|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 18, 2019 15:45:15 GMT
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis got some pretty funny digs in at Trump's expense. Mattis had criticized our abandonment of the Kurds.
About Trump's military expertise, Mattis said - "I earned my spurs on the battlefield: President Trump did from the doctor." Then he called himself "the Meryl Streep of generals" in reference to Trump calling both of them "overrated."
Trump is making very powerful enemies in circles where it's extremely unwise to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 23, 2019 21:03:07 GMT
Why Republicans are holding up the impeachment inquiry
And why their logic for doing so falls short
By Amber Phillips
Oct. 23, 2019 9:44 a.m. PDT
On Wednesday, about 30 Republicans successfully got into the secure location in the Capitol basement where the impeachment inquiry is taking place, as a Pentagon official involved in overseeing the Ukraine aid in question was about to start testifying. They held up the hearing, bringing their phones and taking photos in what is supposed to be a secure location for classified information. And they tweeted about it a lot, making sure news cameras captured it all. Democrats were considering bringing in Capitol Police.
The Republicans’ message was simple: They want to show that Democrats are conducting this inquiry into Trump behind closed doors rather than out in public.
Mark Bednar@MarkBednar
.@stevescalise:
"Maybe in the Soviet Union this kind of thing is commonplace. This shouldn't be happening in the United States of America, where they're trying to impeach a President in secret, behind closed doors. The American people deserve better."
Which is true. But what Republicans did Wednesday was a political stunt, as is clear from the facts underlying it. They are:
All Republicans on the three committees involved in this inquiry (Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight) are allowed into the hearings. Lawmakers from other committees are not allowed in, be they Republican or Democrat.
These hearings are taking place behind closed doors because lawmakers think things will be more productive that way. “The private ones always produce better results.” That is not a Democrat we are quoting. It is a Republican, former congressman Trey Gowdy, who conducted the Benghazi investigation into Hillary Clinton a few years ago and pushed back against criticism that most of the hearings were in private. A Democratic aide working on the impeachment inquiry emailed around Gowdy’s comments on Wednesday to underscore that when the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans were fine with having things behind closed doors.
Democrats are also acutely aware that two of the other recent times they held public hearings on Trump, things did not go well for them. Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski openly mocked lawmakers in front of the cameras, and the shaky delivery from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was as much of a story as what he said.
The Democrats may soon hold public hearings, reports CNN. Even when those hearings are public, lawmakers not on the key committees will not be able to ask questions.
This is not a court of law. Another talking point Republicans are using is to compare this impeachment proceeding to a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, the accused gets to sit through the prosecution, call his own witnesses, present his own defense.
But this is not a court of law, this is Congress. And the Constitution gives Congress broad latitude to decide how to conduct its impeachment inquiry. It can have a vote to formalize it, or not. It can hold closed-door hearings with witnesses, or it can open them to the public. How the House gets from considering impeaching a president to taking a vote to impeach the president is up to it. The president is not being charged with a crime, so the rules of a criminal trial do not apply.
It is when an impeachment gets to the Senate that things more closely resemble a trial; the senators are jurors, and Trump’s team can call witnesses. So it is deliberately misleading for Republicans in the House to accuse Democrats of holding a sham trial. There is not a trial going on.
Another fact is this: Disregarding all that nuance and storming into the inquiry, claiming it is an unfair process, helps Trump try to undermine it in broad terms, right as he is struggling to push back against specific facts that look worse and worse for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 23, 2019 21:11:22 GMT
I was researching my family tree & a surprise relative contacted me. She was in her seventies & lived in North Carolina. She started making sketchy comments that I attributed to her age & probable upbringing in the Carolinas.
Then she mentioned only crossing that "hated line" once in her life. She meant the Mason-Dixon line of course. She went to meet her second husband's family in New Jersey. Not wanting this to go into places better left unsaid, I happily sent her a picture of her other new relatives. There was Tessa, little Jerry & me. Unfortunately that didn't deter her. She started in on politics. I tried changing the subject. She kept bringing it back to the Trump campaign of 2016. I finally said I don't think he's really taking this seriously. He likes the attention. If he gets elected he'll likely get impeached. America won't stand for him & his mouthy antics. This relative was livid. We never spoke again.
After nearly giving me a heart attack with his win, I settled into hoping for the best. He just won't shut up though.
I've always admired how organized Republicans are. Gotta give them that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 24, 2019 19:40:54 GMT
Russian troops have entered the Turkish controlled area of northern Syria. The Kurds are hailing Putin as their "saviour." Putin is in talks with Erdogan on a weapons deal. Turkey is a member of NATO. That might be changing soon. Assad loves Putin too. Trump's plan included sending some of our retreating troops to Iraq, to help police ISIS. The Iraqi's have said they don't want us there.
Erdogan said he feared some Kurds might try to stay behind disguised as Syrian forces. That looks like he's leaving the door open to expanding the conflict, & has no intention of ever giving the land he 'appropriated' back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 25, 2019 21:08:39 GMT
Read the Trump Administration's Warning Letter to Laura Cooper Charlie Savage, The New York Times 8 hours ago WASHINGTON — The White House has declared that the executive branch will not cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry, but some officials have nevertheless provided testimony to Congress about what they know about whether President Donald Trump’s attempts to pressure the Ukrainian government into investigating his political rivals were a quid pro quo in return for aid. One such witness, Laura Cooper, a Pentagon official, received a warning letter that shows how the administration has attempted to persuade officials to keep silent. Cooper appeared before impeachment investigators Wednesday during a closed-door session that was delayed by Republican lawmakers who burst into the House Intelligence Committee’s secure suite to protest the inquiry. Below is a copy of the letter Cooper received, obtained and annotated with context and analysis by The New York Times. Deputy Secretary of Defense 1010 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301-1010 Oct. 22, 2019 (The date stamp shows that the deputy secretary of defense, David Norquist, sent this warning letter Tuesday, the day before Cooper was scheduled to give voluntary, private testimony. That same day, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, signed a subpoena stating that Cooper was legally required to appear.) Daniel Levin White & Case LLP 701 13th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005-3807 Dear Mr. Levin: I understand that you have been retained by Ms. Laura Cooper, the Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, as her private counsel for a deposition to be conducted jointly by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform, “pursuant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry.” The Department’s October 15, 2019 letter to the Chairs of the three House Committees [Tab A] expressed its belief that the customary process of oversight and accommodation has historically served the interests of congressional oversight committees and the Department well. The Committees’ purported “impeachment inquiry,” however, presents at least two issues of great importance.
The first issue is the Committees’ continued, blanket refusal to allow Department Counsel to be present at depositions of Department employees. Department Counsel’s participation protects against the improper release of privileged or classified information, particularly material covered by the executive privilege which is the President’s alone to assert and to waive. Excluding Department Counsel places the witness in the untenable position of having to decide whether to answer the Committees’ questions or to assert Executive Branch confidentiality interests without an attorney from the Executive Branch present to advise on those interests.
It violates settled practice and may jeopardize future accommodation. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has concluded that “congressional subpoenas that purport to require agency employees to appear without agency counsel are legally invalid and are not subject to civil or criminal enforcement.” See Attempted Exclusion of Agency Counsel from Congressional Depositions of Agency Employees, 43 Op. O.L.C. (May 23, 2019) [Tab B].
The second issue is the absence of authority for the Committees to conduct an impeachment inquiry. In its October 15, 2019 letter, the Department conveyed concerns about the Committees’ lack of authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry given the absence of a delegation of such authority by House Rule or Resolution. This correspondence echoed an October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel [Tab C] expressing the President’s view that the inquiry was “contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent” and “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.”
This letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the Administration-wide direction that Executive Branch personnel “cannot participate in [the impeachment] inquiry under these circumstances” [Tab C]. In the event that the Committees issue a subpoena to compel Ms. Cooper’s appearance, you should be aware that the Supreme Court has held, in United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953), that a person cannot be sanctioned for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena unauthorized by House Rule or Resolution.
