April 6, 2019: The House of Representatives Voted 420-0 to Release the Full Mueller Report - Then Republicans Started Reading

 

4/6/19: You can tell the president and his toadies are starting to worry about what the Mueller report will reveal once it’s out. 

Two weeks ago, Republicans were so excited to have their main man cleared they went along with Democrats in the House of Representatives and voted 420-0 to have the Mueller report released.

 

____________________ 

Seventy-three words were enough.

____________________

 

The days passed and GOP hands grew clammy. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), head of the House Judiciary Committee, moved to issue a subpoena for the full report, all seventeen Republicans on the panel decided that – on second thought – they really didn’t care to see what Mueller said. The vote went against them, with all 24 Democrats still in favor of releasing the report. 

Devin, Devin! The hat is the tell.

 

Rep. Devin Nunes, who used to run the committee, and couldn’t have found a Russian if a Russian hooker was seated in his lap, appeared on Fox & Friends. He went his GOP colleagues one better. He said he didn’t care what the 488-page report said. He didn’t care about Mueller’s findings. “You know, we can just burn it up. It is a partisan document,” Nunes claimed. 

He hadn’t read it, he admitted. He was merely using his totally non-partisan, clairvoyant powers to make a point. 

Nunes told his hosts he thought the four-page summary released by Attorney General Barr was great, including all 73 words quoted from the Mueller report. But in one poll only 18% of Americans believed the summary was good enough and a full 75% said they would like to see the full report. 

A second poll was even more definitive, with 84% of Americans saying they wanted to see the report. 

(See: 4/19/19, to understand why nearly 200 Republicans had changed their windmill minds.)

November 13, 2019: First Day of Public Testimony on Trump's Decision to Hold Military Aid to Ukraine

 

11/13/19: The House of Representatives holds its first day of public testimony in the impeachment inquiry. Aides insist the president isn’t going to watch a single second, because it’s all a witch hunt and a hoax, a swindle, a fraud, a trick, a ruse, a joke and a goddam con. Besides Mr. Trump will be too busy working on making America great again. Or keeping it great. 

Whatever. 

 

____________________ 

Best of all, we learned that there were people in government who might still make us proud.

____________________

 

 

What did we learn if we weren’t “too busy working” to watch? We learned that Rep. Jim Jordan is always angry when cameras are running and probably likes to yell even when ordering from a menu. We learned that Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican in the hearings, hates the way “Shifty Schiff” is running the show, mostly because he’s making Trump look terrible. We learned that Rep. John Ratcliffe had no idea how diplomacy plays out – but that his plan to defend the president boils down to harassing witnesses, in hopes that stupid people watching will believe Trump could do no wrong – had in fact been wronged, instead. 

We heard from almost every Republican on the panel that the first two witnesses seated before them had no “firsthand knowledge” of events and so, it was a crime for Democrats to want to listen.

 

Best of all, we learned that there were people in government who might make us proud. We learned that George Kent, Deputy Assistant for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Ambassador Bill Taylor were men of honor and integrity. We learned that they, unlike Nunes and Jordan and Trump, were decent men. They had come forward to tell their stories under oath because they were concerned for the safety and security of the United States. They would stick to the facts, as they understood them, and tell us what they knew. 

Taylor made it clear, in the face of Nunes’s attack, that he was not there as a witness for any political party or partisan group. He was there to tell the truth. Both he and Kent smiled wryly at times, as Republicans postured and tried to undercut the testimony they were presenting. At least one Republican, allotted five minutes to question the witnesses, per committee rules, wasted all five rambling on about why the Democrats should all burn to a crisp in political hell. Kent kept listening for an actual question, puzzlement growing, until the lawmaker ran out of time and his harangue ended in a fizzle. I don’t think in the four hours of testimony that I was able to watch, that a single GOP lawmaker asked a single question about anything President Trump might have done wrong. They came in with their minds closed, their mouths loosely hinged, and their ears stoppered with wax. 

I admit, however, that I usually muted Rep. Jordan when he started to yelp. If you’ve never watched him in these hearings, he looks as if at any moment he’s going to get so angry he’ll suffer a stroke.

 

* 

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF opened proceedings by calmly laying out what he believed was at stake. Congress must decide whether or not the President of the United States denied the Ukrainians a meeting in the White House and military assistance for purely selfish political reasons. 

Did Donald J. Trump pressure U.S. allies to dig up dirt on an opponent and thereby help him win the 2020 election? 

Had he placed U.S. national security at risk for no other reason than to get the foreign help he wanted? 

 

No hope for Nunes. 

Rep. Nunes tipped the entire GOP plan in his opening statement. This wasn’t going to be a hearing where testimony mattered. First, he cast doubt on the integrity of the more than a dozen men and women who had testified behind closed doors and under oath. He felt compelled to bring up the Mueller investigation. That investigation, he insisted, had been “a three-year long operation by Democrats, the corrupt media, and partisan bureaucrats to overturn the results of the 2016 election.” 

The “Russian hoax” imploded on July 24, Nunes said, on the day Robert Mueller testified publicly under oath. It was a hoax during which “any Republican who ever shook hands with a Russian” was denounced. 

You knew right away, there was no hope for Nunes – for people like Nunes – or for people who liked people like Nunes. There was going to be no admission that the Mueller Report cited ten examples of what was almost surely obstruction of justice by the president and his sleazebag crew. Nunes wasn’t going to admit that half-a-dozen members of the Trump 2016 campaign had been convicted of, or pled guilty, to felonious activities during that campaign. Not one had been sent to prison for simply shaking a Russian’s hand. 

I found myself wishing Chairman Schiff might put a palm in front of his mouth and fake-cough: Cough. Roger Stone. Cough, cough. 

That would have been fun. 

(Two days later, a jury would find Stone guilty on seven felony counts, for his fine work on behalf of the president.)

 

Devin Nunes was there for one reason, which had nothing to do with examining the facts. He was there to attack Democrats, even though no Democrat had been accused of pressuring any Ukrainian to provide help in the U.S. election scheduled next year. He couldn’t defend what President Trump had done. So, he must attack. The Democrats, he alleged, had previously stooped so low as to try to get “nude pictures of President Trump from Russian pranksters.” Yes, “pranksters.” Harmless jokers. In point of fact, Russian intelligence agents interfered extensively in the 2016 election – and Mueller and his team had indicted thirteen Russians, including Konstantin Kilimnik, a pal of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. 

                        

(Kilimnik avoided indictment in related matters by hopping a flight to Moscow, before he could be arrested.)

 

But Nunes was worried about “nude pictures” of poor Donald. Even the First Lady probably wouldn’t want to see those. 

What we had before us, Nunes insisted, was part of an “orchestrated media smear campaign.” These witnesses, suitable for television, had been “put through a closed-door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of the Capitol, where the Democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks, and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner.” The Democrats rejected witnesses the Republicans wanted to hear from and the whole process was a crime and a sham. 

The real issues, according to Rep. Nunes, were, 

First, what is the full extent of the Democrats’ prior coordination with the Whistleblower and who else did the Whistleblower coordinate this effort with?

 

Second, what is the full extent of Ukraine’s election meddling against the Trump campaign?

 

And third, why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden, what did he do for them, and did his position affect any U.S. government actions under the Obama administration?

 

Nunes went on to tell the packed hearing room and millions watching on TV, that what they were about to see was a “theatrical performance staged by the Democrats.” He insulted both witnesses, seated before him, ready to swear to tell the truth, so help them, God. “Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent,” he said with a smirk, “I’d like to welcome you here, and congratulate you for passing the Democrats’ Star Chamber auditions. It seems you agreed, wittingly or unwittingly, to participate in a drama,” he continued. “But the main performance – the Russian hoax – has ended, and you’ve been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.” 

And with that, we were off! 

Remember: the witnesses were under oath.

 

* 

THE ESSENCE of the Republican strategy for the first day of public hearings was to howl about the first “whistleblower” who touched off this whole inquiry, and demand that he or she be unmasked. If Taylor, the witness before them, gave testimony damaging to the president, they howled. If Kent spoke up, they bayed. Where was the whistleblower! They wanted the whistleblower to testify at once! Occasionally, they would stop attacking Chairman Schiff and the media and try to pick at bits and pieces of the previous closed-door testimony of Taylor and Kent (almost 700 pages of transcripts, combined) and quibble about details of what they had said. For example, Rep. John Ratcliffe wanted to know if either man had ever met President Trump? 

