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/2019/11/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Impeachment Inquiry Calls Aide Who Overheard Trump Asking for Ukraine Investigations Ex-Envoy to Tell Impeachment Inquiry He Was Unaware of Trump Ukraine Pressure
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The House Intelligence Committee on Monday unexpectedly added to its roster of public impeachment witnesses, announcing testimony this week from a United States Embassy official in Kyiv who overheard President Trump ask a top American diplomat in July if Ukraine would move forward with investigations he sought. WASHINGTON — Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, plans to tell lawmakers on Tuesday that he was out of the loop at key moments during President Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to turn up damaging information about Democrats, according to an account of his prepared testimony.
The official, David Holmes, testified before investigators privately on Friday. Now, he will sit at the witness table beside Fiona Hill, the former senior director for Russia and Europe at the National Security Council, when the committee convenes its final hearing of a jam-packed week on Thursday. As the House Intelligence Committee opens its second week of public impeachment hearings, Mr. Volker will say that he did not realize that others working for Mr. Trump were tying American security aid to a commitment to investigate Democrats. His testimony, summarized by a person informed about it who insisted on anonymity to describe it in advance, will seek to reconcile his previous closed-door description of events with conflicting versions offered subsequently by other witnesses.
Behind closed doors, Mr. Holmes described being at a restaurant in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, also known as Kiev, over the summer when Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, called Mr. Trump on his cellphone. Speaking loudly enough for Mr. Holmes to hear, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Sondland if Ukraine’s president had agreed to conduct an investigation into one of his leading political rivals, Mr. Holmes said. And in colorful terms, the ambassador, fresh off meetings with top Ukrainian officials, told Mr. Trump that he had. Mr. Volker will be one of four witnesses appearing before the committee on Tuesday as it ramps up its investigation into the president’s effort to extract domestic political help from a foreign power while holding up $391 million in American security aid. The committee, which already had eight witnesses set for this week, added a ninth on Monday by calling David Holmes, a senior American Embassy official in Ukraine who overheard a conversation in which Mr. Trump asked about whether Ukraine was going to agree to carry out the investigations he wanted.
The addition to the week’s already busy public hearing schedule came as Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the impeachment inquiry, arguing that lawmakers have no choice but to dig into what she called clear evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump. With political passions rising over the impeachment drive, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, defended the inquiry on Monday, arguing that lawmakers have no choice but to examine what she called clear evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump.
“The facts are uncontested: that the president abused his power for his own personal, political benefit, at the expense of our national security interests,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic colleagues.“The facts are uncontested: that the president abused his power for his own personal, political benefit, at the expense of our national security interests,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic colleagues.
The House Intelligence Committee will now take testimony from nine witnesses this week in the impeachment inquiry, in public hearings intended to prove that Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine to publicly commit to investigations to discredit his political rivals. Mr. Trump, who remained out of public sight on Monday for the third straight day, wrote on Twitter that he would “strongly consider” testifying in the impeachment inquiry, after Ms. Pelosi raised the idea during a weekend television interview.
House Republicans, who will have their first chance to question witnesses they believe will undercut the allegations, have also requested that a Republican senator who has repeatedly found himself drawn into the impeachment inquiry tell them what he knows about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. While Gerald R. Ford testified in 1974 about his decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton responded in writing to questions from the House when it investigated him for perjury and obstruction of justice in 1998, no president has testified in person in his own defense in an impeachment hearing. Mr. Trump, who enjoys flashes of showmanship, appeared intrigued by the possibility.
The top Republicans on the Oversight and Intelligence Committees wrote to Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, that they were “reluctantly” requesting “any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine,” according to their letter released Monday.
As Mr. Johnson appeared to mull their request, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter that he would “strongly consider” testifying in the impeachment inquiry, after Ms. Pelosi raised the idea during a weekend television interview.
“Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!” Mr. Trump wrote.“Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!” Mr. Trump wrote.
Hours later, in her letter to Democrats, Ms. Pelosi rebutted what has emerged as a leading argument among Republicans against the inquiry: that the upcoming presidential election, not a vote on articles of impeachment, should decide Mr. Trump’s political fate. That does not mean he will actually agree to do so, however. During the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into ties between Russia and Mr. Trump’s campaign, the president repeatedly suggested he might testify in person, but ultimately refused to do so and instead submitted written answers drafted with the help of his lawyers.
“That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action because the president is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections,” Ms. Pelosi said. On Monday, the top lawyer for House Democrats said in a legal filing that impeachment investigators are exploring whether Mr. Trump lied in those written answers to Mr. Mueller.
House Republicans are hoping Mr. Johnson, a member of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, can help shed light on why Mr. Trump withheld a package of nearly $400 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Mr. Johnson traveled to Ukraine as part of a delegation attending President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration this year, and joined phone calls between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sondland, who is a witness in the inquiry. The addition of Mr. Holmes to the witness list follows a closed-door deposition he gave Friday describing a telephone conversation he listened to in July. While sitting on the outdoor patio of a restaurant in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital also known as Kiev, Mr. Holmes said he heard the president ask Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, if President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine would move forward with the investigations Mr. Trump sought. The ambassador, fresh off meetings with top Ukrainian officials, told Mr. Trump that he would.
Typically a staunch defender of the president, Mr. Johnson has said that he confronted Mr. Trump in a phone call in late August about allegations that the president was engaging in a quid pro quo with Ukraine tying the security aid for the country to a public commitment for investigations that Mr. Trump wanted. The president, Mr. Johnson has said, flatly denied it. Mr. Holmes will sit at the witness table beside Fiona Hill, the former senior director for Russia and Europe at the National Security Council, when the committee convenes its final hearing of a jam-packed week on Thursday.
But the senator has also revealed information that could be damaging to Mr. Trump: that Mr. Sondland told him that the aid to Ukraine was, in fact, tied to Mr. Trump’s request to have Kyiv investigate Democrats. He told reporters at an event in Wisconsin that he had tried to get permission from Mr. Trump to tell Ukraine’s president that American aid was on its way in the wake of those allegations, but the president refused. Republicans previewed an early rebuttal on Monday in the form of a meandering, but at times caustic, 11-page letter from Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin. On the eve of testimony by Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a national security aide, Mr. Johnson suggested the colonel perhaps participated “in the ongoing effort to sabotage” the president’s policies “and if possible, remove him from office.”
Republicans have argued that the fact that the military funding was ultimately delivered to Ukraine in September, without any announcement of investigations by the country, proves that there was never any effort to tie the two issues together. “I believe that a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style,” Mr. Johnson wrote, later adding: “It is entirely possible Vindman fits this profile.”
But Ms. Pelosi noted in her letter that the money “was only released after the whistle-blower exposed the truth of the president’s extortion and bribery, and the House launched a formal investigation.” The letter comes after the top Republicans on the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees requested Mr. Johnson provide them with “any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.” The Wisconsin Republican traveled to Ukraine as part of a delegation attending Mr. Zelensky’s inauguration this year and joined phone calls between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sondland, who is to testify publicly on Wednesday.
Mr. Johnson was one of several senators in both parties who were deeply concerned about the hold that had been placed on the military aid for Ukraine, which had been allocated by Congress to help the former Soviet republic defend itself from attacks by Russia, and who pressed privately and publicly for it to be released. The senator has said that after Mr. Sondland told him the security aid was linked to investigations, he confronted Mr. Trump in a phone call in late August. The president, Mr. Johnson said, flatly denied it so vigorously that he uttered a number of curse words and insisted that he “barely knew” Mr. Sondland.
Mr. Johnson said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he would not be called to testify before the House “because certainly Adam Schiff wouldn’t want to be called by the Senate.” But he added, “I’ll supply my telling of events.” “I have accurately characterized his reaction as adamant, vehement, and angry — there was more than one expletive that I have deleted,” Mr. Johnson wrote.
Republicans have argued that the fact that the security aid was ultimately delivered to Ukraine in September without any announcement of investigations proves that the two issues were not linked. But Ms. Pelosi noted in her letter that the money “was only released after the whistle-blower exposed the truth of the president’s extortion and bribery,” referring to an unidentified C.I.A. officer who reported the matter to authorities.
The hearings on Tuesday will start with a morning panel featuring Mr. Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, who were both disturbed when Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Zelensky during a July 25 phone call to “do us a favor” and investigate Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
But the afternoon panel will give Republicans their first chance to question witnesses they believe will undercut the allegations. Mr. Volker has previously said he knew of no quid pro quo between the security aid and the investigations. Timothy Morrison, a former senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council, has said he found nothing inherently problematic about the July 25 call, although he testified that he was concerned that it might leak out and cause political problems.
Still, both have also provided testimony harmful to the president. Mr. Volker has said that he warned Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney leading the effort to obtain help from Ukraine, that there was nothing to the issues he wanted investigated. And Mr. Morrison has said that Mr. Sondland told the Ukrainians that the release of the aid was probably tied to the investigations, forcing Mr. Sondland to revise his testimony and confirm that.
Mr. Volker will modify his account as well, addressing disparities between his testimony and that of other witnesses. While he has been lumped together with Mr. Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry as “the three amigos” working on behalf of the president, he plans to try to distinguish his role, insisting that he was not part of any inappropriate pressure and that he was unaware of certain events that he has only now learned about through other testimony.
In his testimony on Tuesday, according to the person informed about it, Mr. Volker plans to say that he never knew that Mr. Sondland told the Ukrainians that the aid and investigations were linked and that he did not know that Mr. Zelensky was being pressed to appear on CNN and announce that he would launch the investigations Mr. Trump sought.
He also will seek to explain why his description of a key July 10 meeting in the White House with Ukrainian officials differed from that provided by several others. According to other witnesses, John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, abruptly ended the meeting when Mr. Sondland raised the investigations. Mr. Sondland then took the Ukrainians downstairs to the White House Ward Room, where he also discussed investigations.
Ms. Hill testified that she challenged Mr. Sondland about that in the Ward Room and later reported the conversation back to Mr. Bolton, who instructed her to tell a White House lawyer and make clear that he wanted nothing to do with the “drug deal” Mr. Sondland was devising.
Mr. Volker, who offered a blander description of the meeting in his original testimony, plans to say on Tuesday that he does not challenge any of new testimony but did not remember hearing the comments. He plans to say that he may have been talking with Mr. Perry at the time and simply missed the exchanges.
He also will address his past statement that he was not aware of any effort to urge Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden specifically, even though others have testified that Mr. Volker was part of conversations involving Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had been investigated for corruption and that put Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, on its board.
Mr. Volker plans to tell lawmakers that while others interpreted any mention of Burisma to be synonymous with the Bidens, he did not make that assumption, perhaps because he was more steeped in Ukraine and the company’s role there, not focused on domestic American politics.