Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House Judiciary Committee Holds Impeachment Hearing. Aired 10- 11a ET
Aired December 09, 2019 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
BERKE: Or acts in ways that are grossly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system.
Now, these -- this question of whether the president engaged in abuse of power came up before, when this Congress considered the impeachment of President Nixon. And after action was taken, President Nixon famously said, "If the president does it, it is not illegal." And this body rejected that because that's not so. That goes directly contrary to what the founders said.
But President Trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by Department of Justice in defending his conduct. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Then I have in Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERKE: That he has the right to do whatever he wants as president. That is as wrong as when President Nixon said a similar thing. That is not what the Constitution provides. That is not what the country demands. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants.
Turning to the second abuse of power most concern (ph), betrayal of the nation involving foreign powers, the American people have suffered that foreign influence when President Trump treated military aid that had been approved -- taxpayer dollars -- and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own reelection chances. That reflects what the founders were concerned about.
And finally, corruption of our elections. The framers knew that corrupt leaders, or leaders acted corruptly, concentrate their powers to manipulate elections and undercut adversaries. They talked about it frequently. That is why the framers thought electoral treachery, particularly involving foreign powers, was a critical abuse and that could support and lead to impeachment.
Now, the American people learned last election how dangerous foreign intervention on elections can be. Let me show another clip from president -- from candidate Trump on the -- on the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERKE: And Russia was listening. Within approximately five hours -- five hours of President (sic) Trump's invitation to Russia to interfere in our election by trying to hack and obtain the e-mails of his political opponent, Russia, in fact, tried to do that for the first time. The very officers who were then indicted by the Department of Justice for that conduct, they took candidate Trump's invitation.
Now, the American people learned a lesson. President Trump, unfortunately, apparently learned a different lesson. Let's look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simply answer. They should investigate the Bidens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERKE: So this was President Trump answering a question about what did he want President Zelensky to do. So even after he got caught, he is saying, again, this vulnerable nation dependent on U.S. support militarily and otherwise -- again, he's telling them what to do.
And unlike in 2016 when he only had a campaign platform which to extend the invitation to a foreign power, now he has the levers of government in his control to not only request it and invite it, but to pressure that country to do it. And that's exactly what he did. And you'll hear more about that in the presentation from the House Intelligence Committee.
And what's most striking as we come back to this issue that the framers were concerned about, is there a continuing risk of wrongdoing, the fact that President Trump did this after he was caught shows the risk -- shows the risk of what will happen if this body doesn't act.
He really does believe he can act as though he were above the law. He really does believe, as evidenced by his conduct, that he can put his personal and political interests over the nation's interest, over the nation's national security interests, over the nation's integrity of its elections.
[10:05:00]
So, of course, we do have an election coming up. That's not a reason to postpone this discussion. That's a reason we must have this discussion, to make sure it is not interfered with, to make sure this president doesn't do it, to make sure future presidents do not do it.
It is the hope that in these discussions you can put aside political rancor, disagreements, and have a fair discussion about the facts in this conduct, not just as it relates to President Trump but as to the presidency itself and future presidents.
My son, our children, our grandchildren, they will study this moment in history, they will read all of your remarks, they will learn about all of your actions. And that is not a reason to vote for or against impeachment. For that, of course, you must vote your conscience. But that is a reason for us to have a fair debate about what the undisputed facts show, to recognize that it is wrong, it is very wrong and it cannot happen again with this president or any president.
It is a reason to talk about whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in a country where the president elected by the people can put his own personal and political interests over the interests of the people who elected them. It is a reason for these debates to, again, fairly focus on the facts and to make sure the presentations we're going to hear will not distort the record, focus on process points, raise extraneous matters that really are intended to distract rather than focus on what the conduct was at issue here. It is a reason to focus on the facts and what is in the country's best interest.
History, future generations will be the judge.
NADLER: Thank you, Mr. Berke. Thank you, Mr. Berke.
Mr. Castor, you are...
M. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman...
NADLER: ... you are recognized for 30 minutes.
M. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, point of order.
NADLER: Mr. Castor is recognized -- Mr. Castor is recognized for 30 minutes.
M. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, point of order.
NADLER: Mr. Castor is recognized for 30 minutes.
M. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, the witness has violated Rule 17 and my point of order should be heard.
NADLER: Point of order. The gentleman...
M. JOHNSON: 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.
NADLER: The point of order is not sustained. Witnesses are not subject to the rules of decorum...
(UNKNOWN): Appeal the ruling of the chair.
NADLER: ... in the same way members are. The topic of the hearing is the president's misconduct, so none of us should find it surprising that we are hearing testimony that is critical of the president. I do not find that the witness's comments are disorderly. I find they are pertinent to the subject matter of this hearing. The witness would be able to continue, except that his time is expired.
Mr. Castor is recognized.
M. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, it's not...
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
M. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is not that his words are disorderly; They are unparliamentary. They violate...
NADLER: (inaudible)
M. JOHNSON: ... the rules of the House.
NADLER: The point of...
