3 Burst results for "Mick Mulvaney Dany"
"mick mulvaney dany" Discussed on MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)
"See Cox dot com for details as we head toward the first public hearings and the impeachment of president trump. We got new testimony released least today from a senior Defense Department official and we got new reporting from Bloomberg News about how officials in the State Department and the Pentagon tried to cope with these decisions by the White House to hold up State Department assistance to Ukraine and hold up military assistance to Ukraine both on orders of the White House. Even the both of those holds appear to have been illegal on top of that we also got news about the trump White House twenty seventeen in two thousand eighteen holding up the provision of Javelin missiles to Ukraine and holding them up not at that point in exchange for some investigation. They wanted about Joe Biden. No they held up the javelin missiles in two thousand seventeen in two thousand eighteen for a different reason. This is from today's newly released testimony by State Department official Catherine kroft quote the Javelin the provisions one of the Javelin missiles in late two thousand seventeen early twentieth eighteen. Do you recall whether there was ever a holder freeze put on the Javelin answer. There was a process and there was one hold. There was one agency that put a hold on that decision question. which was that agency answer the Office of Management and Budget in the White House question? Did you understand why answer I. I understood the reason to be a policy one question. What was the policy? One answer in a briefing with Mister Mulvaney out of the office management budget the question centered around the Russian reaction question. What was the concern around? The Russian reaction answer that Russia would react negatively to the provision of the Javelin to Ukraine question. What was the reaction to that concern from the other agencies answer? I don't know that I can provide that information in an unclassified setting question okay. Is there any way to provide it. Broadly answer well. Can broadly. Say that all of the policy agencies were in support question and you mean in support of providing the Joplin's answer Kroft. Yes correct joining us now. Illinois Congressman Mike Quickly. A member of the House Intelligence Committee Sir. Thank you very much for joining us. I appreciate you being here. Thank you so. I'm drowning and transcripts but I know that you've been through all of these things live I wanted to set. Read that one setting winging up this discussion with you. Because I was struck by that sort of bald-faced testimony that the White House made the decision to hold up javelin missiles that were otherwise is due to be delivered to Ukraine and that all agencies believe should be delivered On White House concerns that Russia might mind. Here's what's questioning What's Mick Mulvaney doing making that decision when he's ahead of him be That's extraordinarily unusual. Leads me to believe that Mick Mulvaney Dany wasn't making that decision in his role. It was making that decision based on something The president was saying or doing which is more consistent with the rest of the policy in Ukraine. The reasons that they state that they're doing clearly aren't the case. Well Miss Croft goes on to suggest in her testimony that this direction and she seems to have been under the impression. That's this direction on this javelin missiles came from the president It is hard for us. I think from the vantage point that we have as has observers people who've been reading the transcripts released by the impeachment committees. It's hard for us to discern how many people were acting of their own volition and how many people were acting at the direction of the president. Is that something that you feel that you can discern from your perspective on the Intelligence Committee without being able to depose people like Mick Mulvaney people like Rick. Perry people like Rudy Giuliani. It's tough but let's look what's in the public record. You Have Malvinas admission into this whole point You have the White House called transcript. He have the Volcker text. You have all this Testimony here that you piece together and the bottom line is there's there's absolutely no way this takes place all the things that we're learning about the extortion of one of our closest allies without the president of the United States dictating adding that when these Gang of three or four go to the White House and talk about the new president in Ukraine. The President keeps saying over and over again and Talk to Giuliani so clearly. The shadow government of foreign policy. They're talking about Has set aside the established cream of our diplomatic corps so they can do the president's bidding to help him politically congressman. I think a lot of people are wondering when we should expect the public airings that start on Wednesday to be just a public version of the kind of discussions that you all have been having behind closed doors or is that we can read these transcripts of now are for Americans who have been sort of aware that this is going on watching the headlines but not following it closely should should. We expect that people tuning in Wednesday to watch those hearings Paying attention to this closely for the first time that they'll be able to follow this in basic terms starting from from square one. Are you guys picking up where you left off with. These closed door depositions. Well I think there's a reason that In a jury trial they don't just hang out depositions in a civil case. There's a lot to be said for watching these people testify. And what struck me about them was they were Clear clear they were consistent. They were compelling and I think that they showed The truth of what they were saying I think it was very hard to bump them off their game and I think that will help. A great deal is the American people watch their testimony. We're going to have to public hearings this week sir. Do you anticipate that'll be a pace going forward. We'll have a couple of hearings per week and it'll go on for a little while. Do you have any sense of the overall timeframe here look at some of this has to go with what time hi I'm allows We do have a time crunchier. Unfortunately one we didn't create because of the White House is obstruction here and the fact that so many of their witnesses were not allowed to testify. I look back at Watergate The article three of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon dictates four times in which which Richard Nixon obstructed that investigation. We saw that happen once in one day. They obstructed four times where four people were supposed to testify testify that that did not because the White House told them not to. All of these witnesses were told not to many of them had the courage of their conviction at come forward. This is compelling compelling testimony only a small percentage of the American people had read special counsel's report on what took place with Russia Far for more people watch these hearings as they took place. I'm hoping we have the same effect here coming this week. Carson quickly member the Intelligence Committee Sir. Good luck this week. Thanks very much for joining us. Thank you all right much more tonight..
"mick mulvaney dany" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360
"Good evening. John Berman here in for Anderson. Tonight Mick Mulvaney in the middle right in the middle and that might be a very uncomfortable. The place to be the job of the White House. Chief of staff is to implement the president's policy in new testimony released today says it was Mick Mulvaney implementing the the policy of pressuring Ukraine for the President's own political gain new the res transcripts from two top national security aides in the White House. Now Time Mick Mulvaney Dany to a direct role in what has been called a quid pro quo others call the shakedowns. Some call the bribery at the heart of the impeachment inquiry this on the day that mulvaney subpoena and skipped his deposition on Capitol Hill. Both the on a hill and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander van men say the president's Ambassador to the EU Gordon Song told told them during a July meeting that he had spoken to Mulvaney and that there would be no meeting between the two heads of state nor military aid for Ukraine without quote investigations. Colonel said quote the whole came from the chief of Staff's Office Hill said quote. We were told that it actually came as a direction from the chief of staff office colonel and called the administration's expectations of Ukraine of Ukraine quote a deliverable in ambassador. Someone's meaning he. He said quote there was no doubt he also said this of sunlen quote he was calling for something. Calling for an investigation that didn't exist into the Biden's in Barista Hill says her superior National Security Adviser John Bolton called this quote improper arrangement also today bones lawyer in a letter to Congress made clear his his client has extensive knowledge about relevant meetings and conversations that could be important for the impeachment inquiry but that he won't testify until and unless federal the judge rules on whether he must comply with congressional subpoena here to discuss all of this is Congressman Denny. Heck a member of the intelligence committee which conducted the closed door hearings. In which next next week we'll begin the public phase of the impeachment inquiry congressman. Heck thank you very much for being with us. These transcripts in the statements from Fiona Hill in Lieutenant Colonel Vincent and do you think this brings this all closer to the president himself. I don't think there's any doubt about it for first of all John. I serve with Mick Mulvaney for several several years in the House of Representatives. I know back. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he never would have implemented. This had it not been at the direction of the president and secondly a bit of a unique the perspective. I'm a former chief-of-staff buy-sell for Governor Booth Gardner out here in Washington State. I guarantee you know chief of staff is going to implement anything of that. Importance uh-huh without direction from their principal in this case the president of the United States. But let's be clear and let's be correct in our terminology John. He's the acting chief of staff and frankly I'm not very sure or confident. He's going to be the acting chief of staff much longer because I think what's about to happen here is that he and ambassador Sunland online and perhaps Rudy Giuliani or all about to get thrown under the bus. Okay you bring up the Washington Post reports. which does suggest that re- Giuliani Mick? Mulvaney eighty an impasse. There might be treated as fog is from some supporters of the president in your mind. You just said that doesn't hold any water. Why mm-hmm because again? It defies credibility