Page:20191203 - full report hpsci impeachment inquiry - 20191203.pdf/232

 On November 7, the Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena compelling Mr. Mulvaney’s appearance at a deposition on November 8.212 On November 8, Mr. Mulvaney’s personal attorney sent an email to Committee staff stating that “Mr. Mulvaney will not be attending the deposition today, and he is considering the full range of his legal options.”213

Mr. Mulvaney’s personal attorney provided a letter that was sent on November 8 from Mr. Cipollone, stating that “the President directs Mr. Mulvaney not to appear at the Committee’s scheduled deposition on November 8, 2019.”214 Mr. Mulvaney’s personal attorney also provided a letter sent on November 7 from Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, to Mr. Cipollone, stating, “Mr. Mulvaney is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony in his capacity as a senior advisor to the President.”215

Mr. Mulvaney did not appear at the deposition on November 8, in defiance of the Committees’ subpoena. The Committees met, and Chairman Schiff acknowledged Mr. Mulvaney’s absence, stating:


 * Neither Congress nor the courts recognize a blanket absolute immunity as a basis to defy a congressional subpoena. Mr. Mulvaney and the White House, therefore, have no legitimate legal basis to evade a duly authorized subpoena. The President’s direction to Mr. Mulvaney to defy our subpoena can, therefore, only be construed as an effort to delay testimony and obstruct the inquiry, consistent with the White House Counsel’s letter dated October 8, 2019.216

Chairman Schiff also explained Mr. Mulvaney’s knowledge of and role in facilitating the President’s conduct:


 * Mr. Mulvaney’s role in facilitating the White House’s obstruction of the impeachment inquiry does not occur in a vacuum. Over the past several weeks, we have gathered extensive evidence of the President’s abuse of power related to pressuring Ukraine to pursue investigations that would benefit the President personally and politically and jeopardize national security in doing so. Some of that evidence has revealed that Mr. Mulvaney was a percipient witness to misconduct by the President and may have had a role in certain actions under investigation. The evidence shows that Mr. Mulvaney may have coordinated with U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Rudy Giuliani, and others to carry out President Trump’s scheme to condition a White House meeting with President Zelensky on the Ukrainians’ pursuit of investigations of the Bidens, Burisma holdings, and purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. In addition, evidence suggests that Mr. Mulvaney may have played a central role in President Trump’s attempt to coerce Ukraine into launching his desired political investigations by withholding nearly $400 million in vital security assistance from Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress. At a White House press briefing on October 17, 2019, Mr. Mulvaney admitted publicly that President Trump ordered the hold on Ukraine security assistance to further the President’s own personal political interests rather than the national interest. …