Thread by @moscow_project

Today's first public impeachment hearing features testimony from Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland. Watch it live here, and follow along for our live analysis:
c-span.org/video/?466378-…

.@RepAdamSchiff summarizes the scandal: "Trump put his personal and political interests above those of the United States."

@RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff outlines Sondland's work in Ukraine, and how he found himself caught up in a scheme that became "more insidious over time."

@RepAdamSchiff The July 25 call wasn't just not "perfect"—it was a key component of the pressure campaign, an opportunity for Zelensky to accede to Trump's demands and win a White House meeting. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…

@RepAdamSchiff How did Zelensky know what investigations Trump wanted?
Simple: Because Sondland and Volker told him so.

@RepAdamSchiff Even with Trump's denials, the quid pro quo couldn't be clearer: Zelensky had to personally announce Trump's desired investigations in exchange for a White House meeting and military aid.

@RepAdamSchiff The Ukraine scandal isn't just about extortion—it's also about the administration's unprecedented obstruction.
@RepAdamSchiff: "I remind the president that Article 3 of the impeachment articles drafted against President Nixon was his refusal to obey the subpoenas of congress."

Nunes's denials of collusion in 2016 are especially rich less than a week after Roger Stone was convicted for lying about his work as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks—in other words, collusion with Russia. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

Nunes makes the controversial choice to begin the hearing by listing off several of the (entirely true) allegations against Trump and his team during the Russia investigation:

If Nunes wants to make this hearing entirely about the whistleblower complaint, that's fine—he'll just have to face the fact that everything in the complaint has been entirely corroborated by the White House itself. npr.org/2019/11/09/776…

Gordon Sondland is beginning his opening statement. Read it here:
politico.com/f/?id=0000016e…

Some key excerpts to watch for:
-Confirming that he was working at the explicit direction of the president
-Confirming that he kept high-level officials updated on his work
-Confirming that there was a quid pro quo—and using the term "quid pro quo" politico.com/f/?id=0000016e…

"As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President." politico.com/f/?id=0000016e…

Sondland identifies the central problem with the hearings so far: The administration's obstruction, which prevented the committee from seeing key emails and documents.

"Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States ... we followed the president's orders."

Sondland shoots down the suggestion that he was a rogue ambassador, clarifying that he kept the administration in the loop the whole time—and that there are receipts to show it.

Yes, there was a quid pro quo—and yes, it was because "these investigations were important to the president."

"I followed the directions of the president."

The delegation to Zelensky's inauguration told Trump he was serious about reform and fighting corruption.
Trump responded by parroting Russian conspiracy theories and telling them to "talk with Rudy."
themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

After Giuliani told them Zelensky needed to give a statement about 2016 and Burisma, Sondland and his team kept Mike Pompeo and other top officials in the loop.
"They knew what we were doing and why."

Sondland says he kept the National Security Council apprised of his work—then reads from the email he sent to Tim Morrison in which he explicitly spelled out that they wanted "any hampered investigations ...
allowed to move forward."

"Everyone was in the loop."

Sondland confirms key details of his July 26 call with Trump—which Trump denied ever happened last week.
"I would have been more surprised if president trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Giuliani about the president's concerns."

"Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret."

Sondland details how he made sure the State Department knew exactly what he was doing, and when. "Again, everyone was in the loop."

Sondland told Mike Pompeo he was going to have Zelensky tell Trump he would announce the investigations, and that it would clear up the "logjam."
Pompeo's response: "Yes."

In early September, Sondland made the terms of Trump's extortion excruciatingly clear: Ukraine would not receive aid until Zelensky announced Trump's desired investigations.

"Our efforts were reported and approved and not once do I recall encountering an objection."

Sondland testifies what he means by saying things became increasingly "insidious:" "it became more and more difficult to secure the White House meeting, because more conditions were being placed on the White House meeting."

Sondland confirms that top administration officials, including Mulvaney and Pompeo, were read in every step of the way.

Q: Mr. Holmes testified you told him President Trump doesn't care about Ukraine, he only cares about big stuff that relates to him personally. I take it from your conversation you don't dispute that part of the conversation?
A: Well, he made that clear in the may 23rd meeting.

Sondland: Yes, Pompeo was "was aware of the connections ... between the investigations and the White House meeting and the security assistance."

It wasn't just Pompeo. Pence knew exactly what was going on, too.

Trump conditioned an official act on Zelensky announcing his desired investigations.
That's bribery, plain and simple.

And the security assistance, too—an official act conditioned on announcing the investigations.
Bribery, plain and simple.

Sondland says he routinely had conversations with Trump on unsecured cell phones and landlines while in countries that are known to be crawling with foreign intelligence operatives.

Sondland and Goldman walk through that July 26 phone call in Kyiv, in which, the day after Trump demanded investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election, Sondland explained to Trump that Zelensky would announce his desired investigations.

Both Sondland and Volker say that they had no idea at the time that "Burisma" was code for the Bidens.
One thing is certain: Based on the July 25 call, Zelensky understood perfectly that the two were one and the same.

Two things were clear to everybody involved:
-Rudy Giuliani was speaking on behalf of Trump
-Trump and Rudy didn't want investigations—they wanted a *public announcement* of investigations, which had obvious political benefits for Trump.

Sondland wasn't freelancing.
At the key juncture of Trump's July phone call with Zelensky, Sondland was on the phone with Trump twice to make sure they were on the same page.

Sondland confirms not only the quid pro quo about the White House meeting, but that the Ukrainians clearly knew that aid was being withheld and were willing to do what it took to free it up.

Q: So, is this kind of a "2+2=4" conclusion that you reached?
A: Pretty much.
Q: It's the only logical conclusion to you that given all of these factors, that the aid was also a part of this quid pro quo?
A: Yep.

Pence didn't ask Sondland what he meant when he talked about investigations and White House meetings.
There's only one explanation: Pence knew exactly what was going on.

"As of September 9, you understood...that President Trump either himself or through agents required that Zelensky make a public announcement of the two investigations...in order to get both the White House meeting and to release the security assistance."
"That is correct."

.@RepAdamSchiff: "We have heard for the first time that knowledge of this scheme was pervasive. The Secretary of State was aware of it. The chief of staff Mulvaney was aware of it. And, at the very top, Donald Trump, through his personal lawyer and others, was implementing it."

Nunes starts his cross-examination by parroting the repeatedly-debunked Russian conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was the country that hacked the 2016 election.
themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

Here's Marie Yovanovitch debunking Nunes's conspiracy theories in her testimony last week:

https://twitter.com/moscow_project/status/1195402390633156613

In order to prove that the Obama administration acted corruptly with regard to Burisma, Nunes cites ... an Obama administration official who actively called for Burisma to be investigated for corruption.

Castor seems to be trying to argue that there's no clear evidence that Giuliani was working directly for Trump.
Sondland reminds him that Trump explicitly told the "Three Amigos" to talk to Giuliani about Ukraine.

Reminder: We don't need to guess as to what Trump wanted from Ukraine.
Trump said it himself, on the White House lawn.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1179768472953393152?s=20

Castor cites Trump's "adamant" denials as proof that there was no quid pro quo.
He also "adamantly" denied that his team had any contacts with Russia in 2016. Here's our list of those contacts:
themoscowproject.org/explainers/tru…

He also adamantly denied doing any business in Russia in 2016—including *while* his business was pursuing Trump Tower. buzzfeednews.com/article/azeeng…

And he denied having played any role in the illegal scheme to pay off and silence his mistresses right before the 2016 election.
wsj.com/articles/donal…

In fact, Trump has a loooong track record of denying things that ended up being true—especially when it comes to his role in attacks on American democracy. washingtonpost.com/news/fact-chec…

Sondland brags that his diplomatic channel supplanted the "regular" channel in Ukraine—and how he coordinated with "the president of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, and the Secretary of Energy."

In other words: The extortion scheme was Trump's official policy. It was the rest of the diplomats in Ukraine—the ones who were acting on behalf of the U.S., and not Trump—who were viewed by the White House as "irregular."

Castor says that, without the notes witnesses keep referencing, these hearings are a "trifecta of unreliability."
One way to fix that: Have the administration release the thousands of pages it's withholding from Congress in defiance of subpoenas.

Sondland testifies that Pompeo, Mulvaney, and others were fully aware of the quid pro quo—which makes Mulvaney's public admission last month even more damning.

Goldman and Sondland run through the lead-up to the July 25 call, which wasn't fully set up until Sondland sent Mulvaney an email assuring that Zelensky would talk to Trump about his desired investigations.

On August 10, Sondland and a Ukrainian official coordinated a statement announcing Trump's desired investigation.
Sondland then reached out to Pompeo, explicitly laying out that he thought it would now be enough to get Zelensky a White House meeting.

Later in August, Sondland was even more explicit: He wrote an email to Pompeo—who'd listened in on July 25 call and knew what investigations Trump wanted—saying that he hoped Zelensky telling Trump he'd do the investigations would "break the logjam."
Pompeo replied, "yes."

Nunes is basically arguing that the best way to run hearings is to specifically allow witnesses to hear from each other before they testify so they can better coordinate their statements.
That's ... not how investigations work.

Nunes is right that Congress wrote into law that Ukraine needed to meet certain anti-corruption benchmarks to receive aid.
He's leaving out that the entire government agreed that Ukraine *had* met those benchmarks by the time Trump froze the aid. justsecurity.org/66767/exclusiv…

Nunes makes an impassioned case that more witnesses from the White House, including potentially the president himself, should come and testify, and that the White House should release the records it's withholding.

Reminder: Rudy Giuliani explicitly told The New York Times in May that investigating Burisma was effectively code for investigating the Bidens. nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/…

Everything you need to know about how today's hearing is going for Trump, in one headline: vox.com/2019/11/20/209…

Hey @VP—why don't you come say it to Congress?

https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/1197190170329702402

How about you, @SecretaryPerry? If you're so confident in your recollections, why won't you come talk about them under oath?

https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/1197213317535809539

@SecretaryPerry Schiff clarifies a few points on the timeline of the transcript of Mark Sandy's deposition, and explains the need for the White House to allow higher-up officials, including Sandy's bosses at OMB, to testify:

@SecretaryPerry .@RepAdamSchiff debunks the argument that Ukraine didn't know aid was being withheld:

@SecretaryPerry @RepAdamSchiff Schiff drives the point home further: Yes, Ukraine knew that Trump was withholding aid. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…

@SecretaryPerry @RepAdamSchiff Sondland: "We never thought we were irregular. We thought it was in the center lane."
That's because top administration officials, including the Secretary of State, White House Chief of Staff, and Trump's personal lawyer were in the loop and signing off on their actions.

Jordan is once again screaming about how Trump released the aid before Zelensky made his announcement. Zelensky was all set to do it *on CNN*—until congressional pressure and the whistleblower complaint forced Trump to release the aid. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…

And of course, Zelensky still hasn't gotten the other thing Trump was withholding—as yesterday's witnesses pointed out, Zelensky has never had a White House meeting.

Sondland: "The president directed us to work with Mr. Giuliani, and the leadership of the State Department were knowledgeable, as was the NSC, we working with Mr. Giuliani."

Turner: Volker testified that announcing investigations was not required for Zelensky to get a White House meeting.
Sondland: "I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony. It was absolutely a requirement, or we would have just had the meeting and been done with it."

Pressing Zelensky to announce investigations wasn't part of the State Department's official policy toward Ukraine; "It was part of the president's political agenda. It was done to benefit the president personally and politically."

Schiff reminds his Republican colleagues: The White House didn't release aid out of the goodness of their hearts; they released it because they got caught.

Wenstrup disputes the characterization that Republicans deny Russian interference in 2016. Here's him appearing to do exactly that yesterday:

https://twitter.com/moscow_project/status/1196944014148288512?s=20

And of course, he follows it up by repeating the debunked Russian conspiracy theory that Ukraine was interfering in 2016, something multiple witnesses have debunked in these hearings: themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

Republicans cited an article that said there was no reason to keep the whistleblower's identity secret.
That's not what the article says.
@RepSpeier reads them the rest of the article—then gives Trump a read, too:

@RepSpeier .@RepSpeier reminds Congress of a key quote from Michael Cohen's testimony: "He doesn’t give you questions, he doesn’t give you orders, he speaks in a code. And I understand the code, because I’ve been around him for a decade."

Stewart apparently missed this moment from last week's hearing, when Kent and Taylor explained why it was in Zelensky's interests to go along to get along when Trump said there was no pressure:

https://twitter.com/moscow_project/status/1194694447835025410?s=20

Stefanik wants the American people to believe previous witnesses have agreed with the push for an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens.
Here's yesterday's witness—one Republicans themselves wanted—calling the allegations "conspiracy theories."

https://twitter.com/moscow_project/status/1196906780544110597?s=20

Sondland: "We followed the direction of the president" on working with Rudy to demand investigations "because that was the only pathway to working with Ukraine."

"If you asked a foreign government leader to investigate your political opponent, leveraged a White House meeting, and leveraged security assistance, in this hypothetical you agree all three of those are wrong?"
"Yes, all are wrong."

Sondland: Mulvaney "has a direct line to the president."
That makes his admission of a quid pro quo even more damning.

Here's Mulvaney's follow-up, in which he said that political considerations enter into foreign aid all the time and that people should "get over it:"
cnn.com/videos/politic…

Sondland: "In the context of what was going on in Ukraine, I believed that the president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo."

.@RepDennyHeck: Do you believe, sir, that it is appropriate, ever appropriate, to invite, press, bribe or coerce for interference in our elections?
Sondland: No.

@RepDennyHeck "Why, sir, with your courage to come before us does that same standard not apply to Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Duffey, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Vogue, Mr. Giuliani? ... Indeed, why doesn't that same standard apply to the president of the United States?"

@RepDennyHeck House Republicans seem to take as given the fact that Trump believes Ukraine tried to help Clinton win, which is—and we cannot stress this enough—a Russian conspiracy theory designed to deflect blame for their attack on American democracy to help Trump.
themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

@RepDennyHeck Jordan: "This is crazy what we're going through, because the facts are so darn clear."
We agree: Trump extorted a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 election, and only relented under public pressure from a congressional investigation. themoscowproject.org/dispatch/trump…

@RepDennyHeck Sondland's testimony in a nutshell:
-He acted on Trump's direction
-There was a quid pro quo
-No meeting unless there was announcement of an investigation

@RepDennyHeck .@PeterWelch: If the mayor of Portland said to the police chief, I'm not going to authorize your budget unless you agree to do an investigation into my political opponent. Would that be wrong?
Sondland: Of course.
So why do Republicans seem to think it's ok for Trump to do it?

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch "Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?"
"I assume President Trump would benefit."
That's it. That's the ballgame.

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch It's not a hypothetical—it's real life.
Trump put Ukraine in a terrible position by demanding investigations into his political opponents in exchange for official acts.

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch Demings runs through the very public evidence that "Burisma" was code for the Bidens as far back as May:

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch .@CongressmanRaja drills down on one of the main allegations of the whistleblower complaint: that Pence was pulled back from attending Zelensky's inauguration as a way of pressuring Ukraine to announce Trump's desired investigations.

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja "The suggestion that you were engaged in some rogue diplomacy or irregular channel's diplomacy is absolutely false. Isn't that right?"
"That's correct."

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja Gordon Sondland was not a rogue actor.
He was at the center of an extortion scheme that went all the way to the top—to the President of the United States.

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja .@RepAdamSchiff begins his summation: "You can't have a quid pro quo unless Ukrainians know, and you have testified today, Ambassador, Ukrainians knew."

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff From Gordon's opening statement: "Was there a quid pro quo? ... The answer is, yes."

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff Sondland didn't just confirm his own role; he also showed just how much of the administration—including Pompeo and Pence—was in on it.

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff: "I will say this on the president's behalf...I think the president was the one who decided whether a meeting would happen, whether aid would be lifted, not anyone who worked for him."

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff "The question is not, what the president meant. The question is not whether he was responsible for holding up the aid...The question is, what are we prepared to do about it?"

@RepDennyHeck @PeterWelch @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff concludes the hearing to loud applause: "Getting caught is no defense. Not to a violation of the Constitution or to a violation of his oath of office, and it certainly doesn't give us a reason to ignore our own oath of office."