Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Ousted U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Testifies Publicly; Schiff Accuses Trump of Witness Intimidation with Tweets. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired November 15, 2019 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): Based on your testimony, Ambassador, I would like to renew my request, Mr. Chairman, that Hunter Biden's testimony that has been requested --

(CROSSTALK)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The gentleman's time has expired.

RATCLIFFE: Requested by the Republicans be considered --

(CROSSTALK)

RATCLIFFE: -- legitimate rather than a shame as --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIFF: The gentleman will suspend.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIFF: Your time has expired.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIFF: Mr. Heck, you're recognized.

(CROSSTALK)

RATCLIFFE: -- request?

SCHIFF: You're not recognized.

Mr. Heck, you are.

SCHIFF: You're not recognized, Mr. Heck, you are.

HECK: Ambassador, I would like to thank you very much, I add my voice of gratitude for your years of service. Frankly, you're the best of this nation and I cannot think of anybody else I would rather have representing us in a foreign capital than you. My colleagues have gone to a great deal of effort to better understand the facts surrounding your removal, I think the facts are pretty clear. There was a smear campaign and it was orchestrated by a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, the president's attorney -- the president's son and even some of the president's allies at his favorite TV station. So that campaign led to your removal despite 33 years of outstanding service, progressive responsibility and awards.

And so I kind of sit here with a mix of emotions. On the one hand, that there is some pride and gratitude for all your outstanding service, and on the other hand I'm angry like my friend from Connecticut. In fact I am very angry about how it is the most powerful person on the face of the earth would remove you from office after your stellar service and somehow feel compelled to characterize you was bad news, and then to ominously threaten that you're going to go through some things. So I am angry but I'm not surprised. After all, as was suggested earlier, he said the whistleblower may have committed treason a crime punishable by death; even though the whistleblower strictly adhered to the letter of the law as independently attested to by both the Trump appointed inspector general and the acting DNI.

After all, he even demeaned the memory of Senator McCain after he lied in his grave at the Naval Academy grounds, despite a lifetime of public service and serving six years as a prisoner of war in a tiny cell in Hanoi being beaten and tortured every day. And after all, he belittled the Gold Star Khan family whose son, Captain Kahn gave his last full measure of devotion out of love this country. And let me tell you, as somebody whose older brother never saw his 35th birthday because of service in the Vietnam War, those words are deeply offensive. Words matter and the words leveled against you, constitute bullying of the worst order. Your good character, your outstanding reputation have been besmirched in a way that is devoid of common decency.

But here is my message to you, there is nothing, Ambassador Yovanovitch, nothing he can say or do, not a thing, that will in any way diminish the nature and quality of the service you have rendered to our great nation. Not a thing. And there is not a thing he can say or do that will diminish our gratitude to you for that service and I thank you again for it.

YOVANOVITCH: Thank you.

HECK: So as to the larger point. I would like you to answer. What does this mean to Ukraine when the United States actually engages in the kind of behavior that we are attempting to discourage them from engaging in, namely a politically motivated prosecution? What is that mean to -- what does that mean to them in their struggling efforts to become a robust democracy? What's the impact in Ukraine for this behavior?

YOVANOVITCH: I think Ukraine, like many countries looks to us for the power of our example and I think that is when we engage in questionable activities, that raises a question, and it emboldens those who are corrupt, who don't want to see Ukraine become a democracy free-market economy part of Europe who want Ukraine to stay in -- under Russia's thrall. And that's not in our national security interest.

HECK: Thank you , Ambassador Yovanovitch, thank you so very much. YOVANOVITCH: Thank you.

HECK: I yield the balance of my time to the chair.

SCHIFF: I thank the gentleman. I understand that I have a witness (ph) for counsel (ph). I would like to take a short break. Let's take a five minute recess. If members of the audience could please remain in the seats to allow the witness for counsel to leave ahead of us, we will resume a few minutes. We are in recess.

[14:34:57]

SCHIFF: I understand the witness and her counsel would like to take a short break. Let's take a five-minute recess.

If members of the audience could please remain in their seats to allow the witness and her counsel to leave ahead of us.

We will resume in a few minutes. We are in recess.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: You have been watching CNN's live coverage of the President Trump impeachment inquiry hearings. I'm Jake Tapper, in Washington.

We've been hearing dramatic testimony today from ousted ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. Yovanovitch laying out and attempting to debunk the alleged smear campaign that led to her removal to possibly clear the way for President Trump to accomplish his political goals in Ukraine, the investigations of the Bidens.

In the past could of hours, we've seen Republicans using their playbook, noting that President Trump, any president, can remove an ambassador whenever he or she chooses. And that the military aid held up eventually did get Ukraine, lethal aid that Obama didn't provide, albeit, that was only provided after news of that phone call started to make waves on Capitol Hill with the investigation and the whistleblower complaint.

Democrats, of course, stressing other points, noting that Yovanovitch was removed for attempting to fight corruption, the corruption that President Trump claims he so badly wanted rooted out of Ukraine, and much more.

Let's discuss this. They're taking a five-minute break, and then they'll come back and we'll bring it to you live.

Chairman Rogers, start with you.

You were once the House Intelligence Committee chairman. Though you are a Republican and Schiff is a Democrat. What are your takeaways from the hearing so far?

MIKE ROGERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think the president blew up any Republican plan to treat the witness with respect when he tweeted out this morning. So I think that kind of screwed up their rhythm a little bit. I walked away thinking that the president doesn't understand the idea of coalitions. Just because it's a witness called by the Democrats doesn't necessarily mean that witness couldn't be helpful to what you're trying to prove. And it shocks me they have taken that tone about attacking this woman's service.

She agreed with the president's policy. She agreed with energy independence in trying to get Ukraine energy independent, helping with national security interests in Russia. She agreed with the stepping up of lethal aid, which meant including what they were trying to do for years prior to that. All of that she agreed with. That turned into something positive.

The other bad piece of this is it always shows that duel-tract diplomacy gets you in trouble. I don't understand that. The president could remove her at any time to go a different direction. He could have called her and said, I want to go in a different direction. I'll change you out. I'll tap you. Hit the sidelines.

They created this big mystery thing, which, again, makes me question what role Rudy Giuliani had in trying to influence the president to do exactly that. To me, that's the most interesting part of this hearing.

COOPER: And, Jen Psaki, you know Yovanovitch. You used to be the State Department spokesman under Secretary of State John Kerry during the Obama years. You know her. Is she acting consistently as in private?

JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Exactly. What America is seeing today is what Marie Yovanovitch is like and what many foreign officers serving around the world every single day.

She's not -- I would never her known what her political beliefs were, whether she liked or didn't like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Barack Obama. She served the United States and the interests of the United States above all political beliefs. I think that's what we're seeing today.

I will note, and we've been talking a little about this during the hearing. I think the Democrats are worried that her feelings are hurt. And certainly this is not an easy day for her. What I know of her and anyone in her position is that you're not trying to be testifying in front of the public. That's kind of the worst nightmare they want to be in embassies.

But they need to stop cudding her. She's fine. She's tough. They need to keep it focused on the issue the hand, which is why she was fired. She can't exactly answer that question but she can give context of what was happening at the time and tell more about the work happening to fight corruption, which is why he fired her, it seems.

I would like to see more focus of the testimony moving forward.

COOPER: One part of her feelings, Jen Psaki -- and I want to bring you in -- is that is relevant, is how she felt after President Trump tweeted that attack on her. Which was read to her by the Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff. And she said she felt intimidated, whether or not that was the president's intention, said she couldn't get into his mind, but the result, she felt intimidated.

And Congressman Schiff, Chairman Schiff, made it clear he thinks that's witness intimidation. That's what he said in real time. And to me, that seems that it's likely to go into some sort of articles of impeachment, in terms of discouraging witnesses or the like that happened in the Bill Clinton impeachment. Is that a bridge too far?

[14:40:09]

We've seen Republicans push back on that idea, just a tweet, she was in the hearing while it was going on, couldn't read it, didn't even know about it until Schiff read it to her, can't possibly be witness intimidation. What do you think?

ELI HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do not think it's a bridge too far. I think it's appropriate to give a hard look at the witness intimidation, articles of impeachment. Think about the timing. She's on the stand. Think about the nature. A personal attack directed right at her.

What's the purpose? The purpose is to disrupt her and send a message to future witnesses. We have a slate next week. The message I think is clear. They need to take serious action and protect the witness and integrity of this process.

COOPER: Actually, the result of the president's tweet is reverberating far beyond the witness. House Republicans, who are talking to our own Manu Raju on Capitol Hill about the president's tweet attacking Ambassador Yovanovitch while she was testifying, going after her personally, seeming to blame her for the mess in Somalia and in Ukraine. Two different postings she'd had.

Manu Raju joining us from Capitol Hill.

Manu, what are you hearing from Republicans?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Several Republicans uneasy about that line of attack. You saw that hearing, in the hearing room. A number actually praising her, not denigrating her service as the president did.

Some involved in the impeachment inquiry, like Congressman Francis Rooney, kept open the option of impeaching the president, said the president should not be beating up or harassing officials.

Other members, including one who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, Elise Stefanik, did not agree with the president's tweet.

And some Republicans siding with the president saying he's simply laying out his frustration. Congressman Jim Jordan, one of the president's staunchest defenders here in Congress.

Democrats on the other hand, of course, saying this is clear examples of witness intimidation.

Jake, I talked to Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip. He said he thinks this could be part of articles of impeachment against this president. He said it may well be.

Other Democrats think it should be part of articles of impeachment, including one on House Judiciary Committee, Hank Johnson, who said it should be part of something they will consider as they consider whether to impeach this president.

One person who has not specifically said that yet is Nancy Pelosi. Of course, her determination will be key. She did say witness intimidation is a crime and told reporters she hadn't seen the tweet. When she sees the tweet, we'll see how she reacts.

Democrats will consider this as they move forward on articles of impeachment saying it's all part of a pattern with this president.

COOPER: Thank you so much, Manu Raju, for the breaking news. Appreciate it.

Want to remind viewers of some testimony of Ambassador Yovanovitch, because this is not the first time she has felt threatened or intimidated by President Trump.

She said that when she first heard or read the rough transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky and saw how President Trump was talking about her in that transcript, she felt threatened.

Play that sound, if we can.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: What were you concerned about?

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: She's going to go through some things. It didn't sound good. Sounded like a threat.

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: Did you feel threatened?

YOVANOVITCH: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: How so?

YOVANOVITCH: I didn't know exactly. It's not, you know, a very precise phrase, but I think -- it didn't feel like I was -- I really don't know how to answer the question any further except to say that it kind of felt like a vague threat. And so I wondered what that meant. It concerned me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So, Nia, not the first time that Ambassador Yovanovitch has been on the receiving end of comments from the president that she didn't like. NIA MALIKA-HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: That's right. I

mean, she learns about this phone call, after she's already pulled from her post in Ukraine. This phone call happens in July.

She later learns that the president has been disparaging her to President Zelensky and basically praising someone who is corrupt, and likely had something to do with her removal.

It was clear that her testimony, which lasted about 22 minutes, which was very credible, very moving, very compelling, got under the president's skin. Right?

He didn't tweet during Bill Taylor's testimony and George Kent's testimony on Wednesday but felt the need to tweet during her testimony, because she was laying out I think the case that Democrats wanted to lay out more, which was she was fighting corruption in a specific way in Ukraine and saw the president really as colluding with people who were corrupt in Ukraine, and this shocked her, surprised her.

[14:45:14]

And in that way, clearly got under the president's skin so much he wanted to go after her again in the way he did in this transcript with President Zelensky.

COOPER: And, Michael, you're an academic who specializes in impeachments. Let me ask you, would you be surprised if what happened today ended up in the articles of impeachment should they actually be filed?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: I would not be surprised, largely because it fits into a pattern. One of the patterns we're experienced now, not just tweets but other actions from the president to sort of intimidate people, like Pompeo. Intimidated by him and afraid of a tweet and that's why he didn't defend this ambassador?

Maybe, most importantly, you don't need a crime in order to do be an impeachable offense. Thinking about just witness intimidation might make it too narrow. It doesn't matter if it's not witness intimidation. It has the effect of making her afraid and has the effect of disrupting the hearings and those aren't good things.

COOPER: Article I of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 had something along the lines of dissuading witnesses from testifying, something along those lines. I'm not quoting it exactly.

Was what Bill Clinton was accused of having done, I don't think ever adjudicated, right?

GERHARDT: No.

COOPER: Was what he is accused of having done is markedly different in any way than what President Trump? GERHARDT: I think President Trump is at a whole different level,

because it's not just the effort to intimidate witnesses or whatever word you want to use. It's also ordering people not to testify. Also ordering people not to bring documents.

The pattern, again, is a larger one in which the president is doing everything he can to disrupt the hearings and put the attention on the Bidens, not on himself. A tremendous lack of discussion of the president's conduct in this hearing.

COOPER: And let me ask you, Chairman Rogers, it's interesting that the president is seemingly so undisciplined in terms of what the Republicans wanted the message of the day to be.

Because the White House just tweeted out a little video clip of Congresswoman Stefanik basically saying, George Kent, who testified earlier this week, agreed that the Hunter Biden's appointment to the board of Burisma created potential conflict of interests or at least appearance of one.

And U.N. Ambassador Yovanovitch, you wanted Ukraine to receive lethal military aid, Obama didn't provide that and President Trump did.

That seems to be where Republicans wanted to focus their energy and attention as opposed to what President Trump did.

ROGERS: Well, again, completely. I don't know if it's undisciplined. I think it's intemperate. He cannot contain himself obviously with his Twitter machine. He just can't keep his fingers off of it.

And I wish he had taken the tact of what he said yesterday as not watching any of the impeachment, not watching one minute. He clearly he is. He is emotionally tied to it. He ought to be doing other things. He's not going to help.

Republicans to me weren't very organized in their line of questions. They're hunting and pecking to figure what message did work and used Representative Stefanik.

I think they would have been better off to lay out the case, A., a very talented, dedicated award-earning diplomat for the United States of America. We're proud of her service. And she could be a fact witness about certain things.

I thought it was effective when they said, gosh, you were asked a question by the Obama administration about this Hunter Biden thing and, oh, by the way, when they went to the Biden office, nothing ever happened. Right? To me, that was pretty effective.

COOPER: Let's listen in.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Thank you for being here and thank you for your service to our country.

Ambassador, should ambassadors ever try to influence host country elections? YOVANOVITCH: No.

JORDAN: I think you said in your opening statement, partisanship of this type is not compatible with the role of a career Foreign Service officer. Is that right?

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah.

JORDAN: But that's exactly what happened in 2016. In August of 2016, the very month you went to Ukraine as our ambassador, the Ukrainian ambassador here in the United States, Ambassador Chaly, wrote an op-ed in The Hill, said this. "Trump's Comments Send Wrong Message."

So the very month you're over there as our ambassador to Ukraine, Ambassador Chaly writes that op-ed. And it wasn't just that attack, as Mr. Castor was -- got into earlier. It wasn't just that attack on the president. We have former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk who criticized Candidate Trump. We had Mr. Avakov.

I believe earlier you said, Ambassador, that Mr. Avakov was the individual who first alerted you to the efforts of Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Avakov, back during this same time period in the months just prior to the 2016 election, called Mr. -- or -- excuse, me, called then- Candidate Trump all kinds of names, called him a terrorist.

And of course, we have Mr. Lutsenko, a member of parliament who was a source for Fusion GPS and the now-somewhat famous dossier that flowed from Fusion's work. He said this in The Financial Times, again, in August of 2016 when you first arrived in -- in Ukraine. He said this, "The majority of Ukrainians -- the majority of Ukrainian politicians are on Hillary Clinton's side."

So you had several high-ranking officials in the government, in the Ukrainian government, and President Poroshenko as president of Ukraine criticize President Trump, then-Candidate Trump, all in the late summer and fall of 2016.

And what I want to know, Ambassador, when this was all happening, did you go talk to anyone in the Ukrainian government about this? Did you go say to some of these officials, hey, you guys -- you guys need to knock this off, this perception that we got, as Mr. Lutsenko said, the majority of Ukrainian politicians on Hillary Clinton's side? That's not good. Did you have that conversation?

YOVANOVITCH: No.

JORDAN: Didn't talk to anyone in the government -- did you talk to President Poroshenko?

YOVANOVITCH: No.

JORDAN: Didn't alert anyone in the government?

YOVANOVITCH: No.

JORDAN: Well, one of the things we've heard so much over the last six weeks in depositions -- and, frankly, in the hearing on Wednesday, is how important bipartisan support is for Ukraine. Democrats and Republicans agree that we want to help Ukraine. In fact, the Democrats' first witness, their star witness on Wednesday, Mr. Taylor, said Ukraine's most important strategic asset is this bipartisan support. And you would agree with that, right?

YOVANOVITCH: I do.

JORDAN: He said this in his testimony on Wednesday. "On September 11th, I learned that the hold had been lifted the next day." Ambassador Taylor said, "I conveyed this news to President Zelensky and the Ukrainian foreign minister, and I reminded Mr. Yermak of the high strategic value of bipartisan support for Ukraine and the importance of not getting involved in other countries' elections.

So what I'm wondering is, this is the day after the aid's been lifted, Ambassador Taylor made this statement to the Ukrainian government. And he makes this after there is nothing been done by Ukraine to influence our election. Because President Zelensky didn't announce he was doing an investigation, and the aid was lifted. But he felt he needed to say that.

But in 2016, when we know that the majority of Ukrainian politicians want Clinton to win because it was said by a member of parliament when the ambassador to the United States from Ukraine writes an op-ed criticizing then-Candidate Trump, when Mr. Avakov calls Candidate Trump all kinds of names, nobody goes and talks to them and tells them to knock it off?

Did you have -- did you have any conversations, Ambassador, with Victoria Nuland or Secretary of State Perry about what was going on in 2016 in this, majority of Ukrainian politicians being for Candidate Clinton and not -- you know, opposed to President Trump?

YOVANOVITCH: No, I did not.

JORDAN: No one did anything, no one did anything. Do you see why maybe -- maybe the president was a little concerned about what went on in Ukraine? And you couple that with the corruption level that we know exists in Ukraine -- in Ukraine, you add to that this idea that he's not a big fan of foreign aid, why he might be a little concerned about sending the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people to Ukraine?

YOVANOVITCH: I'm sorry, is there a question there?

JORDAN: There was.

YOVANOVITCH: OK. Could you -- could you repeat it, please?

JORDAN: I'm asking...

SCHIFF: The time of the gentleman has expired, but I'll allow you to -- to repeat the question.

JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking, might -- you might maybe we can kind of see why the president was a little concerned when you have the highest ranking officials in the government, the ambassador criticizing you? Parliamentary member Lutsenko criticizing you. When you have Avakov, the guy who first told you about Giuliani, criticizing. All this going on.

And when you couple that with the concerns he has about corruption, the concerns he has about Europe not doing enough, the concerns he has about reluctance of sending the hard-earned tax dollars to any country...

SCHIFF: Mr. Jordan, I have indulged you with extra time but...

JORDAN: I appreciate it.

SCHIFF: ... my indulgence is wearing out.

JORDAN: I appreciate it.

SCHIFF: There is a question, right?

JORDAN: Our indulgence wore out with you a long time ago, Mr. Chairman.

SCHIFF: Well...

JORDAN: I'll (ph) tell you that.

SCHIFF: I'm about to gavel you down. So if you have a question...

JORDAN: Well...

SCHIFF: I suggest you -- you...

(CROSSTALK)

JORDAN: I'm asking her is -- is do you think there's maybe a reason that this was -- that President Trump's concern was justified?

YOVANOVITCH: You know, I can't speak for the president on this. But what I would say is, you've listed a number of actions. I think from my point of view, that doesn't -- that doesn't create a Ukrainian government strategy to interfere in our elections.

JORDAN: I didn't say that.

SCHIFF: Mr. Jordan, please allow the ambassador to answer the question.

YOVANOVITCH: So I would just say that, you know, U.S. politicians will often criticize policies of foreign -- foreign counterparts, even perhaps during their elections. You know, this happens in politics and I think that it doesn't necessarily constitute interference.

JORDAN: Would you ever write an op-ed... SCHIFF: Mr. Jordan, your time has expired.

JORDAN: ... critical of a presidential candidate...

SCHIFF: Mr. Jordan...

JORDAN: ... in Ukraine?

SCHIFF: Mr. Jordan, your time has expired.

Mr. Welch, you're recognized.

WELCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like everybody here, I'm extraordinarily grateful to you for your career of public service and I feel very badly about what you've had to endure. Like your colleagues, you don't complain. You're doing your job.

I feel badly about the insults, the tweet this morning, the fact that you were smeared, fired. But the question, as you know, is not how you were treated. The question is why the president did what he did and whether what he did was a breach of trust. The question really is about whether the President of the United States, any president, has the authority to withhold congressionally approved aid to condition a White House meeting on extracting from a foreign leader the willingness to assist him in his political campaign. That's the question.

And that brings us to you, as part of the story, because the question is why were you fired from that position? I want to read a portion of the president's call on July 25th with President Zelensky, and this is the painful part when you first heard about it. "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."

The other thing -- he goes right into this -- "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of the people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

You indicated in response to my colleague Mr. Castro's question, that if you were asked to approach a foreign leader and condition American support on their being involved in our campaign, you would refuse to do that.

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. Yes.

WELCH: And are -- you're aware now, but I don't know if you were then, but that July 25th phone call occurred the day after Director Mueller reported that the interference in our 2016 campaign was not from Ukraine, it was active, concerted, energetic, and by the Russians. Correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. WELCH: Now, as ambassador, you had no knowledge of whatever it is President Trump ultimately seems to have wanted to get for cooperation in this investigation. Isn't that -- that's correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

WELCH: Now you've been asked about whether a president has authority to replace an ambassador, and you have agreed that that's the president prerogative.

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, that's true.

WELCH: But that assumes that the reasons are not related to the personal, private, political interests of the president at the expense of our national security. Right?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

[14:59:27]

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): And you've been the target of insults from the president. You joined by some very distinguished company, by the way, Senator McCain, General Kelly, a man I admire -- I think all of us do -- General Mattis. We're not here to talk about that.

Unless the reason you get insulted, as you did today, essentially blaming you for Somalia, is if this is another step by the president to intimidate witnesses.