Holmes was present in Ukraine when Rudy Giuliani and Prosecutor General Lutsenko began working to undermine Ambassador Marie Yovanovich. He also cited New York Times articles dated May 1 and May 9 about Giuliani seeking to have the Ukrainians investigate interference in the 2016 election and Joe Biden. The Three Amigos made clear they were running Ukraine policy, and Giuliani seemed to be running the three amigos. Holmes' testimony generally parallels Taylor's. The newly inaugurated Zelensky administration wanted a White House meeting as a display of US support and never seemed to get anywhere. It became clear that in order to hold a meeting, President Trump wanted "investigations," which Holmes took to include the Bidens. Like Taylor, Holmes learned of the freeze in security assistance on July 18 and did not know the reason. The embassy was not included in the July 25 phone call, a most unusual circumstance. The next day, President Zelensky said that Trump has raises "sensitive matters" three times. Zelensky's adviser, Andrei Yermak, met with Sondland, with no not takers present.
All this either parallels or slightly expands on Taylor's testimony. Holmes' real bombshell was that he overheard a telephone conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump in which Sondland assured Trump that Zelensky "loves your ass"* and would do "anything you ask him to," including the investigation. After the conversation, Holmes asked Sondland what Trump thought about Ukraine and Sondland answered that Trump did not care about Ukraine, only about "big stuff" that could benefit him personally, like the Biden investigation. It should be noted that Sondland, though not remembering the conversation in detail, generally confirmed it except for the mention of Biden.
Hill (notable for her British accent) did not drop any bombshells, but was freer than anyone else in expressing opinions. For the most part, she gave a broad overview rather than discussing specific incident. She said it was not inappropriate for Gordon Sondland or Rick Perry to operate a channel to Ukraine. Sondland was ambassador to the EU, which Ukraine aspired to join, and dealt with Europe in general. Perry was Secretary of Energy, and Ukraine is rich in oil and gas. But it was completely inappropriate for Rudy Giuliani, acting at Trump's lawyer, to meddle, and she was well aware that Giulian's talk of investigating Burisma meant investigating the Bidens.
The main (and most colorful) incident that she described was the visit to Washington by the three amigos and two Ukrainian officials. She said that, while Sondland might not have perceived anything wrong, she could see from John Bolton's body language that he was displeased. It was after the meeting that Bolton told her to talk to the NSC lawyer and tell him that Bolton had no role in "whatever drug deal Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up." She had left the NSC at the time of the infamous July 25 call.
I did think it was significant that Devin Nunes got an admission from both witnesses (in the context of the Steele Dossier) that it was not appropriate for political parties to run operatives in other countries to dig up dirt on their opponents. In other words, if you want to do opposition research on Donald Trump's foreign business dealings, stick to open source and do not talk to anyone in the foreign countries. (Not sure agree, but Holmes and Hill are authorities I respect). I'm not sure how much that helps the Republicans, though, because that is, after all, exactly what Rudy Giuliani is doing right now.
But Hill's most important testimony by far, the thing that no one else said, dealt with election "meddling" by countries other than Russia:
I also mentioned in my deposition of October 14th that in fact many officials from many countries including Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They believe that Secretary Clinton, former Senator Clinton, former First Lady Clinton was going to win. And many said some pretty disparaging and hurtful thing about President Trump. But I can't blame him for feeling aggrieved about them. And when we were setting up Head of State visits, remember I have a portfolio of 50 plus countries plus NATO and the European Union, we thought it prudent to collect as much as possible about comments that people might have said about the President during the campaign when he was either one of the candidates to be the nominee for the Republican party or when he was actually the candidate running against Hillary Clinton. And I'm sorry to say that awful lot and perhaps I shouldn't name them here because it will have conscience an awful lot of Senior Officials in many Goverance (ph) including our Allied Governments said some pretty hurtful things about The President.______________________________________________
And I would also personally take offense at some the things that were said if I were The President. Now the difference here however is that that hasn't had any major impact on his feelings towards those countries. Not that I have seen. But I've heard The President say, and he said it in public so I'm not revealing any kind of executive privilege here that Ukraine tried to take me down. What (ph) I have seen is this ill advised Ukrainian Officials, Ambassador Charlie been removed as being the Ambassador from here. Made some pretty unpleasant statements and above all some ill advised opeds. But I could list a whole host of Ambassadors from allied countries who tweeted out, who had public comments about The President as well. And it did not affect security assistance having meetings with them. If it would there been a lot of people he wouldn't have met with.
*This is a decidedly odd turn of phrase, especially for Donald Trump, who does not seem like the type to want his ass loved.
No comments:
Post a Comment