The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:06 pm

House to vote Thursday to set out impeachment procedures
Jamie Dupree
Under fire from Republicans and the White House over their impeachment investigation, House Democrats announced Monday that a vote would be held late this week on a measure which will 'provide a clear path forward' for the impeachment process against President Donald Trump.

"For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry 'lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding,'" Pelosi wrote in a letter to fellow House Democrats.

"Of course this argument has no merit," Pelosi added, telling Democrats that a resolution would be brought up for a vote in the House this week to establish the parameters for public hearings, the release of deposition transcripts, and more.

"We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives," Pelosi wrote.

Image
Image
The resolution will be unveiled on Tuesday by House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA).

"As committees continue to gather evidence and prepare to present their findings, I will be introducing a resolution to ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward," McGovern said in a written statement.

The move comes after several weeks of closed door depositions led by three different House committees, which led to attacks by the President and GOP lawmakers, including a sit-in last week by several dozen House Republicans, which postponed testimony from a Pentagon witness for five hours.

Republicans quickly said their public pressure had worked, and that Democrats were basically caving in on the argument that no vote was needed in the House to authorize the impeachment effort.

“This is a necessary step to ensure all our voices are heard,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK).

"They’ll deny it but I do take this a sign that the process complaints are having an effect and distracting from their narrative," said Brendan Buck, a former aide for both Speaker Paul Ryan and Speaker John Boehner.

"House Democrats now suddenly saying they'll vote on an impeachment resolution to “ensure transparency” is rich — considering they've spent weeks conducting interviews in secret, leaking their own talking points while locking down any and all information that benefits the President," said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).

About the Author
https://www.journal-news.com/blog/jamie ... zaezKAUvI/




Live updates: House will vote on impeachment procedures Thursday to ‘ensure transparency,’ Democrats say
Brittany Shammas
President Trump appears at the White House on Sunday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

House Democrats said Monday that the House will vote Thursday to formalize procedures for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Democrats said the move would “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward” as the inquiry continues.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said that a former deputy national security adviser had “no basis in law” to skip a deposition Monday and that his failure to appear was further evidence of Trump’s efforts to obstruct Congress.

Charles Kupperman, who served as a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton, filed a lawsuit Friday seeking guidance from a federal judge about whether he should listen to the executive branch, which has told him not to attend, or to Congress. Since there has not yet been a ruling, he declined to appear.

Kupperman listened in to the July 25 call in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. That call is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, which Trump and his Republican allies continued to attack Monday as unfair.

●Whistleblowers walk among us. Now one has gotten in Trump’s head.

●Trump seizes on Baghdadi raid to paint Democrats as dangerous leakers — and it’s likely to inflame tensions amid a rancorous impeachment inquiry.

●John Kelly says he warned Trump he’d be impeached if he hired a “yes man” as chief of staff to replace him.

What’s next in the inquiry | Key documents related to the inquiry | LISTEN: Post podcasts on impeachment

3:20 p.m.: House will vote on impeachment procedures Thursday to ‘ensure transparency,’ Democrats say

House Democrats said Monday that the House will vote on Thursday to formalize procedures for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

The text of the resolution was not immediately available, but House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said it would “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward” as the investigation continues. “This is the right thing to do for the institution and the American people,” he said.

1:50 p.m.: Morrison will appear if subpoenaed, lawyer says

Following Kupperman’s failure to appear, a lawyer for another witness scheduled for deposition this week — Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s Europe and Eurasia director — issued a statement saying that he still plans to appear if subpoenaed.

“Our plans have not changed: if subpoenaed, Mr. Morrison will appear,” Morrison’s attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, said in a statement.

Morrison could be a key witness.

Acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. has told investigators that Morrison was on the July call between Trump and Zelensky. Taylor said he spoke to Morrison several times about his concerns that Trump was using military aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

1:35 p.m.: Trump campaign debuts new ‘Witch Hunt’ merchandise

The Trump campaign began selling merchandise Monday riffing off the Disney movie “Hocus Pocus,” deriding the impeachment inquiry as a witch hunt.

Limited edition “Stop the Witch Hunt” T-shirts and “fine art” posters hit the online campaign store by early afternoon, after first being announced by Breitbart. The items recast Schiff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) as the witches. In a crystal ball below them, Trump grips an American flag.

“HOAXUS POCUS!” the description says. “The Greatest Witch Hunt in the history of the USA continues. The only people scared this Halloween are Shifty Schiff, Nervous Nancy and Democrat Hack Jerry Nadler about their chances in 2020!”

1:30 p.m.: Kupperman issues statement calling for ‘judicial clarity’

After failing to appear before House investigators, Kupperman issued a statement suggesting it would be in the best interest of all parties to have a court ruling on whether he should listen to the White House or Congress.

“Given the issue of separation of powers in this matter, it would be reasonable and appropriate to expect that all parties would want judicial clarity,” Kupperman said.

12:2o p.m.: Pelosi highlights news story about Republican anxiety

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) highlighted a Washington Post story Monday about concerns of Senate Republicans that the fast-expanding impeachment probe is fraying their party as it becomes more difficult to defend Trump.

The piece was blasted by email to reporters on Pelosi’s press list.

12:15 p.m.: Starr suggests censure as alternative to impeachment

Kenneth W. Starr, who conducted the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998, said Monday that the House should have spent more time discussing less severe penalties.

On a podcast hosted by Washington Examiner political correspondent Byron York, Starr said it would have been prudent for Congress to have fully debated remedies other than impeachment. He pointed in particular to a censure of Clinton that was proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

“I think the discussion was impoverished by not having a full debate within the House and for that matter within the Senate on whether something short of impeachment would have been appropriate under the circumstances,” Starr said. “Specifically, a resolution of censure.”

He suggested that the same approach could be contemplated for Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president. While Trump’s conduct is “not the stuff of impeachment,” a censure could be within reason, Starr said.

“It just seems to me we need to ratchet the conversation down because of the evils of impeachment,” Starr said. “Impeachment has become a terrible, terrible thorn in the side of the American democracy and the conduct of the American government since Watergate.”

11:50 a.m.: Trump compares impeachment to Jussie Smollet case

President Trump said Oct. 28 that the Democrats' impeachment inquiry is similar to Jussie Smollett staging an attack on himself. (The Washington Post)
While addressing a gathering of police chiefs in Chicago, Trump compared the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry to allegations that actor Jussie Smollet made in the city earlier this year involving two purported Trump supporters.

“It’s a scam. Just like the impeachment of your president is a scam,” Trump told the conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

In January, Smollett told police that he was attacked by two men in ski masks who called him racial and homophobic slurs, and said, “This is MAGA country,” referencing Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

The next month, Smollett was charged by a grand jury with a felony for filing a false police report. His defense team reached a deal with prosecutors in March under which charges were dropped in return for Smollett performing community service and forfeiting his $10,000 bond.

11 a.m.: Pelosi highlights Gowdy’s defense of closed-door hearings

The political team of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sought Monday to highlight a weekend television interview in which former Republican congressman Trey Gowdy voiced support for closed congressional hearings.

During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gowdy was asked whether he still believes what he said in 2018: that public hearings can turn into a “circus” or “freak show.”

“Do you still believe that?” host Margaret Brennan asked.

“One hundred percent,” responded Gowdy, who served as chairman of a House select committee on the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Republicans have repeatedly complained about the use of closed-door depositions in Trump’s impeachment inquiry.

Pelosi’s team tweeted a news story Monday recounting Gowdy’s appearance that included a television clip.

10:15 a.m.: Schiff says Kupperman had no justification to skip deposition

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Charles Kupperman's failure to appear at an Oct. 28 deposition is 'powerful evidence" of obstruction by the White House. (The Washington Post)
Schiff said that Kupperman’s justification for not appearing Monday has “no basis in law” and could be used against him in a contempt-of-Congress proceeding.

Kupperman has indicated that he will not appear until a judge rules on whether he should listen to the White House, which has asked him not to cooperate, or Congress, which issued a subpoena to compel his testimony.

“We suspect the court will make short shrift of that argument,” Schiff told reporters.

Schiff also said that if the White House continues to instruct witnesses from the administration not to appear, it will be “building a very powerful case” for an article of impeachment against Trump for obstructing Congress.

“The White House has obstructed the work of a coequal branch of government,” Schiff said.

He expressed disappointment in Republican colleagues who have supported the White House’s efforts to block witnesses.

“Where is their duty to this institution? Where is their duty to the Constitution?” Schiff asked.

10 a.m.: Jordan defends Kupperman’s no-show

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) defended Kupperman’s failure to appear for a deposition Monday, telling reporters that the former Bolton deputy would be “more than willing to come” if a federal judge rules he must.

“If the court rules against him, then — well, not really necessarily rules against him — if the court says he has to come, he’s more than willing to come,” Jordan said, adding that Kupperman “has said several times that he’s willing to come, but obviously he’s not coming today.”