that the president's personal lawyer a large donor who had a ready access to the president. That's what ambassador Sunland did and his acting chief of staff would be carrying out these kinds of important acts without the direction of the President United States sites. It just defies credibility. And that's even before you consider the fact that of course we have the president's own confession in the form of the memorandum of call between himself often President Zielinski in which he actually attempted shakedown. The president of Ukraine clearly explicitly in arguably having read the transcripts of what. Colonel Vincent and Fiona Hill said. Neither of them said they heard directly from Mick Mulvaney about this. They say they heard from Sunlen who heard from Mulvaney was the significance of that? So John here we are. You can either believe that all of these. The people that came forward mostly career diplomats people across federal agencies across continents. All of these people who have come forward and giving depositions positions every one of which has in every material way corroborated one another and their narrative and the set of facts that they've brought to light. You can either believe they're are not telling the truth. And Somehow conspiratorially they all got together they all contrived all of this they cross the T.'s and dotted the is. You can believe they did that. Or you can believe would which frankly I think commonsense likelier to be the case. The president's lying Mick Mulvaney receive subpoenaed to testify today. He skipped it. Obviously I'm sure you would like to hear from him directly what he has to say about it but now that he hasn't shown up. Your committee isn't going to fight it in court. Why not? We're not going to play a rope a dope. That's another delaying tactic. On their part they'd like to see this extended for months if not years. It's a tried tried and true. Play out of the presence playbook even when he was in In the private sector what he would do with the subcontractors litigated them into oblivion but secondly we you don't need it. There's a mountain of evidence against the president beginning with of course his own confession. Which again acting chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney signed in the formative formative press conference in which he acknowledged that there was a quid pro? Cool bribery this for that and the text and The testimony of all of these people we've deposed they all point to the President John Bolton who was the national security advisor his lawyer wrote a letter to Congress today saying saying that Bolton knows many relevant things that happened it was part of many relevant meetings and if he did testify would have things to to say that would shed more light in all of this. You have any idea what he means. And I want to remind you and our viewers that he defied a subpoena to testify well. Actually we didn't issue the subpoena. John a doctor. You invited him. And he didn't again show up and he made clear that he would defy subpoena if it was issued right. And I'd like to think frankly that embassador Bolton would come forward. I think frankly wrinkly John. It's the patriotic thing to do. He's acknowledged that he has relevant information. I think his responsibility in his duty as a citizen to share it with us and with the American public and in fact I wish that he would take a page out of the book of two of the people that worked for him Colonel Denman and Dr Fiona Hill who had the courage to come Ford share with the committee. Speak Truth to power about what went on here but again we're not gonNA play rope a dope. We're not going to subject ourselves to month after month. After month of apple protracted legal battle. I do want to ask about the testimony. The depositions transcripts that have been released because you can look at this as if there are two buckets. There's one bucket which is did it happen and then the other bucket of is an impeachable. The did it happen. Bucket is overflowing at this point based on the deposition you you have this what you describe as mountain of evidence about what took place. The is an impeachable bucket. How do you intend to prove that next week when these series go public so John? That decision is really one of a matter of conscience of each of the four hundred thirty five members of the House and the hundred members of the Senate that's a question of them engaging in personal reflection and I dare say prayerful reflection about what is at stake here If you believe that the president's shaking down Ukraine threatening to withhold critical military assistance to a vulnerable ally vulnerable strategic ally in Ukraine who's trying to combat Russian aggression and let's remember that they're thirteen thousand Ukrainians who have lost their lives on their Homeland soil defending themselves against Russian aggression. If you believe the trail of of his oath of office in that abuse of power is impeachable. Then you'll get to. Yes but it's up to each of the four hundred and thirty five members to consider the fact but you're right. I mean there is a mountain of evidence and it is arguable and yet the president has not acknowledged in any way shape or form nor anyone around. I'd like for us to get to the point. Where the debate was is it or is it not impeachable but it is a fact congressman? Denny heck thanks for being with US tonight I appreciate it. Thank you for more on Mick Mulvaney vaisnys role in all this want to bring in CNN chiefly land list and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey toobin and CNN political analysts in New York Times. White House correspondent Maggie Haberman. Thank you both for being here Maggie just just based on what you know about how this White House works and what Mick Mulvaney is role is in it. Does he freelance. Would he freelance on something of this important. Want to speculate without having actual details but about this instance but what we do know is in the past. Mulvaney has not been known to go do things. Well outside of what the president is aware of. We certainly know that he we knew. Even before all this testimony that he was involved in terms of directing the freeze on the aid that he was acting on orders from the president. That's basically what we knew now. We have heard his name. Come up repeatedly in testimony and given the fact that this was going on over a period of many months these conversations. It is hard to imagine that this was all happening. You know with Mulvaney on his own and the president was unaware Mulvaney is going to be a key witness as you said did for Congress to get to before them. I don't know that that's going to happen. But he holds. The answers to a lot of this has always been Mick Mulvaney. He wants to let trump be trump. It's never let mc MC I mean Mick. Mulvaney is role in there is to implement Donald Trump's policy in wishes and wins right. That is certainly how he has described his own role. I think there might be times where he is pushing back more than he says. But there's certainly nothing that I have heard so far and might more might come out but nothing that I have heard. That suggests that he was trying to stop this or suggested at the president. This is a bad idea and remember John One of the things. We don't have an answer to still is who came up with this India to freeze the aid. Where where did this actually come from this come from Guiliani to this comfortable vinnie? Did this come from trump. I I could see trump saying you know what we send too much money doing it. That way. That's sort of what Mulvaney frankly had suggested in that White House briefing that he did. Look the president has questions all the time about sending aid to certain places so we have to say in fact you point point out the one time we have heard Mick Mulvaney talk about this extensively he more or less said yes. Yes this all happen Jeffrey..
"mick mulvaney dany" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"This historic impeachment inquiry. Today wraps up the seventh week of this fast-moving saga and I have two incredible guests. Tell me process what's already happened. And what is likely to happen in the weeks to come in a few minutes. We'll be talking with Mark Mazzetti Pulitzer Surprise winning investigative correspondent at the New York. Times marks also is CNN contributor. But I I'm joined by my colleague. CNN political correspondent. Abbie Philip. Welcome back to to the PODCAST. Thanks for having me so Once again I feel like We've done something wrong to piss off the house. Democrats who seem to drop transcripts every day as as we are about to sit down and record this podcast so we are now sitting with piles of paper of two. I would argue two of the most critical transcripts In this entire impeachment agree. You have Fiona Hill. Who worked in the White House and was not on the July twenty fifth call but was the first person that had worked in the White House that had come before the committee to testify about her experience? She worked for John Bolton the National Security Advisor directly and had Ukraine in her portfolio And we have the transcript of Lieutenant. Colonel Vin men who we know was on the July twenty fifth. Call listening thing in from the situation room and his transcript came out today to now again. We learned a lot of what the news of what these folks had to say to. The committee The days that they testified. But we now see a more context here and deeper Detailed descriptions of what they told the committee. Can I just get your top line initial all sort of like thought that what has popped you of what you've seen here while I do think and I've been feeling this way for a long time. There is an element of what everybody everybody. So far has testified to which is the feeling that this proposed quid pro quo that was unfolding as related to Ukraine was is incredibly damaging to you not to US foreign policy beyond it being inappropriate beyond it being unseemly potentially illegal they. They also felt that it was dangerous in a lot of ways because of how it emboldens Russia. I also think that what Fiona Hill does is because because she worked in the White House and she's kind of in a little bit of a higher echelon in terms of White House officials. She has some visibility into what the senior administration ration- official of view of this whole thing was and she speaks directly to the role of chief of staff. Mick Mulvaney all of this. She makes it very clear. That that Mick Mulvaney Dany was supportive of the idea that the meeting and that the aid would be contingent on the investigations into Biden and 2016. That is an extraordinarily narrowly important development. Because I think it brings it closer to the president which is what has to happen this investigation. So far we've gotten a lot of atmospheric expunge Getting closer and closer to the president will make this The connection between what we're hearing and whether the president should be impeached over it more clear in the minds of