tv Bill Hemmer Reports FOX News January 22, 2020 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
nation. in the rule of law in the study decline of the spread of democratic values throughout the world. so how can the country trust the united states as a model of governance if it's the one that sanctions precisely the political corruption and invitation to foreign meddling that we have long sought to help eradicate in burgeoning durham accuracies the world. to protect interference in our elections we have guardrails built into our democratic system. we have campaign finance laws to ensure that political systems can come only from domestic actors and we take seriously the need to shore up the integrity of our voting systems so the government or actor cannot change vote tallies.
americans decide american elections. at least they should. now what if electoral corruption is even more insidious? what happens when the invitation comes from within. our framers understood that threat, too. george may masson noted that the impeachment was a necessary tool because the man who has practiced corruption and, by that means, procured his appointment in the first instance, could seek to repeat his guilt? in june of last year, president trump was clear that if a foreign government offered dirt on his political opponent, he would take it. the former electoral
commission's chair and our constitution and it admonishes that any person holding the office of profit or trust, it admonishes against them accepting of any president from a foreign state. the president trump did more then take that in 2019 as he had done in 2016. when he didn't get the help from ukrainian president, and he withheld military aid and a coveted white house meeting to increase the pressure on the ukraine to apply. later he demonstrated no real remorse and continue to conduct the political investigations. the consequences of these actions alone have shaken our
democratic system. if you choose to not hold thi this -- and our upcoming election. the misconduct undertaken by this president may lead future presidents to believe that they, too, can use substantial power conferred upon them in order to undermine it. and no campaign finance law, and electoral misconduct set to my house by the united states, if we do not say clearly that this behavior is unacceptable and more than unacceptable, impeachable. we also undermine our global understanding. as a country long viewed as a
model for democratic ideals worth emulating, we have for generations been the shining city upon a hill that president reagan described. america is not just a country but also an idea. we do not affirm the very values that underpin it and maybe it's too difficult, maybe it's impossible, value not freedom and fair elections but the unending rule of an oppressive executive. autocrats that not valued the freedom of the press and open
debate but disinformation, propaganda and state sanctioned lies. vladimir putin would like nothing better. the russians have little democracy left thanks to vladimir putin. it's an autocracy, it's a dog-autocracy. the russian propaganda, the russian view that they would like people around the world to believe is that, every country is just the same. just the same corrupt system. make no bones about their loss of democracy. they just want the rest of the world to believe they can't find it anywhere.
why take to the streets of moscow to demand something better? that's the russian story. that's the russian story. that's not other democracies, that's the autocrats. i think all of this us in this room had grown up in a generation where any successive generation lived with with one who came before. we each had more freedom of speech and association, freedom to practice our faith. this was true at home and all over the world. i think we came to believe this
was some law of nature, only to find it isn't. only to come to the terrible realization that this year fewer people have a freedom that lasts. and there's no guarantee that next year people will live in more freedom than today. and the prospects for our children is even more in doubt. turns out there is nothing immutable about this. every generation has to fight for it. there is no guarantee that this democracy that has served us so well will continue to prosper. we will struggle to protect this idea and even as we do, we will struggle to protect our security in more tangible ways.
support for an independent and democratic ukraine which is the liberal bulk work against russian expansionism in europe which is essential to our security. russia would have invaded ukraine in 2015 and sought to redraw the map of europe. was our commitment to ukraine's independence and sovereignty just an empty promise, or are we prepared to support its efforts to keep russia contained so that we and they may all eventually enjoy a long piece. russia was not a threat, as i need to tell you, to eastern europe alone. and whether that is of voting
systems or financial markets. the kremlin shoulder boldly and 2016 that with the malign skills that honed in the ukraine, they would not stay in the ukraine. they protect our institutions and will do so again. indeed, they have never stopped. will we allow the primary country now fighting russia to be weakened, placing our troops in europe at greater risk and opening the door to greater interference in our affairs at home? if we allow the president the president of the united states to pursue his political and personal interest rather than the national interest, we send the message to our european allies that our commitment to a free is for sale to the highest bidder. that's what the alliance stands for, when built on the rule of law.
a shared struggle against aggression on democratic regim regimes. not unyielding to a president that would be king. the president has a right to hold a call with a foreign leader. and yes, is right to hold funding to that leader, should the law be followed and the purpose to be just? but he does not under our laws and our constitution have the right to use the powers of his office to use corrupt foreign aid in his election. he does not. he did secure is that assistance and he certainly does not have the right to undermine our election and places security at risk, no president, republican
or democrat could be permitted to do that. now let me turn to the second article of impeachment which charges the powers of his office to obstruct an interview with the employee. the evidence you will hear during his presentation is equally undeniable and. president trump issued a blanket order for the entire executive branch not to cooperate with impeachment inquiry and withhold all documents and testimony. his order was categorical and it was indiscriminate and no president before president trump has ever ordered the complete defiance of impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. the president was able to block
agencies across the executive branch to produce any records or documents to the house executive committees despite duly executive subpoenas. they refused to produce a single document or record in response to a house subpoena that remains in full force and effect. the department of state and management and budget, continue to refuse to provide a single document or record in response to how subpoenas that remain in full force and effect. it's worth underscoring this point. the house has yet to receive a single document from the executive branch agency is. not a single piece of paper, email or other record has been turned over, not one. while ip i pause to get a drinkf
water, i will let you know for your timing that my presentation has about 10 minutes left. so the end is in sight. president trump has also successfully blocked witnesses, nine of them from testifying. witnesses from first-hand knowledge of the president's actions including his closest aides, some of them were directly involved with executing the president's improper orders. these witnesses include mick mulvaney and robert blair, and the office of management and budget, mike duffy the senior official in the president's chief advisor on the national security council, john eisenberg, among others. the managers will present in detail what these officials knew about their role in executing different parts of the president's scheme. there is no dispute, nor could
there be that president trump trump substantially -- even as we stand here at the start of the president's trial. the president was able to do so only because of the uniquely powerful position that he holds as commander in chief. no other american could use the vast powers and levers of the government to conduct a corrupt scheme to benefit themselves and then use those same powers to suppress evidence. not a police chief, not a mirr mirror. not a governor, not any elected official in the country and certainly not any nonelected official in the country. for those folks watching us around the country, you know
what would happen to them if they defined a lawful subpoena. you know what would happen to them. because they are not above the law. they would be arrested, detained, incarcerated and forced to comply. they are not above the law and neither are we and neither is the president. and yet, despite the fact that he is not above the law, the president's extensive and persistent efforts -- the president, the house heard from courageous witnesses who did obey subpoenas. and we gathered overwhelming evidence that forms the basis of these articles. the second article for obstruction of congress is not simply about president trump's decision to obstruct a
congressional investigation or even an impeachment inquiry. it should not be some routine dispute for between two branches of government. the charges in the second article are much more serious and urgent than that. first, the president's attempt to obstruct the inquiry so categorically and comprehensively is part and parcel of the president's effort to conceal, suppress and cover up his own misconduct. from the very first moment his actions were at the risk of coming to light, presidents hopped to hide and cover up key evidence even as the scheme to pressure the ukraine was still underway. as a house presentation, we will make clear that the president's cover-up started even before the house began to cover-up the ukraine related activity. the president learned early on
the existence of a lawful whistle-blower complaint from within the intelligence community that rang the first alarm. he deployed the white house and justice department to intervene in an unprecedented fashion to conceal and then withhold from congress for the first time ever and incredible and urgent whistle-blower complaint even though the law requires that it be provided to the congressional intelligence committees. once the impeachment inquiry was underway in late september, the president use of the immense and unique power at his disposal to direct and maintain at every turn the categorical defiance of congressional scrutiny even as he attacked the inquiry itself and his witnesses. the president added multiple and shifting reservations for obstructing the houses inquiry, each of them deficient while his actions and statements powerfully reflect his own consciousness of guilt.
second, the ramification go beyond of the sinister motives. his obstruction strikes at the heart of our constitution and it threatens the last line of defense our founders purposely enshrined in our system to protect democracy. the president can obstruct an impeachment inquiry undertaken by the house and evade accountability in the senate and, by doing so, the presidents could seize for themselves the power to neutralize and nullify the impeachment clause in order to shield themselves from any accountability. if congress is unable to impeach a president for abuse of their office, our democracy's essential check on the road president would fail. it would no longer protect the american people from a corrupt president who presents an
ongoing threat. this is the outcome every american should be concerned about and one that the founders warned us about. through the impeachment clause the framers of the constitution empowered congress, and to respond if necessary. that depends upon congress' ability to discover and thoroughly and effectively investigate presidential misconduct. without the ability to do that, the in impeachment power is a nullity. what we confront here in the second article of impeachment, they destroy the power itself.
with and it does so without lawful cause or excuse for attacks, the constitution itself. he confirms he sees himself above the law. his actions destabilize the separation of powers that defines our democracy and preserves our freedom and he proves he's willing to destroy a vital safeguard against tyranny, is a card meant to protect the american people just to advance his own personal interest and covering up evidence. they will confirm the presence of restriction and why an effort is in and of itself an
impeachable offense. second, by the president's extensive effort to cover up evidence of this misconduct is unprecedented in american history and without cause or justification. and why it poses a direct threat to our system of governance with consequences for all americans today and in the future and for both chambers of congress. over the coming days you will hear from the house managers, details of this scheme and an effort to hide it from congress. the articles impeachment will mike of impeachment that the house presented go to the heart of those efforts. and let me share a few key takeaways. the house of representatives has found that using the powers of his office, president trump
solicited the powers of a foreign government, the ukraine, and he did so with the scheme that solicited the government of the ukraine that would benefit his reelection. and influence the 2020 u.s. presidential election improperly and to his advantage. they engaged in the scheme of course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of his personal political benefit. in doing so president trump use the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the united states, and undermined the integrity of the union u.s. democratic process.
he thus ignored and injured the interest of the nation. as part of the houses impeachment inquiry, the committee's undertaking that investigations serve subpoenas, documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various executive branch agencies and offices current and former officials. with response and without cause and excuse, president trump directed executive branch agencies come offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. president trump thus interpose the proper powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the house of representatives, and assume to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the house of representatives.
george washington and his troops retreated across the delaware river in early 2017, decembe december 1776. they read the words of thomas paine published in his pamphlet that month," the american crisis." use of the times that try men's souls, the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country. but he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. 17 days later, george washington crossed the delaware leading to a decisive victory for those who would come to shape our promising young country. as much as our founders feared an unchecked chief executive unable to pursue his own will for the people, they also feared
the poison of excessive factionalism that could divert us from a difficult service to our country. as george washington warned in his farewell address, the common and continual mistress of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people due to scourge and restrain it. our political parties and affiliations are central to our democracy, ensuring that good and bad political philosophies alike are considered the marketplace of ideas. and make decisions about their political leaders, based upon the degree to which that person represents their interests and values. that is not factionalism, that is the foundation of our democracy. when a leader takes the reins of the highest office in our land
and uses that awesome power to solicit the help of a foreign country to gain an unfair advantage in our free and fair elections, we all, democrats and republicans alike must ask ourselves whether our loyalty is to our party or whether it is to our constitution. if we say that we align ourselves with that leader, allowing our sense of duty to be usurped by an executive, that's not a democracy. that is a step on the road to tyranny. that will be remedied over time. and, the ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support in congress. but if we fail to act, the damage to our democratic elections, to our national security and our system of