To reiterate, the Department respects the oversight role of Congress and stands ready to work with the Committees should there be an appropriate resolution of outstanding legal issues. Any such resolution would have to consider the constitutional prerogatives and confidentiality interests of the co-equal Executive Branch, see Tab D, and ensure fundamental fairness to any Executive Branch employees involved in this process, including Ms. Cooper.
Sincerely,
[signed] David L. Norquist
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 25, 2019 21:10:37 GMT
Federal judge: Justice Dept. must give Mueller grand jury evidence to House
Yahoo News Video 8 minutes ago
A judge on Friday ordered the Justice Department to give the House of Representatives secret grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, handing a victory to Democrats who want it for the impeachment investigation of President Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 25, 2019 21:18:47 GMT
US tanks and troops are going back to Syria
The Pentagon will soon send tanks and additional troops to Syria in an effort to defend oil fields from ISIS.
The decision, which was confirmed by Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Friday, will involve the deployment of a combat unit with tanks to support an undisclosed number of U.S. forces to protect oil fields near the Euphrates River, the Associated Press reported.
“One of the most significant gains by the U.S. and our partners in the fight against ISIS was gaining control of oil fields in Eastern Syria — a crucial source of revenue for ISIS,” a defense official told CBS News.
Esper had told reporters on Monday from Kabul, Afghanistan that the administration had been discussing the possibility of maintaining a residual force in the region to “deny” oil field access to terror groups such as ISIS, The Wall Street Journal reported.
“We presently have troops in a couple of cities that are located right near that area,” Esper said. “The purpose is to deny access, specifically revenue, to ISIS and any other groups that may want to seek that revenue to enable their own malign activities.”
The mission to deny oil field access seems consistent with a tweet released by President Trump last week, which said, “The U.S. has secured the Oil, & the ISIS Fighters are double secured by Kurds & Turkey.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has staunchly opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the beginning, has been meeting with Trump and military leaders to discuss plans to prevent the resurgence of ISIS.
“There’s a plan coming together from the Joint Chiefs, that I think may work, that may give us what we need to prevent ISIS from coming back around,” Graham said, adding that he received a briefing from Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley.
In the absence of U.S. forces, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on Tuesday to a six-day ceasefire deal and established a plan of joint patrols in Syria.
The Trump administration halted sanctions on Turkey as a result of the ceasefire, but warned that they may be implemented if Turkey resumes firing on the Kurds – a longtime ally of the U.S.
“Turkey fully understands not to fire on the Kurds as they leave what will be known as the Safe Zone for other fairly nearby areas. I don’t have to repeat that large scale Sanctions will be imposed for violations. Going well! ISIS secured by Kurds with Turkey ready as backup,” Trump tweeted Friday morning.
After Trump ordered the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, they have begun moving temporarily to Iraq before receiving new missions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 25, 2019 21:19:52 GMT
There must be more than a "lot of sand" over there after all, & it looks like the Pentagon overruled Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 28, 2019 10:32:35 GMT
White House: John Kelly 'was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President'
By Caroline Kelly and Nikki Carvajal, CNN 1 day ago
President Donald Trump is disputing that former White House chief of staff John Kelly warned the President before he left the White House last year not to hire a replacement who wouldn't tell him the truth or that he would be impeached.
Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, made the comments during an interview at the Sea Island Summit political conference hosted by the Washington Examiner this weekend.
Kelly said if he had stayed on as chief of staff Trump wouldn't be in the midst of the current impeachment inquiry, implying that White House advisers could have prevented it.
"I said, whatever you do — and we were still in the process of trying to find someone to take my place — I said whatever you do, don't hire a 'yes man,' someone who won't tell you the truth — don't do that," Kelly said. "Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached."
Kelly's comments come after his successor, now acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, brashly confirmed and then denied earlier this month that Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats.
Trump weighed in Saturday on Kelly's interview with the Washington Examiner, saying in a statement to CNN, "John Kelly never said that, he never said anything like that. If he would have said that I would have thrown him out of the office. He just wants to come back into the action like everybody else does."
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham added, "I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President."
Mulvaney did not immediately respond to CNN's requests for comment.
Kelly also suggested that the Trump administration could have averted the current probe into the president, the Examiner reported.
