Ambassador P. Michael McKinley, Former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State, Department of State
On October 12, 2019, Committee staff emailed Ambassador P. Michael McKinley requesting his voluntary participation in a transcribed interview on October 16.381 On October 14, the Committees sent a letter formalizing this request.382 On October 16, Ambassador McKinley participated in the scheduled transcribed interview.383
Ambassador Philip T. Reeker, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Department of State
On October 16, 2019, the Committees sent a letter seeking Ambassador Philip T. Reeker’s testimony at a deposition on October 23.384 On October 25, the Committees sent Ambassador Reeker a subpoena seeking his testimony on October 26.385 Ambassador Reeker complied and testified at the scheduled deposition.386
Ambassador Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Department of State
On September 13, 2019, the Committees wrote a letter to Secretary Pompeo requesting the testimony of four witnesses, including Ambassador Kurt Volker.387 On September 27, the Committees sent a follow up letter to Secretary Pompeo, noting that Ambassador Volker’s deposition had been scheduled for October 3.388 On that same day, the Committees sent a letter directly to Ambassador Volker, seeking his testimony at the deposition scheduled for October 3.389
On October 1, Secretary Pompeo responded to the Committees, refusing to make Ambassador Volker available on the requested date.390 On October 2, the Department of State wrote a letter to Ambassador Volker’s counsel instructing Ambassador Volker not to reveal classified or privileged information and prohibiting Ambassador Volker from producing any government documents.391
On October 2, Ambassador Volker produced copies of text messages in response to the Committees’ request.392 On October 3, Ambassador Volker voluntarily participated in a transcribed interview.393 In addition, on November 19, Ambassador Volker testified voluntarily at a public hearing.394
Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor for Europe and Russia, Office of the Vice President
On November 4, 2019, the Committees sent a letter to Jennifer Williams seeking her testimony at a deposition on November 7.395 On November 7, the Committees sent Ms. Williams a subpoena seeking her testimony the same day.396 Ms. Williams complied.397 On November 11, Ms. Williams sent a letter to Chairman Schiff to make one amendment to her deposition testimony.398 In addition, on November 19, the Committees conveyed a subpoena seeking Ms. William’s testimony at a public hearing on November 19.399 Ms. Williams also complied with this subpoena and testified at the public hearing.400
6. The President’s Intimidation of Witnesses
President Trump publicly attacked and intimidated witnesses who came forward to comply with duly authorized subpoenas and testify about his conduct. The President also threatened and attacked an Intelligence Community whistleblower.
Overview
President Trump engaged in a brazen effort to publicly attack and intimidate witnesses who came forward to comply with duly authorized subpoenas and testify about his conduct, raising grave concerns about potential violations of the federal obstruction statute and other criminal laws intended to protect witnesses appearing before Congressional proceedings. President Trump issued threats, openly discussed possible retaliation, made insinuations about witnesses’ character and patriotism, and subjected them to mockery and derision. The President’s attacks were broadcast to millions of Americans—including witnesses’ families, friends, and coworkers—and his actions drew criticism from across the political spectrum, including from his own Republican supporters.
It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress. This statute applies to all citizens, including federal officials. Violations of this law can carry a criminal sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
This campaign of intimidation risks discouraging witnesses from coming forward voluntarily, complying with mandatory subpoenas for documents and testimony, and disclosing evidence that may support consideration of articles of impeachment.
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Department of State
As discussed above, President Trump removed Marie Yovanovitch as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine in May 2019 following a concerted effort by Rudy Giuliani, his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, and others to spread false conspiracy theories about her. The smearing of the Ambassador was part of the larger campaign undertaken by Mr. Giuliani at President Trump’s direction and in his capacity as President Trump’s representative. During her deposition on October 11, Ambassador Yovanovitch explained that she felt threatened and “very concerned” after she read President Trump’s statements about her during his July 25 call with President Zelensky, including President Trump’s claim that “she’s going to go through some things.”401
On November 15, Ambassador Yovanovitch testified at a public hearing that she was “shocked” and “devastated” by the President’s statements about her:
I was shocked and devastated that I would feature in a phone call between two heads of state in such a manner, where President Trump said that I was bad news to another world leader and that I would be “going through some things.” So I was—it was—it was a terrible moment. A person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face. I think I even had a physical reaction. I think, you know, even now, words kind of fail me.402
Ambassador Yovanovitch was also asked about her reaction to the President’s comment that she would “go through some things.” She acknowledged feeling threatened, stating: “It didn’t sound good. It sounded like a threat.”403
As Ambassador Yovanovitch was in the process of testifying before the Committee, President Trump tweeted an attack against her. He wrote:
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.404
During the hearing, Chairman Schiff asked Ambassador Yovanovitch for her reaction to the President’s attacks:
Q:
Ambassador, you’ve shown the courage to come forward today and testify, notwithstanding the fact you were urged by the White House or State Department not to; notwithstanding the fact that, as you testified earlier, the President implicitly threatened you in that call record. And now, the President in real-time is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?
