Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As early as June, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney worked to execute the freeze for Trump, and a top aide to Mulvaney — Robert Blair — worried it would fuel the narrative that Trump was tacitly aiding Russia.

Internal opposition was more forceful than previously known.

The Pentagon pushed for the money for months.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton privately urged Trump to understand that freezing the aid was not in our national interest.
Trump was unmoved, citing Ukraine’s “corruption.”

We now know Trump actually wanted Ukraine to announce sham investigations absolving Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage and smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden.

The Times report reveals that top Trump officials did not think that ostensibly combating Ukrainian “corruption” (which wasn’t even Trump’s real aim) was in our interests.

Lawyers at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked to develop a far-fetched legal argument that Trump could exercise commander-in-chief authority to override Congress’ appropriation of the aid, to get around the law precluding Trump from freezing it.

Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB, tried to get the Pentagon to assume responsibility for getting the aid released, to deflect blame away from the White House for its own role in blocking it. This led a Pentagon official to pronounce herself “speechless.”

Duffey froze the aid with highly unusual bureaucratic tactics, refused to tell Pentagon officials why Trump wanted it withheld and instructed them to keep this “closely held.”

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Boy getting down to the level of SD insults, thought you were above that, but not much surprises me on this forum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's his job to distract, he always changes the subject and attacks when confronted with evidence to which he has no response. Quite Trumpian

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It's his job to distract, he always changes the subject and attacks when confronted with evidence to which he has no response. Quite Trumpian

QUOTE=Pete F.;1183018]Not to be found in the Epoch Times[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Epoch Times has a solid record of accuracy and truth. The NY Times has a long and checkered history including slanted journalism sprinkled with inaccuracies.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you serious, show me one source that says that ET meets that claim.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Show me where Epoch Times doesn't meet that claim.

And you couldn't show that but asked who owns it as if that were expositive. And I followed suit with similar gibberish as yours. I didn't distract or change the subject. I responded directly to what you said.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

QUOTE=Pete F.;1183018]Not to be found in the Epoch Times

And you couldn't show that but asked who owns it as if that were expositive. And I followed suit with similar gibberish as yours. I didn't distract or change the subject. I responded directly to what you said.[/QUOTE]

It is not to be found in the Epoch Times which is a 19 year old right wing paper, funded by Falun Gong and there is no bigger media supporter of Floridaman. You will not find things that question Floridaman there.
You claim that the NYT has a long and checkered history. It's history is 150 years longer than the Epoch Times and produces far more copy. It leans left.
Floridaman has always wanted NYT coverage. Why else did John Barron, David Dennison and John Miller leak to them about Floridaman.
https://www.google.com/search?q=John...hrome&ie=UTF-8