Donald Trump

[ArmChairCivvy]

CNN has picked some key points from the ex-ambassador's interview with the Congress, like

"Trump pressured State Department to remove her

Yovanovitch: "I met with the Deputy Secretary of State, who informed me of the curtailment of my term. He said that the President had lost confidence in me and no longer wished me to serve as his ambassador. He added that there had been a concerted campaign against me, and that the Department had been under pressure from the President to remove me since the Summer of 2018. He also said that I had done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause."

Context: Yovanovitch sheds new light on her conversations with US Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan. Yovanovitch's testimony gives the impression that Sullivan was not onboard with the decision to remove her from Ukraine and that the decision came directly from the President.
Democratic lawmakers will surely want to talk Sullivan him about these conversations. Trump announced his intention Friday to nominate Sullivan as US ambassador to Russia."

... an innovative way to try and get a witness out of the way

[SDL]

It's starting to sound like the Turkish military are not only deliberately targeting US troops in Syria (they were 'warned' where they'd be for the US troops safety) but it's starting to become apparent that they're executing Kurdish politicians.

Trump has helped Turkey commit a war crime... and it may be over a goddamn hotel!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now we know why Bolton suddenly "had to go"; the Guardian let's us into the "secret"

The revelation of Bolton’s involvement in the effort to block a shadow foreign policy aimed at Trump’s political benefit emerged from congressional testimony given by his former aide, Fiona Hill, the former top Russia expert in the White House. Hill, the British-born former senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council, spoke to three House committees for 10 hours.
[...]
Hill said Bolton instructed her to tell the National Security Council’s attorney that Giuliani was acting in concert with White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney [ who is also the budget coordinator, i.e. had the handle on the monies already authorised for Ukraine's assistance with Javelins and all that], in a rogue operation with legal implications.

“I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Bolton instructed Hill to tell the NSC lawyer, according to her testimony.

She said that Bolton had told her on an earlier occasion: “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

[SDL]

Things are starting to fall apart on Trump's bandwagon

[ArmChairCivvy]

Look what happened when someone said about 'things' how they are/ really work:

" a senior Justice Department official responded: "If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us."

Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow told CNN's Jim Acosta: "The legal team was not involved in the acting chief of staff's press briefing."
- too bad, that, isn't it
- anyway, the chief of staff is also the budget director... fingers in many pies

[ArmChairCivvy]

And when you don't get any updates for a while (like a day ) then you know that the 'damn' is about to burst:
Pelosi says Mulvaney made a 'confession' to wrongdoing
- By Ted Barrett, CNN

[ArmChairCivvy]

So, the gaps in the paper trail have been filled by the latest testimony (which makes the ambassador into a "radical unelected bureaucrat"... can't fire two of them, in a row )

[ArmChairCivvy]

While in DC they don't seem to talk about anything else than process, here https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/17/poli ... index.html is a summary of how a retired admiral sees Trump's track record. Not just any admiral, but a former Navy SEAL who led US Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Speaking at the Sea Island Summit, an event in Georgia organised by the conservative Washington Examiner, Kelly [the former Chief of Staff] said that on leaving, he had said: “Whatever you do, don’t hire a ‘yes man’ – someone who won’t tell you the truth.”

“Don’t do that,” the retired marine general said he had told Trump. “Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached.”["]

and (with the likelihood that the current stand-in will get charged himself, too) the Guardian prints the response from
"The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, [who] confirmed Trump’s response: “I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.”["]

[ArmChairCivvy]

NYT keeps the score:
Nov. 4, 2019
Updated 1:25 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — House impeachment investigators began moving witness testimony into the open for the first time on Monday, releasing transcripts of private questioning taken last month with the former United States ambassador to Ukraine and a top diplomat who advised Secretary of State Mike Pompeo[ in a way that was contrary to the actions taken].

[ArmChairCivvy]

Mulvaney called (...poor guy):
- Chief of Staff (knows everything, ahead of everyone)
- and at the same time the budget coordinator ... no way he can deny knowing about the freezing of the funds

[ArmChairCivvy]

CNN (who else ) today report that
"The list of nonprofits that the judge approved to receive Trump's $2 million include the Army Emergency Relief, Children's Aid Society, City Meals-on-Wheels, Give an Hour, Martha's Table, United Negro College Fund, United Way of Capital Area and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Those organizations will also receive equal portions of the charity's remaining liquid assets, which total roughly $1.8 million, according to the judge's order."

... the whole thing " to resolve a [2018] civil lawsuit alleging the foundation unlawfully coordinated with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign."

[ArmChairCivvy]

His 'fixer' in jail... now the 'dirty trickster' convicted; who from the entourage will be next?

"Donald Trump's former adviser Roger Stone has been found guilty on all seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and lying to Congress."

[ArmChairCivvy]

As per CNN today (and nothing new) "Pompeo should be a central figure in all this. He was on the call with Trump and Zelensky. He's in charge of most of the witnesses, including Sondland. But he's stayed extremely quiet"

What is more interesting is the exact timing, now unfolding through the more detailed testimonies (including many from the State Dept)
- Trump to Sondland "I want nothing" as in starting to cover his tracks: " Trump made those comments just as Congress was being made aware of the whistleblower report. And, coincidentally, it's the day national security adviser John Bolton offered to resign"
- walking away, as opposed to Pompeo deciding to sit tight (as in a fox hole, knowing the artillery strike was about to come in, in the form of close scrutiny from the law makers). Aside from the rivalry between the two, the depth of prior involvement must have been [allegedly] a factor in deciding on almost opposite courses by the two?
... the plot thickens

[ArmChairCivvy]

And a good thing, too, that I had just finished sipping my coffee when I read this, a judgement around the efforts to gag current and former WH/ Administration employees' testimonies:

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings. This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.

Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life."

While the above was in the context of removing "the block" from just one individual, we do get a sneaky preview of what the House Intelligence Committee is writing into the report detailing its findings of the investigation for the Judiciary Committee:
["]"We will be forced to infer from this obstruction that the testimony of these witnesses would tend to incriminate the President further since he would have encouraged—rather than blocked—the testimony of senior officials like Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former National Security Adviser Ambassador John Bolton, if he believed it would somehow be helpful to him. The fact that the President has uniformly instructed all executive branch agencies and senior officials to obstruct the investigation further demonstrates consciousness of guilt ..."
- a shot over the bow for those individuals who have been called as witnesses but will likely [allegedly] turn out to be decision makers in the chain, as well... to be thrown under the bus, may be... if they don't have 'insurance' for such an eventuality. Giuliani, on his part, says that he's got some , but then again he used to work in that part of town where witnesses routinely received worse treatment: cemento shoes, as they say there

[ArmChairCivvy]

Foreign Affairs (the esteemed publication) quietly acknowledges that Trump-ism in foreign affairs is based on the same principle that Putin's Russia has brought back in its near-abroad, and Xi's China in the SCS... if not further afield, yet:
"Foreigners will yield to the demands of the strong leader of the strongest nation."
... regardless what the underlying aims of those demands are (more of that in the article https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... mpeachment)

But the quaint fact, or call it a backgrounder, that makes the article interesting is the rationale why impeachment is in the Constitution, in the first place:
"James Madison argued for its inclusion in the Constitution because the president “might betray his trust to foreign powers,” and contended at the Virginia ratifying convention that, under the new Constitution, a president could be impeached for advocating a treaty that “violated the interest of the nation.”

James Iredell, one of the first Supreme Court justices, said at the North Carolina ratifying convention that a president should be impeachable for “giving false information to the Senate” about a treaty pending ratification.

These remarks about treaties may seem quaint today, but the founding generation understood foreign relations primarily in terms of formal treaty relationships between nation-states. They gave the power of treaty ratification to the Senate because they believed that doing so would place the legislature at the heart of foreign policy decisions. Thus, declarations that a president could be impeached for impropriety in relation to the treaty process were expressions of the same fundamental view held by Parliament: the legislature is the final guardian of the nation’s interests and impeachment should serve as a check on presidential misbehavior in the international realm."
- italics added

[ArmChairCivvy]

Another 9/11 in the making, though with a different dates notation:


What did Trump know and when did he know it?

CNN has picked up a New York Times report ( from their Tuesday night) that suggests Trump was briefed on the existence of the whistleblower in late August.

"That makes it all the more important to take his actions in early September in context. For instance, when all these things happened, Trump already knew about the whistleblower:

September 9:

The inspector general for the intelligence community informed Congress that the whistleblower existed.

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, raised concerns about the appearance of trading investigations for aid. Trump pushed US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland to claim there was no quid pro quo.
- Separately , John Bolton offered his resignation.

September 11:

The aid is released."

[sea_eagle]

Just announced, Trump to reduce contribution to NATO budget. NATO agreed to a new cost sharing formula which means European and Canadian funding increases while US funding is reduced.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/poli ... index.html

he Trump administration has moved to substantially cut its contribution to NATO's collective budget

Previously the US provided some 22% of NATO's direct funding, which covers the cost of maintaining the NATO headquarters, joint security investments and some combined military operations.

US defense officials tell CNN that the Trump administration sought to reduce its contribution to about 16%, bringing it in line with Germany's

[ArmChairCivvy]

On the plus side: NATO officials including the Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have also credited Trump for the rise in spending, with an extra $100 billion spent since 2014 but have also acknowledged the increased threat from Russia following its seizure of Crimea and other factors have helped to prompt the increase.
- I hope in the upcoming London meeting the Mattis 30-30-30 formula will be reviewed. Not to change it, but to see how close to it the real situation is

On the minus side: Trump was so miffed about having to release the Ukraine aid... that he made others to pay for it
"the money saved by the US will help fund other US military and security efforts in Europe, including programs in countries such as non-NATO members Ukraine and Georgia"

[ArmChairCivvy]

Symbolism in the date set as a deadline , by lawmakers to Trump: The day preceding Pearl Harbour Day.

CNN has taken the trouble to put together the game changing testimonies, the top picks from within each transcript https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/poli ... index.html

[ArmChairCivvy]

More symbolism with the dates: a Xmas prezzie?

CNN writes today " Once [if?] the inquiry moves to the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, will be steering the process, giving the White House more control. Last week, McConnell's deputies -- including Mike Lee of Utah, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas -- met with Cipollone [the President's Counsel] to begin discussing the framework of the trial if the House impeaches Trump, which it is expected to do by Dec. 25."

[ArmChairCivvy]

This could be called 'mopping up'
" Department of Justice Inspector General issued a massive report about whether the FBI spied on President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, as he has repeatedly alleged.

After reviewing a million documents and conducting more than 100 interviews, the watchdog concluded the 2016 investigation into Trump campaign aides who were in contact with Russians was justified and properly begun."
but 'not so fast' says the man installed as the head of DoJ by Trump (Barr), who is going to... start his own investigation
- a flanking movement, then, in the broader battle?

[ArmChairCivvy]

At least the second most voted alternative - at the top of the page - seems to become true

"The House has yet to set a specific date for the full impeachment vote, but two Democratic leadership aides said it could happen on Wednesday."

as the wording for that choice (with 30%) does not say anything about the outcome, e.g. 'acquitted'

It is going to be amusing, regardless. As a Fox News poll found that regardless of their views on impeachment, 53% of [registered] voters say Trump abuses his power, 48% say he obstructed Congress and 45% say he committed bribery, Trump then tweeted yesterday that 'Fox News polls are "always inaccurate" and "heavily weighted toward Dems"[']

[ArmChairCivvy]

Trump letter:

"By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy."... err

And then the next 'best bit' - followed by a CNN comment:
"It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!"
- Nothing is ever Trump's fault. Ever.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Star witnesses - if there will be any that is - declared: on the four-person Senate trial witness list the other three are acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey (Mulvaney was double-hatted as his acting boss) and White House aide Robert Blair, who is Mulvaney's national security adviser [CNN has picked up].

The fourth one, a certain National Security Advisor fired by a tweet has a book coming out before the elections, so he will testify if called (a nice little advert), or, just tell his story in the book
- the depth of 'secrets' coming out might be 'better' under oath, though