ahead and have your vote because he wants to get back to the business of the american people. a lot of good talking points with the economy and stock market so i think he's going to say i'm the president and focused on the business at hand and focused on something he believes is unimportant in the end. >> the event that he is doing today is on school choice and a big issue for the republican party, he's got some results there and we have the president now talking about the horowitz report, we have that tape for you right here. >> president trump: thank you very much. the ig report just came out and i was just briefed on it and it's a disgrace what has happened with respect to the things that were done to our country. should never again happen to another president. it is incredible, far worse than i would've ever thought

possible, and that is an embarrassment to our country, it is dishonest. it is everything that a lot of people thought it would be except far worse. so i'm going to get some very detailed briefings, but it's a very sad day when i see that, a very sad day when a lot of people see that. i was concocted and you say what you want, that was probably something that has never happened in the history of our country. i think you were able to look at some of the report and can address a little bit of it very well if you might say a will you words, i know you've looked at it also. >> so many of us who are career law enforcement are outraged and i think the american people should be terrified that this could happen to you when we are

supposed to live in a society of integrity and honesty and this happens, it was a horrible day for the country. this could happen to the president of the united states, that they could fabricate, falsify emails, life, and omit exculpatory evidence in order to continue this witch hunt against the president of the united states. and this is just the tip of the iceberg. now we have the durham investigation. >> kelly and, please. her >> i was a campaign manager and i would ask a simple question, why no defensive briefing? my not contact tentative trumbull governor penn's or chris to you about the time was arranging for the intelligence briefing for candidate trump and was a public service official at

that time governor of new jersey with the full intelligence security clearance to receive that implication. so you can't blame people for feeling it was unfair and to think that perhaps people lied and spied and tried to divert democracy just because they wanted someone else to win or just because they have a different political point of view, that is not the way democracy has been formed and can survive and at times such as this, i will just repeat something that attorney general barr said toda today, investigation on the campaign on suspicion and that is chilling language for any of us and what our government to work for us and not against us. i only wish they could have informed us and we would've had the knowledge on the wherewithal to act at that time.

>> they fabricated evidence and they lied to the courts and did all sorts of things to have a go their way and this was something that we can never allow to happen again. the report when you're looking at it and the details of the report are far worse than anything i would've imagined. what they were doing and what they would've done if i didn't make a certain move that was a very important move because it would have been even worse if that's possible. and it might've been able to succeed, this was an overthrow of government, and attempted overthrow and a lot of people were in on it and they got caught, they got caught red-handed and i look forward to the durham report which is coming out in the not-too-distant future. which is this information, an incredible thing that happened

and going to put this down as one of our great achievements because what we found and what we saw never, ever should this happen again in our country. today, we gather to discuss the urgent national priority that we've been working on so long and so hard, expanding education freedom through school choice that every american child can get a great education. we are grateful to be joined by vice president mike pence, secretary betsy devos, senators ted cruz and mike lee of my representative bradley byrne, florida governor ron desantis, texas lieutenant governor. >> entering on the 3:00 p.m. hour on the east coast, i am shannon bream as we pick up coverage of the president's remarks, the first we are seeing him on camera responding to the horowitz report, impeachment going on as well, busy days a lot of folks to help us unpack it here. let's start with chris wallace and the more that we dig through

this information regarding the horowitz report, it is clear that there were concerns, information that could have been considered exculpatory wasn't passed to the higher-ups. reports said were in having the full picture that they were essentially claiming they didn't have the full information because it hadn't been passed of them. >> there is no question that there were problems, i hate the expression mistakes are made, but people inside the fbi from did some things that were wrong particularly with the fisa warrants and seems quite extraordinary from an fbi lawyer and my guess is he's going to be a target of the durham investigation, so there were a number of decisions that were made that seem to have been either just careless or in a lot of cases willfully improper,