M. JOHNSON: They should be taken down. This is not about his conduct. He's talking about the -- the motives...
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
M. JOHNSON: ... and the character of the president of the United States.
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
The rules of decorum apply to members of the House, not to witnesses.
The gentleman may proceed.
(CROSSTALK)
M. JOHNSON: So I -- I appeal the ruling of the chair.
NADLER: That is not a ruling. The...
(UNKNOWN): It is a ruling.
(UNKNOWN): It is a ruling.
NADLER: There was no -- there was no...
(CROSSTALK)
M. JOHNSON: It is a ruling on a point of order. It's appealable.
(UNKNOWN): It's subject to a vote.
(UNKNOWN): That is a ruling. (UNKNOWN): Subject to a vote.
(UNKNOWN): It's appealable.
(UNKNOWN): And that's our -- that a rule.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: The point of order is not sustained.
(UNKNOWN): He appeals the ruling of the chair.
NADLER: Appeals the ruling of the chair?
(UNKNOWN): I move to table the -- the...
NADLER: The -- the motion is made to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The motion (inaudible).
(UNKNOWN): Move the motion to table is made in writing.
NADLER: The motion to table...
(UNKNOWN): Move the motion is made (inaudible) in writing.
NADLER: The motion (inaudible) was not in debate. It's not...
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: All in favor of the motion to...
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: All in favor of the motion to table will say "Aye."
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: We've got -- whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
NADLER: Opposed, "No."
The motion to table...
COLLINS: She has to put it in writing first, then you can call the vote.
NADLER: Motion to table is...
COLLINS: At least you're following the rules.
NADLER: Motion to table is sustained. The...
(UNKNOWN): Roll call.
(UNKNOWN): Roll call.
(UNKNOWN): Roll call.
NADLER: The -- the clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler?
NADLER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
LOFGREN: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
JACKSON LEE: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
Mr. Cohen?
COHEN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Cohen votes aye.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
H. JOHNSON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Georgia of Georgia votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
DEUTCH: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
BASS: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Richmond?
RICHMOND: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Richmond votes aye.
Mr. Jeffries?
JEFFRIES: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Cicilline?
CICILLINE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Mr. Swalwell?
SWALWELL: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Swalwell votes aye.
Mr. Lieu?
LIEU: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Lieu votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
RASKIN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Jayapal?
JAYAPAL: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Jayapal votes aye.
Ms. Demings?
DEMINGS: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Demings votes aye.
Mr. Correa?
CORREA: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Correa votes aye.
Ms. Scanlon?
SCANLON: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Scanlon votes aye.
Ms. Garcia?
GARCIA: Aye.
[10:10:00]
CLERK: Ms. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Neguse?
NEGUSE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Neguse votes aye.
Ms. McBath?
MCBATH: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. McBath votes aye.
Mr. Stanton?
STANTON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Stanton votes aye.
Ms. Dean?
DEAN: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Dean votes aye.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
MUCARSEL-POWELL: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye.
Ms. Escobar?
ESCOBAR: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Escobar votes aye.
Mr. Collins?
COLLINS: Nope.
CLERK: Mr. Collins votes no.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
SENSENBRENNER: No.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
CHABOT: No.
CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Gohmert?
GOHMERT: No. CLERK: Mr. Gohmert votes no.
Mr. Jordan?
JORDAN: No.
CLERK: Mr. Jordan votes no.
Mr. Buck?
Mr. Ratcliffe?
RATCLIFFE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Ratcliffe votes no.
Ms. Roby?
ROBY: No.
CLERK: Ms. Roby votes no.
Mr. Gaetz?
GAETZ: No.
CLERK: Mr. Gates votes no.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
M. JOHNSON: No.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. McClintock?
MCCLINTOCK: No.
CLERK: Mr. McClintock votes no.
Ms. Lesko?
LESKO: No.
CLERK: Ms. Lesko votes no.
Mr. Reschenthaler?
Mr. Cline?
CLINE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Cline votes no.
Mr. Armstrong?
ARMSTRONG: No.
CLERK: Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Steube?
STEUBE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Steube votes no.
BIGGS: Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
CLERK: Mr. Biggs, you were not recorded.
BIGGS: I said no.
CLERK: Mr. Biggs votes no.
NADLER: Has every member voted who wishes to vote?
The clerk will report.
CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 15 noes.
NADLER: The motion to table is carried.
(inaudible) Mr. Castor...
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?
NADLER: Mr. Castor is recognized. I will not recognizable a parliamentary inquiry at this time.
Mr. Castor is recognized for 30 minutes.
CASTOR: Good morning, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, members of the committee and members of the staff. My name's Steve Castor. I'm a congressional staff member. I serve with the Oversight Committee on the Republican staff with Mr. Jordan. I'm also, for purposes of this investigation, I'm a shared staffer with the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Collins and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Mr. Nunes. It sure is atypical for a staffer to be presenting, but again, thanks for -- for having me.
The purpose of this hearing, as we understand it, is to discuss whether President Donald J. Trump's conduct fits the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor -- It does not -- such that the committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president from office, and it should not.
This case, in many respects, comes down to eight lines in a call transcript. Let me say clearly and unequivocally that the answer to that question is no. The record and the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of his office or obstructed Congress. To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney.
Democrats seek to impeach President Trump not because they have evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors, but because they disagree with his policies. This impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. Democrats have been searching for a set of facts in which to impeach President Trump since his inauguration on January 20th, 2017.
Just 27 minutes after the president's inauguration that day, the Washington Post ran a story that the campaign to impeach the president has already begun. The article reported, "Democrats and liberal activists are mounting broad opposition to stymieing Trump's agenda, and noted that impeachment strategists believe the Constitution's emoluments clause would be the vehicle.
In the first two years of the administration Democrats in the House introduced articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office on several very different factual bases. On January 3rd, the very first day of the new Congress, Congressman Sherman introduced articles of impeachment against the president, and the same day, Representative Tlaib said, "We're going to go in there. We're going to impeach the ... ... president."
In May 2019, Representative Green said on MSNBC, "If we don't impeach this president, he will be reelected."
Even Speaker Pelosi, who has said that impeachment is a somber and prayerful exercise, has called President Trump an impostor, and said it is dangerous to allow voters to judge his performance in 2020.
The obsession with impeaching the president is reflected in House Democrats have used the power of their majority in the past 11 months. In the Oversight Committee, the Democrats' first announced witness was Michael Cohen, a disgraced felon who was -- who pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. When he came before us at the Oversight Committee, he then lied again as many as eight times.
[10:15:00]
Oversight Committee Democrats demanded information about the president's personal finances, and even subpoenaed the president's accounting firm, Mazars, for large swaths of sensitive and personal financial information about the entire Trump family. The subpoena was issued over the objection of committee Republicans and without a vote.
In the Ways and Means Committee, Democrats demanded the president's personal tax return information. The reason they cited for wanting the president's tax returns, they said, was to oversee the IRS's audit process for presidential tax returns. You can judge that for yourself.
In the Financial Services Committee, Democrats demanded and subpoenaed the president's bank records going back 10 years. The Financial Services Committee staff, the Republicans, tell me the information demanded would cover every withdrawal, credit card swipe, debit card purchase of every member of the Trump family, including his minor child. The reason that the Democrats gave for why they needed such voluminous and intrusive personal information about the Trump family was -- get this -- "financial industry compliance with banking statutes and regulations."
Here in the Judiciary Committee, Democrats sent out letters demanding information from over 80 recipients, including the president's children, business partners, employees, his campaign, businesses and foundation.
Of course, the main event for the Judiciary Committee was the report of Special Counsel Mueller, which Democrats would -- believed would serve as the evidentiary basis for impeaching the president.
Despite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2,800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants and spending $25 million, the special counsel's 19 attorneys and 40 FBI agents, analysts and staff found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
After the Trump-Russia collusion allegations did not pan out, Democrats focused their efforts on obstruction of justice. They criticized Attorney General Barr for concluding that no crime of obstruction had occurred in the special counsel investigation, but in fact it was entirely appropriate for the attorney general to make that call because the special counsel declined to do so.
Not surprisingly, the Democrats' Mueller hearing was underwhelming, to say the least. And the sequel with Corey Lewandowski definitely did not move the impeachment needle either.
The Intelligence Committee, too, was heavily invested in the Russia collusion investigation. Committee Democrats hired former federal prosecutors to prepare for their anticipated efforts to impeach the president.
Now that the Russian collusion allegations did not work out, Democrats have settled on the Ukraine phone call, eight lines the president uttered on July 25 with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
But the Foreign Affairs Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, wasn't the committee leading the impeachment inquiry or holding the hearings. Neither was the Oversight Committee, the House's chief investigative entity.
The Judiciary Committee was only recently brought back into the mix after fact-finding concluded. Instead the impeachment inquiry was run by the House Intelligence Committee and these former federal prosecutors.
Democrats on the Intelligence Committee ran the impeachment inquiry in a manifestly unfair way. All the fact-finding was unclassified, and that was made clear at the top of every single deposition. But the Democrats took advantage of the closed-door process in the Capitol basement bunker, the SCIF, to control access to information. The secrecy effectively weaponized the investigation, allowing misleading public narratives to form and catch hold with careful leaks of witness testimony. Democrats refused to invite Republican witnesses and directed witnesses called by the Democrats not to answer our questions.
In the public hearings, many of these unfair processes continued. Democrats refused to invite numerous witnesses requested by Republicans, interrupted Republican questioning and prevented witnesses from answering Republican questions.
Democrats voted down by virtue of a motion to table with no notice subpoenas for documents and testimony requested by Republicans. I'll note that Democrats never once brought any of their subpoenas to a vote before the Intelligence Committee.
This unfair process reflects the degree to which Democrats are obsessed with impeaching the president.
[10:20:00]
The Democrats went searching for a set of facts on which to impeach the president, the emoluments clause, the president's business and financial records, the Mueller report, allegations of obstruction, before landing on the Ukraine phone call.
The impeachment inquiry is clearly an orchestrated effort to upend our political system. According to Politico, the speaker has tightly scripted every step of the impeachment inquiry. Democrats have reportedly convened focus groups to test which allegations, whether it be quid pro quo or bribery or extortion, were most compelling to the American public.
