Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[johnu]

You hate to see Mulvaney undercutting his boss's repeated denials that there was a quid pro quo.

And there was no collusion, no obstruction :lol:

[johnu]

The Criminal in Chief's legal strategy is becoming obvious. The White House is planning an insanity defense including the fact that they are mentally incompetent to have had criminal intent.

 

Mick Mulvaney Walks Back Admission Of Quid Pro Quo In Trump’s Ukraine Call

 

Hours after saying Thursday that President Donald Trump withheld foreign aid in order to get Ukraine’s help in the U.S. election, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney walked back his remarks.

[Winstonm]

Now I think the guy is actively trying to get impeached and removed:

 

Openly rebuffing congressional investigators and dismissing political optics, President Donald Trump will hold the G-7 summit of world leaders at one of his family’s resorts in the middle of an election year — shrugging off a House impeachment inquiry into whether he is illegally making money off the presidency.

 

That way he could claim himself a victim of the "deep state" and rely on a Pence pardon.

[y66]

From the post that started this thread:

 

TRUMP: I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system.

[Winstonm]

In today's testimony from Mick Mulvaney

 

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/17/mick-mulvaney-confesses-omb-and-dod-are-withholding-evidence-of-a-crime-from-congress/

 

Dr. Wheeler nails it:

2) they knew doing so w/o notice to Congress was a crime may be the most important.

 

I seem to recall Mueller's report stating that one of the reasons charges were not brought against Don Jr. was they could not verify a knowledge of crime. Nice of Mick to serve this tidbit on a silver plate, on television, with the world as witness.

 

Either these guys believe themselves bulletproof or they are the gang who couldn't shoot straight.

[johnu]

Nothing to see here folks :lol:

 

Stephanie Grisham: Mick Mulvaney ‘Did A Great Job’ At Disastrous Press Briefing

 

Amid the fallout from a press conference in which acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly admitted there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine, the Trump administration’s top spokesperson attempted some damage control on the president’s network of choice, Fox News.

 

Mulvaney’s Thursday briefing was, by nearly all media accounts, a disaster. But White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham insisted it was nothing short of a success.

 

“He was over there for more than 30 minutes, he took probably 40 questions, people were talking over one another, he did a great job,” she said Friday. “He mentioned the same message over and over and over, and now the media of course is ― we put a statement out clarifying some of the things that the media got themselves in a tizzy over.”

Grisham also noted that Mulvaney did not poop in his pants or open up zipper on his pants and masturbate during the press conference which was also great. :rolleyes:

[y66]

From Trump’s Capitulation to Erdogan Is Complete by Eli Lake at Bloomberg:

 

The strange thing about the “cease-fire” negotiated Thursday in Ankara between the U.S. and Turkey is that one party isn’t actually fighting and the other seems unlikely to abide by it.

 

Turkey’s foreign minister said the agreement “is not a ceasefire” but rather a pause in military operations. He vowed that those operations would continue until Kurdish fighters — aligned with the U.S. until earlier this month — leave the border area entirely. For good measure, he also contradicted Vice President Mike Pence, saying his government never promised not to send its army into the city of Kobani.

 

Nor is it likely that Kurdish forces will agree to Turkish demands. For one, the Syrian Democratic Forces have already struck a bargain with Russia and the Syrian regime, allowing the Syrian army into the semi-autonomous zone it controlled. The deal reached in Ankara was just between Turkey and the U.S.

 

And those are just a few of the problems with the agreement negotiated by Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Far from fixing a problem caused by President Donald Trump’s diplomatic bluster and caprice, they have compounded it. The U.S. has essentially acceded to Turkey’s demand for control of a 20-mile buffer zone deep into Syrian territory. The Turks intend to use this new territory to relocate the more than 3 million Syrian Arab refugees now living in Turkey.

 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been open about this. Just this week, he outlined his plans: “We will secure the area extending from Manbij to the Iraqi border and then facilitate 1 million Syrian refugees’ return home in the first phase and, later on, the return of 2 million people.”

 

But this safe zone is an area that is for the most part historically Kurdish. If the Turkish military and its allied militias are allowed to dominate the area, then it is a near certainty that Kurdish civilians will suffer.

 

And while it’s hard to confirm early reports in the fog of war, that appears to be exactly what is happening. New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi tweeted the grisly autopsy report of a murdered Kurdish politician. Public violence like this is meant to send a message that all civilians are targets. In essence, America has agreed to let Turkey solve its Syrian refugee problem by creating a new Kurdish refugee problem.

 

Then there is the message this sends to Erdogan himself. The Turkish leader has humiliated Trump and the U.S. in recent weeks and months. He went ahead with the purchase of a Russian S-400 air defense system this summer, over several U.S. objections, and has faced no sanctions. He ordered his military to violate an earlier safe-haven agreement that to which Turkey had previously agreed. His forces fired artillery on a U.S. outpost last week. And he has metaphorically — and literally, according to the BBC — thrown Trump’s “Don’t be a tough guy” letter into the trash.

 

In exchange for this disrespect and petulance, Erdogan got what he has wanted all along. He started a war to create a buffer zone in northern Syria, then got the U.S. to agree that he be allowed to keep it. Trump is even now repeating Erdogan’s talking points, claiming (without evidence) that the Syrian Kurds have launched attacks into Turkey. “In all fairness they’ve had a legitimate problem with it,” Trump said Thursday, referring to the safe zone. “They had to have it cleaned out. But once you start that, it gets to a point where a tremendous amount of bad things can happen.”

 

That point has already been reached. Bad things are indeed happening, and will continue to happen. And there’s little reason to believe Trump’s capitulation in Ankara will do much to stop them.

How do you say the art of the deal in Turkish?

[y66]

Wonder if it doesn't cost that if you don't have insurance ...

 

https://www.vista-health.co.uk/services/mri-scan?gclid=Cj0KCQjwoqDtBRD-ARIsAL4pviCuoVU6b8rH9STdflwy5Fd1dXyVVQP_fBwwSodHP-sjEJmSz7pCDvQaArnKEALw_wcB

 

Hell for that you could fly to the UK and get a private MRI done here.

I asked for a quote and was told: In Stratford, 1 body part is £350 for a same day or next day appointment, £295 for any other day or £199 for weekends before 9am. For contrast it is an extra £125 on top.

 

My insurance company was billed £8,489 for a 3 weeks out appointment in DC (1 body part with contrast). A weekend before 9am would have been fine.

[Winstonm]

The Dual Reality of the Frothy Right

 

As Marcy Wheeler pointed out, Fox News has yet to disclose that two of their commentators, attorneys Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova, recently were representing Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Fitash and were being paid $250,000 a month by Fitash to complain that Hunter Biden had been paid $50,000 a month by a different corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. Rudy Giuliani has publicly asserted that Dmitry Fitash has close ties to Semion Mogilevich, a Ukrainian-born, Russian organized crime boss, believed by European and United States federal law enforcement agencies to be the "boss of bosses" of most Russian Mafia syndicates in the world.

[y66]

From The Editorial Board at NYT:

 

In the summer of 1950, outraged by Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist inquisition, Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican senator from Maine, stood to warn her party that its own behavior was threatening the integrity of the American republic. “I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny — fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear,” she said. “I doubt if the Republican Party could — simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely, we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.”

 

Senator Smith surely knew her “Declaration of Conscience” would not carry the day. Her appeal to the better angels of her party was not made in the expectation of an immediate change; sometimes the point is just to get people to look up. In the end, four more years passed before the bulk of the Republican Party looked up and turned on Senator McCarthy — four years of public show trials and thought policing that pushed the country so hard to the right that the effects lasted decades. The problem with politicians who abuse power isn’t that they don’t get results. It’s that the results come at a high cost to the Republic — and to the reputations of those who lack the courage or wisdom to resist.

 

The Republican Party is again confronting a crisis of conscience, one that has been gathering force ever since Donald Trump captured the party’s nomination in 2016. Afraid of his political influence, and delighted with his largely conservative agenda, party leaders have compromised again and again, swallowing their criticisms and tacitly if not openly endorsing presidential behavior they would have excoriated in a Democrat. Compromise by compromise, Donald Trump has hammered away at what Republicans once saw as foundational virtues: decency, honesty, responsibility. He has asked them to substitute loyalty to him for their patriotism itself.

 

Mr. Trump privately pressed Ukraine to serve his political interests by investigating a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as by looking into a long-debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic National Committee emails that were stolen by the Russians. Mr. Trump publicly made a similar request of China. His chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, said publicly on Thursday that the administration threatened to withhold military aid from Ukraine if it did not help “find” the D.N.C. servers.

 

These attempts to enlist foreign interference in American electoral democracy are an assault not only on our system of government but also on the integrity of the Republican Party. Republicans need to emulate the moral clarity of Margaret Chase Smith and recognize that they have a particular responsibility to condemn the president’s behavior and to reject his tactics.

 

Some have already done so. On Friday, John Kasich, the former Ohio governor, said that Mr. Mulvaney’s comments convinced him that the impeachment inquiry should move forward. Representative Justin Amash of Michigan had already called for impeachment, though he felt it necessary to leave the party as a consequence.

 

There was a time when Republicans like Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said that soliciting foreign election assistance would be improper. But most congressional Republicans have taken to avoiding such questions as the evidence against Mr. Trump has piled up. Mr. Trump still feels so well-protected by his party that he has just named his own golf resort as the site for the next Group of 7 summit in 2020, a brazen act of self-dealing.

 

Yet Republicans will not be able to postpone a reckoning with Trumpism for much longer. The investigation by House Democrats appears likely to result in a vote for impeachment, despite efforts by the White House to obstruct the inquiry. That will force Senate Republicans to choose. Will they commit themselves and their party wholly to Mr. Trump, embracing even his most anti-democratic actions, or will they take the first step toward separating themselves from him and restoring confidence in the rule of law?

 

Thus far in office, Mr. Trump has acted against the national interest by maintaining his financial interests in his company and using the presidential podium to promote it; obstructed legitimate investigations into his conduct by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and Congress; attacked the free press; given encouragement to white nationalists; established a de facto religious test for immigrants; undermined foreign alliances and emboldened American rivals; demanded personal loyalty from subordinates sworn to do their duty to the Constitution; and sent his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, around the world to conduct what could most charitably be described as shadow foreign policy with Mr. Trump’s personal benefit as its lodestar.

 

Some Republicans have clearly believed that they could control the president by staying close to him and talking him out of his worst ideas. Ask Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — who has spent the last two years prostrating himself before Mr. Trump in the hope of achieving his political goals, including protecting the Kurds — how that worked out. Mr. Graham isn’t alone, of course; there is a long list of politicians who have debased themselves to please Mr. Trump, only to be abandoned by him like a sack of rotten fruit in the end. That’s the way of all autocrats; they eventually turn on everyone save perhaps their own relatives, because no one can live up to their demands for fealty.

 

The Constitution’s framers envisioned America’s political leaders as bound by a devotion to country above all else. That’s why all elected officials take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. By protecting Donald Trump at all costs from all consequences, the Republicans risk violating that sacred oath.

 

Senator Smith’s question once again hangs over the Republican Party: Surely they are not so desperate for short-term victory as to tolerate this behavior? We’ll soon find out.

Sack of rotten fruit was an interesting choice of words. Compost them all.

[Winstonm]

The WaPo:

 

While under siege from opponents as treasury secretary, Hamilton sketched out the type of charlatan who would most threaten the republic: “When a man unprincipled in private life[,] desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper . . . despotic in his ordinary demeanour — known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty — when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day — It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’ ” Given the way Trump has broadcast suspicions about the CIA, the FBI, the diplomatic corps, senior civil servants and the “deep state,” Hamilton’s warning about those who would seek to discredit the government as prelude to a possible autocracy seems prophetic.

 

Alexander Hamilton was obviously an "enemy of the people" who was trying to invalidate the 2016 election. What else would you expect from an immigrant from a sh$%hole country in the West Indies. ;)

[y66]

From Josh Kraushaar at the National Journal:

 

Buried in the Washington drama of impeachment, corruption, and foreign policy chaos this past week was a ground-shaking bit of news: New polling and fundraising figures show that Mitch McConnell’s hold on the Senate majority is looking awfully precarious. Indeed, the pathway for a narrow Democratic takeover of the upper chamber is looking clearer than ever.

 

Four Republican senators were outraised by their Democratic challengers in the third fundraising quarter, with three of them representing battleground states (Iowa, Maine, and Arizona) that Republicans will need to win to maintain power. And in North Carolina, Sen. Thom Tillis raised only $1.2 million, an underwhelming sum for a senator facing a credible primary threat and an expensive general election ahead. All four swing-state senators also are viewed unfavorably by their constituents according to new quarterly Morning Consult polling, underscoring the sudden shift in support away from Republicans.

 

In Iowa, Sen. Joni Ernst failed even to hit the million-dollar mark in fundraising, a financial baseline of sorts for senators running for reelection. She was outraised by a Democratic outsider, businesswoman Theresa Greenfield, who raised $1.1 million despite facing a contested Democratic primary and refusing donations from corporate PACs.

 

As her fundraising has slowed, Ernst’s support back home has also declined. The Morning Consult tracking poll found Ernst with an underwater job-approval rating of 39/43, with more independents viewing her unfavorably than favorably. That’s a shift from her net-positive job approval over the spring, which stood at 42/38.

 

Donald Trump comfortably carried her state in 2016, but since then, Iowa farmers have taken a serious hit from the president’s trade war. Both Gallup and Morning Consult have found his support sinking in the state, with a March Des Moines Register poll showing even 28 percent of Iowa Republicans believing the tariffs have hurt the state’s agribusiness.

 

These are all major red flags suggesting Iowa is a much bigger battleground than Republicans anticipated at the beginning of the year.

 

The GOP’s outlook in Arizona and North Carolina is also looking gloomier. Both Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina are facing nuisance primary challengers, which makes it harder for the incumbents to consolidate their base. But the more they try to protect their right flank, the tougher it becomes to win over the suburban moderates who decide races in these swing states.

 

McSally, who lost last year’s election before being appointed to her seat, trailed Democratic challenger Mark Kelly by 5 points, 46 to 41 percent, in a poll taken in August. She’s been outraised in all three of the fundraising quarters by significant margins—an unusual disadvantage for a sitting senator. She already lags Kelly in campaign cash by nearly $4 million.

 

Tillis holds the lowest approval rating (33 percent) of any sitting senator, according to the Morning Consult survey. A Democratic poll conducted in September found him trailing his little-known Democratic opponent Cal Cunningham, 45 to 43 percent. But before he even faces Cunningham, he’ll have to get past self-funded businessman Garland Tucker in the primary. Tucker has poured $1.2 million of his own money into the campaign—around the same amount Tillis raised in the last three months. Tucker has already been using that money on anti-Tillis campaign ads, forcing the senator to respond in kind.

 

Cunningham wasn’t the Democrats’ top recruit, but this race is turning more into a referendum on Tillis. If Cunningham wins the nomination and runs a competent race, Tillis will face major hurdles in winning a second term.

 

In Maine, a race that Republicans consider the nation’s biggest bellwether, Sen. Susan Collins is suddenly facing a real fight. State House Speaker Sara Gideon raised a whopping $3.2 million in the third quarter, outpacing Collins by more than $1 million. More significantly, Collins’ once-golden image back home has continued to slip, according to the Morning Consult numbers. Her popularity has hit an all-time low in the tracking survey, down to 43/49 job approval.

 

Collins has already gone up with an early advertisement, a sign that her team recognizes this race will be the toughest campaign that the senator has faced.

 

Here’s the big picture: If Trump doesn’t win a second term, Democrats need to net only three seats to win back the majority. Assuming they can’t hang onto Sen. Doug Jones’ seat in ruby-red Alabama (but hold Sen. Gary Peters’ seat in traditionally blue Michigan), the magic number is four. And when you add Sen. Cory Gardner’s tough race in Colorado to the toss-up list, they’ve got five promising opportunities to defeat Republican senators.

 

In a normal political environment, Republicans would have good reason to be confident they could win some of these hotly contested races. But given the trajectory of Trump’s presidency and the trend lines in the battlegrounds, Republicans don’t have much room for error. Right now, control of the Senate past 2020 looks awfully close to a toss-up with over a year until the election.

[barmar]

No. It is another example of an idiot Russian playing what-about-ism games...

 

1. I am not aware of any US laws that ban American citizens from interfering in foreign elections. So, even if this were tre, this wouldn't be an issue under American law

Just because it's legal, that doesn't mean it's right.

 

There's a general principle of national sovereignty. If we expect other countries to respect our election processes, we should respect theirs, even if they don't pass laws requiring it.

 

However, merely expressing an opinion about a candidate is hardly comparable to the kinds of interference the Russians did in 2016 and what Trump asked the Ukrainians to do this year.

[Winstonm]

Just because it's legal, that doesn't mean it's right.

 

There's a general principle of national sovereignty. If we expect other countries to respect our election processes, we should respect theirs, even if they don't pass laws requiring it.

 

However, merely expressing an opinion about a candidate is hardly comparable to the kinds of interference the Russians did in 2016 and what Trump asked the Ukrainians to do this year.

 

A citizen expressing an opinion about a foreign election is a first amendment right of freedom of speech.

 

The head of the executive branch of the United States actively withholding aid while offering a White House meeting in exchange for a formal and loud bogus investigation into a political rival paid for in part by a Ukrainian oligarch who is fighting extradition to the U.S. to face criminal charges is not even in the same universes 1-11.

 

In fact, it could well be bribery, a clear-cut impeachable offense.

[Winstonm]

This could be an interesting and critical turn as the judge has ruled that the DOJ cannot redact the reasons they did not compel testimony from Don Jr. and Senior Turmp in front of the Grand Jury, especially note this tweet form Ms Wheeler:

 

 

emptywheel

@emptywheel

·

7h

One important point abt Don Jr refusing to testify, even to the GJ, is that he invoked the Fifth when the people asking the questions had been able to subpoena for records.

 

He did NOT invoke the Fifth when Congress asked him questions.

 

It says a lot about Jr. when Dad is in the White House and is refusing to comply with any Congressional subpoenas but when the law calls on Jr. he pleads the fifth. The issue he seems to be queasy about is document production. Wonder what those could be?

[Winstonm]

Meanwhile, Trump estimated it has cost him $2 billion to $5 billion “between what I lose and what I could’ve made” to be president.

 

“I don’t care,” he said. “If you’re rich it doesn’t matter.”

 

Yes, if you're rich it doesn't matter. But what if you are Donald Trump?

[kenberg]

Meanwhile, Trump estimated it has cost him $2 billion to $5 billion “between what I lose and what I could’ve made” to be president.

“I don’t care,” he said. “If you’re rich it doesn’t matter.”

Just the other day I was telling Becky that sure I could have been a couple of billion richer but really it doesn't matter. I also could have been a tennis champion and one of history's great lovers, que sera sera. Fortunately I did become a stable genius. I am very skilled at cleaning out stables.

[Chas_P]

Just the other day I was telling Becky that sure I could have been a couple of billion richer but really it doesn't matter. I also could have been a tennis champion and one of history's great lovers, que sera sera. Fortunately I did become a stable genius. I am very skilled at cleaning out stables.

 

You are also very witty, level-headed, and a pleasure to encounter in cyberspace. Please carry on.

[Zelandakh]

You are also very witty, level-headed, and a pleasure to encounter in cyberspace. Please carry on.

One might almost describe him as a stable genius perhaps...

 

When giving Dodgy Donald's 2-5 billion comment I think it is useful to point out that 5 billion dollars is not only more than his total wealth now but more than he has ever been worth at any time in his life. As always, one should treat the words of the American president in much the same way as an online troll and double-check every little detail before accepting something as true.

[y66]

Quite a few posters here wrote a lot of words about their concern that Clinton did not comply with State department email protocols.

https://www.axios.com/outgoing-white-house-emails-not-protected-by-verification-system-deafc584-759b-4c8f-969a-3ced8a8059f8.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

 

I am sure that adds a LOT of worry about the current White House for all of you.

Oh, it doesn't? Then, perhaps, just maybe, your attention to Clinton's email management decisions was a tiny bit overblown? Just a tiny bit?

Overblown? Case closed.

[Winstonm]

This speaks to most men living lives of quiet desperation.

 

But the U.S. is also the only rich country in the world where the mortality rate has been going up, not down. Much of that trend is driven by men without college degrees in America’s heartland, according to Brookings.

[cherdano]

Yeah. I am still wondering whether anyone here who wrote loads and loads of posts about Clinton's emails - why she did it, what it showed about her judgement, what should have led her not to follow the advice to set up a private server, etc. etc. - whether they may have given the issue just a little bit too much weight.

 

In retrospect, is Clinton's decision to follow the advice by one of her staff to set up a private server so she could more easily access her emails while travelling, and thereby violating state department IT guidelines, indeed the most important information about her character and suitability to become president?

[Winstonm]

I believe this exchange is directly attributable to AG Bill Barr and his influence on the President's beliefs:

 

Donald Trump reportedly told a room of his top aides that he is in charge of the Hatch Act, when warned by his chief of staff that bringing his cabinet members to a campaign rally could violate ethics rules.

 

The comment, reported in a new Wall Street Journal article, illustrates the degree to which Mr Trump believes his administration does not have to worry about the rule, which was passed a century ago with the intention of warding off political activity by government employees.

 

This falls in with Barr's belief that as the head of the executive branch the president is also the top federal law enforcement officer so he alone is the final arbiter of federal criminal violations, i.e., above all federal laws and only by impeachment can he be held accountable.

[Winstonm]

ALERT! I believe there is a valid claim. Down 13, redoubled. And Vulnerable.

 

Testimony of Acting Ukraine Ambassador Bill Taylor

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations,” Taylor said. “In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.”

 

“He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations,” Taylor continued.

[hrothgar]

So, recall a couple weeks back when Andrei was complaining about "unnamed sources?"

 

It is out and it sounds like a Maggie Haberman piece.

 

I have never seen/heard anything, but unnamed sources have told me that ....

 

Wonder whether he'll change his tune now that the following happened

 

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19310996/Bill_Taylor_testimony.pdf

 

According to Mr. Morrison, President

Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a “quid pro quo.” But

President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is

opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President

Zelenskyy should want to do this himself. Mr. Morrison said that he told Ambassador

Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone call between President Trump and

Ambassador Sondland.

 

The following day, on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.

He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that

President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up

and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” Ambassador

Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them

that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things

up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that

Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.