"Someone has got to be a guide that tells [the president] that you either have the authority or you don't, or Mr. President, don't do it," Kelly said, adding that "the system that should be in place, clearly — the system of advising, bringing in experts in, having these discussions with the president so he can make an informed decision, that clearly is not in place."
Kelly also said that in light of the inquiry, "I feel bad that I left."
"That was almost 11 months ago, and I have an awful lot of, to say the least, second thoughts about leaving," he added. "It pains me to see what's going on because I believe if I was still there or someone like me was there, he would not be kind of, all over the place."
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 28, 2019 10:38:35 GMT
So Kelly recognized Trump as a loose cannon & tried to rein him in. He wanted to make sure he didn't surround himself with toadies. Trump apparently only employs toadies. Stephanie Grisham offered ample evidence of the very definition of 'toady' & what Trump insists upon from his underlings. Mulvaney saw himself in the mirror & was too embarrassed to come up with a quick retort. Surely he'll come up with some justification of why he isn't a toady shortly.
|
|
20DodgerMiracle24
Legend
Rob Manfred is a disaster to our national pastime.
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by 20DodgerMiracle24 on Oct 28, 2019 20:28:36 GMT
I don’t believe for one minute any of those ads helped Trump or hurt Clinton. She was / is unlikeable from the get go and could even get members of her OWN PARTY out to vote for her.
And I understand it is illegal to accept campaign funding from foreign countries - but I’m not naive enough to think or believe Trump was the first to do so (and he certainly won’t be the last!). Trump is a loudmouth and boor as you said; but he’s getting things done and doesn’t seem to give a damn about offending anyone in the process. It will certainly be interesting with the upcoming midterms. The Dems seem confident that they will overtake Congress; but they also thought Hillary was a LOCK. GO DODGERS!!! I think more than any other factor, many people voted for Hillary cos they're more comfy with the devil they know than the devil they don't know. If Hillary is as popular as some people insist she is, she'd win on Bill's coat tails and win those upper midwest states. She's created so many excuses why she lost: the Russians, her staffers not doing their jobs right, voter suppression, racism, womens' husbands threatening to beat them if they didn't vote for Trump...What do you do for an encore, Hillary? She lost cos she's a jerk. |
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 28, 2019 21:15:14 GMT
She also lost because she underestimated Trump. Running as our first ever female president, she should have known better.
She is most definently abrasive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 29, 2019 20:32:47 GMT
Without evidence, Trump calls White House official 'Never Trumper' ahead of impeachment testimony
ABC News•October 29, 2019
Without evidence, Trump calls White House official 'Never Trumper' ahead of impeachment testimony originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
President Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked a White House National Security Council official as a "Never Trumper" just before he was to tell House impeachment investigators he raised alarms about what Trump told Ukraine's president during a July phone call.
Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's Director of European Affairs, arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning ahead of a closed-door deposition as part of the House's impeachment inquiry. Vindman, who listened to the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, became the first current White House official to testify in the probe despite a blanket White House directive against doing so.
"Supposedly, according to the Corrupt Media, the Ukraine call 'concerned' today’s Never Trumper witness," Trump tweeted. "Was he on the same call that I was? Can’t be possible! Please ask him to read the Transcript of the call. Witch Hunt!"
Trump has repeatedly lambasted these officials sitting for depositions as “Never Trumpers” – he called the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, one, too – despite the fact that there’s no evidence they have political biases against Trump and despite both officials having long records of service for the United States.
Vindman planned to tell House impeachment investigators that he was "concerned by the call," according to a copy of his opening remarks obtained by ABC News.
"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine," Vindman planned to say.
Vindman immigrated to the United States from Ukraine as a child, has served in the Army and was wounded in an IED attack in Iraq, and received a Purple Heart.
Despite Vindman's career serving in the U.S. military and government, conservative defenders of the president attacked Vindman's loyalty by focusing on his heritage.
"We also know he was born in the Soviet Union, immigrated with his family, young," "Fox and Friends" host Brian Kilmeade said Tuesday morning. "He tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine."
"It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense,” former U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy, a Republican from Wisconsin, said on CNN Tuesday morning. “I don't know that he's concerned about American policy, but his main mission was to make sure that the Ukraine got those weapons. I understand that. We all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from."
Responding to a question from a Fox News host Monday night that broached Vindman's Ukrainian background, John Yoo, a former Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, said that "some people might call" Vindman's interactions with Ukrainian officials "espionage."
But not all Republicans agreed with that line of attack.
Sen. Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, called the attacks “absurd and terribly unfortunate,” and Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, said it was “shameful” that some Republicans like Duffy have questioned the patriotism of witnesses like Vindman.
“I think we need to show we are better than that as a nation,” Cheney said. “Their patriotism, their love of country – we’re talking about decorated veterans who have served this nation, who have put their lives on the line. And it is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation, and we should not be involved in that process.”
GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said “attacks on individuals don't make a lot of sense to me, in general.” He added, “"I think personal attacks just aren't helpful, frankly.”
Democratic senators echoed that defense of Vindman.
"I think it's despicable for anybody, especially an elected official, to criticize an honored military veteran who's served our country valiantly and basically is willing to sacrifice their life for us," Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, said. "To drag them through this situation and demean them to the point where they are not supposed to be credible, I just think that's wrong.”
Fellow Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, called the attacks “pathetic” and showed that Republicans “can't defend the president's conduct so basically they are attacking a war hero who continues to serve our country.”
"Republicans got nothing!” Hirono added. “That's why what they're doing is pathetic and if anybody is unpatriotic it's those people who attack a decorated war hero who continues to serve our country.”
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said that he thanked Vindman for his service, but said he is “wrong” in believing that comments he heard from the president during the July 25 call with the Ukraine president were of national security concern.
“We have a difference of opinion but we also have rule of law,” McCarthy, R-Calif., said, pointing at a summary transcript released by the White House. “Nothing is impeachable,” he said, arguing there is no quid pro quo.
Vindman was not the first official Trump has lambasted as a "Never Trumper" despite citing no evidence showing they harbor any political biases against the president.
On Friday, Trump told reporters at the White House that Taylor was "a Never Trumper and his lawyer is a Never Trumper." He did not provide any evidence to support his claims.
Both Vindman and Taylor are current U.S. officials, the latter called to serve in Ukraine by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was nominated by Trump. Vindman is a current official on the Trump administration's National Security Council.
They have both served under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Trump on Friday blamed Pompeo for hiring Taylor. "Hey, everybody makes mistakes," the president said. "Mike Pompeo. Everybody makes mistakes. He's a Never Trumper. His lawyer's the head of the Never Trumpers. They're a dying breed but they're still there."
Trump has also invoked espionage to refer to those who have raised questions about his dealings with Ukraine.
“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Trump said at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations last month. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 29, 2019 20:39:03 GMT
“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Trump said at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations last month. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”
That, my friends, is why the preliminary fact finding investigations have been held in private. What might a rabid Trump supporter do to the whistleblower if it was known who he or she is? He's basically issuing a call to arms against Vindman for treason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on Oct 30, 2019 20:32:09 GMT
Trump has been nailed.
Transcript of Trump Call
Julian E. Barnes, Nicholas Fandos and Danny Hakim
The New York Times•October 30, 2019
WASHINGTON — Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The omissions, Vindman said, included Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Biden’s son Hunter.
Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made.
Vindman did not testify to a motive behind the editing process. But his testimony is likely to drive investigators to ask further questions about how officials handled the call, including changes to the transcript and the decision to put it into the White House’s most classified computer system — and whether those moves were meant to conceal the conversation’s most controversial aspects.
The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the CIA whistleblower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry. There are plenty of other examples of Trump referring to Ukraine-related conspiracy theories and asking for investigations of the Biden family. But Vindman’s account offered a hint to solving a mystery surrounding the conversation: what Trump’s aides left out of the transcript in places where ellipses indicated dropped words.
In hours of questioning Tuesday by Democrats and Republicans, Vindman recounted his alarm at the July 25 call, saying he “did not think it was proper” for Trump to have asked Zelenskiy to investigate a political rival, and how White House officials struggled to deal with the fallout from a conversation he and others considered problematic.
His testimony about the reconstructed transcript, the aftermath of the call and a shadow foreign policy being run outside the National Security Council came as Democrats unveiled plans for a more public phase of the impeachment process. They plan to vote Thursday to direct the Intelligence Committee to conduct public hearings and produce a report for the Judiciary Committee to guide its consideration of impeachment articles. The measure will also provide a mechanism for Republicans to request subpoenas for witnesses and give Trump’s lawyers a substantive role in the Judiciary Committee’s proceedings to mount a defense.
Some lawmakers indicated Vindman would make a good candidate to appear again at a public hearing next month.
It is not clear why some of Vindman’s changes were not made, but the decision by a White House lawyer to quickly lock down the reconstructed transcript subverted the normal process of handling such documents, according to people familiar with the matter.
The note takers and voice recognition software used during the July 25 call had missed Zelenskiy saying the word “Burisma,” according to people briefed on the matter, but the reconstructed transcript does refer to “the company” and suggests that the Ukrainian president is aware that it is of great interest to Trump.
Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Zelenskiy said, according to the document, “will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.”
The rough transcript also contains ellipses at three points where Trump is speaking. Vindman told investigators that at the point of the transcript where the third set of ellipses appears, Trump said there were tapes of Biden.
Trump’s mention of tapes is an apparent reference to Biden’s comments at a January 2018 event about his effort to get Ukraine to force out its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin. Supporters of Biden have said Shokin was widely criticized for his lax anti-corruption efforts. Republicans charge, without evidence, that Biden was trying to stop an investigation into his son.
Vindman told House investigators Tuesday that he twice registered internal objections about how Trump and his inner circle were pressuring Ukraine to undertake inquiries beneficial to the president, including of Biden. After the July 25 call, the colonel reported what happened to a superior, explaining that “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” according to his opening remarks. He added, “This would all undermine U.S. national security.”
He also described confronting Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, after the envoy pressed Ukrainian officials to help the Trump administration by investigating the Biden family. The colonel said he acted out of a “sense of duty” and emphasized his military service in his remarks. “I am a patriot,” he said, “and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.”
As he spoke, House leaders were preparing for what was expected to be significant new private testimony from current and former White House officials in the coming days. On Wednesday, they will hear from two Ukraine experts who advised Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to the country. On Thursday, Timothy Morrison, the National Security Council’s Russia and Europe director, is scheduled to testify. And Friday, investigators have called Robert Blair, a top national security adviser to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff.
There is no recording of the July 25 call by the U.S. side. The White House uses note takers listening in on the call as well as voice recognition software to create a rough transcript that is a close approximation of the call. But names and technical terms are frequently missed by the software, according to people familiar with the matter.
After the call, Vindman was given a hard copy of the rough transcript to make updates and corrections, according to a person familiar with the matter. Vindman went through the transcript, made changes and gave his written edits to his boss, Morrison, according to the person.
But after the call, Vindman went with his brother, a lawyer on the National Security Council staff, to see John Eisenberg, the council’s legal adviser, to raise his concerns about the conversation.
Vindman declined to detail to investigators his discussions with Eisenberg, citing attorney-client privilege, according to two of the people familiar with the testimony.
One explanation for why Vindman’s changes were not made could be that the transcript had been quickly placed into a highly secure computer system, the NSC Intelligence Collaboration Environment, or NICE system, making it more difficult to alter.
Eisenberg ordered the transcript moved to ensure people who were not assigned to handle Ukraine policy could not read the transcript, a decision he hoped would prevent gossip and leaks about the call.
Putting the transcript in the secure server would have made it more difficult to make further edits to the document and in the case of the July call effectively stopped additional changes.
Eisenberg made the decision without consulting with his supervisor, Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel. A White House review of the handling of the call is examining if Eisenberg acted properly in securing the notes.
Administration officials have said a number of calls between Trump and foreign leaders were put in the most secure server. But tightened security had been put in place for those calls ahead of time. The Ukraine call was put in the secure server only after the fact.
In the whistleblower complaint that was made public, the CIA officer wrote that placing the rough transcript in the server was part of an effort to lock it down and restrict access and a sign that “White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”
|
|
