The NPR Politics Podcast - Takeaways From The Third Day Of Public Hearings In The Impeachment Inquiry

Episode Date: November 20, 2019

Four witnesses testified in the impeachment hearing. The first two were the first to testify with firsthand knowledge of the president's phone call with the Ukrainian president. The second two were called by Republicans to support their claims. In this episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, national political correspondent Mara Liasson, and national security editor Phil Ewing.Connect: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

Hi, this is Kelly from Richmond, Virginia, driving home from the Altria Theater, where I just saw Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me live for their first ever time in Richmond, and where we all learned that Tim Kaine's Appalachian Trail nickname was Dog Bowl, and no explanation for that was given. This podcast was recorded at... Holy moly. 7.06 p.m. on Tuesday, the 19th of November. Things might have changed by the time you hear this.

So I think I can sort of maybe explain that because his Secret Service secret name when he was running for vice president was Dogwood. So maybe Dog Bowl. I don't know. I think I just explained it. You need a lot of calories to do the trail. He probably was just eating dog food. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Phil Ewing, election security editor. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. So it's been a long day and it's not over yet. There were two panels, four witnesses, and as of now, nine hours and counting of testimony in the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

Things kicked off this morning at 9 a.m. with two witnesses. If you would both please rise and raise your right hand, I will begin by swearing you in. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the White House National Security Council. At the NSC, I'm the principal advisor to the National Security Advisor on Ukraine and other countries in my portfolio. And Jennifer Williams, a State Department aide staffed to the vice president. It was the greatest honor of my career to be asked to serve as a special advisor to the vice president for Europe and Russia. Now, these witnesses are, again, fact witnesses. They are not here to advocate for

impeachment. They were both asked if they're never Trumpers, and they both answered no. What was the story they were there to tell? The story they were there to tell was pretty much the same story we've heard from a lot of other witnesses about what happened. The president asked the president of a foreign country to open an investigation into his political rival, not to advance the foreign policy of the United States, but for his own personal political gain. What's important about what happened today is that both of these witnesses could attest to that, those facts, because they heard the president on the call with President Zelensky. They were there. They're firsthand witnesses. They're not hearing this secondhand or thirdhand. That's what made their testimony powerful. But it was just another layer of

cooperation. We have not had a single witness that has testified that these events did not happen. They also testified about other events around the call. Williams talking about the vice president ending up not going on the trip to Ukraine to go to President Zelensky's inauguration because he was pulled back. The July 10th meeting, which was the precursor to the whole call. And yes, Vindman talking about this July 10th meeting where investigations were brought up at the White House to Ukrainian officials. And also a lengthy discussion of what happened with the call log once it happened, like that it was put on lockdown. Vindman testified to that.

That's why the key to understanding the story is to zoom back from the White House call record, because if all you look at is that record, you can understand some of it. But these witnesses add perspective, especially about what took place beforehand. OK, let's talk big themes. What stood out to you guys from today's hearing? Both of these people listened to the call between President Trump and President Zaleski in real time, and they both reacted in a similar way. They thought that what was said on the call was inappropriate, was too political. So they both had a negative reaction

to what was on the call. Without hesitation, I knew that I had to report this to the White House counsel. I had concerns, and it was my duty to report my concerns to the proper people in the chain of command. And what was your concern? Well, Chairman, as I said in my statement, it was inappropriate, it was improper for the President president to request and to demand an investigation into a political opponent. I thought that the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former Vice President Biden and his son struck me as political in nature, given that the former vice president is a political opponent of the president. Vindman and Williams represent the establishment in Washington.

They're policy professionals who come from outside the White House. Vindman is an Army foreign area officer who's been detailed to the National Security Council. Williams is a foreign service officer from the State Department who's been detailed to Vice President Pence's staff. And this Rorschach test for the establishment versus the nation about Trump's actions was really captured by their testimony today. A lot of people are seeing the same facts about the Ukraine affair. It's one of the things that makes the story unusual because a lot of the facts are established and not contested. But when these two saw what they saw or heard from the president, it was problematic for them and they decided to take very different actions as a result. And the big contrast is between how they interpreted the call that they heard and the president's insistence that the call was perfect. Let's go to another theme from this.

And a real standout moment from the hearing came at the very beginning when Vindman was delivering his opening statement. He immigrated from the Soviet Union, came as a young child, and he directly addressed his father. In Russia, my act of expressing concern to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions, and offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life. I'm grateful for my father's brave act of hope 40 years ago

and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family's safety. Dad, I'm sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected professionals. Talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth. Just to paint a picture here, his hands were shaking as he was holding his remarks, his opening statement as he was holding that paper.

What was the truth that he came to tell? Vindman is a specialist in Russia and Eastern Europe, and he's concerned about anything that might stop the United States from supporting Ukraine against Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Russian forces and Russian backed forces in eastern Ukraine are still fighting there even now. So when he heard Trump, in his view, imperil American assistance for Ukraine in that fight, he considered it problematic on its merits. He didn't want Ukraine to become a partisan issue in Washington and risk, for example, that Democrats might not agree to continue authorizing assistance for Ukraine because they thought it might go to, for example, help Trump in 2020 because he wanted the Ukrainian government to do investigations that were politically beneficial to the president. And he is this witness who, unlike many of the others, there was sort of a pregame effort to tear him down a bit. He's been a focus of Republicans and the president's allies even before his closed door deposition.

Right. He was born in the former Soviet Union, as you heard him talk about his father bringing him and his brothers to America. When he says, don't worry, I will be fine for telling the truth, he's telling his father that, no, this isn't like the Soviet Union, where you're not fine when you tell the truth to power. And the Republican strategy was to undermine his credibility. As you said, there's already been in right-wing media this idea that he has some kind of dual loyalty because he's an immigrant. He was born in what is now Ukraine. And even before he testified, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin sent a letter to the committee where he talked about people who were out to undermine the president. And he said, Vindman might be one of those people. It was textbook innuendo. He said, it's entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile of deep state opponents of the president. So that was pretty chilling. And you can hear in some of the exchanges between Jim Jordan, the Republican on the committee, and Vindman, the way that Republicans set out to undermine his credibility.

Your boss had concerns about your judgment. Your former boss, Dr. Hill, had concerns about your judgment. Your colleagues had concerns about your judgment. And your colleagues felt that there were times when you leaked information. Any idea why they have those impressions, Colonel Vindman? Yes, Representative Jordan. I guess I'll start by reading Dr. Hill's own words, as she attested to in my last evaluation that was dated middle of July, right before she left. Alex is a top 1% military officer and the best Army officer I've worked with in my 15 years of government service.

He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment. So it was exact. I'm sorry. Okay. It was exemplary during numerous visits, so forth and so on. But I think you get the idea. Here's my takeaway. Next time you get a good performance review at the office, save it. But one of the points that Republicans were trying to make here is that he's supposed to follow the chain of command. Right. Like you are you are not the president of the United States. You are a National Security Council adviser writing talking points. The president doesn't have to follow your talking points. Many of us remember in a previous era, a president saying, I'm the decider.

I'm the one who makes it all happen. And Vindman and Williams and a lot of these other witnesses are far below that person in the chain of command. And Republicans' basic point was, you may be coordinating the interagency policy process, and you may be talking with your interlocutors and foreign governments and so forth and so on. But there's only one person who can decide what the foreign policy of the United States shall be. And that's the president. And for Republicans, a lot of this consternation from people like Vindman and others

down in the administration is immaterial because they don't get to decide, Trump does. And in their view, Trump actions were appropriate. And Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman from upstate New York, asked about this specifically. I advise up through the chain of command, that's what I do. And the chain of command is Tim Morrison to Ambassador John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to the President of

the United States. And do you agree that the president sets the policy as commander in chief, as you testified previously? Absolutely. Thank you. My time's expired. And another thing Republicans were trying to do here was sort of tear down the Democratic case. Democrats recently have been using the word bribery a lot more instead of quid pro quo. They've just gone straight to calling it bribery. And Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe was like, gotcha. Nobody said bribery. After witness after witness began saying there was no quid pro quo or even that quid pro quo was not even possible, we saw a shift from the Democrats. They briefly

started to refer to the president's conduct on the July 25th call as extortion, and now it shifted again last week to bribery. Ms. Williams, you used the word unusual to describe the president's call on July 25th. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you used the word inappropriate and proper. I've word searched each of your transcripts, and the word bribery or bribe doesn't appear anywhere in that. Ms. Williams, you've never used the word bribery or bribe to explain President Trump's conduct, correct? No, sir. Colonel Vindman, you haven't either.

That is correct. This prompted committee chairman Adam Schiff to follow up a few minutes later, essentially saying... He said bribery is English for quid pro quo, effectively, and that all they've done is change their nomenclature. But as has been a problem for Democrats, the bribe didn't go all the way there. The administration did release the Ukraine assistance. There was no investigation by Ukraine's regime of the kind that Trump wanted. And so their challenge politically is making an attempted bribery in this framework, an impeachable case against the president. What Democrats have to do is not just convince people that what the president did was wrong. Polls show they are doing very well on that count. Something like 70 percent of Americans

in several polls say that it's not right to ask a foreign country to do an investigation of your opponents. They have to convince Americans that what the president did is bad enough that he should be impeached and removed from office. And that's a very high bar. Let's take a quick break. And when we get back, the afternoon, there was another panel of witnesses. This group were people Republicans requested that they hoped would bolster their arguments. On our brand new season of the StoryCorps podcast from NPR,

you'll hear challenging conversations between friends, family members, and sometimes people who could have easily been enemies as they bridge divides and build connections where you'd least expect it. Episodes are available every Tuesday.

And we're back. And let's move to the hearing from this afternoon. If you would both please rise and raise your right hand, I will begin by swearing you in. The former special representative for Ukraine negotiations, Kurt Volker. I did this on a part-time voluntary basis with no salary paid by the U.S. taxpayer, simply because I believed it was important to serve our country in this way. I believed I could steer U.S. policy in the right direction. And National Security Advisor on Russia and Europe, Tim Morrison.

Chairman Schiff, Ranking Member Nunez, and members of the committee, I appear before you today under subpoena to answer your questions about my time as Senior Director for European Affairs at the White House and the National Security Council. And Volker kicked things off with something of a surprise when we found out that his testimony had changed from what he delivered in his closed-door deposition to what he was now delivering in public. In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating

possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former President Vice President Biden. I saw them as very different, the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently. And had I done so, I would have raised my own objections. There were numerous in retrospects in his opening statement. Volker is the latest witness to change his recollection since this process began. The first was Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. He submitted an addendum to his earlier deposition

saying that the testimony of others had refreshed his recollection and Volker had the same experience. He spoke to that July 10th meeting, which was very critical because that was the meeting at which Sondland said he already had an agreement for a meeting between Zelensky and Trump from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. John Bolton said, we need to end this meeting. That's not appropriate. Now Volker says he does remember something like that, but the way he characterized it was a little bit different from the other witnesses. Mara, what does that mean? What does this mean? Is it? I don't know if it means anything except for Volker is trying to make sure that he doesn't get in a situation where he perjures himself.

But I think he painted himself as being naive. He didn't get it. He didn't get the secret code. Burisma means Biden because Joe Biden's son Hunter sat on the board of Burisma. And that is what the president thought and Rudy Giuliani thought would be a weapon that they could use against Joe Biden to say that he was involved in some kind of corruption in Ukraine because his son sat on the board of his company. And it's something they keep repeating. Yes, without evidence. But to me, what struck me about both Volker and Morrison is that these were Republican witnesses.

They thought that they'd be good for their side. Both of them were deeply committed to the official U.S. foreign policy on Ukraine, which was to arm Ukraine against Russian aggression. Volker worked very hard, as he said, to solve the problem when the aid was held up or where the meeting wasn't forthcoming. He really wanted to make it happen, even at the expense of getting involved in this shadow diplomacy, three amigos kind of off the books effort to get the president of the Ukraine to open an investigation into what turns out to be Joe Biden. In one sense, Volker is kind of a victim of the process here. A lot of us now know because the White House released its call record about Trump's conversations with the Ukrainian president, President Zelensky, what they talked about and what the parameters for that were. But what Volker has said is he didn't get that readout of the call in real time in July after it took place. What we know now, Volker is saying he didn't know then. And so he wasn't able to put the pieces together and understand that a lot of this had to do with the Bidens, the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

And he understands that because of everything that's taken place since, but not in real time as investigators are putting the story together. So here are two witnesses that were called by Republicans who testified that they didn't know why the funding was being held up and that they thought the funding should be moved along and sent to Ukraine as soon as possible. And they also testified that the call was not a perfect call. To me, Tim Morrison turned out to be a better witness for the Republicans than Kurt Volker because he testified that he didn't hear anything that concerned him on the call. He was disappointed that the president didn't follow the talking points and talk about corruption in Ukraine, but he didn't hear anything that he thought was inappropriate or illegal.

Did anything concern you on the call? No. That was a long pause, America. That was a very long pause. Yeah, but that is something that Republicans can be happy about. And they are. We know because the president's campaign spokesperson tweeted that out as soon as it was said. The big question about this Ukraine story is, can he do it? And Morrison's view is, yes, he can. We know from his deposition and his career, Morrison has an expansive view about executive power. He said to investigators earlier that there's no one above the president under

Article 2 in terms of setting foreign policy. And his perspective was, it's going to be politically problematic for us if this gets out. We want to continue to support Ukraine because he supports that work against Russia. But he doesn't view Trump's actions in the Ukraine affair as having been inappropriate or having broken the law. It is notable, though, that he,'t view Trump's actions in the Ukraine affair as having been inappropriate or having broken the law. It is notable, though, that he, just like Vindman, he ran to the lawyers. All of these people, all of these officials devoted, committed to the U.S. foreign policy on Ukraine and the president of the United States, not at all. The president of the United States sees Ukraine as an entity that will help him be

reelected. And Volker testified again today that all Trump cared about was righting some wrong that he thought had been done by the Ukrainians against him. They tried to take me down, as Volker described it. Trump, for whatever reason, believes this Ukrainian storyline. And that's why we are where we are. So in terms of what Republicans were trying to get from these witnesses, I mean, they got some contradictions. They got Volcker saying that investigating Biden or 2016 was a bunch of conspiracy theories. But they also got a number of officials on record with differing views of the call and differing views of the president's request. When he says, do me a favor, I'd like you to look into these things. Was that a threat?

Was that a demand? Was that just simply a nice ask? And Mike Turner from Ohio, a Republican from Ohio, asked Tim Morrison about that. Do you believe because because he only was telling us his opinion, do you believe in your opinion that the president of the United States demanded that President Zelensky undertake these investigations? No, sir. This is a thread that goes back to the beginning of the Trump presidency. FBI Director James Comey goes to see Trump. Trump says, I hope you can see a way, Claire, to letting this thing go, to letting Flynn go.

What is Trump saying? Is he saying, James Comey, I hereby direct you as your boss to let Flynn go? Or is he saying, hey, wouldn't it be great? This poor guy, he suffers for so long. Different people hear the conversation different ways. And the Ukraine affair just encapsulates one more time that Trump's way of doing business can be interpreted as many ways as there are people giving opinions about it on these phone calls and executing his policy. What Democrats would say is this is the most powerful man on the planet, let alone in the United States of America. And you can't say that the president saying do me a favor is just like your friend at work saying, do me a favor, could you hand me the

coffee? And briefly, guys, even though we're really tired now, it turns out we get to get up early tomorrow and do it all over again. And the witness testifying tomorrow is someone whose name has been uttered countless times over the course of this public testimony, Gordon Sondland. Phil, who is he? He is the guy at the center of everything. He's been described by witnesses as the guy who could talk with President Trump personally. One witness described calling him from a restaurant on his cell phone in Kiev, and President Trump talking so loudly that everyone at the table could hear what he was saying, and also having been given these special assignments for Ukraine over the course of this year. Sondland is the key witness. He's amended his testimony at least once, as we've talked about,

and everyone is going to be listening very closely to what he says to impeachment investigators on Wednesday. And no one knows if he's going to be a good witness for the Republicans, a good witness for the Democrats, or maybe just all around unreliable. There was a witness today who referred to him as the Gordon problem. We don't know who he's going to be a Gordon problem for, but tune in to tomorrow's podcast. We will be back at five o'clock tomorrow to break down the testimony from the day and again late tomorrow night with a breakdown of the Democratic debate that is also happening tomorrow. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Phil Ewing, election security editor. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent.

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.