[Senate Document 116-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



116th Congress   }                                     {    S. Doc.
SENATE
2d Session       }                                     {    116-18
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     




                          PROCEEDINGS OF THE 
                         UNITED STATES SENATE 


                                IN THE 

                         IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF  
                           DONALD JOHN TRUMP 


                     VOLUME II: TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 













[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                            VOLUME II OF IV















                January 31, 2020.--Ordered to be printed















 
             PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE 
                 IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP 
                      VOLUME II: TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
116th Congress   }                                     {    S. Doc.         
                                 SENATE
2d Session       }                                     {    116-18
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     




                          PROCEEDINGS OF THE 
                         UNITED STATES SENATE


                                IN THE 


                         IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF 
                           DONALD JOHN TRUMP 


                     VOLUME II: TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 





[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                            VOLUME II OF IV


                January 31, 2020.--Ordered to be printed 
                
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
41-126                   WASHINGTON : 2020
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
            UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS RELATED TO PRINTING

                   In the Senate of the United States

                            January 31, 2020

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Secretary be authorized to include statements of 
Senators explaining their votes, either given or submitted 
during the legislative sessions of the Senate on Monday, 
February 3; Tuesday, February 4; and Wednesday, February 5; 
along with the full record of the Senate's proceedings and the 
filings by the parties in a Senate document printed under the 
supervision of the Secretary of the Senate that will complete 
the documentation of the Senate's handling of these impeachment 
proceedings.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
          [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)]

                            February 3, 2020

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify the order of January 31 to allow the Senators to have 
until Wednesday, February 26, 2020--that would be the Wednesday 
after we come back--to have printed statements and opinions in 
the Congressional Record, if they choose, explaining their 
votes and include those in the documentation of the impeachment 
proceedings; finally, I ask that the two-page rule be waived.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
          [166 Cong. Rec. S805 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)]

                           February 25, 2020

    Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify the order of January 31 to allow Senators to have until 
Thursday, February 27, 2020, to have printed statements and 
opinions in the Congressional Record, if they choose, 
explaining their votes and include those in the documentation 
of the impeachment proceedings; finally, I ask that the two-
page rule be waived.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
          [166 Cong. Rec. S1160 (daily ed. Feb. 25, 2020)]
          
                                FOREWORD

                              ----------                              

    By unanimous consent, the United States Senate has directed 
the creation of this publication, Senate Document 116-18, which 
contains, in four volumes, the official record of the Senate 
proceedings in the impeachment trial of President Donald John 
Trump in the 116th Congress. The purpose of these volumes is to 
preserve for future reference the formal record of the third 
presidential impeachment trial in the nation's history. 
Together with the 18 volumes contained in Senate Document 116-
13, which includes all publicly available material submitted to 
the Senate by the House of Representatives as their evidentiary 
record, these volumes represent the complete official record of 
the impeachment actions against President Trump in the 116th 
Congress.
    The volumes are:
          Volume I: Preliminary Proceedings
          Volume II: Trial Proceedings
          Volume III: Visual Aids From Trial
          Volume IV: Statements of Senators
    More than 20 years after the last presidential impeachment 
trial in the Senate, technology was a major difference in the 
conduct of these proceedings and how the record was presented. 
Audio and video recordings, as well as visual aids (slides) 
were used by both the House managers and counsel for the 
President throughout the course of their arguments. In Volume I 
and Volume II of this Document, the text of what was heard on 
audio and video proceedings is included in the record. However, 
visual aids are not reproduced in the Congressional Record; 
therefore references have been inserted in this record where 
such aids were used by the speaker. Those references indicate a 
slide number and each such slide can be found in Volume III.

                   Volume I: Preliminary Proceedings

    Volume I contains all preliminary impeachment proceedings 
prior to opening presentations by the House managers and 
counsel for the President and commencement of the evidentiary 
portion of the trial.
    On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives adopted 
two articles of impeachment against President Trump (House 
Resolution 755, 116th Congress). A subsequent resolution, 
adopted on January 15, 2020, appointed managers on the part of 
the House of Representatives (House Resolution 798, 116th 
Congress).
    On January 15, 2020, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and 
Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer addressed the Senate on 
the issue of impeachment. Following recognition of Senate 
leaders, the Clerk of the House informed the Senate in open 
session that the House of Representatives had passed House 
Resolution 798, authorizing and appointing managers for the 
impeachment trial of President Trump. Subsequently, the Senate 
unanimously agreed to receive the managers, request the 
attendance of the Chief Justice of the United States, appoint 
an escort committee for the Chief Justice, and provide 
necessary access to the Senate Chamber. The Senate notified the 
House of Representatives that it was ready to receive the 
managers and begin the trial.
    On January 16, 2020, Majority Leader McConnell and 
Democratic Leader Schumer addressed the Senate on the issue of 
impeachment. At 12:00 noon on January 16, the managers on the 
part of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar of the 
Senate to exhibit the articles of impeachment, set forth in 
House Resolution 755. Following exhibition of the articles of 
impeachment, the president pro tempore of the Senate, by 
unanimous consent, was authorized to appoint a committee 
consisting of four senators to escort the Chief Justice of the 
United States to the Senate Chamber. On January 16, the 
president pro tempore of the Senate appointed Senators Roy 
Blunt, Patrick Leahy, Lindsey Graham, and Dianne Feinstein to 
serve as the escort committee.
    At 2:00 p.m. on January 16, the Chief Justice, as presiding 
officer of the presidential impeachment trial, took the 
prescribed oath and then administered the oath to all senators 
present. With the Chief Justice presiding, the Senate 
unanimously agreed that a summons be issued to President Trump, 
that his answer to the articles of impeachment be filed with 
the Secretary of the Senate by 6:00 p.m. on January 18, 2020, 
and that the House of Representatives file its replication to 
the President's answer with the Secretary by 12:00 noon on 
January 20, 2020. The Senate also agreed that trial briefs, if 
desired, should be filed by the House of Representatives with 
the Secretary by 5:00 p.m. on January 18 and by the President 
by 12:00 noon on January 20, and any rebuttal brief may be 
filed by the House by 12:00 noon on January 21, 2020. These 
agreements also authorized the Secretary to print all of these 
preliminary matters as a Senate document to be made available 
to all parties. These documents were published within 24 hours 
of their filing as Senate Document 116-12, and are also 
reprinted in this Document in Volume I, both in their original 
form and as they were published in the Congressional Record on 
January 21, 2020.
    On January 21, Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic 
Leader Schumer again addressed the Senate on the issue of 
impeachment. After one remaining Senator was sworn in to the 
impeachment proceedings and additional preliminary matters were 
addressed, Leader McConnell introduced Senate Resolution 483 
(116th Congress) to set forth procedures for consideration of 
the articles of impeachment against President Trump. Counsel 
for the President and then the House managers were each given 
up to one hour to debate the Resolution, presenting the first 
arguments by each side in these proceedings. After initial 
debate on the Resolution, Democratic Leader Schumer proposed 
Amendment Number 1284 to subpoena certain White House documents 
and records. After up to two more hours divided by the parties, 
the amendment was tabled (roll call vote number 15). Ten 
additional amendments (numbers 1285-1294) were proposed by 
Democratic Leader Schumer (one on behalf of Senator Van Hollen) 
dealing with the subpoenaing of documents and records, the 
calling of witnesses, and the timing of trial proceedings. 
After further debate on each amendment, each was tabled by a 
roll call vote. After all amendments had been disposed of, the 
Senate adopted Resolution 483 by a vote of 53 yeas to 47 nays 
(roll call vote number 26).

                   Volume II: Floor Trial Proceedings

    Volume II reproduces the official record of the Senate 
floor proceedings in the impeachment trial of President Trump, 
beginning with opening arguments by House managers and counsel 
for the President, as ordered under Senate Resolution 483. The 
managers presented their case on behalf of the House of 
Representatives on January 22, 23, and 24, 2020. Counsel for 
the President presented their case on January 25, 27, and 28. 
On January 29 and 30, senators posed questions to House 
managers and to counsel for the President.
    On January 31, 2020, pursuant to Senate Resolution 483, the 
Senate considered whether it would be in order to consider and 
debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena 
witnesses or documents. The House managers' argument was 
presented first, followed by counsel for the President. After 
argument, the Chief Justice put the question to the Senate for 
its decision, and by a vote of 49 yeas to 51 nays (roll call 
vote number 27) the Senate determined it would not permit 
motions to subpoena witnesses or documents. Majority Leader 
McConnell then introduced Senate Resolution 488, proposing 
procedures for the remainder of the impeachment trial. 
Democratic Leader Schumer proposed 4 amendments to the 
Resolution. No argument was heard on the Resolution or the 
amendments. Each amendment was tabled (roll call vote numbers 
28 through 31), and the Resolution was agreed to by the Senate 
by a vote of 53 yeas to 47 nays (roll call vote number 32).
    No depositions were taken during the Senate proceedings, 
and no witnesses appeared at the trial. The House managers and 
counsel for the President presented closing arguments on 
February 3.
    Volume II concludes with the February 5, 2020, vote and 
judgment of the Senate to acquit President Trump on two 
articles of impeachment (roll call vote numbers 33 and 34).

              Volume III: Visual Aids From the Proceedings

    Volume III reproduces the complete set of visual aids used 
by House managers and counsel for the President during the 
preliminary and trial proceedings. A notation indicating the 
use of a visual aid is embedded in the transcript of the 
proceedings (Volumes I and II) with citation information for 
items included in Volume III.

                   Volume IV: Statements of Senators

    On January 31, 2020, the Senate unanimously agreed to 
provide each senator an opportunity to place in the 
Congressional Record a statement explaining his or her vote on 
the articles of impeachment, and to include those statements in 
the official record of the Senate's impeachment proceedings. 
Modified on February 3 and again on February 25, the unanimous 
consent agreement set a deadline of February 27, 2020, for 
submission of statements. Those statements are included in 
Volume IV.
    The publication of these volumes, supplemented with Senate 
Document 116-13, sets forth a complete record of this historic 
impeachment trial and will provide for a fuller understanding 
of the way in which the Senate conducted these proceedings.

                            Acknowledgements

    I want to thank my staff from the Executive Office, 
Legislative Offices, Office of the Parliamentarian, Office of 
Printing and Document Services, Senate Historical Office and 
Senate Library for their work on both the trial and the 
execution of this Document.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         Julie E. Adams,                   
                        Secretary of the Senate.                   





















                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Foreword.........................................................   III

                   VOLUME I: PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS

Constitutional provisions on impeachment.........................     1
Rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on 
  impeachment trials.............................................     3
Senators duly sworn for the impeachment trial of President Donald 
  John Trump.....................................................    14

                            January 15, 2020

Recognition of the Majority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S201 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................    15
Recognition of the Minority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S206 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................    17
Message from the House of Representatives announcing appointment 
  and authorizing managers, H. Res. 798, 116th Cong. Rec. (2020) 
  [166 Cong. Rec. S234, (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]...............    19
Unanimous consent agreement on receiving managers [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S234 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]................................    19
Unanimous consent agreement on requesting attendance of the Chief 
  Justice [166 Cong. Rec. S234 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]........    20
Unanimous consent agreement on the authorization for appointment 
  of escort committee and House notification [166 Cong. Rec. S235 
  (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................................    20
Unanimous consent agreement on Senate access [166 Cong. Rec. S235 
  (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................................    20
Resolution by Senator McConnell to authorize taking a photograph 
  in the Senate Chamber, S. Res. 471 [166 Cong. Rec. S235 (daily 
  ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]............................................    22
Message from the House of Representatives announcing impeachment 
  of the President and appointment of managers, H. Res. 755 [166 
  Cong. Rec. S242 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................    23
Notice to the House of Representatives announcing Senate ready to 
  receive managers...............................................    26
Notice requesting attendance of the Chief Justice................    27
Notice to the House of Representatives announcing start of trial.    28
H. Res. 798, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................    29
S. Res. 471, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................    31
Photograph taken pursuant to S. Res. 471, 116th Cong. (2020).....    33
H. Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................    34
Sample of Senate impeachment trial gallery tickets...............    43

                            January 16, 2020

Recognition of the Majority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S255 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    45
Recognition of the Minority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S257 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    46
Exhibition of articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump, 
  President of the United States [166 Cong. Rec. S266 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 16, 2020)]................................................    49
Appointment of escort committee to receive Chief Justice [166 
  Cong. Rec. S267 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    53
Administration of oath to Chief Justice [166 Cong. Rec. S268 
  (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................................    54
Administration of oath to members of Senate [166 Cong. Rec. S268 
  (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................................    55
Unanimous consent agreement providing for issuance of summons to 
  Donald John Trump, President of the United States, and the 
  filing and printing of related documents [166 Cong. Rec. S268 
  (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................................    56
Unanimous consent agreement on the filing and printing of trial 
  briefs [166 Cong. Rec. S268 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].........    56
Unanimous consent agreement to authorize installation of 
  appropriate equipment and furniture in Senate Chamber [166 
  Cong. Rec. S269 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    56
Unanimous consent agreement to conduct Senate business [166 Cong. 
  Rec. S282 (daily ed. Jan. 16 2020)]............................    57
Precept (January 16, 2020).......................................    58
Writ of Summons (January 16, 2020)...............................    59
Return of Service (January 16, 2020).............................    64

                            January 18, 2020

Answer of President Donald J. Trump (January 18, 2020)\i\........    65
Trial memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump (January 18, 
  2020)..........................................................    73

                            January 20, 2020

Replication of the United States House of Representatives to the 
  answer of President Donald J. Trump to the articles of 
  impeachment (January 20, 2020).................................   185
Trial memorandum of President Donald J. Trump (January 20, 2020).   195

                            January 21, 2020

Reply memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump (January 21, 
  2020)..........................................................   367
Recognition of the Majority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S287 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].....................   403
Recognition of the Minority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S288 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].....................   406
Administration of oath to a senator [166 Cong. Rec. S289 (daily 
  ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]............................................   409
Unanimous consent agreement on authority to print Senate 
  documents [166 Cong. Rec. S290 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]......   409
Answer of President Donald J. Trump (January 18, 2020) [166 Cong. 
  Rec. S290 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]...........................   410
Trial memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, with 
  Appendix (January 18, 2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S291 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 21, 2020)]................................................   412
Trial memorandum of President Donald J. Trump, with Appendix 
  (January 20, 2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S313 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
  2020)].........................................................   462
Replication of the United States House of Representatives to the 
  answer of President Donald J. Trump to the articles of 
  impeachment (January 20, 2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S369 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 21, 2020)]................................................   587
Reply memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump (January 21, 
  2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S371 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]..........   591
Unanimous consent agreement on floor privileges [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S377 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]................................   605
Resolution by Senator McConnell and amendments thereto by 
  Senators Schumer and Van Hollen relating to procedures 
  concerning the articles of impeachment against Donald John 
  Trump, President of the United States, S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. 
  (2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S377 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].........   606
    Rollcall vote No. 15 [166 Cong. Rec. S394 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   649
    Rollcall vote No. 16 [166 Cong. Rec. S401 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   668
    Rollcall vote No. 17 [166 Cong. Rec. S406 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   681
    Rollcall vote No. 18 [166 Cong. Rec. S412 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   698
    Rollcall vote No. 19 [166 Cong. Rec. S416 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   709
    Rollcall vote No. 20 [166 Cong. Rec. S420 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   720
    Rollcall vote No. 21 [166 Cong. Rec. S422 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   726
    Rollcall vote No. 22 [166 Cong. Rec. S428 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   741
    Rollcall vote No. 23 [166 Cong. Rec. S429 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   744
    Rollcall vote No. 24 [166 Cong. Rec. S430 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   746
    Rollcall vote No. 25 [166 Cong. Rec. S431 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   749
    Rollcall vote No. 26 [166 Cong. Rec. S431 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   750
S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................   752
Sample question card used by senators............................   756

                   VOLUME II: FLOOR TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
                            January 22, 2020

Presentation of case by House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S443-485 
  (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2020)].....................................   758
Receipt of a document from the House of Representatives [166 
  Cong. Rec. S485 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2020)].....................   867
Recognizing the Pages [166 Cong. Rec. S485 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 
  2020)].........................................................   867
Unanimous consent agreement to conduct Senate business [166 Cong. 
  Rec. S485 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2020)]...........................   867

                            January 23, 2020

Presentation of case by House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S487-529 
  (daily ed. Jan. 23, 2020)].....................................   869

                            January 24, 2020

Presentation of case by House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S531-566 
  (daily ed. Jan. 24, 2020)].....................................   981

                            January 25, 2020

Presentation of case by counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S567-578 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2020)]............................  1072

                            January 27, 2020

Presentation of case by counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S579-617 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 2020)]............................  1102

                            January 28, 2020

Presentation of case by counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S619-627 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 2020)]............................  1201
Unanimous consent agreement on question period [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S626 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 2020)]................................  1220

                            January 29, 2020

Questions submitted by senators and answers of House managers and 
  counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. S645-691 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 29, 2020)]................................................  1222

                            January 30, 2020

Questions submitted by senators and answers of House managers and 
  counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. S693-739 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 30, 2020)]................................................  1343
Notice of intent to suspend the rules of the Senate by Senators 
  Blumenthal, Brown and Durbin [166 Cong. Rec. S739 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 30, 2020)]................................................  1463

                            January 31, 2020

Argument of House managers on the question of motions to subpoena 
  [166 Cong. Rec. S753-761 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)]............  1464
Argument of counsel for the President on the question of motions 
  to subpoena [166 Cong. Rec. S761-66 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)].  1486
Vote on the question of motions to subpoena [166 Cong. Rec. S766 
  (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)].....................................  1498
    Rollcall vote No. 27 [166 Cong. Rec. S766 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1499
Resolution by Senator McConnell and amendments thereto by Senator 
  Schumer relating to procedures concerning the articles of 
  impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United 
  States, S. Res. 488, 116th Cong. (2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S767-
  769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)].................................  1500
    Rollcall vote No. 28 [166 Cong. Rec. S767 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1501
    Rollcall vote No. 29 [166 Cong. Rec. S767 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1502
    Rollcall vote No. 30 [166 Cong. Rec. S768 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1504
    Rollcall vote No. 31 [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1506
    Rollcall vote No. 32 [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1506
Unanimous consent agreement on printing documentation of the 
  impeachment proceedings [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 
  31, 2020)].....................................................  1507
Text of amendments submitted and proposed, SA 1295-1298 [166 
  Cong. Rec. S769-772 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2020)]..................  1508
S. Res. 488, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................  1516

                            February 3, 2020

Final arguments of House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S773-778 (daily 
  ed. Feb. 3, 2020)].............................................  1519
Final arguments of counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S778-785 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)].............................  1531
Rebuttal final arguments of House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S785-
  790 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)]..................................  1549

                            February 5, 2020

Vote on first article of impeachment [166 Cong. Rec. S937 (daily 
  ed. Feb. 5, 2020)].............................................  1563
    Rollcall vote No. 33 [166 Cong. Rec. S937 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 
      2020)].....................................................  1564
Vote on second article of impeachment [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily 
  ed. Feb. 5, 2020)].............................................  1565
    Rollcall vote No. 34 [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 
      2020)].....................................................  1566
Communication to the Secretary of State and House of 
  Representatives [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 2020)].  1567
Expressions of gratitude by the Majority Leader and Minority 
  Leader [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 2020)]..........  1567
Statement of the Chief Justice [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. 
  Feb. 5, 2020)].................................................  1569
Adjournment sine die [166 Cong. Rec. S939 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 
  2020)].........................................................  1570
Legislative Clerk's tally sheets for Senate votes on articles of 
  impeachment....................................................  1571
Judgment of the United States Senate (Feb. 5, 2020)..............  1573

                         TABLE OF ROLLCALL VOTES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Measure/
 Vote No.        Date          Description           Result         Page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       649
                            certain White       Agreed 53-47.....
                            House documents
                            and records......
16........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       668
                            certain             Agreed 53-47.....
                            Department of
                            State documents
                            and records......
17........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       681
                            certain Office of   Agreed 53-47.....
                            Management and
                            Budget documents
                            and records......
18........  1/21/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table       698
                            Michael "Mick"      Agreed 53-47.....
                            Mulvaney.........
19........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       709
                            certain             Agreed 53-47.....
                            Department of
                            Defense documents
                            and records......
20........  1/21/20......  To subpoena Robert  Motion to Table       720
                            B. Blair and        Agreed 53-47.....
                            Michael P. Duffey
21........  1/21/20......  To prevent the      Motion to Table       726
                            selective           Agreed 53-47.....
                            admission of
                            evidence and to
                            provide for
                            appropriate
                            handling of
                            classified and
                            confidential
                            materials........
22........  1/22/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table       741
                            Robert Bolton....   Agreed 53-47.....
23........  1/22/20......  To provide that     Motion to Table       744
                            motions to          Agreed 53-47.....
                            subpoena
                            witnesses or
                            documents shall
                            be in order after
                            the question
                            period...........
24........  1/22/20......  To allow            Motion to Table       746
                            additional time     Agreed 52-48.....
                            to file responses
                            to Motions.......
25........  1/22/20......  To help ensure      Motion to Table       749
                            impartial justice   Agreed 53-47.....
                            by requiring the
                            Chief Justice of
                            the United States
                            to rule on
                            motions to
                            subpoena
                            witnesses and
                            documents........
26........  1/22/20......  S. Res. 483.......  Resolution Agreed     750
                                                53-47............
27........  1/31/20......  Whether to          Answered No 49-51.   1499
                            consider and
                            debate any motion
                            to subpoena
                            witnesses or
                            documents........
28........  1/31/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table      1501
                            certain relevant    Agreed 53-47.....
                            witnesses and
                            documents........
29........  1/31/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table      1502
                            Robert Bolton....   Agreed 51-49.....
30........  1/31/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table      1504
                            Robert Bolton....   Agreed 51-49.....
31........  1/31/20......  To help ensure      Motion to Table      1506
                            impartial justice   Agreed 53-47.....
                            by requiring the
                            Chief Justice of
                            the United States
                            to rule on
                            motions to
                            subpoena
                            witnesses and
                            documents and
                            issues of
                            privilege........
32........  1/31/20......  S. Res. 488.......  Resolution Agreed    1506
                                                53-47............
33........  2/05/20......  Impeachment         Not Guilty 48-52..   1564
                            Article I........
34........  2/05/20......  Impeachment         Not Guilty 47-53..   1566
                            Article II.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               VOLUME III: VISUAL AIDS FROM THE TRIAL\ii\
                            January 21, 2020

Slides 1-142 [166 Cong. Rec. S380-426 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].  1577

                            January 22, 2020

Slides 143-228 [166 Cong. Rec. S443-483 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 
  2020)].........................................................  1649

                            January 23, 2020

Slides 229-378 [166 Cong. Rec. S488-527 (daily ed. Jan. 23, 
  2020)].........................................................  1693

                            January 24, 2020

Slides 379-480 [166 Cong. Rec. S531-559 (daily ed. Jan. 24, 
  2020)].........................................................  1769

                            January 25, 2020

Slides 481-504 [166 Cong. Rec. S568-578 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 
  2020)].........................................................  1821

                            January 27, 2020

Slides 505-555 [166 Cong. Rec. S580-613 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 
  2020)].........................................................  1833

                            January 28, 2020

Slides 556-559 [166 Cong. Rec. S621-622 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 
  2020)].........................................................  1859

                            January 29, 2020

Slides 560-571 [166 Cong. Rec. S647-686 (daily ed. Jan. 29, 
  2020)].........................................................  1861

                            January 30, 2020

Slides 572-580 [166 Cong. Rec. S693-729 (daily ed. Jan. 30, 
  2020)].........................................................  1867

                            January 31, 2020

Slides 581-608 [166 Cong. Rec. S753-760 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
  2020)].........................................................  1873

                            February 3, 2020

Slides 609-616 [166 Cong. Rec. S773-783 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)]  1887

                   VOLUME IV: STATEMENTS OF SENATORS
                            February 3, 2020

Sen. Heinrich....................................................  1891
Sen. Grassley....................................................  1893
Sen. Murray......................................................  1896
Sen. Stabenow....................................................  1899
Sen. Wyden.......................................................  1901
Sen. Manchin.....................................................  1903
Sen. Blackburn...................................................  1907
Sen. Cantwell....................................................  1908
Sen. Schatz......................................................  1911
Sen. Inhofe......................................................  1912
Sen. Cardin......................................................  1917
Sen. Loeffler....................................................  1925
Sen. Udall.......................................................  1926
Sen. Gillibrand..................................................  1929
Sen. Murkowski...................................................  1930
Sen. Young.......................................................  1932

                            February 4, 2020

Sen. McConnell...................................................  1935
Sen. Schumer.....................................................  1938
Sen. Thune.......................................................  1939
Sen. Cassidy.....................................................  1942
Sen. Ernst.......................................................  1945
Sen. Wicker......................................................  1946
Sen. Blumenthal..................................................  1948
Sen. Van Hollen..................................................  1952
Sen. Peters......................................................  1954
Sen. Whitehouse..................................................  1956
Sen. Smith.......................................................  1960
Sen. Paul........................................................  1962
Sen. Fischer.....................................................  1966
Sen. Capito......................................................  1968
Sen. Roberts.....................................................  1970
Sen. Hoeven......................................................  1972
Sen. Menendez....................................................  1973
Sen. Markey......................................................  1976
Sen. Carper......................................................  1979
Sen. Kaine.......................................................  1982
Sen. Cruz........................................................  1984
Sen. Kennedy.....................................................  1987
Sen. Perdue......................................................  1989
Sen. Daines......................................................  1992
Sen. Rounds......................................................  1994
Sen. Shaheen.....................................................  1998
Sen. Feinstein...................................................  2001
Sen. Warner......................................................  2003
Sen. Tester......................................................  2006
Sen. Collins.....................................................  2008
Sen. Booker......................................................  2011
Sen. Portman.....................................................  2016
Sen. Casey.......................................................  2019
Sen. Boozman.....................................................  2021
Sen. Lankford....................................................  2024
Sen. King........................................................  2028

                            February 5, 2020

Sen. Merkley.....................................................  2031
Sen. Cornyn......................................................  2033
Sen. Hawley......................................................  2042
Sen. Alexander...................................................  2043
Sen. Sasse.......................................................  2053
Sen. Harris......................................................  2055
Sen. Hassan......................................................  2057
Sen. Jones.......................................................  2059
Sen. Reed........................................................  2062
Sen. Duckworth...................................................  2065
Sen. Blunt.......................................................  2068
Sen. Lee.........................................................  2070
Sen. Cramer......................................................  2075
Sen. Hyde-Smith..................................................  2076
Sen. Risch.......................................................  2077
Sen. Brown.......................................................  2079
Sen. Hirono......................................................  2082
Sen. Bennet......................................................  2085
Sen. Baldwin.....................................................  2088
Sen. Murphy......................................................  2091
Sen. Romney......................................................  2093
Sen. Scott (SC)..................................................  2096
Sen. Coons.......................................................  2098
Sen. Gardner.....................................................  2101
Sen. Leahy.......................................................  2104
Sen. Shelby......................................................  2108
Sen. Durbin......................................................  2110
Sen. Graham......................................................  2116
Sen. Schumer.....................................................  2122
Sen. McConnell...................................................  2127
Sen. Grassley....................................................  2129
Sen. Leahy.......................................................  2135
Sen. Enzi........................................................  2137
Sen. Burr........................................................  2140
Sen. Sanders.....................................................  2145
Sen. Toomey......................................................  2147
Sen. Rubio.......................................................  2149
Sen. Johnson.....................................................  2150
Sen. Blumenthal..................................................  2164
Sen. Warren......................................................  2176
Sen. Peters......................................................  2177
Sen. Cotton......................................................  2179
Sen. Sullivan....................................................  2181
Sen. Cortez Masto................................................  2187
Sen. Rosen.......................................................  2190

                           February 10, 2020

Sen. Barrasso....................................................  2192

                           February 12, 2020

Sen. Schumer.....................................................  2197
Sen. Brown.......................................................  2200

                           February 13, 2020

Sen. McConnell...................................................  2203

                           February 25, 2020

Sen. Lankford....................................................  2206
Sen. Tillis......................................................  2222

                           February 27, 2020

Sen. Reed........................................................  2225
Sen. Casey.......................................................  2272
Sen. Cramer......................................................  2283

    \i\For ease of reference, the documents contained in S. Doc. 116-
12, i.e., the pertinent constitutional provisions, the Senate 
Impeachment Rules, the Articles of Impeachment, the Answer of President 
Trump, and the Replication of the House of Representatives, are 
reprinted in this publication.
    \ii\Slide images are only printed in Volume III. Congressional 
Record pages have been listed for ease of reference.
           [From the Congressional Record, January 22, 2020]

    The Senate met at 1 p.m. and was called to order by the 
Chief Justice of the United States.
                                ------                                


               TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE

                             UNITED STATES

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of 
Impeachment.
    The Chaplain will lead us in prayer.
                                ------                                

                                 prayer
    The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following 
prayer:
    Let us pray.
    Sovereign God, author of liberty, we gather in this 
historic Chamber for the solemn responsibility of these 
impeachment proceedings. Give wisdom to the distinguished Chief 
Justice, John Roberts, as he presides.
    Lord, You are all-powerful and know our thoughts before we 
form them. As our lawmakers have become jurors, remind them of 
Your admonition in 1 Corinthians 10:31, that whatever they do 
should be done for Your glory. Help them remember that patriots 
reside on both sides of the aisle, that words have 
consequences, and that how something is said can be as 
important as what is said. Give them a civility built upon 
integrity that brings consistency in their beliefs and actions.
    We pray in Your powerful Name. Amen.
                          pledge of allegiance
    The Chief Justice led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, 
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
                              the journal
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, will you please be seated.
    If there is no objection, the Journal of the proceedings of 
the trial are approved to date.
    Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
    The Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, made the 
proclamation as follows:

    Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep 
silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States 
is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by 
the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, President of 
the United States.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                           order of procedure
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, for the information of 
all of our colleagues, no motions--no motions--were filed this 
morning, so we will proceed to the House managers' 
presentation. We will go for approximately 2 hours and take a 
short recess when there is an appropriate break time between 
presenters.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 
483, the managers for the House of Representatives have 24 
hours to make the presentation of their case.
    The Senate will now hear you.
                           opening statement
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, counsel 
for the President, and my fellow House managers: I want to 
begin by thanking you, Chief Justice, for a very long day, for 
the way you have presided over these proceedings. I want to 
thank the Senators also. We went well into the morning, as you 
know, until I believe around 2 in the morning. You paid 
attention to every word and argument you heard from both sides 
in this impeachment trial, and I know we are both deeply 
grateful for that.
    It was an exhausting day for us, certainly, but we have 
adrenaline going through our veins. For those who are required 
to sit and listen, it is a much more difficult task. Of course, 
we know our positions. You have the added difficulty of having 
to weigh the facts and the law. So I want to begin today by 
thanking you for the conduct of the proceedings yesterday and 
inviting your patience as we go forward. We have some very long 
days yet to come.
    So let us begin.
    ``When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his 
fortune, bold in his temper, [Slide 143] possessed of 
considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits, 
despotic in his ordinary demeanor, known to have scoffed in 
private at the principles of liberty--when such a man is seen 
to mount the hobby horse of popularity, to join in the cry of 
danger to liberty, to take every opportunity of embarrassing 
the general government and bringing it under suspicion, to 
flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the 
day, it may justly be suspected that his object is to throw 
things into confusion that he may ride the storm and direct the 
whirlwind.''
    Those words were written by Alexander Hamilton in a letter 
to President George Washington at the height of the panic of 
1792, a financial credit crisis that shook our young Nation. 
Hamilton was responding to sentiments relayed to Washington as 
he traveled the country that America, in the face of that 
crisis, might descend from a republican form of government, 
plunging instead into that of monarchy.
    The Framers of the Constitution worried then, as we worry 
today, that a leader might come to power not to carry out the 
will of the people he was elected to represent but to pursue 
his own interests. They feared that a President would subvert 
our democracy by abusing the awesome power of his office for 
his own personal or political gain. And so they devised a 
remedy as powerful as the evil it was meant to combat: 
impeachment.
    As centuries have passed, our Founders achieved an almost 
mythical character. We are aware of their flaws, certainly some 
very painful and pronounced indeed. Yet, when it came to the 
drafting of the new system of government never seen before and 
with no guarantee it would succeed, we cannot help but be in 
awe of their genius, their prescience even, vindicated time and 
again.
    Still, maybe because of their brilliance and the brilliance 
of their words, we find year after year it more difficult to 
imagine them as human beings. This is no less true of Alexander 
Hamilton, notwithstanding his recent return to celebrity. But 
they were human beings. They understood human frailties, even 
as they exhibited them. They could appreciate, just as we can, 
how power can corrupt. Even as we struggle to understand how 
the Framers might have responded to Presidential misconduct of 
the kind and character that we are here to try, we should not 
imagine for one moment that they lacked basic common sense or 
refuse to apply it ourselves.
    They knew what it was like to live under a despot, and they 
risked their lives to be free of it. They knew they were 
creating an enormously powerful executive, and they knew they 
needed to constrain it. They did not intend for the power of 
impeachment to be used frequently or over mere matters of 
policy, but they put it in the Constitution for a reason: for a 
man who would subvert the interests of the Nation to pursue his 
own interests; for a man who would seek to perpetuate himself 
in office by inviting foreign interference and cheating in an 
election; for a man who would be disdainful of constitutional 
limit, ignoring or defeating the other branches of government 
and their coequal powers; for a man who believed that the 
Constitution gave him the right to do anything he wanted and 
practiced in the art of deception; for a man who believed that 
he was above the law and beholden to no one; for a man, in 
short, who would be a King.
    We are here today in this hallowed Chamber undertaking this 
solemn action for only the third time in history because Donald 
J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, has acted 
precisely as Hamilton and his contemporaries feared. President 
Trump solicited foreign interference in our democratic 
elections, abusing the power of his office, to seek help from 
abroad to improve his reelection prospects at home. When he was 
caught, he used the powers of that office to obstruct the 
investigation into his own misconduct.
    To implement this corrupt scheme, President Trump pressured 
the President of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations 
into two discredited allegations that would benefit President 
Trump's 2020 Presidential campaign. When the Ukrainian 
President did not immediately assent, President Trump withheld 
two official acts to induce the Ukrainian leader to comply: a 
head-of-state meeting in the Oval Office and military funding. 
Both were of great consequence to Ukraine and to our national 
interests in security, but one looms largest. President Trump 
withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to a 
strategic partner at war with Russia to secure foreign help 
with his reelection--in other words, to cheat.
    In this way, the President used official state powers 
available only to him and unavailable to any political opponent 
to advantage himself in a democratic election. His scheme was 
undertaken for a simple but corrupt reason--to help him win 
reelection in 2020. But the effect of the scheme was to 
undermine our free and fair elections and to put our national 
security at risk.
    It was not even necessary that Ukraine undertake the 
political investigations the President was seeking. They merely 
had to announce them. This is significant, for President Trump 
had no interest in fighting corruption, as he would claim after 
he was caught. Rather, his interest was in furthering 
corruption by the announcement of investigations that were 
completely without merit.
    The first sham investigation that President Trump desired 
was into former Vice President Joe Biden, who had sought the 
removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor during the previous 
U.S. administration.
    The Vice President acted in accordance with U.S. official 
policy at the time and was supported unanimously by our 
European allies and key global financial institutions, such as 
the International Monetary Fund, which shared the concern over 
corruption.
    Despite this fact, in the course of this scheme, President 
Trump and his agents pressed the Ukrainian President to 
announce an investigation into the false claim that Vice 
President Biden wanted the corrupt prosecutor removed from 
power in order to stop an investigation into Burisma Holdings, 
a company on whose board Biden's son Hunter sat.
    This allegation is simply untrue. It has been widely 
debunked by Ukrainian and American experts alike. That reality 
mattered not to President Trump. To him, the value in promoting 
a negative tale about former Vice President Biden--true or 
false--was its usefulness to his reelection campaign. It was a 
smear tactic against a political opponent that President Trump 
apparently feared.
    Remarkably but predictably, Russia, too, has sought to 
support this effort to smear Mr. Biden, reportedly hacking into 
the Ukraine energy company at the center of the President's 
disinformation campaign only last week.
    Russia almost certainly was looking for information related 
to the former Vice President's son so that the Kremlin could 
also weaponize it against Mr. Biden, just like it did against 
Hillary Clinton in 2016, when Russia hacked and released emails 
from her Presidential campaign.
    President Trump has made it abundantly clear that he would 
like nothing more than to make use of such dirt against Mr. 
Biden, just as he made use of Secretary Clinton's hacked and 
released emails in his previous Presidential campaign.
    That brings us to the other sham investigation that 
President Trump demanded the Ukrainian leader announce. This 
investigation was related to a debunked conspiracy theory, 
alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 
Presidential election. This narrative, propagated by the 
Russian intelligence services, contends that Ukraine sought to 
help Hillary Clinton and harm then-Candidate Trump and that a 
computer server providing this fiction is hidden somewhere in 
Ukraine.
    That is the so-called CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. This 
tale is also patently false, and, remarkably, it is precisely 
the inverse of what the U.S. intelligence community's unanimous 
assessment was that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in 
sweeping and systemic fashion in order to hurt Hillary Clinton 
and help Donald Trump.
    Nevertheless, the President evidently believed that a 
public announcement lending credence to these allegations by 
the Ukrainian President could assist his reelection by putting 
to rest any doubts Americans may have had over the legitimacy 
of his first election, even as he invited foreign interference 
in the next.
    To the degree that most Americans have followed the 
President's efforts to involve another foreign power in our 
election, they may be most familiar with his entreaty to the 
Ukrainian President on the now infamous July 25 call to ``do us 
a favor, though'' and investigate Biden and the 2016 conspiracy 
theory.
    That call was not the beginning of the story of the 
President's corrupt scheme, nor was it the end. Rather, it was 
merely part--although, a significant part--of a months' long 
effort by President Trump and his allies and associates who 
applied significant and increasing pressure on Ukraine to 
announce these two politically motivated investigations.
    Key figures in the Trump administration were aware or 
directly involved or participated in the scheme. As we saw 
yesterday, one witness--a million-dollar donor to the 
President's inaugural committee--put it this way: Everyone was 
in the loop.
    After twice inviting Ukraine's new President to the White 
House without providing a specific date for the proposed visit, 
President Trump conditioned this coveted Head-of-State meeting 
on the announcement of these sham investigations. For Ukraine's 
new and untested leader, an official meeting with the President 
of the United States in the Oval Office was critical. It would 
help bestow on him important domestic and international 
legitimacy, as he sought to implement an ambitious anti-
corruption platform.
    Actual and apparent support from the President of the 
United States would also strengthen his position as he sought 
to negotiate a peace agreement with Russia's President Vladimir 
Putin, seeking an end to Russia's illegal annexation and 
continued military occupation of parts of Ukraine.
    But most pernicious, President Trump conditioned hundreds 
of millions of dollars in congressionally appropriated 
taxpayer-funded military assistance for the same purpose to 
apply more pressure on Ukraine's leader to announce the 
investigations. This military aid, which has long enjoyed 
bipartisan support, was designed to help Ukraine defend itself 
from the Kremlin's aggression.
    More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian 
forces and their proxies--15,000. The military aid was for such 
essentials as sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade 
launchers, radar night-vision goggles, and other vital support 
for the war effort.
    Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps 
to protect and advance American national security interests in 
the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in 
stemming Russian expansionism and resisting any nations' 
efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, 
even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there.
    Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment 
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that 
we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight 
Russia here.
    When the President's scheme was exposed and the House of 
Representatives properly performed its constitutional 
responsibility to investigate the matter, President Trump used 
the same unrivaled authority at his disposal as Commander in 
Chief to cover up his wrongdoing.
    In unprecedented fashion, the President ordered the entire 
executive branch of the United States of America to 
categorically refuse and completely obstruct the House's 
impeachment investigation. Such a wholesale obstruction of 
congressional impeachment has never before occurred in our 
democracy. It represents one of the most blatant efforts of a 
coverup in history.
    If not remedied by his conviction in the Senate and removal 
from office, President Trump's abuse of his office and 
obstruction of Congress will permanently alter the balance of 
power among the branches of government, inviting future 
Presidents to operate as if they are also beyond the reach of 
accountability, congressional oversight, and the law.
    On the basis of this egregious misconduct, the House of 
Representatives returned two Articles of Impeachment against 
the President: first, charging that President Trump corruptly 
abused the powers of the Presidency to solicit foreign 
interference in the upcoming Presidential election for his 
personal political benefit; and, second, that President Trump 
obstructed an impeachment inquiry into that abuse of power in 
order to cover up his misconduct.
    The House did not take this extraordinary step lightly. As 
we will discuss, impeachment exists for cases in which the 
conduct of the President rises beyond mere policy disputes to 
be decided otherwise and without urgency at the ballot box.
    Instead, we are here today to consider a much more grave 
matter, and that is an attempt to use the powers of the 
Presidency to cheat in an election. For precisely this reason, 
the President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, 
for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.
    In corruptly using his office to gain a political 
advantage, in abusing the powers of that office in such a way 
to jeopardize our national security and the integrity of our 
elections, in obstructing the investigation into his own 
wrongdoing, the President has shown that he believes that he is 
above the law and scornful of constraint.
    As we saw yesterday on the screen, under article II he can 
do anything he wants. Moreover, given the seriousness of the 
conduct at issue and its persistence, this matter cannot and 
must not be decided by the courts, which apart from the 
presence of the Chief Justice here today, are given no role in 
impeachments in either the House or the Senate.
    Being drawn into litigation, taking many months or years to 
complete, would provide the President with an opportunity to 
continue his misconduct. He would remain secure in the 
knowledge that he may tie up the Congress and the courts 
indefinitely, as he has with Don McGahn, rendering the 
impeachment power effectively meaningless.
    We also took the step with the knowledge that this was not 
the first time the President solicited foreign interference in 
our elections. In 2016, then-candidate Trump implored Russia to 
hack his opponent's email account, something that the Russian 
military agency did only hours later--only hours later.
    When the President said, ``hey, Russia, if you're 
listening,'' they were listening. Only hours later they hacked 
his opponent's campaign.
    The President has made it clear this would also not be the 
last time, asking China only recently to join Ukraine in 
investigating his political opponent.
    Over the coming days, we will present to you and to the 
American people the extensive evidence collected during the 
House's impeachment inquiry into the President's abuse of 
power--overwhelming evidence, notwithstanding his unprecedented 
and wholesale obstruction of the investigation into that 
misconduct.
    You will hear and read testimony from courageous public 
servants who upheld their oath to the Constitution and their 
legal obligations to comply with congressional action, despite 
a categorical order by President Trump not to cooperate with 
the impeachment inquiry.
    These are courageous Americans who were told by the 
President of the United States not to cooperate, not to appear, 
not to testify, but who had the sense of duty to do so. But 
more than that, you will hear from witnesses who have not yet 
testified, such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Blair and 
Mr. Duffey. And if you can believe the President's words last 
month, you will also hear from Secretary Pompeo. You will hear 
their testimony at the same time as the American people; that 
is, if you allow it, if we have a fair trial.
    During our presentation, you will see documentary records, 
those the President was unable to suppress, that exposed the 
President's scheme in detail. You will learn of further 
evidence that has been revealed in the days since the House 
voted to impeach President Trump, even as the President and his 
agents have persisted in their efforts to cover up their 
wrongdoing from Congress and the public.
    You will see dozens of new documents providing new and 
critical evidence of the President's guilt that remain at this 
time in the President's hands and in the hands of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State and the 
Office of Management and Budget, even the White House. You will 
see them and so will the American people if you allow it--if, 
in the name of a fair trial, you will demand it.
    These are politically charged times. Tempers can run high, 
particularly where this President is concerned, but these are 
not unique times. Deep divisions and disagreements were hardly 
alien concepts to the Framers so they designed impeachment 
power in such a way as to insulate it as best they could from 
the crush of partisan politics. The Framers placed the question 
of removal before the Senate, a body able to rise above the 
fray, to soberly judge the President's conduct or misconduct 
for what it was, nothing more and nothing less.
    In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton wrote: [Slide 144]

    Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal 
sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body 
would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to 
preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between 
an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his 
accusers?

    It is up to you to be the tribunal that Hamilton 
envisioned. It is up to you to show the American people and 
yourselves that his confidence and that of the other Founders 
was rightly placed. The Constitution entrusts you to the 
responsibility of acting as impartial jurors, to hold a fair 
and thorough trial, and to weigh the evidence before you no 
matter what your party affiliation or your vote in the previous 
election or the next. Our duty is to the Constitution and to 
the rule of law.
    I recognize there will be times during the trial that you 
may long to return to the business of the Senate. The American 
people look forward to the same but not before you decide what 
kind of democracy that you believe we ought to be and what the 
American people have a right to expect in the conduct of their 
President.
    The House believes that an impartial juror, upon hearing 
the evidence that the managers will lay out in the coming days, 
will find that the Constitution demands the removal of Donald 
J. Trump from his office as President of the United States. But 
that will be for you to decide. With the weight of history upon 
you, and as President Kennedy once said: ``With a good 
conscience our only sure reward. . . . ''
    In drafting our Constitution, the Framers designed a new 
and untested form of government. [Slide 145] It would be based 
on free and fair elections to ensure that our political leaders 
would be chosen democratically and by citizens of our country 
alone. Having broken free from a King with unbridled authority 
who often placed his own interests above that of the people, 
the Framers established a structure that would guarantee that 
the Chief Executive's power flowed only from his obligation to 
the people rather than from a sovereign whose power was 
confirmed on him by divine right.
    In this new architecture, no branch of government or 
individual would predominate over another. In this way, the 
Founders ensured that their elected leaders and their President 
would use the powers of office only to undertake that which the 
people desired and not for their personal aggrandizement or 
enrichment.
    What did those who rebelled and fought a revolution desire? 
Nothing different than what we, the generations that have 
followed, desire: that no person, including and especially the 
President, would be above the law. Nothing could be more 
dangerous to a democracy than a Commander in Chief who believed 
that he could operate with impunity, free from accountability--
nothing, that is, except a Congress that is willing to let it 
be so.
    To ensure that no such threat can take root and subvert our 
fledgling democracy, the Framers divided power among three 
coequal branches of government--the executive, the legislative, 
and the judicial branches--so that ambition may be made to 
counter ambition. They provided for Presidential elections 
every 4 years, and the Framers required that the President 
swear an oath to faithfully execute the law and to preserve, 
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
    Even with these guardrails in place, the Framers understood 
an individual could come to power who defied that solemn oath, 
who pursued his own interests rather than those of the country 
he led. For that reason, the Framers adopted a tool used by the 
British Parliament to restrain its officials: the power of 
impeachment. Rather than a mechanism to overturn an election, 
impeachment would be a remedy of last resort, and, unlike in 
England, the Framers applied this ultimate check to the highest 
office in the land, to the President of the United States. 
Impeachment removal of a duly elected President was not 
intended for policy disputes or poor administration of the 
State. Instead, the Framers had in mind the most serious of 
offenses: those against the public itself.
    Hamilton explained that impeachment was not designed to 
cover only statutory common law crimes but instead crimes 
against the body politic. Hamilton wrote: [Slide 146]

    The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed 
from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse 
or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may, with 
peculiar propriety, be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to 
injuries done immediately to the society itself.

    In other words, impeachment would be confined to abuses of 
people's trust and to the society itself. This is precisely the 
abuse that has been undertaken by our current President when he 
withheld money in support for an ally at war to secure a 
political benefit. The punishment for those crimes would fit 
the political nature of the offense. As James Wilson--a 
delegate of the Constitutional Convention and a future 
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court--reasoned that 
impeachment ``was confined to political characters, to 
political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political 
punishments.'' The Framers determined that punishment would be 
neither prison nor fines but, instead, limited to removal from 
office and disqualification from holding future office.
    The Framers chose to undertake impeachment for treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes [Slide 147] and misdemeanors to 
underscore the requirement of an offense against society. In 
this phrase, ``high'' modifies both the crimes and the 
misdemeanors in that both relate to a high injustice, a 
transgression committed against the people and to the public 
trust. The Framers had two broad categories in mind: those 
actions that are facially permissible under the President's 
authority but are based on corrupt motives, such as seeking to 
obtain a personal benefit through public office, and those that 
far exceed the President's constitutional authority or violate 
the legal limits on that authority.
    In article I, we deal with the first evil which the Framers 
wished to guard against; that is, cases in which a President 
corruptly misused the power otherwise bestowed on him to secure 
a personal reward. Guarding against a President who undertakes 
official acts with a corrupt motive of helping himself is at 
the heart of the impeachment power. As one scholar explained, 
the President's duty to faithfully execute the law requires 
that he undertakes actions only when motivated in the public 
interest rather than in their private self-interest. Efforts to 
withhold official acts for personal gain countermand the 
President's sacred oath and, therefore, constitute impeachable 
behavior as it was conceived by the Framers.
    In article II, we also deal with the second evil 
contemplated by the Founders, who made it clear that the 
President ought not operate beyond the limits placed on him by 
legislative and judicial branches. Impeachment was warranted 
for a President who usurped the power of the Constitution that 
was not granted to him, such as to defy Congress the right to 
determine the propriety, the scope, and the nature of an 
impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct.
    The Framers fashioned a powerful Chief Executive but not 
one beyond accountability of law. When a President wields power 
in ways that are inappropriate and seeks to extinguish the 
rights of Congress, he exceeds the power of constitutional 
authority and violates the limits placed on his conduct. 
Obstruction of a separate and coequal branch of government for 
the purposes of covering up an abuse of power not only implies 
a corrupt intent but also demonstrates a remarkable antipathy 
toward the balance of power contemplated and enshrined in our 
Constitution. It is a betrayal of the President's sacred oath 
of office and of his duty to put the country before himself.
    On September 24, 2019, [Slide 148] Speaker of the House 
Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would 
move forward with an official impeachment inquiry into 
President Donald J. Trump. The announcement followed public 
reporting in the United States and Ukraine that the President 
and his agents sought Ukraine's help in his reelection effort 
and revelations that the White House was blocking from Congress 
an intelligence community whistleblower complaint possibly 
related to this grave offense.
    The next day, on September 25, under extraordinary 
pressure, the White House released publicly the record of the 
July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President 
Volodymyr Zelensky. The call record revealed that President 
Trump explicitly requested that the new leader undertake 
investigations beneficial to President Trump's reelection 
campaign. Upon release of the record of the call, President 
Trump claimed that the call was ``perfect.'' Far from perfect, 
the call record revealed a President who used his high office 
to personally and directly press the leader of a foreign 
country to do his political dirty work. Asking for a favor, 
President Trump insisted that President Zelensky investigate a 
formidable potential political opponent, former Vice President 
Joe Biden, as well as the baseless conspiracy theory that 
Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election to assist 
then-Candidate Trump's opponent.
    Witnesses who listened to the call as it transpired 
testified that they immediately recognized these requests did 
not represent official U.S. policy and, instead, were 
politically charged appeals, not appropriate for a President to 
make. Key witnesses emphasized it was not necessary that 
Ukraine actually undertake the investigations, only that the 
Ukrainian President denounce them.
    President Trump's objective was not to encourage a foreign 
government to investigate legitimate allegations of misconduct 
or wrongdoing abroad, made clear, as well, by the fact that the 
investigations he wanted announced have been discredited 
entirely. Rather, the President simply wanted to reap a 
political benefit by tarnishing a political rival and in 
attempting to erase from history his previous election 
misconduct. To compel the Ukrainian President to do his 
political dirty work, President Trump withheld from President 
Zelensky two official acts of great importance: that coveted 
White House meeting to which President Zelensky had already 
been invited and $391 million in military assistance for the 
Ukrainians to fight the Russians.
    For a strategic partner of the United States in a hot war 
with Russian-backed forces inside its own borders, this 
symbolic support conferred on it by an Oval Office visit with 
the President of the United States and the lifesaving support 
of our military aid was essential. As the House's presentation 
will make clear, in directly soliciting foreign interference 
and withholding those official acts in exchange for the 
announcement of political investigations beneficial to his 
election, the President put his own interest above the national 
interest.
    President Trump undermined the integrity of our free and 
fair elections by pressing a foreign power to influence our 
most sacred right as citizens, our right to freely choose our 
leaders, and he threatened our national security by withholding 
critical aid from a partner on the frontlines of war with 
Russia, an aggressor that has threatened peace and stability on 
an entire continent. In so doing, the President sacrificed not 
only the security of our European allies but also our Nation's 
core national security interests. President Trump undertook 
this pressure campaign through handpicked agents inside and 
outside of government who circumvented traditional policy 
channels. President Trump intentionally bypassed many U.S. 
Government career officials with responsibility over Ukraine 
and advanced his scheme primarily through the effort of his 
personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. President Trump carried out 
this scheme with the knowledge of senior administration 
officials, including the President's Acting Chief of Staff Mick 
Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike 
Pence, National Security Council Legal Advisor John Eisenberg, 
and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.
    When the President became aware that the scheme would be 
uncovered, he undertook an unprecedented effort to obstruct the 
House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry to hide it from 
the public and from Congress, including all evidence related to 
his misconduct. That coverup continues today as the 
administration has not provided a single document pursuant to 
lawful subpoenas by the House.
    The administration also continues to prevent witnesses from 
cooperating, further obstructing the House's efforts--efforts 
the President is, no doubt, proud of but which threaten the 
integrity of this institution and this Congress as a coequal 
branch of power--and our ability not only to do oversight but 
to hold a President who is unindictable accountable.
    Despite these efforts to obstruct our inquiry, the House of 
Representatives uncovered overwhelming evidence related to the 
President's misconduct through interviews with 17 witnesses who 
appeared before the Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and 
Foreign Affairs Committees. Many of these witnesses bravely 
defied White House orders not to comply with duly authorized 
congressional subpoenas. Were it not for them--were it not for 
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was the first through the 
breach--we may never have known of the President's scheme.
    I want you to imagine, just for a minute, what kind of 
courage that took for Ambassador Yovanovitch--the subject of 
that vicious smear campaign--to risk her reputation and her 
career to stand up to the President of the United States, who 
was instructing her through his agents: You will not cooperate. 
You will not testify. You will tell them nothing.
    Or Bill Taylor, a West Point graduate and a Vietnam veteran 
with a Bronze Star and something he was even more proud of--the 
Combat Infantryman Badge. He knows what courage is. He showed a 
different kind of courage in Vietnam, but he also showed 
courage, as did others, in coming forward and defying the 
President's order that he obstruct to tell the American people 
what he knew.
    But for the courage of people like them and Lieutenant 
Colonel Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, we would know 
nothing of the President's misconduct--nothing. When the 
President directs his ire toward these people, this is why--
because they showed the courage to come forward.
    Now, in the Intelligence Committee, we held 7 open hearings 
with 12 fact witnesses. Separately, the Judiciary Committee 
held public hearings with constitutional law experts and 
counsel from the House Intelligence Committee as it sought to 
determine whether to draft and consider Articles of 
Impeachment. The House also collected text messages related to 
the President's scheme from a witness who provided limited 
personal communications.
    Since the conclusion of our inquiry, new evidence has 
continued to come to light, through court-ordered releases of 
administration documents and public reporting, underscoring 
that there is significantly more evidence of the President's 
guilt which he continues to block from Congress, including the 
Senate. Nevertheless, the documents and testimony that we were 
able to collect paint an overwhelming and damning picture of 
the President's efforts to use the powers of his office to 
corruptly solicit foreign help in his reelection campaign and 
withhold official acts and military aid to compel that support.
    Over the coming days, you will hear remarkably consistent 
evidence of President Trump's corrupt scheme and coverup. When 
you focus on the evidence uncovered during the investigation, 
you will appreciate there is no serious dispute about the facts 
underlying the President's conduct, and this is why you will 
hear the President's lawyers make the astounding claim: You 
can't impeach a President for abusing the powers of his office. 
It is because they can't seriously contest that that is 
exactly--exactly--what he did, and so they must go find a 
lawyer somewhere.
    Apparently, they could not go to their own Attorney 
General. It was just reported in a memo he wrote, as part of 
the audition for Attorney General which opined that the 
President can be impeached for abusing the public trust. He 
couldn't go to Bill Barr for that opinion. He couldn't even go 
to Jonathan Turley, their expert in the House, for an opinion. 
No, they had to go outside of these experts, outside of 
constitutional law, to a criminal defense lawyer and professor. 
And why? Because they can't contest the facts. The President 
was the key player in the scheme. Everyone was in the loop. He 
directed the actions of his team. He personally asked a foreign 
government to investigate his opponent. These facts are not in 
dispute.
    Ultimately, the question for you is whether the President's 
undisputed actions require the removal of the 45th President of 
the United States from office because he abused his office and 
the public trust by using his power for personal gain by 
seeking illicit foreign assistance in his reelection and 
covering it up.
    Other than voting on whether to send our men and women to 
war, there is, I think, no greater responsibility than the one 
before you now. The oath that you have taken to impartially 
weigh the facts and evidence requires serious and objective 
consideration--decisions that are about country, not party; 
about the Constitution, not politics; about what is right and 
what is wrong.
    After you consider the evidence and weigh your oath to 
render a fair and impartial verdict, I suggest to you today 
that the only conclusion consistent with the facts and law--not 
just the law but the Constitution--is clear as described by 
constitutional law experts' testimony before the House: If this 
conduct is not impeachable, then nothing is.
    Let me take a moment to describe to you how we intend to 
present the case over the coming days.
    You will hear today the details of the President's corrupt 
scheme in narrative form, illustrating the timeline of the 
effort through the testimony of the numerous witnesses who came 
before the House as well as through documents and materials we 
collected as evidence during the investigation. After you hear 
the factual chronology, we will then discuss the constitutional 
framework of impeachment as it was envisioned by the Founders.
    Before we analyze how the facts of the President's 
misconduct and coverup lead to the conclusion that the 
President undertook the sort of corrupt course of conduct that 
impeachment was intended to remedy, let me start with a preview 
of the President's scheme, the details of which you will hear 
during the course of this day.
    President Trump's monthslong scheme to extract help with 
his 2020 reelection [Slide 149] campaign from the new Ukrainian 
President involved an effort to solicit and then compel the new 
leader to announce political investigations. The announcement 
would reference two specific investigations. One was intended 
to undermine the unanimous consensus of our intelligence 
agencies, Congress, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller that 
Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help then-Candidate 
Trump and another to hurt the Presidency of former Vice 
President Joe Biden.
    The Kremlin itself has been responsible for first 
propagating one of the two false narratives that the President 
desired. In February 2017, less than a month after the U.S. 
intelligence community released its assessment that Russia 
alone was responsible for a covert influence campaign designed 
to help President Trump win the 2016 election, President Putin 
said: [Slide 150]

    As we all know, during the Presidential campaign in the United 
States, the Ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position in favor 
of one candidate. More than that, certain oligarchs--certainly with the 
approval of political leadership--funded this candidate--or a female 
candidate to be more precise.

    Those were Putin's words on February 2, 2017.
    Of course, this is false, and it is part of a Russian 
counternarrative that President Trump and some of his allies 
have adopted.
    Fiona Hill, the Senior Director for Europe and Russia at 
the National Security Council, described Russia's effort to 
promote this baseless theory.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of 
you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its Security 
Services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that, 
perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional 
narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian 
Security Services themselves. The unfortunate truth is that Russia was 
the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic 
institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence 
agencies, confirmed by bipartisan congressional reports. It is beyond 
dispute even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. This, of course, was not the first time 
that President Trump embraced Russian activity and 
disinformation.
    On July 24 of last year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller 
testified before Congress that Russia interfered in the 2016 
election in a ``sweeping and systemic fashion'' to benefit 
Donald Trump's political campaign. Mueller and his team found 
``the Russian Government perceived that it would benefit from a 
Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.'' They also 
found that the Trump campaign expected it would benefit 
electorally from information stolen and released through 
Russian efforts.
    Just as he solicited help from Ukraine in 2019, in 2016 
then-Candidate Trump also solicited help from Russia in his 
election effort. As you will recall, at a rally in Florida, he 
said the following:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. TRUMP. Russia, if you are listening, I hope you're able to find 
the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be 
rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Following Special Counsel Mueller's 
testimony, during which he warned against future interference 
in our elections, did the President recognize the threat posed 
to our democracy and renounce Russian interference in our 
democracy? Did he choose to stand with his own intelligence 
agencies, both Houses of Congress, and the special counsel's 
investigation in affirming that Russia interfered in our last 
election?
    He did not.
    Instead, only 1 day after Special Counsel Mueller testified 
before Congress, empowered in the belief that he had evaded 
accountability for making use of foreign support in our last 
election, President Trump was on the phone with the President 
of Ukraine, pressing him to intervene on President Trump's 
behalf in the next election.
    Let's take a moment to let that sink in.
    On July 24, [Slide 151] Bob Mueller concludes a lengthy 
investigation. He comes before the Congress. He testifies that 
Russia systemically interfered in our election to help elect 
Donald Trump, that the campaign understood that, and that they 
willfully made use of that help. On July 24, that is what 
happens.
    On the very next day--the very next day--President Trump is 
on the phone with a different foreign power, this time Ukraine, 
trying to get Ukraine to interfere in the next election--the 
next day.
    That should tell us something. He did not feel chained by 
what the special counsel found. He did not feel deterred by 
what the special counsel found. He felt emboldened by escaping 
accountability, for the very, very next day, he is on the 
phone, soliciting foreign interference again.
    Now, that July 25 phone call between President Trump and 
President Zelensky was a key part of President Trump's direct 
and corrupt solicitation of foreign help in the 2020 election.
    The request likely sounded familiar to President Zelensky, 
who had been swept into office in a landslide victory on a 
campaign of rooting out just the type of corruption he was 
being asked to undertake on this call with our President.
    Zelensky campaigned as a reformer, as someone outside of 
politics who would come up and clean up corruption, who would 
end the political prosecutions, end the political 
investigations. And what is his most important and powerful 
patron asking him to do? To do exactly what he campaigned 
against. No wonder he resisted this pressure campaign.
    Now, President Trump had been provided talking points for 
discussion by the National Security Council staff beforehand, 
including recommendations to encourage President Zelensky to 
continue to promote anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine. So the 
National Security staff understood what was in the U.S. 
national security interests, and that was rooting out 
corruption, and they encouraged the President to talk about it.
    But as you see from the record of the call--and I join the 
President in saying ``read the call''--that topic was never 
addressed. The word ``corruption'' never escapes his lips.
    Instead, President Trump openly pressed President Zelensky 
to pursue the two investigations that would benefit him 
personally.
    In response to President Zelensky's gratitude for the 
significant military support the United States had provided to 
Ukraine, President Trump said: [Slide 152]

    I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has 
been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you 
to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they 
say CrowdStrike . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people . . . 
The server, they say Ukraine has it.

    That is that crazy conspiracy theory I talked about earlier 
that there is this server somewhere in Ukraine that shows that, 
in fact, it was Ukraine that hacked the DNC, not the Russians. 
That is a Russian propaganda conspiracy theory, and here it is 
being promulgated by the President of the United States. And 
more than promulgated, he is pressuring an ally to further this 
Russian propaganda because he was referring to this extensively 
discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine was the one that 
really hacked the DNC--the Democratic National Committee--
servers in 2016.
    And that reference to CrowdStrike--well, that is an 
American cyber security firm. And the theory--this kooky 
conspiracy theory--is that CrowdStrike moved the DNC servers to 
Ukraine to prevent U.S. law enforcement from getting it.
    If Ukraine announced an investigation into this 
fabrication, President Trump could remove what he perceived to 
be a cloud over his legitimacy--legitimacy of his last 
election, Russia's assistance with his campaign--and suggest 
that it was the Democratic Party that was the real beneficiary 
of help.
    On the call, President Trump told Zelensky: ``Whatever you 
can do, it's very important that you do it if that's 
possible.''
    President Zelensky agreed that he would do the 
investigation saying: ``Yes it is very important for me and 
everything that you just mentioned earlier.''
    President Trump then turned to his second request, asking 
President Zelensky to look into the sham allegation into former 
Vice President Biden. President Trump said to President 
Zelensky: [Slide 153]

    The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that 
Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out 
about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be 
great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if 
you can look into it . . . It sounds horrible to me.

    There is no question what President Trump intended in 
pressing the Ukrainian leader to ``look into'' his political 
rival. Even after the impeachment inquiry began, he confirmed 
his desire on the south lawn of the White House, declaring not 
only that Ukraine should investigate Biden but that China 
should do the same.
    Let's see what he said.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    REPORTER. What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the 
Bidens after your phone call? Exactly.
    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.
    They should investigate the Bidens, because how does a company that 
is newly formed--and all these companies, if you look at--
    And, by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into 
the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what 
happened with--with Ukraine.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The day after that July 25 phone call, 
President Trump sought confirmation that President Zelensky 
understood his request to announce the politically motivated 
investigations and that he would follow through.
    After meeting with Ukranian officials, including President 
Zelensky and his top aide, the President's handpicked 
Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, called 
President Trump from an outdoor restaurant in Kyiv to report 
back. This was the second conversation between the two about 
Ukraine in as many days.
    David Holmes, an American diplomat dining with Sondland, 
overheard the call, including the President's voice through the 
cell phone. I described part of that call last night.
    Holmes testified that President Trump asked Sondland: ``So 
he's going to do the investigation?'' Sondland replied that he 
is going to do it, adding that President Zelensky will do 
``anything you ask him to do.''
    After the phone call, Holmes ``took the opportunity to ask 
Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the 
President's views on Ukraine.'' According to Holmes:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. HOLMES. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was 
true that the President did not give a [expletive] about Ukraine. 
Ambassador Sondland agreed the President did not give a [expletive] 
about Ukraine. I asked, why not, and 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. And 
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. Those three days in July--the 24th, the 
25th, and the 26th--reveal a lot about President Trump's effort 
to solicit help from a foreign country in assisting his own 
reelection.
    On the 24th, Special Counsel Mueller testifies that Russia 
interfered in our 2016 election to assist the Trump campaign, 
which knew about the interference, welcomed it, and utilized 
it. That is the 24th.
    The 25th is the day of the call, when President Trump, 
believing he had escaped accountability for Russian meddling in 
the first election and is welcoming of it, asked the Ukrainian 
President to help him undermine the special counsel's 
conclusion and help him smear a political opponent, former Vice 
President Biden.
    And then, the third day in a row in July, President Trump 
sought to ensure that Ukraine had received his request and 
understood it and would take the necessary steps to announce 
the investigations that he wanted.
    Three days in July. In many ways those 3 days in July tell 
so much of this story. This course of conduct alone should 
astound all of us who value the sanctity of our elections and 
who understand that the vast powers of the Presidency are 
reserved only for actions which benefit the country as a whole, 
rather than the political fortunes of any one individual.
    President Trump's effort to use an official head-of-state 
phone call to solicit the announcement of investigations 
helpful to his reelection is not only conduct unbecoming a 
President, but it is conduct of one who believes that the 
powers of his high office are political tools to be wielded 
against his opponents, including by asking a foreign government 
to investigate a United States citizen, and for a corrupt 
purpose. That alone is grounds for removal from office of the 
45th President.
    But these 3 days in July were neither the beginning nor the 
end of this scheme. President Trump, acting through agents 
inside and outside of the U.S. Government, including his 
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, sought to compel Ukraine to 
announce the investigations by withholding the head-of-state 
meeting in the Oval Office until the President of Ukraine 
complied.
    Hosting an Oval Office meeting for a foreign leader is an 
official act available only to one person--the President of the 
United States. And it is an official act that President Trump 
had already offered to President Zelensky during their first 
phone call on April 21 and in a subsequent letter to the 
Ukrainian leader.
    Multiple witnesses testified about the importance of a 
White House meeting for Ukraine. For example, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary George Kent explained that a White House meeting was 
``very important'' for Ukrainians to demonstrate the strength 
of their relationship with ``Ukraine's strongest supporter.''
    Dr. Fiona Hill of the National Security Council explained 
that a White House meeting would supply the new Ukrainian 
Government with ``the legitimacy that it needed, especially 
vis-a-vis the Russians'' and that the Ukrainians viewed a White 
House meeting as ``a recognition of their legitimacy as a 
sovereign state.''
    This White House meeting would also prove to be important 
for three handpicked agents whom President Trump placed in 
charge of U.S.-Ukraine issues: Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador 
Volker, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the so-called three 
amigos. They hoped to convince President Trump to hold an Oval 
Office meeting with Zelensky.
    During a meeting of the three amigos on May 23, President 
Trump told them that Ukraine had tried to ``take [him] down'' 
in 2016. He then directed them to ``talk to Rudy'' Giuliani 
about Ukraine.
    It was immediately clear that Giuliani, who was pursuing 
the discredited investigations in Ukraine on the President's 
behalf, was the key to unlocking an Oval Office meeting for 
President Zelensky.
    Giuliani by then had said publicly that he was actively 
pursuing investigations President Trump corruptly desired and 
planning a trip to Ukraine. Giuliani admitted: ``We're not 
meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation.''
    On May 10, however, Giuliani canceled the trip to Ukraine 
to dig up dirt on former Vice President Biden and the 2016 
conspiracy theory, just as President Zelensky won elections for 
the Presidency and Parliament.
    Faced with a choice between working with Giuliani to pursue 
an Oval Office meeting--understanding it meant taking part in a 
corrupt effort to secure the political investigations--or 
abandoning efforts to support our Ukrainian ally, the 
President's agents fell into line. They would pursue the White 
House meeting and explain to Ukraine that announcement of the 
investigations was the price of admission.
    As Ambassador Sondland made clear:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador 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 SCHIFF. This quid pro quo was negotiated 
between the President's agents, Rudy Giuliani, and Ukrainian 
officials throughout the summer of 2019 in numerous telephone 
calls, text messages, and meetings, including during a meeting 
hosted by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton on July 
10.
    Near the end of that July 10 meeting, after the Ukrainians 
again raised the issue of a White House visit, Ambassador 
Sondland blurted out that there would be agreement for a White 
House meeting once the investigations began. At that point 
Bolton ``immediately stiffened'' and abruptly ended the 
meeting.
    During a subsequent discussion that day, Sondland was even 
more explicit. Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman, a director for 
Europe and Ukraine on the National Security Council, testified 
that Sondland began to discuss the ``deliverable'' required to 
get the White House meeting. What Sondland specifically 
mentioned was ``investigation of the Bidens.'' This is, again, 
in that meeting in the White House with a Ukrainian delegation 
and an American delegation. Sondland explained in that meeting 
that he had an agreement with Acting Chief of Staff Mick 
Mulvaney whereby President Zelensky would be granted the Oval 
Office meeting if he went forward with the investigations.
    After the meeting, Vindman's supervisor, Dr. Hill, reported 
back to Bolton, who told her to tell John Eisenberg, the 
National Security Council legal advisor, that he was not ``part 
of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on 
this.'' She reported their concerns, as did Vindman.
    It remains unclear what action, if any, Bolton or Eisenberg 
took once they were made aware of Mulvaney and Sondland's drug 
deal. Both refused to testify in our inquiry. However, Dr. Hill 
testified that she understood that Mr. Eisenberg informed Mr. 
Cipollone of her concerns about the drug deal.
    If this body is serious about a fair trial--one that is 
fair to the President and to the American people--we again urge 
you to allow the House to call both Eisenberg and Bolton, as 
well as other key witnesses with firsthand knowledge who 
refused to testify before the House on the orders of the 
President.
    Additional testimony and documents are particularly 
important because, according to Sondland, ``Everyone was in the 
loop'' when it came to the President's self-serving effort. In 
part relying on email excerpts, Sondland explained that the 
President's senior aides and Cabinet officials knew that the 
White House meeting was predicated on Ukraine's announcement of 
the investigations beneficial to the President's political 
campaign.
    Hill characterized the quid pro quo succinctly:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. But it struck me when yesterday, when you put up on the 
screen Ambassador Sondland's emails and who was on these emails, and he 
said, These are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely 
right. Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, 
and we were being involved in national security foreign policy, and 
those two things had just diverged.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. In effect, President Zelensky was being 
drawn into this domestic political area. He grew wary of 
becoming involved in another country's election and domestic 
affairs.
    Bill Taylor, the Acting U.S. Ambassador for Ukraine at the 
time, described a conversation he had with a senior aide to the 
Ukrainian leader. He said:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. [Also] on July 20, I had a phone conversation 
with Oleksandr Danylyuk, President Zelensky's national security 
advisor, who emphasized that President Zelensky did not want to be used 
as an instrument in a U.S. reelection campaign.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Remember that conversation when you 
hear counsel say that the Ukrainians felt no pressure to be 
involved in a U.S. reelection campaign. But that concern did 
not deter President Trump. In his conversation with Sondland 
shortly before the July 25 call, the President made clear that 
he not only wanted Ukraine to do the investigations or announce 
them, but also a White House meeting would be scheduled only if 
President Zelensky confirmed these investigations, as Volker 
communicated to President Zelensky's top aide by text less than 
30 minutes before the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
    Again, we are talking about July 25, in a text 30 minutes 
before the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Here is what it says--
with Volker texting Andriy Yermak, a top aide to President 
Zelensky. [Slide 154]

    Good lunch--thanks. Heard from White House--assuming President Z 
convinces trump he will investigate/``get to the bottom of what 
happened'' in 2016, we will nail down day for visit to Washington. Good 
luck! See you tomorrow--kurt.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Well, those words couldn't be much 
clearer: ``assuming President Z convinces trump he will 
investigate/`get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we 
will nail down [the] . . . visit to Washington.'' That is a 
text 30 minutes before that call.
    Counsel for the President would like you to think this is 
just about that call. You don't get to look outside the four 
corners of that call. They don't want you to look at the months 
that went into preparing for that call or the months of 
pressure that followed. But you can just look at, right now, 
what happened 30 minutes before that call in this text message: 
``Heard from White House--assuming President Z convinces trump 
he will investigate/`get to the bottom of what happened' in 
2016.''
    If you were wondering whether President Zelensky was aware 
of what he was going to be asked on that call, this is how you 
can tell. He was prepped. Of course he was prepped. In fact, 
the missing reference in the call record to Burisma was a 
signal Colonel Vindman recognized that clearly he had been 
prepped for that call. Why else would the name of this 
particular energy company come up in that conversation?
    Well, President Zelensky clearly got the message. Toward 
the end of the call with President Trump, President Zelensky 
said: [Slide 155]

    I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United 
States, specifically Washington, DC. On the other hand, I also wanted 
to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work 
on the investigation.

    Thank you for the invitation. On the other hand, I want to 
assure you that we will be very serious about the case, and we 
will work on the investigation.
    President Zelensky clearly understood the quid pro quo for 
the White House meeting on July 25, but his reticence to be 
used as a political pawn kept President Trump from moving 
forward with a promise to schedule the meeting, and so the 
President and his agents pressed on.
    In August, Giuliani met with a top Ukrainian aide and made 
it clear that Ukraine must issue a public statement and 
announce investigations in order to get a White House meeting. 
Fearful of getting involved in U.S. domestic politics and 
having entered office with a promise to clean up government and 
corruption, President Zelensky and his aides preferred a 
generic statement about investigations, but Giuliani insisted. 
No, the statement must include two specific investigations that 
would benefit President Trump.
    Let's look at a comparison between the statement the 
Ukrainians preferred and the one that Giuliani required.
    On the left [Slide 156]--and I will read it in case you 
can't see the screens--the Yermak draft, the Ukrainian draft, 
says: ``We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and 
unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, 
which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in 
the future.'' That is pretty generic.
    But here is the Giuliani-Volker-Sondland response. This is 
what had to be included: ``We intend to initiate and complete a 
transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts 
and episodes.'' Up to that point, it is exactly the same, until 
you get to ``including those involving Burisma and the 2016 US 
elections,'' and then it goes back to the Ukrainian draft: 
``which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in 
the future.''
    You can see in this such graphic evidence that the 
Ukrainians did not want to do this. They didn't even want to 
mention this. Giuliani had to insist: No, no, no; we are not 
going to be satisfied with some generic statement. After all, I 
think we can see this isn't about corruption--no, this is about 
announcing investigations to damage Biden and to promote this 
fiction about the last election.
    So here in these texts, you see that Giuliani, Volker, and 
Sondland have added these references to Burisma--a thinly-
veiled reference to former Vice President Biden--and the 2016 
election. They wished to ensure that the Ukrainians mentioned 
the sham investigation President Trump required.
    The Ukrainians recoiled at the new statement, recognizing 
that releasing it would run directly counter to the anti-
corruption platform that Zelensky campaigned on and would 
embroil them in U.S. election politics. As a result, Zelensky 
didn't get his White House meeting. He still hasn't gotten his 
White House meeting.
    Senators, witness testimony, text messages, emails, and the 
call record itself confirm a corrupt quid pro quo for the White 
House meeting--an official act available only to the President 
of the United States--in exchange for the announcement of 
political investigations. The President and his allies have 
offered no explanation for this effort--except that the 
President can abuse his office all he likes, and there is 
nothing you can do about it. You can't indict him. You can't 
impeach him. That is because they cannot seriously dispute that 
President Trump corruptly used an official White House visit 
for a foreign leader to compel the Ukrainian President into 
helping him cheat in the next election.
    The White House meeting, of course, was not the only 
official act that President Trump conditioned on the 
announcement of investigations into Biden and the conspiracy 
theory meant to exonerate President Trump on Russia's 
interference on his behalf in the last election. In a far more 
draconian step, as we discussed, the President withheld $391 
million of military aid.
    Several weeks before this phone call with President 
Zelensky but after Giuliani was already pressing Ukrainian 
officials to conduct the investigations his client sought, 
President Trump ordered the hold on Ukraine's military aid. 
Significantly, this was after Congress had already been 
notified that most of it was prepared to be spent. Ukraine had 
met all of the critical conditions for anti-corruption and 
defense reforms in order to receive the funds. We conditioned 
the funds. They met the conditions. The funds were ready to go.
    At the time and even today, witnesses uniformly testified 
that the order to hold the funding came without explanation to 
the foreign policy and national security officials responsible 
for Ukraine. The only message from the Office of Management and 
Budget was that the hold was implemented at the direction of 
the President.
    Since Russia's illegal incursion into Ukraine in 2014, the 
United States has maintained a bipartisan policy of delivering 
hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine each 
year, which several Senators here have personally invested 
significant time and effort to ensure. It was President Trump 
himself who originally authorized additional financial support 
for military assistance to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 without 
reservation, making his abrupt decision to withhold assistance 
in 2019 without explanation all the more surprising to those 
responsible for Ukraine policy.
    That confusion, however, would soon disappear. The 
President used the hold on military aid as leverage to pressure 
Ukraine to announce these investigations that he hoped would 
help his reelection campaign. The only difference between the 
prior years when the President approved the aid without 
question and the inexplicable hold on aid in 2019 was the 
emergence of Joe Biden as a potentially formidable obstacle to 
the President's reelection.
    These funds that the President withheld--these funds--they 
don't just benefit Ukraine; they benefit the security of the 
United States by ensuring that Ukraine is equipped to defend 
its own borders against Russian aggression.
    As Ambassador Taylor noted in his deposition, the United 
States provides Ukraine with ``radar and weapons and sniper 
rifles, communications that save lives. It makes Ukrainians 
more effective. It might even shorten the war. That is what our 
hope is, to show the Ukrainians can defend themselves--and the 
Russians, in the end, will say: OK, we are going to stop.'' 
That is in our interest. This isn't just about Ukraine or its 
national security; it is about our national security. This 
isn't charity; it is about our defense as much as Ukraine's.
    Ambassador Taylor also said that the American aid was ``a 
concrete demonstration of the United States' commitment to 
resist aggression and defend freedom.'' This is what this 
country is supposed to be about, right? Resisting aggression, 
defending freedom, not exporting corrupt ideas--that is what we 
are supposed to be about, right?
    It was against this backdrop that American officials 
responsible for Ukraine policy sat in astonishment, according 
to Ambassador Taylor, when they learned about the hold. 
Officials immediately expressed concerns about the legality of 
President Trump's hold on the assistance to Ukraine. Their 
concerns were well warranted, as the Government Accountability 
Office, which was just last night pooh-poohed by the 
President's counsel--well, that is just some institution of 
Congress. Like they are just going to be inherently biased, 
right? Well, they are a nonpartisan organization that both 
parties have come to rely upon. But I am not surprised that 
they don't like the conclusion of the GAO, because the Defense 
Department warned them that this was going to be the 
conclusion, and that conclusion was that the hold on aid was 
not only wrong, it was not only immoral, it was also illegal. 
It violated the law--a law that we passed so that Presidents 
could not refuse to spend money that we allocated for the 
defense of others and for ourselves.
    The Impoundment Control Act prevents the President and 
other government officials from unilaterally making funding 
decisions when Congress has made its intent clear. In fact, the 
act exists precisely because of previous Presidential abuses of 
Congress's power of the purse during the Nixon era. The 
nonpartisan GAO ruled that the hold on military aid was not 
only illegal but that holding underscores the President's 
efforts to go to any lengths to ensure his own personal benefit 
rather than take care that the laws be faithfully executed as 
he swore he would do when he took his oath of office.
    Now, because of recent Freedom of Information Act responses 
in media reports, we now know additional details about how 
senior officials expressed serious reservations about the 
legality of the hold at the time. This is not like some big 
surprise. This is not like something that just came out of the 
blue--whoa, an independent watchdog agency found this was 
illegal. No, they knew this was illegal at the time. These 
concerns were raised at the time.
    Certain individuals who may have further information about 
the hold who refused to testify at the President's direction--
including his Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney; Robert Blair; OMB 
official Michael Duffey, all of them--all of them defied 
congressional subpoenas but were included in important email 
communications that have been made public only recently.
    As you know, these and many other categories of documents 
from the White House, the Defense Department, and OMB were 
subpoenaed by the House and none was produced--none--at the 
President's direction and through Mr. Cipollone's intervention. 
Although the investigation developed an overwhelming body of 
evidence that clearly proves that the President implemented 
this hold to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations, the 
full story behind the hold--the full and complete story--is 
within your power to request.
    As you consider the evidence we present to you, ask 
yourselves whether the documents of witnesses that have been 
denied by the President's complete and unprecedented 
obstruction could shed more light on this critical topic. You 
may agree with the House managers that the evidence of the 
President's withholding of military aid to coerce Ukraine is 
already supported by overwhelming evidence and no further 
insight is necessary to convict the President, but if the 
President's lawyers attempt to contest these or other factual 
matters, you are left with no choice but to demand to hear from 
each witness with firsthand knowledge. A fair trial requires 
nothing less.
    Let's look at some of the evidence that we gathered, 
notwithstanding this obstruction.
    First, the President withheld the aid without explanation 
and against the advice of his own agencies, Cabinet officials, 
national security experts, including Secretary Pompeo, 
Secretary Esper, Ambassador Bolton, and others. Only Mick 
Mulvaney, a central figure in this effort, reportedly supported 
the hold, and he told us why. During a press briefing, Mulvaney 
personally acknowledged that the hold was ordered as part of a 
quid pro quo designed to get Ukraine to undertake the 
investigation President Trump signed.
    Second, the reason for the security assistance hold was 
undoubtedly on the President's mind during the telephone call 
with President Zelensky on July 25. Near the beginning of their 
conversation, President Zelensky expressed his gratitude for 
U.S. military assistance, noting the United States' ``great 
support in the area of defense.'' Immediately after President 
Zelensky's reference to defense and military support, [Slide 
157] President Trump responded by saying: ``I would like you to 
do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a 
lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it.'' President Trump then 
proceeded to openly press Ukraine to conduct these 
investigations.
    Third, numerous officials were aware that President Trump 
was withholding the White House meeting until the Ukrainian 
President announced the investigations. That the President 
would ratchet up pressure on Ukraine to compel its action 
stunned Ukraine experts like Ambassador Taylor but followed 
logically for those engaged in the President's corrupt scheme.
    Fourth, by the end of August, there was still no 
explanation for the hold, despite ongoing efforts from numerous 
officials to persuade the President to release the money. The 
leverage of the White House meeting had not succeeded in 
coercing Ukraine to announce the investigations, providing the 
President and his agents every reason to use the most 
aggressive lever of influence, hundreds of millions of dollars 
in military support, to compel Ukraine to act. If they didn't 
feel pressure, they would have done it. They would have done 
it, but of course they did.
    Imagine if this country were dependent on a more powerful 
country for our defense; imagine if we were at war; imagine if 
we were waiting for weapons to defend ourselves, something our 
Framers could have understood; imagine that we found ourselves 
in those circumstances, and much to our astonishment, we 
couldn't even get a meeting with our ally, much to our 
astonishment, they were withholding aid from us. Would you 
think we would feel pressure? Of course we would. The Framers 
had common sense, and so must we.
    Are we to accept: Well, the President said there was no 
quid pro quo; I guess that closes the case? In every courtroom 
in America, jurors--and I know you are not just jurors. I led 
the Clinton trial. You are jurors and judges. Jurors all over 
America are told: You don't leave your common sense at the 
door. Well, we don't have to leave our common sense at the door 
here too. Two plus two equals four.
    The aid was withheld. You are asking for it. We are asking 
for it. His own aides are asking for it, and no one can get an 
explanation. The Ukrainians can't get an explanation. All the 
Ukrainians get is: We want you to do these investigations. They 
are promised a White House meeting. They want a White House 
meeting. They need a White House meeting. They are going to be 
going into negotiations with Putin. They want to show strength, 
and they can't get in the door. They see the Russian Foreign 
Minister get in the door of the White House. We see the photos 
of the President and the Russian Foreign Minister, or the 
Ambassador, what a great time they are having, but, no, the 
President of Ukraine, our ally, can't get in the door. They are 
not stupid. They know what is going on here. They are not 
stupid. Remember that conversation I referenced yesterday when 
the Ukrainians threw it right back in our face--when Ambassador 
Volker said to his Ukrainian counterpart: You shouldn't 
investigate the former President. You shouldn't engage in those 
political investigations. The Ukrainian response was: You mean 
like the one you want us to do on the Bidens and the Clintons? 
They are not stupid.
    By the end of August, there was still no explanation for 
the hold, despite efforts by numerous people to seek the 
release of the funding. The leverage hadn't succeeded in 
getting the President to--in coercing Ukraine to announce the 
investigations, and so the aid was withheld. Two witnesses 
privy to this scheme testified that the only logical conclusion 
to reach about the President's continued hold on the aid was 
that it was intended to put more pressure on Ukraine to 
announce the investigations. As I said, they testified it was 
as simple as two plus two equals four.
    We can do math, and, more importantly, so can the 
Ukrainians, and maybe even more importantly than that, so can 
the Russians. Multiple senior officials, including President 
Trump himself, have confirmed this logical conclusion. On 
September 7, Ambassador Sondland spoke directly to President 
Trump, who by that point was aware that a whistleblower 
complaint was circulating that alleged the contours of his 
scheme and that Congress and the public were beginning to ask 
probing questions about the hold on aid, including whether the 
withholding of the aid was in exchange for reelection help.
    During that call of September 7--so in July you have got 
Mueller's testimony. You have got the call itself. You have got 
a followup call the next day, where the President is speaking 
to Sondland and wants to make sure they are going to do the 
investigations. You have got August, where they are trying to 
hammer out a statement, and the Ukrainians are still resisting.
    Then you have September. On September 7, Ambassador 
Sondland is on the phone with President Trump. At that point, 
he is aware that a whistleblower has filed a complaint alleging 
the contours of this scheme and Congress and the public are 
beginning to ask questions about the hold on aid, including 
whether this was to get help in his reelection.
    During this call between the President and Ambassador 
Sondland, without a prompt, President Trump told Sondland: 
There is no quid pro quo. Now, why would he do that? That is 
not something that comes up in normal conversation, right? 
Hello, Mr. President, how are you today? No quid pro quo.
    That is the kind of thing that comes up in a conversation 
if you are trying to put your alibi out there. If you heard 
about a whistleblower complaint, if you had seen allegations, 
if you know Congress is starting to sniff around, no quid pro 
quo. But--and I know this is astonishing--so much of the last 3 
years has been a combination of shock and yet no surprise. Yet, 
even while the President is saying no quid pro quo, what does 
he say? Zelensky must publicly announce the two political 
investigations, and he should want to do it. No quid pro quo, 
except this quid pro quo.
    Sondland immediately relayed the message to President 
Zelensky, informing him that without the announcement of the 
political investigations, they would be at a stalemate. 
Sondland made clear that this reference to a stalemate meant 
the release of the security assistance.
    President Zelensky, after hesitating for weeks to join the 
President's corrupt scheme, finally relented. President 
Zelensky informed Sondland that he agreed to do a CNN 
interview, and Sondland understood that he would use that 
occasion to mention these items, meaning the two investigations 
at the heart of the scheme.
    Candidate Zelensky, who was swept into office with a 
landslide victory on a promise of fighting corruption, would be 
forced to undertake just the same kind of corrupt act he had 
been elected to clean up. Upon learning this, Ambassador Taylor 
called Sondland to register his deep concern, telling him that 
it was crazy--crazy. Taylor later texted Sondland to reinforce 
the point: ``As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to 
withhold security assistance for help [Slide 158] with a 
political campaign.''
    ``As I said on the phone''--clearly, they had discussed it. 
``As I said on the phone.''
    Taylor testified about the message and the events leading 
up to it. Taylor said [Slide 159] that security assistance was 
so important for Ukraine, as well as our own national interest. 
To withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help 
with the political campaign made no sense. It was 
counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It 
was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.
    What is more, Ambassador Taylor also came to learn that 
President Trump wanted Zelensky in a public box.
    He testified--[Slide 160] Mr. Goldman was asking the 
question: ``Now, you reference a television interview and a 
desire for President Trump to put Zelensky in a public box, 
which you also have in quotes.''
    Now, this is in reference, I think, to his written 
testimony.
    ``Was that reference to `in a public box' in his notes?''
    You remember he kept detailed notes.
    Taylor's answer: ``It was in my notes.''
    ``And what did you understand that to mean, to put Zelensky 
in a public box''?
    And Taylor responds: ``I understood that to mean that 
President Trump, through Ambassador Sondland, was asking for 
President Zelensky to publicly commit to these investigations, 
that it was not sufficient to do this in private, that this 
needed to be a very public statement.''
    So we saw earlier, the side-by-side comparison, right, of 
what the Ukrainians wanted to say. They wanted to make no 
mention of these specific investigations, and now Giuliani 
insisted: No, no, no. This isn't going to be credible unless 
you mention these specific investigations. This is what it is 
going to take. And now you see that Ambassador Sondland has 
acknowledged to Ambassador Taylor that it is not enough to use 
even the right language, apparently. It has to be done in 
public. We are not going to take any private commitment. It has 
got to be done in public.
    As we would later come to understand, this is because 
President Trump didn't care about the investigations being 
done. He just wanted them announced. He wanted Zelensky in a 
public box. He wanted it announced publicly.
    Ambassador Taylor also testified that he understood from 
Sondland that because Trump was a businessman, he would expect 
to get something in return before signing a check.
    (Text of Videotape presentation.)

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. This is very telling. Ambassador 
Taylor, a Vietnam veteran, a West Point graduate, said that 
Ukrainians didn't owe us anything. Clearly, Donald Trump felt 
Ukrainians owed him, right?
    This is not about Ukraine's national security. It is not 
about our national security. It is not about corruption. No, it 
is about what is in it for me. Those Ukrainians owe me before I 
sign a check.
    And, by the way, that is not his money. That is your money. 
That is the American people's money for their defense.
    But here we see Ambassador Sondland explain: No, President 
Trump is a businessman. Before he even signs a check, he wants 
to get something, and, of course, that something he was going 
to sign that check for or he was going to make that payment 
for, with our tax dollars--that thing that he was going to buy 
with those tax dollars--was a smear of his opponent and an 
effort to lift whatever cloud he felt was over his Presidency 
because of the Russian interference on his behalf in the last 
election.
    The President has offered an assortment of shifting 
explanations after the fact for the hold on aid, including that 
he withheld the money because of corruption in Ukraine or 
concerns about burden-sharing with other European countries. 
But those arguments are completely without merit.
    First, the President's own administration had determined by 
the time of the hold that Ukraine had undertaken all necessary 
anti-corruption and defense reforms in order to receive the 
funds. The Defense Department and State Department officials 
repeatedly made this clear as the hold remained and threatened 
the ability of the agency to spend the money before the end of 
the fiscal year.
    Second, the evidence revealed that the President only asked 
about the foreign contributions to Ukraine in September, nearly 
2 months after the President implemented the hold and as it 
became clear that the public, Congress, and a whistleblower 
were becoming aware of the President's scheme.
    The after-the-fact effort to come up with a justification 
also belies the truth. The European countries provide far more 
financial support to Ukraine than the United States. Their 
support is largely economic. Ours also includes a lot of 
military support, but Europe is a substantial financial backer 
of Ukraine.
    There is something else remarkable about this that I was 
struck by yesterday as we were going through the importance of 
the witness testimony and looking at some of those redacted 
emails in which the administration sought to hide its 
misconduct.
    In those redactions, when we got to see what was beneath 
them, there was an indication that this is very close-hold. 
This is a need-to-know basis only. Do you remember that? We 
will show you that again, but it is one of those emails that 
only came to light, I believe, recently, and it is not because 
the administration wanted you to see this information. We see 
there is a desire not to let people know about this hold.
    If the President were fighting corruption, if he wanted 
Europeans to pay more, why would he hide it from us? Why would 
he hide it from the Ukrainians? Why would he hide it from the 
rest of the world? If this were a desire for Europe to pay 
more, why wouldn't he charge Sondland to go ask Europe for 
more? Why wouldn't he be proud to tell the Congress of the 
United States: I am holding up this aid, and I am holding it up 
because I am holding up corruption?
    Why wouldn't he? Because, of course, it wasn't true. There 
is no evidence of that.
    And, once more, the White House admitted why the President 
held up the money. The President's own Chief of Staff explained 
precisely why during the October 17 press conference. Let's 
see, again, what he had to say.
    (Text of Videotape presentation.)

    Mr. MULVANEY. That was--those were the driving factors. Did he also 
mention to me in the past that the corruption related to the DNC 
server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. That's why 
we held up the money. Now, there was a report--
    REPORTER. So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was 
part of the reason that he went on to withhold funding to Ukraine?
    Mr. MULVANEY. The look-back to what happened in 2016 certainly was 
part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that 
nation and absolutely appropriate.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. But Mulvaney didn't just admit that the 
President withheld the crucial aid appropriated by Congress to 
apply pressure on Ukraine to do the President's political dirty 
work. He also said that we should just ``get over it.'' Let's 
watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation.)

    REPORTER. Let's be clear. What you just described is a quid pro 
quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the 
Democratic server happened as well.
    Mr. MULVANEY. We do that all the time with foreign policy. If you 
read the news reports and you believe them--what did McKinney say 
yesterday? Well, McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with 
the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons 
he was so upset about this. And I have news for everybody: Get over it. 
There's going to be political influence in foreign policy.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Should the Congress just get over it? 
Should the American people just come to expect that our 
Presidents will corruptly abuse their office to seek the help 
of a foreign power to cheat in our election? Should we just get 
over it? Is that what we have come to? I hope and pray that the 
answer is no.
    We cannot allow a President to withhold military aid from 
an ally or to elicit help in a reelection campaign. I hope that 
we don't have to just get over that. I hope that we just don't 
have to get accustomed to that.
    Is that what we want to tell our constituents, that, yes, 
the President withheld aid from an ally? Yes, it damaged our 
national security. And, yes, he wouldn't meet with the foreign 
leaders important to us unless he got help in the next 
election. And, yes, it is wrong to try to get a foreign power 
to help.
    It is kind of cheating, really, if we are going to be 
honest about it and blatant about it. It is cheating. Americans 
are supposed to decide American elections, but, you know, I 
guess we just need to get over it. I guess that is just what we 
should now expect of a President of the United States.
    I guess there is really no remedy for that anymore. The 
impeachment, maybe that was a good idea 200 years ago, but I 
guess we just need to get over it. I guess maybe the President 
really is above the law because they say you can't indict the 
President.
    The President says you can't even investigate the 
President. The President is in court saying, you can not only 
not indict the President, you can't even investigate the 
President. The Attorney General's position is that you can't 
even investigate the President.
    Are we really prepared to say that? The only answer to the 
President's misconduct is that we need to get over it? What are 
we to say to the next President? What are we to say to the 
President who is from a different party, who refuses the same 
kind of subpoenas, and the President says to you or his Chief 
of Staff says to you or her Chief of Staff says to you: Just 
get over it. I am not doing anything different than Donald 
Trump did. Just get over it. He asked for help in the next 
election: I am asking for help in the next election. Just get 
over it. We do this kind of thing all the time.
    People are cynical enough as it is about politics, about 
people's commitment to their good, cynical enough without 
having us confirm it for them.
    I think it is more than crazy. Those were Ambassador 
Taylor's words. I think it is more than crazy. I think it is a 
gross abuse of power.
    And I don't think that impeachment power is a relic. If it 
is a relic, I wonder how much longer our Republic can succeed.
    For months, President Trump and his agents had pressured 
Ukraine to announce investigations, and President Zelensky 
finally yielded. As previously noted, he scheduled a CNN 
interview and planned to publicly announce the politically 
motivated investigations.
    He informed Sondland of this plan during a September 7 
phone call. In the same call, Sondland related to President 
Zelensky that Trump required that the Ukrainian leader make the 
public announcement in order to get the critical military aid.
    President Trump's corruption had finally worn down 
President Zelensky, overcoming his effort to remain true to his 
anti-corruption platform--until events intervened.
    Before Zelensky could do the interview, President Trump 
learned that his scheme had been exposed. Facing public and 
congressional pressure on September 11, the President finally 
released the hold on aid to Ukraine. Just like the 
implementation of the hold, he provided no reason for the 
release, but the reason is quite simple. The President got 
caught.
    In late August, President Trump learned about a 
whistleblower complaint that was winding its way through the 
intelligence agencies on its way to Congress.
    On September 9, three House committees announced an 
investigation into President Trump's Ukraine misconduct and 
that of his proxy, Rudy Giuliani. Later that day, again, 
September 9, the intelligence community inspector general 
notified the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of the 
existence of the complaint and the fact that it was being 
withheld from Congress, contrary to law and in an unprecedented 
fashion.
    Facing significant public pressure on September 11, the 
President gave up and released the money to Ukraine. One week 
later, President Zelensky canceled the CNN interview.
    And rather than demonstrate attrition or acknowledged 
wrongdoing, the President instead has continued his effort, 
even after the impeachment investigation began. He not only 
continued to call on Ukraine to investigate his political 
opponent, he called on China to do the same.
    This should concern all of us. It is a confirmation not 
only of the scheme to pressure Ukraine to help his political 
campaign but a clear sign that the President believes that 
these corrupt acts are acceptable.
    A President this unapologetic, this unbound to the 
Constitution and the oath of office, must be removed from that 
office lest he continue to use the vast prejudicial powers at 
his disposal to seek advantage in the next election.
    President Trump's abuse of powers of his office undermined 
the integrity of our free and fair elections and compromised 
America's national security. [Slide 161]
    If we don't stand up to this peril today, we will write the 
history of our decline with our own hand. If President Trump is 
not held to account, we send a message to future Presidents, 
future Congresses, and generations of Americans that the 
personal interests of the President can fairly take precedent 
over those of the Nation. The domestic effects of this descent 
from democracy will be a weakened trust in the integrity of our 
elections and the rule of law and a steady decline of the 
spread of democratic values throughout the world.
    For how can any country trust the United States as a model 
of governance if it is one that sanctions precisely the 
political corruption and invitation to foreign meddling that we 
have long sought to help eradicate in burgeoning democracies 
around the world? To protect against foreign interference in 
our elections, we have guardrails built into our democratic 
system. We have campaign finance laws to ensure that political 
assistance can come only from domestic actors, and we take 
seriously the need to shore up the integrity of our voting 
systems so that a foreign government or actor cannot change 
vote tallies. The promise of one person, one vote is only 
effective if each vote is cast free of foreign interference. 
Americans decide American elections--at least they should.
    Now, what if electoral corruption is even more insidious? 
What happens when the invitation comes from within? Our Framers 
understood that threat too. George Mason noted at the 
Constitutional Convention that impeachment was a necessary tool 
because ``the man who has practiced corruption and by that 
means procured his appointment in the first instance'' could 
seek to repeat his guilt.
    In June of last year, President Trump was clear that, if a 
foreign government offered dirt on his political opponent, he 
would take it, a statement deeply at odds with the guidance 
provided at the time by his own FBI Director, the former 
Federal Election Commission Chair, and our Constitution, 
written some 233 years ago. In no uncertain terms, it 
admonishes against any person holding office of profit or trust 
accepting any present from a foreign state.
    But President Trump did more than take the foreign help in 
2019, as he had done in 2016. This time, he had not only asked 
for it in the July 25 call, but when he didn't get the help 
from the Ukrainian President in the form of announced 
investigations, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in 
taxpayer-funded military aid and a coveted White House meeting 
to increase the pressure on Ukraine to comply. Later, he 
demonstrated no remorse and continued to encourage Ukraine to 
conduct the political investigations he wanted, even asking 
other countries to do so.
    The consequences of these actions alone have shaken our 
democratic system. What message will we send if we choose not 
to hold this President accountable for his abuse of power to 
solicit reelection interference in our upcoming election? The 
misconduct undertaken by this President may lead future 
Presidents to believe that they, too, can use the substantial 
power conferred on them by the Constitution in order to 
undermine it. Nothing could weaken the integrity of our 
elections more, and no campaign finance law or statement by a 
future FBI Director could stand up to the precedent of 
electoral misconduct set by the President of the United States 
if we do not say clearly that this behavior is unacceptable 
and, more than unacceptable, impeachable.
    We also undermine our global standing. As a country long 
viewed as a model for democratic ideals worth emulating, we 
have, for generations, been the ``shining city upon a hill'' 
that President Reagan described. America is not just a country 
but also an idea. But of what worth is that idea if, when 
tried, we do not affirm the values that underpin it?
    What will those nascent democracies around the world 
conclude; that democracy is not only difficult but maybe that 
it is too difficult? Maybe that it is impossible? And who will 
come to fill the void we leave when the light from that shining 
city upon a hill is extinguished? The autocrats with whom we 
compete, who value not freedom and fair elections but the 
unending rule of a repressive executive; autocrats who value 
not freedom of the press and open debate but disinformation, 
propaganda, and state-sanctioned lies.
    Vladimir Putin would like nothing better. The Russians have 
little democracy left, thanks to Vladimir Putin. It is an 
autocracy; it is a thugocracy. The Russian story line, the 
Russian narrative, the Russian propaganda, the Russian view 
they would like people around the world to believe is that 
every country is just the same, just the same corrupt system: 
There is no difference. It is not a competition between 
autocracy and democracy. No, it is just between autocrats and 
hypocrites.
    They make no bones about their loss of democracy. They just 
want the rest of the world to believe you can't fight it 
anywhere. Why take to the streets of Moscow to demand something 
better if there is nothing better anywhere else. That is the 
Russian story. That is the Russian story. That is who prospers 
by the defeat of democracy. That is who wins by the defeat of 
our democratic ideals. It is not other democracies; it is the 
autocrats who are on the rise all over the world.
    I think all of us in this room have grown up in a 
generation where each successive generation lived with more 
freedom than the one that came before. We each had more freedom 
of speech and associations, the freedom to practice our faith. 
This was true at home. It was true all over the world. I think 
we came to believe this was some immutable law of nature, only 
to find it isn't, only to come to the terrible realization that 
this year fewer people have freedom than last, and there is no 
guarantee that next year people will live in more freedom than 
today. And the prospect for our children is even more in doubt.
    It turns out, there is nothing immutable about this. Every 
generation has to fight for it. We are fighting for it right 
now. There is no guarantee that this democracy that has served 
us so well will continue to prosper. We will struggle to 
protect this idea, and even as we do, we will struggle to 
protect our security in more tangible ways. Support for an 
independent and democratic Ukraine, which is the literal 
bulwark against Russian expansionism in Europe, is essential to 
our security. Russia showed that when it invaded Ukraine in 
2014 and sought to redraw the map of Europe.
    Was our commitment to Ukraine's independence and 
sovereignty just an empty promise or are we prepared to support 
its efforts to keep Russia contained so they and we may all 
eventually enjoy a long peace?
    Russia is not a threat--I don't need to tell you--to 
Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving 
ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the 21st 
century will become defined by: cyber attacks, disinformation 
campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state 
institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial 
markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that, with the 
malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in 
Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our 
institutions, and they will do so again. Indeed, they have 
never stopped. Will we allow the primary country now fighting 
Russia to be weakened, placing our troops in Europe at greater 
risk and opening the door to greater interference in our 
affairs at home?
    If we allow the President of the United States to pursue 
his political and personal interests rather than the national 
interests, we send a message to our European allies that our 
commitment to a Europe free and whole is for sale to the 
highest bidder. The strength of our global alliances relies on 
a shared understanding of what that alliance stands for: one 
built on the rule of law, on free and fair elections, and on a 
shared struggle against aggression from autocratic regimes.
    We are countries built on a commitment to our people, not 
unyielding loyalty to a President who would be King.
    A President has a right to hold a call with a foreign 
leader, yes. And he has a right to decide the time and location 
of a meeting with that leader, yes. And he has a right to 
withhold funding to that leader should the law be followed and 
the purpose be just.
    But he does not, under our laws and under our Constitution, 
have a right to use the powers of his office to corruptly 
solicit foreign aid--prohibited foreign aid--in his reelection. 
He does not. He does not have the right to withhold official 
Presidential acts to secure that assistance, and he certainly 
does not have the right to undermine our elections and place 
our security at risk for his own personal benefit. No 
President, Republican or Democratic, can be permitted to do 
that.
    Now let me turn to the second Article of Impeachment, which 
charges the President with misusing the powers of his office to 
obstruct [Slide 162] and interfere with the impeachment 
inquiry.
    The evidence you will hear during the House presentation is 
equally undeniable and damning. President Trump issued a 
blanket order directing the entire executive branch not to 
cooperate with the impeachment inquiry and to withhold all 
documents and testimony. His order was categorical. It was 
indiscriminate and historically unprecedented. No President 
before President Trump has ever ordered the complete defiance 
of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so 
comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to 
investigate high crimes and misdemeanors.
    The President was able to block agencies across the 
executive branch from producing any records or documents to the 
House investigative committees, despite duly authorized 
subpoenas. The White House continues to refuse to produce a 
single document or record in response to a House subpoena that 
remains in full force and effect. The Department of State and 
Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and the 
Department of Defense continue to refuse to provide a single 
document or record in response to House subpoenas that remain 
in full force and effect.
    It is worth underscoring this point. The House has yet to 
receive a single document from the executive branch agencies 
pursuant to its subpoenas. Not a single piece of paper, email, 
or other record has been turned over--not one.
    While I pause to get a drink of water, let me let you know 
for your timing that I have about 10 minutes left in my 
presentation. So the end is in sight.
    President Trump has also successfully blocked witnesses--
nine of them--under subpoena from testifying, witnesses with 
firsthand knowledge of the President's actions, including his 
closest aides, some of whom were directly involved in executing 
the President's improper orders. These witnesses include Mick 
Mulvaney and Robert Blair; Russell Vought, the acting head of 
the Office of Management and Budget; Michael Duffey, a senior 
official; and the President's chief legal advisor on the 
National Security Council, John Eisenberg, among others.
    The managers will present in detail what these officials 
knew about their role in executing different parts of the 
President's scheme. There is no dispute, nor could there be, 
that President Trump's order substantially obstructed the House 
impeachment inquiry. That obstruction continues unabated today, 
even as we stand here at the start of the President's trial.
    The President has been able to do so only because of the 
uniquely powerful position he holds as our Commander in Chief. 
No other American could seek to obstruct an investigation into 
his own wrongdoing this way. No other American could use the 
vast powers and levers of his government to conduct a corrupt 
scheme to benefit themselves and then use those same powers to 
suppress evidence and bar any cooperation with the authorities 
investigating them--not a police chief, not a mayor, not a 
Governor, not any elected official in the country, and 
certainly not any unelected official in the country.
    For those folks watching us from around the country, you 
know what would happen to them if they defied a lawful 
subpoena.
    They got a subpoena commanding them to appear. You know 
what would happen to them because they are not above the law: 
They would be arrested; they would be detained; they would be 
incarcerated; they would be forced to comply. They are not 
above the law, and neither are we, and neither is the 
President.
    And, yet, despite the fact that he is not above the law, 
despite the President's extensive and persistent efforts, the 
House heard from courageous witnesses who obeyed lawful 
subpoenas, and we gathered overwhelming evidence. The House 
built a formidable case that forms the basis of these articles.
    The second article for obstruction of Congress is not 
simply about President Trump's decision to obstruct a 
congressional investigation or even an impeachment inquiry. It 
should not be misunderstood as some routine dispute between two 
branches of government, nor should it be reduced to the notion 
that the President was simply protecting himself or fighting 
back against a partisan or overzealous Congress. The charges in 
the second article are much more serious and urgent than that.
    First, the President's attempt to obstruct the inquiry so 
categorically and comprehensively is part and parcel of the 
President's furious effort to conceal, suppress, and cover up 
his own misconduct. From the very first moment his actions were 
at the risk of coming to light, President Trump has sought to 
hide and cover up key evidence, even as his scheme to pressure 
Ukraine was still underway.
    As the House's presentation will make clear, the 
President's coverup started even before the House began to 
investigate the President's Ukraine-related activity. The 
President learned early on of the existence of a lawful 
whistleblower complaint from within the intelligence community 
that would ring the first alarm. He deployed the White House 
and Justice Department to intervene in an unprecedented fashion 
to conceal and then withhold from Congress--for the first time 
ever--a credible and urgent whistleblower complaint, even 
though the law requires that it be provided to the 
congressional intelligence committees.
    Once the impeachment inquiry was underway in late 
September, the President used the immense and unique power at 
his disposal to direct and maintain at every turn the 
categorical defiance of congressional scrutiny, even as he 
attacked the inquiry itself and its witnesses. The President 
offered multiple and shifting justifications for obstructing 
the House's inquiry, each of them deficient, while his actions 
and statements powerfully reflect his own consciousness of 
guilt.
    Second, the ramifications of the President's obstruction go 
beyond the sinister motives of simply covering up his actions. 
His obstruction strikes at the heart of our Constitution. It 
threatens the last line of defense our Founders purposefully 
enshrined in our system to protect our democracy.
    If Presidents can obstruct an impeachment inquiry 
undertaken by the House and evade accountability in the Senate 
for doing so, they usurp an essential power granted exclusively 
to the Congress--and for a reason. Presidents could seize for 
themselves the power to neutralize and nullify the impeachment 
clause in order to shield themselves from any accountability. 
And if Congress is unable to investigate and impeach a 
President for abuse of their office, our democracy's essential 
check on a rogue President would fail. It would no longer 
protect the American people from a corrupt President who 
presents an ongoing threat. This is the outcome every American 
should be concerned about and one that the Founders warned us 
about.
    Through the impeachment clause, the Framers of the 
Constitution empowered Congress to thoroughly investigate 
Presidential malfeasance--and to respond, if necessary, by 
removing the President from office. This entire framework 
depends upon Congress's ability to discover, and then to 
thoroughly and effectively investigate, Presidential 
misconduct. Without the ability of Congress to do that, the 
impeachment power is a nullity. If you can't investigate it, 
you can't enforce it and can't apply it.
    What we confront here, in the second Article of 
Impeachment, is therefore an impeachable offense aimed at 
destroying the impeachment power itself. When a President 
abuses the power of his office to so completely defy House 
investigators, and does so without lawful cause or excuse, he 
attacks the Constitution itself. He confirms that he sees 
himself as above the law. His actions destabilize the 
separation of powers, which defines our democracy and preserves 
our freedom, and establish an exceedingly dangerous precedent. 
And he proves that he is willing to destroy a vital safeguard 
against tyranny--a safeguard meant to protect the American 
people--just to advance his own personal interests in covering 
up evidence.
    The House's presentation of the second article will 
therefore focus on three core areas that confirm the 
President's obstruction and require his removal from office: 
first, the singular importance and role of the impeachment 
clause for our democracy and why an effort by a President to 
obstruct an impeachment inquiry is, in and of itself, an 
impeachable offense; second, why the President's extensive 
effort to cover up evidence of his misconduct is unprecedented 
in American history and without lawful cause or justification; 
and, finally, why the President's obstruction poses a direct 
threat to our system of self-governance, with consequences for 
all Americans--today and in the future--and for both Chambers 
of Congress.
    Over the coming days, you will hear from the House managers 
details of this scheme and the effort to hide it from Congress. 
The Articles of Impeachment that the House presented go to the 
heart of those efforts, and let me share a few takeaways.
    The House of Representatives has found that, using the 
powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the 
interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. 
Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of 
conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to 
publicly [Slide 163] announce investigations that would benefit 
his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political 
opponent, and influence the 2020 U.S. Presidential election 
improperly and to his advantage.
    President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of 
Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official U.S. 
Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on Ukraine's 
public announcement of these investigations. He engaged in this 
scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of 
his personal political benefit.
    In doing so, President Trump used the powers of the 
Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security 
of the United States and undermined the integrity of the U.S. 
democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests 
of the Nation.
    As part of the House's impeachment inquiry, the committees 
undertaking the investigation served [Slide 164] subpoenas 
seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry 
from various executive branch agencies and offices and current 
and former officials.
    In response, and without lawful cause or excuse, President 
Trump directed executive branch agencies, offices, and 
officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump 
thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful 
subpoenas of the House of Representatives and assumed to 
himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of 
the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the 
House of Representatives.
    As George Washington and his troops retreated across the 
Delaware River in early December 1776, they were read the words 
of Thomas Paine, published that month in his pamphlet, ``The 
American Crisis'':

    These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and 
the sunshine patriot will, in the crisis, shrink from the service of 
their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and 
thanks of man and woman.

    Seventeen days later, George Washington crossed the 
Delaware, leading to a decisive victory for those who would 
come to shape our promising young country.
    As much as our Founders feared an unchecked Chief Executive 
able to pursue his own will over the will of the people, they 
also feared the poison of excessive factionalism that could 
divert us from a difficult service to our country. As George 
Washington warned in his farewell address, ``the common and 
continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to 
make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage 
and restrain it.''
    Our political parties and affiliations are central to our 
democracy, ensuring that good and bad political philosophies 
alike are considered in the marketplace of ideas. Here, the 
American people can choose between the policies of one party or 
another and make decisions about their political leaders up to 
and including the President of the United States based on the 
degree to which that person represents their interests and 
values. That is not factionalism; that is the foundation of our 
democracy.
    But when a leader takes the reins of the highest office in 
our land and uses that awesome power to solicit the help of a 
foreign country to gain an unfair advantage in our free and 
fair elections, we all--Democrats and Republicans alike--must 
ask ourselves whether our loyalty is to our party or whether it 
is to our Constitution. If we say that we will align ourselves 
with that leader, allowing our sense of duty to be usurped by 
an absolute Executive, that is not democracy; it is not even 
factionalism. It is a step on the road to tyranny.
    The damage that this President has done to our relationship 
with a key strategic partner will be remedied over time, and 
Ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support in 
Congress. But if we fail to act, the damage to our democratic 
elections, to our national security, to our system of checks 
and balances will be long-lasting and potentially irreversible.
    As you will hear in the coming days, President Trump has 
acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance. 
His conduct has violated his oath of office and his 
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. He has shown 
no willingness to be constrained by the rule of law and has 
demonstrated that he will continue to abuse his power and 
obstruct investigations into himself, causing further damage to 
the pillars of our democracy if he is not held accountable.
    He cannot be charged with a crime, so says the Department 
of Justice. There is no remedy for such a threat but removal 
from office of the President of the United States.
    If impeachment and removal cannot hold him accountable, 
then he truly is above the law.
    We are nearly 2\1/2\ centuries into this beautiful 
experiment of American democracy, but our future is not 
assured.
    As Benjamin Franklin departed the Constitutional 
Convention, he was asked: ``What have we got? A Republic or a 
Monarchy?'' He responded simply: ``A Republic, if you can keep 
it.''
    A fair trial, impartial consideration of all of the 
evidence against the President is how we keep our Republic.
    That concludes our introduction.
                recess subject to the call of the chair
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
    Mr. McCONNELL. Chief Justice, colleagues, I suggest we have 
a recess until 10 minutes to 4, at which moment we will 
reconvene, subject to the call of the Chair.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    There being no objection, at 3:28 p.m., the Senate, sitting 
as a Court of Impeachment, recessed until 3:56 p.m.; whereupon 
the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief 
Justice.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The House managers may resume if they 
are ready.
    Mr. Manager NADLER. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the 
Senate, before I begin, I would like to thank the Chief Justice 
and the Senators for their temperate listening and their 
patience last night as we went into the long hours.
    I truly thank you.
    The House managers will now undertake to tell you the story 
of the President's Ukraine scheme. As we tell the story, it is 
important to note that the facts before us are not in dispute. 
There are no close calls. The evidence shows that President 
Trump unlawfully withheld military assistance, appropriated by 
Congress to aid our ally, in order to extort that government 
into helping him win his reelection, then tried to cover it up 
when he got caught.
    This is the story of a corrupt, governmentwide effort that 
drew in Ambassadors, Cabinet officials, executive branch 
agencies, and the Office of the President. This effort 
threatened the security of Ukraine in its military struggle 
with Russia and compromised our own national security interests 
because the President cared only about his personal political 
interests.
    In the spring of 2019, the people of Ukraine elected a new 
leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, who campaigned on a platform of 
rooting out corruption in his country. This pledge was welcomed 
by the United States and its allies, but the new government 
also threatened the work of President Trump's chief agent in 
Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani.
    As President Zelensky was taking power, Mr. Giuliani was 
already engaged in an effort to convince Ukrainian officials to 
announce two sham investigations. The first was an effort to 
smear former Vice President Joe Biden. The second was designed 
to undermine the intelligence community's unanimous assessment 
that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
    One obstacle to Mr. Giuliani's work was Ambassador Marie 
Yovanovitch. A 33-year veteran of the Foreign Service, 
Ambassador Yovanovitch had partnered with Ukraine to root out 
the kind of corruption that would have allowed Mr. Giuliani's 
lies to flourish.
    In order to complete his mission, Mr. Giuliani first needed 
Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way. So in early 2019, Mr. 
Giuliani launched a public smear campaign against the 
Ambassador, an effort that involved Mr. Giuliani's allies in 
Ukraine, the President's allies in the United States, and, 
eventually, President Trump himself.
    Please remember that the object of the President's Ukraine 
scheme was to obtain a corrupt advantage for his reelection 
campaign. As we will show, the President went to extraordinary 
lengths to cheat in the next election. That scheme begins with 
the attempt to get Ambassador Yovanovitch ``out of the way.''
    By all accounts, Ambassador Yovanovitch was a highly 
respected and effective Ambassador. Witnesses uniformly praised 
her 33-year career as a nonpartisan public servant and told us 
that she particularly excelled in fighting corruption abroad. 
President George Bush named her as an Ambassador twice, and 
President Obama nominated her as Ambassador to Ukraine, where 
she represented the United States from 2016 to 2019.
    Eradicating corruption in Ukraine has been a key policy 
priority of the U.S. Government for years. During the House 
inquiry, the Ambassador explained why implementing this 
anticorruption policy was so important.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. As critical as the war against Russia is, 
Ukraine's struggling democracy has an equally important challenge: 
Battling the Soviet legacy of corruption which has pervaded Ukraine's 
government.
    Corruption makes Ukraine's leaders ever vulnerable to Russia, and 
the Ukrainian people understand that. That's why they launched the 
Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding to be a part of Europe, 
demanding the transformation of the system, demanding to live under the 
rule of law.
    Ukrainians wanted the law to apply equally to all people, whether 
the individual in question is the President or any other citizen. It 
was a question of fairness, of dignity.
    Here again, there is a coincidence of interests. Corrupt leaders 
are inherently less trustworthy while an honest and accountable 
Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukrainian partnership more reliable 
and more valuable to the United States.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. On the evening of April 24, 2019, 
Ambassador Yovanovitch was hosting an event at the U.S. 
Embassy, honoring the memory of an anticorruption fighter who 
had been killed when acid was thrown in her face the previous 
year. At about 10 that night, the Embassy event was interrupted 
by a telephone call from Washington. Ambassador Yovanovitch 
described this conversation with the head of the State 
Department's human resources department.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. She said that there was great concern on 
the seventh floor of the State Department. That's where the leadership 
at the State Department sits. There was great concern. They were 
worried. She just wanted to give me a heads up about this. And, you 
know, things seemed to be going on, and so she just wanted to give me a 
heads up.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. Confused, the Ambassador asked for more 
information from Washington. Three hours later they spoke 
again. Ambassador Yovanovitch learned that there were concerns 
about her ``up the street''; that is, at the White House. The 
Ambassador was told to get on the first plane home.
    Why was this respected career diplomat abruptly removed 
from her post? Why was she, in fact, urged by the State 
Department to catch the first plane home, that she was in 
danger, she shouldn't wait?
    At the time, the White House would not say, but today we 
know the truth. The truth is that Ambassador Yovanovitch was 
the victim of a smear campaign organized by Rudy Giuliani, 
amplified by President Trump's allies, and designed to give 
President Trump the pretext he needed to recall her without 
warning. Mr. Giuliani has admitted as much to the press.
    In order to understand Mr. Giuliani's smear campaign 
against Ambassador Yovanovitch, you need to know about a few 
additional characters who Mr. Giuliani drew into his scheme.
    The first of these characters is Viktor Shokin, the 
disgraced former prosecutor general of Ukraine, who was fired 
by the Ukrainian Government for gross corruption. In 2016, at 
the urging of the European Union, the International Monetary 
Fund, and the U.S. Government, the Parliament of Ukraine voted 
to remove Mr. Shokin as prosecutor general because he was 
corrupt and refused to prosecute corruption cases. The United 
States, the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund 
all urged the Ukraine Government to dismiss Mr. Shokin.
    The second character is Yuriy Lutsenko, who succeeded Mr. 
Shokin as prosecutor general. Mr. Lutsenko also proved 
reluctant to prosecute corruption cases, and several witnesses 
testified that he also had a reputation for dishonesty and 
corruption. Ambassador Yovanovitch and Deputy Assistant 
Secretary George Kent both testified that the U.S. Embassy in 
Kyiv eventually stopped working with Mr. Lutsenko altogether.
    Shokin, Lutsenko, and Giuliani--the goals of all three 
characters were aligned. Shokin had it out for Vice President 
Biden because of the role that the Vice President played in his 
2016 firing. The Vice President, carrying out U.S. policy, 
urged the Ukrainian Government to dismiss the corrupt Shokin.
    I note that the Vice President--the former Vice President--
has been criticized for urging that he be fired.
    Lutsenko found his career trajectory fading and wanted 
President Trump's support to boost his political prospects in 
Ukraine. Giuliani needed partners in Ukraine willing to 
announce two sham investigations meant to boost President 
Trump's own campaign. All three wanted Ambassador Yovanovitch 
out of the way.
    So in early 2019, the smear campaign began. Mr. Lutsenko 
became the primary vector for false allegations against 
Ambassador Yovanovitch. Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent 
testified that Lutsenko's allegations against Ambassador 
Yovanovitch were motivated by revenge.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. KENT. Over the course of 2018 and 2019, I became increasingly 
aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani and others, including his 
associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to run a campaign to smear 
Ambassador Yovanovitch and other officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. 
The chief agitators on the Ukrainian side of this effort were some of 
those same corrupt former prosecutors I had encountered, particularly 
Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin. They were now peddling false 
information in order to extract revenge against those who had exposed 
their misconduct, including U.S. diplomats, Ukrainian anticorruption 
officials, and reform-minded civil society groups in Ukraine.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. As Mr. Kent indicated, the smear 
campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch was orchestrated by a 
core group of corrupt Ukrainian officials working at Mr. 
Giuliani's direction. This group included two additional 
characters who have been in the news of late--Lev Parnas and 
Igor Fruman. Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman were of course indicted 
last year on several charges, including charges related to 
large donations they made to support President Trump.
    Simply put, in doing her job well, Ambassador Yovanovitch 
drew Mr. Lutsenko's ire, and, as Mr. Kent observed, ``You can't 
promote principled anti-corruption efforts without pissing off 
corrupt people.''
    As it turned out, this statement applied to Yuriy Lutsenko 
and to Rudy Giuliani, who feared that the Ambassador would 
stand in the way of his corrupt efforts to coerce Ukraine into 
conducting investigations that would benefit the political 
interests of his client, President Trump.
    Giuliani's coordinated smear campaign against Ambassador 
Yovanovitch became public in the United States in late March 
2019, with the publication of a series of opinion pieces in The 
Hill, based on interviews with Lutsenko. On March 20, 2019, in 
one piece in The Hill, Lutsenko falsely alleged that Ambassador 
Yovanovitch had given him a so-called ``do-not-prosecute 
list.'' Not only was the allegation false, but after having 
helped originate the claim, Lutsenko himself would later go on 
to retract it.
    The same piece also falsely stated that Ambassador 
Yovanovitch had ``made disparaging statements about President 
Trump.'' A statement issued by the State Department declared 
the allegations to be a total fabrication.
    President Trump promoted Solomon's article in a tweet, 
which intensified the public attacks against Ambassador 
Yovanovitch. Then, on March 24, [Slide 165] Donald Trump, Jr., 
called Ambassador Yovanovitch a ``joker'' on Twitter and called 
for her removal.
    You can see the slides of the two tweets.
    These unfounded smears by the President and his son 
reverberated in Ukraine. Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent 
testified that ``starting in mid-March,'' Rudy Giuliani was 
``almost unmissable'' in this ``campaign of slander.'' And 
according to Mr. Kent, Mr. Lutsenko's press spokeswoman 
retweeted Donald Trump, Jr.'s tweet attacking the Ambassador, 
further undermining her standing in Ukraine--her standing, the 
U.S. Ambassador's standing. Mr. Giuliani was not content to 
stay behind the scenes, either. He promoted the same attacks on 
the Ambassador on Twitter, FOX News, and elsewhere.
    At the end of March, the attacks intensified. Ambassador 
Yovanovitch sent Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs 
David Hale an email detailing her concerns and asking for a 
strong statement of support from the State Department. In 
reply, the State Department told her that they were unwilling 
to help her--their own Ambassador--because if they issued a 
public statement supporting her, ``it could be undermined,'' by 
the President and their concern that ``the rug would be pulled 
out from underneath the State Department.''
    The State Department cannot express support for an American 
Ambassador threatened abroad because they are concerned that if 
they express support for that American Ambassador, the rug will 
be pulled out from under them by the President. What it must 
have taken to convince our State Department to refuse support 
for its Ambassador.
    Phone records show that Giuliani also kept the White House 
apprised of these developments, as you can see from these 
slides. [Slide 166]
    Again, it is worth remembering that smearing Ambassador 
Yovanovitch was a means to an end. Removing her would allow the 
President's allies the freedom to pressure Ukraine to announce 
their sham investigations.
    So we should talk for a few minutes about the 
investigations that Rudy Giuliani and his henchmen were 
promoting on behalf of the President.
    Let's focus first on the allegation that Ukraine, not 
Russia, interfered in our last Presidential election. In 
February 2017, shortly after the intelligence community--the 
CIA, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies of the United 
States--unanimously assessed that Russia interfered in the 
election to help Donald Trump, this alternative theory gained 
some attention when Russian President Putin promoted it at a 
press conference.
    ``Second,'' [Slide 167] he said--I am quoting from him. It 
is in the Russian on these slides, I think.

    Second, as we all know, during the presidential campaign in the 
United States, the Ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position 
in favor of one candidate.
    More than that, certain oligarchs, certainly with the approval of 
the political leadership funded this candidate, or female candidate, to 
be more precise.

    That is President Putin talking, shifting the blame to 
Ukraine.
    Dr. Fiona Hill best explained how the Ukraine narrative is 
a fictional narrative being propagated by the Russian security 
services.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of 
you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security 
services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that 
perhaps, somehow for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional 
narrative being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security 
services themselves.
    The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that 
systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is 
the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies confirmed in 
bipartisan and congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if 
some of the underlying details must remain classified.
    The impacts of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remain evident 
today. Our Nation is being torn apart. The truth is questioned. Our 
highly professional, expert career Foreign Service is being undermined. 
U.S. support for Ukraine which continues to face armed Russian 
aggression is being politicized. The Russian Government's goal is to 
weaken our country, to diminish America's global role, and to 
neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. President Trump knew this too. His 
former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, said that the 
idea that Ukraine hacked the DNC server was ``not only a 
conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked,'' and he and 
other U.S. officials spent hours with the President explaining 
why.
    The second false allegation that the President wanted the 
Ukrainians to announce was that Vice President Biden used his 
power to protect a company on whose board his son sat by 
forcing the removal of Viktor Shokin, the corrupt former 
prosecutor general.
    It is true that Vice President Biden helped remove Mr. 
Shokin, who was widely believed to be corrupt. As I said a few 
minutes ago, it was official policy of the United States, the 
European community, and others, in order to fight corruption in 
Ukraine, to ask that Shokin and Lutsenko be removed. So the 
Vice President, Vice President Biden, in fulfilling U.S. 
policy, pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin--not to secure some 
personal benefit but to advance the official policy of the 
United States and its allies. Even Lutsenko, who initially 
seeded the allegations against Mr. Biden in American media, 
later admitted that the allegations against the Vice President 
were false. And Rudy Giuliani told Kurt Volker, the Special 
Representative for Ukrainian Negotiations, who had a prominent 
role in the scheme, that he also knew the attacks on Joe Biden 
were a lie.
    With Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way, the first 
chapter of the Ukraine scheme was complete. Mr. Giuliani and 
his agents could now apply direct pressure to the Ukrainian 
Government to spread these two falsehoods.
    Who benefited from this scheme? Who sent Mr. Giuliani to 
Ukraine in the first place? Of course we could rephrase that 
question as the former Republican leader of the Senate, Howard 
Baker, asked it in 1973: What did the President know, and when 
he did he know it?
    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, 
President's counsel: President Trump and President Zelensky's 
relationship started out well. President Trump wanted the two 
investigations from Zelensky, and he had no reason to believe 
he would not get what he wanted.
    On April 21, 2019, Zelensky, who was new to politics, won a 
landslide victory in Ukraine's Presidential election. That 
evening, President Trump called Zelensky to congratulate him. 
On that first call--the first call--Zelensky invited President 
Trump to visit Ukraine for the upcoming inauguration. President 
Trump, in turn, promised that his administration would send 
someone at ``a very, very high level.''
    During that same April call, President Trump invited 
President Zelensky to the White House, saying: [Slide 168]

    When you're settled in and ready, I'd like to invite you to the 
White House. We'll have a lot of things to talk about, but we're with 
you all the way.

    Zelensky immediately accepted the President's invitation, 
adding that the ``whole team and I are looking forward to that 
visit.''
    Numerous witnesses testified about the significance of a 
White House meeting for the political newcomer. A White House 
meeting would show Ukrainians that America supported Zelensky's 
anti-corruption platform. The clear backing of the President of 
the United States--Ukraine's most important patron--would also 
send a powerful message to Russia that we had Ukraine's back.
    During that April 21 call, President Trump never even 
uttered the word ``corruption,'' but the official White House 
call recap falsely stated that the two Presidents had discussed 
Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts.
    Shortly after the phone call, Jennifer Williams, adviser to 
Vice President Pence, learned that President Trump asked Vice 
President Pence to attend Zelensky's inauguration.
    Williams and her colleagues began planning Pence's trip to 
Kyiv. At the same time, Giuliani was trying to get Ukraine to 
investigate the Bidens and alleged 2016 election interference. 
On April 24, Giuliani went on ``FOX & Friends'' and had this to 
say:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GIULIANI. Keep your eye on Ukraine, because in Ukraine a lot of 
dirty work was done. I'm digging up the information. American officials 
were used. Ukrainian officials were used. That is like collusion with 
the 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.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. For this campaign to be truly 
beneficial to his boss President Trump, Giuliani needed access 
to the new government in Ukraine. He dispatched his associates 
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman to try to make inroads with 
Zelensky's team.
    On April 25, former Vice President Biden publicly announced 
his bid for Presidency, and immediately he was at the top of 
the polls.
    That same day, David Holmes, an American diplomat at our 
Embassy in Ukraine, learned that Giuliani had reached out to 
the head of President Zelensky's campaign. As Mr. Holmes 
explained, the new Ukrainian Government began to think that 
Giuliani ``was a significant person in terms of managing their 
relationship with the United States.''
    As Giuliani and his associates worked behind the scenes to 
get access to the new leadership in Ukraine, President Trump 
was publicly signaling his interest in the investigations. On 
May 2, the President appeared on FOX News. When asked, ``Should 
the former vice president explain himself on his feeling in 
Ukraine and whether there was a conflict . . . with his son's 
business interests?'' President Trump replied as follows:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. I'm hearing it's a major scandal, major problem. 
Very bad things happened, and we'll see what that is. They even have 
him on tape, talking about it. They have Joe Biden on tape talking 
about the prosecutor. And I've seen that tape. A lot of people are 
talking about that tape, but that's up to them. They have to solve that 
problem.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. The tape President Trump 
referenced is a video from January 2018 in which Vice President 
Biden explained that he placed an ultimatum to the Ukrainian 
President to remove the corrupt prosecutor general to ensure 
that taxpayer money would be used appropriately. The Vice 
President's actions were consistent with official U.S. policy 
as well as the opinions of the international community.
    On May 9, the New York Times published an article about 
Giuliani's plan to visit Ukraine. In the article, Giuliani 
confirmed that he planned to meet with Zelensky. At that 
meeting, he wanted to press the Ukrainian Government to pursue 
the investigations that President Trump promoted only days 
earlier. Giuliani said: [Slide 169] ``We're not meddling in an 
election, we are meddling in an investigation, which we have a 
right to do.''
    Giuliani even went so far as to acknowledge that his 
actions could benefit President Trump personally. He said: 
[Slide 170] ``[T]his isn't foreign policy--I'm asking them to 
do an investigation that they're doing already and that other 
people are telling them to stop. And I am going to give them 
reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information 
will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be 
helpful to my government.''
    That is it right there--Giuliani admitting he was asking 
Ukraine to work an investigation that would be ``very, very 
helpful'' to the President. He was not doing foreign policy. He 
was not doing this on behalf of the government. He was doing 
this for the personal interests of his client, Donald J. Trump.
    The next morning, on May 10, amid coverage of his planned 
trip to Ukraine, Giuliani tweeted further about Biden and then 
had a flurry of calls with Parnas, who was helping in planning 
his trip to Ukraine.
    That same day, Giuliani also spoke with Ambassador Volker 
on the phone for more than 30 minutes. Ambassador Volker had 
learned that Giuliani had intended to travel to Ukraine and had 
called to warn Giuliani that Prosecutor General Lutsenko ``is 
not credible. Don't listen to what he is saying.''
    Later that day, Giuliani had a 17-minute call with a masked 
White House number before speaking again with Parnas for 12 
minutes.
    That same day, on May 10, Politico asked President Trump 
about Giuliani's upcoming trip, and he replied, ``I have not 
spoken to him at any great length, but I will. . . . I will 
speak to him about it before he leaves.'' But that evening, on 
FOX News, Giuliani announced: ``I'm not going to go'' to 
Ukraine ``because I think I'm walking into a group of people 
that are enemies of the President.'' Separately, in a text 
message to ``Politico,'' Giuliani alleged that the original 
offer for a meeting with Zelensky was a ``set-up.'' He said it 
was a set-up orchestrated by ``several vocal critics'' of 
President Trump who were advising Zelensky. Giuliani declared 
that ``Zelensky is in [the] hands of avowed enemies of 
President Trump.''
    But Giuliani had not stopped trying. He had Parnas send a 
letter to Zelensky's senior aide on May 11 asking for a 
meeting. That letter made it clear that Giuliani was 
representing President Trump as ``a private citizen'' and that 
he was working with President Trump's ``knowledge and 
consent.''
    The letter is on the slide. It reads: [Slide 171]

    In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his 
knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming 
Monday, May 13, or Tuesday, May 14. I will need no more than a half-
hour of your time and I will be accompanied by my colleague Victoria 
Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with 
the matter.

    But it did not appear that Giuliani and Parnas's attempts 
to get the meeting were working. That same day, Giuliani sent a 
text message to Parnas asking, ``This guy is canceling meeting, 
I think?'' Approximately 3 hours later, Giuliani sent Parnas 
drafts of a public statement that ``people advising the Pres 
Elect are no friends of the President.''
    Three days later, President Trump instructed Vice President 
Pence not to attend the inauguration in Ukraine--just 3 days 
later. Vice Presidential staffer Jennifer Williams received a 
surprising call from Pence's Chief of Staff. She described it 
during her public testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ms. WILLIAMS. On May 13th, an assistant to the Vice President's 
chief of staff called and informed me that President Trump had decided 
that the Vice President would not attend the inauguration in Ukraine. 
She did not provide any further explanation. I relayed that instruction 
to others involved in planning the potential trip. I also informed the 
NSC that the Vice President would not be attending, so that it could 
identify a head of delegation to represent the United States at 
President-elect Zelensky's inauguration.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Notably, Williams confirmed 
that the inauguration date had not yet been scheduled at the 
time of that phone call. So the reason for President Trump's 
decision was certainly not due to a scheduling conflict.
    Secretary of Energy Rick Perry ultimately led the 
delegation to the inaugural. Accompanying Secretary Perry were 
Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland; Ambassador 
Volker; NSC Director for Ukraine, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander 
Vindman; and Senator Ron Johnson also attended many of the 
inaugural events with the delegation. When asked if this 
delegation was a good group, Holmes replied that it ``was not 
as senior a delegation as we might have expected.''
    After the inauguration, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland 
left Kyiv with a very favorable impression of President 
Zelensky. Ambassador Volker said they believed it was important 
that President Trump personally engage with the President of 
Ukraine in order to demonstrate full U.S. support for him.
    When the inauguration team returned to the United States, 
they had a meeting with President Trump on May 23. The May 23 
meeting with President Trump proved to be important for two 
good reasons. First, with Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the 
way, President Trump authorized Ambassador Sondland, Secretary 
Perry, and Ambassador Volker to lead engagement with the new 
administration in Ukraine; and two, President Trump instructed 
them to satisfy Giuliani's concerns in order to move forward on 
Ukraine matters.
    These officials were all political appointees, and 
Ambassador Sondland had donated $1 million to the President's 
inauguration. The President saw these three political 
appointees as officials who would fulfill his requests.
    Ambassador Volker testified that he, Ambassador Sondland, 
Secretary Perry, and Senator Johnson took turns making their 
case that this is a new crowd. It is a new President in 
Ukraine. He is committed to doing the right things, including 
fighting corruption. They recommended that President Trump 
follow through on his invitation for President Zelensky to meet 
with him in the Oval Office, but President Trump did not 
receive the recommendation well.
    At his public hearing, Ambassador Volker described the May 
23 Oval Office meeting with President Trump. Let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador VOLKER. We stressed our finding that President Zelensky 
represented the best chance for getting Ukraine out of the mire of 
corruption it had been in for over 20 years. We urged him [President 
Trump] to invite President Zelensky to the White House. The President 
was very skeptical. Given Ukraine's history of corruption, that's 
understandable. He said that ``Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 
terrible people.'' He said, ``They tried to take me down.'' In the 
course of that conversation, he referenced conversations with Mayor 
Giuliani. It was clear to me that despite the positive news and 
recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the 
new President, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on 
Ukraine rooted in the past. He was receiving other information from 
other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, 
causing him to retain this negative view.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Witnesses said the reference 
to ``taking me down'' was to unfounded allegations that Ukraine 
had interfered in the 2016 election. This was what President 
Trump considered to be corruption in Ukraine.
    The President's words echoed Giuliani's public statements 
about Ukraine in early May. Rather than committing to an Oval 
Office meeting with the Ukrainian leader, President Trump 
directed the delegation to talk to Giuliani. Here is how 
Ambassador Sondland described that instruction from the 
President.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. If we wanted to get anything done with 
Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Right. You understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the 
President, correct?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. That's correct.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Ambassador Sondland saw the 
writing on the wall. Sondland concluded that if we did not talk 
to Rudy, nothing would move forward on Ukraine.
    The three amigos, as they called themselves, did as the 
President ordered and began talking to Giuliani. Dr. Hill 
testified Volker, Sondland, and Perry ``gave us every 
impression that they were meeting with Rudy Giuliani at this 
point, and Rudy Giuliani was also saying on the television, and 
indeed had said subsequently, that he was closely coordinating 
with the State Department.''
    Like Dr. Hill, Ambassador Bolton closely tracked Giuliani's 
Ukraine-related activities. Hill testified about a conversation 
she had with Bolton in May of 2019. That conversation was 
revealing, so let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. . . . And I had already brought to Ambassador Bolton's 
attention the attacks, the smear campaign against Ambassador 
Yovanovitch and expressed great regret about how this was unfolding 
and, in fact, the shameful way in which Ambassador Yovanovitch was 
being smeared and attacked.
    And I had asked him if there was anything we could do about it, and 
Ambassador Bolton had looked pained, basically indicated with body 
language that there was nothing much we could do about it. And he then 
in the course of that discussion said that Rudy Giuliani was a hand 
grenade that was going to blow everyone up.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you understand what he meant by that?
    Dr. HILL. I did, actually.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did he mean?
    Dr. HILL. Well, I think he meant that obviously what Mr. Giuliani 
was saying was pretty explosive, in any case. He was frequently on 
television making quite incendiary remarks about everyone involved in 
this and that he was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that 
would, you know, probably come back to haunt us. And, in fact, I think 
that that's where we are today.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. According to Dr. Hill's 
description, Bolton said that Giuliani's influence could be an 
obstacle to increased White House engagement with Ukraine. He 
instructed his staff not to meet with Giuliani.
    In June, Volker and Sondland relayed to Ambassador Taylor 
that President Trump wanted to hear from Zelensky before 
scheduling the meeting in the Oval Office. Ambassador Taylor 
testified that he did not understand at the time what that 
meant.
    Around this time, the President publicly expressed that he 
thought it would be OK to accept foreign interference to assist 
his campaign if it was in the form of opposition research on 
his opponent. Let's listen to that shocking interview.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    REPORTER. Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, 
if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should 
they accept it or should they call the FBI?
    President TRUMP. I think maybe you do both. I think you might want 
to listen, there's nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called 
from a country, Norway, ``we have information on your opponent.'' Oh, I 
think I'd want to hear it.
    REPORTER. You want that kind of interference in our elections?
    President TRUMP. It's not an interference, they have information. I 
think I'd take it.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Shocking video. Meanwhile, 
Giuliani continued to press Ukraine to do the President's 
political dirty work. On June 21, for instance, Giuliani 
tweeted the following: [Slide 172]

    New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian 
interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of Pres 
Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to 
purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Obama people.

    The quid pro quo scheme was taking shape. Giuliani was 
publicly advocating for Ukraine to conduct politically 
motivated investigations while President Trump refused to 
schedule an Oval Office meeting for Ukraine's new President. As 
Ambassador Sondland testified, the scheme to pressure Ukraine 
to conduct these investigations would only get more insidious 
with time.
    Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, the majority leader 
expressed a preference for a break about 2 hours in. So it is 
the House managers' request that I present, and then we take 
the break, if that is acceptable for everybody.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Any objection? Move forward.
    Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, 
counsel for the President, and the American people, where were 
you on July 25, 2019? It was a Thursday. Members of the U.S. 
Senate were here in this Chamber. On July 25, across the 
Atlantic, our 68,000 troops stationed throughout Europe were 
doing what they do every day--training and preparing to support 
our allies and defend against Russia.
    The professionalism and sacrifice of our men and women in 
uniform is a source of great strength, but America is also 
strong and America is also secure because we have friends. On 
July 25, 2019, one of those friends was a man named Oleksandr 
Markiv. In a story told by Sabra Ayers of the Los Angeles 
Times, Oleksandr was a soldier in the Ukrainian Army defending 
his country and Europe against Russian-backed forces on 
Ukraine's eastern front. He was in a trench. He was 38 years 
old. Oleksandr would later die defending his country during a 
mortar attack on his fighting position, giving his life, just 
like over 13,000 of his fellow Ukrainians, on the frontlines of 
the fight for liberty in Europe.
    That same Los Angeles Times article painted a picture of 
what the Ukrainians were going through during this time.
    Tens of thousands of Ukrainians, like Markiv, volunteered 
to help fight the Russian-backed separatists in the east. Many 
of them were sent to the front line wearing sneakers and 
without flak jackets and helmets, let alone rifles and 
ammunition. Ukrainians across the country organized in an 
unprecedented united civil movement not seen since World War II 
to raise money to supply their ragtag military with everything 
from soldiers' boots to bullets.
    And while our friends were at war with Russia wearing 
sneakers, some without helmets, something else was happening. 
On July 25, President Trump made a phone call. He spoke with 
Ukrainian President Zelensky and asked for a favor. On that 
same day, just hours after his call, his administration was 
quietly placing an illegal hold on critical military aid to 
support our friends.
    So why should any American care about what is happening in 
Ukraine? Timothy Morrison, former senior director for Europe 
and Russia at the NSC put it bluntly:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. MORRISON. I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines 
of a strategic competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's 
revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it is still a 
dangerous one. The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that 
they can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia 
here. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has 
been a bipartisan objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. 
It must continue to be.

    Mr. Manager CROW. We help our partner fight Russia over 
there so we don't have to fight Russia here--our friends on the 
frontlines, in trenches, and with sneakers.
    Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the United 
States has stood by Ukraine. Our diplomats and military 
commanders have long said that supporting Ukraine makes us 
safer. But you don't need me to tell you that; you all know it 
very well. When the funding for the security assistance came up 
for a vote under this roof, 87 of you voted for the aid.
    Many of you have been staunch advocates for Ukraine, 
working in a nonpartisan way to support our friends. That 
support makes a lot of sense because politics should not play a 
part in ensuring that Ukraine can battle Russian aggression and 
ensure that freedom wins in Europe. This body has, in so many 
ways, set that example.
    Protecting Europe from Russia is not a political game. Let 
me provide some background. In early 2014, in what became known 
as the Revolution of Dignity, Ukrainian citizens demanded 
democratic reforms and an end to corruption, ousting the pro-
Russian President. Within days, Russian military forces and 
their proxies invaded Ukraine, annexing Crimea and occupying 
portions of eastern Ukraine.
    Since 2014, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have been killed 
because of the conflict and over 1.4 million have been forced 
from their homes.
    [Slide 173] Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the first 
attempt to redraw Europe's border since World War II.
    In 2017, [Slide 174] then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis 
summed it up well. He said: ``Despite Russia's denials, we know 
they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, 
undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe.''
    And as Ambassador Taylor put it, Russian aggression in 
Ukraine ``dismissed all the principles that have kept the peace 
and contributed to prosperity in Europe since World War II.''
    It is clear that Russia is not just a threat in Europe but 
for democracy and freedom around the world. Our friends and 
allies have also responded, imposing sanctions on Russia and 
providing billions of dollars in economic, humanitarian, and 
security assistance to Ukraine. This has been an international 
effort.
    Today, the European Union is the single largest contributor 
of foreign assistance to Ukraine, having provided roughly $12 
billion in grants and loans since 2014. The United States has 
provided over $3 billion in assistance in that time, because we 
all know that we can't separate our own security from the 
security of our friends and allies. That is why the United 
States has provided economic security and humanitarian 
assistance in the form of equipment and training.
    Ambassador Taylor testified that American aid is a concrete 
demonstration of our ``commitment to resist aggression and 
defend freedom.'' He also detailed the many benefits of our 
assistance for Ukraine's forces.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, the security assistance that we 
provide takes many forms. One of the components of that assistance is 
counter-battery radar. Another component are sniper weapons.
    These weapons and this assistance allows the Ukrainian military to 
deter further incursions by the Russians against their own--against 
Ukrainian territory. If that further incursion, further aggression, 
were to take place, more Ukrainians would die. So it is a deterrent 
effect that these weapons provide.
    It's also the ability--it gives the Ukrainians the ability to 
negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate 
an end to the war in Donbas, negotiating with the Russians. This also 
is a way that would reduce the number of Ukrainians who would die.

    Mr. Manager CROW. I would like to make a finer point of how 
this type of aid helps because I know something about counter-
battery radar.
    In 2005, I was an Army Ranger serving in a special 
operations task force in Afghanistan. We were at a remote 
operating base along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Frequently, 
the insurgence that we were fighting would launch rockets and 
missiles onto our small base. But, luckily, we were provided 
with counter-battery radar. So 20, 30, 40 seconds before those 
rockets and mortars rained down on us, an alarm would sound. We 
would run out from our tents and jump into our concrete bunkers 
and wait for the attack to end. This is not a theoretical 
exercise, and the Ukrainians know it, for Ukraine aid from the 
United States actually constitutes about 10 percent of their 
military budget. It is safe to say that they can't fight 
effectively without it.
    So there is no doubt. U.S. military assistance in Ukraine 
makes a real difference in the fight against Russia.
    In 2019, Congress provided $391 million in security 
assistance. This included $250 million through the Department 
of Defense's Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, USAI, and 
$141 million through the State Department's Foreign Military 
Financing Program, FMF.
    President Trump signed the bill to authorize this aid in 
August 2018 and signed another bill to fund it the following 
month. The aid was underway. The train was leaving the station 
and following the same track it had followed every single year. 
But all of this was about to change.
    In July of 2019, President Trump ordered the Office of 
Management and Budget, OMB, to put a hold on all of the aid. 
The President personally made this decision even after his own 
appointed advisers warned him that it wasn't in our country's 
interest to withhold the aid--after overwhelming support in 
this Senate--and against longstanding policy, even in his own 
administration.
    But what is most interesting to me about this is that he 
was only interested in the Ukraine aid, nobody else. The United 
States provides aid to dozens of countries around the world, 
lots of partners and allies. He didn't ask about any of them--
just Ukraine.
    The most important question here is why would he do that? 
What was his motivation? Well, we now know why.
    This hold shocked people across our own government. The 
Department of Defense, along with the State Department, had 
already certified to Congress that Ukraine had implemented 
sufficient anti-corruption reforms to get the funds, and the 
Defense Department had already notified Congress of its intent 
to deliver the assistance.
    So let's recap all of this. Congress had already funded it. 
Our own government had already certified that it met all of the 
standards that it met every other year, and Congress had 
already been notified, just like every other year.
    In a series of meetings of the National Security Agency, 
everyone except the OMB supported the provision of the 
assistance. OMB, as we know, is headed by Mick Mulvaney, the 
President's Chief of Staff.
    Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the White 
House emphasized that it was in the national security interest 
of the United States to continue to support Ukraine in its 
fight. But it wasn't just the national security concern, 
because many people thought that the hold was just outright 
illegal. And they were right. It was.
    The President's hold did violate the law, because just last 
week, Congress's independent, nonpartisan watchdog, the 
Government Accountability Office, released an opinion finding 
that the hold was illegal.
    President Trump held the military aid money for so long 
that the administration ran out of time to spend the money. 
Ultimately, even after the President lifted the hold on 
September 11--again, with no clear explanation why--we, the 
Congress, had to pass another law to extend the deadline, 
delaying the delivery of the aid.
    In the same L.A. Times article that told the story about 
our friend Mr. Markiv, a Ukrainian defense spokesperson said 
that even though the hold had been lifted--this was in 
September--it ``has not reached us yet.'' That spokesperson 
went on to say: ``It is not just money from the bank. It is 
arms, equipment and hardware.''
    And to this day, millions of dollars still haven't been 
spent.
    Although our government neither informed Ukraine of the 
hold nor publicly announced it, Ukraine quickly learned about 
it.
    On July 25, the same day as President Trump's call with 
President Zelensky, officials at Ukraine's Embassy here in 
Washington emailed DOD to ask about the status of the funding. 
By mid-August, officials at DOD, the State Department, and the 
NSC received numerous questions from Ukrainian officials about 
the hold. Everyone was worried. It is not just because of the 
urgent need for the equipment on the frontlines but also 
because of the message that it sent. You see, President 
Zelensky had just been sworn in. They were very vulnerable. 
And, as we all know, Vladimir Putin looks for vulnerability. He 
looks for hesitation. He looks for delay. And any public sign 
of a hold on that aid could be a sign of weakness that could 
show him it was time to pounce.
    President Trump's hold on Ukraine assistance was eventually 
publicly reported on August 28. As we will explain, Ukraine 
fully understood that the hold was connected to the 
investigations that President Trump wanted.
    On February 28, DOD notified Congress that it intended to 
deliver $125 million of assistance appropriated in September, 
including ``more than $50 million of assistance to deliver 
counter-artillery radars and defense lethal assistance.'' 
Congress cleared the notification, which enabled DOD to begin 
spending the funds.
    For Ukraine to receive the remaining $125 million, Congress 
required that the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 
the Secretary of State, certify that the Government of Ukraine 
had taken substantial anti-corruption reforms.
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper and 
senior officials across our government conducted a review to 
evaluate whether Ukraine had met the required benchmarks.
    Ms. Cooper explained that the review involved ``pulling in 
all the views of the key experts on Ukraine defense, and coming 
up with a consensus view,'' which was then run ``up the chain 
in the Defense Department, to ensure we have approval.''
    By May 23, the anti-corruption review was complete, and DOD 
certified to Congress that Ukraine had complied with all of the 
conditions and that the remaining half of the aid should be 
released. But, again, you don't have to take my word for it. On 
May 23, in a letter to Congress, one of President Trump's 
senior political appointees, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy, wrote: [Slide 175] ``On behalf of the Secretary of 
Defense, and in coordination with the Secretary of State, I 
have certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken 
substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for 
the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing 
accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat 
capability enabled by U.S. assistance.''
    Congress then cleared the funding, which should have 
allowed Ukraine to receive the aid. But we know that is not 
what happened.
    On June 18, as DOD was preparing to send the aid, they 
issued a press release--as they normally do--announcing that it 
would provide $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine 
for ``additional training, equipment, and advisory efforts to 
build the capacity of Ukraine's armed forces.'' This included 
sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, counter-artillery 
radars, command and control, electronic warfare, secure 
communications, vehicles, night vision, and medical equipment. 
However, according to the New York Times, 1 day after the 
Defense Department issued this press release--1 day--Assistant 
to the President Robert Blair, who works for Mick Mulvaney, 
called OMB Acting Director Russell Vought to tell him: ``We 
need to hold it up.'' The ``it'' was the assistance.
    That same day, June 19, President Trump gave an interview 
on FOX News where he raised the so-called CrowdStrike 
conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in 
the 2016 election, a line he would echo during his July 25 call 
with President Zelensky. This theory, by the way, has been 
advanced by Russian propaganda to try to take attention away 
from Russian interference and shift it onto Ukraine. It is a 
theory that has been universally debunked by U.S. intelligence 
and law enforcement.
    Nonetheless, the President, spurred by the June 18 press 
release and with the false theory about the Ukraine 
interference, supposedly, in the 2016 election, started asking 
about the Ukraine assistance. On June 19, OMB Associate 
Director for National Security Michael Duffey emailed Elaine 
McCusker, the DOD comptroller. He said the President had 
questions about the press report and that he was seeking 
additional information. This was a reference to an article in 
the Washington Examiner, shown here on the slide in front of 
you. [Slide 176]
    The White House withheld this email from the House, of 
course. We first learned of it from Duffey's deputy, Mark 
Sandy, who testified that he was copied on it. Subsequently, as 
a result of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the 
public and, therefore, Congress received a copy of that email, 
but the White House still refuses to comply with the subpoenas 
for this and other documents.
    On June 20, McCusker responded to President Trump's inquiry 
by providing Sandy information on the security assistance 
program. Sandy shared the information with Duffey, but he did 
not know whether Duffey shared the information with the White 
House. Laura Cooper also recalled receiving an email inquiry 
about Ukraine's security assistance ``a few days after DOD's 
June 18 press release.'' She noted that it was ``relatively 
unusual'' to receive questions from the President. In response, 
DOD provided materials explaining that the $250 million funding 
package was for additional training, equipment, and advisory 
efforts to build the capacity of Ukraine's Armed Forces. DOD 
emphasized that ``almost all of the dozens of vendors are U.S. 
companies,'' meaning that this funding also benefited U.S. 
businesses and workers.
    Nonetheless, President Trump put the wheels in motion to 
freeze the funds shortly after learning about DOD's plan to 
release the funds. According to a New York Times article on 
June 27, Chief of Staff Mulvaney emailed Blair: [Slide 177]

    I am just trying to tie up some loose ends. Did we ever find out 
about the money from Ukraine and whether we can hold it back?

