Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Interview with Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) on the House of Representatives Holding Second Day of Public Hearings in Impeachment Inquiry; Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to Testify in Public Impeachment Inquiry; Career U.S. Diplomat David Holmes to Testify Behind Closed Doors that He Overheard President Trump ask U.S. Ambassador Sondland about Status of Ukraine Investigations; Soon: Ousted Ambassador Testifies in Public Hearing. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired November 15, 2019 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: -- impeachment inquiry continues with our friend Wolf Blitzer right now.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. Just minutes from now, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, the woman who colleagues say was never hungry for the spotlight, will take center stage in the impeachment inquiry. What we already know about her testimony, called one of the best by her peers, Yovanovitch said she tried to root out corruption in Ukraine but was targeted by Rudy Giuliani and others and warned to, quote, watch her back. And even after she was removed from her post, President Trump called her bad news on that now-infamous July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian president, causing Yovanovitch to say she felt threatened by him.

Also today, behind closed doors, much more on the truly stunning revelation from Tuesday's public hearing. Career U.S. diplomat David Holmes says he overheard President Trump ask the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. about the status of investigations. In hours, he testifies behind closed doors up on Capitol Hill.

And tomorrow, there's breaking -- there's other breaking ranks developing. A career official over at the White House Budget Office is expected to tell lawmakers what he knows about why security aid for Ukraine was frozen.

Our team is covering all of the angles in this truly important impeachment process. Let's go over to Capitol Hill right now. Our CNN senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju is watching all these developments. Manu, set the scene once again, day two of these public hearings.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted ambassador to Ukraine, will detail the efforts by Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, to push forward on issues about Ukraine, push for those investigations that could help the president politically, and argue that that undercut the interests of the United States. And she will detail this smear campaign of sorts that was launched by Giuliani against her, something that she learned from Ukrainian officials late last year. Ukrainian officials themselves, she's going to testify, were alarmed by Giuliani's efforts, were concerned they were being pulled into domestic political affairs. And when she raised concerns to the highest levels of the State Department about what Rudy Giuliani was up to, they did nothing, according to her testimony.

She's also going to make clear that she went to the E.U. ambassador, Gordon Sondland, and asked him about, talked to him about these matters, and Sondland came back and suggested in order to protect herself she should tweet support for the president of the United States.

Also, she's going to make clear that after she was ousted, this phone call that occurred between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine, this now infamous call which Trump urged Zelensky to open up these investigations, after she saw that transcript, rough transcript that was released by the White House, she's going to say that she felt threatened by those words because the president said that, quote, she's going to go through some things when he discussed these matters with the Ukrainian president.

Republicans are going to push back and say while the Democrats contend this is part of what they call a corrupt scheme by this administration, Republicans are going to say she left this post before some of these matters at the heart of this impeachment inquiry were going on. She did not have direct knowledge of what the president was doing. They're going to say that she had all the -- the president has the right to remove ambassadors at will. And expect this hearing to play out much the way it did on Wednesday. The Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff will launch his opening statement, followed by the Republican ranking member Devin Nunes, followed by Marie Yovanovitch's own opening statement.

Then they will get into questions led by staff counsel. On the Democratic side Dan Goldman for 45 minutes, he will launch the questionings. And then there will be questions from the Republican staff counsel Steve Castor, much different than the way typical congressional hearings go which members each gets five minutes apiece to ask questions. That five-minute round will occur after the counsels themselves question.

But, Wolf, again, this is just, again, the beginning of a significant round of public hearings that will take place and will set the course for the Democrats who are moving very quickly in deciding whether to impeach the president, which will be the third time in American history if they go that route, Wolf.

BLITZER: This is, once again, we can't say it enough, a historic moment right now. Manu, we're going to get back to you. Thank you very much.

Later today, lawmakers will also hear from the U.S. diplomat who says he overheard that cellphone conversation where President Trump asked the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland about the status of Ukraine's, quote, investigations. David Holmes, a career foreign service officer, will testify behind closed doors.

