Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

The Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump; Ex White House Chief of Staff John Kelly: Without Witnesses Trial is "A Job Only Half Done" & Senate "Shirks Its Responsibilities"; Legal Teams Debate Ahead of Critical Vote on Witnesses. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired January 31, 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] CROW: -- was asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden.

Dr. Hill also testified that Ambassador Bolton was so concerned, he told Dr. Hill and other members of the NSC staff, quote, "Nobody should be meeting with Giuliani," end quote. And that was, quote, "closely monitoring what Mr. Giuliani was doing and the messaging that he was sending out," end quote.

So let's ask Ambassador Bolton. If Mr. Giuliani wasn't doing anything wrong, why were you so concerned about his behavior that you directed your staff to have no part in this? If Mr. Giuliani wasn't trying to dig up dirt on Biden, why did you seem to think he was -- that he could, quote, "blow everything up"?

Fourth, the president has said that there was nothing wrong with the July 25th call. But once again, the evidence suggests that Ambassador Bolton would testify that the opposite is true. According to witness testimony, Ambassador Bolton expressed concerns even before the call that it would be, quote, "a disaster," because he thought there would be, quote, "talk of investigations or worse."

Now, if the president would have you believe that the call was perfect, as he's repeatedly stated, why don't we find out? Because all of the evidence before you suggests otherwise.

And Ukraine knows this is not the case, the call was not perfect. Danylyuk is clear on this point. He said, quote, "One thing I can tell you that was clear from this July 25th call is that the issue of the investigations is an issue of concern for Trump," end quote.

It was clear. But if there's still any uncertainty, we must ask Ambassador Bolton. If there was no scheme, how did you know President Trump would raise investigations on the call? What made you so concerned a call would be a disaster?

Fifth, the president's main defense, once again, is that he withheld the military aid for a legitimate reason. But the evidence doesn't support that. We've heard a lot, the evidence doesn't support that. Witness testimony, e-mails and other documents confirm that Ambassador Bolton and his subordinates, on many occasions including through in- person meetings with the president himself, urged the president that there was no legitimate reason to withhold the aid. But if you're not sure, if you think this could in any way have been about a legitimate policy reason, let's ask the national security advisor, who was in charge of that. If this was simply a policy dispute, as the president argues, let's ask John Bolton whether that's true.

The president also argues that you cannot evaluate the president's subjective intent, that the president can use his power any way he feels is appropriate. That's, of course, not the case. Whether his intent was corrupt is a central part of this case, as it is in nearly every criminal case in the country.

As a backup (ph) argument, however, the president claims that -- that, you know, we want you to read the president's mind. Juries, of course, are routinely -- oh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEKULOW: This entire impeachment process is about the House managers' insistence that they are able to read everybody's thoughts, they can read everybody's intention, they think you can read minds.

PHILBIN: ... they want to tell you what President Trump thought.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROW: Of course, I routinely asked to determine the defendant's state of mind. That's central to almost every criminal case in the country. And it's disingenuous for the President's counsel to argue that the defendant's state of mind is unknowable, that it requires a mind reader or is anything but the most common element of proof of any crime, constitutional or otherwise.

But if you want more information, let's ask the President whether John Bolton can help fill in any gaps about his state of mind.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If you think about it, John, he knows some of my thoughts, he knows what I think about leaders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROW: Case is about the President's conduct in Ukraine. John Bolton knows a lot about that. Let's hear from him. A fair trial demands it. And it's more than just ensuring a fair trial, it's about remembering that in America, truth matters.

As Mr. Bolton said on January 30th, quote "the idea that somehow testifying to what you think is true is destructive to the system of government we have I think is very nearly the reverse, the exact reverse of the truth," end quote.

[14:05:00]

House Manager Schiff started this out. The truth continues to come out. Again, in an article today, more information. The truth will come out and it's continuing to. The question here before this body is what do you want your place in history to be?

Do you want your place in history to be "let's hear the truth" or "that we don't want to hear it"?

JEFFRIES: Given our time constraints, we will now summarize the reasons why Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Duffey and Mr. Blair are also important. Let's turn first to Mr. Mulvaney. To begin with, Mr. Mulvaney participated in meetings and discussions with President Trump at every single stage of this scheme.

