WTF Community

The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

The DOJ’s own Inspector General Slams the DOJ for blocking the whistleblower’s complaint – five dozen other Inspector Generals also sign the letter

And why hasn’t Barr recused himself since he’s part of the whistleblower’s complaint?! This makes you wonder if obstruction of justice charges aren’t in Barr’s future.

A coalition of government watchdogs assailed the Justice Department for temporarily blocking a whistleblower’s complaint against President Donald Trump from being transmitted to Congress, saying in a letter this week that its actions could deter individuals from reporting government abuse.

The six-page letter, signed by the Justice Department’s own inspector general and about five dozen counterparts from other federal agencies, is a remarkable rebuke of the agency, which argued that the whistleblower’s allegations of foreign election interference were not an “urgent concern.”

The group, headed by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, took issue with an opinion by the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The opinion overruled a determination by the intelligence community’s own watchdog that the whistleblower’s allegations, which have since sparked an impeachment inquiry, appeared credible and, therefore, should be brought to Congress. …

And the DOJ didn’t just block the complaint, it kept it secret. The attempted cover up was only thwarted when the Intelligence Community inspector general did an end run and notified the House Intelligence Committee. IMHO, this sure smacks of obstruction of justice. From last month:

The Department of Justice has been a key player in Donald Trump’s whistleblower scandal from the start. It was the DOJ that prohibited acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire from forwarding the whistleblower complaint to Congress, referring it instead to the Justice Department. The agency then determined that the president had committed no crime, shielding Trump from further scrutiny. A document released on Thursday reveals that the Justice Department went even further: It willfully ignored an accusation that the White House attempted to cover up damning evidence of Trump’s misconduct…

…The whistleblower followed the legal procedure: He sent his complaint to Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community inspector general, who found the complaint to be of “urgent concern” and sent it to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who should have forwarded the complaint to congressional intelligence committees within seven days. But he did not, because the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel told him he could not. …

5 Likes

Three new subpoenas issued to Trump administrators

KEY POINTS

  • House Democrats sent subpoenas on Friday to two White House budget officials and a State Department official as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

  • The subpoenas were issued by the chairs of the three committees leading the investigation into whether Trump abused his power and jeopardized national security in his dealings with Ukraine. They call for the officials to be deposed behind closed doors in early November.

  • The Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees had previously requested that each of the officials appear for interviews voluntarily. The officials declined to do so.

:muscle:

3 Likes

:pleading_face:

3 Likes

I have said it before.
I will say it again.
Stupidest.
Conspiracy.
Ever.


Late in the night Oct. 16, Rudy Giuliani made a phone call to this reporter.

The fact that Giuliani was reaching out wasn’t remarkable. He and the reporter had spoken earlier that evening for a story about his ties to a fringe Iranian opposition group.

But this call, it would soon become clear, wasn’t a typical case of a source following up with a reporter.

The call came in at 11:07 p.m. and went to voicemail; the reporter was asleep.

The next morning, a message exactly three minutes long was sitting in the reporter’s voicemail. In the recording, the words tumbling out of Giuliani’s mouth were not directed at the reporter. He was speaking to someone else, someone in the same room.

Giuliani can be heard discussing overseas dealings and lamenting the need for cash, though it’s difficult to discern the full context of the conversation.

The call appeared to be one of the most unfortunate of faux pas: what is known, in casual parlance, as a butt dial.

And it wasn’t the first time it had happened.

“You know,” Giuliani says at the start of the recording. “Charles would have a hard time with a fraud case ‘cause he didn’t do any due diligence.”

It wasn’t clear who Charles is, or who may have been implicated in a fraud. In fact, much of the message’s first minute is difficult to comprehend, in part because the voice of the other man in the conversation is muffled and barely intelligible.

But then, Giuliani says something that’s crystal clear.

“Let’s get back to business.”

He goes on.

“I gotta get you to get on Bahrain.”

Giuliani is well-connected in the kingdom of Bahrain.

Last December, he visited the Persian Gulf nation and had a one-on-one meeting with King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa in the royal palace. “King receives high-level U.S. delegation,” read the headline of the state-run Bahrain News Agency blurb about the visit.

Giuliani runs a security consulting company, but it’s not clear why he would have a meeting with Bahrain’s king. Was he acting in his capacity as a consultant? As Trump’s lawyer? Or as an international fixer running a shadow foreign policy for the president?

In May, Giuliani told the Daily Beast his firm had signed a deal with Bahrain to advise its police force on counterterrorism measures. But the Bahrain News Agency account of the meeting suggested Giuliani was viewed more like an ambassador than a security consultant. “HM the King praised the longstanding Bahraini-U.S. relations, noting keenness of the two countries to constantly develop them,” it said.

The voicemail yielded no details about the meeting. But Giuliani can be heard telling the man that he’s “got to call Robert again tomorrow.”

“Is Robert around?” Giuliani asks.

“He’s in Turkey,” the man responds.

Giuliani replies instantly. “The problem is we need some money.”

The two men then go silent. Nine seconds pass. No word is spoken. Then Giuliani chimes in again.

“We need a few hundred thousand,” he says.

It’s unclear what the two men were talking about. But Giuliani is known to have worked closely with a Robert who has ties to Turkey.

His name is Robert Mangas, and he’s a lawyer at the firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, as well as a registered agent of the Turkish government.

Giuliani himself was employed by Greenberg Traurig until about May 2018.

Mangas’ name appears in court documents related to the case of Reza Zarrab, a Turkish gold trader charged in the United States with laundering Iranian money in a scheme to evade American sanctions.

Giuliani was brought on to assist Zarrab in 2017. He traveled to Turkey with his former law partner Michael Mukasey and attempted to strike a deal with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to secure the release of their jailed client, alarming the federal prosecutor leading the case.

Giuliani and Mangas were both employed by Greenberg Traurig at the time. The firm and Mangas had registered with the Justice Department to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of Turkey, according to an affidavit from Mangas.

Mangas did not return a request for comment.

Giuliani’s conversation partner can be heard responding to the “few hundred thousand” comment. But it’s possible to make out only the beginning of his answer, and even that is somewhat garbled.

“I’d say even if Bahrain could get, I’m not sure how good [unintelligible words] with his people,” the man says.

“Yeah, okay,” Giuliani says.

“You want options? I got options,” the man says.

“Yeah, give me options,” Giuliani replies.

The exchange took place at the 2:20 mark in the voicemail message. The other man does most of the talking in the remaining 40 seconds, and it’s difficult to piece together what he says.

[

Not the first time

By the time of that call, it was already clear that Giuliani butt dials don’t only happen after 11 p.m.

The late-night Giuliani butt dial came 18 days after a midafternoon Giuliani butt dial.

The first one happened when the NBC News reporter was at a fifth-birthday party for an extended family member in Central Jersey.

It was 3:37 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 28, and a pink unicorn piñata had just been strung up around a tree in the backyard.

Amid his 3-year-old daughter’s excitement, the reporter decided to let Giuliani’s call go to his voicemail.

The previous day, the reporter interviewed Giuliani for an article quoting several of his former Justice Department colleagues who said they believed he committed crimes in his effort to push the Ukrainians to launch an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden.

After the pink unicorn piñata came the bouncy castle and then cake. It wasn’t until at least an hour after the call that the reporter realized it had led to a three-minute voicemail, the maximum his phone allows.

In the message, Giuliani is heard talking to at least one other person. The conversation appears to pick up almost exactly where Giuliani’s phone call with the reporter left off the day before, with Giuliani insisting he was the target of attacks because he was making public accusations about a powerful Democratic politician.

“I expected it would happen,” Giuliani says at the start of the recording. “The minute you touch on one of the protected people, they go crazy. They come after you.”

“You got the truth on your side,” an unidentified man says.

“It’s very powerful,” Giuliani replies.

Giuliani spends the entire three minutes railing against the Bidens. He can be heard recycling many of the unfounded allegations he has been making on cable news and in interviews with print reporters.

Among the claims: that Biden intervened to stop an investigation of a Ukrainian gas company because his son Hunter sat on the board, and that Hunter Biden traded on his father’s position as vice president to earn $1.5 billion from Chinese investors.

“There’s plenty more to come out,” Giuliani says. “He did the same thing in China. And he tried to do it in Kazakhstan and in Russia.”

“It’s a sad situation,” he adds. “You know how they get? Biden has been been trading in on his public office since he was a senator.”

Shortly after, Giuliani turns to Hunter Biden. “When he became vice president, the kid decided to go around the world and say, ‘Hire me because I’m Joe Biden’s son.’ And most people wouldn’t hire him because he had a drug problem.”

Giuliani’s effort to spur a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry underway in the House. And Wednesday, two of Giuliani’s associates pleaded not guilty to making illegal campaign contributions in part to advance the interests of foreign nationals, including a former Ukrainian prosecutor who was involved in the effort to oust the country’s former U.S. ambassador.

In the recording, Giuliani doesn’t mention anything about his own activities in Ukraine and elsewhere. But he does make unfounded claims about Hunter Biden’s overseas work.

“His son altogether made somewhere between 5 and 8 million,” Giuliani says. “A 3 million transaction was laundered, which is illegal."

Last week, Hunter Biden said in an ABC News interview that he will step down from the board of the Chinese investment company that he joined in October 2017.

One of Hunter Biden’s early business partners was Christopher Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry. But Heinz objected to Hunter Biden’s decision to work for the Ukrainian gas company and ultimately cut ties with him. Heinz had nothing to do with the Chinese investment fund.

But in the voicemail message, Giuliani is heard telling his friend that Kerry’s stepson was working for the same foreign entities that employed Hunter Biden.

“His partner was John Kerry’s stepson,” Giuliani said. “Secretary of State and the vice president for the price of one.”

The recording ends the same way it began. “They don’t want to investigate because he’s protected, so we gotta force them to do it,” Giuliani says, before apparently turning to the president’s now-infamous call with the Ukrainian president.

“And the Ukraine, they’re investigating him and they blocked it twice. So what the president was [unintelligible word], ‘You can’t keep doing this. You have to investigate this.’ And they say it will affect the 2020 election.”

“No it….” Giuliani adds, but the recording cuts off before he can finish the thought.

Over the last 10 days, Giuliani has given few media interviews.

Calls to his phone Thursday led to a recorded message saying his mailbox was full. The call has not been returned — at least not yet.

4 Likes

House Judiciary Committee can see redacted materials from Mueller grand jury, judge says

The materials must be disclosed by Oct. 30 to the panel, the Friday court order states. The committee sued in July for a release of certain redacted materials and underlying records from the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

5 Likes

Cross-posting :boom:

4 Likes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-say-whistleblowers-testimony-unnecessary-as-other-witnesses-come-forward/2019/10/24/d77cb62c-f687-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

Trump is fuming mad about this today. He wants to level the “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument against the Ukraine allegations, just as he applied it during the Russia investigation (and in fact is still doing so – or at least Barr is doing it for him with the newly opened DOJ investigation into the roots of the Russian investigation). In the case of the Russia investigation, the alt-right (which apparently now includes Barr) has some cockamamie theory that says the origins of the investigations were gamed by the Democrats, therefore (in their fantasy world), we should all have practiced willful ignorance, ignored the sea of red flags, and never conducted the investigation.

In a court of law, the “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument sometimes works. For example, if a search was made without a warrant, the target of a criminal investigation may have his case thrown out and go scot-free even though he really did commit the crime. But an impeachment proceeding is not a court of law and, far more importantly, the whistleblower followed the proper, lawful procedures to the letter. Also, the summary memo of the call corroborates the whistleblower’s complaint (despite Trump’s flagrant lying claims to the contrary) and Trump himself publicly called upon Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. On top of that, as far as we know, the testimony of other witnesses have consistently backed up the Whistleblower’s account (see articles below).

So, yes, as Democrats are pointing out, the Whistleblower’s complaint has been completely superseded by the vast trove of additional evidence and testimony that has been uncovered since the complaint was filed. Thus, testimony by the whistleblower is not needed to make the airtight case that Trump committed impeachable offenses. To put it another way:

The whistleblower pulled the fire alarm. The fire trucks have arrived and we are all standing in front of a building fully engulfed in flames. Should the firefighters fight the fire? Or should they wander around trying to find the person who pulled the fire alarm and grill him about whether or not he really saw a fire? :fire: :rotating_light: :fire_engine:

And since the above article was written on October 7, much more supporting evidence has been added:

…Trump has been insistent: There was no quid pro quo involving Ukraine. That’s hard to square with:

  • Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney saying that aid was withheld in part to get Ukraine to investigate the hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016

  • Taylor testifying that E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker told him that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky needed to make clear that he supported investigations before he’d get a meeting at the White House

  • Sondland reportedly telling officials in a July 10 meeting that a meeting between Trump and Zelensky would be predicated on Zelensky opening the investigations, according to former administration official Fiona Hill

  • Volker, according to Taylor, saying he would tell Zelensky that a White House meeting depended on Zelensky opening investigations to “get to the bottom of things”

  • Volker texting a Zelensky aide before Trump and Zelensky spoke to tell him that “assuming President [Zelensky] convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington”

  • Sondland telling a Zelensky aide, according to Taylor, that military assistance would be held until Zelensky committed to a Biden-related investigation

  • Sondland telling Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that aid depended on the investigations

  • Trump denying a “quid pro quo” while confirming to Johnson that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the 2016 hacking

  • Sondland telling Taylor in response to questions about a quid pro quo that Trump wanted a public announcement about an investigation

  • After Trump’s instructions, Sondland telling Zelensky (again according to Taylor) that without an announcement about investigations, the United States and Ukraine would be at a “stalemate”

  • Trump replying to Zelensky’s mention of military aid in their July 25 call with a request for a favor: an investigation of the hacking.

5 Likes

Trump frustrated as White House effort to defy impeachment inquiry fails to halt witness testimony, advisers say

In a sign of the growing realization of his potential jeopardy, Trump has brought back Jane and Marty Raskin, criminal defense attorneys who were part of his legal teamduring the Mueller investigation, to help him navigate the impeachment inquiry, along with his attorney Jay Sekulow and White House lawyers. Their return is a late acknowledgment, some White House advisers say, that the facts coming out are bad for the president and that both his White House and personal attorneys need to try to get in front of what else may emerge.

The president’s reconstituted legal team is racing to master details about the administration’s dealings with Ukraine, along with the efforts of their longtime co-counsel, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to push Ukraine officials to investigate Trump’s Democratic rivals.

Meanwhile, White House officials have begun holding regular impeachment strategy meetings, often in the Situation Room. Some advisers are discussing bringing in a veteran lawyer with impeachment experience and actively seeking a communications strategist, according to advisers and officials.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Sekulow and the Raskins declined to comment.

The belated scramble — a month after the House formally launched its impeachment inquiry — serves as a recognition that the White House’s strategy of refusing to cooperate with the probe has failed to stymie it, according to Trump advisers and people involved in responding to House requests.

That posture was driven by Trump, who dictated much of a defiant letter sent by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders earlier this month that claimed the inquiry was constitutionally invalid, according to people familiar with his role. They, like others in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private White House conversations.

Two things Trump is putting together an impeachment response team and he largely dictated that letter arguing that impeachment was unconstitutional. :smirk:

4 Likes

Key Witness in Impeachment Inquiry Asks Federal Court to Rule Over Testifying

A key witness in the impeachment investigation filed a lawsuit Friday asking a federal judge to rule on whether he can testify, a move that raises new doubts about whether President Trump’s closest aides, like the former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, will be able to cooperate with the inquiry.

House Democrats had subpoenaed the witness, Charles M. Kupperman, who served as Mr. Trump’s deputy national security adviser, to testify on Monday. But in an effort to stop Mr. Kupperman from doing so, the White House said on Friday that the president had invoked “constitutional immunity,” leaving Mr. Kupperman uncertain about what to do.

“Plaintiff obviously cannot satisfy the competing demands of both the legislative and executive branches, and he is aware of no controlling judicial authority definitively establishing which branch’s command should prevail,” the suit said.

The implications of the suit, filed in federal court in Washington, extend beyond Mr. Kupperman. His lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, also represents Mr. Bolton and is likely to address congressional requests for his testimony in a similar fashion. House Democrats have had discussions with Mr. Cooper in recent days about Mr. Bolton testifying but have not subpoenaed him.

This is an extreme testing of our constitution right now. Where in article II is this “constitutional immunity” Trump keeps talking about? It’s asinine.

5 Likes

_______________________________________________________

POLITICO

Former Bolton aide asks court if he’s required to testify in impeachment probe

By KYLE CHENEY

10/25/2019 11:48 PM EDT

_______________________________________________________

There’s a lot to process here. Basically, Kupperman (who originally agreed to testify, then was blocked by Trump, then was subpoenaed) has been caught between a rock and a hard place and is looking for clarification from the courts as to whether or not he can come in and testify without adverse consequences.

The fact that this is going to the courts will undoubtedly cause some delays, but if the ruling determines that Kupperman is free to testify, it could clear the way for many other White House administrators to also speak up – Bolton is the prime example.

So what are the chances that the courts will rule Kupperman is free to testify? Judging from this article’s analysis, I’d say the chances are good. Trump is claiming a sweeping type of immunity termed “Constitutional Immunity” and it sounds like that’s going to be a real stretch to justify.

A top aide to former national security adviser John Bolton filed suit Friday to determine whether he’s required to comply with a subpoena to appear before House impeachment investigators, a move that could mire the testimony of a key witness in litigation as President Donald Trump seeks to block his cooperation with lawmakers.

Charles Kupperman, the former deputy national security — who briefly succeeded Bolton after he left the administration last month — is asking a district court judge to decide how to resolve the conflict between the House subpoena and the president’s directive.

In a Friday letter to Kupperman’s attorney Chuck Cooper, who is also representing Bolton, White House counsel Pat Cipollone indicated that Trump had directed him not to honor the House subpoena and asserted that Kupperman is “absolutely immune” from testifying because of his regular interactions with Trump.

“Absent a definitive judgment from the Judicial Branch … Plaintiff will effectively be forced to adjudicate the Constitutional dispute himself, and if he judges wrongly, he will inflict grave Constitutional injury on either the House or the President,” Cooper wrote in a court filing.

Kupperman pointed to what he described as the merits and drawbacks of both the White House and Congress’ arguments.

He noted that a court ruled in 2008 that there are limits on claims of “absolute immunity” of presidential advisers to congressional testimony, even if those limits hadn’t been tested. That court determined that President George W. Bush’s counsel, Harriet Miers and other senior administration officials, did not enjoy “absolute immunity.” But the court left the guidelines ambiguous.

“The district court in Miers further concluded that the Counsel to the President was not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity because the inquiry did not “involve the sensitive topics of national security or foreign affairs,” Cooper noted. “National security and foreign affairs are at the heart of the information that the House Defendants seek from Plaintiff in connection with the House’s impeachment inquiry.”

But Kupperman also raised questions about whether the House subpoena itself was valid, in part because of concerns raised by Republicans that the impeachment inquiry itself failed to comply with House rules.

“It is unclear whether a House committee has the authority to issue subpoenas to investigate potentially illegal conduct by an impeachable officer outside the scope of a properly authorized impeachment inquiry,” Cooper argues.

In a rebuke of that position, however, a federal judge in a separate matter ruled earlier in the day that the House’s impeachment inquiry is valid and constitutional, rejecting the Trump administration’s claim that it’s an illegitimate exercise of congressional power.

Republicans have contended that the House must hold a formal vote to launch an impeachment inquiry, but in her ruling, Judge Beryl Howell — chief judge of the federal District Court in Washington D.C. — said there is no requirement of a formal vote. Rather, Howell ruled, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s determination that several House committees were pursuing potential impeachment justifies the probe.

It’s unclear how Howell’s ruling might affect the immediate handling of Kupperman’s case.

P.S. @Pet_Proletariat - Posting at the same time! I’ll leave mine up because the Politico article offers an additional perspective. :smile:

4 Likes

The more the merrier. :slightly_smiling_face: Lots of legal stuff tonight.

3 Likes

Absolutely! This sounds like another “Hail Mary” play from Trump’s loony legal team – it’s similar to their recent crazy claim that the President could shoot someone and not be held accountable while in office. The courts swatted that one down (of course, Trump’s appealing, but his chances of winning are certainly dim). The sweeping immunity being claimed in this Kupperman filing smacks of the same desperation.

3 Likes

White House restores trade benefits for Ukraine after more than two months of delay

Posting this in the Impeachment Inquiry thread because it may be an additional component of Trump’s quid pro quo in the Ukraine scandal.

Some background before the article – Ambassador William Taylor testified earlier this week:

Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations – in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.

It now appears that the “everything” Sondland was referring to included, not only security assistance, but also trade assistance in the form of trade privileges. The timing of how those privileges where held up closely matches the timeline of the military aid delays. And the privileges were suddenly implemented one day after the WaPo published an exposé on the way they were held up in the first place, back in August.

Also, it’s telling that the White House made this announcement late on a Friday night – the point in the news cycle least likely to attract attention – looks like someone tried to fly this one under the radar.

The White House trade representative restored some of Ukraine’s trade privileges Friday evening, reinstating benefits that were initially prepared for approval in late August.

The paperwork was expected to be routine at the time, but then-national security adviser John Bolton had warned U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer that President Trump would oppose any action that benefited Kyiv, said people briefed on the matter.

Following Bolton’s warning, the White House pulled the paperwork back. Bolton resigned in September but the paperwork continued to languish. It was finally approved Friday.

The move, announced by Lighthizer’s office, comes a day after The Washington Post reported on Bolton’s exhortation. The revelation of that exchange between Bolton and Lighthizer was the first sign that the administration’s suspension of assistance to Ukraine extended beyond Trump’s withholding of $391 million in military aid to the country — the action at the center of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

It’s time to subpoena Robert Lighthizer. He needs to be asked, “Why were the trade benefits for Ukraine held up? Did anyone tell you to delay them? If so, who? Why did the delay end the day after the Washington Post revealed the delay?”

5 Likes

Trump Pressed Ukraine’s President to Act Out a Fake News Script, Live on CNN

Before agreeing to release nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine, President Donald Trump extorted a promise from his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to appear on American television and act out a script prepared for him by Trump’s aides, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, told the House impeachment inquiry on Tuesday.

The scene a desperate Zelensky finally agreed to perform would have been the very definition of fake news: a dramatic announcement by the Ukrainian president, during a CNN interview, that he was opening criminal investigations on Joe Biden’s family and other Democrats.

The plot, which would have duped American voters into believing that there was some substance to a debunked conspiracy theory about Biden’s work in Ukraine as vice president, came very close to working.

According to Taylor, a career foreign service official who has served four Republican and two Democratic presidents, until early September, Zelensky and his aides had resisted pressure from Trump to help him smear Biden. Zelensky was supposed to do this by investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company the former vice president’s son Hunter was once paid to advise, as well as claims that Ukrainian officials had revealed evidence of financial crimes by Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort in 2016 to help elect Hillary Clinton.

But once the Ukrainians became aware that the much-needed security assistance Trump had personally held up might never be delivered, Zelensky agreed to play his part in a ruse intended to lend credibility to baseless conspiracy theories about Biden and other Democrats.

By the first week of September, Taylor said, the “favor” Trump had alluded to in vague terms in a July phone call with Zelensky had become a very specific demand: Ukraine’s president, a former actor, would be required to deliver lines on CNN prepared for him by two American diplomats acting on orders from Trump and his shadow secretary of state, Rudy Giuliani.

Text messages released earlier this month between those two diplomats — Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union — show that they drafted language for Zelensky’s statement in August to send to the Ukrainian president’s close friend and personal aide, Andrey Yermak.

“Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians,” Zelensky would tell CNN. “I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections.”

The White House plot to unwittingly involve CNN in the dissemination of false information created by Trump’s aides was revealed in Taylor’s written opening statement to the House impeachment inquiry, which was obtained by several news organizations on Tuesday.

A screenshot of Ambassador Bill Taylor’s statement to the House impeachment inquiry.

