Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Sondland: Trump Cared More About Investigations of Biden Than About Ukraine. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired November 13, 2019 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:30:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- was to not provide lethal assistance to the Ukrainians. And the Trump administration is now doing it and both Taylor and Kent have admitted.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: But the Obama administration --

(CROSSTALK)

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: That's the reason matter, Scott -- isn't the reason why you don't do it. If it's a policy -- if it's related to what you think is best for Europe, that's one thing. But if it's just because the president doesn't want the aid to go to people who won't give him dirt on the Bidens, isn't there a difference in the rationale? Does it matter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the rationale matters but also the net result to the policy to Republicans matters. And they feel like this is another case where the Obama administration got away with terrible judgment and the Trump administration is not getting away with what could be best.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: You don't mean net result as in all is well that ends well because that's not --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, the net result that the Obama administration wouldn't provide aid that the Trump administration is now providing.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There's no evidence -- that was because the president decided not to do it not for any corrupt reason. He wasn't waiting for anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you know why he didn't decide to do it?

KING: I would say that Kent and Taylor both helped their credibility to that point because Taylor said he thought Obama was too weak and he applauded the Trump administration for going to the lethal aid. Kent put on the record that he called the vice president's office during the Obama administration and said I don't think it's too wise that your son has business dealings here while you're the vice president of the United States in charge of Ukraine policy. So I think they both actually helped their credibility by saying we're straight shooters, we call it like we see it. BASH: Can I just add as we wait for a very different set of questioning from Republicans just to bounce off of what you were saying. We are going to hear Republicans over and over, particularly Nunes and the counsel pull out the fact that he -- neither Taylor nor Kent heard directly from the president, that it's hearsay.

I actually got a text during this testimony from a Republican lawmaker with a YouTube link to the (INAUDIBLE) song heard it from a friend, I'm not kidding. I mean, that is what they're preparing to do. It's what they did, we know from the transcripts of the depositions, the closed-door interviews. And it's what they've been saying which is why -- except the fact that we are going to hear from Gordon Sondland and he is going to put all that to rest.

KING: And potentially this new witness, the staffer who -- they'll challenge him saying are you sure you overheard a cell phone conversation.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Right, in a restaurant.

KING: And I think to Dana's point, the challenge for the Democrats is to try to turn to the Republicans and say, if you are so sure, why won't you call up Mick Mulvaney, why won't you tell the president to send up John Bolton, why won't you tell the president to send up Mick Mulvaney's deputy and the chief of staff's office and at the Office of Management and Budget, the people who are responsible because the White House was unsuccessful in blocking Kent and Taylor, has been successful in keeping a half dozen people from speaking at all.

BORGER: So Sondland is the missing link here. He's the one, if you want to draw a direct line between the president and holding up the aid and caring only about investigations as he told these people at the dinner, Sondland is the missing link. And then --

COOPER: Although who knows what Sondland -- I mean, his testimony -- he gave one testimony. He then had to go back and revise once other people had come forward and kind of pointed out that his testimony was not accurate.

BORGER: So then if they attack Sondland, let's play that out. So say they attack Sondland and say you have no credibility, you have revised your testimony in the past, then the Democrats do exactly what John is suggesting which is there are some people who actually had direct conversations with the president about Ukraine aid. Well, who would that be? That would be John Bolton.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is no explicit requirement of there being this direct conversation that's provided. It is very, very helpful. It is extraordinarily compelling and persuasive. But you can make cases all the time on circumstantial evidence and the idea of inference. And certainly what we're talking about here is about inference.

And although we read it on paper and saw the transcript, the idea of this is not a quid pro quo, well, you hear it and watch the eyes of the person testifying. It's more of ribbing of now I'm telling you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, you're actually (INAUDIBLE).

So, when you see it played out that way, it's not really required to have it. However, you're right, it's important to have somebody to at least say it was the intention of the president of the United States. But this is all (INAUDIBLE) with the idea of criminal court. We're not there anymore.

NAFTALI: I just wanted to say, you need a pattern of corruption. Let's keep in mind that Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted for articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon before the smoking gun conversation came out. It's a pattern of corruption. You don't need direct evidence of the president ordering it.

What you need to be sure is that -- the argument that the Republicans who did not vote for impeachment made at that time was these people were all corrupt actors, they weren't doing what the president wanted them to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What you need is a political argument that will get you a majority of votes in the House. This is not a courtroom where a judge --

KING: They have that. The test (INAUDIBLE) -- they have enough Democrats. Nancy Pelosi would not have let this go to the next step if she was not confident they get to the finish line. The big challenge of these hearings are, do you move any Republicans. And if you move any Republicans, do you need a second hand. And essentially, how many Republicans can you move in the House? And then you take it to the Senate.

That's the --

COOPER: Scott, do you think any -- do you see any Republicans?

[12:35:04] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not this morning. I mean -- look, I think one of the challenges for the Democrats is can they hold the American people's attention long enough to get to Sondland next week because obviously, he's the linchpin of this. We have second and third-hand conversations today. But when you get to Sondland, he's actually maybe spoken directly to the president about these matters. He's the only one who's going to testify, so he's the only one I think would matter to a Republican senator who can always fall back on what you just said, John which is, well, I don't know, it's hearsay and I mean --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I love the idea that it is now 12:35 Eastern, the hearing began at 10:00. And apparently the American people's attention span is so short they're bored already and the issue is over. I mean, you know, let's give this a little time. Let's hear from some witnesses. Let's see how these two witnesses hold up under cross-examination.

COOPER: What I don't understand about the Republican theory of, well, this is hearsay, I mean, first of all, that's what they said about the whistleblower and it turns out that pretty much everything the whistleblower said has been verified by other people. So, a, I don't really understand the continued focus on the whistleblower.

But why not -- if you're saying that this is all just hearsay, that nobody saw the president give these orders, then you're implying that all of these people are running their own side government in like a cabal to screw over Ukraine.

KING: Most Republicans don't believe that, Anderson. Most Republicans in private conversations will tell you this is ugly, this is horrible to varying degrees. Some just think it was horrible, some think it was rogue, some think it was terrible, some think it was reprehensible. A lot of Republicans would like to get to the place to say this should not have happened, this went off the rails, it is wrong. It's not impeachable because they did get the money in the end, right?

They didn't do the investigations in the end. Let the American people settle this next November. But they can't go there because the president has told them not to.

COOPER: And also, they only got the money in the end because the White House got wind that the whistleblower -- that a complaint was being made (INAUDIBLE).

BORGER: And who knows whether it was --

COOPER: In fact, the Times has reported that Ukraine was going to capitulate and do these investigations because they felt they had no other choice.

BORGER: So does the Justice Department give the White House a little wink-wink and say, guess what, there is a whistleblower investigation going on? OK, the money is released. And by the way, if you're looking at a timeline, that is right around the time that John Bolton is fired or leaves.

COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. More ahead and more testimony in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House.

[12:40:00] It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance, security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support. It was much more alarming, the White House meeting was one thing, and security assistance was much more alarming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was the testimony that occurred just a short time ago from Ambassador Taylor. We're going to be hearing more testimony in just a few moments. They took a short break. Looks like Adam Schiff is already back. Soon, it will also go over to the Republican side for 45 minutes of uninterrupted questioning by Republicans. So that will be interesting to see.

It does bear repeating and I think both Taylor and the other guest -- the other witness made it very clear that, you know, this wasn't happening in a vacuum. This was happening in a country at war where lives were being lost every day or every week in this trench warfare that's going on in Ukraine. So this holdup of aid, it's not just like pieces on a chessboard. It's actually -- there is a human cost potentially behind all of this.

NAFTALI: Yes, it's not a bloodless policy dispute. And I think people have to keep that in mind. This is not an issue of an Obama policy versus a Trump policy. The Trump policy was to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. It's this irregular policy which comes out of the blue and undermines our national policy to help Ukraine which is at issue here and why people talk about corrupt intent.

KING: To Tim's point, I think there were two key things. Ambassador Kent brought it up in his opening statement that Rudy Giuliani was not just dealing with people in Ukraine, he was dealing with known crooks and corrupt people in Ukraine. The very people that they had tried to push to the side. I think that's a huge challenge for the Democrats to bring that out that Rudy Giuliani was working not just with Ukrainians but with known bad actors.

The other point is the drug deal from John Bolton. If you can get that on the record in a convincing way, not just a (INAUDIBLE) about foreign policy, a drug deal. It was bad, it was wrong.

DEVIN NUNES: -- call summary for which the democrats want to impeach President Trump is dramatically different from their nefarious depiction of it. What it actually shows is a pleasant exchange between two leaders who discussed mutual cooperation over a range of issues. The democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery and a host of other monstrous crimes being committed against President Zelensky. Yet President Zelensky himself insists there was nothing improper whatsoever about the conversation. Indeed the routine nature of the call helps to explain why in this committee's last public hearing democrats recited a fictitious version of the call. Instead of reading the actual transcript.

The democrats depicted the President saying "I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent understand, lots of it, on this and on that" The transcript did not show President Trump saying anything remotely like that. The President did not ask Ukraine to make up dirt on anyone. But the democrats are not trying to discover facts they're trying to invent a narrative. And if the facts they need do not exist then they'll just make it up. Not only does President Zelensky deny the democrats characterization of the call but as Ambassador Taylor testified to this committee the Ukrainians did not even know at the time of the call that a temporary delay was put on the security assistance for them.

Furthermore, as the Ambassador testified these holds occur from time to time. Both he and Ambassador Volker were confident the delay would be lifted. And in fact military aid to Ukraine has actually substantially improved since President Trump took office. Ambassador Taylor testified that President was the first President to see that Ukraine was afforded Javelin anti-tank weapons. This was a very strong message that Americans are willing to provide more than blankets. This was the Obama's administrations approach.

Note this important fact, the security assistance was provided to Ukraine without the Ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackmailed to do. So we're supposed to believe that President Trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred and which the supposed victim denies ever happened.

I'd like to briefly speak about the core of mistruth at the heart of the democrats impeachment drive. They claim the President tried to get the Ukrainians to "manufacture dirt against his political rivals".

[12:45:00] This is supported by precisely zero evidence. Once again the democrats simply made it up. But let's consider the broader question about why President Trump may have wanted answers to questions about Ukraine meddling in 2016.

The democrats (downplay) it nor outright deny the many indications that Ukrainian actually did meddle in the election. A shocking about face for people who for three years argued that foreign election meddling was an intolerable crime that threatened the heart of our democracy. While the brazen suddenness of this u-turn is jarring this denial's a necessary part of their argument. After all if there actually were indications of Ukraine election meddling and if foreign election meddling is a dire threat then President Trump would have a perfectly good reason for wanting to find out what happened. And since the meddling was aimed against his campaign he'd have good reason for sending his personal attorney to make inquiries about it.

What's strange is that some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions who express alarm about these inquiries were remarkably uninformed about these indications about Ukrainian election meddling. And why the President may have been concerned by them. For example I noted previous Alexandra Chalupa former staffer for the democratic national committee admitted to Politico that she worked with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign, which she passed on to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton Campaign.

Chalupa revealed that Ukrainian Embassy officials themselves were also working directly with reporters to trade information and leads about the Trump campaign. Ambassador Kent you didn't seem to be too concerned about it in the last round of questioning so I'll just skip you. Because we know that wasn't a concern. But Ambassador Taylor you testified to this committee to you only recently became aware of reports of this cooperation between Ukrainian Embassy officials and Chalupa to undermine the Trump campaign in your last deposition. Is that correct?

TAYLOR: Mr. Nunes, is it correct that I had not known about this before.

NUNES: Just going over your last deposition.

TAYLOR: Exactly right.

NUNES: The Politico article sites three named Ukrainian officials asserting that the Ukrainian Embassy supported the Hillary Clinton campaign. It quotes "Ukrainian Parliamentary Andriy Artemenko saying "It was clear they were supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy they did everything from organizing meetings with the Clinton team to publicly supporting her to criticizing Trump. I think that they simply did, didn't meet with the Trump campaign because they thought Hillary would win," unquote. Ambassador Taylor, you testified you were unfamiliar with that statement. Is that correct?

TAYLOR: That is correct.

NUNES: You also said you were unaware that then-Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Valeriy Chaly wrote an op-ed in The Hill during the 2016 presidential campaign criticizing then-candidate Trump. Is that correct?

TAYLOR: That is correct.