We just talked about motives and intent. Well if you want further insight into the President's motives or intent, further direct evidence of why he withheld the military aid and the White House meeting, you should call his Acting Chief of Staff, who had more access than anyone.

Mr. Mulvaney is important because the President's counsel continues to argue incorrectly that our evidence is just hearsay and speculation. Faced with Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Holmes saying this was all as clear as 2+2=4, the President says they are just guessing.

That is simply not true. The evidence is direct, the evidence is compelling and confirmed by many witnesses, corroborated by text messages, e-mails and phone records. But if you want more evidence, if you want another firsthand account for why the aid was withheld, for the undisputed quid pro quo, for that White House meeting, let's just hear from Mick Mulvaney.

Over and over again, Ambassador Sondland described to multiple witnesses how Mr. Mulvaney was directly involved in the President's scheme. Here's some of that testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: And so when I came in, Gordon Sondland was basically saying "well look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. I have a deal here with - with Chief of Staff Mulvaney there will be a meeting if the Ukrainians open up or announce these investigations in - into 2016 and Burisma" and I cut it off immediately there.

Ambassador Bolton told me that I am not part of the - this whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.

(UNKNOWN): And what did you understand it to mean by the drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?

HILL: I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.

(UNKNOWN): Did you go speak to the lawyers?

HILL: I certainly did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: What I want to ask you about is he makes reference in that drug deal to a drug deal cooked up by you and Mulvaney. It's the reference to Mulvaney that I want to ask you about. You've testified - and - that Mulvaney was aware of this quid pro quo, of this condition that the Ukrainians had to meet, that is announcing these public investigations to get the White House meeting. Is that right?

SONDLAND: Yeah, a lot of people were aware of it and ...

SCHIFF: Including - including Mr. Mulvaney?

SONDLAND: Correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFRIES: Remarkably, the President is still denying the facts, even as they argue that if it's true, it's still not impeachable. But if the President did nothing wrong, if he held up the aid because of so- called corruption or burden sharing reasons, he should want his Chief of Staff to come testify under oath before this distinguished body and say just that.

Why doesn't he want Mulvaney to appear before the United States Senate? Well, we know the answer - because Mr. Mulvaney will confirm the corrupt shakedown scheme, because Mr. Mulvaney was in the loop. Everyone was in the loop.

[14:10:00]

As Ambassador Sondland summarized in his testimony on July 19th, he e- mailed several top administration officials, including Mr. Mulvaney, that President Zelensky was prepared to receive POTUS's call and would ensure President Trump that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone.

Mr. Mulvaney replied "I asked NSC to set it up for tomorrow." The above e-mail seems clear, Ambassador Sondland testified that it was clear, that he was confirming to Mr. Mulvaney that he had told President Zelensky he had to tell President Trump on that July 25th call that he would announce the investigation, which he explained was a reference to one of the two phony political investigations that President Trump wanted.

And Mr. Mulvaney replies that he'll set up the meeting, consistent with the agreement that Sondland explained he reached with Mr. Mulvaney to condition a meeting on the investigations. But if there's any uncertainty, if there's any lingering questions about what this means, let's just question Mick Mulvaney under oath.

Mr. Mulvaney also matters because we have heard several questions from this distinguished body of senators wanting to understand when, or why, or how the president ordered the hold on the security aid. As the Head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Mulvaney has unique insights into all of these questions, your questions. Remember that e-mail exchange between Mr. Mulvaney and his deputy, Rob Blair, on June 27th, when Mulvaney asked Blair about whether they could implement the hold and Blair responded that it could be done but that Congress would become unhinged? It wasn't just Congress. It was the independent Government Accountability Office that determined that the president's hold violated the law.

But if the president's counsel is going to argue -- without evidence -- that he withheld the aid as part of U.S. foreign policy, seems to make sense that the Senate should hear directly from Mr. Mulvaney, who has firsthand knowledge of exactly these facts. He said so himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULVANEY: Again, I was -- I was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFRIES: Why doesn't President Trump want Mick Mulvaney to testify? Why? Perhaps, here's why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULVANEY: Did he also mention to me in the past the -- the -- the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it and that's why we held up the money.

Now, there was a report...

QUESTION: So the -- so -- so the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he...

(CROSSTALK)

MULVANEY: It was...

QUESTION: ... ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: ... The -- the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding -- in withholding the funds (ph)?

But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: funding will not, flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do -- we do that all that time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for -- what was it -- the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid in the Northern Triangle countries so that they -- so that they would change their policies on immigration.

By the way, and speaks to -- this speaks to an important -- I'm sorry? This speaks to an important point because -- I heard this yesterday and I can never remember the gentleman who -- was it McKinney (sic)? The guy -- was that his name? I don't know him. He testified yesterday.

And if you go -- and if you believe the news reports, OK, because we've not seen any transcripts of this. The only transcript I've seen was Sondland's testimony early morning (ph) -- this morning. If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney (sic) say yesterday?

Well, McKinney (sic) said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this.

And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy.

What about the Biden...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:15:00]

JEFFRIES: Is that what the Constitution requires, "Get over it"? Is that good enough for this body, the world's greatest deliberative body, "Get over it"?

The president's counsel can try to emphasize Mr. Mulvaney and his attorneys' efforts to walk back his statement. But as you've seen with your own eyes, the statement was unequivocal. And even when given the chance in real-time, on that day, on October 17th, to deny a quid pro quo, he doubled down. "Get over it," he said.

But if you have any questions about what the real answer is, where the truth lies, there's only one way to find out. Let's all just question Mr. Mulvaney under oath during a Senate trial. After all, counsel said that cross-examination was the greatest vehicle in the history of American jurisprudence ever invented to ascertain the truth. Your standard.

Finally, I'd like to touch briefly on the importance of Mr. Blair and Mr. Duffy to this case. The president's lawyers have argued that withholding foreign aid is entirely within his right as commander in chief, that this was a normal, ordinary decision and that this is all just one big policy disagreement.

We have proven exactly the opposite. This can't be a policy disagreement because the president's hold actually went against U.S. policy.

The hold was undertaken outside of the normal channels by a president who, they admit, was not conducting policy. The hold was concealed not only from Congress but from the president's own officials responsible for Ukraine Policy. And most importantly, the hold violated the law.

The president has the right to make policy, but he does not have the right to break the law and coerce an ally into helping him cheat in our free and fair elections. And he doesn't have a right to use hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds as leverage to get political dirt on an American citizen who happens to be his political opponent.

But if you remain unsure about all of this, who better to ask than Mr. Blair or Mr. Duffy? They oversaw and executed the process of withholding the aid. The can tell us exactly how unrelated to business as usual this whole shakedown scheme was when it was underway. They can testify about why the aid was withheld and whether there was any legitimate explanation for withholding it. Some of you have asked that very question.

Multiple officials -- including Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Taylor, David Holmes, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Jennifer Williams and Mark Sandy -- all testified that they were never given a credible explanation for the hold.

So let's ask Mr. Blair, let's ask Mr. Duffy. If this happens all the time -- as Mick Mulvaney suggests -- why at this time, in connection with this scheme are all of those witnesses left in the dark? Despite the president's refusal to produce a single document, to produce a shred of information in this impeachment inquiry undertaken in the House, his administration did produce 192 pages of Ukraine-related email records in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, albeit in heavily-redacted form. These documents confirm Mr. Duffey's central role in executing the hold. He's on nearly every single email released, nearly every single email.

[14:20:00]

Here's an important email from that production: Just 90 minutes after the July 25th call Mr. Duffey emailed officials at the Department of Defense that they should hold off on any additional DOD obligations of these funds. Mr. Duffey added that the request was sensitive, and that they should keep this information closely held. The timing is important because if the aid wasn't linked to the July 25th call, if it wasn't related, why the sensitive closely-held request made within two hours of that call? Let's just ask Mr. Duffey.

Mr. Duffey and Mr. Blair can testify about the concerns raised by DOD to the Office of Management and Budget about the illegality of the hold and why it remained in place even after DOD warned the administration that it would violate the Impoundment Control Act.

Now, the president, of course, has disputed this fact, but we have demonstrated that OMB was warned repeatedly by DOD officials of two things: first, continuing to withhold the aid would prevent the Department of Defense from spending the money before the end of the fiscal year; and second, the hold was potentially illegal, as turned out to be the case.

By August 9th DOD told Mr. Duffey directly that DOD, the Department of Defense, could no longer support the Office of Management and Budget's claims that the hold would not preclude timely execution of the aid for Ukraine, our vulnerable ally at war with Russian-backed separatists. Yet, as Mr. Duffey reportedly told Ms. McCuster (sic) at the Department of Defense on August 30th, there was a clear direction from POTUS to continue the hold -- clear direction from the president of the United States to continue the hold.

So how did Mr. Duffey understand the clear direction to continue the hold? Why is the president claiming that this wasn't unlawful when DOD, the Department of Defense, repeatedly warned his administration that it was? Wouldn't we all like to ask Mr. Duffey these questions?

Finally, here's another reason why we know this was not business as usual: On July 29th, Mr. Duffey, a political appointee with zero relevant experience abruptly seized responsibility for withholding the aid from Mark Sandy, a career Office of Management and Budget official -- seized the responsibility from a career official. Mr. Duffey provided no credible explanation for that decision. Mr. Sandy testified that nothing like that had ever happened in his entire governmental career.

Let's think about that. If this is as routine as the president claims, why is a career official saying he's never seen anything like this happen before? Mr. Duffey knows why. Shouldn't we just take the time to ask him?

[14:25:00]

The American people deserve a fair trial. The Constitution deserves a fair trial. The president deserves a fair trial. A fair trial means witnesses. A fair trial means documents. A fair trial means evidence. No one is above the law.

And now, I yield to my distinguished colleague, Manager Lofgren.

LOFGREN: Mr. Chief Justice and senators, it's not just about hearing from witnesses. You need documents. The documents don't lie. There are specific documents relevant to -- to this impeachment trial in the custody of the White House, OMB, DOD and the State Department, and the president has hidden them from us. I'm not going to go through each category again in detail, but here are some observations.

This is, of course, an impeachment case against the president of the United States. Nothing could be more important, and the most important documents, documents that go directly to who knew what when are being held by the executive branch. Many of these records are at the White House. The White House has records about the phone calls with President Zelensky, about scheduling an Oval Office meeting with President Zelensky, about the president's decision to hold security assistance, about communications among his top aides, about concerns raised by public officials with legal counsel. We've heard about Ambassador Bolton's handwritten notes and book manuscript, and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's presidential policy memorandum. We know of reports about a number of emails in early August trying to create after-the-fact justifications for the hold, but we haven't seen any of them. They're at the White House being hidden by the president. I think it's a cover-up.

Documents at the State Department, records about the recall of Ambassador Yovanovitch, about Mr. Giuliani's efforts for the president, about concerns raised about the hold, about the Ukrainian reaction to the hold and when exactly they learned about it, about negotiations with the Ukrainians for an oval office meeting.

We know of Ambassador Taylor's first-person cable and notes and Mr. Kent's memos to file. We know about Mr. Sondland's e-mails with Pompeo, and Brechbuhl, and Mulvaney, and Perry, but we've haven't seen them. They're sitting at the State Department.

DOD and OMB also have records. Records about President Trump's hold on military aid to Ukraine, about the justification for the hold, about hiding the hold from Congress and trying to justify the hold after the fact, and about why the hold was lifted. But we haven't seen them; they're at DOD and OMB.

Why haven't we seen them? Because the president directed all of his agencies not to produce them.

This trial should not reward the president's, really, unprecedented obstruction by allowing him to control what evidence you see and what will remain hidden. You should ask for these documents on behalf of the American people and you should ask for these documents to get the truth yourself.

Now, let's come back to the issue of delay, since the president's lawyers have suggested that havening witnesses and documents would make this trial take too long.

There will be lengthy court battles, they say. The president might even invoke executive privilege for the very first time in this entire impeachment process. It would be better, we're told, to skip straight to the final verdict, to break from centuries of precedent and end this trial without hearing from a single witness, without reviewing a single document that the president ordered hidden.

Respectfully, that shouldn't happen. House managers aren't interested in delaying these proceedings. We're interested in the full truth, in a trial that is fair to the parties and to the American people and the facts that the president's counsel agrees are so critical to this trial.

It's why we've said we won't go to court. We'll follow all the rulings of the chief justice. We can get the witness depositions done in a week. In fact, I know we can because if you, the senators, order it, that's the law.

[14:30:00]