is absolutely right. you said he trump administration has cooperated and facilitated congressional oversight investigations. is that correct? mr. castor: absolutely. the trump participation that has participated until it got to the impeachment inquiry. was on thisair, who call, the trump administration -- the president directed him not to appear. i am asking timothy president direct him not to appear? mr. castor: i think he was allowed to come. >> he was not allowed to, by the terms of the house intelligence committee. mr. castor: i think he would have come. administration directed him not to come is that correct? mr. castor: it is really expensive to hire these outside lawyers. >> john eisenberg was directed
not to come. the lawyer who colonel vindman went to. correct? mr. castor: eisenberg may have been able to come with counsel. he presents complexities. >> he was directed not to come? beenastor: he may have able to come with agency counsel. his testimony presents complexities. >> was at u.s. policy on july 26 that ukraine investigate joe biden? i think you are reading too much into some of the eight lines. i do not think the president was requesting an investigation into joe biden. he just mentions an offhand comment. >> is that a no? it was not u.s. policy to look into joe biden? mr. castor: you are presuming it became u.s. policy to
investigate joe biden. i do not think that is the case. slide 10,show you testimony of colonel vindman. he was asked, are you aware of written product from the national security council digesting investigations into the elections, the bidens, or burisma are part of the official u.s. policy? he says, no i am not. now to tim morrison, who you invoke. by morrison was asked congress ms. swalwell -- congressman swalwell, in the itdle of that question, says, the one call you listen to two between the president of the united states and president of ukraine, the president priorities were to investigate the bidens. -- mr.king, why did not
morrison said, i did not understand it as a policy objective. goldman, there was a package prepared before that call of what president trump was supposed to talk about with president zelensky. mr. goldman: yes. >> am i correct one of the things he was supposed to talk about was the anticorruption platform of president zelensky that he ran on. mr. goldman: the witness testified that is a consistent and persistent policy objective for the united states. >> did president trump mentioned corruption once in his call? mr. goldman: he did not. >> that he mention anything other than the two investigations that were politically helpful to him? the 2016 election and the investigation of his political rival? mr. goldman: he did not. >> mr. castor --
he did mention some very bad people. he can ask the questions to whoever he wants. when you question, you will have the same rules. >> let me ask -- >> president trump talks about bad people. >> if i can finish. let me ask you this. there were two lawyers mentioned on the call. trumprd testimony, mr. said to president zelensky that he should speak to two people, his personal lawyer and attorney general. correct? mr. castor: yes. immediately after this call
memorandum was released, attorney general barr and the department of justice issued a statement about his role in all of this. mr. castor: he did. >> let's put up the statement. the department of justice, the president has not spoken with the attorney general at about haven't ukraine investigate anything relating to joe biden or his son. thepresident has not asked 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 the attorney general did not want anything to do with these investigations that president trump raised with president zelensky? mr. goldman: i think it goes further. whether the attorney general wanted anything to do or not, in addition to the fact the attorney general said he had athing to do with ukraine,
there were no ongoing investigations at the time of the call for an august, and that became an issue in the investigation, there is a formal channel that the department of evidenceas to obtain related to an ongoing investigation. that is generally the proper way to engage a foreign country through treaties to get information. several of the witnesses testified that they looked into that at the urging of the ukrainians and determined there was no formal ongoing investigation, nor any formal request. on the call,lawyer rudy giuliani, he was more than happy to continue to be involved in trying to get ukraine to investigate joe biden. wasgoldman: mr. giuliani very active and involved in pushing for the investigations for several months before the
july 25 call and for several months after, including apparently three days ago. in yourastor, you wrote report, rudy giuliani, the ukrainians themselves knew that rudy giuliani, the president lawyer, was a conduit to convince president trump that president zelensky was a serious reformer. ukrainians -- >> isn't that what you said? he was a conduit? slide 14, we have your report here. knewys, the ukrainians that rudy giuliani was a conduit to convince president trump that president zelensky was serious about reform. in fact, during the call, president trump asked president zelensky to speak to his
personal lawyer about ukrainian matters that president trump was interested in. mr. castor: you are referring to rudy, yes. >> president zelensky said, we knew that and he has been in touch with my aides. correct? mr. castor: that is right. ukrainians are the one that resident zelensky brings up rudy giuliani on the call. >> they knew he was a conduit to the president and if they made it giuliani happy, they may president trump happy. a. castor: giuliani had negative impression of ukraine and he was possibly fueling the president's views. there was discussions about, if you can convince giuliani that zelensky as a true reformer, that would be a beneficial link. , beforegree giuliani the call, was pushing for the ukrainians to investigate joe
biden? is castor: the record somewhat spotty with giuliani. i know the new york times reported in may, ambassador volker gave a detailed report of his meeting. slide 16,an put up the article you refer to. the article says, mr. giuliani -- this is may 9, 2019, before the call -- giuliani plans to travel to the ukrainian capital in the coming days and wants to meet with the nations president elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the white house could yield information of intent interest to mr. trump. one is the origin of the investigation, it describes it. the other is the involvement of joe biden son.
that was in the article. mr. castor: did a talk about the breakfast with volker? >> if we can continue the article on the next slide. mr. castor:the same article. mr. giuliani was explicit when he was interviewed. he said, this is not foreign will be very helpful to my client, my only client is the president of the united states, he is the one i have an obligation to regarding what happened regarding ukraine. where you aware on that same day, mr. giuliani gave an interview about what he intended to do? let's go to slide 18. this is from real clear politics. what giuliani said about ukraine , he sat, it is a big story, and i guarantee joe biden will not
that you election day without this being investigated, not because i want to see him investigated. election day refers to the 2020 election where president trump will be running against -- running for reelection. mr. castor: i guess you are right. >> that was my only question to you. you'll have opportunity to answer questions to my nordic counsel. mr. castor: we will sidestep the poker meeting? >> you will have an opportunity to talk about that. let me go to slide 19. the president says he is being interviewed, the same day, at giuliani he is asked, is leaving soon, i think any next couple days. mr. trump says, i will speak to him about it before he leaves. 20.me go to slide
giuliani continues his pressure on president zelensky. out one is a tweety put june 21, 2019, about a month before the call. he says, new president of ukraine silent on investigation of ukraine interference on 2016 and alleged joe biden bribery of the prior president. as you said, the ukrainians knew that mr. giuliani had of the year his client, mr. trump. is that correct? giuliani was doing some things out here, then he became involved with the official channel, with volker meeting,and, at that on july 19, volker counseled against the perspective giuliani was taking. , this me ask mr. goldman
tweet, is that referring to a personal political issue of president trump or official u.s. policy? mr. goldman: that is a personal political issue. i will take a moment to respond to mr. castor. on that july 19 meeting between ambassador volker and really giuliani, ambassador volker told giuliani that the allegations about joe biden were bogus and wrong. 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 directed president zelensky to contact giuliani. that july 19 meeting mr. castor brought up is important to this investigation. 23,ou explained, on may 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 giuliani. he was taking his official government people at handing them over to rudy giuliani so they could work with him for the issues he was focused on, as evidence in the tweet. is that fair? mr. goldman: i think that is what the evidence shows. at that meeting, president trump directed authority over ukraine matters to ambassador sondland, volker, and secretary perry, and told them to work with giuliani. over the next three months, that is what happened. slide 22.show you you understood the ukrainians recognize how important rudy giuliani was in satisfying him in order to stay on good terms with president trump? mr. goldman: they quickly realized it i think from their own internal conversations. mr. giuliani had back channels
to getting to ukrainian officials. ambassador volker told the ukrainians that there was this giuliani factor that president lansky -- he told her to president zelensky that there was this giuliani factor they had to deal with. >> this is the tenure aid to president zelensky saing to ambassador volker on august 13, after the call, thank you for meeting. will be great to meet with you before my departure and discuss. for many things is a rudy and i am ready to talk with him. let me know when you can meet. i right the ukrainians recognize rudy giuliani as demanding investigations of mr. trump's political rival was key? mr. goldman: i believe this text was actually july 10 and this was a critical text because what
it is saying is, mr. your market, after having speak with volker and learning the importance of giuliani, requested to ambassador volker to set up a meeting with giuliani. that proceeded to this july 19 breakfast that mr. castor said and the july 22 phone call and they met in madrid in august 2. >> further evidence of the investigation chairman schiff and his staff directed, we will stand corrected. thank you. i ask that the record reflect that that is the correct date. in either case, rudy giuliani was key. mr. goldman: certainly. slide 24.put up correct thatam i there came a point in time when president trump, through his mulvaney,taff, mick
ordered that the approved military aid to ukraine be withheld, correct? mr. goldman: yes. >> this is the testimony of people involved. mr. kent said, there was great confusion among the rest of us because we did not understand why that happened. there was unanimity that this aid was in our national interest. it surprised us. mr. holmes, you have the additional hold of the security assistance with no explanation and we still do not have an explanation for why that happened or the way it happened. ms. croft, the only reason given was the order came at the direction of the president. let me ask a question. did all the agencies involved believe the military aid should be given? mr. goldman: it was the unanimous view of all the agencies, the parent of defense, national security council, literally everyone of the inner believed that the
aide was a vital and had been approved and should be released immediately. in the my noise staff report, and mr. castor's testimony earlier, he said the u.s. foreign policy did not convey the policy of the ukrainians. if that was not correct, was it? didn't mr. sondland convey that? mr. goldman: mr. sondland conveyed that the release of the on thes conditioned public announcement of the investigations. >> if we can put up slide 26. we willwe will put up the slide. we will put up the affidavit that ambassador sondland, president trump's ambassador to the european union that he swore to penalties of perjury. he said, i now recall speaking individually with mr. yermak
the resumption of the 80 would not occur until ukraine provided the anticorruption statement we had been discussing. is that correct? mr. goldman: he said that at a meeting on september 1 in warsaw. >> the statement they had been talking about -- let me put up a slide, slide 27. draft recall the statement the ukrainians were going to have a president to lansky give -- was that statement so they could get a meeting and satisfy president trump and have the military aid release? yes, ambassador sondland and a testified to that. ak gave a statement where he did not reference joe biden. that it hadi said to include a reference that they
would investigate burisma and the 2016 election. what did burisma stand for? all your witnesses said they had an understanding. mr. goldman: every witness said, after reading the phone call, it was clear burisma equaled joe biden. there were only two witnesses who said they did not know that until that time. there was a lot of testimony from people involved in all aspects of ukraine policy who indicated that it was unrealistic and unlikely that anyone who had anything to do thatukraine would not know the burisma investigation related to the bidens. >> that is how giuliani referred to it, as burisma and joe biden? mr. goldman: correct. >> did the ukrainians complained that they did not want to be a pawn in u.s. democratic politics by helping mr. trump's reelection campaign? mr. goldman: they said that in
july and in august they did not give the statement because they had reservations given that president zelensky was an anticorruption reformer. they had reservations about engaging in u.s. domestic politics. >> i want to go back to mr. castor. you said when president trump ond to ambassador sondland september 17 that he had no quid pro quo, you said he had no less thanbe any candid. that is what you said. what happened on september 5. slide 52. days before he made that statement, the washington post printed an article that says, donald trump tries to force ukraine to metal in the 2020 elections and goes on to
describe those efforts. 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. this is -- he is putting out a tweet that is saying the democrats -- they follow-up the article that they are pursuing impeachment, showing awareness that this has been reported on. , what mr. to say castor said, that president trump had no reason to be less than candid about saying no quid pro quo? mr. goldman: president trump had every reason to try to put out of that message at that point. as ambassador sondland said, even if you credit ambassador sondland's version of the testimony, which has been
contradicted by other witnesses who took notes and were more credible than mr. sondland who had to amend his testimony, he said even in that comment, no quid pro quo out of the blue without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo. rep. nadler: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the ranking members for his first round of questions. the ranking member or his counsel have 45 minutes to question the witnesses. has become evident why this hearing is here while the craziness of this year and, especially not having adam schiff, please put up the last slide. 53. did we cut it off after this? this, it is doing the most amazing thing that came
tweet that saying a he thought it 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 has known of they have been impeachment. that is why we are going through this charade of staff having to answer questions and what we do not like how it is going we asked staff and get into arguments. where is adam? where is adam? it is his report, his name. you are a great attorney, but you are not adam schiff. we have a problem here. the problem is developing -- you said you are an attorney, i believe you are a good attorney. you understand quid pro quo. forunderstand what asking something in exchange for something actually means?
