SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Franklin, Andrews, Kramer & Edelstein -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: scion who wrote (12274)11/24/2019 8:44:27 AM
From: scion  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12881
 
op House Democrat says ethics probe of Nunes is likely over alleged meeting with Ukrainian about Bidens

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Colby Itkowitz
November 24, 2019 at 12:47 a.m. GMT
washingtonpost.com

A high-ranking House Democrat said Saturday it’s “quite likely” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) will face an ethics investigation over allegations that he met with an ex-Ukrainian official to obtain information about former vice president Joe Biden and his son.

Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, appeared on MSNBC where he was asked whether Nunes could face a House inquiry. “Quite likely, without question,” Smith said.

The allegation that Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, met with a former Ukrainian prosecutor last year to discuss the Bidens came from the attorney for Lev Parnas, one of two Soviet-born associates of Rudolph W. Giuliani who were indicted on charges they broke campaign finance law.

Parnas’s attorney, Joseph Bondy, told The Washington Post that Ukraine’s former top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, informed Parnas that he had met with Nunes in Vienna in December 2018.

Bondy also said that a top aide to Nunes, Derek Harvey, sometimes joined a group that met frequently in spring 2019 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss the Biden matter, among other topics. The group, according to Bondy, was convened by Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, and included Parnas, his business associate Igor Fruman, as well as journalist John Solomon and the husband-and-wife legal team of Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing.

The information about Nunes’s meeting with Shokin and Harvey’s meetings with Giuliani were first reported by CNN on Friday.


Nunes declined to comment. He did, however, strongly push back on the story to the conservative outlet Breitbart News and threatened to sue CNN for reporting it. He also threatened to sue the Daily Beast for a story linking him and Parnas.

“These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth,” Nunes said, according to Breitbart. “I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets, as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law.”

An individual close to Shokin also denied the story.

“This meeting never took place. Viktor Shokin doesn’t know and hasn’t even heard of this person,” said the individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, referring to Nunes.

Giuliani, appearing on Fox News on Saturday, also said he didn’t believe that Nunes met with Shokin.

“Devin Nunes says he didn’t meet with Shokin. I have no reason to believe that he did,” Giuliani said, adding, “If he did, there would’ve been nothing wrong with it.”

The allegation about Nunes comes as the House moves swiftly in its impeachment investigation of President Trump. The inquiry, triggered by a whistleblower’s complaint, focuses on Trump’s pressure campaign to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into 2020 presidential rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

At stake at the time of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky was nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid and a long-sought invitation for a face-to-face meeting of the two leaders in Washington.

“I understand a lot of this is about Joe Biden but the bigger thing is about what President Trump and the Russians and all these people have been doing … is a systematic problem that is a threat to the country because of what Russia is doing to democracy,” Smith said in the MSNBC interview.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted, “If Devin Nunes was using taxpayer money to do ‘political errands’ in Vienna for his puppeteer, Donald Trump, an ethics investigation should be initiated and he should be required to reimburse the taxpayers.”

And in an interview with National Public Radio on Saturday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), another member of the committee, said the panel should hear from Parnas.

“I think it would be valuable to hear from him because we want to know just how far this work extended, how many people were doing the president’s dirty work here,” Castro said.

Shokin is a key figure in Giuliani’s effort to press the Ukrainians to open an investigation into Biden.

He was fired as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General in March 2016, after a pressure campaign from Ukraine’s western allies, led by Biden. Shokin has publicly accused Biden of engineering that effort to protect his son Hunter, who was serving on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Ukraine desperately wants the U.S. on its side. They just don’t know who has Trump’s ear anymore.

Bondy’s allegation about Nunes and Shokin appears to be part of an aggressive campaign he has mounted in recent days to persuade Democrats in Congress to call Parnas to testify. He has been tweeting directly at members of Congress, using the hashtag #LetLevSpeak. He has said Parnas would be willing to testify, provided he was given an accommodation to allow him to avoid self-incrimination. That would likely require Congress giving him immunity for his testimony.

