Stefanik asks Sondland about aid hold

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, speaks before the House Intelligence Committee on Friday. Matt McClain/Washington Post

Congresswoman Elise M. Stefanik again questioned witnesses in the third installment of impeachment hearings on Tuesday, focusing on Joe Biden’s son and the United States giving aide to Ukraine.

In part one of the impeachment hearings, starting at 9 a.m. and continuing into the afternoon, the House Intelligence Committee questioned Jennifer Williams, a special advisor on foreign policy under U. S. Vice President Mike Pence, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert for the National Security Council.

“Today’s witnesses, like those who testified last week, are here because they were subpoenaed to appear, not because they are for or against impeachment,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said in his opening statement. “That question is for Congress, not the fact witnesses.”

Mr. Vindman, who was awarded the Purple Heart, testified his concern over a recent phone call between Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump. A whistleblower complaint at the heart of the inquiry calls into question whether Mr. Trump, during the call, conditioned the release of military aide to Ukraine on the country investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Rep. Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, said she wanted to focus on the fact Ukraine has received aid from the United States and there was no investigation into the Bidens. She also said Hunter Biden has sat on the board of a company called Burisma. The owner of Burisma was the subject of an anti-corruption investigation in 2014 conducted by the United States, United Kingdom and Ukraine for its questionable business dealings.

“I know my constituents in NY 21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president, sat on the board of a corrupt company like Burisma,” Ms. Stefanik said at the hearing. “The Obama administration’s state department was also concerned, and yet (House Intelligence Committee Chairman) Adam Schiff refuses to allow this committee to call Hunter Biden despite our requests.”

Ms. Stefanik then asked the witnesses if they agree Hunter Biden, by being on the board of Burisma, “has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

“Certainly the potential, yes,” Mr. Vindman said.

“Yes,” Ms. Williams replied.

Ms. Stefanik, during her five-minute period to ask questions, also asked the witnesses if they agreed one of the reasons Mr. Zelensky was elected president was because his agenda promised to stand up to corruption. They both agreed.

“For the public listening,” Ms. Stefanik said, “we are not just talking about President Trump focusing on anti-corruption in Ukraine, but it is so critical, so important that hard-earned taxpayer dollars, when given to foreign nations, that by law, overwhelmingly bipartisan support, requires anti-corruption in Ukraine in order to get US taxpayer funded aid.”

After Ms. Stefanik finished her questioning, Congressman Eric Swalwell commented on it.

“The follow-up question my colleague from New York did not ask you but is relevant for everyone at home,” Mr. Swalwell said, “isn’t it true that the Department of Defense had certified that the anti-corruption requirements of Ukraine had been met when the hold was put on by the president?”

“That is correct,” Mr. Vindman said.

Two more witnesses were scheduled to testify at the hearing starting at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, including Kurt Volker, former envoy to Ukraine, and Timothy Morrison, director for Russia with the National Security Council.

Johnson Newspapers 7.1

Recommended for you

(8) comments


"I know my constituents in NY 21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president, sat on the board of a corrupt company like Burisma.” I know that wasn't important to me. Most of us probably knew nothing about it until it became a top news item. Biden's son's stupid choices are lower level appearance of corruption and in the past tense. That the President made it the first (only) thing he asked for while arm twisting with public money is much higher level and in the present tense: he still holds the position he abused. Clearly it will make dandy articles of impeachment, which are being written by the ongoing process. Republicans get airtime so they are using it to distract and practice rhetoric, but nothing they are doing is really relevant. Trump was abusing his high office to solicit a political favor (bribe) from a foreign government. That he was ineffective in this attempt is irrelevant. Stefanik is supporting her party by pushing its talking points. Maybe some low information supporters will be all convinced of something new.


Holmes ---very interesting you also can't believe Mr. Trump won the election and has gone on to do a lot of thinks that he promised to do when every step of the way party of resistance has not given him one break at all. Our Congresswoman has been great in both supporting him as well as her own accomplishments for her constituents.

Sorry but I just can't agree with you on this issue.

Holmes -- the real one

"Stefanik would like to paint herself as an “independent-minded bipartisan” but she has now made clear that the entirety of the GOP has sold their souls to Trump. She must now run for re-election on a record of enabling a corrupt and unfit president even as he has failed to boost Republican candidates to victory in red states. Perhaps this is another benefit of the televised impeachment hearings. Republicans are shameless, and now they’re setting themselves on fire."


The Raw Story is a left-leaning American online news organization founded in 2004

That pretty much covers this.

Holmes -- the real one


And hey, we are still waiting for that discussion of your extensive education in logic!


Ok, here we go. Logic is the systematic study of the form of valid inference , and the most general laws of truth. A valid inference is one where there is specific relation of logical thought. The ability to think clearly (logic) isn’t taught in schools much anymore. Perhaps that is why We see so many people Easily duped. Hint. Hint...

Holmes -- the real one

As to your statement on logic"

It's cool that you know how to cut and paste from Wikipedia.

The request was for you to discuss YOUR OWN training in logic. We all eagerly await your discussion of this. Even more welcome would be your demonstration of the use of logic in your political thinking.

I agree that it's a pity that few people have training and/or experience in actually applying the use of logic in day to day thinking.

Holmes -- the real one

LOL Never deal with the actual substance of something -- just try and deflect any way you can. This is yet another remarkably lame way to handle information -- probably emblematic of those who eschew the use of logic.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.