Category: Ukraine

Is Moscow Mitch the messenger of the ‘heads on pikes’ threat from Trump to Republicans?

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Moscow Mitch McConnell has a team working overtime to work the refs, and getting the traditional press to spin out stories about his masterful control of the Senate. Like this one quoting people from his inner sphere, in which he is credited with "educating GOP senators, coordinating with the White House, preaching the importance of party unity and bearing the brunt of Democratic attacks on behalf of his 53 members—some of whom are in close reelection races."

But does he have their backs in fighting attacks from Donald Trump, or is he coordinating that with the White House, too? CBS News reported Thursday night that Republican senators have been warned: “Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike." After all, McConnell has promised that "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this." Does that include threatening his fellow senators?

It's time to end his destructive stranglehold on the republic. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as majority leader.

That wasn't just idle talk from McConnell. He had a one-on-one coordinating meeting with Trump, where he promised—again—a quick acquittal. McConnell would happily use the "head on a pike" threat to enforce that.

Mike Pompeo got backed into a corner about Marie Yovanovitch during NPR interview

Posted on by Jen Hayden

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was backed into a rather uncomfortable corner during an interview with Mary Louise Kelly on NPR’s Morning Edition. Although Pompeo wanted to stick to the topic of Iran, Kelly pivoted to the Ukraine scandal and specifically wanted to know how he responded to criticism from State Department personnel who resigned after Pompeo failed to back U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch while she was being targeted by nefarious characters outside the U.S. government while she was doing her assigned work combatting corruption in Ukraine. Time and time again, Pompeo insisted he’d defended all State Department personnel. A blatant lie, one he struggled to defend.

Listen to or read the exchange below and keep in mind that Mike Pompeo has never uttered one word in support of Ambassador Yovanovitch or any of the other dedicated, career diplomats who refused to participate in the corrupt plans of Donald Trump and his enablers, like Mike Pompeo. 

MARY LOUISE KELLY: People who work for you in your department, people who have resigned from this department under your leadership, saying you should stand up for the diplomats who work here.”

MIKE POMPEO: I...I...I don’t know— I don’t know who these unnamed sources are you’re referring to. I can tell you this—

MARY LOUISE KELLY: These are not unnamed sources. This is your senior advisor Michael McKinley, a career foreign service officer with four decades experience who testified under oath that he resigned in part due to the failure of the State Department to offer support for foreign service employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine.

MIKE POMPEO: I’m not going to comment on things that Mr. McKinley may have said. I’ll say only this. I have defended every State Department official. We’ve built a great team. The team that works here is doing amazing work around the world—

MARY LOUISE KELLY: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?

MIKE POMPEO: I’ve defended every single person on this team. I’ve done what’s right for every single person on this team.

MARY LOUISE KELLY: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?

MIKE POMPEO: I’ve said all I’m going to say today. Thank you.

The audio of the Pompeo NPR interview is available below, but there is ample new evidence today about the Ukraine scandal and Mike Pompeo’s involvement. ABC News obtained a taped conversation reportedly of Donald Trump with Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, Rudy Giuliani, and others. The conversation took place on April 30, 2018, in a suite at Trump’s D.C. hotel, where the gang was having a private dinner where they discussed the Ukraine scheme. Trump can be heard demanding Yovanovitch’s ouster, saying "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it."

Lev Parnas recalled this dinner conversation during an interview with MSNBC. After all, dining with a U.S. president in a private suite in his private hotel would be rather memorable, no?

"We all, there was a silence in the room. He responded to him, said Mr. President, we can't do that right now because [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo hasn't been confirmed yet, that Pompeo is not confirmed yet and we don't have -- this is when [former Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson was gone, but Pompeo was confirmed, so they go, wait until -- so several conversations he mentioned it again."

This new recording, which backs up what Parnas claimed, is all the more reason Mike Pompeo should testify before the Senate during the impeachment trial. The conversation took place the very same week Mike Pompeo was sworn in, which means he was aware of and/or participated in the scheme from the minute he walked through the doors of the State Department. 

Either way you slice it, Mike Pompeo has been earning a reputation as a liar, which is a rather untenable position for the secretary of state to be in while they are representing the United States around the world. The American people, and most especially our foreign service officers, deserve someone of the highest ethical and moral standards in the role. 

x

Cartoon: Join the Trump legal defense team!

Posted on by Mark Fiore

x Vimeo Video

We have now seen — in ranting “legal” briefs — how President Trump’s team is planning on defending him in the Senate impeachment trial. In short, they’re going to rant and rave, blame everyone else and wrap the whole package in faux legalese.

That’s what happens when you pick most of your legal team from the Fox News bench. You don’t necessarily get the brightest legal minds by doing it that way. (In their defense, even the most brilliant legal mind would have a tough time defending Trump.) Good thing the president has the Republican-held Senate to throw down roadblocks and acquittals as needed.

The more we review the details of what led to impeachment, the more disheartening it is that the Senate will likely let him off the hook. Who knows, maybe more revelations and evidence outside the Senate trial will lead to additional articles of impeachment. Extorting Ukraine is just one of the many threads of criminality woven through this administration.

Enjoy the cartoon, which you would have seen along the way to completion if you were one of my Patreon supporters :-)

‘With me, there’s no lying,’ Trump says as he lies and lies and lies and lies about impeachment

Posted on by Laura Clawson

“Now, with me, there's no lying,” Donald Trump said Wednesday about impeachment. You know what happened next, right? Yup, Trump unleashed a barrage of lies about impeachment. Trump made 14 false claims Wednesday spread out between the press conference in which he said “Now, with me, there's no lying” and interviews with CNBC and Fox Business.

CNN’s invaluable Daniel Dale has the tally: Trump repeatedly claimed, in different ways, that House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff misled Democrats about what Trump said in his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and that once the White House released the call summary, “all hell broke out with the Democrats, because they say, 'Wait a minute. This is much different than Shifty Schiff told us.’” In reality, Schiff’s comments on the call came after the White House released the summary, and the only way Democrats were taken aback by the contents of the call is that it was kind of unbelievable how blatantly Trump worked to extort Zelensky.

Trump also claimed that “I never see them talking about the transcription. I never see them talking about the call, because there's nothing to say.” This is false. He has been impeached as a direct result of the call, and it is still being discussed constantly. Sections of the call were read out on Wednesday as part of the impeachment trial.

Trump suggested that two whistleblowers “disappeared,” when really what happened was that one filed a complaint which kicked off an investigation that corroborated the complaint, and a second whistleblower spoke to the intelligence community’s inspector general but did not make a separate complaint. And, Trump said, “when [Democrats] saw this transcript, they said, ‘We got problems,’” which is, once again, false. Or rather, the problems “they” said “we got” are the problems you get with a corrupt president trying to rig an election.

Other Trump lies included basically anything you can think of about funding to Ukraine: he said “They got their money long before schedule,” which they did not on account of how he held it up illegally. He lied about the type of aid that former President Obama extended to Ukraine. He lied about how much funding Ukraine has gotten from Europe.

Donald Trump lies about everything, big and small, but when it’s about impeachment, it’s almost always big. Usually very big, with the biggest being the fundamental claim that the July 25 call that showed firsthand that he was trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political opponents is somehow exonerating. He did what Democrats say he did, and we have it in his own words, released on his authority. No matter how often he lies about it, he can’t change it.

Republicans play the ‘Obama did it too’ card on military assistance—and of course they’re lying

Posted on by Mark Sumner

The first statements from Donald Trump’s defense team in the impeachment trial in the Senate on Tuesday included multiple big, instantly refutable lies, such as White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s claim that no Republicans were allowed into the “secret hearings” held in the House, or that Republicans weren’t allowed to call witnesses. But among a laundry list of talking points disconnected from reality, there was one that stood out: the claim that Trump did nothing wrong because President Barack Obama also withheld funds, from Egypt. 

Obama did withhold funds. He did so when, between the time Congress allocated funds and the time the Pentagon approved their release, military forces in Egypt mounted a coup. Not only were those funds not approved to be sent, not only did Obama notify Congress that they were being withheld, but members of Congress insisted that the funds not be turned over. That included pleas from Sen. Lindsey Graham to hold the funds. But as the House team continues to lay out its case, and Republicans wait for their chance, it appears that “Obama did it too” is going to be the go-to argument from Team Trump.

Overnight, Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted out a list of supposed holds placed by Obama (not all of which appear to be real). Then Sen. John Cornyn joined in, both on Twitter and in an interview, to expand the claim not just to Obama, but to administrations going back to Nixon. Neither Cornyn nor Blackburn claimed that Obama withheld funds so that he could twist the arm of a foreign leader so he’d give him a personal political advantage. So far. But it seems likely that they will, as the Obama-did-it-too meme becomes the latest attempt from the Republican side to distract from Trump’s crimes.

Of course, there’s more that Blackburn and Cornyn are ignoring than just the lack of a quid pro quo in any of Obama’s foreign assistance delays. Every aid package has qualifications that have to be met in order for the aid to be approved. Legislation authorizing foreign assistance routinely includes review by agencies that have to sign off that goals have been achieved in advance of the release. In the case of 2019 assistance to Ukraine, that responsibility was assigned to the Department of Defense, which completed its review on May 23 with a conclusion that Ukraine had met required goals on both fighting corruption and promoting democracy.

What happened in past delays was often simply that the certifying agencies found issues, or that, as in the case of Egypt, conditions on the ground had changed significantly between the time the legislation was passed and the time the funds were slated to go out. In some cases, the result was further review before funds were eventually released. In some cases, the result was a more prolonged delay: Egypt didn’t get any funds from the U.S. for almost two years, until the State Department was satisfied that the new president wasn’t just a puppet of the military. In every case, both Congress and the public were aware not just that there was a delay, but of the reasons for the delay. 

In the case of Trump and Ukraine, the assistance was approved by the Department of Defense just two months after the election of a new Ukrainian president who ran on an anticorruption platform. Then Trump placed a hold on the funds in secret. He provided no reason for the delay. The DOD was instructed not to talk about the delay. Congress was not informed of the delay. No reason was ever given for the delay. And the delay remained in place until 1) the delay wasn’t just obvious, but also the subject of public articles, 2) multiple senators contacted the White House expressing concern, 3) three separate House investigations were opened, 4) the White House counsel informed Trump that the whistleblower report was circulating, and 5) the intelligence community inspector general determined that the whistleblower report was urgent. Then Trump released the funds, and Republicans began to make up explanations for the hold—explanations that shifted on a nearly daily basis during the House impeachment hearings.

Other foreign assistance packages have been delayed. For good reasons. With notification of and cooperation from Congress.

Try again, Republicans. Try again.

Schiff shines bright light on Moscow Mitch’s dangerous negligence in protecting our elections

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Rep. Adam Schiff, in his role as impeachment manager, both distilled the import of this trial and put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell under a harsh light, without ever mentioning McConnell's name. In his opening argument, as prepared and provided by email, Schiff says that the "House did not take this extraordinary step lightly. As we will discuss, impeachment exists for cases in which the conduct of the President rises far beyond mere policy disputes to be decided, otherwise and without urgency, at the ballot box."

But, he says "we are here today to consider a much more grave matter, and that is an attempt to use the powers of the presidency to cheat in an election. For precisely this reason, the President’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box—for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won. [emphasis added]"

It's time to end McConnell's destructive stranglehold on the republic. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end his career as majority leader.

That's the case in a nutshell, that and the continuation of the thought, that "in obstructing the investigation into his own wrongdoing, the President has shown that he believes that he is above the law and scornful of constraint." Trump believes he's above the law and unconstrained because McConnell refuses to do his constitutional duty and provide a check. No where is that failure of McConnell more dire than in refusing to secure the ballot box, which Schiff is subtly underscoring in his statement.

The legislation to protect our elections from interference from Russia and other adversaries has been sitting in the graveyard of the Senate for months, with McConnell refusing to act on it because he says the government has done enough, and even congratulates the Trump administration for the actions it's taken. That presumably includes Trump publicly, on national TV,  inviting any foreign government who wants to interfere to come on in.

This is deadly serious business. McConnell and Senate Republicans might not be taking that seriously, but the nation is watching.

New emails emerge: OMB officials were planning to withhold Ukraine aid before Trump call to Zelensky

Posted on by Mark Sumner

In a midnight squeaker, the Office of Management and Budget decided to obey a federal court order and produced nearly 200 pages of documents directly related to the withholding of U.S. military assistance from Ukraine. The collection of emails was turned over in response to a FOIA request from the website American Oversight, which made the information public even as the Senate was debating an amendment to seek other information from the OMB.

The emails obtained show that OMB officials were already aware of Donald Trump’s plans to suspend Ukraine aid before his “perfect” call to the president of Ukraine. Included is a planning document from political appointee Michael Duffey—one of the four people Sen. Chuck Schumer has sought to subpoena for Trump’s Senate impeachment trial—that show that the OMB was planning to bring down the hammer on Ukraine assistance even before Trump put in a demand for “a favor” in the form of political investigations.

The FOIA request had a midnight deadline. OMB avoided further court action by turning over the redacted emails with just two minutes to spare.

Included is a document prepared on the evening of July 24, hours before Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This "Ukraine Prep Memo" was sent to Duffey, but just what it says isn’t clear—because almost all of the email is hidden behind redactions. Which shows that, important as these FOIA requests may be, they’re no substitute for a subpoena.

What can be seen is that Duffey responded to a Department of Defense announcement in June and communicated with OMB official Mark Sandy to discuss Ukraine assistance. And the two of them said … redacted. Duffey spent some time reviewing public announcements of DOD’s approval of Ukraine assistance, and the announcement that it was prepared to provide material to Kyiv. Then he and Sandy discussed the topic again, saying … redacted. They worked out a draft of a note to go back to DOD, the contents of which are … redacted. And all through the day of Trump’s call, they passed versions of their note around the OMB—a note that remains fully redacted. With the names of most of those who received the note also redacted. In all, there are more than a dozen emails zipping around the OMB on July 25 alone, with Duffey seeking to meet with the general counsel’s office and dispatching notes to unknown recipients. But the contents of those emails is completely—completely—redacted.

Which isn’t so much a FOIA response as it is a teaser reel. It’s possible to see that Duffey was keeping an eye on Ukraine issues in the days before Trump’s call, and that he reviewed what appears to be every public release of information from the DOD, as well as how that information was being reported in the press. Then, in the period directly around Trump’s call, Duffey opened a floodgate of communication on the Ukraine topic to every point of the OMB compass and to other officials in unknown agencies. With even most of the recipients of the emails redacted, it’s impossible to tell which higher officials were in the chain.

And, while it’s certainly easy to guess that Duffey was telling everyone to stay quiet on Ukraine as Trump began an illegal hold on assistance, none of that really leaks past the black boundaries, as every single word of substantive content at this point is hidden.

The pattern continues into August, with every substantive word and most of the recipients in the exchanges still redacted. However, Duffey continued to send dozens of notes, and to complain about the “challenges” he was facing on the Ukraine issue. And while the redaction hides any recipients of the notes within the DOD, one in-the-clear line notes that Duffey had some questions from the DOD, showing that the department was involved in the back-and-forth.

There is some information from a presentation available deep in the exchange. It shows that Duffey was communicating with the DOD about shifts in both the “commitment date” and the “obligation date” for the assistance to Ukraine. It also shows that everyone was aware that deadlines were looming that would render the assistance legislation moot. But much of this presentation has been blacked out to leave nothing but the dates, disguising real topics of concern.

Sixty-four pages in, there is a document from Duffey indicating that “we have no interest in delaying any action up until just before the obligation date,” but the statement is made in response to a request that’s been redacted, and the remainder of the sentence is redacted. It appears that Duffey is saying that the DOD should continue to prepare as if the aid would be provided … but it is far from clear. Similarly, there’s an indication in one email that funds “will go into the system” and be obligated on Aug. 19, but since Duffey’s reply to that statement is redacted, it’s impossible to tell if he agrees with that move or acts to stop it. In fact, looking at the connection between that note and another on Aug. 17, it seems possible that the funds under discussion are not even allocated to Ukraine.

Overall, what can be learned from the emails is that Ukraine was the subject of a furious exchange on the day of Trump’s phone call and was a frequent target of Duffey’s concern from June right up until the whistleblower report on the issue was made public. Duffey’s clear interest in the DOD announcement and his review of publications that followed the announcement show that he was looking at how much information had been released, which fits with other information showing that he not only helped clamp down on the assistance, but also told military officials to go quiet on the subject of Ukraine.

However, the biggest thing that can be learned from the FOIA response is that Duffey and the OMB absolutely thumbed their noses at the federal order. Technically they’ve “responded” to the request. Practically, they’ve done so by releasing no more than a collection of email headers and occasional sentences that reveal more about when Duffey was having lunch than about Ukraine assistance.