Impeachment Witnesses Detail Russian Meddling, Pressure on Ukraine

Describing the pressure Ukraine felt to conduct the investigations, Holmes noted that Ukraine's desire for U.S. support did not end when the White House transmitted a $400 million aid package in September after months of delay.

"Although the hold on the security assistance may have been lifted, there were still things they wanted that they weren't getting, including a meeting with the president in the oval office," Holmes said. "Whether the security assistance hold continued or not, the Ukrainians understood that that's something the president wanted and they still wanted important things from the president."

Holmes said there were indications after the hold was lifted that Zelensky was going to go forward with announcing the investigations in a CNN interview. Witnesses have testified they understood the announcement of those investigations was a condition for a White House meeting as well as the release of the aid package, and that CNN was the preferred venue for the announcement.

"In short, everybody thought there was going to be an interview and that the Ukrainians believed they had to do it," Holmes said, though he acknowledged the declaration never happened.

In addition to the coveted White House meeting, Holmes noted Zelensky's administration is working to secure a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin with the goal of facilitating peace talks.

The testimony about the continued pressure Ukraine felt to announce the investigations goes to a Trump defense in the impeachment inquiry: His allies have said that, because the aid eventually flowed without Ukraine announcing the investigations, there was no harm done.

Three Amigos on a ‘domestic political errand’

Throughout her testimony, Hill was critical of the help Rudy Giuliani got in Ukraine from the self-anointed "three amigos,” Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker.

Hill described Sondland as not "particularly interested" in the policies that national-security experts thought the United States should be advancing in Ukraine, and recalled her early frustrations over the ambassador’s refusal to involve the National Security Council on meetings related to Ukraine.

But today, Hill said, she realizes Sondland was "absolutely right" because his work was different from what the policy experts were doing and needed to be reported to different people.

"He was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national-security foreign policy and those two things had just diverged," Hill testified. "So he was correct. And I had not put my finger on it at the moment, but I was irritated with him that he wasn't fully coordinating."

The key piece of Hill's testimony, which first came out in her closed-door deposition, concerned a July meeting with Ukrainian officials at the White House that her boss, John Bolton, cut short after Sondland mentioned the investigations as a condition of a White House meeting.

At Bolton's direction, Hill confronted Sondland about his suggestion after the meeting ended and later reported concerns she and Bolton had about his comments to a National Security Council attorney. 

In her testimony Thursday, Hill also undercut Sondland's testimony from the day before by saying it was clear early on that references to investigations into Burisma were code for investigations into the Bidens.

"It is not credible to me that he was oblivious to this," Hill said of Sondland.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit