Impeachment Inquiry 2: Now It's Official!

[Smash!]

Great article by Sarah Kendzior https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trumps-threats-turned-a-respected-diplomats-american-dream-into-a/

My favourite quote from the article:

Democratic leaders claim they want to limit the scope of the impeachment proceedings to Mr. Trump’s 2019 Ukraine shakedown, but that’s both impossible and insulting. The 2019 Ukraine shakedown is a continuation of the 2016 election heist, which was a continuation of Mr. Trump’s apparent lifelong connection to the Kremlin and his schemes with corrupt actors from the former USSR. Limiting the impeachment scope does a grave disservice to people such as Ms. Yovanovitch, whose lives are endangered by the unwillingness of officials to examine crimes in context, and the refusal of institutions to hold perpetrators accountable.[\quote]

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Alisamer]

4 hours ago, Smash! said:

Does anyone know the reason why the Dems wanted to finish the hearings this week?

Maybe because Thanksgiving is next Thursday? It's a major family holiday in the US, and I'm sure if this dragged out into Thanksgiving the Repubs and Fox would start shrieking about how anti-family the Dems are because of it. Definitely better to wrap this up if possible before next week when people are traveling, on vacation, visiting family and otherwise occupied and paying less attention. 

I'm betting that there'll be at least one major crime incident happen in the US due to a political discussion going bad at the dinner table, what with extended families getting together for the holiday. 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

"5 takeaways from Fiona Hill’s and David Holmes’s testimony"

Spoiler

The final scheduled hearing in the House’s impeachment inquiry was Thursday, with former National Security Council Russia expert Fiona Hill and Ukraine diplomat David Holmes testifying.

Below are some key takeaways.

1. Holmes’s succinct explanation of two quid pro quos

The explanation by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, of how the Ukraine quid pro quos worked got lots of attention Wednesday — remember “2 plus 2 equals 4?” Sondland’s point was basically that everyone understood why a White House meeting and military aid were being withheld, even if President Trump never explicitly told him to convey a quid pro quo.

But Holmes even more methodically and succinctly laid out how the quid pro quos worked, and how they allegedly would have been understood by the Ukrainians to include not just a White House meeting but also military aid.

“Sir, we’ve been hearing about the investigations since March — months before — and President Zelensky had received a congratulatory letter from the president saying he would be pleased to meet him following his inauguration in May,” Holmes said. “And we had been unable to get that meeting. And then the security hold came up with no explanation.”

Holmes added: “And I’d be surprised if any of the Ukrainians — we discussed earlier, you know, they’re sophisticated people — when they received no explanation for why that hold was in place, they would have drawn that conclusion.”

Republicans have argued that there could not be a quid pro quo, because Ukraine may not have known for weeks about the hold on military aid and because it was eventually released without any Ukrainian announcement of Trump’s desired investigations.

There are still questions about just how early Ukraine might have known, though, including after Laura Cooper’s testimony Wednesday. In addition, the aid was released Sept. 11 — after the hold was reported publicly and amid bipartisan pressure on the administration to do so. It was also six days after The Washington Post editorial board reported it had been “reliably told” that Trump was “attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.”

In other words, as Philip Bump wrote, if this was indeed used as leverage, there were plenty of reasons the gambit would have been scrapped.

2. GOP questions backfire

As any lawyer will tell you, you’re not supposed to ask a witness a question if you don’t know how they’ll answer. That happened over and over again with Republicans on Thursday — thanks in large part to two very capable witnesses who weren’t willing to go along with the GOP’s lines of questioning.

The most telling example came when the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), tried to establish the premise that the “black ledger” Ukraine shared on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort wasn’t credible.

Holmes declined to grant that premise, though, and seemed to have done his homework:

NUNES: And the black ledger — is that seen as credible information?

HOLMES: Yes.

NUNES: The black ledger is credible?

HOLMES: Yes.

NUNES: Bob Mueller did not find it credible. Do you dispute what Bob Mueller’s findings were? They didn’t use it in the prosecution or in the report.

HOLMES: I’m not aware that Bob Mueller did not find it credible. I think it was evidence in other criminal proceedings. Its credibility was not questioned in those proceedings. But I’m not an expert on it.

Similarly, Holmes cut in when GOP counsel Stephen Castor asked him about a review that was conducted of how much European allies gave in aid to Ukraine. Castor’s idea was apparently to suggest Trump was concerned about burden-sharing when he withheld the military aid, rather than personal politics.

But Holmes interjected to note that the review happened after — and he emphasized that word — the Ukraine money was held up.

Then he added that the findings were “illuminating”: “The United States has provided combined civilian and military assistance to Ukraine since 2014 of about $3 billion plus … three $1 billion loan guarantees — those get paid back, largely. So just over three-billion dollars. The Europeans, at the level of the European Union plus the member states combined since 2014, my understanding have provided a combined $12 billion to Ukraine.”

The retort was clear: Castor’s argument was pretty nonsensical.

When questioning Hill, Castor tried established some background by asking questions that would usually elicit very brief answers. But she often provided very detailed ones that took things in a very different direction.

One came when Castor seemed to be trying to poke holes in Sondland’s testimony. He asked about disputes between the two of them, and Hill turned it into an answer about how correct Sondland’s testimony was.

“Now I actually realize, having listened to his deposition, that he was absolutely right — that he wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing,” Hill said.

She added: “Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security, foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged. So he was correct. And I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn’t fully coordinating. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland — Gordon — I think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.”

It was another big moment for Democrats, brought to you by Republicans on the committee.

3. Hill pushes back on Ukraine conspiracy theories — hard

Pretty much every witness, up to and including Sondland in his blockbuster testimony Wednesday, has been reluctant to craft a narrative or be overly combative with lawmakers.

Hill didn’t appear to have any such reservations.

In her opening statement, she made clear that she would take on the conspiracy theories that Republicans, including those on the committee hearing her testimony, have been pushing about Ukraine’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” Hill said. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”

She added: “In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.”

Nunes offered a preemptive rebuttal of Hill’s opening statement, arguing that Republicans were not suggesting that Russia did not interfere but that, perhaps Ukraine did as well. (Trump, it bears noting, has suggested it was really only Ukraine.) “Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in election meddling at the same time,” Nunes said.

Later in the hearing, though, Hill offered an extensive response to that idea, arguing Ukraine’s actions were simply not at all comparable to what Russia did, given Russia’s was an extensive, top-down effort that included a misinformation campaign. And indeed, she said Ukraine’s actions weren’t terribly dissimilar from officials in other countries who assumed Hillary Clinton would win the election and that they could criticize Trump.

“There’s a whole host of ambassadors from allied countries who tweeted out or had public comments about the president as well,” she said. “And it did not affect security assistance, having meetings with them. If it would, there’d been a lot of people he wouldn’t have met.”

There seemed to be a reason Democrats saved Hill for last (she was initially scheduled to testify alone). Despite having departed her White House position over the summer — before some of the key events in question in the impeachment inquiry — her previous deposition suggested that she was willing to color her testimony and be combative. And that was certainly the case Thursday.

The surprise was that Holmes was just as up to the task.

4. Trump tweets at a witness — again

For the second time in six days, Trump tweeted about a witness as the person was testifying.

Holmes’s key testimony regards Sondland’s conversation with Trump on July 26, the day after Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Holmes testified that he overheard Trump and Sondland talking about investigations. After the conversation, Holmes said, Sondland told him that Trump didn’t care about Ukraine but only about the investigations he was seeking.

“While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the president’s voice through the earpiece of the phone,” Holmes said. “The president’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.”

Trump tried to cast doubt on that Thursday morning, shortly before Holmes delivered his opening statement, suggesting that Holmes’s account doesn’t make sense.

“I have been watching people making phone calls my entire life. My hearing is, and has been, great,” Trump said. “Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation. I’ve even tried, but to no avail. Try it live!”

Trump was rebuked — even by Republicans — for criticizing former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch during her testimony Friday. Yovanovitch was asked about it during the hearing and stated that she found it intimidating.

5. Where’s John Bolton?

Some saw Hill as a proxy for former national security adviser John Bolton, under whom she served in the White House and whose potential testimony still hangs over these proceedings. Bolton has said he wants the courts to weigh in on whether he should testify, but Democrats aren’t subpoenaing him because they say it would take too long.

Bolton’s lawyer thickened the plot recently by writing a letter to the House noting that Bolton has knowledge of “many relevant meetings and conversations” that had not, as of Nov. 8, been discussed in the impeachment inquiry. Bolton’s exit from the White House was acrimonious, too, suggesting that he might be a motivated witness if he does appear.

Hill’s testimony only seems to reinforce how significant a witness Bolton could be. He was advising her to register her concerns, and according to her and other witnesses, he was among the most concerned about the metaphorical “drug deal” that was being cooked up with Ukraine.

Bolton may have been hoping that Hill would speak for him, to some degree, and that he wouldn’t have to testify. Expect plenty of talk after this hearing about whether Bolton could build on the foundations of the case that have been laid by Sondland and Hill.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans have a new enemy: Truth itself"

Spoiler

At its core, President Trump’s defense in these impeachment proceedings is not a dispute over the facts of the case, the credibility of the witnesses or the motives of Democrats.

It is a bid to discredit the truth itself.

The Ukraine escapade began, in large part, because Trump pursued a conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 election to bring about his defeat, a false notion spread by Vladimir ­Putin and ultimately — with the help of Rudy Giuliani and others — embraced by the president himself.

But to defend Trump, a number of Republicans have concluded that they must establish that he had good reason to believe Ukraine was, in fact, out to get him. They must defend the Putin-planted conspiracy theory.

“Some government officials opposed President Trump’s approach to Ukraine but many had no idea what concerned him,” says Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and the principal proponent of this view. “It was numerous indications of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election to oppose his campaign and support Hillary Clinton. Once you know that, it’s easy to understand the president’s desire to get to the bottom of this.”

But on Thursday morning, that defense collided with a rock-solid obstacle: Fiona Hill, a Russia expert from the National Security Council who had a front-row seat to the administration’s shenanigans in Kyiv and who used her impeachment testimony to denounce the whackadoodle theory.

“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” she testified in the accent of her native northern England. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”

She continued her scolding, at length: “I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternative narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016.”

Nunes, who had read Hill’s written testimony, delivered a prebuttal before she delivered it. It’s not true, he said, that “some committee members deny that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.”

No? Exactly 71 seconds earlier, Nunes had referred to the matter as the “Russia hoax.”

The attempt to shift blame to Ukraine has been a daily refrain for Nunes. Democrats “turned a blind eye to Ukrainians meddling in our elections,” he said, ignoring “an election meddling scheme with Ukrainian officials on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.”

It appears Nunes may have had a hand in shaping Trump’s view, too. Hill, during her deposition, said Kash Patel, a former Nunes staffer who joined the White House, apparently shared information with Trump about Ukraine — so much so that Trump seemed to think Patel was the NSC’s Ukraine director. Hill said “it alarmed everybody.”

After Politico reported on the deposition (the transcript has since been released), Patel on Monday filed a $25 million lawsuit against the news outlet. His lawyer is the same one who has represented Nunes in a variety of lawsuits against some 60 people and entities — including various journalists, news organizations and a Twitter user pretending to be Devin Nunes’s cow — that Nunes believes have done him wrong.

Nunes has been waging a broader campaign against the media, saying they “lurch from the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax at the direction of their puppet masters.”

Among Nunes’s pieces of evidence implicating Ukraine: an op-ed critical of Trump by a Ukrainian ambassador; a former DNC official who worked with Ukrainian officials “to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign”; and support by some Ukrainian officials for Hillary Clinton. Another allegation, offered by Trump in his now-infamous phone call, has Ukraine harboring a secret Democratic server.

Hill, during her testimony, dismissed the server fantasy. Though critical of Ukrainian officials who disparaged Trump, she explained that “many officials from many countries” did the same, and the Ukrainian detractors appeared to be individuals, unlike Russia’s top-down assault.

Nunes didn’t challenge Hill directly on Ukraine, instead taking a detour into Fusion GPS, the Steele dossier and other recurring elements of the fever dream he shares at each hearing. Apparently, he didn’t want to go toe to toe with her on what she called “politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.”

“The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today,” she said. “Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned.”

And Devin Nunes fights, with all his might, for a fiction.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From Eugene Robinson: "Imagine defending Trump after this week’s hearings. Oh, wait…"

Spoiler

After this week’s impeachment testimony, if Republicans continue to insist that Dear Leader President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong — and they might do just that — then the GOP has surrendered any claim to being a political party. It would be a full-fledged cult of personality.

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who gave hours of riveting testimony Wednesday, clearly was determined not to be the fall guy for Trump’s Ukraine bribery scheme. He saw the danger of being portrayed as some sort of rogue actor, and he was having none of that.

“We followed the president’s orders,” he testified. And in defining “we,” he implicated Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, among others, as knowing of or participating in the attempt to coerce Ukrainian officials into fabricating dirt on Trump’s potential Democratic opponent in the coming election, Joe Biden.

There was an actual rogue actor orchestrating this outrageous shakedown attempt — Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer. From Sondland and other witnesses, we learned that the officials whose job was managing relations with Ukraine resented having to follow Giuliani’s lead. But they did so anyway.

Sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee has revealed a clear quid pro quo that amounts to bribery: Newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would not get the release of nearly $400 million in military aid or a White House meeting with Trump unless Zelensky announced an investigation of Biden and his son Hunter, who served on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

The most devastating part of Sondland’s testimony, for me, was when he said that Trump wasn’t actually interested in having the Ukrainians unearth any new information. He just wanted Biden smeared.

“I never heard . . . anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed,” Sondland testified. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form.”

Arms for dirt. That was the exchange Trump demanded, using as leverage taxpayer funds that had been appropriated to buttress U.S. national security. Explain to me how anyone can honestly believe that is an appropriate use of presidential power.

“Republicans are in denial about the facts,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, in what had to be the understatement of the year.

The fact is that Republicans in the House, at least publicly, have performed heroic gyrations and contortions to remain in lockstep with the president. As devastating fact after devastating fact has emerged in the testimony, Trump’s defenders are reduced to arguing, essentially, that Trump can do no wrong.

If reality is inconvenient for the president, Republicans ignore it and create their own faux reality. In her opening statement, submitted in advance to the Intelligence Committee, former National Security Council official Fiona Hill called the idea that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election a “fictional narrative.” But before she even got a chance to read her statement, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) used his time at the microphone to argue that the Ukraine fairy tale was real. Perhaps if he closed his eyes and wished really hard, I suppose, his wish might come true.

Republicans were unable to challenge the testimony of the witnesses called before the committee, so instead they tried to question their character and even their patriotism. They questioned Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Tuesday in such a way as to imply, but not come out and allege, that his loyalty was to Ukraine rather than the United States. They tried to portray career diplomats such as George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr. as part of the mythical and oh-so-scary “deep state.”

It would be one thing if Republicans were saying that what Trump did was wrong but does not rise to the level of impeachment. Instead, however, they continue to pretend that Trump is somehow infallible — that because of his vast presidential powers, or perhaps because of some imagined mandate of heaven, what he did must have been not just acceptable but entirely justified.

How glorious it was to send Giuliani to run a shadow foreign policy! How noble to be so concerned about corruption in a faraway land! How brilliant to squeeze Zelensky to besmirch a “rabid dog” like Biden.

Oops, sorry, it was North Korea’s Kim Jong Un who said Biden was a “rabid dog,” and it was Trump who said he wasn’t. Forgive me, but it was an honest mistake. Sometimes I get my “Dear Leaders” mixed up.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Rick Wilson is on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC.  Best quote: “Devin Nunes has the IQ of a cup of warm yogurt.”  

[fraurosena]

One for the history books.

 

[fraurosena]

Lev Parnas is talking. But don’t take his word for it. Yermak has confirmed Parnas was in the meeting.

 

[fraurosena]

Fiona Hill's testimony yesterday is reverberating in Europe too.

 

[Smash!]

Our national tv station was streaming it live too. The hearings got attention around the world and I hope our leaders put pressure on The States so Trump has no choice but to resign.

[Smash!]

I sway between hope because of those strong testimonials and despair because the GOP doesn't seem to care [emoji53]

[laPapessaGiovanna]

5 minutes ago, Smash! said:

I sway between hope because of those strong testimonials and despair because the GOP doesn't seem to care

The problem right now isn't just the GOP, it's that the so many American people don't think that what tRump did was serious enough to warrant impeachment as if apparent from five thirty-eight data. If polls suggested otherwise the GOP would have already thrown tRump under the bus in favour of Pence. It's sad but apparently too many Americans either don't have enough brain power to understand the situation or are perfectly fine with living in a banana republic.

Spoiler

The public remains divided about crucial facts

In building their case against Trump, Democrats are using a set of key questions that are likely to serve as the foundation for articles of impeachment. In broad strokes, they are:

Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter?

Did Trump withhold military aid to pressure the Ukrainians into opening an investigation into the Bidens?

Did the Trump administration try to cover up Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine?

According to our poll with Ipsos, a majority of Americans agree that all three of these things happened and that they’re inappropriate behaviors for a president. But there’s less consensus about whether they’re impeachable offenses. Republicans, in particular, seem unconvinced that any of the three prongs in Democrats’ case against Trump are impeachable offenses.

 

[formergothardite]

13 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

it's that the so many American people don't think that what tRump did was serious enough 

This is absolutely true. I went and social media stalked the total normal republicans. Some who have criticized Trump. They dont' see this as a big deal. Then there are the people who are more liberal but not into politics and they also don't see what is the big deal. 

I don't know how to change this or what will change it. People are just apathetic about the whole thing. 

[Smash!]

30 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

The problem right now isn't just the GOP, it's that the so many American people don't think that what tRump did was serious enough to warrant impeachment

Thank you and @formergothardite for clarifying. I didn't realize that. First I wanted to blame Faux News. But that seems only partially to be the reason. ?I'm lost for words.

[GreyhoundFan]

"With a warning on Russia, blitz of public testimony in impeachment inquiry comes to an end"

Spoiler

House Democrats on Thursday concluded a 72-hour blitz of impeachment inquiry hearings with testimony from two witnesses who reinforced that President Trump likely withheld military aid and a coveted White House meeting from Ukraine to sway that country to investigate his political rival.

The testimony from Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Russia, and David Holmes, a counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, closed a dramatic week in which lawmakers summoned nine witnesses to describe what Democrats believe was a self-serving effort by Trump and his allies to coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden — to the detriment of U.S. national security interests.

Their testimony might be the last the House Intelligence Committee takes publicly as part of its impeachment inquiry. The committee has begun writing a report summarizing its findings, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the Democrats’ next moves. Once that has been completed, proceedings will move to the House Judiciary Committee, which will draft specific articles of impeachment. The Judiciary Committee could begin its work when lawmakers return from the Thanksgiving recess, the people said.

Hill and Holmes detailed tense behind-the-scenes deliberations among Trump administration officials, presenting fresh perspective on how the collective effect of efforts by the president and his allies ultimately benefited Russia, which backs Ukrainian separatists fighting the government in Kyiv.

In addition to pressing for investigations, the pair testified, those aligned with the president — particularly Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani — undercut Marie Yovanovitch, a respected U.S. diplomat who served as the ambassador to Ukraine, and spread unfounded allegations that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” Hill said.

The two witnesses were the last who had been formally scheduled for public hearings — though others could be added, and the House Intelligence Committee is still expected to release the remaining transcripts of its private depositions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declined to say Thursday whether she has heard enough to move the impeachment process forward, though she asserted that Democrats would not wait on the courts to compel the appearance of several other potential witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) seemed to make Democrats’ next step clear, saying Trump’s actions were “beyond” even what President Richard M. Nixon did in the Watergate scandal that forced him to resign.

Meanwhile, roughly a half-dozen Republican senators and senior White House officials met in private Thursday to map out strategy on a potential impeachment trial of President Trump, including trying to limit proceedings to two weeks, according to officials familiar with the discussion who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose GOP planning.

Despite some damaging testimony suggesting the president wanted a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen as part of a quid pro quo, Republicans, so far, have been unmoved.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) sent a letter to Pompeo on Thursday requesting documents on Biden, his son Hunter and other Obama administration officials — touching off what appears to be a conservative counter-investigation.

Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the highest ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, asserted that Democrats were making an “attempt to overthrow the president.”

“The damage they have done to this country will be long-lasting,” he said.

Trump retweeted some allies’ assessments of the inquiry, including that of Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who wrote, “A notable theme in these hearings: some career officials seem to act as though their job is to decide America’s foreign policy. It’s the President who sets policy — not unelected bureaucrats.”

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Thursday’s witnesses, “just like the rest, have no personal or direct knowledge regarding why U.S. aid was temporarily withheld.”

“The Democrats’ are clearly being motivated by a sick hatred for President Trump and their rabid desire to overturn the 2016 election,” she said. “The American people deserve better.”

Like other witnesses before them, Hill and Holmes said they grew increasingly dismayed, starting in the spring and summer, as their efforts to arrange a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were stymied by Giuliani and others.

The officials said they would come to learn the White House was also withholding roughly $400 million of security assistance from Ukraine, and Holmes said it was his “clear impression” that was because Zelensky would not announce investigations as Trump and Giuliani wanted.

“While we had advised our Ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally investigating credible corruption allegations, this was a demand that President Zelensky personally commit, on a cable news channel, to a specific investigation of President Trump’s political rival,” Holmes testified.

Hill and Holmes described how different officials in the U.S. government seemed to be working at different purposes — and with different instructions — in their dealings with Ukraine.

In one of the most notable exchanges of the day, Hill — under questioning from committee Republicans’ lawyer — described growing angry with Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who had told her that Trump tapped him personally to work on Ukraine issues.

In his testimony Wednesday, Sondland explicitly linked Trump, Vice President Pence and other senior officials to what he said he came to believe was a campaign to pressure a foreign government to investigate Biden in exchange for a White House meeting and military aid. Sondland also acknowledged his own role in the matter, though he said he did not realize in real time that what he was doing was improper.

Hill said that she confronted Sondland for not coordinating with her and that he responded he already was briefing Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton.

“Who else,” Hill said Sondland asked her, “do I have to deal with?”

Hill said that watching Sondland’s testimony, she came to understand he was “absolutely right.”

“He wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing,” Hill said. “He was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy.”

Hill said she told Sondland: “Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up.”

“And here we are,” Hill said.

Hill said that she had observed Sondland press Ukrainians to announce investigations and suggest they would not get a White House meeting unless they did so.

That occurred at a July 10 meeting involving Ukrainians and Bolton, Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and then-special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Hill said. As the meeting was wrapping up, she said, a Ukrainian official inquired about a White House meeting, and Bolton tried to change the subject.

Sondland, Hill said, interjected to say “there will be a meeting, if specific investigations are put underway.”

“That’s when I saw Ambassador Bolton stiffen,” Hill testified, adding that the national security adviser soon declared he had to leave.

Hill testified that Bolton told her later to report the matter to the National Security Council’s top lawyer, John Eisenberg, and relay the message, “I am not part of this, whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.” Sondland, she said, had claimed Mulvaney had agreed to schedule a meeting if Ukraine would agree to announce the investigations.

Robert Driscoll, an attorney for Mulvaney, said in a statement that Hill’s testimony was “riddled with speculation and guesses about any role that Mr. Mulvaney played with anything related to Ukraine.”

Bolton’s lawyer has said he is willing to testify only if a federal judge rules that he can do so over a White House objection. His testimony could be particularly important because he had direct contact with Trump, and, according to other witnesses, was uncomfortable with some of what was happening in the White House.

Hill testified, for example, that Bolton referred to Giuliani as a “hand grenade” that was going to “blow everyone up.”

“He was frequently on television, making quite incendiary remarks about everyone involved in this,” Hill said of Giuliani. “He was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would probably come back to haunt us. And, in fact, I think that that’s where we are today.”

Holmes, too, described noteworthy administration dealings on Ukraine, in particular a conversation between Trump and Sondland on July 26 — a day after Trump had pressed Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in a phone call that was a trigger for the impeachment inquiry.

Lunching at an open-air cafe in Kyiv, Holmes testified, Sondland called the White House on his personal cellphone. Trump, he said, spoke so loudly that his voice was clear even though it wasn’t on speakerphone.

Holmes said he heard Trump ask, “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” and Sondland reply, “He’s gonna do it” — alluding to Zelensky.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in my Foreign Service career,” Holmes testified.

After the call ended, Holmes testified, he asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine. He said the ambassador, who had taken an informal role leading Ukraine policy, responded that Trump did not care at all about Ukraine and cared only about the “big stuff” that affected him personally — namely “the Biden investigation.”

Holmes’s public testimony on Thursday matched information he provided to the committee behind closed doors. Sondland on Wednesday testified that he did not think he had specifically referred to Biden while speaking to Holmes after the phone call.

For his part, Trump tweeted, “I have been watching people making phone calls my entire life. My hearing is, and has been, great. Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation. I’ve even tried, but to no avail. Try it live!”

Hill and Holmes both described how the efforts of Giuliani and others upended U.S. foreign policy — leaving Ukraine vulnerable.

Though the U.S. ultimately turned over the money to Ukraine in September after lawmakers began raising questions, Holmes noted that Trump still had not agreed to a coveted White House meeting for Zelensky.

“They still need us now, going forward,” Holmes said. “This doesn’t end with the lifting of the security assistance hold.”

Focusing on the notion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Hill offered a blunt warning about the 2020 campaign, saying the Kremlin has “geared up to repeat their” attacks and “we are running out of time to stop them.”

She said she raised such issues because Russia’s goal was to put the U.S. president — no matter who it might be — “under a cloud.”

“This,” she said, “is exactly what the Russian government was hoping for.”

 

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, Smash! said:

First I wanted to blame Faux News. But that seems only partially to be the reason. ?I'm lost for words.

There is something very wrong with America and Trump is just a symptom of that. I think Fox is a part of the problem. But there are so many parts of this problem it is hard to figure out how to start fixing it. 

I'm kind of frustrated that the democrats decided to go ahead and do the impeachment hearings now because all that will happen is that the Senate won't vote to impeach him, Trump will declare himself a victor. Democrats seem to play right into the hands of Trump and the GOP.I don't know why they they didn't just wait till next year when it is closer to the election so Trump would have to deal with it right when he is trying to convince people to vote for him. So that republicans would have had to deal with it while they were trying to get elected. Now, this will be old news and the republicans can say that what Trump did was not an impeachable offense since he wasn't impeached. This won't be in the minds of voters since it was done this early.  There will be five million other things that will have clogged up the news and minds of the American people. 

I fully believe Trump will get elected again. Democrats have never been able to figure out how to deal with him and unless they hurry up and do that we are doomed to another four years of Trump threads. 

[fraurosena]

 

[Xan]

Admittedly, I've been stressing over the fact that the Republicans continue to back Trump.  And it now appears that he's courting the Repub senators and encouraging them to limit the scope of the impeachment trial.  I lived through Watergate and I remember how important it is to have the public aware of all the facts.

However, I'm beginning to think that maybe it's not the worst idea to have the GOP dragging around the rotting albatross of Trump into the next election.  Sure, he'll get his usual 30% or so of crazy voters.  But the undecideds will not vote for him.  And the campaign ads for the Democratic candidate will only have to feature clips from the impeachment hearings or of Trump with his usual insane outbursts.  If it were not for the problem of insecure voting equipment, I wouldn't be worried about the next election.  

I live in a red state and even the rural voters are beginning to look at Trump more closely.  

[SilverBeach]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

People are just apathetic about the whole thing. 

Some people. American citizen here, black female American citizen. I am terrified, but no one has polled me. Or perhaps I've just ignored their calls as I don't answer unidentified ones. Russia knew that old-school military action would not take us over, so the Trojan horse strategy is being used. The rethuglicans who are putting party above principle are worse than pond scum. We know Dump is a lost cause, he is amoral. But to blindly defend him? I suspect McTurtle and some of the rest of them have secret accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands with Russian money in them, why else would they sell the country down the river? Every world power has eventually fallen, maybe it is America's time. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by SilverBeach

[mamallama]

I agree, @Xan but I think where the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot is not finding a candidate that will be easy for those people to vote for.  I would love to see medicare for all and free college but I don't think you can sell it to a big chunk of the country and even if you can you couldn't get it through congress.  The primary process isn't helping but I don't have any great ideas on how to change it.  

I think Russia has the equivalent of peepee tapes on a lot of Rupublicans.  

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by mamallama
edited to reply to Silverbeach as well

[Smash!]

12 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I fully believe Trump will get elected again. Democrats have never been able to figure out how to deal with him and unless they hurry up and do that we are doomed to another four years of Trump threads. 

I tend to that view as well but I'm not giving up hope and the belief that we all can do something no matter how small, to at least try to prevent such an outcome. For example, Tedra Cobb raised a Million Dollars in just a few short days and most of her donors gave a small amount of money. I know from the Mark Kelly campain in AZ that many people just chipped in what they could and it looks good for him so far. There are tons of organizations out there who will appreciate every person who wants to be involved, even if it's for half an hour a week. I think what will guarantee this outcome is when we all sit here, paralyzed out of fear and being sure it will happen this way.

I can't imagine how you all feel because I, in Europe, feel horrified at the thought of 45 getting another term and a whole Western country falling into the dark place of dictatorship. Big hug to you all and the battle isn't lost until he's elected.

5 minutes ago, Xan said:

If it were not for the problem of insecure voting equipment, I wouldn't be worried about the next election.  

Good point. This should be a major headline in every newspaper until MoscowMitch stops blocking this bill in the senate. At least on Twitter it seems Jennifer Cohn and Sarah Kendzior are the only ones constantly pointing the finger at it.

6 minutes ago, Xan said:

I live in a red state and even the rural voters are beginning to look at Trump more closely. 

This is good to hear! ? I hope it stays that way and the scandals keep coming.

[fraurosena]

You guys, I am not convinced at all that Trump will be re-elected. Not by a long shot. The fear of another four years of Trump dictatorship is burning in the hearts of Americans right now and I don't believe for a second that the turnout to the 2020 elections is not going to be massive. I don't think it will matter who is on the ticket for the Dems either. The antipathy against Trump and his trumplican Putin-loving sychophants is so great that they will be washed away in a great big cleansing blue wave that not even rigged voting systems can stop.

There is still a chance Trump will be removed from office, but honestly, I think Pelosi's play is a different one. What do you think will happen in America when Trump isn't removed from office despite the overwhelming evidence? It will only whip up the animosity, and drive even more people to the polls. Just look at what @Smash! pointed out about the reaction to Elise Stefanik's antics during the hearings and the surge of donations to her political rival Tedra Cobb.

And on the off-chance that Trump actually gets removed, well, that's great too, but as I said, I'm not so sure that's Pelosi's end goal. 

So, no matter the outcome of the impeachment trial, it will be a win for the Dems in the end.