Laura Cooper is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia.
Mostly she talked about the withholding of aid to Ukraine.
She also obliterated a few of the GOP talking points.
She testified that the security aid is “vital” to helping the Ukrainians defend themselves from Russian aggression. She also testified that the security assistance helps US security by deterring further Russian aggression and thus has bi-partisan support in the U.S.
She explained that in May 2019, Ukraine met the anti-corruption benchmarks set by the Pentagon to make it eligible to receive security assistance.
The “certification memorializes that Ukraine had met all the necessary anti-corruption requirements. . . as well as other benchmarks” necessary to receive funding. The benchmark assessment was done by an “interagency assessment” based on the views of key experts on Ukraine defense.
[Narrator: There goes the GOP defense that Trump had good reason to think Ukraine was corrupt, and therefore, to withhold the security aid]
In mid-July: Cooper learned the security aid might be withheld. She testified that at a July 23 meeting, the OMB told agencies that Mulvaney conveyed concerns that Trump had concerns about Ukraine and the security assistance.
The GOP questioner asked her, “And the President is authorized to have these types of holds place. Correct?”
She responded that there was debate in the department about whether the president could put a hold on military aid without notifying Congress. She learned from research that the answer is no. In fact, there are two legal ways to withhold funding:
- The President sends a “rescission notice” to Congress, or
- The DOJ initiates a reprogramming action, which also requires notice to Congress.
Either way, Congress had to be notified:
[Narrator: Here’s a Constitutional violation as Trump usurps Congressional powers.]
Cooper and her staff tried to get the funding released. The DOJ was afraid that delaying the assistance would make it difficult to negotiate a peace on terms favorable to Ukraine.
By August 20, when the funds still weren’t released, she & her colleagues were “losing hope because we knew that we weren’t going to be able to obligate everything by the end of the fiscal year.”
[Note the whistleblower complaint was dated Aug. 12, when they were in a panic.]
After the president raised concerns about corruption in Ukraine, the DOD didn’t conduct an additional review because “we believed sufficient progress had been made” and the assessment was “unanimous with the exception of statements by OMB representatives.”
Cooper thus obliterated a few of the GOP talking points.
- No, the president did not have the unilateral right to withhold funds.
- No, the president did not have legitimate grounds for withholding the funds based on Ukraine’s history of corruption.
What do you do when the facts and the law are against you? The joke among lawyers goes like this:
- If the law is on your side, pound the law.
- If the law is against you, pound the facts.
- If both the law and facts are against you, pound the table.
Expect lots of table pounding from GOP questioners tomorrow as the public hearings portion of the impeachment inquiry begins.
Q: What does Trump do when the law and facts are against him?
A: He makes up his own, of course.
I expect a second line of defense led by Trump’s Twitter feed which is to unleash what the Rand Institute calls a Firehose of Falsehoods.
If you’re new to my feed and you want to know what that means and how to combat it, see this thread.
Earlier today I posted notes for Christopher Anderson’s deposition. I did not want to send out two notices in a single day. You can see it here.
[View this post as a Twitter thread]