A spokesman for Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) declined to comment on whether Parnas would be asked to testify or on the Nunes allegation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did not respond to requests for comment.

If the House launched an ethics investigation into Nunes it would be the second time his ethics were questioned during the Trump era. In 2017, Nunes was accused of giving classified information to the White House about the Intelligence Committee’s work on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The House Ethics Committee cleared Nunes of wrongdoing in December 2017, saying he had not disclosed classified information or violated House rules when he publicly discussed foreign surveillance reports.


The new information about Nunes, if true, would suggest that by the time Giuliani spoke to Shokin in January 2019, the former prosecutor had already had a conversation with a key congressional ally of Trump.

Giuliani has cited Shokin’s unproven allegations against Biden as the central exhibit of his argument that Biden acted inappropriately in Ukraine. Giuliani first debriefed Shokin on those allegations in a Skype phone call that January that Parnas has said he helped arrange. The interview had to be conducted remotely after Shokin was denied a visa to travel to the United States because of corruption allegations.

U.S. and Ukrainian officials have said the investigation into Burisma and its CEO was actually dormant at the time of Shokin’s removal. George Kent, a top State Department official, testified to Congress that it was believed at the time that Ukrainian prosecutors in Shokin’s office had accepted bribes in exchange for halting an effort to recover assets from the company’s CEO and went unpunished — a development that helped shape the international consensus that Shokin tolerated corruption and should be removed.

Former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified that the Shokin visa decision was a routine one made by consular officials but that Giuliani attempted to appeal it unsuccessfully to both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the White House. Parnas has said Giuliani’s anger over the Shokin visa helped fuel his desire to see Yovanovitch removed. She was abruptly pulled from her post earlier this year.

After the intelligence agency whistleblower’s complaint over Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign emerged publicly, Parnas and Giuliani seemed to continue to believe that Shokin’s account could help sway Americans to support Trump’s effort to get an investigation into the Bidens.

According to people familiar with the matter, Parnas and Fruman planned to travel to Vienna on Oct. 9 and meet with Giuliani so they could organize an interview for Shokin with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. Instead, Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles International Airport, as they prepared to board their flight to Europe.

David Stern and Robert Costa contributed to this report.

washingtonpost.com



To: scion who wrote (12274)11/24/2019 3:36:00 PM
From: scion  Respond to of 12881
 
White House review turns up emails showing extensive effort to justify Trump’s decision to block Ukraine military aid

By
Josh Dawsey,
Carol D. Leonnig and
Tom Hamburger
November 24, 2019 at 7:57 p.m. GMT
washingtonpost.com

A confidential White House review of President Trump’s decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal, according to three people familiar with the records.

The research by the White House Counsel’s Office, which was triggered by a congressional impeachment inquiry announced in September, includes early August email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds after President Trump had already ordered a hold in mid-July on the nearly $400 million in security assistance, according to the three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.


One person briefed on the records examination said White House lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the president. It’s unclear if the Mulvaney discussions or other records pose any legal problems for Trump in the impeachment inquiry, but some fear they could pose political problems if revealed publicly.

People familiar with the Office of Budget and Management’s handling of the holdup in aid acknowledged the internal discussions going on during August, but characterized the conversations as calm, routine and focused on the legal question of how to comply with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which requires the executive branch to spend congressionally appropriated funds unless Congress agrees they can be rescinded.

“There was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld to conduct the policy review,” said OMB spokeswoman Rachel K. Semmel. “OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed, not scrambling.”

The hold on the military aid is at the heart of House Democrats’ investigation into whether the president should be removed from office for allegedly trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals in exchange for the U.S. support that President Volodymyr Zelensky desperately wanted in the face of Russian military aggression.

Schiff says Democrats will press forward despite lack of testimony from key impeachment witnesses

In the early August email exchanges, Mulvaney asked acting Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the aid and how much longer it could be delayed. Trump had made the decision the prior month without an assessment of the reasoning or legal justification, according to two White House officials. Emails show Vought and OMB staffers arguing that withholding aid was legal, while officials at the National Security Council and State Department protested. OMB lawyers said that it was legal to withhold the aid, as long as they deemed it a “temporary” hold, according to people familiar with the review.

A senior budget lawyer crafted a memo on July 25 that defended the hold for at least a short period of time, an administration official said.

Mulvaney’s request for information came days after the White House Counsel’s Office was put on notice that an anonymous CIA official had made a complaint to the agency’s general counsel about Trump’s July 25 call to Zelensky during which he requested Ukraine investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, as well as an unfounded theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

This official would later file a whistleblower complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general, which ignited the impeachment push when its existence became public.

The White House released the funds to Ukraine on Sept. 11. The timing has drawn scrutiny because it came two days after the House announced it was launching an inquiry into the whistleblower complaint, which raised concerns about the call and whether the president was using his public office for personal political gain.

Trump has acknowledged ordering the hold on military aid and also pressing Ukraine’s president to investigate his potential Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, but said the release of the funds was not conditioned on Ukraine launching any investigations.


The office of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone oversaw the records review. The White House press office and the White House Counsel’s Office did not respond to requests for comment. Mulvaney’s lawyer, Robert Driscoll, declined to comment.

The document research has only exacerbated growing tension between Cipollone and Mulvaney and their offices, with Cipollone tightly controlling access to his findings, and Mulvaney’s aides complaining Cipollone isn’t briefing other White House officials or sharing important material they need to respond to public inquiries, according to people familiar with their relationship.

Mulvaney is a critical player in the Ukraine saga, as he has acknowledged that he asked OMB to block the release of congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine — at the president’s request — in early to mid-July of 2019.

The emails revealed by White House lawyers include some in which Mulvaney urges Vought to immediately focus on Ukraine’s aid package, making clear it was a top priority for the administration.


The legal office launched this fact-finding review of internal records in a protective mode, both to determine what the records might reveal about internal administration conversations and also to help the White House produce a timeline for defending Trump’s decision and his public comments. Along with examining documents, the review has also involved interviewing some key White House officials involved in handling Ukraine aid and dealing with complaints and concerns in the aftermath of the call between Trump and Zelensky.

Cipollone’s office has focused closely on correspondence that could be subject to public records requests, those which involve discussions between staff at the White House and at other agencies. Internal White House records are not subject to federal public records law but messages that include officials at federal agencies are.

Also included in the review are email conversations between OMB and State Department officials and others discussing why the White House was holding up nearly $400 million in military aid and whether the hold might violate the law, one person said. In December 2018, months before the Ukraine issue surfaced as a top priority for the president, the Government Accountability Office had warned OMB it was not following the law in how it chose to disburse and withhold congressionally-approved funds.

Cipollone has told House impeachment investigators that the White House will not cooperate in with the inquiry in any way, including by greenlighting witnesses or turning over documents.


While some officials from the departments of State and Defense have testified publicly about their concerns over whether the administration was seeking to leverage the aid and a White House visit for the political investigations, only one OMB official has appeared before the congressional committees.

Mark Sandy, a career OMB official, has testified that the decision to delay aid to Ukraine was highly unusual, and senior political appointees in his office wanted to be involved in reviewing the aid package. Sandy testified that he had never in his career seen a senior political OMB official assume control of a portfolio in such a fashion, according to the people familiar with his testimony.

Sandy told impeachment investigators he had questions about whether it was legal to withhold aid Congress had expressly authorized to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, but OMB lawyers told him it was fine as long as they called it a “temporary” hold, according to a person familiar with Sandy’s account. Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security programs at OMB, signed formal letters to freeze the funds, but top political appointees were unable to provide him with an explanation for the delay.

Trump has continued to describe that impeachment investigation as a “hoax” and maintain that he did nothing wrong.

“This is a continuation of the witch hunt which has gone on from before I got elected,” he told Fox News Friday.

washingtonpost.com