    Blair reportedly responded that it would be possible but 
not pretty. He added: ``Expect Congress to become unhinged.'' I 
suppose he said that for all the reasons we have talked about 
earlier, because this Chamber and our Chamber on the other side 
of the Capitol resoundingly supports it.
    And that was just the Defense Department assistance to 
Ukraine. For 2019, Congress also appropriated $141 million to 
Ukraine through the State Department. Unlike the Defense 
Department funding, which was approved by Congress and ready to 
be spent, OMB blocked the State Department from even seeking 
Congress's approval to release the funds.
    I am going to pause here to, once again, stress that we 
have learned a lot about the circumstances around the initial 
hold only from the public release of and reporting about these 
emails in the past few weeks. The White House has refused to 
provide these emails in response to a subpoena.
    Mick Mulvaney and Rob Blair refused to comply with the 
subpoena to testify. These emails are just a few of the many 
thousands that likely exist on this topic but which have been 
concealed from Congress and the American people because of 
ongoing obstruction. In fact, last night, as we were here late 
into the night, sometime around midnight, a new tranche of 
documents were released under a Freedom of Information Act 
request by an independent watchdog that had been asking for 
them--they were released last night--between Mr. Duffey and 
Elaine McCusker, and others, on the things that I am talking 
about right now. Unfortunately, as you can see, there isn't a 
lot to read here because it is all blacked out. So, if the 
President's lawyers contest any of the facts that I am talking 
about, you should demand to see the full record. The American 
people deserve to see the full truth when it comes to 
Presidential actions.
    Back to the timeline, from July to September of 2019, the 
President and his advisers at the White House and OMB 
implemented the hold on Ukraine assistance through an unusual 
and unlawful process. First, on July 3, the State Department 
notified DOD and NSC staff that OMB was blocking its 
notification to Congress. According to Jennifer Williams, Vice 
President Pence's aide, the hold on this assistance ``came out 
of the blue'' because it had not been previously discussed by 
OMB or NSC.
    Around July 12, President Trump directed that a hold be 
placed on the DOD security assistance as well. That day, Mr. 
Blair sent an email to Duffey at OMB informing him ``that the 
President is directing a hold on military support funding for 
Ukraine.''
    Around July 15, Tim Morrison learned from Deputy National 
Security Advisor Charles Kupperman ``that it was the 
President's direction to hold the assistance.'' Several days 
later, Duffey and Blair again exchanged emails about Ukraine's 
security assistance, and Sandy testified that, in these emails, 
Duffey asked Blair about the reason for the hold. Blair 
provided no explanation. Instead, he said: ``We need to let the 
hold take place'' and then ``revisit'' the issue with the 
President.
    Between July 18 and July 31, the NSC staff convened several 
interagency meetings at which the hold on security assistance 
was discussed. Remember those dates: July 18 to July 31. 
According to Mark Sandy and other witnesses, several facts 
emerged. First, the agencies learned that the President himself 
had directed the hold through OMB. Second, no justification or 
explanation was provided for the hold, despite repeated 
questions. Third, except for OMB, all agencies were supporting 
military aid because it was in the national security interests 
of the United States. And fourth, many were concerned that the 
hold was outright illegal.
    Ambassador Taylor learned of the hold on July 18. He said 
the ``directive had come from the President to the Chief of 
Staff to OMB'' and that he ``sat in astonishment'' because 
``one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was 
threatened.''
    David Holmes, a diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, 
testified that he was shocked by the hold. Although there was 
initially some question as to whether the hold applied to DOD 
funds, which was already cleared by Congress, it soon became 
clear that the hold applied to all $391 million.
    Tim Morrison testified that DOD officials raised concerns 
at a meeting on July 23 about whether it was ``actually legally 
permissible for the President to not allow for the disbursement 
of the funding.'' These concerns related to possible violations 
of the Impoundment Control Act, the law that gives a President 
the authority to delay or withhold funds only if Congress is 
notified of those intentions and approves the proposed action. 
Of course, neither of those things had been done. The issue was 
escalated quickly, and at a senior-level meeting on July 26, 
OMB remained the lone voice for holding the aid. According to 
Tim Morrison, OMB said that President Trump was concerned about 
corruption in Ukraine. Cooper, from DOD, also attended the July 
meeting. She received no further understanding of what was 
meant by ``corruption.'' There was never a principals meeting 
convened on this issue, but there was a fourth and final 
interagency meeting on July 31. Remember that date? A fourth 
and final one.
    There is a process for making sure that U.S. aid money 
makes it to the right place, to the right people.
    Mr. Chief Justice, I do see a lot of Members moving and 
taking a break. Would you like to take a break at this time? I 
have another, probably, 15 minutes.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. I think we can continue.
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may, what I was 
going to suggest was that at 6:30 we take a 30-minute break for 
dinner, if that would work.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. So break at 6:30?
    Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. What I was going to suggest is a break 
for dinner at 6:30 for about 30 minutes, if that works.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. That is a good idea.
    Mr. Manager CROW. So we know there was a hold, but there 
was no lawful way to implement that hold. So the OMB had to use 
creative methods. There is a process for making sure that U.S. 
aid money makes it to the right place, to the right people--a 
process that had been followed every year since the Congress 
approved security assistance to Ukraine. The administration 
needed to find a creative way of getting around that process. 
Later in the evening of July 25, the OMB found that way, even 
though DOD had already notified Congress that the funds would 
be released.
    Here is how it worked. First, OMB issued guidance asserting 
that there was an ongoing review of assistance, even though 
none of the witnesses who testified were aware of any review of 
assistance. Second, OMB also attempted to hide the hold in a 
series of technical footnotes in funding documents. And third, 
OMB's leadership also transferred responsibility for approving 
funding obligations from career civil servant Mark Sandy to a 
political appointee, Mark Duffey, someone with no relevant 
experience in this funding.
    Based on recent public reporting and documents DOD released 
under the Freedom of Information Act, we learned that on July 
25, approximately 90 minutes after President Trump's phone call 
with President Zelensky, Mr. Duffey put this three-pronged plan 
into motion when he sent an email to senior DOD officials, 
copying Sandy. The email [Slide 178] is in front of you. In 
this email, Duffey stated: Based on guidance I have received 
and in light of the administration's plan to review assistance 
to Ukraine, please hold off on any additional DOD obligations 
of these funds, pending direction from that process. Duffey 
also underscored: ``Given the sensitive nature of the request, 
I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to 
those who need to know to execute the direction.'' In other 
words, don't tell anybody about it.
    Later that day, Sandy approved and signed the first July 25 
funding document, which delayed funding until August 5. Sandy 
testified that the purpose of this and subsequent footnotes 
``was to preclude obligation for a limited period of time but 
enable planning and casework to continue.'' Sandy also 
testified that his use of footnotes was unusual and that, in 
his 12 years of OMB experience he could ``not recall another 
event like it.''
    On July 29, Duffey told Sandy he would no longer be 
responsible for approving the release of DOD Ukraine funding. 
This was only weeks after Sandy had raised questions about the 
legality of the President's hold. Duffey also revoked the 
authority for approving the release of the State Department 
funding from Sandy's colleague at OMB. In short, Duffey assumed 
approval authority for all $391 million of the assistance.
    Over the next several weeks, with Duffey in charge, OMB 
continued to issue funding documents that kept kicking the can 
down the road, supposedly to allow for an interagency process--
and, remember, an interagency process that had already wrapped 
up back in July--while inserting the whole time footnotes 
throughout the apportionment documents stating that the delay 
wouldn't affect the program. Yet concerns continued to be 
relayed within DOD that it had.
    In total, OMB issued nine of these documents between July 
25 and September 10. Even as OMB was implementing the 
President's hold, officials inside OMB advocated for the 
release of the funds. On August 7, OMB staff sent a memo to 
Director Vought recommending removing the hold because the 
assistance was consistent with the national security strategy 
in terms of, one, supporting a stable, peaceful Europe; two, 
the fact that the aid countered Russian aggression; and, three, 
that there was bipartisan support for the program. This meant 
that experts at every single relevant agency involved opposed 
the hold.
    By mid-August, DOD raised concerns that it might not be 
able to fully spend the DOD funds before the end of the fiscal 
year. Laura Cooper testified that DOD estimated that $100 
million of aid was at risk of not getting to Ukraine. DOD 
concluded that it could no longer support OMB's claim, in the 
footnotes, that ``this brief pause in obligations will not 
preclude DOD's timely execution of the final policy 
direction.'' Sandy testified that this sentence in the 
footnotes was ``at the heart of that issue about ensuring that 
we don't run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act.''
    Records produced in response to a FOIA lawsuit show that 
Mr. Duffey and Ms. McCusker exchanged emails on August 20, and 
on that date, OMB modified the footnote. These emails are 
almost entirely redacted; however, all the subsequent footnotes 
issued by OMB during the pendency of the hold removed this 
sentence regarding DOD's ability to fully obligate the funds by 
the end of the fiscal year. Nevertheless, OMB continued to 
implement the hold at the President's direction. We know from 
emails released last night that as of September 5, OMB was 
continuing to instruct DOD to hold the aid. OMB gave these 
emails to a private organization just because of a FOIA 
lawsuit.
    On September 5, Duffey emailed McCusker the following:

    No movement on Ukraine. Footnote forthcoming to continue hold 
through Friday.

    We know that McCusker responded to OMB with a lengthy email 
detailing DOD's serious concerns, but OMB redacted almost the 
whole thing.
    As I explained last night, OMB has key documents that 
President Trump has refused to turn over to Congress--key 
documents that go to the heart of one of the ways in which the 
President abused his power.
    Concerns about whether the administration was bending, if 
not breaking, the law contributed to at least two OMB officials 
resigning, including an attorney in OMB. According to Sandy, 
one colleague specifically disagreed with OMB General Counsel 
about the application of the Impoundment Control Act. As I 
mentioned earlier, the independent and nonpartisan Government 
Accountability Office has already said that the hold was 
illegal. But you remember the OMB correspondence referencing 
the ``Interagency Process.'' As we now know, there was no 
interagency process. It had ended months before. They made it 
up. They had to make it up because they couldn't say the real 
reason for the hold.
    Sometime prior to August 16, Ambassador Bolton had a one-
on-one meeting with President Trump. According to Tim Morrison, 
at that meeting, the President ``was not yet ready to approve 
the release of the assistance.'' Ambassador Bolton instructed 
Morrison to look for other opportunities to get the President's 
Cabinet together ``to have the direct, in-person conversation 
with the President about this topic.'' Everyone was worried, 
including the President's National Security Advisor.
    In mid-August, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman drafted a 
Presidential decision memorandum for Ambassador Bolton to 
present to President Trump for a decision on Ukraine security 
assistance. The memorandum recommended that the hold be lifted. 
Morrison testified that the memorandum was never provided to 
the President because of other competing issues. Morrison 
testified that a meeting with the President was never arranged 
in August, reportedly because of scheduling problems.
    According to recent press reports, on August 30, Secretary 
of Defense Esper and Secretary of State Pompeo met with 
President Trump and implored him to release the security 
assistance because doing so was in the interest of the United 
States. However, President Trump continued to ignore everybody. 
Later that day, Duffey emailed Under Secretary of Defense 
Elaine McCusker and wrote: ``Clear direction from POTUS to 
hold.''
    The Ukrainian Government knew of President Trump's hold on 
security assistance well before it was publicly reported on 
August 28. This was not surprising. U.S. diplomat Catherine 
Croft testified it was ``inevitable that it was eventually 
going to come out.''
    She said that two individuals from the Ukrainian Embassy 
here in Washington approached her approximately a week apart 
``quietly and in confidence to ask me about an OMB hold on 
Ukraine security assistance.'' She could not precisely recall 
the dates of these conversations but testified that she was 
``very surprised at the effectiveness of my Ukrainian 
counterparts.'' Everyone was worried. Why would these diplomats 
quietly make this inquiry? It is because if it had gone public, 
it would show that weakness against Russia which was so 
concerning to everybody involved. She said: [Slide 179] ``I 
think that if this were public in Ukraine, it would be seen as 
a reversal of our policy . . . it would be a really big deal in 
Ukraine, and an expression of declining U.S. support for 
Ukraine.''
    Meanwhile, Laura Cooper testified that DOD heard from the 
Ukrainian Embassy on July 25--the same day as President Trump's 
call to President Zelensky.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ms. COOPER. On July 25th, a member of my staff got a question from 
a Ukraine Embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine 
security assistance, because at that time, we did not know what the 
guidance was on USAI. The OMB notice of apportionment arrived that day, 
but this staff member did not find out about it until later. I was 
informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were 
moving forward on USAI, but recommended that the Ukraine Embassy check 
in with State regarding the FMF.''

    Mr. Manager CROW. ``USAI'' referred to the $250 million 
that OMB blocked DOD from sending to Ukraine. ``FMF'' referred 
to the $141 million they blocked from the State Department.
    On July 25, Cooper's staff also received two emails from 
the State Department revealing that the Ukrainian Embassy was 
``asking about security assistance'' and that ``the Hill knows 
about the FMF . . . situation to an extent, and so does the 
Ukrainian embassy.'' One of Cooper's staff members reported 
additional contacts with Ukrainian officials about the hold in 
August.
    Finally, we know the Ukrainians knew about the hold because 
the New York Times published an interview with the former 
Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine, Olena Zerkal. She stated 
that she and President Zelensky's office received a cable in 
late July informing them of the hold.
    In short, by the time of POLITICO's report on August 28, 
the Ukrainians were well aware that the aid was not the only 
important official act the White House was withholding from 
them. The long-sought White House visit for President Zelensky 
was also in limbo.
    As all of this transpired, Ukrainian troops were still on 
the frontlines in eastern Ukraine, facing off against Russian-
backed forces, dying in defense of their country.
    Ambassador Bill Taylor visited those Ukrainian troops on 
July 26. He recalled seeing ``the armed and hostile Russian-led 
force on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line 
of the contact.'' When asked to reflect on that visit, here is 
what Ambassador Taylor had to say:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. MALONEY. Let's talk about July 26, a lot of years later. You go 
to the front, you go to Donbas with Ambassador Volker, I believe. And 
you're on the bridge, and you're looking over on the front line at the 
Russian soldiers. Is that what you recalled?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Yes, sir.
    Mr. MALONEY. And you said the commander there, the Ukrainian 
commander, thanked you for the American military assistance that you 
knew was being withheld at that moment.
    Ambassador TAYLOR. That's correct.
    Mr. MALONEY. How'd that make you feel, sir?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Badly.
    Mr. MALONEY. Why?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Because it was clear that that commander counted 
on us. It was clear that that commander had confidence in us. It was 
clear that that commander had what--was appreciative of the 
capabilities that he was given by that assistance but also the 
reassurance that we were supporting him.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Like me, Ambassador Taylor is a combat 
veteran. In fact, he was awarded a Bronze Star. Ambassador 
Taylor knew how vital our military aid was to those Ukrainian 
troops because he knows what it feels like to have people 
counting on you.
    Members of the U.S. Senate, I know you believe that aid is 
important, too, because 87 Members of this body voted to 
support it. President Trump did not think the aid was important 
last year. He ignored you and the direction of Congress. He 
betrayed the confidence of our Ukrainian partners and U.S. 
national security when he corruptly withheld that aid. He did 
so because he simply wanted to help his own political campaign. 
Our men and women in uniform deserve better. Our friends and 
allies deserve better. The American people deserve better.
    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Chief Justice Roberts, Senators, and 
counsel for the President, I want to talk to you about the 
White House meeting that President Trump offered to President 
Zelensky during their first phone call in April. But, as you 
know, that meeting has not been scheduled. It was never 
scheduled.
    Ambassador Sondland testified that after the May 23 meeting 
with President Trump, it became clear that President Zelensky 
would not be invited to the Oval Office until he announced the 
opening of investigations that would benefit President Trump's 
reelection. During his testimony, Ambassador Sondland stressed 
that it was a clear quid pro quo. Let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador 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. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador 
Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from 
President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 
election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the 
Ukrainians, and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to 
us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call 
and the White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and 
requirements.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Sondland also testified 
that the scheme to pressure Ukraine into fulfilling the 
President's requirements for an Oval Office meeting became 
progressively more specific and problematic--what he described 
as a ``continuum of insidiousness.'' He explained the evolution 
from generic requests to investigate corruption to calls to 
pursue specific allegations against President Trump's political 
opponents.
    Here is Ambassador Sondland again.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. Well, Mr. Chairman, when we left the Oval 
Office, I believe on May 23, the request was very generic for an 
investigation of corruption in a very vanilla sense and dealing with 
some of the oligarch problems in Ukraine, which were longstanding 
problems. And then as time went on, more specific items got added to 
the menu, including the Burisma and 2016 election meddling, 
specifically the DNC server specifically. And over this continuum it 
became more and more difficult to secure the White House meeting 
because more conditions were being placed on the White House meeting.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. In short, Ambassadors Volker and 
Sondland understood that to get the meeting scheduled, they 
needed to get Mr. Giuliani's agreement first.
    On June 27, Ambassador Sondland explained to Ambassador 
Taylor that President Trump needed to hear from the Ukrainian 
leader before he would consent to a White House meeting. Here 
is how Ambassador Taylor explained it.
    (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. Diplomat David Holmes testified that 
he understood, early on, the investigations to mean the 
Burisma-Biden investigations that Mr. Giuliani and his 
associates had been speaking about publicly. Mr. Holmes noted 
that while President Trump was withholding an Oval Office 
meeting with Ukraine's newly elected leader, he agreed to meet 
with Ukraine's chief foe, Vladimir Putin.
    Mr. Holmes had this to say:
    (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.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Volker did not dispute 
other witnesses' testimony that President Trump conditioned an 
Oval Office meeting on President Zelensky's willingness to 
announce investigations. Indeed, Ambassador Volker helped 
matters along. Ambassador Volker testified that at a conference 
in early July, he suggested that President Zelensky speak to 
President Trump on the phone to discuss the investigations.
    During his testimony, Ambassador Volker described that 
encounter.

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Uh-huh. And in the July 2nd or 3rd meeting in Toronto 
that you had with President Zelensky, you also mentioned investigations 
to him, right?
    Ambassador VOLKER. Yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And, again, you were referring to the Burisma and the 
2016 election.
    Ambassador VOLKER. I was thinking of Burisma and 2016.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Okay. And you understood that is what the Ukrainians 
interpreted references to investigations to be, related to Burisma and 
the 2016 election?
    Ambassador VOLKER. I don't know specifically at that time if we had 
talked that, specifically, Burisma/2016 with President Zelensky. That 
was my assumption, though, that they would've been thinking about doing 
that, too.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Giuliani became an inescapable 
presence to both Ukrainian officials and American diplomats. To 
the Ukrainians, Rudy Giuliani was seen as both a potential 
channel to President Trump and an obstacle to a productive 
U.S.-Ukraine relationship.
    A top aide to President Zelensky texted to Volker that 
[Slide 180] ``I feel that the key for many things is Rudi and I 
[am] ready to talk with him at any time.''
    But everyone understood that Mr. Giuliani was no rogue 
agent. He was acting at the direction of the President. 
Ambassador Sondland clearly described Mr. Giuliani's role in 
regard to the President. Let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Concern about Mr. Giuliani's 
influence began to grow. On July 10, at a meeting between 
Ambassador Taylor and two Ukrainian officials in Kyiv, 
Ukrainian officials said they were ``very concerned'' because 
Mr. Giuliani had told the corrupt prosecutor general, Lutsenko, 
that President Trump would not meet with the Ukrainian leader.
    Back in Washington, two important encounters at the White 
House further revealed the existence of a corrupt quid pro quo. 
Ambassador Sondland first broached the investigation in a 
meeting in Ambassador Bolton's office with Bolton's Ukrainian 
counterpart and President Zelensky's top aide. Also present 
were Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and NSC officials Dr. 
Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Toward the end of the 
meeting, the Ukrainians raised the topic of an Oval Office 
meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky. 
Ambassador Bolton started to respond when Ambassador Sondland 
interjected and raised the demands of the investigation.
    Here is how Lieutenant Colonel Vindman recalled the 
conversation:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    LTC VINDMAN. To the best of my recollection, Ambassador Sondland 
said that in order to get a White House meeting, the Ukrainians would 
have to provide a deliverable, which is investigations, specific 
investigations.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Volker separately 
confirmed this recollection during his testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador VOLKER. I participated in the July 10 meeting between 
National Security Advisor Bolton and then-Ukrainian Chairman of the 
National Security and 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.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Bolton also found 
Ambassador Sondland's reference to be inappropriate, and he 
abruptly ended the meeting. However, Ambassador Sondland was 
not deterred. He convened a second meeting where he discussed 
what needed to happen before an Oval Office meeting. 
Apparently, Ambassador Sondland had received his marching 
orders from the President, and he was determined to carry them 
out.
    Bolton sent Dr. Hill to join that meeting and report back. 
This is what Dr. Hill had to say:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. And so when I came in, Gordon Sondland was basically 
saying, well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting--I 
have a deal here with Chief of Staff Mulvaney. There will be a meeting 
if the Ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 
and Burisma. And I cut it off immediately there. Because by this point, 
having heard Mr. Giuliani over and over again on the television and all 
of the issues that he was asserting, by this point it was clear that 
Burisma was code for the Bidens because Giuliani was laying it out 
there.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. After the meeting, Dr. Hill followed 
up with Ambassador Bolton and relayed what transpired. Bolton 
was alarmed. In other words, Ambassador Bolton didn't want any 
part of it. He directed Dr. Hill to brief the NSC's top 
attorney, John Eisenberg, as she explained during her hearing.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. What was that specific instruction?
    Dr. HILL. The specific instruction was that I have to go to the 
lawyers, to John Eisenberg, our senior counsel for the National 
Security Council, to basically say, you tell Eisenberg, Ambassador 
Bolton told me, that I am not part of this whatever drug deal that 
Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did you understand him to mean by the drug deal 
that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?
    Dr. HILL. I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you go speak to the lawyers?
    Dr. HILL. I certainly did.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. As a former chief of police, I think 
it is quite interesting that Ambassador Bolton categorized the 
corrupt scheme--the pressure campaign--as a ``drug deal.'' I 
think Ambassador Bolton was trying to send us a very powerful 
message that not only would the lawyers, the top lawyer 
understand, but that every person would understand--every 
Member of the House, every Member of the Senate, every member 
of our great country, every citizen.
    And Ambassador Bolton also wanted to make clear, especially 
to the top attorney, that he did not want to have anything to 
do with the drug deal in progress. But we do know now, of 
course, that Ambassador Bolton can testify directly about this. 
He can testify directly for himself about this meeting if he 
appears before this body, as he has indicated that he is 
prepared to do if this body is willing to issue a subpoena. We 
need to hear from Ambassador Bolton, and I know the American 
people want to hear from Ambassador Bolton as well.
    Dr. Hill testified that she spoke to Mr. Eisenberg twice. 
Dr. Hill also indicated that Mr. Eisenberg took notes of their 
meeting, which we, to no surprise now, do not have. We have not 
received them because of the President's obstruction.
    It is clear that Ambassador Sondland was not operating a 
rogue operation. He testified that everyone was in the loop. 
Let's listen once again.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. 
Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the 
Presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President 
Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent 
investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with 
President Trump.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. In the email reference, Ambassador 
Sondland wrote the following to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary 
Perry, and Mr. Mulvaney regarding President Zelensky. [Slide 
181]

    He is prepared to receive POTUS' call. Will assure him that he 
intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ``turn over 
every stone.''

    Both Mulvaney and Perry responded to the email noting that 
the head-of-state call would be scheduled right away. Now, you 
may be asking: What did Mulvaney know about these 
investigations, and did he have any conversations with 
President Trump about them?
    Senators, this body is entitled to see all of the evidence, 
and do you know what? The American people are entitled to hear 
all of the evidence. And while the nature of the ``drug deal'' 
we have talked about was uncontested, it is important for the 
country to know that everyone was involved because we have 
heard that everyone was in the loop.
    Now, later this day, July 19, Ambassador Sondland texted 
Ambassadors Volker and Taylor about the upcoming head-of-state 
telephone call, and the text said: [Slide 182]

    Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I [spoke] directly to Zelensky and 
gave him a full briefing. He's got it.

    Ambassador Volker replied to Sondland's text: [Slide 183] 
``Most [important] is for Zelensky to say that he will help 
investigations.''
    The evidence shows that the Ukrainians understood what they 
needed to do to earn a White House meeting with the President.
    On July 20, the day after Ambassador Sondland's phone call 
with President Zelensky, Ambassador Taylor spoke with the 
Ukrainian national security advisor. Ukraine's national 
security advisor conveyed that the Ukrainian President did not 
want to become an instrument in U.S. politics.
    Here is how Ambassador Taylor explained that concern:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did you understand it to mean when--that Zelensky 
had concerns about being an instrument in Washington domestic 
reelection politics?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Danyliuk understood that these 
investigations were pursuant to Mr. Giuliani's request to develop 
information, to find information about Burisma and the Bidens. This was 
very well known in public. Mr. Giuliani made his point clear in several 
instances in the beginning--in the springtime.
    And Mr. Danyliuk was aware that that was a problem.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And would you agree that, because President Zelensky 
is worried about this, they understood, at least, that there was some 
pressure for them to pursue these investigations? Is that fair?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Danyliuk indicated that President Zelensky 
certainly understood it, that he did not want to get involved in these 
types of activities.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. The next day, Ambassador Taylor 
relayed the Ukrainian leader's concerns to Volker and Sondland, 
but Ambassador Sondland did not back down.
    Specifically, Ambassador Sondland texted in response to 
Ambassador Taylor's worry: [Slide 184] ``Absolutely, but we 
need to get the conversation started and the relationship 
built, irrespective of the pretext.''
    Again, Ambassador Sondland had his marching orders, and he 
was determined to carry them out.
    A call between President Trump and President Zelensky was 
scheduled for July 25.
    Before the call, President Trump spoke to Sondland and 
reiterated his expectation that the Ukrainian leader would 
commit to the investigations.
    Ambassador Sondland subsequently contacted Ambassador 
Volker and relayed the message to him.
    Volker then texted Zelensky's top aide with [Slide 185] 
President Trump's instruction: ``[A]ssuming President Z 
convinces trump he will investigate / `get to the bottom of 
what happened' in 2016, we will nail down the date for a visit 
to Washington.''
    Senators, in other words, even before the July 25 phone 
call with President Zelensky, before it ever took place, 
Ukraine understood that it needed to initiate the investigation 
into the debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election as 
a condition for President Zelensky, the newly elected Ukrainian 
President, to visit the White House.
    Ambassador Sondland testified that acting on President 
Trump's direct orders, he and Ambassador Volker prepped 
President Zelensky for the telephone call.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. And you would agree that the message in this--that is 
expressed here is that President Zelensky needs to convince Trump that 
he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a 
visit to Washington, D.C. Is that correct?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. That's correct.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. By this time, nonpartisan career 
officials involved with Ukraine policy had become aware of this 
quid pro quo.
    Here is what three of them said during their testimony: 
[Slide 186]
    Ambassador Taylor: ``. . . the meeting President Zelensky 
wanted was conditioned on investigations of Burisma and alleged 
Ukrainian influence in the 2016 elections . . .''
    Ambassador David Holmes: ``. . . it was made clear that 
some action on a Burisma/Biden investigation was a precondition 
for an Oval Office visit.''
    Dr. Hill: ``There seems to be an awful lot of people 
involved in, you know, basically turning a White House meeting 
into some kind of asset'' that was ``dangled out to the 
Ukrainian Government.''
    A White House visit--a visit to the Oval Office--dangled 
out to the Ukrainian Government.
    Senators, I ask you to think about those words as we 
decide--as you decide--what action you will take. Think about 
those words. There was no doubt the direction came from the 
President of the United States. The President was at the center 
of this scheme.
    Ambassador Sondland testified: [Slide 187] ``Mr. Giuliani 
was expressing the desires of the President of the United 
States, and we knew these investigations were important to the 
President.''
    Ambassador Sondland added that Mr. Giuliani ``followed the 
direction of the President'' and ``we followed the President's 
orders.''
    However, as Ambassador Taylor testified, [Slide 188] 
``Ambassador Bolton was not interested in having--did not want 
to have the call because he thought it was going to be a 
disaster.'' He thought that there could be some talk of 
investigations or even worse than that, he thought.
    I ask you today, Senators: What was Ambassador Bolton so 
afraid that President Trump would say to the newly elected 
Ukrainian President? What was the National Security Advisor so 
afraid that President Trump would say to President Zelensky?
    This is another topic we would like to ask Ambassador 
Bolton about if and when he appears before this body.
    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished 
Members of the Senate, I thank you, once again, for your 
indulgence and for your courtesy as we all undertake our solemn 
constitutional responsibilities during this Senate trial.
    George Washington once observed in his Farewell Address to 
the Nation that the Constitution was sacredly obligatory upon 
all. That means everyone. In fact, that is what makes our great 
country so distinct from authoritarian regimes and enemies of 
democracy. Vladimir Putin is above the law in Russia; Erdogan 
is above the law in Turkey; Kim Jong Un is above the law in 
North Korea, but in the United States of America, no one is 
above the law, not even the President of the United States. 
That is what this moment is all about.
    As we all know, Congress is a separate and coequal branch 
of government. We don't work for this President or any 
President. We, of course, work for the American people. We have 
a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance 
on an out-of-control executive branch. That is not from the 
Democratic Party's playbook, and that is not from the 
Republican Party's playbook. That is from the playbook of a 
democratic republic.
    James Madison once observed in Federalist No. 51 that the 
Congress should serve as a rival to the executive branch.
    In my humble opinion, why would Madison use the word 
``rival''?
    It is that the Framers of the Constitution, I think, did 
not want a King; they did not want a dictator; they did not 
want a Monarch. They wanted a democracy. The Constitution is 
sacredly obligatory upon all. It is through that lens that we 
proceed today.
    [Slide 189] For the next few moments, I would like to 
discuss President Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukraine's 
newly elected leader.
    The President claims that his call was perfect. Nothing can 
be further from the truth. The call is direct evidence of 
President Trump's solicitation of foreign interference in the 
2020 election as part of a corrupt scheme. It is important, of 
course, to remember the context of this call.
    New Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was in a 
vulnerable position and viewed American and diplomatic military 
support as critical to his standing and to Ukraine's fragile 
future as a democracy. Equally significant, as outlined by my 
colleagues, America has a strong national security interest in 
supporting Ukraine against Russia's continued aggression.
    William Taylor, a West Point graduate, a Vietnam war hero, 
and Ambassador to Ukraine, appointed by Donald Trump, 
testified: ``Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United 
States--important for the security of our country as well as 
Europe.''
    Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security 
Council officer, a Trump appointee, a Purple Heart recipient, 
an Iraq war veteran, testified: ``A strong and independent 
Ukraine is critical to our national security interests.''
    Ukraine remains under attack by Russian-backed separatists 
in Crimea. It is an ongoing hot war. Ukraine is a friend. 
Russia is a foe. Ukraine is a democracy. Russia is a 
dictatorship. The United States may very well be one of the 
other things standing between Russia and Ukraine's being 
completely overrun. As part of that, Vladimir Putin continued 
aggression against the free world. That is why this Congress 
allocated $391 million in military and security aid to a 
vulnerable Ukraine on a bipartisan basis. It is that it is in 
America's national security interests.
    On the July 25 call, Mr. Trump could have endeavored to 
strengthen the relationship with this new Ukrainian leader. 
Instead, President Trump focused on securing a personal favor. 
He wanted Ukraine to conduct phony investigations, designed to 
enhance his political standing and solicit foreign interference 
in the 2020 election.
    On the July 25 call, President Trump maligned a highly 
respected American Ambassador, known as an anti-corruption 
crusader. At the same time, he praised a corrupt former 
Ukrainian prosecutor, and on multiple occasions, President 
Trump directed Ukraine's new leader to speak with his personal 
lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, on an official call.
    Mr. Giuliani is not a member of the Trump administration. 
For these and other reasons, the July 25 call warrants our 
close scrutiny. It presents significant and shocking evidence 
of President Trump's corrupt intent. The call lays bare the 
President's willingness to do whatever it takes to get what he 
wants even if his behavior undermines the national security 
interests of the United States of America.
    At the beginning of the call, President Zelensky mentioned 
U.S. military aid, and he states: ``I would also like to thank 
you for your great support in the area of defense.'' [Slide 
190] The great support in the area of defense includes the 
security assistance passed by this Congress, on a bipartisan 
basis, that Donald Trump held up in violation of the law.
    Immediately after President Zelensky raised the issue of 
defense support, President Trump responded: [Slide 191] ``I 
would like you to do us a favor, though.''
    These words will live in infamy.
    First, President Trump said to President Zelensky, as part 
of the two demands that he requested:

    I would like you to find out what happened with this whole 
situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike . . . I guess you have one 
of your wealthy people. . . . The server, they say, Ukraine has it.''

    President Trump continued: [Slide 192]

    I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people, 
and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, 
that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named 
Robert Mueller--

    A Vietnam war hero, by the way--

a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent 
performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever 
you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

    Who is the ``they'' referred to by President Trump putting 
forth the baseless conspiracy theory that the Ukrainians, not 
the Russians, were behind the hack of the Democratic National 
Committee server in 2016?
    ``They'' means Russia. ``They'' means Putin. ``They'' are 
enemies of the United States.
    Not a single witness who testified before the House knew of 
any factual basis for President Trump's belief in the 
CrowdStrike Ukraine fairytale. To the contrary, the U.S. 
intelligence community and this Senate Intelligence Committee 
assessed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
    As Dr. Fiona Hill testified, the theory that Ukraine 
interfered in the 2016 election ``is a fictional narrative that 
has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security 
services.''
    The conspiracy theory that President Trump advanced on the 
July 25 phone call is stone-cold Russian propaganda.
    As early as February 2017, Vladimir Putin began to promote 
this lie during a press conference saying: [Slide 167]

    The Ukrainian Government adopted a unilateral position in favor of 
one candidate. More than that, certain oligarchs, certainly with the 
approval of the political leadership, funded this candidate, or female 
candidate, to be more precise.

    Those are the words of Vladimir Putin--a script apparently 
adopted by President Donald John Trump.
    If there was any doubt about who benefits from this 
unfounded, Russian-inspired conspiracy theory advanced by 
Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin made it clear when he said in 
November of 2019: [Slide 193]

    Thank God no one is accusing us anymore of interfering in U.S. 
elections. Now they're accusing Ukrainians.

    Unfortunately, this is not the first time President Trump 
tried to capitalize on Russian propaganda and misinformation 
for his own political benefit.
    On July 24, just one day before this call, Special Counsel 
Robert Mueller testified before Congress that the ``Russian 
government interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and 
systematic fashion'' in order to support the Trump campaign and 
divide America.
    Mr. Mueller also found that the Trump campaign welcomed 
Russian interference in the 2016 election and utilized it as 
part of its campaign messaging.
    Despite the clear and overwhelming conclusion of U.S. 
intelligence agencies, as well as the distinguished Senate 
Intelligence Committee, that Russia, not Ukraine interfered in 
the 2016 election, President Trump continued to press the new 
Ukrainian leader to announce an investigation into the 
CrowdStrike Ukraine conspiracy theory.
    Why? President Trump sought a political favor--that is 
why--as part of a scheme to solicit foreign interference in the 
2020 election.
    The second demand made by President Trump on the July 25 
call related to the campaign of Vice President Joe Biden, who 
announced his intention to run for the Office of the Presidency 
last April. Throughout the spring and early summer of last 
year, public polling consistently showed that Biden would 
decisively defeat President Trump. In fact, on June 16 of last 
year--June 16--a FOX News poll showed that President Trump 
would lose to Joe Biden by 10 points.
    The concern with Joe Biden's candidacy provides motive for 
President Trump's demand that the Ukrainian Government 
investigate the former Vice President and his son Hunter.
    Here is what President Trump said on that call: [Slide 194]

    The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that 
Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out 
about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be 
great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if 
you can look into it . . . It sounds horrible to me.

    Now, the Trump administration officials who participated in 
the impeachment inquiry unanimously testified that there was no 
factual support for the allegation that Vice President Biden 
did anything wrong or misused his authority when he pressed for 
the removal of Ukraine's corrupt former prosecutor general. Joe 
Biden did nothing wrong. The witnesses testified that Vice 
President Biden was in fact carrying out official U.S. policy 
to clean up the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine.
    This policy, of course, aligned with the perspective of 
many in this very distinguished body, as well as our European 
allies throughout the world, as well as the International 
Monetary Fund.
    Vice President Biden did not remove Yuriy Lutsenko, the 
corrupt prosecutor. The Ukrainian Government did with the 
support of the free world.
    Nonetheless, on October 3, 2019, when a reporter asked 
President Trump, ``What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do 
about the Bidens after your phone call,'' President Trump 
responded as follows.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    REPORTER. What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the 
Bidens after your phone? Exactly?
    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 JEFFRIES. Start a major investigation into the 
Bidens. The evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump is hiding 
in plain sight.
    During the July 25 call, President Trump also repeatedly 
pressed the Ukrainian President to coordinate with his personal 
attorney, Rudolph Giuliani.
    Why was Rudolph Giuliani's name mentioned multiple times 
during the July 25 phone call? Giuliani is not the Secretary of 
State. He is not an ambassador. He is not a member of the 
diplomatic corps.
    Rudolph Giuliani is a cold-blooded political operative for 
President Trump's reelection campaign. That is why he was 
referenced multiple times on that July 25 phone call, and it is 
evidence of corrupt intent by President Trump.
    By the time the call took place, President Zelensky 
understood Giuliani's connection to the shakedown scheme. He 
recognized Giuliani's role as the President's political 
operative on matters related to Ukraine.
    Zelensky informed President Trump that one of his aides 
spoke with Mr. Giuliani ``just recently'' and [Slide 195] ``we 
are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel 
to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes.''
    The Ukrainian leader knew Giuliani represented President 
Trump's political interests in his country and could help 
unlock the long-sought-after Oval Office meeting that President 
Zelensky desired.
    The phony investigations sought by President Trump on the 
July 25 call were not designed to bolster the national security 
interests of the United States of America--quite the contrary. 
President Trump sought to benefit himself and his own 
reelection prospects.
    On the July 25 call, President Trump also suggested that 
President Zelensky speak with the Attorney General William Barr 
about the two fake investigations that the President sought.
    [Slide 196] This is important to keep in mind. At no time 
during this entire sordid scheme was there an ongoing American 
law enforcement investigation into the phony slander related to 
Joe Biden or the conspiracy theory related to Ukrainian 
interference in the 2016 election. At no time was there an 
ongoing American law enforcement investigation.
    America is the leader of the free world. We do not urge 
other sovereign countries to target American citizens absent 
any legitimate basis whatsoever, absent any scintilla of 
evidence.
    Apparently, President Trump does not play by those rules. 
During the July 25 call, President Trump didn't raise 
legitimate corruption concerns as it relates to the Ukraine. 
President Trump did not mention the word ``corruption'' once. 
The President did, however, viciously malign former U.S. 
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a distinguished 
anticorruption advocate whom he abruptly removed because she 
was seen as an obstacle to his geopolitical shakedown.
    Ambassador Yovanovitch joined the diplomatic corps under 
President Ronald Reagan and subsequently served three other 
Republican Presidents. She is a highly respected diplomat and 
Foreign Service professional. Yet President Trump told the new 
Ukrainian leader the former Ambassador from the United States, 
[Slide 197] ``the woman,'' was bad news, and the people she was 
dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news. ``So I just want to 
let you know that.''
    He didn't stop there. Later in the call, President Trump 
ominously added, ``Well, she's going to go through some 
things.'' These are the words of the President of the United 
States of America.
    Ambassador Yovanovitch did not know of President Trump's 
disparaging remarks at the time. She didn't learn them until 
the call record became public in September. Asked whether she 
felt ``threatened'' by President Trump's statement that ``she's 
going to go through some things,'' Ambassador Yovanovitch 
answered that she did. Here is what she said.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. The next excerpt when the President references you is 
a short one, but he said: ``Well, she's going to go through some 
things.'' What did you think when President Trump told President 
Zelensky and you read that you were going to go through some things?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. I didn't know what to think, but I was very 
concerned.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What were you concerned about?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. She's going to go through some things. It 
didn't sound good. It sounded like a threat.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you feel threatened?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. I did.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. During that same call, President 
Trump also took the opportunity to praise Yuriy Lutsenko--Mr. 
Lutsenko, who is the former Ukrainian prosecutor general who 
was widely regarded by the entire free world, including our 
European allies and the International Monetary Fund, to be 
corrupt and incompetent, but Donald John Trump, our President, 
praised him on that call.
    He told President Zelensky: [Slide 198]

    I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down 
and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the 
way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad 
people involved.

    Think about this contrast. The President bashed a career 
American diplomat and an anti-corruption champion whom he 
unceremoniously removed because she was viewed as an obstacle 
to his efforts to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 
election and then at the same time praised someone who he 
thought could be an asset--a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor whom 
the free world views as an obstacle to the rule of law. The 
idea that President Trump cares about corruption is laughable. 
It is laughable.
    A plain reading of the rough transcript of the July 25 call 
also sheds light on the quid pro quo involving the Oval Office 
meeting that had been sought.
    President Zelensky said on the call: [Slide 199]

    I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United 
States, specifically Washington, DC. On the other hand, I also wanted 
to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work 
on the investigation.

    As all of you know here in this distinguished body, quid 
pro quo is a Latin term. It means ``this for that.'' The 
statement that I just read shows that President Zelensky fully 
understood at the time of this July 25 call that if he yielded 
to President Trump's demand for phony investigations, he would 
get the White House meeting in the Oval Office that he 
desperately sought. This for that.
    President Trump has repeatedly insisted that his July 25 
conversation with President Zelensky was ``a perfect call.'' 
His staff at the White House apparently believed otherwise. The 
press office issued a short and incomplete summary of the July 
25 call. Let me read it for your hearing: [Slide 200]

    Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with President 
Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine--

    (Disturbance in the Galleries.)
    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. And the scripture says: ``For the 
Lord loves justice and will not abandon His faithful ones.''
    This is the White House call readout of July 25, 2019:

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

    That is the official White House readout of the call dated 
July 25, 2019. The official readout provided to the American 
people omitted key elements of the President's conversation. 
Let's review.
    The official readout did not mention the phony 
investigations requested by President Trump. The official 
readout did not mention the Oval Office meeting sought by 
President Zelensky. The official readout did not mention 
President Trump's elevation of a debunked conspiracy theory 
promoted by Vladimir Putin about 2016 election interference. 
The official readout did not mention President Trump's demand 
that Ukraine investigate his domestic political rival, Joe 
Biden. The official readout did not mention that President 
Trump maligned and threatened Ambassador Yovanovitch. The 
official readout did not mention that President Trump praised a 
corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutor.
    The complete conversation, however, between President Trump 
and President Zelensky that we just outlined offers powerful 
evidence that President Trump abused his power and solicited 
foreign interference in the 2020 election.
    Several members of the President's staff listening in on 
the call immediately grew concerned.
    As he sat in the White House Situation Room listening to 
the conversation, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman realized 
that the President's demands of the Ukrainian leader were 
``inappropriate'' and ``improper.'' He quickly recognized that 
as the President began referencing the Bidens, Burisma, and 
CrowdStrike, the call was diverging from the official National 
Security Council talking points that he helped prepare.
    Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, a 20-year Iraq war veteran, 
Purple Heart recipient, and American patriot, testified in the 
context of the call that due to the unequal bargaining position 
of the two leaders and Ukraine's dependence on the United 
States, the ``favor'' that President Trump sought would have 
been perceived by President Zelensky as a demand. Lieutenant 
Colonel Vindman worried that the call would undermine U.S. 
national security interests, and he knew immediately that he 
had a duty to report the contents of the call to White House 
lawyers.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    LTC VINDMAN. I was concerned by the call. What I heard was 
inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg.
    It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a 
foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent. 
I was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation--it was also 
clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, 
the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. 
This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, 
undermining U.S. national security, and advancing Russia's strategic 
objectives in the region.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Recounting the content of the call 
based on his detailed handwritten notes, Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman told the lawyers that he believed it was ``wrong'' for 
President Trump to ask President Zelensky to investigate Vice 
President Biden.
    Other witnesses were also troubled by what they heard. Vice 
President Pence's adviser, Jennifer Williams, expressed concern 
that President Trump raised a ``domestic political matter'' on 
an official call with a foreign leader. [Slide 201] She 
testified that the mention of investigations struck her as 
unusual and more political in nature. She said: ``I guess for 
me it shed some light on possible other motives behind a 
security assistance hold.''
    Timothy Morrison, a former Republican congressional staffer 
who replaced Dr. Fiona Hill in July of 2019, also reported the 
call to National Security Council lawyers.
    After the call, President Trump continued to push the 
scheme forward.
    On July 26, the very next day, Ambassador Sondland and 
Ambassador Taylor met with President Zelensky and other 
Ukrainian officials in Kyiv.
    According to David Holmes, the Ukraine-based U.S. diplomat 
who served as the notetaker, the Ukrainian leader mentioned 
that President Trump had brought up some ``very sensitive 
issues'' during the July 25 call--``very sensitive issues.''
    Ambassador Sondland then had a private meeting with Andriy 
Yermak, President Zelensky's top aide. The two men insisted 
that the meeting be one-on-one with no notetaker--perhaps due 
to the ``very sensitive issues'' that might come up. Ambassador 
Sondland testified that he and President Zelensky's aide 
``probably'' discussed ``the issue of investigations.''
    After these key meetings in Ukraine, Ambassador Sondland 
went to lunch with David Holmes and two other American 
officials. Mr. Holmes sat directly across from Ambassador 
Sondland--close enough to hear the details of an extraordinary 
telephone call between Mr. Sondland and President Trump. As Mr. 
Holmes related during his sworn testimony under oath, 
Ambassador Sondland pulled out his unsecured cell phone and 
``said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an 
update.'' What happened next was shocking.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. HOLMES. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on 
speakerphone, I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece 
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 explain 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 is going to do it, adding that 
President Zelensky will do ``anything you ask him to do.''

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. ``He is going to do it.'' He will do 
``anything you ask him to do.''
    Immediately after this call with President Trump, Mr. 
Holmes followed up with Ambassador Sondland.
    (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, 
and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about . . 
. ``big stuff.'' I noted that 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 JEFFRIES. During the July 25 call, President 
Trump asked for the favor of these two phony political 
investigations immediately after the Ukrainian President 
brought up defense assistance for Ukraine.
    The following day, Ambassador Sondland confirmed to 
President Trump that Ukraine would indeed initiate the 
investigations discussed on the call, which was the only thing 
the President cared about with respect to Ukraine. He didn't 
care that Russia was forcefully occupying eastern Ukraine. 
President Trump didn't care that thousands of Ukrainians 
apparently have died fighting for their democracy. He didn't 
seem to care that supporting Ukraine bolsters America's 
national security, but he cared about himself as it relates to 
the prospects of his reelection in 2020.
    In November, President Trump denied that he spoke to 
Ambassador Sondland on July 26, telling reporters: ``I know 
nothing about that.'' But in his public testimony, Ambassador 
Sondland contradicted that assertion with official records he 
obtained from the White House.
    Ambassador Sondland further explained that Holmes' 
testimony refreshed his recollection about the July 26 call, 
which Ambassador Sondland had not originally described when he 
first appeared at a deposition before the House.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. Also, on July 26th, shortly after our Kyiv 
meetings, I spoke by phone with President Trump. The White House, which 
has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my 
attorneys confirms this. The call lasted 5 minutes.
    I remember I was at a restaurant in Kyiv, and I have no reason to 
doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. 
Again, given Mr. Giuliani's demand that President Zelensky make a 
public statement about investigations, I knew that investigations were 
important to President Trump.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. President Trump said that his July 25 
conversation was a perfect call. It was far from perfect.
    In a perfect call, the President would not demand a 
political favor from a vulnerable Ukraine under attack by a 
Russian foe. In a perfect call, the President would not demand 
that a foreign leader investigate a Russian-inspired conspiracy 
about the 2016 election. In a perfect call, the President would 
not pressure a foreign government to target an American citizen 
for political, personal gain.
    In a perfect call, the President would not solicit foreign 
interference in the 2020 election. In a perfect call, the 
President would not threaten the well-being of a highly 
respected American Ambassador and say she was going to ``go 
through some things.'' In a perfect call, the President would 
not praise a disgraced former prosecutor whom the free world 
viewed as corrupt and incompetent, and in a perfect call, the 
President would not have directed a foreign leader to follow up 
with Rudolph Giuliani, a human hand grenade.
    This was not a perfect call. It is direct evidence that 
President Donald John Trump corruptly abused his power and 
solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                                 recess
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, we will now 
take a 30-minute break for dinner and reconvene at 5 minutes 
after 7:00.
    I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess 
until that time.
    There being no objection, at 6:35 p.m., the Senate, sitting 
as a Court of Impeachment, recessed until 7:20 p.m.; whereupon 
the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief 
Justice.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will come to order.
    Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, just so Senators 
have an idea of the evening, we expect to go about 2 to 2\1/2\ 
hours. I will make a presentation. Representative Lofgren from 
California will make a presentation. I will make a final 
presentation, and then we will be done for the evening. As an 
encouraging voice told me: Keep it up, but don't keep it up too 
long. So we will do our best not to keep it up too long.
    I am going to turn now to the part of the chronology that 
picks up right after that July 25 call and walk through the 
increasingly explicit pressure campaign waged on Ukraine in 
order to get President Trump's deliverable--the investigations 
meant to tarnish his opponent and help his reelection.
    Now remember, by the end of July, Ukraine was aware of 
President Trump's requests for investigation to help his 
political efforts and had come to know that President Trump put 
a freeze on security assistance. So this is by the end of July. 
They also clearly understood that President Trump was 
withholding an Oval Office meeting until those investigations 
were announced. Both were very critical to Ukraine as a sign of 
U.S. support and as a matter of their national security, and 
their national security, of course, implicates our national 
security.
    In the weeks after the July 25 call, President Trump's 
handpicked representatives escalated their efforts to get the 
public announcement of the investigations from Ukraine.
    So let's go through this step by step, because the 3 weeks 
following the July 25 call tell so much about this pressure 
scheme.
    Let's start with July 26. On July 26--so this is the day 
after the call--Ambassador Volker sends a text message to 
Giuliani, and that text message says: [Slide 202]

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

    So here we are the day after that call, as my colleague 
demonstrates--this same day, so July 26, and the date of that 
second infamous call between President Trump this time and 
Gordon Sondland that you heard the diplomat, David Holmes, 
describe. So that is the same day, July 26, that we are talking 
about right now, where there is this text message.
    Now, of course, in that July 25 call, the President wants 
to connect Rudy Giuliani with the President of Ukraine and his 
people. So this is a followup where Ambassador Volker is saying 
to Giuliani: [Slide 202]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Separately, Volker told Ambassador Sondland: ``Giuliani was 
happy with that meeting and it looks like things are turning 
around''--a reference to Volker's hope that satisfying Giuliani 
would break down President Trump's reservations concerning 
Ukraine.
    But things had not turned around by the end of that first 
week of August, by August 7. The aid was still on hold, and 
there had been no movement on setting a date for the White 
House meeting.
    Ambassador Volker then reaches out to Giuliani to try to 
get things moving. Ambassador Volker texts Giuliani to 
recommend that he report to ``the boss,'' meaning President 
Trump, about his meeting with Yermak in Madrid. Specifically, 
he wrote--this is Volker writing to Giuliani: [Slide 203]

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

    So this is Ambassador Volker following up with Giuliani. 
Giuliani has met with the top aide to the President of Ukraine 
in Madrid. He wants Giuliani to convey to the boss--to Trump--
how good that meeting in Madrid was about the investigations so 
they can get the President of Ukraine in the door at the White 
House.
    Now, think about how unusual this is. This is the 
President's personal lawyer, who is on this personal mission on 
behalf of his client to get these investigations in Ukraine. 
The President of Ukraine can't get in the door of the Oval 
Office. And who are they going to? Are they going to the 
Security Council? No. Are they going to the State Department? 
No. They tried all that. They are going to the President's 
personal lawyer. Does that sound like an official policy to try 
to fight corruption?
    Why would you go outside of the normal channel to do that? 
You wouldn't. You would go to your personal attorney, who is on 
a personal mission that he admits is not foreign policy, when 
your objective has nothing to do with policy, when your 
objective is a corrupt one.
    What does that mean, to have a corrupt objective? It means 
an illicit one. It means an impermissible one. It means one 
that furthers your own interests at the cost of the national 
interests--the willingness to break the law, like the 
Impoundment Control Act, by withholding aid is indicative of 
that corrupt purpose, the lengths the President would go, not 
in furtherance of U.S. policy but against U.S. policy, not even 
a difference on policy at all.
    The mere pursuit of personal interest, the pursuit of an 
illegal effort to get foreign interference, is the very 
embodiment of a corrupt intent.
    Here we are, August 7. Volker is saying: Rudy, if you are 
coming to DC, let's get together. [Slide 203] It would be good 
if you can talk to the boss because we can't get a meeting 
another way.
    Around that time, Ambassador Volker received a text message 
from Yermak, who asked him--and this is Yermak asking Volker: 
[Slide 204]

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

    Volker responds:

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

    Meaning Sondland.

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

    There is Gordon Sondland, who is ``pressing this.'' This is 
the man you have heard from already--Gordon Sondland, the man 
who says: It was absolutely a quid pro quo. You have asked 
about a quid pro quo. There was a quid pro quo about this White 
House meeting.
    This is what they are talking about right here. Gordon will 
be ``speaking with the president on Friday. We are pressing 
this.''
    Ambassador Volker's contact with Giuliani spurred a flurry 
of communications. The patterns of calls from August 8 strongly 
suggest Giuliani was attempting to call the White House to 
speak to a senior White House official, left a message, then 
had a 4-minute call with that official later that night.
    We don't know from the call records who that White House 
official was, but recall that Giuliani has publicly stated that 
when he spoke to the White House, he usually spoke to President 
Trump, his client.
    Also, on August 8, Yermak texts Volker that he had some 
news. Ambassador Volker replies that he can talk then, and 
Ambassador Volker updates Giuliani in a text the next day. 
[Slide 205]
    Volker says to Giuliani in the text:

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

    He is referring to President Zelensky here.

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

    Here he is referring to President Zelensky.

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

    Here, August 9, there is an effort by Volker to make sure 
to get this statement right about the investigations. If they 
can't get the statement right, you aren't going to get in the 
door of the Oval Office.
    It also makes clear who is exactly in charge of this, and 
that is Rudy Giuliani. Ambassador Volker is checking with Rudy 
Giuliani about what he should advise President Zelensky. We 
know that Giuliani is taking his orders from President Trump.
    Text messages and call records obtained by the committees 
show that Ambassador Volker and Giuliani connected by phone 
twice around noon on August 9 for several minutes each.
    Following the calls with Giuliani, Ambassador Volker 
created a three-way group chat using WhatsApp and included 
himself, Ambassador Sondland, and Yermak. Ambassador Volker 
initiated the chat around 2:20 that day. This is Volker 
chatting with Sondland and Yermak. It is a three-way chat. 
[Slide 206]
    Volker says:

    Hi, Andrey--

    Meaning Yermak.

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

    Sondland says:

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

    Call records obtained by the committees show that on August 
9 Ambassador Sondland twice connected with phone lines 
associated with the White House--once in the early afternoon 
for about 18 minutes and once in the late afternoon for about 2 
minutes. We know that Ambassador Sondland had direct access to 
President Trump.
    After all this activity, Ambassador Sondland and Volker 
thought they had a breakthrough--finally, a breakthrough. 
Minutes after this call, which was likely with Tim Morrison 
about a possible date for the White House meeting, Ambassador 
Volker and Sondland discussed the agreement they believed they 
had reached and started with Sondland in this text message: 
[Slide 207]

    Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms.

    Volker says:

    Excellent!! How did you sway him?

    Sondland says:

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

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

    But does he know that?

    And Sondland says:

    Yep. Clearly lots of convos--

    Meaning conversations.

    going on.

    Volker says:

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

    Ambassador Sondland told the committees that the 
deliverable required by President Trump was a press statement 
from President Zelensky committing to do the investigations 
into the Bidens and the allegation of Ukraine election 
interference that President Trump mentioned on July 25. But Tim 
Morrison testified that he didn't know anything about the 
deliverable; he was just involved in trying to schedule the 
White House meeting, which everyone wanted to schedule as a 
sign of support for President Zelensky and our ally Ukraine. 
But Trump's agents wouldn't just accept Ukraine's word for it.
    Ambassador Sondland then recommended to Ambassador Volker 
that Yermak share a draft of the press statement to ensure that 
the statement would comport with the President's expectations.
    Here, on August 9--we are still less than 2 weeks after the 
July 25 call; I guess we are about 2 weeks--Sondland says in 
this message: [Slide 208]

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

    Referring to Zelensky.

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

    And Volker says:

    Agree!

    At his deposition, Ambassador Sondland said that he 
suggested reviewing a written summary of the statement because 
he was concerned that President Zelensky would say whatever he 
would say on live television, and it still wouldn't be good 
enough for Rudy/the President.
    Yermak, in turn, was concerned that the announcement would 
still not result in the coveted White House meeting. On August 
10, Yermak texted Volker, attempting to schedule a White House 
meeting before the Ukrainian President made a public statement 
in support of the investigations into Burisma and the 2016 
election.
    [Slide 209] You can see what is going on here. The 
President and his agent, Giuliani, want this public statement 
of the investigations before they will give a date. And the 
Ukrainians want a date before they have to commit to making 
public they are going to do the investigations.
    So you have had this standoff where each is trying to get 
the deliverable first, but there is no debate about what the 
deliverable is on either side. There is no debate about the 
quid pro quo here: You give me this; I will give you that. You 
give me the White House meeting; I will give you the public 
announcement of the investigation into your political rival.
    No, no, no. You give me the announcement of the 
investigation into my rival, and then I will give you the 
meeting.
    The only debate here is about which comes first.
    August 10, Yermak texts Volker: [Slide 209]

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

    Ambassador Volker responded that he agreed but that first 
they would have to iron out a statement and use that to get a 
date, after which President Zelensky would give the statement. 
The two decided to have a call the next day and to include 
Ambassador Sondland.
    Yermak texts Ambassador Volker: [Slide 210]

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

    Yermak was also in direct contact with Ambassador Sondland 
regarding this revised approach. In fact, he sent Ambassador 
Sondland the same text message.
    Ambassador Sondland kept the leadership of the State 
Department in the loop. On August 10, he told Ambassador Volker 
that he had reported to T. Ulrich Breckbull, Counselor of the 
Department of State, who, Sondland testified, frequently 
consulted with Secretary Pompeo.
    Sondland wrote to Volker: I briefed Ulrich. All good. So 
Ulrich is in the loop.
    Sondland and Volker continued to pursue the statement from 
Zelensky on the investigations. The next day, Ambassador 
Sondland emails Breckbull and Lisa Kenna, the State 
Department's Executive Secretary, about efforts to secure a 
public statement and a big presser from President Zelensky.
    Sondland hoped it might ``make the boss happy enough to 
authorize an invitation.''
    After first being evasive on the topic, Secretary Pompeo 
has subsequently acknowledged that he listened in on the July 
25 call.
    Since he was on the call, Pompeo must have understood what 
would make the boss--that is, the President--happy enough to 
schedule a White House meeting.
    Again, everyone was in the loop. On August 11, Ambassador 
Volker sent Giuliani a text message. This is Volker to 
Giuliani: [Slide 211]

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

    And Giuliani says:

    Yes just call.

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

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. According to witness testimony, as you 
might imagine, Ukrainian officials were very uncomfortable with 
a draft that Giuliani, Volker, and Sondland were negotiating. 
They understood that the statement was the deliverable that 
President Trump wanted, but yielding to President Trump's 
demands would, in essence, force President Zelensky to break 
his promise to the Ukrainian people to root out corruption 
because politically motivated investigations are the hallmark 
of the kind of corruption that Ukraine has been plagued with in 
the past.
    Mr. Yermak tried to get some confirmation that the 
requested investigations were legitimate. In response to the 
draft statement Yermak asked Volker ``whether any request had 
ever been made by the U.S. to investigate election interference 
in 2016''; in other words, whether any request had been made by 
any official U.S. law enforcement agency through formal 
channels as you would expect if it were a legitimate request.
    Ambassador Volker, trying to find a satisfactory answer, on 
August 15, Volker's assistant asked Deputy Assistant Secretary 
George Kent whether there was any precedent for such a request 
for investigations. At his deposition, Kent testified that 
[Slide 212] ``if you're asking me, have we ever gone to the 
Ukrainians and asked them to investigate or prosecute 
individuals for political reasons, the answer is, I hope we 
haven't, and we shouldn't because that goes against everything 
that we are trying to promote in the post Soviet states for the 
last 28 years, which is promotion of the rule of law.''
    We are now on the next day, August 16. In a conversation 
with Ambassador Bill Taylor, the U.S. Ambassador in Kyiv--
Ambassador Taylor stepped in when Ambassador Yovanovitch was 
pushed out--Taylor ``amplified the same theme'' and told Kent 
that ``Yermak was very uncomfortable'' with the idea of 
investigations and suggested it should be done officially and 
put in writing.
    As a result, it became clear to Kent in mid-August that 
Ukraine was being pressured to conduct politically motivated 
investigations. Kent told Ambassador Taylor: ``That's wrong, 
and we shouldn't be doing that as a matter of U.S. policy.''
    Ambassador Volker claimed that he stopped pursuing the 
statement from the Ukrainians around this time because of the 
concerns raised by Zelensky's aide. At his deposition and 
despite all his efforts to secure a statement announcing these 
very specific political investigations desired by the 
President, Ambassador Volker testified that he agreed with 
Yermak's concerns and advised him that making those specific 
references was not a good idea because making those statements 
might look like it would play into our domestic politics.
    Without specific references to the politically damaging 
investigations that Trump demanded, the agreement just wouldn't 
work. Ukraine did not release the statement and, in turn, the 
White House meeting was not scheduled. As it turns out, 
Ambassadors Sondland and Volker did not achieve the 
breakthrough after all.
    Let's go into what finally breaks the logjam because that 
involves the military aid. With efforts to trade a White House 
meeting for a press statement announcing the investigations 
temporarily scuttled, Sondland and Volker go back to the 
drawing board. On August 19, Ambassador Sondland told Volker 
that he drove the larger issue home with Yermak, President 
Zelensky's top aide, particularly that this was now bigger than 
a White House meeting--bigger than just the White House meeting 
and was about the relationship per se. It is not just about the 
meeting anymore; it is about everything.
    By this time in late August, the hold on security 
assistance had been in place more than a month, and there was 
still no credible explanation offered by the White House 
despite some, like Ambassador Sondland, repeatedly asking. 
There were no interagency meetings since July 31, and the 
Defense Department had withdrawn its assurances that it could 
even comply with the law, which, indeed, it couldn't. Every 
agency in the administration opposed the hold. As the 
Government Accountability Office confirmed, concerned DOD and 
OMB officials had been right that the President's holding of 
the aid was an unlawful act, but President Trump was not 
budging.
    At the same time, despite the persistent efforts of 
numerous people, President Trump refused to schedule the 
coveted White House visit with President Zelensky until the 
investigations were announced that would benefit his campaign.
    Here is what Ambassador Sondland said about the hold on 
funds and its link to the politically motivated investigations 
in Ukraine.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Upon learning from Mr. Morrison that 
the military aid may be conditioned on Ukraine publicly 
announcing these two investigations, Ambassador Taylor sends an 
urgent text message to Ambassador Sondland asking: [Slide 213] 
``Are we now saying that security assistance and White House 
meeting are conditioned on investigations?'' And the response 
by Ambassador Sondland: ``Call me.''
    Well, you know what that means, right? You get a text 
message that is putting it in black and white:
    Are we saying security assistance and the White House 
meeting are conditioned on investigations?
    Call me.
    In other words, don't put this in writing; call me.
    Ambassador Taylor did, in fact, call Sondland. Informed by 
notes he took at the time of the call, he summarized that 
conversation as follows.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Ambassador Taylor testified that his 
contemporaneous notes of the call reflect that Sondland used 
the phrase ``public box'' to describe President Trump's desire 
to ensure that the initiation of his desired investigations was 
announced publicly. A private commitment was not good enough.
    The State Department has Ambassador Taylor's extensive 
notes, and of course we would like to show them to you to 
corroborate his testimony, but pursuant to the President's 
instructions, the State Department will not turn them over.
    You might recall from the tape yesterday that Ambassador 
Taylor said: They'll be shortly coming, I'm told.
    Well, somebody countermanded that instruction. Who do we 
think that was? But you should see them. If you have any 
question about what Sondland told Ambassador Taylor, if the 
President's counsel tries to create any confusion about what 
Sondland told Taylor about his conversation with the 
President--and, look, Sondland had one recollection in his 
deposition and another recollection in the first hearing and 
another recollection in the declaration. You want to know 
exactly what happened in that conversation when it was fresh in 
Sondland's mind and he told Taylor about it and Taylor wrote it 
in his notes, you are going to want Taylor's notes.
    In any courtroom in America holding a fair trial, you would 
want to see contemporaneous notes. This Senate should be no 
different. Demand those notes. Demand to see the truth. We are 
not afraid of those notes. We haven't seen them. We haven't 
seen them. Maybe those notes say something completely 
different. Maybe those notes say no quid pro quo. Maybe those 
notes say it was a perfect call. I would like to see them. I am 
willing to trust Ambassador Taylor's testimony and his 
recollection. I would like to see them. I would like to show 
them to you. They are yours for the asking.
    On September 25, the Washington Post editorial board 
reported concerns that President Trump was withholding military 
assistance for Ukraine and a White House meeting in order to 
force President Zelensky to announce investigations of Vice 
President Biden and purported Ukrainian interference in the 
U.S. election.
    The Post editorial board wrote: [Slide 214]

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. OK, so here we have two witnesses 
taking contemporaneous notes, both reflecting the same 
conversation--a conversation between Sondland and the President 
in which the President says, ``No quid pro quo,'' but quid pro 
quo. There are documents that prove this--documents that prove 
this that are yours for the asking. [Slide 215]
    The following day, September 8, Sondland texts Taylor and 
Volker to bring them up to speed on the conversations with 
President Trump and, subsequently, President Zelensky, whom he 
spoke to after President Trump: ``Guys, multiple conversations 
with Z,'' meaning Zelensky. ``POTUS. Let's talk.''
    Sondland spoke to Taylor shortly after this text, according 
to Ambassador Taylor. He testified again on his real time 
notes. Let's hear what he said.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So not only did Ambassador Sondland 
relate this conversation to Mr. Morrison and Mr. Taylor, not 
only did Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison talk about it, but 
Sondland said he relayed this conversation to Zelensky himself. 
Everyone was now in the loop on the military aid being withheld 
for the political investigations.
    Taylor continued recalling the startling analogy Ambassador 
Sondland used to describe President Trump's approach to 
Ukraine:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Ambassador Taylor testified that at the 
end of the Sondland-Zelensky conversation, President Zelensky 
said that he had relented and had agreed to do a CNN interview 
to announce the investigations.
    So there was a breakthrough after all. The promised meeting 
wasn't enough. The withheld security assistance broke the 
logjam. Zelensky was going to go on CNN and announce the 
investigations.
    Taylor, though, remained concerned that even if the 
Ukrainian leader did as President Trump required, President 
Trump might continue to withhold the vital U.S. security 
assistance in any event. Ambassador Taylor texted his concerns 
to Ambassador Volker and Sondland stating: [Slide 216]

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

    That is quite telling, too.
    What is Ambassador Taylor worried about? He is worried the 
Ukrainians are finally going to agree to do it. They are going 
to make the announcement, and they are still going to get 
stiffed on the aid.
    In his deposition, Ambassador Taylor elaborated: [Slide 
217]

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

    Meaning the United States--

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

    If it were to happen, Taylor has testified, he would quit.
    Early in the morning in Europe on September 9, which was 
12:47 a.m. in Washington, DC, Ambassador Taylor reiterated his 
concerns about the President's quid pro quo for security 
assistance in another series of text messages with Ambassadors 
Volker and Sondland.
    Here are the September 9 text messages. Taylor texts to 
Sondland: [Slide 218]

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

    Taylor goes on and says:

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

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

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

    Taylor said:

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

    Ambassador Taylor testified what he meant. He said that to 
withhold that assistance for no good reason other than to help 
with a political campaign made no sense. It was 
counterproductive to all of what we were trying to do. It was 
illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.
    In response to Ambassador Taylor's text message, Sondland 
replies at about 5 a.m. in Washington. So the message from 
Taylor goes out at 12:47 a.m. The message back from Sondland 
comes at 5 a.m. So it looks like it might be 5 hours later.
    So Taylor has texted at 12:47 a.m.: [Slide 219]

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

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

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

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

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

    As you can see Ambassador Sondland's subsequent testimony 
reveals that this text and other denials of a quid pro quo were 
intentionally false and simply designed to provide a written 
record of a false explanation that could later be used to 
conceal wrongdoing.
    The text message said there were no quid pro quos of any 
kind, but you have seen his testimony. He swore under oath. He 
was crystal clear when he said there was a quid pro quo for the 
White House meeting, and he subsequently testified there was a 
quid pro quo for the security assistance, as well, as confirmed 
by President Trump's direction to him on September 7.
    Sondland's recollection of this conversation with President 
Trump, as I mentioned, has evolved over time. Initially, in his 
deposition, he testified that the conversation with the 
President occurred between Taylor's text of September 9th at 
12:47, Washington time, and his response at 5 a.m. He recalled 
very little of the conversation at that time other than his 
belief that his text message reflected President Trump's 
response.
    Subsequently, though--and again, this is one of the reasons 
why you do depositions in closed session. Subsequently, after 
the opening statements of the testimony of Ambassador Taylor 
and Mr. Morrison were released, which described in overlapping 
and painful detail Sondland's conversation with President Trump 
on September 7, Ambassador Sondland submitted an addendum to 
his deposition testimony, which in relevant part said this: 
[Slide 220]

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

    During his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland purported 
to remember more of his conversation with President Trump, 
although he still maintained he couldn't remember if it was on 
September 7 or September 9.
    According to his testimony, President Trump did not 
specifically say there was a quid pro quo. But when Sondland 
simply asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, 
President Trump immediately brought up a quid pro quo. 
According to Sondland, President Trump said: [Slide 221]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    REPORTER. But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro 
quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the 
Democratic server happens as well.
    Mr. MULVANEY. We do that all the time with foreign policy.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. This evidence demonstrates that 
President Trump withheld the security assistance and the White 
House meeting with President Zelensky until Ukraine made a 
public statement announcing the two investigations targeted to 
help his political reelection efforts. But as you will learn 
next, he got caught, and a coverup ensued.
    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, thank 
you for your patience. This is a lot of information, but you 
have a very important obligation, and that is, ultimately, to 
decide whether the President committed impeachable offenses. In 
order to make that judgment, you have to have all of the facts.
    We are going through this chronology. We are close to being 
done, but it is important to know that while all of this 
material was going on and these deals were being made, there 
were other forces at work. Even before the President's freeze 
on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine became public on August 
28, Members of both Houses of Congress began to express 
concern.
    [Slide 222] On August 9, the Democratic leadership of the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committee wrote to the OMB and 
the White House, warning that a hold on assistance might 
constitute an illegal impoundment of funds. They urged the 
Trump administration to follow the law and obligate the funds.
    When the news of the frozen aid broke on August 28, 
congressional scrutiny of President Trump's decision increased. 
On September 3, a group of Senators, both Republicans and 
Democrats, including Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Rob 
Portman, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Ron Johnson, and Senator 
Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to Acting White House Chief of 
Staff Mick Mulvaney, expressing ``deep concerns . . . that the 
Administration is considering not obligating the Ukraine 
Security Initiative funds for 2019.'' [Slide 223]
    Two days later, as has been mentioned, on September 5, a 
Washington Post editorial expressed concern that President 
Trump was withholding military assistance to Ukraine in order 
to pressure President Zelensky to announce these 
investigations. That was the first public report linking the 
frozen security aid to the investigations that Mr. Giuliani had 
been publicly pressing for and that President Trump, as we have 
heard, had privately urged President Zelensky to conduct on the 
July 25 call.
    That same day, Senators Murphy and Johnson met with 
President Zelensky in Kyiv. Ambassador Taylor went with them, 
and he testified--Mr. Taylor testified that President 
Zelensky's ``first question to the senators was about the 
withheld security assistance.'' Ambassador Taylor testified 
that both Senators ``stressed that bipartisan support for 
Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine's most important strategic 
asset and that President Zelensky should not jeopardize that 
bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic 
politics.''
    Senator Johnson and Senator Murphy later submitted letters 
in which they explained that they sought to reassure President 
Zelensky that there was bipartisan support in Congress for 
providing Ukraine with military assistance and that they would 
continue to urge President Trump to lift the hold. Here is what 
they said in that letter. [Slide 224]
    Senator Murphy said: ``Senator Johnson and I assured 
Zelensky that Congress wanted to continue this funding, and 
would press Trump to release it immediately.''
    And Senator Johnson in the letter said: ``I explained that 
I had tried to persuade the President to authorize me to 
announce the hold was released but that I was unsuccessful.''
    As news of the President's hold on military assistance to 
Ukraine became public at the end of August, Congress, the 
press, and the public started to pay more attention to 
President Trump's activities with Ukraine. This risked exposing 
the scheme that you have heard so much about today.
    By now, the White House had learned that the inspector 
general of the intelligence community had found that a 
whistleblower complaint related to the same Ukraine matter was 
``credible'' and ``an urgent concern'' and that they were 
therefore required to send that complaint to Congress.
    On September 9, three House investigating committees sent a 
letter to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, stating that 
President Trump and Giuliani ``appeared to have acted outside 
legitimate law enforcement and diplomatic channels to coerce 
the Ukrainian government into pursuing two politically-
motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption 
activity.''
    The letter also said this: ``If the President is trying to 
pressure Ukraine into choosing between defending itself from 
Russian aggression without U.S. assistance or leveraging its 
judicial system to serve the ends of the Trump campaign, this 
would represent a staggering abuse of power, a boon to Moscow, 
and a betrayal of the public trust.''
    The Chairs requested that the White House preserve all 
relevant records and produce them by September 16. This 
included the transcript--or actually the call record of the 
July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky.
    Based on witness testimony, it looks like the White House 
Counsel's Office circulated the committee's document request 
around the White House. Tim Morrison, a senior director at the 
National Security Council, remembered seeing a copy of this 
letter. He also recalled that the three committees' Ukraine 
investigation was discussed at a meeting of senior level NSC 
staff soon after it was publicly announced. Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman recalled discussions among the NSC staff members that 
the investigation--and here is a quote--``might have the effect 
of releasing the hold on Ukraine military assistance because it 
would be potentially politically challenging for the 
Administration to justify that hold to Congress.''
    Later that same day, on September 9, the inspector general 
informed the House and Senate Intelligence Committees he had 
determined that the whistleblower complaint that had been 
submitted on August 12 appeared to be credible, met the 
definition of urgent concern under the statute, and yet he 
reported that for first time ever, the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence was withholding this whistleblower 
complaint from Congress. That violated the law, which required 
him to send it in 7 days. The Acting Director later testified 
that his office initially withheld the complaint based on 
advice from the White House in an unprecedented intervention by 
the Department of Justice.
    According to public reporting and testimony from the Acting 
DNI at a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee on 
September 26, the White House had been aware of the 
whistleblower complaint for weeks prior to the IG September 9 
letter to the Intelligence Committee.
    Acting DNI Maguire testified that when he received the 
whistleblower complaint from the inspector general, his office 
contacted the White House Counsel's Office for guidance. 
Consistent with Acting DNI Maguire's testimony, the New York 
Times has reported that, in late August, the President's 
current defense counsel, Mr. Cipollone, and NSC lawyer, John 
Eisenberg, personally briefed President Trump about the 
complaint's existence and told the President they believed the 
complaint could be withheld from Congress on executive 
privilege grounds.
    On September 10, the next day, Ambassador Bolton resigned 
from his position as National Security Advisor. On that same 
day, September 10, Chairman Schiff of the House Intelligence 
Committee wrote a letter to the Acting Director, demanding that 
he provide the complaint as the law required. The next day, on 
September 11, President Trump lifted the hold on the security 
assistance to Ukraine.
    Numerous witnesses have testified that they weren't aware 
of any reason why the hold was lifted, just that there was no 
explanation for the hold being implemented. There was no 
additional review, no additional European contribution, nothing 
to justify the President's change in his position, except he 
got caught. Just as there was no official explanation for why 
the hold on Ukrainian assistance was implemented, numerous 
witnesses testified that they were not provided with any reason 
for why the hold was lifted on September 11.
    For example, Jennifer Williams, who was a special adviser 
to Vice President Pence, testified that she was never given a 
reason for that decision; neither was Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman. Here is what he told us during the hearing.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mark Sandy, a career officer at OMB, 
testified he only learned of the possible rationale for the 
hold in early September after the Acting DNI had informed the 
White House about the whistleblower complaint.
    Sandy testified that sometime in early September he 
received an email from his boss, Michael Duffey. Approximately 
2 months after the hold had been placed, the email ``attributed 
the hold to the President's concern about other countries not 
contributing more to Ukraine'' and requested ``information 
about what additional countries were contributing to Ukraine.'' 
This was a different explanation than OMB had provided at the 
July 26 interagency meeting that referenced concerns about 
corruption.
    The Lieutenant Colonel testified that none of the facts on 
the ground about Ukrainian efforts to combat corruption or 
other countries' contributions to Ukraine had changed before 
President Trump lifted the hold.
    According to a press report, after Congress began 
investigating President Trump's scheme, the White House 
Counsel's Office opened an internal investigation relating to 
the July 25 call. The following slides provide excerpts from a 
report in the Washington Post.
    As part of that internal investigation, [Slide 225] White 
House lawyers reportedly gathered and reviewed hundreds of 
documents that revealed extensive efforts to generate an after-
the-fact justification for the hold on military assistance for 
Ukraine that had been ordered by the President.
    These documents reportedly include ``early August email 
exchanges between Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and White 
House budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for 
withholding the funds after the President had already ordered a 
hold in mid-July on the nearly $400 million in security 
assistance.''
    The Washington Post article also reported, and this is a 
quote: ``Emails show OMB Director Vought and OMB staffers 
arguing that withholding the aid was legal, while officials at 
the National Security Council and State Department protested. 
OMB lawyers said that it was legal to withhold the aid, as long 
as they deemed it a temporary hold.'' You should be able to see 
these documents, but the White House has withheld them from 
Congress. The House can't verify the news report, but you 
could. You could do that if you could see these documents. You 
should subpoena them, and there is no reason not to see all of 
the relevant documents.
    The lengthy delay created by President Trump's hold 
prevented the Department of Defense from spending all 
congressionally appropriated funds by the end of the fiscal 
year, as we have mentioned before. That meant the funds were 
going to expire on September 30 because, as we know, unused 
funds do not roll over to the next fiscal year. This confirmed 
the fears expressed by Cooper, Sandy, and others--concerns that 
were discussed within the relevant agencies in late July and 
throughout August.
    Ultimately, approximately $35 million of Ukraine military 
assistance--that is 14 percent of the DOD funds--remained 
unspent by the end of the fiscal year. In order to make sure 
that Ukraine did not permanently lose the $35 million of 
critical military assistance that had been frozen by the White 
House, Congress had to pass a provision on September 27--3 days 
before the funds were to expire--to ensure that the remaining 
$35 million could be sent to Ukraine.
    George Kent is an anti-corruption and rule-of-law expert. 
He told us that American anti-corruption efforts prioritized 
building institutional capacity, support for the rule of law, 
not the pursuit of individual investigations, particularly of 
political rivals. Here is how he explained their approach.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

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

    Mr. HOLMES. Our long-standing policy is to encourage them to 
establish, build rule of law institutions that are capable, that can 
pursue allegations. That's our policy. We've been doing that for some 
time with some success. Focusing on particular cases, particularly 
where there is interest of the President, just not part of what we've 
done. It's hard to explain why we would do that.