A:
Well, it’s very intimidating.
Q:
It’s designed to intimidate, is it not?
A:
I—I—I mean, I can’t speak to what the President is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating.
Q:
Well, I want to let you know, Ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.405
In response to the President’s attacks, Rep. Liz Cheney, Chair of the House Republican Caucus, stated that the President “was wrong” and that Ambassador Yovanovitch “clearly is somebody who’s been a public servant to the United States for decades and I don’t think the President should have done that.”406 Rep. Francis Rooney, also a Republican, stated: “I don’t necessarily think it’s right to be harassing or beating up on our professional diplomatic service.”407
Even after these rebukes, the President continued to attack and threaten Ambassador Yovanovitch. For example, in an interview on November 22, President Trump stated: “This was not an angel, this woman, okay? And
there are a lot of things that she did that I didn’t like. And we will talk about that at some time.”408
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, Director for Ukraine, National Security Council
On October 29, President Trump tweeted that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is a “Never Trumper.”409 When asked by a reporter what evidence he had for his claim, the President responded: “We’ll be showing that to you real soon. Okay?”410 President Trump continued attacking Lt. Col. Vindman during his testimony on November 19, seeking to question his loyalty to the United States. The President retweeted: “Lt. Col. Vindman was offered the position of Defense Minister for the Ukrainian Government THREE times!”411 Allies of the President also questioned Lt. Col. Vindman’s loyalty to the country and amplified the smear.412
For his part, Lt. Col. Vindman stated during his testimony:
I want to take a moment to recognize the courage of my colleagues who have appeared and are scheduled to appear before this Committee. I want to state that the vile character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible.413
Ambassador William B. Taylor, Jr., Chargé d’Affaires for U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Department of State
On October 23, one day after Ambassador William Taylor’s deposition, the President sent a tweet comparing “Never Trumper Republicans” to “human scum.”414 An hour later, he described Ambassador Taylor in a tweet as a “Never Trumper.”415
On October 25, the President discussed Ambassador Taylor’s testimony with reporters, and again dismissed the Ambassador as a “Never Trumper.” After a reporter noted that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had hired Ambassador Taylor, the President responded: “Hey, everybody makes mistakes.” He then had the following exchange about Ambassador Taylor:
Q:
Do you want him out now as the top diplomat?
A:
He’s a Never Trumper. His lawyer is the head of the Never Trumpers. They’re a dying breed, but they’re still there.416
On the morning of November 13, just before Ambassador Taylor and George Kent testified at a public hearing, the President tweeted: “NEVER TRUMPERS!”417
Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor for Europe and Russia, Office of the Vice President
On November 17, two days before Jennifer Williams testified at a public hearing, President Trump sent a tweet attacking her and stating that “she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!”418 During the hearing, Rep. Jim Himes asked Ms. Williams what impression the President’s tweet had made on her. She responded: “It certainly surprised me. I was not expecting to be called out by name.” Rep. Himes noted that the tweet “surprised me, too, and it looks an awful lot like witness intimidation and tampering, and an effort to try to get you to perhaps shape your testimony today.”419
Threats of Retaliation
The President suggested that witnesses who testified as part of the impeachment inquiry could face retaliation. For example, on November 16, the President sent a pair of tweets indicating that three witnesses appearing before the impeachment inquiry could face dismissals as a result of their testimony. The President tweeted language he attributed to radio host Rush Limbaugh:
“My support for Donald Trump has never been greater than it is right now. It is paramountly obvious watching this, these people have to go. You elected Donald Trump to drain the Swamp, well, dismissing people like Yovanovitch is what that looks like. Dismissing people like Kent…and Taylor, dismissing everybody involved from the Obama holdover days trying to undermine Trump, getting rid of those people, dismissing them, this is what it looks like. It was never going to be clean, they were never going to sit by idly and just let Trump do this!” Rush L420
Intelligence Community Whistleblower
In addition to his relentless attacks on witnesses who testified in connection with the House’s impeachment inquiry, the President also repeatedly threatened and attacked a member of the Intelligence Community who filed an anonymous whistleblower complaint raising an “urgent concern” regarding the President’s conduct. The whistleblower filed the complaint confidentially with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, as authorized by the relevant whistleblower law. Federal law prohibits the Inspector General from revealing the whistleblower’s identity.421 Federal law also protects the whistleblower from retaliation.422
On September 9, the Inspector General notified Congress that this individual had filed a credible complaint regarding an “urgent concern,” but that the Acting Director of National Intelligence was withholding the complaint from Congress—contrary to his statutory obligation to have submitted the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees by no later than September 2.423 On September 13, 2019, the Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to the Acting Director of National Intelligence for the whistleblower’s complaint and other records.424
On September 26, the Intelligence Committee received the declassified whistleblower complaint and made it available to the public.425
That day, the President issued a chilling threat against the whistleblower and those who provided information to the whistleblower regarding the President’s misconduct, suggesting that they could face the death penalty for treason. President Trump stated:
I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.426
In response, the Committees warned President Trump to stop attacking the whistleblower, stating:
The President’s comments today constitute reprehensible witness intimidation and an attempt to obstruct Congress’ impeachment inquiry. We condemn the President’s attacks, and we invite our Republican counterparts to do the same because Congress must do all it can to protect this whistleblower, and all whistleblowers. Threats of violence from the leader of our country have a chilling effect on the entire whistleblower process, with grave consequences for our democracy and national security.427
Yet the President’s attacks did not stop. Instead, he continued to threaten the whistleblower, publicly questioned the whistleblower’s motives, disputed the accuracy of the whistleblower’s account, and encouraged others to reveal the whistleblower’s identity. The President’s focus on the whistleblower has been obsessive, with the President making more than 100 public statements about the whistleblower over a period of just two months. For example, the President stated:
“I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the ‘Whistleblower.’ Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!”428
“I think it’s outrageous that a Whistleblower is a CIA agent.”429
“But what they said is he’s an Obama person. It was involved with Brennan; Susan Rice, which means Obama. But he was like a big—a big anti-Trump person. Hated Trump.”430
“The Whistleblower got it sooo wrong that HE must come forward. The Fake News Media knows who he is but, being an arm of the Democrat Party, don’t want to reveal him because there would be hell to pay. Reveal the Whistleblower and end the Impeachment Hoax!”431
“But the whistleblower should be revealed because the whistleblower gave false stories. Some people would call it a fraud; I won’t go that far. But when I read it closely, I probably would. But the whistleblower should be revealed.”432
“I think that the whistleblower gave a lot of false information.”433
“The whistleblower is not a whistleblower. He’s a fake…. Everybody knows who
the whistleblower is. And the whistleblower is a political operative.”434
In response to a request from Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes to call the whistleblower to testify at an open hearing, Chairman Schiff underscored the danger posed by the President’s threats against the whistleblower and why the whistleblower’s testimony was now unnecessary:
The Committee also will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm. It remains the duty of the Intelligence Committee to protect whistleblowers, and until recently, this was a bipartisan priority. The whistleblower has a right under laws championed by this Committee to remain anonymous and to be protected from harm.
The impeachment inquiry, moreover, has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence—from witnesses and documents, including the President’s own words in his July 25 call record—that not only confirms, but far exceeds, the initial information in the whistleblower’s complaint. The whistleblower’s testimony is therefore redundant and unnecessary. In light of the President’s threats, the individual’s appearance before us would only place their personal safety at grave risk.435
Until President Trump’s attacks on the whistleblower, Republicans and Democrats were united in protecting whistleblowers’ right to report abuses of power and be free from retaliation.436 For example, Rep. Nunes, serving in 2017 as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, spoke in defense of whistleblowers, stating: “We want people to come forward and we will protect the identity of those people at all cost.”437 He also stated:
The Impeachment Report Page 42