IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Sitting as a Court of Impeachment 

In re 

IMPEACHMENT OF 

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP 

TRIAL MEMORANDUM 

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP 

United States House of Representatives 

Adam B. Schiff 

Jerrold Nadler 

Zoe Lofgren 

Hakeem S. Jeffries 

Val Butler Demings 

Jason Crow 

Sylvia R. Garcia 

U.S. House of Representatives Managers 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 9

I. CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT .................................................... 9

II. THE HOUSE’S IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP AND PRESENTATION OF 

THIS MATTER TO THE SENATE .............................................................................................................. 12

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 16

I. THE SENATE SHOULD CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OF ABUSE OF POWER .................................. 16

A. President Trump Exercised His Official Power to Pressure Ukraine into Aiding His 

Reelection .................................................................................................................................... 16

B. President Trump Exercised Official Power to Benefit Himself Personally ...................... 22

C. President Trump Jeopardized U.S. National Interests ......................................................... 28

II. THE SENATE SHOULD CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS .............. 30

A. The House Is Constitutionally Entitled to the Relevant Information in an 

Impeachment Inquiry ................................................................................................................ 31

B. President Trump’s Obstruction of the Impeachment Inquiry Violates Fundamental 

Constitutional Principles ........................................................................................................... 34

C. President Trump’s Excuses for His Obstruction Are Meritless ......................................... 36

III. THE SENATE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM OFFICE TO 

PREVENT FURTHER ABUSES ................................................................................................................... 41

A. President Trump’s Repeated Abuse of Power Presents an Ongoing Threat to Our 

Elections ...................................................................................................................................... 41

B. President Trump’s Obstruction of Congress Threatens Our Constitutional Order ........ 44

C. The Senate Should Convict and Remove President Trump to Protect Our System 

of Government and National Security Interests ................................................................... 45

ATTACHED STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .............................................................. SMF 1-61 
INTRODUCTION 

President Donald J. Trump used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to 

interfere in a United States election for his personal political gain, and then attempted to cover up 

his scheme by obstructing Congress’s investigation into his misconduct. The Constitution provides 

a remedy when the President commits such serious abuses of his office: impeachment and removal. 

The Senate must use that remedy now to safeguard the 2020 U.S. election, protect our constitutional 

form of government, and eliminate the threat that the President poses to America’s national security. 

The House adopted two Articles of Impeachment against President Trump: the first for 

abuse of power, and the second for obstruction of Congress.1 The evidence overwhelmingly 

establishes that he is guilty of both. The only remaining question is whether the members of the 

Senate will accept and carry out the responsibility placed on them by the Framers of our 

Constitution and their constitutional Oaths. 

Abuse of Power

President Trump abused the power of his office by pressuring the government of Ukraine to 

interfere in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election for his own benefit. In order to pressure the recently 

elected Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to announce investigations that would advance 

President Trump’s political interests and his 2020 reelection bid, the President exercised his official 

power to withhold from Ukraine critical U.S. government support—$391 million of vital military aid 

and a coveted White House meeting.2

 1

 H. Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2019). 

2 See Statement of Material Facts (Statement of Facts) (Jan. 18, 2020), ¶¶ 1-151 (filed as an 

attachment to this Trial Memorandum). 
2 

During a July 25, 2019 phone call, after President Zelensky expressed gratitude to President 

Trump for American military assistance, President Trump immediately responded by asking 

President Zelensky to “do us a favor though.”3 The “favor” he sought was for Ukraine to publicly 

announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political 

prospects.4 One investigation concerned former Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr.—a political rival 

in the upcoming 2020 election—and the false claim that, in seeking the removal of a corrupt 

Ukrainian prosecutor four years earlier, then-Vice President Biden had acted to protect a company 

where his son was a board member.5 The second investigation concerned a debunked conspiracy 

theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 Presidential election to aid President Trump, but 

instead that Ukraine interfered in that election to aid President Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.6 

These theories were baseless. There is no credible evidence to support the allegation that 

the former Vice President acted improperly in encouraging Ukraine to remove an incompetent and 

corrupt prosecutor in 2016.7 And the U.S. Intelligence Community, the Senate Select Committee on 

Intelligence, and Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III unanimously determined that Russia, not 

Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” to 

help President Trump’s campaign.8 In fact, the theory that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in 

the 2016 election has been advanced by Russia’s intelligence services as part of Russia’s propaganda 

campaign.9

 3 Id. ¶¶ 75-76. 

4 Id. ¶¶ 76-77. 

5 Id. ¶¶ 11-12. 

6 Id. ¶¶ 11, 76. 7 Id. ¶ 12. 

8 Id. ¶ 13. 

9 Id. ¶ 14. 
3 

Although these theories were groundless, President Trump sought a public announcement 

by Ukraine of investigations into them in order to help his 2020 reelection campaign.10 An 

announcement of a Ukrainian investigation into one of his key political rivals would be enormously 

valuable to President Trump in his efforts to win reelection in 2020—just as the FBI’s investigation 

into Hillary Clinton’s emails had helped him in 2016. And an investigation suggesting that President 

Trump did not benefit from Russian interference in the 2016 election would give him a basis to 

assert—falsely—that he was the victim, rather than the beneficiary, of foreign meddling in the last 

election. Ukraine’s announcement of that investigation would bolster the perceived legitimacy of his 

Presidency and, therefore, his political standing going into the 2020 race. 

Overwhelming evidence shows that President Trump solicited these two investigations in 

order to obtain a personal political benefit, not because the investigations served the national 

interest.11 The President’s own National Security Advisor characterized the efforts to pressure 

Ukraine to announce investigations in exchange for official acts as a “drug deal.”12 His Acting Chief 

of Staff candidly confessed that President Trump’s decision to withhold security assistance was tied 

to his desire for an investigation into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election, stated that 

there “is going to be political influence in foreign policy,” and told the American people to “get over 

it.”13 Another one of President Trump’s key national security advisors testified that the agents 

pursuing the President’s bidding were “involved in a domestic political errand,” not national security 

policy.14 And, immediately after speaking to President Trump by phone about the investigations, 

one of President Trump’s ambassadors involved in carrying out the President’s agenda in Ukraine 

 10 See, e.g., id. ¶ 53. 11 See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 16, 18. 12 Id. ¶ 59. 

13 Id. ¶¶ 120-21. 

14 Id. ¶ 122. 
4 

said that President Trump “did not give a [expletive] about Ukraine,” and instead cared only about 

“big stuff” that benefitted him personally, like “the Biden investigation.”15 

To execute his scheme, President Trump assigned his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the 

task of securing the Ukrainian investigations.16 Mr. Giuliani repeatedly and publicly emphasized that 

he was not engaged in foreign policy but was instead seeking a personal benefit for his client, Donald 

Trump.17 

President Trump used the vast powers of his office as President to pressure Ukraine into 

announcing these investigations. President Trump illegally withheld $391 million in taxpayer-funded 

military assistance to Ukraine that Congress had appropriated for expenditure in fiscal year 2019.18 

That assistance was a critical part of long-running bipartisan efforts to advance the security interests 

of the United States by ensuring that Ukraine is properly equipped to defend itself against Russian 

aggression.19 Every relevant Executive Branch agency agreed that continued American support for 

Ukraine was in America’s national security interests, but President Trump ignored that view and 

personally ordered the assistance held back, even after serious concerns—now confirmed by the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO)20—were raised within his Administration about the 

legality of withholding funding that Congress had already appropriated.21 President Trump released 

the funding only after he got caught trying to use the security assistance as leverage to obtain foreign 

interference in his reelection campaign. When news of his scheme to withhold the funding broke, 

 15 Id. ¶ 88. 

16 See, e.g., id. ¶ 24. 

17 See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 19, 25, 145-47. 

18 Id. ¶¶ 28-48. 

19 Id. ¶¶ 30-31. 

20 Id. ¶ 46. 21 Id. ¶¶ 43, 46-48. 
5 

and shortly after investigative committees in the House opened an investigation, President Trump 

relented and released the aid.22 

As part of the same pressure campaign, President Trump withheld a crucial White House 

meeting with President Zelensky—a meeting that he had previously promised and that was a shared 

goal of both the United States and Ukraine.23 Such face-to-face Oval Office meetings with a U.S. 

President are immensely important for international credibility.24 In this case, an Oval Office 

meeting with President Trump was critical to the newly elected Ukrainian President because it would 

signal to Russia—which had invaded Ukraine in 2014 and still occupied Ukrainian territory—that 

Ukraine could count on American support.25 That meeting still has not occurred, even though 

President Trump has met with over a dozen world leaders at the White House since President 

Zelensky’s election—including an Oval Office meeting with Russia’s top diplomat.26 

President Trump’s solicitation of foreign interference in our elections to secure his own 

political success is precisely why the Framers of our Constitution provided Congress with the power 

to impeach a corrupt President and remove him from office. One of the Founding generation’s 

principal fears was that foreign governments would seek to manipulate American elections—the 

defining feature of our self-government. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams warned of “foreign 

Interference, Intrigue, Influence” and predicted that, “as often as Elections happen, the danger of 

foreign Influence recurs.”27 The Framers therefore would have considered a President’s attempt to 

corrupt America’s democratic processes by demanding political favors from foreign powers to be a 

singularly pernicious act. They designed impeachment as the remedy for such misconduct because a 

 22 See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 127, 131. 

23 See id. ¶¶ 49-69. 

24 Id. ¶ 50. 

25 Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 50. 

26 See id. ¶ 137. 

27 Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 6, 1787) (Adams-Jefferson Letter), 

https://perma.cc/QWD8-222B. 
6 

President who manipulates U.S. elections to his advantage can avoid being held accountable by the 

voters through those same elections. And they would have viewed a President’s efforts to 

encourage foreign election interference as all the more dangerous where, as here, those efforts are 

part of an ongoing pattern of misconduct for which the President is unrepentant. 

The House of Representatives gathered overwhelming evidence of President Trump’s 

misconduct, which is summarized in the attached Statement of Material Facts and in the 

comprehensive reports prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the 

Committee on the Judiciary.28 On the strength of that evidence, the House approved the First 

Article of Impeachment against President Trump for abuse of power.29 The Senate should now 

convict him on that Article. President Trump’s continuing presence in office undermines the 

integrity of our democratic processes and endangers our national security. 

Obstruction of Congress

President Trump obstructed Congress by undertaking an unprecedented campaign to 

prevent House Committees from investigating his misconduct. The Constitution entrusts the 

House with the “sole Power of Impeachment.”30 The Framers thus ensured what common sense 

requires—that the House, and not the President, determines the existence, scope, and procedures of 

an impeachment investigation into the President’s conduct. The House cannot conduct such an 

investigation effectively if it cannot obtain information from the President or the Executive Branch 

about the Presidential misconduct it is investigating. Under our constitutional system of divided 

 28 See Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States: Report of the Comm. on the 

Judiciary of the H. of Representatives, together with Dissenting Views, to Accompany H. Res. 755, H. Rep. No. 

116-346 (2019); Report of the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence on the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment 

Inquiry, together with Minority Views, H. Rep. No. 116-335 (2019); see also Majority Staff of the H. 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Comm. Print 

2019). 

29 H. Res. 755, at 2-5. 

30 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5. 
7 

powers, a President cannot be permitted to hide his offenses from view by refusing to comply with a 

Congressional impeachment inquiry and ordering Executive Branch agencies to do the same. That 

conclusion is particularly important given the Department of Justice’s position that the President 

cannot be indicted. If the President could both avoid accountability under the criminal laws and 

preclude an effective impeachment investigation, he would truly be above the law. 

But that is what President Trump has attempted to do, and why President Trump’s conduct 

is the Framers’ worst nightmare. He directed his Administration to defy every subpoena issued in 

the House’s impeachment investigation.31 At his direction, the White House, Department of State, 

Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

refused to produce a single document in response to those subpoenas.32 Several witnesses also 

followed President Trump’s orders, defying requests for voluntary appearances and lawful 

subpoenas, and refusing to testify.33 And President Trump’s interference in the House’s 

impeachment inquiry was not an isolated incident—it was consistent with his past efforts to obstruct 

the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.34 

By categorically obstructing the House’s impeachment inquiry, President Trump claimed the 

House’s sole impeachment power for himself and sought to shield his misconduct from Congress 

and the American people. Although his sweeping cover-up effort ultimately failed—seventeen 

public officials courageously upheld their duty, testified, and provided documentary evidence of the 

President’s wrongdoing35—his obstruction will do long-lasting and potentially irreparable damage to 

our constitutional system of divided powers if it goes unchecked. 

 31 See Statement of Facts ¶¶ 164-69. 

32 Id. ¶¶ 179-83. 

33 See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 186-87. 

34 See id. ¶¶ 191-93. 

35 Id. ¶¶ 187-90. 
8 

Based on the overwhelming evidence of the President’s misconduct in attempting to thwart 

the impeachment inquiry, the House approved the Second Article of Impeachment, for obstruction 

of Congress.36 The Senate should now convict President Trump on that Article. If it does not, 

future Presidents will feel empowered to resist any investigation into their own wrongdoing, 

effectively nullifying Congress’s power to exercise the Constitution’s most important safeguard 

against Presidential misconduct. That outcome would not only embolden this President to continue 

seeking foreign interference in our elections but would telegraph to future Presidents that they are 

free to engage in serious misconduct without accountability or repercussions. 

* * * 

The Constitution entrusts Congress with the solemn task of impeaching and removing from 

office a President who engages in “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”37 

The impeachment power is an essential check on the authority of the President, and Congress must 

exercise this power when the President places his personal and political interests above those of the 

Nation. President Trump has done exactly that. His misconduct challenges the fundamental 

principle that Americans should decide American elections, and that a divided system of 

government, in which no single branch operates without the check and balance of the others, 

preserves the liberty we all hold dear. 

The country is watching to see how the Senate responds. History will judge each Senator’s 

willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly, and defend the Constitution. 

The outcome of these proceedings will determine whether generations to come will enjoy a safe and 

secure democracy in which the President is not a king, and in which no one, particularly the 

President, is above the law. 

 36 See id. ¶ 178; H. Res. 755, at 5-8. 

37 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 4. 
9 

BACKGROUND 

I. CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT

To understand why President Trump must be removed from office now, it is necessary to 

understand why the Framers of our Constitution included the impeachment power as an essential 

part of the republic they created. 

The Constitution entrusts Congress with the exclusive power to impeach the President and 

to convict and remove him from office. Article I vests the House with the “sole Power of 

Impeachment,”38 and the Senate with the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” and to “convict[]” 

upon a vote of two thirds of its Members.39 The Constitution specifies that the President “shall be 

removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high 

Crimes and Misdemeanors.”40 The Constitution further provides that the Senate may vote to 

permanently “disqualif[y]” an impeached President from government service.41 

The President takes an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United 

States.”42 Impeachment imposes a check on a President who violates that oath by using the powers 

of the office to advance his own interests at the expense of the national interest. Fresh from their 

experience under British rule by a king, the Framers were concerned that corruption posed a grave 

threat to their new republic. As George Mason warned the other delegates to the Constitutional 

Convention, “if we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end.”43 

The Framers stressed that a President who “act[s] from some corrupt motive or other” or “willfully 

 38 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5. 

39 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. 

40 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 4. 

41 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. 

42 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, cl. 8. 

43 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 392 (Max Farrand ed.,1911) (Farrand). 
10 

abus[es] his trust” must be impeached,44 because the President “will have great opportunitys of 

abusing his power.”45 

The Framers recognized that a President who abuses his power to manipulate the 

democratic process cannot properly be held accountable by means of the very elections that he has 

rigged to his advantage.46 The Framers specifically feared a President who abused his office by 

sparing “no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.”47 Mason asked: “Shall the man 

who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be 

suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?”48 

Thus, the Framers resolved to hold the President “impeachable whilst in office” as “an 

essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.”49 By empowering Congress to 

immediately remove a President when his misconduct warrants it, the Framers established the 

people’s elected representatives as the ultimate check on a President whose corruption threatened 

our democracy and the Nation’s core interests.50

The Framers particularly feared that foreign influence could undermine our new system of 

self-government.51 In his farewell address to the Nation, President George Washington warned 

Americans “to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one 

 44 Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 49 (1998) (quoting James Iredell). 

45 2 Farrand at 67. 

46 See id. at 65. 

47 Id. at 64. 

48 Id. at 65. 

49 Id. at 64. 

50 See The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton). 

51 See, e.g., 2 Farrand at 65-66; George Washington, Farewell Address (Sept. 19, 1796), George 

Washington Papers, Series 2, Letterbooks 1754-1799: Letterbook 24, April 3, 1793–March 3, 1797, Library 

of Congress (Washington Farewell Address); Adams-Jefferson Letter, https://perma.cc/QWD8-

222B. 
11 

of the most baneful foes of republican government.”52 Alexander Hamilton cautioned that the 

“most deadly adversaries of republican government” may come “chiefly from the desire in foreign 

powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”53 James Madison worried that a future 

President could “betray his trust to foreign powers,” which “might be fatal to the Republic.”54 And, 

of particular relevance now, in their personal correspondence about “foreign Interference,” Thomas 

Jefferson and John Adams discussed their apprehension that “as often as Elections happen, the 

danger of foreign Influence recurs.”55 

Guided by these concerns, the Framers included within the Constitution various 

mechanisms to ensure the President’s accountability and protect against foreign influence—

including a requirement that Presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States,56 prohibitions 

on the President’s receipt of gifts, emoluments, or titles from foreign states,57 prohibitions on 

profiting from the Presidency,58 and, of course, the requirement that the President face reelection 

after a four-year Term.59 But the Framers provided for impeachment as a final check on a President 

who sought foreign interference to serve his personal interests, particularly to secure his own 

reelection. 

In drafting the Impeachment Clause, the Framers adopted a standard flexible enough to 

reach the full range of potential Presidential misconduct: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes 

and Misdemeanors.”60 The decision to denote “Treason” and “Bribery” as impeachable conduct 

 52 Washington Farewell Address. 

53 The Federalist No. 68 (Alexander Hamilton). 

54 2 Farrand at 66. 

55 Adams-Jefferson Letter, https://perma.cc/QWD8-222B. 

56 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, cl. 5. 

57 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 8. 

58 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, cl. 7. 

59 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, cl. 1. 

60 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 4; see 2 Farrand at 550.
12 

reflects the Founding-era concerns over foreign influence and corruption. But the Framers also 

recognized that “many great and dangerous offenses” could warrant impeachment and immediate 

removal of a President from office.61 These “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” provided for 

by the Constitution need not be indictable criminal offenses. Rather, as Hamilton explained, 

impeachable offenses involve an “abuse or violation of some public trust” and are of “a nature 

which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done 

immediately to the society itself.”62 The Framers thus understood that “high crimes and 

misdemeanors” would encompass acts committed by public officials that inflict severe harm on the 

constitutional order.63 

II. THE HOUSE’S IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP AND PRESENTATION 

OF THIS MATTER TO THE SENATE

Committees of the House have undertaken investigations into allegations of misconduct by 

President Trump and his Administration. On September 9, 2019, after evidence surfaced that the 

President and his associates were seeking Ukraine’s assistance in the President’s reelection, the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, together with the Committees on Oversight 

and Reform and Foreign Affairs, announced a joint investigation into the President’s conduct and 

issued document requests to the White House and State Department.64 

On September 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was “moving 

forward with an official impeachment inquiry” and directed the Committees to “proceed with their 

investigations under that umbrella of [an] impeachment inquiry.”65 They subsequently issued 

 61 2 Farrand at 550. 

62 The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton) (capitalization altered). 

63 These issues are discussed at length in the report by the House Committee on the 

Judiciary. See H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 28-75. 

64 Statement of Facts ¶ 160. 

65 Id. ¶ 161. 
13 

multiple subpoenas for documents as well as requests and subpoenas for witness interviews and 

testimony.66 On October 31, 2019, the House approved a resolution adopting procedures to govern 

the impeachment inquiry.67 

Both before and after Speaker Pelosi’s announcement, President Trump categorically refused 

to provide any information in response to the House’s inquiry. He stated that “we’re fighting all the 

subpoenas,” and that “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as 

president.”68 Through his White House Counsel, the President later directed his Administration not 

to cooperate.69 Heeding the President’s directive, the Executive Branch did not produce any 

documents in response to subpoenas issued by the three investigating Committees,70 and nine 

current or former Administration officials, including the President’s top aides, continue to refuse to 

comply with subpoenas for testimony.71

Notwithstanding the President’s attempted cover-up, seventeen current and former 

government officials courageously complied with their legal obligations and testified before the three 

investigating Committees in depositions or transcribed interviews that all Members of the 

Committees—as well as staff from the Majority and Minority—were permitted to attend.72 Some 

witnesses produced documentary evidence in their possession. In late November 2019, twelve of 

these witnesses, including three requested by the Minority, testified in public hearings convened by 

the Intelligence Committee.73 

 66 See id. ¶¶ 166, 180, 183, 189-90. 

67 Id. ¶ 162. 

68 Id. ¶ 164. 

69 Id. ¶¶ 164-69. 

70 Id. ¶ 183. 

71 Id. ¶ 187. 

72 Id. ¶¶ 188-89. 

73 Id. ¶ 189. 
14 

Stressing the “overwhelming” evidence of misconduct already uncovered by the 

investigation, on December 3, 2019, the Intelligence Committee released a detailed nearly 300-page 

report documenting its findings, which it transmitted to the Judiciary Committee.74 The Judiciary 

Committee held public hearings evaluating the constitutional standard for impeachment and the 

evidence against President Trump—in which the President’s counsel was invited, but declined, to 

participate—and then reported two Articles of Impeachment to the House.75 

On December 18, 2019, the House voted to impeach President Trump and adopted two 

Articles of Impeachment.76 The First Article for Abuse of Power states that President Trump 

“abused the powers of the Presidency” by “soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly 

announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political 

opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.”77 President 

Trump sought to “pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official 

United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the 

investigations.”78 President Trump undertook these acts “for corrupt purposes in pursuit of 

personal political benefit”79 and “used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised 

the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States 

democratic process.”80 These actions were “consistent” with President Trump’s “previous 

invitations of foreign interference in United States elections,”81 and demonstrated that President 

 74 Id. ¶ 176; see also H. Rep. No. 116-335. 

75 Statement of Facts ¶ 176; see also H. Res. 755. 

76 Statement of Facts ¶ 178; H. Res. 755. 

77 H. Res. 755, at 2-3. 

78 Id.

79 Id. at 3. 

80 Id.

81 Id. at 4. 
15 

Trump “will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in 

office.”82

The Second Article for Obstruction of Congress states that President Trump “abused the 

powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution” when he 

“directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the 

House of Representatives pursuant to its ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’”83 Without “lawful cause or 

excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply 

with those subpoenas” and “thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful 

subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments 

necessary to the exercise of the ‘sole Power of Impeachment’ vested by the Constitution in the 

House of Representatives.”84 The President’s “complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry . . . 

served to cover up the President’s own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of 

impeachment.”85 President Trump’s misconduct was “consistent” with his “previous efforts to 

undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States 

elections,”86 demonstrated that he has “acted in a manner grossly incompatible with selfgovernance,” and established that he “will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in 

office.”87

 82 Id. at 5. 

83 Id. at 6. 

84 Id. 85 Id. at 8. 

86 Id. at 7. 

87 Id. at 5, 8. 
16 

ARGUMENT 

I. THE SENATE SHOULD CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OF ABUSE OF POWER

President Trump abused the power of the Presidency by pressuring a foreign government to 

interfere in an American election on his behalf.88 He solicited this foreign interference to advance 

his reelection prospects at the expense of America’s national security and the security of Ukraine, a 

vulnerable American ally at war with Russia, an American adversary.89 His effort to gain a personal 

political benefit by encouraging a foreign government to undermine America’s democratic process 

strikes at the core of misconduct that the Framers designed impeachment to protect against. 

President Trump’s abuse of power requires his conviction and removal from office. 