you know about the conversation up mr. biden and he asked and said i will not give you the $1 billion, you know that conversation? you want me to read it to you? mr. goldman: in 2015? didhe one from -- where he -- i will read it to you. as i remember going over to ukraine, convincing them that we should provide for loan guarantees, i went over, i was supposed to announce there was a loan guarantee and i got a commitment that i would -- that they would take action against the state prosecutor. they did not. so they said they had, they are walking out of the press conference. i said i am not going to our we are not going to give you the $1 billion. if they said you have no authority. i said, call him. i am telling you you are not getting the $1 billion. to leave hereeady
and i think about six hours, i look at them and said, i am leaving in six hours, if the prosecutor is not fired, you are not getting the money. he got fired. did he requested something and holds on the of value? i am asking about this -- mr. goldman: it is important -- >> answer this question. you joe biden is a liar, telling a story to make people impressed, or he actually did this. is it? mr. goldman: he did it pursuant to u.s. official policy. >> holding us out there. only one whothe has done a quid pro quo. he used taxpayer dollars to threaten a foreign government. yet we are sitting here pretending that this is not happening? we are pretending a present now would not be concerned? joe biden is a terrible candidate, he can destroy himself, but he cannot get by
this. it does not matter who brings it up. it does not matter who does it. this is what happened. you can whitewash it all you want, go whatever you want, he is either a liar or he did it. and he did it. i want to continue. the question is a question you had earlier. how many times did you rely on gordon sondland's testimony? in your report? mr. goldman: it is nearly a 300 page report. >> would you be amazed if it was 600 times? you would not have any idea? you did. over 600 times. would you understand, if you do a check of your report, over 158 , not mr. sondland said knowing something or i don't know? mr. goldman: the report or his deposition? >> the deposition and testimony. mr. goldman: yes, and over time
he remembered. >> he said he present what actually happened. let's go back to something else. collins: answer the question. if he had so much free reign, let's go at it. answer or elaborate. goldman: i am trying to answer the question. come out or: did it not? i will read it again. given toan: they were the minority but not the public. rep. collins: putting aside
witnesses publicly identified, did you issue any subpoenas for testimony other than those .estified mr. goldman: i am not sure. we issued a number of subpoenas subpoenas andx they all defied our subpoenas. wall street: journal reported the committee .ssued at least four subpoenas ?s that correct >> yes. there are multiple members. we only issued subpoenas for call numbers for people --
documents and testimony of their own. rep. collins: wonderful, but answer my question. mr. goldman: i am trying to answer your question. was it at least four? thank you. you could have saved us time. can you check your records? we got a massive document done over the weekend preparing for the hearing. the staff admitted they will not read it all anyway. we are simply going on a ship refusing to testify. i don't know. rep. collins: may be her chairman could be here to answer this. a single telephone number or numbers? mr. goldman: we subpoena for call records multiple numbers. rep. collins: how many?
mr. goldman: i don't know. none of members of congress or staff of congress. subjects, a very routine or standard practice. >> who on the committee asked to get the numbers back, who got the crosscheck for members of congress? who ordered that? mr. goldman: i don't think that is how we did it. rep. collins: you came out with a report that showed devin nunes and others were on the calls. we will not play cute. numbers and the said let's play match game. who would or the game for members of congress and the press? was it you?
>> i don't think anybody did. that islins: ridiculous. you do not pick up numbers which you have to match the numbers and you don't come up with them. who ordered them from members of congress and the press. mr. goldman: what you described is how it happened. rep. collins: who order to find out if nunez's numbers run the call. mr. goldman: you look for sequencing and patterns surrounding the event. you look at the numbers and try and identify what the numbers and start to build the circumstantial case. rep. collins: wonderful estimation but not an answer to the question. i understand the subpoena issued. my question is was it you or chairmanship who said let's see if this matches chairman newness's number. somebody along the way did not that thesen epiphany
numbers might match. who did it? chairmanship or you? be careful. you are under oath. i know.man: i will answer the question if you give me a second here. it is not a simple answer. the same was not afforded to my witness. who decided to leak it. -- it? the information. why did you included in the report. mr. goldman: that is not a leak. rep. collins: two questions hanging out that everyone is looking for an answer for. who ordered it? you, chairman schiff, and why was it decided to be included in the report? not go into i will deliberations of the investigation with you. it was included in the report calls were surrounding important evidence to our investigation.
i think your question is better directed not at me but at the people having conversations. you are not going to play that game. everyone here, when you start going into the house and start looking at telephone numbers and reporters telephone numbers, which they ought to be scared you decided to play match game and found numbers, some of them did not exist because you claim they were for the white house budget office when they were not. go back to my question. you willrecord and say not tell who ordered this? you or mr. schiff? mr. goldman: i will not reveal how we conducted the investigation. i can tell you -- rep. collins: i am done with
you. you are not answering. >> i have some information on the subpoenas. we received a copy of the and we track this. there were six. concerns aboute the exercise for three reasons. the subpoenas yielded the information from congress. then the information is publicized. journalists, with it is a tricky area. the third is with regard to mr. giuliani.
the second was with regard to igor fruman, company csc holdings. the third related to mr. sondland. the fourth was back to at&t seeking information. the fifth at&t. the sixth was seeking subscriber information, which impacted the veteran journalist john solomon. also involved are some of the attorneys involved. >> i have never seen anything like this and neither have you. mr. goldman chooses not to answer because he does not want to incriminate himself, the
chairman, or anyone else. would it be interesting to you to find somebody who just had an epiphany to do those on their own, or where they under direction to do that? >> obviously, they were trying to figure something out. rep. collins: that is it. i have one thing for mr. goldman. are used to committees and witnesses taking gratuitous shots of people i do not like. in your testimony, you made a .omment that goes to issue you made a snide comment and your facial expression showed, --t he was a million-dollar the implication was he was loyal to the president.
