Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Dem House Managers Present Case For Impeachment; House Manager Argues Giuliani Pushed Ukraine For Biden Probe. Aired 4:30-5p ET
Aired January 22, 2020 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:30:00] WILLIAMS: -- instruction to others involved in planning the potential trip.
I also informed the NSC that the Vice President would not be attending so that it could identify a head of delegation to represent the United States at President elect Zelensky's inauguration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GARCIA: Notably, William's confirmed that the inauguration date had not yet been decided -- been scheduled at the time of that phone call. So the reason for President Trump's decision was certainly not due to a scheduling conflict. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry ultimately led the delegation to the inaugural.
Accompanying Secretary Perry were Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, Ambassador Volker, and NSC Director for Ukraine, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Senator Rob Johnson also attended many of the inaugural events with a delegation. When asked if this delegation was a good group Holmes replied, "It was not as senior delegation as we might have expected". After the inauguration, Ambassador Volker and Sondland left key (inaudible) with a very favorable impression of President Zelensky. Ambassador Volker said they believed it was important that President Trump personally engaged with the President of Ukraine in order to demonstrate full US support for him.
When the inauguration team returned to the United States they had a meeting with President Trump on May 23. The May 23 meeting with President Trump proved to be important for two good reasons. First, with Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way President Trump authorized Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Ambassador Volker to lead engagement with a new administration in Ukraine. And two, President Trump instructed them to satisfy Giuliani's concerns in order to move forward on Ukraine matters.
These officials were all political appointees and Ambassadors Sondland had donated $1 million to the President's inauguration. Their President saw these three political appointees as officials who would fulfill his request. Ambassador Volker testified that he, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Johnson took turns making their case that this is a new crowd. It's a new President in Ukraine. He's committed to doing the right things, including fighting corruption. They recommended that President Trump follow through on his invitation for President Zelensky to meet with him in the Oval Office. But President Trump did not receive the recommendation well. At his public hearing, Ambassador Volker described the May 23 Oval Office meeting with President Trump. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLKER: We stressed our finding that President Zelensky represented the best chance for getting Ukraine out of the mire of corruption it had been in for over 20 years. We urged him to invite President Zelensky to the White House. The President was very skeptical given Ukraine's history of corruption, that's understandable.
He said the Ukraine was a corrupt country full of terrible people. He said they tried to take me down. In the course of that conversation he referenced conversations with Mayor Giuliani. It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President.
President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was receiving other information from other sources including Mayor Giuliani that was more negative causing him to retain this negative view.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GARCIA: Witnesses said the reference to "taking me down" was to unfounded allegations that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 election. This was what President Trump considered to be corruption in the Ukraine.
The President's words echoed Giuliani's public statements about Ukraine in early May. Rather than committing to an Oval Office meeting with the Ukrainian leader President Trump directed the delegation to talk to Giuliani. Here is how Ambassador Sondland described that instruction from the President.
[16:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SONDLAND: If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.
GOLDMAN: Right. You understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the President, correct?
SONDLAND: That's correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GARCIA: Ambassador Sondland saw the writing on the wall. Sondland concluded that if we did not talk to Rudy nothing would move forward on Ukraine. The three amigos as they called themselves did as the president ordered and began talking to Giuliani. Dr. Hill testified, Volcker, Sondland and Perry gave us every impression that they were meeting with Rudy Giuliani at this point and Rudy Giuliani was also saying on the television and indeed had said subsequently that he was closely coordinating with the State Department.
Like Dr. Hill, Ambassador Bolton closely tracked Giuliani's Ukraine- related activities. Hill testified about a conversation she had with Bolton in May of 2019. That conversation was revealing so let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: On television making these statements. And I had also already brought to Ambassador Bolton's attention the attacks, the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and expressed great regret about how this was unfolding and in fact the shameful way in which Ambassador Yovanovitch was being smeared and attacked. And I'd asked if there was anything we could do about it and Ambassador Bolton had look pained, basically indicated with body language that there was nothing much we could do about it and he then, in the course of that discussion said that Rudy Giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up.
(UNKNOWN): Did you understand what he meant by that?
HILL: I did actually.
(UNKNOWN): What did he mean?
HILL: Well I think he meant that obviously what Mr. Giuliani was saying was pretty explosive in any case. He was frequently on television making quite incendiary remarks about everyone involved in this. I thought he was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would probably come back to haunt us and in fact, I think...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GARCIA: According to Hill's description, Bolton said that Giuliani's influence could be an obstacle to increased White House engagement with Ukraine. He instructed his staff not to meet with Giuliani. In June, Volcker and Sondland relayed to Ambassador Taylor that President Trump wanted to hear from Zelensky before scheduling the meeting in the Oval Office.
Ambassador Taylor testified that he did not understand at the time what that meant. Around this time the president publicly expressed that he thought it would be OK to accept foreign interference to assist his campaign if it was in the form of opposition research on his opponent. Let's listen to that shocking interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): In the campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?
TRUMP: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. There's nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country -- Norway -- we have information on your opponent. I think I'd want to hear it. (UNKNOWN): You want that kind of interference in our elections?
TRUMP: It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GARCIA: Shocking video. Meanwhile, Giuliani continued to press Ukraine to do the president's political dirty work. On June 21 for instance Giuliani tweeted the following:
New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of President Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Obama people.
The quid pro quo scheme was taking shape. Giuliani was publicly advocating for Ukraine to conduct politically-motivated investigations while President Trump refused to schedule an Oval Office meeting for Ukraine's new president.
[16:40:00]
As Ambassador Sondland testified, the scheme to pressure Ukraine to conduct these investigations would only get more insidious with time.
CROW: Mr. Chief Justice, the Majority Leader expressed a preference for a break about two hours in so it's the House Manager's request that I present and then we take the break if that's acceptable for everybody?
Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, counsel for the president and the American people, where were you on July 25th, 2019? It was a Thursday. Members of the U.S. Senate were here in this chamber. On July 25th across the Atlantic, our 68,000 troops stationed throughout Europe were doing what they do every day, training and preparing to support our allies and defend against Russia.
The professionalism and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is a source of great strength but America is also strong and America is also secure because we have friends. On July 25th, 2019, one of those friends was a man named Oleksandr Markiv. In a story told by Sabra Ayres of the "Los Angeles Times" Oleksandr was a soldier in the Ukrainian Army defending his country and Europe against Russian-backed forces on Ukraine's Eastern front.
He was in a trench. He was 38 years old. Oleksandr would later die defending his country during a mortar attack on his fighting position giving his life just like over 13,000 of his fellow Ukrainians on the front lines of the fight for liberty in Europe.
That same "Los Angeles Times" article painted a picture of what the Ukrainians were going through during this time. Quote, tens of thousands of Ukrainians like Markiv volunteered to help fight the Russian-backed separatists in the east. Many of them were sent to the front line wearing sneakers and without flap(ph) jackets and helmets let alone rifles and ammunition.
Ukrainians across the country organized in an unprecedented united civil movement not seen since World War II to raise money to supply their rag tag military with everything from soldier's boots to bolts. And while our friends were at war with Russia, wearing sneakers, some without helmets -- something else was happening.
On July 25, President Trump made a phone call. He spoke with Ukrainian President Zelensky and asked for a favor. And on that same day, just hours after his call, his administration was quietly placing an illegal hold on critical military aid to support our friends.
So why should any American care about what's happening in Ukraine? Timothy Morrison, former Senior Director for Europe and Russia at the NSC put it bluntly.
T. MORRISON: Third, continue (ph) to believe Ukraine is on the frontlines of a strategic competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist (ph) Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one.
The United States aids Ukraine and her people, so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014, it must continue to be.
CROW: We help our partner fight Russia over there, so we don't have to fight Russia here. Our friends on the frontlines in trenches with sneakers.
[16:45:00]
Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 the United States has stood by Ukraine, our diplomats and military commanders have long said that supporting Ukraine makes us safer. But you don't need me to tell you that, you all know it very well.
When the funding for the security assistance came up for a vote under this roof, 87 of you voted for the aid -- and many of you have been stanch advocates for Ukraine, working in a nonpartisan way to support our friends. And that support make a lot of sense, because politics should not play a part in ensuring that Ukraine can battle Russian aggression, and ensure that freedom wins in Europe -- this body has in so many ways set that example.
Protecting Europe from Russia is not a political gain, let me provide some background. In early 2014, in what became known as the revolution of dignity, Ukrainian citizens demanded democratic reforms and an end to corruption, ousting the pro-Russian president.
Within days Russia military forces and their proxies invaded Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and occupying portions of eastern Ukraine. Since 2014 more than 13,000 Ukrainians have been killed because of the conflict and over 1.4 million have been forced from their homes. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the first attempt to redraw Europe's borders since World War II. In 2017 then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis summed it up well, he said, "despite Russia's denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe."
And as Ambassador Taylor put it, Russian aggression in Ukraine dismissed -- "dismissed," all the principles that have kept the peace and contributed to prosperity in Europe since World War II. It's clear that Russia is not just a threat in Europe, but for democracy and freedom around the world.
Our friends and allies have also responded, imposing sanctions on Russia and providing billions of dollars in economic humanitarian and security assistance to Ukraine -- this has been an international effort. Today the European Union is the single largest contributor of foreign assistance to Ukraine, having provided roughly 12 billion in grants and loans since 2014. And the United States has provided over 3 billion in assistance in that time.
Because we all know that we can't separate our own security from the security of our friends and allies. That's why the U.S. has provided economic security and humanitarian assistance in the form of equipment and training.
Ambassador Taylor testified that American aid is a concrete demonstration of our, "commitment to resist aggression in freedom (ph) and defend freedom." He also detailed the many benefits of our assistance for Ukraine's forces.
TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. One of the components of that assistance is counter- battery radar, another component are sniper weapons. These weapons, and this assistance allows the Ukrainian military to deter further incursions by the Russians against their -- against Ukrainian territory.
If that further incursion, further aggression were to take place, more Ukrainians would die. So it is a deterrent effect that these weapons provide. It's also the ability -- it gives the Ukrainians the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate an end to the war in Donbass with -- negotiating with the Russians. This also is a way that would reduce the number of Ukrainians who would die.
CROW: I would like to make a finer point of how this type of aid helps, because I know something about counter battery radar. In 2005 I was an Army Ranger serving in a special operations taskforce in Afghanistan.
[16:50:00]
We were at a remote operating base along the Afghan-Pakistan border, and frequently the insurgence that we were fighting would launch rockets and missiles on to our small base. But luckily we were provided with counter-battery radar. So 20, 30, 40 seconds before those rockets and mortars rained down on us, an alarm would sound. We would run out from our tents and jump in to our concrete bunkers and wait for the attack to end. This is not a theoretical exercise, and the Ukrainians know it.
For Ukraine aid from the U.S., actually constitutes about 10 percent of their military budget. It's safe to say that they can't fight effectively without it, so there is no doubt U.S. military assistance to Ukraine makes a real difference in the fight against Russia.
In 2019 Congress provided $391 million in security assistance, this included $250 million through the Department of Defense, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative ,USAI -- and $141 million through the State Department's Foreign Military Financing Program, FMF.
President Trump signed the bill to authorize this aid in August 2018 and signed another bill to fund it the following month. The aid was underway. The train was leaving the station and following the same track it had followed every single year, but all of this was about to change.
In July of 2019, President Trump ordered the Office of Management and Budget -- OMB -- to put a hold on all of the aid. The president personally made this decision even after his own appointed advisors warned him that it wasn't in our country's interest to withhold the aid after overwhelming support in this Senate and against longstanding policy even in his own administration.
But what's most interesting to me about this is that he was only interested in the Ukraine aid, nobody else. The U.S. provides aid to dozens of countries around the world, lots of partners and allies. He didn't ask about any of them, just Ukraine.
The most important question here is why would he do that? What was his motivation? Well, we now know why. This hold shocked people across our own government. The Department of Defense along with the State Department had already certified to Congress that Ukraine had implemented sufficient anticorruption reforms to get the funds, and the Defense Department had already notified Congress of its intent to deliver the assistance.
So let's recap all of this. Congress had already funded it, our own governed had already certified that it'd met all the standards it had met every other year, and Congress had already been notified just like every other year.
In a series of meetings with the national security agencies, everyone except the OMB supported the provision of the assistance, and OMB as we know is headed by Mick Mulvaney, the president's Chief of Staff.
Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the White House emphasized that it was in the national security interest to continue to support Ukraine in its fight, but it wasn't just the national security concern because many people thought that the hold was just outright illegal, and they were right. It was. The president's hold did violate the law because just last week Congress's independent, nonpartisan watch dog, the Government Accountability Office, released an opinion claiming that the hold was illegal. President Trump held the military aid money for so long that the administration ran out of time to spend the money. Ultimately, even after the president lifted the hold on September 11, again with no clear explanation why, we, the Congress, had to pass another law to extend the deadline, delaying the delivery of the aid.
In the same L.A. Times article that told the story about our friend, Mr. Markiev (ph), Ukrainian defense spokesperson said that even though the hold had been lifted -- this was in September -- quote, "it has not reached us yet." That spokesperson went onto say, quote, "It is not just money from the bank. It is arms, equipment, and hardware." And to this day, millions of dollars still haven't been spent.
[16:55:00]
Although our government neither informed Ukraine of the hold nor publicly announced it, Ukraine quickly learned about it. On July 25, the same day as President Trump's call with President Zelensky, officials at Ukraine's embassy here in Washington emailed DOD to ask about the status of the funding.
By mid August, officials at DOD, the State Department, and the NSC received numerous questions from Ukrainian officials about the hold. Everyone was worried and not just because of the urgent need for the equipment on the front lines, but also because of the message that it sent. You see, President Zelensky had just been sworn in. They were very vulnerable, and as we all know, Vladimir Putin looks for vulnerability. He looks of hesitation. He looks for delay. And any public sign of a hold on that aid could be a sign of weakness that could show him it was time to pounce.
President Trump's hold on the Ukraine assistance was eventually publicly reported on August 28. As we will explain, Ukraine fully understood that the hold was connected to the investigations that President Trump wanted. On February 28, DOD notified Congress that it had intended to deliver $125 million of assistance appropriated in September, including, quote, "more than $50 million of assistance to deliver counter-artillery radar and defense lethal assistance."
Congress cleared the notification, which enabled DOD to begin spending the funds. For Ukraine to received the remaining $125 million, Congress required that the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of State certified that the government of Ukraine had taken substantial anticorruption reforms.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Laura Cooper, and senior officials across our government conducted a review to evaluate whether Ukraine had met the required benchmarks. Ms. Cooper explained that the review involved, quote, "pulling in all the views of the key experts on Ukraine defense," and coming up with a consensus view which was then run up the chain in the Defense Department to, quote, "ensure we have approval." By May 23, the anticorruption review was complete, and DOD certified to Congress that Ukraine had complied with all of the conditions and that the remaining half of the aid should be released, but again, you don't have to take my word for it.
On May 23 in a letter to Congress, one of President Trump's senior political appointees, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, wrote, quote, "On behalf of the Secretary of Defense and in coordination with the Secretary of State, I have certified that the government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat capability enabled by U.S. assistance," end quote.
Congress then cleared the funding which should have allowed Ukraine to receive the aid, but we know that's now what happened. On June 28 -- on June 18 as DOD was preparing to send the aid, they issued a press release, like they normally do, announcing that it would provide $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine for, quote, "additional training, equipment, and advisory efforts to build the capacity of Ukraine's armed forces." So this included sniper rifles, rocket- propelled grenades, counter-artillery radar, command and control, electronic warfare, secure communications, vehicles, night vision, and medical equipment.
However, according to The New York Times, one day after the Defense Department issued this press release -- one day, Assistant to the President, Robert Blair, who worked for Mick Mulvaney, called OMB Acting Director Russell Vought to tell him quote "we need to hold it up." The "it" was the assistance.
That same day, June 19th, President Trump gave an interview on Fox News where he raised the so-called Crowdstrike conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 election, a line he would echo during his July 25th call with President Zelensky.
This theory, by the way, has been advanced by Russian propaganda, to try to take -
[17:00:00]
