What Is Going On?
I knew there was a problem with press coverage of the impeachment inquiry against Trump when I…
- a senior political science and journalism double major in my university’s Honors program
- a former Capitol Hill press intern
- a subscriber to the New York Times, the Washington Post, POLITICO, Axios, NPR, Vox, and Roll Call
…couldn’t figure out what was going on.
Cable news especially is predominantly covering opinions on the impeachment inquiry, which is pointless — I don’t want to know what they think about it, I want to know what I should think about it.
What follows is a hybrid between a timeline and an explainer. It presents events mostly in chronological order, but gives context, so you actually know why something is a “bombshell.”
My hope with this is to enable you to form your own opinions about the impeachment inquiry. Have fun!
If you’d rather listen to an explanation about the inquiry, listen to the New York Times’ A Third Grader’s Guide to the Impeachment Hearings.
July 25
President Donald Trump called newly-elected Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. (You can read the five-page readout here.)
Prior to being elected president, Zelensky was an actor who played the president on television. (Here’s his IMDb page.) Due to the number of Ukrainian names in this timeline, I will refer to Zelensky as the Ukrainian president for clarity.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was listening in on this phone call.
We know what Trump and the Ukrainian president talked about because national security officials took notes of the phone call.
Here’s why people are concerned about the phone call:
1. Military aid
The Ukrainian president tells Trump: “We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.” (This is important because Ukraine has been in military conflict with Russia since 2014 when its pro-Russian president was ousted in favor of a pro-European one.)
Trump responded: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”
Background: Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine a week before this phone call. The funds were released on Sept. 11 following pressure from Congress, and officials said the delay, essentially, was due to bureaucracy. (As you will read later, there is reason to doubt this claim.)
2. CrowdStrike
After requesting a favor, Trump asked the Ukrainian president to look into CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is the firm that first confirmed Russian operatives hacked the Democratic National Committee’s email servers.
In case you forgot: Right before the 2016 Democratic National Convention, these hacked emails were leaked and showed that party officials favored Hillary Clinton as the presidential nominee over Bernie Sanders.
The Mueller Report and U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed CrowdStrike’s finding that Russian hackers were responsible and that the act was part of a broader Russian campaign to influence the election to benefit Trump and hurt Clinton.
Based on public statements, however, Trump believes a false claim that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the U.S. election in favor of Clinton. According to the false claim, CrowdStrike was involved in this conspiracy.
Additional information: CrowdStrike is central to a false narrative advanced by some conservatives, and the president, that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election. They often leave out context when explaining it, so here it is with context:
· There was a Politico article about a Ukrainian-American contractor for the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Prior to being hired as a contractor, she became aware of Paul Manafort’s — Trump’s presidential campaign chair from June to August 2016 — work with Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian president. (Manafort is in prison for financial fraud related to this work, which was discovered by the Mueller investigation.) After she was hired by the Committee (which was just one of her clients), she continued researching Manafort and held meetings with officials at Ukraine’s embassy in the U.S. to find out information but not in her capacity with the DNC. She informally shared some of this information with DNC staffers who never used any of it; although, two staffers said she was encouraged to interview the Ukrainian president about Manafort. (Ukraine said no.) Her activities were not a secret, in fact, while she was doing this, she experienced online harassment and multiple attempted break-ins.
· Documents were published by a Ukrainian government agency as part of a broader anti-corruption effort in August 2016 that showed Manafort’s financial fraud with the ousted Ukrainian president, which caused Manafort to resign from Trump’s campaign and ultimately be sentenced to prison. Concurrently, multiple Ukrainian officials were openly critical of Trump for his pro-Russia statements.
Why this matters? Trump is asking an ally, Ukraine, which relies on the U.S. in its military conflict with Russia, to look into a claim with no evidence that would benefit Trump politically and also Russia, which Ukraine is militarily engaged with.
3. The Bidens
Trump also asked the Ukrainian president to look into Joe Biden’s involvement in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a company Biden’s son Hunter served on the board of. Here’s what’s wrong with that sentence:
- European countries also wanted this prosecutor fired because he was widely known as corrupt.
- The wrongdoing that was investigated happened before Hunter Biden was on the board.
- The prosecutor was not investigating the company when Joe Biden was pushing for his removal.
That being said, Ukraine is reviewing all its investigations into the founder of the company Hunter Biden was on the board of.
Why this matters? Trump is asking an ally, Ukraine, which relies on the U.S. in its military conflict with Russia, to look into a claim with at best circumstantial evidence that would hurt a political opponent.
4. Meeting with Barr, Giuliani
Throughout the phone call, Trump tells the Ukrainian president to meet with Attorney General William Barr and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney (who also was mayor of New York City on 9/11). Giuliani had been pressing Ukrainian officials to open an investigation into the Bidens since January.
- In fact, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland (who makes an appearance later and who was a major donor to Trump’s presidential campaign), told House impeachment investigators that Giuliani became a point person on Ukrainian foreign policy.
- Likewise, Fiona Hill — a former White House adviser on Russia — told investigators that Giuliani “ran a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that circumvented U.S. officials and career diplomats in order to personally benefit President Trump.…”
- Also, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council registered two internal complaints about the Giuliani-led effort to push Ukraine to open politically advantageous investigations.
- A former aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told impeachment investigators that he resigned from his position because he believed the department was being used to advance Trump’s political interests.
- The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State said Giuliani tried to influence foreign policy with Ukraine.
Why this matters? It is not normal for the Attorney General and the president’s personal lawyer to meet with foreign leaders. That would be the secretary of State’s job.
Another angle: The Ukrainian president said Trump didn’t pressure him to acquiesce to these requests. But, the Ukrainian president was going to announce the opening of the investigations Trump sought in a TV interview in order to get the withheld military aid. He didn’t have to follow through, however, because members of Congress demanded Trump release the aid.
What we still don’t know:
Trump asking a foreign leader to take actions that would benefit him politically is concerning. But we don’t know if the delay in military aid to Ukraine was used as leverage to get the Ukrainian president to open an investigation into the Bidens. While it’s suspicious, it is possible that the delay was for innocuous reasons.
But…
· Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told him the delay was to pressure the Ukrainian president to open an investigation into the false claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election. When Johnson asked Trump if he could tell Ukrainian officials that aid was on the way, the president said no.
· Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was asked by a reporter if military funding to Ukraine was contingent on an investigation into the false claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election, he responded: “…we do that all the time with foreign policy.” He has since said the push for the investigation and delayed military aid were unrelated. He also said Trump is interested in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, but, as evidenced by the phone call, the only supposed corruption he’s interested in affects him politically.
· The top diplomat in Ukraine — William Taylor — told House impeachment investigators that Trump blocked the Ukrainian military aid and would not meet with the Ukrainian president until he announced investigations into the matters discussed in the phone call.
· A senior aide to the National Security Council told House impeachment investigators that Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told him that the Ukrainian military aid’s release was contingent on the country opening the investigations Trump discussed in the phone call.
- After initially telling impeachment investigators the military aid’s delay was not used as leverage to pressure Ukraine to open politically advantageous investigations, Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union and a Republican political donor, revised his testimony to now say he did inform a Ukrainian official that the aid’s release was likely contingent on the Ukrainian president opening investigations Trump desired.
- Fiona Hill — the former White House adviser on Russia — told impeachment investigators there was a July 10 meeting (before the phone call) with Ukrainian officials, where Sondland said there was an agreement with Mulvaney, the chief of staff, that Trump would meet with the Ukrainian president if he opened the investigations Trump sought. Mulvaney’s involvement was corroborated by the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council.
August 12
A U.S. intelligence community employee filed a complaint that he “received information from multiple U.S. Government officials” that Trump tried to persuade the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden, Trump’s potential rival in the 2020 presidential election, and his son. (You can read the nine-page document here.)
Before we get into the complaint: The whistle-blower complaint was not the first time the intelligence employee tried to alert officials to the phone call.
· He first anonymously informed the CIA’s top lawyer. She then contacted officials at the White House and Justice Department.
· The whistle-blower also reached out to a House Intelligence Committee aide, who shared some of the information with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) (the committee’s chairman) but not the whistle-blower’s identity.
After doing this, he then filed the whistle-blower complaint.
Why this matters? The whistle-blower complaint system was not designed for intelligence employees to accuse the president of abuse of power. In fact, there is no precedent to do that. His actions show that he was determined to alert his superiors to the phone call with the Ukrainian president, and they also show that he tried to do so in different ways.
Okay, so what did the whistle-blower say?
1. Phone call
He alleged that Trump pressed the Ukrainian president to open investigations that would assist him politically. We’ve already been over this. This is true; read July 25.
2. What phone call?
He alleged that officials were directed to store documents related to the phone call not where they would normally be stored but rather in an electronic system for especially sensitive materials. This also is true. But the White House says the documents were handled appropriately.
3. What now?
Essentially, the whistle-blower alleged that people tried to press Ukraine to open investigations into the Bidens on Trump’s behalf after the phone call. This is true.
Texts messages that were made public among Kurt Volker, a special envoy to Ukraine who has since resigned, William Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, and Giuliani show there was an effort to pressure Ukrainian officials.
For instance, these officials were involved in the crafting of a statement from the Ukrainian president that would have opened investigations into Burisma, the company Hunter Biden served on the board of, and the false claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The text messages show, and testimony to impeachment investigators supports, that a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian president was related to this statement being issued.
Also, on Sept. 9, Taylor texted “…I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
Sondland rejected Taylor’s insinuation, saying, “…I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”
4. What happened before the phone call?
Part I: The whistle-blower alleged that the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was removed from her position because of perceived antagonism toward Trump.