i will not question your motives or your position today, but we need to -- we need to make sure this is already blown out of proportion. you are here because your will not testify. it says all we need to hear. i hope it works out for you. i am done. say -- whatrying to is the location? i did not get anything close to $1 million even remotely. >> the implication is that the person who wrote the report -- you were not elected by anybody and your giving testimony in place of the chairman. i hope that clears up the implication. >> the gentleman has been one before, you cannot simply out and obstruct the committee. mr. collins has the time. i think you understand what you did. you thought you would get by with it and you did not.
that is all i'm saying. >> i am done. >> you are casting dispersions. >> as you did. according to the chairman's own i am done asking questions and i'm not asking you to elaborate. you will not answer the question on who told the committee to check the numbers. you will not answer my question. we are done. you have plenty of time with the majority counsel. >> if i may. i have a number of things i think i need to clear up, if i may. you have to bear with me because i have a number here.
, there is a totally thenrent view of the call lt. col. amendment. going to the point that the call is ambiguous, that is the first thing. testified that he went to national security council lawyers for a different reason. to an ust say he went see lawyers because he was concerned about the call. he went to the lawyers for two reasons. they were not on the call and we wanted to update them about it. he was concerned about leaks. concerned how this would play in washington's polarized environment. here.s what we have
he was also concerned if the call leaked, it might affect support in congress. issues of ukraine have traditionally been one of the few issues republicans and democrats share interests. he did not want the ukrainians to get a distorted perception of what happened on the call. we talking about a lot of ambiguity. this oval office meeting may 23. i did not think it was ambiguous question, the goes to inauguration day 20. secretary perry and senator johnson.
they are briefing the president and the president is having none of it. he does not want to invite zelensky to the white house. volker testifies to this definitively. orderesident does not anybody to do anything. talk toident says to rudy. look, it is a very different thing than a direction. thes different than president ordering a scheme. very different from the president collecting a bunch of agents to go do something. he simply said, go talk to rudy.
whether the ukrainians knew of paused for 55s days, whether the ukrainians knew about it or not has been, laura cooper from dod, state department witnesses testified about what they had perceived. article november 22 on bloomberg. -- sil and scheme administration said they never knew about withholding aid they the embassylieve was keeping information from them. another interesting thing he says in that november 22 bloomberg 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.
johnson wanted the aid release. he wanted them to be the bearer of good news. senator johnson writes a 10 page letter. very detailed. he gives remarkable detail. page six. this is senator johnson speaking. without hesitation, president -- he startedely perching -- cursing. said no way, i would never do that. who told you that?
senator johnson goes on to say president trump's reaction was adamant, vehement, and angry. 31, the president told him you will like my decision in the end. i think that is important on with the president's state of mind was. >> he fully expected that aid would eventually be released after 55 days. >> i would like to cover four or five distinct areas.
there are a lot of facts the american people have not heard. and there are a lot of contradictions in certain people's testimony. is that fair to say? about,ould like to talk some of the people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts. we have ambassador volker, ambassador sondland, and secretary perry. you have the opportunity to speak with two of the three people. report would like these individuals were engaged in some sort of cabal or nefarious venture. but that is not true.
these three people were at all relevant times, acting in the best interests of the american people. >> with the highest integrity. >> that is right. i think everyone testifies that ambassador volker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign it -- >> across the board. ambassador lavonne of edge talked about -- you've on a niche -- about thet to talk president's skepticism of foreign aid. the paddock -- the president is skeptical of foreign aid. is deeply skeptical of sending u.s. taxpayer dollars into an environment that is corrupt. as good as kissing it goodbye.
something new he believes or something he ran on? policies as soon as he became president. about the overall review of all foreign aid programs. >> you had the opportunity to take the deposition of mark sandy. a he had some information about the reason. he had a conversation with an claire, whoamed rob provided some insight into the reason for the pause. able to give us firsthand account inside the
related tothe pause the concern for burden sharing in the region. >> in his conversations, with senator johnson, he mentioned his concern about burden sharing. i believe he referenced a conversation he had with the and theor of germany false -- the whole first part of the july 24 transcript, he is talking about wanting europeans to do more. >> senator johnson and president trump were pretty candid. allies liked germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to
spend the aid. >> there have been a lot of allegations that president zelensky is not being candid about feeling pressure from president trump. isn't it true he stated over and over publicly that he felt no pressure from president trump? >> he said it consistently in the united nations on its way fifth. including last week. >> i want to change subjects and talk about something the professor raise last week. that is the partisan nature of the investigation. you are an experienced congressional investigator.
