vindman. someone said, and i would ask this of my colleagues. under the standard given earlier, by one of my colleagues, if the president exercised executive privilege and requested a declaratory judgment from the a court, if the privilege was upheld would you undertake then to impeach the judge? i mean, think about that. your standard giving absolute process authority to the house would impel you to impeach a judge who sustained a lawful exercise of the privilege of the executive. so i think, mr. chairman, you've overdone your balance and when we get back to this, my amendment, it basically covers and sets forth clearly what the holding or the pause of the ukrainian aid was about. and they got their money and they got it on time. >> gentleman yields back. without objection the material previously -- submitted by mr. cohen, mr. swalwell and mr. biggs will be admitted into the record. now for what purpose does you need recognition? >> strike the last word. >> recognized. >> i find it interesting the story certainly seems to be changing. you menti

vindman. someone said -- and -- and i would ask this of my colleagues. under the standard that was given earlier by one of my colleagues, if the president exercised executive privilege and requested declaratory judgment from a court, if the privilege was upheld, would you undertake then to impeach the judge? i mean, think a that. your standard giving absolute process authority to the house would impel you to impeach a judge who sustained a lawful exercise of the privilege of the executive. so i think, mr. chairman, you've overgone your bounds. and when we get back to my amendment, it basically covers and sets forth clearly, what the holding or the pause of the ukrainian aid was about. and they got their money. and they got it on time. >> the gentleman yields back. without objection, the material submitted by mr. cohen, mr. swalwell, and mr. biggs, will be admitted into the record. for what purpose does ms. bass seek recognition? >> move to strike last word. i find it interesting that the story certainly seems to be changing. you mentioned the information

lieutenant colonel vindman listened to the president's call. and testified that when president trump asked ukraine for a favor, it wasn't a friendly request. it was really a demand. i'm going to direct your attention to the slide about lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony. why did he say the president's favor was a demand?y >> he said because the power disparity between the united states, as the greatest power in the -- in the world -- and ukraine, which is so dependent on theuk united states. not just for the military assistance but for all of its support. made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not, in reality, say no. >> am i correct that this vast power disparity exists, in part, because ukraine has been at war with russia since russia invaded five years ago? and over 13,000 of the ukraine people have0 died. is that correct? >> yes, and -- and not only does the u.s. provide n 10% of their military budget. but the united states is a critical ally in ral lying otly countries to support ukraine. european uni

one source jokingly called this the vindman rule, referring there to alex vindman.he president actually spoke about alex vindman in the oval, seeming to mock him, saying he was another beauty. he also said he was able to confirm that transcript. now, we do know he said it was substantially correct. brianna? >> alexander vindman is a patriot, right? he's in the military, he has a purple heart. just want to be clear as the president critiques him. so, alex, i wonder what the effect of this is, because when you look at the people who testified, some of whom had access to this call or listened to this call, you wonder what the effect is. does that mean that if something like that happened again that there would be no one there to attest to wrongdoing? >> essentially this is an effort to reflect the fear and paranoia in the white house. fear that there are leaks, paranoia about the so-called deep state. and what pam hit on right there about the vindman rule, that basically sums it up. they are stripping out the careerist, the policymakers. as one told me, the effect is a

vindman. someone said and i would ask this of my colleagues, one of the standards that i was given earlier by one of my colleagues, if the president practiced -- from a court, if the privilege was upheld, would you undertake him to impeach the judge? think about that. you're a standard giving absolute process authority to the house would then tell you to impeach a judge who sustained a lawful exercise of the privilege of the executive. so i think mr. chairman you have over gone your balance and when we get back to this, my amendment, it basically covers and sets forth clearly what the holding and the pause of the ukraine aid was about and they got their money in the garden on time. >> the gentleman yields back. without objection, the material previously submitted by mr. mr. cohen, mr. swalwell and mr. bigs will be admitted into the record. for what purpose does miss bass seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. >> the lady is recognized. >> i find it interesting that the story seems

vindman same thing, lieutenant colonel vindman. are they actually able to do their jobs under this sort of pressure and with this sort of isolation? >> i mean, as i keep -- a moment ago i used the word duty, and i think that is a very meaningful word for people like lieutenant colonel vindman who continues to go to work at the white house each and every day and to do what is supposed to be his job. now, i mean what happens with his work product is an entire other question. this is somebody who's there to help manage policy on ukraine. and he is there writing reports and analytic papers and things like this that don't go anywhere near the president. i think it's just astonishing he's been in that job for such a long time, never spoken a word with president trump, never had any interaction with him except for the president to taunt him and insult him in public. >> for your piece you also spoke with steve bannon, the president's former chief strategist, who's call frd the, quot deconstruction of the administrative state. do you get th

in fact, four of president trump's own national security council staffers, hill, vindman, morrison and maguire came forward to report trump's scheme to nsc lawyers as soon as they learned of it, didn't they mr. goldman. >> morrison and vindman went to the lawyers as soon as they heard of it, yes. >> and that moved me a lot. because my father was a staffer on the national security council under president kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscious. and he devoted his career to the idea people must speak truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy and to the people. so i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. mr. goldman. who is dr. fiona hill. >> was the senior director for the europe and russia director at the national security council until july of this year. >> and she was president trump's senior adviser on russia? >> correct. >> her family fled nazi german and soviet russia. >> i think her family came from england. it w

vindman. someone said, and i would ask this of my colleagues, under the standard that was given earlier by one of my colleagues, if the president exercised executive privilege and requested a declaratory judgment from a court, if the privilege was upheld, would you undertake then to impeach the judge? i mean, think about that. your standard giving absolute process authority to the house would impel you to impeach a judge who sustained a lawful exercise of the privilege, of the executive. so, i think, mr. chairman, you've overgone your bounds. ben we g when get back to this, my amendment, it basically covers and sets forth clearly what the holding or the pause of the ukrainian aid was about and they got their money and got it on time. >> gentle man yields back. without action, the material previously submitted by plfmr. cohen, mr. swalwell and mr. biggs will be entered into the record. now, for what purpose does ms. bass seek recognition? >> rule to strike the last word. >> gentlelady is recogn

nsc staff member colonel alex vindman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. president trump has declassified and released the call summary so the american people can review it and assess it for themselves. i'll make a few points that seem to have gone undernoticed. the call summary reflects absolutely no pressure or conditionality. president zelensky vocalized in concerns with the subject matter discussed. and there is no indication of bribery, extortion or other illegal conduct on the call. the call summary shows president trump and president zelensky engaged in pleasantries and cordialities. the call reveals laughter. put simply, it is not the shakedown that some democrats have described. president trump raised his concerns about european allies paying their fair share in security assistance to ukraine, a concern that president trump would continue to raise both publicly and privately. there is no discussion on the call, i repeat, no discussion on the call about the upcoming 2020 election or security sectors' assis

i'm going to direct your attention to the slide about lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony. why did he say the president's favor was a demand? >> he said because the power disparity between the united states as the greatest power in the world and ukraine which is so dependent on the united states not just for the military assistance but for all of its support made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not in reality say no. >> am i correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because ukraine has been at war with russia since russia invaded five years ago, and over 13,000 of the ukraine people have died, is that correct? >> yes. not only does the u.s. provide 10% of their military budget but the united states is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support ukraine. europe actually gives -- the european union i think gives four times as much money as the united states over all to ukraine. >> president trump knew that the ukrainian's back was against the wall and president zelensky needed u.s. validation and support, is that rig

. >> and, in fact, both lieutenant colonel vindman and mr. morrison immediately reported the call to legal counsel, is that right? >> that's right. >> and why did they r do so? >> they did it for separate reasons. lieutenant colonel vindman was concerned about the substance vf the call. that it was improper. mr. morrison was concerned about the potential political ramifications if the call was released because of the substance of the call and the political naturee of the call. >> and they reported the call that they actually reported that to the internal legal channels. mr. goldman, i've placed lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony about why he reported the cally on the screen. am in correct his concern was based on the fact that the president wasth asking a foreig power to investigate a u.s. citizen? >> yes, and he was not the only witness to express that concern. >> am i also correct that he reported this concern because he thought it was his sense of duty? a duty that he felt something was wrong. >> yes. as you probably know, lieutenant c

