The latest on the Trump impeachment inquiry

By Meg Wagner, Fernando Alfonso III and Veronica Rocha, CNN

Updated 10:23 p.m. ET, November 14, 2019
2 Posts
Sort byDropdown arrow
4:52 a.m. ET, November 14, 2019

What the future of the impeachment inquiry looks like following the first public testimonies

Analysis by Marshall Cohen, Kylie Atwood and Kevin Liptak

Susan Walsh/AP
Susan Walsh/AP

The first public impeachment hearing Monday lived up to the hype, and the daylong affair gave both parties plenty to chew on as the inquiry moves forward.

Here's what we learned and what it means for the next steps, as additional witnesses are slated for private interviews and public hearings in the coming days:

  • New evidence against President Trump: US diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor told lawmakers about another conversation when Trump again voiced his desire to push the Ukrainians to publicly announce investigations -- which would give his 2020 campaign a boost. This conversation gets at a key question of the inquiry: What was Trump telling top US diplomats working on Ukraine policy? 
  • Trump's talking points are being contradicted: Trump's favorite talking points on Ukraine are being disputed. This was clear from earlier deposition transcripts, it happened yesterday and will likely continue in future hearings. The senior State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy, George Kent, testified that Trump was "trying to dig up dirt" on a political rival, rebutting Trump's claim that he was fighting corruption in Ukraine. Taylor said there was "no good policy reason" and "no good national security reason" for Trump to withhold US military assistance from Ukraine, even though the White House argued there were legitimate reasons to do so over the summer.
  • The GOP is leaning into conspiracy theories: California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, did what he has done for years and leaned heavily into debunked conspiracy theories during his opening statement. He repeatedly stated that Democratic operatives had colluded with Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election and defeat Trump, though several key witnesses have already testified that this is not true.
  • Split verdict on staff lawyers' questioning: Democratic and Republican staff lawyers led the questioning, which tamped down the circus-like atmosphere. Daniel Goldman, the Democratic attorney, sought to build out a narrative from the witnesses about the delay in aid to Ukraine. Republican Steve Castor's questioning was bumpier, drawing sometimes bewildered looks from the witnesses.
  • Mulvaney still at the center of the storm: Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney's name arose at several points in the hearing. He was identified by the witnesses as a central player in the decision to withhold US assistance to Ukraine. And the October news conference in which he acknowledged a quid pro quo was mentioned as well. Mulvaney later denied he had said that. It's an indication Democrats are intent on further probing Mulvaney's role in the alleged scheme to pressure Ukraine into investigating Trump's political rivals. Mulvaney has defied a subpoena to appear before the committees, and created internal White House angst at his legal maneuverings to avoid testifying.
  • The stakes are rising for Gordon Sondland: Sondland's direct conversations with Trump will face new scrutiny after yesterday's testimony. Taylor said that his aide had overheard that direct conversation between the Ambassador to the European Union and Trump in which the President asked for an update on the Ukrainians announcing investigations. GOP lawmakers repeatedly described Taylor's testimony as a secondhand retelling of things that he had heard from others -- some suggested it wouldn't be admissible evidence at a criminal trial.
  • The Democrats' case is still complicated: After the Russia investigation wrapped up in March, key Democrats observed that special counsel Robert Mueller's findings and 448-page report were probably too complicated to sell to the American people. There was no groundswell for impeachment among public opinion or in the Democratic ranks. But the case has become complicated, with thousands of pages of depositions piling up, and public hearings dragging on for hours. Most Americans don't know the Ukrainians involved. Nothing is simple, and Democrats might struggle to make this digestible again.

3:46 a.m. ET, November 14, 2019

5 big takeaways from the first public impeachment inquiry hearing

Susan Walsh/AP
Susan Walsh/AP

The House Intelligence Committee made history Monday after diplomats Bill Taylor and George Kent spent roughly six hours testifying in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Let's catch you up on the biggest takeaways:

  • The July 26 call: Taylor told Congress today about a July 26 phone call -- a conversation that happened one day after Trump's phone call with Ukraine's leader. Taylor testified that his staff was told of the call, in which Trump said he cared more about the "investigations of Biden" than Ukraine.
  • Giuliani's "irregular" diplomacy: Taylor explained that Rudy Giuliani's efforts led to an "irregular" policy channel was "running contrary to the goals of longstanding US policy." Kent's testimony also expressed alarm at Giuliani's efforts -- which he described last month as a "campaign of lies" -- that led to the ouster of US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and then the push for investigations.
  • Not "never Trumpers": Kent and Taylor were directly asked about President Trump's repeated claim that they are "never Trumpers." They said they were not.
  • Hurting diplomats' credibility: Kent and Taylor said it's harder for US officials overseas to do their jobs when American leaders ask foreign powers to investigate their political rivals. "Our credibility is based on a respect for the United States, and if we damage that respect, then it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs," Taylor said.
  • About firsthand knowledge: Republicans repeatedly went after the witnesses for not hearing from President Trump himself that he wanted Ukraine to launch investigations into his political rivals in exchange for releasing US aid. But remember: the White House has sought to prevent those closer to Trump from appearing.