Jordan reiterated his criticism of the impeachment inquiry, which he called a “charade.”

“There’s never been nothing there, but Adam Schiff down here in the bunker continues to have these secret depositions and then go out and leak stuff,” Jordan said.

9:40 a.m.: Sondland goes to Capitol Hill to review testimony

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, has appeared on Capitol Hill to review the transcript of his Oct. 17 deposition before House investigators. Reviews are routine for such depositions.

Sondland, a Trump campaign donor who has emerged as a central figure in the Ukraine scandal, testified that Trump delegated U.S. foreign policy on Ukraine to his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

9:30 a.m.: Kupperman fails to appear for closed-door deposition

Kupperman failed to show for an impeachment inquiry deposition as he sought a court ruling to resolve a dispute over testifying.

The former Bolton deputy had faced a congressional subpoena and a warning from Democrats that a failure to appear could result in a contempt citation.

Kupperman filed a lawsuit Friday asking a federal judge to resolve conflicting orders from Congress and the White House over his testimony. Over the weekend, his attorney Charles Cooper reiterated Kupperman’s desire to have the courts resolve the dispute before he appears.

8:50 a.m.: Trump attacks Schiff, says he committed a ‘criminal act’

President Trump discussed the impeachment inquiry and the allegation of a quid pro quo on Oct. 28, saying, "There was no anything." (The Washington Post)
Trump took renewed aim at Schiff on Monday, calling him a “corrupt politician” and accusing him of having committed a “criminal act” during a congressional hearing last month.

During an Intelligence Committee hearing, Schiff, who is leading the impeachment inquiry, presented an embellished version of Trump’s call with Zelensky. At the time, Schiff said he was conveying “the essence” of what Trump had relayed to Zelensky. Schiff later said it was meant as a parody, something that he said should have been apparent to Trump.

“Adam Schiff went before Congress and Adam Schiff, what he did will never be forgotten: he made up a conversation,” Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews as he prepared to head to Chicago. “They say he has immunity because he’s a member of Congress. People shouldn’t be allowed to do that. What he did, that’s a criminal act.”

Trump also defended his decision not to brief Schiff about the military operation targeting Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of the Islamic State, before announcing his death publicly.

“They were talking about why didn’t I give the information to Adam Schiff and his committee, and the answer is, I think Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington,” Trump said. “He’s a corrupt politician. He’s a leaker like nobody’s ever seen before.”

8:45 a.m.: Trump praises Giuliani for ‘looking for corruption’

Trump continued to stand by his personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, telling reporters Monday that he considers him a “good man.”

“He was the greatest mayor in New York City history,” Trump said before departing for Chicago on Air Force One. “But he’s been a great crime fighter. He’s always looking for corruption, which is what more people should be doing. He’s a good man.”

Giuliani has become a key figure in the Ukraine scandal because of his repeated efforts to press Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Two associates of Giuliani, who assisted with him in Ukraine, have also been arrested recently for campaign finance violations.

8:20 a.m.: Trump heads to Chicago for law enforcement event, fundraisers

As House investigators seek to resume their work on Monday, Trump is heading to Chicago to address a conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and hold fundraisers.

Trump left the White House at 8:17 a.m. and plans to return late in the afternoon. This is his first trip to Chicago since becoming president. He frequently blames the city’s Democratic leadership for its relatively high crime rate.

7:30 a.m.: RNC chairwoman calls impeachment inquiry a ‘charade’

Trump’s Republican allies resumed their attacks Monday on the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry, with Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel calling it a “charade” in a morning tweet.

Echoing other Republican attacks from recent weeks, McDaniel took issue with several aspects of the process, including the lack of a vote to launch the inquiry, which is not required by the Constitution.

McDaniel also accused Democrats of having “no defined scope” and “no specific rules.”

“#StopTheSchiffShow!” she tweeted, referring to Schiff.

Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former White House chief strategist, also attacked Schiff on Monday during an appearance on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.”

“This is much ado about nothing,” said Bannon, who has launched a podcast to push back against the inquiry. “This is Schiff and a radical group of Democrats that are throwing the country into a constitutional crisis over the Christmas holidays. We’re hurtling toward a constitutional crisis.”

7 a.m.: Despite subpoena, former White House national security adviser unlikely to testify on Capitol Hill

Kupperman, who served as a deputy to Bolton, is not expected to show up on Capitol Hill on Monday, despite a congressional subpoena and a warning from Democrats that a failure to appear could result in a contempt citation.

On Friday, Kupperman filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to resolve conflicting orders from Congress and the White House over his testimony. Over the weekend, his lawyer Charles Cooper reiterated Kupperman’s desire to have the courts resolve the dispute before he appears.

House Democrats pushed back. On Saturday, three committee chairs sent Cooper a letter arguing the lawsuit lacked merit and had been coordinated with the White House. Schiff, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) and acting Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) called Kupperman’s suit “an obvious and desperate tactic by the president to delay and obstruct the lawful constitutional functions of Congress and conceal evidence about his conduct from the impeachment inquiry.”

Cooper responded with a strong letter of his own Saturday night, saying the lawsuit had not been “even discussed” with anyone at the White House.

6:30 a.m.: Republican senators feel anxious and adrift defending Trump

Republican senators are lost and adrift as the impeachment inquiry enters its second month, navigating the grave threat to Trump largely in the dark, frustrated by the absence of a credible case to defend his conduct and anxious about the historic reckoning that likely awaits them.

Recent days have delivered the most damaging testimony yet about Trump and his advisers commandeering Ukraine policy for the president’s personal political goals, which his allies on Capitol Hill sought to undermine by storming the deposition room and condemning the inquiry as secretive and corrupt.

Those theatrics belie the deepening unease many Republicans now say they feel — particularly those in the Senate who are dreading having to weigh their consciences against their political calculations in deciding whether to convict or acquit Trump should the Democratic-controlled House impeach the president.

— Robert Costa and Philip Rucker

6 a.m.: Sen. Johnson, ally of Trump and Ukraine, surfaces in crucial episodes in the saga

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) met in July with a former Ukrainian diplomat who has circulated unproven claims that Ukrainian officials assisted Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, a previously unreported contact that underscores the GOP senator’s involvement in the unfolding narrative that triggered the impeachment inquiry of Trump.

In an interview this week, Andrii Telizhenko said he met with Johnson for at least 30 minutes on Capitol Hill and with Senate staff for five additional hours. He said discussions focused in part on “the DNC issue” — a reference to his unsubstantiated claim that the Democratic National Committee worked with the Ukrainian government in 2016 to gather incriminating information about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Telizhenko said he could not recall the date of the meeting, but a review of his Facebook page revealed a photo of him and Johnson posted on July 11.

“I was in Washington, and Sen. Johnson found out I was in D.C., and staff called me and wanted to do a meeting with me. So I reached out back and said, ‘Sure, I’ll come down the Hill and talk to you,’ ” Telizhenko told The Washington Post on Wednesday.

An individual close to Johnson confirmed that staff for one of his committees met with Telizhenko as part of an ongoing investigation into the FBI and its probes of the 2016 election, but declined to say whether the senator was involved.

The meeting points to Johnson’s emerging role as the member of Congress most heavily involved in the Ukraine saga that has engulfed the White House and has threatened Trump with impeachment.

— Elise Viebeck and Dalton Bennett

5 a.m.: Chants of ‘Lock him up’ and ‘Impeach Trump’ greet the president at Nationals game

President Trump was met with loud boos on Oct. 27 when he was introduced at Game 5 of the World Series at Nationals Park. (Photo: John McDonnell/The Washington Post)
Trump was booed during Game 5 of the World Series on Sunday night when he made a rare public appearance in a luxury ballpark suite in ­Democrat-dominated Washington.

When the president was announced on the public address system after the third inning as part of a tribute to veterans, the crowd roared into sustained booing — hitting almost 100 decibels. Chants of “Lock him up” and “Impeach Trump” then broke out at Nationals Park, where a sellout crowd was watching the game between the Washington Nationals and Houston Astros.

The president appeared unmoved, waving to fans and soon moving to chat with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in his luxury box along the third base line.

Trump, who has virtually never been seen in Washington outside the White House, his own hotel and a handful of other highly controlled settings, came with the first lady, a coterie of Republican members of Congress and top aides, who could be seen smiling, chatting and posing for selfies throughout the game. He entered without fanfare about eight minutes before first pitch, only spotted by a few in the crowd.

— Maura Judkis and Josh Dawsey
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:45 am

Sun Nov 13, 2016

12 days short of 3 years ...I knew this day was coming

74909814_701757377001956_269423642075463680_n.jpg


House Nails Down Rules for Trump Impeachment Probe
October 31, 2019 BRANDI BUCHMAN
House members vote on the House resolution to move forward with procedures for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump in the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington on Thursday. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
WASHINGTON (CN) – The House of Representatives brought President Donald Trump one step closer to facing impeachment Thursday as lawmakers voted 232-196, split on party lines, in favor of a resolution that outlines precisely how the impeachment inquiry will unfold in the coming weeks and months.

Just the last 37 days have seen a litany of depositions take place behind closed doors at a rapid clip as lawmakers on the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees interviewed one Trump administration official after the other about the president’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelensky.

No transcript of the call has been made public and to date the White House has only released a summary. But testimony from officials with firsthand knowledge of the call, like Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman, did little to help the president’s defense that the call with Zelensky was “perfect” and never featured a threat to withhold military aid lest Ukraine launch a probe into former Vice President Joe Biden, Biden’s son Hunter and Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy firm where Hunter formerly served as a board member.

Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told lawmakers the ellipses in the summary of the transcript released by the White House specifically left out mentions of the Bidens and Burisma. That testimony also traced the cover-up all the way up to one of the White House’s own lawyers, John Eisenberg, according to reports published late Wednesday, citing sources familiar with the confidential hearing.

Eisenberg is said to have gotten wind about the lieutenant colonel’s concerns about the call, then taken the transcript and housed it on a highly classified server where fewer people could access it. The lawyer is expected to be called for testimony on Nov. 4. but it is unclear if he will cooperate.

Vindman’s testimony only further whet the appetite for Thursday’s resolution among Democrats who say they are eager to outline the rules of the road for the inquiry as it transitions the from a closed setting to an open one. Given the national-security implications of testimony, it is expected that some hearings will still be held behind closed doors.

But for Democrats who will have a hard fight to move articles of impeachment from the House and to the Senate, transparency and accountability now are key.

“I support this resolution because it’s indefensible that any official demand of an ally, and one depending on our support in an existential struggle with Russia, to investigate his political adversaries,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said during debate on the House floor Thursday. “No person, Republican or Democrat should be permitted to jeopardize American’s security and reputation for self-serving purposes.”

Representative Tom Cole, the ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, blasted Democrats as unfair to the president and motivated by a wish to take due process out of the inquiry.

“This Congress should have the right to review the records that are produced but the majority rejected that,” the Oklahoma congressman said. “We offered an amendment with rules that would allow for the participation of the president and his counsel on matters by the Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees, but the majority rejected that.”

Impeachment historically has been a function of the House Judiciary Committee, but Thursday’s resolution means the impeachment hearings will be led by the House Intelligence Committee and its chairman, Adam Schiff, a California Democrat. Democrats say this structure is appropriate since Schiff’s committee has purview over the intelligence community and since the whistleblower complaint that triggered the inquiry came to Schiff directly. As for blocking the amendment that would let Trump participate, Democrats say the man at the center of the investigation can’t have complete access to the body investigating him.

The House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight Committees will also continue to have a hand in the inquiry moving forward. So, too, will the House Ways and Means and House Financial Services committees, though their participation has drawn sharp rebuke from Republicans who argue Democrats are exploiting those committees’ powers, without need for their oversight, to obtain purportedly unrelated financial records from the president.

As the inquiry continues, Thursday’s resolution permits 45-minute rounds of questioning for Schiff and Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican Party’s ranking minority member on the House Intelligence Committee.

Lawmakers can pick staff members for questions. The ranking member has subpoena powers to invite witnesses for testimony, so long as he provides a detailed report on the relevance of any testimony he attempts to subpoena.

The committee would also have to take the ranking member’s request to a vote.

Schiff must issue a final report at the inquiry’s conclusion with recommendations before finally passing the baton to the House Judiciary Committee, the only committee in Congress with the authority to advance articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Representative Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, railed during debates, his booming drawl echoing across the floor.

“This is a dark day, and a cloud has fallen on this House,” he said. “Democrats say these are the same rules as when Clinton or Nixon were impeached. There are some similarities — some better, some not — but they are not the same. The problem I have with the resolution is that it isn’t about transparency, it’s about control. … This committee has been here 200 years, and our committee has been neutered. We’ve been completely sidelined.”

While Collins and other Republicans accuse Democrats of underhandedness and of rewriting impeachment history, Ken Hughes, an expert on Watergate with the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, said Thursday that anyone who thinks closed-door sessions are unprecedented in the process is “just making history up.”

“Most of the evidence for Nixon’s impeachment was presented to the committee behind closed doors in executive session,” Hughes said. “The head of the inquiry, House Judiciary Committee chairman Peter Rodino, said secrecy was necessary to avoid prejudicing the rights of defendants in ongoing criminal trials related to Watergate and to avoid defaming the president and prejudicing his impeachment case and potential Senate trial.”

Hughes continued: “House Democrats not only gave Nixon the right to appear before the impeachment inquiry but reserved the right to subpoena him to testify. What’s different now is the lack of congressional Republican support for the impeachment inquiry. [In 1974,] the House voted 410-4, a big bipartisan majority, to authorize the impeachment inquiry to subpoena all evidence and all testimony, including the president’s.”

For now, House Republicans appear to be steadily echoing Trump’s cries that the inquiry is another “witch hunt” like Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

“People want to impeach him not because of high crimes and misdemeanors, but because they have always wanted to impeach him,” Republican Minority Whip Steve Scalise said Thursday.

Representative Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, said the past month’s investigations tell another story.

“We’ve heard powerful, corroborating evidence that Trump led an extortion scheme … leveraging $391 million of taxpayer dollars to have a foreign power assist him in his future campaign,” Swalwell said during debates.

Other Democrats leaned on civic duty, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi opening today’s vote by reciting the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, standing beside a large, simple poster of the flag beside.

The chamber erupted in cheers and applause as Representative Hakeem Jeffries drew on the Founding Fathers in his remarks.

“The House should be a rival to the executive branch,” Jeffries said, quoting framer James Madison. “The Founders didn’t want a king. They didn’t want a dictator. They wanted a democracy and that is exactly what we are defending right now. No one is above the law.”

Meanwhile, President Trump seemed to be watching the vote unfold as he took to Twitter mere moments after the Republican defeat.

“The Greatest Witch Hunt in American History!” he wrote.
https://www.courthousenews.com/house-na ... ent-probe/



A. J.

In the end we will find it’s all connected- the UK and US election interference, the Brexit debacle. All of it the work of a trans national crime syndicate who managed to figure out the wormhole needed to pit us against one another for their benefit. For money and power.
https://twitter.com/yuus1999/status/1190038643668389888



The Mueller Investigation Is Having An Unexpected Moment In Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry Months After It Ended
What is dead may never die.
Posted on November 1, 2019, at 1:19 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for House Democrats appeared in court Thursday to implore a judge to enforce a subpoena for testimony about “key events” relevant to Democrats’ impeachment investigation — but not the ones that might immediately come to mind.

There was no talk of Rudy Giuliani or Trump’s July call with the Ukrainian president. Instead, the judge heard how Democrats needed former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify about events that happened months or even years ago involving former officials with no apparent connection to the Ukraine-related inquiry: Remember former attorney general Jeff Sessions? Or former national security adviser Michael Flynn? Or former FBI director James Comey?

It wasn’t the only case related to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s long-finished investigation to recently come to a head in court. Just one week ago, another judge ruled that the Justice Department had to turn over previously undisclosed Mueller grand jury materials to House Democrats.

Mueller is having a moment. Thanks to how slowly cases can move through the courts, legal fights that came out of the special counsel’s investigation are just now being argued and could have bearing on the impeachment inquiry that is largely disconnected from his work. Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has little to do with whether Trump was involved in arranging a quid pro quo with Ukraine this year, which is what Democrats are focused on, but these cases raise core legal questions about Congress’s power to investigate the executive branch that have made them early proxy skirmishes in the larger impeachment war.

Other elements of the Mueller probe are having a strange second life now, too. During Trump’s July call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, the president’s fixation on undermining Mueller’s long-finished work reared its head. Before asking Zelensky for help investigating current political rival Joe Biden, he asked for the “favor” of digging up information about the origins of the Russia probe — Trump referenced “CrowdStrike” and a “server,” a nod to a conspiracy theory about the company hired by the Democratic National Committee to investigate its hacked servers during the 2016 election.

The momentum of Mueller’s politically explosive two-year investigation petered out in the months after his final report became public in April. Mueller made clear that he wasn’t exonerating Trump of allegations that the president tried to obstruct the Russia investigation — prosecutors found “substantial evidence” of potentially obstructive acts, according to the report — but declined to make a final “prosecutorial judgment.” There would be no new indictments, the Justice Department confirmed at the time.

Attorney General Bill Barr stepped into the void Mueller left, announcing that based on a review of the evidence collected by Mueller’s office, the record didn’t support a finding that Trump committed a crime. Notwithstanding Barr’s assessment, Democrats held up Mueller’s report as proof of wrongdoing by the president and said they would pick up the investigation where Mueller left off; Trump and his supporters, meanwhile, claimed victory.

Mueller ended up testifying before Congress but revealed little new information. The public’s appetite for Mueller-related news, which once appeared bottomless, seemed to wane — one man told BuzzFeed News after Mueller’s congressional appearance that he hadn’t been paying attention “because after almost two years of chasing after Donald Trump, and nothing coming out, I just don't watch the news."

Still, Democrats pressed ahead with some attempts at continuing Mueller’s investigation. That spurred the McGahn subpoena fight that was argued in court on Thursday. McGahn had participated in voluntary interviews with the special counsel’s office and was a central figure in the Mueller report, describing Trump’s expressed interest at times in removing Mueller and Sessions.

Democrats subpoenaed McGahn to appear for a hearing on May 21, but McGahn didn’t show up after the White House and the Justice Department claimed he was “absolutely immune” from being forced to testify. The House Judiciary Committee filed a lawsuit to enforce the subpoena in early August.

Then, news of the Ukraine call broke and everything shifted.

Democrats had previously tossed around the term “impeachment” this year in talking about the stakes of various investigations into the president, including the follow-up to the Mueller report. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t formally announce an impeachment inquiry until September, after news broke of Trump’s call with Zelensky. Congressional committees involved in that inquiry issued a flurry of subpoenas and requests for voluntary cooperation, just as two Mueller-related cases came up on the court docket.

A federal judge in Washington, DC, heard four hours of arguments on Thursday in the McGahn case. First, the Justice Department argued that the court lacked authority to get involved in this sort of fight between Congress and the White House over access to information and testimony. Second, the department argued that even if the court did get involved, it should find that McGahn — and all current and former senior presidential advisers — are completely immune from being forced to testify before Congress.

The Justice Department’s immunity argument has direct bearing on the impeachment inquiry going forward. One potential witness, Charles Kupperman, who briefly served as acting national security adviser to Trump this year, was directed by the White House to defy a House subpoena and has filed a lawsuit asking a judge to decide who is right, Democrats or the White House.

A week earlier, meanwhile, another federal judge in Washington had issued a 75-page opinion finding House Democrats were entitled to see otherwise secret grand jury materials prepared as part of Mueller’s investigation. There is no known grand jury activity at the moment related to Trump’s call with Zelensky and other communications between his administration and Ukraine, but the ruling from US District Chief Judge Beryl Howell included a boost to Democrats — the judge accepted that what Democrats were doing was “an official impeachment inquiry,” at a time when the White House and Republicans had denounced Democrats’ efforts as illegitimate and refused to cooperate.

Howell noted that although Pelosi had said Democrats would be focused on the more recent Ukraine communications, she also said that preexisting committee investigations into the president fell under the umbrella of the impeachment inquiry, too.

“The White House’s stated policy of non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry weighs heavily in favor of disclosure,” Howell wrote. “Congress’s need to access grand jury material relevant to potential impeachable conduct by a President is heightened when the Executive Branch willfully obstructs channels for accessing other relevant evidence.”

The Justice Department immediately appealed Howell’s decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and whoever loses the McGahn case is expected to take that case up to the DC Circuit as well.

The Mueller cases could even end up forcing a Supreme Court showdown on questions related to Congress’s investigative powers and the validity of the impeachment inquiry before any actual Ukraine-related legal fight — in court papers filed earlier this week, the Justice Department said it would ask the justices to step in if the DC Circuit refused to block disclosure of Mueller’s grand jury materials to Democrats.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zo ... pdQRRm7Q0A
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:09 am

Here are 9 of the biggest bombshells in newly released transcripts from ex-State Dept officials
Published 2 hours ago on November 4, 2019 By Travis Gettys

Transcripts from testimony by two former high-ranking State Department officials were released — showing their concerns about President Donald Trump’s efforts to corrupt the agency they served.

Maria Yovanovitch, who was forced out as ambassador to Ukraine, and Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, each told a House impeachment inquiry about the president’s actions toward Ukraine and threats they faced from the White House.


Here are some of the biggest bombshells from their testimony:

1. Yovanovitch told investigators that Rudy Giuliani and Ukraine’s former prosecutor general “had plans” and “were going to, you know, do things, including to me,” because “two individuals from Florida” working with Giuliani — Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were indicted last month — wanted her out as ambassador for their own business reasons.

2. She was alarmed when Donald Trump Jr. criticized her in a March 24, 2019, tweet and asked for a statement of support from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo but never got one. “If you have the president’s son saying, you know, we need to pull these clowns, or however he referred to me,” she said, “it makes it hard to be a credible ambassador.”

3. The former ambassador sought advice from Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, who recommended that she tweet out praise for Trump. “You know the sorts of things he likes,” Sondland said, according to Yovanovitch. “You know, go out there battling aggressively and, you know, praise him or support him.”

4. Yovanovitch testified that she was notified in late April by Carol Perez, director general of the Foreign Service, that her “security” was in danger due to “nervousness” at the White House — and warned her to “board the next plane home to Washington.”

5. Acting assistant secretary of state Philip Reeker told Yovanovitch after she returned that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he “was no longer able to protect her from President Trump.”

6. The former ambassador asked for a statement of support from Pompeo but her request was denied because it could be “undermined” by the president “with a tweet or something.”

7. Yovanovitch testified that she was shocked to read the summary of Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president, and said she felt “threatened” by Trump’s warning “she’s going to go through some things.”

8. Pompeo accused Congress of “bullying” officials in his agency, but senior State Department official George Kent raised concerns — in writing — that he felt bullied by his own department, McKinley testified.

9. McKinley, the hand-picked senior adviser to Pompeo, resigned Oct. 10 over the secretary’s failure to support State Department authorities. He testified six days later that he stepped down over concerns about “what appears to be the utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance political objectives.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/here-a ... officials/


Image


Mike Pence Knew
Opinion
Greg Olear
On 11/5/19 at 6:00 AM EST
The Zelensky call accomplished what the Mueller report could not. Once again, the president abused his power and tried to cover it up. This time, it will cost him. As a consequence of the Ukraine scandal, the House will impeach Donald Trump, and the Senate will find ample cause to convict him.

As a practical matter, however, this presents a whole new problem. Whatever Trump did with regard to Ukraine, Mike Pence was mixed up in it, too. We know that Pence read, or at least was given a transcript of, Trump's call with Volodymyr Zelensky. We know he met with the Ukrainian president in Warsaw. And we know that Pence had his own call with Zelensky—a fact that Trump himself offered up unsolicited, seemingly eager to spread around the blame. "I think you should ask for Vice President Pence's conversation," Trump tattled to reporters, "because he had a couple of conversations also." The president characterized the Pence-Zelensky calls as "perfect." Congress is not so sure and has formally requested transcripts of those calls. Despite saying a month ago that he had "no objection" to releasing the transcripts, Pence has yet to do so.

The vice president has assured us of his innocence. "As I said the day after that meeting," he told reporters, "we focused entirely, in my meeting with President Zelensky of Ukraine, on the issues that President Trump has raised as a concern, namely the lack of support from European partners for Ukraine and real issues of corruption in Ukraine." But this rings hollow.

When asked point-blank whether he was aware of Trump shaking down Zelensky to implicate Joe Biden, the former debate team champion twisted himself into a rhetorical pretzel to avoid a direct answer. "I never discussed the issue of the Bidens with President Zelensky," Pence said. His evasive response to that explicit question is clearly not the same as "I had no advance knowledge of Trump's desire to smear Biden."

It strains credulity to believe that Pence was unaware of Trump's crooked intentions. If Bill Taylor and Fiona Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Tim Morrison and Gordon Sondland and John Eisenberg and Mike Pompeo and Rick Perry and Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton and the still-anonymous whistleblower all knew what Trump was up to regarding Biden and Ukraine, how could Trump's second banana possibly be in the dark?

It's not like Mike Pence is the poster boy for telling the truth. He's lied before to cover Trump's shady dealings—as in his January 2017 appearance on Face the Nation, when John Dickerson asked him if anyone on the Trump campaign had meetings with Russians. "Of course not" was his indignant—and mendacious—reply.

Mike Pence and Donald Trump
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence listens to President Donald Trump during a conference call on October 18 in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee/Getty
Nor is this the first instance in which Pence has pleaded—or, perhaps, feigned—ignorance. In early 2017, the vice president claimed he learned that then–national security adviser Mike Flynn, his former Trump transition team deputy, had discussed sanctions in his December meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak by reading the exclusive in The Washington Post. The rest of the Trump team was aware weeks before the story broke. In her congressional testimony, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said Flynn was a liar and "compromised with respect to the Russians." Yates was urgently concerned that Pence was "making false statements to the public" regarding Flynn that "we knew to be untrue."

PostFun
[Pics] Iconic Photos That Left A Mark On History
Did you know that Elvis invited himself to the White House while Nixon resided there? Or how about 15 years later, when in the same house...
See More
Finally, bear in mind how Pence came to be vice president in the first place. Trump selected him as his running mate over Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie, two men he personally preferred, at the insistence of Paul Manafort—a convicted felon and traitor to his country. As Tom LoBianco recounts in Piety & Power: Mike Pence and the Taking of the White House, a chance flat tire on "Trump Force One" kept Trump overnight in Indianapolis, so the key sit-down took place at Pence's gubernatorial residence, rather than Trump's gaudy Manhattan apartment. Regarding the "miracle flat tire," LoBianco wrote, "Some aides saw God's hand at work. Others saw Paul Manafort's." Manafort was Putin's guy, and Pence was Manafort's.

The American people need the truth. The VP needs to come clean. If Pence knew what Trump was up to—if he observed the president flagrantly breaking the law and did nothing to stop him; or if, worse, he aided and abetted the illicit activity—he should resign immediately. It makes no sense for Congress to remove Trump, only to elevate an accomplice to the same crimes. Do we really want to replace the guy who robbed the bank with the guy who drove the getaway car?

Greg Olear (@gregolear) is the author of Dirty Rubles: An Introduction to Trump/Russia and the novels Totally Killer and Fathermucker.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-kne ... on-1469466


Gordon D. Sondland just updated the testimony he gave impeachment investigators last month to acknowledge that he told Ukrainian officials military aid was tied to their committing to the investigations Trump wanted.
"Mr. Sondland said he had 'refreshed my recollection' after reading the testimony given by Mr. Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council."


1) Sondland admits there was a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

2) Sondland says he “assumed” that Rudy Giuliani’s demands were illegal.



Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
By Michael S. SchmidtUpdated 1:46 p.m. ET
In a substantial update to his initial account, Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

The new testimony from Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had not acknowledged.
The new testimony from Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had not acknowledged.Erin Schaff/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.

Mr. Sondland had said in a text message exchange in early September with William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, that the president had been clear there was no quid pro quo between the aid and investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his son and other Democrats. But Mr. Sondland testified last month that he was only repeating what Mr. Trump had told him, leaving open the question of whether he believed the president. The new account suggested that Mr. Sondland may have not been completely forthcoming with Mr. Taylor, and that he was, in fact, aware that the aid was contingent upon the investigations.

In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month.

The new information surfaced as the House committees also released a transcript of their interview last month with Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine. Rushing to complete their final round of requests for key witnesses before they commence public impeachment hearings, the panels also scheduled testimony on Friday by Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff. And two more administration witnesses who had been scheduled to testify on Tuesday — Michael Duffey, a top official on the White House budget office, and Wells Griffith, a senior aide to Energy Secretary Rick Perry — failed to appear.

Impeachment investigators released the transcripts of closed-door interviews with Marie Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine, and Michael McKinley, a top diplomat who advised Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The campaign to oust Ms. Yovanovitch from her post has been key to the investigation.
Investigators are expected to release two more transcripts tomorrow that are central to their case, including one for Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union.
Four Trump administration witnesses refused to sit for interviews today with investigators, including John Eisenberg, the top lawyer on the National Security Council, and Robert Blair, an aide to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff.
The White House informed Mr. Eisenberg’s lawyer on Sunday that President Trump was directing him not to testify. The White House is claiming “absolute immunity” — a form of executive privilege that contends the president’s closest advisers are not obligated to cooperate with Congress.

In his new testimony, Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress — was “ill-advised,” although he did not know “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.” But he said he came to believe that the aid was tied to the investigations.

“I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Mr. Sondland said.

In his closed-door interview last month, Mr. Sondland portrayed himself as a well-meaning and at times unwitting player who was trying to conduct American foreign policy with Ukraine with the full backing of the State Department while Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, repeatedly inserted himself at the behest of the president.

But some Democrats painted him as a lackey of Mr. Trump’s who had been an agent of the shadow foreign policy on Ukraine, eager to go along with what the president wanted. Democrats contended Mr. Sondland, a wealthy hotelier from Oregon, had evaded crucial questions during his testimony, repeatedly claiming not to recall the events under scrutiny.

And other witnesses have pointed to him as a central player in the irregular channel of Ukraine policymaking being run by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani, and the instigator of the quid pro quo strategy.

In the addendum, Mr. Sondland said he had “refreshed my recollection” after reading the testimony given by Mr. Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council.

Mr. Trump has denied there was a quid pro quo involving the aid and Ukraine’s willingness to launch investigations he was seeking into the Bidens and other Democrats. Mr. Sondland’s clarification is significant because his earlier testimony left it unclear how he viewed the issue, even as three other officials told impeachment investigators under oath that the aid and the investigations were linked. Unlike the others, Mr. Sondland was a donor to Mr. Trump’s campaign and was seen as a personal ally of the president.

Mr. Morrison, the National Security Council official, testified last week that it was Mr. Sondland who first indicated in a conversation with him and Mr. Taylor on Sept. 1 that the release of the military aid for Ukraine might be contingent on the announcement of the investigations, and that he hoped “that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own.”

The new testimony appeared in part to be an attempt by Mr. Sondland to argue that the quid pro quo was not his idea, and explain why he believed the aid and the investigations were linked. He said it “would have been natural for me to have voiced what I presumed” about what was standing in the way of releasing the military assistance.

Mr. Sondland originally testified that Mr. Trump had essentially delegated American foreign policy on Ukraine to Mr. Giuliani, a directive he disagreed with but still followed. He said that it was Mr. Giuliani who demanded the new Ukrainian president commit to the investigations, and that he did not understand until later that the overarching goal may have been to bolster the president’s 2020 election chances.

Mr. Sondland said that he went along with what Mr. Giuliani wanted in the hope of pacifying him and restoring normal relations between the two countries. Under questioning, he acknowledged believing the statement was linked to a White House visit the new president of Ukraine sought with Mr. Trump.

Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. @NYTMike

The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... trump.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby alloneword » Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:54 pm

I thought this raised some interesting points:

When is a Whistleblower, not a Whistleblower?
Editor

Renée Parsons

For those readers who care more about Donald Trump, Obama’s legacy or the Republican/Democrat parties rather than the Rule of Law and what remains of the US Constitution, the following scenario should be a Giant Wake up Call.

As the result of an anonymous “whistleblower” Complaint filed against President Trump on August 12, the House Intel Committee conducted a series of closed door hearings that violated Sixth Amendment protections while relying on an anonymous WB.

Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle not to be taken seriously – except they were.

There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically elected President Yanukovych in 2014.

Fast forward to Russiagate followed by Ukrainegate and an impeachment inquiry with Trump telling newly elected Ukraine President Zelensky in their now infamous July 25th conversation:

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine; they say Crowdstrike.The server they say, Ukraine has it


In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy’s role in initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation of the country.

On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based onstill mysterious Whistleblower’s allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or whether a Whistleblower even existed.

It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression proudly forward into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.At great personal cost, they then provide a credible case for why this offense is illegal or a violation of the public trust and deserves to be made public.

This alleged WB, however, defies the traditional definition of a WB who most often experiences the wrong-doing first hand and from a personal vantage while revealing said wrong-doing as a function within an agency of their employment.

This WB’s identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if fearful of public scrutiny or that his ‘truth’ would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.What is clear is that this WB had no direct experience but only second-hand knowledge of events which is defined as ‘hear say’ evidence. While inadmissible in a Court of law, why should ‘hear say’ be allowed when the subject is as profound as impeachment of a President?

Real-life CIA whistleblower Jon Kiriakou who served 22 months in prison, suggested this “whistleblower is not a whistleblower but a anonymous CIA analyst within the Democratic House staff.”When was the last time a real whistleblower was ‘protected’ by the government from public exposure.

There has been no explanation as to why this informant’s identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just from the public but from Members of Congress especially as Republican Members have been unable to question him.

There has been no further information regarding a second “Whistleblower” who allegedly came forward to corroborate the first WB although why it is necessary to corroborate that which has already been publicly revealed remains questionable.

In a once unimaginable example of CIA–Democratic collusion,it turns out that the identity of the alleged WB is not such a secret after all.

Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity; presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was organized.And as his name and political history within the Obama Administration and Democratic party are publicly scrutinized, it makes perfect sense why the TPTB would prefer to prevent public hearings or keep the WB’s identity under wraps.

His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took Real Clear Investigations, an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within the DC bubble for some weeks.

The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very well connected partisan lackey and CIA operative.

The alleged WB is said to be a 33 year old CIA analyst by the name of Eric Ciaramella who was an Obama White House holdover at the National Security Council until mid 2017.

Consequently, he has deep partisan ties to former VP Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice as well as the DNC establishment.And here’s where it get especially interesting; Ciaramella specializes in Russia and Ukraine, is fluent in both languages, ran the Ukraine desk at the Obama NSC and had close association withUkrainian DNC hyper-activist Alexandra Chalupa.

Ciaramella’s bio reads like a litany of the political turmoil that has consumed the nation for the last three years as it is reported that he had a role in initiating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy while at the Obama White House and worked with Biden who was the Obama point-person on Ukraine issues in 2015 and 2016 when$3 billion USAID funding was being embezzled.