Speaker Pelosi said Democrats must strike while the iron is hot on impeaching the president. The entire duration of the impeachment inquiry, from the time Speaker Pelosi announced it on September 24th until today has been 76 days. As Professor Turley testified last Wednesday, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
The artificial and arbitrary political deadline by which Democrats are determined to finish impeachment by Christmas leads to a rushed process and missed opportunities to obtain relevant information.
Democrats avoided the accommodations process required by federal courts in disputes between Congress and the executive. Democrats declined to attempt to negotiate with the administration for the production of documents and witnesses.
Democrats did not exhaust all their options to entice witnesses or agencies to cooperate, such as allowing witnesses to appear with agency lawyers or initiating contempt proceedings. Sometimes the threat of a contempt proceeding gets you a different result. Sometimes the witnesses choose to appear when contempt is on the table. Democrats even withdrew a subpoena to one witness who asked a federal court to resolve conflicting orders from Congress and the executive, either because the Democrats did not want to wait for the court to rule or they didn't like the presiding judge, Judge Leon. Instead, Democrats made their demands and refused to budge.
Democrats told witnesses at the outset that their refusal to cooperate in full would be used against them and the president. Democrats threatened federal employees that their salaries could be withheld for not meeting committee demands.
These tactics are fundamentally unfair and counterproductive for gathering information in any serious inquiry. This rushed and take-it- or-leave-it approach to investigating is contrary to how successful congressional investigations typically work.
Congressional investigations take time. There is no "easy" button. In this job, you must take the information that's offered, even if you don't like the terms. You should not say no to taking a witness's testimony because you would prefer the agency counsel is not present. If that's the only means of obtaining the testimony, you should take it.
Your priority must not be on blocking information out; it must be on seeking information. In all recent major congressional investigations, for example Chairman Goodlatte and Gowdy's investigation into the Justice Department's decision during 2016, the IRS targeting investigation, the Benghazi investigation and Fast and Furious, there have been give-and-take between Congress and the executive.
In the Goodlatte-Gowdy investigation, for example, it took two months -- two months of negotiations before the committees conducted the first witness interview with Deputy Director McCabe. The Justice Department only began producing documents to the committee after many more months of discussions.
In none of these investigations did Congress get everything it wanted right at the beginning, certainly not within 60 -- or 76 days, but with persistence and patience we eventually did receive enough information to do our work.
In contrary to talking points, the Trump administration has, in fact, cooperated with and facilitated congressional oversight and investigations. For example, earlier this year the Oversight Committee conducted an investigation into security clearances at the White House. The central allegation put forward was that the White House deviated from established procedures to grant clearances to certain White House staff.
The Democrats sought to interview career staff who performed these security clearance reviews but decline the witness initially to appear with agency counsel. The House and the White House were at an impasse.
[10:25:00]
However, after a little bit of time, we, the Republican staff, with the help of Mr. Jordan convinced the witness to appear with agency counsel for our own transcribed interview and the Democrats came along.
The subsequent interviews in the security clearance investigation were conducted with agency counsel. The testimony allowed the Committee to obtain the evidence to get to the bottom of what was going on, and it wasn't what was alleged. Nobody outside the security clearance office was handing out clearances, certainly not senior White House staffers.
In this impeachment inquiry, however, Democrats have turned away information that could be valuable to the inquiry by disallowing agency counsel to accompany witnesses. Democrats have turned away information by declining to negotiate in good faith with the administration about the scope of document requests.
As the result of these failures, the evidentiary record in the impeachment inquiry is incomplete and, in many places, incoherent. The failure to exhaust all avenues to obtain information severely risks undermining the legitimacy of any articles of impeachment.
As Professor Turley said to the Committee last week, "I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit apposite of evidence and an abundance of anger. I believe this impeachment not only fails the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments." Professor Turley elaborated that current lack of proof is another reason why the abbreviated investigation into this matter is so damaging for the case of impeachment.
The substantive case for impeaching President Trump as a result of an artificial, arbitrary, and political schedule relies heavily on ambiguous facts, presumptions, and speculation. President Turley warned here, too, that impeachments have been based on proof, not presumptions.
The Democrats do not have the proof. You know, my Democrat counterparts on the Intelligence Committee are talented attorneys. I'm sure they would tell you a riveting story about a shadow or irregular foreign policy apparatus and a smear campaign designed to extort Ukraine for the president's political benefit. They'll tell you about President Trump and how he put his own political interests ahead of national security by mentioning former president -- former Vice President Joe Biden by name and raising the allegations of Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election on the July 25 call.
They'll try to convince you that the Trump administration, the same administration Democrats regularly accused of being incompetent, orchestrated an international conspiracy at the highest levels. None of this adds up. It may be a great screenplay, but it's not what the evidence shows.
The Democrat's impeachment inquiry ignores all of the evidence that does not advance their story. The Democrat's impeachment narrative resolves all ambiguous facts and conflicting evidence in a way that is most unflattering to the president. The Democrat's impeachment narrative ignores public statements from senior Ukrainian officials that contradict the narrative. As you listen to the Democrat presentation later today, I urge you to keep these points in mind. What evidence that has been gathered in the impeachment inquiry paints a different picture. I won't provide a detailed presentation now, but allow me to highlight a few points.
First, the summary of the July 25 phone call reflects no conditionality or pressure. President Zelensky never vocalized any discomfort or pressure on the call. Contrary to Democrat allegations, President Trump was not asking for a favor that would help his reelection. Hew as asking for assistance in helping our country move forward from the divisiveness of the Russia collusion investigation.
Second, since President Trump has declassified and publicly released the all summary 75 days ago, President Zelensky has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure. He said it on September 25 at the United Nations general assembly. He said it in an interview published on October 6. He said it again on October 10. And most recently he said it just last week in Time Magazine.
[10:30:00]
Other senior Ukrainian officials have also said there was no linkage between a meeting, security assistance, and an investigation.
If President Trump was truly orchestrating a pressure campaign to force Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden, one would think that Ukraine would have felt some pressure.
Third, at the time of the July 25 call, senior officials in Kiev did not know that the security assistance was paused. They did not learn it was paused until the pause was reported publicly in the U.S. media on August 28. As Ambassador Volker testified because the highest levels of the Ukrainian government did not know about the pause, there was know leverage implied.
Finally, President Zelensky met with President Trump in New York on September 25 at the United Nations. Shortly thereafter -- or shortly before that, the security assistance flowed to Ukraine. Both happened without Ukraine ever taking actions or investigations.
The impeachment record also has substantial evidence going to the president's state of mind, undercutting the Democrat's assertion of some malicious intent. Witnesses testified that President Trump has a deeply-rooted, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine stemming from its history of corruption. President Trump is skeptical of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign assistance and believes that our allies should share more of the burden of Ukraine's defense.
Ukrainian politicians openly spoke out against President Trump during the 2016 election. These events bared directly on the president's state of mind. President Zelensky had run on an anti-corruption platform, but he was an untried politician with a relationship to a controversial, Ukrainian oligarch.
When vice -- when former Vice President Pence met with President Zelensky in Warsaw -- I'm sorry, when Vice President Pence met with President Zelensky in Warsaw on September 1, he stressed to him the need for reform and reiterated the president's concern about burden- sharing, especially among European allies.
In late August and early September, after his party took control of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ukraine passed historic reforms to fight corruption, these reforms including removing parliamentary immunity, which witnesses said had been a historic source of corruption. Imagine if members of our Congress had immunity.
President Trump later lifted the pause on security assistance and met with President Zelensky two weeks later. The aid was paused for 55 days.
Very simply, the evidence in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not support the conclusion that President Trump abused his power for his own personal, political benefit. There is simply no clear evidence that President Trump acted with malicious intent in withholding a meeting or security assistance. Indeed, there are -- and the Republican report articulates them -- legitimate explanations for these actions that are not nefarious as the Democrats allege.
The evidence shows that President Trump faithfully executed the duties of his office by delivering on what he promised the American voters he would do. Democrats may disagree with the president's policy decisions or the manner in which he governs, but those disagreements are not enough to justify the irrevocable action of removing him from office.
The Democrats' hyperbole and histrionics are no good reason, 11 months out from an election, to prevent the American people from deciding on their own who is going to be their next president.
This record also does not support a conclusion that President Trump obstructed Congress during the impeachment inquiry, for many of the procedural defects I touched on earlier.
Additionally, as a factual matter, the only direct testimony the investigation has obtained about the president's reaction to the inquiry is from Ambassador Sondland, who testified President Trump told him to cooperate and tell the truth.
President Trump has also declassified and released the summaries of his two phone calls with the president -- President Zelensky. President Trump has said that he would like witnesses to testify but he's been forced to resist the unfair and abusive process.
I believe strongly in the prerogatives of the Congress. It's awful to hear President (sic) Turley's testimony from last week when he critiqued the House for proceeding on impeachment so rapidly and on such a thin record. Professor Turley said to set this abbreviated schedule, demand documents and then impeach because they haven't been turned over when they go to court I think is an abuse of power.
[10:35:00]
The impeachment of a duly elected president, as Chairman Nadler said in 1998, is the undoing of a national election. Now, I understand Democrats issued a report over the weekend arguing that, contrary to the chairman's statement in 1998, impeachment is not undoing it -- an election. I would just respond by saying that I don't think many of the 63 million Americans from all around the country who voted for President Trump in 2016 would agree.
By impeaching President Trump, the House would essentially be nullifying the decision of those Americans and the House would be doing it less than -- less than 11 months before the next election.
There still is no compelling argument for why Democrats in the House must take this decision out of the hands of the voters and do it before Christmas.
During the Clinton impeachment in 1998, the chairman said that, "At a bare minimum, the president's accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo and beyond the demand that the president prove his innocence of vague and changing charges." I would submit that those words ring as true today as the chairman believed them to be in 1998.
The impeachment record is heavily relied on hearsay, innuendo and presumption. Democrats have lobbed vague and ever-changing charges for impeachment going as far back as the president's inauguration.