perhaps even illegal when it finally. on the other hand, some of the bigger claims, some of the headlines that have been made by president trump and bill barr had not been borne out and some other things that were being said just now in that cabinet room meeting were not borne out. kellyanne conway said perhaps people lied and spied because they wanted someone else to win. at least in terms of spying, inspector general says no, there wasn't spying going on, there was a legitimate surveillance button wasn't surveillance. the president said this is an attempt to overthrow the government and again that hasn't been proven in the inspector general seems to indicate that wasn't true although he certainly does indicate he thought there were seven major improprieties and that there were a lot of things i had to be cleaned up and perhaps some people they are going to have to face justice. so depending on your view over the world, you can see it is

half-full or half-empty, the idea of a major politically-based conspiracy at the fbi to overthrow first of all prevent donald trump from becoming president tend to oust him once he became president seems not to be borne out but in terms of some things that were done wrong that didn't give either carter page or perhaps you could argue the president due process certainly seems to be what the inspector general found. >> shannon: he recommends the review of both performance of a number of employees who do not provide relevant information and that there was a discussion as well talking about the steele dossier because i've gotten a lot of attention and the fact there were concerns, james comey said it was an unfinished, not right immature intel product but other things we find in this report that talk about the fact that at one point, some were 50/50 on whether to proceed about probable cause, the carter page was operating as a foreign agent and that there were some

discussions that the dossier and what was contained they are push things over the edge to go ahead and apply for those applications for of them were eventually prepared at least in part of the steele dossier. let's go live to chief white house correspondent john roberts to get some action from the white house. >> one of the interesting things this narrative has been pushed that it was the steele dossier that initiated cross fire hurricanes and assess fbi investigations and now we find out the investigation was already underway based on information that was gleaned about george papadopoulos and then the steele dossier became aware and became apparent and they pushed it to the next level seeking that fisa warrant against carter page. what you say about it today depends on the political lens that you are looking at, for example jerry nadler had a statement that the bugs

conspiracy theories that republicans in congress had pushed for years and then you hr the president call it an attempt to overthrow a government much worse than you ever could have imagined, so you will take away from it what you will. democrats will look at horwitz's declaration that there didn't seem to be any political bias in the application for the fisa warrant on the starting of the investigation against president trump but at the same time, the steel document was clearly a political document that was funded by fusion gps even though horwitz sites a feeling of the fbi to determine where that funding came from. so they could go to see both people -- both sides into their own perspective on all of this and take away from it what their will. one that we will come back to you, just got an alert that the impeachment hearing is back in session. the house judiciary chairman jerry nadler is now taken the gavel as we will dip in and see where they had this afternoon.

>> the fbi's cross fire hurricane. >> point of order. >> what? the fisa report that just came out. inspector general will take that under advisement until we can review it. we will hopefully grant it later. >> i withdraw my reservation. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to follow up on a series of questions that ranking member mr. collins directed esther goldman relative to the telephone company subpoenas and the inclusion of certain information in the majority report for the intelligence committee. let me say that there are 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 the fact that if somebody made a decision to match certain data, metadata that has been collected through the subpoena with phone numbers of journalists and members of congress and that is the beginning of a surveillance state which i think is outrageous, particularly since with the freedom act in 2013, we curtailed the ability about that. now chairman schiff decided to man up and come here and talk rather than hiding behind mr. mr. goldman, his chief investigator as his surrogate or the gate if he will, we could

have gotten to the bottom of this and we could have taken action to make sure that this never happens again. i do not want to see members of congress through their subpoena power be able to subpoena telephone records of private citizens willy-nilly without any kind of caused order to match the numbers up with somebody else to see who they were talking to and then going the next step and publishing the results of that match in the report the minority hadn't seen until it was released. that i think is an abuse of power. we are 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 from a part of the people who were prosecuting this impeachment against the president of the united states. they should be ashamed of themselves.

now, i come from the state where joe mccarthy came from. i met joe mccarthy twice when i was first getting into politics as a teenager, you have made joe mccarthy look like what you've done with the electronic surveillance involved. is something that has to be put a stop to. is something that has to be fessed up to now whether it is you who authorized the matching and the publication or whether it was chairman schiff. i would've 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. but as one who has spent quite a bit of time curtailing the excesses of the patriot act which i authored and the freedom

act which i also authored, the surveillance state can get out of control. in this is a major step and then a surveillance state getting out of control in the hands of the congress and in the hands of a majority party that wants to influence political decisions relative to politicians, in this case president donald trump that they don't like. and they haven't liked him from the beginning of his term, they have tried to talk about impeachment since the beginning of his term, they thought that the mueller report was going to be the smoking gun and ended up being a cap pistol, now they are working on this and the steps that they have gone, the violation of common sense, the precedent that they have started and looking at the way the chairman has conducted this

hearing today and the previous hearing is not even to allow him to make a point of order that he can't see what you put on the screen i think 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 recessed button. i yelled back. >> and i just respond quickly? >> i yielded to back. i didn't ask him a question. >> the gentleman yielded back. >> mr. goldman, let's get to the facts again. during the phone conversation on july 25th with president zelensky, president trump was narrowly focusing on his own political survival using his public office for private and political gain. the truth matters.

then we heard counsel for the republicans say the president's concern about foreign aid because you could kiss it good-bye assuming that's referring to anticorruption. let's look at the facts of the july 25th call. i happen to have read it just recently, sharply illustrates the president's willingness to abuse the power of his office for his own personal benefit. in the memorandum of that call is on the screen in front of yo you. and it shows that president trump says and by the way, right after he spoke about defense support and the javelins, i would like you to do us a favor though. so this is a president's own behavior and words. so what was that favor? >> the favor was to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory related to ukraine interference in the 2016 election.

>> and received evidence from multiple witnesses that testify that he 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 anticorruption efforts and national security efforts, yes. >> those talking points were to help communicate official u.s. policy is that right? >> that is correct, a routine process that the national security council does but the president generally is able to use them or not use them, what was so startling here is that it not only veered off from them, but that he went to his own personal interests. >> is it fair to say they signal the purpose of a given call, correct? >> yes. >> witnesses testify the talking

points of the july 25th call include recommendations to encourage president zelensky to continue to promote anticorruption reforms in ukraine which has a focus of american foreign policy in eastern europe. is that correct? 's are to be clear, the talking points created for the president to discuss specific matters that really protect the american people, is that accurate? >> yes, generally. >> but the deputy assistant to the president testified about what was not in those talking points. >> were these references to cloud strike another server in 2016 election and vice president biden and his son, where they included in the president's talking points? >> they were not. >> are you aware of any witnesses testifying that investigating the bidens with an objective of the official u.s. policy? >> it was not before and it was not after.

>> was there anything found in those investigations that might've occurred? with respect to the former vice president? >> every single witness that there is no factual basis for either of the investigations. >> so did not use official talking points. and they were witnesses who confirm that. >> when you hear those words, do you hear the president requesting a thoughtful and well calibrated anticorruption program consistent with u.s. policy? >> i do not. >> we recommend the president very clearly supports and what his servant of the people party had run on in its election we received a majority mandate. >> >> so utilize his position of public trust in order to accomplish these goals, his

goals in order to hurt his political opponent. i've come to understand that america's values of democracy and justice of the factual truth and trust. the former judge and one who sat on this committee during impeachment, the truth matters. is clear the president really cared -- did not really care about fighting corruption about one of his own personal interest to be considered. that puts into perspective that they didn't care whether ukraine actually investigated but they just announced it. is certainly well known that it is our duty under the constitution to pursue the truth, that is our duty, we are now proceeding to do our duty to find the truth. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentle lady yields back, the gentleman from ohio. >> this is the second hearing on impeachment this committee has held in the last week.

i would submit your investigating the wrong guy. let's look at the facts. mr. castor, ukraine that has been at the center of attention in this impeachment hearing has historically been one of the world's most corrupt nations, is that correct? and under legislation that congress passed, it was president trump's responsibility, his duty to see that u.s. tax dollars did not go to ukraine unless they were making progress in reducing corruption, is that also right? and isn't it true that joe biden's son hunter had placed himself right smack dab in the middle of that corruption? >> burisma was one of the most corrupt companies in the ukraine. >> contrary to what house democrats and many in the media would have you believe, the concerns about hunter biden's involvement is not some sort of right wing conspiracy concocted