>> he is no trump supporter. >> that is right. a democrat. the professor cautioned that part of the inquiry is not what the founders envisioned. >> correct. the worst thing you have is partisan, because no one except the results on the other side. friends have all of a sudden become originalist and citing founders and their as part of the impeachment process. >> that goes to whether this constitute bribery. there is case law on bribery. i am no scholar or loyal or advocate. about whatw case law constitutes an official act.
that has not been dressed in this space. >> i think the professor said a meeting does not constitute an official act. >> i think the mcdonnell case goes to that. >> yes. since this inquiry is unofficial and unsanctioned -- start in september, the process has been unfair,, biased, republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely. we saw that in lt. col.'s deposition. >> we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. >> right. very basic things like who, what, when, where.
rapid, day 76 we are in. it is almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional death any congressional did best -- investigation of any consequence, it takes a little sides to stakeo in octobernterests of 2017, in december, we finally got a witness. of pushing and pulling, a lot of tug-of-war, we've reached a deal with doj where we went down to doj and they gave us access to dock --
access to documents, north of 800,000 pages. they made us come down into a and it was on until may and june of that year that we started the process of the investigation was ongoing. we all wish there were an easy button. congressional investigations of consequence take time. right. it took i think six months. you had to go review it. back even further to fast and investigation of the death of a border patrol agent.
we had a hearing in june with we spent most of the year at the justice department and at the time, we were working who weretleblowers providing us documents. chairman at the time, in october, issued another subpoena that was to the justice department. investigation had been ongoing for most of the year. we were doing our best to get documents out at that channel. but these things take time. not 76 days. >> if you truly want to uncover
should, youas you have to go to court sometimes. we have a lot of requests for information, volunteering information. we please provide us with documents, i think that is great. withou have to back it up something. >> the fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is you get what you are asking for unless the alternative is less palatable for the respondent. you issue a subpoena and are trying to get documents. one technique is trying to talk to the document custodian, someone in the function about where -- what documents exist. the chairman used to have document status hearings where
you bring it officials and lay of the land. you can -- about holding someone in contempt. often times, witnesses reluctant to quiet and come forward, when you attach a contempt proceeding to the name, a lot of times, it changes the outcome. couple of different steps along the way and you can raise the process and schedule a proceeding. open and hold the door and these are all is sometimesnts
starts to move the needle. ball rolling,he andrew mccabe in for a couple of in, a, once we got him couple of weeks later, we got director comey's will -- chief of staff. you do not like what hundred percent of the terms. once you get the ball rolling, it usually leads to positive results and has allowed congress to do its work. donere any of those things here? >> no. we willct, they decided
not subpoena certain people that are important and that go to court to's -- enforce them. they are caught in an interbranch struggle. that is an unfortunate position. dr. funeral, and the number of witnesses, he filed a lawsuit in the face of a subpoena. assigned, judge leon. the issues raised were different than the don mcgahn issues. he is a national security official. he filed a lawsuit seeking got -- seeking guidance. he was not asking the support --
he was seeking guidance to facilitate his cooperation. ultimatelytee withdrew the subpoena. it rages -- raises questions about whether they're interested in getting to the bottom of the issues. >> the intelligence committee has chosen to rely on ambassador sondland and his testimony. 600 times on -- in their report. >> yesterday, i opened the democrat report and did control f. up 611nn's name shows times. in fairness, it will be double counted. it is in a sentence and a
footnote in that is two. to thetive -- compared other witnesses, sans limit relied on the time. >> i think dr. hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions . >> the record is mixed on this front. dr. hill talks about raising concerns with sondland and the deposition at least, he did not share the same view. >> there were a lot of instances where ambassador sondland recalled one thing can other witnesses recall another. a bit of an enigma as a witness. let's say it that way. he was pretty certain in his , security assistance
was not linked to anything. an addendum.tted >> i call that the pretzel sentence. addendum orhe supplement, whatever it is you know, talk to him and her. with, "iondland ends d."sume >> we do not have a lot of first-hand information. all conflicting. on the july 10 meeting. there are episodes, i think, during the course of the investigation, that we have not at least been able to get everyone's accounts. investigation has not
been able to reveal first-hand evidence other than the call transcript. >> we have already talked about this, that ambassador sondland would presume things, assume opinions basedm on what other people told him, and he would use those as first-hand. >> is started with his role of the ukraine portfolio. a lot of people at the state department were wondering why the ambassador at the eu was so engaged to issues related to ukraine. there are answers. ukraine is aspirant to join the eu. and there are a lot of other reasons.
