The GOP's Impeachment Prayer
Trump cared about corruption (except he didn't) [1]When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated. By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling. - Mitt Romney, Oct 2 2019 [2]13 countries were ranked as more corrupt than Ukraine, yet still received aid
And indeed, Ukraine appears to be the first country that we know about that Trump has actually threatened if it doesn’t root out corruption.The April 21st and July 25th call memos between Trump and Zelensky did not mention corruption
...
According to USAID, Ukraine in fiscal 2018 ranked 25th in the amount of U.S. aid it received — economic, military and other. Of the 24 countries who received more aid, 13 ranked as more corrupt than Ukraine on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. - Aaron Blake [3]
April 21st call memo - Donald J. Trump [4]
July 25th call memo - Donald J. Trump [5]Trump recalled Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who supported anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine
But, in private, many in the diplomatic community in the U.S. and around the world were appalled, believing she had been improperly removed from a sensitive post at a critical moment, as a new president without any previous political experience was taking office in a struggling country in dire need of American economic and military aid in an ongoing fight against Russia-backed separatists.
President Donald Trump said in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Yovanovitch was “bad news” and that she is “going to go through some things,” according to the memo of the call released this week by the White House. But that characterization of her and her performance was contradicted by five current and former officials who spoke to The Associated Press.
The officials described Yovanovitch as a respected and highly skilled diplomat who was carrying out two main missions on behalf of the administration: pressing the Ukrainian government to address long-standing U.S. concerns about public corruption in the East European nation and building support for Ukraine’s effort to fight the separatists. - Ben Fox [6]
Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election (except it was Russia) [7]
The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections - Christopher Wray, Jul 23 2019 [8]
It [interference in our 2016 election] wasn’t a single attempt. They're [Russia] doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign - Robert S. Mueller I I I, Jul 24 2019 [9]Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win
Breaking with their House Republican counterparts, the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the intelligence community properly concluded in January of last year that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to help Donald Trump when Moscow meddled in the 2016 election.
...
The Senate summary noted there were different confidence levels between the National Security Agency and the CIA and FBI about whether Putin and the Russian government were aspiring to help Trump; the CIA and FBI assessed with "high confidence" and the NSA with "moderate confidence." - Jeremy Herb [10]
Trump was better to Ukraine than Obama (except he wasn't) [11]
When Trump entered the White House, he had little interest in helping the Ukrainians—he was more interested in restoring relations with Russia—but his advisers felt otherwise - Fred Kaplan, Nov 1 2019 [12]The Obama Administration aid to Ukraine has made a measurable difference to Ukrainian soldiers
However, there is another, little-known factor: The Javelin anti-tank missiles—the weapons that upped the game and that Obama held back, fearing they would prod Russia to up the game further—have not yet been used in the fighting. In fact, says Charles Kupchan, former director for European affairs on the National Security Council, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown, “They have not been deployed anywhere near the battlefront.”
The Javelins are all in the western part of Ukraine, where U.S. personnel are training some Ukrainian soldiers how to use them, if they ever need to be used—which they haven’t been yet. “They’ve had symbolic and psychological impact,” Kupchan told me in a phone conversation. “They’ve indicated to the Ukrainians that the U.S. has their back and is willing to up the ante.” But they’ve made no difference in the fight on the ground.
What has made a difference is the training, which has improved the quality of Ukrainian soldiers, and the radar, which has let the soldiers detect enemy movements. These goods and services were part of the “nonlethal” assistance that Obama supplied in 2014. Most of the Trump administration’s aid to Ukraine has been more of the same. - Fred Kaplan [12]
There was no quid pro quo (except there was) [13]
After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks - Gordon Sondland, Sep 1 2019 [14]
Did he also mention to me in pass [sic] the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money - Mick Mulvaney, Oct 17 2019 [15]
The White House should stop saying there was no quid pro quo. There was a quid pro quo. - Ben Shapiro, Nov 1 2019 [16]Alexander Vindman testified to Congress that Ukraine aid was held in exchange for a political quid pro quo
In vivid and at times contentious testimony before House impeachment investigators, the senior White House official responsible for Ukraine described what he believed was an unambiguous effort by President Trump to pressure the president of Ukraine to open investigations targeting American politicians in exchange for a coveted Oval Office meeting.
...
Welch asked Vindman if he had any doubt that Trump was asking for investigations of his political opponents “as a deliverable” — in other words, as part of a quid pro quo.
“There was no doubt,” Vindman said. - Shane Harris [17]
The quid pro quo wasn't bribery (except it was) [18]
In fact, the Founders had a broader conception of bribery than what’s in the criminal code. Their understanding was derived from English law, under which bribery was understood as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest. This definition not only encompasses Trump’s conduct—it practically defines it. - Ben Berwick, Oct 3 2019 [19]Withholding publicly funded Ukraine aid in exchange for an investigation into a political opponent for personal benefit is bribery per 18 USC 201
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or - unlisted [20]
It wasn't bribery because it didn't happen (except attempted bribery is still bribery) [21]
Actually, it is. You see, the federal bribery statute, 18 USC 201, defines bribery to include attempted bribery. It’s enough to ‘seek’ a bribe — you don’t actually have to pull your illegal scheme off. - Joyce Vance, Nov 15 2019 [22]
It was all just hearsay (except it wasn't) [23]
It is not ‘hearsay’ when officials are following expressly communicated orders through a chain of command. - Jonathan Chait, Nov 14 2019 [24]David Holmes, staff to Ambassador William Taylor, overheard Trump ask about Ukraine opening investigations
Yesterday, however, William Taylor testified that a member of his staff heard Sondland, in Kiev on a cell phone, speaking with President Trump, and that Trump asked about Ukraine opening “investigations.” After the call, Sondland told the staffer, David Holmes, that Trump’s highest priority in Ukraine was securing an investigation of the Bidens. Today, the Associated Press reports a second staffer, Suriya Jayanti, also heard the call. “The President doesn’t care about Ukraine,” said Sondland, according to CNN, which obtained Holmes’s testimony, “He only cares about the big stuff – the big stuff that benefits him. You know, like investigating the Bidens.” - Jonathan Chait [24]
Those testifying are just NeverTrumpers (except they worked in the Trump administration) [25]
It's so weird how everyone in the trump administration turns out to be a nevertrumper
Those testifying aren't credible (except they are) [26]
We need to show that we are better than that as a nation. We’re talking about decorated veterans who have served this nation, who put their lives on the line. And it is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation... - Elizabeth Cheney, Oct 29 2019 [27]Marie Yovanovitch, was a career diplomat under six different administrations, Republican and Democratic
Marie Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine until she was abruptly recalled from her post in May after a yearlong campaign by Giuliani and others to get her removed. A career diplomat, Yovanovitch testified for more than nine hours on Oct. 11, becoming emotional at times as she described feeling hung out to dry by State Department leadership after giving 33 years of her life as a Foreign Service officer under six different administrations. After she was told at 1 a.m. one night in April to return to the United States “on the next plane,” she tried to find out why her assignment had ended so suddenly. She said she was told, the “president had lost confidence in me and no longer wished me to serve as his ambassador.” She testified that Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told her “that I had done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause.” - Kate Brannen [28]Fiona Hill was the top Russia and Europe expert in the National Security Council
Fiona Hill is the former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council. She joined the NSC in 2017 and stepped down in July. Her testimony reportedly provided details about an explosive exchange between John Bolton and Sondland at a July 10 meeting. The testimony of Bill Taylor corroborated much of her story. Bolton was appalled by Sondland’s discussion of pressing Ukraine to investigate Democrats, including Biden. Bolton told Hill to contact John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the chief legal adviser for the NSC, saying “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Hill testified that she confronted Sondland, who told her that he was in charge of Ukraine policy. When she asked “according to whom?” Sondland answered: the president. - Kate Brannen [28]Vindman, an Army lieutenant colonel, Purple Heart recipient, served as the top Ukraine adviser at the National Security Council
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is an active-duty Army officer and the NSC’s top Ukraine expert. He is a combat veteran and Purple Heart recipient who joined the White House in July 2018 as a detailee from the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was part of the U.S. presidential delegation to Zelenskyy’s inauguration in Ukraine in May, but upon returning to Washington, was told not to attend a debriefing of that trip with the president, because Trump had the wrong impression that Patel was actually the NSC’s Ukraine expert. Vindman testified that around that time he became aware of “outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.” - Kate Brannen [28]Bill Taylor, Vietnam veteran, served as the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine
Bill Taylor was brought in by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to serve as the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine after Yovanovitch was ousted. His career serving the U.S. goes back 50 years, including six years as an infantry officer during which he deployed to Vietnam, and several years as a diplomat and ambassador, representing the U.S. in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine. - Kate Brannen [28]
Trump deserves to face his accuser, the whisleblower (except he doesn't) [29]
The identity of the whistleblower has nothing to do with the credibility of his information. Consider the various programs that reward and protect whistleblowers who come forward with evidence of fraud in matters involving government agencies. These programs explicitly account for the vulnerability of the person reporting the fraud. Whistleblowers risk retaliation and intimidation, both from within their company and from other potential employers who might blacklist them — especially when they report misconduct at high levels of an organization. - Noelle Yasso, Oct 7 2019 [30]Federal whistleblower programs allow people to file reports of fraud under seal
Maintaining confidentiality is crucial to protecting whistleblowers from threats to their safety and from being ostracized. It is also a way to ensure that potential whistleblowers are not discouraged by these risks and to incentivize them to come forward.
For this reason, the majority of federal whistleblower programs allow people to file reports of fraud under seal. The whistleblower’s confidentiality is preserved even as the government investigates the claim.
At no time during the government’s investigation into a company or individuals accused of wrongdoing is the target of the investigation entitled or allowed to “face” the accuser. Nor is the whistleblower allowed to discuss the matter with anyone other than his or her attorney.
As part of its investigation, the government may confidentially interview the whistleblower, interview other witnesses or try to corroborate the report with other evidence. The emphasis throughout the investigation is on the credibility of the whistleblower’s allegations, rather than the identity of the person reporting wrongdoing. - Noelle Yasso [30]
The whistleblower had political motivations (except Trump's own Inspector General backed the complaint) [31]
In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well. - Michael K. Atkinson, Aug 12 2019 [32]The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated
This link contains the full whistleblower complaint and which parts have been corroborated and how - Tamara Keith [33]
The impeachment process is just a sham (except it's not) [34]
You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to be removed from office... It's not about punishment... It's about restoring honor and integrity to the office - Lindsey Graham, Jan 16 1999 [35]
[The impeachment inquiry hearings] going on behind closed doors over which Congressman Schiff is presiding—they are consistent with the rules [of the U.S. House of Representatives] - Andrew Napolitano, Oct 24 2019 [36]
The Constitution provides that the House has “the sole power of impeachment,” and Article I provides further that the House and the Senate each have the power to determine their own rules of internal governance. - Michael Gerhardt, Nov 1 2019 [37]Republicans created the rule to hold interviews behind closed doors
“As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors, the hearings over which Congressman [Adam] Schiff [D-CA] is presiding, they are consistent with the rules,” he noted.Republicans created the rule that committee subpoena power belongs to the majority
“When were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? [Then Speaker] John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority,” Napolitano noted.
He added, “The rules say this level of inquiry, this initial level of inquiry can be done in secret.” - Matt Wilstein [38]
Before the 2015 rule change, most House subpoenas needed at least some bipartisan cover, requiring a majority vote of committee members and consultation with a panel’s ranking member. The change erased those requirements and allowed the chairmen to proceed unilaterally, although the exact rules vary by committee. - Anthony Adragna [39]
Democrats eager to investigate the Trump administration if they seize the House would have the GOP to thank for one of their most potent tools — a sweeping subpoena authority that Democratic lawmakers denounced as an abusive power grab three years ago.The Constitution has allowed Congress to set its own rules and procedures
House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era. - Anthony Adragna [39]
House Democrats add that they don’t want witnesses to be able to coordinate their testimonies. They also point out that the inquiries into Presidents Nixon and Clinton both had independent prosecutors to conduct private interviews of witnesses. Absent such a prosecutor, they say, the committees have to step into the role.Nine individuals, including SoS Pompeo, Giuliani, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry have defied congressional subpoenas regarding the Ukraine scandal
Under the Constitution, Congress is free to set its own rules and procedures – including when it comes to impeachment proceedings. Setting new rules or ignoring precedent is not a constitutional violation, says congressional scholar James Wallner at the R Street Institute, a center-right think tank in Washington.
Past presidential impeachment proceedings did involve a vote in the full House to formalize an investigation, something that hasn’t happened yet in this case.
But there’s no rule requiring a full vote to kick-start impeachment. And committees have broad powers to set their own rules. They do have to meet specific criteria before they can hold closed sessions or depositions as part of a probe, such as whether testimony could threaten national security or incriminate the witness. Still, the majority has near-unilateral power to decide who to call in as witnesses and when those witnesses are heard. - Jessica Mendoza [40]
At present, six of the eight [two individuals on one subpoena] major subpoenas that House Democrats have issued to Trump administration officials and departments have gone unanswered past the deadline set in the request, with the clock rapidly ticking down on the final two, which are due Friday, Oct. 18. - Chris Wilson [41]47 of the 103 impeachment committee members are Republicans
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., as the House Minority Leader, is also allowed to take part in Intelligence Committee proceedings, as is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
According to a press release distributed by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., about 41 Republican lawmakers were scheduled to take part in the protest.
Of those, 13 were members of the three committees. Other participants in the protest, like Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., have been stripped of their committee memberships because they are under indictment. - Nicholas Wu [42]
Republicans claim they have not been able to access relevant documents and testimony from the impeachment hearings, but Democrats disagree and say Republicans have not shown up for the depositions.
Speaking to reporters outside the secure room, Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., said that Republicans had access to all of the transcripts and documents.
Out of the 432 total members of the House, 103 members sit on the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees, of which 47 members are Republicans. - Nicholas Wu [42]
Republicans have denounced the impeachment inquiry as happening in "secret," a "sham," and a "Soviet-style process," but the 47 Republicans on the committees leading the investigation have access to the closed-door depositions. - Nicholas Wu [42]Minority subpoena rules have been consistent with past impeachment inquiries
In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiry resolutions, the minority party on the investigating committee was granted the power to subpoena — something the minority party does not normally have. Subpoenas were still subject to a vote of the committee, giving the majority party a way to block them. - Sarah D. Wire [43]
(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—
(i) by subpoena or otherwise—
(I) the attendance and testimony 7 of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of 23 rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member. - Deirdre Walsh [44]
House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a draft resolution intended to formalize their impeachment inquiry into President Trump. - Deirdre Walsh [44]The House has generously given Trump and his legal team more due process than the constituion affords
Republicans’ defense of President Trump’s pressure campaign with Ukraine has so far been much more about process than substance. Trump’s allies have talked a lot about the unfairness of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, in which, as they tell it, Trump is a beleaguered defendant deprived of his due process rights. In the words of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democrats have cut Trump’s lawyers “out of the process in an unprecedented way.”
The basic sentiment is that the president is being railroaded. But the reality is that when it comes to impeachment, there aren’t any protections for the president laid out in the Constitution. In fact, experts told me that pretty much any rights Democrats give Trump are above and beyond what they’re required to do. Trump hasn’t been charged with a crime and impeachment isn’t a legal proceeding, so he doesn’t have any of the rights you hear about on “Law and Order,” including due process. In the world of impeachment, “fairness” means whatever the majority party in the House of Representatives thinks it should mean.
This means the impeachment process is pretty much destined to give the president less power than he would like, and Trump is no exception. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton also fought for their lawyers to have a bigger role in the proceedings, and ended up with the ability to participate in some way. Similarly, the impeachment resolution that passed Thursday did lay out some ground rules that include Trump’s legal team. As was the case in both Nixon and Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, when the process moves to the Judiciary Committee, Trump’s lawyers will be able to cross-examine and suggest witnesses and present a formal defense. - Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux [45]
This is all just a coup (except it's what The American People want) [46]
Seven in 10 Americans think President Donald Trump's actions regarding Ukraine, which have been outlined in the House impeachment inquiry, were "wrong," and a slim majority thinks he should be removed from office, according to an ABC News-Ipsos poll released Monday. - William Cummings, Nov 18 2019 [47]The American People gave nearly 3 million more votes to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump
Democratic House candidates currently have an 8,805,130 vote lead over Republicans, gaining 53.1% of the more than 111 million votes cast nationwide compared to the GOP's 45.2%, according to the data. The House flipped 41 seats during the 2018 election cycle, and could flip another if California Democratic candidate T.J. Cox, who has overtaken Republican incumbent David Valadao, ultimately wins the state's 21st district. - Khorri Atkinson [48]Americans voted to give the Democratic party a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives
The Democrats won by a wider margin this year than Democrats did in 2006 or Republicans did in 1994 or 2010. They beat the previous record of 8.5 points Republicans won by in 1946. (Note: I'm assigning the Democrats and Republicans the votes for their candidates on other lines via electoral fusion.)
Importantly, Democrats didn't just win because Republicans turnout was low. This year had the highest turnout for any midterm election at 50.1% in the last 100 years.
Turnout was about 35 million more people than it was four years ago, when Republicans expanded their House majority.
The 2018 large turnout allowed House Democrats to win about 10 million more votes than House Republicans. That's the largest raw vote margin in a House midterm election ever.
This wasn't just a blue wave in the House. It was a tsunami. - Harry Enten [49]
The final votes are being counted from the 2018 election. They confirm that the Democrats crushed Republicans. - Harry Enten [49]The majority of Americans support beginning the impeachment process against Donald Trump
[For polls asking to begin the impeachment process, the aggregate of all polls by FiveThirtyEight is above 50% from 10/3 and into November] - Aaron Bycoffe [50]
No comments:
Post a Comment