Just bear with me, this connects to impeachment: Yovanovitch came into conflict with two American businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who had interests in Ukraine and who were associates of Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer who led a pressure campaign to get Ukraine to open investigations into the Bidens. Yovanovitch supported a “reform-minded” chief executive of a Ukrainian state energy company, who rejected Parnas and Fruman’s business proposal.
They promised Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), a Trump loyalist, money toward his re-election campaign. (He lost, by the way.) Sessions then sent a letter with unsubstantiated evidence to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, claiming Yovanovitch was disloyal to the president. Giuliani seized on this criticism, and Yovanovitch was fired in April (before the phone call).
Why this matters? Parnas and Fruman — the businessmen associated with Giuliani — were arrested in October for campaign finance violations while trying to flee the country. This is how we know all of this.
Why this matters, again? The implication is the Trump administration based foreign policy in Ukraine on private interests, which lends credibility to the whistle-blower.
Part II: Basically, he alleged that there was a pressure campaign on Ukraine to open investigations into the Bidens and CrowdStrike before Trump’s phone call. This is true.
As an example, on the morning of the phone call, the former special envoy to Ukraine texted an adviser to the Ukrainian president: “…Heard from White House-assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” In 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”
Why this matters? There is a suggestion that military aid and a visit with Trump were predicated on the Ukrainian president opening politically advantageous investigations.
What we still don’t know:
We know records of — you guessed it — Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president were held in a more secure system than expected. We don’t know if that action constitutes misconduct as part of a cover-up.
Another angle: The top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, who was listening in on the phone call, told impeachment investigators that the White House’s notes of the phone call (remember…the readout of the phone call is not a transcript because it was reconstructed based on notes from people who were listening to it) left out some stuff:
1. He said Trump told the Ukrainian president there were recordings of Biden discussing Ukrainian corruption. (There is publicized video of Biden discussing the removal of the corrupt prosecutor, but there’s nothing scandalous about it.)
2. Also, he said the Ukrainian president specifically mentioned Burisma, the company Hunter Biden served on the board of.
Neither addition changes the essence of the phone call. While the official told his counterparts about the corrections, they were not made.
Giuliani’s business associates have been arrested for campaign finance violations but not convicted. So we’re in the middle of that narrative, but my prediction is that they are going to be the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern characters when this saga becomes an HBO miniseries.
My analysis:
Trump and his personal lawyer with U.S. officials pressured Ukraine, a country dependent on U.S. assistance, to open investigations, which would be politically advantageous to Trump, based on at best circumstantial evidence. That is a fact.
Whether the administration used military aid or a visit with Trump as leverage over Ukraine is irrelevant. While the U.S. and Ukraine are both states, they are not in an equal position. Ukraine is dependent on the U.S., so even if Trump implied to the Ukrainian president that he should open a politically-motivated investigation without a threat — it would still be problematic.
But whether there was an explicit, or implicit for that matter, understanding that Ukraine would be punished by the Trump administration for not opening investigations could mean the difference if Trump is impeached, or impeached and removed, or not.
At this point, however, I would focus on Trump’s role in the pressure campaign. Was Giuliani overzealous, or did Trump direct it? I think this question will determine whether Trump becomes the first president to be removed from office.
August 26
This section involves what transpired after the whistle-blower complaint was filed.
The inspector general for the intelligence community — whose job it is to review whistle-blower complaints — determined the complaint was credible and of “urgent concern.” So, he forwarded it to Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence. (Maguire stepped into the role less than two weeks prior.)
Procedure says Maguire should have issued a report to the House and Senate intelligence committees within a week. He didn’t because he said the complaint might have been covered by executive privilege — when the president gets to keep stuff private. So, Maguire consulted with the Justice Department, which determined the complaint was not of “urgent concern.”
The inspector general for the intelligence community then bucked authority and told Congress about the whistle-blower complaint. This act has led us to the moment we’re in now.
What we still don’t know:
Democrats say Maguire broke the law by not informing Congress. While that might be true, Maguire was in new territory. As I’ve stated, the whistle-blower process was not made to accuse the president of misconduct.
Also, why did the Justice Department say the complaint wasn’t urgent? Was it because of nefarious intentions? Or, was the system simply not designed for this kind of matter?
What next?
On Sept. 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) launched a formal impeachment inquiry. What that means is House committees that were already investigating Trump are now investigating him with the intention of declaring at the end of it whether the House will hold a vote to impeach the president. If he is impeached, a trial will be held in the Senate. The Senate could then remove him from office.
Trump has directed his administration to not cooperate with the inquiry.
On Oct. 6, the lawyers for the whistle-blower announced they are representing a second whistle-blower, and we don’t know what he or she will say.
Since this is a developing story, I will update and change this blog accordingly. Also this is an…involved…story, so I had to leave some things out. If you’d like me to address an attribute to this story that I haven’t already, or if you have other feedback, email me at snewhouse31@gmail.com.
Also, follow me on Twitter @Sean_Newhouse1 and Instagram @snewhouse31
