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, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:26PM (50 children)
It doesn't matter if they object. The boss is Trump. He sets foreign policy. He can set it any way he damn well pleases, changing it as often as he wants, and the career bureaucrats are obligated by law to enact his wishes.
Voters were sick of the old policy. Trump was elected to change policy. Refusal to obey is treason.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:40PM
.....
Sooo you uphold the law except when orange man good? ORANGE MAN GOOD CONSTITUTION BAD!
Seriously, you "people" are all in on the LITERALLY HITLER approach. "They'll never see it coming after all the bitching we did about being called nazis kekekeke."
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:45PM (30 children)
Refusal to obey *lawful* orders might be considered treason.
Speaking out against (even lawful ones) and refusing unlawful orders is most certainly not.
The oath [cornell.edu] taken by pretty much every elected/appointed official (except the president) states:
Note that USC 3331 [cornell.edu] does not include loyalty/support for a particular individual or office. But rather to the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:59PM (16 children)
Since we have elected Trump, he is not an enemy and it is his policy which determines who is an enemy. None of his orders have been unlawful.
So yes, uphold that oath. Obey our president, Donald J. Trump.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:05PM (14 children)
I could be wrong here... but isn't he being investigated for an illegal ordering of stopping military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating his political opponent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:14PM (1 child)
Yep, turns out investigating democrats is a crime for anyone powerful enough to do anything about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:37PM
In Ukraine, he asked for two "anti-corruption" investigations against the Dems.
Can you name one other anti-corruption initiative he has enacted?
No? Then this is not a matter of enforcing the law, it is a matter of punishing those that oppose him. That is, abusing his office for his personal gain.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:26PM (1 child)
Running for office isn't supposed to provide immunity to being investigated. If it did, where was Trump's immunity when Obama investigated him and even paid foreigners to concoct a false narrative in order to get a wiretap?
Trump is stuck with the duty to investigate crime, even when done by political opponents. Trump is stuck with the duty to negotiate with foreign leaders for assistance, using every carrot and stick available. Trump can stop aid whenever he wishes, and this is a perfectly fine tool for getting foreigners to cooperate.
None of this would be an issue if the Biden family hadn't abused political office to obtain bribes from foreign nations.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:34AM
Make sure they pay you in USD not Rubles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:09AM (9 children)
You're not wrong. That is exactly what is happening.
I wonder what will happen when (or if) he is actually convicted of an actual crime?
I have spent most of my life assuming that I wouldn't actually live to see the American Civil War II, but there is a chance I might.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:38AM (8 children)
Like what? If as part of the conviction, you're expecting a Republican Senate to do the deed, you're going to need some pretty solid evidence of a pretty serious crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:00PM (2 children)
Like all the crimes he committed while the GOP enjoyed the little power trip. Keep pretending reality isn't what it is, I mean that was Trump's explicit instruction.
You khallow have shown yourself to be a pure partisan hack who ignores simple facts for dreams of conquest. Short version, you are a traitot by proxy support.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:54PM
And, you, poor Mr. Coward, are an hysterical ninny who believes everything MSM tells you about the Trump.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:21PM
Like?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:22PM (4 children)
I'm not expecting a Republican Senate to convict Mr. Trump of anything, regardless of any evidence.
I am expecting the Republican Senate to continue to deny any crime was committed, and even if one was he's the President and can do what we wants.
That is what they've claimed so far, so why change?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:20PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:17PM (2 children)
The part of your comment that caught my eye was:
I was making the point that I don't think evidence has any role in the Republicans strategy, which bodes ill for rule of law in your country.
Personally I think rule of law is a good thing largely, and laws ought to apply to everyone equally, but I don't think your Republican Party share that view, and I think that will be something they live to regret.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:58PM (1 child)
I think many of us, regardless of party affiliation, are already living to regret it. It feels like the country I once knew is evaporating before my eyes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:24AM
I feel it is the democrat party that has gone batshit crazy, as outrageous as the republicans used to be. Not in pushing religion down your throat, but any harebrained idea that they can use to signal how woke they are. The shrill MSM just follows them along.
It may play well on campus, but millions of workers care more whether the Chinese ate going to pirate them out of a job, rather than celebrating some guy's transition to butterfly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:53PM
I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I don't know what oath you took or to whom.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:00PM (12 children)
So everyone from the President on down has sworn to protect the US Constitution. Plenty of room there for disobeying illegal and unconstitutional orders.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:19PM (11 children)
Not only that: There are mechanisms that are in place to prevent professional retaliation against a bureaucrat who refuses to obey an order that is unconstitutional, illegal, or (as of a few years ago) against current regulations. And there's a bureaucracy that exists to protect the bureaucracy, namely the Merit Systems Protection Board [mspb.gov].
