23 Saturday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
Early this morning, in west central Missouri:
Red-bellied Woodpecker. Melanerpes carolinus.
Canon 5D III, 2.8 70-200 mm, 2x III.
F 5.6, 1/320, ISO 1600, 400 mm.
Cardinal (female). Cardinalis cardinalis.
Canon 5D III, 2.8 70-200 mm, 2x III.
F 5.6, 1/320, ISO 1600, 400 mm.
19 Tuesday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
“…I found it at the beginning very — I found it very hard to understand why a President of the United States would do it that way when he can just — I mean, all Ambassadors are Presidential appointees, they serve at the pleasure of the President, so it didn’t — it didn’t add up to me. I didn’t understand why that would be…”
It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.
From the deposition of Ambassador David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM,
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, D.C.DEPOSITION OF: AMBASSADOR DAVID MACLAIN HALE
[….]
Q Did you have any discussion about any complaints that had been made by any other Americans related to her role there and her job?
A I don’t remember that it came up there.
Q When you were there in March, did you have a discussion with Ambassador Yovanovitch about extending her stay there?
A Yes, I did. I remember that we had a conversation, as the — later in the program, after I had some time with her, I felt that I could make an assessment that she was doing a very good job, and I asked her if she was — because we had a gap coming, we didn’t have an Ambassador lined up and confirmed to be there when she was due to leave in the summer, I asked her if she would consider staying longer. She said she wanted to think about it. She got back to me after the trip and indicated that she was prepared to stay longer. So I turned it over to our head of the European Bureau to work it and see if there would be agreement on that.
[….]
Q You said that Mayor Giuliani’s role was — around this time in Ukraine matters, was, I think you said, quote “hard to believe?” unquote. What did you mean by that?
A There was an email from George Kent that Phil Reeker forwarded to me right at the beginning of this — well, some time in the late March period, and in it, Mr. Kent conveyed information from two journalists, so Ukranian journalists that he had talked to who made a number of allegations, including that the President — they were quoting Giuliani saying to a Ukranian that the President really wants Ambassador Yovanovitch to go. And this seemed to be — the implication was that this was a roundabout way the President was trying to get rid of the Ambassador through this smear campaign.
I found it at the beginning very — I found it very hard to understand why a President of the United States would do it that way when he can just — I mean, all Ambassadors are Presidential appointees, they serve at the pleasure of the President, so it didn’t — it didn’t add up to me. I didn’t understand why that would be.
[….]
Q Did you receive a memo to file written by George Kent related to that letter and the State Department’s response to the subpoena from the committees?
A Mike McKinley forwarded to me an email from George. It was a memo to the record in September in which — I’m sorry, October 3rd, George wrote for the record, a memo describing a meeting that he and other officials of the European Affairs Bureau had had with a lawyer from the legal adviser’s office and a representative of the congressional relations office in which George said that the lawyer had behaved in an intimidating and unprofessional way. There was a lot of detail in there.
I don’t remember if the letter — the Secretary of State’s letter was referenced there. It may well have been. My focus was really on the issue of an officer who ultimately reported to me being intimidated, by his account, from the Legal Affairs Office. Mike forwarded this to me — George had not sent it to me — late on a Friday, I believe. I discussed it with the Under Secretary for Management Affairs and we kind of went back and forth. It was inconclusive. The next morning on a Saturday I spoke to a number of officers about this matter. I talked to the head of our European Affairs Bureau, the acting head. I spoke to the Legal Affairs adviser. I spoke to the Under Secretary for Management again, and I spoke to my chief of staff.
I directed that the legal adviser remove that lawyer from the file of George Kent, and assign a different lawyer. My impression from the conversation was that he may have already been moving in that direction, but in any event, I wanted to make sure that that was the case and there was no argument about it.
And we had a back and forth on the appropriateness of my going to meet with George and these officers to make amends and introduce them to the new lawyer. I decided I was going to do that on that Saturday, so we came back to the office on Monday morning. By midday Monday when I asked the status of the effort to get the meeting together, I was told that because George had an attorney, a private attorney, that the legal adviser had to deal with the attorney and not with George directly. And so that was what was causing the delay.
And then I was told either late that Monday or the next day, Tuesday, that the attorney on behalf of George had declined the offer of a meeting with me.
Q Our time is up, so we will circle back to that. But just before we do, one last question, if I could. Did you get the sense from any career members of the State Department that they felt bullied by the committee’s requests for them to testify?
A Bullied by the committee, no, I had not heard that, no.
[….]
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
18 Monday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
“…This was an extremely distinctive experience in my Foreign Service career. I’ve never seen anything like this, someone calling the President from a mobile phone at a restaurant, and then having a conversation of this level of candor, colorful language. There’s just so much about the call that was so remarkable that I remember it vividly…”
It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.
From the deposition of David Holmes, Political Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine:
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, D.C.DEPOSITION OF: DAVID A. HOLMES
[….]
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. During the meeting, you said President Zelensky stated that during the July 25th call, President Trump had three times raised some very sensitive issues and that he would have to follow up on those issues when they met in person. Now having read the call record, do you understand what he meant by the very sensitive issues he had raised three times?
MR. HOLMES: There were only a couple issues that the President raised in that call, and so, I assume those are the issues he meant.
THE CHAIRMAN: And those involve the investigations that the President wanted Zelensky to do?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: So Zelensky here is saying he’ll have to follow up with those issues when he gets his White House meeting, is that the import ?
MR. H0LMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: So Zelensky is communicating that he wants this meeting, and if the President wants to talk further about this, he needs to give him the meeting. Is that right?
MR. HOLMES: I think that’s a reasonable interpretation.
THE CHAIRMAN: On page 6, you mentioned how you were excluded from the meeting between Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Yermak, and that you waited outside with a member of Ambassador Sondland’s staff. Was there a member of Ambassador Sondland’s staff that accompanied him on most of the Ukraine trips?
MR. HOLMES: There was a member of his staff on this trip. I don’t know if his standard practice — I don’t recall- if he had a staff member accompany him on his other trips. I don’t recall.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you recall who that staff member was?
MR. HOLMES: Yes. It’s a State Department officer in the U.S. mission to the EU. Her name is [redacted].
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me move ahead to the call that you overheard at the restaurant. You said Ambassador Sondland placed this call on his mobile phone?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did that cause you any concern about the security of that phone call?
MR. HOLMES: It was surprising to me that he — yes. In my experience, generally, phone ca11s with the President are very sensitive and handled accordingly.
THE CHAIRMAN: And making a cell phone call from Ukraine, is there a risk of Russians listening in?
MR. HOLMES: I believe at least two of the three, if not a11 three of the mobile networks are owned by Russian companies, or have significant stakes in those. We generally assume that mobile communications in Ukraine are being monitored.
THE CHAIRMAN: And, in fact, Ambassador Nuland’s communications at one point had been monitored and released for political effect?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: So there was not only the concern with the ownership of the telecommunication companies, but past practice?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, you said the President’s voice was loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his head. Is that night?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir. He sort of was waiting for him to come on, and then when he came on, he sort of winced and went like that for the first couple exchanges. And then —
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, the reporter can’t record that.
MR. HOLMES: I’m sorry. He sort of winced —
THE CHAIRMAN: He moved his head away from the phone?
MR. H0LMES: — winced and then moved the phone away from his ear, because the volume was 1oud, and then — for the first portion of the cal1, and then he stopped doing that. I don’t know if he turned the volume down on got used to it or if the person, the President, I believe, on the other line moderated his volume. I don’t know what happened, but for the first part, he was pulling it away from his head.
THE CHAIRMAN: And you heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and say he was calling from Kyiv, and then you could hear President Trump wanting to clarify that Ambassador Sondland was, in fact, in Ukraine?
MR. HOLMES: Yeah. Yes. You mean, Ukraine? Yes, Ukraine.
THE CHAIRMAN: And then you said President Zelensky or Ambassador Sondland went on to say that “President Zelensky loves your ass, ” meaning that he loves the President?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And then you could hear President Trump say, so he’s going to do the investigation?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And Sondland replied, He’s going to do it?
MR. HOLMES: Yes. He said, Oh yeah, he’s going to do it.
THE CHAIRMAN: And then he went on to say, President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to?
MR. HOLMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And those are the words you heard, to the best of your recollection?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And, you know, I think you said you have quite a clean recollection of that. It left an impression on you, did it?
MR. HOLMES: This was an extremely distinctive experience in my Foreign Service career. I’ve never seen anything like this, someone calling the President from a mobile phone at a restaurant, and then having a conversation of this level of candor, colorful language. There’s just so much about the call that was so remarkable that I remember it vividly.
THE CHAIRMAN: I won’t go though the conversation about the rapper, but let me ask you about after the call ended. Anything else you can recall about the Ukraine portion of the conversation?
MR. HOLMES: It was very brief. It was exactly as I have described it, three sentences on whatever. It was — and then it was immediately, what about Sweden and then the rapper portion.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the call ends. You’re still at the restaurant. You take the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President’s views on Ukraine and, in particular, you ask him, is it true the President doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, what 1ed you to believe that the President didn’t give a shit about Ukraine? That’s an interesting way to start a question asking for feedback.
MR. HOLMES: Yeah. I’m not proud of my language. But the informal tone of the lunch and the language I had heard him using in his call with the President, we were just sort of, you know, two guys oven lunch talking about stuff, and it seemed to me that was the kind of language that he used. And so I was — I, at that point, believed that it had been very difficult for us to get the President interested in what we were trying to do in Ukraine. Those are the words I chose.
THE CHAIRMAN: And Sondland agreed with you that the President did not give a shit about Ukraine. So his answer was to you, the President doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine?
MR. HOLMES: My recollection, he said, Nope, not at all, doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine.
THE CHAIRMAN: And you asked him why not, and what did the President say?
MR. HOLMES: Sondland?
THE CHAIRMAN: I’m sorry. What did Ambassador Sondland say?
MR. HOLMES: Yeah. He said, he only cares about big things.
THE CHAIRMAN: Big things on big stuff?
MR. HOLMES: Big things. Big stuff. Big.
THE CHAIRMAN: And you noted that there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia?
MR. HOLMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And what did Ambassador Sondland say in reply?
MR. HOLMES: He said, no, big stuff that matters to him, like this Biden investigation that Giuliani is pushing.
THE CHAIRMAN: So Ambassador Sondland conveyed that the big stuff the President cared about was stuff that benefited the President, like the investigation into the Bidens?
MR. HOLMES: That was my understanding, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And then after that, the conversation moved in other directions?
MR. HOLMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: When you returned to the Embassy, you told the Deputy Chief of Mission about this conversation?
MR. HOLMES: Yes. So she’s my direct supervisor.
THE CHAIRMAN: And who is your Deputy Chief of Mission?
MR. HOLMES: Kristina Kvien, K-v-i-e-n.
THE CHAIRMAN: And how much detail did you go into with the Deputy Chief of Mission?
MR. HOLMES: I believe I told her the whole thing. I said, You’re not going to believe what I just heard, and then I just went through — every element of this was extraordinary.
THE CHAIRMAN: What was her reaction?
MR. HOLMES: You know, on the one hand, she was shocked, as I was, that that just happened. It was pretty exceptional. She thought parts of it were funny. Parts of it, I think, she — confirmed some of the things we thought were the case, as I said, because for months, we’d been hearing about things like the Biden investigation and having trouble trying to get traction on the meetings we were seeking. So it had a ring of truth to it. So that was the kind of reaction that I got.
[….]
A phone call on a non-secure mobile phone, carried by a service owned by Russians. What could possibly go wrong?
But her emails…
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
18 Monday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
We’re starting to see some timely polling on impeachment.
70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL
These numbers are going to get worse.
An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, was wrong, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds….
…This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs‘ KnowledgePanel November 16-17, 2019, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 506 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 4.8 points, including the design effect.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
17 Sunday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
“…Ms. Williams currently serves as the Special Adviser for Europe and Russia in the Office of the Vice President. She has been detailed to this position from the State Department since April 2OL9. Ms. Williams is a long-serving careen Foreign Service Officer, and previously held posts at our embassies in the United Kingdom, Lebanon, and Jamaica…”
“Россия” (Russia) – a variant of the Russian presidential flag.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!
1:57 PM · Nov 17, 2019
He’s not too bright, is he.
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
Previously:
Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor to the Vice President (November 17, 2019)
17 Sunday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
bribery, corruption, deposition, Donald Trump, impeachment, Jennifer Williams, Mike Pence, transcript
“Again, I would say that it struck me as unusual and inappropriate.”
“Ms. Williams, that’s not the question. How did it make you feel?”
“I guess for me it shed some light on possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold.”
It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.
A deposition transcript of Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor to the Vice President, was released last night:
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, D.C.DEPOSITION OF: JENNIFER WILLIAMS
[….]
Q Was there any discussion of the reason for the hold in that small group?
A No.
Q No. I mean, it seems a litt1e odd that there’s this hold in place that’s been in place since July 3, as you said, the entire interagency supports lifting the hold, the Vice President anticipates getting questions about it from President Zelensky, but there’s no discussion of like why are we even doing this, like why is this hold in place?
A That’s correct.
Q Okay. Are you familiar with a firsthand on first-person cable that Ambassador Taylor drafted and sent to Secretary Pompeo, and that we believe was further distributed possibly to the White House?
A I am. I’ve read the cable.
Q Were you on the distribution of the cable?
A I received it, I believe, from State Department colleagues, but not on the original distribution, since it was a limited cable that went straight to the Secretary’s office.
Q Do you remember who sent it to you or how you got it?
A I don’t recall, to be honest. It might have been from NSC colleagues.
Q Do you recall what the cable said?
A It was a cable outlining Ambassador Taylor’s rationale on the importance of our U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, and why it was important for the security assistance to continue to flow.
Q Do you recall him saying that the hold was folly?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall anything else that he said, on any other recommendations that he made?
A It was a lengthy cable. I don’t remember it verbatim, but I thought it was a very persuasive case.
Q Do you remember approximately when you received a copy of it, on obtained a copy of it? Was it before the Warsaw bilat?
A It was certainly before the Warsaw trip, because I recall reading it in the process of preparing for the trip. I don’t recall the precise date, but it would have been around that timeframe, end of August.
[….]
Q And I believe you testified that prior to the July 25 call, you had listened in on about a dozen other calls between President Trump and other foreign heads of state. Is that night?
A Probably, around that number.
Q Okay. During the July 25 call, did you have any concerns about the conversation that you heard between President Trump and President Zelensky?
A I certainly noted that the mention of those specific investigations seemed unusual as compared to other discussions with foreign leaders.
Q And why were they unusual?
A I believed those references to be more political in nature and so that struck me as unusual.
Q Were you involved in preparing talking points for President Trump for that July 25 call?
A No.
Q Okay. Did you see the call package on talking points in advance of the call?
A No.
Q So you just — you learned about the call and were asked to participate in it?
A Correct.
Q Okay. As you were sitting in the Situation Room and you were taking notes, did you notice whether other people were taking notes?
A Yes, others were taking notes as well.
Q Do you recall who took notes during the call?
A I believe everybody in the room was taking notes, yes.
Q Okay. Prior to the July 25 call, you said that these things, the investigations that you said were political and unusual, had you even heard President Trump or anybody else in the Office of the Vice President on the White House raise the issue of CrowdStrike or the Ukrainian server?
A. No.
Q. I mean, on the DNC server?
A. No.
Q So that was — that struck you as — that was something new?
A I had never heard the word “CrowdStrike” before, so that’s why it struck me as noteworthy.
Q Okay. And what about the — President Trump’s raising the issue of the 2016 election during the call? Had there been discussion in the Office of the Vice President or the White House, to your knowledge, about concerns about possible Ukrainian interference in the 2O16 U.S. Presidential election? Had you heard anything —
A No, not to my knowledge.
Q Okay. So that wasn’t anything that was part of the official U.S. policy channel?
A No.
Q What about investigating the Bidens?
A I had never heard discussion of that issue prior to that phone call.
Q Okay. Do you recall what language President Zelensky was speaking during the phone call?
A I don’t. My understanding, he’s more comfortable in Russian. But not speaking either Ukrainian on Russian, I can’t confirm that.
Q Well, was he speaking English —
A No.
Q — the whole time?
A No. The call was interpreted on both sides.
Q So in your other calls with — that you listened in on between President Trump and foreign heads of state, had any other issues that you would describe as political been raised, on domestic political issues been raised in those calls?
A No.
Q How did General Kellogg react when President Trump raised these political issues on the July 25 call?
A I didn’t sense any reaction. We were all really just focused on taking notes.
Q Did you notice a reaction from anyone in the room?
A No. Honestly, we were all petty busy taking notes in the moment, and we didn’t have any follow-on conversations about it.
Q And I believe you testified you never spoke to General Kellogg about the call afterwards?
A I did not.
Q Did you speak to anybody about the fact that you found these — the call unusual on that political issues had come up in a call with a foreign leader?
A No, I did not.
Q Were you aware of whether Ambassador Vo1ken on Ambassador Sondland had prepared the Ukrainians to expect President Trump to raise these political issues on the call? Were you aware of that?
A I was not aware of that.
Q So you weren’t aware of like text messages and phone conversations they were having with Andrey Yenmak behind the scenes?
A No.
Q Okay. Were you aware, after the Warsaw bilat in September, of a proposal to have President Zelensky do a televised interview during which he would announce the investigations into 2016 election interference, Burisma, on the Bidens? Were you aware of that?
A No, I was not aware of that.
Q So there was no discussions of that in the official Ukraine policy — policymaking channel?
A No.
Q No, okay. Now, I believe minority counsel had asked you that — or maybe it was Mr. Meadows had asked about the fact that after the bilat in Warsaw, Vice President Pence was going to call President Trump to relay, I guess, the positive feedback he got from President Ze1ensky. Did you participate in that phone call that night?
A No, I didn’t.
Q Okay. Do you know that a phone call did occur though between the Vice President and the President?
A I believe he did have a phone call with the President, but, again, I don’t know what topics they discussed.
Q Okay. But President Trump didn’t — after that phone call did not immediately release the hold on the security assistance, did he?
A No.
Q It wasn’t until about 10 days later that the hold was lifted?
A That’s connect.
Q And I believe you testified that it was on September 9, so 2 days before the hold was lifted, that you became aware that the Congress had launched an investigation into the freeze and the Ukrainian issues more generally. Is that night?
A I believe so. I can’t recall if it was the 9th or the 10th, but, yes it was before the hold was lifted
Q Was that investigation discussed within the Office of the Vice President?
A No.
