Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House Judiciary Committee Holds Impeachment Hearing; Dem Counsel: Trump Used Power of Government For A Domestic Political Errand. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired December 09, 2019 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
GOLDMAN: More than that, certain oligarchs, certainly with the approval of the political leadership, funded this candidate, or female candidate, to be more precise. And if there was ever -- ever any doubt about who benefits from this unfounded theory put forward by President Trump and his associates, President Putin made it clear very recently when he said, "Thank God no one is accusing us anymore of interfering in U.S. elections. Now they're accusing Ukraine."
In the face of clear evidence not only from intelligence community experts, but from his own national security team that Russia, not Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election for the benefit of Donald Trump, President Trump still pressed the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation into this conspiracy theory, and why? Because it would help his own political standing.
President Trump even sought to withhold an Oval Office meeting from the president of Ukraine until he fell in line with President Putin's lies, the leader who had actually invaded Ukraine.
The second demand that President Trump made of President Zelensky during the July 25th call was to investigate the front runner for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. President Trump stated, "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."
Witnesses unanimously testified that there was no factual support for this claim. Rather, they noted that Vice President Biden was acting in support of an international consensus and official U.S. policy to clean up the Prosecutor General's Office in Ukraine. Despite these facts, by the time of the July 25th call, Mr. Giuliani had been publicly advocating for these two investigations for months, while also using back channels to press Ukrainian officials to initiate them in support of his client, Donald Trump. Ambassador Sondland understood Mr. Giuliani's role very clearly. He testified, "Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president." To others, Mr. Giuliani was working at cross purposes with official policy channels toward Ukraine, even as he was working on behalf of President Trump. According to former national security advisor, Ambassador John Bolton, Mr. Giuliani was a, quote, "hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up," unquote.
Near the end of the July 25th call, President Zelensky circled back to the precooked message that Ambassador Volker had relayed to President Zelensky's top aide before the call. President Zelensky said, "I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United spate -- States, specifically, Washington, D.C. On the other hand, I also wanted to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case, and we will work on the investigation." In other words, on one hand is the White House visit, while on the other hand, he agreed to pursue the investigations.
This statement shows that President Zelensky fully understood at the time of the July 25th call the quid pro quo between these investigations and the White House meeting that President Trump required, and that Ambassador Sondland had testified so clearly about.
GOLDMAN: Numerous witnesses testified about the importance of a White House meeting with the president of the United States, specifically a meeting in the Oval Office, an official act by President Trump.
As David Holmes, Senior Official in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine said, it is important to understand that a White House visit was critical to President Zelensky. President Zelensky needed to show U.S. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to Russian President Vladimir Putin that he has U.S. backing, as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reform agenda at home.
In other words, the White House visit would help Zelensky's anti- corruption reforms. And that support remains critical, as President Zelensky meets today with President Putin to try to resolve the conflict in the east.
[11:05:00] Now the day after this phone call, President Trump sought to ensure that President Zelensky got the message. On July 26th, U.S. officials met with President Zelensky and Ukrainian officials in Kyiv, and President Zelensky mentioned that President Trump had brought up some, quote, "Very sensitive issues," unquote. After that meeting Ambassador Sondland had a private one-on-one meeting with Andriy Yermak, President Zelensky's top aide. During which, Ambassador Sondland said they probably discussed the issue of investigations.
At lunch right after that with Mr. Holmes and two other State Department officers, Ambassador Sondland pulled out a cell phone and called President Trump. Somewhat shocked, Mr. Holmes recounted the conversation that followed. I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explained he was calling from Kyiv.
I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelensky, quote, "Loves your ass," unquote. 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.
After the call Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Holmes that President Trump did not give a "bleep" about Ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the president himself, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.
To repeat, and this is very important, Ambassador Sondland spoke to President Trump before the July 25th call with President Zelensky and relayed to Ukrainian officials President Trump's requirement of political investigations in exchange for a White House meeting. And during that call President Trump asked for the favor of these two immediate -- of these two political investigations immediately after the Ukrainian President brought up U.S. military support for Ukraine, which President Trump has recently suspended or put on hold.
And at the end of the call, President Zelensky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that President Trump requested and the White House meeting that President Zelensky desperately wanted.
[11:10:00] And then the following day, Ambassador Sondland confirmed to President Trump, on the telephone in person, that the Ukrainians would indeed initiate the investigations discussed on the call, which were the only -- which was the only thing about Ukraine that President Trump cared about.
Now, it's very important to understand that this investigation revealed that the July 25th call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump's efforts to use the powers of his office for personal political gain. And you have to look at all of the evidence in context as a whole.
Prior to the call, the president had removed the former Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch to clear the way for his three hand-picked agents, to spearhead his corrupt agenda in Ukraine. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker. All of whom attended President Zelensky's inauguration on May 20. All political appointees, the prove to be more than willing to engage in what Dr. Hill later described as an improper domestic political errand for the president.
On April 21, President Zelensky won the Ukrainian election with 73 percent of the vote. And he had two primary platforms, to resolve the war on the east with Russia and to root out corruption. That same day, President Trump called to congratulate him on his win. Even though the White House press release following the call stated that President Trump expressed his shared commitment to, quote, "Root out corruption," unquote. President Trump, in fact, did not mention corruption at all on this call, just like he did not mention corruption on the July 25th call.
Shortly after this call, President Trump asked Vice President Mike Pence to attend President Zelensky's inauguration. But on May 13, President Trump did an about-face, and directed Vice President Pence not to attend. And adviser to Vice President Pence testified that the inauguration had not yet been schedule, and therefore the reason for the abrupt change of plans was not related to any scheduling issues.
So, what has happened in the three weeks between April 21 and May 13, when Vice President Pence was originally invited and then disinvited or removed from the delegation? A few things.
First, on April 21st -- 25th, Vice President Biden formerly announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for president. Then about a week later on May 3rd, President Trump spoke with President Putin on the telephone. On senior State Department official testified that the conversation between President Trump and President Putin included a discussion of Ukraine.
Third, on May 9th, Mr. Giuliani told the "New York Times" that he intended to travel to Ukraine on behalf of his client, President Trump, in order to, quote, "Meddle in an investigation," unquote. But after public backlash, and apparent pushback from the Ukrainians, Mr. Giuliani canceled his trip the next day, claiming that President Zelensky was surrounded by enemies of President Trump.
At a critical May 23rd meeting in the Oval Office, President Trump said that Ukraine was corrupt and tried to take him down in 2016. The same false narrative pushed by President Putin and Mr. Giuliani. And in order for the White House meeting to occur, President Trump told the delegation they must talk to Rudy to get the visit scheduled.
These comments from President Trump were the first of many subsequent indications that, in his mind, corruption equals investigations. In the weeks and months following, Mr. Giuliani relayed to both Ukrainian officials and the government officials that President Trump had designated that the May 23rd meeting, to take -- to take a lead on Ukraine policy. The directive from President Trump that a White House meeting would not occur until Ukraine announced the two political investigations that President Trump required.
And well before the July 25th call, Ambassador Sondland and Volker also relayed this quid pro quo to the Ukrainians, including to President Zelensky himself. Ambassador Volker conveyed the message directly to President Zelensky at the beginning of July, urging him to reference investigations associate -- associated with the Giuliani factor with President Trump.
And in meetings at the White House on July 10th, Ambassador Sondland told other U.S. officials and two of President Zelensky's advisers, including Mr. Yermak, that he had an agreement with Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney that the White House visit would be scheduled if Ukraine announced the investigations.
One witness testified that during the second of the meetings, Ambassador Sondland began to review what the deliverable would be in order to get the meeting, referring to an investigation of the Bidens. The witness told the committee that the request was explicit, there was no ambiguity, and that Ambassador Sondland also mentioned Burisma, a major Ukrainian energy company that Hunter Biden sat on the board of. For the witnesses that testified before the committee, references to Burisma was shorthand for an investigation into the Bidens. Ambassador Bolton, as well as his staff members, objected to this meeting for an investigation's trade and Ambassador Bolton told Dr. Hill you go and tell Eisenberg -- John Eisenberg, the legal adviser for the National Security Council, that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go ahead and tell them what you've heard and what I've said.
Yet this was not a rogue operation by Mr. Giuliani and Ambassador Sondland and Volker. As Ambassador Sondland testified, everyone was in the loop, including Mr. Mulvaney, Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, and their top advisers.
On July 19th, Ambassador Sondland e-mailed Mr. Mulvaney, Secretary Perry, Secretary Pompeo and others after speaking with President Zelensky. The subject was I talked to Zelensky just now and Ambassador Sondland wrote he is prepared to receive POTUS' call -- POTUS, the president of the United States. We'll assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will quote "turn over every stone," unquote.
Both Secretary Perry and Chief of Staff Mulvaney quickly responded to the e-mail, noting that given that conversation, a date would soon be set to schedule the White House telephone call. The evidence also unambiguously shows that the Ukrainians understood this quid pro quo and had serious reservations, particularly because President Zelensky had won the election on an anti-corruption platform.
In fact, a few days before the July 25th call, Ambassador William Taylor, the Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and the former permanent ambassador to Ukraine, texted Ambassador Sondland and Volker -- or rather he -- he stated in his testimony on July 20th, I had a phone conversation with Mr. Danylyuk, during which he conveyed to me that President Zelensky did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign.
[11:15:20]
But President Trump's pressure campaign on President Zelensky did not relent. Just four days later, President Zelensky received that message via Kurt Volker, that he needed to convince President Trump that he would do the investigations in order to get that White House meeting. And as I have described, President Zelensky tried to do exactly that on the July 25th call with President Trump.
In the weeks following the July 25th call, President Zelensky heeded President Trump's request, sending his top aide, Mr. Yermak, to Madrid to meet with Mr. Giuliani. In coordination with Mr. Giuliani, President -- and the -- President Trump's handpicked representatives, they continued a -- this pressure campaign to secure a public announcement of the investigations.
Now according to Ambassador Sondland, and this is very important, President Trump did not require that Ukraine actually conduct the investigations as a prerequisite for the White House meeting. Instead, the Ukrainian government needed only to publicly announce the investigations.
It is clear that the goal was not the investigations themselves or not any corruption that those investigations might have entailed but the political benefit that President Trump would enjoy from an announcement of investigations into his 2020 political rival and against a unanimous assessment that showed that he received foreign support in the 2016 election.
For that -- for that reason, the facts didn't actually matter to President Trump because he only cared about the personal and political benefit from the announcement of the investigation. Over the next couple of weeks, Ambassador Sondland and Volker worked with President Trump's aide, Mr. Yermak, to draft a statement for President Zelensky to issue.
When the aide proposed a statement that did not include specific references to the investigations that President Trump wanted, the Burisma and Biden investigation and the 2016 election investigation, Mr. Giuliani relayed that that would not be good enough to get a White House meeting.
And here you can see a comparison on the left of the original statement drafted by Mr. Yermak, the top aide to President Zelensky, and on the right a revised statement with Mr. Giuliani's requirements. And on -- it says we intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes -- and here is the critical difference -- including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.
The only difference in the statement that Giuliani required and the statement that the Ukrainians had drafted was this reference to the two investigations that President Trump wanted and told President Zelensky about on the July 25th call.
Now ultimately, President Zelensky's administration temporarily shelved this announcement, though efforts to press Ukraine would remain ongoing. By mid August, Ukraine did not make a public announcement of the investigations that President Trump required, and as a result, no White House meeting was scheduled.
But by this time, the president was pushing on another pressure point to coerce Ukraine to announce the investigations -- the hold on the vital military assistance that the president had put in place for more than a month, still without any explanation to any of the policy experts.
Our investigation revealed that a number of Ukrainian officials had made quiet inquiries to various U.S. officials about the aid as early as July 25th, the day of the phone call. Inquiries by Ukrainian officials continued in the weeks and -- that followed until the hold was revealed at the end of August. But this is important, it was important for the Ukrainian officials to keep it quiet because if it became public, then Russia would know that the U.S. support for Ukraine might be on ice. So by the end of that month, the evidence revealed several facts. One, the president demanded that Ukraine publicly announce two politically motivated investigations to benefit his reelection. Two, a coveted White House meeting was expressly conditioned on Ukraine announcing those investigations. Three, President Trump had placed a hold on vital military assistance to Ukraine without any explanation, and notwithstanding the uniform support for that assistance from the relevant federal agencies and Congress.
[11:20:00]
Ambassador Taylor testified that this quid pro quo between the investigations President Trump wanted and the security assistance that President Trump needed was crazy, and he told Ambassador Sondland, "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
Now, in an effort to move the White House meeting and the military aid along, Ambassador Sondland wrote an e-mail to Secretary Pompeo on August 22nd. He wrote, "Mike, should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull-aside for POTUS to meet Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine's new justice folks are in place (mid-September), Z -- President Zelensky -- should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to POTUS and to the U.S. Hopefully, that will break the logjam."
Ambassador Sondland testified that this was a reference to the political investigations that President Trump discussed on the July 25th call, which Secretary Pompeo ultimately admitted to -- that he listened to in real time. Ambassador Sondland hoped that this would help lift the logjam, which he meant, the hold on critical security assistance to Ukraine and the White House meeting. And what was Secretary Pompeo's response three minutes later? Yes.
After the hold on military assistance became public on August 28th, senior Ukrainian officials expressed grave concern. Deeply worried, of course, about the practical impact on their efforts to fight Russian aggression, but also -- and this goes back to why it remained confidential -- also about the public message that it sent to the Russian government.
On September 1st at a pre-briefing with Vice President Pence before he met with President Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland raised the issue of the hold on security assistance. He said, "I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns of -- that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations." Vice President Pence simply nodded in response, expressing neither surprise nor dismay at the linkage between the two.
And following Vice President Pence's meeting with President Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland went over to Mr. Yermak again, President Zelensky's top aide, and pulled him aside to explain that the hold on security assistance was also now conditioned on the public announcement of the Burisma-Biden and the 2016 election interference investigations. Ambassador Sondland then explained to Ambassador Taylor that he had
previously made a mistake in telling Ukrainian officials that only the White House meeting was conditioned on a public announcement of the political investigations beneficial to President Trump. In truth, everything -- the White House meeting and the vital security assistance to Ukraine -- was now conditioned on the public announcement. President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a public box. A private commitment was not good enough.