checks and balances will be long-lasting and potentially irreversible. as you will hear in the coming days, president trump has acted in a manner o grossly incompatie with self-governance. this conduct has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. he has shown no willingness to be constrained by the rule of law and has demonstrated that he will continue to abuse his power and obstruct investigations into himself causing further damage to the pillars of our democracy if he is not held accountable. he cannot be charged with the crime, so says the department of justice. there is no remedy for such a threat but removal from office of the president of the united states. if impeachment and removal cannot hold him accountable then
he truly is above the law. we are nearly two and a half centuries into this beautiful experiment of american democracy but our future is not assured. as benjamin franklin departed the constitutional correction, and impartial consideration from all of the evidence against the president is how we keep our republic. that concludes our introduction. >> i suggest we have a recess until 10 minutes until four, at which moment we will reconvene so we can call the chair. >> without objection, so order
ordered. >> bill: so the opening arguments have begun. representative adam schiff, the lead house manager making a 30,000-foot view of what the case is against the president and why the democrats and these house managers believe that president donald j. trump should be removed from office because an abuse of power and obstruction of justice. the founding father is concerned about precisely what and how the president has acted. republicans of course would point to the founding fathers differently and their concern can could continue to be used in as a partisan wedge, basically a back and forth to the party in control. he has laid out the argument, but now this is only two and a half hours of 24 in which they can make the case and a date a
fashion. >> he mentioned that he will be targeting to this. he's going over a lot of ground that has been plowed already but as you say, as a lot of grandiose references to the founding fathers. he sort of have like a hamilton off going here between adam schiff and the white house which is also putting out the hamilton quotes that they pref prefer, which is the danger of it becoming political and that political weapon being the greatest danger. obviously, the stakes are huge here. the president was accused of answering something he didn't do, and
>> bill: just a quick logistical point, we don't control the cameras. >> we wish we did. >> bill: we can show you the senators and others but we have control of this, outside in the hallways, with the pool camera. but the senate tv would give you that one shot. we are going to squeeze in a quick break, as we wait for the trumpet impeachment trial to resume. an analysis from our panel of what seems like thousands. >> man: what's my safelite story?
and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady. >> we are back on capitol hill and jay sekulow speaking during the senate break. let's listen in. >> we will do it in a more
orderly and i hope systematic fashion. we have to do it one at a time. i can't make any determination as to how long our proceedings are going to go. >> no, i don't do that and i don't conversations. last question. >> how much of your presentation will be based on rebutting what you are hearing today and the next few days? >> obviously, we will challenge aggressively what they are putting forward based on what we are hearing, and we will do both. thank you very much. >> bill: jay sekulow one of our presidents lawyers, we saw him yesterday making the ground rules and how that will play o
out. joining us now is fox news sunday host and anchor chris wallace. your thoughts? >> well as you were discussing, i thought he really said it all. if you give the constitutional underpinnings and went into great detail on the facts and the timeline of this action by the president starting in the spring of 2019 until september of 2019. he gave the emotional arguments, the large arguments as to what the real significance to the future of the country and our national security is, he opened with alexander hamilton and close with george washington, and i thought he said it all. he had 21 hours and 40 minutes left to go and that really does raise the question.
my lord, three days and 24 hours, you just wonder how many times they keep making the same point. it will be the same for the white house during their effort. and i do think the larger audience, at what point do you think you have overstated your case? >> they are making a from ground zero. one thing that's still a factor today is how house manager jerry nadler dealt with talking to the senators overnight. senator josh hawley clerked for supreme court john roberts and reacted to that back-and-forth earlier today. >> i've worked -- that statement
for him is a very extraordinary thing. i've never heard him deliver an admonishment like that from the bench come ever. he chooses his words very, very carefully. >> basically what he said to both sides is, you have to realize where you are but it came after the nadler exist exchange. i've heard about it and seen clips of it today because of have been past midnight last night, and nadler talked about all the lies that have been made by senators and in then, set hee back and said -- it's you who has been lying. and josh hawley, i think to most of us it's extremely mild and extremely measured and
john roberts and in effect said, you need to think of the place and what you are speaking. although lord knows there's been sharp language in the senate plenty of times before. it was striking, no question about it. by chief justice standards it was pretty remarkable. i just want to make one point that adam schiff used a lot. they are saying, mick mulvaney, and that is in detail. that is not what mick mulvaney set at all. he did say get over it but he was talking specifically about the fact that there are foreign policies. they will have a different political flavor and different policy agenda than one donald trump is.
and each president they are elected is fulfilling his mandate. he wasn't saying this kind of quid pro quo, get over it, just accept it, he was talking specifically about the idea of policy and politics in a foreign policy agenda. so quite frankly, and i think that adam schiff made an effective auditing comic argument for his side of the case but he completely misrepresented what mick mulvaney said when he said, "get over it." >> we seen that a few times in terms of adam schiff, and the president understandably has not let him forget it. in that moment with mick mulvaney as well and even the parsing of the actual transcript itself, would you do us a favor and, sort of linking not to the actual activity of the request for the investigation, there has been a lot of sort of massaging of words on both sides to sort of benefit each side and i don't
think it has really moved peop people. i feel like we've heard this argument many, many times and i'm not sure who is convinced and whose mind is changed at this point in the game. not dramatic, but there has been a slight slippage and i'm not sure what degree those people are convinced of the arguments to one side or the other. but to some degree it's just a feeling, and increasing feeling that some people. we are nine months before an election, whether you like what president trump did or whether you don't like what he did, you want to take that really dramatic step of removing and ejecting a duly elected president with 60 million votes and not just let the public decide or the voters decide come december. >> bill: we are looking live at -- chuck schumer is pointing
with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ can you help keep these iguys protected online?? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity.
and mine super soft? yes! with the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? no problem ...and done. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. don't miss the final days to save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. plus, 0% interest for 36-months. ends saturday. >> welcome back everybody. >> senator schumer miller is about to speak, we saw a lot of gesticulating moments ago, and katie pavlov is joining us in just a moment but less listen to
senator schumer. >> i think good number of our republican colleagues for the first time or the arguments powerfully, succinctly and completely. and i'm hopeful that can begin to change minds. in addition, the american peop people, the american people have heard many of the arguments powerfully, completely and succinctly. i don't see how any senator or democrat or republican could sit on the floor and here adam schiff and not demand witnesses and documents. there were so many powerful parts of his speech, so many things, what did mulvaney say before and after his speech. what made him rejected. what did bolton really think? the documents right before the days of the 24th, 25th and 26th which we have requested, july,
very, very important. so i thought it was an amazing two and a half hours, and i'm hopeful. we have seen that the public pressure for a fair trial has had some effect. yesterday in a good number of republicans went to leader mcconnell and said we need to improve the resolution. they didn't improve it on the main area, witnesses and documents but they did improve it in a few other places. with the attention of the nation we are focused on this issue more than it has ever been that there will be continued pressure on many republican members to ask for witnesses and documents. there was a little -- while there was an amendment and they were saying all along, don't vote for them now, this is what the president's lawyer said. don't vote for them now, we will have a chance later.
but there is not a sure chance later, we introduced an amendment that said there would be a sure chance to vote on documents and they rejected it but if anything that may put more pressure on people by the end of the week to vote for witnesses and documents. >> do you know more about the democratic strategy and whether or not jerry nadler alienated some of those patterns? >> okay look. the chief justice chastised -- rhetoric that he thought should be toned down. i was so impressed with the house manager's case, it was on the facts and answers the questions and talks about why we have witnesses and documents. the president's lawyers never answered the witnesses and documents. they talked about a lot of other things and did some finger-pointing, and i think if
you would listen to both sides he would have sided with the house managers and couldn't correctly answer the question as to why we have witnesses and documents. b: do you think jerry nadler is right? >> i answer that question on that issue. >> first of all, the republicans have a right to bring in any witness they want, they haven't wanted to. and that trade is not on the table. >> what more do house managers want to say? >> house managers continue to what they've done over the last two hours. i think it will continue to make a powerful case. a, first step, documents. second step, a fair trial.
and -- and they change their minds on a couple of things that mcconnell put in the resolution. it may have been on witnesses and documents. but i certainly think it's out of the question. >> the only potential for a troop game changer here and that opens up a can of worms if that happens, that could be a game changer.
>> president trump: i would rather go the long way. i would rather interview bolton. i would rather interview a lot of people. the problem with john's it's a national security problem. he knows some of my thoughts and he knows what i think about the leaders, you think about a certain leader and it's not very positive and i have to deal, i don't know if we left on the best of terms, i would say probably not. we don't like people testifying when they didn't leave on good terms. >> let's bring in town hall editor fox news contributor katie pavlich. >> if they continue to talk about witnesses which is a big topic. there are bringing witnesses potentially who arty testified in the house inquiry and then there's the potential bringing in and subpoenaing outside witnesses that have not been part of this process as of yet.
in the past, we have not seen people who testified previously in the house inquiry and the house impeachment comes before the senate to testify. that may change. there have been discussions of trading may be may be hunter biden for john bolton which isn't really a fair trade considering the executive privilege president that the white house not trying to cite here when it comes to protecting the office of the president and executive privilege that he has or she has going forward despite it not being -- whether it's donald trump or not. when it comes to what adam schiff has asked for in terms of witnesses, it seems like immigrants want witnesses but not the ones that republicans want. before this whole thing started, chief justice roberts and said, hunter biden isn't a relevant figure in this case and we certainly shouldn't call him a distractor of the impeachment abusing process. so the july 25th, and that's how
they have -- >> dana and juan are standing by. do you think they're moving the ball here for the democrat side of the equation? saying a lot of people that are hearing this the first time, and this is the most googled question, why is the president being impeached? apparently there are a lot of people out there that asked this question. >> you have to also ask where the audiences, and i would imagine an early afternoon is not going to draw a large number of people. and i think if they are watchi
watching, that's a commanding performance by adam schiff. clearly he's in command and not only of the facts but the narrative, but i think that over two hours it looked like he was reading to some extent from notes but in a way that suggested this is coming from his mind to come and his heart, this is how he sees this case. and let's say democrats are seeking additional witnesses and seeking to bring in additional documents, but they said they had a case and that they had two articles of impeachment. if they have a case, why don't they presented? well today, adam schiff really lived up to it. that's a compelling case, and we see that change coming down the pike. >> we know the republican side of that discussion is that
neither of those two articles of impeachment rise to the level of how the constitution describes impeachment. >> the obstruction of congress article lists nine officials that were supposed to testify in the house. it specifically lists nine and some of these are on the wish list, but mulvaney was the first one. >> yes, however that obstruction article is clearly the weakest one. i thought the white house team made a pretty convincing case yesterday. never mind. >> let's listen to jerry nadler. >> we thank you truly, thank you. the house managers will now tell you the story of the president's ukraine game. as we tell the story, it is important to note that the facts
before us are not in dispute. there are no close calls. the evidence shows that president trump unlawfully withheld military assistance. appropriated by congress to aid our ally in order to extort that government and helping him with his reelection. then try to cover it up when he got caught. this is the story of a corrupt government-wide effort that drew in ambassadors, cabinet officials, executive branch agencies, and the office of the president. this effort threatens the security of ukraine and its military struggle with russia. and compromise our own national security interests because the president cared only about his personal political interests. in the spring of 2019, at the people of ukraine elected a new leader. volodymyr zelensky who campaigned on a platform of rooting out corruption i in his
country. by the new government also threatened the work of president trump's chief agent in ukraine, rudy giuliani. as president zelensky was taking power, mr. giuliani was already engaged in an effort to convince ukrainian officials to announce two sham investigations. the first was an effort to smear former vice president joe biden. the second was designed to undermine the intelligence community's unanimous assessment that russia interfered in the 2016 election. one obstacle to mr. giuliani's work was ambassador yovanovitch. a33 year veteran of the foreign service, ambassador yovanovitch had partnered with ukraine to root out the kind of correction that would have allowed mr. giuliani's lies to flourish.
in order to complete his mission, mr. giuliani first needed ambassador yovanovitch out of the way. in early 2019, mr. giuliani launched a public smear campaign against ambassador, and effort that involved mr. giuliani's allies in ukraine, the president's allies in the united states, and eventually, president trump himself. please remember that the object of the president's ukraine scheme was to obtain a corrupt advantage for his reelection campaign. as we will show, the president went to extort her links to cheat in that next election. it begins with getting yovanovitch "out-of-the-way." by all accounts, ambassador yovanovitch was a highly respected and effective ambassador. witnesses uniformly praised her re