Facts vs. Fiction in the Impeachment Proceedings Against Donald Trump

Summary

Facts vs. Fiction in the Impeachment Proceedings Against Donald Trump

The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Date: December 5, 2019
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guest: Susan B. Glasser

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, executive editor Dorothy Wickenden speaks with New Yorker staff writer Susan B. Glasser to dissect the ongoing impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, focusing on the facts unearthed so far and the narratives competing in public discourse. Drawing on recent depositions, testimony, and reporting, they clarify what is now firmly established about the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, key witnesses’ roles, and the broader implications for American democracy.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Incontrovertible Facts About Trump and Ukraine

[03:07–07:03]

• The House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Adam Schiff, compiled significant evidence related to Trump’s attempt to solicit political help from Ukraine.
• Fiona Hill’s testimony powerfully situated Trump’s actions within the broader context of Russian intervention and disinformation (see Notable Quotes below).
• Susan B. Glasser underlines that, “in a short amount of time they were able to get a large pile of evidence, all of which essentially tends to confirm, reinforce and fill in the picture,” built from the July 25th call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky and the whistleblower’s complaint. [03:34]
• There’s on-record testimony and documents indicating Trump personally ordered both the withholding of military aid to Ukraine and the removal of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, motivated by personal political interests and at the urging of Rudy Giuliani.
• The “Three Amigos” (Gordon Sondland, Kurt Volker, Rick Perry) were instructed by Trump to work with Giuliani on Ukraine matters, signaling an unorthodox, unofficial channel defining U.S. policy. [04:59–06:12]

2. The Impeachment Case: Sufficient Evidence or Not?

[07:03–09:33]

• Some legal and political observers, like Jonathan Turley, argue the available evidence does not meet the threshold for impeachable offenses, especially bribery or obstruction.
• A fundamental challenge: Trump’s closest associates (e.g., Bolton, Perry, Pompeo, Mulvaney) have refused to testify or have not been subpoenaed, leaving gaps that might otherwise be critical “John Dean”-style testimony.
• New evidence continues to surface, such as call logs tying Rudy Giuliani to OMB and Lev Parnas, but substantial stonewalling has limited the scope.
• The House is likely treating Trump’s refusal to cooperate as an additional article of impeachment, focusing on obstruction of Congress as a response to deliberate stonewalling.

  “There are real questions about, well, is this just accepting the reality that Trump's stonewalling has been effective? The House says they're going to proceed and basically make obstruction of Congress one of the articles of impeachment as their way of addressing the incompleteness of the investigation.” – Susan Glasser [09:14]

3. The Role and Calculations of John Bolton

[10:18–12:17]

• John Bolton, former national security adviser, is seen as holding vital, undisclosed knowledge. According to his lawyer, he knows about “many relevant meetings and conversations about Ukraine.”
• Bolton refused to testify, possibly to protect his own political interests or book deal.

  “He just wasn’t going to risk any of his capital with Trump on behalf of his staff. … Bolton seems to be basically saying it’s not in what he perceives to be his interests and he’s just not going to do it, even though he clearly has stated he has valuable evidence that the public should need to know about.” – Susan Glasser [10:48]

4. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s Role and Priorities

[12:17–14:14]

• Pompeo protected his own standing with the President over the concerns of his staff, failing to defend Ambassador Yovanovitch despite the political campaign against her.
• Pompeo has withheld information, avoided transparency, and was misleading about his own involvement in Trump’s call with Zelensky.

  “His priority has been and will remain pleasing the president. And he just wasn’t going to risk any of his capital with Trump on behalf of his staff.” – Susan Glasser [13:39]

5. House Intelligence Committee’s Devin Nunes’ Complicity

[14:15–15:23]

• Devin Nunes, a key Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, was found to have phone contacts with Giuliani and Lev Parnas during the orchestration of the campaign against Yovanovitch.
• Nunes’ proximity to the events is "incredibly remarkable" and suggests deeper complicity.

6. Rudy Giuliani’s Brazen Influence and Ongoing Activities

[15:23–16:32]

• Giuliani continues to visit Ukraine and orchestrate political maneuvers abroad, even as the impeachment hearings unfold, described as “brazen.”
• He is reportedly working on a pro-Trump, anti-impeachment documentary involving the same Ukrainian contacts implicated in the controversy.

7. The Scope of Impeachment and Articles Under Consideration

[16:32–18:17]

• There’s a debate within the Democratic caucus about whether to limit impeachment articles to Ukraine or include broader charges such as obstruction of justice (relating to the Mueller investigation).
• Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are poised to consider at least three articles: the Ukraine scheme, obstruction of Congress, and possibly obstruction of justice.
• Next steps include Judiciary Committee hearings and potential drafting of multiple articles of impeachment.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

Fiona Hill’s Testimony on Russian Interference and the Importance of Truth

• “Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert Korea foreign service is being undermined.” – Fiona Hill [02:15]
• “Right now, Russia's security services and their Proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. … Please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.” – Fiona Hill [02:34]

On the Political Calculations of Key Players

• “Bolton seems to be basically saying it’s not in what he perceives to be his interests and he’s just not going to do it, even though he clearly has stated he has valuable evidence that the public should need to know about.” – Susan Glasser [11:06]
• “His priority has been and will remain pleasing the president. And he just wasn’t going to risk any of his capital with Trump on behalf of his staff.” – Susan Glasser on Pompeo [13:39]

The Surreal Nature of Giuliani’s Conduct

• “Giuliani … was in Ukraine itself. He appears to be making some sort of a pro-Trump, anti-impeachment documentary with some of the very same characters who were feeding him this information in Ukraine. The merger of public and private interests … if it was in a novel, you'd probably reject it as being too implausible.” – Susan Glasser [15:40]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Schiff’s Committee Summary & Fiona Hill’s Testimony: [01:16–02:51]
• Established Facts on Ukraine Affair: [03:07–06:12]
• Impeachment Evidence & Missing Testimony: [07:03–09:33]
• John Bolton’s Knowledge & Motivations: [10:18–12:17]
• Pompeo’s Conduct & Priorities: [12:17–14:15]
• Devin Nunes’ Involvement: [14:15–15:23]
• Rudy Giuliani’s Brazen Actions: [15:23–16:32]
• Articles of Impeachment—What's Next: [16:32–18:17]

---

Summary Takeaways

This episode clarifies the facts and raging controversies at the heart of the Trump impeachment inquiry, exposing the orchestrated back-channel Ukraine negotiations, the suppression of key witnesses, and the prioritization of political over national interest by senior Trump officials. It highlights both the solidity of the evidence already in public view and the obstacles imposed by a determined campaign of silence from Trump’s inner circle. Above all, it illustrates the ongoing struggle to define reality in a time when “truth is questioned” and tactics of obfuscation are as central as the facts themselves.

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year. Skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and guests about Politics. It's Thursday, December 5th. I'm Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of the New Yorker. Representative Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, conducted two months of depositions from 17 former and current State Department and White House officials, 12 of whom testified publicly on Tuesday. Schiff bluntly summarized the committee's findings in a report that said the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the US Government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his re election. The most remarkable of the witnesses called was Fiona Hill, who until last summer served as Trump's top adviser on Russia and Europe. Hill had this to say in her opening statement on November 21.

[Fiona Hill]

The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert Korea foreign service is being undermined. US Support for Ukraine, which continues to face armed aggression.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Aggression has been politicized, she continued.

[Fiona Hill]

Right now, Russia's security services and their Proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Susan Glaser joins me from Washington to discuss what we know about Trump's potentially impeachable offenses and what we still don't know, and whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach the president. Susan, welcome back.

[Susan Glasser]

Thank you so much, Dorothy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So after all of that testimony, we know a lot more about the Trump administration's back channel operations in Ukraine. But I think that even people who have been following the proceedings pretty closely have trouble sorting it all out. So I'd like to begin by asking you what is now incontrovertible, except to those driving the fictional narrative that Hill talks about about Trump's dealings with Ukraine?

[Susan Glasser]

Well, look, I think it's very striking that in a short amount of time they were able to get a large pile of evidence, all of which essentially tends to confirm, reinforce and fill in the picture. That was immediately apparent when we saw the White House generated record of his July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the whistleblower's complaint. We started out with the allegation that the president of the United States had essentially subverted American foreign policy for his own personal political interests and that he had conditioned US US Actions on this personal favor, as he called it, that he was demanding of the Ukrainian president. There's a lot of on the record testimony, as well as some emails and documents suggesting Trump personally ordered the withholding of the aid. We know that he personally ordered the ouster, early ouster of his ambassador to Ukraine in the spring at the behest of his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

That's Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador.

[Susan Glasser]

That's right. That it was Trump himself who told US Government officials, his ambassador to the EU and his special envoy to Ukraine to work.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

That's Gordon Sondland, correct?

[Susan Glasser]

That's right. So he ordered these folks, the quote, unquote, three amigos, as they would become known, to work with Rudy Giuliani in a May 23, I believe, oval Office meeting. That was Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the eu, Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine, and number three, Rick Perry, at the time the Energy secretary. Those were the three folks that had been the US Delegation to the inauguration of the new Ukrainian president. Because of another action that Donald Trump took, still unexplained he told Zelensky in a brief, congratulatory phone call this spring. Oh, yeah, I'm going to send the Vice President to you and a really high level delegation for your inauguration. Congratulations. Inexplicably, then, Trump ordered Pence not to go to the inauguration, and instead he sent this low level delegation instead. Rick Perry, Gordon Sondland, Kurt Volker, when they came back, they tried to persuade Trump, hey, listen, this guy's a reformer. We could do business with him. And Trump shocks them and he says, listen, you guys, you work with Rudy on this. He's my guy on this. Rudy's the guy I want essentially to be in charge of Ukraine policy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

What do we know about why he barred Pence from attending Zelensky's inauguration?

[Susan Glasser]

We don't know more, we believe. And Rudy has been quoted in various places as suggesting that this was part of their leverage campaign. They were trying to force Ukraine to do what they wanted, which was politically motivated investigations. So in June, early July, the early summer, that's when they freeze the aid. There's a lot of machinations. The three amigos are still trying to get Trump to meet with Zelensky, and what they're hearing back essentially, is, no, as Gordon Sondland said, there is a quid pro quo for that meeting. Unless Zelensky agrees to the investigations, he's not going to get the meeting. So then they say, well, let's try to set up this phone call.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So some argue, including some Democrats, that all of this is not enough to impeach the president. Yesterday, Jonathan Turley was one of four constitutional experts testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. The only Republican witness allowed by Nadler, he said that the Democrats don't have enough evidence that Trump committed bribery in his dealings with Ukraine, and. And that the record does not establish obstruction in this case. So it is true, as I understand it, that there thus far has been no John Dean. You know, there is a cancer on the president moment partly because, or largely because, members of Trump's innermost circle have complied with his demand that they not testify.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, there has been very compelling testimony from senior Trump administration officials. There is an increasing set of questions around essentially the political decision to move forward with impeachment. While it's clear there is still more information that is potentially gettable. In fact, just this week, in the report from the House Intelligence Committee, which was issued on Tuesday, they produced new evidence in that they obtained phone records that showed Giuliani having phone calls with an OMB phone number. Obviously, leading to the speculation that perhaps he was discussing the military aid that would then be withheld by the president. But we don't know that. There's a lot of things we don't know. Rick Perry, the Energy secretary, never subpoenaed John Bolton, the national security adviser, never subpoenaed the Secretary of State. Mike Pompeo, who was on the phone call, never subpoenaed Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff, who said publicly in that memorable press conference, remember that in fact, they had linked the military assistance with the investigations and basically told America to get over it. Well, he has not been subpoenaed. So, you know, there are real questions about, well, is this just accepting the reality that Trump's stonewalling has been effective? The House says they're going to proceed and basically make obstruction of Congress one of the articles of impeachment as their way of addressing the incompleteness of the investigation.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global Editorial director. I'm Michael Kollori, Wired's Director of Consumer, Tech and Culture.

