DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: Tears of the Sun

Merry Christmas to you too.

Those scholars who disagree are not looking at the law. the key sentence is:

"An appropriation for an indefinite period and authority to make obligations by contract before appropriations shall be apportioned to achieve the most effective and economical use. An apportionment may be reapportioned under this section."

That wording is VERY BROAD by legal definition, and was written that way specifically to give the President(who is the designated official over appropriations in Section 1513 of Title 31) pretty much carte blanch authority to negotiate contracts with other countries in order to disperse the aid approved by Congress. He is able to do so by any manner he/she so choose.

Asking about anything, even purported criminal behavior of a US Citizen, even if that person is running for President, is NOT a crime because it part of the negotiation over dispersal of aid via contract which the President has been duly given such power by our Congress when they approved Title 31 of the US Code subsections 1512 and 1513.

Aid was NEVER witheld, despite what the news reports say. Read the law, there is a purposeful delay period written into the law.

the Aid was NEVER witheld because it was released before October 1st. In order for the aid to be witheld, it would have had to be held beyond that date. The fact the President is required to notify Congress in writen so many days before if he/she decides to withhold the aid puts that date at Sept 11th, and thats the date the aid was released.

Therefore no aid was ever withheld officially and legally. The US Supreme Court would come to the same conclusion.

Even if Trump did threaten to withhold aid unless Ukraine started investigating Biden, it does not become criminal unless he withheld the aid past October 1st which he didn't. The Courts would see it as nothing more than a "bargaining tactic" which the President IS empowered to do thanks to Us Code Title 31 subsections 1512 and 1513.

Look, if you folks don't like what Trump did, fine...they complain to Congress to change the US Code, don't whine and moan and try to impeach him.

The Law, Title 31 US Code Subsections 1512 & 1513 Empower the President to do exactly what he did, which was bargain over aid. Its not illegal to use anything as a bargaining tactic.

Its in black and white, The aid was never with held, it was never late, it was dispersed before Oct 1st as required by law, The threat of with holding aid is merely a bargaining tactic granted by Title 31 of the Us Code.

As I said, if folks don't like it, have Congress change the damn Us Code...go get some from them, THEY are the ones who have empowered the President to do these things without their oversight, its there fault, not Trumps.

As a side note though, I am done with this topic.

I am not going to fight with people over something that doesn't even effect any of us.

At the end of the day, we all bleed the same color, we all like many of the same foods, and all of us have a lot more in common with one another then we would like to admit.

I'd rather try and focus on what this country does that's good rather than what is bad.

So if I attempt armed robbery bout don't actually rob the bank it's cool right?

If I conspire to an act of violence or terrorism it's okay as long as I don't actually carry through?

That's what your saying ? Have you gone to court and defended many clients with that defense?

Over the years I have taught you many many lessons about our Country, her laws, and the Constitution.
Now I need you to teach me something...

Nancy, Chuck, Nadler and Schiff told "We the People"
our President was found to be a threat to national security and we need to rush with impeachment to stop his treachery.

So teach me why Nancy, Chuck, Nadler and Schiff are now supporting Nancy's withholding of the impeachment articles from the Senate as she slows things down, wanting more information from the Senate?

Is she sitting on this to get "We the People" killed by our Presidents treachery?

Is she covering for or enabling a Racist, Nazi, Russian Spy, Homophobe?

Or was she lying about that threat to our National Security thang?

Excuse me but I was asking mgh888.

If however I ever have a question about the bearded lady in the circus, I will be sure to....

Since you are such a smart guy I thought you grasped the idea of how message boards work?

If you wish to have a one on one conversation you use private messages, not the board.

You're welcome.

Finally, we agree.

Looks like a fine New Year.

Ummmm - you asked me something? Sorry - all I saw was an attempt to be funny - or an attempt to be superior - or an an attempt to bait. Whichever it doesn't really matter.

Firstly I suggest you reach out to Nancy or Chuck to find out what they are thinking. I don't know.

What I do know is that Trump tried to coerce/bribe Ukraine to launch an investigation into Biden and thus undermine his political opponent. We have many witnesses to this. We have those same witnesses saying that Trump had zero interest in corruption 'at large' - only and specifically as an investigation into Biden. . . . Impeachable. We'll see what happens. Regardless of how black and white his guilt I am pretty sure the spineless and soulless GOP won't impeach. Moscow Mitch has already said he isn't interested in an impartial (fair) process. And -shocker - no one is surprised.

Leave it to you to ignore the actual substance.

naturellement

All thrown in the trash can by the very politians who now ignore the substance and corruption of trump while ignoring their own oath to US to protect our constitution. And you love it. Pfft

No no no, it is the blinded by hate, morally bankrupt left, being pulled by the nose, by a corrupt and biased media, to believe all those things.

They never learned...

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool you a third time, you're a fool.
Forth time, wipe your drool.

Any time you want to discuss something of substance - and facts - and what TRUMP has done regards bribing and coercing a foreign govt to undermine a political opponent. . . . feel free. Otherwise, the constant typing a lot without actually, you know, saying anything (other than deflection and repeating lies).

I knew it..you love the corruption of Putin and trump.

You speak of others being morally bankrupt while you support Trump. The irony is so thick there you could cut it with a knife.

One man's bribery and coercion to undermine a political opponent is another man's using legitimate diplomatic instruments to root out corruption. It's a matter of perspective. Both sides ignore anything that doesn't fit their version.

It's a murky mess all around and it doesn't seem I'm going to get anyone to look at it objectively, so I think I'll leave you all to have the same argument over and over again amongst yourselves.

What corruption are you speaking about rooting out?

That Biden put the the desires of our allies and our government first and worked to accomplish the goal that all wished for?

That after Ukraine had already investigated Burisma for more than two years, the president wanted them to investigate them again?

That Trump was helping spread the Russian propaganda that the 2016 election tampering was done by Ukraine? Have our own president spread the Russian message?

You do realize that Trump didn't care if they actually investigated Biden, right? His main concern was that they publicly announced they were investigating Biden. That doesn't do anything to help stop or investigate corruption.

That is done strictly to put a target on a political rivals back.

The repubs in the senate do not want to call witnesses, only to view the depositions in closed doors. The dems have said that they want Bolton, Mulvaney and a couple others on the stand. The dems are holding back until they get a better deal or find a way to get to a vote of 51 senators to compel Mitch to cave in and actually let people testify at the trial. Thats all it is. Short term it will work for the dems, probably not long term-unless some moderate repub senators like Romney, Collins think this is a screwed up process to not have a real trial.

I spent about 5 minutes on the net yesterday and saw that the number 2 repub in the senate said that he really didn't want live public testimony because "sometimes people say the darnedest things"

They was no step by step process written in the constitution on how this proceeds, and the founding fathers could have never thought that Washington would be this messed up.

Moderate GOP senator 'disturbed' by McConnell's coordination with White House
Kevin Liptak-Profile-ImageCNN Digital Expansion DC Manu Raju
By Kevin Liptak and Manu Raju, CNN

Updated 3:33 PM ET, Wed December 25, 2019
murkowski




Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she is "disturbed" by coordination between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House over the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

Senate leaders have yet to reach an agreement on the rules of the trial, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not sent the Senate the impeachment articles necessary to begin the proceedings. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for the Senate to pursue witnesses and documents, which McConnell opposes, leading to a holiday impasse and uncertainty as to when the trial will begin.
But Murkowski said McConnell had "confused the process" by saying he was acting in "total coordination" with the White House on setting the parameters for the trial.
"And in fairness, when I heard that, I was disturbed," Murkowski told KTUU, a CNN affiliate.
"To me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what Leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process," she went on.
Murkowski's comments are notable because in the wake of House Republicans' unanimous vote last week to oppose the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Senate Republicans have given no public indication that there is any dissent among their ranks. As a moderate, Murkowski, who opposed Justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, will be closely watched during the upcoming trial, and she told KTUU she is undecided as to how she'll vote.
Republicans sources told CNN that McConnell is open to going to the Senate floor without support from the Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer on a rule to conduct the impeachment trial. McConnell would need the support of 51 GOP senators to approve such a rule -- support that Republicans believe he would be able to lock down.
Impeachment drama reveals erosion of value in facts
Impeachment drama reveals erosion of value in facts
McConnell's preference is to cut a bipartisan deal with Schumer, like the one that was reached during the Clinton trial, and there is an expectation that the two men will still try to discuss a bipartisan way forward as the Senate gets back into session in January, GOP sources said.
But if they can't reach a deal, McConnell almost certainly would go to the floor to set the procedures for the trial. Republicans say they want the articles transmitted first from the House to the Senate to begin that process.
In her interview with KTUU, Murkowski also criticized the House impeachment process as rushed and incomplete.
"Speaker Pelosi was very clear, very direct that her goal was to get this done before Christmas," Murkowski said.
"If the House truly believe that they had information that was going to be important, they subpoena them, and if they ignore the subpoena as they did at the direction of the White House, then that next step is to go to the courts," she added.
Murkowski said she was looking for a "full and fair process" that uses the Clinton impeachment as a model. She added that she's undecided as to how she'll vote on whether to remove Trump from office, saying it would be "wrong" of her to make up her mind before the trial begins.


Full article at link below:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/politics/lisa-murkowski-senate-impeachment-trial/index.html

“From the get go, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have handled this impeachment inquiry poorly, from closed-door hearings and leaked information to the outright abandonment of decades of established precedent on due process for the accused. A serious lack of transparency will hardly build public trust or credibility for the House’s actions. As awful as their process is, the formal impeachment inquiry lies in the House, and it’s not the Senate’s role to dictate to the House how to determine their own rules.” – Sen. Lisa Murkowski

https://mustreadalaska.com/murkowski-cla...l-out-playbook/

Correct, and she also writes in the article that if the house asked by subpoena for somebody to testify and they are blocked by the White House, then they should have gone to the courts and compelled them to testify. And I think she is correct with that also.

I was browsing last weekend and the thought of the dems waiting was part of course for public opinion, but the other was a wait and see if any of the court rulings on taxes and other items would be released

She is correct on that but Nancy was in such a dire rush to save our National Security from that evil man, there was no time to allow the Courts to weigh in.

If Nancy was right about our National Security being under attack and our very lives being at stake, waiting for public opinion and tax rulings is laughable.

As far as subpoenas being issued and denied, the Constitution gives the President Executive Privilege. Trump didn't invent it.

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

Executive Privilege is No Bar to Testimony Before Impeachment Investigators

Even When Communications Concern National Security or Foreign Affairs


There are three reasons why executive privilege is not an impediment to the appearance of any witness before the House Intelligence Committee in the context of an impeachment inquiry. First, history suggests that, where the authority of the House to investigate the President is concerned, impeachment is different. Presidents have claimed from the earliest days of the republic that they have a protectable interest in the confidentiality of communications with their advisors. In 1786, for example, George Washington famously declined to turn over certain papers related to the Jay Treaty—but, as professor Jean Galbraith has observed, Washington carved out a specific exception: when the House has the “purpose … of an impeachment.” His advisors agreed that executive privilege ought not apply to impeachment.

The second reason why executive privilege does not apply in the impeachment context flows from the Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in United States v. Nixon. There, the court considered the question whether the privilege protected from disclosure information sought in connection with an ongoing federal criminal proceeding. As an initial matter, the court observed that the importance of full candor from the president’s advisors “is too plain to require further discussion.” It follows that the need to prevent disclosure of such communications drives the privilege, to ensure the president is not denied the honest counsel he needs to undertake the various duties and responsibilities of the office.

The second reason why executive privilege does not apply in the impeachment context flows from the Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in United States v. Nixon. There, the court considered the question whether the privilege protected from disclosure information sought in connection with an ongoing federal criminal proceeding. As an initial matter, the court observed that the importance of full candor from the president’s advisors “is too plain to require further discussion.” It follows that the need to prevent disclosure of such communications drives the privilege, to ensure the president is not denied the honest counsel he needs to undertake the various duties and responsibilities of the office.

But this justification for the privilege falls short when the potential for disclosure does not spring from a judicial proceeding or as a result of congressional oversight of federal programs. Litigation involving a president’s official actions is not uncommon, and both houses of Congress regularly engage in legitimate oversight efforts. Both kinds of proceedings occur with sufficient frequency that the underlying purpose of executive privilege – candid advice and counsel – would be threatened by the potential opportunities for the disclosure of all manner of presidential communications.

Again, presidential impeachment is substantively different. It is so comparatively infrequent – the current effort represents just the fourth time in the nation’s history that the House has launched presidential impeachment proceedings – as to make it unlikely advisors would, in the words of the Nixon court, “temper candor with a concern for appearances” in communications with the president. Perhaps more important, an impeachment inquiry into presidential conduct is readily distinguishable from both litigation and ordinary legislative oversight: it is exclusively focused on the person of the president, as opposed to the resolution of a civil or criminal dispute or the efficacy of the president’s policy choices. Impeachment, in other words, concerns matters outside the public policy considerations that underlie the need for executive privilege. This view finds support in the recent scholarship of Jonathan Shaub, who has made a similar argument, and in the Watergate-era decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Senate Select Committee v Nixon, which suggests that an impeachment inquiry represents an extraordinary, and constitutionally authorized, kind of legislative oversight.

Third, even assuming the animating rationale for the privilege embraced by the Nixon court applies in the impeachment context, still the need for the information sought should outweigh the privilege. In Nixon, for example, the court concluded that the integrity of the criminal justice system required the production of the information sought for inspection. Given that a presidential impeachment inquiry is in the nature of a criminal investigation, as Mike Stern has argued, assertions of executive privilege should be outweighed in the impeachment context as well.

To be sure, the Nixon court noted that its analysis might have been different had the president’s claim of privilege related to “military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets,” which may be shielded from disclosure in judicial proceedings. But an impeachment investigation is not a judicial proceeding—it is a constitutional prerogative of the House of Representatives and within the House’s sole discretion. When, as is true of the current inquiry into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, the core of the investigation implicates both foreign policy and national security, it would make no sense for executive privilege to shield relevant communications from disclosure. Such an application of the privilege would deny the House access to the very information it needs to determine whether to move forward with impeachment—it could effectively make the president unimpeachable when operating in this wide arena, a result at odds with the plain text of the Constitution.

What all of this means is that the witnesses summoned to appear before the House Intelligence Committee should not view executive privilege as standing in the way of their testimony. Assuming executive privilege applies in the impeachment context, moreover, it is clear that the House’s need for information outweighs the president’s interest in confidentiality, even in communications that may relate to foreign policy or national security.

We should remember the Nixon court’s admonition that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified. To conclude otherwise today would fatally undermine the House’s authority to hold a president in check when there is considerable reason to believe he or she may be responsible for high crimes or misdemeanors.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66941/execu...-investigators/

Well I'm glad you feel you are totally objective and that you are the only one that is 100% right.

Personally I think all we can do is look at the facts, the witness testimony and the actions of the WH and make our best determination. From there you make a decision on what side you think is telling the truth. I guess you seem to think the truth is not determinable and so neither side is right or wrong.

Look at it objectively lol. Facts...trump withheld millions of US tax dollars approved by congress to seek dirt on Biden. Nobody mentioned anything about corruption in Ukraine including trump’s personal lawyer until after they got caught red handed. So if that’s all ok with you I’ll mark you down as not looking at things objectively here.

J/c

It looks like Trump Derangement Syndrome might end up meaning something different than when it first came out.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/

Trump’s tweeting in the past two days was so frenzied and the sources quoted were so bizarre—including at least four accounts devoted to the Pizzagate-adjacent conspiracy theory QAnon, as well as one that describes former President Barack Obama as “Satan’s Muslim scum”—as to renew doubts about the president’s mental stability.


Seems The Drumf is definitely Deranged.

He’s already impeached himself. Now he and his mob family goes to war against the whistle blower. Enjoy.

This gets sadder and sadder by the week. Rudy would’ve been dropped the evidence had he possessed anything real. Now even people supposed to be on his team is avoiding him like the plague.

Had it coming:

Graham: Rudy Should Scrub Evidence for Russian Propaganda

https://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-avoiding-rudy-giuliani-095755765.html

In the weeks leading up to their impeachment trial, senators on Capitol Hill are actively avoiding meeting with President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani—partly because they fear he might try to pass off Russian conspiracy theories as fact, according to interviews with more than half a dozen Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides.
On his trip to Kyiv last month, Giuliani met with former general prosecutors and parliamentarians known for peddling Russian conspiracy theories, including supposed plots that involve Ukrainian intervention in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. When he arrived back in Washington, Giuliani updated Trump, according to two individuals with knowledge of their conversation, and said publicly the president asked him to brief Republican senators about the information he gathered.
“He wants me to do it,” Giuliani told The Washington Post in an interview earlier this month. “I’m working on pulling it together and hope to have it done by the end of the week.”
Since then, though, various lawmakers, as well as administration officials and national security brass, have privately expressed concerns about Giuliani's latest Ukraine jaunt, given that the Trump lawyer's efforts are what helped create this Ukraine scandal and get the president impeached in the first place. Both Democrat and Republican senators have steered clear of the president’s personal attorney over concern that the information he is trying to disseminate originated from figures in Ukraine known for spinning the truth or spreading outright lies.
“He has not shared any of that information with me,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) about the information Giuliani obtained overseas. “My advice to Giuliani would be to share what he got from Ukraine with the IC [intelligence community] to make sure it’s not Russia propaganda. I’m very suspicious of what the Russians are up to all over the world.”
Graham earlier this month called on Giuliani to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on allegations that Biden helped his son get a lucrative job at Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.
While in Kyiv, Giuliani met with Andriy Derkach, a self-described political independent who attended the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow and was for a time a member of the pro-Russia party—the Party of Regions—in the Ukrainian parliament. He also met with Oleksandr Dubinksy, a member of the parliament known for his close ties to controversial Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. He and Derkach consistently disseminate conspiracy theories on Facebook and elsewhere. The Daily Beast recently obtained a dossier that in part contained the debunked claim that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 presidential election, a claim which had been disseminated by Derkach to Americans, including senior officials, close to President Trump.
That claim and others were aired on One America News shortly after Giuliani’s visit in a documentary-style show. OAN traveled with Giuliani to Ukraine for his meetings with Derkach and Dubinksy and are currently working on a fourth segment to air sometime in the coming weeks.
As senators prep for the impeachment trial they are distancing themselves, now publicly, from Giuliani in an attempt to steer clear of his less-than-reliable associates in Kyiv.
“Rudy Giuliani long ago lost any shred of credibility, especially after the dossier he assembled for the State Department stunningly mirrored Russian propaganda,” Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) told The Daily Beast. “Knowing that, anyone that attempts to defend President Trump’s behavior by citing Rudy’s information over our own intelligence agencies is simply irresponsible, uninformed or willing to be that useful idiot the Kremlin desires.”
Giuliani has not briefed any Republican Senate leaders, including Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), according to two individuals with knowledge of the Senate leaders’ schedules.
Rudy Giuliani Doubles Down on Fox News: ‘I Forced’ Marie Yovanovitch Out of Ukraine
“I wouldn’t trust Rudy to represent me in a parking dispute so I’d say avoid,” a senior GOP Senate aide said tersely when asked if it was a good idea for Republican senators to meet with Giuliani to get a Ukraine briefing. Another top aide in a different Republican office said their senator had informed staff that they had “no interest at all” in meeting with Giuliani on this, fearing it would amount to a “waste of time,” if not something worse.
And it’s not just Capitol Hill that’s worried about associating with Giuliani.
“I do not want my name showing up in a [news] story about what Rudy and the president discuss,” said one senior White House official. “I don’t want my text messages with [Giuliani] being all over cable news,” this official continued, referencing the incident when Trump’s personal lawyer went on Fox News and unveiled texts sent between him and Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine. As The Daily Beast reported in early December, senior officials in the State Department and within the national security apparatus began worrying that Giuliani's ongoing crusade (which has been explicitly blessed and personally encouraged by President Trump) could hurt American foreign policy, and it even got to the point where these officials frantically devoted resources to tracking his foreign movements and figuring out who he was meeting with in Europe.
When asked about Sen. Graham’s recommendation to approach the intelligence community with his materials, and if he agreed that he should do so as due diligence, Giuliani would only reply to The Daily Beast, “It’s not Russian propaganda.”

Things are looking up. At least some of them are willing to admit that the Ukraine story Rudy and Trump are spreading is nothing but Russian propaganda.

Now if 40 and his crew could just figure it out.....

what a bunch of twisted bs dude. If trump didn’t do anything illegal why won’t
he come into the senate and explain what he did and why he did it, Mmmmm? Clinton had the balls to do that. Not trump.

https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/some...ine-redactions/

Facts matter.

The more facts come out - the more GUILTY AS HELL Trump looks.

3 - 2- 1 -- Que the deflections.

From just security today. They have gotten some of the e-mails in unredacted form that the administration would not turn over to the House of Reps.


Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns
by Kate Brannen
January 2, 2020

social-image twitter icon reddit icon
“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

Earlier in the day on Aug. 30, President Donald Trump met with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the president’s hold on $391 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Inside the Trump administration, panic was reaching fever pitch about the president’s funding hold, which had stretched on for two months. Days earlier, POLITICO had broken the story and questions were starting to pile up. U.S. defense contractors were worried about delayed contracts and officials in Kyiv and lawmakers on Capitol Hill wanted to know what on earth was going on. While Trump’s national security team thought withholding the money went against U.S. national security interests, Trump still wouldn’t budge.

Thanks to the testimony of several Trump administration officials, we now know what Trump was waiting on: a commitment from Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

But getting at that truth hasn’t been easy and the Trump administration continues to try to obscure it. It is blocking key officials from testifying and is keeping documentary evidence from lawmakers investigating the Ukraine story. For example, this note from Duffey to McCusker was never turned over to House investigators and the Trump administration is continuing to try to keep it secret.

Last month, a court ordered the government to release almost 300 pages of emails to the Center for Public Integrity in response to a FOIA lawsuit. It released a first batch on Dec. 12, and then a second installment on Dec. 20, including Duffey’s email, but that document, along with several others, were partially or completely blacked out.

Since then, Just Security has viewed unredacted copies of these emails, which begin in June and end in early October. Together, they tell the behind-the-scenes story of the defense and budget officials who had to carry out the president’s unexplained hold on military aid to Ukraine.

The documents reveal growing concern from Pentagon officials that the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the executive branch to spend money as appropriated by Congress, and that the necessary steps to avoid this result weren’t being taken. Those steps would include notifying Congress that the funding was being held or shifted elsewhere, a step that was never taken. The emails also show that no rationale was ever given for why the hold was put in place or why it was eventually lifted.

What is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted; no one else appears to have supported his position. Although the pretext for the hold was that some sort of policy review was taking place, the emails make no mention of that actually happening. Instead, officials were anxiously waiting for the president to be convinced that the hold was a bad idea. And while the situation continued throughout the summer, senior defense officials were searching for legal guidance, worried they would be blamed should the hold be lifted too late to actually spend all of the money, which would violate the law.

The emails also reveal key decision points, moments when senior officials hoped the hold might be lifted. This includes Vice President Mike Pence’s September meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which a senior defense official expected would resolve the funding issue, raising the question: Why? What was supposed to come out of that meeting that would pave the way for Trump to lift the hold? What was Pence expected to communicate?

But, the hold wasn’t immediately lifted after Pence’s meeting with Zelenskyy. Instead, the president finally released the money on Sept. 11, just as the whistleblower complaint was about to break into the open.

As for how the story begins, it was in mid-June when Defense Department officials first heard the president had questions about the Ukraine money.

June: “Do you have insight on this funding?”

According to new reporting from the New York Times, on June 19, Robert Blair, senior adviser to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney called Russell Vought, the acting head of OMB and said, “We need to hold it up” in reference to the Ukraine military aid.

That same day, Michael Duffey, the associate director of National Security Programs at OMB, emailed Elaine McCusker, a career civil servant who serves as acting Pentagon comptroller, about a Washington Examiner story on the $250 million the Defense Department had just announced it was sending to Ukraine.

“The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been asked to follow-up with someone over there to get more detail. Do you have insight on this funding?”

Mark Sandy, OMB’s deputy associate director for national security programs, was copied on the email and told the House Intelligence Committee that he remembered receiving it and being made aware that the president had questions about the Ukraine funding on June 19.

As Laura Cooper, who oversees Ukraine policy at DoD, testified to the House Intelligence Committee, the president wanted to know if U.S. companies would be providing Ukraine any of the equipment, what other countries were doing to contribute, and where the U.S. funding came from. Defense Department officials collected the answers and sent them back up the food chain and then over to the White House.

