TF 44 The Impeachment Hearings Begin
Harry Litman [00:00:07] Welcome to a special breaking news episode of Talking Feds, the prosecutors roundtable that brings together some of the best known former Department of Justice officials for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal topics of the day and what a day it has been on Capitol Hill, as the House brought to testify to career public officials who told a tale of seamy and corrupt conduct by the president of the United States, I'm Harry Litman, I'm a former United States Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General. And I'm also a current Washington Post columnist.
Harry Litman [00:00:47] We are joined by two seasoned prosecutors and Talking Feds regulars. First, Barb McQuaid, as you know, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School. Thanks for joining, Barb.
Barb McQuade [00:01:04] Thanks, Harry.
Harry Litman [00:01:05] And with us also, Glenn Kirschner, who served in the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia for 24 years and rose to the position of chief of the homicide section. He also served on active duty as an Army judge advocate general prosecutor. Glenn, thanks for being here.
Glenn Kirschner [00:01:25] Happy to be here, Harry.
Harry Litman [00:01:26] All right. Let's get right to this historic day that it was, on the one hand, a vivid recitation of really stunning conduct. But the question remains, at the end of the day, did it move the needle even a little bit? I want to focus on the facts. For starters, that's where the House Schiff and Democratic colleagues started. So first, there are a couple new points to get to. But what about the things we already knew? They marched through them sometimes Schiff took the questioning and he's a former AUSA. Sometimes it was Dan Goldman, our former colleague. Did they basic -- as prosecutors, would you say they basically went in flawlessly? Everything we sort of knew about before went in without a hiccup and and and is now cleanly established on the record plan. What are your thoughts there?
Glenn Kirschner [00:02:26] You know, I thought the the Democrats sort of did a nice workmanlike opening statement and presentation of the evidence. You know, we all know that taking a witness, particularly professional career public servants like George Kent and Bill Taylor through the paces of a direct examination after you've had the benefit of their deposition transcripts to study and absorb and use as a basis to draft your direct is not all that challenging.
Harry Litman [00:03:00] I mean, you put one foot in front of the other, basically. And here a big advantage that prosecutors don't normally have -- they got to use leading questions. So Goldman and Schiff could just say, "Isn't it correct?", et cetera, et cetera.
Glenn Kirschner [00:03:15] Yeah, I think they they sort of put a nice, chronological, coherent, compelling, overarching story together. It wasn't that exciting, but I think they sort of touched all the bases. So for those of us who chose to watch it, there was a lot of information to take in and a lot to absorb. And I think it was well presented.
Harry Litman [00:03:38] Yeah, that was my sense too, Barb. I mean, again, they weren't trying to be flashy. They have the facts on their side, but it was solid and unassailable. Would you as a prosecutor and you know, people who know this show and know, you know, that you were for many years a line prosecutor before becoming U.S. Attorney, did you think that, you know, the boxes were checked and everything was solid?
Barb McQuade [00:04:05] Yes. You know, and as a former AUSA, Assistant U.S. Attorney and seeing Schiff and Dan Goldman, both former Assistant U.S. Attorneys, I thought that it was perfect. You know, hitting singles, not trying to hit home runs. And I think this is the difference between career professional prosecutors and perhaps politicians who want to grandstand, hit the homerun, say, "Look at me." And own the news cycle and have your soundbite be on the television news for reelection purposes. Dan Goldman and Adam Schiff are just trying to take care of business. Let the witnesses be the showcase. Those are the sound bites you want to hear on the television news later and see on social media. We want the words coming out of the mouths of George Kent and Bill Taylor, not out of the mouths of Dan Goldman and Adam Schiff. And I think they succeeded in that way by getting them to say some really damning things, not only about kind of what happened, but also I thought they did an excellent job of explaining why it mattered. What this harm was, you know, Mick Mulvaney. Get over it, it's no big deal, we all do it. I think was put to rest today by the master class that we got from George Kent and Bill Taylor. And that was no accident, was facilitated by the understated questioning that Dan Goldman and Adam Schiff did.
Harry Litman [00:05:26] Yeah, I mean, that sort of transitions to what was new. So I agree. The sort of 95 percent that we knew already, they put in a box very cleanly and not simply with a flow in the room, but but sort of packaged for framing in kind of 15 second bites on the evening news. But then there were two or three important additions. And I think you've just put your your finger on one. They really, Taylor in particular, told a story of people dying because of Trump's cavalier selfishness and and tied it not just to Ukraine's interests, but to to the United States. But there were a couple other new things as well. So what did you make, Glenn of, you know, a lot of noise on the cable shows, in the papers about this new revelation, the phone call that Taylor's assistant David Holmes overhears in which Trump asks Sondland about the, quote unquote, investigations. How big an impact do you think that has overall?
Glenn Kirschner [00:06:36] I think that qualifies as blockbuster. And the reason for that is, you know, we haven't had a lot of firsthand accounts of Trump's involvement in this whole sad saga. Of course, we have the summary readout of the phone call between Trump and President Zelinsky, selective though it might be, as we've learned from Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and the Democrats--I mean, I'm sorry, the Republicans have been kind of incessantly complaining about, well, this is hearsay. It's second hand information. It's third hand information. So the first thing I would observe, is with President Trump blocking the testimony of all the witnesses who would have firsthand non hearsay information, that complaint seems to ring hollow. But with respect to the call itself, I mean, I think it's pretty dramatic that there is now a firsthand witness to technically depending on how Sondland performs. But so now there's Sondland and there's David Holmes--.
Harry Litman [00:07:39] He has a whole lotta heat on him, doesn't he? Sondland?
Glenn Kirschner [00:07:41] Yeah. And I am looking forward to what will probably be a cross examination by Dan Goldman. I am anxiously awaiting that. But now we have this phone call where Sondland and Trump are speaking. And David Holmes is listening in. He hears President Trump on the other end of the cell phone call. And Trump is inquiring about the investigations. And this, I believe, is a day after the call with Presidents Zelensky. And what Sondland tells Trump is that the Ukrainians are ready to move forward. Now, how do I interpret that as a prosecutor when you're talking about bribery? I interpret that as bribery, successful, mission accomplished. So I think that once we hear from the David Holmes and the Sondlands of this escapade, I think that could really forward the ball.
Harry Litman [00:08:39] But there was a little nuance in there that I can imagine the Republicans trying to attack. There was -- Barb, did you catch this? The assertion that investigations, which was the word used, was a code for not general corruption, but specifically Biden, Burisma and the like. What was the nature of the proof there? And is it a weak link to this new revelation?
Barb McQuade [00:09:07] I think we're going to have to hear from Sondland on this. He's going to be back to testify. And I think now that this information is known, he can be asked about it. But I think that it isn't just the overheard call that matters. It's the conversation with this staffer whose name we now know is David Holmes has after the call with Gordon Sondland.
Harry Litman [00:09:28] Right.
Barb McQuade [00:09:29] When someone says something like, I think Holmes asks him about what is Trump think about Ukraine. And someone says something like "He cares more about the Bidens than he does about Ukraine." And I think asking him what he meant by that or maybe just drawing a fair inference from that probably matters almost as much as the call. That that it was at least clear to Sondland, who is an ally of Trump and who is working hard to protect Trump. At least it seems clear to Sondland that that's what is meant by investigations.
Harry Litman [00:10:05] Abd as a prosecutor, you hear that statement and you're already thinking of your closing argument. You're going to put up the exhibit with those words in, you know, twenty eight point type. "He cares more about..." OK. And one other sort of new thing that I discerned, it was, you know, it wasn't new exactly, except it was nailed down in a way that really rebuts and an important defense that they've trotted out, which is it did come clear in the testimony that the White House knew that the whistleblower complaint, you know, preceded the White House's discharge of the impounded military money. So gave the lie to the notion that they had been trying to sell that, hey, they didn't even know we released it all. No harm, no foul. Let's turn briefly to the to the Republicans. You know, a tougher hand. So I think we're all kind of in agreement that they did a very solid creditable job. And that's not to damn faint praise. That's the job they needed to do. You know, focus on the facts and on the witnesses. So what about the Republicans? Did they would you say take risks? I seem to hear, you know, three or four different lines of defense, inconsistent and not well harmonized. How did you feel they kind of, you know, performed, given the hand that they've been dealt. Glenn, what's your thought there?
Glenn Kirschner [00:11:39] Yeah, I sat in on a lot of the Roger Stone closing arguments today, so I didn't see all of the performances. I was kind of in and out of watching the the impeachment hearings. But what I saw, it did seem like they were sort of all over the place. They have no unified theme in the way they are are attacking or trying to attack what the Democrats, I think, very adeptly laid out for the American people. I mean, you have the Jim Jordans of the world kind of, you know, gobbling his way through all sorts of hearsay complaints. And, you know, I was amused when he was cross examining Taylor. You know, you've got six people that you're talking to and four days with three levels of hearsay and a partridge in a pear tree. And he's just kind of garbled ing his way through cross-examination that I thought was entirely ineffective. And then you have others who want to bring up, you know, basically everything, including, you know, Hillary's emails. And I think it seems to me that the president has really hamstrung the Republicans in their ability to argue what's probably the best defense that that they could come up with, which is, "You know what? There were some conditions tied on this aide. And boy, I hate to ever side with anything Mick Mulvaney said, but, you know, that's par for the diplomatic course. And even if this one was executed poorly because Trump is a businessman and not a politician, it's not impeachable. It may be something we should condemn and something we should avoid in the future. Maybe even it warrants a censure, but it's not impeachable." I think that's a more reasonable and unified approach.
Harry Litman [00:13:32] You didn't have a seat in here that coming emerging from the Republicans today. But just that's what you would be advising them?
Glenn Kirschner [00:13:40] I think that's probably the best defense they have, that it might be bad, it might be wrong. But it's not the kind of bad and wrong that should result in, you know, the removal for the first time ever of a U.S. president.
Harry Litman [00:13:55] And Barb, let me ask you about this, but in another way, I mean, they they were all over the map. But you've been in trials where, you know, at least when it's clear that the government has the burden of proof, the defense throws out different things to see what sticks. Do you think it's going to be necessary for them to have a unified, singular line of defense, or do you think they can do just fine with you know, Nunez says this. Jordan says that. And Steve Castor establishes the third thing with the with the witnesses.
Barb McQuade [00:14:31] I think that creating chaos is sometimes an effective defense strategy. I think it's a very cynical strategy. I think it seeks to confuse the fact finder in this case. The members of the public throwing out a lot of different themes and having the public say, you know, I can't follow any of this. We're talking about all kinds of things in the Steele dossier and they're all a bunch of crooks. And I can't make heads or tails of it. If that's the case, if you confuse people, you maintain status quo. You guys probably went through the same training I did at the NAC, the National Advocacy Center, where we were taught when I was a brand new AUSA, I remember being taught at the Trial Advocacies School that--.
Harry Litman [00:15:14] In the good old days when I was it was in D.C.
Barb McQuade [00:15:16] That the federal government in trial rarely loses because the jury doesn't believe its case. The federal government often loses, if it loses, it usually loses because the jury didn't understand its case and defense attorneys exploit that. They know that the burden of proof is on the moving party, on the prosecution. And so if the jury is confused, then they are not going to find that that burden of proof has been satisfied. And so throwing up a whole lot of distractions and trying to attack the credibility of witnesses, all of those things can be effective. I think one dangerous area, though, that the Republicans are treading close to is they keep arguing about how this is all second hand information and it's heresay. We'll be careful what you wish for because those with firsthand information are asserting executive privilege or absolute immunity and aren't showing up. And so every time you say that, you are making a stronger case for disclosure of those witnesses and any documents that are being used to protect that as well.
Harry Litman [00:16:24] There was an effective counter punching. It was this at the end of -- it just so happened when a Republican member at the at the end of his testimony said something like, we'd really like to see the person in front of us who was the genesis of all of it. And it was just then that the time changed and the Democratic -- he'd led with his chin and the Democratic member could say we would, too. We'd love to see Donald Trump in the chair. If they can if they can bring that that home. Well, OK. Well, then back on the other side. So I assume then if it just translating that then then back to Schiff. So they've got to have a really clear set of facts. And I think they went very far in establishing that today. What more do they have to keep clear and clean? I mean, the facts don't exactly give a theory of the case, right? Schiff began the whole shebang by an opening statement that that did it. What do they -- do they need also to be very clean and crisp on not this the facts, but the theory of the case and if so, what do they need to do to ensure that that's properly carried through?
Glenn Kirschner [00:17:45] Yes. So I think, Harry, that they also need to wage something of a hearts and minds campaign. They need to you know, it's great to be overarching and inclusive and methodical, even at the risk of being somewhat dry and long winded. But I think they need to do something that also grabs the American people's attention. You know, when you think of OJ, you think of, "If it doesn't fit. You must acquit." When I think of Iran-Contra, I think of, you know, "arms for hostages". It would be nice if they could come up with something. And not that I'm a big believer in trying cases by catch phrases. But, you know, I always tell prosecutors you need to try to kind of grab the jury by the throat early on with something that will will grab their attention, will impress upon them both the importance of the case and the quality of your evidence, and then kind of build from there.
Harry Litman [00:18:48] And here, of course, the jury by the jury, you really mean the American public. So kind of a catch phrase that resonates like not quid pro quo.
Glenn Kirschner [00:18:57] Exactly. And, you know, I don't know if it's, you know, arms for political dirt or it's something that in a pithy, memorable way captures what really went on here, which is Trump exploiting his office and his position in order to unfairly gain an advantage in an upcoming election. And any it really is arms, because that's what he was holding hostage in order to coerce Presidents Zelensky to come out and make this public statement about investigating the Bidens. So it's arms. And what he's trying to get from Zelensky, it's not really political dirt. It's really, it's a fabricated investigation. He doesn't want an investigation. He wants an announcement that the Bidens are under investigation so he can exploit that on the campaign trail. So arms for political dirt is the best that I've come up with. And I know there are more creative PR people out there.
Harry Litman [00:19:56] Well, first of all, Barb, do you agree they need something almost catchy in that way? And I'll just echo. I don't know. I'm not sure I do. But I do sympathize with trying to, you know, crystallize and condense what's really several levels of corruption because, you know, you the both ends of the transaction. One is using U.S. dollars that the security that that are meant to purchase, you know, the security interests of not just Ukraine but the states, the other on the other side making trying to get Ukraine to involve itself in election, but then also in a false way. Right? There's nothing on that. And that did come out today. The you know, the witnesses were, you know, we have no evidence at all of anything wrong here. So there's a third aspect where he's not only trying to dish get dirt for his opponent, but it's, it really would be fabricated. It's really not less even an investigation than just the announcement of one to use as a talking point. If you really are trying to capture all that and roll it into a ball, you know, and and a ball that that works in five second chunks on evening news. So that part ain't easy, right?
Barb McQuade [00:21:13] It's not. And as we said before, the Republicans are going to do all they can to try to make it more complicated, to try to say, you know, it's about all of these sprawling different things. But, you know, just back again to the same lessons that we were taught at trial advocacy school. You know, one of the things that I remember being taught was when you're crafting an open statement, don't try to get too flowery. You know, don't start quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes. A really effective opening start, something like this: This case is about blank. And fill in that blank with as few words as possible. So if you can say this case is about abuse of power for personal gain or or something to that effect, that is the theme you keep hitting. And you know, you have to fill that in with the details and the facts and the testimony. But everything comes back to that theme. And that's the witnesses we heard today, I think support that theme. And I think the witnesses we're going to continue to hear and ultimately, that's what impeachment is all about. Charlie Brown.
Harry Litman [00:22:17] And you have to believe, right, hat Schiff. He was a really fine top notch AUSA in the Central District. Dan Goldman, of course, the same in the Southern District. They've thought this through. I mean, it's not their exact time in the sun. That will be in closing summations or whatever. But they at least have those plans and those catch words in the way to put it in compelling fashion. They're not they're not working on that over the next couple weeks. That's in the can already. Would you not agree?
Glenn Kirschner [00:22:48] Yeah. And Schiff, I think, is a really gifted advocate. I still will from time to time dial up his, "I don't think it's OK" speech, which I think is riveting in style and content and, you know, the way it was delivered, you know, he really is a gifted advocate and he's got the intellectual chops to back it up. So I think he's he's the right man for the job.
