POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD MORNING.

I AM JUDY WOODRUFF.

WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARING.

TODAY MARKS THE SECOND HEARING HELD BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS THEY MOVE CLOSER TO WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BE DRAFTING OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

LAST WEEK, THE COMMITTEE HEARD FROM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS WHO DEBATED WHAT CONSTITUTES AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS -- TODAY'S HEARING ALSO COMES ON THE HEELS OF A REPORT FROM THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT WAS BUILT ON MORE THAN 100 HOURS OF TESTIMONY FROM 17 WITNESSES.

THAT REPORT CONCLUDES THAT MR. TRUMP ORCHESTRATE ADD SCHEME TO SUBVERT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE TO UNDERMINE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IN ORDER TO FURTHER HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS.

THE COMMITTEE FOUND THE SCHEME WAS UNDERTAKEN AND APPROVAL WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AMONG OTHERS.

IT ALSO CONCLUDED MR. TRUMP HAS OBSTRUCTED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

TODAY, THE REPORT AND THOSE INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS WILL BE FORMALLY DELIVERED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

LAWYERS FROM BOTH SIDES WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE ATTORNEYS QUESTIONS THEMSELVES.

AS SHE HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT THE HEARINGS OUR LISA DESJARDINS IS THERE AT THE CAPITOL HILL AND WILL BE IN THE ROOM.

MIEKE EOYANG AND RETURNING ME IN THE STUDIO MIEKE EOYANG, A TOP STAFFER FOR DEMOCRATS ON THE HOW INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

SHE IS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AT THIRD WAY.

AS THE WASHINGTON THINK TANK.

AND MICHAEL ALLEN, FORMER HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFF DIRECTOR UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP, HE IS NOW A MANAGING DIRECTOR AT THE ADVISORY FIRM BEACON GLOBAL STRATEGIES.

AND WE WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THESE HEARINGS, TO OUR COVERAGE, ON THIS IMPORTANT AND POTENTIALLY HISTORIC DAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I AM GOING TO YOU FIRST.

LISA DESJARDINS, YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE HEARINGS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

THIS DAY STANDS OUT.

IT IS THE DAY WHEN ONE COMMITTEE PRESENTS ITS WORK TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, JUDY, THIS IS NO LONGER AN INVESTIGATE INVESTE STAGE.

THERE IS A STAGE MOVING FULL FORCE FOR DEMOCRATS TO IMPEACHMENT AND THE IS THE DAY WHEN WE WILL HEAR THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT FROM DEMOCRATIC STAFFERS AND AGAINST IMPEACHMENT FROM REPUBLICAN STAFFERS.

IN WILL ALSO BE HIGHLY UNUSUAL, JUDY, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, AMONG THOSE BEEN THAT WE WILL HEAR PRESENTATIONS FROM TWO DIFFERENT COMMITTEES, JUDICIARY WILL TALK ABOUT SORT OF THE THEORY OF IMPEACHMENT, WHETHER THIS KIND OF -- HOW THEY DEFINE IMPEACHMENT, WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE AND WE WILL HEAR FROM HOUSE INTELLIGENCE ABOUT THE SPECIFICS REGARDING PRESIDENT TRUMP, SHOULD HE BE FEATURED OR NOT, IMPEACHED OR NOT, AND LATER WE WILL HAVE STAFF ASK THOSE STAFFERS QUESTIONS AND WE JUST HEARD FROM HOUSE REPUBLICANS ON JUDICIARY THEY MADE AN INTERESTING CHOICE FOR WHO WILL BE ASKING THEIR QUESTIONS, THEIR CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL, HER NAME IS ASHLEY KALLEN THAT WILL BE THE MOST PROMINENT ROLE WE HAVE SEEN FROM A WOMAN YET IN ALL OF THESE HEARINGS AND BE ASKING QUESTIONS LATER THIS AFTERNOON.

>> AND, LISA, AS YOU POINT OUT, THIS -- THE CRITICAL FIRST QUESTIONING WILL BE DONE BY STAFF SO THESE WILL NOT BE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE FAMILIAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY WILL BE FAMILIAR, SOME OF THEM, TO OUR VIEWERS WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

>> RIGHT.

>> BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, WE DO NOT YET KNOW WHO DEMOCRATS HAVE CHOSEN TO DO THAT STAFF QUESTIONING, NORM EISEN WAS THE PERSON THEY CHOSE LAST WEEK FROM THE HOUSE JUDICIARY BUT -- THEY ARE KEEPING IT CLOSE TO THE VEST WHO WILL BE DOING THAT BUT THAT WILL BE AN UNUSUAL SCENARIO, YOU ARE RIGHT.

>> AS WE WAIT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO GATHER, THE STAFF TO GATHER AND WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE CAMERAS THERE WAITING, AND YOU CAN SEE THE ROOM, THE PRESS THERE GATHERED AROUND WITH THE CAMERAS WAITING FOR THEM TO ARRIVE FOR THE WITNESSES, AND THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO ARRIVE LET'S TERMED TO -- IT DOESN'T GET MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS, IT DOES NOT, THE JUDY AND THE HOUSE RECOGNIZE THIS IS IS A VERY BIG DAY.

THEY ALREADY HAVE HAD TOP WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS OUT THIS MORNING SPEAKING.

I JUST SPOKE TO KELLYANNE CONWAY A TOP ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY IS SAYING THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE MAKING ITS CASE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND BE RESPONDING IN REAL-TIME AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST, BUT THEY AGAIN ARE NOT SENDING ANY SORT OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO THIS HEARING, IT IS A BIG DECISION BY THIS WHITE HOUSE, FOR DAYS AND WEEKS THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN MAKING THE CASE THIS IS AN UNFAIR PROCESS AND THAT THE WHITE HOUSE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SAY IN HOW THESE HEARINGS WENT BUT WHEN THEY FINALLY GOT A CHANCE TO GET TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARINGS SAID ACTUALLY WE DON'T WANT TO PLAY BALL HERE WE THINK WE WOULD BE DOING THE DIRTY WORK OF THE DEMOCRATS, THE WAY KELLY PUT IT OUT AND SENT A LETTER TO CONGRESS SAYING THIS IS ALL BASELESS AND THIS VIOLATES BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS SO THE WHITE HOUSE STANDS THEY WILL MAKE THE CASE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND IN THE PUBLIC BUT THEY WILL NOT AT ALL LEND ANY SORT OF CREDIBILITY OR CREDENCE TO IN HEARING BY EXTEND AGO FORMAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> AND I CAN'T MEASURE THAT HAS BEEN THEIR STAND THROUGHOUT THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED DOCUMENTS THAT THEY ARE HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR AND HAVEN'T WANTED AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING WE WON'T EVEN PRESENT OUR SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENTS, THAT'S RIGHT, JUDY AND DEMOCRATS ARE TABLING THE WHITE HOUSE STAND AS EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SO WHAT WE SEE IS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE, NIGHT ACTUALLY DOING BEHAVIOR AND ACTIONS THAT DEMOCRATS WILL USE AS PART OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ARTICLES THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE, ONE OF THIS EM IS -- ABUSE OF POWER AND ONE IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING HE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE ANY DOCUMENTS TO THE CONGRESS, HE DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE ANY CURRENT OR FORMER OFFICIALS DOING THIS AND GOING BEFORE THE HEARING THAT SAID, THOUGH, PART OF THE HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TESTIMONY HAS BEEN PEOPLE THAT ARE STILL WORKING IN THIS WHITE HOUSE COMING BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SAYING LOOK WHAT I SAW, WHAT I HEARD, IN THAT CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS MENTIONING HOABL INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN, THAT WAS CONCERNED AND IN ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND STILL HERE WORKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND HIS LAWYERS TELL ME WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS SAYING HE IS AN ANOMALY AND NOT FOLLOWING OUR STANCE, IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHITE HOUSE IS STILL SAYING WHAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO DO IF YOU WORK HERE OR USED TO WORK AT THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT AT ALL PARTICIPATE IN ANYTHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING.

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR, WE ARE GOING TO COME COME BACK TO YOU THROUGHOUT THE DAY, YAMICHE AS THESE HEARINGS TAKE BREAKS, AS I MENTIONED IN THE STUDIO REQUEST ME IS MICHAEL ALLEN, MIEKE EOYANG, BOTH WORKED THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN THE PAST, MIEKE AS ASS LISA POINTEDT IT IS DIFFERENT TO HAVE STAFF FROM ONE COMMITTEE A PRESENTING THE HEART OF A REPORT THAT IT DID AND THEN BEING QUESTIONED BY STAFF OF ANOTHER COMMITTEE.

>> YES.

THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL, BUT EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT IS VERY UNUSUAL.

TYPICALLY IN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENTS YOU START WAG SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT PREPARE PRESENT THE REPORT BUT HERE YOU WOULD HAVE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN FRONT PLAYING THE ROLE YOU WILL SEE THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL IS PLAYING TODAY.

>> AND WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE HEARING ROOM TO SEE WHEN CHAIRMAN NADLER GAVELS THE COMMITTEE TO ORDER.

THIS IS CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER OF NEW YORK WHO, NEW YORK CITY WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HE AND CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF HAVE PLAYED LEADING ROLES THROUGHOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF, OF COURSE, IS CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

MICHAEL ALLEN, I AM GOING TURN TO YOU BUT AS SOON AS THE GAVEL GOES DOWN WE ARE GOING GO BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM.

WE HAVE NOT SEEN, WELL HERE IT IS.

>> THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WILL COME TO ORDER.

THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE RECESSES OF THE COMMITTEE.

>> WE OBJECT.

>> OBJECTION NOTED.

A QUORUM IS PRESENTED.

WE ARE CONDUCTING THIS HEARING ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESENTATIONS FROM THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660, AND THE SPECIAL SWRIEW JUDICIARY MEAT PROCEDURES THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4 A OF THAT RESOLUTION.

HERE IS HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING.

I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.

AFTER THAT, WE WILL HEAR TWO SETS OF PRESENTATIONS.

WE WILL HEAR 30-MINUTE OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM COUNSELS FOR THE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY -- [ SHOUTING FROM AUDIENCE ] -- >> YOU CAN KICK ME OUT -- MR. NADLER YOU ARE THE ONE -- ENOUGH OF THIS.

AMERICA -- >> ORDER IN THE ROOM.

>> I WON'T WATCH YOU -- WE VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP.

TRUMP IS INNOCENT.

>> THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.

OBVIOUSLY I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO REMIND ETCH PRESENT THAT THE AUDIENCE IS HERE TO OBSERVE BUT NOT TO DEMONSTRATE, NOT INDICATE AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH ANY WITNESS OR WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.

THE AUDIENCE HERE IS TO OBSERVE ONLY AND WE WILL MAINTAIN DECORUM IN THE HEARING ROOM.

AND AGAIN I WILL SAY HERE IS HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING.

I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.

AFTER THAT, WE WILL HEAR TWO SETS OF PRESENTATIONS.

WE WILL HEAR 30-MINUTE OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM COUNSELS FOR THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE.

THEN WE WILL HEAR 45 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS OF EVIDENCE FROM MAJORITY AND MINORITY COUNSEL FROM THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.

FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONING BY THE CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER, WHO MAY YIELD TO COUNSEL FOR QUESTIONING DURING THIS PERIOD.

FINALLY ALL OF OUR MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE PRESENTERS FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE.

I WOULD NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL WAS, COUNSEL WAS PITCH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE TODAY BUT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DECLINED THE INVITATION.

I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.

NO MATTER HIS PARTY OR HIS POLITICS, IF THE PRESIDENT PLACES HIS OWN INTEREST ABOVE THOSE OF THE COUNTRY HE BETRAYS HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ALL HAVE ONE IMPORTANT THING IN COMMON.

WE HAVE EACH TAKEN AN OATH TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

IF THE PRESIDENT PUTS HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY HE VIOLATES THE PRESIDENT'S MOST BASIC RESPONSIBILITY.

HE BREAKS HIS OATH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IF HE PUTS HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY IN A MANNER THAT THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY OUR PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REQUIRES US TO COME TO THE DEFENSE OF THE NATION.

THAT STANDS EVEN WHEN IT IS POLITICALLY INCONVENIENT, EVEN WHEN IT MIGHT BRING US UNDER CRITICISM, EVEN WHEN IT MIGHT COST US OUR JOBS AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

AND EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT IS UNWILLING TO HONOR HIS OATH I AM COMPELLED TO HONOR MINE.

AS WE HEARD IN OUR LAST HEARING, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CAREFUL STUDENTS OF HISTORY.

THEY WERE CLEAR IN THEIR VISION FOR THE NEW VISION.

THEY KNEW THE THREATS TO DEMOCRACY CAN TAKE MANY FORMS, THAT WE MUST PROTECT AGAINST THEM.

THEY WARNED US AGAINST THE DANGERS OF WOULD BE MONARCHS, CHARISMATIC DEMAGOGUES.

>> THEY KNEW THE MOST DANGEROUS TO OUR COUNTRY MIGHT COME FROM WITHIN IN THE FORM OF A CORRUPT EXECUTIVE WHO PUT HIS PRIVATE INTERESTS ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION.

THEY ALSO KNEW THEY COULD NOT ANTICIPATE EVERY THREAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT SOME DAY POSE SO THEY ADOPTED THE PHRASE TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO CAPTURE THE FULL SPECTRUM OF POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.

GEORGE NATURE WHO PROPOSED THIS STANDARD SAID IT WAS MEANT TO CAPTURE ALL MANNER OF GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

THE DEBATE IT IS AROUND THE FRAMING MADE CLEAR THAT THE MOST SERIOUS SUCH OFFENSES INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER, TRAIL THE NATION THROUGH FOREIGN ENTANK.S AND CORRUPTION OF, ENTANGLEMENTS AND CORRUPTION OF OFFICE.

ANY ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST WOULD COMPEL THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO TAKE ACTION ..

COMBINED A SINGLE COURSE OF ACTION, THEY STATE THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY.

DESPITE THE POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP THAT SEEMS TO PUNCTUATE OUR HEARINGS THESE DAYS I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS COMMON GROUND AROUND SOME OF THESE IDEAS.

COMMON GROUND IN THIS HEARING ROOM AND COMMON GROUND ACROSS THE COUNTRY AT LARGE.

WE AGREE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IMPEACHMENT IS A SOLEMN, SERIOUS UNDERTAKING.

WE AGREE THAT IT IS BETTER TO ADDRESS SERIOUS THREATS IN DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS LIKE OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

WE AGREE WHEN THE ELECTIONS THEMSELVES ARE THREATENED BIEN MISS FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC WE CANNOT WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION TO ADDRESS THE THREAT.

WE SURELY AGREE THAT NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD USE HIS PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN.

AND WE AGREE THAT NO PRESIDENT MAY PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY.

THE CONSTITUTION AND HIS OATH OF OFFICE HAS PROMISED TO AMERICAN CITIZENS REQUIRE THE PRESIDENT TO PUT THE COUNTRY FIRST.

IF WE CAN DROP OUR BLINDERS FOR JUST ONE MOMENT I THINK WE WOULD AGREE ON A COMMON SET OF FACTS AS WELL.

ON JULY 25TH PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE AND ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR.

THAT CALL WAS PART OF A CONCERTED EFFORT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION, NOT AN INVESTIGATION OF CORRUPTION AT LARGE, BUT AN INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS AND ONLY HIS POLITICAL RIVALS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PUA HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY.

THE RECORD SHOWS THE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD MILITARY AID, ALLOCATED BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO UKRAINE.

IT ALSO SHOWS HE WITHHELD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

MULTIPLE WITNESSES INCLUDING RESPECTED DIPLOMATS, NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS, DECORATED WAR VETERANS ALL TESTIFIED TO THE SAME BASIC FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE AID AND THE MEETING IN ORDER TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIM THAT FAVOR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY.

AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT, THE CONGRESS DISCOVERED THAT THE AID HAD BEEN WITHHELD FROM UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, IN FACT, MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THESE FAXES APPEAR TO BE BESIDES THE POINT.

AS WE REVIEW THE EVIDENCE TODAY, I EXPECT QUESTION WILL HEAR MUCH ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO BROUGHT HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25TH CALL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

LET ME BE CLEAR.

EVERY FACT ALLEGED BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY MULTIPLE WITNESSES, AGAIN AND AGAIN.

EACH OF WHOM HAS BEEN QUESTIONED EXTENSIVELY BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE.

THE ALLEGATIONS ALSO MATCH UP WITH THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS AS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE, WORDS THAT HE STILL SAYS WERE PERFECT.

I ALSO EXPECT TO HEAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE TERM QUID PRO QUO AS IF A PERSON NEEDS TO VERBALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE NAME OF A CRIME WHILE HE IS COMMITTING IT FOR IT TO BE A CRIME AT ALL.

THE RECORD AT THIS POINT IS ALSO CLEAR MULTIPLE OFFICIALS TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS RIVALS WAS A PART OF HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA AND NOT RELATED TO THE FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.

MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO WITHHOLD THE AID -- INTENDED TO WITHHOLD THE AID UNTIL UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION.

BUT, YES, MULTIPLE OFFICIALS TESTIFIED THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THIS ARRANGEMENT TO BE A QUID PRO QUO FOR THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY.

THE PRESIDENT'S SUPPORTERS ARE GOING TO ARGUE THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS UNFAIR.

THE RECORD BEFORE US IS CLEAR AT THIS POINT AS WELL, WE INVITED THE PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING AND QUESTION WITNESSES AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN THE CHARLES AGAINST HIM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CHOSE NOT TO SHOW.

HE MAY NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY IN HIS OWN DEFENSE BUT HE CANNOT CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

FINALLY, AS WE PROCEED TODAY WE WILL HEAR A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE SPEED WITH WHICH THE HOUSE IS ADDRESSING THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, AND TO MY FELLOW CITIZENS I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEXT ELECTION IS AT STAKE, NOTHING COULD BE MORE URGENT.

THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS IN 2016, HE DEMANDED IT FOR 2020 AND THEN HE GOT CAUGHT.

IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYERS SPENT LAST WEEK BACK IN UKRAINE MEETING WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN AN APPARENT ATTEMPT TO GIN UP THE SAME FAVORS THAT BROUGHT US HERE TODAY AND FORCED CONGRESS TO CONSIDER THE IMPEACHMENT OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT PRESENTS A CONTINUING RISK TO THE COUNTRY.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT DONALD J. TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS PUT HIMSELF BEFORE HIS COUNTRY.

HE HAS VIOLATED HIS MOST BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PEOPLE.

HE HAS BROKEN HIS OATH.

I WILL UNDERMINE IF YOU WILL HONOR YOURS I WOULD URGE YOU TO DO YOUR DUTY.

LET US REVIEW THE RECORD HERE IN FULL VIEW OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEN LET US MOVE SWIFTLY TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY.

WE PROMISE THAT WE WOULD.

I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE MINORITY COMMITTEE, MR. -- DAB.

>> DOES CHAIRMAN HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS RECOGNIZED.

>> YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE A POSSIBLE MOTION BEFORE ME?

>> THAN MOUSE CONSENT, MR.

CHAIR -- >> -- >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS RECOGNIZED.

>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA -- >> I HAVE A POINT OFRD.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER.

>> YOU WERE MINORITY HEARING THE PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2 J 1 OF RULE 11.

BLATANT EGREGIOUS VIALS OF THE RULES YOU REFUSE TO SCHEDULE THAT HEARING THEREFORE I INSIST ON MY POINT OF ORDER UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULE A MINORITY HEARING DAY.

>> THAT IS NOT A PROPER POINT OF ORDER IN TODAY'S HEARING.

AS I TOLD RANKING MEMBER SEVERAL TIMES NOW, I AM CONSIDERING THE MINORITY REQUEST -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> RAINING MEMBER, THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

THE RANKING MEMBER THINKS WE WOULD BE VIOLATING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE IF WE CONSIDERED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE HOLDING A MINORITY DAY HEARING, THE POINT OF ORDER WOULD BE TIMELY AND A MEETING WHERE WE CAN SIT AT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S HEARING AND THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT TIMELY.

>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.

>> WELL, THAT GOT US STARTED AGAIN.

THE CHAIRMAN COMPLETELY NOT ANSWERING A QUESTION.

IT IS TIMELY AND IT IS FRANKLY NOT UP TO HIS DISCRETION BUT AGAIN AND AGAIN WE HAVE NOT REALLY CARED ABOUT THAT FROM THE START TO BEGIN WITH.

SO MY QUESTION IS JUST TO SCHEDULE THE HEARING A AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT OUT THERE.

SO LET'S START OVER.

NOW THE CHAIR RECOGNIZEED AND HE GOT THAT POINT.

THERE ARE FAMOUS POINTS MOMENTS IN IMPEACHMENT, FAMOUS MOMENTS IN IMPEACHMENT AND FAMOUS LINES FROM NIXON WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

FROM THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT THERE WAS I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN.

WHAT WOULD BE KNOWN FROM THIS ONE, WHERE IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

WHY ARE WE HERE?

I WILL TELL YOU, THIS MAY BECOME KNOWN AS THE FOCUS GROUP IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CRIME, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WE CAN ACTUALLY PIN AND NOBODY UNDERSTANDS REALLY WHAT THE MAJORITY IS TRYING TO DO EXCEPT THAT INTERFERE AND BASICALLY MAKE SURE THAT THEY BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT CAN'T WIN NEXT YEAR IF HE IS IMPEACHED.

THE FOCUS GROUP IMPEACHMENT TAKES WORDS AND THEN TAKES THEM TO PEOPLE AND SAY HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THIS BETTER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE FACTS TO MATCH IT.

A FOCUS GROUP IMPEACHMENT SAYS, YOU KNOW WE REALLY AREN'T WORKING WITH GOOD FACTS BUT WE NEED A FOOD PR MOVE.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT, AS I SAID LAST WEEK A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR.

AND IT REALLY BECAME EVIDENT TO ME THAT THIS WAS TRUE BECAUSE LAST WEDNESDAY, AFTER WE HAD A LONG DAY OF HEARING HERE, THE NEXT MORNING, BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE COULD GET STARTED THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE WALKED UP TO THE PODIUM AND SAID, GO WRITE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

JUST -- JUST STOPPED, WRITE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

I APPRECIATE THE MAJORITY PRACTICE FOR TWO DAYS THIS WEEKEND ON THIS HEARING, I APPRECIATE THAT THE FACT THAT YOU GOT TO TRY AND GET IT RIGHT AND TRY TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT YOUR SPEAKER ALREADY UNDERCUT YOU.

HE IS TOOK THE THRILL OUT OF THE ROOM.

YOU ARE RIDING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

WHY COULDN'T WE JUST SAY THAT, SAVE THAT TIME TODAY AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT GO AHEAD AND WRITE THEM?

WELL, THERE IS PROBABLY A REASON FOR THAT.

BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN HAS LAID OUT SOME AMAZING CLAIMS, NONE OF WHICH I THINK AFTER THIS HEARING TODAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN HONESTLY LOOK AT AND SEE THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THERE IS A PROPER REASON AND HE ABUSED THIS POWER BECAUSE AS THE SPEAKER ANOTHER STATEMENT SHE SAID THAT TO DO IMPEACHMENT YOU HAVE TO BE SO EXAMINE COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN.

ALL OF WHICH WE ARE WITH NOT.

SO WHY NOT?

WHY ARE WE HERE?

WELL I THINK WE CAN DO.

THIS LET'S LOOK AT THE THREE THINGS THAT TYPICALLY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING YOUR CASE FOR A CRIME, LET'S DO IT AGAINST WHAT THE MAJORITY HAS SAID OF.

I THINK THEY HAVE MOTIVE, THEY HAVE MEANS, AND THEY HAVE OPPORTUNITY.

WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVE?

IT IS NOVEMBER 2020 IT HAS BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE CHAIRMAN SAID IT AGAIN THIS MORNING, IT HAS BEEN SAID ALL ALONG THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS BECAUSE IF WE DON'T IMPEACH HIM HE WILL WIN AGAIN NEXT YEAR.

THE REASON IS SHOWN IS CLEARLY AS LAST WEEK ON THE JOBS REPORT AND THE ECONOMY AND AS I HAD A MAN COME UP TO ME THIS THE GROCERY STORE THIS WEEKEND HE SAID KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING, HE SAID I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN ECONOMY THIS GOOD, HE SAID PEOPLE ARE WORKING, PEOPLE ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF AND THIS IS JUST A FATAL DISTRACTION ON THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY DON'T LIKE.

MOTIVE IS EASY, NOVEMBER 2016 THEY LOST.

JANUARY 2017, JUST A FEW MINUTES IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" CONFIRMED WHAT EVERY DEMOCRAT HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT NOW IS THE TIME FOR IMPEACHMENT.

WE SEE TWEET AFTER TWEET SAYING NOW LET'S -- IT IS AMAZING THEY START WITH IMPEACHMENT AND THEN THEY SPENT TWO YEARS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DO WE IMPEACH HIM ON?

WELL, THE MEANS BECAME WHAT WE SEE NOW.

THE MEANS IS TO ALWAYS TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT TO ALWAYS SAY THIS PRESIDENT IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG, TO SAY HE IS ILLEGITIMATE AS THE CHAIRMAN HAS SAID BEFORE HE IS NOT EVEN A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT.

TO CONSTANTLY TEAR DOWN A PRESIDENT WHO IS WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE SHAM IMPEACHMENT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS, I THINK THE CHAIRMAN SAID SOMETHING THAT WAS INTERESTING HE SAID THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE ABOVE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE HEALTH ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE OHTH OATH OF OFFICE I THINK THE CONGRESS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR OATH OFS TO RIGHT NOW TO NOT DO AND TO RUN A PROCESS THAT DOESN'T FIT FAIRNESS OR DOOR, DECORUM AND TO RUN A TO PROCESS AND FACT PATTERN YOU ARE HAVING TO FORCE AGAINST A PRESIDENT YOU DON'T LIKE.

WELL WHAT WAS THE OPPORTUNITY?

THE OPPORTUNITY CAME LAST NOVEMBER.

WHEN THEY GOT THE MAJORITY AND THEY BEGAN THEIR IMPEACHMENT RUN.

THEY BEGAN THE PROCESS EVEN AS SELECTING THE CHAIRMAN, THE CHAIRMAN SAID I WILL BE THE BEST PERSON FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, BEFORE WE HAD ANY HEARINGS, BEFORE WE HAD EVEN WERE SWORN IN TO THIS CONGRESS, FOR ANYONE, THE MEDIA WHO ARE WATCHING IN THIS ROOM, FOR ANYONE TO THINK THAT THIS WAS NOT A BAKED DEAL IS NOT BEING HONEST WITH THEMSELVES.

YOU SEE, ASSUMPTION HAS NOT, PRESUMPTION IS NOW THE STANDARD INSTEAD OF PROOF.

IF YOU CALL ANYONE TO BEGIN TO QUESTION BECAUSE THE ENTIRE CASE IS BUILT ON A PRESUMPTION AS WE FOUND OUTLAST WEEK FROM THREE AND WILL DOLLARS THE INFERENCE IS OKAY.

IF YOU JUST INFER THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY MEAN THEN WE WILL TAKE THAT.

THAT IS AN INTERESTING LINE.

YOU KNOW, IT IS INTERESTING THEY MADE THEIR WHOLE CASE BUILT ON GORDON SONDLAND, YOU WILL SEE THAT A LOT TODAY.

HE TESTIFIED HE PRESUMED THE AID WAS CONNECTED TO AN INVESTIGATION BUT HE SAID NOBODY EVER TOLD HIM THAT.

SON LAN EVEN ASKED THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY, HE SAID WHAT DO YOU WANT, THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANT NOTHING, I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO WHAT HE RAN ON, UKRAINE DID NOTHING AND GOT THE AID ANY QUARKS JUST LOOK OVER THE PAST THREE WEEKS WHEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHO BY THE WAY IS ABSENT TODAY.

I GUESS HE CAN'T BACK UP HIS OWN REPORT.

BUT HE STARTED HIS OWN HEARING BY MAKING UP THE FACTUAL CALL WHEN HE MADE IT UP.

HE STARTED THE FAIRY TALE WE ARE HAVING TODAY.

IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PUT THE TRANSCRIPT IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT JUST READ IT, CHAIRMAN SHIVER COULDN'T EVEN ARRIVED THE TRANSCRIPT HE HAD TO MAKE IT UP BECAUSE IF HE DIDN'T MAKE IT UP IT DIDN'T SOUND AS BAD, HE SAID, LISTEN, HE SAID LET'S MAKE UP SOME DIRT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS SAID, THE TRANSCRIPT, THE CHAIRMAN MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS AN ATTORNEY, AS A CHAIRMAN AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO SWORE AN OATH TO BASICALLY TO BE HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT WAS SUCH A MASSIVE MALPRACTICE I HAVE NEVER SEEN BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHY?

AGAIN BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY WAS IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

THEY DON'T ACTUALLY CARE WHAT HAPPENED, AND WE HEARD LAST WEEK FROM WITNESSES THEY DON'T EVEN CARE THAT THE AID WAS RELEASED.

THEY ARE SIMPLY LOOKING AT THE FACTS TO MAKE IT FIT THEIR NARRATIVE.

WELL, WHAT WHAT ELSE A HAPPENEDU KNOW, THIS IS ALSO THE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WHO ALSO SAID THAT THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION IS IN PLAIN SIGHT, BEFORE THE MUELLER REPORT CAME OUT ALL OF THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT I GUESS I MIGHT NEED TO JUST NOT STOP COMMENTING ON CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THESE GUYS BECAUSE I MAY END UPTON NEXT PHONE RECORDS SUBPOENA.

AS WE GO FORWARD.

YOU SEE, WE HAVE TAKEN A DANGEROUS TURN IN THIS CONGRESS.

SUBPOENAS ARE FINE, PROPERLY CONE, DONE AND SHOULD BE DONE PROPERLY BUT THEY SHOULD NEVER BE AT THE EXPENSE OF A POLITICAL ENDEAVOR, VENDETTA.

PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED LAST WEEK PRESUMPTION IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PROOF, THE CART LEGAL CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY INADEQUATE IN SOME RESPECTS DANGEROUS AND THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

TODAY WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET IS WHAT I LOVE MY FRIENDS ON THE MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID, MUELLER, WHEN WE GOT MUELLER REPORT, IT DIDN'T GO REAL WELL.

SO WE HAD A LOT OF HEARINGS, DIDN'T GO REAL WELL, THEN WE FINALLY GOT BOB MUELLER AND SAID THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOVIE VERSION, IN FACT WHAT HAPPENED, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE MAJORITY HAD LIVE READINGS FROM CAPITOL HILL AND DRAMATIC PODCAST AND WROTE A COMIC EDITION SO THEY BROUGHT BOB MUELLER AND THE MOVIE VERSION, THEY TOLD US ROBERT MUELLER'S TESTIMONY WOULD BE THE THING THAT PEOPLE WATCHED AND WOULD BE CONVINCED.

GUESS WHAT?

THEY WEREN'T CONVINCED IN FACT IT FELL FLAT.

YOU KNOW, TODAY I GUESS IS THE MOVIE VERSION OF THE SCHIFF REPORT.

EXCEPT ONE WITH THING, THE STAR WITNESS FAILED TO SHOW UP.

MR. NUNES IS HERE, HIS STAFF IS HERE.

THE LEADING HEADLINE IS THERE, SCHIFF REPORT, BUT WHERE IS MR. SCHIFF?

AND MUELLER, ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFIED, KEN STARR REPORT, KEN STARR TESTIFIED, THE AUTHOR OF THE SCHIFF REPORT IS NOT HERE, INSTEAD, HE IS SENDING HIS STAFF TO DO HIS JOB FOR HIM.

I GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU ARE MAKING UP IMPEACHMENT AS YOU GO.

SO AS WE LOOK FORWARD THIS THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME TO DISCUSS THE FACTUAL CASE FOR THIS AND THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MADE.

WHAT IS VERY DETRIMENTAL TO ME THOUGH IS THIS.

THIS COMMITTEE IS NOT HEARING FROM A FACTUAL WITNESS, THIS COMMITTEE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING PAST HEARING FROM LAW SCHOOL PROFESSORS AND STAFF.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE CHAIRMAN SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT NOT BEING ABLE TO COME, SHOW ME WHERE HE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A PROPER PROCESS IN THIS THAT IS NOT TALKING TO STAFF AND NOT TALKING TO LAW SCHOOL PROFESSORS WHEN WE COULD IS ACTUALLY HAVE WITNESSES THAT WOULD BE CALLED BY BOTH SIDES.

BUT I WANT TO SAY THIS.

IN ENDING.

I LOVE THIS INSTITUTION.

I WAS HERE AS A 19-YEAR-OLD KID, AS AN INTERN.

ALMOST 32 YEARS AGO THIS INSTITUTION AS WE SEE IT TODAY IS IN DANGER.

WE SEE CHAIRMAN WHO ARE ISSUING SUBPOENAS FOR PERSONAL VENDETTAS.

WE SEE COMMITTEES SUCH AS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT HAS HELD MANY, MANY SUBSTANTIVE HEARINGS A AND THE CENTER POINT OF IMPEACHMENT BEING USED AS A RUBBER STAMP BECAUSE WE GET NOT OUR MARCHING ORDERS FROM THIS COMMITTEE AND WHAT IT SHOULD BE DOING BUT FROM THE SPEAKER AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.

WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE A RUBBER STAMP.

I LOVE THIS INSTITUTION BUT THIS THE LAST THREE DAYS, LAST THREE OR FOUR DAYS I HAVE SEEN STUFF THAT JUST BOTHERS ME TO NO END AND SHOULD BOTHER EVERYONE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AFTER HEARING ONE DAY OF TESTIMONY IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID GO WRITE ARTICLES.

FACTS BE DAMNED.

AL GREEN ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE MAJORITY SAID WE CAN KEEP IMPEACHING HIM OVER AND OVER AND OF AGAIN.

ADAM SCHIFF WHEN HE TOLD US HE WASN'T GOING TO COME INSTEAD HIDE BEHIND HIS STAFF, HE ALSO TOLD US THAT WE ARE GOING TO KEEP INVESTIGATING BECAUSE THEY HOE THIS IS THIS IS GOING NOWHERE IN THE SENATE AND THEY ARE DESPERATE TO HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE ON THIS PRESIDENT.

THE ECONOMY IS GOOD, JOB CREATION IS GOOD, MILITARY IS STRONG, OUR COUNTRY IS SAFE.

AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN RELEGATED TO THIS.

WHY?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MEANS, THEY HAVE THE MOTIVE AND THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AND AT THE END OF THE DAY ALL THIS IS ABOUT IS ABOUT A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET OVER THE FACT DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THEY DON'T HAVE A CANDIDATE THAT THEY THINK CAN BEAT HIM.

IT IS ALL POLITICAL AND AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, THIS IS A SHOW, UNFORTUNATELY TODAY THE WITNESS WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE STAR WITNESS CHOSE TO TAKE A PASS AND LET A STAFF ANSWER FOR HIM W THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS.

>> MR. CHAIRMANS I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATED HIS POINT OF ORDER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN CLAUSE 2 J 1 I DON'T HAVE RULE 11 REQUIRES YOU TO SCHEDULE A MINORITY HEARING DADE DATE NOT TO CONSIDER IT, NOT TO MEET TO DISCUSS IT, BUT TO SCHEDULE ONE, AND TO SCHEDULE IT AT A REASON TIME, REASONABL TIME, NOT AFTER ARTICLES OF, ARTICLES HAVE BEEN DRAWN, NOT AFTER THERE HAS BEEN A VOTE ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, I INQUIRE AND INSIST, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULE A MINORITY HEARING DAY OR TELL US WHY YOU ARE -- IGNORING THE RULES.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- WE HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT BUT I WILL REPEAT THAT THAT IS NOT A R POINT OF ORDER AT TODAY'S HEARING, AS I TOLD THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER SEVERAL TIMES, I AM CONSIDERING THE MINORITY'S REQUEST.

IF YOU THINK WE WOULD BE VIOLATING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE IF WE CONSIDERED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE HOLDING THE MINORITY DAY HEARING, THAT POINT OF ORDER WOULD BE TIMELY AT A MEETING WHERE WE CONSIDERED SUCH ARTICLES, IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S HEARING AND THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT IN ORDER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN SINCE I -- >> SINCE I HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN THIS -- >> OUR PROBLEM IS -- >> THE POINT OF OBJECTION -- THERE ARE OTHER OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE THROUGHED IN THE RECORD.

>> I I WILL PRESERVE MY POINT OF OBJECTION ON THAT.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YOU BROUGHT MY NAME INTO THIS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- >> YOU HAVE BROUGHT MY NAME INTO THIS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> TELLING ME THAT YOU YOU ARE CONSIDERING SOMETHING YOU HAVE NOTHING TO CONSIDER AND YOU HAVE TOLD ME THAT I WILL ADMIT ON RECORD IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO ACTUALLY FOLLOWING YOUR DUTY AS A CHAIRMAN TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

AND SO I THINK THE POINT OF ORDER IS VERY WELL-TAKEN, I THINK THE ISSUE WE HAVE IS NOT -- I THINK YOUR TIMING -- I MEAN THE SHOW ME TO IN THE RULE, HAVE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN THAT YOU HAVE A TIME OF ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO DENY THIS UP TO A CERTAIN POINT.

>> I FURTHER RESERVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.

>> AS I HAVE SAID -- >> AS I HAVE SAID, THE POINT OF ORDER WOULD BE AN ORDER AT THE MEETING WHERE WE ARE CONSIDERING -- >> I AM RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.

>> WE WILL NOW HEAR PRESENTATIONS.

>> I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR.

>> THERE IS NO DECISION TO APPEAL, THERE WAS NOT A RULING AND A MOTION.

>> WE WILL HEARING DA.

>> POINT OF ORDER -- >> YOU MADE A RULING ON THE POINT OF ORDER.

>> YOU MADE A RULING ON THE POINT OF ORDER.

YOU CAN'T THEM NOT ALLOW US TO APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.

>> THE YES THAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> IT WAS NOT A RECOGNIZABLE POI POINT OF ORDER AND IT WAS NOT A RECOGNIZABLE POINT OF ORDER AND NOT AN ORDER AT THIS TIME TO MAKE THAT POINT OF ORDER.

THERE IS NO RULING TO APPEAL.

>> BUT MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> THAT RULE -- IT WAS YOUR OBLIGATION, NOT CONSIDERATION, YOU ARE OBLIGATED -- TO SCHEDULE, NOT TO CONSIDER, YOU MADE A RULING THERE IS AN ORDER TO APPEAL.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

WE ARE DOING WHAT WE HAVE TO DO UNDER THE RULES.

WE WILL NOW HEAR -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZED AND NOW HEAR PRESENTATIONS OF EVIDENCE -- >> I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> I HAVEN'T MADE MY OBJECTION YET.

I WILL NOT RECOGNIZE THE PARLIAMENTARY OBJECTION AT THIS TIME.

>> IS THIS WHEN WE JUST HEAR STAFF ASK QUESTIONS OF OTHER STAFF AND THE MEMBERS GET DEALT OUT OF THIS WHOLE HEARING?

FOR THE NEXT FOUR HOURS?

YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO OVERTURN THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION OF -- >> >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> THIS MEETING WILL -- THIS HEARING WILL BE CONSIDERED -- WILL BE CONSIDERED IN AN ORDERLY FASHION, THE GENTLEMAN WILL NOT YELL OUT, AND HE WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS.

WE WILL NOW HEAR PRESENTATIONS OF EVIDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR UP TO 60 MINUTES, EQUALLY DIVIDED.

>> I HAVE NOT MADE MY OBJECTION YET.

>> HARI BURKE WILL PRESENTATION PRESENT FOR THE MAJORITY AND STEPHEN CASTOR FOR THE MINORITY.

EACH OF YOU WILL HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT.

TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME THERE IS A TYPING LIGHT ON YOUR TABLE.

WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM GREEN TO YELL HE YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY.

WHEN THE LIGHT IS RED IT SIGNALS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> YOU REALIZE DAB.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> I HAVE NOT WITHDRAWN MY OBJECTION AND NOT ADDRESSED MY OBJECTION.

>> >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL -- >> I AM OBJECTING TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT EXCEPT.

NOTHING ELSE.

>> FROM BURKE, MR. BURKE IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. BURKE HAS THE FLOOR.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> RANKING MEMBER COLLINS AND ALL OF THE MEMBERS.

BEFORE I HAD THE GREAT HONOR OF BEING A COUNSEL FOR THIS COMMITTEE, MY YOUNG SON ASKED ME A QUESTION.

HE SAID, DAD, DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO BE A GOOD PERSON?

LIKE MANY QUESTIONS BY YOUNG CHILDREN IT HAD A CERTAIN CLARITY BUT IT WAS HARD TO ANSWER.

I SAID, SON, IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT PRESIDENT BE A GOOD PERSON BUT THAT IS THE HOPE AND IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT BE A GOOD PERSON.

THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE BUT THE VERY DOCUMENT THAT CREATED THE AWESOME PRESIDENCY AND ITS POWERS WE HAVE MADE CLEAR IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT BE A PERSON WHO DOES NOT ABUSE HIS POWER.

IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT BE A PERSON WHO DOES NOT RISK NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS NATION AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS IN ORDER TO FURTHER HIS OWN REELECTION PROSPECTS.

IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT PRESIDENT NOT BE A PERSON WHO ACTS AS THOUGH HE IS ABOVE THE LAW IN PUTTING HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE THE NATION'S INTERESTS.

THAT IS THE LESSON OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT IS THE LESSON OF THE FOUNDERS.

THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WHO WOULD USE ALL OF THE POWER OF THAT OFFICE TO SERVE HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED HIM.

THEY DECIDED THERE NEEDED TO BE A REMEDY BECAUSE THEY SUFFERED THE ABUSES OF KING GEORGE WHERE THEY HAD NO REMEDY.

THE REMEDY THEY OPPOSED WAS THAT IF A PRESIDENT COMMITS A GRAVE OFFENSE, A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.

THIS BODY HAS THE POWER TO IMPEACH THAT PRESIDENT.

THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT SERVE HIS OWN INTERESTS OVER THAT OF THE NATION.

IT FLOWS FROM THE VERY OATH THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THIS BODY MUST TAKE TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY AND IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE OCCASION THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE NECESSARY.

BUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS HAVE LEFT NO CHOICE.

THE FOUNDERS WERE VERY CLEAR IN SPELLING OUT WHAT THEY SAW TO BE THE GREATEST ABUSES THAT WOULD RAISE THE MOST CONCERNS FOR OUR NATION.

THEY SPELLED THEM OUT AS WARNING SIGNALS THAT IF A PRESIDENT VIOLATED OR COMMITTED ONE OF THESE THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO POTENTIALLY IMPEACH THAT PRESIDENT.

THERE WAS ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST, CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS, AND WHAT IS SO EXTRAORDINARY IS THE CONDUCT WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT TODAY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T VIOLATE ONE OF THESE, BUT ALL THREE.

FIRST, THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY PRESSURING UKRAINE AND ITS NEW PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY RAMPING UP THAT PRESSURE BY CONDITIONING A, AND WANTED A WANTED WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND A NEEDED MILITARY AID THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED IN ORDER TO GET THAT PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL.

IT IS CLEAR AND OVERWHELMING IN ABUSING THAT POWER THE PRESIDENT BETRAYED THE NATIONAL INTEREST BY PUTTING HIS OWN POLITICAL PROSPECTS OVER THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT RISKED CORRUPTING OUR ELECTIONS BY INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE TO KNOCK OUT AN ADVERSARY, TO HELP HIS PROSPECTS IN REELECTION REELECTION.

IT IS WHY IN DEBATING THE CONSTITUTION JAMES MADISON WARNED THAT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENCY WAS TO BE ADMINISTERED BY A SINGLE MAN HIS UNDERSTANDINGS MIGHT BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC.

AND THE SCHEME BY PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SO BRAZEN, SO CLEAR SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS, ACTIONS, SWORN TESTIMONY, UNCONTRADICTED, CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS THAT IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT ANYBODY COULD DISPUTE THOSE ACTS LET ALONE ARGUE THAT CONDUCT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR OFFENSES.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT A PRESIDENT OF OUR NATION IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

IT IS WHY LAST WEEK THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, PROFESSOR MICHAEL GERHARDT SAID, IF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ANS ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

THEY THREATEN OUR RULE OF LAW.

THEY THREATEN OUR INSTITUTIONS AND AS JAMES MADISON WARNED US THEY THREATEN OUR REPUBLIC.

LET ME BEGIN WHERE WE MUST WITH THE FACTS IN EVIDENCE.

FIRST, IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY UKRAINE WAS SO IMPORTANT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, UKRAINE WAS UNDER ATTACK BY ITS AGGRESSIVE AND HOSTILE NEIGHBOR RUSSIA AND ALREADY ENCROACHED ON ITS TERRITORIES.

THE UKRAINE WAS AT GREAT RISK THAT RUSSIA WOULD AGAIN TAKE FURTHER TERRITORY OR TRY.

EUROPE HAD A STEAK IN THIS AND SO DID WE.

I AM GOING TO TURN TO AN EXPERT ON THIS.

AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO WAS ONE OF THE MOST DECORATED DIPLOMATS AND RECOGNIZED DIPLOMATS FOR OVER 40 YEARS HE SERVED OUR COUNTRY, HONORABLY AND APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE:THE RUSSIANS ARE VIOLATING ALL OF THE RULES, TREATIES, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY COMMITTED TO THAT ACTUALLY KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE FOR NEARLY 70 YEARS.

THAT RULE 0 OF -- THAT ORDER THAT KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE AND ALLOWED FOR PROSPER AT THIS AS WELL AS PEACE IN EUROPE WAS VIOLATED BY THE RUSSIANS.

IT AFFECTS THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL GROW UP IN, AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN.

THIS AFFECTS THE KIND OF WORLD THAT WE WANT TO SEE ABROAD.

>> THAT IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXPLAINING WHY UKRAINE WAS SO PORN AND WHY THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS SO SIGNIFICANTLY RISKED HURTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE POLICY AND OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS, NOW YOU ALREADY HEARD THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT PROOF THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF TOLD THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE WANTED HIM TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.

AND YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THAT TODAY BUT THAT PROOF IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

THERE ARE SO MANY MORE EVENTS AND MEETINGS AND CONTEMPORANEOUS TEXT MESSAGES, E-MAILS, OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW THIS HAPPENED AND HAPPENED EXACTLY AS IT IS ALLEGED.

AND IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THIS SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE, TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL THE PERSON IN THE CENTER OF THAT SCHEME WAS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

THE FACTS CANNOT BE DISPUTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT FOR A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND, TO PUT HIS POLITICAL INTEREST AS ABOVE THAT OF THE NATION.

I AM GOING TO TURN TO ANOTHER EXPERT, I AM GOING TO TURN TO DR. FIONA HILL THE NATIONAL SECURITY NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SENIOR DIRECTOR IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND SHE IS GOING TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED.

>> BUT IT STRUCK ME YESTERDAY WHEN YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN AMBASSADOR SON LAN'S E-MAILS AND WHO WAS ON THESE E-MAILS AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO KNOW IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT BECAUSE HE WAS BEING INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND.

AND WE WERE BEING INVOLVED IN NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN POLICY AND THOSE TWO THINGS HAD JUST DIVERGED.

>> AND THAT TELLS YOU WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.

THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS OWN DOMESTIC POLITICAL INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY.

A PRESIDENT CANNOT ABUSE HIS POWER TO SECURE AN ELECTION.

HE CAN DO THAT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT IS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIS CONDUCT, WHY IT IS NOT WRONGFUL OR CORRUPT FOR AN ABUSE OF POWER, BUT THE TRUTH HOLDS TOGETHER, IT MAKES SENSE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE.

WHEN SOMEONE IS OFFERING AN EXCUSE THAT IS NOT TRUE, IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, IT CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH WHAT THE FACTS SHOW AND YOU WILL SEE THESE EXCUSES DO NOT MAKE SENSE.

THE FACTS ARE CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS OWN POLITICAL AND PERSON INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S INTERESTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME AND YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT TODAY FROM THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE.

FIRST, YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI PUSH UKRAINE TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

MR. GIULIANI A PRIOR TO THE JULY 25TH CALL HE MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT UKRAINE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, HE TWEETED ABOUT IT, PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE NEW PRESIDENT, HE WENT TO UKRAINE AND LATER WENT AGAIN WITH THE ASSIST AND DIRECTION OF U.S. OFFICIALS WHO WERE TOLD TO AID THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF BEHALF.

YOU WILL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD HIS AIDES HE WAS RELYING ON FOR UKRAINE THAT HE WANTED THEM TO, QUOTE, TALK TO RUDY.

WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR IS THAT HIS CLOSE ADVISORS HAD JUST GOTTEN BACK ON MAY 23RD FROM THE INAUGURATION FORCE NEW PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THEY TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE WERE IMPRESSED.

HE WAS ELECTED ON AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM, A REFORM PLATFORM, YOU SHOULD SCHEDULE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

THIS IS VERY GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES.

AND THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE WAS, TALK TO RUDY.

WHO HAD BEEN OUT THERE CLAIMING FOR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HAD TO DO WAS INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

YOU WILL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ADVISOR TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD NOT SCHEDULE THE WANTED WHITE HOUSE MEETING UNLESS HE ANNOUNCED A UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, THERE ARE DOCUMENTS, THERE IS SWORN TESTIMONY, THIS HAPPENED AND THERE IS NO QUESTION FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID THIS.

AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DESPERATELY NEEDED A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BOTH TO SHOW RUSSIA THAT THE U.S. WAS STILL SUPPORTING THE UKRAINE AND FOR HIS OWN CREDIBILITY AS A NEW PRESIDENT.

YOU WILL HEAR THEN TO RAMP UP THE PRESSURE WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IS HE TOLD HIS AGENCIES TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AND SECURITY AID THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED AND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED TO UKRAINE, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ORDER TO PUT MORE PRESSURE ON UKRAINE, ALL THE AGENCIES INVOLVED, STATE DEPARTMENT, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SAID IT SHOULD BE RELEASED, THAT IT HAD BEEN APPROVED AND WAS GOING TO BE RELEASED UNTIL PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY STOPPED IT AND AGAIN CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS SHOW IT AND PROVE IT.

PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE SHOCKED.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID IT WAS AN ASTONISHMENT, A WITNESS SAID IT WAS ILLOGICAL TO DO THIS AND THE PRESIDENT NEVER OFFERED AN EXPLANATION.

BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS DISCOVERED WHY HE DID IT.

THEN ON THE JULY 25TH CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPLICITLY TOLD HIM HE WANTED HIM TO DO TWO UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS ONE OF A U.S. CITIZEN AND HIS POLITICA IN THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE AND WAS SPEAKING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO PRESIDENT TRUMP APPOINTED, AMBASSADOR SON LAN HAD JUST COME TO THE UKRAINE ON THE 26TH, HE MET ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND WENT TO A RESTAURANT WITH HOLMES AND CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON HIS CELLPHONE AND MR. HOLMES COULD HEAR THAT CALL AND THEN HE SPOKE TO MR.

SON LAN.

LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENED ON ABSOLUTELY 26TH, THE DAY AFTER THAT CALL.

>> I HEARD AMBASSADOR SON LAN GREET THE PRESIDENT AND EXPLAIN HE WAS CALLING FROM KIEV, I HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN CLARIFY THAT AMBASSADOR SON LAN WAS IN UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED, YES, HE WAS IN UKRAINE AND WENT ON TO STATE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY QUOTE LOVES YOUR ASS.

I THEN HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK, SO HE IS GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION?

AMBASSADOR SON LAN REPLIED HE IS GOING TO DO IT A ADDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING HE ASKED HIM TO DO.

>> THAT IS SWORN TESTIMONY BY DAVID HOLMES WHO HEARD IT FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

AND IT WAS CLEAR TO EVERYONE THE MOST EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN GOVERNOR WHO DONALD TRUMP UPONNED IN THEIR POSITIONS ..

THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON, LET'S LOOK AT A TEXT MESSAGE FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AROUND TIME ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.

HE SAID, AS I SAID GONE PHONE, I THINK IT IS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

AGAIN, THAT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP PUTTING HIS OWN POLITICAL AND PERSONAL INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S INTERESTS TO HOLD AID DESPERATELY NEEDED BY UKRAINE ORDER TO COMBAT RUSSIA AND SHOW THE SUPPORT HE DID TO HELP HIS OWN CAMPAIGN.

NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN EXCUSES OFFERED BY THE PRESIDENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THOSE EXCUSES.

THE FIRST EXCUSE OFFERED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THAT THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED AND PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH MR. ZELENSKY.

WE HEARD IT TODAY.

THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT, THOUGH, AS AN EXCUSE IS THE AID WAS ONLY RELEASED AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT DOING THIS SCHEME.

ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, THE COMMITTEES OF THIS HOUSE STARTED THEIR INVESTIGATION AND ANNOUNCED THEY WERE INVESTIGATING HIS CONDUCT WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE.

TWO DAYS LATER WAS WHEN HE RELEASED THE AID.

AND HE ALSO, THERE ALSO WAS A NEWS ARTICLE WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN A MOMENT BY THE "WASHINGTON POST" ON SEPTEMBER 5TH EXPOSING HIS SCHEME.

AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT THAT HE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE BUT IN NEW YORK.

ANOTHER EXCUSE OFFERED, THE PRESIDENT WAS MOTIVATED BY GENERAL CORRUPTION CONCERNS AND AGAIN THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IS NOT TRUE THAT THAT IS WHAT CAUSED HIM TO WITHHOLD THE AID, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS IN FACT ELECTED ON AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM AND A REFORM CANDIDATE, HIS OWN PEOPLE TOWED HIM AGAIN AND AGAIN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HOPES HE IS DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY AND URGED HIM TO BE SUPPORTIVE.

ON HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON JULY 25TH, PRESIDENT TRUMP IGNORED THE TALKING POINTS THAT WERE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION.

HE ONLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS, THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT HELPED HIM POLITICALLY.

EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED RELEASING THE AID TO UKRAINE, THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

THEY DID A STUDY.

>>, A CORRUPTION STUDY AND SAID RELEASE IT, THE WHITE HOUSE NEVER PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION.

THE AID HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND IT WAS NOT FOR ANY CORRUPTION ISSUES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD IT.

THE NEXT IS UKRAINE WAS NOT PRESSURED AND THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT IS WELL TODAY THEY HAVEN'T SAID THEY WERE PRESSURED.

WELL UKRAINE WAS PRESSURED THEN AND STILL IS LEARNED.

THEY ARE DESPERATE I ARE IN IN NEED OF THE UNITED STATES SUPPORT AS THEY BATTLE THE THREAT OF RUSSIA.

SO OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY SAID BUT CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS, E-MAILS, TEXTS FROM THE UKRAINE OFFICIALS THEMSELVES SHOW THE PRESSURE THEY FELT.

SHOWED THEY KNEW WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING AND SHOWED WHAT THEY HAD TO DO.

THIS IS ONE FROM BILL TAYLOR TO AGAIN AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, GORDON, ONE THING KURT AND I TALKED ABOUT YET WAS SASHA, A SENIOR AIDE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY POINT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY, NOT MERRILY AN INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON 0 DOMESTIC REELECTION POLITICS.

THEY NOT ONLY FELT THE PRESSURE, THEY GOT THE MESSAGE.

THEN NOT GOING TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THEY WERE ULTIMATELY NOT GOING TO GET MILITARY AID UNLESS THEY FURTHER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REELECTION EFFORTS.

THAT IS A CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER.

ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT IS MADE IS THAT TRUMP NEVER SAID QUID PRO QUO.

AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR IS ON A CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AFTER A "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE CAME OUT ON SEPTEMBER 5TH WHICH WE WILL LOOK AT, AFTER THAT, THERE WAS A "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT THAT AGAIN EXPOSED THE UKRAINIAN SCHEME DAYS AFTER THAT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ON A PHONE CALL WITH BASS OR, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND WITHOUT PROMPTING SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT SO HE IS OFFERING HIS DEFENSE, BUT EVEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN HIS SWORN TESTIMONY DIDN'T BUY IT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEN PREATD NOT ONLY WAS NOT DISSUADED HE AGAIN DESCRIBED WHAT HE WANTED.

HE DIDN'T WANT UKRAINE TO ACTUALLY CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

HE WANTED THEM TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, TO HELP HIM POLITICALLY, HE CONTINUED AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT.

AGAIN, NONE OF THESE EXCUSES HOLD ANY WATER AND THEY ARE REFUTED BY TESTIMONY, CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS AND MORE.

NOW, SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD WAIT TO PROCEED WITH THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ALL OF THE WITNESSES OR OBTAINED ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS.

BUT THE REASON WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ALL OF THE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS IS BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF HAS OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION.

HE HAS DIRECTED HIS MOST SENIOR AIDES WHO ARE INVOLVED IN SOME OF THESE EVENT NOT TO COME TESTIFY, TO DEFY SUBPOENAS.

HE HAS TOLD EVERY ONE OF HIS AGENCIES WITH RECORDS THAT COULD BE RELEVANT NOT TO PRODUCE THOSE RECORDS TO US, TO TRY TO OBSTRUCT OUR INVESTIGATION.

NOW, THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS REPLAYING THE PLAYBOOK USED IN THE PRIOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATION.

IN THAT INVESTIGATION HE DIRECTED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO CREATE A FALSE OWN ANY RECORD AND DOCUMENT AND LIE, DENYING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOLD HIM TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL.

HE DID MANY OTHER THINGS TO TRY TO INTERFERE WITH THAT INVESTIGATION.

HE ATTACKED THE INVESTIGATORS AND WITNESSES AND CALLED THEM HORRIBLE NAMES, JUST AS HE HAS DONE HERE, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT HE GOT AWAY WITH IT.

ON JULY 24TH, WAS THE DAY THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THE 24TH, IT WAS EXACTLY THE FOLLOWING DAY THAT, THE 25TH THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN FURTHERANCE OF HIS UKRAINIAN SCHEME AND HE THOUGHT HE GOT AWAY WITH IT, NOT ONY THAT, HE THOUGHT HE COULD USE HIS POWERS TO INTERFERE WITH THAT INVESTIGATION.

THAT HE COULD ACT LIKE HE WAS ABOVE THE LAW AND IF HE GOT CAUGHT, HE WOULD AGAIN USE HIS POWERS TO TRY TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION AND PREVENT THE FACTS FROM COMING OUT.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.

BUT FORTUNATELY, FORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS WHO CAME FORWARD TO TESTIFY, DESPITE THREATS BY PRESIDENT AGAINST THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION, THEY TOLD THE STORY.

THEY ON THEIR OWN PRODUCED DOCUMENTS THAT PROVIDE UNCONTROVERTED, CLEAR AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THIS SCHEME.

HE PUT HIS POLITICAL REELECTION INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF ITS ELECTIONS.

HE DID IT INTENSELY.

HE DID IT CORRUPTLY, HE ABUSED HIS POWERS IN WAYS THAT FOUNDERS FEARED THE MOST.

NO PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY HAS THE ABILITY TO PREVENT INVESTIGATIONS.

AND NEITHER DOES THE PRESIDENT.

OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW IT.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT.

AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS AND REQUIREMENTS OF FINDING AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS THERE IS AN URGENCY IS THERE A SENSE DA YOU HAVE TO MOVE BECAUSE IT COULD BE REPEATED.

WELL, AGAIN, FIRST, ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED RECOGNIZE THAT OBSTRUCTING AN INVESTIGATION IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BUT HERE THE OFFENSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT IS BEING INTERFERED OR OBSTRUCTED WITH IS INTERFERED WITH THIS VERY ELECTION THAT IS COMING UP.

AND I SUBMIT TO YOU, GIVEN WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATION, GIVEN WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE, IF IN FACT PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN GET AWAY WITH WHAT HE DID AGAIN OUR IMAGINATION IS THE ONLY LIMIT TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY DO NEXT OR WHAT A FUTURE PRESIDENT MAY DO NEXT TO TRY TO ABUSE HIS OR HER POWER TO SERVE HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S INTERESTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO TURN BACK TO WHAT THE FOUNDERS MOST CARED ABOUT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ABC'S OF POTENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL ABUSES.

IT IS EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS A TRIFECTA CHECKING ALL THREE BOXES.

LET'S BEGIN WITH ABUSE OF POWER.

WHAT THAT MEANS, IT IS TO USE THE POWER OF THE OFFICE TO OBTAIN AN IMPROPER PERSONAL BENEFIT WHILE IGNORING OR INJURING THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.

OR ACT IN WAYS WHICH ARE GROCERY INCONSISTENT WITH AND UNDERMINE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

NOW, THESE -- THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN ABUSE OF POWER CAME UP BEFORE WHEN THIS CONGRESS CONSIDERED THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT NIXON.

AND AFTER ACTION WAS TAKEN PRESIDENT NIXON FAMOUSLY SAID IF THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

AND THIS BODY REJECTED THAT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT SO.

THAT GOES DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO WHAT THE FOUNDERS SAID.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THE SAME THING IN RESPONDING TO THE PRIOR INVESTIGATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN DEFENDING HIS CONDUCT.

HERE IS WHAT HE SAID.

>> I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.

>> AND THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT.

THAT IS AS WRONG AS WHEN PRESIDENT MIX SON SAID A SIMILAR THING.

IT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY DEMANDS.

HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

TURNING TO THE SECOND ABUSE OF POWER OF MOST CONCERN, BETRAYAL OF THE NATION TO FOREIGN POWERS.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TREATED MILITARY AID THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED, TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND DECIDED TO TREAT IT AS HIS OWN CHECKBOOK TO TRY TO FURTHER HIS OWN REELECTION CHANCES.

THAT REFLECTS WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND FINALLY CORRUPTION OF OUR ELECTIONS.

THE TRAILERS KNEW THAT CORRUPT LEADERS OR LEADERS ACTING CORRUPTLY CONCENTRATE THEIR POWERS TO MANIPULATE ELECTIONS AND UNDERCUT ADVERSARIES.

THEY TALKED ABOUT IT FREQUENTLY.

THAT IS WHY THE FRAMERS THOUGHT ELECTORAL TREASURY INVOLVING FOREIGN POWERS WAS A CRITICAL ABUSE THAT COULD SUPPORT AND LEAD TO IMPEACHMENT.

NOW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LEARNED LAST ELECTION HOW DANGEROUS FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN OUR ELECTIONS CAN BE.

LET ME SHOW YOU ANOTHER CLIP FROM CANDIDATE TRUMP ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

>> RUSSIA, IF YOU LISTENING, I HOPE YOU ARE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 E-MAILS THAT ARE MISSING.

I THINK YOU WILL PROBABLY BE REWARDED MIGHTILY BY OUR PRESS.

>> INFUL AND RUSSIA WAS LISTENING.

WITHIN APPROXIMATELY FIVE HOURS, FIVE HOURS, OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INVITATION TO RUSSIA TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION BY TRYING TO HACK AND OBTAIN THE E-MAILS OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT RUSSIA IN FACT TRIED TO DO THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME.

THE VERY OFFICERS WHO WERE THEN INDICT BED AT THIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THAT CONDUCT THEY TOOK CANDIDATE TRUMP'S INVITATION.

NOW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LEARNED A LESSON.

PRESIDENT TRUMP UNFORTUNATELY APPARENTLY LEARNED A DIFFERENT LESSON.

LET'S LOOK.

>> .. WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

IT IS A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

>> SO THIS WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP ANSWERING A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT DID HE WANT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO.

SO EVEN AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT HE IS SAYING, AGAIN, THIS VULNERABLE NATION DEPENDENT ON U.S. SUPPORT MILITARY AND OTHERWISE AGAIN HE IS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.

AND UNLIKE IN 2016 WHEN HE ONLY HAD A CAMPAIGN PLATFORM, WHICH TO EXTEND THE INVITATION TO A FOREIGN POWER, NOW HE HAS THE LEVERS OF GOVERNMENT IN HIS CONTROL TO NOT ONLY REQUEST IT AND INVITE IT BUT TO PRESSURE THAT COUNTRY TO DO IT AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

AND WHAT IS MOST STRIKING AS WE COME BACK TO THIS ISSUE A THAT THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THERE A CONTINUING RISK OF WRONGDOING?

THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THIS AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT SHOWED THE RISK, SHOWS THE RISK OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS BODY DOESN'T ACT.

HE REALLY DOES BELIEVE HE CAN ACT AS THOUGH HE WERE ABOVE THE LAW.

HE REALLY DOES BELIEVE IN EVIDENCED BY HUSBAND CONDUCT HE CAN PUT HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS OVER THE NATION'S INTERESTS, OVER THE NATION'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, OVER THE NATION'S INTEGRITY OF ITS ELECTIONS.

SO OF COURSE WE DO, OF COURSE WE DO HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP.

THAT'S NOT A REASON TO POSTPONE THIS DISCUSSION.

THAT'S THE REASON WE MUST HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TO MAKE SURE IT IS NOT INTERFERED WITH, TO MAKE SURE THIS PRESIDENT DOESN'T DO IT, TO MAKE SURE FUTURE PRESIDENTS DO NOT DO IT.

IT IS THE HOPE THAT MANY THESE DISCUSSIONS CAN PUT ASIDE POLITICAL RANCOR, DISAGREEMENTS AND HAVE A FAIR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACTS IN THIS CONDUCT, NOT JUST AS IT RELATES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT AS TO THE PRESIDENCY ITSELF AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS.

MY SON, OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN, THEY WILL STUDY THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY, THEY WILL READ ALL OF YOUR REMARKS, THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT ALL OF YOUR ACTIONS AND THAT IS NOT A REASON TO VOIGT FOR OR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT, FOR THAT OF COURSE YOU MUST VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.

BUT THAT IS A REASON FOR US TO HAVE A FAIR DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE UNDISPUTED FACTS SHOW, TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS WRONG, IT IS VERY WRONG AND CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN WITH THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT.

IT IS A REASON TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER WE WANT OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE PRESIDENT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE CAN PUT HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM.

IT IS A REASON FOR THESE DEBATES TO AGAIN FAIRLY FOCUS ON THE FACTS AND TO MAKE SURE THE PRESENTATIONS WE ARE GOING HEAR WILL NOT DISTORT THE RECORD, FOCUS ON PROCESS POINTS, RAISE EXTRANEOUS MATTERS THAT REALLY ARE SPEND TODDIES TRACT RATHER THAN FOCUS ON WHAT THE CONDUCT WAS AT ISSUE HERE.

IT IS A REASON TO FOCUS ON THE FACTS AND WHAT IS IN THE COUNTRY'S BEST INTERESTS.

HISTORY, FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL BE THE JUDGE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. BURKE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. BURKE.

MR. CASTOR -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 30 MINUTES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.

>> MR. CASTOR IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CASTOR IS RECOGNIZED FOR 30 MINUTES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.

>> MR. CASTOR IS RECOGNIZED FOR 30 MINUTES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE WITNESS HAS VIOLATED RULE 17 AND A MY POINT OF ORDER SHOULD BE HEARD.

>> POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE WITNESS HAS USED LANGUAGE WHICH IMPUGNS THE MOTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT AND SUGGESTS HE IS DISLOYAL TO HIS COUNTRY AND THOSE WORDS SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AND TAKEN DOWN.

>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINED, WITNESSES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THE DECORUM.

>> APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.

>> IN THE SAME WAY MEMBERS ARE.

>> THE TOPIC OF THE HEARING IS THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT SO NONE OF US SHOULD FIND IT SURPRISING WE ARE HEARING TESTIMONY THAT IS CRITICAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

I DO NOT FIND THAT THE WITNESS'S COMMENTS ARE DISORDERLY AND FIND THEY ARE PERTH MEANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS HEARING, THE WITNESS WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE EXCEPT THAT HIS TIME HAS EXPIRED, MR. CASTOR -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS NOT -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> MY POINT OF ORDER IS NOT HIS WORDS ARE DISORDERLY, THEY ARE UNPARLIAMENTARY AND VIOLATE THE RULES OF THE HOUSE -- >> THE POINT WILL BE TAKEN DOWN.

>> THIS IS NOT -- CASH THE MOTIVES -- THE GENTLEMAN CASH.

>> AND THE CHARACTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

THE RULES OF DOOR CORE, DECORUM APPLY TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND NOT TO WITNESSES.

THE YES PAN MAY PROCEED.

>> I APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.

>> THAT IS NOT A RULING.

>> IT IS A RULING.

>> THERE WAS NO RULING.

>> IT WAS A RULING ON A POINT OF ORDER AND APPEALABLE.

>> IT IS SUBJECT -- >> THAT IS A RULING.

>> AND THAT'S -- >> >> THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINED.

>> APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.

>> I MOVE TO TABLE THE -- >> THE MOTION IS MADE TO TABLE THE APPEAL -- >> THE TABLE IS I MOVE THE EXPLOSION MADE IN WRITING.

>> IT IS NOT IN DEBATE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO -- >> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO TABLE SAY AYE.

>> OPPOSED NO.

>> THE MOTION TO TABLE -- >> SHE HAS TO PUT IT IN WRITING FIRST AND THEN YOU CALL THE VOTE.

>> THE MOTION TO TABLE -- >> YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULES.

>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS SUSTAINED.

>> ROLL CALL.

>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.

[ ROLL CALL TAKEN ] >> MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES AYE.

MR. DEUTCH VOTES AYE.

MS. BASS VOTE AYES.

MR. RICHMOND VOTES AYE.

>> MR. CICILLINE VOTES AYE.

MR. SWALWELL VOTES AYE.

MR. LIEU VOTES AYE.

MR.

WHEREAS SKIN.

>> MR.

WHEREAS SKIN VOTES AYE.

>> MS. DEMINGS VOTES AYE.

>> MR. CORREA VOTES AYE.

>> MS. SCANLON VOTES AYE.

>> MS. GARCIA VOTES AYE.

MR. NEGUSE VOTES AYE.

>> MS. MCBATH VOTES AYE.

>> MR. STANTON VOTES AYE.

>> MS. DEAN VOTES AYE.

>> MS. MUCARSEL-POWELL VOTES AYE.

MR. COLLINS, NO.

>> MR. COLLINS VOTES NO.

>> MR. SENSENBRENNER.

>> NO.

>> MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.

>> MR. CHABOT VOTES NO.

MR. GOHMERT VOTES NO.

MR. JORDAN VOTES NO.

MR. BUCK.

MR. RATCLIFFE?

MR. RATCLIFFE VOTES NO.

MS. ROBY VOTES NO.

MR. GATES VOTES NO.

MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA.

>> MR. JOHNSON OF LEAST VOTES NO.

MR. BIGGS.

REQUEST MR. MCCLINTON VOTES NO.

MS. LESKO.

>>S IN LESKO VOTES NO.

MR. RESCHENTHALER.

>> MR. CLINE?

>> NO.

>> MR. CLINE VOTES NO.

MR. ARMSTRONG.

MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES NO.

MR. STEUBE.

>> NO.

MR. STEUBE VOTES NO.

MR. CHAIRMAN HOW AM I RECORDED.

>> MR. BIGGS YOU ARE NOT RECORDED.

>> I SAID NO.

>> MR. BIGGS VOTES NO.

>> HAS EVERY MEMBER VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE.

>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> IN CHAIRMAN THERE ARE WENT TO AYES AND 715 NOS.

>> MAY I MAKE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> I WILL NOT RECOGNIZE THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY AT THIS TIME.

MR. CASTOR IS RECOGNIZED FOR 30 MINUTES.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN NADLER, RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS OF THE STAFF, MY NAME IS STEVE CASTOR, I AM A CONGRESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER, I SERVED WITH THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON THE REPUBLICAN STAFF WITH MR. JORDAN.

I AM ALSO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS INVESTIGATION I AM A SHARED STAFFER WITH JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND MR. COLLINS AND THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND MR. NUNES.

SURE IS ATYPICAL FOR A STAFF TORE BE PRESENTING BUT AGAIN THANKS OR HAVING ME.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS TO DISCUSS WHETHER PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP'S CONDUCT FITS THE DEFINITION OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

IT DOES NOT.

SUCH THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSIDER ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE AND IT SHOULD NOT.

THIS CASE IN MANY RESPECTS COMES DOWN TO EIGHT LINES IN A CALL TRANSCRIPT.

LET ME SAY CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO.

THE RECORD IN THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY DOES NOT SHOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE OR OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS.

TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO IS 63 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR OVER EIGHT LINES IN A CALL TRANSCRIPT IS BOLOGNA.

DEMOCRATS SEEK TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS BUT BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH HIS POLICIES.

THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS NOT THE ORGANIC OUT GROWTH OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.

DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR A SET OF FACTS ON WHICH TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP SINCE HIS INAUGURATION ON JANUARY 20TH, 2017.

JUST 27 MINUTES AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION THAT DAY THE "WASHINGTON POST" RAN A STORY THAT THE CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HAS ALREADY BEGUN.

THE ARTICLE REPORTED DEMOCRATS AND LIBERAL ACTIVISTS ARE MOUNTING BROAD OPPOSITION TO STYMIE TRUMP'S AGENDA.

AND NOTED THAT IMPEACHMENT STRATEGISTS BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION'S -- CLAUSE WOULD BE THE VEHICLE.

HE IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE ADMINISTRATION DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE INTRODUCED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM OFFICE ON SEVERAL VERY DIFFERENT FACTUAL BASES.

ON JANUARY 3RD, THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE NEW CONGRESS, CONGRESS PAN SHERMAN INTRODUCED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, THE SAME DAY, REPRESENTATIVE TLAIB SAID WE WILL GO IN THERE AND IMPEACH THE -- PRESIDENT.

ON MAY 2019 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN SAID ON MSNBC IF WE DON'T IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT HE WILL BE REELECTED.

EVEN SPEAKER PELOSI WHO SAID IMPEACHMENT IS A SOMBER AND PRAYERFUL EXERCISED HAS CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AN IMPOSTER AND SAID IT IS DANGEROUS TO ALLOW VOTERS TO JUDGE HIS PERFORMANCE IN 2020.

THE OBSESSION WITH IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT IS REFLECTED THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE USED THE POWER OF THEIR MAJORITY IN THE PAST 11 MONTHS IN THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE THE DEMOCRATS FIRST ANNOUNCED WITNESS WAS MICHAEL COHEN A DISGRACED FELON WHO PLEADED GUILTY TO LYING TO CONGRESS.

WHEN HE CAME BEFORE US, THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HE LIED AGAIN AS MANY AS EIGHT TIMES.

OVERSIGHT DEMOCRATS DEMANDED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL FINANCES AND EVEN SUBPOENAED THE PRESIDENT'S ACCOUNTING FIRST MASARS FOR LARGE SWATHS OF SENSITIVE AND PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENTIRE TRUMP THE REASON THEY CITED FOR WANTING THE PRESIDENT'S TAX RETURNS THEY SAID WAS TO OVERSEE THE I.R.S.

'S AUDIT PROCESS FOR PRESIDENTIAL TAX RETURNS.

YOU CAN JUDGE THAT FOR YOURSELF.

IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATS DEMANDED AND SUBPOENAED THE PRESIDENT'S BANK RECORDS GOING BACK TEN YEARS.

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE STAFF, THE REPUBLICANS TELL ME, THE INFORMATION DEMANDED WOULD COVER EVERY WITHDRAWAL, CREDIT CARD SWIPE, DEBT CARD PURCHASE OF EVERY MEMBER OF THE TRUMP FAMILY INCLUDING HIS MINOR CHILD.

THE REASON THAT THE DEMOCRATS GAVE FOR WHY THEY NEEDED SUCH VOLUMINOUS AND INTRUSIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUMP FAMILY WAS -- GET THIS -- FINANCIAL INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE WITH BANKING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.

HERE IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATS SENT OUT LETTERS DEMANDING INFORMATION FROM OVER 80 RECIPIENTS, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN, BUSINESS PARTNERS, EMPLOYEES, HIS CAMPAIGN, BUSINESSES, AND FOUNDATION.

OF COURSE, THE MAIN EVENT FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS THE REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, WHICH DEMOCRATS WOULD BELIEVE WOULD SERVE AS THE EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT.

DESPITE INTERVIEWING 500 WITNESSES, ISSUING 2800 SUBPOENAS, EXECUTING ALMOST 500 SEARCH WARRANTS, AND SPENDING $25 MILLION, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 19 ATTORNEYS AND 40 F.B.I.

AGENTS, ANALYSTS AND STAFF, FOUND NO CONSPIRACY FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

AFTER THE TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION ALLEGATIONS DID NOT PAN OUT, DEMOCRATS FOCUSED THEIR EFFORTS ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THEY CRITICIZED ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR FOR CONCLUDING FOG CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OCCURRED IN THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION BUT, IN FACT, WAS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE THAT CALL BCAUSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DECLINED TO DO SO.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE DEMOCRATS MUELLER HEARING WAS UNDERWHELMING, TO SAY THE LEAST, AND THE SEQUEL WITH CORY LEWANDOWSKI DEFINITELY DID NOT MOVE THE IMPEACHMENT NEEDLE EITHER.

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, TOO, WAS HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE RUSSIA COLLUSION INVESTIGATION.

COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS HIRED FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO PREPARE FOR THEIR ANTICIPATED EFFORTS TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

NOW THAT THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION ALLEGATIONS DID NOT WORK OUT, DEMOCRATS HAVE SETTLED ON THE UKRAINE PHONE CALL, EIGHT LINES, THE PRESIDENT UTTERED ON JULY 25th WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION, WASN'T THE COMMITTEE LEADING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR OLDING THE HEARINGS, NEITHER WAS THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

THE HOUSE'S CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS ONLY RECENTLY BROUGHT BACK INTO THE MIX AFTER FACT FINDING CONCLUDED.

INSTEAD THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS RUN BY THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THESE FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

DEMOCRATS ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RAN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN A MANIFESTLY UNFAIR WAY.

ALL THE FACT FINDING WAS UNCLASSIFIED AND MADE CLEAR AT THE TOP OF EVERY SINGLE DEPOSITION BUT THE DEMOCRATS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A CLOSED-DOOR PROCESS IN THE CAPITOL BUNKER, THE SKIFF, TO CONTROL ACCESS INFORMATION.

THE SECRECY EFFECTIVELY WEAPON WEAPONIZED THE INVESTIGATION ALLOWING MISLEADING PUBLIC NARRATIVES TO FORM AND CATCH HOLD WITH CAREFUL LEAKS OF WITNESS TESTIMONY.

DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO INVITE REPUBLICANT WITHS AND DIRECTED WITNESSES CALLED BY THE DEMOCRATS NOT TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS.

IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, MANY OF THESE UNFAIR PROCESSES CONTINUED.

DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO INVITE NUMEROUST WITNESSES REQUESTED BY REPUBLICANS, INTERRUPTED REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING AND PREVENTED WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS.

DEMOCRATS VOTED DOWN BY VIRTUE OF A MOTION TO TABLE, WITH NO NOTICE, SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY REQUESTED BY REPUBLICANS.

I'LL NOTE THAT DEMOCRATS NEVER ONCE BROUGHT ANY OF THEIR SUBPOENAS TO A VOTE BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

THIS UNFAIR PROCESS REFLECTS THE DEGREE TO WHICH DEMOCRATS ARE OBSESSED WITH IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT.

THE DEMOCRATS WENT SEARCHING FOR A SET OF FACT ON WHICH TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, THE PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS, THE MUELLER REPORT, ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION BEFORE LANDING ON THE UKRAINE PHONE CALL.

THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS CLEARLY AN ORCHESTRATED EFFORT TO UP-END OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM.

ACCORDING TO POLITICO, THE SPEAKER HAS TIGHTLY SCRIPTED EVERY STEP OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

DEMOCRATS HAVE REPORTEDLY CONVENED FOCUS GROUPS TO TEST WHICH ALLEGATIONS, WHETHER IT BE QUID PRO QUO OR BRIBERY OR EXTORTION, WERE MOST COMPELLING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

SPEAKER PELOSI SAID DEMOCRATS MUST STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT ON IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT.

THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FROM THE TIME SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED IT ON SEPTEMBER 24th UNTIL TODAY HAS BEEN 76 DAYS.

AS PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED LAST WEDNESDAY, THIS IMPEACHMENT WOULD STAND OUT AMONG MODERN IMPEACHMENTS AS THE SHORTEST PROCEEDING WITH THE THINNEST EVIDENTIARY RECORD AND THE NARROWEST GROUNDS EVER USED TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.

THE ARTIFICIAL AND ARBITRARY POLITICAL DEADLINE BY WHICH DEMOCRATS ARE DETERMINED TO FINISH IMPEACHMENT BY CHRISTMAS LEADS TO A RUSHED PROCESS AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES TO OBTAIN RELEVANT INFORMATION.

DEMOCRATS AVOIDED THE ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL COURTS MANY DISPUTES BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE.

DEMOCRATS DECLINED TO ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES.

DEMOCRATS DID NOT EXHAUST ALL THEIR OPTIONS TO ENTICE WITNESSES OR AGENCIES TO COOPERATE, SUCH AS ALLOWING WITNESSES TO APPEAR WITH AGENCY LAWYERS, OR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.

SOMETIMES THE THREAT OF A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING GETS YOU A DIFFERENT RESULT.

SOMETIMES THE WITNESSES CHOOSE TO APPEAR WHEN CONTEMPT IS ON THE TABLE.

DEMOCRATS EVEN WITHDREW A SUBPOENA TO ONE WITNESS WHO ASKED A FEDERAL COURT TO RESOLVE CONFLICTING ORDERS, FROM CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, EITHER BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT WANT TO WAIT FOR THE COURT TO RULE, OR THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE PRESIDING JUDGE, JUDGE LEON.

INSTEAD, DEMOCRATS MADE THEIR DEMANDS AND REFUSED TO BUDGE.

DEMOCRATS TOLD WITNESSES AT THE OUTSET THAT THEIR REFUSAL TO COOPERATE IN FULL WOULD BE USED AGAINST THEM AND THE PRESIDENT.

DEMOCRATS THREATENED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THEIR SALARIES COULD BE WITHHELD FOR NOT MEETING COMMITTEE DEMANDS.

THESE TACTICS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR GATHERING INFORMATION IN ANY SERIOUS INQUIRY.

THIS RUSHED AND TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT APPROACH TO INVESTIGATING IS CONTRARY TO HOW SUCCESSFUL CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS TYPICALLY WORK.

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS TAKE TIME.

THERE IS NO EASY BUTTON.

IN THIS JOB, YOU MUST TAKE THE INFORMATION THAT'S OFFERED, EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TERMS.

YOU SHOULD NOT SAY NO TO TAKING A WITNESS' TESTIMONY BECAUSE YOU WOULD PREFER THE AGENCY COUNSEL IS NOT PRESIDENT.

IF THAT'S THE ONLY MEANS OF OBTAINING THE TESTIMONY, YOU SHOULD TAKE IT.

YOUR PRIORITY MUST NOT BE ON BLOCKING INFORMATION OUT, IT MUST BE ON SEEKING INFORMATION.

IN ALL RECENT MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, CHAIRMAN GOWDY'S INVESTIGATION INTO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION DURING 2016, THE I.R.S.

TARGETING INVESTIGATION, THE BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION AND FAST AND FURIOUS, THERE HAVE BEEN GIVE AND TAKE BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE.

IN THE GOOD LUCK DOWDY INVESTIGATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IT TOOK TWO MONTHS, TWO MONTHS OF NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE THE COMMITTEES CONDUCTED THE FIRST WITNESS INTERVIEW WITH DEPUTY DIRECTOR McCADE.

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ONLY BEGAN PRODUCING DOCUMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE AFTER MANY MORE MONTHS OF DISCUSSIONS.

IN NONE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS DID CONGRESS GET EVERYTHING IT WANTED RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, CERTAINLY NOT WITHIN 76 DAYS, BUT WITH PERSISTENCE AND PATIENCE, WE EVENTUALLY RECEIVED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO OUR WORK.

AND CONTRARY TO TALKING POINTS, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS, IN FACT, COOPERATED WITH AND FACILITATED CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON DUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO SECURITY CLEARANCES AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE CENTRAL ALLEGATION PUT FORWARD WAS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DEVIATED FROM ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES TO GRANT CLEARANCES TO CERTAIN WHITE HOUSE STAFF.

THE DEMOCRATS SOUGHT TO INTERVIEW CAREER STAFF WHO PERFORMED THESE SECURITY CLEARANCE REVIEWS, BUT DECLINED THE WITNESS INITIALLY TO APPEAR WITH AGENCY COUNSEL.

THE HOUSE AND THE WHITE HOUSE WERE AT AN IMPASSE.

HOWEVER, AFTER A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, WE, THE REPUBLICAN STAFF, WITH THE HELP OF MR. JORDAN, CONVINCED THE WITNESS TO APPEAR, WITH AGENCY COUNSEL, FOR OUR OWN TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW, AND THE DEMOCRATS CAME ALONG.

THE SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS AND THE SECURITY CLEARANCE INVESTIGATION WERE CONDUCTED WITH AGENCY COUNSEL.

THE TESTIMONY ALLOWED THE COMMITTEE TO OBTAIN THE EVIDENCE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AND IT WASN'T WHAT WAS ALLEGED.

NOBODY OUTSIDE THE SECURITY CLEARANCE OFFICE WAS HANDING OUT CLEARANCES.

CERTAINLY NOT TO SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS.

IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, HOWEVER, DEMOCRATS HAVE TURNED AWAY INFORMATION THAT COULD BE VALUABLE TO THE INQUIRY BY DISALLOWING AGENCY COUNSEL TO ACCOMPANY WITNESSES.

DEMOCRATS HAVE TURNED AWAY INFORMATION BY DECLINING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THE SCOPE OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS.

IS IT RESULT OF THESE FAILURES, THE EVIDENCEY RECORD IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS INCOMPLETE AND, IN MANY PLACES, INCOHERENT.

THE FAILURE TO EXHAUST ALL AVENUES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION SEVERELY RISKS UNDERMINING THE LEGITIMACY OF ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

AS PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID TO THE COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT A PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE IN AN ABUNDANCE OF ANGER.

I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT ONLY FAILS THE STANDARD OF PAST IMPEACHMENT BUT WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENTS.

PROFESSOR TURLEY ELABORATED THAT THE CURRENT LACK OF PROOF IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE ABBREVIATED INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER IS SO DAMAGING FOR THE CASE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE FOR IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP AS A RESULT OF AN ARTIFICIAL, ARBITRARY AND POLITICAL SCHEDULE RELIES HEAVILY ON AMBIGUOUS FACTS, PRESUMPTIONS AND SPECULATION.

PRESIDENT TURLEY WARNED HERE, TOO, IMPEACHMENTS HAVE BEEN BASED ON PROOF, NOT PRESUMPTIONS.

THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE THE PROOF.

NOW, MY DEMOCRAT COUNTERPARTS ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ARE TALENTED ATTORNEYS.

I'M SURE THEY WILL TELL YOU A RIVETING STORY ABOUT A SHADOW OR IRREGULAR FOREIGN POLICY APPARATUS AND A SMEAR CAMPAIGN DESIGNED TO EXTORT UKRAINE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL BENEFIT.

THEY'LL TELL YOU ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HOW HE PUT HIS OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF NATIONAL SECURITY BY MENTIONING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN BY NAME AND BY RAISING THE ALLEGATION OF UKRAINIAN INFLUENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

THEY WILL TRY TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE SAME ADMINISTRATION DEMOCRATS REGULARLY ACCUSE OF BEING INCOMPETENT, ORCHESTRATED AN INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.

NONE OF THIS ADDS UP.

IT MAY BE A GREAT SCREEN PRAY, BUT IT'S NOT -- SCREENPLAY, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.

THE DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IGNORES ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT ADVANCE THEIR STORY.

THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE RESOLVES ALL AMBIGUOUS FACTS AND CONFLICTING EVIDENCE IN A WAY THAT IS MOST UNFLATTERING TO THE PRESIDENT.

THE DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE IGNORES PUBLIC STATEMENTS FROM SENIOR UKRAINE YB OFFICIALS THAT CONTRADICT THE NARRATIVE.

AS YOU LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRAT PRESENTATION LATER TODAY, I URGE YOU TO KEEP THESE POINTS IN MIND.

WHAT EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN GATHERED IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PAINTS A DIFFERENT PICTURE.

I WON'T PROVIDE A DETAILS PRESENTATION NOW BUT ALLOW ME TO HIGH LIGHT A FEW POINTS.

FIRST, THE SUMMARY OF THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL REFLECTS NO CONDITIONALITY OR PRESSURE.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER VOCALIZED ANY DISCOMFORT OR PRESSURE ON THE CALL.

CONTRARY TO DEMOCRAT ALLEGATIONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT ASKING FOR A FAVOR THAT WOULD HELP HIS REELECTION.

HE WAS ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE IN HELPING OUR COUNTRY MOVE FORWARD FROM THE DIVISIVENESS OF THE RUSSIA COLLUSION INVESTIGATION.

SECOND, SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DECLASSIFIED AND PUBLICLY RELEASED THE CALL SUMMARY 75 DAYS AS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS SAID PUBLICLY AND REPEATEDLY THAT HE FELT NO PRESSURE.

HE SAID IT ON SEPTEMB SEPTEMBER 25th AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HE SAID IT IN AN INTERVIEW PUBLISHED ON OCTOBER 6, SAID IT AGAIN OCTOBER 10, AND MOST RECENTLY HE SAID IT JUST LAST WEEK IN "TIME" MAGAZINE.

O.ER SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HAVE ALSO SAID THERE WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN A MEETING, SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND AN INVESTIGATION.

IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRIEWM ORCHESTRATING A PRESSURE CAMPAIGN TO FORCE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, ONE WOULD THINK THAT UKRAINE WOULD HAVE FELT SOME PRESSURE.

THIRD, AT THE TIME OF THE JULY 25 CALL, SENIOR OFFICIALS IN KIEV DID NOT KNOW THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED.

THEY DID NOT LEARN IT WAS PAUSED UNTIL THE PAUSE WAS REPORTED PUBLICLY IN THE U.S. MEDIA ON AUGUST 28.

AS AMBASSADOR VOLCKER TESTIFIED, BECAUSE THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE, THERE WAS NO LEVERAGE IMPLIED.

FINALLY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN NEW YORK ON SEPTEMBER 25th, AT THE UNITED NATIONS.

SHORTLY THEREAFTER -- OR SHORTLY BEFORE THAT, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FLOWED TO UKRAINE.

BOTH HAPPENED WITHOUT UKRAINE EVER TAKING ACTIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS.

THE IMPEACHMENT RECORD ALSO HAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE GOING TO THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND, UNDERCUTTING THE DEMOCRATS' ASSERTION OF SOME MALICIOUS INTENT.

WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A DEEPLY-ROOTED, GENUINE AND REASONABLE SKEPTICISM OF UKRAINE, STEMMING FROM ITS HISTORY OF CORRUPTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS SKEPTICAL OF U.S.

TAXPAYER FUNDED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND BELIEVES THAT OUR ALLIES SHOULD SHARE MORE OF THE BURDEN OF UKRAINE'S DEFENSE.

UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS OPENLY SPOKE OUT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.

THESE EVENTS BEAR DIRECTLY ON THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RUN ON AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM, BUT HE WAS AN UNTRIED POLITICIAN WITH A RELATIONSHIP TO A CONTROVERSIAL UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH.

WHEN FORMER VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW -- I'M SORRY -- WHEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW HE STRESSED THE NEED FOR REFORM AND REITERATED THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING ESPECIALLY AMONG URINE ALLIES.

IN LATE AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER AFTER HIS PARTY TOOK CONTROL OF UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT.

IRAQ PASSED HISTORIC FORMS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, INCLUDING REMOVING PARLIAMENT RIIMMUNETY WHICH WITNESSES SAID HAD BEEN AN HISTORIC SOURCE OF CORRUPTION.

IMAGINE IF OUR MEMBERS OF COMING HAD IMMUNITY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP LATER LIFTED THE BECAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TWO WEEKS LATER.

THE AID WAS PAUSED FOR 55 DAYS.

VERY SIMPLY, THE EVIDENCE IN THE DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS POWER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL, POLITICAL BENEFIT.

THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED WITH MALICIOUS INTENT IN HOLDING A MEETING OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE REPUBLICAN REPORT ARTICULATES LEGITIMATE EXPLANATIONINGS FOR THESE ACTIONS THAT ARE NOT NEFARIOUS, AS THE DEMOCRATS ALLEGE.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FAITHFULLY EXECUTED THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE BY DELIVERING ON WHAT HE PROMISED THE AMERICAN VOTERS HE WOULD DO.

DEMOCRATS MAY DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY DECISIONS OR THE MATTER IN WHICH HE GOVERNS, BUT THOSE DISAGREEMENTS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE IRREVOCABLE ACTION OF REMOVING HIM FROM OFFICE.

THE DEMOCRATS HYPERBOLE AND HISTONICS ARE NO GOOD REASON, 11 MONTHS OUT OFFFROM AN ELECTION, TO PREVENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM DECIDING ON THEIR OWN WHO IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT.

THIS RECORD ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS DURING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

FOR MANY OF THE PROCEDURAL DEFECTS I TOUCHED ON EARLIER.

ADDITIONALLY, AS A FACTUAL MATTER, THE ONLY DIRECT TESTIMONY THE INVESTIGATION OBTAINED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION TO THE INQUIRY IS FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO TESTIFIED PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD HIM TO COOPERATE AND TELL THE TRUTH.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED THE SUMMARIES OF HIS TWO PHONE CALLS WITH THE PRESIDENT -- PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY, BUT HE'S BEEN FORCED TO RESIST THE UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE PROCESS.

I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN THE PREROGATIVES OF THE CONGRESS.

IT'S AWFUL TO HEAR PRESIDENT TURLEY'S TESTIMONY FROM LAST WEEK WHEN HE CRITIQUED THE HOUSE FOR PROCEEDING ON IMPEACHMENT SO RAPIDLY AND ON SUCH A THIN RECORD.

PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID TO SET THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE, DEMAND DOCUMENTS AND IMPEACH BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TURNED OVER WHEN THEY GO TO COURT, I THINK, IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

THE IMPEACHMENT OF A DULY-ELECTED PRESIDENT, AS CHAIRMAN NADLER SAID IN 1998, IS THE UNDOING OF A NATIONAL ELECTION.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND DEMOCRATS ISSUED A REPORT OVER THE WEEKEND ARGUING THAT, CONTRARY TO THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT IN 1998, IMPEACHMENT IS NOT UNDOING AN ELECTION, I WOULD JUST RESPOND BY SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK MANY OF THE 63 MILLION AMERICANS FROM ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2016 WOULD AGREE.

BY IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE HOUSE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE NULL FY'ING THE DECISION OF THOSE AMERICANS, AND THE HOUSE WOULD BE DOING IT IN LESS THAN 11 MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.

THERE STILL IS NO COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR WHY DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE MUST TAKE THIS DECISION OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE VOTERS AND DO IT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IN 1998, THE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT AT A BARE MINIMUM THE PRESIDENT'S ACCUSERS MUST GO BEYOND HEARSAY AND INNUENDO AND BEYOND THE DEMANDS THAT THE PRESIDENT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE OF VAGUE AND CHANGING CHARGES.

I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THOSE WORDS RING AS TRUE TODAY AS THE CHAIRMAN BELIEVE THEM TO BE IN 1998.

THE IMPEACHMENT RECORD IS LEVELLY RELIANT ON HEARSAY, INNUENDO AND PRESUMPTIONS.

DEMOCRATS HAVE LOBBED VAGUE AND EVER CHANGE CHARGES OF IMPEACHMENT GOING AS FAR BACK AS THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE EXTRAORDINARY EXERCISE OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT WARRANTED ON THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD PRESENTED.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION THIS MORNING, AND I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS.

MR. BERKE, YOU ARE NOW EXCUSED, AND WE WILL INVITE MR. GOLDMAN TO TAKE HIS PLACE AT THE THE WITNESS TABLE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK REGULAR ANYTHING.

>> I HAVE A PARLIAMENT RIINQUIREY.

>> STATE YOUR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> PURSUANT TO RULE 7B OF THE HOUSE RULES, CHAIRMAN IS ALLOWED TO ADMINISTER AN OATH, NOT MANDATED TO, BUT IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THIS COMMITTEE TO ADMINISTER OATHS TOTS WITH.

I'M WONDERING WHY WE HAVE NOT ADMINISTERED THE OATH IN THIS SITUATION.

>> I'M GOING TO ADMINISTER THE OATH TO THE TWO WITNESSES WHO ARE NOW COMING HERE BEFORE US TO MAKE PRESENTATION.

THE TWO GENTLEMEN WHO JUST TESTIFIED WERE NOT WITNESSES, THEY WERE MAKING OPENING STATEMENTS FOR THE COMMITTEES.

WE WILL NOW ADMINISTER AN OATH TO MR. CAT TORE AND MR. GOLDMAN WHO ARE NOW TESTIFYING IN THE CAPACITY OFTS WITH.

>> TYPICALLY WE ADMINISTER OATHS BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS.

>> FOR WITNESSES.

FOR WITNESSES.

MR. CASTOR, WE WILL NOW ADMINISTER -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> SUSPEND.

MR. CASTOR WAS HERE WITH MR. BERKE FRIEND REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

THAT IS THE OPENING STATEMENT FOR THIS COMMITTEE.

THEY WERE NOT WITNESSES BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.

MR. CASTOR, NOW, AND MR. GOLDMAN ARE WITNESSES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, AND I WILL ADMINISTER THE OATH.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THEY WERE MAKING PRESENTATIONS -- (GAVEL POUNDING) >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- WE BECKHAM -- MR. CHAIRMAN, EVE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN, DESPITE OUR REPEATED REQUESTS TO ACCESS FOR EVIDENCE, WE RECEIVED LESS THAN 48 HOURS AGO MORE NAN 8,000 PAGES OF DOM TAISMGHTS MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THIS WAS A COURT OF LAW YOU WOULD BE FACING SANCTION BYS THE BAR ASSOCIATION.

>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE POINT OF ORDER NOT MAKE -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PROCESS OVER 8,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT CAME FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEES -- >> THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.

I WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE OATH -- GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND AND NOT MAKE A SPEECH.

MR. GOLDMAN, MR. CASTOR, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, SO HELP YOU GOD?

LET THE RECORD SHOW THE PRESENTERS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.

EACH OF YOU WILL HAVE 45 MINUTES TO PRESENT.

TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THE TIME, THERE IS A TIMING LIGHT ON YOUR TABLE.

WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM GREEN TO YELLOW, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY.

WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT SIGNALS YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED, MR. GOLDMAN, YOU MAY BEGIN.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MY POINT OF ORDER IS THIS, IN THE PREVIOUS POINT OF ORDER ISSUED BY MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA, YOU RULED AGAINST HIS POINT OF ORDER BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT MR. BERKE WAS A WITNESS.

YOU HAVE JUST TOLD US HE WAS NOT A WITNESS BUT HE WAS A STAFFER.

AS SUCH, A STAFFER MUST AVOID IMPUGNING MOTIVATIONS -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL -- WILL YOU LET HIM FINISH HIS POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE?

>> HE MADE HIS POINT OFO ORDER.

NO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVEN'T COMPLETED YET.

THE RULE REQUIRES THAT MEMBERS AND STAFF NOT IMPUGN THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT YOU RULED WAS THAT HE WAS A WITNESS.

YOU'VE JUST TOLD US HE WASN'T A WITNESS.

MY POINT OF ORDER IS YOU WERE OUT OF ORDER IN YOUR RULING.

>> THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINED.

I'VE ALREADY RULED ON IT.

HE WAS NOT A WITNESS.

THESE TWO GENTLEMAN -- >> I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR.

>> THAT IS NOT A -- IT MOST CERTAINLY IS.

'S APPEALINGABLE, IT IS.

MS.

LAUGH GRIN KNOWS IT IS.

THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINED.

>> I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR.

>> MOVE TO TABLE.

TABLED.

(VOTING) MOTION TO TABLE IS APPROVED.

>> I SEEK A ROCK VOTE.

CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.

MR. NADLER, AYE.

JACKSON LEE AYE.

JOHNSON AYE, MR. DEUTCH AYE.

MS. BASS AYE.

MR. RICHMOND AYE.

MR. JEFFRIES AYE.

MR. CICILLINE, AYE.

MR. SWALWELL, AYE, MR. LIEU AYE, MR. RASKIN, AYE, MS. JAYPAL, AYE.

MS. STEMMINGS, AYE.

MS. SCAN LYNN.

MS. DARES GARCIA, AYE.

MR. NEGUSE, AYE.

MS. McBATH, AYE.

SUBSTANCEN AYE.

MUCARSEL-POWELL, AYE.

ESCOBAR, AYE.

MR. COLLINS, NO.

MR. SENSEN BERNER, NO.

MR. CHABOT, NO.

MR. GOHMERT, NO.

MMS.

ROBEY, NO.

MR. GAETZ, NO.

MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA, NO.

MR. BIGGS.

MR. McCLINTOCK, NO.

MS. LESKO, NO.

MR. RESCHENTHALER, NO.

MR. CLINE, NO.

MR. ARMSTRONG, NO.

MR. STEUBE, NO.

MR. BIGGS, YOU ARE NOT RECORDED.

MR. BIGGS VOTES NO.

>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED?

MS. SCAN LON, YOU NOT RECORDED.

>> AYE.

MR. CORREA, AYE.

DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO VOTE.

>> 24 AYES AND 17 NOS.

THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION TO TABLE IS GREED WITH.

MR. GOLDMAN, YOU MAY BEGIN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

CHAIRMAN NADLER, RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE DONALD J. TRUMP, THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY, FOR HIS POLITICAL AND PERSONAL BENEFIT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED A MONTHS' LONG CAMPAIGN TO SOLICIT FOREIGN HELP IN HIS 2020 REELECTION EFFORTS, WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE IN ORDER TO COERCE AND SECURE POLITICAL ASSISTANCE AND INTERFERENCE IN OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.

AS PART OF THIS SCHEME, PRESIDENT TRUMP APPLIED INCREASING PRESSURE ON THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE TWO INVESTIGATIONS HELPFUL TO HIS PERSONAL REELECTION EFFORTS.

HE APPLIED THIS PRESSURE HIMSELF AND THROUGH HIS AGENTS WORKING WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY CONDITIONING A DESPERATELY SOUGHT OVAL-OFFICE MEETING AND $391 MILLION IN TAXPAYER-FUNDED, CONGRESSIONALLY-APPROPRIATED SECURITY ASSISTANCE VITAL TO UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO FEND OFF RUSSIANA IMPRESSION.

HE CONDITIONED THAT, ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE TWO POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE HELPFUL TO HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS WERE DISCOVERED, HE RELEASED THE MILITARY AID, THOUGH IT WOULD ULTIMATELY TAKE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION PORE THE MONEY TO BE MADE FULLY AVAILABLE TO UKRAINE.

THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING STILL HAS NOT HAPPENED.

WHEN FACED WITH THE OPENING OF AN OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT, PRESIDENT TRUMP LAUNCHED AN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, ORDERING EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO DEFY SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.

TO DATE, THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES HAVE RECEIVED NO DOCUMENTS FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO OUR SUBPOENAS.

WERE IT NOT FOR COURAGEOUS PUBLIC SERVANTS DOING THEIR DUTY AND HONORING THEIR OATH TO THIS COUNTRY AND COMING FORWARD AND TESTIFYING, THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME MIGHT STILL BE CONCEALED TODAY.

THE CENTRAL MOMENT IN THIS SCHEME WAS A TELEPHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY ON JULY 25th OF THIS YEAR.

DURING THAT CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR A PERSONAL FAVOR TO INITIATE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HOPED COULD ULTIMATELY HELP HIS REELECTION IN 2020.

THE FIRST INVESTIGATION INVOLVED FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND WAS AN EFFORT TO SMEAR HIS REPUTATION AS HE SEEKS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN NEXT YEAR'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THE SECOND INVESTIGATION SOUGHT TO ELEVATE AN ENTIRELY DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY PROMOTED BY RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

IN TRUTH, AS HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR BY IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE FROM THROUGHOUT THE GOVERNMENT, RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE LAST ELECTION IN ORDER TO THEN THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP.

THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION ARE PATENTLY FALSE, BUT THAT DID NOT DETER PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING HIS PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO DETER HIM TODAY.

JUST TWO DAYS AGO, PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED PUBLICLY THAT HE HOPES HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI WILL REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND TO CONGRESS THE RESULTS OF MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS IN UKRAINE LAST WEEK TO PURSUE THESE FALSE ALLEGATIONS MEANT TO TARNISH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSISTENT AND CONTINUING EFFORT TO COARSE A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO HELP HIM CHEAT TO WIN AN ELECTION IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THIS SCHEME IS DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN A NEARLY 300-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED THE TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT, FORMERLY TRANSMITTED FROM THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE TO THIS COMMITTEE A FEW DAYS AGO.

THE REPORT RELIES ON TESTIMONY FROM NUMEROUS CURRENT AND FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE NON-PARTISAN CAREER PROFESSIONALS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING OUR NATION SAFE AND PROMOTING AMERICAN VALUES AROUND THE GLOBE.

THE EVIDENCE FROM THESE WITNESSES CANNOT SERIOUSLY BE DISPUTED.

THE PRESIDENT PLACED HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS ABOVE THE NATION'S INTERESTS IN ORDER TO HELP HIS OWN REELECTION EFFORTS.

BEFORE I HIGH LIGHT THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT, I WANT TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AND DISCUSS TODAY'S TOO MANY.

I JOINED THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AS SENIOR ADVISOR AND DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR.

PREVIOUSLY I SERVED FOR TEN YEARS AS A PROSECUTOR IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WHEN I JOINED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDER THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

THE TEAM THAT I LED ON THE INTENSE COMMUNITY INCLUDES OTHER FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, A RETIRED F.B.I.

AGENT AND INVESTIGATORS WITH SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTISE.

THE REPORT THAT I AM PRESENTING TODAY IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE COLLECTED, IN COORDINATION WITH THE OVERSIGHT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEES THAT WERE GATHERED AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS.

NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.

THE THREE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES RAN A FAIR, PROFESSIONAL AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.

WE FOLLOWED THE HOUSE RULES FOR DEPOSITIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, INCLUDING THE RULE AGAINST AGENCY COUNSEL BEING PRESENT FOR DEPOSITIONS AND MEMBERS AND STAFF FROM BOTH PARTIES HAD EQUAL TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS, AND THERE WERE NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS THAT WERE PREVENTED FROM BEING ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THIS INVESTIGATION MOVED SWIFTLY AND INTENSIVELY, AS ALL GOOD INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD.

TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHER WITNESSES WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT AND DETAIL ABOUT THIS SCHEME, THEIR FAILURE TO TESTIFY IS DUE SOLELY TO THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED THE INQUIRY AND REFUSED TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE.

NEVERTHELESS, THE EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMITTEES UNCOVERED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION LED TO THE FOLLOWING CRITICAL FINDINGS.

FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO PRESSURE AND INDUCE THE NEWLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INTERFERE IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT.

SECOND, IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD A COVETED OVAL OFFICE MEETING AND $391 OF ESSENTIAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE.

THIRD, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT SOUGHT TO UNDERMINE OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

FOURTH, FACED WITH THE REVELATION OF HIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AGAINST UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED AN UNPRECEDENTED EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.

AND WITH THAT CONTEXT IN MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO THE EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT CONCERNING UKRAINE.

MY COLLEAGUES MR. CALLS TORE JUST SAID THAT -- MR. CASTOR JUST SAID THAT IT REVOLVES AROUND EIGHT LINES IN ONE CALL RECORD, BUT THAT SORELY IGNORES THE VAST AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE COLLECTED OF A MONTHS' LONG SCHEME DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

BUT I DO WANT TO START WITH THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL, BECAUSE THAT IS CRITICAL EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT AND INTENT.

IT WAS ON THAT DAY THAT HE HELD HIS SECOND PHONE CALL WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

THE FIRST IN APRIL WAS SHORT AND CORDIAL, FOLLOWING THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT'S ELECTION SUCCESS.

BUT THIS SECOND CALL WOULD DIVERGE DRAMATICALLY FROM WHAT THOSE LISTENING WOULD HAVE EXPECTED.

JUST PRIOR TO THIS TELEPHONE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE TO GORDON SONDLAND, THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION WHO HAD DONATED $1 MILLION TO THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURAL CAMPAIGN.

AND WHO HAD BEEN DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF TO TAKE ON A LEADING ROLE IN UKRAINE ISSUES.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAYED THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THROUGH AMBASSADOR KURT VOLCKER WHO HAD HAD LUNCH THAT DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TOP AIDE AN ANDREÉ YERMAK WHO APPEARS AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S RIGHT HAND MAN.

AMBASSADOR TEXTED YERMAK WITH PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS, HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z WILL INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN FOR A VISIT TO WASHINGTON.

GOOD LUCK.

SEE YOU TOMORROW, KURT.

SO EVEN BEFORE THE PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TOOK PLACE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DIRECTED THAT UKRAINE INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION INTO 2016 THAT DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE HAD INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION IN ORDER FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT HE DESPERATELY COVETED.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS QUID PRO QUO.

QUO.

IER MACK; >> SIRCHLLY FRAMED, WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO.

AS I TOUCHDOWN PREVIOUSLY WITH REGARD TO THE WHITE HOUSE CALL AND MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.

>> DURING THIS CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN LEADER, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT DISCUSS MATTERS IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES, SUCH AS UKRAINE'S EFFORTS TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP VEERED QUICKLY INTO THE PERSONAL FAVOR THAT HE WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO.

TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REELECTION EFFORT.

WITNESSES WHO LISTENED TO THE CALL DESCRIBED IT AS UNUSUAL, IMPROPER, INAPPROPRIATE, AND CONCERNING.

TWO OF THEM IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THEIR CONCERNS TO WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS.

NOW, LET ME JUST TAKE A FEW MINUTES WALK THROUGH THAT IMPORTANT CALL STEP BY STEP BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENCE THAT IS CENTRAL TO THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

NEAR THE BEGINNING TO HAVE THE CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE.

WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEPS.

SPECIFICALLY WE ARE ALMOST READY TO BUY MORE JAVELINS FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES.

THE GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE INCLUDED THAT NEARLY $400 MILLION OF U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WHICH ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED WAS NEARLY 10% OF UKRAINE'S DEFENSE BUDGET.

AND THIS SUPPORT COMES AS A RESULT OF RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE IN 2014, WHEN RUSSIA ILLEGALLY ANNEXED NEARLY 7% OF UKRAINE'S TERRITORY.

SINCE THEN, THE UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES HAVE PROVIDED SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AN EMERGING POST-SOVIET DEMOCRACY TO FEND OFF RUSSIA IN THE EAST.

YET JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THIS JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD INEXPLICABLY PLACED A HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY REASON TO HIS OWN CABINET MEMBERS OR NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS.

THE EVIDENCE THE COMMITTEES COLLECTED SHOWED THAT THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE AID FROM EVERY RELEVANT AGENCY IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

NEVERTHELESS, DURING THE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPLAINED THAT U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS NOT RECIPROCAL, THAT SOMEHOW UKRAINE NEEDED TO GIVE MORE TO THE UNITED STATES.

WHAT DID HE MEAN?

WELL, IT BECAME CLEAR BECAUSE, MIDDLE EAST AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BROUGHT UP U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT AND PURCHASE JAVELIN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND URAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

NOW, THE FAVOR THAT HE REFERENCED THERE INCLUDED TWO DEMANDS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY OR FOREIGN POLICY.

FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.

THEY SAY CrowdStrike.

AS YOU SAW YESTERDAY -- EXCUSE ME -- I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, IT SAYS, THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WENT ON.

THE WHOLE SITUATION.

I THINK YOU'RE SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE.

AND HE WENT ON LATER, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALL YOU OR YOUR PEOPLE, AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

AS YOU SAW YESTERDAY, THAT WHOLE NONSENSE ENDED WITH A VERY POOR PERFORMANCE BY A MAN NAMED ROBERT MUELLER, AN INCOMPETENT PERFORMANCE, BUT THEY SAY A LOT OF IT STARTED WITH UKRAINE.

WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO IT, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

HERE AGAIN, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO THE BASELESS CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, NOT RUSSIA, WAS BEHIND THE HACK OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN 2016.

NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IN OUR INVESTIGATION TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS ANY FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THIS ALLEGATION.

TO THE CONTRARY, A UNANIMOUS ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FOUND THAT RUSSIA ALONE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION, AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER WHO INDICTED 12 RUSSIANS FOR THIS CONSPIRACY TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION.

DR. FIONA HILL, AN EXPERT ON RUSSIA AND PRESIDENT PUTIN WHO SERVED ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL UNTIL JULY, TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TOLD BY HIS OWN FORMER SENIOR ADVISORS, INCLUDING HIS HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR AND FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, THAT THE ALTERNATIVE THEORY THAT UKRAINE HAD INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION WAS FALSE AND THAT, ALTHOUGH NO ONE IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT KNEW OF ANY FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THIS THEORY, IT DID HAVE ONE SIGNIFICANT SUPPORTER -- RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN.

IN FEBRUARY OF 2017, PRESIDENT PUTIN SAID, SECOND, AS WE ALL KNOW, DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ADOPTED A UNILATERAL POSITION IN FAVOR OF ONE CANDIDATE.

MORE THAN THAT, CERTAIN OLIGARCHS, CERTAINLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, FUNDED THIS CANDIDATE -- OR FEMALE CANDIDATE, TO BE MORE PRECISE.

AND IF THERE WAS EVER ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS UNFOUNDED THEORY PUT FORWARD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES, PRESIDENT PUTIN MADE IT CLEAR VERY RECENTLY WHEN HE SAID, THANK GOD NO ONE IS ACCUSING US ANYMORE OF INTERFERING IN U.S.

ELECTIONS, NOW THEY'RE ACCUSING UKRAINE.

IN THE FACE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE, NOT ONLY FROM INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE EXPERTS BUT FROM HIS OWN NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM THAT RUSSIA, NOT UKRAINE, INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF DONALD TRUMP.

PRESIDENT TRUMP STILL PRESSED THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY.

AND WHY?

BECAUSE IT WOULD HELP HIS OWN POLITICAL STANDING.

PRESIDENT TRUMP EVEN SOUGHT TO WITHHOLD AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING FROM THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE UNTIL HE FELL IN LINE WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN'S LIES.

THE LEADER WHO HAD ACTUALLY INVADED UKRAINE.

THE SECOND DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DURING THE JULY 25 CALL WAS TO INVESTIGATE THE FRONTS RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, AND HIS SON HUNTER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED, THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.

WITNESSES UNANIMOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THIS CLAIM, RATHER, THEY NOTED THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ACTING IN SUPPORT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS AND OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY TO CLEAN UP THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE IN UKRAINE.

DESPITE THESE FACTS, BY THE TIME OF THE JULY 25th CALL, MR. GIULIANI HAD BEEN PUBLICLY B ADVOCATING WHILE USING BACKCHANNELS TO PRESS UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO INITIATE THEM IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLIENT DONALD TRUMP.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND UNDERSTOOD MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE VERY CLEARLY -- HE TESTIFIED,Ñi MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRES TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

TO OTHERS, MR. GIULIANI WAS WORKING AT CROSS PURPOSES WITH OFFICIAL POLICY CHANNELS TOWARD UKRAINE, EVEN AS HE WAS WORKING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ACCORDING TO FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON, MR. GIULIANI WAS A "HAND GRENADE WHO IS GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP."

NEAR THE END OF THE JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CIRCLED BACK TO THE PRE-COOKED MESSAGE THAT AMBASSADOR VOLCKER HAD RELAYED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TOP AIDE BEFOREÑi THE CALL.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON, D.C. ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO WANTED TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE, AND WE WILL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION.

OTHER WORDS, ON ONE HAND IS THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT, WHILE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HE WOULD AGREE TO PURSUE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS STATEMENT SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FULLY UNDERSTOOD, AT THE TIME OF THE JULY 25th CALL, THE QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUIRED AND THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TESTIFIED SO CLEARLY ABOUT.

NUMEROUS WITNESSES TESTIFIED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE, AN OFFICIAL ACT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AS DAVID HOLMES, SENIOR OFFICIAL IN THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE,i SAID, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND A WHITE HOUSE VISIT WAS CRITICAL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO SHOW U.S. SUPPORT AT HIGHEST LEVELSTO IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE TO RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT HE HAD U.S.

BACKING AS WELL AS TO ADVANCE HIS AMBITIOUS ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM AGENDA AT HOME.Ñi IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT WOULD HELP ZELENSKY'S ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS, AND THAT SUPPORT REMAINS CRITICAL, AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MEETS TODAY WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT IN THE EAST.çó NOW, THE DAY AFTER THIS PHONE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO ENSURE THATÑi PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GOT THE MESSAGE.

ON JULY 26, U.S. OFFICIALS MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALSÑi IN KIEV, AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BROUGHT UP SOME "VERY SENSITIVE ISSUES."

AFTER THAT MEETING, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A PRIVATE ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH ANDRE YERMAK, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TOP AID, WHERE AMBASSADORÑiHáJ SAID THEY PROBABLY DISCUSSED INVESTIGATIONS.

AFTER THAT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PULLED OUT HIS CELL PHONE AND CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

SOMEWHAT SHOCKED, MR. HOLMES RECOUNTED THE CONVERSATION THAT FOLLOWED.

I HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GREAT THE PRESIDENT AND EXPLAIN HE WAS CALLING FROM KIEV.

I HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN CLARIFY THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS IN UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED, YES, HE WAS IN UKRAINE, AND WENT ON TO STATE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY "LOVES YOUR ASS."

I THEN HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK, SO HE'S GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION?

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED THAT HE IS GOING TO DO IT, ADDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO DO.

AFTER THE CALL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD MR. HOLMES THAT ESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT GIVE A BLEEP ABOUT UKRAINE AND ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THEÑi PRESIDENT HIMSELF LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

TO REPEAT -- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL WITH.

ZELENSKY AND RELAYED TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUIREMENT OF POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND, DURING THAT CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR THE FAVOR OF THESE TWO POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS MI IMMEDIATELY AR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD RECENTLY SUSPENDED OR PUT ON HOLD.

AND AT THE END OF THE CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MADE A POINT OF ACKNOWLEDGING THE LINK BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTED AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ZELENSKY DESPERATELY WANTED.

THEN THE FOLLOWING DAY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONFIRMED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE TELEPHONE IN PERSON THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD INDEED INITIATE THE INVESTIGATIONS DISCUSSED OPT CALL, WHICH WERE -- WHICH WAS THE ONLY THING ABOUT UKRAINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CARED ABOUT.

NOW, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE JULY 25th CALL WAS NEITHER THE START NOR THE END OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO USE THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE FORÑi PERSONAL-POLITICAL GAIN.

AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN CONTEXT AS A WHOLE.

PRIOR TO THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT HADÑi REMOVED THE FORMER AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO CLEAR THE WAY FOR HIS THREE HAND-PICKED AGENTS TO SPEARHEAD HIS CORRUPT AGENDA IN UKRAINE.

SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLCKER, ALL OF WHOMÑiHPUáQ ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION ON MAY 20th, ALL POLITICAL APPOINTEES, THEY PROVED TO BE MORE WILLING TO TO ENGAGE IN WHAT DR. HILL LATER DESCRIBED AS AN IMPROPER DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND FOR THE PRESIDENT.

ON APRIL 21, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON THE UKRAINIAN ELECTION WITH 72% OF THE VOTE, AND HE HAD TWO PRIMARY PLATFORMS, TO RESOLVE THE WAR IN THE EAST WITH RUSSIA AND TO ROOTÑi OUT CORRUPTION.

THAT SAME DAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS WIN.

EVEN THOUGH THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWING THE CALL STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSED HISÑi SHARED COMMITMET TO, QUOTE, ROOT OUT CORRUPTION, UNQUOTE, PRESIDENT TRUMP, IN FACT, DID NOT MENTION CORRUPTION AT ALL ON THIS CALL, JUST LIKE HE DID NOT MENTION CORRUPTION ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

SHORTLY AFTER THIS CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO ATTEND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION, BUT ON MAY 13 PRESIDENT TRUMP DID AN ABOUT FACE AND DIRECTED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE NOT TO ATTEND.

AN ADVISOR TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TESTIFIED THAT THE INAUGURATION HADÑi NOT YET BEEN SCHEDULED AND, THEREFORE, THE REASON FOR THE ABRUPT CHANGE OF PLANS WAS NOT RELATED TO ANY SCHEDULING ISSUES.

SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE THREE WEEKS WHEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WAS ORIGINALLYÑi INVITED AND DISINVITED OR REMOVED FROM THE DELEGATION?

A FEW THINGS.

FIRST, ON APRIL 25th, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORMALLY ANNOUNCED HIS BID FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT.

A WEEK LATER ON MAY 3, PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN ON THE TELEPHONE.

ONE SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TESTIFIED THAT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT PUTIN INCLUDED A DISCUSSION OF UKRAINE.

THIRD, ON MAY 9, MR. GIULIANI TOLD THE "NEW YORK TIMES" THAT HE INTENDED TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, IN ORDER TO, QUOTE, MEDDLE IN AN INVESTIGATION, UNQUOTE.

BUT AFTER PUBLIC BACKLASH AND APPARENT PUSHBACK FROM THE UKRAINIANS, MR. GIULIANI CANCELED HIS TRIP THE NEXT DAY, CLAIMING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS SURROUND BID ENEMIES OF -- SURROUNDED BY ENEMIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AT A CRITICAL MAY 23rd MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT UKRAINE WAS CORRUPT AND TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN IN 2016.

THE SAME FALSE NARRATIVE PUSHED BY PRESIDENT PUTIN AND MR. GIULIANI, AND IN ORDER FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO OCCUR, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THE DELEGATION THEY MUST TALK TO RUDY TO GET THE VISIT SCHEDULED.

THESE COMMENTS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE THE FIRST OF MANY SUBSEQUENT INDICATIONS THAT, IN HIS MIND, CORRUPTION EQUALS INVESTIGATIONS.

IN THE WEEKS AND MONTHS FOLLOWING, MR. GIULIANI RELAYED TO BOTH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HADÑi DESIGNATED AT THE MAY 23rd MEETING TO TAKE A LEAD ON UKRAINE POLICY.

THE DIRECTIVE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE TWO POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUIRED.

AND WELL BEFORE THE JULY JULY 25th CALL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLCKER ALSO RELATED THIS QUID PRO QUO TO THE UKRAINIANS, INCLUDING TOçó PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER CONVEYED THE MESSAGE DIRECTLY TO ZELENSKY AT THE BEGINNING OF JULY, ORDERING HIM TO REFERENCE INVESTIGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GIULIANI FACTOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AT THEÑi MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 10, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD OTHER U.S. OFFICIALS AND TWOÑi OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INVISORS INCLUDING MR. YERMAK THAT HE HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT WOULD BE SCHEDULED IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS.

ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT, DURING THE SECOND OF THE MEETINGS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BEGAN TO REVIEW WHAT THE DELIVERABLE WOULD BE IN ORDER TO GET THE MEETING, REFERRING TO AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

THE WITNESS TOLD THE COMMITTEE THAT THE REQUEST WAS EXPLICIT, THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY.

THEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO MENTIONED BURISMA, A MAJOR UKRAINIAN ENERGY COMPANY THAT HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON ON THE BOARD OF.

SO THE WITNESSES TESTIFIED ON THE COMMITTEE, THE REFERENCE TO BURISMA WAS SHORTHAND TO AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDEN.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON AS WELL AS STAFF MEMBERS OBJECTED TO THIS MEETING FOR INVESTIGATION TRADE AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD DR. HILL, YOU GO AND TELL JOHN ISENBERG THE LEGAL ADVISOR FORÑi THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL THAT I AM NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS AND YOU GO AHEAD AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU'VE HEARD AND WHAT I'VE SAID.

YET THIS WAS NOT A ROGUE OPERATION BY MR. GIULIANIÑi AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLCKER.

AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, SECRETARY POMPEO, SECRETARY PERRY AND THEIR TOP ADVISORS.

ON JULY 19, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND E-MAILED MR. MULVANEY, SECRETARY PERRY, SECRETARY POMPEO AND OTHERS AFTER SPEAKING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE SUBJECT WAS, I TALKED TO ZELENSKY JUST NOW.

AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE, HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS'S CALL -- THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, POTUS.

WILL ENSURE HIM HE INTENDS TO RUN AÑi FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL, QUOTE, TURN OVER EVERY STONE, UNQUOTE.

BOTH SECRETARY PERRY AND CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY QUICKLY RSPONDED TO THE EMAIL, NOTING THAT, GIVEN THAT CONVERSATION, A DATE WOULD SOON BE SET TO SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE TELEPHONE CALL.

THE EVIDENCE ALSO UNAMBIGUOUSLY SHOWS THAT THE UKRAINIANS UNDERSTOOD THIS QUID PRO QUO AND HAD SERIOUS RESERVATIONS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD WON THE ELECTION ON AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM.

IN FACT, A FOwÑ DAYS BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL, AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR, THE ACTING U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE AND THE FORMER PERMANENT AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE TEXTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLCKER -- OR RATHER HE STATED IN HIS TESTIMONY, ON JULY 20th, I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITHÑi MR. DUNLIOOK DURING WHICH HE CONVEYED TO ME THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT WANT TO BE USED AS A PAWN IN A U.S.

REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT RELENT AND JUST FOUR DAYS LATER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECEIVED THAT MESSAGE VIA KURT VOLCKER THAT HE NEEDED TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WOULD DO THE INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO GET THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

AND AS I HAVEÑi DESCRIBED, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RIDE TO DO EXACTLY THAT ON THE JULY JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IN THE WEEKS FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HEEDED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST SENDING HIS TOP AID MR. YERMAK TO MADRID TO MEET WITH MR. GIULIANI.

IN COORDINATION WITH MR. GIULIANI ANDÑi PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HAND-PICKED REPRESENTATIVES, THEY CONTINUED THIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN TO SECURE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

NOW, ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND -- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT REQUIRE THAT UKRAINE ACTUALLY CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATIONS AS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

INSTEAD, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT NEEDED ONLY TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GOAL WAS NOT THE INVESTIGATIONS THEMSELVES OR NOT ANY CORRUPTION THAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS MIGHT HAVE ENTAILED BUT THE POLITICAL BENEFIT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD ENJOY FROM AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS 2020 POLITICAL RIVAL AND AGAINST A UNANIMOUS ASSESSMENT THAT SHOWED THAT HE RECEIVED FOREIGN SUPPORT IN THEçó 2016 ELECTION.

AND FOR THAT REASON, THE FACTS DIDN'T ACTUALLY MATTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE HE ONLY CARED ABOUT THE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLCKER WORKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AID MR. YERMAK TO DRAFT A STATEMENT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ISSUE.

WHEN THE AIDE PROPOSED A STATEMENT THAT DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED, THE BURISMA AND BIDEN INVESTIGATION AND THE 2016 ELECTION INVESTIGATION, THERE GIULIANI RELAYED THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND, HERE, YOU CAN SEE A COMPARISON ON THE LEFT OF THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT DRAFTED BY MR. YERMAK THE TOP AIDE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND ON THE RIGHT A REVISED STATEMENT WITH MR. GIULIANI'S REQUIREMENTS.

IT SAYS, INTEND TO NICHEÑi INITIATE AND COMPLETE A TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION OF ALL AVAILABLE FACTS AND EPISODES -- CRITICAL DIFFERENCE -- INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING BURISMA AND THE 2016 U.S.

ELECTIONS, WHICH IN TURN WILL PREVENT THE RECURRENCE OF THIS PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE STATEMENT THAT GIULIANI REQUIRED AND THE STATEMENT THAT THE UKRAINIANS HAD DRAFTED WAS THIS REFERENCE TO THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED AND TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

NOW, ULTIMATELY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ADMINISTRATION TEMPORARILY SHELVED THIS ANNOUNCEMENT, THOUGH EFFORTS TO PRESS UKRAINE WOULD REMAIN ONGOING.

BY MID AUGUST, UKRAINE DID NOT MAKE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUIRED AND, AS A RESULT, NO WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED.

BUT BY THIS TIME, THE PRESIDENT WAS PUSHING ON ANOTHER PRESSURE POINT TO COERCE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE HOLD ON THE VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD PUT IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN A MONTH, STILL WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION TO ANY TO HAVE THE POLICY EXPERTS.

OUR INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT A NUMBER OF UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HAD MADE QUIET INQUIRIES TO VARIOUS U.S. OFFICIALS ABOUT THE AID AS JULY 25, THE DAY TO HAVE THE PHONE CALL.

INQUIRIES BY UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS CONTINUED IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED UNTIL THE HOLD WAS REVEALED AT THE END OF AUGUST, BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT.

IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO KEEP IT QUIET BECAUSE, IF IT BECAME PUBLIC, THEN RUSSIA WOULD KNOW THAT THE U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE MIGHT BE ON ICE.

SO BY THE END OF THAT MONTH, THE EVIDENCE REVEALED SEVERAL FACTS.

ONE, THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED THAT UKRAINE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE TWO POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT HIS REELECTION.

TWO, A COVETED WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE ANNOUNCING THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.

THREE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PLACED A HOLD ON VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION AND, NOTWITHSTANDING THE UNIFORM SUPPORT FOR THAT ASSISTANCE FROM THE RELEVANT FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CONGRESS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT THIS QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEEDED WAS CRAZY, AND HE TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THE HELP WITHÑi A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

NOW, IN AN EFFORT TO MOVE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE MILITARY AID ALONG, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE AN EMAIL TO SECRETARY POMPEO ON AUGUST 22.

HE WROTE, MIKE, SHALL WE BLOCK TIME IN WARSAW FOR A SHORT POLICIDEPHOR POTUS TO HAVE MEET ZELENSKY IN I WOULD ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM THAT ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE, PARENTHESIS, MID-SEPTEMBER, Z, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD PUBLICLY AND WITH CONFIDENCE ON THOSE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO POTUS AND TO THE U.S. HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL BREAK THE LOG JAM.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS A REFERENCE TO THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25th CALL, WHICH SECRETARY POMPEO ULTIMATELY ADMITTED TO THAT HE LISTENED TO IN REALTIME.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HOPED THIS WOULD HELP LIFT THE LOG JAM WHICH HE MEANT THE HOLD ON CRITICAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

AND WHAT WAS SECRETARY POMPEO'S RESPONSE THREE MINUTES LATER?

YES.

AFTER THE HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE BECAME PUBLIC ON AUGUST 28th, SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERN, DEEPLY WORRIED, OF COURSE, ABOUT THE PRACTICAL IMPACT ON THEIR EFFORTS TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, BUT ALSO, AND THIS GOES BACK TO WHY IT REMAINED CONFIDENTIAL, ALSO ABOUT THE PUBLIC MESSAGE IT SENT TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

ON SEPTEMBER 1 AT A PRE-BRIEFING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE BEFORE HE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

HE SAID, I MENTIONED TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE BEFORE THE MEETINGS WITH THE UKRAINIANS THAT I HAD CONCERNS THAT THE DELAY IN AID HAD BECOME TIED TO TISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE SIMPLY NODDED IN RESPONSE, EXPRESSING NEITHER SURPRISE NOR DISMAY AT THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE TWO.

FOLLOWING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WENT OVER TO MR. YERMAK AGAIN, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TOP AID, AND PULLED HIM ASIDE TO EXPLAINi THAT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO NOW CONDITIONED OPEN THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BURISMA BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATION.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN EXPLAINED TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE A MISTAKE IN TELLING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT ONLY THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS BENEFICIAL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IN TRUTH, EVERYTHING, WHO WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE VITAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WAS NOW CONDITIONED ON THE PLEK ANNOUNCEMENT.

ANNOUNCEMENT -- PLUCK ANNOUNCEMENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX, A PRIVATE COMMITMENT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

NEARLY ONE WEEK LATER ON SEPTEMBER 7, THE HOLDS REMAINED, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE ON THE PHONE.

THE PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT -- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS INÑi ORDER FOR TE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE LIFTED, AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.

IN EFFECT, THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT ON SAYING THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO, NO THIS FOR THAT, BEFORE, THEN, DEMANDING PRECISELY THAT QUID PRO QUO.

AND MIDDLE EAST AFTER THIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, THIS WAS THE PRECISE MESSAGE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PASSED DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. YERMAK AND HAD TOLD THEM THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAi NOTÑi A QUID PRO QUO, IF PRESIDT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC, WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE, AND I UNDERSTOOD A STALEMATE TO MEAN THAT UKRAINE WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

NEEDING THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND HOPING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FINALLY RELENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN, AND ARRANGEMENTS WERE SOON MADE FOR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO MAKE A STATEMENT DURING AN INTERVIEW ON CNN WHERE HE WOULD MAKE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

IN ORDER FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO SECURE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND FOR UKRAINE TO GET THAT MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

AND ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD AIREDDERRED TO MILITARY AID HELD UP UNTIL THE UKRAINIANS COMMITTED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS, ON OCTOBER 17th, ACTING CHIEF O STAFF MICK MULVANEY CONFIRMED, IN PUBLIC, THAT THERE WAS SUCH A QUID PRO QUO.

LET'S WATCH WHAT HE SAID.

>> UM, THOSE WERE THE DRIVING FACTORS.

DID HE ALSO MENTION TO ME IN PAST THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE D.N.C.

SERVER?

ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT THAT'S IT.

THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

THERE WAS A REPORT -- >> SO THE DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS WAS PART OF THE REASON THAT HE -- IT WAS ORDERED TO WITHHOLD FUNDING TO UKRAINE.

>> THE LOOK-BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 CERTAINLY WAS PART OF THE THING THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION.

THEN THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE.

>> THERE YOU HAVE IT.

BY EARLY SEPTEMBER, THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME WAS UNRAVELING.

ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THE INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.

AND LATER THAT SAME DAY, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LEARNED A WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A COMPLAINT NEARLY A MONTH EARLIER RELATED TO SOME UNKNOWN ISSUE BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW WAS RELATE TO UKRAINE AND HAD BEEN CIRCULATING AMONG THEM FOR SOME TIME.

THEN, TWO DAYS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 11, IN THE FACE OF GROWING PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL SCRUTINY, PRESIDENT TRUMP LIFTED THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

AS WITH TIMBERTATION OF THE HOLD, NO REASON WAS PROVIDED.

PUT SIMPLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT, SO HE RELEASED THE AID.

BUT EVEN SINCE THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN, THE PRESIDENT HAS DEMONSTRATED NO CONTRITION OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT HIS DEMAND FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS WRONG.

IN FACT HE HAS REPEATEDLY CALLED ON UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, HIS RIVAL.

THESE AND OTHER ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ASSOCIATES DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS DETERMINATION TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION CONTINUES TODAY.

IT DID NOT END FOR SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2016 WHICH PRESIDENT INVITED BY ASKING HIS OPPONENT BEEN HACKED BY RUSSIA AND DID NOT END WHEN HIS UKRAINIAN TEAM WAS EXPOSEDÑi IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO ENGAGED, ONCE THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN, IN AN UNPRECEDENTED EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT THE INQUIRY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION.

BUT IN CONCLUSION, I WANT TO SAY THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS PRODUCED TO YOU A NEARLY 300-PAGE REPORT, AND I AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU HAVE OFFERED ME THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING IT.

ADMITTEDLY, AS LOT TO DIGEST, BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS -- THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME IS ACTUALLY QUITE SIMPLE AND THE FACTS ARE NOT SERIOUSLY IN DISPUTE.

IT COULD BE BOILED DOWN TO FOUR KEY TAKEAWAYS.

FIRST, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED A SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO OPENING TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS 2020 REELECTION CAMPAIGN AND NOT THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST.

SECOND,Ñi PRESIDENT TRUMP USED S OFFICIAL OFFICE AND THEÑiÑi OFFL TOOLS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, THE WITHHOLDING OF AN OFFICE MEETING AND $391 MILLION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE ASSISTANCE IN PRESSURING UKRAINE TO MEET HIS DEMANDS.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP, HIS CHIEF OF STAFF, SECRETARY OF STATE AND VICE PRESIDENT.

FOURTH, DESPITE THE PUBLIC DISCOVERY OF THE SCHEME WHICH PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE AID, HE HAS NOT GIVEN UP.

HE AND HIS AGENTS CONTINUED TO SOLICIT UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION, CAUSING AN IMMINENT THREAT TO OUR ELECTIONS AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S -- >> REGULAR ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN.

TIME HAS ELAPSED.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MR. DEUTCH.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION.

>> GENTLEMAN STATE HIS MOTION.

I MOVE THE COMMITTEE BE IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.

>> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION.

T IS A PRIVILEGED MOTION, NOT DEBATABLE.

(VOTING) >> I SEEK A RECORDEDçó VOTE.

THE AYES HAVE IT.

THE COMMITTEE -- ROLE CALL.

THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.

>> MR. NADLER.

AYE.

MS. LOFGREN, AYE.

MS. JACKSON LEE, AYE.

MR. COHEN,Ñi AYE.Ñi MR. JOHNSON, AYE.

MR. DEUTCH, AYE.

MS. BASS, AYE.

MR. RICHMOND, AYE, MR. JEFFRIES, AYE.

MR. CICILLINE, AYE.

MR. SWALWELL, AYE.

MR. LIEU, AYE.

MR. RASKIN,Ñi AYE.

ÑLIEU VOTES AYE.

MR. RASKIN VOTES AYE.

MS. JAYAPAL VOTES AYE.

MS. DEMINGS VOTES AYE.

MR. CORREA VOTES AYE.

MT.

SCANLON VOTES AYE.

MS. GARCIA VOTES AYE.

MR. NEGUSE VOTES AYE.

MS. McBATH VOTES AYE.

MR. STANTON VOTES AYE.

MS. DEAN VOTES AYE.

MS. MUCARSEL-POWELL VOTES AYE.

MS. ESCOBAR VOTES AYE.

MR. COLLINS VOTES NO.

MR. SENSENBRENNER.

MR. CHABOT.

MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.

MR. CHABOT VOTES NO.

MR. GOHMERT VOTES NO.

MR. JORDAN VOTES NO.

MR. BUCK.

MR. RATCLIFFE VOTES NO.

MS. ROBY VOTES NO.

MR. GATES.

>> NO, THIS IS SO THEY CAN HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE BEFORE MR. CASTOR OFFERS REBUTTAL.

NOBODY ASKED FOR THIS BREAK.

>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES NO.

MR. BIGGS VOTES NO.

MR. McCLINTOCK VOTES NO.

MS. LESKO VOTES NO.

MR. RESCHENTHALER VOTES NO.

MR. CLINE VOTES NO.

MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES NO.

MR. STEUBE VOTES NO.

HAS EVERYONE VOTED?

THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN THERE, ARE 24 AYES AND 16 NOS.

>> THE MOTION TO RECESS AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.

>> HOW LONG DO WE ANTICIPATE THE RECESS?

>> GENERALT GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> IT'S UNTIL THEY'RE DONE WITH THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES.

WE HAVE BEEN IN SESSION 2 1/2 HOURS.

AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY, THE CROSS EXAMINATION HAVE BEEN ANOTHER 2 1/2 HOURS, STAND IN RECESS THEN, BEFORE THE FIVE-MINUTE ROUND OF QUESTIONING.

I WOULD ASK THAT THE PEOPLE REMAIN IN THEIR SEATS WHILE THE TWO WITNESSES ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE.

I WOULD REMIND PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT IF THEY LEAVE, THEY MAY NOT HAVE THEIR SEATS BACK WHEN WE RECONVENE.

THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS AND RECONVENE IN 15 MINUTES.

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER GAVELLING THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO RECESS.

WE HAVE JUST WITNESSED ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF JUST HOW DIVIDED THIS CONGRESS IS, HOW DIVIDED THIS HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS, DOWN THE LIGHTS DEMOCRATS VOTING TO RECESS PART OF THE PLAN OF THE MAJORITY, EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTING AGAINSTP.

YOU HEARD THE CHARGE BY ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS, CONGRESSMAN MATT GATES IT WAS ABOUT A NEWS CONFERENCE.

VERY MUCH PARTISANSHIP ON DISPLAY.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THESE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS CONTINUING THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR ABOUT 2 1/2 HOURS THIS MORNING AND AS YOU JUST HEARD CHAIRMAN NADLER, THE COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE HEARING WITNESSES, ALLOWING COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES WELL IN TO THE AFTERNOON.

HERE IN OUR PBS NEWSHOUR STUDIO WITH MIEKE, WE ARE SEEING COUNSEL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE INVOLVED.

MIEKE, WE LISTENED TO DANIEL GOLDMAN, REPRESENTING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LAY OUT THE CASE, THE EVIDENTIARY CASE IN AT LEAST IN THE VIEW OF THE DEMOCRATS.

IT'S NOT NEW INFORMATION, BUT THEIR GOAL IS TO PULL IT TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT WHAT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY WANT TO PULL IT TOGETHER IN TO A COHERENT NARRATIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD ALL THESE HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TESTIMONY, THOUSANDS OF PAGES AND YOU HEARD IT OUT OF ORDER AS PEOPLE TOLD STORIES FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW.

GOLDMAN TRIED TO PUT THE STORY TOGETHER FROM BEGINNING TO END IN A WAY PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND, AROUND THE CENTRAL QUESTION OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTUALLY DOING TO TRY TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO BENEFIT HIMSELF POLITICALLY, WHAT HE WAS ASKING FOR AND WHAT SPECIFICALLY HE WAS HOLDING UP.

>> AND MICHAEL ALLEN, HE REALLY DIDN'T STRAY FROM THE TIME LINE, DID HE?

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF POINTS WHERE HE EMPHASIZED THIS HAPPENED, THIS WAS IMPORTANT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S TICK-TOCK, TICK-TOCK, THE EVENTS WE HAVE HEARD DESCRIBED.

>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, JUDY.

I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING HERE IS THAT DEMOCRATS ARE PRIVATELY, I'M TOLD, DISAPPOINTED THAT AFTER OVER 100 HOURS IN HEARINGS, 17 WITNESSES IN AND THE REST, THE NEEDLE HAS BARELY MOVED IN TERMS OF 50% OF THE COUNTRY IS IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT AND 50% OF THE COUNTRY IS SEEMINGLY AGAINST IMPEACHMENT.

AND SO I THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING AS MIEKE SAID TO, PUT TOGETHER A COHERENT NARRATIVE AND AGAIN, TRY AND PUT FORWARD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR ARGUMENTS WHY THE PRESIDENT DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED.

AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS A FAMOUSLY DIVISIVE TIME, YOU SEE IT IN THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

I DO THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO MESSAGE BEYOND THE CAPITOL AND IN TO THE COUNTRY.

>> WHAT WE'RE HEARING BACK FROM THE REPUBLICANS, MIEKE, IS IN SOME CASES PUSHING BACK ON THE NARRATIVE BUT SO MUCH OF THEIR ENERGY AND TIME THIS MORNING HAS BEEN TAKEN UP WITH PARLIAMENTARY CALLS, ASKING FOR A VOTE, ASKING FOR OTHER WITNESSES, ONLY IN PART OF WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE REPUBLICANS THIS MORNING ARE THEY DIRECTLY GOING AFTER THE EVIDENCE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

SO WHEN YOU FACTOR AGAIN, YOU TYPICALLY ARGUE PROCESS.

YOU HAVE SEEN A LOT OF PROCESS ARGUMENT HERE.

WHAT YOU HAVE ALSO SEEN IS REPUBLICANS ARE NOT REALLY OFFERING A LOT OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD JUSTIFY WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING.

THEY ARE SELECTIVELY PICKING PARTICULAR PIECES OF THE EVIDENCE AND SAYING THIS PIECE OVER HERE SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

IGNORING THESE OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE TALKING ABOUT, THESE SIDE BAR CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S AIDES AND ZELENSKY AIDES TO SET UP THIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN.

>> Woodruff: AND MICHAEL ALLEN, REPUBLICANS COMING BACK WITH SAYING THIS IS HEARSAY, SOMEONE SAYING I HEARD THAT SAID, BUT I WASN'T THERE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN IT HAPPENED.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

MIEKE AND I THINK IS ON TO SOMETHING, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO GET TO THEIR ARGUMENTS BUT WAIT, IT'S COMING AFTER THE BREAK.

THE FAMILIAR RE-FREINS -- REFRAINS WERE DELIVERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A TOUGHER POLICY THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA, HEARSAY AND ALL OF THE OTHER ARGUMENTS ABOUT CORRUPTION THAT HAVE BECOME SO FAMILIAR.

I ALSO THINK THAT WHILE IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL OR EVEN INAPPROPRIATE PERHAPS FOR HUNTER BIDEN TO HAVE BEEN TAKING A MONTHLY RETAINER FROM BURISMA, I DO THINK THAT SORT OF CLOUDS THE ATMOSPHERE OF WHETHER IT WAS PROPER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO INQUIRE ABOUT CORRUPTION.

I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS STUCK OUT AS I HAVE SORT OF TALKED TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON AND THE REST.

AND IT'S A SIMPLE FACT THAT PEOPLE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.

I HEARD VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DRUG GLING -- STRUGGLING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION THE OTHER NIGHT.

THAT MAKES THINGS THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR DEMOCRATS TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

>> IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW, MIEKE, CONTINUES TO BE ASKED.

HIS ANSWER HAS BEEN TO MICHAEL'S POINT, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT, THAT WHAT MY SON, FIRST OF ALL HE DIDN'T KNOW, HE SAYS, THAT HIS SON HAD THIS ROLE.

THEN HE SAID HIS SON YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, IN A RECENT INTERVIEW, HIS SON HAS APOLOGIZED FOR WHAT HE DID.

SO THERE IS A RECOGNITION OF AN APPEARANCE ISSUE HERE.

>> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

WITH THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, THE WAY THEY TRIED TO HANDLE THE ETHICAL ISSUE WAS TO WALL OFF ACTIVITIES OF THE TWO SO THEY WERE UNAWARE OF EACH OTHER MUCH THAT'S A FAIRLY COMMON WAY OF TRYING TO HANDLE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

BUT I DO AGREE WITH MICHAEL, THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS GETTING IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE SEEMS, IT SEEMS INSTINCTIVELY OFFENSIVE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, IT WAS SO MUCH MONEY FOR SO LITTLE WORK.

>> Woodruff: I'M IMAGINE BEGINNING AS THE TWO OF YOU JUST SUGGESTED WE'LL HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS MAKE THEIR CASE IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.

OUR CORRESPOND DIDN'T YAMICHE COVERS THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PRESENTING ARE THE ARGUMENTS, THE EVIDENCE, THE NARRATIVE, THAT WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH.

IT'S A NARRATIVE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT CHALLENGED IN ITS DETAIL.

SO IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THEY COME BACK AT THIS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAS REALLY BEEN CHALLENGING A LOT OF THE PROCESS, REACTING AND TALKING ABOUT THIS BEING UNFAIR, ALL ABOUT THE ELECTION OF 2016.

BUT THEY HAVEN'T SAID LOOK, THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG IN TERMS OF SAYING THAT HE WAS GOING AFTER THIS POLITICAL RIVAL AND THIS INVESTIGATION.

THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG ON THE CALL BUT HAVEN'T GOTTEN REALLY, REALLY DEEPLY IN TO THE SUBSTANCE.

THEY ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING AFTER CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT STILL HAVEN'T REALLY PROVEN THEIR CASE IN TERMS OF REALLY PUTTING TOGETHER AND DISMANTLING THE DEMOCRATS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT UP THE NAME BIDEN.

THEY'RE NOT PUSHING BACK ON THAT.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE WERE REACTING IN REAL TIME.

I WANT TO READ A COUPLE TWEETS WHICH WRITES THE WHITE HOUSE HAS DECIDED, WHICH IS WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE DECIDED TO PUT REACTION IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA, NOT IN THE HEARING ROOM.

THE FIRST TWEET, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED THE DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS ARE A DISGRACE, SO HE'S GOING AFTER DEMOCRATS SAYING THEY'RE CHARACTERS ARE AT ISSUE, GOING AFTER THEM.

THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY STATEMENT, SHE TWEETED OUT, FIVE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

NO EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING BY POTUS, UKRAINE SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

LETHAL AID TO UKRAINE WOULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THERE'S NO OBSTRUCTION WHATSOEVER.

THIS IS AN UNFAIR AND UNPRECEDENTED IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

AGAIN, YOU SEE THE WHITE HOUSE PUTTING OUT THEIR ARGUMENTS BUT THEY ARE STILL REALLY FOCUSING ON HOW THIS IS ALL UNFOLDING AND THE FACT THIS IS GOING TOO FAST THEY SAY.

NOT REALLY GOING IN TO TEA DETAIL ABOUT WHAT WENT ON THE CALL.

>> SOME OF THE DETAIL HERE, WE HEARD FROM THE COUNSEL DANIEL GOLDMAN CITING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT, I'M SORRY, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EU, SAYING THIS IS IMPORTANT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION IN ORDER FOR THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE LIFTED.

EVEN AS HE WAS SAYING THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO, THEY WERE SAYING YOU HAVE TO DO THIS IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE AID.

>> ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT HAPPENED DURING THIS HEARING IN THE LAST COUPLE HOURS WAS THE DEMOCRATS WERE POINTING DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORD.

DANIEL GOLDMAN POINTED TO THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THE EUROPEAN AMBASSADOR, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT I NEED UKRAINE TO LAUNCH INVESTIGATIONS TO RELEASE THIS MILITARY AID.

DANIEL GOLDMAN SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO WHILE THEN DESCRIBING A QUID PRO QUO.

SO I WOULD NOTE THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HE PLAYED IN THE HEARING RECORDINGS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE HAD THE PRESIDENT SAYING RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, PLEASE GO GET HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS, DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.

HE THEN HAD PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING I HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE ANYTHING I WANT AS THE PRESIDENT.

HE ALSO HAD PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN, THAT UKRAINE SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN, LONG AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAIN WAS RELEASED AND EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATION JOE BIDEN SO THE PRESIDENT WASN'T BACKING OFF THAT.

I WAS ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT.

THAT WAS VERY STRIKING, BUT THE PRESIDENT DOUBLED DOWN ON THAT.

SO THE WHITE HOUSE IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO ASK FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

THEY ALSO SAY THAT NO ONE HAS DIRECTLY TIED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO SAYING THAT HE NEEDED THAT MILITARY AID TO BE RELEASED IN ORDER FOR THE INVESTIGATION TO GOO THEY'RE SAYING BASICALLY GORDON SONDLAND AND PEOPLE AROUND PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION BUT THE PRESIDENT NEVER GAME THE DIRECTION TO HOLD UP THE MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR INVESTIGATIONS.

>> Woodruff: IT'S SO INTERESTING BECAUSE WE ARE, I MEAN ON THE ONE HAND YOU HEAR DANIEL GOLDMAN DESCRIBING THAT PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHERE THERE APPEARED TO BE A DO YOU THIS OR WE WON'T GIVE YOU THAT.

AND YET THE WHITE HOUSE IS SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR ANSWERS.

LISA AT THE CAPITOL, IN THE HEARING ROOM:YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING TO SOME OF THE MEMBERS DURING THIS RECESS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATS CAME OUT OF THIS, THEY SAY THEY ARE LAYING OUT A CASE THEY BELIEVE HAS ALL THE DETAILS.

THEY SAY THEY THINK IT'S A SLAM DUNK.

SPEAKING TO DEMOCRATS I ASKED ONE QUESTION IN TERMS OF STEVE COWEN OF TENNESSEE.

ANOTHER REPORTER POINTED OUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN POLLS CHANGE VERY MUCH DURING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, STILL MAJORITY OF AMERICANS IN FAVOR OF THE PROCESS, BUT THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY GAIN THERE.

HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT AND HE SAID WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL PUSHING OUR CASE.

WE STILL THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS CASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

I FOLLOWED UP AND ASKED HIM SOMETHING I OBSERVED TODAY.

THIS WAS THE SMALLEST CROWD I HAVE SEEN FOR ANY OF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

BEFORE IT BEGAN, NOT ONLY WAS THERE NO LINE, THERE WAS EMPTY SEATS IN THIS HEARING.

NOW, IT IS A COLD, RAINY WINTER DAY HERE IN WASHINGTON.

SO THAT COULD BE PART OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

BUT I ASKED REPRESENTATIVE COWEN ABOUT THIS, WHY NOT A LARGE CROWD FOR SUCH A HISTORIC, IMPORTANT DAY.

HE SAID HE COULDN'T ANSWER THAT.

HE SAID HE HIMSELF HAD ATTENDED THE WATERGATE HEARINGS AS AN INTERESTED VOTER.

HE OF COURSE ATTENDED, PARTICIPATE IN THE CLINTON HEARINGS.

HE SAID I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

HE JOKED MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE TV COVERAGE IS SO GOOD.

OBVIOUSLY HE'S WATCHING US.

BUT I THINK IT'S A FAIR POINT THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE TO REALLY CONTEND WITH WHAT IS BREAKING THROUGH HERE TODAY.

AND SPEAKING TO REPUBLICANS, I SPOKE TO RANKING MEMBER DOUG COLLINS WHO WAS OBVIOUSLY A VERY VOCAL FORCE DURING THE PAST COUPLE HOURS, HE WAS SAYING I DON'T THINK ANY OF THIS IS BREAKING THROUGH.

DEMOCRATS ARE NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT IS GETTING THROUGH, THIS IS MADE FOR TV, REPRESENTATIVE COLLINS TOLD ME, AND VOTERS GET IT.

NOW, JUDY, TAKING THAT ASIDE, WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO THE HERE IS CLEAR.

AS DEMOCRATS TRY TO LAY OUT A METHODICAL CASE WITH EVIDENCE BUILT POINT BY POINT, REPUBLICANS ARE DOING SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO SAY THIS ENTIRE PROCESS IS UNFAIR, THEY WANT THAT, THEY WANT THEIR OBJECTIONS TO COME THROUGH NOT THE ACTUAL CASE OR A LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY THAT DEMOCRATS ARE LAYING OUT.

>> Woodruff: WE'RE HEARING REPUBLICAN SAY IT'S A SHAM, THAT IT'S BEEN RUSHED, THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, BUT ONLY TO A VERY SMALL DEGREE ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.

WE HEARD SOME OF THAT FROM THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL, FROM STEPHEN CASTOR, I PRESUME WE'LL HEAR MORE IN A MOMENT WHEN HE MAKES HIS PRESENTATION.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, UNTIL NOW, IT'S BEEN ABOUT THE PROCESS, IT'S BEEN ABOUT THE SPEED, THE FACT THAT THEY GOT ALMOST A THOUSAND PAGES OF THIS REPORT LESS THAN 48 HOURS BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO BE SO FASCINATED TO SEE HOW STEVE CASTOR HANDLES HIS NEXT PRESENTATION TIME.

ARGUABLY THE MORE CRITICAL TIME.

REPUBLICANS CRITICIZED FOR NOT TAKING ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS ON IMPEACHMENT.

DO THEY DECIDE TO DO THAT MORE NOW?

AND HOW DO THIS GO ABOUT THAT?

IT'S GOING TO BE FASCINATING.

ALSO JUDY, I NOTICED IN THE HEARING ROOM, COULD BE THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG PROCESS, MEMBERS HAVE HAD MANY LATE NIGHTS WITHOUT SLEEP, THERE WAS ANOTHER LATE NIGHT SESSION FOR REPUBLICANS LAST NIGHT, EVERYONE IS TIRED, BUT I HAVE NOTICED IN THE HEARING ROOM MORE GLAZED OVER LOOKS BY HOUSE MEMBERS IN THE HEARING ROOM THAN I HAVE BEFORE.

USUALLY THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE ELECTRICITY OR A LOT OF ELECTRICITY IN THE HEARINGS.

I DIDN'T FEEL THAT.

THAT COULD BE I'M TIRED TOO BUT I REALLY WAS PAYING ATTENTION AND THE MEMBERS AND THEY JUST LOOKED MORE GLAZED OVER THAN I HAVE SEEN THEM BEFORE.

>> Woodruff: YOU ARE NOT TIRED, LISA.

YOU ARE THE IRON WOMAN FOR THE NEWSHOUR FOLLOWING THESE HEARINGS AND FOLLOWING SO MUCH ELSE.

LISA AT THE CAPITOL, THANK YOU.

BACK TO THE TABLE HERE WITH MIEKE IT IS THE CASE, MIEKE, THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS A MINUTE AGO, IS A REPEAT OF MUCH OF WHAT CAME OUT DURING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS OF A FEW WEEKS AGO.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE HEARING AGAIN IS THE SUMMARY.

ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS HEARING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN PLACES BEFORE IS THAT HOPEFULLY YOU WILL SEE THE COUNSEL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EACH OTHER'S ARGUMENTS HEAD ON.

THAT NOW THAT EACH SIDE HAS SEEN THE OTHER'S ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE REBUTTAL BASED ON THE FACTS THEMSELVES.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF NEW INFORMATION HERE.

>> Woodruff: WHAT IS THE ROLE RIGHT NOW, MICHAEL, OF THESE TWO COUNSELS WHO ARE REPRESENTING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE?

WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE DEMOCRATS' COUNSEL, MR. GOLDMAN.

NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. CASTOR REPRESENTING REPUBLICANS.

WHAT IS THEIR ROLE?

IS IT AS MIEKE WAS SAYING, TO SUMMARIZE, SUMMARIZE THE REBUTTAL?

WHAT DO WE LOOK TO HEAR FROM MR. CASTOR NEXT.

>> IF YOU WANT AN ANALOGY AROUND IT,YOU HAD KEN STARR IN THE CLINTON YEARS AND A NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT OR SPECIAL COUNSELS IN THE NIXON YEARS.

THERE WASN'T REALLY A BIG INVESTIGATION LEAD UP HERE, LIKE THE MUELLER REPORT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

ALL OF THAT IS OCCURRED IN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

SO THEY PUT OUT THEIR REPORT AND IT'S THE FUNCTION OF THESE COUNSELS TO COME BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND SAY HERE ARE OUR FINDINGS, BUT JUST TO ADD A LITTLE INSIDE BASEBALL TO THIS.

THE REASON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WAS VESTED WITH THIS INVESTIGATORY POWER WE'RE TOLD AND IT'S BEEN WELL REPORTED, THAT IS SPEAKER PELOSI DIDN'T HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THEY ARE MORE FAMOUSLY OR INFAMOUSLY PARTISAN AND AT TIMES THIS IS A VERY RAUCOUS COMMITTEE.

SO IT WAS VESTED.

>> Woodruff: WE HAVE SEEN THAT THIS MORNING.

>> WE HAVE SEEN IT AND WE WILL SEE IT IN SPADES THIS AFTERNOON.

BUT I THINK YOU SAW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO VEST THIS COMMITTEE WITH THEIR TRADITIONAL IMPEACHMENT POWERS AND THEY HAVE BEEN PRACTICING ALL WEEKEND LONG SO THAT IT WILL BE LESS OF A SPECTACLE.

>> Woodruff: BUT IT IS, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT DRAFTING, DRAWING UP THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST A PRESIDENT, OF A PRESIDENT, WHAT AN ENORMOUS TASK THAT IS AND TO SEE THE COMMITTEE THAT HAS THAT RESPONSIBILITY BREAK OUT IN TO JUST NON-STOP PARTISAN WARFARE.

THEY'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH THE JOB, OF COURSE.

THAT'S THEIR JOB.

BUT IT'S VERY TELLING IN TERMS OF THE POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT WE LIVE IN RIGHT NOW.

>> IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT REPUBLICANS WHO MIGHT HARBOR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR HERE HAVE BEEN REALLY COWED IN TO SILENCE.

WE SAW THAT WITH CONGRESSMAN ROUENEY WHO SAID HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR HERE ANNOUNCE HIS RETIREMENT SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

CONGRESSMAN HURD ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SAID WRONG BUT NOT IMPEACHABLE, ALSO NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION.

A SENSE THAT REPUBLICANS MIGHT PAY A HUGE POLITICAL PRICE IF THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG HERE BY COMING OUT AND SAYING.

SO YOU HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT REALLY GO AFTER REPUBLICANS WHO EXPRESSED TEN MILDEST CRITICISM OF REPUBLICANS WHO QUESTIONED HIS BEHAVIOR.

>> Woodruff: YOU DON'T SEE MUCH, MICHAEL, MUCH BREAKING OF THE RANKS AMONG REPUBLICANS HIM AS MIEKE MENTIONED, WILL HURD, CONGRESSMAN RETIRING FROM TEXAS, THOUGHT OF IF ANY REPUBLICAN WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR ENTIRE HOUSE, IT MIGHT BE WILL HURD.

HE CHALLENGED THE PRESIDENT FOR EXAMPLE ON HIS IMMIGRATION POLICY.

BUT EVEN WILL HURD AS WE HEARD A COUPLE WEEKS AGO DURING INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, WAS, SAID THERE'S NO CASE HERE.

>> I THINK A LOT OF REPRESENT CANS ARE WHERE WILL HURD IS, VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY THIS WENT DOWN.

JUST INTERESTINGLY, THINK OF TUCKER CARLSON, ONE OF THE BIG FOX NEWS PERSONALITIES.

HE EVEN WROTE AA OP-ED SOME WEEKS AGO THAT SAID THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED, THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

BUT ANYWAY, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN RANKS, PRIVATELY THINK THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR, BUT PROBABLY NOT IMPEACHABLE.

AND THAT WAS SORT OF BOLSTERED, THAT ARGUMENT BOLSTERED BY THE REPUBLICAN LAWYER OR THE REPUBLICAN LAW PROFESSOR LAST WEEK, JONATHAN TURLEY, WHO SAID YOU KNOW WHAT?

I DIDN'T EVEN VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT I DON'T THINK THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.

>> Woodruff: BUT THERE WERE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, LAW PROFESSORS WHO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSORS WHO DISAGREED WITH HIM ON THAT COUNT, WHO SAID THEY DID SEE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> Woodruff: EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNTS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

IS A QUID PRO QUO, ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO THE YOU A PERSONAL FAVOR, A POLITICAL FAVOR, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES YOUR OATH?

AND THAT'S WHAT THESE MEMBERS ARE BEING ASKED TO DETERMINE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

I MEAN WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION, POTENTIALLY ARTICLES AROUND OBSTRUCTION, ABUSE OF THE OFFICE, SO FORTH.

>> I THINK YOU HAVE SEEN REPUBLICAN WITNESSES OVER AND OVER AGAIN SAY IN FACT A QUID PRO QUO WOULD BE WRONG.

AND YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAY I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT, IT WAS ABOUT BIDENS AT THE TIME.

NOW I KNOW IT'S VERY WRONG.

YOU HEARD TURLEY SAY WELL, I DIDN'T SEE ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF A QUID PRO QUO.

HE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE GORDON SONDLAND CLEAR THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO TERE.

FEELS LIKE A LOT OF SELECTIVE READING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU SAY I DON'T THINK THIS IS IMPEACHABLE.

>> Woodruff: WE SHOULD REMIND OUR AUDIENCE WE'RE IN A RECESS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THE MEMBERS, LOOKS LIKE ALL OF THEM, ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE STILL AWAY FROM THE ROOM.

WE'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO COME BACK AFTER HEARING 2 1/2 HOURS OF TESTIMONY, QUESTIONS FROM WITNESSES.

THERE ARE SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS, RANKING REPUBLICAN DOUG COLLINS OF GEORGIA.

MICHAEL ALLEN, I WANT TO GET VERY SPECIFIC HERE ABOUT AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THINKING BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED UNDER PRESIDENT NIXON, WHO WAS NOT IMPEACHED BUT THEY DID DRAW UP ARTICLES AND HE RESIGNED AGAINST HIS WILL BEFORE THAT HAPPENED.

THEN UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON.

HOW ARE THESE CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP DIFFERENT FROM THOSE?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THE BRIBERY, THE POTENTIAL ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF BRIBERY WILL CERTAINLY BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAS GOE BEFORE, AT LEAST AS IT PERTAINS TO A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

TO ME, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER OF A CASE TO MAKE.

I GET 3 WHAT THE LAW PROFESSORS AND OTHERS ARE SAYING, SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO SEEK HERE.

BUT TO ME, I THINK SORT OF THE POPULAR AND PUBLIC CONCEPTION OF THIS IS SOMETHING MORE LIKE YOU KNOW, I TOOK MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THE BRIBERY THING IS A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO MAKE.

THE OTHER ONE THAT'S INTERESTING TO ME AS SOMEBODY WHO WORKED IN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, THE FACT THAT CONGRESS IS SAYING ONE OF OUR IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES WILL BE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

WE FEEL BOUND TO THE THIS AS THE ARTICLE 1 BRANCH WHERE THE FOUNDERS INVESTED SO MUCH OF THIS POWER IN US, THEY HAVE UNQUESTIONABLY BEEN COMPLETELY STIFFED, STIFF ARMED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

SO I FEEL LIKE THEIR DUTY BOUND AND ON PRETTY GOOD GROUNDS TO AT LEAST ADVANCE THE CASE OF HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT?

WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE RIGHT IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING TO REQUEST DOCUMENTS AND WE HAVE GOTTEN NOTHING.

>> Woodruff: BUT YOU DO GET THE SENSE THAT THEY WOULDN'T DO IT JUST ON OBSTRUCTION GROUNDS.

WE DON'T KNOW.

AND SPEAKING OF OBSTRUCTION THERE'S ALSO BEEN CONVERSATION OUT IN THE OPEN, MIEKE, ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE AN ARTICLE RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION AND THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, WHERE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CONCLUDED THAT HE COULDN'T EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT ON OBSTRUCTION GROUNDS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE DIDN'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT HE NEEDED TO DECLARE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THERE WAS MOTIVE IN FOR EXAMPLE, ASKING HIS WHITE HOUSE AIDES TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OR TO FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR, SO FORTH.

>> I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF DEMOCRATS PUSHING TO INCLUDE THE MUELLER OBSTRUCTION CHARGES THAT WERE IN THAT REPORT.

BUT WHAT'S VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE CASE THAT NADLER AND THE COUNSEL IS MAKING TODAY, THIS IS ABOUT THE DANGER TO THE 2020 ELECTION.

THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO MANIPULATE THE 2020 ELECTION TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN WAYS THAT DIRTIES UP HIS MOAT FEARED OPPONENTS.

MOST FEARED.

THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IS ABOUT 2016 ELECTION AND LOOKING BACK AND WHAT HE DID THERE ABOUT HIS ACTIONS INVOLVING RUSSIA AND THE DNC HACKING, WIKILEAKS AND OTHER THINGS.

THE URGENCY DEMOCRATS FEEL, ABSENT OTHER WITNESSES THEY HAVEN'T CALLED IS BECAUSE OF THE DANGER THIS POSES GOING FORWARD.

>> Woodruff: LISA, WHO IS COVERING THIS AT THE CAPITOL, LISA, THAT IS SOMETHING YOU'RE INCREASINGLY HEARING THE DEMOCRATS REFER TO, THE REASON WE ARE, IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE RUSHING, THIS IT'S BECAUSE WE DO THINK IT'S URGENT.

WE THINK THE NEXT ELECTION, THE 2020 ELECTION IS IN JEOPARDY IF WE DON'T MOVE ON THIS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY SAY THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, FOR SUBSTANTIVE REASONS.

OF COURSE, MANY PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU BEHIND THE SCENES THERE ARE POLITICAL REASONS DEMOCRATS WANT TO MOVE QUICKLY AND REPUBLICANS ALSO HAVE POLITICAL REASONS FOR MOVING QUICKLY.

I WANT TO SPEAK TO MIEKE'S POINT RIGHT NOW, SORT OF ABOUT WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE DOING WITH OBSTRUCTION AND WITH MUELLER.

IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT IN THAT HEARING KIND OF REFLECTING WHAT SHE WAS JUST SAYING, THAT YOU DIDN'T REALLY HEAR VERY MUCH ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT FROM DEMOCRATS.

YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FROM THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE RAISING IT AS A FAILED INVESTIGATION, THEY'RE CHARGING, EXAMPLE OF DEMOCRATIC OVERREACH.

SO IN A WAY, THEY'RE TEEING UP THIS IDEA IT'S A POLITICAL RISK FOR DEMOCRATS TO GO DOWN THE MUELLER ROAD.

DEMOCRATS DON'T SEEM TOO SURE ABOUT IT EITHER BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE HAVE HEARD MORE ABOUT MUELLER FROM THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL IN THEIR PRESENTATION.

SPEAKING TO DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS WHO ARE THE ONES WHOLE GET TO VOTE ON THIS, AFTERWARD INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVE COWEN WHO I MENTIONED, THEY MENTIONED TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY ARE SURE WILL BE INCLUDED AND THEY'RE THE TWO YOU MENTIONED, JUDY, SOMETHING ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT, IN TERMS OF HIS INTERACTIONS OR POLICY WITH UKRAINIAN=8Q PRESID ZELENSKY AND THE OTHER, SOME KIND OF OBSTRUCTION ARTICLE HE SAID IT'S NOT DETERMINED IF IT WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AS MICHAEL WAS TALKING ABOUT, OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OVERALL.

HE SAID THAT'S FOR OUR LEGAL STAFF TO WORK OUT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE SAID I'M NOT SURE IT MATTERS, IT'S OBSTRUCTION.

WELL, IT PROBABLY MATTERS TO A LOT OF THE STAFFERS, BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO.

SOME KIND OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SOME KIND OF ABUSE OF POWER, SEEMS CERTAIN.

EVERYTHING ELSE DEMOCRATS ARE DEBATING HOW FAR OR HOW SMALL THEY GO.

>> Woodruff: YOU'RE RIGHT, LISA, THAT THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T BRING UP THE MUELLER REPORT THIS MORNING.

I DID NOTICE THAT LAST WEEK IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING CHAIRMAN NADLER RAISED IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT AS A POSSIBLE AVENUE OF PURSUIT.

I WANT TO COME BACK NOW, QUICKLY TO, MICHAEL AND MIEKE TO TALK ABOUT JUST QUICKLY BEFORE, BECAUSE WE SEE CHAIRMAN NADLER IN HIS CHAIR, MAYBE THEY WILL GAVEL BACK TO ORDER.

BUT IN TERMS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE VERSE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.

>> IT IS.

THE MUELLER REPORT WILL GIVE THE ARGUMENT OF THIS IS POLITICAL.

THEY'RE ANNOUNCING THAT.

>> Woodruff: HERE WE GO, WE'LL INTERRUPT YOU AND GO BACK TO CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER.

>> THE COMMITTEE WILL RECONVENE.

WHEN WE RECESSED WE WERE ABOUT TO HEAR FROM MR. CASTOR.

MR. CASTOR, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 45 MINUTES.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN.

RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MEMBERS OF THE STAFF, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HAVING ME BACK.

GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEST BUY TO THE EVIDENCE GATHERED, TESTIFY ABOUT THE EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

AT THE OUTSET LET ME SAY EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES HAVE MADE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSIONS THEY SUGGEST.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT SOME IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE AND CONTEXT OF THE FACTS UNDER DISCUSSION TODAY.

THE CHIEF ALLEGATION THAT THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN TRYING TO ASSESS OVER THE LAST 76 DAYS IS THIS: WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE THROUGH A QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR WHATEVER, BY WITHHOLDING A MEETING OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS A WAY OF PRESSURING UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL FORMER VP BIDEN.

FOR THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL BENEFIT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION.

THE SECONDARY ALLEGATION THAT HAS BEEN LEVIED IS WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS DURING THE INQUIRY.

THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING THE INQUIRY DOES NOT SUPPORT EITHER OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS.

THE REPUBLICAN REPORT OF EVIDENCE LAYS OUT THE REASONS IN MORE DETAIL BUT I WILL SUMMARIZE.

I WILL BEGIN WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATION ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER.

THE INQUIRY HAS RETURNED NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD A MEETING OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO PRESSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VP BIDEN.

WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE INQUIRY HAVE DENIED HAVING AWARENESS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR EVEN AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

ON THE KEY QUESTION OF THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND, THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED WITH MALICIOUS INTENT.

OVERALL AT BEST, THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RECORD IS RIDDLED WITH HEARSAY, PRESUMPTIONS, SPECULATION.

THERE ARE CONFLICTING AND AMBIGUOUS FACTS THROUGHOUT THE RECORD.

FACTS THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

TO PARAPHRASE, PROFESSOR TURLEY FROM LAST WEEK, THE IMPEACHMENT RECORD IS HEAVY ON PRESUMPTIONS AND EMPTY ON PROOF.

THAT'S NOT ME SAYING THAT.

THAT IS PROFESSOR TURLEY.

SO LET ME START WITH THE BEST DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ANY POTENTIAL QUID PRO QUO OR IMPEACHABLE SCHEME.

THIS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY FOR WHICH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM STAFF PREPARED A CALL SUMMARY.

ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY FROM TIM MORRISON AT THE NSC THE SUMMARY WAS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE.

NSC STAFF MEMBER LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN TESTIFIED ANY OMISSIONS IN THE SUMMARY WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT AND THAT EDITING WAS NOT DONE MALICIOUSLY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED THE CALL SUMMARY SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN REVIEW IT AND ASSESS IT FOR THEMSELVESMENT I'LL MAKE A FEW POINTS THAT SEEM TO HAVE GONE UNDER-NOTICED.

