Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Key Witnesses Questioned in Public Impeachment Hearing; Witnesses Tie Trump's Personal Agenda to Ukraine Pressure. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired November 21, 2019 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:00] SWALWELL: -- Member Nunes. Is that right?
HILL: I actually only found that out after the fact.
SWALWELL: And Ms. ...
HILL: Cause I wondered why I was being asked about him, so I went to look this up.
SWALWELL: And Dr. Hill, you cautioned us on the dangers of members of this community - of this committee perhaps pedaling any Ukrainian conspiracy theories that could benefit Russia and I want to ask you if you have heard the name Lev Parnas of Ukraine, someone in this investigation, who was influencing President Trump and Rudy Giuliani about some of the debunked conspiracy theories you referenced earlier?
HILL: I have heard his name, yes.
SWALWELL: Are you aware that Mr. Parnas was indicted on October 10 for making foreign contributions to Republicans in U.S. elections?
HILL: I am aware of those reports, yes.
SWALWELL: Are you aware of yesterday's Daily Beast story reporting the indicted Ukrainian Lev Parnas has been working with Ranking Member Devin Nunes on Mr. Nunes' overseas investigations?
HILL: I am not aware of that.
SWALWELL: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put into the record the Daily Beast story 'Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes' Investigations' from yesterday, first two paragraphs reading "Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, Parnas' lawyer Ed McMahon told The Daily Beast. Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes' investigative work. McMahon didn't specify what those investigations entailed."
SCHIFF: Without objection.
SWALWELL: Mr. Chairman, you have been falsely accused throughout these proceedings by the Ranking Member as being a quote-unquote "fact witness." Now if this story is correct, the Ranking Member may have actually been projecting and in fact he have been - he may be the fact witness if he is working with indicted individuals around our investigation.
But I want to go to what this is really all about. First, it's your credibility, Mr. Holmes, and can you tell us and confirm that in 2014, you received the William Rifkin Constructive Dissent Award from the Obama administration State Department?
HOLMES: Yes, sir.
SWALWELL: And that was for dissent that you brought up against an administration policy, is that right?
HOLMES: That's right.
SWALWELL: Congratulations and thank you for speaking up in the way that you did. But what we're really here about is what you're working on in Ukraine and I want you to take a look at the picture. Who do you see in the foreground of that photo?
HOLMES: President Zelensky.
SWALWELL: That's a photograph in May 2019, where newly elected President Zelensky visited the Luhansk region in Eastern Ukraine. It was his first visit to the front lines of Donbass as President. Can you just tell taxpaying Americans why it's so important that our hard- earned taxpaying dollars help President Zelensky and the men standing beside him fight against Russia in this hot war?
HOLMES: Absolutely, sir. President Zelensky was elected on overwhelming majority to defend Ukraine interests. This is at a time when Ukrainians are defending their sovereignty, their territorial integrity on Ukrainian soil from Russian-backed soldiers who are attacking them. And they said 14,000 Ukrainian lives lost in this war so far, as I mentioned, a few this week already.
And - and - and this is a hot water. This is not a frozen conflict. People are shooting at each other and dying, being injured every single week and despite the ongoing war, they're still trying to pursue peace. President Zelensky, even right now, is trying to pursue a summit meeting with President Putin in order to try to bring this war to a conclusion so they - they can move on with all of the difficult things they need to do in terms of building the economy and reforming the judiciary and whatnot.
And I want to add just one other thing, sir, if I may. Mr. Turner had suggested earlier that I (ph) somehow embarrassed President Zelensky. I have the deepest respect for President Zelensky. This is a guy - this is a guy of a Jewish background from a post-Soviet industrial suburb in Southern Ukraine who made himself one of the most popular entertainers in the country and somehow got elected President and he's not going to miss that opportunity.
This is a Ukrainian patriot, this is a tough guy, and frankly he withstood a lot of pressure for a very long time. And he didn't give that interview. I have a deepest respect for him, the Ukrainian people, also have the deepest respect for him, they've chosen him to help deliver the full measure of promise of their revolution of dignity and I think he merits all of our respect.
SWALWELL: Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter the May 27th photograph depicted on the screen into the record.
SCHIFF: Without objection. Mr. Hurd?
HURD: Thank you, Dr. Hill, Mr. Holmes for your years of service to this country and I appreciate you all being here today. Throughout this process, I have said that I want to learn the facts so we can get to the truth.
[15:05:00] So why are we here? Because of two things that occurred during the President's July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky - the use of the phrase "do us a favor, though" in reference of the 2016 presidential election and the mention of the word "Biden."
I believe both statements were inappropriate misguided foreign policy and it's certainly not how the Executive, current or in the future, should handle such a call. Over the course of these hearings, the American people have learned about a series of events that in my view have undermined our national security and undercut Ukraine, a key partner on the front lines against Russian aggression.
We've heard of U.S. officials carrying uncoordinated, confusing and conflicting messages that created doubt and uncertainty in Kiev at a time when a new reformist administration has just taken office and was ready to fight corruption and work with us to advance other U.S. objectives. I disagree with this sort of bungling foreign policy.
But through these hearings, many of my colleagues have unwittingly undermined the Ukrainian government by suggesting that it is subservient to the United States, and without the United States, they wouldn't be able to function.
The Ukrainians, as you stated, Mr. Holmes, is in a hot water with Russia and they are holding their own. We could benefit from the experience of the Ukrainians, not the other way around. While I thought the Intelligence Committee would actually be engaged in oversight of the intelligence and national security communities, unfortunately we are not. We're here talking about one of the most serious constitutional duties we have as members of Congress, the impeachment and removal of a President of the United States.
