January 22, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 13 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S471-S485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, we will now take a 30-
minute break for dinner and reconvene at 5 minutes after 7:00.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until that 
time.
  There being no objection, at 6:35 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a 
Court of Impeachment, recessed until 7:20 p.m.; whereupon the Senate 
reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. Schiff.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, just so Senators have an idea 
of the evening, we expect to go about 2 to 2\1/2\ hours. I will make a 
presentation. Representative Lofgren from California will make a 
presentation. I will make a final presentation, and then we will be 
done for the evening. As an encouraging voice told me: Keep it up, but 
don't keep it up too long. So we will do our best not to keep it up too 
long.
  I am going to turn now to the part of the chronology that picks up 
right after that July 25 call and walk through the increasingly 
explicit pressure campaign waged on Ukraine in order to get President 
Trump's deliverable--the investigations meant to tarnish his opponent 
and help his reelection.
  Now remember, by the end of July, Ukraine was aware of President 
Trump's requests for investigation to help his political efforts and 
had come to know that President Trump put a freeze on security 
assistance. So this is by the end of July. They also clearly understood 
that President Trump was withholding an Oval Office meeting until those 
investigations were announced. Both were very critical to Ukraine as a 
sign of U.S. support and as a matter of their national security, and 
their national security, of course, implicates our national security.
  In the weeks after the July 25 call, President Trump's handpicked 
representatives escalated their efforts to get the public announcement 
of the investigations from Ukraine.
  So let's go through this step by step, because the 3 weeks following 
the July 25 call tell so much about this pressure scheme.
  Let's start with July 26. On July 26--so this is the day after the 
call--Ambassador Volker sends a text message to Giuliani, and that text 
message says:

       Hi, Mr. Mayor. You may have heard, the President had a 
     great call with the Ukrainian President yesterday. Exactly 
     the right messages as we discussed. Please send dates when 
     you will be in Madrid. I am seeing Yermak tomorrow morning. 
     He will come to you in Madrid. Thanks for your help. Kurt.

  So here we are the day after that call, as my colleague 
demonstrates--this same day, so July 26, and the date of that second 
infamous call between President Trump this time and Gordon Sondland 
that you heard the diplomat, David Holmes, describe. So that is the 
same day, July 26, that we are talking about right now, where there is 
this text message.
  Now, of course, in that July 25 call, the President wants to connect 
Rudy Giuliani with the President of Ukraine and his people. So this is 
a followup where Ambassador Volker is saying to Giuliani:

       [It was] a great call with the Ukraine President. Exactly 
     the right messages as we discussed.

  And we know, of course, those messages were the need to do this 
political investigation.

       Please send dates when you will be in Madrid. I am seeing 
     Yermak tomorrow morning. He will come to you in Madrid.

  So here is Ambassador Volker, one of the three amigos, following up, 
arranging this meeting between Giuliani and the Ukrainians. Giuliani 
replied, setting a meeting in Europe with President Zelensky's top aide 
for the very next week:
  ``I will arrive on August 1 and until 5,'' he wrote. Now remember, on 
July 22--so a few days before this and before the call--Ambassador 
Volker had connected Giuliani originally with Yermak, and they agreed 
to meet. So this is a followup. You have that arrangement being made by 
Volker and Giuliani before the call. Then, you have the call, and now 
you have the followup to arrange the meeting in Madrid.
  So they do meet in Madrid. This is August 2. Andriy Yermak, 
Zelensky's top aide, flew to Madrid. He meets with Rudy Giuliani, who 
they know represented the President's interests. Both Giuliani and 
Yermak walk away from this meeting in Madrid clearly understanding that 
a White House meeting is linked to Zelensky's announcement of the 
investigations.
  In separate conversations with Giuliani and Yermak after this Madrid 
meeting, Volker said he learned that Giuliani wanted the Ukrainians to 
issue a statement including specific mentions of the two investigations 
that the President wanted. According to Ambassador Volker's testimony, 
Yermak told him that his meeting with Giuliani was very good and 
immediately added that the Ukrainians asked for a White House meeting 
during the week of December 16.
  Yermak presses Volker on the White House meeting date, saying that he 
was waiting for confirmation: ``Maybe you know the date.'' This is a 
recurrent theme that we have seen through the text messages and other 
documents, and that is the recurrent requests for

[[Page S472]]

this meeting, the pressing for this meeting by the Ukrainians because 
it was so important to them. Giuliani's objective was clear to 
Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, who took over the communications with 
Yermak.
  Here is Ambassador Sondland.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. SONDLAND. I first communicated with Mr. Giuliani in 
     early August, several months later. Mr. Giuliani emphasized 
     that the President wanted a public statement from President 
     Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into the corruption 
     issues. Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 
     election, including the DNC server, and Burisma as two topics 
     of importance to the President.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Giuliani exerted significant influence in this 
process. In fact, when on August 4 Yermak inquired again about the 
Presidential meeting, Ambassador Volker turned not to the National 
Security Council staff or to the State Department to arrange it and 
follow up. He turned to Giuliani again. Volker told Yermak that he 
would speak with Giuliani later that day and would call the Ukrainian 
President's aide afterward.
  Volker then texts Giuliani to ask about the Madrid meeting and to set 
up the call that he had mentioned to Yermak. Giuliani replies that the 
meeting with Yermak was excellent and that he would call later. Phone 
records obtained by the committees show a 16-minute call on August 5 
between Ambassador Volker and Giuliani. Ambassador Volker then texts 
Yermak:

       Hi, Andriy. Had a good, long talk with Rudy. Call anytime. 
     Kurt.

  Separately, Volker told Ambassador Sondland: ``Giuliani was happy 
with that meeting and it looks like things are turning around''--a 
reference to Volker's hope that satisfying Giuliani would break down 
President Trump's reservations concerning Ukraine.
  But things had not turned around by the end of that first week of 
August, by August 7. The aid was still on hold, and there had been no 
movement on setting a date for the White House meeting.
  Ambassador Volker then reaches out to Giuliani to try to get things 
moving. Ambassador Volker texts Giuliani to recommend that he report to 
``the boss,'' meaning President Trump, about his meeting with Yermak in 
Madrid. Specifically, he wrote--this is Volker writing to Giuliani:

       Hi, Rudy. Hope you made it back safely. Let's meet if you 
     are coming to DC. It would be good if you could convey 
     results of your meeting in Madrid to the boss so we can get a 
     firm date for the visit.

  So this is Ambassador Volker following up with Giuliani. Giuliani has 
met with the top aide to the President of Ukraine in Madrid. He wants 
Giuliani to convey to the boss--to Trump--how good that meeting in 
Madrid was about the investigations so they can get the President of 
Ukraine in the door at the White House.
  Now, think about how unusual this is. This is the President's 
personal lawyer, who is on this personal mission on behalf of his 
client to get these investigations in Ukraine. The President of Ukraine 
can't get in the door of the Oval Office. And who are they going to? 
Are they going to the Security Council? No. Are they going to the State 
Department? No. They tried all that. They are going to the President's 
personal lawyer. Does that sound like an official policy to try to 
fight corruption?
  Why would you go outside of the normal channel to do that? You 
wouldn't. You would go to your personal attorney, who is on a personal 
mission that he admits is not foreign policy, when your objective has 
nothing to do with policy, when your objective is a corrupt one.
  What does that mean, to have a corrupt objective? It means an illicit 
one. It means an impermissible one. It means one that furthers your own 
interests at the cost of the national interests--the willingness to 
break the law, like the Impoundment Control Act, by withholding aid is 
indicative of that corrupt purpose, the lengths the President would go, 
not in furtherance of U.S. policy but against U.S. policy, not even a 
difference on policy at all.
  The mere pursuit of personal interest, the pursuit of an illegal 
effort to get foreign interference, is the very embodiment of a corrupt 
intent.
  Here we are, August 7. Volker is saying: Rudy, if you are coming to 
DC, let's get together. It would be good if you can talk to the boss 
because we can't get a meeting another way.
  Around that time, Ambassador Volker received a text message from 
Yermak, who asked him--and this is Yermak asking Volker:

       Hi Kurt. How are you? Do you have some news about White 
     House meeting date?

  Volker responds:

       Not yet--I texted Rudy earlier to make sure he weighs in 
     following your meeting. Gordon--

  Meaning Sondland.

     should be speaking with the president on Friday. We are 
     pressing this.

  There is Gordon Sondland, who is ``pressing this.'' This is the man 
you have heard from already--Gordon Sondland, the man who says: It was 
absolutely a quid pro quo. You have asked about a quid pro quo. There 
was a quid pro quo about this White House meeting.
  This is what they are talking about right here. Gordon will be 
``speaking with the president on Friday. We are pressing this.''
  Ambassador Volker's contact with Giuliani spurred a flurry of 
communications. The patterns of calls from August 8 strongly suggest 
Giuliani was attempting to call the White House to speak to a senior 
White House official, left a message, then had a 4-minute call with 
that official later that night.
  We don't know from the call records who that White House official 
was, but recall that Giuliani has publicly stated that when he spoke to 
the White House, he usually spoke to President Trump, his client.
  Also, on August 8, Yermak texts Volker that he had some news. 
Ambassador Volker replies that he can talk then, and Ambassador Volker 
updates Giuliani in a text the next day.
  Volker says to Giuliani in the text:

       Hi Mr. Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He 
     was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned--

  He is referring to President Zelensky here.

     making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure 
     I advise--

  Here he is referring to President Zelensky.

     correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure 
     we get this done right.

  Here, August 9, there is an effort by Volker to make sure to get this 
statement right about the investigations. If they can't get the 
statement right, you aren't going to get in the door of the Oval 
Office.
  It also makes clear who is exactly in charge of this, and that is 
Rudy Giuliani. Ambassador Volker is checking with Rudy Giuliani about 
what he should advise President Zelensky. We know that Giuliani is 
taking his orders from President Trump.
  Text messages and call records obtained by the committees show that 
Ambassador Volker and Giuliani connected by phone twice around noon on 
August 9 for several minutes each.
  Following the calls with Giuliani, Ambassador Volker created a three-
way group chat using WhatsApp and included himself, Ambassador 
Sondland, and Yermak. Ambassador Volker initiated the chat a round 2:20 
that day. This is Volker chatting with Sondland and Yermak. It is a 
three-way chat.
  Volker says:

       Hi, Andrey--

  Meaning Yermak.

       We have all consulted here, including with Rudy. Can you do 
     a call later today or tomorrow your afternoon time?

  Sondland says:

       I have a call [scheduled] at 3 pm Eastern for the three of 
     us. Ops will call.

  Call records obtained by the committees show that on August 9 
Ambassador Sondland twice connected with phone lines associated with 
the White House--once in the early afternoon for about 18 minutes and 
once in the late afternoon for about 2 minutes. We know that Ambassador 
Sondland had direct access to President Trump.
  After all this activity, Ambassador Sondland and Volker thought they 
had a breakthrough--finally, a breakthrough. Minutes after this call, 
which was likely with Tim Morrison about a possible date for the White 
House meeting, Ambassador Volker and Sondland discussed the agreement 
they believed they had reached and started with Sondland in this text 
message:

       Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms.


[[Page S473]]


  Volker says:

       Excellent!! How did you sway him?

  Sondland says:

       Not sure I did. I think potus really wants the deliverable.

  We know what that ``deliverable'' is. It is the political 
investigations.
  Volker says:

       But does he know that?

  And Sondland says:

       Yep. Clearly lots of convos--

  Meaning conversations.

     going on.

  Volker says:

       OK--then that's good it's coming from two separate sources.

  Ambassador Sondland told the committees that the deliverable required 
by President Trump was a press statement from President Zelensky 
committing to do the investigations into the Bidens and the allegation 
of Ukraine election interference that President Trump mentioned on July 
25. But Tim Morrison testified that he didn't know anything about the 
deliverable; he was just involved in trying to schedule the White House 
meeting, which everyone wanted to schedule as a sign of support for 
President Zelensky and our ally Ukraine. But Trump's agents wouldn't 
just accept Ukraine's word for it.
  Ambassador Sondland then recommended to Ambassador Volker that Yermak 
share a draft of the press statement to ensure that the statement would 
comport with the President's expectations.
  Here, on August 9--we are still less than 2 weeks after the July 25 
call; I guess we are about 2 weeks--Sondland says in this message:

       To avoid misunderstandings, might be helpful to ask Andrey 
     for a draft statement (embargoed) so that we can see exactly 
     what they propose to cover. Even though Ze--

  Referring to Zelensky.

     does a [live] presser they can still summarize in a brief 
     statement. Thoughts?

  And Volker says:

       Agree!

  At his deposition, Ambassador Sondland said that he suggested 
reviewing a written summary of the statement because he was concerned 
that President Zelensky would say whatever he would say on live 
television, and it still wouldn't be good enough for Rudy/the 
President.
  Yermak, in turn, was concerned that the announcement would still not 
result in the coveted White House meeting. On August 10, Yermak texted 
Volker, attempting to schedule a White House meeting before the 
Ukrainian President made a public statement in support of the 
investigations into Burisma and the 2016 election.
  You can see what is going on here. The President and his agent, 
Giuliani, want this public statement of the investigations before they 
will give a date. And the Ukrainians want a date before they have to 
commit to making public they are going to do the investigations.
  So you have had this standoff where each is trying to get the 
deliverable first, but there is no debate about what the deliverable is 
on either side. There is no debate about the quid pro quo here: You 
give me this; I will give you that. You give me the White House 
meeting; I will give you the public announcement of the investigation 
into your political rival.
  No, no, no. You give me the announcement of the investigation into my 
rival, and then I will give you the meeting.
  The only debate here is about which comes first.
  August 10, Yermak texts Volker:

       I think it's possible to make this declaration and mention 
     all these things. Which we discussed yesterday. But it will 
     be logic to do after we receive a confirmation of date. We 
     inform about date of visit about our expectations and our 
     guarantees for future visit. Let discuss it.

  Ambassador Volker responded that he agreed but that first they would 
have to iron out a statement and use that to get a date, after which 
President Zelensky would give the statement. The two decided to have a 
call the next day and to include Ambassador Sondland.
  Yermak texts Ambassador Volker:

       Excellent.
       Once we have a date, will call for a press briefing, 
     announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot 
     of the US-UKRAINE relationship, including, among other 
     things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.

  Yermak was also in direct contact with Ambassador Sondland regarding 
this revised approach. In fact, he sent Ambassador Sondland the same 
text message.
  Ambassador Sondland kept the leadership of the State Department in 
the loop. On August 10, he told Ambassador Volker that he had reported 
to T. Ulrich Breckbull, Counselor of the Department of State, who, 
Sondland testified, frequently consulted with Secretary Pompeo.
  Sondland wrote to Volker: I briefed Ulrich. All good. So Ulrich is in 
the loop.
  Sondland and Volker continued to pursue the statement from Zelensky 
on the investigations. The next day, Ambassador Sondland emails 
Breckbull and Lisa Kenna, the State Department's Executive Secretary, 
about efforts to secure a public statement and a big presser from 
President Zelensky.
  Sondland hoped it might ``make the boss happy enough to authorize an 
invitation.''
  After first being evasive on the topic, Secretary Pompeo has 
subsequently acknowledged that he listened in on the July 25 call.
  Since he was on the call, Pompeo must have understood what would make 
the boss--that is, the President--happy enough to schedule a White 
House meeting.
  Again, everyone was in the loop. On August 11, Ambassador Volker sent 
Giuliani a text message. This is Volker to Giuliani:

       Hi Rudy--we have heard bCk [sic] from Andrey again--they 
     are writing the statement now and will send it to us. Can you 
     talk for 5 min before noon today?

  And Giuliani says:

       Yes just call.

  That is August 11.
  On the next day, August 12, Yermak sent Ambassador Volker an initial 
version of the draft statement by text. Notably, as we saw earlier, 
this statement from the Ukrainians doesn't explicitly mention Burisma, 
Biden, or 2016--election investigations that the President has been 
seeking.
  You can see what is going on here now. There was this game of 
chicken.
  You go first.
  No, we'll go first. You give us the date, and we will give you the 
statement.
  No, you give us the statement, and we will give you the date.
  And now, realizing, OK, they have to give the statement first, 
Ukraine tries to give them a generic statement that doesn't really go 
into specifics about these investigations. And why? You can imagine 
why. Ukrainians don't want to have to go out in public and say they are 
going to do these investigations, because they are not stupid, because 
they understood this would pull them right into U.S. Presidential 
politics. It was intended to, which isn't in Ukraine's interests. It is 
not in our interests either, and Ukraine understood that. And so they 
resisted.
  First they resisted having to do the public statement, and then they 
wanted to make sure they got the deliverable, and then, when they had 
to make the statement, they didn't want to be specific--for one thing, 
for another thing. This was what Zelensky campaigned on. He was going 
to fight corruption. He was going to end political investigations, so 
he didn't want to be specific.
  He sends this statement that doesn't have the specific references. 
Ambassador Volker explained during his testimony that was not what 
Giuliani was requesting, and it would not satisfy Giuliani or Donald 
Trump.
  Presumably, if the President was interested in corruption, that 
statement would have been enough. But all he was interested in was an 
investigation or an announcement of an investigation into his rival and 
this debunked theory about 2016.
  The conversation that Volker referred to in his earlier testimony 
took place on the morning of August 13, when Giuliani made clear that 
the specific investigations related to Burisma--code for Bidens--and 
the 2016 election had to be included in order to get the White House 
meeting.
  The Americans sent back to the Ukrainian top aide a revised draft 
that includes now the two investigations. You have seen the side-by-
side. This was then the essence of the quid pro quo regarding the 
meeting. This direction came from President Trump. Here is how 
Ambassador Sondland put it.

[[Page S474]]

  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid 
     pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President 
     Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public 
     statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election 
     DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the 
     desires of the President of the United States, and we knew 
     these investigations were important to the President.

  According to witness testimony, as you might imagine, Ukrainian 
officials were very uncomfortable with a draft that Giuliani, Volker, 
and Sondland were negotiating. They understood that the statement was 
the deliverable that President Trump wanted, but yielding to President 
Trump's demands would, in essence, force President Zelensky to break 
his promise to the Ukrainian people to root out corruption because 
politically motivated investigations are the hallmark of the kind of 
corruption that Ukraine has been plagued with in the past.
  Mr. Yermak tried to get some confirmation that the requested 
investigations were legitimate. Yermak asked Volker ``whether any 
request had ever been made by the U.S. to investigate election 
interference in 2016''; in other words, whether any request had been 
made by any official U.S. law enforcement agency through formal 
channels as you would expect if it were a legitimate request.
  Ambassador Volker, trying to find a satisfactory answer, on August 
15, Volker's assistant asked Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent 
whether there was any precedent for such a request for investigations. 
At his deposition, Kent testified that ``if you're asking me, have we 
ever gone to the Ukrainians and asked them to investigate or prosecute 
individuals for political reasons, the answer is, I hope we haven't, 
and we shouldn't because that goes against everything that we are 
trying to promote in the post Soviet states for the last 28 years, 
which is promotion of the rule of law.''
  We are now on the next day, August 16. In a conversation with 
Ambassador Bill Taylor, the U.S. Ambassador in Kyiv--Ambassador Taylor 
stepped in when Ambassador Yovanovitch was pushed out--Taylor 
``amplified the same theme'' and told Kent that ``Yermak was very 
uncomfortable'' with the idea of investigations and suggested it should 
be done officially and put in writing.
  As a result, it became clear to Kent in mid-August that Ukraine was 
being pressured to conduct politically motivated investigations. Kent 
told Ambassador Taylor: ``That's wrong, and we shouldn't be doing that 
as a matter of U.S. policy.''
  Ambassador Volker claimed that he stopped pursuing the statement from 
the Iranians around this time because of the concerns raised by 
Zelensky's aide. At his deposition and despite all his efforts to 
secure a statement announcing these very specific political 
investigations desired by the President, Ambassador Volker testified 
that he agreed with Yermak's concerns and advised him that making those 
specific references was not a good idea because making those statements 
might look like it would play into our domestic politics.
  Without specific references to the politically damaging 
investigations that Trump demanded, the agreement just wouldn't work. 
Ukraine did not release the statement and, in turn, the White House 
meeting was not scheduled. As it turns out, Ambassadors Sondland and 
Volker did not achieve the breakthrough after all.
  Let's go into what finally breaks the logjam because that involves 
the military aid. With efforts to trade a White House meeting for a 
press statement announcing the investigations temporarily scuttled, 
Sondland and Volker go back to the drawing board. On August 19, 
Ambassador Sondland told Volker that he drove the larger issue home 
with Yermak, President Zelensky's top aide, particularly that this was 
now bigger than a White House meeting--bigger than just the White House 
meeting and was about the relationship per se. It is not just about the 
meeting anymore; it is about everything.
  By this time in late August, the hold on security assistance had been 
in place more than a month, and there was still no credible explanation 
offered by the White House despite some, like Ambassador Sondland, 
repeatedly asking. There were no interagency meetings since July 31, 
and the Defense Department had withdrawn its assurances that it could 
even comply with the law, which, indeed, it couldn't. Every agency in 
the administration opposed the hold. As the Government Accountability 
Office confirmed, concerned DOD and OMB officials had been right that 
the President's holding of the aid was an unlawful act, but President 
Trump was not budging.
  At the same time, despite the persistent efforts of numerous people, 
President Trump refused to schedule the coveted White House visit with 
President Zelensky until the investigations were announced that would 
benefit his campaign.
  Here is what Ambassador Sondland said about the hold on funds and its 
link to the politically motivated investigations in Ukraine.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. In the absence of any credible 
     explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to 
     believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur 
     until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to 
     the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma, as Mr. 
     Giuliani had demanded.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. From the Embassy in Kyiv, David Holmes reached 
the same conclusion--a conclusion as simple as two plus two equals 
four.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       GORDON. Mr. Holmes, you have testified that by late August, 
     you had a clear impression that the security assistance hold 
     was somehow connected to the investigations that President 
     Trump wanted. How did you conclude--how did you make--reach 
     that clear conclusion?
       Ambassador HOLMES. Sir, we've been hearing about the 
     investigation since March--months before--and President 
     Zelensky had received a congratulatory letter from the 
     president saying he would be pleased to meet him following 
     his inauguration in May.
       And we had been unable to get that meeting. And then the 
     security hold came up with no explanation.
       And I'd be surprised if any of the Ukrainians--we discussed 
     earlier, you know, they're sophisticated people--when they 
     received no explanation for why that hold was in place, 
     they would have drawn that conclusion.
       GORDON. Because the investigations were still being 
     pursued?
       Ambassador HOLMES. Right.
       GORDON. And the hold was still remaining without 
     explanation?
       Ambassador HOLMES. Right.
       GORDON. So this to you was the only logical conclusion that 
     you could reach?
       Ambassador HOLMES. Right.
       GORDON. Sort of like 2 plus 2 equals 4?
       Ambassador HOLMES. Exactly.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Sondland explained the predicament he believed he 
faced with a hold on aid to Ukraine.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. As my other State Department 
     colleagues have testified, this security aid was critical to 
     Ukraine's defense and should not have been delayed. I 
     expressed this view to many during this period, but my goal 
     at the time was to do what was necessary to get the aid 
     released, to break the logjam. I believed that the public 
     statement we have been discussing for weeks was essential to 
     advancing that goal.
       You know, I really regret that the Ukrainians were placed 
     in that predicament, but I do not regret doing what I could 
     to try to break the logjam and to solve the problem.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. On August 22, Ambassador Sondland tried to break 
that logjam, as he put it, regarding both the security assistance hold 
and the White House meeting. Ambassador Sondland described those 
efforts in his public testimony. Let's listen to him again.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. In preparation for the September 1 
     Warsaw meeting, I asked Secretary Pompeo whether a face-to-
     face conversation between Trump and Zelensky would help to 
     break the logjam. This was when President Trump was still 
     intending the travel to Warsaw.
       Specifically, on August 22nd, I emailed Secretary Pompeo 
     directly, copying Secretariat Kenna. I wrote--and this is my 
     email to Secretary Pompeo. Should we block time in Warsaw for 
     a short pull-aside for POTUS to meet Zelensky? I would ask 
     Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once 
     Ukraine's new justice folks are in place in mid-September, 
     that Zelensky--he, Zelensky, should be able to move forward 
     publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to 
     POTUS in the U.S. Hopefully, that will help break the logjam.
       The secretary replied, yes.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Sondland also explained that both he and 
Secretary Pompeo understood that issues of importance to the President 
were the two

[[Page S475]]

sham investigations the President wanted to help his reelection 
efforts. And that reference to the logjam meant both the security 
assistance and the White House meeting.
  At the end of August, National Security Advisor John Bolton arrived 
in Ukraine for an official visit. David Holmes took notes in Bolton's 
meeting and testified about Ambassador Bolton's message to the 
Ukrainians.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador HOLMES. Shortly thereafter, on August 27th, 
     Ambassador Bolton visits Ukraine and brought welcome news 
     that President Trump had agreed to meet President Zelensky on 
     September 1st in Warsaw.
       Ambassador Bolton further indicated that the hold on 
     security assistance would not be lifted prior to the Warsaw 
     meeting, where it would hang on whether President Zelensky 
     was able to ``favorably impress President Trump.''

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Let's think about that for a minute--unless you 
have something further to say. Let's think about that for a minute. 
Bolton further indicated that the hold on security assistance would not 
be lifted prior to the Warsaw meeting where it would hang on whether 
President Zelensky was able to ``favorably impress'' President Trump.
  What do you think would favorably impress President Trump? What were 
the only two things that President Trump asked of President Zelensky? 
What were the two things that Rudy Giuliani was asking of President 
Zelensky and his top aides? What would favorably impress Donald Trump?
  Would Donald Trump be favorably impressed if President Zelensky were 
to tell him about this new corruption court or new legislation in 
Marada or how negotiations with the Russians were going or how they are 
bringing about defense reform?
  Had any of those things ever come up in any of these text messages, 
any of these emails, any of these phone calls, any of these 
conversations? Of course not. Of course not. There was only one thing 
that was going to favorably impress President Trump in Warsaw, and that 
is if Zelensky told him to his face: I am going to do these political 
investigations. I don't want to do them. You know I don't want to do 
them. I resisted doing them, but I am at war with Russia, and I can't 
wait anymore. I can't wait anymore. I am sure that would have impressed 
Donald Trump.
  But the meeting between the two Presidents never happened in Warsaw. 
President Trump canceled the trip at the last moment. Before Bolton 
left Kyiv, Ambassador Taylor asked for a private meeting. Ambassador 
Taylor explained that he was extremely concerned about the hold on 
security assistance. He described the meeting to us during his 
testimony.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. Near the end of Ambassador Bolton's 
     visit, I asked to meet him privately, during which I 
     expressed my serious concern about the withholding of 
     military assistance to Ukraine while the Ukrainians were 
     defending their country from Russian aggression. Ambassador 
     Bolton recommended that I send the first-person cable to 
     Secretary Pompeo directly, relaying my concerns.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Now, in the State Department, sending a first-
person cable is an extraordinary step. State Department cables are 
ordinarily written in the third person, as Ambassador Taylor testified 
at his deposition. Sending a first-person cable gets attention because 
there are not many first-person cables that come in. In fact, in his 
decades of diplomatic service, he had never written a single one until 
now.
  Taylor sent that cable on August 29. Would you like me to read that 
to you right now? I would like to read it to you right now, except I 
don't have it because the State Department wouldn't provide it, but if 
you would like me to read it to you, we can do something about that. We 
can insist on getting that from the State Department. If you would like 
to know what John Bolton had in mind when he thought that Zelensky 
could favorably impress the President in Warsaw, we can find that out, 
too, just for the asking in a document called a subpoena.
  Taylor sends that cable on August 29. The State Department did not 
provide that cable to us in response to a subpoena, but witnesses who 
reviewed it described it as a powerful message that described the 
folly--the folly--of withholding military aid from Ukraine at a time 
when it was facing incursion from Russian forces in eastern Ukraine. 
That cable also sought to explain that U.S. assistance to Ukraine was 
vital to U.S. national security as well.
  Now, why don't they want you to see that cable? Maybe they don't want 
you to see that cable because that cable from a Vietnam veteran 
describes just how essential that military assistance was not just to 
Ukraine; maybe they don't want you to see that cable because it 
describes just how important that military assistance is to us--to us.
  The President's counsel would love you to believe that this is just 
about Ukraine. You don't need to care about Ukraine. Who cares about 
Ukraine? How many people can find Ukraine on a map? Why should we care 
about Ukraine? Well, we should care about Ukraine. They are an ally of 
ours. If it matters to us, we should care about the fact that, in 1994, 
we asked them to give up their nuclear weapons that they had inherited 
from the Soviet Union, and they didn't want to give them up, and we 
were worried about proliferation.
  We said: Hey, if you give them up, which you don't want to do because 
you are worried the Russians might invade if you give them up, we will 
help assure your territorial integrity.
  We made that commitment. I hope we care about that. I hope we care 
about that because they did give them up.
  And do you know what? Just what they feared took place--the Russians 
moved across their border, and they remain an occupied party in 
Ukraine. That is the word of America we gave, and we are breaking that 
word. Why? For help on a political campaign?
  Ambassador Taylor was exactly right. That is crazy. It is worse than 
crazy. It is repulsive. It is repugnant. It breaks our word. To do it 
in the name of these corrupt investigations is also contrary to 
everything we espouse around the world.
  I used to be part of a commission in the House on democracy 
assistance, where we would meet with parliamentarians, and I know my 
Senate colleagues do much the same thing. We would urge our colleagues 
to observe the rule of law, not to engage in political investigations 
and prosecutions. I don't know how we make that argument now. I don't 
know how we look our allies or these burgeoning democracies in the face 
or our fellow parliamentarians and make that argument now. I wouldn't 
make that argument now.
  Testimony indicated that Secretary Pompeo eventually carried that 
cable into the White House, but there is no evidence that those 
national security concerns that they don't want you to see were able to 
outweigh the President's personal interest in his getting foreign help 
in his reelection campaign. There is no evidence at all.
  Now we get to August 28.
  POLITICO was the first to publicly report that President Trump had 
implemented a hold on nearly $400 million of U.S. military assistance 
to Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress. Now that the worst 
kept secret was public, Ukrainian officials immediately expressed their 
alarm and concern to their American counterparts.
  As witnesses explained, the Ukrainians had two serious concerns.
  One, of course, was the aid itself, which was vital to their ability 
to fight off Russia. In addition, they were worried about the symbolism 
of the hold; that it signaled to Russia and Vladimir Putin that the 
United States was wavering in its support for Ukraine. Witnesses 
testified that this was a division that Russia could and would exploit 
to drive a further wedge between the United States and Ukraine to its 
advantage.
  The second concern was likely why Ukrainian officials had wanted the 
hold to remain a secret in the first place--because it would add to the 
negative impact to Ukraine if the hold itself became public. It is bad 
enough that the President of the United States put a hold on their aid. 
It was going to be far worse if it became public as, indeed, it did.
  Andriy Yermak, the same Zelensky aide, sent Ambassador Volker a link 
to the POLITICO story and then texted: ``Need to talk with you.''
  Other Ukrainian officials also expressed concerns to Ambassador 
Volker

[[Page S476]]

that the Ukrainian Government was being singled out and penalized for 
some reason.
  Well, what do we think that reason was? Why were they being singled 
out? Why was that country being singled out? That was the one country 
that this President could lever for help against an opponent he feared. 
That is why Ukraine was being singled out.
  On August 29, Yermak also contacted Ambassador Taylor. Yermak said 
the Ukrainians were very concerned about the hold on military 
assistance. He said that he and other Ukrainian officials would be 
willing to travel to Washington to explain to its officials the 
importance of this assistance.
  Ambassador Taylor, who was on the ground in Ukraine, explained the 
Ukrainian viewpoint and, frankly, their desperation.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. In September, the Minister of Defense, 
     for example, came to me--I would use the word--``desperate'' 
     to figure out why the assistance was being held. He thought 
     that perhaps, if he went to Washington to talk to you--to 
     talk to the Secretary of Defense, to talk to the President--
     he would be able to find out and reassure--provide whatever 
     answer was necessary to have that assistance released.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Without any official explanation for the hold, 
American officials could provide little reassurance to their Ukrainian 
counterparts. It has been publicly reported that President Trump, 
Secretary Esper, and Secretary Pompeo met in late August and that they 
all implored the President to release the aid, but President Trump 
continued to refuse to release the aid.
  As of August 30, the President was clearly directing the OMB to 
continue the hold on security assistance. In documents reviewed by just 
security but withheld from the Congress by the OMB on the President's 
instructions, OMB official Michael Duffey emailed DOD Comptroller 
Elaine McCusker that there is ``clear direction from POTUS to continue 
the hold.''
  So here we are on August 30. A month after that July 25 call, aid is 
still being withheld. Ukrainians are still holding on, still not 
willing to capitulate, not willing to violate Zelensky's whole campaign 
pledge about not engaging in corrupt investigations.
  On that same day, August 30, Republican Senator Ron Johnson spoke 
with Ambassador Sondland to express his concern about President Trump's 
decision to withhold military assistance to Ukraine. Senator Johnson 
described that call in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
  According to Senator Johnson, Ambassador Sondland told him that if 
Ukraine would commit to ``get to the bottom of what happened in 2016--
if President Trump has that confidence--then he will release the 
military spending.''
  Senator Johnson added:

       At that suggestion, I winced. My reaction was, ``Oh, God. I 
     don't want to see those two things combined.''

  The next day, August 31, Senator Johnson spoke by phone with 
President Trump regarding the decision to withhold aid to Ukraine. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump denied the quid 
pro quo that Senator Johnson had learned of from Ambassador Sondland. 
At the same time, however, President Trump refused to authorize Senator 
Johnson to tell Ukrainian officials on his upcoming trip to Kyiv that 
the aid would be forthcoming.
  The message that Ambassador Sondland communicated to Senator Johnson 
mirrored that used by President Trump during the July 25 call with 
President Zelensky in which President Trump twice asked the Ukrainian 
leader to get to the bottom of it, including in connection to an 
investigation into the debunked conspiracy theory of Ukrainian 
interference in the 2016 election. It also mirrored the language of the 
text message that Ambassador Volker sent to President Zelensky's aide 
just before the July 25 call.
  Indeed, despite the President's self-serving denials, the message was 
clear: President Trump wanted the investigations, and he would withhold 
not one but two acts vested in him by the power of his office in order 
to get them.
  Now begins September, September 1.
  The President was supposed to go to Warsaw, as we know, but he does 
not go to Warsaw. Mike Pence goes to Warsaw. Jennifer Williams, the 
special adviser to the Vice President for Europe and Russia, learned of 
the change in the President's travel plans on August 29. The Vice 
President's National Security Advisor asked, at the request of Vice 
President Pence, for an update on the status of the security assistance 
that had just been publicly revealed in POLITICO and would be a 
critical issue during the bilateral meeting between the Vice President 
and President Zelensky in Warsaw.
  The delegation arrived in Warsaw and gathered in a hotel room to 
brief Vice President Pence before he met with the Ukrainian President. 
National Security Advisor Bolton led the meeting.
  As Williams described it, advisers in the room ``agreed on the need 
to get a final decision on security assistance as soon as possible so 
that it could be implemented before the end of the year, but Vice 
President Pence did not have authority from the President to release 
the aid.''
  Ambassador Sondland also attended that briefing. At the end of it, he 
expressed concern directly to Vice President Pence about the security 
assistance being held until the Ukrainians announced the very same 
politically motivated investigations at the heart of this scheme.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Chairman SCHIFF. You mentioned that you also had a 
     conversation with Vice President Pence before his meeting 
     with President Zelensky in Warsaw and that you raised a 
     concern you had, as well, that the security assistance was 
     being withheld because of the President's desire to get a 
     commitment from Zelensky to pursue these political 
     investigations. What did you say to the Vice President?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. I was in a briefing with several 
     people, and I just spoke up, and I said: It appears that 
     everything is stalled until this statement gets made. It was 
     something--words to that effect. That's what I believe to be 
     the case based on, you know, the work that the three of us 
     had been doing--Volker, Perry, and myself--and the Vice 
     President nodded like, you know, he heard what I said, and 
     that was pretty much it as I recall.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Everyone was in the loop. Ambassador Sondland 
testified that Vice President Pence was neither surprised nor dismayed 
by the description of this quid pro quo.
  At the beginning of the bilateral meeting between President Zelensky 
and Vice President Pence, as expected, the first question from 
President Zelensky related to the status of the security assistance.
  As Vice President Pence's aide Jennifer Williams testified, President 
Zelensky explained that just equally with the financial and fiscal 
value of the assistance, that it was the symbolic nature of that 
assistance that really was the show of U.S. support for Ukraine and for 
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
  Later that day, Vice President Pence spoke to the President about his 
meeting with President Zelensky, but the hold on security assistance 
remained in place well after Vice President Pence returned from Warsaw.
  After the Warsaw meeting with Vice President Pence, Ambassador 
Sondland quickly pulled aside Andriy Yermak, Zelensky's top aide, and 
informed him that the aid would not be forthcoming until Ukraine 
publicly announced the two investigations that President Trump wanted.
  So here we are, after the meeting--right after the meeting. They are 
still in Warsaw, and Zelensky pulls aside his Ukrainian counterpart, 
Yermak, and explains the aid is not coming until the investigations are 
announced.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. Based on my previous communication 
     with Secretary Pompeo, I felt comfortable sharing my concerns 
     with Mr. Yermak. It was a very, very brief, pulled aside 
     conversation that happened within a few seconds. I told Mr. 
     Yermak that I believed that the resumption of U.S. aid would 
     likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on 
     the public statement that we have been discussing for many 
     weeks.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Let's let that sink in for a minute too.
  You have heard my colleagues at the other table say: Ukrainians felt 
no pressure. There is no evidence they felt any pressure.
  Of course, we have already had testimony about how they did feel 
pressure, and they didn't want to be drawn into this political 
campaign. You saw over

[[Page S477]]

and over in these text messages and emails: No, you go first. You 
announce. No, you go first. Yet we are supposed to believe they felt no 
pressure? There it is. It breaks out into the open. The military aid is 
being withheld, and there is a connection between the holding of the 
military aid and these investigations.
  The first thing they are asking about--and they send the copy of the 
article--is: What is happening with this aid? They are ready to come to 
DC to plead for the aid. They go to Warsaw. They meet with the Vice 
President. The first question is the aid.
  And what happens after that meeting? Now, that was a big meeting, by 
the way, with the Vice President and the Ukrainian delegation. It is 
not likely, in front of all of those people, the Vice President is 
going to bring it up.
  So Sondland goes up to his counterpart right after that, on the 
sidelines of that meeting, and he says basically: Ya ain't getting the 
money until you do the investigations.
  And we are to believe they felt no pressure? Folks, they are at war. 
They are at war, and they are being told: You are not getting $400 
million in aid you need unless you do what the President wants, and 
what the President wants are these two investigations.
  If you don't believe that is pressure, that is $400 million worth of 
pressure, I got a bridge I want to sell you.
  It is hard for to us put ourselves in the Ukrainians' position. I 
mean, imagine if the eastern third of our country were occupied by an 
enemy force, and we are beholden to another country for military aid, 
and they are saying: You are not going to get it until you do what we 
want. Do you think we would feel pressure? I think we would feel 
pressure, and that is exactly the situation the Ukrainians were in.
  You heard the other counsel say before: Well, but they say they don't 
feel pressure--like they are going to admit they were being shaken down 
by the President of the United States. You think they feel pressure 
now, you should see what kind of pressure they would feel if they 
admitted that.
  Tim Morrison, the NSC official, witnessed the conversation between 
Sondland and Yermak from across the room and immediately thereafter 
received the summary from Ambassador Sondland. He reported the 
substance of that conversation to his boss, Ambassador Bolton. He told 
Morrison to ``consult with the lawyers.'' Go talk to the lawyers.
  You know, if you keep getting told you got to go talk to the lawyers, 
there is a problem. If things are perfect, you don't get told ``go talk 
to the lawyers'' time and again.
  Morrison confirmed that he did talk to the lawyers, in part to ensure 
there was a record of what Ambassador Sondland was doing. That record 
exists within the White House. Would you like me to read you that 
record? I would be happy to read you that record. It is there for your 
asking. Of course the President has refused to provide that record.
  Precisely why did Ambassador Bolton direct Morrison to tell the 
lawyers, talk to the lawyers? Would you like Ambassador Bolton to tell 
you why he said that? He would be happy to tell you why he said that. 
He is there for your asking.
  What did Bolton know about the freeze in aid prior to this meeting in 
Warsaw? What did he mean that he can press Zelensky--it is going to 
depend on whether you can press Zelensky? Would you like to know what 
that meant? I would like to know what he meant by that. I think we know 
what he meant by that.
  Tim Morrison also conveyed the substance of the Sondland-Yermak pull-
aside to his colleague Ambassador Taylor. So this is now Tim Morrison 
told by Bolton ``go talk to the lawyers,'' and he talks to, also, 
Ambassador Taylor, our Ambassador in Ukraine.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. On the evening of September 1st, I 
     received a readout of the Pence-Zelensky meeting over the 
     phone from Mr. Morrison during which he told me that 
     President Zelensky had opened the meeting by immediately 
     asking the Vice President about the security cooperation. The 
     Vice President did not respond substantively but said that he 
     would talk to President Trump that night. The Vice President 
     did say that President Trump wanted the Europeans to do more 
     to support Ukraine and that he wanted the Ukrainians to do 
     more to fight corruption.
       During the same phone call with Mr. Morrison, he described 
     the conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak in 
     Warsaw. Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security 
     assistance money would not come until President Zelensky 
     committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.
       I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the 
     Sondland-Yermak conversation.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Ambassador Taylor then explained why he was so 
alarmed by this turn. Let's hear that as well.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. You said previously that you were alarmed to 
     learn this. Why were you alarmed?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. It is one thing to try to leverage a 
     meeting in the White House; it is another thing, I thought, 
     to leverage security assistance--security assistance to a 
     country at war dependent on both the security assistance and 
     the demonstration of support. It was--it was much more 
     alarming. The White House meeting was one thing, security 
     assistance was much more alarming.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Upon learning from Mr. Morrison that the military 
aid may be conditioned on Ukraine publicly announcing these two 
investigations, Ambassador Taylor sends an urgent text message to 
Ambassador Sondland asking: ``Are we now saying that security 
assistance and White House meeting are conditioned on investigations?'' 
And the response by Ambassador Sondland: ``Call me.''
  Well, you know what that means, right? You get a text message that is 
putting it in black and white:
  Are we saying security assistance and the White House meeting are 
conditioned on investigations?
  Call me.
  In other words, don't put this in writing; call me.
  Ambassador Taylor did, in fact, call Sondland. Informed by notes he 
took at the time of the call, he summarized that conversation as 
follows.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. During that phone call Ambassador 
     Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he 
     wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will 
     investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 
     2016 election.
       Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized 
     that he had made a mistake by earlier telling Ukrainian 
     officials that only a White House meeting with President 
     Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of the 
     investigation. In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, 
     ``Everything was dependent on such an announcement, including 
     security assistance.''
       He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a 
     public box when making a public statement about ordering such 
     investigations.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Ambassador Taylor testified that his 
contemporaneous notes of the call reflect that Sondland used the phrase 
``public box'' to describe President Trump's desire to ensure that the 
initiation of his desired investigations was announced publicly. A 
private commitment was not good enough.
  The State Department has Ambassador Taylor's extensive notes, and of 
course we would like to show them to you to corroborate his testimony, 
but pursuant to the President's instructions, the State Department will 
not turn them over.
  You might recall from the tape yesterday that Ambassador Taylor said: 
They'll be shortly coming, I'm told.
  Well, somebody countermanded that instruction. Who do we think that 
was? But you should see them. If you have any question about what 
Sondland told Ambassador Taylor, if the President's counsel tries to 
create any confusion about what Sondland told Taylor about his 
conversation with the President--and, look, Sondland had one 
recollection in his deposition and another recollection in the first 
hearing and another recollection in the declaration. You want to know 
exactly what happened in that conversation when it was fresh in 
Sondland's mind and he told Taylor about it and Taylor wrote it in his 
notes, you are going to want Taylor's notes.
  In any courtroom in America holding a fair trial, you would want to 
see contemporaneous notes. This Senate should be no different. Demand 
those notes. Demand to see the truth. We are not afraid of those notes. 
We haven't seen them. We haven't seen them. Maybe those notes say 
something completely different. Maybe those notes

[[Page S478]]

say no quid pro quo. Maybe those notes say it was a perfect call. I 
would like to see them. I am willing to trust Ambassador Taylor's 
testimony and his recollection. I would like to see them. I would like 
to show them to you. They are yours for the asking.
  On September 25, the Washington Post editorial board reported 
concerns that President Trump was withholding military assistance for 
Ukraine and a White House meeting in order to force President Zelensky 
to announce investigations of Vice President Biden and purported 
Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election.
  The Post editorial board wrote:

       But we're reliably told that the president has a second and 
     more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to 
     intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching 
     an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe 
     Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine's help with 
     his Presidential campaign; he is using U.S. military aid the 
     country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.

