Tim Morrison, President Trump’s top Russia official on the National Security Council, is currently behind closed doors offering a key testimony in the House’s impeachment investigation. Morrison provides forceful corroboration for the theory that Trump withheld congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to attempt to initiate a quid pro quo to get dirt on the Bidens. Morrison worked in various Republican congressional offices for over a decade prior to joining the NSC under John Bolton. He is no partisan Deep Stater. And given leaked emails indicating that Morrison attempted to lift the hold on the Ukrainian aid as rapidly and quietly as possible, he also doesn’t look like someone out to get Trump.
Between the emails and previous testimonies given by other players in the Trump-Ukraine matter, here’s what to look for in his testimony:
What did Morrison mean when he told Ambassador William Taylor that the July 25 call “could have been better”?
Taylor testified that he first learned of the call from Morrison on July 28. If Morrison did indeed tell Taylor that the call “could have been better” and that Trump wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to meet to Rudy Giuliani or Attorney General William Barr, was he trying to communicate that this freelance diplomacy team was undermining national interests?
Why did Morrison tell Taylor that “it remains to be seen” if Trump was backing off of strong support for Ukraine on Aug. 22?
Taylor testified that during a phone call with Morrison, the Russia hawk equivocated when asked if Trump was changing from strongly supporting Ukraine. Then Morrison allegedly said that Trump “doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.” The simplest read of the exchange indicates that Morrison didn’t want Taylor raising any alarm while he still sought to restore Trump’s support to Ukraine, but he wanted to keep Taylor in the loop while doing so. If that’s the case, it’ll be hard to argue that Morrison was some secret Never Trumper looking to undermine the president.
Can Morrison shed light on the places where Taylor’s testimony diverges from that of Ambassador Gordon Sondland?
Sondland testified prior to Taylor that he had no idea that the aid to Ukraine was hinged on Zelensky’s commitment to investigate the Bidens and Burisma.
“To the best of my recollection,” Sondland claimed, “I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding U.S. security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance with the president’s 2020 reelection campaign.”
Sondland testified that after Taylor voiced concerns, he asked Trump for clarification that the president said that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine.
Taylor contradicted this, claiming that Sondland said “everything” — not just the Zelensky meeting with Trump but the aid as well — was contingent on Zelesnky’s commitment. Given Morrison’s alleged conversations with Sondland, surely he can corroborate either claim.
Did Morrison believe that Trump wasn’t initiating a quid pro quo?
Taylor testified that during a Sept. 7 conversation, Morrison said he had a “sinking feeling” after a conversation during which Sondland claimed Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference” but denied it was a quid pro quo. Did Morrison believe that?
Who decided that there would be no announcement when the aid was finally released?
In an email, Brad Freden, the State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary overseeing issues in Europe and Eurasia, claimed that Morrison told fellow State Department colleagues that Morrison said there would be no “public” announcement that the hold on the Ukraine aid would be lifted. Did that call come from Trump, Bolton, or Morrison himself?
Why is Morrison leaving the NSC?
Morrison may be leaving by choice, but seeing as the White House didn’t want him to testify, it’s possible that he was asked to leave.
