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/2019/11/07/us/politics/george-kent-impeachment-testimony.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| George Kent Testimony: Key Excerpts From the Impeachment Inquiry Transcripts | |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| House impeachment investigators on Thursday released a transcript of the testimony of George P. Kent, a senior State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy. Mr. Kent’s said in his deposition that he was all but cut out of decisions regarding the country after a May meeting organized by Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff. | House impeachment investigators on Thursday released a transcript of the testimony of George P. Kent, a senior State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy. Mr. Kent’s said in his deposition that he was all but cut out of decisions regarding the country after a May meeting organized by Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff. |
| Kent transcript, Page 253: A conversation that I recall, and I took notes actually, dated to mid-May in which we talked about the change of attitude and approach towards Ukraine, and that was in the wake of meetings that President Trump had, a meeting with Viktor Orban, the leader of Hungary, as well as a call he had with Russian President Putin in early May. | |
| Q And what was the change following those two conversations with Orban and Putin? | |
| A Fiona [Hill] assessed the conversations as being similar in tone and approach. And both leaders, both Putin and Orban, extensively talked Ukraine down, said it was corrupt, said Zelensky was in the thrall of oligarchs, specifically mentioning this one oligarch Kolomoisky, negatively shaping a picture of Ukraine, and even President Zelensky personally | |
| Q And did Dr. Hill think that that had an impact on President Trump’s outlook? | |
| A I cannot recall what she said in that meeting besides giving me the brief readouts of those two meetings, but that was my takeaway, and that those two world leaders, along with former Mayor Giuliani, their communications with President Trump shaped the President’s view of Ukraine and Zelensky, and would account for the change from a very positive first call on April 21 to his negative assessment of Ukraine when he had the meeting in the Oval Office on May 23.” | |
| Mr. Kent’s account sheds more light on the concerns of Fiona Hill, President Trump’s former adviser on Russia and Europe, that the president’s view of Ukraine was being negatively shaped by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary. Their countries are foes of Ukraine to varying extents, and Ms. Hill was concerned that their conversations with Mr. Trump were turning him against Ukraine and its new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.— Kenneth P. Vogel | |
| Kent transcript, Page 257: “Q What concerns did she express with Gordon Sondland? | |
| A To the best of my recollection, she had concerns possibly based on having been in conversations in the Oval Office that he made assertions about conversations that did not match with what had actually been said in the Oval Office. | |
| Q Can you elaborate with any more detail? | |
| A I was not in those conversations, so — | |
| Q I’m just asking what she told you. I understand you weren’t in them. | |
| A I think she may have been as direct as saying that Gordon Sondland lies about conversations that occur in the Oval Office.” | |
| This reflects the concerns among Ms. Hill, John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser and career diplomats about the involvement of Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in Ukraine policy, and whether he could be trusted. | |
| Mr. Sondland reversed his testimony this week and acknowledged having laid out a quid pro quo for Ukrainians conditioning military aid they needed on a public commitment to investigations the president wanted. Republicans are likely to seize on Mr. Kent’s mention of Ms. Hill’s belief that Mr. Sondland fabricated conversations with Mr. Trump, to claim that it was the ambassador — not the president himself — who instigated the quid pro quo. — Kenneth P. Vogel | |
| Kent transcript, Page 131: “Mr. Giuliani, at that point, had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information about Ambassador Yovanovitch, so this was a continuation of his campaign of lies.” | Kent transcript, Page 131: “Mr. Giuliani, at that point, had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information about Ambassador Yovanovitch, so this was a continuation of his campaign of lies.” |
| In his testimony to investigators, Mr. Kent expressed deep anger about the removal of Marie L. Yovanovitch, former the ambassador to Ukraine. He repeatedly accused Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, of mounting a campaign to smear her as disloyal to Mr. Trump to have her removed, later saying that Mr. Giuliani’s “assertions and allegations against former Ambassador Yovanovitch were without basis, untrue, period.” — Michael D. Shear | |
| Kent transcript, Page 66: “Particularly after there were tweets by members of the Presidential family, it was clearly a crisis for Ambassador Yovanovitch and a crisis that was threatening to consume the relationship. So our recommendation to our superiors was that there should be a clear statement of support for Ambassador Yovanovitch.” | Kent transcript, Page 66: “Particularly after there were tweets by members of the Presidential family, it was clearly a crisis for Ambassador Yovanovitch and a crisis that was threatening to consume the relationship. So our recommendation to our superiors was that there should be a clear statement of support for Ambassador Yovanovitch.” |
| Attacks on Ms. Yovanovitch by Mr. Giuliani — and his allies in Ukraine and the United States — mark the beginning of the story Democratic investigators seek to tell the public. Mr. Kent’s testimony makes clear that he and other State Department officials responsible for the United States-Ukraine relationship were deeply alarmed by the smears, and they believed that unsubstantiated accusations Ms. Yovanovitch’s disloyalty could undermine the relationship between the two countries and ultimately create a vacuum for bad actors. | Attacks on Ms. Yovanovitch by Mr. Giuliani — and his allies in Ukraine and the United States — mark the beginning of the story Democratic investigators seek to tell the public. Mr. Kent’s testimony makes clear that he and other State Department officials responsible for the United States-Ukraine relationship were deeply alarmed by the smears, and they believed that unsubstantiated accusations Ms. Yovanovitch’s disloyalty could undermine the relationship between the two countries and ultimately create a vacuum for bad actors. |
| Despite their concerns, requests from the American Embassy in Kiev and Mr. Kent’s office at the State Department were declined, he said. He watched in growing exasperation as what had begun as a fringe campaign against Ms. Yovanovitch moved into Mr. Trump’s inner circle and eventually led the president to order her recall to the United States this spring. — Nicholas Fandos |