Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/109

 are cooking up on this"; Dr. Hill explained that "drug deal" referred to Ambassador Sondland stating in a July 10 meeting, which included Ukrainian officials, that he had an agreement with Mr. Mulvaney for a White House meeting "if [Ukraine would] go forward with investigations." On July 11, Dr. Hill "enlisted another NSC official who was present at the July 10 meeting" to attend a longer discussion with the NSC Legal Advisor about her concerns. Similarly, although the Minority holds up his reaction as proof that nothing improper happened, Mr. Morrison immediately reported the July 25 call to the NSC legal advisor "to make sure that the package was reviewed by the appropriate senior level attention." Further, Mr. Morrison tried to stay away from President Trump's requests because these investigations were not related to "the proper policy process that I was involved in on Ukraine," and "had nothing to do with the issues that the interagency was working on."

Ukrainian officials, too, expressed similar reservations. On July 20, Ambassador Taylor spoke with Oleksandr Danyliuk, the Ukrainian national security advisor, who conveyed that President Zelensky "did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign." As Ambassador Taylor testified, the "whole thrust" of the activities undertaken by Mr. Giuliani and Ambassador Sondland "was to get these investigations, which Danyliuk and presumably Zelensky were resisting because they didn't want to be seen to be interfering but also to be a pawn." Further, as noted above, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka later stated—in apparent reference to President Trump's demands—that "it's critically important for the west not to pull us into some conflicts between their ruling elites, but to continue to support so that we can cross the point of no return." In short, experienced officials on both sides of President Trump's scheme saw it for what it was: an effort to solicit Ukraine to assist his reelection campaign.

c.Alternative Explanations for President Trump's Course of Conduct Are Implausible and Inconsistent with the Evidence

Although the President has declined to participate in these proceedings, the Minority Report offers three alternative justifications for President Trump's conduct. The implausibility of these justifications, which are inconsistent with the evidence, only further proves that President Trump's motives were constitutionally improper.

i.Anti-Corruption

The Minority's principal contention is that President Trump denied a White House visit,