The idea of all of this is that you don't want, for example, the decision on what the ideal fishing limits will be on North Atlantic cod to be affected by who is president when it's a question that's best answered by science. And you also don't want, say, the president or any other politician easily able to influence what the unemployment or inflation reporting says, because given the chance they will lie about the results.
My understanding is that the UCMJ has similar kinds of protections for military personnel who disobey an unconstitutional or illegal order, e.g. refusing to massacre civilians.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:49AM (10 children)
You could as well say that there are mechanisms in place to prevent the lawfully elected president from removing a recalcitrant partisan bureaucrat who refuses to obey an order that is politically unacceptable to that recalcitrant partisan bureaucrat.
We all know how the bureaucrats vote. They have a conflict of interest, namely saving their own jobs, that ought to disqualify them from voting. They are obviously the sort of people who think government is the solution, not the problem.
The MSPB is itself political. It is loaded up with democrats. Trump's nominees have been blocked. The lack of people slows the MSPB down, which is just dandy if you want to keep a recalcitrant partisan bureaucrat around. Trump nominated a chairman and vice chairman, as well as others, and the nominations are still being held up by uncooperative anti-American senators.
It is simply improper that the choice of the American voters can be stopped by recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats. I doubt this is even constitutional, because if congress can enact a law to prevent the president from gaining control of his own staff then one branch of government has usurped the power of another.
North Atlantic cod is a fine example. You may disagree with the will of the people, but they have spoken. Imagine what life would be like if the recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats were somehow all republican. They might disagree with you on the cod issue, and no democrat president could do a damn thing about it. Better examples perhaps: the recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats decide that no species is endangered, or that all guns beyond 0.50" caliber have a sporting use. You'd be pissed if the president couldn't stop that. You're just pleased because you know the recalcitrant partisan bureaucrats happen to be about 99% on your side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:14AM
So, do I understand correctly that you would want our government "of, by, and for The People" to be replaced by mercenaries?!? Wow. Just. Wow.
Do you have any evidence of this? Care to share it with us?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:40AM (3 children)
Oh, you mean Trump taking funds specifically appropriated for one purpose and using them for another unrelated purpose?
Or the Trump administration flouting duly issued congressional subpoenas?
Yup. The Executive branch is certainly trying to usurp the powers of Congress.
(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.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:28AM (3 children)
Why do you hate America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:06AM (2 children)
When did you stop beating your wife?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:12AM
Never. I'm not married.
Why do you hate America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:02PM
I stopped beating my wife at the same time you became my bitch.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:26PM
The MSPB currently has no members, because Mitch McConnell blocked all of Obama's nominees. So it's not loaded with anybody.
The Senate is currently controlled by Republicans who are allies of Trump and would gladly approve members if Trump and/or Mitch McConnell actually wanted them approved. If you have a problem, it's with Mitch McConnell, not the Democrats.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:05AM (6 children)
Who modded this nonsense Insightful?
I thought you Americans didn't want to have kings?
What a fucking stupid way to run a country.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:47AM (5 children)
Some Americans, by all appearances, do in fact want to have kings.
And I'm not just talking about the people who voted for the current guy. I'm also talking about the people who gladly supported someone almost 20 years ago whose main qualification for the office of president was that his daddy was president, and whose administration was chock full of people who were describing a "unitary executive" theory that said that the president could treat everything Congress and the Supreme Court said as advisory rather than binding. And there were other people before that.
The impulse runs deep. It's basically "This guy ended up in charge of things and I didn't, that must mean they know something and/or are able to do things I don't understand. Therefor, they're better than I am, and I'm wrong to even question what they want me to do." Which is exactly the thinking of an authoritarian minion, the sort of person who would be perfectly at home in Stalin's USSR, Nazi Germany, or Ancien Regime France.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:04PM (4 children)
You're describing Hillary supporters?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @06:08PM
W's successful bid came before Hillary's, flamebaiter. Do try to read your history first. Now pipe down, adults are talking.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:14PM
Hillary? Oh, you mean the little old lady who has no job?