For all of these reasons, the extraordinary exercise of the House's impeachment authority is not warranted on the evidentiary record presented.
Thank you for allowing me to present this information this morning and I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
Thank you both for your presentations.
Mr. Berke, you are now excused and we will invite Mr. Goldman to take his place at the witness table.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCK: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: Who seeks -- for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
BUCK: I have a parliamentary inquiry.
NADLER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
BUCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Pursuant to Rule 7(b) 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. NADLER: I'm going to administer the oath to the two witnesses who are now coming up before us to make presentations. The two gentlemen who just testified were not witnesses, they were staff -- they were making opening statements to the committee.
We will now administer an oath to Mr. Castor and Mr. Goldman, who are now testifying in the capacity of witnesses.
BUCK: But typically we administer oaths before opening statements.
NADLER: Which we will -- no, for witnesses -- for witnesses.
Mr. Castor, we will now administer the...
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Castor was here with Mr. Berke presenting the report of the committee. That is the opening statement for the -- 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.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, if -- if they were making presentations...
NADLER: The gentleman is not recognized.
(UNKNOWN): ... rules should apply.
NADLER: The gentleman is not recognized.
RESCHENTHALER: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
NADLER: We welcome both of our...
RESCHENTHALER: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
NADLER: Who -- who -- who is seeking recognition?
RESCHENTHALER: Right here, Mr. Chair.
NADLER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
RESCHENTHALER: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, despite our repeated requests for access to the evidence, we received less than 48 hours ago over 8,000 pages of documentation. Mr. Chairman, if this were a court of law, you'd be facing sanctions right now by the Bar Association.
NADLER: The gentleman will state his point of order, not make a speech.
RESCHENTHALER: Mr. Chairman, how are we supposed to process over 8,000 pages of documents that came from various committees...
NADLER: The gentle -- that is not a point of order. That is not a point of order.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: I will now proceed with the oath.
RESCHENTHALER: ... documents...
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend and not make a speech.
Mr. Goldman, Mr. Castor, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?
Let the record show the presenters answered in the affirmative.
Thank you and please be seated.
Each of you have 45 minutes to present. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your time is expired.
Mr. Goldman, you may begin.
BIGGS: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, you have to recognize...
NADLER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
[10:40:00]
BIGGS: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is this. In the previous point of order issued by Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, you ruled against his point of order because you said that Mr. Berke was a witness.
You have just told us he was not a witness but he was a staffer. As such, a staffer must...
NADLER: The...
BIGGS: ... avoid impugning motivations.
NADLER: The gentleman will...
BIGGS: So...
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
COLLINS (?): Will you let him finish his point of order, please?
NADLER: He made his point of order. BIGGS: No, Mister -- Mr. Chairman, I haven't completed yet.
(CROSSTALK)
BIGGS: The rule requires that members and staff not impugn the motivations of the president. What you ruled was that he was a witness. You've just told us he wasn't a witness. My point of order is that you were out of order in your ruling.
NADLER: The point of order is not sustained. I have already ruled on it. He was not a witness. These two gentleman now are witnesses.
(UNKNOWN): I appeal the decision of the chair.
NADLER: That is not a -- a...
(UNKNOWN): You just said...
(UNKNOWN): I most certainly is.
(UNKNOWN): It's appealable, yes, it is.
(UNKNOWN): Ms. Lofgren knows it is.
NADLER: The ruling is not...
LOFGREN (?): The point of order is not sustained.
NADLER: The point of order is not sustained.
(UNKNOWN): I appeal the decision of the chair.
LOFGREN (?): I move to table the...
NADLER: The appeal of the ruling of the chair is tabled.
(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)
(UNKNOWN): Save it for next time.
NADLER: All in favor of the motion to table, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, nay?
The motion to table is approved.
(UNKNOWN): I seek a roll call vote.
NADLER: Roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler?
NADLER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
LOFGREN: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
JACKSON LEE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Jackson Lee votes aye.
Mr. Cohen?
COHEN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Cohen votes aye.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
H. JOHNSON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
DEUTCH: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
BASS: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Richmond?
RICHMOND: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Richmond votes aye.
Mr. Jeffries?
JEFFRIES: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Jeffries votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
CICILLINE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Mr. Swalwell? SWALWELL: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Swalwell votes aye.
Mr. Lieu?
LIEU: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Lieu votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
RASKIN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Jayapal?
JAYAPAL: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Jayapal votes aye.
Ms. Demings?
DEMINGS: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Demings votes aye.
Mr. Correa?
Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Garcia?
GARCIA: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Neguse?
NEGUSE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Neguse votes aye.
Ms. McBath?
MCBATH: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. McBath votes aye.
Mr. Stanton?
STANTON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Stanton votes aye.
Ms. Dean?
DEAN: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Dean votes aye.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
MUCARSEL-POWELL: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye.
Ms. Escobar?
ESCOBAR: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Escobar votes aye.
Mr. Collins?
COLLINS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Collins votes no.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
SENSENBRENNER: No.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
CHABOT: No.
CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Jordan?
GOHMERT: No.
CLERK: Mr. Gohmert votes no.
Mr. Jordan?
JORDAN: No.
CLERK: Mr. Jordan votes no.
Mr. Buck?
BUCK: No.
CLERK: Mr. Buck votes no.
Mr. Ratcliffe? RATCLIFFE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Ratcliffe votes no.
Ms. Roby?
ROBY: No.
CLERK: Ms. Roby votes no.
Mr. Gaetz?
GAETZ: No.
CLERK: Mr. Gaetz votes no.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
M. JOHNSON: No.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. McClintock?
MCCLINTOCK: No.
CLERK: Mr. McClintock votes no.
Ms. Lesko?
LESKO: No.
CLERK: Ms. Lesko votes no.
Mr. Reschenthaler?
RESCHENTHALER: No.
CLERK: Mr. Reschenthaler votes no.
Mr. Cline?
CLINE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Cline votes no.
Mr. Armstrong?
ARMSTRONG: No.
CLERK: Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Steube?
STEUBE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Steube votes no.
BIGGS: Mr. Chairman...
CLERK: Mr. Biggs, you are not recorded.
BIGGS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Biggs, votes no.
NADLER: Has everyone voted?
SCANLON: No.
NADLER: Has everyone voted who wishes to vote?
SCANLON: Am I recorded?
CLERK: Ms. Scanlon, you are not recorded.
SCANLON: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Scanlon votes aye.
NADLER: Mr. Correa?
CLERK: Mr. Correa, you are not recorded.
CORREA: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Correa votes aye.
NADLER: Does anyone else wish to vote who hasn't voted?
The clerk will report.
CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 17 noes.
NADLER: The ayes have it and the motion is tabled, as agreed to.
Mr. Goldman, you may begin.
GOLDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, members of the committee, we are here today because Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, abused the power of his office, the American presidency, for his political and personal benefit.
President Trump directed a months-long campaign to solicit foreign help in his 2020 re-election efforts, withholding official acts from the government of Ukraine in order to coerce and secure political assistance and interference in our domestic affairs.
As part of this scheme, President Trump applied increasing pressure on the president of Ukraine to publicly announce two investigations helpful to his personal re-election efforts.
He applied this pressure himself and through his agents, working within and outside of the U.S. government, by conditioning a desperately sought Oval Office meeting and $391 million in taxpayer- funded, congressionally appropriated security assistance, vital to Ukraine's ability to fend off Russian aggression. And he conditioned that on the announcement of these two political investigations that were helpful to his personal interests.
[10:45:00]
When the president's efforts were discovered, he released the military aid, though it would ultimately take congressional action for the money to be made fully available to Ukraine. The Oval Office meeting still has not happened.
And when faced with the opening of an official impeachment inquiry into his conduct, President Trump launched an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of Congress, ordering executive branch agencies and government officials to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony.
To date, the investigating committees have received no documents from the Trump administration pursuant to our subpoenas. Were it not for courageous public servants doing their duty and honoring their oath to this country and coming forward and testifying, the president's scheme might still be concealed today.
The central moment in this scheme was a telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25th of this year. During that call, President Trump asked President Zelensky for a personal favor, to initiate the two investigations that President Trump hoped could ultimately help his re-election in 2020.
The first investigation involved former Vice President Joe Biden and was an effort to smear his reputation as he seeks the Democratic nomination in next year's presidential election.
The second investigation sought to elevate an entirely debunked conspiracy theory promoted by Russian president Vladimir Putin that Ukraine interfered in the last presidential election to support the Democratic nominee.
In truth, as has been made clear by irrefutable evidence from throughout the government, Russia interfered in the last election in order to help then candidate Trump.
The allegations about Vice President Biden and the 2016 election are patently false. But that did not deter President Trump during his phone call with the Ukrainian president. And it does not appear to deter him today.
Just two days ago, President Trump stated publicly that he hopes that his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, will report to the Department of Justice and to Congress the results of Mr. Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine last week to pursue these false allegations meant to tarnish Vice President Biden. GOLDMAN: President Trump's persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security.
The overwhelming evidence of this scheme is described in detail in a nearly 300-page document entitled "The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report" formerly transmitted from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to this committee a few days ago.
The report relies on testimony from numerous current and former government officials, the vast majority of whom are non-partisan career professionals responsible for keeping our nation safe and promoting American values around the globe. The evidence from these witnesses cannot seriously be disputed. The president placed his personal interests above the nation's interests in order to help his own reelection efforts.
Before I highlight the evidence and the findings of this report, I want to take just a moment to introduce myself and discuss today's testimony. I joined the House Intelligence Committee as senior advisor and director of investigations at the beginning of this year. Previously I served for 10 years as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York when I joined the Department of Justice under the George W. Bush administration.
The team that I led on the intelligence community includes other former federal prosecutors, a retired FBI agent, and investigators with significant national security expertise.
The report that I am presenting today is based entirely on the evidence that we collected in coordination with the Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees that were gathered as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump's actions, nothing more and nothing less.
[10:50:00]
The three investigating committees ran a fair, professional, and thorough investigation. We followed the House rules for depositions and public hearings, including the rule again agency counsel being present for depositions, and members and staff from both parties had equal time to ask questions, and there were no substantive questions that were prevented from being asked and answered.
This investigation moves swiftly and intensively as all good investigations should. To the extent that other witnesses would be able to provide more context and detail about this scheme, their failure to testify is due solely to the fact that President Trump obstructed the inquiry and refused to make them available.
Nevertheless, the extensive evidence that the committee's uncovered during this investigation led to the following critical findings. First, President Trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly-elected President of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for President Trump's personal and political benefit.
Second, in order to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the politically motivated investigations that President Trump wanted, President Trump withheld a coveted Oval Office meeting and $391 of essential military assistance from Ukraine.
Third, President Trump's conduct sought to undermine our free and fair elections imposes and imminent threat to our national security. And fourth, faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine, President Trump directed an unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress's impeachment inquiry into his conduct.
And with that context in mind, I would like to turn to the evidence of President Trump's conduct concerning Ukraine. My colleague, Mr. Castor, just said that it revolves around eight lines in one call record, but that sorely ignores the vast amount of evidence that we collected of a month's long scheme by -- directed by the president, but I do want to start with the July 25 phone call because that is critical evidence of the president's involvement and intent.
It was on that day that he held his second phone call with the new Ukrainian President. The first in April was short and cordial following the Ukrainian President's election success, but this second call would diverge dramatically from what those listening had expected.
Now just prior to this telephone call, President Trump spoke to Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union who had donated $1 million to the president's inaugural campaign and who had been directed by the president himself to take on a leading role in Ukraine issues.
Ambassador Sondland relayed the president's message to President Zelensky through Ambassador Kurt Volker who had had lunch that day with President Zelensky's top aide, Andriy Yermak, who appears throughtedly (ph) -- appears repeatedly through this scheme as President Zelensky's right-hand man.
Ambassador Volker texted Mr. Yermak with President Trump's direction. "Good lunch. Thanks. Heard from White House. Assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down visit for -- we will nail down for visit to Washington. Good luck. See you tomorrow. Kurt."
So even before the phone call with President Zelensky took place, President Trump had directed that Ukraine initiate the investigation into 2016, the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the election in order for President Zelensky to get the White House visit that he desperately coveted.
Ambassador Sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid pro quo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORDON SONDLAND, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Frequently framed these complicated issues in a form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDMAN: During this call with the Ukrainian leader, President Trump did not discuss matters of importance to the United States such as Ukraine's efforts to root out corruption.
[10:55:00]
Instead, President Trump veered quickly into the personal favor that he wanted President Zelensky to do -- two investigations that would help President Trump's reelection effort.
Witnesses who listened to the call described it as unusual, improper, inappropriate, and concerning. Two of them immediately reported their concerns to White House lawyers. Now, let me just take a few minutes walking through that important call step-by-step because it is evidence that is central to the president's scheme.
Near the beginning of the call, President Zelensky said, "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically, we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
The great support in the area of defense included the nearly $400 million of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, which one witness testified was nearly 10 percent of Ukraine's defense budget. And this support comes as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, when Russia illegally annexed nearly 7 percent of Ukraine's territory. Since then, the United States and our allies have provided support for Ukraine, an emerging post-Soviet democracy, to fend off Russia in the East.
Yet just a few weeks before this July 25th call, President Trump had inexplicably placed a hold on military assistance to Ukraine without providing any reason to his own cabinet members or national security officials. The evidence the committees collected showed that there was unanimous support for the aid from every relevant agency in the Trump administration.
Nevertheless, during the call, President Trump complained that U.S. support for Ukraine was not reciprocal; that somehow Ukraine needed to give more to the United States. What did he mean? Well, it became clear, because immediately after President Zelensky brought up U.S. military support in purchasing Javelin antitank weapons, President Trump responded, "I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."
Now, the favor that he referenced there included two demands that had nothing to do with official U.S. policy or foreign policy. First, President -- President Trump said, "I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. They say CrowdStrike." As you saw yesterday -- oh, excuse me. "I guess you have one of your wealthy people," it says. "The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people." And he went on later, "I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people, and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance. But they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it, if that's possible."
Here again, President Trump was referring to the baseless conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian government, not Russia, was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Not a single witness in our investigation testified that there was any factual support for this allegation. To the contrary, a unanimous assessment of the U.S. intelligence community found that Russia alone interfered in the 2016 U.S. election, and Special Counsel Mueller, who indicted 12 Russians for this conspiracy, testified before Congress that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
Dr. Fiona Hill, an expert on Russia and President Putin who served on the National Security Council until July, testified that the president was told by his own former senior advisors, including his homeland security advisor and his former national security advisor, that the alternative theory that Ukraine had interfered in the election was false.
And although no one in the U.S. government knew of any factual support for this theory, it did have one significant supporter: Russian President Vladimir Putin. In February of 2017, President Putin said, "Second, as we all know, during the presidential campaign in the United States the Ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position in favor of one candidate."
[11:00:00]
END