An officer abuses his power if he exercises his official power to obtain an improper personal 

benefit while ignoring or undermining the national interest.90 An abuse that involves an effort to 

solicit foreign interference in an American election is uniquely dangerous. President Trump’s 

misconduct is an impeachable abuse of power.91

A. President Trump Exercised His Official Power to Pressure Ukraine into 

Aiding His Reelection 

 After President Zelensky won a landslide victory in Ukraine in April 2019, President Trump 

pressured the new Ukrainian President to help him win his own reelection by announcing 

investigations that were politically favorable for President Trump and designed to harm his political 

rival.92 

 88 See Statement of Facts ¶¶ 1-157. 

89 See id. ¶¶ 1-157. 

90 See, e.g., Report of the Impeachment Trial Comm. on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, 

Jr., S. Rep. No. 111-347, at 6-7 (2010); Impeachment of Judge Alcee L. Hastings: Report of the H. Comm. of 

the Judiciary to Accompany H. Res. 499, H. Rep. No. 100-810, at 1-5, 8, 41 (1988); 132 Cong. Rec. 

H4710-22 (daily ed. July 22, 1986) (impeachment of Judge Claiborne). 

91 For a more detailed discussion of abuse of power as an impeachable offense, see H. Rep. 

No. 116-346, at 43-48, 68-70, 78-81. 

92 Statement of Facts ¶¶ 1-151. 
17 

First, President Trump sought to pressure President Zelensky publicly to announce an 

investigation into former Vice President Biden and a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, on 

whose board Biden’s son sat.93 As Vice President, Biden had in late 2015 encouraged the 

government of Ukraine to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor general who had failed to combat 

corruption.94 The Ukrainian parliament removed the prosecutor in March 2016.95 President Trump 

and his allies have asserted that the former Vice President acted in order to stop an investigation of 

Burisma and thereby protect his son.96 This is false. There is no evidence that Vice President Biden 

acted improperly.97 He was carrying out official United States policy—with the backing of the 

international community and bipartisan support in Congress—when he sought the removal of the 

prosecutor, who was himself corrupt.98 In addition, the prosecutor’s removal made it more likely that 

the investigation into Burisma would be pursued.99 President Trump nevertheless sought an official 

Ukrainian announcement of an investigation into this theory.100 

Second, President Trump sought to pressure President Zelensky publicly to announce an 

investigation into a conspiracy theory that Ukraine had colluded with the Democratic National 

Committee to interfere in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in order to help the campaign of 

Hillary Clinton against then-candidate Donald Trump.101 This theory was not only pure fiction, but 

malign Russian propaganda.102 In the words of one of President Trump’s own top National Security 

Council officials, President Trump’s theory of Ukrainian election interference is “a fictional narrative 

 93 Id. ¶¶ 11-12. 

94 See id. ¶ 12. 

95 Id.

96 Id. ¶¶ 11, 17. 

97 Id. ¶ 12. 

98 Id.

99 Id.

100 Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 83-84, 150. 

101 Id. ¶¶ 11, 84. 

102 Id. ¶¶ 12-14. 
18 

that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves” to deflect 

from Russia’s culpability and to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine.103 President 

Trump’s own FBI Director confirmed that American law enforcement has “no information that 

indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election.”104 The Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence similarly concluded that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 U.S. 

Presidential election.105 President Trump nevertheless seized on the false theory and sought an 

announcement of an investigation that would give him a basis to assert that Ukraine rather than 

Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Such an investigation would eliminate a perceived threat to 

his own legitimacy and boost his political standing in advance of the 2020 election.106

In furtherance of the corrupt scheme, President Trump exercised his official power to 

remove a perceived obstacle to Ukraine’s pursuit of the two sham investigations. On April 24, 

2019—one day after the media reported that former Vice President Biden would formally enter the 

2020 U.S. Presidential race107—the State Department executed President Trump’s order to recall the 

U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, a well-regarded career diplomat and anti-corruption crusader.108 

President Trump needed her “out of the way” because “she was going to make the investigations 

difficult for everybody.”109 President Trump then proceeded to exercise his official power to 

pressure Ukraine into announcing his desired investigations by withholding valuable support that 

Ukraine desperately needed and that he could leverage only by virtue of his office: $391 million in 

security assistance and a White House meeting. 

 103 Id. ¶ 14. 

104 Id. ¶ 13. 

105 Id. 

106 See id. ¶¶ 11-13, 83-84. 

107 Id. ¶ 6. 

108 Id. ¶¶ 7-9. 

109 Id. ¶ 10 (quoting Mr. Giuliani). 
19 

Withheld Security Assistance

President Trump illegally ordered the Office of Management and Budget to withhold $391 

million in taxpayer-funded military and other security assistance to Ukraine.110 This assistance would 

provide Ukraine with sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radars, 

electronic warfare detection and secure communications, and night vision equipment, among other 

military equipment, to defend itself against Russian forces that occupied part of eastern Ukraine 

since 2014.111 The new and vulnerable government headed by President Zelensky urgently needed 

this assistance—both because the funding itself was critically important to defend against Russia, 

and because the funding was a highly visible sign of American support for President Zelensky in his 

efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict from a position of strength.112 

Every relevant Executive Branch agency supported the assistance, which also had broad 

bipartisan support in Congress.113 President Trump, however, personally ordered OMB to withhold 

the assistance after the bulk of it had been appropriated by Congress and all of the Congressionally 

mandated conditions on assistance—including anti-corruption reforms—had been met.114 The 

Government Accountability Office has determined that the President’s hold was illegal and violated 

the Impoundment Control Act, which limits the President’s authority to withhold funds that 

Congress has appropriated.115 

 110 Id. ¶¶ 28-48. 111 Id. ¶ 35. 112 See id. ¶¶ 30-31, 34-35. 

113 Id. ¶ 39. 

114 Id. ¶¶ 39, 41-42. 

115 Id. ¶ 46. The GAO opinion addresses only the portion of the funds appropriated to the 

Department of Defense. The opinion explains that OMB and the State Department have not 

provided the information GAO needs to evaluate the legality of the hold placed by the President on 

the remaining funds. 
20 

The evidence is clear that President Trump conditioned release of the vital military assistance 

on Ukraine’s announcement of the sham investigations. During a telephone conversation between 

the two Presidents on July 25, immediately after President Zelensky raised the issue of U.S. military 

support for Ukraine, President Trump replied: “I would like you to do us a favor though.”116 

President Trump then explained that the “favor” he wanted President Zelensky to perform was to 

begin the investigations, and President Zelensky confirmed his understanding that the investigations 

should be done “openly.”117 In describing whom he wanted Ukraine to investigate, President 

Trump mentioned only two people: former Vice President Biden and his son.118 And in describing 

the claim of foreign interference in the 2016 election, President Trump declared that “they say a lot 

of it started with Ukraine,” and that “[w]hatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if 

that’s possible.”119 Absent from the discussion was any mention by President Trump of anticorruption reforms in Ukraine. 

One of President Trump’s chief agents for carrying out the President’s agenda in Ukraine, 

Ambassador Gordon Sondland, testified that President Trump’s effort to condition release of the 

much-needed security assistance on an announcement of the investigations was as clear as “two plus 

two equals four.”120 Sondland communicated to President Zelensky’s advisor that Ukraine would 

likely not receive assistance unless President Zelensky publicly announced the investigations.121 And 

President Trump later confirmed to Ambassador Sondland that President Zelensky “must announce 

the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.”122 

 116 Id. ¶ 76. 

117 Id. ¶¶ 76, 80. 

118 Id. ¶ 82. 

119 Id. ¶ 77. 

120 Id. ¶ 101. 121 Id. ¶ 110. 122 Id. ¶ 114. 
21 

President Trump ultimately released the military assistance, but only after the press publicly 

reported the hold, after the President learned that a whistleblower within the Intelligence 

Community had filed a complaint about his misconduct, and after the House publicly announced an 

investigation of the President’s scheme. In short, President Trump released the security assistance 

for Ukraine only after he got caught.123 

Withheld White House Meeting

On April 21, 2019, the day President Zelensky was elected, President Trump invited him to a 

meeting at the White House.124 The meeting would have signaled American support for the new 

Ukrainian administration, its strong anti-corruption reform agenda, and its efforts to defend against 

Russian aggression and to make peace.125 President Trump, however, exercised his official power to 

withhold the meeting as leverage in his scheme to pressure President Zelensky into announcing the 

investigations to help his reelection campaign. 

The evidence is unambiguous that President Trump and his agents conditioned the White 

House meeting on Ukraine’s announcement of the investigations. Ambassador Sondland testified 

that President Trump wanted “a public statement from President Zelensky” committing to the 

investigations as a “prerequisite[]” for the White House meeting.126 Ambassador Sondland further 

testified: “I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the 

form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the 

requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.”127 

 123 Id. ¶¶ 103, 130-31. 

124 Id. ¶ 3. 

125 See, e.g., id. ¶ 4. 

126 Id. ¶ 88. 

127 Id. ¶ 52. 
22 

To this day, President Trump maintains leverage over President Zelensky. A White House 

meeting has still not taken place,128 and President Trump continues publicly to urge Ukraine to 

conduct these investigations.129

B. President Trump Exercised Official Power to Benefit Himself Personally 

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the announcement of investigations on which 

President Trump conditioned the official acts had no legitimate policy rationale, and instead were 

corruptly intended to assist his 2020 reelection campaign.130

First, although there was no basis for the two conspiracy theories that President Trump 

advanced,131 public announcements that these theories were being investigated would be of immense 

political value to him—and him alone. The public announcement of an investigation of former Vice 

President Biden would yield enormous political benefits for President Trump, who viewed the 

former Vice President as a serious political rival in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. 

Unsurprisingly, President Trump’s efforts to advance the conspiracy theory accelerated after news 

broke that Vice President Biden would run for President in 2020.132 President Trump benefited 

from such an announcement of a criminal investigation into his Presidential opponent in 2016.133 

An announcement of a criminal investigation regarding a 2020 rival would likewise be extremely 

helpful to his reelection prospects. 

President Trump would similarly have viewed an investigation into Ukrainian interference in 

the 2016 election as helpful in undermining the conclusion that he had benefitted from Russian 

election interference in 2016, and that he was the preferred candidate of President Putin—both of 

 128 Id. ¶ 137. 

129 Id. ¶¶ 141-42, 150. 

130 See generally Statement of Facts; H. Rep. No. 116-346; H. Rep. No. 116-335. 

131 Statement of Facts ¶¶ 11-15. 

132 Id. ¶¶ 16-19. 

133 See id. ¶¶ 154-56 (then-candidate Trump’s actions relating to the FBI’s investigation into 

Hillary Clinton). 
23 

which President Trump viewed as calling into question the legitimacy of his Presidency. An 

announcement that Ukraine was investigating its own alleged 2016 election interference would have 

turned these facts on their head. President Trump would have grounds to claim—falsely—that he 

was elected President in 2016 not because he was the beneficiary of Russian election interference, 

but in spite of Ukrainian election interference aimed at helping his opponent. 

Second, agents and associates of President Trump who helped carry out his agenda in Ukraine 

confirmed that his efforts to pressure President Zelensky into announcing the desired investigations 

were intended for his personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose. For 

example, after speaking with President Trump, Ambassador Sondland told a colleague that President 

Trump “did not give a [expletive] about Ukraine,” and instead cared only about “big stuff” that 

benefitted him personally “like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.”134 And Mick 

Mulvaney, President Trump’s Acting Chief of Staff, acknowledged to a reporter that there was a 

quid pro quo with Ukraine involving the military aid, conceded that “[t]here is going to be political 

influence in foreign policy,” and stated, “I have news for everybody: get over it.”135 

Third, the involvement of President Trump’s personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani—who has 

professional obligations to the President but not the Nation—underscores that President Trump 

sought the investigations for personal and political reasons rather than legitimate foreign policy 

reasons. Mr. Giuliani openly and repeatedly acknowledged that he was pursuing the Ukrainian 

investigations to advance the President’s interests, stating: “this isn’t foreign policy.”136 Instead, Mr. 

 134 Id. ¶ 88. 

135 Id. ¶ 121. Mr. Mulvaney, along with his deputy Robert Blair and OMB official Michael 

Duffey—who were subpoenaed by the House, but refused to testify at the President’s direction, see 

id. ¶ 187—would provide additional firsthand testimony regarding the President’s withholding of 

official acts in exchange for Ukraine’s assistance with his reelection. 

136 Id. ¶ 18.
24 

Giuliani said that he was seeking information that “will be very, very helpful to my client.”137 Mr. 

Giuliani made similar representations to the Ukrainian government. In a letter to President-elect 

Zelensky, Mr. Giuliani stated that he “represent[ed] him [President Trump] as a private citizen, not as 

President of the United States” and was acting with the President’s “knowledge and consent.” 138 

President Trump placed Mr. Giuliani at the hub of the pressure campaign on Ukraine, and directed 

U.S. officials responsible for Ukraine to “talk to Rudy.”139 Indeed, during their July 25 call, President 

Trump pressed President Zelensky to speak with Mr. Giuliani directly, stating: “Rudy very much 

knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be 

great.”140

Fourth, President Trump’s pursuit of the sham investigations marked a dramatic deviation 

from longstanding bipartisan American foreign policy goals in Ukraine. Legitimate investigations 

could have been recognized as an anti-corruption foreign policy goal, but there was no factual basis 

for an investigation into the Bidens or into supposed Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.141 

To the contrary, the requested investigations were precisely the type of political investigations that 

American foreign policy dissuades other countries from undertaking. That explains why the scheme 

to obtain the announcements was pursued through the President’s chosen political appointees and 

his personal attorney;142 why Trump Administration officials attempted to keep the scheme from 

becoming public due to its “sensitive nature”;143 why no credible explanation for the hold on security 

assistance was provided even within the U.S. government;144 why, over Defense Department 

 137 Id.

138 Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis added). 

139 Id. ¶ 24. 

140 Id. ¶ 78. 

141 Id. ¶¶ 11-15, 122. 

142 Id. 143 Id. ¶ 42. 

144 Id. ¶¶ 43-48. 
25 

objections, President Trump and his allies violated the law by withholding the aid;145 and why, after 

the scheme was uncovered, President Trump falsely claimed that his pursuit of the investigations did 

not involve a quid pro quo.146 

Fifth, American and Ukrainian officials alike saw President Trump’s scheme for what it was: 

improper and political. As we expect the testimony of Ambassador John Bolton would confirm, 

President Trump’s National Security Advisor stated that he wanted no “part of whatever drug deal” 

President Trump’s agents were pursuing in Ukraine.147 Dr. Hill testified that Ambassador Sondland 

was becoming involved in a “domestic political errand” in pressing Ukraine to announce the 

investigations.148 Jennifer Williams, an advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, testified that the 

President’s solicitation of investigations was a “domestic political matter.”149 Lt. Col. Alexander 

Vindman, the NSC’s Director for Ukraine, testified that “[i]t is improper for the President of the 

United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent.”150 

William Taylor, who took over as Chargé d’Affaires in Kyiv after President Trump recalled 

Ambassador Yovanovitch, emphasized that “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for 

help with a political campaign.”151 And George Kent, a State Department official, testified that 

“asking another country to investigate a prosecution for political reasons undermines our advocacy 

of the rule of law.”152

 145 Id. ¶¶ 45-46. 

146 Id. ¶ 140. 

147 Id. ¶ 59. Although Bolton has not cooperated with the House’s inquiry, he has offered to 

testify to the Senate if subpoenaed. 

148 Id. ¶ 58. 

149 Id. ¶ 84. 

150 Id. ¶ 83. 

151 Id. ¶ 118. 

152 Id. ¶ 55 (recalling his statement to Ambassador Volker in July 2019). 
26 

Ukrainian officials also understood that President Trump’s corrupt effort to solicit the sham 

investigations would drag them into domestic U.S. politics. In response to the President’s efforts, a 

senior Ukrainian official conveyed to Ambassador Taylor that President Zelensky “did not want to 

be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign.”153 Another Ukrainian official later stated that “it’s 

critically important for the west not to pull us into some conflicts between their ruling elites[.]”154 

And when Ambassador Kurt Volker tried to warn President Zelensky’s advisor against investigating 

President Zelensky’s former political opponent—the prior Ukrainian president—the advisor 

retorted, “What, you mean like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden?”155 David Holmes, a 

career diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, highlighted this hypocrisy: “While we had advised our 

Ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally 

investigating credible corruption allegations,” U.S. officials were making “a demand that President 

Zelensky personally commit on a cable news channel to a specific investigation of President 

Trump’s political rival.”156

Finally, there is no credible alternative explanation for President Trump’s conduct. It is not 

credible that President Trump sought announcements of the investigations because he was in fact 

concerned with corruption in Ukraine or burden-sharing with our European allies, as he claimed 

after the scheme was uncovered.157 

Before news of former Vice President Biden’s candidacy broke, President Trump showed no 

interest in corruption in Ukraine, and in prior years he approved military assistance to Ukraine 

without controversy.158 After his candidacy was announced, President Trump remained indifferent 

 153 Id. ¶ 68. 

154 Id. ¶ 104. 

155 Id. ¶ 150. 

156 Id. ¶ 151. 

157 Id. ¶ 143. 

158 See id. ¶¶ 2, 33. 
27 

to anti-corruption measures beyond the two investigations he was demanding.159 When he first 

spoke with President Zelensky on April 21, President Trump ignored the recommendation of his 

national security advisors and did not mention corruption at all—even though the purpose of the 

call was to congratulate President Zelensky on a victory based on an anti-corruption platform.160 

President Trump’s entire policy team agreed that President Zelensky was genuinely committed to 

reforms, yet President Trump refused a White House meeting that the team advised would support 

President Zelensky’s anti-corruption agenda.161 President Trump’s own Department of Defense, in 

consultation with the State Department, had certified in May 2019 that Ukraine satisfied all anticorruption standards needed to receive the Congressionally appropriated military aid, yet President 

Trump nevertheless withheld that vital assistance.162 He recalled without explanation Ambassador 

Yovanovitch, who was widely recognized as a champion in fighting corruption,163 disparaged her 

while praising a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor general,164 and oversaw efforts to cut foreign programs 

tasked with combating corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere.165 

Moreover, had President Trump truly sought to assist Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts, he 

would have focused on ensuring that Ukraine actually conducted investigations of the purported issues 

he identified. But actual investigations were never the point. President Trump was interested only 

in the announcement of the investigations because that announcement would accomplish his real 

goal—bolstering his reelection efforts.166

 159 See id. ¶ 88. 

160 See id. ¶¶ 1-2. 

161 See id. ¶¶ 22-24. 

162 See id. ¶¶ 36 n.73, 39. 

163 See id. ¶ 7. 

164 See id. ¶¶ 8-9, 81. 

165 See id. ¶ 82 n.138. 

166 See e.g., id. ¶¶ 82, 131. 
28 

President Trump’s purported concern about sharing the burden of assistance to Ukraine 

with Europe is equally without basis. From the time OMB announced the illegal hold until it was 

lifted, no credible reason was provided to Executive Branch agencies for the hold, despite repeated 

efforts by national security officials to obtain an explanation.167 It was not until September—

approximately two months after President Trump had directed the hold and after the President had 

learned of the whistleblower complaint—that the hold, for the first time, was attributed to the 

President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.168 If the President was 

genuinely concerned about burden-sharing, it makes no sense that he kept his own Administration 

in the dark about the issue for months, never made any contemporaneous public statements about 

it, never ordered a review of burden-sharing,169 never ordered his officials to push Europe to 

increase their contributions,170 and then released the aid without any change in Europe’s 

contribution.171 The concern about burden-sharing is an after-the-fact rationalization designed to 

conceal President Trump’s abuse of power. 

C. President Trump Jeopardized U.S. National Interests 

President Trump’s efforts to solicit foreign interference to help his reelection campaign is 

pernicious, but his conduct is all the more alarming because it endangered U.S. national security, 

jeopardized our alliances, and undermined our efforts to promote the rule of law globally. 

Ukraine is a “strategic partner of the United States” on the front lines of an ongoing conflict 

with Russia.172 The United States has approved military assistance to Ukraine with bipartisan 

support since 2014, and that assistance is critical to preventing Russia’s expansion and aggression. 

 167 See id. ¶¶ 41-48. 

168 See id. ¶¶ 43-45. 

169 See id. ¶ 44. 

170 See id.

171 See id. ¶ 131. 

172 Id. ¶ 28. 
29 

This military assistance—which President Trump withheld in service of his own political interests—

“saves lives” by making Ukrainian resistance to Russia more effective.173 It likewise advances 

American national security interests because, “[i]f Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian 

dominion, we can expect to see other attempts by Russia to expand its territory and influence.”174 

Indeed, the reason the United States provides assistance to the Ukrainian military is “so that they 

can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”175 President Trump’s delay in 

providing the military assistance jeopardized these national security interests and emboldened Russia 

even though the funding was ultimately released—particularly because the delay occurred “when 

Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian 

Government.”176 But for a subsequent act of Congress, approximately $35 million of military 

assistance to Ukraine would have lapsed and been unavailable as a result of the President’s abuse of 

power.177

The White House meeting that President Trump promised President Zelensky—but 

continues to withhold—would similarly have signaled to Russia that the United States stands behind 

Ukraine, showing “U.S. support at the highest levels.”178 By refusing to hold this meeting, President 

Trump denied Ukraine a showing of strength that could deter further Russian aggression and help 

Ukraine negotiate a favorable end to its war with Russia.179 The withheld meeting also undercuts 

President Zelensky’s domestic standing, diminishing his ability to advance his ambitious anticorruption reforms.180 

 173 Id. ¶ 31. 

174 Id. 175 Id. 176 Id. ¶ 4. 

177 Id. ¶¶ 132-33. 

178 Id. ¶ 4 & n.8. 

179 See id. ¶ 50. 

180 See id. 
30 

Equally troubling is that President Trump’s scheme sent a clear message to our allies that the 

United States may capriciously withhold critical assistance for our President’s personal benefit, 

causing our allies to constantly “question the extent to which they can count on us.”181 Because 

American leadership depends on “the power of our example and the consistency of our purpose,” 

President Trump’s “conduct undermines the U.S., exposes our friends, and widens the playing field 

for autocrats like President Putin.”182 And President Trump’s use of official acts to pressure Ukraine 

to announce politically motivated investigations harms our credibility in promoting democratic 

values and the rule of law in Ukraine and around the world. American credibility abroad “is based 

on a respect for the United States,” and “if we damage that respect,” American foreign policy cannot 

do its job.183 

* * * 

President Trump abused the powers of his office to invite foreign interference in an election 

for his own personal political gain and to the detriment of American national security interests. He 

abandoned his oath to faithfully execute the laws and betrayed his public trust. President Trump’s 

misconduct presents a danger to our democratic processes, our national security, and our 

commitment to the rule of law. He must be removed from office. 

II. THE SENATE SHOULD CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

In exercising its responsibility to investigate and consider the impeachment of a President of 

the United States, the House is constitutionally entitled to the relevant information from the 

 181 Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes: Hearing Before the H. Permanent 

Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 175 (Nov. 21, 2019). 

182 Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch: Hearing Before the H. 

Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 19 (Nov. 15, 2019) (Yovanovitch Hearing Tr.). 

183 Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador William B. Taylor and George Kent: Hearing Before 

the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 165 (Nov. 13, 2019). 
31 

Executive Branch concerning the President’s misconduct.184 The Framers, the courts, and past 

Presidents have recognized that honoring Congress’s right to information in an impeachment 

investigation is a critical safeguard in our system of divided powers.185 Otherwise, a President could 

hide his own wrongdoing to prevent Congress from discovering impeachable misconduct, 

effectively nullifying Congress’s impeachment power.186 President Trump’s sweeping effort to shield 

his misconduct from view and protect himself from impeachment thus works a grave constitutional 

harm and is itself an impeachable offense. 

A. The House Is Constitutionally Entitled to the Relevant Information in an 

Impeachment Inquiry 

The House has the power to issue subpoenas and demand compliance in an impeachment 

investigation. The Supreme Court has long recognized that, “[w]ithout the power to investigate—

including of course the authority to compel testimony, either through its own processes or through 

judicial trial—Congress could be seriously handicapped in its efforts to exercise its constitutional 

function wisely and effectively.”187 The Court has stressed that it is the “duty of all citizens” and 

“their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its 

committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper 

investigation.”188 The Court has repeatedly emphasized that Congress’s “power of inquiry—with 

 184 4 Annals of Cong. 601 (1796) (statement of Rep. William Lyman) (noting that Congress 

has “the right to inspect every paper and transaction in any department” during an impeachment 

inquiry). 

185 See, e.g., The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton) (referring to the House as the 

“inquisitors for the nation” for purposes of impeachment); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 193 

(1880); 4 James D. Richardson ed., Messages and Papers of Presidents 434-35 (1896); see also H. Rep. 

No. 116-346, at 139-42 (collecting examples of past Presidents beginning with George Washington 

acknowledging the importance of Congress’s right to information from the Executive Branch in 

impeachment inquiries). 

186 See generally H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 139-48. 

187 Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 160-61 (1955). 

188 Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957). 
32 

process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.”189 

Congress “cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information.”190 

This principle is most compelling when the House exercises its “sole Power of 

Impeachment.” Congress’s already “broad” investigatory authority,191 and its need for information, 

are at their apex in an impeachment inquiry. The principle that the President cannot stand in the 

way of an impeachment investigation is “of great consequence” because, as Supreme Court Justice 

Joseph Story long ago explained, “the president should not have the power of preventing a thorough 

investigation of [his] conduct, or of securing [himself] against the disgrace of a public conviction by 

impeachment, if [he] should deserve it.”192 A Presidential impeachment is “a matter of the most 

critical moment to the Nation” and it is “difficult to conceive of a more compelling need than that 

of this country for an unswervingly fair inquiry based on all the pertinent information.”193 The 

Supreme Court thus recognized nearly 140 years ago that where the House or Senate is determining 

a “question of . . . impeachment,” there is “no reason to doubt the right to compel the attendance of 

witnesses, and their answer to proper questions, in the same manner and by the use of the same 

means that courts of justice can in like cases.”194 

Like the Supreme Court, members of the earliest Congresses understood that, without “the 

right to inspect every paper and transaction in any department . . . the power of impeachment could 

never be exercised with any effect.”195 Previous Presidents have acknowledged their obligation to 

 189 McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). 

190 Id. at 175. 

191 Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. 

192 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1501 (2d ed. 1851). 

193 In re Report & Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury Concerning Transmission of Evidence to 

House of Representatives, 370 F. Supp. 1219, 1230 (D.D.C. 1974). 

194 Kilbourn, 103 U.S. at 190. The Court in Kilbourn invalidated a contempt order by the 

House but explained that the “whole aspect of the case would have changed” if it had been an 

impeachment proceeding. Id. at 193. 

195 4 Annals of Cong. 601 (statement of Rep. William Lyman). 
33 

comply with an impeachment investigation, explaining that such an inquiry “penetrate[s] into the 

most secret recesses of the Executive Departments” and “could command the attendance of any 

and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, 

official or unofficial, and to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge.”196 That 

acknowledgement is a matter of common sense. An impeachment inquiry cannot root out bad 

actors if those same bad actors control the scope and nature of the inquiry. 

President Trump is an aberration among Presidents in refusing any and all cooperation in a 

House impeachment investigation. Even President Nixon produced numerous documents in 

response to Congressional subpoenas and instructed “[a]ll members of the White House Staff . . . 

[to] appear voluntarily when requested by the [House],” to “testify under oath,” and to “answer fully 

all proper questions”197—consistent with the near uniform cooperation of prior Executive Branch 

officials who had been subject to impeachment investigations.198 

Because President Nixon’s production of records in response to the House Judiciary 

Committee’s inquiry was incomplete in important respects, however, the Committee voted to adopt 

an article of impeachment for his obstruction of the inquiry.199 As the Committee explained, in 

refusing to provide materials that the Committee “deemed necessary” to the impeachment 

investigation, President Nixon had “substitute[ed] his judgment” for that of the House and 

interposed “the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of 

Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to exercise the sole 

 196 Cong. Globe, 29th Cong., 1st Sess. 698 (1846) (statement of President James K. Polk); see 

also H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 139-42. 

197 Remarks by President Nixon (Apr. 17, 1973), reprinted in Statement of Information: Hearings 

Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, H. of Representatives: Book IV—Part 2, Events Following the Watergate 

Break-in (1974). 

198 H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 142; see Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United 

States: Report of the Comm. on the Judiciary, H. of Representatives, H. Rep. No. 93-1305, at 196 (1974). 

199 See H. Rep. No. 93-1305, at 10. 
34 

power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House.”200 The Committee stated that it 

was not “within the power of the President to conduct an inquiry into his own impeachment, to 

determine which evidence, and what version or portion of that evidence, is relevant and necessary to 

such an inquiry. These are matters which, under the Constitution, the House has the sole power to 

determine.”201 In the face of Congress’s investigation and the mounting evidence of his misdeeds, 

President Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him for this misconduct. 

B. President Trump’s Obstruction of the Impeachment Inquiry Violates 

Fundamental Constitutional Principles 

The Senate should convict President Trump of Obstruction of Congress as charged in the 

Second Article of Impeachment. President Trump unilaterally declared the House’s investigation 

“illegitimate.”202 President Trump’s White House Counsel notified the House that “President 

Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these 

circumstances.”203 President Trump then directed his Administration categorically to withhold 

documents and testimony from the House. 

The facts are undisputed. As charged in the Second Article of Impeachment, President 

Trump “[d]irect[ed] the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of 

documents” to the Committees; “[d]irect[ed] other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy 

lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees”; 

and “[d]irected current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the 

Committees.”204 In response to President Trump’s directives, OMB, the Department of State, 

Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce any documents to the 

 200 Id. at 4. 

201 Id. at 194. 

202 See Statement of Facts ¶ 177. 

203 See id. ¶ 169. 

204 H. Res. 755, at 7; see Statement of Facts ¶ 169. 
35 

House, even though witness testimony has revealed that additional highly relevant records exist.205 

To date, the House Committees have not received a single document or record from these 

departments and agencies pursuant to subpoenas, which remain in effect. 

President Trump personally demanded that his top aides refuse to testify in response to 

subpoenas, and nine Administration officials followed his directive and continue to defy subpoenas 

for testimony.206 For example, when the Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for Mick 

Mulvaney’s testimony, he produced a November 8 letter from the White House stating: “the 

President directs Mr. Mulvaney not to appear at the Committee’s scheduled deposition on 

November 8, 2019.”207 When President Trump was unable to silence witnesses, he resorted to 

tactics to penalize and intimidate them. These efforts include President Trump’s sustained attacks 

on the anonymous whistleblower, and his public statements designed to discourage witnesses from 

coming forward and to embarrass those who did testify.208 

Refusing to comply with a Congressional impeachment investigation is not a constitutionally 

valid decision for a President to make. President Trump’s unprecedented “complete defiance of an 

impeachment inquiry . . . served to cover up the President’s own repeated misconduct and to seize 

and control the power of impeachment.”209 President Trump’s directive rejects one of the key 

features distinguishing our Republic from a monarchy: that “[t]he President of the United States [is] 

liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction . . . removed.”210 Allowing President Trump to 

avoid conviction on the Second Article would set a dangerous precedent for future Presidents to 

 205 Statement of Facts ¶¶ 179-83. 

206 Id. ¶¶ 186-87. 

207 Id. ¶ 186. 

208 Id. ¶ 190 & nn.309-10. 

209 H. Res. 755, at 8. 

210 The Federalist No. 69 (Alexander Hamilton). 
36 

hide their misconduct from Congressional scrutiny during an impeachment inquiry without fear of 

accountability. 

Notwithstanding President Trump’s obstruction, the House obtained compelling evidence 

that he abused his power. The failure of President Trump’s obstruction and attempted cover-up, 

however, does not excuse his misconduct. There can be no doubt that the withheld documents and 

testimony would provide Congress with highly pertinent information about the President’s corrupt 

scheme. Indeed, witnesses have testified about specific withheld records concerning President 

Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelensky and related materials,211 and public reports have 

referred to additional responsive documents, including “hundreds of documents that reveal 

extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for” withholding the security aid.212 

C. President Trump’s Excuses for His Obstruction Are Meritless 

President Trump has offered various unpersuasive excuses for his blanket refusal to comply 

with the House’s impeachment inquiry. President Trump’s refusal to provide information is not a 

principled assertion of executive privilege, but rather is a transparent attempt to cover-up 

wrongdoing and amass power that the Constitution does not give him, including the power to 

decide whether and when Congress can hold him accountable. 

First, while Congressional investigators often accommodate legitimate Executive Branch 

interests, the President’s blanket directive to all Executive Branch agencies and witnesses to defy 

Congressional subpoenas was not based on any actual assertion of executive privilege or 

 211 See Statement of Facts ¶ 184 & nn.296-97. 212 Id. ¶ 45. As noted above, the testimony of Messrs. Mulvaney, Blair, and Duffey would 

shed additional light on the White House’s efforts to create an after-the-fact justification for the 

President’s withholding of security assistance. Ambassador Bolton’s testimony would likewise be 

illuminating in this regard given public reporting of his repeated, yet unsuccessful, efforts to 

convince the President to lift the hold. 
37 

identification of particular sensitive information.213 The White House Counsel’s letter alluded to 

“long-established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges” that the State 

Department could theoretically invoke,214 and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel 

preemptively dismissed certain subpoenas as “invalid” on the ground that responsive information 

was “potentially protected by executive privilege.”215 But neither document conveyed an actual 

assertion of executive privilege,216 which would require, at a minimum, identification by the 

President of particular communications or documents containing protected material.217 The White 

House cannot justify a blanket refusal to respond to Congressional subpoenas based on an executive 

or other privilege it never in fact invoked. 

Regardless, executive privilege is inapplicable here, both because it may not be used to 

conceal wrongdoing—particularly in an impeachment inquiry—and because the President and his 

agents have already diminished any confidentiality interests by speaking at length about these events 

in every forum except Congress.218 President Trump has been impeached for Obstruction of 

Congress not based upon discrete invocations of privilege or immunity, but for his directive that the 

Executive Branch categorically stonewall the House impeachment inquiry by refusing to comply 

with all subpoenas.219 

To the extent President Trump claims that he has concealed evidence to protect the Office 

of the President, the Framers considered and rejected that defense. Several delegates at the 

Constitutional Convention warned that the impeachment power would be “destructive of [the 

 213 See id. ¶ 172. 

214 Id.

215 Id.

216 Id.

217 See, e.g., Landry v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

218 See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Statement of Facts ¶ 173 & 

n.280. 

219 See H. Res. 755, at 7. 
38 

executive’s] independence.”220 But the Framers adopted an impeachment power anyway because, as 

Alexander Hamilton observed, “the powers relating to impeachments” are “an essential check in the 

hands of [Congress] upon the encroachments of the executive.”221 The impeachment power does 

not exist to protect the Presidency; it exists to protect the nation from a corrupt and dangerous 

President like Donald Trump. 

Second, President Trump has no basis for objecting to how the House conducted its 

impeachment proceedings. The Constitution vests the House with the “sole Power of 

Impeachment”222 and the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”223 

The rights that President Trump has demanded have never been recognized and have not 

been afforded in any prior Presidential impeachment.224 President Trump has been afforded 

protections equal to or greater than those afforded Presidents Nixon and Clinton during their 

impeachment proceedings in the House.225 Any claim that President Trump was entitled to due 

process rights modeled on a criminal trial during the entirety of the House impeachment inquiry 

ignores both law and history. A House impeachment inquiry cannot be compared to a criminal trial 

because the Senate, not the House, possesses the “sole Power to try Impeachments.”226 The 

Constitution does not entitle President Trump to a separate, full trial first in the House. 

Even indulging the analogy to a criminal trial, no person appearing before a prosecutor or 

grand jury deciding whether to bring charges would have the rights President Trump has claimed. 

 220 2 Farrand at 67. 221 The Federalist No. 66 (Alexander Hamilton). 222 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5. 

223 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 5, cl. 2. 

224 See, e.g., Statement of Facts ¶ 163; see also U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5. 

225 Statement of Facts ¶ 163; 165 Cong. Rec. E1357 (2019) (Impeachment Inquiry 

Procedures in the Committee on the Judiciary Pursuant to H. Res. 660); Investigatory Powers of the 

Comm. on the Judiciary with Respect to its Impeachment Inquiry, H. Rep. No. 105-795 (1998); H. Rep. No. 

93-1305, at 8. 

226 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. 
39 

As the House Judiciary Committee Chairman observed during Watergate, “it is not a right but a 

privilege or a courtesy” for the President to participate through counsel in House impeachment 

proceedings.227 President Trump’s demands are just another effort to obstruct the House in the 

exercise of its constitutional duty. 

Third, President Trump’s assertion that his impeachment for obstruction of Congress is 

invalid because the Committees did not first seek judicial enforcement of their subpoenas ignores 

again the Constitutional dictate that the House has sole authority to determine how to proceed with 

an impeachment. It also ignores President Trump’s own arguments to the federal courts. 

President Trump is telling one story to Congress while spinning a different tale in the courts. 

He is saying to Congress that the Committees should have sued the Executive Branch in court to 

enforce their subpoenas. But he has argued to that court that Congressional Committees cannot sue

the Executive Branch to enforce their subpoenas.228 President Trump cannot tell Congress that it 

must pursue him in court, while simultaneously telling the courts that they are powerless to enforce 

Congressional subpoenas. 

President Trump’s approach to the Judicial Branch thus mirrors his obstruction of the 

Legislative Branch—in his view, neither can engage in any review of his conduct. This position 

conveys the President’s dangerously misguided belief that no other branch of government may 

 227 Impeachment Inquiry: Hearings Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Book I, 93d Cong. 497 

(1974) (statement of Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr.). 

228 See Statement of Facts ¶ 192; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summ. J. at 

20, Kupperman v. U.S. House of Representatives, No. 19-3224 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2019), ECF No. 40; 

Defs.’ and Def.-Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss at 46-47, Comm. on Ways & Means v. U.S. Dep’t of the 

Treasury, No. 19-1974 (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2019), ECF No. 44; see also Brief for Def.-Appellant at 2, 32-

33, Comm. on the Judiciary v. McGahn, No. 19-5331 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 2019). 
40 

check his power or hold him accountable for abusing it.229 That belief is fundamentally incompatible 

with our form of government. 

Months or years of litigation over each of the House’s subpoenas is in any event no answer 

in this time-sensitive inquiry. The House’s subpoena to former White House Counsel Don 

McGahn was issued in April 2019, but it is still winding its way through the courts over President 

Trump’s strong opposition, even on an expedited schedule.230 Litigating President Trump’s 

direction that each subpoena be denied would conflict with the House’s urgent duty to act on the 

compelling evidence of impeachable misconduct that it has uncovered. Further delay could also 

compromise the integrity of the 2020 election. 

* * * 

When the Framers entrusted the House with the sole power of impeachment, they obviously 

meant to equip the House with the necessary tools to discover abuses of power by the President. 

Without that authority, the Impeachment Clause would fail as an effective safeguard against tyranny. 

A system in which the President cannot be charged with a crime, as the Department of Justice 

believes, and in which he can nullify the impeachment power through blanket obstruction, as 

President Trump has done here, is a system in which the President is above the law. The Senate 

should convict President Trump for his categorical obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry 

and ensure that this President, and any future President, cannot commit impeachable offenses and 

then avoid accountability by covering them up.

 229 See also Statement of Facts ¶ 164 (“I have an Article II, where I have the right to do 

whatever I want as president.”). 

230 See id. ¶ 192 & n.316. 
41 

III. THE SENATE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM OFFICE TO 

PREVENT FURTHER ABUSES

President Trump has demonstrated his continued willingness to corrupt free and fair 

elections, betray our national security, and subvert the constitutional separation of powers—all for 

personal gain. President Trump’s ongoing pattern of misconduct demonstrates that he is an 

immediate threat to the Nation and the rule of law. It is imperative that the Senate convict and 

remove him from office now, and permanently bar him from holding federal office. 

A. President Trump’s Repeated Abuse of Power Presents an Ongoing Threat to 

Our Elections 

President Trump’s solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election is not an 

isolated incident. It is part of his ongoing and deeply troubling course of misconduct that, as the 

First Article of Impeachment states, is “consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of 

foreign interference in United States elections.”231

These previous efforts include inviting Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential 

election.232 As Special Counsel Mueller concluded, the “Russian government interfered in the 2016 

presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”233 Throughout the 2016 election cycle, the 

Trump Campaign maintained significant contacts with agents of the Russian government who were 

offering damaging information concerning then-candidate Trump’s political opponent, and 

Mr. Trump repeatedly praised—and even publicly requested—the release of politically charged 

Russian-hacked emails.234 The Trump Campaign welcomed Russia’s election interference because it 

“expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian 

efforts.”235 

 231 H. Res. 755, at 5. 

232 Statement of Facts ¶¶ 191-93. 

233 Id. ¶ 13. 

234 Id. ¶¶ 152-56. 

235 Id. ¶ 152. 
42 

President Trump’s recent actions confirm that public censure is insufficient to deter him 

from continuing to facilitate foreign interference in U.S. elections. In June 2019, President Trump 

declared that he sees “nothing wrong with listening” to a foreign power that offers information 

detrimental to a political adversary. In the President’s words: “I think I’d take it.”236 Asked whether 

such information should be reported to law enforcement, President Trump retorted: “Give me a 

break, life doesn’t work that way.”237 

Only one day after Special Counsel Mueller testified to Congress that the Trump Campaign 

welcomed and sought to capitalize on Russia’s efforts to damage the President’s political rival in 

2016, President Trump spoke to President Zelensky, pressuing Ukraine to announce investigations 

to damage President Trump’s political opponent in the 2020 election and undermine Special 

Counsel Mueller’s findings.238 President Trump still embraces that call as both “routine” and 

“perfect.”239 President Trump’s conduct would have horrified the Framers of our republic. 

In its findings, the Intelligence Committee emphasized the “proximate threat of further 

presidential attempts to solicit foreign interference in our next election.”240 That threat has not 

abated. In a sign that President Trump’s corrupt efforts to encourage interference in the 2020 

election persist, he reiterated his desire for Ukraine to investigate his political opponents even after 

the scheme was discovered and the impeachment inquiry was announced. When asked in October 

2019 what he hoped President Zelensky would do about “the Bidens,” President Trump answered 

 236 Id. ¶ 156. 

237 Id. 238 Id. ¶¶ 76, 157. 

239 Id. ¶ 77 n.132. 

240 H. Rep. No. 116-335, at XI. 
43 

that it was “very simple” and he hoped Ukraine would “start a major investigation.”241 Unsolicited, 

he added that “China should [likewise] start an investigation into the Bidens.”242 

President Trump has also continued to engage Mr. Giuliani to pursue the sham 

investigations on his behalf.243 One day after President Trump was impeached, Mr. Giuliani claimed 

that he gathered derogatory evidence against Vice President Biden during a fact-finding trip to 

Ukraine—a trip where he met with a current Ukrainian official who attended a KGB school in 

Moscow and has led calls in Ukraine to investigate Burisma and the Bidens.244 During the trip, Mr. 

Giuliani tweeted: “The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence 

of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016, that has not been resolved and until it is will be a 

major obstacle to the US assisting Ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms.”245 Not only was Mr. 

Giuliani perpetuating the false allegations against the former Vice President, but he was reiterating 

the threat that President Trump had used to pressure President Zelensky to announce the 

investigations: that U.S. assistance to Ukraine would be withheld until Ukraine pursued the sham 

investigations. Mr. Giuliani has stated that he and the President continue to be “on the same 

page.”246 Ukraine, as well, understands that Mr. Giuliani represents President Trump’s interests.247

President Trump’s unrepentant embrace of foreign election interference illustrates the threat 

posed by his continued occupancy of the Office of the President. It also refutes the assertion that 

the consequences of his misconduct should be decided by the voters in the 2020 election. The aim 

of President Trump’s Ukraine scheme was to corrupt the integrity of the 2020 election by enlisting a 

foreign power to give him an unfair advantage—in short, to cheat. That threat persists today. 

 241 Statement of Facts ¶ 142. 

242 Id. 243 See id. ¶¶ 144-49. 

244 Id. 

245 Id. ¶ 146. 

246 Id. ¶ 149. 

247 Id. ¶¶ 19, 69, 89. 
44 

B. President Trump’s Obstruction of Congress Threatens Our Constitutional 

Order 

President Trump’s obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry intended to hold him 

accountable for his misconduct presents a serious danger to our constitutional checks and balances. 

President Trump has made clear that he refuses to accept Congress’s express—and 

exclusive—constitutional role in conducting impeachments.248 He has thereby subverted the 

Constitution that he pledged to uphold when he was inaugurated on the steps of the Capitol. By his 

words and deeds, President Trump has obstructed the House’s impeachment inquiry at every turn: 

He has dismissed impeachment as “illegal, invalid, and unconstitutional”;249 directed the Executive 

Branch not to comply with House subpoenas for documents and testimony;250 and intimidated and 

threatened the anonymous intelligence community whistleblower as well as the patriotic public 

servants who honored their subpoenas and testified before the House.251

President Trump’s obstruction is part of an ominous pattern of efforts “to undermine 

United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.”252 

Rather than assist Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 

election and his own campaign’s exploitation of that foreign assistance, President Trump repeatedly 

used the powers of his office to impede it. Among other actions, President Trump directed the 

White House Counsel to fire the Special Counsel and then create a false record of the firing, 

tampered with witnesses in the Special Counsel’s investigation, and repeatedly and publicly attacked 

the legitimacy of the investigation.253 President Trump has instructed the former White House 

 248 See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 169-71; U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5; U.S. Const., Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. 

249 Statement of Facts ¶ 177. 

250 Id. ¶ 169. 

251 Id. ¶ 177. 

252 H. Res. 755, at 7-8. 

253 See Statement of Facts ¶ 193. 
45 

Counsel to defy a House Committee’s subpoena for testimony concerning these matters and the 

Department of Justice has argued that the courts cannot even hear the Committee’s action to 

enforce its subpoena.254 

President Trump’s current obstruction of Congress is, therefore, not the first time he has 

committed misconduct concerning a federal investigation into election interference and then sought 

to hide it. Allowing this pattern to continue without repercussion would send the clear message that 

President Trump is correct in his view that no governmental body can hold him accountable for 

wrongdoing. That view is erroneous and exceptionally dangerous. 

C. The Senate Should Convict and Remove President Trump to Protect Our 

System of Government and National Security Interests 

The Senate should convict and remove President Trump to avoid serious and long-term 

damage to our democratic values and the Nation’s security. 

If the Senate permits President Trump to remain in office, he and future leaders would be 

emboldened to welcome, and even enlist, foreign interference in elections for years to come. When 

the American people’s faith in their electoral process is shaken and its results called into question, 

the essence of democratic self-government is called into doubt. 

Failure to remove President Trump would signal that a President’s personal interests may 

take precedence over those of the Nation, alarming our allies and emboldening our adversaries. Our 

leadership depends on the power of our example and the consistency of our purpose,” but because 

of President Trump’s actions, “[b]oth have now been opened to question.”255 

Ratifying President Trump’s behavior would likewise erode longstanding U.S. anticorruption policy, which encourages countries to refrain from using the criminal justice system to 

 254 Id. ¶ 192 & n.316. 

255 Yovanovitch Hearing Tr. at 19. 
46 

investigate political opponents. As many witnesses explained, urging Ukraine to engage in “selective 

politically associated investigations or prosecutions” undermines the power of America’s example 

and our longstanding efforts to promote the rule of law abroad.256 

An acquittal would also provide license to President Trump and his successors to use 

taxpayer dollars for personal political ends. Foreign aid is not the only vulnerable source of funding; 

Presidents could also hold hostage federal funds earmarked for States—such as money for natural 

disasters, highways, and healthcare—unless and until State officials perform personal political favors. 

Any Congressional appropriation would be an opportunity for a President to solicit a favor for his 

personal political purposes—or for others to seek to curry favor with him. Such an outcome would 

be entirely incompatible with our constitutional system of self-government. 