Nearly one week later, on September 7th, the hold remained, and President Trump and Ambassador Sondland spoke on the phone. The president immediately told Ambassador Sondland that there was no quid pro quo, but -- and this is very important -- President Zelensky would still be required to announce the investigations in order for the hold on security assistance to be lifted, and he should want to do it. In effect, this is the equivalent of saying there is no quid pro quo -- no this-for-that -- before then demanding precisely that quid pro quo. And immediately after this phone call with President Trump, this was the precise message that Ambassador Sondland passed directly to President Zelensky.
According to Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Sondland also said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and had told them that although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky had -- did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate, and I understood a stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.
Needing the military assistance and hoping for the White House meeting, President Zelensky finally relented to President Trump's pressure campaign, and arrangements were soon made for the Ukrainian president to make a statement during an interview on CNN, where he would make a public announcement of the two investigations that President Trump wanted in order for President Zelensky to secure the White House meeting, and for Ukraine to get that much-needed military assistance.
[11:25:00]
And although there is no doubt that President Trump had ordered the military aid held up until the Ukrainians committed to the investigations, on October 17th, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney confirmed in public that there was such a quid pro quo. Let's watch what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: That was -- those were the driving factors. Did he also mentioned to me in past the -- the -- the corruption that related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it, and that's why we held up the money.
Now, there was a report...
QUESTION: So -- so -- so the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he...
MULVANEY: It was on...
QUESTION: ... ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?
MULVANEY: The -- the look-back to what happened in 2016 certainly was -- was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDMAN: There you have it. By early September, the president's scheme was unraveling.
On September 9th, the Intelligence Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees announced an investigation into President Trump and Mr. Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine. And later that same day, the Intelligence Committee learned that a whistleblower had filed a complaint nearly a month earlier related to some unknown issue, but which the president and the White House knew was related to Ukraine, and had been circulating among them for some time. And then two days later, on September 11th, in the face of growing public and congressional scrutiny, President Trump lifted the hold on security assistance to Ukraine. As with the implementation of the hold, no reason was provided. Put simply, President Trump got caught, so he released the aid.
But even since this investigation began, the president has demonstrated no contrition or acknowledgment that his demand for a foreign country to interfere in our election is wrong. In fact, he has repeatedly called on Ukraine to investigate Vice President Biden, his rival.
These and other actions by the president and his associates demonstrate that his determination to solicit foreign interference in our election continues today. It did not end with Russia's support for Trump in 2016, which President Trump invited by asking for his opponent to be hacked by Russia, and it did not end when his Ukrainian scheme was exposed in September of this year.
President Trump also engaged, once this investigation began, in an unprecedented effort to obstruct the inquiry, and I look forward to answering your questions about that unprecedented obstruction.
But in conclusion, I want to say that the Intelligence Committee has produced to you a nearly-300-page report, and I am grateful that you have offered me the opportunity today to walk you through some of the evidence underlying it. Admittedly, it is a lot to digest. But let me just say this: The president's scheme is actually quite simple, and the facts are not seriously in dispute. It can be boiled down to four key takeaways.
First, that President Trump directed a scheme to pressure Ukraine into opening two investigations that would benefit his 2020 reelection campaign, not the U.S. national interest. Second, President Trump used his official office and the official tools of U.S. foreign policy, the withholding of an Oval Office meeting and $391 million in security assistance to pressure Ukraine into meeting his demands.
Third, everyone was in the loop -- his Chief of State, his Secretary of State, and vice president.
And fourth, despite the public discovery of this scheme which prompted the president to release the aid, he has not given up. He and his agents continue to solicit Ukrainian interference in our election, causing and imminent threat to our elections and our national security.
Members of the committee, President Trump's actions...
(CROSSTALK)
(UNKNOWN): Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: The gentleman's...
(UNKNOWN): The time has elapsed. Point of order.
NADLER: Gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Deutch.
DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.
NADLER: The gentleman will state his motion.
DEUTCH: I move the committee shall be in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
(UNKNOWN): I move to table.
NADLER: Motion moved to -- the motion...
(UNKNOWN): Move to table the motion.
[11:24:20:]
NADLER: ... of recess is a privileged motion. It is not debatable.
All those in favor of the committee recess --
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: -- will say aye.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: Opposed, nay.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: The aye's have it. The committee -- (CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: Roll call?
NADLER: The clerk will call the role.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Mr. Nadler?
NADLER: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. So they're doing another roll call, Jeffrey Toobin. This time, whether to take a little recess. It's surprising. Usually, the chairman can just say, let's take a little break and we'll resume in a few minutes, but this time they're doing a formal roll call once again.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: This is a metaphor about how you can fight about absolutely everything.
[11:30:03]
But it certainly does seem like they will take a break at some point soon. Since the Democrats have the majority, it looks like --
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: -- they will push through the recess.
BLITZER: It's obviously a forgone conclusion. Democrats have the majority. They will win. They'll take a break right now.
Let's talk right now about what we just heard. We heard a very, very powerful statement from Daniel Goldman, the majority counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, making the case that the president of the United States abused his power and should be impeached.
TOOBIN: An extremely dense and fact-based summary of the evidence that the Intelligence Committee heard.
I just like to make one observation about this. I know it's a lot to absorb. But one point that I thought Daniel Goldman made very well was that the president didn't want an investigation of the -- Hunter Biden's role in Ukraine. He wanted the announcement of an investigation.
In other words, the president wanted to be able to say during the upcoming campaign that the Biden family was under investigation. He didn't know, he didn't care whether Biden himself did anything wrong.
But the announcement of the investigation -- and that's one thing that comes through in all of the testimony, the emails that were disclosed, the witness testimony, that the president and the people doing his bidding were not concerned --
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on one second.
TOOBIN: -- an actual investigation.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 16 noes.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The motion to recess at the call of the chair is --
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): How long do we anticipate the recess?
(CROSSTALK)
JORDAN: How long is the recess?
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
JORDAN: I'd just to know how long --
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: It's until their done with their press conferences.
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend.
The committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes.
I will announce also that we've been in session about two and a half hours. After the conclusion of the testimony, the cross exams will be another two and a half hours. We'll probably stand a recess then before the commencement of the five-minute round of questioning.
I would ask that people remain in their seats while the two witnesses are given an opportunity to leave.
I would remind people in the audience that if they leave they may not have their seats back when we reconvene.
The committee will stand in recess and we'll reconvene in 15 minutes. BLITZER: All right so there you have it, a 15-minute break.
Usually, Dana -- and you covered Congress for a long time -- those 15- minute breaks can turn out to be 20 or 25 minutes, too, by the time everyone gets in place.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. It's a good thing we have a lot to talk about.
BLITZER: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Give us your thoughts on what you just heard.
BASH: Well, what Jeffrey just said is so interesting because we heard so much about the president -- obviously, at its core, the question is, did the president direct this quid pro quo but, more specifically, the Ukrainian leader to conduct this investigation.
The point that he made does change it a little bit and make it much more clearly in the political realm, that it's just about having dirt on his opponent, an investigation.
But more broadly, look, this is and always has been a very tough sell to change public opinion that has already been baked in now for several months. But it's important.
And it is fascinating to hear how each side, after all of this testimony, after all of, you know, the witnesses behind closed doors, what we heard in public, how they boil it down in a way that presents their case.
And for Daniel Goldman, it is very clear, as you said at the beginning, it's abuse of power. It's that he's a clear and present danger --
TOOBIN: Right.
BASH: -- to the American public and to democracy. And on the other side, just to boil it down, one of the words that I think sums up what Castor said, the Republican, it's baloney.
BLITZER: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on one second.
I want to get Ross Garber and Carrie Cordero, our legal analysts, to weight in as well. Because, in many respects, yes, it's political, but it's also legal.
Give me your thoughts on the case that was made by Daniel Goldman, the majority counsel for the House Intelligence Committee. He spent 45 minutes arguing in favor of impeachment. We're about to hear from the Republican, the minority counsel, Steven Castor once again. He will spend 45 minutes arguing this is a waste of time.
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I think sometimes we try to talk about whether impeachment is legal or it's political. The reality is it's both. It's mostly political, but it's also legal.
You know, I thought Barry Berke and Dan Goldman did a very good job of sort of laying out the case in pretty simple terms. As Jeffrey noted, this is some dense stuff. In pretty simple terms, sort of what the Democratic case is.
[11:35:06]
I do think, though, that they missed an opportunity to do that in a way that's compelling for the public. Maybe public opinion is baked in but that's a big problem if that's true, for the Democrats, because, so far, there's not overwhelming support for --
BASH: How could they have done it so it was more compelling? What would you have done?
GARBER: I think one way to do it is, think about the most compelling documentary that you've seen that touches you both intellectually and emotionally, and use those techniques.
TOOBIN: Music?
GARBER: Maybe not music. Maybe. Probably not music. But much more video, much more graphics, much more pictures, and then narrating over that, telling the compelling story.
This ain't court. I've said it before. It's not court. This is about telling the public the story that compels them, that the removal of a president, this extraordinary event, which has never happened ever in United States history, for the first time should happen. That's what this is all about.
And it's not going to be sort of lawyerly nicety that are going to get there.
BLITZER: Go ahead.
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: On Ross's point, I thought actually one of the most effective moments of Mr. Goldman's testimony was when he did put up a quote and they put it up on the screen and it was a quote from Putin. And it talked about how is was to Russia's benefit that the Republicans and others and those in America are using this Ukrainian responsibility talking point.
And I thought that was a very effective way to counter the information and the theory really, which is a conspiracy theory, that Ukraine is somehow responsible at the same level that Russia is.
But I also thought, at the very end of Mr. Goldman's testimony, he went through four key points. And his last one really is the reason why we're here, which is that the president continues to solicit foreign interference in the election. And that is so key because, even though that -- it's an ongoing act --
for example, the president's lawyer has been in Ukraine this past week -- it's an ongoing issue that the president continues to solicit Ukrainian interference in some way, that he is open to foreign interference in our elections and we're coming up on an election.
DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I thought this issue of time is what was really hit hard by the Democratic counsel here. Why do this and why do it now? Why? Because you heard Mr. Goldman say the president is an imminent threat, poses an imminent threat to the integrity of our election in 2020.
The counter argument to that by the Republicans is it's a rush by the Democrats because they have a political calendar they don't want to be trying to push out a president, remove him in an election year when the voters have their say.
But I thought that point about putting Zelensky in a box, by just getting the announcement, and that he is trying to do -- they're saying, that the president is trying to do what Russia did in 2016, which is poison the election.
That's a very significant charge. I thought it was a compelling charge.
TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Since this is not a court of law, I think story telling is important. And I felt we had two different stories today.
One is the story about a pattern of corruption on the part of a president who has been misusing institutions. Not misusing them because the policies are wrong but misusing them by not remembering that the goal of the institutions is to do the national interest not personal interest.
And then the other picture is a pattern of impeachment. The argument being made by the president's loyalists that there are a group of Democrats who have been trying to impeach him from day one.
These are two fundamentally different stories. The Republican story doesn't deal with the facts of the Democratic story. And the facts of the Democratic story are the reason why this is a real impeachment.
We could -- look, we can -- I can show you in the Nixon case, there were lots of people talking about impeaching Nixon for years. But the Democratic leadership didn't want to do it and the American people didn't want it. It was only when the evidence required it that there was a discussion.
Well, the Ukraine matter was the evidence that required a discussion about abuse of power. And what's disappointing is that the Republicans are not taking this time to be serious about this issue and to contend with it.
Make the argument that what the president did was wrong but not impeachable. Instead -- BASH: But a lot don't think it was wrong. Or they convinced themselves it's not wrong.
NAFTALI: Well, then make that argument. Make an argument other than we're not going to listen to you because you've been trying to impeach our guy since January 20th, 2017.
BLITZER: We are hearing some Republicans -- Dana, you pointed this out earlier - say, you know what, all, right he did it, but what's wrong with doing --
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: But those are two different --
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: -- trying to squeeze the Ukrainian president --
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: They'll also say words versus actions. He said a lot of thing but, in the end, they got the aid and there was no investigation. We'll hear a lot of that coming up.
[11:40:06]
NAFTALI: Not one Republican said quid pro quo is OK, except for Mick Mulvaney. Many of them will repeat and say some of these things and they'll also say --
BLITZER: Because Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, walked that back a few hours after he originally said it.
NAFTALI: It's like they all agree that quid pro quo is wrong. They all seem to agree that that was wrong, even thought they might say that squeezing the Ukrainians is OK, which is a contradiction.
BASH: To state the obvious, what did not exist during the Nixon era was Twitter, was 24-hour cable, and was the fact that this idea that Democrats -- not all of them, certainly not the leadership -- but some Democrats have been calling for impeachment since day one, has allowed the Republicans to take that case and make it --
NAFTALI: Oh, yes.
BASH: -- higher on their list and make it penetrate with their political argument.
NAFTALI: Chair Nadler has been talking about impeachment and he shouldn't have been talking about impeachment because he should have been impartial. I agree. But that doesn't get away from the facts.
BASH: No, I agree.
NAFTALI: The one thing that the Democrats ought to do is to highlight what you don't know. You can still say it's a compelling case for impeachment and admit there are holes in the case, and say, we don't know this. Why don't we know it? Because we've sent 71 requests to the White House, to the Defense Department, to the Department of Energy, to the OMB, and not one has been responded to. There's an argument to be made there.
BLITZER: Democrats are trying to dismantle President Trump's claim that he was only acting out of good faith to root out corruption.
Listen to the Democrats, the lawyer for the Democrats, Daniel Goldman, on why he says the president's defense simply doesn't hold up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL GOLDMAN, DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL FOR HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Now, according to Ambassador Sondland -- and this is very important -- President Trump did not require that Ukraine actually conduct the investigations as a prerequisite for the White House meeting. Instead, the Ukrainian government needed only to publicly announce the investigations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: So, Jeffrey, why was that so important, if you believe Daniel Goldman, to the president of the United States? You don't have to do any investigating. Just say you're going to investigate.
TOOBIN: For two reasons. One, it shows that he didn't really care about a corruption in -- corruption in Ukraine. That this whole idea that the president didn't want to give money, taxpayer money, to a company that was corrupt, is a phony argument, Goldman asserts, because he didn't really care about whether there was an actual investigation. All he cared about was an announcement of an investigation.
And the other reason why that's important is that an announcement of an investigation is of great political benefit to the president. That if he could say accurately that Hunter Biden and the Biden family is under investigation in Ukraine, that would be of tremendous political benefit to the president in a race involving Joseph Biden in 2020.
So that point is really a critical one for those two reasons.
NAFTALI: I think what Republicans will say to that is the reason why the president wanted the public announcement of the investigation is to lock the president of Ukraine in to actually following through. That if it were just a private --
TOOBIN: I see.
NAFTALI: If it were just a private commitment, maybe they would do it, maybe they wouldn't. But if the press were watching, a public announcement, they would follow through.
In terms of what the Republicans response to all of this is, you know, it will be interesting to see how much Castor takes that on. But the Republicans have at least two big challenges.
One, is the president's insistence that everything here was perfect. And if you talk to Republicans, in private, now increasingly in public, they're saying this was not perfect. This was not perfect. But it's tough for them to get too far away from that perfect defense.
The second thing is that there's so much they realize they do not know. There's so much about all of the communications that the president was having with cabinet officials, with Rudy, what was going on in Ukraine with Rudy and his associates, that it's difficult to get too far on a limb on the facts.
BLITZER: The main point, Carrie, that the Democrats make is, if the president was so concerned that the Bidens may have done something criminally wrong, they should be investigated, why go to the Ukrainians to investigate? Why not go to the FBI or Justice Department and ask U.S. law enforcement to investigate the Bidens?
CORDERO: Sure. That highlights the difference between when something is done for legitimate purposes.
If there really was some allegation based on fact or information that indicated there should be some kind of appropriate investigation, then the proper channel would be to go to the Justice Department, have them raise it with Ukrainian prosecutors, and go through those prosecutorial channels and a White House would have nothing to do with it.
[11:45:08]
But the announcement part is key because it shows that this was for the political benefit of the president. He doesn't get any political benefit if some investigation goes on behind the scenes. The political benefit for him because his goal was to take Joe Biden out of the campaign and to seriously damage him as a candidate.
And the fact that he wanted a political announcement of an investigation of what he viewed as his primary political opponent shows that it was done for personal purposes, not for any institutional governmental purpose.
BLITZER: Another key moment when Daniel Goldman, the majority counsel for the Intelligence Committee, told the hearing, just because President Trump didn't say the words quid pro quo, doesn't mean he wasn't asking for one. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDMAN: President Trump and Ambassador Sondland spoke on the phone. The president immediately told Ambassador Sondland that there was no quid pro quo. But -- and this is very important -- President Zelensky would still be required to announce the investigations in order for the hold on security assistance to be lifted. And he should want to do it.
In effect, this is the equivalent of saying there's no quid pro quo, no this for that, before then demanding precisely that quid pro quo.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY: You know, it's striking that it was so manufactured to say there's not going to be any quid pro quo, just tell them I want this for that.
But the other piece is, think of what they're asking for. As Carrie just said, President Trump wants an investigation of his main political rival. That's not all he wants. He also -- because that helps him.
What he also wants is for the new president, who is impressionable, of Ukraine, to go down a rabbit hole of a debunked conspiracy theory that, in fact, it was the Ukrainians who interfered in our election in 2016 not the Russians. That benefits the Russians.
So this is why the argument is being made that the president is acting out of his own political interest and is undermining national security interests, which we should all be concerned about with regard to countering what Russia did in 2016 and avoiding that Russia could do it again in 2020.
And by helping Russia, by throwing shade over the idea that they were the ones who interfered in saying, no, it could have been Ukraine as well, and the Republicans amplifying this over the weekend, that's a damaging thing.
NAFTALI: I was just going to say that for viewers and others wondering, why do we care so much about Ukraine, there's a very important -- series of important reasons. And Dr. Hill mentioned them, Ambassador Taylor.
But let's talk about Ukraine. If Donald Trump did this with regard to Ukraine, how many other foreign policy issues is he managing in the same way? What do we know from the way he managed Ukraine from all the testimony?
He never really learned his brief. He doesn't know much about the issues. The only reason he cared about this country was how it would assist him in 2020.
Imagine if that's how he's dealing with Turkey. Imagine if that's how he's dealing with Russia. Imagine if that's how he's dealing with Israel. Imagine if that's how he's dealing with Syria or North Korea.
The pattern of the way in which the president has undertaken national security issues, illustrated in the Ukraine situation, suggests abuse of power. That's the issue.
TOOBIN: But what you're talking about are whether Donald Trump is a good president or a bad president, which is a good subject for the 2020 campaign.
What makes this an impeachment is whether there's actually proof of abuse of power here. And I think -- Nancy Pelosi has been very outspoken on this particular
issue. And I think it really is important to draw that distinction between policy issues, where you know, he's -- what he's doing in Israel or Saudi Arabia --
NAFTALI: I agree. No, no, I agree.
TOOBIN: -- versus Ukraine, which is a very different scenario.
NAFTALI: I'm not relitigating Madison versus -- the issue is, no, you don't impeach for being a bad president. You don't impeach for bad policy. But I'm suggesting what you see in the treatment of Ukraine is a president whose only consideration is his own personal political future.
BASH: So you're talking --
NAFTALI: That is a misuse of our institutions.
BASH: But you're also talking about a pattern, not a character pattern but a pattern how he uses his power.
NAFTALI: Yes. Yes.
BASH: Which is -- Barry Berke did start to go down the road of broadening it, talking about sort of the preamble to this, which is Mueller and Russia, and playing the sound bite of then-Candidate Trump, you know, saying, "Russia, if you can hear me."
So, and this is something we haven't talked about here. But it is a very, very important question that is yet to be answered, as we speak, which is, how are these articles of impeachment going to be written, how narrow are they going to be written.
Aside from Berke at the beginning in terms of presentation, they really have been focused -- the Democrats really focused like a laser on the facts of Ukraine with regard to the call and what it means for abuse of power and the facts of Ukraine with regard to obstruction of Congress.
[11:50:17]
It could be a sign of the fact that the Democratic leadership is listening to the moderate Democrats, who are screaming with their hair on fire in these private meetings and now publicly to reporters, please keep it narrow because, otherwise, if you broaden it out, it's just going to help my Republican opponents say, ah-ha, Democrats want to impeach him on anything he's done.
CORDERO: But the common thread from the Mueller report into the fact pattern is the solicitation of foreign interference in the election.
And that's why Professor Karlan's testimony was so compelling last week because she focused specifically on the issues and the facts that the president engage on as they relate to interfering in an election, and why elections, in particular, and the reason that this fact pattern pertains to protecting our elections is a particular threat to the Democratic institution.
GARBER: The further you expand it out, though, the more you're going to hear Jeffrey's response, which is, now you're talking about sort of the president's actions as the president. You're doing this because you don't think he's a good president. That's not --
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: And then there's a second issue, which I think is, in a way the bigger issue, which is, believe it or not, it is not uncommon to have political and personal interests intertwined with governmental interests. And the further you go down that path, the more difficult --
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: As Mulvaney said, get over it.
TOOBIN: You may hear some of that. And more uncomfortable, even many Democrats will be saying this is impeachable and this isn't impeachable.
BLITZER: The argument made by some of the Democrats was that what the president was doing could potentially be illegal if he was seeking an in-kind campaign contribution from the Ukrainians on behalf of his campaign.
TOOBIN: Right. There's a tension in the Democratic argument on the issue of whether the president's conduct was a crime in and of itself.
Now, they all agree, as do the law professors, that a president's actions do not have to be a crime in order to be impeachable, but it helps their argument if it is also a crime.
And so the question of whether this was bribery, whether this was extortion, whether it was solicitation of an illegal campaign contribution, that is a -- that non-Americans are not allowed to contribute to presidential campaigns. That argument -- we're not going to have it settled whether this was a crime. There's no authority here.
But the issue of whether this was a crime as well as abuse of power is something that several Democrats are interested in.
BLITZER: Members are going to be walking back in momentarily. We're watching it very closely. This historic hearing is about to resume.
We'll take a quick break. Our special coverage will continue right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:58:07]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: I'm Jake Tapper. And you're watching CNN's coverage of the historic impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Right now, the House Judiciary Committee is in a brief break as the
group holds its second, and possibly final hearing into the impeachment matter.
Earlier today, counsel for both House Democrats and Republicans presented their cases for and against impeaching President Trump.
The Democrats saying it is clear from the evidence that President Trump abused the power of his office while Republicans say the actions of their colleagues across the aisle are politically motivated and that nothing has been proven against President Trump.
All of it as the vote within the Judiciary Committee on impeachment could take place later this week with a possible full House vote next week.
Let's go to Manu Raju on the Hill.
Manu, what can we expect next in this hearing?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We can expect the House Republican counsel, Steve Castor, to come testify and lay out the views of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee that was detailed in the report that accompanied the Democratic report.
The Democratic report alleged abuse of power by the president, detailed everything that came to Ukraine.
Republicans, on the other hand, are going to lay out a pretty vigorous defense, point-by-point rebuttal. They're going to say the president did nothing wrong, paint everything in the most favorable light to the president, saying it was a perfectly good explanation on how he handled relations with Ukraine.
That's how Steve Castor, the Republican counsel, is going to detail this in about a 45-minute presentation.
Afterwards, that is when the round of staff questioning will begin, 45 minutes for the Democrats, 45 minutes for the Republicans. Each member on the committee will then get five minutes to continue to question the witnesses throughout.
And Democrats starting to hammer home the argument that this is all part of a larger pattern of behavior by the president, acting corruptly, violating his oath of office, something that is clearly impeachable, in their view. Republicans saying there's virtually nothing wrong with what he did.
We're going to hear that as the hearing reconvene in the coming hours -- Jake?
[12:00:06]
TAPPER: All right.
So now let's go back to the hearing. CASTOR: -- Collins, members of the committee, members of the staff,
thank you again for having me back.