THE CALL SUMMARY REFLECTS ABSOLUTELY NO PRESSURE OR CONDITIONALITY.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY VOCALIZED NO CONCERNS WITH THE SUBJECT MATTERS DISCUSSED.

THERE IS NO INDICATION OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR OTHER ILLEGAL CONDUCT ON THE CALL.

THE CALL SUMMARY SHOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ENGAGE IN PLEASANTRIES AND CORDIALITIES.

THE CALL SUMMARY REVEALED LAUGHTER.

SIMPLY PUT THE CALL IS NOT THE SINISTER MOB SHAKE DOWN THAT SOME DEMOCRATS HAVE DESCRIBED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT EUROPEAN ALLIES PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

A CONCERN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD CONTINUE TO RAISE BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY.

THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THE CALL, I REPEAT, NO DISCUSSION ON THE CALL ABOUT THE UPCOMING 2020 ELECTION OR SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

BEYOND THE CALL SUMMARY, THE NEXT BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE ARE THE STATEMENTS FROM THE TWO PARTICIPANTS ON THE CALL.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS SAID HE FELT NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL.

ON SEPTEMBER 25 AT THE UNITED NATIONS HE SAID WE HAD, I THINK, A GOOD PHONE CALL.

IT WAS NORMAL.

NOBODY PUSHED ME.

ON OCTOBER 6 PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID I WAS NEVER PRESSURED AND THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS BEING IMPOSED.

FOUR DAYS LATER, ON OCTOBER 10, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CALL NO, BLACKMAIL, THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION.

IT WAS JUST A CALL.

AND JUST RECENTLY IN "TIME MAGAZINE," PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT FROM A POSITION OF A QUID PRO QUO.

BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE THE TARGET OF ANY ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO SCHEME, HIS STATEMENTS DENYING ANY PRESSURE CARRIES SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT.

HE IS IN FACT THE SUPPOSED VICTIM HERE.

OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CONFIRMED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STATEMENTS.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAID ON SEPTEMBER 21, I KNOW WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT AND I THINK THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

ALEXANDER DANYLIUK, THEN SECRETARY OF UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL, TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ON THE NIGHT OF THE CALL THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT DISTURBED BY ANYTHING ON THE CALL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP OF COURSE HAS ALSO SAID HE DID NOT PRESSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ON SEPTEMBER 25th PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

WHEN ASKED IF HE WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO MORE TO INVESTIGATE THE FORMER VP, PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED NO, I WANT HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE CAN, WHATEVER HE CAN DO IN TERMS OF CORRUPTION BECAUSE CORRUPTION IS MASSIVE.

THAT'S WHAT HE SHOULD DO.

SEVERAL WITNESSES ATTESTED TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION.

THE INITIAL READ OUTS OF THE JUMP -- JULY 25th CALL RAISED NO CONCERNS.

ALTHOUGH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN NOTED CONCERNS, THOSE CONCERNS WERE NOT SHARED BY NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP.

THEY WERE NOT SHARED BY GENERAL KEITH KELLOGG WHO LISTENED ON THE CALL.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL KELLOGG SAID IN A STATEMENT, I HEARD NOTHING WRONG OR IMPROPER ON THE CALL.

I HAD AND HAVE NO CONCERNS.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN SUPERIOR TIM MOWERSONS WAS CONCERNED THE CALL WOULD LEAK AND BE MISUSED IN WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL PROCESS BUT DID NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING DISCUSSED ON THE CALL WAS ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER.

MUCH HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REFERENCE ON THE JULY 25th CALL TO HUNTER BIDEN'S POSITION ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA, A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN ENERGY COMPANY.

THE ACTIONS OF CERTAIN UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS IN THE RUN UP TO THE 2016 ELECTION.

DEMOCRATS DISMISS THESE CONSPIRACY THEORIES TO SUGGEST THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON OTHER THAN HIS OWN POLITICAL INTEREST TO RAISE THESE ISSUES WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ABOUT BOTH ISSUES.

WITH RESPECT TO BURISMA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THE COMPANY HAD A REPUTATION FOR CORRUPTION.

THE COMPANY WAS FOUNDED WHO SERVED AS UKRAINE'S MINISTER OF ECOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, WHEN HE SERVED IN THAT ROLE HIS COMPANY BURISMA RECEIVED OIL EXPLORATION LICENSES WITHOUT PUBLIC AUCTIONS.

BURISMA BROUGHT HUNTER BIDEN ON TO ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, AS PART OF A BROAD EFFORT BY BURISMA TO BRING IN WELL-CONNECTED DEMOCRATS DURING A PERIOD WHEN THE COMPANY WAS FACING INVESTIGATIONS BACKED NOT JUST BY UKRAINIAN FORCES BUT BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED ABOUT THESE EFFORTS.

HUNTER BIDEN REPORTEDLY RECEIVED BETWEEN $50,000 AND $83,000 A MONTH.

AS COMPENSATION FOR HIS POSITION ON BURISMA'S BOARD.

AT THE TIME THAT HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE BOARD, HIS FATHER, THE FORMER VP, WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S POINT PERSON FOR UKRAINE.

BIDEN HAS NO SPECIFIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE EXPERTISE AND WE DON'T BELIEVE HE SPEAKS UKRAINIAN OR RUSSIAN.

WE DON'T BELIEVE HE MOVED THERE.

SO HE'S GETTING THIS GIGANTIC PAYCHECK FOR WHAT?

"THE WASHINGTON POST" WROTE AT THE TIME OF BIDEN'S APPOINTMENT TO BURISMA'S BOARD THAT IT LOOKED NEPOTISM AT BEST AND WASHINGTON POST SAID, THE WASHINGTON POST, NEFARIOUS AT WORST.

ACCORDING TO "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVISTS IN UKRAINE ALSO RAISED CONCERNS THAT THE FORMER VP SON RECEIVED MONEY FROM ZLOCHEVSKY AND WORRIED THAT WOULD MEAN ZLOCHEVSKY WOULD BE PROTECTED AND NOT PROSECUTED.

WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY NOTED HUNTEBIDEN'S ROLE ON THE BOARD AND HOW IT PRESENTED AT MINIMUM A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED HUNTER BIDEN DID NOT APPEAR QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON BURISMA'S BOARD.

WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE ON THE BOARD WAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO RAISE.

IN FACT GEORGE KENT EXPLAINED THAT IN 2015 HE RAISED A CONCERN TO THE OFFICE OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE ON BURISMA'S BOARD PRESENTED A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

HOWEVER, HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE DID NOT CHANGE AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN CONTINUED TO LEAD U.S. POLICY IN UKRAINE.

ON THIS RECORD THERE IS A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE ON BURISMA'S BOARD.

THE PROSPECT THAT SOME SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WORKED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE RUN UP TO THE 2016 ELECTION DRAWS AN EVEN MORE VISCERAL REACTION FROM MOST DEMOCRATS.

LET ME SAY VERY, VERY CLEARLY THAT ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS NOT BINARY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA.

I'M SAYING THAT BOTH COUNTRIES CAN WORK TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION.

A SYSTEMIC COORDINATED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE EFFORT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT WORK TO OPPOSE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CANDIDACY.

DID NOT MAKE STATEMENTS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING THE ELECTION.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED IN HIS PUBLIC HEARING IT IS POSSIBLE FOR MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY TO SEEK INFLUENCE IN U.S.

ELECTIONS.

DR. HILL TESTIFIED LIKEWISE AT HER PUBLIC HEARING.

CONTEMPORANEOUS NEWS ARTICLES IN 2016 NOTED HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CANDIDACY LED KIEV'S WIDER POLITICAL LEADERSHIP TO DO SOMETHING THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE ATTEMPTED BEFORE, INTERVENE, HOWEVER INDIRECTLY, IN A U.S. ELECTION.

IN AUGUST 2016 THE UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.

PUBLISHED A OP-ED IN THE HILL CRITICIZING CANDIDATE TRUMP.

OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS CALLED CANDIDATE TRUMP A CLOWN AND OTHER WORDS.

THEY ALLEGE THAT HE CHALLENGED THE VERY VALUES OF THE FREE WORLD, ONE PROMINENT UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN EXPLAINED THE MAJORITY OF UKRAINE POLITICAL FIGURES WERE A HILLARY CLINTON'S SIDE.

A JANUARY 2017 POLITICO ARTICLE LAYS OUT IN MORE DETAIL EFFORTS BY THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO OPPOSE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CANDIDACY.

THE ARTICLE NOTES HOW UKRAINE WORKED TO SABOTAGE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BY PUBLICLY QUESTIONING HIS FITNESS FOR OFFICE.

THE ARTICLE DETAILED HOW A WOMAN NAMED ALEXANDRA CHALUPA, UKRAINIAN AMERICAN CONTRACTOR PAID BY THE DNC AND WORKING WITH THE DNC AND CLINTON CAMPAIGN TRADED INFORMATION AND LEADS ABOUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH THE STAFF AT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON.

CHALUPA EXPLAINED HOW THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WORKED DIRECTLY WITH REPORTERS TO POINT THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TESTIFIED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF UKRAINIAN INFLUENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION WAS APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED 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 THAT 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 IN THE INQUIRY HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 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 DUE TO ITS CORRUPTION, DATING BACK YEARS AND THAT THIS SKEPTICISM CONTRIBUTED 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, SAYING 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 CADSY IN THE 2016 ELECTION, CANDIDACY IN THE PROIKS ELECTION.

SOME UKRAINIAN POL SITUATIONS REMAINED IN WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OVER, THESE 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 AN UNTRIED POLITICIAN.

DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS WITHIN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ABOUT ZELENSKY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH IGOR, A CONTROVERSIAL OLIGARCH IN UKRAINE.

ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAN ON REFORM PLATFORM, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY APPOINTED HIS LAWYER AS HIS CHIEF OF STAFF.

BOTH AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SENATOR RON JOHNSON NOTED THE DISAPPOINTED 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 21 DURING THE INITIAL CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL.

THE SECOND WAS VIA LETTER MAY 29, THIS LETTER FOLLOWED AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON MAY 23 WITH THE U.S. SELL DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER RECALL THE PRESIDENT SAYING THESE ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE AND A CORRUPT COUNTRY.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SIMILARLY TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINE AND THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

SENATOR RON JOHNSON CONFIRMED THIS TESTIMONY IN HIS SUB NOTION THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

FINALLY, THE THIRD TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED 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 25 WHEN THE PRESIDENTS MET, THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT FELT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE DUE TO THIS DELAY.

TO THE CONTRARY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED UKRAINIAN REGIME FELT PRETTY GOOD ABOUT ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DURING THIS PERIOD.

DURING THE FOUR MONTHS SENIOR UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAS AT LEAST NINE MEETINGS OR PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, SECRETARY POMPEO, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 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. YERMAK SAID THAT IN A STORY PUBLISHED BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IN THIS ARTICLE YERMAK SAID HE AND MAYOR GIULIANI DID NOT DISCUSS A LINK BETWEEN A PRESIDENTIAL MEETING AND INVESTIGATIONS.

WITNS TESTIMONY CONFIRMS YERMAK'S STATEMENT.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED NO LINKAGE BETWEEN 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 THAT HE BELIEVED A MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON A PUBLIC ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT, NOT ON INVESTIGATIONS THEMSELVES.

A DISTINCTION THAT DURING HIS DEPOSITION HE WAS KEEN TO NOTE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THEN THAT 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 WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE JULY 10 MEETING AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE WITH TWO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

HERE TOO THERE IS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE FACTS.

BOTH DR. HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED INVESTIGATIONS DURING THIS MEETING CAUSING AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO ABRUPTLY END THE MEETING.

DR. HILL TESTIFIED SHE CONFRONTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OVER HIS DISCUSSION ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS MEETING IS SCATTERED.

IN HIS CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION HE TESTIFIED THAT NO, NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF MEMBER EVER ONCE EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO HIM THAT HE WAS ACTING IMPROPERLY.

AND HE DENIED THAT 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 THEEETING ENDED ABRUPTLY.

HE MAINTAINED THAT DR. HILL NEVER RAISED CONCERNS TO HIM AND THAT ANY DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING SPECIFIC SUCH AS BIDEN OR 2016.

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, SENIOR ADVISOR IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, TESTIFIED THAT A COLLEAGUE, TESTIFIED CHIEF OF STAFF ASSISTANT, TOLD HER, THE CHIEF OF STAFF ASSISTANT, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE NOT TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION.

HOWEVER, WILLIAMS HAD NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SUCH DIRECTION OR THE REASONS GIVEN FOR ANY SUCH DIRECTION.

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 THAT THERE WAS A WINDOW, THERE WAS A WINDOW OF DATES, MAY 30 THROUGH JUNE 1 DURING WHICH THE VICE PRESIDENT COULD ATTEND THE INAUGURATION, THAT WAS COMMUNICATED.

THAT 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 U.S. MCA DURING THE 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 EXPLAINS 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 INAUGURATION FOR MAY 20, ONLY FOUR DAYS LATER, MAY 20th WAS NOT ONE OF THE THREE DATES THAT 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 UKRAINIAN3 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'S 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 THAT OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES SHOULD SHARE MORE OF THE BURDEN FOR REGIONAL DEFENSE.

THAT'S AN ASSERTION HE MADE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, SOMETHING HE 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 TEMPORARILY PAUSED IN THE PAST FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND EVEN FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED 55-DAY PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE DID NOT STRIKE HIM AS UNCOMMON AND THAT THE PAUSE WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT.

DR. HILL, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL KATHERINE CROFT, BOTH TESTIFIED SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE SPECIFICALLY HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY PAUSED IN THE PAST.

IN FACT AMADOR DAVID HALE, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, THE THIRD MOST SENIOR PERSON AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TESTIFIED THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAUNCHED REVIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACROSS THE WORLD TO MAKE SURE TAXPAYER DOLLARS 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 ASSISTANCE IN SUPPORTING UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE UKRAINE WITH LETHAL DEFENSIVE ASSISTANCE, JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILES WAS A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, STRONGER POLICY, AND A SIGNIFICANT DECISION.

WHEN WE DISCUSSED DEMOCRAT ALLEGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD VITAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE, ALSO REMEMBER IT WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO PROVIDED UKRAINE WITH LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS.

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 THE PAUSE WAS RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTING MORE TO UKRAINE.

HE EXPLAINED HOW OMB RECEIVED REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES WERE EXPECTING TO UKRAINE, WHICH OMB PROVIDED IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER.

THE AIDE WAS RELEASED, AID WAS RELEASED SEPTEMBER 11.

SEVERAL WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT LINKED TO UKRAINE INVESTIGATIONS.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIMONY 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 POSSIBILITY MUCH QUID PRO QUO TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HE REPLIED THERE'S NO LINKAGE HERE.

DURING HIS DEPOSITION CHAIRMAN SCHIFF TRIED TO PIN HIM DOWN BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS CLEAR THERE, WAS NO CONNECTION.

IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY AMBASSADOR VOLKER REITERATED NO LINKAGE.

SIMILARLY, GEORGE KENT AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAID HE DID NOT ASSOCIATE AID TO INVESTIGATIONS AND HE RELAYED 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 THEN 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 AND ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT WERE LINKED.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO ATTESTED IN WRITTEN SUPPLEMENT HE LIKELY VOICED THIS CONCERN TO MR. YERMAK, CLOSE ADVISOR OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 1 IN WARSAW.

MR. YERMAK, HOWEVER, IN A SUBSEQUENT NEWS ACCOUNT PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 22 DISPUTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S ACCOUNT AND SAID HE DOESN'T REMEMBER ANY REFERENCE TO THE MILITARY AID.

IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REITERATED 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 ACT LITTLED 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 10 DAYS APART.

THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR IF PRESIDENT TO BE ANYTHING LESS THAN CANDID DURING THESE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS.

AUGUST 31, 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 AMONG EUROPEAN ALLIES.

WHEN SENATOR JOHNSON RAISED THE POTENTIAL 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, AND GUESS WHAT?

YOU'LL PROBABLY LIKE MY FINAL DECISION.

HE TOLD THAT TO SENATOR JOHNSON ON AUGUST 31st,STRONGLY SUGGESTING 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 RESPONDED I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO, I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

IN ADDITION, SENIOR UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DENIED ANY AWARENESS OF A LINKAGE BETWEEN U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.

THESE DENIALS ARE PERSUASIVE BECAUSE IF THERE WAS IN FACT AN ORCHESTRATED SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE BY WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 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.

HE SAID I HAVE NEVER SEEN A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS FROM THE EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON MADE INFORMAL INQUIRIES 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 SENIOR ADVISERS IN KIEV WERE AWARE OF THE PAUSE UNTIL IT WAS PUBLICLY REPORTED BY POLITICO ON AUGUST 28th.

OF SUBSEQUENT NEWS ARTICLE EXPLAINED CONFLICTING TESTIMONY THAT EMBASSY OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON HAD MADE INFORMAL INQUIRIES ABOUT ISSUES WITH THE AID WHILE SENIOR OFFICIALS IN KIEV DENIED AWARENESS OF THE PAUSE.

THE ARTICLE EXPLAINED THAT THEN UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR APONDED BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PREDECESSOR, WENT ROGUE AND DID NOT INFORM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT 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 WAS 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 THE JULY 25th HE SPOKE WITH WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE, HE MET WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN KIEV.

AUGUST 27, HE MET WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

SEPTEMBER 1, MET WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE IN WARSAW.

SEPTEMBER 5, I MET WITH SENATOR RON JOHNSON, SENATOR CHRIS MUNCHY, IN KIEV.

NONE OF THESE, CHRIS MURPHIMENT IN NONE OF THE MEETINGS DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.

THE SEPTEMBER 5 MEETING, SENATOR JOHNSON AND 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 HAD PRESSED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT THESE REFORMS DURING THEIR SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING.

IN THEIR DEPOSITIONS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR LAUDED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S RAPID REFORMS AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL, TESTIMONY THAT DURING A MEETING IN KIEV, EVERYONE ON THE UKRAINIAN SIDE OF THE TABLE WAS EXHAUSTED, UP ALL NIGHT WORKING ON THESE REFORMS.

SEPTEMBER 11, PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, SENATOR PORTMAN AND ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY.

ACCORDING TO TIM MORRISON 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 DISBURSED 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 CORRUPTION.

WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT WAS SKEPTICAL OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN GENERAL, BELIEVED STRONGLY ALLIES SHOULD SHARE THE BURDEN FOR REGIONAL DEFENSE.

WE KNOW WHITE HOUSE WAS REVIEWING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN GENERAL, TO ENSURE FURTHER U.S.

INTERESTS AND THAT OMB RESEARCH PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH FOREIGN COUNTRIES WERE CONTRIBUTING MONEY TO UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD SENATOR JOHNSON AUGUST 31 WE'RE REVIEWING IT NOW AND YOU'LL PROBABLY LIKE MY FINAL DECISION.

HE TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON SEPTEMBER 9, I WANT ZELENSKY TO THE WHAT HE RAN ON.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RAN ON ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM, WAS AN UNTRIED POLITICIAN WITH TIES TO A POTENTIAL CONTROVERSIAL OLIGARCH.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE REITERATED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT ON SEPTEMBER 1, 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.

UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT NEVER TOOK ANY ACTION ON INVESTIGATIONS AT ISSUE IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

MUCH HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT A SO-CALLED SHADOW OR IRREGULAR FOREIGN POLICY APPARATUS PRESIDENT TRUMP ALLEGED TO HAVE ON, STRAIGHTED TO INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS.

THE ALLEGATION IS PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSPIRED TO RECALL AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TO UKRAINE SO HIS AGENTS COULD PURSUE SCHEME TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION.

LOGICAL FLAWS.

EVERY AMBASSADOR INTERVIEWED ACKNOWLEDGED THE PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO RECALL AMBASSADORS FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON.

PRESIDENT TRUMP LOST CONFIDENCE IN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND SIMPLY NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR HIM TO RECALL HER.

BEYOND THAT, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REPLACED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WITH BILL TAYLOR, ONE OF THE FIRST OFFICIAL TO DISCUSS CONCERNS DURING THE COURSE OF THE INT INQUIRY, PLAYED A PROMINENT ROLE IN SOME OF THE HEARINGS LAST MONTH.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRULY SOUGHT TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AS PART OF A NEFARIOUS PLAN HE WOULD NOT HAVE REPLACED HER WITH THE LIKES OF AMBASSADOR 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.

CERTAINLY NOT OUTLANDISH.

ALL WERE SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS WITH OFFICIAL 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 NOVEMBER 22, MR. YERMAK ASKED AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO CONNECT HIM WITH MAYOR GIULIANI BECAUSE 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, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT SAW GIULIANI AS A CONDUIT THROUGH WHICH THEY COULD CHANGE THE PRESIDENT'S MIND.

SECOND ALLEGATION AT ISSUE OF COURSE IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY NOTING A GREG -- NOT AGREEING, STRONGLY, STRONGLY BELIEVE IN CONGRESS'S ARTICLE I AUTHORITY.

BUT THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS DEPARTED DRASTICALLY FROM PAST BIPARTISAN PRECEDENCE FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AS WELL AS FUNDAMENTAL TENANTS OF FAIR AND EFFECTIVE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

FIRST PROCESS MATTERS.

THE BIPARTISAN MATTERS.

FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS TO THE PRESIDENT.

IT ALLOWED SUBSTANTIVE MINORITY PARTICIPATION AND PARTICIPATION FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IN THE FACT FINDING PROCESS.

NEITHER ASPECT WAS PRESENT HERE.

DEMOCRATS DENIED US WITNESSES, DEMOCRATS VOTED DOWN SUBPOENAS WE SOUGHT TO ISSUE FOR BOTH DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.

AND I'LL NOTE DEMOCRATS NEVER BROUGHT TO 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 DELEGITIMATIZE THE INQUIRY, DO NOT GIVE US CONFIDENCE THE INQUIRY IS FAIR.

THE PRESIDENT OR ANY POTENTIAL WITNESS TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CANNOT HAVE ADVERSE, IT MANDATES ACCOMMODATION PROCESS BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.

FOR THIS REASON CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IS A TIME INTENSIVE ENDEAVOR, LODGER THAN 76 DAYS.

HERE, THE INITIAL LETTERS FROM DEMOCRATS INSTRUCTED POTENTIAL WITNESSES THAT IF THEY DID NOT COOPERATE IN FULL, IT SHALL CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION.

DEMOCRATS WANTED ALL DEMAND HONORED IMMEDIATELY AND WERE UNWILLING TO CONSIDER EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S PRIVILEGES OR DEFENSES.

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 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 SAYING 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 WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE DEMOCRATS NARRATIVE AS ARTICULATED IN THE REPORT.

THE DEMOCRAT NARRATIVE VIRTUALLY IGNORES ANY EVIDENCE THAT'S NOT HELPFUL FOR THEIR CASE.

IT IGNORES, FOR INSTANCE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 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 IN REALITY IT'S ANYTHING BUT.

DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO GATHER INFORMATION TO BUILD THEIR CASE AND EVEN OBTAINED AND RELEASED PHONE RECORD RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, REPORTER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PHONE RECORD THAT HAVE NOT YET BANNER RELEASED AND OUR, HAVE NOT YET BEEN RELEASED AND WE'RE CONCERNS ABOUT MORE PHONE RECORD RELEASED.

A LOT OF HYPERBOLE AND HYSTERIA OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS ABOUT THE INQUIRY AND UNDERLYING FACTS.

A LOT CAN BE TRACED BACK TO ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

I BELIEVE THE WHISTLEBLOWER REFRAMED A LOT OF THE FACTS AT ISSUE AND CAUSED WITNESSES IN THE INQUIRY TO RECAST THEIR VIEWS.

AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHICH HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE FINALLY, SOME HAVE LIKENED THE IMPEACHMENT QUIR TROY A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S INVESTIGATION IF ONE ACCEPTS THAT COMPARISON ONE SHOULD ALSO EXPECT THAT LIKEN STAR AND ROBERT MUELLER, THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD TESTIFY AND OUR MEMBERS, AND ALL OF THE MEMBERS BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SHOULD TESTIFY AND ANSWER QUESTIONS W THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE TIME IS YOURS.

>> ..

THE GENTLEMAN, THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED AND NOW PROCEED TO THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

LINE OF ORDER.

>> PURSUANT -- THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER.

>> WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT COUNSEL FOR THE DEMOCRATS WAS A WITNESS AND THAT IS WHY HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COMPORT WITH THE RULES OF DECORUM AND NOW HE IS SITTING UH UP HERE.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE AN ORDER.

>> I HAVE BEEN A JUDGE AND I KNOW YOU DON'T GET TO BE A WITNESS AND A JUDGE IN THE SAME CASE.

THAT IS MY POINT OF ORDER.

HE SHOULD NOT BE UP HERE.

>> IT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.

WE, PURSUANT TO HOW RESOLUTION 660 AND ACCOMPANYING JUDICIARY PROCEDURES THERE WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF MAJORITY COUNSEL FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES BY THE RANKING MEMBER FOR MINORITY COUNSEL.

ONLY THE CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER AND THEIR RESPECTED COUNSEL MAY QUESTION WITNESSES DURING THIS PERIOD.

FOLLOWING THAT, UNLESS I SPECIFY ADDITIONAL EQUAL TIME FOR EXTENDED QUESTIONING, WE WILL 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 REPUBLICANS 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.

NOW MR. GOLDMAN, DID THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES CONCLUDE THAT THE EVIDENCE PROVED THAT THE PRESIDENT USED HIS PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN?

>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> AND IN FACT FINDING A FACT THAT 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 ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT?

>> YES, IT DID.

>> IN FACT, FINDING A FACT 5 B SAID QUOTE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTING THROUGH HIS AGENTS AND SUBORDINATES CONDITIONED RELEASE OF THE VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE HE HAD SUSPENDED TO UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE'S PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT.

DID THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP UNDERMINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> YES.

IN SEVERAL WAYS.

>> AND FINDING OF FACT, SIX SAID IN DIRECTING AND ORCHESTRATING THIS 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 GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS LACKING LEGITIMATE PREDICATION THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OTHERWISE DISCOURAGES AND DEPOSES AS A MATTER OF POLICY IN THAT COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD.

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 INTERESTS.

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.

>> AND IN FACT FINDING OF FACT 9 IT SAYS, USING THE POWER OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IN EXERCISING HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PRESIDENT ORDER AND IMPLEMENTED A CAMPAIGN TO CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT FROM THE PUBLIC AND FRUSTRATE AND OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

FINALLY, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS FROM OUR HEARING LAST WEEK TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARD UKRAINE, A PATTERN OF INVITING FOREIGN ELECTION ENTER APPEARANCE 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 EIGHT SAYS BASED 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 TO SOLICITATION OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE U.S. ELECTION PRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO USE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN CLOSE QUOTE.

I WOULD ADD TO THE NEXT ELECTION.

AND NOW YIELD TO MY COUNSEL, MR. BURKE FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONING.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CASTRO, AS AN EXPERIENCE INVESTIGATOR, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS RELEVANT TO LOOK AT EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND THAT MAY HELP EXPLAIN THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS?

>> THE EVIDENCE -- USE YOUR MIKE, PLEADS.

>> , PLEASE.

>> MY ONLY QUESTION TO YOU, IS THAT A RELEVANT THING TO CONSIDER?

>> LIKE THE CALL HE HAD WITH SENATOR JOHNSON.

>> IT IS RELEVANT TO CONSIDER.

SIR, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT JOE BIDEN WAS A LEADING DEMOCRATIC CONTENDER TO FACE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2020?

>> I WOULDN'T AGREE WITH THAT.

>> YOU DISAGREE IT WITH.

SO SIR IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY -- IT WAS TOO EARLY.

>> THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT VIEW PRESIDENT BIDEN TO BE A A LEGITIMATE -- >> IT IS TOO EARLY.

>> AS PART OF YOUR INQUIRY DID YOU DETERMINE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED AT ALL 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 FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 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 MENTIONED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IN A SPEECH ORALLY LEADING UP TO THE JULY 25TH CALL?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP GOES TO A LOT OF RALLIES.

HE DOES A LOT A LOFT LOT OF TWEI THINK IT IS PRETTY DIFFICULT TO DRAW TOO MANY CONCLUSIONS FROM HIS TWEETS OR HIS STATEMENTS AT RALLIES.

>> MR.

CHAIR -- >> WELL, SIR.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARDON ME FOR INQUIRY.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT IS -- >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED, THE GENTLEMAN, MR. BURKE HAS THE TIME.

>> WE ARE GOING TO IGNORE THE RULES -- >> WITNESSES TO ASK THE QUESTIONS THEN -- >> THE YES PAN -- >> HOW MANY OTHER RULES ARE YOU JUST GOING TO DISREGARD.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES ARE NOT IN ORDER AT THIS TIME.

>> HOW ABOUT A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A WITNESS BE A QUESTIONER OF SOMEBODY THAT WAS A WITNESS WHEN HE WAS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL -- >> IT IS JUST WRONG.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- THE GENTLEMAN WILL REFRAIN -- >> A POINT OF INQUIRY.

THE GENTLEMAN -- >> I MAKE A POINT OF ORDER AND YOU WON'T RULE ON IT.

>> I HAVE NOT HEARD A POINT OF ORDER.

THE YES -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN A POINT OF ORDER.

>> YOU WILL STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

>> THERE IS NO RULE NOR PRECEDENT FOR ANYBODY BEING A WITNESS AND THEN GETTING TO COME UP AND QUEION AND -- >> I HAVE RULED -- >> IT THE POINT OF ORDER HE IS INAPPROPRIATE TO BE UP HERE ASKING QUESTIONS.

>> THAT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER.

HE IS IN HERE IN RULE IN ACCORDANCE OF SINCE 60.

>> HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE TO GIVE TO -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL NOT CAST ASPERSIONS ON MEMBERS OF THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE.

>> MR. GOLDMAN.

>> IT WAS A LEGITIMATE -- >> MR. BURKE HAS THE TIME.

MR. CHAIRMAN POINT OF ORDER.

>> IS MR. BURKE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?

>> MR. BURKE HAS THE TIME.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A LEGITIMATE -- >> POINT OF ORDER.

>> MR. BURKE HAS THE TIME.

>> YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THIS GENTLEMAN IS PRESENTING HIS OPINIONS AS A WITNESS.

HE IS SUPPOSED TO PRESENT THE MATERIAL FACT IN THE -- >> NOT TO APPEAR FOR HIS OPINIONS; IS THAT RIGHT OR NOT?

>> >> THE GENTLEMAN -- THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER AND MR. BURKE'S TIME PURSUANT TO -- >> PURSUANT -- >> -- COMMITTEE -- >> I HAVE RULED.

THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME UNDER RULE 660.

>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN IT WERE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE A POINT OF ORDER -- >> 660 -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE A POINT OF ORDER IF HE HAS ONE.

>> YES.

THE POINT OF ORDER IS THIS.

WE OPERATE BY RULES, IF THERE IS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY IN THE RULE PERMITTING THIS WE GO BY PRECEDENT, IT IS UNPRECEDENTED FOR A PERSON UNPRECEDENTED FOR A PERSON YOU DESCRIBE AS A WITNESS TO THEN RETURN TO THE BENCH AND -- >> THE GENTLEMAN -- >> THAT'S A STATE OF ORDER.

>> THE GENTLEMAN HAS STATED -- THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER BUT I WILL POINT OUT IT IS NOT A RECOGNIZABLE POINT OF ORDER AND POINT OUT THAT THE GENTLEMAN HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY ME TO DO THIS QUESTIONING PURSUANT TO RULE 660.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 WHICH IS PART OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE.

>> IT IS SOLILOQUY THEN.

>> IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME WILL RESUME.

MR. BURKE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CASTRO, YOU WERE AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY FOR REELECTION IN 2020 AND ANNOUNCED IT THE MONTH BEFORE THE JULY 25TH CALL ON JUNE 21ST?

>> OKAY.

>> DID YOU LOOK AT THAT IN YOUR INVESTIGATION SOME AS PART OF LOOKING AT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT AND WHAT HE INTENDED ON THE JULY 25TH CALL?

>> I MEAN, THE DATE HE ANNOUNCED -- I MEAN HE OBVIOUSLY IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT, HIS INTENT TO RUN FOR REELECTION.

>> YOU KNEW THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED CORRECT.

>> IT HAS BEEN RELATED TO ME.

IT WASN'T -- I DON'T KNOW WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN INDICATED HE WAS GOING TO RUN.

AS I SIT HERE TODAY.

>> SIR, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED A CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN THAT WOULD HURT HIS CREDIBILITY AS A CANDIDATE, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT BASIC PRINCIPLE, SIR?

>> NOBODY -- YES OR NO, SIR WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT PRINCIPLE?

>> WELL, I SLIGHTLY DISAGREE WITH THE PREDICATE, WITH THE PREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION.

>> CHAIRMAN, I OBJECT TO THE QUESTION THAT REQUESTS OPINION -- >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

>> I OBJECT TO THE QUESTION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- >> ON WHETHER THE QUESTION IS IN ORDER OR NOT.

>> THE QUESTION IS IN ORDER.

THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.

>> WHY?

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.

IT IS HIS TIME.

>> LET'S GET BACK TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE 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 WILL READ IT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE WHOLE SITUATION IN UKRAINE.

THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE, I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE DASH.

>> SIR -- IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT, I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT -- YOU SAID EIGHT LINES, LET'S LOOK AT SLIDE THREE, IF WE MAY, THE REFERENCE TO BIDEN.

>> SIR, YOU SEE ON THE JULY 25TH CALL ON PAGE 4, ISN'T IT A FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THAT HE HEARD THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN HAD STOPPED THE PROSECUTION OF HIS SON; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES OR NO?

>> IT SAYS THE OTHER THING, THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, HE SAID HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.

POINT OF ORDER HE IS ENTITLED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION FULLY, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- >> NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> THERE IS A VIDEO OF THE FORMER VP, I THINK THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT IS REFERRING TO.

HE WAS AT THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, THE FORMER VP WAS A LITTLE BIT AUDACIOUS IN HOW HE DESCRIBES HE WENT OVER -- >> I AM ONLY ASKING YOU WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TRANSCRIPT, IS A THAT WHAT IT SAYS, SIR?

>> THE OTHER THING THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, AND BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS HERE, YES.

>> AND IT GOES ON TO SAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, CORRECT.

>> IS THAT THE WORDS, IF YOU LOOK INTO IT, CORRECT?

>> >> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

THEN HE SAYS -- >> SO 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 IS IT SUPPORTS THAT.

I THINK IT IS AMBIGUOUS.

>> MR. GOLDMAN YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED FEDERAL PROSECUTOR.

I KNOW THAT FIRSTHAND.

IS THIS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN?

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY OTHER WAY TO READ THE WORDS ON THE PAGE THAN TO CONCLUDE THAT.

>> AND MR. CASTOR, YOU MADE THE POINT, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR IS IT YOUR EXPERIENCE WHEN SOMEONE HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONGFUL OR CORRUPT AND THEY ARE DEALING WITH SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT IN THE SCHEME THEY STATE THEIR INTENTIONS TO DO SOMETHING WRONGFUL AND CORRUPT?

IS THAT YOUR EXPERIENCE AS AN INVESTIGATOR?

>> WELL, I MEAN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE THE CALL TRANSCRIPT?

>> IN GENERAL.

>> IN GENERAL, YOU ARE SAYING A SCHEMER -- >> YES.

>> -- WOULD TALK ABOUT HIS SCHEME?

>> WOULD HE GENERALLY ADMIT HE WAS DONE SOMETHING WRONGFUL OR CORRUPT TO SOMEONE IN NOT IN THE SCHEME?

>> NO.

>> YOU MADE A BIG POINT IN YOUR PRESENTATION 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 THAT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ACTING CORRUPTLY, WRONGFULLY, ABUSING HIS POWER THAT IT WAS UNLIKELY HE WAS GOING TO CONFESS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE WAS ASKING FOR THE INVESTIGATION EXPLICITLY TO HELP HIS 2020 ELECTION PROSPECTS?

>> MY EXPERIENCE TEN YEARS AS A PROSECUTOR, YOU ALMOST NEVER HAVE A DEFENDANT OR SOMEONE WHO IS ENGAGING IN MISCONDUCT WHO WOULD EVER EXPLICITLY SAY IN THIS CASE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 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'S NOT THE WAY THESE THINGS WORK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN.

AND MR. CASTOR, GETTING BACK TO YOU, YOU SAID THAT, YOU SAID ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND TALKED ABOUT HIP, HE HAD BEEN ON THE BOARD GOING BACK TO 2014, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPORTED UKRAINE WITH AID AND OTHERWISE IN BOTH 2017 AND 2018, CORRECT?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE LA LOTS FOR UKRAINE.

>> YES.

AND STIR BUT ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT RAISE ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS FATHER, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IN 2017 OR 2018.

HE ONLY DID IT 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 VICE VP AND AND I THINK T COALESCED IN HIS MIND.

>> PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION.

>> HE DIDN'T RAISED THESE QUESTIONS IN 2017 OR TWLGT.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF HE DID OR DIDN'T.

>> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE HE DID, DID YOU?

>> I HAVE NO EVIDENCE HE DID NOT.

>> I MEAN THIS VIDEO IS PRETTY -- >> REMARKABLE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

YOU TALKED ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WHO WAS A HIGHLY DECORATED PURPLE HEART RECIPIENT AND WORKED IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> HE HAD A REACTION TO THE CALL, DIDN'T HE?

>> HE DID.

>> HE WAS LISTENING TO IT, CORRECT?

>> HE DID.

>> LET'S WILL BE AT HIS REACTION REACTION.

>> HE SAID, I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO JOHN EISENBERG THE LEAD LEG.

COUNSEL, HE SAID IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN THAT IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT THAT WAS HIS TESTIMONY, CORRECT, YES OR NO?

THAT WAS HIS TESTIMONY?

>> YES?

>> YES.

>> YES.

AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR.

YOU HAD SAID THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MAJORITY REPORT, MR. GOLDMAN HAD TALKED ABOUT YOU SAY IT PRESENTS AS IF THINGS ARE CLEAR BUT NOT CLEAR, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID, SIR.

>> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

>> AND YOU ALSO WORKED ON, YOU PERSONALLY WORKED ON THE "MINORITY REPORT", CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WAS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU TO BE ACCURATE IN THE "MINORITY REPORT" THAT YOU WORKED ON?

>> YES.

>> WAS IT IMPORTANT TO BE FAIR TO WITNESSES TO BE ACCURATE ABOUT WHAT HE SAID.

>> OF OF COURSE.

>> WAS IT IMPORTANT TO BE FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO ACCURATELY REPT WHAT PEOPLE SAID?

>> OF COURSE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE ON THAT CALL.

LET IN, ASK YOU ABOUT JENNIFER WILLIAMS SHE WAS A SPECIAL ADVISOR TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE ON EUROPE AND RUSSIA AFFAIRS; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> SHE WORKED FOR VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THESE ACCUSATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO DO FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE THESE WERE MADE BY PEOPLE WHO HAD PREDETERMINED MOTIVE FOR IMPEACHMENTS; IS THAT CORRECT.

>> SOME OF THEM AND ALSO INDICATED SOME OF THESE, THE WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY I THINK HAVE REVISED THEIR VIEWS AFTER THE CALL TRANSCRIPT CAME OUT AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WAS RELEASED.

>> ARE YOU CALLING VICE PRESIDENT FENCE'S SPECIAL ADVISOR A LIAR, SIR?

>> NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

>> ARE YOU CALLING -- ARE YOU SAYING SHE WAS PREDETERMINED TO IMPEACH?

>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION ABOUT JENNIFER WILLIAMS IS INTERESTING IS -- >> I DIDN'T ASK YOU, SIR -- >> HE IS NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING TO HER SUPERVISOR, SHE 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 SE ZELENSKY, SHE DIDN'T EVEN RAISE IT AS A POTENTIAL ISSUE THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, CATCH THE VICE PRESIDENT OFF GUARD.

>> WELL, MR. CASTOR -- >> THE CONCERN THAT SHE ARTICULATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEPOSITION AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING WAS INCONGRUENT, INCONGRUENT WITH THE FACTS AND WHAT SHE DID DURING TIMES RELEVANT.

>> MR. CASTOR LET'S LOOK AT YOUR REPORT WHAT YOU WROTE IN THE REPORT ABOUT MS. WILLIAMS.

IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE 6, PLEASE.

>> AND SIR, YOU MADE THE SAME POINT THAT YOU TRIED TO MAKE TO DISCOUNT HER TESTIMONY.

YOU SAID SHE TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH SHE FOUND THE CALL TO BE UNUSUAL SHE DID NOT -- 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.

>> ALTHOUGH SHE FOUND THE CALL TO BE UNUSUAL, THAT WASN'T ACCURATE, THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT THE CALL.

HE IS DIDN'T SAY IT WAS JUST UNUSUAL, DID SHE?

>> SHE SAID IT WAS UNUSUAL.

>> THAT'S NOT ALL SHE SAID ABOUT IT, WAS HE IS IT?

>> OKAY, I MAY SHE WAS HERE OR NINE HOURS IN THE BUNK SORE SHE SAID A LOT ABOUT THE CALL.

>> SO THAT WAS YOU -- >> THE SLIDE DECK WE CAN'T SEE -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND, THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME.

>> WE CAN'T SEE THE STUFF.

CAN WE -- >> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME.

>> I AM 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 MS. WILLIAMS SAID A LOT MORE THAN THAT.

IF -- >> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE POINT OF OR IS THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA COMPLAINED THAT HE CAN'T SEE WHAT THE QUESTIONER IS RELYING ON AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT AND -- >> THAT IS NOT, NOT A RECOGNIZABLE POINT OF ORDER AND IT WAS READ TO HIM.

THE GENTLEMAN WILL PROCEED.

>> ONLY HALF OF IT WAS READ TO HIM.

>> IRRELEVANT.

>> LET'S SLOW DOWN A BIT HERE.

LET'S SLOW DOWN A BIT HERE SO THAT MEMBER ARE ABLE TO FULLY SEE WHAT IS BEING PUT IN IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.

WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT OR READ IT.

MR. GAETZ HAS SAID THAT, NOW LET'S SLOW DOWN SO THAT WE CAN SEE OR HEAR WHAT HE IS REFERRING TO.

YOU ARE NOT LETTING THAT HAPPEN.

AND THAT GOES TO THE PRIVILEGES OF THE MEMBERS THAT YOU ARE ASKING TO RULE ON THIS MEETING AND TO VOTE.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I CAN SEE NOW, I APPRECIATE THE ACCOMMODATION.

THE MONITOR WAS TURNED, NOW WE CAN SEE.

THANK YOU.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL RESUME.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> SO IN THE, IN HERE IT SAYS YOU SAID MS. WILLIAMS SAID THAT SHE FOUND IT TO BE QUOTE UNUSUAL AND FOG MORE.

LET'S LOOK AT SLIDE 7 IF I MAY.

IT SAYS UNUSUAL, CORRECT?

>> IT DOESN'T SAY AND NOTHING MORE.

>> IT SAYS UNUSUAL, ISN'T IT A FACT SIR WHAT MS. WILLIAMS SAYS STRUCK HER AS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

>> OKAY.

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID IN HER TESTIMONY.

>> OKAY.

AND YOUR STAFF REPORT YOU LEFT OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE PART.

>> IT WASN'T A BLOCK QUOTE.

HE IS THOUGHT IT WAS UNUSUAL.

HE IS DIDN'T RAISE THE CONCERNS TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL KELLOGG.

>> WERE YOU AS FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN DESCRIBING WHAT MS. WILLIAMS SAID AS YOU WERE IN DESCRIBING EVERYTHING ELSE IN YOUR REPORT?

>> I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE WAY WE DESCRIBED MS. WILLIAMS 'TESTIMONY.

>> LET'S LOOK AT WHAT ELSE MS. WILLIAMS SAID.

CAN WE PUT UP SLIDE 8, THIS IS FROM HER PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT PAGE 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?

>> MS. WILLIAMS -- >> SIR DID YOU LEAVE THAT OUT OF YOUR REPORT YES OR NO?

>> IF YOU ARE TELLING ME, I DID, I DON'T KNOW AS I SIT HERE RIGHT NOW -- >> I AM TELLING YOU YOU DID.

>> OKAY.

>> DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION, SIR, WHERE YOU SAID, YOU SAID MS. WILLIAMS SAID THAT THE CALL WAS UNUSUAL WHEN IN FACT SHE SAID IT WAS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE AND OF A POLITICAL NATURE BECAUSE IT RAISED VICE PRESIDENT -- THE VICE PRESIDENT WHO SHE RECOGNIZED WITH WAS A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> HER VIEWS OF THE CALL DIFFER REMARKABLY FROM MR. MORRISON, ALSO FROM THE LIEUTENANT GENERAL COHEN.

>> THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION.

MY QUESTION IS, WHY DID YOU MISQUOTE MS. WILLIAMS.

>> QUESTION I DIDN'T MISQUOTE.

>> WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T MISQUOTE HER.

>> FROM THE STANDARD THAT YOU APPLY TO YOUR FACT FINDING IN YOUR REPORT, YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ENTIRELY PROPER TO SAY THAT MS. WILLIAMS FOUND THE CALL TO BE UNUSUAL WHEN IN FACT SHE POUND THE CALL TO BE UNUSUAL AND THEN, 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, I MEAN WE DESCRIBED WHAT MS. WILLIAMS SAID.

>> SIR IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

NO YOU DIDN'T.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN YOU CAN ASK -- >> THE GENTLEMAN -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN I AM NOT.

>> HE CAN ASK OR ANSWER.

HE CAN'T DO BOTH.

YOU CAN ASK OR ANSWER -- THE CHAIRMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I WILL MAKE A POINT OF ORDER HE IS BADGERING THE WITNESS.

>> HE IS NOT.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.

>> AND SIR YOU INVOKED -- SIR, YOU INVOKED -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN CAN YOU RULE ON MY POINT OF ORDER THAT HE IS BADGERING THE WITNESS, BECAUSE HE IS DOING THAT.

>> SIR, YOU -- >> THAT IS NOT A RECOGNIZABLE MOTION AND DOES NOT CALL FOR A RULING AND THE TIME BELONGS TO THE GENTLEMAN.

>> POINT OF ORDER, THE COMMITTEE IS NOT IN ORDER AND THE COMPLAIRM IS NOT 0 IN ORDER.

>> THAT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER.

THE COMMITTEE IS IN ORDER.

>> WELL WOULD YOU RULE ON MY ORIGINAL POINT OF ORDER?

>> THE ORIGINAL POINT OF ORDER WAS NOT RECOGNIZABLE AND DOES NOT NECESSITATE A RULING.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> THE LAWYER IS BADGERING THE WITNESS.

WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME DECORUM IN HERE AND YOU HAVE YOUR RULES OF DECOR DECORUM WHICH AREN'T COMPORTING WITH EVERYBODY ELSE'S RULE OF -- >> I WILL SAY SHARP CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS IS NOT BADGERING.

THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.

>> IT IS IF IT IS -- >> NO, THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TYPE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.

THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE THE POINT OF ORDER.

>> UNDER RESOLUTION 660, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE; IS THAT RIGHT?

>> NO, IT IS NOT CORRECT.

>> WHAT ARE THE RULES?

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIONS WE ARE ABLE TO -- >> THAT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE AS POINT OF ORDER.

THERE ARE NO RULES -- >> IT IS NOT A POINT OF ORDER.

THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.

>> WHERE ARE THE LIST OF RULES?

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> MR. CASS, CASTOR YOU JUST INVOKED TIMOR SON HE WAS SOMEONE ON THE CALL TOO, CORRECT.

>> YES.

>> AND LET ME PUT UP SLIDE 9 OF MR. MORRISON'S TESTIMONY ON PAGE 38 OF HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

AND MR. MORRISON SAID -- THE QUESTION WAS, QUESTION, BY MR. GOLDMAN, YOU HEARD THE CALL, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT DISCUSSING DISCUSSING THE TALKING POINT THAT THE NSC HAD PREPARED BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. OIL AND WAS INSTEAD TALKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION -- THAT FIONA HILL WARNED YOU ABOUT AND THEN REPORTED IT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR.

IS THAT THE CORRECT FRAME OF EVENTS HERE?

AND MR. MORRISON SAID, THAT IS CORRECT.

BEFORE I ASK YOU, MR. CASTOR, LET ME ASK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN, EARLIER BEFORE YOUR PRESENTATION WE SHOWED THE TESTIMONY OF MS. HILL WHERE SHE REFERRED TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO DO AS RUNNING A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND.

IS THAT WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND?

IS THAT WHAT YOU INTENDED TO ASK MR. MORRISON ABOUT IN YOUR QUESTION TO HIM?

>> YES, IT WAS ABOUT THE TWO SPECIFIC I HAVES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY DID DISCUSS AND ASK PRESIDENT 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 ANY TIME THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO INVESTIGATIONS IT REFERENCED THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION AND THE 2016 ELECTION INVESTIGATION, AND IN FACT AMBASSADOR VOLKER ACTUALLY SAID WHENEVER HE WAS SAYING -- USING THE TERM CORRUPTION, WHAT HE MEANT WAS THOSE SPECIFIC TWO INVESTIGATIONS:AND WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE TO YOU THAT MR. MORRISON, WHO MR. CASTOR HIMSELF HAD RELIED ON AND INVOKED TWICE TODAY WHERE HE SAID HE UNDERSTOOD THESE WERE THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT FIONA HILL HAD WARNED HIM ABOUT, WARNED HIM ABOUT?

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN?

>> WHEN DR. HILL LEFT AND TIMOR SON REPLACED HER THEY HAD TRANSITION MEETINGS AND DURING ONE OF THOSE TRANSITION MEETINGS DR. HILL TOLD TIMOR SON ABOUT 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 AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WAS WORKING ON RELATED TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY AND THOSE WERE TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS.

>> WAS SHE EXPRESSING THE VIEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD CHOSE HIS OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS OVER THE FOREIGN POLICY POSITIONS THAT MS. HILL WAS TRYING TO PURSUE?

>> AT THE TIME SHE WAS AWARE OF, WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ACTUALLY ENDORSED THESE INVESTIGATIONS, BUT SHE DID TESTIFY AFTER SHE READ THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, WHICH SHE ONLY READ AFTER IT WAS RELEASED LIKE THE REST OF US SHE SAID SHE SHE PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

>> WHAT IS TWO AND TWO AGAIN.

>> THAT IS FOUR.

>> AND AT IS FOUR IN THIS INVESTIGATION, SIR?

>> WELL, IT WAS USED BY TWO WITNESSES, AMBASSADOR 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 THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING WITHHELD TO PUT PRESSURE AND ANS A CONDITION ON THE INITIATION OF THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE REFERENCED HERE.

>> TURNING TO YOU -- >> >> I HAVE GOT TO CLEAR A COUPLE OF THINGS UP HERE, IF I MAY.

>> FIRST OF ALL MORRISON WAS CONCERNED -- MORRISON DIDN'T THINK --.

THERE IS NO QUESTION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE NAME, NOT THE WITNESS.

>> SIR -- >> CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKS -- >> LET ME ASK YOU, SIR, SIR, YOU SAID, BY THE WAY, VOLKER NEVER -- >> THE CLOCK WILL STOP IF HE IS INTERRUPTING.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THIS WILL THIS WITNESS BE ABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. BURKE LIKE HE IS BEING ABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OPPOSING WITNESS?

IT IS A POINT OF INQUIRY.

>> -- YOU NEED TO CALL BALL AND STRIKES THE RIGHT WAY.

YOU DON'T INTERRUPT EITHER ONE OF THEM -- >> YOU CAN HIT HARDER.

IT DOES.

CHANGE THE POINT HE IS NOT DOING IT RIGHT.

>> SIR I BELIEVE YOUR TESTIMONY AS I WROTE IT DOWN, THE DEMOCRATS ARE ABOUT BLOCKING INFO WHEN THEY SHOULD BE SEEKING INFORMATION.

>> MY GOODNESS THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

>> OKAY.

AND THEN YOU SAID, THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS, IN FACT, COOPERATED AND FACILITATED CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATIONS; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

YES OR NO; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS PARTICIPATED IN OVERSIGHT DURING THE ENTIRE CONGRESS UNTIL IT GOT TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> SO LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS CALL, SIR.

ROBERT BLAIR -- >> -- JUST NOT FAIR.

>> ROBERT BLAIR WHO WAS ON THIS CALL, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF DIRECTED HIM NOT TO APPEAR AND GIVE TESTIMONY.

>> TO BE CLEAR I AM GLAD -- >> I AM ASKING YOU DID THE PRESIDENT -- >> HE IS ALLOWED TO COMMENT TO 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 COUNSEL.

>> THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DIRECTED HIM NOT TO COME.

>> HE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED TESTIMONY I THINK IF AGENCY COUNSEL COULD HAVE COME, IT IS REALLY EXPENSIVE TO HIRE THE OUTSIDE LAWYERS.

>> JOHN EISENBERG WAS DIRECTED NOT TO COME.

>> ICE, EISENBERG IS A SEPARATE SET -- >> HE WAS DIRECTED NOT TO COME, THE LAWYER WHO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WENT WITH TO, CORRECT.

>> EISENBERG IS -- HE MAY HAVE COME WITH AGENCY COUNSEL BUT HE PRESENTS SOME COMPLEXITIES HE IS IS THE CHIEF LEGAL ADVISOR FOR AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

>> SO HE WAS DIRECTED NOT TO COME, CORRECT.

>> HE MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME WITH AGENCY COUNSEL, BUT HIS TESTIMONY DOES PRESENT COMPLEXITIES.

>> SIR LET ME ASK WAS IT URBAN, IS POLICY ON JULY 26TH TO REQUEST UKRAINE INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN?

>> I THINK YOU ARE READING A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH INTO, YOU KNOW, 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?

>> YOU ARE PRESUMING THAT AT SOME POINT IT BECAME U.S. POLICY TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE CASE.

>> SIR, LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT SLIDE 10, TESTIMONY OF -- AGAIN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

AND HE WAS ASKED, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WRITTEN PRODUCT FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SUGGESTING THAT I INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2020 ELECTION, THE BIDENS OR BURST NAAH IS PART OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES?

NO, I AM NOT.

NOW LET ME ALSO GO TO .. TIMOR SON WHO YOU INVOKED IF WE COULD GO TO SLIDE 11.

>> MR. MORRISON WAS ASKED BY OUR OWN CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL WHO IS ALSO ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND SAID, PICK UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT LONG QUESTION, IT SAID YOU LISTENED TO THE ONE CALL 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 AM ASKING YOU, SIR, WHY DIDN'T YOU FOLLOW UP ON THE PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES WHEN YOU TALKED TO THE UKRAINE, UKRANIANS, MR. MORRISON SAID, SIR, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT AS A POLICY OBJECTIVE.

>> MR. GOLDMAN LET ME ASK YOU, THERE WAS A PANEL PREPARED FOR THAT, BEFORE THAT CALL OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT.

>> YES.

>> AND AM I CORRECT, SIR ONE OF THE THINGS HE WAS SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT THAT WAS IN HIS PREPARED REMARKS WAS THE ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE RAN AND WON ON, CORRECT?

>> YES.

THE WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT IS A CONSISTENT AND PERSISTENT POLICY OBJECTIVE FOR THE UNITED STATES.

>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTION CORRUPTION ONCE IN HIS CALL WITH MR. ZELENSKY?

>> NO, HE DID NOT.

>> DID HE MENTION LOOKING INTO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE POLITICALLY HELPFUL TO HIM, THE 2016 ELECTION INVESTIGATION AND THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN?

>> NO, HE DID NOT.

>> MAY I ASK AT THAT.

>> MAY I ADD SOMETHING THERE?

>> NO YOU MAY NOT EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP DID MEN'S -- >> ARE YOU GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER?

>> NO.

>> HE DID MENTION SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE THERE -- >> THE GENTLEMAN CAN ANSWER -- >> THE TIME IS THE QUESTIONER'S AND HE CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS HOWEVER HE WANTS.

>> WHEN YOU QUESTION YOU WILL HAVE THE THE SAME ROLLS.

>> MR. CASTOR IN FAIRNESS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BY MINORITY COUNSEL HE I HAVE 45 MINUTES -- >> IN FAIRNESS HERE, THE PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT VERY BAD PEOPLE.

MR. CASTOR IF I CAN FINISH.

AND THAT WAS -- LET ME FINISH, SIR.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR.

SIR, THERE WERE TWO LAWYERS MENTIONED ON THE CALL.

MR. -- WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY, WE HEARD TESTIMONY ALREADY, MR. TRUMP SAID TO -- PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE SHOULD SPEAK TO TWO PEOPLE, HIS PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, CORRECT.

>> YES.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER ..

THIS CALL MEMORANDUM WAS RELEASED ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ISSUED A STATEMENT ABOUT HIS ROLE IN ALL OF THIS?

>> HE DID.

>> LET'S PUT UP THE STATEMENT, SLIDE 13, PLEASE.

>> THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT SPOKEN WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT HAVING UKRAINE INVESTIGATE ANYTHING RELATING TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR HIS SON.

THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT ASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONTACT UKRAINE ON THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NOT COMMUNICATED WITH UKRAINE ON THIS OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT.

SO MR. GOLDMAN 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 IN.

>> I THINK IT GOES ACTUALLY EVEN A LITTLE FURTHER.

I THINK THE ATTORNEY -- WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTED ANYTHING TO DO OR NOT IS IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID HE HAD NOTHING TO TO DO WITH UKRAINE AD 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 IN THE, AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE RELATED TO AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION.

AND 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 REQUEST ON THESE TOPICS.

>> NOW, THE OTHER LAWYER ON THE CALL, RUDY GIULIANI, HE, HOWEVER, HE WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL JOE BIDEN, CORRECT?

>> MR. GIULIANI WAS VERY ACTIVE AND INVOLVED IN PUSHING FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE JULY 25TH CALL AND THEN FOR A COUPLE, SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER, INCLUDING APPARENTLY THREE DAYS AGO.

>> AND, SIR, MR. CASTOR, YOU WOULD AGREE YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT RUDY GIULIANI, THAT THE UKRAINIANS THEMSELVES NEW THAT RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, WAS A CONDUIT TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP 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 AND WE ACTUALLY 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 REFORM, ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT, SIR?

>> YES.

AND, IN FACT, DURING THE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO HIS PERSONAL LAWYER ABOUT UKRAINIAN MATTERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INTERESTED IN, CORRECT?

>> YOU ARE REFERRING TO RUDY, YES.

>> YES.

>> AND, IN FACT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID OH WE ALREADY KNEW THAT AND HE HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MY AIDES, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT, IN FACT, I MEAN UKRAINIANS ARE THE ONE WHO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS THE FIRST ONE THAT BRINGS UP RUDY GIULIANI ON THE CALL.

>> RIGHT BECAUSE THEY KNEW MR. RUDY GIULIANI WAS A CONDUIT TO THE PRESIDENT AND IF THEY MADE RUDY GIULIANI HAPPY THEY WOULD MAKE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAPPY.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID RUDY GIULIANI HAD A NEGATIVE IMPRESSION OF UKRAINE AND POSSIBLY FUELING THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS, AND SO THEY HAD -- THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, HEY IF YOU CAN CONVINCE RUDY THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A TRUE REFORMER, THE REAL DEAL, THAT THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIARY, A BENEFICIAL LINK.

>> SIR, YOU AGREE THAT RUDY GIULIANI BEFORE JULY 25TH CALL AND AFTER WAS PUSHING FOR UKRAINIAN TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> YES OR NO?

>> YES.

I MEAN, THE RECORD IS SOMEWHAT SPOTTY WITH GIULIANI, I KNOW THAT "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED IN MAY BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER GAVE A PRETTY DETAILED ACCOUNT OF HIS MEETING ON JULY 19TH.

>> WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK.

>> AND IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE 16, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

>> >> AND THE ARTICLE SAYS, I WILL READ IT.

MR. GIULIANI, AND THIS IS DATED MAY 9TH, 2019 BEFORE THE CALL, MR. GIULIANI SAID HE PLANS TO TRAVEL TO KIEV, THE UKRAINIAN CAPITAL IN THE COMING DAYS AND WANTS TO MEET WITH THE NATION'S PRESIDENT-ELECT TO URGE HIM TO PURSUE INQUIRIES THAT -- AND THEN IT CONTINUES, THAT ALLIES OF THE WHITE HOUSE CONTEND COULD YIELD NEW INFORMATION ABOUT TWO MATTERS OF INTENSE INTEREST TO MR. TRUMP.

ONE IS THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION, HE GOES ON TO DESCRIBE IT, AND NEW SENTENCE, THE OTHER IS THE INVOLVEMENT OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S SON.

OKAY.

AND NOW THAT WAS IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE.

AND -- >> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE BREAKFAST WITH VOLKER?

>> 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 HE WAS INTERVIEWED, HE SAID AND THIS ISN'T FOREIGN POLICY.

NOW QUOTING THE WORDS WITH THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IT SAYS IT WILL BE VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO MY CLIENT, MY ONLY CLIENT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SHE THE ONE I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO, TO HIM WHAT HAPPENED DURING 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 TWO TO SLIDE EIGHT A TEEN.

THIS IS FROM REAL CLEAR POLITICS.

AND IT SHOULD BE ON THE GENE IN FRONT OF YOU AS WELL.

AND WHAT MR. GIULIANI SAID ABOUT THE UKRAINE, HE SAID IT IS A BIG STORY, IT IS 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 AM DOING.

>> SIR YOU WOULD AGREE ELECTION DAY REFERS TO THE 2020 ELECTION WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL BE RUNNING AGAINST -- WILL BE RUNNING FOR REELECTION -- >> I GUESS YOU ARE RIGHT -- >> SO THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION TO YOU.

YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM MINORITY COUNSEL.

NOW, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, LET ME SHOW YOU SLIDE -- >> WE ARE GOING TO SIDESTEP THE STROKER MEETING ON JULY 19TH?

>> STIR YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN MINORITY COUNSEL QUESTIONS YOU.

>> LET ME GO TO SLIDE 19, PLEASE.

>> AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS, HE IS BEING INTERVIEWED NOW THE SAME DAY IN POLITICO AND ASKED ABOUT MR. GIULIANI, HE IS 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 CONTINUED HIS PRESSURE ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND THIS ONE IT IS ACTUALLY A TWEET THAT HE PUT OUT.

ON JUNE 21ST, 2019, ROUGHLY A MONTH BEFORE THE CALL, HE SAYS, NEW PRESIDENT OF 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 KNEW THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD THE EAR OF HIS CLIENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

>> IS THAT CORRECT, SIR, YES OR NO?

>> THE GIULIANI WAS DOING SOME THINGS, YOU KNOW, OUT HERE AND HE BECAME INVOLVED WITH THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL, WITH VOLKER, WITH SONDLAND, AND AT THAT MEETING ON JULY 19TH, VOLKER, YOU KNOW, COUNSELED AGAINST THE PERSPECTIVE GIULIANI WAS TAKING.

>> SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, THIS TWEET, LET ME ASK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN, AND -- 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 MINDLY JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO RESPOND TO MR. CASTOR.

>> PLEASE DO.

>> BECAUSE ON THAT JULY 19TH MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND RUDY GIULIANI, AMBASSADOR VOLKER TOLD MR. GIULIANI THAT THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT JOE BIDEN WERE COMPLETELY BOGUS AND WRONG.

AND MR. GIULIANI A ACTUALLY TOLD ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY, MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT HE KNEW THAT AND YET FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS HE CONTINUED TO PUSH FOR THAT SAME INVESTIGATION AT THE DIRECTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO HAD ALSO DIRECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CONTACT MR. GIULIANI.

SO.

>> SO THAT JULY 19TH MEETING THAT MR. CASTOR BROUGHT UP IS ACTUALLY QUITE IMPORTANT TO THIS INVESTIGATION.

>> SIR, YOU ALREADY EXPLAINED 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 SAID 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 THAT HE WAS FOCUSED ON FOR THE PRESIDENT AS EVIDENCED IN THE TWEET, IS THAT FAIR?

>> I AGREE WITH MR. CASTOR, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, AT THAT MAY 23RD MEETING PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY OVER UKRAINE MATTERS TO TO AMBASSADOR SONDLA, VOLKER AND SECRETARY PERRY AND TOLD THEM TO WORRY WORK WITH RUDY AND OVER THE THE NEXT THREE-MONTH THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.

>> OKAY.

IN FACT, LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT IS SLIDE 22, IF I MAY, THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE UKRAINIANS RECOGNIZED HOW IMPORTANT RUDY GIULIANI WAS AND, IN SATISFYING HIM IN ORDER TO STAY ON GOOD TERMS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES.

THEY QUICKLY REALIZED IT I THINK FROM THEIR OWN INTERNAL CONVERSATIONS, BECAUSE MR. GIULIANI HAD BACK CHANNELS TO GETTING TO THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER TOLD THE UKRAINIANS AS WELL, THAT THERE WAS THIS, QUOTE, GIULIANI FACTOR THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE ACTUALLY TOLD IT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THERE WAS THIS GIULIANI FACTOR THAT THEY NEEDED TO DEAL REQUEST WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> AND, IN FACT THIS IS THE SENIOR AIDE TO 43 ZELENSKY SAYING TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER ON AUGUST 13TH, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY AFTER THE JULY 25TH CALL, THANK YOU FOR MEETING IN YOUR CLEAR AND VERY LOGICAL POSITION.

WILL BE GREAT TO MEET WITH YOU BEFORE MY DEPARTURE AND DISCUSS.

I FEEL THAT THE KEY FOR MANY THINGS IS RUDY AND I AM READY TO TALK TO HIM AT ANY POINT.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CAN MEET.

AM I TRYING THAT'S THE UKRAINIANS RECOGNIZING MR. GIULIANI WHO IS DEMANDING THE INVESTIGATION OF MR. TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL WAS KEY TO GETTING ANYTHING DONE?

>> I DON'T MEAN TO BE A STICKLER BUT I BELIEVE THIS TEXT WAS ACTUALLY JULY 10TH, AND THIS WAS A CRITICAL TEXT BECAUSE WHAT IT IS SAYING IS MR.IER MOCK AFTER SPOKEN TO MR. VEHICLER THE WEEK BEFORE AND LEARNING ABOUT THE ..

IMPORTANT OF MR. GIULIANI, REQUESTED TO SET UP A MEETING WITH MR. GIULIANI.

THAT THEN PROCEEDED TO THIS JULY 19TH BREAKFAST THAT MR. CASTOR SAID AND THEN THE JULY 22ND PHONE CALL AND ULTIMATELY THEY MET IN MADRID ON AUGUST 2ND.

>> THANK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN.

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE METICULOUS INVESTIGATION THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND HIS STAFF AND YOU DREBBED.

DREBBED:WE WILL STAND CORRECTED.

THANK YOU.

AND I WILL ASK THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THAT IS THE CORRECT DATE.

AND IN EITHER CASE, RUDY WAS KEY WHENEVER IT WAS SAID, CORRECT.

>> CORRECT?

>> CERTAINLY.

>> NOW, LET ME 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. 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 ARE INVOLVED, MR. KENT SAID, WHEN THIS HAPPENED, THERE WAS GREAT CONFUSION AMONG THE REST OF US, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IT HPPENED SINCE THERE WAS UNANIMITY THIS AID WAS IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS.

IT JUST SURPRISED US ALL.

MR. HOLMES, AND YOU YOU HAD THE ADDITIONAL HOLD OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WITH NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THAT HAPPENED OR IN THE WAY THAT HAPPENED.

MS. KROFT, THE ONLY REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THE ORDER CAME AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

..

SO, SIR, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION.

DID ALL OF THE AGENCIES INVOLVED BELIEVE THAT THE AID SHOULD BE GIVEN?

>> YES, IT WAS THE UNANIMOUS VIEW OF ALL OF THE AGENCIES, SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, LITERALLY EVERY ONE OF THE INTERAGENCY AGENCIES THAT BELIEVED THAT THE AID WAS VITAL AND HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED 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 COST TO THE UKRAINIANS, THAT WAS INCORRECT, ISN'T IT?

DIDN'T MR. SONDLAND CONVEY THAT?

>> ACCORDING TO MR. SONDLAND'S AFFIDAVIT AND TESTIMONY?

>> MR. SONDLAND 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 FROM -- >> HE PRESUMED THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.

>> WELL, IF I MAY JUST 0 IN RESPONSE -- >> WE WILL PUT UP THE SLIDE, SURE.

>> IF WE CAN PUT UP THE ACTUAL AFFIDAVIT THAT AMBASSADOR SON LAN SWORE TO UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY.

AND HE SAYS, IF YOU WILL READ THE HIGHLIGHTING WHICH IS UNLESS FRONT OF YOU.

I NOW RECALL SPEAKING INDIVIDUALLY WITH MR. YERMAK WHERE I SAID WHERE I SAID TO MR. YERMAK THE UKRAINIAN AIDE, GOING BACK TO THE QUOTE, THAT RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY NOT OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE PROVIDED THE ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR MANY WEEKS; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

>> YES, HE SAID THAT AT A MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 1ST WITH MR. YERMAK IN WARSAW.

>> AND THE STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, LET ME PUT UP A SLIDE WE PUT TOGETHER, SLIDE 27.

AND DO YOU RECALL, SIR, THAT IN THE DRAFT STATEMENT THAT THE UKRANIANS WERE GOING TO HAVE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FIVE -- WAS THAT STATEMENT IN THEIR MIND SO THEY COULD GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND SATISFY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND GET THE AID RELEASED?

>> YES AMBASSADOR SON LAN TESTIFIED TO THAT AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER ALSO TESTIFIED TO THAT.

>> AND IS IT CORRECT MR. YERMAK GAVE A STATEMENT HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO JOE BIDEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> AND IS THAT RUDY GIULIANI SAID IT HAD TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE THEY WERE GOING TO EDUCATE BURISMA IN THE, AND THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND WHAT DID BURISMA STAND FOR?

>> DID ALL OF YOUR WITNESSES SAY THEY HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT MEANT HORA DID THE WITNESSES SAY THAT?

>> SO EVERY SINGLE WITNESS SAID, AFTER READING THE PHONE CALL, ON JULY 25TH THAT IT WAS CLEAR BURISMA EQUALED BIDEN, THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME.

THERE WERE ONLY TWO WITNESSES WHO SAID THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT UNTIL THAT TIME, AND THERE WAS AMPLE TESTIMONY, A LOT OF TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECT OF UKRAINE POLICY WHO INDICATED THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC AND UNLIKELY THAT ANYONE WHO HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH UKRAINE DID NOT, WOULD NOT KNOW THAT THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION RELATED TO THE BIDENS AND IS THAT WHY -- THAT'S HOW MR. GIULIANI PUBLICLY REFERRED TO IT ALSO, IS BURISMA AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES AND DID THE ARE THE UKRAS COMPLAIN REPEATEDLY THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE A PAWN IN U.S. DEMOCRATIC POLITICS BY HELPING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN BY MAKING THAT A STATEMENT?

>> THEY SAID THAT IN JULY AND IN AUGUST ULTIMATELY THEY DIDN'T GIVE THE STATEMENT IN LARGE PART BECAUSE THEY HAD RESERVATIONS GIVEN THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMER THEY HAD RESERVATIONS ABOUT ENGAGING IN U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS, THAT'S RIGHT.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU, MR. CASTOR.

YOU SAID THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO MR. -- AMBASSADOR SON LAN ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, SONDLAND HE HAD NO QUID PRO QUO -- >> YOU SAID -- >> SEPTEMBER 9TH, SEPTEMBER 9TH YOU SAID HE HAD NO REASON TO BE ANY LESS THAN CANDID.

.. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

NO REASON TO BE ANYTHING LESS THAN CANDID.

>> LET ME SHOW YOU, SIR, WHAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, LET ME SHOW YOU A SLIDE 52.

>> DAYS BEFORE HE MADE THAT STATEMENT, THE "WASHINGTON POST" PRINTED AN ARTICLE THAT SAYS, TRUMP TRIES TO FORCE UKRAINE TO MEDDLE IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS AND GOES ON TO DESCRIBE SOME OF THOSE EFFORTS.

AND, SIR, LET ME SHOW YOU WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS AWARE OF THAT ARTICLE BEFORE HE VOLUNTEERED NO QUID PRO QUO AS A DEFENSE.

LET ME SHOW YOU A TWEET BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SLIDE 53.

>> NOW, AND AGAIN THIS IS PUTTING OUT A TWEET THAT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE DEMOCRATS, FOLLOWING UP, BASED ON THE ARTICLE, THEY ARE PURSUING IMPEACHMENT, AGAIN SHOWING AWARENESS THAT THIS HAS THOUSAND BEEN REPORTED ON.

SO MR. GOLDMAN, IS IT FAIR TO SAY, WHEN, WHAT MR. CASTOR SAID, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO REASON TO BE ANY LESS THAN CANDID ABOUT SAYING NO QUID PRO QUO?

>> NO, I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD EVERY REASON TO TRY TO PUT ON THE THAT MESSAGE AT THAT POINT, AS AMBASSADOR SON LAN SAID, SONDLAND SAID, EVEN IF YOU CREDIT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S VERSION OF THE TESTIMONY WHICH IS CONTRADICTED THAT ARE FAR MORE CREDIBLE THAN MR. SONDLAND WHO HAD TO AMEND HIS TESTIMONY A COUPLE OF TIMES, HE SAID EVEN IN THAT COMMENT, NO QUID PRO QUO OUT OF THE BLUE WITHOUT, WITHOUT ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE RANKING MEMBERS 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, WELL, IT HAS BECOME VERY EVIDENT WHY THIS HEARING IS HERE AND WHY THE CRAZINESS OF THIS HEARING, ESPECIALLY NOT HAVING MR. SCHIFF HERE BUT PLEASE PUT BACK UP THE LAST SLIDE.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT NUMBER IT IS.

I AM NOT AS GOOD AS COUNSEL IS.

>> 53.

53, YES.

>> DID WE CUT IT OFF AFTER THEY GOT THROUGH?

>> OKAY.

WHILE WE ARE DOING THIS, I MEAN, I THINK THE MOST AMAZING STATEMENT CAME OUT, WE ARE PROOFING THE TWEET, THAT SAID HE THOUGHT THE DEMOCRATS WERE CONCERN ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.

THERE IS NOTHING THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT BEEN CONCERN ABOUT FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS, SINCE AUGUST, NOVEMBER 2016, THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING NOTHING NEW IN THAT TWEET.

TO NOW BACK UP HE HAS KNOWN THEY HAVE BEEN AFTER IMPEACHMENT THAT'S WHY MR. GOLDMAN IS HERE, THAT'S WHY MR. BURKE IS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS CHARADE OF STAFF HAVING TO ANSWER STAFF QUESTIONS AND BASICALLY WHEN WE DON'T LIKE HOW IT IS GOING WE START ASKING STAFF ON STAFF AND GETTING INTO A STAFF ARGUMENT.

WHERE IS WHAT IS THAT ABOUT?

>> WHERE IS ADAM?

WHERE IS ADAM?

IT IS HIS REPORT.

HIS NAME, MR. GOLDMAN, YOU ARE A GREAT ATTORNEY BUT YOU ARE NOT ADAM SCHIFF AND YOU DON'T WEAR A PIN.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> WE HAVE GOT A PROBLEM HER.

AND THE PROBLEM IS DEVELOPING IS YOU SAID YOU WERE AN ATTORNEY, A VERY GOOD PROSECUTOR, I BELIEVE IT, I READ YOUR BIO YOU ARE A GOOD ATTORNEY AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT QUID PRO QUO IS, CORRECT.

>> I DO.

>> YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT ASKING FOR SOMETHING IN HE EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING ACTUALLY MEANS, CORRECT?

>> I DO.

>> YOU KNOW ABOUT THE CONVERSATION OF MR. BIDEN WHEN HE ASKED AND SAID I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS, YOU KNOW ABOUT A THAT CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

>> DO YOU WANT ME TO READ IT TO YOU -- >> ONE SECOND ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN 2015?

>> NO, AIM TALKING ABOUT THE ONE FROM THE NATIONAL -- WHERE HE DID THE -- I WILL READ IT TO YOU SINCE YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE.

AS I REMEMBER GOING OVER TO THE UKRAINE CONVINCING OUR TEAM OUR LEADERS CONVINCING THEM WE SHOULD PROVIDE FOR LOAN GUARANTEES, WE WENT OVER THE 12TH OR 13TH TIME TO -- SUPPOSED TO ANNOUNCE THERE WAS A BILLION DOLLARS LOAN GUARANTEE AND I GOD IN A COMMITMENT FROM POROSHENKO THAT I WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST, THEY WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE STATE PROSECUTOR, THEY DIDN'T SO THEY SAID, THEY HAD, THEY ARE WALKING OUT OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE, I SAID NAAH I AM NOT GOING, TO WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS, THEY SAID YOU HAVE AUTHORITY, YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY, YOU ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT SAID, I SAY, CALL HIM, LAUGHTER.

I SAID, I AM TELLING YOU, YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE BILLION DOLLARS, I SAID YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE BILLION DOLLARS.

I AM -- I AM GETTING READY TO BE LEAVING HERE AND I THINK ABOUT SIX HOURS I LOOK AT THEM AND SAID I AM LEAVING HERE IN SIX HOURS, IF THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY.

WELL SON OF A PITCH, HE GOT FIRED.

DID HE ASK FOR SOMETHING AND REQUEST SOMETHING AND HOLD SOMETHING OF VALUE?

>> HE DID, GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED.

>> I THINK I WILL DO WHAT YOU SAID, GEORGE KENT I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT GEORGE KENT AND ASKING -- >> IT IS IMPORTANT -- >> IT IS NOT.

ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

DID HE OR DID HE NOT, EITHER JOE BIDEN IS A LIAR, TELLING A STORY TO MAKE PEOPLE IMPRESSED OR HE ACTUALLY DID THIS.

WHICH IS IT?

>> HE DID IT PURSUANT TO U.S. OFFICIAL POLICY.

>>SO HE DID IT IN HOLDING, WITHHOLDING ACTUAL DOLLARS, ACTUAL THING, HOLDING THIS OUT THERE, SO JOE BIDEN, EVERYBODY WE DISCUSSED ABOUT IS THE ONLY ONE WHO DID A QUID PRO QUO HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO USED FOREIGN DOLLARS TO THREATEN A U.S.

DOLLARS, AND WE ARE PREPARED OVER PRETENDING THIS IS NOT HAPPENING A AND PRETEND AGO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE CONCERNED?

LOOK, YOU LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, JOE BIDEN IS A TERRIBLE CANDIDATE AND DESTROY HIMSELF ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL BUT HE CAN'T GET BY THIS.

AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BRINGS IT UP, DOESN'T MATTER WHO DOES IT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

AND YOU CAN -- WHY, WHITEWASH IT ALL YOU WANT AND GO OVER IT ALL YOU WANT BUT HE IS EITHER A LIAR OR HE DID IT AND HE DID IT.

I WILL CONTINUE ON.

THE QUESTION IS, THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAD EARLIER, YOU RELY ON HOW MANY, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU RELY ON GORDON SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY?

>> IN YOUR REPORT?

>> IT IS NEARLY A 300 PAGE REPORT -- >> WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED IF IT WAS 600 TIMES OR BETTER?

>> YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA OR NOT?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA.

>> OKAY.

YOU DID.

IT IS OVER 600 TIMES WOULD YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND IF YOU DO A SIMPLE CHECK OF YOUR REPORT THAT OVER 158 TIMES MR. SONDLAND SAID, INSTANCES OF NOT KNOWING SOMETHING TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE OR I DON'T KNOW WOULD THAT SURPRISE YOU?

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE REPORT OR HIS DEPOSITION?

>> THE DEPOSITION AND THE CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY.

>> YES.

OVER TIME, HE REMEMBERED A LOT MORE AS HE WAS REFRESHED BY OTHER PEOPLE'S TESTIMONY.

>> YES, IT IS.

THE QUESTION WE ARE HAVING HERE THOUGH, IS MR. SONDLAND ALSO SAID, HE SAID HE PRESUMED WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, LET'S GO BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE AND CONTINUE THIS IN SWROMENT.

ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, CLASSIFY THAT CONFIRM THAT TO BE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE OTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE OTHER TWO COMMITTEES, ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT?

>> CERTAINLY.

>> ISSUED DOZENS OF SUBPOENAS, RIGHT?

>> I AM NOT -- CERTAINLY OVER A DOZEN, YES.

>> SOME OF THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE NOT PUBLICLY REPORTED UNTIL THE IPSA ISSUE IN THE MAJORITY REPORT, CORRECT?

>> MOST OF THE SUBPOENAS -- >> ANSWER THE QUESTION, AS MR. BURKE HAD SO MUCH FREE REIN LET'S ANSWER THE QUESTION OR ELABORATE, ONE OR THE OTHER.

>> SIR I AM TRYING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU?

DID IT COME OUT OR NOT?

>> DID WHAT COME OUT?

>> I WILL, I WILL READ IT AGAIN SOME OF THE SUBPOENAS WERE NOT PUBLICLY REPORTED UNTIL THE IPSA ISSUED ITS MAJORITY REPORT, CORRECT.

>> YES, GIVEN TO THE MINORITY BUT NOT PUBLIC.

>> SETTING ZOOS ASIDE THE WITNESSES THAT HAVE HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY IDENTIFIED DID YOU ISSUE ANY OTHER SUBPOENAS FOR ISSUE OTHER THAN THOSE THAT TESTIFIED?

>> I DON'T -- I AM NOT SURE.

I DON'T THINK SO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I AM NOT SURE.

>> HOW MANY SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED FOR RECORDS?

>> WELL, WE ISSUED A NUMBER OF SUBPOENAS FOR RECORDS.

WE DID ISSUE SIX SUBPOENAS TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES AND THEY ALL DEFIED OUR SUBPOENAS.

>> IN THIS, MOVING ON TO OTHER ISSUES HERE, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" REPORTED THE COMMITTEE ISSUED AT LEAST FOUR SUBPOENAS TO VERIZON AND AT&T FOR CALL RECORDS; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE -- ARE WE TAB -- >>M FOR CALL RECORDS.

>> ARE WE WONDERING?

YES, WE ARE.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE NUMBERS WE ONLY ISSUED THEM FOR CALL RECORDS FOR PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION AND HAD ALREADY BEEN SEDONA PEENED FOR DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY OF THEIR OWN.

>> ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL STUFF BUT ANSWER MY QUESTION, FOUR?

>> I'M TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

>> WAS IT AT LEAST FOUR?

YES.

THANK YOU.

>> COULD HAVE SAVED US A LOT OF TIME THERE.

>> HOW MEASURE WERE ISSUED TO AT&T?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

CAN YOU CHECK YOUR RECORDS.

>> WE GOT A MASSIVE DOCUMENT PREPARING FOR THIS WEEKEND.

THEY SAID THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO READ IT ALL ANYWAY.

WE ARE GOING ON A SCHIFF REPORT THAT HE REFUSES TO COME TLK ABOUT.

WE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS.

HOW MANY WERE ISSUED TO AT&T?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE YOUR CHAIRMAN CAN ANSWER THIS?

>> WAS IT TARGETING SINGLE TELEPHONE NUMBERS OR NUMBERS?

>> WE SUSPECTED SUBPOD MULTIPLE NUMBERS.

>> NONE OF CONGRESS.

WE ARE GETTING TO THAT.

THEY ARE ROUTINE AND STANDARD INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE.

>> YOU WON'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBPOENA.

WHO ASKED ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS YOU DID PUT INTO FOR SUBPOENA WHO WAS IT THAT ASKED THEY BE CROSS-CHECKED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, WHO ORDERED THAT.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S WOW HOW WE DID IT?

>>THEY WERE ACTUALLY ON THE CALLS.

>> YES.

WE WON'T PLAY CUTE HERE.

SOMEONE TOOK THE FOUR RECORDS YOU ASKED FOR, AT LEAST FOUR.

THEY SAID HEY, LET'S PLAY A MATCH GAME.

WHO ORDERED THE MATCH GAME FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND PRESS?

WAS IT YOU?

>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE DID.

OKAY, COMMON.

THAT'S THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I'VE HEARD.

>> WHO ORDERED THEM TO MATCH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND PRESS.

>> WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS HOW IT ASKED.

>> WHO ORDERED IF HIS NUMBER WAS ON THE CALLS.

>> YOU LOOK FOR SEQUENCING AND PATS SURROUNDING THAT EVENT.

YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND YOU START TOE BUILD THE CASE.

>> AT THIS POINT THAT'S AN WONDER.

EXPLANATION BUT NOT AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION.

I UNDERSTAND THE SUBPOENA YOU ISSUED.

MY QUESTION WAS IT YOU OR CHAIRMAN SCHIFF THAT SAID WHILE WE ARE DOING THIS WHO SAID THIS IS A MEMBER OF THE PRESS.

SOMEONE DIDN'T HAVE AN AN THOUGHT THAT THESE NUMBERS MIGHT NOT MATCH.

WHO DID IT, BE CAREFUL.

YOU ARE UNDER OUST.

>> I OATH.

KNOW I AM UNDER OATH.

YOU DECIDED TO LEAK IT.

WHILE YOU THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WILL ANSWER WHO DECIDED TO LEAK IT.

>> THAT'S NOT A LEAK.

HOW DID YOU INCLUDE IT IN THE REPORT.

TWO QUESTIONS ARE HANGING OUT THAT EVERYBODY IS WAITING FOR AN ANSWER FOR.

WHO WANTED IT.

THIS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE CASE.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE CASE WITH YOU.

THE REASON IT WAS INCLUDED WAS BECAUSE THE CALLS WERE SURROUNDING IMPORTANT EVIDENCE.

THIS IS NOT BETTER DIRECTED AT ME BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HAVING CONVERSATIONS.

>> NO, WE WON'T PLAY THAT GAME.

NO, WE WON'T PLAY THAT GAME.

YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT MEMBERS CELL PHONE NUMBERS THEY OUGHT TO BE SCARED ABOUT.

YOU TOOK A SUBPOENA FOR FOUR AND DECIDED TO PLAY MATCH GAME.

YOU FOUND NUMBERS, SOME DIDN'T EXIST BECAUSE THEY CLAIMED THEY WERE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.

NOBODY WAS OUT THERE ACTING.

WILL YOU GO ON RECORD BEFORE EVERYBODY HERE TODAY YOU WON'T TELL WHO ORDERED THIS YOU ARE MR. SCHIFF.

>> I WOULDN'T REVEAL HOW WE CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION.

>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH THIS ENTIRE THING.

>> I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE IMPORTANCE IS.

I'M DONE WITH YOU RIGHT NOW.

YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION AND NOT BEING HONEST ABOUT THE ANSWER.

YOU ARE JUST NOT ANSWERING.

>> I HAVE INFORMATION ON THE SUBPOENAS.

>> LET'S GO.

WE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA THERE WERE SIX AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

LET ME SAY AT THE OUT SET OUR MEMBERS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE EXERCISE FOR THREE REASONS.

THE SUBPOENAS YIELDED INFORMATION ABOUT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

WHETHER THEY SUSPECTED THE PHONE RECORDS OR NOT IT'S A CONCERN WHEN THEY YIELD MEMBER OF CONGRESS' PHONE RECORDS AND THE INFORMATION IS PUBLICIZED.

SECOND WITH JOURNALIST, GENERALLY THAT'S A TRICKY AREA TO START INVESTIGATING THEIR CALL RECORDS.

THE THIRD IS MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS SEVERING AS IT PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

THE FIRST WENT TO AT&T FOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI NUMBER.

THE SECOND WAS A COMPANY CSC HOLDING.

THE THIRD WAS MR. SONDLAND THAT WAS OFF TO VERIZON.

THE FOURTH WAS BACK TO AT&T.

SEEKING INFORMATION ON A CERTAIN NUMBER.

THE FIFTH WAS BACK TO AT&T AND THE SIXTH WAS SEEKING INFORMATION WHICH IMPACTED THE JOURNALIST JOHN SOLMAN AND ALSO INVOLVED SOME OF THE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED.

>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?

MR. CASTOR YOU HAVE BEEN AN INVESTIGATE TOR FOR 25 YEARS.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW.

MR. GOLDMAN DOESN'T WANT TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF OR CHAIRMAN OR SOMEONE ELSE.

AS YOU HAVE DEALT WITH COMMITTEE STAFF.

SOMEONE COULD HAVE AN EPOSITIVE THOUGHT TO .

>> THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.

>> WAIT, WAIT, I HAVE ONE THING.

MR. GOLDMAN, WE ARE USED TO A COMMITTEE AND WITNESS COMING AND TAKING SHOTS AT PEOPLE THEY DON'T LIKE.

EARLIER TODAY YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT GOES TO AN ISSUE, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE CHAIRMAN QUESTIONING MOTIVE.

YOU DISCUSSED MR. SONDLAND AND YOUR FACIAL EXPRESSION SHOWED HE WAS A MILLION DOLLARS DONOR TO THE PRESIDENT.

THE IMPLICATION WAS HE BOUGHT HIS POSITION OR HE JUST GOT IT.

BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW YOU THROW AROUND DOLLARS.

YOU ARE HEAVY DONE DONORS TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THIS THING IS ALREADY BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.

YOU ARE HERE WITHOUT A PIN BECAUSE YOUR CHAIRMAN WILL NOT TESTIFY, THAT SAYS ALL WE NEED TO HEAR.

HE DOESN'T STAND BEHIND HIS OWN REPORT.

I HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR YOU.

>> CAN I RESPOND?

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?

WHAT IS THE IMPLICATION HERE?

I DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING CLOSE TO A MILLION DOLLARS REMOTELY.

THE INDICATION WE WANT SHIFT IN SCHIFF IN IN THAD NOT YOU.

YOU ARE GIVING TESTIMONY IN PLACE OF THE TESTIMONY.

>> GENTLEMAN DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME AND HAS BEEN WARNED BEFORE.

YOU CANNOT SIMPLY YELL OUT.

MR. COLLINS HAS THE TIME.

>> I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID.

YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD GET BY WITH IT.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE OTHER THING.

>> I'M DONE.

YOU -- STOP, STOP.

AS YOU DID MR. GOLDMAN.

NOW, ACCORDING TO THE CHAIRMAN'S OWN RULING I'M DONE ASKING QUESTIONS.

I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO ELABORATE.

YOU WON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION ON WHO TOLD THE COMMITTEE TO CHECK THESE NUMBERS.

YOU WON'T SAY IF IT'S YOU OR MR. SCHIFF.

WE'LL GO TO MR. MEDICAL CENTER COLLINS.

>> THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IS YIELDING HIS TIME TO MEDICAL CENTER COLLINS.

>> THE GENTLE LADY IS READY.

IF I MAY.

YES, CERTAINLY.

I HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP IF I MAY.

>> YES, CERTAINLY.

OU WILL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME.

I HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, ON THE CALL TIM MORRISON AND GENERAL KELLOG HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE CALL THAN VINMAN AND GOOD JENNFER WILLIAMS.

THE CALL WAS AMBIGUOUS.

TIM MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT HE WENT FOR DIFFERENT LEADERS.

HE WENT TO THE LAWYERS FOR TWO REASONS.

NUMBER ONE THEY WEREN'T ON A CALL.

WE WANTED TO UPDATE THEM ABOUT IT.

NUMBER TWO HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKS.

HE WAS CONCERNED IF THE CALL LEAKED OUT HOW IT WOULD PLAY IN WASHINGTON'S POLARIZED ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

HE WAS ALSO CONCERNED IF THE CALL LEAKED THAT IT MIGHT EFFECT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS.

ISSUES OF THE UKRAINE HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE FEW ISSUES WHERE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SHARE INTEREST.

THE THIRD REASON HE DIDN'T WANT TO UKRAINIANS TO GET A DISTORTED PRECEPTIAL D PERCEPTION HAPPEN ON THE CALL.

A LOT OF AM BIGGETY.

I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS AMBIGUOUS.

THEY WERE ON THE CALL AND THEY ARE BRIEFING THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS AND THEY ARE CORRUPTION.

HE DOES BE THE WANT TO INVITE ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS DIDN'T ORDER ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING.

THE PRESIDENT SPOKE TO RUDY.

HE SPOKE TO HIM AT HIS DEPOSITION OR PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU GUYS THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WORK IT GO TALK TO RUDY.

IT'S A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESIDENT SORT OF COLLECTING UP A BUNCH OF AGENTS TO GO DO SOMETHING.

ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER HE COULD GO TALK TO RUDY.

WHETHER THEY KNEW OF THE AID -- THE AID WAS PAUSED FOR 55 DAYS.

WHETHER THEY KNEW ABOUT IT THAT WAS LAURA COOPER AND THEY SPOKE ABOUT QUERIES THEY RECEIVED.

THERE WAS AN ARTICLE FROM BLOOMBURG.

THEY NEVER KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD IN THE AID UNTIL AUGUST 28th ARTICLE.

THEY SAID IN THE ARTICLE YARMAK SAID THEY BELIEVE THE EMBASSY WAS KEEPING INFORMATION FROM THEM.

ANOTHER INTERESTING THING MR. YARMAK SAID IN THE BLOOMBERG ARTICLE WAS ABOUT THE MEETING WITH SONDLAND WHICH IS VERY SIGNIFICANT NOW.

THE MEETING HE SAID HE DOES BE THE RECALL IT THE WAY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS.

MR. YARMAK SPEAKS ENGLISH BUT NOT HIS FIRST LANGUAGE.

HEHE HE RECALLS WHAT HAPPENED DIFFERENTLY.

THE QUESTION OR THE FACT BETWEEN THE TWO ON THE WAY TO THE ESCALADER REMAINS IN DISPUTE.

NOW, TURNING ATTENTION TOE THE RON JOHNSON LETTER IF I MAY.

ON AUGUST 31, SENATOR JOHNSON IS ABOUT TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE.

HE CALLS THE PRESIDENT AND SOUGHT PERMISSION TO BE THE BARER OF GOOD NEWS.

THE PRESIDENT SAID I'M NOT READY TO RELEASE THE AID.

SENATOR JOHNSON WROTE A DETAILED TEN PAGE LETTER.

HE GAVE SOME REMARKABLE DETAIL AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT.

IT'S ON PAGE 6.

THIS IS SENATOR JOHNSON SPEAKING.

I ASKED HIM WHETHER THERE WAS SOME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WHERE UKRAINE WOULD TAKE ACTION.

WITHOUT HESITATION, SENATOR JOHNSON SAID.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DENIED THIS EXISTED AND STARTED CURSING.

HE SAID NO WAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID NO WAY.

I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

WHO TOLD YOU THAT?

SENATOR JOHNSON GOES ONTO SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REACTION WAS ADMIT, VEHEMENT, AND ANGRY.

SENATOR JOHNSON SAID AS OF THE t YOU WILL LIKE MY DECISION IN THE END.

THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT CONTEXT ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND WAS AS OF AUGUST 31; >> RIGHT, HE FULLY EXPECTED THAT THE AID WOULD EVENTUALLY BE RELEASED AFTER THE 55 DAY PAUSE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS.

MR. CASTOR, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 75 MINUTES TODAY AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> MY WIFE THANKS YOU AS WELL.

SHE LIKES WHEN I TALK WHEN SHE'S NOT AROUND.

>> TIME PERMITTING, I WOULD LIKE TO COVER FOUR OR FIVE DISTINCT AREAS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVEN'T HEARD.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CONTRADICTIONS IN CERTAIN PEOPLES TESTIMONY.

IS THAT FAIR TO SAY MR. CASTOR?

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS STORY THAT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS.

WE HAVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SONDLAND, AND PERRY.

YOU SPOKE TO TWO OF THE THREE PEOPLE.

THE DEMOCRATS REPORT ARE WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE THAT THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS WERE ENGAGED IN A CABAL OR SOME SORT OF VENTURE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE IS IT?

THEY WERE ACTING WITH THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY.

>> AND WITH THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS ONE OF OUR BEST DIPLOMATS.

>> THEY SPOKE ABOUT THE INTEGRITY THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER BRINGS TO THE TABLE.

>> THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE WE DIDN'T TALK TO, IS THAT CORRECT?

NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICISM OF FOREIGN AID.

HE'S VERY SKEPTICAL OF FOREIGN AID.

>> HE'S DEEPLY SKEPTICAL OF SENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS INTO AN ENVIRONMENT THAT'S CORRUPT.

>> IS IT SOMETHING NEW SOMETHING HE'S RAN ON.

>> SOMETHING HE'S RAN ON.

AS SOON AS HE BECAME PRESIDENT THE THIRD RANKING OFFICIAL TOLD US ABOUT THE OVERALL REVIEW OF ALL OF THE FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS.

HE DESCRIBED IT AS AN EVALUATION.

>> YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF MARK SANDY WHO IS A CAREER OFFICIAL OF OMB, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> RIGHT.

HE HAD INFORMATION ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE PAUSE, IS THAT TRUE?

I THINK HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH AN INDIVIDUAL NAMED ROB BLARE AND MR. BLARE PROVIDED INSIDE INFORMATION INTO THE REASONS FOR THE PAUSE.

>> SANDY WAS ONE OF THE FEW WITNESSES WE HAD THAT WAS ABLE TO GIVE US AN FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT INSIDE OMB.

THIS WAS RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING IN THE REGION.

>> IN FACT, IN HIS CONVERSATION THE PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATOR JOHNSON HE MENTIONED HIS CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

I BELIEVE SHE REFERENCED THE CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE CHANSLER -- CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY.

IN FACT, THE WHOLE FIRST PART OF THIS TRANSCRIPT HE'S TALKING ABOUT BURDEN SHARING AND WANTING THE EUROPEANS TO DO MORE.

>> SENATOR JOHNSON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE PRETTY CANDID AND BELIEVED ALLIES LIKE GERMANY WERE LAUGHING AT US BECAUSE WE WERE ABOUT TO SEND THE AID.

>> RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN -- ALLEGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSE ABOUT THE PRESS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HI SAID HE FELT NO PRESSURE.

>> HE SAID IT CONSISTENCY.

HE SAID IT TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

HE SAID IT IN THREE MORE NEWS AVAILABILITIES.

INCLUDING LAST WEEK.

I WANT TO CHANGE SUBJECTS AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT PROFESSOR RAISED LAST WEEK.

THAT'S THE PARTISAN NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION.

YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR.

>> PROIF IT SAYS SORE TURLEY IS NO TRUMP SUPPORTER.

>> HE IS A DEMOCRAT.

PROFESSOR TURLEY CAUTIONED THAT A PARTISAN INQUIRY IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS ENVISIONED, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

NO ONE WILL ACCEPT THE RESULTS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>> OUR DEMOCRAT FRIENDS HAVE BECOME ORIGINALIST AND SITING THE FOUNDERS AND THEIR INTENT ROUTINELY AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

>> THAT GOES TO THE -- IT'S WHETHER BRIBERY AND CASE LAW.

I'M NO SUPREME COURT -- THERE IS NEW CASE LAW ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL ACT.

THAT HASN'T BEEN, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSED IN THIS SPACE.

HE MENTIONED THAT.

>> I BELIEVE HE SAID THIS DOESN'T CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL ACT.

>> THAT AUTO THE CASE.

HE SPOKE ABOUT THAT LAST WEEK.

UNOFFICIAL AND UNSANCTIONED START IN SEPTEMBER.

THE PROCESS HAS BEEN PARTISAN, BIAS, UNFAIR.

REPUBLICANS REPUBLICAS QUESTION -- REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING HAS BEEN CRITICAL.

>> YES, WE WERE BARRED FROM ASKING HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO HE COMMUNICATED HIS CONCERNS TO.

>> VERY BASIC THINGS LIKE WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE.

>> I WOULD SAY TOO THIS RAPID -- WE ARE IN DAY 76.

IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO A SOPHISTICATED INVESTIGATION THAT QUICKLY.

ESPECIALLY WHEN THE STAKES ARE THIS HIGH.

IT DOES TAKE A BIT OF TIME FOR THE TWO SIDES TO STAKE OUT THEIR INTEREST AND HOW THEY WILL RESPOND TO THEM.

WE LEARNED FROM THE PROBE THE FIRST ONE WAS IN OCTOBER OF 2017.

YOU KNOW, IN DECEMBER WE FINALLY GOT A WITNESS.

IT WAS THE FOLLOWING SPRING WITH THE PROBE AFTER A LOT OF PUSHING AND BULLING AND A LOT OF TUG OF WAR WE REACHED A DEAL WITH DOJ WHERE WE WENT DOWN TO DOJ AND THEY GAVE US ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND ACCESS TO I THINK NORTH OF 800,000 PAGES BUT THEY MADE US COME DOWN THERE AND MADE US GO INTO A SKIFF.

THESE DOCUMENTS WEREN'T CLASSIFIED.

IT WASN'T UNTIL MAY AND JUNE OF THAT YEAR THAT WE STARTED THIS PROCESS WHEN THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN ONGOING.

THAT'S DISAPPOINTING.

WE ALL WISH THERE WAS AN EASY BUTTON.

THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF CONSEQUENCE WILL TAKE TIME.

>> RIGHT, IT TOOK HIM SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FIRST DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED.

WE HAD TO GO DOWN AND REVIEW IT ON CAMERA.

A BORDER PATROL AGENT.

THIS IS 2011 AND WE HAD A HEARING IN JUNE.

THIS WAS ABOUT PROCEEDING WITH INTENT.

THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN JUNE WHEN WE GOT PRODUCTION.

IT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION.

WE SPENT MOST OF THE YEAR WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WITH BASKETBALL BLOWERS.

THEN THE OCTOBER AND ANOTHER SUBPOENA FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

THE INVESTIGATION WAS ONGOING.

WE ARE DOING INTERVIEWS AND DOING OUR BEST TO GET DOCUMENTS OUT-OF-THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THAT CHANNEL.

THESE THINGS TAKE TIME.

USUALLY NOT 76 DAYS.

>> IF YOU TRULY WANT TO UNCOVER EVER FACT AS YOU SHOULD IN AN IMPEACHMENT, YOU AGREE.

YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT AND FORCE YOUR SUBPOENAS.

HERE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE A LOT OF REQUESTS FROM INFORMATION.

VOLUNTEERING INFORMATION.

WILL YOU PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH DOCUMENTS ON XYZ AND THAT'S GREAT.

YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING.

THE RULE IS YOU GET WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS LESS PALATABLE.

>> YOU ISSUE THE SUBPOENA AND TRY TO GET DOCUMENTS.

SOMEONE IN THE FUNCTION ABOUT WHAT DOCUMENTS EXIST.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFETS TRIED TO GET THE LAYOFF THE LAND.

THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE.

YOU CAN TALK ABILITY HOLDING SOMEONE IN CONTEMPT.

OFTENTIMES WITNESSES WHO ARE RELUCTANT TO COOPERATE AND COME FORWARD WITH THE PROCEEDINGS YOU HAVE A LOT OF PROSPECTS ALONG THE WAY.

AFTER YOU SCHEDULE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING YOU HOLD THE DOOR OPEN AND PUSH IT OFF.

YOU CAN GO THROUGH AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL.

THESE ARE ALL MILESTONE EVENTS.

THEY ARE UNPALATABLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION.

SOMETIMES THEY START TO MOVE THE KNEESLE AND WITH THESE TYPES OF EXCUSE ONCE YOU GET THE BALL ROLLING WITH THE GOOD LUCK DADDY PROBE WE DIDN'T GET THE WITNESS.

ONCE WE GOT MR. MCCABE IN THE DIRECTOR'S CHIEF OF STAFF AND A FEW WITNESSES.

ONCE YOU GET THE BALL ROLLING YOU DON'T ALWAYS LIKE 100% OF THE TERMS.

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DO WITH AGENCY COUNCIL AND LOOK IN CAMERA.

USUALLY IT LEADS TO POSITIVE RESULTS AND HISTORICALLY ALLOWED CONGRESS TO DO IT'S WORK.

>> WERE ANY OF THOSE THINGS DONE HERE?

>> NO.

IN FACT, THEY DECIDED WE WON'T SUBPOENA CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT ARE IMPORTANT, IS THAT FAIR TO SAY AND GO TO COURT AND ENFORCE THEM.

THAT'S AN UNFORTUNATELY POSITION.

>> ONE CONCERN IS DR. CUPPERMAN WHO HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY FEE ON IN - FIONA HILL.

HE FILED A LAWSUIT AND A JUDGE WAS ASSIGNED AND THE ISSUE AND STORIES WERE DIFFERENT.

DON IS THE PERSONAL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL.

CUPPERMAN IS A NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL.

HE FILED THE LAWSUIT SEEKING GUIDANCE.

HE WAS ASKING THE COURT TO TELL HIM NOT TO COME TESTIFY.

HE WAS SEEKING THE COURT'S GUIDANCE TO FACILITATE HIS COORTHOPEDIC RATION.

ULTIMATELY THE COMMITTEE WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA.

THIS RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER IT COMMITTEE IS INTERESTED IN GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

>> RIGHT.

INSTEAD THE COMMITTEE HAS CHOSEN -- THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHOSE TO RELY ON AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND HIS TESTIMONY.

I THINK THEY RELY 600 TIMES -- >> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I DID ON THIS POINT.

I -- YESTERDAY I OPENED THE DEMOCRAT REPORT AND DID A CONTROL F. YOU KNOW, CONTROL F. IT SHOWS SONDLAND'S NAME 611 TIMES.

IN FAIRNESS IT WILL BE DOUBLE COUNTED BECAUSE IN A SENTENCE AND FOOTNOTE THAT'S TWO.

IN RELATIVE COMPARISON TO THE OTHER WITNESSES SONDLAND IS RELIED ON BIG TIME.

>> I THINK DOCTOR HILL TESTIFIED THAT SHE AT SOME POINT CONFRONTED HIM ABOUT HIS ACTIONS.

>> THE RECORD IS MIXED ON THIS FRONT.

DR. HILL SPOKE ABOUT RAISING CONCERNS WITH SONDLAND AND HE DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, HE DIDN'T SHARE THE SAME VIEW.

>> THERE IS A LOT OF INSTANCES OF THAT WERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RECALLS ONE THING AND OTHERS RECALL ANOTHER.

>> SONDLAND IS A WITNESS AND A BIT OF AN ENIGMA.

HE WAS CERTAIN THAT SECURITY WASN'T LINKED TO ANYTHING.

THEN HE SUBMITTED AN ADDENDUM.

>> RIGHT.

EVEN IN THAT ADDENDUM OR SUPPLEMENT SENTENCE.

HE SPOKE TO HIM OR HER.

SONDLAND ENDS WITH I PRESUME SO IT'S NOT FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FIRSTHAND INFORMATION HERE, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> ON CERTAIN FACTS.

WE HAVE INFORMATION ON THE MAY 23 MEETING.

WE HAVE A LOT OF FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.

IT'S A LOT OF CONFLICTING.

THERE ARE EPISODES, I THINK DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET EVERYONES ACCOUNTS.

THE INVESTIGATION HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO REVEAL FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT.

>> I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD RESUME THINGS, ASSUME THINGS, AND FORM OPINIONS BASED ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE TOLD HIM AND HE WOULD USE THOSE AS FIRSTHAND, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> UM, IT STARTED WITH HIS ROLE AT THE UKRAINE PORTFOLIO.

MR.

WERE WONDERING WHY THE AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U.

WAS SO ENGAGED WITH ISSUES RELATING TO THE UKRAINE.

THERE ARE ANSWERS FOR THAT.

THE UKRAINES WANTED TO JOIN THE E.U.

THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER REASONS AND MR. TURNER EXPLORED THAT WELL AT THE HEARING.

WE ASKED THE AMBASSADOR AND HE SAID HE DID A TV INTERVIEW ON THE 26th OF JULY.

HE SAID THE PRESIDENT HAS GIVEN ME A LOT OF ASSIGNMENTS AND ASSIGNED ME UKRAINE.

WHEN WE ASKED HIM HE CONCEDED HE WAS IN FACT SPINNING.

THE PRESIDENT NEVER ASSIGNED HIM TO UKRAINE.

HE WAS EXAGGERATING.

>> I THINK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING YOU POINTED OUT IN CONTRAST TO OTHER WITNESSES AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ISN'T A NOTE TAKER.

HE, IN FACT, YOU SAID I DON'T RECALL DOZENS OF TIME IN HIS TELESCOPING.

>> LET'S SAY IT THIS WAY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WALKED US THROUGH HIS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR TAKING NOTES.

HE HAD A NOTEBOOK ON HIS DESK AND SUIT.

WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECOUNTS TO US WHAT HAPPENS IT'S BACKED UP BY THE NOTES.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CLEAR HE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE RECORDS.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES A TWEET OR STATEMENT THAT THAT WASN'T TRUE.

NO ONE IS KEEP CAN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FROM HIS E-MAILS.

HE'S STILL A STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE HE DOES HAVE ACCESS BUT HE STATED HE DIDN'T.

HE DIDN'T HAVE RECOLLECTIONS ON A LOT OF THESE ISSUES.

WE MADE A LIST OF THEM AND AT THE HEARING I CALLED THIS THE TRYFECT TAG TRIF INFORMATION.

DR. HILL TOLD US ABOUT ISSUES OF THAT SORT AND A NUMBER OF WITNESSES, YOU ARE CORRECT.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOO?

S I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR REIKER SAID HE WAS A PROBLEM.

>> SHE SAID HE MIGHT BE A INTELLIGENCE RISK?

>> SHE DID.

SHE HAD ISSUES WITH HIS TENDENCY TO FLOOD HIS MOBILE DEVICE IN TELEPHONE CALLS.

THIS CAN BE MONITORED BY THE BAD GUYS.

>> HE SPOKE ABOUT HOW HE WAS SPENDING.

>> HE ADMITTED HE EXAGGERATED.

>> YES.

WHEN IT COMES TO COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT HE WE TRIED TO GET HIM TO LIST ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HE ADMITTED SIX.

HE WALKED US THROUGH EACH COMMUNICATION.

IT WAS ABOUT A CHRISTMAS PARTY.

CONGRESSMAN SPEAR ASKED HIM THE SAME QUESTION.

HE SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT LIKE 20 TIMES.

THE RECORD IS MIXED.

>> I BELIEVE MY TIME IS UP.

THANK YOU BOTH.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

I MOVE TO RECESS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN HAS -- FOR HOW LONG?

>> FOR 30 MINUTES.

I APPROVE HIS MOTION.

IT WAS NOT DEBATABLE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

NO.

THE MOTION IS NOT AGREED TO.

>> I ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.

[ROLL CALL] [ROLL CALL] [ROLL CALL] >> MR. COHEN, YOU ARE NOT RECORDED.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS THAT WISH TO VOTE THAT HAVEN'T VOTED?

CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN 15 AYES AND 24 NOES.

>> THE MOTION WAS NOT AGREED TO.

MR. GOLDMAN, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S REQUEST IN UKRAINE YEARS AGO AND THE REQUEST THIS YEAR?

>> WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ASKED THEM TO REMOVE THE CORRUPT ATTORNEY GENERAL THIS WAS PART OF THE U.S. POLICY.

THE I MF SUPPORTED THAT AND GAVE THE LOANES HE WAS REFERRING TO.

HE DID THAT AS PART OF THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY CONSENSUS.

WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ASKING FOR THIS INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN ALL OF THE WITNESSES, EVERY SINGLE ONE TOUGHED THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

>> VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S REQUEST HAD NO PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST DID?

>> YES, IN FACT THE WITNESSED TESTIFIED IF THAT CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL WERE ACTUALLY REMOVED IT WOULD BE BECAUSE HE WASN'T PROSECUTING CORRUPTION.

THE WITNESSES SAID BY REMOVING THAT PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND ADDING A NEW ONE THERE WAS AN INCREASED CHANCE THAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE WOULD BE PROSECUTED INCLUDING AS IT RELATED TO THE BURISMA COMPANY.

>> THE YOU TELL US ABOUT THE PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE TELEPHONE COMPANY.

>> THIS IS AN UNUSUAL INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE.

PEOPLE INVOLVED IN A SCHEME INVESTIGATORS SEEK THEIR RECORDS.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS META-DATA.

IT'S CALL TO, CALL FROM, AND LENGTH.

THERE IS NO CONTENT.

THERE IS NO INVADING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

THERE IS NO RISK TO THAT.

FOR SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE WE HAD INVESTIGATED AND SUBPOENAED AND ALLEGED TO BE PART OF THE SCHEME.

WE HAD RECORDS TO COROB O CORROBORATE THEIR TESTIMONY.

WE TOOK THE CALL RECORDS AND MATCHED IT UP WITH IMPORTANT EVENTS THAT OCCUR DURING THE SCHEME.

WE START TO SEE IF THERE ARE PATTERNS.

CALL RECORDS CAN BE POWERFUL CIRCUMSTANCE EVIDENCE.

IN THIS CASE IT HAPPENED PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME WERE COMMUNICATING WITH THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER THAT WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE SCHEME.

A JOURNALIST, STAFF MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND ANOTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

WE DIDN'T SEEK ANY INVESTIGATION ON ANYONE -- A MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR STAFF MEMBER.

IT HAPPENED TO BE THEY WERE PART OF THE COMMUNICATION.

>> EVERYTHING WAS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

>> EVERYONE INVESTIGATION.

THANK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN, DID WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL MAKE HIS VIEW CLEAR AND WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BY THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.

>> WE NEVER HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OTHER THAN THE LETTER THAT BASICALLY SAID WE WON'T COOPERATE WITH THIS INVESTIGATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

WE NEVER ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS.

IT WAS A COMPLETE STONE WALL.

NOT ONLY WILL THE WHITE HOUSE NOT PARTICIPATE AND COOPERATE OR RESPOND THE WHITE HOUSE SAID WE WILL ALSO DIRECT EVERY OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY.

>> THANK YOU, I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS AND KEEP YOUR ANSWERS BRIEF IF YOU CAN.

DURING LAST WEEK THEY SAID THEY HAVEN'T BUILD A SUFFICIENT RECORD.

AS PROSECUTOR YOU SPENT YEARS BUILDING THE RECORDS.

WHAT IS THE STRAIGHT OF THE RECORD HERE?

>> WE HAVE MOVED FAST AND THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

WE HAD 17 WITNESSES.

>> OVERWHELMING.

THE COMMITTEE IS INVESTIGATING OBSTRUCTION.

>> YES.

THE EVIDENCE POINTED TO CONGRESS OR PLAN TO COVER UP ANY PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.

>> WE FOUND THERE WAS AN ETCH EFFORT TO CONCEAL THE CONDUCT.

>> A LETTER WAS WRITTEN STATING NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE PRESIDENT CANNOT PERMIT HIS STAFF TO COOPERATE.

THEY TRIED TO INTERVIEW DOZENS OF WITNESSES.

THEY WERE STEAMIED.

THERE WERE 12 WITNESSED THAT WERE DIRECTED NOT TO APPEAR AND THEY DIDN'T APPEAR.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.

I YIELD TO THE RANK MEMBER.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

WE CAN COMMIT EXTORTION AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BEHIND US.

I CAN GO EXTORT AS ANYBODY AS I WANT TO.

THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

I WANT TO GO TO THE PHONE RECORDS.

THIS IS A NOVEL REPORT.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE SUBPOENA AS FAR AS THE SUBPOENA POWER FROM CONGRESS.

MY PROBLEM AS YOU DIDN'T ANSWER IN THE PREVIOUS TAKING THE META-DATA.

IT'S INTERESTING YOU HAD TO SAY THERE WAS NO FISA OR ANYTHING.

WE SHOULD BE HEARING THAT BUT WE ARE DOING THIS.

IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE TO ME THAT THE CALLS IN THE META-DATA AND NOT THE CONTENT, WHAT THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THIS.

IF R U DY PHONE RECORDS WERE THE ONLY ONES RETURNED.

YOU TOOK THE COMMITTEE.

THIS IS WHY I WANT TO KNOW WHO ORDERED IT.

THE COMMITTEE MADE A CHOSE.

YOU DID COME, MADE A CHOSE TO PUT THE RECORDS INTO THE REPORT.

IT WAS A DRIVE BY.

IF YOU WANTED TO SMEAR THE RANKING MEMBER OR OTHERS BECAUSE THEY WERE CONNECTED TO THAT.

YOU JUST ADMITTED A SECOND AGO THEY WERE CONTACTING THESE PEOPLE.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT IS YOU COULD HAVE EASILY PUT IF YOU WANT TO DO A NONSMEAR REPORT IS CONGRESSPERSON 1, CONGRESSPERSON 2, REPORTER 1, REPORTER 2.

IF THEY DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE IT'S A DRIVE BY.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE REPORT OR SUBPOENA.

YOU CAN PRETTY IT UP ALL YOU WANT.

THAT SHOWED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR A MOMENT THIS SCHIFF REPORT BECAME A PARTISAN SMEAR AGAINST OTHER MEMBERS WE DON'T LIKE.

THERE WERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES FOR YOU TO DO.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM AS YOU SAID WITH YOU DOING PROPER OVERSIGHT.

DON'T MAKE IT UP AND DON'T NOT TELL ME OR THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE WHO ORDERED THAT.

THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN.

TO SAY IT'S NOT IS DISHONEST.

THEY GAVE YOU A CHANCE AND MADE IT WORSE.

THE RECORD GOT LEAKED TO THE WASHINGTON POST.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND, HOW WE CAN SAY THIS IS OKAY.

HOW DO WE SAY THIS IS FINE?

THIS IS HOW WE HAVE EVOLVED.

THE MEMBERS MIGHT BE THE MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY.

IF WE SET THE STANDARD WITH THESE KINDS OF INVESTIGATION WE ARE IN TROUBLE.

THIS IS ANOTHER THING THE FOUNDERS YOU AND OTHERS TODAY.

THE FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.

I'M GLAD NOW EVERYBODY IS AN ORIGINALIST.

THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.

A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT HE SAID OR HOW HE SAID IT.

I DON'T LIKE THE WAY JOE BIDEN SAID IT BUT YOU BLEW THAT OFF AS EVERYBODY HAVING THE BACKING OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE ARE A STATE OF IMPEACHMENT AND EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

DON'T BE A SWORN WITNESS AND NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

ADAM SCHIFF IS DOING THAT FINE WITHOUT YOU.

DON'T COME HERE AND SAY I WOULDN'T SAY BECAUSE YOU KNOW GOOD AND WELL SOMETIME IN SOME CONFERENCE SOMEBODY SAID HEY, I HAVE DEVIN'S PHONE NUMBER AND IT MATCHES.

WE WILL PUT IT IN THE REPORT.

NOT BECAUSE WE THINK HE'S APART OF IT BUT MAY HAD A PHONE CALL WITH SOMEONE WE WERE INVESTIGATING.

IT'S A DRIVE BY.

IT'S BENEATH YOU AND CONGRESS.

THAT'S WHY I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

THEN YOU LEAK FARTHER INFORMATION.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE.

WITH CAN BE RIGHTEOUS OR NOT.

THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE SO TURNED OFF BY THE WHOLE THING.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE.

YOU COULD HAVE HANDLED THIS DIFFERENTLY.

I'LL BLAME THE MEMBER, THE ONE WITH THE PEN RESPONSIBLE.

I'M ASSUMING HE ORDERED THIS.

HE SAID PUT THEIR NAMES IN HERE.

YOU HAD TO TAKE IT.

THAT'S WRONG AND THE COMMITTEE DESERVES BETTER.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

UEST GIST OF THE QUESTION IS ABUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POWER.

AMERICA IS BASED ON FREE AND FAIR ELECTION.

AFTER RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ENSURING THE NEXT ELECTION IS FREE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND KEEPING THAT IN MIND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU MR. GOLDMAN THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

THE AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED ACCORDING TO RUDOLPH GIULIANI PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE 2016 ELECTION, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED AS IT SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU SHOWS THAT HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION.

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THEM.

>> CORRECT.

MR. GOLDMAN, YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED FORMER PROSECUTOR.

IS IT COMMON TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION BUT NOT CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION?

>> NO USUALLY WORKS THE REVERSE.

YOU DON'T ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DEVELOP AS MUCH EVIDENCE WHILE IT'S NOT PUBLIC.

IF IT'S PUBLIC YOU RUN INTO PEOPLE MATCHING UP TESTIMONY WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON THE CLOSED DEPOSITIONS WERE SO IMPORTANT.

>> WHAT DID THAT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ANNOUNCEMENT TELL YOU ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD ONLY CARE ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION BUT NOT CONDUCTING THEM.

>> TWO THINGS SAID, ONE IS WHATEVER HE CLAIMS -- WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS ABOUT HIS DESIRE TO ROUTE OUT CORRUPTION.

IF YOU ASSUME THEY ARE FOR THAT PURPOSE AS HE STATED IT UNDERMINEDS THAT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T CARE IF THEY ARE DONE IF IT REECE CORRUPTION WE ARE NOT DOING THE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION.

THE SECOND IS HE WANTED THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT.

THE PRIVATE WASN'T ENOUGH.

HE WANTED THE POLITICAL BENEFIT FROM THEM.

>> THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION COULD BE BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT ELECTION OF A POLITICAL RIVAL.

THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDING.

PRESIDENT NIXON HAD CORRUPTION ELECTIONS AND THEY BROKE INTO HEAD QUARTERS TO GET A LEG UP ON THE ELECTIONS AND TRIED TO COVER IT UP JUST LIKE WE HAVE SEEN OBSTRUCTION HERE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ONLY APPEARS TO ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO HELP HIS OWN REELECTION CAMPAIGN BUT USED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS BIDDING AND MILITARY AID TO GET THE JOB DONE.

THIS AIDE WAS APPROVED BY CONGRESS.

IT WAS APPROPRIATED ON A BIPARTISAN BASES FOR UKRAINE TO FIGHT RUSSIA THAT INVADED THEM.

THIS AID WAS WITHHELD BUT PEOPLE DIED WHILE THIS AID WAS WITHHELD.

SOME PEOPLE ARGUES SINCE ULTIMATELY THE AID WAS RELEASED THIS WASN'T A PROBLEM.

MR. GOLDMAN, ISN'T IT TRUE IT WAS RELEASED ONLY AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT AND ONLY AFTER CONGRESS LEARNED OF THE SCHEME TO MAKE THIS LIFE OR DEATH AID CONDITIONAL ON THIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL?

>> THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT MADE THE PRESIDENT REALIZE THIS WAS COMING TO AHEAD AND CONCEALED.

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COME COE PLAIT -- COMPLAINT WAS CIRCLING THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE OP ED LINKING THE TWO.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL NOTIFIED THEM THERE WAS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT.

>> CORRECT.

I MADE IT CLEAR THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATION I DIDN'T WANT TO BE PART OF A THIRD IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE DIRECT EVIDENCE IS DAMMING AND THE PRESIDENT HASN'T OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

WE HAVE ASKED, SUBPOENAED, AND INVITED THE PRESIDENT.

NOTHING HAS COME FORWARD.

IF HE HAD EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE WHY WOULD BE N'T BE HE BRING IT FORWARD.

THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER THAT STRIKES THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I HAVE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN THIS IS TOO FAST, MR. JACKSON, LEE, AND I WERE TALKING AND WE WERE BOTH PART OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

THAT TOOK 73 DAYS AND WE ARE HERE ON THE 76th DAY.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND PRESENTATION.

I YIELD BACK MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> WITH THAT OBJECTION THE HEARING WILL STAND-IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES.

>> THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS TAKING ANOTHER BREAK IN THIS DAY LONG PROCESS OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, COUNCIL, AND WITNESSES THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY COUNCIL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROCEDURE, IF YOU WILL.

IT'S ALL PART OF THE EFFORT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

I'M JUST JU DY WOODRUFF.

I'M JOINED BY YAMICHE AND MIEKE O YANG.

WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS AN EFFORT BY BOTH SIDES VERY CLEARLY RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THERE IS EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED ACTS THAT WERE VIOLATIONS OF HIS OATH AND RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT.

REPUBLICANS ARE PUSHING BACK AND SAYING NO WAY HE DID THAT.

BY THE WAY, YOUR PROCESS IS FLAWED AND WORSE.

MIEKE EOYANG ARE WE SEEING ONE SIDE MAKING HEAD WAY.

>> THE PUBLIC IS NOT TUNING IN.

THEY ARE FIGHTING OVER THE ATTENTION OF THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE.

I DO THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE IN THIS PARTICULAR HEARING THAT COUNCIL IS BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT THE WITNESV"u IN OTHER SIDES CASE.

WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT FROM THE WITNESS STAND.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN, FOR EXAMPLE WE x HEARD THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ASKING QUESTIONS -- LET ME GET IT STRAIGHT.

THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS -- AS MIEKE SUGGESTS THE FIRST CHANCE THAT WE'VE HAD TO GO OVER SOME OF THE SPECIFICS HERE.

ASKING FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, WHETHER WHAT WAS SAID CONSTITUTED AN INAPPROPRIATE QUID PRO QUO.

>> IT WAS NOT -- I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN REMEMBER SEEING SUCH A THING.

I COULD SENSE THE TENSION BETWEEN THE TWO.

THEY HAD PROBABLY KNOWN EACH OTHER A LONG TIME.

NOW ONE IS AT THE TOP OF THE DIAS QUESTIONING ONE OF HIS COUNTER PARTS.

YOU CAN SEE THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS NOT WANTING TO GIVE AN INCH TO HIS INQUISITOR AND HIS INQUISITOR TRYING TO NAIL HIM DOWN ON THE FINER POINTS.

BY IN LARGE, WHAT IS MOST REMARKABLE TO ME, THERE WEREN'T ANY NEW BOMB SHELLS, OF COURSE.

WE EXPECT THIS SINCE WE'RE SORT OF IN A SUMMARY PHASE.

SEEMS MOST OF ALL THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO EMBELLISH, MAY BE DOM SOME EMBROIDERING AROUND THE FINAL ARGUMENTS AND NO BIG MUSCLE MOVEMENTS.

>> SEE WITH HAVE, MIEKE, THE DEMOCRATS CHALLENGING THE COUNSEL SPEAKING STAFF, IN ESSENCE, REPRESENTING MEMBERS, CHALLENGING THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT.

THEN YOU HAVE THE REPUBLICANS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, DOUG COLLINS OF GEORGIA, GOING HARD AFTER THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, DANIEL GOLDMAN, ASKING HIM ABOUT THE PROCESS OF HOW DID YOU DECIDE THE STORY CAME OUT OVER THE WEEKEND ABOUT PHONE CALLS BETWEEN RUDY GULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, OR THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AND HOW DID THE PHONE CALLS GET RELEASED.

WHAT WERE YOU UP TO.

CHALLENGING WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE DOING AND TRYING TO UNDERMINE IT.

>> YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM NOT HOLES IN THE CASE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD DONE.

THEY COULDN'T OFFER ANY EXCULPATORY FACTS.

THEY ATTACKED THE PROCESS.

THIS QUESTION ON PHONE RECORDS AND HOW THE GOVERNMENT AND INVESTIGATORS OBTAINED PHONE RECORDS IS SOMETHING THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

THEY WEREN'T POST OF IT IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BUT NOW THIS RENEWED CONCERN ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT GATHERS PHONE RECORDS, WHO THEY'RE LOOKING AT, WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE'S PRIVACY IS MASKED IN THE PROCESS.

FRANKLY, A CONCERN THAT SWITCHED BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES OVERTIME.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN, YOU REALLY SAW CONGRESSMAN COLLINS GETTING PRETTY HOT UNDER THE COLLAR IN CHALLENGING COUNSEL DANIEL GOLDMAN AND SAYING WHY CAN'T YOU TELL ME, I'M GLAD, BY THE WAY, YOU'RE HERE, BUT WHERE IS ADAM SCHIFF WHO REPUBLICANS REALLY SAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO.

>> CONGRESSMAN COLLINS GOT TRACTION THERE.

YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE -- >> THIS IS THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

>> YES.

APPROPRIATELY SUBPOENAED THE PHONE RECORDS FROM VERIZON OR AT&T OF A SUBJECT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION.

PROBABLY LEV PARNAS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> WHO WAS A BUSINESSMAN -- >> A UKRAINIAN BUSINESSMAN THAT IS NOW UNINDICTMENT FOR FUNNELING FOREIGN MONEY IN TO U.S.

POLITICS, NAMELY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BY WAY OF -- AT LEAST WITH THE ASSOCIATION GULIANI.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO IN ANY EVENT, THEY'RE APPROPRIATELY LOOKING THROUGH SOME OF THE PHONE NUMBERS THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE CALLED, BUT THEY CROSS REFERENCE IT FOR -- WELL, WAIT.

DID HE TALK TO DEVIN NUNES AND DID HE TALK TO THIS REPORTER, JOHN SOLOMON.

THE DEMOCRATS LEAKED OUT THAT INFORMATION, WHICH WAS THE USE FOR WHICH IT WAS SUBPOENAED FOR.

IT WAS LIKE OH, LOOK WHAT WE FOUND HERE AND NOW I'M GOING TO GET THIS OUT AND SO I DON'T THINK GOLDMAN HAD A GOOD ANSWER FOR IT.

HIS LAST REFUGE IS I DON'T THINK I CAN REVEAL OR METS TO YOU, WHICH IS FUNNY SAYS HE'S A PART OF THE CONGRESS AND SO WAS INVESTIGATOR THAT WAS ALSO PART OF CONGRESS.

>> AND MIEKE, WE'RE SEEING SOME OF THE INTERNAL WORKINGS OF THESE COMMITTEES.

CLEARLY THERE'S -- BOTH SIDES HAVE A MISSION, HAVE AN AGENDA HERE AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO MOVE.

BUT IN CHALLENGING THE OTHER SIDE AND THEIR METHODS, IT CAN GET A LITTLE DELICATE.

>> I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE DEMOCRAT'S REPORT.

NOW, THE PHONE RECORDS WERE IN THE FEET NOTES OF THE HIPSE REPORT.

>> THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

THEY WERE NOT LEAKED OUT LATER BUT IN THE BACK OF THE REPORT, THE RECORD WHO RUDY GULIANI WAS CALLING, WAS HE CALLING THE WHITE HOUSE, WHO WAS PARNAS CALLING.

I THINK THE REPUBLICANS HAVE RAISED CONCERNS.

AS SOON AS THEY CAME FORWARD, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

IT IS TRUE THAT CALL RECORD INFORMATION IS A VERY VALUABLE INVESTIGATIVE TOOL THAT HAPPENS IN MANY PROSECUTIONS.

CONGRESS IS NOT ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING THAT HAPPEN IN OVERSIGHT.

>> PARTICULARLY ONE OF THEIR OWN, DEVIN NUNES, THE RANKING REPUBLICAN, IS CALLED OUT AS IT WAS IN THIS INSTANCE.

LISA DESJARDINS IS AT A CAMERA POSITION AT THE CAPITOL.

LISA, YOU'VE BEEN IN THE HEARING ROOM AS WE WATCHED THE SERIOUS QUESTIONING OF THE OPPOSITE SIDE GET UNDERWAY.

TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REACTION IN THE ROOM.

IT'S GOTTEN HEATED AT SEVERAL POINTS.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SORT OF AN EKG OF THE HEART RATES OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

I THINK BEGINNING THAT LAST SESSION, IT WAS LOW.

REALLY, THERE WAS LOW ENERGY IN THE ROOM.

I EVEN SAW A FEW MEMBERS SEEMING TO STRUGGLE TO STAY AWAKE, FRANKLY.

THEN WE SAW WHEN BARRY BURKE STARTED HIS QUESTIONING OF HIS LOGICAL ADVERSARIES, THE REPUBLICANS, STEVE CASTOR, THEN THINGS GOT TENSE.

WE SAW WHAT WE'VE BEEN WAITING TO SEE, THE TWO SIDES CHALLENGE ONE ANOTHER ON THE ISSUE OF THE EVIDENCE.

EVERYONE SAT UP.

THEN YOU SAW, JUDY, IN YOUR GUESTS, SPEAK AGO LITTLE BIT TO THIS, HOW THESE TWO OPPOSING COUNSELS HANDLED THESE SERIES OF QUESTIONS.

FROM MY OBSERVATION, WHEN STEVE CASTOR WAS BEING GRILLED BY THE DEMOCRAT, BARRY BURKE, IT FELT LIKE THE REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS FELT LIKE THEY NEEDED TO PROTECT HIM.

THAT THEY WERE JUMPING IN TO HELP OUT STEVE CASTOR.

I'M NOT SURE THAT HE NEEDED THAT HELP.

HE KNOWS HIS SUBJECT MATTER WELL.

I THINK THEY WERE INTERRUPTING NOT JUST OUT OF THEIR STRATEGY TO INTERRUPT THIS HEARING, WHICH THEY ARE DOING, BUT THAT FELT LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO COME TO HIS AID AND HE SEEMED TO BE PAUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

JUDY A LOT TO TALK ABOUT SUBSTANCIVELY AND HOW THEY PUSHED CASTOR, THE QUESTIONS HE HAD TROUBLE ANSWERING.

IF THE FIRST THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE CALL RECORD WITH DEVIN NUNES, THAT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR WHAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE.

IN A WAY, THAT'S A WIN FOR REPUBLICANS.

A DIFFERENT TOPIC.

ONE THAT THEY WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THAN PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> YET, LISA, WHEN IT'S THE CASE THAT EACH PARTY GETS EQUAL TIME, WHEN IT'S THE TURN OF THE REPUBLICANS, THEY'RE -- PRESUMABLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TURNING IT AROUND AND AIMING IT AT THE DEMOCRATS.

IN A SENSE, WE COULD EXPECT IT.

THEY DID GET EQUAL TIME AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID WITH THEIR TIME.

YAMICHE ALVINDOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NAME HAS COME UP A LITTLE.

AS WE JUST HEARD, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SUCCEEDED TO SOME EXTENT IN TURNING IT AROUND AND BRINGING UP JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON, HUNTER, TOO.

>> ONE OF THE MOST REMARKABLE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST COUPLE HOURS IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS DECIDED TO PIVOT TO THIS NEW DEFENSE, WHICH IS THROWING THE EUROPEAN AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND UNDER THE BUS IN THIS HEARING.

SO WHAT THEY HAD WAS -- YOU HAD THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL, ASHLEY COWAN, TALKING TO STEVE CASTOR SAYING ISN'T AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AN ISSUE?

ISN'T HE SOMEONE THAT PEOPLE WONDERED ABOUT?

STEVE CASTOR SAID HE WAS SHOWING UP FOR MEETINGS AND MAKING UKRAINE PART OF HIS REPERTOIRE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT CLEAR WHY HE DID THAT.

HE'S SOMEONE THAT PEOPLE OUT IN OF AS PROPMATIC.

HE WAS ALWAYS ON HIS PHONE AND THERE WAS CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE LISTENING TO HIS CALLS.

AND UNSAID IS THAT AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND WAS AN ALLY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE PRESIDENT WAS TALKING TO HIM ABOUT UKRAINE ISSUES.

IF YOU LISTEN TO THE REPUBLICANS, THEY'RE ALMOST ARGUING THAT SONDLAND WAS A ROGUE ACTOR AND DOING THIS ON HIS OWN WHEN HE SAID HE DID IT AT THE BEHEST OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN OUT SPEAKING IN THE LAST HOUR.

HE WAS AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND ASKED ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

HE SAID HE WATCHED A BIT BUT HE CALLED IT A DISGRACE AND A HOAX.

TO GO BACK TO MY EARLIER POINT, THIS IS ALL PART OF A SHIFT ON THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> AND WE PICKED UP ON THAT HERE, YAMICHE, FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

IT IS A TURN.

THIS IS SOMEONE THAT WAS -- WHO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID WAS KEY.

IN FACT, YOU HEARD THE REPUBLICANS POINT OUT HIS NAME AS MENTIONED HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN THIS INTELLIGENCE REPORT.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE RELYING ON WHAT HE SAID.

REPUBLICANS IN TURN ARE SAYING, THIS IS SOMEBODY THAT WAS SCATTERED, WHO PEOPLE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT.

VERY CLEAR DISTANCING OF THEMSELVES OF THE PRESIDENT FROM GORDON SONDLAND.

IT'S REMARKABLE.

GORDON SONDLAND DONATED MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURAL COMMITTEE.

REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DO AND IT'S CUSTOMARY IN WASHINGTON THAT YOU MIGHT GET AN AMBASSADORSHIP AFTER DONATING MONEY AND SHOWING SUPPORT FOR A PRESIDENT.

DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID THAT AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND BROUGHT HIS AMBASSADORSHIP.

HE WAS SEEN AS A CLOSE ALLY WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE HAVE TO WATCH HOW GORDON SONDLAND RESPONDS TO THIS.

I'LL BE CALLING HIS ATTORNEY TO SEE.

THIS IS REALLY A BREAK FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE REPUBLICANS FROM GORDON SONDLAND WHO UP UNTIL THIS POINT WAS SOMEONE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS STILL SAYING IS A GOOD AMBASSADOR, SOMEONE THAT SAID THAT HE NEVER DIRECTLY SAID THAT.

THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR A QUID PRO QUO.

ONE OF THE FAMOUS QUOTES THAT PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENT SAID A COUPLE DAYS AGO, THAT HE TOLD US SPECIFICALLY THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO.

>> AND ALSO REMINDS US, SOME OF WHAT GORDON SONDLAND SAID THE WHITE HOUSE DIDN'T VIEW AS PARTICULARLY HELP PHIL.

LISA DESJARDINS AT THE CAPITOL, WEIGH-IN ON THIS.

>> YAMICHE RAISES A GREAT POINT.

FOR SO LONG, WE HEARD ABOUT THAT NO QUID PRO QUO FROM REPUBLICANS.

TODAY THE PERSON THAT THEY BROUGHT UP AS DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT, GIVING HIM THE ALLY, WAS SENATOR RON JOHNSON, WHICH IS A NEW IDEA THAT REPUBLICANS ARE BRINGING UP NOW.

RON JOHNSON WAS A MEMBER OF THE DELEGATION THAT WENT TO UKRAINE NOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURAL.

HE WAS SOMEONE THAT WAS CLOSELY WATCHING UKRAINE.

HE IS SOMEONE WHO HIMSELF DIDN'T TESTIFY.

BUT OTHERS TESTIFIED AND JOHNSON WROTE A LETTER LATER SAYING THAT HE CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE CONCERNED ABOUT A POSSIBLE QUID PRO QUO AND THE PRESIDENT SAID NO, ACCORDING TO SENATOR JOHNSON, SAID NO, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THAT.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE POINTED TO A LOT UNTIL TODAY.

IT'S INTERESTING.

I'VE SPOKEN TO SENATOR JOHNSON ABOUT THIS.

ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO.

HIS NAME WAS FIRST SURFACING IN ALL OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

HE DID NOT WANT TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT.

HE WAS GUN SHY, THINK YOU COULD SAY ABOUT THE WHOLE IDEA.

BUT HERE IT IS, HE'S THE ONE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE POINTING TO AS SORT OF THE DIRECTED ALIBI TO THE PRESIDENT.

>> I'M STRUCK BY AS LISA AND YAMICHE CONTINUE TO STAND BY, I WANT TO COME BACK TO MICHAEL AND MIEKE HERE IN THE STUDIO.

I'M STRUCK BY HOW FRANKLY LITTLE WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.

YES, THEY'VE GONE BACK OVER QUID PRO QUO A NUMBER OF TIMES.

SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE COMING BACK TO PHONE CALLS, A NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS, COMING BACK TO CONVERSATIONS.

MIEKE?

>> YEAH, THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE RECORD OF THE CALL AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS JUST THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY'RE TRYING TO SHORE UP THE WEAKNESSES IN EACH SIDE'S TESTIMONY OR GO AT THE OTHER SIDE'S TESTIMONY.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEMOCRATS ASKING MR. CASTOR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS CREDIBLE, THE PEOPLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THIS LINKAGE TO UKRAINE.

HOW PREVALENT WAS IT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT RUDY GULIANI WAS REALLY ABOUT, THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

>> AND WHICH REMINDS ME, MICHAEL ALLEN, WHAT CAME UP, THE INFAMOUS JOE BIDEN VIDEO CLIP FROM 2015 WHEN HE WAS IN UKRAINE AND HE BRAGGED IN ESSENCE LATER ABOUT HOW HE HAD TOLD THE UKRAINIANS THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET SOME IMPORTANT AID THAT THEY WERE WAITING FOR UNLESS THEY FIRED A PARTICULAR CORRUPT PROSECUTOR.

WE HEARD CONGRESSMAN COLLINS, DOUG COLLINS, THE RAKING REPUBLICAN, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID?

SOME WAY SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKING TO INADVISORY GAIT A POLITICAL RIVAL.

AND JOE BIDEN WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE THAT WAS SEEN AS CORRUPT.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THAT'S A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

>> IT'S DIFFERENT BUT TAKES EXPLAINING TO GET THERE.

SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BIDEN AND WHEN YOU SEE HIS STATEMENTS THAT THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATION, DECLARATIVELY BANGING THE DESK THAT I WOULDN'T LET THIS AID GO THROUGH UNLESS THEY FIRED THIS INDIVIDUAL IS ONE THING.

IT'S BASED ON A POLICY OBJECTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES WHEREAS PRESIDENT TRUMP APPARENTLY WAS MORE ON A POLITICAL OBJECTIVE.

SEE, IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE TO EXPLAIN.

I'M NOT SURE I CONVINCED ANYBODY OF IT OR MAYBE DIDN'T ELUCIDATE THE DIFFERENCES PROPERLY.

SO PEOPLE MIGHT JUST TURN AWAY AND SAY THAT'S CONFUSING AND I DON'T GET IT AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE A BASIS FOR A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.

>> LISA, I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU NOW.

THE PURPOSE OF TODAY WAS FOR THE REPORT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO GO BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED AS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS CONSIDERED DRAWING UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE?

>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY, JUDY.

SUNDAY CHAIRMAN NADLER TOLD "MEET THE PRESS" THAT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT COULD BE BEFORE HIS COMMITTEE TIS WEEK.

THAT ONLY LEAVES THREE OR FOUR DAYS AHEAD OF US THAT THERE COULD POSSIBLY BE.

WHEN YOU TALK TO DEMOCRATS BEHIND THE SCENES, THEY'RE ON THAT TRACK.

NOW, THE HOUSE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN SESSION THROUGH THURSDAY THIS WEEK.

SUPPOSED TO FLY OUT THURSDAY.

THE JUDICIARY MENS COULD STAY BEHIND AN EXTRA DAY.

KEEP OUR EYE ON THURSDAY IN PARTICULAR.

IT'S INTERESTING.

WE HEARD THE END OF THAT, ONE OF YOUR GUESTS MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED, THEY BROUGHT UP THE IDEA THAT THIS IS NOT ANY FASTER THAN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

SHE SAID 77 DAYS VERSUS 74 DAYS IS WHAT SHE SAID.

BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE HERE THAT DEMOCRATS MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHILE THE TOTAL LENGTH FROM ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INQUIRY TO PERHAPS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT COULD BE LONGER THAN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

THE WINDOW BETWEEN THE HEARINGS LIKE THIS IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ARTICLES IS MUCH SHORTER.

UNDER THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, PRESIDENT CLINTON VERY LATE IN THE GAME ANNOUNCED HE DID WANT TO HAVE HIS OWN HEARINGS.

HENRY HYDE STOPPED THE PROCESS.

THE REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN AT THAT TIME.

HE DELAYED IT ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE THREE DAYS OF HEARINGS JUST ON HIS OWN DEFENSE.

THAT EXPANDED BY ABOUT A WEEK THE TIMELINE BETWEEN KIND OF HEARINGS AND WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE DOING AND WHAT -- WHEN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CAME OUT.

IN A WAY, THIS END OF THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH SHORTER AND NOT HAVE AS MUCH DELIBERATION AS IT DID DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

>> WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THE CLOCK OR AS CONGRESSMAN COLLINS SAID, THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR, COMING UP ON THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY AND THE START OF 2020.

THE SERIOUS PHASE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AS THE DEMOCRATS FIGHT IT OUT AMONG THEMSELVES OVER WHO THEIR NOMINEE IS AS THE PRIMARIES BEGIN IN FEBRUARY.

LISA, CAN WE ASSUME THAT IF THE DEMOCRATIC STAFF OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT WOULD DRAW UP THE ARTICLES, WE ASSUME THERE'S A DRAFT GOING AROUND ALREADY.

SO WHAT DO WE LOOK FOR IN TERMS OF WHO WRITES THAT AND HOW IS IT VETTED IN THE COMMITTEE BEFORE THEY VOTE?

>> MUCH LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE REPORT ITSELF, IF JUDICIARY REPORT THAT WE SHAW THIS WEEKEND, THERE ARE IDEAS FOR IDEAS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR IN THE DRAFTING PROCESS THEY'VE GONE.

I DON'T HAVE THAT REPORTING.

I ASSUME THEY'VE GONE FAR IF THEY PRESUME TO INTRODUCE THE ARTICLES THIS WEEK.

IT'S LOGICAL.

AS TO WHO WRITES THEM, THEY HAVE A HEAVYWEIGHT TEAM OF CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS THAT THEY'VE ADDED TO THIS COMMITTEE INCLUDING NORM ISEN, THE FORMER CZECH AMBASSADOR AND BROOKINGS INSTITUTION EXPERT THAT LIVES FOR THIS KIND OF WRITING.

I'D BE SURPRISED IF HE WASN'T INVOLVED AND I ASSUME THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER AND HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI ARE GOING TO GET THESE HANDS-ON OR HAVE A VERY FEW VIEW BEFORE ANYONE ELSE, BEFORE THEY'RE FORWARDED.

>> TOO IMPORTANT FOR THE LEADERSHIP NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR, AT THE WHITE HOUSE, THIS IS A TIMETABLE THAT THEY KNOW ARE UNDERSTANDING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

LISA POINTED OUT SOMETHING REALLY SMART.

THAT THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT CLINTON, THAT HE DECIDED HE WANTED TO COME BEFORE AND PRESENT DAYS OF HIS OWN DEFENSE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS ESSENTIALLY SAID WE THINK THIS PROCESS IS FLAWED AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PART OF IT.

THEY HAVEN'T SAID FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO TAKE ANY OPINION AND GOING INTO THESE HEARINGS, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR RIGHT NOW THAT THE WHITE HOUSE AIDES TELL ME THAT THIS PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION IN ANY OF THESE HEARINGS.

IT WILL BE SURPRISING IF THE PRESIDENT TURNED AROUND AND SAID, I WANT YOU TO SLOW DOWN AND I WANT A COUPLE OF DAYS TO PRESENT MY DEFENSE.

THE PRESIDENT SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO IMPEACH ME, IMPEACH ME QUICKLY.

NANCY PELOSI WAS -- DEMOCRATS WERE ALREADY IN SOME WAYS DOING THAT.

THEY WERE MOVING AHEAD EXPED EXPEDITIOUSLY.

THE WHITE HOUSE'S STANCE SEEMS TO BE ON THE SURFACE THAT THEY WANT THIS TO GO QUICKLY AND IT CAN BE OVER AND THE PRESIDENT CAN MOVE ON.

PRESIDENT TRUMP UNLIKE PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS BEEN SUPER LASER FOCUSED ON THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS MADE THE CASE THAT HE'S WORKING, HE'S NOT WATCHING THE HEARINGS WHEN HE'S TWEETING IN REAL TIME.

WHEN HE'S TALKING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS, HE'S FOCUSED ON IMPEACHMENT.

>> AT THE SAME TIME, YAMICHE, WE KNOW EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO SAY I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY SORT OF PRESENTATION OF A DEFENSE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IF THE HOUSE VOTES TO IMPEACH AND IT GOES TO THE SENATE, WHICH IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY FOR A TRIAL, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD PRESENT A DEFENSE IN THE SENATE.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GEAR UP PRETTY QUICKLY TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE OF THE STORY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THE WHITE HOUSE AT THE BEGINNING DIDN'T HAVE A STAFF OF IMPEACHMENT EXPERTS WORKING HERE.

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT USING THIS IN A WAY LIKE CAMPAIGN-STYLE, LIKE ALL ABOUT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, ALL ABOUT MOUNTING A DEFENSE ON SOCIAL ME MEDIA.

A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, THAT CHANGED.

THEY BROUGHT IN STAFF AND LATER WILL BE LIKELY THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE'VE SEEN THE WHITE HOUSE BEEF UP THEIR STANCE.

THEY'RE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY.

I'D BE SHOCKED AND VERY SURPRISED IF THE WHITE HOUSE DIDN'T TAKE PART IN THE SENATE TRIAL.

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.

THE PRESIDENT IS SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IMPROMPTU.

HE DOESN'T FOLLOW TRADITION.

HIS SUPPORTERS LIKE THAT ABOUT HIM.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S LIKELY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WILL MOUNT A DEFENSE WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR A TRIAL, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY OUT OF THE ORDINARY NOR THE PRESIDENT TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NONTRADITIONAL.

>> YES, I THINK YOU COULD SAY THAT, YAMICHE.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR REPORTING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ON THIS RAINY MONDAY HERE IN WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 9.

WHILE YAMICHE IS THERE, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE TWO OF YOU.

TAKE ONE MORE LOOK AT THE HEARING ROOM, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM TO SEE IF THE MEMBERS ARE BACK.

A FEW I SEE, YES.

A NUMBER ARE COMING BACK.

THE TWO OF YOU, OUR WONDERFUL GUEST, MICHAEL AND MIEKE, I'M ASKING YOU TO STEP OUTSIDE YOUR PURVIEW A LITTLE BIT.

I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE A SENATE TRIAL THINKING BACK TO CLINTON AND OF COURSE THERE WAS NO TRIAL NOR PRESIDENT NIXON.

HE STEPPED ASIDE BEFORE IMPEACHMENT COULD HAPPEN.

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE PRESIDENT NOT PRESENTING A DEFENSE IN THE SENATE, MICHAEL?

>> I CAN'T.

THE PRESIDENT I THINK WOULD DEFINITELY AT LEAST HAVE HIS ALLIES UP THERE AND DEFINITELY HAVE SOME KIND OF COUNSEL BE THERE FOR HIM.

I THINK HE'S ALREADY SIGNALLED THAT.

HE SAYS I EXPECT TO GET A FAIR SHAKE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND THAT'S HIS WAY OF SIGNALLING THAT I'M GOING TO >> I THINK MIEKE, THE DEMOCRATS CAN EXPECT SOMETHING SPIRITED ON HIS BEHALF.

WE'RE HEARING SPIRIT, IF YOU WILL, FROM REPUBLICANS ON THESE COMMITTEES WHO ARE REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT.

BUT IF AND WHEN IT COMES TO A TRIAL IN THE SENATE, THAT'S SERIOUS.

>> IT IS VERY SERIOUS.

NOW, REMEMBER, IMPEACHMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A TWO-STAGE PROCESS WITH IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE AND THE TRIAL IN THE SENATE.

THE FIRST STAGE IS CONTROLLED BY NANCY PELOSI.

THE SECOND STAGE PROCEDURALLY IS CONTROLLED BY MITCH McCONNELL.

MITCH McCONNELL AND THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLING A MAJORITY IN THE SENATE HAVE TREMENDOUS LATITUDE TO SET ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL RULES, RULE ON OBJECTIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THE PRESIDENT REALLY HAS THE RULES MUCH MORE IN HIS FAVOR WHEN IT COMES TO THE SENATE.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE NEGOTIATING THE RULES RIGHT NOW IN THE SENATE AND THEY HAVEN'T REACHED AGREEMENT ON THEM.

THEY DID IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE RULES PACKAGE THAT THEY PASSED.

I'M NOT SURE YOU'LL GET THAT HERE.

>> WHAT KIND OF RULES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, MICHAEL AND MIEKE?

ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME EACH GET?

WOULD WE ASSUME THAT THEY GET EQUAL TIME?

>> ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS IN THE CLINTON SORT OF IMPEACHMENT WAS THAT BOB BIRD AND OTHERS MADE SURE THERE WAS AN ABILITY TO OFFER WHAT LAWYERS WOULD SAY IS A MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE OUTSET.

SO THERE'S PROBABLY SOME EFFORT OF CAN WE PUT THIS PROCEDURAL ISSUE RIGHT UP FRONT WHERE THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS CAN SAY AT THE OUTSET, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO START A TRIAL.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST ONE.

>> IT IS GOING TO BE QUITE A -- WE'RE WATCHING AS CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER TAKES HIS SEAT IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM.

MIEKE, AGAIN, WE'RE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION HERE.

WE THINK THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS GOING TO PASS OUT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

WE EXPECT THOSE WILL PASS ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE MAJORITY.

WE UNDERSTAND MOST DEMOCRATS ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

GOES TO THE SENATE, YOU DO HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES PRESIDING.

IT'S GOING TO BE QUITE THE SPECTACLE.

>> YEAH.

THERE'S SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CALLING OF WITNESSES WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE RESISTING TESTIMONY, WOULD THE CHIEF JUSTICE RULE IMMEDIATELY ON WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WITNESSES SHOULD COME FORWARD OR NOT.

ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE IMMEDIATE RESOLUTION OF PROCEDURAL ISSUES.

WILL THE SENATORS THEMSELVES BE ABLE TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS OR DO THEY HAVE TO SIT THERE AND OBSERVE.

THESE ARE ALL THINGS THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT IN REAL TIME.

>> MEANTIME, THE PROCESS MOVES FORWARD IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARINGS.

SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY BE HEARING A GAVEL COME DOWN BY CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER.

WE'RE KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON HIM.

WE'RE AT THIS POINT IN THE DAY HEARING THE FIVE MINUTES CHUNKS OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BY THE COMMITTEE, ALTERNATING REPUBLICANS -- >> THE COMMITTEE GOES BACK TO ORDER.

WHEN WE RECESSED, WE WERE ENGAGING IN QUESTIONING OF THE WITNESS UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE.

WE'LL CONTINUE DO THAT -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.

>> STATE YOUR REQUEST.

>> I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE FISA APPLICATIONS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE FBI'S CROSS FIRE -- >> POINT OF ORDER.

>> I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO -- >> WHAT ARE YOU -- >> THE FISA REPORTS.

THAT JUST CAME OUT.

>> OH, WE NEED -- >> THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT -- >> WE'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL WE CAN REVIEW IT.

>> MR. SENSENBRENNER.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THE TWO SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT RANKING MEMBER MR. COLLINS DIRECTED TO MR. GOLDMAN RELATIVE TO THE TELEPHONE COMPANY SUBPOENAS AND THE INCLUSION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THE MAJORITY REPORT FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

THERE'S TWO ISSUES INVOLVED.

ONE THAT IS NOT INVOLVED IS THE LEGALITY OF THE SUBPOENA.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS A SUBPOENA THAT IS FULLY AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW AND UNDER CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES.

WHERE I DO HAVE A PROBLEM AND A REALLY BIG PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS TE FACT THAT SOMEBODY MADE A DECISION TO MATCH CERTAIN DATA, MEGADATA, META DATA THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED THROUGH THE SUBPOENA WITH PHONE NUMBERS OF JOURNALISTS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF A SURV SURVEILLANCE RAID THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS SPECTACULARLY WITH THE FREEDOM ACT.

NOW, HAD CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DECIDED TO MAN UP AND COME HERE AND TALK RATHER THAN HIDING MR. GOLDMAN, HIS CHIEF INVESTIGATOR AS HIS SURROGATE, WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS AND TAKEN ACTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THROUGH THEIR SUBPOENA POWER BEING ABLE TO SUBPOENA TELEPHONE RECORDS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS WILLY-NILLY WITHOUT ANY KIND OF CAUSE OR TO MATCH THE NUMBERS OF SOMEBODY ELSE THE SEE WHO THEY WERE TALKING TO AND THEN GOING THE NEXT STEP AND PUBLISHING THE RESULTS OF THAT MATCH IN A REPORT THAT THE MINORITY HADN'T SEEN UNTIL IT WAS RELEASED.

THAT I THINK IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT ABUSES OF POWER HERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

HERE WE SEE A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROSECUTING THIS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.

NOW, I COME FROM THE STATE WHERE JOE McCARTHY CAME FROM.

I MET JOE McCARTHY TWICE WHEN I FIRST GOT INTO POLITICS AS A TEENAGER.

FOLKS, YOU HAVE MADE JOE McCARTHY LOOK LIKE A PIPER WITH WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE INVOLVED.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE PUT A STOP TO NOW, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE FESSED UP TO NOW, WHETHER IT'S YOU, MR. GOLDMAN THAT AUTHORIZED THE MATCHING AND THE PUBLICATION OR WHETHER IT WAS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO PUT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF UNDER OATH SO THAT HE COULD BE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE SAME WAY YOU HAVE, MR. GOLDMAN, ON HOW THIS ALL HAPPENED.

AS ONE WHO HAS SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME CURTAILING THE EXCESSES OF THE PATRIOT ACT, WHICH I AUTHORED WITH THE FREEDOM ACT WHICH I ALSO AUTHORED, YOU KNOW, THE SURVEILLANCE STATE CAN GET OUT OF CONTROL.

THIS IS A MAJOR STEP IN THE SURVEILLANCE STATE GETTING OUT OF CONTROL IN THE HANDS OF THE CONGRESS.

IN THE HANDS OF THE MAJORITY PARTY THAT WANTS TO INFLUENCE POLITICAL DECISIONS RELATIVE TO POLITICIANS, IN THIS CASE, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, THAT THEY DON'T LIKE.

THEY HAVEN'T LIKED HIM FROM THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM, THEY HAVE TRIED TO TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM.

THEY THOUGHT THAT THE MUELLER REPORT WAS GOING TO BE THE SMOKING GUN.

IT ENDED UP BEING A CAP PISTOL.

NOW THEY'RE WORKING ON THIS.

THE STEPS THAT THEY HAVE GONE, VIOLATION OF COMMON SENSE, THE PRECEDENT THAT THEY HAVE STARTED AND LOOKING AT THE WAY THE CHAIRMAN HAS CONDUCTED THIS HEARING TODAY AND IN THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS, NOT EVEN TO ALLOW MR. GETS TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER, THAT HE CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU PUT ON THE SCREEN GOES AGAINST THE ENTIRE FABRIC OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

SHAME ON THOSE WHO HAVE DONE IT, AND IF WE WANT TO GET BACK TO SOMETHING OBJECTIVE, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO PUSH THE RESET BUTTON.

I YIELD BACK.

>> CAN I RESPOND QUICKLY -- >> YOU MAY RESPOND -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

I YIELDED BACK.

I DIDN'T MAKE A QUESTION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK.

MRS. JACKSON LEE.

>> MR. GOLDMAN, LET'S GET TO THE FACTS AGAIN.

DURING THE PHONE CONVERSATION ON JULY 25 WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NARROWLY FOCUSING ON HIS OWN POLITICAL SURVIVAL USING PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE AND POLITICAL GAIN.

THE TRUTH MATTERS.

THEN WE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE REPUBLICANS SAY THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN AID BECAUSE YOU CAN KISS IT GOOD-BYE.

ASSUMING THAT'S REFERRING TO ANTI-CORRUPTION.

LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE JULY 25th CALL.

I HAPPEN TO HAVE READ IT RECENTLY.

SHARPLY ILLUSTRATES THE PRESIDENT'S WILLINGNESS TO ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.

THE MEMORANDUM OF THAT CALL IS ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU AND SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS AND BY THE WAY, RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE ABOUT DEFENSE SUPPORT AND THE JAVELINS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH.

THIS IS A PRESIDENT'S OWN BEHAVIOR IN WORDS.

MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT WAS THAT FAVOR?

>> THE FAVOR WAS TO INVESTIGATE A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY RELATED TO UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> MR. GOLDMAN, THE INV INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE RECEIVED EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PROVIDED SPECIFIC TALKING POINTS IN PREPARATION FOR THE JULY 25th CALL.

GEARED TOWARD PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S NATIONAL SECURITY.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE TALKING POINTS CERTAINLY WERE PART OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AND INCLUDED ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS AND NATIONAL SECURITY EFFORTS, YES.

>> THE TALKING POINTS TO HELP PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT COMMUNICATE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY DURING CALLS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

IT'S A ROUTINE PROCESS THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DOES.

THE PRESIDENT GENERALLY IS ABLE TO USE THEM OR NOT USE THEM.

WITNESSES SAID THE PRESIDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO USE THEM.

WHAT WAS SO STARTLING HERE IS THAT HE NOT ONLY VEERED OFF FROM THEM, BUT THAT HE WENT TO HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.

>> AND IS IT FAIR TO SAY SUCH TALKING POINTS SIGNAL THE PURPOSE OF A GIVEN CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE JULY 25th CALL INCLUDED RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENCOURAGE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS IN UKRAINE, WHICH HAS A FOCUS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN EASTERN IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> SO TO BE CLEAR, THE TALKING POINTS CREATED FOR THE PRESIDENT OR THE PRINCIPLES TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC MATTERS THAT REALLY PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> YES.

GENERALLY.

>> WITNESSES SUCH AS TIM MORRISON, THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE TESTIFIED ABOUT WHAT WAS NOT IN THOSE TALKING POINTS.

>> MR. MORRISON, WERE THESE REFERENCES TO CROWD STRIKE, THE SERVER IN 2016 ELECTION AND TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON, WERE THEY INCLUDED IN THE PRESIDENT'S TALKING POINTS?

>> THEY WERE NOT.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WITNESSES TESTIFYING THAT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENSES OF AN OBJECTIVE OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?

>> NO, IT WAS NOT BEFORE AND IT WAS NOT AFTER THIS CALL.

>> ANYTHING EVER FOUND ON THOSE INVESTIGATIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED?

>> I'M SORRY.

>> ANYTHING EVER FOUND OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS EVER OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT?

>> EVERY SINGLE WITNESS SAID THERE'S NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR EITHER OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> SO MR. TRUMP DID NOT USE OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS?

>> CORRECT.

>> THERE WERE FACT WTNESSES THAT CONFIRMED THAT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE WORDS, DO YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT REQUESTING A THOUGHTFUL AND WELL-CALIBRATED ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY?

>> SO MR. GOLDMAN -- >> I DO NOT.

WE WERE HOPING -- WE RECOMMENDED THE PRESIDENT VERY CLEARLY SUPPORTS WHAT WAS ZELENSKY HAD RUN ON AND WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD RUN ON IN ITS ELECTION WERE IT RECEIVED A MAJORITY MANDATE.

>> THAT DIDN'T COME UP IN THE CALL, DID IT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP UTILIZE HIS POSITION OF PUBLIC TRUST IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH HIS GOALS IN ORDER TO HURT HIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENT?

>> THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED.

>> I'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT AMERICA HAS TO HAVE THE VITAL PILLOW OF TRUTH AND TRUST.

THE FORMER JUDGE AND ONE THAT SAT ON THIS COMMITTEE IN IMPEACHMENT IN 1998, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT CARED ABOUT -- DID NOT CARE ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WANTED HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST TO BE CONSIDERED.

THAT PUTS IN PERSPECTIVE AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND.

IT IS CERTAINLY WELL-KNOWN THAT IT IS OUR DUTY AS THE PRESIDENT POSES A CONTINUING THREAT TO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION PURSUE THE TRUTH.

THAT IS OUR DUTY.

WE'RE NOW PROCEEDING TO DO OUR DUTY TO FIND THE TRUTH.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.

THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING ON IMPEACHMENT THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS HELD IN THE LAST WEEK.

I WOULD SUBMIT THAT YOUR INVESTIGATING THE WRONG GUY.

LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS.

MR. CASTOR, UKRAINE HAS BEEN AT THE CENTER OF ATTENTION IN THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING.

HISTORICALLY IT'S BEEN ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST CORRUPT IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> UNDER LEGISLATION THAT CONGRESS PASSED, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY, DUTY, TO SEE THAT U.S. TAX DOLLARS DID NOT GO TO UKRAINE UNLESS THEY WERE MAKING PROGRESS IN REDUCING CORRUPTION.

IS THAT ALSO RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT JOE BIDEN'S SON, HUNTER, HAD PLACED HIMSELF SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT CORRUPTION.

>> YES, HE DID.

BURISMA IS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT IN UKRAINE.

>> CONTRARY TO WHAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS AND IN THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE YOU SAY, HUNTER -- THIS IS NOT CONCOCTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

THE CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN WERE FIRST RAISED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THE "WASHINGTON POST" A LOT OF PUBLICATIONS AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S CONCERNS ABOUT BIDEN DIDN'T END THERE, DID THEY?

THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH SAID SHE WAS COACHED ON HOW TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BY HUNDREDOR BIDEN AND BURISMA THAT MIGHT ARISE IN HER SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, THEY GIVE HER A MOCK Q&E ON THIS QUESTION.

>> AND NEARLY EVERY SINGLE WITNESS THAT TESTIFIED AT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGREED THAT HUNTER BIDEN APPEAREDED TO BE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> YES.

GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGAON INTO BURISMA INTO THEIR HEADS AND TRYING TO TRACK DOWN $23 MILLION THAT HE HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM, WORKING WITH THE UNITED STATES, UKRAINE WAS WORKING ON TRACKING THIS MONEY DOWN.

AND THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON AND A BRIBE WAS PAID.

THAT BRIBE WAS PAID, IT ALLOWED HIM TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE.

THAT'S WHEN BURISMA WENT ABOUT SPRUCING UP THEIR BOARD, SHALL WE SAY.

>> YET WITH ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE, THE DEMOCRATS ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE UNDER CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND NOW THE DEMOCRATS HERE ARE DETERMINED TO SWEEP THE BIDEN CORRUPTION UNDER THE RUG, IGNORE IT, NOT LET US CALL WITNESSES ON IT AND INSTEAD RUSH TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT TO SATISFY I WOULD ARGUE THE RADICAL LEFT WING BASE.

WHAT IS THE SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY?

IMAGINE THIS.

YOU HAVE JOE BIDEN IN CHARGE OF OVERSEEING OUR UKRAINIAN POLICY AND HIS SON, HUNTER BIDEN, RECEIVING $50,000 A MONTH WITH NO EXPERTISE IN ENERGY OR UKRAINE.

YET THE DEMOCRATS WON'T LET US PRESENT WITNESSES ON THAT.

SO LET'S DO THE NEXT BEST THING ISN'T WE CAN'T BRING THE WITNESSES HERE.

LET'S WATCH A COUPLE OF VIDEOS.

>> YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NATURAL GAS OR UKRAINE ITSELF THOUGH?

>> NO.

>> THE LIST YOU GAVE ME OF THE REASONS WHY YOU'RE ON THIS BOARD.

YOU DID NOT LIST THE FACT THAT YOU WERE THE SON OF THE HAVEN'T.

>> OF COURSE, NO.

>> WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT PLAYS?

>> I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BE ON ANY OF THE BOARD I MENTIONED WITHOUT SAYING I'M THE SON OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> YOUR LAST NAME WASN'T BIDEN, YOU THINK YOU'D BE ASKED TO BE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW.

PROBABLY NOT.

>> YOU KNOW, JOE BIDEN GOT A LITTLE TESTY WITH A VOTER AT ONE OF HIS EVENTS IN IOWA LAST WEEK CALLING HIM A LIAR AND CHALLENGING HIM TO A PUSHDOWN CONTEST.

FALSELY STATING AGAIN THAT NOBODY SAID THERE WAS NOBODY WRONG WITH HIS SON'S DEAL IN UKRAINE.

YOU KNOW WHAT?

THAT'S A LOT OF MULARKEY.

A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT FOR A WHILE AND THEY'RE RIGHT.

WHAT IS DIFFERENT, THIS COMMITTEE IS CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP BASED ON AS PROFESSOR TURLEY WAFER THIN EVIDENCE AND IGNORING EVIDENCE OF A HIGH LEVEL U.S. OFFICIAL THAT ACTUALLY DID ENGAGE IN A QUID PRO QUO WITH THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

IN FACT, CONFESSED TO IT IN THIS VIDEO.

>> I SAID, I BELIEVE TELLING YOU, YOU'RE NOT GETTING A BILLION DOLLARS.

I'M GOING TO BE LEAVING HERE IN WHAT?

SIX HOURS?

I SAID WE'RE LEAVING IN SIX HOURS.

IF THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY.

SON OF A BITCH.

HE GOT FIRED.

>> YOU'RE INVESTIGATING IF WRONG GUY, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MR. COLLINS?

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. GOLDMAN, I'D LIKE TO BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT, NOT THIS PRESIDENT.

STAY FOCUSED ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR HIS BENEFIT AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

NOW MY COLLEAGUE MRS. JACKSON LEE SAID THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS NOT OF U.S.

BORNE POLICY, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WANTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, BURISMA OR ANY ALLEGED UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE?

>> HOW ABOUT THE DOD?

THEY WANT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

>> ANY WITNESS TELL YOU THAT THEY WANTED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> NO.

>> WE CERTAINLY KNOW THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T WANT IT EITHER.

THEY MADE IT CLEAR THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE AN INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON'S DOMESTIC RE-ELECTION POLITICS.

THE ONLY PERSON THAT WAS A BENEFICIARY FROM THAT INVESTIGATION IS PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THAT'S WHY EVERYONE ON THE JULY 25 CALL KNEW IT WAS WRONG.

THEY KNEW IT WAS WRONG.

THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE HERS TESTIMONY FROM THREE WITNESSES IN THAT CALL, CORRECT?

>> LISTENED TO THAT CALL.

>> MR. GOLDMAN, EVEN IN REAL TIME, THE WITNESSES THAT LISTENED ON THAT CALL TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED BY THE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> IN FACT, BOTH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MR. MORRIS REPORTED THE CALL TO LEGAL COUNSEL.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> WHY DID THEY DO SO?

>> FOR SEPARATE REASONS.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CALL THAT IT WAS IMPROPER.

MRS. MORRISON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS THAT THE CALL WAS RELEASED BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT STANCE OF THE CALL AND THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE CALL.

>> AND THEY REPORTED THE CALL -- THEY REPORTED THAT TO THE INTERNAL LEGAL CHANNELS.

MR. GOLDMAN, I PLACED LIEUTENANT CONCERN NATURAL VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY ABOUT WHY HE REPORTED THE CALL ON THE SCREEN.

HIS CONCERNED WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN POWER TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN.

>> YES.

HE WAS NOT THE ONLY WITNESS TO EXPRESS THAT CONCERN.

>> AM I ALSO CORRECT THAT HE REPORTED THIS CONCERN BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS A SENSE OF DUTY, A DUTY THAT HE FELT SOMETHING WAS WRONG?

>> YES.

AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IS A PURPLE HE HART MEDAL WINNER FROM IRAQ AND BEEN IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR 20 YEARS AND A GREAT SENSE OF DUTY AND PATRIOTISM TO THIS COUNTRY AND FELT COMPELLED TO FOLLOW THAT SENSE OF DUTY AND REPORT IT.

>> MRS. WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S AID WAS THERE NOR THE CALL.

SHE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN GOT INVOLVED WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE IMF, GERMANY AND FRANCE AND SAID, YOU GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CORRUPTION, THAT WAS OKAY BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING NOR THE COMMON GOOD OF A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM WHAT'S GOING ON HERE WHERE SOMEBODY IS DOING IT FOR THEIR PERSONAL GOOD.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

>> RIGHT.

THERE'S A DISTINCTION DOING AN OFFICIAL ACT FOR AN OFFICIAL PURPOSE AND DOING AN OFFICIAL ACT FOR A PERSONAL PURPOSE.

IF I CAN RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT MR. CASTOR SAID.

WHEN HE SAID THERE WERE PROBLEMS BECAUSE SLOSCHEKI PAID A BRIBE TO GET OUT FROM UNDER THE PROSECUTION, THAT WAS THE TYPE OF CONDUCT THAT VICE PRESIDENT B BIDEN WANTED TO SHUT DOWN IN UKRAINE.

THE SAME NONANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS OBJECTING TO USING THE OFFICIAL POLICY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ONE BUT THE TYPE OF THING THAT HE BASED -- HI HE AND -- OH.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

DOING SOMETHING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL GOOD, THE COMMON GOOD AND FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

HAVE TO GET THAT ACROSS.

THOSE WITNESSES, MANY CAREER NONPARTISAN OFFICIALS WERE CLEAR THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL.

>> VIDEO.

>> TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR SOMEONE WHO IS A U.S. OFFICIAL, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE ASKING FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO DO THAT.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT'S TRUE OF A POLITICAL RIVAL.

>> IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN?

>> IT WAS IMPROPER.

>> OUR HOLDING UP OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WOULD GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO GOOD POLICY REASON IS WRONG.

>> AND WE'RE GOING TO CHECK THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT.

WE'RE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE.

I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. GOHMERT.

>> I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES, MR. BURKE, HE HAS ABSCONDED.

SO I'M GOING TO USE MY FIVE MINUTES BUT NOT TO ASK QUESTIONS.

IT'S INTERESTING TO HAVE HEARD MR. GOLDMAN REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION, YET HE COMES IN HERE AND THE VERY REASON THAT HE WANTS TO SEE THE PRESIDENT FOR THE FIRST TIME, ANY PRESIDENT HAS EVER BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE WHILE HE'S BEEN OBSTRUCTING.

HE DIDN'T ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS.

PERHAPS IF WE'RE GOING TO APPLY HIS SENSE OF JUSTICE TO HIM, IT WOULD BE TIME TO HAVE HIM REMOVE FROM HIS POSITION.

BUT THAT'S ONLY IF WE APPLY HIS OWN STANDARDS.

IF IT WENT FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THESE PEOPLE WON'T HAVE STANDARDS AT ALL.

WE WERE TOLD ALSO AT THE BEGINNING THAT WE WOULD HEAR LAWYERS PRESENT EVIDENCE.

LAWYERS ARE GOING TO COME IN HERE -- NOW, WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS -- I'VE BEEN IN SOME KANGAROO HEARINGS AND COURTS.

NOT MY OWN WHEN I WAS THERE.

BUT I HAVE BEEN MISTREATED IN HEARINGS BEFORE.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE DON'T ALLOW THE FACT THAT WITNESSES TO COME IN HERE.

WE HAVE THE LAWYERS COME IN AND TELL US WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THOSE WITNESSES AND ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY AND ABOUT THEIR IMPRESSION AND WHAT THE LAW IS.

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, MY FRIEND.

JIM SENSENBRENNER SAID IN 41 YEARS HE'S NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE TO TRY TO OUST A SITTING PRESIDENT.

IT'S ALSO OUTRAGEOUS TO HEAR PEOPLE SAY THIS MAN THOUGHT HE WAS A KING BECAUSE HE SAID HE COULD DO ANYTHING HE WANTED WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THAT STATEMENT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD FIRE MUELLER.

OF COURSE HE COULD FIRE MUELLER.

HE COULD FIRE OR NOT FIRE MUELLER, HE COULD APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE MUELLER AND WISEMAN.

I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE.

BUT THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE.

HE COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT HE WANTED.

TO TAKE THAT OUT OF CONTEXT, HE THINKS HE'S A KING?

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT A KING IS.

A KING IS SOMEONE THAT SAYS OVER 20 TIMES, I CAN'T DO THAT.

CONGRESS HAS TO CHANGE THE LAW ON IMMIGRATION.

THEN HE DECIDES, YOU KNOW WHAT?

I GOT A PEN AND I GOT A PHONE.

I'LL DO WHATEVER I WANT AND BY GOLLY, HE DOES.

HE MAKES NEW LAW WITH A PEN AND A PHONE.

NOW, THAT IS MORE LIKE A MONARCHY.

NOT SOMEBODY SAYING THEY CAN FIRE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IF THEY WANT TO.

REGARDING TREASON, THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF SAYS YOU GOT TO HAVE TWO WITNESSES.

THAT'S NOT HEARSAY WITNESSES.

NONE OF THIS STUFF THAT WOULDN'T BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY DECENT COURT.

NO, THAT'S TWO DIRECT EVIDENCE WITNESSES THAT CAN COME IN AND POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY OVERHEARD OR SOME -- ACTUALLY BE WITNESSES TO TREASON.

YET THIS GROUP COMES IN HERE, THEY TOSS TREASON OUT IN A REPORT LIKE IT'S NO BIG DEAL.

WE CAN BRING IN A BUNCH OF HEARSAY WITNESSES AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE LAWYERS TESTIFY AND THEN THROW A PRESIDENT OUT OF OFFICE.

THIS IS SO ABSURD.

IT'S SO ABSURD.

NOW, WE HAVE A WITNESS COME IN AND WE'RE TOLD HE'S GOING TO BE A WITNESS.

THAT'S WHY HE DOESN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW UNDER THE RULES OF DECORUM.

THEN I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS.

HE GETS TO COME UP AND GRILL HIS OPPOSING ADVERSARY WITNESS.

I FEEL LIKE TO BE FAIR, IF WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THIS THING FAIR, MR. CASTOR WOULD COME UP AND GRILL MR. BURKE.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT BEING FAIR.

IT'S NOT ABOUT DUE PROCESS.

THIS IS ABOUT A KANGAROO SYSTEM.

LET ME TELL YOU, THOSE THAT THINK YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING SPECIAL HERE IS, YOU HAVE SET THE BAR SO LOW, I'M AFRAID IT'S IRREPARABLE.

JUST THINK.

WE'VE HAD PEOPLE ALREADY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT PRESIDENT, JOE BIDEN WE'RE TOLD, YOU KNOW, GEE, HE MAY BE THE NEXTPRESIDENT.

WE ALREADY GOT THE FORMS.

ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS ELIMINATE DONALD TRUMP'S NAME AND PUT JOE BIDEN IN THERE.

HE'S ON VIDEO, HE AND HIS SON.

HE HAS BASICALLY ADMITTED TO THE CRIME THAT IS BEING HOISTED OVER THE PRESIDENT IMPROPERLY.

SO I'M SCARED FOR MY COUNTRY.

I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE CONGRESS.

I CAME UP HERE FROM A COURT WHERE WE HAD ORDER AND WE HAD RULES AND I'VE SEEN NOTHING OF THE KIND IN HERE TODAY AND IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT WITH A KANGAROO COURT LIKE THIS.

I YIELD BACK.

>> CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD CLARIFY.

TREASON IS NOT IN OUR RECORD.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK.

>> IT MENTIONED IN THE REPORT WE GOT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK.

MR. JOHNSON.

THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER.

MR. GOLDMAN, AS A PROSECUTOR IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WHEN YOU PROSECUTED DRUG CONSPIRACY CASES, WAS IT STANDARD PRACTICE FOR KINGPINS BY TRYING TO BEAT THE CASE BY DISTANCING THEMSELVES FROM THE CONSPIRACY AND BLAMING THEIR ACCOMPLICES FOR THE CRIME?

>> ALL THE TIME.

CONSPIRACIES HAVE DIFFERENT LAYERS AND THE TOP LAYERS MAKE THE BOTTOM LAYERS DO THE WORK SO THEY'RE FURTHER REMOVED FROM THE ACTUAL CONDUCT.

>> I'D LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IN WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON REFERRED TO AS A DRUG DEAL.

DID THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE COMPILED BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE, RUDY GULIANI WAS AT ALL TIMES WORKING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES.

MR. GULIANI SAID THAT.

PRESIDENT SAID THAT TO A NUMBER OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS.

AND THEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS ALSO SAID THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

MAY 9, 2019, RUDY GULIANI ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, SPOKE WITH A "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTER ABOUT HIS PLANNED TRIP TO UKRAINE.

ON THAT TRIP, HE PLANNED TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE SAID, AND URGED HIM TO PURSUE INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO THE BIDENS AND TO THE DEBUNKED THEORY THAT UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> MR. GULIANI TOLD THE REPORTER THAT HIS TRIP WAS NOT ABOUT OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND THAT THE INFORMATION HE SOUGHT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO HIS CLIENT MEANING IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IS THAT CORRECTED?

>> YES.

IF IT'S NOT OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTERESTS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE'S NO DOUBT, MR. GOLDMAN, THAT INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND THE 2016 ELECTION MEDDLING WERE IN FACT NOT ABOUT U.S. POLICY BUT WERE ABOUT BENEFITTING TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION.

CORRECT?

>> YES.

EVEN THE UKRAINIANS REALIZED THAT.

>> AND ON JULY 25, PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED THAT FAITHFUL PHONE CALL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HE ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND ON THAT CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD ZELENSKY "I WILL HAVE MR. GULIANI TO GIVE YOU A CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND ON OCTOBER 2 AND OCTOBER 3, PRESIDENT TRUMP ONCE AGAIN MADE EXPLICIT THAT HE AND MR. GULIANI WERE INTENT ON MAKING THESE INVESTIGATIONS CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN INVESTIGATING ON A PERSONAL BASIS THROUGH RUDY AND OTHERS, LAWYERS, CORRUPTION IN THE 20 UP WITH -- 2016 ELECTION.

>> IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

>> MR. GOLDMAN, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS A COURSE OF CONDUCT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS AGENTS, DOES IT NOT?

>> IT DOES.

CLEARLY IT CONTINUED LONG AFTER OUR INVESTIGATION BEGAN.

>> IT SHOWS A COMMON PLAN.

CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> IT SHOW AS COMMON GOAL.

>> CORRECT.

>> THE GOAL WAS TO GET FOREIGN HELP FOR THE 2020 ELECTION, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS WHAT ALL THE WITNESSES SAID.

>> AND MR. GOLDMAN, WHO WAS THE KINGPIN OF THAT PLAN?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> THANK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN.

AMB AMBASSADOR BOLTEN CALLED IT A DRUG DEAL.

AS A KINGPIN, PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO FORCE A COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE.

THE EVIDENCE IS INDISPUTABLE THAT RUDY GULIANI TRIED TO OBTAIN UKRAINIAN HELP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

THIS WAS NOT JUST A HURTFUL DRUG DEAL.

THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

THE FRAMERS FEARED MOST HOW FOREIGN INFLUENCE COULD TURN A PRESIDENT TO A DESPIT SO THEY GAVE US IMPEACHMENT TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY.

THE FACTS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, DEMAND THAT WE USE THAT REMEDY TODAY.

WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. JORDAN.

>> THANK YOU.

I WANT TO GO TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT STARTED IT ALL.

THE AUGUST 12 WIN COMPLAINT.

BULLET POINT ONE ON PAGE ONE OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S COMPLAINT HE SAYS THIS.

OVER THE PAST FOUR MONTHS, MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN U.S. OFFICIALS HAVE INFORMED ME OF THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS EFFORT.

MR. CASTOR, WHO ARE THESE HALF A DOZEN U.S. OFFICIALS?

>> WE DON'T KNOW.

>> WE DON'T KNOW.

WE HAD NO CHANCE TO KNOW FOR SURE WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE BECAUSE WHY NEVER GOT TO TALK TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> IS THAT RIGHT.

>> WE NEED TO TALK TO THE GUY THAT STARTED IT ALL.

TO FIGURE OUT WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE AND WE NEVER GOT TO.

ADAM SCHIFF'S STAFF GOT TO.

ADAM SCHIFF KNOWS WHO HE IS.

WE DON'T GET TO KNOW AND THERE KNORR WE DON'T GET TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE, THE SIX PEOPLE THAT FORMED THE BASIS OF THIS ENTIRE THING WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH FOR THREE MONTHS.

WE DID TALK TO 17 PEOPLE, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> 17 DEPOSITIONS.

YO WERE YOU IN EVERY ONE OF THEM.

YOU WERE THE LAWYER DOING THE ROCK FOR THE REPUBLICANS IN EVERY ONE.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THERE IS ONE WITNESS THAT THEY RELIED ON AND BUILT THEIR REPORT AROUND.

ONE WITNESS.

WHO IS THAT WITNESS?

I READ THE REPORT.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY ONE WITNESS.

WHO SHE THAT WITNESS?

>> AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND.

>> I THINK YOU SAID HIS NAME WAS MENTIONED 600.

>> 611 TIMES.

>> MORE THAN LIEUTENANTED COLONEL VINDMAN, THE GUY ON THE CALL.

MORE THAN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THE FIRST STAR WITNESS, THE VERY FIRST HEARING IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

THEY RELIED ON -- NOT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

NOT THE MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN PEOPLE THAT INFORMED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

THEY RELIED ON AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

>> PROBABLY THE BEST THEY GOT.

>> THAT'S THE BEST THEY GOT?

THE GUY THAT HAD TO FILE AN ADDENDUM TO HIS TESTIMONY?

THE GUY THAT HAD TO FILED THE CLARIFICATION.

THE GUY THAT SAID TWO WEEKS AGO, SITTING IN THE SAME CHAIR YOU'RE IN, MR. CASTOR, UNLESS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA AND THE BIDENS, THERE'S NO MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP OR NO MONEY GOING TO UKRAINE.

THAT'S WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID.

WAS THERE AN ANNOUNCEMENT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS BURISMA?

>> NO.

>> NO ONE ELSE.

>> NO.

>> DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GET A CALL FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES.

>> DID HE GET A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES.

>> DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GET THE MONEY FROM STATES?

>> YES.

>> THEY GOT THE CALL ON JULY 25.

THEY GOT THE MONEY ON SEPTEMBER 11.

THEY GOT THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> THE GUY THAT SAID NONE OF THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE GUY THEY BUILT THEIR CASE AROUND.

>> YES.

>> IS THAT RIGHT, MR. SONDLAND.

THEY BUILT THEIR CASE AROUND HEAR SAID.

THE BEST CASE IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THEY BUILT A CASE A AROUND HEAR SAID.

HE FILED HIS ADDEUM, HIS CLARIFICATION WHERE HE SAYS, THIS WE READ THIS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

REPORTING TO THIS, HE SAYS THIS IN BULLET POINT NUMBER 2, IN HIS CLARIFICATION, HE SAYS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECALLS THAT MR. MORRISON RECALLS THAT I CONVEYED THIS MESSAGE IN CONNECTION WITH PRESIDENT RECALD THAT MR. MORRISON TOLD AMBASSADOR TAILOR, VICE PRESIDENT PENS'S VISIT TO SAW AND A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION.

THAT'S THE STAR WITNESS WHOM THEY BUILT THE CASE AROUND.

SO-AND-SO TOLD SO-AND-SO WHAT SOMEBODY TOLD SOMEONE ELSE THERE YOU HAVE IT.

THAT'S THEIR CASE.

THEY FORGET THE FOUR KEY FACTS.

THEY FORGET THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

THERE WAS NO PRESSURE NO LINKAGE NO PUSHING.

THEY DIDN'T FORGET THE FACT THAT THE AID WAS BEING HELD, THEY FORGET, NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER, FORGET ALL THAT THOSE KEY FACTS AND THEY BUILD THE CASE AROUND THE GUY WHO HAD TO CLARIFY HIS TESTIMONY WITH THAT AMAZING SENTENCE.

HAD GOLDMAN, MR. GOLDMAN, DID THE DEMOCRATS L PUBLISH PHONE RECORDS OF A NUMBER OF THE PRESS?

>> YES, WHO WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THIS.

>> DID THE DEMOCRATS PUBLISH PHONE RECORDS OF A MEMBER OF CONGRESS?

>> YES, WHO WAS TALKING -- >> DID THAT MEMBER OF CONGRESS ALSO HAPPEN TO BE YOUR BOSS'S POLITICAL OPPONENT?

THE DEMOCRATS RUN THIS KIND OF INVESTIGATION, IGNORING FACTS, NOT LETTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER COME IN, HALF A DOZEN SOURCES FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GUY HAS TO FILE AN ADDENDUM WITH THAT CLARIFICATION SENTENCE.

BUT ONE THINGS THEY DID DO, ONE THING THEY DID DO IN THEIR REPORT IS THEY PUBLISHED THE PHONE RECORDS OF THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, THE PHONE RECORDS OF A MEMBER OF THE PRESS AND THE PHONE RECORDS OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S POLITICAL OPPONENT, REPRESENTATIVE NUNES, THAT IS WHAT THEY DID.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DID TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 11 MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO -- >> GENTLEMAN WOULD TAKE IT HIS UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.

>> I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE REPORT ON THE JUDICIARY CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT THAT TALKS ABOUT TREASON AND BRIBERY BE ADMITPART OF THE RECORD.

>> BE WHAT?

>> BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

>> MAJORITY REPORT, WITHOUT ODGES.

MR. DEUTCH.

>> THANK YOU.

GETTING BACK TO THE FACTS, SURROUNDING THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER, MR. GOLDMAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFERED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IS ZELENSKY A MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT FIRST, ARE CONSPIRACY THEORY IN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION, WORKED TO EXCHANGE OFFICIAL ACTIONS FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

ON MAY 23rd, 2019, A DELEGATION OF OFFICIALS RETURNED FROM ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION AND THEY BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT.

IN THAT BRIEFING, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO WORK WITH HIS PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI DISHARK?

>> YES.

>> AND THEY FACED A CHOICE EITHER WORK WITH GIULIANI OR ABANDON THE GOAL OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

WHAT CHOICE CAN THEY MAKE MR. GOLDMAN?

>> THEY DECIDED TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI.

>> RIGHT.

AND SIX DAYS LATER ON MAY 29th CMENTD PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT A LETTER THAT SAID AMERICA STOOD WITH UKRAINE AND INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, THAT WAS THE SECOND TIME THAT HE INVITED HIM TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> SO AT THIS POINT THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT EXPECTED THAT MEETING.

>> CORRECT.

>> BUT THEN THEY LEARN THAT THEY'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING MORE FOR THE PRESIDENT, SOMEONE TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A ARE PREPREREQUISITE OF INVESTIGATION RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND SOMEONE TESTIFIED THAT INTOR SONDLAND TOLD INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS WAS A DELIVERABLE NECESSARY TO GET THAT MEETING, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, AROUND IF I COULD TAKE A SECOND TO CORRECT WHAT MR. CASTOR SAID ABOUT THAT MEETING.

THERE IS REALLY NO INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MR. CAN AMBASSADOR BE SONDLAND RAISED THE ISSUE OF VISITS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

EVEN INTOR VOLKER WAS FORCED TO ADMIT HE DID HEAR THAT AND HE SAID IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

>> AND IN FACT ON JULY 19th, SOMEONE TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH WANTED TO HEAR A COMMITMENT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE JULY 25th CALL ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SENIOR MULTIPLE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WAS OFFERING REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> ON THAT SAME DAY STATE DEPARTMENT L AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD TEXT MESSAGES, MOST IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT ZELENSKY WILL SAY HE WILL ASSIST INVESTIGATIONS RIGHT?

>> AND TO ADDRESS ANY OFFICIALS.

>> AND THEN ON THE MORNING OF THE CALL, VOLKER TEXTED ZELENSKY YERMAK AND THAT TEXT OHIS AIDE SAID, AND I QUOTE, HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN A VISIT, A DAY FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON.

AND THE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOWS TRUMP REQUESTS INVESTIGATION HE AND ZELENSKY AGREES, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> AND THAT TEXT MESSAGE WAS ACTUALLY A DIRECTION, A MESSAGE RELAYED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF.

>> AND THEN AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS TO PREPARE FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS, SONDLAND TEXTED VOLKER ABOUT EFFORTS TO SCHEDULE A WHITE HOUSE VISIT NOTED THAT POTUS REALLY WANTS A DLIRCHL.

FOLLOWING THERE WERE MEETINGS AND CALLS AND TEMPS.

ON JULY 26th AND JULY 27th AND AUGUST SEC, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, AUGUST 12, 13, 18th, AUGUST 19th, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, INCLUDING TO SECRETARY POMPEO AS WELL.

>> HERE'S THE POINT.

THESE ARE OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO WORK FOR US.

INSTEAD THEY WERE WORKING HARD TO HELP THE PRESIDENT ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTEREST ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU FOUND MR. GOND MAWNL -- GOLDMAN?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WE HAD A PRESIDENT AT WAR WITH RUSSIA DESPERATE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

MR. TRUMP PROMISED A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BUT THEN HE BLOCKED THE OVAL OFFICE AND SAID, I WANT A FAVOR.

NOT A FAVOR TO HELP AMERICA BUT A FAVOR TO HELP ME GET REELECTED.

OUR FRAMERS FEARED ONE DAY WE WOULD FACE A MOMENT LIKE THIS.

THEY GAVE US AN IMPEACHMENT, THEY GAVE US IMPEACHMENT AS A SAFETY VALVE NOT TO PUNISH THE PRESIDENT.

BUT TO DEFEND OUR ELECTIONS AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND THAT'S WHAT WE MUST DO.

I YIELD.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. BUCK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. DHAIRM.

CHAIRMAN.

MR. CASTOR, I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 OF THE TELEPHONE CALL DATED JULY 25th, BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ON PAGE 3 PRESIDENT TRUMP STATES I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.

LATER HE SAYS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALL YOU OR YOUR PEOPLE AND WOULD I LIKE YOU TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

THE MAJORITY REPORT ON PAGE 13 SAYS THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAD UNANIMOUSLY DETERMINED THAT RUSSIA NOT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION TO HELP THE CANDIDACY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

MR. CASTOR, THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT THERE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ASKING THE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE SOMETHING THE MAJORITY HAS DECIDE IT IS AN ILLEGITIMATE REQUEST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION FROM THE UKRAINE, IS THAT HOW YOU READth THIS?

>> YES.

>> THE PRESS ON THEIR RESPONSE TO THE REPORT, THE PRESIDENT USING HIS POSITION OF PUBLIC TRUST PERSONALLY AND DIRECTLY REQUESTED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO SUBSECTION 2, A BASELESS THEORY PROMOTED BY RUSSIA ALLEGING THAT UKRAINE RATHER THAN RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION, IS THAT TRUE?

>> YES.

>> AND MR. CASTOR I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING.

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS ARTICLE MR. POLITICO DATED JANUARY 11th, 2017?

>> YES I ARE.

>> THE TITLE OF THAT ARTICLE IS UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO SABOTAGE TRUMP BACK FIRE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> I WILL READ YOU THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.

UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TRIED TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON AND UNDERMINE TRUMP BY PUBLICLY QUESTIONING HIS FITNESS FOR OFFICE, SUGGEST THEY WERE INVESTIGATING THE MATTER ONLY TO BACK AWAY AFTER THE ELECTION AND THEY HELPED CLINTON'S ALLIES RESEARCH DAMAGE INFORMATION ON TRUMP AND HIS ADVISORS, A POLITICO INVESTIGATION FOUND.

ISN'T IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO REQUEST HELP FROM THE UKRAINE ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION?

AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING FOR A MINUTE THAT RUSSIA DIDN'T INTERFERE.

OF COURSE THEY INTERFERED.

BUT THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TRIED TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION.

>> YES.

>> LET'S MOVE ON TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

I ONLY HAVE TEN FIRNLINGS E-FIRKS AND TEN TOES.

I CAN'T COUNT ABOVE 20 MR. CASTOR.

BUT DID YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES MR. SONDLAND SAID DID HE NOT KNOW, DID NOT RECALL, FAILED TO REMEMBER SOMETHING IN HIS OCTOBER 17th TESTIMONY?

YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES?

325.

DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU?

325.

>> BIG NUMBER.

>> AND THEN HE FILES CLARIFYING STATEMENT AND HE CLARIFIES, A FEW THINGS I GUESS, BUT DID YOU HAVE ANY -- DO YOU HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BETWEEN THE TIME OF HIS DEPOSITION AND THE TIME OF HIS CLAIRVEG STATEMENT?

>> NO.

>> DID THE MAJORITY?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA.

>> HAVE NO IDEA SO THEY MAY HAVE HAD INFLUENCE ON HIS TESTIMONY?

>> I -- >> THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF BIAS, OF CREDIBILITY, EVIDENCE THAT WE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW WILL WE BECAUSE THE MAJORITY COUNSEL HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE AS TO INFORMATION THAT'S RELEVANT TO THIS MAJORITY COMMISSION.

HAS A RIGHT TO ASSERT A FRIFLG HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS HE HAS WITH THE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF DOESN'T HE AS DOES MINORITY COUNSEL.

THAT IS A PRIVILEGE WE HAVE RESERVED HERE IN CONGRESS ISN'T IT?

>> YES.

>> AND THE SAME THING WITH REGARD TO FOYA, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, DOESN'T APPLY TO THE WITH OPINION THE MAJORITY HAS WRITTEN, IS THAT TRUE?

>> CORRECT.

>> WE HAVE ALLOWED OURSELVES NOT TO BE PART OF FOYA CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THE MAJORITY HAS A PRIVILEGE, THE PRESIDENT ALSO HAS A PRIVILEGE, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

HE COULD MEET WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THAT IS A PRIVILEGED CONVERSATION, HE COULD MEET WITH THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THAT'S A PRIVILEGED CONVERSATION, WHEN THE MAJORITY HAS SUBPOENAED THOSE WITNESS HE AND THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE THOSE WITNESSES OR RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, WHAT THEY CONSIDER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THEY ARE CHARGING HIM WITH AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION.

IN FACT, THEIR REPORT SAYS, PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BY INSTRUCTING WITNESSES TO IGNORE SUBPOENAS.

WHY?

>> IT'S BEST.

>> MR. GOLDMAN I WANT TO PICK UP ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO USE THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE, TO PRESSURE THE FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

NOW THAT YOU'VE HAD TIME TO STEP BACK FROM THE INVESTIGATION IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN FACT USE A WHITE HOUSE VISIT TO PRESSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVALS TO PRESSURE HIS POLITICAL EXAMINE?

>> I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN A MINUTE.

BUT MR. BUCK, NO ONE HAD ANY CONTACT WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AFTER HIS DEPOSITION.

BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES.

>> MY COLLEAGUE MR. DEUTCH, FOCUSED TON PERIOD BEFORE THE CALL.

I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE PERIOD AFTER.

PRIOR TO THE CALL DID THE PRESIDENT COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A MEETING?

>> NO, HE HAS NEVER COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A MEETING.

THERE IS A HUGE DISTINCTION IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHERE THEY DID MEET ON SEPTEMBER 25th.

>> HAS A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BEEN SCHEDULED?

>> NO.

>> DID THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ASSOCIATES ESSENTIALLY CONTINUE TO WITHHOLD THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND IF SO WHETHER DID THEY DO THAT?

>> WELL, THE EVIDENCE FOUND THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND SO ONCE IN MID AUGUST WHEN THE UKRAINIANS, MR. YERMAK AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DECIDED THEY WERE NOT GOING TO ISSUE THAT STATEMENT THAT RUDY GIULIANI WANTED TO INCLUDE BURISMA IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS, THERE WAS NO WHITE HOUSE MEETING, IT SOON BECAME CLEAR TO THEM THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO AT RISK AND THAT TOOK ON A RENEWED IMPORTANCE FOR THEM.

>> WELL, FOLLOWING THE 25th CALL, THE JULY 25th CALL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER WORKED CLOSELY WITH MR. GIULIANI AND THE UKRAINIANS TO HELP DRAFT THE STATEMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD MAKE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WASN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, ANT THE REPORT SAID THEY WERE CLOSELY AND THEN THERE WERE ALSO PHONE CALLS WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AROUND THE SAME TIME THEY WERE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT STATEMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY ACCORDING TO MR. GIULIANI AND THE U.S. OFFICIALS?

>> IF KEY WAS THAT IT HAD TO INCLUDE UKRAINE WOULD DO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA WHICH INCLUDED BIDEN INVESTIGATION AND THE 2016 UKRAINE INTERFERENCE.

>> WAS THERE CONCERN ABOUT DOING THE INVESTIGATIONS OR WHAT?

WERE THEY JUST SUPPOSED TO MAKE A STATEMENT GOOD IT, WHAT?

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND VERY CLEARLY TESTIFIED ALL HE EVER HEARD MR. GIULIANI OR ANYONE SAY IS THAT THEY ONLY NEEDED THE PLIRK ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE -- MILK ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> SO DID THE COMMITTEE FIND WITHOUT THAT PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE NO WHITE HOUSE MEETING?

>> YES.

>> SO I WAS STRUCK BY HOW CLEAR THE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO BE ON THIS POINT AND I'D LIKE TO PLAY ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

>> WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?

AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, WITH REGARD TO THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE CALL, AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

>> MR. GOLDMAN DID THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES FIND THAT MR. GIULIANI PLAYED A ROALT ON THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT BEING CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS?

>> THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT MR. GIULIANI NOT ONLY PLAYED A ROLE BUT THAT HE WAS ESSENTIALLY THE PRESIDENT'S AGENT.

HE WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT, EXPRESSING THE PRESIDENT'S WISHES, DESIRES AND -- >> SO WHAT EVIDENCE DID THE COMMITTEE FIND THAT CORROBORATED THE QUOTE, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP?

>> WELL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PRODUCED FOR HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY FROM MR. CASTOR A MINUTE AGO WITH MR. BUCK AS TO HOW MANY TIMES THAT MR. DISLAND NOT REMEMBER IN HIS DEPOSITION.

BECAUSE WE AGREE, IT WAS EGREGIOUS.

BUT THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING CLOSED DEPOSITIONS IS THAT MR. SONDLAND COULD NOT MATCH UPPER HIS TESTIMONY.

SO AS OTHER WITNESSES CAME IN THEN HE REALIZED THAT HE HAD TO ACTUALLY ADMIT TO MORE AND MORE STUFF.

SO HE DID ADMIT TO AN E-MAIL, THAT INCLUDED SECRETARY POMPEO, MULVANEY -- >> I DO WANT TO MAKE A POINT BEFORE MY TIME IS OUT.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN TODAY, BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTION HE, HE IS IN A WEAKENED POSITION WITH MEETINGS WITH A PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE MEETING WITH PUTIN FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH.

IF YOU WANT THE SUPPORT -- WHAT WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE MESSAGE THAT THIS STONED OUR ALLIES AND TO OUR STANDING IN THE WORLD, IF YOU WANT THE SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES BE PREPARED TO HELP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REELECTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER HAS INJURED OUR NATION.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

THE 299 PAGE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY REPORT MENTIONS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, INSPECTOR GENERAL, MICHAEL ATKINSON OFTEN PAGE 26, 33, 138 ONE 40 AND ONE 43.

MR. GOLDMAN YOU WERE PRESENT FOR THE 2019 TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL ATKINSON, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> CONFIRMS THE FOLLOWING, THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER MADE STATEMENTS TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NOT TRUE AND CORRECT.

THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER FIRST MADE STATEMENTS IN WRITING UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NOT TRUE AND CORRECT.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER MADE STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NOT TRUE AND CORRECT IN HIS VERBAL RESPONSES TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S INVESTIGATIVE TEAM, BECAUSE OF ANSWERS THAT WERE NEITHER TRUE CORRECT OR ACCURATE PAGES 53 TO 73 OF THAT SWORN TESTIMONY REVEALED THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS NOT ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS NONE FROM ME ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S CONTACT OR COMMUNICATION WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF OF WHICH MR. GOLDMAN IS A MEMBER.

MR. CASTOR DO YOU REMEMBER ANYWHERE IN THIS 299 PAGE REPORT THAT MAKES REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER STARTED THIS INQUIRY HE OR SHE DID SO BY MAKING STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NEITHER TRUE AND CORRECT IN WRITING AND THEN DID SO AGAIN VERBALLY?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

>> AFTER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TESTIFIED ON OCTOBER 4th AND AFTER MEDIA REPORTS REVEALED THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DID NOT DISCLOSE THEIR PRIOR CONTACTS OR COMMUNICATIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER THE WHISTLEBLOWER CONTACTED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO EXPLAIN WHY HE OR SHE MADE STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN WRITING AND VERBALLY, THAT WERE NOT TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE, MR. CASTOR, IS THAT COMMUNICATION FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO THE INSPECTOR DISWROANL EXPLAIN PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS REFLECTED ANYWHERE IN THE 299 PAGE REPORT?

>> NO.

>> ON OCTOBER 2nd, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S DISCLOSED TO THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE STAFF, AND SHARED WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

MR. CASTOR, IS THAT DISCLOSURE AND MR. BOLAN'S ADMISSION OF THAT DISCLOSURE ANYWHERE IN THIS REPORT?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT.

>> IT'S NOT.

I THINK ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE DURING THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND TO THAT END IF I HAVE MADE ANY FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER OR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S TESTIMONY TODAY THEN I SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

THE WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO RELEASE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S TESTIMONY OR EVEN JUST THE PAGES 53 TO 73.

I WOULD ADD THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THOSE PAGES THAT WOULD IN ANY WAY IDENTIFY OR PLACE AT RISK THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY NOR WOULD IT REVEAL ANY INFORMATION THAT IN ANY WAY RELATES TO MUCH LESS JEOPARDIZES NATIONAL SECURITY.

LOOK, MAYBE THERE'S A BELIEVABLE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE WHISTLEBLOWER MADE STATEMENTS THAT WEREN'T TRUE OR ACCURATE ABOUT HIS CONTACT OR HER CONTACT WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IN WRITING AND THEN AGAIN VERBALLY.

MAYBE THERE'S A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE WORDS CONGRESS OR CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WAS CONFUSING OR NOT CLEAR TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

MAYBE THERE IS A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE WHISTLEBLOWER ALSO MISLED THE SMERKTD GENERAL IN WRITING ON AUGUST 12th, WHERE HE STATES, THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD IN FACT ALREADY CONTACTED CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE TWO WEEKS BEFORE HE OR SHE WROTE THAT.

MAYBE THERE'S A BELIEVABLE REASON WHY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS NOT INITIALLY TRUTHFUL ABOUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

MAYBE THERE IS A GOOD RENAL THAT EXPLAINS ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS IN WRITING AND VERBALLY THAT JUST WEREN'T TRUE AND CORRECT.

MAYBE THERE IS.

BUTTER THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR VOTING TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE FROM OFFICE AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT WITHOUT ALLOWING A SINGLE QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF A SINGLE WITNESS TO GET AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS NOT TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT CONTACTS BETWEEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE SHOULD ALL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND NEXT NOVEMBER EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE WILL BE ASKED THIS QUESTION, DID YOU VOTE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY INVESTIGATION INTO WHY THE WHISTLEBLOWER THAT STARTED IT ALL DID SO BY MAKING STATEMENTS IN WRIK AND VERBALLY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WERE NOT TRUE?

DEMOCRATS PAY NOT CARE IF THAT QUESTION EVER GETS ANSWERS BUT THE VOTERS WILL.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. RICHMOND.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. GOLDMAN I WANT TO START OFF WITH FACTS THAT YOU ALL UNCOVERED.

THROUGH THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE MY COLLEAGUES MR. DEUTCH AND MS. BASS LEFT OFF.

THEY WALKED US THROUGH HOW THE PRESIDENT USED THE WHITE HOUSE VISTA TO APPLY PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO DO ITS PERSONAL BIDDING.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT DID THE SAME THING WITH ALMOST 400 MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO DO HIS PERSONAL BIDDING.

SO I'D LIKE TO START WITH TURNING BACK TO THE JULY 25th CALL.

IT'S A FACT THAT IN THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS IN THE TRANSCRIPT SUBMITTED BY HIM, REVEALS THAT AFTER UKRAINE ASKED FOR MILITARY AID, TRUMP SAYS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.

>> RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKS FOR A FAVOR.

BY THIS POINT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ALREADY PLACED A HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE MILITARY AID BEING WITHHELD.

IS THAT TRUE?

>> NO, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT EVEN AS EARLY AS JULY 25th, AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL, THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HAD SUSPECTED THAT THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD AND THERE WAS A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ACTUALLY LAST WEEK THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN OUR REPORT.

BUTTER FROM THE FORMER DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER WHO SAID THAT UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S OFFICE RECEIVED A DIPLOMATIC CAME FROM THE EMBASSY HERE THE WEEK OF JULY 25th SAYING THAT THE AID HAD BEEN HELD.

>> CORRECT.

AND WH WHAT I ALSO SHOW YOU ON E SCREEN IT WAS ON JULY 25th, THE SAME DAY OF THE CALL, THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILED THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NOTING THAT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS ASKING ABOUT THE WITHHELD MILITARY AID.

>> YES, THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

>> LET'S GO BACK.

THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION EARLIER DURING THE MINORITY QUESTIONING THAT MR. SANDY FROM OMB SAID THAT THE REASON FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT BURDEN-SHARING WITH EUROPE.

IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ALL UNCOVERED?

>> SO IT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE MR. SANDY DID SAY THAT BUT MR. SANDY SAID THAT HE ONLY HEARD THAT IN EARLY SEPTEMBER.

THAT THAT REASON WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO HIM OR ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE EARLY SEPTEMBER FOR THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF THE HOLD.

AND OF COURSE, IT WAS GIVEN AT THAT POINT, AS THIS -- THE GIG WAS UPSO TO SPEAK.

>> SO THAT WAS AFTER EVERYTHING CAME OUT TO LIGHT?

>> IT WAS -- HE WASN'T SURE OF THE TIMING BUT HE WAS ULTIMATELY TOLD THAT THE REASON FOR THE HOLD AFTER IT WAS LIFTED WAS FOR THAT REASON.

BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK AN AFTER THE FACT EXCUSE BASED ON OUR EVIDENCE.

BECAUSE NO OTHER WITNESSES WERE EVER TOLD OF THAT REASON DURING THE ENTIRE TIME THAT IT WAS HELD.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I'D LIKE TO INTEFER INTO THE RECORD EVIDENCE UNCOVERED BY THE HOUSE BUDGET AND PROACHTIONS COMMITTEES THAT DOCUMENTS OMB PLACING A HOLD ON THE UKRAINIAN ASSISTANCE ON JULY 25th.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> SO LET'S REVIEW.

ON JULY 18th, OMB ANNOUNCED TO ALL RELEVANT AGENCIES THAT THE MILITARY AID WOULD BE WITHHELD FROM UKRAINE.

ON A CALL WITH UKRAINE ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, DO US A FAVOR THOUGH, AND ASKED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

ALSO ON JULY 25th, IN THE HOURS FOLLOWING THAT CALL, BOTH THE UKRAINIANS AND THE AMERICANS TOOK ACTION SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THAT MILITARY AID.

THE UKRAINIANS BEGAN ASKING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THEIR MILITARY AID.

AND OMB TOOK ITS FIRST OFFICIAL ACTION TO WITHHOLD THAT AID.

MR. GOLDMAN I'M PLACING ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU AN E-MAIL FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO MEMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS I WOULD ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE ZELENSKY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD PUBLICLY AND WITH CONFIDENCE ON THOSE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED STATES HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BREAK THE LOGJAM.

DID THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES UNCOVER ANY EVIDENCE ON WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MEANT WHEN HE SUGGESTED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD PUBLICLY ON, QUOTE, ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT TO RECEIVE MILITARY AID?

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THOSE WERE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED ON THE JULY 25th CALL, WHICH SECRETARY POMPEO WHO RECEIVED THAT E-MAIL LISTENED INTO.

>> SO THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS, AND THAT WAS THE PREDICATE FOR RELEASING MILITARY AID TO OUR ALLY?

>> AT THE TIME OF THAT E-MAIL, YES.

>> THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

>> LIL EARLIER MR. ARMSTRONG HAD ASKED A UNANIMOUS SCEFNT REQUEST TO INSERT INTO THE RECORD THE I LG REPORT ISSUED TODAY ABOUT FISA.

WITHOUT OBJECTION IT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

MS. RELBY.

>> I'M ACTUALLY STUNNED 50 PROCESS OR LACK THEREOF THAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THIS INSTITUTION.

I HAVE MANY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS THAT I KNOW TO BE THOUGHTFUL, DELIBERATIVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

EVEN THOUGH WE MAY DISAGREE VEE VEHEMENTLY ON POLICY.

BUT THESE PROCEEDINGSEN, LIKE I SAID IT'S STUNNING.

I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME FIGURE OUT WHY THE MAJORITY WOULD APPROACH THIS IN SUCH A WAY THAT WILL FOREVER CAST DOUBT ON WHY AND HOW THEY CHOSE TO AFFECT HISTORY WITH THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND NOW, TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE HERE TODAY, THIS IS JUST BIZARRE.

AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS SERVE BEING ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE I'M ASKING QUESTIONS TO STAFF AS WITNESSES BEFORE US AND IMPEACHMENT EVIDENTIARY HEARING, I MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO STAFF.

WE HAVE THE MOST DEDICATED HASHED WORKING STAFF AND WITHOUT THESE INDIVIDUALS WE MOTION CERTAINLY COULDN'T DO OUR JOBS EFFECTIVELY.

BUT WE HAVE NOT AND WE WILL NOT HEAR FROM ANY FACT WITNESSES.

WHETHER YOU IDENTIFY AS A REPUBLICAN A DEMOCRAT OR AN INDEPENDENT WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT, WHETHER YOU LIKE OR DISLIKE A PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE CHEATED -- SHOULD FEEL CHEATED BY THE WAY THIS IS TAKING PLACE.

THIS PROCESS IS MORE THAN INCOMPLETE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER.

TODAY HISTORY IS BEING MADE AND I, TOO, BELIEVE IT IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC.

IT IS WORTH A DEEPER EXPLANATION OF THE ISSUE OF A MINORITY HEARING.

THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE FREQUENTLY ASKED THE CHAIRMAN FOR A MINORITY DAY HEARING, AND ALL MEMBERS ON THIS SIDE HAVE SIGNED ON TO ALERT TO THE CHAIRMAN ASKING FOR A MINORITY DAY HEARING.

I'D LIKE TO QUOTE HOUSE RULE 11 CLAUSE 2.

WHENEVER A HEARING IS CONDUCTED BY COMMITTEE ON A MEASURE OR A MATTER, THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE ENTITLED UPON THE REQUEST TO THE CHAIR BY A MAJORITY OF THEM FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE HEARING TO CALL WITNESSES SELECTED BY THE MINORITY TO TEFER, WITH RESPECT TO THAT MEASURE OR MATTER DURING AT LEAST ONE DAY OF HEARING THEREON.

THE WORDING HERE IS THAT THE MINORITY SHALL BE ENTITLED, NOT IF THE CHAIRMAN DEEMS THE MINORITY WORTHY, BUT SHALL BE ENTITLED.

FTC MR. CASTOR, WITH ALL OF YOUR EXPERIENCE IN INVESTIGATIONS HERE IN THE CONGRESS, IS IT YOUR BELIEF BASED ON THAT EXPERIENCE THAT IGNORING THE MINORITY'S STATED RIGHTS FOR A HEARING OPPORTUNITIES RULES OF THE HOUSE, SEVERELY UNDERMINES THE FUTURE OF THIS INSTITUTION?

>> YES.

>> I'D LIKE TO QUOTE WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE DEMOCRATIC STAFF MR. BURKE IN HIS OPENING COMMENTS.

IT IS THE HOPE THAT IN THESE DISCUSSIONS WE CAN PUT ASIDE POLITICAL RANCOR DISAGREEMENT AND HAVE A FAIR DISCUSSION.

THAT IS FAR FROM WHAT IS HAPPENED HERE TODAY OR THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THIS.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS.

AND I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. COLLINS.

>> THANK YOU.

MR. CASTOR, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT, THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO GO BACK AND REMIND PEOPLE THAT THERE ARE FOUR THINGS THAT REALLY HAVEN'T CHANGED.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO REMIND US OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED?

>> WELL, THERE ARE FOUR THINGS THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE AND THAT IS THE TRANSCRIPT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE.

IT SHOWS NO QUID PRO QUO, NO CONDITION AT.

ALITY.NUMBER 2, THERE IS NO PRE.

BOTH WITH ZELENSKY SAID IT REPEATEDLY, IN SUBSEQUENT NEWS ARTICLES, OCTOBER 6th, OCTOBER 10th, DECEMBER 1st.

NUMBER 3, THE UKRAINIANS AND ZELENSKY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE IN AID AT THE VERY LEAST AT THE TIME OF THE CALL.

THE AID WAS RELEASED AND THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, AFFORDED A MEETING AND WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH DISLENS IN NEW YORK.

>> DID YOU FIND IT AMAZING THAT THE MAJORITY, ONE OF THEIR KEY PRONGS OF THIS WHOLE THING IS THAT THEY'RE MAKING THE ELECTED LEADER OF THE UKRAINE OUT TO BE A LIAR?

BECAUSE IF HE SAYS THAT THERE'S NO PRESSURE, HE'S DONE IT ON MANY, MANY OCCASIONS SINCE THEN.

THAT UNDOUBTEDLY THEY BELIEVED HIM NOT TO BE TRUTHFUL.

SO DIDN'T THAT STRIKE YOU AS A LITTLE STRANGE ESPECIALLY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE?

>> IT IS UNFORTUNATE.

>> IT IS.

IT IS SAD WE ARE CALLING AN ELECTED LEADER WHO IS ACTUALLY WORKING ON CORRUPTION AND OTHER THINGS, A LIAR BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS THEORY OF A NOON PARTISAN PROCESS.

I YIELD BACK.

>> CONGRESS ALLOCATED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, 391 MILLION OF MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES AND IT WAS SIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP INTO LAW.

>> IS IT ESTABLISHED THAT THE MILITARY AID TO SCREUFN IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF IF UNITED STATES?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> IF INVESTIGATION CONCLUDED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPROMISED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY BY WITHHOLDING VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT IS THAT DRAW EQUAL.

>> YES.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS CLAIM THAT HE WITHHELD MILITARY AID OUT OF ALLEGED CONCERN WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

LET'S EXPLORE THIS PHONY JUSTIFICATION.

DONALD TRUMP FIRST SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE ON AN APRIL 21st CALL, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER USED THE WORD "CORRUPTION" ON THAT APRIL 21st CALL, TRUE?

>> THAT IS TRUE.

AND THE READ-OUT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER THE CALL DID SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKED ABOUT CORRUPTION.

>> THAT READOUT WAS INACCURATE.

IN A MAY 23rd LETTER TRUMP'S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONCLUDED THAT UKRAINE WHY MET THE ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARK TO RECEIVE MILITARY AID, IS THAT TRUE?

>> YES, IF I COULD TAKE A SECOND TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY CONDITIONALITY ON AID IN ROUTINELY IN ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

BUT IT'S DONE THROUGH OFFICIAL POLICY.

AND THESE ANTICONSTRUCTION BENCHMARKS THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING HERE WAS A CONDITION MARKS THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING HERE, CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE WAS MAKING THE NECESSARY PROGRESS ON ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS TO MERIT THE AID.

>> AND YET THE AID WAS NOT RELEASED CORRECT?

>> THE AID WAS SUBSEQUENTLY HELD.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED.

DOD ANNOUNCED THE RELEASE AND THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD THE AID WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

>> MR. GOLDMAN BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONIAL THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED, IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?

>> NO.

THE EVIDENCE REALLY SUPPORTS THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP VIEWS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE TO BE SYNONYMOUS WITH THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANTS.

>> WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID CARE ABOUT WAS A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND THAT IS WHY HE WITHHELD THE MILITARY AID, TRUE?

>> HE TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HIMSELF THAT THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT HE CARES ABOUT.

>> NOW SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED AS TO THE REAL MOTIVATION.

CONNECTED TO THE WITHHELD MILITARY AID, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR.

HERE IS WHAT HE SAID IN HIS TESTIMONY.

>> TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN MADE NO SENSE.

IT WAS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ALL OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO.

IT WAS ILLOGICAL, COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED, IT WAS CRAZY.

>> ILLOGICAL, UNEXPLAINABLE, CRAZY.

MR. GOLDMAN ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THE WITHHELD AID WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CORRECT?

>> THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION AS MULTIPLE WITNESSES SAID.

>> WHO GAVE $1 MILLION TO THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION AND HE TESTIFIED THAT HE CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR.

UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT?

>> YES, AND THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED IN A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF.

>> LIEUTENANT WITH COLONEL VINDMAN IS A DECORATED PURPLE HEART RIPT AND A MEMBER OF THE WHITE HOUSE SECURITY COUNCIL.

HE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT, CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH UNANIMOUS VIEW OF ALL 17 WITNESSES THAT CAME IN TO TESTIFY IN -- BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

>> THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE AS PART OF A SCHEME TO EXTRACT A POLITICAL FAVOR AND SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION, TRUE?

>> YES, AND THAT -- THE SCHEME PART IS VERY IMPORTANT.

BECAUSE THE MINORITY WANTS TO FOCUS ON THESE FOUR VERY NARROW FACTS THAT IGNORE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE EVIDENCE.

AND SO THE FACT THAT YOU USE SCHEME IS ACTUALLY CRITICAL TO THE WHOLE CASE HERE.

>> THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER.

THE PRESIDENT MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. GATES.

>> THE LAST PUBLIC OPINION POLL I SAW SHOWED COMING HAD PUBLIC OPINION POLL OF 9%.

AS CONTRAST, M MOAMMAR GADHAFI D PUBLIC OPINION POLL AND THE PEOPLE SNAFNTED HIM.

NANCY PELOSI, MAY 2018, HERE WE ARE IN THE MOST PARTISAN PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

NO REPUBLICANS VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATS AND YOU HAVE EVEN DEMOCRATS VOTING WITH US IN THE ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE TO SHUT DOWN THIS IMPEACHMENT.

THIS BRINGS US TO OUR ROLE HERE, MR. GOLD MAWNL ARE YOU HEE AS A PARTISAN OR AS A NONPARTISAN PRESENTER OF THE FACTS?

>> I'M HERE TO REPORT AN INVESTIGATION, TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY RELIANT ON THE EVIDENCE WE UNCOVERED THE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE DOCUMENTS.

>> ARE YOU A PARTISAN?

>> I'M NOT A PARTISAN.

>> MR. CASTOR HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED FOR THE HOUSE?

>> SINCE 2005.

>> AND SAME QUESTION MR. GOLDMAN.

>> FOR THE HOUSE?

SINCE EARLIER THIS YEAR.

>> MR. CASTOR DO YOU MAKE POLITICAL DONATIONS?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER ANY.

>> MR. GOLDMAN, DO YOU MAKE POLITICAL DONATION?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER -- >> YOU HAVE GIVEN THOUSANDS TO DEMOCRATS, I WANT TO KNOW THE NUMBER.

>> YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT IT?

>> THE BASIS, THE NUMBER.

>> I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER.

>> DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MR. BURKE HAS GIVEN THE DEMOCRATS?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF IT WAS OVER 100,000?

>> MR. GATES I AM HERE -- >> DO YOU THINK YOU'VE GIVEN MORE MONEY YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND ANSWER THEM THE WAY MR. BURKE DID?

I GUESS IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE STILL PONDERING.

MR. CASTOR HAVE YOU EVER TWEETED ANYTHING AT THE PRESIDENT?

>> NO.

>> MR. GOLDMAN SAME QUESTION.

>> I HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF TWEETS IN MY PRIVATE CAPACITY BEFORE I CAME TO THIS JOB.

WHEN I WAS WORKING IN THE MEDIA, YES.

>> AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TWEETS, RIGHT?

AND YOU SAID, NOTHING IN THE DOSSIER IS PROVEN FALSE BUT IN FACT THE DOSSIER SAID THAT THERE WAS A RUSSIAN CONSULATE IN MIAMI WHEN THERE ISN'T.

THE DOSSIER SAID MICHAEL COE COHENSET HE HAD A MEETING IN PRE WHICH HE DIDN'T.

MICHAEL COHEN'S WIFE IS RUSSIAN, SHE IS IN FACT UKRAINIAN.

WE HAD A P TAPE PRESENTING YOUR SELF AS NONPARTISAN HIRED BY THE DEMOCRATS TO REPRESENT, DO YOU REGRET THIS TWEET?

>> SIR I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PUT THIS INVESTIGATION UP WITH ANY OF THE NONPARTISAN WITH INVESTIGATIONS I DID,.

>> DO YOU REGRET IT?

>> I HOPE YOU READ THE EVIDENCE.

>> YOU EITHER REGRET OR DON'T REGRET IT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, EARLIER IN THIS HEARING YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS THAT THERE IS NOTHING MORE URGENT THAN IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS THE MOST URGENT THING WE COULD POSSIBLY DO.

YOU KNOW WHAT IF YOU ARE A SENIOR RIGHT NOW AND YOU CAN'T AFFORD YOUR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT'S MORE URGENT THAN THIS.

IF YOU ARE A MANUFACTURER WANTING TO DOMINATE THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, THAT'S MORE URGENT THAN THIS.

IF YOU ARE A FARMER THAT WANTS TO OPEN MARKETS SO YOUR FAMILY CAN SURVIVE AND THRIVE, THAT IS MORE URGENT THAN THIS PROCESS.

IF YOU ARE A FAMILY MEMBER WATCHING SOMEONE SUCCUMB TO OPIOID ADDICTION, PROBABLY MORE PARTISAN THAN THIS INVESTIGATION.

BUDGET OUT OF CONTROL DRIVING UP THE CREDIT CARD OF YOUNG BEAM IN THIS COUNTRY AND WHAT THEY'LL HAVE TO PAY BACK AS A CONSEQUENCE OF OUR POOR DECISIONS LIKELY MORE URGENT.

BUT HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE FAILED AT ALL OF THESE THING.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'D SAY THE ONLY THING UNDER THE CHRISTMAS TREE FOR MOST AMERICANS WOULD BE A LUMP OF COAL BUT I THINK THEY ARE AGAINST COAL TOO.

THE ONLY THING UNDER THE CHRISTMAS TREE FOR AMERICANS WOULD BE IMPEACHMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS.

I'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER ARE DEMOCRATS SAY THAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL INTEREST AND THAT HE ABANDONED THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND IT BEGS AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE NATION IS DOING.

IN NOVEMBER, 266,000 JOBS CREATED, 80,000 OVER THE AVERAGE.

HALF A MILLION MORE MANUFACTURING JOBS IN THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY.

700,000 CONSTRUCTION JOBS.

WE ARE DOING BETTER THAN EVER BEFORE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THRIVING.

WHY WON'T YOU HELP US MOVE ALONG THE CRITICAL ISSUES THAT ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT?

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MR.-- >> WE ARE GOING TO STEP AWAY FROM THE TABLE TO PREPARE FOR TONIGHT'S NewsHOUR.

PLEASE KEEP WATCHING OUR LIVE SPECIAL COVERAGE RIGHT HERE AS IT CONTINUES.

I WANT TO THANK OUR GUESS MIEKE OH YANG AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> WE WILL CONTINUE TO DELIVER.

ON THE IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

BUT WE ARE ALSO ELECTED TO HOLD THIS MOUNTAIN ACCOUNTABLE AND WE TOOK AND OATH OF OFFICE TO PROBATE AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, WHAT WEIGH ARE ENGAGED IN TODAY.

I WANT TO RETURN MR. GOLDMAN TO THE MILITARY AID.

DID THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES RECEIVE EVIDENCE AS TO WHY THE MILITARY AID WAS NECESSARY?

THERE ARE A LOT OF AMERICANS WATCHING THAT DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT UKRAINE, DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE GEOPOLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

>> THE REPUBLICANS WERE QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THIS AND THEY SAY IT MATTERED FOR A FEW REASONS.

THE FIRST IS RUSSIA WITH INVADED UKRAINE THE TAKE OVER PART OF THEIR COUNTRY AND THIS WAS THE FIRST MILITARY INCURSION IN EUROPE SINCE WORLD WAR II, THIS IS RUSSIA AN ADVERSARY ACTUALLY TRYING TO ENCROACH ON ANOTHER DEMOCRACY.

FROM A BROAD DEMOCRATIC VIEWPOINT IT WAS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY BUT TO AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY TO SUR INSURET THE DEMOCRACY WATT WORLDWIDE.

>> THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAD EVEN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION TO DLIRCH THE AID CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> COMBAT CRUNGS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND THAT NORMALITY LEADS TO THE RELEASE OF THE AID?

>> IT ANNOUNCED THE RELEASE OF THE AID.

>> AND THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONED WITNESS FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, STATE DEPARTMENT, OMB, ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD THE AID CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> I'D LIKE TO PLAY A CLIP FROM SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE.

>> FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED DID ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE?

>> NO.

>> I NEVER HEARD ANYONE ADVOCATE FOR HOLDING THE AID.

>> AND THE ENTIRE INTERAGENCY SUPPORTED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I AND OTHERS SAT IN ASTONISHMENT.

UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING RUSSIAN HE AND COUNTED ON THE NOT ONLY THE TRAINING AND THE WEAPONS BUT ALSO THE ASSURANCE OF U.S. SUPPORT.

>> AM I CORRECT THAT THE WITNESSES THAT APPEARED BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION WITHHOLDING THE MILITARY AID AND THAT IT WAS IN FACT AGAINST OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO DO SO?

>> EVERYONE AGREED IT WAS AGAINST OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO DO SO.

THE ONLY EXPLANATION THAT ANY WITNESS PROVIDED WAS, MR. SANDY WHO SAID THAT HE HAD HEARD FROM ROB BLAIR I BELIEVE, THE ASSISTANT TO MICK MULVANEY THAT THE REASON WAS THAT OTHER COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTIONS TO UKRAINE BUT THAT WAS ONLY IN SEPTEMBER AND OF COURSE THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMITMENTS FROM ANY OTHER UN.

>> AS WE HEARD FROM BILL TAYLOR WHO WAS A DEDICATED PROTECTOR OF THE U.S., A WEEKEND IN UKRAINE WOULD ONLY BEFORE RUSSIA.

HERE IS WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID.

>> AFTER OUR MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I TRAVELED TO THE FRONT LINE IN NORTHERN DONBAS.

ARRIVING FOR THE BRIEFING IN THE MILITARY HAZARDOUS THE COMMANDER THANKED US FOR THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE BUT I WAS AWARE THAT THIS ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD WHICH MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I COULD SEE THE ARMED AND HOSTILE RUSSAN LED FORCE HE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRI BRIDGE ACS THE LINE OF CONTACT.

RUSSIANS CONTINUED TO KILL UKRAINIANS IN THE WAR ONE OR TWO A WEEK WP MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY DIE WITHOUT U.S. ASSISTANCE.

>> AGAINST HIS OWN ADVANCE HIS OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS IF HE SPEDGES OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

THIS ACTION IS A THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AND THE SANCTITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST NOT GET AWAY WITH THIS.

NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY.

NO ONE INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS ABOVE THE LAW AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. JOHNSON.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THIS HAS BEEN A TRULY EXTRAORDINARY AND HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED HEARING.

IT HAS FRANK REPLY BEEN AN OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.

A SERIES OF VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS, IN FACT.

LET ME REVIEW THE PAST SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS.

IN THE BEGINNING OF OUR PROAGHTSDZ HERE TODAY I ASKED CHAIRMAN NADLER IF MR. BURKE WAS A STAFF OR WITNESS.

WHEN I OBJECTED UNDER HOUSE RULE 17 THAT MR. BURKE WAS REPEATEDLY AND BRAZENLY STEAM ROLLING AND USING LANGUAGE THAT IMPUTED THE MOTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND SUGGESTED HE IS DISLOYAL TO HIS COUNTRY, CHAIRMAN NADLER ASSISTED THAT THAT COULD NOT BE STRICKEN, THE RULES DO NOT APPEAR HERE BECAUSE MR. BURKE IS MERELY APPEARING AS A STAFFER.

LATER, CHAIRMAN NADLER DAYLIGHTED THE OBVIOUS, THAT MR. BURKE WAS HERE TO, THE MEMBER RULES SHOULD APPLY.

THEN MR. BURKE WAS ALLOWED TO SWITCH PLACE AND TURN FROM WITNESS TO QUESTIONER.

THAT IS EXTRAORDINARY REPLY BIZARRE OF COURSE BUT IT IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS.

AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS ALLOWED IN THIS OPENING, TO SERVE AS JUDGE AND JURY ALL IN ONE, SO MUCH FOR DUE PROCESS.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DRAWN SPECIAL PARAMETERS FOR THESE SPECIAL HEARINGS, HOW 660, AS 45 MINUTES OF ASKS OF HIS FELLOW WITNESS MR. CASTOR.

WHEN HE WAS ARGUMENTATIVE, ASSUMED CRITICAL FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, ENGAGED IN SPECULATION AND COMMITTED COUNTLESS OTHER VIOLATIONS OF HOUSE RULES AND IF I RECALL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I OBJECTED BUT WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER BY CHAIRMAN NADLER.

AND WAS INFORMED BY ALL OF US, IT LISTS NONE OF THEM AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IGNORED EVERY REQUEST OF OURS TO OBTAIN A LIST OF WHAT RULES AND OBJECTIONS WOULD BE IN FORCE AND APPLICABLE TODAY.

AGAIN SO MUCH FOR DUE PROCESS AND FAIRNESS.

A MONTH AGO, LISTEN A MONTH AGO, THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE FORMALLY REQUESTED ALL DOCUMENTS REMITTED TO THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION BUT CHAIRMAN NADLER AND SCHIFF WITHHELD EVERYTHING UNTIL YOU KNOW WHEN, SATURDAY AFTERNOON.

LESS THAN 48 HOURS FROM THIS HEARING THEY DUMPED PRESIDENTIAL 8,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION ON US WHEN WE WERE IN OUR DISTRICTS.

THEY INTENTIONALLY MADE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE.

WHAT'S WORSE IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS THEY DECIDED TO DUMP ON US ARE NOT ALL THE UNDERLYING RECORDS, BUT ONLY A PARTIAL REDACTED BY A SUBSET OF INFORMATION WHICH THEY THINK WILL ADVANCE THEIR FALSE NARRATIVE.

AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED HERE WE ARE BEING ALLOWED NO MINORITY DAY HEARING, ALLOWED BY HOUSE RULES.

I'D LIKE TO QUESTION MR. BURKE HIMSELF BUTTER MR. NARBLED'S RULES WON'T ALLOW IT.

I NOTICE HE'S DISAPPEARED FROM THE HEARING RESUME.

I'D LIKE TO ASK HIM UNDEROATH ABOUT HIS OWN BIAS, HE NI INSISTED HERE THAT EVERYTHING HERE HAS TO BE UNBIASED.

BUT IF HE WAS UNDER OATH HERE HE WOULD HAVE TO BE FORCED TO ADMIT THAT HE HAS PERSONALLY DONATED $99,000 TO ARE DEMOCRATICNESS CANDIDATES.

A FINDER OF FACT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, SUPPOSED TO BE AN UMPIRE.

THE PROBLEM T SEE WITH THEIR EYES, THE PARADING AROUND THE FIELD IN THE MAJORITY TEAM'S JERSEYS.

CAREFULLY DOCUMENTS THAT IN THE HEARINGS THAT LED US TO THIS POINT TODAY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DIRECTED WITNESSES CALLED BY THE DEMOCRATS NOT TO ANSWER REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS.

HE REJECTED WITNESSES IDENTIFIED REPUBLICANS WHO WOULD HAVE REJECTED SOME SEMBLANCE OF OBJECTIVITY.

VIOLATING THE OWN RULES TO VOTE DOWN WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALSO FABRICATED EVIDENCE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25th PHONE CALL AND HE MISLED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, TO SELECTIVELY SEEK INFORMATION TO MISLEADING ELSELY PAINT PUBLIC NARRATIVES.

CREDIT OBVIOUSLY HIS MOTIVES BIASES AND CREDIBILITY ARE ESSEESSENTIAL TO THIS CASE BUT E CAN'T QUESTION IT.

THIS IS NOT THE RULE OF LAW AND NOT HOW TO IMPEACH AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT, IT IS NOT THE WAY TO RUN A COUNTRY, IT CAN'T BE.

17 OF OUR COLLEAGUES ALREADY VOTED WITH IMPEACHMENT, BEFORE WE STARTED THIS.

THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MINDS, PREJUDICE BEFORE WE WALKED IN.

THE PEOPLE CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT THIS IS A SHAM.

I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. SWALWELL.

>> MR. L GOLDMAN WOULD YOU WELCOME THE PROBLEM OF HAVING 8,000 DOCUMENTS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE WHITE HOUSE?

>> IT WOULD BE A WHY WONDERFUL PROBLEM TO HAVE.

>> HOW MANY HAVE THEY GIVEN YOU?

>> ZERO.

>> YOU SAID THEY GOT THE AID, NO HARM NO FOUL, THEY GOT THE AID.

BUT ALTHOUGH MR. SANDY SAID THE PRESIDENTIAL CONCERN WAS EUROPEAN CONTRIBUTIONS, NOTHING CHANGED FROM WHEN THAT CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED TO WHEN THEY GOT THE AID, YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

EUROPE DIDN'T KICK IN A BUNCH OF MONEY?

>> THEY DID A STUDY.

>> THEY DID A STUDY BUT THEY DIDN'T KICK IN ANY MORE MONEY?

>> AMBASSADOR -- >> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ANTICRUNGS WE HAD IN PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE PERSON WHO JUST RECENTLY WITH HIS OWN CHARITY HAD A SETTLEMENT RELATED TO FRAUD.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT ANTICORRUPTION PRESIDENT OF OURS.

WITH TAKE A WILD GUESS, MR. CASTOR.

HOW MANY TIMES HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN OR TALKED TO HIM?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER.

>> IT'S 16.

>> OKAY.

>> HOW MANY TIMES HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP MET AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> ZERO.

>> AND WHO IS PRESIDENT TRUMP MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE TOMORROW, DO YOU KNOW?

>> I'M NOT -- >> IT'S RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV.

MR. GOLDMAN WITHHOLDING AID FROM UKRAINE OBVIOUSLY HURTS UKRAINE.

IT HURTS THE UNITED STATES.

DOES IT HELP ANY COUNTRY?

>> THE WITNESSES SAID THAT THAT WOULD HELP RUSSIA.

>> DID YOU ALSO HEAR TESTIMONY THAT THESE ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT, WHILE BEING WRONG AND AN ABUSE OF POWER ALSO HARMED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT HOW IT WOULD HARM OUR CREDIBILITY?

AND I WOULD TURN YOU TO A CONVERSATION AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD ON SEPTEMBER 14 OF THIS YEAR, WITH A SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL WHERE AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS IMPRESSION UPON THAT OFFICIAL THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD NOT INVESTIGATE HIS OWN PRELIMINARY OPPONENTS.

WHAT WAS THROWN BACK IN THE FACE OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER?

>> AFTER AMBASSADOR VOLKER SUGGESTED TO MR. YERMAK AGAIN WHO IS HERE, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT INVESTIGATE THE PRIOR PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE MR. YERMAK SAID BACK TO HIM, OH LIKE YOU'RE ENCOURAGING US TO INVESTIGATE BIDENS AND CLINTONS?

>> DURING WATERGATE, THE FAMOUS PHRASE FROM SENATOR HOWARD BAKER WAS ASKED, WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

THERE IS A REASON WHY NOBODY HERE HAS REPEATED THOSE QUESTIONS DURING THESE HEARINGS.

WE KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID AND WE KNOW WHEN HE KNEW IT.

MR. GOLDMAN WHO CENTS RUDY GIULIANI TO UKRAINE TO SMEAR JOE BIDEN?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO FIRED THE ANTICONSTRUCTION AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE, WHERE MARIA YOVANOVITCH?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO WORK WITH RUDY GIULIANI IN UKRAINE?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP TO NOT GO TO CRITICAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO REFUSED TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO IGNORED ON JULY 25 HIS OWN NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S ANTICORRUPTION TALKING POINTS?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR A FAVOR?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO ASKED ARE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHO TOAD STOOD ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND SAID HE WANTED PRESIDENT DISLENS TO INVESTIGATE BIDEN?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> AS TO ANYTHING WE DON'T KNOW IN THIS INVESTIGATION WHO HAS BLOCKED US FROM KNOWING IT?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> SO AS IT RELATES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS HE AN INCIDENT PLAYER OR A CENTRAL PLAYER IN THIS MANY SCHEME?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE CENTRAL PLAYER IN THIS SCHEME.

>> THERE'S A REASON THAT NO ONE HAS SAID WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW, AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED, MR. GOLDMAN AND IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FINDINGS, WE KNOW ONE THING, AND ONE THING IS CLEAR.

AS IT RELATED TO THIS SCHEME, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD J. TRUMP, KNEW EVERYTHING.

AND I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. BIGGS.

>> MR. CASTOR WHAT IS DIRECT EVIDENCE?

>> WHEN A WITNESS PERSONALLY OBSERVES FACT AND TEFS TO IT.

>> AND WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

>> WOW, OUT OF COURT STATEMENT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED IS SOMETHING YOU LEARN IN LAW SCHOOL.

>> RIGHT, FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, UNLESS THE TESTIMONY FALLS UNDER DEFINED EXCEPTIONS IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THERE ARE ABOUT 23 PLUS THE RESIDUAL EXCEPTION.

>> I BELIEVE YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN ALL THE WITNESSES WERE TESTIFYING EXCEPT MR. SOLMAN, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> HOW MANY TIMES WAS MR. SOLOMON MENTIONED IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT?

>> I DID A SEARCH, AFTER THE WORD SONDLAND CURSE, 627 TIMES.

>> SONDLAND HIMSELF TOLD THE WORLD THAT BASICALLY NOBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET TOLD HIM THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS TRYING TO TIE AID TO INVESTIGATIONS, IN FACT HE ALSO SAID, EVERYTHING THAT HE HAD BEEN TESTIFYING TO WAS SIMPLY HIS PRESUMPTION, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND SO WHEN WE CONSIDER WHAT A PRESUMPTION IS, IT'S NOT DIRECT, IT'S NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL, IT'S NOT EVEN HEARSAY.

IN FACT WE TYPICALLY CONSIDER IT AS SPECULATION IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> DO COURTS ALLOW SPECULATION IN?

>> NO.

>> WHY NOT?

>> IT'S NOT RIENL.

>> IT'S INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE.

SO CAN YONAME ANY DEMOCRAT WITNESS WHO HAS ASSERT THEY'D HE OR SHE HAD DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THOSE 17 THAT WE HEARD FROM?

>> WE HAD SOME DIRECT EVIDENCE ON CERTAIN THINGS, DIRECT EVIDENCE ON THE MAY 23rd MEETING AND SONDLAND GAVE SOME DIRECT EVIDENCE.

BUT A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE OBTAINED HAVE BEEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

>> HOW ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUID PRO QUO ALLEGATION?

>> WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO THE POM OF THAT FROM THE DIRECT EVIDENCE DIRECTION.

>> HOW ABOUT ASKING FOR INVESTIGATIONS?

>> THE FACTS SURROUNDING THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS.

>> IN THE NONLEGALISTIC WORLD HAD WE TALK ABOUT SPECULATION, WE TYPICALLY USE THE WORDS GOSSIP RUMOR INNUENDO RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> THE DIRECT EVIDENCE IS THAT UKRAINE, WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS STATED NO PRESSURE, NO PROBLEM WITH THE PHONE CALL IN RELATION WITH MR. TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT HAD A LEGITIMATE CONCERN FOR THE ARE UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AGAIN THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE ALLEGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED MERELY THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION?

>> LIKE I SAID, THERE'S EIGHT LINES IN THE CALL TRANSCRIPT THAT GO TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION.

EIGHT LINES.

>> AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS HEARSAY INNUENDO RUMOR GOSSIP RIGHT?

>> INCONCLUSIVE CERTAINLY.

>> SO WHEN WE GET INTO THIS EVENT TODAY AND THE PROCESS WE START TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS, WERE YOU SURPRISED TO SEE MR. BURKE GET OUT OF HIS CHAIR MOVE TO THE SEAT AND SIT NEXT TO THE CHAIRMAN AND START ASKING QUESTIONS?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS SURPRISED OR NOT.

>> I TELL YOU I WAS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE MR. BURKE HAS BEEN DISAPPEARED, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE OUTRAGEOUS PARTS OF THIS PROCESS.

OUTRAGEOUS FROM START TO FINISH.

WE HAVE SEEN BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT FROM START TO FINISH.

THE LION'S SMAIR ALMOST TWO-THIRDS OF THE DEMOCRATS HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH AT LEAST ONE AND THAT'S WITHOUT ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO JULY 25th TELEPHONE CONVERSATION EVER TOOK PLACE.

AND WE'RE LEFT WITH A CONSTANT VIEW THAT AS ON NOVEMBER 9th, 2016, REPRESENTATIVE GREEN FROM TEXAS WANTED TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AT THAT POINT.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> JANUARY 20th, 2017, "WASHINGTON POST," HEADLINE, LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN, THAT IS T CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> TENSE DAYS LATER MR. D ZAID WHO IS THE LAWYER FOR WHISTLEBLOWER SAID, LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN, LET THE COUP BEGIN, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES I HAD SEEN THAT.

>> THEY WENT ON TV AND SAID WE WANTED TO START IMPEACHMENT EARLIER BUT THE SPEAKER HELD US BACK.

DID YOU SEE THAT?

>> I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT, NO.

NEWS REPORTS TODAY -- >> YOU WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED ABOUT THAT WOULD YOU?

>> NO.

>> NOSH SHOULD BE SURPRISED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A SHAM HEARING, THREE YEARS THAT THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO REMOVE THIS PRESIDENT.

AND THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

AND SO WITH THAT, WE BRING IT BARK TO THE SAME POINTS.

-- BACK TO THE SAME POINTS.

NO PRESSURE, NO CONDITIONALITY AND ALL OF THE AID MEETINGS CALLED WERE RECEIVED BY THE UKRAINIANS.

WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. LOU.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

LETS CUT THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS AND MAKE THINGS VERY SIMPLE.

NO ONE ELSE COULD DO WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

NO AMERICAN OFFICIAL COULD CO-OPT A FEDERAL OFFICIAL AND, NO ONE SITTING ON THIS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE COULD CO-OPT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL AND ASK FOR HELP IN A REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

IF WE DID THAT AND GOT CAUGHT WE WOULD LIKELY BE INDICTED.

THIS IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN EXAMPLES I JUST GAVE.

AND I KNOW I FIRST SWORE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN I JOINED THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE IN ACTIVE DUTY.

THE FIRST CORE VALUES WERE INTEGRITY FIRST, SERVICE BEFORE SELF, EXCELLENCE IN ALL WE DO.

I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE FIRST TWO.

INTEGRITY FIRST AND SERVICE BEFORE SELF, WE CAN NOT MIX OFFICIAL DUTIES WITH PERSONAL OR PRIVATE GAIN.

THE $341 MILLION AT ISSUE, THAT WASN'T DONALD TRUMP'S MONEY THAT WAS U.S.

TAXPAYER FUNDS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT USE OUR TAXPAYER MONEY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND ESPECIALLY NOT TO LEVERAGE IT FOR HIS OWN REELECTION CAMPAIGN ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE PRESIDENT AVERAGES BUYS OF POWERS IS EVEN WORSE IN THIS CASE THAN JUST USING OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR PERSONAL GAIN, IT'S OUTRIGHT ILLEGAL, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT.

PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO PRISON FOR VIOLATING VARIATION SECTION OF THAT ACT.

A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE COULD ALSO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE CONTROL ACT OF 1974 WHICH CONGRESS PASSED AS A RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT NIXON'S ABUSE MUCH POWER.

SO I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE FURTHER WITH YOU MR. GOLDMAN.

IN THIS CASE CONGRESS WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT HAD APPROPRIATED TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF AIDING UKRAINE IN ITS WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND NOT ONLY HAD THAT MONEY BEEN APPROPRIATED, THE MONEY HAD BEEN RELEASED 50 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THEY WERE ABOUT TO RELEASE IT YES.

>> AND THEN SUDDENLY WITHOUT EXPLANATION THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED THAT THOSE TAXPAYER FUNDS BE WITHHELD FROM AN ALLY WHO L EXPLILT NEEDED THAT AID.

-- WHO DISPRILD NEEDED THAT AID.

THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM SECRETLY TAKING CONGRESSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDS AND DOING WHAT HE WANTED TO THEM.

IS IT TRUE THAT IN IN YOUR INTELLIGENCE REPORT YOU FOUND THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID SO DESPITE HIS OBLIGATION UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT.

DID YOU FIND THAT?

>> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT.

SO NOT DOESN'T THE PRESIDENT ABUSE HIS POWERS FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND NOT ONLY WAS IT ILLEGAL, HIS ACTION HE ALSO HARMED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

SO IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET TO PUSH BACK AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

ISN'T IT TRUE MR. GOLDMAN THAT HARMING THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY ALSO HARMS U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY?

>> THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT EVERY WITNESS SAID.

>> LAST WEEK PROFESSOR CARLAN CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS AN OFFENSE TO SACRIFICE AMERICAN WESTBOUND BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU FOUND IN YOUR REPORT IS IT FAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION HE BOTH LEVERAGED TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR ITS OWN PRIVATE GAIN AND SACRIFICED NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE ENDS?

>> THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND.

>> I WAS STRUCK BY MR. HOLMES TESTIMONY BECAUSE IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CARE ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY OR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, HE ONLY CARED ABOUT INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THIS IS WHAT MR. HOLMES SAID.

>> MR. SONDLAND SAID THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF.

I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF GOING ON IN UKRAINE LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA.

AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE MEANT BIG STUFF THAT CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS PRESSING.

>> HERE IS THE QUESTION, IF ANY MEMBER PUSHED PERSON GAIN THAT FERCH WOULD NOT ARE PART OF THE MILITARY.

LAST YEAR A MILITARY COMMANDER WAS CONVICTED FOR TAKING THINGS OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR PERSONAL ACTS.

THE COMMANDER QUOTE PUT HIS OWN SELFISH INTEREST AHEAD OF THE NAVY AND AHEAD OF THIS NATION.

UNQUOTE.

WE SHOULD NOT HOLD THE PRESIDENT TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN ANY OTHER MILITARY MEMBER OR NO OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, MR. McCLINTOCK.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

IN THE, CONFLICT, ONE SIDE LOSES AND THE OTHER YIELDS BACK.

ABOUT MOMENT THAT SOCIAL FABRIC BREAKS DOWN, IT HAPPENED IN 1860, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO ACCEPT LEGITIMATE ELECTION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO WHERE RECOGNIZE THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP.

DAYS AFTER THE TWIRKS ELECTION AND EVER SINCE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR A PRETEXT.

WHEN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE MONSTROUS LIE THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTED IN COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS, AS THE REASON TO NULLIFY THE ELECTION, JUST A YEAR BEFORE THE NEXT ONE IS TO BE HELD.

IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS POWERS WITH WHICH SONG ENTRUSTED.

IT REQUIRES AN OVERWHELMING CASE OF HIGH CRIMES SUPPORTED BY CLEAR EVIDENCE, THAT A VAST MAJORITY OF THE NATION DEEMS COMPELLING.

OUR CONSTITUTION VESTS THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF OUR LAWS WITH THE PRESIDENT, AND IT GIVES HIM SOLE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

CLEARLY, THIS INCLUDES REQUESTING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO COOPERATE IN RESOLVING POTENTIALLY CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THAT GOVERNMENT'S OFFICIALS AND OURS.

NOW, THE SUM TOTAL OF THE DEMOCRATS CASE ACCOMMODATION DOWN TO THIS.

NOT ONE OF THEIR HAND PICKED WITNESSES PROVIDED ANY FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT ORDERING A QUID PRO QUO AND TWO WITNESSES SONDLAND BY TESTIMONY AND SENATOR JOHNSON BY LETTER PROVIDED FIRSTHAND TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY ORDERED NO QUID PRO QUO.

NO TESTIMONY WAS PROVIDED THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS ANY QUID PRO QUO, BUT THERE ARE AMPLE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT ITS OFFICIALS DID NOT BELIEVE INWAS SUCH A LINKAGE.

IN FACT THE TESTIMONY OF THEIR WITNESSES CRUMBLED UNDER QUESTIONING AND WE WERE LEFT WITH CAREER BUREAUCRATS WHO ADMITTHAT THE ONLY THING THEY OFFERED WAS CRUNGS SPECULATION AND WHAT THEY OFFERED TO THE NEW YORK TIMES.

IT WAS UPON THIS FLIMSY EVIDENCE THAT THE DEMOCRATS JUSTIFY NULLIFYING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND IS SO FLIMSY THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD TO TURN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS ON ITS HEAD IN ORDER TO MAKE IT.

THEY'RE ARGUED THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE THAT IS KNOWN AS GOSSIP IS BETTER THAN DIRECT TESTIMONY.

THEY'VE ARGUED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE ACCUSED TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, DENYING THE DEFENSE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.

THEY HAVE ARGUED THAT THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER IS AN INVASION OF THE ACCUSER'S PRIVACY.

THEY HAVE ARGUED THAT PEALINGS TO THE COURTS TO DEFEND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS IPSO FACTO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND DETERMINATION OF GUILT.

TO DETERMINE WHAT WITNESSES THE DEFENSE IS ALLOWED TO CALL AND THEY'VE ARGUED THAT A CRIME IS NOT NECESSARY TO IMPEACH, ONLY IMPURE MOTIVES IN PERFORMING OTHERWISE LAWFUL ACTS, MOTIVES OF COURSE TO BE DIVINED BY THE ACCUSERS.

THESE ARE THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS OF DESPOTS, BUT THE ONLY DOCUMENTS THAT ARE HERE TO CONFRONT US TODAY PRESIDENTIAL THIS IS A SHAMELESS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE THAT WILL SHAME THE REPUTATIONS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME AND GOD HELP OUR COUNTRY IF THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO REPLACE OUR POWER OF WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS WITH THE DOCTRINES THEY HAVE IMPOSED IN THIS PROCESS.

DEMOCRATS ARE FOND OF SAYING NO ONE'S ABOVE THE LAW.

THEY HAVE ONE UNSPOKEN CAVEAT.

EXCEPT FOR THEMSELVES.

NOW THE SPEAKER'S ALREADY SHORT CIRCUITED WHAT SHOULD BE A SOLEMN, PAINSTAKING THOROUGH AND ABOVE ALL FAIR PROCESS BY ORDERING HER FOOT SOLDIERS ON THIS COMMITTEE TO DRAW UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT THIS COMMITTEE HEARING FROM A SINGLE FACT WITNESS.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT MR. SCHIFF DOESN'T DARE TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO DEFEND HIS WORK, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT HIS REPORT AS FACE VALUE AND OBEDIENTLY FOLLOW DID SPEAKER'S ORDERS.

AS THE RED QUEEN DECLARED, SENTENCE FIRST, VERDICT AFTERWARDS.

WE CAN ONLY PRAY THE SENATE STILL ADHERES TO THE JUDICIAL WHY PRINCIPLES OF OUR FOUNDERS.

IF THEY DO, PERHAPS THEN WE CAN BEGIN REPAIRING THE DAMAGE THAT THIS TRAVESTY HAS DONE TO OUR DEMOCRACY, OUR INSTITUTIONS, OUR PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR COUNTRY.

>> CHAIRMAN YIELDS BACK?

GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK MR. MR. RASKIN.

>> WHY IS IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION?

THE PRESIDENT FELT THAT BY DRAG FOREIGN POWERS INTO OUR POLITICS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS OF THE PRESIDENT ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW AND ABOVE THE NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE FRAMERS SET AGAINST A POTENTIAL TYRANT'S BOUNDLESS THIRST FOR POWER, THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES HERE IN CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE'S OWN DEMOCRATIC AMBITIONS, OUR SELF RESPECT, OUR LOVE OF FREEDOM AND THE RULE OF LAW, OUR FEARS CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOTISM -- FIERCE CONST CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOTISM.

IT SEEMED THE PRESIDENT WOULD GET AWAY WITH HIS UKRAINE SHAKEDOWN AND FEW AMERICANS KNEW OF IT AND THE FEW WHO LEARNED WOULD BE TOO INTIMIDATED TO CROSS THE MOST POWERFUL MAN ON EARTH.

PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD REST EASY BUT IF HE MISJUDGED THE CHARACTER THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION DID NOT.

I COUNT 17 HONORABLE SERVANTS WHO CAME FORTH TO TESTIFY, IS THAT RIGHT MR. GOLDMAN?

>> YES, 17.

>> I COUNTED OFFICIALS WHO SERVED REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS ALIKE WHO CAME TO TESTIFY.

FOUR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN STAFFERS, HILL, VINMAN, MORRISON AND McGWIRE CAME FORWARD TO REPORT TRUMP'S SCHEME TO NSC LAWYERS AS SOON AS THEY LEARN OF IT.

DIDN'T THEY MR. MORRISON.

>> SOME WENT YES.

>> THAT MOVED ME A LOT.

MY FATHER WAS A STAFFER ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL UNDER PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND SAID THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN BRING TO WORK WITH YOU EVERY DAY IS YOUR CONSCIENCE AND HE DEVOTED HIS CAREER TO THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE MUST SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER WHEN POWER BECOMES A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO DEMOCRACY AND TO THE PEOPLE.

I WANT TO TALK TO THE MANY HONORABLE WITNESS WHO'S WENT UNDER OATH AND STOOD UP TO THE TRUTH.

MR. GOLDMAN WHO IS DR. FIONA HILL.

>> SHE WAS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR THE EUROPE AND RUSSIA DIRECTORATE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL UNTIL JULY OF THIS YEAR.

>> AND SHE WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SENIOR ADVISER ON RUSSIA?

>> YES.

>> HER FAMILY FLED BOTH NAZI GERMANY AND SOVIET RUSSIA.

>> I THINK HER FAMILY CAME FROM ENGLAND.

>> THAT WAS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVICH.

>> SHE VOICED HER CONCERN ON JULY 10 AND 11.

LONG BEFORE ANYONE ON THE COMMITTEE KNEW ABOUT IT.

WHY DID SHE GO TO REPORT WHAT SHE HAD LEARNED?

WHAT MOTIVATED HER?

>> SHE WAS CONCERNED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND McMULVANEY WERE ENTERING INTO A TRANSACTION WHEREBY THE UKRAINIANS WOULD OPEN UP THE INVESTIGATIONS IN RETURN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFERED.

>> AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT GEORGE KENT WHO SERVED AS A CAREER SERVICE OFFICER FOR MORE THAN 27 YEARS UNDER FIVE DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE.

HE WROTE OR UPDATED NOTES TO FILE ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASION TO RECORD HIS GRAVE CONTEMPORANEOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

MR. GOLDMAN, WHEN WERE THE EVENTS THAT LED HIM TO DRAFT THESE NOTES TO HIS FILE.

>> THERE WERE SEVERAL.

A CONVERSATION AT THE END OF JUNE WHERE SEVERAL AMERICAN OFFICIALS HAD INDICATED TO MR. ZEL ZELENSKY HAD TO GO FORWARD AND YOU BRING UP AN IMPORTANT POINT WHICH IS ALL OF THESE STATE DEPARTMENT WITNESSES IN PARTICULAR AND FRANKLY ALL THE WITNESSES OTHER THAN EMBASSY SONDLAND TOOK UNBELIEVABLE METICULOUS NOTES.

I WOULD HAVE DREAMED FOR A WITNESS LIKE THAT AS A PROSECUTOR.

IT MAKES FOR A CLEAR AND COMPELLING RECORD AND EVIDENCE BASED ON CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES.

>> DO WE HAVE MR. KENT'S NOTES?

>> WE HAVE NO IN THE MEMO TO FILE AND THE FIRST PERSON CABLE AND THE E-MAILS.

THERE'S SO MANY DOCUMENTS THAT THE FEW WE HAVE GOTTEN HAVE BEEN SO HELPFUL TO THE INVESTIGATION.

>> WHY DO WE NOT HAVE THEM?

>> THE STATE DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO PROVIDE THEM NOTWITHSTANDING OUR SUBPOENA UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.

>> IN AUTHORITARIAN SOCIETY'S LIKE PUTIN PEOPLE ARE TERRIFIED TO SPEAK OUT BUT IN THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE ARE NOT AFRAID THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED TO INTIMIDATE OR SILENCE THEM.

HE HAS TRIED TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY MORE LIKE RUSSIA AND WE CAN BE THANKFUL YOU FOUND A LOT OF HEROES WHO STOOD UP FOR THE TRUTH AND OUR CONSTITUTION.

I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

>> MY FIRST TWO QUESTIONS ARE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AMERICA, ARE YOU SICK AND TIREDIEST THIS IMPEACHMENT SHAM AND AMERICA, WOULD YOU LIKE CONGRESS TO GET BACK TO WORK AND ACTUALLY DONE BECAUSE I SURE WOULD.

MR. CASTOR, THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS ARE FOR YOU AND YOU WOULD LIKE YES OR NO ANSWERS IF POSSIBLE.

THERE MR CASTOR, MY FIRST QUESTION IS IMPORTANT.

DID ANY OF THE DEMOCRATS FACT WITNESSES ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR?

>> GOOD HEAVENS, NO.

>> MR. CASTOR, THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY, MR. MORRISON, LISTENED IN ON THE PHONE CALL.

HE TESTIFIED HE WAS NOT CONCERNED THAT ANYTHING DISCUSSED ON THE PHONE CALL WAS ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YEAH, HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT LEAKS.

>> SEVERAL DEMOCRAT WITNESSES TEST TESTIFIED IT'S COMMON FOR CONCERNS THAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS WOULD BE SPENT.

EMBASSY VOELKER SAID THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT.

>> YES, A NUMBER OF WITNESSES SAID THE SAME THING.

>> FORMER U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVICH TESTIFIED IN UKRAINE, CORRUPTION IS NOT JUST PREVALENT BUT IS THE SYSTEM.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, ALL THE WITNESSES CONFIRMED THE ENVIRONMENT AS VERY CORRUPT.

>> MR. CASTOR BURISMA HOLD HAD A REPUTATION AS A CORRUPT COMPANY.

IS THAT CORRECT >> BIG TIME.

>> ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES HUNTER BIDEN WAS A WAY TO BRING IN WELL CONNECTED DEMOCRATS WHEN THE COMPANY WAS FACING INVESTIGATIONS.

>> THE NEW YORKER ALSO HAD A PRETTY EXTENSIVE REPORT ON THAT AS WELL.

>> OBAMA'S DEPUTY ASSIST SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT SAID HE RAISED CONCERNS DIRECTLY TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OFFICE ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S PLACEMENT ON THE BOARD IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> MR. CASTOR IN THE JULY 25th CALL HE REFERENCED JOE BIDEN BRAGGING ABOUT HOW HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.

WE SAW THAT VIDEO EARLIER TODAY WHERE JOE BIDEN BRAGGED ABOUT HOW HE TOLD UKRAINE IF THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY.

MR. CASTOR, IS THIS THE SAME PROSECUTOR THAT LOOKED INTO BURISMA?

>> IT IS.

>> IN A SIMILAR SCHEME, OBAMA'S ASSISTANT SAID THIS IS CORRUPTION PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

MR. CASTOR, HERE IS ANOTHER KEY QUESTION.

GIVEN THAT ONE, BURISMA HAD A REPUTATION OF BEING A CORRUPT COMPANY.

TWO, OBAMA'S OWN STATE DEPARTMENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN SERVING ON BURISMA'S BOARD AT THE SAME TIME VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ACTING AS THE POINT PERSON TO UKRAINE AND THREE, OBAMA'S ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID IN A SMILAR SCHEME THAT CORRUPTION THAT THERE WAS CORRUPTION PLAIN AND SIMPLE, DO YOU THINK THEN IS IT REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ASK THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO LOOK INTO THE POTENTIAL CORRUPTION SCHEME?

>> YES.

>> MR. CASTOR.

THERE'S FOUR UNDISPUTABLE FACTS THAT PROVE THERE'S NO IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE, NO QUID PRO QUO AND UKRAINE DIDN'T KNOW THE AID WAS HELD UP AND UKRAINE RECEIVED A WHITE HOUSE CALL ON AID EVEN THOUGH FOUR DIDN'T INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS.

D YOU AGREE?

>> UKRAINE RECEIVED A MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE IN WARSAW AND A MEETING NOT AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT AT THE UNITED NATIONS.

>> MR. CASTOR, DID MR. TURLY TESTIFY THIS HAS NOT PASSED CHAIRMAN NADLER'S THREE-PRONGED TEST?

>> HE DID.

>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU TO THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM WASHINGTON IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU.

LET'S FOCUS ON THE REPUBLICAN CLAIM PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD MILITARY AID TO THE UKRAINE BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION RATHER THAN USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

LET ME BE CLEAR.

WE DO NOT HAVE TO READ THE PRESIDENT'S MIND ON THIS.

AS YOUR REPORT NOTES ON PAGE 10 AND ON TELEVISION HE TOLD US HIMSELF EXACTLY WHAT HIS INTENT WAS.

>> I THINK IF THEY'RE HONEST THEY'D INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

>> THE FIRST WITNESS WAS DONALD TRUMP ON THE INTENT AND THERE'S PL PLENTY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.

LET'S LOOK OVER THE FACTS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T MENTION THE WORD CORRUPTION DURING EITHER OF HIS CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND DID -- DID REGARDED THE TALKING POINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND DEBUNK CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT THE ELECTION WERE NOT SUPPORT OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AND THIRD, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

UKRAINE PASSED ALL THE CHECKS THE UNITED STATES ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE IT WAS TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTIONS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS AMONG THE STATE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL THE PRESIDENT SHOULD RELEASE THE MILITARY AID UKRAINE CRITICALLY NEEDED TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

MR. GOLDMAN, BETWEEN THE TIME PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT A HOLD ON MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND THEN RELEASED THE AID, THE PRESIDENT NEVER CONDUCTED AN ACTUAL REVIEW OR CORRUPTION ASSESSMENT ON UKRAINE, DID HE?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

THERE WAS NO WITNESS TESTIFIED THERE WAS REVIEW OR INVESTIGATION OF ANY SORT RELATED TO THE UKRAINE AID.

>> AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED NOT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW ON UKRAINE AFTER THE PRESIDENT FROZE THE MILITARY AID BECAUSE UKRAINE HAD ALREADY MET ALL OF THE CORRUPTION BENCHMARKS IN MAY OF 2019.

>> YES, AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IN UKRAINE POLICY BELIEVED THEY WERE ON THE RIGHT PATH AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN PARTICULAR.

>> IN ADDITION TO UKRAINE HAVING SATISFIED THE ASSESSMENTS PRIOR TO MILITARY AID BEING WITHHELD THERE'S SIGNIFICANT WITNESS TESTIMONY THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY THAT IT WOULD HELP FURTHER AN ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENDA, CORRECT.

>> THE CORRUPTION AND FIGHTING THE AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA.

>> IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BUDGET ACTUALLY CUT FUNDING FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

NOW CASTOR ARGUES PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD MILITARY AID BECAUSE HE WAS SKEPTICAL OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN GENERAL BUT IN 2017 AND 2018 DIDN'T PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASE MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE WITHOUT COMPLAINTS ABOUT CORRUPTION?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THE PRESIDENT WAS PERFECTLY FINE GIVING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE IN 2017 AND 2018 BUT SOMEHOW NOT IN 2019.

WHAT CHANGED?

>> JOE BIDEN STARTED RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

AND THE MUELLER REPORT THOUGH IT DID NOT CHARGE THE PRESIDENT IT IMPLICATE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN IN WELCOMING THE ASSISTANCE FROM RUSSIA AND UTILIZING IT.

>> THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T CARE ABOUT CORRUPTION AT ALL AND AS HE SAID ON NATIONAL TELEVISION HE CARED ABOUT HIS OWN POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL AND EMBASSY SONDLAND PICKED UP THE PHONE AND CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT MR. UKRAINE AND WHAT WAS MR. SONDLAND'S ANSWER?

>> HE SAID THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T NOT GIVE A BLEEP ABOUT UKRAINE.

HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF MEANING THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION MR. GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

>> JUST TO ADD, THAT'S A DIRECT EVIDENCE CONVERSATION BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MANY ON THE MINORITY SIDE.

>> WE KNOW WHAT MR. TRUMP WAS INTERESTED IN BASED ON HIS WORDS, ACTION AND WITNESS TESTIMONY.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANTED UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO A POLITICAL RIVAL FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL, POLITICAL BENEFIT TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION AND WILLING TO USE U.S. MILITARY AID WHICH IS TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND AN ESSENTIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING AS LEVERAGE.

THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE AND GRAVE USE OF POWER.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIRMAN.

IN THE NAVY WE HAD A SAYING FOR BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT.

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

WE'RE HEAR BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ARE -- HERE BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ARE TERRIFIED PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL WIN RE-ELECTION.

THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

LET ME GET TO SPECIFICS.

WE'RE HERE DEALING WITH IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE RED HOT TRUMP ECONOMY.

THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN 50 YEARS.

WE'RE DEALING WITH YIP -- IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO TALK HOW HE'S RENEGOTIATING TRADE DEALS TO BENEFIT AMERICAN WORKERS AND ELIMINATED BURDENSOME RESOLUTIONS THAT HURT THE ECONOMY AND HELP JOB CREATORS.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO BE REMINDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE DEMOCRATIC AGENDA INCLUDES LAUGHABLE IDEAS LIKE BANNING AIRPLANES, GIVING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TAX-PAIR FUNDED HEALTH CARE AND TAKING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS JUST A DISTRACTION.

IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE THE FAR LEFT RADICAL AGENDA.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FACTS.

SCHIFF'S REPORT CLAIMS THE ADMINISTRATION THROWS MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

YET THE FACT PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE MORE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA.

PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE UKRAINE WELL WISHES.

PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE THE UKRAINIANS JAVELIN MISSILES.

THOSE THE FACTS.

LET'S GO OVER MORE FACTS.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS WANT TO CLAIM IT'S A CONSPIRACY UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION.

YET, UKRAINIAN ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION ARE WELL DOCUMENTED BY POLITICO AND FINANCIAL TIMES AND THE HILL.

THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS AND THAT'S TROUBLING AND THAT'S WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF PRESIDENT DE I- ZELENSKY.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THE FACTS DON'T MATTER TO MY DEMOCRAT CLLEAGUES.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS DON'T CARE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

THE TRANSCRIPT IS THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT AND THAT TRANSCRIPT SHOWS THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

N BRIBERY.

I HAVE TO REMEMBER WE'RE CALLING IT BRIBERY AFTER A LATIN PHRASE DIDN'T TEST WELL IN A DEMOCRATIC FOCUS GROUP.

MY DEMOCRATS SEEM TO CARE ABOUT FOCUS GROUPS AND POLLING BUT NOT THE FACTS.

THE FACT IS DEMOCRATS WERE CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION EVEN BEGAN.

REPRESENT TALIB SAID IN JANUARY, I DON'T THINK WE WERE SWORN IN YET, SHE SAID IN JANUARY, IMPEACH THE MOTHER.

REPRESENT GREEN SAID IN MAY, AND I QUOTE, I'M CONCERNED WE DON'T IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, HE'LL GET REELEEKTED.

-- REELECTED.

HE'S PROCESS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A POLITICAL HIT JOB.

UNLIKE MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES I DO CARE ABOUT THE FACT WHICH IS IS WHY I'M TROUBLED MY COMMITTEE DID NOT HEAR FROM A SINGLE FACT WITNESS THIS ENTIRE TIME.

WE SHOULD BE HEARING FROM HUNTER BIDEN AND HEARING FROM SCHIFF'S STAFF.

WE KNOW SCHIFF'S STAFF COORDINATED WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND AGAIN WE NEED IT HEAR FROM THE WHIFFLE BLOWER.

LAST WEEK I OFFERED A MOTION TO SUBPOENA THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION MEANING HE OR SHE COULD TESTIFY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES VOTED IT DOWN IN A PARTISAN FASHION.

MR. KAS F >> MR. CASTOR, CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE DETAILS.

>> IT'S FROM AN OUTSIDER WHO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION SECOND HALF.

THE INFORMATION IS CLEARLY DISTORTED.

IT'S FROM A PERSON WHO SEEMS TO BE MAKING A CASE LIKE AN ADVOCATE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON THE CALL.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER REFERENCES A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE AND AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT HE OR SHE HAS SPOKEN TO TO FORM THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PIECE TOGETHER ALL THOSE PEOPLE AND IN TALKING TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE IS IMPORTANT.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF THEM RUNNING OUT OF TIME BUT THROWS A REFERENCE TO LUSENKO WHERE WITNESSES SAID IT'S LIKELY SCHOLKEN -- >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS UP.

I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> MR. GOLDMAN, AS A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE I SAW SIGNIFICANT FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITIONED OUR MILITARY AID ON UKRAINE ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BIDENS AND BETRAYED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROCESS.

FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD US ONCE THE UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT THE AID BEING WITHHELD IT WAS MADE AND I QUOTE, ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO THEM THAT IF THEY WANTED THE AID AND I QUOTE, THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS.

MR. GOLDMAN, BEGINNING ON AND AROUND THE 25th OF JULY CALL THROUGH SEPTEMBER, WOULD AGREE CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY WE JUST REVIEWED UKRAINE WAS MADE AWARE TO RECEIVE OUR MILITARY AID AND THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> NOT ONLY WERE THEY MADE AWARE BUT MADE AWARE EITHER BY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PROXY, RUDY GIULIANI OR THROUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO SPOKE TO PRESIDENT ZE ZELENSKY DECEMBER 7 AND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CONFIRMED THAT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATION.

>> AND BY AUGUST PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DOES MAKE THAT STATEMENT ON CNN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> HE RELENTED AFTER MONTHS OF TRYING TO NOT GET INOLVED IN WHAT HE CALLED THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL PROCESS AND ULTIMATELY RECOGNIZING HE HAD NO CHOICE TO BREAK THE STALEMATE HE AGREED TO GO ON TELEVISION BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT AND RELEASED THE AID.

>> I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU WHICH DISPLAYS AN ARTICLE FROM SEPTEMBER 5 HEADLINE SAYING TRUMP TRIES TO FIRST UKRAINE TO MEDDLE IN THE ELECTIONS AND THE ARTICLE REPORTS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS AND I QUOTA ATTEMPTING TO FORCE ZELENSKY TO INTERVENE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY LAUNCHING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE LEADING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, JOE BIDEN.

MR. PRESIDENT IS NOT JUST SOLICITING UKRAINE'S HELP BUT USING UNITED STATES MILITARY AID THE COUNTRY DESPERATELY NEEDS IN AN ATTEMPT TO EXTORT IT.

AM I CORRECT BY SEPTEMBER 25, ALLEGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS USING MILITARY AID TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION WAS BEING WIDELY REPORTED?

>> BY WHAT DATE?

>> SEPTEMBER 25?

>> THE AID WAS WIDELY REPORT.

>> AND OUR INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES FORMALLY ANNOUNCED A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

AND MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT DAY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASE THE MILITARY AID?

>> TWO DAYS AFTER THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE ANNOUNCED AND TWO DAYS AFTER THE I.G., IN SPECTER GENERAL, TOLD THE COMMITTEE THERE WAS A COMPLAINT BEING WITHHELD.

>> AM I CORRECT AS THE TIME LINE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU SHOWS, IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, AFTER THE WASHINGTON POST REPORT AND AFTER CONGRESS LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TIMELY RELEASED THE AID?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

I WOULD ADD ONE THING BRIEFLY TO THE CONGRESSMAN'S POINT, IT IS TRUE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS GIVEN MORE MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA.

SO ONE WOULD WONDER IF HE SUPPORTS MILITARY ASSISTANCE SO MUCH WHY THEN IS HE HOLDING IT UP MORE THAN TWO MONTHS.

>> AS A MATTER OF FACT, PEOPLE AT THE NSC DISCUSSED CONGRESS'S INVESTIGATION, QUOTE, MIGHT HAVE THE EFFECT OF RELEASING THE HOLD ON THE MILITARY AID BECAUSE WE'D BE POTENTIALLY CHALLENGING TO JUSTIFIED THE AID IS THAT CORRECT MR. GOLDMAN.

>> THAT WAS THE TESTIMONY, YES.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE AID WAS RELEASED AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT.

WHAT MAKES ME ANGRY IS THAT THIS PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP THINKS HE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

BUT HE GOT CAUGHT.

AND HE TRIED TO COVER IT UP BUT WE WON'T LET HIM DO THAT AND THANK GOOD, MR. GOLDMAN, FOR THE TRUE COURAGEOUS PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD IN SPITE OF INTIMIDATION AND OBSTRUCTION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

YOU SEE, EVERYBODY COUNTS.

EVERYBODY IS ACCOUNTABLE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.

>> THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR.

MR. GOLDMAN.

MY COLLEAGUES KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT APPARENTLY SAID NO QUID PRO QUO ON SEPTEMBER 7 IN A CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

DID YOU RECEIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE SEPTEMBER 7 CALL?

>> YES, WE RECEIVED TESTIMONY FROM THREE WITNESSES ABOUT IT.

IT GETS COMPLICATED BUT THAT WAS A CONFIDENT REFRAIN IS THE PRESIDENT SAID NO QUID PRO QUO.

>> LET'S FRY TO CLARIFY IT A LITTLE BIT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED THAT CALL TO MR. MORRISON THAT SAME DAY IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> MR. MORRISON THEN REPORTED IT TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THEY TOOK NOTES OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

>> THEY DID.

>> WERE THOSE NOTES PRODUCED TO THE COMMITTEE?

>> THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED TO US BUT THE WITNESSES SAID THEY RELIED ON THEIR NOTES TO PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY.

>> THAT SET OF NOTES WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION?

>> DIRECTION.

>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF BROUGHT UP THE WORDS QUID PRO QUO.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT TOO.

>> YES.

>> WHAT DID THE COMMITTEE MAKE OF THE FACT?

>> IT WAS ODD THE PRESIDENT WOULD VOLUNTEER IN RESPONSE TO NOTHING ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

I WAS GOING SAY WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT IS WHAT HE SAID IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY CONDUCT THAT AMOUNTS TO A QUID PRO QUO HE SAID YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

>> WHAT DID THE COMMITTEE MAKE OF THE FACT THAT ACCORDING?

;5c AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MORRISON AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID NO QUID PRO QUO, PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD WANT TO DO THIS HIMSELF.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID AND MR. MORRISON SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR.

THEY'RE UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE CONVERSATION IS THERE WAS A CLEAR DIRECTIVE FROM THE ACTIONS.

WE TALKED A LITTLE TODAY ABOUT THE WORDS AND ZELENSKY SAID NO PRESSURE AND TRUMP SAID NO PRESSURE AND NO QUID PRO QUO BUT AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND PROSECUTOR YOU NEED TO LOOK TO THE ACTIONS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORDS MEAN.

THAT'S THIS CALL IN PARTICULAR IS SO IMPORTANT.

>> AS INDIVIDUALS REACTED WITH CONCERN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DO YOU RECALL MR. MORRISON'S REACTION?

>> MR. MORRISON SAID HE WAS SHOCKED, I THINK, SINKING FEELING, CORRECT AND HE WENT AND TALKED TO THE LAWYERS AT THE DIRECTION OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

>> MR. GOLDMAN, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID IT WAS CONDITIONED ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS AND IT WAS CRAZY AND WRONG IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED TOO.

>> COLLEAGUES POINTED OUT SEPTEMBER 9 A TEXT MESSAGE FROM SONDLAND REFLECTING THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO.

MR. GOLDMAN, AM I CORRECT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED PRIOR TO SENDING HIS TEXT, HE HIMSELF CAME TO BELIEVE THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS.

>> YES.

THE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC TESTIMONY REVEALED TWO THINGS THAT WERE PRECISELY FALSE OR NOT TRUE IN THE TEXT MESSAGE INCLUDING THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO OF ANY KIND WHEN HE TESTIFIED AND WE SAW THE VIDEO EARLIER AND THERE ASSUREDLY WAS AS IT RELATED TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> THE SEPTEMBER 7 CALL AND THE SEPTEMBER 9 TEXT OCCURRED AFTER THE PRESS REPORTS, AFTER THE PRESS REPORTS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS CONDITIONING MILITARY AID ON INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL IS THAT CORRECT?

>> AND THE TEXT OCCURRED AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAYED THE MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> IF THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE RECEIVE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO?

>> WE RECEIVED A LOT OF EVIDENCE AND ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE FACT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

>> THANK YOU.

I YIELD.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.

MADAME CHAIRMAN.

>> CAN YOU HOLD IT UNTIL I DO MY QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU.

>> IT WILL BE VERY BRIEF.

IT'S JUST UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MR. GOLDMAN.

YOU TALKED ABOUT ACTIONS SPEAKING LOUDER THAN WORDS I WANT TO WHY IT WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO BENEFIT HIS UKRAINE AND LET'S LOOK AT THE CALL.

LIEUTENANT VINDMAN SAID WHEN HE ASKED UKRAINE FOR A FAVOR IT WASN'T A FRIENDLY REQUEST IT WAS A DEMAND.

I'M GOING DEMAND YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SLIDE ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY WHY DID HE SAY IT WAS A DEMAND?

>> BECAUSE THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AS THE GREATEST POWER IN THE WORLD AND UKRAINE WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES NOT JUST FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE BUT FOR THE REPORT MADE SUCH A REQUEST EFFECTIVELY A DEMAND BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COULD NOT SAY NO.

>> AND THE DISPARITY EXISTS BECAUSE UKRAINE HAS BEEN AT WAR WIN RUSSIA SINCE RUSSIA INVITED FIVE YEARS AGO AND OVER 15,000 OF THIS THE UKRAINE PEOPLE HAVE DIED IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NOT ONLY DOES THE U.S.

PROVIDE 10% OF THEIR MILITARY BUDGET BUT THE UNITED STATES IS A CRITICAL ALLY.

EUROPE GIVES FOUR TIMES AS MUCH MONEY AS THE UNITED STATES OVERALL TO UKRAINE.

>> AND HE KNEW THEIR BACK WAS AGAINST THE WALL AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED SUPPORT.

>> YES.

>> ACCORDING TO THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE AND WE HAVE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY IT WASN'T UNTIL AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD THE UKRAINIANS THERE WOULD BE STALEMATE ON THE AID BUT HE WAS WILLING TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DEMANDING IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND THE COMMITTEE HEARD TESTIMONY THE UKRAINIANS FELT THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT, YES.

EVEN AFTER THE AID WAS RELEASED.

>> OKAY.

WHEN ASKED IN FRONT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IN SEPTEMBER WHETHER HE FELT PRESSURED, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, SAID, QUOTE, I'M SORRY I DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE ELECTIONS OF THE USA, DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT?

>> IF YOU'RE READING THE QUOTE.

>> SOME HAVE TRIED TO EXCUSE HIS CONDUCT BY POINTING TO STATEMENTS FROM THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HE WAS NOT UNDER PRESSURE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND.

DOES YOUR COMMITTEE CONSIDER THOSE STATEMENTS BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> WE DID AND WE FOUND THE STATEMENTS OF WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY AN EXTORTION VICTIM ARE NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COULD NOT IN REALITY FOR THE SAME REASONS THE RINTERPRETED TO BE DEMAND BECAUSE HE FELT PRESSURE BECAUSE IT WOULD POTENTIALLY UPSET PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THEY'RE DEPENDENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE UNITED STATES.

>> ONE COULD SAY IT'S SIMILAR TO A HOSTAGE TESTIFYING UNDER DURESS?

>> DURESS WOULD BE A GOOD WORD.

>> SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT MADE THESE STATEMENTS AND UP TO AND INCLUDING TODAY HIS COUNTRY WAS STILL UNDER ATTACK BY RUSSIA, STILL HADN'T GOTTEN A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND STILL NEEDED AID FROM THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> AND DAVID HOLMES TESTFIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP TO UKRAINE AFTER THE AID WAS LIFTED INCLUDING POINTING TO TODAY WHEN PRESIDENT PUTIN AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MET TO DISCUSS THE WAR IN THE EAST.

>> THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW HE HAD THE POWER TO FORCE UKRAINE'S HAND AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT DESPERATION AND ABUSED THE POURS -- POWERS TO GET WHAT HE WANTED.

>> AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT AND HAS TO BE CLARIFIED IS THE PRESIDENT, THE EVIDENT SHOWED THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY SAID TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THERE'S BEEN SOME DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT BUT THAT IS ONE THING THE EVIDENCE SHOWED BASED ON THE MORRISON AND TAYLOR TESTIMONY AND SONDLAND TESTIMONY AND THE TEXT.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHATEVER WE WANT TO SAY ABOUT HEARSAY OR WHATEVER THAT'S DIRECT EVIDENCE.

>> THAT'S THE KIND OF BETRAYAL OUR FOUNDERS SOUGHT TO PREVENT.

I'LL YIELD BACK AND RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.

>> YOU INDICATED TO ME YOU WOULD ALLOW KNOW MAKE MY UNIFORM CONSENT AFTER YOU ASKED YOUR QUESTION SO I'D ASK FOR UNIFORM CONSENT OR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INTRODUCE TWO LETTERS.

>> I HAVE TWO LETTERS DECEMBER 14 AND ONE DECEMBER 25, 2019.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.

>> HAVE A PARLIAMENTARYgQ)e INQ.

>> I REFLECTED A CONCERN WITH THE PROCESS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS UNDERTAKEN.

I'M REMINDED OF YOUR QUOTE, THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY SUPPORTED IMPEACHMENT.

SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WOULD LACK LEGITIMACY AND WOULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.

YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT IN 1998.

NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO PRESENTING THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE EVIDENCE GATHERED IN THIS REPORT.

NOT TO HEAR FROM DIRECT FACT WITNESSES BUT A 300 PAGE REPORT BUILD ON HEARSAY, OPINION AND SPECULATION.

I'M ESPECIALLY OUTRAGED THE PURPORTED CHAIRMAN, MR. SCHIFF NOT HERE.

NOW THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THE FACTS WITHIN OR THEREFORE THERE ARE FOUR FACT WILL NEVER CHANGE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAY THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

SECOND, THE CALL TRANSCRIPT SHOWS CONDITIONALITY BETWEEN AID AND INVESTIGATION.

UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE AID WAS WITHHELD WHEN THE PRESIDENT SPOKE AND UKRAINE DIDN'T OPEN AN INVESTIGATION AND STILL RECEIVE THE AID AND MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE IDEA OF HEARSAY AND THE FACT THE REPORT REALIZE OUT IN.

MR. CASTOR, DID THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT REPORT RELY ON HEARSAY TO SUPPORT THEIR ASSERTIONS?

>> YES, IT DID.

>> HOW MANY TIMES?

>> WE WENT THROUGH AND COUNTED OVER 50 INSTANCES OF KEY FACTS -- >> CAN YOU GIVE US EXAMPLES OF THE HEARSAY BEING RELIED ON BY THE MAJORITY TO MAKE THEIR CASE?

>> A LOT OF THE INFORMATION FOR EXAMPLE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS COMMUNICATING, HE VERY DILIGENTLY RECORDED NOTES ABOUT OFFICIALS TOLD HIM BUT ONE AND TWO STEPS REMOVED.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

IT'S A WHISPER DOWN THE LANE SITUATION AND IF SOME OF THE PEOPLE DOING THE WHISPERING ARE PREDISPOSED TO NOT LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN WHAT THEY'RE WHISPERING DOWN THE LANE BECOMES MORE DISTORTED.

>> DID YOU FIND WHERE THE DEMOCRAT REPORT USED SPECULATION AND PRESUMPTION.

>> WHAT IS THE BIG DADDY OF THE HEARING IS SONDLAND PRESUMING THAT THE AID WAS TIED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE AS HE ENGAGED IN A BACK AND FORTH WITH MR. TURNER, NOBODY ON THE PLANET TOLD HIM THAT WAS THE CASE.

>> I WANT TO MOVE TON FOREIGN POLICY AND THE IDEA THAT SOME HU THE PRESIDENT WAS AABUSING ABUSING FOREIGN POLICY AND HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS OUTSIDE THE NORMS.

THE PRESIDENT SETS FOREIGN POLICY, CORRECT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WHERE DOES HE DERIVE THAT POWER?

>> CONSTITUTION.

>> ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.

CAN YOU GIVE EXAMPLES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT WHO TOOK ISSUE WITH THE DIRECTION AND CHOICES?

>> FOR EXAMPLE, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN SAID HE PREPARED TALKING POINTS AND CALL PACKAGE AND WAS VISIBLY DEFLATED WHEN HE RECOGNIZED HIS CALL NOTES WEREN'T BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE INTERAGENCY OFFICIALS BECAME VERY SAD DIDN'T REVERE THE APPARATUS.

>> DOES THE HAVE GOALS LIKE ROOT OUGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?

>> I THINK THE PRESIDENT IS SKEPTICAL OF THE INTERAGENCY BEAURACRACY.

>> IS THAT WHY HE RELIED ON THEM?

>> THE OFFICIALS ARE NOT THAT FAR OUTSIDE THE CHAIN OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

>> WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO EXEMPT OR REMOVE A POLITICAL SUPPORTER?

>> IT WOULD BE.

>> WOULD IT BE INAPPROPRIATE TO REMOVE A POLITICAL OPPONENT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH.

>> WITHOUT IT BE INAPPROPRIATE TO REMOVE THE SON OF AN OPPONENT?

>> IT ALL GOES TO THE HEART OF BIAS.

>> I GO BACK TO THE FACTS BEING UNDISPUTED.

I GO BACK TO THE FACTS ARE DISPUTED AND WHAT YOU CONTENT ARE FACTS ARE NOT.

THEY'RE WITNESS PRESUMPTIONS, HEARSAY AND SPECULATION AND THIS IS THE SHORTEST IMPEACHMENT IN U.S. HISTORY BASED ON THE THINNEST OF EVIDENTIARY OF RECORDS AND GROUNDS.

THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS A FARCE AND STAIN ON THE COMMITTEE AND ON THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND I YIELD BACK.