House Democrats on Thursday night released a series of text exchanges among senior U.S. diplomats — and a top aide to Ukraine’s president — that, at first glance, gets closer to establishing that there was in fact a quid pro quo involved in trying to get the U.S. ally to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.
But they also complicate an early media narrative that ahead of the call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump withheld aid in an effort to pressure him to investigate the Bidens. In fact, the texts suggest that in the run-up to the July 25 call and in the weeks following it, the Trump administration was dangling a White House visit in front of Zelensky in exchange for a public guarantee that there would be investigations.
It wasn’t until a month after the call, on Aug. 29, that texts started to emerge involving the aid delay, and those were triggered by a news report. This doesn’t rule out the possibility that there was a quid pro quo involving aid at some point, but at a minimum, it cuts strongly against the idea that this was an issue at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, when the White House visit was clearly a bigger source of conversation. Also, by late August, the Ukraine story was on the cusp of blowing up, and so communications after that point need to be viewed through the lens of officials trying to protect their own reputations.
It should be noted, before going further into the details, that what we have is based on a joint release from Democratic committee chairs — Reps. Adam Schiff, Eliot Engel, and Elijah Cummings. They obviously have every interest in releasing texts in a way that will be the most damaging to Trump. Kurt Volker, who recently resigned as special representative for Ukraine relations, insisted in testimony to Congress that he was personally unaware of any push for further investigation into the Bidens. It’s difficult to believe that to be the case based on what we now know, but it’s also possible that a release of his full testimony before the committee would make things appear less bad than they look when the Democratic-picked texts are viewed in isolation.
But reviewing the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky conversation in conjunction with the text messages helps illuminate the context of the call, and undermines Trump’s idea that there was no pressure being put on Ukraine to launch investigations of personal political interest to him.
The texts establish that Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was intimately involved in negotiations with Ukraine. In a July 19 text, a week before the call, Volker connects Giuliani with Andrey Yermak, an aide to Zelensky. This discussion is referenced by Zelensky in the transcript of the call, after Trump asks him for the “favor” of looking into issues related to Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections.
On the same day as the Giuliani text exchange, Gordon Sondland, a major Trump donor who was appointed to be U.S. Ambassador to the EU, tells Volker that he briefed Zelensky ahead of the call with Trump. During the exchange, Volker texts, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning — teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say he will help investigation — and address any specific personnel issues — if there are any.”
On the morning of the call, Volker communicated to Yermak that Zelensky could grease the skids toward a White House visit by assuring Trump that there would be an investigation. “Heard from White House — assuming Zelensky convinces trump he will investigate/ ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down a date for a visit to Washington. Good luck!”
The White House visit was clearly important to Zelensky, presumably, to communicate to Russia that U.S.-Ukraine relations were solid. Reviewing the call now, it’s clear that Zelensky got the message that the investigation and White House visit were connected. “I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington D.C.,” Zelensky says. “On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation.”
It should be noted that given there is an ongoing Department of Justice investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, it’s much easier for Trump to defend any reference to that specific investigation as merely making sure that the DOJ gets all the cooperation it needs from a foreign government.
However, several things cut against this benign interpretation. One, the close involvement of Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, in the negotiations. Giuliani, you may recall, said in May that the information he was seeking from Ukraine “will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.” Two, in the call itself, and in subsequent public statements, Trump has made clear he wants Ukraine to look into both 2016 and the Bidens. Third, while the text exchanges initially involve withholding the White House visit in exchange for an investigation of the 2016 issue, subsequent texts reference “investigations” plural, citing both 2016 and Burisma. Burisma is the company that gave Hunter a $50,000 a month gig while Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point person on Ukraine. It’s the Biden angle that clearly interests Trump here, which is why in the call he mentions the Bidens by name, but does not mention Burisma by name.
In the aftermath of the call, there are weeks of negotiations over the White House visit. The Trump team wanted a public guarantee in the form of a statement from Zelensky specifying that he would look into the matters. The Ukrainians were clearly trying to pin down dates for a meeting, and Giuliani is clearly pushing for making the statement more explicit. We do not have drafts of the various statements being debated, which would be helpful. However, in an earlier text from July 21, Bill Taylor, Trump’s diplomat based in Ukraine, texts that Zelensky “is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.” This helps explain the reticence of Ukraine to be overly explicit about a promise to go after the Bidens, which clearly led to differences over the drafting of a statement.
On Aug. 9, Volker texts Giuliani about the statement, asking if they can set up a phone call to, “make sure I advise Z[elensky] correctly as to what he should be saying?”