by supporters of the president. in fact, the concerns about hunter biden were first raised by the obama administration, is that right? >> that's right, and also washington "washington post," a lot of publications. and the state department. >> the obama administration's concerns didn't in there, did they? the former ambassador to ukraine yovanovitch said she was coached by the obama administration on how to answer pesky questions related to hunter biden and burisma that might arise during her senate confirmation process, is that right? >> the state department was so concerned about this they gave her a mock q&a on this question. >> nearly every single witness who testified to the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry agreed that hunter biden's burisma deal created at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest, is that correct? >> deputy assistant secretary george kent testified that there

was an investigation into their head and they were trying to track down 23 million that he had taken out of the country working with the united kingdom, ukraine was working on tracking this money down and there was an investigation going on and a bribe was paid. when that bribe was paid, it allowed him to get off scot-free. right around that time is when burisma went about sprucing up their board, shall we say. >> yet with all that evidence, the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairman schiff and now the democrats here are determined to sweep the biden corruption under the rug might ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it and instead rush to impeach the president all to satisfy their radical left wing base, what a disservice to the country.

you got vice president joe biden in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy and his son hunter biden receiving 50 grand a month with no identifiable expertise yet the democrats won't let us present witnesses on that, so let's do the next best thing since we can't bring the witnesses here. let's watch a couple of videos. >> you didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or ukraine itself. no. give me the reasons why you were on that board. he did not list the fact you are the son. what role do you think that plays? >> i think it is impossible for me to be on any of the boards i just mentioned without saying on the side of the vice president of the united states. >> if your last name wasn't biden committee think you would have been asked to be on the board of burisma? >> i don't know, probably not. >> joe biden got a little testy with a voter at one of his events in iowa last week calling

a man a liar, challenging him to a push-up contest among other things and falsely stating once again that nobody said there was anything wrong with his sons deal in ukraine. that's a lot of malarkey. a lot of people have been saying that for quite a while now and they are right. what's worse is that firstly intelligence committee and now this committee are conducting an impeachment investigation against president trump based on has professor turley put it last week, wafer thin evidence adding an o-ring evidence of a high level u.s. official who actually did engage in a quid pro quo with ukrainian government at this point. >> it was six hours, and the prosecutor is not fired, did not get money. well, got fired. >> you investigating the wrong

guy, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. i like to bring us back to the next president, to this president, not the next president. and stay focused on the july 25 call. the president's abuse of office for his benefit and no one else's. now my colleague confirmed the presidents pressed for these investigations was not an objective of u.s. foreign policy, correct? is there any evidence that national security council wanted an investigation into the bidens, burisma, or any interference in 2016? any evidence about the state department wanting them? about the dod? >> no evidence of that. >> did any witness tell you they wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens on the 2016 election? >> no. >> we certainly know now the ukrainians did not want to either. in fact they made it very clear they did not want to be an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics.

so the only person who is a beneficiary from that investigation is president trump and off-white everyone on on the july 25 call knew it was wrong. the investigative committee or testimony from three witnesses who participated in that call, is that correct? >> listen to that call. >> even in real time, the witnesses who listens on that call testified they were concerned by the call, is that correct? and in fact, both lieutenant colonel vindman and mr. morrison reported a call to legal counsel, is that right? and why did they do so? >> they did it for separate reasons, lieutenant colonel vindman was concerned about the substance of the call, that it was improper, mr. morrison was concerned about the potential political ramifications that the call was released because of the substance of the call on the political nature of the call. >> they reported the call to the

internal legal channels. place that testimony about why he reported the call on the screen. am i correct his concern was based on the fact that the president was asking a foreign power to investigate a u.s. citizen? >> yes, and he wasn't the only witness to express that concern. >> i might also correct that you reported this because he thought it was a sense of duty, a duty that he felt something was wrong. >> as you know, lieutenant colonel vindman is a purple heart medal winner from iraq and he has been in the department of defense for 20 years and has a great sense of duty and a great patriotism to this country and felt compelled to follow that sense of duty and report it. >> and vice presidents aid was present and testified that it was unusual and inappropriate, is that correct? >> that's right. >> when vice president biden got

involved with the european union european union and the imf in and france and said you've got to do something about corruption, that was okay because they were doing something for the common good of a bunch of people as distinguished from what's going on here where someone is doing it for their personal good, is that not correct? >> there's a distinction between doing an official act for a purpose in doing it for her personal purpose and when he said that there were problems because he paid a bribe, the head of burisma in order to get out from under the prosecution, that was exactly the type of conduct the vice president biden wanted to shut down in ukraine. that was exactly the type of nonanticorruption policy the vice president biden was objecting to. using the official policy so that's one of the reasons, the type of thing that he and the americans and europeans.