Over the past weeks, we've learned a few things. The officials on the July 25th call have many different opinions on whether the call was concerning or not and just because Vice President Biden is running for President does not mean that corruption related to Burisma, Ukraine's largest natural gas company, and Americans ties to it are not concerning.
There's also a lot we do not know. We have not heard from Rudy Giuliani, we haven't heard from Hunter Biden. I'd like to know more about both of their activities, why they talked to whom and to whom. Despite promises from Chairman Schiff, we have also not heard from the whistleblower, something that can occur in a closed setting without violating his or her anonymity. We need to understand the motivations and level of coordination that happened prior to his or her submission of the complaint.
Over the past few weeks and even today, it's been reiterated in 2017 the Trump administration made the decision to provide lethal defensive aid to Ukraine after the Obama administration refused to do so. Ukraine is receiving all of the security assistance as directed by Congress, President Zelensky has undertaken significant anti- corruption efforts, including eliminating the parliamentary immunity from prosecution. And again, Mr. Holmes, you mentioned this today, under President Zelensky's leadership we have finally seen some progress as for (ph) -- towards ending the Russian occupation based in Ukraine.
So where does this leave us? And impeachable offence should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear in unambiguous, and it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I've not heard evidence proving the President committed bribery or extortion. I also reject the notion that holding this view means supporting all the foreign policy choices we have been hearing about over these last few weeks. To paraphrase Tim Morrison, the testimony this week, every international conversation on Ukraine has focused on impeachment, not the conflict in Donbass, not the illegal occupation of Crimea, not the need for reforms in Ukraine's government economy; it's a day where we are not focused on our shared national security interests with Kyiv.
I hope that we won't let this very partisan process keep us from agreeing on how a free and prosperous Ukraine is important to the security of the Ukrainian people, the United States of America, and the rest of the world. Mr. Chairman before I yield back my time, I'd like to make a statement for the record that has this committee been given proper notice as required by House rule 11 clause (2)(g)(3) (ph) that the business meeting was to follow last nights hearing and had Mr. Conaway's point of order been appropriately recognized I would have voted no on the committee's first motion to table during lasts impromptu meeting. I yield back the balance of my time.
SCHIFF: Mr. Castro.
CASTRO: Thank you Chairman. Thank you -- both of you for you testimony today. I fist want to say because I think it shouldn't go unmentioned that the characterization just a few minutes ago by one of my Republican colleagues of this proceeding I think was vile, irresponsible and dangerous. And I want to -- to remind us why we're here; because somebody in government, a whistle blower, felt that it was important enough to get other people in government's attention that the President may have committed a wrong act.
[15:10:00]
We have now heard and seen substantial evidence that the President in fact tried to trade a political favor for official government resources. The most damning words come from no one else but the President himself on that phone call with the Ukrainian president where he asked for a favor he mentions investigations, he mentions the Biden's, and Burisma. However as Mr. Holmes has testified -- Mr. Holmes also overheard the President speaking to his handpicked Ambassador, Ambassador Sondland about investigations.
Mr. Holmes has also said that in the office everybody knew, or many people knew at least that there was an -- that the President wanted an investigation of the Biden's. In addition, although Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani have not come before this committee, Mike Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani have spoken publically on the issue of investigations. Mick Mulvaney, the President's Chief of Staff, the person who usually works with the President the most, day in and day out, went in front of the White House press corps and basically admitted that an investigation had something to do with holding up the aid.
And that this -- and admitted that this -- this process was politicized. Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer also essentially admitted that these investigations were an issue. He said that he thinks he did nothing wrong because he was working at the direction of the president. So we have seen substantial evidence and heard substantial evidence of wrong doing by the President of the United States. And this congress will have to continue to take up this very important issue for the American people.
Well, my concern today is also -- I feel as though the cancer of wrongdoing may have spread beyond the President and into others of the executive branch. And I want to ask you a few questions about that, before I do. I'd like Chairman to enter two articles into the record if I could. One of them is headlined After Boosts from Perry, Backers Got Huge Gas Deal in Ukraine. The other one is titled Wall Street Journal Federal Prosecutors Probe Giuliani's Links to Ukrainian Energy Projects. Mr. Holmes, you --
SCHIFF: Without objection.
CASTRO: -- thank you Chairman. You indicated that Secretary Perry went -- when he was in the Ukraine, had private meetings with Ukrainians. Before he had those private meetings he had a meeting with others, including yourself I believe, he had presented a list of American Advisors for the Ukraine energy sector. Do you know who was on that list?
HOLMES: Sir, I didn't see the names on the list myself.
CASTRO: Do you know if Alex Cranberg and Michael Bleyzer were on that list?
HOLMES: I have since heard that Michael Bleyzer is on the list.
CASTRO: Was it -- what is (ph) -- before Secretary Perry did this we also heard in testimony before that Ambassador Sondland also had a private meeting with somebody. How unusual was it before these guys showed up for folk -- diplomats so to speak or U.S. government officials to have private meetings where they insist that nobody else be in the room.
HOLMES: Very rare, almost never. CASTRO: OK. And I want to ask you also about the precedent that we sat, both of you -- I know you're here as fact witnesses, but you're also public servants for this country. The precedent that this congress would set -- putting aside Donald Trump for a second, if the congress allows a President of the United States now or later to ask a foreign government, Head of State to investigate a political rival, what precedent does that set for American diplomacy, for the safety of Americans overseas, and for the future of our country?
HILL: It's a very bad precedent.
HOLMES: Very bad precedent and going forward if that were ever the case, I would raise objections.
CASTRO: Thank you both. I yield back, Chairman.
SCHIFF: Mr. Ratcliffe.
RATCLIFFE: Thank you Chair, I want to return the favor and recognize my colleague, yield to my colleague, Congressman Conaway.
CONAWAY: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hill, I don't think there's a lot of questions that one of Putin's primary objectives within the United States is to sew -- is to foment unrest with out nation to cause us to have lost news confidence in our elections, and up (ph) the results of the elections, those kind of things. There is tension though in conducting our businesses the way we should and playing in Putin's hands as an example.
[15:15:00] While I disagree with what we're doing here today, it's under our Constitution and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that they are functioning under that Constitution. These hearings, this issue has (ph) very divisive (ph) within our country and is continuing to push that way. I think that plays into Putin's inadvertently, maybe nothing we can do about that. But there are certain things we can do as individuals that wouldn't play into his hands and one of them would be that the loser in the 2016 election has for three years continued to argue because she won the popular vote, as she and her friends (ph) won the popular that somehow the election was inappropriate and that we shouldn't trust it, that the electoral college victory which was resounding shouldn't be trusted.
Does that help Putin or play into the narrative that he would like for us to think (ph) that our elections are somehow rigged and shouldn't be trusted?
HILL: Yes, it does.
CONWAY: So the RT, Putin's -- would you agree with me, the RT is Putin's propaganda machine here in the United States?
HILL: I would agree with you, yes.
CONWAY: So is it appropriate for the RT to be used to effect public policy on a nation? As an example (ph) there have been a long series of advertisements, or programs on RT going against fracking, saying it's bad and trying to effect public policy in the United States, is that appropriate use -- or should Americans be paying attention to that?
HILL: In the sense (ph) that Americas should be paying attention to RT and other outlets used to propagate this kind of information, absolutely. I wasn't quite sure what you meant about --
CONWAY: So just with that thing (ph), fracking is a controversial issue in our nation. If we did away with fracking, the United States would not be in a position today to dominate the oil production within the world, and would play in to strengthening Putin's hands with respect to oil (inaudible) --
HILL: That's correct. And actually I would like to point out that in 2011, in November 2011 I actually sat next to Vladimir Putin at a conference, in which he made precisely that point.
It was the first time that he had actually done so, to a group of American journalists and experts who were brought to something called the Valdai Discussion Club. So he started in 2011 making it very clear that he saw American fracking as a great threat to Russian interest.
We were all struck by how much he stressed this issue, and it's since 2011, and since our particular junction that Putin has made a big deal of this.
CONWAY: So they said that Americans pay attention to RT, and are misguided by whatever propaganda he's going -- it's not in our nation's best interest.
Mr. Holmes, in your roll your privileged to an awful lot of stuff -- official things, and things that are best kept between you and the official folks that you deal with. Is there an expectation among the principles that you represent, that you will exercise some discretion in what you share with others about what goes on?
HOLMES: Of course, yes sir.
CONWAY: In your public -- in your testimony -- in your deposition you made the -- well first off we had a hard time pinning down the number of people that you actually had this conversation with, about the conversation that you overheard.
Now our Ambassador had to expectation of privacy, and she's (ph) blustering around doing what needs done. But we couldn't figure out how many people you actually shared that information with. And I would argue that the information is unflattering to the president, unflattering to the Ambassador. And that your discretion is -- you know, at odds here.
I mean, your testimony, your deposition said that you shared that with folks who you thought would find it interesting. Well I'd argue that everybody on the back row would find it interesting, but I don't know that that's necessarily criteria.
So on a go-forward basis can you, articulate that in the future when you're privileged to certain circumstances that would be embarrassing to the principle, that if it's official that you share with the Ambassador that's fine, but the folks outside the Embassy or folks even within the Embassy that don't have a need to know, that you wouldn't regale them with your recounting of those instances?
HOLMES: Sir, I think it was Gordon Sondland who showed indiscretion by having that conversation over a phone line (inaudible) --
CONWAY: No -- no, no. You -- you're -- well (inaudible) --
HOLMES: That's the first thing. The second thing is, I (inaudible) --
CONWAY: (Inaudible) --
SCHIFF: Mr. Conway.
(CROSSTALK)
CONWAY: Please, excuse me, Mr. Holmes, let me clarify the question --
SCHIFF: Mr. Holmes --
CONWAY: (Inaudible) --
SCHIFF: Let him answer your question, sir.
CONWAY: It's my question, you're exactly right and I get to clarify my question to get the answer -- and I'm hopeful in a few more seconds because of the interruption from the Chairman. His patience is growing then, I was working hard not to irritate him again but I failed again. The question is of you, Mr. Holmes, your discretion.
Gordon Holmes did not -- I mean, Gordon Sondland did not (inaudible) the privacy, we got that. But you're going to be in rooms for life (ph). You've been in rooms 17 years where people trust that when whatever went on in that room and left, that you kept it to official channels -- that you didn't share all that information with their folks.
Now I'm just asking you to argue for -- on your own behalf that interesting is not some sort of a criterion that you would use when you share information from meetings -- several straight-forward questions (ph).
HOLMES: Sir, I shared the information I had to share with the right people who needed to know it. I did not share any information that people didn't need to know.
CONWAY: But you did use the word interesting in your deposition --
SCHIFF: Mr. Conway, your time has expired.
HOLMES: It certainly was interesting, sir. And I would also hate to think that what I brought before this process, I shouldn't have done that. I have come here because you have subpoenaed me to share what I know, and I've done that. [15:20:00]
SCHIFF: Since you were cut off when you were talking about Mr. Sondland's indiscretion, did you want to finish that answer?
