by John Bolton;
Germany’s Jan Hecker called me at seven thirty a.m. Monday morning, and the first issue he raised was the Kerch Strait incident. The Germans were cautious, and my impression was that Hecker believed that Poroshenko was not at all unhappy about what happened because of the potential political benefits he foresaw; he would campaign as the strong anti-Russia candidate, Hecker speculated, noting that the Rada was scheduled to vote in about two and a half hours on a bill proposed by Poroshenko declaring martial law for sixty days. The bill would activate one hundred thousand reservists for training, and also preclude any political activity while in force. Since another Ukrainian law required there be at least ninety days of campaigning immediately prior to a national election, Poroshenko’s bill would guarantee the March 31 elections would be pushed back, something surely to his benefit, given his low opinion-poll numbers.2 Germany opposed postponing the elections, said Hecker; so far, Ukraine and Russia had given competing accounts of the episode, but the facts remained unclear. Merkel was scheduled to speak with Poroshenko imminently, and indeed, as we were speaking, Hecker was called to Merkel’s office to listen in, saying he would phone again when it was over.3
In the meantime, Pompeo told me he had just spoken with Trump about the briefing he and Mattis were due to give Congress in a few days regarding legislation barring aid to Saudi Arabia related to the Yemen war. During that call, Trump raised the Kerch Strait issue, saying Poroshenko might have provoked something for political purposes. “Let the Europeans own this,” said Trump, “I don’t want to own it.” Pompeo did not raise with Trump State’s Sunday request for a White House statement, but he did tell him his staff was trying to water down Nikki Haley’s draft Security Council remarks, where she was up in arms against Moscow over the incident. (She was taking advantage of the very few camera appearances left as her time in New York dwindled down.) Pompeo told Trump he and I would make sure Haley followed his instructions. I suggested we treat Haley’s prospective statement as the vehicle to convey the definitive US view rather than having several, and he agreed. Pompeo said he would call Haley and tell her to “color within the lines,” which sounded right. I then called Trump and told him what Pompeo and I had decided regarding Haley’s statement, which he liked, and I also briefed him on Germany’s reaction and the Ukrainian martial-law legislation.
While I was waiting for Hecker to call back, I tried to reach Sedwill in London and Étienne in Paris to see how they assessed the situation. Étienne was not in Paris, but Sedwill called back fairly quickly, and we compared notes on what we knew. Sedwill had already heard that Canada, still Chairman of the G7 until the end of 2018, was preparing a draft statement, although neither of us had seen it yet. I told Sedwill what Trump had said over the last twenty-four hours so the Brits could factor it in.4
At 11:05, Pompeo called, bouncing off the walls. He said he had called Haley, told her what we had agreed, and that she had also agreed. Then, as he learned subsequently, she immediately called Trump to complain. She read Trump a completely different set of talking points, which Trump accepted. Pompeo wanted a conference call with her and me to get everyone on the same page, but before the call could be arranged, Trump called Pompeo to say Haley’s talking points were fine and that he didn’t want to be hammered in the press for being too soft. Pompeo and I were perfectly happy to have a stronger statement we could attribute to Trump, but we both knew that Haley was motivated by her desire not to get hammered in the press. Shortly thereafter, in the Oval for the regular intelligence briefing, Trump said to me, “You understand the [Haley] statement was a little tougher than I said, but that’s okay. You probably wanted it tougher anyway, right?” I said I was fine with the statement, adding that we had called on Russia to release the Ukrainian ships and crews, when Trump interjected, “Don’t call for the release of the crews. If they don’t do it, it looks like the Iran hostage thing. I don’t want that.” I said I would tell Haley, but by the time I got out of the Oval, she had already made her remarks. Many other countries said the same thing, so I didn’t think we would stand out in a way Trump wouldn’t like. In any case, the incident provoked Trump to recount yet again one of his favorite stories, involving his first phone call with Merkel, when she asked what he was going to do about Ukraine, and he had replied by asking her what she was going to do about Ukraine.
When Pompeo and I reviewed all this subsequently, it was plain that we were once again seeing how Haley operated when Tillerson was Secretary of State: as a free electron. That would change in a month with her departure, and Pompeo and I saw it exactly the same, that her successor, whoever it turned out to be, would not operate that way. “Light as a feather,” as Pompeo described her in a subsequent conversation.
Hecker called at one thirty to finish our conversation and reported that at a just-concluded meeting involving representatives of the Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany, Russia had said the Ukrainian ships failed to give the required notice for transiting a temporary exclusion zone (permissible under international law for purposes such as military exercises), which seemed ridiculous. In Merkel’s conversation with Poroshenko, he said he had modified the martial-law bill pending in the Rada, reducing the period affected from sixty to thirty days, thus permitting the March elections to proceed as scheduled. This was progress, although martial law would help Poroshenko politically, and it would bear watching to see if the thirty-day period was later extended (it was not). Merkel was speaking to Putin in about an hour to urge de-escalation on both sides, specifically asking that Putin engage directly with Poroshenko.5
On the morning of November 28, I flew from Andrews to Rio de Janeiro to see newly elected Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro before the Buenos Aires G20 meeting. I called Trump from the plane at about eight forty-five a.m., to ask if he had any further thoughts on the Putin bilateral scheduled at the G20, since Russia was still holding the Ukrainian ships and crews. Trump said he thought it would be terrible to meet with Putin in these circumstances, and that the press would only talk about the Ukraine issue. He said I should get a message to Putin explaining that he looked forward to meeting, but that Russia needed to release the sailors and ships first, so the meeting could focus on key issues and not Ukraine. I reached Patrushev in Moscow about two hours later to deliver Trump’s message, and he said he would convey it immediately to President Putin, who he thought would definitely consider it. Even though he knew I knew the Russian position, he then repeated it to me at some length.
I landed in Brazil, at about eleven p.m. Rio time. Trump called again to say he would do the bilateral if Putin would announce, when it ended, that he was releasing the ships and crews, thus in effect giving Trump credit for springing them. Considering the time differences, I did not call Moscow. Moreover, changing our position at this point would make Trump look desperate for the meeting, which he probably was. The next morning, I spoke with our Moscow Deputy Chief of Mission Anthony Godfrey (Huntsman being away), who said the Russians were charging the crews with trespassing, not a good sign, to say the least. Patrushev reached me as I was in the air to Buenos Aires, saying he had a message he wanted me to convey from Putin to Trump, namely, that because of the “illegal trespassing” of Russia’s border, a criminal case, including investigative actions, has been launched. The Russians claimed that, judging by documents they had seized from the ships and the information provided by the crews, it was a military provocation, an operation guided and controlled by the Ukraine security services. Therefore, said Patrushev, in accordance with Russian legal procedures, the formalities were now under way, so releasing the ships and crews was impossible.6 He said he was convinced we would do the same, analogizing Moscow’s actions to Trump’s policies along the Mexican border. There followed a lecture on our actions in recent weeks on that subject, and more.
There was little room to mistake Patrushev’s message, but I asked how long proceedings against the Ukrainian crews might take. He said he couldn’t give me an answer but would find out and let me
know. I said I would speak to Trump and see whether there would still be a bilateral meeting. Trump, it turned out, was running late (as usual), so I didn’t reach him on Air Force One until 11:20 a.m. Washington time. I described what Patrushev had relayed from Putin, which I took to be “a very hard no.” “What would you do?” Trump asked, and I said I would cancel the meeting. Trump immediately agreed, saying, “We can’t give anything away.” A tweet to that effect went out shortly thereafter, before I could get back to Patrushev, who declined my call to show how irritated they were.
In Buenos Aires, Putin’s diplomatic advisor Yuri Ushakov and I met several times to see if there was any way to have a Putin-Trump meeting, which we concluded was not possible, given the two sides’ respective public positions on the Kerch Strait incident. Instead, Trump spoke to Putin at the G20 leaders’ dinner, with no other Americans around other than the First Lady. They used Putin’s interpreter, and the US advance man trailing the President couldn’t overhear the conversation. The Russians didn’t put anything about the meeting in their press, and Trump related to me the next morning he had essentially told Putin he didn’t see how the two of them could meet at any length until the Kerch Strait incident was resolved and the ships and crews returned to Ukraine, which didn’t seem likely for some time. In a later Trump-Merkel bilateral, Trump implied that a Ukrainian President sympathetic to Russia could help avoid a third world war. The Russians would have loved that.
