https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2
This excerpt of exchange between a former judge, Ms. Garcia, is over direct evidence. It also discusses that the evidence provided below is not hearsay and
would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence.
Furthermore it discusses another piece that was called hearsay and correctly labeled it as
That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible.
Please review the entire exchange, source is linked above. I'll take a former judge's description of evidence over a lawyer and she made very succinct important remarks below that are worth reading in full.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:31:48)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we just heard, the President and his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the President’s conduct. Now, I’m a former judge and you, Mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my Republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence. Is that true?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:32:15)
No. There’s a lot of direct evidence, and
a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:32:22)
Indeed, it is not true. Now, I don’t want to relive a law school evidence class. Instead, I’d like to go over some examples with you, and
please tell me if they are direct or indirect evidence. Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Volker both testified that on May 23rd, 2019,
President Trump told him to, “Talk to Rudy about Ukraine.” Is that direct evidence?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:32:48)
Yes, technically. Well, not technically, but
yes.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:32:51)
Okay. Thank you. And then we have
the memorandum of the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Is that direct evidence?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:33:01)
Yes. That is.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:33:02)
So there is
direct evidence that President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both President Zelensky and US officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations. Correct?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:33:18)
Yes. And if I could just jump in here on the July 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are, three of them are completely wrong. So one of them happens to be that there’s no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th call.
There is absolutely a quid pro quo when President Zelensky says, “I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington, DC, and then he says, “On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation.” That is the quid pro quo that President Zelensky was informed of before the call. So that’s wrong. It’s also wrong that no Ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call, even though that doesn’t even matter.
Mr. Goldman: (
02:34:03)
And then finally,
there was no White House meeting ever provided, so the third or fourth fact, so I do think that that just needs to be clarified, particularly as we’re focusing on what direct evidence is.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:34:15)
Well, let’s give some more examples.
We also heard the testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the July 25 call. Is there testimony, direct evidence of what happened during that call?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:34:27)
Yes, although I would say, the call record is better evidence than their…
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:34:31)
And the day after that call,
David Holmes testified that on July 26th, he overheard the President ask Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was, “going to do the investigation.” Is that direct evidence?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:34:43)
That is direct evidence.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:34:45)
And after the July 25 call record was released,
the President got on the White House lawn and again declared that Ukraine should investigate a potential political opponent’s family, the Bidens. Is that direct evidence?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:34:59)
Yes, it is.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:34:59)
His own words. Now, that seems to me like that’s a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman-
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:35:03)
Now that seems to be like that’s a lot of direct evidence.
Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:35:08)
Well,
there’s a lot of evidence that I would call direct evidence because it’s not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other, and they relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible. So let’s not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:35:32)
We don’t want to relive that evidence class.
Mr. Goldman: (
02:35:33)
I understand, but it is very important because
anything Mr. Giuliani says, anything Ambassador Sondland says, anything any of these people say is not hearsay, and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. Of course, we don’t follow the federal rules of evidence here. It’s even more lenient, but that’s an important point.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:35:50)
Right. Well, is there anything wrong,
Mr. Goldman, with drawing inferences from circumstances?
Mr. Goldman: (
02:35:55)
Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidence shows. So when Ambassador Sondland draws inferences from the fact that there is no explanation for the aid, the fact that the White House meeting has already been held up because of the investigations, and determines that that’s the reason why the security assistance is also held up, that is a natural, logical inference that every jury draws across the country.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:36:25)
Well, I agree with you.
I’m just disappointed that rather than to respond to this serious, factual, direct, and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process. What President Trump did here was wrong. It’s unconstitutional. If anyone else did this, they would be held accountable.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:36:43)
I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our Constitution. Our democracy depends on ensuring that
no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Sylvia Garcia: (
02:36:55)
I yield back.