I don't intend to discuss the impeachment hearings in detail, just to give my brief impressions of the witnesses and their testimony.
Day One: William Taylor and George Kent.
These were the first witnesses. A lawyer's usual strategy is to end with the strongest witness, start with the second-strongest, and put weaker witnesses in the middle. Taylor was the acting ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the relevant events; George Kent is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. In other words, Taylor had the Ukrainian perspective and Kent the Washington perspective.
Taylor was a strong witness. He gave a detailed chronological account of events, date by date, based on contemporaneous notes that he took. He reported that when serving as acting ambassador, he began to notice that there was a second, irregular channel of communications, consisting of the Three Amigos -- Gordon Sondland, Kurt Volker and Rick Perry. At first the irregular channel seemed to share his goal -- to arrange a meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.
But by mid-July, it was apparent to Taylor that the meeting was conditioned on investigation of Burisma, and alleged Ukrainian interference and the 2016 U.S. elections. Taylor also realized about the same time that security assistance was on hold, but did not immediately connect the two. That left Taylor in an awkward position. Ukrainians very appreciative of US security assistance and Taylor aware that assistance had been withheld and not authorized to disclose this fact and not knowing why. Taylor first learned of the link on September 1 when he received a readout of a call between Zelensky and Vice President Pence that quoted Sondland linking military aid to "investigations." He promptly texted Sondland -- to create a paper trail, many of us suspect. Sondland promptly answered, "Call me," -- to avoid a paper trail, many suspect. Sondland confirmed in the call that security aid as well as the White House meeting depended on a public commitment to "investigations."
All these discussions of "investigations" invariably just mentioned Burisma and the 2016 election but Taylor figured out along the way that "investigations" implied the Bidens. (No specific date of revelation; the only thing not dated). Sondland quoted Trump as denying a "quid pro quo," but saying that without investigations things were at a "stalemate" and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. (Not made clear: What the Ukrainians "owed" Trump). The release was made September 11, and Taylor followed up by urging the Ukrainians not to announce "investigations." Indeed, no investigations were announced.
Kent gave decidedly less information in his opening statement and answered many fewer questions. He did, however, make the point that if the genuine concern was corruption, there were official channels to follow, that Vice President Joe Biden did have a potential conflict of interest pressing Ukraine on corruption while his son was serving on the Burisma board of directors, but that there was never any attempt by the US government (Obama Administration) to shield Burisma and many calls to resume investigation.
Day Two, Marie Yovanovich.
Marie Yovanovich was the Ambassador to Ukraine before William Taylor. She was removed as a result of smears, largely orchestrated by Rudy Giuliani. I did not find her testimony very useful, to be honest. She was recalled before the relevant events and therefore did not witness any of them. Her opening statement focused mostly on refuting various smears, and the questions asked by the committee were painfully focused on her feelings (perhaps because she is a woman).
Day Three, Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison.
Volker and Morrison are considered defense (i.e., Republican) witnesses. Once again, Volker was the witness to events in Ukraine and Morrison the witness to events in Washington.
Volker is a retired career diplomat, brought back into service to serve as one of the Three Amigos. His testimony seemed more focused on defending his own conduct than in defending Trump. Volker emphasized his highly reputable background, his role and an official, not irregular, channel, and his hawkishness toward Russia. Yet his advocacy of Ukraine was being undermined by the old Prosecutor General and by Rudy Giuliani. Volker maintained that Giuliani was acting as a private citizen and had no role in setting policy, and that he believed both Trump and Giuliani were acting out of a good-faith concern about corruption. Although Giuliani did specifically mention the Bidens, Volker assured him there was nothing to the allegation. While Volker hoped that a generic commitment to fighting "corruption" would be sufficient, Giuliani insisted that the Ukrainians mention "Burisma" and "2016." He also denied being aware of the July 25 phone call until it was made public (undoubtedly true), knowing that security assistance as well as a White House visit was tied to "investigations," (possible) or knowing that "Burisma" was code for Biden (extraordinarily naive, if true).
Volker's opening statement makes clear that Rudy Giuliani was making demands about what sort of announcement was needed before President Trump would give the Ukrainians a White House meeting, and also that he was negotiating with the Ukrainians to give the sort of statement Giuliani wanted. He seems strangely unaware that that effectively meant that a private citizen -- and Donald Trump's personal lawyer at that -- was dictating Ukraine policy. Indeed, Giuliani was clearly Trump's main source of information on Ukraine. When the Three Amigos' account did not agree with Giuliani's, Trump would say, "Talk to Rudy." Volker insisted, under questioning, that he had no idea that that was a directive to talk to Rudy.
In short, Volker made a terrible defense witness. He made no attempt whatever to defend Trump's conduct on the July 25 call, only to dissociate himself from it.
Morrison was the senior policy director for Europe on the National Security Council. He testified that he saw nothing illegal on the July 25 call and only notified the NSC lawyer because it was politically embarrassing, and denied having any role in subjecting the call to an inordinately high security rating. He did also emphasize his commitment to Ukraine's defense and his disappointment in the July 25 call. He also referred to Sondland and Giuliani as a "parallel process." Unlike Volker, Morrison said he was aware that investigating Burisma meant investigating the Bidens, and that Trump was withholding military aid to coerce the investigation. Like Volker, Morrison made no attempt to defend the policy on the merits. His defense was that it was merely a bad policy and not actually illegal.
To date, no witness has defendant Trump's actions as appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment