REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

IG report incoming...

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 17:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11287
PAGE 2 of 5

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 2:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So are they going to stop at indicting Comey? Or will they indict Brennan and Clapper too?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 2:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 6:53 AM

THG


I don't know, I'm hearing Trump now wants to fire the IG. That can't be good aye guys? Could it be he has seen the report and it isn’t what he wanted?

tick tock IG report...

T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 1:26 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/09/30/straight_s
hooter_justice_dept_watchdog_has_held_his_fire_on_the_top_brass_120565.html


This news report paints Horowitz as a toady to his old boss Comey.

But nowhere do I find any news that he's about to be fired. THAT must be more THUGGER shit.

A billion flies eat shit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:42 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
But speaking of the IG report ...

... here's a prognostication (highly edited - see complete writings at link).
Quote:



https://saraacarter.com/horowitz-report-will-be-damning-criminal-refer
rals-likely
/

Horowitz Report Will Be Damning. Criminal Referrals Likely.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s much anticipated report on his investigation into the FBI’s probe into President Trump’s campaign is expected to be made public before Thanksgiving and the outcome is alleged to contain several criminal referrals, according to sources who spoke with SaraACarter.com.

Horowitz’s investigation ... will more than likely result in the declassification of documents — requested by senior Republican lawmakers for more than several years. ...

Those documents will contain several classified pages of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, exculpatory evidence that was withheld from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ folder (which contained exculpatory information), as well as the email chain between FBI investigators in the Russia probe and then-FBI Director James Comey. ... As previously reported, the email chains will contain information that prove the FBI knew prior to obtaining a warrant to spy on Page that former British spy Christopher Steele’s information in his infamous dossier on Trump could not be proven.

It is also expected to reveal that the FBI knew that Steele was leaking to the media but then used those media reports as separate evidence in their request for a FISA warrant, known as circular intelligence reporting. ...

Horowitz’s report is also going to contain evidence that the FBI handled Hillary Clinton’s campaign differently than that of President Trump’s campaign. It will reveal that she had received a detailed debriefing from the FBI on foreign attempts to make contact with her campaign. It will reveal the deep bias and animus those FBI officials had toward the Trump campaign.

It is the most highly anticipated Horowitz report during the Trump administration’s tenure. Why? Because for more than three years the American people have not had closure or resolution to what exactly warranted the FBI investigation to spy on a presidential campaign, or for that matter on the President.

“It would also fatally undermine the credibility of Schiff, who argued vehemently that there were no FISA abuses — it will mean that, as Intel Committee Chairman, (Schiff's) ignoring severe abuses for purely political purposes.”

Those political purposes lead to the most important question lingering in Horowitz’s investigation: Did senior officials within the FBI and U.S. intelligence apparatus weaponize the system for political purposes against a candidate for the presidency and did they continue to do so after Trump had been elected?

Here’s what to expect: According to several sources the report will be ‘damning’ and will allegedly contain criminal referrals on former FBI officials. The report will apparently have at least two criminal referrals, said two sources, with knowledge. One of those criminal referrals is expected to be Comey. However, the Inspector General’s office has not been providing comments on the report.


Quoted so it will be at the top of the page.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:54 PM

THG


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/09/30/straight_s
hooter_justice_dept_watchdog_has_held_his_fire_on_the_top_brass_120565.html


This news report paints Horowitz as a toady to his old boss Comey.

But nowhere do I find any news that he's about to be fired. THAT must be more THUGGER shit.

A billion flies eat shit.



Trump Considered Firing Intelligence Community IG after He Reported Whistleblower Complaint to Congress: Report

President Trump considered firing Intelligence Community inspector general Michael Atkinson after Atkinson reported the whistleblower complaint that touched off the House’s presidential-impeachment inquiry to Congress, according to the New York Times.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-considered-firing-intelligence-community-
230048005.html



T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 8:54 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


AH! I understand your confusion THUGGER!

Signy and I were talking about Horowitz, Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice. THAT WAS THE ONGOING CONVERSATION. He's the IG whose report is completed, but undergoing redaction. He's the IG who's report is the very topic of this thread.

But poor you - you thought there was only 1 IG in the whole government. You didn't know that different departments have their own IGs. And so YOU were talking about somebody else completely, thinking it was the same (and only) one!

Well, now that you know you were wrong, you can apologize.

A billion flies eat shit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2019 6:44 AM

THG


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
AH! I understand your confusion THUGGER!

Signy and I were talking about Horowitz, Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice. THAT WAS THE ONGOING CONVERSATION. He's the IG whose report is completed, but undergoing redaction. He's the IG who's report is the very topic of this thread.

But poor you - you thought there was only 1 IG in the whole government. You didn't know that different departments have their own IGs. And so YOU were talking about somebody else completely, thinking it was the same (and only) one!

Well, now that you know you were wrong, you can apologize.




Oh, you mean this report.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf

Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey's Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda

T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 15, 2019 9:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


You are such a funny dummy!!

No, dummy, THIS report:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/470333-barr-inspector
-generals-report-on-alleged-fisa-abuses-imminent




The report on an internal watchdog probe into whether the FBI followed the law and its own policies while applying for a warrant to surveil a former Trump campaign aide during the 2016 election is "imminent," Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday.

Flies shit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 16, 2019 9:08 AM

THG


BREAKING: DOJ IG Report Due Out Friday, Will Cover More Than FISA Abuse
Posted at 5:00 pm on October 13, 2019 by Bonchie

About a month ago, IG Horowitz announced he had finished his report dealing with the Trump-Russia investigation, which most assumed would only cover possible FISA abuse. Now we are getting word it’s coming out this Friday.

“I’m hearing the IG report will be out this upcoming Friday, Oct. 18, and my sources say it’s as thick as a telephone book,” Bartiromo said, adding that it covers “more than just FISA abuse.”

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/10/13/breaking-doj-ig-report-due
-friday-will-cover-fisa-abuse
/

Let us brace ourselves. tick tock

T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 16, 2019 9:46 AM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 16, 2019 9:46 AM

THG


Next...

T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 16, 2019 4:04 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
You are such a funny dummy!!

No, dummy, THIS report:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/470333-barr-inspector
-generals-report-on-alleged-fisa-abuses-imminent




The report on an internal watchdog probe into whether the FBI followed the law and its own policies while applying for a warrant to surveil a former Trump campaign aide during the 2016 election is "imminent," Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday.

Flies shit.

The dummy thinks there is only one Report from the One Inspector General.
Trolls are so easily confused, you know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:48 PM

THG


Just having some fun here. Sorry to disappoint.

T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 22, 2019 8:23 PM

THG


Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts

At the same time, however, the report debunks a series of conspiracy theories and insinuations about the F.B.I. that Mr. Trump and his allies have put forward over the past two years, the people said, though they cautioned that the report is not complete. The New York Times has not reviewed the draft, which could contain other significant findings.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-inquiry-review-is-said-
to-criticize-fbi-but-rebuff-claims-of-biased-acts/ar-BBXbXAX?ocid=spartandhp


Sloppy work is not going to go far guys so don't get your hopes up. I think it is coming out Dec. 9th.



T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 22, 2019 8:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


"according to people briefed on a draft."

"the people said."

"according to the people familiar with it."

"they said."

"the people said"

"the people briefed on the draft report said."

"according to the people."

"the people said."

"But the people familiar with the draft "

"the people said."

"The report is also said to "

"according to the people briefed on it."

"Along with evidence from other sources,"

"But the people briefed on the draft said"

"Still, people familiar with questions asked by Mr. Horowitz’s investigators have suggested"




Jesus Christ. This article reads like an impeachment inquiry in 2019 sounds.


Quote:

The New York Times has not reviewed the draft,


Gee. Ya don't say?



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 22, 2019 8:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


My first really extensive look at how different reality was from reporting was based on the Microsoft anti-monopoly trial. (Before then, I had some idea based on particular items.) Someone told me what was REALLY in the trial evidence v what was in the news, so I started looking into it. Whatever was being reported in the media was nothing like the transcripts, evidence, testimony, etc I was reading from the record. I guess had a lot more ambition, energy, and patience back then. Now I just kind of tag along after the fact as time and energy permits. And right now, there are WAAAAAAAAAAaaaaayyyyyyyyy too many things to grade!! The impeachment testimony (which so far is not as reported in the media), the debates ... and now this.

Once this comes out as a pdf or cloud document, I'm probably going to have to let it go by me.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 22, 2019 10:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'll make it really easy on you, Kiki.

If ANON is part of your story, it's not even worth vetting. Not only that, but it would be impossible for you to vet anyhow. There is at least a 50/50 chance that the entire article is an outright lie, and there is no way to prove it other than to see if time steps in and proves it is a lie...

And that's only assuming that you remember reading the article in the first place and it hasn't been taken down or you haven't bothered archiving it and saving the address.




How anybody can constantly read articles like this all day long that offer zero credibility is beyond my comprehension. But they do, and it's only apparently getting worse.

The article above might just be the worst one I've read to date.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2019 12:24 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


What I don't understand is, having been lied to about Iraq, having been lied to about RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!, having been lied to about all number of things great and small, how the people here maintain their childish faith that THIS TIME they're being told the truth.

You'd think that a least a teensy eensy leeeetle bit of patience would have seeped its way in, that cautions - wait and see.

Way back when - during the Microsoft trial - I used to post a lot of 'compare and contrast' - narrative v facts - here, under the name Rue - which btw I took a lot of shit for, notably from the free-market right-wingers. As I recall, Signy posted along those lines as well. Later I posted a lot of the Iraq-WMD facts that were at odds with the narrative, that should have made people just a little bit skeptical of the bullshit they were being sold. (I wasn't the only one, but it was a minority of 2 or 3 here, as I recall.) I and the other posters took a lot of shit for that too, also generally from the right-wingers.

But it took the liberaloids to amp the shit-slinging up to coordinated libel over the RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!! hoax.

Personally, I'm still interested in finding out exactly how I'm being lied to. I really do want to understand what the facts are. And as long as we can still get what look to be original documents, we're not in thrall to 'The Narrative'. So as many as I find, I'll post here. But my long experience has been that facts don't move people.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2019 1:06 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


God bless ya. I know it must be exhausting.

I can do that stuff when it comes to statistics, or looking at things like polling methodology and proving how intentionally slanted and unreliable they'll be compared to actual results because that's fun to me. It doesn't take considerably long to do, and it's like a game.

But don't ask me to read 400+ pages of a bullshit Russia investigation. And definitely don't tell me that anybody here has read it either, let alone anybody I meet in real life.

The amount of people who actually read that document cover to cover are less than people who have actually read the bible cover to cover. You'll hear a lot of people claiming to have done either, but the likelihood that you've ever even met a single person who's read either is slim to none.




I do have my sources that I go to for information. People can tell me all they want the myriad of reasons that this person or that person is full of shit, but I trust them. And sometimes people who I've trusted I've ended up not trusting because in one way or another they have betrayed that trust.

But the ones that I listen to now aren't shills. They've had a long history of being right about things, and they have the integrity to not only admit when they were wrong, but to also explain to the best of their abilities how they came to the wrong conclusion, as if to teach a lesson how not to make the same mistake yourself.

My choice in who I trust for information is in large part why I'm not wrong very much when it comes to how things are going to eventually play out, and why I've become more emboldened about making predictions as time has gone on.



How anybody could listen to somebody like Maddow or Hannity and pretend that they've got legitimate information is something I can't wrap my head around. People like that get paid more in one year than most people will ever make in their life to tell lies that their viewers want to hear in between advertisements for boner pills and car insurance.

Any single event that plays out, you can make an extremely accurate prediction about how either Hannity or Maddow will report on it before you even watch their show. Neither of them are in the business of facts. They're in the business of sustained outrage.




Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2019 4:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'll make it really easy on you, Kiki.

If ANON is part of your story, it's not even worth vetting. Not only that, but it would be impossible for you to vet anyhow. There is at least a 50/50 chance that the entire article is an outright lie, and there is no way to prove it other than to see if time steps in and proves it is a lie...

And that's only assuming that you remember reading the article in the first place and it hasn't been taken down or you haven't bothered archiving it and saving the address.




How anybody can constantly read articles like this all day long that offer zero credibility is beyond my comprehension. But they do, and it's only apparently getting worse.

The article above might just be the worst one I've read to date.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Good Rule of Thumb: whaever he posts a link to is the worst example that can be found.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 23, 2019 5:41 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Seriously though. Did you see how bad that last one was?

I can usually find 1 to 3 ANON quotes in there, but this one had a dozen.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 24, 2019 4:13 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Seriously though. Did you see how bad that last one was?

I can usually find 1 to 3 ANON quotes in there, but this one had a dozen.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

It looked the same as all the rest of his posts/links.

You are just soo intent on feeding this Troll that you have not been paying attention to the deluge of crap he's been posting.

I am not a fly. I can detect excrement for what it is, and don't have the urgent undeniable need to sample it for taste.
You have been gobbling his poo up whole pie, and then making attempts to digest it, often whining when it is undigestable. If you weren't in such a hurry to feed this Troll, you might recognize this avalanche of excrement as non-nutritional (or at least unappetizing) and avoid being a proberbial Fly.


I don't know why you insist in eating his sh!t.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 24, 2019 4:16 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
What I don't understand is, having been lied to about Iraq, having been lied to about RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!, having been lied to about all number of things great and small, how the people here maintain their childish faith that THIS TIME they're being told the truth.

You'd think that a least a teensy eensy leeeetle bit of patience would have seeped its way in, that cautions - wait and see.

Way back when - during the Microsoft trial - I used to post a lot of 'compare and contrast' - narrative v facts - here, under the name Rue - which btw I took a lot of shit for, notably from the free-market right-wingers. As I recall, Signy posted along those lines as well. Later I posted a lot of the Iraq-WMD facts that were at odds with the narrative, that should have made people just a little bit skeptical of the bullshit they were being sold. (I wasn't the only one, but it was a minority of 2 or 3 here, as I recall.) I and the other posters took a lot of shit for that too, also generally from the right-wingers.

But it took the liberaloids to amp the shit-slinging up to coordinated libel over the RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!! hoax.

Personally, I'm still interested in finding out exactly how I'm being lied to. I really do want to understand what the facts are. And as long as we can still get what look to be original documents, we're not in thrall to 'The Narrative'. So as many as I find, I'll post here. But my long experience has been that facts don't move people.

Do you have links to some of your Micro$haft posts? I don't recall what year that was, I might have missed yours. It was under Rue?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 24, 2019 4:54 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It was under Rue?

Hmm. I thought it was under Rue, but I see Rue only goes back to 2004. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthreaduser.aspx?u=6022 Rue is River, as I recall my original pix was Book. But I only recollect 2 handles - Rue(River) and 1kiki(Book). I may have forgotten my original handle.

Gosh - I'm sorry about that!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:20 PM

THG


Russia Inquiry Review Is Expected to Undercut Trump Claim of F.B.I. Spying

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia's election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.

The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-inquiry-review-is-expec
ted-to-undercut-trump-claim-of-fbi-spying/ar-BBXqMKh?&ocid=spartanntp


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:43 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


"people familiar with the draft", huh?

Why doesn't any of the news outlets wait until things are actual legitimate and out for everybody to see to report on them instead of spreading lies ahead of time that the idiots will remember.

Oh that's right. Because the idiots will remember the lies and argue the truth once it comes out.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 27, 2019 4:03 PM

THG


Trump official who suggested dropping nuclear bombs on Afghanistan now responsible for arms control issues

A former conservative talk radio host and naval intelligence officer who suggested dropping nuclear bombs on Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks now works on arms control issues at the State Department, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Frank Wuco, a senior adviser at the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, came under scrutiny last year when his past comments involving the promotion of far-right conspiracy theories surfaced.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-official-who-suggested-d
ropping-nuclear-bombs-on-afghanistan-now-responsible-for-arms-control-issues/ar-BBXqMmb?ocid=spartandhp


I have little doubt this will raise red flags with you because as you guys always say, its Hillary Hillary Hillary right?

T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 27, 2019 6:07 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


"...according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter."

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 28, 2019 9:51 AM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


DOJ report expected to undercut Trump's FBI spying claim


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 28, 2019 10:25 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Yup. I cover that "story" in great detail here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=63401

But I'll quote it too.

Quote:

"sources told The Times"

"a claim the IG's report is also expected to undercut."

"according to the Post"


Only one instance of ANON, speculation, and attempted preemptive passing of the buck if this blows up in their faces in the article Wishy linked.


But wait... There's more.

Here's the articles from the Times and the WaPo that are referenced for the story. (How outright plagiarism passes as "journalism" these days is still a mystery to me, but I guess when you're in the business of making shit up nobody cares about copyright anymore.)

Let's just jump right into it...


Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/us/politics/fbi-trump-campaign-insp
ector-general.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes


"a highly anticipated inspector general’s report is expected to find."

"people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said."

"is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report"

"according to people familiar with a draft of the report"

"one of the people said."

"A spokeswoman for Mr. Horowitz declined to comment."

"The people familiar with the inquiry cautioned that the draft report was not final."

"The New York Times has not reviewed the draft"

"Mr. Horowitz’s findings are also said to show"

"according to a person familiar with the offer."

"the people familiar with the draft report said"

"former officials said."

"the people said."

"But it is not clear whether Mr. Horowitz uncovered any such instances."

"the people familiar with the draft report said."

"the people familiar with the draft report said."


Yes. This exact same phrasing is used in two paragraphs at this point. Nobody reads this far down, so why bother with mistakes like these?






The WaPo Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/inspector-generals-re
port-on-fbis-russia-probe-to-be-delivered-dec-9/2019/11/21/6d6d789e-0c70-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html


"according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter."

"according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public."

"They declined to identify the lawyer."

"people familiar with the matter said."

"two U.S. officials said."

"they said."

"the officials said."

"people familiar with the matter said."

"A spokeswoman for the inspector general declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for the FBI. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment."

"according to people familiar with the matter."





Hmmmmmmmmm....

"They" say a lot. Don't "they"?






You know what else the media likes to do? Lie by structure.

Here are two of the last three paragraphs in the WaPo article that Wishy didn't read, and apparently the "journalist" at yahoo news never got around to before writing their stunning bombshell...

Quote:

Conservatives have alleged that a medley of wrongdoing occurred during the investigation, which was eventually taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, and they are likely to seize on any criticism that Horowitz directs at those involved in the probe. Some Trump supporters have referred to the investigation as an attempted “coup.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are hopeful Horowitz will disprove various conspiracy theories that have been offered about the case and refute Trump’s assertion that Mueller’s probe was a “witch hunt” tainted by political bias against the president.




Though it is quite obvious the bias that WaPo injects in these paragraphs and how they want you to believe their narrative, it is quite clear that nobody has read the report at all except for some possibly fictionalized people without names, and the WaPo does finally get around to letting anybody who actually reads that far down know that basically...

NOBODY KNOWS.



Nope. Absolutely nothing has been dispelled.


OPPS



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 28, 2019 10:30 AM

THG


Ok let's see.

T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 28, 2019 1:12 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by THG:
Ok let's see.

T






First thing you've said in weeks that makes any sense.

You're on.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:26 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Sneak Preview! Will there be a plot-twist when the IG report is available? We know more about the plot of the not-yet-released Final Episode of Star Wars than we know about this report!

Attorney General William Barr is rejecting a key finding in the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the Russia probe, The Washington Post reported Monday.

People familiar with the matter told The Post that Barr said he does not agree with the report’s finding that the FBI had enough intelligence to initiate an investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016.

The long-awaited report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to be made public in a week. But a draft is being discussed behind the scenes, and the attorney general reportedly is not persuaded that the FBI investigation was justified.

The draft report is now being finalized and shown to the witnesses and offices investigated by Horowitz.

People familiar with the matter told the newspaper that Barr believes information from other agencies such as the CIA could change Horowitz’s finding that the investigation was warranted.

The Post noted it was unclear how Barr will voice his disagreement with the report's finding. The department typically includes a formal letter response in inspector general reports, but Barr could also speak out publicly.

More at https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472720-barr-rejects-key-fi
nding-in-report-on-russia-probe-report




The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:33 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


People familiar with the matter you say?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:47 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
People familiar with the matter you say?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Trump will fire the Inspector General if the final report does not call it a Witch Hunt. That's not obstruction of justice because when a President does it, it is legal. You can ask the new Attorney General, Barr, who is a replacement for the one who told Trump that not everything is legal.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 10:34 AM

THG


Poor Barr; the IG report is going to show he was wrong when he claimed Trumps campaign was spied on. It's not going to show the Mueller investigation was started based on a biased against Trump. That it started without enough evidence to warrant it. It's going to show there was enough evidence. It screams Russia Russia Russia and nothing about Ukraine. Poor Barr; all he is left with is blaming the CIA now.

And while it is going to show one lawyer acted unprofessionally and perhaps even criminally, it isn't going to show the FISA process to be corrupt. In fact, it's going to show the opposite.

Oh well, as I've said. Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals. And unbeknown to some here the IG report proves this to be true. The professionals testifying at the impeachment hearing proves it as well. Thank god for the deep state.

America 1, kiki sig Jack JSF rappy and Russia 0.

T


Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:46 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

The Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry report

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

As this report details, the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelensky to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

At the center of this investigation is the memorandum prepared following President Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukraine’s President, which the White House declassified and released under significant public pressure. The call record alone is stark evidence of misconduct; a demonstration of the President’s prioritization of his personal political benefit over the national interest. In response to President Zelensky’s appreciation for vital U.S. military assistance, which President Trump froze without explanation, President Trump asked for “a favor though”: two specific investigations designed to assist his reelection efforts.

Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain. Rather, it was a dramatic crescendo within a months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President.

The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. The White House, Department of State, Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Energy refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas.

Ultimately, this sweeping effort to stonewall the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment” under the Constitution failed because witnesses courageously came forward and testified in response to lawful process. The report that follows was only possible because of their sense of duty and devotion to their country and its Constitution.

Nevertheless, there remain unanswered questions, and our investigation must continue, even as we transmit our report to the Judiciary Committee. Given the proximate threat of further presidential attempts to solicit foreign interference in our next election, we cannot wait to make a referral until our efforts to obtain additional testimony and documents wind their way through the courts. The evidence of the President’s misconduct is overwhelming, and so too is the evidence of his obstruction of Congress. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a stronger or more complete case of obstruction than that demonstrated by the President since the inquiry began.

The damage the President has done to our relationship with a key strategic partner will be remedied over time, and Ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress. But the damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the President’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked. Any future President will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three.

The decision to move forward with an impeachment inquiry is not one we took lightly. Under the best of circumstances, impeachment is a wrenching process for the nation. I resisted calls to undertake an impeachment investigation for many months on that basis, notwithstanding the existence of presidential misconduct that I believed to be deeply unethical and damaging to our democracy. The alarming events and actions detailed in this report, however, left us with no choice but to proceed.

In making the decision to move forward, we were struck by the fact that the President’s misconduct was not an isolated occurrence, nor was it the product of a naïve president. Instead, the efforts to involve Ukraine in our 2020 presidential election were undertaken by a President who himself was elected in 2016 with the benefit of an unprecedented and sweeping campaign of election interference undertaken by Russia in his favor, and which the President welcomed and utilized.
Having witnessed the degree to which interference by a foreign power in 2016 harmed our democracy, President Trump cannot credibly claim ignorance to its pernicious effects. Even more pointedly, the President’s July call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, in which he solicited an investigation to damage his most feared 2020 opponent, came the day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified to Congress about Russia’s efforts to damage his 2016 opponent and his urgent warning of the dangers of further foreign interference in the next election. With this backdrop, the solicitation of new foreign intervention was the act of a president unbound, not one chastened by experience. It was the act of a president who viewed himself as unaccountable and determined to use his vast official powers to secure his reelection.

This repeated and pervasive threat to our democratic electoral process added urgency to our work. On October 3, 2019, even as our Committee was engaged in this inquiry, President Trump publicly declared anew that other countries should open investigations into his chief political rival, saying, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens,” and that “President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens.” When a reporter asked the President what he hoped Ukraine’s President would do following the July 25 call, President Trump, seeking to dispel any doubt as to his continuing intention, responded: “Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”

By doubling down on his misconduct and declaring that his July 25 call with President Zelensky was “perfect,” President Trump has shown a continued willingness to use the power of his office to seek foreign intervention in our next election. His Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, in the course of admitting that the President had linked security assistance to Ukraine to the announcement of one of his desired investigations, told the American people to “get over it.” In these statements and actions, the President became the author of his own impeachment inquiry. The question presented by the set of facts enumerated in this report may be as simple as that posed by the President and his chief of staff’s brazenness: is the remedy of impeachment warranted for a president who would use the power of his office to coerce foreign interference in a U.S. election, or is that now a mere perk of the office that Americans must simply “get over”?

Those watching the impeachment hearings might have been struck by how little discrepancy there was between the witnesses called by the Majority and Minority. Indeed, most of the facts presented in the pages that follow are uncontested. The broad outlines as well as many of the details of the President’s scheme have been presented by the witnesses with remarkable consistency. There will always be some variation in the testimony of multiple people witnessing the same events, but few of the differences here go to the heart of the matter. And so, it may have been all the more surprising to the public to see very disparate reactions to the testimony by the Members of Congress from each party.

If there was one ill the Founding Founders feared as much as that of an unfit president, it may have been that of excessive factionalism. Although the Framers viewed parties as necessary, they also endeavored to structure the new government in such a way as to minimize the “violence of faction.” As George Washington warned in his farewell address, “the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

Today, we may be witnessing a collision between the power of a remedy meant to curb presidential misconduct and the power of faction determined to defend against the use of that remedy on a president of the same party. But perhaps even more corrosive to our democratic system of governance, the President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?

America remains the beacon of democracy and opportunity for freedom-loving people around the world. From their homes and their jail cells, from their public squares and their refugee camps, from their waking hours until their last breath, individuals fighting human rights abuses, journalists uncovering and exposing corruption, persecuted minorities struggling to survive and preserve their faith, and countless others around the globe just hoping for a better life look to America. What we do will determine what they see, and whether America remains a nation committed to the rule of law.

As Benjamin Franklin departed the Constitutional Convention, he was asked, “what have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?” He responded simply: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Adam B. Schiff
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:49 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


I. The President's Misconduct: The President Conditioned a White House Meeting and Military Aid to Ukraine on a Public Announcement of Investigations Beneficial to his Reelection Campaign

The President’s Request for a Political Favor | The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch | The President’s Hand-picked Agents Begin the Scheme President | Trump Froze Vital Military Assistance | The President Conditioned a White House Meeting on Investigations | The President’s Agents Pursued a “Drug Deal” | President Trump Pressed President Zelensky to Do a Political Favor | The President’s Representatives Ratcheted up Pressure on the Ukrainian President | Ukrainians Inquired about the President’s Hold on Security Assistance | The President’s Security Assistance Hold Became Public | The President’s Scheme Unraveled | The President’s Chief of Staff Confirmed Aid was Conditioned on Investigations


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:49 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


II. The President's Obstruction of the House of Representatives' Impeachment Inquiry: The President Obstructed the Impeachment Inquiry by Instructing Witnesses and Agencies to Ignore Subpoenas for Documents and Testimony

An Unprecedented Effort to Obstruct an Impeachment Inquiry | Constitutional Authority for Congressional Oversight and Impeachment | The President’s Categorical Refusal to Comply | The President’s Refusal to Produce Any and All Subpoenaed Documents | The President’s Refusal to Allow Top Aides to Testify | The President’s Unsuccessful Attempts to Block Other Key Witnesses | The President’s Intimidation of Witnesses


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:50 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


I. The President Conditioned a White House Meeting and Military Aid to Ukraine on a Public Announcement of Investigations Beneficial to his Reelection Campaign

The President’s Request for a Political Favor

On the morning of July 25, 2019, President Donald Trump settled in to the White House Executive Residence to join a telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. It had been more than three months since President Zelensky, a political neophyte, had been swept into office in a landslide victory on a platform of rooting out corruption and ending the war between his country and Russia. The day of his election, April 21, President Zelensky spoke briefly with President Trump, who had called to congratulate him and invite him to a visit at the White House. As of July 25, no White House meeting had materialized.

As is typical for telephone calls with other heads of state, staff members from the National Security Council (NSC) convened in the White House Situation Room to listen to the call and take notes, which would later be compiled into a memorandum that would constitute the U.S. government’s official record of the call. NSC staff had prepared a standard package of talking points for the President based on official U.S. policy. The talking points included recommendations to encourage President Zelensky to continue to promote anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine, a pillar of American foreign policy in the country as far back as its independence in the 1990s when Ukraine first rid itself of Kremlin control.

This call would deviate significantly from that script. Shortly before he was patched through to President Zelensky, President Trump spoke with Gordon Sondland, who had donated $1 million to President Trump’s 2016 presidential inauguration and whom the President had appointed as the United States Ambassador to the European Union. Ambassador Sondland had helped lay the groundwork for a very different kind of call between the two Presidents.

Ambassador Sondland had relayed a message to President Zelensky six days earlier that “assurances to run a fully transparent investigation” and “turn over every stone” were necessary in his call with President Trump. Ambassador Sondland understood these phrases to refer to two investigations politically beneficial to the President’s reelection campaign: one into former Vice President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma, on which his son sat on the board, and the other into a discredited conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. The allegations about Vice President Biden were without evidence, and the U.S. Intelligence Community had unanimously determined that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election to help the candidacy of Donald Trump. Despite the falsehoods, Ambassador Sondland would make it clear to Ukrainian officials that the public announcement of these investigations was a prerequisite for the coveted White House meeting with President Trump, an effort that would help the President’s reelection campaign.

The White House meeting was not the only official act that President Trump conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. Several weeks before his phone call with President Zelensky, President Trump ordered a hold on nearly $400 million of congressionally-appropriated security assistance to Ukraine that provided Kyiv essential support as it sought to repel Russian forces that were occupying Crimea and inflicting casualties in the eastern region of the country. The President’s decision to freeze the aid, made without explanation, sent shock waves through the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of State, and the NSC, which uniformly supported providing this assistance to our strategic partner. Although the suspension of aid had not been made public by the day of the call between the two Presidents, officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington had already asked American officials about the status of the vital military assistance.

At the outset of the conversation on July 25, President Zelensky thanked President Trump for the “great support in the area of defense” provided by the United States to date. He then indicated that Ukraine would soon be prepared to purchase additional Javelin anti-tank missiles from the United States as part of this defense cooperation. President Trump immediately responded with his own request: “I would like you to do us a favor though,” which was “to find out what happened” with alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

President Trump then asked President Zelensky “to look into” former Vice President Biden’s role in encouraging Ukraine to remove a prosecutor widely viewed by the United States and numerous European partners to be corrupt. In so doing, President Trump gave currency to a baseless allegation that Vice President Biden wanted to remove the corrupt prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, a company on whose board the Vice President’s son sat at the time.

Over the course of the roughly thirty-minute call, President Trump repeated these false allegations and pressed the Ukrainian President to consult with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who had been publicly advocating for months for Ukraine to initiate these specific investigations. President Zelensky promised that he would “work on the investigation of the case.” Later in the call, he thanked President Trump for his invitation to join him at the White House, following up immediately with a comment that, “[o]n the other hand,” he would “ensure” that Ukraine pursued “the investigation” that President Trump had requested.

During the call, President Trump also disparaged Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who championed anti-corruption reforms in the country, and whom President Trump had unceremoniously removed months earlier following a smear campaign waged against her by Mr. Giuliani and others. President Trump claimed that she was “bad news” and was “going to go through some things.” He praised the current prosecutor at the time, who was widely viewed as corrupt and who helped initiate the smear campaign against her, calling him “very good” and “very fair.”
Hearing the call as it transpired, several White House staff members became alarmed. Far from giving the “full-throated endorsement of the Ukraine reform agenda” that had been hoped for, the President instead demanded a political investigation into an American—the presidential candidate he evidently feared most, Joe Biden.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, an NSC staff member responsible for Ukraine policy who listened to the call, immediately reported his concerns to NSC lawyers. His supervisor, NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia Timothy Morrison, also reported the call to the lawyers, worrying that the call would be “damaging” if leaked publicly. In response, the lawyers placed the memorandum summarizing the call onto a highly classified server, significantly limiting access to the materials.

The call record would not remain hidden forever. On September 25, 2019, facing immense public pressure to reveal the contents of the call and following the announcement the previous day of a formal impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives into President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine, the White House publicly released the memorandum of the July 25 call.

The record of the call would help explain for those involved in Ukraine policy in the U.S. government, the Congress, and the public why President Trump, his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, his hand-picked appointees in charge of Ukraine issues, and various senior Administration officials would go to great lengths to withhold a coveted White House meeting and critical military aid from Ukraine at a time when it served as a bulwark against Russian aggression in Europe.

The answer was as simple as it was inimical to our national security and election integrity: the President was withholding officials acts while soliciting something of value to his reelection campaign—an investigation into his political rival.
The story of that scheme follows.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:51 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch

On April 24, 2019, President Donald Trump abruptly called back to Washington the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch, after a ruthless smear campaign was waged against her. She was known throughout Ukraine and among her peers for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms consistent with U.S. foreign policy and only recently had been asked to extend her stay in Ukraine. Her effectiveness in anti-corruption efforts earned her enemies in Kyiv and in Washington. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified in praising Ambassador Yovanovitch: “You can’t promote principled anticorruption action without pissing off corrupt people.”

Beginning on March 20, The Hill newspaper published several op-eds attacking Ambassador Yovanovitch and former Vice President Joe Biden, relying on information from a Ukrainian prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, who was widely viewed to be corrupt. Mr. Lutsenko had served as the chief prosecutor in Ukraine under the then-incumbent president who lost to Volodymyr Zelensky in April 2019. Although he would later recant many of his allegations, Mr. Lutsenko falsely accused Ambassador Yovanovitch of speaking negatively about President Trump and giving Mr. Lutsenko a “do-not-prosecute list.”

The attacks against Ambassador Yovanovitch were amplified by prominent, close allies of President Trump, including Mr. Giuliani and his associates, Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump Jr. President Trump tweeted the smears himself just a month before he recalled the Ambassador from Ukraine.

In the face of attacks driven by Mr. Lutsenko and the President’s allies, Ambassador Yovanovitch and other senior State Department officials asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to issue a statement of support for her and for the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. The Secretary declined, fearing that President Trump might publicly undermine those efforts, possibly through a tweet.

Following a ceremony in which she presented an award of courage to the family of a young female anti-corruption activist killed in Ukraine for her work, Ambassador Yovanovitch received an urgent call from the State Department regarding her “security,” and imploring her to take the first plane back to Washington. When she arrived, she was informed that she had done nothing wrong, but that the President had lost confidence in her. She was told to leave her post as soon as possible.

In her place, the President would designate three new agents to spearhead Ukraine policy, political appointees far more willing to engage in an improper “domestic political errand” than an ambassador known for her efforts to fight corruption


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:52 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


The President’s Hand-picked Agents Begin the Scheme

Just three days before Ambassador Yovanovitch’s abrupt recall to Washington, President Trump had his first telephone call with President-elect Zelensky. During that conversation, President Trump congratulated the Ukrainian leader on his victory, complimented him on his country’s Miss Universe Pageant contestants, and invited him to visit the White House. A White House meeting would help demonstrate the United States’ strong support for Ukraine as it fought a hot war with Russia and attempted to negotiate an end to the conflict with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as to bolster President-elect Zelensky’s standing with his own people as he sought to deliver on his promised anti-corruption agenda. Although the White House’s public summary of the call included some discussion of a commitment to “root out corruption,” President Trump did not mention corruption at all.

