SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The view among the national security officials was unanimous: Military aid to Ukraine should not be stopped. But the White House's acting chief of staff thought otherwise.
That was the testimony of Laura Cooper, a Defense Department official, whose deposition was released Monday in the House impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
"My sense is that all of the senior leaders of the US national security departments and agencies were all unified in their - in their view that this assistance was essential," she said. "And they were trying to find ways to engage the president on this."
Cooper's testimony was among several hundred pages of transcripts released Monday, along with those of State Department officials Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson.
Cooper told investigators that, in a series of July meetings at the White House, she came to understand that Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was holding up the military aid for the US ally.
[...] When she and others tried to get an explanation, they found none.
[...] She said it was "unusual" to have congressional funds suddenly halted that way, and aides raised concerns about the legality of it. The Pentagon was "concerned" about the hold-up of funds and "any signal that we would send to Ukraine about a wavering in our commitment", she said.
Cooper told investigators that she was visited in August by Kurt Volker, the US special envoy to Ukraine, who explained there was a "statement" that the Ukraine government could make to get the security money flowing.
[...] "Somehow, an effort that he was engaged in to see if there was a statement that the government of Ukraine would make," said Cooper, an assistant defence secretary, "that would somehow disavow any interference in US elections and would commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference."
For a handy reference to the documents that have been released concerning this, npr has posted Trump Impeachment Inquiry: A Guide To Key People, Facts And Documents:
Written words are central to the Ukraine affair. The significance of the whistleblower's original complaint and the White House's record of its call with Ukraine are debated, but the text is public. Here are the documents to refer to as the inquiry proceeds:
Texts and memos
- Call:The White House memorandum (Sept. 25)
- Aid:The Pentagon letter on military aid to Ukraine (Sept. 25)
- Complaint:The whistleblower complaint (Sept. 26)
- Texts:Batch of texts between diplomats released by House Democrats (Oct. 4)
The whistleblower's complaint has largely been corroborated by witness testimony, public statements and media reports. See how the document checks out — with a detailed annotation of the text.
Testimony released by Congress following closed depositions
- Christopher Anderson, former special adviser for Ukraine negotiations
- Laura Cooper,deputy defense secretary
- Catherine Croft, former Ukraine adviser on the National Security Council
- Fiona Hill, former White House adviser on Russia
- George Kent, deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
- Michael McKinley, former State Department adviser
- Gordon Sondland,U.S. ambassador to EU
- William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
- Alexander Vindman, top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council
- Kurt Volker, former Ukraine envoy
- Marie Yovanovitch, ex-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:12PM (28 children)
Trust me, there are many of us in the US who totally agree. Watching the insane "arguments" that Republican's are conjuring up to "defend" the president may be the most bizarre thing I've ever witnessed. They can't (and aren't even trying to) dispute the facts: He clearly (even by his own admission) abused the power of his office in an attempt to entrench himself in that office. That's something that you expect of Putin, but not POTUS. It's the very definition of a blatant attack on democracy itself. This is no surprise from someone who's totally enamored with authoritarians, and seems to have nothing but disdain for actual democracies. You just can't sugar coat any of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:24PM (9 children)
Please critique the points made here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xE83o73MssA [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:23AM (8 children)
Don't you have any thoughts in your own head?
If so, let's hear them and discuss.
You can't have a discussion with a video. Which is likely why you won't express these ideas yourself -- since they can be discussed and you won't be able to say, "well, that part isn't what I was talking about. That's not me, it's this guy on youtube."
Why are you unwilling to do so?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:36AM (7 children)
Parent said they were watching "insane arguments of republicans". I have no idea what they are refering to so provided an example hoping they would point out what was so insane about them. Go away.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:51AM (6 children)
What are the arguments in the link?
Speak plainly and use prose or we'll end up with whole threads of shit like:
"You're wrong! https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap" [morebullshit.crap]
"Fuck you! https://otherbullshitlink.morebullshit.crap" [morebullshit.crap]
"https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap
https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap [morebullshit.crap]
[...]
https://bullshitlink.morebullshit.crap" [morebullshit.crap]
That's not discussion. That's just wasting people's time.
And yes, we're all aware of the idiotic trolling, lies, conspiracy theory bullshit and other garbage on youtube. Which is why normal people don't believe (and don't want to waste their time looking at) such garbage.
Have something to say about Rs bullshit and insanity? There's quite a bit of of it, but that doesn't mean you should expect reasonable people to follow a link with no explanation or information.
You can do better.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:03AM (5 children)
I asked nicely for you to go away, stop inserting yourself into other people's discussions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:13AM (3 children)
This is an open forum. The folks this discussion *belongs* to are those who choose to participate. You (or anyone else) isn't the arbiter of who may or may not participate.
If you don't want everyone to participate in a discussion, have that conversation privately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:42AM (1 child)
Typically it is fine, but you are abusing it. I will wait for the original poster to respond (if at all). However, if you would like to share something of relevance (ie, watch the video and comment on it), that would be fine too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:24AM
You're not the arbiter of what's appropriate.
If you don't like what I have to say, life is hard.
Now you're going to get hot sauce in your coffee (hey, Schlomo! you got that covered? good!) instead of sugar tomorrow.
You will pay for your insolence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:02AM
Except for aristarchus! Fuch that liberal guy!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:53AM
I tell you what. Why don't you take a flying fuck at a rolling donut and leave the rest of us to take the discussion wherever it may go? That would work for me. As someone else already pointed out, this is an open discussion forum. You don't own any more of this discussion than your personal contributions to it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:02AM (13 children)
Imagine for one moment that I wrote a post here alleging that Trump did not propose the investigation out of political benefit, what would you think of the rest of what I had to say? He absolutely did and I think most people can see this. And I think most people can also see that Biden's completely unqualified druggie of a son didn't get his $50k/month "consulting" gig in Ukraine on merit -- Biden's about as clean a freshly wiped wad of toilet paper after a nice dinner of cheap Mexican tacos and ultra-mega-mania-hot sauce the night before. Everything beyond this two facts is sensationalism and hyperbole. What I don't think people realize, somehow even top political planners, is that this hyperbole not only fails to sway but drives paradoxical outcomes. Trump's approval rating has increased since the advent of the impeachment hearings. This is the reason it went from being front page 24/7 news on sites such as the NYTimes to something relegated to their rambling partisan opinion pages.
It's like people forget that just a few years ago Trump was elected "in spite of" the media openly and LITERALLY declaring him Hitler. I put "in spite of" in quotes because I think that was probably why he was elected. It made the media lose all credibility and everybody loves thumbing their nose at pretentiousness - we chose to name a groundbreaking naval research vessels Boaty McBoatFace. Ok, let me get this straight: reality TV old guy is Hitler? Oh, yes, yes - I recall "You're fired! Sieg Heil!" Wait, did Hitler sieg heil himself? Anyhow. It's amusing because the media didn't want Trump to be elected but if they just did their one job and impartially reported things - he probably would have lost, even to Hillary. But because they jumped the shark, they suddenly got people interested - but not in the way they intended! And here we are, doing the exact same thing again. In 2008 I voted for Obama. I skipped 'fool me once 2012' and 'wtf is happening 2016', but In 2020 I'll probably be giving the Orange Hitler a vote. The reason is precisely because of this absurdity. Investigating corruption is now a "blatant attack on democracy itself"? All alongside this idiotic effort to try to create yet another Red Scare. It's all just so unbelievably regressive and fake. If investigating high-level corrupt clowns (even for bad reasons) is an attack on democracy itself, I think our democracy could use a good bit more attacking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:54AM (4 children)
yup.
I didn't vote for Trump (or Hillary) but the tsunami of negativity spewed at him is incredible. It isn't like he decided to give the executive branch the power to execute Americans without trial based on secret legal memos -- something which should be immediately recognizable as impeachable because of the 5th amendment and all that. No -- there's never a peep about that or other insane Constitutional violations. Mat Taibbi noted in a recent episode of the Useful Idiots podcast (worth it) that presidents don't get impeached for crimes -- they get impeached for stepping on the toes of the other party, for violating their prerogatives.
Anyhow, I'm feeling that bitter desire to vote for Trump more strongly over time. Not because I like him. But because there's a whole swathe of chattering bobbleheads who need another bitch slap.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:52PM (3 children)
But whatabout...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:18PM (2 children)
Yeah -- that's so valid. Let's just forget about the insidious slide into authoritarianism via egregious Constitutional destruction because orange man bad.
It seems to me the MOST relevant question is "whatabout".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:10PM (1 child)
Well since that was precipitated by Bush I don't think your point is what you think it is. Instead of uniting against corruption and supporting candidates that want to help "we the people" like Sanders you focus on the FUD fed to you by the GOP and the "titans of industry" that promote their pyramid scheme socio-economic policies.
The most relevant task is to make sure the most corrupt piece of shit to ever sit in the WH is held accountable, otherwise what hope do you have that the next corrupt bastard will be the line where we uphold the Constitution?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:04AM
It goes back farther than Bush of course, but Obama hit the pinnacle with Due Process Free Execution. If death squads aren't the mark of unconstitutional authoritarianship, what the fuck is?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:43AM (7 children)
I'm sure the actual voters for Hitler in 1932 felt the same as you. There was no election after that. I wonder why.
Sad.... sad you wrote a wall of text and learned *NOTHING*.
