President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
REACTIONS TO THIS OP-ED Trump Lashes Out After Reports of ‘Quiet Resistance’ by StaffSept. 5, 2018 Anonymous Op-Ed in New York Times Causes a Stir Online and in the White HouseSept. 5, 2018 It Wasn’t Me: Pence, Pompeo and a Parade of Administration Officials Deny Writing Op-EdSept. 6, 2018 Opinion: ‘Anonymous’ vs. Trump: Resistance From WithinSept. 6, 2018 How the Anonymous Op-Ed Came to BeSept. 8, 2018 Opinion: A Top Republican Fires Back at ‘Anonymous’Sept. 7, 2018 Opinion | Rachel L. Harris And Lisa Tarchak: The New Resistance: Steadying or Upending Democracy? Sept. 10, 2018 We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
It’s the conspiracy theory that could bring down a presidency: the idea that an old Democratic National Committee email server is hidden somewhere in Ukraine and could rewrite the history of the 2016 election.
If it does lead to President Trump’s impeachment, it will be because he believed it.
“There was a server, the DNC server, that had never went to the FBI — the FBI didn’t take it,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News. “It was taken by somebody, I guess it’s CrowdStrike, that’s what I have heard.”
Trump pushed the same line last week in the Oval Office, stating, “For instance, I still ask the FBI, ‘Where is the server?’ How come the FBI never got the server from the DNC? Where is the server? I want to see the server.”
There is no DNC server. CrowdStrike is a cybersecurity firm that investigated the 2016 hack into DNC emails and turned its findings over to the FBI. Trump brought up CrowdStrike and the server in a July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In the memo about the call released by the White House, Trump said, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike,” followed by an ellipsis, followed by “The server, they say Ukraine has it.”
Trump and his fellow conspiracy theorists on the right believe that the server would contain evidence proving that Russia wasn’t responsible for the hack. (CrowdStrike found that Russia was responsible, as did special counsel Robert Mueller.) The impeachment inquiry was sparked by a whistleblower complaint about the president’s attempt to pressure Ukraine into pursuing his theory about the server and investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.
Taylor’s Opening Statement Shocked Lawmakers October 22, 2019 at 12:41 pm EDT
The opening statement from Bill Taylor, the acting US ambassador to Ukraine, to the House impeachment inquiry solicited “sighs and gasps,” Politico reports.
Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) is quoted by the Wall Street Journal: “All I have to say is that in my 10 short months in Congress – it’s not even noon, right – and this is my most disturbing day in Congress so far. Very troubling.”
He did not elaborate.
When asked how much longer today’s Taylor deposition will go, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) told the Daily Beast: “Y’all have plans for the weekend?”
Taylor Confirms Trump Sought Ukraine Quid Pro Quo October 22, 2019 at 2:33 pm EDT
“President Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday of intense efforts by administration officials to secure investigations of Trump’s political rivals in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president and critical military aid,” Politico reports.
“William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement… Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described ‘how pervasive the efforts were’ among Trump’s allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.”
The New York Times says Taylor provided an “excruciatingly detailed” opening statement that described the quid-pro-quo pressure campaign that Trump and his allies have been denying.
The Washington Post describes the testimony as “DAMNING.”
McConnell Denies Discussing Ukraine Call with Trump October 22, 2019 at 3:16 pm EDT
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) denied in a CBS News interview ever telling President Trump that his Ukraine call was “perfect” or “innocent,” as the president has claimed.
Asked whether Trump was lying, the Kentucky Republican replied: “You’d have to ask him.”
LOL.
COWARD REPUBLICANS. CALL HIM A LIAR AND THEN TRY TO SQUIRM OUT OF CALLING HIM A LIAR.
Trying to Change Trump’s Mind on Syria October 22, 2019 at 2:28 pm EDT
“In the days after President Donald Trump paved the way for Turkey to invade Syria, several of his closest allies went to the White House — twice — to try to change his mind,” NBC News reports.
“Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the U.S. and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran’s hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country. Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again on Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at his side.”
Russia Wins Joint Control of Northern Syria October 22, 2019 at 2:29 pm EDT
Russian President Vladimir Putin played host to Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for more than six hours of talks on how they and other regional players will divide control of Syria, a land devastated by eight years of civil war, the New York Times reports.
“The negotiations ended with a victory for Mr. Putin: Russian and Turkish troops will take joint control over a vast swath of formerly Kurdish-held territory in northern Syria, in a move that cements the rapid expansion of Russian influence in Syria at the expense of the United States and its Kurdish former allies.”