No, said Kent. 

No, said Taylor. 

Ah, no firsthand knowledge! See! You almost expected Ratcliffe to leap out of his chair and dance a jig. 

 

Putting U.S. and Ukrainian national security at risk. 

Then again, if you had a brain larger than a peach pit, you could go to the transcripts and start reading, first Kent and then Taylor. If you did, you could find countless examples of firsthand knowledge, which the witnesses had laid out. Or a lawmaker of average intelligence, or an ordinary American, could listen for at least part of the five hours of televised testimony. Taylor explained that he had talked to Ambassador Gordon Sondland. Sondland, Taylor had testified and now testified again, told him during a phone call that “everything” the Ukrainians wanted – a White House meeting – critical military aid – was predicated on their agreeing to investigate Hunter Biden and his dad. That meant Sondland believed there was a quid pro quo.  

Taylor could cite the email he sent to Sondland in response: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” He could explain that withholding vital military assistance put both U.S. and Ukrainian national security at risk. He could tell the panel and the television audience that he threatened to quit his post, rather than undermine the safety of the two nations. 

That would all be firsthand knowledge. 

And if Nunes and his crew wanted even more firsthand knowledge, Sondland would be testifying publicly, next week.

 

As surely as you were seated before the TV, you knew that as soon as Ambassador Taylor finished his answer, another Republican was going to spend his or her five minutes insinuating that the Deep State was out to bring a choirboy president down. 

Mr. Trump had already described these witnesses and all the others who had testified under oath, as “Never Trumpers.” 

Or, much worse, as “human scum.” 

You might have imagined that some Republican on the panel, possessed of common decency, would bring that up and admonish the president as a result. 

None did.

 

* 

IF AMERICANS retain the freedoms we currently enjoy, a hundred years hence, if an amoral president and his sycophant friends don’t win this critically important game, then not a word Nunes or Jordan or the other GOP lawmakers say this day will be remembered at all. 

The bravery of Kent and Taylor will stand out. The only bombshell of the day comes when Taylor reveals that another important phone call, not previously known, had taken place. Since he had testified in closed door session, some weeks back, an aide had informed him of a call that took place on July 26. 

That was the day after the call between President Trump and President Zelensky, which touched off this inquiry. 

Taylor offers, in part, a firsthand account of what happened that day. He and Ambassador Kurt Volker had gone to the frontlines, to observe Ukrainian forces which were battling Russian aggression at the time. 

(And still are.) 

He could tell lawmakers, because he was there, what a Ukrainian commander said to him. He explained why U.S. military aid was critical to our ally’s defense. He mentioned that thousands of Ukrainians had already died fighting Vladimir Putin’s forces. One Ukrainian was killed that day, and four wounded. Taylor was a decorated combat veteran himself. He knew what was at stake. 

Rep. Nunes, of course, had never served in uniform. Like the president, neither had Rep. Jim Jordan. 

If they cared about Ukrainians dying, they hid their feelings well. 

Here’s how Ambassador Taylor told the story of the newly revealed meeting – and this would not be firsthand knowledge – meaning Republican lawmakers would have to howl again. “While Ambassador Volker and I visited the front, this member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondland” to a meeting with a top Ukrainian official in Kyiv [Kiev]. 

Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about “the investigations.” Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.

 

Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.

 

Nothing but hearsay, Rep. Jordan spent the next four minutes, loudly and angrily, pointing out. 

Then he “yielded back” his remaining minute and Rep. Elise Stefanik waved a copy of the transcript of the July 25 call. Read it she said, speaking to the American public. This four-page document proved that Trump was innocent of all crimes, at all times, past, present and to come. Did Trump mention a quid pro quo in that call? No, he did not. Stefanik insisted that the transcript be entered into the record. 

I missed exactly what Chairman Schiff said. I think he mentioned that it had already been entered. 

That seemed to make Rep. Stefanik angrier still.

 

* 

President Trump is welcome to come in and take a seat. 

