s mccusker took issue with omb's talking point. she did so in writing. ms. mccusker emailed mr. duffy to tell him omb's talking points were, quote, just not accurate and d.o.d. had been consistently conveying that point for weeks. again, we know this from a press report. not from documents produced to congress by the trump administration. now, president trump did release some documents in response to a lawsuit under the freedom of information act, but here is what ms. mccuscer's email looked like when it was released by the trump administration. her concern that omb's talking point was, quote, just not accurate, was, again, entirely blacked out. what else is being hidden from the american people? the senate should issue the subpoena. >>> d.o.d. documents would also shed light as the president's scheme unraveled. on september 9th, ms. mccusker informed duffy dod could fall short because of the hold. duffy responded by suggesting it would be d.o.d.'s fault if they ended up violating the impoundment control act. mccusker responded, quote, you can't be serious. i am speechless. end

so here is the one line redacted email that acting pentagon comptroller elaine mccusker wrote to the white house budget official, a guy named michael duffey. according to just security, behind that blacked line, just security has learned that she asked whether the decision had gone through the defense department's general counsel. in other words, it's official. mccusker wanted to know has anyone vetted the legality of this because the law requires that money appropriated by congress cannot be held back or impounded by the white house. which is precisely what subsequent emails show the pentagon was worried about, quoting from just securities report, on october 6, duffey, remember, he is the white house budget official, sent mccusker -- she is the pentagon comptroller -- an email telling her that he planned to extend the hold on the ukraine funding by reinserting the same footnote into the budget document. the footnote still noted that the pause would not prevent the defense department from spending the money before the fiscal year ended if the hold was lifted. mccusker wrote back, ask

duffey and elaine mccusker, and others, on the things that i'm talking about right now. unfortunately, as you can see, there isn't a lot to read here because it's all blacked out. so if the president's lawyers contest in the facts and talking about, you should demand to see the full record. the american people deserve to see the full truth when it comes to presidential actions. but back to the timeline. from july to september 2019 the president and his advisor at the widest and omb diplomate of the the hold on ukraine assistance through an unusual and unlawful process. first on july 3, the state department notified dod and nsc staff that omb was blocking this notification to congress. according to jennifer williams, vice president pence is eighth in the hold on this assistance quote came out of the blue it because it is not been previously discussed by omb or nsc. around july 12 president trump directed that it hold the place on the dod secured assistance as well. that day mr. blair sent email to duffey at omb inform him that quote, the president is directing a hold on t

deputy undersecretary of defense elaine mccusker reportedly responded, i am speechless. we now know that dod's concerns were well founded. the president's freeze on the security aid was illegal. duffey should be called to testify about why dod's repeated warnings went unheeded. what prompted his email that attempted to shift plame blame and about the fact that the president released the aid only after his scheme was exposed? senators, make no mistake. we have a detailed factual record showing the freeze was president trump's decision, that he did it to pressure ukraine to announce the political investigations he wanted. but president trump's decisions also set off a cascade of confusion and misdirection within the executive branch. as the president political appointees carried out his orders, career officials tried to do their jobs or, at the very least, not break the law. play player a blair and duffey would shed more light on how the president's orders were carried out. that is why committees of the house issued subpoenas for both of their testimony. but blair and duff

many of the emails are between michael duffy and elaine mccusker.ng to get a straight answer about why this was happening warning it could break the law if congress wasn't informed. she explained certain paperwork was now necessary, legal teams were discussing last week, her comments were derackredacted. has the omb directed dod to withhold funds? if so, what was the reason given? then the deputy defense secretary drafted a letter entirely redacted by the doj but reportedly said we've advised them that officials jeopardize the department's ability to obligate funding prudently and fully. after politico first reported the hold on the ukraine aid they sent over the administration's talking points. mccusker refused to roll over. i don't agree. the last one is just not accurate. something we've been consistently conveying for a few weeks. she wasn't willing to lie for the president. two days later after a meeting between trump, pompeo and the secretary of defense, duffy wrote mccusker clear direction from potus to continue to hold. this is a big deal be

deputy undersecretary of defense elaine mccusker reportedly responded, i am speechless. we now know that dod's concerns were well founded. the president's freeze on security aid was illegal. duffey should be called to testify about why dod's repeated warnings went unheeded. what prompted his email that attempted to shift blame to dod and about the fact that the president released the aid only after his scheme was exposed. senators, make no mistake. we have a detailed factual record showing the freeze was president trump's decision. that he did it to pressure ukraine to announce the political investigations he wanted. but president trump's decisions also set off a cascade of confusion and misdirection within the executive branch. as the president's political appointees carried out his orders, career officials tried to do their jobs, or at the very least not break the law. blair and duffey would help shed more light on how the president's orders were carried out. that is why committees of the house issued subpoenas for both of their testimony. but blair and duffey, as i sa

mccusker replied, and i quote, you can't be serious. i am speechless. now all of this, including omb's efforts to shift blame to the pentagon, the white house's effort to create a cover story for the hold on security cover-up. it started with the white house's lawyers' failure to stop the scheme after the july 10th meeting was reported to them, continued with attempts to hide the july 25th call summary, and escalated with the white house's illegal concealment of the whistle-blower complaint from congress. on september 10th the house intelligence committee requested that the dni provide a copy of the whistle-blower complaint as the law requires but dni continued to withhold the complaint for weeks. the same day it was announced that ambassador bolton was resigning or had been fired it is unclear whether ambassadors bolton -- ambassador bolton's departure from the white house had anything to do with his opposition to the hold on military aid, but, of course, ambassador bolton could shed light on that himself if he were to testify. the next day on septembe

mccusker exchanged e-mails on august 2010 omb modified the footnote. these e-mails are almost entirely redacted however all the subsequent footnotes issued by omb during the tendency of the hold removed assistance to fully obligate the funds by the end of the fiscal year. nevertheless omb continued to implement the hold that the president's direction. we know from e-mails released last night that as of september 5 omb was continuing to obstruct dod to hold the aid. omb gave these e-mails to a private organization just because of a lawsuit. on september 5 duffey e-mailed mccusker falling quote no movement from ukraine. continue hold through friday and that quote. we know mccusker responded to omb with a lengthy e-mail detailing dod serious concern that omb redacted almost the whole thing. as i explained last night omb has key documents that president trump has refused to turn over to congress. key documents that go to the heart of one of the ways in which the president abused his power. concerns about whether the administration was bending if not breaki

mccusker exchanged e-mails on august 2010 omb modified the footnote.these e-mails are almost entirely redacted however all the subsequent footnotes issued by omb during the tendency of the hold removed assistance to fully obligate the funds by the end of the fiscal year. nevertheless omb continued to implement the hold that the president's direction. we know from e-mails released last night that as of september 5 omb was continuing to obstruct dod to hold the aid. omb gave these e-mails to a private organization just because of a lawsuit. on september 5 duffey e-mailed mccusker falling quote no movement from ukraine. continue hold through friday and that quote. we know mccusker responded to omb with a lengthy e-mail detailing dod serious concern that omb redacted almost the whole thing. as i explained last night omb has key documents that president trump has refused to turn over to congress. key documents that go to the heart of one of the ways in which the president abused his power. concerns about whether the administration was bending if not breakin

according to public reporting, deputy under secretary defense elaine mccusker who manages the d.o.d.'s budget, learned about the president's questions. we know this email exists because in response to a freedom of information act lawsuit, the trump administration was forced to release a redacted email. but d.o.d. provided none of those documents to the house. deputy assistant secretary of defense laura cooper and her team were tasked by the secretary of defense with responding to the president's questions about the ukraine assistance. miss cooper testified that she put those answers in an email and described those emails during her deposition. she testified that d.o.d. advised the security assistance was crucial for both ukraine and u.s. national security, and had strong bipartisan support in congress. but d.o.d. provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment, the senate has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how and why the president was holding the aid. laura cooper also testified about the inter-agency mee

duffey a political appointee at omb reports to vought e-mailed deputy undersecretary defense elaine mccusker and told her the president had questions about the aid. duffey copied a career official at ombol who told us about the e-mail in his testimony before the house. like all others that email was not produced by the trump administration in thehe house impeachment investigation. we know this email exist, however, because in response to a freedom of information act lawsuit trump administration was forced to release a redacted in a consistent with the description. but omb provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment dissent has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how andur why the president was holding the aid. these documents would also shed light on the president's order to implement the hold. on july 3 the state department told various officialsde that ob blocked it from dispensing $141 million in aid. omb had directed the state department not to send a notification to congress about spending the money. and with

