Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump ought to be impeached and removed from office. This isnt what I thought two months ago, when the impeachment inquiry began. I argued that the evidence fell short of the standards of a prosecutable criminal act. I also feared impeachment might ultimately help Trump politically, as it had helped Bill Clinton in 1998. That second worry might still prove true.

But if the congressional testimonies of Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, Gordon Sondland, Alexander Vindman and especially Fiona Hill make anything clear, its that the presidents highest crime isnt what he tried to do to, or with, Ukraine.

Its that hes attempting to turn the United States into Ukraine. The judgment Congress has to make is whether the American people should be willing, actively or passively, to go along with it.

Ive followed Ukrainian politics fairly closely since 1999, when I joined the staff of The Wall Street Journal Europe. It has consistent themes that should sound familiar to American ears.

The first theme is the criminalization of political differences. Years before Trump led his followers in Lock Her Up chants against Hillary Clinton, then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych did exactly that against his own political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was sentenced to seven years in prison on a variety of byzantine charges after she had narrowly lost the 2010 election.

She spent three years in prison before her release during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. Key to Yanukovychs efforts to discredit Tymoshenko was who else? Paul Manafort.

A second theme is the use of political office as a shield against criminal prosecution and as a vehicle for personal and familial enrichment. Why have so many of Ukraines oligarchs including Burisma Holdings founder Mykola Zlochevsky also served as government ministers? Simple: Because, until recently, it shielded them from criminal prosecution thanks to parliamentary immunity, while also providing them with the means to use government power for their own benefit.

The third theme is what one might call the netherworldization of political life, in which conspiracy theories abound, off-stage figures wield outsized influence, and channels of formal authority are disconnected from the real centers of power.

This reality came vividly to light in 2016, when a parliamentary effort to vote no confidence in the government of then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk unexpectedly collapsed, thanks to the usual string-pulling from the countrys wealthiest power brokers. As Ukrainian political commentator Maxim Eristavi noted at the time, in Ukraine There are no party lines, no real policy debates, no ideological clashes: just cold-hearted vested interests and short-term alliances between various oligarchic groups.

The fourth theme is covert Russian interference, usually facilitated by local actors.

Ukraine offers the worlds most extreme example of this kind of interference (nearby Georgia is a close second), since large parts of the country have been seized outright by Russia and its proxies. But long before the Kremlins little green men arrived in Crimea in 2014, Russia and its agents were using every dirty trick at their disposal, from poisoning a future Ukrainian president with dioxin to poisoning the media landscape with disinformation. Too often, it worked, whether because its victims were suggestible, corrupt, fearful or simply not paying attention.

That last point was also made by Fiona Hill in her testimony on Thursday, where she warned members of the House Intelligence Committee that they ran the risk of themselves falling victims to politically driven falsehoods, regarding a bogus theory about Ukrainian political interference, that so clearly advance Russian interests.

Yet the person who is both the principal consumer and purveyor of those falsehoods is the president of the United States, just as he has been a purveyor of so many other conspiracy theories. Even now, this should astound us.

It doesnt, because weve been living in a country undergoing its own dismal process of Ukrainianization: of treating fictions as facts; and propaganda as journalism; and political opponents as criminals; and political offices as business ventures; and personal relatives as diplomatic representatives; and legal fixers as shadow cabinet members; and extortion as foreign policy; and toadyism as patriotism; and fellow citizens as human scum; and mortal enemies as long-lost friends and then acting as if all this is perfectly normal. This is more than a high crime. Its a clear and present danger to our security, institutions, and moral hygiene.

Its to the immense credit of ordinary Ukrainians that, in fighting Russian aggression in the field and fighting for better governance in Kyiv, they have shown themselves worthy of the worlds support. And its to the enduring shame of the Republican Party that they have been willing to debase our political standards to the old Ukrainian level just when Ukrainians are trying to rise to our former level.

The one way to stop this is to make every effort to remove Trump from office. It shouldnt have to wait a year.

Read the original post:
The United States Is Starting to Look Like Ukraine - The New York Times

When Ukrainian officials found out U.S. military aid was being withheld by the White House has become a key question in the impeachment case against President Trump and whether there was a quid pro quo.

Fresh testimony in public hearings Wednesday appeared to suggest the Ukrainians had learned of the hold much earlier than previously known, after a senior Pentagon official, Laura Cooper, said the country's embassy had been asking one of her staffers about it as early as July 25. That is the same day that Trump pressed Ukraines president Volodymyr Zelenskiy during a phone call to investigate his Democrat rival, Joe Biden.

But in Kyiv, Ukrainian officials have painted a muddled timeline of when precisely Zelenskiys administration discovered the $400 million in aid was being held up. Zelenskiys former top national security adviser insisted to ABC News on Thursday he and the administration had been in the dark for most of the summer, despite Coopers testimony and statements from Ukraines then-ambassador to the U.S. seeming to support it.

Ukrainian officials have previously said they only discovered the aid was frozen when it was made public by a Politico article on Aug. 28, more than a month after a hold was placed on the assistance. The presidents Republican defenders have argued that is proof that Trump cannot have sought to use the assistance as leverage, since Zelenskiy didnt know it was being withheld.

But on Wednesday, Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, testified that a member of her staff had received a call on July 25 from a contact at Ukraines embassy asking what was going on with the Ukraine assistance. Cooper said her staff received two more messages that day from the State Department saying the Ukrainian embassy and the Hill knew there was a "situation" around the aid.

Ukraine has not confirmed that outreach, but an October interview given by Ukraines then-ambassador to Washington now appears to potentially support that sequence of events.

In the interview given to the Ukrainian news site LB.ua, the now former ambassador, Valeriy Chaliy, said he had inadvertently discovered the aid was stalled in the summer before it became public, after he learned some private companies with contracts tied to it were facing delaying in payments.

I contacted representatives of Congress, the Senate, so that they would pay attention to this question, so that the aid would arrive on time, Chaliy said in the interview published Oct. 14. He said he was worried the delay might mean Ukraine would not receive the aid before the U.S. fiscal year expired on Sept. 30 and therefore be lost.

Chaliy in the interview said he informed his superiors in Kyiv of the issue when he discovered it but never received any response. He said he then decided to make the inquiries on his own initiative.

The comments from Chaliy appear to support the idea that Ukraines government knew early on that there was at least an issue with the aid.

But on Thursday, Zelenskiys former top national security adviser, Oleksander Danyliuk, insisted that despite the alleged contacts with the embassy, neither he nor-- as far as he was aware the Ukraine presidents senior administration had any idea the assistance was delayed until it was made public on Aug. 28.

Danyliuk -- who headed Zelenskiys national security council throughout the summer and was present for the July 25 call with Trump -- said he learned of the hold through the Politico article. If the embassy had known, the message somehow had not made it back to Kyiv, he said.

I didnt know and I dont think anyone else knew. And I should have, said Danyliuk. For us, that was a complete surprise.

A former finance minister with a reputation as a reformer, Danyliuk was responsible for helping manage U.S. assistance until he stepped down in late September. He said he had never received any message from Chaliy about the aid. If the embassy had known, Danyliuk said he was baffled why he wouldnt have been told or if other officials were, why they would not have reacted.

He noted that even if the embassy had discovered contractors were going unpaid, it would not have led them to immediately assume there was a total hold on the aid or that it had come from the White House.

Danyliuk was outside the channel led by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, and Trumps envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, who were pushing the Ukrainians to promise the investigations, they said acting on directions from Trumps personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Those discussions were handled by Zelenskiys close aide and friend, Andriy Yermak, who met with Giuliani. Danilyuk was present at a meeting in the White House on July 10, though, where Sondland raised the investigations and he later told U.S. ambassador William Taylor he was concerned about Zelenskiy being used as a pawn in American domestic politics.

If the embassys message did fail to reach Kyiv, one possible explanation might be it was sent during a period of confusion during Zelenskiys transition into office when he was without his own cabinet and when his team were publicly feuding with Chaliy. Zelenskiys administration considered Chaliy too close to his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, and worried he was disliked by the Trump administration, which believed he had taken part in an attempt to smear President Trump.

The message also appears to have gotten lost on the U.S. side. Cooper testified that Ukraines embassys inquiries did not reach her at the time and she only learned of them this month from her staff, who told her after listening to her first closed-door testimony from October.

It was unclear if the Ukrainians ever got responses that the aid was being held up. Cooper said her staffer told the Ukrainian embassy contact that everything was OK, but to check with the State Department. She said her staff recalled having other meetings with the embassy in August, where the aid came up but didnt remember when exactly.

Prior to Cooper, the order of events described by other testimony appeared to support the idea that much of Zelenskiys administration was ignorant of the hold for most of the summer. Taylor, testified that as far as he was aware, the Ukrainians only discovered it when it became public on Aug. 29 and began urgently contacting him.

Former White House national security adviser John Bolton was in Kyiv on an official visit on Aug. 27, one day before the hold became public, but the Ukrainians, including Danyliuk, never raised the issue, according to Taylors testimony.

Amazingly, news of the hold on security assistance did not leak out until August 29th. I, on the other hand, was all too aware of and still troubled by the hold, Taylor said in his testimony.

Once it became public, Ukrainian officials have described urgently trying to contact their counterparts. Danyliuk said he tried to reach Bolton. Zelenskiy then brought up the issue of the aid days later with Vice President Mike Pence at a meeting in Warsaw on September 1. Ten days later, the hold was lifted, following bi-partisan calls on Trump to do so and amid intensifying scrutiny following the submission of the Whistle-blower complaint that triggered the impeachment inquiry.

Another Ukrainian official in October told ABC News that after they had realized the aid was being held it had not taken them long to understand that the decision must have come from Trump.

From almost all our others U.S. counterparts, the Pentagon, Congress, we got the message, that Guys we have nothing against this. Its not us, the official said. And then the final answer was very short and clear, it was clearly the decision of Person Number One, said the official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

The official said they had learned of the hold in late August from another official involved in bilateral relations but did not say when precisely.

Regardless of when they knew, however, once it became public Zelenskiys team was quickly informed by Gordon Sondland the freeze on the aid was linked to the investigations.

Sondland in his testimony on Wednesday said again that he had told the top Zelenskiy aide, Yermak, about the link on the side-lines of the Warsaw meeting. Sondland said he told Yermak there for the first time the aid was unlikely to be released without a public statement from Zelenskiy promising the investigations.

Danyliuk insisted that even after that meeting, he didn't realize the aid was tied to the investigations and that he believed the hold was the result of a technical issue. He said, Yermak had never told him of Sondlands conversation, saying he only learned it while reading the Congressional testimonies.

Zelenskiys administration though had for months understood there was another part of the quid pro quo--that a White House visit was contingent on the investigations, sources close to the administration said. Sondland and Volker testified they had made clear to the Ukrainians that a public statement was needed for a meeting with Trump and text messages released by the Congressional committees show Yermak agreeing to have Zelenskiy make a statement if a date for a visit was given.

A number of Zelenskiy advisers were strongly opposed to the Ukrainian president making such a statement, believing it was inappropriate for a head of state and could damage the strong bi-partisan report for Ukraine in Congress. Some officials also said they viewed it as unnecessary, believing Congressional pressure would likely force the release of the aid anyway. But after Sondlands message, Zelenskiy arranged to make the announcement in a CNN interview in early September, only to cancel it after the aid was unfrozen on Sept. 11, according to Taylors testimony.

Sondland testified given what had happened over the visit, he had concluded there was no chance the aid would be released either without a statement.

If you cant get a meeting without a statement, what makes you think youre going to get a $400 million check? he told Wednesdays hearing.

Read the original post:
Ukrainian officials give conflicting accounts of when they learned US aid was frozen - ABC News

FILE PHOTO: Mark Sandy, official of the Office of Management and Budget, arrives for a closed-door deposition as part of the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., November 16, 2019. REUTERS/Yara Nardi

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An attorney for the White Houses budget office resigned in part because of concerns over the hold on U.S. military aid to Ukraine, an official for the office said according to a transcript of his deposition released on Tuesday.

Mark Sandy, a career official at the Office of Management and Budget, which ordered the hold on security assistance to Ukraine, told congressional investigators during the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry that a person in the offices legal division resigned in part over issues with the hold.

Reporting by Jonathan Landay; Writing by Makini Brice; Editing by Eric Beech

See more here:
White House budget office attorney resigned in part over Ukraine aid hold: official - Reuters

Listen and subscribe to our podcast from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via RadioPublic | Via Stitcher

In the phone call at the center of the impeachment inquiry, President Trump asked Ukraine for two different investigations. Today, we explore the unexpected story behind one of them.

Scott Shane contributed reporting.

The Daily is made by Theo Balcomb, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Alexandra Leigh Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Adizah Eghan, Kelly Prime, Julia Longoria, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, Jazmn Aguilera, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Austin Mitchell, Sayre Quevedo, Monika Evstatieva and Neena Pathak. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Stella Tan, Julia Simon and Lauren Jackson.

Originally posted here:
Why Trump Still Believes (Wrongly) That Ukraine Hacked the D.N.C. - The New York Times

Rudy Giuliani offered to help an indicted Ukrainian oligarch with his U.S. legal problems if he, in turn, helped with Giulianis pressure campaign on the Ukrainian government, according to the oligarch. Dmytro Firtash, an energy tycoon linked to the Kremlin whos facing extradition to the U.S. on bribery and racketeering charges, spoke to The New York Times. Firtash claims that, in June, he met with Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who offered help with his Justice Department problems if he hired two lawyers close to President TrumpJoseph diGenova and Victoria Toensingand helped with Giulianis dirt-digging mission on the Biden familys activities in Ukraine. Parnas lawyer has confirmed his client met Firtash at Giulianis request, and encouraged the oligarch to help in the hunt for compromising information as part of any potential resolution to his extradition matter. Firtash said he had no information about the Bidens and hadnt paid for the search for it. Without my will and desire... I was sucked into this internal U.S. fight, he said.

Visit link:
Oligarch: Giuliani Offered to Help With Legal Problems, if I Helped Pressure Ukraine - The Daily Beast