Shortly after the conversation, President Trump asked Vice President Mike Pence to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration. Vice President Pence confirmed directly to President Zelensky his intention to attend during a phone conversation on April 23, and Vice President Pence’s staff and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv began preparations for the trip.

At the same time, President Trump’s personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, intensified his campaign to pressure Ukraine’s newly-elected President to initiate investigations into Joe Biden, who had officially entered the race for the Democratic nomination on April 25, and the baseless conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. On May 9, the New York Times published an article in which Mr. Giuliani declared that he intended to travel to Ukraine on behalf of his client, President Trump, in order to meddle in an investigation. After public backlash, Mr. Giuliani canceled the trip, blaming “some bad people” around President Zelensky. Days later, President Trump rescinded the plans for Vice President Pence to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration, which had not yet been scheduled. The staff member planning the trip was not provided an explanation for the about-face, but staff in the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv were disappointed that President Zelensky would not receive a “high level” show of support from the United States.

In Vice President Pence’s stead, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the American delegation to the Ukrainian President’s inauguration. Ambassador Sondland, Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Ambassador Kurt Volker, and Lt. Col. Vindman also attended. In comments that would foreshadow troubling events to come, Lt. Col. Vindman warned President Zelensky to stay out of U.S. domestic politics to avoid jeopardizing the bipartisan support Ukraine enjoyed in Congress.

The delegation returned to the United States impressed with President Zelensky, especially his focus on anti-corruption reforms. Ambassador Sondland quickly organized a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office on May 23, attended by most of the other members of the delegation. The three political appointees, who would describe themselves as the “Three Amigos,” relayed their positive impression of President Zelensky to President Trump and encouraged him to schedule the Oval Office meeting he promised in his April 21 phone call with the new leader.

President Trump reacted poorly to the suggestion, claiming that Ukraine “tried to take me down” in 2016. In order to schedule a White House visit for President Zelensky, President Trump told the delegation that they would have to “talk to Rudy.” Ambassador Sondland testified that he understood the President’s instruction to be a directive to work with Mr. Giuliani if they hoped to advance relations with Ukraine. President Trump directed the three senior U.S. government officials to assist Mr. Giuliani’s efforts, which, it would soon become clear, were exclusively for the benefit of the President’s reelection campaign.

As the Three Amigos were given responsibility over the U.S. government’s Ukraine portfolio, Bill Taylor, a former Ambassador to Ukraine, was considering whether to come out of retirement to accept a request to succeed Ambassador Yovanovitch in Kyiv.

As of May 26, Ambassador Taylor was “still struggling with the decision,” and, in particular, whether anyone can “hope to succeed with the Giuliani-Biden issue swirling.” After receiving assurances from Secretary Pompeo that U.S. policy toward Ukraine would not change, Ambassador Taylor accepted the position and arrived in Kyiv on June 17. Ambassador Taylor would quickly come to observe an “irregular channel” led by Mr. Giuliani that, over time, began to undermine the official channel of diplomatic relations with Ukraine. Mr. Giuliani would prove to be, as the President’s National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton would tell a colleague, a “hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up.”



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:52 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


President Trump Froze Vital Military Assistance

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated and authorized $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine: $250 million in funds administered by DOD and $141 million in funds administered by the State Department. On June 18, DOD issued a press release announcing its intention to provide $250 million in taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine following the certification that all legitimate conditions on the aid, including anti-corruption reforms, had been met. Shortly after this announcement, however, both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and DOD received inquiries from the President related to the funds. At that time, and throughout the next few months, support for Ukraine security assistance was overwhelming and unanimous among all of the relevant agencies and within Congress.

By July 3, OMB blocked a Congressional notification which would have cleared the way for the release of $141 million in State Department security assistance funds. By July 12, President Trump had placed a hold on all military support funding for Ukraine. On July 18, OMB announced the hold to all of the relevant agencies and indicated that it was directed by the President. No other reason was provided.

During a series of policy meetings involving increasingly senior officials, the uniform and consistent position of all policymaking agencies supported the release of funding. Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the NSC argued that it was in the national security interest of the United States to continue to support Ukraine. As Mr. Morrison testified, “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”

Agency officials also expressed concerns about the legality of President Trump’s direction to withhold assistance to Ukraine that Congress had already appropriated for this express purpose. Two OMB career officials, including one of its legal counsels, would resign, in part, over concerns regarding the hold.

By July 25, the date of President Trump’s call with President Zelensky, DOD was also receiving inquiries from Ukrainian officials about the status of the security assistance. Nevertheless, President Trump continued to withhold the funding to Ukraine without explanation, against the interests of U.S. national security, and over the objections of these career experts.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:53 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


The President Conditioned a White House Meeting on Investigations

By the time Ukrainian officials were first learning about an issue with the anticipated military assistance, the President’s hand-picked representatives to Ukraine had already informed their Ukrainian counterparts that President Zelensky’s coveted White House meeting would only happen after Ukraine committed to pursuing the two political investigations that President Trump and Mr. Giuliani demanded.

Ambassador Sondland was unequivocal in describing this conditionality, testifying, “I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.” Ambassadors Sondland and Volker worked to obtain the necessary assurance from President Zelensky that he would personally commit to initiate the investigations in order to secure both.

On July 2, in Toronto, Canada, Ambassador Volker conveyed the message directly to President Zelensky, specifically referencing the “Giuliani factor” in President Zelensky’s engagement with the United States. For his part, Mr. Giuliani made clear to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, who were directly communicating with the Ukrainians, that a White House meeting would not occur until Ukraine announced its pursuit of the two political investigations. After observing Mr. Giuliani’s role in the ouster of a U.S. Ambassador and learning of his influence with the President, Ukrainian officials soon understood that “the key for many things is Rudi [sic].”

On July 10, Ambassador Bolton hosted a meeting in the White House with two senior Ukrainian officials, several American officials, including Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, Secretary Perry, Dr. Fiona Hill, Senior Director for Europe and Russia at the NSC, and Lt. Col. Vindman. As had become customary each time Ukrainian officials met with their American counterparts, the Ukrainians asked about the long-delayed White House meeting. Ambassador Bolton demurred, but Ambassador Sondland spoke up, revealing that he had worked out an arrangement with Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to schedule the White House visit after Ukraine initiated the “investigations.” Ambassador Bolton “stiffened” and quickly ended the meeting.

Undaunted, Ambassador Sondland ushered many of the attendees to the Ward Room downstairs to continue their discussion. In the second meeting, Ambassador Sondland explained that he had an agreement with Mr. Mulvaney that the White House visit would come only after Ukraine announced the Burisma/Biden and 2016 Ukraine election interference investigations. At this second meeting, both Lt. Col. Vindman and Dr. Hill objected to intertwining a “domestic political errand” with official foreign policy, and they indicated that a White House meeting would have to go through proper channels.

Following these discussions, Dr. Hill reported back to Ambassador Bolton, who told her to “go and tell [the NSC Legal Advisor] that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this.” Both Dr. Hill and Lt. Col. Vindman separately reported the incident to the NSC Legal Advisor.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:53 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


The President’s Agents Pursued a “Drug Deal”

Over the next two weeks, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker worked closely with Mr. Giuliani and senior Ukrainian and American officials to arrange a telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky and to ensure that the Ukrainian President explicitly promised to undertake the political investigations required by President Trump to schedule the White House meeting. As Ambassador Sondland would later testify: “Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the President.”

On July 19, Ambassador Volker had breakfast with Mr. Giuliani and his associate, Lev Parnas, at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. Mr. Parnas would subsequently be indicted for campaign finance violations as part of an investigation that remains ongoing. During the conversation, Ambassador Volker stressed his belief that the attacks being leveled publicly against Vice President Biden related to Ukraine were false and that the former Vice President was “a person of integrity.” He counseled Mr. Giuliani that the Ukrainian prosecutor pushing the false narrative, Mr. Lutsenko, was promoting “a self-serving narrative to preserve himself in power.” Mr. Giuliani agreed, but his promotion of Mr. Lutsenko’s false accusations for the benefit of President Trump did not cease. Ambassador Volker also offered to help arrange an in-person meeting between Mr. Giuliani and Andriy Yermak, one of President Zelensky’s most trusted advisors, which would later take place in Madrid, Spain in early August.

After the breakfast meeting at the Trump Hotel, Ambassador Volker reported back to Ambassadors Sondland and Taylor about his conversation with Mr. Giuliani, writing in a text message that, “Most impt [sic] is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation—and address any specific personnel issues—if there are any,” likely referencing President Zelensky’s decision to remove Mr. Lutsenko as prosecutor general, a decision with which Mr. Giuliani disagreed. The same day, Ambassador Sondland spoke with President Zelensky and recommended that the Ukrainian leader tell President Trump that he “will leave no stone unturned” regarding the political investigations during the upcoming presidential phone call.

Ambassador Sondland emailed several top Administration officials, including Secretary of State Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Secretary Perry, stating that President Zelensky confirmed that he would “assure” President Trump that “he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone.’” According to Ambassador Sondland, he was referring in the email to the Burisma/Biden and 2016 election interference investigations. Secretary Perry and Mr. Mulvaney responded affirmatively that the call would soon take place, and Ambassador Sondland testified later that “everyone was in the loop” on plans to condition the White House meeting on the announcement of political investigations beneficial to President Trump. The arrangement troubled the Ukrainian President, who “did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign.”


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:54 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


The President Pressed Zelensky to Do a Political Favor

On the morning of July 25, Ambassador Volker sent a text message to President Zelensky’s top aide, Mr. Yermak, less than 30 minutes before the presidential call. He stated: “Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck!” Shortly before the call, Ambassador Sondland spoke directly with President Trump.

President Zelensky followed this advice during his conversation with President Trump. President Zelensky assured that he would pursue the investigations that President Trump had discussed—into the Bidens and 2016 election interference—and, in turn, pressed for the White House meeting that remained outstanding.

The following day, Ambassadors Volker, Sondland, and Taylor met with President Zelensky in Kyiv. The Ukrainian President told them that President Trump had mentioned “sensitive issues” three times during the previous day’s phone call. Following the meeting with the Ukrainian leader, Ambassador Sondland had a private, one-on-one conversation with Mr. Yermak in which they discussed “the issue of investigations.” He then retired to lunch at an outdoor restaurant terrace with State Department aides where he called President Trump directly from his cellphone. The White House confirmed that the conversation lasted five minutes.

At the outset of the call, President Trump asked Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky “was going to do the investigation” that President Trump had raised with President Zelensky the day before. Ambassador Sondland stated that President Zelensky was “going to do it” and “would do anything you ask him to.” According to David Holmes, the State Department aide sitting closest to Ambassador Sondland and who overheard the President’s voice on the phone, Ambassador Sondland and President Trump spoke only about the investigation in their discussion about Ukraine. The President made no mention of other major issues of importance in Ukraine, including President Zelensky’s aggressive anti-corruption reforms and the ongoing war it was fighting against Russian-led forces in eastern Ukraine.

After hanging up the phone, Ambassador Sondland explained to Mr. Holmes that President Trump “did not give a shit about Ukraine.” Rather, the President cared only about “big stuff” that benefitted him personally, like “the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pitching,” and that President Trump had pushed for in his July 25 call with the Ukrainian leader. Ambassador Sondland did not recall referencing Biden specifically, but he did not dispute Mr. Holmes’ recollection of the call with the President or Ambassador Sondland’s subsequent discussion with Mr. Holmes.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:55 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


The President’s Representatives Ratcheted up Pressure on the Ukrainian President
In the weeks following the July 25 call, the President’s hand-picked representatives increased the President’s pressure campaign on Ukrainian government officials—in person, over the phone, and by text message—to secure a public announcement of the investigations beneficial to President Trump’s reelection campaign.

In discussions with Ukrainian officials, Ambassador Sondland understood that President Trump did not require that Ukraine conduct investigations as a prerequisite for the White House meeting so much as publicly announce the investigations—making clear that the goal was not the investigations, but the political benefit Trump would derive from their announcement and the cloud they might put over a political opponent.

On August 2, President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, traveled to Madrid to meet Mr. Giuliani in person. There, they agreed that Ukraine would issue a public statement, and they discussed potential dates for a White House meeting. A few days later, Ambassador Volker told Mr. Giuliani that it “would be good” if Mr. Giuliani would report to “the boss,” President Trump, about “the results” of his Madrid discussion so that President Trump would finally agree to a White House visit by President Zelensky.

On August 9, Ambassador Volker and Mr. Giuliani spoke twice by phone, and Ambassador Sondland spoke twice to the White House for a total of about 20 minutes. In a text message to Ambassador Volker later that day, Ambassador Sondland wrote, “I think potus [sic] really wants the deliverable,” which Ambassador Sondland acknowledged was the public statement announcing the two political investigations sought by President Trump and Mr. Giuliani.

The following day, Ambassador Sondland briefed State Department Counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, a top advisor to Secretary Pompeo, on these discussions about President Zelensky issuing a statement that would include an announcement of the two political investigations. Ambassador Sondland also emailed Secretary Pompeo directly, copying the State Department’s executive secretary and Mr. Brechbuhl, to inform them about the agreement for President Zelensky to give the press conference. He expected to see a draft of the statement, which would be “delivered for our review in a day or two.” Ambassador Sondland noted his hope that the draft statement would “make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation.”

On August 12, Mr. Yermak sent the proposed statement to Ambassador Volker, but it lacked specific references to the two investigations politically beneficial to President Trump’s reelection campaign. The following morning, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker spoke with Mr. Giuliani, who made clear that if the statement “doesn’t say Burisma and 2016, it’s not credible.” Ambassador Volker revised the statement following this direction to include those references and returned it to the Ukrainian President’s aide.

Mr. Yermak balked at getting drawn into U.S. politics and asked Ambassador Volker whether the United States had inquired about investigations through any appropriate Department of Justice channels. The answer was no, and several witnesses testified that a request to a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen “for political reasons” goes “against everything” the United States sought to promote in eastern Europe, specifically the rule of law. Ambassador Volker eventually agreed with Mr. Yermak that the announcement of the Biden/Burisma and 2016 elections investigations would “look like it would play into our domestic politics,” so the statement was temporarily “shelved.”

Nevertheless, Ambassador Sondland, in accordance with President Trump’s wishes, continued to pursue the statement into early September 2019.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:55 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


Ukrainians Inquired about the President’s Hold on Security Assistance

Once President Trump placed security assistance on hold in July, “it was inevitable that it was eventually going to come out.” On July 25, DOD officials learned that diplomats at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington had made multiple overtures to DOD and the State Department “asking about security assistance.” Separately, two different contacts at the Ukrainian Embassy approached Ambassador Volker’s special advisor, Catherine Croft, to ask her in confidence about the hold. Ms. Croft was surprised at the effectiveness of their “diplomatic tradecraft,” noting that they “found out very early on” that the United States was withholding critical military aid to Ukraine. By mid-August, before the freeze on aid became public, Lt. Col. Vindman had also received inquiries from an official at the Ukrainian Embassy.

The hold remained in place throughout August against the unanimous judgment of American officials focused on Ukraine policy. Without an explanation for the hold, which ran contrary to the recommendation of all relevant agencies, and with President Trump already conditioning a White House visit on the announcement of the political investigations, it became increasingly apparent to multiple witnesses that the military aid was also being withheld in exchange for the announcement of those. As both Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Holmes would later testify, it became as clear as “two plus two equals four.”

On August 22, Ambassador Sondland emailed Secretary Pompeo again, recommending a plan for a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland on September 1. Ambassador Sondland noted that President Zelensky should “look him in the eye” and tell President Trump that once new prosecutorial officials were in place in Ukraine, “Zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and the U.S.” Ambassador Sondland testified that this was a reference to the political investigations that President Trump discussed on the July 25 call, that Secretary Pompeo had listened to. Ambassador Sondland hoped this would “break the logjam”—the hold on critical security assistance to Ukraine. Secretary Pompeo replied three minutes later: “Yes.”



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:56 PM

THG


T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.


The President’s Security Assistance Hold Became Public

On August 28, Politico published a story revealing President Trump’s weeks-long hold on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. Senior Ukrainian officials expressed grave concern, deeply worried about the practical impact on their efforts to fight Russian aggression, but also about the public message it sent to the Russian government, which would almost certainly seek to exploit any real or perceived crack in U.S. resolve toward Ukraine.

On August 29, at the urging of National Security Advisor Bolton, Ambassador Taylor wrote a first-person cable to Secretary Pompeo. This was the only first-person cable the Ambassador had ever sent in his decades of government service. He explained the “folly” of withholding security assistance to Ukraine as it fought a hot war against Russia on its borders. He wrote that he “could not and would not defend such a policy.” Ambassador Taylor stated that Secretary Pompeo may have carried the cable with him to a meeting at the White House.

The same day that Ambassador Taylor sent his cable, President Trump cancelled his planned trip to Warsaw for a World War II commemoration event, where he was scheduled to meet with President Zelensky. Vice President Pence traveled in his place. Ambassador Sondland also traveled to Warsaw and, at a pre-briefing discussion with the Vice President before he met President Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland raised the issue of the hold on security assistance. He told Vice President Pence that he was concerned that the security assistance “had become tied to the issue of investigations” and that “everything is being held up until these statements get made.” Vice President Pence nodded in response, apparently expressing neither surprise nor dismay at the linkage between the two.

At the meeting, President Zelensky expressed concern that even an appearance of wavering support from the United States for Ukraine could embolden Russia. Vice President Pence reiterated U.S. support for Ukraine, but could not promise that the hold would be lifted. Vice President Pence said he would relay his support for lifting the hold to President Trump so a decision could be made on security assistance as soon as possible. Vice President Pence spoke with President Trump that evening, but the hold was not lifted.

Following this meeting, Ambassador Sondland pulled aside President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, to explain that the hold on security assistance was conditioned on the public announcement of the Burisma/Biden and the 2016 election interference investigations. After learning of the conversation, Ambassador Taylor texted Ambassador Sondland: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”

The two then spoke by phone. Ambassador Sondland explained that he had previously made a “mistake” in telling Ukrainian officials that only the White House meeting was conditioned on a public announcement of the political investigations beneficial to President Trump. He clarified that “everything”—the White House meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars of security assistance to Ukraine—was now conditioned on the announcement. President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a “public box,” which Ambassador Taylor understood to mean that President Trump required that President Zelensky make a public announcement about the investigations and that a private commitment would not do.

On September 7, President Trump and Ambassador Sondland spoke. Ambassador Sondland stated to his colleagues that the President said, “there was no quid pro quo,” but that President Zelensky would be required to announce the investigations in order for the hold on security assistance to be lifted, “and he should want to do it.” Ambassador Sondland passed on a similar message directly to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak that, “although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate,” referring to the hold on security assistance. Arrangements were made for the Ukrainian President to make a public statement during an interview on CNN.

After speaking with Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Taylor texted Ambassadors Sondland and Volker: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Notwithstanding his long-held understanding that the White House meeting was conditioned on the public announcement of two political investigations desired by President Trump—and not broader anti-corruption concerns—Ambassador Sondland responded hours later:

Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or [Secretary Pompeo] a call to discuss with them directly. Thanks.

Ambassador Sondland’s subsequent testimony revealed this text to be a false exculpatory—an untruthful statement that can later be used to conceal incriminating information. In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland testified that the President’s direction to withhold a presidential telephone call and a White House meeting for President Zelensky were both quid pro quos designed to pressure Ukraine to announce the investigations. He also testified that he developed a clear understanding that the military aid was also conditioned on the investigations, that it was as simple as 2+2=4. Sondland confirmed that his clear understanding was unchanged after speaking with President Trump, which he then communicated to the Ukrainians—President Zelensky had to publicly announce the two investigations if he wanted to get the meeting or the military aid.

In Ambassador Sondland’s testimony, he was not clear on whether he had one conversation with the President in which the subject of a quid pro quo came up, or two, or on precisely which date the conversation took place during the period of September 6 through 9. In one version of the conversation which Ambassador Sondland suggested may have taken place on September 9, he claimed that the President answered an open question about what he wanted from Ukraine with an immediate denial—“no quid pro quo.” In another, he admitted that the President told him that President Zelensky should go to a microphone and announce the investigations, and that he should want to do so—effectively confirming a quid pro quo.

Both Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison, relying on their contemporaneous notes, testified that the call between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump occurred on September 7, which is further confirmed by Ambassador Sondland’s own text message on September 8 in which he wrote that he had “multiple convos” with President Zelensky and President Trump. A call on September 9, which would have occurred in the middle of the night, is at odds with the weight of the evidence and not backed up by any records the White House was willing to provide Ambassador Sondland. Regardless of the date, Ambassador Sondland did not contest telling both Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor of a conversation he had with the President in which the President reaffirmed Ambassador Sondland’s understanding of the quid pro quo for the military aid.

As Ambassador Sondland acknowledged bluntly in his conversation with Mr. Holmes, President Trump’s sole interest with respect to Ukraine was the “big stuff” that benefited him personally, such as the investigations into former Vice President Biden, and not President Zelensky’s promises of transparency and reform.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL