Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Republicans are getting to the rock-bottom of it.

They have defended President Trump throughout the public impeachment hearings by arguing his gangster efforts to force a Ukrainian investigation into its (imagined) interference in the 2016 election were actually completely legitimate. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has made this point repeatedly, assailing Democrats for their alleged collaboration with Ukrainian election interference efforts and asking, as he did during former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's testimony, "what is the full extent of Ukraine's election meddling against the Trump campaign?"

If you're unfamiliar with the paranoid depths of the right-wing media universe, this kind of talk probably puzzled you. But make no mistake: The Ukraine fantasies peddled by House Republicans are nothing less than a concerted attempt to do what the GOP has done with all of Trump's misconduct since the beginning of his presidency to use a combination of denial and redirection to foment skepticism and doubt about the underlying charges.

In this case, the Ukraine meddling red herring is used to justify Trump's obstructive acts and his attempts to extort the Ukrainian government into opening an investigation in exchange for military aid and a White House visit. And if Democrats don't begin a major effort to dismantle this nonsense in public, they may very well lose the battle for public opinion in the same way they allowed themselves to get outfoxed with the Mueller probe.

When referencing the Ukraine ideas, Democrats have called them "discredited" and "debunked" over and over again, which of course they are. But referring to them as such does nothing to prove it to voters who don't read Vox explainers and Washington Post investigative reports. To the kind of "pox on both houses" voters whose mood swings might determine the outcome of the 2020 election, all they hear is people from two parties they hate yelling at one another and accusing each other of the exact same things.

One important reason Democrats must be better prepared to fend off Ukraine-related conspiracy mongering is that Attorney General Barr is preparing some kind of ginned-up report that will line up neatly with Republican efforts in the hearings to pin 2016 election interference on Ukraine. It will suck all of the oxygen out of the proceedings for days or even weeks. Earlier this year, Barr tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham with investigating the origins of the various Trump-Russia investigations in 2016, which culminated in the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017. The Department of Justice recently revealed, ominously, that this was now a criminal probe. Barr himself has been jet-setting around the world looking for confirmatory evidence.

What's it all about? There are two Ukraine-related conspiracy theories, which are likely to converge in the coming weeks as GOP efforts to save Trump accelerate. The first involves the infamous Russian hacking of the DNC in the spring of 2016, which led to months of leaked emails disseminated via Wikileaks, whose release was often timed to inflict maximum damage on the Clinton campaign. In his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky, Trump asked him about "Crowdstrike" and the "server." This references a truly insane, far-right fantasy that in fact it was Ukraine, in collaboration with the Clinton campaign, that hacked the DNC and then blamed it on Russia to make the Trump campaign look guilty.

In this make-believe world, Crowdstrike cofounder Dmitri Alperovitch is a Ukrainian (he is actually an American citizen who serves as a fellow on the august Atlantic Council) who absconded back to his country with the server, and the FBI had to take their word for it that Russia was culpable. Back on Earth-1, on the other hand, Crowdstrike provided the FBI with all of its forensic data, no serious person disputes that Russia was responsible for the hacking, and there is no single "server" which can be physically transported to Kiev.

The Crowdstrike lunacy has not yet been affirmatively advanced by Republicans in these hearings, although no one should be surprised if it is. But the idea that Ukraine was responsible for triggering the FBI's counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign has now gone mainstream.

The story goes like this: Corrupt Ukrainians fabricated a "black ledger" implicating former Trump campaign director Paul Manafort in various forms of corruption when he was a key advisor to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian stooge, so that the Trump campaign's May 2016 hiring of Manafort as campaign manager would look especially suspicious. In this telling, the incident in which Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat about how Russia had stolen dirt on Clinton was actually a CIA set-up.

