January 23, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 14 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S498-S513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  RECESS SUBJECT TO CALL OF THE CHAIR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I am going to recommend that we 
take a 15-minute break at this point.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, at 2:57 p.m. the Senate, sitting as a Court 
of Impeachment, recessed until 3:25 p.m.; whereupon the Senate 
reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice. 
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Manager Schiff. 
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, I am going to pick up where my 
colleague from Texas left off, but I want to begin by underscoring a 
few of the points that she made, in listening to her presentation, that 
really leapt out at me in a way they hadn't leapt out at me before.
  First, I want to address--my colleague shared a number of slides 
showing the polling strength of Joe Biden vis-a-vis the President as a 
demonstration of his motive, the fact that he went over these political 
investigations to undermine someone he was deeply concerned about.
  This is an appropriate point for me to make the disclaimer that the 
House managers take no position in the Democratic primary for 
President. I don't want to lose a single more vote than necessary. But 
those polls do show the powerful motive that Donald Trump had--a motive 
that he didn't have the year before or the year before that; a motive 
that he didn't have when he allowed the aid to go to Ukraine without 
complaint or issue in 2017 or 2018. It was only when he had a growing 
concern with Joe Biden's candidacy that he took a sudden interest in 
Ukraine and Ukraine funding and the withholding of that aid.
  I also want to underscore what the President said in that July 25 
call. My colleague showed you that transcript from July 25 where the 
President says: ``I would like you to find out what happened with this 
whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike.'' My colleagues 
have explained what that theory is about that server, that CrowdStrike 
server--the crazy theory that it was Ukraine that hacked the Democratic 
server and that server was whisked away to Ukraine and hidden there so 
that the investigators and the FBI couldn't look at this server. That 
is what Donald Trump was raising in that conversation with President 
Zelensky.
  I bring up this point again because you may hear from my colleagues, 
the President's lawyers, as we heard during the testimony in the House, 
that the concern was over Ukrainian interference in the election, and 
why isn't it possible that both Russia and Ukraine interfered in the 
election? Never mind that is contrary to all the evidence. But it is 
important to point out here that we are not talking about generic 
interference. We are not talking about, as we heard from some of my 
colleagues in the House, a tweet from a Ukrainian here or an op-ed 
written by somebody there and equating it with the kind of systematic 
interference of the Russians. What we are talking about here--what the 
President is talking about here is a very specific conspiracy theory 
going to the server itself, meaning that it was Ukraine that hacked the 
Democratic server, not the Russians. This theory was brought to you by 
the Kremlin, OK? So we are not talking about generic interference. We 
are talking about the server. We are talking about CrowdStrike. At 
least, that is what Donald Trump wanted to investigate or announced--
this completely bogus, Kremlin-pushed conspiracy theory.

  I was also struck by that video you saw of Tom Bossert, the former 
homeland security adviser for the President, in which he talked about 
how completely debunked and crazy this conspiracy theory is. And then 
there was that rather glib line that he admitted was glib, but 
nonetheless made a point, about the three or five ways to impeach 
oneself, and the third way was to hire Rudy Giuliani.
  Now, it struck me in watching that clip, again, that it is important 
to emphasize that Rudy Giuliani is not some Svengali here who has the 
President under his control. There may be an effort to say: OK, the 
human hand grenade, Rudy Giuliani, it is all his fault. He has the 
President in his grip.
  And even though the U.S. intelligence agencies and the bipartisan 
Senate Intelligence Committee and everyone else told the President time 
after time that this is nonsense, that the Russians interfered, not the 
Ukrainians, he just couldn't shake himself of what he was hearing from 
Rudy Giuliani. You can say a lot of things about President Trump, but 
he is not led by the nose by Rudy Giuliani. And if he is willing to 
listen to his personal lawyer over his own intelligence agencies, his 
own advisers, then you can imagine what a danger that presents to this 
country.
  My colleague also played for you that interview with Director Wray. 
And, again, I was just struck anew by that interview. In that 
interview, Director Wray says: ``We have no information that indicates 
that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election.'' That is 
Donald Trump's Director of the FBI: ``We have no information that 
indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election''--none, as in 
zero.
  The reporter then says: When you see politicians pushing this notion, 
are you concerned about that in terms of the impact on the American 
public?
  And the Director says: ``Well, look, there's all kinds of people 
saying all kinds of things out there.''
  Well, yes, there are, but this person is the President of the United 
States. When he says ``there are all kinds of people out there saying 
all kinds of things,'' well, what he is really saying is the President 
of the United States. It is one thing if someone off the streets says 
it, but when it is coming from the President of the United States, you 
can see what a danger it is if it is patently false and it is 
promulgated by the Russians.
  And, again, the reporter says: We heard from the President, himself, 
he wanted the CrowdStrike portion of this whole conspiracy 
investigated, and I am hearing you say there is no evidence to support 
this.
  And Wray says: ``As I said, we at the FBI have no information that 
would indicate that Ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016 presidential 
election''--none.
  And so you can imagine the view from the Kremlin of all of this. You 
can imagine Putin in the Kremlin with his aides, and one of his aides 
comes into the office and says: Vladimir, you are never going to 
believe this. The President of the United States is pushing our 
CrowdStrike theory.
  I mean, you can almost imagine the incredulity of Vladimir Putin: You 
are kidding; right? You mean he really believes this? His own people 
don't believe this. Nobody believes this.
  It would be bad enough, of course, that the President of the United 
States believes this Russian propaganda against the advice of all of 
his advisers--common sense--and everything

[[Page S499]]

else, but it is worse than that. It is worse than that. On the basis of 
this Russian propaganda, he withheld $400 million in military aid to a 
nation Russia was fighting, our ally. I mean, when we ask about what is 
the national security implication of what the President did, how much 
more clear can it be that he is not only pushing Russian propaganda, he 
is not only misleading Americans about who interfered in the last 
election, that he is not only doing the Kremlin a favor, but that he is 
withholding aid from a nation at war. The Russians not only got him to 
deflect blame from their interference in our democracy, but they got 
him to withhold military aid.
  Now, of course, there was this convergence of interest between the 
Kremlin and the President. The President wasn't pushing Kremlin talking 
points just to do Vladimir Putin a favor. He was doing it because it 
helped him, because it helped him and because it could get these 
talking points for him in his reelection campaign. And for that, he 
would sacrifice our ally and our own security.
  But nothing struck me more from Representative Garcia's presentation 
than that quote from Vladimir Putin from November of this past year, 
just a couple of months ago. Putin said:

       Thank God nobody is accusing us anymore of interfering in 
     U.S. elections. Now they're accusing Ukraine.

  ``Thank God,'' Putin says. Well, you have to give Donald Trump credit 
for this. He has made a religious man out of Vladimir Putin, but I 
don't think we really want Vladimir Putin, our adversary, to be 
thanking God for the President of the United States, because they don't 
wish us well. They don't wish us well. They are a wounded animal. They 
are a declining power. But like any wounded animal, they are a 
dangerous animal. Their world view is completely antithetical to ours. 
We do not want them thanking God for our President and what he is 
pushing out. We don't want them thanking God for withholding money from 
our ally, although we can understand why they may. To me, that is what 
stuck out from that presentation.
  Now, in the first part of this presentation, we walked through the 
corrupt object of President Trump's scheme--getting Ukraine to announce 
these two political investigations that would help benefit his 
reelection campaign. And just looking at how baseless and fabricated 
the allegations behind him were made plain his corrupt motive.
  But in addition to this overwhelming evidence, there are at least 10 
other reasons we know that President Trump directed his scheme with 
corrupt intent. There are at least 10 other reasons we know that 
President Trump was interested in his own personal gain and not the 
national interest in pressing for these investigations.
  First, the President only wanted these investigations to be announced 
publicly, not even conducted.
  Second, the President's only interest in Ukraine was the ``Big 
Stuff'' that mattered to himself, not issues affecting Ukraine or the 
United States.
  Third, the President tasked his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to 
pursue these investigations on his behalf, not government officials.
  Fourth, both before and after the July 25 call, the investigations 
were never part of U.S. official foreign policy. NSC officials, too, 
make clear that this was not about foreign policy. Other witnesses 
confirmed the investigations, in fact, diverged from U.S. official 
policy.
  Fifth, the investigations were undertaken outside of normal channels.
  Sixth, Ukrainian officials understood that the investigations were 
purely political in nature.
  Seventh, multiple administration officials reported the President's 
July 25 call.
  Eighth, the White House buried the call.
  Ninth, President Trump confirmed he wanted Ukraine to conduct 
investigations in his own words.
  And, finally, President Trump did not care about anti-corruption 
efforts in Ukraine.
  Let's go through these one by one.
  First, perhaps the simplest way that we all know that President Trump 
wanted these investigations done solely to help his personal political 
interests and not the national interest is that he merely wanted a 
public announcement of the investigations, not an assurance that they 
would actually be done. If his desire for these investigations was 
truly to assist Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts or because he was 
worried about the larger issues of corruption in Ukraine, someone 
actually investigating the facts underlying the investigations would 
have been most important. But he didn't care about the facts or the 
issues. He just wanted the political benefit of the public announcement 
of an investigation that he could use to damage his political opponent 
and boost his own political standing.
  Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who was at the center of this scheme, 
made this quite clear in his testimony.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       GOLDMAN. Now, for Mr. Giuliani, by this point, you 
     understood that in order to get that White House meeting that 
     you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President 
     Zelensky desperately wanted to have that Ukraine would have 
     to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. Well, they would have to announce that 
     they were going to do it.
       GOLDMAN. Right. Because Giuliani and President Trump didn't 
     actually care if they did them, right?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say 
     that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. 
     The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani, or otherwise, was 
     that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept 
     changing.
       GOLDMAN. Announced publicly?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. Announced publically.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The other evidence gathered by the House's 
investigation confirms Ambassador Sondland's understanding. For 
example, recently, the House received documents from Lev Parnas, an 
associate of Rudy Giuliani's, now indicted, in response to a subpoena. 
As you know, Lev Parnas was indicted by the Southern District of New 
York for crimes, including election law violations. As part of the 
documents that Parnas turned over, we obtained handwritten notes that 
Parnas apparently took some time in 2019. One of those notes lays out 
the scheme very clearly and succinctly.
  Now, it is not every day that you get a document like this--what 
appears to be a member of the conspiracy writing down the object of the 
conspiracy, but that is exactly what we see here. We see the scheme 
that ultimately was directed by President Trump to coerce Ukraine to 
announce the investigation of the Bidens. I repeat: to announce the 
investigation--not investigate, not conduct. The only thing that 
mattered was the public announcement, as this note says with an 
asterisk: ``Get Zelensky to Announce that the Biden case will Be 
Investigated.''
  And in early September, after Mr. Giuliani and Ambassadors Volker and 
Sondland had tried but failed to get President Zelensky to issue a 
public statement, President Trump made this clear himself. He explained 
to Ambassador Bolton that he wanted Zelensky in a ``public box''; that 
is, President Trump would only be satisfied if President Zelensky made 
a public announcement of the investigations, which he subsequently 
agreed to do on CNN.
  Here is Ambassador Taylor's testimony on this:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. And so, even though President Trump was saying 
     repeatedly that there is no quid pro quo, Ambassador Sondland 
     relayed to you that the facts of the matter were that the 
     White House meeting and the security assistance were 
     conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. Is 
     that your understanding?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. That's my understanding.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, you referenced a television interview and 
     a desire for President Trump to put Zelensky in a public box, 
     which you also have in quotes. Was that in your notes?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. It was in my notes.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And what did you understand that to mean, to 
     put Zelensky in a public box?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. I understood that to mean that President 
     Trump, through Ambassador Sondland, was asking for President 
     Zelensky to very publicly commit to these investigations, 
     that it was not sufficient to do this in private, that this 
     needed to be a very public statement.

  The fact that the President only wanted a public announcement and not 
the investigations to actually be conducted demonstrates that his 
desire for investigations was simply and solely to boost his reelection 
efforts.

[[Page S500]]

  No. 2, turning to the second reason, President Trump's agents who 
helped to carry out this scheme confirmed that his desire for Ukraine 
to announce the investigations was solely for his personal political 
benefit.
  As we will explain in more detail in a few minutes, President Trump 
never expressed any interest in U.S. anti-corruption policy toward 
Ukraine, nor did he care about Ukraine's war against Russia. He only 
expressed interest in one thing: investigating his political opponent. 
This was unequivocally confirmed by the testimony of David Holmes, the 
senior official at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. The day after the July 25 
call, Holmes overheard a conversation between President Trump and 
Ambassador Sondland, who was in Kyiv. The only topic they discussed 
related to Ukraine was as to the investigations.
  Here is his testimony:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile 
     phone, and I heard him announce himself several times along 
     the lines of ``Gordon Sondland, holding for the President.'' 
     It appeared that he was being transferred through several 
     layers of switchboards and assistants, and I then noticed 
     Ambassador Sondland's demeanor changed and understood he had 
     been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador 
     Sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the 
     President's voice through the ear piece of the phone.
       The President's voice was loud and recognizable, and 
     Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a 
     period of time, presumably because of the loud volume. I 
     heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explained 
     he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then 
     clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador 
     Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to 
     state that President Zelensky ``loves your ass.'' I then 
     heard President Trump ask, ``So he's going to do the 
     investigation?''
       Ambassador Sondland replied that ``he's going to do it,'' 
     adding that President Zelensky will do ``anything you ask him 
     to do.''

