[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S457-S471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                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

[[Page S458]]

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:)

       Ms. 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:)

       Ms. 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 pedaling 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, 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

[[Page S459]]

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.
  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,'' 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:)

       Ms. 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, Volodymyr 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:

       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:)

       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

[[Page S460]]

``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:)

       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: ``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: ``[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:

       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:)

       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, 
LTC 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

[[Page S461]]

     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.
       GOLDMAN. Right. You understood that 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.
       GOLDMAN. Did you understand what he meant by that?
       Dr. HILL. I did, actually.
       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:)

       STEPHANOPOULOS. 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.
       STEPHANOPOULOS. 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:

       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:)

       Timothy 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

[[Page S462]]

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.
  Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the first attempt to redraw Europe's 
border since World War II.
  In 2017, 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

[[Page S463]]

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: ``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.
  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:

       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

[[Page S464]]

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 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

[[Page S465]]

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 6, 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: ``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:)

       LAURA 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

[[Page S466]]

     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.

  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. 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 ``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:)

       Mr. 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:)

       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.
       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.

[[Page S467]]

       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.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       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:

       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: ``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:)

       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.
       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: ``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 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:)

       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:
  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--was 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: ``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, ``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?

[[Page S468]]

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.
  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.''
  LTC 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 continues 
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.'' 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: ``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:

       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:

       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:

       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

[[Page S469]]

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:

       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:)

       News 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 ``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.
  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, ``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:

       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 former 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

[[Page S470]]

Oval Office meeting that had been sought.
  President Zelensky said on the call:

       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:

       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, LTC 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:)

       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. 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:)

       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:)

       DAVID 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

[[Page S471]]

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.

                          ____________________