Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House Democrats Present Case Against Trump; The Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump. Aired 4:30-5p ET
Aired January 23, 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] HOLMES: -- adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: After the call Ambassador Sondland confirmed to Holmes that the investigations were the President's sole interest with the Ukraine because and this is very important, they benefit the President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: After the call ended Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood as Ambassador Sondland stated it was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not give a expletive about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland agreed the President did not give an expletive about Ukraine. I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about big stuff. I noted there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia.
And Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. This conversation then moved on to other topics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: This understanding by Ambassador Sondland is independently confirmed by President Trump's own interaction with Ukraine. During his two telephone calls with President Zelensky, first on April 21st and then on July 25th, President Trump did not refer to any anti- corruption efforts or the war against Russia. He never even uttered the word corruption. Instead he only spoke about investigating his political opponents.
He later confirmed this narrow and singular focus to the press. On October 3rd when then asked about the Ukraine scheme, he said well I would think if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Biden's, it's a very simple answer. Here's that conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I would think that if they were honest about it they'd start a major investigation into the Biden's. It's a very simple answer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: So we know from witnesses, the President's personal agents, and most importantly the President himself, the only think President Trump cared about with Ukraine was his investigations to benefit himself. To see this even more starkly, it's helpful to remember what presidential head of state calls are normally used for. Talk to any former occupant of the Oval Office and they will tell you that the disparity in power between the President of the United States and other heads of state is vast.
Since World War II and consistent with the requirement to faithfully execute their oath of office, U.S. president's from both political parties have made good use of the disparity in power in their telephone calls from foreign leaders. They've used those calls to secure commitments that bolstered American security and prosperity. Acting as our chief diplomat, President Regan used his calls to European allies like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to rally the world against the Soviet threat. The shining city on the hill standing up to the evil empire.
His calls laid the foundation for landmark non proliferation agreements that averted a nuclear Armageddon. It was during a phone call on Christmas day, 1991 that President George H.W. Bush learned that Mikhail Gorbachev intended to resign as Soviet primer marking the end of the Soviet Union. Historians credited his deft diplomacy, including numerous one on one phone calls for bringing about a peaceful end to the Cold War. Following September 11th, President George W. Bush used his calls with heads of state to rally global support for the U.S. Campaign to defeat Al Qaeda; to work with our allies to protect and defend the U.S. national security and combat terrorism.
President Obama used his calls with foreign leaders to contain the fall out from the global economic crisis, assemble and international coalition to fight the Islamic State and of course to rally support for Ukraine following Russia's invasion of Crimea. No matter what you think of the policy views or priorities of these prior presidents, there was no question that they are examples of the normal diplomacy that happens during presidential telephone calls and there is no doubt when you're the President of the United States and you call a foreign leader, you are on the clock for the American people.
Consistent with the faithful execution of his or her oath of office, a President's first and only objective is to get foreign leaders to do what is in the best interests of the United States. That's not what happened on July 25th.
On that date, President Trump used the head of state call with the leader of Ukraine to help himself, to press a foreign leader to investigate the President's political opponent in order to help his re-election campaign. President Trump abused his authority as Commander in Chief and chief diplomat to benefit himself and he betrayed the interests of the American people when he did so. Let's go to the third reason that we know the President put his interests first. The third reason you know that the investigations were politically motivated is the central role played by President Trump's personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, who has never had an official role in government - in this government but instead was at all times representing the President in his personal capacity. There is no dispute about this.
For example, Mr. Giuliani made this point clearly in his May 10 letter to the President of Ukraine himself, where he wrote "Dear President Elect Zelensky, I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States."
This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same. Separate representation is the usual process. Mr. Giuliani also repeated this publicly. For example, he confirmed this point on May 9th in the New York Times, where he said - well, many things, he said "we're meddling in an election - we're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do. There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper and this isn't foreign policy."
He went on to say, referring to the President, "he basically knows what I'm doing, sure, as his lawyer. My only client is the President of the United States," he said. "He's the one I have an obligation to report to, tell him what happened."
Think about that. The President is using his personal lawyer to ask Ukraine for investigations that aren't quote "foreign policy" but that will be very, very helpful to the President personally. It's not often you get it so graphically, as we do here.
Let's go to the fourth reason that these investigations were never part of U.S. policy. It wasn't just that President Trump used his personal lawyer, it's also that what he was asking for was never part of U.S. policy. Witnesses told us that President Trump's investigations were not in his official prepared talking points or briefing materials. To the contrary, they went against official policy and diverged from our national security interests.
All three witnesses - Tim Morrison at the National Security Council, Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman at the Security Council, Jennifer Williams - listened to the July - the - the July 25th call, testified that when President Trump demanded that President Zelensky investigate the Bidens, he had completely departed from the talking points that they had prepared for him.
Now, before I get to the video clip I just want to underscore this. He's not obligated to use his talking points, he's not obligated to follow the recommendations of his staff, no matter how sound they may be, but what this makes clear is it wasn't U.S. policy that he was conducting, it was his private, personal interest that he was conducting. If it was U.S. policy, it probably would have been in the talking points and briefing materials but of course it was not. Let's look at Mr. Morrison's testimony on this point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): Now Mr. Morrison, were these references to Crowdstrike, the server, the 2016 election and to Vice President Biden and his son, were they included in the President's talking points?