NUNES: You said you did not know that Serhiy Leshchenko, then a Ukrainian Parliamentarian, had admitted that part of his motivation in spreading information about the so-called black ledger, a disputed document purporting the reveal of corruption by a former Trump campaign official, was to undermine the Trump's candidacy. This was in your deposition. Is that still correct?

TAYLOR: That is still correct, sir.

NUNES: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr testified to Congress that Leshchenko was a source for Fusion GPS's operation to dirty up the Trump campaign, including the compilation of the Steele dossier on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

You testified you were unaware that Leshchenko served as a source for that project. Ambassador Taylor, is this still correct?

TAYLOR: It is, sir.

NUNES: You said you did not know that Ukrainian Internal Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov mocked and disparaged then-candidate Trump on Facebook and Twitter. Is that still correct?

TAYLOR: That is correct.

NUNES: Ambassador Taylor, in your testimony to this committee, you said you were never briefed on these reports and statements, that you did not do due diligence before taking your post to discover that President - the President's and Mayor Giuliani's concerns may have been and that you did - what they may have been and that you did not discuss them with Ambassador Yovanovitch. Is that still correct?

TAYLOR: Yes, sir. [12:50:00] NUNES: Furthermore, you said it upset you to hear about the many indications of Ukrainian election meddling. Your precise words were, I'm going to read them back to you, "based on this political article, which again surprises me, disappoints me because I think it's a mistake for any diplomat of government official in one country to interfere in the political life of another, that's disappointing," unquote. Ambassador Taylor, is that still your testimony?

TAYLOR: Mr. Nunes, it is. Subsequent to that, I looked into the circumstances for several of the things that you just mentioned. In 2016, candidate Trump had made a statement saying that it was possible that he would allow Crimea to go back to Russia. He expressed that - he expressed the - the sentiment or the opinion that it was possible that Crimea wanted to go back to Russia.

What I can tell you, Mr. Nunes, is that those - that sentiment is amazingly inflammatory to all Ukrainians. So ...

NUNES: So I think - so I can understand that. Are you aware during the - I believe it was the 2012 election when, at the time, President Obama leaned over on a hot mic to the then-Russian President and said that he'd have to wait until after the election? Did that - was that inflammatory to the Ukrainians also?

TAYLOR: I don't know, sir.

NUNES: I just want to be clear that some government officials opposed President Trump's approach to Ukraine but many had no idea what concerned him. In this case, it was numerous indications of Ukrainian - Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election to oppose his campaign and support Hillary Clinton.

Once you know that, it's easy to understand the President's desire to get to the bottom of this corruption and to discover exactly what happened in the 2016 election. And with that, I'll turn to Mr. Castor.

CASTOR: Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Kent, President Trump's concerns about Ukraine's role in the 2016 election, you believe he - he genuinely believed they were working against him. Right, Ambassador Taylor?

TAYLOR: Mr. Castor, I - I don't know what President - or candidate Trump was thinking about the Ukrainians.

CASTOR: I mean, didn't he, in his - in his Oval Office meeting in May 23rd after the - the Zelensky inauguration, didn't he - didn't he lament that the Ukrainians were out to get him?

TAYLOR: I heard that his response to the suggestion that Mr. Zelensky visit Mr. Trump - President Trump in the Oval Office was not well received and that he had concerns about Ukrainians, yes.

CASTOR: But from the President's perspective, if - if the Ambassador - Ukraine - Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, one of the most influential diplomats, is - is penning an op-ed, certainly with the OK of President Poroshenko, the - this - the DNC consultants are - are - are conferring with Ukrainian officials at the embassy, Foreign Prime Minister Yatsenyuk (ph) is saying things on social media, Interior Minister Avakov, who has spanned both the Poroshenko and the Zelensky realm, is also saying some very unkind things on social media about the President, you certainly can appreciate that President Trump was very concerned that some elements of the Ukrainian establishment were not in favor of him, did not support him and were out to get him.

SCHIFF: If I could - and I'll - I'll allow the question but are you asking ...

(CROSS-TALK)

(UNKNOWN): ... inquiry, are you seriously interrupting our time here?

SCHIFF: No, I - I will allow the question, I won't - I won't dock this from the time. I just want to be clear, Ambassador, if you're able to verify the things that counsel has asked you and the prerequisite of the question, that's fine.

Otherwise, in questions from the majority or the minority, that may assume facts not in evidence before you, you should be cautioned about that.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, point of order?

SCHIFF: The time is with Mr. - minority counsel.

[12:55:00] (UNKNOWN): Mr. Ratcliffe?

RATCLIFFE: Chairman, I sat here through the first 45 minutes and literally had an objection to almost the foundation of every question that Mr. Goldman asked regarding facts not in evidence, leading, but House Resolution 660 does not say that we under - we are under the federal rules of evidence.

If it is your position that I should be asserting objections to questions that violate the federal rules of evidence, let me know now because this hearing's going to change significantly.

SCHIFF: As - as I said, Mr. Ratcliffe, I will allow the question.

NUNES: I think the gentleman has a different question about the rules. So what are the rules that are going to govern this?

SCHIFF: Does the Ranking Member seek recognition?

NUNES: I'm - I'm asking - I'm yielding to you for - for a question - to the question I just asked you.

SCHIFF: For what purpose do you seek recognition?

NUNES: I'm asking -- I'm yielding you for a question -- to the question I just asked you.

SCHIFF: What purpose do you seek recognition?

NUNES: To answer Mr. Ratcliffe's question. SCHIFF: I have answered it. (Inaudible) your question.

RATCLIFFE: Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, you haven't answered my question whether or not I should be asserting, assumes facts not in evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. That's my question.

SCHIFF: Mr. Ratcliffe, I say once again, I'm not objecting the question, but I am instructing the witness that they should not presume questions from the majority or the minority that may represent facts not in evidence are correct. This is -- I have -- I have answered your questions. We will resume the questioning and resume the clock.

(OFF-MIC)

RATCLIFFE: So, you can certainly appreciate President Trump's concerns?

TAYLOR: Mr. Castor, I -- I don't know the exact nature of President Trump's concerns. I have -- I -- in my deposition I recall you handed me the political article, which listed at least three of the -- of the elements that you have described earlier.

And I -- you've recognized and I have confirmed with -- with the Ranking Minority Member, that -- that I -- that's the first I'd heard of those and was surprised by those. I don't know -- I don't know President Trump's reaction to those.

CASTOR: In the information published by Serhiy Leshchenko, former Ukrainian Investigative Journalist and then he was a member of the Parliament, about the Manafort black ledgers in August of 2016. I mean, the very day that was published, Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign, correct?

TAYLOR: I don't know, Mr. Castor.

CASTOR: But, certainly that gives rise to some concern that there are elements to the Ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. That's a very reasonable belief of his. Correct?

TAYLOR: I -- I don't know.

CASTOR: The -- the run-up to the 2016 election, there's many facts that remain unresolved, agreed?

TAYLOR: I'm sorry, what's the question?

CASTOR: There are many facts relating to the run-up of the 2016 election that remain unresolved?

TAYLOR: Any further --

CASTOR: Well, Attorney General Barr, in May of 2019, tasked the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, John Durham, to broadly examine the government's collection of intelligence involving the president's campaign.

That effort initially was an administrative review, has turned into a criminal probe, and U.S. Attorney Durham is -- is casting a wide net and is following the facts where they may lead. Are you aware of that?

TAYLOR: I'm aware that there is an investigation, that's as much as I'm aware.

CASTOR: And so to the extent any information resides in Ukraine, it's perfectly appropriate for the Ukrainians to try to get to the bottom of that, for the Ukrainians to cooperate with -- with the United States through official channels to share that information, correct?

TAYLOR: Mr. Castor, can you say that one again? I -- I'd appreciate if you would restate the question.

CASTOR: To the extent Ukraine has facts related to the run-up of the 2016 election that are under the U.S. Attorney Durham's probe, Ukraine should -- should cooperate with the United States, and to the extent there are Ukrainians doing improper things, the Ukrainians ought to investigate that themselves, correct?

TAYLOR: Mr. Castor, the Ukrainian-American relations are -- are very supportive. The Ukrainians will -- will certainly be responsive to requests.

CASTOR: So, when the president, on the call transcript of July 25th, raises this with President Zelensky and he -- he urges that there be a connection between the Ukrainian government and the Justice Department officially, I mean, that's the appropriate way to raise and issue with the Ukrainian president, correct?

TAYLOR: It's appropriate for the Justice Department and the prosecutor general to cooperate

[13:00:00]