1. Trump can't name 1 fucking Ukrainian that is corrupt
2. Trump gives FUCK ALL about corruption in Ukraine or anywhere else
3. Ukraine is corrupt as fuck, but Trump only cares *manufacturing* dirt on Biden, not about any actual corruption that he actually embodies. You can find corrupt oligarchs in Ukraine with a single google search but Trump and his 'administration' is not even smart enough for that tiny cover-up of his motives (this is what Muller report produced - it deemed Trump too stupid to collude with Russians, even when there was plenty of evidence he tried)
Trump wanted a public statement for the Braitbart and nazi propaganda machine. He does not give a rats ass whether there was anything from it, as long as it's announced. It's enough to sway some idiots his way that he's "draining the swamp". The reality is he IS the swamp and it's about to consume him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:32AM
"The reality is he IS the swamp and it's about to consume us."
FTFY
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:48PM
Once again, we should discontinue investigations into corruption because the motives of the would-be investigators are impure. Contrary to opinion here, I welcome Trump's efforts to generate dirt on Biden. We need more dirt. And the people who are going to investigate that dirt in the US are going to have such motives every single time. You can't expect the Republicans to investigate Trump thorough. It's going to be the politically motivated Democrats. And I'm fine with that as long as they find an actual crime.
Second, your assertion about the Mueller report is absolute nonsense. There's no "plenty of evidence" that Trump "tried". There is, however, the mentioned absence of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. It's amazing how hard people are spinning this crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:55PM (2 children)
This seems to be you just emotionally flailing with lots of pointless vulgarity in lieu of any supporting evidence or logic whatsoever. Oh and of course declaring everybody who disagrees with you a Nazi or an idiot - the epitome of refined political discussion.
If you have any argument with any form of evidence or logic, I'd be happy to engage with you though!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)
Did you just reveal your inner dialogue? Cause I read through your cultured version of "no u" and couldn't find a real point. I presume it is the usual Gaslight Obstruct Project!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:03PM
Our original poster is claiming to have insight into not only Trump's behaviors but the entire depth of his knowledge, his motivations, and more. This is provided with 0 rationale or evidence and little more than an appeal to what I can only presume are his psychic abilities. And while his claims are probably easy to digest for those muddled by partisanship, they're quite absurd on even the most facile of analysis. For instance I think most of everybody cares about corruption, certainly all political leaders. It's perhaps the single most common factor in the deterioration of great empires of times past. The conflating issue there is that we often turn a blind eye to it when we, or those we like, are benefiting from it.
But in my opinion what Trump is doing here is exactly as our founding fathers intended. They knew people were flawed and built a system that, even with the assumption of e.g. corruption, would work. And the idea there is exactly what's happening here. Trump is probably corrupt, but Biden is now probably provably corrupt, and Trump is going to use that against him. This system creates a series of 'watchmen' even when the primary motivation is self interest. We could get into why that system no longer works as well as it ought, but this is already tangential!
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:00PM
Ironically he does care a little, at least as far as how ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's involvement in trying to fight it was getting in the way of Giuliani's henchmen...thus the smear campaign to get rid of her....so there's that.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:05PM
Seriously, AC above said it nice and succinct: "And I think most people can also see that Biden's completely unqualified druggie of a son didn't get his $50k/month "consulting" gig in Ukraine on merit." https://soylentnews.org/politics/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=34602&page=1&cid=919733#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
There's nothing to manufacture, that's so obvious its hard to understand how it isn't more of a story in the media (well not really, it's just more of the bias). What would be interesting and what an investigation is for, is to find out how much US Taxpayer money went into his pocket, or how much "clean" money the aid freed up so that the "clean" money could be paid instead.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:39PM (3 children)
Essentially, if someone in the opposite party is involved in massive corruption, then fighting corruption (aka draining the swamp) will be attacked as political attack on democracy or some shit.
Obviously, the democrats, especially the previous administration, are deeply involved in corruption and bribery in the Ukraine, therefore that can never be investigated and the corruption can never be ended because it would be too political.
Kinda like the pedo stuff. Nobody can investigate or report on Epstein, especially not the press, because basically all kiddie touchers are Democrats so being anti-pedo is interfering with the election, so I guess we'll have to let them have their fun unimpeded. You're not being anti-pedo, you're merely being a Russian Agent if you point out all those pictures of Biden excessively touching very nervous looking young women, or point out that Clinton was best buddies with Epstein.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:56PM
For all the refusals to believe Trump's most obvious crimes you sure are quick to push opinions as verified hacks.
Conservatives these days, what a sad bunch of hypocrites. Fuck Biden and Fuck Trump. But fuck the racist VLM most of all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:53PM (1 child)
You could, but Epstein was a Jew, and all the media are owned by Jews. He was one of their own, in their families and social circles. The media heads do not want the American people to start making an association with being a Jew and committing sex crimes.
That most of these "elites" are democrats is probably secondary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:08PM
All the goat touchers are Republicans.