This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/politics/impeachment-george-kent-state.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Impeachment Investigators Question George Kent, State Dept. Ukraine Expert Impeachment Investigators Question George Kent, State Dept. Ukraine Expert
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The procession of high-ranking witnesses to the House’s impeachment inquiry continued apace on Tuesday, as George P. Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state in charge of Ukraine policy, arrived on Capitol Hill to face questions from investigators about his knowledge of the widening Ukraine scandal. WASHINGTON — George P. Kent, a senior State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy, on Tuesday became the latest high-ranking witness to be questioned behind closed doors by House impeachment investigators, facing questions about his knowledge of the widening Ukraine scandal.
Mr. Kent, who appeared behind closed doors despite the State Department directing him not to do so, raised concerns to colleagues early this year about the pressure being directed at Ukraine by Mr. Trump and his private lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to pursue investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals, according to people familiar with Mr. Kent’s warnings. As Democratic leaders privately debated whether to hold a vote in the coming days to officially open an impeachment inquiry they began three weeks ago, Mr. Kent sat with investigators despite being directed by the State Department not to do so, filling in crucial blanks in their account.
As far back as March, they said, Mr. Kent was pointing to Mr. Giuliani’s role in what he called a “disinformation” campaign intended to use a Ukrainian prosecutor to smear targets of the president. Those included former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Marie L. Yovanovitch, then the United States ambassador to Ukraine, and Ukrainians who disseminated damaging information during the 2016 campaign about Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Mr. Kent raised concerns to colleagues early this year about the pressure being directed at Ukraine by Mr. Trump and his private lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to pursue investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals, according to people familiar with Mr. Kent’s warnings.
Mr. Kent, wearing a three-piece suit and bow tie, entered the obscured chambers of the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday morning to kick off another jam-packed day for investigators. Lawmakers are scheduled to return to the Capitol from a two-week recess later Tuesday, and Democrats will huddle to compare notes on the direction of the inquiry. Separately, the committees leading the investigation had set a series of crucial deadlines on Tuesday for key witnesses and executive branch agencies to hand over relevant documents. As far back as March, they said, Mr. Kent pointed to Mr. Giuliani’s role in what he called a “disinformation” campaign intended to use a Ukrainian prosecutor to smear Mr. Trump’s adversaries. Those included former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Marie L. Yovanovitch, then the United States ambassador to Ukraine, and Ukrainians who disseminated damaging information during the 2016 campaign about Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
Mr. Kent’s appearance followed an emerging pattern. According to officials familiar with the investigation, the State Department directed Mr. Kent not to appear and sought to limit his testimony. The House Intelligence Committee then issued a last-minute subpoena ordering him to appear, and he complied. It is that campaign that is at the center of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, which is based on the account of an intelligence official who filed a whistle-blower complaint that alleged that Mr. Trump abused his power to gain an advantage in the 2020 presidential election.
He was the second high-ranking State Department official to defy the White House’s wishes and appear for questioning in recent days. The first was Ms. Yovanovitch, who Mr. Trump ordered be removed from her ambassadorial post in May, but is still a State Department employee. She answered questions from investigators on Friday, offering a blistering assessment of the Trump administration’s foreign policy and saying she had been told Mr. Trump himself pressed for her ouster for months based on “false claims” by outsiders working for their own personal and political objectives. Mr. Kent, wearing a three-piece suit and bow tie, entered the obscured chambers of the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday morning to kick off another jam-packed day for investigators.
Fiona Hill, a former top White House Europe adviser, appeared on Monday under subpoena as well, and other current and former officials are expected to follow suit, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the White House’s attempts to stonewall the House inquiry. Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to Europe who appears to be at the center of the pressure campaign, will meet investigators on Thursday. With lawmakers returning to the Capitol after a two-week recess, Democratic leaders planned to huddle with their caucus Tuesday evening to update them on their work and to discuss the possibility of holding a floor vote to authorize their inquiry. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has so far insisted the move was unnecessary, but Republicans and the White House have said it is a prerequisite to lend fairness and legitimacy to the process. Democratic leaders were privately gauging support among swing-district Democrats for a possible vote, according to three officials familiar with the outreach.
Separately, the committees leading the investigation had set a series of crucial deadlines on Tuesday for key witnesses and executive branch agencies to hand over relevant documents.
Mr. Kent’s appearance came after an emerging pattern in which administration witnesses are instructed not to comply with the impeachment inquiry in line with a White House declaration last week that there would be a “full halt” to any cooperation, but ultimately agree to do so. According to officials familiar with the investigation, the State Department directed Mr. Kent not to appear and sought to limit his testimony. The House Intelligence Committee then issued a last-minute subpoena ordering him to appear, and he complied.
He was the second high-ranking State Department to do so in recent days. The first was Ms. Yovanovitch, whom Mr. Trump ordered removed from her ambassadorial post in May, but is still a State Department employee. She answered questions from investigators on Friday, offering a blistering assessment of the Trump administration’s foreign policy and saying she had been told Mr. Trump himself pressed for her ouster for months based on “false claims” by outsiders working for their own personal and political objectives.
Fiona Hill, a former top White House Europe adviser, appeared on Monday under subpoena as well, and other current and former officials are expected to follow suit. Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to Europe who appears to be at the center of the pressure campaign, will meet investigators on Thursday.
Mr. Kent’s warnings about the disinformation effort are reflected in internal State Department emails provided by the agency’s inspector general to Congress this month and obtained by The New York Times. In one, he assailed a “fake news smear” being pushed against Ms. Yovanovitch by conservative media personalities allied with Mr. Trump. In another, he criticized the Ukrainian prosecutor who was pushing the claims about Ms. Yovanovitch and called them “complete poppycock.”Mr. Kent’s warnings about the disinformation effort are reflected in internal State Department emails provided by the agency’s inspector general to Congress this month and obtained by The New York Times. In one, he assailed a “fake news smear” being pushed against Ms. Yovanovitch by conservative media personalities allied with Mr. Trump. In another, he criticized the Ukrainian prosecutor who was pushing the claims about Ms. Yovanovitch and called them “complete poppycock.”
A career diplomat, Mr. Kent has served since last fall as the deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. He has deep experience in Kiev, and with Ukrainian corruption specifically, having served as an anti-corruption coordinator in the State Department’s European Bureau in 2014 and 2015, and then as deputy chief of mission in the United States embassy in Kiev from 2015 until 2018.A career diplomat, Mr. Kent has served since last fall as the deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. He has deep experience in Kiev, and with Ukrainian corruption specifically, having served as an anti-corruption coordinator in the State Department’s European Bureau in 2014 and 2015, and then as deputy chief of mission in the United States embassy in Kiev from 2015 until 2018.
At the White House, Mr. Trump, picking up a talking point from his Republican allies in Congress, accused Democrats of “allowing no transparency at the Witch Hunt hearings,” and said if Republicans tried to do the same thing “they would be excoriated by the Fake News.”At the White House, Mr. Trump, picking up a talking point from his Republican allies in Congress, accused Democrats of “allowing no transparency at the Witch Hunt hearings,” and said if Republicans tried to do the same thing “they would be excoriated by the Fake News.”
“Let the facts come out from the charade of people, most of whom I do not know, they are interviewing for 9 hours each, not selective leaks,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter Tuesday morning.“Let the facts come out from the charade of people, most of whom I do not know, they are interviewing for 9 hours each, not selective leaks,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter Tuesday morning.
Impeachment investigators thus far have been conducting their proceedings almost entirely in secret by holding staff-led witness depositions, or interviews, rather than public hearings. Republicans have seized on that approach as evidence that Democrats are trying to impeach the president out of public view.Impeachment investigators thus far have been conducting their proceedings almost entirely in secret by holding staff-led witness depositions, or interviews, rather than public hearings. Republicans have seized on that approach as evidence that Democrats are trying to impeach the president out of public view.
But the tactic is not uncommon on Capitol Hill, at least in the early stages of an investigation. Senior House Democrats argue that conducting the interviews in private is a more efficient and effective form of fact-finding that avoids some of the spectacle of a public hearing and ensures that potential witnesses are not able to easily adjust their stories in ways that could mislead investigators. House aides during Watergate did something similar before holding public hearings related to whether to impeach Richard M. Nixon. Democrats say they, too, plan to publicly present their findings when they have sorted out what happened.But the tactic is not uncommon on Capitol Hill, at least in the early stages of an investigation. Senior House Democrats argue that conducting the interviews in private is a more efficient and effective form of fact-finding that avoids some of the spectacle of a public hearing and ensures that potential witnesses are not able to easily adjust their stories in ways that could mislead investigators. House aides during Watergate did something similar before holding public hearings related to whether to impeach Richard M. Nixon. Democrats say they, too, plan to publicly present their findings when they have sorted out what happened.
Investigators were waiting to see if the Trump administration and key witnesses in the case would produce documents related to Mr. Trump’s conversations with Mr. Zelensky, the decision to withhold $391 million in security aid for Ukraine this summer, and other matters. Those already under subpoena to produce the material include the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department and Mr. Giuliani. Vice President Mike Pence also faces a deadline to hand over a vast set of records voluntarily, or face a subpoena. Democrats’ reconsideration of bypassing a floor vote to authorize the inquiry appeared, at least in part, intended to undercut another Republican criticism. Although there is no requirement in the Constitution or the House rules that such a vote take place to make an impeachment inquiry official, the president’s allies have continuously accused Democrats of deviating from the precedent set in modern presidential impeachments and denying Mr. Trump and Republicans a say in the process.
The deadlines force each department or witness to decide between the demands of Congress and White House’s direction not to cooperate with the House’s work. Seeking to tip the scales in favor of cooperation, Democrats have warned that not doing so will be considered obstruction of their impeachment inquiry, behavior worthy of its own impeachment article against Mr. Trump. Holding a vote could also help Democrats in continuing court fights over access to investigative materials they seek. But it presents some political risk for them, as well. Democratic leaders’ outreach to politically vulnerable members suggests they are concerned about how such a vote would affect them.
New requests for depositions were still stacking up. The committees wrote on Friday to two top officials at the White House budget office, requesting they appear next week to discuss the suspension of the security aid, according to one of the officials. They targeted Russ Vought, the office’s acting director, and Michael Duffey, a senior Trump appointee there who was said to have helped approve orders freezing the funds. The letters to the men said merely that investigators believed they had “information relevant to these matters.” Investigators were waiting to see if the Trump administration and key witnesses in the case would produce documents related to Mr. Trump’s conversations with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, the decision to withhold $391 million in security aid for Ukraine this summer, and other matters. Those already under subpoena to produce the material include the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department and Mr. Giuliani. Vice President Mike Pence also faces a deadline to hand over a vast set of records voluntarily, or face a subpoena.
The deadlines force each department or witness to decide between the demands of Congress and the White House’s direction not to cooperate with the House’s work. Seeking to tip the scales in favor of cooperation, Democrats have warned that not doing so will be considered obstruction of their impeachment inquiry, behavior worthy of its own impeachment article against Mr. Trump.
New requests for depositions continued to stacked up. The committees wrote on Friday to two top officials at the White House budget office, requesting they appear next week to discuss the suspension of the security aid, according to one of the officials. They targeted Russ Vought, the office’s acting director, and Michael Duffey, a senior Trump appointee there who was said to have helped approve orders freezing the funds. The letters to the men said merely that investigators believed they had “information relevant to these matters.”
Mr. Kent was believed to have special insight into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine, but he was also deeply involved in previous efforts to persuade the country to investigate corruption. In his earlier roles, Mr. Kent had aggressively pushed Ukrainian prosecutors to pursue investigations into Mykola Zlochevsky, an oligarch who owned a gas company that started paying Hunter Biden, the presidential candidate’s son, as a board member in 2014.Mr. Kent was believed to have special insight into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine, but he was also deeply involved in previous efforts to persuade the country to investigate corruption. In his earlier roles, Mr. Kent had aggressively pushed Ukrainian prosecutors to pursue investigations into Mykola Zlochevsky, an oligarch who owned a gas company that started paying Hunter Biden, the presidential candidate’s son, as a board member in 2014.
When a British case against Mr. Zlochevsky for money laundering was dismissed in January 2015 for lack of evidence, Mr. Kent and others in the State Department blamed Ukrainian prosecutors. The Ukrainian prosecutors had refused to provide evidence to British prosecutors, Mr. Kent told associates, because they and other officials were being paid off by Mr. Zlochevsky or his allies.When a British case against Mr. Zlochevsky for money laundering was dismissed in January 2015 for lack of evidence, Mr. Kent and others in the State Department blamed Ukrainian prosecutors. The Ukrainian prosecutors had refused to provide evidence to British prosecutors, Mr. Kent told associates, because they and other officials were being paid off by Mr. Zlochevsky or his allies.
Tensions boiled over at a previously unreported meeting in early February 2015 in Kiev, in which Mr. Kent scolded a deputy prosecutor in the office of Vitaly Yarema, who was the general prosecutor of Ukraine — the nation’s top law enforcement post, similar to that of the attorney general of the United States.Tensions boiled over at a previously unreported meeting in early February 2015 in Kiev, in which Mr. Kent scolded a deputy prosecutor in the office of Vitaly Yarema, who was the general prosecutor of Ukraine — the nation’s top law enforcement post, similar to that of the attorney general of the United States.
According to a Ukrainian and an American with knowledge of the meeting, Mr. Kent, demanded of the deputy prosecutor, “Who took the bribe and how much was it?”According to a Ukrainian and an American with knowledge of the meeting, Mr. Kent, demanded of the deputy prosecutor, “Who took the bribe and how much was it?”
The Ukrainian deputy replied — perhaps jokingly — that a $7 million bribe had been paid just before Mr. Yarema’s taking the office.The Ukrainian deputy replied — perhaps jokingly — that a $7 million bribe had been paid just before Mr. Yarema’s taking the office.
The F.B.I. looked into the bribe allegation, according to people familiar with it, but — as is common in the world of Ukrainian corruption investigations — the inquiry stalled amid a tangled web of contradictory and evolving stories.The F.B.I. looked into the bribe allegation, according to people familiar with it, but — as is common in the world of Ukrainian corruption investigations — the inquiry stalled amid a tangled web of contradictory and evolving stories.
In the days after the heated meeting with Mr. Kent, Mr. Yarema was fired and eventually replaced by another prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who American officials came to view as similarly problematic. In the days after the heated meeting with Mr. Kent, Mr. Yarema was fired and eventually replaced by another prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, whom American officials came to view as similarly problematic.
The elder Mr. Biden in 2016 successfully pushed for Mr. Shokin’s ouster because the Obama administration and other Western governments and international institutions contended he was turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the country’s elite, including Mr. Zlochevsky.The elder Mr. Biden in 2016 successfully pushed for Mr. Shokin’s ouster because the Obama administration and other Western governments and international institutions contended he was turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the country’s elite, including Mr. Zlochevsky.
It was Mr. Biden’s role in the dismissal of Mr. Shokin that has subsequently been held up by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani as evidence that the former vice president intervened in Ukrainian affairs to help his son. There is no evidence of that.It was Mr. Biden’s role in the dismissal of Mr. Shokin that has subsequently been held up by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani as evidence that the former vice president intervened in Ukrainian affairs to help his son. There is no evidence of that.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.