Q Did you have any discussions with General Kellogg about the investigation?
A No. I’m trying to remember where I learned of it, but, no, I didn’t have any conversations.
[….]
Q Okay. Are you aware of the call between Vice President Pence and President Zelensky on September 18?
A Yes.
Q What was the purpose of that call?
A The purpose was to follow up on his successful meeting with President Zelensky on September 1, and to reiterate the news that the security assistance hold had been lifted, and that the security assistance would be provided. We knew at that point that President Zelensky was already aware that the security assistance would be
released. But because the Vice President had a successful meeting with President Zelensky, it was a good opportunity for them to have a follow-on conversation.Q And did you listen in on the call?
A Yes.
Q Can you describe the conversation for us?
A Sure. It was a very positive discussion, again, kind of following up on their successful meeting from September 1, as well as, at that point, I believe it was just prior to President Trump’s first meeting with President Zelensky in New York, which, I believe, took place the following week. So it was a good opportunity to kind of bridge that gap and to convey that the President — President Trump was looking forward to meeting President Zelensky in New York the following week, and the Vice President reiterated the news that the security assistance had been released.
[….]
MR. RASKIN: Some people would say that diplomacy itself is inherently political, and so everything diplomatic is, by definition, political a1so, but you had a strong reaction to that. Can you spe1l out what you saw as improperly political about those mentions?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe I found the specific references to be — to be more specific to the President in nature, to his personal political agenda, as opposed to a broader —
MR. RASKIN: Do you mean related to a campaign?
MS. WILLIAMS: Potentially, as opposed to a broader foreign policy objective of the United States.
MR. RASKIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chainman.
[….]
MR. HECK: Thank you, Mr. Chainman. Ms. Wi11iams, thank you again very much for being here. I actually want to briefly follow up on a question that Congressman Swalwell asked. He asked you how it made you feel when you heard the President in the July 25th call invoke the specter of investigations for which you’ve now characterized as personal political interest. And your response to that was that you found them unusual and political. But the question was how did it make you feel? Given that what you’ve just said, would it be fair to infer that it made you
uncomfortable?MS. WILLIAMS: I guess I would say, as a diplomatic professional, I try to keep my own personal feelings out of, you know, the day-to-day work, but —
MR. HECK: You had no personal feeling response to that, given how you’ve characterized it?
MS. WILLIAMS: Again, I would say that it struck me as unusual and inappropriate.
MR. HECK: Ms. Williams, that’s not the question. How did it make you feel?
MS. WILLIAIMS: I guess for me it shed some light on possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold.
[….]
Q The information you received from Marc Short’s assistant on May 13th — was that the day?
A Correct.
Q You were told by Marc Short’s assistant that the VP was not going on the trip?
A Correct.
Q And did the assistant — I think you said it was a she, right?
A Yes.
Q Did she explain why on how she came to learn that?
A My best recollection is that she informed me that the VP would not be traveling to Ukraine for the inauguration. And I asked her, why not? And my best recollection is that she then let me know that the President had determined that the Vice President should not go.
[….]
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
14 Thursday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
4th Congressional District, corruption, Donald Trump, impeachment, KGB, missouri, social media, Soviet Union, Twitter, Vicky Hartzler, Vladimir Putin
Uh, Vladimir Putin was a KGB agent in the Soviet Union.
He wants to take over the territory, resources, and people of Ukraine.
Ukraine is in a shooting war with Russia, which is lead by Vladimir Putin.
American economic and military support is essential to the survival of Ukraine.
Donald Trump withheld appropriated military support from Ukraine in order to extort the manufacture of political dirt from Ukraine directed at one of Donald Trump’s American political rivals.
“Россия” (Russia) – a variant of the Russian presidential flag.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].
Late this morning:
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
Nine weeks of this tainted, Soviet-style show trial and we’ve seen that @SpeakerPelosi and @RepAdamSchiff are more interested in impeaching @realDonaldTrump at all costs than working on the pressing issues that face our country today.Let’s get back to doing the people’s work.
[….]
11:04 AM · Nov 14, 2019
There was much hilarity in the responses:
“Soviet-style show trial” doesn’t mean what you think it means. When were they ever publicized with the accused being able to question witnesses. You don’t refute these facts: Trump set up a back channel to Ukraine to get dirt on an opponent and extorted Ukraine to get the dirt
How many weeks of Benghazi hearings were there?
the sham is the republicans refusing to even listen to the testimony of non partisan ambassadors who are speaking plainly about the president’s bungled attempts to extort anther country for personal gain
Trump is free to testify under oath and clear it all up.
Vicky, Vicky, Vicky. Or whoever writes your Tweets. History will judge you harshly. This extraordinary refusal to see any fault in the supreme leader is not American in any way.
Funny. Says the Republican whose party has cozied up to the Russians.
Oh you like your candidates to sell us out to Russia, got it!!!
Who did you swear an oath to when taking your job? The people and our country or a habitual liar and white nationalist? Your party will be judged harshly for your inability to step away from your party and have some common sense.
Did you watch and listen? If you did, you wouldn’t have made such a red scare tweet. Stop being stoopid Vicky. Geez
Hard to believe this comes from someone supporting “soviet style” attempts to impede a democratic process; how else to describe the thugs break in to a secure facility. The soviet style has continued with suppression of witnesses, hiding of evidence and propaganda spewing.
Go to Hell you traitor.
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
13 Wednesday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
That Robert Livingston.
Almost twenty-one years ago:
Livingston Quits as Speaker-Designate
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 20, 1998; Page A1[….]
Livingston was first elected to Congress in a 1977 special election and rose to power as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He was handpicked by Gingrich to become committee chairman after the GOP takeover in 1994, and he quickly locked up GOP support for his bid for the speakership when Gingrich announced that he would resign after the Republicans’ dismal showing in last month’s elections.
While many had high hopes that Livingston, an affable and highly popular lawmaker, would lead the House into a new era of comity, his relations with Democrats quickly soured when he recently sided with conservatives in blocking a House vote on censure as an alternative to Clinton’s impeachment.
Tension turned to crisis Thursday evening when Livingston announced to his fellow Republicans that he had occasionally “strayed from my marriage” after learning that Hustler magazine was preparing an article reporting that he had had several extramarital relationships.
[….]
How…ironic.
It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.
The recent deposition:
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C.DEPOSITION OF: CATHERINE CROFT
Wednesday, October 30, 2O19
[….]
During my time at the NSC, I received multiple calls from lobbyist Robert Livingston who told me that Ambassador Yovanovitch should be fired. He characterized Ambassador Yovanovitch as a, quote, “Obama holdover,” end quote, and associated with George Soros. It was not clear to me at the time, or now, at whose direction or at whose expense Mr. Livingston was seeking the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch.
I documented these calls and told my boss, Fiona Hill, and George Kent, who was in Kyiv at the time, I am not aware of any action that was taken in response…
[….]
On Ju1y 18 I participated in a sub PCC video conference where an OMB representative reported that the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, had placed an informal hold on security assistance to Ukraine. The only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the President.
[….]
Q You said in your opening statement — let me ask you this: How aware were you in real time of the issues that arose in March and April of this yean with Ambassador Yovanovitch?
A To the extent those events were reported in the media, I was tracking that.
Q Did you speak to anybody at the State Department about what was going on?
A Not that I recall.
Q Did you speak to Ambassador Yovanovitch?
A I sent her one email just telling hen I was sorry for what was happening.
Q And you said in your opening statement that when you were at the NSC, you received some messages that were critical of Ambassador Yovanovitch. Is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q From Bob Livingston. Is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q And who is Bob Livingston?
A I had never met Bob Livingston, I understood him to being a lobbyist.
Q Prior to being a lobbyist, do you know what he did?
A By virtue of googling, I did, yes.
Q And what was that?
A That he had served in Congress.
Q And do you recall when he first contacted you?
A Not specifically, no.
Q And how many times did you hear from him?
A I can say with certainty at least twice, but I believe more times than that.
Q What exactly do you necaI1 him saying to you?
A As I reported in my opening statement, I recall him saying that she had to go, she should be fired, that she was an Obama holdover, and made mention of her somehow being connected with George Soros.
Q Other than being an Obama holdover, or an alleged connection to George Soros, did he — did he mention anything about her performance, on any positions that she had taken?
A I don’t specifically recall.
Q Anything else you can remember about what he had said to you?
A Not without looking at the notes that I took contemporaneously but no longer have access to.
Q And what did you do after he — after you spoke to him?
A I reported the conversations both to my then-boss Fiona Hill, and then to George Kent who was then deputy chief of mission at our embassy in Kyiv.
Q What was thein reaction?
A They were, I think, dismayed at the maligning of her character, but no direct action was taken that I was aware of.
Q You had — you knew Ambassador Yovanovitch from your work on the Ukraine desk?
A Yes.
Q And at the NSC?
A That’s correct.
Q And what was your assessment of her competence and capabilities as a diplomat?
A I assessed her to be an extraordinarily competent and skillful diplomat, and a pleasure to work for and with.
Q What did you understand the allegations about George — related to George Soros to be?
A At the time, conspiracy theories were floating in the media about George Soros, including allegations that Fiona Hill was affiliated, in some fashion, with George Soros. So I understood this to be part of a broader narrative used to malign public officials that somebody of some interest disagreed with.
Q And you indicated the conspiracy theory. Did you understand that there was any validity to any of the concerns that Mr. Livingston raised?
A Not that I was aware of, no.
Q Did you receive any other complaints about Ambassador Yovanovitch while you were at the National Security Council?
A Not that I can specifically recall without reviewing my notes from the time.
Q Do you know if there were any other complaints made by anyone else on to anyone else? Did you hear anything about that?
A Not that I can specifically recall night now.
Q Were you aware of a letter written by Representative Pete Sessions in the middle of 2018?
A I don’t have a recollection of that letter night now.
Q Why are you smiling?
A Because I simply don’t remember it. It seems like I should, but I don’t.
Q 0kay. So, you said that you were following the issues related to Ambassador Yovanovitch earlier this year from the media
A That’s connect.
Q And based on your knowledge and expertise about Ukraine and your working relationship with Ambassador Yovanovitch, were you aware of any factual basis for any of the allegations that were made against her?
A No.
[….]
Q Just so we understand, what role does OMB have in making foreign – – official foreign policy?
A I think, typically, its role is usually limited to the budget a side of things. So it was rather unusual to have OMB expressing concerns that were purely policy-based and not budget-oriented.
Q And your experience, either on the Ukraine desk at the State Department or at the National Security Council, were you aware of OMB, in any other circumstance, expressing policy reservations?
A At the beginning of the Ukrainian Javelin process, I had been told that OMB was taking a policy interest. And OMB began sending working level officials to attend meetings, even at the sub PCC level, which was very unusual at the time. And they weren’t just attending Ukraine-related meetings, they were coming to all of our meetings, which, as an aside, is quite taxing on a very small organization.
Q Small organization being the National Security Council?
A No, on OMB to staff that number of meetings.
[….]
A I had a conversation with Ambassador Taylor before he went to Ukraine as he was considering taking the position.
Q And can you describe for us that conversation?
A As he’s — as I understand from media reports that he has testified before, he had come to the Department with concerns that the U.S. policy on Ukraine might change and wanted to get the Department’s views on that. I sat down with him and shared my very frank assessment that the White House was not likely to change its policy on Ukraine except in the event that the President viewed it — the — that Biden was going to be a credible rival for him in the upcoming election, and that he — that furthering the narrative that Russia was for the Republicans and Ukraine was for the Democrats would be in his interest, and that might push him to change the policy on Ukraine. But I said that, otherwise, I saw no reason that our policy would change.
Q And were you aware at that — well, when was that meeting with Ambassador Taylor, do you recall?
A That would have been in May, very shortly before I headed out to Kyiv.
Q So just before May 29th?
A Yeah. a And were you aware by that point that Vice President Biden had announced his candidacy for President?
A I don’t remember when he announced his candidacy for President.
[….]
Q Okay. I mean, he wasn’t enthusiastic about Rudy Giuliani’s involvement, was he?
A Not that I understood, no.
Q Was Ambassador Sondland enthusiastic about Rudy Giuliani’s participation?
A I couldn’t tel1 you. I don’t know.
Q Was anyone?
A Not that I ever heard.
Q So nobody at the State Department, to your knowledge, was enthusiastic by about Mr. Giuliani’s role?
A I — no, not that I ever heard.
[….]
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, you said that these two Ukrainian Embassy officials – – and I’m not going to ask you to identify them either – – you understood they had no interest in this becoming public. Is that right?
MS. CROFT: That’s correct. That’s connect.
THE CHAIRMAN: And why would they not want this to become public?
MS. CROFT: Because I think that if this were public in Ukraine it would be seen as a reversal of our policy and would, just to say sort of candidly and colloquially, this would be a nea1ly big deal, it would be a really big deal in Ukraine, and an expression of declining U.S. support for Ukraine.
THE CHAIRMAN: So Ukraine had every interest in this not coming out in the press?
MS. CROFT: As long as they thought that in the end the hold would be lifted, they had no reason for this to want to come out.
THE CHAIRMAN: So as long as they thought that they could work through whatever was causing the hold, they wanted this to remain out of the public attention?
MS. CROFT: Exactly.
[….]
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
12 Tuesday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.
On the day Republicans staged their theatrics and ate pizza:
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHTNGTON, D.C.DEPOSITION OF: LAURA KATHERINE COOPER
[….]
THE CHAIRMAN: The House Parliamentarian will be delivering a statement about the House rules, stating that any Members that remain will be in violation of the House rules. We’ve already dispensed with enough time of this witness, so I’m going to forego my opening statement. I would urge the minority to do the same so we can begin the questioning.
Mr. Goldman, you are recognized.
MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chainman. This is a deposition of Launa Cooper conducted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, pursuant to the impeachment inquiry announcement by the Speaker of the House on
September 24th.Ms. Cooper, we apologize to you for the 5-hour delay as a result of some unauthorized Republican Members being present, but we appreciate that you are here today and that you waited to take your testimony.
[….]
Q How important is security assistance to Ukrainians?
A Security assistance is vital to helping the Ukrainians be able to defend themselves.
Q Can you explain a little bit more?
A Well, if you go back to 2014, when Ukraine found itself under attack by Russia, the state of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was significantly less capable than it is today, and that capability increase is largely the result of U.S. and allied assistance. And now what you see is a Ukrainian armed force that is able to
better deter Russian aggression, and you’ve seen a drop in the kinetic action, although not — not a complete lack of hostilities, certainly. We still have casualties on a regular basis.Q So the security assistance that’s provided by the U.S. is within the Ukrainians’ national interest, obviously. Is that night?
A Absolutely.
Q And what about within the U.S. national interest?
A It is also within the U.S. national interest to provide security assistance to Ukraine.
[….]
A Ukraine, and also Georgia, are the two front-line states facing Russian aggression. In order to deter further Russian aggression, we need to be able to shore up these counties’ abilities to defend themselves. That’s, I think, pure and simple, the rationale behind our strategy of supporting these countries. It’s in our interest to deter Russian aggression elsewhere around the world.
Q And would you also agree that the U.S. security assistance to Ukraine is also helpful to Europe as a whole with regard to thwarting any sort of Russian aggression?
A Absolutely.
Q In 2018 and 2019, has Ukrainian security assistance received bipartisan support?
A It has always received bipartisan support, in my experience.
Q And that’s both in the House and the Senate?
A Absolutely, in my experience.
Q And what about at the interagency level?
A I have witnessed, even in the recent past, overwhelming consensus in favor of providing Ukraine security assistance.
Q And when you say “within the recent past,” you mean even oven the course of this year?
A Even over the course of the summer.
[….]
Q And would you agree or disagree that Ukraine has generally made forward progress, again, oven the course of your tenure when you have been monitoring these benchmarks?
A Yes. I see significant forward progress.
[….]
Q And what was the — I guess, what was the effect of this release on June t8th by DOD?
A Well, one effect was that the Ukraine Embassy and the Ukraine Government thanked us for making that public. They had been looking for a public acknowledgement of the assistance, not because this was unusual, just they appreciate it when allies publicly note what kind of support we’re providing Ukraine.
So that was an immediate reaction. We got a thank you phone call from the — my staff did, anyway — from the Ukraine Embassy; and our team in Kyiv, in the Defense Attache Office, heard appreciation.
But the second potential effect — and I want to be clean that I am speculating here – – was that a few days later, we got a question from my chain of command forwarded down from the chief of staff, I believe, from the Department of Defense, asking for follow-up on a meeting with the President.
And it said, there are three questions. I believe it was — I think it was three questions for follow-up from this meeting, no further information on what the meeting was.
And the one question was related to U.S. industry. Did U.S. — is U.S. industry providing any of this equipment? The second question that I recall was related to international contributions. It asked, what are other countries doing, something to that effect.
And then the third question, I don’t recall — I mean, with any of these I don’t recall the exact wording, but it was something to the effect of, you know, who gave this money, on who gave this funding?
So when my office responded to these questions, we speculated that perhaps someone in the White House had seen our press release and then seen an article that came out after the press release. And the article that came out afterwards had a headline that could have been a little bit misleading, because the headline said something like, you know, U.S. gives 25O million to Ukraine, something that didn’t explain this is equipment and it’s, you know, U.S. industry and all that sort of thing.
So, again, I’m speculating here a little bit, but we did get that series of questions just within a few days after the press release and after that one article that had the headline.
[….]
A Okay. So the meeting on the 31st, the expectation I think at least of my participation in the meeting was that we would talk about security assistance, but the agenda that was prepared by the NSC was largely focused on just routine Ukraine business, post election follow up. Those sorts issues.
So it wasn’t — security assistance was not actually an explicit agenda item, but because we had left the deputies without clarity on the legally available mechanisms, this was a topic that I raised at the PCC. And I shared with the PCC my understanding that for USAI, not speaking to FMF — I left that for the State Department — but for USAI, my understanding was that there were two legally available mechanisms should the President want to stop assistance.
And the one mechanism would be Presidential rescission notice to the Congress and the other mechanism, as I understood it and articulated it in that meeting was for the Defense Department to do a reprogramming action. But I mentioned that either way, there would need to be a notification to Congress.
Q And did that occur?
A That did not occur.
[….]
A So the other — the other kind of theme during that time period was — that was when various folks in the Department started to get phone calls from industry. And the firm I referenced earlier all of these U.S. firms that were implementing USAI they were getting concerned. So during that timeframe, I don’t remember exact dates but it was kind of mid- to late August, a number of people my front office, in the Assistant Secretary office just the staff we’re getting phone calls from industry. I received a call from the Chamber of Commence.
So before the kind of press broke on it, we were hearing that there were signs of concern. And from my part, I think — I think I started to get questions from staff from congressional staff probably, you know, it was around that timeframe. It was late August, late August. And so I had prepared, and my staff had prepared here draft responses. There wasn’t much we could say other than OMB has placed a hold on this and we, you know, sent those replies up — up the chain. And I never — I never got authorization to be able to send anything oven here, and then you did start to see the news break.
[….]
Q During this timeframe, did you have any communications with Ukrainians?
A I would have to say I’m sure I did, but I don’t recall —
Q About this?
A But not about this. No, no, I did not speak with them about this. And no Ukrainians raised this issue with me on my team.
Q Okay. So to the best of —
A To my knowledge, to my knowledge.
Q To the best of your knowledge, they didn’t know that this funding was possibly being held up until —
A Oh, that’s not what I’m saying.
Q Okay. What are you saying?
A So I personally was not — sorry, I apologize. I did not mean to be interrupting you. So I personally did not have Ukrainian ministry — I deal with the ministry of defense, none of them raised this issue with me. But I knew from my Kurt Volker conversation and also from sort of the alarm bells that were coming from Ambassador Taylor and his team that there were Ukrainians who knew about this.
Q Okay.
A They just weren’t talking to me.
[….]
Q Okay. What were your communications with the embassy during this time period on this topic?
A WeI1, my staff were mostly the folks communicating with our defense attache office. I can’t recall specifically, but it was fairly routine. We have email communications with the embassy that are fairly
routine.Q Okay. And what was the general information you were getting from the embassy?
A The embassy was expressing clearly and consistently that we needed to get the security assistance funds released and that this would cause a major major challenge in our relationship in the Ukraine security, and that the President had sent an invite to President Zelensky much earlier, I want to say May, it might have been May on June timeframe, and that the fact that the President hadn’t followed up on that was causing a lot of concern. Those were the consistent themes from our embassy.
[….]
MR. MEADOWS: So let me come back to the obligated, unobligated funds. One, thank you for your service. And it is refreshing to have people who are experts on thein topic, and so I want to just say thank
you for that.So your staff, they didn’t — they didn’t know that unobligated funds well typically that happens, end of fiscal year there’s always unobligated funds and there was — they were not aware of not only what happened in this case, but it had happened previously. Is that correct?
MS. COOPER: No, sir. My staff and I am aware that there are frequently unobligated funds at the very end of the year. What we were worried about in this case was that, you know, the bulk of the funds on a significant amount of funding would be unobligated. So absolutely we do understand that, you know, sometimes you can’t actually obligate everything. And I believe last year USAI did not have 100 percent obligation.
[….]
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
Previously:
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): While you’re at it, a few questions… (October 23, 2019)
11 Monday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
“…There were about 15 names, and I remember it was very odd. It included the country’s leading rock star, Slava Vakarchuk, who is now the leader of one of the parties in parliament. It included very bizarrely a person who was a friend of the current — the ex-President Poroshenko and was head of the overseer of the defense industry named Gladkovskiy, and in parentheses it had his previous name, Svinarchuk. The reason why that’s memorable is because it means a pig or a pig farmer, and he changed his name before he went into government so he didn’t have a name that said basically Mr. Piggy. But no one knew that that was really — knew that was his name when the list allegedly was created in 2015. That was a story line from 2019…”
It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.
Oh, yeah, that “do not prosecute” list was a fabrication.
From page 70 onward in the deposition, questioning by the Minority (Republican) Counsel:
PERMANENT SELECT COMIITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT]VES,
WASHINGTON, D.C.Tuesday, 0ctober 15, 2019
Washington, D. C.[….]
BY MR. CASTOR:
Q At any point in time were names of officials, whether it was for any reason, shared with the prosecutor’s office in connection with do not prosecute?
A Well, again, we don’t go in and say do not prosecute. The types of conversations that we have that might be construed are different.
Q You mentioned the name Sytnyk earlier?
A Artem Sytnyk who is the still and the first head of the so-ca11ed NABU, National Anti-Corruption Bureau of
Ukraine.Q And was he ever in the cross hairs of Lutsenko?
A He was.
Q Was he being investigated?
A To the best of my knowledge, yes, there were open prosecutor general investigations on Mr. Sytnyk.
Q Do you know if anyone at the embassy ever asked Lutsenko not to investigate Sytnyk?
A What I would say, I would characterize the interactions as different because what we warned both Lutsenko and others that efforts to destroy NABU as an organization, including opening up investigations of Sytnyk, threatened to unravel a key component of our anticorruption cooperation, which had started at the request of Petro Poroshenko.
Q I mean, could reasonable people request not to investigate Sytnyk?
A I am sure that Mr. Lutsenko claimed that, but he also claimed that there was a list, and there was no list, and he made a lot of other claims. And so as I said, this is an issue of believability about someone who routinely lies.
Q You’re familiar with the name Shabunin?
A Vitali Shabunin perhaps? Is that —
Q Yeah. And could you identify him for us?
A He is one of the leaders of the NGO known as AnTAC, ‘It’s the anticorruption center in Ukraine.
Q What’s AnTAC’s role?
A AnTAC is an advocacy group that is designed to both publicly bring attention to issues related to corruption, to advocate for better laws and better prosecutions, and on occasion it has also participated in some of the capacity-building activitjes that were funded by the U. S. Government.
Q Who funds AnTAC?
A AnTAC is an organization, has funding that, to the best of my knowledge, includes primarily funds from the European Union and the U.S. Government. It has also received grants from the International Renaissance Foundation, which is the Ukrainian name and arm of the Open Society Institute.
Q And who runs the Open Society institute?
A The Open Society Institute was initiated 20-odd years ago by George Soros.
Q Can you remember — sorry. Do you know if the name Vitali — I apologize for these pronunciations.
A That’s okay.
Q I’m not familiar with how to do this properly, and I apologize. I mean no disrespect.
A I’m not Ukrainian, so —
Q Vitali Shabunin, do you know if he was ever the subject of a prosecution in Ukraine by Lutsenko?
A I do not know. To the best of my knowledge, he was subject to harassment by the securities service known as the Security Bureau of Ukraine. There was an incident where someone threw what’s known as bright green, it’s iodine-based disinfectant, and they actually threw it on his face near his house. It can damage eyes but is oftentimes done as a form of intimidation in the former Soviet Uni on. So because Shabunin was outspoken, he was certainly the target of harassment. But I don’t know for certain whether there was an active criminal investigation by the prosecutor general’s office.
Q Was he ever up on charges of hooliganism or something to that effect?
A I believe when the person who was picketing his house and throwing this green material on him, and claiming to be a journalist even though he wasn’t, provoked him, and Shabunin pushed him near his house. Yes, he was then — I think there was a charge of alleged hooliganism.
Q Do you know if anyone ever tried to communicate with Lutsenko’s office that this was not a worthwhile charge to pursue?
A I think, you know, if we’re going back I don’t know specifically about that particular incident or charge, but as a matter of conversation that U.S. officials had with Ukrainian officials in sharing our concern about the direction of governance and the approach, harassment of civil society activists, including Mr. Shabunin, was one of the issues we raised, yes.
Q Was Shabunin on this list that you described as fake?
A I don’t know if that list has been provided to the committee. You could show me the list and I might have some recollection. But I —
Q Okay. Do you have any recollection of who was on that list?
A There were about 15 names, and I remember it was very odd. It included the country’s leading rock star, Slava Vakarchuk, who is now the leader of one of the parties in parliament. It included very bizarrely a person who was a friend of the current — the ex-President Poroshenko and was head of the overseer of the defense industry named Gladkovskiy, and in parentheses it had his previous name, Svinarchuk. The reason why that’s memorable is because it means a pig or a pig farmer, and he changed his name before he went into government so he didn’t have a name that said basically Mr. Piggy. But no one knew that that was really — knew that was his name when the list allegedly was created in 2015. That was a story line from 2019.
There were a couple of young so-called Euro optimist MPs where friends had joined Poroshenko’s party but then become sort of critics of President Poroshenko. Their names include Mustafa Nayyem, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Serhiy Leshchenko. I believe the former defense minister, who was running for President at the time, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, was at the list. There was a judge I’d never heard of. And there may have been other people on that list. I just don’t remember the full list.
Q What do you know about Leshchenko?
A Serhiy Leshchenko was a journalist for Ukrainskaya Pravda, which is an online — the leading online news source in Ukraine. He ran for parliament as one of the young pro-western members of then-President Poroshenko’s party. He continued to act as an investigative-style public figure even as a member of parliament. He did not get reelected in the parliamentary elections in September. And because he was an active parliamentarian, because he had been an investigative journalist, he was someone that the U.S. Embassy had known for years.
Q What was his role in the Manafort issue?
A To the best of my recollection he was one of the individuals who helped popularize the information that came out of the black book. I believe Andy Kramer from The New York Times was the first person to write a story in English about it. Andy came and talked to me sometime in late 2015, 2016. I do not recall. He was based in Moscow, so he was not there in Kyiv that often. But at some point Andy shared with me where he had heard the first information. And so I believe, although I cannot say for sure, that Mr. Kramer may have shared that he had talked to Leshchenko as one of his sources for that early article.
Q Were there other sources of information regarding Manafort pushing out of Ukraine?
A About — well, Mr. Manafort operated in Ukraine for over a decade. So are you specifically saying about his entire time, or what’s the specific —
Q Around that timeframe, which of course is you know, mid-2016 is when he became involved with the President’s campaign.
A Right. Because Mr. Manafort had spent a decade in Ukraine, Ukrainians followed his reemergence as a U. S. figure very closely.
Q And was Leshchenko the primary person bringing that to the attention of The New York Times and the other —
A No. I think, alt Ukrainians, they didn’t need a single person doing it. Because Mr. Manafort first appeared in Ukraine in 2005 when he was hired by former Prime Minister Yanukovych who tried the steal the election that became the 0range Revolution, that was the end of 2004. To the best of my recollection, in this case it’s actually quite good because I was with Ambassador Herbst at the time when Yanukovych told us that he’d hired Manafort, and that was the spring of 2005. So Mr. Manafort’s time in Ukraine started in 2005, and according to public records, he participated up through the campaigns of 2014.
Q Now, the allegation that the embassy shared an animus about Manafort or was interested in pushing information to the forefront, is that an accurate description of the second narrative that was pushed in the March 2019 time frame?
A That is part of what Yuriy Lutsenko in that narrative pushed, yes.
Q Okay.
A It’s, again, inaccurate, not accurate characterization.
Q Okay. Is it accurate that somebody in the Ukraine, not from the embassy, but somebody, maybe Ukrainians, were pushing this narrative?
A I think it would be accurate to say, given what President Yanukovych did to the country, which was loot tens of billions of do11ars, that there were many Ukrainians who in part blamed Paul Manafort for that success because he proved to be a brilliant political technologist in giving Yanukovych advice that helped him win the presidency.
Q And do you think people in the U.S., supporters of President Trump that saw this information come out of the Ukraine may have wondered if this was an effort to attack the President or the President when he was a candidate?
THE CHAIRMAN: Counsel, are you asking what the American public — an opinion about what the American public might
believe?BY MR. CASTOR:
Q No. Is it reasonable — I’ll restate it.
A Well, I will just say, I was in Ukraine at the time so I don’t know what the reaction was.
Q Is it reasonable to conclude that if you are in President Trump’s world and you’re seeing these stories coming out of the Ukraine that it appears to have the look of a politica1 attack?
[….]
Q Do you think the second narrative that either Lutsenko is pushing or the journalist he was dealing with in the United 5tates were pushing, do you think that related to trying to spin up President Trump’s supporters?
A You’re asking me to speculate on what Yuriy Lutsenko, Rudy Giuliani, and John Solomon were doing, and I would suggest that’s a question for those three individuals.
Q Did it have the effect of that though?
A It’s hard for me to make an assessment since there were so many story lines put in play at the same time to assess how any one of those story lines had an effect on any given audience.
[….]
A Our primary concern was that our Ambassador and our embassy were being subjected to inaccurate accusations. But as situational awareness, we followed or tried to follow because the volume was intense, the various different
stories.[….]
Yes, yes, let’s ask Rudy.
It sounds like the Republican minority wants to “rehabilitate” Paul Manafort. How very interesting.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
Previously:
George P. Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (November 9, 2019)
