Showing posts with label Sue Gordon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sue Gordon. Show all posts

Friday, October 4, 2019

#ukrainegate - Kurt Volker, Rudy Giulian, China, Text Messages & The Impeachment 2020 Re-election Campaign




#sayhisname
Kurt Volker U.S. State Department.jpg
Kurt Volker
Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, gives House Democrats the first deposition in their impeachment inquiry.

Even as President Donald Trump ignited a huge controversy over China and the 2020 election on Thursday, House members were clashing over the closed-door testimony of the former special envoy to Ukraine and Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure officials in that country for dirt on Joe Biden and his son.

The former envoy, Kurt Volker, who is at the center of a scandal that may lead to Trump’s impeachment, spent more than eight hours on Thursday being deposed by lawmakers and aides from three House committees. The committees are looking into allegations that include whether Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani improperly pressured Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation into Biden while withholding U.S. military aid.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an impeachment inquiry last week following the revelation that Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart, President Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Biden during a phone call on July 25.

“This week, current and former State Department officials have begun cooperating with the impeachment inquiry by producing documents and scheduling interviews and depositions," said Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the chairmen of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees in a joint statement Thursday night. "Based on the first production of materials, it has become immediately apparent why Secretary Pompeo tried to block these officials from providing information.”

Volker provided Democrats with 60 pages of text messages and other documents that showed some senior State Department officials were outraged that the Trump administration would try to make aid to Ukraine contingent on efforts to help the president’s reelection campaign.

One text between Volker and Andrey Yermak, a top Zelensky adviser, on July 25 — the day of the Trump-Zelenksy call — linked a Zelensky visit to the Washington to whether the Ukrainians moved ahead with the Biden probe. Volker said "Heard from the White House. Assuming President Z convinces [T]rump he will investigate/ 'get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."

And in another more controversial text, a senior American diplomat expressed outrage to any linkage between U.S. aid to whether the Ukrainians took the steps Trump and Giuliani wanted.

“I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” said Bill Taylor, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, in a Sept. 9 text message.

But Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, strongly denied in a response to Taylor that this was Trump’s purpose.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” Sondland wrote. “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.”

Republicans insisted that Volker testified that Trump never sought a “quid pro quo” from Zelensky, despite the new documents and Democrats’ repeated questions on the topic.

“What we do know is there was definitely not quid-pro-quo,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform panel, told reporters after leaving the Volker deposition. “Any comments that would indicate that there was some nefarious purpose on behalf of this president was not backed up by the facts today.”

“If there was an Academy Award for leading the witness, my Democratic colleagues would have gotten three Oscars today,” Meadows added.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), without offering specifics, said Volker’s testimony “blew a massive hole” through allegations that Trump sought a quid pro quo from the Ukrainian leader leader.

But Sondland and Volker — under pressure from Giuliani — were also asked to draft a statement saying Ukrainian officials were committed to beginning investigations into Biden and other Trump rivals. Volker testified about that episode to congressional investigators on Thursday, according to several people involved in the hearing. The New York Times first reported the intent to draft the statement.

One source said Volker testified that he wanted a broader statement on the Ukrainians fighting corruption. Giuliani, though, pushed for a statement more narrowly focused on Burisma — the Ukrainian energy firm on whose board Hunter Biden sat — and a possible Ukrainian role in the 2016 U.S. election, a near obsession with Trump. No statement was ever drafted, Volker said.

Volker also told investigators that he warned Giuliani that he was being fed some incorrect information on the Bidens from Ukrainian contacts, particularly Yuriy Lutsenko, the country’s former top prosecutor.

“The ambassador’s view of Ukrainian corruption and Rudy Giuliani’s view of corruption are at odds with one another,” Meadows acknowledged. “I think the ambassador had a much more forward-looking position on what he believes the new Ukrainian government will do, and I think that’s at odds with what Rudy Giuliani believes.”

Giuliani’s role in the Ukrainian scandal was the focus of a “significant portion” of Thursday’s session, according to sources familiar with the hearing, and Democrats accused the former New York mayor and ex-federal prosecutor of being involved in a “shakedown” of the Ukrainiains on Trump’s behalf.

“We saw further evidence that there was a shadow shakedown, and I would say, the lead deputy for the president was Rudy Giuliani,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “You had an experienced diplomat, working for free as a special envoy, who in many ways was a front for the work being done on the side, parallel to his efforts, by Rudy Giuliani.”

According to Swalwell, there is “more and more evidence that the president of the United States was improperly using his office, using our taxpayer dollars, to leverage help from an ally in our upcoming 2020 elections.”

Volker is mentioned in a whistleblower complaint that fueled the impeachment inquiry. The complaint notes that Zelensky met with Volker the day after his phone call with Trump, and says the envoy tried to help Ukrainian officials figure out how to “navigate” Trump’s demands.

Giuliani and associate give conflicting accounts on origins of Ukraine caper
The Trump administration held up nearly $400 million in foreign aid approved by Congress as Trump and Giuliani lobbied to announced a probe into the Bidens. Trump and Giuliani alleged that Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time, intervened to block an investigation into Burisma in 2016. There is no evidence that an investigation was underway at the time or that Biden intervened to protect his son’s firm.

Giuliani has also pulled Volker into the episode, insisting that he met with Zelensky’s aides at the request of State Department officials — including Volker — and that he briefed the department about his discussions afterward.

On Thursday morning, Giuliani tweeted out screenshots of texts between him and Volker in which the envoy appeared to be arranging meeting times for Giuliani and a Ukrainian official.

The former New York mayor also railed against Democratic lawmakers pursuing impeachment, though he offered a kind word for Volker.

“Crooked Dems not letting Republicans subpoena witnesses and maybe even question witness,” Giuliani claimed in a tweet. “This is a Star Chamber, illicit and part of their conspiracy to violate constitutional rights condoned by their media lamb dogs. Kurt did nothing wrong.”

Volker has said little publicly about the unfolding drama. But the State Department has defended him in the past, saying that a Ukrainian official had asked Volker to connect him with Giuliani, which he did. Volker is a former career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to NATO who is respected among Democrats and Republicans in Washington.

Many foreign policy hands welcomed Volker’s appointment as envoy in 2017 because of his hawkish views on Russia.

Volker held the envoy position on an unpaid, part-time basis. He also works as an adviser to a lobbying firm and as executive director of a Washington think tank named for the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

The implication is that aides to Zelensky — a former comedian who won Ukraine’s presidency in April — were trying to establish a link to Giuliani, given his close relationship with Trump.

It’s likely Giuliani got the new Ukrainian government’s attention in part because he spent much of this past spring talking about Ukraine and alleged wrongdoings by the Bidens.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Did Schiff Bear False Witness In The Public Record, Again?

Whoops.



Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to a son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half-dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson.

Mr. Trump, who has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, wasted no time in trying to use the revelation about the whistle-blower’s attempt to alert Congress to try to denigrate his complaint. In a news conference in the East Room of the White House after this article was published, Mr. Trump called it a scandal that Mr. Schiff knew the outlines of the whistle-blower’s accusations before he filed his complaint.

“Big stuff. That’s a big story,” Mr. Trump said, waving a copy of the article in the air. “He knew long before and helped write it, too. It’s a scam,” the president added, accusing Mr. Schiff of helping the whistle-blower write his complaint. There is no evidence that Mr. Schiff did, and his spokesman said he saw no part of the complaint before it was filed.

The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy as a target of Mr. Trump’s.

Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” Mr. Trump said. “He’s a shifty, dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving whistle-blower’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred him to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked Mr. Atkinson from turning over the complaint sooner.

In response to questions, spokeswomen for Senators Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner of Virginia, its Democratic vice chairman, said it was standard procedure to refer whistle-blowers to the relevant inspectors general.

The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”

Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff, after a private letter and phone call to Mr. Maguire, publicly released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing documents from Mr. Maguire and requesting him to testify before the intelligence panel.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

But letters from the inspector general and Mr. Maguire had made clear to the House Intelligence Committee that the Justice Department and the White House were blocking Mr. Maguire’s office from forwarding the complaint.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

SENATE: McConnell. Schumer & The Trump Whistleblower

Who is the "Whistleblower Protected by Order of the Highest Authority?

Who is the Highest Authority?


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, September 22, 2019

When Is A Whistleblower A Leaker?

Q: When is a whistleblower a leaker?


That is bearing false witness.



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, August 16, 2019

The U.S. Has No Intelligence Director - Sue Gordon Resigns - Who's Next?

Dan Coats picks Ratcliffe to take over his position as National Intelligence Chief.

Radcliff was excited to be nominated by Trump.


Then Radcliff thought twice and decided to decline.

So, on August 15, 2019 Dan Coats resigns.

On August 15, 2019 Sue Gordon stepped in as interim having announced her resignation.

Then, on August 16, Sue Gordon resigns.

Who's next?




Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©