Ukraine remained basically quiet as we awaited their first round of presidential elections on March 31, but other matters began coming to the fore. Trump had complained about our Ambassador Yovanovitch, for some time, noting to me on March 21 during a telephone call covering a number of subjects that she was “bad-mouthing us like crazy” and that her only concern was LGBTQ matters. “She is saying bad shit about me and about you,” he added, saying he wanted her fired “today.” I said I would call Pompeo, who was in the Middle East; I tried several times to reach him but didn’t because of meeting schedules and time-zone differences. After Principals Committees later that afternoon, I pulled Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan aside to convey Trump’s direction, so he could inform Pompeo. Sullivan knew Trump wanted Yovanovitch fired, so he understood that this repetition of Trump’s instruction was serious.
A few days later, on March 25, Trump called me to the Oval, but I found him in his small dining room with Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow (another of his private attorneys), obviously enjoying discussing the reaction to Mueller’s report on his Russia investigation. At this meeting, I learned Giuliani was the source of the stories about Yovanovitch, who he said was being protected by a Deputy Assistant Secretary in State’s European bureau, George Kent (I don’t think Giuliani knew Kent’s job title accurately; Pompeo clarified it for me later). Trump again said Yovanovitch should be fired immediately. I reached Pompeo by phone in the late afternoon to relay this latest news, now with the update that it came from Giuliani. Pompeo said he had spoken with Giuliani before, and there were no facts supporting any of his allegations, although Pompeo didn’t doubt that, like 90 percent of the Foreign Service, Yovanovitch probably voted for Clinton. He said she was trying to reduce corruption in Ukraine and may well have been going after some of Giuliani’s clients. Pompeo said he would call Giuliani again and then speak to Trump. The next morning, I called Trump about several matters and asked if he and Pompeo had spoken on Yovanovitch. They had not, but he repeated he was “tired of her bad-mouthing us” and her saying he would be impeached and the like. “Really bad,” said Trump. I called Pompeo about nine forty-five a.m. to report this conversation. He again protested that Giuliani’s allegations simply weren’t true and said he would call Trump. I mentioned this to Trump later in the day, just so he knew he wasn’t being ignored.
Whether or not Giuliani’s importuning was related to Ukraine’s impending election, on Sunday, March 31, with the returns fully counted, Zelensky finished first, Poroshenko second, putting them in the April 21 runoff. Shortly thereafter, I discussed with France’s Étienne and Germany’s Hecker how we would all proceed. Although we had earlier agreed to keep hands off entirely, Hecker said Germany was inviting Poroshenko to Berlin, despite risking a backlash from Ukraine if Zelensky won the runoff. Étienne told me that, even before the runoff, France had invited both Poroshenko and Zelensky to Paris, which was at least more even-handed. None of us knew much about Zelensky’s fitness to be President, and there were concerns about how close he was to the oligarch Kolomoisky, which might raise corruption issues. Worrisome allegations were swirling around, and prudence indicated a hands-off approach. The German and French change of heart—their eagerness to engage—struck me as misguided. There was no disagreement Zelensky was headed into the runoff with a big lead in the polls, based largely on his opposition to Ukraine’s substantial corruption problem.
Zelensky’s support held, and on Easter Sunday, April 21, he defeated Poroshenko with 73 percent of the vote. We had a “call package” ready for Trump if he decided to congratulate Zelensky that day, which he did around four thirty p.m. our time. I briefed Trump in advance of the call that Zelensky might invite him to his inauguration (the date for which had not yet been officially set), and Trump said he would send Pence instead. The call was brief, less than five minutes, but very warm, with Trump opening, “I want to congratulate you on a job well done.” Zelensky replied, “Thank you so very much,” and said he appreciated the congratulations, adding, “We had you as a great example.” Trump said he had many friends who knew Zelensky and liked him, adding, “I have no doubt you will be a fantastic President.” Zelensky did invite Trump to his inaugural, and Trump responded he would “look at the date” and said, “We’ll get you a great representative for the United States on the great day.” Trump also invited Zelensky to the White House, saying, “We’re with you all the way.” Zelensky pushed for Trump to visit, saying Ukraine was a great country with nice people, good food, and so on. Trump said that, as former owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, he knew that Ukraine was always well represented. Zelensky signed off, saying in English, “I will do big practice in English” (so he could speak it when they met). Trump responded, “I’m very impressed. I couldn’t do that in your language.”
A couple of days later, April 23, I was called to the Oval to find Trump and Mulvaney on the phone, discussing Yovanovitch again with Giuliani, who was still pressing for her removal. He had spun Trump up with the “news” that she had spoken to President-Elect Zelensky to tell him Trump himself wanted certain investigations by Ukrainian prosecutors stopped. In Giuliani’s mind, Yovanovitch was protecting Hillary Clinton, whose campaign was purportedly the subject of Ukrainian criminal investigations, and there was some connection with Joe Biden’s son Hunter in there as well. Giuliani was delivering what was all third-or-fourth-degree hearsay; he offered no evidence on the call for his allegations. I said I had spoken with Pompeo on Yovanovitch and would check with him again. Trump couldn’t believe Pompeo hadn’t fired Yovanovitch yet, and that’s what he wanted, no ifs, ands, or buts. Trump said I should find out immediately from Pompeo what was happening, and I should call Zelensky to make it clear Yovanovitch did not speak for the Administration. Of course, since we didn’t really know what she had said, it was unclear what I should tell Zelensky to ignore.
I went back to my office and reached Pompeo about four p.m. He said he had already curtailed Yovanovitch from either late November or early December back to June 1, and some time before had so informed Trump, who didn’t object. Pompeo wanted to leave it at that. I told him the mood was pretty volcanic because she wasn’t gone entirely, which was met with a groan. He again mentioned his previous conversations with Giuliani, who couldn’t describe in any detail what had supposedly happened but who had raised it constantly with Trump over the past several months. But Pompeo said also that, in looking at the embassy, the State Department now had a pile of materials they were sending over to Justice that implicated Yovanovitch and her p
redecessor in some unnamed and undescribed activity that might well be criminal. Pompeo closed by saying that he would order her back to Washington that night. With Yovanovitch ordered home, there was no point in calling Zelensky (which I hadn’t wanted to do anyway), so I did not.
I briefed Eisenberg on this latest Yovanovitch development. A bit later, Mulvaney came to my office with Cipollone and Emmet Flood, a White House Counsel’s office attorney handling the Mueller investigation. I raised with them something I had asked about before, with either Cipollone or Eisenberg: whether Giuliani had ethical problems under the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility for using one attorney-client relationship to advance the interests of another client, a dynamic that I thought might be at work in his dealings on behalf of Trump. I said I thought it was an ethical violation to do so, but I was in the minority; the others did agree it was “slimy.” So much for legal ethics.
Earlier that day, I had gone over to Justice to have lunch with Bill Barr, whom I had known since the mid-1980s, before the Bush 41 Administration. Barr had become Attorney General (again) in mid-February, and we had been trying since then to find a convenient date to get together and talk about life in the Trump Administration. In particular, I wanted to raise my determination to have better coordination when national security interests and prosecutorial equities intersected and might conflict. We needed conscious decisions on US priorities in such events, rather than settling them at random. As someone deeply interested in security issues, Barr was completely amenable to better working relations among the affected departments and agencies.
Specifically, however, I also wanted to brief him on Trump’s penchant to, in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked, such as the criminal cases of Halkbank, ZTE, potentially Huawei, and who knew what else. Barr said he was very worried about the appearances Trump was creating, especially his remarks on Halkbank to Erdogan in Buenos Aires at the G20 meeting, what he said to Xi Jinping on ZTE, and other exchanges. I had had essentially this same conversation with Cipollone and Eisenberg for about an hour on January 22, shortly after Cipollone replaced McGahn on December 10, 2018. At that time, we discussed Halkbank, ZTE, a Turkish agent Israel had arrested (and Trump had gotten released during his July stay at Turnberry in calls with Netanyahu), the question whether to lift US sanctions against Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska (which was done in early April), Huawei, the implications for China trade negotiations, Trump’s personal legal travails, and other issues. I had no doubt of the President’s constitutional authority to prioritize among conflicting Executive Branch responsibilities, such as law enforcement and national security. Nonetheless, in the febrile Washington atmosphere caused by the Russia collusion allegations, it wasn’t hard to see politically how all this would be characterized. Whether there was anything even more troubling beneath the surface, none of us knew. Cipollone had not had any previous briefing on these issues, and he was plainly stunned at Trump’s approach to law enforcement, or lack thereof.