Anonymous Op-Ed Writer Has Written a Book October 22, 2019 at 3:17 pm EDT
“The author of an anonymous column in the New York Times in 2018, who was identified as a senior Trump administration official acting as part of the ‘resistance’ inside the government, has written a tell-all book to be published next month,” the Washington Post reports.
The book, titled, A WARNING is being promoted as “an unprecedented behind-the-scenes portrait of the Trump presidency” that expands upon the Times column, which ricocheted around the world and stoked the president’s RAGE because of its devastating portrayal of Trump in office.
According to CNN, the literary agency representing the author declined to comment on whether the person still worked in the administration.
Nielsen Resigned Because Saying No Wasn’t Working October 22, 2019 at 4:17 pm EDT
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says she resigned from her post earlier this year because “it became clear that saying no” to policies she disagreed with “was not going to be enough,” The Hill reports. ___________
Donor Guilty of Hiding Work as Foreign Agent October 22, 2019 at 4:48 pm EDT
“A prolific political fundraiser who donated large sums to President Trump’s inaugural committee is expected to plead guilty to federal criminal charges.” the AP reports.
“The Justice Department says Imaad Zuberi will admit in federal court in Los Angeles that he falsified records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials.”
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says she resigned from her post earlier this year because “it became clear that saying no” to policies she disagreed with “was not going to be enough,”
She did the right and honorable thing and resigned.
After more than four years of trying to limit the president's divisive style, asking him to stop tweeting or focus on the economy, the Republican Party has given up any pretense of even trying to rein in the president.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the lone African-American GOP senator, said he “wouldn’t use” the term but largely supported the president’s broader frustrations.
“This is the political version of a death row trial. The president is up in arms in anger about it,” said Scott, who met privately with Trump in 2017 after the president appeared to defend white supremacists rallying in Charlottesville. “He’s putting his political life on trial. His comments reflect it.”
Republicans had already been privately expressing frustration that Trump has been acting as a one-man war room in the impeachment fight, lashing out in Cabinet meetings and lobbing attacks from his Twitter account. But they were utterly unprepared for what was awaiting them on Tuesday morning.
“So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights,” he wrote on Twitter. “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!”
Trump’s latest controversy put Republicans in an uncomfortable, albeit familiar, spot: stand with the president or distance themselves from him.
Some of Trump’s top allies on Capitol Hill showed little interest in jumping on Trump’s latest grenade, but they also refused to slam him.
"That's not the language I would use," said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) at his weekly press conference. “I don't agree with that language, pretty simple."
“He could have used different language,” added House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), while making clear that he agrees with Trump’s frustration over the process.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also expressed his disapproval and advised that the president call it an "unfair process, inconsistent with the kind of procedural safeguards that are routinely provided to people in this kind of situation."
“Given the history in our country, I would not compare it to a lynching. That was an unfortunate choice of words," McConnell told reporters. "It is an unfair process."
Others went further, including some Republicans.
“Inappropriate. That’s not appropriate in any context,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.).
“You are comparing a constitutional process to the PREVALENT and SYSTEMATIC brutal torture of people in THIS COUNTRY that looked like me?” tweeted Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
But amid calls from Trump to "get tougher and fight" on his behalf in the impeachment fight, some Republicans are doing just that.
It is more than just the quid Pro quo, he bribed the President and Ukraine to get information on his opponent.
Oct. 22, 2019 Updated 5:41 p.m. ET WASHINGTON — William B. Taylor Jr., the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, told impeachment investigators privately on Tuesday that President Trump held up vital security aid for the country and refused a White House meeting with Ukraine’s leader until he agreed to make a public pledge to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.
In testimony built around careful notes he took during his tenure and delivered in defiance of State Department orders, Mr. Taylor sketched out in remarkable detail a quid-pro-quo pressure campaign on Ukraine that Mr. Trump and his allies have long denied, one in which the president conditioned the entire United States relationship with Ukraine on a promise that the country would investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his family, along with other Democrats.
His account implicated Mr. Trump personally in the effort, citing multiple sources inside the government, including a budget official who said during a secure National Security Council conference call in July that she had been instructed not to approve a $391 million security assistance package for Ukraine, and that, Mr. Taylor said, “the directive had come from the president.”
First, #BillTaylor is the acting US ambassador to Ukraine
He met with a top Schiff staffer at end of August
When he sent a text to Sondland on Sept 9, accusing Adm of tying US aid to assistance with a political campaign, Sondland immediately told him he was wrong and there was no quid pro quo
Coincidentally (or not) Taylor’s text came the same day that ICIG send a letter to Schiff’s committee (not Senate Intel) about “whistleblower” complaint. Another Schiff operation
Question: Do you have any first hand knowledge of a quid-pro-Quo between the president and any official of Ukraine. Answer: No Question: Then all this quid-pro-quo testimony is nothing but speculative opinion is that correct? Answer: Yes
That is what a proper cross-examination would look like.
JUST IN: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked for the second time on the Senate floor a resolution formally opposing President Trump's Syria strategy. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) tried to set up a vote on the House-passed resolution, which formally opposes Trump's decision to pull back U.S. troops from northern Syria, but Paul once again shot it down.
Opening Statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor – October 22, 2019
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to provide my perspective on the events that are the subject of the Committees’ inquiry. My sole purpose is to provide the Committees with my views about the strategic importance of Ukraine to the United States as well as additional information about the incidents in question.
I have dedicated my life to serving U.S. interests at home and abroad in both military and civilian roles. My background and experience are nonpartisan and I have been honored to serve under every administration, Republican and Democratic, since 1985.
For 50 years, I have served the country, starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an infantry officer for six years, including with the 101 Airborne Division in Vietnam; unlike the bone spur draft dodger son of a bitch, then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff; then at NATO; then with the State Department here and abroad — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jerusalem, and Ukraine; and more recently, as Executive Vice President of the nonpartisan United States Institute of Peace.
I had served as Ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, having been nominated by George W. Bush, and, in the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member of a small Ukrainian non-governmental organization supporting good governance and reform. Across the responsibilities I have had in public service, Ukraine is special for me, and Secretary Pompeo’s offer to return as Chief of Mission was compelling. I am convinced of the profound importance of Ukraine to the security of the United States and Europe for two related reasons:
First, if Ukraine succeeds in breaking free of Russian influence, it is possible for Europe to be whole, free, democratic, and at peace. In contrast, if Russia dominates Ukraine, Russia will again become an empire, oppressing its people, and threatening its neighbors and the rest of the world.
Second, with the annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and the continued aggression in Donbas, Russia violated countless treaties, ignored all commitments, and dismissed all the principles that have kept the peace and contributed to prosperity in Europe since World War II. To restore Ukraine’s independence, Russia must leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be a bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goal.
When I was serving outside of government during the Obama adıninistration and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, I joined two other former ambassadors to Ukraine in urging Obama administration officials at the State Department, Defense Department, and other agencies to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression. I also supported much stronger sanctions against Russia.
All to say, I cared about Ukraine’s future and the important U.S. interests there. So, when Secretary Pompeo asked me to go back to Kyiv, I wanted to say “yes.”
I returned to Kyiv on June 17, carrying the original copy of a letter President Trump signed the day after I met with the Secretary. In that letter, President Trump congratulated President Zelenskyy on his election victory and invited him to a meeting in the Oval Office. I also brought with me a framed copy of the Secretary’s declaration that the United States would never recognize the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea.
But once I arrived in Kyiv, I discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances.
3
See Original Document First, the encouraging: President Zelenskyy was taking over Ukraine in a hurry. He had appointed reformist ministers and supported long-stalled anti-corruption legislation. He took quick executive action, including opening Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court, which was established under the previous presidential administration but never allowed to operate. He called snap parliamentary elections — his party was so new it had no representation in the Rada — and later won an overwhelming mandate, controlling 60 percent of the seats. With his new parliamentary majority, President Zelenskyy changed the Ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from Rada deputies, which had been the source of raw corruption for two decades. There was much excitement in Kyiv that this time things could be different — a new Ukraine might finally be breaking from its corrupt, post-Soviet past.
And yet, I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy towards Ukraine. There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. As the Chief of Mission, I had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic processes, including the bulk of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion and to help it defeat corruption. This regular channel of U.S. policy-making has consistently had strong, bipartisan support both in Congress and in all administrations since Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991.
At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Kurt Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani. I was clearly in the regular channel, but I was also in the irregular one to the extent that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland included me in certain conversations. Although this irregular channel was well-connected in Washington, it operated mostly outside of official State Department channels. This irregular channel began when Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Ron Johnson briefed President Trump on May 23 upon their return from President Zelenskyy’s inauguration. The delegation returned to Washington enthusiastic about the new Ukrainian president and urged President Trump to meet with him early on to cement the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. But from what I understood, President Trump did not share their enthusiasın for a meeting with Mr. Zelenskyy.
When I first arrived in Kyiv, in June and July, the actions of both the regular and the irregular channels of foreign policy served the same goal — a strong U.S.-
4
See Original Document Ukraine partnership — but it became clear to me by August that the channels had diverged in their objectives. As this occurred, I became increasingly concerned.
By mid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason that I could discern, I was beginning to fear that the longstanding U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine was shifting. I called Counselor Brechbuhl to discuss this on August 21. He said that he was not aware of a change of U.S. policy but would check on the status of the security assistance. My concerns deepened the next day, on August 22, during a phone conversation with Mr. Morrison. I asked him if there had been a change in policy of strong support for Ukraine, to which he responded, “it remains to be seen.” He also told me during this call that the “President doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.” That was extremely troubling to me. As I had told Secretary Pompeo in May, if the policy of strong support for Ukraine were to change, I would have to resign. Based on my call with Mr. Morrison, I was preparing to do so.
37 comments:
wow
Keep this up and I will release your name and address.
Do it Roger.
Nothing Normal about Broke, Homeless and penniless Roger.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
REACTIONS TO THIS OP-ED
Trump Lashes Out After Reports of ‘Quiet Resistance’ by StaffSept. 5, 2018
Anonymous Op-Ed in New York Times Causes a Stir Online and in the White HouseSept. 5, 2018
It Wasn’t Me: Pence, Pompeo and a Parade of Administration Officials Deny Writing Op-EdSept. 6, 2018
Opinion: ‘Anonymous’ vs. Trump: Resistance From WithinSept. 6, 2018
How the Anonymous Op-Ed Came to BeSept. 8, 2018
Opinion: A Top Republican Fires Back at ‘Anonymous’Sept. 7, 2018
Opinion | Rachel L. Harris And Lisa Tarchak: The New Resistance: Steadying or Upending Democracy? Sept. 10, 2018
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
An opinion by a person who is either totally fictitious or doesn't have the courage to put his own name on it.
I am utterly unimpressed.
An opinion by a person who is either totally fictitious or doesn't have the courage to put his own name on it.
BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! While you post opinions here unfounded by reality!!!!!!
Trump and his lying will be his downfall!!!!
It’s the conspiracy theory that could bring down a presidency: the idea that an old Democratic National Committee email server is hidden somewhere in Ukraine and could rewrite the history of the 2016 election.
If it does lead to President Trump’s impeachment, it will be because he believed it.
“There was a server, the DNC server, that had never went to the FBI — the FBI didn’t take it,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News. “It was taken by somebody, I guess it’s CrowdStrike, that’s what I have heard.”
Trump pushed the same line last week in the Oval Office, stating, “For instance, I still ask the FBI, ‘Where is the server?’ How come the FBI never got the server from the DNC? Where is the server? I want to see the server.”
There is no DNC server. CrowdStrike is a cybersecurity firm that investigated the 2016 hack into DNC emails and turned its findings over to the FBI. Trump brought up CrowdStrike and the server in a July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In the memo about the call released by the White House, Trump said, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike,” followed by an ellipsis, followed by “The server, they say Ukraine has it.”
Trump and his fellow conspiracy theorists on the right believe that the server would contain evidence proving that Russia wasn’t responsible for the hack. (CrowdStrike found that Russia was responsible, as did special counsel Robert Mueller.) The impeachment inquiry was sparked by a whistleblower complaint about the president’s attempt to pressure Ukraine into pursuing his theory about the server and investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.
LIAR. YOU ARE QUITE IMPRESSED. EVEN DEVASTATED.
YES,
D E V A S T A T E D.
Taylor’s Opening Statement Shocked Lawmakers
October 22, 2019 at 12:41 pm EDT
The opening statement from Bill Taylor, the acting US ambassador to Ukraine, to the House impeachment inquiry solicited “sighs and gasps,” Politico reports.
Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) is quoted by the Wall Street Journal: “All I have to say is that in my 10 short months in Congress – it’s not even noon, right – and this is my most disturbing day in Congress so far. Very troubling.”
He did not elaborate.
When asked how much longer today’s Taylor deposition will go, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) told the Daily Beast: “Y’all have plans for the weekend?”
James, you're projecting again.
Taylor Confirms Trump Sought Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
October 22, 2019 at 2:33 pm EDT
“President Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday of intense efforts by administration officials to secure investigations of Trump’s political rivals in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president and critical military aid,” Politico reports.
“William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement… Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described ‘how pervasive the efforts were’ among Trump’s allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.”
The New York Times says Taylor provided an “excruciatingly detailed” opening statement that described the quid-pro-quo pressure campaign that Trump and his allies have been denying.
The Washington Post describes the testimony as “DAMNING.”
McConnell Denies Discussing Ukraine Call with Trump
October 22, 2019 at 3:16 pm EDT
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) denied in a CBS News interview ever telling President Trump that his Ukraine call was “perfect” or “innocent,” as the president has claimed.
Asked whether Trump was lying, the Kentucky Republican replied: “You’d have to ask him.”
LOL.
COWARD REPUBLICANS. CALL HIM A LIAR AND THEN TRY TO SQUIRM OUT OF CALLING HIM A LIAR.
Taylor’s Opening Statement
October 22, 2019 at 3:39 pm EDT
The Washington Post has obtained a copy of Ambassador Bill Taylor’s opening statement to the House committees investigating impeachment.
It’s a brutal indictment of the Trump administration’s efforts to tie Ukraine military aid for political favors.
Matt Viser summarizes: “President Trump insisted, over and over there was not a ‘quid pro quo.’
But there was a quid.
Followed by a pro.
And then, finally, a quo.”
READ THE LIPS.
QUID. PRO. QUO.
Trying to Change Trump’s Mind on Syria
October 22, 2019 at 2:28 pm EDT
“In the days after President Donald Trump paved the way for Turkey to invade Syria, several of his closest allies went to the White House — twice — to try to change his mind,” NBC News reports.
“Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the U.S. and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran’s hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country. Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again on Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at his side.”
TOO STUPID TO LISTEN.
THEY TRIED TO TELL HIM, BUT----
Russia Wins Joint Control of Northern Syria
October 22, 2019 at 2:29 pm EDT
Russian President Vladimir Putin played host to Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for more than six hours of talks on how they and other regional players will divide control of Syria, a land devastated by eight years of civil war, the New York Times reports.
“The negotiations ended with a victory for Mr. Putin:
Russian and Turkish troops will take joint control over a vast swath of formerly Kurdish-held territory in northern Syria, in a move that cements the rapid expansion of Russian influence in Syria at the expense of the United States and its Kurdish former allies.”
Anonymous Op-Ed Writer Has Written a Book
October 22, 2019 at 3:17 pm EDT
“The author of an anonymous column in the New York Times in 2018, who was identified as a senior Trump administration official acting as part of the ‘resistance’ inside the government, has written a tell-all book to be published next month,” the Washington Post reports.
The book, titled, A WARNING is being promoted as “an unprecedented behind-the-scenes portrait of the Trump presidency” that expands upon the Times column, which ricocheted around the world and stoked the president’s RAGE because of its devastating portrayal of Trump in office.
According to CNN, the literary agency representing the author declined to comment on whether the person still worked in the administration.
Nielsen Resigned Because Saying No Wasn’t Working
October 22, 2019 at 4:17 pm EDT
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says she resigned from her post earlier this year because “it became clear that saying no” to policies she disagreed with “was not going to be enough,” The Hill reports.
___________
Donor Guilty of Hiding Work as Foreign Agent
October 22, 2019 at 4:48 pm EDT
“A prolific political fundraiser who donated large sums to President Trump’s inaugural committee is expected to plead guilty to federal criminal charges.” the AP reports.
“The Justice Department says Imaad Zuberi will admit in federal court in Los Angeles that he falsified records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials.”
SEE ALL THE OTHER GOOD STUFF I HAVE PUT ON THE NEXT THREAD DOWN.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says she resigned from her post earlier this year because “it became clear that saying no” to policies she disagreed with “was not going to be enough,”
She did the right and honorable thing and resigned.
After more than four years of trying to limit the president's divisive style, asking him to stop tweeting or focus on the economy, the Republican Party has given up any pretense of even trying to rein in the president.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the lone African-American GOP senator, said he “wouldn’t use” the term but largely supported the president’s broader frustrations.
“This is the political version of a death row trial. The president is up in arms in anger about it,” said Scott, who met privately with Trump in 2017 after the president appeared to defend white supremacists rallying in Charlottesville. “He’s putting his political life on trial. His comments reflect it.”
Republicans had already been privately expressing frustration that Trump has been acting as a one-man war room in the impeachment fight, lashing out in Cabinet meetings and lobbing attacks from his Twitter account. But they were utterly unprepared for what was awaiting them on Tuesday morning.
“So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights,” he wrote on Twitter. “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!”
Trump’s latest controversy put Republicans in an uncomfortable, albeit familiar, spot: stand with the president or distance themselves from him.
Some of Trump’s top allies on Capitol Hill showed little interest in jumping on Trump’s latest grenade, but they also refused to slam him.
"That's not the language I would use," said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) at his weekly press conference. “I don't agree with that language, pretty simple."
“He could have used different language,” added House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), while making clear that he agrees with Trump’s frustration over the process.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also expressed his disapproval and advised that the president call it an "unfair process, inconsistent with the kind of procedural safeguards that are routinely provided to people in this kind of situation."
“Given the history in our country, I would not compare it to a lynching. That was an unfortunate choice of words," McConnell told reporters. "It is an unfair process."
Others went further, including some Republicans.
“Inappropriate. That’s not appropriate in any context,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.).
“You are comparing a constitutional process to the PREVALENT and SYSTEMATIC brutal torture of people in THIS COUNTRY that looked like me?” tweeted Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
But amid calls from Trump to "get tougher and fight" on his behalf in the impeachment fight, some Republicans are doing just that.
It is more than just the quid Pro quo, he bribed the President and Ukraine to get information on his opponent.
Oct. 22, 2019
Updated 5:41 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — William B. Taylor Jr., the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, told impeachment investigators privately on Tuesday that President Trump held up vital security aid for the country and refused a White House meeting with Ukraine’s leader until he agreed to make a public pledge to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.
In testimony built around careful notes he took during his tenure and delivered in defiance of State Department orders, Mr. Taylor sketched out in remarkable detail a quid-pro-quo pressure campaign on Ukraine that Mr. Trump and his allies have long denied, one in which the president conditioned the entire United States relationship with Ukraine on a promise that the country would investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his family, along with other Democrats.
His account implicated Mr. Trump personally in the effort, citing multiple sources inside the government, including a budget official who said during a secure National Security Council conference call in July that she had been instructed not to approve a $391 million security assistance package for Ukraine, and that, Mr. Taylor said, “the directive had come from the president.”
@julie_kelly2
First, #BillTaylor is the acting US ambassador to Ukraine
He met with a top Schiff staffer at end of August
When he sent a text to Sondland on Sept 9, accusing Adm of tying US aid to assistance with a political campaign, Sondland immediately told him he was wrong and there was no quid pro quo
Coincidentally (or not) Taylor’s text came the same day that ICIG send a letter to Schiff’s committee (not Senate Intel) about “whistleblower” complaint. Another Schiff operation
https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/18/adam-schiffs-impeachment-witness-tampering/
Question: Do you have any first hand knowledge of a quid-pro-Quo between the president and any official of Ukraine.
Answer: No
Question: Then all this quid-pro-quo testimony is nothing but speculative opinion is that correct?
Answer: Yes
That is what a proper cross-examination would look like.
The greatest businessman ever!
1. Putin agrees to help Trump win the election
2. Trump removes U.S. troops from Turkish border
3. Putin emerges as greatest power in the Middle East
Like clockwork. It's the art of the deal.
Mr. Taylor said, under oath today!!!!“the directive had come from the president.”
JUST IN: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked for the second time on the Senate floor a resolution formally opposing President Trump's Syria strategy. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) tried to set up a vote on the House-passed resolution, which formally opposes Trump's decision to pull back U.S. troops from northern Syria, but Paul once again shot it down.
Sondland immediately told him he was wrong and there was no quid pro quo
kind of refutes what Taylor says.
Did he say what Schiff was talking to him about weeks before?
Smells like a normal Schiff setup or charade if you prefer.
I'd call it a HOAX, but VOTE and get it on.
Or maybe Taylor was just doing a parody.
Opening Statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor – October 22, 2019
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to provide my perspective on the events that are the subject of the Committees’ inquiry. My sole purpose is to provide the Committees with my views about the strategic importance of Ukraine to the United States as well as additional information about the incidents in question.
I have dedicated my life to serving U.S. interests at home and abroad in both military and civilian roles. My background and experience are nonpartisan and I have been honored to serve under every administration, Republican and Democratic, since 1985.
For 50 years, I have served the country, starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an infantry officer for six years, including with the 101 Airborne Division in Vietnam; unlike the bone spur draft dodger son of a bitch, then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff; then at NATO; then with the State Department here and abroad — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jerusalem, and Ukraine; and more recently, as Executive Vice President of the nonpartisan United States Institute of Peace.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html
I had served as Ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, having been nominated by George W. Bush, and, in the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member of a small Ukrainian non-governmental organization supporting good governance and reform. Across the responsibilities I have had in public service, Ukraine is special for me, and Secretary Pompeo’s offer to return as Chief of Mission was compelling. I am convinced of the profound importance of Ukraine to the security of the United States and Europe for two related reasons:
First, if Ukraine succeeds in breaking free of Russian influence, it is possible for Europe to be whole, free, democratic, and at peace. In contrast, if Russia dominates Ukraine, Russia will again become an empire, oppressing its people, and threatening its neighbors and the rest of the world.
Second, with the annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and the continued aggression in Donbas, Russia violated countless treaties, ignored all commitments, and dismissed all the principles that have kept the peace and contributed to prosperity in Europe since World War II. To restore Ukraine’s independence, Russia must leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be a bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goal.
When I was serving outside of government during the Obama adıninistration and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, I joined two other former ambassadors to Ukraine in urging Obama administration officials at the State Department, Defense Department, and other agencies to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression. I also supported much stronger sanctions against Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html
All to say, I cared about Ukraine’s future and the important U.S. interests there. So, when Secretary Pompeo asked me to go back to Kyiv, I wanted to say “yes.”
But then.
I returned to Kyiv on June 17, carrying the original copy of a letter President Trump signed the day after I met with the Secretary. In that letter, President Trump congratulated President Zelenskyy on his election victory and invited him to a meeting in the Oval Office. I also brought with me a framed copy of the Secretary’s declaration that the United States would never recognize the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea.
But once I arrived in Kyiv, I discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances.
3
See Original Document
First, the encouraging: President Zelenskyy was taking over Ukraine in a hurry. He had appointed reformist ministers and supported long-stalled anti-corruption legislation. He took quick executive action, including opening Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court, which was established under the previous presidential administration but never allowed to operate. He called snap parliamentary elections — his party was so new it had no representation in the Rada — and later won an overwhelming mandate, controlling 60 percent of the seats. With his new parliamentary majority, President Zelenskyy changed the Ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from Rada deputies, which had been the source of raw corruption for two decades. There was much excitement in Kyiv that this time things could be different — a new Ukraine might finally be breaking from its corrupt, post-Soviet past.
And yet, I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy towards Ukraine. There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. As the Chief of Mission, I had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic processes, including the bulk of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion and to help it defeat corruption. This regular channel of U.S. policy-making has consistently had strong, bipartisan support both in Congress and in all administrations since Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991.
At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Kurt Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani. I was clearly in the regular channel, but I was also in the irregular one to the extent that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland included me in certain conversations. Although this irregular channel was well-connected in Washington, it operated mostly outside of official State Department channels. This irregular channel began when Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Ron Johnson briefed President Trump on May 23 upon their return from President Zelenskyy’s inauguration. The delegation returned to Washington enthusiastic about the new Ukrainian president and urged President Trump to meet with him early on to cement the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. But from what I understood, President Trump did not share their enthusiasın for a meeting with Mr. Zelenskyy.
When I first arrived in Kyiv, in June and July, the actions of both the regular and the irregular channels of foreign policy served the same goal — a strong U.S.-
4
See Original Document
Ukraine partnership — but it became clear to me by August that the channels had diverged in their objectives. As this occurred, I became increasingly concerned.
By mid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason that I could discern, I was beginning to fear that the longstanding U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine was shifting. I called Counselor Brechbuhl to discuss this on August 21. He said that he was not aware of a change of U.S. policy but would check on the status of the security assistance. My concerns deepened the next day, on August 22, during a phone conversation with Mr. Morrison. I asked him if there had been a change in policy of strong support for Ukraine, to which he responded, “it remains to be seen.” He also told me during this call that the “President doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.” That was extremely troubling to me. As I had told Secretary Pompeo in May, if the policy of strong support for Ukraine were to change, I would have to resign. Based on my call with Mr. Morrison, I was preparing to do so.
Alky vs Jane in a death match spam war.
Post a Comment