lieutenant colonel alexander vindman testified that any omissions were not significant and any editing was not done maliciously. president trump has declassified and released the call summary so the american people can assess it and review it for themselves. i'llve make a few points that sm to have gone under noticed. the call summary reflects absolutely no pressure or conditionality. president zelensky vocalized no concerns with the subject matters discussed. there is no indication of bribery, extortion or other illegalhe conduct on the call. the call summary shows president trump and president zelensky engaged in pleasantries a and cordialities. the call is not the sinister mob shakedown that some democrats have described. president trump raised his concerns about european allies paying their fair share in security assistance to ukraine. a concern that president trump would continue to raise both publicly and privately. there is no discussion on the call, i repeat no discussion on the call about the upcoming 2020 election or security sector assistance to ukraine. beyond the call summ

patriots like lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, purple heart recipient and iraq war veteran. ambassador william taylor, bronze star recipient and vietnam war veteran. marie yovanovitch, extraordinary foreign ambassador to ukraine who joined the service during the reagan administration. dr. fiona hill, former deputy assistant to the president and senior director of europe and russia on the national security council and so many others. more than a dozen others detailed the wrong doing of the president. they described a president who repeatedly abused his power for personal gain, jeopardizing your security and democracy. these patriots had courage to live up to their oath. their words mattered, patriots. my family knows something about the sacrifice of service. two of my brothers served in the navy during the vietnam, my brother bob serving two tours in vietnam. and i'm lucky to serve with those who have served on my own staff. first lieutenant collin mylon who was recently called to active duty and tim mac and dave corr gann, proud marines. now as members of congress, it is our

in fact, four of president trump's own national security counsel staffers, hill, vindman, morrison and mcguire came forward to report trump's scheme to nsc lawyers as soon as they learned of it, didn't they, mr. goldman? >> morrison and vindman went to the lawyers as soon as they learned it, yes. >> that moved me a lot because my father was a staffer on the national security council under president kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience. he devoted his career to the idea that people must speak truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy and to the people. so i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. mr. goldman, who is dr. fiona hill. >> she was the senior director for the europe and russia directorate at the national security council until july of this year. >> and she was president trump's senior adviser on russia? >> correct. >> her family had fled both nazi germany and soviet russia. >> i think her family actually

that was lieutenant colonel vindman, iraq war veteran. purple heart recipient. 20 years of active duty. gordon sondland, ambassador, appointed by donald trump. what did he say? everybody was in the loop. it was no secret. was there a quid pro quo? the answer is, yes. is sondland a never trumper? he was appointed by donald trump. he gave $1 million to trump's inauguration. then of course there's bill taylor, westpoint graduate. what did he say? to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. it was illogical, it could not be explained. it was crazy. that is the record evidence that has been established. donald trump did not care about alleged corruption in ukraine, he sought a political favor. at the same time, that donald trump was allegedly concerned with corruption in ukraine, he authorized $8 billion in weapon sales to the corrupt kingdom of saudi arabia, another gulf state. $8 billion. in april, he authorized. he was supposedly concerned about corruption. this is a regime that bu

lieutenant colonel alexander vindman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. president trump has declassified and released the call summaries of the american people can review it and assess it for themselves. i will make a few points that seem to have gone under noticed. the call summary reflects absolutely no pressure or conditionality, president zelensky vocalized no concerns with the subject matters discussed. and there is no indication of bribery, extortion, or other illegal conduct on the call. of the call summary shows president trump and president zelensky engaged in pleasantries and cordiality's. the summary reveals laughter, simply put, not the sinister mob shakedown that some democrats have described. president trump raised his concerns about european allies paying their fair share and security assistance to ukraine. a concern that president trump would continue to raise both publicly and privately. there was no discussion on the call, i repeat, no discussion on the call about the upcoming 2020 election. or

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 d

they're going to have to tell the stories instead of a bill taylor or instead of alexander vindman. if you get those witnesses on the floor, there's a vocal debate about this. if you're a democrat, do you think it's more valuable to get a vindman or if you're lucky a pompeo or a bolton f the trade offer is you'll see the white house pursue aggressively getting hunter biden on the floor or continue to unmask and get testimony from the whistle-blower on the floor? everyone is doing the algebra here and trying to solve for what's the better outcome for your side. do democrats want to take that ris snk do they think they can peel off 20 republicans, an enormously difficult challenge if they get those witnesses or do they try to make the narrowest of arguments possible rather than risk the republican side getting to call their two or three witnesses and having that be more damaging to their argument or to the broader effort to remove president trump in november if you can't do it on the floor of the senate in january. >> i think the headline here, garrett, is there's still a lot of unkno

vindman was concerned that the call was improper. mr. morrison was concerned about the potential political ramifications if the call was released because of the substance of the call and the political nature of the call. >> and they reported the call, that they actually reported that to the internal legal channels. i placed colonel vindman's testimony about why he reported the call on the screen. am i correct that the call was based on the fact that the president was asking a foreign power to investigate a u.s. citizen? >> yes, and he was not the only witness to express that concern. >> am i correct that he reported this concern because he thought it was a sense of duty? a duty he felt something was wrong? >> as you know, lieutenant vindman was a purple heart winner from iraq, and he's been in the department of defense for 20 years. he has a great sense of duty and great patriotism to this country and felt compelled to follow that since of duty and report it. >> she testified as you brought out or was brought out earlier that it was unus

we saw that in lieutenant colonel vindman's deposition. ..vindman's deposition. there were some, you know -- >> we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. >> very basic things like who, what, when, where. and instead -- >> i would say too, this rapid -- you know we're in day 76, and it's almost impossible to do a especially when the stakes are this high because any congressional investigation of consequence, it does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stake out their interest and how they're going to respond to them. the first letter i think went in october of 2017, and in december we finally got a witness and it was the following spring after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tug-of-war, we reached a deal with dojng where we went dn to doj and they gave us access to documents and the gives access to i think north of 800,000 pages but they may does come down there, that made us go into a a skip, and these docums were not supplied. wasn't until may and june of that year that we started this process when t

i spoke with one who called this extreme restriction the vindman rule.t seemed to mock alex vrindman in the oval offic calling him another beauty also saying he verified the vindman transcript. vindman told congress, substantively correct but certain words were missing. >> pamela brown, thank you. >>> meantime, first lady's spokeswoman responding to the first lady's silence on greta thunberg. a student, musician and aspiring journalist. tessa majors killed in a park near her college. a crime that certainly has new yorkers rattled. we'll talk about her and the impact she had before her life was cut short. serum is sold every minute. revitalift derm intensives hyaluronic acid serum from l'oreal. with our highest concentration of hyaluronic acid in a serum, seriously hydrates to visibly replump skin in 1 week. and reduces wrinkles for younger looking skin. powerful results. validated by dermatologists. now we're talking. revitalift hyaluronic acid serum from l'oréal paris. because we're worth it. the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide. whil

amongst them, lieutenant colonel vindman. basically attacking you from the witness chair. hill attacking you from the witness chair. >> right. lou: what would be the motivation? the thinks they said were absolutely demonstratably untrue. >> i wrote a couple and laid out the facts that vindman said aren't true. i asked which ones aren't true. i haven't heard from him and i assume i won't. you saw an entrenched bureaucracy that chafes at the idea that someone would dare challenge their decisions. but we are set up to raise the questions my story raised. i think people over time will realize the potential conflict. lou: you and i, sean hannity, others, were on a list by marie yovanovich, the u.s. ambassador to ukraine. i didn't hear a question on that issue in the hearing. >> it didn't come up during the hearings. it did come up in the depositions. and there does appear to be some acknowledgment there was an operation under way. i filed a foia lawsuit to try and force the disclosure of those documents. there are four documents i think if president trump would release them wou

remember what colonel vindman testified to. he said it was complete and accurate. lunt colonel vindman said that in his deposition in the testimony in the hearing, complete and accurate transcript. so to say -- to suggest it's not is not consistent with the testimony we received from your witnesses. remember lieutenant colonel vindman is the same folks who wouldn't tell us who he talked to about the call. he only told us four of the individuals he spoke with. but that's the guy who told us the transcript was complete and accurate. i yoeld back to the ranking member. >> i yield to the gentleman from play. >> i want to respond to my colleague, mr. rascon. we could debate this all day long. but you misstated u.s. v nicken. i don't want to get too deep in the weeds for the folks at home. in that case the supreme court recognized the existence of executive privilege, a protection requiring a balancing of interest between the legislative and executive branchs by the judicial brarmg. but here is the important thing. they said that that case there is not absolute unqualifi

the other thing is when lieutenant colonel vindman thought that the words that he heard were appalling and seemed to him to be inappropriate for a call to the president as it relates to a question tying the military aid to the investigation, biden and sons and others and not official policy, he immediately gave it to the nfc counsel, john eisenberg. john eisenberg, took the information and then ultimately put it and put it in a separate coated filing and asked that the lieutenant colonel not say anything about it. that is unusual because you would think if it was a normal business and if it in to do with standard u.s. foreign policy it would be okay to talk about that call, but they knew a major mistake had been made. they knew that the president had offered to give military aid if he got an investigation against his political rival and his political rival happened to be joe biden, and he knew that that was, in fact, koven spike with usually using public office and public money for public and private desires. let me also say that friends talk about the courts. we have not shied away fr

vindman. he said it was a meeting in exchange for an investigation into the bidens. sauna and, a trump supporter, said it was a quid pro quo. bill taylor, west buoyant, he said it was crazy to withhold military aid for an investigation, all under oath, all with the penalty of perjury.

i'm going to direct your attention to the slide about lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony. why did he say the president's favor was a demand? >> he said because the power disparity between the united states as the greatest power in the world and ukraine which is so dependent on the united states not just for the military assistance but for all of its support made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not in reality say no. >> am i correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because ukraine has been at war with russia since russia invaded five years ago, and over 13,000 of the ukraine people have died, is that correct? >> yes. not only does the u.s. provide 10% of their military budget but the united states is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support ukraine. europe actually gives -- the european union i think gives four times as much money as the united states over all to ukraine. >> president trump knew that the ukrainian's back was against the wall and president zelensky needed u.s. validation and support, is that rig

vindman is a virginia resident like you are. lieutenant colonel vindman is a patriotic american law you are. i'm not going to ask you whether you think it's appropriate to attack his loyalty or his patriotism or is judgment or his character because we know what you would think about such an attack and whether you think it's okay to use the white house social media account or their assets to amplify such an attack because we know what you would think about that but i will ask you this. and your role as deputy secretary of defense. will you make sure that members of >> the military are not punished or face reprisals for cooperating with congress? >> we take very seriously our responsibility to respond to congress and to the earlier part of your sentence it's related to personal security so not going to comment on measures we take on security but we do take them seriously and we expect to be responsive and truthful to congress. >> thank you very much for that. i would urge you at this particular >> time to be very diligent and prot

one official jokingly told cnn that it's being called the vindman rule after alexander vindman.irector who was lisening to the july 25th call and was so disturbed by it that he reported to the lawyers and testified to congress. another official told me if the zelensky call were held tomorrow, vindman would not be on it. we also learned that transcripts of the calls are being disseminated to a far smaller group of people. official who might have before might not now see copies. meaning few people have access to the calls with the president, all of this makes for significant policy problems if the career experts who work with these foreign countries and regions on a day-to-day basis don't know what is being said by the president and what policies he is pushing. experts warn that it could make for muddled, dual track policymaking where one hand isn't talking to the other, resulting in chaotic foreign policy. senior white house adviser kellyanne conway responded to our report that fewer people are participating saying she is all for it. people should be on the calls on the basis of

it was probably an element of shock. >> so david then you have vindman reports this to the lawyers. a white house official is calling trump's new policy, he was sort of joking but called it the vindman rule. you'll now have a person like this who knows the most not allowed to be on the call because the president doesn't want him to know. >> there are two things here. you strip yourself of the expertise that the president needs to have an informered c i with a foreign leader. it's important the president pick up on what the nuances are especially with a foreign leader. if you don't know the context, you don't know the nuances. there's a second element. it's not just what goes into the president before the call, it's what happens as a result of the call and that is these transcripts are sent out to a sufficient number of people who have to execute the policy and diplomats talking to the other side. now as you take them, they don't have access to the transcripts, the people who are executing the policy at the mid levels, they will be blind where as the country that the president has be

lieutenant colonel vindman testified hunter biden appeared not qualified to serve on burisma's board. witnesses testified that hunter biden's role on the board was a legitimate concern to raise in fact, george kent explained in 2015 he raised a concern to the office of former vice president biden that hunter biden's role on burisma's board presented a potential conflict of interest. however, hunter biden's role did not change and former vice president biden continued to lead u.s. policy in ukraine. on this record there is a legitimate basis for president trump to have concern about hunter biden's role on burisma's board. the prospect some consider ukrainian officials worked against president trump in the run up to the 2015 election draws an even more visceral reaction from most democrats. let me say very, very clearly that election interference is binary. i'm not saying it was ukraine and not russia. i'm saying both countries can work to influence an election. a systematic, coordinated russian interference effort does not mean some ukrainian officials, some ukrainian officials did not

vindman, the director for ukraine on the national security council and jennifer williams, the special advisor of europe and russia with the office of the vice president, am i right? >> the hearat is right, yes. >> another troubling part of this is the president's treatment of ambassador yovanovitch. when you questioned ambassador yovanovitch, you asked her about the president's remark that she would, and i quote, go through some things. she told you that that remark sounded like a threat, is that right? >> yes. in the july 25th call, that's when president trump said that. >> ambassador yovanovitch is a career professional who served in republican and democratic administrations. she was once caught in live crossfire during a coup attempt, and here's how she described that experience in her very own words. >> i later served in moscow. in 1993, during the attempted coup in russia, i was caught in crossfire between presidential and parliamentary forces. it took us three tries. me without a helmet or body armor to get into a vehicle to go to the embassy. we went because the ambassador aske

. >> you talked about lieutenant colonel vindman who is a highly decorated purple heart recipient and worked in the trump administration, correct? >> yes, sir. >> he had a reaction to the call, didn't he? >> he did. >> he was listening to it, correct? >> he was. >> let's look at his reaction. he said, i immediately went to john eisen beberg, the lead leg counsel. he said it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. that was his testimony, yes or no? that was his testimony. yes? >> yes. >> yes. let me ask you this, sir. you had said that the intelligence committee majority report that mr. goldman had talked about, you said it presents as if things are clear but they're not clear. is that what you said, sir? >> that's annual -- correct. >> is it important to be fair to witnesses? >> of course. >> is it important to be fair to the american people to accurately report what they said? >> of course. >> let me ask you about jennifer williams. she was special adviser to vice president pence on europe

lieutenant colonel vindman, iraq war veteran, said it was improper. dr. fiona hill, trump appointee, what did she say? political errand. ambassador taylor, west point graduate appointed by reagan, bush, and trump, vietnam war hero, he said it was crazy. and john bolton, a super conservative trump national security advisor said it was a drug deal. what would the framers of the constitution have said? impeachable. i yield to my colleague from california, eric swalwell. >> i thank the gentleman. in my colleague's efforts to defend this president, you want him to be someone he's not. you want him to be someone he is telling you he is not. you're trying to defend the call in so many different ways, and he's saying, guys, it was a perfect call. he's not who you want him to be. and let me tell you how selfish his acts were. and ranking member collins you can deny this as much as you want. people died in ukraine at the hands of russia. in ukraine since september 2018 when it was voted on by congress, was counting on our support. one year passed and people died. a

>> morrison and vindman went to the lawyers. yes. >> that move me a lot. my father was a staffer on the national security council under president kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience. he devoted his career to the idea that people must be truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy. and to the people. so i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. mr. goldman, who is dr. fiona hill? >> the director of the national security council until this year. >> her family had fled both nazi germany and soviet russia. >> i think her family came from england. marie yovanovitch -- >> that was marie yovanovitch. dr. hill advisor lawyers july 11 and why did she go to report what she had learned? what motivated her? >> she was concerned that ambassador sondland and mick mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction whereby the ukrainians would open up these investigations for president trump's polit

lieutenant colonel vindman was shocked. he couldn't believe what he heard on the phone call. diverging from efforts to protect the national security policy. ambassador taylor thought it was crazy to withhold security assistance for help on a political campaign. professor karlan, these concerns are mere differences over policy, are they? >> no. they go to the very foundation of our democracy. >> and offering to exchange a white house meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in security systems for help with his reelection, that can't be part of our nation's foreign policy, kennett? >> no. it is the essence of doing something for personal reasons rather than political reasons. if i could say one thing about it, maybe when he was first running for president he had never been anything other than a reality tv show, that was his public life, may be that he could think russia, if you're listening, it's an okay thing to do but by the time he asked the ukraine, ukraine, if you're listening, could you help me out with my reelection, he would have to have known it was not consistent

ltd colonel vindman was shocked. couldn't believe what he heard on the phone call. nsc adviser hill realized a political error was verging to protects our national security policy. and ambassador taylor thought it was crazy to withhold security assistance for help on a political campaign. professor karlan, these concerns aren't mere differences over policy. are they? >> no. they go to the foundation, the very foundation of our democracy. >> and offering to exchange a white house meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance for help with his re-election that can't be part of our nation's foreign policy. can it? >> no. it's the essence of doing something for personal reasons rather than for political reasons, and if i could say one thing about this briefly. which is, maybe when he was first running for president he had never been anything other than a reality tv show -- you know, his public -- his public life. maybe then could think, russia if you're listening, that's an okay thing to do. but by the time he asked ukraine, ukraine if you'rive will

lieutenant colonel vindman iraq war veteran said it was improper. doctor fiona hill trump appointee, what did she say? political errand. ambassador taylor, west point graduate, appointed by reagan, bush and, trump vietnam war hero, he said it was crazy. john bolton, a superconservative, trump national security adviser, said it was a drug deal. what with the framers of the constitution have said? impeachable. i yield to my colleague from california. >> i thank the gentleman. in the efforts to defend this president, you want him to be someone he is not. you want him to be someone he is telling you he is not. you are trying to defend the call in so many different ways, and he is saying it was a perfect call. he is not who you want him to be. ranking member collins, you can deny this is much as you want, but people died in ukraine at the hands of russia. in ukraine, since september 2018 when it was voted on by congress, was counting on our support .. a year passed in people died. you may not want to think about that, it may be hard for you to think abou

colonel vindman was attacked by the president's allies on fox news and other places, by his son.here does this leave us in terms of sort of preparing for what robert mueller testified to was an ongoing attempt from the russians to interfere in the 2020 election? >> we are horribly unprepared. and we have a leader who doesn't want to admit that it's happened before, so it can happen again. as i was reading greg's article, i was struck by the all the people who had said something to him, all the people who had went to his office, all of these officials over time tell him it's not true, it's wrong. and all it took to get past a multitrillion dollars defense intelligence apparatus employing tens of thousands of people, hundreds of thousands in the country, was a call or a conversation between putin and trump. that's all it took. >> for which there are no notes? >> yes. it's actually totally astonishing. it's amazing to me. >> and it also explains. i think it was puzzling when there was that testimony about this insecure call that putin could've heard. well, of course that's not a sec

we don't know -- my guess is colonel vindman was one of them. but who knows? we don't know because we never got to talk to the individual who started it all with the complaint that the chairman of the intel committee told us when it all started we're going to get to hear from him. but then when it's discovered his staff communicated with the whistleblower, nope, nope, nope, we're not going to get to. the real victim of obstruction is this committee. we've had four democrat witnesses in front of us. that's all we've heard from. those were the four witnesses, then a bunch of staff. none of the 17 witnesses. so, i support the gentleman from pennsylvania's amendment and he's exactly right. the obstruction came from the intel committee. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. >> ma'am -- >> i'm sorry. can i have the last word? >> okay. you are recognized. >> we are charged with taking the facts of this investigation, applying them to the constitution that we have sworn to protect and defend. let's return for a minute to the facts.

vindman, lieutenant colonel, purple heart. he said it was a meeting in exchange for an investigation into the bidens. sondland, trump supporter, said that it was a quid pro quo. bill taylor, west point, said that it was crazy to withhold military aid for an investigation, all under oath, all with the penalty of perjury. who do they offer on the other side? president trump. 14,435 lies to date since he's been president, not under oath, but we should take his word for it. then it is so absurd because in a call we know the president's vocabulary. we know what he does and what he does not say. he may say bigley, he might say great, he might say winning a lot. but in his ordinary conversation, he does not use the words "quid pro quo." so when he has the conversation after the whistle-blower is known to everybody, he gets a call. first thing out of his mouth, hey, i don't want a quid pro quo. where did that come from? it came from the fact that you are guilty of the crime that is charged, just like a kid who just got caught going in

vindman, per heaven sake, you set that guy up as a hero, he is no hero. he was mad that trump did not do what he told him. for those who believe in praying for this country, pray for mercy, we can't afford justice so the country ends. i yield back. >> for what purposes mascara siesta the recognition? >> i moved a straight loss. >> word ladies recognized. >> mister chairman, five more minutes. five more minutes and a very long, long day, but when you look at what the other side is presented in defense of the president, what do we get? nada. nothing. none of your will defend the president's actions because quite simply you cannot defend the indefensible. you just can't. even if you like him and support his actions, you just will not defend what he did. it is really quite simple. it is not complicated at all. he offered official acts in exchange for a political favor. he is a clear and present danger to do it again. he ignored the power of the people and he will do it again. it is really just that simple, the president is an imminent threat, you should as pa

>> lieutenant colonel vindman was concerned about the substance of the call, that it was improper. mr. morrison was concerned about the potential political ramifications if the call was released because of the substance of the call and the political nature of the call. >> and they reported the call that they actually reported that to the internal legal channels. mr. goldman, i placed lieutenant colonel vindman's 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 was not the only witness to express that concern. >> am i also correct that he reported this concern because he thought it was a sense of duty? a duty that he felt something was wrong? >> yes. as you probably know, lieutenant colonel vindman is a purple heart award winner from -- medal winner -- from iraq and he has been in the department of defense for 20 years and has a great sense of duty and great patriotism to this country and felt, he compelled to follow that sense of duty and

lieutenant colonel vindman testified that by july 3rd, he was aware of the hold and he was aware that the office of management and budget, omb, was making queries that were, quote, abnormal. he used that word, "abnormal." fiona hill testified that there was no explanation given for the hold. undersecretary of state david hale testified that he was frustrated because he was simply told that this was the president's wish. in august, in august, several omb divisions, several divisions, wrote a joint memo recommending that military aid go to ukraine as soon as possible and they said in that memo that it was necessary this military aid was necessary for supporting a stable and peaceful europe. i would also note that just recently, just a few weeks ago, two omb officials resigned and they resigned because of deep concerns that they had about what they were being asked to do. one of those individuals worked in the legal department that issued this after-the-fact cover-up memo from omb. now, let me just ask the american people this. if the president was waiting, had deep concerns about corrup

lieutenant colonel vindman was shocked. he couldn't believe what he heard on the phone call. nsc advisor hill realized that a political errand was diverging from efforts to protect our national security policy. and ambassador taylor thought it was crazy to withhold security assistance for help on a political campaign. professor karlan, these concerns aren't mere differences over policy, are they? >> no, they go to the foundation, the very foundation, of our democracy. >> and offering to exchange a white house meeting and huns drs of millions of dollars in security assistance for help with his re-election. that can't be part of our nation's foreign policy, can it? >> no. it's the essence of doing something for personal reasons rather than for political reasons. and if i could just say one thing about this very briefly. which is maybe when he was first running for president, he had never been anything other than a reality tv show. you know, that was his public -- that was his public life. maybe then he could think russia, if you're listening, is an okay thing to do. but by the