Return to Transcripts main page
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
Final Day of Opening Arguments of Impeachment Trial. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired January 24, 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] COOPER: They also denied Ukraine access to its naval fleet at the time, and to this day Russia is building a capability on Crimea designed to expand Russian military power projection far beyond the immediate region.
CARSON: In 2014, were there concerns in Washington - here in Washington and European capitals that Russia might not stop in Ukraine?
COOPER: I was not in my current position in 2014, but it is my understanding that there was significant fear about where Russian aggression would stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: One American, a war hero and statesman who's no stranger to this body recognized the threat posed by Russia's invasion of Crimea, Senator John McCain. In an interview, he declared, quote, "We are all Ukrainians." Senator McCain advised that this is a chess match reminiscent of the Cold War, and we need to realize that and act accordingly. He was, of course, absolutely right, consistent with the commitments made to Ukraine in 1994, the United States and Europe responded to Russia's invasion by imposing significant sanctions on Russia. We joined Europe in providing Ukraine billions of dollars in economic support to help is resist Russian influence. And the Senate approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority vital security assistance to help rebuild Ukraine's military, which the former Russian-backed leader of Ukraine had starved of resources.
This strong bipartisan support for Ukraine reflected what Senator McCain said was an opportunity for the United States to undermine Russian leverage in Eastern Europe by building, quote, "a success in Ukraine." Senator McCain outlined this vision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: Putin also sees here's this beautiful and large and magnificent country called Ukraine, and suppose Ukraine finally after failing in 2004 gets it right, democracy, gets rid of corruption, economy's really improving, and it's right there on the border of Russia. And so, I think it makes me very nervous if there were a success in Ukraine in bringing about a free and open society and economic success, which is not the case in Russia, as you know, which is propped up by energy. (END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Achieving the Ukrainian success that Senator McCain and many of us hoped for proved to be a daunting task, but several witnesses who testified before the House said Vladimir Zelensky's landslide election in April 2019 was a game changer. Here is how U.S. diplomat David Holmes explained the, quote, "historic opportunity created by his election."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Despite the Russian aggression over the past five years, Ukrainians have rebuilt a shattered economy, adhered to a peace process, and moved economically and socially closer to the west toward our way of life.
Earlier this year, large majorities Ukrainians again chose a fresh start by voting for a political newcomer as president, replacing 80 percent of their parliament and endorsing a platform consistent with our democratic values, our reform priorities, and our strategic interests. This year's revolution at the ballot box underscores that despite its imperfections Ukraine is a genuine and vibrant democracy and an example to other post-Soviet countries and beyond from Moscow to Hong Kong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Support for Ukraine's security and reform is critical not only to our own national security, but that to other allies and emerging democracies around the world. The widely-accepted fact of Ukraine's importance to our national security makes President Trump's abuse of power and withholding of vital, diplomatic, and military support all the more disturbing.
First, witnesses assessed that withholding the military aid likely helped to prolong the war against Russia. When wars drag on, more people die. Ambassador Taylor testified to this sober reality.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
I take it if the provision of the U.S. military assistance would safe Ukrainian lives that any delay in that assistance may also cost Ukrainian lives. Is that - is that true?
TAYLOR: Chairman, of course it's hard to draw any direct lines between any particular element of security assistance an any particular death on the battlefield, but it is certainly true that that assistance had enabled Ukrainian armed forces to be effective and deter and to be able to take countermeasures to the - to the attacks that the Russians had...
[14:35:00]
SCHIFF: And I think you said that a Ukrainian soldier lost their life while you were visiting Donbass? TAYLOR: We keep very careful track of the casualties, and I noticed on the next day the information that we got that one was killed, four people - four soldiers were wounded on that day.
SCHIFF: And indeed Ukrainians lose their lives every week.
TAYLOR: Every week.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: David Holmes also testified that prolonging the war in Ukraine results in additional casualties.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: As we sit here today, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. This week alone, since I have been here in Washington two Ukrainian soldiers were killed and two injured by Russian-led forces in Eastern Ukraine, despite a declared ceasefire.
I learned overnight that seven more were injured yesterday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Withholding the aid has real consequences to real soldiers, with real families. And bear in mind that U.S. aid is fully 10 percent of Ukraine's defense budget -- 10 percent. That's not an extra bonus, that's necessary aid for Ukraine to defend itself on the frontline.
Now the second consequence of President Trump's withholding of military assistance was that it emboldened Russia, our adversary. Here is Laura Cooper, a Pentagon Official who oversaw the military aid.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARSON: What about today? If the U.S. were to withdraw its military support of Ukraine, what would effectively happen?