Harry Litman [00:23:15] He's an effective parliamentarian. You can see why they went with them instead of Nadler. When people would quibble and make points of order in front of Nadler, Nadler almost couldn't himself from giving chapter and verse and being kind of, you know, down in the weeds. Schiff very coolly just, you know, batted it aside when somebody tried to engage him in colloquy he had no--"your questions are to the witness". So I think he also presides over things pretty well and gives the Nunezes of the world who want to grandstand fits. Well, let's focus in on the witnesses. I mean, a big part of this. By the time Mueller came out, we not only knew the facts, but we knew that the dramatis personae, as they say, this was America's first look at Taylor and and Kent. And how did you think they did? Just from the standing of presentation, certainly on paper, they were formidable in personal manner. Were they equally strong? What was your take on them as witnesses?
Barb McQuade [00:24:21] Well, I thought they were strong on paper and even better in person. I thought they were terrific. I thought they really stood in stark contrast to some of the Republicans who were asking the questions. I mean, I think you both have probably known people like these two men in the federal government. We had the honor of working with a lot of really dedicated public servants. People who were serious, professional, took their oaths of office very seriously, served with honor and integrity. And I think that is what we saw with these two men. I mean, they made it clear I'm not here to help any one side. I'm here to tell the facts. They pushed back when appropriate. They were strong. They clearly were saw part of their job as defending their colleagues in the State Department, including Marie Yovanovitch, who they believe was improperly smeared. I thought that they were very impressive. And I think middle America as the token middle American in the group here, think middle America is is going to respond very favorably to these guys. I thought they seemed like giants and they made the Republicans look small.
Harry Litman [00:25:34] Yeah. And Glenn, I'll ask you about that in a second. But I've been surprised again and again that the first instinct, seemingly the only instinct of Republicans is to try to dirty up whoever comes before them. But, man, is that a tall order with with these guys. I don't see how they do it. Glenn?
Glenn Kirschner [00:25:51] Yeah. Bill Taylor in particular gave me patriotic goose bumps. And you know what it reminded me of? Yes. As Barb said, we worked with lots of folks, men and women like this, who we just respected and admired, and they were all about public service. But when you stack them up against the Pompeos and the Mulvaneys and the Sondlands, you know, you are reminded of what public service is all about. And what I really appreciated when they were both fielding questions on what I'll call cross examination from the Republicans. They weren't combative. They were answering with the same level of respect. And in the same tone and demeanor as they were answering the the Democrats' questions. And that's exactly what we want our witnesses to do. You know, you kill them with kindness and civility and even temper. And, you know, they were more than willing to give the Republicans the points at times. The Republicans were trying to score, minor points though they may have been. They didn't fight if it was a yes or no answer. And they knew that it might score a point for the Republicans because they're talking about something that was based on a hearsay conversation. They just gave that up willingly, honorably. And, you know, I don't think you could have come up with two better, more thoughtful, more patriotic, more respectable witnesses to open the hearings on.
Harry Litman [00:27:27] Yeah, I saw I really agree. And I would just add two points almost on the intangible level where, you know, the where it makes such a difference when people actually see them. The first is they were really even tempered and and seeming there to give the facts, except they both -- but especially Taylor, because of the even temper, he could just torque it up a little like 5 percent or 10 percent and portray a kind of, you know, fine passion or interest in the national security stakes of the matter. So his his even unflappablity, I think, was this great springboard for very effective kind of, you know, slightly turning up of the dial. And the other thing is intangible. Guy has a great voice.
Barb McQuade [00:28:19] He really does.
Harry Litman [00:28:20] The guy's you know, he is born with a with a voice you want to -- that's both sort of authoritative but sonorous. And, you know, I think it just made him the top to bottom kind of kind of witness from hell for them, witness from hell for the Republicans. And also like a very obvious. He was he he was -- so you think a lot. And, you know, as prosecutors, who's gonna be your opening witness? And you want somebody who's going to set the table well, has panoramic knowledge, but then hopefully begins to build sympathy and a sense of why the jury should care. And they you know, that seemed to me I agree. They really hit it out of the park.
Barb McQuade [00:29:04] People on Twitter were saying he had a voice like Walter Cronkite. I'm too young to remember Walter Cronkite. But I think that's a very favorable review. What do you guys think of the bow tie on George Kent?
Harry Litman [00:29:15] I'm glad that he wasn't alone. I think there's just the you know, I think a bow tie is is OK in a broader context. But I think actually bow ties are well, you know. Glenn, what do you think?
Glenn Kirschner [00:29:34] I think George Kent's got to do George Kent. And if he wants to go with a bow tie and a pocket square, God bless him.
Barb McQuade [00:29:41] I think the most important thing is being authentic and being you. Right? I mean, if he wears a bow tie every day, he can't show up wearing something esle. In a bolo tie. Right?
Harry Litman [00:29:49] Yeah, that's a good point. And look, this -- they're seasoned career officials, but it ain't easy. You know, they are in the biggest and brightest fishbowl they will ever be. And if you're not yourself, it's your it's going to be very easy to throw you off balance and it's gonna be obvious. So I totally agree with that. Did did either of you, if, you know, pick up in your spider sense as prosecutors where Schiff and Goldman are kind of, you know, going? Well, you know, what's your -- it hasn't been fully announced. But for example, Sondland is obviously figuring in as a critical person in the whole drama. Wasn't clear to me what they were what they may be doing with Giuliani. You know, I think in general, there's a sort of five and there's a dynamic where you have probably in this order something like Giuliani, Sonland, Volker, Pompeo and Mulvaney, you know, are the sort of bad guys, but all can sort of feed up into one another. And of course, most of them won't won't testify. Do the Democrats need or are they fixing to kind of portray anyone other than the president as a villain here? Are they, is it a part of their trial strategy, to be to be really painting, say, Sondland or Volker in dark tones? Or is it enough to simply get out the facts about the president? What do you discern as their strategy there?
Barb McQuade [00:31:44] You know, I'm not sure, but I do think there's a risk that the more you paint some of these other characters to be villains, the easier it might be for people to blame them. You know, and point to the empty chair instead of President Trump.
Harry Litman [00:31:59] And so, by the way, "point to yhe empty chai"r, I mean, that's a prosecutor's phrase. What do you mean by "point to the empty chair"?
Barb McQuade [00:32:04] Well, they're not there. They're not in the room. And so they aren't there to defend themselves. And so it might be dangerous to paint Rudy Giuliani, for example, as a bad actor here. I think he was certainly a facilitator and an accomplice and perhaps a co-conspirator of President Trump's. But if you elevate his role or the role of Gordon Sondland or others beyond that, which the facts suggest, I think there's a risk that people will say they they went rogue and they were served poorly. President Trump was served poorly by them. They were engaging in their own shadow diplomacy way beyond what he ever envisioned. And so I think there's some risk that if you paint them as the boogey man, that it could in some ways provide cover for President Trump. Now, I think you've got to be honest about the facts that they were involved and they were facilitators, especially when they come in and testify. You don't want to have them appear to be your pal. You don't want fact finders to have to feel like they're on your team. They clearly are wrongdoers here and should be portrayed as such. But I just think if you lay it on too thick, it leaves an out for President Trump.
Harry Litman [00:33:17] That's really interesting. I mean, there's one particular possible gap that really does scream out, "What are they going to say?" And that is the gap. And then they averted to it today. You know, there's just not much. This is what seems so important about the phone call. Not much comes out of direct conversation with the president. The president's conversations are all kind of given second hand. But if you don't really fill in the part that, you know, Sondland and Giuliani are playing in particular, then it's likewise hard, I think, to roll things back to the Oval Office. I mean, Glenn, what would be your sense if you were trying it?
Glenn Kirschner [00:34:04] Yeah, you know, I agree with Barb. The more they paint the Mulvaney and the Giuliani's and the Pompeos as villains and wrongdoers, the more opportunity Trump has, and I'm sure we're going to hear this at some point, to just throw them under the bus and point the finger at them, because he's going to want to say everything that was done improperly was done by my underlings without my knowledge. Anything that was done properly, like, oh, the aid finally being released. I did. So I don't know that we want to spend a lot of time diluting the attention away from the real wrongdoer who is Trump here. Eyes on the prize. And you know, Trump has some major league incentive to want to get reelected, I mean, we've kind of moved away from some of the narratives that we were talking more about during the Mueller report in the immediate aftermath. But you know, this this is a guy who can't be indicted while he's a sitting president. So he has a whole lot of incentive to try to win this reelection by hook or by crook, because it could very literally, this sounds hyperbolic, but I don't think it is. It could very literally be the only thing keeping him out of prison. And then secondarily, something I don't think we've talked too much about is every day that he withheld that aid that Congress had allocated to the Ukraine to protect itself against Russian aggression was another day that made Russia very, very happy and gave Russia a greater foothold by the day in Ukraine. So I don't think we should ignore that as yet another motivating factor for Trump, because we've heard it and I believe it that all roads with Trump lead to Russia.
Harry Litman [00:35:55] Yeah. All right. So now back to these secondary players and whether they're villains or not. Is it clear? Does either of you have any doubt that Sondland and Volker will testify. Can they try to stay away? Presumably we don't hear from Giuliani, we don't hear from Pompeo, we don't hear from Mulvaney. So Sondland and Volker have an unbreakable date with the Judiciary Committee, would you say? I think so. I think it would be hard for them at this stage to try to assert some sort of privilege. They've already testified for lengthy hours to now at this stage assert some sort of privilege, I think would be challenging. I suppose Sondland could invoke his Fifth Amendment right now that it appears that he could incriminate himself. There have been a lot of contradictions. He had to issue that correction already. And the more people testify, the more inconsistencies begin to appear in his testimony. But I think we'll see both of them.
Harry Litman [00:36:56] Glenn, there's one really I'd say dramatic pivotal point coming up if he does testify. Remember that he receives a text. What's going on? Is that is it really a good idea from from Taylor, I believe, to do you know, why are we why are we doing this for political gain? And and Sondland says, call me. And we and we know that there's a phone call with Trump. And unlike much of the other that after which Sondland just, you know, tells him, well, there's no quid pro quo, but there's a quid pro quo. Now, it's an interesting situation for the Dems. Everything they talked about today, they knew what the answer would be. Presumably they don't. What do you think is going to transpire when they pin Sondland to the wall and say, what did the president and you talk about in that phone call?
Glenn Kirschner [00:37:58] You know, not all that sure that Sondland is the nimblest of witnesses, because if he is saying things like, "You know, listen, the president is saying there is no quid pro quo. But you know what? If Ukraine doesn't agree to announce this investigation into the Bidens, then we're at a stalemate." Well, you just said in one breath there's no quid pro quo. And in another breath that there is a quid pro quo. So I don't know how going just how quick Sondland is on his feet. And I actually am kind of with Barb in suspecting that we may see the First Fifth Amendment invocation, particularly given I know he's already testified. He's already waived to a certain extent. But given that new revelation about the phone call, which I don't -- hich I think was a revelation to everybody, he may have a fifth. And his attorney may advise him to to plead it. So we'll have to see what that moment looks like.
Harry Litman [00:39:09] All right. What a day and more to come. You know, there's a whole different kind of conversation going on now about whether it will matter whether the Republicans will stay completely in lockstep and try to ignore what strikes all of us as being an avalanche of evidence. And this will be playing out over the next few weeks. For now, I'll just say thank you very much to Barb and Glenn for tuning in on a long day where they've been pundits from dawn to dusk and after. And so thanks for taking that last 45 minutes to give thoughts to the Talking Feds audience. And thank you very much, listeners, for tuning into Talking Feds, if you like what you've heard, please subscribe to us on Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts and please take a moment to rate and review this podcast or tell a friend about us. You can follow us on Twitter at Talking Feds Pod to find out about future episodes and other Feds related content. And you can also check us out on the web at Talking Feds dot com. Thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, The Feds will keep talking.
[00:40:37] Talking Feds is produced by Jennie Josephson, Dave Moldovan, Anthony Lemos and Rebecca Lopatin. David Lieberman is our contributing writer. Production Assistance by Sarah Philipoom and Sam Trachtenberg. Thanks as always to the incredible Philip Glass who graciously lets us use his music. Talking Feds is a production of Dalito LLC. Thanks for joining. I'm Harry Litman. See you next time.
