[T]he United States was trying to support Ukraine as a frontline state against Russian attack. And, again, the whole notion of a rules-based order was being threatened by the Russians in Ukraine. So our security assistance was designed to support Ukraine. And it was not just the United States; it was all of our allies.939
Ambassador Taylor explained:
[S]ecurity assistance was so important for Ukraine as well as our own national interests, 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.940
Ambassador Sondland Repeated the President’s Denial of a “Quid Pro Quo” to Ambassador Taylor, While He and President Trump Continued to Demand Public Investigations
In response to Ambassador Taylor’s text message that it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Ambassador Sondland denied that the President had demanded a “quid pro quo.”
At approximately 5:17 a.m. Eastern Time, Ambassador Sondland responded to Ambassador Taylor:
Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S [Secretary Pompeo] a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.941
Notably, Ambassador Sondland recalled that President Trump raised the possible existence of a quid pro quo entirely on his own, without any prompting. Ambassador Sondland asked President Trump what he affirmatively wanted from Ukraine, yet President Trump reportedly responded by asserting what was not the case:
Q:
Okay. During that telephone conversation with President Trump, you didn’t ask the President directly if there was a quid pro quo, correct?
A:
No. As I testified, I asked the question open ended, what do you want from Ukraine?
Q:
President Trump was the first person to use the word “quid pro quo,” correct?
A:
That is correct.942
In contrast, Ambassador Sondland testified unequivocally there was a quid pro quo in connection to a telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, as well as a White House meeting for President Zelensky.943 He acknowledged that the reference to “transparency and reforms” in his text message to Ambassador Taylor “was my clumsy way of saying he wanted these announcement to be made.”944
Ambassador Sondland also testified that President Trump immediately followed his stated denial of a quid pro quo by demanding that President Zelensky still make a public announcement, while the military assistance remained on an unexplained hold. Ambassador Sondland agreed that President Trump said that he wanted President Zelensky to “clear things up and do it in public,” as Ambassador Taylor had testified.945 Ambassador Sondland testified that nothing on his call with President Trump changed his understanding of a quid pro quo and, at least as of September 8, he was “absolutely convinced” the White House meeting and President Trump’s release of the military assistance were conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations President Trump sought.946
After hearing from President Trump, Ambassador Sondland promptly told the Ukrainian leader and Mr. Yermak that “if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate.”947 President Zelensky responded to the demand relayed by Ambassador Sondland, by agreeing to make an announcement of investigations on CNN.948
Regardless of when the call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland occurred, both that phone call and Ambassador’s Sondland text message denying any quid pro quo occurred after the White House had been informed of the whistleblower complaint discussing the hold on security assistance. The White House first received notice of the whistleblower complaint alleging wrongdoing concerning the President’s July 25 call with President Zelensky on August 26—over a week before the “no quid pro quo” denial.949 In addition, Ambassador Sondland wrote his text message on September 9, the same day that the ICIG informed the Committee of the existence of a “credible” and “urgent” whistleblower complaint that was later revealed to be related to Ukraine.950 The Administration received prior notice of the ICIG’s intent to inform the Committee.951
Ambassador Sondland’s Testimony is the Only Evidence the Committees Received Indicating That President Trump Denied Any “Quid Pro Quo” on the Phone on September 9
Ambassador Sondland testified in his deposition that he sent a text message to Ambassador Taylor after speaking directly with President Trump on September 9. However, testimony from other witnesses and documents available to the Committees do not confirm that Ambassador Sondland and President Trump spoke on that day.
