[I]f you’re asking me have we ever gone to the Ukrainians and asked them to investigate or prosecute individuals for political reasons, the answer is, I hope we haven’t, and we shouldn’t because that goes against everything that we are trying to promote in post-Soviet states for the last 28 years, which is the promotion of the rule of law.822
Mr. Kent testified that the day after his conversation with Ms. Croft, he spoke with Ambassador Taylor, who “amplified the same theme” and told Mr. Kent that “Yermak was very uncomfortable” with the idea of investigations and suggested that “it should be done officially and put in writing.” As a result, it became clear to Mr. Kent in mid-August that Ukraine was being pressured to conduct politically-motivated investigations. Mr. Kent told Ambassador Taylor “that’s wrong, and we shouldn’t be doing that as a matter of U.S. policy.”823
After speaking to Ms. Croft and Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Kent wrote a memo to file on August 16 documenting his “concerns that there was an effort to initiate politically motivated prosecutions that were injurious to the rule of law, both in Ukraine and U.S.”824 Mr. Kent testified:
At the time, I had no knowledge of the specifics of the [July 25] call record, but based on Bill Taylor’s account of the engagements with Andriy Yermak that were engagements of Yermak with Kurt Volker, at that point it was clear that the investigations that were being suggested were the ones that Rudy Giuliani had been tweeting about, meaning Biden, Burisma, and 2016.825
On August 17, Mr. Yermak reached out to both Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker.826 Ambassador Sondland texted Ambassador Volker that “Yermak just tapped on me about dates. Havent responded. Any updates?”827 Ambassador Volker responded that “I’ve got nothing” and stated that he was contacting the Department of Justice to find out about requesting an investigation.828
Ambassador Sondland then asked: “Do we still want Ze [Zelensky] to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma [sic]?” Ambassador Volker replied: “That’s the clear message so far…” Ambassador Sondland said that he would ask that Mr. Yermak “send us a clean draft,” to which Ambassador Volker replied that he had spoken to Mr. Yermak and suggested that he and Ambassador Sondland speak the following day, August 18, to discuss “all the latest.”829
Ambassador Volker claimed that he “stopped pursuing” the statement from the Ukrainians around this time because of concerns raised by Mr. Yermak that Yuriy Lutsenko was still the Prosecutor General. Mr. Lutsenko was likely to be replaced by President Zelensky, and because Mr. Lutsenko was alleging the same false claims that President Trump and Mr. Giuliani were demanding of President Zelensky, Ukrainian officials “did not want to mention Burisma or 2016.”830 Ambassador Volker testified that he “agreed” and advised Mr. Yermak that “making those specific refences was not a good idea” because making those statements might “look like it would play into our domestic politics.”831
Mr. Yermak agreed and, according to Ambassador Volker, plans to put out a statement were “shelved.”832 Ambassador Volker reasoned that the plan for a public statement did not materialize partly because of “the sense that Rudy was not going to be convinced that it meant anything, and, therefore, convey a positive message to the President if it didn’t say Burisma and 2016.”833 He added:
I agreed with the Ukrainians they shouldn’t do it, and in fact told them just drop it, wait till you have your own prosecutor general in place. Let’s work on substantive issues like this, security assistance and all. Let’s just do that. So we dropped it.834
Ambassador Volker testified that, “From that point on, I didn’t have any further conversations about this statement.”835 Nevertheless, efforts to secure a presidential statement announcing the two investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 U.S. election interference continued well into September.
On August 19, Ambassador Sondland told Ambassador Volker that he “drove the ‘larger issue’ home” with Mr. Yermak: that this was bigger than just a White House meeting and was about “the relationship per se.”836 Ambassador Volker told the Committees that he understood this referred to “the level of trust that the President has with President Zelensky. He has this general negative assumption about everything Ukraine, and that’s the larger issue.”837 That negative assumption would prove difficult to overcome as Ukrainian and U.S. officials sought to finally obtain a White House meeting and shake free from the White House hundreds of millions of dollars in Congressionally-approved security assistance for Ukraine.
7. The President’s Conditioning of Military Assistance and a White House Meeting on Announcement of Investigations Raised Alarm
Following the public disclosure in late August 2019 of a hold on U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, President Trump made clear that “everything”—an Oval Office meeting and the release of taxpayer-funded U.S. security assistance—was contingent on the Ukrainian president announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. President Trump wanted the Ukrainian leader “in a public box,” even as Ambassador Bill Taylor warned that it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
Overview
On August 28, 2019, Politico first reported that President Trump was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of Congressionally-appropriated U.S. security assistance from Ukraine, a fact that had been previously suspected by Ukrainian officials in July. Public revelations about the freeze raised questions about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine and harming efforts to deter Russian influence and aggression in Europe.
Around this time, American officials made clear to Ukrainians that a public announcement about investigations into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden was a pre-condition—not only to obtain a White House meeting for President Zelensky, but also to end the freeze on military and other security assistance for Ukraine.
In early September, Ambassador Gordon Sondland conveyed President Trump’s demands to both U.S. and Ukrainian officials. On September 1, he informed a senior Ukrainian official that the military aid would be released if the “prosecutor general would to go the mike [sic]” and announce the investigations. Later, on September 7, President Trump informed Ambassador Sondland that he wanted President Zelensky—not the Prosecutor General—in a “public box” and demanded that the Ukrainian president personally announce the investigations to “clear things up.” Only then would Ukraine end the “stalemate” with the White House related to security assistance. President Zelensky proceeded to schedule an interview on CNN in order to announce the investigations and satisfy President Trump.
The President’s efforts to withhold vital military and security assistance in exchange for political investigations troubled U.S. officials. NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia Timothy Morrison twice reported what he understood to be the President’s requirement of a quid pro quo to National Security Advisor John Bolton, who advised him to “make sure the lawyers are tracking.” Ambassador Bill Taylor expressed his concerns to Ambassador Sondland, stating plainly that it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador Sondland Worked to “Break the Logjam”
President Trump’s hold on security assistance persisted throughout August, without explanation to U.S. officials and contrary to the consensus recommendation of the President’s national security team. At the same time, President Trump refused to schedule a coveted White House visit for President Zelensky until he announced two investigations that could benefit President Trump’s reelection prospects. The confluence of those two circumstances led some American officials, including Ambassador Sondland and David Holmes, Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, to conclude that the military assistance was conditioned on Ukraine’s public announcement of the investi
gations.838
On August 20, Ambassador Kurt Volker met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper. Ms. Cooper and Ambassador Volker agreed that if the hold on security assistance was not lifted, “it would be very damaging to the relationship” between the U.S. and Ukraine.839 During this meeting, Ambassador Volker mentioned that he was talking to an advisor to President Zelensky about making a statement “that would somehow disavow any interference in U.S. elections and would commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference.”840 Ambassador Volker indicated that if his efforts to get a statement were successful, the hold on security assistance might be lifted.841
Although he did not mention that conversation during his deposition, Ambassador Volker had a similar recollection, during his public testimony, of the meeting with Ms. Cooper. Ambassador Volker recalled discussing with Ms. Cooper the draft statement that had been coordinated with Ukrainian presidential aide Andriy Yermak—which included reference to the two investigations that President Trump demanded in the July 25 call—and that such a statement “could be helpful in getting a reset of the thinking of the President, the negative view of Ukraine that he had” which might, in turn, “unblock[] whatever hold there was on security assistance.”842
Around this time, Ambassador Sondland sought to “break the logjam” on the security assistance and the White House meeting by coordinating a meeting between the two Presidents through Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. On August 22, Ambassador Sondland emailed Secretary Pompeo, copying the State Department’s Executive Secretary, Lisa Kenna:
Should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull-aside for POTUS to meet Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place (mid-Sept) Ze should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US. Hopefully, that will break the logjam.843
Secretary Pompeo replied, “Yes.”844
Ambassador Sondland testified that when he referenced “issues of importance to Potus,” he meant the investigation into the false allegations about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and the investigation into the Bidens.845 He told the Committee that his goal was to “do what was necessary to get the aid released, to break the logjam.”846 Ambassador Sondland believed that President Trump would not release the aid until Ukraine announced the two investigations the President wanted.847
Ambassador Sondland testified: “Secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those announcements.”848 He explained:
This was a proposed briefing that I was going to give President Zelensky, and I was going to call President Zelensky and ask him to say what is in this email. And I was asking essentially…[Secretary] Pompeo’s permission to do that, which he said yes.849
He then forwarded the email to Ms. Kenna, seeking confirmation of “10-15 min on the Warsaw sched[ule]” for the pull-aside meeting. The Ambassador stated that he was seeking confirmation in order to brief President Zelensky. Ms. Kenna replied, “I will try for sure.”850
On August 24, Ukraine celebrated its Independence Day. According to Mr. Holmes, Ukrainian Independence Day presented “another good opportunity to show support for Ukraine.”851 However, nobody senior to Ambassador Volker attended the festivities, even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis attended in 2017 and Ambassador Bolton attended in 2018.852
Two days later, on August 26, Ambassador Bolton’s office requested Mr. Giuliani’s contact information from Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland sent Ambassador Bolton the information directly.853 Ambassador Sondland testified that he had “no idea” why Ambassador Bolton requested the contact information.854
Ambassador Bolton Visited Kyiv
On August 27, Ambassador Bolton arrived in Kyiv for an official visit. Ambassador Bolton emphasized to Andriy Bohdan, President Zelensky’s chief of staff, that an upcoming meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, scheduled for September 1 in Warsaw, Poland, would be “crucial to cementing their relationship.”855 Mr. Holmes, who accompanied Ambassador Bolton in Kyiv, testified that he also heard “Ambassador Bolton express to Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison his frustration about Mr. Giuliani’s influence with the President, making clear there was nothing he could do about it.”856
Prior to Ambassador Bolton’s departure from Kyiv, Ambassador Taylor asked to meet with him privately. Ambassador Taylor expressed his “serious concern about the withholding of military assistance to Ukraine while the Ukrainians were defending their country from Russian aggression.”857 During the conversation, Ambassador Bolton “indicated that he was very sympathetic” to Ambassador’s Taylor’s concerns.858 He advised that Ambassador Taylor “send a first-person cable to Secretary Pompeo directly relaying my concerns” about the withholding of military assistance.859
Mr. Holmes testified that Ambassador Bolton advised during his trip that “the hold on security assistance would not be lifted prior to the upcoming meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw, where it would hang on whether Zelensky was able to favorably impress President Trump.”860
Ukrainian Concern Over Military Aid Intensified After First Public Report of Hold
On August 28, 2019, Politico first reported that President Trump had implemented a hold on nearly $400 million of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress.
Almost immediately after the news became public, Ukrainian officials expressed alarm to their American counterparts. Mr. Yermak sent Ambassador Volker a link to the Politico story and then texted: “Need to talk with you.”861 Other Ukrainian officials also expressed concerns to Ambassador Volker that the Ukrainian government was being “singled out and penalized for some reason.”862
On August 29, Mr. Yermak also contacted Ambassador Taylor to express that he was “very concerned” about the hold on military assistance.863 Mr. Yermak and other Ukrainian officials told Ambassador Taylor that they were “just desperate” and would be willing to travel to Washington to raise with U.S. officials the importance of the assistance. Ambassador Taylor described confusion among Ukrainian officials over the hold on military aid:
I mean, the obvious question was, “Why?” So Mr. Yermak and others were trying to figure out why this was…They thought that there must be some rational reason for this being held up, and they just didn’t—and maybe in Washington they didn’t understand how important this assistance was to their fight and to their armed forces. And so maybe they could figure—so they were just desperate.864
Without any official explanation for the hold, American officials could provide little reassurance to their Ukrainian counterparts. Ambassador Taylor continued, “And I couldn’t tell them. I didn’t know and I didn’t tell them, because we hadn’t—we hadn’t—there’d been no guidance that I could give them.”865
Ambassador Taylor’s First-Person Cable Described the “Folly” in Withholding Military Aid
The same day that Ambassador Taylor heard from Mr. Yermak about his concerns about the hold on military aid, Ambassador Taylor transmitted his classified, first-person cable to Washington. It was the first and only time in Ambassador Taylor’s career that he sent such a cable to the Secretary of State.866 The cable described “the folly I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian Government.”867
Ambassador Taylor worried about the public message that such a hold on vital military assistance would send in the midst of Ukraine’s hot war with Russia: “The Russians, as I said at my deposition, would love to see the humiliation of President Zelensky at the hands of the Americans. I told the Secretary that I could not and would not defend such a policy.”868
The cable also sought to explain c
learly “the importance of Ukraine and the security assistance to U.S. national security,” according to Mr. Holmes.869 However, Mr. Holmes worried that the national security argument might not achieve its purpose given the reasons he suspected for the hold on military aid. His “clear impression” at the time was that “the security assistance hold was likely intended by the President either as an expression of dissatisfaction with the Ukrainians, who had not yet agreed to the Burisma/Biden investigation, or as an effort to increase the pressure on them to do so.”870 Mr. Holmes viewed this as “the only logical conclusion.”871 He had “no other explanation for why there was disinterest in this [White House] meeting that the President had already offered” and there was a “hold of the security assistance with no explanation whatsoever.”872
Ambassador Taylor never received a response to his cable, but was told that Secretary Pompeo carried it with him to a White House meeting about security assistance to Ukraine.873
Ambassador Sondland Told Senator Johnson That Ukraine Aid Was Conditioned on Investigations
The next day, on August 30, Republican Senator Ron Johnson spoke with Ambassador Sondland to express his concern about President Trump’s decision to withhold military assistance to Ukraine. According to Senator Johnson, Ambassador Sondland told him that if Ukraine would commit to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016—if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending.”874
On August 31, Senator Johnson spoke by phone with President Trump regarding the decision to withhold aid to Ukraine.875 President Trump denied the quid pro quo that Senator Johnson had learned of from Ambassador Sondland.876 At the same time, however, President Trump refused to authorize Senator Johnson to tell Ukrainian officials that the aid would be forthcoming.877
The Impeachment Report Page 21