Mediaboss Marketing

Mark Sandy, from the Office of Management and Budget, arrives to the U.S. Capitol earlier this month for a deposition regarding whether President Trump ordered a hold on military assistance to Ukraine. Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images hide caption

Mark Sandy, from the Office of Management and Budget, arrives to the U.S. Capitol earlier this month for a deposition regarding whether President Trump ordered a hold on military assistance to Ukraine.

One thing all parties in the impeachment saga can agree on: $391 million in security assistance earmarked for Ukraine was withheld this past summer by the Trump White House and released on Sept. 11.

There's far less consensus, though, about just when that hold began. It's a key question, since that date may prove crucial for establishing whether the aid freeze violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, or ICA.

The Democratic-led House budget and appropriations committees have expressed "serious concerns that President Trump and his administration violated the ICA in withholding these funds." The committees have put the Trump administration on notice that they "are examining when, why, and how these funds were withheld; and whether these actions prevented agencies from spending the full amount that Congress provided for these activities, thus thwarting the will of Congress."

Here's a timeline of what's been learned about the timing of the Ukraine aid hold. It's based on testimony heard during the two weeks of the House intelligence committee's public impeachment hearings, as well as from transcripts that have been released of closed door depositions:

June 18, 2019: The Pentagon announces plans "to provide $250 million to Ukraine in security cooperation funds for additional training, equipment and advisory efforts to build the capacity of Ukraine's armed forces."

June 19: President Trump starts asking about the Ukraine military assistance, according to Mark Sandy, a career official in the Office of Management and Budget. Sandy told House investigators he learned of Trump's queries in an e-mail from Mike Duffey, a political appointee who oversees funding for military, intelligence and international affairs at OMB. This was the same day a report about the Pentagon's announced Ukraine assistance appeared in the Washington Examiner, a conservative website and weekly tabloid.

July 3: This is the earliest publicly known date when a hold on the Ukraine assistance appears to have been imposed. "On July 3, I learned," Jennifer Williams, a Russia adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, told the House Intelligence panel, "that the Office of Management and Budget had placed a hold on a tranche of security assistance designated for Ukraine."

July 12: Further evidence of a hold on the Ukraine aid is found in an email that OMB's Sandy received on this date from Robert Blair, a senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Asked at a closed door deposition what was said in that email, Sandy replied, "to the best of my recollection, that the president is directing a hold on military support funding for Ukraine."

July 18: The hold becomes more widely known within the Trump administration. State Department Ukraine expert Catherine Croft, who'd been detailed to the National Security Council, told a public hearing of the impeachment inquiry that on this date, "I participated in a sub-Policy Coordination Committee video conference where an OMB representative reported that the White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, had placed an informal hold on security assistance to Ukraine. The only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the President."

July 19: The Department of Defense has been notified of the hold, according to OMB's Sandy, who told House investigators he was informed of this by OMB political appointee Mike Duffey. Sandy said he asked Duffey what the duration of the hold would be "and was told there was not clear guidance on that." He also expressed concern to Duffey about the freeze on funds possibly violating the Impoundment Control Act, since it could lead to the expiration of those funds.

July 25: OMB's Sandy signs the first document making the hold official and valid through Aug. 5. This is the same day Trump called Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and asked for "a favor": that Zelenskiy would probe Joe Biden and his son Hunter's activities in Ukraine as well as a debunked claim that Ukraine, not Russia, had hacked the Democratic National Committee's computer server.

Hours after that phone call takes place, the State Department receives two emails from Ukraine's embassy in Washington. That's according to Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. "One was received on July 25, at 2:31 p.m. That email said that the Ukrainian embassy and House foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance," Cooper told the House intelligence committee. "The second email was received July 25 at 4:25 p.m. That email said the Hill knows about the [Foreign Military Financing] situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian embassy."

July 30: OMB's Sandy is informed he will no longer be approving the holds on Ukraine assistance. Instead, he tells House investigators, political appointee Mike Duffey would sign off on such documents. "He had an interest in being more involved in daily operations," says Duffey, "and he regarded this responsibility as a way for him to learn more about the specific accounts in his area."

Mid-August to early September: Duffey signs "at least half a dozen" additional temporary holds on the Ukraine assistance, according to Sandy.

August 28: Politico scoops a previously unreported story: that the Trump administration is "slow-walking $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine."

Sept. 11: The hold is lifted on the Ukraine assistance, 85 days after the Pentagon announced that aid had become available. That leaves only 19 days to obligate that funding.

Sept. 30: End of the fiscal year. According to OMB's Sandy, $35 million in funds do not get spent in time to meet the deadline. Congress includes that same amount in a continuing resolution to ensure the aid reaches Ukraine.

Link:
Impeachment testimony builds a timeline for withholding Ukrainian aid - NPR

NYON, Switzerland As world heavyweight boxing champions for more than a decade, Wladimir Klitschko and his brother Vitali helped establish Ukraine on the sports map.

Now that Ukraine and its capital city of Kyiv where Vitali is mayor are part of the United States daily news agenda, learning about the eastern European countrys place in the world is not so difficult.

Not anymore, Wladimir Klitschko told The Associated Press in an interview at the home of European soccer body UEFA, where he is a trustee of the groups childrens charity foundation. There is no doubt that at least people will know, in the U.S. especially.

The younger Klitschko brother visited Switzerland after spending time this month in New York, where rolling cable news coverage is repeating a theme that corruption is rife in his home country.

With something bad, there is also something good, said Klitschko, who projects positive thinking and developed a Swiss university course in innovative management. It is much more fun to solve a challenge than to have a problem.

Klitschko, a gold medalist at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, celebrated Ukraine like the national soccer team qualifying for the 2020 European Championship.

Have you seen what Shevchenko has done for the team? he enthused.

Like Klitschko, Ukraine coach Andriy Shevchenko is a beloved athlete at home trying to give something back to fans.

Ukrainians, as a nation, we are super-talented, Klitschko said, praising hit HBO drama Chernobyl for showing the toughness of its people. We are well educated, we are serving society.

The Klitschko Foundation has involved more than 1.8 million children and youths in Ukraine since being created in 2003, the year Wladimirs first world title reign ended. He regained versions of the heavyweight belt in 2006 and stayed unbeaten for nine more years.

One of its established projects, to equip schools with sports equipment, was among 42 schemes that won UEFA Foundation for Children funding this month worth a combined $5.2 million.

We are trying to motivate, Klitschko said. You need to be active. You need to be the driving force in your community, in the school.

When Klitschko talks about Ukrainian leaders, a common thread emerges linking men born in the 1970s in the former Soviet Union.

He and Shevchenko are 43. So is the co-founder of WhatsApp, Jan Koum. Mayor Vitali Klitschko is 48. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the former comic actor and producer who has an unwitting central role in the U.S. presidential impeachment process, soon turns 42.

Klitschko noted: (Were) trying to bring more for this talented nation.

He is cautious, however, when asked if a nation of 44 million people prefers public leaders they already admired in another field.

The trust needs to be stronger, Klitschko said. But trust comes only with time and corruption needs to be reduced. We probably cannot get rid of it. Evil and good is always going to be neighbors.

He supports closer ties with the European Union and expressed admiration for leadership values in Germany, where both brothers often fought title bouts.

Its been more than 2 years since his final fight an 11th-round loss to Anthony Joshua in front of 90,000 people at Wembley Stadium, a modern record crowd for a heavyweight contest. He believes Joshua will regain his title belts in a rematch with Andy Ruiz Jr. next week in Saudi Arabia.

Retired from the ring, Klitschko foresees a big future for himself and his country.

Nothing is impossible. A boxer could become a mayor of 4 million people. A comedian can become president, he said. Its not only in America. Anything can happen in Ukraine.

___

Go here to see the original:
AP Interview: Boxing Champ Klitschko Proud to Be Ukrainian - The New York Times

Mark Sandy, a senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget, outside the Capitol before his close-door deposition earlier this month. Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images hide caption

Mark Sandy, a senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget, outside the Capitol before his close-door deposition earlier this month.

Updated at 7:57 p.m. ET

White House officials questioned whether President Trump might be breaking the law when he ordered military assistance for Ukraine frozen in July, according to transcripts released on Tuesday by House Democrats.

A career official with the Office of Management and Budget told impeachment investigators that he wasn't given details about why millions of dollars for Ukraine should not be paid but he observed to superiors that the move would raise big legal questions.

Mark Sandy, deputy associate director for national security within the Office of Management and Budget, talked with impeachment investigators behind closed doors on Nov. 16.

The transcript of his deposition was released on Tuesday along with that of Philip Reeker, a top State Department official.

An OMB attorney was said to have resigned at least in part over concerns about the need to follow the law, Sandy told investigators. A second OMB employee also resigned in September, Sandy said, after expressing "frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold."

In Sandy's case, he described receiving an email on July 12 from a supervisor that announced Trump wanted to hold up military-support funding for Ukraine.

No other country was mentioned and no explanation was included, according to the transcript. The message Sandy took away in so many words was: Stop the assistance now, and then you may learn why later.

" 'Let the hold take place' and I'm paraphrasing here 'and then revisit this issue with the president,' " was how Sandy described a conversation between two other White House officials.

No explanation was offered about freezing the assistance until September, Sandy said, when he remembered seeing an email about Trump's concern that other allies weren't contributing enough to Ukraine's defense.

Allegations about abuse of power

Sandy's testimony is important to Democrats' argument that Trump used his power capriciously the president did not say in real time, according to this account, that he was worried about corruption in Ukraine and wanted to freeze assistance until he was satisfied with reforms there.

That has been among explanations that the White House and others have since given about why Trump acted as he did. What Sandy's testimony illustrated was that no explanation was given in real time.

Moreover, critics argue, the law obligates Trump to dispose of funds in whatever way Congress designates. Sandy told investigators that when he learned of the hold, he warned about its implications under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.

The funds Trump wanted to freeze had to be used by Sept. 30, Sandy said. If they weren't, "they basically expire and they return to the Treasury."

A new summary released by the House Budget Committee earlier on Tuesday describes how the first official act to stop $250 million in security assistance took place on July 25 in a letter signed by an OMB official.

Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees warned the Trump administration in an Aug. 3 letter that any such hold could constitute an "illegal impoundment" of funds, the new document says.

That echoed the concerns that Sandy said he and some colleagues voiced inside the administration.

Ultimately, the White House released the Ukraine assistance in early September. Trump and aides had wrought a policy over the year aimed on extracting concessions from Ukraine's leader.

In exchange for a meeting and the military assistance, witnesses have said, Trump wanted Ukraine's president to announce investigations that Trump thought might help him in the 2020 election.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy never made such a commitment.

Nonetheless, Democrats call the actions in the Ukraine affair an abuse of power that could merit impeachment. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said on Tuesday that he plans to convene the next hearing in the process on Dec. 4.

Defenders: All's well that ended well

Republican defenders argue that the totality of Trump's actions on Ukraine over this year show there was no improper exchange. Trump's allies reject Democrats' claims of "attempted bribery" or "attempted extortion."

Trump maintains that his July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy was "perfect."

Read the original:
White House Officials Worried Freezing Ukraine Aid Could Break The Law - NPR

The Washington PostGetty Images

And, right before the holiday season officially begins, the last piece of the puzzle locks into place, and the last alibi falls apart like an overcooked turkey. From The New York Times:

Now we have the whole thing. The president* used military aid money already appropriated by Congress to shakedown the government of Ukraine, an ally, in order to get Ukraine to help him ratfck one of his prospective opponents in the 2020 presidential election. As last weeks testimony confirmed, everyone in this massive loop knew this at the time. Then someone, and we still dont know who, took a complaint to the intelligence communitys inspector general. This was at the end of July. And, by August, they had briefed the president*, who, having been caught borscht-handed, released the aid in early September. Every episode in that chronicle is an impeachable offense, and the entire timeline is one very big one.

Remember what Rep. Adam Schiff said last week, when the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee tried to argue that nothing untoward had happened because the president* eventually released the aid?

Now, even that most threadbare irrelevancy is denied to all but the most fervent members of the cult. The president* released the aid because his lawyers told him hed been caught. On this matter, at least, the case is airtight, and there is no daylight to be found. The president*, among others, is stone busted. That may matter. It may not. But anyone arguing for the defense on the Ukraine matter is bound to look like even more of an idiot than they already do, and those people look like the succulent, ripe fruit of the Stupid Tree already. Thats something, anyway.

Getty Images

As this news was breaking, the president* was having another one of his traveling wankfests, this one in Sunrise, Florida. His trolley left the track early and never returned. From NBC News:

He looked awful and sounded worse. Theres something hinky about one of his arms. His voice was raspy. Im beginning to think it was a bad idea to let the story of his Midnight Ride to Walter Reed fade as quickly as it did. Before the rally, the president* did an interview with Bill OReilly in which he began the process of selling out Rudy Giuliani. From The Daily Beast:

Thats his story and hes sticking to it. For now, anyway.

See more here:
Trump Has Begun the Process of Selling Out Rudy Giuliani - Esquire

Tucker Carlson is rooting for Russia in its conflict with Ukraine or at least he said he was on his Fox News primetime show.

Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? the host said. And Im serious. Why do I care? Why shouldnt I root for Russia, which I am?

Carlson later said he was joking, despite having said he was serious, possibly because of the social media backlash he inevitably provoked.

The endorsement of Russias aggression against Ukraine delivered tonight by Tucker Carlson is a pretty specialized form of Trump admiration, wrote David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter now an ardent critic of Trump and his supporters.

Why the F are you rooting for Russia?!? asked the former tennis star Martina Navratilova. And not Ukraine?!? Could you expand on that, Tucker? Please enlighten us idiots

Carlson is one of a number of Fox News hosts who both regularly provoke controversy and enjoy a direct line to the president. He has influenced foreign policy. In June, Carlson was reported to have averted airstrikes against Iran by speaking to Trump directly.

He made his comment about Ukraine in a discussion of the impeachment inquiry with Richard Goodstein, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton.

The inquiry focuses on Trumps attempts to have Ukraine investigate his own political rivals and a baseless conspiracy theory which says Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, not Russia.

As well as dangling a White House meeting in front of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, by its own admission the Trump administration withheld nearly $400m of military aid intended to help the Kyiv government in its conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.

The aid was released in September, as it became known that an intelligence community whistleblower had filed a complaint, triggering moves in Congress that led to the impeachment inquiry.

On Carlsons show, Goodstein pointed to testimony before the House intelligence committee last week. David Holmes, a US official based in Ukraine, said Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the EU and a key player in the approach to Ukraine, said Trump doesnt give a shit about corruption in the country, the stated reason for pressuring Zelenskiy.

We do care about the substance of it, Carlson said. And the substance of it is that Trump, for all of his sins and I will concede some of them, has never taken close to a million dollars a year from a Ukrainian energy company to do nothing because his dad is the vice-president. So, Hunter Biden did.

The son of Joe Biden, the former vice-president who is a frontrunner to face Trump at the polls next year, had a board position at a Ukrainian energy company. There is no suggestion he or his father did anything illegal.

I actually like Hunter Biden, Carlson continued, but thats totally corrupt and you know it. Why is it worse to ask about it than do it?

Goldstein said: Because people are dying on the frontlines.

Laughing, Carlson said: Why do I care, why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And Im serious. Why do I care? Why shouldnt I root for Russia, which I am.

Because, Goldstein said, preserving democracy is important.

I dont care! Carlson said.

By the end of his show it seemed he did, as he said: Before we go, earlier I noted, I was rooting for Russia in the contest between Russia and Ukraine. Of course Im joking, Im only rooting for America.

The I was only joking defence has been used extensively by Trump or by Republicans defending his more outrageous claims: about asking Russia to hack Clintons emails, for example, and about asking China to investigate the Bidens.

Claiming to have been mocking the obsession with Russia of many on the left, Carlson concluded: Ha!

Read the original:
Tucker Carlson says he's rooting for Russia in conflict with Ukraine - The Guardian