Ambassador Sondland’s own testimony indicated some ambiguity in his recollection of the timing of the call. At a public hearing on November 20, Ambassador Sondland testified that he “still cannot find a record of that call [on September 9] because the State Department and the White House cannot locate it.”952 While Ambassador Sondland testified that “I’m pretty sure I had the call on that day,”953 he acknowledged that he might have misremembered the date of the September 9 call—“I may have even spoken to him on September 6th”—and that without his call records, he could not be certain about when he spoke to President Trump.954
After the deposition transcripts of Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison were made public, including their detailed accounts of the September 7 conversation that Ambassador Sondland had with President Trump, Ambassador Sondland submitted a written addendum to his deposition based on his “refreshed” recollection.955 In that addendum, Ambassador Sondland amended his testimony and stated, “I cannot specifically recall if I had one or two phone calls with President Trump in the September 6-9 time frame.”956
Furthermore, the conversation recalled by Ambassador Sondland as having taken place on September 9 is consistent with a conversation that Ambassador Sondland relayed to Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor during the previous two days. Both Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor, after reviewing their contemporaneous written notes, provided detailed testimony about Ambassador Sondland’s description of his call with President Trump. For example, Ambassador Sondland shared with Ambassador Taylor that even though President Trump asserted that “there is no quid pro quo,” President Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.”957 Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor both testified that this conversation occurred on September 7.958 Ambassador Sondland acknowledged that he had no basis to dispute the recollections of Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor.959 Ambassador Sondland, who testified that he does not take notes, stated: “If they have notes and they recall that, I don’t have any reason to dispute it.”960
Text messages produced to the Committees also indicate that Ambassador Sondland spoke to President Trump prior to September 8. On September 4, Ambassador Volker texted Mr. Yermak that Ambassador Sondland planned to speak to President Trump on September 6 or 7. Ambassador Volker wrote: “Hi Andrey. Reports are that pence liked meeting and will press trump on scheduling Ze visit. Gordon will follow up with pence and, if nothing moving, will have a chance to talk with President on Saturday [September 7].”961 Ambassador Volker then corrected himself: “Sorry—on Friday [September 6].”962
On Sunday, September 8, at 11:20 a.m. Eastern Time, Ambassador Sondland texted Ambassadors Taylor and Volker: “Guys multiple convos with Ze, Potus. Lets talk.”963 Shortly after this text,
Ambassador Taylor testified that he spoke to Ambassador Sondland, who recounted his conversation with President Trump on September 7, as well as a separate conversation that Ambassador Sondland had with President Zelensky.
The timing of the text messages also raises questions about Ambassador Sondland’s recollection. If Ambassador Sondland spoke to President Trump after receiving Ambassador Taylor’s text message on September 9, and before he responded, then the timing of the text messages would mean that President Trump took Ambassador Sondland’s call in the middle of the night in Washington, D.C. Ambassador Taylor sent his message on September 9 at 12:47 a.m. Eastern Time, and Ambassador Sondland responded less than five hours later at 5:19 a.m. Eastern Time.964
In any event, President Trump’s purported denial of the “quid pro quo” was also contradicted when Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly admitted that security assistance was withheld in order to pressure Ukraine to conduct an investigation into the 2016 election.
On October 17, at a press briefing in the White House, Mr. Mulvaney confirmed that President Trump withheld the essential military aid for Ukraine as leverage to pressure Ukraine to investigate the conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election, which was also promoted by Vladimir Putin.965 Mr. Mulvaney confirmed that President Trump “absolutely” mentioned “corruption related to the DNC server…. No question about that.”966 When the White House press corps attempted to clarify this acknowledgement of a quid pro quo related to security assistance, Mr. Mulvaney replied: “We do that all the time with foreign policy.” He continued. “I have news for everybody: get over it.”967
8. The President’s Scheme Was Exposed
President Trump lifted the hold on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine on September 11 after it became clear to the White House and President Trump that his scheme was exposed.
Overview
As news of the President’s hold on military assistance to Ukraine became public on August 28, Congress, the press, and the public increased their scrutiny of President Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine, which risked exposing President Trump’s scheme. By this date, the White House had learned that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), Michael Atkinson, had determined that a whistleblower complaint related to the same Ukraine matters was “credible” and an “urgent concern,” and, pursuant to the applicable statute, recommended to the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Joseph Maguire, that the complaint should be transmitted to Congress.
In early September, bipartisan Members of both houses of Congress—publicly, and privately—expressed concerns to the White House about the hold on military assistance. On September 9, after months of internal discussion due to growing concern about the activity of President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, regarding Ukraine, the Chairs of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform announced a joint investigation into efforts by President Trump and Mr. Giuliani, “to improperly pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President’s bid for reelection,” including by withholding Congressionally-appropriated military assistance.
Later that same day, the ICIG notified Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes that, despite uniform past practice and a statutory requirement that credible, “urgent concern” complaints be provided to the intelligence committees, the Acting DNI was nevertheless withholding the whistleblower complaint from Congress. The Acting DNI later testified that his office initially withheld the complaint on the advice of the White House, with guidance from the Department of Justice.
Two days later, on September 11, the President lifted the hold on the military assistance to Ukraine. Numerous witnesses testified that they were never aware of any official reason for why the hold was either implemented or lifted.
Notwithstanding this ongoing inquiry, President Trump has continued to urge Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Biden. For example, when asked by a journalist on October 3 what he hoped Ukraine’s President would do about the Bidens in response to the July 25 call, President Trump responded: “Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.” President Trump reiterated his affinity for the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, whom numerous witnesses described as inept and corrupt: “And they got rid of a prosecutor who was a very tough prosecutor. They got rid of him. Now they’re trying to make it the opposite way.”
Public Scrutiny of President Trump’s Hold on Military Assistance for Ukraine
After news of the President’s freeze on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine became public on August 28, both houses of Congress increased their ongoing scrutiny of President Trump’s decision.968 On September 3, a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator Rob Portman and Senator Ron Johnson, sent a letter to Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney expressing “deep concerns” that the “Administration is considering not obligating the Ukraine Security Initiative funds for 2019.”969 The Senators’ letter urged that the “vital” funds be obligated “immediately.”970 On September 5, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a letter to Mr. Mulvaney and Acting Director of the OMB Russell Vought expressing “deep concern” about the continuing hold on security assistance funding for Ukraine.971
On September 5, the Washington Post editorial board reported concerns that President Trump was withholding military assistance for Ukraine and a White House meeting in order to force President Zelensky to announce investigations of Mr. Biden and purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The Post editorial board wrote:
[W]e’re reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.
It added:
The White House claims Mr. Trump suspended Ukraine’s military aid in order for it [sic] be reviewed. But, as CNN reported, the Pentagon has already completed the study and recommended that the hold be lifted. Yet Mr. Trump has not yet acted. If his recalcitrance has a rationale, other than seeking to compel a foreign government to aid his reelection, the president has yet to reveal it.972
On the same day that the Washington Post published its editorial, Senators Christopher Murphy and Ron Johnson visited Kyiv, and met with President Zelensky. They were accompanied by Ambassador Bill Taylor and Counselor for Political Affairs David Holmes of U.S. Embassy Kyiv. President Zelensky’s “first question to the Senators was about the withheld security assistance.”973 Ambassador Taylor testified that both Senators “stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine’s most important strategic asset and that President Zelensky should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.” 974
As Senator Johnson and Senator Murphy later recounted, the Senators sought to reassure President Zelensky that there was bipartisan support in Congress for providing Ukraine with military assistance for Ukraine and that they would continue to urge President Trump to lift the hold—as Senator Johnson had already tried, unsuccessfully, before traveling to Ukraine.975
Three Committees Announced Joint Investigation of President’s Scheme
On September 9, the Chairs of the House Intelligence Committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform publicly announced a joint investigation of the scheme by President Trump and Mr. Giuliani “to improperly pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President’s bid for reelection.”976 The Committees had been planning and coordinating this
investigation since early summer, after growing public scrutiny of Mr. Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine and questions about Ambassador Yovanovitch’s abrupt removal following a public smear campaign targeting her.
In a letter sent to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone the same day, the three Chairs stated that President Trump and Mr. Giuliani “appear to have acted outside legitimate law enforcement and diplomatic channels to coerce the Ukrainian government into pursuing two politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity”—investigations into purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and Vice President Biden and his son.977
With respect to the hold on Ukraine military assistance, the Chairs observed that “[i]f the President is trying to pressure Ukraine into choosing between defending itself from Russian aggression without U.S. assistance or leveraging its judicial system to serve the ends of the Trump campaign, this would represent a staggering abuse of power, a boon to Moscow, and a betrayal of the public trust.”978 The Chairs requested that the White House preserve all relevant records and produce them by September 16, including the transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky.979
On the same day, the Chairs of the three Committees sent a similar letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seeking the preservation and production of all relevant records at the Department of State by September 16.980 To date, and as explained more fully in Section II, Secretary Pompeo has not produced a single document sought by the Committees pursuant to a lawful subpoena.
NSC Senior Director for Russia and Europe Timothy Morrison recalled seeing a copy of the letter that was sent by the three Chairs to the White House.981 He also recalled that the three Committees’ Ukraine investigation was discussed at meeting of senior-level NSC staff soon after it was publicly announced.982 The NSC’s legislative affairs staff issued a notice of the investigation to NSC staff members, although it is unclear exactly when.983 NSC Director for Ukraine Alexander Vindman recalled discussions among NSC staff members, including Mr. Morrison’s deputy, John Erath, that the investigation “might have the effect of releasing the hold” on Ukraine military assistance because it would be “potentially politically challenging” for the Administration to “justify that hold” to the Congress.984
The Impeachment Report Page 23