CNN's Kylie Atwood is here with me watching all of this unfold. What do we know, first of all, about this diplomat?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: So David Holmes is a midlevel career official who works at the State Department. He's a career foreign service officer. He has been at the Ukraine embassy for the U.S. for about a year now. And he is someone who has served around the world. He's been in Afghanistan, he's been in Russia, he's been in India. So he does have experience.

[08:05:06]

He's also known for expressing his opinions. He's someone who is described to me by folks who know him as very sharp, and in 2014 he actually wrote to the administration, the Obama administration at the time, a cable of constructive dissent. And what he said in that cable was that there was a multilayered structure installed by Obama that had, quote, "hindered our diplomatic effectiveness and made it harder for those making decisions to get a clear stream of advice." So clearly he's not someone who has stayed quiet as he's been on the job.

But it's also important to note that he's the political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Kiev. So it's his job to understand what's going on with Ukrainian politics and message that back to folks who were working for him, with him in the U.S. government. So it wouldn't have been abnormal for him to go to ambassadors meetings, that meeting that he went to with Ambassador Sondland, for the two of them to grab a meal. That's not abnormal. It's something that's very normal. But, of course, this key, key conversation here that he overheard was Ambassador Sondland speaking with President Trump, and President Trump asking him about investigations. And then Ambassador Sondland telling David Holmes that President Trump cares more about the investigations than he does about Ukraine.

BLITZER: He was the counselor for political affairs at the embassy. Ambassador, charge d'affaires, the number two to the chief. And then there's the counselor for political affairs, and he was a senior adviser to the ambassador. Who else may have been listening in on that very controversial cellphone conversation that Ambassador Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, had in Ukraine with the president?

ATWOOD: Right. And so that is the key here. Ukraine is right next to Russia. Russia is known for having intelligence that can pick up almost every conversation that is happening in that country, especially given the fact that this was a conversation that was happening in a restaurant. And David Holmes wasn't on the phone. Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the president, and David Holmes could hear what the president was saying. So the two were speaking loudly enough in a public place. So intelligence could have picked it up, and it's even a greater possibility that other folks in that institution, wherever they were, whatever restaurant they were in, were able to hear that.

BLITZER: And we also know that later today after this House Intelligence Committee hearing is over, Mark Sandy, who is a senior official at the Office of Management and Budget, he will go behind closed doors and tell what he knows about the decision to withhold that U.S. military assistance, nearly $400 million in assistance to Ukraine.

ATWOOD: Yes. So Mark Sandy is key because he is the first U.S. official to go forth and speak to Congress to explain what was happening, and he is the first one from the Office of Management and Budget, OK? And why does that matter here? It matters because OMB was the one that put the initial hold on all of this security assistance that was going to Ukraine, as you said, some $400 million worth in security assistance. And a hold was put on it officially in July. And those who were in the room when the hold was announced were kind of alarmed because it was announced that it was coming from the OMB but it was coming at the direction of President Trump.

And so there are a lot of questions here in terms of why that hold was actually put on, and why the hold was then lifted in September. Was it because there was a whistleblower complaint that had been made public? We really don't know the answer to that yet. And so Mark Sandy will be someone who will give us some new light into what was happening in that office that was really stuck in the middle of this controversy.

BLITZER: And remember, that nearly $400 million in security assistance was authorized, appropriated by the House and the Senate, signed into law by the president. And then all of a sudden, OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, said it's on hold, but there was no explanation given to the State Department or to Congress why that money was on hold.

ATWOOD: And in fact, the State Department and the Pentagon were both saying to the White House that they wanted that lift to be -- that hold to be lifted. They were advocates of the security assistance. And a large part of that is because Ukraine is on the front lines fighting against Russia day in and day out. And because of our strategic security interests in the region, both the State Department and the Pentagon thought it pivotal that they continue to receive the security assistance they need so they can fend off those aggressions from Russia.

