•   
  •   
  •   
W

Opinion Opinions | Zelensky was planning to announce Trump’s ‘quid pro quo’ on my show. Here’s what happened.

05:45  15 november  2019
05:45  15 november  2019 Source:   washingtonpost.com

Diplomat had 'clear understanding' of Ukraine quid pro quo

  Diplomat had 'clear understanding' of Ukraine quid pro quo House Democrats on Wednesday released the transcript of a closed-door interview of a key State Department witness.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

a man wearing a suit and tie: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attends a welcoming ceremony at Riga Palace in Riga, Latvia, on Oct. 16.© Toms Kalnins/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attends a welcoming ceremony at Riga Palace in Riga, Latvia, on Oct. 16.

The phrase “quid pro quo” is usually translated as “something for something.” In the case of President Trump’s communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, it appears that the “quo” was supposed to have been a declaration of Zelensky’s commitment to undertake investigations into the 2016 election and Joe Biden. The New York Times has reported that a public announcement was set to be made on my CNN program. So I think I owe readers my best understanding of what actually happened.

Impeachment transcripts reveal a consistent, damaging narrative for Trump

  Impeachment transcripts reveal a consistent, damaging narrative for Trump “I think you will see throughout the course of the testimony — not only their testimony but many others — the most important facts are largely not contested,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Wednesday. The transcripts reveal a widespread concern among American diplomats that critical military aid intended to counter Russia’s aggression as well as a meeting between the two country’s presidents was conditioned on the politically motivated investigations sought by Trump and his allies.In the assessment of the five diplomats at the center of the impeachment inquiry, Giuliani was everywhere.

Ever since Zelensky was elected president in April, my team and I have been interested in having him appear on the show. He is a fascinating political figure, a total outsider who swept into power. I had visited Ukraine several times and interviewed the previous president of the country three times, so I was familiar with the place and had good contacts.

We began the process of establishing connections with the new administration, which was cordial and efficient throughout. Heads of state often find it useful to give interviews around the time of the annual U.N. General Assembly in September, and that was our target.

About a week before the main U.N. gathering, another major conference was taking place in Kyiv, an annual event that brings together Ukrainian elites with Western politicians, diplomats, intellectuals and journalists. Since I was scheduled to participate, I queried as to whether I could meet with Zelensky to secure the televised interview and get him comfortable with me. His office readily agreed.

How Republican Defenses of Trump on Impeachment Have Shifted Over Time

  How Republican Defenses of Trump on Impeachment Have Shifted Over Time Democrats paint the changing defense as evidence of its weakness. Republicans attribute it to another source: disorganization . So far, they say, there’s been little coordination between the White House and Trump’s nominal allies on the Hill about a messaging strategy.Here’s a look at how the defense of Donald Trump has changed since the impeachment proceedings began.‘No Quid Pro Quo’Since the moment he authorized the release of a transcript, Trump has maintained there was no quid pro quo in his withholding military aid from Ukraine while pushing the country to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

On Sept. 13, I met with Zelensky in Kyiv, on the sidelines of the conference. He came across as smart, energetic and with a much sharper feel for politics than you might expect from a neophyte. It was a brief conversation, but we did discuss most of the big issues he faced — Ukraine’s relations with Russia and the United States, economic reform and corruption. We also talked about whether he wanted to do the interview in English — which he speaks well — or Ukrainian. I left with the sense that all was well. Zelensky had perhaps seemed a bit distracted, but I assumed that this was because of the many challenges he faced.

It’s a testament to Zelensky’s skill that he did not let on in any way the immense pressure he was under. As we now know, for months the Trump White House had been mounting an intense campaign to force him to publicly announce the election-related investigations. He had tried to resist and put them off in various ways, but ultimately decided he would have to give in, according to the Times. His team apparently concluded that since he was planning an interview with me anyway, that would be the forum in which he would make the announcement, though neither he nor any of his team ever gave us any inkling that this was their plan. However, after my meeting with him in Kyiv, my team began to discuss potential logistics of the interview with his team — time and place.

Historic impeachment hearings are set to begin, with GOP and Democrats pushing dueling messages on Trump’s conduct

  Historic impeachment hearings are set to begin, with GOP and Democrats pushing dueling messages on Trump’s conduct The two parties signaled how they planned to present radically different interpretations of the president’s actions and whether they were impeachable. Democrats expressed confidence that Wednesday’s hearing would begin a serious and somber process of publicly exposing Trump’s misconduct, narrated by career diplomats who were alarmed by the president’s push to have Ukraine investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son, as well as a debunked theory concerning the 2016 election, in exchange for military aid and a White House visit coveted by Ukraine’s new leader.

But I had not realized how much the ground had already begun to shift before our meeting. On Sept. 5, The Post published an editorial revealing that it had been “reliably told” that Trump was trying to force Zelensky to investigate Biden. On Sept. 9, four days before my visit to Kyiv, House Democrats initiated an investigation into the allegations. That same day, the intelligence community inspector general notified the House and Senate intelligence committees of the whistleblower complaint. The next day, Sept. 10, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire demanding that he turn over the complaint. That is also the day Trump announced he had fired John Bolton as national security adviser. And then, on Sept. 11, aid to Ukraine was unfrozen with no conditions.

Imagine Zelensky’s dilemma. By the time I met with him in Kyiv, he knew the aid had been released, but the backstory had not yet broken into public view. Ukrainian officials I spoke to about the release of the aid were delighted but a little surprised and unsure as to what had happened. Zelensky and his team were probably trying to figure out whether they should still do the interview.

How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump’s shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry

  How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump’s shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry The whistleblower’s nine-page memo on efforts to coerce Ukraine to boost Trump’s prospects in 2020 has led to a sprawling investigation stretching from Kyiv to the West Wing.In early August, one of those analysts was staying after hours on a project with even higher stakes. For two weeks, he pored over notes of alarming conversations with White House officials, reviewed details from interagency memos on the U.S. relationship with Ukraine and scanned public statements by President Trump.

A few days later, on Sept. 18 and 19, The Post broke the story wide open. The interview was called off. We are, of course, still trying to get it.

fareed.zakaria.gps@turner.com

Read more from Fareed Zakaria’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his daily newsletter.

Read more:

David Ignatius: People died while Trump played games with Ukraine’s military aid

The Post’s View: Ukraine and Zelensky need help. U.S. officials are nowhere to be found.

Eugene Robinson: Enough with the Latin. What Trump did was bribery.

Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent: Gordon Sondland just gave us this scandal’s smoking quid pro quo

The Post’s View: A new president wants to transform Ukraine’s politics — and stay out of America’s

What Trump, Pence, Pompeo and others knew, according to Gordon Sondland’s testimony, texts and emails .
A rundown of who knew what when in the pressure campaign against Ukraine, according to the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.Gordon Sondland testified to Congress that he knew there was a quid pro quo, which he communicated to Ukrainian officials. But in putting himself out there, he made sure Congress knew that lots of other high-level officials knew about it, too.

Topical videos:

usr: 3
This is interesting!