9/26/19: The sun rose again Thursday. Trump was in an even darker place. At a private breakfast event in New York City, he unloaded on the media. He labeled reporters “scum.” The “scum” at the Los Angeles Times filed a story anyway and the “scum” at Fox News decided to cover his comments. First, Fox reported on what Trump said to the neo-fascist version of the Breakfast Club:
“You know, these animals in the press…they’re
animals, some of the worst human beings you’ll ever meet,” Trump reportedly
said. When someone in the room shouted, “fake news,” Trump
responded: “They’re scum. Many of them are scum, and then you have some
good reporters, but not many of them, I’ll be honest with you.”
The Los Angeles Times picked up from there:
“Basically, that person [the
whistleblower] never saw the report, never saw the call, he never saw the call
– heard something and decided that he or she, or whoever the hell they saw –
they’re almost a spy,” Trump said.
“I want to know who’s the
person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because
that’s close to a spy,” he continued. “You know what we used to do in the old
days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a
little differently than we do now.”
In other words, the President of the United States had just issued a veiled threat against the life of a whistleblower, sounding like his pal Putin. Or: How’s the view from that fifth floor balcony?
(See, for example, the story: “Why Do Russian Journalists Keep Falling?”)
 |
Whistleblowers are at risk in most countries. (And Trump would like it that way here.) |
*
The White House caves.
MEANWHILE, the White House made the decision to cave in the face of an impeachment threat. Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire would be allowed to appear on Capitol Hill. The whistleblower’s complaint would be made available to lawmakers from both parties.
Lawmakers’ reactions fractured along party lines. There was a difference of opinion about how the whistleblower law should be interpreted. The purpose of the law has never been in doubt. It was passed to shield whistleblowers (see Trump rant, above) and ensure that intelligence vital to U.S. interests would not be suppressed. The law requires that a complaint be filed only where “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law of Executive order, or deficiency” may have occurred. The Inspector General is to decide within fourteen days whether a complaint is credible and of urgent concern. If the IG so decides, within seven days the complaint “shall be” forwarded to congressional oversight committees.
That’s
the law; and IG Michael Atkinson – remember, a Trump pick for the job – followed the
law all the way.
Once matters passed from his hands all progress ground to a halt. As the story plays out, we learn that Maguire received Atkinson’s findings in early August, but decided not to forward them to Congress. Having agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, he told lawmakers he had been informed by White House lawyers and the Department of Justice that in this particular case, different rules applied. This complaint fell outside his purview as DNI.
Here, even the chronology seemed suspect. Dan Coats, who served as Trump’s first DNI, resigned effective August 15, after a series of disagreements with the president. His second in command, Sue Gordon, a woman with decades of experience in intelligence work, who normally would have been elevated to take his place, was told she would be passed over for the job.
At Coats’ urging, she resigned.
Trump then selected Rep. John Ratcliffe, a man of no intelligence experience, to replace Coats. Even Republicans balked at the choice. No dice, they said.
Trump’
second pick for the job was Maguire, which meant Maguire had served as Acting
Director for less than 24 hours, when, on August 16, the whistleblower
complaint landed square on his desk.
*
Maguire says the whistleblower followed the rules.
SO, what did we learn from Maguire’s testimony Thursday? Ratcliffe – yeah, that guy, again – Rep. Jordan (him too) – Rep. Devin Nunes (of course) – and most Republican members on the three committees involved – were mad as hell, about god only knows what. Genital warts?
The 1919 Black Sox Scandal?
I admit, watching Maguire testify on television, I muted those three whenever they started to rant.
When I did listen, I learned that Maguire believed the whistleblower followed the rules and acted in good faith. He said so repeatedly under oath, when asked by Democrats and any Republicans who were not suffering from rabies.
It
was also clear that Maguire knew he was in a tough spot. He was trying not to
say more than he knew, while also avoiding any appearance of an intent to hide
relevant facts. The problem was that he had the unenviable task of explaining
why he followed directives from the White House and Department of Justice,
which seemed to serve only the president’s interests.
Democrats brought up an array of salient points. First, the whistleblower claimed he or she was not alone in his or her concerns. “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign government [emphasis added] in the 2020 U.S. election,” the complaint read. That claim was supported by the call memorandum now in lawmakers’ hands.
Second, “The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved.” By this point, Giuliani had already admitted his involvement.
The Department of Justice, however, issued a blanket denial, as far as Mr. Barr was concerned:
The president has not spoken
with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to
former Vice President Biden or his son. The president has not asked the
attorney general to contact Ukraine – on this or any other matter. The attorney
general has not communicated with Ukraine – on this or any other subject. Nor
has the attorney general discussed this matter, or anything relating to
Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.
If
the whistleblower was “wrong” about Barr, the whistleblower was wrong because
he or she believed Trump. Trump says during the call that Barr will call
Zelensky or Zelensky can call Barr.
____________________
“These actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.”
Whistleblower
complaint
____________________
The whistleblower complaint goes on to say that “over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort.”
He/she does admit, up front, on page one of the complaint, “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleague’s accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.” The whistleblower noted that his or her concerns related to a pattern of conduct that was “flagrant” and that “these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.”
The complainant focused on the July 25 call, although there
were hints of other questionable calls. “Multiple White House officials with
direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of
pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his
personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to
take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.”
The whistleblower accurately described key elements of the conversation. He or she went on to warn,
The White House officials who
told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the
phone call. They told me that there was already a “discussion ongoing” with
White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in
the officials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his
office for personal gain.
White House officials were described as having known from the moment Trump hung up the phone that what the president had said posed serious problems. A coverup commenced.
“In the days following,” the whistleblower alleged,
I learned from multiple U.S.
officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all
records of the phone call, especially the word-for-word transcript of the call
that was produced – as is customary – by the White House Situation Room [this
word-for-word transcript has still never been seen]. This set of actions
underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had
transpired in the call.
The complaint further stated that “White House lawyers” directed workers to load the transcript in a system “used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature.”
According to the whistleblower, cleanup commenced the next
day. U.S. envoys met with “Ukrainian leadership” to advise them on “how to
‘navigate the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy [alternate
spelling].’” The whistleblower says he/she learned that on “about 2 August, Mr.
Giuliani traveled to Madrid to meet with one of President Zelenskyy’s advisers,
Andrey Yermak.” This meeting was a “direct follow-up” to the July 25 call. “Separately,”
the complaint alleged, “multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had
reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelenskyy advisers.”
A lengthy section of the complaint focused on Ukrainian politics. And to be frank, in a perfect world – where every swamp had been drained – Hunter Biden would not be trading on his name, doing work for a gas company in the Ukraine, that company tied to an oligarch, and young Biden earning top dollar – even if his actions were, strictly speaking, legal.
What Hunter Biden or his father may or may not have done was irrelevant to any defense of the president. If young Biden had had sex with a llama, it would not negate the fact Trump had asked for Ukrainian assistance in hopes of winning the next election. If Father Biden had dressed up in high heels and embarked on a career as a transgender stripper, it would not justify Trump in directing his personal lawyer to put the squeeze on an allied nation in order to compel that nation’s help. Finally, neither former Vice President Biden nor his son played any role, even if it could be proven that both cheated at checkers, in what the whistleblower said was a wide-ranging White House effort to cover the president’s ass.
And need we repeat: The whistleblower was accusing the President of the United States of putting U.S. national security at risk.
For personal gain.
Willingness to “play ball.”
The whistleblower further alluded to the fact that on May 9, 2019, The New York Times reported that Giuliani was planning a trip to the Ukraine to press authorities to investigate Biden and his son. The next day, Trump said he’d talk to Rudy about the trip. On May 11, in the glare of the free press, Rudy decided he didn’t want to go to the Ukraine after all. “Starting in mid-May,” the whistleblower complaint continues, “I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani’s circumvention of national security decision making processes.” Two U.S. diplomats, Kurt Volker and Gordan Sondland, spoke with Giuliani “in an attempt to ‘contain the damage’” he was doing to U.S. national security.
“During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or a phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy,” the whistleblower continued, “would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to ‘play ball’ on the issues that had been publicly aired by…Mr. Giuliani.” This, the complaint explained, was the general state of affairs from late May to July.
We soon learned from other sources, that Rudy talked “maybe ten times” to one Ukrainian official. On June 13, President Trump had made it clear in an interview with George Stephanopoulos (see: 9/25/19), “that he would accept damaging information on his political rivals from a foreign government.” Eight days later, Giuliani tweeted that it was time for Ukraine to investigate “alleged Biden bribery” and “how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Clinton people.”
Meanwhile, for reasons unknown outside of a tight White House
circle, military aid to Ukraine was cut off.
“According to multiple White House officials I spoke with,” the whistleblower continued, “the [full] transcript of the President’s call with President Zelenskyy was placed in a computer system” where “codeword-level intelligence information” belonged. White House officials voiced concerns that this was “an abuse of the system.” The whistleblower further stated,
According to White House officials
I spoke with, this was ‘not the first time’ under this Administration that a
Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for
the purpose of protecting politically sensitive – rather than national security
sensitive – information.
Finally, the whistleblower noted, on “July 18, an Office of Management Budget (OMB) official informed Departments and Agencies that the President ‘earlier this month’ had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.” No one outside the White House knew why. In two meetings “on 23 July and 26 July,” OMB officials stated explicitly that,
instructions to suspend this
assistance had come directly from the President, but they were still unaware of
a policy rationale. As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some
Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not
know how or when they learned of it.
And so – the complaint.
*
“Rudy putting shit in Trump’s head.”
AS DARKNESS SETTLED over Washington D.C. on September 26, signs of unease among Republicans multiplied. Vermont Gov. Phil Scott and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker announced support for an impeachment inquiry. When asked why Baker felt an investigation was necessary, he replied succinctly, that he had seen how Trump conducted himself over the last three years.
On the other hand, Rudy kept Rudy-ing. He
wasn’t apologizing for anything. He got busy
on the phone. “It is impossible that the whistle-blower is a hero and I’m not,”
he shouted at Elaina Plott, a reporter for The Atlantic. “These
morons – when this is over, I will be the hero!” He was the one exposing
corruption! He wasn’t the guy doing the corrupting, even if it seemed that way.
“I’m not acting as a lawyer,” he insisted, in full hero mode. “I’m acting as
someone who has devoted most of his life to straightening out government.
Anything I did should be praised.”
According to Plott, not everyone agreed. A former White House official told her for the story that this whole Ukrainian mess was Giuliani’s fault: “Rudy putting shit in Trump’s head.”
A current U.S. official agreed, informing the Washington Post, “Rudy – he did all of this. This shitshow that we’re in – it’s him injecting himself into the process.”
The critical point was that Trump was happy to go along, if not lead the way. And you can’t impeach Rudy just because he’s a fool.
But you can impeach Trump.
With night falling, NBC was reporting “total panic” in the White House, as aides struggled to chart a course. One official described the mood inside as “shell-shocked.” And there was fear that as pressure mounted, Trump might become even more “unmanageable” than normal.
There appears to be rising “anxiety, unease, and
concern” – as one person
close to the White House described the mood in the West Wing – that the whistleblower’s allegations could seriously wound the president and some of those around
him.
“There’s
not a lot of confidence that there’s no there there,” this person said.
No comments:
Post a Comment