MORRISON: They were not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: And here's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman on this point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPEIER: Colonel Vindman, you are the National Security Council's Director for Ukraine. Did you participate in preparing the talking points for the President's call?
VINDMAN: I did - I prepared them.
SPEIER: So you prepared them, they were then reviewed and edited by multiple senior officers at the NSC and the White House, is that correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
SPEIER: Did the talking points for the President contain any discussion of investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens or Burisma?
VINDMAN: They did not.
SPEIER: Are you aware of any written product from the National Security Council suggesting that investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens or Burisma are part of the official policy of the United States?
VINDMAN: No, I am not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Dr. Hill also elaborated on this point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: My point, Mr. Nunes, is that we at the National Security Council were not told, either by the President directly or through Ambassador Bolton, that we were to be focused on these issues as a matter of U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine.
So when you're talking about Ukraine in 2016, I never personally heard the President say anything specific about 2016 and Ukraine. I've certainly seen (ph) - plenty of things publicly but I was not given a directive. In fact, I was given a directive on July 10th by Ambassador Bolton very clearly to stay out of domestic politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: So to be clear, when President Trump asked for these investigations, he was not asking for them based on an official U.S. policy. His top official advisors had not even been told about these investigations. To the contrary, they were told to stay out of U.S. politics.
And it gets worse. It was not just that President Trump ignored official U.S. policy and the talking points he was given, it was that what he was doing, withholding support from Ukraine, was actually contrary to and harmful to U.S. policy.
There is clear and undisputed bipartisan support for Ukraine. Ukraine is our ally. What's more, they're at war with our adversary. So our goal should be helping President Zelensky's anti-corruption reforms and helping Ukraine fight its adversary, Russia, in any way that we can.
President Trump's own National Defense Strategy stated that the United States and its European allies quote "will deter Russian adventurism" end quote, a clear reference to Russia's usurpation of Ukrainian territory and sovereignty.
Consistent with that strategy, we have currently approximately 68,000 troops stationed in Europe. Roughly 10,000 of those US Troops are deployed on NATO's Eastern Border with Russia, to countries like Poland, Hungary, Lithuania and Bulgaria. These American Forces are literally holding the line against another land grab by Vladimir Putin.
The author of that strategy, Former US National Security Advisor Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster issued this stark warning about Russia's aggression. For too long some nations have looked the other way in the face of these threats. Russia brazenly and then plausibly denies its actions and we have failed to impose sufficient costs.
The Kremlin's confidence is growing as its agents conduct their sustained campaigns to undermine our confidence in ourselves and in one another. What General McMaster says obviously makes sense. Russia's confidence sadly is growing. We need to stand up to them and that's why we support Ukraine to help defeat Russian aggression.
So on July 25th when President Zelensky spoke with President Trump that's what he, McMaster, was hoping to discuss. Or he would be hoping that he would discuss. How we can support Ukraine in its fight against a huge adversary. Our confidence in one another.
That's what President Zelensky was most worried about when he got on the line with the President on July 25th, whether Ukraine could have confidence in US support. Nearly 70% of Ukraine's territory, I'm sorry nearly 7% of Ukraine's territory had been annexed by Russian backed forces. More than 15,000 troops have been lost in the hot war over the past five years.
But when President Zelensky raised the issue of US Military aid needed to confront Russian aggression, President Trump did nothing to reassure the Ukrainian leader of our steadfast support for Ukraine's sovereignty. Instead he made personal demands.
It is for these reasons that President Trump's investigations went against Official US Policy, witnesses confirmed that President Trump's request actually diverged, not just from our policy but from own National Security.
As Dr. Hill testified, Ambassador Sondland in carrying out President Trump's scheme quote "was being involved in a domestic political errand and we being involved in National Security Policy and those two things had just diverged." And as Ambassador Taylor elaborated quote "our holding up of security assistance that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from Russia for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good National Security reason is wrong."
As these officials so correctly observed there's no question that President Trump's political errand and our National Security diverged. That he did this to advance his reelection. Not to advance US National Security Goals. And that he did it for no good reason but the political one.
But it's more than that, it's more than our National Security Policy. We as a country are meant to embody the solution to corruption. Our country's based on promoting the rule of law. And hear what the President did attacks another of the United States strengths. That of our ideals and our values.
Part of that is ensuring the integrity of our Democracy and our political institutions. It is a fundamental American value that underlying our Democracy that we do use official powers to ask for investigations of our political components to gain a political advantage. When President Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent he abused the broad authority provided to the President of the United States.
Witness testimony again confirms this. Vice President Pence's Advisory, Jennifer Williams, was concerned by the President's focus on domestic political issues rather than US National Security because the President is not suppose to use foreign government for political errands. She characterized the call as a domestic political matter. Here is her testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: During my closed door deposition members of the Committee asked about my personal views and whether I had any concerns about the July 25th call. As I testified then, I found the July 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other Presidential calls I had observed it involved discussions of what appeared to be a domestic political matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SCHIFF: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman also thought the call was improper and unrelated to the talking points he had drafted for the President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VINDMAN: It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US Citizen and a political opponent. I was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation -- it was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 Elections, the Bidens and Burisma it would interpreted as partisan play.