THE POINT Nunes and the president’s other enablers were hoping to obscure was clear. If Taylor’s story of another questionable call was correct, then the Ukrainians knew that they were expected to investigate the Bidens if they wanted any help from the United States. And they knew it no later than the end of July. And it would seem clear Trump didn’t care about “cleaning up corruption” in Ukraine, as he and his enablers claim, or even safeguarding U.S. national security. He just wanted the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Bidens. He wanted to be re-elected. 

He didn’t care at what cost. 

Not one Republican lawmaker, as far as I could tell, asked a single follow-up question about that newly revealed July 26 call. Not even Rep. Will Hurd, normally a voice of reason and sanity, seemed to dare. Rep. Ratcliffe only wanted to know why Chairman Schiff shouldn’t be called as a witness himself. Jordan barked again. Only Schiff, he claimed, knew who the whistleblower was. And, by God, the whistleblower should have to come forward and testify too! 

Schiff said that he did not know who the whistleblower was, and that Jordan’s statement was false. 

He did not shout.

 

Instead, he calmly announced that David Holmes, the aide who had heard Trump’s voice on the phone, and who had asked Sondland what the president said, would now be issued a subpoena. 

It didn’t matter that fresh witnesses were coming forward and were willing to testify under oath. Jordan insisted again, at a high decibel level, that the person responsible for this whole mess should be called to testify publicly, should be unmasked, his or her identity exposed. He meant the whistleblower, of course. 

Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat, was ready with a quick retort. “I’d be glad to have the person who started it all, come in and testify. Uh, President Trump,” he said, waving his hand toward the TV cameras and witness table, “is welcome to come in and take a seat right there.”

 

Welch then went on to add that if his GOP colleagues really wanted firsthand information, perhaps they could convince President Trump to stop telling most of his top aides not to testify or hand over any documents whatsoever to Congress, despite a series of subpoenas already issued. 

As for the president, himself, reporters later asked if he remembered that July 26 call. Trump wore the same blank expression a husband accused of cheating by his wife would try to adopt. 

We know he’s had practice trying that expression on. 

I know nothing about that. First time I’ve heard it. The one thing I’ve seen that Sondland said is that he did speak with me for a brief moment and I said, “no quid pro quo under any circumstances.” And that’s true. But I’ve never heard this. In any event, it is more secondhand information, but I’ve never heard it.

 

* 

WHAT DID we learn by the time testimony was done on Day 1? The Republican position was set in concrete. No parade of witnesses was going to change any GOP minds. Generally speaking, Americans who watched thought Mr. Kent’s bowtie was cool and marveled at the gigantic water bottle from which he occasionally swigged. Kent explained that he had worked for three Republican presidents and two Democratic presidents during his 27-year career. His job was to implement U.S. foreign policy. That’s what he tried to do. Nothing more, nothing less. 

We learned that Ambassador Taylor was most proud of his “combat infantry badge” which he earned by fighting in Vietnam, and that he graduated fifth in a West Point class of 800. We learned that both men were entirely credible witnesses. We learned that their testimony in no way helped President Trump.

November 19, 2019: Even a Pig Could Probably Tell Trump Was Lying

 

11/19/19: Most Americans struggle to keep up with all the impeachment doings. More than a dozen witnesses have testified behind closed doors, some remaining on the stand for as much as ten hours. Their combined depositions, for just the first ten, already released, total 3,500 pages. Even if you do try to keep up and watch, you have to endure Rep. Jim Jordan’s constant yelling. Seven in ten Americans say they are trying to keep up. The other three are napping, knitting Christmas sweaters, or kicking themselves for believing the Cincinnati Bengals might win a game this season. 

If you are trying to follow the hearings, we are here to help. But, of course, if you are already a reader of this blog, you are clearly among the intellectual elite and may not need assistance.

 

____________________ 

“I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense.” 

President Volodymyr Zelensky

____________________

 

 

For starters, today, let’s go back to the White House transcript of the July 25 phone call. This is the call that triggered the whole impeachment mess. Even Rep. Jordan, the loudest and most obnoxious of all the president’s defenders, readily admits that Donald J. Trump, speaking to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, asked the Ukrainian leader “to do us a favor.” 

