Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
The Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump; Trump's Legal Team Presents Defense Case; Jay Sekulow, Trump's Personal Lawyer Speaks. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired January 27, 2020 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00] STARR: -- all House subpoenaed issued prior to adoption of the House Resolution 660, which for the first time authorized the impeachment inquiry as a house, a subpoenas were invalid.
They were void. With all due respect to the speaker of the House of Representatives and all of her abilities and her vast experience; under our Constitution she was powerless to do what she reported to do. As has been said now, time and again, especially throughout the fall, the Constitution doesn't trust the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives.
But that's the House. It's 435 members elected from across the constitutional republic. Not one, no matter how able she may be. In the people's House, every Congress person gets a vote. We know the concept. One person, one vote.
More generally, the president, as I've reviewed the record, has consistently and scrupulously followed the advice and counsel of the Justice Department. And in particular, the Office of Legal Counsel. He's been obedient.
As you know, that important office, many of you had had your own experiences professionally with that office. It's staffed with lawyers of great ability. It has a reputation for superb work.
It has done such thoughtful work in both Democratic and Republican administrations. The office is now headed by a brilliant lawyer who served as a law clerk to justice, Anthony Kennedy.
The House may disagree with the guidance provided to the president by that office. The house frequently does disagree. But for the president to follow the guidance of the Department of Justice, with respect to inter branch legal and constitutional dispute cannot reasonably be viewed as an obstruction.
And most emphatically not as an impeachable offense. History once again, is a great teacher. In the Clinton impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee rejected a draft article asserting that President Clinton -- and here are the words of the draft article.
Fraudulently and corruptly asserted executive privilege. Strong words. Fraudulently and corruptly. That was the draft article. In my view, having lived through the facts, and with all due respect to former president, he did. He did it time and again. Month after month. We would go to court. We would win. And many members, not everybody, on the House Judiciary Committee agreed that the president had indeed improperly claimed executive privilege, rebuffed, time and again by the Judiciary.
But at the end of the day that committee chaired -- the Judiciary Committee of the House chaired by Henry Hyde, wisely concluded the President Clinton's doing so should not be considered an impeachable offense.
Here's the idea. It is not an impeachable offense for the president of the United States to defend the asserted legal and constitutional prerogatives of the presidency. This is, and I'm quoting here from page 55 of the president's trial brief, a function of his constitutional and policy judgments.
Not just a policy judgment but a constitutional judgment. I would guide this court as it's coming through the deliberation process to read the president's trial brief with respect to process.
[14:05:00]
It was Justice Felix Frankfurter, confidante of FDR, brilliant jurist who reminded America that the history of liberty is in large measure the history of process procedure. In particular I would guide the high court to the discussion of the long history of the House of Representatives, over two centuries in providing due process protections in its impeachment investigations.
It's a richly historical discussion. The good news is you can read the core of it in four pages. Pages 62 to 66 of the trial brief. Puts in bold relief, I believe in irrefutable fact, this House of Representatives, with all respect, saw fit to turn its back on its own established procedures.
Procedures that have been followed faithfully decade after decade, regardless of who was in control. Regardless of political party. All those procedures were torn asunder. And all over the vigorous objections from the unanimous and vocal minority, I need not remind this high court that in this country minority rights are important.
Minority rights should be protected. Equal justice. But then again, the House members took no oath to be impartial. The Constitution didn't require them to say by oath or affirmation what we'll do impartial judges (ph) -- justice.
When they chose to tear asunder their procedures, they were oathless. They could toss out their own rule book. Raw power. And here we have, tragically for the country and I believe tragically for the House of Representatives, in Article two of these impeachment articles, a runaway house.
It has runaway not only from its long standing procedures; it has run away from the Constitutions demand of fundamental fairness captured in those hallowed terms, due process of law. We've cared about this as an English-speaking people since Magna Carta. By doing so, however, the House has inadvertently pointed this court to an exit ramp. It's an exit ramp provided by the Constitution itself. It's an exit ramp built by the most noble of builders - the founding generation. Despite the clearest precedent requiring due process for the accused in an impeachment inquiry but surely all the more so in a presidential impeachment, House Democrats chose to conduct a wholly-unprecedented process in this case, and they did so knowingly and deliberately because they were warned at every turn, don't do it. Don't do it that way.
And process (ph). The president being denied the basic rights that have been afforded to every single accused president in the history of the republic, even to the racist Andrew Johnson seeking to undo Mr. Lincoln's great legacy, he got those rights, but not here. Due process could have been honored. Basic rights could have been honored. The House rules, the House's traditions could have been honored, but what's done is done. These two articles come before this court, this high-court of impeachment dripping with fundamental process violations.
[14:10:00]
When courts - and you are the court - are confronted with this kind of phenomenon, a train of fairness violations, courts in this country do the right thing. They do impartial justice. They invoke figuratively or literally the words of the preamble to America's Constitution, the very first order of our government after to form a more perfect union is to establish justice. To establish justice even before getting to the words to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, to ensure domestic tranquility, the Constitution speaks in terms of justice, establishing justice.
Courts would not allow this. They would not allow this because why? They knew and they know that the purpose of our founding instrument is to protect our liberties, to safeguard us, but to safeguard us as individuals against the powers of government. And why in the benedictory words of the preamble to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity liberty under law. I thank the court.
J. ROBERTS: Mr. Sekulow.
SEKULOW: Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, House Managers, Judge Starr laid our before you the solemn nature of these proceedings. I want to contrast the solemn nature of these proceedings and what has been laid our before us from a both historical and constitutional perspective, and I want you to think about this - the history, the importance, the solemnity of what we're engaged in here in this great body with what took place in the House of Representatives upon the signing of Articles of Impeachment.
Pens distributed to the impeachment managers, a celebratory moment. Think about that. Think about this. A poignant moment. We're next going to address a factual analysis to briefly reflect. My colleague, the Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura, will be joining us in a moment to discuss more of the facts to continue the discussion that we had on Saturday, but let me just recap very quickly what was laid out on Saturday.
First, the transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meaning on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call. Second, President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.
Third, President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call. Fourth, not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation in security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.
Fifth, the security assistance flowed on September 11, and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian - without Ukrainian government announcing any investigations. Finally, in the blind drive to impeach the president, President Trump, in reality, strategically has been the best friend and supporter of Ukraine certainly in our recent history.
[14:15:00]
These are the facts. That is what's before you. Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura will not address additional facts related to these proceedings. Thank you.
PURPURA: Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, good afternoon.
Mr. Leader, I believe that we will be ready to take a break at the conclusion of my remarks, if it meets with your approval.
On Saturday, we walked through some of the evidence that the House managers put forward, and didn't put forward during their 21-plus hours of presentation. The evidence that we recounted was drawn directly from the House managers' own record, the case they chose to submit to this chamber.
To echo my colleague, Mr. Sekulow, briefly, the House managers' own evidence shows that President Trump did not condition anything on investigations during the July 25 call with President Zelensky, and did not even mention the paused security assistance on the call.
President Zelensky said that he felt no pressure on the call. President Zelensky and the top Ukrainian officials did not learn of the pause on the security assistance until more than a month after the July 25 call.
And the House managers' own record -- their record, that they developed and brought before this chamber -- reflects that anyone who spoke with the president said that the president made clear that there was no linkage between security assistance and investigations.
There's another category of evidence demonstrating that the pause on security assistance was distinct and unrelated to investigations. The president released the aid, without the Ukrainians ever announcing any investigations or undertaking any investigations.
Here is Ambassador Sondland.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEFANIK: And the fact is, the aid was given to Ukraine without any announcement of new investigations?
SONDLAND: That's correct.
STEFANIK: And President Trump did in fact meet with President Zelensky in September at the United Nations, correct?
SONDLAND: He did.
STEFANIK: And there was no announcement of investigations before this meeting?
SONDLAND: Correct.
STEFANIK: And there was no announcement of investigations after this meeting?
SONDLAND: That's right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[14:20:00] PURPURA: So while the security assistance was paused, the administration did precisely what you would expect. It addressed President Trump's concerns about the two issues that I mentioned on Saturday: burden-sharing and corruption.
A number of law and policymakers also contacted the president and the White House to provide input on the security assistance issue during this period, including Senator Lindsey Graham.
The process culminated on September 11, 2019. On that day, the president spoke with Vice President Pence and Senator Rob Portman. The vice president, in NSC Senior Director Tim Morrison's words, was "armed with his conversation with President Zelensky from their meeting just days earlier in Warsaw, Poland," and both the vice president and Senator Portman related their view of the importance of assistance to Ukraine and convinced the president that the aid should be dispersed immediately. After the meeting, President Trump terminated the pause and the support flowed to Ukraine.
I want to take a step back now, and talk for a moment about why the security assistance was briefly paused. Again, in the words of the House managers' own witnesses. Witness after witness testified that confronting Ukrainian corruption should be at the forefront of United States' foreign policy toward Ukraine. They also testified that the president had longstanding and sincere concerns about corruption in Ukraine.
The House managers, however, told you that it was laughable to think that the president cared about corruption in Ukraine. But that's not what the witnesses said. According to Ambassador Volker, President Trump demonstrated that he had a very deeply rooted negative view of Ukraine based on past corruption. And that's a reasonable position, according to Ambassador Volker. Most people who know anything about Ukraine would think that.
And Dr. Hill testified, "I think the president has actually quite publicly said that he was very skeptical about corruption in Ukraine. And in fact, he's not alone, because everyone has expressed great -- great concerns about corruption in Ukraine."
The House managers have said that the president's concern with corruption is disingenuous. They said that President Trump didn't care about corruption in 2017 or 2018, and he certainly didn't care about it in 2019 -- that was their words.
Not according to Ambassador Yovanovitch, however, who testified that President Trump shared his concern about corruption directly with President Poroshenko, President Zelensky's predecessor, in their first meeting in the Oval Office. When was that meeting? In June of 2017, 2017.
The president also has well-known concerns about foreign aid generally. Scrutinizing and in some cases, curtailing foreign aid was a central plank of his campaign platform. President Trump is especially wary of sending American taxpayer dollars abroad when other countries refuse to pitch in.
Mr. Morrison and Mr. Hale both testified at length about President Trump's longstanding concern with burden-sharing in foreign aid programs. Here's what they said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MORRISON: The president was concerned that the United States seemed to -- to bear the exclusive brunt of security assistance to Ukraine. He wanted to see the Europeans step up and contribute more security assistance.
HALE: We've often heard, at the State Department, that the president of the United States wants to make sure that foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure that it's truly in U.S. national interests, and that we evaluate it continuously, it's to the (ph) -- meets certain criteria that the president's established.
RATCLIFFE: And has the president expressed that he expects our allies to give their fair share of foreign aid, as evidenced by a point that he raised during the July 25th phone call with President Zelensky, to that effect?
HALE: The principle of greater burden-sharing by allies and other likeminded states is an important element of the foreign assistance review.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PURPURA: The president expressed these precise concerns to Senator Ron Johnson, who wrote, "He reminded me how thoroughly corrupt Ukraine was, and again conveyed his frustration that Europe doesn't do its fair share of providing military aid." The House managers didn't tell you about this. Why not?
And President Trump was right to be concerned that other countries weren't paying their fair share. As Laura Cooper testified, "U.S. contributions to Ukraine are far more significant than any individual country," and she also said, "E.U. funds tend to be on the economic side, rather than for defense and security." Senator Johnson also confirmed that other countries refused to provide the lethal defensive weapons that Ukraine needs in its war with Russia.
Please keep in mind also that the pause of the Ukraine Security Assistance program was far from unusual or out of character for President Trump. The American people know that the president is skeptical of foreign aid and that one of his top campaign promises and priorities in office has been to avoid wasteful spending of American taxpayer dollars abroad.
[14:25:00]
Meanwhile, the same people who today claimed that President Trump was not genuinely concerned about burden sharing were upset when, as a candidate, President Trump criticized free-riding by NATO members.
This past summer the administration paused, reviewed and in some cases, canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to Afghanistan, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Lebanon, and these are just some of the reviews of foreign aid undertaken at the very same time that the Ukraine aid was paused.
So what happened during the brief period of time while the Ukraine security assistance was paused? People were gathering information and monitoring the facts on the ground in Ukraine as the new parliament was sworn in and began introducing anticorruption legislation.
Notwithstanding what the House managers would have you believe, the reason for the pause was no secret within the White House and the agencies. According to Mr. Morrison, in a July meeting attended by officials throughout the executive branch agencies, the reason provided for the pause by a representative of the Office of Management and Budget was that the president was concerned about corruption in Ukraine and he wanted to make sure that Ukraine was doing enough to manage that corruption. In fact, as Mr. Morrison testified, by Labor Day there had been definitive developments to demonstrate that President Zelensky was committed to the issues he campaigned on: anticorruption reforms. Mr. Morrison also testified that the administration was working on answering the president's concerns regarding burden sharing. Here's Mr. Morrison:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASTOR: Was there any interagency activity, whether it be with the State Department or the Defense Department, coordination by the National Security Council, to look into that a little bit for the president? MORRISON: We were surveying the -- the data to understand who was contributing what and, sort of, in what categories.
CASTOR: And so the presidency evinced concerns; the interagency tried to address them?
MORRISON: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PURPURA: How else do we know that the president was awaiting information on burden sharing and anticorruption efforts in Ukraine before releasing the security assistance? Because that's what Vice President Pence told President Zelensky.
On September 1, 2019, Vice President Pence met with President Zelensky. President Trump was scheduled to attend the World War II Commemoration in Poland, but instead, remained in the U.S. to manage the emergency response to Hurricane Dorian. Remember, this was three days -- three days after President Zelensky learned, through the Politico article, about the review of the security assistance. Just as Vice President Pence and his aides anticipated, Jennifer Williams testified that once the cameras left the room, the very first question that President -- President Zelensky had was about the status of the security assistance. The vice president responded by asking about two things: burden sharing and corruption.
Here's how Jennifer Williams described it: "The V.P. responded by really expressing our ongoing support for Ukraine, but wanting to hear from President Zelensky, you know, what the status of his reform efforts were that he could then convey back to the president, and also, wanting to hear if there was more that European countries could do to support Ukraine."
Vice President Pence knows President Trump, and he knew what President Trump wanted to hear from President Zelensky. The vice president was echoing the president's two recurring themes: corruption and burden sharing. It's the same consistent themes every time.
Ambassador Taylor received a similar readout of the meeting between the vice president and President Zelensky, including the vice president's focus on corruption and burden sharing. Here's Ambassador Taylor:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAYLOR: On the evening of September 1st, I received a readout of the Pence-Zelensky meeting over the phone from Mr. Morrison, during which he told me President Zelensky had opened the meeting by immediately asking the vice president about the security cooperation. The vice president did not respond substantively, but said that he would talk to President Trump that night.
[14:30:00]
