This was a somewhat unusual pairing in that both parties brought the perspective of Washington; neither was stationed in Ukraine. Also somewhat unusual: I don't really understand the point of Williams' testimony. Vindman is a career military man who was serving on National Security Council (NSC) at all relevant times. Williams is a career diplomat worked for the Office of the Vice President at all relevant times. Both were present during the fatal phone call of July 25.
Vindman also attended the inauguration of President Zelensky. (He played no role in deciding who was to attend). He was also present when Ukrainian National Security Adviser Oleksandr Daniluk visited Washington and met with US national security officials and Gordon Sondland. It was during this meeting that Sondland insisted in investigations of the 2016 election, Burisma, and the Bidens. This led National Security Adviser John Bolton to cut the meeting short. Vindman told Sondland directly that such a demand was improper and reported it to the NSC lawyer. He also was present during the July 25 phone call and reported it to the NSC lawyer. He also testified (and Williams agreed) that a reference in the July 25 transcript to "the company" actually said "Burisma," and that it was most unusual that a US President, asking a foreign government to root out corruption, would mention a specific company. Vindman did not directly address security assistance.
Williams' testimony was mostly supplemental. She was also present on the phone call and thought it unusual to bring up specific individuals or companies. (She agreed that Burisma was specifically named). She attempted to schedule the Vice President's attendance at President Zelensky's inauguration, but had a very narrow window to schedule and was ultimately ordered from above, for unknown reasons, that he would not be attending. She was also present at a meeting in Warsaw between President Zelensky and Vice President Pence in which Zelensky asked about the hold on security assistance and Pence assured Zelensky of US support.
In his cross examination of the witnesses, Devin Nunes raised some questions about Ukraine that seemed quite alarming, if true. The fact that no other Republicans raised the issue led me to suspect that the allegations were false. (More on that later). He also pressed on identifying the whistle blower, until Chairman Schiff cut him off.
Day Four Gordon Sondland
Gordon Sondland testified alone, and properly so, I would say. Sondland was the only witness before the committee who had significant knowledge of events in both Washington and Ukraine. I did not find his testimony to be either as damning as Democrats believed, or as exculpatory as Republicans claimed. Furthermore, Sondland, like Volker, was far enough implicated in the whole scheme to have strong reasons to be self-serving.
Sondland began by acknowledging that he is not a note-taker and was not given access to official documents, so his memory was imperfect. He would also defer to career diplomats who were note takers. Like Volker, Sondland denied being part of any irregular back channel, and he kept all officials back in Washington apprised of what was going on. This was his primary emphasis throught his opening statement and, like Volker, it seems likely his emphasis was self-serving. Like Volker, he also denied knowing that investigating Burisma was code for investigating the Bidens, although he considered it clear in hindsight. Unlike Volker, he did understand "talk to Rudy" as a directive to talk to Rudy. Although he was never told why security aid was suspended, he did come to understand it was conditional on investigating Burisma and 2016. Sondland thus redoubled his efforts to get the Ukrainians to do those investigations, but did not press them to investigate the Bidens.
Sondland was present during the meeting between Ukrainian National Security Adviser Oleksandr Daniluk and members of the US National Security Council. He acknowledged pressing Daniluk on the need for investigations at that meeting, but denied that the demand led to any conflict. He was not present on the July 25 call and did not learn that anything improper happened until the transcript was made public. But he did prep Zelensky to discuss investigations before the call, and worked with him on preparing an announcement after the call. At the multilateral Warsaw conference, he pulled aside Zelensky's adviser Andrei Yermak to tell him that security aid depended on investigations. And at some point he proposed that the prosecutor general announce the investigation, only to be told that it had to be Pesident Zelensky. Probably also significant and consistent with the testimony of every other witness -- no one Sondland talked to favored withholding the military aid.
Sondland's supposedly most damning testimony was:
I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo?
As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.
Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the right -- White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements.
But an opponent of impeachment might respond, so what. Quid pro quo simply means an exchange of value, which is the lifeblood of diplomacy, just as it is the lifeblood of business or politics. The real questions is not whether there was a quid pro quo, but whether there was a corrupt quid pro quo, and this statement leaves room for doubt. Sondland speaks of exchanging a White House visit for investigation of Burisma and the 2016 election, not of exchanging military aid for investigation of the Bidens. And, after all, a president has absolute discretion to decide what foreign leaders he wants to invite to the White House, while the military aid was appropriated by Congress and was mandatory. and Burisma, at least, might be seen as investigating domestic corruption, rather than intervening in US politics. Even the 2016 election cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Alexandra Chalupa might have improperly cooperated with the Ukrainian embassy. But he also made clear that Trump never expressly told him that aid was tied to investigations.*
The supposedly exculpatory statement occurred on September 9 when Sondland asked Trump what he wanted in order to release military aid and Trump said, "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." This is entirely unconvincing for two reasons. First, it was spoken after the scandal had become public, so anything Trump might say (even in private) was obviously self-serving. Second, saying you are making no demands, followed by a demand is obviously self-refuting.
The fourth day was a long day, with Gordon Sondland followed by testimony from Laura Cooper and David Hale (no opening statement). Both are career employees, Cooper the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia and Hale the Undersecretary of State for Political affairs. Both witnesses brought the perspective of Washington, not Ukraine.
Anything else they had to say was overshadowed by a bombshell dropped by Laura Cooper. Up until then, Trump's defenders might argue that he could not have used military aid to pressure the Ukrainians because they were not aware of the hold until it appeared in Politico. Cooper revealed that her staff had searched their e-mails and discovered two from the Ukrainian embassy complaining about a hold on security assistance on July 25, the day of the infamous phone call. She did not know how the Ukrainians learned of the hold. Any concerns about the had had been certified by the Pentagon in May. Every agency except the OMB favored release of the aid.
Hale was a witness requested by Republicans. He testified that military aid has been withheld from other countries too, such as Pakistan, Lebanon, and countries in Central America.
This testimony took place at night after Sondland's testimony and, it seems safe to assume, the committee members were tired. Schiff decided to forego his usual 45 minute question and answer sessions the two party leaders on the committee and their lawyers and go directly to 5-minute question sessions. On the whole it was one of the more forgettable sessions, other than Laura Cooper's bombshell.
The fourth day was a long day, with Gordon Sondland followed by testimony from Laura Cooper and David Hale (no opening statement). Both are career employees, Cooper the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia and Hale the Undersecretary of State for Political affairs. Both witnesses brought the perspective of Washington, not Ukraine.
Anything else they had to say was overshadowed by a bombshell dropped by Laura Cooper. Up until then, Trump's defenders might argue that he could not have used military aid to pressure the Ukrainians because they were not aware of the hold until it appeared in Politico. Cooper revealed that her staff had searched their e-mails and discovered two from the Ukrainian embassy complaining about a hold on security assistance on July 25, the day of the infamous phone call. She did not know how the Ukrainians learned of the hold. Any concerns about the had had been certified by the Pentagon in May. Every agency except the OMB favored release of the aid.
Hale was a witness requested by Republicans. He testified that military aid has been withheld from other countries too, such as Pakistan, Lebanon, and countries in Central America.
This testimony took place at night after Sondland's testimony and, it seems safe to assume, the committee members were tired. Schiff decided to forego his usual 45 minute question and answer sessions the two party leaders on the committee and their lawyers and go directly to 5-minute question sessions. On the whole it was one of the more forgettable sessions, other than Laura Cooper's bombshell.
______________________________________
*Sondland appears to be the only witness to talk to President Trump directly.
No comments:
Post a Comment