[Susan Glasser]

And I'm Lauren Good.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley, is about.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

The people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week, we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics. Right. So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin, Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Susan, I want to get back to John Bolton. His lawyer said that Bolton knows about many relevant media meetings and conversations about Ukraine that members of Congress are still unaware of. It was clear from Fiona Hill's testimony that Bolton, as you said, strongly oppose, strongly opposed Giuliani's freelance diplomacy. What information could he provide? And why is he being so cagey about not going before Congress?

[Susan Glasser]

I think, in a way, it's sort of one of those examples that stands for the whole situation right now. Here's a guy who clearly opposed what Trump was doing, who didn't want anything to do with it, who didn't want his staff to have anything to do with it, and yet, you know, he's refused to do what his subordinates saw as their legally and constitutionally obligated duty. This is a guy who signed a $2 million book deal. Clearly, he's going to be airing at least his policy differences with Trump. And it just, it seems like one of these incredibly cynical, you know, kind of greedy things. And, you know, Bolton seems to be basically saying it's not in what he perceives to be his interests and he's just not going to do it, even though he clearly has stated he has valuable evidence that the public should need to know about.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So is he thinking about his own political future? What's he got in mind?

[Susan Glasser]

You know, it's a good question. He has reemerged in public recently, last week, tantalizing people on Twitter. He has relaunched his super pac, which is a PAC that raises money and spends it on behalf of Republican and conservative candidates. And perhaps he sees it in his own political interest not to alienate potential donors to his super pac, many of whom, I guess, are die hard Republicans. Perhaps they're supporters of Trump still, you know, so he's not clarified his motives, but they do seem to be political in nature.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo keeps popping up as a participant in the administration's Ukraine conversations. You wrote about him for the New Yorker in August. What has emerged through these hearings about how Mike Pompeo conducts diplomacy? He didn't exactly go to bat for Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador to Ukraine.

[Susan Glasser]

No, he didn't. I actually had spoken with a number of my contacts from Russia days about the ouster of Marie Yovanovitch in the course of reporting the Pompeo profile. Because even this summer, without knowing anything that we would later learn about the withholding and aid and the like, it was a very unusual episode and it really didn't go down well with professional diplomats who were shocked that a three time ambassador, which is what Marie Yovanovitch was, in other words, one of the most senior members of the Foreign Service, had been summarily forced out of her position for what was clearly a political campaign. Remember, Giuliani was doing this in public on Fox News. The president son was hate tweeting about our ambassador to Ukraine. This was a crazy situation. But, you know, it quickly became clear. And it was certainly clear for me in talking with people who were familiar with Pompeo's work in the Trump administration, that, you know, his priority has been and will remain pleasing the president. And he just wasn't going to risk any of his capital with Trump on behalf of his staff. We've also learned that Pompeo has not been forthcoming with even basic information. For example, he gave initially interviews about Trump's phone call without admitting that he had actually been listening on the phone call himself. He's had very hostile interactions with reporters who dare to ask him even basic questions about this very significant foreign policy controversy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Tell us a little bit, too about Devin Nunes, who is another unsavory character in this drama.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, Devin Nunez is really fascinating because he appears to be both a senior congressional actor in this drama and in some way that we don't yet fully understand, actually involved with the plotters themselves. It was just an incredible revelation this week. He is the senior Republican, the top Republican and former chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Well, the report issued this week by his Democratic counterparts on the House Intelligence Committee revealed that Nunez was on phone calls not only with Rudy Giuliani as this plot against Marie Yovanovitch was playing out, but also with Giuliani's sort of shadowy Ukraine associate, Lev Parnas, who has subsequently been arrested for campaign finance violations of allegedly illegally funneling money to Trump officials campaigns.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

That brings us to the key protagonist in this affair as we've been discussing, Rudy Giuliani, who right now is in Europe consorting with the very people he's under scrutiny for interacting with on Trump's behalf. What is he doing?

[Susan Glasser]

You know, certainly when the history of the Trump era is written, the word brazen is going to appear a lot of times. Giuliani is not only on a European trip yesterday as the House of Representatives having a hearing on impeaching the president. He was in Ukraine. He was in Ukraine itself. He appears to be making some sort of a pro Trump, anti impeachment documentary with some of the very same characters who were feeding him this information in Ukraine. The merger of public and private interests and intervening in the complicated swirling politics of an Eastern European country at war with Russia is just if it was in a novel, you'd probably reject it as being too implausible.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And all of this is part of this animated debate that's going on about whether Schiff and Pelosi should, as planned, limit their scope to Trump's interactions with Ukraine. What are the pros and cons of including an article of impeachment that would, say, charge Trump with hindering Congress in its constitutional role in conducting an impeachment inquiry.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, so this is you're spotlighting the issue that's really going to dominate next week. Next week is when we're really going to find out what exactly this impeachment is going to be. That's when the Judiciary Committee is going to begin to draw up and to outline the articles of impeachment in the testimony yesterday, the very first hearing that the House Judiciary Committee has held in this impeachment inquiry, the counsel for the Judiciary Committee, Norm Eisen, suggested that they were looking at three articles of impeachment. One would be around Ukraine, one would be obstruction of Congress related to the Ukraine investigation that's refusing to allow testimony and documents from any executive agency. And then the third most controversial he suggested would be an obstruction of justice article presumably having to do with the alleged 10 alleged acts of obstruction outlined in the Mueller report. And on Monday, what's going to happen, we just heard from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that the House Judiciary Committee is going to hear counsels for all of the various committees that have investigated Trump present their evidence. So that presumably includes counsel for the Judiciary Committee who's going to talk about the Mueller related obstruction of justice.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Thank you so much, Susan.

[Susan Glasser]

Thank you, Dorothy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Susan B. Glasser is a staff writer at the New Yorker. She writes a weekly column on Trump's Washington and is the co author of Kremlin, Vladimir Putin's Russia and the End of Revolution. This has been the political scene. You can subscribe to this and other New Yorker podcasts by searching for the New Yorker in your podcast app and find more political analysis and commentary on newyorker.com feel free to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Our theme music is by Russell Gillespie. This program was produced by Alex Barron and Kylie Warner. For newyorker.com I'm Dorothy Wickenden.

[Katie Drummond]

What the hell is going on right now and why is it happening like this? At Wired, we're obsessed with getting to the bottom of those questions on a daily bas basis. And maybe you are too. I'm Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired, and I'm hosting our new podcast series, the Big Interview. Each week I'll sit down with some of the most interesting, provocative and influential people who are shaping our right now. Big Interview conversations are fun. I want a shark that that eats the Internet, that turns it all off, unfiltered and unafraid. So in a lot of ways, I try to be an antidote to the unimaginable faucet of reactionary content that you see online. To the best of my ability, every week we're going to offer you the ultimate luxury of our times. Meaning and context. True or false. You, Brian Johnson, the man sitting across from me. One day, at some point, as of yet undefined in the future, you will die. False. Tell me more. Listen to the Big Interview right now in the same place you find WIRED's Uncanny Valley podcast. Subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

[Fiona Hill]

From.

[Susan Glasser]

PRX.