  So that is September 5. The President on notice: Scheme discovered. 
September 5.
  September 7, the evidence shows, President Trump has a call with 
Ambassador Sondland where the President made the corrupt argument for 
military aid and the White House meeting even more explicit.
  On September 7, Ambassador Sondland spoke to President Trump on the 
telephone. After that conversation, Ambassador Sondland called Tim 
Morrison to update him on that conversation. Unlike Sondland, who 
testified that he never took notes, Morrison took notes of the 
conversation and recalled it during his public testimony. Let's listen.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Attorney GOLDMAN. Now, a few days later, on September 7, 
     you spoke again to Ambassador Sondland, who told you that he 
     had just gotten off the phone with President Trump. Isn't 
     that right?
       Mr. MORRISON. That sounds correct, yes.
       Attorney GOLDMAN. What did Ambassador Sondland tell you 
     that President Trump said to him?
       Mr. MORRISON. If I recall this conversation correctly, this 
     was where Ambassador Sondland related that there was no quid 
     pro quo but President Zelensky had to make the statement and 
     that he had to want to do it.
       Attorney GOLDMAN. And by that point, did you understand 
     that the statement related to Biden and the 2016 
     investigations?
       Mr. MORRISON. I think I did, yes.
       Attorney GOLDMAN. And that that was essentially a condition 
     for the security assistance to be released?
       Mr. MORRISON. I understood that that's what Ambassador 
     Sondland believed.
       Attorney GOLDMAN. After speaking with President Trump?
       Mr. MORRISON. That's what he represented.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I ask you to bear in mind that when Mr. Morrison 
said that is what he represented, that we asked Mr. Morrison about the 
President's calls with Ambassador Sondland, and he testified that every 
time he checked to see did Ambassador Sondland in fact talk to the 
President when he said that he did, that, yes, in fact, he talked with 
the President. Every time he checked, he was able to confirm it.
  Now, let's let this sink in for a minute. According to Mr. Morrison's 
testimony--former Republican staffer on the Armed Services Committee--
he speaks with Sondland on September 7, and Sondland says he has just 
gotten off the phone with Trump, OK? So this is contemporaneous. Just 
got off the phone with him. Call is fresh in everybody's mind. And what 
was said? Morrison says Ambassador Sondland related there was no quid 
pro quo but President Zelensky had to make the statement and he had to 
want to do it. No quid pro quo, but there is a quid pro quo.
  Now, there are notes that show this. There is a written record of 
this. There is a written record of what President Trump told Ambassador 
Sondland right after that call. Would you like to see that written 
record? It is called Mr. Morrison's notes. It is right there for the 
asking.
  These fine lawyers over here want to persuade you that call didn't 
happen or it wasn't said or all he said was no quid pro quo; he never 
said, but you have to go to the mic and you have to want to do it. 
Well, there is a good way to find out what happened on that call 
because it is in writing.
  Is there any question why they are withholding this from Congress? Is 
there any question about that? Did it claim--well, Mr. Morrison didn't 
claim absolute immunity. Mr. Sondland didn't claim absolute immunity. 
There is no absolute immunity over these notes, no executive privilege 
over these notes. The notes have already been described. The 
conversation has already been released. There is no even plausible, 
arguable, invented, even, excuse for withholding these notes. Would you 
like to see them? I will tell you, in any courtroom in America you 
would get to see them. This should be no different. It wouldn't be any 
different in a fair trial anywhere in America.
  Morrison again informed Ambassador Bolton of this September 7 
conversation, and guess what Ambassador Bolton said? I think you can 
probably figure this out by now: Go talk to the lawyers. Go talk to the 
lawyers. And yet again, for the third time, Morrison went to talk to 
the lawyers about this conversation with Ambassador Sondland.

  Morrison also called Ambassador Taylor to inform him about the 
conversation, and we have the testimony from Ambassador Taylor about 
their conversation, which is also based on his contemporaneous notes.
  Let's look at the conversation now between Mr. Morrison and 
Ambassador Taylor.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. According to Mr. Morrison, President 
     Trump told Ambassador Sondland he was not asking for a quid 
     pro quo. President Trump did insist that President Zelensky 
     go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of 
     Biden and 2016 election interference and that President 
     Zelensky should want to do this himself.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. OK, so here we have two witnesses taking 
contemporaneous notes, both reflecting the same conversation--a 
conversation between Sondland and the President in which the President 
says, ``No quid pro quo,'' but quid pro quo. There are documents that 
prove this--documents that prove this that are yours for the asking.
  The following day, September 8, Sondland texts Taylor and Volker to 
bring them up to speed on the conversations with President Trump and, 
subsequently, President Zelensky, whom he spoke to after President 
Trump: ``Guys, multiple conversations with Z,'' meaning Zelensky. 
``POTUS. Let's talk.''
  Sondland spoke to Taylor shortly after this text, according to 
Ambassador Taylor. He testified again on his real time notes. Let's 
hear what he said.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. The following day on September 8, 
     Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone, and he 
     confirmed he had talked with President Trump, as I suggested 
     a week earlier, but President Trump was adamant that 
     President Zelensky himself had to clean things up and do it 
     in public. President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. It is all very consistent here, what the 
President said. No quid pro quo, but Zelensky must announce the 
investigations publicly, was what he was telling Sondland--no quid pro 
quo except for the quid pro quo.
  The President's attorneys would like you to remember the first half 
of that sentence and would like to forget the second half ever 
happened, but we don't have to leave our common sense at the door, and 
we don't have to rely on an incomplete description of that call. We 
have instead the detailed notes of Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor.
  We also know what President Trump told Sondland because Sondland 
relayed that message to President Zelensky. During the same September 8 
conversation with Taylor, Sondland described his conversation with 
President Zelensky.
  Here is Ambassador Taylor's account of it.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. Ambassador Sondland also said that he 
     had talked with President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and had 
     told them that although this was not a quid pro quo, if 
     President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we 
     would be at a stalemate. I understood a stalemate to mean 
     that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military 
     assistance.
       Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded 
     with President Zelensky agreeing to make a public statement 
     in an interview on CNN.

  So not only did Ambassador Sondland relate this conversation to Mr. 
Morrison and Mr. Taylor, not only did Ambassador Taylor and Mr. 
Morrison talk about it, but Sondland said he

[[Page S479]]

relayed this conversation to Zelensky himself. Everyone was now in the 
loop on the military aid being withheld for the political 
investigations.
  Taylor continued recalling the startling analogy Ambassador Sondland 
used to describe President Trump's approach to Ukraine:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. During our meeting--during our call on 
     September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that 
     President Trump was a businessman, and when a businessman is 
     about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the 
     business man asks that person to pay up before signing the 
     check. Ambassador Volker used the same language several days 
     later while we were together at the Yalta European strategy 
     conference. I argued to both that the explanation made no 
     sense. Ukrainians did not owe President Trump anything.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Ambassador Taylor testified that at the end of 
the Sondland-Zelensky conversation, President Zelensky said that he had 
relented and had agreed to do a CNN interview to announce the 
investigations.
  So there was a breakthrough after all. The promised meeting wasn't 
enough. The withheld security assistance broke the logjam. Zelensky was 
going to go on CNN and announce the investigations.
  Taylor, though, remained concerned that even if the Ukrainian leader 
did as President Trump required, President Trump might continue to 
withhold the vital U.S. security assistance in any event. Ambassador 
Taylor texted his concerns to Ambassador Volker and Sondland stating:

       Ambassador TAYLOR. The nightmare is they give the interview 
     and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. 
     (And I quit.)

  That is quite telling, too.
  What is Ambassador Taylor is worried about? He is worried the 
Ukrainians are finally going to agree to do it. They are going to make 
the announcement, and they are still going to get stiffed on the aid.
  In his deposition, Ambassador Taylor elaborated:

       Ambassador TAYLOR. ``The nightmare'' is the scenario where 
     President Zelensky goes out in public, makes an announcement 
     that he's going to investigate Burisma and the interference 
     in the 2016 election, maybe among other things. He might put 
     that in some series of investigations. But . . . the 
     nightmare was he would mention those two, take all the heat 
     from that, get himself in big trouble in this country--

  Meaning the United States--

       and probably in his country as well, and the security 
     assistance would not be released. That was the nightmare.

  If it were to happen, Taylor has testified, he would quit.
  Early in the morning in Europe on September 9, which was 12:47 a.m. 
in Washington, DC, Ambassador Taylor reiterated his concerns about the 
President's quid pro quo for security assistance in another series of 
text messages with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland.
  Here are the September 9 text messages. Taylor texts to Sondland:

       The messages from the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send 
     with the decision on security assistance is key. With the 
     hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my 
     nightmare scenario.

  Taylor goes on and says:

       Counting on you to be right about this interview, Gordon.

  Meaning, if they do it, you darn well better come through with the 
military aid.
  And Sondland says:

       Bill, I never said I was ``right.'' I said we are where we 
     are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. 
     Let's hope it works.

  Taylor said:

       As I said on the phone, I think it is crazy to withhold 
     security assistance for help with a political campaign.

  Ambassador Taylor testified what he meant. He said that to withhold 
that assistance for no good reason other than to help with a political 
campaign made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we were 
trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was 
crazy.
  In response to Ambassador Taylor's text message, Sondland replies at 
about 5 a.m. in Washington. So the message from Taylor goes out at 
12:47 a.m. The message back from Sondland comes at 5 a.m. So it looks 
like it might be 5 hours later.
  So Taylor has texted at 12:47 a.m.:

       As I said on the phone, I think it is crazy to hold 
     security assistance for help with a political campaign.

  There he is again, putting it in writing, for crying out loud. Hadn't 
Sondland said to call him about this stuff?
  So 5 hours later, you get this really interesting message from 
Sondland:

       Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's 
     intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro 
     quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate 
     whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt transparency reforms 
     that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I 
     suggest we stop the back and forth by text.

  In other words, can you please stop putting this in writing? Congress 
may read this one day.

       If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna 
     or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

  As you can see Ambassador Sondland's subsequent testimony reveals 
that this text and other denials of a quid pro quo were intentionally 
false and simply designed to provide a written record of a false 
explanation that could later be used to conceal wrongdoing.
  The text message said there were no quid pro quos of any kind, but 
you have seen his testimony. He swore under oath. He was crystal clear 
when he said there was a quid pro quo for the White House meeting, and 
he subsequently testified there was a quid pro quo for the security 
assistance, as well, as confirmed by President Trump's direction to him 
on September 7.
  Sondland's recollection of this conversation with President Trump, as 
I mentioned, has evolved over time. Initially, in his deposition, he 
testified that the conversation with the President occurred between 
Taylor's text of September 9th at 12:47, Washington time, and his 
response at 5 a.m. He recalled very little of the conversation at that 
time other than his belief that his text message reflected President 
Trump's response.
  Subsequently, though--and again, this is one of the reasons why you 
do depositions in closed session. Subsequently, after the opening 
statements of the testimony of Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison were 
released, which described in overlapping and painful detail Sondland's 
conversation with President Trump on September 7, Ambassador Sondland 
submitted an addendum to his deposition testimony, which in relevant 
part said this:

       Finally, as of this writing, I cannot specifically recall 
     if I had one or two phone calls with President Trump in the 
     September 6-9 time frame. Despite repeated requests to the 
     White House and the State Department, I have not been granted 
     access to all the phone records, and I would like to review 
     those phone records along with any other notes and other 
     documents that may exist to determine if I can provide a more 
     complete testimony to assist Congress. However, although I 
     have no specific recollection of phone calls during this 
     period with Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison, I have no 
     reason to question the substance of their recollections about 
     my September 1 conversation with Mr. Yermak.

  During his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland purported to 
remember more of his conversation with President Trump, although he 
still maintained he couldn't remember if it was on September 7 or 
September 9.
  According to his testimony, President Trump did not specifically say 
there was a quid pro quo. But when Sondland simply asked the President 
what he wanted from Ukraine, President Trump immediately brought up a 
quid pro quo. According to Sondland, President Trump said:

       I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to 
     do the right thing.
       And I said: What does that mean?
       And he said: I want him to do what he ran on.

  In his subsequent testimony, Ambassador Sondland explained that 
Trump's reference to what he ran on was a nod to rooting out 
corruption. Here, however, corruption, like Burisma, has become code 
for the investigations that President Trump has sought.
  So you have got Ambassador Sondland's emerging recollection. What you 
got is actually written notes taken at the time that he does not 
contest, written notes from Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison, notes 
which I believe will reflect quite clearly the understanding of ``dirt 
for dollars'' that was confirmed by this telephone call to President 
Trump.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, you weren't dissuaded then, right? 
     Because you still

[[Page S480]]

     thought that the aid was conditioned on the public 
     announcement of the investigation after speaking to President 
     Trump.
       Ambassador SONDLAND. By September 8, I was absolutely 
     convinced it was.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And President Trump did not dissuade you of 
     that in the conversation that you noted you had with him?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. I don't recall, because that would 
     have changed my calculus. If President Trump had told me 
     directly--
       Mr. GOLDMAN. No, I'm not asking that. I am just saying, you 
     still believed the security assistance was conditioned on the 
     investigation, after you spoke to President Trump; yes or no?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. From a timeframe standpoint, yes.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. OK, so here we have Sondland saying that whatever 
his recollection may be about that call, he was still very clear what 
the President wanted and he was very clear there was a quid pro quo. 
That is consistent, obviously, with what Mr. Morrison had to say and 
Ambassador Taylor. In other words, he didn't believe President Trump's 
denial of a quid pro quo, and neither should you.
  Sondland's understanding was further confirmed by President Trump's 
own Chief of Staff. On October 17, in a press briefing at the White 
House, Mick Mulvaney admitted that President Trump withheld essential 
military aid to Ukraine as leverage to pressure Ukraine to investigate 
the conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 election.

       Mr. MULVANEY. Those were the driving factors. But he also 
     mentioned to me that the corruption related to the DNC 
     server. Absolutely, no question about it. But that is it. 
     That is why we held up the money.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. When pressed that he had just convinced them of 
the very quid pro quo that President Trump had been denying, Mulvaney 
doubled down. Let's listen to that.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Question. 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 happens as well.
       Mr. MULVANEY. We do that all the time with foreign policy.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. This evidence demonstrates that President Trump 
withheld the security assistance and the White House meeting with 
President Zelensky until Ukraine made a public statement announcing the 
two investigations targeted to help his political reelection efforts. 
But as you will learn next, he got caught, and a coverup ensued.
  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, thank you for 
your patience. This is a lot of information, but you have a very 
important obligation, and that is, ultimately, to decide whether the 
President committed impeachable offenses. In order to make that 
judgment, you have to have all of the facts.
  We are going through this chronology. We are close to being done, but 
it is important to know that while all of this material was going on 
and these deals were being made, there were other forces at work. Even 
before the President's freeze on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine 
became public on August 28, Members of both Houses of Congress began to 
express concern.
  On August 9, the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committee wrote to the OMB and the White House, warning 
that a hold on assistance might constitute an illegal impoundment of 
funds. They urged the Trump administration to follow the law and 
obligate the funds.
  When the news of the frozen aid broke on August 28, congressional 
scrutiny of President Trump's decision increased. On September 3, a 
group of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, including Senator 
Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Ron 
Johnson, and Senator Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to Acting White 
House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, expressing ``deep concerns . . . 
that the Administration is considering not obligating the Ukraine 
Security Initiative funds for 2019.''
  Two days later, as has been mentioned, on September 5, a Washington 
Post editorial expressed concern that President Trump was withholding 
military assistance to Ukraine in order to pressure President Zelensky 
to announce these investigations. That was the first public report 
linking the frozen security aid to the investigations that Mr. Giuliani 
had been publicly pressing for and that President Trump, as we have 
heard, had privately urged President Zelensky to conduct on the July 25 
call.
  That same day, Senators Murphy and Johnson met with President 
Zelensky in Kyiv. Ambassador Taylor went with them, and he testified--
Mr. Taylor testified that President Zelensky's ``first question to the 
senators was about the withheld security assistance.'' Ambassador 
Taylor testified that both Senators ``stressed that bipartisan support 
for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine's most important strategic asset 
and that President Zelensky should not jeopardize that bipartisan 
support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.''
  Senator Johnson and Senator Murphy later submitted letters in which 
they explained that they sought to reassure President Zelensky that 
there was bipartisan support in Congress for providing Ukraine with 
military assistance and that they would continue to urge President 
Trump to lift the hold. Here is what they said in that letter.
  Senator Murphy said: ``Senator Johnson and I assured Zelensky that 
Congress wanted to continue this funding, and would press Trump to 
release it immediately.''
  And Senator Johnson in the letter said: ``I explained that I had 
tried to persuade the President to authorize me to announce the hold 
was released but that I was unsuccessful.''
  As news of the President's hold on military assistance to Ukraine 
became public at the end of August, Congress, the press, and the public 
started to pay more attention to President Trump's activities with 
Ukraine. This risked exposing the scheme that you have heard so much 
about today.
  By now, the White House had learned that the inspector general of the 
intelligence community had found that a whistleblower complaint related 
to the same Ukraine matter was ``credible'' and ``an urgent concern'' 
and that they were therefore required to send that complaint to 
Congress.
  On September 9, three House investigating committees sent a letter to 
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, stating that President Trump and 
Giuliani ``appeared to have acted outside legitimate law enforcement 
and diplomatic channels to coerce the Ukrainian government into 
pursuing two politically-motivated investigations under the guise of 
anti-corruption activity.''
  The letter also said this: ``If the President is trying to pressure 
Ukraine into choosing between defending itself from Russian aggression 
without U.S. assistance or leveraging its judicial system to serve the 
ends of the Trump campaign, this would represent a staggering abuse of 
power, a boon to Moscow, and a betrayal of the public trust.''
  The Chairs requested that the White House preserve all relevant 
records and produce them by September 16. This included the 
transcript--or actually the call record of the July 25 call between 
President Trump and President Zelensky.
  Based on witness testimony, it looks like the White House Counsel's 
Office circulated the committee's document request around the White 
House. Tim Morrison, a senior director at the National Security 
Council, remembered seeing a copy of this letter. He also recalled that 
the three committees' Ukraine investigation was discussed at a meeting 
of senior level NSC staff soon after it was publicly announced. 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman recalled discussions among the NSC staff 
members that the investigation--and here is a quote--``might have the 
effect of releasing the hold on Ukraine military assistance because it 
would be potentially politically challenging for the Administration to 
justify that hold to Congress.''

  Later that same day, on September 9, the inspector general informed 
the House and Senate Intelligence Committees he had determined that the 
whistleblower complaint that had been submitted on August 12 appeared 
to be credible, met the definition of urgent concern under the statute, 
and yet he reported that for first time ever, the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence was withholding this whistleblower complaint from 
Congress. That violated the law, which required it to be in the Senate 
in 7 days. The Acting Director later testified that his office 
initially withheld the complaint based

[[Page S481]]

on advice from the White House in an unprecedented intervention by the 
Department of Justice.
  According to public reporting and testimony from the Acting DNI at a 
hearing before the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, the 
White House had been aware of the whistleblower complaint for weeks 
prior to the IG September 9 letter to the Intelligence Committee.
  Acting DNI Maguire testified that when he received the whistleblower 
complaint from the inspector general, his office contacted the White 
House Counsel's Office for guidance. Consistent with Acting DNI 
Maguire's testimony, the New York Times has reported that, in late 
August, the President's current defense counsel, Mr. Cipollone, and NSC 
lawyer, John Eisenberg, personally briefed President Trump about the 
complaint's existence and told the President they believed the 
complaint could be withheld from Congress on executive privilege 
grounds.
  On September 10, the next day, Ambassador Bolton resigned from his 
position as National Security Advisor. On that same day, September 10, 
Chairman Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee wrote a letter to 
the Acting Director, demanding that he provide the complaint as the law 
required. The next day, on September 11, President Trump lifted the 
hold on the security assistance to Ukraine.
  Numerous witnesses have testified that they weren't aware of any 
reason why the hold was lifted, just that there was no explanation for 
the hold being implemented. There was no additional review, no 
additional European contribution, nothing to justify the President's 
change in his position, except he got caught. Just as there was no 
official explanation for why the hold on Ukrainian assistance was 
implemented, numerous witnesses testified that they were not provided 
with any reason for why the hold was lifted on September 11.
  For example, Jennifer Williams, who was a special adviser to Vice 
President Pence, testified that she was never given a reason for that 
decision; neither was Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Here is what he told 
us during the hearing.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Are you also aware that the security 
     assistance hold was not lifted for another 10 days after this 
     meeting?
       Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And am I correct that you never did learn the 
     reason why the hold was lifted?
       Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Colonel Vindman, you didn't learn a reason why 
     the hold was lifted either; is that right?
       Colonel VINDMAN. Right.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Colonel Vindman, are you aware that the 
     committees launched an investigation into the Ukrainian 
     matters on September 9, 2 days before the hold was lifted?
       Colonel VINDMAN. I am aware, and it was lifted.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Ambassador Taylor, the person in charge at the 
U.S. Embassy in Kyiv who communicated the decision to the Ukrainians, 
also never got an explanation. Here is what he said.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Are you also aware, however, that the security 
     assistance hold was not lifted for another 10 days after 
     this?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. Finally, on September 11, I learned that 
     the hold had been lifted and the security assistance would be 
     provided. I was not told the reason why the hold was lifted.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mark Sandy, a career officer at OMB, testified 
he only learned of the possible rationale for the hold in early 
September after the Acting DNI had informed the White House about the 
whistleblower complaint.
  Sandy testified that sometime in early September he received an email 
from his boss, Michael Duffey. Approximately 2 months after the hold 
had been placed, the email ``attributed the hold to the President's 
concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine'' and 
requested ``information about what additional countries were 
contributing to Ukraine.'' This was a different explanation than OMB 
had provided at the July 26 interagency meeting that referenced 
concerns about corruption.
  The Lieutenant Colonel testified that none of the facts on the ground 
about Ukrainian efforts to combat corruption or other countries' 
contributions to Ukraine had changed before President Trump lifted the 
hold.
  According to a press report, after Congress began investigating 
President Trump's scheme, the White House Counsel's Office opened an 
internal investigation relating to the July 25 call. The following 
slides provide excerpts from a report in the Washington Post.
  As part of that internal investigation, White House lawyers 
reportedly gathered and reviewed hundreds of documents that revealed 
extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the 
hold on military assistance for Ukraine that had been ordered by the 
President.
  These documents reportedly include ``early August email exchanges 
between Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget 
officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds 
after the President had already ordered a hold in mid-July on the 
nearly $400 million in security assistance.''
  The Washington Post article also reported, and this is a quote: 
``Emails show OMB Director Vought and OMB staffers arguing that 
withholding the aid was legal, while officials at the National Security 
Council and State Department protested. OMB lawyers said that it was 
legal to withhold the aid, as long as they deemed it a temporary 
hold.'' You should be able to see these documents, but the White House 
has withheld them from Congress. The House can't verify the news 
report, but you could. You could do that if you could see these 
documents. You should subpoena them, and there is no reason not to see 
all of the relevant documents.

  The lengthy delay created by President Trump's hold prevented the 
Department of Defense from spending all congressionally appropriated 
funds by the end of the fiscal year, as we have mentioned before. That 
meant the funds were going to expire on September 30 because, as we 
know, unused funds do not roll over to the next fiscal year. This 
confirmed the fears expressed by Cooper, Sandy, and others--concerns 
that were discussed within the relevant agencies in late July and 
throughout August.
  Ultimately, approximately $35 million of Ukraine military 
assistance--that is 14 percent of the DOD funds--remained unspent by 
the end of the fiscal year. In order to make sure that Ukraine did not 
permanently lose the $35 million of critical military assistance that 
had been frozen by the White House, Congress had to pass a provision on 
September 27--3 days before the funds were to expire--to ensure that 
the remaining $35 million could be sent to Ukraine.
  George Kent is an anti-corruption and rule-of-law expert. He told us 
that American anti-corruption efforts prioritized building 
institutional capacity, support for the rule of law, not the pursuit of 
individual investigations, particularly of political rivals. Here is 
how he explained their approach.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. KENT. U.S. efforts to counter corruption in Ukraine 
     focus on building institutional capacity so that the 
     Ukrainian Government has the ability to go after corruption 
     and effectively investigate, prosecute, and judge alleged 
     criminal activities using appropriate institutional 
     mechanisms; that is, to create and follow the rule of law. 
     That means that if there are criminal nexuses for activity in 
     the United States, U.S. law enforcement should pursue the 
     case. If we think there's been a criminal act overseas that 
     violates U.S. law, we have the institutional mechanisms to 
     address that. It could be through the Justice Department and 
     FBI agents assigned overseas or through treaty mechanisms, 
     such as the mutual legal assistance treaty.
       As a general principle, I do not believe the United States 
     should ask other countries to engage in selective politically 
     associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents 
     of those in power because such selective actions undermine 
     the rule of law, regardless of the country.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. David Holmes concurred during his testimony. 
Holmes also compared the official approach that we believe in, that we 
promulgated across the world, with what the President and Mr. Giuliani 
actually were doing.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. Our long-standing policy is to encourage them 
     to establish, build rule of law institutions that are 
     capable, that can pursue allegations. That's our policy. 
     We've been doing that for some time with some

[[Page S482]]

     success. Focusing on particular cases, particularly where 
     there is interest of the President, just not part of what 
     we've done. It's hard to explain why we would do that.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Unfortunately, we do know the explanation. We 
know why President Trump wanted President Zelensky to announce 
investigations--because it would help him in his election.
  On September 18, approximately a week before he was supposed to meet 
with President Trump at the United Nations General Assembly in New 
York, President Zelensky spoke by telephone with Vice President Pence.
  During her deposition, Jennifer Williams testified. She was Vice 
President Pence's assistant. She had testified that Vice President 
Pence basically reiterated that the hold on aid had been lifted and 
asked a bit more about how Zelensky's efforts were going.
  Following her deposition and while preparing for her testimony at the 
open hearing on November 19, Williams reviewed the documents--they had 
not been produced to us by the White House--and those documents 
refreshed her recollection of Vice President Pence's call with 
President Zelensky. The White House blocked Williams from testifying 
about her refreshed recollections of the Vice President's call when she 
appeared at the open public hearing. They claim that certain portions 
of the September 18 call, including the information that Williams 
wanted to tell us about, were classified.
  On November 26, she submitted a classified addition to her hearing 
testimony where she provided additional information about the Vice 
President's September 18 telephone call with President Zelensky. The 
Intelligence Committee provided this classified addition to the 
Judiciary Committee. It has been sent to the Senate for your review. 
Now, I have read that testimony. I will just say that a coverup is not 
a proper reason to classify a document.
  Vice President Pence has repeatedly said publicly that he has no 
objection to the White House releasing the actual transcript of his 
calls with President Zelensky. Yet his office has refused many requests 
by the committee to declassify Williams' addendum so the American 
people could also see the additional evidence about this call.
  We urge the Senators to review it, and we again ask that the White 
House declassify them. As the House wrote in two separate letters, 
there is no basis to keep it classified. Again, in case the White House 
needs a reminder, it is improper to keep something classified just to 
avoid embarrassment or to conceal wrongdoing.
  We have been through a lot of facts today. We have seen the 
President's scheme. A shakedown of Ukraine for his personal benefit 
was, I believe, an obvious abuse of his power. But this misconduct and 
scheme became exposed. Congress asked questions. The press reported. 
Nonpolitical officers in the government expressed concern. The 
whistleblower laws were activated.

  As this happened, there was an effort to create an after-the-fact, 
misleading record to avoid responsibility for what the President had 
actually been doing. These were not the only efforts to hide 
misconduct, and misconduct continued. Congressman Schiff will review 
some of those items.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. We have about 20 minutes left in the presentation 
tonight.
  I would like to now go through with you the President's efforts to 
hide this corrupt scheme even as it continued well into the fall of 
last year.
  On August 12, a whistleblower in the intelligence community submitted 
a complaint addressed to the congressional Intelligence Committees. 
This explosive document stated that President Trump had solicited 
foreign interference from Ukraine to assist his 2020 reelection bid.
  The complaint alleged a scheme by President Trump to ``us[e] the 
power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in 
the 2020 U.S. election.'' The complaint stated that the President had 
applied pressure on Ukraine to investigate one of the President's main 
domestic political rivals and detailed the involvement of the 
President's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. The complaint also stated 
that the whistleblower believed the President's activities ``posed 
risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's 
efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in the U.S. 
elections.''
  Under the law, the whistleblower was required to file the complaint 
with the inspector general of the intelligence community, which was 
then required to vet and assess the complaint and determine if it 
warranted reporting to the Intelligence Committees. The law gives the 
inspector general 14 days to conduct an initial review and then inform 
the Director of National Intelligence about his findings.
  On August 26, the inspector general sent the whistleblower complaint 
and the inspector general's preliminary determination to the Acting 
Director of National Intelligence. The inspector general wrote that 
based on his review of the complaint, its allegations constituted an 
``urgent concern'' and appeared ``credible'' under the statute. The 
inspector general confirmed that the whistleblower acted lawfully in 
bringing the complaint and credibly raised a legitimate concern that 
should be communicated to the Intelligence Committees of Congress.
  The Director of National Intelligence quickly informed the White 
House about the complaint.
  Under the law, the Acting Director of National Intelligence was 
required to forward the complaint and the inspector general's 
determination to the congressional Intelligence Committees no later 
than 7 days after he received them. The legal requirement is extremely 
clear. Upon receipt of the transmittal from the ICIG--that is the 
inspector general of the intelligence community--the Director shall, 
within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the 
congressional Intelligence Committees, together with any comments the 
Director considers appropriate. Yet, despite the clear letter of the 
law, the White House mobilized to keep the information in the 
whistleblower complaint from Congress, including by inviting the 
Department of Justice to render an opinion as to whether the complaint 
could be withheld from Congress.
  The statutory deadline of September 2, when the Director of National 
Intelligence was required to turn them over to Congress, came and went, 
and the complaint remained hidden from Congress.
  Finally, on September 9, a full week after the complaint was required 
to be sent to Congress--and once again, an urgent concern--the 
inspector general wrote to the leaders of the Intelligence Committees 
to inform them that the Director of National Intelligence was 
withholding a whistleblower complaint, in direct contravention of past 
practice and the law.
  On September 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that 
``the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official 
impeachment inquiry.''
  The next day, the House of Representatives passed a resolution 
calling on the Trump administration to provide the whistleblower's 
complaint immediately to the congressional Intelligence Committees.
  Later that day, the White House publicly released the summary of the 
July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky and 
permitted the Acting Director of National Intelligence to provide the 
whistleblower's complaint and related documents to the congressional 
Intelligence Committees.
  The President himself was happy to discuss the motivations for the 
scheme in public. That day, in a joint press availability with 
President Zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly, President 
Trump reiterated that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. No, I want him to do whatever he can. This 
     was not his fault. He wasn't there. He's just been here 
     recently. But whatever he can do in terms of corruption 
     because the corruption is massive. 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.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Finally, the day after President Trump explained 
to the public that he wanted Ukraine to investigate former Vice 
President Biden, on the morning of September 26, the Intelligence 
Committee publicly released declassified redactions of two documents: 
the whistleblower's August 12 complaint and the inspector general's 
August 26 transmittal to the Acting Director of National Intelligence.

[[Page S483]]

  Even after the impeachment inquiry into the Ukraine matter began, 
President Trump and his proxy, Rudy Giuliani, had continued to publicly 
urge President Zelensky to launch an investigation of Vice President 
Biden and alleged 2016 election interference by Ukraine.
  On September 30, during his remarks at the swearing-in of the new 
Labor Secretary, President Trump stated this.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President 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 is very 
     important we do. Thank you, everyone.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So here he is. He is meeting at the United 
Nations, September 30, and he is still pursuing this bogus CrowdStrike 
conspiracy theory with the President of Ukraine.
  On October 2, in a public press availability, President Trump 
discussed the July 25 call with President Zelensky and stated that 
``the conversation was perfect; it couldn't have been nicer.'' He then 
linked his notion of corruption with the Biden investigation.
  On October 3, in remarks before he departed on Marine One, President 
Trump expressed his hope that Ukraine would investigate Vice President 
Biden and his son. President Trump actually escalated his rhetoric, 
urging not only Ukraine to investigate the Bidens but China too.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Question. Mr. President, what exactly did you hope Zelensky 
     would do about the Bidens after your phone call?
       President TRUMP. Well, I would think that, if they were 
     honest about it, they would start a major investigation into 
     the Bidens. It's a very simple answer. They should 
     investigate the Bidens, because how does a company that's 
     newly formed--and all these companies, if you look at--and, 
     by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation 
     into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about 
     as bad as what happened with--with Ukraine. So I would say 
     that President Zelensky--if it were me, I would recommend 
     that they start an investigation into the Bidens.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The same day, President Trump tweeted that he has 
an absolute right to investigate corruption. That really means he feels 
he has an absolute right to investigate or get foreign countries to 
investigate his political opponents. The President sent a similar tweet 
the next day, once again linking corruption with the Biden 
investigation:

       As President, I have an obligation to end corruption, even 
     if that means requesting the help of a foreign country or 
     countries. It is done all the time. This has nothing to do 
     with politics or a political campaign against the Bidens. 
     This does have to do with their corruption.

  Give him credit for being so pompous. ``This has nothing to do with 
politics or a political campaign against the Bidens,'' but you have got 
to investigate the Bidens. I guess that is just a coincidence.
  President Trump continued to demonstrate his eagerness to solicit 
foreign assistance related to his personal interests: ``Here's what's 
okay,'' he said. ``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.''
  President Trump added that asking President Xi of China to 
investigate the Bidens ``is certainly something we can start thinking 
about.''
  Even last month--even last month--the President and Giuliani's scheme 
continued. During the first week of December, Giuliani traveled to 
Budapest, Kyiv, and Vienna to meet with former Ukrainian Government 
officials as part of a continuing effort to dig up dirt, political 
dirt, on Vice President Biden and advance the theory that Ukraine 
interfered in the 2016 election.
  Asked about his interviews of former Ukrainian prosecutors, Giuliani 
told the New York Times that he was acting on behalf of his client, 
President Trump: ``Like a good lawyer, I am gathering evidence to 
defend my client against the false charges being leveled against him.'' 
Indeed, evidence obtained by the House from Giuliani's associate 
confirms that he had been representing himself in as early as May 2019 
as President Trump's personal lawyer, doing Donald J. Trump's personal 
bidding in his dealings with Ukraine.
  This letter of May 10, 2019, from Giuliani to Zelensky says, among 
other things:

       However, I have a more specific request. In my capacity as 
     personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge 
     and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming 
     Monday, May 13, or Tuesday, May 14. I will need no more than 
     a half-hour of your time, and I will be accompanied by my 
     colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American 
     attorney who is very familiar with this matter.
       Please have your office let me know what time or times are 
     convenient for you, and Victoria and I will be there.

  This is evidence recently obtained showing his effort to get that 
meeting in May with Zelensky. Giuliani told the Wall Street Journal 
that, when he returned to New York from his most recent trip on 
December 7, President Trump called him as his plane was still taxiing 
down the runway: ``What did you get?'' he said President Trump asked. 
``More than you can imagine,'' Giuliani replied. Giuliani claimed that 
he was putting his findings into a 20-page report and that the 
President had asked him to brief the Attorney General and the 
Republicans in Congress. Shortly thereafter, on the same day, President 
Trump told reporters before departing on Marine One that he was aware 
of Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine and that Giuliani was going to report 
his purported findings to the Attorney General and Congress.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. Well, I just know he came back from 
     someplace, and he's going to make a report, I think to the 
     Attorney General and to Congress. He says he has a lot of 
     good information. I have not spoken to him about that 
     information. But Rudy, as you know, has been one of the great 
     crime fighters of the last 50 years. And he did get back from 
     Europe just recently, and I know--he has not told me what he 
     found, but I think he wants to go before Congress and say--
     and also to the Attorney General and the Department of 
     Justice. I hear he's found plenty, yeah.

  Three days after those remarks on December 10, Giuliani confirmed to 
the Washington Post that President Trump had asked him to brief the 
Justice Department and Republican Senators on his ``findings'' from his 
trip to Ukraine.
  Giuliani stated:

       He wants me to do it. I'm working on pulling it together 
     and hope to have it done by the end of the week.

  That Friday, December 13, Giuliani reportedly met with President 
Trump at the White House, and on December 17 Giuliani confirmed to CNN 
that President Trump has been very supportive of his efforts to dig up 
dirt on Vice President Biden and Ukraine and that they are on the same 
page.
  The following day, on December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives 
approved the two Articles of Impeachment you are considering in this 
trial. Since the House voted on these articles, evidence has continued 
to come to light related to the President's corrupt scheme. Among other 
things, Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, press reporting, and 
documents provided to Congress from Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas 
further corroborate what we already know about the President's scheme.
  As Giuliani again said on December 17, President Trump has been 
``very supportive'' of his efforts to dig up dirt on Vice President 
Biden and they are ``on the same page.''
  Parnas further corroborated what we already know about President 
Trump's scheme; that he was responsible for withholding military aid 
and sustaining that hold and that his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, 
was working at the direction of President Trump himself.
  On December 20, new emails were released showing that, 91 minutes 
after President Trump's call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, a top 
Office of Management and Budget aide asked the Department of Defense to 
hold off on sending military aid to Ukraine. So those were new 
documents that came on December 20.
  On December 29, revelations emerged from OMB Director and Acting 
Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's role about them--about that role in the 
delay of aid and efforts by lawyers at OMB, the Department of Justice, 
and the White House to justify the delay and the alarm that the delay 
caused within the administration. Those records just became available 
on December 29.
  On January 2, newly unredacted Pentagon emails which raised serious 
concerns by Trump administration officials about the legality of the 
President's hold on aid became available.

[[Page S484]]

  On January 6, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton 
announced that he would comply with a Senate subpoena compelling his 
testimony. His lawyers stated that he has new relevant information.
  On January 13, reports emerged that the Russian Government hacked the 
Ukrainian gas company Burisma, almost certainly in an effort to find 
information about Vice President Joe Biden's son in order to weaponize 
that information against Mr. Biden and in favor of Mr. Trump, just as 
Russia did against Secretary Clinton in favor of then-candidate Trump 
in 2016.
  That brings us up to January 13 of this year. Last week, House 
committees received new evidence from Lev Parnas that further 
demonstrates that the President was a central player in this scheme to 
pressure Ukraine for his political gain. Also last week, the Government 
Accountability Office found that President Trump violated the law when 
he withheld that aid.
  Last night we had further development when more redacted emails from 
the Office of Management and Budget were produced. I think 
Representative Crow showed you these. These are among the documents 
that were just released. I am sure that, if we could read under those 
redactions, it would be a very perfect email, but you have to ask: What 
is being redacted here? What is so important to keep confidential 
during the course of an impeachment inquiry?
  As you can see, right up until last night, evidence continues to be 
produced. The truth is going to come out. Indeed, the truth has already 
come out, but more and more of it will. More emails are going to come 
out. More witnesses are going to come forward. They are going to have 
more relevant information to share.
  The only question is, Do you want to hear it now? Do you want to know 
the full truth now? Do you want to know just who was in the loop? It 
sounds like everyone was in the loop. Do you want to know how broad 
this scheme was?
  We have the evidence to prove that President Trump ordered the aid 
withheld. He did so to coerce Ukraine to help his reelection campaign. 
He withheld a White House meeting to coerce the same sham 
investigations. We can and will prove President Trump guilty of this 
conduct and of obstructing the investigation into his misconduct, but 
you and the American people should know who else was involved in this 
scheme. You should want the whole truth to come out. You should want to 
know about every player in this sordid business. It is within your 
power to do so, and I would urge you, even if you are prepared to vote 
to convict and impeach and remove this President, to find out the full 
truth about how far this corruption goes because I think the public has 
a right to know.
  Now, today--well, yesterday we made the case for why you should hear 
this additional evidence and testimony. This morning, I introduced you 
to the broad sweep of the President's conduct, and then, during the 
course of today, we walked you through a factual chronology in realtime 
about how this plot unfolded. During that factual chronology today, you 
saw that, in March of this year, Giuliani began that smear campaign 
against Ambassador Yovanovitch in order to get her fired by President 
Trump, something he would later admit was necessary to get her out of 
the way because she was going to be in the way of these two 
investigations.
  This is the supposed anticorruption effort by the President: to get 
rid of a woman who has dedicated her career to representing the United 
States, often in dangerous parts of the world, to fighting corruption, 
and to promoting the rule of law. This plot begins with getting her out 
of the way, with the President saying that ``she is going to go through 
some things.'' This anticorruption reformer, this U.S. patriot--this 
plot begins with getting her out of the way.
  This says so much about the administration. Tellingly, it wasn't 
enough just to recall her or fire her. The President could have done 
that anytime. No. They wanted to destroy her because she had the 
audacity to stand in their way.
  So we heard in March about the effort to get rid of her, and it 
succeeded. And guess what message that sent to the Ukrainians about the 
power the President's lawyer has. The Ukrainians were watching this 
whole saga. They were hearing his interviews. They were seeing the 
smears he was putting out. And this attorney for the President, working 
hand in hand with these corrupt Ukrainians, was able to get a UN 
ambassador yanked out of her job. Proof positive--you want a window to 
this President, you want entre to this President, you want to make 
things happen with this President, you go through his lawyer. Never 
mind the State Department, never mind the National Security Council, 
never mind the Defense Department--you go through his employer. That is 
March.

  In April, Zelensky has this huge victory in the Presidential 
election. He gets a congratulatory call from the President. The 
President assigns Vice President Pence to go to the inauguration.
  In May, Giuliani is rebuffed by Zelensky, cancels the trip to 
Ukraine--the one where he wanted to go, remember, and meddle in the 
investigation because, Giuliani says, enemies of Trump surround 
Zelensky. I guess that means he didn't get the money, and they must be 
enemies of the President. Of course, the Ukrainians know why he wants 
that meeting.
  In May, Trump disinvites Pence to the inauguration. Pence is going, 
Giuliani is rebuffed, Pence isn't going. That is May.
  Instead, May 23, we have this meeting at the White House, and there 
is a new party in town: the three amigos. They are going to be handling 
the Ukraine portfolio. They are told: Work with Rudy, work with Rudy. 
Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, Secretary Perry, work with 
Rudy.
  As you saw in June, Rudy is pushing for these investigations, and 
they are trying to arrange these meetings and trying to make this 
happen. Also in June, the Defense Department announces they are going 
the release the military aid. The President reads about this, and then 
he stops it. He stops the aid.
  In July--July 10--you heard in the chronology, there is a meeting at 
the White House, the meeting in which Sondland blurts out in this 
meeting between the Ukrainians and Americans: Hey, they have a deal. 
They are trying to get this meeting, and there is a debate whether the 
meeting is going to happen and when it is going to happen. Sondland 
says: Hey, we have a deal with Mulvaney here. We are going to get this 
meeting, and you are going to do those investigations.
  Bolton stiffens and abruptly ends the meeting. That was the first 
meeting that day. Then Sondland brings the delegation to a different 
part of the White House, and they have the followup meeting where he 
makes it even more explicit--this drug deal is made even more explicit. 
Dr. Hill is told by Ambassador Bolton: You need to go talk to the 
lawyers; I don't want any part of this drug deal they are cooking up. 
That is July.
  July is the month where that email goes from Sondland to Pompeo and 
others, and everybody is in the loop. July is the month where the hold 
is implemented with no explanation. July is the month where Mueller 
testifies about Russia's systemic interference in our affairs. July is 
the month after Mueller testifies that the President believes he has 
escaped accountability.
  The next day in July is, of course, the July 25 call in which the 
President asks for his favor. July 26 is the date of the call between 
President Trump and Ambassador Sondland. You know the one: ``Zelensky 
loves your ass,'' and he will do anything you want.
  Is he going to do the investigation? Yeah, he is going to do the 
investigation.
  July is the month of that conversation between Sondland and David 
Holmes, where Holmes says: Can you tell me candidly here what the 
President thinks of Ukraine? Does he give a ``blank'' about Ukraine? 
No, he doesn't give a ``blank'' about Ukraine. He only cares about the 
big stuff.
  Well, it is kind of big stuff here in Ukraine, like a war with the 
Russians.
  No, no, no. Big stuff that affects him personally, like the Biden 
investigation that Giuliani wants. That is the month of July.
  In August, we have that meeting between Giuliani and Yermak in 
Madrid. In August, we have the back and forth about the statement: No, 
you go first,

[[Page S485]]

and you commit and publicly announce investigations, and then we will 
give you a date.
  No, you go first. You give us the date, and then we will announce the 
investigations.
  Well, we will give you a statement that doesn't mention the 
specifics.
  No, no, you give us a statement that mentions the investigations.
  That is the month of August.
  August is also the month where it becomes clear that it is not just 
the meeting anymore. It is everything. Everything is conditioned on 
these investigations--the relationship, the money, the meeting. 
Sondland and Holmes testify it is as simple as two plus two equals 
four. That is all.
  In September, Sondland says to Yermak: Everything is conditioned on 
public announcements.
  Message delivered, no ambiguity: The Ukrainians are told quid pro 
quo.
  Taylor texts: This is crazy to withhold aid.
  September is the month--September 7 in particular, Trump and Sondland 
talk on the phone, and the President has that conversation where he 
says: No quid pro quo--except, here is the quid pro quo.
  Zelensky has to go to the mike, and what is more, he should want to 
do it.
  September is also the month where the investigations begin in 
Congress. September is the month where, after those investigations 
begin, after the President knows he has been caught, the aid is finally 
released. September is the month where Pence and Zelensky are on the 
phone and Jennifer Williams has classified information to share with 
you that I hope you will take a look at because it is relevant to these 
issues.
  That is September.
  In October, Trump admits: Yes, if it wasn't obvious enough, he wants 
Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. October is the month 
where he invites another nation, China, to investigate his opponent.
  This is the broad outline of the chronology that we went through 
today.
  Tomorrow, we will go through the law, the Constitution, and the facts 
as they apply to article I. That is the plan for tomorrow.
  We have introduced the case. We have gone through the chronology, and 
tomorrow, we will apply the facts to the law as it pertains to the 
President's abuse of power.
  Let me just conclude this evening by remarking again on what brought 
us here. What brought us here is that some courageous people came 
forward, courageous people that risked their entire careers. One of the 
things that has been striking to me about that, as I watch these 
witnesses like Maria Yovanovitch and Ambassador Taylor and David Holmes 
and others--Dr. Hill--is how much these dedicated officials were 
willing to risk their career, the beginning of their career, the middle 
of their career, or late in their career, when they had everything to 
lose, but people senior to them, who have every advantage, who sit in 
positions of power, lack that same basic commitment, lack that similar 
basic willingness to put their country first and expose wrongdoing.
  Why is it that Colonel Vindman, who worked for Fiona Hill, who worked 
for John Bolton and Dr. Kupperman, were willing to stick their neck out 
and answer lawful subpoenas when their bosses wouldn't? I don't know 
that I can answer that question, but I just can tell you, I have such 
admiration for the fact they did.
  I think this is some form of cosmic justice that this Ambassador that 
was so ruthlessly smeared is now a hero for her courage. There is 
justice in that. But what would really vindicate that leap of faith 
that she took is if we show the same courage. They risked everything--
their careers--and, yes, I know what you are asked to decide may risk 
yours too, but if they could show the courage, so can we.
  I yield back.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 243 of the 
100th Congress, a single, one-page classified document identified by 
the House managers for filing with the Secretary of the Senate, that 
will be received on January 22, 2020, shall not be made part of the 
public record and shall not be printed, but shall be made available 
pursuant to the Standing Order for the 100th Congress.
  The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________