president zelensky decided that they were not going to issue thatt 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 t july 25th call, ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky. wasn't that right? >> yes. and the report said they worked closely and there were also phone calls with the white house around the same time that they werear working closely. >> do you know what that statement was supposed tou say according to mr. giuliani and the u.s. officials? >> well, the key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equalled theic biden investigatn in the 2016 ukraine

interference. >> but was there concern about doing the investigations or what? were they justns supposed to ma a statement about it? what? >> ambassador sondland very clearly testified that all he ever heard mr. giuliani or anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigations. >> and so did the committee find that without that public statement that there would be no white house meeting? >> yes. >> so>> i was struck by how cle the evidence seems to be on this point. and i'd like to play another example.li >> was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard tofi the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. everyone was in the loop. >> did he find that his role-played a role in the white house? >> 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. >> so what evidence did the committee find that corroborated the quote everyone was in the loop? >> well, ambassador sondland producednd for his public testimony. 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. sondland did not remember in his deposition. because, we agree, it was egregious. but the advantage of doing closed depositions is that mr.io sondland could not match hisla testimony. as other witnesses came in, then hee realized that he had to actually admit to more and more stuff. so he did admit to an email that included secretary pompeo, mulvaney -- >> i do want tope make a point before my time goes out. we have to think about what is

going on today. so president zelensky is meeting with putinin today. and because of president trump's actions, zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with thea leader of the nation that invaded his country. if our military assistance had been providedy as congress ordered it and the white house meeting, president zelensky would be meeting with putin from a position of strength. if you want the support -- what we have to realize is that the message this sends to our allies and to our standing in the world. if you want the support of the united states beg y prepared t help with president trump's election. president trump's abuse ofpr por has injured our nation. >> thank the chairman. the 299-page democratic majority report mentions the intelligence community inspector general michael atkinson on pages 140 and 143. mr. goldman, you were present for the october 4, 2019

transcribed interview of the inspector general michael atkinson, correct? >> yes. >> on pages 53 to 73 of that transcribed interview, the inspector general's testimony confirms the following. that the whistle-blower made statements to w the inspector general under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. that thend whistle-blower first made statements in writing under penalty ofnt perjury that were t true and correct. the whistle-blower then made statements under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the inspector general's investigative team. because of the whistle-blower's statements in writing and verbally to the inspector general that were neither true, correct,tr or accurate, pages 5 to 73 of that sworn testimony revealed that the inspector general was not able to answer any questions, none from me about the whistle-blower'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 whistle-blower started this inquiry, he or she did so by making statements under penalty of perjury that were neither true or correct in writing and then did so again verbally? >> i don't remember that. >> after the inspector general testified on. and did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistle-blower contacted the inspector general to explain why he or she made statementshe under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that were not true, correct, and accurate? mr. acastor, is that communication from the whistle-blower to the inspector general to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in theco 299-page report? >> no. >> on october 2nd, chairman

schiff's spokesman acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistle-blower's accusations against the's president had bee disclosed to the house intelligence staff and shared with chairman schiff. mr. castor, is that disclosure and mr. bowlen'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 falseve statements about th whistle-blower or the inspector general's testimony today, then i should be held accountable. the way to do that would be to release thee inspector general testimonyec or even just pages to 73. i would add that there is nothing in those pages that would t in any way identify or place at risk the whistle-blower's identity. nor would it reveal any information that in any way

relates to, much less, jeopardizes national security. look, maybe there iss a believable explanation for why the whistle-blower madexp statements that weren't true or accurate about his contact or her contact with chairman schiff in writing and then again verbally. maybe there is a good explanation for whyyb the words congress ory congressional committee was confusing or not clear to the whistle-blower. maybe there is a good explanation for why the whistle-blower also misled the inspector general on august 12th by stating i reserve the option tohe exercise my legal right to contact the committees directly when the whistle-blower had in fact already contacted chairman schiff's committee two weeks before he or she wrotemi that. maybe there isor a believable reason why chairman schiff was not initially truthful about his staff's communication with the whistle-blower. maybe there is a goodmm reason that explains all of these statements in writing and verbally that just weren't true and correct.st maybee there is. but 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 whistle-blower and chairman schiff. the bottom line is we should all be heldsc accountable. next november every member of the house willne be asked this question. did you vote to impeach the president without allowing any investigation into why the whistle-blower that started it all didst so by making statemen in writing and verbally under penalty of perjury that were not true? democrats may not care if that question ever gets answered. but thege voters will. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr.ld richmond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gohmert, i waldman, i want t with facts that you uncovered and 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 visit to apply pressure on ukraine to do his personal bidding. i want to talk about how the president did the same thing with almost 400 million taxpayer dollars to pressure ukraine to bidding.rsonal so i'd like to start with turning back to the july 25th call. it's a fact that in the president's own i 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. then president trump asks for a favor. and of course a by this point president trump had already placed the hold on the security assistance. >> now my republican colleagues have suggested that the ukrainians did not even know about thera military aid being withheld. is that true?

>> uh, 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. but from the former foreign deputy foreign minister who said that ukraine, president zelensky's office received a diplomatic cable from the embassy here the week of july 25th saying that the aid had been held. >> correct. and what i also show you on the screen is that it was on july 25th also, the same day of the call, that the state department emailed the department of defense noting that the ukrainian embassy was asking about the withheld military aid. >> yes. that's what i was referring to. >> i'd like 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 burdensharing with europe. is that consistent with the evidence that you allt uncover? >> so, it's a good question because mr. sandy did say that. but notably 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 b first two months of the hold. and of course it was given at that point as the gig was up, so togi 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 wasin held. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record evidence

uncovered by the committee from the house budget and appropriations committees that documents omb placing a hold on the ukrainian security 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 aen favor, though, and ask ukrae to investigate his political rival. also onic july 25th, in the hou 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 am placing on the screen in front of you an email from ambassador sondland to members of the white house administration in which ambassadorra sondland says i wod

ask zelensky to look him in the eye andim tell him that once ukraine's new justice folks are in place, zelensky should be able p to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president and the united states. hopefully that will break the log jam. d if the investigative committee has uncovered any evidence on what he meant when mr. zelensky would have to move forward on issues important to the question to receive military aid. >> he said those were the two investigations that president trumpth mentioned on the july 2h call which secretary pompeo who had received that email 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 email, yes. >> thank you and i yield back.

>> little earlier, mr. armstrong had asked a unanimous consent request to insert into the record the i.g. report released today about fisa. and i had said we would take it under advisement. we have reviewed it, and without objection it will be entered into the record. ms. robe. >> i am actually stunned by the 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 vehemently on policy. but these proceedings being led by the majority, like i said, it's stunning. i cannot 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 has taken place here today, this is just

bizarre. as a memberst of congress servi on the house judiciary committee, i'm asking questions to staff as witnesses before us in an impeachment evidentiary hearing. i mean, no disrespect to staff. we have theto most dedicated, hard-working staff. and without these individuals we most certainly couldn't do our jobsdo effectively. but we have not and we will not hearil from any fact witnesses. whether you identify as a republican, a democrat, or an independent, whether you a agre or disagree with the president, whether you like or dislike a president, the american people feel cheated by the way this is all takingth place. this process is more than incomplete. and the american people deserve better. today historyrv is being made, d 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 chairmanas for a minority d hearing. and all members on this side have signed onto a letter 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 a committee on a measure or a matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled upon the request to the chair by ath majority of them before the completion of the hearing to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify 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. mr. castor, with all of your experience in investigations

here in the congress, is it your belief based on that experience that ignoring the minorities stated rights for a hearing under the rules of the house severely undermines the future of this institution? >> yes. >> i'd like to quote what we heard from w the democratic sta, mr. berke in his opening comments. it is the hope that in these discussions t we can put aside political rank or disagreement and have a fair discussion. that is far from what happened here. the american people deserve better than this. and i yielder the remainder of time to mr. collins. thank you. mr. castor, we've heard a lot. this is always a good time i think to go back and remind people that there are four things that really haven't changed. would you like to at least remind us ofke everything that s been discussed? >>is well, there are four thing that will never change. and that is the transcript is

complete and accurate. it shows no quid pro quo, no conditionality. that's number one. number two, there was no pressure. both zelensky and trump have said thatsk repeatedly. president zelensky said that at theky united nations on septemb 25th. he said it in subsequent news articles oneq october 6th and october 10th and december 1st. number three the ukrainians and zelensky did not know about the pause in aid at the very least at the time of the call. and number four, no investigations were announced. the aid was released. and the white house, you know, afforded a meeting. president trump met with zelensky in new york. >> do you findne it amazing tha the majority is 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? >> um. >> because he's done it on many, many b occasions since then. undoubtedly they believe him noe to beub truthful. doesn't that strike you as a little strange, especially in

this circumstance? >> it's unfortunate. >> it is. it's sad that we are calling an elected leader who is actually working on corruption and other things like that, we are calling him a liar simply because they don't agree with the democrats' theory of a partisan impeachment. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. yjeffries. >> let'smr focus on the aid to ukraine. mr. goldman, congress alligatored on the bipartisan basis $391 million in military aid tos the ukraine. is that correct? >> yes. and ites was signed by presiden trump into law. does the record establish that the military aid to ukraine is in the national security interest of the united states? >>ri absolutely. >> the investigation concluded that president trump compromised u.s. national security by withholding vital military assistance andvi diplomatic support. is that the? >> yes. >> president trump and his defenders 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 readout from the white house after the call did say that president trumpid talked about corruption. >> that readout was inaccurate. in a may 23rd letter, trump's department oftt defense conclud that ukraine met the anti-corruption m benchmarks required to receive military aid from united states, true? >> yes. just take a d second to talk about that because that's very important.se and this goes back to what mr. collins wasba talking about with vice president biden. there is absolutely conditionality on aid, and routinely in all sorts of different ways. butff it's done through officia policy. andci these anti-corruption benchmarks that you are was a condition of ukraine getting the aid. but inti may the department of

defense in conjunction with the other interagencies certified that ukraine was making the necessary progress on anti-corruption efforts to merit theti aid. >>er and yet the aid was not released, correct? >> the aid was subsequently held. it was supposed to be released. the dod announced the release. and then president trump held the aid without explanation. >> mr. goldman, based on the evidence and testimony that you haveev reviewed, is there any reason to believe that the president cared about corruption inti 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 heud said in his testimony. >> to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. it was counterproductive to all of what we hadpr been trying to do. it was illogical. it could not be explained. it wasot crazy. >> illogical, unexplainable, crazy. mr. goldman, according to the testimony from ambassador taylor, the only explanation for the ylwithheld aid that made see is that the president was seeking help with a political campaign, correct? >> that is the only logical explanation as multiple witnesses said. >> ambassadores sondland is a trump appointee who gave a million dollars to thein president's inauguration. and he testified that he came to

believe thathe the resumption o security aid would not occur untilld there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations, correct? >> yes. that was subsequently confirmed in aqu conversation with presidt trump himself. >> lieutenant colonel vindman is a decorated iraq war veteran. purple heart recipient, and member of the white house national security council. and he testified that it is 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 the unanimouset view of all 17 witnesses that came in to testify 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 into the 2020te election. true? >>20 yes. and the scheme part is very

important because the minority wants tois focus on these four very narrow facts that ignore the vast majority of the evidence. so the fact that you use scheme is actually critical to the wholeal case here. >> the president abused his power. the president must be held accountable. no one is aboveta the law. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. gaetz? >> we are continuing to monitor today's impeachment hearing in front of the house judiciary committee. attorneys for the democrats and republicans facing questions from committee members. we'll bring you right back into that now. but right now the fallout from the inspector general's report on theec origins of the russia probe. that report obliterated some of donald trump's most incendiary claims of a deep state conspiracy against his presidency and campaign, an attempted coup by the men and

women b working in law enforcement. another report by michael horowitz was critical of the fbi's handling of a wire tap application used early on in the wire probe. it did not find evidence that political bias affected how officials a conducting the investigation went about their jobs. case closed as far as the watchdog for the justice department isor concerned. and yet today the president's attorney general william barr is publicly challenging his own i.g. and the u.s. attorney barr hand-picked to conduct a similar probe into similar issues also sowing doubts around the conclusions in today's i.g. report. joining us now for his first interview since the report was released former fbi director jim comey. you were the target of a lot of those smears. but your first thoughts about what the reports concludes tha on the big question on the big smear levied by donald trump aboutr some sort of conspiracyr

political bias, there was nothing. >> it wasbi all made up. two years of sitting silently at the fbi while you are lied about and finally the truth is out. it was lies. there was no treason. there was no conspiracy. there was no tapping of trump's wires. there was no putting informants in the campaign. it was all nonsense. and the fbi finally has its day with thena american exeem i hop they pay attention tome it. >> but a has the damage been do? has enough been said about the fbi, at least to the people who support donald trump thatpl today'sru nonpartisan years-lon investigation won't matter to the people that may have believed those attacks? >> a lot of the damage can't be undone because good people believe something that a president of the united states says or an attorney general or a news personality says. and so they've bought that and it's going to be hard to walk thatto back. my goalk is to have as many of the americanha people as possib learn from this and learn that the fbifr is the way you'd wantt to be. it's not on anybody's side. >> and you tried to get that

message out to the fox news viewer. tell us what f happened. >> i offered to go on fox and friends which i gather is a very important program for supporters of thet president. and they agreed last night to book me atnt 8:00 tomorrow. i figured i can't change the minds of fox viewers but i can give them actual facts. and after the report came out they canceled my appearance. they must've readle the report. >> what did they say? just we are full? >> maybe we can do it again afterdo the durham investigatio was their answer. >> i want to play some of the things that donald trump said about you and other senior leaders of the fbi that were debunked by the i.g. report today. let's watch. >> how did this start? how did it start? you had dirty cops. you had people that are bad fbi folks. i hope they now go and take a look at the oranges of the investigation, the beginnings of thatin investigation. it was an illegal investigation.

it was started illegally and they got caught. whatot they did was treason. and if youat look at what's happened with the scum that's leaving the very top of government, people that others used to say, oh, that's -- these were dirty cops. >> it's not what the i.g. found. this is the first paragraph of "the washington post" story. a long-awaited justice department inspector general's report examining the fbi investigation into possible coordination between president trump's 2016 campaign and russia rebutts some of conservative's most including the top fbi officials motivated by political bias and illegally spied on trumped advisers. is it hard to watch? >> there is a risk though that even i become numb to it. there's been so much lying, so many efforts to burn the fbi down that you become a little numb to it. we can'tit be because that institution matters no matter

what your politics. it matters to the american people and it's made up of good people trying to protect the country.ry we've got to become unnumb and realize we've been lied to for two and a half years. >> so the report came out. all of those things that donald trump has said have been debunked bye the inspector general. and this was the statement that came out from u.s. attorney john durham isu. looking at some of e same things. he said i have the utmost respect forha the mission of th office of the inspector general and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by mr. horowitz. however, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component partsin of the justic department. our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities in the u.s. and out. based on the evidence collected to date and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree withne some of the report's

conclusions in how the fbi case was opened. facts are out and you've got the attorney general doesn't accept them, the president doesn't accept them? and it would appear his hand-picked prosecutor looking at some of the same things doesn't accept them or agree with them either. >> i can't make any sense of it. first ofan all what is he doing talking about his work? he's supposed to be a professional. if you must investigate, go get facts and then show them g to t american people. but don't be part of a sliming of the i.g. and the department as a whole. do yourrt work. what the workidea is that he's doing. we'll have to be quiet again, wait for the work to be finished. what i worry about for mr. rydurham is when somebody needs to investigate him when he doesn't support the president's conspiracy ortheories. possible? think that's >> of course. given the way these people act. he is a pro by reputation. he will gather facts. but if he doesn't find the facts that these characters want, there will be somebody put on him. >> as thewi mueller report was reaching its conclusion, there was a lot of pointing to horowitz on p conservative medi which i like to keep an eye on.

he was held up as don't look at theup mueller report, the one i really want to see is the horowitz report. if durham doesn't come up with the kinds of conclusions that they're looking for, what do you think happens next? >> i don't know. i mean, with the horowitz report, they are not only moving the goal post. they are moving the stadium. now we are going toth focus on durham. when that doesn't produce what they want, they will focus on something else. it won't end until this president is out of office. he needsen to burn the fbi down because its culture and its commitment to the rule of law is the opposite of everything he stands for. >> chris wray seemed to try to say that less bluntly. he said essentially what you have said about the investigation thatai horowitz found that there was no political bias at the highest levels of the fbi contradicting everything the president has said from the better part of two and a half years. i want to ask you what it's like to be him. but i want to show our viewers some of that interview first.

>> the inspector general did not find political bias or improper motivations impacting the opening of the investigation or the decision to use certain investigative tools during the investigations. >> including fisa. >> including fisa. >> so that statement puts him at oddshi is an understatement, on the other side of the grand canyon from attorney general barr and donald trump today. you may have walked in some shoes similar to that. what's it like to be chris wray today? >> well, first of all he is telling the truth. he is an honest person who leads the fbi. he is a goodpe person and i wou expect that from him. butt we should expect that fro all ofwe our leaders. so it shouldn't be shocking that a leader in the justice department spoke the truth. he leads an institution that is apolitical and he is surrounded by characters that don't respect its nature,un its culture and i mission. i aman talking about the attorn general and the president.

his direct bosses are people who are not shy about sliming the department and the organization he leads. that's a tough spot to be in. >> let me read what you write today about attorney general barr. this is a personal anecdote. your 89-year-old mother-in-law watching fox news became convinced that i was going to jail you write. i repeatedly assured her that there was a 0% chance of that. it's all made up i would tell her. but i couldn't say that publicly because the investigation wasn't doneus yet. like theig others accused of treason by the president i respected the process and cooperated with the inspector general. just saye something about the human carnage, what you and andy mccabe and lisa page and others who have been smeared with those kinds of attacks by the president have been through. >> you can blow off what the president says. but what's hard is good people believe something when the president of the united states says beit. so you've got not just my mother-in-law but millions of

people around the country drinking this stuff? and believing it. so having people -- forget me that the fbi committed treason is a bad place for this country to be. we all need that institution. and it is a fundamentally good institution. >> do you think that trump and barr respect the fbi? or when you hear their comments on a day like today, do you think that trump has achieved he has said outve loud in intervie he would like to achieve which is to use them as his political instruments? >> he is never going to be able tooi use the fbi as his politic instrument which is why he continues to try to burn it down. they are thinking about the president's political fortunes and hises future. so they are willing to say what needs to be said. that's not the way the fbi is. >> if barr read the i.g. report that you read and that we've been poring through here and came out and said i don't see the predication for the investigation that horowitz

found in his two and a half years, do you think there is any circumstance in which he could see probable cause or whatever that standard is to investigate this president? >> it's a great question. he probably will find a way to avoid answering the question for the rest ofan his time in offic. and the president's tenure, it's a low standard. is there a reasonable basis for opening anbl investigation? are there articulable facts? that's not ae close call here.o in the mueller report you see it laid out. in horowitz's report you see it laid out. we should've beent fired if we didn't investigate this given what we learned. and whether the attorney general accepts it or not the truth is a stubborn thing.e and the fbi in the long run will be fined because it's that committed toec that truth. >> do you see the resistance to facts and evidence and witness testimony of clearly a quid pro quo? it looksar a little bit more li extortion in the impeachment investigations that were conducted by the house intel committee.

do you see the fact that an investigation wasn't opened ints the president's conduct as being tied to any of the phenomena we have been talking about, the a.g., the fact that 40% of the country won't believe anything bad about this president. do you see all theset factors interconnected at this point? >> i do, but i can't say that i connect the decision not to open aot case on ukraine because i don't know enough about their decisionmaking. i'm deeply skeptical of this attorney general. but i don't know enough about whot decided what inside the department. >> let me reade something that you write about the attorney general today. as a leader of an institution that's supposed to be devoted to truth, barr needs to stop acting like a trump s spokesperson, in the words of the nation's founders the justice department's t inspector genera has let facts be submitted to a candid world. the fbi fulfilled its mission protecting the american people andil upholding the constitutio. and those who attacked the fbi for two years should admit they are arwrong. >> i haven't checked my phone.

but, look, it's very, very serious thats the attorney general of the united states first himself made false statements about his premier law enforcement organization. he himself said the fbi spied on the campaign. you'd think he'd at least have the decency to say to the people of the fbi i was wrong about that, i'm sorry i said that about y you. i would not wait by the phone. >> but if you tie that together withf a statement from durham,o you think there's any chance that the facts will prevail? or do you think that what barr hasu tasked durham with doing,e is accompanied him to some european capitals thoofb beat hn reported b by multiple news organizations. in the long runs the facts will prevail. as i said the attorney general may try to kick it down the road past an election next fall. it's important that those of us who care about the facts make sure they are talked about now and notlk kicked down the road. >> you wrote in an oppet i think it was a reference to rod

rosenstein that donald trump has this tendency of eating people's souls. whose souls are you worried about? >> i was worried very much at the time about rosenstein who praised president trump's commitment to the rule of law. people were asking me how is that possible. and then to see bill barr, a guy who knows that institution act the wayth he is acted, i don't know for sure, but i've seen donald trump warp people around him.p that's what i meant by eating hisme soul. he wraps you, people close to him, in, a cocoon of falsehood and you tell yourself a story i think that i can survive this and i will makevi compromises somehow to get through this. and it's too late. he's got you fully wrapped up. >> do you worry about that happening with durham? >> ain little bit, yeah. i mean, john durham, i don't know him really well, but he has a strongt professional relationship. that's the only thing he has to losein here. so that should give us some comfort that he will be guided only by theor facts. but this statement commenting on his work while he is still doing it is confusing and concerning.

