Showing posts with label #Ukraine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Ukraine. Show all posts

Monday, February 10, 2020

There’s a new radiation-eating fungus strand growing at Chernobyl

welcome-pripyat-pripjat-chernobyl-image-

Five years after the nuclear explosion at Chernobyl, scientists discovered a fungi known as Cryptococcus neoformans growing in the wreckage. Humans had known about this particular strain since the late 1800s, since it’s known to cause some nasty infections in our decidedly non-fungal human bodies.

Now, after letting the fungus hang around in the radioactive wasteland for a few decades, they’ve discovered something else: that C. neoformans can actually thrive on that radiation.

From the Express:

The fungi, named Cryptococcus neoformans fungi, contains large amounts of melanin – a pigment found in skin which turns it dark.

The copious melanin levels absorb the harmful radiation, turning it into chemical energy, in the same way plants convert carbon dioxide and chlorophyll into oxygen and glucose via photosynthesis.

While the idea of a radiation-eating fungus sounds like the plot of sci-fi horror film and/or further proof that our reality is broken, some scientists actually believe this process (known as radiosynthesis) can be beneficial to humans. If harvested correctly, it could potentially be used to create a powerful sun-resistant cream to help protect astronauts from radiation; in fact, they’ve already tested it at the International Space Station. Other scientists have proposed that this fungus could help to store energy, as a biological alternative to solar panels, or somehow serve to help patients undergoing chemotherapy.

So maybe instead of a sci-fi horror film, we’re headed more towards a cool biopunk symbiote scenario? Here’s hoping, anyway.

Chernobyl news: Fungi discovered in nuclear reactor which EATS radiation [Sean Martin / Express]

Fungi found in Chernobyl feeds on radiation, could protect astronauts [Abrar Al-Heeti and Jackson Ryan / C-Net]

Image: Pxhere (Public Domain)

 

Source: https://boingboing.net/2020/02/10/theres-a-new-radiation-eatin.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Thom Dunn



! #Headlines, #Nukes, #random, #Science, #ThePlanet, #Ukraine, #WeirdNews, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Pompeo heads to Kiev, days after saying 'Americans don't f****** care about Ukraine'

Pompeo.jpg

Analysis: Donald Trump’s closest lieutenant has bridges to build when he arrives in Ukraine on Thursday

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pompeo-zelensky-kiev-trump-impeachment-news-ukraine-a9305256.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Oliver Carroll



! #Headlines, #politics, #Republicans, #Trending, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Video appears to show Trump ordering associates to 'get rid of' US ambassador to Ukraine

Yovanovitch.jpg

Trump says after lavish dinner: ‘This is all sort of, like, off the record, right?’

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-ukraine-ambassador-fire-marie-yovanovitch-leve-parnas-latest-edited-a9302491.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Kenneth P Vogel, Ben Protess



! #Headlines, #Corruption, #ImpeachTrump, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #Video, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Friday, January 24, 2020

Trump recording: New audio allegedly captures president demanding Yovanavitch be fired, report claims

AFP-1O90MX.jpg

ABC News says president can be heard saying ‘take her out’ in 2018 audio

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-recording-yovanavitch-fired-ukraine-ambassador-impeachment-trial-a9300851.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Alex Woodward



! #Headlines, #Corruption, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #TrumperTantrum, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin heavily investigated Burisma, but media ate up Biden’s story he didn’t fight corruption – documentary

The Ukrainian prosecutor who Joe Biden pushed to oust had six cases against Burisma but they fizzled out after he left, a new documentary shows challenging the narrative by the former vice president that the media failed to check.

When Joe Biden lobbied Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to replace Viktor Shokin with Yuriy Lutsenko in 2015, his entourage claimed that Shokin had failed to thoroughly investigate corruption, and by pushing for his replacement “saint” Biden even acted against his family’s interests.

But the second episode of the documentary series ‘Ukrainegate: Inconvenient facts’ produced by French investigative journalist Olivier Berruyer, founder of popular anti-corruption and economics blog Les Crises, shows information that undermines this narrative.

The American media reported that Shokin’s case against Ukrainian energy company Burisma had gone “dormant,” and that by pressing for Lutsenko’s appointment, Biden was quashing corruption, even if that meant subjecting his own son to investigation in the process. Hunter Biden was on the company’s board from 2014 till 2019. However, documents collected by Berruyer show that Shokin’s Burisma probe was far from “dormant.” Shokin himself even told ABC News that his office had six investigations into Burisma open at the time of his resignation.

Lutsenko, he said, “stopped all those cases.”

ABC didn’t air this part of the interview, and the American media – including the Washington Post and the New York Times – continue to label Shokin’s investigation “dormant,” despite a number of publicly available documents showing otherwise and presented in the documentary.

Also on rt.com
FILE PHOTO: Former US Vice President Joe Biden (C) addresses the Ukrainian parliament in Kiev, Ukraine, on December 8, 2015.UkraineGate documentary shows Joe Biden’s ‘someone solid’ for Ukrainian General Prosecutor was anything but

One day after Lutsenko’s appointment, Biden called Poroshenko to welcome the announcement, and to inform him that the US would move forward with a $1 billion aid loan to Ukraine.

The cases against Burisma and its head Mykola Zlochevsky were closed under Lutsenko for various reasons. The company paid around $7 million in taxes, but it’s a fraction of the $70 million that Lutsenko himself said the company owed.

Berruyer does not claim that Shokin is an incorruptible public servant, and says that there are two hypotheses for the reasons for investigation. Either he wanted to punish criminal activity, or he may have been motivated to pursue the Burisma case to seize the assets of the company’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, before shaking the oligarch down for a bribe.

“In any case, this issue doesn’t change anything about the main point, Joe Biden’s involvement. Since the investigations were moving forward, he de facto helped the oligarch, voluntarily or not,” Berruyer said.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Source: https://www.rt.com/news/478817-biden-oust-ukrainian-prosecutor-documentary-berruyer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: RT



! #Headlines, #Corruption, #ImpeachTrump, #RT, #Trending, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Schiff says NSA, CIA withholding Ukraine info due to White House pressure

20200119-schiff-adam-gty-773.jpg

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff alleged that the NSA and CIA may be withholding documents on Ukraine from Congress due to pressure from the White House, even as the Senate prepares to move forward on the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Schiff was asked about a POLITICO report that intelligence agencies officials don’t want to testify in public during an upcoming hearing in the House Intelligence panel on global security threats, asking that the session be held in private instead. Trump slammed the intelligence chiefs one year ago for the assessment of Iran, calling them “extremely passive and naïve” on the issue.

Schiff confirmed that report, and then asserted that Ukraine-related information is being withheld from Capitol Hill. Schiff blamed the White House for the failure to turn over the information to lawmakers.

“And I’ll say something even more concerning to me, and that is the intelligence community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine,” Schiff said. “The NSA, in particular, is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine, but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial.”

Schiff added: “There are signs that the CIA may be on the same tragic course. We are counting on the intelligence community not only to speak truth to power, but to resist pressure from the administration to withhold information from Congress because the administration fears that they incriminate them.”

An Intelligence Committee official later said, “Both the NSA and CIA initially pledged cooperation, and it appears now that the White House has interceded before production of documents could begin.”

There were no details on what documents were being withheld or how this information may play into the Senate impeachment trial.

Schiff — who will serve as the lead House manager for Trump’s Senate trial — also criticized the first legal filing in the proceedings by the president’s defense team. That six-page document, released on Saturday night, called the House impeachment case against Trump a “brazen and unlawful attempt” to overturn the 2016 election.

But Schiff dismissed the filing as just a repackaging of the same GOP arguments from the House impeachment hearings.

“Well, it’s surprising in that it really doesn’t offer much new beyond the failed arguments we heard in the House,” Schiff said. “The facts aren’t seriously contested.”

All seven House managers then released a statement on Sunday morning criticizing the White House filing as well.

“Rather than honestly address the evidence against him, the President’s latest filing makes the astounding claim that pressuring Ukraine to interfere in our election by announcing investigations that would damage a political opponent and advance his reelection is the President’s way of fighting corruption. It is not,” said Schiff and Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Val Demings (Fla.), Jason Crow (Colo.), and Sylvia Garcia (Texas).

“Rather it is corruption itself, naked, unapologetic and insidious. This is precisely why the President must be removed from office.”

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/19/adam-schiff-nsa-cia-ukraine-info-100952
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: John Bresnahan



! #Headlines, #CIA, #Impeachment, #ImpeachTrump, #NSA, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Stephen Colbert explains the latest ‘ridiculously incriminating’ and deeply stupid Ukraine evidence

Stephen Colbert explains the latest 'ridiculously incriminating' and deeply stupid Ukraine evidence

Hey, remember all that impeachment stuff that seemed to be happening a whole lot towards the end of last year? Still going! 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate on Wednesday, forcing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to read the words “impeachment of Donald John Trump” over and over in the chamber.

Late Show host Stephen Colbert also took the audience through the trove of documentary evidence Democrats released, described by Vanity Fair as “ridiculously incriminating.” A whole heap of these came courtesy of Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas (aka the inspiration for beloved Soviet toy Comrade Turnip-Face, according to Colbert), who asserted that everything he did in Ukraine was with the “knowledge and consent” of the president.  Read more…

More about Ukraine, Late Night, Late Show With Stephen Colbert, Impeachment, and Lev Parnas

Source: https://mashable.com/video/stephen-colbert-late-show-lev-parnas-impeachment-evidence/
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Caitlin Welsh



! #Headlines, #Entertainment, #Mashable, #politics, #TechNews, #Television, #Trump, #Ukraine, #Video, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Russia 'hacked Ukrainian energy company' at centre of Trump impeachment scandal

burisma.jpg

The firm is linked to Joe Biden – who polls suggest is best placed to beat Trump in 2020

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-impeachment-russia-hack-ukraine-burisma-hunter-biden-kiev-a9283091.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Oliver Carroll



! #Headlines, #Hackers, #Hacks, #Impeachment, #ImpeachTrump, #politics, #Russia, #Trending, #Trump, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #WorldNews, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Trump: Giuliani ‘wants to go before Congress’ about Ukraine trip

191207-trump-ap-773.jpg

President Donald Trump on Saturday said his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani wants to testify before congressional impeachment investigators about his most recent trip to Ukraine.

“He has not told me what he found, but I think he wants to go before Congress,” Trump said to reporters at the White House before a trip to Florida. “I hear he has found plenty.”

Trump added that Giuliani will “make a report” of his findings to submit to Attorney General William Barr and Congress.

“He has a lot of good information,” Trump said. “I have not spoken to him about that information yet.”

Giuliani, who is reported to have traveled to Ukraine this week to continue his quest to dig up dirt on Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden, has come under fire during the impeachment hearings for carrying out a shadow diplomacy to aid Trump’s re-election.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the former New York City mayor met with ousted Ukrainian prosecutors Yuriy Lutsenko, Viktor Shokin and Kostiantyn H. Kulyk while taking part in the filming of a production by conservative cable news channel One America News Network.

Trump’s remarks on Giuliani’s trip come a day after the White House said it would decline to participate in the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings, which were criticized by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone as “completely baseless” in a letter to committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).

On Saturday, Trump reiterated his claim that the impeachment inquiry investigating his actions on Ukraine was “a hoax.”

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/07/trump-giuliani-ukraine-trip-077725
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: esemones@politico.com (Evan Semones)



! #Headlines, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Trump impeachment committee 'has evidence of extortion scheme involving president' and Ukraine

donald-trump-melania-trump-air-force-one

Leading Republican supporter suggests president should drop his ‘no quid pro quo’ defence

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-ukraine-extortion-eric-swalwell-latest-a9197506.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Phil Thomas



! #Headlines, #ImpeachTrump, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Friday, November 8, 2019

Trump says he will release transcript from different Ukraine call 'no one knows about'

trump-call-0.jpg

‘I had a call before this one with the president of Ukraine and I have no problem giving it to them’

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ukraine-call-transcript-release-zelensky-impeachment-biden-a9195456.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Chris Riotta



! #Headlines, #ImpeachTrump, #Trending, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Is Rudy Giuliani going to jail?

191024-giuliani-gty-773.jpg

To Democrats and other Trump critics, the scene would be almost deliciously ironic: Rudy Giuliani, the ex-prosecutor known for perfecting the “perp walk” in the 1980s, getting a taste of his own medicine.

But how much legal risk does the president’s most outspoken personal lawyer actually face?

In the wake of the recent indictment of two of Giuliani’s clients and associates over dealings related to Ukraine, the former New York mayor has faced widespread predictions that he’s on the verge of being indicted on charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent.

However, many legal experts say Giuliani needn’t be quaking in his boots — at least on that score.

While the Justice Department has embarked on an effort to crack down on violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, two recent high-profile attempts by prosecutors to advance that drive met with failure.

Early last month, a federal court jury in Washington took only four hours to acquit former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig on a charge of scheming to deceive the Justice Department’s foreign-agent registration unit about his work for Ukraine.

A few weeks later, a judge in Alexandria dealt another blow to the FARA enforcement campaign by tossing out the prosecution of Bijan Rafiekian, a Trump transition adviser and ex-business partner of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The judge said the evidence in the case, involving lobbying for Turkish interests, was insufficient to sustain a pair of guilty verdicts a jury returned in July.

As prosecutors mull whether to proceed against Giuliani, who has thus far not been charged with any crime, those well-publicized setbacks could prompt reluctance to press forward with a FARA-focused case without overwhelming evidence of guilt.

“In the wake of the outcomes in the Greg Craig and Rafiekian cases, the department might engage in additional pressure testing of the evidence in support of a potential FARA charge to maximize the likelihood of a conviction,” said David Laufman, a former federal prosecutor who stepped down last year as head of the Justice Department section responsible for FARA enforcement.

The public defense Giuliani has offered is uncannily similar to those offered by Craig and Rafiekian. Both of those men acknowledged receiving large sums of money from abroad, but disputed the Justice Department’s claims about whom the men were representing.

While Craig and his law firm collected more than $5 million from an oligarch supporting Ukraine’s government, the veteran D.C. lawyer maintained that his interactions with several journalists — exchanges central to the case against him — were not in service of his Ukrainian clients but to protect his own reputation and that of his law firm at the time, Skadden Arps.

In Rafiekian’s case, prosecutors alleged that the lobbying and PR activities he and Flynn undertook were part of a Turkish government campaign to get the U.S. to expel a dissident Turkish cleric who has lived in self-imposed exile in the U.S. for decades. Rafiekian’s lawyers claimed their client was simply working for an ordinary business, a Dutch company with interest in improving the investment climate between the U.S. and Turkey.

Giuliani is taking a similar tack. He’s owned up to contacts with U.S. officials about ousting the American ambassador to Ukraine and acknowledged campaigning to pressure Ukrainian officials to reopen investigations that could be damaging to Joe Biden, the former vice president and current Democratic presidential candidate.

However, Giuliani maintains those entreaties were not made at the behest of his paying clients with Ukrainian ties, including the two men who were indicted and arrested earlier this month on campaign finance charges, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.

The former New York mayor says his lobbying about the U.S. ambassador and to prod Ukraine’s government to focus on Biden was for another, far more famous client he was representing, albeit without pay: President Donald Trump.

Giuliani has been viewed as in jeopardy on FARA because of language in the Parnas and Fruman indictment that says the charged men were acting to “advance … the political interests of at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working.” The indictment also specifically alleges that “Parnas’s efforts to remove the Ambassador were conducted, at least in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian officials.”

Prosecutors say Parnas and Fruman committed to raise at least $20,000 last year for “a sitting congressman” — apparently Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) — as they sought to enlist the lawmaker in efforts to oust the ambassador, career diplomat Marie Yovanovitch. Sessions wrote to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, urging her dismissal. She was recalled early from her post in May of this year.

Laufman said wording in the indictment about plotting to remove the ambassador on behalf of Ukrainian officials seems to go to the heart of FARA. “That sentence to me, on its face, indicates that comes within the scope of the statute,” he said. “That language in the indictment raises serious questions if Giuliani knew of this alleged conduct by these two characters.”

Still, while the indictment alleges a variety of campaign finance laws were broken, including using straw donors and violating the ban on donations from foreigners, there is no FARA charge against any of the defendants, let alone Giuliani.

That could be because a criminal FARA charge requires showing a defendant broke the law “willfully,” meaning he or she knew about the statute — at least in general terms — and intentionally sought to defy it. A good-faith belief that one was not required to register is a defense.

“The government must provide sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knew about the requirement to register and failed to do so,” Laufman said.

That can be a heavy burden in the absence of clear documentary proof that a defendant chose to break the law. There’s also the question of whether prosecutors can prove whether someone was acting at the “direction or control” OF [for] a foreign national, government or political party.

“You can home in on a number of different definitional aspects in a FARA case and say, ‘I didn’t need to file,’” said D.C. lawyer Robert Driscoll. “To prove the violation is willful is really hard to do because half the attorneys in town can’t give you decent FARA advice. … You’d have to be really dumb to show enough criminal intent to willfully violate FARA.”

Under Justice Department policy, prosecutors typically have to be convinced that it is more likely than not that a defendant will be convicted on a particular charge before filing it as part of a criminal case.

Another complexity is that while many Trump critics seem to be itching for a Giuliani indictment, charging him with a FARA violation could undercut the notion that he was working for Trump in any dealings related to Ukraine. The plausibility of that argument makes it harder to prosecute Giuiliani criminally, but could make it easier to use Giuliani’s acts against Trump in the ongoing impeachment probe.

Giuliani did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.

The indictments against Craig and Rafiekian were widely seen as part of a crackdown on unregistered foreign agents in the U.S., driven in part by the controversy over Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race and in part by perceptions that the Justice Department’s efforts to enforce FARA had been too meek.

A Justice Department Inspector General report released jn 2016 found only seven criminal FARA cases brought by federal prosecutors during the preceding half century. Only one of those cases resulted in a contested trial. Four of the cases led to guilty pleas, although not always to FARA. Two cases were dismissed.

The Justice Department’s official response to the watchdog report called criminal FARA cases “challenging” and cited the “high burden” prosecutors have to meet to get a conviction.

The lax enforcement in recent decades gave many Americans who deal with lobbying and PR work in the U.S. for overseas clients the impression that compliance was essentially on an honor system. It also led to calls from Congress to toughen the statute, although the legislative effort seems to have stalled.

Technically, neither Craig nor Rafiekian was charged directly with failing to register under FARA.

Although the indictment against Craig accused him of illegally evading registration, he was charged only with making false statements in a FARA submission and with a scheme to mislead Justice’s FARA unit. A judge threw out the first charge, while a jury acquitted him on the second.

Rafiekian was accused of conspiring to make false statements in a FARA filing and of violating a related law barring actions for a foreign government in the U.S. without notifying the attorney general. A jury convicted him on both counts, but a judge overturned those verdicts and dismissed the case. On Wednesday, prosecutors filed a notice appealing that ruling, but it does not appear the Justice Department has yet made a final decision about whether to challenge the decision.

To be sure, the government has filed other criminal FARA cases in recent years, most notably the prosecution of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and deputy Rick Gates for their Ukraine-related work. However, the government was never required to prove the FARA charges in court because the men pleaded guilty.

The cases also involved allegations of a vast scheme of criminal activity, including massive tax evasion, money laundering and failing to report foreign bank accounts. Manafort and Gates appear have been willing to admit to the FARA offenses in order to try to resolve the much wide-ranging charges against them.

Prosecutors included FARA charges in a case filed this week against California businessman Imaad Zuberi, but the charges also included allegations of tax evasion and that he made more than 75 campaign donations on behalf of foreign nationals and often under false names. Prosecutors also appear unlikely to have to prove the FARA charges, as Zuberi has agreed to plead guilty as part of a plea deal.

But several other potential FARA cases have been turned down in recent months, particularly by federal prosecutors in the same Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office which obtained the indictment of Giuliani’s allies and is reportedly looking into his conduct.

Craig’s defense attorneys say that before he was charged, federal prosecutors in New York were considering a failing-to-register FARA charge against him. Plans for that were apparently dropped and authority over the case was moved to Washington.

During Craig’s trial in D.C., prosecutors from the Southern District sat in on some of the testimony as they considered whether to charge anyone else in connection with a FARA violation or other offenses in the effort to burnish Ukraine’s image in the U.S.

Despite testimony from Gates that he told top lobbyists Vin Weber and Tony Podesta they would be working for the Ukrainian government, soon after the trial wrapped up, prosecutors informed the men they would not face charges despite the fact they did not register until long after the lobbying project concluded. The firm Weber worked for until August, Mercury, also escaped prosecution. Podesta’s eponymous Podesta Group shut down in 2017, largely due to negative attention from the Manafort-linked work.

Weber, Podesta and the firms all denied wrongdoing.

Parnas and Fruman pleaded not guilty Wednesday during a court hearing in New York. Many lawyers say they could seek leniency by detailing what Giuliani knew about their backers’ abroad. “If they choose to cooperate, they could have inculpatory information as to Mr. Giuliani with respect to FARA,” Laufman said.

The former Justice Department official noted that even if prosecutors choose not to charge Giuliani with a crime, the law enforcement agency has other options: it could send the former mayor a letter urging him to register and could even file suit against him to demand that he do so. Last year, in the first such enforcement action in 28 years, Justice sued a Florida company that contracts to rebroadcast programs by Russia’s English-language media outlet, RT. A judge ordered the company to register under FARA.

In March, the Justice Department announced another step in its drive to reinvigorate FARA: naming Brandon Van Grack, a prosecutor from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, to oversee enforcement of the foreign-agent law.

At a legal conference last month, Van Grack was asked whether prosecutors’ stumbles in the Craig and Rafiekian cases would impact how the Justice Department would handle FARA cases in the future.

Van Grack suggested that, despite the setbacks in those prosecutions, they had sent the message that the Justice Department is serious about enforcing FARA.

“FARA enforcement remains a top priority,” he declared. He went on to ask the assembled FARA lawyers “whether the advice you would give a registrant today is any different than it was the day before?”

“I suspect the answer is no,” he added.

Theodoric Meyer contributed to this report.

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/24/rudy-giuliani-jail-056570
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: jgerstein@politico.com (Josh Gerstein)



! #Headlines, #Corruption, #IdiotsAndAssholes, #ImpeachTrump, #People, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Trump’s Ukraine envoy testifies amid questions of quid pro quo

191022-william-taylor-ap-773.jpg

President Donald Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday with the potential to deliver some of the most revealing testimony to date about the concerns of a quid pro quo in Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

William Taylor will face questions from House investigators about the deep concerns he had that Trump was withholding military aid to the eastern European nation to pressure Ukrainian leaders to investigate former vice president and 2020 hopeful Joe Biden on spurious charges.

Taylor, who replaced U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch after her unceremonious ouster by Trump in May, raised alarms with colleagues on Sept. 1 in a text message exchange released earlier this month by the three committees spearheading the inquiry.

“Are we now saying that security assistance and [White House] meeting are conditioned on investigations?” he wondered, referring to a potential meeting between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Eight days later, Taylor’s concerns grew more urgent. In texts with two other diplomats, Taylor said it was “crazy” that military aid to Kiev was being blocked in order to force “help with a political campaign.” Nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine was put on hold in late July by the White House but was released in September two weeks after POLITICO revealed that it was frozen. Taylor described the hold on aid as a “nightmare” and said it had already shaken Ukraine’s faith in the United States.

“The Russians love it. (And I quit.),” Taylor said of the prospect that the aid would be blocked even after Ukraine agreed to open Trump’s preferred investigations.

Trump, who urged Zelensky to investigate Biden in a July 25 phone call, has denied the charge that military assistance was used as leverage to bend Zelensky to his will. But the episode is at the heart of Democrats’ deepening impeachment investigation over whether Trump abused his power by leveraging America’s diplomatic and military might to benefit his 2020 reelection campaign.

191010-marie-yovanovitch-ap-773.jpg

The House Intelligence Committee, which is leading the inquiry, issued a subpoena to Taylor early Tuesday morning, according to an official, because the State Department tried to block Taylor from appearing. The official also cited “efforts by the State Department to also limit any testimony that does occur,” adding that Taylor was complying with the subpoena.

Other State Department officials have spoken with investigators under subpoena after the State Department and White House sought to block them from appearing — a sign that the White House’s stranglehold on testimony has begun to slip.

Taylor’s lengthy diplomatic service occurred under Republican and Democratic presidents. He served as ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush and Barack Obama from 2006 to 2009. Before that, he held numerous diplomatic posts in the Middle East, advised the U.S. ambassador to NATO and worked on Capitol Hill for former Sen. Bill Bradley. He graduated from West Point and served in Vietnam.

Taylor had left government service for a senior position at the U.S. Institute of Peace but returned to the diplomatic corps in June after Yovanovitch’s ouster. She testified to lawmakers earlier this month that her removal was the result of a smear campaign engineered by Trump allies who portrayed her as disloyal for rebuffing Giuliani’s mission in Ukraine.

Taylor’s two correspondents in the text exchanges — former ambassador Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union — have already testified to impeachment investigators. They painted a portrait of a foreign policy that had been outsourced by Trump to his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Both described deep discomfort with the arrangement and worried that Giuliani’s freelancing — especially in a country fending off Russian aggression and battling systemic internal corruption — could undermine America’s years-long diplomatic efforts.

Taylor voiced those concerns in a July text exchange days before Trump called Zelensky, who was elected in the spring on a platform of fighting corruption.

“Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics,” he said. Danyliuk is likely a reference to Oleksandr Danyliuk, Ukraine’s former finance minister.

Sondland replied, “Absolutely, but we need to get the conversation started and the relationship built, irrespective of the pretext. I am worried about the alternative.”

After Trump canceled a late August trip to Poland, where he was to meet Zelensky, the ambassadors again fretted about building a relationship between Trump and Zelensky. Volker said he hoped Vice President Mike Pence would attend in Trump’s place and set up a White House visit for Zelensky. He also said he hoped Energy Secretary Rick Perry would join.

But Taylor, on Sept. 1, worried that the White House visit itself would be conditioned on Trump’s demand for Ukraine to investigate Biden as well as an unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukraine — not Russia — interfered in the 2016 election.

As Taylor’s concerns about a quid pro quo grew more explicit, Sondland sought to put him at ease.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” Sondland texted on Sept. 9, urging his colleagues to stop the text message exchanges.

Last week, Sondland told House investigators that he sent this message after speaking directly to Trump and that he could not speak to whether it was true.

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony-trump-054259
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Andrew Desiderio



! #Headlines, #Congress, #ImpeachTrump, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Friday, October 11, 2019

Trump impeachment: At least four officials 'raised concerns' over Ukraine dealings before Zelensky call

donald-trump-0.jpg

National security advisers repeatedly warned the White House before phone call that led to whistleblower complaint

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-ukraine-zelensky-biden-investigation-inquiry-scandal-a9152166.html
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Alex Woodward



! #Headlines, #ImpeachTrump, #Investigation, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Two Giuliani Ukraine associates indicted on campaign finance charges

191010-rudy-giuliani-gty-773.jpg

Two foreign-born associates of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were among those indicted on campaign finance charges made public on Thursday over alleged schemes to buy political influence on behalf of a Ukrainian government official and a Russian businessman.

The Giuliani associates had been working with the former New York mayor on a campaign to discredit former Vice President Joe Biden.

Some of the charges against the two men, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, stem from alleged activities related to their work with Giuliani, including a successful effort to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, removed from her post.

According to the indictment, Parnas and Fruman agitated for her removal at the behest of an unnamed Ukrainian government official, and hid the source of political donations they made in order to further that goal.

Giuliani declined to comment.

The indictment also alleges that Parnas, Fruman and two other U.S. citizens participated in a separate scheme to use political donations to obtain licenses for a planned marijuana venture. The ultimate source of the political donations, according to the indictment, was an unnamed Russian businessman.

A lawyer for Parnas and Fruman, John Dowd, did not respond to requests for comment.

“As the indictment states the alleged activity was done with out the knowledge of the candidates or campaign,” Jay Sekulow, a personal attorney to President Trump, said in a text message.

Darren Samuelsohn contributed reporting.

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/10/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-associates-indicted-043873
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: bschreckinger@politico.com (Ben Schreckinger)



! #Headlines, #Corruption, #Crime, #People, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Sunday, October 6, 2019

What Putin Got From the Trump-Zelensky Phone Call

19105-putin-gty-773.jpg

A year ago, I was in Kiev when a young Ukrainian soldier was killed. Olesya Baklanova, 19, enlisted in the Ukrainian Armed Forces as soon as she was eligible and fought to be assigned a combat post. Deployed to the front lines of her country’s war against Russia, she was killed during the night while manning an observation post, shot by a sniper stationed among the Russian and proxy forces dug in a few hundred meters way. She was one of four Ukrainian soldiers killed at their post that night — one of the estimated 13,000 soldiers, fighters and civilians killed in eastern Ukraine in the past five years.

Her story was a concise reminder of the realities of Ukraine’s forgotten war. Russian forces seized Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in early 2014; weeks later, Russia formally annexed the territory. This was an important strategic goal for President Vladimir Putin. To ensure that no one had time to do anything about it — and to further destabilize Ukraine — Russia then launched a war in eastern Ukraine, in the Donbas region, using nominal separatists with Russian backing.

Five years on, it’s still a hot war, with Russia constantly pushing forward the line of occupation. Some 1.5 million people have been displaced. The shifting mass of regular and irregular Russian troops in eastern Ukraine — soldiers and mercenaries; “separatist” proxies and militias; a lot of guys with pseudonyms using advanced Russian weaponry that Russia claims must have been bought at the local corner shop (note: it is supplied from Russia) — constantly test and adapt new capabilities, especially electronic warfare capabilities, on the battlefield.

Ukrainian forces, with Western support, have steadily developed new measures to counter whatever is thrown at them. The Ukrainian war effort is defined both by this ingenuity and by sacrifice. The army, left gutted by former President Viktor Yanukovych, was rebuilt entirely in wartime. New units are rotated through areas of heavy fighting to increase their combat experience — a wartime readiness strategy that contributes to spikes in casualties, but which has been enormously successful. The average age of Ukrainian recruits is officially around 36, though anecdotally it’s over 40 at the front, as the generation that remembers life before independence now leads the fight to keep it.

The dirty, confusing, irregular conflict in Ukraine is part of a broader political war waged by the Kremlin. In countless ways, this is the inevitable evolution of Russia’s aggression against its neighbors after Putin paid so little price for invading Georgia in 2008. I worked as an adviser to the Georgian government in the years after that war, and we watched as almost everyone normalized Putin’s behavior, emboldening him to press forward. Now, Russia’s army sniper school has been transferred to the Ukrainian front, training the next generation of elite Russian marksmen by having them pick off Ukrainian soldiers. Soldiers like Baklanova.

This is the necessary context in which Americans should understand the gravity of President Donald Trump’s attempt to strong-arm Ukraine into becoming a subsidiary of his reelection campaign. In one gesture, Trump reduced the survival of Ukraine to a bargaining chip in an utterly petty pursuit; embroiled Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, in scandal and undercut his ability to defend the interests of his nation; and weakened the clout of U.S. leadership on Ukraine, the region and beyond.

The biggest beneficiary of this latest Trump-derived scandal is the Kremlin. This isn’t some theoretical future calculus. It has an immediate impact on U.S. security and our strategic outlook. And it enhances the ability of the Kremlin to keep stirring chaos inside the United States.

Trump is bargaining away U.S. security for conspiracy theories about Ukraine and the Bidens that he hopes will not only strengthen his position for his reelection, but will also erase the evidence that Kremlin intervention helped to elect him president. It’s actually hard to know which part of all this makes the Kremlin most happy.

***

Since the annexation of Crimea, there has been a lot of speculation about Putin’s long-term goals for Ukraine and the region, be it rebuilding a kind of Russian empire or disrupting what he views as another empire moving toward his borders. But in the near term, Putin knows that pushing for a pro-Kremlin alignment in Ukrainian politics — especially with the war still on — is a waste of effort. Far better to hope for what has succeeded elsewhere along the Russian rim, and in Europe, and in the United States: the sense that it would be nice to get along better with Russia, because it’s exhausting to live under a constant existential threat.

The caveat to this is that Russia doesn’t actually want to get along. Putin needed Crimea, as he detailed in a March 2014 speech marking its annexation, because it was where Prince Vladimir, ruler of the medieval federation known as the Kievan Rus, was baptized into Orthodox Christianity more than a thousand years ago — the starting point of the arc of Russian history that has culminated in Vladimir Putin. Annexing Crimea into Russia did away with the inconvenient fact that the Russian empire was born in Ukraine. Putin spent years telling people that Crimea was Russia. And then, suddenly, it was.

A lot of what Putin has done since 2014 is about keeping Crimea. An important component of achieving that is ensuring that Ukraine remains a nation governed by a fractious elite awash in Russian money and highly subject to Kremlin manipulations. This helps keep Ukraine in limbo between Russia and the West.

Because if Russia can’t have Ukraine, neither can anyone else. Right now, the Kremlin’s de facto veto on Ukraine’s westward integration is the war. In the simplest terms, a country not in control of its own territory isn’t an ideal alliance partner — it’s the same card the Kremlin played to keep Georgia out of NATO. The ongoing conflict can also be used to disrupt the politics, society and economy of Ukraine. In exchange for agreeing to end the war, the Kremlin wants a new form of the veto — a permanent “special status” guarantee for Ukraine’s eastern provinces, which will allow the Kremlin to maintain political control over territories within Ukraine through local Russian proxies. It would be the end of Ukraine’s post-independence geopolitical aspirations, preventing it from ever integrating fully into NATO or the European Union.

The Kremlin wants you to believe Ukraine has only two choices: Ukrainians can keep fighting and dying to defend their sovereignty, or they can accept a proxy occupation designed to disrupt their governance and national unity. The only chance for a third option is unwavering Western support — which requires unwavering American support — for the Ukrainian people’s desire to live in a reformed, secure, democratic nation at peace within its recognized borders and working toward integration into Western institutions. The Kremlin’s propaganda works to make Americans believe that this third option is just some unicorn dream — that a corrupt, divided, Nazi-infested Ukraine is utterly unsupported by the distracted, feckless, immoral West (that’s Kremlin terminology, not my own).

Since 2014, the propaganda on this has become pretty stale and formulaic. The Trump-Zelensky spectacle — a play about American fecklessness and Ukrainian corruption in one “perfect” act — was a gift to the Kremlin to refresh the tired themes.

***

This whole tent revival is a spinoff of a longer play, the script of which is ribboned with conspiracy narrative actively hawked and amped by the Kremlin’s disinformation machinery. In this drama, of course, poor Russia — despite documentation of their operations by U.S. and Dutch intelligence; financial records, personnel and travel records; lists of accounts and content archived from social media; high-level sources inside the Kremlin; and more — is a blameless bystander in the 2016 attacks on American election systems and the aggressive information operations that targeted and polarized American society. And the actual villain, totally conveniently, happens to be Ukraine, the nation the Kremlin has been working to smear and dismantle since 2013.

It is a tedious and clunky story that weaves in and out of other bonkers, far-right disinformation conspiracies — Seth Rich, QAnon, everything a secret plot and ANY DAY NOW the real truth is gonna come out — that has been amply documented as false by very smart and patient researchers and journalists. But the once-respected Rudy Giuliani has become a well-oiled cog in the machine nonetheless. You can spend time trying to unravel his 52-dimensional chess explanations of how he has uncovered a Clinton/Soros/Ukraine plot, but honestly, don’t. It’s unclear whether he actually understands that virtually all of it is made up by malign actors who are just here to watch it all burn. But listening to his self-narrative about being the hero of the story is a sign that he’s an easy mark for anyone who understands how to work this psychology.

The waters were so heavily chummed for sharks like Giuliani — how could he not take the bait and run after the irresistible story that solves all problems?

Maybe Giuliani explained the story to Trump in a way that made sense: It could exonerate Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, muddle the narrative, Febreze away the stink of the Mueller report from Trump himself forever. Or maybe the sales pitch was all about the Biden thing. Regardless, Trump unleashed Giuliani, apparently with the support of U.S. diplomats, to undercut U.S. interests and policy — because, again, Trump just doesn’t care if Ukraine, a nation of 44 million people is sentenced to purgatory because of his actions. It is a crippling indictment of his judgment, his leadership, his fitness for office and his grasp on reality.

False equivalencies are the lifeblood of Russian propaganda, an easy tool to exploit bias and distort perception. They are also a tactic that Trump deploys nearly instinctually. “Fake Ukraine collusion 2020” as the new “fake Russia collusion 2016” is an extraordinarily powerful false equivalency — to minimize the significance of the support the Kremlin levied to help get Trump elected, to erase the importance of the Mueller investigation, and to create problems for the new Ukrainian president and his country.

By embroiling Ukraine in scandal, by politicizing support of Ukraine among the American audience, by linking Ukraine to the conspiracy nexus that underlies all thinking in Trump world — and by minimizing the existential threat that Ukraine and Ukrainians face every day from the Russian assault on their nation — Trump is advancing core Kremlin objectives. He has made the president of Ukraine an accomplice in that effort, or maybe just a companion in the same trap.

***

And this isn’t just about Ukraine. There is a systematic Russian effort to gain similar concessions on Moldova and Georgia — to force acceptance of a Russian veto of those countries’ determination to be nations aligned with Western values. The United States should be leading a political and diplomatic effort to expose what Russia is doing and explain what those Russian efforts mean. We should be leading to counter the advance of illiberal ideals in the world.

Instead we look inward at the circus. Faith in who we are and what defines us is eroding, while the geostrategic landscape of the world is remade around us — and not by anyone who believes that the will of the people is going to be a thing that matters in the future.

Trump has sent clear signals that Ukraine might not have his support — go ahead, make your own deal with Putin #shrug. Diplomatic resources that should have been focused on crafting a policy to counter Russian aggression were diverted to chase down rumors and personal vendettas instead.

It’s easy to ignore the details of Russia’s war in Ukraine. It’s easy to get lost in the smoke-and-mirrors fiction that what the Kremlin is doing isn’t actually what it is doing — a dance at which the West has become quite adept since Russia’s cyberattack on Estonia in 2007 and invasion of Georgia in 2008.

We watch what the Kremlin does to its neighbors, to us, to Europe, to the Middle East, to Afghanistan — and we blink. Hackers, cyberattacks, disinformation, invasion, annexation, devastation, mercenaries, terrorists, giant arms expos — and we blink.

Ukraine is now the front line, the place where we have the best chance to act, and to stop ignoring the reality of what we face.

There’s a reason Congress has consistently, and in a bipartisan fashion, approved military assistance for Ukraine so it can defend itself against Russian invasion and aggression. With limited but targeted resources and support, America and other NATO allies have quietly done a lot to bolster Ukraine. It’s a vast, sweeping success story. A story that almost no one talks about for fear that the president will interfere.

We don’t offer this support on some fantastical whim anchored in Cold War nostalgia, but because it is in our vital contemporary interest, in countless respects, to limit the further expansion of Russia’s hold on the Black Sea region, which the Kremlin uses to stage its war in Syria and to project power into the Middle East and Africa, across the Mediterranean on up to the western Arctic, and beyond. It is a pattern of activity that has degraded the security environment in which we and our alliances operate, and it has contributed to the sense of political instability and unrest, of churn and upheaval, that has plagued Europe since the financial crisis, the migration crisis, and Brexit, and that has defined the Middle East since the Islamic State and Bashar Assad became twin pillars of decay.

Using the Black Sea as an operational base, the Kremlin works against the United States and our interests, consistently choosing confrontation over cooperation. Russian forces attack U.S. ships, troops and planes with electronic warfare, mercenaries and air assets, toeing the line about what is defined as activity “below the line of conflict.” They have not pivoted from a zero-sum view of relations with the United States. And not seeing how far the line has moved since 2008 — we now accept borders being changed by force, and the deployment of Russian forces to new ports and bases, and the fact that Russia arms the Taliban as they target American soldiers in Afghanistan, and ongoing, overt political interference in our domestic politics — is still a crazy, blind weakness of the West.

This is why remembering Olysea Baklanova is so important. America might be looking inward, waving our arms about whatever horrific violation Trump has tweeted that day — but we can’t define what Trump did to Ukraine from the perspective of our sad, fleabag circus.

Every time Trump guts an institution, diverts money to his personality projects, labels an internal enemy, violates a norm, secures a job for a corrupt and unqualified appointee, ignores the law, asks a foreign leader to “do him a favor” — every time he breaks a rule and pays no price, he provides illustration for Putin’s expanding primer on “the hoax” of democracy and “the people.”

Putin believes that all democracy is farce, and he has worked tirelessly to make sure that Western democracies believe this too. His propaganda machinery has supported Trump and the Brexiteers, faux-democrats like Hungarian President Viktor Orban and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, because their self-dealing motivations amplify the firehose of cynicism that now spreads anti-democratic derision across the West.

Ukrainians have bled during a five-plus year war that they haven’t lost to Russia. They fight this war at the border of Europe to defend their democracy and the right to pursue a future of their choosing. They fight this war because they know that someone has to, and because they know what it will cost them if they don’t.

It will cost us, too. Trump recently called Ukraine “a big, wide, beautiful wall” between Russia and Europe. In reality, it is the thinnest of shields. For Ukrainians, that shield holds the line between the future they want and the past they won’t go back to. For Americans, in more than a symbolic way, the thin shield of Ukraine stands between the America we think we are, and the America we might actually be, in a world where the terms are dictated by autocrats and our power is greatly diminished.

Ukrainians deserve American support — far less cynical American support — not because we decide this-or-that president or prime minister is a guy we like, but because the people of Ukraine have died to have what we have, and to become equal members of alliances that are the architecture of American prosperity, security and power in the world. Trump talks constantly about how none of our allies are paying enough for security. Well, the Ukrainians have paid. They’ve paid a lot. Their commitment, and vibrancy, and innovative spirit will help reinforce and reinvigorate our alliances. It is of material benefit to the United States of America to have a thriving, secure, democratic Ukraine — and Georgia, and Moldova — integrated into that architecture.

And maybe if we can help them get there, it will begin to counter the corrosion of that architecture that has occurred under President Trump.

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

Source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/putin-trump-zelensky-phone-call-229243
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Molly K. McKew



! #Headlines, #People, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Putin, #Trending, #Trump, #Ukraine, #WorldNews, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Friday, September 27, 2019

Trump’s Ukraine affair makes Senate Republicans look like patsies

190926-lindsey-graham-gty-773.jpg

“Beyond the merits,” as they like to say in Washington, two things stand out most for Congress when it comes to President Trump’s now famous July phone chat with Ukraine’s leader.

First, the revelations cut to the bone for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, given her roots in the same House committees most offended by the president’s conduct. Second, the call made patsies of prominent Senate Republicans, left hanging after they had tried to defend Trump’s handling of the Ukraine situation just weeks before.

The big question for both parties going forward is whether they’ll begin to reassert Congress’ power through the appropriations process. If not impeachment, are Senate Republicans embarrassed or troubled enough by Trump’s power grabs now to take a page from their Conservative Party kin across the pond in Britain, reasserting Parliament against their own Trump, Prime Minister Boris Johnson?

In the case of Pelosi, the California Democrat spent more than a decade on the House Appropriations Committee — including time on the panel charged with foreign aid. From 1993 to 2003, she was also on the House Intelligence Committee and has continued to play an active role in her ex officio status as a House leader.

Without doubt, she was influenced this week by the shifting currents in her caucus on impeachment. But when she spoke of a “grave new chapter of lawlessness,” it was also as Nancy Pelosi the legislator, not just as a political leader.

For Senate Republicans, the picture is more complicated. But some are having second thoughts after allowing Trump to run roughshod over Congress’ appropriations power.

Unlike aid for Puerto Rico or Central America, Ukrainian assistance is something the GOP cares about as much as Democrats do. Second, unlike Trump’s use of emergency powers to build his border wall, the president’s goal in this case had less to do with some shared goal for his party — such as slowing immigration — and more his political self-interest.

Indeed, given the revelations this week, it’s striking to revisit a debate on the same Ukrainian aid issue when the Republican-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee met to draft spending bills for the coming fiscal year.

The date was Sept. 12, just hours after the White House had sent notice to the committee that it was finally releasing Defense and State Department funds that lawmakers had approved in the 2018 and 2019 budgets for Ukraine.

Waiting any longer would have put the entire package in danger, since big portions of the appropriations were due to expire on Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. This provoked a debate as to what to do next and how best to avoid a repeat performance by the White House going into 2020.

Led by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), committee Democrats proposed to challenge the president by withholding a small portion of the 2020 Pentagon budget until the next installment of military aid for Kiev was released. Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) prevailed on Durbin to withdraw his amendment, but not before a discussion that in retrospect, shows how clueless Republicans were about what was really going on at the White House.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the committee, is a highly educated attorney with a Phi Beta Kappa pin and degree from Oxford. He vowed to “burn fresh hell” if future aid to Ukraine were withheld again by the White House. Yet in the same voice, he plaintively turned to committee Democrats like Durbin and Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, asking them to explain what the stall had been about.

Providing no answer, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) assured his colleagues that the White House had learned its lesson and there would be no future delays in aid for Ukraine. “I think they’ve got the message. If you are listening in the Ukraine on C-SPAN, you’re gonna get the money,” Graham said.

In defense of the administration, perhaps no Republican walked out on a limb more than Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma.

Lankford has been a devoted supporter of Ukraine aid, traveling himself to Kiev around Memorial Day to meet with people close to the new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, after his election last spring. Like others on the committee, Lankford said he had become impatient with the delays but suggested it all could be explained by the president showing “due diligence.”

“I do think this year was an exceptional year,” Lankford said. “It was entirely reasonable that the United States spend a couple of months getting to know him [Zelensky], his administration and to figure out if he was going to be pro-Russian or pro-West. Because no one knew which direction Zelensky was going to go.”

“In the past several months, I think it took longer than it should have. I think we should have moved faster than we moved but there was due diligence in the process.”

Shelby also spoke of allowing time for “due diligence.” Yet from the summary released this week of the president’s actual conversation with Zelensky, there’s little evidence that this weighed heavily with Trump.

Instead, the president devoted more time to pressing Ukraine to do more to investigate his Democratic political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a brief interview Thursday, Lankford insisted that he did not feel used and saw nothing upsetting in the president’s remarks about Biden.

The Oklahoman said it was Zelensky who introduced the topic when the Ukrainian leader referenced his dealings with the president’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani, who had been Trump’s point man on the issue. “That doesn’t bother me and when I was there, all of the local press … the Ukraine press was obsessed with Rudy Giuliani. They were very focused on it so it didn’t surprise me that Zelensky brought it up.”

When the topic came up again in the Senate panel on Thursday this week, Graham again vowed: “I want to send a clear signal that we’re going to keep helping the Ukraine.” But Durbin reminded him: “The plot has thickened dramatically since then as to why [the Ukraine dollars] were being held and under what circumstances.”

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/27/trump-ukraine-senate-republicans-003788
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: drogers@politico.com (David Rogers)



! #Headlines, #Congress, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Republicans, #Trending, #Trump, #TrumpLiesMatter, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

‘Devastating’: Trump memo ignites Democrats’ drive for impeachment

19925-donald-trump-gty-773.jpg

Democrats’ intensifying impeachment fervor exploded Wednesday after the White House released a summary of President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president that showed he explicitly sought a “favor”: an investigation of Joe Biden.

The memo confirmed Democrats’ most prominent suspicions: That Trump pushed a foreign government to investigate his political rival, while hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine was being held up. Notably, Trump offered the aid of the Justice Department in that investigation and emphasized his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was acting as his emissary on the matter.

“The release of the memo is devastating for the president’s defenders,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a longtime impeachment advocate who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

The call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky is just one piece of a whistleblower’s complaint that the Trump administration has been withholding from Congress — a move that prompted Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of House Democrats to call for formal impeachment proceedings on Tuesday.

“This should shock the conscience of every American — and we still don’t have the full story,” added Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), a member of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. “The administration continues to illegally withhold the full whistleblower complaint.”

What the White House provided was not a verbatim transcript of Trump’s call, though Democrats saw it as damaging enough.

screen-shot-2019-09-25-at-11.25.25%20AM.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, quipped: “Read the ‘transcript.’ And remember that it is what the White House voluntarily provided.”

In a statement, the Justice Department revealed that the intelligence community’s inspector general cited a potential campaign finance violation related to the whistleblower complaint about the call. But the department ultimately concluded that no criminal activity occurred, according to Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Barr — based on his role in evaluating the Trump transcript — must recuse himself from any oversight of the matter.

Some of Trump’s GOP allies were already jumping to his defense, with Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, saying: “There was no quid pro quo and nothing to justify the clamor House Democrats caused” when they launched a formal impeachment inquiry.

Even without the complete substance of Trump’s call, more than 200 members of the Democratic caucus — nearly enough to form a majority of the House — had embraced impeachment proceedings as of late Tuesday, citing Trump’s refusal to provide the whistleblower complaint related to the phone call.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) said that lawmakers have discussed the possibility of returning to Washington next week for hearings, despite the scheduled recess.

“An ideal timeline is as soon as possible,” added Bass who sits on the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees.

Later Wednesday, the House will take its first formal legislative action related to the Ukraine controversy when it votes on a non-binding resolution to disapprove of the Trump administration’s refusal to turn over the whistleblower complaint to the congressional intelligence committees. Democrats largely see that vote as a placeholder for its impeachment push ahead of a planned two-week House recess that starts Friday.

The Senate passed a related measure on Tuesday demanding the whistleblower complaint be provided to Congress. The White House is expected to release the full whistleblower complaint and the accompanying inspector general’s report later this week, but House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told POLITICO late Tuesday that he had not received word from the administration.

“The White House hasn’t told us anything about their intentions,” said Schiff, who is seeking an interview with the whistleblower.

The Intelligence Committee is also gearing up for a hearing Thursday with Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to demand details about the whistleblower complaint and his decision to allow the White House and the Justice Department to block it from Congress.

Schiff’s meeting with the whistleblower could happen as soon as Thursday, after Maguire testifies before the panel. Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s attorney, has requested guidance from the DNI’s general counsel regarding what his client can tell the committee.

Trump, who is scheduled to meet with Zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York later Wednesday, was quick to trash Democrats for escalating their impeachment drive.

Democrats held a full caucus meeting Wednesday morning as their leaders continued to hash out an impeachment strategy. Rank-and-file lawmakers were vexed at the lack of details about how to carry out Pelosi’s call to action.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a longtime impeachment supporter who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said her panel would not be doing anything differently when it comes to its investigations, which center on potential financial crimes.

According to several lawmakers and aides, Pelosi did not provide a timetable for the completion of its inquiry, leading some to question whether Democrats’ new phase would be any different than the already-ongoing investigation being led by the House Judiciary Committee and supported by other congressional panels.

Democrats view the emergence of the whistleblower as the motivation needed to accelerate efforts to impeach Trump. The White House’s role in blocking the complaint — which was characterized as “urgent” by an intelligence community watchdog — from reaching Congress motivated even Democrats in swing districts to come off the sidelines in favor of impeachment proceedings, citing urgent national security concerns.

News reports citing current and former intelligence officials have suggested the whistleblower provided details about a July 25 call between Trump and Zalensky in which Trump pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden — a direct solicitation for foreign interference in the 2020 election, Democrats say. The White House also held up a package of military aid to Ukraine days before the call.

Trump has called the conversation a “perfect call,” but his comments sidestep reports that the whistleblower described a much larger set of troubling facts that suggested inappropriate pressure on a foreign leader.

Sarah Ferris, Heather Caygle, John Bresnahan and Zachary Warmbrodt contributed to this report

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-memo-1510895
Droolin’ Dog sniffed out this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Andrew Desiderio



! #Headlines, #Democrats, #ImpeachTrump, #Political, #Politico, #politics, #Trending, #Trump, #Ukraine, #Newsfeed, #syndicated, news