aubiefifty 16,858 Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 ahoo.com Yahoo Alexander Nazaryan 9-11 minutes WASHINGTON — The Pentagon was confused. Hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine had been appropriated in late 2018 by Congress, intended to help fend off aggression by neighboring Russia. But well into 2019, as summer was edging toward autumn, the funds had still not moved. Department of Defense officials began to worry that the funds would never make it to Ukraine, since the appropriations would expire with the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. They even began to prepare a legal challenge to the freezing of the funds, leading to an unprecedented fight within the Trump administration. Since then, the Ukraine affair has turned into an impeachment inquiry that could see President Trump removed from office. But it is also an example of yet another federal agency — this time, the Pentagon — caught off-guard by the president’s political imperatives. Before impeachment was ever an issue, the military funding for Ukraine seemed a settled matter. In late May, John Rood, an undersecretary of defense for policy, sent a letter to Congress outlining at great length the kinds of weapons, defense systems and other forms of aid Ukraine could expect. Theses included everything from radars to demining vehicles to rifle sights to training for that country’s military. “Implementation of this further support will begin no sooner than 15 days following this notification,” Rood wrote. He added, a little later in the document, that the U.S. “remains committed” to helping Ukraine “defend its territorial integrity.” But that commitment would waver drastically in the months to come, causing anxiety and puzzlement both in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, and putting military officials into a confrontation with other members of the Trump administration, who were seemingly more intent on carrying out the president’s political goals than in helping a foreign ally. The Pentagon would not comment on the record for this story. But several congressional aides — all of whom would speak only on the condition of anonymity— provided Yahoo News with details of how, over the summer, officials in the Office of Management and Budget repeatedly stonewalled both Congress and Pentagon officials who wanted to know why funds allocated to Ukraine had not been disbursed. The State Department was making similar efforts — and encountering similar frustration, suggesting that career diplomats and senior military officers were being challenged by administration officials whose main objection was apparently to satisfy Trump politically. At this point, the Ukrainian aid package was merely a policy conundrum, not an example of quid pro quo that congressional Democrats argue is worthy of impeachment. Hunter Biden had business dealings in Ukraine that some observers have insisted were improper. In a July 25 phone call, Trump asked Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to help with the Biden investigation. The request came right after Zelensky asked Trump about Ukraine’s purchase of U.S. Javelin missiles (the missiles were not part of the $250 million aid package allotted by Congress). President Trump with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Sept. 25. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images) Members of Congress would not know about that phone call for another two months, however. Even so, congressional committees were already investigating why the Office of Management and Budget had placed holds on the Ukraine aid package. By mid-July, the Pentagon started “pushing back quietly,” according to one of the two congressional aides who spoke to Yahoo News for this story, only to have OMB start asking questions of its own, such as, “How is this money going to be used?” In fact, Rood’s letter from May had outlined meticulously the military portion of the aid package. But OMB seemed unsatisfied. Officials from the budget office were “almost fishing for reasons” to keep the money from making its way to Kiev, according to the congressional aides familiar with the matter. An important but little-known branch of the White House, the OMB is headed by Russell Vought, formerly an executive at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization with deep roots within the Trump administration. He succeeded Mick Mulvaney, the former tea party congressman who is now Trump’s chief of staff. In mid-July, the Pentagon and other concerned parties began a series of interagency meetings about how to free up the money for security assistance to Ukraine. Everyone who attended the meetings was, according to congressional staffers, “united in wanting to provide the Ukrainians this funding.” The Pentagon went so far as to conduct its own legal analysis of the holds, determining that they were illegal. A government official confirmed that such an analysis took place. So did several Capitol Hill staffers. They all described the conclusion of that analysis in similar terms. “This is part of the basis for our investigation and overall impeachment inquiry,” acknowledged one congressional staffer who was unauthorized to speak to the press. At that point, the budget office revealed that the holds were authorized at the direction of the president, which, in effect, made them legal. But sources familiar with the matter say that defense officials were busy figuring out how to get the aid package to Ukraine, even with the fiscal year coming to an end and the White House resistant to the release. A senior White House official disputed this version of events. He said that there was “not anything nefarious” in the holdup of the Ukraine aid, and that Trump wanted to make sure the money was “not going to be wasted.” Trump had been critical of foreign aid, the official said, and this was in keeping with his policy of monitoring it more closely. That version of events is somewhat contradicted by a Wall Street Journal report that disclosed how political appointees at the OMB were the ones who prevented the military aid package from reaching Ukraine. According to congressional aides, Defense Secretary Mark Esper “kept on pushing the issue” with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton, who would soon be forced out of his position. The Pentagon began to worry that if the money were not disbursed by the end of the fiscal year, the appropriation would expire. That would leave Ukraine weakened in the face of a determined, bellicose foe. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, left, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. (Photo: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images) Confusion spread across Capitol Hill — and beyond. One staffer to a Democratic congressman described how, in late August, the member of Congress she worked for was approached by defense contractors to send a letter to the Trump administration urging a release of the aid money. The congressman was made aware that the hold was being directed by the president. Another staffer says that when his colleagues visited the U.S. Embassy in Kiev in mid-August, they heard similar complaints. Those complaints were conveyed to the Pentagon, which made its own position clear. “We don’t support this,” defense officials told the Washington-based staffer. The hold was finally lifted on Sept. 12, and the $141 million for Ukraine was released. About a week later, reports broke that a whistleblower, later identified as a Central Intelligence Agency officer detailed to the National Security Council, had filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump had attempted to pressure the Ukrainian leader to interfere in the U.S. 2020 presidential election. For his part, Esper has tried to downplay the Pentagon’s frustration over the funding holdup. In late September, he said that “at no time or at any time has any delay in this money, this funding, affected U.S. national security.” But that statement belies the urgency with which he pressed for the funding to be released throughout the summer. Trump has denied that he did or said anything inappropriate on the call with Zelensky. Democrats, however, have moved to impeach him over the entire affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted October 14, 2019 Share Posted October 14, 2019 "The Pentagon" says.....who presumes to speak for the thousands of people and organizations there? And when did "The Pentagon" become the decider of what is legal or not.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,415 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 19 hours ago, AU64 said: "The Pentagon" says.....who presumes to speak for the thousands of people and organizations there? And when did "The Pentagon" become the decider of what is legal or not.? Are you suggesting that making the delivery of congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine - or any country - contingent on that country's providing political assistance to the U.S. president in the form of investigating his likely political opponent in the upcoming election is not illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,858 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Share Posted October 15, 2019 19 hours ago, AU64 said: "The Pentagon" says.....who presumes to speak for the thousands of people and organizations there? And when did "The Pentagon" become the decider of what is legal or not.? well they green lighted the money to help an allie who is fighting right now. since they approved money out of their budget i believe this makes the point that they have a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 9 hours ago, aubiefifty said: well they green lighted the money to help an allie who is fighting right now. since they approved money out of their budget i believe this makes the point that they have a valid point. "They"......so who is they? and saying it is "illegal" ? might not be what some at the Pentagon want to happen....but " they" work for the President who is Commander in Chief........and therefore, "they", whoever " they" are subject to whatever the President of the US wants to happen. JMO but this is political bellyaching by some people....the unknown "they" who disagree with the policy. ….and perhaps had made some verbal commitments to friends on the other side of the ocean that "they' can't back up. ...but "illegal".....that's nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 33 minutes ago, AU64 said: "They"......so who is they? and saying it is "illegal" ? might not be what some at the Pentagon want to happen....but " they" work for the President who is Commander in Chief........and therefore, "they", whoever " they" are subject to whatever the President of the US wants to happen. JMO but this is political bellyaching by some people....the unknown "they" who disagree with the policy. ….and perhaps had made some verbal commitments to friends on the other side of the ocean that "they' can't back up. ...but "illegal".....that's nonsense. The current Ukranian Pres. is on record saying he didn't know any aid had been delayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,858 Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 Pentagon planned to challenge ‘illegal’ hold on Ukraine aid before Trump phone call revealed Published 5 days ago on October 11, 2019 By Travis Gettys 5-6 minutes The Pentagon was preparing a legal challenge to the White House scheme to block Ukraine aid in an apparent effort to force an investigation of Joe Biden. Congress had approved hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the U.S. ally in late 2018 as Ukraine fought against Russian aggression, and Pentagon officials began to worry as the funds unsent just weeks before the appropriation was set to expire Sept. 30, reported Yahoo News. Pentagon officials were baffled that the funding hadn’t been sent, even after John Rood, an undersecretary of defense for policy, gave Congress a detailed plan for what weapons and other aid Ukraine could expect from the package. The Department of Defense conducted a series of interagency meetings starting in mid-July to figure out how the money could be freed up, and the Pentagon conducted a legal analysis of the holds. That analysis determined the delays were illegal, but the Office of Management and Budget argued the holds were authorized by President Donald Trump — which essentially made them legal. “This is part of the basis for our investigation and overall impeachment inquiry,” one congressional staffer told Yahoo News. Pentagon officials were not aware at the time that Trump was planning to use the congressionally approved aid package to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate the former vice president and his son Hunter Biden. A call by Trump to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky discussing that scheme was the subject of a whistleblower complaint which has now turned into an impeachment inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 ^^^^^Who is Travis Gettys? I note the use of "apparent" and yet the Pres. of Ukraine said he never knew aid was being withheld? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,415 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 13 hours ago, Tiger Sue said: The current Ukranian Pres. is on record saying he didn't know any aid had been delayed. What in hell would you expect him to say? He's not going to align himself or support the potential impeachment of Trump. He's desperate for U.S. military support to fend off Russia. Of course he's going to suck up to Trump, which includes lying as required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, homersapien said: What in hell would you expect him to say? He's not going to align himself or support the potential impeachment of Trump. He's desperate for U.S. military support to fend off Russia. Of course he's going to suck up to Trump, which includes lying as required. Your narrative not FACTS. Seems like everybody you don't like is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,415 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 31 minutes ago, Tiger Sue said: Your narrative not FACTS. Seems like everybody you don't like is a liar. That doesn't make any sense. This is not about me "disliking" Zelensky, in fact, he's just doing what he feels best for his country. It's about making the common sense observation that Zelensky cannot admit to being extorted without inviting further wrath from the extortionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, homersapien said: That doesn't make any sense. This is not about me "disliking" Zelensky, in fact, he's just doing what he feels best for his country. It's about making the common sense observation that Zelensky cannot admit to being extorted without inviting further wrath from the extortionist. Everyone's common sense is not the same, just like opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.