The conspiracy theory then alleges that at the same time, Ukrainian embassy officials were working with a consultant named Alexandra Chalupa (who held a minor post with the DNC) to channel incriminating information about Trump and Manafort to reporters and intelligence agencies. CIA Director John Brennan then supposedly manipulated this information and baited the FBI into opening its investigation. (This is why House Republicans put Chalupa on a list of witnesses they wanted to testify.) The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, was using a firm called Fusion GPS, which paid former British spy Christopher Steele to produce a lurid dossier about Trump. (Though of course it wasn't released and was only made public by Buzzfeed after the election.) The FBI, supposedly at Brennan's behest, then improperly used information gleaned from Ukrainians via Chalupa and Steele to trigger its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. (There's more, of course, but this is an article, not a book.)

To simplify for those who are still with me: Corrupt U.S. intelligence officials glommed onto false allegations pushed at them by Ukrainians terrified of a Trump administration and used them to launch years of phony investigations against both candidate and President Trump. The Mueller report, so this story goes, proved that this was all a hoax from the get-go, and now President Trump and Attorney General Barr just want to get to the truth about what really happened.

It should almost go without saying that this is all nonsense, the product of shut-ins decorating large poster boards with paranoid speculation and unsubstantiated rumors and then laundering it all through various luminaries in the right-wing media cocoon. None of it makes any real sense.

To have worked, it had to have involved former CIA director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The number of conspirators must have run into the hundreds, many of whom would have been career public servants (as opposed to political appointees) in the intelligence agencies and the FBI. Yet none of them are talking?

Second, if the FBI was part of a plot to destroy then-candidate Trump, why did FBI Director James Comey then go out of his way to assail Clinton as "extremely careless" in his June 5, 2016, press conference and then theatrically announce that he was looking at new emails just days before the presidential election, a maneuver that may have led directly to her loss?

Third, why would the Clinton campaign have conspired with Ukraine against itself to release a long series of damaging or distracting emails from people like John Podesta?

Lastly, in the closing days of the campaign, when the polls had tightened and there was a very real possibility of Trump winning the election, why didn't any of the conspirators do more to release this information to the media? Why would the conspirators bury their own conspiracy?

The problem for Democrats is that these questions don't immediately come to mind for most people. Americans, most of whom who have not read the 448-page Mueller Report and are only dimly aware of the many troubling details about the Trump campaign's efforts to work with Russian hackers to subvert the 2016 election, watched Democrats simply walk away and turn off the lights after Mueller's July 24 testimony before Congress, seemingly resigned to the president's triumphant efforts to obstruct justice. Now Democrats have to contend with this Republican counternarrative, which if not pushed back on aggressively, will appear just as credible to the modestly informed.

It might sound equally bonkers, but Democrats should think about tackling it all head-on, perhaps by calling in a leading Ukraine conspiracy advocate like Sean Hannity to testify before Congress, followed by witnesses like Brennan who can then dismantle it all piece by piece. There is no way that Hannity or anyone else would be able to hold it together through hours of interrogation by Daniel Goldman, who capably led some of the questioning for House Democrats in last week's hearings. Give Republicans their wish and bring in Chalupa, who is desperate to testify. Bring in Alperovitch. If they really want to stop the news cycle and force everyone to watch, bring in former President Obama himself. Take a week, and blow the whole kooky theory to pieces.

Remember: This is all one story. The Trump-Giuliani Ukraine caper was partly about screwing with the 2020 election, but it was also about fabricating evidence to support the administration's nutso counter-narrative that the real villains in 2016 weren't the Russians but rather Ukrainians and Obama administration officials from the "deep state" working together to smear Our Great President. The behavior that led to these impeachment hearings is part of a maximalist plot to completely exonerate both Russia and the president of any wrongdoing, all driven by Trump's thin-skinned obsession with legitimacy, and his administration's barely-concealed hunger to engage in further abuses of power.

If they get away with this, they can get away with anything, and they know it. That's why Democrats need to take the time to get this story right, and convince the public that there is nothing to the GOP's Ukraine fever dreams but sweaty sheets and bad faith.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

See the article here:
The Republicans' Ukraine conspiracy theory is going mainstream - The Week

WASHINGTON On the April night she answered a 1 a.m. phone call instructing her to take the next plane back to Washington, Marie L. Yovanovitch, the ousted United States ambassador to Ukraine, was at her home in Kiev after having just finished hosting an event to honor a young anticorruption activist who had been killed in horrific fashion.

The activist, Kateryna Handziuk, was outside her home in the Ukrainian city of Kherson in July 2018 when someone splashed her with a quart of sulfuric acid, severely burning more than 30 percent of her body. After 11 surgeries over three months, Ms. Handziuk succumbed to her excruciating wounds. She was 33.

In public impeachment hearings, the former ambassador testified Friday about the chronology of her abrupt recall from Ukraine after a campaign of unsubstantiated allegations against her that reached President Trump. Speaking before a House committee, she also spotlighted Ms. Handziuks story, and underscored why she had been honoring her legacy that April night in an official award ceremony attended by Ms. Handziuks father.

She very tragically died because she was attacked by acid, and several months later died a very, very painful death, Ms. Yovanovitch testified. We thought it was important that justice be done for Katya and others who fight corruption in Ukraine because its not kind of a tabletop exercise there. Their lives are in the balance.

Ms. Handziuk, an outspoken critic of graft and political corruption in Kherson, a city in southern Ukraine near Russia-occupied Crimea, was among dozens of activists who human rights groups say have been attacked in the former Soviet republic now at the center of impeachment proceedings. Five men were convicted of carrying out the attack. But Ms. Yovanovitch said on Friday that those who ordered this have not yet been apprehended.

Her appearance helped make real the abstract concept of the fight against corruption in Ukraine, which has been a central theme of an impeachment inquiry examining whether Mr. Trump distorted American diplomacy for his own political gain. Her comments showed how, even as Ukraine fights Russian-backed separatists for territory in its eastern regions, a parallel fight is being waged by activists and journalists who risk their safety to expose wrongdoing by politicians, mob bosses and oligarchs who often work in tandem against democratic overhauls long urged by the United States and Europe.

Speaking of the slain activist, and others carrying on that effort, Ms. Yovanovitch said, The message was: This could happen to you, if you continue her work.

Among Ms. Handziuks causes had been focusing attention on police passivity in the face of attacks on fellow activists. Two weeks before Ms. Handziuk became a victim herself, a leading anticorruption activist in Kiev, Vitaliy Shabunin, suffered chemical burns after someone dumped a caustic antiseptic over his head at a public protest, temporarily dying his skin green.

Her death stirred outrage across Ukraine, prompting protests in at least five cities. It also drew recognition from the very top of the State Department. In March, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hosted a Women of Courage awards ceremony at the State Department, in which Ms. Handziuk was one of the honorees.

Its also important that we pause to recognize and honor those women who paid the ultimate price for their courageous efforts, women like Kateryna Handziuk of Ukraine, who dedicated her journalism career to uncovering and calling out corruption, Mr. Pompeo said. Even after a brutal acid attack, which ultimately claimed her life three months later, Kateryna refused to be silenced. From her hospital bed, she demanded justice, setting a powerful example for her fellow citizens.

Less than two months after that event, while hosting Ms. Handziuks father at her home in Kiev to present him with the award, Ms. Yovanovitch received a 10 p.m. call from a senior State Department official first warning that there were unspecified concerns about her among senior levels of the department. A follow-up call three hours later advised her to take the next plane back to Washington.

On the first anniversary of Ms. Handziuks death this month, Ms. Yovanovitchs acting successor in Kiev, William B. Taylor Jr., recorded a video tribute posted by the American Embassy there. We urge justice for Katya and her family. We remember her and we will continue to push for the kind of Ukraine that she gave her life for, Mr. Taylor, currently the chief of mission in Kiev, said.

Just two days later, Mr. Taylor himself testified before the House. Trump administration officials had set up an irregular, informal channel of diplomacy there, he said, one that hampered the American effort to help Ukraine defeat corruption.

See original here:
Ex-Envoys Tale of Acid Attack Spotlights Ukraines Anticorruption Wars - The New York Times

Solomon, a former reporter at The Associated Press and The Washington Post, has emerged as a key player in the Ukraine scandal, with testimony continuing this week about Trump and his allies put pressure on the country to open politically motivated investigations as military aid was withheld.

At Solomon's former employer, The Post, Paul Farhi wrote how the "conservative columnist helped push a flawed Ukraine narrative. The New York Times last week dubbed Solomon the man Trump trusts for news on Ukraine.

Solomon has defended his work, including on Friday in an email to POLITICO. "I stand by each and every one of the columns that I wrote and that The Hill (both editors and lawyers) carefully vetted, he wrote. All facts in those stories are substantiated to original source documents and statements."

The journalists comments on Friday came after California Rep. Jackie Speier told Scott Wong, a senior staff writer at The Hill, that she wouldnt speak to the publication because of its reprehensible decision to run Solomons columns, which she said lacked veracity. Speier also urged Wong to take her concerns to management.

Wong told Speier that there are a lot of dedicated reporters at The Hill who do not share John Solomons views. Last year, some journalists at The Hill complained to management about Solomons work, which was later moved from the news side to the opinion section. Solomon departed The Hill in September and later joined Fox News as a contributor.

Cusack did not mention Speiers critique in Mondays memo, which pointed to recent Congressional testimony and related events as the impetus for revisiting Solomons work.

The Hills top editor also reiterated that publication does not condone sending material out before publication. Its been revealed in the impeachment inquiry that Solomon shared a draft of one of his Hill columns with allies of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. I do go over stories in advance, Solomon told the Times in defending the practice.

Cusack concluded his note by emphasizing that The Hill remains committed to giving voice to views across the political divide.

Read the original here:
The Hill vows to review Solomon's Ukraine pieces - Politico

Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have contacted people associated with the company in recent weeks, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. A spokesman for SDNY declined to comment. There is no indication of wrongdoing by Naftogaz.

Naftogaz stands at the center of an effort by Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, and their purported natural-gas company, Global Energy Producers, to replace Naftogaz's chief executive officer with someone who would be more beneficial to their own business interests earlier this year.

They pursued that outcome, CNN has reported, around the same time they were working with Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, to encourage Ukranian officials to investigate Trump's political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. They were also actively pushing to have the US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, removed.

An American energy consultant who operates in Ukraine, Dale Perry, described the efforts to oust Naftogaz's CEO, Andriy Kobolyev, who is known for his anti-corruption reforms at the company. At an energy conference in Houston last March, Parnas and Fruman asked a senior Naftogaz executive Andrew Favorov if he would go along with their plan to oust the company's current CEO and become its head, according to Perry, who is Favorov's former business partner.

"(Parnas and Fruman) basically just flat out said to him, hey, to do the deals we want to do, we were not able to get through to your CEO, and we think that the business needs a new CEO," Perry told CNN.

Parnas and Fruman also told Favorov that Trump would soon replace the then-US ambassador to Ukraine, and that an ambassador more amenable to their energy-business interest would be appointed, according to Perry.

"What they said was, not that we can, but they are removing her, and that has already been agreed at the highest level of the US government," Perry said.

Perry believes Parnas and Fruman, who have no prior experience in the gas business, may have had assistance from indicted Ukranian oligarch Dmitri Firtash, who made his fortune being the intermediary between Naftogaz and Gazprom, Russia's state-owned energy corporation. The two men mentioned Firtash in their meeting with Favorov, according to Perry, saying Firtash believed Naftogaz owed him money. Firtash has been fighting extradition into the United States since he was indicted on bribery charges in 2013. Firtash's spokesperson told CNN Parnas was just a translator for Firtash, and the two have no business arrangement.

Giuliani's role

As they pursue interviews with associates of Naftogaz, prosecutors in New York are also investigating Giuliani's ties to Global Energy Producers, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Wall Street Journal first reported prosecutors' examination of whether Giuliani stood to personally profit from GEP.

Robert Costello, an attorney for Giuliani, told CNN, "Mr. Giuliani had no interest in GEP at anytime. This is quite simply a false story and I am sure counsel for Mr. Fruman will say the same thing. Someone is spending a lot of time and imagination dreaming up one false story after another."

Parnas, Fruman and Giuliani's activities have been raised multiple times in Congressional testimony in the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Fiona Hill, Trump's former top Russia adviser, said an American member of Naftogaz's board told her in May that a number of Ukrainians had complained to him about Giuliani discussing investigations and pushing to change the board of Naftogaz.

Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert, testified before congress that the board member was aware of effort by Giuliani to "facilitate financial transactions."

Parnas and Fruman told Ukranian officials that Giuliani was involved in their liquified natural gas venture, according to Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor who has represented Ukrainians, including Ukraine's former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, he said learned of the natural gas plan.

McCallion added that they mentioned Giuliani in order to lend credibility to the project.

"It's really not just about the Bidens," McCallion said of their interactions with Ukrainian officials. "It's really about the money."

Prosecutors' interest Naftogaz indicates they may be conducting an examination far beyond the campaign-finance scheme with which they charged Parnas and Fruman in October. Along with two other men, Parnas and Fruman were indicted for allegedly funneling foreign donations to US political campaigns.

As part of that scheme, prosecutors said, the two created Global Energy Producers and used it to donate $325,000 to a political action committee, America First Action, which supports President Donald Trump. Prosecutors allege Parnas and Fruman used the company to hide the source of their donation.

At the time of the donation in May 2018, according to the indictment, "GEP had not engaged in the [liquified natural gas] business, and had no income or significant assets."

Parnas and Fruman have pleaded not guilty.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to accurately reflect when the energy conference Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman attended took place. It was last March.

See original here:
Prosecutors in Giuliani investigation interested in talking to Ukrainian energy company - CNN

In a stark break with diplomatic protocol, President Trump used a cadre of associates to conduct back-channel communications with Ukraine to pressure its government to investigate Democrats, according to witnesses testifying in the impeachment hearings. Heres what key witnesses say happened:

Mr. Trump leaned heavily on his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and a handful of other officials to carry out his wishes regarding Ukraine.

Rudolph W. Giuliani

Mr. Trumps personal lawyer

Gordon D. Sondland

Donor turned E.U. ambassador

Kurt D. Volker

Former special envoy to Ukraine

Rick Perry

Energy secretary

Mick Mulvaney

Acting White House chief of staff

George P. Kent

Senior State Department official

Marie L. Yovanovitch

Former ambassador to Ukraine

William B. Taylor Jr.

Top American diplomat in Ukraine

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman

White House Ukraine expert

John R. Bolton

Former White House national security adviser

Fiona Hill

Former White House Russia expert

Tim Morrison

Former senior White House national security aide

William B. Taylor Jr., top American diplomat in Ukraine

I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy toward Ukraine. There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular.

Oct. 22 opening statement

Fiona Hill, former White House Russia expert

Mr. Giuliani was asserting quite frequently on television in public appearances that he had been given some authority over matters related to Ukraine, and if that was the case, we hadnt been informed about that.

Oct. 14 testimony

Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff

You may not like the fact that Giuliani was involved. Thats great. Thats fine. Its not illegal. Its not impeachable. The president gets to use who he wants to use.

Oct. 17 White House briefing

Marie L. Yovanovitch, former ambassador to Ukraine

I do not know Mr. Giulianis motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press who have contact with Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.

Oct. 11 opening statement

George P. Kent, senior State Department official

His assertions and allegations against former Ambassador Yovanovitch were without basis, untrue, period.

Oct. 15 testimony

Marie L. Yovanovitch, former ambassador to Ukraine

It sounded like a threat.

Nov. 15 testimony

According to some witnesses, the group operated outside of the governments official policy channel, which is made up of national security aides in the White House and diplomats at the State Department.

In testimony, some witnesses disputed the idea that there was an irregular channel. Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, pointed to messages and phone calls in which he kept the White House and State Department, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, informed of his actions.

Many members of the official channel were dismayed that Mr. Giuliani was playing a direct role in policy toward Ukraine.

Dr. Hill was in charge of coordinating Ukraine policy across the federal government.

Mick Mulvaney, who several witnesses said gave directives related to Ukraine, has defended Mr. Giulianis involvement.

Beginning in late 2018, Mr. Giuliani and his associates conducted a months-long smear campaign that resulted in the ouster of Marie L. Yovanovitch, a longtime diplomat who had been serving as ambassador to Ukraine.

In a July call with the president of Ukraine, Mr. Trump brought up Ms. Yovanovitch, describing her as bad news, adding, Shes going to go through some things. Ms. Yovanovitch testified that she was devastated when she found out.

Soon after Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine, Mr. Trump appeared to use a highly sought White House visit as leverage.

Gordon D. Sondland, donor turned E.U. ambassador

Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

Nov. 20 opening statement

Gordon D. Sondland, donor turned E.U. ambassador

Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

Nov. 20 opening statement

Fiona Hill, former White House Russia expert

This is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this.

Oct. 14 testimony

Kurt D. Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine

Heard from White Houseassuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.

Text message to Mr. Yermak

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, White House Ukraine expert

The parts that were particularly troubling was the references to conducting an investigation.

Oct. 29 testimony

William B. Taylor Jr., top American diplomat in Ukraine

The member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden.

Nov. 13 opening statement

Gordon D. Sondland, donor turned E.U. ambassador

I recall no discussions with any State Department or White House official about Former Vice President Biden or his son, nor do I recall taking part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the Bidens.

Oct. 17 opening statement

Kurt D. Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine

Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying?

Text message to Mr. Giuliani

Gordon D. Sondland, donor turned E.U. ambassador

Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?

Text message to Mr. Volker

Kurt D. Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine

At no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden.

Oct. 3 opening statement

Fiona Hill, former White House Russia expert

It is not credible to me at all that he was oblivious.

Nov. 21 testimony

In a meeting after Mr. Zelenskys inauguration, Mr. Trump directed three officials, whom some referred to as the three amigos, to work through Mr. Giuliani about his concerns related to Ukraine.

Burisma is a Ukrainian gas company that hired Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., to serve on its board.

Dr. Hill testified that Mr. Sondland was involved in a domestic political errand, diverging from the regular Ukraine policy.

John R. Bolton, then Mr. Trumps national security adviser, was furious when he found out on July 10 that Mr. Trumps meeting with Mr. Zelensky was being predicated on the Ukrainian president announcing investigations, according to Dr. Hills testimony.

Mr. Bolton, who is waiting for a judge to rule on whether he should testify, was referring to John A. Eisenberg, the chief legal adviser for the National Security Council.

On the morning of the call at the center of the whistle-blower complaint, Mr. Volker texted one of Mr. Zelenskys top advisers, Andrey Yermak.

During the July 25 call, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to do us a favor and find out what happened. Two White House officials who listened in on the call were concerned by what they had heard.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he did nothing wrong and that his call with Mr. Zelensky was perfect.

The day after the phone call, an aide to Mr. Taylor overheard a telephone conversation in Kyiv between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sondland in which they appeared to discuss the investigations. Mr. Sondland did not mention the conversation in his original testimony, but he later confirmed that it had occurred.

Text messages written by Mr. Volker and Mr. Sondland over the summer show that the two men attempted to get the Ukrainian president to make a statement about the investigations.

In testimony, Mr. Volker later claimed he did not realize Burisma was connected to the Biden family.

Mr. Sondland testified that until as late as September, he also did not realize that Burisma was linked to the Bidens. Other witnesses said that they had understood in the spring and summer that Burisma was code for the Bidens.

National security officials learned in a July meeting that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Mulvaney to hold up $391 million in aid to Ukraine. The meeting was described in the whistle-blower complaint and corroborated by several witnesses.

William B. Taylor Jr., top American diplomat in Ukraine

In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened. The irregular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of longstanding U.S. policy.

See the original post here:
A 'Threat,' a 'Drug Deal' and a 'Troubling' Call: Key Testimony in the Impeachment Inquiry - International New York Times