The Impeachment Report Read online

  By withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict illegally instigated by Russia, President Trump compromised national security to advance his personal political interests.

  Faced with the revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign governments, including Ukraine and China, to investigate his political opponent. This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger that the President will continue to use the power of his office for his personal political gain.

  Using the power of the Office of the President, and exercising his authority over the Executive Branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry by:

  refusing to produce to the impeachment inquiry’s investigating Committees information and records in the possession of the White House, in defiance of a lawful subpoena;

  directing Executive Branch agencies to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of all documents and records from the investigating Committees;

  directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees, including in defiance of lawful subpoenas for testimony; and

  intimidating, threatening, and tampering with prospective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry in an effort to prevent, delay, or influence the testimony of those witnesses.

  In so doing, and despite the fact that the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment,” the President sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct, and the right to deny any and all information to the Congress in the conduct of its constitutional responsibilities.

  SECTION I.

  THE PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT

  1. The President Forced Out the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine

  The President forced out the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, following a baseless smear campaign promoted by President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and others. The campaign publicized conspiracy theories that benefited the President’s personal political interests and undermined official U.S. policy, some of which the President raised during his July 25 call with the President of Ukraine.

  Overview

  On April 24, 2019, President Donald J. Trump abruptly recalled the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. Ambassador Yovanovitch, an award-winning 33-year veteran Foreign Service officer, aggressively advocated for anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine consistent with U.S. foreign policy. President Trump forced her out following a baseless smear campaign promoted by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, associates of Mr. Giuliani, and corrupt Ukrainians.

  Ambassador Yovanovitch was told by the State Department that President Trump had lost confidence in her, but she was never provided a substantive justification for her removal. Her ouster set the stage for other U.S. officials appointed by President Trump to work in cooperation with Mr. Giuliani to advance a scheme in support of the President’s reelection.

  Mr. Giuliani and his associates promoted false conspiracy theories about Ukraine colluding with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. This false claim was promoted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2017—less than a month after the unanimous U.S. Intelligence Community assessment that Russia alone was responsible for a covert influence campaign aimed at helping President Trump during the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani also made discredited public allegations about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in an apparent effort to hurt President Trump’s political rival in the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Giuliani’s associates, with their own ties to President Trump, also worked to enter into arrangements with current and former corrupt Ukrainian officials to promote these false allegations—the same unfounded allegations President Trump requested that Ukraine investigate on his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

  President Trump amplified these baseless allegations by tweeting them just a month before he recalled Ambassador Yovanovitch. Despite requests from Ambassador Yovanovitch and other senior State Department officials, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to issue a statement of support for the Ambassador or the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for fear of being undermined by a tweet by President Trump.

  The removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch left a vacuum in the leadership of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine at an important time. A new president had just been elected on an anti-corruption platform, and the country was in a period of transition as it continued to defend itself against Russia-led military aggression in the east.

  Anti-Corruption Ceremony Interrupted to Recall Anti-Corruption Ambassador

  Ambassador Yovanovitch represented the United States of America as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from 2016 to 2019. She is a non-partisan career public servant, first selected for the American Foreign Service in 1986. President George W. Bush named her as his Ambassador twice, to the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia, and President Barack Obama nominated her for the posting in Kyiv.1

  On the evening of April 24, Ambassador Yovanovitch approached a podium in front of gold drapes at the U.S. Ambassador’s residence in Ukraine’s capital city. She was hosting an event to present an award of courage to the father of Kateryna Handziuk, who was brutally murdered by people who opposed her efforts to expose and root out public corruption in Ukraine. In 2018, attackers threw sulfuric acid at Ms. Handziuk, burning more than 30 percent of her body. After months of suffering and nearly a dozen surgeries, she died at the age of 33.2 Her attackers have still not been held to account.3

  Ambassador Yovanovitch began her speech by noting that Ms. Handziuk “was a woman of courage who committed herself to speaking out against wrongdoing.” She lamented how Ms. Handziuk had “paid the ultimate price for her fearlessness in fighting against corruption and for her determined efforts to build a democratic Ukraine.” She pledged that the United States would “continue to stand with those engaged in the fight for a democratic Ukraine free of corruption, where people are held accountable” and commended Ukrainians who “have demonstrated to the world that they are willing to fight for a better system.”4

  Ambassador Yovanovitch concluded her remarks by holding Ms. Handziuk’s story up as an inspiration to the many Ukrainians striving to chart a new course for their country in the face of Russian interference and aggression:

  I think we can all see what a remarkable woman Kateryna Handziuk was, but she continues to inspire all of us to fight for justice. She was a courageous woman, who wanted to make Ukraine a better place. And she is continuing to do so. And I’ll just leave you with one thought that was expressed in Washington at the ceremony—that courage is contagious. I think we saw that on the Maidan in 2014, we see that on the front lines every day in the Donbas, we see it in the work that Kateryna Handziuk did here in Ukraine. And we see it in the work of all of you—day in, day out—fighting for Ukraine and the future of Ukraine.5

  Ambassador Yovanovitch’s evening was interrupted around 10:00 p.m. by a telephone call from the State Department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

  Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources Ambassador Carol Perez warned that the Department’s leaders had “great concern” and “were worried” about her. Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that it is “hard to know how to react to something like that.” Ambassador Perez said she did not know what the concerns were but pledged she would “try to find out more” and would try to call back “by midnight.”6

  Finally, at 1:00 a.m. in Kyiv, Ambassador Perez called again: The “concerns” were from “
up the street” at the White House. Ambassador Perez said that Ambassador Yovanovitch needed to “come home immediately, get on the next plane to the U.S.” She warned that there were concerns about Ambassador Yovanovitch’s “security.” When Ambassador Yovanovitch asked if Ambassador Perez was referring to her physical safety, Ambassador Perez relayed that she “hadn’t gotten that impression that it was a physical security issue,” but that Ambassador Yovanovitch “needed to come home right away.”7

  Ambassador Yovanovitch asked Ambassador Perez specifically whether this order had anything to do with President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who had been making unfounded allegations against her in the media. Ambassador Perez said she “didn’t know.”8 Ambassador Yovanovitch argued that this order to return to Washington, D.C. was “extremely irregular” and that no one had provided her a reason.9 In the end, however, Ambassador Yovanovitch swiftly returned to Washington.10

  Rudy Giuliani, on Behalf of President Trump, Led a Smear Campaign to Oust Ambassador Yovanovitch

  Ambassador Yovanovitch’s recall followed a concerted smear campaign by Mr. Giuliani and his associates, promoted by President Trump. The campaign was largely directed by Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney since early 2018.11 A cast of supporting characters, which included corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors, now-indicted middlemen, conservative media pundits, and attorneys close to President Trump, assisted Mr. Giuliani. Among those associates were two U.S. citizens, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman were Florida-based businessmen who were represented by Mr. Giuliani “in connection with their personal and business affairs” and who also “assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump.”12 Both Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman were criminally indicted in the Southern District of New York in October and face charges of conspiring to violate the federal ban on foreign donations and contributions in connection with federal and state elections.13 Dr. Fiona Hill, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russian Affairs, National Security Council (NSC), learned from her colleagues that “these guys were notorious in Florida and that they were bad news.”14

  The campaign was also propelled by individuals in Ukraine, including two prosecutors general. Yuriy Lutsenko served as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine under former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko—the incumbent who lost to President Zelensky in April 2019—and previously was the head of President Poroshenko’s faction in the Ukrainian parliament.15 Viktor Shokin was Mr. Lutsenko’s predecessor and was removed from office in 2016.16 Mr. Shokin has been described as “a typical Ukraine prosecutor who lived a lifestyle far in excess of his government salary, who never prosecuted anybody known for having committed a crime,” and “covered up crimes that were known to have been committed.”17

  In late 2018, Ukrainian officials informed Ambassador Yovanovitch about Mr. Giuliani’s and Mr. Lutsenko’s plans to target her. They told her that Mr. Lutsenko “was in communication with Mayor Giuliani” and that “they were going to, you know, do things, including to me.”18 Soon thereafter, Ambassador Yovanovitch learned that “there had been a number of meetings” between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Lutsenko, who was looking to “hurt” her “in the U.S.”19

  The allegations against Ambassador Yovanovitch, which later surfaced publicly, concerned false claims that she had provided a “do-not-prosecute list” to Mr. Lutsenko and made disparaging comments about President Trump.20

  Ambassador Yovanovitch inferred that Mr. Lutsenko was spreading “falsehoods” about her because she was “effective at helping Ukrainians who wanted reform, Ukrainians who wanted to fight against corruption, and…that was not in his interest.”21 Anti-corruption reform was not in Mr. Lutsenko’s interest because he himself was known to be corrupt.22 David Holmes, Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, explained that:

  In mid-March 2019, an Embassy colleague learned from a Ukrainian contact that Mr. Lutsenko had complained that Ambassador Yovanovitch had, quote, unquote, destroyed him, with her refusal to support him until he followed through with his reform commitments and ceased using his position for personal gain.23

  Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent similarly summarized Mr. Lutsenko’s smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch, which was facilitated by Mr. Giuliani and his associates, as motivated by revenge:

  Over the course of 2018 and 2019, I became increasingly aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani and others, including his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to run a campaign to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch and other officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. The chief agitators on the Ukrainian side of this effort were some of those same corrupt former prosecutors I had encountered, particularly Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin. They were now peddling false information in order to extract revenge against those who had exposed their misconduct, including U.S. diplomats, Ukrainian anticorruption officials, and reform-minded civil society groups in Ukraine.24

  Mr. Kent succinctly summarized, “[y]ou can’t promote principled anti-corruption efforts without pissing off corrupt people.”25 By doing her job, Ambassador Yovanovitch drew Mr. Lutsenko’s ire.

  In late 2018 and early 2019, Mr. Lutsenko also risked losing his job as Prosecutor General and possible criminal investigation, if then-candidate Volodymyr Zelensky won the presidency. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Ambassador Kurt Volker, explained:

  As is often the case in Ukraine, a change in power would mean change in prosecutorial powers as well, and there have been efforts in the past at prosecuting the previous government. I think Mr. Lutsenko, in my estimation, and I said this to Mayor Giuliani when I met with him, was interested in preserving his own position. He wanted to avoid being fired by a new government in order to prevent prosecution of himself, possible prosecution of himself.26

  Officials in Ukraine have also speculated that Mr. Lutsenko cultivated his relationship with Mr. Giuliani in an effort to hold on to his position.27 Ambassador Yovanovitch described Mr. Lutsenko as an “opportunist” who “will ally himself, sometimes simultaneously…with whatever political or economic forces he believes will suit his interests best at the time.”28

  Mr. Lutsenko promoted debunked conspiracy theories that had gained traction with President Trump and Mr. Giuliani. Those debunked conspiracy theories alleged that the Ukrainian government—not Russia—was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in 2016, and that former Vice President Biden had petitioned for the removal of Mr. Shokin to prevent an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company for which Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, served as a board member.

  Both conspiracy theories served the personal political interests of President Trump because they would help him in his campaign for reelection in 2020. The first would serve to undercut Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which was still underway when Mr. Giuliani began his activities in Ukraine and was denounced as a “witch hunt” by the President and his supporters.29 The second would serve to damage Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Biden.

  These conspiracies lacked any basis in fact. The Intelligence Community, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, both the Majority and Minority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the investigation undertaken by Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election.30 President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, said that the idea of Ukraine hacking the DNC server was “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.”31

  Russia has pushed the false theory that Ukraine was involved in the 2016 election to distract from its own involvement.32 Mr. Holmes testified that it was to President Putin’s advantage to promote the theory of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections for several reasons:

  First
of all, to deflect from the allegations of Russian interference. Second of all, to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine which Russia wants to essentially get back into its sphere of influence. Thirdly, to besmirch Ukraine and its political leadership, [and] to degrade and erode support for Ukraine from other key partners in Europe and elsewhere.33

  The allegations that Vice President Biden inappropriately pressured the Ukrainians to remove Mr. Shokin also are without merit. Mr. Shokin was widely considered to be ineffective and corrupt.34 When he urged the Ukrainian government to remove Mr. Shokin, Vice President Biden was advocating for anti-corruption reform and pursuing official U.S. policy.35 Moreover, Mr. Shokin’s removal was supported by other countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, and was “widely understood internationally to be the right policy.”36 In May 2019, even Mr. Lutsenko himself admitted that there was no credible evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or Vice President Biden.37

  Nevertheless, Mr. Giuliani engaged with both Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Shokin regarding these baseless allegations. According to documents provided to the State Department Office of Inspector General, in January 23, 2019, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Parnas, and Mr. Fruman participated in a conference call with Mr. Shokin. According to notes of the call, Mr. Shokin made allegations about Vice President Biden and Burisma. Mr. Shokin also claimed that Ambassador Yovanovitch had improperly denied him a U.S. visa and that she was close to Vice President Biden.38

  Mr. Giuliani separately met with Mr. Lutsenko in New York.39 Over the course of two days, on January 25 and 26, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Lutsenko, Mr. Parnas, and Mr. Fruman, reportedly discussed whether Ambassador Yovanovitch was “loyal to President Trump,” as well as investigations into Burisma and the Bidens.40 For his part, Mr. Lutsenko later said he “understood very well” that Mr. Giuliani wanted Mr. Lutsenko to investigate former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. “I have 23 years in politics,” Lutsenko said. “I knew…. I’m a political animal.”41