They explained that the vast majority of companies providing the equipment were American. They told the White House that the United Kingdom, Canada, Lithuania and Poland all contribute military training and equipment to Ukraine, and that the European Union also provides an enormous amount of economic support. As for the third question, it was the trickiest to answer because of its “strange phrasing,” Cooper said. Her office answered: The money comes from Congress and it has strong bipartisan support.

The questions didn’t stop there. Blair wanted to know the status of the funding, meaning: Was the money out the door already?

On June 25, McCusker answered:

“Only $7M of the $250M has been obligated to date.”

An attachment showed the equipment the money was going to buy, including counter-artillery radars, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, secure communications and cyber support, night vision devices, humvees and medical equipment. It also listed the U.S. companies expected to supply it.

According to the Times, Blair emailed Mulvaney on June 27, telling him the Ukraine money could be held but to “expect Congress to become unhinged.”

July: “Given the sensitive nature of the request …”

Hours after Trump concluded his infamous July 25 call with Zelenskyy, during which he asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden, Duffey sent an email to top senior defense officials, which was released in full to the Center for Public Integrity. The letter advised the Pentagon to suspend any future military aid for Ukraine.

“Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DOD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process. I understand that DOD will continue its planning and casework during this period and that this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction.

We intend to formalize the pause with an apportionment footnote to be provided later today.

Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction. Please let me know if you have any questions.”

McCusker followed up in an email to OMB asking if this had gone through the Defense Department’s general counsel, indicating an early concern about the legality of these actions. When it released this email to the Center for Public Integrity, the Justice Department redacted this simple question from McCusker.



It was on July 25 that Sandy implemented the first hold on the Ukraine funding by inserting a footnote in a budget document. This first hold extended through Aug. 5. The Pentagon made clear that this first pause would not jeopardize its ability to spend the money by the end of the fiscal year.

The next day, July 26, John Rood, head of policy at the Defense Department, sent his boss, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, a readout from the “Ukraine Deputies Small Group” meeting. This is the meeting convened by the National Security Council where we know, thanks to Cooper’s congressional testimony, that the national security community voiced its “unanimous support” for resuming the funding and Cooper raised the Defense Department’s concern about the urgency of the matter due to the legal requirement to spend all of the money by the end of the fiscal year.

The readout includes this line, which makes it clear the hold on Defense and State Department Ukraine funding came at the president’s direction:

OMB noted that the President’s direction via the Chief of Staff in early July was to suspend security assistance to Ukraine including by blocking the $115 [Foreign Military Financing] congressional notification and by halting execution of the $250M FY19 USAI programs.

An assistant to Esper let officials know the secretary had read the summary of the meeting and “has no further questions.”

August: “What is the status of the impoundment paperwork?”

As August began, the Defense Department had told OMB and the White House its concerns about the legality of the hold and how, as the clock ticked toward the end of the fiscal year, it would become increasingly difficult for the Pentagon to spend the Ukraine funding in time. If it wasn’t all spent by Sept. 30, in violation of the law, the money would return to the U.S. Treasury, in what is known as an “impoundment.” While pressure was mounting as the month began, that red line had not yet been crossed, but it would be soon.

On Aug. 6, Duffey sent McCusker an email telling her he planned to extend the hold on the Ukraine funding by reinserting the same footnote into the budget document. The footnote still noted that the pause would not prevent the Defense Department from spending the money before the fiscal year ended, if the hold was lifted.

McCusker wrote back asking to whom Duffey spoke to confirm that the additional pause would not affect the ultimate execution of the program.

“Good catch,” Duffey wrote back and then asked with whom he should check in.

On Aug. 9, McCusker wrote to senior OMB officials, including Sandy and Duffey:

“As we discussed, as of 12 AUG I don’t think we can agree that the pause ‘will not preclude timely execution.’ We hope it won’t and will do all we can to execute once the policy decision is made, but can no longer make that declarative statement.”

The Pentagon’s warning: We’re running out of time.

The Justice Department chose to black this out when it released the email last month:



Duffey followed up with a number of questions, mostly about whether the money could be shifted to other programs if the decision was made not to spend it on Ukraine. McCusker told him that reprogramming was possible but that it was very unlikely to get approved on Capitol Hill because Congress had not only approved the Pentagon’s request for $200 million for Ukraine military assistance, but had added $50 million, indicating that bipartisan support for the program was overwhelming.

On Aug. 12, understanding that the hold on Ukraine funding was going to be extended again, McCusker sent Duffey proposed language to be included in the next footnote to reflect the growing risk to the program. It read:

“Based on OMB’s communication with DOD on August 12, 2019, OMB understands from the Department that this additional pause in obligations may not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction but that execution risk increases with continued delays.” (emphasis added)

But the next time the hold was extended, the footnote did not include any text that indicated the growing risk to the funding — the language that the Defense Department thought should be included. It was also redacted in the documents publicly released last month.

