Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, and David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs, testified before the House Intelligence Committee at just before 6 p.m. ET Wednesday. Their appearance followed testimony from U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who appeared before the committee for a hearing that began more than eight hours earlier.
Trump impeachment highlights:
Timing of Ukraine's knowledge of hold is a key point, journos note
Cooper says Ukrainians were aware of hold on July 25, contradicting GOP
Cooper, in a straightforward opening statement that focused almost entirely on procedure, explained how and when she became aware of the hold on the military aid to Ukraine.
But in an addendum to her prepared statement, she explained that she’s learned of the existence of multiple emails that had been sent to her office (but that she hadn’t received) pertaining to questions she had been asked during her October deposition about whether she knew if the Ukrainians had known about the hold or had asked any questions about it.
Cooper said that her staff later showed her two unclassified emails from the State Department. Both were sent two hours apart on the afternoon of July 25. The first, Cooper said, showed that the Ukrainian Embassy was “asking about the security assistance,” and the second suggested that “Hill knows about the [aid freeze] situation.”
Cooper said that a third email, on July 3, from the State Department, showed that the “CN [congressional notification] was being blocked from OMB [White House Office of Management and Budget].”
Schiff, a moment later, asked Cooper whether her sharing the existence of those emails meant that the Ukrainians “knew there was something going on with” the aid.
“Yes, sir,” she replied.
This means that Cooper is saying the Ukrainians were, in fact, aware of the aid hold on the same day as the well-documented July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy. This contradicts the argument by Republicans, including Trump, that the Ukrainians had no idea of the hold this early — meaning, according to that argument, that there could not have been a quid pro quo.
Hale, unlike all previous public inquiry witnesses, did not deliver an opening statement.
Hale and Cooper are sworn in before their testimony
Nunes plays the greatest hits
Nunes, in his opening statement, hit on many of the same topics he’s mentioned in his past opening statements in the previous hearings.
He said that Democrats “accused us” of trying to out the whistleblower during the hearings on Tuesday, “even though they claim they don’t even know who it is.”
He also accused Democrats of “sparing” Hunter Biden from under-oath questioning and alleged that they have employed “petty tricks” in the hearings.
“What exactly are the Democrats impeaching the president for?” he said in closing.
“None of us here actually know,” he added.
Schiff opens second public hearing of the day
Schiff, in his opening statement of the second of two hearings of the day, summarized the case House Democrats are building in their impeachment inquiry and explained how the testimony of the next two witnesses, Laura Cooper, the top Pentagon official overseeing U.S. policy regarding Ukraine, and David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs, plays into it.
“Cooper, along with others, learned about the freeze” in a series of interagency meetings in July, Schiff explained.
Hale, he said, “was witness to the smear campaign against Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and the efforts by some in the State Department to help her.”
And Sondland made his flight back to Brussels...he'd been worried about that during his lengthy testimony and the ambassador's lawyer expressed his concern to Schiff about it as the appearance dragged on more than six and a half hours...But here Sondland is at the airport, on his way...
Cooper arrives for testimony before House Intel
Schiff gavels in second hearing with Cooper, Hale
Chairman Adam Schiff gaveled in the second impeachment inquiry hearing of the day with Hale and Cooper at roughly 5:40 p.m. We expect opening statements from the chair and ranking member followed by the witnesses and then to go right into five-minute member questions. A roughly 2.5 hour hearing is expected.
Format changed for upcoming impeachment witnesses, cutting length of hearing
The hearing format has been revamped for the testimony this evening of Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense, and David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs.
There will be no extended question round for the Intelligence Committee chairman and the ranking Republican members, or their staff lawyers. That means following opening statements, the hearing will move straight to lawmakers' questions.
The hearing is therefore likely to run about 2.5 to 3 hours, not the more than 6.5 hours like the earlier Sondland session.
The Michigan lawmaker left the GOP in July, remaining in Congress as an independent.
Prior to that decision, he was the first congressional Republican to conclude that Trump had engaged in "impeachable conduct" after viewing the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Sondland says all the president's men focused on Biden probe
Gordon Sondland flipped on President Donald Trump — and all the president's men — Wednesday.
"We followed the president's orders," he told lawmakers at the House impeachment inquiry hearing.
The U.S. ambassador to the European Union described in detail how Trump and several of his top lieutenants — including personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney — were all "in the loop" on a policy that increasingly focused on securing the announcement of investigations affecting American politics.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are pushing to gather enough evidence to justify an article of impeachment involving bribery, and they believe Sondland's testimony moved them further in that direction.
But even short of that, he provided a mountain of fresh details about the breadth and depth of the administration's focus on using the powers of the executive branch for what they say are partisan political purposes — justification, perhaps, for articles based on "high crimes and misdemeanors."