mr. berk has if. >> how many of the rules are you just going to. >> this is not appropriate to have a witness be questioned on somebody that was a witness when he was. >> the gentleman will refrain from making -- >> i made a point of order and you won't rule on it. >> i have not heard a point of order. >> mr. chairman -- >> if the gentleman has a point of order, he'll state his point of order. >> there is no rule or precedent for anybody being a witness and then getting to come up and question, so -- the point of order is he's inappropriate to be up here asking questions. >> that is not an appointed order. >> how much money did you have to give to be able to do that? >> the gentleman will not cast aspersions on members of the staff or committee. mr. berk has the time. >> is mr. berk a witness? >> you have to state a point of order. >> the gentleman will perform a state of order. >> he is not here to appear for his opinions. is that right or not? >> that is not a point of order. it is mr. berk'

mr. berke, you are now excused and we will invite mr. goldman to take his place at the witness table. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. cl mr. chairman. >> what purposes does the gentleman seek recognition? >> parliamentary inquiry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pursuant to rule 7b of the house rules the chairman is allowed to administer an oath. not mandated to. but it has been the practice of this committee to administer oaths to witnesses. i'm wondering why we have not ministered the oath in this situation? >> i'm going to administer the oath to the two witnesses who are now coming before us to make presentation. the two gentlemen who just testified were not witnesses. they were staff -- they were making opening statements for the committees. we will now administer an oath to mr. caster and mr. goldman who are now testifying in the capacity of witnesses. >> typically we administer before opening statements. >> which we will -- for witnesses. for witnesses. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> suspend. mr. castor was here with mr. berke presenting

goldman is here, that's why mr. berke is here. that's why we're going through staff, asking staff questions, and then we start asking staff and getting into an argument. it's his report. mr. goldman, you're a great attorney but you don't wear a pen. >> that's true. >> we have a problem here. you're a very good prosecutor, i believe t. i've read your bio. you're a good attorney. you understand what quid pro quo is, correct? >> i do. >> you knew all about the conversation with mr. biden who said i'm not going to give you the million dollars. >> are you talking about in 2015? >> no, i'm talking about the one from the national -- i'll read it to you. as i remember, going to ukraine, our leaders are convincing them we should provide for long guarantees. i went over the twelfth or 13th's time that they would take action against the state prosecutor. they didn't. so they said they had. they were walking out of a press conference. they said, we're not going to give you the billion dollars f. many i said, call him. laughter. he said, you're

mr. berke, you are now excused and we'll invite mr. goldman to take his place at the witness table. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. >> what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition. pursuant to rule 7b of the house rules the chairman is allowed to administer an oath. not mandated to but it has been the practice of this committee to administer oaths to witnesses. i'm wondering why we have not administered the oath in this situation. >> i am going to administer the oath to the two witnesses who are now coming before us to make presentations. the two gentleman who just testified were not witnesses, they were staff -- they were making opening statements to the committees. we will now administer an oath to mr. castor and mr. goldman who are now testifying in the capacity of witnesses. >> we typically administer oaths before opening statements. >> for witnesses. for witnesses. mr. castor, we will now administer -- >> parliamentary inquiry. >> gentleman will suspend. >> mr. castor was here with mr. berke presenting the report of the committ

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 impeachme

mr. berke, you may begin. >> you realize i have -- >> the gentleman will suspend. >> i have not withdrawn my objection. i want everybody to have an opening statement. >> the gentleman will -- >> i have objected to your opening statement comment nothing else. >> mr. berke is recognized. >> steam roll continues. >> mr. berke has the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member collins, and all the members, before i had the great honor of being a counsel for this committee, my young son asked me a question, he said, dad, does the president have to be a good person be? like many questions by young children it had a certain clarity but it was hard to answer. i said, son, it is not a requirement that the president be a good person, but that is the hope. and it is not a requirement that the president be a good person, that is not why we are here today, that is not the issue. but the very document that created the awesome presidency and its powers that we have made clear it is a requirement that t

mr. berke, you are now excused and we will invite mr. goldman to take his place at the witness table. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. mr. chairman. >> what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition. >> i have a parliamentary inquire sdplee t. >> state yours. >> the chairman is allowed to administer an oath, not mandated to, but it has been the practice of this committee to administer oaths to witnesses. i'm wondering why we have not administered the oath in this situation. >> i'm going to administer the oath to the two witnesses who are now coming before us to make presentation. the two gentlemen who just testified were not witnesses, they were staff -- they were making opening statements for the committees. we will now administer an oath to mr. castor planned goldman who are now testifying in the form of witnesses. >> but typically we administer oaths before opening statements. >> for witnesses, for witnesses. mr. castor, we will now -- >> mr. chairman, parliamentary inquiry. >> the gentleman will suspend. mr. castor was here with mr.

mr. berke, you are now excused and we will invite mr. goldman to take his place at the witness table. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman? >> what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have a parliamently inquiry. >> the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> thank you. pursuant to rule 7b of the house rules the chairman is allowed to administer an oath, not mandated to, but it has been the practice of this committee to administer oaths to witnesses. i'm wondering why we have not ministered the oath in this siion? >> i'm going to administer the oaththe two witnesses, who are now coming before us to make presentation. the two gentlemen who just testified were not witnesses. they were staff -- they were making opening statements for the committees. we will now administer an oath to mr. castor and mr. goldman who are now testifying in the capacity of witnesses. >> typically we administer oaths before opening statements. >> which we will -- for witnesses. for witnesses. mr. castor -- we will n

castor was here with mr. berke presenting the report of the committee. that's the opening statement for this committee. they were not witnesses before this committee. mr. castor now and mr. goldman are witnesses before this committee and i will administer the oath. >> mr. chairman, if they were making -- >> the gentleman is not recognized. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> we welcome both of our -- >> i want to bring in barbara comstock now. >> mr. chairman, despite our repeated requests for access to the information we received -- >> as counsel to the impeachment committee. barbara, give some commentary what we're seeing from points of order and procedural objections. >> well, it's part of the theme to show that this whole process has been unfair. mr. castor went through all the various investigations back to when the president was inaugurated and forward. they're trying to stress it's an unfair process. they'll continue to bring up procedural issues. the chairman has the gavel. so he will prevail in all these. it drags out the process and gives them t

as mr. berke said you will have plenty of time with counsel. >> does the gentleman yield his time to missnt callen? >> yes. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> if i may. >> certainly. >> i have a number of things i think i neednu to clear up. if i may. >> yes, certainly. >> you have to bear with me because i have a number of them here. first of all on the call, tim morrison, general kellogg have a different view of the call than lieutenant colonel vindman and jennifer williams. going to the point that the call is ambiguous, so that's the first thing. timrs morrison testified that h went to the national security counsel lawyers foron a very different reason. he did not say he went to the nsc lawyers because he was concerned about thens call. he went to the national security lawyers for two reasons. number one, they weren't on the call. we wanted to update them about it. number two, he was concerned about leaks. and he was concerned that if his call leaked out, how it would play in washington's pola

was here with mr. berke presenting a report of the committee. that is the opening statement for this committee. they were not witnesses before this committee. now and mr. goldman are witnesses and i will administer the oath. >> if they were making presentations -- >> the gentleman is not recognized. >> mr. chairman -- >> we welcome both -- >> i have a point of order. >> who is seeking recognition? the gentleman will state his point of order. >> despite our repeated request for access to the evidence, we received less than 48 hours ago over 8000 pages of documentation. if this were a court of law, you would be facing sanctions right now. >> the gentleman will state his point of order. >> how are we supposed to process over a thousand pages of documents that came from various committees? >> that is not a point of order. i will now proceed. the gentleman will suspend and not make a speech. mr. goldman, mr. castor, please rise and raise your right hands. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true

nothing else. >> mr. berke is recognized. berke has the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member collins and all the members. before i had the great honor of being a counsel for this committee, my young son asked me a question. he said, dad, does the president have to be a good person? like many questions by young children, it had a certain clarity, but it was hard to answer. i said, son, it is not a requirement that the president be a good person, but that is the hope, and it is not a requirement that the president be a good person. that is not why we are here today. that is not the issue, but the very document that created the awesome presidency and its powers that we have made clear it is a requirement that the president be a person who does not abuse his power. it is a requirement that the president be a person who does not risk national security of this nation in the integrity of our elections in order to further his own re-election prospects. it is a requirement that the president not be a person who acts as though he is above the law in putting his personal

this is a mr. berke who offered reports two years ago on his opinion to whether president trump obstructed justice, and colluded with. also rebrande represented bill de blasio the federal investigation of bill de blasio's a part of said new york lawyer with written bias against president trump who gave thousands to hillary clinton's presidential campaign. all of the spectacle, all of it, not a single fact which wetness hasappeared in front ofe committee but we heard for a minority hearing date. let's talk about the fact we do have before us. we heard from mueller, no evidence that there no obstruction of justice. after denying republicans from calling all of their in closed-door cds, denying the president's counsel, the facts are this. did the president tell you about any preconditions for anything? his answer, no. for the aid be refused? no. a white house meeting? no. to morrison when questioned, there was no quid pro quo answered, correct. the aide was released, four fax never change for both president

we're in deep trouble because this is d another thing that founders you and othershe today mr. berke, said earlier, the founders were concerned about a lot of things. oneab of the biggest they were concerned about, except this, they also were concerned about a partisan impeachment. partisan impeachment because you don't like his policies, you don't like what he said and how he said it. i don't like the way joe biden said ithe but you blew that offs everybody has the backing of the international community. what we have become is a perpetual state of impeachment. and that is the problem that everyone should have. buter don't come here and be a person who is a witness, sworn witness, and not answer the questions. adam schiff is doing that fine without you. but don't come here and say i'm not going to say because you know s good and well sometime a some conference at some committee roomon in some little room somebody said hey, this is interesting because i have devin nunes's phone number and that number matches. we're going to put it in the report not because we think devin nunes is a pa

i now yield to my counsel, mr. berke, for additional questi questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. castor, as an experienced investigator, would mr. chairma. as an experienced investigator, would you agree that it's relevant to look at evidence bearing on the president's state of mind that may help explain the president's actions? >> evidence we talked about show -- >> use your mike, please. >> sir, my only question to you is that a relevant thing to consider? >> right. call he had with senator johnson. >> it's relevant to consider. sir, would you agree that joe biden was a leading democratic contender to face president trump in 2020? >> i wouldn't. >> so sir, it's your testimony that president trump did not view president biden to be a legitimate contender. >> i don't know what president trump believed or didn't believe. the it's too early. >> sir, as part of your inquiry, did you determine whether or not president trump tweeted about former vice president joe biden between january and july 25th and how many times? >> i didn't look at twitter. i try to stay off twitt

i now yield to my counsel, mr. berke, for additional questi questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. castor, as an experienced investigator, would mr. chairma. as an experienced investigator, would you agree that it's relevant to look at evidence bearing on the president's state of mind that may help explain the president's actions? >> evidence we talked about show -- >> use your mike, please. >> sir, my only question to you is that a relevant thing to consider? >> right. call he had with senator johnson. >> it's relevant to consider. sir, would you agree that joe biden was a leading democratic contender to face president trump in 2020? >> i wouldn't. >> so sir, it's your testimony that president trump did not view president biden to be a legitimate contender. >> i don't know what president trump believed or didn't believe. the it's too early. >> sir, as part of your inquiry, did you determine whether or not president trump tweeted about former vice president joe biden between january and july 25th and how many times? >> i didn't look at twitter. i try to stay off twitt

mr. burke. ... berke. mr. -- >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. >> you are recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> mr. castor is recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. chairman, point of order. the witness has violated rule 17 and my point of order should be heard. >> point of order. >> the witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country and those words should be stricken from the record and taken down. >> the point of order is not sustained. witnesses are not subject to the rules of decorum. >> appeal the ruling of the chair. >> in the same way members are. the topic of the hearing is the critical of the president and the witness's comments are disorderly and pertinent to the subject matter of the hearing and the witness would be able to continue except this time is expired. >> my point of order isn't that they are disorderly but they violate the rules of the house. a combat. about he's talking abouthe the motive. >> ththe gentleman will suspend. they apply

mr. berke. thank you mister chairman. >> how will history charges impeachment? i believe the are making people remember this impeachment effort on kindly. instead remembering democrat resisting and looking for an excuse to impeach this president, since it he was elected. they were false charges that pro trump russians has shut down the power grid in vermont, a frivolous lawsuit was filed cleaning voting machines were rated in three states. more than 50 house democrats boycotted president trump's swearing in ceremony including the chairman of this committee. the washington post when an article titled the campaign to impeach president trump has begun on january 17 2017. strangely enough it was posted agitating pm while the inaugural ceremonies were still happening. the aclu's executive director stated that we think president trump will be a violation of the constitution in federal statues on day one. then the general fascination and personal harm began with kathy griffin posing with a model of trump's severed head. and acting within or using it on your words to sp

mr. wal berke who has requested the honor of introducing the secretary. >> i thank you, mr. chairman, for your deference to allow me this opportunity. we michiganians are proud people and i know there will be disagreements here in this hearing today about what the secretary is doing. but having had the privilege and honor of knowing her and her family going back in the early '80s and knowing the impact that her family as well as the family she married into has had in not only michigan but all across this country. not because they were pushed into it. but because they had a passion for seeing young people educated from k through college and to make sure it was done in appropriate ways and that people have had choices that wouldn't have had choices before. they've done it in a way that has made a difference. and it continues on into their children as well. cultural areas, educational areas, manufacturing. bringing up people that would not have had the opportunity that they had. so i understand this will be a challenging hearing today. i do know from personal experience that ou