>> and you tookco a lot of lump for commenting on an investigation after it had ended. just talk one more beat about your personal experience having been through the political woodchipper, if you will, and making some of these calls. is it a close call? do you willingly go out and do this, issueou a statement or do you think that came from the boss? >> the justice department policy is you comment on a pending investigation if there is a compelling public interest. so what's the compelling public interest here for an investigator who apparently still has work to do to be criticizing the inspector general using his incomplete investigation? i can'tte imagine it. >> what are you worried about now, nowyo that the i.g. reports done, you have another fact-based evidence fuelled, independent review from someone who's not always been generous to you or deputy director mccabe or others. what do you worry about when you see the president's response

which just exists in a parallel universe and the attorney general? >> i worry that the two years of lies will work, as you said in asking me earlier that we won't be ablee to get the fbi's rep that iti tation back for it. the people will have internalizedpe not just my mother-in-law. lots of people have internalized blatant lies. and how does the fbi get that back, especially given all of the other things going on in the news, will people pay attention to llthis? iat sure hope so because we nee thate institution. >> do you think wray had that in mind today when head talked abo taking 30 steps to fix a fisa program which, a also, in the report appears to have some serious weaknesses? >> i think so. the report found lots of mistakes. that's really significant, reallyst unfortunate. but that's why you do i.g. reports. and so that's good that he jumped on that.t' and it's very good that he speaks the truth about what the report doesn't find that the fbi engaged in treason or spying or

misconduct because that's the kroesive doubt about the fbi. >>ut i hope you make your way oo fox and friends. >> i am notan waiting. >> thank you for spending some time with us. >> we are now going to dip right backin into today's impeachment hearing innt front of the house judiciaryro committee. >> conversation ambassador volker had on september 14 of this year with a senior ukrainian official where ambassador volker is impressing upon that official that president zelensky should not investigate his ownci political opponents. what was thrown back in the face of ambassador volker? >> after ambassador volker suggested tomb mr. yermak again that they should not investigate the prior president of ukraine, mr. yermak said, oh, like you'r encouraging us to investigate the 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 that no one here has repeated those questions during these h hearin. we know what the president did. and we know when he knew it. mr. goldman, who sent rudy giuliani to ukraine to smear joe biden? >> president trump. >> who fired the anti-corruption ambassador in ukraine, marie yovanovitch? >> president trump. >> who told ambassador sondland and ambassador volker to work with rudy giuliani on ukraine? >> president trump. >> who told vice president pence to not go to president zelensky's inauguration? >> president trump. >> who ordered his own chief of staff mulvaney to withhold critical military assistance for ukraine? >> president trump. >> who refused to meet with president zelensky in the oval office? >> president trump. >> who ignored on july 25 his own national security council's

anti-corruption talkingur point? >> president trump.n >> who asked president zelensky for a favor? >> president trump. >> who personally asked president zelensky to investigate his political rival joe biden? >>e president trump. >> whode stood on the white hou lawn and confirmed that he wanted ukraine to investigate vice president biden? >> president trump.ce >> who stood on that same lawn and said that china should also investigate vice president biden? >> president trump. >> as to anything that we do not know in this investigation, who has blocked us from knowing it? >> president trump in the white house. >> so as it relates to president trump, ste an incidental player or a central player in this scheme? >> president trump is the central player in this scheme. >> there is a reason that no one has said what did the president know and when dids he know it. from the evidence that you have presented,th mr. goldman, and t intelligence committee's findings, we's know one thing a

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. >> mr. castor, what's direct evidence? >> when i witness personally observes a fact and testifies to it. >> and what's hearsay evidence? >> out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted is something that you learn in lawth school. >> hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls under exceptions. andio i believe when every witns testified including mr. sondland, right? >> uh-huh. >> and that'sgh a yes? >> yes. >> and much of the democrats report in impeachment narrative is based t on the sondland testimony. is that a fair characterization? >> a lot of it is, yes. >> how many times did mr. sondland mentioned in the report? >> like ied said, i did a searc

just a control plus plf. >> sondland himself told the world that basically nobody elss on the planet told him that donald trump wasla trying to ti aid to investigations. in fact he also said everything that he had been testifying to is simply his presumption. is that sright? >> 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 when we try the case we consider is speculation. is that right? >> doul courts allow speculatio in? >> llno. >> why not? >> because it's not reliable. >> it's inherently unreliable. so, can you name any democrat witness who asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those 17 that we heard from? >> we had some direct evidence on certain thingse and we had some direct evidence on the may 23idrd meeting. and sondland gave some direct evidence. but a lot of what we have obtained has been circumstantial. >> how about with regard to personal knowledge of the quid

pro quo allegation? >> well, we have not gotten to the bottom of that from a direct evidence standpoint. >> how about tieing aid to investigations. >> that's correct too. >> how about political motives inbo asking for investigations? >> um, the facts surrounding that are ambiguous. >> in a nonlegalistic world, when we talk about nonspeculation we use words like gossip, rumors and innuendos, right? >> and isn't it true that the only direct evidence that we have is ukraine received aid without giving anything in return. no problem with the phone call in the relationship with and that the president had a legitimate concern about ukraine corruption? >> it did. and the burdensharing of european allies. >> so much has been made about the alleged desire for an announcement of ansi investigation. but, again, there is no direct evidence that supports the allegation that president trump wanted merely the announcement of an investigation. >> like i said, there is eight lines in the call transcript to go to what president trump said

about the investigation. eight lines. >> and everything else is hearsay, innuendo, rumor, gossip? >> it's inconclusive, certainly. >> so when we get into this event today in the process we start talking about the process. were you surprised to see mr. berke get out of his chair and move to the seat and sit down next to the chairman and start asking questions? >> i don't know if i was surprised or not. >> well, i tell you i was. and it looks like mr. berke has disappeared. and so that's one of the outrageousha things about this process. it's beenis outrageous from sta to finish. we've seen prejudice and bias against the president from start to finish. we have the lion's share almost two-thirds of the members of the democrats have already voted to impeach at least once. and that's been anything with regard to this july 25th telephone conversation ever took place. and we are left with a constant view that 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. is that correct? >> etyes. >> ten days later, mr. zaid who was the attorney for the whistle-blower tweetedor outlet the impeachment begin. let the coup begin. and victory to the lawyers. is that right? >> i have seen that. >> yeah. we had people who on this committee came out today and said 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. >> you wouldn't be surprise birthday that though, would you? >> no. nobody 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 back to the same points. no pressure, no conditionality, and all of the aid, meetings, calls, were received by ukrainians. i yield back. >> mr. lieu. let's just cut through all the republican arguments today and make things very simple. no one else in america could do what president trump did and get away with it. no american elected official can call out a foreign government official and ask for an investigation of a a political opponent. no one sitting on this judiciary committee can call up a foreign government official and ask for help in o a re-election campaig. if we did that and got caught, we would likely be indicted. now let's focus on the president's abuse of power in this case because it's actually worse than examples i just gave. and i know that i first swore an oath to the constitution when i

first joined the air force. integrity first, service before self, excellence, a in all we d. integrity first and service before self because it's engrand in all military members that we cannot fix official duties with personal, private gain. so mr. goldman, in this case the $300 million at issue, that wasn't donald trump's money. that wasp' 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 itne for his own re-election campaign. isn't that right? >> that's correct. >> the president's abuse of power is even worse in this case than just using official duties for private gain. it's also just flat-out illegal. you cannot solicit foreign assistance for a re-election campaign. that is a violation of federal election campaign act. a lot of people have gone to prison for violating various

a reasonable person could also conclude that the president violated the impoundment control act of 1974, which congress passed as a response to president nixon's abuse of 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?int >> yes. >> and not only had that money been appropriated, the money had actually been released to the department of defense, is that right? >>nt they were about to release it, yes. >> and then, suddenly without explanation, the president demanded those taxpayer funds be withheld fromye an ally who desperately neededll the aid. mr. goldman, did the president notifyld congress about his decision to withhold the aid? >> no, he did not. >> the impoundment control act was designed to prevent the president from secretly taking congressionally-appropriated funds and doing whatever he wants with them. soed is it true that, in your intelligence report, you found

theen following in your finding of fact? president trumpin ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed bymi ukraine. and the president did so despite his obligations under the impoundment control act. did you find that? >> yes. >> all right. so not only did the president abuse his powers for personal gain and not only was it illegal. his actions also harmed u.s. national security. so it's a fundamental tenant of u.s. national security to push back against russian aggression. ukraine's at the tip of the spear pushing back against russian aggression. is it true that harming theck ukrainian military also harms u.s. national security? >> that's what pretty much every witness said. >> last week, professor karlan confirmed that it is an impeachable offense to sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends. a slide shows what she said. mr. goldman, based on the evidence that you found in your report, is it fair to conclude

that the president's actions both leveraged taxpayer funds for his own private gain and sacrificed the national interest for his own private ends? >> that is what we found. >> i was alsois perfectly struc by mr. holmes' testimony because it makes this clear that the president did not care about our foreign policy or u.s. national security. he onlys. cared about investigating his political opponent. here's what mr. holmes said. >> ambassador sondland stated 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 replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president, like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. >> look. here's the thing. if any military member used official acts for personal gain, that member would no longer be part of the military. and, in o fact, last year, a na commander was convicted for taking things of value in exchange for official acts. the u.s.ic attorney who prosecud the case said the commander, quote, put his own selfish

interests ahead of the navy and of our nation, unquote. we should not hold the commander in chief to a lower standard than regular military members. we should not hold theit presidt to a different standard than any other elected official. no one is babove the law. i yield back. >> gentleman yields. gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, in every election, one side wins and the other loses. democracy only works because the losing side always respects the will of the voters. the moment that social compact breaks down, democracy collapses into chaos. now, that's only happened twice in our nation's history. it o happened in 1860 when the democrats refused to accept a legitimate election of abraham lincoln. and it happened again in 2016 when the democrats refused to accept the legitimate election of donald trump.o the issues before us today do, indeed, strike at the heart of our democracy. the first calls for impeachment began just days after the 2016

election. and ever since, the democrats have been searching for a pretext. when the mueller investigation found no m evidence to support e monstrous lie that the president acted in collusion with russia, there democrats realized they we running out of time. andin suddenly, the ukrainian phone call replaced collusion, stormy daniels, tax returns, emoluments, and even tweets 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 congress ispo entrusted. it requires an overwhelming case of high crimes supported by clear evidence that a vast majority of the nation deeming 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 comes down to this. not one of their handpicked 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 thate its officials did not believe there was such a linkage. in fact, the testimony their witnesses crumbled under questioning. and we -- the only evidence they offered was presumption, speculation, and whatio they'd read in "the new york times." it's upon this flimsy evidence that the democrats justify nullifying the 2016 presidential election.

and so flimsy, the democrats have had to turn our bill of rights on its head in order to make it. they've argued that hearsay evidence, better known as gossip, is better than direct testimony. they've argued that the burden of proof rests with the accused toh prove his innocence. while at the same time, denying the defense witnesses permission to testify. they've argued that the right to confront yourri accuser is an invasion of the accuser's privacy.ac they've argued that appealing to the courts to defend your constitutional rights, as the president has done, is ip ipso facto obstruction and evidence of guilt. 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 defined entirely by the accusers.

these are the legal doctrines of despots. but they're the only ones that can accommodate the case before us today. this is a stunning abuse of power and a shameless travesty of justice that will stain the reputations of those responsible for generations to come. and god help our country if they should ever be given the power to replace our bill of rights with the doctrines that they have imposed in this process. democrats are fond of saying no one's -- no one's above the law. well, 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 at face value and

obediently follow the speaker's orders. as the red queen declared, sentence first, verdict afterwards. we can only pray the senate still adheres to the judicial principles of our founders. and if they do, perhaps then we can begin repairing the damage thatg this travesty has done t our democracy, our institutions, our principles of justice, our constitution, and our country. >> gentleman yields back. >> framers feared a president might corrupt our elections by dragging foreign powers into our politics in order to promote the personal, political ambitions of the president above the rule of the national security. the framers set against a potential tyrant's boundless thirst for power. the people's representatives here's in congress and the people's own democratic

ambitions. our self-respect. our love of freedom and the rule of law. our fierce constitutional patriotism. now, it looked like president trump might get -- might get away with his ukraine shakedown. after all, most americans didn't know anything about it. and the few who learned of it would be too afraid, too intimidated to cross the most powerful man on earth. fr president trump could rest easy. but if donald trump misjudged the american character, the framers of our constitution did not. i count 17 honorable public servants who came forward to testify over the intimidation and disparagement of the president. is that right, mr. goldman? >> yes, there were 17. >> and i count a dozen career state department and national security officials who served republican and democratic presidents alike, over decades, who came to testify. in fact, four of president trump's own national security co