Clearly, Ciaramella has a wealth of information to share regarding the Biden Quid pro Quo scandal which is currently being muzzled by the corporate media.

With Ciaramella’s identity revealed, a former NSC staffer who was present during the Trump-Zelensky July 25th conversation testified that he saw nothing illegal in the talk.Tim Morrison told the House Intel Committee that “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” and that the transcript of the call which was declassified and released by the White House“accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.”

As a result, Ciaramella is now refusing to publicly testify before the House or Senate Intel Committees.

More recently, Mark Zaid, attorney for Ciaramella has said that his client would accept written questions from Republicans on the House Intel Committee and that his client “wants to be as bipartisan as possible throughout this process while remaining anonymous.”

Seriously?He’s got to be kidding.

Did the reality of being required to testify in public just recently dawn on Ciaramella or was he not expecting that his every word and utterance would be scrutinized before the entire world?Is he so unfamiliar with the Sixth Amendment that he believes a Defendant’s right to confront his accuser should not apply to him or in a Presidential impeachment inquiry?

Did he actually believe he could make anonymous impeachment accusations against the President of the US without a ripple or without having to directly face questions from House and Senate Republicans?Who did he think would protect him from public scrutiny?

Given Ciaramella’s extensive partisan history since 2015 and his national security experience with Susan Rice in the Obama White House, it will be interesting if he receives a mention in the IG report on the abuse of FISA warrants and whether Ciaramella’s name has moved to the top of the Durham interviewee list.


https://off-guardian.org/2019/11/07/whe ... tleblower/
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby Grizzly » Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:14 pm

Slad will be here to correct you, and put you straight, pretty quickly. So, hang tight.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:17 pm

I guess we could ask Dick Cheney

don't have much to say about the whistleblower except for the result was this

Who are the 14 witnesses in the Trump impeachment inquiry and what have they said?
WASHINGTON – More than a dozen witnesses have been called before a trio of House committees and questioned for hours about President Donald Trump and Ukraine.

The witnesses include diplomats and White House officials with knowledge of Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Each has provided new details as part of the quickly moving impeachment inquiry examining whether Trump abused his power as president in asking Ukraine to investigate political foes while dangling military aid for the country and a White House meeting. Their testimonies combined span about 100 hours.

Several of these witnesses will appear next week when the first public impeachment hearings take place.

Here are the 14 witnesses who have been interviewed by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees, why they matter in the impeachment saga and what we know about their testimony.

Oct. 3: Former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker

Kurt Volker, a former special envoy to Ukraine, arrives for a closed-door interview with House investigators, as House Democrats proceed with the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, at the Capitol in Washington, Oct. 3, 2019.
Why he matters: A career State Department official, Volker worked with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and various White House officials to set up Trump's phone call July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a potential White House visit. This happened as military aid for the country was on pause.

What he told lawmakers:Volker said he never saw anything that made him believe there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine and said he felt coordinating with Giuliani could change Trump from his negative feelings about Ukraine. His testimony made clear the influence Giuliani had over policy, including Giuliani dictating a statement to Volker that he wanted the Ukrainians to issue on corruption.

Oct. 11: Former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch

Why she matters: A career diplomat, Yovanovitch was forced out of her role.

What she told lawmakers: Yovanovitch was confused by her ouster and the comments made by conservatives and Trump, who called her "bad news." She said she raised concerns about the shadow campaign pushed by Giuliani and how it ran counter to U.S. policy.

Oct. 14: Trump's former Russia expert Fiona Hill

Why she matters: Hill worked for years on the National Intelligence Council and as Trump's senior adviser on the Kremlin and Europe. She held a key role in U.S. policy in Ukraine and was part of several meetings where she expressed concerns over the shadow policy led by Giuliani and White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

What she told lawmakers: Hill told lawmakers national security adviser John Bolton likened the policy in Ukraine to a "drug deal" and called Giuliani a "hand grenade" who was going to blow everyone up, according to The New York Times and NBC News.

Oct. 15: State Department Ukraine-Russia expert George Kent

Why he matters: Kent serves as a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department.

What he told lawmakers: Kent told lawmakers he raised red flags about Giuliani's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden more than six months ago.

Oct. 16: Michael McKinley, ex-adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

Why he matters: McKinley boasted a career that spanned decades at the State Department and resigned just before his testimony because of low morale at the department and because he said Pompeo did not stick up for career employees, such as Yovanovitch.

What he told lawmakers: McKinley didn't oversee issues related to Ukraine, so his testimony did not deal with the core allegations against Trump. He outlined his concerns about the ouster of Yovanovitch and said he was troubled that the State Department did not have her back and that she and the department were being politicized.

Oct. 17: U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, center, arrives on Capitol Hill on Oct. 17, 2019.
Why he matters: A businessman and major Trump donor, Sondland was in communication with the president and Giuliani and attempted to get Ukrainians to investigate several political matters, according to witnesses.

What he told lawmakers: Sondland amended his original testimony and told lawmakers he communicated a quid pro quo to a Ukrainian official, linking military aid for Ukraine to a public statement committing to investigations Trump and Giuliani wanted.

Oct. 22: Bill Taylor, top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine

Bill Taylor, the highest ranking U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, arrives on Capitol Hill on Oct. 22, 2019.
Why he matters: Taylor voiced concerns about conditioning military aid and a White House meeting on political investigations.

What he told lawmakers: Taylor directly tied Trump and his allies with a quid pro quo. He said Trump made the order to pause military aid for Ukraine, and it was his "clear understanding" that "security assistance money would not come until the (Ukrainian) president committed to pursue the investigation," according to a transcript of his testimony.

Oct. 23: Defense official Laura Cooper

Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, arrives on Capitol Hill before testifying Oct. 23, 2019, in Washington, D.C. Cooper was expected to testify before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform committees as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
Why she matters: Cooper serves as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.

What she told lawmakers: It's not clear exactly what Cooper told lawmakers.

Oct. 26: State Department official Philip Reeker

Why he matters: Reeker serves as the acting assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.

What he told lawmakers: According to The Wall Street Journal, he discussed with lawmakers failed efforts to help Yovanovitch.

Oct. 29: Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

Why he matters: Vindman is one of several officials who listened to Trump's phone call with Zelensky on July 25. He served as the White House's top Ukraine expert.

What he told lawmakers: Vindman said in prepared remarks he twice reported concerns to superiors that the president and those working for him linked foreign aid to Ukraine with political investigations. He said he worried the efforts undermined U.S. national security.

Oct. 30: State Department official Catherine Croft

Why she matters: Croft worked for Volker at the State Department and has expertise on Ukrainian issues. She focused on arms sales and security assistance for the country as it fended off Russia.

What she told lawmakers: According to a copy of her opening statement, Croft told lawmakers she received calls from a lobbyist trying to oust Yovanovitch. She said she learned that aid was put on hold stemming from an order from the president.

Oct. 30: State Department official Christopher Anderson

Why he matters: Anderson worked for Volker at the State Department and was present for at least one meeting where political investigations were discussed.

What he told lawmakers: In his opening statement, Anderson said Giuliani's efforts were discussed at a Ukraine strategy meeting over the summer. At that meeting, Bolton said Giuliani's efforts "could be an obstacle." Anderson said he believed it was important to not request specific investigations from the Ukrainians.

Oct. 31: NSC official Timothy Morrison

Tim Morrison, who served as the senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council, arrives to be deposed behind closed doors amid the US House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry into President Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on October 31, 2019. Morrison appears before three congressional committees to testify on a whistleblower's complaint that alleged US President Donald J. Trump requested help from the President of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Why he matters: Morrison is the top Russia and European adviser to Trump's National Security Council and was cited by multiple witnesses in conversations about a quid pro quo. He is a political appointee and not a career official.

What he told lawmakers: Morrison confirmed testimony given by Taylor that outlined a quid pro quo, basically halting aid until Ukraine committed to investigations. Morrison testified that he didn't believe Trump's call July 25 was illegal.

Nov. 6: State Department's David Hale

David Hale spoke to lawmakers Nov. 6 in the impeachment inquiry.
Why he matters: Hale is the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

What he told lawmakers: Hale told lawmakers about the political considerations in dismissing Yovanovitch and how those decisions affected military aid for Ukraine, according to The Associated Press. AP reported that Hale said Pompeo and other officials believed that backing Yovanovitch could hurt efforts to free the military aid, and some officials worried about the reaction from Giuliani.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 159209002/


IMPEACHMENT
'Campaign of lies': What George Kent told impeachment investigators
George Kent
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

By NAHAL TOOSI, ANDREW DESIDERIO and NATASHA BERTRAND
11/07/2019 03:05 PM EST

House Democrats on Thursday released another deposition transcript ahead of public hearings scheduled for next week. This time, the deposition was that of George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department whose portfolio includes Ukraine.

Kent testified in a closed session on Oct. 15, telling lawmakers that, like other career diplomats, he was essentially cut out of decisions about Ukraine due to maneuvering by other administration officials and outsiders, including Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Kent accused Giuliani of conducting a "campaign of lies" about the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, that led to her early recall from Kyiv.

Kent is among the witnesses scheduled to testify in open hearings next week. He has been in the Foreign Service since 1992, serving in posts ranging from Warsaw to Bangkok. POLITICO went through his testimony to uncover some of its most intriguing nuggets.

Democrats' highlights of Kent's testimony | Full transcript

Check back for updates. We'll post the most important revelations here.

How other officials rationalized dealing with Giuliani

Kent makes clear in his testimony that he was alarmed by the role the president’s personal lawyer was playing in trying to shape Ukraine policy — especially his efforts to work with a Ukrainian prosecutor to smear the U.S. ambassador in Kyiv, Marie Yovanovitch.

But he said that others, like Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine, thought that it was better to engage with Giuliani than to ignore him because of the influence he wielded on President Donald Trump. Volker even brushed off Giuliani’s campaign against Yovanovitch and push to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, a rival for the White House in 2020, saying, according to Kent: ”Well, if there’s nothing there, what does it matter?”

Kent, however, was worried about the precedent set, and the long-term implications. Or, as he put it: “What I understood was Kurt was thinking tactically and I was concerned strategically.”
Image
HOW OTHER OFFICIALS RATIONALIZED DEALING WITH GIULIANI (p. 292)
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
The Trump-Zelensky call made for uncomfortable talk even among colleagues.

Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was so unusual that a National Security Council official — Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, who also has testified for the inquiry — didn’t want to get into the details with Kent. That call is now at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.


“It was different than any read-out call that I had received,” Kent told investigators. “He felt — I could hear it in his voice and his hesitancy that he felt uncomfortable. He actually said that he could not share the majority of what was discussed because of the very sensitive nature of what was discussed.”
Image

THE TRUMP-ZELENSKY CALL MADE FOR UNCOMFORTABLE TALK EVEN AMONG COLLEAGUES (1) (p. 163)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
THE TRUMP-ZELENSKY CALL MADE FOR UNCOMFORTABLE TALK EVEN AMONG COLLEAGUES (2) (p. 164)
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Trump’s message for Zelensky: ‘Investigations, Biden, Clinton’

Kent told investigators that, based on his conversations with other senior American diplomats, Gordon Sondland relayed that Trump “wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone [sic] and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.”

Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, was describing “in shorthand” what Trump wanted the Ukrainians to do, according to Kent.

“Zelensky needed to go to a microphone and basically there needed to be three words in the message, and that was the shorthand,” Kent added.

The word “Clinton” was shorthand for 2016, Kent said, a likely reference to the debunked conspiracy theory — pushed by Trump and Giuliani — that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election.

TRUMP’S MESSAGE FOR ZELENSKY: ‘INVESTIGATIONS, BIDEN, CLINTON’ (p. 266)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Giuliani and Lutsenko waged a ‘campaign of lies’

As Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani was interested in getting Ukraine to investigate Biden and the 2016 election. And Yuriy Lutsenko, a top prosecutor in Ukraine at the time, saw Yovanovitch as an apparent threat to his ability to keep his position as it became clear that U.S. officials felt he was not doing enough to battle corruption.

The two men found each other useful, Kent said.

“Based on what I know, Yuriy Lutsenko, as prosecutor general, vowed revenge, and provided information to Rudy Giuliani in hopes that he would spread it and lead to her removal,” Kent said.

Kent said he learned that Lutsenko had even met in private with Giuliani in New York, where Lutsenko’s purpose was to “throw mud” at Yovanovitch and Kent himself.

Kent said the two men essentially waged a “campaign of lies” about Yovanovitch, who would be recalled early from her post in May.

“I believe that Mr. Giuliani, as a U.S. citizen, has First Amendment rights to say whatever he wants, but he’s a private citizen,” Kent told lawmakers. “His assertions and allegations against former Ambassador Yovanovitch were without basis, untrue, period.”

GIULIANI AND LUTSENKO WAGED A ‘CAMPAIGN OF LIES’ (p. 131)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Kent’s boss told him to keep his ‘head down’

Top officials at the State Department seemed unsure of how to deal with someone like Giuliani, who, although not a U.S. official, clearly wielded an outsized influence on Trump when it came to Ukraine. His presence was a divergence from the usual policy-making process.

At one point, after Giuliani slammed Yovanovitch, Kent and others in a May 2019 interview, Kent was told by his superiors to "keep my head down and lower my profile in Ukraine,” he said.

The instruction came via an intermediary from David Hale, the undersecretary of State for political affairs, according to Kent’s understanding. It wasn’t clear if Hale had talked to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about it.

Hale testified to impeachment investigators on Wednesday, but little has yet emerged about what he told them.

KENT’S BOSS TOLD HIM TO KEEP HIS ‘HEAD DOWN’ (p. 291)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Hunter Biden’s role was scrutinized, too
Republicans will be able to hang their hat on at least one aspect of Kent’s testimony.

Kent said he spoke with a member of Biden’s staff in February 2015 and raised concerns about his son Hunter’s role on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.

“I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent told investigators.

The foundational basis of Giuliani’s efforts to spur a Biden investigation was the unsubstantiated theory that the then-vice president sought to oust a prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was looking into Burisma. The prosecutor was widely viewed by the Western world as corrupt, and the State Department’s view was that Shokin became an impediment to efforts to root out corruption in Ukraine.
HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE WAS SCRUTINIZED, TOO (1) (p. 226)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE WAS SCRUTINIZED, TOO (2) (p. 227)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Sondland’s ‘independent relationship’ with Mick Mulvaney

Kent testified to a previously unreported detail about Sondland’s relationship with the White House: namely, that Sondland had “connections” to the acting chief of staff that got him into high-level meetings with both Ukraine’s president and Trump, despite Ukraine not being in the European Union and therefore not a key part of his portfolio.

“It was Ambassador Sondland's connections with Mulvaney” that got the U.S. delegation that attended Zelensky’s inauguration a meeting afterwards with President Trump, Kent testified. That meeting “was not done through NSC staff,” Kent said, explaining how it deviated from the typical process for such debriefings.

Sondland, for his part, had testified that “I don’t believe I’ve ever had a formal meeting with Mulvaney … we say hello, we walk by and wave. I don’t believe I’ve sat down with him for a formal meeting on any subject.”

Notably, Mulvaney, as the former head of the Office of Management and Budget, also ordered the hold on military assistance aid that Trump had directed, Kent testified. His relationship with Sondland suggests the EU ambassador might have had more insight into the reasons for the hold than Sondland let on during his own testimony.

In revised testimony submitted earlier this week, Sondland said he understood that the aid would only be resumed if Ukraine launched the investigations Trump demanded.

House Democrats have demanded that Mulvaney give a deposition of his own, but the White House said on Thursday that he would not show up to his scheduled appearance on Friday, calling the impeachment probe “a ridiculous, partisan, illegitimate proceeding.”

SONDLAND’S ‘INDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP’ WITH MICK MULVANEY (p. 193)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Kent kept a receipt, too

At a certain point, Kent said, he realized he needed to make a record of his concerns about Ukraine policy. Two conversations in particular triggered the move.

One was with Catherine Croft, a special assistant to Volker. She asked Kent in mid-August, he recalled, whether the U.S. had “ever asked the Ukrainians to investigate anybody.”
Story Continued Below

He explained to her that if there had been a crime committed in the U.S., there was a treaty that allowed for asking for such assistance, among other options. But if she was talking about asking the Ukrainians to prosecute someone for political reasons, he said, “the answer is, I hope we haven’t, and we shouldn’t because that goes against everything that we are trying to promote in post-Soviet states for the last 28 years, which is the promotion of the rule of law.”

The next day, he learned from William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Kyiv after Yovanvitch had been pulled out, that Volker had raised the possibility of “investigations” with top Ukrainian officials. So Kent decided to write a “note to the file saying that I had concerns that there was an effort to initiate politically motivated prosecutions that were injurious to the rule of law, both Ukraine and the U.S.”

Kent’s frustration with Volker in this process was palpable. In his conversation with Croft, he told her: “Kurt has a lot of ideas. Some of them great; some of them are not so good. And part of the role of the special assistant as well as people like me is to ensure that the ideas stay within the bounds of U.S. policy."

KENT KEPT A RECEIPT, TOO (p. 280)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Republican senators pushed Trump to lift hold on aid

Republican Senators Jim Inhofe, Rob Portman and Mitch McConnell called Trump and asked him about the hold on military aid to Ukraine just before the hold was lifted, according to Kent. The questions, and bipartisan criticism of the hold from members of Congress, may have contributed to Trump’s decision to release the aid on September 11.

Kent recalled Republican senators “who had traveled to Ukraine from the relevant committees” getting involved, presumably because they were aware of the importance of the aid to fending off Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

Describing the aid as “critically important” for Ukrainian security and in the “national interest” of the United States, Kent said, “I would say that we probably derive more benefit from the relationship than the Ukrainians do.”

REPUBLICAN SENATORS PUSHED TRUMP TO LIFT HOLD ON AID (p. 313)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Kent clashed with State higher-ups over their response to inquiry

As the House committees investigating impeachment pressed the State Department to hand over records, Kent grew frustrated over how Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his aides were handling the matter.

For one thing, he took exception to Pompeo’s claim in an Oct. 1 letter to lawmakers that the committees were “attempting to bully, intimidate, and threaten career foreign service officers.”
Story Continued Below

He, for one, “had not felt bullied, threatened, and intimidated,” Kent said.

He also pointed out that despite receiving requests for documents on Sept. 9 and Sept. 23, as well as a Sept. 27 subpoena, it wasn’t until “after the close of business on Oct. 2” that the department issued a “formal instruction” on gathering documents. The committees wanted the material by Oct. 4.

Along the way, Kent said he had a “very public exchange” with a State Department lawyer over who should be responsive to the subpoena.

Kent argued that a top consular official should also share information because he’d spoken with Giuliani about a dispute over a visa for a prominent Ukrainian. The lawyer disagreed that the consular official, who was not named in the subpoena, needed to get involved.

Kent remains a U.S. diplomat, and it’s not yet clear how his decision to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry will affect his career. He told lawmakers he was “faced with enormous professional and personal cost and expense of dealing with a conflict between the executive and legislative branches not of my making.”

KENT CLASHED WITH STATE HIGHER-UPS OVER THEIR RESPONSE TO INQUIRY (p. 27)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud
Kent doesn’t believe aid was part of quid pro quo

Several witnesses have testified both a White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky and the U.S. military aid package were conditioned on Ukraine publicly committing to the investigations Trump and Giuliani were seeking.

But Kent says it was his “personal opinion” that only the White House meeting, not the military assistance, was part of a quid pro quo.

“It strikes me that the association was a meeting with the White House, at the White House, not related to the security assistance,” Kent told investigators. “But again, that’s just my personal opinion, other people may have different opinions."

KENT DOESN’T BELIEVE AID WAS PART OF QUID PRO QUO (p. 323)
Image
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View the entire document with DocumentCloud

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/0 ... ony-067428



Pence aide said Trump's July 25 call with Ukraine was political and not a normal diplomatic call
(CNN) — An aide to Vice President Mike Pence who listened to the call between President Donald Trump and the Ukrainian President told impeachment inquiry investigators on Thursday that she found the conversation to be unusual because it was political in nature, according to two sources familiar with the testimony.

Jennifer Williams, an aide in the vice president's office and a long time State Department staffer, said the phone call did not have the normal tone of a diplomatic call. Williams did not raise concerns about the call with her superiors.

She was asked by lawmakers in her closed-door deposition what Pence knows and she testified that she never heard him mention anything about investigations of the 2016 election, Burisma -- the Ukrainian natural gas company on whose board Joe Biden's son Hunter sat -- or the Bidens. She did not know of any request from Trump to Pence to bring up investigations during a meeting the vice president had in Warsaw with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on September 1.

The Pence aide made note of the call and the transcript in her nightly notes but testified she did not know if the vice president read the transcript.

Pence himself has repeatedly insisted that Trump did nothing wrong but has not clarified how much he knew about efforts to pressure Ukraine and the parallel Ukraine policy that Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and others were leading outside the normal diplomatic and official channels.

Williams testified that she had limited information about why military aid was being withheld from Ukraine. She was puzzled about it, but was kept in the dark about the decision-making process. She described herself as someone who stayed in her lane and wasn't pushing to understand why the aide was withheld.

However, Williams suggested to lawmakers she believed it could be tied to what she heard on the call: Trump's request that Ukraine open investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election, a third source familiar with the testimony told CNN.

A source with knowledge of her testimony added that Williams did not say she believed the two were connected, but simply expressed that as a possibility.

Ahead of her testimony Thursday, current and former colleagues heaped praise on Williams, with one White House official saying: "She is the most professional person in this building."
The official noted that Williams had recently worked with Pence on negotiating the ceasefire between Turkey and Syrian Kurdish forces. Until Williams joined Pence's staff, she was a spokesperson for several years at the US embassy in London, according to her LinkedIn profile. She also held posts at the embassies in Beirut, Lebanon and Kingston, Jamaica.

Williams' testimony joins a stream of other government officials who have given closed-door depositions in recent weeks as House investigators continue their impeachment inquiry stemming from a whistleblower complaint about Trump's July call with Zelensky.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics ... index.html








Kyle Cheney

TRANSCRIPT HIGHLIGHTS: Here's where Taylor lays it all out, under questioning from @Malinowski:
Image

TAYLOR says even the temporary hold on aid to Ukraine may have emboldened Russia and harmed national security.

Image
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/ ... 1951562752





Trump impeachment inquiry: public hearings to begin next week, Schiff announces – live
House intelligence chair announces Bill Taylor and George Kent to testify on Wednesday and Marie Yovanovitch to appear next Friday – follow live

Adam GabbattFirst published on Wed 6 Nov 2019 09.03 EST
Adam Schiff, the House intelligence chair, said: ‘Next week, the committee will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry.’
Adam Schiff, the House intelligence chair, said: ‘Next week, the committee will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry.’ Photograph: Joshua Roberts/Reuters
8m ago 11:42

The open hearings that Adam Schiff will be closely watched and could be incredibly revealing.

Bill Taylor’s behind-closed-doors testimony was particularly damning. Taylor testified that Trump explicitly put pressure on Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to investigate former vice-president Joe Biden.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... iry-latest



IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Documents reveal Perry's role in Trump's Ukraine strategy
George Cahlink and Lesley Clark, E&E News reporters
Published: Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Energy Secretary Rick Perry played a leading role in efforts to operate outside normal diplomatic channels to coordinate White House policy on Ukraine with President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, according to newly released House impeachment inquiry transcripts.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1061473457
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby RocketMan » Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:59 am

A US national security officials are on the FRONT LINES OF LIBERTY and the DEFENCE OF THE FREE WORLD.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby alloneword » Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:29 pm

Facebook are apparently now actively scrubbing mentions of 'Ciaramella'...

Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content “outing of witness, informant, or activist.” We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/ ... ged-to-be/

..which certainly helps dispel any doubts I had. ;)
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby Cordelia » Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:05 pm

And so it began, nonstop, all mainstream media...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp34CJLYhIk
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:45 pm

Adam Schiff is too stupid to pull this off. Dems keep scoring own goals. Trump is getting re-elected.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby overcoming hope » Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:17 pm

Caught some of it on the radio so boring the Democrats leading this are sending their followers into a labyrinth of minutia
overcoming hope
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby Elvis » Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:19 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Trump is getting re-elected.


I was having a good day up until this. :crybaby :crybaby :crybaby :crybaby :crybaby :crybaby


I did watch 20 minutes or so of today's grillings. In Nixon's case the House impeachment hearings came last, after the weeks of riveting Senate hearings. Classes at my high school came to halt so everyone could watch the Ervin committee. Alexander Butterfield was fun. Exciting times. The House impeachment wrap-up had none of the zing of the Ervin hearings, by then all the juicy dirt that was going to come out had come out. This is how I remember it.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7434
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby Grizzly » Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:34 pm

Caught some of it on the radio so boring the Democrats leading this are sending their followers into a labyrinth of minutia


That's the point of all this... Its not about winning it's about stalling. Just like these endless wars. Fuc the DNC
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:39 pm

the most riveting part for me was the republican (Nunes) who is suing a FAKE twitter cow and the republican (Jordan) protecting a serial sex offender asking questions ...they really know how to get to the truth

https://www.salon.com/2018/07/06/fifth- ... ual-abuse/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... day-column



the most fun was wondering if this was Gooliani trying to sneak into the hearings
Image

Image
Image


could have been :P

Image


TIME LINE
8/12/19--whistleblower files complaint
9/9/19- House told of whistleblower complaint.
9/9/19--Sondland and Taylor exchange text messages and Sondland sends scripted "no quid pro quo" text
9/10/19-House asks for info about whistleblower complaint
9/11/19--Ukraine aid released

trump almost got away with it if it had not been for the whistleblower

btw Nixon impeachment
Start date: October 30, 1973

End date: August 9, 1974

Where was trump?

Sitting with his BFF Erdogan


on edit
Gooliani might need to get a better lawyer by tomorrow
Better keep Parnas away from windows, bathtubs and strange-looking cocktails for a few months.... Sounds like he's flipped on Rudy
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... order.html
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby peartreed » Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:00 pm

That mini-skirted maven looks more like Trump himself in disguise! The same makeup, hair and wardrobe style.
User avatar
peartreed
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests