Showing posts with label Elaine McCusker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elaine McCusker. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

December 29, 2019: Trump on Ukraine - “They are all corrupt, they are all terrible people.”

 

12/29/19: The New York Times gathers up documentation, in part the result of a Freedom of Information Act request, and analyzes what it finds. You know: the “Enemies of the People” doing what journalists do. Reporters assemble a detailed outline of behind the scenes maneuvers by members of the Trump administration in an effort to block military assistance to Ukraine. 

And: not get caught.



Trump puts self-interests above U.S. and Ukrainian security concerns.


 

____________________ 

The scheme to hold up aid to Ukraine is hatched.

____________________

 

 

May 23: The scheme to hold up aid to Ukraine is hatched in the spring. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Mulvaney aide Robert B. Blair, and the president met in the Oval Office. Trump insists he does not want to give the Ukrainians any aid, saying, “They are all corrupt, they are all terrible people.”  

(Leave it to Trump to make insulting generalizations about entire religious groups and nationalities.)

 

At the time the United States was planning to provide $391 million in military aid to the Ukrainians. That included $250 million allocated by the Pentagon for sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, grenade launchers, medical supplies, and night vision goggles. The State Department would send $141 million in aid “to buy night-vision devices, radar systems and yet more rocket-grenade launchers.” 

Neither Congress nor the Ukrainian government was notified about the plan to put a hold on the aid. 


June 19: Blair called Russell T. Vought, the acting head of the Office of Management and Budget or OMB. “We need to hold it up,” he said, meaning aid to Ukraine. The Times quotes officials who had been briefed. 


June 27: In a newly revealed email to Blair, Mick Mulvaney writes, “I’m just trying to tie up some loose ends. Did we ever find out about the money for Ukraine and whether we can hold it back?” 

Blair knew the House and Senate had both passed the aid package. It could be done; but it wouldn’t be pretty if word leaked. “Expect Congress to become unhinged,” he said. 

Mark Sandy, a veteran of the War in Afghanistan and a career official, was in charge of the flow of money. After learning of the president’s June 19 decision to hold up aid, Mr. Sandy contacted the Pentagon. Sandy later testified as part of the impeachment inquiry. He told lawmakers that he repeatedly pressed Michael P. Duffey, a political appointee to OMB, for an explanation. Why had Trump decided to hold up aid?

 

Duffey “didn’t provide an explicit response on the reason,” Sandy explained. “He simply said we need to let the hold take place – and I’m paraphrasing here – and then revisit this issue with the president.” 

Several political appointees insisted it would be legal to hold aid until September 30, when the fiscal year ended. Congress had not been notified by the State Department about the plan to provide $141 million in assistance. So, it would be easy to hold that money  – simply by telling State not to notify Congress. “But the Pentagon has already certified that Ukraine was cleaning up corruption and the aid should go forward.” Sandy told lawmakers that Mr. Duffey suggested adding a footnote to routine budget documents, saying aid was delayed “for a brief time.” 

This would be good for up to four days. 

Mr. Sandy later testified that in his twelve years at OMB, he had never seen anything like this.

 

The Times explained: 

And there was a problem with this maneuver: Mr. Sandy was concerned it might violate a law called the Impoundment Control Act that protects Congress’s spending power and prohibits the administration from blocking disbursement of the aid unless it notifies Congress.

 

“I asked about the duration of the hold and was told there was not clear guidance on that,” Mr. Sandy testified. “So that is what prompted my concern.”

 

Mr. Duffey continued to skirt the rules by inserting footnotes in budget documents every few days, holding aid that way. Mr. Sandy made his concerns about the legality of this hold known. The White House responded by removing control of the funding from his office and handing the reins to Duffey.

