Politics: 4 big takeaways from Fiona Hill’s and Alexander Vindman’s transcripts - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

Politics 4 big takeaways from Fiona Hill’s and Alexander Vindman’s transcripts

22:40  08 november  2019
22:40  08 november  2019 Source:   washingtonpost.com

U.S. House panels release two more impeachment depositions

  U.S. House panels release two more impeachment depositions U.S. House panels release two more impeachment depositions

We got our latest transcripts Friday in the House impeachment inquiry — this time from the depositions of National Security Council officials Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.

Vindman, you might recall, testified last week that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland started talking to Ukrainian officials about the need for specific investigations in order for them to secure a meeting with President Trump, before national security adviser John Bolton cut the meeting short. Hill, too, was in that July 10 meeting and is a key witness to internal discord in the White House.

Pentagon chief: No penalty for officer in impeachment probe

  Pentagon chief: No penalty for officer in impeachment probe Defense Secretary Mark Esper says an Army officer has no reason to fear retribution for testifying before Congress in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump. Esper was asked about potential retribution for Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman during a trip Monday to New York. The defense secretary said the Pentagon "has protections for whistleblowers" who report waste, fraud or abuse.

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

Here are some key takeaways from their testimony:

1. Mick Mulvaney is now implicated in the quid pro quo

Both Vindman’s and Hill’s testimony fills out the picture of the quid pro quo — and brings it closer to Trump.

Sondland emphasized in his clarified testimony this week that Trump hadn’t explicitly conveyed a quid pro quo to him. But both Hill and Vindman lay it at the feet of Trump’s top aide, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

“Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill said of the July 10 meeting that Bolton broke up.

Transcripts Show GOP ‘Terror Campaign’ to Out Whistleblower

  Transcripts Show GOP ‘Terror Campaign’ to Out Whistleblower Republican lawmakers have sought to hijack several impeachment depositions in a crusade for information on the whistleblower who sparked the inquiry, according to a review of the transcripts by The Daily Beast. Efforts from Republican lawmakers and their counsel to elicit information on the whistleblower—both by asking leading questions and asking point-blank for the person’s identity—were repeatedly batted down by Democrats, and in one case the attorney of the witness in disputes that became increasingly caustic. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

Vindman added that Sondland said the quid pro quo “had been coordinated with White House chief of staff Mr. Mick Mulvaney."

“[Sondland] just said that he had had a conversation with Mr. Mulvaney, and this is what was required to get a meeting,” Vindman said.

Compare that with this exchange from Sondland’s testimony:

Q: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Mulvaney about a White House visit for President Zelensky?
SONDLAND: I don’t recall.

Sondland testified that he had conveyed the other quid pro quo — the one involving hundreds of millions of dollars in withheld military aid — based upon the lack of a “credible” alternative. (He said that it was merely what he “presumed” to be the case.) But in the case of an Oval Office meeting being leveraged, we now have two witnesses explicitly saying Sondland got his quid pro quo marching orders from Mulvaney.

Sondland has some explaining to do, and Mulvaney certainly does — even as he is refusing to testify.

2 White House officials say Mulvaney helped coordinate Ukraine pressure campaign

  2 White House officials say Mulvaney helped coordinate Ukraine pressure campaign House Democrats on Friday released the closed-door testimony of Army. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a White House official who raised alarms after the July 25 call.The two officials – Fiona Hill, who has since left the White House after serving as senior director for Europe and Russia, and Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director of European Affairs at the National Security Council – also testified that they were so alarmed by the quid pro quos being put to Kyiv that they reported their concerns directly to National Security Council Legal Adviser John Eisenberg.

Republicans are reportedly going to try to blame this on Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sondland. But one big question: How could this have involved Trump’s top aide and not the president himself — a president who was pushing for these same investigations, no less?

2. Sondland has even more explaining to do

It goes from bad to worse for Sondland. Not only is his testimony about Mulvaney at-issue, but Vindman indicates another key element of Sondland’s testimony is bogus.

Sondland testified that he pushed for Ukraine to investigate Burisma, the company that employed Hunter Biden, but he said he wasn’t aware that the Bidens had any proximity to the company — even as late as August. That strained credulity, given Giuliani’s push for these investigations and his transparency that the Burisma one was about the Bidens had been in the news as early as early May.

And now Vindman says Sondland, in that July 10 meeting, explicitly mentioned Biden as part of the Burisma investigation:

VINDMAN: The conversation unfolded with Sondland proceeding to kind of, you know, review what the deliverable would be to get the meeting, and he talked about the investigation into the Bidens, and, frankly, I can’t 100 percent recall because I didn’t take notes of it, but Burisma, that it seemed — I mean, there was no ambiguity, I guess, in my mind. He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma.
Q: Okay. Ambiguity in your mind is different from what you—
VINDMAN: Sure.
Q: —actually heard?
VINDMAN: Right. Correct.
Q: What did you hear Sondland say?
VINDMAN: That the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens.
Q: Into the Bidens. So in the Ward Room he mentioned the word “Bidens”?
VINDMAN: To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q: Okay. Did he mention 2016?
VINDMAN: I don’t recall.
Q: Did he mention Burisma?
VINDMAN: My visceral reaction to what was being called for suggested that it was explicit. There was no ambiguity.

“To the best of my collection” isn’t quite a 100 percent “yes.” But as I’ve written, it would be amazing if Sondland somehow really didn’t know about the Burisma/Biden connection in July, because pretty much everyone else apparently did.

NSC official's testimony appears to contradict Rick Perry Ukraine claims

  NSC official's testimony appears to contradict Rick Perry Ukraine claims Testimony from a senior White House official on Tuesday appeared to contradict Energy Secretary Rick Perry's ardent denials that he ever heard former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter discussed in relation to U.S. requests that Ukraine investigate corruption. © Alex Wong/Getty Images Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. In his opening statement, Lt. Col.

Nonetheless, he was adamant about it in his testimony, saying he simply hadn’t read the New York Times stories about Giuliani’s efforts — or cared to ask Giuliani, apparently.

3. An incoherent chain of command

Another emerging GOP defense here — besides the idea that Trump wasn’t personally involved — is that the Trump White House’s Ukraine policy was too incoherent to actually execute some kind of scheme like this.

And both testimonies suggests there might be a kernel of truth to that. Hill describes arguing with Sondland about who was really in charge of Ukraine policy — and not actually resolving the issue.

After Sondland said he was in charge, Hill said she responded, “No, you’re not. … Who says you’re in charge of Ukraine?"

He replied: “The president.”

Hill said she didn’t know whether that was true and “nobody else seemed to be aware of that either,” including Bolton and State Department officials.

She added at another point in her testimony: “We had an awful lot of people in the early stages of the administration doing all kinds of things that were not in their portfolio."

Vindman confirms that there was something of a free-for-all on Ukraine policy. He says at one point that Hill told him not to attend a debriefing of Trump, because there was a “personal risk.”

House to release impeachment transcripts this week, top Democrat says

  House to release impeachment transcripts this week, top Democrat says "They're going to be very telling to the American people," Congresswoman Jackie Speier told "Face the Nation" Sunday"I think you're going to see all of the transcripts that are going to be released probably within the next five days," Speier said on "Face the Nation" Sunday. "I don't know if they're all going to be released on the same day. But they're going to be very telling to the American people.

“... I was told that there was a gentleman that was providing information, representing himself as director for Ukraine, and that I would be confused with this person,” Vindman said. Vindman said Hill identified the person as Kash Patel, another NSC aide and ally of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) who had no discernible Ukraine expertise. (The testimony confirms a report from Politico last week.)

The idea that this incoherence means there couldn’t have been any corruption, of course, is taking things a few steps further. There are plenty of inept criminals, after all, and you don’t necessarily need to execute the quid pro quo for it to be illegal; the mere offer could be a campaign finance violation, an impeachable offense or arguably even bribery or extortion.

There’s also the possibility that the White House didn’t want to formalize Sondland’s and others’ irregular diplomacy back channel, because that would raise suspicions. So better not to confirm he was actually in charge.

4. Sondland’s removal — and reinstatement — on a Ukraine trip

It’s become clear at this point that Sondland isn’t the steadiest character in this whole saga. He’s already had to clarify his testimony, and many of his claims make no sense next to others’ version of events (see Nos. 1 and 2 above).

And Vindman furthers the picture of a top official in Europe who isn’t exactly the steadiest diplomatic hand. He says Sondland was removed from a May delegation for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration because he couldn’t be trusted to stay on-message.

Curiously, though, Sondland was restored to the delegation:

VINDMAN: I think that Dr. Hill may have possibly removed him, because of the understanding that she didn’t think that Ambassador Bolton wanted him on the delegation.
Q: Yeah. Do you know why not?
VINDMAN: Because it was outside of his portfolio, and he tended to go off-script, so there was some risk involved.
Q: What does that mean, he tended to go off-script?
VINDMAN: He’s not a professional diplomat. And this is not critical of him, but he didn’t necessarily act as a diplomat and he wouldn’t necessarily, you know — if we had a consistent position and a consistent set of talking points, he would not necessarily be consistent with our — with the rest of the consensus view.
Q: Do you know how Sondland got back on the list?
VINDMAN: I don’t recall.

This is an event worth probing further, certainly — as is Sondland’s apparent unwieldiness and inconsistencies as a witness.

Army Veteran Says Attacks by Trump Allies on 'Wounded Warrior,' Purple Heart Recipient Vindman are 'Disgusting' .
Will Goodwin called Trump's comments about the veteran "disgusting" and "disgraceful." Many have been quick to criticize Trump for his statements to discredit the Purple Heart recipient's testimony.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 1
This is interesting!