* * * 

President Trump has betrayed the American people and the ideals on which the Nation was 

founded. Unless he is removed from office, he will continue to endanger our national security, 

jeopardize the integrity of our elections, and undermine our core constitutional principles. 

Respectfully submitted,

Adam B. Schiff 

Jerrold Nadler 

Zoe Lofgren 

Hakeem S. Jeffries 

Val Butler Demings 

Jason Crow 

Sylvia R. Garcia 

January 18, 2020 U.S. House of Representatives Managers*

 256 Statement of Facts ¶ 122. *

 The House Managers wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals in 

preparing this trial memorandum: Douglas N. Letter, Megan Barbero, Josephine Morse, Adam A. 

Grogg, William E. Havemann, and Jonathan B. Schwartz of the House Office of General Counsel; 

Daniel Noble, Daniel S. Goldman, and Maher Bitar of the House Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence; Norman L. Eisen, Barry H. Berke, Joshua Matz, and Sophia Brill of the House 

Committee on the Judiciary; the investigative staff of the House Committee on Oversight and 

Reform; and David A. O’Neil, Anna A. Moody, and Laura E. O’Neill.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Sitting as a Court of Impeachment

In re

IMPEACHMENT OF

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

ATTACHMENT TO THE TRIAL MEMORANDUM

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS...................................................................................................... 2

I. President Trump’s Abuse of Power ........................................................................................................ 2

A. The President’s Scheme to Solicit Foreign Interference in the 2020 Election from 

the New Ukrainian Government Began in Spring 2019 .......................................................... 2

B. The President Enlisted His Personal Attorney and U.S. Officials to Help Execute 

the Scheme for His Personal Benefit.......................................................................................... 8

C. The President Froze Vital Military and Other Security Assistance for Ukraine ................11

D. President Trump Conditioned a White House Meeting on Ukraine Announcing It 

Would Launch Politically Motivated Investigations ...............................................................19

E. President Trump Directly Solicited Election Interference from President Zelensky .......25

F. President Trump Conditioned the Release of Security Assistance for Ukraine, and 

Continued to Leverage a White House Meeting, to Pressure Ukraine to Launch 

Politically Motivated Investigations..........................................................................................29

G. President Trump Was Forced to Lift the Hold but Has Continued to Solicit Foreign 

Interference in the Upcoming Election ...................................................................................39

H. President Trump’s Conduct Was Consistent with His Previous Invitations of 

Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections.....................................................................................47

II. President Trump’s Obstruction of Congress ......................................................................................49

A. The House Launched an Impeachment Inquiry .....................................................................50

B. President Trump Ordered Categorical Obstruction of the House’s Impeachment 

Inquiry 51

C. Following President Trump’s Directive, the Executive Branch Refused to Produce 

Requested and Subpoenaed Documents .................................................................................55

D. President Trump Ordered Top Aides Not to Testify, Even Pursuant to Subpoena ........58

E. President Trump’s Conduct Was Consistent with His Previous Efforts to Obstruct 

Investigations into Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections ...................................................60
INTRODUCTION

The U.S. House of Representatives has adopted Articles of Impeachment charging President 

Donald J. Trump with abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. The House’s Trial 

Memorandum explains why the Senate should convict and remove President Trump from office, 

and permanently bar him from government service. The Memorandum relies on this Statement of 

Material Facts, which summarizes key evidence relating to the President’s misconduct. 

 As further described below, and as detailed in House Committee reports,1 President Trump 

used the powers of his office and U.S. taxpayers’ money to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, to 

interfere in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election on his behalf. President Trump’s goals—which 

became known to multiple U.S. officials who testified before the House—were simple and starkly 

political: he wanted Ukraine’s new President to announce investigations that would assist his 2020

reelection campaign and tarnish a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr. As 

leverage, President Trump illegally withheld from Ukraine nearly $400 million in vital military and 

other security assistance that had been appropriated by Congress, and an official White House 

meeting that President Trump had promised Volodymyr Zelensky, the newly elected President of 

Ukraine. President Trump did this despite U.S. national security officials’ unanimous opposition to 

withholding the aid from Ukraine, placing his own personal and political interests above the national 

security interests of the United States and undermining the integrity of our democracy. 

 When this scheme became known and Committees of the House launched an investigation, 

the President, for the first time in American history, ordered the categorical obstruction of an 

 1 See Report of the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence on the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment 

Inquiry, together with Minority Views, H. Rep. No. 116-335 (2019); Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, 

President of the United States: Report of the Comm. on the Judiciary of the H. of Representatives, together with 

Dissenting Views, to Accompany H. Res. 755, H. Rep. No. 116-346 (2019). 
SMF 2 

impeachment inquiry. President Trump directed that no witnesses should testify and no documents 

should be produced to the House, a co-equal branch of government endowed by the Constitution 

with the “sole Power of Impeachment.”2 President Trump’s conduct—both in soliciting a foreign 

country’s interference in a U.S. election and then obstructing the ensuing investigation into that 

interference—was consistent with his prior conduct during and after the 2016 election. 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

I. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ABUSE OF POWER

A. The President’s Scheme to Solicit Foreign Interference in the 2020 Election 

from the New Ukrainian Government Began in Spring 2019

1. On April 21, 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky, a political neophyte, won a landslide victory 

in Ukraine’s Presidential election.3 Zelensky campaigned on an anti-corruption platform, and his 

victory reaffirmed the Ukrainian people’s strong desire for reform.4 

2. When President Trump called to congratulate Zelensky later that day, President 

Trump did not raise any concerns about corruption in Ukraine, although his staff had prepared 

written materials for him recommending that he do so, and the White House call readout incorrectly 

indicated he did.5

 2 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5.

3 Transcript, Deposition of Lt. Colonel Alexander S. Vindman Before the H. Permanent 

Select Comm. on Intelligence 16 (Oct. 29, 2019) (Vindman Dep. Tr.); Anton Troianovski, Comedian 

Volodymyr Zelensky Unseats Incumbent in Ukraine’s Presidential Election, Exit Polls Show, Wash. Post (Apr. 

21, 2019), https://perma.cc/J8KE-2UJU. 4 Id. 5 See White House, Memorandum of Telephone Conversation (Apr. 21, 2019) (Apr. 21 

Memorandum), https://perma.cc/EY4N-B8VS; Deb Riechmann et al., Conflicting White House 

Accounts of 1st Trump-Zelenskiy Call, Associated Press (Nov. 15, 2019), https://perma.cc/A6U9-

89ZG. 
SMF 3 

3. During the call, President Trump promised President-elect Zelensky that a high-level 

U.S. delegation would attend his inauguration and told him, “When you’re settled in and ready, I’d

like to invite you to the White House.”6 

4. Both events would have demonstrated strong support by the United States as 

Ukraine fought a war—and negotiated for peace—with Russia. “Russia was watching closely to 

gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian Government.”7 A White House visit also 

would have bolstered Zelensky’s standing at home as he pursued his anti-corruption agenda.8

5. Following the April 21 call, President Trump asked Vice President Mike Pence to 

lead the American delegation to President Zelensky’s inauguration. During his own call with 

President-elect Zelensky on April 23, Vice President Pence confirmed that he would attend the 

inauguration “if the dates worked out.”9

6. On April 23, the media reported that former Vice President Biden was going to enter 

the 2020 race for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.10

 6

 Apr. 21 Memorandum at 2, https://perma.cc/EY4N-B8VS. 7 Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador William B. Taylor and George Kent: Hearing Before the 

H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 40 (Nov. 13, 2019) (Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr.). 8 See, e.g., Transcript, Interview of Kurt Volker Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence 58-59 (Oct. 3, 2019) (Volker Interview Tr.); Transcript, Interview of George Kent 

Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence 202 (Oct. 15, 2019) (Kent Dep. Tr.); 

Transcript, Deposition of Fiona Hill Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence 64-65 

(Oct. 14, 2019) (Hill Dep. Tr.); see also Transcript, Deposition of David A. Holmes Before the H. 

Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence 18 (Nov. 15, 2019) (Holmes Dep. Tr.) (“[A] White House 

visit was critical to President Zelensky,” because “[h]e needed to demonstrate U.S. support at the 

highest levels, both to advance his ambitious anti-corruption agenda at home and to encourage 

Russian President Putin to take seriously President Zelensky’s peace efforts.”).

9

 Transcript, Deposition of Jennifer Williams Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence 36-37 (Nov. 7, 2019) (Williams Dep. Tr.).

10 Matt Viser, Joe Biden to Enter 2020 Presidential Race with Thursday Video Announcement, Wash. 

Post (Apr. 23, 2019), https://perma.cc/M2B9-6J48. 
SMF 4 

7. The next day, April 24, the State Department executed President Trump’s order to 

recall the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch, who was a well-regarded career 

diplomat and champion for anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine.11 

8. The removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch was the culmination of a months-long 

smear campaign waged by the President’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other allies of the 

President.12 The President also helped amplify the smear campaign.13

9. Upon her return to the United States, Ambassador Yovanovitch was informed by 

State Department officials that there was no substantive reason or cause for her removal, but that 

President Trump had simply “lost confidence” in her.14 

10. Mr. Giuliani later disclosed the true motive for Ambassador Yovanovitch’s removal: 

Mr. Giuliani “believed that [he] needed Yovanovitch out of the way” because “[s]he was going to 

make the investigations difficult for everybody.”15 

11. Mr. Giuliani was referring to the two politically motivated investigations that 

President Trump solicited from Ukraine in order to assist his 2020 reelection campaign: one into 

former Vice President Biden and a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, on whose board 

 11 Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch: Hearing Before the H. 

Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 21-22 (Nov. 15, 2019) (Yovanovitch Hearing Tr.); 

Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes: Hearing Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. 

on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 18-19 (Nov. 21, 2019) (Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr.); Holmes Dep. Tr. at 13-

14, 142.12 See, e.g., Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 25; Yovanovitch Hearing Tr. at 21-22; Hill-Holmes 

Hearing Tr. at 19-21. 13 See, e.g., Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Mar. 20, 2019, 7:40 PM), 

https://perma.cc/D4UT-5M6F (referencing Sean Hannity’s interview with John Solomon regarding 

his opinion piece in The Hill titled As Russia Collusion Fades, Ukrainian Plot to Help Clinton Emerges

(Mar. 20, 2019), https://perma.cc/2M35-LUQE).

14 Yovanovitch Hearing Tr. at 21-22, 34-35.

15 Adam Entous, The Ukrainian Prosecutor Behind Trump’s Impeachment, New Yorker (Dec. 16, 

2019), https://perma.cc/5XMR-BS8L (quoting Mr. Giuliani). 
SMF 5 

Biden’s son sat;16 the other into a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had 

interfered in the 2016 U.S. election to help Hillary Clinton’s campaign. One element of the latter 

conspiracy theory was that CrowdStrike—a NASDAQ-listed cybersecurity firm based in Sunnyvale, 

California, that the President erroneously believed was owned by a Ukrainian oligarch—had 

colluded with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to frame Russia and help the election 

campaign of Hillary Clinton.17 

12. There was no factual basis for either investigation. As to the first, witnesses 

unanimously testified that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations that, in late 

2015, Vice President Biden corruptly encouraged Ukraine to remove then-Prosecutor General 

Viktor Shokin because he was investigating Burisma.18 Rather, Vice President Biden was carrying 

out official U.S. policy—with bipartisan support19—and promoting anti-corruption reforms in 

Ukraine because Shokin was viewed by the United States, its European partners, and the 

International Monetary Fund to be ineffectual at prosecuting corruption and was himself corrupt.20 

 16 See White House, Memorandum of Telephone Conversation 4 (July 25, 2019) (July 25 

Memorandum), https://perma.cc/8JRD-6K9V; Kyle Cheney, “Of Course I Did”: Giuliani Acknowledges 

Asking Ukraine to Investigate Biden, Politico (Sept. 19, 2019), https://perma.cc/J7PY-N3SG. 17 July 25 Memorandum at 3, https://perma.cc/8JRD-6K9V; see also Remarks by President 

Trump and President Putin of the Russian Federation in Joint Press Conference, White House (July 16, 2018), 

https://perma.cc/6M5R-XW7F (“[A]ll I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan 

Coates came to me and some others—they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just 

said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see 

the server.”); Transcript of AP Interview with Trump, Associated Press (Apr. 23, 2017), 

https://perma.cc/2EFT-84N8 (“TRUMP: . . . Why wouldn’t (former Hillary Clinton campaign 

chairman John) Podesta and Hillary Clinton allow the FBI to see the server? They brought in 

another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based. AP: CrowdStrike? TRUMP: That’s what I heard. 

I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian, that’s what I heard.”).

18 See, e.g., Volker Interview Tr. at 203.

19 See, e.g., Press Release, Senator Rob Portman, Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate 

Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption (Feb. 12, 2016), 

https://perma.cc/9WD2-CZ29 (quoting bipartisan letter urging then-President Poroshenko of 

Ukraine “to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary”). 

20 See, e.g., Kent Dep. Tr. at 45, 91-94 (describing “a broad-based consensus” among the 

United States, European allies, and international financial institutions that Mr. Shokin was “a typical 
SMF 6 

In fact, witnesses unanimously testified that the removal of Shokin made it more likely that Ukraine 

would investigate corruption, including Burisma and its owner, not less likely.

21 The Ukrainian 

Parliament removed Shokin in March 2016.

22

13. As to the second investigation, the U.S. Intelligence Community determined that 

Russia—not Ukraine—interfered in the 2016 election.23 The Senate Select Committee on 

Intelligence reached the same conclusion following its own lengthy bipartisan investigation.

24 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, III, likewise concluded that the “Russian government interfered in 

the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”25 And FBI Director Christopher 

 

Ukraine prosecutor who lived a lifestyle far in excess of his government salary, who never 

prosecuted anybody known for having committed a crime” and who “covered up crimes that were 

known to have been committed.”); Daryna Krasnolutska et al., Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of 

Wrongdoing by Bidens, Bloomberg (May 16, 2019), https://perma.cc/YYX8-U33C (quoting Yuriy 

Lutsenko, Ukraine’s then-Prosecutor General: “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws—at 

least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to its 

board . . . . Biden was definitely not involved . . . . We do not have any grounds to think that there 

was any wrongdoing starting from 2014 [when Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma].”). 21 See Kent Dep. Tr. at 45, 93-94; Volker Interview Tr. at 36-37, 330, 355. 22 See Kent Dep. Tr. at 101-02.

23 Office of the Dir. of Nat’l Intelligence, ICA 2017-01D, Assessing Russian Activities and 

Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections (Jan. 6, 2017), https://perma.cc/M4A3-DWML; see, e.g., id. at ii (“We 

assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US 

presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, 

denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess 

Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We 

have high confidence in these judgements.”). 

24 Senate Select Comm. on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 

2016 U.S. Election, Vol. II (May 8, 2018), https://perma.cc/96EC-22RU; see, e.g., id. at 4-5 (“The

Committee found that the [Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA)] sought to influence the 

2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting 

Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin. . . . The Committee found that the Russian 

government tasked and supported the IRA’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.”). 

25 Robert S. Mueller III, Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential 

Election, Vol. I at 1 (2019) (Mueller Report), https://perma.cc/DN3N-9UW8. 
SMF 7 

Wray, a Trump appointee, recently confirmed that law enforcement “ha[s] no information that 

indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election.”26 

14. As Dr. Fiona Hill—who served until July 2019 as the Senior Director of European

and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) under President Trump until July 

2019—testified, the theory of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is a “fictional narrative that 

is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves” to deflect from 

Russia’s own culpability and to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine.27 In fact, 

shortly after the 2016 U.S. election, this conspiracy theory was promoted by none other than 

President Vladimir Putin himself.28 On May 3, 2019, shortly after President Zelensky’s election, 

President Trump and President Putin spoke by telephone, including about the so-called “‘Russian 

Hoax.”29

15. President Trump’s senior advisors had attempted to dissuade the President from 

promoting this conspiracy theory, to no avail. Dr. Hill testified that President Trump’s former 

Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster 

“spent a lot of time trying to refute this [theory] in the first year of the administration.”30 Bossert 

 26 Luke Barr & Alexander Mallin, FBI Director Pushes Back on Debunked Conspiracy Theory About 

2016 Election Interference, ABC News (Dec. 9, 2019), https://perma.cc/8JKC-6RB8 (quoting Mr. 

Wray). 27 Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 40-41, 56-57.

28 Press Statement, President of Russ., Joint News Conference with Hungarian Prime 

Minister Viktor Orban (Feb. 2, 2017), https://perma.cc/5Z2R-ZECB (“[A]s we all know, during the 

presidential campaign in the United States, the Ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position 

in favour of one candidate. More than that, certain oligarchs, certainly with the approval of the 

political leadership, funded this candidate, or female candidate, to be more precise.”). 

29 See Kent Dep. Tr. at 338; @realDonaldTrump (May 3, 2019, 10:06 AM) 

https://perma.cc/7LS9-P35U. 30 Hill Dep. Tr. at 234; see also id. at 235.
SMF 8 

later said the false narrative about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election was “not only a 

conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.”31

B. The President Enlisted His Personal Attorney and U.S. Officials to Help 

Execute the Scheme for His Personal Benefit

16. Shortly after his April 21 call with President Zelensky, President Trump began to 

publicly press for the two investigations he wanted Ukraine to pursue. On April 25—the day that 

former Vice President Biden announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for 

President—President Trump called into Sean Hannity’s prime time Fox News show. Referencing 

alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, President Trump said, “It sounds like big stuff,” 

and suggested that the Attorney General might investigate.32 

17. On May 6, in a separate Fox News interview, President Trump claimed Vice President 

Biden’s advocacy for Mr. Shokin’s dismissal in 2016 was “a very serious problem” and “a major 

scandal, major problem.”33 

18. On May 9, the New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani was planning to travel to 

Ukraine to urge President Zelensky to pursue the investigations.34 Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that 

“[s]omebody could say it’s improper” to pressure Ukraine to open investigations that would benefit 

President Trump, but he argued: 

[T]his isn’t foreign policy—I’m asking them to do an investigation that 

they’re doing already, and that other people are telling them to stop. 

And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because 

 31 Chris Francescani, President Trump’s Former National Security Advisor “Deeply Disturbed” by 

Ukraine Scandal: “Whole World Is Watching,” ABC News (Sept. 29, 2019), https://perma.cc/C76K7SMA (quoting Mr. Bossert). 

32 Full Video: Sean Hannity Interviews Trump on Biden, Russia Probe, FISA Abuse, Comey, Real 

Clear Politics (Apr. 26, 2019), https://perma.cc/3CLR-9MVA. 33 Transcript: Fox News Interview with President Trump, Fox News (May 6, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/NST6-X7WS. 34 Kenneth P. Vogel, Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help 

Trump, N.Y. Times (May 9, 2019) (Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip), https://perma.cc/SC6J-4PL9. 
SMF 9 

that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn 

out to be helpful to my government.35 

Ukraine was not, in fact, “already” conducting these investigations. As described below, the Trump 

Administration repeatedly tried but failed to get Ukrainian officials to instigate these investigations. 

According to Mr. Giuliani, the President supported his actions, stating that President Trump 

“basically knows what I’m doing, sure, as his lawyer.”36

19. In a letter dated May 10, 2019, and addressed to President-elect Zelensky, Mr. 

Giuliani wrote that he “represent[ed] him [President Trump] as a private citizen, not as President of 

the United States.” In his capacity as “personal counsel to President Trump, and with his 

knowledge and consent,” Mr. Giuliani requested a meeting with President Zelensky the following 

week to discuss a “specific request.”37

20. On the evening of Friday, May 10, however, Mr. Giuliani announced that he was 

canceling his trip.

38 He later explained, “I’m not going to go” to Ukraine “because I’m walking into 

a group of people that are enemies of the President.”39 

21. By the following Monday morning, May 13, President Trump had ordered Vice 

President Pence not to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration in favor of a lower-ranking 

delegation led by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.40 

 35 Id. (quoting Mr. Giuliani). 36 Id. (quoting Mr. Giuliani). 

37 Lev Parnas Production to the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence at 28 (Jan. 

14, 2019), https://perma.cc/PWX4-LEMS (letter from Rudolph Giuliani to Volodymyr Zelensky, 

President-elect of Ukraine (May 10, 2019)).

38 See Andrew Restuccia & Darren Samuelsohn, Giuliani Cancels Ukraine Trip amid Political 

Meddling Charges, Politico (May 11, 2019), https://perma.cc/V5S8-2FV4. 39 Giuliani: I Didn’t Go to Ukraine to Start an Investigation, There Already Was One, Fox News 

(May 11, 2019), https://perma.cc/HT7V-2ZYA. 40 Williams Dep. Tr. at 37; Volker Interview Tr. at 288-90; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 125-27.
SMF 10

22. The U.S. delegation—which also included Ambassador to the European Union 

Gordon Sondland, Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Ambassador Kurt Volker, and 

NSC Director for Ukraine Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman—returned from the inauguration 

convinced that President Zelensky was genuinely committed to anti-corruption reforms.41 

23. At a meeting in the Oval Office on May 23, members of the delegation relayed their 

positive impressions to President Trump and encouraged him to schedule the promised Oval Office 

meeting for President Zelensky. President Trump, however, said he “didn’t believe” the delegation’s 

positive assessment, claiming “that’s not what I hear” from Mr. Giuliani.42 The President cast his 

dim view of Ukraine in personal terms, stating that Ukraine “tried to take me down” during the 2016 

election—an apparent reference to the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 

2016 election to help Hillary Clinton and harm his campaign.43

24. Rather than commit to a date for an Oval Office meeting with President Zelensky, 

President Trump directed the delegation to “[t]alk to Rudy, talk to Rudy.”44 Ambassador Sondland 

testified that “if [the delegation] never called Rudy and just left it alone nothing would happen with 

Ukraine,” and “if [the President] was going to have his mind changed, that was the path.”45 

Following the May 23 meeting, Secretary Perry and Ambassadors Sondland and Volker began to 

coordinate and work with Mr. Giuliani to satisfy the President’s demands.46 

 41 Volker Interview Tr. at 29–30, 304.

42 Id. at 305. 

43 Id. at 304; Transcript, Interview of Gordon Sondland Before the H. Permanent Select 

Comm. on Intelligence 337 (Oct. 17, 2019) (Sondland Dep. Tr.). 

44 Sondland Dep. Tr. at 62, 69-70; Volker Interview Tr. at 305; Transcript, Impeachment 

Inquiry: Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison: Hearing Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence, 116th Cong. 39-40 (Nov. 19, 2019) (Volker-Morrison Hearing Tr.). 

45 Sondland Dep. Tr. at 90. 

46 See id. at 77-78; Volker-Morrison Hearing Tr. at 17, 19; see also Timothy Puko & Rebecca 

Ballhaus, Rick Perry Called Rudy Giuliani at Trump’s Direction on Ukraine Concerns, Wall Street J. (Oct. 16, 

2019) (Rick Perry Called Rudy Giuliani), https://perma.cc/E4F2-9U23. 
SMF 11

25. Mr. Giuliani is not a U.S. government official and has never served in the Trump 

Administration. Rather, as he has repeatedly made clear, his goal was to obtain “information [that] 

will be very, very helpful to my client”—President Trump.47 Mr. Giuliani made clear to 

Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, who were in direct communications with Ukrainian officials, 

that a White House meeting would not occur until Ukraine announced its pursuit of the two political 

investigations.48

26. On June 17, Ambassador Bill Taylor, whom Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had 

asked to replace Ambassador Yovanovitch, arrived in Kyiv as the new Chargé d’Affaires.49 

27. Ambassador Taylor quickly observed that there was an “irregular channel” led by 

Mr. Giuliani that, over time, began to undermine the official channel of U.S. diplomatic relations 

with Ukraine.50 Ambassador Sondland similarly testified that the agenda described by Mr. Giuliani 

became more “insidious” over time.51 Mr. Giuliani would prove to be, as the President’s National 

Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton told a colleague, a “hand grenade that was going to blow 

everyone up.”52

C. The President Froze Vital Military and Other Security Assistance for Ukraine 

28. Since 2014, Ukraine has been engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Russia in 

the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.53 Ukraine is a “strategic partner of the United States,” and 

 47 Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip, https://perma.cc/SC6J-4PL9. 48 See, e.g., Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Sondland: Hearing Before the H. Permanent 

Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 18 (Nov. 20, 2019) (Sondland Hearing Tr.) (“[A]s I testified 

previously . . . Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for 

President Zelensky”); id. at 34, 42-43.

49 Transcript, Deposition of William B. Taylor Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence (Oct. 22, 2019) (Taylor Dep. Tr.).

50 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 34-36.

51 Sondland Dep. Tr. at 240. 

52 Hill Dep. Tr. at 127 (Dr. Hill, quoting Mr. Bolton).

53 See Taylor Dep. Tr. at 20, 23, 27-28, 31, 33-34; Transcript, Deposition of Ambassador 

Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence 16, 18, 73, 302 
SMF 12

the United States has long supported Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.54 As Ambassador Volker 

and multiple other witnesses testified, supporting Ukraine is “critically important” to U.S. interests, 

including countering Russian aggression in the region.55 

29. Ukrainians face casualties on a near-daily basis in their ongoing conflict with 

Russia.56 Since 2014, Russian aggression has resulted in more than 13,000 Ukrainian deaths on 

Ukrainian territory,57 including approximately 3,331 civilians, and has wounded another 30,000

persons.58

30. Since 2014, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimean 

Peninsula, Congress has allocated military and other security assistance funds to Ukraine on a broad 

bipartisan basis.59 Since 2014, the United States has provided approximately $3.1 billion in foreign 

assistance to Ukraine: $1.5 billion in military and other security assistance, and $1.6 billion in nonmilitary, non-humanitarian aid to Ukraine.60 

 

(Oct. 11, 2019) (Yovanovitch Dep. Tr.); see also Conflict in Ukraine Enters Its Fourth Year with No End in 

Sight, Office of the U.N. High Comm’r for Human Rights (June 13, 2017), https://perma.cc/K9N8-

F22E. 54 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 28.

55 Volker Interview Tr. at 329; see Yovanovitch Hearing Tr. at 17-18; Volker-Morrison 

Hearing Tr. at 11. 

56 Transcript, Deposition of Catherine Croft Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence 16 (Oct. 30, 2019) (Croft Dep. Tr.).

57 Kent Dep. Tr. at 338-39.

58 Viacheslav Shramovych, Ukraine’s Deadliest Day: The Battle of Ilovaisk, August 2014, BBC 

News (Aug. 29, 2019), https://perma.cc/6B2F-B72W. 59 See Transcript, Deposition of Laura Katherine Cooper Before the H. Permanent Select 

Comm. on Intelligence 16, 38, 98 (Oct. 23, 2019) (Cooper Dep. Tr.); Vindman Dep. Tr. at 41, 57, 

165; Transcript, Deposition of Mark Sandy Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence 

59-60 (Nov. 16, 2019) (Sandy Dep. Tr.); Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 29-30; Taylor Dep. Tr. at 38, 

40-41, 171, 217-18, 281-82; Letter from Senators Jeanne Shaheen et al. to Acting White House Chief 

of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Sept. 3, 2019) (Sept. 3 Letter), https://perma.cc/4TU8-H7UR; Letter from 

Senator Christopher Murphy to Chairman Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence, and Acting Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, House Comm. on Oversight and Reform 

(Nov. 19, 2019) (Nov. 19 Letter), https://perma.cc/4BDP-2SRJ. 60 Cory Welt, Cong. Research Serv., R45008, Ukraine: Background, Conflict with Russia, and U.S. 

Policy 30 (Sept. 19, 2019), https://perma.cc/4HCR-VKA5; see also Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 97 
SMF 13

31. The military assistance provided by the United States to Ukraine “saves lives” by 

making Ukrainian resistance to Russia more effective.61 It likewise advances U.S. national security 

interests because, “[i]f Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see 

other attempts by Russia to expand its territory and influence.” 62 Indeed, the reason the United 

States provides assistance to the Ukrainian military is “so that they can fight Russia over there, and 

we don’t have to fight Russia here.”63 

32. The United States’ European allies have similarly provided political and economic 

support to Ukraine. Since 2014, the European Union (EU) has been the largest donor to Ukraine.64 

The EU has extended more macro-financial assistance to Ukraine—approximately €3.3 billion—

than to any other non-EU country and has committed to extend another €1.1 billion.

65 Between 

2014 and September 30, 2019, the EU and the European financial institutions (including the 

European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and others) 

committed over €15 billion in grants and loans to support the reform process in Ukraine.66 

According to EU data, Germany contributed €786.5 million to Ukraine between 2014 and 2017; the 

United Kingdom contributed €105.6 million; and France contributed €61.9 million over that same 

period (not including the amounts these countries contribute through the EU).67 

 

(testimony of David Holmes) (“The United States has provided combined civilian and military 

assistance to Ukraine since 2014 of about $3 billion, plus two $1 billion—three $1 billion loan 

guarantees. That is not—those get paid back largely. So just over $3 billion.”). 

61 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 153.

62 Yovanovitch Hearing Tr. at 18. 

63 Volker-Morrison Hearing Tr. at 11. 

64 Iain King, Not Contributing Enough? A Summary of European Military and Development Assistance 

to Ukraine Since 2014, Ctr. for Strategic & Int’l Stud. (Sept. 26, 2019), https://perma.cc/FF6FQ9MX. 

65 EU-Ukraine Relations—Factsheet, European External Action Serv. (Sept. 30, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/4YKE-T2WT. 66 Id.

67 See EU Aid Explorer: Donors, European Comm’n, https://perma.cc/79H6-AFHY. 
SMF 14

33. In 2017 and 2018, the United States provided approximately $511 million and $359

million, respectively, in foreign assistance to Ukraine, including military and other security 

assistance.

68 During those two years, President Trump and his Administration allowed the funds to 

flow to Ukraine unimpeded.69 

34. For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated and authorized $391 million in taxpayerfunded security assistance to Ukraine: $250 million in funds administered by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and $115 million in funds administered by the State Department, with another $26 

million carried over from fiscal year 2018.

70 

35. DOD planned to use the funds to provide Ukraine with sniper rifles, rocketpropelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radars, electronic warfare detection and secure 

communications, and night vision equipment, among other military equipment, to defend itself 

against Russian forces, which have occupied part of eastern Ukraine since 2014.71 These purposes 

were consistent with the goals of Congress, which had appropriated the funds administered by 

DOD under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) for the purpose of providing 

“training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and 

 68 U.S. Foreign Aid by Country, USAID, https://perma.cc/9YK2-9BKJ (last updated Sept. 23, 

2019) (Ukraine data for fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018).

69 Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Laura Cooper and Mr. David Hale: Hearing Before the H. 

Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 22-23 (Nov. 20, 2019) (Cooper-Hale Hearing Tr.); 

Cooper Dep. Tr. at 95-96. 

70 Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 

Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013 

(2018); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-6, § 7046(a)(2) (2019); Conference 

Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 31, H. Rep. No. 116-9, at 869 (2019) (allocating $115,000,000 in 

assistance to Ukraine for the Foreign Military Financing Program); Aaron Mehta, U.S. State 

Department Clears Ukraine Security Assistance Funding. Is the Pentagon Next?, Def. News (Sept. 12, 2019),

https://perma.cc/723T-9XUN (noting that approximately $26 million rolled over from fiscal year 

2018). 71 Press Release, Dep’t of Def., DOD Announces $250M to Ukraine, (June 18, 2019) (DOD 

Announces $250M to Ukraine), https://perma.cc/U4HX-ZKXP. 
SMF 15

intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine, and . . . replacement of 

any weapons or articles provided to the Government of Ukraine.”72 

36. On June 18, 2019, after all Congressionally mandated conditions on the DODadministered aid—including certification that Ukraine had adopted sufficient anti-corruption 

reforms—were met, DOD issued a press release announcing its intention to provide the $250 

million in security assistance to Ukraine.73 

37. On June 19, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received questions from 

President Trump about the funding for Ukraine.74 OMB, in turn, made inquiries with DOD.75 

38. On June 27, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney reportedly emailed his senior 

advisor Robert Blair, “Did we ever find out about the money for Ukraine and whether we can hold 

it back?” Mr. Blair responded that it would be possible, but they should “[e]xpect Congress to 

become unhinged” if the President held back the appropriated funds.76

39. Around this time, despite overwhelming support for the security assistance from

every relevant Executive Branch agency,

77 and despite the fact that the funds had been authorized 

 72 Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013.

73 DOD Announces $250M to Ukraine, https://perma.cc/U4HX-ZKXP. DOD had 

certified in May 2019 that Ukraine satisfied all anti-corruption standards needed to receive the 

Congressionally appropriated military aid. See Letter from John C. Rood, Under Sec’y of Def. for 

Pol’y, Dep’t of Def., to Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Comm. on Foreign Affairs (May 23, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/68FS-ZXZ6 (‘‘Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional 

reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption . . . . [N]ow that this defense institution reform 

has occurred, we will use the authority provided . . . to support programs in Ukraine further.’’). 

74 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 24-25; Cooper Dep. Tr. at 33-34.

75 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 24-28.

76 Eric Lipton et al., Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion, N.Y. Times 

(Dec. 29, 2019) (Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze), https://perma.cc/TA5J-NJFX. 77 See, e.g., Cooper Dep. Tr. at 13, 16, 32, 46, 60-62, 64-65; Taylor Dep. Tr. at 28, 132, 170. 
SMF 16

and appropriated by Congress with strong bipartisan support,78 the President ordered a hold on all 

military and other security assistance for Ukraine.

79 

40. By July 3, OMB had blocked the release of $141 million in State Department funds. 

By July 12, all military and other security assistance for Ukraine had been blocked.80 

41. On July 18, OMB announced to the relevant Executive Branch agencies during a 

secure videoconference that President Trump had ordered a hold on all Ukraine security 

assistance.81 No explanation for the hold was provided.82 

42. On July 25—approximately 90 minutes after President Trump spoke by phone with 

President Zelensky—OMB’s Associate Director for National Security Programs, Michael Duffey, a 

political appointee, instructed DOD officials: “Based on guidance I have received and in light of the 

Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance 

Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from 

that process.”83 He added: “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that 

information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.”84

 78 See Nov. 19 Letter, https://perma.cc/4BDP-2SRJ; Sept. 3 Letter, 

https://perma.cc/4TU8-H7UR. 79 Williams Dep. Tr. at 54; Croft Dep. Tr. at 15; Kent Dep. Tr. at 303-305; Transcript, 

Deposition of Ambassador David Maclain Hale Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence 81 (Oct. 31, 2019) (Hale Dep. Tr.); Sandy Dep. Tr. at 99; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 181-82; 

Transcript, Deposition of Ambassador Tim Morrison Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence 264 (Nov. 6, 2019) (Morrison Dep. Tr.).

80 Cooper-Hale Hearing Tr. at 14; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 178-79; see also Stalled Ukraine Military 

Aid Concerned Members of Congress for Months, CNN (Sept. 30, 2019), https://perma.cc/5CHF-HFKJ; 

Sandy Dep. Tr. at 38-39 (describing July 12 email from White House to OMB stating “that the 

President is directing a hold on military support funding for Ukraine.”).

81 See Sandy Dep. Tr. at 90; Hill Dep. Tr. at 225; Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 35; Vindman 

Dep. Tr. at 181; Holmes Dep. Tr. at 153-54.

82 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 35; Hill Dep. Tr. at 225.

83 Email from Michael Duffey, Assoc. Dir. for Nat’l Sec. Programs, Office of Mgmt. & 

Budget, to David Norquist et al. (July 25, 2019, 11:04 AM), https://perma.cc/PG93-3M6B. 84 Id.
SMF 17

43. In late July, the NSC convened a series of interagency meetings during which senior 

Executive Branch officials discussed the hold on security assistance.

85 Over the course of these 

meetings, a number of facts became clear: (1) the President personally directed the hold through 

OMB; 86 (2) no credible justification was provided for the hold;87 (3) with the exception of OMB, all 

relevant agencies supported the Ukraine security assistance because, among other things, it was in 

the national security interests of the United States;88 and (4) there were serious concerns about the 

legality of the hold.89

44. Although President Trump later claimed that the hold was part of an effort to get 

European allies to share more of the costs for security assistance for Ukraine, officials responsible 

for the security assistance testified they had not heard that rationale discussed in June, July, or 

August. For example, Mark Sandy, OMB’s Deputy Associate Director for National Security 

Programs, who is responsible for DOD’s portion of the Ukraine security assistance, testified that the 

European burden-sharing explanation was first provided to him in September—following his 

 85 Kent Dep. Tr. at 303, 307, 311; Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 36; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 182-

85, Cooper Dep. Tr. at 45.

86 Kent Dep. Tr. at 303-305; Hale Dep. Tr. at 81. 87 Croft Dep. Tr. at 15; Hale Dep. Tr. at 105; Holmes Dep. Tr. at 21; Kent Dep. Tr. at 304, 

310; Cooper Dep. Tr. at 44-45; Sandy Dep. Tr. at 91, 97; Morrison Dep. Tr. at 162-63. Mr. Morrison 

testified that, during a Deputies Committee meeting on July 26, OMB stated that the “President was 

concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and he wanted to make sure that Ukraine was doing enough 

to manage that corruption.” Morrison Dep. Tr. at 165. Mr. Morrison did not testify that concerns 

about Europe’s contributions were raised during this meeting. In addition, Mark Sandy testified that, 

as of July 26, despite OMB’s own statement, senior OMB officials were unaware of the reason for 

the hold at that time. See Sandy Dep. Tr. at 55-56. 88 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 99; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 181-82; Kent Dep. Tr. at 305; Morrison Dep. 

Tr. at 264. 

89 Morrison Dep. Tr. at 163; Cooper Dep. Tr. at 47-48. For example, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified that, during an interagency meeting on July 26 involving 

senior leadership from the State Department and DOD and officials from the National Security 

Council, “immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal 

fashion” and there “was a sense that there was not an available mechanism to simply not spend 

money” that already had been notified to Congress or earmarked for Ukraine. Cooper Dep. Tr. at 

47-48. 
SMF 18

repeated requests to learn the reason for the hold.90 Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura 

Cooper, whose responsibilities include the Ukraine security assistance, testified that she had “no 

recollection of the issue of allied burden sharing coming up” in the three meetings she attended 

about the freeze on security assistance, nor did she recall hearing about a lack of funding from 

Ukraine’s allies as a reason for the freeze.91 Ms. Cooper further testified that there was no policy or 

interagency review process relating to the Ukraine security assistance that she “participated in or 

knew of” in August 2019.92 In addition, while the aid was being withheld, Ambassador Sondland, 

the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, was never asked to reach out to the EU or its member states to ask 

them to increase their contributions to Ukraine.93

45. Two OMB career officials, including one of its legal counsel, ultimately resigned, in 

part, over concerns about the handling of the hold on security assistance.

94 A confidential White 

House review has reportedly “turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to 

generate an after-the-fact justification” for the hold.95

46. Throughout August, officials from DOD warned officials from OMB that, as the 

hold continued, there was an increasing risk that the funds for Ukraine would not be timely 

obligated, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

96 On January 16, 2020, the U.S. 

 90 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 42-43.

91 Cooper-Hale Hearing Tr. at 75-76.

92 Cooper Dep. Tr. at 91. 

93 Sondland Dep. Tr. at 338-39.

94 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 149-55.

95 Josh Dawsey et al., White House Review Turns Up Emails Showing Extensive Efforts to Justify 

Trump’s Decision to Block Ukraine Military Aid, Wash. Post (Nov. 24, 2019), https://perma.cc/99TX5KFE. Because the President obstructed the House’s investigation, the House was unable to obtain 

documents to confirm this reporting. 

96 See Sandy Dep. Tr. at 75; Kate Brannen, Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal 

Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns, Just Security (Jan. 2, 2020) (Just Security Report), 

https://perma.cc/VA6U-RYPK (reporting about review of unredacted copies of OMB documents 

that were produced to the Center for Public Integrity in redacted form). 
SMF 19

Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that OMB had, in fact, violated the 

Impoundment Control Act when it withheld from obligation funds appropriated by Congress to 

DOD for security assistance to Ukraine. GAO stated that “[f]aithful execution of the law does not 

permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into 

law.”97

47. In late August, Secretary of Defense Mike Esper, Secretary of State Pompeo, and 

National Security Advisor Bolton reportedly urged the President to release the aid to Ukraine, 

advising the President that the aid was in America’s national security interest.98 On August 30, 

however, an OMB official advised a Pentagon official by email that there was a “clear direction from 

POTUS to continue to hold.”99

48. Contrary to U.S. national security interests—and over the objections of his own 

advisors—President Trump continued to withhold the funding to Ukraine through August and into 

September, without any credible explanation.100

D. President Trump Conditioned a White House Meeting on Ukraine 

Announcing It Would Launch Politically Motivated Investigations

49. Upon his arrival in Kyiv in June 2019, Ambassador Taylor sought to schedule the 

promised White House meeting for President Zelensky, which was “an agreed-upon goal” of 

policymakers in Ukraine and the United States.101 

 97 Matter of Office of Mgmt. & Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Sec. Assistance, B-331564 

(Comp. Gen. Jan. 16, 2020), https://perma.cc/5CDX-XLX6. 98 See Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze, https://perma.cc/TA5J-NJFX. 99 See Just Security Report, https://perma.cc/VA6U-RYPK (quoting email from Michael 

Duffey to Elaine McCusker). 

100 See, e.g., Sandy Dep. Tr. at 133 (“[W]ere we ever given any reason for the hold? And I 

would say only in September did we receive an explanation that the hold—that the President’s 

direction reflected his concerns about the contributions from other countries for Ukraine.”); Cooper 

Dep. Tr. at 93-94; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 181-82; Williams Dep. at 91-92.

101 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 24-25 (“In late June, one of the goals of both channels was to facilitate 

a visit by President Zelensky to the White House for a meeting with President Trump, which 
SMF 20

50. As Ambassador Volker explained, a White House visit by President Zelensky would 

constitute “a tremendous symbol of support” for Ukraine and would “enhance[] [President 

Zelensky’s] stature.”102

51. Ambassador Taylor learned, however, that President Trump “wanted to hear from 

Zelensky,” who had to “make clear” to President Trump that he was not “standing in the way of 

‘investigations.’”103 It soon became clear to Ambassador Taylor and others that the White House 

meeting would not be scheduled until the Ukraine committed to the investigations of “Burisma and 

alleged Ukrainian influence in the 2016 elections.”104 

52. Ambassador Sondland was unequivocal in describing this conditionality. He 

testified: 

I know that members of this committee frequently frame these 

complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid 

pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White 

House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.105

53. According to Ambassador Sondland, the public announcement of the investigations—

and not necessarily the pursuit of the investigations themselves—was the price President Trump 

sought in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky.106

54. Both Ambassadors Volker and Sondland explicitly communicated this quid pro quo 

to Ukrainian government officials. For example, on July 2, in Toronto, Canada, Ambassador Volker 

 

President Trump had promised in his congratulatory letter of May 29. [The] Ukrainians were clearly 

eager for the meeting to happen. During a conference call with Ambassador Volker, Acting 

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Phil Reeker, Secretary Perry, 

Ambassador Sondland, and Counselor of the U.S. Department of State Ulrich Brechbuhl on June 

18, it was clear that a meeting between the two presidents was an agreed-on—agreed-upon goal.”). 

102 Volker Interview Tr. at 59, 328.

103 Id.

104 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 26. 

105 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 26.

106 Id. at 43.
SMF 21

conveyed the message directly to President Zelensky and referred to the “Giuliani factor” in 

President Zelensky’s engagement with the United States.107 Ambassador Volker told Ambassador 

Taylor that during the Toronto conference, he counseled President Zelensky about how he “could 

prepare for the phone call with President Trump”—specifically, that President Trump “would like 

to hear about the investigations.”108

55. Ambassador Volker confirmed that, in “a pull-aside” meeting in Toronto, he 

“advise[d] [President Zelensky] that he should call President Trump personally because he needed 

to . . . be able to convey to President Trump that he was serious about fighting corruption, 

investigating things that happened in the past and so forth.”109 Upon hearing about this discussion, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent told 

Ambassador Volker that “asking for another country to investigate a prosecution for political 

reasons undermines our advocacy of the rule of law.”110 

56. On July 10, at a meeting with Ukrainian officials in Ambassador Bolton’s office at 

the White House, Ambassador Sondland was even more explicit about the quid pro quo. He 

stated—in front of multiple witnesses, including two top advisors to President Zelensky and 

Ambassador Bolton—that he had an arrangement with Mr. Mulvaney to schedule the White House 

visit after Ukraine initiated the “investigations.”111 

57. In a second meeting in the White House Ward Room shortly thereafter, 

“Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians . . . was talking about how he had an agreement 

with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward 

 107 Kurt Volker Text Messages Received by the House Committees at KV00000027 (Oct. 2, 

2019) (Volker Text Messages), https://perma.cc/CG7Y-FHXZ. 108 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 65-66. 

109 Volker-Morrison Hearing Tr. at 70. 

110 Kent Dep. Tr. at 246-47. 111 Hill Dep. Tr. at 67. 
SMF 22

with investigations.”112 More specifically, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that Ambassador Sondland said 

“[t]hat the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens.”113

58. During that meeting, Dr. Hill and Lt. Col. Vindman objected to Ambassador 

Sondland intertwining what Dr. Hill later described as a “domestic political errand” with official 

national security policy toward Ukraine.114 

59. Following the July 10 meetings, Dr. Hill discussed what had occurred with

Ambassador Bolton, including Ambassador Sondland’s reiteration of the quid pro quo to the 

Ukrainians in the Ward Room. Ambassador Bolton told her to “go and tell [the NSC Legal 

Advisor] that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on 

this.”115 

60. Both Dr. Hill and Lt. Col. Vindman separately reported Sondland’s description of 

the quid pro quo during the July 10 meetings to NSC Legal Advisor, John Eisenberg, who said he 

would follow up.116

61. After the July 10 meetings, Andriy Yermak, a top aide to President Zelensky who 

was in the meetings, followed up with Ambassador Volker by text message: “Thank you for 

 112 Id. at 69.

113 Vindman Dep. Tr. at 64.

114 Id. at 69-70; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 31; see Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 92.

115 Hill Dep. Tr. at 70-72.

116 Id. at 139 (“I told him exactly, you know, what had transpired and that Ambassador 

Sondland had basically indicated that there was an agreement with the Chief of Staff that they would 

have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting if the Ukrainians started up these 

investigations again.”); Vindman Dep. Tr. at 37 (“Sir, I think I—I mean, the top line I just offered, 

I’ll restate it, which is that Mr. Sondland asked for investigations, for these investigations into Bidens 

and Burisma. I actually recall having that particular conversation. Mr. Eisenberg doesn’t really work 

on this issue, so I had to go a little bit into the back story of what these investigations were, and that 

I expressed concerns and thought it was inappropriate.”). A third NSC official, P. Wells Griffith,

also reported the July 10 meeting to the NSC Legal Advisor, but he refused to comply with a 

subpoena and did not testify before the House. 
SMF 23

meeting and your clear and very logical position . . . I feel that the key for many things is Rudi [sic] 

and I [am] ready to talk with him at any time.”117

62. Over the next two weeks, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker coordinated with Mr. 

Giuliani and senior Ukrainian and American officials to arrange a telephone call between President 

Trump and President Zelensky. They also worked to ensure that, during that phone call, President 

Zelensky would convince President Trump of his willingness to undertake the investigations in 

order to get the White House meeting scheduled.118 

63. On July 19, Ambassador Volker had breakfast with Mr. Giuliani at the Trump Hotel 

in Washington, D.C. After the meeting, Ambassador Volker reported back to Ambassadors 

Sondland and Taylor about his conversation with Mr. Giuliani, stating, “Most impt is for Zelensky 

to say that he will help investigation—and address any specific personnel issues—if there are any.”119 

64. The same day, Ambassador Sondland spoke with President Zelensky and 

recommended that the Ukrainian leader tell President Trump that he “will leave no stone unturned” 

regarding the investigations during the upcoming Presidential phone call.120

65. Following his conversation with President Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland emailed 

top Trump Administration officials, including Secretary Pompeo, Mr. Mulvaney, and Secretary 

Perry. Ambassador Sondland stated that President Zelensky confirmed that he would “assure” 

 117 Volker Text Messages at KV00000018.

118 See, e.g., id. at KV00000037; Ambassador Gordon D. Sondland, Opening Statement Before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence 15 (Nov. 20, 2019) (Sondland Opening 

Statement), https://perma.cc/Z2W6-A9HS (“As I communicated to the team, I told President 

Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every 

stone were necessary in his call with President Trump.”).

119 Volker Text Messages at KV00000037.

120 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 37-38 (Ambassador Taylor quoting Ambassador Sondland). 
SMF 24

President Trump that “he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every 

stone.’”121 

66. Secretary Perry responded to Ambassador Sondland’s email, “Mick just confirmed 

the call being set up for tomorrow by NSC.” About an hour later, Mr. Mulvaney replied, “I asked 

NSC to set it up for tomorrow.”122 

67. According to Ambassador Sondland, this email—and other correspondence with top 

Trump Administration officials—showed that his efforts regarding Ukraine were not part of a rogue 

foreign policy. To the contrary, Ambassador Sondland testified that “everyone was in the loop.”123 

68. The Ukrainians also understood the quid pro quo—and the domestic U.S. political 

ramifications of the investigations they were being asked to pursue. On July 20, a close advisor to 

President Zelensky warned Ambassador Taylor that the Ukrainian leader “did not want to be used as 

a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign.”124 The next day, Ambassador Taylor warned Ambassador 

Sondland that President Zelensky was “sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as 

an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.”125 

69. Nevertheless, President Trump, directly and through his hand-picked representatives, 

continued to press the Ukrainian government for the announcement of the investigations, including 

during President Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelensky.126

 121 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 27; Sondland Opening Statement at 21, Ex. 4. 122 Sondland Opening Statement at 21, Ex. 4. 

123 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 27. 

124 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 30.

125 Volker Text Messages at KV00000037.

126 See, e.g., id. at KV00000019; July 25 Memorandum at 3-4, https://perma.cc/8JRD-6K9V. 
SMF 25

E. President Trump Directly Solicited Election Interference from President 

Zelensky

70. In the days leading up to President Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelensky, 

U.S. polling data showed former Vice President Biden leading in a head-to-head contest against 

President Trump.127

71. Meanwhile, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker continued to prepare President 

Zelensky and his advisors for the call with President Trump until right before it occurred. 

72. On the morning of July 25, Ambassador Sondland spoke with President Trump in 

advance of his call with President Zelensky. Ambassador Sondland then called Ambassador Volker 

and left a voicemail.128 

73. After receiving Ambassador Sondland’s message, Ambassador Volker sent a text 

message to President Zelensky’s aide, Mr. Yermak, approximately 30 minutes before the call: 

Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he 

will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016, we 

will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck!129

74. In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland confirmed that Ambassador Volker’s 

text message to Mr. Yermak accurately summarized the directive he had received from President 

Trump earlier that morning.130 

75. During the roughly 30-minute July 25 call, President Zelensky thanked President 

Trump for the “great support in the area of defense” provided by the United States and stated that 

Ukraine would soon be prepared to purchase additional Javelin anti-tank missiles from the United 

States.131 

 127 See, e.g., Washington Post–ABC News Poll, June 28–July 1, 2019, Wash. Post (July 11, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/NS4B-PRWC. 128 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 53-54.

129 Volker Text Messages at KV00000019. 

130 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 53-55.

131 See July 25 Memorandum at 2, https://perma.cc/8JRD-6K9V.
SMF 26

76. President Trump immediately responded with his own request: “I would like you to 

do us a favor though,” which was “to find out what happened” with alleged Ukrainian interference 

in the 2016 election and to “look into” former Vice President Biden’s role in encouraging the 

removal of the former Ukrainian prosecutor general. 

77. Referencing Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 

2016 election, President Trump told President Zelensky, “[T]hey say a lot of it started with 

Ukraine,” and “[w]hatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”132

78. President Trump repeatedly pressed the Ukrainian President to consult with his 

personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, as well as Attorney General William Barr, about the two specific 

investigations.133 President Trump stated, “Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a 

very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.”134 

79. President Zelensky agreed, referencing Mr. Giuliani’s back-channel role, noting that 

Mr. Yermak “spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani 

will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.”135 

80. Later in the call, President Zelensky heeded the directives he had received from 

Ambassadors Sondland and Volker: he thanked President Trump for his invitation to the White 

House and then reiterated that, “[o]n the other hand,” he would “ensure” that Ukraine pursued “the 

 132 Id. at 3-4. President Trump continues to embrace this call as both “routine” and 

“perfect.” See, e.g., Remarks by President Trump upon Arriving at the U.N. General Assembly, White House

(Sept. 24, 2019) (Trump Sept. 24 Remarks), https://perma.cc/ZQ4P-FGT4; Colby Itkowitz, Trump 

Defends Call with Ukrainian President, Calling It “Perfectly Fine and Routine,” Wash. Post (Sept. 21, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/T3ZM-GKLB. 133 See July 25 Memorandum at 4-5, https://perma.cc/8JRD-6K9V. 134 Id. at 4.

135 Id. 
SMF 27

investigation” that President Trump had requested. President Zelensky confirmed the investigations 

should be done “openly.”136

81. During the call, President Trump also attacked Ambassador Yovanovitch. He said, 

“The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was 

dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.” He later added, 

“Well, she’s going to go through some things.” President Trump also defended then-Ukrainian 

Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who was widely known to be corrupt.137

82. The President did not mention any other issues relating to Ukraine, including 

concerns about Ukrainian corruption, President Zelensky’s anti-corruption reforms, or the ongoing 

war with Russia. The President only identified two people in reference to investigations: Vice 

President Biden and his son.138

83. Listening to the call as it transpired, several White House staff members became 

alarmed. Lt. Col. Vindman immediately reported his concerns to NSC lawyers because, as he 

testified, “[i]t is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government 

investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent.”139 

84. Jennifer Williams, an advisor to Vice President Pence, testified that the call struck 

her as “unusual and inappropriate” and that “the references to specific individuals and 

investigations, such as former Vice President Biden and his son, struck me as political in nature.”140 

 136 Id. at 3, 5.

137 See id. at 2.

138 See generally id. Mr. Trump had previously engaged in efforts to cut aid to anti-corruption 

programs in Ukraine and other foreign nations. See Erica Werner, Trump Administration Sought Billions 

of Dollars in Cuts to Programs Aimed at Fighting Corruption in Ukraine and Elsewhere, Wash. Post (Oct. 23, 

2019), https://perma.cc/R9AJ-AZ65. 139 Transcript, Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander 

Vindman: Hearing Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 19 (Nov. 19, 2019) 

(Vindman-Williams Hearing Tr.).

140 Id. at 34; Williams Dep. Tr. at 148-49.
SMF 28

She believed President Trump’s solicitation of an investigation was “inappropriate” because it 

“appeared to be a domestic political matter.”141

85. Timothy Morrison, Dr. Hill’s successor as the NSC’s Senior Director for Europe and 

Russia and Lt. Col. Vindman’s supervisor, said that “the call was not the full-throated endorsement 

of the Ukraine reform agenda that I was hoping to hear.”142 He too reported the call to NSC 

lawyers, worrying that the call would be “damaging” if leaked publicly.143 

86. In response, Mr. Eisenberg and his deputy, Michael Ellis, tightly restricted access to 

the call summary, which was placed on a highly classified NSC server even though it did not contain 

any highly classified information.144

87. On July 26, the day after the call, Ambassador Sondland had lunch with State 

Department aides in Kyiv, including David Holmes, the Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. 

Embassy in Kyiv. During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump directly from 

his cellphone. President Trump asked Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was 

“going to do the investigation.” Ambassador Sondland stated that President Zelensky was “going to 

do it” and would “do anything you ask him to.”145 

88. After the call, it was clear to Ambassador Sondland that “a public statement from 

President Zelensky” committing to the investigations was a “prerequisite” for a White House 

meeting.146 He told Mr. Holmes that President Trump “did not give a [expletive] about Ukraine.” 

Rather, the President cared only about “big stuff” that benefited him personally, like “the Biden 

 141 Vindman-Williams Hearing Tr. at 15.

142 Morrison Dep. Tr. at 41.

143 Id. at 43.

144 Id. at 43, 47-50, 52; see also Vindman Dep. Tr. at 49-51, 119-22.

145 Holmes Dep. Tr. at 24.

146 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 26-27.
SMF 29

investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,” and that President Trump had directly solicited during 

the July 25 call.147

F. President Trump Conditioned the Release of Security Assistance for Ukraine, 

and Continued to Leverage a White House Meeting, to Pressure Ukraine to 

Launch Politically Motivated Investigations

89. As discussed further below, following the July 25 call, President Trump’s 

representatives, including Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, in coordination with Mr. Giuliani,

pressed the Ukrainians to issue a public statement announcing the investigations. At the same time, 

officials in both the United States and Ukraine became increasingly concerned about President 

Trump’s continuing hold on security assistance.

148 

90. The Ukrainian government was aware of the hold by at least late July, around the 

time of President Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelensky. On the day of the call itself, DOD 

officials learned that diplomats at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C., had made multiple 

overtures to DOD and the State Department “asking about security assistance.”149 

91. Around this time, two different officials at the Ukrainian Embassy approached 

Ambassador Volker’s special advisor to ask her about the hold.150 

92. By mid-August, before the hold was public, Lt. Col. Vindman also received inquiries 

from the Ukrainian Embassy. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that during this timeframe, “it was no 

secret, at least within government and official channels, that security assistance was on hold.”151 

93. The former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister, Olena Zerkal, has acknowledged that 

she became aware of the hold on security assistance no later than July 30 based on a diplomatic 

 147 Holmes Dep. Tr. at 25-26.

148 See, e.g., Cooper-Hale Hearing Tr. at 13-14; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 222; Sandy Dep. Tr. at 

59-60.

149 Cooper-Hale Hearing Tr. at 13-14.

150 Croft Dep. Tr. at 86-88.

151 Vindman Dep. Tr. at 222. 
SMF 30

cable—transmitted the previous week—from Ukrainian officials in Washington, D.C.152 She said 

that President Zelensky’s office had received a copy of the cable “simultaneously.”153 Ms. Zerkal 

further stated that President Zelensky’s top advisor, Andriy Yermak, told her “to keep silent, to not 

comment without permission” about the hold or about when the Ukrainian government became 

aware of it.154

94. In early August, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, in coordination with Mr. 

Giuliani, endeavored to pressure President Zelensky to make a public statement announcing the 

investigations. On August 10—in a text message that showed the Ukrainians’ understanding of the 

quid pro quo—President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, told Ambassador Volker that, once a date 

was set for the White House meeting, he would “call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit 

and outlining vision for the reboot of US-UKRAINE relationship, including among other things 

Burisma and election meddling in investigations[.]”155 

95. On August 11, Ambassador Sondland emailed two State Department officials, one 

of whom acted as a direct line to Secretary Pompeo, to inform them about the agreement for 

President Zelensky to issue a statement that would include an announcement of the two 

investigations. Ambassador Sondland stated that he expected a draft of the statement to be 

“delivered for our review in a day or two[,]” and that he hoped the statement would “make the boss 

[i.e., President Trump] happy enough to authorize an invitation” for a White House meeting.

156 

96. On August 12, Mr. Yermak texted Ambassador Volker an initial draft of the 

statement. The draft referred to “the problem of interference in the political processes of the 

 152 Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-Top Official in Kyiv, N.Y. 

Times (Dec. 3, 2019), https://perma.cc/SD98-VPRN. 153 Id. (quoting Ms. Zerkal). 

154 Id. (quoting Ms. Zerkal’s summary of a statement by Mr. Yermak).

155 Volker Text Messages at KV00000019.

156 Sondland Opening Statement at 22, Ex. 7; Sondland Hearing Tr. at 28, 102.
SMF 31

United States,” but it did not explicitly mention the two investigations that President Trump had 

requested in the July 25 call.157 

97. The next day, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland discussed the draft statement with 

Mr. Giuliani, who told them, “If [the statement] doesn’t say Burisma and 2016, it’s not credible[.]”158 

As Ambassador Sondland would later testify, “Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the 

President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the President.”159 

98. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland relayed this message to Mr. Yermak and sent him 

a revised statement that included explicit references to “Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections.”160 

99. In light of President Zelensky’s anti-corruption agenda, Ukrainian officials resisted 

issuing the statement in August and, as a result, there was no movement toward scheduling the 

White House meeting.

161 

100. Meanwhile, there was growing concern about President Trump’s continued hold on 

the security assistance for Ukraine. The hold remained in place through August, against the 

unanimous judgment of American national security officials charged with overseeing U.S.-Ukraine 

policy. For example, during a high-level interagency meeting in late July, officials unanimously 

advocated for releasing the hold—with the sole exception of OMB, which was acting under 

 157 Volker Text Messages at KV00000020.

158 Volker Interview Tr. at 113.

159 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 18. 

160 Volker Text Messages at KV00000023. Ambassador Volker claimed that he “stopped 

pursuing” the statement from the Ukrainians around this time because of concerns raised by Mr. 

Yermak. Ambassador Kurt Volker, Testimony Before the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight 8 (Oct. 3, 2019) (Volker 

Opening Statement), https://perma.cc/9DDN-2WFW; Volker Interview Tr. at 44-45, 199; VolkerMorrison Hearing Tr. at 21.

161 See, e.g., Sondland Opening Statement at 16 (“[M]y goal, at the time, was to do what was 

necessary to get the aid released, to break the logjam. I believed that the public statement we had 

been discussing for weeks was essential to advancing that goal.”).
SMF 32

“guidance from the President and from Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney to freeze the assistance.”162 

But even officials within OMB had internally recommended that the hold be removed because 

“assistance to Ukraine is consistent with [U.S.] national security strategy,” provides the “benefit . . . 

of opposing Russian aggression,” and is backed by “bipartisan support.”163

101. Without an explanation for the hold, and with President Trump already conditioning 

a White House visit on the announcement of the investigations, it became increasingly apparent to 

multiple witnesses that the security assistance was being withheld in order to pressure Ukraine to 

announce the investigations. As Ambassador Sondland testified, President Trump’s effort to 

condition release of the security assistance on an announcement of the investigations was as clear as 

“two plus two equals four.”164

102. On August 22, Ambassador Sondland emailed Secretary Pompeo in an effort to 

“break the logjam” on the security assistance and the White House meeting. He proposed that 

President Trump should arrange to speak to President Zelensky during an upcoming trip to Warsaw, 

during which President Zelensky could “look [President Trump] in the eye and tell him” he was 

prepared “to move forward publicly . . . on those issues of importance to Potus and to the U.S.”—

i.e., the announcement of the two investigations.165

103. On August 28, news of the hold was publicly reported by Politico.

166 

 162 Hale Dep. Tr. at 81; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 184.

163 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 59-60.

164 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 56-58; see also Taylor Dep. Tr. at 190 (Ambassador Taylor’s “clear 

understanding” was that “security assistance money would not come until the [Ukrainian] President 

committed to pursue the investigation”); Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 32 (Mr. Holmes’s “clear 

impression was that the security assistance hold was likely intended by the President either as an 

expression of dissatisfaction with the Ukrainians, who had not yet agreed to the Burisma/Biden 

investigation, or as an effort to increase the pressure on them to do so.”). 

165 Sondland Opening Statement at 23. 

166 Caitlin Emma & Connor O’Brien, Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront 

Russia, Politico (Aug. 28, 2019), https://perma.cc/54RZ-Q6NJ. 
SMF 33

104. As soon as the hold became public, Ukrainian officials expressed significant concern 

to U.S. officials.167 They were deeply worried not only about the practical impact that the hold 

would have on efforts to fight Russian aggression, but also about the symbolic message the nowpublicized lack of support from the Trump Administration sent to the Russian government, which 

would almost certainly seek to exploit any real or perceived crack in U.S. resolve toward Ukraine. 

Mr. Yermak and other Ukrainian officials told Ambassador Taylor that they were “desperate” and 

would be willing to travel to Washington to raise with U.S. officials the importance of the 

assistance.168 The recently appointed Ukrainian prosecutor general later remarked, “It’s critically 

important for the west not to pull us into some conflicts between their ruling elites[.]”169

105. On September 1—within days of President Trump rejecting the request from 

Secretaries Pompeo and Esper and Ambassador Bolton to release the hold170—Vice President Pence 

met with President Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland after President Trump cancelled his trip.

171

106. In advance of this meeting, Ambassador Sondland told Vice President Pence that he 

“had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations.”172 Sondland 

testified that Vice President Pence “nodded like, you know, he heard what I said, and that was pretty 

much it.”173 

 167 Volker Text Messages at KV00000020; Volker Interview Tr. at 80-81; Taylor Dep. Tr. at 

34.

168 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 137-38. 

169 Roman Olearchyk, Cleaning Up Ukraine in the Shadow of Trump, Fin. Times (Nov. 28, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/YMX9-XJ2B (quoting current Ukrainian Prosecutor General Ruslan 

Ryaboshapka). 

170 Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze, https://perma.cc/TA5J-NJFX. 171 Readout of Vice President Mike Pence’s Meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, 

White House (Sep. 1, 2019), https://perma.cc/K2PH-YPVK; Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 41. 172 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 30. 

173 Id. at 38.
SMF 34

107. During the meeting that followed, which Ambassador Sondland also attended, “the 

very first question” that President Zelensky asked Vice President Pence related to the status of U.S. 

security assistance.174 President Zelensky emphasized that “the symbolic value of U.S. support in 

terms of security assistance . . . was just as valuable to the Ukrainians as the actual dollars.”175 He 

also voiced concern that “any hold or appearance of reconsideration of such assistance might 

embolden Russia to think that the United States was no longer committed to Ukraine.”176 

108. Vice President Pence told President Zelensky that he would speak with President 

Trump that evening. Although Vice President Pence did speak with President Trump, the President 

still did not lift the hold.177

109. Following the meeting between Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, 

Ambassador Sondland pulled aside President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, to explain that “the

resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on [issuing a] 

public statement” about the investigations.178 

110. Immediately following that conversation, Ambassador Sondland walked over to Mr. 

Morrison, who had been standing across the room observing their interactions. Ambassador 

Sondland told Mr. Morrison that “what he had communicated [to Mr. Yermak] was that . . . what 

could help [Ukraine] move the aid was if the prosecutor general would go to the mike [sic] and 

announce that he was opening” the investigations.179 

 174 Williams Dep. Tr. at 81.

175 Id. at 82.

176 Id. at 82-83. 177 Id. at 94.

178 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 31. 

179 Morrison Dep. Tr. at 134.
SMF 35

111. Later that day, Mr. Morrison reported this conversation to Ambassador Bolton, who 

advised him to “stay out of it” and to brief the NSC’s lawyers. Mr. Morrison subsequently reported 

the conversation to Mr. Eisenberg.

180 

112. Mr. Morrison also informed Ambassador Taylor about his conversation with 

Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Taylor was “alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told [him] about 

the Sondland-Yermak conversation.”181 He followed up by texting Ambassador Sondland, “Are we 

now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” 

Ambassador Sondland responded, “Call me.”182

113. Ambassadors Sondland and Taylor then spoke by telephone. Ambassador Sondland 

again relayed what he told Mr. Yermak and explained that he had made a “mistake” in telling 

Ukrainian officials that only the White House meeting was conditioned on a public announcement of 

the investigations. He clarified that “everything”—the White House meeting and security assistance 

for Ukraine—was conditioned on the announcement of the investigations.183 Ambassador Sondland 

explained to Ambassador Taylor that “President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a public box, 

by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”184 

114. On September 7, President Trump and Ambassador Sondland spoke by telephone.185 

As Ambassador Sondland relayed later that day during a call with Mr. Morrison, President Trump

 180 Id. at 182-83.

181 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 42. 

182 Volker Text Messages at KV00000039.

183 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 42. 

184 Id.; see also Taylor Dep. Tr. at 144.

185 In Ambassador Sondland’s testimony, he was not clear on whether he had one or two 

conversations with the President in which the subject of a quid pro quo came up, or on precisely 

which date such conversations took place during the period of September 6 through 9. Regardless 

of the date, Ambassador Sondland did not contest telling both Mr. Morrison and Ambassador 

Taylor—both of whom took contemporaneous notes—of a conversation he had with the President 

that reaffirmed Ambassador Sondland’s understanding that President Zelensky had to make a public 

statement announcing the investigations in order to obtain the White House meeting and security 
SMF 36

told him “that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the opening of the 

investigations and he should want to do it.”186 

115. Mr. Morrison conveyed the substance of the September 7 call between President 

Trump and Ambassador Sondland to Ambassador Taylor. Mr. Morrison said that the call had given 

him “a sinking feeling” because he feared the security assistance would not be released before 

September 30, the end of the fiscal year, and because he “did not think it was a good idea for the 

Ukrainian President to . . . involve himself in our politics.”187 At Ambassador Bolton’s direction, 

Mr. Morrison reported Ambassador Sondland’s description of the President’s statements to the NSC 

lawyers.188 

116. The next day, September 8, Ambassador Sondland confirmed in a phone call with 

Ambassador Taylor that he had spoken to President Trump and that “President Trump was 

adamant that President Zelensky himself had to” announce the investigations publicly.189 

117. Ambassador Sondland also told Ambassador Taylor that he had passed President 

Trump’s message directly to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and had told them that “although 

this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a 

stalemate”—meaning “Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.”190 

 

assistance. See Sondland Hearing Tr. at 109. Both documentary evidence and testimony confirmed 

that the conversation described by Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor occurred on September 7. 

See, e.g., Morrison Dep. Tr. at 144-45; Taylor Dep. Tr. at 38; Volker Text Messages at KV00000053 

(Sondland text message to Volker and Taylor on September 8 stating, “Guys, multiple convos with 

Ze, Potus. Lets talk”). 

186 Morrison Dep. Tr. at 190-91.

187 Id. at 145.

188 Id. at 223, 238.

189 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 44. 

190 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 7; Taylor Dep. Tr. at 39. 
SMF 37

118. Early the next morning, on September 9, Ambassador Taylor texted Ambassadors 

Sondland and Volker: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for 

help with a political campaign.”191

119. The Ukrainians succumbed to the pressure. In early September, President Zelensky 

agreed to do a televised interview, during which he would publicly announce the investigations. The 

Ukrainians made arrangements for the interview to occur on CNN later in September.192 

120. The White House subsequently confirmed that the release of the security assistance 

had been conditioned on Ukraine’s announcement of the investigations. During a White House 

press conference on October 17, Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney acknowledged that he had 

discussed security assistance with the President and that the President’s decision to withhold it was 

directly tied to his desire that Ukraine investigate alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. 

election.193 

121. After a reporter attempted to clarify this explicit acknowledgement of a “quid pro 

quo,” Mr. Mulvaney replied, “We do that all the time with foreign policy.” He added, “I have news 

for everybody: get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.”194

 191 Volker Text Messages at KV00000053.

192 Sondland Hearing Tr. at 110-11; Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine’s Zelensky Bowed to Trump’s 

Demands until Luck Spared Him, N.Y. Times (Nov. 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/A5JE-N25L; Fareed 

Zakaria, Zelensky Planned to Announce Trump’s “Quo” on My Show. Here’s What Happened., Wash. Post 

(Nov. 14, 2019) (Zelensky Planned to Announce Trump’s “Quo”), https://perma.cc/MMT7-D8XJ. 193 Press Briefing by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, White House (Oct. 17, 2019) (Oct. 17 

Briefing), https://perma.cc/Q45H-EMC7 (“Q. So the demand for an investigation into the 

Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine? MR. 

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016— Q. The investigation into Democrats. 

MR. MULVANEY: —certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with 

that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate. Q. And withholding the funding? MR. 

MULVANEY: Yeah. Which ultimately, then, flowed.”).

194 Id.
SMF 38

122. Multiple foreign policy and national security officials testified that the pursuit of

investigations into the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election was not part of 

official U.S. policy.

195 Instead, as Dr. Hill described, these investigations were part of a “domestic 

political errand” of President Trump.196 Mr. Kent further explained that urging Ukraine to engage in 

“selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions” undermines our longstanding efforts 

to promote the rule of law abroad.197

123. Ambassador Volker, in response to an inquiry from President Zelensky’s advisor, 

Mr. Yermak, confirmed that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) did not make an official request 

for Ukraine’s assistance in these investigations.198 

124. Within hours after the White House publicly released a record of the July 25 call, 

DOJ itself confirmed in a statement that no such request was ever made: 

The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having 

Ukraine investigate anything related to former Vice President Biden or 

his son. The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact 

Ukraine—on this or any other matter. The Attorney General has not 

communicated with Ukraine—on this or any other subject.199

 195 Volker-Morrison Hearing Tr. at 146-47 (Mr. Morrison did not follow up on the 

President’s request to “investigate the Bidens” because he “did not understand it as a policy 

objective”); Vindman-Williams Hearing Tr. at 119 (Mr. Vindman confirmed that he was not “aware 

of any written product” from the NSC suggesting that these investigations were “part of the official 

policy of the United States”); Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 179 (“Mrs. Demings[:] Was Mr. Giuliani 

promoting U.S. national interests or policy in Ukraine . . . ? Ambassador Taylor[:] I don’t think so, 

ma’am. . . . Mr. Kent[:] No, he was not.”). 

196 Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 92.

197 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 24. 198 Volker Interview Tr. at 197.

199 Morgan Chalfant & Brett Samuels, White House Memo Shows Trump Pressed Ukraine Leader to 

Look into Biden, Hill (Sept. 25, 2019), https://perma.cc/5LHW-V4EB (quoting DOJ spokesperson 

Kerri Kupec). 
SMF 39

G. President Trump Was Forced to Lift the Hold but Has Continued to Solicit 

Foreign Interference in the Upcoming Election

125. As noted above, by early September 2019, President Zelensky had signaled his 

willingness to announce the two investigations to secure a White House meeting and the security 

assistance. He was scheduled to make the announcement during a CNN interview later in 

September, but other events intervened.200

126. On September 9, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs announced a joint 

investigation into the scheme by President Trump “to improperly pressure the Ukrainian 

government to assist the President’s bid for reelection.”201 The same day, the Committees sent 

document production and preservation requests to the White House and the State Department.202 

127. NSC staff members believed that the Congressional investigation “might have the 

effect of releasing the hold” on Ukraine military assistance, because it would have been “potentially 

politically challenging” to “justify that hold.”203 

128. Later that day, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) wrote to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee notifying them that a 

 200 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 207-209; Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 158 (“[A]s we’ve determined, as 

we’ve discussed here on September 11th, just before any CNN discussion or interview, the hold was 

released, the hold on the security assistance was released.” (quoting Ambassador Taylor)). 

201 Press Release, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, Three House Committees 

Launch Wide-Ranging Investigation into Trump-Giuliani Ukraine Scheme (Sept. 9, 2019) (Sept. 9 

Press Release), https://perma.cc/AX4Y-PWSH. 202 Letter from Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, et al., to Pat A. 

Cipollone, Counsel to the President 3-4 (Sept. 9, 2019) (Sept. 9 Letter), https://perma.cc/R2GHTZ9P; Letter from Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, et al., to Michael R. 

Pompeo, Sec’y, Dep’t of State (Sept. 9, 2019), https://perma.cc/C4W4-UBTF. 203 Vindman Dep. Tr. at 304.
SMF 40

whistleblower had filed a complaint on August 12 that the ICIG had determined to be both an 

“urgent concern” and “credible.” The ICIG did not disclose the contents of the complaint.204 

129. The ICIG further stated that the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) had 

taken the unprecedented step of withholding the whistleblower complaint from Congress.205 It was 

later revealed that the Acting DNI had done so as a result of communications with the White House 

and the Department of Justice.206 The next day, September 10, Chairman Schiff wrote to Acting 

DNI Joseph Maguire to express his concern about the Acting DNI’s “unprecedented departure 

from past practice” in withholding the whistleblower complaint and observed that the “failure to 

transmit to the Committee an urgent and credible whistleblower complaint, as required by law, raises 

the prospect that an urgent matter of a serious nature is being purposefully concealed from the 

Committee.”207 

130. The White House was aware of the contents of the whistleblower complaint since at 

least August 26, when the Acting DNI informed the White House Counsel’s Office of the 

complaint.208 White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Mr. Eisenberg reportedly briefed President 

 204 Letter from Michael K. Atkinson, Inspector Gen. of the Intelligence Community, to 

Chairman Adam Schiff, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, and Ranking Member 

Devin Nunes, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence 2 (Sept. 9, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/K78N-SMRR. 205 Id.

206 Maguire Hearing Tr. at 14, 19-24. 207 Letter from Chairman Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence, to Joseph Maguire, Acting Dir. of Nat’l Intelligence (Sept. 10, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/9X9V-G5ZN. 208 Transcript, Whistleblower Disclosure: Hearing Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 

116th Cong. 110 (Sept. 26, 209) (testimony of Joseph Maguire, Acting Dir., Nat’l Intelligence) 

(Maguire Hearing Tr.) (“Chairman Schiff, when I received the letter from Michael Atkinson on the 

26th of August, he concurrently sent a letter to the Office of White House Counsel asking the White 

House counsel to control and keep any information that pertained to that phone call on the 25th.”). 
SMF 41

Trump on the whistleblower complaint in late August and discussed whether they had to give it to 

Congress.209 

131. On September 11—two days after the ICIG notified Congress of the whistleblower 

complaint and the three House Committees announced their investigation—President Trump lifted 

the hold on security assistance. As with the implementation of the hold, no credible reason was 

provided for lifting the hold. 210 At the time of the release, there had been no discernible changes in 

international assistance commitments for Ukraine or Ukrainian anti-corruption reforms.211

132. Because of the hold the President placed on security assistance for Ukraine, DOD 

was unable to spend approximately $35 million—or 14 percent—of the funds appropriated by 

Congress for fiscal year 2019.212 

133. Congress was forced to pass a new law to extend the funding in order to ensure the 

full amount could be used by Ukraine to defend itself.213 Still, by early December 2019, Ukraine had 

not received approximately $20 million of the military assistance.214

 209 Michael S. Schmidt et al., Trump Knew of Whistle-Blower Complaint When He Released Aid to 

Ukraine, N.Y. Times (Nov. 26, 2019), https://perma.cc/7473-YFSY. 210 See Morgan Philips, Trump Administration Lifts Hold on $250M in Military Aid for Ukraine, 

Fox News (Sept. 12, 2019), https://perma.cc/8ABM-XNPV. 211 See, e.g., Morrison Dep. Tr. at 244; Vindman Dep. Tr. at 306; Williams Dep. Tr. at 147. 

Mr. Sandy testified that he was not aware of any other countries committing to provide more 

financial assistance to Ukraine prior to the lifting of the hold on September 11. Sandy Dep. Tr. at 

180. Lt. Col. Vindman similarly confirmed that none of the “facts on the ground” changed before 

the President lifted the hold. Vindman Dep. Tr. at 306. 212 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 146-47; H. Rep. No. 116-335, at 474.

213 Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 

116-59, § 124 (2019).

214 Molly O’Toole & Sarah D. Wire, Millions in Military Aid at Center of Impeachment Hasn’t 

Reached Ukraine, L.A. Times (Dec. 12, 2019), https://perma.cc/AR26-3KY2 (citing a DOD aide).
SMF 42

134. Although the hold was lifted, the White House still had not announced a date for 

President Zelensky’s meeting with President Trump, and there were indications that President 

Zelensky’s interview with CNN would still occur.

215

135. On September 18, a week before President Trump was scheduled to meet with 

President Zelensky on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Vice President 

Pence had a telephone call with President Zelensky. During the call, Vice President Pence “ask[ed] a 

bit more about . . . how Zelensky’s efforts were going.”216 Additional details about this call were 

provided to the House by Vice President Pence’s advisor, Jennifer Williams, but were classified by 

the Office of the Vice President.217 Despite repeated requests, the Vice President has refused to 

declassify Ms. Williams’ supplemental testimony.

136. On September 18 or 19, at the urging of Ambassador Taylor, 218 President Zelensky 

cancelled the CNN interview.

219 

137. To date, almost nine months after the initial invitation was extended by President 

Trump on April 21, a White House meeting for President Zelensky has not occurred.

220 Since the 

initial invitation, President Trump has met with more than a dozen world leaders at the White 

 215 Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 33; Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 106-07; see also Zelensky Planned 

to Announce Trump’s “Quo”, https://perma.cc/MMT7-D8XJ. 216 Williams Dep. Tr. at 156. 217 Classified Supp’l Submission of Jennifer Williams to the House Permanent Select Comm. 

on Intelligence (Nov. 26, 2019) (describing additional details of the Vice President’s call with 

President Zelensky on September 18).

218 Taylor-Kent Hearing Tr. at 106-07; Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 33.

219 Zelensky Planned to Announce Trump’s “Quo”, https://perma.cc/MMT7-D8XJ. 220 Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 46-47 (testimony of David Holmes) (“And although the hold 

on the security assistance may have been lifted, there were still things they wanted that they weren't 

getting, including a meeting with the President in the Oval Office. . . . And I think that continues to 

this day.”).
SMF 43

House, including a meeting in the Oval Office with the Foreign Minister of Russia on December 

10.221

138. Since lifting the hold, and even after the House impeachment inquiry was announced 

on September 24, President Trump has continued to press Ukraine to investigate Vice President 

Biden and alleged 2016 election interference by Ukraine.222 

139. On September 24, in remarks at the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, 

President Trump stated: “What Joe Biden did for his son, that’s something they [Ukraine] should be 

looking at.”223 

140. On September 25, in a joint public press availability with President Zelensky, 

President Trump stated that “I want him to do whatever he can” in reference to the investigation of 

the Bidens.224 The same day, President Trump denied that his pursuit of the investigation involved a 

quid pro quo.225

141. On September 30, during remarks at the swearing-in of the new Labor Secretary, 

President Trump stated: “Now, the new President of Ukraine ran on the basis of no corruption. . . . 

But there was a lot of corruption having to do with the 2016 election against us. And we want to get 

to the bottom of it, and it’s very important that we do.”226 

 221 John Hudson & Anne Gearan, Trump Meets Russia’s Top Diplomat amid Scrap over Election 

Interference, Wash. Post (Dec. 10, 2019), https://perma.cc/X5WC-LKT5; see also Philip Bump, Trump 

Promised Zelensky a White House Meeting. More Than a Dozen Other Leaders Got One Instead, Wash. Post 

(Dec. 13, 2019), https://perma.cc/4XSP-R3JB (compiling White House meetings involving foreign 

officials since April 2019). 222 E.g., H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 124; see also Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 46-47. 

223 Trump Sept. 24 Remarks, https://perma.cc/ZQ4P-FGT4. 224 Remarks by President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine Before Bilateral Meeting, White 

House (Sept. 25, 2019) (Trump Sept. 25 Remarks), https://perma.cc/XCJ4-A67L. 225 Trump Quotes Sondland Quoting Him: “I Want Nothing. I Want No Quid Pro Quo.,” CBS News 

(Nov. 20, 2019), https://perma.cc/X34R-QG3R. 226 Remarks by President Trump at the Swearing-In Ceremony of Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, White 

House (Sept. 30, 2019) (Trump Sept. 30 Remarks), https://perma.cc/R94C-5HAY. 
SMF 44

142. On October 3, when asked by a reporter what he had hoped President Zelensky 

would do following their 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.”227 

The President also suggested that “China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what 

happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with—with Ukraine.228

143. On October 4, President Trump equated his interest in “looking for corruption” to 

the investigation of two particular subjects: the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 

2016 election. He told reporters: 

What I want to do—and I think I have an obligation to do it, probably 

a duty to do it: corruption—we are looking for corruption. When you 

look at what Biden and his son did, and when you look at other 

people—what they’ve done. And I believe there was tremendous 

corruption with Biden, but I think there was beyond—I mean, beyond 

corruption—having to do with the 2016 campaign, and what these 

lowlifes did to so many people, to hurt so many people in the Trump 

campaign—which was successful, despite all of the fighting us. I 

mean, despite all of the unfairness.229

When asked by a reporter, “Is someone advising you that it is okay to solicit the help of other 

governments to investigate a potential political opponent?,” Trump replied in part, “Here’s what’s 

okay: If we feel there’s corruption, like I feel there was in the 2016 campaign—there was 

tremendous corruption against me—if we feel there’s corruption, we have a right to go to a foreign 

country.”230

144. As the House’s impeachment inquiry unfolded, Mr. Giuliani, on behalf of the 

President, also continued to urge Ukraine to pursue the investigations and dig up dirt on former 

 227 Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure, White House (Oct. 3, 2019) (Trump 

Oct. 3 Remarks), https://perma.cc/WM8A-NRA2. 228 Id. 229 Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure, White House (Oct. 4, 2019) (Trump 

Oct. 4 Remarks), https://perma.cc/C78K-NMDS. 230 Id.
SMF 45

Vice President Biden. Mr. Giuliani’s own statements about these efforts further confirm that he has 

been working in furtherance of the President’s personal and political interests.231 

145. During the first week of December, Mr. Giuliani traveled to Kyiv and Budapest to 

meet with both current and former Ukrainian government officials,232 including a current Ukrainian 

member of Parliament who attended a KGB school in Moscow and has led calls to investigate 

Burisma and the Bidens.233 Mr. Giuliani also met with the corrupt former prosecutor generals, 

Viktor Shokin and Yuriy Lutsenko, who had promoted the false allegations underlying the 

investigations President Trump wanted.234 Mr. Giuliani told the New York Times that in meeting with 

Ukrainian officials he was acting on behalf of his client, President Trump: “[L]ike a good lawyer, I 

am gathering evidence to defend my client against the false charges being leveled against him.”235 

146. During his trip to Ukraine, on December 5, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: “The 

conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by 

then VP Biden, in 2016, that has not been resolved and until it is will be a major obstacle to the US 

assisting Ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms.”236 Not only was Mr. Giuliani perpetuating the 

 231 See, e.g., Kenneth P. Vogel & Benjamin Novak, Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, Travels to Europe to 

Interview Ukrainians, N.Y. Times (Dec. 4, 2019) (Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, Travels to Europe), 

https://perma.cc/N28V-GPAC; Dana Bash & Michael Warren, Giuliani Says Trump Still Supports His 

Dirt-Digging in Ukraine, CNN (Dec. 17, 2019) (Giuliani Says Trump Still Supports His Dirt-Digging), 

https://perma.cc/F399-B9AY. 232 Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, Travels to Europe, https://perma.cc/HZ6F-E67G; David L. Stern 

& Robyn Dixon, Ukraine Lawmaker Seeking Biden Probe Meets with Giuliani in Kyiv, Wash. Post (Dec. 5, 

2019) (Ukraine Lawmaker Seeking Biden Probe), https://perma.cc/C3GW-RF4T; Will Sommer, Rudy’s 

New Ukraine Jaunt Is Freaking Out Trump’s Lieutenants—and He Doesn’t Care, Daily Beast (Dec. 6, 2019) 

(Rudy’s New Ukraine Jaunt), https://perma.cc/UNR9-VWFZ. 233 Ukraine Lawmaker Seeking Biden Probe, https://perma.cc/W3Q2-E8QY. 234 Philip Bump, Giuliani May Be Making a Stronger Case Against Trump Than Biden, Wash. Post 

(Dec. 16, 2019), https://perma.cc/7HR4-TC9W; Rudy’s New Ukraine Jaunt, 

https://perma.cc/UNR9-VWFZ. 235 Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, Travels to Europe, https://perma.cc/HZ6F-E67G. 236 Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani), Twitter (Dec. 5, 2019, 1:42 PM), 

https://perma.cc/829X-TSKJ. 
SMF 46

false allegations against Vice President Biden, but he was reiterating the threat that President Trump 

had used to pressure President Zelensky to announce the investigations: that U.S. assistance to 

Ukraine could be in jeopardy until Ukraine investigated Vice President Biden. 

147. Mr. Giuliani told the Wall Street Journal that when he returned to New York on 

December 7, President Trump called him as his plane was still taxiing down the runway. “‘What did 

you get?’ he said Mr. Trump asked. ‘More than you can imagine,’ Mr. Giuliani replied.”237 

148. Later that day, President Trump told reporters that he was aware of Mr. Giuliani’s 

efforts in Ukraine and believed that Mr. Giuliani wanted to report the information he’d gathered to 

the Attorney General and Congress.238 

149. On December 17, Mr. Giuliani confirmed that President Trump has been “very 

supportive” of his continuing efforts to dig up dirt on Vice President Biden in Ukraine and that they 

are “on the same page.”239 

150. Such ongoing efforts by President Trump, including through his personal attorney, 

to solicit an investigation of his political opponent have undermined U.S. credibility. On September 

14, Ambassador Volker advised Mr. Yermak against the Zelensky Administration conducting an 

investigation into President Zelensky’s own former political rival, former Ukrainian President Petro 

Poroshenko. When Ambassador Volker raised concerns about such an investigation, Mr. Yermak 

 237 Rebecca Ballhaus & Julie Bykowicz, “Just Having Fun”: Giuliani Doubles Down on Ukraine 

Probes, Wall Street J. (Dec. 13, 2019), https://perma.cc/5B69-2AVR. 238 David Jackson, Trump Says Rudy Giuliani Will Give Information About Ukraine to Justice 

Department, Congress, USA Today (Dec. 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/7RXJ-JG7F. 239 Giuliani Says Trump Still Supports His Dirt-Digging, https://perma.cc/F399-B9AY; see also 

Asawin Suebsaeng & Erin Banco, Trump Tells Rudy to Keep Pushing the Biden Conspiracies, Daily Beast

(Dec. 18, 2019), https://perma.cc/S5K6-K8J9 (quoting source who reported that President Trump 

told Mr. Giuliani to “keep at it”). 
SMF 47

retorted, “What, you mean like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden?”240 Ambassador Volker 

offered no response.241 

151. Mr. Holmes, a career diplomat, highlighted this hypocrisy: “While we had advised 

our Ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally 

investigating credible corruption allegations,” U.S. officials were making “a demand that President 

Zelensky personally commit on a cable news channel to a specific investigation of President 

Trump’s political rival.”242

H. President Trump’s Conduct Was Consistent with His Previous Invitations of 

Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections

152. President Trump’s efforts to solicit Ukraine’s interference in the 2020 U.S. 

Presidential election to help his own reelection campaign were consistent with his prior solicitation

and encouragement of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, when the Trump Campaign 

“expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian 

efforts.”243 

153. As a Presidential candidate, Mr. Trump repeatedly sought to benefit from Russia’s 

actions to help his campaign. For example, during a public rally on July 27, 2016, then-candidate 

Trump declared: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are 

missing” from opposing candidate Hillary Clinton’s personal server.244 Within hours, Russian 

hackers targeted Clinton’s personal office for the first time.245

 240 Volker-Morrison Hearing Tr. at 139; see Kent Dep. Tr. at 329.

241 Kent Dep. Tr. at 329.

242 Hill-Holmes Hearing Tr. at 32.

243 Mueller Report, Vol. I at 1-2.

244 Mueller Report, Vol. I at 49 (quoting then-candidate Donald Trump). 

245 Id. Beginning in early November 2019, while the House’s impeachment inquiry was 

ongoing, Russian military hackers reportedly hacked Burisma’s server using “strikingly similar” 

tactics to those used to hack the DNC in 2016. See Nicole Perlroth & Matthew Rosenberg, Russians 
SMF 48

154. Days earlier, WikiLeaks had begun releasing emails and documents that were stolen 

by Russian military intelligence services in order to damage the Clinton campaign.246 WikiLeaks 

continued releasing stolen documents through October 2016.247 Then-candidate Trump repeatedly 

applauded and sought to capitalize on WikiLeaks’s releases of these stolen documents, even after 

Russia’s involvement was heavily reported by the press.248 Members of the Trump Campaign also 

planned messaging and communications strategies around releases by WikiLeaks.

249 In the last 

month of the campaign, then-candidate Trump publicly referred to the emails hacked by Russia and 

disseminated by WikiLeaks over 150 times.250

155. Multiple members of the Trump Campaign used additional channels to seek Russia’s 

assistance in obtaining damaging information about Clinton. For example, senior representatives of 

the Trump Campaign—including the Campaign’s chairman and the President’s son—met with a 

Russian attorney in June 2016 who had offered to provide damaging information about Clinton 

from the Russian government.251 A foreign policy advisor to the Trump Campaign also met 

repeatedly with people connected to the Russian government and their associates, one of whom 

claimed to have “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”252

156. Even after Special Counsel Mueller released his report, President Trump confirmed 

his willingness to benefit from foreign election interference. When asked during a televised 

 

Hacked Ukrainian Gas Company at Center of Impeachment, N.Y. Times (Jan. 13, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/5NSA-BELW. 246 Mueller Report, Vol. I at 6.

247 Id., Vol. I at 58.

248 See Aaron Blake, The Trump Team’s History of Flirting with—and Promoting—Now-AccusedCriminal Julian Assange, Wash. Post (Nov. 16, 2018), https://perma.cc/UL9R-YQN. 249 Mueller Report, Vol. I at 54; id., Vol. II at 18.

250 Judd Legum, Trump Mentioned WikiLeaks 164 Times in Last Month of Election, Now Claims It 

Didn’t Impact One Voter, ThinkProgress (Jan. 8, 2017), https://perma.cc/5J46-Y8RG. 251 Mueller Report, Vol. I at 110-20.

252 Id., Vol. I at 83-84, 87-89.
SMF 49

interview in June 2019 whether he would accept damaging information from a foreign government 

about a political opponent, the President responded, “I think I’d take it.”253 President Trump 

declared that he sees “nothing wrong with listening” to a foreign power that offers information 

detrimental to a political adversary.

254 Asked whether such an offer of information should be 

reported to law enforcement, President Trump retorted: “Give me a break, life doesn’t work that 

way.”255 Just weeks later, President Trump froze security assistance to Ukraine as his agents were 

pushing that country to pursue investigations that would help the President’s reelection campaign.256

157. In addition, President Trump’s request for the investigations on the July 25 call with 

President Zelensky took place one day after former Special Counsel Mueller testified before the 

House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about the 

findings of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 Presidential election and President 

Trump’s efforts to undermine that investigation.257 During his call with President Zelensky, 

President Trump derided former Special Counsel Mueller’s “poor performance” in his July 24 

testimony and speculated that “that whole nonsense . . . started with Ukraine.”258

II. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

158. President Trump ordered categorical obstruction of the impeachment inquiry 

undertaken by the House under Article I of the Constitution, which vests the House with the “sole 

Power of Impeachment.”259

 253 Transcript: ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos’ Exclusive Interview with President Trump, ABC 

News (June 16, 2019), https://perma.cc/C8DS-637R. 254 Id.

255 Id. 256 Sandy Dep. Tr. at 37-39; Morrison Dep. Tr. at 161.

257 See Press Release, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, House Judiciary and 

House Intelligence Committees to Hold Open Hearing with Special Counsel Robert Mueller (July 

19, 2019), https://perma.cc/6TZZ-BJKS. 258 The July 25 Memorandum at 3, https://perma.cc/8JRD-6K9V. 259 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5.
SMF 50

A. The House Launched an Impeachment Inquiry

159. During the 116th Congress, a number of Committees of the House have undertaken 

investigations into allegations of misconduct by President Trump and his Administration, including 

to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.260 

160. As discussed above, on September 9, the Intelligence Committee and the 

Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs announced they would conduct a joint 

investigation into the President’s scheme to pressure Ukraine to announce the politically motivated 

investigations.261 

161. Given the gravity of the allegations that President Trump was soliciting foreign 

interference in the upcoming 2020 election, Speaker Nancy P. Pelosi announced on September 24 

that the House was “moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.”262 Speaker Pelosi 

directed the Committees to “proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of [an] 

impeachment inquiry.”263 

162. On October 31, the House enacted a resolution confirming the Committees’ 

authority to conduct the impeachment inquiry and adopting procedures governing the inquiry.264

 260 See, e.g., Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find William P. Barr, Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice, in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued 

by the Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rep. No. 116-105, at 13 (June 6, 2019) (“The purposes of this 

investigation include . . . considering whether any of the conduct described in the Special Counsel’s 

Report warrants the Committee in taking any further steps under Congress’ Article I powers. That 

includes whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the President[.]”); Directing 

Certain Committees to Continue Their Ongoing Investigations as Part of the Existing House of Representatives 

Inquiry into Whether Sufficient Grounds Exist for the House of Representatives to Exercise its Constitutional Power 

to Impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for Other Purposes, H. Rep. No. 

116-266, at 4 (Oct. 2019).

261 Sept. 9 Press Release, https://perma.cc/AX4Y-PWSH. 262 Press Release, Speaker of the House, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry 

(Sept. 24, 2019), https://perma.cc/6EQM-34PT. 263 Id. 264 H. Res. 660, 116th Cong. (2019).
SMF 51

163. The procedures adopted by the House afforded procedural privileges to the 

President that were equivalent to, or in some instances exceeded, those afforded during prior 

impeachment inquiries.265 Transcripts of all witness interviews and depositions were released to the 

public, and President Trump was offered—but refused—multiple opportunities to have his counsel 

participate in proceedings before the Judiciary Committee, including by cross-examining witnesses 

and presenting evidence.266

B. President Trump Ordered Categorical Obstruction of the House’s 

Impeachment Inquiry

164. Even before the House launched its impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s 

misconduct concerning Ukraine, he rejected Congress’s Article I investigative and oversight 

authority, proclaiming, “[W]e’re fighting all the subpoenas,”267 and “I have an Article II, where I 

have the right to do whatever I want as president.”268

165. In response to the House impeachment inquiry regarding Ukraine, the Executive 

Branch categorically refused to provide any requested documents or information at President 

Trump’s direction. 

166. On September 9, 2019, three House Committees sent a letter to White House 

Counsel Pat Cipollone requesting six categories of documents relevant to the Ukraine investigation 

 265 Compare 165 Cong. Rec. E1357 (2019) (Impeachment Inquiry Procedures in the 

Committee on the Judiciary Pursuant to H. Res. 660), with Investigatory Powers of the Committee on the 

Judiciary with Respect to Its Impeachment Inquiry, H. Rep. No. 105-795 (1998), and with Impeachment Inquiry: 

Hearings Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Book III, 93d Cong. 2249-52 (1974); see also H. Rep. No. 

116-346, at 17-25.

266 H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 22-24.

267 Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure, White House (Apr. 24, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/W7VZ-FZ3T. 268 Remarks by President Trump at Turning Point USA’s Teen Student Action Summit 2019, White 

House (July 23, 2019), https://perma.cc/EFF6-9BE7. 
SMF 52

by September 16. 269 When the White House did not respond, the Committees sent a follow-up 

letter on September 24.270 

167. Instead of responding directly to the Committees, the President publicly declared the 

impeachment inquiry “a disgrace,” and stated that “it shouldn’t be allowed” and that “[t]here should 

be a way of stopping it.”271 

168. When the White House still did not respond to the Committees’ request, the 

Committees issued a subpoena compelling the White House to turn over documents.272

169. The President’s response to the House’s inquiry—sent by Mr. Cipollone on October 

8—sought to accomplish the President’s goal of “stopping” the House’s investigation. Mr. 

Cipollone wrote “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump” to notify Congress that “President 

Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these 

circumstances.”273 

170. Despite the Constitution’s placement of the “sole Power” of impeachment in the 

House, Mr. Cipollone’s October 8 letter opined that the House’s inquiry was “constitutionally 

invalid,” “lack[ed] . . . any basis,” “lack[ed] the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment,” 

and was merely “labeled . . . as an ‘impeachment inquiry.’”274 

 269 Sept. 9 Letter, https://perma.cc/R2GH-TZ9P. 270 Letter from Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, et al., to Pat A. 

Cipollone, Counsel to the President 3 (Sept. 24, 2019), https://perma.cc/SCG3-6UEW. 271 Remarks by President Trump upon Air Force One Arrival, White House (Sept. 26, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/5RWE-8VTB. 272 Letter from Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, House Comm. on Oversight and Reform, et 

al., to John Michael Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff to the President (Oct. 4, 2019) (Oct. 4 Letter), 

https://perma.cc/6RXE-WER8. 273 Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House 

of Representatives, et al. 7 (Oct. 8, 2019), https://perma.cc/5P57-773X (Oct. 8 Cipollone Letter).

274 Id. at 1-3, 6.
SMF 53

171. The letter’s rhetoric aligned with the President’s public campaign against the 

impeachment inquiry, which he has branded “a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the 

People,”275 an “unconstitutional abuse of power,”276 and an “open war on American Democracy.”277

172. Although President Trump has categorically sought to obstruct the House’s 

impeachment inquiry, he has never formally asserted a claim of executive privilege as to any 

document or testimony. Mr. Cipollone’s October 8 letter refers to “long-established Executive 

Branch confidentiality interests and privileges” but the President did not actually assert executive 

privilege.278 Similarly, a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel November 1, 2019 opinion 

only recognized that information responsive to the subpoenas was “potentially protected by executive 

privilege.”279

173. In addition, the President and his agents have spoken at length about these events to 

the press and on social media. Since the impeachment inquiry was announced on September 24, the 

President has made numerous public statements about his communications with President Zelensky 

and his decision-making relating to the hold on security assistance.280

174. The President’s agents have done the same. For example, on October 16, Secretary 

Perry gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal. During the interview, Secretary Perry stated that 

 275 @realDonaldTrump (Oct. 1, 2019, 4:41 PM), https://perma.cc/UX8Z-BFKL. 276 Letter from President Donald J. Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House of 

Representatives (Dec. 17, 2019), https://perma.cc/MY49-HRXH. 277 Id.

278 Oct. 8 Cipollone Letter at 4.

279 Exclusion of Agency Counsel from Congressional Depositions in the Impeachment 

Context, 43 O.L.C. *1 (Nov. 1, 2019), https://perma.cc/T2PH-KC9V (emphasis added). 

280 See, e.g., Trump Sept. 25 Remarks, https://perma.cc/XCJ4-A67L; Trump Sept. 30 

Remarks, https://perma.cc/R94C-5HAY; Remarks by President Trump and President Niinistö of the 

Republic of Finland Before Bilateral Meeting, White House (Oct. 2, 2019), https://perma.cc/FN4D6D8W; Trump Oct. 3 Remarks, https://perma.cc/WM8A-NRA2; Trump Oct. 4 Remarks, 

https://perma.cc/C78K-NMDS; @realDonaldTrump (Nov. 10, 2019, 11:43 AM),

https://perma.cc/F9XH-48Z2; id. (Dec. 4, 2019, 7:50 PM), https://perma.cc/Q4VY-T3CN; id., 

https://perma.cc/3WCM-AQJG. 
SMF 54

after the May 23 meeting at which President Trump refused to schedule a White House meeting 

with President Zelensky, Secretary Perry “sought out Rudy Giuliani this spring at President Trump’s 

direction to address Mr. Trump’s concerns about alleged Ukrainian corruption.”281 During a phone 

call with Secretary Perry, Mr. Giuliani said, “‘Look, the president is really concerned that there are 

people in Ukraine that tried to beat him during this presidential election. . . . He thinks they’re 

corrupt and . . . that there are still people over there engaged that are absolutely corrupt.’”282 

175. On October 17, Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney acknowledged during a White 

House press conference that he discussed security assistance with the President and that the 

President’s decision to withhold it was directly tied to his desire that Ukraine investigate alleged 

Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.283

176. On December 3, 2019, the Intelligence Committee transmitted a detailed nearly 300-

page report documenting its findings about this scheme and about the related investigation into it, to 

the Judiciary Committee.284 The Judiciary Committee held public hearings evaluating the 

constitutional standard for impeachment and the evidence against President Trump—in which the 

President’s counsel was invited to participate, but declined—and then reported two Articles of 

Impeachment to the House.285 

 281 Rick Perry Called Rudy Giuliani, https://perma.cc/S2ED-AUPR. 282 Id. (quoting Secretary Rick Perry).

283 Oct. 17 Briefing, https://perma.cc/Q45H-EMC7. 284 H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 11 (“On December 3, 2019, in consultation with the Committees 

on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, HPSCI released and voted to adopt a report of 

nearly 300 pages detailing its extensive findings about the President’s abuse of his office and 

obstruction of Congress.”). 

285 The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential 

Impeachment: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Dec. 4, 2019); The Impeachment 

Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Presentations from H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence and H. 

Comm. on the Judiciary Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Dec. 9, 2019).
SMF 55

177. The President maintained his obstructionist position throughout this process, 

declaring the House’s investigation “illegitimate” in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on December 

17, 2019.

286 President Trump further attempted to undermine the House’s inquiry by dismissing 

impeachment as “illegal, invalid, and unconstitutional”287 and by intimidating and threatening an 

anonymous Intelligence Community whistleblower as well as the patriotic public servants who 

honored their subpoenas and testified before the House.288

178. On December 18, 2019, the House voted to impeach President Trump and adopted 

two Articles of Impeachment.

289

C. Following President Trump’s Directive, the Executive Branch Refused to 

Produce Requested and Subpoenaed Documents

179. Adhering to President Trump’s directive, every Executive Branch agency that 

received an impeachment inquiry request or subpoena defied it.290 

180. House Committees issued document requests or subpoenas to the White House, the 

Office of the Vice President, OMB, the Department of State, DOD, and the Department of 

Energy.291

 286 See, e.g., Letter from President Donald J. Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House of 

Representatives (Dec. 17, 2019), https://perma.cc/Y6X4-TTPR. 287 Katie Rogers, At Louisiana Rally, Trump Lashes Out at Impeachment Inquiry and Pelosi, N.Y.

TIMES (Oct. 11, 2019), https://perma.cc/RX9Z-DQHK. 288 See e.g., Danny Cevallos, Trump Tweeted as Marie Yovanovitch Testified: Was It Witness 

Tampering?, NBC News (Nov. 16, 2019), https://perma.cc/RG5N-EQYN; @realDonaldTrump 

(Sept. 29, 2019, 3:53 PM), https://perma.cc/9C3P-E437; Trump War Room—Text FIGHT to 

88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) (Dec. 26, 2019, 1:50 PM), https://perma.cc/M5H7-B4VS (retweeted by 

@realDonaldTrump on Dec. 26, 2019).

289 H. Res. 755, 116th Cong (2019). 290 See H. Rep. No. 116-335, at 180-92.

291 Oct. 4 Letter, https://perma.cc/6RXE-WER8; Letter from Chairman Eliot L. Engel, 

House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, et al., to Vice President Michael R. Pence (Oct. 4, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/E6TR-5N5F; Letter from Chairman Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select 

Comm. on Intelligence, et al., to Russell T. Vought, Acting Dir., Office of Mgmt. & Budget (Oct. 7, 

2019), https://perma.cc/2HBV-2LNB; Letter from Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Comm. on 

Foreign Affairs, et al., to Michael R. Pompeo, Sec’y, Dep’t of State (Sept. 27, 2019), 
SMF 56

181. In its response, the Office of the Vice President echoed Mr. Cipollone’s assertions 

that the impeachment inquiry was procedurally invalid,292 while agencies such as OMB and DOD

expressly cited the President’s directive.

293 

182. The Executive Branch has refused to produce any documents in response to the 

Committees’ valid, legally binding subpoenas, even though witness testimony has revealed that 

highly relevant records exist.294 

183. Indeed, by virtue of President Trump’s order, not a single document has been 

produced by the White House, the Office of the Vice President, OMB, the Department of State, 

 

https://perma.cc/8N7L-VSDR; Letter from Chairman Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select 

Comm. on Intelligence, et al., to Mark Esper, Sec’y, Dep’t of Def. (Oct. 7, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/LMU8-XWE9; Letter from Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Comm. on Foreign 

Affairs, et al., to Rick Perry, Sec’y, Dep’t of Energy (Oct. 10, 2019), https://perma.cc/586S-AR8A. 292 Letter from Matthew E. Morgan, Counsel to the Vice President, to Chairman Elijah E. 

Cummings, House Comm. on Oversight and Reform, et al. (Oct. 15, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/L6LD-C4YM. 293 Letter from Jason Yaworske, Assoc. Dir. for Legislative Affairs, Office of Mgmt. & 

Budget, to Chairman Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence (Oct. 15, 

2019), https://perma.cc/AL7W-YBLR; Letter from Robert R. Hood, Assistant Sec’y of Def. for 

Legislative Affairs, Dep’t of Def., to Chairman Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select Comm. on 

Intelligence, et al. (Oct. 15, 2019), https://perma.cc/79ZG-ASGM. 294 See, e.g., Vindman-Williams Hearing Tr. at 31-32 (briefing materials for President Trump’s 

call with President Zelensky on July 25 prepared by Lt. Col. Vindman, Director for Ukraine at the 

NSC); Vindman Dep. Tr. at 53 and Morrison Dep. Tr. at 19-20 (notes relating to the July 25 call 

taken by Lt. Col. Vindman and Mr. Morrison, the former Senior Director for Europe and Russia on 

the NSC); Vindman Dep. Tr. at 186-87 and Morrison Dep. Tr. at 166-67 (an August 15 “Presidential 

decision memo” prepared by Lt. Col. Vindman and approved by Mr. Morrison conveying “the 

consensus views from the entire deputies small group” that “the security assistance be released”); 

Cooper Dep. Tr. at 42-43 (NSC staff summaries of conclusions from meetings at the principal, 

deputy, or sub-deputy level relating to Ukraine, including military assistance); Sondland Hearing Tr. 

at 78-79 (call records between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland,); Vindman Dep. Tr. at 

36-37 (NSC Legal Advisor Eisenberg’s notes and correspondence relating to discussions with Lt. 

Col. Vindman regarding the July 10 meetings in which Ambassador Sondland requested 

investigations in exchange for a White House meeting); Holmes Dep. Tr. at 31 (the memorandum of 

conversation from President Trump’s meeting in New York with President Zelensky on September 

25); Sondland Opening Statement (emails and other messages between Ambassador Sondland and 

senior White House officials, including Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney, Senior Advisor to the Chief 

of Staff Blair, and then-National Security Advisor Bolton, among other high-level Trump 

Administration officials).
SMF 57

DOD, or the Department of Energy in response to 71 specific, individualized requests or demands 

for records in their possession, custody, or control. These agencies and offices also blocked many 

current and former officials from producing records to the Committees.295 

184. Certain witnesses, however, defied the President’s order and identified the substance 

of key documents. For example, Lt. Col. Vindman described a “Presidential Decision Memo” he 

prepared in August that conveyed the “consensus views” among foreign policy and national security 

officials that the hold on aid to Ukraine should be released.296 Other witnesses identified additional 

documents that the President and various agencies were withholding from Congress that were 

directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry.297

185. Some responsive documents have been released by the State Department, DOD, and

OMB pursuant to judicial orders issued in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA).

298 Although limited in scope and heavily redacted, these FOIA 

productions confirm that the Trump Administration is withholding highly pertinent documents 

from Congress without any valid legal basis.299

 295 See H. Rep. No. 116-335, at 180-244.

296 Vindman Dep. Tr. at 186-87; Morrison Dep. Tr. at 166-67; see also, e.g., Sandy Dep. Tr. at 

58-60 (describing an OMB memorandum prepared in August that recommended removing the 

hold). 

297 Taylor Dep. Tr. at 33-34, 45-46 (describing August 27 cable to Secretary Pompeo, 

WhatsApp messages with Ukrainian and American officials, and notes); Volker Dep. Tr. at 20 

(describing State Department’s possession of substantial paper trail of correspondence concerning 

meetings with Ukraine); Yovanovitch Dep. Tr. at 61 (describing classified email to Under Secretary 

Hale); id. at 197-200 (describing a dispute between George Kent and the State Department 

pertaining to subpoenaed documents). 

298 See, e.g., State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight, American 

Oversight (Nov. 22, 2019), https://perma.cc/N7K2-D7G3; Joint Status Report at 1, American 

Oversight v. Dep’t of State, No. 19-cv-2934 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019), ECF No. 19.

299 For example, documents produced by OMB, unredacted copies of which reportedly were 

obtained by the online forum Just Security, corroborate the witnesses who testified that the military 

aid for Ukraine was withheld at the express direction of President Trump and that the White House 

was informed that doing so may violate the law. See Just Security Report, https://perma.cc/VA6URYPK. 
SMF 58

D. President Trump Ordered Top Aides Not to Testify, Even Pursuant to 

Subpoena

186. President Trump directed government witnesses to violate their legal obligations and 

defy House subpoenas—regardless of their offices or positions. In some instances, the President 

personally directed that senior aides defy subpoenas on the ground that they are “absolutely 

immune” from compelled testimony.300 Other officials refused to appear “as directed by” Mr. 

Cipollone’s October 8 letter.301 Still others refused to appear because—consistent with the House 

Deposition Rules drafted by the then-majority Republicans—agency counsel was not permitted in 

the depositions.302 

187. This Administration-wide effort to prevent witnesses from providing testimony was 

coordinated and comprehensive. In total, twelve current or former Administration officials refused 

to testify as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry into the Ukrainian matter, nine of whom did 

so in defiance of duly authorized subpoenas.303 House Committees advised such witnesses that their 

refusal to testify may be used as an adverse inference against the President.304 Nonetheless—despite 

 300 See Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to William Pittard, Counsel to 

Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Nov. 8, 2019), https://perma.cc/9PHC-84AM; Letter from 

Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to William Burck, Counsel to Deputy Counsel to the 

President for Nat’l Security Affairs John Eisenberg (Nov. 3, 2019), https://perma.cc/QP4GYMKQ. 

301 See, e.g., Letter from Jason A. Yaworske, Associate Dir. for Leg. Affairs, Office of Mgmt. 

& Budget, to Chairman Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence (Nov. 4, 

2019), https://perma.cc/4AYC-8SD9 (asserting OMB’s “position that, as directed by the White 

House Counsel’s October 8, 2019 letter, OMB will not participate in this partisan and unfair 

inquiry,” and that three OMB officials would therefore defy subpoenas for their testimony). 

302 See H. Rep. No. 116-335, at 195, 198-99, 201, 203. Such witnesses included Robert Blair, 

Michael Ellis, P. Wells Griffith, Russell Vought, and Brian McCormack. Id.

303 See id. at 193-206 (describing and quoting from correspondence with each witness who 

refused to appear). 

304 See H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 200, 365; see, e.g., Letter from Chairman Adam B. Schiff, 

House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, et al., to Michael Duffey, Assoc. Dir. for Nat’l Sec. 

Programs, Office of Mgmt. & Budget (Oct. 25, 2019), https://perma.cc/3S5B-FH94; Email from 

Daniel S. Noble, Senior Investigative Counsel, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, to 
SMF 59

being instructed by senior political appointees not to cooperate with the House’s impeachment 

inquiry, in directives that frequently cited or enclosed copies of Mr. Cipollone’s October 8 letter305—

many current and former officials complied with their legal obligations to appear for testimony. 

188. House Committees conducted depositions or transcribed interviews of seventeen 

witnesses.306 All members of the Committees—as well as staff from the Majority and the 

Minority—were permitted to attend. The Majority and Minority were allotted an equal amount of 

time to question witnesses.307 

189. In late November 2019, twelve of these witnesses testified in public hearings 

convened by the Intelligence Committee, including three witnesses called by the Minority.308

190. Unable to silence certain witnesses, President Trump resorted to intimidation tactics 

to penalize them.309 He also levied sustained attacks on the anonymous whistleblower.310

 

Mick Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff to the President (Nov. 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/A62P5ACG. 

305 See, e.g., Letter from Brian Bulatao, Under Sec’y of State for Mgmt., Dep’t of State, to 

Lawrence S. Robbins, Counsel to Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch 1 (Oct. 10, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/48UC-KJCM (“I write on behalf of the Department of State, pursuant to the 

President’s instruction reflected in Mr. Cipollone’s letter, to instruct your client . . . consistent with 

Mr. Cipollone’s letter, not to appear before the Committees.”); id. at 3-10 (enclosing Mr. Cipollone’s

letter); Letter from David L. Norquist, Deputy Sec’y of Def., Dep’t of Def., to Daniel Levin, 

Counsel to Deputy Assistant Sec’y of Def. Laura K. Cooper 1-2 (Oct. 22, 2019), 

https://perma.cc/WM97-DZJZ (“This letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the Administrationwide direction that Executive Branch personnel ‘cannot participate in [the impeachment] inquiry 

under these circumstances.’” (quoting Mr. Cipollone’s letter)); id. at 25-32 (enclosing Mr. Cipollone’s 

letter).

306 See H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 9; see also Read for Yourself: President Trump’s Abuse of Power, 

House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, https://perma.cc/2L54-YY9P. 307 See H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 9.

308 See id. at 10-11.

309 See H. Rep. No. 116-335, at 217-20 (detailing the ways that “President Trump publicly 

attacked and intimidated witnesses who came forward to comply with duly authorized subpoenas 

and testify about his conduct.”); H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 366-67.

310 See H. Rep. No. 116-335, at 221-23 (detailing the ways that President Trump “threatened 

and attacked an Intelligence Community whistleblower”); H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 366-67.
SMF 60

E. President Trump’s Conduct Was Consistent with His Previous Efforts to 

Obstruct Investigations into Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections

191. President Trump’s obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry was consistent 

with his previous efforts to undermine Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation of Russia’s 

interference in the 2016 election and of the President’s own misconduct. 

192. President Trump repeatedly used his powers of office to undermine and derail the 

Mueller investigation, particularly after learning that he was personally under investigation for 

obstruction of justice.311 Among other things, President Trump ordered White House Counsel Don 

McGahn to fire Special Counsel Mueller;312 instructed Mr. McGahn to create a record and issue 

statements falsely denying this event;313 sought to curtail Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation in a 

manner exempting his own prior conduct;314 and tampered with at least two key witnesses.315 

President Trump has since instructed McGahn to defy a House Committee’s subpoena for 

testimony, and his DOJ has erroneously argued that the courts can play no role in enforcing 

Congressional subpoenas.316 

193. Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation—like the House’s impeachment inquiry—

sought to uncover whether President Trump coordinated with a foreign government in order to 

obtain an improper advantage during a Presidential election.317 And the Mueller investigation—like 

the House’s impeachment inquiry—exposed President Trump’s eagerness to benefit from foreign 

 311 See generally Mueller Report, Vol. II; H. Rep. No. 116-346, at 159-61.

312 Mueller Report, Vol. II at 85-86.

313 Id., Vol. II at 114-17.

314 Id., Vol. II at 90-93.

315 Id., Vol. II at 120-56.

316 See Comm. on the Judiciary v. McGahn, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 19-2379. 2019 WL 

6312011 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019), appeal pending, No. 19-5331 (D.C. Cir.). The U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the case on January 3, 2020.

317 Mueller Report, Vol. I at 1 (describing the scope of the order appointing Special Counsel 

Mueller).
SMF 61

election interference.318 In the former instance, the President used his powers of office to 

undermine an investigation conducted by officials within the Executive Branch.319 In the latter, he 

attempted to block the United States House of Representatives from exercising its “sole Power of 

Impeachment” assigned by the Constitution. In both instances, President Trump obstructed 

investigations into foreign election interference to hide his own misconduct. 

 318 See, e.g., id., Vol. I at 1-2 (the Trump Campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from 

information stolen and released through Russian efforts”). 

319 See generally id., Vol. II. As the Mueller Report summarizes, the Special Counsel’s 

investigation “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence 

over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction 

investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the 

President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from 

efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to 

the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect 

contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.” Id., Vol. II at 157.