COOPER: It is my belief that if we were to withdraw our support it would embolden Russia, it would also validate Russia's violation of international law.
CARSON: And which country stands to benefit the most? Would stand to benefit the most from such a withdraw?
COOPER: Russia.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Russia was not only in battled -- emboldened on the battlefield. Ambassador Taylor testified that President Trump's corrupt withholding of military assistance and his failure to host President Zelensky in the Oval Office was, "a sign of weakness to Moscow." And it harmed Ukraine's negotiation position, even as recently as December 9 when Zelensky and Putin met to discuss the conflict in the East, shown in this photo.
Ambassador Taylor explained --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: I think you also testified that Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian government, why is that significant?
TAYLOR: This is significant Mr. Chairman because the Ukrainians, in particular under this new administration are eager to end this war, and they are eager to end it in a way that the Russians leave their territory. These negotiations, like all negotiations are difficult. Ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from a position of strength, or at least more strength than they now have.
Part of that strength, part of the ability of the Ukrainians to negotiate against the Russians -- with the Russians for an end to the war in Donbass depends on United States, and other international support. If we withdraw or suspend, or threaten to withdraw our security assistance that's a message to the Ukrainians but it's at least as important as your question indicates, Mr. Chairman, to the Russians who are looking for any sign of weakness, or any sign that we are withdrawing our support for Ukraine.
SCHIFF: And so when the Ukrainians learned of the suspension of the military aid either privately or when others learned publicly, the Russians would be learning also, and they would take that as a lack of robust U.S. support for Ukraine, is that right?
TAYLOR: That is correct, sir.
SCHIFF: And that would weaken Ukraine in negotiating an end to the war in Donbass?
TAYLOR: It would.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Indeed the aid doesn't just supply much-needed weapons to Ukraine, it is a symbol of support, a signal of strength, a signal of the backing of the United States. And withholding that aid, even for a period of time, undermined all of those things.
[14:40:00]
President Trump's actions towards Ukraine also undercut worldwide confidence in the United States as a reliable security partner. Maintaining that confidence is crucial to the strength of our alliances in Europe, to deterring Russia, and ultimately protecting and projecting democracy around the world.
The United States has roughly 68,000 troops stationed in Europe, they serve alongside troops from 28 other countries that comprise the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. They are holding the line against further Russian aggression. It was U.S. leadership that led to the creation of NATO 70 years ago, as the Iron Curtain was descending across the heart of Europe, and it is American leadership that makes NATO work today.
NATO is also effected because other countries friends and foes alike, know that we are committed to our collective defense -- that an attack against one nation is an attack against all of us. That principle deterred a Russian invasion of Europe during the Cold War, it's only been invoked once by NATO in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
New York is a long way from the frontlines with Russia, but our European allies stood with us after that dark day. They deployed tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan and joined us in fighting the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the twin towers and the Pentagon.
Now Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a threat to the peace and security of Europe. Moscow's aggression threatened the rules of the road that have kept the peace in Europe since World War II, the sacrosanct idea that borders cannot be changed by military force.
If we had not supported Ukraine in 2014 -- if members of this body had not voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis for military assistance to rebuild Ukraine's military, there is no question it would have invited further Russian adventurism in Ukraine and perhaps elsewhere in the heart of Europe.
It would have weakened our allies, and exposed U.S. troops stationed in Europe to greater danger. Deterring Russia requires persistence. Not just one military aid package, or one Oval Office meeting -- but a sustained policy of support for our partners.
We only deter Russia by consistently demonstrating support for our friends -- friends like Ukraine. George Schultz who served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State understood this.
He compared diplomacy and alliance management to gardening, he said, "if you plant a garden and go away for six months, what have you got when you come back? Weeds. Diplomacy," he said, "is kind of like that, you go around, talk to people, you develop a relationship of trust and confidence. And then if something comes up you have that base to work from."
President Trump's decision to transform the military aid and Oval Office meeting in to leverage was the equivalent of trampling all over George Schultz's garden, crushing Ukraine's confidence in the United States as a partner.
He also caused our NATO allies to question whether we would stand with them against Russia. Leaders in European capitals now wonder whether personal political favors and not treaty obligations guide our foreign policy.
Colleagues this is how alliances whither and die. And how Russia wins. Ambassador Taylor made clear that is why it is so important to our security that we stand with Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman as my colleague, Deputy Assistance Secretary George Kent described we have a National Security Policy, a National Defense Policy that identifies Russia and China as adversaries. The Russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in Europe for nearly 70 years. Until they invaded Ukraine in 2014 they had abided by Sovereignty of Nations of Inviolability of Borders, that rule of law. That order that kept the peace in Europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in Europe was violated by the Russians and if we don't push back on that, on those violations then that will continue. And that Mr. Chairman affects us, it affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren. This affects the kind of world that we want to see overall. So that affects out National Interest very directly. Ukraine is on the front line of that conflict.
[14:45:00]
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Now we understood that in 2017. The first year of the Trump Administration and it appeared the Trump Administration understood it as well. And we understood it in 2018 and the Trump Administration understood that as well. And we understood that in 2019 and the Trump Administration appeared to as well. At least it did until it didn't. It did until something of greater importance and significance came along and that eventually event of greater significance to the Oval Office was the emergence of Joe Biden as a Candidate for President. And then that Military Support, which had increased during the Trump Administration, was suddenly put on hold for inexplicable reasons.
Ukraine got the message, it wasn't very inexplicable to Ukraine and what's (ph) more Russia got the message. It wasn't very inexplicable to Russia. That had pushed out the whole propaganda theory that it was Ukraine that had interfered in our election and not Russia. And so that consensus among the Congress and the Administration among the right and the left and the center that as Ambassador Taylor explained, this is not only vital to Ukraine Security in the post World War II order that has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years but it's vital to us and our security as well.
That all broke down, that all broke down over an effort led by the President and his Agent Rudy Giuliani and his agents Parnos and Fruman to overturn all of that. Overturn a decades long commitment to standing up to Russian aggression. We have so tremendously benefitted. No country has benefitted more from the international rules of the road, the international order than the United States. Gave us the peace and stability to prosper like no other nation has before and we're throwing it away - we're throwing it away.
We're undermining the rule of law, we're undermining the principle you don't invade your neighbor, we're undermining the key to our own success. And for what? For help with a political campaign. To quote Bill Taylor, "that's crazy." It's crazy.
If our allies can't trust us to stand behind them at a time of need, we will soon not have a single ally left. Look, I - I know it's painful to see some of our allies and how they talk about this President because when they talk about this President, they're also talking about the United States. And it's painful to see our allies distance themself (sic) from the United States. And it's more than painful, it's dangerous - it's dangerous to us.
I think it was Churchill who once said "there's nothing worse than allies except having no allies." But if we're going to condition our support for our allies on their willingness to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into our politics, we're going to condition the strength of our alliance on whether they'll help us cheat in an election, we're not going to have a single ally left. And not a single one of us in this chamber is ever going to be able to say to one of our counterparts to "respect the rule of law" without it being thrown in our face.
Promoting the rule of law and fighting corruption is central to our foreign policy. It distinguishes U.S. global leadership from the transactional approach favored by authoritarian adversaries. The inherently corrupt nature of the President's demand that Ukraine investigate his political opponent undermined the credibility of efforts to promote the rule of law and combat corruption in Ukraine and around the world.
[14:50:00] Indeed, the President engaging in the very conduct at home that our policy fights abroad sabotages longstanding bipartisan pillars of American diplomacy. This was a problem not least because the pervasive corruption with Ukraine leaves its politics and economy susceptible to Russian influence and subterfuge. Ambassador Yovanovitch emphasized that U.S. policy in Ukraine has long recognized that the struggle against corruption and defending against Russia are in fact two sides of the very same coin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YOVANOVITCH: Corruption makes Ukraine's leaders ever vulnerable to Russia and the Ukrainian people understand that. That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding to be a part of Europe, demanding the transformation of the system, demanding to live under the rule of law.
Ukrainians wanted the law to apply equally to all people, whether the individual in question is the President or any other citizen. It was a question of fairness, of dignity. Here again, there is a coincidence of interests.
Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy while an honest and accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukrainian partnership more reliable and more valuable to the United States. A level playing field in this strategically located country, bordering four NATO allies, creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit.
Corruption is also a security issue because corrupt officials are vulnerable to Moscow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: During that conversation that - that we related in the past when Ambassador Volker urged his Ukrainian counterpart Andriy Yermak not to investigate the past President of Ukraine and Yermak threw it back in his face. You remember the conversation - "oh, you mean like the investigation you want us to do of the Clintons and the Bidens."
They taught us something in that conversation. They taught us that we've forgotten for that moment our own values. You know, just listening to the Ambassador right now, I was thinking how interesting it is that the Ukrainians chose to describe their revolution as a revolution of dignity.
And maybe that's what we need here, a revolution of dignity at home, a revolution of civility here at home. Maybe we can learn a lot more from our Ukrainian ally. In short, it is America's national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a country where the rule of law, governors (ph) and corruption is held in check.
As we heard yesterday, anti-corruption policy was a central part of the talking points provided to President Trump before his phone calls with President Zelensky on April 21st and July 25th. President Trump, of course, didn't mention corruption, but importantly those same foreign policy goals remained intact following the call.
As Tim Morrison testified, "anti-corruption reforms, institutional reforms remain a top U.S. priority to help Ukraine fight corruption." President Zelensky was swept into office on an anti-corruption platform. Immediately, he kept his promise and introduced numerous bills in Ukraine's Parliament.
In a sign that he intended to hold himself accountable, Zelensky even introduced a draft law on presidential impeachment. He also introduced a bill to restore top - punishment of top officials found guilty of illicit enrichment.
President Trump's self-serving scheme threatened to undermine Zelensky's anti-corruption work. Zelensky's successful anti-corruption reforms would have advanced U.S. security. Instead, President Trump's demands undermined that effort to bring about reform to Ukraine.
Here's George Kent, a rule of law and corruption expert, at the State Department.
[14:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENT: U.S. efforts to counter corruption in Ukraine focus on building institutional capacity so that the Ukrainian government has the ability to go after corruption and effectively investigate, prosecute and judge alleged criminal activities using appropriate institutional mechanisms. That is, create and follow the rule of law. That means that if there are criminal nexuses or activity in the United States, U.S. law enforcement should pursue the case.
If we think there has been a criminal act overseas that violates U.S. law, we have the institutional mechanisms to address that. It could be through the Justice Department and FBI agents assigned overseas, or through treaty mechanisms such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
As a general principal, I do not believe the United States should ask other countries to engage in selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power, because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: And so it's clear what President Trump did when abusing his office and demanding Ukraine open an investigation into Joe Biden was not fighting corruption, it was not part of established U.S. anti- corruption policy. That corrupt pressure campaign for his own personal political benefit, in fact, subverted U.S. anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine and undercut our national security.
President Trump is not fighting to end corruption in Ukraine, as my colleague in the House, Mr. Himes, pointed out during one of our hearings, he was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at Vice President Biden and our 2020 election.
Selective politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents undercut governance in Ukraine. President Trump's demand that Zelensky help him do precisely what U.S. diplomats for decades advised Ukrainian officials not to do, completely undercut the credibility of efforts to promote the rule of law there.
The demand also undercut the United States moral standing and authority in the eyes of a global audience. Here once again is George Kent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDMAN: Mr. Kent, is pressuring Ukraine to conduct, what I believe you have called, "political investigations" a part of U.S. foreign policy to promote the rule of law in Ukraine and around the world?
KENT: It is not.
GOLDMAN: Is it in the national interest of the United States?
KENT: In my opinion, it is not.
GOLDMAN: Why not?
KENT: Because our policies, particularly in promoting the rule of law, are designed to help countries. And in Eastern Europe and Central Europe, that is overcoming the legacy of communism. In the communist system, in particular, the prosecutor general office was used to suppress and persecute citizens, not promote the rule of law. So in helping these countries reach their own aspirations to join the Western community of nations and live lives of dignity, helping them have the rule of law with strong institutions is the purpose of our policy.
GOLDMAN: So in other words, it is a purpose of our foreign policy to encourage foreign nations to refrain from conducting political investigations, is that right?
KENT: Correct. And in fact, as a matter of policy, not of programming, we oftentimes raise her concerns usually in private with countries that we feel are engaged in selective political prosecution and persecution of their opponents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Yovanovitch aptly summarized the global consequences and harm to U.S. national security resulting from President Trump demand that Ukraine investigate his political opponent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YOVANOVITCH: Such conduct undermines the U.S., exposes our friends, and widens the playing field for autocrats like President Putin. Our leadership depends on the power of our example and the consistency of our purpose. Both have now been opened to questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: The issues I just covered are not a matter of policy disagreement over foreign policy and national security. Article one asserts that the president was engaged in no such policy at all but instead sold out our policies and our national interests for his own personal gain and to help him corrupt the next election. That is the core conduct conduct of an impeachable offense.
The president's abuse of power also affected our election integrity. The framers of our Constitution were particularly fearful that a president might misuse or abuse the power of his office to undermine the free and fair elections at the heart of our democracy.
Sadly, that moment has arrived.
[15:00:00]