    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Unfortunately, we do know the 
explanation. We know why President Trump wanted President 
Zelensky to announce investigations--because it would help him 
in his election.
    On September 18, approximately a week before he was 
supposed to meet with President Trump at the United Nations 
General Assembly in New York, President Zelensky spoke by 
telephone with Vice President Pence.
    During her deposition, Jennifer Williams testified. She was 
Vice President Pence's assistant. She had testified that Vice 
President Pence basically reiterated that the hold on aid had 
been lifted and asked a bit more about how Zelensky's efforts 
were going.
    Following her deposition and while preparing for her 
testimony at the open hearing on November 19, Williams reviewed 
the documents--they had not been produced to us by the White 
House--and those documents refreshed her recollection of Vice 
President Pence's call with President Zelensky. The White House 
blocked Williams from testifying about her refreshed 
recollections of the Vice President's call when she appeared at 
the open public hearing. They claim that certain portions of 
the September 18 call, including the information that Williams 
wanted to tell us about, were classified.
    On November 26, she submitted a classified addition to her 
hearing testimony where she provided additional information 
about the Vice President's September 18 telephone call with 
President Zelensky. The Intelligence Committee provided this 
classified addition to the Judiciary Committee. It has been 
sent to the Senate for your review. Now, I have read that 
testimony. I will just say that a coverup is not a proper 
reason to classify a document.
    Vice President Pence has repeatedly said publicly that he 
has no objection to the White House releasing the actual 
transcript of his calls with President Zelensky. Yet his office 
has refused many requests by the committee to declassify 
Williams' addendum so the American people could also see the 
additional evidence about this call.
    We urge the Senators to review it, and we again ask that 
the White House declassify them. As the House wrote in two 
separate letters, there is no basis to keep it classified. 
Again, in case the White House needs a reminder, it is improper 
to keep something classified just to avoid embarrassment or to 
conceal wrongdoing.
    We have been through a lot of facts today. We have seen the 
President's scheme. A shakedown of Ukraine for his personal 
benefit was, I believe, an obvious abuse of his power. But this 
misconduct and scheme became exposed. Congress asked questions. 
The press reported. Nonpolitical officers in the government 
expressed concern. The whistleblower laws were activated.
    As this happened, there was an effort to create an after-
the-fact, misleading record to avoid responsibility for what 
the President had actually been doing. These were not the only 
efforts to hide misconduct, and misconduct continued. 
Congressman Schiff will review some of those items.
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. We have about 20 minutes left in the 
presentation tonight.
    I would like to now go through with you the President's 
efforts to hide this corrupt scheme even as it continued well 
into the fall of last year.
    On August 12, a whistleblower in the intelligence community 
submitted a complaint addressed to the congressional 
Intelligence Committees. This explosive document stated that 
President Trump had solicited foreign interference from Ukraine 
to assist his 2020 reelection bid.
    The complaint alleged a scheme by President Trump to 
``us[e] the power of his office to solicit interference from a 
foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.'' The complaint 
stated that the President had applied pressure on Ukraine to 
investigate one of the President's main domestic political 
rivals and detailed the involvement of the President's personal 
lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. The complaint also stated that the 
whistleblower believed the President's activities ``posed risks 
to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's 
efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in the U.S. 
elections.''
    Under the law, the whistleblower was required to file the 
complaint with the inspector general of the intelligence 
community, which was then required to vet and assess the 
complaint and determine if it warranted reporting to the 
Intelligence Committees. The law gives the inspector general 14 
days to conduct an initial review and then inform the Director 
of National Intelligence about his findings.
    On August 26, the inspector general sent the whistleblower 
complaint and the inspector general's preliminary determination 
to the Acting Director of National Intelligence. The inspector 
general wrote that based on his review of the complaint, its 
allegations constituted an ``urgent concern'' and appeared 
``credible'' under the statute. The inspector general confirmed 
that the whistleblower acted lawfully in bringing the complaint 
and credibly raised a legitimate concern that should be 
communicated to the Intelligence Committees of Congress.
    The Director of National Intelligence quickly informed the 
White House about the complaint.
    Under the law, the Acting Director of National Intelligence 
was required to forward the complaint and the inspector 
general's determination to the congressional Intelligence 
Committees no later than 7 days after he received them. The 
legal requirement is extremely clear. Upon receipt of the 
transmittal from the ICIG--that is the inspector general of the 
intelligence community--the Director shall, within 7 calendar 
days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the 
congressional Intelligence Committees, together with any 
comments the Director considers appropriate. Yet, despite the 
clear letter of the law, the White House mobilized to keep the 
information in the whistleblower complaint from Congress, 
including by inviting the Department of Justice to render an 
opinion as to whether the complaint could be withheld from 
Congress.
    The statutory deadline of September 2, when the Director of 
National Intelligence was required to turn them over to 
Congress, came and went, and the complaint remained hidden from 
Congress.
    Finally, on September 9, a full week after the complaint 
was required to be sent to Congress--and once again, an urgent 
concern--the inspector general wrote to the leaders of the 
Intelligence Committees to inform them that the Director of 
National Intelligence was withholding a whistleblower 
complaint, in direct contravention of past practice and the 
law.
    On September 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi 
announced that ``the House of Representatives is moving forward 
with an official impeachment inquiry.''
    The next day, the House of Representatives passed a 
resolution calling on the Trump administration to provide the 
whistleblower's complaint immediately to the congressional 
Intelligence Committees.
    Later that day, the White House publicly released the 
summary of the July 25 call between President Trump and 
President Zelensky and permitted the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence to provide the whistleblower's complaint 
and related documents to the congressional Intelligence 
Committees.
    The President himself was happy to discuss the motivations 
for the scheme in public. That day, in a joint press 
availability with President Zelensky at the United Nations 
General Assembly, President Trump reiterated that he wanted 
Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. No, I want him to do whatever he can. This was not 
his fault. He wasn't there. He's just been here recently. But whatever 
he can do in terms of corruption because the corruption is massive. 
Now, when Biden's son walks away with millions of dollars from Ukraine, 
and he knows nothing, and they're paying him millions of dollars, 
that's corruption.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Finally, the day after President Trump 
explained to the public that he wanted Ukraine to investigate 
former Vice President Biden, on the morning of September 26, 
the Intelligence Committee publicly released declassified 
redactions of two documents: the whistleblower's August 12 
complaint and the inspector general's August 26 transmittal to 
the Acting Director of National Intelligence.
    Even after the impeachment inquiry into the Ukraine matter 
began, President Trump and his proxy, Rudy Giuliani, had 
continued to publicly urge President Zelensky to launch an 
investigation of Vice President Biden and alleged 2016 election 
interference by Ukraine.
    On September 30, during his remarks at the swearing-in of 
the new Labor Secretary, President Trump stated this.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The same day, President Trump tweeted 
that he has an absolute right to investigate corruption. That 
really means he feels he has an absolute right to investigate 
or get foreign countries to investigate his political 
opponents. The President sent a similar tweet the next day, 
once again linking corruption with the Biden investigation: 
[Slide 226]

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

    Give him credit for being so obvious. ``This has nothing to 
do with politics or a political campaign against the Bidens,'' 
but you have got to investigate the Bidens. I guess that is 
just a coincidence.
    President Trump continued to demonstrate his eagerness to 
solicit foreign assistance related to his personal interests: 
``Here's what's okay,'' he said. ``If we feel there's 
corruption like I feel there was in the 2016 campaign--there 
was tremendous corruption against me. If we feel there's 
corruption, we have a right to go to a foreign country.''
    President Trump added that asking President Xi of China to 
investigate the Bidens ``is certainly something we can start 
thinking about.''
    Even last month--even last month--the President and 
Giuliani's scheme continued. During the first week of December, 
Giuliani traveled to Budapest, Kyiv, and Vienna to meet with 
former Ukrainian Government officials as part of a continuing 
effort to dig up dirt, political dirt, on Vice President Biden 
and advance the theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 
election.
    Asked about his interviews of former Ukrainian prosecutors, 
Giuliani told the New York Times that he was acting on behalf 
of his client, President Trump: [Slide 227] ``Like a good 
lawyer, I am gathering evidence to defend my client against the 
false charges being leveled against him.'' Indeed, evidence 
obtained by the House from Giuliani's associate confirms that 
he had been representing himself in as early as May 2019 as 
President Trump's personal lawyer, doing Donald J. Trump's 
personal bidding in his dealings with Ukraine.
    This letter of May 10, 2019, from Giuliani to Zelensky 
says, among other things: [Slide 228]

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

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

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

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

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

    That Friday, December 13, Giuliani reportedly met with 
President Trump at the White House, and on December 17 Giuliani 
confirmed to CNN that President Trump has been very supportive 
of his efforts to dig up dirt on Vice President Biden and 
Ukraine and that they are on the same page.
    The following day, on December 18, 2019, the House of 
Representatives approved the two Articles of Impeachment you 
are considering in this trial. Since the House voted on these 
articles, evidence has continued to come to light related to 
the President's corrupt scheme. Among other things, Freedom of 
Information Act lawsuits, press reporting, and documents 
provided to Congress from Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas 
further corroborate what we already know about the President's 
scheme.
    As Giuliani again said on December 17, President Trump has 
been ``very supportive'' of his efforts to dig up dirt on Vice 
President Biden and they are ``on the same page.''
    Parnas further corroborated what we already know about 
President Trump's scheme; that he was responsible for 
withholding military aid and sustaining that hold and that his 
personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, was working at the direction 
of President Trump himself.
    On December 20, new emails were released showing that, 91 
minutes after President Trump's call with Ukrainian President 
Zelensky, a top Office of Management and Budget aide asked the 
Department of Defense to hold off on sending military aid to 
Ukraine. So those were new documents that came on December 20.
    On December 29, revelations emerged from OMB Director and 
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's role about them--about 
that role in the delay of aid and efforts by lawyers at OMB, 
the Department of Justice, and the White House to justify the 
delay and the alarm that the delay caused within the 
administration. Those records just became available on December 
29.
    On January 2, newly unredacted Pentagon emails which raised 
serious concerns by Trump administration officials about the 
legality of the President's hold on aid became available.
    On January 6, former Trump National Security Advisor John 
Bolton announced that he would comply with a Senate subpoena 
compelling his testimony. His lawyers stated that he has new 
relevant information.
    On January 13, reports emerged that the Russian Government 
hacked the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, almost certainly in 
an effort to find information about Vice President Joe Biden's 
son in order to weaponize that information against Mr. Biden 
and in favor of Mr. Trump, just as Russia did against Secretary 
Clinton in favor of then-candidate Trump in 2016.
    That brings us up to January 13 of this year. Last week, 
House committees received new evidence from Lev Parnas that 
further demonstrates that the President was a central player in 
this scheme to pressure Ukraine for his political gain. Also 
last week, the Government Accountability Office found that 
President Trump violated the law when he withheld that aid.
    Last night we had further development when more redacted 
emails from the Office of Management and Budget were produced. 
I think Representative Crow showed you these. These are among 
the documents that were just released. I am sure that, if we 
could read under those redactions, it would be a very perfect 
email, but you have to ask: What is being redacted here? What 
is so important to keep confidential during the course of an 
impeachment inquiry?
    As you can see, right up until last night, evidence 
continues to be produced. The truth is going to come out. 
Indeed, the truth has already come out, but more and more of it 
will. More emails are going to come out. More witnesses are 
going to come forward. They are going to have more relevant 
information to share.
    The only question is, Do you want to hear it now? Do you 
want to know the full truth now? Do you want to know just who 
was in the loop? It sounds like everyone was in the loop. Do 
you want to know how broad this scheme was?
    We have the evidence to prove that President Trump ordered 
the aid withheld. He did so to coerce Ukraine to help his 
reelection campaign. He withheld a White House meeting to 
coerce the same sham investigations. We can and will prove 
President Trump guilty of this conduct and of obstructing the 
investigation into his misconduct, but you and the American 
people should know who else was involved in this scheme. You 
should want the whole truth to come out. You should want to 
know about every player in this sordid business. It is within 
your power to do so, and I would urge you, even if you are 
prepared to vote to convict and impeach and remove this 
President, to find out the full truth about how far this 
corruption goes because I think the public has a right to know.
    Now, today--well, yesterday we made the case for why you 
should hear this additional evidence and testimony. This 
morning, I introduced you to the broad sweep of the President's 
conduct, and then, during the course of today, we walked you 
through a factual chronology in realtime about how this plot 
unfolded. During that factual chronology today, you saw that, 
in March of this year, Giuliani began that smear campaign 
against Ambassador Yovanovitch in order to get her fired by 
President Trump, something he would later admit was necessary 
to get her out of the way because she was going to be in the 
way of these two investigations.
    This is the supposed anticorruption effort by the 
President: to get rid of a woman who has dedicated her career 
to representing the United States, often in dangerous parts of 
the world, to fighting corruption, and to promoting the rule of 
law. This plot begins with getting her out of the way, with the 
President saying that ``she is going to go through some 
things.'' This anticorruption reformer, this U.S. patriot--this 
plot begins with getting her out of the way.
    This says so much about the administration. Tellingly, it 
wasn't enough just to recall her or fire her. The President 
could have done that anytime. No. They wanted to destroy her 
because she had the audacity to stand in their way.
    So we heard in March about the effort to get rid of her, 
and it succeeded. And guess what message that sent to the 
Ukrainians about the power the President's lawyer has. The 
Ukrainians were watching this whole saga. They were hearing his 
interviews. They were seeing the smears he was putting out. And 
this attorney for the President, working hand in hand with 
these corrupt Ukrainians, was able to get a U.N. ambassador 
yanked out of her job. Proof positive--you want a window to 
this President, you want entre to this President, you want to 
make things happen with this President, you go through his 
lawyer. Never mind the State Department, never mind the 
National Security Council, never mind the Defense Department--
you go through his employer. That is March.
    In April, Zelensky has this huge victory in the 
Presidential election. He gets a congratulatory call from the 
President. The President assigns Vice President Pence to go to 
the inauguration.
    In May, Giuliani is rebuffed by Zelensky, cancels the trip 
to Ukraine--the one where he wanted to go, remember, and meddle 
in the investigation because, Giuliani says, enemies of Trump 
surround Zelensky. I guess that means he didn't get the 
meeting, and they must be enemies of the President. Of course, 
the Ukrainians know why he wants that meeting.
    In May, Trump disinvites Pence to the inauguration. Pence 
is going, Giuliani is rebuffed, Pence isn't going. That is May.
    Instead, May 23, we have this meeting at the White House, 
and there is a new party in town: the three amigos. They are 
going to be handling the Ukraine portfolio. They are told: Work 
with Rudy, work with Rudy. Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador 
Volker, Secretary Perry, work with Rudy.
    As you saw in June, Giuliani is pushing for these 
investigations, and they are trying to arrange these meetings 
and trying to make this happen. Also in June, the Defense 
Department announces they are going to release the military 
aid. The President reads about this, and then he stops it. He 
stops the aid.
    In July--July 10--you heard in the chronology, there is a 
meeting at the White House, the meeting in which Sondland 
blurts out in this meeting between the Ukrainians and 
Americans: Hey, they have a deal. They are trying to get this 
meeting, and there is a debate whether the meeting is going to 
happen and when it is going to happen. Sondland says: Hey, we 
have a deal with Mulvaney here. We are going to get this 
meeting, and you are going to do those investigations.
    Bolton stiffens and abruptly ends the meeting. That was the 
first meeting that day. Then Sondland brings the delegation to 
a different part of the White House, and they have the followup 
meeting where he makes it even more explicit--this drug deal is 
made even more explicit. Dr. Hill is told by Ambassador Bolton: 
You need to go talk to the lawyers; I don't want any part of 
this drug deal they are cooking up. That is July.
    July is the month where that email goes from Sondland to 
Pompeo and others, and everybody is in the loop. July is the 
month where the hold is implemented with no explanation. July 
is the month where Mueller testifies about Russia's systemic 
interference in our affairs. July is the month after Mueller 
testifies that the President believes he has escaped 
accountability.
    The next day in July is, of course, the July 25 call in 
which the President asks for his favor. July 26 is the date of 
the call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland. You 
know the one: ``Zelensky loves your ass,'' and he will do 
anything you want.
    Is he going to do the investigation? Yeah, he is going to 
do the investigation.
    July is the month of that conversation between Sondland and 
David Holmes, where Holmes says: Can you tell me candidly here 
what the President thinks of Ukraine? Does he give a ``blank'' 
about Ukraine? No, he doesn't give a ``blank'' about Ukraine. 
He only cares about the big stuff.
    Well, it is kind of big stuff here in Ukraine, like a war 
with the Russians.
    No, no, no. Big stuff that affects him personally, like the 
Biden investigation that Giuliani wants. That is the month of 
July.
    In August, we have that meeting between Giuliani and Yermak 
in Madrid. In August, we have the back and forth about the 
statement: No, you go first, and you commit and publicly 
announce investigations, and then we will give you a date.
    No, you go first. You give us the date, and then we will 
announce the investigations.
    Well, we will give you a statement that doesn't mention the 
specifics.
    No, no, you give us a statement that mentions the 
investigations.
    That is the month of August.
    August is also the month where it becomes clear that it is 
not just the meeting anymore. It is everything. Everything is 
conditioned on these investigations--the relationship, the 
money, the meeting. Sondland and Holmes testify it is as simple 
as two plus two equals four. That is all.
    In September, Sondland says to Yermak: Everything is 
conditioned on public announcements.
    Message delivered, no ambiguity: The Ukrainians are told 
quid pro quo.
    Taylor texts: This is crazy to withhold aid.
    September is the month--September 7 in particular, Trump 
and Sondland talk on the phone, and the President has that 
conversation where he says: No quid pro quo--except, here is 
the quid pro quo.
    Zelensky has to go to the mike, and what is more, he should 
want to do it.
    September is also the month where the investigations begin 
in Congress. September is the month where, after those 
investigations begin, after the President knows he has been 
caught, the aid is finally released. September is the month 
where Pence and Zelensky are on the phone and Jennifer Williams 
has classified information to share with you that I hope you 
will take a look at because it is relevant to these issues.
    That is September.
    In October, Trump admits: Yes, if it wasn't obvious enough, 
he wants Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. October 
is the month where he invites another nation, China, to 
investigate his opponent.
    This is the broad outline of the chronology that we went 
through today.
    Tomorrow, we will go through the law, the Constitution, and 
the facts as they apply to article I. That is the plan for 
tomorrow.
    We have introduced the case. We have gone through the 
chronology, and tomorrow, we will apply the facts to the law as 
it pertains to the President's abuse of power.
    Let me just conclude this evening by remarking again on 
what brought us here. What brought us here is that some 
courageous people came forward, courageous people that risked 
their entire careers. One of the things that has been striking 
to me about that, as I watch these witnesses like Maria 
Yovanovitch and Ambassador Taylor and David Holmes and others--
Dr. Hill--is how much these dedicated officials were willing to 
risk their career, the beginning of their career, the middle of 
their career, or late in their career, when they had everything 
to lose, but people senior to them, who have every advantage, 
who sit in positions of power, lack that same basic commitment, 
lack that same basic willingness to put their country first and 
expose wrongdoing.
    Why is it that Colonel Vindman, who worked for Fiona Hill, 
who worked for John Bolton and Dr. Kupperman, why is it they 
were willing to stick their neck out and answer lawful 
subpoenas when their bosses wouldn't? I don't know that I can 
answer that question, but I just can tell you, I have such 
admiration for the fact they did.
    I think this is some form of cosmic justice that this 
Ambassador that was so ruthlessly smeared is now a hero for her 
courage. There is justice in that. But what would really 
vindicate that leap of faith that she took is if we show the 
same courage. They risked everything--their careers--and, yes, 
I know what you are asked to decide may risk yours too, but if 
they could show the courage, so can we.
    I yield back.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 
243 of the 100th Congress, a single, one-page classified 
document identified by the House managers for filing with the 
Secretary of the Senate, that will be received on January 22, 
2020, shall not be made part of the public record and shall not 
be printed, but shall be made available pursuant to the 
Standing Order for the 100th Congress.
    The majority leader is recognized.
                         recognizing the pages
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, we are almost 
through for the evening. We will convene again at 1 o'clock 
tomorrow. Before we adjourn, I would like to acknowledge that 
tomorrow is the official last day for this term's Senate pages.
    (Applause, Senators rising.)
    In addition to witnessing this unusual event that we are 
all experiencing, they are studying for their final exams as 
well, and we wish them well, as they head off back to boring, 
normal high school.
    Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Leader, let me just add my thanks and 
gratitude from all of us. It is rare, particularly these days, 
when 100 Senators from both sides of the aisle, of every 
political persuasion, get up and give someone a standing 
ovation, but you deserve it.
    Thank you for your good work. We hope you have beautiful 
and successful lives.
    (Applause, Senators rising.)
              unanimous consent agreement--senate business
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent 
that on Tuesday, January 28, from 10 a.m. until 11 a.m., while 
the Senate is sitting in the Court of Impeachment and that 
notwithstanding the Senate's adjournment, the Senate can 
receive House messages and executive matters, committees be 
authorized to report legislative and executive matters, and 
Senators be allowed to submit statements for the Record, bills 
and resolutions and cosponsor requests and, where applicable, 
the Secretary of the Senate on behalf of the Presiding Officer 
be permitted to refer such matters.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                                ------                                


                   ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 1 P.M. TOMORROW

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, finally, I ask unanimous 
consent that the trial adjourn until 1 p.m. Thursday, January 
23, and this also constitute the adjournment of the Senate.
    There being no objection, at 9:42 p.m., the Senate, sitting 
as a Court of Impeachment, adjourned until Thursday, January 
23, 2020, at 1 p.m.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, January 23, 2020]

    The Senate met at 1:02 p.m. and was called to order by the 
Chief Justice of the United States.
                                ------                                


               TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE

                             UNITED STATES

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of 
Impeachment.
    The Chaplain will offer a prayer.
                                ------                                

                                 prayer
    The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following 
prayer:
    Let us pray.
    Almighty God, our rock of ages, be omnipresent during this 
impeachment trial, providing our Senators with the assuring 
awareness of Your powerful involvement. May they strive to have 
a clear conscience in whatever they do for You and country. 
Lord, help them remember that listening is often more than 
hearing. It can be an empathetic attentiveness that builds 
bridges and unites. May our Senators not permit fatigue or 
cynicism to jeopardize friendships that have existed for years. 
At every decision point throughout this trial, may they ask, 
which choice will bring God the greater glory?
    We pray in Your mighty Name. Amen.
                          pledge of allegiance
    The Chief Justice led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, 
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
                              the journal
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators will please be seated.
    If there is no objection, the Journal of proceedings of the 
trial are approved to date.
    The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
    The Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, made the 
proclamation as follows:

    Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep 
silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States 
is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by 
the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, President of 
the United States.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                           order of procedure
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, it is my understanding 
the schedule today will be similar to yesterday's proceedings. 
We will plan to take short breaks every 2 or 3 hours and will 
accommodate a 30-minute recess for dinner, assuming that is 
needed.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 
483, the managers of the House of Representatives have 16 hours 
and 42 minutes remaining to make the presentation of their 
case.
    The Senate will now hear you.
    The Presiding Officer recognizes Mr. Manager Schiff to 
continue the presentation of the case for the House of 
Representatives.
                      opening statement--continued
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, I thank you, and I 
thank the Senators for 2 now very long days. We are greatly 
appreciative of Chief Justice, knowing that, prior to your 
arrival in the Chamber each day, you have a lot of work at the 
Court, necessitating our beginning in the afternoon and going 
into the evening.
    I also want to, again, take this opportunity to thank the 
Senators for their long and considerable attention over the 
course of the last 2 days. I am not sure the Chief Justice is 
fully aware of just how rare it is, how extraordinary it is, 
for the House Members to be able to command the attention of 
Senators sitting silently for hours--or even for minutes, for 
that matter. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the morning starts 
out every day with the Sergeant at Arms warning you that, if 
you don't, you will be imprisoned. It is our hope that, when 
the trial concludes and you have heard us and you have heard 
the President's counsel over a series of long days, that you 
don't choose imprisonment instead of anything further.
    Two days ago we made the case for documents and for 
witnesses in the trial. Yesterday we walked through the 
chronology, the factual chronology, at some length.
    Today we will go through article I, the constitutional 
underpinnings of abuse of power, and apply the facts of the 
President's scheme to the law and Constitution. Here I must ask 
you for some forbearance. Of necessity, there will be some 
repetition of information from yesterday's chronology, and I 
want to explain the reason for it.
    You have now heard hundreds of hours of deposition and live 
testimony from the House condensed into an abbreviated 
narrative of the facts. We will now show you these facts and 
many others and how they are interwoven. You will see some of 
these facts and videos, therefore, in a new context, in a new 
light: in the light of what else we know and why it compels a 
finding of guilt and conviction. So there is some method to our 
madness.
    Tomorrow we will conclude the presentation of the facts and 
law on article I, and we will begin and complete the same on 
article II, the President's unconstitutional obstruction of 
Congress. The President's counsel will then have 3 days to make 
their presentations, and then you will have 16 hours to ask 
questions. Then the trial will begin. Then you will actually 
get to hear from the witnesses yourself, and then you will get 
to see the documents yourself--or so we hope, and so do the 
American people. After their testimony and after we have had 
closing arguments, then it will be in your hands.
    So let's begin today's presentation. I yield to House 
Manager Nadler.
    Mr. Manager NADLER. Good morning, Mr. Chief Justice, 
Senators, my fellow House managers, and counsel for the 
President. This is the third day of a solemn occasion for the 
American people.
    The Articles of Impeachment against President Trump rank 
among the most serious charges ever brought against a 
President. As our recital of the facts indicated, the articles 
are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the 
House, notwithstanding the President's complete stonewalling, 
his attempt to block all witnesses and all documents from the 
U.S. Congress.
    The first Article of Impeachment charges the President with 
abuse of power. President Trump used the powers of his office 
to solicit a foreign nation to interfere in our elections for 
his own personal benefit. [Slide 229]
    Note that the active solicitation itself--just the ask--
constitutes an abuse of power, but President Trump went 
further. In order to secure his favor from Ukraine, he withheld 
two official acts of immense value. First, he withheld the 
release of $391 million in vital military assistance 
appropriated by Congress on a bipartisan basis, which Ukraine 
needed to fight Russian aggression. Second, President Trump 
withheld a long-sought-after White House meeting which would 
confirm to the world that America stands behind Ukraine in its 
ongoing struggle.
    The President's conduct is wrong. It is illegal. It is 
dangerous. It captures the worst fears of our Founders and the 
Framers of the Constitution.
    Since President George Washington took office in 1789, no 
President has abused his power in this way. Let me say that 
again. No President has ever used his office to compel a 
foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections. Prior 
Presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct, and 
rightly so.
    Now, because President Trump has largely failed to convince 
the country that his conduct was remotely acceptable, he has 
adopted a fallback position. He argues that even if we 
disapprove of his misconduct, we cannot remove him for it. 
Frankly, that argument is itself terrifying. It confirms that 
this President sees no limits on his power or on his ability to 
use his public office for private gain. Of course, the 
President also believes that he can use his power to cover up 
his crimes.
    That leads me to the second article of impeachment, which 
charges that the President categorically, indiscriminately, and 
unlawfully obstructed our inquiry, the congressional inquiry, 
into his conduct. This Presidential stonewalling of Congress is 
unprecedented in the 238-year history of our constitutional 
Republic. It puts even President Nixon to shame. [Slide 229]
    Taken together, the articles and the evidence conclusively 
establish that President Trump has placed his own personal 
political interests first. He has placed them above our 
national security, above our free and fair elections, and above 
our system of checks and balances. This conduct is not America 
first; it is Donald Trump first. Donald Trump swore an oath to 
faithfully execute the laws. That means putting the Nation's 
interests above his own. The President has repeatedly, 
flagrantly, violated his oath.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GERHARDT. I just want to stress that if this--if what we're 
talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. This is 
precisely the misconduct that the Framers created a constitution, 
including impeachment, to protect against.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. All of the legal experts who testified 
before the House Judiciary Committee--those invited by the 
Democrats and those invited by the Republicans--all agreed that 
the conduct we have charged constitutes high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
    Professor Michael Gerhardt, the author of six books and the 
only joint witness when the House considered President 
Clinton's case, put it simply: ``If what we are talking about 
is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.''
    Professor Jonathan Turley, called by the Republicans as a 
witness, agreed that the articles charge an offense that is 
impeachable. In his written testimony, he stated: [Slide 230] 
``The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate 
one's political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable 
offense.''
    Thus far, we have presented the core factual narrative. 
None of that record can be seriously disputed, and none of it 
will be disputed.
    We can predict what the President's lawyers will say in the 
next few days. I urge you, Senators, to listen to it carefully. 
You will hear accusations and name-calling. You will hear 
complaints about the process in the House and the motives of 
the managers. You will hear that this all comes down to a phone 
call that was perfect--as if you had not just seen evidence of 
a months-long, government-wide effort to extort a foreign 
government. But you will not hear a refutation of the evidence. 
You will not hear testimony to refute the testimony you have 
seen. Indeed, if the President had any exculpatory witnesses--
even a single one--he would be demanding their appearance here, 
instead of urging you not to permit additional witnesses to 
testify.
    Let me offer a preview of the path ahead. First, we will 
examine the law of impeachable offenses, [Slide 231] with a 
focus on abuse of power. That will be the subject of my 
presentation. Then, my colleagues will apply the law to the 
facts. They will demonstrate that the President has 
unquestionably committed the high crimes and misdemeanors 
outlined in the first Article of Impeachment.
    Once those presentations are concluded, we will take the 
same approach to demonstrating President Trump's obstruction of 
Congress--the second Article of Impeachment. We will begin by 
stating the law. Then we will review the facts, and then we 
will apply the law to the facts, proving that President Trump 
is guilty of the second Article of Impeachment as well.
    With that roadmap to guide us, I will begin by walking 
through the law of abuse of power. Here, I will start by 
defining the phrase in the Constitution ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.''
    When the Framers selected this term, they meant it to 
capture, as George Mason put it, all manner of ``great and 
dangerous offenses'' against the Nation. In contemporary terms, 
the Framers had three specific offenses in mind: [Slide 232] 
abuse of power, betrayal of the Nation through foreign 
entanglements, and corruption of elections.
    You can think of these as the ABCs of high crimes and 
misdemeanors: abuse, betrayal, and corruption. The Framers 
believed that any one of these offenses, standing alone, 
justified removal from office.
    Professor Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School explained this 
well before the House Judiciary Committee. Here is his 
explanation of why the Framers created the impeachment power.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Professor FELDMAN. The Framers provided for the impeachment of the 
President because they feared that the President might abuse the power 
of his office for personal benefit, to corrupt the electoral process 
and ensure his reelection, or to subvert the national security of the 
United States.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. That is the standard as described by 
Professor Feldman. All three appear at once--abuse, betrayal, 
and corruption. That is where we have the strongest possible 
case for removing a President from office. Later on, we will 
apply this rule to the facts.
    Abuse: We will show that President Trump abused his power 
when he used his office to solicit and pressure Ukraine to 
meddle in our elections for his personal gain.
    Betrayal: We will show that he betrayed vital national 
interests--specifically, our national security--by withholding 
diplomatic support and military aid from Ukraine, even as it 
faced armed Russian aggression.
    Corruption: President Trump's intent was to corrupt our 
elections to his personal, political benefit. He put his 
personal interest in retaining power above free and fair 
elections--and above the principle that Americans must govern 
themselves, without interference from abroad.
    Article I thus charges a high crime and misdemeanor that 
blends abuse of power, betrayal of the Nation, and corruption 
in elections into a single, unforgivable scheme. That is why 
this President must be removed from office, especially before 
he continues his effort to corrupt our next election.
    The charges set forth in the first Article of Impeachment 
are firmly grounded in the Constitution of the United States. 
Simply stated, impeachment is the Constitution's final answer 
to a President who mistakes himself for a King.
    The Framers had risked their freedom, and their lives, to 
escape monarchy. Together, they resolved to build a nation 
committed to democracy and the rule of law--a beacon to the 
world at an age of aristocracy. In the United States of 
America, ``We the people'' would be sovereign. We would choose 
our leaders and hold them accountable for how they exercised 
power on our behalf.
    In writing our Constitution, the Framers recognized that we 
needed a Chief Executive who could lead the Nation with 
efficiency, energy, and dispatch. So they created a powerful 
Presidency and vested it with immense public trust. But this 
solution created a different problem.
    The Framers were not naive. They knew that power corrupts. 
They knew that republics cannot flourish--and that people 
cannot live free--under a corrupt leader. They foresaw that a 
President faithful only to himself would endanger every 
American. So the Framers built guardrails to ensure that the 
American people would remain free and to ensure that out-of-
control Presidents would not destroy everything they sought to 
build.
    They imposed elections every 4 years to ensure 
accountability. They banned the President from profiting off 
his office. They divided the powers of the Federal Government 
across three branches. They required the President to swear an 
oath to faithfully execute the laws.
    To the Framers, the concept of faithful execution was 
profoundly important. It prohibited the President from 
exercising power in bad faith or with corrupt intent, and thus 
ensured that the President would put the American people first, 
not himself.
    A few Framers would have stopped there. This minority 
feared vesting any branch of government with the power to 
remove a President from office. They would have relied on 
elections alone to address rogue Presidents. But that view was 
decisively rejected at the Constitutional Convention.
    Convening in the shadow of rebellion and revolution, the 
Framers would not deny the Nation an escape from Presidents who 
deemed themselves above the law. Instead, they adopted the 
power of impeachment. In so doing, they offered a clear answer 
to George Mason's question: ``Shall any man be above justice?'' 
As Mason himself explained, ``some mode of displacing an unfit 
magistrate is rendered indispensable by the fallibility of 
those who choose, as well as by the corrupt ability of the man 
chosen.''
    Unlike in Britain, the President would answer personally--
to Congress and thus to the Nation--for any serious wrongdoing. 
But this decision raised a question: What conduct would justify 
impeachment and removal?
    As careful students of history, the Framers knew that 
threats to democracy can take many forms. They feared would-be 
monarchs but also warned against fake populists, charismatic 
demagogues, and corrupt ``kleptocrats.''
    In describing the kind of leader who might menace the 
Nation, Alexander Hamilton offered an especially striking 
portrait. Mr. Schiff read this portrait in his introductory 
remarks and it bears repetition. [Slide 233]

    When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, 
bold in his temper . . . known to have scoffed in private at the 
principles of liberty--when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse 
of popularity--to join in the cry of danger to liberty--to take every 
opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under 
suspicion--to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots 
of the day--It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw 
things into confusion that he may ride the storm and direct the 
whirlwind.

    Hamilton was a wise man. He foresaw dangers far ahead of 
his time. Given the many threats they had to anticipate, the 
Framers considered extremely broad grounds for removing 
Presidents. For example, they debated setting the bar at 
maladministration, to allow removal for run-of-the-mill policy 
disagreements between Congress and the President.
    They also considered very narrow grounds, strictly limiting 
impeachment to treason and bribery. Ultimately, they struck a 
balance.
    They did not want Presidents removed for ordinary political 
or policy disagreements, but they intended impeachments to 
reach the full spectrum of Presidential misconduct that might 
threaten the Constitution, and they intended our Constitution 
to endure for the ages. They adopted a standard that meant, as 
Mason put it, to capture all manner of ``great and dangerous 
offenses'' incompatible with the Constitution. This standard, 
borrowed from the British Parliament, was ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.''
    In England, the standard was understood to capture offenses 
against the constitutional system itself. That is confirmed by 
the use of the word ``high,'' as well as by parliamentary 
practice.
    From 1376 to 1787 [Slide 234] the House of Commons 
impeached officials on a few general grounds--mainly consisting 
of abuse of power, betrayal of national security and foreign 
policy, corruption, treason, bribery, and disregarding the 
powers of Parliament.
    The phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' thus covered 
offenses against the Nation itself--in other words, crimes 
against the British Constitution.
    As scholars have shown, the same understanding prevailed on 
this side of the Atlantic. In the colonial period and under 
newly ratified State constitutions, most impeachments targeted 
abuse of power, betrayal of the revolutionary cause, 
corruption, treason, and bribery. These experiences were well-
known to the Framers of the Constitution.
    History thus teaches that ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' 
referred mainly to acts committed by officials using their 
power or privileges, that inflicted grave harm on society. Such 
great and dangerous offenses included treason, bribery, abuse 
of power, betrayal of the Nation, and corruption of office. And 
they were unified by a clear theme.
    Officials who abused, abandoned, or sought to benefit 
personally from their public trust--and who threatened the rule 
of law if left in power--faced impeachment and removal. Abuse, 
betrayal, corruption--this is exactly the understanding that 
the Framers incorporated into the Constitution.
    As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wisely observed, 
``the purpose of the Constitution was not only to grant power, 
but to keep it from getting out of hand.''
    Nowhere is that truer than in Presidency. As the Framers 
created a formidable Chief Executive, they made clear that 
impeachment is justified for serious abuse of power. [Slide 
235]
    James Madison stated that impeachment is necessary because 
the President ``might pervert his administration into a scheme 
of . . . oppression.''
    Hamilton set the standard for removal at an ``abuse or 
violation of some public trust.''
    And in Massachusetts, Rev. Samuel Stillman asked: ``With 
such a prospect [of impeachment], who will dare to abuse the 
powers vested in him by the people?''
    Time and again, Americans who wrote and ratified the 
Constitution confirmed that Presidents may be impeached for 
abusing the power entrusted to them.
    To the Framers' generation, moreover, abuse of power was a 
well-understood offense. It took two basic forms. The first 
occurred when someone exercised power in ways far beyond what 
the law allowed [Slide 236]--or in ways that destroyed checks 
on their own authority.
    The second occurred when an official exercised power to 
obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring 
the national interest. In other words, the President may commit 
an impeachable abuse of power in two different ways: by 
engaging in clearly forbidden acts or by taking actions that 
are allowed but for reasons that are not allowed--for instance, 
to obtain corrupt, private benefits.
    Let me unpack that idea, starting with the first category: 
conduct clearly inconsistent with the law, including the law of 
checks and balances. The generation that rebelled against 
George III knew what absolute power looked like. It was no 
abstraction to them. They had a different idea in mind when 
they organized our government. Most significantly, they placed 
the President under the law, not above it. That means the 
President may exercise only the powers vested in him by the 
Constitution. He must also respect the legal limits on the 
exercise of those powers. [Slide 237]
    A President who egregiously refuses to follow these 
restrictions, by engaging in wrongful conduct, may be subjected 
to impeachment for abuse of power. Two American impeachment 
inquiries have involved claims that a President grossly 
violated the Constitution's separation of powers.
    The first was in 1868, when the House impeached President 
Andrew Johnson, who had succeeded Abraham Lincoln after his 
assassination at Ford's Theatre.
    In firing the Secretary of War, President Johnson allegedly 
violated the Tenure of Office Act, which restricted the 
President's power to remove Cabinet members during the term of 
the President who had appointed them.
    The House of Representatives approved articles charging him 
with conduct forbidden by law. [Slide 238] That is an action 
that is an abuse of power on its face. Ultimately, the Senate 
acquitted President Johnson by one vote. This was partly 
because there was a strong argument that the Tenure of Office 
Act, which President Johnson was charged with violating, was 
itself unconstitutional--a position the Supreme Court later 
accepted. Of course, historians have also noted that a key 
Senator appears to have changed his vote at the last minute in 
exchange for promises of special treatment by President 
Johnson. So perhaps that acquittal means a little less than 
meets the eye.
    In any event, just over 100 years later, the House 
Judiciary Committee accused the second Chief Executive of 
abusing his power in a manner egregiously inconsistent with the 
law. The committee charged President Nixon with obstruction of 
Congress based on his meritless assertion of executive 
privilege to cover up key White House tape recordings.
    We will have more to say about the obstruction charge in a 
moment.
    But the Nixon case also exemplifies the second way a 
President can abuse his power. President Nixon faced two more 
Articles of Impeachment. Both of these articles charged him 
with abusing the powers of his office with corrupt intent. One 
focused on his abuse of power to obstruct law enforcement. 
[Slide 239] The other targeted his abuse of power to target 
political opponents. Each article enumerated specific abuses by 
President Nixon, many of which involved the wrongful, corrupt 
exercise of Presidential power and many of which were likely 
not statutory crimes.
    In explaining its second article, the House Judiciary 
Committee stated that President Nixon's conduct was 
``undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in 
furtherance of any valid national policy objective.''
    That should sound familiar to everyone here. It reflects 
the standard I have already articulated: the exercise of 
official power to corruptly obtain a personal benefit while 
ignoring or injuring the national interest. [Slide 240]
    To be sure, all Presidents account to some extent for how 
their decisions in office may affect their political prospects. 
The Constitution does not forbid that. Elected officials can 
and should care about how voters will react to their decisions. 
They will often care about whether their decisions make it more 
likely that they will be reelected. But there is a difference--
a difference that matters--between political calculus and 
outright corruption.
    Some uses of Presidential power are so outrageous, so 
obviously improper, that if they are undertaken for a 
President's own personal gain, with injury or indifference to 
core national interests, then they are obviously high crimes 
and misdemeanors. Otherwise, even the most egregious wrongdoing 
could be justified as disagreement over policy or politics, and 
corruption that would have shocked the Framers--that they 
expressly sought to prohibit--would overcome the protections 
they established for our benefit.
    There should be nothing surprising about impeaching a 
President for using his power with corrupt motives. The House 
and Senate have confirmed this point in prior impeachments. 
More important, the Constitution itself says that we can do so.
    To start, the Constitution requires that the President 
``faithfully execute'' the law. A President who acts with 
corrupt motives, putting himself above country, has acted 
faithlessly, not faithfully executing the law.
    Moreover, the two impeachable offenses that the 
Constitution enumerates--Treason and Bribery--each require 
proof of the President's mental state. For treason, he must 
have acted with a ``disloyal mind,'' according to the Supreme 
Court. And it is well established that the elements of bribery 
include corrupt motives.
    In sum, to the Framers, it was dangerous for officials to 
exceed their constitutional power. But it was equally 
dangerous--perhaps more so--for officials to use their power 
with corrupt, nefarious motives, thus perverting public trust 
for private gain.
    Abuse of power is clearly an impeachable offense under the 
Constitution. To be honest, this should not be a controversial 
statement. I find it amazing that the President rejects it. Yet 
he does. He insists there is no such thing as impeachable abuse 
of power. This position is dead wrong. All prior impeachments 
considered of high office have always included abuse of power. 
All of the experts who testified before the House Judiciary 
Committee, including those called by the Republicans, agreed 
that abuse of power is a high crime and misdemeanor.
    Here is testimony from Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law 
School, joined by Professor Gerhardt.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Professor EISEN. Professor Karlan, do scholars of impeachment 
generally agree that abuse of power is an impeachable offense?
    Professor KARLAN. Yes, they do.
    Professor EISEN. Professor Gerhardt, do you agree that abuse of 
power is impeachable?
    Professor GERHARDT. Yes, sir.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. Professor Turley, who testified at the 
Republican invitation, echoed that view. In fact, he not only 
agreed, but he ``stressed'' that ``it is possible to establish 
a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of 
abuse of power.'' [Slide 241]
    Professor Turley is hardly the only legal expert to take 
that view. Another who comes to mind is Professor Allen 
Dershowitz--at least Alan Dershowitz in 1998. Back then, here 
is what he had to say about impeachment for abuse of power.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. DERSHOWITZ. It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you 
have somebody who completely corrupts the office of President and who 
abuses trust and poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a 
technical crime.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. But we need not look to 1998 to find 
one of President Trump's key allies espousing this view. 
Consider the comments of our current Attorney General, William 
Barr, a man known for his extraordinarily expansive view of 
Executive power. In Attorney General Barr's view, as expressed 
about 18 months ago, Presidents cannot be indicted or 
criminally investigated [Slide 242]--but that's OK because they 
can be impeached. That's the safeguard. And in an impeachment, 
Attorney General added, the President is ``answerable for any 
abuses of discretion'' and may be held ``accountable under law 
for his misdeeds in office.''
    In other words, Attorney General Barr believes, along with 
the Office of Legal Counsel, that a President may not be 
indicted. He believes that is OK. We don't need that safeguard 
against a President who would commit abuses of power. It is OK 
because he can be impeached. That is the safeguard for abuses 
of discretion and for his misdeeds in office.
    More recently, a group of the Nation's leading 
constitutional scholars--ranging across the ideological 
spectrum from Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe to former 
Ronald Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried--issued a 
statement affirming that ``abuse of power counts as an instance 
of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under the 
Constitution.'' [Slide 243]
    They added: ``That was clearly the view of the 
Constitution's framers.''
    I could go on, but you get the point. Everyone, except 
President Trump and his lawyers, agrees that Presidents can be 
impeached for abuse of power. The President's position amounts 
to nothing but self-serving constitutional nonsense. And it is 
dangerous nonsense at that. A President who sees no limit on 
his power manifestly threatens the Republic.
    The Constitution always matches power with constraint. 
[Slide 244] That is true even of powers vested in the Chief 
Executive. Nobody is entitled to wield power under the 
Constitution if they ignore or betray the Nation's interests to 
advance their own. President Nixon was wrong in asserting that 
``when the President does it, that means it is not illegal.'' 
And President Trump was equally wrong when he declared that he 
had ``the right to do whatever I want as president.''
    Under the Constitution, he is subject to impeachment and 
removal for abuse of power. And as we will prove, that is 
exactly what must happen here.
    Of course, President Trump's abuse of power--as charged in 
the first Article of Impeachment and supported by a mountain of 
evidence--is aggravated by another concern at the heart of the 
Constitution's impeachment clause.
    Betrayal. The Founders of our country were not fearful men. 
When they wrote our Constitution, they had only recently won a 
bloody war for independence. But as they looked outward from 
their new Nation, they saw Kings scheming for power, promising 
fabulous wealth to spies and deserters. [Slide 245] The United 
States could be enmeshed in such conspiracies. ``Foreign 
powers,'' warned Elbridge Gerry, ``will intermeddle in our 
affairs, and spare no expense to influence them.''
    The young Republic might not survive a President who 
schemed with other nations, entangling himself in secret deals 
that harmed our democracy. That reality loomed over the 
impeachment debate in Philadelphia.
    Explaining why the Constitution required an impeachment 
option, Madison argued that a President ``might betray his 
trust to foreign powers.'' To be sure, the Framers did not 
intend impeachment for genuine, good faith disagreements 
between the President and Congress over matters of diplomacy. 
But they were explicit that betrayal of the Nation through 
plots with foreign powers must result in removal from office. 
And no such betrayal scared them more than foreign interference 
in our democracy.
    In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned Americans 
``to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove 
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of 
republican government.''
    And in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote: 
[Slide 246]

    You are apprehensive of foreign Interference, Intrigue, 
Influence.--So am I.--But, as often as Elections happen, the danger of 
foreign Influence recurs.

    The Framers never suggested that the President's role in 
foreign affairs should prevent Congress from impeaching him for 
treachery in his dealings. Case in point: they wrote a 
Constitution that gives Congress extensive responsibility over 
foreign affairs--Congress--including the power to declare war, 
regulate foreign commerce, establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization, and define offenses against the law of nations.
    Contrary to the claims you heard the other day--that the 
President has plenary authority in foreign affairs and there is 
nothing Congress can do about it--the Supreme Court has stated 
that constitutional authority over the ``conduct of the foreign 
relations of our Government'' is shared between ``the Executive 
and Legislative [branches].''
    Or to quote another Supreme Court case: ``The Executive is 
not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress 
merely because foreign affairs are at issue.''
    In these realms, Justice Jackson wrote, the Constitution 
``enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, 
autonomy but reciprocity.''
    Where the President betrays our national security and 
foreign policy interests for his own personal gain, he is 
unquestionably subject to impeachment and removal. The same is 
true of a different concern raised by the Framers: the use of 
Presidential power to corrupt the elections and the Office of 
the Presidency.
    The Framers were no strangers to corruption. [Slide 247] 
They understood that corruption had broken Rome, debased 
Britain, and threatened America. They saw no shortage of 
threats to the Republic and fought valiantly to guard against 
them. But as one scholar writes, ``the big fear underlying all 
the small fears was whether they'd be able to control 
corruption.''
    So the Framers attempted to build a government in which 
officials would not use public power for personal benefits, 
disregarding the public good in pursuit of their own 
advancement.
    This principle applied with special force to the 
Presidency. As Madison emphasized, because the Presidency ``was 
to be administered by a single man,'' his corruption ``might be 
fatal to the Republic.''
    Indeed, no fewer than four delegates to the Constitutional 
Convention--Madison, plus Morris, Mason, and Randolph--listed 
corruption as a central reason why Presidents must be subject 
to impeachment and removal from office. Impeachment was seen as 
especially necessary for Presidential conduct corrupting our 
system of political self-government. The Framers foresaw and 
feared that a President might someday place his personal 
interest in reelection above our abiding commitment to 
democracy. Such a President, in their view, would need to be 
removed from office.
    Professor Feldman made this point in his testimony before 
the House Judiciary Committee:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Professor FELDMAN. The Framers reserved impeachment for situations 
where the President abused his office, that is, used it for his 
personal advantage. And, in particular, they were specifically worried 
about a situation where the President used his office to facilitate 
corruptly his own reelection. That's, in fact, why they thought they 
needed impeachment and why waiting for the next election wasn't good 
enough.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. Professor Feldman's testimony is 
grounded in the records of the Constitutional Convention.
    There, William Davie warned that a President who abused his 
office might spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself 
reelected and, thus, to escape justice.
    George Mason built on Davie's position, asking: ``Shall the 
man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured 
his appointment to the first instance, be suffered to escape 
punishment by repeating his guilt?'' Mason's concern was 
straightforward. He feared that Presidents would win election 
by improperly influencing members of the electoral college.
    Gouverneur Morris later echoed this point, urging that the 
Executive ought therefore to be impeachable for corrupting his 
electors.
    Taken together, these debates demonstrate an essential 
point: The Framers knew that a President who abused power to 
manipulate elections presented the greatest possible threat to 
the Constitution. After all, the beating heart of the Framers' 
project was a commitment to popular sovereignty.
    At a time when democratic self-government existed almost 
nowhere on Earth, the Framers imagined a society where power 
flowed from and returned to the people. That is why the 
President and Members of Congress must stand before the public 
for reelection on fixed terms, and if the President abuses his 
power to corrupt those elections, he threatens the entire 
system.
    As Professor Karlan explained in her testimony:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Professor KARLAN. [D]rawing a foreign government into our elections 
is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy 
itself. Our Constitution begins with the words ``We the people'' for a 
reason. Our government, in James Madison's words, derives all its 
powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and 
the way it derives these powers is through elections. Elections matter, 
both to the legitimacy of our government and to all of our individual 
freedoms, because, as the Supreme Court declared more than a century 
ago, voting is preservative of all rights.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. Professor Karlan is right--elections 
matter. They make our government legitimate, and they protect 
our freedom. A President who abuses his power in order to 
kneecap political opponents and spread Russian conspiracy 
theories--a President who uses his office to ask for or, even 
worse, to compel foreign nations to meddle in our elections--is 
a President who attacks the very foundations of our liberty. 
That is a grave abuse of power. It is an unprecedented betrayal 
of the national interest. It is a shocking corruption of the 
election process, and it is without a doubt a crime against the 
Constitution, warranting, demanding his removal from office.
    The Framers expected that free elections would be the usual 
means of protecting our freedoms, but they knew that a 
President who sought foreign assistance in his campaign must be 
removed from office before he could steal the next election.
    In a last-ditch legal defense of their client, the 
President's lawyers argue that impeachment and removal are 
subject to statutory crimes or to offenses against established 
law, that the President cannot be impeached because he has not 
committed a crime. This view is completely wrong. It has no 
support in constitutional text and structure, original meaning, 
congressional precedents, common sense, or the consensus of 
credible experts. In other words, it conflicts with every 
relevant consideration.
    Professor Gerhardt succinctly captured the consensus view 
in his testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, Professor Gerhardt, does a high crime and 
misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime?
    Professor GERHARDT. No. It plainly does not. Everything we know 
about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that 
impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes. And, again, not all 
crimes are impeachable offenses. We look, again, at the context of the 
gravity of the misconduct.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. This position was echoed by the 
Republicans' expert witness, Professor Turley, in his written 
testimony.
    There, he stated: ``It is possible to establish a case for 
impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of 
power.'' [Slide 248]
    He also stated: ``It is clear that high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors can encompass non-criminal conduct.''
    More recently, Professor Turley--again, the Republican 
witness at our hearing--wrote an opinion piece in the 
Washington Post entitled ``Where the Trump defense goes too 
far.'' In this piece, he stated that the President's argument 
``is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally 
shortsighted.'' He added: ``If successful, it would also come 
at a considerable cost for the Constitution.'' Although I 
disagree with Professor Turley on many, many issues, here, he 
is clearly right.
    I might say the same thing of then-House Manager Lindsey 
Graham, who, in President Clinton's trial, flatly rejected the 
notion that impeachable offenses are limited to violations of 
established law.
    This is what he said:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GRAHAM. What is a high crime? How about if an important person 
hurts somebody of low means? It is not very scholarly, but I think it's 
the truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes. It doesn't 
have to be a crime. It is just--when you start using your office and 
you're acting in a way that hurts people, you have committed a high 
crime.

    Mr. Manager NADLER. There are many reasons why high crimes 
and misdemeanors are not and cannot be limited to violations of 
the Criminal Code. We address them at length in the briefs we 
have filed and in the report of the House Judiciary Committee 
respecting these Articles of Impeachment, but I would like to 
highlight a few especially important considerations. I will 
tick through them quickly.
    First, there is the matter of the historical record. The 
Framers could not have meant to limit impeachment to statutory 
crimes. Presidents are to be impeached and removed from office 
for ``treason, bribery, and other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors,'' but bribery was not made a statutory crime 
until 1837. [Slide 249]
    Second, the President's position is contradicted by the 
Constitution's text. The Framers repeatedly referred to 
``crimes,'' ``offenses,'' and ``punishment'' elsewhere in the 
Constitution, but here they refer to ``high Crimes.'' That 
matters. It matters because the phrase ``high Crimes'' refers 
to offenses against the State rather than to workaday crimes, 
and it matters because the phrase ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' had a rich history in England, where it had been 
applied in many, many cases that did not involve crimes under 
British law. When the Framers added ``high Crimes'' here but 
nowhere else in the Constitution, they made a deliberate 
choice. Any doubt in that score is dispelled by the Framers' 
own statements.
    In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton explained that 
impeachable offenses are defined fundamentally by ``the abuse 
or violation of some public trust.''
    A few years later, James Wilson, a Constitutional 
Convention delegate, agreed with Hamilton.
    Wilson stated:

    Impeachments, and offences and offenders impeachable, come not . . 
. within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence. They are founded on 
different principles, governed by different maxims, and are directed to 
different objects.

    George Mason expressed concern that the President might 
abuse the pardon power to ``screen from punishment those whom 
he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby 
prevent a discovery of his own guilt.'' Sound familiar?
    James Madison responded directly to Mason's concern because 
Mason's concern was that the pardon power might be too broad 
and the President might misuse his broad pardon power to pardon 
his own coconspirators and prevent a discovery of his own 
guilt.
    Madison responded:

    If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any 
person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House 
of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found 
guilty.

    At the North Carolina ratifying convention, James Iredell, 
who would go on to serve on the Supreme Court, responded to the 
same concern. He assured delegates that if the President abused 
his power with ``some corrupt motive or other,'' he would be 
``liable for impeachment.''
    In the early 1800s, this understanding was echoed by 
Supreme Court Justice Story, who wrote a famous treatise on the 
Constitution. There, he rejected the equation of crimes and 
impeachable offenses, which, he stated, ``must be examined upon 
very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and 
duty.''
    Later in American history, Chief Justice and former 
President William Howard Taft, as well as Chief Justice Charles 
Evans Hughes, publicly stated that impeachable offenses are not 
limited to crimes but, instead, capture a broader range of 
misconduct. Indeed, under Chief Justice Taft, the Supreme Court 
unanimously observed that abuse of the President's pardon power 
to frustrate the enforcement of court orders ``would suggest 
resort to impeachment.'' Now, notice, pardon power is 
unlimited. What they are saying here is the abuse of the pardon 
power. Abuse of the pardon power for a corrupt motive is 
impeachable.
    If all of that authority is not enough to convince you, 
there is more.
    Historians have shown that American colonists before the 
Revolution and American States after the Revolution but before 
1787 all impeached officials for noncriminal conduct. Over the 
past two centuries, moreover, a strong majority of the 
impeachments voted by the House have included one or more 
allegations that did not charge a violation of criminal law. 
Indeed, the Senate has convicted and removed multiple judges on 
noncriminal grounds.
    Judge Archbald was removed in 1912 for noncriminal 
speculation in coal properties.
    Judge Ritter was removed in 1936 for the noncriminal 
offense of bringing his court ``into scandal and disrepute.'' 
During Judge Ritter's case, one of my predecessors as chairman 
of the House Judiciary Committee stated expressly: ``We do not 
assume the responsibility . . . of proving that the respondent 
is guilty of a crime as that term is known in criminal 
jurisprudence.'' What is true for judges is also true for 
Presidents, at least on this point.
    The House Judiciary Committee approved three Articles of 
Impeachment against President Nixon. [Slide 249] Each of them 
encompassed many acts that did not violate Federal law. One of 
the articles--obstruction of Congress--involved no allegations 
of any legal violation.
    It is worth reflecting on why President Nixon was forced to 
resign. Most Americans are familiar with the story. The House 
Judiciary Committee approved Articles of Impeachment in July 
1974. Those articles passed with bipartisan support, although 
most Republicans stood by President Nixon.
    Then the smoking gun tape came out. Within a week, almost 
everyone who supported the President the week before changed 
his position, and the President was forced to resign because of 
what was revealed on the smoking gun tape. Within a week, 
Senator Goldwater and others from the Senate went to the 
President and said: You won't have a single vote in the Senate. 
You must resign, or you will be removed from office because of 
the evidence on the smoking gun tape.
    But what was on the smoking gun tape? The smoking gun tape 
had recordings of President Nixon's instructing White House 
officials to pressure the CIA and the FBI to end the Watergate 
investigation. No law explicitly prohibited that conversation--
it was not, in that sense, a crime--but President Nixon had 
abused his power. He had tried to use two government agencies--
the FBI and the CIA--for his personal benefit. His impeachment 
and removal were certain, and he announced his resignation 
within days.
    Decades later, in President Clinton's case, the Judiciary 
Committee's report on the Articles of Impeachment stated: ``The 
actions of President Clinton do not have to rise to the level 
of violating the federal statute regarding obstruction of 
justice in order to justify impeachment.''
    There is, thus, overwhelming authority against restricting 
impeachments to violations of established or statutory law. 
Every relevant principle of constitutional law compels that 
result. So does common sense.
    Impeachment is not a punishment for crimes. Impeachment 
exists to address threats to the political system, applies only 
to political officials, and responds not by imprisonment or 
fines but only by stripping political power.
    It would make no sense to say that a President who engages 
in horrific abuses must be allowed to remain in office unless 
Congress had anticipated his or her specific conduct in advance 
and written a statute expressly outlawing it. For one thing, 
that would be practically impossible. As Justice Story 
observed, the threats posed by Presidential abuse ``are of so 
various and complex a character'' that it would be ``almost 
absurd'' to attempt a comprehensive list.
    The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not leave 
us stuck with Presidents who abuse their power in unforeseen 
ways that threaten our security and democracy.
    Until recently it did not occur to me that our President 
would call a foreign leader and demand a sham investigation 
meant to kneecap his political opponents, all in exchange for 
releasing vital military aid that the President was already 
required by law to provide.
    No one anticipated that a President would stoop to this 
misconduct, and Congress has passed no specific law to make 
this behavior a crime.
    Yet this is precisely the kind of abuse that the Framers 
had in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause and when 
they charged Congress with determining when the President's 
conduct was so clearly wrong, so definitely beyond the pale, so 
threatening to the constitutional order as to require his 
removal, and that is why we are here today.
    You must judge for yourselves whether justice will be had 
for President Trump's crimes against our freedom and the 
Constitution.
    I will conclude by highlighting a few points that merit 
special emphasis, as you apply the law of impeachment to 
President Trump's misconduct.
    First, impeachment is not for petty offenses. [Slide 250] 
The President's conduct must constitute, as Mason put it, a 
great and dangerous offense against the Nation--offenses that 
threaten the Constitution.
    Second, impeachable offenses involve wrongdoing that reveal 
the President as a continuing threat if he is allowed to remain 
in office. In other words, we fully recognize that impeachment 
does not exist for a mistake. It does not apply to acts that 
are merely unwise or unpopular. Impeachment is reserved for 
deliberate decisions by the President to embark on a course of 
conduct that betrays his oath of office and does violence to 
the Constitution.
    When the President has engaged in such conduct, and when 
there is strong evidence that he will do so again--when he has 
told us he will do so again, when he has told us that it is OK 
to invite interference from a foreign power into our next 
election--the case for removal is at its peak.
    This is certainly the case when he invites, indeed, 
attempts to compel a foreign government to help him subvert the 
integrity of our next election. There can be no greater threat 
to the Republic.
    Finally, high crimes and misdemeanors involve conduct that 
is recognizably wrong to a reasonable, honorable citizen. 
[Slide 250] The Framers adopted a standard for impeachment that 
could stand the test of time. At the same time, the structure 
of the Constitution implies that impeachable offenses should 
not come as a surprise. Impeachment is aimed at Presidents who 
act as if they are above the law, at Presidents who believe 
their own interests are more important than those of the 
Nation, and, thus, at Presidents who ignore right and wrong in 
pursuit of their own gain.
    Abuse, betrayal, corruption. [Slide 251] Here are each of 
core offenses that the Framers feared most: The President's 
abuse of power, his betrayal of the national interest, and his 
corruption of our elections plainly qualify as great and 
dangerous offenses.
    President Trump has made clear in word and deed that he 
will persist in such conduct if he is not removed from power. 
He poses a continuing threat to our Nation, to the integrity of 
our elections, and to our democratic order. He must not remain 
in power one moment longer.
    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, 
President's counsel, we will now walk through the President's 
abuse of power, the corrupt object of his scheme, [Slide 252] 
his three official acts carrying out his scheme, his attempted 
coverup and exposure, and the harm to our Nation and continuing 
threat caused by his misconduct.
    Let's start first with the object of the President's 
scheme.
    Senators, we have today provided handouts that you can 
follow along in our slides.
    So as this first slide indicates, in this portion of our 
presentation, [Slide 252] we will discuss the evidence that 
shows overwhelmingly that President Trump directed this scheme 
with corrupt intent, with one corrupt objective: to obtain 
foreign assistance in his reelection bid in the 2020 United 
States Presidential election. [Slide 253]
    We will walk through first how the President wanted Ukraine 
to help in his reelection campaign. He wanted Ukraine to 
publicly announce two investigations: one into his political 
rival Joe Biden and the second into the debunked conspiracy 
theory relating to Ukraine interference in the 2016 election. 
President Trump himself later confirmed this intent in public 
statements.
    We will then explain how we know these investigations were 
solely for President Trump's personal, political gain. [Slide 
254]
    First, President Trump made clear he cared only about the 
announcement--the announcement of the investigations, not the 
actual investigations.
    Second, President Trump similarly made clear he cared only 
about the ``big stuff.'' The ``big stuff'' meaning his 
political investigations.
    Third, he used his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, who 
repeatedly told us he was pursuing the investigations in his 
capacity as the President's personal lawyer and that this 
wasn't about foreign policy.
    Fourth and fifth, there is no real dispute that these 
investigations were never part of an official U.S. policy, and 
they in fact went outside official channels. The Department of 
Justice even publicly confirmed that they were never asked to 
talk to Ukraine about these investigations--never.
    Six, multiple officials who knew what was going on 
repeatedly reported these concerns to supervisors and even the 
NSC legal advisors.
    Seven, Ukraine expressed concerns multiple times that these 
were political investigations and Ukraine didn't want to get 
involved in domestic U.S. politics.
    Eight, the White House tried to bury the call.
    Nine, President Trump himself told us what he really wanted 
and cared about in his own words, in many public statements.
    And finally, despite the President's counsel's attempts to 
justify his actions, the evidence makes clear that President 
Trump did not care about anticorruption efforts in Ukraine. 
This was only about one thing: his political investigations.
    If you are following along on the slide, now, as I 
mentioned, the object of the President's scheme is clear: two 
investigations to help his political reelection. [Slide 253]
    The Constitution grants the President broad authority to 
conduct U.S. foreign policy. He is our Commander in Chief and 
chief diplomat. When the President of the United States calls a 
foreign leader, a President's first and only objective should 
be to get foreign leaders to do what is best for the U.S. 
national interest, consistent with the faithful execution of 
his oath of office and consistent with official U.S. policy.
    But on July 25, when President Trump called the President 
of Ukraine, [Slide 255] President Trump did the opposite. 
Instead of following official U.S. talking points, instead of 
listening to his staff on what was important to our national 
interests, President Trump asked Ukraine for something that 
benefited only himself: his political investigations. And not 
only did these investigations diverge from U.S. national 
interests, as you will hear, President Trump's actions harmed 
our national security. In putting himself above our country, he 
put our country at risk, and that is why his actions are so 
dangerous.
    Now let's take a moment and look carefully at the two 
investigations that President Trump sought from Ukraine, which 
are at the heart of the President's scheme, and how he stood to 
benefit politically from Ukraine's announcement of each.
    As you can see on the slide, the first investigation was, 
of course, of former Vice President Biden. [Slide 256] Let's go 
straight to that July 25 telephone call again where President 
Trump stated clearly each of these investigations he wanted.
    So let's start with Vice President Joe Biden and the 
removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine.
    The first investigation related to former Vice President 
Joe Biden and the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, on 
whose board his son Hunter Biden used to sit.
    President Trump himself summarized the theory behind his 
request in broad strokes in his July 25 call with President 
Zelensky. Here is what he said: [Slide 257]

    The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that 
Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out 
about that so that whatever you can do with the Attorney General would 
be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so 
if you can look it . . . It sounds horrible to me.

    Now let's look carefully at the investigation President 
Trump was asking for and what it was based on. In short, 
President Trump asked for the investigation into Biden based on 
a made-up theory that no one agreed with--no one. We will go 
into this in more detail, but at a high level, the allegation 
is that late in 2015, Biden pressured Ukraine to remove the 
then-prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, by threatening to 
withhold approximately $1 billion in loan guarantees if he was 
not removed.
    According to this theory, Vice President Biden did this in 
order to help his son in a company called Burisma. Vice 
President Biden's son sat on the board of Burisma.
    As the theory goes, Vice President Biden tried to remove 
Ukraine's prosecutor, all to make sure the prosecutor wouldn't 
investigate that specific company Burisma because, again, his 
son was on the board.
    Then, Senators, if that doesn't sound farfetched and 
complicated to you, it should. So let's take this step-by-step 
and start from the beginning.
    In 2014, Vice President Biden's son Hunter joined the board 
of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. At the 
time, Burisma's owner, a Ukrainian oligarch and former 
government minister, was under investigation.
    In 2015, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine's prosecutor general, 
a job similar to Attorney General in the United States.
    Although Shokin vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an 
international push to root out corruption in Ukraine, he 
allowed the Burisma investigation to go dormant--allowed it to 
go dormant. That is when he was removed. He was not actively 
investigating Burisma. He had let it go dormant. Moreover, 
Shokin was widely perceived as ineffective and corrupt.
    George Kent, the second most senior official at the U.S. 
Embassy in Kyiv at the time, [Slide 258] described Shokin as 
``a typical Ukraine prosecutor who lived a lifestyle far in 
excess of his government salary, who never prosecuted anybody 
known for having committed a crime and covered up crimes that 
were known to have been committed.''
    In late 2015, Vice President Biden, who had assumed a 
significant role in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, publicly called 
for the removal of Mr. Shokin because of his failure--his 
failure--to adequately combat corruption. But Vice President 
Biden wasn't alone. The European Union, our European allies, 
the International Monetary Fund, and three reformers inside 
Ukraine also wanted Mr. Shokin removed to reform the Ukrainian 
prosecutor general's office--to reform it.
    Reforming the prosecutor general's office was also 
supported on a bipartisan basis by the Ukrainian Caucus here in 
the Senate. On February 12, 2016, after Vice President Biden 
had urged removal of Mr. Shokin but before the Ukrainian 
Parliament voted to remove him, a bipartisan group of Senators, 
including Senators Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, Ron Johnson, 
Murphy, Kirk, Blumenthal, and Sherrod Brown sent a letter to 
President Poroshenko that urged him to make urgent reforms to 
the prosecutor general's office. The month after the Senators 
sent that letter, Mr. Shokin was fired. He was fired.
    So let's be very clear. Vice President Biden called for the 
removal of this prosecutor at the official direction of U.S. 
policy, because the prosecutor was widely perceived as corrupt, 
and with the support of all of our international allies. His 
actions were therefore supported by the executive branch, 
Congress, and the international community.
    Common sense would tell us that this allegation against Joe 
Biden is false and that there was no legitimate basis for any 
investigation. But there are several other reasons you know 
that the only reason President Trump wanted Ukraine to announce 
the investigation into Biden was solely for his very own 
personal benefit.
    If you look at the slide, we will summarize some points. 
[Slide 259]
    First, none of the 17 witnesses in the House's inquiry said 
there was any factual basis for this allegation--not 1 of the 
17. To the contrary, they testified it was false.
    Second, as I mentioned, the former prosecutor general Vice 
President Biden tried to remove was widely considered to be 
corrupt and failed to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Thus, 
removing him from office would only increase the chances that 
Burisma would be investigated for possible corruption.
    Third, because the prosecutor was so corrupt, Vice 
President Biden calling for his removal was also at the 
direction of official U.S. policy and undertaken with the 
unanimous support of our allies.
    Fourth, the successor to the fired Ukrainian prosecutor 
general admitted that Vice President Biden's son didn't do 
anything wrong in connection with Burisma. So the entire 
premise of the investigation that the President wanted Ukraine 
to pursue was simply false.
    Finally, President Trump didn't care about any of this 
until 2019, when Vice President Biden became the frontrunner 
for the Democratic Presidential nomination and polls showed 
that he had the largest head-to-head lead against President 
Trump. That became a problem.
    Let's start with the first and second points. [Slide 260] 
Vice President Biden's conduct was uniformly validated by the 
witnesses in the House investigation, who confirmed his conduct 
was consistent with U.S. policy. Every single witness who was 
asked about the allegations against Biden said it was false. 
They testified that he acted properly. Every witness with 
knowledge of this issue testified that Vice President Biden was 
carrying out official U.S. policy in calling for Shokin's 
removal because Shokin was corrupt. These witnesses explained, 
too, that the United States was not alone in this view. All of 
our European allies also supported this action. There is simply 
no evidence--nothing, nada--in the record to support this 
baseless allegation.
    I would like to go through some of that testimony now.
    First, here are Dr. Hill and Mr. Holmes. Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Dr. Hill, are you aware of any evidence to support the 
allegations against Vice President Biden?
    Dr. HILL. I am not, no.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And, in fact, Mr. Holmes, the former prosecutor 
general of Ukraine who Vice President Biden encouraged to fire was 
actually corrupt; is that right?
    Mr. HOLMES. Correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And was not pursuing corruption investigations and 
prosecutions; right?
    Mr. HOLMES. My understanding is that the prosecutor general at the 
time, Shokin, was not at that time pursuing investigations of Burisma 
or the Bidens.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And, in fact, removing that prosecutor general was 
part of the United States' anticorruption policy; isn't that correct?
    Mr. HOLMES. That's correct. And not just us but all of our allies 
and other institutions who were involved in Ukraine at the time.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Ambassador Yovanovitch 
confirmed these points. Let's watch her testify.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. And in fact, when Vice President Biden acted to remove 
the former corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine, did he do so as part of 
official United States policy?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. Official U.S. policy that was endorsed and 
was the policy of a number of other international stakeholders, other 
countries, other monetary institutions, and financial institutions.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Similarly, when asked if there 
was any factual basis to support the allegations about Biden, 
George Kent replied, ``None whatsoever.'' [Slide 261]
    Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Ms. Williams also confirmed 
that they are not aware of any credible evidence to support the 
notion that Vice President Biden did anything wrong. Ambassador 
Volker testified that the Biden allegations were not credible 
and that Biden ``respects his duties of higher office.''
    Now, as I mentioned, there was also a concrete reason that 
the U.S. Government wanted Shokin removed. As David Holmes, a 
senior official at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine testified, by 
the time that Shokin was finally removed in 2016, there were 
strong concerns that Shokin was himself corrupt and not 
investigating potential corruption in the country. In fact, 
part of the concern was that Shokin was not investigating 
Burisma. Under Shokin, the investigation into the owner of 
Burisma for earlier conduct had stalled and was dormant. That 
was part of the reason why the United States and other 
countries wanted to remove Shokin.
    Because of this, and as confirmed by witness testimony we 
will hear shortly, calling for Shokin's replacement would 
actually increase the chances that Burisma would be 
investigated. In other words, Shokin was corrupt and not 
investigating allegations that Burisma was corrupt, and so Vice 
President Biden calling for Shokin's removal and advocating for 
his replacement would actually increase chances of Burisma's 
investigation.
    Ambassador Yovanovitch made this point during her 
testimony. Let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. And, in fact, if he would help to remove a corrupt 
Ukrainian prosecutor general who was not prosecuting enough corruption, 
that would increase the chances that corrupt companies in Ukraine would 
be investigated; isn't that right?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. One would think so.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And that would include Burisma; right?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. Yes.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. President Trump and his allies 
have tried to justify President Trump's withholding of military 
aid and a White House meeting unless Ukraine announced the 
investigations he wanted by saying it is the same thing the 
Vice President did when he called for Ukraine to remove its 
corrupt prosecutor. It is not the same thing. As you just 
heard, Vice President Biden followed official U.S. policy. He 
went through official channels to remove the prosecutor that 
was corrupt, and he did it with the support of our allies. That 
is the exact opposite of what President Trump did. He pushed 
Ukraine for an investigation that has no basis, that no one 
agreed with, that was not at all U.S. policy, and that only 
benefited him.
    George Kent addressed this very point during his testimony. 
Let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. HIMES. And Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor, the defenders of the 
President's behavior, have made a big deal out of the fact that Vice 
President Biden encouraged the Ukrainians to remove a corrupt former 
Ukrainian prosecutor in 2016, Mr. Shokin. And, in fact, Senator Rand 
Paul on Sunday said, and I quote him, ``They're impeaching President 
Trump for exactly the same thing Joe Biden did.'' Is that correct? Is 
what the President did in his phone call and what Joe Biden did in 
terms of Mr. Shokin, are those exactly the same things? And if not, how 
are they different?
    Mr. KENT. I do not think they are the same things. What former Vice 
President Biden requested of the former President of Ukraine, 
Poroshenko, was the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general, Viktor 
Shokin, who had undermined a program of assistance that we had spent, 
again, U.S. taxpayer money to try to build an independent investigator 
unit to go after corrupt prosecutors. And there was a case called the 
Diamond Prosecutor case in which Shokin destroyed the entire ecosystem 
that we were trying to help create, the investigators, the judges who 
issued the warrants, the law enforcement that had warrants to do the 
wiretapping, everybody to protect his former driver who he had made a 
prosecutor. That's why Joe Biden was asking, remove the corrupt 
prosecutor.
    Mr. HIMES. So Joe Biden was participating in an open effort to 
establish whole of government effort to address corruption in Ukraine?
    Mr. KENT. That is correct.
    Mr. HIMES. Great. So, Mr. Kent, as you look at this whole mess, 
Rudy Giuliani, President Trump, in your opinion, was this a 
comprehensive and whole government effort to end corruption in Ukraine?
    Mr. KENT. Referring to the requests in July?
    Mr. HIMES. Exactly.
    Mr. KENT. I would not say so. No, sir.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. In short, the allegations 
against Vice President Biden are groundless. So there is no 
comparison--none at all--between what he did and President 
Trump's abuse of power.
    Now let's turn to the third point.
    Part of the allegation against former Vice President Biden 
is that he pushed for the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor's 
removal in order to protect his son from the investigation. In 
fact, the President's claim about being concerned about 
corruption in Ukraine has recently emphasized this component of 
the theory: that the President wanted Ukraine to investigate 
Hunter Biden's work on the board of Burisma, not the former 
Vice President.
    This, too, is false--simply false. You need look no further 
than the July 25 call record and the President's own statements 
to see that the President wanted the Ukrainians to investigate 
Vice President Biden.
    Let's look again at what the President's call said. [Slide 
257]

    The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that 
Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out 
about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be 
great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so 
if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.

    The President was clearly asking President Zelensky to 
investigate Joe Biden. And what did the President say on the 
White House lawn on October 3, when he was asked about the 
Ukrainian scheme?
    He said:

    Well, I think if they were honest about it, you saw the film 
yesterday, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens. It 
is a very simple answer.

    He said the Bidens, plural, not one Biden--the Bidens.
    It is clear what the President wanted from Ukraine: an 
investigation to smear his political rival. But even if the 
President wanted an investigation of Hunter Biden, there is no 
basis for that either.
    Now, how do you know? [Slide 262] Well, Ukraine's former 
prosecutor general admitted that the allegation against Vice 
President Biden's son was plainly false. You can see it on the 
slide in his own words--``plainly false.'' Then-Ukrainian 
Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko recanted his earlier 
allegations and confirmed: ``Biden was definitely not involved 
in any wrongdoing involving Burisma.''
    So even the Ukrainians believed that Biden's son did 
nothing wrong. The long and short of it is that there was no 
basis for the investigation that the President was pursuing and 
pushing--none. He was doing it only for his own political 
benefit.
    Let's look at one more important reason why it is clear 
that President Trump simply wanted a political benefit from 
Ukraine's announcement of this investigation and didn't care 
about the underlying conduct. The allegations against Vice 
President Biden were based on events that occurred in late 2015 
and early 2016. [Slide 263] They were all well publicized at 
the time, but as soon as President Trump took office, he 
increased military support to Ukraine in 2017 and the next 
year, 2018.
    It wasn't until 2019, over 3 years after Vice President 
Biden called for Shokin's removal--3 years after--that 
President Trump started pushing Ukraine to investigate that 
conduct.
    So what changed? What changed? Why did President Trump not 
care at all about Biden's request on the removal of Shokin the 
year after it happened in 2017 or the next year in 2018?
    Senators, you know what changed in 2019 when President 
Trump suddenly cared. It is that Biden got in the race. On 
April 25, Vice President Biden announced he would run for 
President in 2020. If President Trump was so concerned about 
this alleged corruption, why didn't he push Ukraine to 
investigate when he entered office in 2017 or in 2018 after 
Biden gave public remarks about how he pressured Ukraine to 
remove Shokin? Why did President Trump instead wait until 
former Vice President Biden was campaigning for the Democratic 
nomination?
    Senators, it is obvious: because President Trump wanted to 
hurt Vice President Biden's candidacy and help himself 
politically. He pushed for the investigation in 2019 because 
that is when it would be valuable to him, President Trump. He 
pushed for it when it started to become clear that Vice 
President Biden could beat him, and he had good reason to be 
concerned.
    Let's look at the slide about some polls. [Slide 264] 
Throughout this scheme, polling had consistently shown the 
former Vice President handily beating President Trump by 
significant margins in head-to-head matchups. The chart on the 
screen shows FOX News polls emphasizing this point. The chart 
shows that from March to December, Vice President Biden had 
consistently led President Trump in national polls by 
significant margins. So beginning around March, Vice President 
Biden is beating the President in the polls, even on FOX News. 
[Slide 265]
    In April, Biden officially announces his candidacy, and 
that is when the President gets worried. In May, the 
President's personal lawyer tells the press that he is planning 
to travel to Ukraine to urge newly elected President Zelensky 
to conduct the two investigations--one into Vice President 
Biden. Do you know what else happened in May? A FOX News poll 
showed Biden beating Trump by 11 points. This clearly did not 
go unnoticed.
    On May 9, the President's personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, 
said in an interview: ``I guarantee you, Joe Biden will not get 
to election day without this being investigated.'' And by July, 
right before President Trump's call with President Zelensky, 
where he asked for the investigation into Biden, the FOX News 
poll showed Biden beating Trump by 10 points. Then, on July 25, 
after years of not caring what the Vice President did, does 
President Trump ask for an investigation in his formidable 
political rival in the 2020 election. [Slide 265]
    Senators, looking at this timeline of events, it is not 
difficult to see why the investigation into the Bidens would be 
helpful to President Trump. The mere announcement of such an 
investigation would immediately tarnish the former Vice 
President's reputation by embroiling him and his son in a 
foreign criminal investigation--even if the charges were never 
pursued, just the mere announcement. And if a foreign country 
announced a formal investigation into those allegations, it 
would give allegations against the Bidens an air of credibility 
and could carry through the election.
    The evidence is clear. Everyone knew--even Ukraine--that 
there was no merit to the allegation that Biden called for the 
removal of Shokin for any illegitimate reason. Biden asked for 
it because it was consistent--consistent with U.S. policy 
because Shokin was corrupt, and it was with the backing of our 
allies. Even President Trump knew there was no basis for this 
investigation. That is why, for years, after Shokin's removal, 
he continued to support Ukraine. He never once raised the 
issue.
    It wasn't until Biden began beating him in the polls that 
he called for the investigation. The President asked Ukraine 
for this investigation for one reason and one reason only: 
because he knew it would be damaging to an opponent who was 
consistently beating him in the polls and therefore it could 
help him get reelected in 2020. President Trump had the motive, 
he had the opportunity, and he had the means to commit this 
abuse of power.
    Now, let's turn to the second investigation that President 
Trump wanted. What he wanted was a widely debunked conspiracy 
theory that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 
U.S. election to benefit President Trump's opponent. As we will 
explain, the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 
elections, [Slide 266] just like the allegation that Biden 
improperly removed the Ukraine prosecutor, has absolutely no 
basis in fact. In fact, this theory ignored the unanimous 
conclusions of the U.S. intelligence agency, the congressional 
Intelligence Committees, and Special Counsel Mueller, which 
found that Russia--Russia attacked our elections. It also went 
against the Senate Intelligence Committee report which found no 
evidence supporting that Ukraine attacked our elections, nor 
did any witness support the theory that Ukraine attacked our 
elections. Indeed, even President Trump's own advisers told him 
the claim was false.
    In fact, the one person who told President Trump his theory 
is true--who was it? You know it was our adversary, Russia, 
which had everything to gain by deflecting the blame from their 
attack on Ukraine.
    Let's look at what President Trump was actually suggesting 
Ukraine investigate. The theory is this: Instead of listening 
to our entire intelligence community that concluded that Russia 
interfered in our 2016 election to assist Donald Trump, the new 
theory says it was Ukraine that interfered in the election to 
help Hillary Clinton and hurt Donald Trump.
    One aspect of this conspiracy theory was that the American 
cyber security firm, CrowdStrike, which had helped the DNC 
respond to Russia's cyber attack in 2016, moved a DNC server to 
Ukraine to prevent the FBI from examining it. Here is what 
President Trump said about this conspiracy theory during the 
July 25 call. [Slide 267]

    I would like you to find out what happened with this whole 
situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike . . . I guess you have one 
of your wealthy people . . . The server, they say Ukraine has it.

    Once again, if this sounds farfetched and crazy, it should 
because it is. There is simply no factual basis to support this 
conspiracy theory. Let's walk through the concrete reasons why.
    First, as I mentioned, our entire U.S. intelligence 
community, [Slide 268] the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, and Special Counsel Mueller all unanimously found 
that Russia--not Ukraine--interfered in the 2016 elections, and 
Russia did it to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. 
Here is an example of that. [Slide 269]
    This is the conclusion of the Director of National 
Intelligence's report entitled ``Assessing Russian Activities 
and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections.'' I will quote part of 
it, and you can follow along in the slide.

    We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence 
campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election. Russia's 
goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, 
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential 
Presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government 
developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high 
confidence in these judgments.

    ``Clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' And here is 
the conclusion of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: 
[Slide 270]

    The Committee found that the [Russian-based Internet Research 
Agency] sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by 
harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald 
Trump at the direction of the Kremlin . . . The Committee found that 
the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA's interference in 
the 2016 U.S. election.

    ``Supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the 
Kremlin''--that is what it said. And here is the special 
counsel's conclusion Mueller reported in 2019: [Slide 271]

    As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's 
investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 
presidential election principally through two operations. First, a 
Russia entity carried out a social media campaign that favored 
presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential 
candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service 
conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, 
and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen 
documents.

    On December 9, 2019, even President Trump's own FBI 
Director Christopher Wray stated unequivocally that there is no 
evidence to support the theory that Ukraine interfered in our 
election in 2016.
    Here is a video of that interview. Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    REPORTER. Did the Government of Ukraine directly interfere in the 
2016 election on the scale that the Russians did?
    Director WRAY. We have no information that indicates that Ukraine 
interfered with the 2016 presidential election.
    REPORTER. When you see politicians pushing this notion, are you 
concerned about that in terms of its impact on the American public?
    Director WRAY. Well, look, there's all kinds of people saying all 
kinds of things out there. I think it's important for the American 
people to be thoughtful consumers of information and to think about the 
sources of it and to think about the support and predication for what 
they hear. And I think part of us being well protected against malign 
foreign influence is to build together an American public that's 
resilient, that has appropriate media literacy, and that takes its 
information with a grain of salt.
    REPORTER. And Putin has been pushing this theory. And your message 
to him in terms of the American public?
    Director WRAY. Stop trying to interfere with our elections.
    REPORTER. And we recently heard from the President himself that he 
wanted the CrowdStrike portion of this whole conspiracy in the Ukraine 
investigated, and I'm hearing you say there's no evidence to support 
that as far as you know.
    Director WRAY. As I said, we have no--We at the FBI have no 
information that would indicate that Ukraine tried to interfere in the 
2016 presidential election.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. You heard him. He said ``no 
information that would indicate that Ukraine tried to interfere 
in the 2016 Presidential election.''
    So to be really, really clear, there is no real dispute 
that Russia, not Ukraine, attacked our elections.
    It is not just that there is no evidence to support his 
conspiracy theory; it is more dangerous than that. Where did 
this theory come from? [Slide 272] You guessed it. The 
Russians--Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian 
intelligence services perpetuated this false, debunked 
conspiracy theory.
    Now remember, there is no dispute among the intelligence 
community that Russia attacked our 2016 elections. The Senate's 
own Intelligence Committee published a report telling us that 
as well. So it is no surprise that Russia wants to blame 
somebody else.
    In fact, President Trump even said that President Putin is 
the one who told him it was Ukraine who interfered in our 
elections.
    In short, this is a theory that the Russians are promoting 
to interfere, yet again, in our democratic process and deflect 
blame from their own attacks against us. But what is so 
dangerous is that President Trump is helping them perpetuate 
this. [Slide 272] Our own President is helping our adversary 
attack our processes, all to help his own reelection.
    Dr. Hill, an expert on these matters, explains it in more 
detail as to why this is very concerning. Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. This relates to the second thing I want to communicate. 
Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on the 
committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did 
not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow, 
for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that is 
being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services 
themselves.
    The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that 
systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is 
the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in 
bipartisan and congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if 
some of the underlying details must remain classified.
    The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident 
today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly 
professional, expert career Foreign Service is being undermined. U.S. 
support for Ukraine which continues to face armed Russian aggression is 
being politicized. The Russian Government's goal is to weaken our 
country, to diminish America's global role, and to neutralize a 
perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Their ``goal is to weaken our 
country, to diminish America's global role, and to neutralize a 
perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests.'' That is why it is 
so dangerous. Despite the lack of any evidence to support this 
debunked conspiracy theory, the unanimous conclusion of the 
intelligence community, Congress, Special Counsel Mueller, and 
the FBI to the contrary, President Trump continued to promote 
this fake conspiracy theory just because it would be beneficial 
and helpful to his own reelection campaign.
    Even President Trump's own senior advisers told him these 
allegations were false. Tom Bossert, President Trump's former 
Homeland Security Advisor, stated publicly that the CrowdStrike 
theory had been debunked. [Slide 273]
    Here is that interview. Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. BOSSERT. It's not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely 
debunked. You know, I don't want to be glib about this matter, but last 
year, retired former Senator Judd Gregg wrote a piece in The Hill 
magazine saying the three ways or the five ways to impeach oneself. And 
the third way was to hire Rudy Giuliani.
    And at this point, I am deeply frustrated with what he and the 
legal team is doing in repeating that debunked theory to the president. 
It sticks in his mind when he hears it over and over again. And for 
clarity here, George, let me just again repeat that it has no validity. 
The United States government reached its conclusion on attributing to 
Russia the DNC hack in 2016 before it even communicated it to the FBI 
and long before the FBI ever knocked on the door at the DNC. So a 
server inside the DNC was not relevant to our determination to the 
attribution. It was made upfront and beforehand. And so while servers 
can be important in some of the investigations that followed, it has 
nothing to do with the U.S. government's attribution of Russia to the 
DNC hack.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. The theory ``has no 
validity.'' That is what he said.
    Dr. Hill, too, testified that White House officials, 
including Mr. Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. 
McMaster, spent a lot of time refuting the CrowdStrike 
conspiracy theory to President Trump. Let's hear it.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, Dr. Hill, is this a reference to this debunked 
conspiracy theory about Ukraine interference in the 2016 election that 
you discussed in your opening statement as well as with Chairman 
Schiff?
    Dr. HILL. The reference to CrowdStrike and the server, yes, that's 
correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And it is your understanding that there is no basis 
for these allegations, is that correct?
    Dr. HILL. That's correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, isn't it also true that some of President Trump's 
most senior advisors had informed him that this theory of Ukraine 
interference in the 2016 election was false?
    Dr. HILL. That's correct.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. When she was asked if it is 
false, she said: ``That's correct.''
    If Vladimir Putin's goals, as Dr. Hill testified, were to 
deflect from Russia's systematic interference in our election 
and to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine, he 
has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The alternative 
narrative of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election has 
now been picked up by the President's defenders and the 
conservative media. It has muddied the waters regarding 
Russia's own interference in our elections--efforts that remain 
ongoing, as we have learned this week from reporting that 
Russia hacked Burisma.
    If there were any doubt about how President Putin feels 
about the President's conduct, you need only look to Putin's 
own words. His statement on November 20 tells it all. He said: 
[Slide 274]

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

    That is a short quotation from Putin, but it speaks 
volumes. Even though President Trump knew there was no factual 
basis for the theory that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 
2016 election rather than Russia and knew that Russia was 
perpetuating this theory, he still wanted President Zelensky to 
pursue the investigation. Why? Because, while Putin and Russia 
clearly stood to gain by promoting this conspiracy theory about 
Ukraine, so did Donald Trump. He knew it would be politically 
helpful to his 2020 election.
    An announcement of an investigation by Ukraine would have 
breathed new life into a debunked conspiracy theory that 
Ukrainian election interference was there in 2016, and it lent 
it great credibility. It would have cast doubt on the 
conclusions of the Intelligence Committee and Special Counsel 
Mueller that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help 
President Trump. And it would have helped eliminate a perceived 
threat to the legitimacy of Donald Trump's Presidency, that he 
was only elected because of the help he received from President 
Putin.
    I now yield to Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                                ------                                


                  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 after 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 
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. [Slide 275]
    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. [Slide 275]
    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:)

    Mr. 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.
    Mr. 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.
    Mr. 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 
[Slide 276]--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.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. 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.
    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?
    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 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 [Slide 
277]--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. [Slide 278] 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 [Slide 279] 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, [Slide 
280] 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: [Slide 281]

    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 [Slide 282]--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.'' [Slide 283]
    Think about that. The President is using his personal 
lawyer to ask 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, Lieutenant Colonel 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:)

    Mr. 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?
    LTC 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?
    LTC 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?
    LTC 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?
    LTC 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'' [Slide 284]--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: [Slide 285]

    [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, [Slide 286] ``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:)

    Ms. WILLIAMS. During my closed-door deposition, members of the 
committee asked about my personal views, and whether I had any concerns 
about the July 25th call. As I testified then, I found the July 25th 
phone call unusual because, in contrast to other Presidential calls I 
had observed, it involved 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:)

    LTC 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 losing 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:)

    LTC 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.
    Chairman SCHIFF. Do you mean politics?
    LTC VINDMAN. Politics, correct.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And why did you feel it was necessary to advise 
President Zelensky to stay away from U.S. domestic politics?
    LTC 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:)

    Mr. 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?
    Mr. KENT. No, they weren't.
    Mr. 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?
    Mr. KENT. I said that, and I believe it's true.
    Mr. 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?
    Mr. KENT. I believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic 
representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes.
    Mr. HECK. How is that, sir?
    Mr. 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. 
[Slide 287]

    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?
    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?
    LTC VINDMAN. Correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What was their response?
    LTC 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?
    LTC 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. [Slide 288]
    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. [Slide 289]
    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 once again clear. The 
President's demand for political investigations was improper, 
inappropriate, and wrong, and again confirms that these 
requested investigations were not about anything except Donald 
Trump's political 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 explained President Zelensky's reluctance 
to become a pawn in U.S. politics. Ambassador Taylor said: 
[Slide 290] ``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 
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 to be taken 
seriously and not just as some kind of a pawn for political 
purposes. When an ally, wholly dependent on us for military 
support 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 this text during his testimony: 
[Slide 291] ``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.''
    This is an important point, too. It wasn't just that they 
didn't want to be seen as getting involved in U.S. politics, 
because if they did and it looked like they were getting 
involved on the side of Donald Trump, that would hurt their 
support with Democrats, and if it looked like they were getting 
involved on 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.'' [Slide 292]
    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: [Slide 293]

    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.

    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 
[Slide 294]--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:)

    President 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 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:)

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

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

    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:)

    President TRUMP: 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:)

    Ambassador 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 [Slide 295] 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. [Slide 
296] 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:)

    Chairman 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?
    LTC VINDMAN. Yes, I did.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And did those talking points include rooting out 
corruption in Ukraine?
    LTC VINDMAN. Yes.
    Chairman SCHIFF. That was something the President was supposed to 
raise in the conversation with President Zelensky?
    LTC VINDMAN. Those were the recommended talking points that were 
cleared through the NSC staff for the President, yes.
    Chairman SCHIFF. Did you listen in on the call?
    LTC VINDMAN. Yes, I did.
    Chairman SCHIFF. The White House has now released the record of 
that call. Did President Trump ever mention corruption in the April 21 
call?
    LTC 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: 
[Slide 296]

    President Donald J. Trump spoke today to President-elect Volodymyr 
Zelensky to congratulate him on his victory in Ukraine's 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. [Slide 297] 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: [Slide 298] 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. [Slide 299] 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. [Slide 300] 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. [Slide 301]
    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. [Slide 302] 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: [Slide 303]

    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.''

    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, [Slide 304] ``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. 
[Slide 305] 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.'' [Slide 
306]
    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, [Slide 306] 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: [Slide 307]

    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. [Slide 308] 
And a reminder: At the time of Biden's announcement and for 
months after, [Slide 264] 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, 
[Slide 308] 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 [Slide 308]--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, [Slide 309] Parnas, Fruman, and 
Giuliani met extensively with two corrupt Ukrainian 
prosecutors, Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin, [Slide 310] 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 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. [Slide 311] 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: [Slide 312]

    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:)

    Mr. GIULIANI. 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 [Slide 313] 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 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. [Slide 314] Parnas texted: ``Going to sleep my brother 
please text me or call me if you have any news.
    Giuliani responded: ``He fired her again.'' [Slide 315]
    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.'' [Slide 316]
    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 [Slide 317] ``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:)

    Mr. GIULIANI. 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. [Russian company--not a Ukrainian--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, [Slide 
318] testified that Marie 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 Yovanovitch, an 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: [Slide 319]

    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 
corruption 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, Shannon, I'm not going to go to Ukraine.
    REPORTER. 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 
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. 
[Slide 320] 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 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.'' [Slide 321]
    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:)

    Ambassador 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. [Slide 322] 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:)

    Ambassador 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?
    Ambassador 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.
    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.)

    Ambassador 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, 
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the director for Ukraine 
on the National Security Council, recalled [Slide 323] 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, 
[Slide 324] 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?
    LTC 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:)

    Ambassador 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. [Slide 325]
    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. 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: [Slide 326] 
``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, is 
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 [Slide 327] 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 [Slide 328] National Security Advisor John Bolton, Dr. 
Fiona Hill, Lieutenant Colonel 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.
                                 recess
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent 
that we have a break for 30 minutes.
    There being no objection, at 6:24 p.m., the Senate, sitting 
as a Court of Impeachment, recessed until 7:14 p.m., whereupon 
the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief 
Justice.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, after consulting with 
Congressman Schiff, it looks like roughly 10:30 tonight. So we 
may need a short break somewhere between now and 10:30.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished 
Members of the Senate, counsel to the President, my colleagues, 
the American people, the second official act that President 
Trump used to corruptly abuse his power was the withholding of 
an Oval Office meeting with the President of Ukraine.
    Before we took the break, we started walking through the 
overwhelming evidence about how President Trump withheld this 
official White House meeting that was vitally important to 
Ukraine as part of a corrupt scheme to convince President 
Zelensky to announce two phony political investigations. These 
investigations were entirely unrelated to any official U.S. 
policy and solely benefited President Trump.
    We talked about why withholding the meeting was so 
significant to our ally Ukraine. Ukraine is a fragile 
democracy, under relentless attack from Russian-backed 
separatists in the east. U.S. support is vitally important to 
Ukraine in that war. They desperately need our support. They 
desperately need our assistance.
    Because of this vast power disparity, President Trump had 
immense power over Ukraine, and President Trump knew it. So 
when President Trump asked for a favor on a July 25 call, he 
knew that President Zelensky would feel incredible pressure to 
do exactly what President Trump wanted.
    President Trump used his agents--both his administration 
appointees and his personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani--to make 
clear to Ukraine, even in early July, that the much-needed 
White House meeting they requested would only occur if they 
announced these phony political investigations.
    To be clear, as Ambassador Sondland testified, ``everyone 
was in the loop.'' That includes Acting Chief of Staff Mick 
Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of 
Energy Rick Perry.
    Even ahead of the July 25 call, Ambassador Sondland was in 
close, repeated contact with these officials. His mission: 
Schedule a telephone conversation during which the new 
Ukrainian leader would personally commit to do the phony 
investigations sought by President Trump in order to unlock a 
meeting in the Oval Office--this for that, a quid pro quo.
    This isn't just based on the testimony of witnesses. It is 
corroborated by texts and emails as well. Let's look at some of 
that evidence now.
    On July 13, for example, Ambassador Sondland emailed 
National Security Council official Timothy Morrison and made 
the case for President Trump to call the Ukrainian leader prior 
to the parliamentary elections scheduled for July 21. [Slide 
329] In that email, as the highlighted text shows, Ambassador 
Sondland said the ``sole purpose'' of the call was to assure 
President Trump that investigations would be allowed to move 
forward. In other words, to get the Oval Office meeting, 
President Zelensky had to move forward on the phony political 
investigations, part of the scheme to cheat in the 2020 
Presidential campaign--this for that.
    On July 19, Ambassador Sondland spoke directly with 
President Zelensky. He spoke directly with President Zelensky 
to prepare him for a call with President Trump. Ambassador 
Sondland coached President Zelensky to use key phrases and 
reassure President Trump of Ukraine's intention to bend to 
President Trump's will with respect to the phony investigations 
that President Trump sought.
    Ambassador Sondland told Kurt Volker that he gave the 
Ukrainian leader ``a full briefing. He's got it.'' [Slide 330]
    That is what Sondland told Volker.
    In response, Volker texted: ``Most important is for 
Zelensky to say that he will help with the investigation.''
    That same day, Ambassador Sondland emailed top 
administration officials, including Acting Chief of Staff 
Mulvaney, Secretary Pompeo, and Secretary Perry, to summarize 
his conversation with Zelensky. In that email, Ambassador 
Sondland said Zelensky is ``prepared to receive POTUS' call. 
[Slide 331] Will assure him''--meaning POTUS--``that he intends 
to run a fully transparent investigation and will `turn over 
every stone.'''
    Both Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney and Secretary Perry 
responded to the email, noting that the head-of-state call 
would be scheduled.
    Secretary Perry wrote: ``Mick just confirmed the call being 
set up for tomorrow by NSC''--the National Security Council.
    Mulvaney responded: ``I asked NSC to set it up for 
tomorrow.''
    Neither Mulvaney nor Secretary Perry took issue with the 
fact that Sondland coached Zelensky to yield to President 
Trump's pressure campaign, but instead they took steps to 
connect the two leaders. Everyone was in the loop.
    They were aware that during the July 20 call, President 
Trump intended to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 
election and pressed the Ukrainian leader to announce 
investigations into former Vice President Biden and the 
CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. There was no focus on advancing 
America's foreign policy or national security objectives. The 
only priority was President Trump's corrupt demand for phony 
investigations in exchange for an Oval Office meeting--this for 
that.
    Here is Ambassador Sondland's testimony confirming this 
scheme.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. 
Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the 
Presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President 
Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent 
investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with 
President Trump.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. ``Necessary in his call with 
President Trump.''
    Now, we come to July 25, the morning of the infamous phone 
call--the culmination of a monthslong campaign to engineer a 
corrupt quid pro quo.
    That morning, before the call took place, President Trump 
provided guidance to Sondland. On the morning of July 25, he 
told him that President Zelensky should be prepared to announce 
the investigations in exchange for the White House meeting. 
After Sondland's call with President Trump on the morning of 
July 25, Sondland urgently tried to reach Kurt Volker. When he 
could not reach Ambassador Volker by phone, he sent a text that 
said, ``Call ASAP,'' and he left a message. [Slide 332]
    Volker testified that he indeed received that message, 
which involved the following content: ``President Zelensky 
should be clear, convincing, forthright, with President Trump 
about his commitment to fighting corruption, [Slide 333] 
investigating what happened in the past.'' That refers to the 
Russian-inspired fake, phony, and false conspiracy theory about 
Ukraine having been involved in interfering in our 2016 
elections.
    He continues: ``And if he does that, President Trump was 
prepared to be reassured, that he would say yes, come on, let's 
get this date for this visit scheduled.''
    Ambassador Volker then conveyed that message approximately 
30 minutes before the Trump-Zelensky call to Zelensky's top 
aide, Andriy Yermak.
    As you can see on the slide, [Slide 334] Ambassador Volker 
texts Yermak, Zelensky's guy, and says, ``assuming President Z 
convinces Trump he will investigate/`get to the bottom of what 
happened' in 2016,'' the White House meeting would get 
scheduled--this for that.
    So President Trump talks to Ambassador Sondland. Sondland 
talks to Ambassador Volker. Volker talks to President 
Zelensky's aide Yermak, and then the July 25 call occurs.
    When Ambassador Sondland testified, he agreed with this 
sequence, indicating it ``certainly makes sense.'' Here is what 
Sondland had to say.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. But the sequence certainly makes sense, right?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Yeah, it does.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. You talked to President Trump.
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Yeah.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. You told Kurt Volker to call you. You left a message 
for Kurt Volker. Kurt Volker sent this text message to Andriy Yermak to 
prepare President Zelensky, and then President Trump had a phone call 
where President Zelensky spoke very similar to what was in this text 
message. Right?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Right.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And you would agree that the message in this, that is 
expressed here is that President Zelensky needs to convince Trump that 
he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a 
visit to Washington, DC. Is that correct?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. That's correct.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Indeed, on the July 25 call when 
President Trump asked for a favor, President Zelensky was ready 
with the magic words. He said: [Slide 335]

    I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United 
States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I want to ensure 
you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the 
investigation.

    This for that.
    ``Read the transcript,'' President Trump says. We have read 
the transcript, and it is damning evidence of a corrupt quid 
pro quo.
    The evidence against Donald Trump is hiding in plain sight. 
During our presentation, we walked through the serious issues 
presented in the plain reading of the July 25 call, but now you 
can see the entire content of how this corrupt parade of 
horribles unfolded.
    The quid pro quo was discussed in text messages, emails, 
voicemails, calls, and meetings amongst top administration 
officials and top Ukrainian officials. Indeed, President 
Trump's message was delivered to either President Zelensky or 
his top aides on four different occasions in the month of 
July--four different occasions: on July 2, in Toronto; on July 
10, at the White House; on July 19, during a call between 
Zelensky and Ambassador Sondland; and then on July 25, before 
the call with the two leaders.
    Before that fateful call on July 25, President Zelensky 
understood exactly what needed to be done--a quid pro quo.
    The evidence of President Trump's grave misconduct does not 
end with that July 25 call. From that point onward, President 
Zelensky was on notice that it was President Trump himself who 
demanded those two phony political investigations.
    After the July 25 call, the Ukrainians followed up with 
President Trump's direction and began to coordinate with 
Rudolph Giuliani, the President's political bagman. Acting on 
the President's orders, U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador 
Sondland and Ambassador Volker, worked with Mr. Giuliani to 
continue pressuring Ukraine to announce the phony 
investigations that President Trump sought in exchange for that 
Oval Office meeting. This is corruption and abuse of power in 
its purest form.
    Over the next 2 weeks, Mr. Giuliani directed Ambassadors 
Sondland and Volker to negotiate a public statement for 
President Zelensky announcing the investigations that President 
Trump corruptly demanded. Here is how Ambassador Sondland 
described this August timeframe.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, 
Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public 
statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of 
Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests 
directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those 
requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for 
the White House call and the White House meeting reflected President 
Trump's desires and requirements.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 
George Kent described the pursuit of President Trump's corrupt 
demands as ``infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine.'' Here is 
his full testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. KENT. In mid-August it became clear to me that Giuliani's 
efforts to gin up politically-motivated investigations were now 
infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelensky's 
desire for a White House meeting.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. In short, U.S. diplomats responsible 
for Ukraine policy understood that Giuliani had de facto 
control over whether the Oval Office meeting would be scheduled 
and under what circumstances. Mr. Giuliani had been given that 
level of authority by President Trump, and it was infecting 
official U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
    To shake loose the White House meeting, top Ukrainian 
officials knew that they had to meet with Mr. Giuliani, who 
John Bolton described as a human hand grenade who was going to 
blow everybody up. So, on August 2, Mr. Giuliani met with Mr. 
Yermak, President Zelensky's top aide, in Madrid--Giuliani, in 
Madrid, meeting with Zelensky's top aide on August 2. Mr. 
Giuliani made clear in that meeting that President Trump needed 
more private assurances that Ukraine would pursue the 
investigations. Mr. Giuliani made clear that President Trump 
needed a public statement.
    According to Ambassador Sondland--and this is very 
important--President Trump did not require that Ukraine 
actually conduct the investigations in order to secure that 
White House meeting. The Ukrainian Government only needed to 
announce the investigations because they were phony and they 
were simply designed to cheat in the 2020 election, solicit 
foreign interference, and corrupt our democracy--to the benefit 
of President Trump. So the goal was not the investigations 
themselves but the corrupt political benefit President Trump 
would receive as a result of these announcements. He also 
wanted to shake ``this Russia thing'' and instead blame Ukraine 
with the fairytale that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 
election. The facts didn't matter for President Trump; he only 
cared about the personal political benefit of these sought-
after investigative announcements.
    Over the next few weeks, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker 
worked with Mr. Yermak to draft a public statement for 
President Zelensky to issue. Ambassador Volker was also in 
frequent contact with Rudy Giuliani regarding the content of 
that statement.
    Now, Rudy Giuliani, of course, is not a Secretary of State. 
He is not an Ambassador. He is not a member of the diplomatic 
corps. He was working in the political personal interests of 
President Trump, interacting with Ukrainian officials.
    On August 9, Ambassador Volker texted Mr. Giuliani and 
requested a call to update him on the progress of the 
negotiations for the statement [Slide 336] and discuss the 
content of what it should include. Volker said that Yermak had 
``mentioned Z''--President Zelensky--``making a statement.'' He 
suggested that he and Mr. Giuliani ``get on the phone to make 
sure I advise Zelensky correctly as to what he should be 
saying.''
    Later that afternoon, Ambassador Sondland suggested to 
Ambassador Volker that they obtain a draft statement from the 
Ukrainian Government [Slide 337] ``to avoid misunderstandings'' 
or, in other words, make sure that President Trump's political 
objectives were met. Ambassador Sondland also reiterated that 
President Trump would not be satisfied by a vague statement. 
The Ukrainian leader needed to commit to the phony 
investigations in explicit terms in order to secure the sought-
after Oval Office meeting--this for that.
    Call records subpoenaed by the House show multiple 
communications between Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Giuliani 
[Slide 338] on the one hand and numbers associated with the 
Office of Management and Budget and the White House on the 
other.
    On August 8, around the time of direct communications 
between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Yermak, Mr. Giuliani communicated 
repeatedly with the White House, sending or receiving six text 
messages and completing several calls.
    Most notably, late in the evening on August 8, Mr. Giuliani 
called the White House in a highly distinctive pattern.
    At 8:53 p.m., Giuliani texted a White House number. [Slide 
339]
    At 10:09, a number identified only as ``-1'' in the White 
House call records called Mr. Giuliani five times in rapid 
succession.
    Two minutes later, Mr. Giuliani attempted to return the 
call, trying an Office of Management and Budget number, then 
the White House Situation Room, and then the White House 
switchboard.
    At 10:28, 16 minutes after Mr. Giuliani tried to call the 
White House back, frantically--Situation Room, Office of 
Management and Budget, switchboard--16 minutes after Mr. 
Giuliani tried to call the White House back, Giuliani and the -
1 number connected for 4 minutes 6 seconds.
    We should be clear. We do not know what Mr. Giuliani said 
or even whom he talked to. We do not know who was on the other 
end of that mysterious call with the -1. President Trump 
refused to produce documents and ordered key witnesses not to 
testify, hiding part of the truth from the American people. He 
obstructed our congressional investigation. But we do know that 
Rudolph Giuliani frantically called the White House late into 
the night. We do know that he talked to someone at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, and we know that Mr. Giuliani likely 
talked about the drug deal that John Bolton characterized.
    Over the next few days, President Zelensky's aide, Mr. 
Yermak, exchanged drafts of the public statement with 
Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, who consulted on these drafts 
with Mr. Giuliani. The Ukrainian officials appeared to finally 
relent. They agreed to Mr. Giuliani's specific language about 
the phony political investigations in exchange for the Oval 
Office meeting.
    On August 10, Yermak texted Volker that the Ukrainians were 
willing to make the requested statements [Slide 340] but only 
if they received a date for the White House meeting first. Mr. 
Yermak texted: ``I think it's possible to make this declaration 
and mention all these things.'' Yermak, again, is Zelensky's 
top guy. He later wrote that the statement would come out 
``after we `receive a confirmation of date' for the White House 
visit.
    Ambassador Volker counterproposed: They would iron out the 
statement in private, use that to get the date for the meeting 
in the Oval Office, and then President Zelensky would make the 
public statement--this for that.
    Mr. Yermak countered: [Slide 341] ``Once we have a date, 
will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and 
outlining vision for the reboot of the US-UKRAINE relationship, 
including, among other things, Burisma and election meddling in 
investigations.'' That was the specific reference to President 
Trump's corrupt demands.
    Two days later, Mr. Yermak sent the draft statement, but 
the statement did not reference Burisma or the 2016 election. 
As soon as Mr. Yermak sent the statement, [Slide 342] what did 
Ambassadors Sondland and Volker do? [Slide 343] They sought a 
call with Rudolph Giuliani to see if the statement would 
suffice. They needed to check in with Mr. Giuliani, who was 
leading the charge to lock down the corrupt quid pro quo.
    Let's listen to Ambassador Volker.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador VOLKER. This is the first draft of that from Mr. Yermak 
after the conversations that we had.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And it does not mention Burisma or the 2016 election 
interference, correct?
    Ambassador VOLKER. It does not.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And you testified in your deposition that you and 
Ambassador Sondland and Mayor Giuliani had a conversation about this 
draft after you received it. Is that right?
    Ambassador VOLKER. That is correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And Mr. Giuliani said that if the statement did not 
include Burisma and 2016 election, it would not have any credibility. 
Is that right?
    Ambassador VOLKER. That's correct.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Giuliani, acting on behalf of 
President Trump, made clear that the statement from the 
Ukrainians had to target Vice President Biden--for reasons 
outlined earlier today--and it had to mention the conspiracy 
theory about Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election.
    After Mr. Giuliani conveyed this on the telephone call, 
Ambassadors Volker and Sondland texted Mr. Yermak and requested 
a call to convey that message. Ambassador Volker says: [Slide 
344] ``Hi Andrey--we spoke with Rudy. When is good to call 
you?'' And Ambassador Sondland makes clear the urgency, 
texting: ``Important. Do you have 5 minutes?''
    Now, Ambassador Volker made clear to Mr. Yermak that the 
statement needed the two key items Mr. Giuliani required for 
the President.
    Here is Ambassador Volker's testimony to that effect.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador VOLKER. Hi, Andre. Good talking. Following is text with 
insert at the end for the two key items. We will work on official 
request.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And then you will see the highlighted portion of the 
next text. The other is identical to your previous one and then it just 
adds including the . . . Including Burisma and the 2016 elections. Is 
that right?
    Ambassador VOLKER: That is correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And that was what Mr. Giuliani insisted on adding to 
the statement?
    Ambassador VOLKER. That's what he said will be necessary for that 
to be credible.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And the Ukrainians ultimately did not issue the 
statement. Is that right?
    Ambassador VOLKER. That is correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And President Zelensky ultimately did not get the Oval 
Office meeting either, did he?
    Ambassador VOLKER. Not yet.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. President Zelensky is still waiting 
for that Oval Office meeting.
    Ronald Reagan, in a speech that he delivered in 1987 at the 
foot of the Berlin Wall, in the midst of the Cold War, said to 
the world:

    East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed. We 
are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not 
about weapons. It's about liberty.

    The Trump-Ukraine scandal is certainly about weapons. It is 
about the unlawful withholding of $391 million in security aid. 
It is about a withheld, sought-after Oval Office meeting. It is 
about trying to cheat in the 2020 election. It is about 
corrupting our democracy. It is about undermining America's 
national security. It is about a stunning abuse of power. It is 
about obstruction of Congress. It is about the need for us here 
in this great Chamber to have a fair trial with witnesses and 
evidence. It is about a corrupt quid pro quo.
    Perhaps, above all, it is about liberty, because in 
America, for all of us, what keeps us free from tyranny is the 
sacred principle that in this great country no one is above the 
law.
    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, 
President's counsel, we have reviewed the mountain of evidence 
that proves the President's official act in his scheme: the 
corrupt bargain of a White House meeting in exchange for 
Ukraine announcing sham political investigations.
    You heard from each relevant witness with firsthand 
knowledge of the President's corrupt scheme--Sondland, Taylor, 
Volker, Hill, and Vindman--that there was a corrupt deal: an 
Oval Office meeting for investigations--quid pro quo, this for 
that.
    You also saw inescapable documentary proof that clearly 
proves a corrupt quid pro quo. The evidence is consistent, 
corroborated. It comes in many forms, from many individuals who 
are lifelong public servants with no motivation to lie. In 
short, the evidence is overwhelming.
    Given how much we have gone through, let's review some of 
those career public servants' testimony, who state clearly that 
they too believed it was a quid pro quo--a this for that--
because it is really powerful to hear directly from them.
    Let's watch Ambassador Taylor.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that 
the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the 
investigations of Burisma, and alleged Ukrainian interference and the 
2016 U.S. elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven 
by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by 
Mr. Giuliani.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. It was clear that these were 
conditions driven by irregular policies. We know this too 
because Ambassador Sondland said so at the July 10 meeting. Dr. 
Fiona Hill described the scene in Ambassador Bolton's office, 
where the quid pro quo was made clear.
    Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. Ukrainian Mr. Danylyuk starts to ask about a White House 
meeting, and Ambassador Bolton was trying to parry this back. Although 
he's the National Security Advisor, he's not in charge of scheduling 
the meeting. We have input recommending the meetings, and this goes 
through a whole process. It's not Ambassador Bolton's role to start 
pulling out the schedule and start saying, ``Right, well, we're going 
to look and see if this Tuesday in this month is going to work with 
us.'' And he does not as a matter of course like to discuss the details 
of these meetings, he likes to leave them to, you know, the appropriate 
staff for this. So, this was already going to be an uncomfortable 
issue.
    As Ambassador Bolton was trying to move that part of the discussion 
away, I think he was going to try to deflect it onto another wrap-up 
topic, Ambassador Sondland leaned in basically to say, ``Well, we have 
an agreement that there will be a meeting, and the specific 
investigations are put underway.'' And that's when I saw Ambassador 
Bolton stiffen. I was sitting behind him in the chair, and I saw him 
sit back slightly like this. He'd been more moving forward, like I am, 
to the table. And, for me, that was an unmistakable body language, and 
it caught my attention. And then he looked up to the clock and, you 
know, at his watch, or at his wrist in any case. Again, I am sitting 
behind him . . . and basically said, ``Well, you know, it's been really 
great to see you. I'm afraid I've got another--another meeting.''

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. ``Ambassador Bolton 
stiffened''--quite a description. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's 
testimony is consistent with Dr. Hill's recollection of the 
July 10 meeting, and that it was made clear that the deal for 
the White House meeting was investigations.
    Let's watch Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. I want to move now to that July 10th meeting that you 
referenced, Colonel Vindman. What exactly did Ambassador Sondland say 
when the Ukrainian officials raised the idea of a White House meeting?
    LTC VINDMAN. As I recall, he referred to specific investigations 
that the Ukrainians would have to deliver in order to get these 
meetings.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, 
firsthand knowledge--they would have to deliver in order to get 
these meetings.
    It was also clear that this wasn't about general 
investigations about corruption. This wasn't about corruption 
at all. Ambassador Sondland directed everyone--including the 
Ukrainian officials--to reconvene in the Ward Room, where he 
discussed the arrangement he had reached with Mr. Mulvaney in 
more detail. He made clear that it was about specific 
investigations that would benefit President Trump personally.
    Here is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testifying, where he 
explains that Ambassador Sondland referred to the Bidens, 
Burisma, and the 2016 election, which had nothing to do with 
national security policy.
    Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Were the investigations, the specific investigations 
that Ambassador Sondland referenced in the larger meeting, also 
discussed in the Ward Room meeting?
    LTC VINDMAN. They were.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And what did Ambassador Sondland say?
    LTC VINDMAN. Ambassador Sondland referred to investigations into 
the Bidens, Burisma, and 2016.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. How did you respond, if at all?
    LTC VINDMAN. I said that this request to conduct these meetings was 
inappropriate--these investigations was inappropriate and had nothing 
to do with national security policy.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. ``Nothing to do with national 
security policy''--that about some sums it up. Doesn't it? It 
has nothing to do with national security policy. President 
Trump's scheme was for his personal interest, not national 
security. And his testimony, once again, is corroborated.
    Dr. Hill joined the Ward Room conversation later and also 
recalled the discussion of investigations and a White House 
meeting, and that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said: ``This is 
inappropriate. We're the National Security Council; we can't be 
involved in this.''
    Here is her testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. And so when I came in, Gordon Sondland was basically 
saying, well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. I 
have a deal here with Chief of Staff Mulvaney. There will be a meeting 
if the Ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 
and Burisma.
    And I cut it off immediately there. Because by this point, having 
heard Mr. Giuliani over and over again on the television and all of the 
issues that he was asserting, by this point it was clear that Burisma 
was code for the Bidens, because Giuliani was laying it out there. I 
could see why Colonel Vindman was alarmed. And he said: ``This is 
inappropriate. We're the National Security Council; we can't be 
involved in this.''

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. And what's more, as Ambassador 
Sondland told us, everyone was in the loop--meaning, it became 
clear that President Trump was directing this.
    Dr. Hill, who at one point confronted Gordon Sondland over 
this arrangement, further reached the conclusion that he was 
acting on the President's orders and coordinating with other 
senior officials. He had made this clear: he was briefing the 
President on all this.
    Here is Dr. Hill's testimony. Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. So, I was upset with him that he wasn't fully telling us 
about all of the meetings that he was having. And he said to me: ``But 
I'm briefing the president. I'm briefing Chief of Staff Mulvaney. I'm 
briefing Secretary Pompeo and I've talked to Ambassador Bolton. Who 
else do I have to deal with?''
    And the point is we have a robust interagency process that deals 
with Ukraine. It includes Mr. Holmes, it includes Ambassador Taylor as, 
the Charge in Ukraine, it includes a whole load of other people. But it 
struck me when yesterday, when you put up on the screen Ambassador 
Sondland's emails and who was on these emails and he said, these [are] 
the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right. Because he 
was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being 
involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had 
just divulged.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. The evidence is very clear: 
The White House meeting would only be scheduled if Ukraine 
announced the investigations that everyone, including the 
Ukrainians, understood to be purely political efforts to 
benefit the President. The only way to come to a different 
conclusion is to ignore the evidence.
    One additional way you can tell that this conduct is truly 
corrupt, and not U.S. foreign policy as usual, is that these 
officials--these lifetime, career public servants--didn't just 
testify about this in impeachment proceedings. They 
contemporaneously reported this conduct in realtime.
    Their reactions illustrate that this was not the kind of 
thing that both parties do when they have the White House. This 
was something different, something corrupt, something 
``insidious,'' to use Ambassador Sondland's characterization in 
later testimony.
    The officials who instinctively recoiled from the corrupt 
deal that Sondland blurted out were distinguished patriotic 
public servants.
    Let's go through some specific examples of that evidence.
    After the July 10 meeting we just talked about, where 
Ambassador Sondland made clear the agreement that the White 
House meetings were conditioned on the investigations, Dr. Hill 
consulted with Ambassador Bolton and told him what she had 
heard. Ambassador Bolton gave her, as she put it, a ``very 
specific instruction'' to report this conduct in realtime, and 
she did.
    Here is her testimony. Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Dr. HILL. The specific instruction was that I had to go to the 
lawyers, to John Eisenberg, our senior counsel for the National 
Security Council, to basically say, you tell Eisenberg, Ambassador 
Bolton told me, that I am not part of this whatever drug deal that 
Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did you understand him to mean by the drug deal 
Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?
    Dr. HILL. I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you go speak to the lawyers?
    Dr. HILL. I certainly did.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Again, investigations for a 
meeting, the quid pro quo.
    Consistent with Dr. Hill's recounting, after both the July 
10 meeting and the July 25 call, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman 
reported what he had learned through the lawyers.
    Here he is discussing that later interaction. Let's see it.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. MALONEY. And you went immediately, and you reported it, didn't 
you?
    LTC VINDMAN. I did.
    Mr. MALONEY. Why?
    LTC VINDMAN. Because that was my duty.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. When Vindman said he reported 
this conduct, again, ``because that was my duty,'' he acted as 
he did out of a sense of duty and as a Purple Heart veteran, 
with confidence that in America he would be protected for doing 
the right thing even if it angered the President of the United 
States.
    His father, who fled the Soviet Union to come to this 
country, worried about his son fulfilling that duty.
    Here was Colonel Vindman's message to his father. Let's 
listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    LTC VINDMAN. Dad, my sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol talking 
to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision 40 
years ago to leave the Soviet Union to come here to the United States 
of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry. 
I'll be fine for telling the truth.
    Mr. MALONEY. You realize when you came forward out of a sense of 
duty that you were putting yourself in direct opposition to the most 
powerful person in the world? Do you realize that, sir?
    LTC VINDMAN. I knew I was assuming a lot of risk.
    Mr. MALONEY. And I'm struck by the word . . . that phrase, ``do not 
worry,'' you addressed to your dad. Was your dad a warrior?
    LTC VINDMAN. He did serve. It was a different military though.
    Mr. MALONEY. And he would've worried if you were putting yourself 
up against the President of the United States, is that right?
    LTC VINDMAN. He deeply worried about it because in his context it 
was the ultimate risk.
    Mr. MALONEY. And why do you have confidence that you can do that 
and tell your dad not to worry?
    LTC VINDMAN. Congressman, because this is America. This is the 
country I've served and defended, that all of my brothers have served, 
and here right matters.
    Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, sir. I yield back. [applause].

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Imagine. He had to tell his 
father: Do not worry; I will be fine for telling the truth. It 
was his duty because, in America, right matters.
    President Trump has suggested that all of the witnesses are 
Never Trumpers. That couldn't be further from the truth. As we 
just saw, these U.S. officials are brave public servants. It is 
wrong--just flat wrong--to suggest they were doing anything 
other than testifying out of a sense of duty, as Lieutenant 
Colonel Vindman testified.
    But it wasn't just U.S. officials whose reactions show us 
that this was wrong; it is also clear how corrupt this scheme 
was because Ukraine resisted it. President Zelensky was elected 
as a reformer. His first few months in office lived up to this 
promise.
    Here is Ambassador Taylor testifying on this point. Let's 
see it.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. But once I arrived in Kyiv, I discovered a weird 
combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming 
circumstances.
    First, the encouraging. President Zelensky was reforming Ukraine in 
a hurry. He appointed reformist ministers and supported long-stalled 
anti-corruption legislation. He took quick executive action, including 
opening Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court. With a new parliamentary 
majority stemming from snap elections, President Zelensky changed the 
Ukraine Constitution to remove absolute immunity from Rada deputies, 
the source of raw corruption for two decades. The excitement in Kyiv 
was palpable. This time could be different, a new Ukraine finally 
breaking from its corrupt, post-Soviet past.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. So we know that President 
Zelensky was a reformer, fighting corruption, fighting for 
reform, and he got started early, as soon as he was sworn in. 
We know that President Zelensky's agenda was in our U.S. 
national interest. In fact, every witness testified that 
President Zelensky deserved America's support and that they 
told President Trump that.
    So keeping that in mind, it is extremely telling what 
President Zelensky and his aides were saying behind closed 
doors. They were concerned about being dragged into President 
Trump's scheme. They recognized the political peril of going 
along with the President's corrupt scheme. We know that was the 
case for many reasons, but let's look at some of the evidence 
showing that now.
    First, the Ukrainians made their concerns clear directly to 
U.S. officials. On July 20, just days ahead of the July 25 
call, Ambassador Taylor spoke with President Zelensky's 
national security advisor. He then conveyed to Ambassadors 
Sondland and Volker that the Ukrainian leader ``did not want to 
be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign.''
    Here is Ambassador Taylor explaining what he understood 
that to mean. Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did you understand it to mean when--that Zelensky 
had concerns about being an instrument in Washington domestic 
reelection politics?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Danyliuk understood that these 
investigations were pursuant to Mr. Giuliani's request to develop 
information, to find information about Burisma and the Bidens. This was 
very well known in public. Mr. Giuliani made this point clear in 
several instances in the beginning--in the springtime. And Mr. Danyliuk 
was aware that that was a problem.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And would you agree that, because President Zelensky 
is worried about this, they understood, at least, that there was some 
pressure for them to pursue these investigations? Is that fair?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Danyliuk indicated that President Zelensky 
certainly understood it, that he did not want to get involved in these 
type of activities.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. As the slide shows, [Slide 
345] on July 21, Ambassador Taylor relayed the same message to 
Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, making clear that ``President 
Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not 
merely as an instrument in Washington domestic politics.''
    But Ambassador Sondland did not back down. Instead, 
Ambassador Sondland reinforced the importance that President 
Zelensky reassure President Trump of his commitment to 
investigations. He said: ``Absolutely, but we need to get the 
conversation started and the relationship built, irrespective 
of the pretext. I am worried about the alternative.'' The 
``pretext'' that Ambassador Sondland referred to was President 
Trump's requirement that Ukraine announce investigations that 
would benefit him personally and politically. He wanted help in 
cheating.
    It wasn't just Ambassador Taylor. Deputy Assistant 
Secretary George Kent, too, testified that Ukraine was ``very 
uncomfortable'' when the issue of investigations was raised 
during the negotiations of the statement in August of 2019.
    As the slide shows, Mr. Kent said: [Slide 346]

    I had a conversation with Charge Taylor in which he . . . indicated 
that Special Representative Volker had been engaging Andriy Yermak; 
that the President and his private attorney Rudy Giuliani were 
interested in the initiation of investigations and that Yermak was very 
uncomfortable when this was raised with him, and suggested that if that 
were the case, if that were really the position of the United States, 
it should be done officially and put in writing . . . And I told Bill 
Taylor, that's wrong, and we shouldn't be doing that as a matter of 
U.S. policy.

    When asked, ``What did he say?'' Mr. Kent said, ``He said 
he agreed with me.''
    What is also important to note here is why. Ukraine made 
this clear. If the United States was asking them for 
investigations, especially investigations that made them 
uncomfortable, they should be done ``officially'' and ``put in 
writing.''
    Mr. Kent's testimony shows that. He said:

    Yermak was very uncomfortable when this was raised with him, and 
suggested that if that were the case, if that were really the position 
of the United States, it should be done officially and put in writing.

    And this wasn't the only time. On August 13, Mr. Yermak 
asked Ambassador Volker ``whether any requests had ever been 
made by the U.S. to investigate election interference in 
2016.''
    Now, this makes sense. Normally, if something is actually 
about official U.S. policy, the President would go through 
official U.S. channels, but, as we have seen here, he didn't. 
His personal attorney made this--this wasn't about foreign 
policy; it was something that would benefit President Trump 
personally.
    The administration officials made this clear too. There was 
undisputed testimony that the investigations were not part of 
U.S. policy. In fact, they diverged with the U.S. national 
security and our Nation's values. The Department of Justice has 
made this crystal clear in public statements. There has never 
been an official asked officially to do any of these 
investigations. And that is how we know this is so very wrong.
    Even Ukraine, a struggling, new country, knew this was 
wrong, and they stood up to President Trump and said no. 
Yermak--remember, he was Zelensky's chief aide--was basically 
saying: You want an investigation? Please send us a formal 
request from DOJ. Show us you are willing to stand behind the 
legitimacy of what you are asking. But Ambassador Volker was 
unable to provide that information. And that is why--even 
though the White House meeting was so critical to Ukraine, even 
though Ukraine needed it so desperately--they still wouldn't 
make the statement with key additions: President Trump's 
political investigations, which were solely to help his 
reelection and had nothing to do with foreign policy.
    President Zelensky tried in different ways to resist the 
pressure of becoming a ``pawn'' in U.S. politics. Even though 
the Oval Office meeting was important, Zelensky repeatedly 
tried to find a way around committing to the investigations 
that President Trump demanded--or at the very least, schedule 
it before taking any official action. This is what you saw in 
the negotiation over the statement in August, and this is why 
even President Trump's second official act--withholding the 
White House meeting--was not enough to make Ukraine do his 
dirty work.
    Senators, we are coming to the end of a section of the 
presentation regarding the withholding of the White House 
meeting. So I want to just quickly remind us one last time 
about the central points that we have covered.
    President Trump exercised his official power when he 
withheld an Oval Office meeting that was critical to Ukraine, 
and he did this for only one reason and one reason only: [Slide 
322] President Trump conditioned that Oval Office meeting on 
Ukraine's announcing investigations that would help him 
politically. This had nothing to do with official U.S. policy. 
President Trump directed U.S. officials who were supposed to 
work for the American people to work, instead, with his 
personal agent, Rudy Giuliani, and focus only on his personal 
political interests.
    Acting on behalf of the President and with the President's 
full knowledge, Mr. Giuliani worked with those U.S. officials 
to carry out the President's scheme. They pressured the 
Ukrainian Government to act as a personal opposition research 
firm for President Trump. They tried to use a foreign 
government to dig up dirt on his client's rival, former Vice 
President Biden, an American citizen--all so President Trump 
could win his election. They made clear that Ukraine would not 
get the official U.S. Government support it so desperately 
needed--support that the President's national security team 
conveyed was necessary to advance our own national security 
objectives--unless President Zelensky announced the sham 
investigations.
    Remember that an abuse of power occurs when a President 
corruptly exercises official power to obtain a personal benefit 
in a way that ignores or injures the national interest.
    Senators, that is exactly what happened here. By 
withholding a White House meeting, President Trump used 
official power to corruptly pressure Ukraine. Indeed, the 
entire quid pro quo--the ``this for that''--the entire campaign 
to use the Oval Office meeting as some kind of asset for the 
President's reelection campaign--was corrupt. U.S. officials 
knew this. Ukrainians knew this too. I think, deep down, we all 
know it, and I think the American people know it.
    Senators, I ask you this one question: Is that not an abuse 
of power? Was it OK? If it is not an abuse of power, then what 
is? Is it OK to withhold official acts from a foreign country 
until that foreign country assists in your reelection effort?
    If any other public official did that, he or she would be 
held accountable. I know, if one of us did that, we would be 
held accountable. The only way to hold this President 
accountable is right here in this trial. Otherwise, you would 
be telling Ukraine and the world that it is OK for the 
President to use our Oval Office and this country's prestige 
and power for himself instead of for the American people.
    If we allow this gross abuse of power to continue, this 
President will have free rein to abuse his control of U.S. 
foreign policy for personal interests and so would any other 
future President. Then this President and all Presidents become 
above the law. A President could take the powers of the 
greatest office in this land and use those powers not for the 
country, not for the American people, but for him or herself.
    I ask you to make sure this does not happen because, in 
this country, no one--no one--is above the law.
    (The above statement is spoken in Spanish.)
    I now yield to Mrs. Demings.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                                 recess
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, the House managers have 
requested a 5-minute break.
    There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:19 p.m., 
recessed until 8:38 p.m. and reassembled when called to order 
by the Chief Justice.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may, one brief 
announcement: In the morning, there will be a coronavirus 
briefing for all Members at 10:30. Senator Alexander and 
Senator Murray are involved in that. The location will be 
emailed to your office.
    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Chief Justice Roberts, Senators, and 
counsel for the President, we have now been through the first 
two official acts by the President. But neither of those 
official acts got the President what he wanted--help in his 
reelection campaign. So he turned to another official act to 
turn up the pressure even more--[Slide 347] withholding nearly 
$400 million of vital military assistance to Ukraine in 
exchange for the investigations.
    Withholding military assistance to Ukraine made the 
original abuse of power, soliciting foreign interference in our 
elections, that much worse. But it was also in and of itself an 
abuse of power. And not only that, it violated the law. It was 
illegal.
    The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan, 
independent agency, concluded that President Trump's hold on 
the security assistance clearly violated the Impoundment 
Control Act, a law that Congress enacted to curb President 
Nixon's own abuse of power.
    President Trump may not like it, but once a law is passed, 
the President cannot change that law without coming back to us, 
the Congress.
    And President Trump did not just break the law, he 
jeopardized our national security, because Ukraine's national 
security is our national security. How? Because a free and 
democratic Ukraine is a shield against Russian aggression in 
Europe. That has been one of America's most important foreign 
policy and national security goals since World War II. Freedom, 
liberty, democracy--those values keep us safe.
    Let us now explain how President Trump's improper 
withholding of military assistance was clearly done to pressure 
Ukraine to announce the two baseless investigations--a gross 
abuse of power.
    First, we will briefly describe how important the military 
aid was to Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, which 
affects our security. [Slide 348]
    Second, we will explain how President Trump used the power 
of his office to freeze military aid to Ukraine in a way meant 
to conceal it from Congress.
    And third, we will present the overwhelming evidence that 
President Trump ordered the hold for a corrupt purpose: to 
pressure Ukraine to announce two investigations that would 
personally benefit his own reelection effort.
    Let us start with the importance of the aid to our--the 
United States'--national security. The United States has 
supported Ukraine since it secured independence from the Soviet 
Union in 1991. Our support was critical to convince Ukraine to 
forgo its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal in 1994. We promised 
them that we would defend them if necessary. But our support 
became truly vital in 2014, when Ukraine revolted against its 
Russian-friendly President, Viktor Yanukovych. Ukrainian 
citizens rose up in protest, demanding democratic reforms and 
an end to corruption. The protests, rightly known as the 
Revolution of Dignity, removed the pro-Kremlin President.
    Russia responded by using its own military forces and 
proxies in Ukraine to invade Ukraine. [Slide 349] This was the 
first effort to redraw European boundaries by military force 
since World War II.
    The war was devastating to Ukraine and remains so today. 
Approximately 7 percent of Ukraine's territory is now occupied 
by Russia. Approximately 15,000 people have been killed as a 
result of the conflict, and over 1.4 million people have been 
displaced.
    In response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, [Slide 350] 
the United States and our allies imposed sanctions on Russian 
individuals and entities and agreed to provide billions of 
dollars in assistance to support Ukrainian sovereignty and 
democratic development.
    We understood immediately, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
that Ukraine's safety and security was directly tied to our 
safety and security. With this all in mind, [Slide 351] since 
2014, the United States has delivered roughly $1.5 billion in 
security assistance and another $1.5 billion in other 
assistance to our ally Ukraine. Our allies in Europe have 
provided approximately $18 billion in loans and grants since 
2014.
    As we have explained, the U.S. assistance comes partially 
from the Department of Defense, which provides important 
military support. It comes partially from the State Department, 
which helps Ukraine purchase military services or equipment 
manufactured by American companies in the United States.
    Ambassador Taylor explained how security assistance 
counters Russian aggression and can help shorten the war in the 
east. Here is his testimony:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, the security assistance that we 
provide takes many forms. One of the components of that assistance is 
counter-battery radar. Another component are sniper weapons.
    These weapons and this assistance allows the Ukrainian military to 
deter further incursions by the Russians against Ukrainian territory. 
If that further incursion, further aggression, were to take place, more 
Ukrainians would die. So it is a deterrent effect that these weapons 
provide.
    It's also the ability--it gives the Ukrainians the ability to 
negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate 
an end to the war in Donbas, negotiating with the Russians. This also 
is a way that would reduce the numbers of Ukrainians who would die.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Congress imposed certain conditions 
on the DOD assistance. Those conditions require DOD to hold 
half of the money in reserve. To release all of the funds, DOD, 
in coordination with the State Department, must conduct a 
review and certify to Congress that Ukraine has done enough to 
fight corruption.
    President Trump may argue that the conditions imposed by 
Congress are similar to the hold he placed on aid to Ukraine. 
As Mick Mulvaney said, ``[w]e do that all the time.'' But let 
us be very clear: These types of conditions, which are often 
included in appropriations bills, are designed to promote 
official U.S. policy, not the policy of one individual or one 
President. This is exactly the type of permissible condition on 
aid that Vice President Biden was implementing when he required 
that Ukraine fire its corrupt prosecutor general before getting 
a loan guarantee.
    Prior to 2019, the Trump administration provided security 
assistance to Ukraine without incident. Even under the previous 
Ukrainian administration of President Petro Poroshenko--which 
suffered from serious corruption--President Trump allowed $510 
million in 2017 and $359 million in 2018 to flow unimpeded to 
Ukraine.
    But in the summer of 2019, without any explanation, 
President Trump abruptly withheld the security assistance for 
Ukraine.
    So what had changed by July of 2019? Congress had 
appropriated the funds. President Trump had signed this into 
law. The Department of Defense had certified that Ukraine was 
meeting the required anti-corruption reforms. In fact, DOD had 
begun to spend the funds. So what happened?
    Well, in April, two critical things happened. First, Joe 
Biden publicly announced his campaign for President. Second, 
the Mueller investigation concluded that Russia interfered in 
the 2016 U.S. elections to assist the Trump campaign and that 
the Trump campaign had extensive contacts with Russians and 
even took advantage of some of the Russian efforts. The 
evidence shows that the only reason--the only logical reason, 
and we deal in what is reasonable--President Trump withheld the 
aid was to undermine these threats to his political future.
    As we have discussed, security assistance to Ukraine has 
broad bipartisan support from Congress, as well as every agency 
within the President's own administration.
    Let us be clear about something. The money mattered to 
Ukraine. [Slide 352] It mattered to Ukraine. Witness testimony 
revealed that this money was 10 percent of Ukraine's defense 
budget--10 percent.
    Now imagine if President Trump just decided without cause 
or explanation to hold 10 percent of our own defense budget. 
That would have a dramatic impact on our military. It certainly 
did to Ukraine, our ally.
    Keep in mind, too, that President Trump had to sign the 
bill into law, which he did in September of 2018. At no time--
at no time--through the congressional debate or passage of the 
bill did the White House express any concerns about the funding 
or the program itself.
    I want you to see the slide before us. [Slide 353] It shows 
President Trump signs the bill authorizing aid to Ukraine for 
fiscal year 2019.
    On June 18, President Trump's own Department of Defense 
[Slide 354] certified that Ukraine had met all of the anti-
corruption requirements necessary to receive aid. And do you 
know what? The Department of Defense announced that the money 
was on its way, just as we, the United States of America, had 
promised.
    Senators, our word must continue to mean something. Our 
word must continue to mean something powerful in the world. So 
let us make certain that America continues to live up to its 
promise.
    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, thank 
you so much for the attention that you have given to our 
presentation throughout this day. It is a long day. You are 
here without your cell phones or any access to other 
information. It is not easy, but you are paying attention, and 
the country and the managers thank you for that.
    We have just gone through the importance of security 
assistance to Ukraine to our national security and the clear 
consensus among Congress, the Executive, and the President's 
agencies and advisers that the aid should be released to 
Ukraine. In fact, by June 18, after having certified that 
Ukraine had met all the anti-corruption reform requirements to 
receive the aid, DOD announced its intention to provide the 
$250 million in security assistance to Ukraine.
    This brings us to the second part of this section of our 
argument.
    Soon after that June 18 press release, President Trump 
quickly moved to stop the aid from flowing. He did this with no 
explanation, against the clear consensus of his advisers and 
his agencies, and against our Nation's security interests. He 
was so determined to do it in order to pressure Ukraine to do 
his political dirty work that he was willing to violate the 
law, something his own officials were well aware of and worried 
about.
    How do we know the President ordered the hold? First, there 
is no real dispute that the President ordered the hold. The 
hold on security assistance to Ukraine was a unilateral 
official act by the President. Immediately after the DOD's June 
18 press release announcing the $250 million in security 
assistance funds for Ukraine, President Trump started asking 
questions about the funding program. Laura Cooper from DOD and 
Mark Sandy from OMB testified about this sudden interest in 
Ukraine security assistance, something that Cooper called 
unusual.
    We, of course, have received no documents from OMB and DOD 
because of the President's obstruction. Why did the President 
want to hide these documents? We don't know, but thanks to 
Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and hard-working reporters, 
we know a little from the documents that we do have.
    For instance, we know that the day after the DOD press 
release, the President asked for information about the Ukraine 
aid. On June 19, [Slide 355] Michael Duffey, the Associate 
Director for National Security Programs at OMB, sent an email 
to Elaine McCusker, the DOD comptroller, with an article by the 
Washington Examiner reporting: ``Pentagon to send $250M in 
weapons to Ukraine.''
    In Duffey's email, he asked McCusker the following 
question:

    The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been 
tasked to follow-up with someone over there to get more detail. Do you 
have insight on this funding?

    It seems that on June 19, Robert Blair, Mick Mulvaney's 
deputy, called Acting OMB Director Russell Vought to discuss 
Ukraine's security assistance. He told him: ``We need to hold 
it up.''
    That is right. The hold was actually directed impulsively 
without any policy or agency review as soon as President Trump 
learned about it from a press release.
    We know what was on the President's mind about Ukraine that 
day because President Trump gave a phone interview with Sean 
Hannity on FOX News. During the interview, he mentioned the so-
called CrowdStrike conspiracy theory that blames Ukraine rather 
than Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. Remember, 
President Trump raised the CrowdStrike theory a month later 
during his July 25 call with President Zelensky. Of course--and 
this has been said many times--that theory has been completely 
refuted by U.S. intelligence agencies, as well as the 
President's own handpicked senior advisers.
    The New York Times also reported that on June 27, Mick 
Mulvaney sent Blair an email. Mulvaney wrote: [Slide 356]

    I am just trying to tie up some loose ends. Did we ever find out 
about the money to Ukraine and whether we can hold it back?

    What was Blair's response to Mulvaney? That it was possible 
to hold security assistance, but he warned: ``Expect Congress 
to become unhinged.'' [Slide 357]
    Blair, who previously worked for Congress, knew that 
Congress would be ``unhinged'' because there was overwhelming 
bipartisan support for Ukraine. Congress had already authorized 
the release of the funds. DOD had already told Congress and the 
world that it was going to spend the $250 million on Ukraine 
security assistance, and it had already started to do so.
    Mark Sandy, the senior career official at OMB responsible 
for this type of aid, couldn't recall any other time in his 12-
year career at OMB when a hold was placed on security 
assistance after a congressional notification was made.
    Later, if the President's counsel starts listing other 
times that aid has been held, ask yourself three questions.
    One, had Congress already cleared the money to be released; 
two, was there a significant geopolitical development in that 
country; and three, did the GAO determine that the hold was 
illegal, in part, because Congress was not notified?
    Here, the money had been cleared. There was nothing new or 
important in Ukraine to disrupt the aid--just that a true anti-
corruption reformer was elected. The hold was illegal.
    From freedom of information releases and press reports, we 
know about just a few of the many documents being hidden from 
you about how the hold began. Given President Trump's 
obstruction with the facts that have come to light through the 
Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and news reporting, you may 
assume the documents that are being withheld would probably 
incriminate the President; otherwise, why wouldn't he have 
provided them? If he had a legitimate executive privilege 
claim, he could follow the rules and make each claim. Instead, 
he just said no--no to everything.
    By mid-July, the President had put a hold on all the money. 
Jennifer Williams, special adviser to Vice President Pence for 
Europe, learned about the hold on July 3. She said it came 
``out of the blue'' and hadn't previously been discussed by OMB 
or the National Security Council. The hold was never discussed 
with any policy experts in any of the relevant agencies.
    That is remarkable. President Trump ordered a hold on 
congressionally appropriated funds without the benefit of any 
interagency deliberation, consultation, or advice. The evidence 
shows the President's hold was an impulsive decision unrelated 
to any American policy.
    On July 12, Robert Blair, Mulvaney's deputy, emailed Duffey 
at OMB. He said ``the President is directing a hold on military 
support funding for Ukraine.'' This is according to Sandy, the 
career officer at OMB who got a copy of the email.
    Now, we don't have a copy of the email because of the 
President's obstruction, but here is what we do know from Mr. 
Sandy's description of the email, as well as testimony from 
other witnesses. The hold was not part of a larger review of 
foreign aid. We do know it was not the result of a policy 
debate about what was best for America. It came ``out of the 
blue.'' We now know why it was done: to turn the screws on 
Ukraine to provide political help for the President.
    The hold was immediately suspect simply because of its 
timing. Duffey later asked Blair about the reason for the hold. 
Blair gave no explanation. Instead he said [Slide 358] ``we 
need to let the hold take place'' and then ``revisit'' the 
issue with the President. Blair either didn't know the reason 
or wouldn't share the real reason because it was corrupt. It 
sure would be nice to know what Blair knew about the reason for 
the hold and what Duffey knew. We could ask them the question 
if you authorize a subpoena.
    Now, we had hoped, as we said, that the Senate would 
authorize subpoenas before our arguments were made. We thought 
it would have been helpful. But we know that you will have 
another opportunity to call witnesses, to require documents, 
and we hope that your decision will be informed by the 
arguments we are making to you over these days and that you 
will, in fact, get the full story.
    Well, we do know actually the reason why the President did 
what he did. We know the President held the money. It wasn't 
because of any policy reason to benefit America or any concern 
about corruption in Ukraine or any desire for more burden-
sharing from other countries. It was because the President was 
upset that Ukraine was not announcing the investigations that 
he wanted because he wanted to ramp up pressure to force them 
to do it.
    From the very beginning, it was clear the hold was not in 
America's national interest. Those within the U.S. Government 
responsible for Ukraine security and for shaping and 
implementing U.S. foreign policy were caught off guard by the 
President's decision. Support for the aid and against the hold 
was unanimous, forceful, and unwavering. The President can call 
Ukraine policy experts ``unelected bureaucrats'' all he wants, 
but those are officers charged with implementing his official 
policy developed by the President himself, which was also a 
product of congressional action.
    Anyway, it wasn't just the career officers. President 
Trump's own politically appointed senior officials--his Cabinet 
members--also opposed the hold. Why? Because it was against our 
national interest.
    But the President wasn't persuaded by arguments about 
national interest. Why? Because the hold had nothing to do with 
the national interest. It had to do with the interest of just 
one person, Donald J. Trump.
    The demand for Ukraine to announce these investigations was 
not a policy decision but a personal decision by the President 
to benefit his own personal interest. At an NSC-led meeting on 
July 8, OMB announced that President Trump had directed a hold 
on Ukraine security assistance. The news shocked meeting 
participants. Ambassador Taylor testified that he and others on 
the call ``sat in astonishment'' when they learned about the 
hold. He immediately ``realized that one of the key pillars of 
our strong support for Ukraine was threatened.''
    David Holmes, political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in 
Kyiv, testified he was ``shocked'' and thought the hold was 
``extremely significant'' because it undermined what he 
understood to be longstanding U.S. policy in Ukraine. Catherine 
Croft, the State Department special adviser for Ukraine, 
testified that the announcement ``blew up the meeting.'' [Slide 
359]
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent said. 
``There was great confusion among the rest of us because we 
didn't understand why that had happened.'' He explained: Since 
there was unanimity about this security assistance to Ukraine, 
it was in our national interest, it just surprised all of us.
    The policy consensus at this and later NSC meetings was 
clear. With the exception of OMB, which was following the 
direction of the President, everyone supported lifting the 
hold. All the way up to the No. 2 officials at the agencies--
the political appointees of President Trump--[Slide 360] there 
was unanimous agreement that the hold was ill-advised and the 
aid should be released.
    Tim Morrison, national security adviser to John Bolton, 
understood that the most senior appointed officials [Slide 361] 
``were all supportive of the continued disbursement of the 
aid.''
    On August 15, at the President's golf club in Bedminster, 
NJ, members of the President's Cabinet ``all represented to 
Ambassador Bolton that they were prepared to tell the President 
they endorsed the swift release and disbursement of the 
funding.''
    The President ignored his advisers' recommendation to lift 
the hold. He provided no credible explanation for it--not from 
the day the hold was made until the day it was lifted.
    Witness after witness--including Hale, Vindman, Croft, 
Holmes, Kent, Cooper, Sandy--[Slide 362] testified they weren't 
given any reason for the hold while it was in place.
    Croft said: ``[T]he only reason given was that the order 
came at the direction of the President.''
    Mr. Holmes confirmed: ``The order had come from the 
President without further explanation.''
    Kent testified too: ``I don't recall any coherent 
explanation.''
    Ambassador Sondland agreed: ``I was never given a straight 
answer as to why it had been put in place to begin with.''
    Dr. Hill explained: ``No, there was no reason given.''
    Even Senator McConnell has said: ``I was not given an 
explanation for the hold.''
    Even as OMB was implementing the hold, officers in OMB were 
saying it should be lifted. Mr. Sandy testified that his team 
drafted a memo on August 7 to OMB Acting Director Russ Vought. 
[Slide 363] It recommended lifting the hold because, one, the 
assistance was consistent with national security to support a 
stable, peaceful Europe; two, the aid countered Russian 
aggression; and three, there was bipartisan support for the 
program.
    Michael Duffey, the senior political appointee overseeing 
funds, approved the memorandum. He agreed with the policy 
recommendations, and it wasn't just OMB. Senior advisers in the 
administration tried over and over again to convince President 
Trump to lift the hold over the summer.
    Sometime prior to August 16, Ambassador Bolton had a one-
on-one meeting with President Trump about the aid. The 
President didn't budge. Then, at the end of August, when the 
hold on the aid became public, Ambassador Taylor expressed to 
multiple officials his concerns about withholding the aid from 
Ukraine at a time when it was fighting Russia. Ambassador 
Taylor stressed the importance of the hold not just as a 
message to Ukraine but, importantly, to Russia as well. 
Withholding the aid on vital military assistance while Ukraine 
was in the midst of a hot war with Russia sent a message to 
Russia about U.S. support of Ukraine.
    Ambassador Taylor felt so strongly about the harm 
withholding the security assistance that for the first time 
ever in his decades of service at the State Department, he sent 
a first-person cable with his concerns to Secretary Pompeo. In 
the cable, he described directly the ``folly'' that Taylor saw 
in withholding the aid. Here is his testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. MALONEY: Have you ever sent a cable like that? How many times 
in your career of 40, 50 years have you sent a cable directly to the 
Secretary of State?
    Ambassador TAYLOR: Once.
    Mr. MALONEY: This time?
    Ambassador TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
    Mr. MALONEY: In 50 years?
    Ambassador TAYLOR: Rifle company commanders don't send cables, but 
yes, sir.

    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Ambassador Taylor never received an 
answer to the cable, but he was told that Secretary Pompeo 
carried it with him to a White House meeting about security 
assistance to Ukraine.
    It seemed this meeting about the aid may have occurred on 
August 30. There are press reports that Secretary Pompeo, 
Secretary Esper, and National Security Advisor Bolton discussed 
the hold with President Trump shortly after Ambassador Taylor 
sent his cable. Keep this in mind. This was 2 days after the 
hold was publicly reported and after the President was briefed 
on the whistleblower complaint. Yet, even then, President Trump 
refused to release the aid.
    On August 30, Michael Duffey sent an email to Elaine 
McCusker, the DOD comptroller. [Slide 364] It said: ``Clear 
direction from POTUS to continue to hold.'' President Trump has 
refused to produce this or any other email to Congress.
    When the administration was forced to produce it in a 
freedom of information case in response to a court order, this 
critical passage was actually blacked out. What is the reason 
for blacking out this direction from the President about an 
issue so central to this case? No reason has been given to us. 
So you should ask yourself this: What is the President hiding?
    The President finally released the hold on September 11, 
but, again, there was no credible reason given for the release. 
[Slide 365] Mark Sandy testified that he could not recall 
another instance ``where a significant amount of assistance was 
being held up'' and he ``didn't have a rationale in this 
case.''
    On the day it was released, OMB still didn't know why 
President Trump had ordered the hold. On September 11, the day 
the President finally released the aid, McCusker at DOD 
reportedly sent an email to Duffey asking: ``What happened?''
    Michael Duffey answered: ``Not exactly clear but President 
made the decision to go. Will fill you in when I get details.''
    So let's take a step back for a minute. Why was no reason 
given to anyone for the President deciding to hold up hundreds 
of millions of dollars in military assistance to our allies? 
Because there was no supportable reason for withholding the 
aid. No one agreed with it. According to the 17 witnesses in 
the House impeachment inquiry, President Trump insisted on 
holding the aid and provided no reason, despite unanimous 
support for lifting the hold throughout his administration, 
including his handpicked top advisers. It also wasn't 
consistent with American policy. The aid had the clear support 
of career officers and political appointees in President 
Trump's administration as important for national security. 
There was no national security or foreign policy reason 
provided. No one could think of one. DOD had already certified 
to Congress, as the law required, that Ukraine had met the 
anti-corruption conditions for the aid and that it planned to 
begin implementing the expenditures.
    So why did the President do this? I think we know why. The 
President ordered the hold for an improper purpose: to pressure 
Ukraine to announce investigations that would personally 
benefit President Trump.
    That brings us to a key point. It wasn't just that the 
President ordered a hold on the aid without any explanation 
against the unanimous advice of his advisers and even after, 
for weeks, as his administration--both career and political 
appointees--continued to try to get him to release the hold. 
What the President was trying to hide was worse. What the 
President did was not just wrong; it was illegal.
    In ordering the hold, President Trump not only took a 
position contrary to his senior advisers, counter to 
congressional intent, and adverse to American national security 
interests in Ukraine, he also violated the law.
    This issue was not a surprise. From the start of the hold 
in July, compliance of the Impoundment Control Act was a 
significant concern for OMB and DOD officials. Mark Sandy 
raised concerns with his supervisor, Michael Duffey, that the 
hold might violate the Impoundment Control Act. DOD voiced the 
same concerns.
    Laura Cooper from DOD described the discussion at a July 26 
meeting with No. 2 officials at all of the relevant agencies 
about the hold, stating: ``Immediately, deputies began to raise 
concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion.'' She 
further testified that there was no legal mechanism to use to 
implement the hold after Congress had been notified of the 
release of the funding.
    At a July 31 meeting with more junior officials, Laura 
Cooper put all attendees on notice, including representatives 
of the White House, that because ``there were only two legally 
available options, and we do not have direction to pursue 
either,'' DOD would have to start spending the funds on or 
about August 6.
    In other words, the President had a choice. He could 
release the aid, or he could break the law. He chose to break 
the law. He was so determined to turn up the pressure on 
Ukraine that he kept the hold for no legitimate purpose and 
without any congressional notification for long enough to 
violate the law.
    The concerns from OMB and DOD were ultimately accurate. As 
has been mentioned just last week, the nonpartisan Government 
Accountability Office found that President Trump broke the law 
by implementing the hold and in failing to notify Congress 
about it.
    Because of the President's hold, DOD was ultimately unable 
to spend all the $250 million in security assistance before the 
end of the fiscal year, as Congress--as we--intended.
    As GAO explained, [Slide 366] the Constitution grants the 
President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from 
obligation. And they further explained: [Slide 367]

    Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to 
substitute his own constitutional priorities for those that Congress 
has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is 
not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.

    The bottom line, President Trump froze the aid to increase 
the pressure on Ukraine to announce the investigations he 
wanted. He violated the law. He violated his constitutional 
duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
    But the President didn't just violate the Impoundment 
Control Act while pressuring Ukraine to announce the 
investigations he wanted. He was dishonest about it in the 
process. This is really telling because he is still not telling 
the truth about it even now.
    The budget documents that implemented the hold until 
September 11 asserted that it was being imposed to [Slide 368] 
``allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of 
such funds.''
    But that wasn't true. There was no ongoing interagency 
process after July 31 after it became clear that the entire 
interagency, including Cabinet offices, unanimously agreed the 
aid should be released. The truth is, there simply was no 
debate or review in the interagency regarding the best use of 
such funds. So the reason given by the President was not only 
illegal; it was false too.
    The dishonesty in the budget documents weren't the only 
steps that the President's men at OMB took to cover up his 
misconduct and enable his scheme. OMB went so far as to remove 
the authority to approve the budget documents from Mark Sandy, 
a career officer, and gave it to Michael Duffey, a political 
appointee without experience managing such documents.
    This change was unusual. It occurred less than 2 weeks 
after Sandy raised concerns that the hold violated the law. 
Sandy was not aware of any prior instance when a political 
appointee assumed this kind of funding approval authority.
    Duffey's explanation that he simply wanted to learn more 
about the accounts doesn't make sense to Sandy. Really? This 
odd change in responsibility was just another way to keep the 
President's illegal hold within a tight-knit unit of loyal 
soldiers within the OMB.
    Michael Duffey defied the House's subpoena. At the 
President's direction, he refused to appear. The White House 
did not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed 
Duffey to defy Congress's subpoena. It wasn't a real exercise 
of executive privilege. They told him not to appear, and they 
had no reason why.
    If Mr. Duffey knew about any legitimate reason for the 
hold, I will bet he would not have been blocked from 
testifying. The fact that he was blocked might lead you to 
infer that his testimony would be damaging to the President and 
would be consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses 
that the hold was solely used to ratchet up pressure on 
Ukraine.
    But the warning from DOD wasn't just about how the hold was 
illegal. There were also practical consequences. By August 12, 
the Department of Defense told OMB it could no longer guarantee 
it would be able to spend all $250 million that Congress had 
directed before the end of the fiscal year.
    Not long after this August 12 email, DOD determined that 
time had run out. Ms. Cooper testified that DOD estimated that 
as much as $100 million of aid might go unspent, even if the 
hold was immediately lifted. As a result, DOD refused to 
certify that it would be able to spend the funds by September 
30.
    On August 20, OMB issued the first of six budget documents 
and removed the language providing legal cover for the hold. 
From that point on, the White House knew that DOD would not be 
able to spend all the funds, which was what the law required 
before September 30. Yet, even though he knew the hold would 
violate the Impoundment Control Act, President Trump continued 
the hold for another 23 days without telling us--without 
telling the Congress.
    This had the exact outcome that DOD feared. After the 
President lifted the hold on the evening of September 11, DOD 
had only 18 days to spend the remaining $223 million, which is 
about 89 percent of the total. DOD scrambled, and they spent 
all but approximately $35 million. About 14 percent of the 
appropriated funds were left.
    That $35 million would have expired and would have been 
forever lost to Ukraine had Congress not stepped in to pass a 
law to roll the money over to the next year. But even as of 
today, more than $18 million of that money has not yet been 
spent. Why? You will have to ask DOD. They haven't given us a 
reason.
    OK, all of this shows, clearly, that President Trump 
knowingly and willfully violated the law when he withheld aid 
from Ukraine. But just to be clear, the Articles of Impeachment 
do not charge Donald Trump with violating the Impoundment 
Control Act. We are not arguing that, but understanding this 
violation of the law is important to understanding the broader 
scheme of his abuse of power. It shows the great lengths the 
President was willing to go to in order to pressure Ukraine to 
do his political dirty work.
    The security assistance wasn't something the law allowed 
him to give or take at his discretion. No, he was legally 
obliged to release the money, but he simply didn't care.
    Why? He was so determined to get the announcement from 
Ukraine to smear his election opponent that holding the aid to 
force Ukraine to do that was the most important thing. He 
didn't care if he was breaking the law.
    I have been sitting here on the Senate floor. Honestly, I 
never wanted to be here under these circumstances. But I have 
been looking at ``novus ordo seclorum.'' Now, I didn't study 
Latin. So I had to look it up. It means: ``A new order of the 
ages is born.'' That is what the Founders thought they were 
doing. Keeping that new order, the democracy, where the power 
is in the hands of the people, not in the hands of an 
unaccountable executive, is what we in the Congress--the House 
and the Senate--are charged to do.
    Senator Blunt and I are in charge of the Joint Committee on 
Printing. Every year, we print a new copy of the Constitution. 
This year, in the back, we printed a quote: ``At the conclusion 
of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, 
`What have you wrought?' He answered, ` . . . a Republic, if 
you can keep it.'''
    That is the challenge that all of us face, and that you 
Senators face.
    I turn now to Mr. Crow, who will outline information about 
the President's intentions.
    Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, 
counsel for the President, just bear with us a little while 
longer. I promise, we are almost there.
    You have heard a lot the last few days about what happened. 
How do we know that the President ordered the hold to pressure 
Ukraine to announce investigations that would help his personal 
political campaign? In other words, how do we know why it 
happened?
    We know it because, to this day, there is no other 
explanation. We know it because senior administration 
officials, including the President's own senior political 
appointees, have confirmed it. We know it because the 
President's own Chief of Staff said it at a national press 
conference. And we know it because the President himself 
directed it.
    Here are the facts. One, the President asked President 
Zelensky for a favor on July 25, and we all know what that 
favor was. [Slide 369]
    Two, multiple U.S. officials with fact-based knowledge of 
the process have confirmed it.
    Three, President Trump lifted the hold only after his 
scheme was exposed.
    Four, there were no other legitimate explanations for the 
release of the hold. It was not based on a legitimate review of 
the foreign aid. It was not based on concerns of corruption in 
Ukraine. It was not because President Trump wanted countries to 
pay more. There are no facts that show that the President cared 
about any of those things.
    Five, as we know, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney 
admitted at a press conference that the bogus 2016 election 
interference allegations were ``why we held up the money.''
    Eventually, the truth comes out. There was no legitimate 
policy reason for holding the aid. So the truth came out.
    As Ambassador Sondland said, the President was a 
businessman who saw congressionally approved, taxpayer-funded 
military aid for Ukraine, our partner at war, as just another 
business deal to be made. Military aid in exchange for 
fabricated dirt on his political opponent. Dirt for dollars. 
This for that. A quid pro quo.
    Let's start with the President's own words to President 
Zelensky on the July 25 call. With the hold on his mind and on 
President Zelensky's mind, too--we know that--President Trump 
linked military aid to his request for a favor. At the very 
beginning of the call, President Zelensky said:

    I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area 
of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps 
specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United 
States for defense purposes.

    The ``great support in the area of defense'' included, of 
course, the $391 million in military aid, because remember, 
just a month before, DOD had publicly announced its intent to 
provide $250 million of that aid. President Zelensky was 
showing gratitude to the President for the aid that DOD had 
just announced would be on its way. [Slide 370] But the 
President had put a hold just a few weeks before.
    Immediately after President Zelensky brought up the U.S. 
military support and said that Ukraine was almost ready to buy 
more Javelin anti-tank missiles, President Trump pivoted to 
what he wanted in return. He turned from the quid to the quo.
    President Trump immediately responded. [Slide 371] He said: 
``I would like you to do us a favor though because our country 
has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.''
    And what was that favor? Well, we all know by now; don't 
we? It wasn't to fight corruption. It wasn't to help the United 
States or our national interests. It was the two specific 
political investigations that he wanted Ukraine to announce to 
help his own personal political campaign. President Trump's 
quick pivot from the critical military aid that he knew Ukraine 
desperately needed to the investigations that would benefit him 
personally speaks volumes. By bringing up the investigations 
immediately after President Zelensky raised the issue of 
military support, he linked the two issues.
    U.S. officials listening to the call also made that 
connection. Here is what Jennifer Williams, Vice President 
Pence's aide, testified:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Chairman SCHIFF. But I was struck by something else you said in 
your deposition. You said that it shed some light on possible other 
motivations behind the security assistance hold. What did you mean by 
that?
    Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I was asked during the closed-door 
testimony how I felt about the call; and, in reflecting on what I was 
thinking in that moment, it was the first time I had heard internally 
the President reference particular investigations that previously I had 
only heard about through Mr. Giuliani's press interviews and press 
reporting. So, in that moment, it was not clear whether there was a 
direct connection or linkage between the ongoing hold on security 
assistance and what the President may be asking President Zelensky to 
undertake in regard to investigations. So I--it was--it was noteworthy 
in that regard. I did not have enough information to draw any firm 
conclusions.
    Chairman SCHIFF. But it raised a question in your mind as to 
whether the two were related.
    Ms. WILLIAMS. It was the first I had heard of any requests of 
Ukraine which were that specific in nature. So it was noteworthy to me 
in that regard.

    Mr. Manager CROW. In fact, the hold was formally 
implemented by OMB the very day of the call. Just hours after 
the call between President Trump and President Zelensky, Duffey 
sent an email to senior DOD officials instructing them to put a 
hold on the security aid. He said he underscored: [Slide 372] 
``Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your 
keeping that information closely held to those who need to know 
to execute the direction.'' In other words, don't tell anybody 
about it. If the President ordered the hold for a legitimate 
policy reason, then why did he want to hide it from the rest of 
the administration?
    President Trump has obstructed Congress's ability to get 
those answers. We would like to ask Duffey why they wanted to 
keep it quiet. There is more evidence, of course--a lot more. 
In fact, there is so much evidence that, according to 
witnesses, the fact that the security assistance was 
conditioned on investigations became as clear as ``two plus two 
equals four.'' Everyone knew it. Indeed, with no explanation 
for the hold, unanimous support for its release in the 
administration, and ongoing efforts by the President's top 
advisers to pressure Ukraine into announcing the investigations 
by holding up the White House meeting, it became crystal clear, 
as confirmed by multiple witnesses, that the only reason for 
the hold was to put additional pressure on Ukraine.
    David Holmes, the senior official at the U.S. Embassy in 
Kyiv, explained.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Mr. Holmes, you have testified that by late August you 
had a clear impression that the security assistance hold was somehow 
connected to the investigation that President Trump wanted. How did you 
conclude that--how did you reach that clear conclusion?
    Mr. HOLMES. We'd been hearing about the investigation since March, 
months before. President Zelensky had received a letter, a 
congratulatory letter, from the President saying he'd be pleased to 
meet him following his inauguration in May. And we hadn't been able to 
get that meeting, and then the security hold came up with no 
explanation. I'd be surprised if any of the Ukrainians . . . you said 
earlier, we discussed earlier, sophisticated people . . . when they 
received no explanation for why that hold was in place, they wouldn't 
have drawn that conclusion.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Because the investigations were still being pursued?
    Mr. HOLMES. Correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And the hold was still remaining without explanation?
    Mr. HOLMES. Correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. This to you was the only logical conclusion that you 
could reach?
    Mr. HOLMES. Correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Sort of like two plus two equals four?
    Mr. HOLMES. Exactly.

    Mr. Manager CROW. And Ambassador Sondland said the same 
thing.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. So, is this kind of a two plus two equals four 
conclusion that you reached?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Pretty much.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Is the only logical conclusion to you that, given all 
of these factors, that the aid was also a part of this quid pro quo?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Yep.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Ambassador Sondland didn't reach that 
conclusion based only on common sense. It was confirmed by 
Secretary Pompeo and Vice President Pence, too.
    So let's begin with what Secretary Pompeo knew about the 
link between the investigations and the aid. In front of you is 
an email. At the end of August, before President Trump canceled 
his trip to Warsaw to meet with President Zelensky, Sondland 
sent an email to Secretary Pompeo in which he proposed a pull-
aside between President Zelensky and President Trump at the 
proposed meeting in Warsaw. [Slide 373] Three minutes later, 
Secretary Pompeo replied ``yes.'' That is it. Ambassador 
Sondland explained the email in his testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Chairman SCHIFF. Later in August, you told Secretary Pompeo that 
President Zelensky would be prepared to tell President Trump that his 
new justice officials would be able to announce matters of interest to 
the President, which could break the logjam. When you say matters of 
interest to the President, you mean the investigations that President 
Trump wanted. Is that right?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Correct.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And that involved 2016 and Burisma or the Bidens?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. 2016 and Burisma.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And when you're talking here about breaking the 
logjam, you're talking about the logjam over the security assistance, 
correct?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. I was talking logjam generically because 
nothing was moving.
    Chairman SCHIFF. But that included the security assistance, did it 
not?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Correct.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And based on the context of that email, this was 
not the first time you had discussed these investigations with 
Secretary Pompeo, is it?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. No.
    Chairman SCHIFF. He was aware of the connections that you were 
making between the investigations and the White House meeting and the 
security assistance?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Yes.

    Mr. Manager CROW. So let's break that down for a minute. A 
meeting between two Presidents is a big deal. A pull-aside is a 
big deal. These are highly choreographed events. Secretary 
Pompeo didn't ask any questions and didn't show any surprise or 
confusion in response to the email. Instead, he immediately 
endorsed the idea. This shows that Secretary Pompeo, who also 
listened to the July 25 call as well, understood that the 
security assistance was conditioned on the investigations.
    By this time, everyone knew what was happening. A simple 
``yes'' by Secretary Pompeo was enough. Secretary Pompeo wasn't 
the only senior official who knew. Vice President Pence knew as 
well. Sondland raised the issue to Vice President Pence during 
a meeting to prepare for the Warsaw trip. At some point late in 
the meeting, Sondland said: ``It appears that everything is 
stalled until this statement gets made.'' What Sondland was 
referring to, of course, was the military aid and the White 
House meeting. Ambassador Sondland testified about Vice 
President Pence's reaction.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, I want to go back to that conversation that you 
had with Vice President Pence right before that meeting in Warsaw. And 
you indicated that you said to him that you were concerned that the 
delay in the aid was tied to the issue of investigations. Is that 
right?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. I don't know exactly what I said to him. This 
was a briefing attended by many people, and I was invited at the very 
last minute. I wasn't scheduled to be there. But I think I spoke up at 
some point late in the meeting and said, it looks like everything is 
being held up until these statements get made, and that's my, you know, 
personal belief.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And Vice President Pence just nodded his head?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. Again, I don't recall any exchange or where he 
asked me any questions. I think he, it was sort of a duly noted 
response.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, he didn't say, Gordon, what are you talking 
about?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. No, he did not.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. He didn't say, what investigations?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. He did not.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Like Secretary Pompeo, Vice President 
Pence wasn't surprised, nor did he ask what Sondland meant--
because they all knew. This meeting also confirmed Sondland's 
understanding that the President had indeed conditioned the 
military aid on the public announcement of the investigations. 
This was a commonsense conclusion, confirmed by the Secretary 
of State and the Vice President.
    With that confirmation in mind, Sondland pulled aside 
Yermak, the top aide to President Zelensky, immediately after 
the Pence-Zelensky meeting. Now, recall, he was the one who 
resisted the public statement about the specific investigations 
in August. Ambassador Sondland described what he told Yermak in 
that short meeting.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mr. Manager CROW. You see, this just wasn't an internal 
scheme among the President's top advisers. President Trump, 
through his agents, communicated the quid pro quo clearly to 
Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland told President Zelensky's top aide 
on September 1 that Ukraine would not get the military aid 
unless it announced the investigations. This, my Senate 
colleagues, is the very definition of a quid pro quo.
    But other witnesses know it, too. Morrison watched 
Sondland's conversation with Yermak and then received an 
immediate readout from Sondland after that meeting. Morrison 
urgently reported the interaction to Ambassador Bolton on a 
secure phone call, and, of course, Bolton told him to go tell 
the NSC lawyers.
    Morrison did as he was instructed. He also told Ambassador 
Taylor. Ambassador Taylor then confronted Sondland. [Slide 374] 
Taylor texted: ``Are we now saying that security assistance and 
WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?''
    Sondland responded: ``Call me.''
    And as everyone knows, when someone says ``call me,'' it 
says stop putting this in writing.
    During their subsequent phone call, Sondland confirmed to 
Taylor that the military aid was conditioned on an announcement 
of investigations and that President Trump wanted President 
Zelensky in a ``public box.''
    Here is how Taylor, who took contemporaneous notes of the 
conversation, explained that call.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mr. Manager CROW. President Trump wanted President Zelensky 
in a ``public box.'' A private commitment wasn't enough for 
President Trump because he needed the political benefit, and he 
could only get the political benefit if it was public. We all 
know how this works with President Trump, how he weaponizes 
investigations for political purposes.
    Think about that for a second. That is actually the exact 
opposite of how law enforcement investigations are conducted. 
If they are legitimate, law enforcement does not announce to 
the world they are investigating before actually doing it. That 
would tip off your targets. It would lead to witness 
intimidation, destruction of evidence. But the President didn't 
actively want a legitimate investigation. He only wanted the 
announcement.
    At the end of that conversation between Taylor and Sondland 
on September 1, Taylor asked Sondland to speak to the President 
to see if he could change his mind. That is exactly what 
Sondland did.
    On September 7, President Trump and Sondland spoke. We know 
the call was on September 7 for four reasons. First, Morrison 
testified that he had a conversation with Sondland on September 
7 about Sondland's discussion with the President.
    Second, Morrison told Taylor about this conversation on 
September 7.
    Third, Sondland and Taylor had a conversation on September 
8 about the conversation that Sondland had the day before.
    Finally, Sondland texted Taylor and Volker on September 8 
that he had conversations with ``POTUS'' and ``Ze''--meaning 
President Trump and President Zelensky. So we know that the 
conversations must have happened before the morning of 
September 8, when that text was sent.
    For his part, Sondland, who doesn't take notes, also 
recalled that on that call, he simply asked President Trump an 
open-ended question about what he wanted from Ukraine. 
President Trump immediately responded: ``I want no quid pro 
quo.''
    Let's stop here for a second. The President has latched on 
to this statement that he said that, and because he said it, it 
must be true, right? But wait just a minute. Remember what is 
happening here at the same time. The President had just learned 
about the whistleblower complaint in the Washington Post 
editorial linking the military aid to the investigations just 2 
days before. The fact that the President immediately blurted 
that out speaks volumes.
    I am a parent, and there are a lot of parents in this room. 
I think many of you can probably relate to the situation where 
you are in a room and you hear a large crash in the next room, 
and you walk in, and your kid is sitting there, and that first 
thing that happens is ``I didn't do it.''
    But there is more. Sondland did acknowledge that President 
Trump said he wanted Zelensky to ``clear things up.''
    You will no doubt hear a lot from the President's counsel 
that Sondland testified no one in the world told him that there 
was a quid pro quo, including President Trump. And, of course, 
that is right, because people engaging in misconduct don't 
usually admit it.
    But we know exactly what the President told Sondland. We 
know it from the testimony of Tim Morrison and Ambassador 
Taylor. We know it because Sondland testified that his own 
conclusion that there was a quid pro quo was confirmed by his 
conversation with President Trump. And we know it because 
Sondland relayed the exact message to President Zelensky right 
after he spoke to President Trump.
    Keep in mind that Sondland does not take notes, and he 
readily admitted that if he could have seen his own documents 
prior to testifying, he would have remembered more.
    But Morrison and Taylor took extensive notes at the time 
and testified based on those notes, and Sondland--and this is 
important--said he did not dispute any of the accounts of 
Morrison and Taylor.
    Let's look at what Morrison and Taylor said about that 
September 7 phone call. Here is Tim Morrison's understanding of 
the Trump-Sondland call.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, a few days later, on September 7th, you spoke 
again to Ambassador Sondland, who told you that he had just gotten off 
the phone with President Trump. Is that right?
    Mr. MORRISON. That sounds correct, yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that President 
Trump said to him?
    Mr. MORRISON. If I recall this conversation correctly, this was 
where Ambassador Sondland related that there was no quid pro quo, but 
President Zelensky had to make the statement and that he had to want to 
do it.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And by that point, did you understand that the 
statement related to the Biden and 2016 investigations?
    Mr. MORRISON. I think I did, yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And that that was essentially a condition for the 
security assistance to be released?
    Mr. MORRISON. I understood that that's what Ambassador Sondland 
believed.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. After speaking with President Trump?
    Mr. MORRISON. That's what he represented.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Here is the consistent recollection of 
how Ambassador Taylor described his understanding of the call. 
First, here is what he heard from Mr. Morrison.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mr. Manager CROW. And second, here is Ambassador Taylor 
explaining what Sondland himself told Taylor about what took 
place on that Sondland-Trump call a day later.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. He confirmed that he had talked to President 
Trump, as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was 
adamant that President Zelensky himself had to clear things up and do 
it in public. President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Like Sondland, both Taylor and Morrison 
recalled that President Trump said that he did not want a quid 
pro quo, but they both testified that President Trump followed 
that statement immediately by describing perfectly an exchange 
of this for that--or, in other words, a quid pro quo.
    Prior to his call with the President, Sondland had reached 
the conclusion that the aid was being held until the public 
announcement of the investigations. That conclusion was 
confirmed by Secretary Pompeo and Vice President Pence. Then 
Sondland relayed it to the Ukrainians. And after this phone 
call with President Trump, that conclusion was confirmed.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, you weren't dissuaded then, right, because you 
still thought that the aid was conditioned on the public announcement 
of the investigations after speaking to President Trump?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. By September 8 I was absolutely convinced it 
was.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And President Trump did not dissuade you of that in 
the conversation that you acknowledge you had with him?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. I don't ever recall because that would have 
changed my entire calculus. If President Trump had told me directly, 
I'm not--
    Mr. GOLDMAN. That's not what I'm asking, Ambassador Sondland. I'm 
just saying, you still believed that the security assistance was 
conditioned on the investigation after you spoke to President Trump. 
Yes or no?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. From a timeframe standpoint, yes.

    Mr. Manager CROW. How else do we know that President Trump 
confirmed to Sondland that the aid was conditioned on the 
announcement? Sondland relayed the message to President 
Zelensky right after his conversation with President Trump.
    Here is Ambassador Taylor's recollection of what Sondland 
told Zelensky, based on his notes.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. Ambassador Sondland also said that he had talked 
to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and had told them that, although 
this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things 
up in public, we would be at a stalemate. I understood a ``stalemate'' 
to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much needed military 
assistance.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Ambassador Sondland confirmed that 
Taylor's memory of this call was accurate; there would be a 
stalemate without the investigations. Here is his testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. And then you also told Ambassador Taylor in that same 
conversation that if President Zelensky, rather you told President 
Zelensky and Andriy Yermak that although this was not a quid pro quo as 
the President had very clearly told you, it was however required for 
President Zelensky to clear things up in public or there would be a 
stalemate. You don't have any reason to dispute Ambassador Taylor's 
recollection of that conversation you had with President Zelensky, do 
you?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. No.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And that you understood the stalemate referenced the 
aid, is that correct?
    Ambassador SONDLAND. At that point, yes.

    Mr. Manager CROW. A stalemate. Nothing would happen with 
the aid unless President Zelensky publicly announced the 
investigations. The President had not received his ``quid'' so 
there would be no ``quo.''
    Don't take my word for it. Here is a recap of how we knew 
what happened during the call. First, Sondland testified about 
the conversation. [Slide 375] Second, Morrison received a 
readout from Sondland immediately after the call and testified 
based on his notes. Third, Taylor testified based on his own 
notes. And fourth, Sondland agreed that President Trump had 
confirmed a quid pro quo, and Sondland actually relayed the 
message to the President of Ukraine and told Ambassador Taylor 
about it.
    President Zelensky got the message. He succumbed to the 
pressure. At the end of the conversation between Sondland and 
President Zelensky, President Zelensky explained that he had 
finally relented. His country needed the military aid, 
desperately. Their people were dying on the frontline all of 
the time. They were taking casualties every day. He agreed to 
make the statement.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation 
concluded with President Zelensky agreeing to make a public statement 
in an interview on CNN.

    Mr. Manager CROW. President Zelensky had resisted making 
the announcement of the corrupt investigations for months. He 
resisted when Giuliani and other agents of the President made 
it known that President Trump required it. He resisted when 
President Trump himself asked directly on July 25. He resisted 
when the White House meeting he so desperately desired was 
conditioned on that announcement. And he resisted as vital 
military aid was on hold. But the money is 10 percent of his 
entire defense budget. Russia occupied the eastern part of his 
country. He could resist no more.
    Ambassador Taylor was worried that even if the Ukrainian 
leader did as President Trump wanted, President Trump might 
continue to hold the military aid.
    Ambassador Taylor texted his concerns to Ambassadors Volker 
and Sondland stating: [Slide 376]

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

    In other words, the nightmare is that they make the 
announcement but President Trump doesn't release the aid. This 
would be perfect for the Russians. Russian propaganda would be 
adopted by the United States and the United States would be 
withdrawing its support for Ukraine.
    On September 9, Ambassador Taylor reiterated his concerns 
about the President's quid pro quo in another series of text 
messages with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland. Ambassador 
Taylor said: [Slide 377]

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

    And then later, he texted again saying:

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

    Ambassador Sondland responded:

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

    Ambassador Taylor replied:

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

    Here it is. Once again, in clear text message between three 
U.S. officials: ``It's crazy to withhold security assistance 
for help with a political campaign.''
    Think about that. If there was no quid pro quo, then why 
did everybody know about it? Well, Ambassador Taylor told us 
why, too. Here is his testimony.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. As I said on the phone, I think it is crazy to 
withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did you mean when you said you thought it was 
crazy?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Goldman, I meant that the importance--
because of the importance of security assistance that we had just 
described and had a conversation with the chairman, because that was so 
important, that security assistance was so important for Ukraine as 
well as our own national interests, to withhold that assistance for no 
good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. It 
was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was 
illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And when you say ``all of what we were trying to do,'' 
what do you mean by ``we''?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. I mean that the United States was trying to 
support Ukraine as a frontline state against Russian attack. And, 
again, the whole notion of a rules based order was being threatened by 
the Russians in Ukraine. So our security assistance was designed to 
support Ukraine. And it was not just the United States; it was all of 
our allies.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. When you referenced ``help with a political campaign'' 
in this text message, what did you mean?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. I meant that the investigation of Burisma and 
the Bidens was clearly identified by Mr. Giuliani in public for months 
as a way to get information on the two Bidens.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Now, that testimony is really clear, and 
it makes sense. It is consistent with all of the evidence you 
have seen here today. That is a quid pro quo as clear as two 
plus two equals four.
    And what happened next also makes sense. Sondland got 
scared. Taylor was making clear that he didn't agree with the 
scheme. In response to Taylor's text message that it was 
``crazy to withhold security assistance for help in a political 
campaign,'' Sondland repeated again the false denial of a quid 
pro quo. At 5:17 a.m., Sondland responded to Taylor: [Slide 
378]

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

    That is Secretary Pompeo--

a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

    Now, the text message says very clearly that there are no 
quid pro quos ``of any kind.'' So end of story, right? Case 
closed. But Sondland's testimony revealed this text and the 
President's denial were false. Just like President Trump, when 
Ambassador Sondland thought he was getting caught, he got 
nervous, and he wanted to deny it in writing to cover his 
tracks. That is why he suddenly says: ``I suggest we stop the 
back and forth by text.'' Again, quit putting this in writing.
    We know that Sondland's denial in the text was false 
because later, when he was under oath, under penalty of 
perjury, he actually said a quid pro quo did exist.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. 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 CROW. The answer is yes. It is clear that 
President Trump himself confirmed that the aid was conditioned 
on the public announcement of the investigations that the 
President wanted. To get Ukraine to help him with his 
reelection campaign, the President of the United States 
violated the law by withholding nearly $400 million of taxpayer 
dollars intended to fight Russia. He put his own interests over 
the country, and that is why we are here.
    Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Senate, in deference 
to our proposed schedule and the late hour, I am now going to 
yield to my colleague, Mr. Schiff, to provide a brief recap of 
today and then we will begin again in the morning.
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. He means the afternoon.
    Senators, Chief Justice, President's counsel, it has been a 
long day. We started out the day with the Chaplain asking for 
empathetic listening, and I think that is certainly what you 
have delivered for us today. I know you have been bombarded 
with information all day, and when you leave this Chamber, you 
are bombarded again by members of the press. There is no 
refuge, I know. And I just want to thank you for keeping an 
open mind about all the issues that we are presenting--an open 
mind for us and an open mind for the President's counsel. That 
is all that we can ask for.
    Having watched you now for 3 days, whether it is someone 
you are predisposed to agree with or predisposed not to, it is 
abundantly clear that you are listening with an open mind, and 
we can't ask for anything more than that, so we are grateful.
    At the beginning of the trial, you may have seen the 
President's tweet. He tweeted a lot, but he tweeted a common 
refrain: ``Read the transcript.'' So I thought at the end of 
the evening, I would join in the President's request that you 
reread the transcript because now that you know a lot more of 
the facts of this scheme, it reveals a lot more about that 
conversation.
    Let me just point out a few things that may have escaped 
your attention about that transcript, which is not really a 
transcript because it is not complete. Let me just tell you a 
few things that may have escaped your attention about that call 
record. We have already talked about it. I will not go into it 
again. There are the pivotal sections where he talks about 
CrowdStrike and he asks for that favor and he wants 
investigation of the Bidens. There is a lot more to that call.
    Now that you know so much more about that scheme, let me 
just point out a few things that really struck my attention. 
Early in the call, President Zelensky says:

    We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not 
the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new 
type of government.

    Again, this is the July 25 call. Early in the call, 
President Zelensky wants to impress upon President Trump he has 
brought in new people; that he is a reformer. This was his 
campaign pledge. He is a reformer. He is coming in. He is 
bringing in new people. So if there had been any concern about 
corruption in Ukraine, he is bringing in new people. He is a 
reformer. That is one of the first messages he wants to get 
across.
    You can better well believe that he is prepared for this 
call because he needs that White House meeting. So everything 
he says is prepared. And early on, he wants to make sure that 
he lets the President know he is a reformer. Now, the President 
has his own agenda in this call, and immediately after that, in 
the next exchange, the President makes this point:

    [T]he United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't 
say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that 
are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

    This is very interesting that he brings up very early in 
the conversation this relationship is nonreciprocal. We've been 
``very very good to Ukraine,'' but, you know, can't say there 
is much coming the other way.
    Now, you will remember that Bill Taylor had this reaction 
to talking to Gordon Sondland. When Sondland says: Donald Trump 
is a businessman. Before he writes a check, he likes to get 
what he is owed, Taylor's reaction is, well, that makes no 
sense because Ukraine doesn't owe us anything.
    Well, in this call you can see that Donald Trump does think 
he is owed. This is what he is talking about when he says 
``there's not much reciprocity here.'' He thinks he is owed 
something. You want to get this military, you want to get this 
meeting--I don't see much reciprocity here. He thinks he is 
owed something. When you read that passage and you know about 
that: ``He is a businessman. Before he signs a check'' that 
takes on new meaning.
    Now, a little later in the call, Zelensky says:

    I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. 
Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani 
will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to 
Ukraine.

    You should read this carefully yourself, but this may be 
the first mention of Giuliani. Zelensky is bringing him up and 
saying: Well, I would really like to meet with Giuliani.
    This is July. What do we know now about the meeting between 
Giuliani and Zelensky? We know that Giuliani, in May, wanted to 
go meet with Zelensky. We saw that letter from Giuliani: I want 
to go meet with Zelensky. And we know he was rebuffed or 
something happened because he didn't get that meeting. And he 
was angry and went on TV and he said that Zelensky is 
surrounded by enemies of Trump, right?
    So Zelensky is prepared for this call, and he knows it is 
going to resonate with Donald Trump if he says he would like to 
meet with Rudy Giuliani. And immediately after that he says: 
``[W]e are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to 
travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.'' 
Immediately thereafter, the next sentence he says: ``I just 
wanted to assure you once again you have nobody but friends 
around us.''
    Now, we could have read this transcript to you early on, 
and that wouldn't have meant much to you, but now that you know 
that Rudy Giuliani was out there on TV saying Zelensky is 
surrounded by enemies of Trump, you can see why Zelensky says 
``you have nobody but friends around us.'' And he goes on. ``I 
also wanted to tell you that we are friends.'' He brings up 
friendship again. ``We are great friends.'' That is the third 
time he wants to underscore what great friends they are. And 
why? Because Rudy Giuliani has been saying they are enemies. 
And then he goes on to say:

    I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to 
that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all 
the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure 
you.

    He needs to assure the President that he is going to get 
his deliverable because it has been made clear before this call 
what the President wants to hear--more than that--what the 
President needs to hear is there will be no stone unturned in 
that investigation.
    So the President in the next response says:

    Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New 
York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you.

    Well, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Call Rudy. The same 
thing he told the three amigos in May: Call Rudy. Now he is 
telling Zelensky: Call Rudy. And he says: I will ask him to 
call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows 
what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could 
speak to him, that would be great.
    Talk to Rudy.
    That is pretty remarkable--right?--a head-of-state to head-
of-state call. It is not: Talk to my Secretary of State. It is 
not: Talk to my national security advisers. It is: Talk to 
Rudy.
    It is interesting, too, that it is not just Rudy, right?
    I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.
    That was quite a shock when this call record was released, 
right? The Attorney General shows up in this call record. A 
couple of times, he shows up in this call record.
    That is when the Department of Justice immediately issues a 
statement: We have got nothing to do with this. We don't know 
anything about this. The ink is barely dry. This thing has been 
released, and we don't know what this is about. We haven't 
talked about it. We haven't gone to Ukraine. We don't know a 
thing about it.
    Now, bear in mind a couple of other things that you know at 
this point. Bear in mind that there was a whistleblower 
complaint before this call record was released. Bear in mind 
that the law that we passed and you passed requires that a 
whistleblower complaint that is designated to go to Congress 
must go to Congress and must go to the intelligence committees. 
If the inspector general finds it credible and urgent, it has 
to not only go to Congress, it has to go to Congress soon. 
There is a timetable.
    Bear in mind what happens when that complaint is filed and 
the inspector general says: It is not only credible--it is 
urgent. It is urgent.
    What happens? Well, it goes to the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence. And what does he do? He contacts the 
White House, and he contacts Bill Barr's Justice Department. 
And what does Bill Barr's Justice Department do in consultation 
with the White House? They say: Don't turn it over to Congress. 
You don't have to turn it over to Congress.
    I know what the law says. It says ``you shall.'' It doesn't 
say ``you may.'' It doesn't say ``you might.'' It doesn't say 
``you can if you want to.'' It doesn't say ``if the President 
doesn't object.'' It says ``you shall.'' We are telling you--
Bill Barr's Justice Department is telling you--you don't have 
to. The highest office of the law in the land is saying: Ignore 
the law. Ignore the law. We will come up with some 
rationalization. We will get our guys at the Office of Legal 
Counsel to write some opinion. We will find a way. Do not turn 
it over. You don't have to.
    And they don't.
    The inspector general, who deserves a lot of credit for 
guts, reports to the intelligence committees and says: They are 
violating the law, and I don't know what to do about it. They 
are supposed to turn it over to you, and I don't know what to 
do about it, but I need to tell you, to meet my obligation, 
they are not doing what they should.
    So we subpoena the Director of National Intelligence, and 
we make it clear to the Director of National Intelligence that 
he is going to have to come before Congress in an open hearing 
and explain why he is the first Acting Director to refuse to 
turn a complaint over to Congress. The investigations are open.
    The result is they are forced to turn it over to Congress, 
and they are forced to release this call record, but here you 
have the Department of Justice weighing in: You don't have to 
turn it over.
    It is the same call record that mentions the Attorney 
General of the United States, but it fails. That effort to 
cover up--to conceal the whistleblower complaint--fails, and it 
comes out. No sooner than it does, the Attorney General says: 
We had nothing to do with this.
    Of course, if that had never been released, well then, the 
Attorney General's name would have never come up in this call 
record, and there would have been no necessity to distance 
himself from the President's actions.
    In the next exchange, President Zelensky says that he or 
she--he is going to have a new Prosecutor General--will look 
into the situation, specifically into the company that you 
mention in this issue.
    Now, this is also interesting: the company that you mention 
in this issue.
    There is no company mentioned in this issue in the call 
record, but, of course, you have heard now testimony from two 
witnesses who were on that call that Burisma was mentioned.
    So why isn't Burisma in the call record? Well, I can say 
this: That call record went to that highly classified server, 
and the mention of Burisma didn't make it into the call record.
    Zelensky goes on to say: The issue of the investigation of 
the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the 
honesty. So we will take care of that, and we will work on the 
investigation of the case.
    Time after time after time, Zelensky feels the need to 
assure the President he is going to do those political 
investigations that the President wants.
    In the next exchange, after Zelensky says this, the 
President says: I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call, and I 
am also going to have Attorney General Barr call, and we will 
get to the bottom of it.
    I mean, you can count. Don't take my word, but I think 
there is no one who comes up more in this call record than Rudy 
Giuliani, which tells us something.
    In the next exchange, among other things, Zelensky says: I 
also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the 
United States, specifically Washington, DC. On the other hand, 
I also want to assure you that we will be very serious about 
the case, and we will work on the investigation.
    In the same way that earlier in the conversation Zelensky 
brings up those weapons he needs--those Javelins--the President 
immediately says: I have a favor. So we have military 
assistance and ``I have a favor.''
    Here, Zelensky says: I want to thank you for your 
invitation to come visit. I also want to assure you we are 
serious about doing the investigation.
    Clearly, he is linking the two, and, of course, he is 
linking the two because he is told the two are linked before 
the call, and he is conveying to the President: I got the 
message.
    The President, in the next exchange, says: I will tell Rudy 
and Attorney General Barr to call.
    Again, let's make sure there is no misunderstanding here.
    I am going to have them call. I want you in touch with Rudy 
Giuliani and the Attorney General. I will tell Rudy and 
Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would 
like to come to the White House, feel free to call.
    I am going to have you talk to Rudy and the Attorney 
General, and by the way, anytime you want to come to the White 
House, just call.
    Give us a date, and we will work that out. I look forward 
to seeing you.
    Then Zelensky says: Thank you very much. I would be very 
happy to come. I am looking forward to our meeting.
    Again and again, Zelensky's ask, what he goes into that 
call wanting, is the meeting. You could tell what he was 
prepared for. He was prepared for the request for 
investigations. He knew what he had to promise, and he knew 
what he wanted to obtain, and that was the visit.
    You also saw in that video, that rather sad video--yes, 
sort of humorous but sad, too--Zelensky and President Trump at 
the U.N., where he is saying: You know, I still haven't gotten 
that meeting.
    I can tell you something--and this is what is so 
frightening about these circumstances. If we had not discovered 
all of this, he would likely be saying at that U.N. meeting: 
You know, we are still waiting on that military aid.
    Yes, we forced the aid to be released because the President 
got caught, but, even now, our ally can't get his foot in the 
door. Even now, our ally can't get his foot in the door.
    This brings me to the last point I want to make tonight, 
which is, when we are done, we believe that we will have made 
the case overwhelmingly of the President's guilt--that is, that 
he has done what he is charged with. He withheld the money. He 
withheld the meeting. He used it to coerce Ukraine to do these 
political investigations. He covered it up. He obstructed us, 
and he is trying to obstruct you. He has violated the 
Constitution.
    But I want to address one other thing tonight. OK. He is 
guilty. OK. He is guilty. Does he really need to be removed? We 
have an election coming up. Does he really need to be removed? 
He is guilty. You know, is there really any doubt about this? I 
mean, do we really have any doubt about the facts here? Does 
anybody really question whether the President is capable of 
what he is charged with? Nobody is really making the argument 
``Donald Trump would never do such a thing'' because, of 
course, we know that he would, and, of course, we know that he 
did.
    It is a somewhat different question, though, to ask: OK. It 
is pretty obvious. Whether we can say it publicly or we can't 
say it publicly, we all know what we are dealing with here with 
this President, but does he really need to be removed?
    This is why he needs to be removed: Donald Trump chose Rudy 
Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies. He chose Rudy 
Giuliani over his own FBI Director. He chose Rudy Giuliani over 
his own national security advisers. When all of them were 
telling him this Ukraine 2016 stuff was kooky, crazy, Russian 
propaganda, he chose not to believe them. He chose to believe 
Rudy Giuliani. That makes him dangerous to us, to our country. 
That was Donald Trump's choice.
    Why would Donald Trump believe a man like Rudy Giuliani 
over a man like Christopher Wray? OK. Why would anyone in his 
right mind believe Rudy Giuliani over Christopher Wray? Because 
he wanted to, because what Rudy was offering him was something 
that would help him personally and what Christopher Wray was 
offering him was merely the truth. What Christopher Wray was 
offering him was merely the information he needed to protect 
this country and its elections, but that was not good enough. 
What is in it for him? What is in it for Donald Trump? This is 
why he needs to be removed.
    You may be asking: How much damage can he really do in the 
next several months until the election? A lot--a lot of damage.
    We just saw last week a report that Russia tried to hack or 
maybe did hack Burisma, OK? I don't know if they got in. I am 
trying to find out. My colleagues on the Intel Committees of 
the House and Senate are trying to find out. Did the Russians 
get in? What are the Russians' plans and intentions?
    Well, let's say they get in, and let's say they start 
dumping documents to interfere in the next election. Let's say 
they start dumping some real things they have from Burisma. 
Let's say they start dumping some fake things they didn't hack 
from Burisma, but they want you to believe they did. Let's say 
they start blatantly interfering in our election again to help 
Donald Trump.
    Can you have the least bit of confidence that Donald Trump 
will stand up to them and protect our national interests over 
his own personal interests? You know you can't, which makes him 
dangerous to this country. You know you can't. You know you 
can't count on him. None of us can.
    What happens if China got the message? Now, you can say: 
Well, he is just joking, of course. He didn't really mean China 
should investigate the Bidens. You know that that is no joke.
    Now, maybe you could have argued it 3 years ago when he 
said: Hey, Russia. If you are listening, hack Hillary's emails. 
Maybe you could have given him a freebee and said he was 
joking, but now we know better. Hours after he did that, Russia 
did, in fact, try to hack Hillary's emails. There is no 
mulligan here when it comes to our national security.
    So what if China does overtly or covertly start to help the 
Trump campaign? Do you think he is going to call them out on it 
or do you think he is going to give them a better trade deal on 
it?
    Can any of us really have the confidence that Donald Trump 
will put national interests ahead of his personal interests? Is 
there really any evidence in this Presidency that should give 
us the ironclad confidence that he would do so? You know you 
can't count on him to do that. That is the sad truth. You know 
you can't count on him to do that.
    The American people deserve a President they can count on 
to put their interests first--to put their interests first.
    Colonel Vindman said: Here, right matters. Here, right 
matters.
    Well, let me tell you something. If right doesn't matter--
if right doesn't matter--it doesn't matter how good the 
Constitution is; it doesn't matter how brilliant the Framers 
were; it doesn't matter how good or bad our advocacy in this 
trial is; it doesn't matter how well written the oath of 
impartiality is. If right doesn't matter, we are lost. If the 
truth doesn't matter, we are lost. The Framers couldn't protect 
us from ourselves if right and truth don't matter. And you know 
that what he did was not right.
    You know, that is what they do in the old country that 
Colonel Vindman's father came from or the old country that my 
great-grandfather came from or the old countries that your 
ancestors came from or maybe you came from, but here, right is 
supposed to matter. It is what has made us the greatest Nation 
on Earth. No Constitution can protect us if right doesn't 
matter anymore.
    And you know you can't trust this President to do what is 
right for this country. You can trust he will do what is right 
for Donald Trump. He will do it now. He has done it before. He 
will do it for the next several months. He will do it in the 
election if he is allowed to. This is why, if you find him 
guilty, you must find that he should be removed--because right 
matters. Because right matters. And the truth matters. 
Otherwise, we are lost.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                                ------                                


                   ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 1 P.M. TOMORROW

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent 
that the trial adjourn until 1 p.m., Friday, January 24, and 
that this order also constitute the adjournment of the Senate.
    There being no objection, at 10:32 p.m., the Senate, 
sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourned until Friday, 
January 24, 2020, at 1 p.m.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, January 24, 2020]

    The Senate met at 1:05 p.m. and was called to order by the 
Chief Justice of the United States.
                                ------                                


               TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE

                             UNITED STATES

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of 
Impeachment.
    The Chaplain will please lead us in prayer.
                                ------                                

                                 prayer
    The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following 
prayer:
    Let us pray.
    Almighty God, as we resume this impeachment trial, let Your 
will be done. Enlighten our Senators as You show them Your 
will. Lord, guide them with Your wisdom, supporting them with 
Your power. In spite of disagreements, may they strive for 
civility and respect. May they respect the right of the 
opposing side to differ regarding convictions and conclusions. 
Give them the wisdom to distinguish between facts and opinions 
without lambasting the messengers.
    We pray in Your strong Name. Amen.
                          pledge of allegiance
    The Chief Justice led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, 
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
                              the journal
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Will Senators please be seated.
    If there is no objection, the Journal of proceedings of the 
trial are approved to date.
    Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
    The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
    The Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, made the 
proclamation as follows:

    Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep 
silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States 
is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by 
the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, President of 
the United States.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                           order of procedure
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, for all of our 
colleagues' information about scheduling, today we will plan to 
take short breaks every 2 to 3 hours and will accommodate a 30-
minute recess for dinner, assuming it is needed, until the 
House managers have finished their opening presentation.
    For scheduling purposes, we have organized tomorrow's 
session to convene at 10 a.m. and run for several hours as the 
President's counsel begin their presentation.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 
483, the managers for the House of Representatives have 7 hours 
53 minutes remaining to make the presentation of their case.
    The Senate will now hear you.
                      opening statement--continued
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, 
distinguished counsel of the President, I keep wanting to say 
``good morning,'' but good afternoon. I just wanted to give a 
very brief orientation to the argument you will hear today.
    We will begin with Jason Crow, who was talking about the 
conditionality of the military assistance. This is the latter 
part, although not the end, of the argumentation on the 
application of the constitutional law as it respects article I, 
the abuse of power. I will have a presentation after Mr. Crow, 
and soon thereafter we will conclude the presentation on 
article I. We will then begin the presentation on article II, 
once again applying the constitutional law to the facts on the 
President's obstruction of Congress. We will then have some 
concluding thoughts and then turn it over to the President's 
counsel.
    That is what you should expect for the day, and with that, 
I will now yield to Mr. Crow of Colorado.
    Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, good afternoon. I woke 
up this morning and walked to my local coffee shop, where, 
unlike my esteemed colleague Mr. Jeffries from New York, nobody 
complained to me about Colorado baseball. So I could only 
conclude that this is only a New York Yankees problem.
    As Mr. Schiff mentioned, we talked last night about the 
July 25 call and the multiple officials who had confirmed the 
intent of the President in withholding the aid, so now I would 
like to turn to what happened around the time the aid was 
lifted.
    We know that the aid was lifted ultimately on September 11, 
[Slide 379] but it wasn't lifted for any legitimate reason. It 
was only lifted because President Trump had gotten caught. 
Let's go through how we know that.
    On August 26, [Slide 380] the whistleblower complaint had 
been sent to the Director of National Intelligence, and public 
reports indicate that President Trump was told about the 
complaint by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.
    On September 5, though, the scheme became public. An 
editorial in the Washington Post on that day, [Slide 381] for 
the first time publicly, explicitly linked the military aid 
hold and the investigations that President Trump wanted.
    Keep in mind that public scrutiny of the President's hold 
increased exponentially after this became public. And this is 
where things start moving really fast.
    A few days later, on September 9, the House investigative 
committees publicly announced their investigation of the 
President's conduct in Ukraine. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman 
testified to the National Security Council, [Slide 380] and 
others at the White House learned about the investigation when 
it was announced. And a colleague of his said that it might 
have the effect of releasing the aid. On that same day, the 
House Intelligence Committee learns that the administration had 
withheld the whistleblower complaint from Congress. The scheme 
was unravelling. What happens 2 days later? President Trump 
released the military aid.
    He only released it after he got caught. But there is 
another reason we know the President lifted the aid only [Slide 
382] because he got caught: because there is no other 
explanation. The testimony of all of the witnesses confirmed 
it. [Slide 383] Both Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Ms. 
Williams testified that they were not provided any reason for 
lifting the hold. [Slide 384] Vindman testified that nothing on 
the ground had changed in the 2 months of the hold, and Mark 
Sandy of the OMB also confirmed that. Ambassador Taylor, too, 
testified that ``I was not told the reason why the hold had 
been lifted.''
    Let me take a moment to address another defense I expect 
you will hear: that the aid was released and the investigations 
were never announced; so therefore no harm, no foul, right? 
Well, this defense would be laughable if this issue wasn't so 
serious.
    First, I have spoken over the past 3 days about the real 
consequences of inserting politics into matters of war. Real 
people, real lives are at stake. Every day, every hour matters. 
So, no, the delay wasn't meaningless. Just ask the Ukrainians 
sitting in trenches right now. And to this day, they are still 
waiting on $18 million of the aid that hasn't reached them.
    Jennifer Williams, who attended the Warsaw meeting with 
Vice President Pence, described President Zelensky's focus 
during this time.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. And you testified in your deposition that in that 
conversation President Zelensky emphasized that the military 
assistance, the security assistance, was not just important to assist 
Ukraine in fighting a war against Russia but that it was also symbolic 
in nature. What did you understand him to mean by that?
    Ms. WILLIAMS. President Zelensky explained that more than--or just 
equally with--the financial and physical value of the assistance, that 
it was the symbolic nature of that assistance that really was the show 
of U.S. support for Ukraine and for Ukraine's sovereignty and 
territorial integrity. And I think he was stressing that to the Vice 
President to really underscore the need for the security assistance to 
be released.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And, then, if the United States was holding the 
security assistance, is it also true then that Russia could see that as 
a sign of weakening U.S. support for Ukraine and take advantage of 
that?
    Ms. WILLIAMS. I believe that is what President Zelensky was 
indicating, that any signal or sign that U.S. support was wavering 
would be construed by Russia as potentially an opportunity for them to 
strengthen their own hand in Ukraine.

    Mr. Manager CROW. This is an important point, particularly 
when the President and his attorneys tried to argue: no harm, 
no foul.
    The financial assistance itself was really important to 
Ukraine, no question about it. But the aid was equally 
important as a signal to Russia of our support for Ukraine. And 
regardless of whether the aid was ultimately released, the fact 
that the hold became public sent a very clear signal to Russia 
that our support for Ukraine was wavering, and Russia was 
watching very closely for any sign of weakness. The damage was 
done.
    Now, [Slide 385] any possible doubt about whether the aid 
was linked to the investigations has been erased by the 
President's own Chief of Staff. We have seen this video before 
during the trial, but there is a really good reason for this. 
It is a complete admission on national TV that the military aid 
was conditioned on Ukraine helping the President's political 
campaign.
    Here, once again, is what Mulvaney said.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mr. Manager CROW. When pressed that he just confessed to 
the very quid pro quo that President Trump had been denying, 
Mulvaney doubled down.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    REPORTER. To be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. 
Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic 
server happened as well.
    Mr. MULVANEY. We do that all the time with foreign policy. If you 
read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say 
yesterday? Well, McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with 
the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons 
he was so upset about this. And I have news for everybody: Get over it. 
There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Remember, at the time he made these 
statements, Mulvaney was both the head of OMB and the Acting 
Chief of Staff at the White House. He knew about all of the 
legal concerns. He also knew about the President's so-called 
drug deal, as Ambassador Bolton called it. He knew exactly what 
was going on in the Oval Office and how OMB implemented the 
President's illegal order to hold the aid.
    Mulvaney confirmed why the President ordered the hold. It 
was not to develop further policy to counter aggression. It was 
not to convince the Ukrainians to implement additional anti-
corruption reforms. And it was not to pressure our allies to 
give more to Ukraine.
    Since we won't have an opportunity to respond to the 
President's presentation, I am going to take a minute to 
respond to some of the arguments that I expect them to make.
    You will notice, I am sure, that they will ignore 
significant portions of the evidence, while trying to cherry-
pick individual statements here and there to manufacture 
defenses. But don't be fooled.
    One defense you may hear is that the aid was held up to 
allow for a policy review. This is what the administration told 
the GAO at one point. But the evidence shows the opposite. The 
evidence shows that the administration didn't conduct a review 
at any time after the President ordered the hold.
    Laura Cooper was not aware of any review of the funding 
conducted by DOD in July, August, or September, and, similarly, 
George Kent testified that the State Department did not conduct 
and was never asked to conduct a review of funding 
administrated by the State Department. In fact, on May 23, the 
anti-corruption review was complete and DOD certified to 
Congress that Ukraine had complied with all of the conditions 
and that the remaining half of the aid should be released. This 
was confirmed by the June 18 press release announcing the 
funding.
    Do you remember the fictitious ``interagency review 
process''? That was made up too. No review is necessary because 
it had already been done.
    Next, the President's counsel keeps saying this was about 
corruption in Ukraine. President Trump was not concerned with 
fighting corruption. It is difficult to even say that with a 
straight face. The President never mentioned corruption on 
either call with President Zelensky. But let's go through the 
evidence.
    As we just discussed, DOD had already completed a review 
and concluded that Ukraine had ``made sufficient progress in 
meeting defense reform and anti-corruption goals consistent 
with the National Defense Authorization Act in order to receive 
the funds.''
    In fact, Mark Sandy, who was not at that meeting but who 
was initially responsible for approving the hold, said he had 
never heard corruption as a reason for the hold in all of the 
discussions he had about it.
    Similar to the anti-corruption argument, there is simply no 
evidence to support the President's after-the-fact argument 
that he was concerned about burden-sharing; that is, other 
countries also contributing to Ukraine.
    I imagine the President may cite the emails in June about 
what other countries provided to Ukraine, the reference to 
other countries' contributions in the July 25 call, and 
testimony from Sandy about a request for information about what 
other European countries give to Ukraine. But there is simply 
no evidence that ties the concern to his decision to hold the 
funding.
    First, let's actually look at the contributions of European 
countries to Ukraine. There is a slide in front of you. [Slide 
386] It shows that other European countries have significantly 
contributed to Ukraine since 2014, and the European Union, in 
total, has given far more than the United States. The EU is the 
single largest donor to Ukraine, having provided over $16 
billion in grants and loans.
    The President's assertion that other countries did not 
support Ukraine is meritless. There are other reasons too.
    After DOD and OMB responded to the President's request, 
presumably with some of the information we just provided you, 
showing Europe gives a lot to Ukraine, nobody in the Trump 
administration mentioned burden-sharing as a reason for the 
hold to any of the 17 witnesses that we have been talking 
about. [Slide 387]
    Sondland, whose actual portfolio is the EU--not Ukraine--
testified that he was never asked to speak to the EU or EU 
member countries about providing more aid to Ukraine. If 
President Trump were truly concerned about that, he would have 
been the perfect guy to handle it because he was our Ambassador 
to the EU. But it never happened. How could it? Sondland 
himself knew the aid was linked to the investigations because 
that is what the President himself had told him.
    It wasn't until the President's scheme began to unravel, 
after the White House learned of the whistleblower complaint 
and after POLITICO publicly revealed the existence of the hold, 
that the issue of burden-sharing came up again.
    If the President's concern were genuinely about burden-
sharing, he never made any public statements about it, never 
ordered a review of burden-sharing, and never ordered his 
officials to push Europe to increase their contributions. And 
then he released the aid without any changes in Europe's 
contributions.
    This last point is important. You know the President's 
purported concern about burden-sharing rings hollow because the 
aid was released after the President got caught, not because 
the EU or any European country made any new contributions. As 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified, the facts on the ground 
had not changed.
    Finally, you may hear the President's counsel say that 
Ukraine didn't know about the hold until August 28, long after 
the hold was implemented. Therefore, they could not have felt 
pressure. But this makes no sense.
    First, they found out about it long before August 28. 
Multiple witnesses testified that the Ukrainians showed 
``impressive diplomatic tradecraft'' in learning quickly about 
the hold, and, of course, they would know. The DOD release was 
announced in June. U.S. agencies knew about it in July. It 
should be no surprise that the first inquiries about the aid 
were on July 25, the same day as the call.
    You see, it doesn't matter if extortion lasts 2 weeks or 2 
months. It is still extortion, and Ukraine certainly felt the 
pressure. Other Ukrainian officials also expressed concerns 
that the Ukrainian government was being singled out and 
penalized for some reason. And they were, by President Trump.
    Do you know how else you know they felt the pressure from 
the hold? President Zelensky finally relented and was planning 
to do the CNN interview. Ultimately, right around the time of 
President Zelensky's conversation with President Trump, which 
is the subject of the classified document that I urge all 
Senators to look at, President Zelensky canceled the CNN 
interview. But the damage was already done.
    The evidence is clear. The question for you is whether it 
is OK for the President to withhold taxpayer money, aid for our 
ally--our friend at war--for a personal political benefit; 
whether it was OK for the President to sacrifice our national 
security for his own election. It is not OK to me, it is 
certainly not OK with the American people, and it should not be 
OK to any of you.
    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished 
Members of the Senate, President's counsel, the American 
people, once again, we are gathered here, not as Democrats or 
Republicans, not as the left or the right, not as progressives 
or conservatives, but as Americans doing our constitutional 
duty during this moment of Presidential accountability. As 
House managers, we thank you for your courtesy, your 
attentiveness, and your hospitality.
    At the heart of article II, obstruction of Congress, is a 
simple, troubling reality. President Trump tried to cheat, he 
got caught, and then he worked hard to cover it up. The 
President tried to cheat, he got caught, and then he worked 
hard to cover it up. [Slide 388]
    Patrick Henry, one the Nation's great patriots, once said 
that ``the liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be 
secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed 
from them.''
    Let's now address the effort by President Trump and his 
team to cover up his wrongdoing. By July of 2019, White House 
officials were aware of serious allegations of misconduct by 
President Trump regarding Ukraine, but instead of halting the 
President's corrupt scheme, they worked overtime to conceal it 
from the American people.
    As additional evidence of the President's wrongdoing 
mounted, White House lawyers redoubled their efforts to prevent 
Congress and the American people from learning of the 
President's misconduct.
    At the same time, top administration officials--including 
Secretary of State Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Esper, and 
National Security Advisor John Bolton--tried to convince 
President Trump to lift the hold on the security assistance. 
They failed. President Trump was determined to carry out his 
corrupt scheme.
    The military and security aid was only released on 
September 11 after the hold became public, after the House 
launched an investigation, and after Congress learned about the 
existence of a whistleblower complaint. The $391 million in 
security aid was only released because President Trump was 
caught redhanded.
    The actions of President Trump and high-level White House 
officials allowed his abuse of power to continue beyond the 
watchful eye of Congress and, most importantly, the American 
people.
    As we have discussed at length, on July 10, Ambassador 
Sondland told the Ukrainians and other U.S. officials that he 
had a deal with Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to schedule 
the White House meeting President Zelensky wanted, if the new 
Ukrainian leader committed to the phony investigations that 
President Trump sought.
    As you have seen in testimony shown during this trial, 
following that meeting, National Security Council officials, 
Dr. Fiona Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman 
immediately reported this information to John Eisenberg, the 
Legal Advisor for the National Security Council and a Deputy 
Counsel to the President. According to Dr. Hill, Mr. Eisenberg 
told her that he was also concerned about that July 10 meeting. 
On the screen is Dr. Hill's deposition testimony where she 
explains Mr. Eisenberg's reaction, saying: [Slide 389]

    I mean, he wasn't aware that Sondland, Ambassador Sondland was . . 
. kind of running around doing a lot of these . . . meetings and 
independently. We talked about the fact that . . . Ambassador Sondland 
said he'd been meeting with Giuliani and he was very concerned about 
that. And he said he would follow up on this.

    Mr. Eisenberg was very concerned about that and said that 
he would follow up on this.
    Dr. Hill further testified that Mr. Eisenberg told her that 
he followed up with his boss, the distinguished White House 
Counsel, Pat Cipollone. However, because the President blocked 
Mr. Eisenberg from testifying in the House, we do not know 
what, if anything, he or Mr. Cipollone did in response to this 
deeply troubling information. What we do know is that President 
Trump's effort to cheat continued with reckless abandon. By 
failing to put the brakes on the wrongdoing after that July 10 
meeting--even after they were notified by concerned national 
security officials--the White House attorneys allowed it to 
continue unchecked.
    Right around the same time that the July 10 meetings at the 
White House took place, the Office of Management and Budget 
began executing President Trump's illegal order to withhold all 
security assistance from Ukraine.
    On July 10, Robert Blair, an assistant to the President, 
communicated the hold to the Acting Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, Russell Vought. On July 18, an Office of 
Management and Budget official communicated the hold to other 
executive branch agencies, including the Department of State 
and the Department of Defense. And a week later, on July 25, 
President Trump had his imperfect telephone call with President 
Zelensky and directly pressured the Ukrainian leader to 
commence phony political investigations as part of his effort 
to cheat and solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election.
    The July 25 call marked an important turning point. If 
there was any question among senior White House officials and 
attorneys about whether President Trump was directly involved 
in the Ukraine scheme, as opposed to just a rogue operation 
being led by Rudolph Giuliani or some other underlings, after 
July 25, there can be no mistake that the President of the 
United States was undoubtedly calling the shots.
    Thereafter, the complicity of White House officials with 
respect to the coverup of the President's misconduct 
intensified. Immediately after the July 25 call, both 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and his direct supervisor, Tim 
Morrison, reported their concerns about the call to Mr. 
Eisenberg and his Deputy, Michael Ellis. In fact, within an 
hour after the July 25 call, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman 
returned again a second time to Mr. Eisenberg and reported his 
concerns.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    LTC VINDMAN. I was concerned by the call. What I heard was 
inappropriate and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. 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.
    I was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation, it was 
also clear that if Ukraine pursued investigation into the 2016 
elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a 
partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing 
bipartisan support, undermining U.S. national security and advancing 
Russia's strategic objectives in the region.
    I want to emphasize to the committee that when I reported my 
concerns on July 10th relating to Ambassador Sondland and then on July 
25th relating to the President, I did so out of a sense of duty. I 
privately reported my concerns in official channels to the proper 
authority in the chain of command. My intent was to raise these 
concerns because they had significant national security implications 
for our country. I never thought that I'd be sitting here testifying in 
front of this committee and the American public about my actions. When 
I reported my concerns, my only thought was to act properly and to 
carry out my duty.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Timothy Morrison, the National 
Security Council's Senior Director for Europe and Russia, also 
reported the call to Mr. Eisenberg and asked him to review the 
call, which he feared would be ``damaging'' if leaked.
    (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?
    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 is inappropriate. 
Would you not?
    Mr. MORRISON. It's not what we recommended the President discuss.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. The July 25 call was at least the 
second time that National Security Council officials had 
reported concerns about President Trump's pressure campaign to 
White House lawyers--the second time--who now clearly 
understood the gravity of the ongoing misconduct.
    But because the President blocked Mr. Eisenberg from 
testifying without any justification, the record is silent as 
to what, if any, actions he or the White House Counsel took to 
address President Trump's brazen misconduct and abuse of power. 
We do know, however, that instead of trying to halt the scheme, 
White House lawyers facilitated it by taking affirmative steps 
to conceal evidence of President Trump's misconduct. For 
example, after Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Mr. Morrison 
reported their concerns related to the July 25 call to the 
National Security Council lawyers, they tried to bury the call 
summary. They tried to bury it. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman 
testified that the National Security Council lawyers believed 
it was ``appropriate to restrict access'' to the call summary 
``for the purpose of the leaks'' and ``to preserv[e] the 
integrity'' of the transcript.
    According to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Mr. Eisenberg 
``gave the go-ahead'' to restrict access to the call summary. 
Mr. Morrison testified that he learned in late August, after he 
raised concerns that the call record might leak and be 
politically damaging to the President, that the call summary 
had been placed on a highly classified National Security 
Council server. The call record was placed on a server that is 
reserved for America's most sensitive national security secrets 
and covert operations, not routine calls with foreign leaders.
    Apparently, Mr. Eisenberg claimed at the time that burying 
the call transcript on a highly classified server was a 
``mistake.''
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, in a second meeting with Mr. Eisenberg, what did 
you recommend that he do to prevent the call record from leaking?
    Mr. MORRISON. I recommended we restrict access to the package.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Had you ever asked the NSC legal advisor to restrict 
access before?
    Mr. MORRISON. No.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you speak to your supervisor, Dr. Kupperman, 
before you went to speak to John Eisenberg?
    Mr. MORRISON. No.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you subsequently learn that the call record had 
been put in a highly classified system?
    Mr. MORRISON. I did.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And what reason did Mr. Eisenberg give you for why the 
call record was put in a highly classified system?
    Mr. MORRISON. It was a mistake.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. He said it was just a mistake?
    Mr. MORRISON. It was an administrative error.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. In Mr. Morrison's view, the July 25 
call record did not meet the requirements to be placed on a 
highly classified server.
    At his deposition, [Slide 390] Mr. Morrison testified that 
the call record was placed on the server by ``mistake.'' 
However, even after this alleged ``mistake'' was discovered, 
the July 25 call summary was not removed from the classified 
system because someone was trying to hide it. It was not until 
a launch of the House impeachment inquiry in late September, 
and after intense public pressure, that the rough transcript of 
the July 25 call was released.
    Again, because Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Ellis refused to 
testify in the House, we do not know exactly how the July 25 
call record ended up on this highly classified National 
Security Council server. What we do know is that Mr. Eisenberg 
ordered access restricted after multiple officials, like Dr. 
Fiona Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, advised him of the 
scheme to condition a White House meeting on phony political 
investigations. They strongly suggested there was an active 
attempt to conceal the clear evidence of the President's 
wrongdoing. Instead of addressing the President's misconduct, 
Mr. Eisenberg seemingly tried to cover it up.
    Why did Mr. Eisenberg place the July 25 call summary on a 
server for highly classified material? Did anyone senior to Mr. 
Eisenberg direct him to hide the call record? Why did the call 
record remain on the classified server even after the so-called 
error was discovered? Who ordered the coverup of the call 
record? The American people deserve to know.
    Following the July 25 call, the President's scheme to 
pressure Ukraine for political purposes intensified, apparently 
unchecked by any effort to stop it from the White House 
Counsel's Office. After the July 25 call, Ambassadors Sondland 
and Volker worked with the President's personal lawyer, Rudolph 
Giuliani, to procure a public statement from President Zelensky 
to announce phony investigations into Joe Biden and the 
CrowdStrike conspiracy theory being peddled by President Trump. 
At the same time, President Trump continued to withhold the 
White House meeting and security assistance from Ukraine in a 
manner that broke the law.
    As these efforts were ongoing, White House attorneys 
reportedly received yet another warning sign that the President 
was abusing his power. According to a published report in the 
New York Times, [Slide 391] the week after the July 25 call, an 
anonymous whistleblower reported concerns that the President 
was abusing his office for personal gain. The whistleblower's 
complaint landed with the CIA's General Counsel's office. 
Although the concerns related directly to the President's own 
misconduct, the CIA's General Counsel, Courtney Elwood, alerted 
Mr. Eisenberg. Over the next week, Ms. Elwood, Mr. Eisenberg, 
and their deputies reportedly discussed the whistleblower's 
concerns, and they determined, as required by law, that the 
allegations had a ``reasonable basis.''
    So, by early August, White House lawyers began working, 
along with the attorneys at the Department of Justice, to cover 
up the President's wrongdoing. They were determined to prevent 
Congress and the American people from learning anything about 
the President's corrupt behavior. Although senior Justice 
Department officials, including Attorney General Bill Barr, 
were reportedly made aware of the concerns about corrupt 
activity, no investigation into President Trump's wrongdoing 
was even opened by the DOJ.
    As White House and Justice Department lawyers were 
discussing how to deal with the whistleblower's concerns, on 
August 12--another important date--the whistleblower filed a 
formal complaint with the inspector general for the 
intelligence community.
    In accordance with Federal law, on August 26, the inspector 
general transmitted the whistleblower's complaint to the Acting 
Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, along with 
the inspector general's preliminary conclusion that the 
complaint was both credible and related to a matter of urgent 
concern. Instead of transmitting the whistleblower's complaint 
to the House's and Senate's distinguished Intelligence 
Committees, as required by law, the Acting Director of National 
Intelligence notified the White House.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Chairman SCHIFF. I'm just trying to understand the chronology. [So] 
you first went to the Office of Legal Counsel, and then you went to 
White House Counsel?
    Mr. MAGUIRE. We went to the--repeat that, please, sir.
    Chairman SCHIFF. I'm just trying to understand the chronology. You 
first went to the Office of Legal Counsel, and then you went to the 
White House Counsel?
    Mr. MAGUIRE. No, no, no, sir. We went to the White House first to 
determine--to ask the question--
    Chairman SCHIFF. That's all I want to know is the chronology. So 
you went to the White House first. So you went to the subject of the 
complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the 
complaint to Congress?
    Mr. MAGUIRE. There were issues within this, a couple of things: 
One, it did appear that it has executive privilege. If it does have 
executive privilege, it is the White House that determines that. I 
cannot determine that, as the Director of National Intelligence.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Under Federal law, the Acting 
Director of National Intelligence was required to share the 
whistleblower's complaint with Congress--period, full stop. If 
that had occurred, the President's scheme to withhold security 
assistance and a White House meeting--being sought by the new 
Ukrainian leader--in order to pressure Ukraine for his own, 
personal political gain would have been exposed.
    To prevent that from happening, the President's lawyers and 
top-level advisers adopted a two-pronged coverup strategy: 
first, block Congress and the American people from learning 
about the whistleblower's complaint; second, try to convince 
President Trump to lift the hold on the security assistance 
before anyone could find out about it and use that evidence 
against him.
    As to the first prong, sometime after the Acting Director 
of National Intelligence told the White House Counsel's Office 
about the complaint on August 26, Mr. Cipollone and Mr. 
Eisenberg reportedly briefed the President. They likely 
discussed with President Trump whether they were legally 
required to give the complaint to Congress. [Slide 392] They 
stated that they were consulting with the Office of Legal 
Counsel at the Department of Justice. The Acting Director of 
National Intelligence testified that he and the inspector 
general consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, which 
opined without any reasonable basis that he did not have to 
turn over the complaint to Congress.
    On September 3--the day after the statutory deadline for 
the Director of National Intelligence to provide the complaint 
to this body and to the House--the Office of Legal Counsel 
issued a secret opinion, concluding that, contrary to the plain 
language of the statute, the Acting Director of National 
Intelligence was not required to turn over the complaint. The 
coverup was in full swing.
    The Office of Legal Counsel opined that the whistleblower's 
complaint did not qualify as an urgent concern and therefore 
did not have to be turned over. What could be more urgent than 
a sitting President's trying to cheat in an American election 
by soliciting foreign interference? What could be more urgent 
than that? That is a constitutional crime in progress, but they 
concluded it was not an urgent matter.
    Acting Director of National Intelligence Maguire testified 
that the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion did not actually 
prevent him from turning over the complaint to Congress. 
Instead, based upon his testimony, it is clear that he withheld 
it on the basis that the complaint might deal with information 
he believed could be covered by executive privilege, but 
President Trump never actually invoked executive privilege. He 
never actually invoked executive privilege, nor did he inform 
Congress that he was doing so with respect to this complaint. 
Instead, the White House secretly instructed the Acting 
Director of National Intelligence to withhold the complaint 
based on the mere possibility that executive privilege could be 
invoked. By doing so, the White House was able to keep the 
explosive complaint from Congress and the American public 
without ever having to disclose the reason it was withholding 
this information.
    But truth crushed to the ground will rise again. There is a 
toxic mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and I humbly suggest 
that it is our collective job, on behalf of the American 
people, to try to clean it up. President Trump tried to cheat. 
He got caught. Then he worked hard to cover it up.
    There have been many great Presidents throughout the 
history of this Republic--great Republican Presidents and great 
Democratic Presidents. Perhaps one of the greatest Presidents 
was Abraham Lincoln. He once said that any man can handle 
adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him 
some power.
    America is a great nation. We can handle adversity better 
than any other country in the world. Whenever America has found 
itself in a tough spot, we have always made it to the other 
side. We were in a tough spot during the Civil War, when 
America was at risk of tearing itself apart, but we made it to 
the other side. We were in a tough spot in October of 1929, 
when the stock market collapsed, plunging us into the Great 
Depression, but we made it to the other side. We were in a 
tough spot in December of 1941, when a foreign power struck, 
plunging us into a great conflict with the evil empire of Nazi 
Germany, but America made it to the other side. We were in a 
tough spot in the 1960s when dealing with the inherent 
contradictions of Jim Crow, but we made it to the other side. 
We were in a tough spot on September 11, when the Towers were 
struck and when young men and women, like Jason Crow, were sent 
to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists there so we didn't have 
to fight the terrorists here, and we made it to the other side.
    America is a great country. We can handle adversity better 
than any other nation in the world, but what are we going to do 
about our character?
    President Trump tried to cheat and solicit foreign 
interference in an American election. That is an attack on our 
character. President Trump abused his power and corrupted the 
highest office in the land. That is an attack on our character. 
President Trump tried to cover it all up and hide it from 
America and obstruct Congress. That is an extraordinary attack 
on our character.
    America is a great nation. We can handle adversity better 
than any other country in the world, but what are we going to 
do about our character?
    Mr. Manager CROW. As the crisis around the President's hold 
deepened throughout our government, the President's own top 
advisers redoubled their efforts to lift the hold on military 
aid and stem the fallout in case it went public, and it did go 
public. On August 28, POLITICO publicly reported that the 
President was withholding the military aid.
    As you have heard, the public disclosure of the President's 
hold in late August caused deep alarm among Ukrainian 
officials. It also caused U.S. officials to redouble their 
efforts once again. [Slide 393]
    At the end of August, Secretary of State Pompeo, Defense 
Secretary Esper, and Ambassador Bolton reportedly tried to 
convince President Trump to release the military aid, but they 
failed. The President wanted the hold to remain. That prompted 
Duffey, the political appointee charged with implementing the 
hold, to send an email on August 30 to the DOD, stating: 
``Clear direction from POTUS to hold.'' This is consistent with 
Laura Cooper's deposition testimony, when she said that they 
were ``hopeful this whole time that Secretary Esper and 
Secretary Pompeo would be able to meet with the President and 
just explain to him why this was so important and get the funds 
released,'' but, instead, the President held firm. [Slide 394]
    Even as the President's own Cabinet officials were trying 
to convince him to lift the hold, White House lawyers were 
receiving new reports about the President's abuse.
    On September 1, Vice President Pence met with President 
Zelensky in Warsaw, and immediately after, Sondland had a side 
conversation with the top Ukrainian Presidential aide. Morrison 
was privy to these conversations, and when he returned from 
Warsaw, he reported to Eisenberg the details.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. And what did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told 
Mr. Yermak?
    Mr. MORRISON. That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor 
general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a 
condition of having the aid lifted.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And you testified that you were not comfortable with 
what Ambassador Sondland had told you. Why not?
    Mr. MORRISON. Well, I was concerned about what I saw as essentially 
an additional hurdle to accomplishing what I had been directed to help 
accomplish, which was giving the President the information that he 
needed to determine that the security sector assistance could go 
forward.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. So now there's a whole other wrinkle to it, right?
    Mr. MORRISON. There was the appearance of one, based on what 
Ambassador Sondland represented.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And you told Ambassador Taylor about this conversation 
as well. Is that right?
    Mr. MORRISON. I promptly reached out to Ambassador Taylor to 
schedule a secure phone call.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And in your deposition, you testified that his 
testimony, other than one small distinction between President Zelensky 
and the prosecutor general, was accurate as to what you told him. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. MORRISON. About that conversation, yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And, generally speaking, you confirmed everything that 
Ambassador Taylor told you, except for that one thing and a small other 
ministerial matter relating to the location of the meeting. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. MORRISON. Correct.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, did you tell Ambassador Bolton about this 
conversation as well?
    Mr. MORRISON. I have reached out to him as well and requested his 
availability for a secure phone call.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And what was his response when you explained to him 
what Ambassador Sondland had said?
    Mr. MORRISON. Tell the lawyers.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you go tell the lawyers?
    Mr. MORRISON. When I returned to the States, yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And did he explain to you why he wanted you to tell 
the lawyers?
    Mr. MORRISON. He did not.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Now, this wasn't the first time--and it 
wouldn't be the last--that Ambassador Bolton instructed other 
government officials to report details of the President's 
scheme to White House lawyers.
    Now, let's be clear. When government employees have 
concerns about whether something is legal, they often go to 
their agency's lawyers. And it was happening an awful lot 
around this time. Recall that Bolton also instructed Dr. Hill 
to report to the lawyers Sondland's statements about requiring 
an announcement of the investigations as a condition for a 
White House meeting--what Bolton called Sondland's ``drug 
deal'' with the President's top aide, Mick Mulvaney. Ambassador 
Bolton's testimony would obviously shine further light on these 
concerns and what or who, if anyone, in the White House or the 
Cabinet did to try to stop the President at this time.
    After the President's hold on military aid became public in 
late August, there was increasing pressure on the President to 
lift the hold. On September 3, a bipartisan group of Senators 
sent a letter to Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick 
Mulvaney. An excerpt from that letter is in front of you. 
[Slide 395] The Senators expressed ``deep concerns'' that the 
``Administration is considering not obligating the Ukraine 
Security Initiative funds for 2019.'' The Senators' letter also 
urged that the ``vital'' funds be obligated ``immediately.''
    On September 5, the chairman and the ranking member of the 
House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a joint letter to Mulvaney 
and OMB Director Russell Vought. [Slide 396] That letter also 
expressed ``deep concern'' about the continuing hold on the 
military aid.
    The same day, Senators Murphy and Johnson visited Kyiv and 
met with President Zelensky, along with Ambassador Taylor.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. On September 5th, I accompanied Senators Johnson 
and Murphy during their visit to Kyiv. When we met with President 
Zelensky, his first question to the Senators was about the withheld 
security assistance. My recollection of the meeting is that both 
Senators stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was 
Ukraine's most important strategic asset and that President Zelensky 
should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn in to 
U.S. domestic politics.
    I had been making and continue to make this point to all of my 
official Ukrainian contacts. But the odd push to make President 
Zelensky publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged 
interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign 
policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led 
by Mr. Giuliani.

    Mr. Manager CROW. The Senators sought to reassure President 
Zelensky that there was bipartisan support in Congress for 
providing the military aid.
    Also on September 5, the Washington Post editorial board 
reported concerns that President Trump was withholding the aid 
and a meeting to force President Zelensky to announce 
investigations to benefit his personal political campaign.
    The editors wrote: [Slide 397]

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

    Despite these efforts to get the President to lift the hold 
and the now-public discussion about the President's abuse of 
power, the scheme continued. Two days later, on September 7, 
Morrison went back to the White House lawyers to report 
additional details he had learned from Ambassador Sondland 
about the President's scheme--again, at the direction of 
Ambassador Bolton.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, a few days later, on September 7th, you spoke 
again to Ambassador Sondland, who told you that he had just gotten off 
the phone with President Trump. Isn't that right?
    Mr. MORRISON. That sounds correct, yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that President 
Trump said to him?
    Mr. MORRISON. If I recall this conversation correctly, this was 
where Ambassador Sondland related that there was no quid pro quo, but 
President Zelensky had to make the statement and that he had to want to 
do it.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And by that point, did you understand that the 
statement related to the Biden and 2016 investigations?
    Mr. MORRISON. I think I did, yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And that that was essentially a condition for the 
security assistance to be released?
    Mr. MORRISON. I understood that that's what Ambassador Sondland 
believed.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. After speaking with President Trump?
    Mr. MORRISON. That's what he represented.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, you testified that hearing this information gave 
you a sinking feeling. Why was that?
    Mr. MORRISON. Well, I believe if we're on September 7th, the end of 
the fiscal year is September 30th, these are 1 year dollars, the DOD 
and the Department of State funds, so we only had so much time. And, in 
fact, because Congress imposed a 15 day notification requirement on the 
State Department funds, September 7th, September 30th, that really 
means September 15th in order to secure a decision from the President 
to allow the funds to go forward.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you tell Ambassador Bolton about this conversation 
as well?
    Mr. MORRISON. I did. I did, yes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And what did he say to you?
    Mr. MORRISON. He said to tell the lawyers.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. And why did he say to tell the lawyers?
    Mr. MORRISON. He did not explain his direction.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Again, ``tell the lawyers.''
    Ambassador Sondland's call with President Trump on 
September 7 also prompted deep concern by Ambassador Taylor, 
which you have already heard about.
    On September 8 and 9, Ambassador Taylor exchanged WhatsApp 
messages with Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, [Slide 398] 
describing his ``nightmare'' scenario that ``they give the 
interview and don't get the security assistance.'' He then goes 
on to say: ``The Russians love it. (And I quit.)''
    After the hold on the military aid became public, the White 
House took two actions in early September.
    First, the White House and the Justice Department ensured 
that the Acting DNI continued to withhold the whistleblower 
complaint from Congress, in clear violation of the law.
    And second, the White House attempted to create a cover 
story for the President's withholding of the assistance.
    Approximately 2 months after President Trump had ordered 
the freeze, Mark Sandy received an email from his boss, Michael 
Duffey that, for the first time, gave a reason for the hold. 
Sandy testified that in early September he received an email 
from Duffey ``that attributed the hold to the President's 
concern about other countries not contributing more to 
Ukraine.''
    Again, after months of scrambling, this was the first time 
any reason had been provided for the hold.
    And according to Sandy, it was also only in early 
September--again, after the White House learned of the 
whistleblower complaint and the hold became public--that the 
White House requested data from OMB on other countries' 
assistance to Ukraine.
    So let's recap why we know the concern about burden-sharing 
was bogus. First, for months, no reason was given to the very 
people executing the military aid who had been actively 
searching for answers about why the aid was being held.
    Second, remember the supposed interagency process performed 
by OMB? Well, it was fake.
    And third, after the hold went public and the White House 
became aware of the whistleblower, they started scrambling to 
develop another excuse. Public reports confirm this.
    A November 24 news report, for instance, revealed that in 
September, Mr. Cipollone's lawyers conducted an internal 
records review. The review reportedly ``turned up hundreds of 
documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-
the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over 
whether the delay was legal.''
    The President's top aides were trying to convince the 
President to lift the hold in late August and early September, 
and White House officials were actively working to develop an 
excuse for the President's scheme and devise a cover story in 
the event it was exposed, and soon it would be.
    On September 9, the chairs of the House Intelligence 
Committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee 
on Oversight and Reform publicly announced a joint 
investigation of President Trump and Mr. Giuliani's scheme. 
[Slide 399] And this is when the music stops and everyone 
starts running to find a chair.
    Word of the committees' investigation spread quickly 
through the White House to the NSC. [Slide 400] Morrison 
recalled seeing and discussing the letter with NSC staff. 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman also recalled discussions among NSC 
staff members, including Morrison's deputy, John Erath, about 
the investigation.
    The same day, there were efforts at OMB to create a paper 
trail to try to shift the blame for the President's hold on 
security assistance away from the White House. Duffey sent an 
email to Elaine McCusker that contradicted months of email 
exchanges and stated falsely that OMB had in fact 
``authoriz[ed] DOD to proceed with all processes necessary to 
obligate funds.'' Duffey was attempting to shift all the 
responsibility for the delay onto the Pentagon. McCusker 
replied: ``You can't be serious. I am speechless.''
    Now, all of this--including OMB's efforts to shift blame to 
the Pentagon, the White House's effort to create a cover story 
for the hold on security assistance--was a continuation of the 
coverup.
    It started with the White House lawyers' failure to stop 
the scheme after the July 10 meeting was reported to them, 
continued with attempts to hide the July 25 call summary, and 
escalated with the White House's illegal concealment of the 
whistleblower complaint from Congress.
    On September 10, the House Intelligence Committee requested 
that the DNI provide a copy of the whistleblower complaint as 
the law requires. But DNI continued to withhold the complaint 
for weeks. [Slide 401]
    The same day, it was announced that Ambassador Bolton was 
resigning or had been fired. It is unclear whether Ambassador 
Bolton's departure from the White House had anything to do with 
his opposition to the hold on military aid, but, of course, 
Ambassador Bolton could shed light on that himself if he were 
to testify.
    The next day, on September 11, President Trump met with 
Vice President Pence, Mulvaney, and Senator Portman to discuss 
the hold. Later that day, the President relented and lifted the 
hold after his scheme had been exposed.
    The President's decision to release the aid, like his 
decision to impose the hold, was never explained. Cooper 
testified that President Trump's lifting of the hold ``really 
came out of the blue. . . . It was quite abrupt.''
    The only logical conclusion, based upon all of this 
evidence, is that the President lifted the hold on September 11 
because he got caught.
    The President's decision to lift the hold without any 
explanation is also very telling. If the hold was put in place 
for legitimate policy reasons, why lift it arbitrarily with no 
explanation?
    By lifting the hold only after Congress had launched an 
investigation--when, as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified, 
none of the ``facts on the ground'' had changed since the hold 
had been put in place--the President was conceding that there 
was never a legitimate purpose.
    Since the hold was lifted, the President has paid lip 
service to purported concerns about corruption and burden-
sharing. But the administration has taken no concrete steps 
before or since those statements were made to show that it 
really cares.
    The record is clear. Before he got caught, the President 
had no interest in anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine. And, as 
you have already learned, those people who really were 
concerned about these issues--like Congress, this Senate, the 
DOD, and the State Department--had already gone through the 
process to address them.
    As Ambassador Sondland testified, at no point did the 
President ask him to discuss additional contributions to 
Ukraine from the EU countries, nor did President Trump push 
Ukraine to undertake any specific anti-corruption reforms.
    Now, the President's counsel will likely say that his 
lifting of the hold shows his good faith. They will say that 
because Ukraine ultimately received the aid without President 
Zelensky having to announce the sham investigations, then there 
was no abuse of power. As a legal matter, the fact that the 
President's corrupt scheme was not fully successful makes no 
difference. Trump's abuse occurred at the moment he used the 
power of the Presidency to assist his reelection campaign, 
undermining our free and fair elections and our national 
security.
    But, importantly, President Trump almost did get away with 
it. As discussed earlier, President Zelensky agreed during his 
September phone call with Ambassador Sondland to do a CNN 
interview during which he would announce the investigations. On 
September 12, Ambassador Taylor personally informed President 
Zelensky and the Ukrainian Foreign Minister that President 
Trump's hold on military assistance had been lifted. On 
September 13, Ambassador Taylor and David Holmes met with 
President Zelensky and his advisers and urged them not to go 
forward with the CNN interview.
    It was not until September 18 and 19--around the time that 
President Zelensky spoke with Vice President Pence--that the 
Ukrainians finally canceled the CNN interview.
    The President has also repeatedly pointed to President 
Zelensky's public statements that he did not feel pressured by 
Trump. Not only unsurprising, it is also irrelevant. The 
question is whether President Trump used the power of the 
Presidency to coerce President Zelensky into helping him win a 
political campaign.
    But we know that President Zelensky was pressured. He kept 
delaying and delaying because he did not want to be a pawn in 
U.S. domestic politics.
    In fact, President Zelensky remains under pressure to this 
day. As Holmes testified, there are still things the Ukrainians 
want and need from the United States, including a meeting with 
the President in the Oval Office, which has still not been 
scheduled. And yes, Ukraine remains at war and needs U.S. 
military aid, including aid that is still delayed from last 
year. For these reasons, Mr. Holmes explained: [Slides 402 and 
403]

    I think [the Ukrainians are] being 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--he needs President Putin to 
understand that America supports Zelensky at the highest levels. So 
this doesn't end with the lifting of security assistance hold. Ukraine 
still needs us, and as I said, still fighting this war this very day.

    When President Trump, for his own personal political gain, 
asked for a favor from President Zelensky, he did exactly what 
the Framers feared most: He invited the influence of a foreign 
power into our elections. He used the power of his office to 
secure that advantage and jeopardized our national security.
    Yet President Trump maintains that he was always in the 
right and that his July 25 call with President Zelensky was 
``perfect.'' President Trump has made it clear that he believes 
he is free to use his powers the same way, to the same ends, 
whenever and wherever he pleases. Even more troubling, he is 
even doubling down on his abuse, inviting other countries to 
interfere in our elections.
    What does all of this tell you? It tells you that 
Ambassador Sondland was correct when he told Holmes after 
hanging up with President Trump on July 26 that the President 
doesn't care about Ukraine. He only cares about the ``big 
stuff,'' meaning stuff that helps him personally.
    The bottom line is that the President used the powers of 
his office for personal political gain. He did so knowingly, 
deliberately, and repeatedly, and his misconduct continues to 
this day.
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, just for your orientation, 
this will be the last presentation on article I, and, Mr. 
Leader, I think at the conclusion of this presentation would be 
a logical point to take a break.
    This last section on article I deals with the injury to our 
national interests and our national security.
    When President Trump used Ukraine's leader for a political 
favor and withheld critical military aid to an ally in exchange 
for that favor, he did exactly what our Framers feared most: He 
invited foreign interference in our elections and sold out our 
country's security for his personal benefit and betrayed the 
Nation's trust to a foreign power.
    The President's scheme to pressure Ukraine to do his 
political dirty work harmed our national security, undermined 
our free and fair elections, and even today--even today--
threatens the very foundation of our democracy.
    When the President argues that his call was ``perfect,'' 
[Slide 404] that he did nothing wrong, what he is really saying 
is that there is nothing wrong with a President asking a 
foreign government to do a personal favor, that there is 
nothing wrong with the President pressuring that foreign 
country to interfere in our elections for his personal benefit, 
that there is nothing wrong with withholding congressionally 
appropriated taxpayer-funded military assistance to that 
foreign country to extort that country to help the President 
cheat to win an election.
    But there are a great many things wrong with that. Most 
significant for the purposes that bring us here today, the 
Constitution does not permit it. The Constitution does not 
permit it because that conduct is the quintessential abuse of 
power--the use of official power for personal gain, putting 
personal interests over the national interests, and placing 
personal benefits over our Nation's security.
    The President's conduct that we outlined yesterday harmed 
our national security. That is without a doubt. [Slide 405] It 
endangered our elections and it has sent our country on a 
dangerous path that if left unchecked will cause irrevocable 
damage to the balance of power contemplated in our 
Constitution. If someone sacrifices the national interest in 
favor of his own and is not removed from office, our democracy 
is in jeopardy. It is just that simple.
    The grave consequences of President Trump's misconduct 
demand our attention. Let me take these issues in turn, 
beginning with this harm to national security.
    First, the President's abuse of power had immediate 
consequences to our security. Ukraine is a burgeoning democracy 
entangled in a hot war with Russia. [Slide 406] By withholding 
military aid, President Trump not only denied Ukraine much-
needed military equipment but also weakened Ukraine's position 
in negotiations over the end of the war with Russia. Because of 
President Trump's corrupt actions, Vladimir Putin was 
emboldened at a pivotal moment ahead of those sensitive 
negotiations to attempt to end the war. An emboldened Russia is 
a threat to the United States and global security around the 
world.
    The President's willingness to put himself over country 
undercut our European allies' confidence in America's 
commitment to deterring Russian aggression, and it signaled to 
adversaries and friends alike that the President of the United 
States, the most powerful man in the world, our Commander in 
Chief, could be influenced by manipulating his perception of 
what was best for his personal interests.
    Now, I have no doubt that the Russians, and probably every 
other nation that has the capacity, does a psychological 
profile of the President of the United States, as we profile 
other leaders. If a President can be so easily manipulated to 
disbelieve his own intelligence agencies, to accept the 
propaganda of the Kremlin, that is a threat to our national 
security. That is just what has happened here, but that is not 
all.
    President Trump's willingness to entangle our foreign 
allies in a corrupt political errand also undermined the 
credibility of Americans to promote the rule of law and fight 
corruption abroad.
    This is ``Trump first,'' not ``America first,'' not 
American ideals first. And the result has and will continue to 
be great harm to our Nation if this Chamber does not stand up 
and say it is wrong, if you do not stand up and say this is not 
only wrong, not only unacceptable but conduct incompatible with 
the Office of the Presidency. If it really is incompatible with 
the Office of the Presidency, if you cannot faithfully execute 
that responsibility, if you cannot bring yourself to put your 
Nation's interests ahead of your own, it must be impeachable, 
for the Nation remains at risk.
    Let's consider the big picture, and probably a question 
many people around the country are asking: Why does Ukraine 
matter to the United States? Why does Ukraine matter to the 
United States? Because we are talking about a small country 
that many people know very little about.
    Well, this small country, this ally of ours, is a country 
hungry for reform and eager for a stronger relation with its 
most powerful, important ally, the United States. We are 
talking about ourselves and what it means to the strength of 
our own democracy and democracies around the world when 
countries like Ukraine are fighting our fight against 
authoritarianism. It used to be our fight, and God help us if 
it is not our fight still.
    Russian President Putin declared the collapse of the Soviet 
Union to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th 
century. Ukraine's vote for independence in December 1991 was 
the final nail in the Soviet Union's coffin. That made 
Ukraine's greatest moment Putin's greatest tragedy.
    When it declared independence from Soviet domination, 
Ukraine inherited roughly 1,900 Soviet nuclear warheads, enough 
firepower to level every major American city several times 
over--1,900 Soviet nuclear warheads. In exchange for Ukraine's 
surrendering this arsenal, the United States, Russia, and the 
United Kingdom reached an understanding called the Budapest 
Memorandum of 1994. [Slide 407] They committed in this 
memorandum to respecting the borders of an independent Ukraine 
and also to refrain from using the threat or use of force 
against Ukraine. This was an early success of the post-Cold War 
period.
    Despite its commitment to respect Ukraine's independence, 
of course, Russia continued to meddle in Ukraine's affairs. 
Ambassador Taylor recounted how events took an even more 
sinister turn in 2013:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. In 2013, Vladimir Putin was so threatened by the 
prospect of Ukraine joining the European Union that he tried to bribe 
the Ukrainian President. This triggered mass protests in the winter of 
2013 that drove that President to flee to Russia in February of 2014, 
but not before his forces killed 100 Ukrainian protesters in central 
Kyiv.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Angered by the fall of the Kremlin-
backed leader in Kyiv, President Putin ordered the invasion of 
Ukraine--specifically, a region known as Crimea. Russia's 
aggression was met with global condemnation.
    (Videotape presentation.)
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. We don't have the sound there, but you 
can see the images of that conflict on the screens before you.
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper 
testified as to the stakes for U.S. national security:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ms. COOPER. Russia violated the sovereignty of Ukraine's territory. 
Russia illegally annexed territory that belonged to Ukraine. They also 
denied Ukraine access to its naval fleet at the time. And to this day, 
Russia is building a capability on Crimea designed to expand Russian 
military power projection far beyond the immediate region.
    Mr. CARSON. In 2014, were there concerns in Washington, here in 
Washington, and European capitals that Russia might not stop in 
Ukraine?
    Ms. COOPER. I was not in my current position in 2014, but it is my 
understanding that there was significant fear about where Russian 
aggression would stop.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. One American--a war hero and statesman 
who was no stranger to this body--recognized the threat posed 
by Russia's invasion of Crimea: Senator John McCain.
    In an interview, he declared: [Slide 408] ``We are all 
Ukrainians.'' Senator McCain advised that this is a chess match 
reminiscent of the Cold War, and we need to realize that and 
act accordingly. He was, of course, absolutely right.
    Consistent with the commitments made to Ukraine in 1994, 
the United States and Europe responded to Russia's invasion by 
imposing significant sanctions on Russia. We joined Europe in 
providing Ukraine billions of dollars in economic support to 
help it resist Russian influence, and the Senate approved, by 
an overwhelming bipartisan majority, vital security assistance 
to help rebuild Ukraine's military, which the former Russian-
backed leader of Ukraine had starved of resources.
    This strong bipartisan support for Ukraine reflected what 
Senator McCain said was an opportunity for the United States to 
undermine Russian leverage in Eastern Europe by building a 
``success'' in Ukraine. Senator McCain outlined this vision:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. McCAIN. . . . Putin also sees--here's this beautiful and large 
and magnificent country called Ukraine. And suppose Ukraine, finally, 
after failing in 2004, gets it right, democracy, gets rid of 
corruption, economy is really improving and it's right there on the 
border of Russia. And so I think it makes him very nervous if there 
were a success in Ukraine in bringing about a free and open society and 
economic success, which is not the case in Russia, as you know, which 
is propped up by energy.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Achieving the Ukrainian success that 
Senator McCain and many of us hoped for proved to be a daunting 
task, but several witnesses who testified before the House said 
Volodymyr Zelensky's landslide election in April 2019 was a 
game changer. Here is how U.S. diplomat David Holmes explained 
the ``historic opportunity'' created by his election:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. HOLMES. Despite the Russian aggression, over the past 5 years, 
Ukrainians have rebuilt a shattered economy, adhered to a peace 
process, and moved economically and socially closer to the West, toward 
our way of life.
    Earlier this year, large majorities of Ukrainians again chose a 
fresh start by voting for a political newcomer as President, replacing 
80 percent of their parliament, endorsing a platform consistent with 
our democratic values, our reform priorities, and our strategic 
interests.
    This year's revolution at the ballot box underscores that, despite 
its imperfections, Ukraine is a genuine and vibrant democracy and an 
example to other post-Soviet countries and beyond, from Moscow to Hong 
Kong.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So American support for Ukraine's 
security and reform is critical not only to our own national 
security but to other allies and emerging democracies around 
the world. The widely accepted fact of Ukraine's importance to 
our national security makes President Trump's abuse of power 
and withholding of vital diplomatic and military support all 
the more disturbing.
    First, witnesses assessed that withholding the military aid 
likely helped to prolong the war against Russia. When wars drag 
on, more people die. Ambassador Taylor testified to this sober 
reality.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Chairman SCHIFF. I take it, if the provision of the U.S. military 
assistance would save Ukrainian lives, that any delay in that 
assistance may also cost Ukrainian lives. Is that true?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Chairman, of course it's hard to draw any direct 
lines between any particular element of security assistance and any 
particular death on the battlefield. But it is certainly true that that 
assistance had enabled Ukrainian Armed Forces to be effective and deter 
and to be able to take countermeasures to the attacks that the Russians 
had--
    Chairman SCHIFF. I think you said that a Ukrainian soldier lost 
their life while you were visiting Donbas.
    Ambassador TAYLOR. We keep very careful track of the casualties. 
And I noticed, on the next day, the information that we got, that one 
was killed, four soldiers were wounded on that day.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And, indeed, Ukrainians lose their lives every 
week.
    Ambassador TAYLOR. Every week.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. David Holmes also testified that 
prolonging the war in Ukraine resulted in additional 
casualties.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. HOLMES. As we sit here today, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war 
on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. This week alone, 
since I have been here in Washington, two Ukrainian soldiers were 
killed and two injured by Russian-led forces in eastern Ukraine despite 
a declared cease-fire. I learned overnight that seven more were injured 
yesterday.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Withholding the aid has real 
consequences to real soldiers with real families. Bear in mind 
that U.S. aid is fully 10 percent of Ukraine's defense budget--
10 percent. That is not an extra bonus. That is necessary aid 
for Ukraine to defend itself on the frontline.
    Now, a second consequence of President Trump's withholding 
of military assistance was that it emboldened Russia, our 
adversary. Here is Laura Cooper, a Pentagon official, who 
oversaw the military aid.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. CARSON. So what about today? If the U.S. were to withdraw its 
military support of Ukraine, what would effectively happen?
    Ms. COOPER. It is my belief that, if we were to withdraw our 
support, it would embolden Russia. It would also validate Russia's 
violation of international law.
    Mr. CARSON. And which country stands to benefit the most--would 
stand to benefit the most from such a withdrawal?
    Ms. COOPER. Russia.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Russia was not only emboldened on the 
battlefield. Ambassador Taylor testified that President Trump's 
corrupt withholding of military assistance and his failure to 
host President Zelensky in the Oval Office was a ``sign of 
weakness'' to Moscow. It harmed Ukraine's negotiating position, 
even as recently as December 9 when Zelensky and Putin met to 
discuss the conflict in the east shown in this photo.
    Ambassador Taylor explained:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Chairman SCHIFF. I think you also testified that Russia was 
watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the 
Ukrainian government. Why is that significant?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. This is significant, Mr. Chairman, because the 
Ukrainians, in particular under this new administration, are eager to 
end this war, and they were eager to end it in a way that the Russians 
leave their territory. These negotiations, like all negotiations, are 
difficult. Ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from a 
position of strength or at least more strength than they now have. Part 
of that strength, part of the ability of the Ukrainians to negotiate 
against the Russians with the Russians for an end to the war in Donbas, 
depends on United States and other international support. If we 
withdraw or suspend or threaten to withdraw our security assistance, 
that's a message to the Ukrainians, but it's at least as important, as 
your question indicates, Mr. Chairman, to the Russians, who are looking 
for any sign of weakness or any sign that we are withdrawing our 
support for Ukraine.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And so, when the Ukrainians learned of the 
suspension of the military aid, either privately or when others learned 
publicly, the Russians would be learning also, and they would take that 
as a lack of robust U.S. support for Ukraine. Is that right?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. That's correct, sir.
    Chairman SCHIFF. And that would weaken Ukraine in negotiating an 
end to the war in Donbas.
    Ambassador TAYLOR. It would.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Indeed, the aid doesn't just supply 
much needed weapons to Ukraine. It is a symbol of support, a 
signal of strength, a signal of the backing of the United 
States. Withholding that aid, even for a period of time, 
undermined all of those things.
    President Trump's actions toward Ukraine also undercut 
worldwide confidence in the United States as a reliable 
security partner. Maintaining that confidence is crucial to the 
strength of our alliances in Europe to deterring Russia and 
ultimately protecting and projecting democracy around the 
world.
    The United States has roughly 68,000 troops stationed in 
Europe. They serve alongside troops from 28 other countries 
that comprise the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. 
They are holding the line against further Russian aggression. 
It was U.S. leadership that led to the creation of NATO 70 
years ago as the Iron Curtain was descending across the heart 
of Europe, and it is American leadership that makes NATO work 
today.
    NATO is also affected because other countries, friends and 
foes alike, know that we are committed to our collective 
defense; that an attack against one nation is an attack against 
all of us. That principle deterred a Russian invasion of Europe 
during the Cold War. It has only been invoked once by NATO in 
the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. New York 
is a long way from the frontlines with Russia, but our European 
allies stood with us after that dark day.
    They deployed tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan 
and joined us in fighting the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked 
the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
    Now, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but Russia's invasion 
of Ukraine was a threat to the peace and security of Europe. 
Moscow's aggression threatened the rules of the road that have 
kept the peace in Europe since World War II, the sacrosanct 
idea that borders cannot be changed by military force.
    If we had not supported Ukraine in 2014, if Members of this 
body had not voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis for 
military assistance to rebuild Ukraine's military, there is no 
question it would have invited further Russian adventurism in 
Ukraine and perhaps elsewhere in the heart of Europe. It would 
have weakened our allies and exposed U.S. troops stationed in 
Europe to greater danger.
    Deterring Russia requires persistence--not just one 
military aid package or one Oval Office meeting but a sustained 
policy of support for our partners. We only deter Russia by 
consistently demonstrating support for our friends--friends 
like Ukraine.
    George Shultz, who served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of 
State, understood this. He compared diplomacy and alliance 
management to gardening. He said:

    If you plant a garden and go away for six months, what have you got 
when you come back? Weeds. Diplomacy is kind of like that. You go 
around, talk to people, you develop a relationship of trust and 
confidence, and then if something comes up, you have that base to work 
from.

    President Trump's decision to transform the military aid 
and Oval Office meeting into leverage was the equivalent of 
trampling all over George Shultz's garden, crushing Ukraine's 
confidence in the United States as a partner. He also caused 
our NATO allies to question whether we would stand with them 
against Russia. Leaders in European capitals now wonder whether 
personal political favors and not treaty obligations guide our 
foreign policy.
    Colleagues, this is how alliances wither and die and how 
Russia wins. Ambassador Taylor made clear that is why it is so 
important to our security that we stand with Ukraine.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary George Kent, described, we have a national security policy, a 
national defense policy that identifies Russia and China as 
adversaries. The Russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, 
understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in 
Europe for nearly 70 years. Until they invaded Ukraine in 2014, they 
had abided by sovereignty of nations, of inviolability of borders. That 
rule of law, that order that kept the peace in Europe and allowed for 
prosperity as well as peace in Europe was violated by the Russians. And 
if we don't push back on that, on those violations, then that will 
continue. And that, Mr. Chairman, affects us. It affects the world that 
we live in, that our children will grow up in, and our grandchildren. 
This affects the kind of world that we want to see abroad. So that 
affects our national interest very directly. Ukraine is on the front 
line of that conflict.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. We understood that in 2017, the first 
year of the Trump administration, and it appeared the Trump 
administration understood it as well. We understood it in 2018, 
and the Trump administration understood that as well. We 
understood that in 2019, and the Trump administration appeared 
to as well--at least it did until it didn't. It did until 
something of greater importance and significance came along. 
That event of greater significance to the Oval Office was the 
emergence of Joe Biden as a candidate for President, and then 
that military support, which had increased during the Trump 
administration, was suddenly put on hold for inexplicable 
reasons.
    Ukraine got the message. It wasn't very inexplicable to 
Ukraine. What is more, Russia got the message. It wasn't very 
inexplicable to Russia, which had pushed out the whole 
propaganda theory that it was Ukraine that had interfered in 
our election and not Russia.
    So that consensus among the Congress and the 
administration, among the right and the left and the center, 
that, as Ambassador Taylor explained, this is not only vital to 
Ukraine's security and the post-World War II order that has 
kept the peace in Europe for 70 years, but it is vital to us 
and our security as well, that all broke down. That all broke 
down over an effort led by the President and his agent Rudy 
Giuliani and his agents Parnas and Fruman to overturn all of 
that--overturn a decades-long commitment to standing up to 
Russian aggression.
    We have so tremendously benefited. No country has benefited 
more from the international rules of the road, the 
international order, than the United States. It gave us the 
peace and stability to prosper like no other nation has before, 
and we are throwing it away. We are throwing it away. We are 
undermining the rule of law. We are undermining the principle 
that you don't invade your neighbor. We are undermining the key 
to our own success. And for what? For help with a political 
campaign. To quote Bill Taylor, that is crazy. That is crazy.
    If our allies can't trust us to stand behind them in a time 
of need, we will soon not have a single ally left. I know it is 
painful to see some of our allies and how they talk about this 
President because when they talk about this President, they are 
also talking about the United States. It is painful to see our 
allies distance themselves from the United States. It is more 
than painful; it is dangerous. It is dangerous to us. I think 
it was Churchill who once said there is nothing worse than 
allies except having no allies.
    If we are going to condition our support for our allies on 
their willingness to be dragged kicking and screaming into our 
politics, if we are going to condition the strength of our 
alliance on whether they will help us cheat in an election, we 
are not going to have a single ally left, and not a single one 
of us in this Chamber is ever going to be able to say to one of 
our counterparts to respect the rule of law without it being 
thrown in our face.
    Promoting the rule of law and fighting corruption is 
central to our foreign policy. It distinguishes U.S. global 
leadership from the transactional approach favored by 
authoritarian adversaries.
    The inherently corrupt nature of the President's demand 
that Ukraine investigate his political opponent undermined the 
credibility of efforts to promote the rule of law and combat 
corruption in Ukraine and around the world. Indeed, the 
President engaging in the very conduct at home that our policy 
fights abroad sabotages longstanding bipartisan pillars of 
American diplomacy.
    This was a problem, not least because the pervasive 
corruption within Ukraine leaves its politics and economy 
susceptible to Russian influence and subterfuge.
    Ambassador Yovanovitch emphasized that U.S. policy in 
Ukraine has long recognized that the struggle against 
corruption and defending against Russia are, in fact, two sides 
of the very same coin.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. Corruption makes Ukraine's leaders ever 
vulnerable to Russia, and Ukraine people understand that. That's why 
they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding to be a part 
of Europe, demanding transformation of the system, demanding to live 
under the rule of law.
    Ukrainians wanted the law to apply equally to all people, whether 
the individual in question is the President or any other citizen. It 
was a question of fairness, of dignity.
    Here, again, there is a coincidence of interests. Corrupt leaders 
are inherently less trustworthy while an honest and accountable 
Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukrainian partnership more reliable 
and more valuable to the United States.
    A level playing field in this strategically located country, 
bordering four NATO allies, creates an environment in which U.S. 
business can more easily trade, invest, and profit.
    Corruption is also a security issue, because corrupt officials are 
vulnerable to Moscow.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. During that conversation that we 
related in the past, when Ambassador Volker urged his Ukrainian 
counterpart, Andriy Yermak, not to investigate the past 
President of Ukraine and Yermak threw it back in his face--you 
remember the conversation: Oh, you mean like the investigation 
you want us to do of the Clintons and the Bidens. They taught 
us something in that conversation. They taught us that we had 
forgotten, for that moment, our own values.
    Just listening to the Ambassador right now, I was thinking 
how interesting it is that Ukrainians chose to describe their 
revolution as a Revolution of Dignity. Maybe that is what we 
need here--a revolution of dignity at home, a revolution of 
civility here at home. Maybe we can learn a lot more from our 
Ukrainian ally.
    In short, it is in America's national security interest to 
help Ukraine transform into a country where the rule of law 
governs and corruption is held in check.
    As we heard yesterday, anti-corruption policy was a central 
part of the talking points provided to President Trump before 
his phone calls with President Zelensky on April 21 and July 
25. President Trump, of course, didn't mention corruption, but, 
importantly, those same foreign policy goals remained intact 
following the call, as Tim Morrison testified. Anti-corruption 
reforms--institutional reforms--remain a top priority to help 
Ukraine fight corruption.
    President Zelensky was swept into office on an anti-
corruption platform. Immediately, he kept his promise and 
introduced numerous bills in Ukraine's Parliament. In a sign 
that he intended to hold himself accountable, Zelensky even 
introduced a draft law on Presidential impeachment. He also 
introduced a bill to restore punishment of top officials found 
guilty of ``illicit enrichment.''
    President Trump's self-serving scheme threatened to 
undermine Zelensky's anti-corruption work. Zelensky's 
successful anti-corruption reforms would have advanced U.S. 
security. Instead, President Trump's demands undermined that 
effort to bring about reform to Ukraine.
    Here is George Kent, a rule of law and corruption expert at 
the State Department.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

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

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So it is clear: What President Trump 
did when abusing his office and demanding Ukraine open an 
investigation into Joe Biden was not fighting corruption. It 
was not part of established U.S. anti-corruption policy. That 
corrupt pressure campaign for his own, personal political 
benefit in fact subverted U.S. anti-corruption efforts in 
Ukraine and undercut our national security.
    President Trump is not fighting to end corruption in 
Ukraine, as my colleague in the House, Mr. Himes, pointed out 
during one of our hearings. He was trying to aim corruption in 
Ukraine at Vice President Biden and our 2020 election.
    Selective, politically motivated prosecutions of political 
opponents undercut governance in Ukraine. President Trump's 
demand that Zelensky help him do precisely what U.S. diplomats 
for decades advised Ukrainian officials not to do completely 
undercut the credibility of efforts to promote the rule of law 
there. The demand also undercut the U.S. moral standing and 
authority in the eyes of a global audience.
    Once again, here is George Kent.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOLDMAN. Mr. Kent, is pressuring Ukraine to conduct what I 
believe you have called ``political investigations'' a part of U.S. 
foreign policy to promote the rule of law in Ukraine and around the 
world?
    Mr. KENT. It is not.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Is it in the national interests of the United States?
    Mr. KENT. In my opinion, it is not.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. Why not?
    Mr. KENT. Because our policies, particularly in promoting the rule 
of law, are designed to help countries. And in Eastern Europe and 
Central Europe, that is overcoming the legacy of communism. In the 
communist system in particular, the Prosecutor General Office was used 
to suppress and persecute citizens, not promote the rule of law. So, in 
helping these countries reach their own aspirations to join the Western 
community of nations and live lives of dignity, helping them have the 
rule of law, with strong institutions, is the purpose of our policy.
    Mr. GOLDMAN. So, in other words, it is a purpose of our foreign 
policy to encourage foreign nations to refrain from conducting 
political investigations. Is that right?
    Mr. KENT. Correct. And, in fact, as a matter of policy, not of 
programming, we oftentimes raise our concerns, usually in private, with 
countries that we feel are engaged in selective political prosecution 
and persecution of their opponents.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Ambassador Yovanovitch aptly summarized 
the global consequences and harm to U.S. national security 
resulting from President Trump's demand that Ukraine 
investigate his political opponent.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. Such conduct undermines the U.S., exposes 
our friends, and widens the playing field for autocrats like President 
Putin. Our leadership depends on the power of our example and the 
consistency of our purpose. Both have now been opened to question.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The issues I just covered are not a 
matter of policy disagreement over foreign policy and national 
security. Article I asserts that the President was engaged in 
no such policy at all but, instead, sold out our policies and 
our national interests for his own personal gain and to help 
him corrupt the next election. That is the core conduct of an 
impeachable offense.
    The President's abuse of power also affected our election 
integrity.
    The Framers of our Constitution were particularly fearful 
that a President might misuse or abuse the power of his office 
to undermine the free and fair elections at the heart of our 
democracy. Sadly, that moment has arrived. [Slide 409] 
President Trump's repeated solicitation of a Ukrainian 
investigation was a clear effort to leverage foreign 
interference and bolster his prospects in the 2020 election; in 
other words, to cheat in his election.
    In our democracy, power flows from the will of the people 
as manifested in free and fair elections. One person, one vote 
is fundamental in our democracy.
    President Trump's invitation of foreign interference in the 
2020 election--for the purposes of helping him win an 
election--undercut the Constitution's commitment to popular 
sovereignty. Americans are now left to wonder if their vote 
matters or if they are simply pawns in a system being 
manipulated by shadowy foreign forces working on behalf of the 
corrupt interests of a lawless President. Over the long term, 
this weakens our democratic system's capacity for self-
governance by encouraging apathy and nonparticipation.
    Cynicism makes it easier for enemies to influence our 
politics and undermine the national good. Indeed, this is 
precisely what Vladimir Putin intended when he meddled in the 
2016 election: for us to become more cynical; for us to lose 
faith in the notion that the American system of government is 
superior to the corrupt, autocratic model of government that he 
has erected in Russia and sought to export to places like 
Ukraine.
    These are not the free and fair elections Americans expect 
or demand if foreign powers are interfering. How can we know 
that our elections are free from foreign interference, whether 
by disinformation or hacking or fake investigations? We must 
not become numb to foreign interference in our elections.
    Our elections are sacred. If we do not act to put an end to 
the solicitation of foreign interference in our election by the 
President of the United States, the effect would be corrosive 
to our elections and our values. Future Presidents may believe 
that they, too, can use the substantial power conferred on them 
by the Constitution in order to undermine our system of free 
and fair elections, that they, too, can cheat to obtain power 
or keep it. That way lies disaster for the great American 
experiment in self-governance.
    As you have seen, there is powerful evidence that President 
Trump will continue to betray the national interest to a 
foreign power and further undermine both our security and 
democracy. This creates an urgent need to remove him from 
office before the next election.
    To explain the nature of that continuing threat, let me 
describe Russia's ongoing efforts to harm our elections, [Slide 
410] the President's corrupt refusal to condemn or defend 
against those attacks, his statements confirming that he 
welcomes foreign interference in our elections so long as this 
is meant to help him and his conduct, proving that he will 
persist in seeking to corrupt elections at the expense of our 
security and at the expense of those elections.
    Let's start with Russia's ongoing attacks on our democracy. 
At the heart of the President's Ukraine scheme is his decision 
to subscribe to that dangerous conspiracy theory that Ukraine, 
not Russia, was responsible for interfering in 2016. President 
Trump and his men pressured Ukraine into investigating this 
bogus piece of Russian propaganda, and in doing so, they aided 
Putin's concerted plot to undermine our security and democracy.
    Special Counsel Mueller warned that Putin's plot was 
ongoing:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. HURD. Is this--in your investigation, did you think this was a 
single attempt by Russia to get involved in our election, or do you 
find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again?
    Mr. MUELLER. Oh, it wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it as we 
sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Not a single attempt. They're doing it 
as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign.
    That was Special Counsel Mueller's stark warning. And we 
now know that Director Mueller was right. Just the other week, 
we saw public reporting that Russian hackers may be using 
phishing emails to attack Ukrainian gas company Burisma, 
presumably in search of dirt on Joe Biden. Those are the same 
tactics deployed by the same adversary, Russia, that the 
special counsel warned about in the last election. It may be 
Russia once again attempting to sway our election for one 
candidate, this time through Ukraine.
    Indeed, President Trump, to this very day, refuses to 
accept the unanimous assessment of our intelligence community 
and law enforcement professionals that Russia interfered in the 
2016 campaign and poses a threat to the 2020 Presidential 
election. Instead, he views it from his own personal lens--
whether it is an attack on the legitimacy of his 2016 electoral 
victory.
    Special Counsel Mueller's testimony on July 24, 2019, the 
day before the President's call with President Zelensky, 
contradicted President Trump's claim that his was ``a clean 
campaign.'' Mueller found that individuals associated with the 
2016 campaign of the President welcomed Russia's offers of 
assistance and adjusted their political strategy so that then-
Candidate Donald Trump might benefit from Russia's assistance.
    When they were subsequently asked by U.S. law enforcement 
about their activities, President Trump's advisers repeatedly 
lied. In Helsinki in July of 2018, however, President Trump 
refused to acknowledge the Russian threat to our elections. 
When a reporter explicitly asked whether he believed Putin or 
the U.S. intelligence agencies on the issue of foreign 
interference in the 2016 election, President Trump said: ``I 
don't see any reason why it would be''--Russia--and talked 
about the DNC server.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You 
have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why 
haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office 
of the Democratic National Committee? I've been wondering that. I've 
been asking that for months and months, and I've been tweeting it out 
and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to 
know, where is the server? And what is the server saying?
    With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people 
came to me--Dan Coats came to me and some others--they said they think 
it's Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia.
    I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be, but I 
really do want to see the server. But I have--I have confidence in both 
parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, 
but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the 
server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that 
worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They're missing. Where are 
they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? Thirty-three thousand 
emails gone--just gone. I think, in Russia, they wouldn't be gone so 
easily. I think it's a disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's 
33,000 emails.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I am sure you remember this. It was, I 
think, unforgettable for every American. But I am sure it was 
equally unforgettable for Vladimir Putin. I mean, there he is, 
the President of Russia, standing next to the President of the 
United States and hearing his own Kremlin propaganda talking 
points coming from the President of the United States. Now, if 
that is not a propaganda coup, I don't know what is.
    It is the most extraordinary thing. It is the most 
extraordinary thing: the President of the United States 
standing next to the President of Russia, our adversary, saying 
he doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies. He doesn't 
believe them. He is promoting this kooky, crazy server theory 
cooked up by the Kremlin, right next to the guy who cooked it 
up. It is a breathtaking success of Russian intelligence. I 
don't know if there has ever been a greater success of Russian 
intelligence. Whatever profile Russia did of our President, 
boy, did they have him spot-on. Flattery and propaganda. 
Flattery and propaganda is all Russia needed.
    As to Ukraine, well, they needed to deliver a political 
investigation to get help from the United States. I mean, this 
is just the most incredible propaganda coup. As I said 
yesterday, it is not just that the President of the United 
States, standing next to Vladimir Putin, is reading Kremlin 
talking points; he will not read his own national security 
staff talking points, but he will read the Kremlin ones. It is 
not just that he adopts the Kremlin talking points. That would 
be bad enough. It is not bad enough, it is not damaging enough, 
it is not dangerous enough to our national security that he is 
undermining our own intelligence agencies. It is not bad enough 
that he undermines those very agencies that he needs later, 
that we need later to have credibility.
    We just had a vigorous debate over the strikes against 
General Soleimani, and the President has made his argument 
about what the intelligence says and supports. How do you make 
those arguments when you say the U.S. intelligence community 
can't be believed?
    Now, we have had a vigorous debate about what that 
intelligence has to say. That is not the issue here. The issue 
here is you undermine the credibility of your own intelligence 
agency--you weaken the country--for when you need to rely on 
them, for when you need to persuade your friends and your 
allies that ``you can trust us when we tell you this is what 
the intelligence shows.'' How do you make that argument, as the 
President of the United States, when you have just told the 
world you trust the Russians more than your own people? You 
trust Rudy Giuliani more than Christopher Wray. How do you make 
that case? And if you can't make that case, what does that mean 
to our security?
    But that is not the end of it. It is not just the 
propaganda coup. It is not just the undermining of our 
agencies. It is also that the buy-in to that propaganda meant 
that Ukraine wasn't going to get money to fight the Russians.
    I mean, that is one hell of a Russian intelligence coup. 
They got the President of the United States to provide cover 
for their own interference with our election. They got the 
President of the United States to discredit his own 
intelligence agencies. They got the President of the United 
States to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine. 
They got the President of the United States to withhold aid 
from Ukraine in a war with Russia, in a war that is claiming 
Ukrainian lives every week.
    Has there ever been such a coup? I would submit to you, in 
the entire length of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had no such 
success--no such success. And why? Because a former mayor of 
New York persuaded a President of the United States to 
sacrifice all of that for a cheap shot at his political 
opponent, for a smear against his political opponent. Was it 
worth it? I hope it was worth it. I hope it was worth it for 
the President because it certainly wasn't worth it for the 
United States.
    Now, you can see President Trump did not blame Vladimir 
Putin and the Russian intelligence agencies who interfered in 
our election for the questions surrounding his victory. He did 
not blame the people who worked for his campaign and were 
subsequently convicted of lying to our law enforcement 
agencies. No. He blamed the investigators--Special Counsel 
Mueller, the man in charge of getting to the bottom of Russia's 
interference in 2016. And he chose to believe Vladimir Putin, a 
former Russian intelligence officer, rather than his own 
intelligence agencies.
    We can see a pattern here. President Trump solicited 
interference from Russia as a candidate in 2016, and then his 
campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election. [Slide 
411]
    In Helsinki, President Trump chose to believe Putin over 
his own agencies: ``I don't see any reason why it would be''--
referring to Russia. Instead of denouncing Russia's 
interference, he denounced those investigating Russia's 
interference, and he raised that now-familiar DNC CrowdStrike 
server thing: ``I really do want to see the server. I don't 
think it can go on without finding out what happened to the 
server.''
    That is the exact same server that President Trump demanded 
Ukraine investigate during his July 25 call with President 
Zelensky.
    When the President talked about the DNC server in Helsinki, 
with Vladimir Putin standing by his side, he was referencing 
the same discredited conspiracy theory about the Ukraine 
interference in 2016 that Putin repeatedly promoted.
    Let's look at this Washington Post article from July 2018. 
[Slide 412]

    In the end, Trump's performance alongside Putin in the Finnish 
capital seemed like a tour through his most controversial conspiracy 
theories, tweets and off-the-cuff musings on Russia--except he did it 
all while abroad, standing just feet from Putin, the leader of one of 
America's greatest geopolitical foes.
    The spectacle in Helsinki also underscored Trump's eagerness to 
disregard his own advisers, his willingness to flout the conclusions of 
his own intelligence community--that Russia interfered in the 2016 
elections--and his apparent fear that pressing Putin on the subject 
might cast doubt on his electoral victory.

    White House officials told the Washington Post that 
President Trump's remarks in Helsinki were ``very much counter 
to the plan.''
    That is another understatement of the century. If that 
sounds familiar, it is because the witnesses who testified 
before the House as part of the impeachment inquiry all said 
the same thing about the July 25th phone call. The President 
ignored vital national security issues he was supposed to raise 
and instead raised disproven conspiracies about 2016 and the 
DNC server--the very same Russian propaganda he publicly 
endorsed in Helsinki.
    Do you think it is going to stop now? Do you think if we do 
nothing it is going to stop now? All of the evidence is to the 
contrary. You know it is not going to stop.
    The President just told one of the Members of this body he 
still wants Biden investigated. It is not going to stop unless 
the Congress does something about it.
    President Trump's betrayal began in 2016, when he first 
solicited Russian interference in our election.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Candidate TRUMP. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to 
find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. That betrayal continued in Helsinki in 
2018, when, as we saw, he rejected the intelligence community's 
assessment about Russian interference in that same election--
when he criticized U.S. officials investigating the Russian 
interference and instead promoted Putin's conspiracy theory 
about Ukraine.
    The betrayal continued in 2019 when he carried out a scheme 
to cheat in the 2020 election by demanding that the leader of 
Ukraine--a U.S. partner under military attack by Russia--
announced an investigation into the same baseless conspiracy 
theory about a DNC server and the bogus allegations about Vice 
President Biden.
    The abuse of power continues. He is still trying to cheat 
in the next election, even after the scheme came to light. Even 
after it became the subject of an impeachment inquiry, it 
continued, and the false statements about it continued.
    President Trump repeatedly asserted that he had a 
prerogative to urge foreign nations to investigate U.S. 
citizens who dare to challenge him politically.
    Just for a minute, we should try to step into the shoes of 
someone else. My father used to say, you don't understand a 
person until you step in their shoes. I also thought he 
invented that wisdom himself until I watched ``To Kill a 
Mockingbird'' and found out that Atticus Finch said it first.
    Let's try to step into someone else's shoes for a moment. 
Let's imagine it wasn't Joe Biden. Let's imagine it was any one 
of us. Let's imagine the most powerful person in the world was 
asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation into 
one of us. What would we think about it then? Would we think 
that is good U.S. policy? Would we think he has every right to 
do it? Would we think that is a perfect call?
    Let's step, for a minute, into Ambassador Yovanovitch's 
shoes, and we are the subject of a vicious smear campaign that 
no one in the Department we work for, up to the Secretary of 
State, thinks has a shred of credibility. Let's step into her 
shoes for a minute. We spent our whole life devoted to public 
service, served in dangerous places around the world, and we 
are hounded out of our post. And one day someone releases a 
transcript of a call between the President of the United States 
and a foreign leader, and the President says there is going to 
be some things happening to you, or to you, or to you, or to 
you, or to you. How would you feel about the President of the 
United States? Would you think he was abusing the power of his 
office? If you would, it shouldn't matter that it wasn't you. 
It shouldn't matter that it was Marie Yovanovitch. It shouldn't 
matter that it was Joe Biden. I will tell you something. The 
next time it just may be you. It just may be you.
    Do you think for a moment that any of you, no matter what 
your relationship with this President, no matter how close you 
are to this President--do you think for a moment that if he 
felt it was in his best interest he wouldn't ask you to be 
investigated? Do you think for a moment that he wouldn't?
    If somewhere deep down below you realize that he would, you 
cannot leave a man like that in office when he has violated the 
Constitution. It shouldn't matter that it was Joe Biden. It 
could have been any of us. It may be any of us. It shouldn't 
matter that it was Marie Yovanovitch. It will be some other 
diplomat tomorrow, for some other pernicious reason.
    It goes to what Mr. Jeffries said. It goes to character. 
You don't realize how important character is in the highest 
office in the land until you don't have it, until you have a 
President willing to use his power to coerce an ally to help 
him cheat, to investigate one of our fellow citizens--one of 
our fellow citizens.
    Yes, he is running for President. He is still a U.S. 
citizen. He is still a U.S. citizen, and he deserves better 
than that.
    Of course, it wasn't just Ukraine. It wasn't just Russia. 
There is the invitation to China to investigate the Bidens. It 
is not going to stop.
    On September 19, Rudy Giuliani was interviewed by Chris 
Cuomo on CNN. You have probably all seen the clip. When asked 
specifically if he had urged Ukraine to look into Vice 
President Biden, Mr. Giuliani replied immediately: ``Of course 
I did.'' ``Of course I did.''
    It shouldn't matter that it was Joe Biden. It wasn't Hunter 
Biden there. It was Joe Biden. It wasn't Hunter Biden on that 
call. It was Joe Biden. It shouldn't matter whether it was 
Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. We are talking about American 
citizens. It shouldn't matter to any of us which American 
citizens.
    He hasn't stopped urging Ukraine to conduct these 
investigations. Mr. Giuliani hasn't. Donald Trump hasn't. To 
the contrary and consistent with everything we know about the 
President, he has done nothing but double down.
    During the first week of December, Mr. Giuliani traveled to 
Ukraine and Hungary to interview the corrupt former Ukrainian 
prosecutors, who had been pushing these false narratives about 
Vice President Biden and this kooky conspiracy about 2016. Mr. 
Giuliani met with current members of the Ukraine Parliament who 
have advocated for that same fraudulent investigation.
    In June of last year, President Trump told ABC News that he 
would take political dirt from a foreign country if it was 
offered again.
    If he has learned anything from the tumult of the last 3 
years, it is that he can get away with anything, can do it 
again. He can't be indicted. He can't be impeached--can't, if 
you believe our Attorney General, even be investigated.
    Our Founders worried about a situation just like this. 
James Madison put it simply: The President ``might betray his 
trust to foreign powers.'' In his farewell address, George 
Washington warned Americans ``to be constantly awake, since 
history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of 
the most baneful foes of republican government.''
    John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson wrote:

    You are apprehensive of foreign Interference, Intrigue, Influence. 
So am I. But as often as Elections happen, the danger of foreign 
influence recurs.

    Or to quote the President's Chief of Staff:

    Get over it. There is going to be politics in foreign policy.

    Well, I don't think that was John Adams' point, and I don't 
think that was James Madison's point, and I don't think that 
was George Washington's point. If it was, they would have said: 
``Get over it.'' But they recognized, as I know we recognize, 
what a profound danger that would be for that to become the new 
normal.
    Another election is upon us. In 10 months, voters will 
undertake their most important duty as citizens by going to the 
polls and voting for their leader. And so we must ask: What 
role will foreign powers play in trying to influence the 
outcome? And if they take the President's side, who will 
protect our franchise if the President will not?
    As charged in the first Article of Impeachment, President 
Trump has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national 
security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office 
and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-
governance and the rule of law.
    Based on the abuse of power for which he was impeached and 
his ongoing powers to solicit foreign influence, both directly 
and through Mr. Giuliani, there can be little doubt that 
President Trump will continue to invite foreign interference in 
our elections again and again. That poses an imminent threat to 
the integrity of our democracy.
    Our Founders understood that a President like Donald Trump 
might one day grasp the reins of power: an unremorseful, 
overreaching executive, faithful to himself only, and willing 
to sacrifice our democracy and national security for his own 
personal advantage. His pattern of conduct--repeatedly 
soliciting foreign interference in our elections for his own 
benefit--confirms that he will stop at nothing to retain his 
power. He willfully chose to place his own personal interests 
above the country's and the integrity of our elections.
    There is every reason to believe that will continue. He has 
stonewalled Congress and ordered executive branch agencies--
organizations that work for the American people, not for the 
President--to join in his obstruction. He deployed Mr. Giuliani 
to Ukraine to continue advancing a scheme that serves no other 
purpose than advancing his 2020 reelection prospects. He 
attacked witnesses, public servants, patriots, who stayed true 
to their oath and leveled with the American people about the 
grave national injury that resulted from the President's 
misconduct. And he continued to urge foreign nations to 
investigate American citizens that he views as a threat. The 
threat that he will continue to abuse his power and cause grave 
harm to the Nation over the course of the next year, until a 
new President is sworn in or until he would be reelected is not 
a hypothetical. Merely exposing the President's scheme has not 
stopped him from continuing this destructive pattern of 
behavior that has brought us to this somber moment. He is who 
he is. That will not change, nor will the danger associated 
with him. Every piece of evidence supports the terrible 
conclusion that the President of the United States will abuse 
his power again, that he will continue to solicit foreign 
interference to help corruptly secure his reelection. He has 
shown neither remorse nor acknowledgement of wrongdoing. If you 
can believe that July 25 was a perfect call, that asking for 
investigations of your political opponents and using the power 
of your office to make it so is perfectly fine, then, there is 
nothing that would stop you from doing it again.
    President Trump has abused the power of his office and must 
be removed from that office.
    Mr. McConnell, I yield back.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                recess subject to the call of the chair
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest a 15-minute 
recess.
    There being no objection, at 3:30 p.m., the Senate, sitting 
as a Court of Impeachment, recessed until 4:04 p.m.; whereupon 
the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief 
Justice.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will come to order.
    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, first 
of all, I want to join my colleagues in just thanking you for 
your patience and your indulgence.
    What I can tell you today is that we are closer today than 
we were yesterday because I am prepared to present article II: 
Obstruction of Congress.
    The second Article of Impeachment charges the President 
with misusing the powers of his high office to obstruct the 
House impeachment inquiry.
    We are here today in response to a blanket order issued by 
President Trump directing the entire executive branch to 
withhold all documents and testimony from that inquiry.
    President Trump's obstruction of the impeachment inquiry 
was categorical, indiscriminate, and historically 
unprecedented. And its purpose was clear: to impede Congress's 
ability to carry out its duties under the Constitution to hold 
the President accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.
    As part of his effort to cover up evidence of his scheme to 
solicit foreign interference in the upcoming election, 
President Trump did something no President has ever dared to do 
in the history of our Republic. [Slide 413] President Trump 
directed the entire executive branch not to cooperate with the 
House's impeachment inquiry. President Trump blocked every 
person who works in the White House and every person who works 
in every department, agency, and office of the executive branch 
from providing information to the House as part of the 
impeachment inquiry.
    This was not about specific, narrowly defined security or 
privacy issues. Nor was it based on potential privileges 
available to the executive branch. Indeed, President Trump has 
not once asserted executive privilege during this process.
    This was a declaration of total defiance of the House's 
authority to investigate credible allegations of the 
President's misconduct and a wholesale rejection of Congress's 
ability to hold the President accountable.
    The President's order, executed by his top aids, 
substantially interfered with the House's constitutionally 
authorized power to conduct an impeachment inquiry.
    At President Trump's direction, the White House itself 
refused to produce a single document or record in response to a 
House subpoena that remains in full force and effect, and it 
continues to withhold those documents from Congress and from 
the American people.
    But it is not just the White House. [Slide 414] Following 
President Trump's order, the Office of the Vice President, the 
Office of Management and Budget, the Department of State, the 
Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense all 
continued to refuse to produce a single document or record in 
response to 71 specific requests, including 5 subpoenas.
    Additionally, following President Trump's order, 12 current 
or former administration officials continue to refuse to 
testify as part of the House's impeachment inquiry--not only 
current administration officials but former administration 
officials as well. Nine of those witnesses, including senior 
officials with direct firsthand knowledge of the President's 
actions, continue to defy subpoenas for testimony because of 
the President's order. And yet, despite President Trump's 
obstruction, as you have heard and seen throughout the House 
managers' presentation of the facts of the President's scheme, 
the House gathered overwhelming evidence of his misconduct from 
courageous public servants who were willing to follow the law, 
comply with subpoenas, and tell the truth.
    On the basis of that formidable body of evidence, the House 
adopted the first Article of Impeachment. These witnesses also 
testified with great specificity about extensive documents, 
communications, and records in the possession of the White 
House and other agencies regarding the President's scheme to 
coerce Ukraine's leader to help his reelection.
    As you have heard over the past few days, the House was, 
therefore, able to develop an extensive catalog of specific 
documents and pertinent communications that go to the heart of 
the President's wrongdoing and which the President has ordered 
be concealed from Congress and the American people.
    Revelations of evidence harmful to the President have only 
continued since the House compiled its investigative reports. 
Recent court-ordered releases under the Freedom of Information 
Act, as well as disclosures to the media, have further 
demonstrated that the White House, OMB, State Department, and 
other agencies are actively withholding highly relevant 
documents that could further implicate the President and his 
subordinates.
    Over time, these documents and this evidence will 
undoubtedly come to light, and I ask this body to not wait to 
read about it in the press or in a book. You should be hearing 
this evidence now--hearing this evidence now.
    Now, there is one point that I would like to make very 
clear. President Trump's wholesale obstruction of Congress 
strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and our 
democratic system of government.
    The President of the United States could undertake such 
comprehensive obstruction only because of the exceptional 
powers entrusted to him by the American people. Only one person 
in the world has the power to issue an order to the entire 
executive branch. That person, Senators, as you know, is the 
President. And President Trump used that power not to 
faithfully execute the law but to order agencies and employees 
of the executive branch to conceal evidence of his misconduct.
    Now, I know that no other American could seek to obstruct 
an investigation into his or her wrongdoing in this way. We all 
know that no other American could use the vast powers of our 
government to undertake a corrupt scheme to cheat to win an 
election and then use those same powers to suppress the 
evidence of his constitutional crime. We would not allow--I am 
convinced that we would not allow any member of our State or 
local governments to use the official powers of their office to 
cover up crimes and misdeeds. As this body is well aware, 
mayors and Governors have gone to jail for doing so. Sheriffs 
and police chiefs are certainly not immune. If we allow 
President Trump to escape accountability, we will inflict 
lasting damage on the separation of powers among our branches 
of government--our fundamental system of checks and balances. 
It would inflict irreversible damage by allowing this Commander 
in Chief and establishing precedence for future Presidents to 
act corruptly or abusively and then use the vast powers of 
their office--the Office of the Presidency--to conceal their 
own misconduct from Congress and the American people. In other 
words, we would create a system that allows this President and 
any future President to really do whatever he or she wants.
    It is an attack on congressional oversight, not just on the 
House but also on the Senate's own ability to oversee and serve 
as a check on this and future Presidents in both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. Without meaningful oversight, 
without the power of impeachment, Americans will have to come 
to accept a far greater likelihood of misconduct by the Oval 
Office, and they would not be able to look to other branches of 
government to hold their President--the people's President--
accountable.
    Executive power without any sort of restraint, without 
oversight, and without any checks and balances is absolute 
power. We know what has been said about absolute power: 
``Absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
    This is the very opposite of what the Framers intended. The 
Framers of the Constitution purposefully entrusted the power of 
impeachment to the legislative branch so that it may protect 
the American people from a corrupt President. Well, the times, 
Senators, have found us. If Congress allows President Trump's 
obstruction to stand, it essentially nullifies the impeachment 
power.
    Senators, we are the keepers, the protectors, the defenders 
of what the Framers intended. We must hold any unprincipled and 
undisciplined Executive accountable.
    Senators, I know that this is not easy. I don't take this 
moment lightly. These are tough times. I remember quite a few 
tough times during my 27 years as a law enforcement officer, 
but we must stop this President. Today we will explain why.
    First, we will review key facts regarding the scope and 
breadth of President Trump's unprecedented actions to stop the 
House's impeachment powers. As you well know, we covered many 
of these facts on Tuesday when we explained in depth what 
evidence the President had blocked from Congress. We addressed 
documents we know the White House and other agencies are 
concealing. We addressed testimony the President's aides would 
provide if they testified under oath. [Slide 415] We will, 
therefore, review the documents and witnesses briefly.
    Second, after surveying relevant history and constitutional 
law, we will explain why obstruction of Congress in and of 
itself warrants impeachment and removal from office.
    Finally, we will demonstrate that President Trump is 
without question guilty of obstruction of Congress, that his 
defenses lack any legal foundation, and that his actions pose a 
dire and continuing threat to the foundation of our 
constitutional framework.
    This is very simple. It is simple. The President abused the 
powers entrusted in him by the American people in a scheme to 
suppress evidence, escape accountability, and orchestrate a 
massive coverup, and he did so in plain sight. His obstruction 
remains ongoing.
    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, 
President's counsel:
    Before I start, I, too, want to thank all the Senators for 
being so patient and being such good listeners. It reminds me, 
quite frankly, of one of the first days that I went to what was 
affectionately called ``baby judge school.'' When we first got 
started, those were the first two things they told us--that we 
needed to be patient and that we needed to listen and that we 
needed to be fair and always give the opportunity to be heard 
to each side.
    I am going to say that you have certainly been playing a 
very good role as judges because, although I know the press 
calls you jurors, I know that you are in the role of judges, 
and I commend you for being good listeners and for having the 
patience to listen to us these last 2 days and in our final 
remarks today. So thank you all.
    Ms. Demings has given us an overview of the second Article 
of Impeachment: Obstruction of Congress.
    So let us now turn to the facts of the case because to 
fully appreciate the scope and the scale of the President's 
wrongdoing and the size of the coverup he has orchestrated, it 
requires an understanding of the evidence that he has lawlessly 
hidden from Congress and the American people.
    President Trump categorically, indiscriminately, and in 
unprecedented fashion obstructed Congress's impeachment 
inquiry; in other words, he orchestrated a coverup. He did it 
in plain sight.
    First, from the beginning, the Trump administration sought 
to hide the President's misconduct by refusing to turn over the 
Intelligence Committee whistleblower complaint. That complaint 
would sound the first alarm of the President's wrongdoing. 
[Slide 416]
    Second, the President issued an order prohibiting the 
entire executive branch from participating in the impeachment 
inquiry--no cooperation, no negotiation, nothing--or as we say 
in Texas, nada.
    Following the President's orders, Federal agencies refused 
to produce documents, and key witnesses refused to testify. In 
fact, the President sanctioned specific directions to 
officials, ordering them to defy congressional subpoenas. 
Third, and perhaps the most reprehensible of all, the President 
waged a campaign of intimidation against those brave public 
servants who did come forward to comply with their obligation 
under the law.
    Senators, as I mentioned, I am a lawyer and a former judge. 
I have never ever seen anything like this from a litigant or a 
party in any case, not anywhere. But from the very beginning of 
this scandal, President Trump has sought to hide and cover up 
key evidence.
    The coverup started even before the House began to 
investigate the President's Ukrainian-related activity. It 
began when the White House sought to conceal the record of 
Donald Trump's July 25 call with the President of Ukraine by 
placing it on a highly classified system. [Slide 417] But, as 
we have said before, there was no legitimate national security 
reason to do so. The coverup continued. A top OMB official 
instructed the freeze to be ``closely held.'' In other words, 
``Don't say anything to anybody.''
    Senators, you know that in order to lock in the hold of the 
funding, the President was required to notify Congress about 
the amount of money involved and why he was intending to freeze 
it. Instead, the White House tried to keep the freeze secret.
    Maybe they kept it a secret because a senior White House 
aide, Rob Blair, accurately predicted to his boss, Mick 
Mulvaney, to ``expect Congress to become unhinged'' if it 
learned that bipartisan aid approved for a valuable foreign 
partner was being frozen for the President's personal gain.
    But the coverup reached its peak soon after August 12 
because, on August 12, a whistleblower filed a lawful and 
protected complaint intended for Congress with the inspector 
general of the intelligence community. The President, who was 
the subject of the complaint, learned of the filing well before 
Congress and the American people.
    In an effort to conceal the whistleblower's concerns, the 
White House and the Department of Justice took an unprecedented 
step. No administration had ever intervened in such a manner 
before. But President Trump maneuvered to keep the 
whistleblower's concerns from the congressional Intelligence 
Committee.
    In the history of the Intelligence Committee Whistleblower 
Protection Act, no credible and urgent complaint had ever, ever 
been withheld from Congress--not ever before. It was through 
immense public pressure and vigorous oversight by the House 
that the Trump administration ultimately produced a complaint 
to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I will add 
that even when it was produced, it was weeks after the legal 
deadline.
    If the President's efforts to conceal the whistleblower's 
concerns had succeeded, Congress would never have learned about 
the existence of the complaint, let alone the allegations that 
it contained. But this attempt to hide key information from 
Congress was only the first sign of what was to come.
    Following new, deeply troubling revelations about the 
President's July 25 call, on September 24, the Speaker of the 
House announced that the House investigations into the 
President's scheme to pressure Ukraine for personal gain would 
be folded into the ongoing impeachment inquiry. Just days 
later, the President began to attack the legitimacy of the 
House impeachment inquiry.
    While standing on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base, 
President Trump argued that the House impeachment inquiry 
``shouldn't be allowed.'' He claimed ``There should be a way of 
stopping it--maybe legally, through the courts.''
    Let's watch the President and what he had to say:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. My call was perfect. The President, yesterday, of 
Ukraine said there was no pressure put on him whatsoever. None 
whatsoever. And he said it loud and clear to the press. What these guys 
are doing--Democrats--are doing to this country is a disgrace and it 
shouldn't be allowed. There should be a way of stopping it--maybe 
legally, through the courts.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. ``There should be a way of 
stopping it.''
    Soon after, President Trump took the matter into his own 
hands. The President used his authority and his office to wage 
a relentless and misleading public campaign to attack the 
impeachment inquiry.
    The President spent time at rallies, at press conferences, 
and on Twitter trying to persuade the American people that the 
House's inquiry was invalid and fraudulent.
    Here are just a few of President Trump's comments about the 
impeachment inquiry. He called it ``a witch hunt,'' ``a COUP,'' 
``an unconstitutional power grab,'' [Slide 418] and ``a fraud 
against the American people.'' He said it is ``the phony 
Impeachment Scam,'' ``the phony Impeachment Hoax,'' the 
``Ukraine Hoax,'' and ``a continuation of the greatest Scam and 
Witch Hunt in the history of our Country.''
    Those are probably some of the ones that I can repeat here. 
And it didn't stop. The attacks did not end there. President 
Trump turned from rhetoric to action.
    On October 8, the White House sent a letter to Speaker 
Nancy Pelosi informing her that President Trump would seek to 
completely obstruct the impeachment inquiry. They sent this 
letter. [Slide 419] White House stationery. I shouldn't say 
this--I am a lawyer--but it is very lawyerly. It is an eight-
page letter. You know, lawyers can't do one thing in one page; 
we have to do it in seven or eight. This was eight pages, and 
it is long. No worries, I am not going to read it all. I just 
want to get to the bottom line. It says: ``President Trump 
cannot permit his Administration to participate in this 
partisan inquiry under these circumstances.''
    He was just saying: We are not going to cooperate.
    The letter is dated, again, October 8, and it is signed by 
Pat Cipollone, who is here, of course, with us today as the 
lead counsel for the President.
    The President did not make any claim of privilege. The 
President did not make any attempt to compromise. He had no 
valid excuse. Although we are all too familiar with President 
Trump's rhetoric and rants, these words in this letter on White 
House stationery, signed by his lead counsel here today, have 
consequences. These words have consequences. They were more 
than just ink on a page. They were more than just eight pages 
of words.
    In the days that followed, President Trump's agencies and 
officials followed his order to conceal information from 
Congress. Over the past few days, you have heard in extensive 
detail from all of us about some of the specific and 
incriminating documents that the President has withheld from 
Congress. But, again, here is the bottom line: The House 
investigating committees sought a total of 71 specific 
categories of documents from 6 different agencies and offices. 
President Trump blocked every single one of these requests--all 
of them. [Slide 420]
    Between September 27 and October 10, the investigating 
committees issued subpoenas to the Department of State, the 
White House, the Office of Management and Budget, Department of 
Defense, and the Department of Energy. [Slide 421] The 
committees always remained open to working with the executive 
branch to discuss and prioritize the subpoenas.
    Some agents initially suggested that they might comply. For 
example, a few days after receiving the subpoena, the 
Department of State staff reached out to the committee to 
``discuss accommodations.''
    As you all know, the accommodation process is when Congress 
and the executive branch discuss priorities and concerns so 
that the committee gets what it needs most efficiently, while 
minimizing any burden to the agency.
    On October 7, the committee staff met with State Department 
officials. During that conversation, the committees made a 
good-faith attempt to engage the Department in negotiations.
    To start, the committees requested that the Department 
prioritize production of a narrow set of nonprivileged 
documents. The Department's representatives stated that they 
would take the request back to senior State Department 
officials, but that was the end. That was the end. Those 
priority documents were never provided to the committees.
    In addition to the State Department, the Department of 
Defense also showed an initial interest in cooperating. During 
an October 13 television appearance, Secretary of Defense Mark 
Esper stated repeatedly that the Department of Defense would 
seek to comply. He said on air, on TV, that they would seek to 
comply with the subpoena.
    In an exchange on ``Face the Nation,'' he was specifically 
asked:

    Question. Very quickly, are you going to comply with the subpoena 
that the House provided you and provide documents to them regarding the 
halt to military aid to Ukraine?
    Answer. [From the Secretary] Yeah we will do everything we can to 
cooperate with the Congress. Just in the last week or two, my general 
counsel sent out a note as we typically do in these situations to 
ensure documents are retained.
    [But, again, the question is] Is that a yes?
    Answer. [By the Secretary] That's a yes.
    Question. You will comply with the subpoena?
    Answer. [Again, by the Secretary] We will do everything we can to 
comply.

    These are his very own words: We can comply.
    But remember that October 8 letter from the White House 
Counsel sent to the Speaker stating the President's position of 
total defiance. President Trump--again, I will quote it. It 
said: ``President Trump cannot permit his Administration to 
participate in this partisan inquiry under these 
circumstances.''
    So every department and every office, top to bottom, of the 
executive branch was under these instructions. You know, that 
is about 2 million public servants, top to bottom. The 
executive branch was all ordered by President Trump not to 
provide information to Congress. The President offered no 
accommodation and no opportunity for negotiation.
    Ultimately, each agency and office followed the President's 
order. In response to each subpoena, the Trump administration 
produced no documents--nothing, nada--and the agencies and 
offices made clear that it was due to the President's 
instructions. [Slide 422] They always deferred to that October 
8 letter.
    For example, [Slide 423] despite the Secretary's initial 
signal of cooperation--I gave you the quote from when he was 
asked specifically on TV. He said they would try to cooperate. 
But despite that, the Department of Defense later refused to 
respond to the committee's subpoena. In a letter to the 
committees, the Department of Defense echoed many of the White 
House's unsupported legal arguments and concluded: ``In light 
of these concerns, and in view of the President's position as 
expressed in the White House Counsel's October 8 letter, and 
without waiving any other objections to the subpoena that the 
Department may have, the Department is unable to comply with 
your request for documents at this time.''
    In a TV interview on ``Face the Nation, they tried to ask 
him again. When asked by Chris Wallace on FOX News:

    Question. And--but do you feel Congress has a right to oversight 
and to be able to see documents from the Pentagon about a program that 
was approved by Congress?
    Answer. Well, they do, but provided it's done in the right and 
proper way. And I think that was the issue. Again, I think my 
reputation is pretty good in terms of being very transparent. I like to 
communicate with members of Congress. But in this case, they were--my 
recollection is that there were technical and legal issues that 
prohibited us from doing exactly what was requested by Congress.

    So he said he would try to cooperate, to seek to comply, 
but now they are back-peddling. But, Senators, there were no 
valid technical or legal arguments. None were put forth to 
justify the stonewalling of the impeachment inquiry. The 
documents President Trump is withholding are highly relevant, 
responsive, and would further our understanding of the 
President's scheme.
    Here is just a sampling of the documents we know exist that 
are currently being withheld: National Security Advisor John 
Bolton's notes, Ambassador Taylor's first-person cable to 
Secretary Pompeo, emails between OMB and other agencies about 
the President's directive to place a hold on the Ukraine 
military aid, and the hundreds of heavily redacted documents 
that the administration has now turned over to third parties 
under FOIA court orders.
    Certainly the documents released pursuant to the FOIA 
lawsuits were not subject to any claims of privilege or 
confidentiality or burden. The administration released them 
publicly. By contrast, the President turned over nothing in 
response to the House impeachment investigation.
    Senators, there still is another component of the 
President's obstruction that I want all of us to focus on.
    Not only did the President block agencies and offices from 
producing documents, his administration also blocked current 
and former officials from identifying, producing, or even 
reviewing relevant documents.
    First, the Trump administration actively discouraged its 
employees from even identifying documents responsive to the 
committees' request.
    Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified in his 
deposition that he informed the State Department attorney about 
additional responsive records that the Department had not 
collected. According to Kent, the Department attorney ``got 
very angry'' and ``objected to [Mr. Kent] raising of the 
additional information.'' He ``made clear that he did not think 
it was appropriate for [Mr. Kent] to make the suggestion.''
    So here is a lawyer telling the witness: Don't say that. I 
just--frankly, as a lawyer and former judge, I just can't 
believe something like this would happen. But Kent responded 
that he was just trying to ``make sure that the Department was 
being fully responsive.''
    Second, the Trump administration refused to permit 
individual witnesses to produce relevant documents themselves.
    After the State Department failed to respond to voluntary 
requests for documents at the beginning of the investigation, 
the committee sent document requests to six individual State 
Department employees. Secretary Pompeo objected to the 
committee's request to State officials, calling them ``an act 
of intimidation and invitation to violate federal court laws.'' 
He also claimed that the House inquiry was ``an attempt to 
intimidate, bully, and treat improperly the distinguished 
professionals of the Department of State.''
    Now we were the bullies. But let's be clear: His statement 
has been contradicted by actual State Department professionals 
from whom the committees sought documents. Kent testified that 
he ``had not felt bullied, threatened, and intimidated'' by the 
House. [Slide 424] In fact, Kent said that the language in 
Secretary Pompeo's letter, which had been drafted by a State 
Department attorney, was without consulting Mr. Kent.
    He said: ``It was inaccurate''--``inaccurate.'' Then the 
State Department ordered witnesses to withhold documents from 
Congress.
    For example, on October 14, [Slide 425] the Department sent 
a letter to Kent's personal attorney warning--warning: ``Your 
client is not authorized to disclose to Congress any records 
relating to official duties.''
    Certain witnesses defied those orders and produced the 
substance of key documents, providing critical insight into the 
President's scheme. Other witnesses produced documents to the 
Trump administration so they could be turned over to Congress, 
but now the administration is also sitting on those documents 
and is refusing to turn them over. Ambassador Taylor testified 
that he turned over documents to the Trump administration but, 
to his knowledge, they had not been produced to the House.
    Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. QUIGLEY. But has any of the documents that you turned over, to 
your knowledge, been turned over to the committee?
    Ambassador TAYLOR. No.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Senators, I will confirm. The 
committees have not seen not one of these documents--none.
    Finally, if it could be any worse--well, it is--a Trump 
administration official, Ambassador Sondland, informed us that 
he was not even permitted to review his own relevant records in 
preparation for their testimony. Again, this would be his own 
records so that he could prepare to testify.
    Let's watch.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. I have not had access to all of my phone 
records, State Department emails, and many, many other State Department 
documents. And I was told I could not work with my EU staff to pull 
together the relevant files and information. Having access to the State 
Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to 
reconstruct with whom I spoke and met and when and what was said.
    My lawyers and I have made multiple requests to the State 
Department and the White House for these materials. Yet these materials 
were not provided to me, and they have also refused to share these 
materials with this committee. These documents are not classified and, 
in fairness--and, in fairness--should have been made available.

    Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Of course, we agree.
    At President Trump's order, agencies and offices refused to 
produce documents in response to the committee's requests, and 
they refused to allow individual witnesses to do so either.
    So let's recap. No documents--zero, goose egg, nada--in 
response to over 70 requests--70 requests and 5 subpoenas. 
There was no attempt to negotiate, no genuine attempt to 
accommodate. There was categorical, indiscriminate, and 
unprecedented stonewalling.
    Again, never in my time as a lawyer or as a judge have I 
seen this kind of total disrespect in defiance of a lawfully 
issued subpoena--and all on President Trump's orders. And it 
could continue because this obstruction of Congress is real, 
and it is beyond--beyond--comparison. This President should be 
removed.
    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, let's 
turn to President Trump's efforts to stop witnesses from 
testifying.
    No other President facing impeachment has taken the extreme 
step to prohibit executive branch witnesses from testifying 
before Congress. Even President Nixon, who famously attempted 
to defy a subpoena for tape recordings of his conversations, 
let his most senior staff testify before Congress.
    I remember listening on TV as John Dean testified before 
the Senate Watergate Committee. He was the President's lawyer. 
President Nixon didn't block him. Not only did President Nixon 
allow his staff to testify before Congress; he publicly 
directed them to testify and without demanding a subpoena.
    Actually, with the Senate Watergate investigation, 
President Nixon said: [Slide 426]

    All members of the White House staff will appear voluntarily when 
requested by the committee. They will testify under oath, and they will 
answer fully all proper questions.

    Now compare that to President Trump. He publicly attacked 
the House's impeachment inquiry, calling it ``constitutionally 
invalid,'' and he ordered every single person working in the 
executive branch to defy the House impeachment inquiry.
    As just discussed, in the letter to the Speaker of the 
House, the White House Counsel said that President Trump [Slide 
419] ``cannot permit his administration to participate.''
    No President ever used the official power of his office to 
prevent witnesses from giving testimony to Congress in such a 
blanket and indiscriminate manner. There is no telling how many 
government officials would have come forward if the President 
hadn't issued this order.
    Let's look at some of the witnesses who followed the 
President's orders.
    The House issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of three 
officials at the Office of Management and Budget: [Slide 427] 
Acting Director Russell Vought, Associate Director Michael 
Duffey, and Associate Director, Brian McCormack.
    According to testimony in the House, which was reinforced 
by emails recently revealed through the Freedom of Information 
Act lawsuits, OMB was just central to the President's hold on 
security assistance to Ukraine. Its officials served as 
conduits for the White House to implement the hold without 
directly engaging the agencies that actually supported release 
of the aid. President Trump directed these three OMB officials 
to violate their legal obligation by defying lawful subpoenas, 
and they followed his orders.
    This isn't just an argument. It is a fact. In response to 
House subpoenas, OMB sent a letter to Chairman Schiff refusing 
to comply. This is what the letter said: [Slide 428] ``As 
directed by the White House Counsel's October 8, 2019, letter, 
OMB will not participate in this partisan and unfair 
impeachment inquiry.''
    In that simple statement, OMB admitted several key points. 
[Slide 429] First, Mr. Cipollone's letter of October 8 was an 
official directive from the White House.
    Second, President Trump's blanket order applied to OMB and 
the three officials subpoenaed by the House.
    Third, President Trump's blanket order not only directed 
them to refuse to participate voluntarily; it also directed 
them to defy House subpoenas.
    Fourth, President Trump's blanket order directly prevented 
the three OMB officials from providing testimony to the House.
    There is no question about the scope of President Trump's 
order. It was total. There is no question about the intent of 
the order. It was clearly understood by administration 
officials, as shown by OMB. And there is no question the order 
had an impact. It directly prevented the House from getting 
testimony from the three senior officials at OMB.
    So here we are. The President of the United States issued 
an official order forbidding every single person who works for 
the executive branch of our government from giving testimony to 
the House as part of an impeachment investigation. That order 
prevented the House from getting testimony from witnesses who 
knew about the President's conduct.
    The matter is simple. It is plain to see. The question we 
here in Congress must ask is whether we are prepared to turn a 
blind eye to a President's obstruction--obstruction not only of 
oversight but also the power to determine whether Congress may 
gather evidence in an impeachment proceeding.
    If the Senate is prepared to accept that, it will mean that 
not only President Trump but all Presidents after him will have 
veto power over Congress's ability to conduct oversight and the 
power of impeachment. The House was not prepared to accept 
that, and that is why the House approved article II.
    As you consider what you think about this, please know that 
President Trump's blanket order was not the end of his campaign 
to obstruct the impeachment inquiry. Actually, it was just the 
beginning.
    In addition to his total ban of government witnesses, 
President Trump also sent specific explicit orders. He directed 
key witnesses to defy subpoenas and to refuse to testify as 
part of the House's impeachment inquiry.
    As you know, the House subpoenaed Acting White House Chief 
of Staff Mick Mulvaney. We wanted his testimony. [Slide 430]
    At a White House press briefing in October--I know you have 
seen it before--Mr. Mulvaney confirmed what we had suspected. 
Mr. Mulvaney admitted that President Trump withheld the aid to 
pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation into the 
conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 
elections. Here are his words.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. MULVANEY. Did he also mentioned to me in the past the 
corruption that related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question 
about that. But that's it, and that's why we held up the money.

    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. After this really stunning admission, 
the House issued a subpoena to require Mr. Mulvaney to testify, 
but on the day of Mr. Mulvaney's scheduled deposition, the 
White House sent a letter to his personal attorney. It 
prohibited him from obeying the subpoena. The letter said: 
[Slide 431] ``The President directs Mr. Mulvaney not to appear 
at the Committee's scheduled deposition.''
    When he issued this order, President Trump doubled down on 
his previous blanket order. He did so after the House voted to 
approve resolution 660, which in no uncertain terms made clear 
that Mr. Mulvaney was being subpoenaed to testify in an 
impeachment investigation.
    This order was the first of many. President Trump also 
ordered another [Slide 432] White House official, Robert Blair, 
not to testify. Mr. Blair is Mr. Mulvaney's senior adviser and 
his closest aide. He was involved in communications about the 
hold on Ukraine aid.
    The day after his initially scheduled deposition, Mr. 
Blair's personal attorney sent a letter to the House. [Slide 
433] It said: ``Mr. Blair has been directed by the White House 
not to appear and testify.''
    The House also wanted testimony from John Eisenberg, [Slide 
434] the senior attorney on President Trump's National Security 
Council. As you have heard over the past few days, key 
witnesses, including Dr. Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, 
said they were concerned by President Trump's efforts to 
pressure Ukraine. They were told to report these concerns to 
Mr. Eisenberg.
    The day before his scheduled deposition, the White House 
sent a letter to Mr. Eisenberg's personal attorney. [Slide 435] 
It said: ``The President directs Mr. Eisenberg not to appear at 
the Committee's deposition.'' Now, that language is starting to 
sound familiar.
    Mr. Eisenberg's personal attorney then sent a letter to the 
House. The letter said this: [Slide 436]

    Under these circumstances, Mr. Eisenberg has no other option that 
is consistent with his legal and ethical obligations except to follow 
the direction of his client and employer, the President of the United 
States. Accordingly, Mr. Eisenberg will not be appearing for a 
deposition at this time.

    Now, that language, I think, is important. And it is 
telling. It shows that President Trump's order left Mr. 
Eisenberg with ``no other option that is consistent with his 
legal and ethical obligations.'' By directing him to defy a 
lawful subpoena, President Trump created a legal and ethical 
problem for Mr. Eisenberg.
    I am sure you know, contempt of Congress can be punished as 
a criminal offense. It carries the possible sentence of up to 
12 months in jail. No President has ever dared, during an 
impeachment inquiry, to officially and explicitly order 
government witnesses to defy House subpoenas. You don't have to 
consider high-minded constitutional principles to understand 
why this was wrong. It is simple, really. By ordering specific 
government officials to defy congressional subpoenas, President 
Trump forced those officials to choose between submitting to 
the demands of their boss or breaking the law. Nobody should 
abuse a position of power in that way. But President Trump 
specifically ordered all three of these senior White House 
officials--Mulvaney, Blair, and Eisenberg--to defy the House's 
subpoenas and refuse to testify.
    President Trump's efforts to conceal his actions didn't 
stop there, and they didn't stop at the front door of the White 
House. No less than 12 other witnesses were specifically 
ordered not to testify. One of those witnesses, Ulrich 
Brechbuhl, hasn't been highlighted much over the past few days, 
[Slide 437] but the way he fits into the story is worth noting.
    Mr. Brechbuhl is a senior official at the State Department. 
Like these other senior officials, he was ordered not to 
testify. In a letter to the House, his attorney said: ``Mr. 
Brechbuhl has received a letter of instruction from the State 
Department directing that he not appear.'' Mr. Brechbuhl is 
still another person who could shed light on President Trump's 
actions. He was kept updated on Rudy Giuliani's broader efforts 
in Ukraine. He had firsthand knowledge of Secretary Pompeo's 
involvement. For one thing, he handled Ambassador Yovanovitch's 
recall from Ukraine, though he refused to meet with her in the 
aftermath.
    Also, messages by Ambassador Volker show that Mr. Brechbuhl 
knew about Mr. Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine as they occurred. 
On July 10, Ambassadors Taylor, Volker, and Sondland discussed 
Rudy Giuliani's push abroad. While discussing the problems Rudy 
was creating by meddling in official U.S. foreign policy, 
Ambassador Taylor noted that he ``briefed Ulrich this 
afternoon.'' [Slide 438] Also on August 11, Ambassador Sondland 
emailed Mr. Brechbuhl to ask him to brief Secretary Pompeo in 
the statement he was negotiating with President Zelensky, the 
aim of ``making the boss happy enough to authorize an 
invitation.''
    Ambassador Sondland wrote to him:

    Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Z to be delivered for our 
review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy 
enough to authorize an invitation.

    Now, State Department Executive Secretary Lisa Kenna 
answered Ambassador Sondland several hours later, letting him 
know that she passed that information on to Secretary Pompeo. 
Let's pause here and consider why this message to Mr. 
Brechbuhl, which the State Department continues to conceal, is 
important. In this exchange, Ambassador Sondland told Brechbuhl 
that he had negotiated a deal to get President Zelensky to make 
a statement and that Sondland hoped that the promised statement 
would ``make the boss happy enough to authorize an 
invitation.''
    It shows that senior State Department leadership, including 
Secretary Pompeo, was quite aware of the deal to trade an 
invitation to the White House for a statement from President 
Zelensky.
    Indeed, Ambassador Sondland confirmed that he kept them in 
the loop. Here is his testimony:
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Ambassador SONDLAND. We kept the leadership of the State Department 
and the NSC informed of our activities, and that included 
communications with Secretary of State Pompeo; his counselor, Ulrich 
Brechbuhl; his Executive Secretary, Lisa Kenna; and also communications 
with Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, Mr. Morrison, and their staff at the 
NSC. They knew what we were doing and why.

    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Eight other witnesses were also 
ordered not to testify as part of the House's impeachment 
inquiry, but those eight witnesses came forward anyway, despite 
the President's efforts to prevent them from testifying. All of 
the following witnesses were told not to testify: [Slide 439] 
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, Ambassador 
Bill Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura 
Cooper, Deputy Associate Director at OMB Mark Sandy, State 
Department official Catherine Croft, and State Department 
official Christopher Anderson. Each of these eight witnesses 
followed the law. They obeyed House subpoenas, and they 
testified before the House.
    In all, we know that by issuing the blanket order and later 
specific orders, President Trump prevented at least 12 current 
or former administration officials from testifying during the 
House's impeachment inquiry. He specifically forced nine of 
those witnesses to defy duly authorized subpoenas.
    The facts are straightforward, and they are not in dispute:
    First, in the history of our Republic, no President ever 
dared to issue an order to prevent even a single government 
witness from testifying in an impeachment inquiry.
    Second, President Trump abused the power of his office by 
using his official power in an attempt to prevent every single 
person who works in the executive branch from testifying before 
the House.
    Finally, President Trump's orders, in fact, prevented the 
House from obtaining key witness testimony from at least 12 
current or former government officials.
    President Trump's orders were clear; they were categorical; 
they were indiscriminate; and they were wrong. They prevented 
key government witnesses from testifying. There is no doubt. 
That is obstruction, plain and simple.
    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Chief Justice, now let us turn to 
some final sets of facts. In a further effort to silence his 
administration, President Trump engaged in a brazen effort to 
publicly attack and intimidate the dedicated public servants 
who came forward to testify. To be clear, these witnesses 
didn't seek the spotlight in this way. For years, they had 
quietly and effectively performed their duties on behalf of our 
national interest and on behalf of the American people.
    Why would they seek the spotlight in this way, knowing that 
the President of the United States would lead the chorus of 
attacks against them. And he did. In response, the President 
issued threats, openly discussed possible retaliation, attacked 
their character and patriotism, [Slide 440] and subjected them 
to mockery and other insults--the President. The President's 
attacks were broadcast to millions of Americans, including the 
witnesses, their families, their friends, and their coworkers. 
This campaign of intimidation risked discouraging witnesses 
from coming forward voluntarily or complying with mandatory 
subpoenas for documents and testimony. And, as we all know, 
witness intimidation is a Federal crime.
    There is simply not enough time today to walk through each 
of the President's attacks on the House's witnesses, but let's 
talk about a few. As I am sure my colleagues recall, the House 
subpoenaed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch for public testimony. 
Ambassador Yovanovitch's first tour was in Somalia, [Slide 441] 
an increasingly dangerous place as that country's civil war 
progressed. During a different tour, Ambassador Yovanovitch 
helped to open a U.S. Embassy, during which time the Embassy 
was attacked by a gunman who sprayed the Embassy building with 
gunfire. Ambassador Yovanovitch has also served as an 
ambassador to Armenia and served the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. As 
Chairman Schiff said earlier, she has served in some dangerous 
places around the world on behalf of our interests and the 
interests of the American people.
    President Trump's Under Secretary of State for Political 
Affairs described Ambassador Yovanovitch as ``an exceptional 
officer, doing exceptional work at a critical embassy in 
Kyiv.'' But during Ambassador Yovanovitch's public testimony, 
President Trump tweeted: [Slide 442]

    Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in 
Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new 
Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call 
with him. It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint 
ambassadors.

    In that same hearing, Chairman Schiff asked Ambassador 
Yovanovitch for her reactions to the President's attacks during 
her testimony before the House. Let's listen to that exchange.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Chairman SCHIFF. Ambassador, you've shown the courage to come 
forward today and testify, notwithstanding the fact you were urged by 
the White House or the State Department not to, notwithstanding the 
fact that, as you testified earlier, the President implicitly 
threatened you in that call record. And now the President, in real-
time, is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other 
witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. It is very intimidating.
    Chairman SCHIFF. It is designed to intimidate, is it not?
    Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. I mean, I can't speak to what the President 
was trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating.
    Chairman SCHIFF. Well, I want to let you know, Ambassador, that 
some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. The House also subpoenaed the public 
testimony of Ambassador William B. Taylor, another career 
public servant, who graduated at the top of his class from West 
Point, [Slide 443] served as an infantry commander in Vietnam, 
and earned a Bronze Star and an Air Medal with the ``V'' device 
for Valor.
    Yet, shortly after Ambassador Taylor came forward to 
Congress, President Trump publicly referred to him as a Never 
Trumper without any basis. Then, when a reporter noted that 
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had hired Ambassador Taylor, 
President Trump responded: ``Hey, everybody makes mistakes.'' 
He then had the following exchange about Ambassador Taylor. 
Let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. He's a Never Trumper. His lawyer is the head of 
the Never Trumpers. They're a dying breed, but they are still there.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Taylor has since stepped 
down from his position as our chief diplomat in Ukraine.
    In addition to his relentless attack on witnesses who 
testified in connection to the House's impeachment inquiry, 
[Slide 444] the President also repeatedly threatened and 
attacked the member of the intelligence community who filed the 
anonymous whistleblower complaint. In more than 100 statements 
about the whistleblower over a period of just 2 months, the 
President publicly questioned the whistleblower's motives and 
disputed the accuracy of the whistleblower's account.
    But most disturbing, President Trump issued a threat 
against the whistleblower and those who provided information to 
the whistleblower. Let's listen.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. I want to know who's the person, who's the person 
who gave the whistleblower the information. Because that's close to a 
spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? 
Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently 
than we do now.

    Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. The President's need to conceal his 
actions was so extreme that he even attacked the credibility of 
those witnesses who served our country in combat. This included 
Active Duty military personnel and veterans who earned the 
Purple Heart and Bronze Star, [Slide 445] among other 
battlefield recognition. But President Trump showed utter 
disregard for such patriotism. For example, President Trump 
attacked Lieutenant Colonel Vindman during his testimony on 
November 19, seeking to question his loyalty to the United 
States. The President retweeted that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman 
was offered the position of Defense Minister for the Ukrainian 
Government three times. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, the 
national security director for Ukraine, has been an Activity 
Duty Army officer for more than 20 years. Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman earned a Purple Heart for wounds he sustained in an 
improvised explosive attack or device in Iraq.
    President Trump's campaign of intimidation is 
reprehensible, debases the Presidency, and was part of his 
effort to obstruct the impeachment inquiry. The fact that it is 
the President of the United States making these threats tells 
us something. It tells us that the President desperately wanted 
to keep witnesses from testifying and thus further obstruct 
Congress's inquiry.
    Senators, we cannot, and we must not, condone President 
Trump's attacks on whistleblowers and witnesses--people who 
truly have the ability to put our country first.
    Mr. Manager NADLER. Now that we have carefully reviewed the 
facts and have described the President's categorical 
obstruction of Congress, we address questions of law. This 
discussion need not be abstract. The President's obstruction 
impacts the Senate directly. It impacts the constituents you 
represent. It impacts you because your job as a Member of 
Congress is to hold the executive branch in check. This is true 
no matter who occupies the White House [Slide 446] or which 
party controls the House or Senate. And the further the 
President--any President--departs from the law in the 
Constitution, the more important it is for you to do your job.
    I suspect that there is common ground here. We all know 
that in order for Congress to do its work, we must have 
information. What is reasonable policy? What is the 
administration doing? Do we support it? Should we oppose it? 
Should we enact legislation to correct the problem? Asking 
questions, gathering information, making decisions based on the 
answers--this is one of the fundamental functions of Congress.
    I suspect that we agree on this as well: Our ability to do 
that work depends on gathering information. It depends on the 
power of the congressional subpoena. Even when you make a 
polite request for information from a friendly administration, 
that request is backed by the threat of a subpoena.
    And although the power of the congressional subpoena has 
been affirmed repeatedly by the courts, enshrined in the rules 
of the House and Senate, and respected by executive branch 
agencies for centuries, if the President chooses to ignore our 
subpoenas, our powers as a branch of government--our ability to 
do our jobs, our ability to keep an administration in check, 
our ability to make sure that the American people are 
represented by a Congress, not just by a President--are 
diminished.
    Please know that we are not talking about a disagreement 
over the last few documents at the end of a long production 
schedule. We are talking about a direct order from the 
President of the United States to completely disregard all our 
subpoenas, to deny us all information the President wants to 
keep secret. This is in order to deprive Congress of our 
ability to hold an administration accountable. It is a bid to 
neuter Congress, to render the President all powerful since 
Congress could not have any information the President didn't 
want us to have. Without information, we cannot act.
    We must ask: Is there a consequence for a President who 
defies our subpoenas absolutely; who says to all branches of 
the administration ``Do not obey a single congressional 
subpoena''--categorically, without knowing the subject of the 
subpoena--just ``Never answer a congressional subpoena''; who 
denies Congress the right to any information necessary to 
challenge his power?
    Would Madison, Hamilton, and Washington support removing a 
President who declares that the Constitution lets him do 
whatever he wants and who brazenly adds that he can ignore any 
effort to investigate, even when backed by subpoenas that the 
law requires him to obey? The answer to all these questions is 
a resounding yes.
    Before diving in, I would like to set the historical scene. 
The Framers were wise. And so they worried that Presidents 
would abuse their power for personal gain. They feared that 
someday a President might mistake himself for a King--whose 
decisions cannot be questioned, whose conduct cannot be 
investigated, whose power transcends the rule of law. Such a 
would-be King would certainly think things like [Slide 447] ``I 
have the right to do whatever I want as president.'' He might 
believe that it is ``illegitimate'' for anyone to investigate 
him. Of course, not even the Framers could have imagined a 
President would say these things out loud.
    A President with this view of raw power would attack anyone 
who tried to hold him to account, branding them ``human scum'' 
and ``the Enemy of the People.'' He would argue that courts had 
no power to enforce subpoenas against him.
    He would conscript his allies to ridicule Congress. He 
would harass witnesses who testified against him, declaring it 
was disloyal to question his conduct. He would use the powers 
of his high office to sabotage our system of checks and 
balances. All of this we have seen in the last few years--
indeed, in the last few months.
    The Framers wrote the impeachment clause to protect the 
American people from such a President. The impeachment clause 
exists to protect our freedom and our democracy in between 
elections. It exists to remind Presidents that they serve the 
public, not the other way around. It is a reminder to 
Presidents that they answer to something greater than 
themselves. It confirms that nobody in America is above the 
law, not even the President.
    As we have discussed, the impeachment power does not 
magically protect us when a President commits high crimes and 
misdemeanors. In Benjamin Franklin's words, the Framers left us 
a Republic--if we can keep it.
    One way we can uphold that promise is to do our duty as 
elected Members of Congress to hold the executive branch in 
check. That responsibility is part of the constitutional 
design. The burden is ours, regardless of our political party, 
no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
    In the ordinary course, when we do our jobs, we do our 
Nation a service by holding the executive branch--both its 
political leadership and its professional core--accountable to 
the people for its actions.
    When the President's conduct exceeds the usual 
constitutional safeguards, it falls on the House to investigate 
Presidential wrongdoing and, if necessary, to approve Articles 
of Impeachment. It then falls on the Senate to judge, convict, 
and remove Presidents who threaten the Constitution.
    This entire framework depends on Congress's ability to 
discover and then to thoroughly investigate Presidential 
malfeasance. If Presidents could abuse their power and then 
conceal all the evidence from Congress, the impeachment clause 
would be a nullity. We the people would lose a vital 
protection.
    That is why officials throughout history have repeatedly 
recognized that subpoenas served in an impeachment inquiry must 
be obeyed, including by the President. It is why, before 
President Trump, only a single official in American history has 
ever defied an impeachment subpoena. And that is why that 
official, Richard Nixon, faced Articles of Impeachment for 
doing so.
    As the House Judiciary Committee reasoned in its analysis 
of Nixon's obstruction: [Slide 448] ``[U]nless the defiance of 
the [House] subpoenas . . . is considered grounds for 
impeachment, it is difficult to conceive of any President 
acknowledging that he is obligated to supply the relevant 
evidence necessary for Congress to exercise its constitutional 
responsibility in an impeachment proceeding.''
    Representative Robert McClory, a Republican from Illinois, 
explained the importance of this Article of Impeachment for our 
separation of powers. He said:

    . . . if we refuse to recommend that the President should be 
impeached because of his defiance of the Congress with respect to the 
subpoenas that we have issued, the future respondents will be in the 
position where they can determine themselves what they are going to 
provide in an impeachment inquiry and what they are not going to 
provide, and this would be particularly so in the case of an inquiry 
directed toward the President of the United States. So, it not only 
affects this President but future Presidents.

    That is where we find ourselves now but with even greater 
force. [Slide 449]
    President Nixon authorized other executive branch officials 
and agencies to honor their legal obligations. He also turned 
over many of his own documents. President Trump, in contrast, 
directed his entire administration--every agency, every office, 
and every official--not to cooperate with the impeachment 
inquiry. As in Nixon's case, President Trump's obstruction is 
merely an extension of his coverup.
    As in Nixon's case, President Trump's obstruction reveals 
consciousness of guilt. Innocent people do not act this way. 
They do not hide all the evidence. And like Nixon, President 
Trump has offered an assortment of arguments to excuse his 
obstruction. But as was true in Nixon's case, none of these 
excuses can succeed.
    At bottom, these arguments amount to a claim that the 
President can dictate the terms of his own impeachment inquiry. 
President Trump's lawyers may insist his grounds for defying 
Congress are unique and limited; that they only apply here, 
just this one time; that it was the House, not the President, 
that broke from precedent; that he would gladly comply with 
subpoenas if only the House would do as he insists.
    That is pure fantasy. The President's arguments are not a 
one-ride ticket. They are not unique to these facts. Unless 
they are firmly and finally rejected here, these bogus excuses 
will reappear every time Congress investigates any President 
for serious abuses of power--every single time. They will 
constitute a playbook for ignoring oversight, available to all 
future Presidents--Democratic and Republican.
    These arguments are not consistent with the Constitution. 
They are lawyerly window dressing for an unprecedented, 
dangerous power grab.
    Plenty of Presidents and judges have complained about 
impeachment inquiries, declaring their own innocence, attacking 
the House's motives, and insisting that due process entitled 
them to all sorts of things. But no President or judge--except 
Richard Nixon--has ever defied subpoenas on that basis. And no 
President or judge--none--has ever directed others to defy 
subpoenas categorically across the board. They have all 
eventually recognized their obligations under the law. 
President Trump stands alone.
    If President Trump is permitted to defy our subpoenas here 
in an impeachment inquiry, when the courts have said the 
congressional power of inquiry is at its highest, imagine what 
future Presidents will do when we attempt to conduct routine 
oversight.
    President Trump is the first leader of this Nation to 
declare that nobody can investigate him for official 
misconduct, except on his own terms. In word and in deed, 
President Trump has declared himself above the law. He has done 
so because he is guilty and wishes to conceal as much of the 
evidence from the American people and from this body as he can. 
In that, he must not succeed. If President Trump is allowed to 
remain in office after this conduct, historians will mark the 
date that this Senate allowed this President to break one of 
our mightiest defenses against tyranny. They will wonder why 
Congress so readily surrendered one of its core constitutional 
powers. They will wonder why Congress admitted that a President 
can get away with anything, can violate any constitutional 
rule, any liberty, any request for information, and get away 
with it simply by saying: I don't have to answer your 
questions. Congress has no power to make me answer questions 
about my conduct.
    That is what is at stake. In the future, people will 
despair that future Presidents will abuse their power without 
fear of consequences or constraint.
    Let's begin with a legal premise of the second Article of 
Impeachment.
    Congress has the power to investigate Presidents for 
official misconduct. This premise is indisputable. In article I 
of the Constitution: [Slide 450]

    All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the 
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and 
House of Representatives.
    Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings.

    Our investigations are grounded in article I of the 
Constitution, which grants Congress all legislative powers and 
authorizes each House to determine its own rules. As the 
Supreme Court has explained, the Constitution thus vests the 
House and the Senate with the power of inquiry, that it is 
``penetrating and far-reaching.''
    Moreover, Congress can effectuate that power of inquiry by 
issuing subpoenas commanding the recipient to provide documents 
or to testify under oath. Compliance with subpoenas is 
mandatory. It is not at the option of the executive or the 
President. As the Supreme Court has explained: [Slide 451]

    [I]t is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with 
the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent 
legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to 
subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees, 
and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of 
proper investigation.

    More recently, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson 
has elaborated: [Slide 452]

    [B]latant defiance of Congress' centuries-old power to compel the 
performance of witnesses is not an abstract injury, nor is it a mere 
banal insult to our democracy. It is an affront to the mechanism for 
curbing abusers of powers that the Framers carefully crafted for our 
protection, and, thereby, recalcitrant witnesses actually undermine the 
broader interests of the people of the United States.

    In recognition of the important role that congressional 
inquiries play in protecting our democracy and in guarding the 
American people, it is unlawful to obstruct them.
    Of course, while Congress investigates many issues, one of 
the most important is misconduct in the executive branch.
    There is a long history of congressional investigations 
into the executive branch. To name a few especially famous 
cases, Congress has investigated claims that President Lincoln 
mishandled Civil War military strategy; [Slide 453] the 
infamous Teapot Dome scandal under President Harding; President 
Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal; President 
Reagan's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair; President 
Clinton's real estate dealings and the Monica Lewinsky scandal; 
warrantless wiretapping under President George W. Bush; and 
attacks on personnel in Benghazi under President Obama.
    Since the dawn of the Republic, Presidents have recognized 
Congress's power to investigate the executive branch. Even in 
sensitive investigations involving national security and 
foreign policy, Presidents have provided Congress with access 
to senior officials and important documents.
    For example, in the Iran-Contra inquiry, President Reagan's 
former National Security Advisor, [Slide 454] Oliver North, and 
the former Assistant to the President for National Security 
Affairs, John Poindexter, testified before Congress. President 
Reagan also produced ``relevant excerpts of his personal 
diaries to Congress.''
    During the Clinton administration, Congress obtained 
testimony from top advisers, including the President's Chief of 
Staff Mack McLarty, his Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, White 
House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum, and White House Counsel Jack 
Quinn.
    In the Benghazi investigation, President Obama made many of 
his top aides available for transcribed interviews, including 
National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Deputy National 
Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Benjamin Rhodes. 
The Obama administration, in that case, also produced more than 
75,000 pages of documents, including 1,450 pages of White House 
emails, with communications of senior officials on the National 
Security Council.
    To be sure, certain House Republicans complained loudly 
that the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi 
investigation was insufficient. Just imagine how they would 
have reacted if Obama had ordered total defiance of all 
subpoenas. They would have been outraged. Why? Because Congress 
unquestionably has the authority to investigate Presidential 
conduct.
    Not only does Congress have the power to investigate the 
Executive, but, as we have discussed, [Slide 455] article I of 
the Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. 
The Framers intended this power to be the central check on out-
of-control Presidents. But it does not work automatically. The 
House must investigate, question witnesses, and review 
documents. Only then can it decide whether to approve or not 
approve Articles of Impeachment. Therefore, when the House 
determines that the President may have committed high crimes 
and misdemeanors, it has the constitutional duty to investigate 
his conduct.
    In such cases, the House acts not only pursuant to its 
ordinary legislative authority but also serves as a ``grand 
inquest of the Nation'' because an impeachment inquiry wields 
one of the greatest powers of the Constitution--a power that 
exists specifically to constrain Presidents.
    Its subpoenas are backed with the full force of the 
impeachment clause. They cannot be thwarted by ordinary 
executive privileges or ordinary objections. [Slide 456] It is 
therefore presumed--as President Polk conceded over 150 years 
ago--that ``all the archives and papers of the Executive 
Departments, public or private, would be subject to . . . 
inspection'' and ``every facility in the power of the Executive 
[would] be afforded to enable [the House] to prosecute the 
investigation.'' What investigation? The impeachment 
investigation of President Polk.
    President's Polk's statement, which we will return to, was 
no outlier. Presidents have long understood that they must 
comply with impeachment inquiries. Consistent with this 
understanding, in the history of the Republic, no President has 
ever claimed the unilateral prerogative to categorically defy a 
House impeachment inquiry. On the contrary, every President 
facing this issue has agreed that Congress possesses a broad 
and penetrating power of inquiry when investigating grounds for 
impeachment.
    This directly refutes President Trump's claim that he 
obstructed Congress to protect the Office of the President. 
Every prior occupant of his office has disavowed the limitless 
power that he asserts. That matters.
    As the Supreme Court explained just a few years ago: [Slide 
457]

    [L]ong settled and established practice is a consideration of great 
weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions 
regulating the relationship between Congress and the President.

    Let's take a quick tour of the historical record. To begin 
at the beginning--a sweltering summer in Philadelphia, 1787--
the Framers discussed at length the balance between Presidents 
and Congress. Remember, they had just fought a bloody war to 
rid themselves of a tyrant, and they were very conscious they 
didn't want another tyrant. When impeachment came up, they 
agreed it would limit the President's authority. But a strong 
majority of Framers saw that as a virtue, not a vice. They 
wanted to empower the President but also to keep his power from 
getting out of hand.
    Yet impeachment could not serve that role if the House was 
unable to investigate the President for suspected high crimes 
and misdemeanors. This was recognized early on, starting with 
our very first President. In 1796, the House requested that 
President Washington provide it sensitive diplomatic materials 
relating to the hugely unpopular Jay Treaty with Great Britain. 
President Washington declined since this request intruded upon 
his executive functions. But Washington agreed that impeachment 
would change his calculus. In the ensuing debates, it was noted 
on the House floor that Washington had admitted [Slide 458] 
``that where the House expresses an intention to impeach, the 
right to demand from the Executive all papers and information 
in his possession belongs to it.''
    ``All papers and information.'' This was only the first of 
many references to that point in our constitutional tradition. 
For example, less than 40 years later, in 1833, Justice Joseph 
Story remarked upon the dangers of Presidential obstruction. He 
wrote: [Slide 459]

    The power of impeachment will generally be applied to persons 
holding high offices under the government; and it is of great 
consequence that the President should not have the power of preventing 
a thorough investigation of their conduct.

    Consistent with this teaching, President Polk later offered 
his clear and insightful explanation of why Presidents must 
honor all impeachment subpoenas. As I mentioned just moments 
ago, he said: [Slide 460]

    It may be alleged that the power of impeachment belongs to the 
House of Representatives, and that with a view to the exercise of this 
power, that House has the right to investigate the conduct of all 
public officers under the government. This is cheerfully admitted.

    Decades later, during our first Presidential impeachment 
inquiry, [Slide 461] President Andrew Johnson recognized 
Congress's power to thoroughly investigate him and his 
executive branch subordinates.
    In 1857, for example, the House Judiciary Committee 
obtained executive and Presidential records. The committee 
interviewed Cabinet officers and Presidential aides about 
Cabinet meetings and private conversations with the President 
by his top aides and Cabinet officials. Multiple witnesses, 
moreover, answered questions about the opinions of the 
President's, statements made by the President, and the advice 
given to the President. There is no evidence that Johnson ever 
asserted any privilege to prevent disclosure of Presidential 
conversations to the committee or failed to comply with any of 
the committee's requests.
    Thus, in the first 80 years of the Republic, Presidents 
Washington, Polk, and Johnson, along with members of committees 
of the House and a Supreme Court Justice, all recognized that 
Congress is authorized by the Constitution to investigate 
grounds for impeachment and that Presidents are obligated to 
give all information requested. President Trump's attempt to 
stonewall Congress would have shocked those Presidents.
    With only a few exceptions, invocations of the impeachment 
power subsided from 1868 to 1972. Yet, even in that period, 
while objecting to ordinary legislative oversight, Presidents 
Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt each 
noted that Congress could obtain key executive branch documents 
in an impeachment inquiry. They thus confirm yet again that 
impeachment is different. Under the Constitution, it requires 
full compliance.
    Then came Watergate, when President Nixon abused the power 
of his office to undermine his political opponents. But even 
Nixon--even Nixon--understood that he must comply with 
subpoenas for information relating to his misconduct. Thus, he 
stated in March 1973, regarding the Senate's Watergate 
investigation: [Slide 462]

    All members of the White House staff will appear voluntarily when 
requested by the committee. They will testify under oath, and they will 
answer fully all proper questions.

    As a result, many senior White House officials testified, 
including White House Counsel John Dean, White House Chief of 
Staff H. R. Haldeman, and Deputy Assistant to the President 
Alexander Butterfield.
    In addition, Nixon produced many documents in response to 
congressional subpoenas, including notes from meetings with the 
President.
    As the House Judiciary Committee explained at the time, 
[Slide 463] 69 officials had been subjected to impeachment 
investigations throughout American history. Yet, ``with the 
possible exception of one minor official who invoked the 
privilege against self-incrimination, not one of them 
challenged the power of the committee conducting the 
investigation to compel the production of evidence it deemed 
necessary.''
    President Nixon's production of records was incomplete, 
however, in a very important respect: He did not produce tape 
recordings of key Oval Office conversations. In response, the 
House Judiciary Committee approved an Article of Impeachment 
against the President for obstruction of Congress.
    Twenty-four years later, the House undertook impeachment 
proceedings against President Clinton. Consistent with 
precedent and entirely unlike President Trump, Clinton 
``pledged to cooperate fully with the [impeachment] 
investigation.'' Ultimately, he provided written responses to 
81 interrogatories from the Judiciary Committee, and 3 
witnesses provided testimony during the Senate trial.
    As this review of the historic record proves, Presidents 
have long recognized that the Constitution compels them to 
honor subpoenas served by the House in an impeachment inquiry.
    Stated simply, President Trump's categorical blockade of 
the House--his refusal to honor any subpoenas, his order that 
all subpoenas be defied without even knowing what they were--
has no analog in the history of the Republic. Nothing even 
comes close. He has engaged in obstruction that several of his 
predecessors have expressly said is forbidden and that led to 
an Article of Impeachment against Nixon.
    President Trump is an outlier. He is the first and only 
President ever to declare himself unaccountable and to ignore 
subpoenas backed by the Constitution's impeachment power. If he 
is not removed from office and if he is permitted to defy the 
Congress entirely, categorically, and to say that subpoenas 
from Congress in an impeachment inquiry are nonsense, then we 
will have lost--the House will have lost, and the Senate, 
certainly, will have lost--all power to hold any President 
accountable.
    This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to 
be all powerful. He does not have to respect the Congress--he 
does not have to respect the representatives of the people. 
Only his will goes. He is a dictator. This must not stand. That 
is another reason he must be removed from office.
    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, we have 
now shown how the extreme measures President Trump took to 
conceal evidence and block witnesses defies the Constitution 
and centuries of historical practice; but there is more to this 
story, and it only further undermines President Trump's case. 
The position he has taken is not only baseless as a historical 
matter; it is also inconsistent with the Justice Department's 
stated reason for refusing to indict or prosecute Presidents.
    The Department of Justice's unwillingness to indict a 
sitting President creates a danger that the President can't be 
held accountable by anyone, even for grave misconduct. To its 
credit, the Department of Justice recognized that risk. [Slide 
464] In its view, ``the constitutionally specified impeachment 
process ensures that the immunity would not place the President 
`above the law.'''
    This argument by the Justice Department is really 
important. In justifying its view that a President can't be 
held criminally liable while in office, the DOJ relies on 
Congress's ability to impeach and remove a President, but the 
Justice Department's rationale falls apart if the 
``constitutionally specified impeachment process'' can't 
function because the President himself has obstructed it.
    The Supreme Court correctly noted in Nixon v. Fitzgerald--
and that is not Richard Nixon; it is Judge Nixon--``vigilant 
oversight by Congress'' is necessary to ``make credible the 
threat of impeachment.''
    The President should not be treated as immune from criminal 
liability because he is subject to impeachment but then be 
allowed to sabotage the impeachment process itself. That is 
what this President did. That places him dangerously above the 
law and beyond the separation of powers. Presidents can't be 
above the law. Presidents, like everyone else, must obey 
subpoenas served in an impeachment inquiry.
    In 1880, the Supreme Court explained: [Slide 465] ``Where 
the question of such impeachment is before either [House of 
Congress] acting in its appropriate sphere on that subject, we 
see no reason to doubt the right to compel the attendance of 
witnesses, and their answer to proper questions, in the same 
manner and by the use of the same means that courts of justice 
can in like cases.''
    Almost a century later, Judge John Sirica's influential 
opinion on the Watergate ``roadmap'' in 1974 emphasized the 
special weight assigned to Congress in an impeachment.
    He wrote: [Slide 466]

    [I]t should not be forgotten that we deal in a matter of the most 
critical moment to the Nation, an impeachment investigation involving 
the President of the United States. It would be difficult to conceive 
of a more compelling need than that of this country for an unswervingly 
fair inquiry based on all the pertinent information.

    That same year, the Supreme Court decided the famous case 
of Nixon v. United States. That is President Nixon. I was 
standing just across the street from the Court when the case 
was handed down, and I remember seeing the reporters running 
down those marble steps, clutching the Court's unanimous 
decision. That decision forced the release of key Oval Office 
tapes that President Nixon had tried to cover up by invoking 
executive privilege. In short order, it led to the resignation 
of President Nixon.
    The plaintiff in that case was actually the special 
prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who had been appointed to 
investigate the Watergate burglary and who had issued subpoenas 
for the Nixon tapes. The Supreme Court upheld these subpoenas 
against President Nixon's claim of executive privilege. It 
reasoned that his asserted interest in confidentiality could 
not overcome the constitutionally grounded interest in the fair 
administration of criminal justice.
    In reaching that conclusion, the Court said:

    The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to 
be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The 
very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the 
system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework 
of the rules of evidence.

    That reasoning, which was a unanimous decision by the 
Supreme Court in the Nixon tapes case, applies with full 
force--indeed, greater force--to impeachments.
    The House Judiciary Committee recognized this when it 
approved an Article of Impeachment against President Nixon for 
obstruction of Congress.
    It reasoned as follows:

    If a generalized Presidential interest in confidentiality cannot 
prevail over ``the fundamental demand of due process of law in the fair 
administration of justice,'' neither can it be permitted to prevail 
over the fundamental need to obtain all the relevant facts in the 
impeachment process. Whatever the limits of legislative power in other 
contexts--and whatever need may otherwise exist for preserving the 
confidentiality of Presidential conversations--in the context of an 
impeachment proceeding the balance was struck in the favor of the power 
of inquiry.

    Accordingly, President Trump's conduct is unprecedented 
and, actually, offensive to the precedents, and it is 
inconsistent with his duty--his oath--to faithfully execute the 
laws. That obligation to see that the laws are faithfully 
executed is not just about enforcing statutes; it is a duty to 
be faithful to the Constitution--every part of it--as stated in 
the text and understood across history, and it is a duty that 
he has violated by obstructing Congress here.
    I want to make one additional point regarding the 
judiciary.
    Presidents have an obligation to comply with Congress's 
impeachment inquiry regardless of whether a court has reviewed 
the request. We make this point even though, I think, President 
Trump's lawyers would be making a mistake to raise it. After 
all, the President's lawyers can't have it both ways. They 
can't argue here that we must go to court and then argue in 
court that our case can't be heard.
    Anyway, the House's ``sole Power of impeachment'' wouldn't 
be ``sole'' or much of a ``power'' if the House could not 
investigate the President at all without first spending years 
litigating before the third branch of government. It would 
frustrate the Constitution for the House to depend entirely on 
the judiciary to advance its impeachment-related investigatory 
powers.
    Consistent with this understanding, before President Trump, 
the House had never before filed a lawsuit to require testimony 
or documents in a Presidential impeachment. We didn't have to. 
No President had ever issued a blanket ban on compliance with 
House subpoenas or challenged the House to find a way around 
his unlawful order. In this strange and unprecedented 
situation, it is appropriate for Congress to reach its own 
judgment that the President is obstructing the exercise of its 
constitutional power.
    As then-Representative Lindsey Graham explained in 1998 
during the Clinton proceedings, where we served together on the 
Judiciary Committee: [Slide 467] ``The day Richard Nixon failed 
to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to 
impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the 
impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge 
and jury.''
    There is still another reason it would be wrong and 
dangerous to insist that the House cannot take action without 
involving the courts, and that reason is delay.
    Consider just three lawsuits filed by House committees over 
the past two decades to enforce subpoenas against senior 
executive branch officials. I served on the Judiciary Committee 
when we decided that we needed to hear from former White House 
Counsel Harriet Miers.
    In Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, [Slide 468] the 
Judiciary Committee tried to enforce a subpoena that required 
her to give testimony about the contentious firing of nine U.S. 
attorneys. The committee served the subpoena in 2007. We 
negotiated--as the courts indicate you should--with the White 
House, and we finally filed suit in March of 2008. We won a 
favorable district court order in July 2008, but we didn't 
receive testimony from Miers until June of 2009. That was 2 
years.
    In Committee on Oversight and Government Reform v. Holder, 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform tried to force 
Attorney General Eric Holder to produce additional documents 
relating to the so-called Operation Fast and Furious. The 
committee served the subpoena in October 2011. They filed suit 
in August 2012. They won a series of orders requiring the 
production of documents, but the first such order did not issue 
until August of 2014--nearly 3 years.
    In Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, [Slide 468] the 
House Judiciary Committee sought to enforce a subpoena to 
require White House Counsel Don McGahn to give testimony 
regarding matters relating to the special counsel's 
investigation. We served that subpoena in April of last year. 
We filed suit in August of last year. We won a favorable 
district court order in November of last year. The court of 
appeals stayed that ruling and didn't hear arguments until 
early this month--with an opinion and, potentially, a Supreme 
Court application likely to follow. We will likely not have an 
answer this year.
    Sometimes courts move quickly, but, here, they have not--
not at all. Even when the House urges expedited action, it 
usually takes years, not months, to get evidence through 
judicial proceedings.
    The President can't put off impeachment for years by 
ordering total defiance of the House and then insist that the 
House go to court even as he argues that it can't go to court. 
That is especially true when the President doesn't just raise 
one or two objections to specific subpoenas but orders a 
blanket, governmentwide coverup of all evidence.
    That kind of order makes this clear. The President sees 
himself completely immune from any accountability--above the 
law. It reveals his pretentions, really, to absolute power. It 
confirms he must be removed from office.
    Here is the key point: President Trump's obstruction of 
Congress is not merely unprecedented and wrong; it is also a 
high crime and misdemeanor, as the Framers used and understood 
that phrase, warranting his immediate removal from office. To 
see why, let's return to first principles.
    As the Framers deliberated in Philadelphia, George Mason 
posed a profound question: ``Shall any man be above justice?''
    That question wasn't a hypothetical. The Framers had just 
rebelled against England, where one man, the King, was in fact 
above justice.
    By authorizing Congress to remove Presidents for egregious 
misconduct, the Framers rejected that model. Unlike Britain's 
King, the President would answer to Congress and, thus, to the 
Nation, if he engaged in serious wrongdoing, because the 
impeachment power exists not to punish the President but to 
check Presidents. It can't function if Presidents are free to 
ignore all congressional investigation and oversight.
    An impeachment scholar, Frank Bowman, said this: [Slide 
469]

    Without the power to compel compliance with subpoenas and the 
concomitant right to impeach a president for refusal to comply, the 
impeachment power would be nullified.

    So the consequences of Presidential obstruction go beyond 
any particular impeachment inquiry. They go to the heart of the 
impeachment power itself. They weaken our shield against a 
dangerous or corrupt President.
    Now, of course, Presidents are still free to raise privacy, 
national security, or other concerns in the course of an 
impeachment inquiry. There is room for good-faith negotiations 
over what evidence will be disclosed, although there is a 
strong presumption in favor of full compliance with 
congressional subpoenas.
    But when a President abuses his office, abuses his power to 
completely defy House investigators in an impeachment inquiry, 
when he does that without lawful cause or excuse, he attacks 
the Constitution itself. When he does that, he confirms that he 
sees himself as above the law.
    President Nixon's case is informative. As noted, President 
Nixon let his senior officials testify, he produced many 
documents. He did not direct anything like a blanket 
indiscriminate block of the House's impeachment inquiry. Still, 
he did defy subpoenas seeking records and recordings of the 
Oval Office.
    Now, President Nixon claimed that his noncompliance was 
legally defensible. He invoked the doctrine of executive 
privilege. The judiciary rejected that excuse.
    The committee emphasized that [Slide 470] ``the doctrine of 
separation of powers cannot justify the withholding of 
information from an impeachment inquiry.'' After all, ``the 
very purpose of such an inquiry is to permit the House, acting 
on behalf of the people, to curb the excesses of another 
branch, in this instance the Executive.''
    ``Whatever the limits of legislative power in other 
contexts--and whatever need may otherwise exist for preserving 
the confidentiality of Presidential conversations--in the 
context of an impeachment proceeding the balance was struck in 
favor of the power of inquiry when the impeachment provision 
was written into the Constitution.
    Now, ultimately, the committee approved an article against 
Nixon because he sought to prevent the House from exercising 
its constitutional duty.
    Article III charged Nixon with abusing his power by 
interfering with the discharge of the Judiciary Committee's 
responsibility to investigate fully and completely whether he 
had committed high crimes and misdemeanors. President Nixon's 
third Article of Impeachment explained it this way: [Slide 471]

    In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, 
substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the 
inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful 
subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself 
functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of 
impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
    In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to 
his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to 
the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the 
manifest injury of the people of the United States. . . .

    President Nixon's case powerfully supports the conclusion 
that Presidential defiance of a House impeachment inquiry 
constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
    You know, I have been thinking a lot about the Founders and 
have been rereading the Constitution and the notes from the 
Constitutional Convention. It was just a little over 230 years 
ago that they met in Philadelphia, not too far from here. They 
had been at it for a long time. They didn't know whether the 
constitution they were going to write would sustain freedom, 
but they were trying to create a completely different type of 
government.
    On July 20, Governor Morris said this:

    The magistrate is not the king. The people are the king.

    George Mason, of Virginia, on that same day said:

    Shall any man be above Justice? Above all, shall that man be above 
it who can commit the most extensive injustice?''

    And Elbridge Gerry argued that he hoped that the maxim that 
the chief magistrate could do no wrong ``would never be adopted 
here.''
    Now, finally, on September 8, they adopted the impeachment 
clause in the U.S. Constitution, but I hope that we will 
remember the admonition that we should never accept the fact 
that the magistrate--the President--can do no wrong.
    They crafted the Constitution to protect our liberty and 
the liberty of those who will follow us.
    Professor Noah Feldman talked about the Constitution in his 
testimony before the House.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Professor FELDMAN. A President who says, as this President did say, 
I will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with your process, robs 
a coordinate branch of government, he robs the House of Representatives 
of its basic constitutional power of impeachment.

    Ms. Manager LOFGREN. You know, a President who does that 
also endangers the American people by stripping away the 
Constitution's final safeguard against Presidents who abuse 
power and harm the Nation. Such a President acts like a King, 
which the Founders were fighting against. That is what they 
wrote out of the Constitution. A President cannot be immune 
from oversight, accountability, and even simple justice in the 
exercise of the powers entrusted to him.
    We can't let that stand in this case. The President must 
forfeit the powers that he has abused and be removed from 
office.
    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished 
Members of the Senate, counsel for the President, my 
colleagues, the American people who are assembled here today, I 
think we have our next break scheduled for within the hour, and 
so I find myself in the unenviable position of being the only 
thing standing between you and our dinner. But be not 
discouraged because I am going to try to follow the advice of a 
former Sunday school teacher of mine. I grew up in the 
Cornerstone Baptist Church in Brooklyn. She said: Jeffries, on 
the question of public presentations, be brief, be bright, and 
be gone.
    And so I am going to try to do my best.
    Presidents are required to comply with impeachment 
subpoenas. This President has completely defied them. That 
conduct alone is a high crime and misdemeanor.
    The facts here are not really in dispute. President Trump's 
defense appears to be: I can do whatever I want to do. Only I 
can fix it. I am the chosen one.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. Then I have an Article II, where I have the right 
to do whatever I want as president. Nobody knows the system better than 
me. Which is why I alone can fix it. Somebody had to do it. I am the 
chosen one. Somebody had to do it.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Is that who we are as a democracy?
    President Trump can't address the substance of our case. He 
therefore complains about process, but these procedural 
complaints are baseless excuses, and they do not justify his 
attempts to hide the truth from Congress and from the American 
people.
    The President's arguments fail for four simple reasons. 
First, the House, not the President, has the ``sole Power of 
Impeachment'' and the sole power ``to determine the Rules of 
its Proceedings.'' [Slide 472] That is article I, section 2, of 
the Constitution.
    Second, President Trump's ``due process'' argument has no 
basis in law, no basis in fact, no basis in the Constitution. 
President Trump may not preemptively deny any and all 
cooperation to the House and then assert that the House's 
procedures are illegitimate because they lack his cooperation.
    Third, President Trump's claim that he is being treated 
differently completely lacks merit. Despite what he contends, 
the House provided President Trump with greater protection than 
what was given to both President Nixon and President Clinton. 
The fact that President Trump failed to take advantage of these 
procedural protections does not mean they did not exist.
    President Trump is not the first President to complain 
about House procedures. He won't be the last. He is not the 
first one to challenge the motives of any investigation or 
certainly an impeachment inquiry. Such complaints are standard 
operating procedure from the article II executive branch.
    President Johnson, President Nixon, President Clinton had 
plenty of complaints, but no President--no President, no 
President--has treated such objections as a basis for 
withholding evidence, let alone categorically defying every 
single subpoena--none--except Donald John Trump.
    Finally, the obligation to comply with an impeachment 
subpoena is unyielding. It does not dissipate because the 
President believes House committees should invite different 
witnesses, give his defenders unfettered subpoena power, or 
involve his personal lawyers at the deposition stage of the 
process, when that has never been done.
    And if a President can defy Congress on such fragile 
grounds, then, it is difficult to imagine why any future 
President would ever comply with an impeachment or 
investigative subpoena again.
    Now, throughout our history, impeachments have been rare, 
and the Supreme Court has made clear that it is wary of 
intruding on matters of impeachment. This, of course, leaves 
room for interbranch negotiation, but it does not allow the 
President to engage in blanket defiance.
    President Trump's objections are not genuinely rooted in 
the law. They are not good-faith legal arguments. We know that 
because President Trump said early on he would fight all 
subpoenas. We know that because he declared the impeachment 
inquiry illegitimate before it even adopted any procedures; we 
know that because he has denounced every single effort to 
investigate him as a witch hunt; and we know that because he 
never even claimed executive privilege during the entire 
impeachment proceeding.
    President Trump's first excuse for obstructing Congress is 
his asserted belief that he did nothing wrong--that his July 25 
call with President Zelensky was ``perfect.''
    In the October 8 letter sent by his Counsel, [Slide 473] 
President Trump asserted the prerogative to defy all House 
subpoenas because he has declared his own innocence. As Mr. 
Cipollone put it, at President Trump's behest, ``the President 
did nothing wrong,'' and ``there is no basis for an impeachment 
inquiry.'' Yes, the White House Counsel includes this in a 
formal letter to the House, defying every single subpoena.
    As we have shown in our discussion of the first Article of 
Impeachment, these claims of innocence are baseless. They lack 
merit. We have provided overwhelming evidence of President 
Trump's guilt.
    The President cannot unlawfully obstruct a House 
impeachment inquiry because he sees no need to be investigated. 
One of the most sacred principles of justice is that no man 
should be the judge in his own case, and yet that is exactly 
what President Trump has been determined to do. But this is 
America. He cannot be judge, jury, and executioner. Moreover, 
the President cannot simply claim innocence and then walk away 
from a constitutionally mandated process.
    Even President Nixon did not do that, [Slide 474] as we 
have previously established. Congress has a constitutional 
responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-
control executive branch. Our responsibility is not to this 
President; it is to the American people.
    Blanket Presidential defiance would bring a swift halt to 
all congressional oversight of the Executive. That principle 
would have authorized categorical obstruction in the 
impeachments of President Johnson, President Nixon, and 
President Clinton. In each of those cases, the House was 
controlled by a different party than the Presidency, and the 
President attacked those inquiries as partisan. Yet those 
Presidents did not view their concerns with excessive 
partisanship as a basis for defying every single subpoena.
    The purpose of an impeachment inquiry is for the House to 
collect evidence to determine, on behalf of the American 
people, whether the President may have committed an impeachable 
offense because the Constitution vests the House alone with the 
``sole Power of Impeachment.''
    A President who serves as the judge of his own innocence is 
not acting as a President. That is a dictator. That is a 
despot. That is not democracy.
    The President also believes, it appears, that blanket 
obstruction is justified because the House did not expressly 
adopt a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry or 
properly delegate such investigatory powers to its committees.
    The full House voted in January in advance of the inquiry 
to adopt rules authorizing committees to conduct 
investigations, issue subpoenas, gather documents, and hear 
testimony.
    Beginning in the spring and summer of 2019, evidence came 
to light that President Trump and his associates might have 
been seeking the assistance of another foreign government, 
Ukraine, to influence the upcoming 2020 election.
    On September 9, the House investigating committees 
announced they were launching a joint investigation. They 
requested records from the White House and the Department of 
State. This investigation was consistent with all rules 
approved by the full House. At the same time, evidence emerged 
that the President may have attempted to cover up his actions 
and prevent the transmission of a whistleblower complaint to 
the Intelligence Committees of the Senate and the House.
    Given the gravity of these allegations and the immediacy of 
the threat to the next Presidential election, the Speaker of 
the House, a constitutional officer, explicitly named in 
article I, announced on September 24 that the House would begin 
a formal impeachment inquiry. There is nothing in the 
Constitution, nothing in Federal law, nothing in Supreme Court 
jurisprudence that required a formal vote at the time.
    The President has put forth fake arguments about process 
because he cannot defend the substance of these allegations.
    Following the announcement of the impeachment inquiry, the 
House investigating committees issued additional requests--and 
then subpoenas--for documents and testimony. The committees 
``made clear that this information would be collected as part 
of the House's impeachment inquiry and shared among the 
Committees, as well as with the Committee on the Judiciary as 
appropriate.
    Then, on October 31, the full House voted to approve H. 
Res. 660, which directed the House committees to ``continue 
their ongoing investigations as part of the existing . . . 
inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of 
Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach 
Donald John Trump.''
    In addition to affirming the ongoing House impeachment 
inquiry, H. Res. 660 set forth procedures for open hearings in 
the Intelligence Committee and for additional proceedings in 
the Judiciary Committee.
    Every step in this process was fully consistent with the 
Constitution, the rules of the House, and House precedent.
    The House's autonomy to structure its own proceedings for 
an impeachment inquiry is grounded in the Constitution. The 
President's principal argument to the contrary is that no 
committee of the House is permitted to investigate any 
Presidential misconduct until the full House acted.
    As a Federal district court recently confirmed, the notion 
that a full House vote is required to authorize an impeachment 
inquiry ``has no textual support in the U.S. Constitution [or] 
the governing rules of the House.''
    The investigations into misconduct by Presidents Andrew 
Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton all began prior to the House's 
consideration and approval of a resolution authorizing the 
investigations.
    Recently, under Republican control, the Judiciary Committee 
considered the impeachment of the Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue Service following a referral from another committee and 
absent a full vote of the House for an impeachment inquiry.
    There is no merit to President Trump's argument that the 
full House had to vote. The sequence of events in this 
particular case largely tracks those in the Nixon proceedings. 
There, the House Judiciary's proceedings began in October of 
1973, when resolutions calling for President Nixon's 
impeachment were introduced in the House and referred to the 
Judiciary Committee.
    Over the next several months, the committee investigated 
the Watergate break-in and coverup, among other matters, using 
its existing investigatory authorities. The committee also 
hired a special counsel and other attorneys to assist in these 
efforts. Most importantly, all of this occurred before the 
House approved a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee 
to investigate whether grounds to impeach Richard Nixon 
existed.
    In this instance, the committees began the investigation 
with their existing powers authorized by the full House. That 
course of events is entirely consistent with the Richard Nixon 
precedent. It is also common sense. After all, before voting to 
conduct an impeachment inquiry, the House must ascertain the 
nature and seriousness of the allegations and the scope of the 
inquiry that may follow their actions.
    President Trump's second excuse also fails. Let's now 
address the President's so-called due process and fairness 
argument. The President has phrased his complaints in the 
language of ``due process.'' He has complained that the 
procedures were not fair, even though they reflect prior 
practice and strike a reasonable balance between Presidential 
involvement on the one hand and the House's obligation to find 
the truth on the other.
    Presidents come and Presidents go. They have all sharply 
criticized House procedures, but no President has ever treated 
those objections as a basis for complete defiance. No President 
has ever done that.
    In the context of a House impeachment inquiry, it is fair 
to say that the President is a suspect--a suspect who may have 
committed a high crime or misdemeanor. He cannot tell the 
detectives investigating the possible constitutional crime what 
they should do in the context of their investigation.
    In the President's October 8 letter, Mr. Cipollone 
complains that he was denied ``the most basic protections 
demanded by due process under the Constitution and by 
fundamental fairness,'' including ``the right to cross-examine 
witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of 
testimony, to have access to evidence,'' and ``to have counsel 
present.''
    It sounds terrible, but it is not accurate.
    The President appears to have mistaken the initial phases 
of the impeachment inquiry for a full-blown trial. The trial 
phase of the impeachment inquiry is taking place right now.
    Chairman Peter Rodino of the Judiciary Committee once 
observed, as it related to the impeachment proceedings against 
President Nixon, that ``it is not a right but a privilege or a 
courtesy'' for the President to participate through counsel.
    An impeachment inquiry is not a trial; rather, it entails a 
collection and evaluation of facts before a trial occurs. In 
that respect, the House acts like a grand jury or a prosecutor 
investigating the evidence to determine whether charges are 
warranted or not. Federal grand juries and prosecutors do not 
allow targets of their investigation to coordinate witness 
testimony. The protections that the President labeled as ``due 
process'' do not apply here because those entitlements that he 
sought, many of which were actually afforded to him--but those 
entitlements that he sought would not necessarily be available 
to any American in a grand jury investigation.
    Moreover, it should be clear that the House, 
notwithstanding this framework, has typically provided a level 
of transparency in impeachment inquiries, particularly as it 
relates to Presidents.
    In past impeachment inquiries, this has typically meant 
that the principal evidence relied upon by the House Judiciary 
Committee is disclosed to the President and to the public, 
though some evidence in past proceedings has actually remained 
confidential.
    The President has typically been given an opportunity to 
participate in the proceedings at a stage when evidence has 
been fully gathered and is presented to the Judiciary 
Committee. President Trump was given the chance to do that in 
this case, but he declined.
    Presidents have been entitled to present evidence that is 
relevant to the inquiry and to request that relevant witnesses 
be called. President Trump was given the chance to do that in 
the House impeachment inquiry before the Judiciary Committee, 
but he declined.
    Under H. Res. 660, President Trump received procedural 
protections not just equal to but in some instances greater 
than that afforded to Presidents Nixon and Clinton. So let's be 
clear. The privileges described in the October 8 letter were in 
fact offered to President Trump as they had been in prior 
impeachment inquiries. The President was able to review all 
evidence relied on by the House investigating committees, 
including evidence that the minority's public report identified 
as favorable to President Trump.
    During the Judiciary Committee proceedings, the President 
had opportunities to present evidence, call witnesses, have 
counsel present to raise objections, cross-examine witnesses, 
and respond to the evidence raised against him.
    As the Rules Committee report accompanying H. Res. 660 
noted, [Slide 475] these privileges are ``commensurate with the 
inquiry process followed in the cases of'' Nixon and Clinton. 
President Trump simply chose not to avail himself of what had 
been afforded to him.
    The fact that President Trump declined to take advantage of 
these protections does not excuse his blanket, unconstitutional 
obstruction. Unlike the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, in this 
particular instance, the argument that the President has made--
the argument that he has made as it relates to the 
investigative process--is not analogous.
    In this case, the House conducted a significant portion of 
the factual investigation itself because no independent 
prosecutor was appointed to investigate the allegations of 
wrongdoing against President Trump. Attorney General William 
Barr refused to authorize a criminal investigation into the 
serious allegations of misconduct against the President. They 
tried to whitewash the whole sordid affair. Left to their own 
devices, the House investigating committees followed standard 
best practices for investigations, consistent with the law 
enforcement investigation into Presidents Nixon and Clinton, in 
advance of their impeachments.
    The committees released transcripts of all interviews and 
depositions conducted during the investigation. During the 
investigation, more than 100 Members of the House participated 
in the so-called closed-door proceedings--more than 100 Members 
of the House, 47 of whom were Republicans. They all had the 
opportunity to ask questions. They all had the opportunity to 
ask questions with equal time.
    The Intelligence Committee held public hearings with 12 of 
the key witnesses testifying, including several requested by 
the House Republicans. It is important to note that the very 
same procedures in H. Res. 660 were supported by Acting White 
House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney when he served as a member 
of the Oversight Committee and by Secretary of State Mike 
Pompeo when he served as a member of the Select Committee on 
Benghazi.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. GOWDY. I can just tell you in the private interviews there is 
never any of what you saw Thursday. It is one hour on the Republican 
side, one hour on the Democrat side--which is why you are going to see 
the next two dozen interviews done privately. Look at the other 
investigations being done right now. The Lois Lerner investigation that 
was just announced, was that public or private?

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. If this process was good enough for 
other Presidents, why isn't it good enough for President Trump?
    Representative Gowdy finished that statement by saying: 
``The private ones have always produced the best results.'' 
``The private ones,'' according to Trey Gowdy, ``have always 
produced the best results.''
    President Trump complained that his counsel was not 
afforded the opportunity to participate during the Intel 
Committee's proceedings. But neither President Nixon nor 
President Clinton were permitted to have counsel participate in 
the initial fact-gathering stages when they were investigated 
by special counsel, independent counsel.
    President Nixon certainly had no attorney present when the 
prosecutors and grand juries began collecting evidence about 
Watergate and related matters. President Nixon did not have an 
attorney present in this distinguished body when the Senate 
Select Committee on Watergate began interviewing witnesses and 
holding public hearings. Nor did President Clinton have an 
attorney present when prosecutors from the Office of 
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr deposed witnesses and 
elicited their testimony before a grand jury.
    President Trump's attorney could have cross-examined the 
Intel Committee's counsel during his presentation of evidence 
before the House Judiciary Committee. That would have 
functioned as the equivalent opportunity afforded to President 
Clinton to have his counsel cross-examine Kenneth Starr, which 
he did, at length.
    President Trump was provided a level of transparency and 
the opportunity to participate consistent with the highest 
standards of due process and fairness given to other Presidents 
who found themselves in the midst of an impeachment inquiry.
    The President--and I am winding down--the President's next 
procedural complaint is that it was unconstitutional to exclude 
agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions. 
The basis for the rule excluding agency counsel is 
straightforward. It prevents agency officials who are directly 
implicated in the abuses Congress is investigating from trying 
to prevent their own employees from coming forward to tell 
Congress and the American people the truth. It is common sense. 
The rule protects the rights of witnesses by allowing them to 
be accompanied in depositions by personal counsel, a right that 
was afforded to all of the witnesses who appeared in this 
matter.
    Agency attorneys have been excluded from congressional 
depositions of executive branch officials for decades under 
both Republicans and Democrats, including Republican Chairman 
Dan Burton, Republican Chairman Darrell Issa, Republican 
Chairman Jason Chaffetz, Republican Chairman Trey Gowdy, 
Republican Chairman Kevin Brady, and Republican Chairman Jeb 
Hensarling, just to name a few.
    Again, the Constitution provides the House with the sole 
power of impeachment and the sole authority to determine the 
rules of its proceedings, which were fair to all involved. 
Given the Constitution's clarity on this point, the President's 
argument that he can engage in blanket obstruction is just dead 
wrong.
    President Trump also objects that the House minority lacked 
sufficient subpoena rights. But the subpoena rules that were 
applied in the Trump impeachment inquiry were put into place by 
my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
House Republicans, when they were in the majority. We are 
playing by the same rules devised by our Republican colleagues.
    President Nixon did not engage in blanket obstruction. 
President Clinton did not engage in blanket obstruction. No 
President of the United States has ever acted this way.
    Lastly, we should reject President Trump's suggestion that 
he can conceal all evidence of misconduct based on unspecified 
confidentiality interests. Those are his exact words, 
``confidentiality interests.'' Not once in the entire 
impeachment inquiry did he ever actually invoke executive 
privilege.
    Perhaps that is because executive privilege cannot be 
invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps that is 
because executive privilege does not permit blanket obstruction 
that includes blocking documents and witnesses from the entire 
executive branch. Perhaps President Trump didn't invoke 
executive privilege because it has never been accepted as a 
sufficient basis for completely and totally defying all 
impeachment inquiries and subpoenas. Or perhaps President Trump 
didn't invoke executive privilege because when President Nixon 
did so, he lost decisively, unanimously, clearly before the 
Supreme Court. Whatever the explanation, President Trump never 
invoked executive privilege. So it is not a credible defense to 
his obstruction of Congress.
    President Trump has lastly suggested that his obstruction 
is justified because his top aides are ``absolutely immune'' 
from being compelled to testify before Congress. Every Federal 
court to consider the so-called doctrine of ``absolute 
immunity'' has rejected it.
    In 2008, a Federal court rejected an assertion by the 43rd 
President of the United States that White House Counsel Harriet 
Miers was immune from being compelled to testify, noting that 
the President had failed to point to a single judicial opinion 
to justify that claim.
    And on November 25 of last year, another Federal judge 
rejected President Trump's claim of absolute immunity for 
former White House Counsel Don McGahn. The court concluded: 
[Slide 476]

    Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from 
compulsory congressional process--no matter how many times the 
Executive branch has asserted as much over the years--even if the 
President expressly directs such officials [not to comply].

    The court added: [Slide 477] ``[Simply stated], the primary 
takeaway from the past 250 [-some-odd] years of recorded 
American history is that Presidents are not kings.''
    The President is not a King.
    President Trump tried to cheat. He got caught, and then he 
worked hard to cover it up. He must be held accountable for 
abusing his power. He must be held accountable for obstructing 
Congress. He must be held accountable for breaking his promise 
to the American people.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. My foreign policy will always put the interests of 
the American people and American security above all else. Has to be 
first, has to be. That will be the foundation of every single decision 
that I will make.

    Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. What does it mean to put America 
First? America is a great country, but, above all else, I think 
America is an idea--a precious idea. It is an idea that has 
withstood the test of time--an enduring idea--year after year, 
decade after decade, century after century, as we continue a 
long, necessary, and majestic march toward a more perfect 
Union. America is an idea: one person, one vote; liberty and 
justice for all; equal protection under the law; government of 
the people, by the people, and for the people; the preeminence 
of the rule of law. America is an idea. We can either defend 
that idea or we can abandon it. God help us all if we choose to 
abandon it.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
                                 recess
    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, we will take a 30-minute 
break for dinner.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    There being no objection, at 6:45 p.m. the Senate, sitting 
as a Court of Impeachment, recessed until 7:32 p.m.; whereupon 
the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief 
Justice.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
    Mr. McCONNELL. I have spoken with Congressman Schiff and 
his team, and it looks like we have a couple more hours.
    Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, 
counsel for the President, impeachment exists not to inflict 
personal punishment for past wrongdoing but, rather, to protect 
against future Presidential misconduct that would endanger 
democracy and the rule of law.
    President Trump remains a threat in at least three 
fundamental ways:
    First, he continues to assert in court and elsewhere that 
nobody in the U.S. Government can investigate him for 
wrongdoing, making him unaccountable.
    Second, his conduct here is not a one-off; it is a pattern 
of soliciting foreign interference in our elections to his own 
advantage and then using the powers of his office to stop 
anyone who dares to investigate.
    Finally, the President's obstruction is very much a 
constitutional crime in progress, harming Congress, as it 
deliberates these very proceedings, and the American people, 
who deserve to know the facts.
    A President who believes he can get away with anything and 
can use his office to conceal evidence of abuse threatens us 
all.
    President Trump is the first President in U.S. history to 
say he is immune from any effort to examine his conduct or 
check his power. [Slide 478] He claims he is completely immune 
from criminal indictment and prosecution while serving as 
President. He claims he can commit any crime--even shoot 
someone on Fifth Avenue, as he has joked about--with impunity. 
The President's own lawyers have argued in court that he cannot 
even be investigated for violating the law under any 
circumstance. No President of either party has ever made claims 
like this.
    If an investigation somehow does uncover misconduct by the 
President, as this investigation has done, the President 
believes he can simply quash it. He claims the right to end 
Federal law enforcement investigations for any reason--or none 
at all--even when there is credible evidence of his own 
wrongdoing.
    Added together, the President's positions amount to a 
license to do anything he wants. No court has ever accepted 
this view and for good reason: Our Founders created a system in 
which all people--even Presidents--are bound by the law and 
accountable for their actions.
    In addition to claiming that he is immune from criminal 
process, President Trump contends that he is not accountable to 
either Congress or the judiciary. He has invoked bizarre legal 
theories to justify defying congressional investigations. He 
has argued that Congress is forbidden from having the courts 
intervene when executive branch officials disregard its 
subpoenas. He has sued to block third parties from complying 
with congressional subpoenas.
    Perhaps most remarkably, President Trump has claimed that 
Congress cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an 
impeachment inquiry, while simultaneously claiming that 
Congress cannot investigate his misconduct in an impeachment 
inquiry. Of course, President Trump considers any inquiry to be 
illegitimate if he thinks he did nothing wrong, doubts the 
motives of Congress, or decides that he would prefer a 
different set of rules.
    Let's review the President's position. He can't be 
investigated for crimes. He can end any Federal law enforcement 
investigation into him. He is immune from any State law 
enforcement investigation. Neither he nor his aides can be 
subpoenaed. He can reject subpoenas based on broad, novel, and 
even rejected theories. When he does reject subpoenas, Congress 
is not allowed to sue him, but he is allowed to sue to block 
others from complying with congressional subpoenas. Congress 
definitely can't investigate him outside of an impeachment 
inquiry, and, again, it can't investigate him as part of one.
    The bottom line is that the President truly believes that 
he is above the law. This is not our system, and it never has 
been. The President is a constitutional officer. Unlike a King, 
he is accountable to the Constitution. But this President 
doesn't believe that, and that is why we are here.
    Remember, the precedent that you set in this trial will 
shape American democracy for the future. It will govern this 
President, and it will govern those who follow. If you let the 
President get away with his obstruction, you risk grave and 
irreparable harm to the separation of powers itself.
    Representative Lawrence Hogan, a Republican from Maryland, 
made this point during the Nixon impeachment hearing.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    Mr. HOGAN. The historical precedent we are setting here is so great 
because in every future impeachment of a President, it is inconceivable 
that the evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands 
of the executive branch which is under his controls. So I agree with 
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, if we do not pass this article 
today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless.

    Mr. Manager CROW. This leads us to a second consideration: 
the President's pattern of obstructing.
    Article II describes President Trump's impeachable conduct 
in obstructing Congress. On its own, that warrants removal from 
office. Yet it must be noted that the President's obstruction 
fits a disturbing pattern.
    As stated in article II, President Trump's obstruction is 
``consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United 
States Government investigations into foreign interference in 
United States elections.'' [Slide 479]
    Another example is President Trump's attempts to impede the 
special counsel's investigation into Russian interference with 
the 2016 election, as well as the President's sustained efforts 
to obstruct the special counsel after learning that he was 
under investigation for obstruction of justice.
    The special counsel's investigation addressed an issue of 
extraordinary importance to our national security and 
democracy: the integrity of our elections themselves. Rather 
than aid the special counsel's investigation, however, 
President Trump sought to thwart it and used the powers of his 
office to do it.
    After learning that he himself was under investigation, 
President Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel, 
sought to curtail the special counsel's investigation, 
instructed the White House Counsel to create a false record and 
make false public statements, and tampered with at least two 
key witnesses in the investigation.
    The pattern is as unmistakable as it is unnerving.
    In one moment, President Trump welcomed and invited a 
foreign nation to interfere in an election to his advantage, 
and the next, he solicited and pressured a foreign nation to do 
so.
    In one moment, President Trump used the powers of his 
office to obstruct the special counsel, and the next, he used 
the powers of his office to obstruct the House impeachment 
inquiry.
    In one moment, the President stated that he remained free 
to invite foreign interference in our elections. In the next, 
he, in fact, invited additional foreign interference in our 
elections.
    (Text of Videotape presentation:)

    President TRUMP. By the way, likewise, China should start an 
investigation into the Bidens.

    Mr. Manager CROW. Indeed, President Trump placed his 
fateful July 25 call to President Zelensky just 1 day after the 
special counsel testified in Congress about his findings.
    As Professor Gerhardt testified before the Judiciary 
Committee: [Slide 480]

    The power to impeach includes the power to investigate, but, if the 
president can stymy this House's impeachment inquiry, he can eliminate 
the impeachment powers as a means for holding him and future presidents 
accountable for serious misconduct. If left unchecked, the president 
will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on 
his behalf in the next election.

    I must emphasize that President Trump's obstruction 
persists to this day.
    The second Article of Impeachment charges a high crime in 
progress. As a result, the President's wrongdoing did not just 
harm the House as we have performed our own constitutional 
duty; it is also harming the Senate, which is being deprived of 
information you need before the votes you will soon take. And, 
of course, the true victim is the American people, who deserve 
the full truth.
    As we have discussed, the President claims that all the 
evidence he is hiding and covering up would actually prove his 
innocence. To borrow a phrase from the late Justice Scalia, 
that claim ``taxes the credulity of the credulous.''
    President Trump has used all the authority of his office to 
block the full truth from coming to light. He has defied 
subpoenas and ordered others to do so. He has publicly 
intimidated and threatened witnesses. He has attacked the House 
for daring to investigate him. And he has lobbed an endless 
volley of personal attacks on witnesses and meritless 
complaints about procedure to sow confusion and distract the 
American people.
    The President's abuses are unfolding before our eyes, and 
they must be stopped.
    Before I conclude, I think you all deserve an explanation 
from me as to why I am standing here. There has been a lot of 
conversation in the last few years about what makes America 
great, and I have some ideas about that. I happen to think that 
what makes America great is that generation after generation, 
there have been Americans who have been willing to stand up and 
put aside their self-interest to make great sacrifices for the 
public good, for our country. I know because I have seen people 
do that. Like some of the people in this Chamber, I have seen 
people give everything for this country so we could sit here 
today.
    Now, this isn't politically expedient. It certainly isn't 
for me. It is hard. It requires sacrifice. It is uncomfortable. 
But that is the very definition of ``public service''; that we 
are here to give of ourselves for the country, for others, at 
sacrifice to ourselves. Those who have given so much for this 
country deserve nothing less from us now than to try to honor 
those sacrifices. I have tried to do that the last few days. My 
time is done, and it is now your turn.
    Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Chief Justice, Senators, counsel for 
the President, you will be pleased to know this is the last 
presentation of the evening. And as I started last night, I 
made reference to some good advice I got from an encouraging 
voice that said: Keep it up but not too long.
    Tonight I got some equally good advice: To be immortal, you 
don't need to be eternal. I will do my best not to be eternal.
    The first point I would like to make is I am tired. I don't 
know about you, but I am exhausted, and I can only imagine how 
you feel. But I am also very deeply grateful for just how you 
have attended to these presentations and discussions over the 
last few days. I am deeply grateful. I can tell how much 
consideration you have given to our point of view and the 
President's point of view, and that is all we can ask. At the 
end of the day, all we can ask is that you hear us out and make 
the best judgment that you can, consistent with your conscience 
and our Constitution.
    Now, I wanted to start out tonight with where we began when 
we first appeared before you about a week ago, and that is with 
the resolution itself, with what the President is charged with 
in the articles and how that holds up now that you have heard 
the evidence from the House.
    Donald Trump was impeached in article I for abuse of power, 
and that article provides that:

    In his conduct of the office of the President of the United 
States--and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to 
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best 
of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the 
United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has abused the 
powers of the Presidency, in that:
    Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the 
interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United 
States Presidential election.

    ``President Trump solicited interference of a foreign 
government, Ukraine, in the 2020 election.''
    That has been proved.

    He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included 
soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce 
investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election 
prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 Presidential 
election to his advantage.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine 
to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government 
acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the 
investigations.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for 
corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.

    That has been proved.

    In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a 
manner that compromised the national security of the United States and 
undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process.

    That has been proved.

    He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through 
the following means:
    (1) President Trump--acting both directly and through his agents 
within and outside the United States Government--corruptly solicited 
the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into--
    (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, 
Jr.; and

    That has been proved.

    (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--
rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential 
election.

    That has been proved.

    (2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump--acting both 
directly and through his agents within and outside the United States 
Government--conditioned two official acts on the public announcements 
that he had requested--
    (A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds 
that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of 
providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose 
Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended.

    That has been proved.

    (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President 
of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for 
the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

    That has been proved.

    (3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President 
Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the 
Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging 
and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal 
political benefit.

    That has been proved.

    These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous 
invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

    That has been proved.

    In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency 
by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national 
interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit.

    That has been proved.

    He also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a 
foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.

    That has been proved.

    Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that 
he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if 
allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly 
incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from 
office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States.

    That will be for you to decide. But the facts have been 
proved. Those facts are not contested. We have met our burden.

    Article II: Obstruction of Congress.
    The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall 
have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and the President ``shall be 
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, 
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' In his conduct of the 
office of President of the United States--and in violation of his 
constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of 
the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of 
his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed--Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, 
and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of 
Representatives pursuant to its ``sole Power of Impeachment''.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump has abused the powers of Presidency in a manner 
offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
    The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry 
focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of 
Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

    That has been proved.

    As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking 
investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed 
vital to the inquiry for various Executive Branch agencies and offices, 
and current and former officials.

    That has been proved.

    In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump 
directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to 
comply with those subpoenas.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency 
against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and 
assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of 
the ``sole Power of Impeachment'' vested by the Constitution in the 
House of Representatives.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the 
following means:
    (1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by 
withholding the production of documents sought therein by the 
Committees.

    That has been proved.

    (2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy 
lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records 
from the Committees--in response to which the Department of State, 
Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department 
of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

    That has been proved.

    (3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to 
cooperate with the Committees--in response to which nine Administration 
officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael ``Mick'' 
Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston 
Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and 
T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

    That has been proved.

    These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous 
efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into 
foreign interference in United States elections.

    That has been proved.

    Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to 
himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an 
impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral 
prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of 
Representatives in the exercise of its ``sole Power of Impeachment.''

    That has been proved.

    In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the 
complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and 
impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives 
to investigate ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''.

    That has been proved.

    This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own 
repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment--
and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in 
the House of Representatives.

    This has been proved.

    In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to 
his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to 
the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the 
manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    That has been proved.

    Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that 
he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in 
office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-
government and the rule of law.

    That has been proved.

    President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from 
office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States.

    That will be for you to determine.
    Let me say something about this second article. The facts 
of the President's defiance of Congress are very simple because