impeachment. based upon his public comments, seems he s certainly leaning heavily in one direction. i think we know what that is. okay. when we re talking about with the narrative what that s going to be. you said somethinging that you thought was very important, sophia. they re making this very broad, a very broad case about what this is? making it about democracy and he we are. also in the executive summary spelling out this narrative for what happened in the case of ukraine. the president conditioned a white house meeting and military aid to ukraine on a public announcement of investigations beneficial to his re-election campaign. it goes on to say, so the president removes anti-corruption champion ambassador yovanovitch. really the headlines in this. president s hancepicked agents begin the scheme. president trump throws vital military assistance, conditioned a meeting on those investigations.
abstract personal benefits sought by a president. what this likely refers to is the testimony from gordon sondland, the ambassador to the european union who said everybody was in the loop as part of the push to get ukraine s president to have a meeting with president trump in exchange for investigations into the president s political rivals. that s something that gordon sondland testified was a quik quik. -o -o a quid pro quo and security investigations tied to those as well. the vice president after a meeting a meeting between vice president pence in warsaw gordon sondland had a meeting pulled him aside saying the security assistance was likely tied to investigations. pence denied they had any knowledge of a quid pro quo and
corrupt, because it was being promulgated by, you know, by this this deep state that you don t trust and that now includes not only the state department but obviously now the fbi, the cia, whatever you want to throw in there, that you could believe that donald trump was actually saving the country rather than destroying the constitution, as you point out. this is actually a really important point. because sometimes we hear the argument made in the context of everything that s been revealed through ukraine, we re hearing the arguments about why u.s. assistance to ukraine is important, and why ukraine is an ally. all of that is correct. i mean, i happen to agree with that as a policy matter that usually has been the subject of a bipartisan national security consensus. but that s not actually the impeachable offense and that s going to be it s really important to distinguish between the fact that if the president did decide to change ukraine
right? he was this was what was considered the prevailing interest of the u.s. when it came to policy with ukraine. allies. our ally. yes. and a key point fiona hill made, describing her realization that she was doing foreign policy and her colleagues were involved in doing actual foreign policy and national security on behalf of the united states, and rudy giuliani and gordon sondland and other individuals working on the president s behalf were working in what she called a domestic political errand, and that was where it s an important distinction and one of the more nuanced things this inquirely have to explain is the difference between conducting foreign policy and doing personal political bidding. robin wright joins us, a joint distinguished fellow at the wilson center. what are you thinking hearing what s in this summary of this
of impeachment. puckli publicly repeatedly challenged the authority of the house to conduct an impeachment inquiry into his accesses rasegarding ukraine. up see what they re trying to make the argument where this comes down going forward. how they ultimately expect house judiciary committee to deal with this as they start to draft the articles of impeachment. democrats careful not to explicitly say the president should be removed from office. they stopped just short of that saying ultimately that it s up to the house judiciary committee, up to the full house but clear here where they stand. they, in fact, do believe the president should be impeached, that the president did commit these acts abusing his office, engaging in misconduct and clearly obstruction of congress in their view. they make the case for impeachment as an institution and then they make the case against the president. manu raju, thank you so much. i want to show folks, this is it. okay? 300 pages. a very lengthy repo