you scored this very well at the opening hearing. ambassador sondland said he did the 26th ofew on july where he said the president has given me a lot of assignments. the president has assigned me to ukraine and so forth. when we asked him, he conceded that he was suspending, that the president never assigned him to ukraine and that he was exaggerating. >> at the public hearings, you that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sondland is not a note taker. he, in fact, he said, i do not , dozens of times, in his deposition. >> i will say it this way. ambassador taylor walked us through his standard operating
procedure for taking notes. having a notebook on his desk, in his suit, he brought it with us and showed us. taylor recounts to us what happened, it is backed up i these contemporaneous notes. ambassador sondland was clear. he said he did not have access to state department records. said that at the public hearing and simultaneously, the state department issued a tweet or a statement saying that was , nobody's keeping ambassador sondland from his emails. he is still a state department .mployee and can go he does have access but stated he did not. he stated he does not have notes because he does not take notes. he does not have recollections
on a lot of the issues. i called it the trifecta of unreliability. >> you are not the only person who has concerns about mr. someone's testimony and conduct and i think other people took issue with it. >> tim aust -- talked about issues where he in the ambassador showed up uninvited. he did not understand why sans was trying to get the meeting on september 1. about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses. you are correct. >> ambassador sondland. >> i think the investor said he was a problem. >> dr. hill raised concerns about his behavior and said he
might be intelligence risk. is that correct? >> she did. she had issues with his tendency to pullout his mobile device during telephone calls. which can be monitored. by the bad guys. wase talked about how he spinning. certain things. he admitted that. >> he admitted he exaggerated. when it comes to communications with the president, which tries to get him to list all of the communications with the president. i think he gave us six. it was about a christmas party and when the president of finland was here. congresswoman asked
can you please respect -- betweenthe difference vice president biden's request a few years ago and president request earlier this year? >> he was doing so with an international consensus as part of u.s. policy. the mott -- the imf supported that. of thethat is part entire international community's consensus. what president trump is asking for, all of the witnesses, every that hade testified nothing to do with official u.s. policy. >> vice president biden's request have no benefit whereas president trump's request did?
>> yes. the witnesses testified if the corrupt prosecutor general were actually removed, it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption. witnesses said by removing the prosecutor general and adding a new one, there was an increased chance corruption in the ukraine would be prosecuted including as it relates to the burisma company, which his son was on the board of. >> kenny please explain what happened with the phone records obtained by the intelligence committee? >> thank you. this is a basic and usual investigative practice were people involved in a scheme for expected to be involved in a investigators routinely seek records. this is metadata. only call from an length. content of text
messages, no risk -- none of that exists and there are no risks. for several of the people we had investigated and subpoenaed who were alleged to be part of the scheme, we got call records to -- we matched call records up with important events and we would start to see if .here were patterns people involved in the president 's scheme were communicating with the president's lawyer, a a staff murderer. we did not seek to do any on a staff member
of congress. it happens to be that they were in communication. >> everything you did was procedure.erating what was the view? >> we never heard from the white house counsel other than the we will notsaid cooperate with this investigation in any way, shape -- direct every other executive branch agency. >> please keep your answers brief.
my republican colleagues said congress was not built to impeach the president at this stage. is the strength of the record here? fastthink we have moved and the evidence is overwhelming. we have 17 witnesses. >> obstruction by the president, correct? was the obstruction so pervasive that the evidence pointed to a course of conduct or it -- conduct way plan? >> we found there was an effort to conceal the president's conduct. >> i understand white house wrote a letter explaining president trump -- the white house counsel wrote that president trump cannot tomit his administration take part under the including current
and former trump administration officials. directednesses were not to appear and they did not appear. >> my time is expired. i yield to mr. collins. we can now commit basically extortion, as long as we have the international community behind us. i can go stored anybody i want to as long as enough people think it's ok. that is what you just said, whether you believe it or not. i want to go to the phone records. hear me clearly. i have no problem with the subpoena. not a problem. my problem is taking the metadata. have had this debate in congress for the last few years.
the report came out and we are doing this. that theeresting to me calls and the metadata and not the content, the problem i have if the only phone records returned -- why were these released? i want to know who ordered it. the chairman or you, who did get to come, and thank you for showing up, made a conscious choice to put these records in the report. it was a gratuitous drive-by, that you wanted to smear the ranking member because they were in the numbers. you just admitted they were contacting these people.
if you are really wanted to do a professional report, congressperson one or two, reporter one, reporter to. they did not actually contribute to rip -- to your report, that it is nothing but a drive-by. i have that problem here. no problem with the support or the subpoena. that showed the american people that at least for a moment, the shift report became a partisan smear against members we do not like. i have no problem with you doing proper oversight. i have a lot of issues with how it is done. but do not make it up or tell me or the rest of the committee who -- who ordered that. it was nothing more than a smear campaign. it is not is disingenuous to the committee.
a record got leaked to the washington post. i do not understand how we can say that this is ok and fine. if we are setting the standard for this, we are in deep trouble. it is another thing that you and others today, the founders were deeply concerned about a lot of things. one of the biggest things, ironclad they are now an originalist, but they are also concerned about a partisan impeachment. because you don't like his policies and he don't like what he said or how he said it.
do not come here and be a person who is a women's and not answer the question. adam schiff is doing fine without you. do not come here because you know good and well, at some committee room and some little room, somebody said, i have devin nunes's phone number and the number matches. and we will put it in the report not because we think devin nunes is ever part -- is a part of this, but there was a phone call. that is a job by. it is beneath you and this congress. that is why i have such a problem with this. you would further information. this is the problem here. gettingwhy people are so turned off by the whole thing. you could have handled this differently.
you and mr. schiff. i hold the member responsible. was theed this and he one who put the names and and he is the one who cannot defend that. he sent you. and you have had to take it. that is wrong and the committee deserves better. i yield back. >> the joe maddon yields back. gentlelady from california is recognized. >> the gist of the question here is the potential of abuse of president's power to benefit and felt in the next election. after russia interfered in the 2016 election, the american people are rightfully concerned about assuring that the next election is free of interference. i would like to ask the following question. testified thatd according to rudy giuliani, president trump wanted a public
statement from president zelensky committing to investigations with burisma in the 2016 election. testified sondland that president zelensky had to announce the investigation. he did not actually have to do them. experienced former prosecutor. comment --, to announce an and then not do one? >> normally it is reversed. ismally you do not, while it not public. you run into problems of people matching of testimony and witnesses tailoring their testimony, which is part of the reason they are closed depositions. >> what does this evidence about the announcement tell you about
why president trump would only care what president zelensky announcing the investigations but not conducting them? >> it said two things. about hise claims desire to root out corruption, even if you assume these investigations are for that purpose as he stated, it undermines that. he does not care if the investigations are done. i do nothing the evidence supports that it is corruption. if you assume that, it is still not -- the second is the public announcement. the private was not enough. that is an indication he wanted the full benefit from them. >> it looks to me like the announcement of the investigation could benefit the president politically because the announcement alone could be twitter fodder between now and the next election to smear a political rival. that's
consistent with the findings. president nixon attempted to corrupt elections and his agents broke into democratic party headquarters to gate leg up on the election. and then he tried to cover it up, just as we've seen some obstruction here. but even more concerning in this case, president trump not only appears to have abused the power of his office to help his own re-election campaign he used foreign government to do his bidding and used military aid as leverage to get the job done. now this aid was approved by congress, apro pripropriated on a bipartisan basis to fight russia on behalf of ukraine who invade them. -- who invaded them. this aid was withheld. people died while this aid was withheld. people argued since ultimately the aid was released that there was not a problem. mr. goldman, isn't it true that the aid was released only after the president got caught and only after congress learned of
the scheme to make this life or death conditional on this announcement of investigation of his political rival? >> there were several things that made the president realize that this was coming to a head and could not be concealed. the whistle-blower kplaint was -- complaint circulating around -- complaint was circulating around the white house. the committees announced their own investigation. "the washington post" op-ed on september 5th linking the two. then the inspector general notified the committee there was this whistle-blower complaint. it was being withheld by the trump administration. >> correct. i made it clear throughout this investigation, i don't want to be part of a third impeachment inquiry, but the direct evidence is very damning and the president hasn't offered any evidence to the contrary. we've asked, we've subpoenaed, we've invited the president, and nothing has come forward. if he had evidence of his innocence, why wouldn't he bring it
forward? you know, this is a very serious matter. it strikes at the heart of our constitution. and it's a concern that we're here but i've heard over and over again that this is too fast. well, miss jackson lee and i were talking, we were both members of this committee during the clinton impeachment. that took 73 days. we're here on the 76th day. we need the to proceed. i thank you, mr. goldman for your hard work and your presentation. i yield back. without objection, the hearing will stand in recess for 15 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.
visit ncicap.org] [indistinct conversations] the session is available on c-span.org. wednesday,-- on nadler and collins gave their statements as the panel began formally considering arguments of impeachment. articles of impeachment. chairman nadler: the president tong the power of his office directly attack political rivals. is that theharge president used his position to obstruct congressional investigation. taken together, the two articles charge president trump with placing his private political interests above of national
, above are free and fair elections and above our ability to hold public officials accountable. fair elections, and above our ability to hold public officials accountable. this committee now is it to the american people to get these articles close attention and to describe their factual basis, meaning and importance. i believe the three questions should frame our debate. first, does the evidence show clearly that the president committed these acts? second, did a rise to the level of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors? third, one the consequences to our national security, or the integrity of our elections and for our country if we fail to act? to the first question, there can be no serious debate about what president trump did.