The NPR Politics Podcast - Takeaways From The First Public Hearing In Impeachment Inquiry

Episode Date: November 13, 2019

Mostly, the five hour hearing emphasized aspects of the narrative about the Ukraine affair that already have emerged from closed-door depositions. In this episode: Political correspondent Asma Khalid, White House correspondent Tamara Keith, and Justice Department correspondent Ryan Lucas. Related coverage: Impeachment Witness: Trump Asked Diplomat About Ukraine InvestigationsConnect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the 2020 presidential campaign. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And I'm Ryan Lucas. I cover the Justice Department. And it is 3.34 p.m. on Wednesday, November 13th. And at this moment, just down the street from the studio, the first public impeachment hearing is underway. So, Tam and Ryan, let's just start with first impressions, because this is really the public's first chance to hear from some of these witnesses. That's right. This is the first time that we have seen both William Taylor, the top U.S.

diplomat in Kiev, as well as George Kent, who's a senior State Department official. This is the first time that we have seen them publicly and heard their voices, which is kind of a big moment for the public, I think. But what this hearing also which is kind of a big moment for the public, I think. But what this hearing also did, kind of a big picture takeaway for me, is that this really made clear how partisan an exercise this is going to be. Republicans came out from the top. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which was holding this hearing, really went after Democrats, said that you can't believe anything that the Democrats say. The whole Russia investigation was a hoax pushed by Democrats, he said. And this is just a continuation, kind of a sad continuation, he said, of that investigation.

And Democrats took kind of a more laid back approach to this and tried to appear above such partisan attacks and present this as a sober, somber affair, which may be a strategy of their own. I think it probably was a strategy of their own. And in terms of the witnesses, you have these two lifelong diplomats, lifelong public servants who come out and deliver very long opening statements, especially William Taylor's opening statement was 20 pages. It was a very long opening statement. And the point that they both made more than once was, we are not here for your partisan games. We are here because we are public servants. We are here because we believe in U.S. policy. And we aren't here for one side or the other. Or to advocate for any particular outcome of these proceedings. My sole purpose is to provide facts as I know them about the incidents in question, as well as my views about the strategic importance of Ukraine to the United States.

All right. Well, I know we all have been in the studio. And even though, Tam, you have a view of the Capitol from your lovely desk. It was a very obscure view, a view of the very top of the studio. And even though, Tam, you have a view of the Capitol from your lovely desk. It's a very obscure view. A view of the very top of the Capitol. I would not say that it was like, you know, the kind of view you pay for. Penthouse apartment view. But our colleague, Miles Parks, has actually been in the room for these hearings. And so I've got a little surprise. We decided to call up Miles. Miles, are you there? I am. Hi, can you hear me? Hey, how's it going? It is good. Well, it's a little chilly up here, but it's good. I'm in a closet. Oh, you're in a closet. Okay.

An actual closet? Like a closet in the U.S. Capitol. I just poked away real quick. Oh, okay. Well, thanks for taking the time. So why don't you just describe to us what the mood has been like for this hearing all day? Well, I mean, it's been very clear up here that something huge and something historic has been happening. I mean, when I got here, three hours before the hearing started,

there were dozens of TV cameras already being set up, and about an hour, hour and a half before the hearing started, there were over 100 people lined up just waiting to get into the hearing room. These are journalists, members of the public, other members of Congress who aren't on the Intelligence Committee. The first couple rows in the hearing room. These are journalists, members of the public, other members of Congress who aren't on the Intelligence Committee.

The first couple rows in the hearing room were actually reserved for other members of Congress who weren't doing the questioning but just wanted to kind of take it all in. So then once the hearing kind of got underway, it stayed fairly calm in there every once in a while. When Republicans had an issue with something Chairman Schiff said or did, a couple times he interrupted Republican questioning, there would be kind of this jeering from the Republican cheering section a while when Republicans had an issue with something Chairman Schiff said or did. A couple times he interrupted Republican questioning. There'd be kind of this jeering from the Republican

cheering section where they were just kind of like, are you kidding me, kind of tossing out little asides. Other than that, though, it moved fairly, fairly smoothly. But it has been a pretty long day, you know, five or six hours testimony. That's a big hearing room in the Longworth building. Was the room packed? Yeah, it's a packed room. And it's also kind of a hearing room that's reserved for these very kind of high profile hearings, really tall ceilings, these massive blue curtains, kind of the backdrop. It's really kind of hard to explain. When you watch it on TV, you kind of feel like it's a made for television event. But when you're actually in the room, it doesn't necessarily feel that way. You feel kind of like you're on top of everyone else. You're only, you know, I'm only sitting

30 feet away from or 40 feet away from Adam Schiff, who's, you know, asking the questions. The witnesses are about 25 feet away. All right. Well, thank you so much, Miles. We'll let you go back to that hearing. Yeah, thank you. So Miles helped us set the scene. But let's just walk through what actually occurred today. And if you have read the transcripts of these closed door depositions, as you have done, Tam, maybe there was not so much new in the hearings today. But there was something new. And that's something I think caught the eye of a lot of us in the newsroom. So in his opening statement, William Taylor, the ambassador. So in his opening statement, William Taylor, who is the top diplomat in Ukraine, said that since his deposition, the now infamous about investigations. And then after that conversation, the staff member spoke to Sondland and asked him about President Trump's view on Ukraine. And Sondland, according to this account, said that Trump cared more about investigating the Bidens than about

Ukraine. So let's break down what both Democrats and Republicans were actually trying to achieve in the room today. And let's begin with the Democrats. Tam, was there anything in particular that stood out to you from some of the exchanges that we heard between Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee and these witnesses? One thing that stood out to me comes in the opening statement from Taylor. And of course, it was a very long opening statement, so that might be why we keep referring back to it. But he sort of laid out his concerns about that sort of irregular channel of foreign policy. I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy toward Ukraine. There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policymaking and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. So can someone spell out for me why is there so much attention said is that this irregular channel essentially was pursuing not American foreign interests, not American national interests in terms of U.S. relations with Ukraine and bend it to pursue the president's personal political interests. And that is

diametrically opposed with the idea of what American foreign policy is supposed to do. That's why they express concerns about this. And in the questioning that Democrats did in that first round, the counsel to the committee, Daniel Goldman, conducted most of the questioning. And so he was trying to get at, well, is this normal? Is this OK? Trying to get these witnesses who said they didn't want to take sides to say this was not normal or OK. Ambassador Taylor, in your decades of military service and diplomatic service representing the United States around the world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the United States? No, Mr. Goldman, I've not. And that is a reference to the fact that U.S. military assistance to Ukraine,

around $400 million worth of it, was withheld over the course of the summer, Democrats say, used as leverage to try to get Ukraine to commit publicly to conducting those investigations into 2016, as well as into the Bidens. That's part of that irregular channel that Taylor was talking about. And George Kent, the other State Department official who testified, he was also asked about, you know, sort of like, why does this matter? Mr. Kent, is pressuring Ukraine to conduct what I believe you've called political investigations a part of U.S. foreign policy to promote the rule of law in Ukraine and around the world? It is not. Is it in the national interest of the United States?

In my opinion, it's important to add here that George Kent's job at the State Department over the past several years in large part has been promoting rule of law in Ukraine and several other Eastern European countries. And he has focused programs specifically on that question. One thing from his testimony that stood out early on in his opening statement, he talked about being, you know, when you're in one of these diplomatic positions, you expect attacks to come from Russia or from corrupt people in Ukraine. But that he and the then ambassador, the U.S. ambassador, were getting attacked by U.S. citizens, by Rudy Giuliani, that there was a smear campaign. And he said that that's not what you expect when you go overseas to represent the United States. It seems like the Democrats were really clearly trying to spell out certain things that they already knew, right? There was this moment where they asked Taylor to read a text message. And if you've been reading the

transcripts, you already know what that text message says. But it was it was the opportunity for, I think, the public to hear these things publicly in their own words, which is sort of powerful in its own way. But beyond that, I'm left wondering, did Democrats, did they achieve what they needed to achieve? I don't know if needed is a word that I can answer, but I will say that they did have these two seasoned diplomats sitting there talking about their concerns with the way President Trump was conducting foreign policy and the way way President Trump was conducting foreign policy and the way that President Trump was asking for investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election. And remember, this is the first public hearing in what is going to be a series of public

hearings. So this doesn't necessarily need to answer every question. And this hearing doesn't need to move the needle as far as Democrats feel that they need to move it to get public opinion totally behind the idea of impeaching the president and removing him from office, and also to get Republicans in the Senate on board with that idea. But if this lays the groundwork for what is going to be a series of more hearings to come, and they're going to build on that, they may eventually get to where they need to be. And I think looking at today's hearing and trying to draw a conclusion as to whether it did everything that they needed to do is not something that we can answer right now. All right, we're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, we'll talk about the Republicans and how they used their time to question witnesses.

I'm Peter Sagal. Sure, you're enjoying this NPR podcast filled with important and useful information. But is it the most important and useful information? Like this. The museum actually went and made a synthetic version of dinosaur breath. It's Axe body spray, isn't it? I believe so. Yeah. Wait, wait, don't tell me from NPR. Listen now and share with your friends. And we're back. And so let's turn now to the Republicans. And let's start with you, Tam. How did the Republicans try to frame their argument today? Devin Nunes is the ranking member on the committee. And in his opening statement, he framed this whole process as essentially a continuation of the Russia probe. That he was he was making the case that Democrats hate the president, want to get rid of the president one way or another.

And this is the latest way they're trying to do it. And he directly addressed the witnesses. Seems you agreed, witting or unwittingly, to participate in a drama. But the main performance, the Russia hoax, has ended. And you've been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel. That's some harsh words. I mean, I don't know how Ukraine should feel about this. So, I mean, there was this consistent theme where they did seem to be discrediting some of these witnesses who, as you mentioned, Tam, are lifelong career diplomats where I don't want to say discredit. But there was this assumption that they are part of a broader plot and that they are maybe just unwilling actors. There was the suggestion that, I mean, it wasn't a suggestion, Nunes said it outright,

that you had Democrats colluding with the media, I think is more or less how he put it. And the suggestion that career bureaucrats like William Taylor and George Kent are working to try to bring down a duly elected president, Donald Trump. The suggestion that Kent and Taylor may be witting or unwitting kind of leaves it open as to where they stand on this. But certainly,

they also tried to suggest that a lot of this is based on hearsay. These are not two individuals who are directly involved in many of the conversations that they're relating, that they heard this from other people, and therefore, maybe they don't really know what they're talking about. And the other thing that they tried to do is, in essence, what President Trump was trying to get Zelensky to do, which was to highlight Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, and whether there may ask questions about whether there was corruption involved in the arrangement that Hunter Biden had working for this company called Burisma. Right. And Steve Castor, who is the counsel for the Republicans on the committee, dug in with George Kent on this exact question. And it's important to note that Kent, of course, is someone who's an area expert, knows Ukraine very well and can explain the role of Burisma in corruption in Ukraine. And he was asked specifically about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son. So you don't know whether he has any business experience in Ukraine prior to joining Burisma's

board? I've heard nothing about prior experience. Do you know if he speaks Ukrainian? I do not. Do you know if he possesses any other elements other than the fact that he is the son of, at the time, the sitting vice president? I do not. And all of this is kind of playing to this idea that there are legitimate questions to be asked about Hunter Biden's role on the board of Burisma, where he was paid quite handsomely for the work that he did. The counter to that that Democrats brought up and that many have brought up more generally is that if corruption is endemic in Ukraine, as Kent and Taylor have said, and everyone who knows Ukraine who's testified has said that that has been a key issue for the U.S. trying to tamper

down, trying to tamp down corruption in Ukraine, then why pick out this one specific case of corruption to address and make it a focal point of U.S. policy when you have a sea of corruption that needs to be addressed? Basically suggesting that there were personal political motivations, being that Joe Biden was seen to be a very plausible top tier potential opponent of Donald Trump's in the 2020 election. Right. And Republicans are trying to make the argument that, oh, no, it's not abnormal at all for the president to ask about this. Why wouldn't he ask about this? This should be something that he should ask about because it's a concern. That's sort of the way they are trying to lay this out. Okay, so let's step back for a moment. And I want to ask you the same thing

about the Republicans that we discussed earlier about the Democrats. And that is that, did they achieve what they needed to do? Were they able to sufficiently poke holes in the argument that the Democrats had come forward with about a possible quid pro quo? Democrats have the harder job in that they have to create a case, present a case to the public that the president deserves to be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Republicans have an easier job in many ways. They just have to sow enough doubt that Republican senators and more broadly, the public doesn't view the president's conduct as something that he should be impeached for. All right, well, we're going to have more testimony later this week. On Friday, we'll have Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to

Ukraine. And last night, Democrats released the schedule for next week, where there will be even more additional hearings. All right, well, send your caffeine. There are going to be eight more witnesses next week. It's a lot. And a lot of them in their depositions had some very interesting things to say. But we are going to leave this here for now. And if you've got questions, thoughts, feelings about any of these hearings, you can come to our Facebook page, n.pr slash politics group. It's a place to connect with our podcast listeners and civilly, note civilly, discuss politics. And I can tell you in an age of partisanship, it is indeed a rather civil place. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the campaign. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Ryan Lucas. I cover the Justice Department.

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.