It was not immediately clear if an interview with CNN had been scheduled by the Ukrainian president’s office, but the choice of the network was rich with irony, given that Trump has regularly described accurate reporting on his presidency by its correspondents as “fake news.” It also seems instructive that the president was aware that it would be less politically useful to him to have Zelensky appear on a Fox News show and pretend that he was opening investigations of Biden and other Democrats based on the merits.

As Asha Rangappa, a lawyer and former FBI special agent, pointed out, the White House plot to manipulate the Ukrainian president into making statements to CNN that were secretly dictated by Trump’s aides might also have been illegal. “The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act,” Rangappa wrote earlier this month, “prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to ‘influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.’”

“Black propaganda attempts to conceal the true source of information so that the target (in this case, the American public) cannot accurately assess the credibility of the message or the motives of the source behind it,” Rangappa explained. “By having the information emanate from a separate and more credible outlet, the target audience is more likely to believe it.”

“It’s called legitimizing propaganda,” she observed on Twitter, after Taylor revealed the plot to place Zelensky on CNN. “You place the information you want people to believe in what appears to be an independent source unconnected to you. Then you can cite it as further ‘evidence’ of your own claims, making them appear more credible.”

Taylor testified on Tuesday that, despite his firm opposition, the White House-directed plot to manufacture news footage that could be used in Trump campaign ads attacking Biden very nearly succeeded.

Taylor, who has been the temporary chief of mission in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, since the previous U.S. ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, was forced out for supposed disloyalty to Trump, told the impeachment inquiry that he and two United States senators who met Zelensky on September 5 — Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn. — had urged him not to take sides in American politics. Zelensky’s “first question to the senators was about the withheld security assistance,” Taylor wrote. “My recollection of the meeting is that both senators stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine’s most important strategic asset and that President Zelenskyy should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics,” he added.

“I had been making (and continue to make) this point to all of my Ukrainian official contacts,” Taylor continued. “But the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

Three days later, Taylor testified, he was told by Sondland, a Trump donor who was reportedly angling for a cabinet position, that the Ukrainian president had agreed to make the required statement during an interview with CNN.

The next day, September 9, Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community, notified the House intelligence committee of a whistleblower complaint and three House committees launched an investigation of the White House campaign to press Ukraine to smear Biden. The investigation of the whistleblower’s complaint appears to have derailed the White House campaign to force Zelensky to make the statement to CNN at the last moment.

When the U.S. aid to Ukraine was finally released two days later, Taylor testified that he “again reminded Mr. Yermak of the high strategic value of bipartisan support for Ukraine and the importance of not getting involved in other countries’ elections.”

“My fear at the time,” Taylor said, “was that since Ambassador Sondland had told me President Zelenskyy already agreed to do a CNN interview, President Zelenskyy would make a statement regarding ‘investigations’ that would have played into domestic U.S. politics.” Taylor reported that he spent two days pressing an aide to Zelensky “to confirm that there would be no CNN interview, which he did.”

2 Likes

WaPost Ed Board Rips GOP: ‘If You’re Arguing About Process, You’re Losing’

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/washington-post-editorial-board-old-saying-gop.html

Republicans are wrong on process, too

1 Like

Is there ANY Trump aside from Barron who isn’t corrupt through and through?

Company with ties to Trump’s brother Robert awarded $33 million government contract

4 Likes

______________________________________________

POLITICO

DOJ: Negotiations with House for McGahn interview are ongoing

By KYLE CHENEY

10/25/2019 11:14 PM EDT

______________________________________________

I’m not giving this any fanfare since, these days, I don’t trust the DOJ as far as I could throw Bill Barr. I’m wondering if this is all a big show by the DOJ and even if McGahn is questioned, he might be so restricted that his testimony is useless. One source even says that so far any proposals from the DOJ have not been acceptable to the House committees (see below) – I trust them not to get gamed here.

I thought I’d still post this because I’m wondering if the DOJ is getting desperate to strike a deal where McGahn would be on Barr’s leash to at least some degree and to get that in place before they are forced by the courts to surrender all leverage over witnesses – the Trump administration keeps losing its cases where it’s trying to block its people from testifying.

Negotiations to make former White House counsel Don McGahn available for a House interview have been active throughout October, the Justice Department indicated Friday, revealing that it has had discussions with the Judiciary Committee five times since Oct. 8.

Those talks — on Oct. 8, 11, 15, 21 and 24 — came despite an Oct. 8 letter from McGahn’s successor, Pat Cipollone, declaring that the White House would refuse to cooperate with Democrats’ ongoing impeachment inquiry.

“Although the Speaker of the House has announced publicly that, in her view, the House has now commenced an impeachment inquiry … the Administration remains open to continued discussion of a possible Committee interview, under appropriate terms and conditions, of Mr. McGahn,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in a brief filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., in response to Democrats’ efforts to enforce a subpoena requiring McGahn’s testimony.

House attorneys have argued that they’re at an impasse with the Justice Department over obtaining McGahn’s testimony, which they have been seeking since special counsel Robert Mueller revealed in April that he was a central witness to potential obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump. McGahn refused to comply with a subpoena for his testimony in May and the Judiciary Committee filed suit in July, declaring that his testimony is crucial to determine whether the House should file articles of impeachment against Trump. Since then, sporadic talks with the Justice Department have reached no conclusion.

DOJ argues that the House’s impeachment inquiry is “different” than the Judiciary Committee’s pursuit of McGahn, even though Pelosi has blessed the panel’s pursuit of potential articles of impeachment based on Mueller’s findings.

The Justice Department’s suggestion that talks were ongoing in October is misleading, a source briefed on the discussions told POLITICO.

“We have an obligation to try to reach an accommodation, even now,” the source said, “but the White House has only ever discussed terms they know are unacceptable to us.”

2 Likes

:boom: :boom: :boom:

This is from Sondland’s own attorney!

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told House committees during his impeachment inquiry testimony last week that he believes President Trump’s actions with regards to Ukraine amounted to a quid pro quo, The Wall Street Journal reports. According to Sondland’s attorney, Robert Luskin, the top diplomat told lawmakers that a meeting with Trump was contingent upon the Ukrainian president agreeing to open an investigation into Burisma—the gas company that Hunter Biden once sat on the board of. When asked by a lawmaker during his testimony if this exchange amounted to a quid pro quo, Sondland qualified that he is not an attorney, but that he believed it was a quid pro quo, according to Luskin.

Remember the recent reporting below? Earlier it was leaked that Sondland said Trump dictated to him over the phone the one (and only one) text that seemed to support Trump’s defense that there was no quid pro quo. Trump spoon fed that to Sondland just like he spoon fed to his son the statement that the Trump Tower meeting was all about adoptions.

President Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, plans to tell Congress this week that a text he sent denying a quid pro quo between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July phone call was dictated by Trump himself.

So that reported leak was true. Sondland sent that text, which was dictated to him by Trump, even though he knew it was a lie.

Here’s the lying text that Sondland planted at Trump’s request in a ruse to “exonerate” him:

sondland%20text

And now watch this. Here’s Trump on the White House lawn singling out that one text that he himself planted. Crowing that it “nullifies” all the allegations against him. Liar, liar, liar. Obstructing justice in plain sight.

:lying_face: :lying_face: :lying_face:

5 Likes

Well, uh…then yes, it would appear that Pence is lying…

5 Likes

Yes – by “not saying” Pence really “is saying.” It’s obvious that he knew about the quid pro quo (aka extortion). More from Mother Jones:

This morning, Vice President Mike Pence refused to answer whether he knew about President Donald Trump’s efforts to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless President Volodymyr Zelensky authorized an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, a quid pro quo that has been corroborated by several top diplomats in their testimonies in the House impeachment inquiry.

During his appearance on Face the Nation, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan pressed Pence four times whether he had “knowledge of the deal that these US officials have described under oath.” The vice president avoided directly answering the question, instead pointing to his own interactions with Zelensky, in which said he “focused entirely on President Zelensky’s agenda to bring about reforms to end corruption in Ukraine and to bring together the European community to provide greater support for Ukraine.”

He’s using the same playbook as Trump’s China trade negotiator who repeatedly dodged questions about whether an investigation of the Bidens was discussed during trade talks with China.

5 Likes