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. After the call, Ambassador Sondland confirmed to 
Holmes that the investigations were the President's sole interest with 
Ukraine because--and this is very important--they benefit the 
President.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland 
     remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador 
     Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I 
     then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his 
     candid impression of the President's views on Ukraine. In 
     particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that 
     the President did not give a [expletive] about Ukraine. 
     Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not give a 
     [expletive] about Ukraine.
       I asked, ``Why Not?'' Ambassador Sondland stated the 
     President only cares about ``big stuff.'' I noted there was 
     big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. 
     Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that 
     benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. 
     Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on to other 
     topics.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. This understanding by Ambassador Sondland is 
independently confirmed by President Trump's own interactions with 
Ukraine.
  During his two telephone calls with President Zelensky--first on 
April 21 and then on July 25--President Trump did not refer to any 
anti-corruption efforts or the war against Russia. He never even 
uttered the word ``corruption.'' Instead, he only spoke about 
investigating his political opponents.
  He later confirmed this narrow and singular focus to the press. On 
October 3, when asked about the Ukraine scheme, he said: ``Well, I 
would think if they were honest about it, they would start a major 
investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer.''
  Here is that conference:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       REPORTER. What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about 
     the Bidens after your phone call?
       The PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that, if they were 
     honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the 
     Bidens. It's a very simple answer.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So we know from witnesses, the President's 
personal agents, and, most importantly, the President himself that the 
only thing President Trump cared about with Ukraine was his 
investigations in order to benefit himself.
  To see this even more starkly, it is helpful to remember what 
Presidential head-of-state calls are normally used for.
  Talk to any former occupant of the Oval Office, and he will tell you 
that the disparity in power between the President of the United States 
and other heads of state is vast. Since World War II--and consistent 
with the requirement to ``faithfully execute'' their oaths of office--
U.S. Presidents from both political parties have made good use of this 
disparity in power in their telephone calls with foreign leaders. They 
have used those calls to secure commitments that have bolstered 
American security and prosperity.
  Acting as our chief diplomat, President Reagan used his calls to our 
European allies, like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to rally the 
world against the Soviet threat--the shining city on the hill standing 
up to the evil empire. His calls laid the foundation for landmark 
nonproliferation agreements that averted nuclear Armageddon.
  It was during a phone call on Christmas Day in 1991 that President 
George H. W. Bush learned that Mikhail Gorbachev intended to resign as 
Soviet Premier, marking the end of the Soviet Union. Historians credit 
his deft diplomacy, including numerous one-on-one phone calls, for 
bringing about a peaceful end to the Cold War.
  Following September 11, President George W. Bush used his calls with 
heads of state to rally global support for the U.S. campaign to defeat 
al-Qaida and to work with our allies to protect and defend U.S. 
national security and combat terrorism.
  President Obama used his calls with foreign leaders to contain the 
fallout from the global economic crisis, assemble an international 
coalition to fight the Islamic State, and, of course, to rally support 
for Ukraine following Russia's invasion of Crimea.
  No matter what you think of the policy views or priorities of these 
prior Presidents, there is no question that they are examples of the 
normal diplomacy that happens during Presidential telephone calls, and 
there is no doubt, when you are the President of the United States and 
you call a foreign leader, that you are on the clock for the American 
people. Consistent with the faithful execution of his or her oath of 
office, a President's first and only objective is to get foreign 
leaders to do what is in the best interest of the United States.
  That is not what happened on July 25. On that date, President Trump 
used a head-of-state call with the leader of Ukraine to help himself--
to press a foreign leader to investigate the President's political 
opponent in order to help his reelection campaign. President Trump 
abused his authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Diplomat to 
benefit himself, and he betrayed the interests of the American people 
when he did so.
  Let's go to the third reason that we know the President put his 
interests first.
  The third reason you know that the investigations were politically 
motivated is the central role played by President Trump's personal 
attorney, Mr. Giuliani, who has never had an official role in this 
government but, instead, was at all times representing the President in 
his personal capacity. There is no dispute about this.
  For example, Mr. Giuliani made this point clearly in his May 10 
letter to the President of Ukraine himself, where he wrote:

       Dear President-Elect Zelensky, I am private counsel to 
     President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent 
     him as a private citizen, not as President of the United 
     States. This is quite common under American law because the 
     duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen 
     are not the same. Separate representation is the usual 
     process.

  Mr. Giuliani also repeated this publicly. For example, he confirmed 
this point on May 9, in the New York Times, when he said--well, many 
things--``We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an 
investigation, which we have a right to do.''
  ``There is nothing illegal about it,'' he said. ``Somebody could say 
it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy.''
  He went on to say, referring to the President: ``He basically knows 
what I'm doing, sure, as his lawyer.''
  ``My only client is the president of the United States,'' he said. 
``He's the one I have an obligation to report to, tell him what 
happened.''
  Think about that. The President is using his personal lawyer to ask

[[Page S501]]

Ukraine for investigations that aren't ``foreign policy'' but that will 
be very, very helpful to the President personally. It is not often you 
get it so graphically as we do here.
  Let's go to the fourth reason that these investigations were never 
part of U.S. policy.
  It was not just that President Trump used his personal lawyer; it was 
also that what he was asking for was never a part of U.S. policy. 
Witnesses told us that President Trump's investigations were not in his 
official, prepared talking points or briefing materials. To the 
contrary, they went against official policy and diverged from our 
national security interests.
  All three witnesses--Tim Morrison at the National Security Council, 
LTC Alex Vindman at the National Security Council, and Jennifer 
Williams, who listened to the July 25 call--testified that when 
President Trump demanded that President Zelensky investigate the 
Bidens, he had completely departed from the talking points they had 
prepared for him.
  Now, before I get to the video clip, I just want to underscore this: 
He is not obligated to use his talking points, and he is not obligated 
to follow the recommendations of his staff no matter how sound they may 
be. What this makes clear is that it was not U.S. policy that he was 
conducting; it was his private, personal interests that he was 
conducting. If it were U.S. policy, it probably would have been in the 
talking points and briefing materials, but, of course, it was not.
  Let's look at Mr. Morrison's testimony on this point.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       GOLDMAN. Now, Mr. Morrison, were--these references to 
     CrowdStrike, the server and 2016 election, and to Vice 
     President Biden and son, were they included in the 
     President's talking points?
       Mr. MORRISON. They were not.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Here is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman on this point:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ms. SPEIER. Colonel Vindman, you are the National Security 
     Council's director for Ukraine. Did you participate in 
     preparing the talking points for the President's call?
       VINDMAN. I did. I prepared them.
       Ms. SPEIER. So you prepared them. They were then reviewed 
     and edited by multiple senior officers at the NSC and the 
     White House. Is that correct?
       VINDMAN. That is correct.
       Ms. SPEIER. Did the talking points for the president 
     contain any discussion of investigations into the 2016 
     election, the Bidens or Burisma?
       VINDMAN. They did not.
       Ms. SPEIER. Are you aware of any written product from the 
     National Security Council suggesting that investigations into 
     the 2016 election, the Bidens, or Burisma are part of the 
     official policy of the United States?
       VINDMAN. No, I'm not.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Dr. Hill also elaborated on this point.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Dr. HILL. My point, Mr. Nunes, is that we at the National 
     Security Council were not told either by the President 
     directly or through Ambassador Bolton that we were to be 
     focused on these issues as a matter of U.S. foreign policy 
     towards Ukraine. So when we are talking about Ukraine in 
     2016, I never personally heard the President say anything 
     specific about 2016 and Ukraine. I've seen him say plenty of 
     things publicly, but I was not given a directive. In fact, I 
     was given a directive by Ambassador Bolton on July 10 very 
     clearly to stay out of domestic politics.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So, to be clear, when President Trump asked for 
these investigations, he was not asking for them based on an official 
U.S. policy. His top official advisers had not even been told about 
these investigations. To the contrary, they were told to stay out of 
U.S. politics.
  And it gets worse. It was not just that President Trump ignored 
official U.S. policy and the talking points he was given; it was that 
what he was doing--withholding support from Ukraine--was actually 
contrary to and harmful to U.S. policy.
  There is clear and undisputed bipartisan support for Ukraine. Ukraine 
is our ally. What is more, they are at war with our adversary, Russia. 
So our goal should be to help President Zelensky's anti-corruption 
reforms and to help Ukraine fight its adversary, Russia, in any way 
that we can.
  President Trump's own national defense strategy stated that the 
United States and its European allies ``will deter Russian 
adventurism''--a clear reference to Russia's usurpation of Ukrainian 
territory and sovereignty. Consistent with that strategy, we currently 
have approximately 68,000 troops stationed in Europe. Roughly 10,000 of 
those U.S. troops are deployed on NATO's eastern border with Russia, to 
countries like Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. These American 
forces are literally holding the line against another land grab by 
Vladimir Putin.
  The author of that strategy, former U.S. National Security Advisor 
LTG H.R. McMaster, issued this stark warning about Russia's aggression:

       [F]or too long, some nations have looked the other way in 
     the face of these threats. Russia brazenly and implausibly 
     denies its actions and we have failed to impose sufficient 
     costs. The Kremlin's confidence is growing as its agents 
     conduct their sustained campaigns to undermine our confidence 
     in ourselves and in one another.

  What General McMaster says obviously makes sense. Russia's 
confidence, sadly, is growing. We need to stand up to them, and that is 
why we support Ukraine, to help defeat Russian aggression.
  So, on July 25, when President Zelensky spoke with President Trump, 
that is what he, McMaster, was hoping to discuss--or he would be hoping 
that he would discuss how we can support Ukraine in its fight against a 
huge adversary.
  Our confidence in one another; that is what President Zelensky was 
most worried about when he got on the line with the President on July 
25, whether Ukraine could have confidence in U.S. support.
  Nearly 70 percent of Ukraine's territory--I am sorry. Nearly 7 
percent of Ukraine's territory had been annexed by Russian-backed 
forces. More than 15,000 troops have been lost in the hot war over the 
past 5 years.
  But when President Zelensky raised the issue of U.S. military aid 
needed to confront Russian aggression, President Trump did nothing to 
reassure the Ukrainian leader of our steadfast support for Ukraine's 
sovereignty. Instead, he made personal demands.
  It is for these reasons that President Trump's investigations went 
against official U.S. policy. Witnesses confirmed that President 
Trump's requests actually diverged not just from our policy but from 
our own national security.
  As Dr. Hill testified, Ambassador Sondland, in carrying out President 
Trump's scheme, ``was being involved in a domestic political errand, 
and we were being involved in national security policy, and those two 
things had just diverged.''
  And as Ambassador Taylor elaborated, ``[O]ur holding up of security 
assistance that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from 
Russia, for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good 
national security reason, is wrong.''
  As these officials so correctly observed, there is no question that 
President Trump's political errand and our national security diverged; 
that he did this to advance his reelection, not to advance U.S. 
national security goals, and that he did it for no good reason but the 
political one.
  But it is more than that. It is more than our national security 
policy. We, as a country, are meant to embody the solution to 
corruption. Our country is based on promoting the rule of law. And 
here, what the President did attacks another of the U.S. strengths, 
that of our ideals and our values.
  Part of that is ensuring the integrity of our democracy and our 
political institutions. It is a fundamental American value underlying 
our democracy that we do not use official powers to ask for 
investigations of our political opponents to gain a political 
advantage.
  When President Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate his 
political opponent, he abused the broad authority provided to the 
President of the United States.
  Witness testimony again confirms this. Vice President Pence's 
adviser, Jennifer Williams, was concerned by the President's focus on 
domestic political issues rather than U.S. national security because 
the President is not supposed to use foreign governments for political 
errands.
  She characterized the call as ``a domestic political matter.'' Here 
is her testimony:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Jennifer WILLIAMS. During my closed-door deposition, 
     members of the committee asked about my personal views, and 
     whether

[[Page S502]]

     I had any concerns about the July 25th call. As I testified 
     then, I found the July 25th phone call unusual because, in 
     contrast to other Presidential calls I had observed, it 
     involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic 
     political matter.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman also thought the call 
was improper and unrelated to the talking points he had drafted for the 
President.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Lt. Col. VINDMAN. It is improper for the President of the 
     United States to demand that a foreign government investigate 
     a U.S. citizen, and a political opponent . . .--it was also 
     clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 
     elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as 
     a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine 
     using bipartisan support, undermining U.S. national security, 
     and advancing Russia's strategic objectives in the region.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, as a reminder, is a 
Purple Heart veteran and says what we all know clearly: It is improper 
for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government 
to investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent.
  And it wasn't just that Colonel Vindman thought it was wrong; he was 
so concerned that he warned Ukraine, too, not to get involved in our 
domestic politics.
  In May, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman grew concerned by the pressure 
campaign he witnessed in the media, waged primarily by Rudy Giuliani. 
During a meeting with President Zelensky on May 20, Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman warned the Ukrainian leader to stay out of U.S. politics--
because that is our official U.S. policy.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. During a bilateral meeting in 
     which the whole delegation was meeting with President 
     Zelensky and his team, I offered two pieces of advice: To be 
     particularly cautious with regards to Ukraine--to be 
     particularly cautious with regards to Russia, and its desire 
     to provoke Ukraine; and the second one was to stay out of 
     U.S. domestic policy.
       The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean politics?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. Politics, correct.
       The CHAIRMAN. And why did you feel it was necessary to 
     advise President Zelensky to stay away from U.S. domestic 
     politics?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. Chairman, in the March and 
     April timeframe, it became clear that there were--there were 
     actors in the U.S., public actors, nongovernmental actors 
     that were promoting the idea of investigations and 2016 
     Ukrainian interference.
       And it was consistent with U.S. policy to advise any 
     country, all the countries in my portfolio, any country in 
     the world, to not participate in U.S. domestic politics. So I 
     was passing the same advice consistent with U.S. policy.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. He once again makes this clear: ``[I]t was 
consistent with U.S. policy to advise any country, all the countries in 
my portfolio, any country in the world'' we do not participate in U.S. 
domestic politics.
  Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, too, testified that 
the President's political investigations, of course, had nothing to do 
with American anticorruption efforts in Ukraine, which has consistently 
focused on building institutions and never specific investigations, and 
that if we do ask countries to do our political errands, it entirely 
threatens our credibility as a democracy.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       HECK. You also testified on October 15th, in the 
     deposition, about fundamental reforms necessary for Ukraine 
     to fight corruption and to transform the country. And you 
     cited the importance of reforming certain institutions, 
     notably the security service in the Prosecutor General's 
     Office. Was investigating President Trump's political 
     opponents a part of those necessary reforms? Was it on that 
     list of yours, sir? Or, indeed, was it on any list?
       KENT. No, they weren't.
       HECK. In fact, historically, is it not true that a major 
     problem in the Ukraine has been its misuse of prosecutors 
     precisely to conduct investigation of political opponents? 
     That's a legacy, I dare suggest, from the Soviet era, when, 
     as you stated in your testimony, prosecutors like the KGB 
     were and I quote you now ``instruments of oppression.'' Is 
     that correct?
       KENT. I said that, and I believe it's true.
       HECK. So, finally, Mr. Kent, for as long as I can remember, 
     U.S. foreign policy has been predicated on advancing 
     principled interests in democratic values--notably, freedom 
     of speech, press, assembly, religion; free, fair, and open 
     elections; and the rule of law. Mr. Kent, when American 
     leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their 
     potential rivals, doesn't that make it harder for us to 
     advocate on behalf of those democratic values?
       KENT. I believe it makes it more difficult for our 
     diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy 
     goals, yes.
       HECK. How is that, sir?
       KENT. Well, there's an issue of credibility. They hear 
     diplomats on the ground saying one thing, and they hear other 
     U.S. leaders saying something else.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The bottom line is this: What was in the best 
interest of our country was to help Ukraine, to give them the military 
aid, to fight one of our greatest adversaries, and to help promote the 
rule of law. And what was in President Trump's personal interest was 
the opposite: to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations against his 
2020 rival to help ensure his reelection. And when what is best for the 
country and what was best for Donald Trump diverged, President Trump 
put himself above the best interests of our country.
  Let's now go to the fifth reason that we know the President put 
himself first.
  A fifth reason is that the request for these investigations departed 
not just from U.S. policy but from established U.S. Government 
channels.
  On the July 25 call, President Trump told President Zelensky that he 
should speak to Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, but after the 
July 25 transcript was released, the Department of Justice disclaimed 
any knowledge or involvement in the President's political 
investigations.
  The Department of Justice statement from the day the July 25 call was 
released says this. This was from September 25.
  (Text of Videotape presentation.)

       The President has not spoken with the Attorney General 
     about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former 
     Vice President Biden or his son. The President has not asked 
     the Attorney General to contact Ukraine--on this or any other 
     matter. The Attorney General has not communicated with 
     Ukraine--on this or any other subject. Nor has the Attorney 
     General discussed this matter, or anything relating to 
     Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.

  Now, this is pretty extraordinary. You can say a lot of things about 
the Attorney General, but you cannot say that he ever has looked to 
pursue something he thought was not in the President's interest.
  This is pretty extraordinary, where he is saying the moment this 
transcript is publicly released: I have got nothing to do with this 
scheme. I don't know why they brought me up in this call. I don't know 
why the President brought me up in this call. He hasn't asked me to do 
anything about this. I want nothing to do with this business.
  I suspect the Attorney General can recognize a drug deal when he sees 
it, too, and he wanted nothing to do with this.
  Now, if this were some legitimate investigation, you would think the 
Department of Justice would have a role. That is traditionally how an 
investigation with an international component would work, but this 
wasn't the case. This wasn't the case. And the Attorney General wanted 
nothing to do with it.
  If these were legitimate investigations that were in the national 
interest, why was Bill Barr's Justice Department so quick to divorce 
themselves from it?
  The simple answer is that, as we see so clearly, they were against 
U.S. official policy and our national security. The Justice Department 
wanted nothing to do with it, and by asking for these investigations, 
the President was abusing his power.
  Let's go to the sixth reason you know President Trump put himself 
first. It wasn't just that these witnesses told us--what these 
witnesses told us in the impeachment hearings about this being wrong. 
They reported the President's conduct in realtime. So it is not just 
that they came forward later; they came forward in realtime to report 
the President's conduct.
  Of course, you have seen over the last couple days how many times 
people are told: Go talk to the lawyers.
  Well, Tim Morrison, former Republican staffer, and Colonel Vindman 
were sufficiently concerned by what they heard President Trump solicit 
on that July 25 call that they both immediately went to speak to the 
lawyer, John Eisenberg, the NSC Legal Advisor. Let's take a look.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, Mr. Morrison, shortly after you heard the 
     July 25th call, you testified that you alerted the NSC legal 
     advisor, John Eisenberg, pretty much right away. Is that 
     right?

[[Page S503]]

  

       Mr. MORRISON. Correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And you indicated in your opening statement, 
     or at least from your deposition, that you went to Mr. 
     Eisenberg out of concern over the potential political fallout 
     if the call record became public and not because you thought 
     it was illegal. Is that right?
       Mr. MORRISON. Correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. But you would agree, right, that asking a 
     foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival 
     was inappropriate, would you not?
       Mr. MORRISON. It is not what we recommended the President 
     discuss.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I think that is a profound understatement. Mr. 
Morrison clearly recognized that the request to investigate Biden and 
Burisma was about U.S. domestic politics and not U.S. national 
security. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman knew this, too, and he reported 
his concerns to the White House counsel.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, you said you also reported this incident 
     to the NSC lawyers; is that right?
       Lt. Col. VINDMAN. Correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. What was their response?
       Lt. Col. VINDMAN. John Eisenberg said that he--he took 
     notes while I was talking, and he said that he would look 
     into it.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Why did you report this meeting and this 
     conversation to the NSC lawyers?
       Lt. Col. VINDMAN. Because it was inappropriate. And, 
     following the meeting, I had a short conversation--following 
     the post-meeting meeting, in the Ward Room. I had a short 
     conversation with Ambassador--correction--Dr. Hill. And we 
     discussed the idea of needing to report this.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. In fact, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman reported 
concerns twice, and Mr. Morrison did so multiple times as well.
  They, of course, weren't the only ones. As this slide shows, Dr. Hill 
reported her concerns to the NSC legal advisor. Mr. Kent reported his 
concerns about the State Department's failure to respond to the House's 
document request. The lawyers were awfully busy.
  And why did President Trump's own officials--not so-called Never 
Trumpers, not Democrats or Republicans, but career public servants--
report this conduct in real time? Because they knew it was wrong.
  Dr. Hill said: ``It was improper, and it was inappropriate, and we 
said that in the time, in real time.''
  Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said: ``[The July 25] call was wrong'' and 
he had a ``duty to report it.''
  Ambassador Taylor said: ``Holding up of security assistance . . . for 
no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good national 
security reason, is wrong.''
  Mr. Morrison admitted that he reported the July 25 call ``pretty much 
right away'' and ``recommended to them that we restrict access to the 
package.''
  And Ms. Williams said: ``[The July 25 call] struck me as unusual and 
inappropriate,'' and ``more political in nature.''
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The consensus is clear. The President's demand 
for political investigations was improper, inappropriate, and wrong, 
and again confirms that the requested investigations were not about 
anything except Donald Trump's political gains.
  Let's go to the seventh reason why you know President Trump put 
himself first. American officials weren't the only ones who recognized 
the political nature of these requests. Ukrainian officials did, too. 
That brings us the seventh reason we know that this was against our 
national interests. Ukrainian officials themselves expressed concern 
that these corrupt investigations would drag them into U.S. domestic 
politics.
  For example, in mid-July, Ambassador Taylor texted Sondland and 
Taylor and explained President Zelensky's reluctance to become a pawn 
in U.S. politics. Ambassador Taylor said: ``Gordon, one thing Kurt and 
I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk's point''--he is a top 
adviser to President Zelensky--``Sasha Danyliuk's point that President 
Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely 
as an instrument in Washington domestic reelection politics.''
  So here you have Sasha Danyliuk, one of the top advisers to President 
Zelensky affirming that his President wants to be taken seriously. It 
is pretty extraordinary when a foreign leader has to communicate to 
this country that they want him to take him seriously and not just as 
some kind of a political pawn for political purposes. An ally dependent 
on us for military support, economic support, and diplomatic support 
has to say: Please take us seriously. But this is what the Ukrainians 
are saying. They understood this wasn't American policy--as much as we 
do--and they didn't want to be used as a pawn.
  Ambassador Taylor explained his text during his testimony: ``The 
whole thrust of this irregular channel was to get these investigations, 
which Danyliuk and presumably Zelensky were resisting because they 
didn't want to be seen to be interfering but also to be a pawn.''
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. This is an important point, too. It wasn't just 
that they didn't want to be seen as getting into politics, because if 
they did and it looked like they were getting on the side of Donald 
Trump, that would hurt their support with Democrats, and if it looked 
like they were getting involved with the other side, it would hurt them 
with the President. There was no benefit to Ukraine to be dragged into 
this. There was no benefit to Ukraine by this, but they also didn't 
want to be viewed as a pawn.
  President Zelensky has his own electorate. He is a new leader. He is 
a former comedian, and he wants to be taken seriously. He needs to be 
taken seriously, because if the United States isn't going to take him 
seriously, you can darn well bet Vladimir Putin will not take him 
seriously.
  So the perception--not just that there is a rift, that he can't get 
military aid or it is in doubt or in question, but the impression--that 
he is nothing more than a pawn, you could see how problematic that was 
for President Zelensky. In other words, Ukrainian officials understood, 
just as our officials understood, just as all those folks you saw--
Morrison, Vindman, Hill, and others, all the people who had to go to 
the lawyers, all the people who listened to that call and understood--
that this was just wrong.
  Morrison goes on to say that he is no legal expert and can't really 
opine on the legality of what happened on this call, but they all knew 
it was wrong. They also knew that it was damaging to bipartisan 
support. They knew it was damaging to our national security. But here 
we see. It wasn't just our people. It was the Ukrainians who also 
understood this was a pure political errand they were being asked to 
perform.
  That is no way to treat an ally at war.
  Now, it wasn't just the testimony of U.S. officials on this. We know 
this directly from the Ukrainians. Indeed, we know this directly from 
President Zelensky himself, who said: ``I am sorry, but I don't want to 
be involved to democratic, open elections--elections of the USA.''
  Here is Zelensky saying: ``I don't want to be involved.'' He 
shouldn't be involved. He shouldn't be involved in our elections. That 
is not his job, and he knows that, and it is a tragic fact that the 
world's oldest democracy has to be told by this struggling democracy: 
This isn't what you are supposed to do. But that is what is happening.
  Let's go to the eighth reason why you can know that President Trump 
put himself first, and that is because there is no serious dispute that 
the White House tried to bury the call record. They tried to bury the 
call record. Although President Trump has repeatedly insisted that his 
July conversation with President Zelensky ``was perfect,'' the White 
House apparently believed otherwise. Their own lawyers apparently 
believed otherwise.
  Following a head-of-state call, the President issues a summary or 
readout to lock in any commitments made by the foreign leader and 
publicly reinforce the core elements of the President's message. 
However, no public readout was posted on the White House website 
following the July 25 call. I wonder why that was.
  The White House instead provided reporters with a short, incomplete 
summary that, of course, omitted the major elements of the 
conversation.
  The short summary said:

       Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with 
     President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine to congratulate him 
     on his recent election. President Trump and President 
     Zelenskyy discussed ways to strengthen the relationship 
     between the United States and Ukraine, including energy and 
     economic cooperation. Both leaders also expressed that they 
     look forward to the opportunity to meet.


[[Page S504]]


  That was it. Now, I don't know about you, but that does not seem like 
an accurate summary of that call. As you can see, that summary did not 
mention President Trump's mention of a debunked conspiracy theory about 
the 2016 election promoted by Russian President Putin. The summary did 
not mention President Trump's demand that Ukraine announce an 
investigation into his domestic political rival, former Vice President 
Biden. The summary did not mention that President Trump praised a 
corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, who to this day continues to feed false 
claims to the President through Rudy Giuliani.
  If the call was ``perfect,'' if these investigations were legitimate 
foreign policy, if the White House had nothing to hide, then ask 
yourselves: Why did the White House's readout omit any mention of the 
investigations? Why not publicly confirm that Ukraine had been asked by 
the President to pursue them?
  Why? Because it would have exposed the President's corruption.
  Sanitizing the call readout wasn't the only step taken to cover up 
the President's wrongdoing. The White House Counsel's office also took 
irregular efforts to hide the call record away on a secure server used 
to store highly classified information. National Security Council 
Senior Director Tim Morrison, whom you saw video clips on, testified 
that he requested that access to the electronic file of the call record 
be restricted so that it would not be leaked.
  Mr. Morrison said the call record did not meet the requirements to be 
placed on the highly classified system, and Mr. Eisenberg later claimed 
the call record had been placed on the highly classified system ``by 
mistake.''
  I am sure it was a very innocent mistake. However, mistake or no 
mistake, it remained on that system until at least the third week of 
September 2019. So that mistake continued from July all the way through 
September.
  Why were they trying to hide what the President did? This was U.S. 
policy and they were proud of it. If they were really interested in 
corruption, if this was about corruption, if this had nothing to do 
with the President's reelection campaign, if Biden was merely an 
interesting coincidence, why did they bury the record? Why did they 
hide the record? Why did they put the record on a system meant for 
highly classified information, which the folks in here on the 
Intelligence Committee and many others can tell you is usually used for 
things like covert action operations--the most sensitive secrets?
  Well, this was a very sensitive political secret. This was a covert 
action of a different kind. This was a corrupt action and it was 
hidden, and they knew it was, and that is why they hid it. Innocent 
people don't behave that way.
  Let's go to the ninth reason that you know President Trump put 
himself first. The clearest reason that we can tell that all that 
President Trump cared about was the investigations is that President 
Trump confirmed his desire for these investigations in his statements 
to his agents and when this scheme was discovered to the American 
people.
  The very day after he solicited foreign interference to help him 
cheat in the 2020 election, President Trump spoke with Gordon Sondland, 
who was in Ukraine. President Trump had only one question for 
Ambassador Sondland: ``So, he's going to do the investigation?''
  Here is David Holmes recounting the call between President Trump and 
Sondland:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. I then heard President Trump ask, ``So he's 
     going to do the investigation?'' Ambassador Sondland replied 
     that he is going to do it, adding that President Zelensky 
     will do ``anything you ask him to do.''

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So here we are; this is July 26. President 
Zelensky doesn't want to be used as a pawn and doesn't want to be drawn 
into U.S. politics, but at this point he feels he has no choice. 
Sondland tells David Holmes he is going to do it. Of course, that is 
the only thing the President asked about in that call. Sondland says he 
is going to do it, adding that Zelensky will do ``anything you ask'' 
him to do, including, apparently, be his pawn.
  Although Sondland didn't remember the details of his conversation, he 
did not dispute Holmes' recollection of it. In fact, Ambassador 
Sondland had an interesting take on it, which you should hear.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. Actually, actually, I would have been 
     more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned 
     investigations, particularly given what we are hearing from 
     Mr. Giuliani about the President's concerns.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. That is pretty telling that in this call, the day 
after he has had this head-of-state call--they finally got the call 
arranged between these two Presidents--and Ambassador Sondland, with 
major support of the President, says: I would have been more surprised 
if he didn't bring it up.
  The President doesn't bring up the war with Russia. He doesn't bring 
up anything else. He just brings this up, and Sondland confirms: Yeah, 
frankly, I would have been surprised if it was something different 
because we are all in the loop here.
  Everybody understood what this President wanted, and apparently 
everybody also understood just how wrong it was and how damaging it 
was.
  In September 2019, even after President Trump learned that his scheme 
was in danger of becoming publicly exposed, he would not give up. He 
still expected Ukraine to announce investigations into Joe Biden and 
his alleged Ukrainian interference in 2016. According to three 
witnesses, President Trump emphasized to Ambassador Sondland during a 
call on September 7 that President Zelensky ``should want to do it.''
  Then you have the President's remarks on October 3:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       REPORTER. What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about 
     the Bidens after your phone?
       President TRUMP. Well, I would think that, if they were 
     honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the 
     Bidens. It's a very simple answer.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So here we hear again from the President's own 
words what his primary object is, and his primary object is helping his 
reelection campaign--help to cheat in his reelection campaign. After 
all that we have been through and after all that we went through with 
the Russian interference in our election and all that cost, he was at 
it again, unrepentant and undeterred. If anything, he was emboldened by 
escaping accountability from his invitation and willful use of Russian-
hacked materials in the last election, and unconstrained. This is a 
President who truly feels that under article II he can do whatever he 
wants, and that includes coercing an ally to help him cheat in an 
election.
  If he is successful, the election is not a remedy for that. A remedy 
in which the President can cheat is no remedy at all, which is why we 
are here. This was not about corruption, which brings me to No. 10, the 
10 reasons you know President Trump put himself first.
  Ironically, the President has argued that his corrupt conduct in 
soliciting sham investigations from Ukraine was driven by his concerns 
about corruption in Ukraine. This attempt to legitimize his efforts is 
simply not credible and not the least bit believable given the mountain 
of evidence in the record of President Trump's corrupt intent. There is 
no evidence that President Trump cared one whit about anti-corruption 
efforts at all. That is the 10th reason you know this was all 
political.
  First, the evidence and President Trump's own public statements make 
clear that when the President talks about corruption in Ukraine, he is 
only talking about that sliver--that little sliver--of alleged 
corruption that just somehow happened to be affected by his own 
political interests, specifically two investigations that would benefit 
his reelection.
  For example, on September 25, in a joint press availability with 
President Zelensky--the man who doesn't want to be a pawn--at the 
United Nations General Assembly, President Trump emphasized his 
understanding of corruption to relate to the Biden investigation.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       TRUMP. Now, when Biden's son walks away with millions of 
     dollars from Ukraine, and he knows nothing, and they're 
     paying him millions of dollars, that's corruption.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I mean, you can imagine how President Zelensky 
feels sitting there and hearing this--the man who does not want to be a 
pawn and the man who doesn't want to be pulled into American politics. 
And

[[Page S505]]

there is the President, at it again, trying to draw his nation in, even 
while they have a war to fight.
  Another example was on September 30, when President Trump stated:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Now, the new President of Ukraine ran on the basis of no 
     corruption. That's how he got elected. And I believe that he 
     really means it. But there was a lot of corruption having to 
     do with the 2016 election against us. And we want to get to 
     the bottom of it, and it's very important that we do.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. This is, of course, again, bringing up the 
CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. What does the President say? 
``Corruption . . . against us.'' He is not concerned about actual 
corruption cases, only about matters that affect him personally.
  Two days later, President Trump again tried to link corruption with 
the Biden investigation.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       The only thing that matters is the transcript of the actual 
     conversation that I had with the President of Ukraine. It was 
     perfect. We're looking at congratulations. We're looking at 
     doing things together. And what are we looking at? We're 
     looking at corruption. And, in, I believe, 1999, there was a 
     corruption act or a corruption bill passed between both--and 
     signed--between both countries, where I have a duty to report 
     corruption. And let me tell you something: Biden's son is 
     corrupt, and Biden is corrupt.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Just 2 days after that, the President again 
equated corruption with actions by others to hurt him politically.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       The PRESIDENT: Here's what's okay: 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.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So here, again, the President is pushing out the 
Kremlin talking points of Ukrainian interference in 2016 and the 
CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. Again, when President Trump is talking 
about corruption, he is talking about perceived efforts by political 
opponents to hurt him. It is personal, and it is political, but it is 
not anti-corruption policy.
  Ambassador Volker confirmed this fact. Fighting corruption in 
Ukraine, when used by President Trump and Giuliani, in fact, refers to 
the investigation of the Bidens in 2016. Volker said:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       VOLKER. In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the 
     idea of investigating possible corruption involving the 
     Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating 
     former Vice President Biden.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So, again, although President Trump and Mr. 
Giuliani had used the general term ``corruption'' to describe what they 
want Ukraine to investigate, it wasn't about anything actually related 
to corruption. The evidence, including the President's own statements, 
makes clear that this is simply code for the specific investigations 
that President Trump wanted Ukraine to pursue.
  Second, as we have discussed, the President's timing of his purported 
concerns about corruption in Ukraine make it all the more suspect. 
Before news of Vice President Biden's candidacy broke, President Trump 
showed no interest in Ukraine. He gave Ukraine hundreds of millions of 
dollars under a regime that lost power because of mounting concerns 
about corruption.
  So here we are, the President, in these prior years, giving money to 
a government, to Mr. Poroshenko, that is viewed as corrupt, and 
Zelensky comes and runs against him in an underdog campaign--underdog 
campaign of Zelensky against Poroshenko. And what is the heart of 
Zelensky's campaign? That Poroshenko's government is corrupt, and he is 
running to clean it up. He is the reformer. He succeeds because the 
Ukrainians really want to clean up their government. We see this 
reformer win and carry the hopes of the Ukrainian people.
  President Trump had no problem giving money appropriated by Congress 
to Ukraine under the corrupt regime of Poroshenko where corruption had 
existed during Poroshenko. But a reformer gets elected, devoted to 
fighting corruption, and suddenly there is a problem. There was a 
reason to give more support to Ukraine. We had a President for whom 
this was the central pillar of his campaign. He came from outside of 
the government. People placed their hopes in him. You can see President 
Zelensky trying to flatter the President in that July 25 call by 
saying: I am up for draining the swamp too. He ran on a campaign of 
reform.
  So there was no problem giving money to the prior regime where there 
were abundant concerns about corruption, but you get a reformer in 
office, and now there is a problem? Of course, we know what changed: 
the emergence of Joe Biden as a candidate.
  In the prior regime, corruption was no problem. A reformer comes into 
office; suddenly, there is a problem. If you need any more graphic 
example, again, you look at that call.
  No one disputes that Marie Yovanovitch was and is a devoted fighter 
against corruption. That is her reputation. That was part of the reason 
they had to get rid of her. If you look at that July 25 call, the 
President is badmouthing this person fighting corruption. He is 
praising the former Ukrainian prosecutor, who is corrupt. Are we really 
to believe that this is about fighting corruption? There was no problem 
supporting the former regime with corruption problems but problems 
supporting a reformer trying to clean it up; no problems with a corrupt 
former Ukrainian prosecutor whom he praises in that call--he is a good 
man--but problems with a U.S. Ambassador who has devoted her life to 
this country.
  It wasn't until 2019, after Biden emerged as a considerable opponent 
and after Special Counsel Mueller confirmed that President Trump's 
campaign had welcomed Russian assistance in 2016 that President Trump, 
we are to believe, suddenly developed an interest in anti-corruption 
reforms in Ukraine. Never mind that his own Defense Department said 
they were meeting all the benchmarks. This new administration, the 
reformer, was doing exactly what we wanted him to do. Never mind that. 
Now that Biden is in the picture, he has a problem.
  Third, when given the opportunity to raise the issue of corruption 
with the Ukrainians, the President never did. Despite at the request of 
his staff, the word ``corruption'' never crosses his lips, just the 
Bidens and CrowdStrike.
  When the President first spoke to President Zelensky on April 21, he 
was supposed to--he was asked to by his staff--bring up corruption. Go 
back and check, but I think the readout of that congratulatory call 
actually said that he brought up corruption. Am I right? My staff says 
I am right.
  So, on April 21, he is asked to bring up corruption. In the 
congratulatory call to President Zelensky--great reformer--he doesn't 
bring it up, but you know the readout says that he did. It was just 
like the readout of the July 25 call, misleading.
  Of course, the readout for the second call was far more misleading 
because there was far more to mislead about. But in those two 
conversations, there is nary a mention of the word ``corruption.'' We 
are to believe that, apart from the Bidens, this is what our President 
was concerned about in Ukraine.
  Here is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. SCHIFF. Colonel Vindman, if I could turn your attention 
     to the April 21 call, that is the first call between 
     President Trump and President Zelensky, did you prepare 
     talking points for the President to use during that call?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. Yes, I did.
       The CHAIRMAN. And did those talking points include rooting 
     out corruption in Ukraine?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. Yes.
       The CHAIRMAN. That was something the President was supposed 
     to raise in the conversation with President Zelensky?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. Those were the recommended 
     talking points that were cleared through the NSC staff for 
     the President, yes.
       The CHAIRMAN. Did you listen in on the call?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. Yes, I did.
       The CHAIRMAN. The White House has now released the record 
     of that call. Did President Trump ever mention corruption in 
     the April 21 call?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. To the best of my recollection, 
     he did not.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. President Trump also did not mention the word 
``corruption'' on the July 25 call. Here is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman 
confirming that as well. Well, actually, that slide is what I was 
referring to earlier--the good work of my staff.
  This is the readout of the April 21 call, which says:

       President Donald J. Trump spoke today to President-elect 
     Volodymyr Zelensky to congratulate him on his victory in 
     Ukraine's

[[Page S506]]

     April 21 election. The President wished him success and 
     called the election an important moment in Ukraine's history, 
     noting the peaceful and democratic manner of the electoral 
     process. President Trump underscored the unwavering support 
     of the United States for Ukraine's sovereignty and 
     territorial integrity--within its internationally recognized 
     borders--and expressed his commitment to work together with 
     President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to 
     implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase 
     prosperity, and root out corruption.

  Except that he didn't.
  Let's hear Colonel Vindman. No, we don't have that. OK. Let's not 
hear Colonel Vindman. You heard enough of Colonel Vindman.
  When President Trump had the ear of President Zelensky during the 
April 21 and July 25 calls, he did not raise that issue--the word 
``corruption''--a single time.
  There is ample other evidence as well. White House officials made 
clear to President Trump that President Zelensky was anti-corruption, 
that President Trump should help him fight corruption. The President's 
Agencies and Departments supported this too. The Defense Department and 
State Department certified that Ukraine satisfied all anti-corruption 
benchmarks before President Trump froze the aid.
  The point is this: The evidence is consistent. It establishes clearly 
that President Trump did not care about corruption. To the contrary, he 
was pursuing a corrupt aim. He wanted Ukraine to do the exact thing 
that American policy officials have tried for years to stop foreign 
governments from doing: corrupt investigations of political rivals.
  To sum up, the evidence is unmistakably clear. On July 25, while 
acting as our Nation's chief diplomat and speaking to the leader of 
Ukraine, President Trump solicited foreign interference in the U.S. 
election for one particular objective: to benefit his own reelection. 
To seek help in cheating in a U.S. election, he requested--effectively 
demanded--a personal political favor: that Ukraine announce two bogus 
investigations that were only of value to himself.
  This was not about foreign policy. In fact, it was inconsistent with 
and diverged from American national security and American values. His 
own officials knew this, and they reported it. Ukraine knew this. And 
his own White House attempted to bury the call.
  The President has confirmed what he wanted in his own words. He has 
made it clear he didn't care about corruption; he cared only about 
himself. Now it is up to us to do something about it, to make sure that 
a President--that this President cannot pursue an objective that places 
himself above our country.
  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Well, we have gone through the object of 
President Trump's scheme: getting Ukraine to announce that 
investigations would be held, and that would help him cheat and gain an 
advantage in the 2020 election. Those sham investigations were to 
advance his personal political interests, not the national interests of 
America. Let's drill down on the how--how the President abused the 
power of his office and executed his corrupt scheme.
  As noted earlier, the President executed his scheme through three 
official actions: first, by soliciting foreign election interference; 
second, by conditioning an official Oval Office meeting on Ukraine 
doing or at least announcing the political investigations; and third, 
by withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine to announce those 
investigations.
  All three of President Trump's official actions were an abuse of his 
power as President and done for personal gain, but the original abuse 
was President Trump's solicitation of election interference from a 
foreign country--Ukraine. He tried to get an announcement of 
investigations designed to help him in the 2020 Presidential election, 
so let's start there.
  President Trump's corrupt demands of President Zelensky in the July 
25 phone call were not just a spontaneous outburst; they were a 
dramatic crescendo in a monthslong scheme to extort Ukraine into 
assisting his 2020 reelection campaign.
  As was shown, there is evidence of President Trump himself demanding 
that Ukraine conduct the investigations, but President Trump also 
delegated his authority to his political agent, Rudy Giuliani, to 
oversee and direct this scheme. That was beginning in late 2018 and 
early 2019. Here is how that scheme worked:
  First, in January of 2019, Mr. Giuliani and his associates discussed 
the investigations with the then current and former prosecutor generals 
of Ukraine. As we discussed, both were corrupt.
  Then in late April 2019, the scheme hit a roadblock. A reform 
candidate, Zelensky, won the Ukrainian Presidential election. The fear 
was that President-elect Zelensky would replace the corrupt prosecutor 
Giuliani had been dealing with.
  President Trump removed Ambassador Yovanovitch because his agents, 
including Giuliani, believed she was another roadblock to the corrupt 
scheme they were undertaking on his behalf. In her place, President 
Trump directed a team of handpicked political appointees--U.S. 
officials who were supposed to work in the public interest--to instead 
work with Mr. Giuliani to advance the President's personal interests. 
Those were the three amigos. As Ambassador Sondland said, those U.S. 
officials ``followed the President's orders.''
  But even with Ambassador Yovanovitch gone, President Zelensky still 
resisted Mr. Giuliani's overtures. So, at the President's direction, 
throughout May and June, Giuliani ratcheted up public pressure on 
Ukraine to announce the investigations. No luck. It was only then, when 
Mr. Giuliani could not get the deal done, that President Trump turned 
to the second official action--using the Oval Office meeting to 
pressure Ukraine.
  Before we turn to this scheme for soliciting foreign election 
interference, we need to understand how Mr. Giuliani, the President's 
private agent, assumed the leadership role in this scheme that applied 
escalating pressure on Ukraine to announce investigations helpful to 
the President's political interest.
  Why is that so important? First, let's be clear. Mr. Giuliani is 
President Trump's personal lawyer. He represented President Trump with 
his knowledge and consent. The evidence shows Mr. Giuliani and 
President Trump were in constant contact in this time period. Both U.S. 
and Ukrainian officials knew Mr. Giuliani was the key to Ukraine.
  Let's review the President's use of Mr. Giuliani to advance his 
scheme.
  First, no one disputes that Mr. Giuliani was and is President Trump's 
personal lawyer. President Trump has said this. Mr. Giuliani says it. 
We all know it is true.
  Second, President Trump at all times directed and knew about Mr. 
Giuliani's actions. How do we know this? Let's start with the letter 
signed by Giuliani to President Zelensky. Here is that letter.
  On May 10, 2019, Mr. Giuliani wrote to a foreign leader, President-
elect Zelensky. The letter reads: ``In my capacity as personal counsel 
to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent. . . . '' Rudy 
Giuliani, not a government official, asked to speak about President 
Trump's specific request, and he makes it clear that it was in his role 
as the President's counsel.
  Mr. Giuliani didn't just tell a foreign leader that; he also told the 
press. The day before Mr. Giuliani's letter to Zelensky, the New York 
Times published an article about Mr. Giuliani's upcoming trip to 
Ukraine.
  Here is a slide about that article. It said: ``Rudy Giuliani Plans 
Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump.''
  Mr. Giuliani said his trip was to pressure Ukraine to initiate 
investigations into false allegations against the Bidens and the 2016 
election and that it was at the request of the President. He stated 
that President Trump ``basically knows what I'm doing, sure, as his 
lawyer.''
  President Trump repeatedly admitted knowledge of Mr. Giuliani's 
activities and to coordinating with him about the Ukrainian activities.
  POLITICO reported on May 11, 2019:

       In a telephone interview with POLITICO on Friday, Trump 
     said he didn't know much about Giuliani's planned trip to 
     Ukraine, but wanted to speak to him about it.

  And this is a quote of the President's:

       ``I have not spoken to him at any great length, but I 
     will,'' Trump said in the interview. ``I will speak to him 
     about it before he leaves.''


[[Page S507]]


  President Trump knew and directed Mr. Giuliani's activities in May 
2019 when Mr. Giuliani was planning his visit to Kyiv, and that remains 
true today.
  The Wall Street Journal reported that when Rudy Giuliani returned 
from a trip to Kyiv just last month, ``the President called him as the 
plane was still taxiing down the runway.'' President Trump asked his 
lawyer: ``What did you get?'' Giuliani answered: ``More than you can 
imagine.''
  Even as President Trump faced impeachment in the House of 
Representatives, he was coordinating with his personal attorney on the 
Ukraine scheme. The President asked Rudy: ``What did you get?''
  The evidence also shows that Mr. Giuliani and the President were in 
frequent contact. During the investigation and in response to a lawful 
subpoena, the House got call records. They show contacts--not content--
between Giuliani, the White House, and other people involved in the 
President's scheme. For example, on April 23, Rudy Giuliani learned 
President Trump had decided to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch. According 
to phone records, on that day, Giuliani had an 8-minute-and-28-second 
call with a White House number.
  Let's look at what happened the next day, on April 24. Giuliani was 
again in repeated contact with the White House. For example, he had one 
8-minute-42-second call with a White House number. An hour and a half 
later, he had another call, which lasted 3 minutes and 15 seconds, with 
the White House. When a reporter recently asked whom he called at the 
White House, Mr. Giuliani said this: ``I talk to the President, 
mostly.''

  Rudy Giuliani remained in close contact with the White House after 
the disclosure of his planned trip to Ukraine in mid-2019. Now, Rudy is 
the key to Ukraine. We know from Mr. Giuliani and the President's own 
statements about his role as President Trump's personal agent advancing 
the Ukraine scheme. We know from their comments and the documentary 
evidence about the frequency of their contact.
  But it wasn't just the frequency of Mr. Giuliani's contact that is 
significant. Here is what matters: President Trump directed U.S. 
officials to work with his personal agent, who was pursuing 
investigations not at all related to foreign policy. U.S. officials, 
including the President's own National Security Advisor, knew there was 
no getting around Rudy Giuliani when it came to Ukraine. Witnesses 
repeatedly testified to the constant presence of Rudy Giuliani on 
television and in the newspapers. A State Department official, 
Christopher Anderson, said that John Bolton ``joked about, every time 
Ukraine is mentioned, Giuliani pops up.''
  After Ambassador Yovanovitch's dismissal, Ambassador Bolton told Dr. 
Hill that Rudy Giuliani was a ``hand grenade that's going to blow 
everybody up.'' Dr. Hill testified that Ambassador Bolton issued 
guidance for the National Security Council staff to not engage with 
Rudy Giuliani. That made sense. Why? Because Mr. Giuliani was not 
conducting official U.S. foreign policy; he was doing a domestic 
political errand for President Trump.
  Now, these phone records, as I say, lawfully obtained, reveal 
potential contact between Ambassador Bolton and Rudy Giuliani on May 9, 
the day the New York Times reported his trip to Kyiv. Rudy Giuliani's 
role in Ukraine policy is yet another topic that Ambassador Bolton 
could speak to. You should call him and hear what he has to say about 
it.
  Even without Ambassador Bolton's testimony, multiple other 
administration officials confirmed Mr. Giuliani's central role. 
Ambassador Sondland said: It was apparent to everyone that the key to 
changing the President's mind on Ukraine was Giuliani. David Holmes, 
U.S. political counselor in Kyiv, said: ``Giuliani, a private lawyer, 
was taking a direct role in Ukrainian diplomacy.''
  Bad enough that the President ordered U.S. diplomats to ``talk to 
Rudy'' about Ukraine, the scheme got worse. The evidence shows that 
Ukrainian officials also came to recognize the important role of Mr. 
Giuliani. On July 10, 2019, Andriy Yermak, the top aide to President 
Zelensky, sent a text to Ambassador Volker about Rudy Giuliani. In that 
text, the Ukrainian official said this:

       Thank you for the meeting and your clear and very logical 
     position. Will be great meet with you before my departure and 
     discuss. I feel that the key for many things is Rudi and I 
     ready to talk with him at any time.

  Let me repeat that quote: ``[T]he key for many things is Rudy.
  So the President used his personal agent to conduct his scheme with 
Ukraine. They were in frequent contact. Everyone--White House officials 
and Ukrainian officials--knew they had no choice but to deal with 
Giuliani. What was Mr. Giuliani doing that was so important to Ukraine? 
Again, the evidence is clear. Mr. Giuliani's focus was to get 
investigations into President Trump's political rival to help the 
President's reelection.
  We have walked through some of the timeline of Mr. Giuliani's actions 
and statements about Ukraine, but let's just line them up briefly 
because it makes the story so clear. April 2019: Vice President Biden 
officially announced his campaign for the Democratic Party's 
Presidential nomination. And a reminder: At the time of Biden's 
announcement and for months after, public polling, including from FOX 
News, showed that Biden would beat President Trump. The FOX News 
polling data is up on the chart.
  Right after Vice President Biden announced his candidacy and while 
Biden was beating President Trump in the polls, Mr. Giuliani said in a 
public interview with the New York Times that he was traveling to 
Ukraine to pursue investigations. He wanted to make sure that ``Biden 
will not get to election day without this being investigated.'' The 
scheme was all about President Trump's reelection.
  This continued in June. Mr. Giuliani tweeted on June 21 and urged 
President Zelensky to pursue the investigation. The scheme continues 
even now. Mr. Giuliani has tweeted about Joe Biden over 65 times since 
September, and President Trump told you himself. He admitted on October 
2: `` . . . we've been investigating, on a personal basis--through Rudy 
and others, lawyers--corruption in the 2016 election.'' Again, to 
review, President Trump used his personal agent for Ukraine. He has 
made this clear to U.S. officials and to the Ukrainians. The evidence 
shows President Trump and Rudy Giuliani were in constant contact during 
this period. President Trump directed him to pursue investigations. He 
told U.S. officials to work with Rudy. He told Ukrainians to work with 
Rudy. Rudy and his associates pressed Ukraine for investigations into 
the President's political rival. Giuliani said: ``Biden will not get to 
election day without this being investigated.''

  Keeping all this in mind, let's turn to the President's first 
official act: soliciting foreign interference. As we mentioned, in late 
2018 and early 2019, Rudy Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas and 
Igor Fruman were busy soliciting information from corrupt Ukrainians to 
help President Trump. They pursued a monthslong campaign to dig up dirt 
on Biden. In late 2018 and early 2019, Parnas, Fruman, and Giuliani met 
extensively with two corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors, Yuriy Lutsenko and 
Viktor Shokin, to gather information they believed would help President 
Trump. As you will recall, Shokin was corrupt. George Kent described 
Shokin as ``a typical Ukrainian prosecutor who lived a lifestyle far in 
excess of his government salary, who never prosecuted anybody known for 
having committed a crime'' and who ``covered up crimes that were known 
to have been committed.'' And remember, because Shokin was corrupt, 
Vice President Biden had urged his removal. This was in accordance with 
U.S. policy.
  Shokin blamed the former Vice President for his dismissal by the 
Ukrainian Parliament. He wanted to revive his political fortunes in 
Ukraine by assisting with Giuliani's effort. At the end of January, 
Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman participated in a conference call with 
Shokin. He made allegations about Vice President Biden and Burisma. 
Shokin also falsely claimed that Ambassador Yovanovitch had improperly 
denied him a U.S. visa and that she was close to Vice President Biden. 
Also, in January, Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman met with Lutsenko in New 
York. They discussed investigations into Burisma and the

[[Page S508]]

Bidens and whether Ambassador Yovanovitch was ``loyal to President 
Trump.'' Lutsenko held a grudge against Ambassador Yovanovitch because 
she and the broader State Department were critical of Lutsenko's 
failures. They were critical of his failure to prosecute corruption in 
Ukraine. This was the motivation for Lutsenko to give Giuliani and his 
associates false information on Biden and Burisma.
  And here is the point: Lutsenko and Shokin had grudges against Biden 
and Ambassador Yovanovitch. Why? Because they were implementing U.S. 
policy to fight corruption in Ukraine. Now, Giuliani and his associates 
had motive to harm Biden: to help get President Trump reelected. They 
had motive to remove Ambassador Yovanovitch or anyone else who got in 
the way of their efforts to smear Biden. Giuliani admitted this. He 
told the New York Times that he spoke to President Trump about how 
Ambassador Yovanovitch frustrated efforts that could be politically 
helpful to President Trump. Giuliani admitted this was all to benefit 
President Trump. Documents give us evidence of this scheme. WhatsApp 
exchanges that Parnas recently gave to Congress made clear that, in 
exchange for derogatory information about Biden, Lutsenko wanted 
Yovanovitch removed from her post in Kyiv.
  Here is that WhatsApp report. For example, on March 22, Lutsenko 
wrote: ``It's just that if you don't make a decision about Madam--you 
are bringing into question all my allegations, including about B.'' 
Now, here, ``B'' could either be Biden or Burisma or both, but 
``Madam'' is Ambassador Yovanovitch.
  In the March 22 text, Lutsenko implied that, if Parnas wanted dirt on 
Biden--Burisma--he needed to do something about Ambassador Yovanovitch. 
Days later, on March 28, Parnas assured Lutsenko that his efforts were 
being recognized in the United States and that he would be rewarded. 
Parnas wrote:

       I was asked to personally convey to you that America 
     supports you and will not let you be harmed no matter how 
     things look now. Soon everything will turn around and will be 
     on the right course. Just so you know, here people are 
     talking about you as a true Ukrainian hero.

  Lutsenko responded with the dirt that President Trump wanted. He 
wrote: ``I have copies of payments from Burisma to Seneca.'' Minutes 
after being reassured that ``America supports you and will not let you 
be harmed,'' Lutsenko claimed he had records of payments from Burisma 
to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a firm founded by Hunter Biden. This text 
message, along with others, shows that Lutsenko was providing 
derogatory information on the Bidens in exchange for Parnas pushing for 
Ambassador Yovanovitch's removal.
  Now, in late March and throughout April 2019, the smear campaign 
against the Bidens and against Ambassador Yovanovitch entered a more 
public phase through a series of opinion pieces published in The Hill. 
The public airing of these allegations was orchestrated--orchestrated 
by Giuliani, Parnas, and Lutsenko. We know from records produced by 
Parnas that he played an important role in getting derogatory 
information from Lutsenko and his deputy to John Solomon, who wrote the 
opinion pieces in The Hill.
  According to The Hill articles, Ukrainian officials falsely claimed 
to have evidence of wrongdoing about the following: One, Vice President 
Biden's efforts in 2015 to remove Shokin; two, Hunter Biden's role as a 
Burisma board member; three, Ukrainian interference in the 2016 
election in favor of Hillary Clinton; and four, the misappropriation 
and transfer of Ukrainian funds abroad.
  This was what President Trump wanted from the Ukrainians: the same 
information Mr. Giuliani and his agents were scheming up with Ukraine 
to hurt Biden and, in exchange, to have Ambassador Yovanovitch removed.
  Now, Mr. Giuliani was very open about this, and here is a clip worth 
watching.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Let me tell you my interest in that. I got information 
     about three or four months ago that a lot of the explanations 
     for how this whole phony investigation started will be in the 
     Ukraine, that there were a group of people in the Ukraine 
     that were working to help Hillary Clinton and were colluding 
     really--[LAUGHTER]--with the Clinton campaign. And it stems 
     around the ambassador and the embassy, being used for 
     political purposes. So I began getting some people that were 
     coming forward and telling me about that. And then all of a 
     sudden, they revealed the story about Burisma and Biden's 
     son.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Giuliani got laughed at on FOX News for 
advancing the crowd source conspiracy theory, but the clip shows that 
he had been making an effort to get derogatory information from the 
Ukrainians on behalf of his client, President Trump.
  My colleague Mrs. Demings will now further detail how the scheme 
evolved.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I understand the presentations will continue for a 
while, and I would suggest a dinner break at 6:30 for 30 minutes.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection.
  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Chief Justice Roberts, Senators, and, of 
course, the counsel for the President, at this point, everything was 
going to plan. Mr. Giuliani was scheming with the corrupt Ukrainian 
prosecutors who were offering dirt on Biden that would help President 
Trump get reelected. They were pressing President Trump to remove 
Ambassador Yovanovitch, including publicly tarnishing her reputation, 
based on false and baseless claims. But then the President's scheme hit 
a roadblock.
  On April 21, President Zelensky--then the anti-corruption candidate--
won a landslide victory in Ukraine's Presidential election. U.S. 
officials unanimously testified that President Zelensky's mandate to 
pursue reform would be good for our national security. However, it was 
potentially bad news for President Trump's scheme.
  Mr. Giuliani did not have a relationship with Zelensky. As a 
reformer, he would be less amenable to announcing the sham 
investigations. Zelensky would not want to get dragged into U.S. 
domestic politics.
  Additionally, the election of a new Ukrainian President raised the 
concern that Lutsenko, with whom Mr. Giuliani had been plotting, would 
be replaced by a new Ukrainian prosecutor general. A new prosecutor 
general, especially one appointed in an anti-corruption regime, would 
likely be less willing to conduct sham investigations to please an 
American President.
  Mr. Giuliani decided to attack the issue from both sides. He pressed 
President Trump to remove Ambassador Yovanovitch, which would keep 
Lutsenko happy. He continued to work hard to get dirt on Biden. And he 
tried to get a meeting with Zelensky to secure the new Ukrainian 
leader's commitment to press the investigations. This strategy played 
out on April 23 and 24.
  First, on April 23, Parnas and Fruman were in Israel, trying to 
arrange a meeting between Giuliani and the newly minted Ukrainian 
President Zelensky.
  On April 23, Giuliani left a voicemail message for Parnas. Let's play 
that voicemail.
  Well, I was going to say it would be difficult to hear, but I am sure 
you cannot hear it at all. Let me tell you what it says. He says:

       It's Rudy. When you get a chance, give me a call and bring 
     me up to date okay? I got a couple of things to tell you too.

  Parnas and Giuliani eventually spoke on that same day. We have the 
phone records that prove that. According to phone records, Parnas and 
Giuliani had a 1-minute-50-second call.
  Fifteen minutes after they hung up, the records also show that Mr. 
Giuliani placed three short phone calls to the White House. Shortly 
thereafter, the White House called Giuliani back. Giuliani spoke with 
someone at the White House for 8 minutes and 28 seconds.
  I will quickly note that at the time the Intelligence Committee 
issued its report in mid-December, we did not know whether that 8-
minute-28-second call was from the White House. We have since received 
information from a telecom company that it was indeed the White House.
  We don't have a recording of that call. Neither the White House nor 
Giuliani produced any information to Congress about what was discussed. 
Of course, the White House has refused, as you already know, to 
cooperate in any way. But even without the evidence that the White 
House is hiding--with

[[Page S509]]

the evidence we do have--these phone records prove that Mr. Giuliani 
was keeping President Trump informed about what was going on when he 
was trying to meet President Zelensky and get Ukraine to commit to the 
investigations.
  Let's look at President Trump's decision to remove Ambassador 
Yovanovitch. Following the call between Mr. Giuliani and the White 
House on April 23, Parnas asked Giuliani for an update. Parnas texted: 
``Going to sleep my brother please text me or call me if you have any 
news.
  Giuliani responded: ``He fired her again.''
  That was, of course, in reference to Ambassador Yovanovitch. Her 
removal would no doubt please the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, 
Lutsenko, who offered derogatory information about Hunter Biden. It 
also eliminated a potential obstacle identified by Giuliani.
  Parnas responded: ``I pray it happens this time I'll call you 
tomorrow my brother.''
  And it did--because we know that the very next day, on April 24, 
Ambassador Yovanovitch received two frantic phone calls from Ambassador 
Carol Perez at the State Department. The second call came at 1 a.m.
  According to Ambassador Yovanovitch, as you can see from the slide on 
the screen, the Director General of the Foreign Service told her that 
``there was a lot of concern for me, that I needed to be on the next 
plane home to Washington.''
  Yovanovitch recalled:

       And I was like, what? What happened?

  And Perez said:

       I don't know, but this is about your security. You need to 
     come home immediately. You need to come home on the next 
     plane.

  Yovanovitch asked what Perez meant by ``physical security.'' Perez 
``didn't get that impression'' but repeated that Yovanovitch needed 
``to come back immediately.'' This was no coincidence.
  Mr. Giuliani and his agents conspired to meet President Zelensky. 
They conspired for Ambassador Yovanovitch to be removed. Within hours 
of Mr. Giuliani saying he prayed Ambassador Yovanovitch would get 
fired, Ambassador Yovanovitch got a frantic phone call to get on the 
next plane.
  That same day, on April 24, Giuliani appeared on ``Fox & Friends'' 
and promoted the false conspiracy theories about Ukraine and Vice 
President Biden that were all part of this agreement. Let's look and 
listen to what he said.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       And I ask you to keep your eye on Ukraine, because in 
     Ukraine, a lot of the dirty work was done digging up the 
     information. American officials were used, Ukrainians 
     officials were used. That's collusion with Ukrainians. And, 
     or actually in this case, conspiracy with the Ukrainians. I 
     think you'd get some interesting information about Joe Biden 
     from Ukraine. About his son, Hunter Biden. About a company he 
     was on the board of for years, which may be one of the most 
     crooked companies in Ukraine. [Ukranian Russian company--not 
     a Ukranian--you know, big difference there. Yanukovych--the 
     guy they tossed out and Manafort got in all the trouble 
     with--the guy who owns it worked for Yanukovych, pulled 10 
     billion out of the Ukraine, has been a fugitive--was a 
     fugitive when Biden's kid first went to work there.] And 
     Biden bragged about the fact that he got the prosecutor 
     general fired. The prosecutor general was investigating his 
     son and then the investigation went south.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Yovanovitch was never provided a 
justification for her removal. She was an anti-corruption crusader, a 
highly respected diplomat. And she had been recently asked to extend 
her stay in Ukraine.
  While American Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President--we 
do understand that--I am sure you would all agree that the manner and 
circumstances surrounding the Ambassador's removal were unusual and 
raised questions of motive.
  Every witness who testified confirmed that there was no factual basis 
to the accusations Lutsenko lodged against Ambassador Yovanovitch. 
Under Secretary of State David Hale, the most senior career diplomat at 
the State Department, testified that Maria Yovanovitch was an 
outstanding Ambassador and should have been permitted to remain in 
Kyiv.
  Even more significant, several witnesses testified that President 
Trump's decision to remove Ambassador Yovanovitch undercut U.S. 
national security objectives in Ukraine during a critical time.
  Dr. Hill, for example, explained that many of the key U.S. policies 
toward Ukraine were being implemented by the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. And 
then suddenly ``we had just then lost the leadership.'' This created 
what Hill labeled ``a period of uncertainty'' as to how our government 
was going to execute U.S. policy.
  George Kent testified that the ouster of Ambassador Yovanovitch 
``hampered U.S. efforts to establish rapport with the new Zelensky 
administration in Ukraine.''
  So why did President Trump remove a distinguished career public 
servant Yanukovych and anti-corruption crusader and a top diplomat in 
the State Department?
  We know why. The answer is simple: President Trump removed Ambassador 
Yovanovitch because she was in the way. She was in the way of the sham 
investigations that he so desperately wanted; investigations that would 
hurt former Vice President Biden and undermine the Mueller 
investigation into Russian election interference; investigations that 
would help him cheat in the 2020 election.
  Rudy Giuliani admitted that he personally told President Trump about 
his concern that Ambassador Yovanovitch was an obstacle to securing 
Ukrainian cooperation on the two bogus investigations they solicited 
from Ukraine. And Rudy Giuliani confirmed that President Trump decided 
to remove Ambassador Yovanovitch based on the bogus claim that she was 
obstructing his scheme to secure Ukraine's cooperation. Indeed, Mr. 
Giuliani was explicit about this when he told the New Yorker last 
month. He said:

       I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way. She 
     was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.

  So let's recap. Mr. Giuliani and his agents, on behalf of President 
Trump, the United States President, worked with corrupt Ukrainians to 
get dirt on President Trump's political opponent. Mr. Giuliani said 
this in press interviews. He texted about it with his agents, and he 
repeatedly called the White House.
  Following the election of a new Ukrainian leader committed to 
fighting corruption, President Trump removed Ambassador Yovanovitch, an 
anti-corruption crusader, and Mr. Giuliani told us why: to get her out 
of the way for the investigations to move forward. That is how far 
President Trump was willing to go to get his investigations. To smear a 
highly respected, dedicated Foreign Service officer who had served this 
country unselfishly for his own selfish political interests is 
disgraceful.
  Even with the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch, President Zelensky's 
election victory threw a wrench into the President's scheme. That is 
because Lutsenko was reportedly going to be replaced. After Mr. 
Giuliani told the New York Times on May 9 that he intended to travel to 
Ukraine on behalf of President Trump in order to ``meddle in an 
investigation,'' Ukrainian officials publicly pushed back. Please hear 
what I said. Ukrainian officials publicly pushed back on the 
suggestions of corruptions proposed by Mr. Giuliani, who was working on 
behalf of the U.S. President.
  Well, Mr. Giuliani canceled his trip on May 10 and claimed on FOX 
News that President Zelensky was surrounded by ``enemies'' of President 
Trump. Let's listen.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GIULIANI. I decided, Sharon, I'm not going to go to 
     Ukraine.
       Ms. BREAM. You are not going to go?
       Mr. GIULIANI. I am not going to go because I think I'm 
     walking into a group of people that are enemies of the 
     President.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. It appears Giuliani's statement influenced 
President Trump's view of Ukraine, as well. At an Oval Office meeting 
on May 23, U.S. officials learned of Giuliani's influence. Ambassador 
Volker testified that President Trump ``didn't believe'' the positive 
assessment government officials gave the new Ukrainian President. 
Instead, President Trump told them that Giuliani ``knows all of these 
things'' and said that President Zelensky has ``some bad people around 
him.'' At this point, the scheme had stalled. Mr. Giuliani and the 
President knew that they were going to have

