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/2019/11/19/us/politics/trump-impeachment-hearings.html

The article has changed 23 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Impeachment Hearings Live Updates: White House Questions Vindman’s Judgment Impeachment Hearings Live Updates: Williams Describes Pence-Zelensky Meeting
(32 minutes later)
Jennifer Williams, a national security aide to Vice President Mike Pence, testified that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine told Vice President Pence in September that continuing to withhold military aid would indicate that United States support for Ukraine was wavering, giving Russia a boost in the ongoing conflict between the two countries.
The White House attacked the professionalism of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, as he testified about his deep concerns about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. The official, taxpayer-funded Twitter account of the White House posted a critical quote about Colonel Vindman from Timothy Morrison, his former boss at the National Security Council. Ms. Williams said that during a September 1 meeting, Mr. Zelensky told the vice president that the security aid was a symbol of support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and told lawmakers that Ukraine’s president “was stressing that to the vice president to really underscore the need for the security assistance to be released.”
Earlier, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio had cited that comment as well as criticism from Fiona Hill, Mr. Vindman’s former boss at the National Security Council. “Any signal or sign that U.S. support was wavering would be construed by Russia as potentially an opportunity for them to strengthen their own hand in Ukraine,” Ms. Williams said, relating what Mr. Zelensky told Mr. Pence.
“Any idea why they have those impressions?” Mr. Jordan inquired. Colonel Vindman, who apparently came prepared for the criticism, pulled out a copy the performance evaluation Ms. Hill wrote about him in July and read aloud from it. The vice president underscored the administration’s strong support for Ukraine and told Mr. Zelensky that he would report his concerns to Mr. Trump, Ms. Williams said, adding that she was not certain whether he did so in a conversation Mr. Pence had with the president later that night.
“Alex is a top one percent military officer and the best army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service,” Mr. Vindman said, quoting Ms. Hill. “He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment.” Ukraine’s security aid was not released for another 10 days, after the White House became aware that a whistle-blower had filed a complaint about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
Republicans also questioned the loyalty of Colonel Vindman, an American citizen and decorated Army combat veteran who was born in Ukraine, by asking him about three instances when Oleksandr Danylyuk, the director of Ukraine’s national security council, had approached to offer him the job of defense minister in Kyiv. Two senior national security officials at the White House challenged Mr. Trump’s description of his call with the Ukraine president as “perfect,” testifying on Tuesday about how concerned they were as they listened in real time to Mr. Trump appealing for investigations into a political rival.
Colonel Vindman confirmed the offers and testified that he repeatedly declined, dismissing the idea out of hand and reporting the approaches to his superiors and to counterintelligence officials. Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a decorated Iraq war veteran and the top Ukraine official at the National Security Council, testified that he was so disturbed by the call that he reported it to the council’s top lawyer.
“Every single time, I dismissed it,” he said, adding that “I’m an American. I came here when I was a toddler. And I immediately dismissed these offers, did not entertain them.”
He said: “The whole notion is rather comical.”
Steve Castor, the Republican lawyer for the House Intelligence Committee, did not treat the subject as humorous, pressing Colonel Vindman about whether he seriously considered the offers or had somehow left the door open to accepting Mr. Danylyuk’s offer.
The line of questioning seemed to be designed, at least in part, to feed doubts about Colonel Vindman’s commitment to the United States, the subject of a wave of character attacks on him by Mr. Trump’s allies. Fox News quickly picked up on the Republican line of questioning, sending out a news alert moments after Mr. Castor finished: “Vindman says Ukrainian official offered him the job of Ukrainian defense minister.”
Two senior national security officials at the White House challenged Mr. Trump’s description of his call with the Ukraine president as “perfect,” testifying on Tuesday about how concerned they were as they listened in real time to Mr. Trump appealing for investigations into a political rival.
Colonel Vindman testified that he was so disturbed by the call that he reported it to the council’s top lawyer.
“What I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg,” Colonel Vindman said, referring to John Eisenberg, the top lawyer at the National Security Council. “It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.”“What I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg,” Colonel Vindman said, referring to John Eisenberg, the top lawyer at the National Security Council. “It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.”
Anticipating attacks from critics, Colonel Vindman, who appeared for his testimony wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform, said he expressed his concerns “in official channels” through his chain of command, adding that “my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country.”Anticipating attacks from critics, Colonel Vindman, who appeared for his testimony wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform, said he expressed his concerns “in official channels” through his chain of command, adding that “my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country.”
Jennifer Williams, a national security aide to Vice President Mike Pence, said she found the president’s call unusual because it included discussion of a “domestic political matter.”Jennifer Williams, a national security aide to Vice President Mike Pence, said she found the president’s call unusual because it included discussion of a “domestic political matter.”
Their testimony kicked off three days of hearings featuring nine diplomats and national security officials as Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee continue to build their case that Mr. Trump abused his power by trying to enlist Ukraine to publicly commit to investigations that would discredit former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading political rival, and other Democrats. The pair is kicking off three days of testimony from nine diplomats and national security officials as Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee continue to build their case that Mr. Trump tried to extort Ukraine by withholding security aid until the government agreed to announce investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden
Colonel Vindman and Ms. Williams both testified that they were never aware of any other national security officials in the United States government who supported the decision to withhold nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine, which both said was directed the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. A Republican lawyer appeared to raise doubts about Colonel Vindman’s loyalty to the United States, questioning him about the fact that a top Ukrainian official had several times asked him to consider serving as Ukraine’s defense minister.
Both witnesses said withholding the military assistance from Ukraine was damaging to relations between the two countries and to Ukraine’s ability to confront Russian aggression. Representative Mike Quigley of Illinois asked Colonel Vindman whether anyone else supported the decision to freeze the aid. Colonel Vindman, an American citizen and decorated Army officer who was born in Ukraine, confirmed that Oleksandr Danylyuk, a the director of that country’s national security council, approached him three times to offer him the job of defense minister in Kyiv. Colonel Vindman testified that he repeatedly declined, dismissing the idea out of hand and reporting the approaches to his superiors and to counter intelligence officials.
“No one from the national security?” Mr. Quigley asked. “Every single time, I dismissed it,” he said, adding that “I’m an American. I came here when I was a toddler. I immediately dismissed these offers, did not entertain them.”
“None,” Colonel Vindman said. He said: “The whole notion is comical.”
“No one from the state department?” Steve Castor, the Republican lawyer for the House Intelligence Committee, did not treat the subject as humorous, repeatedly pressing Colonel Vindman about whether he seriously considered the offers or had somehow left the door open to accepting Mr. Danylyuk’s offer.
“Correct.” The line of questioning seemed to be designed, at least in part, to feed doubts about Colonel Vindman’s commitment to the United States, the subject of a wave of character attacks on him by Mr. Trump’s allies. Fox News quickly picked up on the Republican line of questioning, sending out a news alert moments after Mr. Castor finished: “Vindman says Ukrainian official offered him the job of Ukrainian defense minister.”
“No one from the department of defense?
“Correct.”
Ms. Williams testified that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine told Vice President Mike Pence during a September 1 meeting that continuing to withhold the aid would indicate that United States support for Ukraine was wavering, giving Russia a boost in the ongoing conflict between the two countries.
“Any signal or sign that U.S. support was wavering would be construed by Russia as potentially an opportunity for them to strengthen their own hand in Ukraine,” Ms. Williams said, relating what Mr. Zelensky told Mr. Pence.
Mr. Trump offered his first response of the day to the testimony against him during a cabinet meeting at the White House.
“Republicans are absolutely killing it, because it’s a big scam,” the president said.
Rick Perry, the outgoing energy secretary who has been scrutinized for his role in the Ukraine matter, opened the meeting with a prayer in which he said everyone in the room was there because they have been “ordained” to be there.
The president railed anew against impeachment during the cabinet meeting, which is ostensibly about border policy and the proposed United States trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. Mr. Trump called the proceedings “a kangaroo court” headed by “little shifty Schiff,” referring to Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He also suggested that the impeachment attempt would backfire politically on Democrats.
This is the first time the president had been in front of the pool since leaving the White House for an unplanned visit to Walter Reed hospital on Saturday. In the Cabinet Room, he also addressed speculation that he may have visited the hospital abruptly because of heart problems, calling the media “sick.” He said he just had a routine physical.
The president also accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of stonewalling the trade pact because of her focus on impeachment, calling her “that woman” and saying she was “incompetent.”
Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the committee, sought to turn the focus away from Mr. Trump to Mr. Biden, leading the witnesses through a series of questions intended to suggest that the former vice president had intervened in Ukraine’s domestic affairs to benefit his son, Hunter Biden, despite the lack of evidence.Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the committee, sought to turn the focus away from Mr. Trump to Mr. Biden, leading the witnesses through a series of questions intended to suggest that the former vice president had intervened in Ukraine’s domestic affairs to benefit his son, Hunter Biden, despite the lack of evidence.
Mr. Biden, as vice president, pressured Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who was seen as tolerating corruption in keeping with the policy of the United States, European allies and international financial organizations at the time. But Mr. Nunes suggested that Mr. Biden was acting to benefit his son, who was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had been investigated for corruption.Mr. Biden, as vice president, pressured Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who was seen as tolerating corruption in keeping with the policy of the United States, European allies and international financial organizations at the time. But Mr. Nunes suggested that Mr. Biden was acting to benefit his son, who was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had been investigated for corruption.
“Did you know that Joe Biden called Ukrainian President Poroshenko at least three times in February 2016 after the president and owner of Burisma’s home was raided on February 2 by the state prosecutor’s office?” Mr. Nunes asked, referring to Petro O. Poroshenko, then the president.“Did you know that Joe Biden called Ukrainian President Poroshenko at least three times in February 2016 after the president and owner of Burisma’s home was raided on February 2 by the state prosecutor’s office?” Mr. Nunes asked, referring to Petro O. Poroshenko, then the president.
“Not at the time,” Ms. Williams answered. She added: “I’ve become aware of that through this proceeding.”“Not at the time,” Ms. Williams answered. She added: “I’ve become aware of that through this proceeding.”
Mr. Nunes asked a series of similar questions and then repeated them for Mr. Vindman. Neither witness was working on the issue at the time, so neither could offer information to about it. But Mr. Nunes used the opportunity to introduce his allegations, anyway. He also tried repeatedly to extract information from Colonel Vindman about the identity of the whistle-blower who filed a complaint about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, drawing objections from the colonel’s lawyer.Mr. Nunes asked a series of similar questions and then repeated them for Mr. Vindman. Neither witness was working on the issue at the time, so neither could offer information to about it. But Mr. Nunes used the opportunity to introduce his allegations, anyway. He also tried repeatedly to extract information from Colonel Vindman about the identity of the whistle-blower who filed a complaint about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, drawing objections from the colonel’s lawyer.
At one point, things turned testy when Mr. Nunes addressed Colonel Vindman as “Mr. Vindman.”At one point, things turned testy when Mr. Nunes addressed Colonel Vindman as “Mr. Vindman.”
“Ranking member, it’s Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please,” he shot back.“Ranking member, it’s Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please,” he shot back.
Colonel Vindman used his opening statement before impeachment investigators to denounce the attacks leveled by President Trump and his allies against those who have appeared, or are scheduled to testify, in the impeachment inquiry.Colonel Vindman used his opening statement before impeachment investigators to denounce the attacks leveled by President Trump and his allies against those who have appeared, or are scheduled to testify, in the impeachment inquiry.
“The vile character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible,” Colonel Vindman said.“The vile character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible,” Colonel Vindman said.
His remarks came after Mr. Trump has lashed out repeatedly against witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, disparaging their records and calling them “Never Trumpers” who are trying to take him down. Amid the threats, the Army has been assessing potential security threats to Colonel Vindman and his brother Yevgeny, who also works at the National Security Council. There have also been discussions about moving the Vindmans and their families on to a military base for their protection, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.His remarks came after Mr. Trump has lashed out repeatedly against witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, disparaging their records and calling them “Never Trumpers” who are trying to take him down. Amid the threats, the Army has been assessing potential security threats to Colonel Vindman and his brother Yevgeny, who also works at the National Security Council. There have also been discussions about moving the Vindmans and their families on to a military base for their protection, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.
The colonel, who came to the United States as a refugee at the age of 3, referred to his family’s history in Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, noting that in Russia, “offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life.”The colonel, who came to the United States as a refugee at the age of 3, referred to his family’s history in Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, noting that in Russia, “offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life.”
“Dad, my sitting here today, in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected officials, is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family,” Colonel Vindman said. “Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”“Dad, my sitting here today, in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected officials, is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family,” Colonel Vindman said. “Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”
Colonel Vindman was one of the officials who listened in to Mr. Trump’s July 25 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and privately expressed concerns about it. On Tuesday, he was to testify that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, was among the “disruptive actors” who were “promoting false information that undermined the United States’ Ukraine policy.”
He said the National Security Council and other agencies, including the State Department, “grew increasingly concerned about the impact that such information was having on our country’s ability to achieve our national security objectives.”
Colonel Vindman on Tuesday played down the decision by White House lawyers to put the transcript of Mr. Trump’s July 25 call on a more secure server, saying that “I didn’t take it as anything nefarious” on the part of the officials.
“I think it was intended, but again it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access,” he said.
He also discounted the importance of two words being left out of the reconstructed transcript of the call. Colonel Vindman has said that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine used the word “Burisma” in reference to a company that employed Hunter Biden, former vice president’s son.
The word was not included, however, in the reconstructed transcript that was later released by the White House. Colonel Vindman said the transcript also did not include Mr. Trump’s use of the word “recordings,” a reference he said was to video of the former vice president.
But Colonel Vindman called the missing words “administrative errors” that “might be meaningful but it’s not that big of a deal.”
The lawyer for Ms. Williams told lawmakers that she could not answer questions about a Sept. 18 call between Vice President Mike Pence and the president of Ukraine because the White House had determined that it was classified.
In her closed-door deposition, Ms. Williams answered questions about the call, telling lawmakers that the two had a “very positive” discussion and that there was no discussion about investigations that Mr. Trump wanted.
Ms. Williams said on Tuesday that she would be willing to answer questions in a classified setting or in writing to the committee.
Kurt D. Volker, President Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, will testify Tuesday afternoon that he was out of the loop as Mr. Giuliani effectively sought to pressure Ukraine for investigations of the Bidens. Other witnesses, however, have challenged Mr. Volker’s testimony, describing him as a member of a trio known inside the Trump administration as the “three amigos,” who were running a shadow foreign policy on Ukraine with Rick Perry, the energy secretary, and Gordon D. Sondland, a Trump megadonor and the United States ambassador to the European Union.Kurt D. Volker, President Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, will testify Tuesday afternoon that he was out of the loop as Mr. Giuliani effectively sought to pressure Ukraine for investigations of the Bidens. Other witnesses, however, have challenged Mr. Volker’s testimony, describing him as a member of a trio known inside the Trump administration as the “three amigos,” who were running a shadow foreign policy on Ukraine with Rick Perry, the energy secretary, and Gordon D. Sondland, a Trump megadonor and the United States ambassador to the European Union.
Mr. Volker will be joined on the afternoon panel by Timothy Morrison, a longtime Republican congressional aide who has previously testified about a conversation between the president and Mr. Sondland in which Mr. Trump insisted that Ukraine must publicly announce investigations.Mr. Volker will be joined on the afternoon panel by Timothy Morrison, a longtime Republican congressional aide who has previously testified about a conversation between the president and Mr. Sondland in which Mr. Trump insisted that Ukraine must publicly announce investigations.
But Republicans plan to focus on Mr. Morrison’s assessment of the president’s July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky. Mr. Morrison told lawmakers that he heard nothing illegal as he listened to the call, though he was concerned that it could leak and cause political problems.But Republicans plan to focus on Mr. Morrison’s assessment of the president’s July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky. Mr. Morrison told lawmakers that he heard nothing illegal as he listened to the call, though he was concerned that it could leak and cause political problems.
Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured Mr. Zelensky to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including the former vice president. Here’s a timeline of events since January.
A C.I.A. officer who was once detailed to the White House filed a whistle-blower complaint on Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Read the complaint.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in September that the House would open a formal impeachment proceeding in response to the whistle-blower’s complaint. Here’s how the impeachment process works, and here’s why political influence in foreign policy matters.
House committees have issued subpoenas to the White House, the Defense Department, the budget office and other agencies for documents related to the impeachment investigation. Here’s the evidence that has been collected so far.
Read about the Democrats’ rules to govern impeachment proceedings.