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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:15AM (2 children)
One thing you said is something I think everybody could agree with: the executive branch is, without doubt, usurping the powers of congress. And this has been happening for many decades now. The problem is that far from wanting to constrain the executive branch, when "our" party (whoever that may be) is in the executive branch, we're all more than happy to hoora on about every expansion of executive power, as if we will always be in power. The fact that presidents can now arbitrarily attack other nations, without so much as a peep from congress, is really really messed up. Bombs should require votes. Even the argument of urgency is week. Instead of simply bypassing congressional authority in case of "emergencies", give each senator an emergency "pager" type device that they're required to keep on their person. It emits a loud shrill noise upon activation. This device, in times of emergencies would signal an immediate remote vote and provide the text of the issue being voted on. Any vote not responded to within 10 minutes is considered an approval. There - no more need for "emergency" carve outs which invariably end up being used as little more than a means of sidestepping congressional authority.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:58AM
It is also part of the problem that Congresspeople are cowards. If a war turns out to be unpopular, they don't have to get their toes singed when voters start looking for feet to hold to the fire. It's all so convenient for them and so there is no real effort to end the ongoing Executive coup.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:00PM
I think it more accurate to say that congress has been abdicating it's authority for decades. Prime example? WTF did we get all these presidential war powers acts? Next prime example? WTF haven't we had immigration reform since Operation Wetback? (Look it up, wikipedia has a page on it.) Congress routinely abdicates authorities and powers that it finds distasteful. Congress would only care if the president usurped congress' authority to vote itself a pay raise, or vote some tasty pork for themselves.