HOLMES: I think --
CONWAY: Mr. Chairman, that's patently unfair.
SCHIFF: Mr. Conway --
CONWAY: As you've entire investigation.
SCHIFF: Mr. Conway, to interrupt the witness as you have done repeatedly --
CONWAY: Well but you're certainly willing to interrupt me during my five minutes. You have -- you're the only person on this dais who has unlimited time -- you have absolutely unlimited time, you're the only one that has abused that power and you continue to do that.
SCHIFF: Mr. Conway, the gentleman will cease. We allow the witnesses to answer the question even if those asking the question don't want to hear the answer. Mr. Heck, you are recognized --
CONWAY: Does that apply to you as well?
HECK: Mr. Holmes, (inaudible) --
SCHIFF: Yes, it does.
HECK: About the use of both regular and irregular foreign service or diplomatic channels -- my reading of history is that American presidents have on occasions used irregular channels, would you generally agree?
HOLMES: Yes sir.
HECK: And my reading of history is that generally speaking, however those irregular channels have either been closely coordinated with the regular ones, or at least in furthering some American foreign policy in our national security interest, would you agree?
HOLMES: That's right, sir.
HECK: And do you believe, sir, that Mr. Giuliani's efforts were closely coordinated with the regular channel such as the Ambassador to the Ukraine?
HOLMES: No, they weren't.
HECK: And were they in furtherance of the American foreign policy as you understood it?
HOLMES: No, sir. HECK: Mr. Holmes, if left unchecked do you think that Russia would either by means of force, or other malign means subjugate Ukraine, attempt to render it a client state if not occupy it?
HOLMES: Absolutely sir, it's been said that without Ukraine Russia's just a country, but with it it's a empire.
HECK: You know, I feel like I've been treated to a Gatling gun fire of myth propagation over the last couple of weeks and it reminds me of that old expression about the big lie if you tell it often enough and keep repeating it that people will come to believe it.
I think we've been subjected to some of that. Here's a sample, the president didn't solicit campaign assistance from Ukraine in a clear violation of federal law, yes he did.
The president didn't withhold vital military assistance in furtherance of his objective to obtain that campaign assistance, yes he did.
Rudy Giuliani was acting, just on his own, kind of as a rogue -- no he wasn't. That all of this is business as usual, this happens all the time and stems from a principle interest -- no it isn't, and no it wasn't.
And that it's OK to attack patriotic diplomats and public service if they stand in your way and having -- have the courage to speak up, then no it isn't.
Those are just some of the big lies, but here's the big truth. The president did it. He did it. We all just came from the floor, and that's a majestic chamber. And in the front of the chamber there are only two portraits on the left looking forward is my favorite President, George Washington -- and on the right is the Marquis de Lafayette, who came to this country to help us stand up our fledgling democracy.
So here's another big truth. Without his help, we probably never would've gotten off the ground, and that assistance from many other countries who are helping us to create something that had never been created before, it was an audacious idea, this notion of - of a democracy of self-governance, of freedoms such as speech and press and religion and expression and assembly, and most of all, that it would be rooted in the premise of the rule of law - not monarchs, not military strongmen, but the rule of law.
Others helped us to get here and we wouldn't be here without them and I frankly feel like we're almost in a little bit of a pay it forward moment. So when the President did it, he put at risk the security of Ukraine, a strategic ally and a nascent democracy, with their masses yearning to breathe free, who six years ago this day, when their government said we're not going to sign that Memorandum of Agreement with the European Union, rose up and took to the streets because they wanted frankly what we have.
[15:25:00] And when the President did it, he put our own national security at risk. But what he did, most importantly, was put at risk that idea that makes us exceptional, because I do believe America's truly exceptional. We are a country rooted in something that nobody has ever tried before - rule of law. He put that at risk when he did what he did.
The President did it and the only question that remains is what will we do? I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
SCHIFF: Mr. Jordan?
JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hill, during - during your deposition, I asked you was Christopher Steele's dossier a rabbit hole. Do you remember - you remember the answer you gave to ...
HILL: Yes, I thought it was a rabbit hole.
JORDAN: Yeah and you also said a couple of pages later in the deposition or in the transcript that I have here of your deposition that you thought he got played. Is that fair?
HILL: That is fair, yes.
JORDAN: I was struck by a number of things in your statement, a number of things I thought were right on the target, and one - one was on Page 7. You said this, President Putin and the Russian Security Services weaponize our own political opposition research, and that is exactly what happened in 2016 - exactly what happened. You called it, you knew it, you saw it.
The DNC hired Perkins Coie, who hired Fusion GPS, who hired Christopher Steele, who talked to Russians, who gave them a bunch of dirt, bunch of National Enquirer garbage that he compiled in a dossier and our FBI used it. They used it as part of their investigation that they opened in July of 2016 where they spied on two American citizens associated with the presidential campaign.
My guess is that's probably never happened in American history and exactly what Dr. Hill talked about is what happened in 2016 - exactly what she talked about. And for 10 months, Jim Comey and his team did an investigation, and after 10 months, they had nothing cause we deposed Mr. Comey and he told us after 10 months, we didn't have a thing.
But that didn't matter - that didn't matter. We got the Mueller investigation. $32 million, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 500 search warrants, 2,800 subpoenas and they came back this spring and what'd they tell us? No collusion, no conspiracy, no coordination. But the guys on the other side don't care - they don't care.
They're doing what - Dr. Hill said a number of important things in her opening statement, they're doing exactly what Dr. Hill talked about. The impact of a successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today, our nation is being torn apart - torn apart. I've never seen it this divided. It is not healthy - it is not healthy for our culture, our country, not healthy for our nation but that's what these guys are doing. No conspiracy, no coordination, no - no collusion but they don't care. Now this, this whole impeachment thing.
As the witness said yesterday - witness said yesterday, without an announcement from Zelensky about an investigation, they weren't going to get a call with the President, they weren't going to get a meeting with the President and they weren't going to get aid from the United States.
But guess what? Ukraine, they got the call, they got the meeting and they got the money and there was never an announcement of any type of investigation. This is - but they don't care. They're going to move forward, there's going to be some kind of report, they're going to send something - I - I assume something to the Judiciary Committee and the process is going to go forward and there will be a trial in the Senate, all based on some anonymous whistleblower who came forward with no firsthand knowledge, who's biased against the President, who worked with Joe Biden, now all of this - now all of this.
This is - Dr. Hill's right, she said - she said it, we've got to stop this, but they're not going to and they're doing it all 11 and a half months before the next election. And I think maybe the most telling thing is what the Speaker of the House said Sunday - Speaker of the House said Sunday - this is scary - Speaker of the House said Sunday - national Sunday morning TV show, she said the President is an impostor. The guy that 63 million people voted for, who won an electoral college landslide, the Speaker of the House of Representatives called the President of the United States an impostor. Sad - it is sad what the country's going through, I wish it would stop, but unfortunately I don't think it is. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[15:30:00]
SCHIFF: Mr. Welch?
WELCH: I want to use my time to speak directly to my colleagues and to the American people. Today's witnesses and the ones we've been privileged to have before the committee over the last two weeks have provided an invaluable service to our country, not just in all of your careers but in having the courage and the patriotism to share your facts with the American people, and you do so at considerable risks to yourselves but you've clearly stepped forward for the simple fact you believe it's your duty.
And all your testimony reaffirms a very central fact, President Trump conditioned our foreign policy and national security on getting a valuable political benefit from Ukraine. He wanted Ukraine's new President to create ethical questions about Joe Biden by publicly announcing investigations. And to pressure President Zelensky to take that action that would benefit his personal political interests, he withheld vital military aid to Ukraine and refused to meet with President Zelensky in the Oval Office. And as we heard from Mr. Holmes and Dr. Hill today, that meeting was extraordinarily important to Ukraine and extraordinarily important in sending a message to Russia about our unyielding support. The witnesses have made it absolutely clear what the President did and it's equally clear that President Trump has launched a cover up and disinformation campaign to hide this abuse of power from the American people. That's why the administration refuses to provide documents to this committee.
And it's why the White House has taken the unprecedented position that senior officials could ignore congressional subpoenas and refuse to testify. That's why acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney, Secretary of State Pompeo, and others have not testified.
Now the president and even some members of this committee are pretending this is normal. It is not, it must never be. No other president has betrayed his office like this by putting his own small political interest above our national interest and our national security.
You know I asked some of our witnesses what would happen in any American city or town if the mayor stopped funding the police department until the chief of police launched an investigation into the merest (ph) political rival. Or a governor or a member of Congress did that and the answer was clear.
It would be wrong, it would be illegal and it wouldn't be tolerated. It would violate the most basic trust we have in public officials. If it happened with a military commander, a court marshal would follow. If it happened with a corporation, a CEO would be fired.
We all know this kind of conduct is wrong. But the president continues to say it isn't. He says it's perfect and he'd do it again tomorrow. The same rules apply to mayors, governors, members of Congress, CEOs and everyone else in America. They apply to the president too.
Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, you like MSNBC or Fox; I think every American believes in one of our nation's founding principles, no person is above the law, not even the president.
In July 24, Director Mueller testified about Russian state sponsored systematic interference in our 2016 election. He expressed apprehension this could become the new normal. The day after on July 25th, President Trump spoke to President Zelensky and asked a favor.
That favor was that Ukraine interfere in our 2020 election. If we allow this to stand, to become the new normal, it will be the standard for all future presidents. In good conscious none of us can do that.
This conduct corrupts our democracy, it corrupts how our country conducts foreign policy, it threatens our national security and the security of all Americans. And it is in my view a clear betrayal of the presidents oath of office. I yield back.
SCHIFF: Mr. Maloney. MALONEY: Mr. Chairman, two quick housekeeping matters. Asking unanimous consent to enter into the record an ABC news story, this one's for my friend Mr. Stewart, entitled "70 percent of Americans Say Trump's Actions Tied to Ukraine Were Wrong." Dated November 18, 2019.
[15:35:00]
SCHIFF: Without objection.
MALONEY: I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a New Yorker story entitled, "The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine: How a Conservative Dark Money Group that Targeted Hillary Clinton in 2016 Spread the Discredited Story that May lead to Donald Trump's Impeachment." Jane Mayer, October 4, 2019.
SCHIFF: Without objection.
MALONEY: Good afternoon, thank you for being here. Dr. Hill, first of all, I thought that was some epic mansplaining that you were forced to endure from -- by my colleague, Mr. Turner.
And I want you to know some of us think it was inappropriate but I appreciate -- I appreciate you forbearance. Let me ask you something. I'm fascinated by this meeting -- two meetings really, on July 10th. You have the meeting in Mr. Bolton's office.
Sondland says this thing about investigations, Bolton ends the meeting. Photo. There's a follow on meeting in the Ward Room. And you get there a little late and Vindman is talking to Sondland and they're already going at it about Sondland's desire to assert that meeting's going to happen if there's these investigations. Is that some in substance what's going on?
HILL: Absolutely right, yes.
MALONEY: And what I want to understand is -- is this isn't a policy disagreement, right?
HILL: No that's not -- that's correct ...
(CROSSTALK)
MALONEY: The source of your concern is not a policy disagreement and it's not purely a procedural disagreement either, right. About how -- how -- excuse me.
HILL: I'm sorry. Yes, it's not. Correct. Sorry.
MALONEY: It's neither policy nor is it procedure that's bothering you or for that matter the national security advisor, Mr. Bolton, right.
HILL: Correct.
MALONEY: I mean it's not why he sends you down there to see how the meeting's going.
HILL: Correct.
MALONEY: And in fact, he instructs you to go to the lawyer. Ever been instructed to go report something to the NSC lawyer before?
HILL: That was the first time. I've self-instructed a couple of times but that was the first time I have been instructed to go.
MALONEY: And why did he send you to report this to the lawyer?
HILL: Well, he clearly wanted to have himself on the record as not being part of what was basically an agreement to have a meeting in return for investigations. And he wanted to make sure that I and Colonel Vindman were also not part of this as well.
Because remember there was a (inaudible) to this about not getting involved in domestic politics.
MALONEY: Yes, I understand. And you of course, did you concur with this concern that Mr. Bolton had?
HILL: I did because July 10th is really the first time that it crystallized for me that there was basically a different channel going on here.
MALONEY: And I think you ...
HILL: A foreign policy channel and a domestic policy channel and we're not in that other channel.
MALONEY: Right. I think you described as a political errand and you were doing national security policy is how you distinguish those two channels. Is that fair?
HILL: Right.
MALONEY: Right. And so is it fair to say that you -- you felt it was improper what was occurring by Mr. Sondland in the Ward Room.
HILL: It was improper and it was inappropriate and we said that in the time in real time.
MALONEY: And -- and -- and here's my point. If -- if it was improper and -- and -- and you went so far as to report this to the lawyers, what was the nature of your disagreement with Mr. Sondland who has come here and said he had no idea that Burisma meant Bidens until much, much later than July 10th.
And of course we know that he and Ambassador Volker had a blizzard of interactions with Mr. Giuliani. They were amending statements -- proposed statements for the Ukrainian president. This went on all summer.
And yet, how is it that you had this disagreement in (ph) front of the Ukrainians would -- sent them out into the hallway. At some point did he ask -- you know I'm just talking about an investigation of corruption generally, what are you getting so worried about. HILL: He didn't put it in that -- in that way. And I think, you know, from listening to him and his depositions and in, you know, what I've read and what he deposed, he made it very clear that he was surprised that we had some kind of objection.
You may remember that in his deposition and when he was here, he actually didn't remember the meeting in the same way.
(CROSSTALK)
MALONEY: But I thought you said it was pretty obvious to you -- excuse me -- I thought ...
HILL: Well, it was obvious to me, correct.
MALONEY: I thought it was obvious to you that -- that Burisma meant Bidens.
HILL: Yes, it was.
MALONEY: And -- and you -- you actually treated that as a pretty easy thing to understand. In fact, Mr. Morrison figured it out with a single Google search. But is it credible to you that Mr. Sondland was completely in the dark about this all summer? I mean he had an argument about it. Didn't he say what are you so worried about?
HILL: (Inaudible) to me at all that he was oblivious to this.
MALONEY: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your answer.
HILL: It is - it is not credible to me that he was oblivious. He did not say Bidens, however, he just said Burisma, he said 2016 and I took it to mean the elections as well as Burisma.
[15:40:00] MALONEY: Well I want to thank you both for your appearance here today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
SCHIFF: Ms. Demings?
DEMINGS: Thank you so much, Dr. Hill and Mr. Holmes, for your service. I have no doubt after today that we're a better nation because of it. We all know by now that in July of this year, President Trump sent an order to the Office of Management and Budget that congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine be put on hold.
Both of you have expressed that Ukraine is the front - the first line of defense against Russian aggression and expansion into Europe, that Russia's priority is to undermine the United States. Is that right, Dr. Hill?
HILL: That's correct.
DEMINGS: Would you agree with that, Mr. Holmes?
HOLMES: Yes. DEMINGS: Dr. Hill, in your professional opinion, is it in the national security interest of the United States to support Ukraine with the much talked about military aid?
HILL: Yes.
DEMINGS: Mr. Holmes?
HOLMES: Yes.
DEMINGS: We've already said it several times today and you've already testified today that Ukraine is in war right now with Russia. Isn't it true, Mr. Holmes, that even though the security assistance was eventually delivered to Ukraine, the fact that it was delayed to a country that is actively in war signaled to Russia that perhaps the bond between Ukraine and the United States was weakening?
HOLMES: Absolutely - absolutely.
DEMINGS: And even the appearance that the U.S.-Ukraine bond is shaky could embolden Russia to act in an even more aggressive way?
HOLMES: That's correct.
DEMINGS: You also testified that it was, and I quote, "the unanimous view of the Ukraine policy community that the aid should be released because supporting Ukraine is in our national security interests." Dr. Hill, why do you believe that the entire Ukraine policy community were unanimously in agreement?
HILL: Well we've had this experience before and I just want you to indulge me for a moment. In 2008, Russia also attacked the country of Georgia. I was the National Intelligence Officer at that particular juncture and we had warned, in multiple documents to the highest levels of government, that we believed that there was a real risk of a conflict between Ukraine - sorry, Georgia and Russia.
And in fact, we also believed at that point that Russia might attack Ukraine. This was in 2008 when both Georgia and Ukraine sought a membership action plan in NATO and Russia threatened them openly, that if they proceeded with the - their request for NATO membership that there would be consequences.
In the wake of the attack on Georgia, President Putin made it clear to the President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili at the time, and this was related to me at the highest levels of the Georgian government, that Putin had said directly to Saakashvili your western allies, your western partners promised a great deal. They didn't deliver. I threatened, I delivered.
We had made all kinds of promises to Georgia and Ukraine in that timeframe and we didn't come through. So Putin is always looking out to see if there is any hints that we will not follow through on promises that we have made because he will always follow through on a threat, as indeed he ultimately did. He threatened Ukraine in 2008 and it wasn't until 2014, when Ukraine tried to conclude an association agreement with the European Union, that he struck. But he had been threatening this for the whole period since 2008.
DEMINGS: Thank you so much. Dr. Hill. And Mr. Holmes, what kind of message does it potentially send to other allies of the United States when military holds for assistance are imposed with absolutely no explanation? What kind of message does it send to our allies in terms of the good faith and good relationship with the U.S.?
HOLMES: It calls into question the extent to which they can count on us.
DEMINGS: Policies change but U.S. interests don't, at least not for those true public servants who are committed and dedicated to protecting our nation. Thank you both for being two of them.
SCHIFF: Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
[14:45:00] KRISHNAMOORTHI: Good afternoon and thank you so much for coming in and thank you for your service. Dr. Hill, you stated in your deposition you've been accused of being a mole for George Soros in the White House. Correct?
HILL: That's correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: You said in your deposition specifically a conspiracy was launched against you by convicted felon Roger Stone on the show Infowars, led by Alex Jones. Right?
HILL: I don't think he was a convicted felon at the time that he launched this so I didn't use those exact words. But it was indeed Roger Stone and Alex Jones on Infowars in 2017. And in fact, just more recently, before Mr. Stone was - endured his trial, they were at it again, reprising the same Infowars video and adding embellishments.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And they said - I'll - I'll quote what they said about you - "we here at Infowars" - this is Roger Stone speaking - "first identified Fiona Hill, the globalist leftist George Soros insider who had infiltrated McMaster's staff" - he said that on May 31st, 2017. I presume you're not a globalist leftist Soros insider, correct?
HILL: I think my coal mining family would be very surprised to hear all of these things about me - actually, leftist perhaps not so much, but, you know, anyway, the left in Europe is a bit different from the left here, let's put it that way.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I agree. Interestingly, you stated in your deposition that a similar conspiracy theory had actually been launched against Marie Yovanovitch.
HILL: That's correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And you said specifically "when I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, again I was furious because this is again just this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to basically target nonpartisan career officials." Isn't that what you said?
HILL: I did say that, yes.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And I'm sure you've been watching with concern what's happened to other nonpartisan career officials. We had Alex - Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman and - an American immigrant questioned for his criticism of the President in a - in a very unfair way, you know, basically questioning his loyalty to the country. I believe that he's also of Ukrainian-Jewish descent.
Would you say that these different theories - these conspiracy theories that have been targeting you, spun in part by folks like Mr. Stone, as well as fueled by Rudy Giuliani and others, basically have a tinge of antisemitism to them, at least?
HILL: Well certainly when they involve George Soros, they do. I'd just like to point out that in the early 1900s, the czarist secret police produced something called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which actually can still obtain on the internet, and you can buy it actually sometimes in book shops in Russia and elsewhere.
This is the longest running anti-Semitic trope that we have in history. And the trope against Mr. Soros, George Soros was also created for political purposes. And this is the new "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I actually intended to write something about this before I was actually invited to come in to the administration...
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm sorry...
HILL: ... because it's an absolute outrage.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm sorry you've been kind of wrapped up in these crackpot conspiracy theories. Let me turn to Rudy Giuliani. You became increasingly concerned that Rudy Giuliani's, you know, increasing role in Ukraine between January and March of 2019, correct?
HILL: That's correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And I know you served in the Bush and the Obama administrations. I presume that George Bush's personal lawyer and President Obama's personal lawyers were never, you know, directing or heavily influencing Ukraine policy.
HILL: I'm not even sure so I know who they were. So the answer is no.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And the concern for having someone like Rudy Giuliani having such a strong influence on American foreign policy is that, you know, basically that policy may be operating not in the best interest of America, but perhaps in the best interest of Rudy Giuliani or his clients or business associates, right?
HILL: I think that's correct. And that's, as I said in my deposition on October 14th, that frankly that's what I thought it was at the very beginning when I first heard Mr. Giuliani making these statements.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And some of those associates included indicted folks Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, isn't that right?
HILL: That's correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: We have an interesting character in Chicago who has now been indicted. His name is Mr. Firtash. And Mr. Firtash has been indicted for federal bribery charges. Another associate of Giuliani, right?
HILL: I do know Mr. Firtash. That's correct. I know of him from my work. That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And the question that we're all asking is whether American foreign policy in Ukraine is potentially being run in their interests and not our own.
[15:50:00]
HILL: It certainly appears that it is being used, that there's a subversion of American foreign policy to push these people's personal interests.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.
SCHIFF: That concludes the member questioning and we'll now go to closing statements.
Mr. Nunes, do you have any closing remarks?
NUNES: Thank you.
I have stressed in these hearings that the whistle-blower complaint was merely a pretext for Donald Trump's political opponents to do what they've been trying to do since he was elected: oust the president from office. A brief timeline will illustrate the wide range of extraordinary attacks his administration has faced.
It started in June of 2016 when Donald Trump was just a candidate. On behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele to write the Steele dossier, a collection of false allegations attributed to Russian sources claiming that Donald Trump is a Russian agent.
Fast-forward to January 6th of 2017. FBI Director James Comey briefs President-elect Trump on the Steele dossier. The briefing is leaked to CNN and soon afterwords Buzzfeed publishes the dossier.
January 20th, on President Trump's Inauguration Day, The Washington Post runs a story headlined, quote, "The campaign to impeach Donald Trump has begun." January 30th, 10 days later, the whistle-blower's current lawyer tweets #couphasstarted, #firstofmanysteps, #rebellion, #impeachment will follow immediately.
March 22nd, Democrats on this committee falsely declare on national TV that they have more than circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian. July 12th, an article of impeachment is filed against President Trump in the House of Representatives. November 15th, Democrats file additional articles of impeachment against President Trump. As you see, this was just in President Trump's first year in office. He was subjected to a coordinated smear operation designed to falsely portray him as a Russian agent, as well as attempts to impeach him. This all occurred before his now infamous call with President Zelensky.
In 2018 the attacks continued, often from executive branch officials charged with implementing his policies. On February 2nd, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans release a memo revealing that the FBI used fabrications of the Steele dossier to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate.
September 5th, The New York Times prints a column by an anonymous Trump administration official who explains that he and other senior officials are, quote, "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of Trump's agenda." December 7th, James Comey admits to Congress the Steele dossier was unverified before and after the FBI used it to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate.
The Russia hoax continued to be the main focus of attacks going into 2019. But when that entire operation collapsed, a new impeachment pretext had to be found. May 4th, 2019, on national television a Democratic congressman proclaims, quote, "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president you will get reelected."
July 24th of this year, special counsel Robert Mueller testifies to Congress about his report which debunked the conspiracy theory that Trump campaign Associates conspired with Russia to hack the 2016 election. July 25th, just the very next day, a new anti-Trump operation begins as someone listens to the president's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky and leaks the contents to the so-called whistle-blower.
September 13th, Democrats on this committee take the extraordinary step of issuing a press release related to the whistle-blower's complaint. October 2nd, it's revealed that Democratic staff on this committee had contact with the whistle-blower before he submitted his complaint to the inspector general, contradicting Democrat denials that such contact had occurred.
[15:55:00]
October 31st, Halloween, probably the most appropriate day, Democrats in the House of Representatives vote to open an official impeachment inquiry against President Trump.
What you're seeing in this room over the past two weeks is a show trial. The planned result of three years of political operations and dirty tricks, campaigns waged against this president. And like any good show trial, the verdict was decided before the trial ever began.
After all, after denouncing the president for years as a Russian agent and a threat to democracy, how could the Democrats not impeach him? If they don't have to -- if they don't moved to overthrow him, it would indicate that they don't really believe their own dire warnings about the threat he poses. The Democrats only needed a pretext. When their Russian dossiers and investigations failed to do the job, they moved to Plan B, the Ukraine hoax. The spectacle with its secret depositions and mid-hearing press conferences, is not meant to discover the facts, it was designed to produce a specific storyline to be pushed forward by the Democrats and their supporters in the media.
Ladies and gentlemen, as we approach Thanksgiving, Speaker Pelosi has just made clear just today USMCA, free trade deal with Canada and Mexico, will boost our economy, won't be signed this year, so I hope Mr. Schiff will clarify how much longer we will waste on this effort, and what other vital legislation he's willing to sacrifice for this impeachment proceeding. Will there be even more secret depositions accompanied by the usual flood of Democratic leaks? Will we have more public hearings with Democrat witnesses but not ours? Minority are in the dark about what this committee will be doing when we return. And so is America.
James Madison warned us about the danger posed by the tyranny of the majority. To avoid that threat, our founders created a constitutional republic. But is there a better example of the tyranny of majorities than the way this impeachment process has been run in the House of Representatives? A process that is grossly unfair can only stem from a cynical majority that is willing to break long-established precedents, trample on legitimate minority concerns and impose their absolute will on this body through sheer force of numbers. Exploiting the Intelligence Committee as a venue for impeachment has been one of the grossest abuses in the process build with cynical manipulations, large and small, but this farce will soon move to the judiciary committee where impeachment rightfully belongs. I wish my Republican colleagues well in fighting this travesty in defending the idea which at one time received bipartisan support not long ago. The American people's vote actually means something. I yield back.
SCHIFF: I thank the gentleman. First of all, I want to thank you both for your testimony. I want to thank you for your long years of service to the country. You're not Democratic witnesses or Republican witnesses, you're nonpartisan witnesses and you have stuck to the facts and that is as it should be. First, I want to make a couple observations about the hearing today, and Dr. Hill, you were criticized several times by my colleagues for your opening statement. I'm glad you didn't back down from it.
You're much more diplomatic than I am, I have to say. Anyone watching these proceedings, anyone reading the deposition transcripts would have the same impression that you evidently had from hearing my colleagues talk about the Russia hoax, that the whole idea that Russia had gotten involved in the 2016 election was a hoax put out by the Democrats.
And of course they're not alone in pushing out this idea, it is trumpeted by no one other than the present of the United States who almost on a daily basis at times would comment and tweet and propagate the The idea that Russia's interference in our election was a hoax.
And of course we all remember that debacle in Helsinki when the president stood next to Vladimir Putin and questioned his own intelligence agencies. [16:00:00]
