Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

The Impeachment Trial of President Trump; Dem House Managers Present Case for Impeachment. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired January 22, 2020 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00] SCHIFF: -- spend funding that we allocated for the defense of others and for ourselves.

The Impoundment Control Act prevents the president and other government officials from unilaterally making funding decisions when Congress has made its intent clear. In fact, the act exists precisely because of previous presidential abuses of Congress' power of the purse during the Nixon era.

The nonpartisan GAO ruled that the hold on military aid was not only illegal, but that holding underscores the president's efforts to go to any lengths to ensure his own personal benefit rather than take care that the laws be faithfully executed, as we swore he would do when he took his oath of office.

Now, because of recent Freedom Of Information Act responses and media reports, we now know additional details about how senior officials expressed serious reservations about the legality of the hold at the time.

So this is -- this is not like some new surprise, this is not like something that just came out of the blue. Whoa (ph), an independent watchdog agency found this was illegal, no, they knew this was illegal at the time. These concerns were raised at the time.

Certain individuals who may have further information about the hold have refused to testify, the president's direction -- including his Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, his Deputy Robert Blair, OMB official Michael Duffy, all of them -- all of them defied Congressional subpoenas but were included in important email communications that have been made public only recently.

As you know, these and many other categories of documents from the White House, Defense Department and OMB were subpoenaed by the House and none was produced. None at the president's direction and through Mr. Cipollone's intervention. Although the investigation developed an overwhelming body of evidence that clearly proves that the president implemented this hold to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations, the full story behind the hold, the full and complete story is within your power to request. As you consider the evidence we present to you, ask ourselves whether the documents and witnesses that have been denied by the president's complete and unprecedented obstruction could shed more light on this critical topic.

You may agree with the House managers that the evidence that the president is withholding military aid to course Ukraine is already supported by overwhelming evidence and no further insight is necessary to convict the president. But if the president's lawyers attempt to contest these or other factual matters, you are left with no choice but to demand to hear from each witness with firsthand knowledge. A fair trial requires nothing less. Let's look at some of the evidence that we gather notwithstanding this obstruction.

First, the president withheld the aid without explanation and against the advice of his own agencies, cabinet officials, national security experts including Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Esper, Ambassador Bolton and others. Only Mick Mulvaney, a central figure in this effort reportedly supported the hold and he told us why.

During a press briefing Mulvaney perfect personally acknowledged the hold was ordered as part of a quid pro quo designed to get Ukraine to undertake the investigation President Trump sought. Second, the reason for the security assistance hold was undoubtedly on the president's mind during the telephone call with President Zelensky on July 25th. Near the beginning of their conversation, President Zelensky expresses gratitude for U.S. military assistance, noting the United States quote, great support in the area of defense. Immediately after President Zelensky is reference to defense and military support, President Trump responded by saying I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. President Trump then proceeded to openly press Ukraine to conduct these investigations.

Third, numerous officials were aware that President Trump was withholding the White House meeting until the Ukrainian president announced the investigations, that the president would ratchet up pressure on Ukraine to compel its action, stunned Ukraine experts like Ambassador Taylor but followed logically for those engaged in the president's corrupt scheme.

[14:35:00]

Fourth, by the end of August, there was still no explanation for the hold despite ongoing efforts from numerous officials to persuade the president to release the money. And the leverage of the White House meeting had not succeeded in coercing Ukraine to announce the investigations providing the president and his agents every reason to use the most aggressive lever of influence hundreds of millions of dollars of military support to compel Ukraine to act. If they didn't feel pressure they would have done it. They would have done it. But of course they did. Imagine if this country were dependent on a more powerful country for our defense. Imagine we were at war. Imagine we were waiting for weapons to defend ourselves. Something our framers could have understood.

Imagine that we found ourselves in those circumstances and much to our astonishment we couldn't even get a meeting with our ally. Much to our astonishment they were withholding aid from us. You think we'd feel pressure? Of course we would.

The framers had common sense and so must we. Are we to accept, well the president said there was no quid pro quo, I guess that closes the case. In every courtroom in America, jurors and I know you're not just jurors, I read (inaudible), you're jurors and judges. Jurors all over America are told you don't leave your common sense at the door. Well we don't have to leave our common sense at the door here too. Two plus two equals four.

The aid is withheld, you're asking for it, we're asking for it, his own aids are asking for it. No one can get an explanation. Ukrainians can't get an explanation. All the Ukrainians get is we want you to do these investigations. They're promised a White House meeting. They want a White House meeting. They need a White House meeting. They're going to be going into negotiations with Putin. They want to show strength. They can't get in the door. They see the Russian Foreign minister get in the door of the White House.

We see the photos of the president and the Russian Foreign Minister or the Ambassador. What a great time they're having but -- but no, the President of Ukraine, our ally can't get in the door. They're not stupid. They know what's going on here, they're not stupid. That conversation I referenced yesterday when the Ukrainians threw it right back in our face. When Ambassador Volker said to his Ukrainian counterpart, you shouldn't investigate the former president, you shouldn't engage in those political investigations. Oh, the Ukrainian response was you mean like the one you want us to do with the Bidens and the Clintons. They're not stupid.

By the end of August there was still no explanation for the hold despite efforts by numerous people to seek the release of the funding. The leverage hadn't succeeded in getting the president to in forcing (ph) Ukraine to announce the investigations and so the aid was withheld. Two witnesses privy to this scheme testified that the only logical conclusion to reach about the president's continued hold on the aid was it was intended to put more pressure on Ukraine to announce the investigations.

And as I said, they testified it was as simple as two plus two equals four. We can do math and more importantly so can the Ukrainians and maybe even more importantly than that, so can the Russians.

Multiple senior officials including President Trump himself have confirmed this logical conclusion. On September 7th, Ambassador Sondland spoke directly to President Trump who by that point was aware that a whistleblower complaint was circulating that alleged the contours of his scheme and that Congress and the public were beginning to ask probing questions about the hold on aid, including whether the withholding of the aid was in exchange for reelection help.

During that call, September 7, so July you got Mueller's testimony, you've got the call itself, you've got the follow up call the next day where the president is speaking to Sondland and wants to make sure they're going to do the investigation. You've got August where they're trying to hammer out a statement and the Ukrainians are still resisting and then you have September. September 7, Ambassador Sondland on the phone with President Trump.

[14:40:30] At that point, he's aware that a whistleblower has filed a complaint alleging the contours of this scheme, and Congress and the public are beginning to ask questions about the hold on aid, including whether this was to get help in his reelection.

And during this call between the president and Ambassador Sondland, without a prompt President Trump told Sondland there's no quid pro quo. Now, why would he do that? That's not something that comes up in normal conversation, right? Hello, Mr. President. How are you today? No quid pro quo.

That's the kind of thing that comes up in a conversation if you're trying to put your alibi out there. If you've heard about a whistleblower complaint, if you've seen allegations, if you know Congress is starting to sniff around, no quid pro quo.

But -- and I know this is astonishing -- so much of the last three years has been a combination of shock and yet not surprise, and yet even while the president is saying no quid pro quo, what does he say? Zelensky must publically announce the two political investigations and he should want to do it. No quid pro quo except this quid pro quo.

Sondland immediately relayed the message to President Zelensky, informing him that without the announcement of the political investigations, they would be at a stalemate. Sondland made clear that this reference to a stalemate meant the release of the security assistance.

President Zelensky after hesitating for weeks to join the president's corrupt scheme finally relented. President Zelensky informed Sondland that he agreed to do a CNN interview, and Sondland understood that he would use that occasion to mention these items, meaning the two investigations at the heart of the scheme.

The Candidate Zelensky who was swept into office with a landslide victory on a promise of fighting corruption would be forced to undertake just the same kind of corrupt act he'd been elected to clean up.

Upon learning this, Ambassador Taylor called Sondland to register his deep concern, telling him that it was crazy. Crazy. Taylor later texted Sondland to reinforce the point, "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to without security assistance for help with a political campaign." As I said on the phone, clearly they had discussed it. As I said on the phone.

Taylor testified about the message and the events leading up to it. Taylor said that security system was so -- assistance was so -- I'm sorry, security system (ph) was so important for Ukraine as well as our own national interest, to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.

Once more, Ambassador Taylor also came to learn that President Trump wanted Zelensky in a public box. He testified Mr. Goldman asking the question, "Now you referenced the television interview and a desire for President Trump to put Zelensky in a public box, which you also have in quotes. Was that in your notes?"

Now, this is a reference I think to his written testimony. "Was that reference to in a public box in his notes?" Remember, he kept detailed notes. Taylor's answer, "It was in my notes." "And what did you understand to mean to put Zelensky in a public box?" And Taylor responds, "I understood that to mean that President Trump through Ambassador Sondland was asking for President Zelensky to publically commit to these investigations, that it was not sufficient to do this in private that this needed to be done -- this needed to be a very public statement."

[14:45:00]

So we saw earlier the side-by-side comparison, right, of what the Ukrainians wanted to say. They wanted to make no mention of these specific investigations and how Giuliani insisted, no, no, no. This isn't going to be credible unless you mention these specific investigations. This is what it's going to take. And now you see Ambassador Sondland has acknowledged Ambassador Taylor that not enough to use even the right language apparently. Got to be done in public. We're not going to take any private commitment. Got to be done in public.

As we would later come to understand, this is because President Trump didn't care about the investigations being done, he just wanted them announced. He wanted Zelensky in a public box. He wanted it announced publicly.

Ambassador Taylor also testified that he understood from Sondland that because President Trump was a businessman he would expect to get something in return before signing a check.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAYLOR: During our meeting -- during our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador Volker used the same language several days later while we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference. I argued to both that the explanation made no sense. The Ukrainians did not owe President Trump anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: I - this is very telling. Ambassador Taylor, Vietnam veteran, West Point graduate, the Ukrainians didn't owe us anything. Clearly Donald Trump felt the Ukrainians owed him, right? This is not about Ukraine's national security. This is not about our national security. It's not about corruption. No. It's about what's in it for me. Those Ukrainians owe me. Before I sign a check -- and by the way, that's not his money. That's your money. That's the American people's money for their defense.

But here we see Ambassador Sondland expect -- explaining, no, President Trump's a business man, before he's going to sign a check, he wants to get something. And of course, that something that he -- he was going to sign that check or he was going to make that payment for -- with our tax dollars, that thing that he was buy with those tax dollars was a smear of his opponent. And an effort to lift whatever cloud he felt was over his Presidency because of the Russian interference on his behalf in the last election.

Now the President has offered a assortment of shifting explanations after the fact for the whole night [ph] including that he withheld the money because of corruption in Ukraine or concerns about burden sharing with other European countries, but those agreements are completely without merit. First the President's own administration had determined by the time of the hold, that Ukraine had undertaken all necessary anti corruption and defense reforms in order to receive the funds. The Defense Department and the State Department officials repeatedly made this clear as the whole remained and threatened the ability of the agencies to spend the money before the end of the fiscal year.

Second, the evidence revealed that the President only asked about foreign contributions to Ukraine in September, nearly two months after the President implemented the hold and as it became clear that the public, Congress, and a whistleblower were becoming aware of the President's scheme. The after the fact effort to come up with a justification also belies the truth, European countries provide far more financial support to Ukraine than the United States.

There support is largely economic, our also comes [ph] a lot of military support. But Europe is a substantial financial backer of Ukraine. Something else remarkable about this and I was struck by yesterday. As we're going through the importance of the witness testimony and looking at some of those redacted emails in which the administration slapped a hide, it's misconduct. In those redactions, when we got to see what was beneath them, and there was an indication -- this is very close hold (ph), this is a need to know basis only, remember that?

[14:50:00]

We'll show you that again, but one of those emails had only came to light, I believe recently, and not because the administration wanted you to see this information. We see there's a desire not to let people know about this hold. If the president was fighting corruption, they wanted Europeans to pay more -- why would he hide them from us? Why would he hide from Ukrainians, why would he hide from the rest of the world? If this was a desire to get Europe to pay more, why would he charge Sondland to go ask Europe for more?

Why wouldn't he be proud to tell the Congress of the United States, I'm holding up this aid and I'm holding it up because I'm worried about corruption? Why wouldn't he? Because of course it wasn't true. There's no evidence of that. And what's more, the White House admitted why the President held up the money. The President's own chief of staff explained precisely why during October 17th -- October 17th press conference, let's see again what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULVANEY: Oh that was -- those were the driving factors. Then he also mentioned to me that's -- the -- the --the -- the corruption related to the DNC server, absolutely. No question about that. But that's it --that's why we held up the money. Now there was a report --

QUESTION: So -- so the demand for the investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he -- it was all [ph] to withhold funding to Ukraine.

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate [ph].

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: But Mulvaney didn't just admit that the President withheld the crucial aid appropriated by congress to apply pressure on Ukraine to do the president's political dirty work. He also said that we should just get over it. Let's -- let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Just to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the -- into the Democrats server happens [ph] as well.

MULVANEY: We do, we do that all the time, with foreign policy. If you read the news reports and you believe that what did McKinney [ph] say yesterday, we'll McKinney [ph] said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. I have news for everybody, get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: Should the Congress just get over it. Should the American people just come to expect that our president's will corruptly abuse their office to seek the help of a foreign power to cheat in our elections, should we just get over it? Is that what we've come to? I hope and pray that the answer is no. Can not allow a President to withhold military aid from an ally or for elicit help in a re-election campaign. I hope that we don't have to just get over that. I hope that we just don't have to get accustomed to that.

Is that what we want to tell our constituents? Yes, the President withheld aid from an ally, yes, it damaged our national security and yes, he wouldn't meet with a foreign who was important leader who was important to us unless he got help in the next election, and yes, it's wrong to try to get a foreign power to help us kind of cheating, really, if we're going to be honest about it, blatant about it, it's cheating. Americans are supposed to decide American elections, but you know I guess we just need to get over it. I guess it's just what we should now expect of a President of the United States. I guess there's really no remedy for that anymore, the impeachment, I mean maybe that was good idea 200 years ago, but I guess we need to get over it. I guess maybe the President really is above the law because they say you can't indict the president. The President says you can't even investigate the President. The President is -- is in court saying you can not only not indict the president; you can't even investigate the president. Attorney General's position is you can't even investigate the President.

Are we really prepared to say that? Well, the answer to the President's misconduct is we just need to get over it. What are we going to say with the next president? What are we going to with the President who's from a different party who refuses the same kind of subpoenas?

[14:55:00]

And the President says to you of his Chief of Staff says to you, or her Chief of Staff says to you just get over it. I'm not doing anything different than Donald Trump did, just get over it. He asked for help in the next election, I'm asking for help in the next election, just get over it.

We do this kind of thing all the time. People are cynical enough as it is about politics, about peoples commitment to their good, cynical enough without having us confirm it for them.

I think it's more than crazy that was Ambassador Taylor's word. I think it's more than crazy, I think it's gross abuse of power. And I don't think the impeachment power is a relic. If it is a relic, I wonder how much longer our republic can succeed.

For months, President Trump and is agents have pressured Ukraine to announce the investigations and President Zelensky finally yielded. As previously noted, he scheduled a CNN interview and planned to publicly announce the politically motivated investigations.

He informed Sondland of his plan during a September 7th phone call. In the same call Sondland relayed to President Zelensky that Trump required that the Ukrainian leader make the public announcement in order to get the critical military aid.

President Trump's corruption had finally worn down President Zelensky, overcoming his effort to remain true to his anti-corruption platform. Until events intervened. Before Zelensky could do the interview, President Trump learned that his scheme had been exposed. Facing public and congressional pressure on September 11th, the President finally released the hold on aid to Ukraine.

Just like with the implementation of the hold, he provided no reason for the release but the reason is quite simple. The President got caught. In late August, President Trump learned about a whistleblower complaint that was winding it's way through the intelligence agencies on it's way to Congress. On September 9th, three House committees announced an investigation into President Trump's Ukraine misconduct and that of his proxy, Rudy Giuliani. Later that day, again September 9th, the Intelligence Committee Inspector General notified the Senate and House Intelligence Committee's of the existence of the complaint and the fact that it was being withheld from Congress, contrary to law and in an unprecedented fashion.

Facing significant public pressure on September 11th, the President gave up and released the money to Ukraine. One week later, President Zelensky canceled the CNN interview. And rather than demonstration contrition or acknowledge wrongdoing, the President instead has continued his effort even after the impeachment investigation began.

He not only continued to call on Ukraine to investigate his political opponent and called on China to do the same, this should concern all of us. It's a confirmation not only of the scheme to pressure Ukraine to help his political campaign but a clear sign that the President believes that these corrupt acts are acceptable.

A President this unapologetic, this lawless, this unbound to the Constitution and the oath of office must be removed from that office lest he continued to use the vast Presidential powers at his disposal to seek advantage in the next election.

President Trump's abuse of powers of his office undermine the integrity of our free and fair elections and compromised America's national security. If we don't stand up to this peril today, we will write the history of our decline with our hand. If President Trump is not held to account, we send the message to future presidents, future Congresses and generations of Americans that the personal interests of the president can fairly take precedent over those of the nation. The domestic effects of this descent from democracy will be a weakened trust in the integrity of our elections and the rule of law and a steady decline of the spread of democratic values throughout the world.

[15:00:00]