 

July 18: The story begins to leak. During a conference call, a number of diplomats and U.S. officials learn from an unidentified voice at OMB that the aid has been on hold since at least June 19. One or more persons were concerned enough that day to make four phone calls to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

As the Times notes, Mulvaney has said that he learned about the contents of the president’s July 25 call weeks later. According to multiple witnesses, National Security Adviser John Bolton complained in a July 10 meeting with representatives of the Ukraine, Ambassador Sondland and others, that he wanted no part of the “drug deal” that Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Giuliani were cooking up. We now know, according to Sondland, that Mulvaney had told him to promise a White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky if the investigations happened.

That is: the first of two quid pro quos was in play no later than July 10. 

The Ukrainians continued to resist being dragged into U.S. politics; but they were increasingly worried.

 

July 25: President Trump called President Zelensky; and as we all know (except the 40% of Americans who love Trump and will never read the White House call memorandum), Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to “do us a favor.” That favor: investigate Burisma and Hunter and Joe Biden. 

That call ends at 9:33 a.m. 

At 11:04 a.m., Duffey sends a request to the Pentagon. The president wants the military aid held up. “Given the sensitive nature of the request,” he tells his contact on the other end, “I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.” That note was revealed as part of a Freedom of Information request filed by the Center for Public Integrity, which later passed on the documents it had received to the Times.

(If you’re getting the feeling Duffey knew laws were being broken, you’re right.)

 

August 2: We know that Rudy Giuliani, acting in his capacity as Trump’s personal lawyer, met with Andrey Yermak, a top aide to President Zelensky, in Madrid. The Ukrainians are well aware of what Trump wants. 

Investigations. 

Of the Bidens. 

No one else. Only Hunter and Joe. That is the second quid pro quo. 

Records show that another footnote was added to budget documents that day, calling for a “brief pause” in aid till August 5. 


August 9: A new problem for Trump and his cronies arises. Elaine McCusker, a top budget official at the Pentagon, notifies OMB that either $61 million will have to be spent by the following Monday, or it will be lost. According to analysis by the Times and information from other sources, “The budget office saw her threat as a ploy to force release of the aid.” 

Mr. Duffey continues to insert footnotes in budget documents every four days. 

August 10-11: President Trump spends another weekend at one of his private golf resorts, this time in Bedminster, N.J.

 

August 12: 

In a previously unreported sequence of events, Mr. Mulvaney worked to schedule a call for that day with Mr. Trump and top aides involved in the freeze, including Mr. Vought, Mr. Bolton and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel. But they waited to set a final time because Mr. Trump had a golf game planned for Monday morning with John Daly, the flamboyant professional golfer, and they did not know how long it would take.

 

Late that morning, Ms. McCusker checked in with the budget office. “Hey, any update for us?” she asked in an email obtained by Center for Public Integrity.

 

Mr. Duffey was still waiting for an answer as of late that afternoon. “Elaine – I don’t have an update,” he wrote back. “I am attempting to get one.”

 

The call involving the various officials and the president never took place. Later that day a whistleblower filed an official complaint.

 

August 16: Mr. Bolton personally appeals to President Trump for a release of the aid. He makes it clear that the National Security Council, Pentagon and State Department all back the aid. 

By now, the assistance has been delayed at least 58 days.

 

____________________ 

“I have no doubt about why the president allowed the assistance to go forward. He got caught.” 

Chairman Eliot L. Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee

____________________

 

 

August 28: Politico reveals for the first time, publicly, that the aid has been frozen. At that point, the delay is at least 70 days. 

Late August: Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Bolton have a “previously undisclosed Oval Office meeting with the president.” The three men try but fail to convince him to release the aid. “This is in America’s interest,” Mr. Bolton is said to have told Mr. Trump. Secretary Esper assured the president: “This defense relationship, we have gotten some really good benefits from it.” Knowing that dollars and cents mean a great deal to Trump, he pointed out that most of the money was being spent on equipment made in the United States. 

It is reported, and here Trump fans might find a fig leave of cover, that Trump complained that other European nations weren’t doing enough to help Ukraine. He told his top officials that he didn’t believe Mr. Zelensky’s promises of reform. “Ukraine is a corrupt country,” he insisted. “We are pissing away our money.” 

The aid remained blocked.

 

August 31: Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican, arranges a call with the president. Johnson had been told days earlier by Mr. Sondland that the aid would be unblocked only if the Ukrainians gave Mr. Trump the investigations he wanted. 

Johnson asks Trump directly: Is the aid held up until the Ukrainians agree to pursue the investigations Trump wants? Trump replies with a string of expletives and says there is no such demand.

 

September 1: Trump is scheduled to attend an 80th anniversary meeting of the start of World War II in Poland. With Hurricane Dorian headed for the U.S., he decides to stay home. VP Pence is sent instead. In a private meeting, President Zelensky has a chance to ask Mr. Pence about the aid. 

Sondland later tells lawmakers that the same day, he had a private meeting with Mr. Yermak and told him: no investigations, no aid. 

The delay has now lasted for 74 days, or more. 


September 9: Congress has now received the whistleblower complaint. For some reason it had been held up, contrary to U.S. law. Three House committees announce they will join in opening an investigation. 

Aid has now been delayed for 82 days, at least.

 

September 10: Mr. Duffey sends a long email to Ms. McCusker, the top budge official at the Pentagon. It would seem clear he is covering his exposed posterior. He insists that the Defense Department had the authority to do more to ensure that the aid could be released to Ukraine all along, and certainly by the congressionally mandated deadline of September 30. 

Forty-three minutes later, McCusker, with whom Duffey had been arguing all summer, sent a stinging reply. “You can’t be serious. I am speechless [emphasis added].” 


September 11: Sen. Rob Portman and the president talk by phone. Trump complains again that other nations are not doing enough to help Ukraine. “Sure, I agree with you,” the senator says. “But we should not hold that against Ukraine. We need to release these funds.” 

Trump reverses himself and aid is unfrozen later that day.

 

Here, the Times gives the last word to Chairman Eliot L. Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I have no doubt about why the president allowed the assistance to go forward,” he says. 

After 84 days, or more, “He got caught.” (See: 1/2/20, for more on the hold on Ukrainian military aid.)

 

* 

GOP Sen. James Lankford admits what most Americans have already figured out for themselves. 

On Face the Nation, he says: “I don’t think that President Trump as a person is a role model for a lot of different youth. That’s just me personally,” he says. “I don’t like the way that he tweets, some of the things that he says, his word choices at times are not my word choices. He comes across with more New York City swagger than I do from the Midwest and definitely not the way that I’m raising my kids.” 

Let’s be clear. “New York swagger” is fine. 

Trump is an asshole, and a liar, too.



Would you want your children to behave like the president?


Tuesday, April 19, 2022

January 2, 2020: Unredacted Emails Reveal Trump' Was behind Illegal Effort to Stall Ukraine Aid

 

1/2/20: A trove of unredacted emails, which the Trump administration had been working hard to keep hidden, leaks to JustSecurity.org. 

As many Americans know, the free press has been doing its duty, digging up details of the Ukraine story since July. Meanwhile, Trump’s attacks on the free press have become increasingly strident. Fox News has continued to amplify and second the president, a precedent you might think they would be reluctant to enshrine, considering the next man in the Oval Office could be a nut from a Democratic tree.



Pentagon officials questioned the legality of the hold on aid. 

 

____________________ 

On the Pentagon end, there was immediate doubt that the hold was legal.

____________________

  

In recent weeks the free press revealed that 91 minutes after Trump hung up the phone and ended his “perfect” call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, Michael Duffey, a political appointee working in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB),  contacted the Pentagon. Duffey informed officials that the hold on military aid would continue. 

The unredacted emails prove that on the Pentagon end, there was immediate doubt that the hold was legal. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires that money appropriated by Congress be spent as intended, unless the executive branch provides notification and explains why funds should not be so spent.

 

The free press had already reported that Duffey was worried enough about the legality of such a move to ask the folks at the Pentagon to keep it quiet. (See: 12/23/19.) Now we know what Elaine McCusker, recipient of his emails, thought about such maneuvering. McCusker asked Duffey if he had gone through the Defense Department’s general counsel with his request. 

And here, as it always does where Team Trump is involved, the plot curdles. When reporters initially requested these emails, as they may under the Freedom of Information Act (passed in 1967 and intended to increase government transparency), the White House would not give them up. 

A court battle ensued. Judges sided with the free press. So far, so good. 

When reporters finally got a peak at the documents, they found they had been heavily redacted. For some strange reason, McCusker’s first response, her question regarding the legality of the hold, was blotted out in the copy of the email that the administration coughed up.

 

Now that the unredacted emails have leaked, we know that on July 26, the day after Trump’s “perfect call,” a Pentagon team of Ukraine experts agreed unanimously that the military aid be released. A readout of their discussion was sent to Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Included was this admission: “OMB noted that the President’s direction via the Chief of Staff in early July was to suspend security assistance to Ukraine…” More than $350 million in military and other aid was on delay. 

Thanks again to the free press, we had previously learned that Mr. Duffey managed to delay the aid by simply inserting footnotes in lengthy Department of Defense (DOD) documents. He hoped no one would notice. 

His first footnote put a hold on aid till August 5.

 

McCusker, whose job at the Pentagon involved oversight of billions in spending, did notice. She started asking questions. On August 6, Duffey told her he was going to use the same ploy. Footnote #2 was coming. McCusker inquired: Who had he contacted to ensure that this move was legal? 

“Good catch,” he responded. Duffey asked her who he should contact; but there’s no record he contacted anyone. 

On August 9, McCusker notified Duffey and other White House officials that the Pentagon was running out of time to implement the aid package and spend the allocated funds before September 30, the end of Fiscal Year 2020. Should they fail, they would be breaking the law.

When the White House released the emails, this warning was redacted for some unfathomable reason.

 

As time ticked away, nervousness at the Pentagon increased. McCusker warned the White House again on August 12. With each passing day, she said, it was harder to guarantee that defense contractors could meet obligations in time for funds to be spent and for Ukrainian allies to get the military assistance. 

A third footnote extended the delay to August 26. McCusker emailed Duffey. “What is the status of the impoundment paperwork?” she wondered. Had the White House prepared notification for Congress? 

Duffey responded: “I am not tracking that. Is that something you are expecting from OMB?”  

McCusker was blunt: “Yes, it is now necessary legal teams were discussing last week.” 

When the White House originally released the emails, McCusker’s responses were again blacked out. 

 

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.” 

Ms. McCusker was blunt in follow-up emails also initially redacted. She insisted on knowing, had the OMB notified the Department of Defense, officially telling them to hold the aid? “If so, when, and what was the reason given [emphasis added throughout, unless otherwise noted]?” 

By August 30, military aid had been on hold since June 19, if not longer. The story was leaking. That afternoon Secretary of Defense Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with the president. They were hoping to convince him to release the aid package. Trump refused. Duffey made it clear that day, in another email to the Pentagon, who was calling the shots. 

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold,” he wrote.

 

With only a month until the end of the Fiscal Year, defense contractors, not to mention our Ukrainian allies, were asking more and more questions. On September 1, Esper’s chief of staff contacted McCusker. L3 Harris Technologies, one of the contractors affected, was waiting for payment before filling military orders. Esper’s aide wanted to know, “Why the delay?” 

McCusker said the Pentagon was in an untenable position, “made particularly difficult because OMB lawyers continue to consistently mischaracterize the process and the information we have provided. They keep repeating that this pause will not impact DOD’s ability to execute on time.” 

That line was originally redacted, too.

 

On August 27, Pentagon officials sent a one-page memo outlining their legal concerns. When the emails were released, the White House redacted the entire memo, including this: 

These footnotes [inserted by Mr. Duffey] make the affected funding legally unavailable for obligation during the period of the directed pause. As a result, we have repeatedly advised OMB officials that pauses beyond Aug. 19, 2019 jeopardize the Department’s ability to obligate USAI funding prudently and fully, consistent with the Impoundment Control Act. 

 

Any further delays, the memo continued, “will trigger the ICA’s [Impoundment Control Act] requirement to transmit to Congress a special message proposing rescission or deferral of funding for the USAI.” 

Duffey was either a slow learner, or a man who disdained legality. He went with a fourth footnote. 

On August 28 reporters for Politico blew the lid off the story. Vital aid to Ukraine was being withheld.

 

At that point, Trump administration officials realized they might need to start building a rational for their actions. We now know from leaked documents that a number of talking points (TP’s) were hashed out and circulated. The final talking point read, “No action has been taken by OMB that would preclude the obligation of these funds before the end of the fiscal year.” 

 

“McCusker says, ‘Hi.’” 

McCusker  wrote back to Duffey. “I don’t agree to the revised TPs the last one is just not accurate from a financial execution standpoint, something we have been consistently conveying for a few weeks.”  

More redactions!!! If Team Trump could have had its way, the entire record would have read: “McCusker says, ‘Hi.’” 

Once it became clear that Esper and Pompeo had failed to move the president in their August 30 meeting, McCusker sent fresh warning. That included another email to Duffey on September 7. Where was the paperwork on impoundment, she inquired? Two days later, she told Duffey that delays made it unlikely that DOD could spend $120 million of the funding. 

Duffey seemed to realize he might be breaking the law. He might get caught. He added White House lawyers to the email chain and replied to McCusker: 

As you know, the President wanted a policy process run to determine the best use of these funds, and he specifically mentioned this to the SecDef the previous week. OMB developed a footnote authorizing DoD to proceed with all processes necessary to obligate funds. If you have not taken these steps, that is contrary to OMB’s direction and was your decision not to proceed. If you are unable to obligate the funds, it will have been DoD’s decision that cause any impoundment of funds.

 

“You can’t be serious,” McCusker shot back in response. “I am speechless.” 

And let’s redact that, too!

 

* 

NOW THAT the unredacted emails have been released, we can see why. We also see why President Trump has insisted that people like Duffey and McCusker can never testify in any impeachment hearings. 

Finally, on September 11, Duffey informed McCusker that the hold had ended. She asked why. Duffey responded, “Not exactly clear but president made the decision to go. Will fill you in when I get details.” 

(Again: no record he ever got back to her on the matter.) 

The Pentagon kicked it into overdrive and almost all funds were released, save for $35.2 million, which lapsed. 

 

POSTSCRIPT: With all the focus on the president’s sleazy behavior during the Ukraine affair, it would be easy to overlook stories about his sleazy interactions with women. Once again, we have an individual willing to speak out. 

According to Courtney Friel, who was working for Fox News at the time of this alleged incident, Citizen Trump once made her an offer he thought she couldn’t refuse. She doesn’t specify when this was – around 2012 or 2013. She does note that both she and the president were married. As she relates the story, Donald called her at work. She had mentioned an interest in working as a judge on his Miss USA beauty pageant. He told her she was “the hottest one at Fox News.” 

“Though he said I couldn’t be a judge since I worked at a different network, he did ask me about my career goals and complimented my work at FNC,” Friel, 39, wrote in a sneak peek of her book shared with the Daily News.

 

“Then, out of nowhere, he said: ‘You should come up to my office sometime, so we can kiss,’” Friel claimed.

 

“‘Donald,’ I responded, ‘I believe we’re both married.’ I quickly ended the call,” she wrote.

 

“This proposition made it difficult for me to report with a straight face on Trump running for president. It infuriated me that he would call all the women who shared stories of his bold advances liars. I totally believe them,” she states in the book.

 

“At least now I can joke that I could have banged the President — but I passed,” she wrote.

 

Good choice, Ms. Friel!