BLITZER: Yes, there's a war going down over there in Ukraine. Kylie, good work. Thank you very, very much.

Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Denny Heck. He serves on the House Intelligence Committee. He'll be asking some questions later today as well. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. And explain why today's hearing with the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, is so significant to this inquiry.

REP. DENNY HECK, (D-WA) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, I think people are going to learn two things, Wolf. First, they're going to learn about what a vicious and unconscionable act it was to remove this distinguished career foreign service diplomat, 33 years, the best of the best.

[08:10:05]

She's precisely who we want representing our nation's interests in foreign capitals, and she was removed as a result of a long-term, insidious smear campaign orchestrated by the president's personal attorney, a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, the president's son and some of the president's allies at his favorite TV station.

And I want to say something about how you phrased the -- how ambassador Yovanovitch felt earlier, namely, that she felt threatened. When the most powerful man on the face of the planet says she's going to go through some things, that's not something that would cause any human being to feel anything other than incredibly threatened. But at the end of the day, the president is within his legal authority to have removed her.

The second thing then, however, that I hope we learn is why. What was afoot here. What were the nefarious ends being achieved by her removal? We know that she was a fierce anti-corruption combatant in Ukraine and helping to clean up that struggling democracy to get on its feet. But was there a purpose served for the president to have her out of the way? And were there business or pecuniary interests served by someone else to have her out of the way?

BLITZER: Give us a preview, if you can, congressman. What kind of questions do you have for her?

HECK: Well, as I am one of the least senior members of the Intelligence Committee, Wolf, I often wait a bit to see what else has been asked to kind of fill in the blanks and to see what it is that hasn't been brought to light yet. But I am interested in her version of how is it that Ukraine's welfare was affected by all of this, by her removal. What does it say to them, and how does it affect their efforts to become a full-functioning, robust democracy, corruption- free.

BLITZER: What did you learn from the first day of public hearings, Wednesday's hearings, that you'll carry over into today?

HECK: So I thought that Wednesday's hearing was an incredible display of two outstanding foreign service diplomats as well. And I thought their testimony was presented in as neutral, as it were, compelling, and concise manner as was possible. What it gave me was a vote of confidence in the men and women who dedicate their lives to representing our interests abroad.

BLITZER: On Wednesday, we did learn from Ambassador Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, that one of his aides, David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs, allegedly overheard the U.S. ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland, discussing investigations during that cell phone conversation with President Trump at that restaurant in Ukraine. This the day after that now-infamous July 25th phone conversation that the president had with the Ukraine leader. Describe that -- you described that development as a mini-bombshell, and you get a chance to interview Holmes later today behind closed doors. Talk about that a little bit.

HECK: Why I characterize it as a mini-bombshell is that coming in the immediate aftermath of his call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, it shows what it was what was really paramount and top of mind of President Trump, namely, get after these investigations, these debunked conspiracy theories about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, and specifically focus in on an investigation of a potential rival of his, of course, former vice president Biden.

BLITZER: Did you -- do you know whether or not Holmes raised his concerns about that phone conversation earlier, because we only learned about it from Ambassador Taylor on Wednesday?

HECK: Right. The only thing that I know, Wolf, is that Ambassador Taylor represented it that he had just been informed of it last Friday, that it was new information to him as well, and that immediately upon learning it, he shared it with both the majority and minority committee staffs as he should, as was appropriate, as we would expect of Ambassador Taylor.

BLITZER: Congressman Denny Heck, you're going to have a busy day, you and all your colleagues, you're going to be very, very bush. Thank you so much for joining us. We've got a lot happening today on this important and historic day. Appreciate it very much.

The president is poised to release the transcript of his first conversation with the Ukraine president. That occurred in April of this year. We're on standby for the transcript of that conversation.

We're also staying on top of all the developments up on Capitol Hill. The former U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, once again, set to arrive any moment now to deliver crucial testimony in front of television cameras. Once again, we're all over this. Our special coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:18:57]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Just moments away from this, the second day of impeachment hearings. The president said he didn't watch the first day but that might not necessarily be the case today. His schedule is largely quiet. The big question, will he release the transcript of that first phone conversation he had with the Ukrainian President Zelensky?

Our senior White House correspondent Pamela Brown is joining us right now.

What are you hearing over there, Pamela?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, I should point out, the president does have a quiet schedule today until this afternoon. I've asked the White House if he's going to watch today's hearing, and there hasn't been any answer to that yet. Now, the White House claims he didn't watch Wednesday because it's

trying to send this message that the president is too busy, he's not distracted by these impeachment hearings, but it's clear, Wolf, it's top of the president's mind. At last night's rally in Louisiana, he went after the last two witnesses, career diplomats, calling them Never Trumpers and claiming they couldn't say what he did was an impeachable offense.

But those witnesses, Wolf, made clear they weren't there to decide on impeachment. They were only there as fact witnesses, not taking sides. And there's no evidence they're Never Trumpers. They are still serving in this administration.

[08:20:02]

Now, ahead of the hearing with this ousted ambassador today, the White House is already downplaying it with officials saying she left the administration before the July Zelensky call and serves at the pleasure of the president. But what she can do is shed light on Rudy Giuliani's efforts.

So, we could learn more on that front, Wolf. One question today, as you noted, will the president release the transcript of his first call with Zelensky? He said it would be by week's end.

Sources say it's short, it's congratulatory and the president invites him for a White House visit. That visit, as you know, was put on hold pending Ukraine's public announcement of the investigations of the Democrats that the president wanted, according to released transcripts that have come out so far. So, it will be interesting to see what we learn from this hearing today and whether that transcript is released -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Pamela, we'll stay in very, very close touch with you. Thanks very much.

Let's discuss this with our team of experts here, our correspondents and our analysts.

And, John King, let me read to you what the president of the United States said about Ambassador Yovanovitch in that July 25th conversation with President Zelensky. This is the president of the United States.

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.

And then later he says to President Zelensky: Well, she's going to go through some things. Those are pretty ominous statements. Listen, the president speaking to President Zelensky.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Those are pretty ominous statement. And so, the president's defenders will make the case and it is true, the president has the right to withdraw to remove, to fire any U.S. ambassador. That will be their case and that's where they'll want to keep you.

The challenge for the Democrats is to get it, where did that come from? Where did the president get that information? How did the president come to that belief?

And the president got that information, we know, from Rudy Giuliani. We suspect as well from Joe diGenova, a Republican attorney here in town who represents a Ukrainian oligarch who is under indictment in the United States who is repeatedly on Fox News and repeatedly in touch with Giuliani and the circle of people in Ukraine that he deals with.

Can the Democrats take this to the corrupt part? Because we have cringed so often during the Trump presidency. He operates so out of bounds. Many of his voters voted forward him to be disruptive, to be unconventional, to be outside the bounds of normal.

So, the question is, can you make it not just Trump cringe conduct? Can you make it Trump corrupt conduct? So, where does it come from? Can the Democrats, through the ambassador, through the other witnesses, make the case that in her case, she wants to tell them we were finally at a place with this new administration where we thought we could get Ukraine on the right path with a new democracy, new people?

And then Rudy Giuliani pops up working with the very people we just managed to shove to the sidelines, corrupt people, who are bribing people, who are trying to run Ukraine often in the interest of Russia, the money coming from Russia. Can they make the case to take it from unconventional, disruptive, and cringe-worthy to the crime?

I think that's why she is key. Other witnesses, Ambassador Sondland obviously with firsthand knowledge, maybe more critical. But she has to keep the public's attention and make the case that I'm a career public servant trying to do the right thing and up pops Rudy Giuliani with the very crooks we have tried to shove to the side.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And what's the big story here? I mean, Republicans ad nauseam are saying the president has a right to fire an ambassador. Yes, we get it. He had the right to fire the FBI director, too. Context matters.

He fired Jim Comey because he didn't like the investigation he was running. He fired the ambassador because she apparently wasn't on board with this sleazy, uncorroborated, you know, narrative of Ukraine working with the Democrats to undercut Trump, for which there is no evidence besides conspiracy theories.

So Republicans are advancing this idea that it's this out of control bureaucracy was trying to undermine the president. These are career diplomats who wanted to pursue U.S. national security interests who were being derailed by a shadow foreign policy. That is the story that Democrats want to tell because that's what's accurate. And then people will make a determination about what those facts add up to.

BLITZER: And I assume, you know, Nia, we're going to be hearing a lot about that shadow diplomacy led by Rudy Giuliani. The president's private attorney working together with these two others, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom have been indicted now by the U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York.

And Rudy himself, we're told, is under investigation right now. We're going to be hearing presumably during the course of this morning a lot on that.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: I think that's right. Listen, if you are a Republican, you want to keep it to the phone call, right? President Trump saying read the transcript, read the transcript, read the transcripts.

But if you're a Democrat, you want to say that the ouster of this ambassador really was the beginning of this, what they say, is this bribery scheme. This move by the president to use roughly $400 million to get the president of Ukraine to deliver on announcing an investigation into his political rivalries.

And so, Giuliani is key to that. She has essentially a front row seat to this scheme sort of unfolding in her -- you know, alarm bells ringing as you saw with Bill Taylor as well.

[08:25:05]

When he arrives to his post, he figures out, wait, something is going wrong here, and she, obviously, in this position as a career diplomat for like 30 years. So she has a sense of how things are supposed to be and then, all of a sudden, something else starts to happen and she's hearing from the Ukrainians that she has to watch her back. She's sort of nervous about what's being, you know, what's happening here with these two foreign policy tracks and Giuliani, obviously, central to that. What is he up to? Who is he in cahoots with? Is he serving his own interest? Is he serving the president's interest? Is he serving the American public's interests?

So I think all of that will come to light tonight, today, and you'll hear Republicans say as David alluded to, that the president, it's within his right to remove an ambassador if he wants to.

BLITZER: It's very important, Ross, because she had been told not by American officials to watch her back, but by Ukrainian contacts of her telling her, you better be careful.

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, and one intriguing thing, you mentioned the indictment in federal court in New York, of Rudy Giuliani's colleagues. In that indictment, it actually mentions this ambassador and it mentions that there was an effort by -- in the indictment that says one or more Ukrainian government officials to have her ousted. That was sort of an intriguing thing to drop into this indictment, and I think we're going to be hearing more about that. There was something going on in Ukraine that -- in which it seemed Rudy Giuliani, others and one or more Ukrainian officials wanted her out.

BLITZER: And because, you know, Carrie, the whole notion of corruption, she was adamantly opposed to the corruption in Ukraine, but she was beginning to suspect that it was sneaking into the United States.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's exactly right. I think particularly for Americans who haven't been able to take the time to read the transcript that's been released of her private testimony in front of the committee, I think what people are going to be the most taken with is that they're not going to be able to recognize the American government in her testimony. She's going to be describing a corruption of White House and how they were able to influence components and certain individuals of the State Department to engage in something that's going to sound like some other third world country or authoritarian country where individuals acting in personal interest, potentially personal financial interests, have corrupted the instruments of government.

And I think that's going to be really surprising to some people. And unlike the prior witnesses the other day, Ambassadors Taylor and Kent who were witnesses to this activity, she's more of a victim of it because she was on the receiving end and she was ousted from Ukraine back in May before some of the activities really had developed more substantially.

BLITZER: We anticipate that Ambassador Yovanovitch will be arriving momentarily before the House Intelligence Committee. We'll have live coverage.

Our special coverage will continue after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END