[[Page S510]]

trouble with President Zelensky fulfilling his corrupt demand for 
investigations that would benefit President Trump's reelection 
campaign.
  That brings us to the next phase of this scheme. Although his corrupt 
scheme was in trouble due to the unexpected results of the Ukrainian 
election--the election which yielded an anti-corruption reformer--
President Trump doubled down on his scheme to solicit investigations 
for his personal benefit.
  In May of 2019, with a gap in American leadership in Ukraine after 
Ambassador Yovanovitch was removed, President Trump enlisted U.S. 
officials to help to do his political work. The scheme grew from false 
allegations by disgruntled, corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors to a plot by 
the President of the United States to extort the new Ukrainian 
President into announcing his political investigations. During the May 
23 Oval Office meeting, President Trump directed Ambassador Sondland, 
Ambassador Volker, and Secretary Perry to work with Mr. Giuliani on 
Ukraine. Giuliani had made clear he was pursuing investigations for 
President Trump in a personal capacity. He said publicly, on numerous 
instances, that he was only working for the President in a personal 
capacity and not on foreign policy. Yet President Trump still told 
White House officials that they had to work with Mr. Giuliani to get 
anywhere on Ukraine. We heard significant testimony on this point. For 
example, Ambassador Volker recalled that at the Oval Office meeting on 
May 23, President Trump directed the U.S. officials to ``talk to 
Rudy.'' Ambassador Sondland testified that President Trump directed 
them to ``talk to Rudy.'' In that moment, the U.S. diplomats saw the 
writing on the wall and concluded ``that if we did not talk to Rudy, 
nothing would move forward, nothing would move forward on Ukraine.'' 
Pay attention to Ambassador Sondland's testimony.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. In response to our persistent efforts 
     in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed 
     us to, quote, ``talk with Rudy.'' We understood that ``talk 
     with Rudy'' meant, talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the 
     President's personal lawyer.
       Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's 
     directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. 
     Giuliani. I believe then, as I do now, that the men and 
     women of the State Department, not the President's 
     personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine 
     matters.
       Nonetheless, based on the President's direction, we were 
     faced with a choice. We could abandon the efforts to schedule 
     the White House phone call and the White House visit between 
     Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in 
     our foreign policy interest, or we could do as President 
     Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter, 
     of course, not because we liked it, but because it was the 
     only constructive path open to us.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. And just like that, U.S. officials charged with 
advancing U.S. foreign policy--U.S. officials who were supposed to act 
in our country's interest--were directed to, instead, advance President 
Trump's personal interests. From that point on, they worked with the 
President's personal agent on political investigations to benefit the 
President's reelection.
  Their work on President Trump's behalf to solicit foreign 
interference in our elections continued throughout all of June. For 
instance, on June 21, Mr. Giuliani tweeted that President Zelensky had 
not yet publicly committed on two politically motivated investigations 
designed to benefit President Trump. And when Mr. Giuliani's public 
efforts and his tweets didn't move President Zelensky to announce the 
investigations, he used U.S. diplomats as directed by President Trump. 
This is important.
  After Giuliani canceled his trip to Ukraine in May and commented that 
President-elect Zelensky had enemies of President Trump around him, 
Giuliani had minimal access to the new Ukrainian leader's inner circle. 
His primary Ukraine connection, Prosecutor General Lutsenko, had 
already been informed that he would be removed as soon as the new 
Parliament convened. So President Trump gave him U.S. diplomats and 
directed them to work with Mr. Giuliani on his scheme. As you heard, 
President Trump told Ambassadors Sondland and Volker to talk with Rudy 
and work with Rudy on Ukraine. And what did that mean? Well, Mr. 
Giuliani tried to use Ambassador Sondland and Volker to gain access to 
President Zelensky and his inner circle through their official State 
Department channels and made clear to President Zelensky that he had to 
announce the investigations.
  On June 27, Ambassador Sondland brought Ambassador Taylor up to speed 
on Ukraine since Ambassador Taylor had just arrived in the country a 
few weeks beforehand. Ambassador Sondland explained that President 
Zelensky needed to make clear that he was not standing in the way of 
the investigations that President Trump wanted--that President Zelensky 
needed to make clear that he was not standing in the way of the 
investigations that President Trump wanted. And here is his testimony.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. On June 27th, Ambassador Sondland told 
     me during a phone conversation that President Zelensky needed 
     to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelensky, 
     was not standing in the way of investigations.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Taylor relayed this conversation to 
one of his deputies, U.S. Diplomat David Holmes, who testified that he 
understood the investigations to mean the ``Burisma-Biden 
investigations that Mr. Giuliani and his associates had been speaking 
about'' publicly.
  Let's listen to Mr. Holmes.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. On June 27th, Ambassador Sondland told 
     Ambassador Taylor in a phone conversation, the gist of which 
     Ambassador Taylor shared with me at the time, that President 
     Zelensky needed to make clear to President Trump that 
     President Zelensky was not standing in the way of, quote, 
     ``investigations.'' I understood that this meant the Biden/
     Burisma investigations that Mr. Giuliani and his associates 
     had been speaking about in the media since March.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Even with the addition of President Trump's 
political appointees to aid Mr. Giuliani's efforts, President Zelensky 
did not announce the investigations. As Mr. Giuliani's June 21 tweet 
shows, the Ukrainian President was resisting President Trump's 
pressure.
  So what happened? Well, that brings us to the President's next 
official act: turning up the pressure by conditioning an official White 
House meeting on Ukraine announcing his political investigations.
  Senators, I know we have covered a lot of ground, but as we have 
shown, there is overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence of the 
President's scheme to solicit foreign interference in this year's 
Presidential election.
  Let me say this also. Each time that we remind this body of the 
President's scheme to cheat, to win, some of his defenders say that we 
are only concerned about winning the next election--the Democrats are 
only doing this to win the next election.
  But you know better because this trial is much bigger than any one 
election, and it is much bigger than any one President. This moment is 
about the American people. Whether a maid or a janitor, whether a 
nurse, a teacher, or a truck driver, whether a doctor or a mechanic, 
this moment is about ensuring that their votes matter and that American 
elections are decided by the American people.
  President Trump acted corruptly. He abused the power of his office by 
ordering U.S. diplomats to work with his political agent to solicit two 
politically motivated investigations by Ukraine. The investigations 
were designed solely to help his personal interests, not our national 
interests. Neither investigation solicited by President Trump had 
anything to do with promoting U.S. foreign policy or U.S. national 
security. Indeed, as we will discuss later, both investigations and the 
President's broader scheme to secure Ukraine's interference was a 
threat. It was a threat. It was a threat to our national security. The 
only person who stood to benefit from the abuse of office and 
solicitation of these investigations was Donald Trump--the 45th 
President of the United States.
  This was a violation of public trust and a failure to take care that 
the laws be faithfully executed, but when it came down to choosing 
between the national interests of the country and his own personal 
interests--his reelection--President Trump chose himself.
  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief Justice, the distinguished Members of 
the Senate, the counsel to the President, and all of those who are 
assembled here today, earlier this morning, I

[[Page S511]]

was on my way to the office, and I ran into a fellow New Yorker who 
just happens to work here in Washington, DC.
  He said to me: Congressman, have you heard the latest outrage?
  I wasn't really sure what he was talking about. So, to be honest, I 
thought to myself, Well, the President is now back in town. What has 
Donald Trump done now? So I said to him: What outrage are you talking 
about?
  He paused for a moment, and then he said to me: Someone voted against 
Derek Jeter on his Hall of Fame ballot.
  (Laughter.)
  Life is all about perspective.
  I understand that, as House managers, we certainly hope we can 
subpoena John Bolton and subpoena Mick Mulvaney, but perhaps we can all 
agree to subpoena the Baseball Hall of Fame to try to figure out who, 
out of 397 individuals, was the one person who voted against Derek 
Jeter.
  I was thinking about that as I prepared to rise today, because what 
is more American than baseball and apple pie? Perhaps the one thing 
that falls into that category is the sanctity and continuity of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  As House managers, we are here in this august body because we believe 
it is necessary to defend our democracy. Some of you may agree with us 
at the end of the day, and others most likely will not, but we do want 
to thank you for your courtesy and for your patience in extending to us 
the opportunity to present our case with dignity to you and to the 
American people during this solemn constitutional moment.
  I want to speak for just some time on the second official act that 
President Trump used to corruptly abuse his power, which was the 
withholding of an official Oval Office meeting with the President of 
Ukraine.
  As discussed yesterday, ``quid pro quo'' is a Latin term. It means 
``this for that.''
  President Trump refused to schedule that Oval Office meeting until 
the Ukrainian leader announced the phony political investigations that 
he demanded on July 25. He knew President Zelensky needed the meeting 
to bolster his standing. He knew that Ukraine was a fragile democracy. 
He knew that President Zelensky needed the meeting to show Vladimir 
Putin that he had the support of Donald Trump, but President Trump 
exploited that desperation for his own political benefit--this for 
that. Did a quid pro quo exist? The answer is yes.
  Let's listen to Ambassador Sondland on this point.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Amb. SONDLAND. I know that members of this committee 
     frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a 
     simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified 
     previously with regard to the requested White House call and 
     the White House meeting, the answer is yes.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Did President Trump abuse his power and commit 
an impeachable offense? The answer is yes.
  The phony political investigations that President Trump demanded from 
Ukraine were part of a scheme to sabotage a political rival--Joe 
Biden--and cheat in the 2020 election. No national interest was served. 
The President used his awesome power to help himself and not the 
American people. He must be held accountable.
  The President's defenders may argue, as Mick Mulvaney tried to, that 
quid pro quo arrangements are a common aspect of U.S. foreign policy. 
Nonsense. There are situations where official United States acts, like 
head-of-state meetings or the provision of foreign assistance, are used 
to advance the national interests of the United States. That is not 
what happened here. Here, President Trump sought to advance his own 
personal political interests, facilitated by Rudolph Giuliani, the 
human hand grenade.

  Let's walk through the overwhelming evidence of how President Trump 
withheld an official White House meeting, which was vitally important 
to Ukraine, as part of a corrupt scheme to convince President Zelensky 
to announce two phony political investigations.
  First, the Oval Office meeting President Trump corruptly withheld 
constitutes an official act. President Trump chose to withhold this 
meeting for a reason. It was not some run-of-the-mill meeting. It was 
one of the most powerful tools he could wield in his role as the leader 
of the free world. It would have demonstrated U.S. support for 
Ukraine's newly elected leader at a critical time. Ukraine is under 
relentless attack by Russian-backed separatists in Crimea and in the 
East. Ukraine desperately needed an Oval Office meeting, and President 
Trump knew it.
  Second, President Trump withheld that Oval Office meeting to increase 
pressure on Ukraine to assist his reelection campaign by announcing two 
phony investigations. As my colleagues have detailed extensively 
throughout the day, this is a classic quid pro quo.
  Third, multiple administration officials, including the President's 
own handpicked supporters and appointees, confirmed that a corrupt 
exchange was being sought.
  Finally, contemporaneous documentation makes clear that the President 
corruptly abused his power to advance the scheme to try and cheat in 
the 2020 election--this for that.
  Let's explore whether the granting or the denial of an Oval Office 
meeting constitutes an official act.
  As we discussed earlier today, an abuse of power occurs when the 
President exercises his official power to obtain a corrupt personal 
benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interests.
  Pursuant to the Constitution and more than 200 years of tradition, as 
President, Donald Trump is America's head of state and chief diplomat. 
Article II grants the President wide latitude to conduct diplomacy and 
to, specifically, receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers. The 
President decides which head-of-state meetings best advance the 
national interests and which foreign leaders are deserving of an 
official reception in the Oval Office--perhaps one of the most 
prestigious nonreligious venues in the world.
  In diplomacy, perception matters. Meetings between heads of state are 
make-or-break moments that can determine the trajectory of global 
events, and a meeting with the President of the United States in the 
Oval Office is unquestionably monumental, particularly for a fragile 
democracy like Ukraine.
  The Oval Office is where foreign leaders facing challenges at home 
go--like a war with Russia--in pursuit of a strong and public 
demonstration of American support. That is especially true in this 
particular case. The decision to grant or withhold an Oval Office 
meeting to President Zelensky has profound consequences for the 
national security interests of both Ukraine and the United States.
  To understand the full context of President Trump's corrupt demands 
to the Ukrainian leader, it is important to consider the geopolitical 
context--that all of you are very familiar with--confronting the 
Ukrainian people.
  Ukraine is at war with Russia. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea by 
force. The United States and other European countries rallied to 
Ukraine's defense, providing economic assistance, diplomatic support, 
and later, with strong advocacy from this body, lethal aid. This 
support meant Russia faced consequences for its aggression.
  Here is Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony explaining just how 
important the United States is to Ukraine.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Amb. YOVANOVITCH. The U.S. relationship for Ukraine is the 
     single most important relationship, and so I think that 
     President Zelensky, any president, would do what they could 
     to lean in on a favor request. I'm not saying that that's a 
     yes, I'm saying they would try to lean in and see what they 
     could do.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Fair to say that a president of Ukraine that 
     is so dependent on the United States would do just about 
     anything within his power to please the president of the 
     United States if he could?
       Amb. YOVANOVITCH. If he could. I'm sure there are limits, 
     and I understand there were a lot of discussions in the 
     Ukrainian government about all of this, but yeah, we are an 
     important relationship on the security side and on the 
     political side. And so, the president of Ukraine, one of the 
     most important functions that individual has is to make sure 
     the relationship with the U.S. is rock solid.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. But it isn't just the relationship itself. It 
was a public meeting in the White House that would show U.S. support 
for Ukraine.
  A meeting with the President of the United States in the Oval Office 
is one of the most forceful diplomatic signals of support that the 
United States can send.