people along glad you bring that up about proximity to the president because as you know. The president spoke to reporters today as he wants to do on the South Lawn of the White House and one of the people we know spoke to directly to the president about this notion of a quid pro quo. Was Gordon Sunland. The ambassador to the U.. And he came came out of that conversation with a clear directive from the president that there was no quid pro quo yet He went back as we know this week. Revised his testimony testimony. And I think pretty clearly put forth A scenario where he his testimony now is that he believed there was a quid. Pro Quo at play Despite despite what the president's specific words were to him I now want you to hear how the president responded to reporters when asked about sunlen changing his testimony. It's the money. Let me just tell you I. I hardly know the gentleman. But this is the man who said there was no quid pro quo. And he's still says that and he said that I said that and he hasn't. Jj testimony so this is a man that said. As far as the president is concerned there was no quid pro quo everybody that specified even the ones that are trump haters. They've all been fine. They don't have anything. Do Things here that I want you to please one. I hardly know the gentleman. Please address that. I go sorry to this man you you know this is Donald Trump's version of that me from Kiki Palmer that I don't even know this guy if I saw him walking down the street but Donald Trump had a close enough relationship to doc to Gordon. Sunland that keep in mind. The conversation that he's referencing in that clip happened basically in the middle of the night. The Gordon Sunland had a close enough relationship. Asian ship that at some point between. Let's say midnight eastern time and six am eastern time. He had a conversation with the president of the United States on the phone. In which the president said there was no quid pro quo. But what's really what Sunlen is describing the details of what he's describing is a quid pro quo. That's the difference between what's going on on and trump keeps claiming that just because he didn't use the words it didn't happen but that's not actually what is being described. Trump is doing classic trump here. which if you listen to his words exactly exactly what he's saying he says someone's testifying? I say no quid pro quo. He hasn't changed any testimony about what I said. No I know what someone changed his testimony about what he perceived to actually be happening yes and what. He actually carried out as the person who said that. He was in charge of this Ukrainian policy policy so the president. This is the Republican argument right at this moment. which is that the words quid? Pro Quo did not come out of the president's mouths. I think unreasonable people would would would question whether that is a legitimate defense. Because if in fact people were actually carrying out a quid pro quo in their policy and in what they were asking the Ukrainians for it doesn't matter whether or not those words were used and the fact that president trump is doing what he did to his former personal attorney. Michael Cohen and to Paul Manafort his former campaign manager in both cases claiming he doesn't even know people who say things that are not favorable to him. It just goes to show that he clearly views San Lind's revisions as a problem for him. One more thing before we go to break and bring market. I want you to hear another piece of sound from the president today about his acting chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and whether he would like he'd be okay with him Going up to the hill to testify as you know He did not show up to testify and this was the president on the South Lawn. Today I don't want to give credibility to a corrupt with John. I've loved that Miko Up. Frankly I think do do great. I'd love to go. I'd love to have almost every person. Go Up when they know me what I don't like is when they put all these people that I never met before abby well there was a time when the White House was saying that the real problem with what's going on on the hill is that it's happening behind closed doors and our people aren't being asked has to testify and we don't have representation from lawyers and now it is. The whole thing is just illegitimate and I don't even want to give give it legitimacy by having Mulvaney go out there and testify I actually do think that It's a real question why the White House hasn't tried to put more witnesses that might tell a favorable story for the president On Capitol Hill. Why haven't they pushed harder for some of those people to testify and it could be because they're concerned that maybe it's not going to actually turn out that away? If Mick Mulvaney testifies Fiona Hill has implicated him. In all of this and I think the president's trump's comments today really just indicate that he's aware that there's danger there especially also moving gave a press conference in which he said. Yeah we asked for political quid pro quo. So he's going to have to explain that to. Yeah I mean the reason. I think that these these people are not going up to testify to tell a story that would be advantageous to the administration is because the facts make that very hard to do. Yes exactly okay. Abby you stay right there we have so much more to discuss We're GONNA take a quick break. When we come back we will be joined by Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times right after this break?.