Thread by @moscow_project

The first public #ImpeachmentHearings are starting. Watch it live here, and follow along for our live analysis:
c-span.org/video/?466134-…

In his opening statement, @RepAdamSchiff lays out the stakes of Trump's extortion scheme: a U.S. ally at war with Russia, and a U.S. president who extorted that ally for personal political gain.

@RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff: "The facts in the present inquiry are not seriously contested:" Trump deputized Rudy Giuliani, Gordon Sondland, and others to demand political favors from the Ukrainian government in exchange for military aid and a White House meeting.

@RepAdamSchiff On the July 25 call, Trump made his demands to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky clear. Then, the White House took unprecedented steps to conceal the records of that call.

@RepAdamSchiff "A scheme to condition official acts or taxpayer funding to obtain a personal political benefit does not become less odious because it is discovered before it is fully consummated."
-@RepAdamSchiff

@RepAdamSchiff The White House's obstruction is ongoing: Trump has directed witnesses to defy Congressional subpoenas and tried to intimidate witnesses.

@RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff concludes his opening statement: "If this is not impeachable conduct, what is?"

@RepAdamSchiff House Republicans are already doing everything they can to derail the hearing before it can start.
They don't want transparency—they just want the hearings to stop before the public can learn more about Trump's abuses of power.

@RepAdamSchiff George Kent testifies that he knew he was "hitting [his] mark" when corrupt Ukrainian and Russian officials pushed back on diplomatic efforts—but was disheartened when American citizens acting on Trump's behalf aligned with those corrupt interests and did the same.

Read Kent's full opening statement here: washingtonpost.com/context/openin…

Kent is outlining not only his credentials, but what was at stake in Ukraine: Trump's deputies were actively thwarting efforts to fight corruption (and Russia) in Ukraine. washingtonpost.com/context/openin…

Kent: "As a general principle, I do not believe the United States should ask other countries to engage in selective politically-associated investigations or prosecutions ... because such selective actions undermine the rule of law, regardless of country."

Kent outlines a key point: The U.S. government's actions under the Obama administration made an investigation of corruption at Burisma and elsewhere in Ukraine *more* likely, not less.

Kent outlines how Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman's efforts "infected" the U.S.'s relationship with Ukraine—and furthered the interests of the exact kind of corrupt officials against which he's fought during his career.

Taylor outlines his concerns when the Trump administration first asked him to return to his post in Ukraine: He'd seen the smear campaign against his predecessor, and worried that Giuliani's shadow agenda would undermine his work.

Taylor lays out the two channels of diplomacy: the regular channel, of which he was the head, and the irregular channel, which was operating in the shadows and was unaccountable to Congress.

Taylor's opening remarks appear to contain new information: A staff member asked Sondland about Trump's July 25 call. Sondland responded that Trump "cares more about the investigations of Biden" than he did about Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/1194646339142987776

At first, Taylor said, the two channels of diplomacy in Ukraine were working toward the same goal. But over the summer, they began to diverge as Giuliani's "irregular" channel began demanding Trump's desired investigations in exchange for a White House meeting.

Taylor and his colleagues "sat in astonishment" when they learned aid to Ukraine was being withheld during an active war with Ukraine—especially as the White House didn't answer questions about why.

According to Taylor, even with several senior administration officials trying to convince Trump to release the aid, he still held it well into September.
That blows up the GOP talking point that Trump releasing the aid means there was no extortion.
themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…

Taylor is laying out a devastating timeline of how the Trump administration communicated its message to Ukraine. We broke down that timeline when his opening statement came out here: themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

According to Taylor, Sondland told him that "everything"—a White House meeting *and* military aid—depended on Zelensky publicly announcing investigations into Trump's political opponents.

In in-person meetings with Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials, security assistance was the first thing on their minds. To Taylor, that showed how "the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Rudy Giuliani."

Taylor reveals a new bombshell in his testimony: A staff member overheard Trump's July 25 call with Zelensky. Afterward, Sondland told him that Trump "cares more about the investigations of Biden" than he did about Ukraine.

