The New York Times - 08.10.2019

A14 0 N THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONALTUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2019

The 45th PresidentImpeachment

of Ohio, who had previously raised
concerns about the withheld aid
money, chastised Mr. Trump on
Monday for soliciting foreign as-
sistance for his own political pur-
poses, though he added that he did
not view the conduct as impeach-
able.
“The president should not have
raised the Biden issue on that call,
period,” Mr. Portman told The Co-
lumbus Dispatch. “It’s not appro-
priate for a president to engage a
foreign government in an investi-
gation of a political opponent.”
With the new subpoenas issued
on Monday, the House was trying
to unearth communications and
other records that might shed
light on two enduring questions at
the center of the impeachment in-
quiry: why the White House de-
cided last summer to abruptly
suspend the $391 million aid pack-
age to Ukraine, and whether it
was connected to contemporane-
ous efforts by Mr. Trump and his
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giu-
liani, to pressure the country to in-
vestigate former Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other
Democrats.
The subpoenas, issued by the
Democrat-controlled House Intel-
ligence Committee, follow similar
demands for documents from the
State Department and the White
House made in recent days. They
gave the agencies until Oct. 15 to
hand over notes, memos and com-
munications related to the aid, de-
liberations over its delivery
within the government, and possi-
ble conversations with Ukrainian
officials about it.
Mr. Trump personally ordered
his staff to freeze the aid just days
before a now infamous July call in
which he asked President
Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to
do him “a favor” and help investi-
gate Mr. Biden and a conspiracy
theory about Ukrainian meddling
in the 2016 election. He lifted a
block on its delivery in September

only under intense bipartisan

pressure from Congress, where

lawmakers view the money as vi-

tal to combating Russia’s armed

aggression in the region.

The White House has denied

that the aid was being withheld to

exert leverage over the Ukraini-

ans, but at least one senior diplo-

mat worried privately that that

was precisely what was happen-

ing, and the administration has

been unwilling to answer ques-

tions about the timeline and ratio-

nale for the decision. Regardless

of the reasoning, the decision to

withhold aid that was allocated by

Congress on a bipartisan basis

prompted confusion and concern

within the State and Defense De-

partments, which were responsi-

ble for delivering the money, as

well as among lawmakers in both

parties who had a hand in allocat-

ing it.

Democrats leading the im-

peachment inquiry in the House

suspect the actions may be relat-

ed. They point to comments in

early September by Vice Presi-

dent Mike Pence, who said pub-

licly that a review of the funds was

based on White House concerns

about “issues of corruption.”

“The enclosed subpoena de-

mands documents that are neces-

sary for the committees to exam-

ine this sequence of these events

and the reasons behind the White

House’s decision to withhold criti-

cal military assistance to Ukraine

that was appropriated by Con-

gress to counter Russian ag-

gression,” read the letters accom-

panying the subpoenas, signed by

Representative Adam B. Schiff,

the chairman of the Intelligence

Committee; Representative Eli-

jah E. Cummings, the chairman of

the Oversight and Reform Com-

mittee; and Representative Eliot

L. Engel, the chairman of the For-

eign Affairs Committee.

The Defense Department had

been anticipating a subpoena.

Last week, the Pentagon’s general

counsel directed all department

heads to collect and turn in all doc-

uments and material related to

military aid to Ukraine.

“As we’ve stated previously, we

are prepared to work with Con-

gress and other relevant parties

on questions related to the issue of

Ukrainian aid as appropriate,” Lt.

Col. Carla M. Gleason, a Pentagon

spokeswoman, said on Monday.

The budget office did not reply

to a request for comment. The

House Appropriations and Budg-

et Committees are reviewing

some documents produced by the

budget office in response to a sep-

arate request the two committees

sent in late September about the

delay in the foreign aid, aides said

on Monday.

As the subpoenas stack up, the

impeachment inquiry is gaining

steam less than three weeks after

House leaders opened it.

The White House has threat-

ened to try to stonewall investiga-

tors’ requests, and Mr. Trump has

mounted a near round-the-clock

defense of himself. But witnesses

have steadily begun to produce

documentary evidence — some of

which has bolstered the initial

complaint — and a spate of pri-

vate witness depositions are ex-

pected in the coming weeks.

The Intelligence Committee

also appears to be close to con-

ducting an interview with the

whistle-blower himself. The pre-

cise format of the meeting,

though, remains a matter of delib-

eration as Democrats seek to pro-

tect the identity of the official —

possibly even from congressional

Republicans.

Whistle-blowers’ disclosures

are protected under the law, and

their identities are typically care-

fully guarded. But Mr. Trump has

forcefully attacked the whistle-

blower, called his actions treason

and demanded to learn his iden-

tity to “meet my accuser.” Demo-

crats fear Mr. Trump’s allies on

their committee could try to feed

details about the official’s identity

to the White House or to the pub-

lic, putting the whistle-blower in

danger.

In addition to logistics, the com-

mittee has been waiting for law-

yers representing the whistle-

blower to receive the requisite se-

curity clearances to participate in

a congressional interview. Mark

S. Zaid, one of the whistle-blower’s

lawyers, said on Monday that two

of the three have now done so and

a third is close to completing the

process, meaning an interview

could be scheduled as soon as late

this week.

It was unclear whether the law-

yers would seek to arrange an in-

terview with Congress and a sec-

ond intelligence official whom

they now represent, and who they

said could corroborate parts of the

whistle-blower’s claims.

The investigating committees

had scheduled a deposition for

Monday with George P. Kent, a

deputy assistant secretary of

state and Ukraine expert, but Mr.

Kent did not show up as planned.

A committee aide said that con-

versations about scheduling a

new date with Mr. Kent were con-

tinuing, and implied that at least

three other witnesses scheduled

to appear this week were also in

doubt.

Mr. Kent is the head of the State

Department’s bureau of Euro-

pean and Eurasian affairs, but he

served until 2018 as a top Ameri-

can diplomat in Ukraine.

The three others are T. Ulrich

Brechbuhl, the State Depart-

ment’s counselor, who the whistle-

blower said listened in on the July

phone call, and Lev Parnas and

Igor Fruman, associates of Mr.

Giuliani, who aided his attempts

to gin up investigations in

Ukraine.

John M. Dowd, a lawyer for Mr.

Parnas and Mr. Fruman, wrote to

the Intelligence Committee last

week that its requests for docu-

ments were “overly broad and un-

duly burdensome” and that its

proposed timeline for document

production and witness inter-

views was unreasonable. He ac-

cused Democrats of trying to

“harass, intimidate and embar-

rass my clients” but did not rule

out that they would cooperate.

The committee aide said that if

Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman failed

to comply, they would receive sub-

poenas compelling them to do so

“in short order.”

Still, two key figures from the

State Department were con-

firmed to participate in their

scheduled depositions. Gordon D.

Sondland, the United States am-

bassador to the European Union,

who was deeply involved in Mr.

Trump’s policy toward Ukraine, is

expected to speak to investigators

on Tuesday. And on Friday, they

will question Marie L.

Yovanovitch, the former Ameri-

can ambassador to Ukraine, who

was recalled from her post in May

after she was deemed not to be

sufficiently supportive of Mr.

Trump’s agenda there.

House Widens Impeachment Inquiry to Pentagon and Budget Office

Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

ERIN SCHAFF/THE NEW YORK TIMES

From Page A

Emily Cochrane, Julian E. Barnes
and Helene Cooper contributed re-
porting.

Two senior diplomats

are expected to speak

to investigators.

WASHINGTON — When Ener-
gy Secretary Rick Perry led an
American delegation to the inau-
guration of Ukraine’s new presi-
dent in May, he took the opportu-
nity to suggest the names of
Americans the new Ukrainian
government might want to advise
and oversee the country’s state-
owned gas company.
Mr. Perry’s focus during the trip
on Ukraine’s energy industry was
in keeping with a push he had be-
gun months earlier under the pre-
vious Ukrainian president, and it
was consistent with United States
policy of promoting anti-corrup-
tion efforts in Ukraine and greater
energy independence from Rus-
sia.
But his actions during the trip
have entangled him in a contro-
versy about a pressure campaign
waged by President Trump and
his allies directed at the new
Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, that is at the center of
the impeachment inquiry into Mr.
Trump. That effort sought to pres-
sure Mr. Zelensky’s government
to investigate Mr. Trump’s rivals,
including former Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading con-
tender for the Democratic presi-
dential nomination to challenge
Mr. Trump.
Mr. Perry’s trip raised ques-
tions about whether he was seek-
ing to provide certain Americans
help in gaining a foothold in the
Ukrainian energy business at a
time when the new Ukrainian gov-
ernment was looking to the United
States for signals of support in its
simmering conflict with Russia.
Mr. Trump seemed to suggest
last week that he made a July 25
phone call to Mr. Zelensky, during
which he repeatedly urged his
Ukrainian counterpart to pursue
investigations that could political-
ly benefit him, at the urging of Mr.
Perry. Mr. Trump told congres-
sional Republicans last week that
Mr. Perry wanted him to discuss
the liquefied natural gas supply
with Mr. Zelensky, Axios reported.
That topic did not specifically
come up in the call between the
two leaders, according to the re-
constructed transcript released
by the White House. Text mes-
sages released last week by
House investigators showed that
other officials were suggesting
that the president speak with Mr.
Zelensky to nail down an agree-
ment for Ukraine to move ahead
with the investigations being
sought by Mr. Trump.

At a news conference on Mon-

day in Vilnius, Lithuania, where

he was meeting with Ukrainian

and Polish energy officials, Mr.

Perry said he asked Mr. Trump

“multiple times” to hold a phone

call with Mr. Zelensky.

Mr. Perry’s role in the diplo-

macy between the countries high-

lights the degree to which Mr.

Trump entrusted his Ukraine pol-

icy to an ad hoc coalition of loy-

alists inside and outside the gov-

ernment, especially after the re-

call of the ambassador to Ukraine

amid questions among Mr.

Trump’s supporters about her loy-

alty to the president. It also re-

veals the extent to which Ukrain-

ian politics and national security

revolve around energy supplies.

Mr. Perry’s efforts, while

broadly consistent with American

national security and energy ob-

jectives, intersected with those of

the figures involved in the pres-

sure campaign. Two American

diplomats who attended Mr. Ze-

lensky’s inauguration with Mr.

Perry — Gordon D. Sondland, the

United States ambassador to the

European Union, and Kurt D.

Volker, then the State Depart-

ment’s special envoy to Ukraine

— pushed Mr. Zelensky to publicly

commit to the investigations and

were involved in setting up the

call between Mr. Trump and Mr.

Zelensky.

They appeared to work on the

effort with Rudolph W. Giuliani,

the president’s personal lawyer

and a leading force in the cam-

paign to pressure the Ukrainian

government to pursue the investi-

gations. Two associates of Mr. Giu-

liani also sought changes to the

leadership of the Ukrainian state-

owned gas company, Naftogaz.

Those changes would have re-

quired approval from a supervi-

sory board Mr. Perry sought to

shape.

One of Mr. Giuliani’s associates,

Lev Parnas, pitched a liquefied

natural gas deal to the chief exec-

utive of Naftogaz in early spring,

as The New York Times reported

last month.

The deal was rejected by the

Naftogaz executive.

But Mr. Parnas and a partner

who was also involved in Mr. Giuli-

ani’s political efforts in Ukraine,

Igor Fruman, also sought to install

a presumptive ally as Naftogaz’s

chief executive. They told a gas

executive named Andrey Favorov

that they could use their Ameri-

can political connections to help

him become chief executive of

Naftogaz, suggesting that, if ap-

pointed, he might steer the com-

pany to buy liquefied natural gas

from them, according to Dale

Perry, the managing partner of a

company that competes with one

run by Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fru-

man.

Mr. Favorov, who is a lower-

ranking executive at Naftogaz, re-

jected the proposal, which was

first reported by The Associated

Press.

Dale Perry, who is not related to

the energy secretary, said he

found it “very troubling and dis-

turbing” that Mr. Parnas and Mr.

Fruman boasted that they had

worked with Mr. Giuliani to force

the recall this spring of the Ameri-

can ambassador to Ukraine, Ma-

rie L. Yovanovitch.

But people in Ukraine and the

United States who are familiar

with the conversations said the

Ukrainian government had re-

quested recommendations from

Mr. Perry for Americans who

could advise Naftogaz and the

government on governance re-

forms and liquefied natural gas

transportation.

Mr. Perry recommended four

Americans as possible advisers

on energy issues, according to the

Americans and Ukrainians who

are familiar with the conversa-

tions. Names floated included

Carlos Pascual, a former Ameri-

can ambassador to Ukraine, and

Daniel Yergin, an author and ener-

gy expert who has worked with

Mr. Pascual at an energy advisory

firm.

Mr. Perry, a former governor of

Texas, specifically recommended

two Texas-based investors who

work in Ukraine, Michael Bleyzer

and Robert Bensh, for a supervi-

sory board of Naftogaz, according

to the Americans and Ukrainians

familiar with the conversations.

Mr. Bleyzer, a Republican do-

nor, has proposed gas deals with

Naftogaz, according to people fa-

miliar with his efforts.

Shaylyn Hynes, a spokeswom-

an for the Energy Department,

said in a statement on Monday

night that Mr. Perry “has consis-

tently called for the moderniza-

tion and reform of Kiev’s business

and energy sector in an effort to

create an environment that will

incentivize Western companies to

do business in Ukraine.” As part of

that effort, and at the request of

Mr. Zelensky’s administration,

Ms. Hynes said Mr. Perry “recom-

mended the names of some widely

respected individuals in the

American energy sector, includ-

ing government experts” at the

Energy Department. But, she said

Mr. Perry “did not recommend

these individuals be placed on any

board.”

Nonetheless, the circulation of

the names of Mr. Bleyzer and Mr.

Bensh as possible Naftogaz ap-

pointments led to speculation that

Naftogaz was considering remov-

ing from the supervisory board a

former Obama administration of-

ficial named Amos J. Hochstein.

Mr. Hochstein had worked with

Mr. Biden on his Ukraine efforts

as vice president.

That imbued the discussion

about the board appointments

with political overtones at a time

when Democrats were beginning

to build an impeachment case

around the actions of Mr. Trump

and his team to press Ukraine to

investigate Mr. Biden and his son,

who had served on the board of a

private Ukrainian gas company.

Adding to the complexity of the

situation: When Mr. Zelensky dis-

patched one of his top aides to

Washington in July to meet with

members of Congress and the

Trump administration, and to try

to connect with Mr. Giuliani, some

of the meetings on Capitol Hill

were arranged by a Naftogaz lob-

byist, and attended by a Naftogaz

official.

Naftogaz, until just a few years

ago a money-losing monopoly

stained by corruption, has been

substantially overhauled in recent

years to survive without Russian

gas and to compete in the Euro-

pean Union market.

To comply with European Un-

ion regulations and be able to sell

Ukrainian gas to the bloc’s ener-

gy-hungry countries, the com-

pany has been weaning itself off

subsidies and spinning off its gas-

transmission operations into a

new entity with a guaranteed in-

come of at least $2 billion a year.

Naftogaz officials said that this

company, which will come into ex-

istence in January, and Naftogaz’s

operations storing gas under-

ground could attract American in-

vestments, and that they were at

the heart of what the United

States administration was inter-

ested in.

Naftogaz officials said the

American interest was sufficient

that Mr. Sondland held further dis-

cussions about the planned spin-

off of the transmission operations

in Brussels.

Perry’s Focus on Gas Company During Trip Entangles Him in Ukraine Case

Energy Secretary Rick Perry, left, with Zygimantas Vaiciunas, the Lithuanian energy chief, at a news conference on Monday.

INTS KALNINS/REUTERS

This article is by Kenneth P. Vogel,
Matina Stevis-Gridneffand An-
drew E. Kramer.

Kenneth P. Vogel reported from
Washington, Matina Stevis-Grid-
neff from Brussels and Andrew E.
Kramer from Kiev, Ukraine.

Suggesting Americans

as possible advisers

on energy issues.