[[Page S512]]

  Veteran diplomat George Kent testified to this.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. KENT. New leaders, particularly countries that are 
     trying to have good footing in the international arena, see a 
     meeting with the US president in the Oval Office at the White 
     House as the ultimate sign of endorsement and support from 
     the United States.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. President Zelensky was a newly elected leader. 
He was swept into office on the pledge to end pervasive corruption. He 
also had a mandate to negotiate an end to the war with Russia. To 
achieve both goals, he needed strong U.S. support, particularly from 
President Trump, which Zelensky sought in the form of a White House 
meeting.
  David Holmes, political counselor to the Embassy in Kyiv, described 
the particular importance of a White House visit to Ukraine in the 
context of its war with Russia.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. It is important to understand that a White 
     House visit was critical to President Zelensky. President 
     Zelensky needed to show U.S. support at the highest levels in 
     order to demonstrate to Russian President Putin that he had 
     U.S. backing, as well as to advance his ambitious 
     anticorruption agenda at home.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. In other words, Ukraine knew that Russia was 
watching carefully.
  That was particularly true in the spring of 2019, when Donald Trump 
launched the scheme at the center of the abuse of power charge.
  During this time period, Vladimir Putin was preparing for peace 
negotiations with the new Ukrainian leader. Putin could choose to 
escalate or he could choose to deescalate Russian aggression. And 
influencing his decision was an assessment of whether President Trump 
had Ukraine's back.
  (Text of Videotape presentation.)

       Amb. TAYLOR. The Russians, as I said in my deposition, 
     ``would love to see the humiliation of President Zelensky at 
     the hands of the Americans.''

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. An Oval Office meeting would have sent a strong 
signal of support that President Trump had Ukraine's back. The absence 
of such a meeting could be devastating. Indeed, Ukraine made very clear 
to the United States just how important a White House meeting between 
the two heads of State was for its fragile democracy.
  At the deposition, as the one on the screen reveals, LTC Alexander 
Vindman, the director for Ukraine on the National Security Council, 
recalled that following President Zelensky's inauguration, at every 
single meeting with Ukrainian officials, they asked their American 
counterparts about the status of an Oval Office meeting between the two 
Presidents.
  Initially, the Ukrainians had reason to be optimistic that a White 
House meeting would be promptly scheduled. On April 21, during 
President Zelensky's first call with President Trump, the new Ukrainian 
leader asked about a White House visit three times. As part of that 
brief congratulatory call, President Trump himself did extend an 
invitation. Ukraine's dependence on the United States and its desperate 
need for a White House meeting created an unequal power dynamic between 
the two Presidents.
  As Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified, it is that unequal power 
dynamic that turned any subsequent request for a favor from the 
President into a demand.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, you've described this as a demand, 
     this favor that the President asked. What is it about the 
     relationship between the President of the United States and 
     the President of Ukraine that leads you to conclude that when 
     the President of the United States asks a favor like this, 
     it's really a demand?
       Lieutenant Colonel VINDMAN. Chairman, the culture I come 
     from, the military culture, when a senior asks you to do 
     something, even if it's polite and pleasant, it's not--it's 
     not to be taken as a request, it's to be taken as an order.
       In this case, the power disparity between the two leaders, 
     my impression is that, in order to get the White House 
     meeting, President Zelensky would have to deliver these 
     investigations.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Trump appointee, 
also acknowledged the importance of this power disparity and how it 
made President Zelensky eager to satisfy President Trump's wishes.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Holmes then said that he heard President Trump 
     ask, quote, ``is he,'' meaning Zelensky, ``going to do the 
     investigation?'' To which you replied, ``he's going to do 
     it.'' And then you added that President Zelensky will do 
     anything that you, meaning President Trump, ask him to. Do 
     you recall that?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. I probably said something to that 
     effect because I remember the meeting--the President--or 
     President Zelensky was very--``solicitous'' is not a good 
     word. He was just very willing to work with the United States 
     and was being very amicable. And so putting it in Trump speak 
     by saying he loves your ass, he'll do whatever you want, 
     meant that he would really work with us on a whole host of 
     issues.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. He was not only willing. He was very eager, 
     right?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. That's fair.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Because Ukraine depends on the United States 
     as its most significant ally. Isn't that correct?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. One of its most, absolutely.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. In other words, any request President Trump 
made to Ukraine would be difficult to refuse.
  So when President Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, as 
well as the wild conspiracy theory about the 2016 election, those were 
absolutely interpreted by President Zelensky and his staff as a demand.
  And that is where the White House meeting enters into the equation. 
When Ukraine did not immediately cave to Rudy Giuliani in the spring 
and announce the phony investigations, President Trump ratcheted up the 
pressure. As leverage, he chose the White House meeting he dangled 
during his April 21 call, precisely because President Trump knew how 
important the meeting was to Ukraine.
  Following their visit to Kyiv for the new Ukrainian leader's 
inauguration, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, and Secretary 
Perry met with President Trump, and each of them encouraged the 
President to schedule the meeting. Here is what Ambassador Sondland had 
to say.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Amb. SONDLAND. We advised the president of the strategic 
     importance of Ukraine and the value of strengthening the 
     relationship with President Zelensky. To support this 
     reformer, we asked the White House for two things. First, a 
     working phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, and 
     second, a working oval office visit. In our view, both were 
     vital to cementing the US-Ukraine relationship, demonstrating 
     support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and 
     advancing broader US foreign policy interests.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. So even though this meeting was critical to 
both Ukraine and America, President Trump ignored all of his policy 
advisers and expressed reluctance to meet with the new Ukrainian 
President. He refused to schedule an actual date.
  He claimed that Ukraine ``tried to take me down'' in 2016 and 
directed that three U.S. officials ``talk to Rudy.'' And even though on 
May 29 the President signed a letter reiterating his earlier invitation 
for President Zelensky to visit the White House, he still did not 
specify a date.
  But then President Trump went further. He met with Ukraine's 
adversary, Ukraine's enemy, our enemy. President Trump met with Russia.
  This didn't go unnoticed. Ukrainian officials became concerned when 
President Trump scheduled that face-to-face meeting with Vladimir Putin 
at the G20 summit in Japan on June 28.
  Mr. Holmes testified on this particular point and the troubling 
signal that meeting sent to our friend, to our ally, Ukraine.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. Also, on June 28th, while President Trump was 
     still not moving forward on a meeting with President 
     Zelensky, we met with . . . He met with Russian President 
     Putin at the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, sending a further 
     signal of lack of support to Ukraine.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Now, let's discuss how exactly President Trump 
used the withholding of the White House meeting to pressure Ukraine for 
his phony investigations--his quid pro quo scheme.
  It is important to understand that the pressure exerted on Ukraine by 
delaying the White House meeting didn't just occur right before the 
July 25 call. That pressure existed during the entire scheme, and it 
continues to this day.
  We know this from the efforts of administration officials to secure 
the meeting and from the Ukrainians continuously trying to lock down a 
date.

[[Page S513]]

For example, even after President Trump expressed reluctance about 
Ukraine on May 23, his administration officials continued working to 
secure a White House meeting.
  On July 10, for instance, they raised it again when Mr. Yermak and 
Ukraine's national security advisor met with John Bolton at the White 
House.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Dr. HILL. And then we knew that the Ukrainians would have 
     on their agenda, inevitably, the question about a meeting. As 
     we get through the main discussion, we are going into that 
     wrap-up phase. The Ukrainians, Mr. Danylyuk, starts to ask 
     about a White House meeting and Ambassador Bolton was trying 
     to parry this back.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. As you have seen, President Zelensky didn't 
just raise the Oval Office meeting on his April 21 call, he raised the 
meeting on the July 25 call with President Trump again.
  President Zelensky said on the July 25 call: ``I also wanted to thank 
you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically 
Washington, DC.''
  After the July 25 call, the Ukrainians continued to press for the 
meeting, but that meeting never happened.
  Only on September 25, after the House announced its investigation 
into the President's misconduct as it relates to Ukraine and the 
existence of a whistleblower complaint became public, did President 
Trump and President Zelensky meet face-to-face for the first time. That 
meeting was on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York. 
It was dominated by public release of the July 25 call record that 
occurred the day before. It was a far cry from the demonstration of 
strong support that would have been achieved by an Oval Office meeting.

  Even President Zelensky recognized that a face-to-face talk on the 
sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly was not the same as an 
official Oval Office meeting. Sitting next to President Trump in New 
York, he again raised a White House meeting. Here is what President 
Zelensky said:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President ZELENSKY. And I want to thank you for the 
     invitation to Washington. You invited me, but I think--I'm 
     sorry, but I think you forgot to tell me the date. But I 
     think in the near future.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. President Trump was not just withholding a 
small thing; the Oval Office meeting was a big deal. Ukraine remains at 
war with Russia. It desperately needs our support. As a result, the 
pressure on Ukraine not to upset President Trump--who still refuses to 
meet with President Zelensky in the Oval Office--continues to this day.
  David Holmes testified that the Ukrainian Government wants an Oval 
Office meeting even after the release of the security assistance and 
that our own U.S. national security objectives would also benefit from 
such a meeting.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOLMES. And although the hold on the security 
     assistance may have been lifted, there were still things they 
     wanted that they weren't getting, including a meeting with 
     the President in the Oval Office. Whether the hold, the 
     security assistance hold continued or not, the Ukrainians 
     understood that that's something the President wanted and 
     they still wanted important things from the President. That 
     continues to this day. We have to be very careful. They still 
     need us now going forward.
       In fact, right now President Zelensky is trying to arrange 
     a summit meeting with President Putin in the coming weeks, 
     his first face-to-face meeting with him to try to advance the 
     peace process. He needs our support. He needs President Putin 
     to understand that America supports Zelensky at the highest 
     levels. So this doesn't end with the lifting of the security 
     assistance hold. Ukraine still needs us, and as I said, still 
     fighting this war this very day.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Let's evaluate exactly how President Trump made 
clear to Ukraine that a White House meeting was conditioned on Ukraine 
announcing two phony political investigations that would help with 
President Trump's reelection in 2020--help him cheat and corrupt our 
democracy.
  By the end of May, it was clear that President Trump's pressure 
campaign to solicit foreign election interference wasn't working. 
President Zelensky had been elected and was rebuffing Mr. Giuliani's 
overtures. Even when President Trump directed his official staff to 
work with Mr. Giuliani in an effort to get President Zelensky to 
announce the two phony political investigations, that didn't work. So 
President Trump apparently realized that he had to increase the 
pressure. That is when he explicitly made clear to Ukraine that it 
would not get the desperately sought after Oval Office meeting unless 
President Zelensky publicly announced the phony investigations that 
President Trump sought.
  On July 2, 2019, Ambassador Volker personally communicated the need 
for investigations directly to President Zelensky during a meeting in 
Toronto.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador VOLKER. After weeks of reassuring the Ukrainians 
     that it was just a scheduling issue, I decided to tell 
     President Zelensky that we had a problem with the information 
     reaching President Trump from Mayor Giuliani. I did so in a 
     bilateral meeting at a conference on Ukrainian economic 
     reform in Toronto on July 2, 2019, where I led the U.S. 
     delegation.
       I suggested that he call President Trump directly in order 
     to renew their personal relationship and to assure President 
     Trump that he was committed to investigating and fighting 
     corruption, things on which President Zelensky had based his 
     Presidential campaign. I was convinced that getting the two 
     Presidents to talk with each other would overcome the 
     negative perception of Ukraine that President Trump still 
     harbored.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. After Ambassador Volker instructed President 
Zelensky in Toronto on what to do, he updated Ambassador Taylor on his 
actions. He told Ambassador Taylor that he had counseled the Ukrainian 
President on how to ``prepare for the phone call with President 
Trump.'' He also told Ambassador Taylor that he advised Zelensky that 
President Trump ``would like to hear about the investigations.''
  In addition to Ambassador Volker's direct outreach to President 
Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland continued to apply pressure as well 
during two White House meetings that took place on July 10 with 
Ukrainian officials. The first meeting included National Security 
Advisor John Bolton, Dr. Fiona Hill, LTC Alexander Vindman, Secretary 
Rick Perry, Ambassador Volker, as well as Bolton's Ukrainian 
counterpart and Ukrainian Presidential aide Andriy Yermak.
  After discussion on Ukraine's national security reform plans, 
Ambassador Sondland broached the subject of the phony political 
investigations.
  Fiona Hill, who also attended the meeting, recalled that Ambassador 
Sondland blurted out the following in that meeting with the Ukrainians: 
``Well, we have an agreement with the Chief of Staff for a meeting if 
these investigations in the energy sector start.'' That is code for 
Burisma, which is code for the Bidens.
  Ambassador Volker also recalled that Ambassador Sondland raised the 
issue of the 2016 election and Burisma investigations. Ambassador 
Volker found Ambassador Sondland's comments in that meeting to be 
inappropriate.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador VOLKER. I participated in the July 10 meeting 
     between National Security Advisor Bolton and then-Chairman of 
     the National Security Defense Council, Alex Danyliuk. As I 
     remember, the meeting was essentially over when Ambassador 
     Sondland made a general comment about investigations. I think 
     all of us thought it was inappropriate.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. The exchange underscores that by early July, 
President Trump's demand for investigations had come to totally 
dominate almost every aspect of U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine. 
Securing a Ukrainian commitment to do investigations was a major 
priority of senior U.S. diplomats, as directed by President Donald John 
Trump.
  The July 10 meetings also confirmed that the scheme to pressure 
Ukraine into opening investigations was not a rogue operation but one 
blessed by senior administration officials at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 
As Ambassador Sondland testified, ``Everyone was in the loop.''
  Mr. Majority Leader, based on the statement that we should break at 
around 6:30 p.m., I ask your indulgence. This may be a natural breaking 
point in connection with my presentation.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader.

                          ____________________