The emails show there was supposed to be an Aug. 16 meeting between Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Esper at Trump’s New Jersey golf resort where they would discuss Ukraine. Talking points were prepared and shared among officials.

Media reports show Trump met with his national security team that day in Bedminster to discuss Afghanistan. For those talks, Trump and Pompeo were joined by Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford and CIA Director Gina Haspel.

While there was an expectation that it would be on the day’s agenda, an Aug. 17 email from Duffey to McCusker says,

“Sounds like Ukraine was not discussed.”

As the month wore on, the emails show officials bending over backwards to make every conceivable accommodation to keep the process moving without actually being able to obligate the funding. The idea was that as soon as the funds were given the green light, there would be zero delay, and presumably, impoundments could be avoided.

But tension began to build between the Defense Department and OMB toward the end of August as the funding hold complicated all of the contractual processes that needed to take place in order to buy the equipment for Ukraine. OMB was pushing the Defense Department to micromanage down to the lowest level — the field contracting offices — in an apparent effort to buy time and keep the process on track even though the hold was upending everything. The Pentagon was growing frustrated.

On Aug. 20, OMB issued another footnote, extending the hold through Aug. 26. It did not include any language flagging the growing risk.

In an Aug. 21 email to her DOD colleagues, McCusker notes that members of the House Appropriations Committee traveled to Ukraine earlier that month and sent the Pentagon a request for information regarding the funding.

On Aug. 26, Duffey let McCusker know that the funding hold was being extended again.

McCusker responded, “What is the status of the impoundment paperwork?”

To which Duffey, replied, “I am not tracking that. Is that something you are expecting from OMB?”

McCusker: “Yes, it is now necessary — legal teams were discussing last week.”

The Justice Department redacted McCusker’s side of this exchange.



In an email to Duffey later that morning, McCusker’s frustration is palpable. For starters, DOD still hasn’t gotten the footnote extending the hold, so technically the Pentagon should start obligating the money. Plus, Mark Paoletta, OMB’s general counsel, “appears to continue to consistently misunderstand the process and the timelines we have provided for funds execution,” McCusker said. (Again, this detail was redacted by the Trump administration in its court-compelled FOIA release.)

McCusker asks Duffey: “Are you working with him and can you help? Starting on 19 AUG, the footnotes have put our ability to execute at risk.”

She also tells Duffey that the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is now asking questions, in addition to House Appropriators. The question from SASC is:

“Has OMB directed DOD/DSCA to halt execution of all or any part of FY19 funds for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative? If so, when, and what was the reason given?”

On Aug. 27, Eric Chewning, Esper’s chief of staff, shares with McCusker an Aug. 26 email he received from L3 Harris Technologies, one of the defense contractors waiting on the Ukraine money. The company has learned of the “hold” and wants to know what’s going on.

McCusker responds to Chewning saying,

“Recognizing the importance of decision space, but this situation is really unworkable made particularly difficult because OMB lawyers continue to consistently mischaracterize the process — and the information we have provided. They keep repeating that this pause will not impact DOD’s ability to execute on time.” (emphasis added)

Her response was redacted by the Justice Department:



As frustration mounted, the Pentagon considered ratcheting up its warnings and prepared a draft letter from Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist to Vought, the acting director of OMB. McCusker shared the letter with Duffey on Aug. 27 just to let him know it was in the works. The entirety of the one-page letter was redacted in the emails released to CPI. Here are the key sections:

“As you know, in a series of footnotes to its apportionment documents, the Office of Management and Budget has directed the Department to pause its obligation of USAI funding temporarily, pending completion of an ‘interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.’ These footnotes make the affected funding legally unavailable for obligation during the period of the directed pause. As a result, we have repeatedly advised OMB officials that pauses beyond Aug. 19, 2019 jeopardize the Department’s ability to obligate USAI funding prudently and fully, consistent with the Impoundment Control Act.

The latest OMB-directed pause ended on August 26, 2019, and has not been extended. Accordingly, the Department is resuming its obligation of USAI funding. We believe that OMB’s imposition of any further delays in obligating USAI funding will trigger the ICA’s requirement to transmit to Congress a special message proposing rescission or deferral of funding for the USAI.”

A new footnote was signed by Duffey later that day, extending the hold yet again.

In the meantime, after weeks of trying to keep the president’s hold on the Ukraine money within a tight circle of administration officials, word of it was getting out. It had now reached Capitol Hill, U.S. defense contractors and officials in Ukraine.

Finally, on Aug. 28, the situation burst into the open, when POLITICO broke the story.

Talking points were hashed out and Paoletta, the OMB general counsel, forwarded them around. The final talking point read:

“No action has been taken by OMB that would preclude the obligation of these funds before the end of the fiscal year.”

When McCusker read this, she wrote to Duffey,

“I don’t agree to the revised TPs — the last one is just not accurate from a financial execution standpoint, something we have been consistently conveying for a few weeks.”

Her reaction to the talking points was redacted in the FOIA release last month:



The talking points were also discussed internally at the Defense Department. McCusker told a group of senior defense officials:

OMB continues to ignore our repeated explanation regarding how the process works. We can not release funds for obligation until they can obligate, so the process has stopped for those cases whose lines are ready to execute.

The draft [deputy secretary of defense] memo to the OMB director says: ‘Although we will proceed to take all necessary preparatory steps, please be advised that we can no longer confirm that USAI funds will be fully and prudently obligated before they expire on September 30, 2019.’

This is due to OMB actions. I am sure I am missing some nuance here?

On Aug. 29, Chewning let McCusker know:

“Sec State and Sec Def will discuss with POTUS tomorrow. We should wait on communicating anything more privately.”

On Aug. 30, after the meeting with the president took place, Duffey told McCusker, “Clear direction from POTUS to hold.” He let her know that he’d soon be sending new paperwork extending the hold.

September: “You can’t be serious. I am speechless.”

Meanwhile, Chewning told senior defense officials that Esper had told him that no decision came out of his meeting with Trump. The Defense Department had prepared another strongly worded letter to OMB, to be signed by David Norquist, the deputy defense secretary, that would again remind OMB that DOD could no longer guarantee that it could spend all of the Ukraine money before it expired on Sept. 30.

“Hi All,

I spoke to the boss. No decision on Ukraine. VP meeting with Zelensky in Poland is next step. We can discuss further on Tuesday. Until then, hold on the USAI memo to OMB.”

With news that another extension was coming, McCusker emailed Chewning:

“Do you believe DOD is adequately protected from what may happen as a result of the Ukraine obligation pause? I realize we need to continue to give the WH has [sic] much decision space as possible, but am concerned we have not officially documented the fact that we can not promise full execution at this point in the [fiscal year].

Chewning wrote back:

The Ukrainian PM speaks with VPOTUS on Tuesday. We expect the issue to get resolved then. If not, I think we need to send the letter.

Pence met with Zelenskyy in Poland on Sept. 1. While Trump reportedly instructed Pence to communicate that U.S. military aid was still being withheld and to push for more aggressive action on corruption, Pence’s staff has claimed the vice president did not understand corruption to mean “investigate Joe Biden” as other officials in the administration understood at the time. Pence’s visit came and went and another extension of the hold was implemented on Sept. 5.

On Sept. 7, McCusker asked Duffey again, “When will impoundment paperwork be processed?”

On Monday morning, Sept. 9, McCusker sent Duffey another email.

“The amounts identified as not being able to ‘fully’ obligate by the end of FY total ~$120M based on the current hold. If the hold continues this amount will grow.”

Duffey, adding OMB and Pentagon lawyers to the recipients list, and in a formal and lengthy letter that was quite different from the way he’d addressed McCusker all summer, chastised her and the Defense Department for dropping the ball, saying that if and when the hold is lifted, and DOD finds itself unable to obligate the funding, it would be DOD’s fault.

“As you know, the President wanted a policy process run to determine the best use of these funds, and he specifically mentioned this to the SecDef the previous week. OMB developed a footnote authorizing DoD to proceed with all processes necessary to obligate funds. If you have not taken these steps, that is contrary to OMB’s direction and was your decision not to proceed. If you are unable to obligate the funds, it will have been DoD’s decision that cause any impoundment of funds.”

Essentially: You guys screwed up. Not us.

McCusker responded:

“You can’t be serious. I am speechless.”

This exchange, as well as the larger trove of unredacted emails, raises new questions about the Dec. 11 letter from OMB General Counsel Paoletta to the General Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional investigative office. The unredacted emails show the Pentagon’s repeated and clear warnings to OMB that by mid-August it could no longer guarantee that the funds could be fully executed within the fiscal year. But, Paoletta’s letter stated, “at no point during the pause in obligations did DOD [Office of General Counsel] indicate to OMB that, as a matter of law, the apportionments would prevent DOD from being able to obligate the funds before the end of the fiscal year.”

What’s more, McCusker shared with Duffey the draft letter from the deputy defense secretary to OMB’s acting director informing OMB of the Pentagon’s concern that the law required notification to Congress through “a special message proposing rescission or deferral of funding.” In contrast, Paoletta’s letter to GAO claimed the suspension was “not a deferral of funds,” but instead simply “a pause in spending to assess facts and ensure programmatic effectiveness.”

Finally, on Sept. 11, Duffey emailed McCusker to tell her: The hold is lifted. When she asked him why, Duffey responded, “Not exactly clear but president made the decision to go. Will fill you in when I get details.”

With the hold lifted, McCusker’s team worked fast to get the money out the door, but, in the end, $35.2 million of the Ukraine funding lapsed and required new congressional legislation to make it available again.

“Glad to have this behind us,” Duffey told McCusker.

The current strategy on their part is hide, conceal and lie. I don't know how much of the truth we will ever see with the way they work full time covering it up. But with every colonel of truth that comes out the worse it looks.

That article is very damning! We have the emails. The only problem is all the words. Republicans will never read that many words and will just continue to deny it all.

Of course he will, as soon as the House turns in its impeachment articles he will be more than happy to do that.

KOB could I interest you in a bridge?