. >> in none ochiaka those e-mails between mccusker and duffy does he give a reason, just withholdingdonald trump, a private citizen, in 2008, we started talking about nancy pelosi, the speaker. >> nancy pelosi, the speaker? >> when she first got in and i met her, i'm impressed by her. i thought she was an impressive person. i like her a lot. i was surprised she didn't do more in terms of bush and going after bush. it seemed like she was going to look to impeach bush and get him out of office personally i think would have been a wonderful thing. >> impeaching him? >> for the war. he lied. he got us into the war with lies. look at the trouble bill clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant and they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. bush got us into this horrible war by lies, saying they had weapons of mass destruction and all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. >> jeffrey, i want your reaction. >> how can i add to that? what can i possibly say other than just watch it and see what he said? donald trump has been on every side of every issue. he used

mccusker replied, and i quote, you can't be serious, i am speechless. now, all of this, including allenby's efforts to shift blame to the pentagon, the white house effort to great a cover story for the hold on security assistance were a continuation of the cover up. it started with the white house lawyers a failure to stop the scheme after the july 10 meeting was reported to them, continued with attempts to hide a july 25 call summary and escalated with white house illegal concealment of the whistleblower complaint from congress. on september 10 the house intelligence committee requested that the dni provide a copy of the was a blower complaint as the law requires. dni continued to withhold the complaint for weeks. the same day was announced basilar bolton was resigning or had been fired and it is unclear whether ambassador bolton departure from the white house had anything to do with his opposition to the hold on a military aid but of course, ambassador bolton could shed light on that himself if he were to testify. the next day on september 11 presiden

august 30, michael duffey sent an e-mail to elaine mccusker, the dod comptroller. it said, quote, clear production from potus to continue the hold. he's reviewed this or any other e-mail to congress. when the administration was forced to produce it in the freedom of information case in response to the court order, this clinical passage was actually blacked out. what is the reason for blocking out this direction from the president about an issue so central to this case? no reason has been given to us, so you should ask yourself this, what is the president hiding? the president finally released the hold on september 11, but again, there was no credible reason given for the release. mark testified that he couldn't recall another instance where a significant amount of assistance was being held up and he didn't have a rationale for as long as i didn't have a rationale in this case. on the day it was released, omb still didn't know why president trump had ordered the hold. on september 11, the day the president finally released the aid, dod reportedly sent an e-mail to d

other sources saying that they believed that mccusker may have been exaggerating concerns to force the administration's hand. an inner agency fighting going on over this hold and these emails helped shed light on that. >> reading reporting, throughs weeks and months, escalating battle between omb and d.o.d. and the democrats minoritier leader, the newly revealed unredacted emails a blow to senator mcconnell's push to have the trial without a witnesses and documents requested. how will majority leader respond taking the floor tore more? -- tomorrow morning? phil mattingly, one hand, on the hill, significant. how will leader mcconnell address this if at all? >> reporter: you can expect senator mcconnell will stay in the same place he's been over the course of the last couple weeks. brooke, fill you in on anything missed regarding negotiations what a senate trial will look lie. traveling, in nashville by chance, you missed nothing. nothing at all. leaders did not speak to speaker pelosi didn't speak saying senator schumer would control this. and mr. preside mitch mcconnell believes house

