Today's second hearing, featuring Pentagon official Laura Cooper and State Department David Hale, is about to begin. Watch it live here, and follow along for our live analysis: c-span.org/video/?466379-…
.@RepAdamSchiff outlines what each witness witnessed, and why they are relevant to the investigation into Trump's Ukraine extortion scheme:
@RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff highlights one of the key gaps in the record: During the nearly two months aid was withheld, nobody in the administration could explain why—either to other U.S. officials or to the Ukrainians who were asking.
That's because the reason was Trump's extortion scheme.
That's because the reason was Trump's extortion scheme.
Nunes begins with a different conspiracy theory for once: the repeatedly debunked allegation that regulations on whistleblower complaints were secretly changed to allow for the Ukraine whistleblower's complaint to go through. factcheck.org/2019/10/no-hea…
As usual, he ends with the claim that Ukraine didn't know aid was being withheld before Trump lifted it.
Here's our explanation on why that's just not true: themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…
Here's our explanation on why that's just not true: themoscowproject.org/dispatch/debun…
Cooper outlines her distinguished résumé of nonpartisan service—for once, before Trump and his allies have taken their chance to publicly smear it.
Cooper details the timeline of Ukraine aid from her perspective.
She debunks the idea that Trump held it up because of corruption: There was unanimous agreement within the administration that Ukraine had met anti-corruption requirements to receive the aid.
She debunks the idea that Trump held it up because of corruption: There was unanimous agreement within the administration that Ukraine had met anti-corruption requirements to receive the aid.
Cooper pursued three tracks trying to unlock Ukraine aid.
She never even received an explanation for why it was withheld.
She never even received an explanation for why it was withheld.
Cooper offers additional evidence of when Ukraine may have learned that aid was being withheld: An email saying that Ukraine was asking about the aid on July 25—the day of Trump's call with Zelensky.
Cooper outlines still more evidence that, yes, Ukraine knew that aid was being withheld long before the August 28 Politico article revealing it to the public.
Cooper's staff weren't the only ones receiving questions from Ukraine about military assistance as early as late July—State Department officials were getting questions about it as well.
"You are now the third witness before our committee, who has testified that the Ukrainians found out about the problem...prior to it becoming public but you're the first to indicate that may go back as early as the date of the president's call to President Zelensky."
Cooper recounts an August 21 meeting with Kurt Volker in which he drew the connection between military aid and Zelensky announcing Trump's desired investigations:
Ratcliffe wants to make the hold on aid to Ukraine sound like a rote matter of U.S. diplomacy.
Then why, as Laura Cooper just testified, did Trump override unanimous interagency consensus, give no explanation, then claim it was actually about corruption?
Then why, as Laura Cooper just testified, did Trump override unanimous interagency consensus, give no explanation, then claim it was actually about corruption?
A point that can't be stressed enough: For somebody so supposedly concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why did Trump pass up both of his opportunities to discuss it with the Ukrainian president?
Trump doesn't have unilateral authority to suspend congressionally-mandated aid—especially when, as happened with aid to Ukraine, there was unanimous consensus in the government that the country had met anti-corruption benchmarks necessary to release it.
There was unanimous interagency consensus that aid to Ukraine should be released.
Unanimous, except for one agency: the OMB, run by Trump's point person Mick Mulvaney, who said the hold came from the president.
Unanimous, except for one agency: the OMB, run by Trump's point person Mick Mulvaney, who said the hold came from the president.
Like every other witness who has testified, David Hale confirms that no, it's not U.S. policy to demand political investigations in exchange for aid—and no, it's not appropriate for the president to do so.
As important as the lack of contemporaneous explanation for why aid was withheld is the lack of contemporaneous explanation for why it was released, aside from the obvious ones Republicans deny: the whistleblower complaint and congressional pressure.
"Let's broadly talk about the context of all of these holds on aid."
Sure. Trump has corrupt relationships with Russia and Ukraine. He asked China to investigate Biden. He called his Istanbul hotel a conflict of interest.
What other corrupt relationships might he be hiding?
Sure. Trump has corrupt relationships with Russia and Ukraine. He asked China to investigate Biden. He called his Istanbul hotel a conflict of interest.
What other corrupt relationships might he be hiding?
Trump's defenders say he was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine.
So why didn't he ask any of the administration officials whose agencies certified that Ukraine had met anticorruption benchmarks to explain themselves?
So why didn't he ask any of the administration officials whose agencies certified that Ukraine had met anticorruption benchmarks to explain themselves?
"What more can we be doing to help the Ukrainians defend against Russian electronic warfare?"
We could start by not fundamentally shaking their faith in the U.S.'s willingness to help them counteract Russian aggression. theassetpodcast.org/episode/a-rock…
We could start by not fundamentally shaking their faith in the U.S.'s willingness to help them counteract Russian aggression. theassetpodcast.org/episode/a-rock…
There are legitimate steps the administration could have taken to legally withhold aid.
They didn't follow them.
They didn't even make a show of following them.
They didn't follow them.
They didn't even make a show of following them.
Ambassador Hale offers the defense of Marie Yovanovitch and the State Department that Mike Pompeo has so far refused to give in the face of Trump's ongoing smear campaign:
A key point from @RepValDemings: Republicans cite scattered opposition to Trump's 2016 candidacy as exemplifying the corruption Trump wanted Ukraine to fight.
Even if that were the actual reason, that wouldn't be a valid argument for withholding congressionally-appropriated aid.
Even if that were the actual reason, that wouldn't be a valid argument for withholding congressionally-appropriated aid.
@RepValDemings .@CongressmanRaja asks Hale and Cooper some specific questions about the nature of the records the State Department is withholding, including whether there are any recordings.
What's he getting at? 🤔
What's he getting at? 🤔
@RepValDemings @CongressmanRaja Neither Hale nor Cooper remembers being given a reason for why aid was being withheld, except that it was done at the president's direction—and they certainly weren't given the explanations Trump's defenders now give.
@RepValDemings @CongressmanRaja Nunes, trying to describe Democrats' tactics, describes his own instead: "If the facts and the law are against you, simply rig the game and hope the audience is too stupid to catch your duplicity."
@RepValDemings @CongressmanRaja .@RepAdamSchiff concludes by offering a few thoughts on anti-corruption and corruption:
@RepValDemings @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff "When Ambassador Sondland testified today that there was unquestionably a quid pro quo, and everybody knew it ... That's not anti-corruption. That is corruption."
@RepValDemings @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff "Every now and then there is a conversation that really says all you need to know." In this case, it came courtesy of Ambassador Volker:
@RepValDemings @CongressmanRaja @RepAdamSchiff "But when they see a president of the United States who is not devoted to the rule of law, not devoted to anti-corruption but instead demonstrates in word and deed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves what does America stand for anymore?"