The next day, Volker texts with Yermak, the Ukrainian aide. Yermak is trying to get the date of a White House meeting nailed down first, but makes it clear he understands what the Trump ask is. “Once we have a date, will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of U.S.-UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”
Volker responds, “Sounds great!”
On Aug. 13, Volker and Sondland exchange text messages in which Volker articulates what Zelensky needs to say, specifically on the necessity of making explicit that Ukraine would conduct both investigations.
“Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political process of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians,” Volker writes. “I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.”
Sondland responds that this is “Perfect” and that they should send that to Yermak.
Then on Aug. 17, Sondland again texts Volker to clarify that it’s important that both 2016 and Burisma are referenced in the statement. “Do we still want Ze[lensky] to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?”
Volker replies, “That’s the clear message so far…”
It should be noted at this point that in his testimony before Congress, Volker vociferously denied he had any idea that the discussions about Burisma had anything to do with investigating the Bidens as opposed to the more general efforts to fight corruption. Furthermore, he said when he saw a Aug. 16 draft of the proposed Ukrainian statement that didn’t explicitly mention Burisma or 2016, he thought it was “perfectly reasonable.”
Neither of these assertions are very credible. As noted above, Volker explicitly notes the importance of emphasizing both investigations his own Aug. 13 text, and on Aug. 17, he responds to Sondland that “the clear message” is that the statement had to include 2016 and Burisma. It’s also mind-boggling to believe that Volker didn’t view the Burisma investigation as a reference to investigating Bidens.
Volker was a top diplomat on Ukraine, and back in May, the New York Times reported extensively on the efforts by Giuliani to push for an investigation of the Bidens. The story included the following line: “Mr. Giuliani has discussed the Burisma investigation, and its intersection with the Bidens, with the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor general and the current prosecutor.” Also, elsewhere in his own testimony, Volker says that during a July 19 breakfast meeting that, Giuliani “mentioned both the accusations about Vice President Biden and about interference in the 2016 election, and stressed that all he wanted to see was for Ukraine to investigate what happened in the past and apply its own laws.”
Volker’s testimony effectively reads like a way of protecting himself. He’s trying to show he wasn’t involved in efforts to pressure Ukraine by noting there was no specific reference to Biden in his texts, and then denying that any of the references to Burisma had anything to do with Biden.
On Aug. 29, we get the first reference to the delay of aid, as a clearly panicked Yermak writes to Volker, “Need to talk with you,” and then sends a link to this Politico story, headlined, “Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia.”
In the texts of the next week and a half, we now start to see references to both the aid delay and the White House visit being held up in exchange for a firm commitment on the investigations.
But it’s important at this point to keep in mind the parallel timeline here, as by now it was already becoming clear that the Ukraine story was about to blow up into a full Washington scandal.
Recall that the whistleblower complaint was dated Aug. 12. Even before that date, the whistleblower had contacted House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff. By Aug. 23, Schiff was tweeting about a New York Times story on Giuliani’s talks with Ukraine, writing, “Yet again, Trump’s campaign wants foreign help to win an election.” On Aug. 28, Schiff tweeted, “Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.”
So by the time the end of August hits, we have to think that the officials were starting to sense everything they said and did was going to become debated publicly, and that their communications reflected that. The two most explosive texts especially need to be viewed that way.
In one of those texts, Taylor, the U.S. diplomat based in Ukraine, asks “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland, the ambassador to the EU, texts back “call me.”
On Sept. 9, Taylor writes, “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
Five hours later, Sondland texts back with a more legalistic statement, “Bill, I believe your are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.” He then suggests “we stop the back and forth by text” and consider addressing any concerns by phone.
Sept. 9 happened to be the same day that Schiff, Engel, and Cummings announced they were launching a “wide-ranging investigation into Trump-Giuliani Ukraine Scheme.”
The Voker testimony and accompanying text messages open up various avenues of inquiry. They make it imperative that Congressional investigators speak to Giuliani, Sondland, and Taylor, as well as additional see additional supporting documents. For instance, the drafts of the various statements exchanged between Ukraine and Trump officials would help illuminate the issue of how much Giuliani was insisting the statement get more explicit about Burisma and 2016, and to what extent that was tied to the prospect of a White House visit. Furthermore, was aid ever used as leverage?
The only indication that it is in the texts is from Taylor, who was reacting after the news report about the aid cutoff so may not have been working off of independent knowledge, something that House Intelligence Committee Republicans have said Volker testified. This doesn’t mean the delay wasn’t held up because Trump wanted to extract a promise on investigations, just that the Taylor texts aren’t the best evidence of it.
