Day 7, Part 8: Republicans question witnesses on evidence in impeachment inquiry Day 7, Part 8: Republicans question witnesses on evidence in impeachment inquiryChina recognizes resolution 664 at 45 minutes to question the witnesses. This hearing is here and while the the craziness of this hearing, especially not having to shift, did we cut it off after they got through there’s nothing for 2 and 1/2. His name is, and you don’t wear a pen, we got a problem here, you’re, a good attorney. You understand what quid pro quo is correct. I do you understand what I’m asking for something in exchange for something actually means correct. I do you know about the conversation of mr. Biden when he asked he said: I’m not going to give you the billion dollars about that conversation, correct convincing our team, our leaders convincing them that we should provide for her. I guess it’s time to go. Michigan State prosecutor, they didn’t so they said they had their walking out to the press conference. I said I’m not going to we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said you have authority authority you’re, not the president. The president said, I said, calling laughter. I said I’m telling you you’re getting you’re, not getting the billion dollars. I said you’re not getting the billion-dollar, I’m getting, I’m getting getting ready to be leaving here and I think about six hours. I looked at them and said I’m leaving here in 6 hours. If the prosecutor is you’re, not getting the money she got fired, did he ask for something or something of value answer? This question is a liar actual dollars actual thing holding this out there. So Joe Budden everybody we discuss the only one pretending to the president, United States now would not be concerned. Look, you look at this way, but he can’t and it doesn’t matter who brings it up, it doesn’t matter who does it and you can whitewash it all you want, you can go over whatever you want, but that’s what he’s either a liar or you did it And he did it only continue on question is a question that you had earlier you how many approximately, how many times do you around Gordon sondland testimony in your report? You did over 600 time. Would you also understand if you do a simple check of your report? Builder 158 X, Mr silent, said insult knowing not knowing something to the best of my knowledge or I don’t know. But that’s are you a reporter his deposition deposition and I remembered a lot more as he was refreshed by other people’s Testament. It means he said he presumed what actually happened. Let’S go back to something else will come continue this in just a moment, according to your report, certainly issued dozens of Spain is that right to the subpoenas one of the other, some of the Spanish were not publicly reported until the hip seat issues. Majority report correct. Yes, they were given to the minority, but not pump the public. If I don’t I’m not sure, I don’t think I thank you., I’m not sure how many subpoena for records. Well, he wasn’t for records. We did Issue 6 subpoenas to executive branch agencies and they all defied are subpoenas issued, do Verizon and AT & T for call records. Is that correct? We are we wondering? Yes, we are because there are multiple numbers. We we only issued subpoenas for call records for people who were involved in the investigation and who had already been subpoenaed by the committee for documents in testimony of Their Own. Well, I am trying to answer your question at least 4. Yes, thank you. A lot of time there we just found out about this weekend. We got a massive document dump over the weekend preparing for this hearing, in which the chairman admitted admitted they’re not going to read it all anyway. So for all of you all that mess we’re just simply going on a ship refuses. So this is important that we just found out about this. So how many AT & T – I don’t know if you’d like me to play phone number or numbers we subpoenaed for call records multiple numbers, how many? We only did it to the subjects or were involved in the investigation, which is a very routine and standard investigative practice into for subpoena and get those numbers back. Who was it that asked that they be cross-checked for members of the median and members of the cars who ordered that people such as commission chairman Nunez, another we’re? Actually on these call? Someone and you – and I, like you, hear somebody took the four actors that you asked for at least for those Match Game who ordered the match game four members of Congress and the Press a show where they are, and you don’t come up with him them to Actually match for members of Congress and the Press, that’s actually what you just described is exactly how it happened. You pick an event of significance in the investigation and you look for sequencing and patterns surrounding that event. You looked at the numbers and you try to identify what those numbers are and then you start to build the circumstantial case, but not an answer. My question, those are you looking for the four numbers you ask Warren to see how they’re connected. I understand this something that you issued my question directly. It was it you or the chairmanship is that why we’re doing this as a number just be careful, I know I’m under ulcer. If you give me a second here, it’s not a simple answer: was it you or was a German shift, except for nothing but to be including the report, I’m not going to get into the deliberations of our investigation with you, and I will tell you the reason It was put it in the report is because of their calls were a surrounding important evidence to our investigation, and I think that your question is frankly, not better directed not at me, but at the people who are having conversation – everybody here this house, when you start Looking at members telephone number and then you decided to play Match Game, you found numbers that you thought would like. Some of them actually didn’t exist because you claimed that they were for the White House budget office in that we’re not swords throwing story. Everybody here tonight and say that you will not tell who ordered it’s you or mr. Gomez, going with you or message. I am going to go on record and tell you that I’m not going to reveal how we conducted this investigation. You’Re not answering the question. You’Re not being honest about this answer, because you know who it is: you’re, just not answering Gasser information on the subpoenas. Let’S go, we did receive copies of the subpoenas and weed our. Our members have concerns about this exercise. For three reasons. The subpoenas yielded information about members of Congress. The members from records are not it’s a concern when the information yields member of congress’s phone records, information is call records in the third is is with regard to. Mr. Giuliani was serving as the president’s personal attorney, but they’re 6 to penis, as we understand it. The first went to AT & T for the Juliana numbers II was regarded to accompany CSC Holdings. The third related to mr. sondland that was off to Verizon 4th was back to 80. Seeking information on a certain number V is back to AT & T and VI was seeking subscriber information which impacted the veteran journalist, John Solomon, and also involved with these are some of the attorneys involved crazy. I’Ve never seen anything like that. You never have either somebody on their own Direction by somebody to do that where are used to committees and people and witness is coming taking gratuitous shots if people they don’t like in earlier today. In your testimony, you made a comment: there really goes donation thing and I’ll even go back to the chairman questioning motive testimony. You said, as you were discussing Mr song, when you made a snide and you’re. Actually, your facial expression showed that he was a million-dollar donor to the president, the implication being either got his job because he bought his implication. Think about it be very careful about how you feel we’re already not answering question, and you are here without a pain, because your chairman will not testify that says all we need to hear. He don’t even stand behind his own report and he sends you. I hope it works out for you how to say that what are you trying to say what is the implication here, but by the way I didn’t get anything close to $ 1000000 remotely. So I don’t. I think you understand exactly what you did and I called about 4 just the way you did. You thought you’re going to get by with it, and you did that’s all I’m saying not asking any more questions. I’Ve asked you won’t answer the question who told the committee taxi check these numbers. You won’t say if it’s you or if it’s meant to ship, you won’t answer my question gentleman. If I’m a yes certainly have to bear with me cuz. I have a number of him here. I totally different view of the call then Lieutenant Colonel Vince and Jennifer Williams testified National Security Council lawyers for a different reason, because we want to update them about it, but number two. He was concerned about, and he was concerned that, if his call play in Washington polarized environment, which is exactly what we have here, he was also concerned that, if the call leaked issues of Ukraine have traditionally been one of the few issues where Republicans and Democrats share Interest in the third reason was that he didn’t want the ukrainians to get what actually happened on the call, because, on the call, we’re talkin about 8 lines of concern and a lot of ambiguity, Oval Office meeting on May 23rd. There’S this question: are you it’s voelker and and it’s it’s secretary Perry and it’s Senator Johnson and they’re their briefing? The president in the present is having that is concerned. He doesn’t want to invite to the White House and up the president. Volcker testifies to this pretty definitively the president order. Anybody to do anything just talked to Rudy Bowker testified, both sat at his deposition and at the public hearing very different than a than a direction is very different than the president ordering a scheme, and it’s very because he simply, according to Ambassador Volker, to go talk To Rudy in Ukrainian pause for 55 days, whether the ukrainians, Laura Cooper from DOD and state department Witnesses testified about light queries that they had received. There was an article on November 22nd in Bloomberg, 28 Politico article it in the article on your Mac is the principal person they’re relying on here. Your Mac says that they believe the embassy information from them. He recounts the whole side meeting with silent, which is become very significant, apparently in the pool. Mister yarmak speaks English, but it’s not as first language, and so he after the meeting with the vice president, so differently. So the question remains now: I’m turning attention to the the Ron Johnson letter. If I met on August 31st Center Johnson’s getting ready to travel to Ukraine on September 5th of Senator with Murphy, and so he called the president, the bearer of good news right. I’M not ready to settle if the aid some remarkable detail and I’d like to read it it’s on Page 6, I a this is Senator Johnson speaking said. I asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement it would take. Some action and hold will be lifted without Senator Johnson, says president and he started cursing and he said no way. President Trump said no way. I would never do that. Who told you that and President Trump’s reaction here, an angry sinner Johnson goes on to say that, as of August 31st, the president told him but you’re going to like my decision in the end. So I think it’s very important context on what the president’s State of Mind as of August 31st. He fully expected. You agree that would eventually be released after the 55-day pause. patience. Mr. Castro, I believe you’ve been talking for approximately 75 minutes today, and I want to thank you for that permitting today, I’d like to cover five areas, distinct areas, there’s a lot of fast. The American people have not heard and there’s a lot contradictions in certain people’s testimony. Is that fair to say mr. Castor and I’d like to talk about some of the people in this story that have first-hand knowledge of the facts? We have Ambassador, volcker, Ambassador Sunland and secretary Perry. You had the opportunity to talk to two of those three people is that correct and the Democrats report would like us to believe that these three individuals were engaged in some sort of cabal or some sort of various Venture, but that’s not true is it in fact, These three people, what’s highest Integrity, testified that Ambassador Volker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our Foreign Service Witnesses during Ambassador Ivanovic talked about integrity. Dead, Ambassador Volker brings to the table I’m now I want to talk about the president’s skepticism of foreign aid. The president is very skeptical of foreign aid. Is that correct? Deeply skeptical of sending US taxpayer dollars into an environment that is corrupt because is good at goodbyes is ran on something that he has implemented policies as soon as he became president Ambassador hail. The third-ranking state department official told us about the over the overall review of all farne programs and he described it as almost a zero-based evaluation. You had the opportunity to take the deposition of Mark Sandy, who is career, official and OMG. Is that right and Chan about the reason for the pause? Is that true? I think that he had a conversation with an individual named Rob Blair and Mr Blair provided some insight into. The reason is one of the few witnesses that we had. That was able to give us the first hand account inside of OMB the reason for the for the for the pause related to the president’s concern about European burden, organ sharing in the region, and he in his conversations the president’s conversations with Senator Johnston. He mentions his concern about burden-sharing. I believe reference, a conversation that he had with the chancellor of Germany and in fact, the whole first part of the July 24th Tran he’s talking about burden-sharing and wanting the Europeans to do more, but Johnson was in prison Trump. Where are pretty candid – and you know they believe, Allied like Germany were laughing at us, because we were so willing to suspend the aid lot of allegations that president selenski is not being candid about feeling pressure from President Trump and isn’t it that he’s stated over and Over publicly that he felt no pressure from President Trump is that true over the course of the., Including last week, the partisan nature of this investigation and your inexperience Congressional investigator and Professor truly cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned? Is that correct and is partisan Rancor because nobody’s going to accept the results on the other side? Impeachment process of this constitutes bribery. Scholar lawyer Advocate pit there’s new case law with the McDonald case about what constitutes an official Act write, and I think Professor Charlie said that I’m meeting certainly does not constitute an official Act. Since this enquiries, unofficial and unsanctioned start in September. The process has been partisan bias, unfair repair questioning has been curtailed routinely. I think we saw that in Lieutenant Colonel vinman’s deposition. There was some you know, questions about who he communicated his concerns to, and it’s almost impossible to do a sophisticated Congressional investigation that quickly, especially when the steaks are this High, because any Congressional investigation of any consequence it does take a little bit of time. For the two sides to stake out their their interest and how they’re going to respond to them? The first letter I think, win in October 2017, and we finally got to witness – and it was the following spring – would be pushing and pulling the war. We we reached a deal with doj. Where we went. We went down to the O’Jays what they made us come down there. They may just go into a skiff and these documents weren’t classified until May and June of that year, that we started this process when investigation had been ongoing. That is disappointing. Obviously, we all wish there was an easy button, but Congressional investigations of consequence I’ll take time. First document, with even produced and like you said you had to go down there and review it and camera and then going back even further to Fast & Furious the investigation of the death of a border patrol agent Fast and Furious. We issued subpoenas in MS, MR. I said I think in February 2020 11 and we had bring in June with experts about proceedings in contempt. You know what does it take to go to content and that that was the first time in June, when we got any production in the production was largely publicly available information trying to get information of the justice department. At the time we were also working with whistleblowers who were providing us documents, another subpoena to the justice department and interviews. These things take time right. 76 days and if you truly want to uncover every fat as you shouldn’t an impeachment, you agree. You have to go to court enforcer subpoenas and here my understanding is. We have a lot of requests for information. Voluntary information. You know, will you please provide us with documents on XYZ and I think – and I think that’s great you have to back it up with something. Isn’T that cracked, the fundamental rule of any Congressional investigation is what you’re asking for less palatable for the respondent. So issue. A subpoena and you’re trying to get documents you know one technique you can use is try to talk to the document custodian function about what documents exist. Chairman Chaffetz during his era, had a used to have these document production status hearings. Are you bringing bringing legit Bears officials and try to get the lay of the land nominal you’re supposed to be directly responsible, saber rattle rattle about holding somebody in contempt Witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward when you, when you attach a contempt proceeding or A prospective intemperance eating a lot of times that changes and with with a contemporary you’ve, got a couple different steps along the way you could raise the prospect of a contemporary seating and then you can push it off. You could go through at the committee level and these are all sort of Milestone events which historically are unpalatable start to move the needle and and with these types of disputes, once you get the ball rolling, you know, what’s a good luck, daddy Pro, we can get A witness – and it was deputy director Andrew McCabe in for you know it was a couple months, but once a week, couple weeks later, we got director comey’s Chief of Staff. Couple weeks later in the witnesses start once you get the ball rolling deal with agency Council. Sometimes you got to go look in town in camera, but once you get the ball rolling, usually it leads to positive results and, and historically has allowed the Congress to do its work. Any of those things done here. They decided we’re not going to we’re not going to subpoena a certain people that are important, that fair to say and we’re not going to go to court and enforce them. So these people have these folks that are caught in an interbranch struggle and that’s it. That’S an unfortunate position for any employee. If dr. Fiona Hill number of witnesses is a is a solid citizen, a good witness subpoena and the issues the government raise were slightly different than the Donegan issues. Cuz I don mcgahn is the personal for the White House. Counsel, of course, is a national security. Official government filed the lawsuit seeking guidance government. Wasn’T asking the court to tell him not to come testify to the contrary. Peppermint was seeking the Court’s guidance to facilitate his cooperation and then, ultimately, the committee which withdrew The subpoena, which raises questions about whether the committee’s really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues, committees chosen. The intelligence committee has chosen to rely on Ambassador Sunland and his testimony. I think they rely 600 times and there were on this point. I yesterday opened the Democrat report and I did a control app control. That 7 times Solomon’s relied on big time, and I think dr. Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his action. The record is mixed on this front. Dr Hill talks about raising concerns of sound mind and sound in his deposition at least doesn’t know. He didn’t share the same to you and there’s a lot of instances of that. We’Re ambassadors online recalls one thing and other Witnesses were call another. Is that correct that way? He was he’s pretty certain in his deposition that the security assistance wasn’t linked to anything and then he submitted he submitted an addendum that the pretzel sentence, even in the supplement. You know it’s talked to him and her and anyway did song ends with I presumed it. Wasn’T really any first-hand information and we don’t have a lot of first-hand information on certain facts. We we don’t. I mean we have first-hand information on the May 23rd meeting in the Oval Office. We’Ve got a lot of first-hand information on that wall, conflicting on the July 10th episode navigation that we haven’t been able to at least get everyone’s account, but domestication hasn’t hasn’t been able to reveal. You know first-hand evidence relating to the president other than this call transfer, and I think we’ve already talked about this – that Ambassador Sandlin would presume things assume things and form opinions based on what other people told him, and then he would use those as first-hand is that Cracked, it started with his. What did Ukraine for call in a lot of people at the state department were wondering why the ambassador to the EU was so engaged and you issues related to the Ukraine, and you know that there are answers for that aspirant to join the EU and then there’s A lot of other reasons in Mr Turner, I think, explore this really well at the at the open hearing, either TV interview in Kiev on on the 26th of July, where he says presidents. Given me in a lot of assignments and he’s the president assigned me, Ukraine and so forth, who’s in fact spinning that the president never assigned him to Ukraine that he was just exaggerating. Ambassador Sunland is a note taker. He in fact he said. I do not recall dozens of times and is deposition. Let’S say just Taylor walked us through. His is standard operating procedure for taking notes brought it with us and he showed us Ambassador Taylor recounts to us. You know what what happened is backed up. Ids contemporaneous notes Charlotte, on the other hand, was it was very clear that you know we don’t know one for Sandy said that he did not have access to State Department Records. I wasn’t true., Nobody is keeping Ambassador soundly from his emails and we still State Department, employees. You can go and he stated that he doesn’t have any notes cuz. He doesn’t take notes and he can see that he doesn’t have Recollections of on a lot of these issues, and you know we sort of made a list of them and I think at the hearing I called it. The unreliability Tim Morrison talked about instances where an ambassador sign when I was her showing up uninvited dr. Hill. Fiona Hill taught us about issues of that sort, and a number of Witnesses are correct, said he was a part of the problem and Doctor he’ll raise concerns about his behavior and said that he might be a intelligence risk. Is that correct? She had issues with his tendency to mobile device in a telephone calls, buy the bad guys and we talked about how he was spinning that certain things and he admitted that how he was spinning. When it comes to communication with the president, we tried to get him to list all the communications. The present, I think he gave us 6 and then, when he was back at it – and I walked communication with the president Christmas party, so that the record is mixed with rule 11 app for 30 minutes, sir, all in favor say: aye other votes, no Miss Lofgren Votes no Miss Jackson, Lee mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Johnson Georgia boats know mr. H, mr. It’s no mystery Richmond mr. Richmond votes, no mr. Jeffries mr. Jeffries, with snowmiser cicilline, mr. Mister, miss teen missing both know: Miss mucarsel-powell mr. sensenbrenner, mr. gohmert, mr. Mister Jordan. Mr. Jordan votes yes, mr. Buck, mr. Radcliffe mr. Radcliffe was yes Miss Roby Diana mr. Johnson Louisiana Versi, Mr Mr, Mr Mr Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong boots, yes, mistress to be mistress to be buzzed. Yes, I wish to go to another report. House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins and Republican staff counsel questioned the witnesses, House Intelligence Committee senior adviser and director of investigations Daniel Goldman and senior investigative counsel Stephen Castor, about the Democratic and Republican impeachment inquiry reports.
Subscribe to the CBS News Channel HERE: http://youtube.com/cbsnews
Watch CBSN live HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7
Follow CBS News on Instagram HERE: https://www.instagram.com/cbsnews/
Like CBS News on Facebook HERE: http://facebook.com/cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter HERE: http://twitter.com/cbsnews
Get the latest news and best in original reporting from CBS News delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to newsletters HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Get your news on the go! Download CBS News mobile apps HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream CBSN and local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites like Star Trek Discovery anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! http://bit.ly/1OQA29B
CBSN is the first digital streaming news network that will allow Internet-connected consumers to watch live, anchored news coverage on their connected TV and other devices. At launch, the network is available 24/7 and makes all of the resources of CBS News available directly on digital platforms with live, anchored coverage 15 hours each weekday. CBSN. Always On.