I can't imagine why you are so frightened of her.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:37PM (1 child)
No, I'm describing American conservatives, who have a strong belief in hierarchies and the justness thereof. They tend to like forms of organization that enforce that idea, such as the military and private businesses. (You might think that libertarian types aren't a part of this, but they are: Libertarians, at least in my experience, want to be sovereigns of their own small hierarchy rather than ensconced in somebody else's much bigger hierarchy, but aren't keen on challenging the idea of hierarchy in the slightest.)
Left-wing politics tends to be skeptical of hierarchies, at least as they exist now. The fundamental idea of the left-wing is that the people who are in charge aren't generally the most capable. There are variations: Modern liberalism (of the sort espoused by Hillary Clinton) argues that the problem is discrimination, which leads to a suboptimal outcome because more capable people are pushed further down hierarchies by irrational factors that often have nothing to do with their ability, such as their gonads or skin tone. Communists and socialists argue that hierarchies don't push more capable people down because of irrational discrimination, but as part of an intentional effort by incompetent people in charge to maintain their own lofty position and force those at the bottom of the hierarchy to do all the lousy jobs while having most of the value of their work stolen by the rich. This is why left-wing people tend to like forms of organization that create a strong sense of accountability for anybody in charge to the people they're supposed to be in charge of, with lots of voting or even consensus governance.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:13PM
He is just mad cause she is the graduation speaker at his middle school this year. She has family there and is doing it pro bono. Not quid pro quo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:25AM (2 children)
Ah, the "Nuremberg defense".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:11AM (1 child)
Better than Chewbacca defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:43AM
Which is pretty much the defense being used Trump apologists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:20AM (5 children)
Uhhhh, not quite. Congress does have an important constitutional role in setting foreign policy.
Are you sure that America is the right place for you? Something tells me that Saudi Arabia may be better suited to your ideals.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:43PM (4 children)
Note that the foreign policy in question is the previous administration historically and provably accepted bribes in exchange for favorable treatment, which is already illegal.
There's no clause in the constitution stating something like "democrats can accept bribes of millions of dollars for their kids in exchange for favorable policies and its treason to investigate or complain about it". I must have missed that part.
Essentially if you have a party of extreme corruption then any investigation of corruption will by definition be "political" in some sense if the Venn diagram of criminals and one party is overlapping almost completely.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:53PM (2 children)
"If" and "if". Corruption is bipartisan. Blaming one party for the whole deal is missing the picture in a way that enables the whole thing to continue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:04PM (1 child)
Well maybe if you would accept simple reality we could investigate all the corruption, but all we get from you is denial and "but her emails!!" while ignoring every shitty thing done in the WH.
You just want to avoid the proper blame so you fall back on false equivalency. That level of hypocrisy does not make for good team work.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:19PM
If you were familiar with my posting history, you would know that assertion is false. But since you mentioned it, Clinton's emails are yet another shitty thing done in the White House.
Moving on
The previous AC was claiming that the Democrat party was almost completely the source of corruption in the US. That was ridiculous. The equivalency wasn't false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:54PM
You must have been too busy with the multiple investigations of Benghazi to notice the bribes.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:10PM (1 child)
Oh deary dear... let's just deconstruct everything wrong with that post...
Nuremberg. 'Nuff said.
Nowhere near the truth. No career bureaucrat may violate the law just because the President has ordered it to be violated. Might as well say that he can order the Special Forces to piss on the enemy corpses and take their ears. (Hint... he can't).
There's a very strong question about exactly how much authority Trump and Mulvaney had to delay the Ukraine aid that was passed by Congress.
So you talked to every single voter, huh? Every one of them told you they didn't like the way Ukraine was being treated? Some other time we can talk about how the President's ability to make policy is directly limited by the legislature's authorization to execute it. (There was a wonderful time in America where the Executive branch carried out the collective will of the legislature. Pepperidge Farm remembers, anyway.)
Treason is not the word you think it is. Refusal to obey is at the most insubordination which can be serious, yes. Refusal to obey because one feels the law supports your position is the opposite of treason, so long as your governmental system is not an autocratic or despotic monarchy or dictatorship.
Unless you're saying Trump is legally a despot? You know that's the word you apply when you think someone in power is legally entitled to do anything they want and however they want, right?
OK. Run along and play now. Adults have serious adulting to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:56PM
Trump's orders are both legal and in the best interest of America.
Disobedience is thus both illegal and against the best interest of America. It aids America's enemies. It is thus treason.
Your argument might have worked better under Obama, when some of the presidential orders were illegal (wiretap Trump, etc.) and when many of the presidential orders actively harmed America.