This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support undermining US National Security and advancing Russia's strategic objective in the region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who, as a reminded, is a Purple Heart Veteran, says what we all know clearly. It's improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government to investigate a US Citizen and a political opponent.
And it wasn't just that Colonel Vindman thought that is was wrong. He was so concerned that warned Ukraine too, not to get involved in our domestic politics. In May Lieutenant Colonel Vindman grew concerned by the pressure campaign he witnessed in the media waged primarily by Rudy Giuliani.
During a meeting with President Zelensky on May 20th, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman warned the Ukrainian leader to stay out of US Politics because that is our Official US Policy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VINDMAN: During a bilateral meeting in which the whole delegation was meeting with President Zelensky and his team, I offered two pieces of advice. To be particularly cautious with regards to Ukraine, to be particularly cautious with regards to Russia and its desire to provoke Ukraine. And the second one was to stay out of US domestic policy.
SCHIFF: You meant politics?
VINDMAN: Politics, correction.
SCHIFF: And why did you feel it was necessary to advise President Zelensky to stay away from US domestic politics?
VINDMAN: Chairman, in the March and April timeframe became clear that there were -- there were actors in the US -- public actors, non- governmental actors that were promoting the idea of investigations and 2016 Ukrainian interference and it was consistent with US policy to advise any country, all the countries in my portfolio, any country in the world to not participate in US domestic politics. So I was passing the same advise consistent with U.S. policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: He once again makes this clear, it was consistent with U.S. policy to advise any country -- all the countries in my portfolio, any country in the world we do not participate in U.S. domestic politics.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, too, testified that the president's political investigations of course have nothing to do with American anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, which have consistently focused on building institutions and never specific investigations, and that if we do ask countries to do our political errands, it entirely threatens our credibility as a democracy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): But you also testified on October 15, in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for Ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country. And you cited the importance of reforming certain institutions -- notably the security service in the prosecutor general's office.
Was investigating President Trump's political opponents a part of those necessary reforms? Was it on that list of yours, sir? Indeed was it on any list?
KENT: No, they weren't.
(UNKNOWN): In fact, historically is it not true that a major problem in the Ukraine has been its misuse of prosecutors, precisely to conduct investigation of political opponents? That's a legacy, I dare suggest from the Soviet era. When (ph) as you stated in your testimony, prosecutors like the KGB were, and I quote you now, 'instruments of oppression --"
KENT: I said that, and I believe it's true.
(UNKNOWN): So finally, Mr. Kent, for as long as I can remember U.S. foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interest and democratic values, notably freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, free, fair and open elections and the rule of law.
Mr. Kent, would American leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals? Doesn't that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those democratic values?
KENT: I believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes.
(UNKNOWN): How is that, sir?
KENT: Well there's an issue of credibility. They hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other U.S. leaders saying something else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: The bottom line is this, what was in the best interest of our country was to help Ukraine, to give them the military aid, to fight one of our greatest adversaries and to help promote the rule of law.
And what was in President Trump's personal interest was the opposite -- to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations against his 2020 rival to help ensure his reelection. And when, what is best for the country and what was best for Donald Trump diverged, President Trump put himself above the best interest of our country.
Let's now go to the fifth reason that you know the president put himself first. The fifth reason is that the requests for these investigations to pardon, not just from U.S. policy but from established U.S. government channels. On the July 25 call President Trump told President Zelensky that he should speak to Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr.
But after the July 25 transcript was released the Department of Justice disclaimed any knowledge or involvement in the president's political investigations. The Department of Justice statement from the day the July 25 call was released says this -- this was from September 25.
The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son. The president has not asked the attorney general to contact Ukraine on this, or any other matter. The attorney general has not communicated with Ukraine, on this or any other subject, nor has the attorney general discussed this matter or anything relating to Ukraine with Rudy Giuliani.
Now this is pretty extraordinary. You can say a lot of things about the attorney general, but you cannot say that he ever has looked to pursue something the thought was not in the president's interest.
This is pretty extraordinary, where he is saying the moment this transcript is publicly released, I've got nothing to do with this scheme. I don't know why they brought me up in this call, I don't know why the president brought me up in this call -- he hasn't (ph) asked me to do anything about this -- I want nothing to do with this business.
I suspect the attorney general can recognize a drug deal when he sees it too, and he wanted nothing to do with this. Now, if this was some legitimate investigation, you would think the Department of Justice would have a role, that's traditionally how an investigation with an international component would work.
But this wasn't the case. This wasn't the case and the attorney general wanted nothing to do with it. If these were legitimate investigations that were in the national interest, why was Bill Barr's Justice Department so quick to divorce themselves from it?
A simple answer is that as we see so clearly they were against U.S. official policy and our national security. The Justice Department wanted nothing to do with it, and by asking for these investigations the president was abusing his power.
Let's go to the sixth reason you know President Trump put himself first. It wasn't just that these witnesses told us -- what these witnesses told us in the impeachment hearings about this being wrong, they reported the president's conduct in real time, so it's not just that they came forward later. They came forward in real time to report the president's conduct.
And of course you've seen over the last couple days how many times people were told, go talk to the lawyers. Well Tim Morrison, former Republican Congressional staffer and Colonel Vindman were sufficiently concerned by what they heard President Trump solicit on that July 25 call, that they both immediately went to speak to the lawyers -- John Eisenberg the NSC legal advisor, let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): Now Mr. Morrison, shortly after you heard the July 25 call, you testified that you alerted the NSC legal advisor John Eisenberg, pretty much right away, is that right?
MORRISON: Correct.
(UNKNOWN): And you indicated in your opening statement -- or at least from your deposition that you went to Mr. Eisenberg out of concern over the potential political fallout if the call record became public, and not because you thought it was illegal, is that right?
MORRISON: Correct.
(UNKNOWN): But you would agree, right, that asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival is inappropriate, would you not?
MORRISON: It's not what -- it's not what we recommended the president discuss.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Well, I think that's a profound understatement. Mr. Morrison clearly recognized that the request to investigate Biden and Burisma was about U.S. domestic politics and not U.S. national security.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman knew this too. And he reported his concerns to the White House Counsel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): Now you said you also reported this incident to the NSC lawyers, is that right.
VINDMAN: Correct.
(UNKNOWN): And what was their response?
VINDMAN: John Eisenberg said that he -- he took -- he took notes while I was talking and he said that he would look into it.
(UNKNOWN): Why did you report this meeting and this conversation to the NCS lawyers?
VINDMAN: Because it was inappropriate and following the meeting, I had a short conversation -- following the post meeting meeting in the war (ph) room, I had a short conversation with Ambassador -- correction -- Dr. Hill and we discussed the idea of needing to report this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: In fact, Colonel Vindman reported concerns twice and Mr. Morrison did so multiple times as well. They weren't, of course, the only ones. As this slide shows, Dr. Hill reported her concerns to the NSC legal advisor.
Mr. Kent reported his concerns that the State Departments failure to respond to a House document request, the lawyers were awfully busy.
And why did President Trump's own officials not so called never Trumpers, not Democrats or Republicans, but career public servants report this conduct in real time. Because they knew it was wrong.
Dr. Hill said it was improper and it was inappropriate and we said that in the time, in real time. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said the July 25th call was wrong and he had a duty to report it.
Ambassador Taylor said quote, holding up of security assistance for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good national security reason is wrong. Mr. Morrison admitted that he reported the July 25th call pretty much right away and recommended to them that we restrict access to the package.
And Ms. Williams said that the July 25th call struck me as unusual and inappropriate and more political in nature. The consensus is one again clear. The president's demand for political investigations was improper, inappropriate and wrong and again, confirms that these requested investigations were not about anything except Donald Trump's political gain.
Let's go to the 7th reason why you know President Trump put himself first. American officials weren't the only ones who recognize the political nature of these request. Ukrainian officials did too.
And that brings us the seventh reason we know that this was against our national interest. Ukrainian officials themselves expressed concern that these corrupt investigations would drag them into U.S. domestic politics.
For example, in mid July Ambassador Taylor texted Sondland and Taylor explained President Zelensky's reluctant to become -- reluctance to become a pawn in U.S. politics. Ambassador Taylor said, Gordon, one thing court -- Kurt and -- Kurt Volker that is -- one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk's point, and he's a top advisor to President Zelensky.
Sasha Danyliuk's point that President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not nearly as an instrument in Washington domestic re-election politics. So here you have Sasha Danyliuk, one of the top advisors to Zelensky, affirming that his president wants to be taken seriously. It's pretty extraordinary when a foreign leader has to communicate to this country that they want to be taken seriously and not just as some kind of a pawn for political purposes.
When an ally wholly dependent on us for military support, for economic support, for diplomatic support has to say please take us seriously. But this is what the Ukrainians are saying.
They understood this wasn't American policy as much as we do. And they didn't want to be used as a pawn. Ambassador Taylor explained this text during his testimony. The whole thrust of this irregular channel, he said, was to get these investigations, which Danyliuk and presumably Zelensky were resisting because they didn't want to be seen -- they didn't want to be seen to be interfering.
But also to be a pawn. So this is an important too, which is it wasn't just that they didn't want to be seen as getting involved in U.S. politics because if they did, and it looked like they were getting involved on the side of Donald Trump, then it would hurt their support with Democrats.
If it looked like they were getting involved on the other side, it would hurt them with the president. It wasn't just that it -- it was no benefit to Ukraine to be dragged into this. There was no benefit to Ukraine by this.
But they also didn't want to be viewed as a pawn. And President Zelensky's got his own electorate. He's this new leader. He's a former comedian and he wants to be taken seriously. He needs to be taken seriously because if the U.S. won't take him seriously, you can darn well bet Vladimir Putin isn't going to take him seriously.
And so the perception not just that there's a rift that he can't get military aid or it's in doubt or in question, but the -- the impression that he's nothing more than a pawn, you could see how problematic that was for President Zelensky.
In other words, Ukrainian officials understood just as our officials understood, just as all those folks you just saw, Morrison and Vindman and Hill and others and all the people who had to go to the lawyers, all the people who listened to that call and understood this is just wrong.
Now Morrison goes on to say that he's no legal expert and can't really opine on the legality of what happened in this call. But they all knew it was wrong. They also knew that it was damaging to bipartisan support.
They knew it was damaging to our national security. But here we see it wasn't just our people. It was Ukrainians who also understood this was a pure political errand they were being asked to perform.
It's no way to treat an ally at war. Now, it wasn't just the testimony of the U.S. officials on this. We know this directly from the Ukrainians. Indeed we know this directly from President Zelensky himself who said quote, I'm sorry but I don't want to be involved to Democratic open elections -- elections of the USA. Here's Zelensky saying I don't want to be involved. And he shouldn't be involved in our elections. That's not his job and he knows that and it's - it's a tragic fact that the world's oldest democracy has to be told by the struggling democracy, this isn't what you're supposed to do. But that's what's happening here.
Let's go to the eighth reason why you can know that President Trump put himself first and that is there's no serious dispute that the White House tried to bury the call record. They tried to bury the call record. Although President Trump has repeatedly insisted that his July 25th conversation with President Zelensky was perfect. The White House apparently believed otherwise. Their own lawyers apparently believed otherwise. Following a head of state call the White House normally issues a pubic summary or readout to lock in any commitments made by the foreign leader and publicly reinforce the core elements of the president's message. However, no public readout was posted on the White House website following the July 25th call. I wonder why that was?
The White House instead provided reporters with a short, incomplete summary that, of course, omitted the major elements of that conversation. The short summary said, today, President Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to congratulate him on his recent election. President Trump and President Zelensky discussed ways to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Ukraine including energy and economic cooperation. Both leaders also expressed that they look forward to the opportunity to meet. That was it.
Now I don't know about you but that does not seem like an accurate summary of that call. As you can see that summary did not mention President Trump's repetition of a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election promoted by Russian President Putin.
The summary did not mention President Trump's demand that Ukraine announce an investigation into his domestic political rival, former Vice President Biden. The summary did not mention that President Trump raise a - praised a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who to this day continues to feed false claims to the president through Rudy Giuliani. If the call was perfect, if these investigations were legitimate, if the White House had nothing to hide, then ask yourselves, why did the White House readout omit any mention of these investigations? Why not publicly confirm that Ukraine had been asked by the president to pursue them? Why? Because it would have exposed the president's corruption.
But sanitizing the call readout wasn't the only step taken to cover up the president's wrongdoing. The White House Counsel's office also took irregular efforts to hide the call record away on a secure server used to store highly-classified information. National Security Council Senior Director Tim Morrison who you saw video clips of, testified that he requested that access to the electronic file of the call record be restricted so that it couldn't leak. Mr. Morrison said the call record did not meet the requirements to be placed on the highly-classified system and Mr. Eisenberg later claimed the call record had been placed on the highly-classified system by mistake. Sure it was a very innocent mistake. However, mistake or no mistake, it remained on that system until at least the third week of September 2019. So that mistake continued from July all the way through September.
Why were they trying to hide what the president did? This was U.S. policy. If they were proud of it, if they were really interested in corruption, if this was about corruption, this had nothing to do with the president's reelection campaign, if Biden was merely an interesting coincidence, why did they bury the record?
Why did they hide the record? Why did they put the record on a system meant for highly classified information which the folks in here on the Intelligence Committee and many others can tell you is usually used for things like covert action operations - the most sensitive secrets. Well this was a very sensitive political secret. This was a covert action of a different kind and character.
This was a corrupt action and it was hidden and they knew it was wrong and that's why they hid it. Innocent people don't behave that way.
Let's go to the ninth reason that you know President Trump put himself first. This is perhaps the clearest reason that we can tell that all President Trump cared about is that President Trump is that President Trump confirmed his desire for these investigations in his statements to his agents and when the scheme was discovered, to the American people.
The very day after he solicited foreign interference to help him cheat in the 2020 election, President Trump spoke with Gordon Sondland who was in Ukraine. President Trump had only one question for Ambassador Sondland. So, he's going to do the investigation. Here is David Holmes recounting the call between President Trump and Sondland.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
HOLMES: I then heard President Trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation. Ambassador Sondland replied that he's going to do it adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do.
(END VIDEO)
SCHIFF: So here we are, this is July 26th. President Zelensky doesn't want to be used as a pawn, doesn't want to be drawn into U.S. politics but at this point he feels he has no choice. Sondland tells David Holmes, he's going to do it. Of course, that's the only thing the president asked about in that call. Sondland says he's going to do it adding that Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do including apparently be his pawn.
Now although Sondland didn't remember the details of this conversation, he did not dispute Holmes' recollection of it. In fact, Ambassador Sondland had an interesting take on it which you should hear.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
SONDLAND: Actually - actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president's concerns.
(END VIDEO)
SCHIFF: Well, that's pretty telling, that in this call the day after he's had this head of state call, they finally got the call arranged between these two presidents and Ambassador Sondland, this major supporter of the president says, I'd have been more surprised if he didn't bring it up." The President doesn't bring up the war with Russia, he doesn't bring up anything else, he just brings this up and Sondland confirms "yeah, frankly, I'd have been surprised if it was any different because we're all in the loop here. Everybody understood what this President wanted and apparently everybody else who understood just how wrong it was, how damaging it was."
In September 2019, even after President Trump learned that his scheme was in danger of becoming publicly exposed, he would not give up. He still expected Ukraine to announce the investigations into Joe Biden and this alleged Ukrainian interference in 2016.
According to three witnesses, President Trump emphasized to Ambassador Sondland during a call on September 7th that President Zelensky quote "should want to do it." And then you have the President's remarks on October 3rd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens and (inaudible)?
TRUMP: Well I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: So here we hear again from the President's own words what his primary object is and his primary object is helping his re-election campaign, help to cheat in his re-election campaign. After all that we've been through, after all that we went through with the Russian interference into our election and all that caused, he was at it again. Unrepentant, undeterred, if anything, emboldened by escaping accountability from his invitation and willful use of Russian-hacked materials in the last election and unconstrained.
This is a President who truly feels that under Article 2, he can do whatever he wants and that includes coercing an ally to help him cheat in an election. And if he's successful, the election is not a remedy for that. A remedy in - in which the President can cheat is no remedy at all, which is why we are here. This was not about corruption, which brings me to number 10 of the 10 reasons you know President Trump put himself first. Ironically, the President has argued that his corrupt conduct and soliciting sham investigations from Ukraine was driven by his concerns about corruption in Ukraine.
This attempt to legitimize his efforts is simply not credible, not the least bit believable, given the mountain of evidence in the record of President Trump's corrupt intent. There is no evidence that President Trump cared one wit about anti-corruption efforts at all. That's the 10th reason you know this was all political.
[16:35:00]
First, the evidence and President Trump's own public statements that make clear that when the President talks about corruption in Ukraine, he's only talking about that sliver, that little sliver of alleged corruption that just somehow happened to be affected by his own political interests, specifically two investigations that would benefit his re-election.
For example, on September 25th at a joint press availability with President Zelensky, the man who doesn't want to be a pawn, at the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump emphasized his understanding of corruption to relate to the Biden investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Now when Biden's son walks away with millions of dollars from Ukraine and he knows nothing and they're paying him millions of dollars, that's corruption.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: I mean, you can imagine how President Zelensky feels sitting there and hearing this, the man who does not want to be a pawn, the man who doesn't want to be pulled into American politics and there is the President at it again, trying to draw his nation in, even while they've got a war to fight.
Another example was on September 30th when President Trump stated ...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Now the new President of Ukraine ran on the basis of no corruption. That's how he got elected. And I believe that he really means it. But there was a lot of corruption having to do with the 2016 election against us and we want to get to the bottom of it and it's very important that we do. Thank you very much.
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: This is, of course, again bringing up the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory. What does the President say? "Corruption against us." He is not concerned about actual corruption cases, only matters that affect him personally.
Two days later, President Trump again tried to link corruption with the Biden investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The only thing that matters is the transcript of the actual conversation that I had with the President of Ukraine. It was perfect. We're looking at congratulations, we're looking at doing things together and what are we looking at? We're looking at corruption.
And in, I believe, 1999, there was a corruption act or a corruption bill passed between both - and signed between both countries, where I have a duty to report corruption. And let me tell you something, Biden's son is corrupt and Biden is corrupt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Just two days after that, the President again equated corruption with actions by others to hurt him politically.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: ... what's OK. If we feel there's corruption, like I feel there was in the 2016 campaign - there was tremendous corruption against me. If we feel there's corruption, we have a right to go to a foreign country ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: So here again, the President is pushing out the Kremlin talking point of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 and the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory. Again, when President Trump is talking about corruption, he's talking about perceived efforts by political opponents to hurt him. It's personal, it's political but it is not anti-corruption policy.
Ambassador Volker confirmed this fact. "Fighting corruption in Ukraine, when used by President Trump and Giuliani, in fact refers to the investigation of the Bidens and 2016." Volker said ...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLKER: In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former President - Vice President Biden ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: So again, although President Trump and Mr. Giuliani had used the general term "corruption" to describe what they want Ukraine to investigate, it wasn't about anything actually related to corruption. The evidence including the President's own statements made clear this is simply code for the specific investigations that President Trump wanted Ukraine to pursue. Second, as we've discussed, the President's timing of his purported concerns about corruption in Ukraine make them all the more suspect. Before news of the Vice President's - Vice President Biden's candidacy broke, President Trump showed no interest in Ukraine. He gave Ukraine hundreds of millions under a regime that lost power because of mounting concerns about corruption.
So here we are. The President in these prior years giving money to a government of Mr. Poroshenko that is viewed as corrupt and Zelensky comes and runs against him, under dog campaign. Under dog campaign of Zelensky, against Poroshenko. And what's the heart of Zelensky's campaign? That Poroshenko's government is corrupt and he's running to clean it up.
[16:40:00]
He's the reformer and he succeeds because the Ukrainian's really want to clean up their government. We see this reformer win and carry the hopes of the Ukrainian people. President Trump had no problem giving money appropriated by Congress to Ukraine under the corrupt regime of Poroshenko or the corrupt that existed during Poroshenko but a reformer gets elected devoted to fighting corruption and suddenly there's a problem. It was a reason to give more support to Ukraine.
They had a president - this was their central pillar of his campaign. He came from outside of the government. People places their hopes in him. You can see President Zelensky trying to flatter the President in that July 25th call by saying, I'm up for draining the swamp too. He ran on a campaign of reform so no problem giving money to the prior regime where there were abundant concerns about corruption but you get a reformer in office and now there's a problem.
Of course we know what changed, emergence of Joe Biden as a candidate. Prior regime, corruption was no problem. Reformer comes into office, suddenly there's a problem. If you need anymore graphic example again you look to that call. No one disputes that Marie Yovanovitch was and is a devoted fighter against corruption. That's her reputation. That was part of the reason they had to get rid of her.
You look at that July 25th call the President is bad mouthing this person fighting corruption. He's praising the former Ukraine prosecutor whose corrupt. Are we (ph) really believe that this is about fighting corruption? No problem supporting a former regime with corruption problems but problems supporting a reformer trying to clean it up. No problems with a corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutor that he praises in that call. That's a good man.
Problems with a US Ambassador's devoted her life to this country. It wasn't until 2019 after Biden emerged as a considerable opponent, after special counsel Mueller confirmed that President Trump's campaign had welcomed Russian assistance in 2016. President Trump, we are to believe, suddenly developed an interest in anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine, never mind that his own Defense Department said they were meeting all the benchmarks.
This new administration, the reformer was doing exactly what we wanted them to do never mind that. Now that Biden's in the picture he's got a problem. And third, when given the opportunity to raise the issue of corruption with Ukrainian's the President never did despite the request of his staff the word corruption never crosses his lips, just the Biden's and crowds strike (ph).
When the President first spoke to President Zelensky on April 21st he was supposed to he was asked to by his staff, bring up corruption. I think, I'd have to go back and check but I think the read out of that call - that congratulatory call actually said that he brought up corruption, am I right? My staff says I'm right. So April 21st he's asked to bring up corruption, the congratulatory call to President Zelensky, great reformer. He doesn't bring it up but you know the read out says that he did.
It was just like the read out of the July 25th call, misleading. Now of course the read out in the second call was for more misleading because there was far more to mislead about but in those two conversations there's an nary (ph) a mention of the word corrupt, a word to believe that apart from the Biden's this is what our President was concerned about in Ukraine.
[16:45:00]
Here's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Colonel Vindman if I could turn your attention to the April 21st call that is the first all between President Trump and President Zelensky. Did you prepare talking points for the President to use during that call?
VINDMAN: Yes I did.
SCHIFF: And did those talking points include rooting out corruption in Ukraine?
VINDMAN: Yes.
SCHIFF: That was something the President was supposed to raise in the conversation with President Zelensky?
VINDMAN: Those were the recommended talking points that were cleared through the NSC staff for the President, yes.
SCHIFF: Did you listen in on that call?
VINDMAN: Yes I did.
SCHIFF: The White House has now released the record of that call. Did President Trump ever mention corruption in the April 21st call?
VINDMAN: To the best of my recollection he did not.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SCHIFF: President Trump also did not mentioned the word corruption on the July 25th call. Here's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman confirming that as well.
Well that actually - that slide is what I was referring to earlier the good work of my staff. This is the read out of the April 21st call, which ends by saying - well it says President Trump spoke today with President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky to congratulate him on his victory in Ukraine's April 21st election. The President wished him success and call the election an important moment in Ukraine's history noting the peaceful and Democratic manner of the electoral process.
President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and expressed his commitment to work together with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strength democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption except that he didn't.
Let's hear Colonel Vindman -- oh, we don't have that? OK, let's not hear Colonel Vindman. We've heard enough from Colonel Vindman.
But President Trump had the ear of President Zelensky during the April 21 and July 25 calls he did not raise that issue, the word corruption a single time. There is ample other evidence as well. White House officials made clear to President Trump that President Zelensky was anticorruption, that President Trump should help him fight corruption.
The president's agencies and departments supported this too, the Defense Department and State Department certified that Ukraine satisfied all anticorruption benchmarks before President Trump froze the aid.
The point is this, the evidence is consistent. It establishes clearly that President Trump did not care about corruption, to the contrary he was pursuing a corrupt aim (ph). He wanted Ukraine to do the exact thing that American policy officials have tried for years to stop foreign governments from doing, corrupt investigations of political rivals.
To sum up, the evidence is unmistakably clear. On July 25 while acting as our nations chief diplomat, and speaking to the leader of Ukraine President Trump solicited foreign interference in the U.S. election for one particular objective -- to benefit his own reelection, to seek help in cheating in a U.S. election, he requested effectively demanded a personal political favor that Ukraine announce two bogus investigations that were only of value to himself.
This was not about foreign policy, in fact it was inconsistent with and diverged from American national security and American values. His own officials knew this and they reported it. Ukraine knew this and his own White House attempted to bury the call.
The president has confirmed what he wanted in his own words, he has made it clear he didn't care about corruption -- he cared only about himself. Now it is up to us to do something about it. To make sure that a president -- that this president cannot pursue an objective that places himself above our country.
[16:50:00]
LOFGREN: We've gone through the object of President Trump's scheme getting Ukraine to announce the investigations would be held, that that would help him cheat and gain an advantage in the 2020 election. Those sham investigations were to advance his personal political interests, not the national interests of America.
So let's drill down on how. How the president abused the power of his office and executed his corrupt scheme. As noted earlier the president executed his scheme through three official actions.
First by soliciting foreign election interference, second by conditioning an official Oval Office meeting on Ukraine doing -- or at least announcing the political investigations, and third by withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine to announce those investigations.
All three of President Trump's official actions were an abuse of his power as president, and done for personal gain. But the original (ph) abuse was President Trump's solicitation of election interference from a foreign country, Ukraine. He tried to get an announcement of investigations designed to help him in the 2020 presidential election, so let's start there.
President Trump's corrupt demands of President Zelensky in the July 25 phone call were not just a spontaneous outburst, they were a dramatic crescendo in a months long scheme to extort Ukraine in to assisting his 2020 reelection campaign. As was shown there's evidence of President Trump himself demanding that Ukraine conduct the investigations.
But President Trump also delegated his authority to his political agent, Rudy Giuliani to oversee and direct this scheme and that was beginning in late 2018 and early 2019, and here's how that scheme worked.
First in January of 2019 Mr. Giuliani and his associates discussed the investigations with the then-current and former prosecutor generals of Ukraine. As we discussed, both were corrupt. Then in late April 2019 the scheme hit a roadblock, the reform candidate Zelensky, he won the Ukrainian presidential election.
The fear was the that President Elect Zelensky would replace the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Giuliani had been dealing with. President Trump removed Ambassador Yovanovitch because his agents including Giuliani believed she was another roadblock to the corrupt scheme they were undertaking in (ph) his behalf.
In her place, President Trump -- he directed a team of handpicked political appointees, U.S. officials who were supposed to work in the public interest to instead work with Mr. Giuliani to advance the president's personal interests. Those were the three amigos.
As Ambassador Sondland said, those U.S. officials "followed the president's orders." But even with Ambassador Yovanovitch gone, President Zelensky still resisted Mr. Giuliani's overtures. So Giuliani at the president's direction throughout May and June, he ratcheted up public pressure on Ukraine to announce the investigations. No luck.
[16:55:00]
It was only then, when Mr. Giuliani could not get the deal done, that President Trump turned to the second official action using the Oval Office meeting to pressure Ukraine.
Before we turn to the scheme for soliciting foreign election interference, we need to understand how Mr. Giuliani, the president's private agent assumed a leadership role in this scheme that applied escalating pressure on Ukraine to announce investigations helpful to the president's political interest, why is that so important?
First let's be clear: Mr. Giuliani is President Trump's personal lawyer. He represented President Trump with his knowledge and consent. The evidence shows Mr. Giuliani and President Trump were in constant contact in this time period. Both U.S. and Ukrainian officials knew Mr. Giuliani was the key to Ukraine.
Let's review the president's use of Mr. Giuliani to advance his scheme. First, no one disputes that Mr. Giuliani was and is President Trumps personal lawyer. President Trump has said this, Mr. Giuliani says it, we all know it's true.
Second. President Trump at all times directed and knew about Mr. Giuliani's actions. How do we know this. Let's start with a letter signed by Giuliani to President Zelensky. And here is that letter.
On May 10, 2019 Mr. Giuliani wrote to a foreign leader, president elect Zelensky. The letter reads and I quote, in my capacity as a personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, Rudy Giuliani, not a government official, to speak about President Trump's specific request.
And he makes it clear it was in his role as the President's counsel. Now, Mr. Giuliani didn't just tell the foreign leader that, he also told the press. The day before Mr. Giuliani's letter to Zelensky, The New York Times published an article about Mr. Giuliani's upcoming trip to Ukraine.
And here is the slide about that article. It said, and I quote, Rudy Giuliani plans Ukraine trip to push for inquiries that could help Trump. Mr. Giuliani said his trip was to press Ukraine to initiate investigations into false allegations against the Bidens and the 2016 election and that it was at the request of the president.
He stated that President Trump, and I quote, basically knows what I'm doing, sure, as his lawyer. President Trump repeatedly admitted knowledge of Mr. Giuliani's activities and to coordinating with him about the Ukrainian activities.
Politico reported on May 11, 2019 and I quote, in a telephone interview with Politico on Friday, Trump said he didn't know much about Giuliani's planned trip to Ukraine but wanted to speak with him about it.
I've not -- and this is the quote of the president -- I've not spoken to him in any great length but I will, Trump said in the interview, I will speak to him about it before he leaves. President Trump knew and directed Mr. Giuliani's activities in May 2019 when Mr. Giuliani was planning his visit to Kiev.
And that remains true today. The Wall Street Journal reported that when Rudy Giuliani returned from a trip to Kiev just last month, quote, the president called him as the plan was still taxing down the runway. President Trump asked his lawyers, quote, what did you get.
Giuliani answered, more than you can imagine. Even as President Trump faced impeachment in the House of Representatives, he was coordinating with his personal attorney on the Ukraine scheme.
The president asked Rudy what did you get. The evidence also shows Mr. Giuliani and the president were in frequent contact during the investigation and in response to a lawful subpoena, the House got call records.
They show contacts, not -- not content between Giuliani, the White House, and other people involved in the president's scheme. For example, on April 23rd Rudy Giuliani learned President Trump had decided to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch.
On that day, according to phone records, Giuliani had an eight minute and 28 second call with a White House number. Let's look at what happened the next day on April 24th. Giuliani was again in repeated contact with the White House.
[17:00:00]
