Thread by @grantstern

***THREAD***

Trump's White House wrote emails seeking *retroactive continuity* trying to cover-up their unlawful withholding of US security aid to Ukraine *after* learning of a whistleblower complaint to the CIA's general counsel.

#ImpeachmentTaskForce washingtonpost.com/politics/white…

In DC politics, I have heard Mick Mulvaney's after the fact attempts to build a rationale for Trump's decision to withhold Ukrainian security funds called a cover-up (it is) or "covering your ass."

It's an attempt to supply narrative continuity after the fact of the decision.

Retroactive continuity is best known from literature and entertainment plot writing by the term retcon.

Retcon or retconning is a "literary device in which the form or content of a previously established narrative is changed."

merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/…

Here's a simple timeline of WH holding funds to extort Ukraine into Biden and Crowdstrike/DNC investigations:

- July 18 - OMB informs interagency that funds are withheld, no reason given

- July 25 - Trump/Zelensky phone call, Ukrainian embassy asks about funds, House does too.

WaPo wrote: "In the early August email exchanges, Mulvaney asked acting OMB director Russell Vought for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the aid and how much longer it could be delayed."

Attempting to re-write the previously established narrative that...

"Trump had made the decision the prior month without an assessment of the reasoning or legal justification, according to two White House officials."

Original narrative: President withholds funds via the OMB after State and DoD signed off on disbursement.

"Emails show Vought and OMB staffers arguing that withholding aid was legal, while officials at the National Security Council and State Department protested."

Mulvaney is still head of the OMB while he is the Acting Chief of Staff, making the Acting OMB Director replaceable...

"OMB lawyers said that it was legal to withhold the aid, as long as they deemed it a 'temporary' hold, according to people familiar with the review."

But... that explanation too, apparently came after the fact of the decision.

"A senior budget lawyer crafted a memo on July 25 that defended the hold for at least a short period of time, an administration official said."

If you'll recall, the decision to withhold was a week old by then, and still lacking a rationale for the original narrative.

"Mulvaney’s request for information came days after the White House Counsel’s Office was put on notice that an anonymous CIA official had made a complaint to the agency’s general counsel about Trump’s July 25 call to Zelensky..."

How would they get the whistleblower complaint?!

But this timeline illustrates WHY Trump's people escalated their attempts to retcon the original decision to withhold security funds from Ukraine, knowing all along what they did was unlawful.

They got a copy of the whistleblower complaint when they shouldn't have had it.

That's why Trump's White House team began their cover-up—the attempt to provide retroactive continuity to their decision to suspend critical aid to Ukraine—long before House Intel Chairman Schiff began asking for records related to the July 25th call and whistleblower complaint.