17 Friday Jan 2020
Posted in social media
Tags
Today:
Ted Lieu @tedlieu
Attached is the first page of a five page letter in which the lawyer for @DevinNunes threatens that Rep Nunes will sue me.Attached is my response.
4:38 PM · Jan 17, 2020
Representative Lieu’s (D) letter:
Moo.
05 Thursday Dec 2019
Posted in social media
Tags
4th Congressional District, bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, impeachment, Misouri, obstruction, quid pro quo, Russia, social media, Twitter, Ukraine, Vicky Hartzler
Eric Blair should be so proud. Or, more probably, horrified.
From the Federal Election Commission [pdf]:
OFFICIAL 2016 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
General Election Date: 11/08/2016
DATE: January 30, 2017 SOURCE: State Elections OfficesCA Clinton 8,753,788 Trump 4,483,810
MO Clinton 1,071,068 Trump 1,594,511
NY Clinton 4,556,124 Trump 2,819,534
Total Clinton 65,853,516 48.18% Trump 62,984,825 46.09%
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].
This morning, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r):
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
This impeachment inquiry has been a political attack against Trump. This is a move started by and supported by only Democrats.This is what happens when California and New York Democrats want to undo the decision of the 1.6 million Missourians who voted for @realDonaldTrump.
8:52 AM · Dec 5, 2019
Math is hard, high dudgeon is cheap and easy.
As usual, there was much hilarity in the responses:
You’re peddling fiction.
Just like you did on birtherism.
Just like you did promising to lower our national debt.
Just like you did promising not to support tariffs.
Just like you do on climate change.
Just like you do on evolution.You lie. Over and over. [….]
You know better. He did it. He is immoral, indecent, and probably, illegitimate. Our great country and our democracy is under attack by him, putin, and more. He’s debilitated our State Department, along with the EPA, along with any public entity that serves our citizens. Shame.
Nice tactic Vicky. Call out those coastal “elites”. Can’t wait to be rid of you in 2020.
Nope, this is what happens when presidents are DIRTY.
Shame on you for making it political, you know better.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s a shame you’ve decided to choose that orange malignancy in the Oval Office over your country and your oath to the Constitution. But that’s OK. You officially won’t have to care about that oath after next Election Day anyway.
Ma’am, politics has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the Speaker is doing. Our President broke his oath to the constitution & to the American people. The evidence is irrefutable.
Wrong. It was started by the corruption of this Administraton – that was revealed and exposed.
Missouri voter here: impeach and remove.
Same
read the transcript!
The inferiority complex is strong in this one.
The rest of the country better become the new resistance, or we will become a two state nation!! East of the Mississippi will be New York and west will be California. Theirs will be the only votes that count!
/whine Math is hard.
I can’t wait to see you at the Harrisonville Walmart so I can publicly shame you. You’ll hear me before you’ll see me, that’s for sure. [….]
Such courage you have (sarcasm). When was the last time you had a town hall in Columbia to face your constituents? Come and share with us voters your defense of extortion, bribery and obstruction of Congress. [….]
“…Subject startles easily at the sight of concerned consituents…”
We understand there might be a future open public townhall at the national anti-union chain store branch in Harrisonville.
Ummmm how many people voted against trump? Really better track up those numbers again. He lost the popular vote.
No. This has nothing to do with undoing votes. It has to do with the LAW.
Thanks for reminding us that the GOP has no interest in oversight or accountability. Given this dereliction of duty, maybe you should find another line of work.
This is about abuse of power. If you support him, you must be compromised.
What is your defense for the accusations and testimonies against him? You can’t just dismiss them all because “only democrats support impeachment.” That’s not a defense.
Your disingenuousness & lack of spine will be quite lovely to read about in the history books. Hope you’re ready for the public shaming of your family for decades to come. You’re on the wrong side of this issue and you know it. Here’s hoping that karma will be extra bitchy.
Impeachment doesn’t undo an election any more than jailing a criminal “undoes” their right to freedom. Impeachment is called for under the Constitution when a President abuses his office.
Independent voter here. I always understood the value of ideas left vs right in politics. But I don’t understand why you are protecting corruption for a president who does not value the importance of the office he holds. Continue on this path and all moderates will leave you.
Interesting. The “last straw” wasn’t the overt racism of birtherism or the Muslim ban, nor mocking a reporter with a physical disability, nor attacking Gold Star parents, nor separating children from their parents and holding them in cages…
No this is what happens when a game show host crimes in the White House.
Trump withheld aid from a foreign country to get dirt on a political rival. That’s Bribery. This isn’t the Democrats doing, this is trump and his crooked administration.
“I need you to do us a favor, though.”
No this is what happens when Republicans stand up for Republicans and not the United States, you will NEVER receive my vote again for anything.
The only New Yorker responsible for Donald Trump’s malfeasance is Donald Trump.
No, this is what happens when someone actually has the balls to stand up and protect the constitution against high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump’s a crime boss and you’re a family member.
It’s all about abuse of power, obstruction of justice, the rule of law and upholding the Constitution, which was part of your oath of office. Get a clue or resign.
This impeachment is a slap in the face of every little city in rural America who voted for @realDonaldTrump. Democrats who live in big cities desire to rule over all. It’s past time for a Civil War or Breakup of the USA into 3 or 4 Autonomous Republics.
That there’s a real patriot. Good luck on your own, sucker. Until the revenues generated by the citizens of New York and California to subsidize those other states disappear, right?
Bullshit. I’ve voted against you in every single election you’ve run. I knocked on doors, put up signs. Every day you dismiss half the electorate of this state like you’ve got some kind of carte blanche to enact their corporate bought and paid agenda. You are the worst.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Or is that on purpose?
We’re gonna go with a “no” on the first one.
Trump is a criminal – and so are you for being his accomplice
Even Republican voters have Trump fatigue
#TrumpIsALaughingStock
Let us be clear about this Vicky, you support a criminal and a traitor.
The election you and your party are vaunting was objectively attacked by a foreign power to help donald trump win.
I don’t see the will of 1.6M Missourians, I see the will of Vladimir Putin.
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
You’re on the wrong side of history and are spouting a false message.
Why are Republicans parroting Putin propaganda & disinformation? Why don’t Repubs defend Constitution? Your oath was meaningless. You know if a Democratic president had done any ONE of the things 45 has done, you’d impeach.
#Hypocrites
“Россия” (Russia) – a variant of the Russian presidential flag.
You believe a President can never be impeached because it would be “undoing” the decision of certain voters?
This conflicts with the express terms of the Constitution which mandates Impeachment for Bribery, Treason, or High Crimea and Misdemeanors.
No one is above the law.
No, that’s what happens when Missourians get hustled into voting for a lifelong New York Democrat as if he’s the brand standard of the Republican Party. Y’all got bamboozled. People like you are the reason i left the party. Grow a spine and standup for what’s right.
He changed his vote registration to Florida.
03 Tuesday Dec 2019
Posted in social media
Tags
bribery, Donald Trump, extortion, impeachment, Kamala Harris, Russia, social media, trial, Twitter, Ukraine
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
Early this evening:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Too bad. We will miss you Kamala!
[….]
5:25 PM · Dec 3, 2019
Ten minutes later, a response:
Kamala Harris @KamalaHarris
Don’t worry, Mr. President. I’ll see you at your trial.
[….]
5:35 PM · Dec 3, 2019
There is a difference.
He ain’t too bright, is he?
Senator Kamala Harris (D) [2019 file photo].
Yes, we will.
Previously:
Sen. Kamala Harris (D): “We will keep up that fight.” (December 3, 2019)
02 Monday Dec 2019
Posted in social media, US Senate
Tags
Brian Schatz, bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, impeachment, John Neely Kennedy, Russia, social media, Twitter, Ukraine
“Россия” (Russia) – a variant of the Russian presidential flag.
This morning, from the senior United States Senator from Hawaii:
Brian Schatz @brianschatz
So, today is a good day to find out whether Senator Kennedy’s “Ukraine is the real culprit” represents the consensus position of Senate Republicans.
6:40 AM · Dec 2, 2019
They won’t answer. Vladimir Putin won’t let them.
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
24 Sunday Nov 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
American Oversight, bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, impeachment, Mike Pompeo, quid pro quo, Rudy Giuliani, transliteration, Ukraine
On the fake “do not prosecute” list:
“…THE CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us what that letter was and what you know of its provenance?
MR. KENT: Well, that was part of series of news articles that came out I believe starting March 20th, this spring. There with a number of articles that were initially led by John Solomon of The Hill, who gave — who took an interview with Yuriy Lutsenko earlier in March. And so, there was, I believe, video somewhere, there certainly were pictures of them doing interview. And it’s part of a series of articles, it was an intense campaign. One of those articles released because the interview on the first day Lutsenko had claimed that Ambassador Yovanovitch had given him a list in their first meeting of people not to prosecute. Several days later, a list of names was circulated on the internet, with — the photograph had a copy of my temporary business card that I used for a short period of time in 2015. So it was a real — it didn’t look like a regular business card. It was the one that we did on the embassy printer. So I think the card was genuine, and someone attached that to a list of names that was a hodgepodge of names. Some of the people I had to google, I had not heard of. Half the names were misspelled. Not the way that any American, or even Ukrainian, or Russian would transliterate Ukrainian names. My best guess, just from a linguistics semantic point is the person who created the fake list was either Czech or Serbian…” – INTERVIEW OF: GEORGE KENT – Tuesday, 0ctober 15, 2019 – Washington, D. C.
Transliteration – Tchaikovsky, Tschaikovsky, or Tschaikowsky? It’s important to pay attention in language school.
“…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…” – George P. Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs: “Mr. Piggy” and the list (November 11, 2019)
In 2015 and 2016 the story of Mr. Piggy’s name change was not known.
“…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…” – Ambassador David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (November 19, 2019)
Donald Trump (r) could have removed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post by just simply removing her from her post. Instead, she was subjected to a campaign impugning her professionalism and character. For what reason?
Very late on Friday, in response to a court order in a lawsuit by American Oversight:
Publish Date: November 22, 2019
State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American OversightOn Friday evening, the State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.
Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.
[….]
From the material (C06852069) released to American Oversight:
The cover envelope. Note the “return address”.
“Timelines” folder. Note the “Trump Hotels” imprint.
“Outline”. “Source of this document?”
The “list”.
Mar. April 2016
Prosecutor General Lutsenko meets with US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Yovanovitch tells Lutsenko that he must drop investigation of individuals and institutions. The list includes an organization run by George Soros. Lutsenko is aware that Yovanovitch is very close to Biden and Soros.
And, in one of the articles:
…’Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,’ Lutsenko, who took his post in 20016, told [The Hill] last week…
It’s evident that the campaign to impugn the character of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was used, in part, to neutralize any questioning of the validity of the accusations aimed at the Bidens which were contained in this “package”. If, in their world, Marie Yovanovitch’s character and professionalism have no value, then any challenges to the accuracy of the information in their “package” have no value either.
And now, according to various news sources, Lutsenko has retracted his statement that there was a list.
It’s like Watergate, only this time, concocted by idiots. A student winter dance organizing committee at a junior high school run by clowns would have left fewer tracks.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
22 Friday Nov 2019
Posted in social media
Tags
bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, Fiona Hill, John Bolton, quid pro quo, Russia, social media, Twitter, Ukraine
John Bolton (r) [2010 file photo].
This morning, at 7:00 a.m.:
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton
Glad to be back on Twitter after more than two months. For the backstory, stay tuned……..
7:00 AM · Nov 22, 2019
There was much disdain in the comments:
Okay, lightweight.
Testify
If only John Bolton had the courage of Fiona Hill
“Few Republicans are going to want to read a Bolton book showing Trump in a bad light. And Democrats are not about to put money into the pockets of a man who effectively blocked us from hearing damning testimony.”
It’ll be enough.
Testify to Congress under oath. That’s really the only thing we want to hear from you.
While you were away from Twitter, sir, a lot of people found it cowardly that you chose to discuss the Trump administration before a “gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients” but not before Congress.
There’s that.
In it for the glory, but mostly the profit.
There’s that, too.
Trump is burning this country to the ground. DO SOMETHING.
Testify in public and under oath, or you are just wasting air and space.
Hey John Bolton why don’t you do your patriotic duty and come forward – if it’s a matter of money we can start a Go Fund Me page for your testimony
It wouldn’t be a “quid pro quo” cause the GOP doesn’t think anything is so we are good!
We see what they did there.
To sell a book? Or do justice now? You watched Trump up close and know what he’s capable of if he’s allowed to continue.
It will be on you.
You sent those under your charge to the NSC lawyers and they agreed to testify to Congress. Are you too cowardly to do the same? Is the power of your party affiliation more important than your duty to country?
Testify under oath or leave us all alone.
Public servants with everything to lose stepped forward.
Come forward for the right reason.
We’re full up on schemes and bribes.
Just testify, dude. Fiona Hill did.
The only way I want to hear from you is under oath, before the American people. It’s your duty.
You need to testify.
#BoltonUnderOath
Do your duty; testify.
You’ll always be able to sell your book. But you’ll never be able to get this moment in history back.
How about testifying in the Impeachment hearings and tell the FRONT story? That madman you’re protecting in the White House is destroying our country, and you stand silent? You are better than this, sir.
I think we’re very close to finding out whether John Bolton really is better than this.
Quit fan-dancing for tips and testify.
Testify first. Tweet later.
We’re waiting…..
Your timing is curious sir. It’s either to promote your book (which is more likely the case) or to antagonize the monster in the WH. Either way I care less about what you tweet and more about you stepping forward and telling the Impeachment committees what you know. #BeBest
Sir, US Capitol Building, First Street SE, Washington, D.C. Wear a jacket and tie.
And on and on.
22 Friday Nov 2019
Posted in Resist, social media
Tags
bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, Fiona Hill, impeachment, quid pro quo, Russia, Sarah Kendzior, social media, Twitter, Ukraine
Yes, we are.
Last night:
Sarah Kendzior @sarahkendzior
I’m glad people listened to Fiona Hill. I wish you’d listen when she says we’re running out of time. We *never* had time. A central tactic of autocrats is to simply run out the clock. That’s what Trump’s been doing while people take their sweet time catching up to the obvious.
8:31 PM · Nov 21, 2019
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
#ImpeachTheMF
#resist
Previously:
The resistance (December 18, 2016)
21 Thursday Nov 2019
Posted in social media
Tags
bribery, corruption, Donald Trump, extortion, impeachment, Putin's Puppet, quid pro quo, Russia, social media, Twitter, Ukraine, useful idiot
“Россия” (Russia) – a variant of the Russian presidential flag.
It’s not a possibility.
This morning:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Corrupt politician Adam Schiff’s lies are growing by the day. Keep fighting tough, Republicans, you are dealing with human scum who have taken Due Process and all of the Republican Party’s rights away from us during the most unfair hearings in American History……
7:15 AM · Nov 21, 2019
Consciousness of guilt.
“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
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…
