Robert Mueller's Russia probe 'close to being completed', Acting US Attorney-General says...
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by BenDhyan » Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:01 pm
by seemslikeadream » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:16 pm
Elizabeth Warren
The Mueller report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack.
Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: “Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment.
To ignore a President’s repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways.
The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.
https://www.needtoimpeach.com
AND COUNTING
TRUMP'S 10 IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES
1
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE
2
PROFITING FROM THE PRESIDENCY
3
COLLUSION
4
ADVOCATING POLITICAL & POLICE VIOLENCE
5
ABUSE OF POWER
6
ENGAGING IN RECKLESS CONDUCT
7
PERSECUTING POLITICAL OPPONENTS
8
ATTACKING THE FREE PRESS
9
VIOLATING IMMIGRANTS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
10
VIOLATING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS
JOIN US
Thanks to Free Speech for People, whose white paper, 'The Legal Case for a Congressional Investigation on Whether to Impeach President Donald J. Trump,' served as the basis for this list.
The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral
The special counsel has concluded he can neither charge nor clear the president. Only Congress can now resolve the allegations against him.
Yoni AppelbaumApr 18, 2019
Senior editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Ideas section
Donald Trump
Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock / Getty / The Atlantic
The redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report released on Thursday runs 448 pages. But its most important implication can be summarized in a single sentence: There is sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice to merit impeachment hearings.
A basic principle lies at the heart of the American criminal-justice system: The accused is entitled to a fair defense and a chance to clear his name. Every American is entitled to this protection, from the humblest citizen all the way up to the chief executive. And that, Mueller explained in his report, is why criminal allegations against a sitting president should be considered by Congress and not the Justice Department. The Mueller report, in short, is an impeachment referral.
In his report, Mueller took pains to detail why he “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” as to whether the president had broken the law by obstructing justice. He began by noting that he accepted the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—which issues guidance for the executive branch on questions of law—that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Yoni Appelbaum: Impeach Donald Trump
That, Mueller explained, posed an insurmountable problem. A normal investigation would end with a prosecutor deciding to bring charges, or to drop the case. It’s a binary choice. But “fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.” Ordinarily, a criminal charge would result in “a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case.” But if Mueller were to state plainly that, in his judgment, the president had broken the law and obstructed justice, it would afford “no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” In other words, because a sitting president cannot be indicted, making such a charge publicly would effectively deny Trump his day in court, and the chance to clear his name.
More by Yoni Appelbaum
Trump travels to speak at the National Boy Scout Jamboree in West Virginia.
Mueller also pointed to the OLC’s guidance on seeking sealed indictments, which could be unsealed when a president leaves office, or leveling such charges in an internal (and, presumably, nonpublic) report. Secrecy, the OLC counseled, would be difficult to preserve—and so either step could place a president back in the same unfair situation, accused of a crime without the chance to clear his name.
Crucially, the same concerns don’t operate in reverse. If—examining the evidence and the law—a prosecutor were to determine not to charge an individual, there would be no fear that public disclosure of that decision would be unfair. But if Mueller believed he could not fairly say that the president had committed a crime, he also believed he could not honestly say that he hadn’t. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report explained:
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Attorney General William Barr reviewed the same evidence, though, and came to a different conclusion. In his summary of the report, he wrote, “Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Read: 14 must-read moments from the Mueller report
There is a vital distinction here between the two findings. Mueller wrote that his evidence was not sufficient to clearly establish that the president had not committed a crime; Barr insisted that it was not sufficient to establish that he had. It’s possible to read the two conclusions as different ways of stating the same finding; it’s equally possible to read them as fundamentally at odds with each other.
This points back to Mueller’s basic concern about fairness. In the report, he laid out 10 specific incidents his team examined, each of which might constitute—singly or in aggregate—evidence of obstructive conduct on the part of the president. “The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” Barr wrote.
But there is another, simpler way to understand Mueller’s report. A footnote spells out that a criminal investigation could ultimately result in charges being brought either after a president has been removed from office by the process of impeachment or after he has left office. Mueller explicitly rejected the argument of Trump’s lawyers that a president could not be guilty of obstruction of justice for the conduct in question: “The protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person—including the President—accords with the fundamental principle of our government that ‘[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.’”
Read: Robert Mueller’s written summaries of his Russia report
But if Mueller believes a president could be held to account after he leaves office, he also spelled out another concern with alleging a crime against a sitting president: the risk that it would preempt “constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”
The constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct is impeachment.
As I wrote for this magazine in January, impeachment is best regarded as a process, not an outcome. It’s the constitutional mechanism for investigating whether an executive-branch officer is fit to serve. It requires his accusers to lay out their evidence in public, provides the opportunity for witnesses to be cross-examined, and ultimately forces the House of Representatives to decide whether to impeach—that is, to approve charges that will force a trial in the Senate—or to drop the inquiry, thereby clearing the accused.
The process of deciding whether questionable conduct rises to the level of an impeachable offense is itself a vital civic function of impeachment. Not all crimes are impeachable offenses; not all impeachable offenses are crimes. That’s one reason why only Congress can uphold the basic guarantee of fairness that entitles the accused to be charged with or acquitted of impeachable offenses. And in the past, it’s often been the accused who see this most clearly.
David Frum: The question the Mueller report has not answered
In 1826, Vice President John C. Calhoun sent a remarkable letter to the House of Representatives, “in its high character of grand inquest of the nation.” He complained that claims of “impeachable offenses” had been lodged against him in an executive agency. Because he was “conscious of innocence,” he explained, he could “look for refuge only to the Hall of the immediate representatives of the people.” He asked the House to convene impeachment proceedings against him, so that he would have the chance to clear his name. The House agreed and, after an investigation, effectively cleared Calhoun.
Mueller has now delivered 10 credible allegations of obstructive behavior on the part of the president. For all of Trump’s bluster, those claims are now a matter of public record, and will hang over his presidency, despite the decision of his own appointee to clear him in the matter.
The constitutional mechanism for resolving this situation is impeachment. The president, no less than Calhoun, deserves a chance to clear his name. The public deserves a chance to examine the evidence against him. And his supporters and opponents alike deserve the clarity that only convening impeachment hearings can now provide.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... al/587509/
Trump tampered with witnesses. These Senate Republicans voted to oust Bill Clinton for doing just that
Mueller’s report essentially accuses Trump of witness tampering – one of the offences Republicans impeached Clinton on. Here’s how they explained their votes
Lauren Gambino
First published on Sat 20 Apr 2019 01.00 EDT
President Bill Clinton emerges from the Oval Office to talk to the media after learning that the U.S. Senate voted to acquit him of the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice during his Impeachment Trial on Feb. 12, 1999. The charges stemmed from his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Bill Clinton emerges from the Oval Office to talk to the media after learning Senate voted to acquit him of the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice during his impeachment trial on 12 February 1999. Photograph: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images
Robert Mueller’s report effectively accused Donald Trump of obstructing justice by witness tampering, one of the offences that led Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton 20 years ago.
Mueller’s team found Trump repeatedly made efforts to “encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation” into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the special counsel’s final report said.
Trump “made it known” that Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, could receive a pardon, according to Mueller. The president also urged Manafort and Michael Cohen, his legal fixer, not to “flip” and help Mueller’s inquiry.
In both these cases, Mueller found evidence that Trump acted with the intent of hindering the investigation – a necessary component for prosecuting witness tampering and obstruction of justice generally.
In addition, Mueller found that Trump asked senior advisers to tell Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, to “stay strong”, and asked for two senior White House officials who were witnesses in the investigation to create fake records that would help protect him.
Donald Trump and Michael Flynn at a rally in Grand Junction, Colorado, on 18 October 2016.
Donald Trump and Michael Flynn at a rally in Grand Junction, Colorado, on 18 October 2016. Photograph: George Frey/Getty Images
More than three pages describing Trump’s potentially obstructive actions towards yet another witness – seemingly his longtime friend and adviser Roger Stone – were completely redacted in Mueller’s report because they related to an “an ongoing matter”. Stone is being prosecuted on federal charges.
It is against federal law to tamper with a witness in an “official proceeding” such as Mueller’s investigation. But Mueller’s team declined to conclude whether or not Trump’s actions were criminal, in part because justice department policy holds that sitting presidents may not be indicted.
In a move that has attracted sharp criticism from Democrats, William Barr, the attorney general, decided that Trump had not committed obstruction.
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The obstruction charge said he committed witness tampering by trying to “corruptly influence” the potential testimony of his secretary Betty Currie, and urged the former White House intern Monica Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit in a lawsuit against him.
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. But 14 current Republican senators, some of whom were then serving in the House, voted either to impeach or convict Clinton on the obstruction charge. Some specifically cited his actions toward the witnesses when explaining their votes.
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Following his deposition, the president had to decide what to do with his loyal secretary, Ms Betty Currie. And, again, the undisputed evidence shows that the president took the path of lies and deceit.
Contrary to federal obstruction of justice laws and contrary to judge Wright’s protective order … President Clinton left the deposition, went back to the White House and called Ms Currie at home to ask her to come to the White House the next day, which, I might add, was a Sunday.
… I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.
Senate floor, 12 February 1999
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
It is clear to me that the president committed serious crimes when he coached his secretary, Betty Currie, and when he misled his aides Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta … These actions weren’t just outrageous and morally wrong. They were also illegal. They were a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process.
Statement, 12 February 1999
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
The question I have that needs to desperately be answered by somebody is – when he approached Ms Currie to coach her in the fashion he did, is that a crime? Because I don’t want people at home to be confused that they can do these things, because if they do what the president did, in my opinion, they will wind up in jail.
Interview with CNN, 27 January 1999
[N]obody because of their position in society has the right to cheat and to get somebody to lie for them, even as the president. That means we’re not a nation of men or kings. We’re a nation of laws, and that’s what this case has always been about to me … He turned the judicial system upside down, every way but loose. He sent his friends to lie for him. He lied for himself.
Speaking on the Senate floor while a House impeachment manager, 8 February 1999
Pat Roberts, Kansas
We in Kansas know that you don’t call witnesses in the middle of the night unless you want to sway them. The president did so. We in Kansas know that you don’t urge hiding legal evidence under the bed unless you want to affect the outcome of a legal proceeding. The president did so.
… Do these actions rise to the level envisioned by our founding fathers in the constitution as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ so warranting removal from office? Our constitution requires that the threshold for that judgment must be set by each senator sitting as a juror.
I believe an open-minded individual applying Kansas common sense would reach the conclusion that I reached.
Statement, 12 February 1999
Mike Crapo, Idaho
While most of the national attention has focused on the tawdriness of this matter, this intense fixation on sensationalism diverts attention from the true issues – the true issues related to abuse of the power of the presidency, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
Statement, 20 December 1998
Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the president of the United States, who is the highest official in the land and who has the additional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
Opinion article in the Idaho Falls Post Register, 21 February 1999
Mike Enzi, Wyoming
The president’s lawyers have argued that the president made these statements to refresh his recollection or to find out what Ms Currie knew in the event of a press avalanche. Neither of these explanations is plausible. It is impossible to refresh one’s recollection with false, leading questions. It is also impossible to find out what someone else knew if you tell them what they are supposed to believe.
The plausibility of either of these explanations is entirely discounted when you consider that the president called Betty Currie in a second time, on January 20, to ‘remind’ her of these statements.
The most likely explanation for these statements is far more sinister. That the president was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness in a federal civil rights proceeding. President Clinton was, in fact, trying to get Betty Currie to join him in his web of deception and obstruction of justice.
Statement entered into Senate record, 22 February 1999
James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Isn’t it true that [the federal law on witness tampering] criminalizes anyone who corruptly persuades or engages in misleading conduct with the intent to influence the testimony of any person in an official proceeding?
Question co-signed by Inhofe submitted in impeachment proceedings, 23 January 1999
Richard Shelby, Alabama
Shelby said Clinton’s January 1998 meeting with Ms Currie, after returning from his own testimony in the Jones lawsuit, was a key factor in his decision to vote for conviction on the obstruction charge. House managers accused Clinton of using that meeting to try to influence Currie’s testimony.
‘That was a strong component,’ Shelby said. ‘But it’s not just one thing in the obstruction evidence. If you put it all together, I thought it was beyond a reasonable doubt.’
Associated Press report, 12 February 1999
Roy Blunt, Missouri
There is clear evidence that President Clinton committed perjury on two or more occasions, and urged others to obstruct justice. These are serious felonious acts that strike at the heart of our judicial system. Oaths taken in the American system of government are serious commitments to truth and the rule of law. Violating these oaths or causing others to impede the investigation into such acts are serious matters that meet the standard for impeachment.
House floor, 19 December 1998
Richard Burr, North Carolina
I believe the facts presented by the judiciary committee prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton repeatedly lied to a grand jury and encouraged a witness before that grand jury to provide false information. The United States is a nation of laws, not men. And I do not believe we can ignore the facts or disregard the constitution so that the president can be placed above the law.
Statement, 19 December 1998
Jerry Moran, Kansas
It is clear that President Clinton on numerous occasions lied to a federal grand jury, lied in a civil proceeding affecting the civil rights of an American citizen, and orchestrated an attempt to obstruct justice.
… The untruthful actions of the president are not mere technical violations of federal law; rather, the president’s lies, obfuscation and overt acts to obstruct justice are serious and felonious, and they tear at the essential foundation of our judicial system.
House floor, 19 December 1998
Rob Portman, Ohio
I believe the evidence of serious wrongdoing is simply too compelling to be swept aside. I am particularly troubled by the clear evidence of lying under oath in that it must be the bedrock of our judicial system.
I believe the long-term consequence to this country of not acting on these serious charges before us far outweigh the consequences of following what the constitution provides for and bringing this matter to trial in the United States Senate.
House floor, 18 December 1998
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
[Allegations that Clinton urged Lewinsky to lie] would amount to a federal felony, and that would mean serious, serious problems for President Clinton.
Interview with the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 23 January 1998
John Thune, South Dakota
Our declaration of independence says it best. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ In America there is no emperor, and there is no Praetorian guard. There is one standard of justice that applies equally to all, and to say or do otherwise will undermine the most sacred of all American ideals.
President Clinton has committed federal crimes, and there must be a reckoning, or no American shall ever again be prosecuted for those same crimes.
House floor, 18 December 1998
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... epublicans
Cummings on impeachment: 'We may very well come to that'
Cristina Marcos04/19/19 02:46 PM EDT
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) suggested Friday that impeachment proceedings against President Trump could be a possibility following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
Cummings stressed in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Democrats will continue their investigations into Trump as they decide their next steps after the Justice Department released Mueller's report on his probe into Russia's election interference.
"A lot of people keep asking about the question of impeachment. We may very well come to that very soon," Cummings said.
"But right now, let's make sure we understand what Mueller was doing, understand what [Attorney General William] Barr was doing, and see the report in an unredacted form, and all of the underlying documents," Cummings added.
Cummings had previously called impeachment talk premature before Thursday's release of Mueller's findings in a more than 400-page, partially redacted report.
As recently as a month ago, Cummings said that impeachment “has to be a bipartisan effort, and right now it’s not there" and that “this matter will only be resolved at the polls."
Mueller's report outlines 10 instances of Trump potentially obstructing justice over the course of the investigation, including by firing James Comey as FBI director and ordering then-White House counsel Don McGahn to demand the special counsel's removal. The report further details how McGahn refused to deny accurate media reporting about the episode despite pressure from the president to dispute such reports.
During the Friday interview, Cummings said the accounting of Trump's behavior in the Mueller report is "at least 100 times worse" than former President Clinton's actions in the Monica Lewinsky scandal that led to his impeachment in 1998.
Cummings added that Trump likely feels "emboldened" with Republicans rallying around him given that the Mueller report did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government's election interference efforts in 2016.
"He probably feels emboldened because a lot of our Republican friends who will not lift a finger against him — as a matter of fact, they have acted as defense counsel for him — they now say, 'Oh, everything's fine, we've got to keep on doing what we're doing.' Well, I'm in disagreement with that. We've got to go against this. We've got to expose it," Cummings said.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Friday issued a subpoena for the full, unredacted version of Mueller's report.
“I am open to working with the Department to reach a reasonable accommodation for access to these materials, however, I cannot accept any proposal which leaves most of Congress in the dark, as they grapple with their duties of legislation, oversight and constitutional accountability," Nadler said in a statement.
When asked at a Thursday press conference about the potential for impeachment, Nadler said, "That’s one possibility, there are others."
"We obviously have to get to the bottom of what happened and take whatever action seems necessary at that time. It's too early to reach those conclusions. It's one reason we wanted the Mueller report. We still want the Mueller report in its entirety, and we want other evidence too," Nadler added.
Other top Democrats have cautioned against moving to impeach Trump in light of the Mueller report's findings.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that lawmakers need time to continue their own investigations and take in the full contents of the report. House Democrats will convene via conference call on Monday to discuss their strategy going forward.
"We certainly need to continue the investigative work to determine, are there other ways this president is compromised, or, are there other offenses that rise to the level of removal from office?" Schiff said during a Friday interview on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." "But here we are less than 24 hours after the report, and I think we need as a caucus to have a discussion about what's the import of this and what’s the way forward."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that he didn't see anything in the Mueller report to warrant pursuing impeachment at this stage.
“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgment,” Hoyer told CNN.
Hoyer later tweeted that "Congress must have the full report & all underlying evidence in order to determine what actions may be necessary to ensure that the Congress & the American people have all the info they need to know the truth & all options ought to remain on the table to achieve that objective."
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4397 ... me-to-that
by seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:57 pm
southpaw Retweeted
Frank Thorp V
WARNER says the whistleblower’s attorney has been in touch with the Senate Intel Cmte: “The lawyer for the whistleblower has reached out for a counsel meeting but we’re going to take this one step at a time and I think it’s terribly important to get the facts.”
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw
Michael Isikoff
Senate intel opens up own probe of Ukraine and is seeking an interview with the whistleblower this Friday. Story to come.
https://twitter.com/Isikoff
Adam Schiff
We have been informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so.
We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week.
emptywheel
Note: if it's worth impeaching Trump over this Ukraine thing, it's also probably worth impeaching Barr over violating whistleblower protections.
Senate Intel panel opens bipartisan inquiry on Ukraine whistleblower
Michael Isikoff
Even as the House is ramping up its investigation into the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, the Senate Intelligence Committee has opened its own inquiry and is seeking a quick interview with the whistleblower who filed the initial complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general, according to a letter obtained by Yahoo News.
A letter seeking to question the still-anonymous whistleblower was sent Tuesday to Andrew Bakaj, the lawyer who represents the official. It was signed by committee chair Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. — signifying that the panel is pursuing the politically explosive issue on a bipartisan basis.
“In order to ascertain the appropriate path forward for your client while protecting your client’s privacy, we are writing to request that you make your client available for a closed bipartisan interview with Committee counsel no later than Friday, September 27, 2019, in a mutually agreeable secure location,” the letter reads.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., left, and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., at an Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington in 2018. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., left, and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., at an Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington in 2018. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
It was not immediately clear whether the White House will agree to let the official be questioned. A committee spokeswoman declined comment. “Since you showed me the letter, I can confirm its authenticity,” wrote Bakaj’s law partner Mark Zaid in an email to Yahoo News. “But I cannot comment on the substance at this time. The letter speaks for itself.”
After the letter was sent, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the whistleblower’s lawyer informed him the official “would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance” from the acting Director of National Intelligence on his appearance, which could come “as soon as this week.”
Adam Schiff
✔
@RepAdamSchiff
We have been informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so.
We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week.
61.4K
1:29 PM - Sep 24, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
23.6K people are talking about this
(The acting head of national intelligence, Trump appointee Joseph Maguire, has refused to hand over the complaint to Congress but is slated to appear before Schiff’s committee on Thursday.)
https://news.yahoo.com/senate-intel-pan ... 18049.html
Steven Dennis
McConnell says he wasn’t given an explanation for the delay in aid to Ukraine when he pressed Esper and Pompeo on the issue this summer. (!!!)
The Senate has *unanimously* agreed to Schumer's resolution calling for the whistleblower complaint to be turned over the intelligence committees immediately.
That's every Senate Republican plus every Democrat now via unanimous consent agreeing to call on the Trump administration to cough up the whistleblower complaint, not just the phone call transcript. This is rare, folks
Full text of the Schumer resolution. Note sentence I highlighted: Giving the complaint to the intelligence committee doesn't necessarily mean the public gets to see it:
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/statu ... 7570203651
by BenDhyan » Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:39 pm
by seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:14 pm
House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
The Impeachment Process, Explained
By Charlie SavageSept. 24, 2019
WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Tuesday that the House would launch a formal impeachment inquiry in response to the dispute over Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his potential 2020 rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The rising furor has heightened interest in how the impeachment process works. Here’s what you need to know:
What is impeachment?
The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their term is up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Only three presidents have been subjected to impeachment proceedings. Two were impeached — Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 — but ultimately acquitted and completed their terms in office. A third, Richard M. Nixon, resigned in 1974 to avoid being impeached.
What is a “high crime”?
The term “high crimes and misdemeanors” came out of the British common law tradition: it was the sort of offense that Parliament cited in removing crown officials for centuries. Essentially, it means an abuse of power by a high-level public official. This does not necessarily have to be a violation of an ordinary criminal statute.
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
In 1788, as supporters of the Constitution were urging states to ratify the document, Alexander Hamilton described impeachable crimes in one of the Federalist Papers as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
What is the process?
In both the Nixon and the Clinton cases, the House Judiciary Committee first held an investigation and recommended articles of impeachment to the full House. In theory, however, the House of Representatives could instead set up a special panel to handle the proceedings — or just hold a floor vote on such articles without any committee vetting them.
When the full House votes on articles of impeachment, if at least one gets a majority vote, the president is impeached — which is essentially the equivalent of being indicted.
How the Impeachment Process Could Play Out
Six House committees are expected to continue investigating President Trump on impeachable offenses and to send their strongest cases to the Judiciary Committee.
The findings are determined to be insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
The findings are determined to be sufficient.
Trump remains
in office
The House holds a floor vote on one or more articles of impeachment.
Democrats currently
control the House.
A majority of House members vote to impeach.
Less than a majority of the House votes to impeach.
Trump remains
in office
Trump is
impeached
The articles of impeachment move to the Senate, which then holds a trial.
After the trial, the Senate holds a vote to convict the president.
Republicans currently
control the Senate.
Two-thirds of members present do not vote to convict.
Two-thirds of members present vote to convict.
Trump remains
in office
Trump removed
from office
Next, the proceedings move to the Senate, which is to hold a trial overseen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
A team of lawmakers from the House, known as managers, play the role of prosecutors. The president has defense lawyers, and the Senate serves as the jury.
If at least two-thirds of the senators find the president guilty, he is removed, and the vice president takes over as president. There is no appeal.
How does a House impeachment inquiry start?
Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has claimed that the panel is already engaged in an impeachment investigation.
Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has claimed that the panel is already engaged in an impeachment investigation.Erin Schaff/The New York Times
This has been a subject of dispute. During the Nixon and Clinton impeachment efforts, the full House voted for resolutions directing the House Judiciary Committee to open the inquiries. But it is not clear whether that step is strictly necessary, because impeachment proceedings against other officials, like a former federal judge in 1989, began at the committee level.
The House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has claimed — including in court filings — that the panel is already engaged in an impeachment investigation. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department has argued that since there has been no House resolution, the committee is just engaged in a routine oversight proceeding.
Ms. Pelosi did not say in her announcement that she intended to bring any resolution to the floor.
Whether or not it is necessary, it has not been clear whether a resolution to formally start an impeachment inquiry would pass a House vote, although the number of Democrats who support one has recently been surging. Currently, The New York Times counts 179 members who say they favor impeachment proceedings, 73 who say they oppose them or are undecided, and 183 who have not responded to the question.
What are the rules for a Senate trial?
There are no set rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.
“When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial, they really made them up as they went along,” Gregory B. Craig, who helped defend Mr. Clinton in his impeachment proceeding and later served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, told The Times in 2017.
For example, Mr. Craig said, the initial rules in that case gave Republican managers four days to make a case for conviction, followed by four days for the president’s legal team to defend him. These were essentially opening statements. The Senate then decided whether to hear witnesses, and if so, whether it would be live or on videotape. Eventually, the Senate permitted each side to depose several witnesses by videotape.
The rules adopted by the Senate in the Clinton trial — including ones limiting the number of witnesses and the length of depositions — made it harder to prove a case compared with trials in federal court, said former Representative Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia who served as a House manager during the trial and is also a former United States attorney.
“Impeachment is a creature unto itself,” Mr. Barr said. “The jury in a criminal case doesn’t set the rules for a case and can’t decide what evidence they want to see and what they won’t.”
What are the standards for impeachment and removal?
The Constitution does not specify many, making impeachment and removal as much a question of political will as of legal analysis.
For example, the Constitution does not detail how lawmakers may choose to interpret what does or does not constitute impeachable “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, there is no established standard of proof that must be met.
Is the Senate obligated to hold a trial?
The Constitution clearly envisions that if the House impeaches a federal official, the next step is for the Senate to hold a trial. But there is no obvious enforcement mechanism if Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, were to simply refuse to convene one — just as he refused to permit a confirmation hearing and vote on Mr. Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2016.
Still Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor and a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said it is unclear whether it would be Mr. McConnell or Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. who wields the authority to convene the Senate for the purpose of considering House-passed articles of impeachment.
Either way, though, he noted that the Republican majority in the Senate could vote to immediately dismiss the case without any consideration of the evidence if it wanted.
To date, Senate Republicans have given no indication that they would break with Mr. Trump, especially in numbers sufficient to remove him from office. In their internal debate about what to do, some Democrats have argued that this political reality means that they should instead focus on trying to beat him in the 2020 election, on the theory that an acquittal in the Senate might backfire by strengthening him politically. Others have argued that impeaching him is a moral necessity to deter future presidents from acting like Mr. Trump, even if Senate Republicans are likely to keep him in office.
In that same Federalist Paper written in 1788, Mr. Hamilton wrote that the inherently political nature of impeachment proceedings would be sure to polarize the country.
Their prosecution, he wrote, “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/p ... ained.html
by Iamwhomiam » Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:29 pm
by seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:32 pm
Mike Pence May Also Be Involved In Ukraine Extortion
Mike Pence’s meeting with the President of Ukraine about aid to that country places him smack in the middle of any Trump crime of extorting Ukraine into digging up dirt on Joe Biden’s son.
https://crooksandliars.com/2019/09/mike ... ed-ukraine
Pence Gave Ukraine the Message Too
Josh Marshall
Vice President of the United States Mike Pence delivers remarks at the D.C. premiere of the film, "Apollo 11: First Steps Edition" in May 2019. (Photo by Shannon Finney/Getty Images)
I mentioned below that the key thing about this latest and most egregious Trump scandal is that his senior team was clearly in on it, aware of it, participated in it. One key person here is Vice President Mike Pence. Earlier this month Pence flew to Poland to fill in for President Trump in meetings with European leaders on the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II. On September 1st, he met in Warsaw with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The next day he held a press conference with President Duda of Poland at which he was specifically asked whether he had pressed Zelensky to manufacture damaging information about Joe Biden and whether military aid was being held up until he did.
Pence started by saying he hadn’t and then proceeded to give an answer that made it pretty clear that he had, even if he had not mentioned the former Vice President by name. It caught the ear’s of everyone who was already following this story. It’s even more clear with what we learned last week.
Here’s the text of the question and answer from the official White House transcript, with my emphasis added.
Q: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. I wanted to ask you about your meeting yesterday with the Ukrainian President and for an update on Ukrainian security aid money.
Specifically, number one, did you discuss Joe Biden at all during that meeting yesterday with the Ukrainian President? And number two, can you assure Ukraine that the hold-up of that money has absolutely nothing to do with efforts, including by Rudy Giuliani, to try to dig up dirt on the Biden family?
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: Well, on the first question, the answer is no. But we — with President Zelensky yesterday, we discussed — we discussed America’s support for Ukraine and the upcoming decision the President will make on the latest tranche of financial support in great detail.
The President asked me to meet with President Zelensky and to talk about the progress that he’s making on a broad range of areas. And we did that.
We, as I said yesterday, especially since Russian aggression — the illegal occupation of Crimea and Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine — the United States has stood strong with Ukraine and we will continue to stand strong with Ukraine for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
But as President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption. And, fortunately, President Zelensky was elected decisively on an anti-corruption message. And he and I discussed yesterday that as he’s assembled his cabinet, and as his parliament has convened, that even in the early days, he informed me that there have been more than 250 bills filed for — that address the issue of public corruption and really restoring integrity to the public process.
I mean, to invest additional taxpayer in Ukraine, the President wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine. And that’s an expectation the American people have and the President has expressed very clearly.
We also talked in some detail about what other European nations are doing for Ukraine. The simple fact is that the United States has carried the load on most of the security investments in Ukraine. And we have been proud to do that, but we believe it’s time for our European partners to step forward and make additional investments to stand with the people of Ukraine as they assert their territorial integrity and sovereignty.
President Zelensky and I talked in great detail about ongoing discussions about resolving the ongoing violence and occupation of Ukraine. And those were the issues that we covered.
But I assured him that the people of the United States stand with Ukraine for their sovereignty and territorial integrity. But I called on him to work with us to engage our European partners to participate at a greater level in Ukraine, and also told him that I would carry back to President Trump the progress that he and his administration in Ukraine are making on dealing with corruption in their country.
Corruption is a longstanding issue in Ukraine. Rooting out that corruption has been a central focus of US policy in the country for decades. That is why the United States and the European Union were so focused on removing that prosecutor back in 2015. But in the context of what we know was happening and especially the call we know took place a month earlier, these repeated references to progress on corruption and holding up military aid until Zelensky acted could scarcely be more clear.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/pe ... essage-too
by seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:30 pm
Seth Abramson
Anyone who's read PROOF OF CONSPIRACY want to inform this feed's readers of why Trump might've chosen SECRETARY OF ENERGY Perry to be his agent in Ukraine for Zelensky's inaugural after firing his ambassador? (Remember Ukraine's role in the grand bargain.)
HINT: Ukraine was a major stumbling block to the "grand bargain" that Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, MBS, and MBZ wanted—because Ukraine had to *agree* to any dropping of sanctions on Russia (and dropping sanctions on Russia was what made the entirety of the "grand bargain" possible).
2/ What's this? Trump desperately needed Ukraine's new president to agree in spring 2019 to... a deal involving turbine generators for Russian-built nuclear reactors? I suppose the proper negotiator for *that* thorny issue would be...
...hmm... I guess the Secretary of Energy?
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status ... 2506133504
by Iamwhomiam » Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:37 pm
by Iamwhomiam » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:13 pm
by 82_28 » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:04 am
by Iamwhomiam » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:30 am
by RocketMan » Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:06 am
by seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:12 am
Seth Abramson
To be clear, @RudyGiuliani can't be sure Bill Barr will be AG on January 20, 2021, which is under 16 months away
He better pray that Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and North Korea tamper with the 2020 election in the way he and Trump are hoping
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_sr ... r%5Eauthor
Fox News' Napolitano: What Trump Has Admitted to Is a Crime
“It is a crime for the present to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government,”
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-na ... s-a-crime/
Wendy Siegelman
Kurt Volker & US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland were involved in Giuliani's quest to smear Biden, Sondland also involved with Trump call to Zelensky that has Washington headed towards impeachment inquiry by @ErinBanco @swin24 @arawnsley
Gordon Sondland hasn't been in the news much, but will be now given involvement with Giuliani
Here's article noted in DailyBeast piece above about Sondland who covertly donated $1 million to the inauguration - then Trump nominated him to an ambassadorship
Special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker was special advisor to BGR 2011-2012, the lobbying firm that represented Russia's Alfa Bank 2002-2015 and is Exec Director of McCain Institute of Int'l Leadership which received significant $ from Saudi Arabia
Kurt Volker is Senior Int'l Advisor to BGR Group, Haley Barbour's firm
http://bgrdc.com/b/bio/30/Ambassador-Kurt-Volker …
https://twitter.com/wendysiegelman?lang=en
Giuliani pursued shadow Ukraine agenda as key foreign policy officials were sidelined
President Trump is pictured at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2019. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
By Greg Miller ,
Josh Dawsey ,
Paul Sonne and
Ellen Nakashima
September 24 at 8:30 PM
President Trump’s attempt to pressure the leader of Ukraine followed a months-long fight inside the administration that sidelined national security officials and empowered political loyalists — including the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani — to exploit the U.S. relationship with Kiev, current and former U.S. officials said.
The sequence, which began early this year, involved the abrupt removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the circumvention of senior officials on the National Security Council, and the suspension of hundreds of millions of dollars of aid administered by the Defense and State departments — all as key officials from these agencies struggled to piece together Giuliani’s activities from news reports.
Several officials described tense meetings on Ukraine among national security officials at the White House leading up to the president’s phone call on July 25, sessions that led some participants to fear that Trump and those close to him appeared prepared to use U.S. leverage with the new leader of Ukraine for Trump’s political gain.
As those worries intensified, some senior officials worked behind the scenes to hold off a Trump meeting or call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky out of concern that Trump would use the conversation to press Kiev for damaging information on Trump’s potential rival in the 2020 race, former vice president Joe Biden, and Biden’s son Hunter.
“An awful lot of people were trying to keep a meeting from happening for the reason that it would not be focused on Ukraine-U.S. relations,” one former official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
The Fact Checker explains what we know about Biden's 2016 trip to Ukraine and the whistleblower's claim that Trump withheld aid to force an investigation. (Meg Kelly, Sarah Cahlan/The Washington Post)
White House officials disputed these accounts, saying that no such concerns were raised in National Security Council meetings and that Trump’s focus was on urging Ukraine to root out corruption. A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
But Trump admitted this week that he had done some of what his own advisers feared, using the call to raise the issue of Biden with Zelensky. And the wave of consternation triggered by that call led someone in the U.S. intelligence community to submit an extraordinary whistleblower complaint, setting in motion a sequence of events that now includes the start of an impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives.
Though the whistleblower report focuses on the Trump-Zelensky call, officials familiar with its contents said that it includes references to other developments tied to the president, including efforts by Giuliani to insert himself into U.S.-Ukrainian relations.
Trump announced Tuesday that he would release a transcript of his call, insisting that it would show there was “NO quid pro quo!” and would reveal a conversation that was “friendly and totally appropriate.”
But even within Trump’s party, few have gone so far as to say they would consider it appropriate for the president to solicit foreign help in an American election. And his political fate may hinge on how lawmakers and the public assess not only his intentions on the call but also the actions of his subordinates in the events surrounding it.
What Trump has said about his Ukraine conversations
After initially declining to discuss his conversations with Ukraine, President Trump on Sept. 22 appeared to acknowledge the two leaders discussed Joe Biden. (Video: JM Rieger/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
U.S. officials described an atmosphere of intense pressure inside the NSC and other departments since the existence of the whistleblower complaint became known, with some officials facing suspicion that they had a hand either in the complaint or in relaying damaging information to the whistleblower, whose identity has not been revealed and who is entitled to legal protection.
[A dozen House Democrats have pivoted toward impeaching Trump. Here’s why each is a big deal.]
One official — speaking, like others, on the condition of anonymity — described the climate as verging on “bloodletting.”
Trump has fanned this dynamic with his own denunciations of the whistleblower and thinly veiled suggestions that the person should be outed. “Is he on our Country’s side. Where does he come from,” Trump tweeted this week.
Trump’s closest advisers, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was ordered by Trump to suspend the aid to Ukraine, are also increasingly targets of internal finger-pointing. Mulvaney has agitated for foreign aid to be cut universally but has also stayed away from meetings with Giuliani and Trump, officials said. But the person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.
“Rudy — he did all of this,” one U.S. official said. “This s---show that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.”
Several officials traced their initial concerns about the path of U.S.-Ukrainian relations to news reports and interviews granted by Giuliani in which he began to espouse views and concerns that did not appear connected to U.S. priorities or policy.
The former New York mayor appears to have seen Zelensky, a political neophyte elected president of Ukraine in April and sworn in in May, as a potential ally on two political fronts: punishing those Giuliani suspected of playing a role in exposing the Ukraine-related corruption of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and delivering political ammunition against Biden.
[How Trump and Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate the president’s rivals]
After the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 election, Giuliani turned his attention to Ukraine, officials said, and soon began pushing for personnel changes at the embassy while seeking meetings with Zelensky subordinates. He also had his own emissaries in Ukraine who were meeting with officials, setting up meetings for him and sending back information that he could circulate in the United States.
The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, became a primary Giuliani target.
Yovanovitch, a longtime State Department Foreign Service officer, arrived in Ukraine as ambassador at the end of the Obama administration, more than two years after an uprising centered on Kiev’s Independence Square ousted the Russian-leaning government.
Though she was widely respected in the national security community for her efforts to prod Ukraine to take on corruption, Giuliani targeted Yovanovitch with wild accusations including that she played a secret role in exposing Manafort and was part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the liberal financier George Soros.
“She should be part of the investigation as part of the collusion,” Giuliani said in a recent interview with The Washington Post, adding that “she is now working for Soros.” Yovanovitch is still employed by the State Department and is a fellow at Georgetown University. She declined to comment.
Giuliani also said the entire State Department was a problem, and officials familiar with his actions say he regularly briefed Trump on his Ukrainian endeavors. “The State Department is a bureaucracy that needs to change,” he told The Post.
Many of Giuliani’s charges were either recycled from, or subsequently echoed by, right-wing media outlets.
In late March, the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. amplified this campaign with a tweet calling for the removal of “Obama’s U.S. Ambassador.”
Yovanovitch, who was to depart in July after a three-year assignment, was prematurely ordered back to Washington, a move that both baffled and unnerved senior officials at the State Department and the White House, officials said.
Within days of her ouster on May 9, Giuliani seemed determined to seize an unsanctioned diplomatic role for himself, announcing plans to travel to Ukraine to push for investigations that would “be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
Giuliani canceled the trip amid an ensuing backlash over his purpose but later met with one of Zelensky’s senior aides in Madrid and pressed the issue of Ukraine’s helping against Biden.
In a May 19 interview on Fox News, Trump recited repeatedly disproved allegations that then-Vice President Biden had coerced Ukraine to drop an investigation into the owner of an energy company, Burisma, for which Biden’s son Hunter was a board member.
The allegations were baseless. Though Hunter Biden had served on the Burisma board for five years — a questionable decision given his father’s influential position — he was never accused of any wrongdoing by Ukrainian authorities. The probe had been shelved before any action by the vice president, and the elder Biden’s efforts involved removing a prosecutor widely criticized by the West as failing to tackle corruption.
Nevertheless, Trump is alleged to have used his July 25 call with Zelensky to get Ukraine to revive this dormant inquiry and widen it to include possible wrongdoing by Biden.
In Washington, officials outside Trump’s inner circle who were dismayed by Yovanovitch’s ouster reacted with growing alarm and confusion over Giuliani’s subsequent activities.
Then-national security adviser John Bolton was outraged by the outsourcing of a relationship with a country struggling to survive Russian aggression, officials said. But by then his standing with Trump was strained, and neither he nor his senior aides could get straight answers about Giuliani’s agenda or authority, officials said. Bolton declined to comment.
Giuliani told The Post that one of his calls with a top Ukrainian aide was partially arranged by Kurt Volker, a State Department official, and that he briefed the department afterward.
“We had the same visibility as anybody else — watching Giuliani on television,” a former senior official said. Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev were similarly deprived of information, even as they faced questions from Ukrainians about whether Giuliani was a designated representative.
“The embassy didn’t know what to do with the outreach,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who traveled to Ukraine this month.
In an interview Tuesday on Fox News, Giuliani said he had been enlisted by the State Department to intervene on the Ukraine matter. “You know who I did it at the request of? The State Department,” he said, holding up his cellphone to indicate that call records would back up his claim. He also said that he began pursuing the issue in late 2018 after a visit from an investigator whom he did not identify.
The perception of a parallel, hidden agenda intensified in the summer as officials at the NSC, Pentagon and State Department began reacting to rumors that hundreds of millions of dollars of military and intelligence aid to Ukraine was being mysteriously impeded.
“There were never any orders given, any formal guidance from the White House to any of the agencies,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter. “And the NSC was scratching their heads: How is this possible?”
NSC officials, including Tim Morrison, who had replaced Fiona Hill as the senior director for European and Russian affairs, began organizing meetings to try to understand these hidden forces affecting Ukraine policy, officials said.
But even then, clear answers proved elusive. Officials were told that the money was being blocked by the Office of Management and Budget, without any accompanying explanation.
“It was bizarre,” the official said.
A former official familiar with the meetings said participants began to file out raising troubling questions about what was driving the White House to withhold the aid as well as a meeting with Trump that had been all but promised to Zelensky.
Although the question of a linkage or leverage never came up in the formal NSC discussions, participants began to believe that Trump was “withholding the aid until [Ukraine] gave him something on Biden or Manafort.”
It was in this stretch, in July, that some officials began to question the wisdom of a Trump call with Zelensky. In part, there was a desire to hold off until after Ukraine’s parliamentary elections. But, mindful of Giuliani’s agitation and influence, some worried that even if Trump were coached before the call, the president would not be able to resist pressing Zelensky for dirt on Biden.
On July 24, Mueller testified before Congress on the outcome of the Russia investigation, a probe that had threatened Trump for much of his presidency and was focused on whether he had conspired with Moscow to influence the U.S. election.
The next day, Trump spoke with Zelensky on a call, and the vague misgivings that had risen over the preceding five months hardened into alarm. Among those who listened in on the call or were in a position to see a transcript, the president’s persistence with Zelensky on the corruption probe marked the crossing of a perilous threshold.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
by Elvis » Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:06 am
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+tipping+point
Trump's tipping point - MSN.com
https://www.msn.com › en-us › video › trumps-tipping-point › vp-AAyXojv
Jun 21, 2018
Trump's tipping point - NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com › dateline › video › trump-s-tipping-point-1260707907881
Jun 21, 2018
President Donald Trump's Tipping Point | MSNBC - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com › watch
Jun 21, 2018
Four reasons we've reached a tipping point on Trump - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › blogs › right-turn › 2018/07/20 › four-reasons-weve...
Jul 20, 2018
Trump's Russia scandal reaches a political tipping point - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › blogs › right-turn › 2017/02/23 › trumps-russia-sc...
Feb 23, 2017
Is latest White House scandal a tipping point for the Trump ...
https://www.660citynews.com › video › 2017/05/17 › video-is-latest-white-house-scand...
May 17, 2017
Tipping point for Trump presidency? - CNN Video - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com › videos › 2017/05/14 › rs-tipping-point-trump-presidency
May 14, 2017
A Tipping Point for Trump's Presidency? - Political Wire
https://politicalwire.com › Members
Feb 19, 2018
Why Trump could be at a tipping point - CNN Video - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com › videos › 2016/04/03 › ip-4-3-a-block-trump-week
Apr 3, 2016
The Trump Experiment may come to an early tipping point ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › opinions › 2017/03/05
Mar 5, 2017
Trump's troubles: "We have gone past the tipping point ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch
Aug 22, 2018 - Uploaded by FRANCE 24 English
Tipping point for Donald Trump: Will his (alleged) crimes ...
https://www.salon.com › 2018/07/30 › will-donald-trumps-alleged-crimes-finally-drive-...
Jul 30, 2018
Is the Trump White House at the tipping point Carl Bernstein of ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch
May 14, 2017
Woodward discusses 'tipping point' of Trump White House ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › video › politics › 2018/09/14
Sep 14, 2018
A Tipping Point? | Time
https://time.com › Ideas › politics
Jul 17, 2018
CNN: Democrats at a 'Tipping Point' as Nancy Pelosi Faces Internal Pressure to Impeach Trump...
https://grabien.com › story
May 21, 2019
Impeachment debate passes a tipping point ...
https://www.greenwichtime.com › news › article › Impeachment-debate-passes-a-tipping...
May 31, 2019
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
