Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Key Takeaways From Marie Yovanovitch’s Hearing in the Impeachment Inquiry

Even as Ms. Yovanovitch was testifying about “the smear campaign against me,” President Trump hurled insults at her on Twitter.

Video
bars
0:00/5:25
-0:00

transcript

Trump Impeachment Hearings: Day 2 Highlights

Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine, appeared before the House Intelligence Committee for the second public hearing of the impeachment inquiry.

“It is in America’s national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check. Ukrainians who prefer to play by the old corrupt rules sought to remove me. What continues to amaze me is that they found Americans willing to partner with them, and working together, they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of a U.S. ambassador.” “And at one point in your deposition you said that they — that being Giuliani and the corrupt foreign prosecutor general — had plans to, quote, ‘do things to me.’ What did you mean by that?” “I didn’t really know. But that’s what I had been told by Ukrainian officials.” “Did you subsequently understand a little bit more what that meant?” “Well, you know now with the advantage of hindsight, I think that meant removing me from my job in Ukraine.” “You had left Ukraine by the time of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Prior to reading that call record, were you aware that President Trump had specifically made reference to you in that call?” “No.” “What was your reaction to learning that?” “I was shocked, absolutely shocked, and devastated frankly. President Trump said that I was ‘bad news’ to another world leader, and that I would be going through some things. So I was — it was a terrible moment. ‘She’s going to go through some things.’ It didn’t sound good, it sounded like a threat.” “Did you feel threatened?” “I did.” “As we sit here testifying, the president is attacking you on Twitter, and I’d like to give you a chance to respond. I’ll read part of one of his tweets. ‘Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?’” “Well, I mean — I don’t think I have such powers, not in Mogadishu, Somalia, not in other places.” “The president implicitly threatened you in that call record and now the president in real time is attacking you: What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?” “Well, it’s very intimidating.” “You don’t have a lot of facts and information relating to the part of this that we’re investigating. And those are the events from May 20 up until Sept. 11, the release of the security assistance funds — is that correct?” “Yes that’s correct.” “A lot’s been said about what was going on around the phone call. I’d like to focus more on what’s happened since then to you and your career and, and what’s going on. So when you got the word — anytime an ambassador changes post there’s a process you go through to pick what you do next.” “I recall that there was the fellowship at Georgetown, and asked whether that might be something that could be arranged.” “Georgetown is fertile ground for State Department recruitment of future fledgling foreign service officers, and so they now benefit from your experience and your inspiration, to inspire them to perhaps spend their professional life in service to our nation.” “It’s like a Hallmark movie — you ended up at Georgetown. This is all O.K. [laughter] But it wasn’t your preference seven, eight months ago, correct?” “No it was not.” “Wasn’t your preference to be the victim of a smear campaign, was it?” “No.” “Wasn’t your preference to be defamed by the president of the United States, including today, was it?” “No.” “President Obama had the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decisions as president of the United States, correct?” “Yeah — I mean there’s an interagency process. And obviously Congress has a role as well —” “But he has the right as president — I respect the interagency process, I’m getting to that actually. But he has the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decisions as president of the United States as do all presidents, correct?” “Yes. But what I’d like to say is while I obviously don’t dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason — but what I do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation — falsely? “Well I wasn’t asking about that, but thank you very much ma’am.” “I would just say to the American people, today’s show trial has come to an end. We’re headed down now to the basement of the Capitol to go until, I don’t know what time. But we’ll be back there hiding again behind the closed doors, interviewing more witnesses that you may or may not be able to see in the public. I hate to break it to my colleagues, if there’s anyone else out there watching television ratings, but they must be plummeting right now.”

Video player loading
Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine, appeared before the House Intelligence Committee for the second public hearing of the impeachment inquiry.CreditCredit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Marie L. Yovanovitch recounted in powerful and personal terms on Friday the devastation and fear she felt as she was targeted first by President Trump’s allies and later by the president himself, saying she felt threatened.

Removed from her post as ambassador to Ukraine, Ms. Yovanovitch said she was bereft when she came under fire from the president’s personal attorney and eldest son last spring, but was even more stunned in September when she learned that Mr. Trump himself had disparaged her in his now-famous July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president.

“It was a terrible moment,” she told the House Intelligence Committee on the second day of public impeachment hearings. “A person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face. I think I even had a physical reaction. I think, you know, even now, words kind of fail me.”

In the July call, according to a rough transcript released by the White House, Mr. Trump called Ms. Yovanovitch “bad news” and said that “she’s going to go through some things.”

Asked her reaction when she read that, Ms. Yovanovitch said: “Shocked. Appalled. Devastated that the president of the United States would talk about any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state — and it was me. I mean, I couldn’t believe it." Asked what the words “going to go through some things” sounded like to her, she said, “It sounded like a threat.”

The Latest Poster

Listen to ‘The Latest’: ‘It’s Very Intimidating’

As Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, testified on the second day of public impeachment hearings, something unexpected happened in the room.
bars
0:00/9:03
-9:03

transcript

Listen to ‘The Latest’: ‘It’s Very Intimidating’

Hosted by Nicholas Fandos, produced by Austin Mitchell, with help from Theo Balcomb, and edited by Lisa Tobin

As Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, testified on the second day of public impeachment hearings, something unexpected happened in the room.

archived recording

It started with a whistleblower’s complaint about President Trump’s contact with a foreign leader. Tonight, allegations of a White House cover-up, as details of a whistleblower’s complaint are revealed.

archived recording (donald trump)

I had a perfect phone call with the president of Ukraine. Like, I mean, perfect.

archived recording (anthony mason)

In that call, the president asked for an investigation of Democratic presidential hopeful, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

archived recording (nancy pelosi)

Today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.

archived recording (don lemon)

Now the burden is on the Democrats really, to tell Americans the story of what happened and why it’s impeachable. [GAVEL]

archived recording (adam schiff)

Good morning, everyone. This is the second in a series of public hearings the committee will be holding this part of the House’s impeachment inquiry.

nicholas fandos

Hey, it’s Nick Fandos. I’m a congressional reporter here in the Washington bureau. Here’s the latest.

archived recording (adam schiff)

United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich was in Kiev.

nicholas fandos

We’re on our second day of hearings and we’re hearing from Marie Yovanovich, who is the former ambassador to Ukraine. And we’re seeing basically why these public hearings matter. They’re not going exactly as the closed door depositions did before them, and some interesting things are kind of shaking out.

archived recording (adam schiff)

In her time in Kiev, Ambassador Yovanovich was tough on corruption. Too tough on corruption for some.

nicholas fandos

So remember that Rudy Giuliani led this smear campaign both in the media and with the president to get Yovanovich removed from her post, which she’d served in under multiple administrations. And in May of this year, she was removed, even as her boss at the State Department told her she’d done nothing wrong. And it’s only two months later that the president has his July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president Vladimir Zelensky, where he pressures him to investigate the Bidens.

archived recording (adam schiff)

Now you testified.

nicholas fandos

And so there’s this moment in the hearing today.

archived recording (dan goldman)

You had left Ukraine by the time of the July 25 call.

nicholas fandos

When the lead lawyer for the Democrats, Dan Goldman, asked her about that call.

archived recording (dan goldman)

When was the first time that you saw the call record for this phone call?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

When it was released publicly, at the end of September, I believe.

nicholas fandos

In the call, the president brings up you Yovanovich twice. The first time.

archived recording (dan goldman)

President Trump says that the former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news. So I just want to let you know.

nicholas fandos

That woman was bad news.

archived recording (dan goldman)

And prior to reading that call record, were you aware that President Trump had specifically made reference to you in that call?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

No.

archived recording (dan goldman)

What was your reaction to learning that?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

I was shocked, absolutely shocked, and devastated, frankly.

archived recording (dan goldman)

What do you mean by devastated?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

I was shocked and devastated that I would feature in a phone call between two heads of state in such a manner, where President Trump said that I was bad news to another world leader. So I was, it was a terrible moment. A person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face. I think I even had a physical reaction. I think, you know, even now, words kind of fail me.

archived recording (dan goldman)

The next excerpt when the president references you was a short one, but he said, well, she’s going to go through some things. What did you think when President Trump told President Zelensky and you read that you were going to go through some things?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

I didn’t know what to think, but I was very concerned.

archived recording (dan goldman)

What were you concerned about?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

She’s going to go through some things, it didn’t sound good. Sounded like a threat.

archived recording (dan goldman)

Did you feel threatened?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

I did.

nicholas fandos

This is the moment that Democrats had been hoping for with Yovanovich’s testimony. This moment where a woman has established in her opening statement that she’s the child of refugees, who fled the Soviet Union, whose mother grew up stateless in Nazi Germany, who had spent 33 years working for the United States government, where she’s feeling threatened by the president of the United States, acting in his own personal interests and not the interest of the American people. But then.

archived recording (adam schiff)

Just a moment if I could on that question. It seems like an appropriate time

nicholas fandos

Goldman is continuing his questioning and all of a sudden Adam Schiff the committee’s chairman interrupts him and starts making his own point.

archived recording (adam schiff)

Ambassador Yovanovich, as we sit here testifying, the president is attacking you on Twitter.

nicholas fandos

It turns out that while Yovanovich has been testifying about the president, the president has been tweeting about her.

archived recording (adam schiff)

And I’d like to give you a chance to respond. I’ll read part of one of his tweets. Everywhere Marie Yovanovich went turned bad. She started off in Somalia. How did that go?

nicholas fandos

And as we’re watching this, you can actually see Yovanovich processing it in a real time. She looks surprised. She looks uncomfortable. She’s just been testifying as to how the president made her feel threatened back in September when she first heard about his call with President Zelensky. And here, it’s happening again as she’s testifying on Capitol Hill about that exact thing.

archived recording (adam schiff)

What would you like to respond to the president’s attack that everywhere you went turned bad?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

Well, I, I mean, I don’t think I have such powers, not in Mogadishu, Somalia, not in other places. I actually think that where I’ve served over the years, I and others have demonstrably made things better.

archived recording (adam schiff)

Ambassador, you’ve shown the courage to come forward today and testify. And now the president in real time is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

Well, it’s very intimidating.

archived recording (adam schiff)

It’s designed to intimidate, is it not?

archived recording (marie yovanovich)

I mean, I can’t speak to what the president is trying to do. But I think the effect is to be intimidating.

archived recording (adam schiff)

Well, I want to let you know. Ambassador, that some of us here, take witness intimidation very, very seriously.

nicholas fandos

So what you’re seeing here is some pretty deft maneuvering on the part of the Democrats. Clearly, some aide or somebody sitting behind Schiff saw what was happening on Twitter and started whispering in his ear. All of a sudden, he’s able to then bring the president’s behavior into the hearing room in real time to strengthen the very case that Democrats are making, to illustrate the same points that they’re talking about.

[music]

And very quickly after this happens, the committee goes on break, and you already have Democrats talking about what Trump had done on Twitter may have just earned him an additional article of impeachment, or at least cause for impeachment. That in addition to the case for bribery or abuse of power that they’re currently making, this may constitute witness intimidation, potentially another impeachable offense.

So that’s the latest.

At the very moment she was testifying about how Mr. Trump had denigrated her, the president was assailing Ms. Yovanovitch, insulting her diplomatic career and reasserting his right to remove her, prompting Democrats to suggest he was trying to intimidate a witness.

“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” he wrote on Twitter. “She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

Mr. Trump’s tweet omitted the context in which he discussed Ms. Yovanovitch with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during their July 25 phone conversation, which actually came two months after she had been recalled from Ukraine. It was Mr. Trump who first criticized Ms. Yovanovitch, calling her “bad news.” Mr. Zelensky responded that he completely agreed with Mr. Trump and pointed out “you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador.”

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, interrupted the hearing to read Ms. Yovanovitch the tweet and ask her what she thought of it.

Image
Daniel Goldman, left, the lawyer for the Democrats, and Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Ms. Yovanovitch, a tight smile on her face, appeared momentarily uncertain how to respond. “It’s very intimidating,” she said. She then paused, searching for words. “I can’t speak to what the president is trying to do, but the effect is to be intimidating.”

Mr. Schiff responded in a stern tone that, “Some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”

Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Intelligence panel, said it was an instance of “clear witness tampering” that could form the basis of an article of impeachment against Mr. Trump.

While Ms. Yovanovitch was removed from her post in Ukraine, she remains a State Department employee working in the government headed by Mr. Trump.

At an unrelated event later in the day, Mr. Trump denied trying to intimidate Ms. Yovanovitch. “I want freedom of speech,” he told reporters, and lashed out at Democrats for conducting what he called an unfair impeachment process.

Mr. Trump said he watched “a little bit” of the hearing and said “it’s really sad when you see people not allowed to ask questions,” referring to some squabbling between Mr. Schiff and Republican members about when they would get to ask their questions. “Nobody has such horrible due process,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s considered a joke all over Washington and all over the world.”

In the end, each of the Republicans was granted the same amount of time to ask questions as each Democrat.

Video
bars
0:00/7:02
-0:00

transcript

How Does the Impeachment Process Work?

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.

“Impeachment by its nature, it’s a political process.” “What people think is going to happen can turn out to be very different from what happens.” “Because it has to do with elected officials holding another elected official to account for their conduct.” When the framers of the Constitution created a process to remove a president from office, they were well … kind of vague. So to understand how it’s going to play out, the past is really our best guide. “I think we’re just all in for a really crazy ride.” Collectively, these New York Times reporters have covered U.S. politics for over 150 years. “I’m also a drummer in a band, so …” They’ve reported on past impeachment inquiries. “Yea, I’m lost in Senate wonderland.” And they say that the three we’ve had so far have been full of twists and turns. “The president of the United States is not guilty as charged.” In short, expect the unexpected. First, the process. Impeachment is technically only the initial stage. “Common misconceptions about impeachment are that impeachment by itself means removal from office. It doesn’t. The impeachment part of the process is only the indictment that sets up a trial.” The Constitution describes offenses that are grounds for removing the president from office as bribery, treason and — “They say high crimes and misdemeanors, which, really, is in the eye of the beholder.” “The framers didn’t give us a guidebook to it. They simply said, that the House had the responsibility for impeachment and the Senate had the responsibility for the trial.” One of the things missing from the Constitution? How an impeachment inquiry should start. And that has generally been a source of drama. Basically, anything goes. “In fact, in the Andrew Johnson case they voted to impeach him without even having drafted the articles of impeachment.” For Richard Nixon, his case started with several investigations that led to public hearings. That part of the process went on for two years, and yielded revelation after revelation, connecting Nixon to a politically-motivated burglary at D.N.C. headquarters — “… located in the Watergate office building.” — and its subsequent cover-up. “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?” “I was aware of listening devices. Yes, sir.” “This was a shocker. Everybody in the White House recognized how damaging this could be.” As the House drafted articles of impeachment, Nixon lost the support of his party. “O.K., I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.” “I was asked to write the farewell piece that ran the morning after Nixon resigned. And this is what I wrote: The central question is how a man who won so much could have lost so much.” So for Nixon, it more or less ended after the investigations. But for Bill Clinton, that phase was just the beginning. “This is the information.” An independent counsel’s investigation into his business dealings unexpectedly turned into a very public inquiry about his personal life. “The idea that a president of the United States was having an affair with a White House intern and then a federal prosecutor was looking at that, it was just extraordinary.” That investigation led to public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. “When the Starr Report was being delivered to Congress it was a little bit like the O.J. chase, only a political one. There were two black cars. They were being filmed live on CNN. They were heading towards the Capitol. We were watching it and a little bit agog.” Public opinion is key. And the media plays a huge part in the process. This was definitely true for Clinton. “You know it was just a crazy time. We worked in the Senate press gallery.” “All your colleagues are kind of piled on top of each other.” “We had crummy computers, the fax machine would always break. The printer would always break.” After committee hearings, the House brought formal impeachment charges. “It was very tense. I thought that the Saturday of the impeachment vote in the House was one of the most tense days I’d experienced in Washington.” And it turned out, also, full of surprises. “The day of impeachment arrived, everyone’s making very impassioned speeches about whether Bill Clinton should or should not be impeached and Livingston rises to give an argument for the House Republicans. He started to talk about how Clinton could resign.” “You, sir, may resign your post.” “And all of a sudden people start booing and saying, ‘Resign, resign’!” “So I must set the example.” “He announced he was resigning because he had had extramarital affairs and challenged President Clinton to do the only honorable thing, in his view —” “I hope President Clinton will follow.” “— to resign as well, so there was all this drama unfolding even in the midst of impeachment.” Then it went to the Senate for trial. The Constitution gets a little more specific about this part. “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to preside over that trial.” “Rehnquist, he showed up in this robe he had made for himself, which had gold stripes on the sleeves because he liked Gilbert and Sullivan.” “The Senate is the actual jury.” “You will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help you, God.” “This is a copy of the rules of the Senate for handling impeachment. They’re actually very specific.” “Meet six days a week.” “Convene at noon. The senators have to sit at their desks and remain quiet in their role as jurors. And not talk, which trust me, is going to be a problem for some of the senators who are used to talking all the time.” It’s just like a courtroom trial. There are prosecutors who present the case against the president. “That was perjury.” Only, they’re members of the House, and they’re called managers. Then the senators, or the jurors, vote. And things are still, unpredictable. “The options are guilty or not guilty. But there was one senator —” “Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania.” “Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proved.” “— which is not a thing.” “And everybody just looks, you know, how do you even record that vote?” In the end, there were not enough votes to oust Clinton. “What’s amazing about this whole thing to me wasn’t so much the constitutional process. It was that it felt to me like the beginning of really intense partisanship, the weaponization of partisanship.” And here’s the thing: An impeachment charge has never gotten the two-thirds majority it needs in the Senate to actually oust a president from office. “So you could end up having a situation where the president is impeached, acquitted and runs for re-election and wins re-election.” And that would be a first. “This is my ticket to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. I don’t think you’ll find these on StubHub.”

Video player loading
Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.CreditCredit...Photo illustration by Aaron Byrd

As they opened their own questioning, Republicans on the committee and the party’s lead lawyer took a strikingly different approach to Ms. Yovanovitch than Mr. Trump, avoiding any personal attacks and instead stressing that she was removed before the main events under scrutiny took place.

Representative Devin Nunes of California, the lead Republican on the panel, and Steve Castor, the committee’s Republican counsel, made no effort to undercut the former ambassador’s credibility but instead emphasized that her experience, whether justified or not, had no real bearing on whether the president had committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mr. Nunes characterized her removal as an “employment disagreement” and said she was “not a material fact witness to any of the allegations that are being hurled at the president.”

He led her through a series of quick questions meant to demonstrate that she had left Ukraine before the suspension of American aid and before the July 25 phone call when Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats. “I’m not exactly sure what the ambassador is doing here today,” Mr. Nunes said.

Several of the Republicans led Ms. Yovanovitch through a series of questions that produced largely dry, fireworks-free exchanges intended to help the president, making the points that her removal did not change American policy, that her career was not permanently damaged and that the president had well-founded reasons to be concerned about corruption in Ukraine.

But while the president suggested in his tweet on Friday that Ms. Yovanovitch was a bad diplomat, the House Republicans largely offered the opposite assessment. “We are lucky to have you in Foreign Service,” said Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York.

Image
Roger J. Stone Jr. leaving federal court in Washington on Friday.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

While lawmakers pondered impeaching Mr. Trump, a jury in a courthouse only a few hundred yards away found the president’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. guilty of lying to the very same House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Stone was convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election in what prosecutors said was an effort to protect Mr. Trump. He was found guilty of lying to the House committee, trying to block the testimony of another potential witness, and concealing reams of evidence from investigators.

Prosecutors claimed he tried to thwart the committee’s work because the truth would have “looked terrible” for both the president and his campaign. In all, he faced seven felony charges and was found guilty on all counts.

Mr. Trump, having a bad day, vented frustration that his friend was convicted while his enemies have not been. Among those enemies he named: Mr. Schiff, the chairman of the House committee.

If generally reluctant to assail Ms. Yovanovitch, Republicans had no such hesitance about going after Hunter Biden, the son of the former vice president, in hopes of turning attention to what they portrayed as Democratic conflicts in Ukraine.

Republican lawmakers got Ms. Yovanovitch to say that when she was first nominated for her ambassador post by President Barack Obama, she was prepared for questions about Hunter Biden that might come up during her confirmation hearings. The younger Mr. Biden was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, at the same time his father was managing policy toward Ukraine.

Ms. Yovanovitch testified that if questions came up about the situation, she was instructed to refer questions to the vice president’s office. Asked by Republicans why it would be a problem, she said, “It creates a concern that there would be an appearance of conflict of interest.”

Image
Documents were prepared ahead of the hearing.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Ms. Yovanovitch suggested that “the smear campaign against me” by Mr. Trump allies was orchestrated in tandem with corrupt Ukrainians leading to her removal from her post based on untrue allegations.

Ms. Yovanovitch flatly denied the “baseless allegations” raised against her by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, and others working with him. She called them part of a “campaign of disinformation” that was orchestrated with Ukrainians because she was a powerful advocate of fighting corruption.

“Mr. Giuliani should have known those claims were suspect, coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial ambitions would be stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine,” she told the House Intelligence Committee as it opened its second day of public impeachment hearings.

She added: “If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States.”

Ms. Yovanovitch went on to say that the State Department’s failure to defend her and others subjected to partisan attacks had a profoundly negative impact on the institution as a whole.

“This is about far, far more than me or a couple of individuals,” she said. “As Foreign Service professionals are being denigrated and undermined, the institution is also being degraded. This will soon cause real harm, if it hasn’t already.”

Image
The White House released a rough transcript of President Trump’s first call with Volodymr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, on Friday.Credit...T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

As the hearing was about to be gaveled to a start on Friday morning, the White House released a rough transcript of another phone call that Mr. Trump had with Ukraine’s president in an effort to demonstrate that there was nothing untoward in that conversation.

Mr. Nunes read the record of the conversation out loud as part of his opening statement in sort of a dramatic re-enactment of the conversation.

The record documented an April 21 call that Mr. Trump made from Air Force One to Mr. Zelensky congratulating him on his election. That call came three months before the July 25 call in which the president asked Mr. Zelensky to do him “a favor” and investigate Democrats including Mr. Biden.

The record of the original call reflected just a few minutes of pleasantries. “When you’re settled in and ready, I’d like to invite you to the White House,” Mr. Trump said. “We’ll have a lot of things to talk about, but we’re with you all the way.”

“Well, thank you for the invitation,” Mr. Zelensky replied. “We accept the invitation and look forward to the visit.”

According to the record, Mr. Trump made no mention of the desired investigations that he would raise later, but the promise of a White House meeting became a point of contention in the months to come. Text messages and testimony have indicated that the White House held up scheduling the promised meeting until Ukraine agreed to investigate Democrats.

The new White House record conflicted with the readout of the call that the White House put out to the media at the time. The official readout in April said that Mr. Trump “underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” and expressed support for efforts “to root out corruption.” According to the record released on Friday, Mr. Trump made no mention of either of those points.

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of five books, most recently “Impeachment: An American History.” More about Peter Baker

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT