illegal and it wouldn t be toll lear rated. it would violate the most basic trust we have in public officials. if it happened with the military commander, a court-martial would follow. if it happened with a corporation, the ceo would be fired. we all know this kind of conduct is wrong. but the president continues to say it isn t. he says it s perfect and he would do it again tomorrow. the same rules apply to mayors, governors, members of congress, ceos and everyone else in america they apply to the president, too. whether you are a republican or a democrat, you like msnbc or fox, i think every american believes in one of our nation s founding principles: no person is above the law. not even the president. in july 24th, director mueller testified about russian state sponsored systematic interference in our 2016 election. he expressed apprehension this could become the new normal. the day after, on july 25th,
that s why the administration refuses to provide documents to this committee. and it s why the white house has taken the unprecedented position that senior officials could ignore congressional subpoenas and refuse to testify. that s why acting chief of staff mulvaney, secretary of state pompeo and others have not testified. now the president and even some members of this committee are pretending this is normal it is not. it must never be. no other president has betrayed his oath of office like this by putting his own small political interests above our national interest and our national security i asked some of our witnesses what would happen in any american city or town if the mayor stopped funding the police department and until the chief of police launched rival or government or member of congress did that the answer was clear, it would be wrong, it would be
andrew napolitano. so, judge, he was the democrats big witness and he made it very clear what the president told him. i think the democrats do still have a case. one would expect the president in september, after the whistleblower s allegations came out, after the president was accused of a quid pro quo, to say no quid pro quo. here we go with the latin again. but it is clear from what ambassador sondland testified yesterday that there was an understanding that the president wanted some things from the ukrainians. steve: judge, he said he presumed. there is a lot of evidence in which you can base the presumption. steve: he didn t hear the president say it. he said i presume. correct. correct. he also said mike pompeo knew it. brian: he said perry. rick perry new it, mic mulvaney knew it. when allegations like that are made, and the committee subpoenas those people, and they don t show, for whatever reason, the committee can infer that
with a letter president trump sent to the ukrainian president on may 29th congratulating him on his inauguration. do you recall that ma am? i did, yes. and towards the end of that letter, president trump closed with, quote: i would like to invite you to meet me at the white house in washington, d.c. as soon as we can find a mutually convenient time, end quote. dr. hill, was this congratulatory letter drafted through the normal procedures at the nsc uses to send letters to foreign heads of state. the first part of it was except the last paragraph. you also testified that ambassador sondland told you that he had dictated that line to the president and that mr. mulvaney he told mr. mulvaney to add that to the letter. is that correct, ma am. that s correct. you said that you were nervous about that. why were you nervous, dr. hill? because at this juncture, it had become quite apparent that the president wasn t
very keen on having anything with mr. zelensky for all the reasons that we have been trying to lay out today. and we were raise the expectation of an invitation coming shortly. dr. hill, you also testified, ma am, that ambassador sondland was frequently meeting with mr. mulvaney. mr. giuliani s campaign of lies ultimately led to ambassador yovanovitch being recalled from her post in april 2019. have you also testified, ma am, that her removal was pretty dispritting and a turning point for you. can you explain to us why, ma am? well, again, as we have all made clear ambassador yovanovitch and recal as you saw in her deposition is a person of great integrity. she is one of our finest career foreign service officers. and being a decision to remove her, to replace her with a political appointee,