If you’re keeping up on your own, you already know this. Bear with me. Zelensky has just said, “I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. 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.” 

That comment comes at the very bottom of page two in the July 25 call memorandum (if you feel an urge to check). Javelins are high-tech anti-tank missiles and the Russians have been careful about attacking Ukrainian forces since the first shipment arrived. In March 2018, the Trump administration okayed a $47 million sale of 210 of the shoulder-fired missiles, with launchers. 

Excellent weapon. The Javelin is a “fire and forget” armament, allowing a soldier to fire it and take cover immediately. With a range of up to 4,000 meters (well over two miles), it has an infrared guidance system. The missile is designed to strike tanks from above, where armor is thinnest. Deadly to Russian armored vehicles and crews. Okay: Good job (for once), President Trump! 

Way to support an ally (if they pay), even if you did screw the Kurds.

Javelin being fired.

 

Trump responds immediately on that call (and according to Jordan and his other GOP defenders there’s nothing wrong with his response): “I would like you to do us a favor though.” Zelensky wants arms. Trump wants Zelensky to launch an investigation. At the top of page four of the memorandum, he tells the Ukrainian leader, “Rudy [Giuliani] very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.” 

In other words, the man who controls vital U.S. military aid, is asking the newly-elected President of Ukraine to talk to his personal lawyer. Rudy will let him know what he needs to do.

 

* 

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the political benefits.” 

FOR CONTEXT, suppose this were Russia in 2016, and Trump was asking the Russians to talk to his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. 

Oh, wait, he already did that. Cohen’s current address: 

Mr. Michael Cohen

Federal Correctional Institution

2 Mile Drive

Otisville, New York  10963

 

If you’d like to drop him a line, please do.

 

Sorry, where was I? 

Ah…“The other thing.” Trump continues. “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that [then-Vice President Joe] Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.” 

This is not difficult to grasp, although Ranking Member Devin Nunes and most of the other Republicans involved in the hearings don’t grasp it. Trump is telling the new Ukrainian head of state that under the previous Ukrainian head of state, a company called Burisma, for whom Hunter Biden worked, should have been investigated. But Vice President Biden – who just so happens to be running against Trump in 2020 – interfered in the investigation. 

Could he please look into that?

 

Zelensky’s response is opaque; but he seems to indicate he’ll do as Trump wishes. “First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation,” he assures the President of the United States. He goes on to add, “the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate….He or she will look into the situation, specifically the company that you mentioned in this issue.” 

So, there’s the key. To put it plainly Trump wants an investigation, aimed at Joe and Hunter Biden. 

Zelensky wants the Javelins, which his country will pay for and the nearly $400 million worth of military aid which Congress has appropriated. That aid was okayed by the Pentagon ($250 million) and the State Department ($141 million) in June. 

Here’s how one witness summed up the crux of the matter on Tuesday. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman told lawmakers, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the political benefits of the president’s [Trump’s] demands.” That’s why Vindman is there, testifying under oath. That’s why, seated to his right, a State Department expert on Ukraine, Jennifer Williams, assigned to the staff of Vice President Mike Pence, is also there. That’s why three witnesses last week testified, and two more would on Tuesday afternoon, after Vindman and Williams were done. 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist.

 

To be frank, I hate that cliché. In this case, it wouldn’t take a pig farmer, or a pig, and no offense to either, to grasp the “political benefits” that would accrue for President Trump. 

Jordan, of course, either doesn’t grasp the truth; or he does, but doesn’t want the American people to hear the pig squeal. 

If you have never watched Jordan question a witness, imagine an angry wrestling coach (which he once was) lambasting a wrestler who has just blown a match. Every performance I’ve seen so far has been the same and I watch a lot. Jordan keeps insisting that there are four “facts” the Democrats can’t get around. 

He’s loud and angry every time he ticks them off, and he ticks them off several times every day. So: 

1.     President Trump says the call was great, even if the White House meeting Zelensky wanted was clearly tied to an investigation; and by golly (Jordan uses “by golly” when he talks; but the words still come out as a shout), there was no quid pro quo involving an investigation in return for military aid. 

2.     President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure to investigate. 

3.     The Ukrainians never carried out any investigation. So, no harm, no foul. 

4.     The Ukrainians eventually got the military aid they wanted! End of the whole impeachment debate.

 

Again, it’s not hard to knock Jordan’s defense to pieces, even before we go digging deeper into testimony. 

 

A pig could probably tell Trump was lying. 

Point First: We all know Trump lies with incredible regularity and even a warped kind of skill. Scientists now say that pigs are the fourth most intelligent animal species, trailing only chimps, dolphins, and elephants. A pig listening to Trump could probably tell you the man lies. 

Point Second: President Zelensky still needs U.S. military support today; and he still wants to meet in the White House. He’s not going to say anything bad about Trump, so long as that’s the case. 

Point Third: By early September, Zelensky was preparing to announce the start of the investigation Trump wanted in an interview on CNN. 

Let Fareed Zakaria, of CNN, explain what happened. “We had been negotiating with President Zelensky and his office for a while, for months, to try to get an interview with him anyway, ever since he was elected President.” 

Once news of the whistleblower complaint surfaced, “it became clear to us that the interview was off.” 

In stark terms, the “quo” was about to be delivered, and the “quid” would then be coming once Trump got his deal. But the free press blew up the story, and the deal had to be called off. 

Point Fourth: The military aid to Ukraine was held up from sometime in June (both Vindman and Williams testified on Tuesday that they learned about the hold on July 3, themselves) until September.

 

So, why was the aid finally released. 

Here, suppose we try a comparison even a pig might understand. Imagine that President Trump has just been caught by the First Lady, planning to have sex with a porn star. He has sent the porn lady a text message: “Meet you at 7:00 tomorrow at your place. I’m going to boink you like you’ve never been boinked before. Bring a copy of Forbes with my picture on the cover. I want to be spanked.” 

The First Lady stumbles upon the text. Trump defends himself, insisting, “Melania! Since you caught me and no boinking has occurred, there’s no reason to be mad. I’m innocent, don’t you see?” 

“Trust me,” I think the First Lady would reply, “there will definitely be no boinking for you.” 

So, that’s how you knock down Rep. Jordan’s four points – which, I’m sure, if you watch any of the other testimony this week he will loudly and endlessly repeat.

 

* 

Ms. Williams knew she was risking her career. 

IF YOU HAVEN’T watched a single minute of the hearings, I can assure you that the first five witnesses would make most Americans proud. (I didn’t have a chance to watch the last two, save briefly, Tuesday afternoon.) Ms. Williams knew she was risking her career when she agreed to come before Congress. And as surely as pigs like to roll in the mud, President Trump insulted her on Twitter because she did. Still, she answered lawmakers’ questions with a quiet dignity at all times.

Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, preparing to testify under oath.

 

 

Lt. Col. Vindman showed bravery equal to hers, and has shown bravery before. He wears a Purple Heart on his U.S. Army uniform and a combat infantry badge, which he earned in Iraq in 2004. 

And before we go on, let me say, as a former Marine – who volunteered to go to Vietnam twice – but through dumb luck didn’t get sent – I was appalled by the cowardly attacks several GOP lawmakers tried to make. One Republican questioned Vindman’s right to wear a uniform to the hearings. Vindman smiled and explained. Army officers on duty (as he was) and appearing on Capitol Hill are expected to wear the uniform. At the White House, he’d be in a suit and tie. 

Here, he was following regulations. 

 

The most craven line of attack was launched by Republican counselor Steve Castor, who always does the opening round of questioning for their side. Was Vindman, he wondered, perhaps feeling “left out” of the chain of command as decisions about the future of Ukraine were made? Was he unhappy to be sidelined by a new supervisor? Even more ominously, what about that job offer the Ukrainians made? Wasn’t it true, Castor asked, squinting at Vindman, as if sizing up a man he expected to lie, that he had been offered the job of Minister of Defense in Ukraine? 

You knew at that moment that Castor and the men who had hired him to smear people like Vindman had no shame. He was hinting that Vindman wasn’t a patriot, Purple Heart and twenty years of military service be damned! (We’ve already seen similar lines of attack from several contemptible pundits on Fox News.) Instead, he was angling for a top post with a foreign country. He was not really a good American, at all. 

Watching at home, I wanted to vomit at that moment. I secretly wished Vindman might rise from the witness table, stride to the dais, reach up and grab Castor by the throat and throttle the bum. 

(A quick check of the records indicates that, as suspected, Castor has never donned the uniform or dodged flying lead.) 

Luckily for Castor, the colonel kept his cool. He said the idea that he had actually been offered the top defense position in Ukraine was “comical.” He said it was “preposterous” to think he’d be interested, even if it had.

 

* 

Likely to encourage Russia to pursue more aggressive attacks. 

AS PER THE RULES of the committee, at the start of Tuesday hearings, Daniel Goldman, the Democrats’ counselor, had first opportunity to question witnesses. At one point, he asked Lt. Col. Vindman if he was aware of any evidence (as President Trump and Rudy Giuliani believed) that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election? 

“I am not,” he replied. 

Are you aware, Goldman asked, that this conspiracy theory was promoted by Vladimir Putin? 

“I am well aware of that fact,” the colonel said. “It is the consensus of the entire intelligence community that the Russians interfered in the U.S. election in 2016.” 

What about the idea that Vice President Biden interfered in some investigation in Ukraine? Was either witness aware of any credible evidence of that? 

“No,” said Vindman. 

“No, I am not,” Ms. Williams replied.

 

Goldman asked Vindman what languages he spoke. “I speak Russian and Ukrainian,” he said, hesitated a moment, and added with fine comic timing, “and a little bit of English.” Goldman laughed. So did the audience in the hearing room. Vindman seemed pleased with his own joke. 

Rep. Jordan still looked mad. 

Why, Goldman wondered, was it so important that Ukraine get the White House meeting Zelensky wanted – and especially the military aid? Vindman said the meeting was partly “symbolic.” A meeting would show the U.S. still had Ukraine’s back. If the military assistance were not forthcoming, it “would likely encourage Russia” to pursue more aggressive attacks. This would further undermine “Ukrainian sovereignty, European security, and U.S. security.”  

Vindman testified that the call memorandum for July 25 left out two important details. He said he tried to have the record adjusted. Zelensky, he said, had specifically mentioned to President Trump that an investigation of “Burisma” would be conducted. Ms. Williams and the colonel had taken notes during the call. Both agreed that the name of that single company had come up.

 

Was it “nefarious,” Vindman was asked, that the word “Burisma” was left out of the July 25 call memorandum? No, he said. He said that the call memorandum was “substantially correct.” Ms. Williams agreed. 

A smile briefly passed over Ranking Member Nunes’s face. 

Republicans have been at great pains during all the hearings to convince viewers that what Trump always cared about most in dealing with Ukraine was rooting out corruption generally, before the Ukrainians got the aid. 

Had Trump mentioned “corruption” in this call, Goldman asked? 

No, said Vindman. 

No, agreed Williams. 

Goldman reminded everyone that both witnesses had taken notes during that famous call. Nunes started to frown.

 

What about a call that took place on April 21, Goldman asked, when President Trump congratulated Zelensky about his election victory? Both witnesses agree the word “corruption” never came up. 

The official White House readout, however, says the two presidents talked about how to “root out corruption” in Ukraine. 

Part of a White House coverup, Goldman wondered? 

Vindman said the readout might differ because it was also a “messaging tool.” Mentioning corruption specifically would send a signal to the Ukrainian people that the U.S. wanted to bolster the rule of law in their country.

 

Castor had the next chance to question the witnesses. He’s a skilled questioner and got Williams and Vindman to say just enough, so that a particularly stupid pig might believe President Trump was innocent.

This is a pig.

 

But the basics of the witnesses’ testimony were clear. Vindman was involved in a July 10 meeting, with representatives of Ukraine. During that meeting, Ambassador Gordon Sondland told the three Ukrainians present that if Zelensky wanted a meeting with Trump, then the Ukrainian leader was going to have to say publicly that the investigation Donald J. Trump wanted was going to take place. Vindman said he told Sondland this request was “inappropriate” and “had nothing to do with national security policy.” 

Like every other previous witness, Ms. Williams agreed. The call was troubling in all kinds of ways.