>> that's the issue we have to get in this committee, to understand the difference between doing something for the national good, for the common good and for your own good. that's the difference. got to get that across. and those witnesses were clear they thought it was wrong to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival. >> to investigate the vice president of the united states, someone he was a u.s. official, i don't think we should be asking foreign governments to do that. i would also say that is true of a political rival. >> it is improper to demand a foreign government to investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. >> we said that in the time in real-time. >> again, how holding up of security assistance that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia for no good policy reason, no good

substantive reason, no good national security reason, is wrong. >> and we are going to check that type of conduct, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i had some questions for the witness, mr. burke. but he has absconded. so i'm going to use my 5 minutes but not to ask questions. is interesting to have heard him 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, he's been obstructing, he didn't answer my questions so perhaps if we are going to apply his sense of justice to him, it would be time to have him removed from his position, but that's only if we apply his own standards and if it weren't for double standards, some of these folks wouldn't have standards at all.

we were told also at the beginning and that we would hear lawyers present evidence. lawyers are going to come in -- what normally happens, and i've been in some kangaroo hearings and courts, not my own when i was there, but i have been mistreated in hearings before but i have never seen anything like this where we don't allow the facts witnesses to come in here. we have the lawyers come in and tell us what we are supposed to know about those witnesses and about their testimony and about their impression and what the law is. this is outrageous. my friend said in 41 years, he has never seen anything like what we have going on here to try to oust a sitting president. it is also outrageous to hear people say this man thought he was a king because he said he could do anything they wanted when they know that statement was in the context of whether or

not he could fire bob mueller and of course he could fire him. he could appoint a special prosecutor to investigate mueller and wiseman and i think he should have but that's his prerogative and he could have done anything about that he wanted, to take that out of context, he thinks he's a king, a king is someone who says over 20 times i can't do that, congress has to change the law on immigration and then decides 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 the one they can fire a special prosecutor if they want to you. and regarding trees in, the constitution itself says you've got to have two witnesses, and

that is not hearsay witnesses, none of the stuff that wouldn't be admissible and decent court, that is to direct evidence witnesses that can come in and positively identify themselves, not something they overheard, but actually be witnesses to treason. this group comes in here and toss treason out in a report like it's no big deal, bringing a bunch of hearsay witnesses and then we will have the lawyers testify and then semipresident and president out of office. this is so absurd. now, we have a witness come in and we are told he's going to be a witness, that's why he is going to have to follow under the rules of decorum and when 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

with fair, mr. tester would be able to come up and grill mr. burke but this isn't about being fair, it's not about due process, this is about a kangaroo system and let me tell you, those that think you've done something special here, you have set the bar so low, i'm afraid it's irreparable. we've had people already mentioned the next president joe biden, we are told he may be the next president, we've already got the forms, all we have to do is eliminate donald trump's name and put joe biden's name in there because he's on video. he had his son. he basically has admitted to the crime that is being voiced on the president improperly. so i am scared for my country it is 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 is outrageous that we are trying to remove a president with a kangaroo court like this. i yield back. >> if i could just clarify, treason is not in our report. >> the gentleman yielded back. >> it is mentioned in the report we got, thank you very much. >> the gentleman yielded back. mr. johnson. >> i like to get us back to the undisputed facts of the president's abuse of power. as a prosecutor in the southern district of new york, when you prosecuted drug conspiracy cases, was it standard practice for drug kingpins to try to beat the case by distancing themselves from the conspiracy and blaming their accomplices for the crime? >> all the time. conspiracies have different layers on the top layers make the bottom layers do the work so they are further removed from the actual conduct. >> i like to have some questions

about the president's role of what ambassador bolton referred to as a drug deal. did the testimony and evidence compiled by the intelligence committee established the fact that with respect to ukraine, rudy giuliani was at all times working on behalf of president trump? >> yes, mr. giuliani said that, president trump said that to a number of other individuals, and then those individuals also said that. >> thank you. on may 9th, 2019, rudy giuliani on behalf of his client president trump spoke with a "new york times" reporter about his planned trip to ukraine and on that trip, he planned to meet with president zelensky he said and urged him to pursue investigations relating to the bidens and the debunked theory that ukraine and not russia interfered in the 2016 election,

isn't that correct? and mr. giuliani told a reporter his trip was not about official u.s. foreign policy and that the information he sought would be very, very helpful to his client, meaning it would be helpful to president trump, is that correct? >> yes, and if it's not official foreign policy, it would be helpful to president trump's personal interest. >> that is correct and there is no doubt that investigations of the bidens and the 2016 election meddling were in fact not about u.s. policy, but were about benefiting trump's reelection, correct? >> even the ukrainians realize that. >> on july 25th, president trump placed that fateful phone call to president zelensky and he asked president zelensky to investigate the bidens, correct? >> yes. >> on that call, president trump

told zelensky "i will have mr. giuliani give you a call, correct? and on october 2nd and october 3rd, president trump once again made explicit that he and mr. giuliani were intent on making these investigations happen, correct? >> yes. >> just so you know, we've been investigating on a personal basis through rudy and others, lawyers. corruption in the 2016 election. i would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation, very simple answer. >> of the evidence of course conduct by president trump and his agents, doesn't not? >> it doesn't clearly continued long after our investigation began. >> it shows a common plan, correct?

you chose a common goal. >> that's what all the witnesses said. >> and who was the kingpin of that plan? >> president trump. has thank you, mr. goldman. ambassador volker called it a drug deal. as a kingpin, president trump tried to force a foreign government to interfere in the upcoming presidential election, the evidence is undisputed and overwhelming 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 the

president into a desperate so they implemented impeachment as a backstop to protect our democracy. the facts demand so that we use that remedy today and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, mr. jordan. >> i want to go to the document that started it all, the august 12th whistle-blower complaint. a bullet .1 on page one of the whistle-blower's complaint said this, over the past four months, more than half a dozen u.s. officials have informed me of the various facts related to this effort, who are these half a dozen u.s. officials? >> we don't know. >> we had no chance to know for sure who these people were because we never got to talk to the whistle-blower, is that right? we needed to talk to the guy who started it all and talk to him to figure out who these more than half a dozen people were who formed the basis of this complaint and we never got to. adam schiff knows who he is but we don't get to know it, and therefore we don't get to know the original people who formed

the basis of this entire thing we've been going through for three months but we did talk to 17 people, 17 depositions and you are in every single one, you are the lawyer doing the work for the republicans in every single one, is that right? and there is one witness who they relied on and built their report around the one witness, who with that witness be? it's obviously one witness, who is that witness? ambassador sondland. his name is mentioned 611 times more than lieutenant colonel vindman, the guy who was on the call, more than ambassador taylor, their first witness, their star witness, they relied on sondland, they relied on ambassador sondland, why did they pick sondland? >> probably the best they've go got. >> the guy that had to file an addendum to his testimony, the guy that had to file the

clarification, the guy who said two weeks ago sitting in the same chair you're sitting in in his 23 opening statement, he said unless president zelensky announces an investigation to burisma in the bidens, they will be no call, no meeting, no security assistance money going to ukraine, that's what ambassador sondland said. was there an announcement by president zelensky about investigating the bidens or burisma? no announcement. looking to get a call from president trump. a meeting with president trump? did president zelensky get the money from the united states? they got the call on july 25th, they got the money on september 11th, they got that meeting on september 25th, is that right? but that's the guy they built their case around. is that right? one other thing they built their case around, a lot of hearsay.

and that is ambassador sondland, built a case around this ambassador and built a case around hearsay and the best example of both is ambassador sondland because he filed his addendum where he said this, we have read this a couple of weeks ago. pointed this out a couple of weeks ago, bullet point number two in his clarification, he said ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison that i conveyed that message to yermak in connection with vice president pence's meeting in warsaw. that's his clarification. amazing, six people having four conversations in one sentence, ambassador taylor recalled that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak in connection with vice president pence's visit to warsaw at the meeting with president zelensky, that's the clarification, that is their star witness who they built their case around, so-and-so tells so-and-so what somebody said to someone else and there you have it. that is their case.

they forget the four key facts. they forget the fact we have the call transcript and no quid pro quo, the two guys on the call have said repeatedly it was no pressure for linkage or pushing an effect that ukraine didn't know aiden was held at the time of the call and forget the fact that they did nothing to get the aid release, no announcement of any type of investigation whatsoever. they forget that, those key facts and they build their case about mckay that had to clarify his testimony with that amazing sentence. mr. goldman, did the democrats publish phone records of the president's attorney? >> mr. giuliani, yes. >> that they publish phone records of a member of the press? >> yes, he was also involved. >> that they publish phone records of a member of congress? did that member of congress also happened to be your bosses political opponent that those phone records were published? they run this kind of investigation, ignoring the

facts, not letting the whistle-blower come in and therefore not letting us know if we have talked of the more than half a dozen original sources for the whistle-blowers complaint in the first place, the guy that had to file an addendum with that clarification sentence the one thing they did do, one thing they did do in their report as they publish 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 representative nunes. 11 months before an election. >> the gentle of it is has expired. thank you. i would like to focus on the facts of the president's abuse of power. >> the gentleman will state his unanimous consent request.

>> talks about treason and bribery and be admitted for the record. be made part of the record. >> majority forward without objections. >> thank you, getting back to the facts surrounding the president's abuse of power using the white house meeting as leverage for helping his political campaign, president trump offered ukrainian president zelensky a meeting in the white house but first, he wanted an investigation into the bidens in a conspiracy theory about meddling in the election. you testified that the committees found evidence that president trump works to exchange official actions for personal benefit and i want to talk about that. on may 23rd, 2019, a delegation of officials returned from the inauguration and brief the president. in that briefing, president trump directed government officials to work with his personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, is in the correct?

and trump's handpicked operator testified they faced a choice, either work with giuliani or abandon the goal of the white house meeting. what choice did they make? >> they decided to work with mr. giuliani. >> six days later on may 29th, since the new ukrainian president a letter that said america stood with ukraine and invited president zelensky to visit the white house, is that correct? >> a second time he invited him. >> so at this point, he expected that meeting. >> correct. >> sondland testified there was a prerequisite of investigations, is not right? and lieutenant colonel vindman said he told ukrainian side investigations of the bidens was

a deliverable, necessary to get that meeting, isn't that right? >> if i could take a second to correct what mr. castro said about that meeting, there was no inconsistent statements about whether or not ambassador sondland to raise the issue of investigations and connections in the white house, even ambassador volker and has public testimony was forced to admit that he did hear that and he said it was inappropriate. >> on july 19th, sondland told president zelensky directly that president trump wanted to hear a commitment to the investigations on the july 20 call, correct? that same day, updated multiple senior trump administration officials that zelensky was "prepared to receive the call i would offer insurers in his about the investigation." is that correct? >> yes. >> on that same day, volker had breakfast with rudy giuliani and reported by text message, most important was for zelensky to say he will help investigations,

right? >> and address any specific personnel issues. >> on the morning of the call, volker texted zelensky and that a text to his aide said, and i quote, "heard from white house. assuming president as he, he will investigate and get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. we will nail down a date for visit to washington. the transcript shows trump requests investigations and zelensky agrees, is that correct? >> that text message was actually a direction, a message relayed from president trump himself. >> after the july 25th call, members of the administration continue to follow up with ukrainian counterparts to prepare for the announcement of investigations. texted about efforts to schedule

a white house visit noting that he really wants the deliverable. just one of many messages during the flurry of follow-up activity, meetings and calls and texts on july 26 and july 27th, august 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th. august 16th, 17th, and august 19th, isn't that correct? >> including to secretary pompeo as well. >> these are government officials who worked for us and instead working hard to help the president advance his personal interest, isn't that what you found? >> that's right. >> this isn't a close call. we had a ukrainian president at war with russia desperate for a white house meeting. the president promised a white house meeting but then block the oval office. he blocked it and said i need a favor, not a favor to help america, a favor to help me get

reelected. our framers feared one day we would face a moment like this, they gave us an impeachment as a safety valve not to punish the president, but to defend our election and our constitution and that is what we must do. i yield. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. buck. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. castor, i want to direct your attention to page three of the telephone call dated july 25th between president trump and president zelensky. on page three, president trump states i would like you to do us a favor 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 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. president trump is asking the ukraine to investigate something the majority has decided that it is an illegitimate request because there was no interference in an election by the ukraine. is that how you read this? >> and the press release from the majority on their report says as part of this, president trump acting in his official capacity and using his a position of public trust requested that the president of ukraine and government of ukraine publicly announced investigations into a baseless theory promoted by russia alleging that ukraine rather than russia interfered in the 2,016 u.s. election, is that true? >> yes.

>> i want to ask you something, have you seen this article from politico dated january 11th, 2017? >> yes, i have. >> the title of that article is ukrainian efforts to sabotage trump backfire. is not correct? i want to redo the second paragraph. he chrétien government officials tried to help hillary clinton and undermine trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office, they also disseminated documents implicating a top trump aid in corruption and suggest that they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election, and they helped clinton's allies research damaging information on trump and his 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 the ukraine

officials tried to influence the election. >> yes. >> let's move on to ambassador sondland. i only have ten fingers and ten toes, i can't count above 20 but you know how many times ambassador sondland said that he did not know, did not recall, had no collection, have limited memory or failed to remember something in his october the 15th testimony. does that surprise you? 325. he files a clarifying statement and he clarifies a few things, but did you have any contact with ambassador sondland between the time of his deposition on the time of his clarifying statement, did the majority? you have no idea. so they may have had influence on his testimony. and that would be evidence of bias, evidence of credibility,

that would be evidence that we should take into account but we will never know, will we? because the majority council has a right to assertive privilege as to information relevant to this committees decision. they have a right to privilege and any communications he has with the chairman adam schiff, doesn't he? as does minority counsel, that's a privilege we reserve here in congress, isn't it? the same thing is true of the freedom of information, does not apply to memos that majority counsel writes, is that true? so we have demanded that of the executive branch but allowed ourselves not to be part of it, correct? so the majority has a privilege, the president also has a privilege, he could meet with the secretary of state and that's a privilege conversation, he could meet with the secretary of defense, he could meet with the secretary of energy, that's

a privilege conversation. when the majority has subpoenaed those witnesses and the president has refused to produce those witnesses or relevant documents, they are charging him with an article of impeachment for obstruction. in fact, the report says president obstructed the impeachment inquiry by obstructing witnesses to ignore subpoenas. why? >> i want to pick up on the president using the powers of his office in this case, a meeting at the white house, a foreign country to investigate his political rival. now that you've had time to step back from the investigation, is there any doubt the president did in fact he was a white house visit to pressure president zelensky to announce investigations of his political rival to benefit his reelection campaign? >> i will answer that question and admit it but i would like to comment to mr. buck that the

majority staff, no one had any contact with ambassador sondland after his deposition. but the answer to your question is yes. >> my colleague mostly focused on the period prior to the july 25th call. i like to focus on the period after. following the call, the president zelensky come to the white house for a meeting? >> no. multiple witnesses said there is a huge distinction between a white house meeting had a meeting on the sidelines of the u.n. general assembly where they did me on september 25th. >> so had a white house meeting been scheduled? >> no. >> to the president and his associates essentially continue to whistle the white house meeting and if so, why did they do that? >> the evidence found at the white house meeting was conditioned on the announcement of these investigations and so once in mid-august when the ukrainians decided that 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. soon became clear to them that the security assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. >> following the july 25th call, >> it had to include that they would do the investigations of burisma which equaled the biden investigation into the ukraine