Today's first public impeachment hearing features testimony from two White House officials who were listening in on the July 25 call: Lt. Col. Alex Vindman and Pence adviser Jennifer Williams. Watch it live here, and follow along for our live analysis: c-span.org/video/?466376-…
.@RepAdamSchiff begins with a summary of what we've heard so far:
@RepAdamSchiff Both Vindman and Williams listened to the July 25 call in real time. Both described details that were left out of the official summary released by the White House.
@RepAdamSchiff Both Vindman and Williams have been smeared for deciding to bring what they know to Congress's attention—even though they're the exact kind of first-hand fact witnesses that Republicans claim they want to hear from.
@RepAdamSchiff Nunes claims that several articles on the 2016 Trump campaign's ties to Russia are false.
FACT CHECK: All of them that were fully investigated were found to be true.
FACT CHECK: All of them that were fully investigated were found to be true.
@RepAdamSchiff Nunes is now launching into an attack on the whistleblower complaint ... while two people who were actually on the call at the center of it—which they described entirely accurately—are sitting right in front of him.
Nunes: The whistleblower has "disappeared from the story as if the Democrats put the whistleblower in their own witness protection program."
That witness protection program is the Whistleblower Protection Act, which protects the whistleblower's identity. pbs.org/newshour/polit…
That witness protection program is the Whistleblower Protection Act, which protects the whistleblower's identity. pbs.org/newshour/polit…
Nunes is rehashing the same conspiracy theories about the Bidens and supposed Ukrainian interference in 2016.
Both were explicitly debunked in last week's hearings.
Both were explicitly debunked in last week's hearings.
REMINDER: Notes from Mueller's investigation show that Trump's team first picked up those conspiracy theories from an indicted Russian intelligence operative with whom they were colluding in 2016. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…
Williams gives the timeline of the administration's decision to withhold aid—and suggests the hold began two weeks earlier than was previously known:
The problem with Trump's July 25 call was immediately obvious: "In contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter"—investigating the Bidens and the 2016 election.
Williams notes that Pence received the summary of Trump's July 25 call well before he met with Zelensky in Poland in September:
Alex Vindman's opening statement has been posted. Read the full statement here: cnn.com/2019/11/19/pol…
One theme that's emerged over and over in the hearings: Everybody involved in the U.S.'s official Ukraine policy was worried about Rudy Giuliani's influence.
Vindman corroborates a key detail from previous testimony: a meeting with Gordon Sondland and Zelensky's national security adviser where Sondland explicitly stated the quid pro quo.
Vindman outlines his immediate reaction to the July 25 call: "It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. Citizen and a political opponent."
Vindman: "Dad, I'm sitting here today, in the US Capitol talking to our elected professionals—is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union ... Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth."
Trump's defenders say he was sincerely concerned about corruption in Ukraine.
So why didn't he mention it on the April 21 call, when his advisers explicitly suggested he do so?
So why didn't he mention it on the April 21 call, when his advisers explicitly suggested he do so?
The decision that Pence wouldn't attend Zelensky's inauguration was made before that inauguration was even scheduled.
That certainly sounds like they were trying to send a message.
That certainly sounds like they were trying to send a message.
Vindman advised Zelensky to avoid anything that could be seen as interfering in U.S. politics. Why? "It was consistent with U.S. policy to advise any country, all the countries in my portfolio, any country in the world, to not participate in U.S. domestic politics."
Vindman corroborates earlier testimony: In a meeting with Ukrainian officials, Sondland was very clear that Zelensky would get a White House meeting if he opened the president's desired investigations.
Demanding political investigations wasn't just outside the bounds of U.S. policy—it would actively "undermine our Ukraine policy and it would undermine our national security."
"In this case, the power disparity between the two leaders, my impression is that in order to get the White House meeting, President Zelensky would have to deliver these investigations."
Both Williams and Vindman testify that Trump and Zelensky specifically discussed Burisma. So why isn't that reflected in the summary of the call—even though Vindman noted the omission before it was released?
The big question none of Trump's defenders can answer: Why did Trump overthrow his own administration's policy toward Ukraine—without alerting many of those in charge of implementing it—to pursue conspiracy theories about his political opponents?
Two more witnesses shoot down Republicans' conspiracy theories: There is no factual basis for Trump's allegations against Ukraine or the Bidens.
Two witnesses who were actually on the July 25 call immediately understood why Trump's demands were inappropriate: because they were political in nature, designed to undermine the 2020 election by attacking a political opponent.
Vindman outlines two key concerns about Trump's extortion scheme: Not only did it threaten Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines of a war with Russia, it also threatened to undermine the bipartisan consensus that supporting Ukraine is in our national security interest.
The morning of July 25, Kurt Volker texted a Ukrainian official to say that, if Zelensky announced Trump's desired investigations, he'd get his White House meeting.
A few hours later, Trump was on the phone making the exact same demand.
A few hours later, Trump was on the phone making the exact same demand.
Why was a White House meeting so vital?
Because it would legitimize Zelensky not just for the international community but within his own country as well.
Because it would legitimize Zelensky not just for the international community but within his own country as well.
Both Williams and Vindman agree: The July 25 call was a clear quid pro quo.
If corruption in Ukraine was such an important issue to Trump, why didn't he mention it in either of his two phone calls with Zelensky?
Between his two calls with Zelensky, Trump spoke with not only Putin but also Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
We explained why those meetings matter in this week's episode of @AssetPodcast, "Extortion:" theassetpodcast.org/episode/extort…
We explained why those meetings matter in this week's episode of @AssetPodcast, "Extortion:" theassetpodcast.org/episode/extort…
@AssetPodcast On July 10, Gordon Sondland was insistent about delivering Trump's message demanding investigations in exchange for a White House meeting—so much so that Sondland called a second meeting to make sure he was perfectly clear.
@AssetPodcast Trump's defenders say this whole investigation is based on hearsay.
Vindman was in the room when Sondland relayed Trump's demands for investigations in exchange for a White House meeting, and on the line when Trump made his July 25 call—and reported his concerns about both.
Vindman was in the room when Sondland relayed Trump's demands for investigations in exchange for a White House meeting, and on the line when Trump made his July 25 call—and reported his concerns about both.
@AssetPodcast Republicans say Zelensky didn't even know aid was being withheld.
According to Williams, it was actually the first thing on Zelensky's mind when he met with administration officials, including the Vice President.
According to Williams, it was actually the first thing on Zelensky's mind when he met with administration officials, including the Vice President.
Nunes doesn't miss an opportunity to rehash conspiracy theories that were repeatedly debunked last week—and that, as far as we can tell, originated with a suspected Russian intel operative who was in close contact with the Trump campaign throughout 2016. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…
As Nunes rails against supposed leaks of classified information, a reminder: Nunes had to temporarily recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he was under investigation for mishandling and exposing classified information. themoscowproject.org/explainers/the…
Nunes is once again trying to make this hearing all about outing the whistleblower—all of whose allegations were confirmed by the White House itself themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…
Castor still can't even suggest an answer to the most basic question: If Trump was so invested in fighting corruption in Ukraine, why did he ignore his own advisers' suggestions that he mention it to Zelensky?
As Castor and Williams go in circles about the scheduling of Zelensky's inauguration, a reminder: The White House decided that Pence would not attend before the inauguration was even scheduled.
Castor tries to poke holes in Vindman's testimony, questioning whether Sondland specifically mentioned "Burisma" and "2016" in asking for "investigations."
Vindman is very clear: Sondland referenced all three—and also specifically mentioned the Bidens.
Vindman is very clear: Sondland referenced all three—and also specifically mentioned the Bidens.
Republican counsel is now resorting to a despicable dual loyalty smear against an active member of the U.S. armed services, suggesting that Vindman is disloyal because he ... repeatedly rejected Ukrainian officials' overtures to get him to work for the Ukrainian government.
Schiff opens the second round of questioning by poking holes in two of Republicans' main lines of questioning—namely, those about Burisma and the Bidens and about Pence's planned trip to Zelensky's inauguration.
There was no ambiguity: On the July 25 call, Trump was demanding investigations into his political opponents.
Those were the exact same investigations Giuliani was demanding.
In other words: Trump was clearly running the extortion scheme. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…
In other words: Trump was clearly running the extortion scheme. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…
.@RepAdamSchiff: So the very same issue that Bolton said to Hill, "go talk to the lawyers," the very same issue that prompted you to go talk to the lawyers, ends up coming up in that call with the president.
Lt. Col. Vindman: That is correct.
Lt. Col. Vindman: That is correct.
@RepAdamSchiff Jim Jordan: "The one thing they didn't count on was the president releasing the call transcript and letting us all see what he said!"
We sure didn't—and we especially didn't expect the White House's own summary (not a transcript) to amount to a confession. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…
We sure didn't—and we especially didn't expect the White House's own summary (not a transcript) to amount to a confession. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…
@RepAdamSchiff .@jahimes and Jennifer Williams push back on Trump's smears against her—and the president's clear efforts to intimidate her out of testifying.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes .@jahimes decries Republicans' despicable "dual loyalty" smears, "designed exclusively to give the right-wing media an opening to questioning [Vindman's] loyalties ... It's the kind of thing you say when you're defending the indefensible."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes Lt. Col. Vindman explains why it is U.S. policy to advise U.S. allies against interfering in domestic U.S. politics—and cites Russian interference in 2016 as why they shouldn't.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes .@RepAdamSchiff explains what bribery means, and why it's an accurate descriptor for Trump's quid pro quo with Ukraine—and why they don't ask witnesses directly if they believe bribery occurred.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes Rep. Wenstrup falsely insinuates that Vindman didn't respect the chain of command in reporting his concerns about Trump's call—then tries to steamroll Vindman when Vindman corrects him.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes .@RepSpeier finally gives Vindman a chance to respond to Wenstrup and clarify that, yes, he did follow the appropriate procedures when he reported his concerns to the White House lawyer:
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier Nothing in official U.S. policy said Trump should ask Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
That's because it wasn't in the national interest to ask a foreign country to interfere in our democracy—it was in Trump's personal political interests, just like it was in 2016.
That's because it wasn't in the national interest to ask a foreign country to interfere in our democracy—it was in Trump's personal political interests, just like it was in 2016.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier Vindman: "The context of this call, consistent with the July 10 meeting, with the reporting that was going on, including the president's personal attorney, made it clear that this was not simply a request."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier "It's one thing to ask somebody a favor like, hey, go pick up my dry cleaning, and it's another when the commander-in-chief of the most powerful army in the world asks an ally in a vulnerable position to do him a favor"—especially with $400 million in military aid at stake.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier U.S. officials were unanimous about releasing the aid—except the White House, which never even tried to give an alternate explanation for why they were withholding the aid.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier Stefanik is going back to the argument that, because Trump was pressured to release the aid before Zelensky could announce the investigations, there was no extortion.
Here's our explanation from last week of why that's wrong: themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…
Here's our explanation from last week of why that's wrong: themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier Swalwell pokes one of the most obvious holes in Stefanik's argument: There was basically unanimous consensus within the administration that Ukraine had already done enough on corruption to receive the aid.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier .@JoaquinCastrotx and Vindman highlight the Russian roots of Trump's conspiracy theories about the 2016 election, and how Trump "giving credence to a conspiracy theory about Ukraine ... hurts our national security and emboldens Russia."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx Lt. Col. Vindman: "The Ukrainian judiciary is imperfect at the moment. And the reliance on U.S. support could conceivably cause them to tip the scales of justice in favor of finding a U.S. citizen guilty if they thought they needed to do that for their national security."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx Vindman fills in a key detail about the administration's coverup attempt: It wasn't until the White House's lawyer learned that people in the intelligence community were concerned about Trump's call that the lawyer told Vindman to keep it quiet.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx .@PeterWelch: "The question before us is this. Is it improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate the United States citizen and political opponent?...To date I haven't heard any one of my Republican colleagues address that question."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch .@RepSeanMaloney: "I've heard [Republicans on the committee] say just about everything, except to contradict the substantive testimony you've been given."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney .@RepSeanMaloney runs through the actual substance of today's testimony. Spoiler alert: It's incredibly damning for Trump.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney Vindman receives an ovation for his stirring affirmation of American values: "This is America. This is the country I served and defended, that all my brothers have served, and here, right matters."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney .@RepValDemings outlines the consequences of Trump's extortion of Ukraine, from putting Ukrainian lives at risk to undermining American national security by emboldening a Russian regime that just continues to attack American democracy.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney @RepValDemings Much of Trump's conspiracy theory rests on the word of the corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko.
Vindman once again confirms that Lutsenko has no credibility.
Vindman once again confirms that Lutsenko has no credibility.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney @RepValDemings Lt. Col. Vindman confirms again that yes, Trump pressured Zelensky—first by dangling a White House meeting, then by withholding security assistance.
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney @RepValDemings "There is no evidence of the president trying to fight corruption. The evidence all points in the other direction. The evidence points in the direction of the president inviting Ukraine to engage in the corrupt act of investigating a U.S. political opponent."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney @RepValDemings .@RepAdamSchiff: "The real message to Ukraine, our U.S. policy message is, don't engage in political investigations. The message from the president, however, was the exact opposite. Do engage in political investigations, and do it for my reelection."
@RepAdamSchiff @jahimes @RepSpeier @JoaquinCastrotx @PeterWelch @RepSeanMaloney @RepValDemings .@RepAdamSchiff concludes the hearing: "What does Sondland relate to this foreign service officer as he hangs up that call? 'The president doesn't give a [expletive] about Ukraine. He only cares about the big things that help his personal interests.' That's all you need to know."
