WASHINGTON — Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, plans to tell lawmakers on Tuesday that he was out of the loop at key moments during President Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to turn up damaging information about Democrats, according to an account of his prepared testimony.
As the House Intelligence Committee opens its second week of public impeachment hearings, Mr. Volker will say that he did not realize that others working for Mr. Trump were tying American security aid to a commitment to investigate Democrats. His testimony, summarized by a person informed about it who insisted on anonymity to describe it in advance, will seek to reconcile his previous closed-door description of events with conflicting versions offered subsequently by other witnesses.
Mr. Volker will be one of four witnesses appearing before the committee on Tuesday as it ramps up its investigation into the president’s effort to extract domestic political help from a foreign power while holding up $391 million in American security aid. The committee, which already had eight witnesses set for this week, added a ninth on Monday by calling David Holmes, a senior American Embassy official in Ukraine who overheard a conversation in which Mr. Trump asked about whether Ukraine was going to agree to carry out the investigations he wanted.
With political passions rising over the impeachment drive, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, defended the inquiry on Monday, arguing that lawmakers have no choice but to examine what she called clear evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump.
“The facts are uncontested: that the president abused his power for his own personal, political benefit, at the expense of our national security interests,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic colleagues.
Mr. Trump, who remained out of public sight on Monday for the third straight day, wrote on Twitter that he would “strongly consider” testifying in the impeachment inquiry, after Ms. Pelosi raised the idea during a weekend television interview.
While Gerald R. Ford testified in 1974 about his decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton responded in writing to questions from the House when it investigated him for perjury and obstruction of justice in 1998, no president has testified in person in his own defense in an impeachment hearing. Mr. Trump, who enjoys flashes of showmanship, appeared intrigued by the possibility.
“Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!” Mr. Trump wrote.
That does not mean he will actually agree to do so, however. During the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into ties between Russia and Mr. Trump’s campaign, the president repeatedly suggested he might testify in person, but ultimately refused to do so and instead submitted written answers drafted with the help of his lawyers.
On Monday, the top lawyer for House Democrats said in a legal filing that impeachment investigators are exploring whether Mr. Trump lied in those written answers to Mr. Mueller.
The addition of Mr. Holmes to the witness list follows a closed-door deposition he gave Friday describing a telephone conversation he listened to in July. While sitting on the outdoor patio of a restaurant in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital also known as Kiev, Mr. Holmes said he heard the president ask Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, if President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine would move forward with the investigations Mr. Trump sought. The ambassador, fresh off meetings with top Ukrainian officials, told Mr. Trump that he would.
Mr. Holmes will sit at the witness table beside Fiona Hill, the former senior director for Russia and Europe at the National Security Council, when the committee convenes its final hearing of a jam-packed week on Thursday.
Republicans previewed an early rebuttal on Monday in the form of a meandering but at times caustic 11-page letter from Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin. On the eve of testimony by Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a national security aide, Mr. Johnson suggested the colonel perhaps participated “in the ongoing effort to sabotage” the president’s policies “and if possible, remove him from office.”
“I believe that a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style,” Mr. Johnson wrote, later adding, “It is entirely possible Vindman fits this profile.”
The letter comes after the top Republicans on the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees requested Mr. Johnson provide them with “any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.” The Wisconsin Republican traveled to Ukraine as part of a delegation attending Mr. Zelensky’s inauguration this year and joined phone calls between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sondland, who is to testify publicly on Wednesday.
The senator has said that after Mr. Sondland told him the security aid was linked to investigations, he confronted Mr. Trump in a phone call in late August. The president, Mr. Johnson said, flatly denied it so vigorously that he uttered a number of curse words and insisted that he “barely knew” Mr. Sondland.
“I have accurately characterized his reaction as adamant, vehement and angry — there was more than one expletive that I have deleted,” Mr. Johnson wrote.
Republicans have argued that the fact that the security aid was ultimately delivered to Ukraine in September without any announcement of investigations proves that the two issues were not linked. But Ms. Pelosi noted in her letter that the money “was only released after the whistle-blower exposed the truth of the president’s extortion and bribery,” referring to an unidentified C.I.A. officer who reported the matter to authorities.
The hearings on Tuesday will start with a morning panel featuring Mr. Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, who were both disturbed when Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Zelensky during a July 25 phone call to “do us a favor” and investigate Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
But the afternoon panel will give Republicans their first chance to question witnesses they believe will undercut the allegations. Mr. Volker has previously said he knew of no quid pro quo between the security aid and the investigations. Tim Morrison, a former senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council, has said he found nothing inherently problematic about the July 25 call, although he testified that he was concerned that it might leak out and cause political problems.
Still, both have also provided testimony harmful to the president. Mr. Volker has said he warned Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer leading the effort to obtain help from Ukraine, that there was nothing to the issues he wanted investigated. And Mr. Morrison has said Mr. Sondland told the Ukrainians that the release of the aid was probably tied to the investigations, forcing Mr. Sondland to revise his testimony and confirm that.
Mr. Volker will modify his account as well, addressing disparities between his testimony and that of other witnesses. While he has been lumped together with Mr. Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry as “the three amigos” working on behalf of the president, he plans to try to distinguish his role, insisting that he was not part of any inappropriate pressure and that he was unaware of certain events that he has only now learned about through other testimony.
In his testimony on Tuesday, according to the person informed about it, Mr. Volker plans to say that he never knew that Mr. Sondland told the Ukrainians that the aid and investigations were linked and that he did not know that Mr. Zelensky was being pressed to appear on CNN and announce that he would open the investigations Mr. Trump sought.
He also will seek to explain why his description of a key July 10 meeting in the White House with Ukrainian officials differed from those provided by several others. According to other witnesses, John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, abruptly ended the meeting when Mr. Sondland raised the investigations. Mr. Sondland then took the Ukrainians downstairs to the White House Ward Room, where he also discussed investigations.
Ms. Hill testified that she challenged Mr. Sondland about that in the Ward Room and later reported the conversation back to Mr. Bolton, who instructed her to tell a White House lawyer and make clear that he wanted nothing to do with the “drug deal” Mr. Sondland was devising.
Mr. Volker, who offered a blander description of the meeting in his original testimony, plans to say on Tuesday that he does not challenge any of the new testimony but did not remember hearing the comments. He plans to say that he may have been talking with Mr. Perry at the time and simply missed the exchanges.
He also will address his past statement that he was not aware of any effort to urge Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden specifically, even though others have testified that Mr. Volker was part of conversations involving Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had been investigated for corruption and that put Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, on its board.
Mr. Volker plans to tell lawmakers that while others interpreted any mention of Burisma to be synonymous with the Bidens, he did not make that assumption, perhaps because he was more steeped in Ukraine and the company’s role there, not focused on domestic American politics.
Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com