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/2019/11/16/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Impeachment Investigators Question Budget Official About Withheld Aid Bolton and Trump Met Privately Over Withheld Aid, White House Official Testified
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — House impeachment investigators met for a rare weekend session on Saturday to privately question a senior official from the White House budget office about President Trump’s decision this summer to freeze $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine. WASHINGTON — John R. Bolton, President Trump’s national security adviser, met privately with the president in August as part of a bid to persuade Mr. Trump to release $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine, a senior National Security Council aide told House impeachment investigators last month.
Why precisely Mr. Trump withheld the congressionally allocated funding in mid-July as he pressed Ukraine for politically beneficial investigations and what his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, told the agency about the decision remain central unanswered questions in the inquiry. The meeting, which has not been previously reported, came as Mr. Bolton sought to marshal Mr. Trump’s cabinet secretaries and top national security advisers to convince the president that it was in the United States’ best interest to unfreeze the funds to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia. But Mr. Bolton emerged with Mr. Trump unmoved, and instructed the aide to look for new opportunities to get those officials in front of Mr. Trump.
Democrats leading the proceedings had hoped that the budget official, Mark Sandy, could at least offer a glimpse into deliberations at the Office of Management and Budget over carrying out the order. In the end, Mr. Sandy told investigators that he did not know why the military assistance had been delayed but that he had never encountered a similar situation in his time at the agency, according to two people familiar with his testimony. “The extent of my recollection is that Ambassador Bolton simply said he wasn’t ready to do it,” said the aide, Timothy Morrison, referring to Mr. Trump, according to a transcript of his testimony released by House Democrats on Saturday.
As soon as the interview with Mr. Sandy concluded, Democrats released transcripts of two more witness interviews that took place in recent weeks. They included Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia for the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, a longtime State Department employee with expertise in Europe and Russia who is detailed to Vice President Mike Pence’s national security staff. Mr. Bolton, who left the White House in September, has emerged over weeks of interviews as perhaps the single most important witness who has evaded House Democrats as they build a case that Mr. Trump abused the powers of the presidency by withholding vital military assistance and a coveted White House meeting from Ukraine until it delivered investigations he wanted. The new disclosure only makes clearer the significance of his potential testimony.
Mr. Morrison confirmed to investigators two key episodes at the center of the inquiry that suggest at least some high-ranking government officials believed Mr. Trump was conditioning the release of military aid on Ukraine’s public commitment to the investigations he sought and informed Ukrainians officials that was the case. It also underlines the dilemma that House Democrats face over their decision to press ahead with proceedings without his testimony. Last week, Mr. Bolton’s lawyer told House investigators that his client could discuss “many relevant meetings and conversations” of interest to their inquiry, but he has so far refused to appear without a subpoena and a court order. Democrats have said that Mr. Bolton should show up as is, and that they would not waste their time in court.
Both Mr. Morrison and Ms. Williams listened in on a July 25 phone call in which Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine’s new president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his younger son Hunter, as well as a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine and the 2016 election. The outpouring of public testimony and growing political pressure could push Mr. Bolton to change his mind. But for now, there are no signs that either he, or House Democrats, will budge.
Other witnesses with significant roles in American diplomacy toward Ukraine, including some working closely with Mr. Trump, have already testified that the aid was delayed as part of a broad pressure campaign meant to extract a public commitment from Ukraine to investigate the president’s political rivals. The release of the transcript was part of a flurry of activity by House Democrats on Saturday, including a rare weekend of closed-door deposition where investigators questioned for the first time a senior budget official about the aid freeze.
Democrats have marshaled that testimony to begin arguing that Mr. Trump may have committed bribery to get what he wanted from Ukraine. But they have yet to hear from a witness who can speak directly to the president’s order and stated rationale. Mr. Trump unexpectedly withheld the aid in July, despite overwhelming support in Congress and his own administration for its allocation. He only released the money in September, after Mr. Bolton departed and in the face of intense political pressure from Republicans.
Mr. Sandy testified after the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed him Saturday morning, a day after the former American ambassador to Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch, described in stark and personal terms how the president and his allies sought to undermine her and push her out of her job. The budget office had directed him not to appear, according to an official working on the inquiry. In addition to Mr. Morrison’s transcript, House Democrats released the transcript of a November interview with Jennifer Williams, a longtime State Department employee with expertise in Europe and Russia who is detailed to Vice President Mike Pence’s national security staff.
Mr. Trump continued his scorched-earth defense on Saturday, denouncing those involved in the proceedings. In one tweet, he misspelled the name of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the inquiry, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, to what sounds like a vulgarity, claiming the stock markets would collapse if he were impeached. And the president, attributing a quotation to the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, suggested that nonpartisan diplomats who have testified were aggrieved members of the Washington “Swamp” merely trying to exact their revenge. Earlier in the day, lawmakers and their staffs privately questioned Mark Sandy, a senior budget official, who told investigators that political appointees above him did not provide a rationale for the hold and that he had never encountered a similar situation in his time at the agency, according to two people familiar with his testimony.
“It is paramountly obvious watching this, these people have to go,” Mr. Limbaugh said, according to the president. On Friday, Mr. Trump targeted Ms. Yovanovitch on Twitter as she was testifying, prompting heavy criticism, including from Democrats who accused him of witness intimidation. Mr. Sandy also said that he had sought guidance on the legality of the hold, echoing testimony from a Defense Department official who similarly said that she had raised legal concerns.
Mr. Sandy is the first budget official to speak with impeachment investigators, in defiance of a Trump administration directive not to cooperate. Many of the most significant elements of testimony by Mr. Morrison and Ms. Williams have already been publicly reported, including Mr. Morrison’s account of how a top diplomat close to Mr. Trump informed a top Ukrainian official that the country would likely need to publicly announce investigations Mr. Trump sought before the security money would be released.
At least three higher-profile Trump administration officials connected to the budget office have stiff-armed investigators: Russell T. Vought, the agency’s acting director; Michael Duffey, who helped carry out Mr. Trump’s directive to freeze the aid; and Mr. Mulvaney, who retains the title of budget director. Still, the transcripts filled in many new details, some of them colorful, about the events under scrutiny by the House and clarified the set of facts both parties are working with as they prepare for another week packed with public hearings.
Mr. Sandy is the deputy associate director of the budget office’s national security division who once served as the agency’s acting director. Unlike others from his agency who have refused to show up, he is a career official, not a political appointee of Mr. Trump’s. Records in the possession of House investigators indicate that Mr. Sandy signed paperwork on July 25 enforcing the hold, but that Mr. Duffey, a political appointee, signed such paperwork going forward. In her hourslong interview, Ms. Williams helped explain why Mr. Pence, who had been scheduled to attend President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inaugural in late May, abruptly canceled his trip: She said an assistant to the vice president’s chief of staff, Marc Short, told her that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Pence to stay home. That fact was included in an anonymous whistle-blower complaint about the Ukraine matter that helped prompt the impeachment inquiry.
Ahead of Mr. Sandy’s testimony, a senior Trump administration official complained that Democrats were “threatening” career officials with subpoenas and depositions without granting the agencies they work for the right to send a lawyer to take part. The official added that Democrats would be “sorely disappointed” when they could not substantiate “their latest false narrative.” Mr. Morrison’s testimony added to a portrait of Mr. Bolton working feverishly to ensure the regular interagency policymaking of the executive branch prevailed over an irregular policy channel that appeared meant to serve Mr. Trump’s personal political interests. That channel included the United States’ ambassador to the European Union, the president’s private lawyer and a handful of others pressing Ukraine to commit to investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine and the 2016 election.
Congress allocated the security assistance funds on a bipartisan basis this year to help Ukraine in its continuing military conflict with Russia. The decision by Mr. Trump to hold up the money indefinitely in July alarmed officials across the government, including at the Defense and State Departments, where the aid is viewed as vital not just to Ukraine’s national security but also to that of the United States. In his testimony, Mr. Morrison said that Mr. Bolton advised him to be wary of the president’s irregular policymaking channel, including the envoy to the European Union, Gordon D. Sondland.
A Defense Department official has already testified that she and others involved in Ukraine policy raised concerns about whether the hold would present legal problems if it was not reversed. Other witnesses have described how the president’s most senior advisers, including the secretaries of state and defense, pushed him to unfreeze the aid in August. “My consistent direction from Ambassador Bolton was, ‘Do not get involved, and make sure the lawyers are tracking,’” Mr. Morrison said, referring to Mr. Sondland and the efforts he was involved in. Mr. Morrison’s predecessor as the National Security Council’s senior director for Russia and Europe told investigators that Mr. Bolton issued a similar instruction after a run-in with Mr. Sondland, who will testify publicly himself next week.
The White House has maintained that Mr. Trump held up the money out of generalized concerns about corruption in Ukraine and a frustration that European governments were not providing more money to the nation. Mr. Morrison’s testimony made clear that he and Mr. Bolton were deeply skeptical of Mr. Sondland, a wealthy hotelier and political donor turned ambassador. He said he suspected Mr. Sondland’s stated influence with the president might be exaggerated. Following Mr. Bolton’s directions, he reported interactions he had with the ambassador to White House lawyers. But when he followed up, Mr. Sondland seemed to be telling the truth and appeared to have Mr. Trump’s ear on Ukraine matters.
But in October, Mr. Mulvaney cited a third reason: The aid, he said at a news conference, was withheld in part until Ukraine investigated an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for hacking Democratic Party emails in 2016. He later tried to walk back that statement. “Ambassador Sondland believed and at least related to me that the president was giving him instruction,” Mr. Morrison testified.
Mr. Trump eventually released the hold in September after intense bipartisan pressure from Congress that he do so and after an anonymous whistle-blower had filed a complaint based in part on the aid. Republicans now point to that fact to argue that his behavior was not impeachable. Mr. Morrison described witnessing Mr. Sondland approach an aide to Mr. Zelensky during a high-level meeting in Warsaw in September. The conversation took place just after a meeting in which Mr. Pence assured Mr. Zelensky that the United States still fully supported Ukraine and would be making a decision on the security aid soon. The vice president did not mention the investigations during the meeting, Ms. Williams said.
Saturday’s interview was expected to cap what was a remarkable week on Capitol Hill, where the House Intelligence Committee convened the first full-blown public impeachment hearings in two decades. A top State Department official, the United States’ top envoy to Ukraine and his predecessor, who was abruptly removed from her post by Mr. Trump amid a smear campaign, helped put a public face on the inquiry in describing what they say amounted to a shadow foreign policy. The testimony, though, appeared to have done little to bridge the stark divide between Democrats and Republicans over the significance of the events in question. Mr. Sondland was blunter, though, he later told Mr. Morrison. He told Mr. Zelensky’s adviser that “what could help them move the aid was if the prosecutor general would go to the mic and announce that he was opening” the investigation Mr. Trump wanted.
Late Friday night, investigators interviewed David Holmes, an official from the United States Embassy in Kiev, who described a call he overheard in July in which Mr. Trump asked his ambassador to the European Union whether the Ukrainian president had committed to an investigation into a leading political rival that Mr. Trump had personally pressed him to conduct a day earlier. Mr. Morrison’s account already prompted Mr. Sondland to revise his own private testimony, but it also underscores the importance both to Mr. Trump and to Democrats of his public appearance next week, as one of the few cooperating witnesses who directly spoke to Mr. Trump about his interest in Ukraine.
As of Saturday morning, House Democrats, who control the inquiry, had not scheduled any additional private witness interviews. But there will be three days of public hearings in the coming week, featuring some of the biggest names ensnared in the inquiry. Both Ms. Williams and Mr. Morrison listened in on a July 25 phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting. She told investigators she was taken aback by the mention of investigations of the Bidens and Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm that Mr. Biden’s son worked for. She found the discussion to be “more political in nature,” and therefore “unusual and inappropriate.”
Mr. Morrison had a different reaction. He testified he found nothing inherently problematic about the call, but still he went to White House lawyers to express concerns that a record of the call could leak and would be unflattering for the president. He recommended that access to it be limited, and eventually a reconstructed transcript was placed on the White House’s most secure server.
Mr. Morrison testified that John A. Eisenberg, the council’s top lawyer, told him that had been a mistake and that he had only intended for access to the document to be restricted. He “related that he did not ask for it to be put on there, but that the Executive Secretariat staff misunderstood his recommendation for how to restrict access,” Mr. Morrison said.
Republicans believe the testimony undercuts Democrats’ allegation that the White House was trying to cover up the call. But it does not explain why the call summary was not removed from the highly secure server when Mr. Eisenberg learned it was there.
The president’s allies are also likely to use Mr. Morrison’s closed-door interview to try to undercut Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the White House’s top Ukraine expert, when he testifies publicly next week about his deep alarm over the July 25 call and other matters.
Mr. Morrison told investigators that, “I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.”
Mr. Sandy was the first budget official to speak with impeachment investigators. At least three higher-profile Trump administration officials connected to the budget office have stiff-armed the inquiry: Russell T. Vought, the agency’s acting director; Michael Duffey, who helped carry out Mr. Trump’s directive to freeze the aid; and Mick Mulvaney, who retains the title of budget director and is the acting White House chief of staff.
He testified that he was directed to sign paperwork on July 25 enforcing the hold, but that Mr. Duffey, a political appointee, signed such paperwork going forward, a highly unusual intervention by his account.
Why precisely Mr. Trump withheld the congressionally allocated funding in mid-July as he pressed Ukraine for the politically beneficial investigations and what Mr. Mulvaney told the agency about the decision remain central unanswered questions in the inquiry.
“This is a technical part of our investigation. We want to know exactly how the president translated his political objective to shake down the Ukrainian government for the favors he wanted translated into the budget process,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland.