Ukrainian officials were told to open investigations into Joe Biden if they wanted United States security aid two weeks before the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a pair of key impeachment witnesses.
“There was no ambiguity … that the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens,” Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who works at the White House National Security Council, told lawmakers in an Oct. 29 deposition.
That message was delivered to Ukrainian officials by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, during a July 10 meeting in which the Ukrainians were trying to schedule a meeting between Trump and Zelensky. Vindman portrayed Sondland as emphasizing that the investigation needed to target “the Bidens,” testimony that contradicts the EU ambassador’s testimony that he “didn’t understand” that his push for an investigation into a specific Ukrainian company would affect Biden’s interests.
“The conversation unfolded with Sondland proceeding to kind of, you know, review what the deliverable would be in order to get the meeting,” Vindman said, according to a transcript of his testimony released Friday. “He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma.”
Burisma is the name of a Ukrainian energy company that hired Hunter Biden in 2014. Then-Vice President Joe Biden, along with other U.S. officials, called for a top Ukrainian prosecutor to be fired on the grounds that he was failing to pursue corruption charges against the owner of Burisma. But that disreputable prosecutor has claimed that he was fired unjustly, saying that he was in fact investigating the company and that Biden targeted him as a favor to his son. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, has cited those allegations to argue that Biden engaged in corruption, but other U.S. officials say they have no merit.
Vindman’s account dovetails with testimony from Fiona Hill, who left the National Security Council in July. The two officials agreed that then-national security adviser John Bolton ended a meeting when Sondland told their Ukrainian guests that Zelensky would have to open that investigation to persuade Trump to schedule a much-desired White House meeting. Sondland led the Ukrainian officials out of Bolton’s office and into the Ward Room of the White House, where he continued the conversation in Vindman’s presence. Hill, on Bolton’s instructions, entered the room and interrupted the second meeting when she heard Sondland refer again to the investigations.
“And I said: Look, I don’t know what’s going on here, but Ambassador Bolton wants to make it very clear that we have to talk about, you know, how are we going to set up this meeting. It has to go through proper procedures,” Hill told House investigators in her Oct. 14 deposition.
The pair of meetings took place at the White House on July 10, two weeks before the phone call in which Trump urged Zelensky to launch politically charged investigations, leading to a whistleblower complaint that sparked the impeachment proceedings. But Vindman and Hill’s accounts present another contradiction with Sondland’s original testimony. Sondland agreed with the two NSC officials that they huddled first in Bolton’s office and then the Ward Room but expressed surprise that they would claim there was any kind of disagreement.
“I don’t remember anything of the kind,” Sondland testified. “I thought it was a great meeting, and we all went away happy.”
He also said: “To put it clearly, neither she nor Ambassador Bolton shared any critical comments with me, even after our July 10, 2019, meeting.”
Sondland told House investigators that Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who was present on July 10, had endorsed his version of events. House investigators seized on his revelation that he had consulted with Perry before testifying. “I didn’t think it was inappropriate,” Sondland testified.
“Do you understand that that may have the appearance of trying to line up your testimony with Secretary Perry?” an investigator asked.
Sondland replied, “I wanted to refresh my memory.”
Sondland testified that he believes it “would be wrong” to urge a foreign leader to open an investigation in order to “influenc[e] an upcoming U.S. presidential election,” adding that it would also be wrong to use foreign aid as leverage in that effort. “I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings,” he said on Oct. 17.
He revised that testimony this week, after the testimony of other impeachment witnesses raised the specter of possible perjury charges, to affirm that he informed Ukrainian officials in early September that a hold on U.S. aid would not be lifted until they announced the Burisma-Biden investigation, along with a separate investigation pertaining to whether Ukrainian officials interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.
Hill’s account of Sondland’s behavior could draw Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, deeper into the controversy. She testified that Sondland told the Ukrainian officials that “we have an agreement with the chief of staff [Mulvaney] for a meeting if these investigations in the energy sector start.”
