This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/us/politics/john-eisenberg-trump-impeachment.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
House Impeachment Investigators Release Transcripts of Closed-Door Testimony Ex-Ukraine Envoy Testified She Felt Threatened by Trump
(about 4 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The former United States ambassador to Ukraine told impeachment investigators last month that she felt “threatened” by President Trump after it emerged that he told the Ukrainian president she would “go through some things,” adding that she is concerned to this day that she will be retaliated against based on a smear campaign against her by Mr. Trump’s allies. WASHINGTON — The former United States ambassador to Ukraine told impeachment investigators last month that she felt “threatened” by President Trump after it emerged that he told the Ukrainian president she would “go through some things,” adding that she still feared retaliation.
The details from testimony by Marie L. Yovanovitch, who was abruptly recalled in May, emerged on Monday as House committees began making public witness interviews, releasing transcripts of private questioning taken last month with both her and a top diplomat who advised Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. That was just one detail that emerged Monday as the House released hundreds of pages of testimony from Marie L. Yovanovitch, who was abruptly recalled in May and remains a State Department employee, and Michael McKinley, a top diplomat who advised Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and has since retired.
Ms. Yovanovitch told Democrats and Republicans during her deposition last month that she believed she was the victim of a conservative smear campaign that sought, incorrectly, to portray her as disloyal to President Trump and prompted him to remove her. The transcript shows that she also detailed what she knew of attempts by Mr. Trump’s private lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and his allies to work with the former Ukrainian prosecutor general to “do things, including to me.” The transcripts also revealed multiple attempts by Mr. McKinley all unsuccessful to get Mr. Pompeo to come to Ms. Yovanovitch’s defense in a public statement as she was being publicly discredited by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and other Republicans. That testimony contradicted Mr. Pompeo himself, who has publicly denied having heard any concerns from Mr. McKinley about the treatment of Ms. Yovanovitch.
The diplomat, Michael McKinley, described to investigators how he pressed top State Department officials to publicly support Ms. Yovanovitch as she was dragged through the news. According to the transcript, Mr. McKinley spoke directly with Mr. Pompeo and other senior officials this fall about issuing a public statement about Ms. Yovanovitch’s professionalism, but was eventually told by a department representative that they did not want to “draw undue attention” to Ms. Yovanovitch. “From the time that Ambassador Yovanovitch departed Ukraine until the time that he came to tell me that he was departing, I never heard him say a single thing about his concerns with respect to the decision that was made,” Mr. Pompeo told ABC in an interview last month.
The House voted on a resolution last week that directed the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees to release the transcripts with necessary redactions and begin to move other findings into public view. Democrats are expected to publicize transcripts of additional depositions, including with witnesses more central to their case, this week. They could begin public hearings with some of the witnesses as soon as next week. The disclosures came on a day when Democrats were also confronting the limits of their investigative powers, as a new batch of witnesses including the top National Security Council lawyer refused to appear for scheduled depositions. The lawyer, John A. Eisenberg, played a central role in dealing with the fallout at the White House from a July 25 call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in which Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainians to conduct investigations that could benefit him politically.
“As we move toward this new public phase of the impeachment inquiry, the American public will begin to see for themselves the evidence that the committees have collected,” the three Democratic committee leaders involved in the inquiry said in a statement accompanying the transcripts. “With each new interview, we learn more about the president’s attempt to manipulate the levers of power to his personal political benefit.” Mr. Eisenberg said through his lawyer on Monday that he would wait until a federal judge ruled on whether Mr. Trump’s closest advisers must answer questions from congressional investigators.
Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman who is leading the inquiry, told reporters Monday afternoon that the committee would release two more transcripts on Tuesday of interviews with two key figures in the inquiry. Those figures are Kurt D. Volker, who served as special envoy to Ukraine, and Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union. Ms. Yovanovitch, though, was explicit with the inquiry about her reaction to the July call, in which Mr. Trump told Mr. Zelensky that she was “bad news” and would “go through some things.”
Republicans involved in the inquiry did not immediately comment. Mr. Trump sought to undermine the transcripts before they were released by charging, without evidence, that Mr. Schiff would “change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes.” The transcripts were reviewed by Republicans in the House and by the witnesses themselves, and there is no independent reason to believe they are not faithful accounts of the Democratic and Republican questioning that occurred behind closed doors. Questioned about what she thought when she saw a summary transcript of the call that was released in September, Ms. Yovanovitch said she was “shocked” a word she used a half-dozen times during her interview to describe her reaction to Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
The transcript release came as a new batch of witnesses were refusing on Monday to sit with investigators. The White House’s top national security lawyer declined to appear for a scheduled deposition Monday morning, saying he would wait until a federal judge rules on whether Mr. Trump’s closest advisers have to answer questions from congressional investigators. “I didn’t know what it meant,” she said of the president’s comment. “I was very concerned. I still am.”
The lawyer, John A. Eisenberg, played a central role in dealing with the fallout at the White House from a July call between Mr. Trump and the Ukrainian president, in which Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainians to conduct investigations that could benefit him politically. Asked whether she felt threatened reading the passage, Ms. Yovanovitch replied, “Yes.” And pressed on whether she felt she might be retaliated against, she said, “I just simply don’t know what this could mean, but it does not leave me in a comfortable position.”
The committee subpoenaed Mr. Eisenberg to appear for questioning, but the White House informed Mr. Eisenberg’s lawyer on Sunday that Mr. Trump was directing him not to testify. The White House invoked absolute immunity, a sweeping and contested form of executive privilege that holds the president’s closest advisers are not obligated to cooperate with Congress. At the White House, Mr. Trump defended his treatment of the former ambassador even as he tried to deflect blame.
“Under these circumstances, Mr. Eisenberg has no other option that is consistent with his legal and ethical obligations except to follow the direction of his client and employer, the president of the United States,” William A. Burck, a lawyer for Mr. Eisenberg, wrote to House leaders Monday morning. “Accordingly, Mr. Eisenberg will not be appearing for a deposition at this time.” “I really don’t know her,” he told reporters of Ms. Yovanovitch. “But if you look at the transcripts, the president of Ukraine was not a fan of hers either.”
Mr. Eisenberg was not the only witness defying House investigators on Monday. Robert Blair, the national security adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Michael Ellis, Mr. Eisenberg’s deputy; and Brian McCormack, the former chief of staff to the energy secretary, Rick Perry, were all expected to skip scheduled depositions, despite receiving subpoenas. Ms. Yovanovitch told Democrats and Republicans last month during her deposition that she believed she was the victim of a conservative smear campaign “by people with clearly questionable motives” who sought, under false pretenses, to get rid of her. The newly released transcript showed that she also detailed for impeachment investigators what she knew of attempts by Mr. Giuliani and his allies to work with the former Ukrainian prosecutor general to “do things, including to me.”
The objections were not unexpected, but nonetheless showed the limits House Democrats face as their fact finding tries to edge closer into Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Additional witnesses scheduled to testify this week are likely to follow suit, either out of loyalty to Mr. Trump or because of complicated legal issues posed by their proximity to the president. In an October interview with Democrats and Republicans, Ms. Yovanovitch testified that she first learned from Ukrainian, not American, officials late last year of Mr. Giuliani’s efforts. The men, she came to realize, shared an interest in investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, as well as other Democrats, and believed the ambassador stood in the way.
With their inquiry moving at a rapid pace, Democrats have made clear they do not intend to wait around for the courts to settle the legal issues raised by Mr. Eisenberg and others to secure their testimony. Investigators are trying to complete most private witness depositions this week, before beginning to make the case in public next week that Mr. Trump used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic rivals for his own political gain. Mr. McKinley told investigators in his own interview about how he pressed top State Department officials, including Mr. Pompeo, to issue a statement publicly supporting Ms. Yovanovitch as she was being publicly disparaged by Republicans this fall. They did not take action.
And Ms. Yovanovitch recounted how colleagues sought to insulate her in ways that would appeal to the president’s unique proclivities, once telling her that Mr. Pompeo or someone around him planned to call Sean Hannity, the Fox News anchor with whom the president is exceedingly close, to ask him to stop bashing her on his broadcast. On another occasion, Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, advised Ms. Yovanovitch to “go big or go home,” and to tweet something flattering about Mr. Trump to get back in his good graces.
The hundreds of pages of testimony offer the first glimpse of the so-far secret proceedings that have unfolded in the bowels of the Capitol complex as witness after witness has appeared to testify in the impeachment inquiry. What emerge are dry exchanges on mind-numbingly detailed questions of meetings and memos, punctuated by occasional moments of emotion from witnesses and lawmakers slogging through the details of the Ukraine saga.
At one point while discussing the day she was told she was being recalled because Mr. Trump had lost confidence in her, Ms. Yovanovitch apparently choked up and was asked if she needed a moment to compose herself, which she accepted. At other points, Republicans — who the transcripts show have aggressively availed themselves of equal time to question witnesses — railed against the impeachment process.
The House voted last week on a resolution that directed the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees to release the transcripts with necessary redactions and begin to move other findings into public view.
Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman who is leading the inquiry, told reporters on Monday afternoon that the committee would release transcripts on Tuesday of interviews with two more central figures in the inquiry: Kurt D. Volker, who served as special envoy to Ukraine, and Mr. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union.
Republicans involved in the inquiry did not immediately comment. Before the transcripts’ release, Mr. Trump sought to undermine them by charging, without evidence, that Mr. Schiff would “change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes.” The transcripts were reviewed by Republicans in the House and by the witnesses themselves, and there was no evidence that they were fabricated or doctored.
They emerged as Democrats rushed to escalate their requests to speak with crucial witnesses before they shifted into a phase of public hearings. The committee subpoenaed Mr. Eisenberg, but the White House told Mr. Eisenberg’s lawyer on Sunday that Mr. Trump was directing him not to testify. The White House invoked absolute immunity, a sweeping and contested form of executive privilege that holds that the president’s closest advisers are not obligated to cooperate with Congress.
“Under these circumstances, Mr. Eisenberg has no other option that is consistent with his legal and ethical obligations except to follow the direction of his client and employer, the president of the United States,” William A. Burck, a lawyer for Mr. Eisenberg, wrote to House leaders on Monday morning. “Accordingly, Mr. Eisenberg will not be appearing for a deposition at this time.”
Other witnesses defied House investigators, as well. Robert Blair, the national security adviser to the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney; Michael Ellis, Mr. Eisenberg’s deputy; and Brian McCormack, the former chief of staff to Rick Perry, the energy secretary, were all expected to skip scheduled depositions, despite receiving subpoenas.
The objections were not unexpected, but nonetheless showed the limits House Democrats face as their fact-finding edges closer into Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Additional witnesses scheduled to testify this week were likely to follow suit, either out of loyalty to Mr. Trump or because of complicated legal issues posed by their proximity to the president.
With their inquiry moving rapidly, Democrats have made clear they do not intend to wait for the courts to settle the legal issues raised by Mr. Eisenberg and others to secure their testimony.
“We are not going to delay our work,” Mr. Schiff said. “That would merely allow these witnesses and the White House to succeed in their goals, which are delay, deny and obstruct.”“We are not going to delay our work,” Mr. Schiff said. “That would merely allow these witnesses and the White House to succeed in their goals, which are delay, deny and obstruct.”
Mr. Schiff indicated he was cataloging defiance of subpoenas as further evidence of Mr. Trump obstructing Congress, an offense they view as potentially impeachable itself. And they plan to assume that any witness the White House blocks would have confirmed details of the emerging case against Mr. Trump. Mr. Schiff indicated he was cataloging defiance of subpoenas as further evidence of Mr. Trump’s obstructing Congress, an offense they view as potentially impeachable itself. And they plan to assume that any witness the White House blocks would have confirmed details of the emerging case against Mr. Trump.
Mr. Eisenberg’s decision heightens the importance of an unusual lawsuit filed by Mr. Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, Charles M. Kupperman, who faced the same situation as Mr. Eisenberg: a subpoena from the House and an instruction from Mr. Trump not to comply with it. Last month, Mr. Kupperman sued, asking a judge to determine whether he had to testify. Oral arguments could be heard in that case on Dec. 10. Mr. Eisenberg’s decision heightens the importance of an unusual lawsuit filed by Mr. Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, Charles M. Kupperman, who faced the same situation as Mr. Eisenberg: a subpoena from the House and an instruction from Mr. Trump not to comply with it. Last month, Mr. Kupperman sued, asking a judge to determine if he had to testify. Oral arguments could be heard in that case on Dec. 10.
The suit will have implications that go beyond Mr. Kupperman and Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Kupperman’s lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, also represents another highly sought-after witness, the former national security adviser, John R. Bolton. If House investigators subpoena Mr. Bolton, Mr. Cooper is likely to also ask a judge to determine whether he has to testify. The suit will have implications that go beyond Mr. Kupperman and Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Kupperman’s lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, also represents another highly sought-after witness, the former national security adviser John R. Bolton. If House investigators subpoena Mr. Bolton, Mr. Cooper is likely to also ask a judge to determine whether he has to testify.
Mr. Blair, who listened in on the July 25 call, is likely to have been privy to key details about the president’s direction to Mr. Mulvaney to freeze $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine this summer. His lawyer indicated over the weekend he would not cooperate. Mr. Blair, who listened in on the July 25 call, is likely to have been privy to key details about the president’s direction to Mr. Mulvaney to freeze $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine this summer. Mr. Blair’s lawyer indicated over the weekend that he would not cooperate.
Mr. Ellis could offer a direct account of the decision to lock down a reconstructed transcript of the call, and possibly of how the White House legal team handled reports made by national security officials alarmed by what they saw transpiring with Ukraine. A lawyer for Mr. Ellis said Monday morning that he had been directed by the White House not to cooperate and would not appear for an afternoon deposition.Mr. Ellis could offer a direct account of the decision to lock down a reconstructed transcript of the call, and possibly of how the White House legal team handled reports made by national security officials alarmed by what they saw transpiring with Ukraine. A lawyer for Mr. Ellis said Monday morning that he had been directed by the White House not to cooperate and would not appear for an afternoon deposition.
And as Mr. Perry’s chief of staff, Mr. McCormack is said to have been involved in key events under scrutiny. He is now working at the Office of Management and Budget. An administration official indicated on Monday that neither he, nor other White House budget office appointees, would speak with investigators this week.And as Mr. Perry’s chief of staff, Mr. McCormack is said to have been involved in key events under scrutiny. He is now working at the Office of Management and Budget. An administration official indicated on Monday that neither he, nor other White House budget office appointees, would speak with investigators this week.
The White House did not appear to try to assert that any of the three, who are further removed from Mr. Trump, were absolutely immune from testimony. But correspondence released by the House Intelligence Committee indicated that Mr. Blair and Mr. Ellis had been directed not to appear because investigators would not allow a Trump administration lawyer to participate in the depositions in the hearing room. Eileen Sullivan, Michael D. Shear and Charlie Savage contributed reporting.
Other witnesses have ignored or defied similar instructions. Democrats told lawyers for Mr. Blair and Mr. Ellis that they viewed it as just one of several “baseless procedural challenges” to the House by the White House. They pointed out that when Republicans were in charge, the House had set identical rules.
Charlie Savage contributed reporting.