"There are two Ukraine stories today:" Ukraine as "merely an object" to extort to obtain dirt in the 2020 election, and Ukraine as "the subject: young people in a young nation, hoping to break free of their past"—and relying on U.S. aid to achieve their independent future.

Taylor outlines the importance of security assistance to Ukraine: Not only does it help deter Russian aggression, it is vitally important to protect Ukrainian lives in an active war with Russia.

Meanwhile, Russia is looking for any sign of weakness in American support for Ukraine to strengthen their hand, not just in war but in their ongoing negotiations with the Ukrainian government.

Taylor: Demanding an investigation into the Bidens was "counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy."

Q:In your decades of military service and diplomatic service representing the United States around the world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the United States?
A:No Mr. Goldman, I have not.

Kent explains the importance of Trump's other bargaining chip: a White House meeting between Zelensky and Trump, which would help legitimize Zelensky during Ukraine's ongoing war with Russia.

Kent explains that demanding investigations of political opponents not only isn't what the U.S. usually does—it's something the U.S. actively tries to prevent other countries from doing.

Taylor lays out what he understood Gordon Sondland to mean when he said that "everything" depended on an investigation into the Bidens, and that Trump wanted Zelensky in a "public box"

Ukraine was extremely concerned about receiving security assistance—and, by early September, Sondland had made the terms of the extortion clear: no security assistance until Ukraine announced Trump's desired investigations.

"Regardless of what you call it ... the fact of the matter, as you understood it, is that security assistance and the white house meeting were not going to be provided unless Ukraine initiated these two investigations that would benefit Donald Trump's reelection."

The facts, as of early September:
-Ukraine understood aid was being withheld.
-They understood announcing an investigation would free up the aid.
-Zelensky was preparing to go on CNN to announce the interviews.
That's extortion.

Goldman and Taylor are walking through Volker and Sondland's text messages about their extortion scheme.
We put those messages in context here: themoscowproject.org/dispatch/timel…

"I want to spend just a little time reading the transcript, as we've been encouraged to do."

We read the transcript the day it came out. Our conclusion: It was basically a confession that Trump extorted Zelensky for help with the 2020 election. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

Kent shoots down Trump's conspiracy theories: There was no factual basis to any of it, Russia was the one interfering in 2016, and he hadn't even heard of CrowdStrike until he read the July 25 call summary.

Q: To your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support those allegations [against Biden]?
A: None whatsoever.
Q: When Vice President Biden acted in Ukraine, did he act in accordance with official U.S. Policy?
A: He did.

Goldman summarizes the July 25 call. Spoiler alert: It wasn't "perfect." It was extortion.

Nunes says that Trump released the aid without Zelensky announcing his desired investigation.
That's only because public pressure forced Trump to release it—and even that was after almost two months of holding the aid back.
themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…

Nunes cites Andrey Artemenko as "proof" that the DNC colluded with Ukraine.
Artemenko was personally working with Felix Sater and Michael Cohen to transmit a pro-Russia peace plan for Crimea during the 2016-2017 transition. nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/…

Nunes is basically running down the whole list of right-wing conspiracy theories about nonexistent collusion with Ukraine.
Many of those conspiracy theories traces back to—surprise, surprise—Russia, which was desperate to deflect blame after 2016.
themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

The Republican counsel is trying to get Kent to substantiate the bogus allegations against the Biden.
Apparently he missed when Kent debunked those very claims less than an hour ago:

https://twitter.com/moscow_project/status/1194666630783098885?s=20

The best defense House Republicans' hand-picked lawyer can muster: "It might be irregular, but it's certainly not outlandish" (FACT CHECK: It's not just outlandish but illegal and impeachable)

.@RepAdamSchiff makes a key point about Trump's July 25 phone call:
Trump didn't mention corruption. He didn't mention oligarchs.
He mentioned the Bidens and CrowdStrike (aka, 2016 election).

@RepAdamSchiff Taylor's new testimony only confirms it: Sondland said that Trump was more interested in investigating the Bidens than he was in helping Ukraine.

@RepAdamSchiff Taylor confirms that Zelensky understood that Trump's demands were about the 2020 election, and was set to make the public announcement Trump was demanding—even though he "knew it was a bad idea to interfere in other people's elections."

@RepAdamSchiff Reminder for @Jim_Jordan: Just because an extortion scheme falls apart once it's revealed doesn't mean it never happened.
Zelensky was all set to meet Trump's demands in exchange for military aid when public pressure forced Trump to relent. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…

@RepAdamSchiff @Jim_Jordan Kent outlines for @jahimes what a real anti-corruption diplomatic effort looks like.
It certainly doesn't look anything like Trump's extortion scheme.

@RepAdamSchiff @Jim_Jordan @jahimes Biden's work in Ukraine was part of a "whole-of-government effort to end corruption in Ukraine."
Trump's was an effort to "aim corruption in Ukraine at Vice President Biden and at the 2020 election."

@RepAdamSchiff @Jim_Jordan @jahimes Taylor confirms that, yes, Ukraine did know they were being extorted:

@RepAdamSchiff @Jim_Jordan @jahimes Taylor and Kent explain why Zelensky would say there was no pressure: because confirming there was pressure would risk angering not only Trump but also his own constituents.

@RepAdamSchiff @Jim_Jordan @jahimes Another unprecedented part of the Ukraine scandal: Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch pushed out thanks to a smear campaign by the president's allies, who were working in conjunction with corrupt Ukrainian officials.

"What did Zelensky do to get the aid? Nothing"—except express his willingness to do exactly what Trump asked and schedule the public announcement Trump wanted that was only preempted because a whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump's extortion scheme. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…

Taylor and Kent walk through the stakes for Ukraine—not just in terms of the actual war they were fighting with Russia, but also the legitimacy military aid and a White House meeting would lend them in their struggle.

Quigley introduces a key piece of evidence: The text messages between Volker, Sondland, and a Ukrainian official explicitly coordinating on a statement for Zelensky to give announcing Trump's desired investigations.

Stefanik is once again trying to characterize Trump's demands as a sincere interest in corruption.
A reminder about the July 25 phone call:

Here's that clip of Mick Mulvaney confirming that there was a quid pro quo, telling the press to "get over it" because it happens all the time—before he desperately tried to walk it back later.

Hurd: "Have we seen whatever this anti-corruption statement we wanted the Ukrainians to make?"
Kent: "That was not an anti-corruption statement"—especially with Giuliani demanding it reference "Biden, Burisma, and 2016."

Trump's defenders say that, because his extortion scheme fell apart under public scrutiny, he can't have done anything wrong.
They wouldn't argue that with any other crime—so why are they apparently ok with Trump's attempted extortion?

Taylor and Kent agree: Trump's demands for a foreign government to investigate his political opponents makes it harder for U.S. diplomats to do their jobs fighting against corruption and for the rule of law in other countries.

Jordan says Trump put a hold on military aid so he could get a better read on Zelensky. So why did he wait three months after Zelensky's election before he placing the hold? And what happened in September—other than the whistleblower complaint—that made him release the aid?

.@PeterWelch: "I'd be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there."

@PeterWelch .@PeterWelch: "A president can change his position and our position on Ukraine ... He's just not free to change our foreign policy unless he gets his way to assist them in that campaign. That's a line he can't cross."

@PeterWelch Another unprecedented piece of the Ukraine scandal: In his decades of government service, Taylor never felt compelled to send a cable directly to the Secretary of State—until Trump's decision to withhold aid from Ukraine.

@PeterWelch .@RepValDemings: What interests do you believe [Giuliani] was promoting, Mr. Kent?
A: I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle.
Q: Ambassador Taylor? What interest do you believe he was promoting?
A: I agree.

@PeterWelch @RepValDemings .@CongressmanRaja makes it clear: In any other circumstances, Trump would be held accountable for the kind of abuse of power he displayed in his dealings with Ukraine.
So why does being president insulate him from those consequences?

@PeterWelch @RepValDemings @CongressmanRaja .@RepAdamSchiff summarizes: "You described a situation in which those in service of the president made it clear to Ukrainians, they need to publicly announce investigations or they weren't going to get that meeting and they sure weren't going to get that military assistance."