after the meeting with the president took place, duffey told mccusker, clear direction from potus tod that money. so where does that fit? what are the implications of that? >> well, this helps to fill in the gaps in the sort of narrative about how was this decision made, why was it made, and was it made with the administration thinking no problem, this is absolutely the right thing to do or with an understanding as we are now learning that there were a lot of concerns inside the administration about whether this was legal. the fact that this really underscores the president's direct involvement i think helps us to understand two things. it helps us to understand why democrats have been pushing so hard for more documents. and it helps us understand why the white house in part has been reluctant to release those documents. but because the house democrats made the decision to move forward with the process rather than go to the courts to ask for resolution on this, i'm still not sure it changes the dynamic in terms of what mitch mcconnell has to agree to in these negotiations. and again,

deputy under secretary of defense elaine mccusker responded i am speechless. we now know the dod's concerns are well-founded. the president's freeze on the security aide was illegal. duffy should be called to testify about why the repeated warnings went unheeded. what prompted the e-mail that attempted to shift the blame from the dod and about the fact that the president released the aid only after his scheme was exposed. senators, make no mistake. we have a detailed factual record of shoving the freeze was president trumps decision and he did it to pressure ukraine to announce a political investigation he wanted. but president trumps decisions also set off a cascade of confusion and misdirection within the executive branch as the president's political appointees carry out his orders, career officials tried to do their jobs, or at the very least, not break the law. blair and duffy would shed light on how the president orders were carried out. that is why committees of the house issued subpoenas for both of their testimony. but blair and duffey as i said earlie

there's clearly information about this toe dance of emails between blair, duffy at omb and elaine mccusker, the acting comptroller at the pentagon suggesting that the house republican story that there was nothing to see here, the white house story that this was all just routine and the president was just making sure that there was no corruption tainting this money going to ukraine, that story is weakening based on some of this reporting, even though we don't know what's in all of those emails. and i think schumer is saying essentially, look, if there's nothing to see and everything the white house did was fine, why not release the emails? the problem, as we've been saying, though, is that republicans and democrats are fixed in their positions. no matter how the process plays out in the senate, there are very few republican votes to change and very few democratic votes, frankly, to change, no matter what information comes out. you know, positions have hardened and it's a matter of when more than what is actually going to happen. >> margaret, in ten seconds or less if you want to punctuate t

aide, michael duffy a political appointee at omb email the deputy undersecretary of defense alain mccusker and told her the president had questions about the aide. duffy copied mark sandy, a career official at omb who told us about the email in his testimony before the house. like all others, that email was not produced by the trump administration in the impeachment investigation. we know this email exists because of a response to freedom of information act lawsuit, the trump administration was forced to release a redacted email consistent with sandy's description. omb provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment, the senate has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how and why the president was withholding the aide. these documents would also shed light on the president's order to implement the hold. on july 3rd for the state department told various officials that omb blocked it from dispensing $141 million in aid. omb had directed the state department not to send a notification to congress about spending the mone

august 30, michael duffey sent an e-mail to elaine mccusker, the dod comptroller. it said, quote, clear production from potus to continue the hold. he's reviewed this or any other e-mail to congress. when the administration was forced to produce it in the freedom of information case in response to the court order, this clinical passage was actually blacked out. what is the reason for blocking out this direction from the president about an issue so central to this case? no reason has been given to us, so you should ask yourself this, what is the president hiding? the president finally released the hold on september 11, but again, there was no credible reason given for the release. mark testified that he couldn't recall another instance where a significant amount of assistance was being held up and he didn't have a rationale for as long as i didn't have a rationale in this case. on the day it was released, omb still didn't know why president trump had ordered the hold. on september 11, the day the president finally released the aid, dod reportedly sent an e-mail to d

e-mails blair responds expect congress to become unhinged and duffy who is from omb sends an e-mail to mccusker at the department of defense and sets the process of the interagency battle between those who are trip appointees, duffy and the career professional and controller dod who she says we can't you have legal authority and is concerned about withholding the money. in the month of july is when when we have the interactions between -- and mulvaney who we heard about in the house intelligence committee testimony and the highlights here are in early july is a famous meeting or eu ambassador tells nick mullaney or mulvaney said at this white house meeting that it would happen if he agreed it's the president of ukraine would agree to investigate bereavement witches code for invest getting the bidens. this is when fiona hill told her it's a drug deal and he did not want any part of it. we then have taylor learning ambassador bill taylor who was the acting ambassador in ukraine learns about this hold for the first time and this is when it seems like these different threads come together. rudy giu

michael duffey, the associate director for national security programs at omb, sent an mail to elaine mccusker, dod comptroller, with an article by "the washington examiner," quote, pentagon to send $250 million in weapons to ukraine. in that email he asked her the following general question. the president has asked about this funding release and i've been tasked to follow up with someone over there to get more detail. do you have any insight on this funding? it seems that on june 19, robert blair, mick mulvaney's deputy, called acting omb director russell vogt to discuss ukraine security assistance. he told him, we need to hold it up. that's right, the hold was actually directed impulsively without any agency review as soon as president trump learned about it from press reports. and we know what was on the president's mind about ukraine that day because president trump gave a phone interview with sean hannity on fox news. during the interview, he mentioned the so-called crowdstrike conspiracy theory that blames ukraine rather than russia for interfering in the 2016 election. remember that pre

mccusker replied you cannot be serious. i am speechless.nd thenen to shift blame to the pentagon as a cover story was a continuation of the cover-up. and started with the white house lawyer failure to stop the scheme after the july 10th meeting was reported and continued after the call summary and escalated with the white house illegal concealment of the whistleblower fromof congress. september 10th the house intelligence committee requested the dna provide a copy of the complaint as the law requires. the dni continue to withhold for weeks. the same day it was announced ambassador bolton was resigning or had been fired , it is unclear if ambassador bolton's departure had anything to do with his opposition to the hold on military aid but of course he could shed light on that himself if he were to testify. the next day on september 11 the president met with vice president pence and mulvaney and others to discuss the whole later that day he relented and lifted the hold after his team was exposed. the president's decision to release the aid jus

on september 11th, the day the president finally released the aid, mccusker at dod reportedly sent an email to duffey asking, what happened? michael duffey answered, not clear exactly, but president made the decision to go. will fill you in when i get details. so let's take a step back for a minute. why was no reason given to anyone for the president deciding to hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to our allies? because there was no supportable reason for withholding the aid. no one agreed with it. according to the 17 witnesses in the house impeachment inquiry, president trump insisted on holding the aid and provided no reason, despite unanimous support, for lifting the hold throughout his administration, including his hand-picked top advisers. it also wasn't consistent with american policy. the aid had the clear support of career officers and political appointees in president trump's administration as important for national security. there was no national security or foreign policy reason provided. no one could think of one. dod had already certified to con

mccusker replied -- and i quote -- you can't be serious. i am speechless.l of this including omb's efforts to shift blame to the pentagon, the white house's effort to create a cover store are ri for the hold on security assistance were a continuation of the cover-up. it started with the white house's lawyers failure to stop the scheme after the july 10th meeting was reported to them, continued with attempts to hide the july 25th call summary, and escalated with the white house's illegal concealment of the whistle-blower's complaint from congress. on september 10th, the house intelligence committee requested that the dni provide a copy of the whistle-blower complaint as the law requires, but dni continued to withhold the complaint for weeks. the same day it was announced that ambassador bolton was resigning or had been fired, it is unclear whether ambassador bolton's departure from the white house had anything to do with his opposition to the hold on military aid, but of course ambassador bolton could shed light on that himself if he were to testify. the nex

to hold up aid, michael duffy, a political appointee at omb that reports to vaught emailed elaine mccuskerd her the president had questions about the aid. duffy copied mark sandy, career official at omb, that told us about the email in his testimony before the house. like all others, that email was not produced by the trump administration in the house impeachment investigation. we know the email exists, however, because in response to freedom of information lawsuit, the trump administration was forced to release a redacted email consistent with sandy's description. but omb provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment, the senate has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how and why the president was holding the aid. these documents would also shed light on the president's order to implement the hold. on july 3rd, the state department told various officials that omb blocked it from dispensing $141 million in aid. omb had directed the state department not to send a notification to congress about spending the money, a