 

* 

Death threats – and from the president? 

EACH MEMBER OF THE Committee had a five-minute turn to ask questions. The Republicans kept trying to show that the Ukrainians couldn’t have felt any pressure about the military aid being delayed, because they didn’t know it was delayed. Williams testified about a meeting on September 1, in Warsaw, between President Zelensky and her boss, Vice President Pence. The first question the Ukrainian leader put to Mr. Pence had to do with the delay. 

In other words, he was feeling the pressure no later than September 1. 

The free press in the United States had broken the story of the delay a few days before. That’s what the free press is supposed to do. 

Honest to god, if you haven’t been watching, I swear that several GOP lawmakers used their entire five minutes to shout about how the original whistleblower had never been seen! Why weren’t they being allowed to question that whistleblower! On television! Right this moment! What diabolical Democratic plot was this! Rep. Jordan repeatedly accused Chairman Schiff of lying, when he said he didn’t know who the whistleblower was.

 

A rational observer might think that having two live witnesses to question would be enough. Or that having the three who testified last week was a fine start. Or that it might be wise to prepare for the two fresh witnesses scheduled that afternoon. You might think that 3,500 pages of witness testimony, by ten witnesses  combined, released so far, would be a good place to focus. 

No, Rep. Nunes grumbled. The Democrats didn’t care about the truth! He demanded to know who the whistleblower was, and he wanted that person to appear before the committee at once! 

Besides, the Ukrainians got the military aid, didn’t they, Rep. John Ratcliffe reminded us all. 

End of story. 

Case closed. 

The pigs were safe in the pen.

 

Chairman Schiff took a moment to note that the military aid was not released till September 11, meaning there had been a delay of at least ten weeks. 

He noted that the White House was made aware that a whistleblower complaint had been lodged on August 15. 

On September 9, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it would be holding hearings because it had come to the Schiff’s attention that the whistleblower complaint had not been forwarded to Congress, as required by law. 

Schiff noted that it was on September 10 that the House Intelligence Committee formally requested the whistleblower’s complaint be delivered to Congress. 

Presto, like the First Lady catching the president in a plot to boink a porn star, the people involved in withholding the nearly $400 million in military aid relented and let it flow the next day. 

Continuing with our analogy, President Trump would not get bonus points with the First Lady if the next day, after he was caught planning the boinking, he bought her a new car. 

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians had to be feeling immense pressure. In their fight against Russia, thousands of Ukrainians have already been killed.

 

Ranking Member Nunes took the second cheap shot of the day. He wanted to know exactly who Vindman talked to, after he first lodged a protest about the demands by Sondland (on July 10) and Trump (in the July 25 call) that the Ukrainians agree to investigate if they wanted a White House meeting and the military aid. Vindman admitted that he talked to two individuals, George Kent (who testified last week), and a member of a U.S. intelligence agency. Nunes demanded to know which agency and he really wanted a name. Vindman’s lawyer said he wouldn’t provide either. Schiff warned that no question which might lead to identification of the whistleblower would be allowed. Nunes told Vindman he could answer or “take the Fifth.” 

Vindman’s lawyer rejected the insinuation that his client might be hiding any wrongdoing on his part. His client was testifying under rules set down by Chairman Schiff. The identity of the whistleblower would not be revealed, nor any details that might lead to his or her identification. 

That pissed Nunes off. Goddam! Where was that whistleblower at? He characterized the whole day of testimony as “this impeachment inquisition” and decided to ignore some rather glaring facts.

 

For example: According to the whistleblower’s lawyer, his client had been the target of numerous death threats, should his or her identity be found out. The F.B.I. was already investigating, including one email in which the sender said the whistleblower “should be shot.” 

Had anyone else threatened, at least obliquely, the whistleblower’s life? Why, yes: President Trump. He compared the whistleblower to a spy. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right?” he asked reporters. “The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.” 

Yes, the penalty was death. 

Vindman, himself, had been the target of death threats. The U.S. Army had already decided that for his safety and the safety of his family that they would be relocated, and a security detail provided. 

You might think Nunes would care.

Ranking member Nunes trying to remember if he has ever seen a pig.