Nancy Pelosi Instructs House To Proceed With Articles Of Impeachment
[guest post by Dana]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this morning:
“The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution. He is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. The president has engaged in abuse of power, undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections.
Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment.
Before Pelosi’s announcement, President Trump had urged Democrats to make a quick decision with regard to impeachment:
…..trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business. We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify, and will reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is. I was elected to “Clean the Swamp,” and that’s what I am doing!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 5, 2019
After Pelosi’s announcement this morning, President Trump came out swinging:
….This will mean that the beyond important and seldom used act of Impeachment will be used routinely to attack future Presidents. That is not what our Founders had in mind. The good thing is that the Republicans have NEVER been more united. We will win!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 5, 2019
Note:
Trump is alleged to have abused the power of his office by putting personal political gain over national security interests, engaging in bribery by withholding $400 million in military aid Congress had approved for Ukraine, and then obstructing Congress by stonewalling the investigation.
[…]
Based on two months of investigation sparked by a still-anonymous government whistleblower’s complaint, the Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report found that Trump “sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process and endangered U.S. national security.” When Congress began investigating, it says, Trump obstructed the investigation like no other president in history.
And:
In saying that she was instructing “chairmen” to draft the charges, Ms. Pelosi left open the possibility that the other five panels that have investigated Mr. Trump and his administration — including the Intelligence Committee that drew up the Ukraine report and the Ways and Means Committee that has pressed for the release of the president’s tax returns — could also play roles, a break with past practice.
You can read Pelosi’s full statement here.
Have at it.
(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana
Pelosi:
Dana (643cd6) — 12/5/2019 @ 7:55 amTrump:
Go ahead. Make my day.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:22 amSide note served with heaping plateful of disingenuous hypocrisy:
Watch the video clip. Notice how Pelosi makes a point to go back to the podium… nothing calculated in that move. Heh.
Dana (643cd6) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:23 amOf course, most of what follows “the facts are uncontested” are not facts (they’re conclusions – and special pleading conclusions to boot) and are almost entirely, and reasonably, contested. Which is why the only question is whether, and to what extent, the vote against it will be bipartisan (the vote for it will most assuredly be entirely partisan). D.GOOCH
GOOCH (d83d3a) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:23 amTrump is the most corrupt President in modern history. He’s also very very wily and has great political skills. I think he will skate on this. I bet they don’t even censure him. And he may very well win in 2020. So, 5 more years perhaps. After that we will see exactly how the Presidency has changed. Republicans ought to be careful what kind of graft and abuse they incentivize and normalize. But they are officially in F- it mode.
JRH (52aed3) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:30 am@5 “Trump is the most corrupt President in modern history.”
Oh please. D.GOOCH
GOOCH (d83d3a) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:33 amTrump was right about one thing, when he said that Pelosi “gave up on the ridiculous Mueller ‘stuff'”, except this president is ridiculous, not the Mueller report.
Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:48 amP.S. I can’t help but wonder if that “hate” question to Pelosi was planted. My cynicism meter is dialed way up today.
Paul Montagu,
Reporter and Pelosi conspired so that she could huffily return to the mic and grandstand while wearing her powerful white pantsuit! God, I’m so full of disgust at everyone, from Trump right on down the line.
Dana (643cd6) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:56 amThe hate question is something that wouldn’t have been asked 10 years ago. It’s indicative of the times. (her answer made me cringe, but I don’t think she hates him).
JRH (52aed3) — 12/5/2019 @ 9:14 am#8
I couldn’t watch the video… but was it really scripted in that fashion?
Because if so, it feeds the bloody #FakeNews narrative…
It drives me up-the-wall that the media does this. There are plethora of valid criticisms on Trump’s policies/behaviors you can use, but actions like this fuels the #FakeNews narrative which allows Trump to easily deflect.
To those who claims that Trump is blessed for his enemies… I can’t see how you’re wrong.
#5
“most corrupt President in modern history??”
I humbly encourage you to read this article:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-hearings-presidential-misconduct-historical-perspective/
Let me play devil’s advocate here:
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/5/2019 @ 9:42 amDemocrats are lowering the bar here for impeachment… are you willing to support future impeachment efforts in the same manner when roles are reversed? (ie, Democrat White House v. GOP House).
“The hate question is something that wouldn’t have been asked 10 years ago. It’s indicative of the times”
Disagree. 10 years ago Obama was in office and many times objections to his policies by republicans was framed as hateful and racist.
Plus, if you bring in a legal scholar as an impeachment witness who recently said she had to cross to the other side of the street to distance herself from a Trump-owned building, a question about hate (IOW TDS) is entirely proper.
harkin (337580) — 12/5/2019 @ 9:42 amThe reporter asking Pelosi about hate was from Sinclair Broadcasting. It’s unlikely he was a liberal plant.
Victor (a225f9) — 12/5/2019 @ 10:12 amWaiting for the never trumper convention in Milwaukee, many posters here must be excited for the old time Chicago 68 get together.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/5/2019 @ 10:29 amFrom CBS News this morning:
The Senate has cleared its calendar for the entire month of January. They are also talking about subpoenaing Joe Biden (that’s Joe not Hunter, although maybe he’s a possible witness too)
Joe Biden will be in a lot of trouble if he’s asked anything about his speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations on January 23, 2018:
https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden
Do a text search for the first mention of Donbas and you;ll see:
It’s not that, like Donald Trump continued to say that he admitted to stopping an investigation by getting a prosecutor fired, it’s that his whole anecdote about his crucial role in getting a corrupt prosecutor fired by threatening to cancel, or maybe actually cancelling.his appearance at a press conference in Kiev in which he was going to announce a $1.5 billion loan guarantee…
…..never happened.
How long can Joe Biden skate through this without him having to admit that? What can Joe Biden say> That he bad a bad memory, and he dreamed that?
Now that does not have to be the end of his campaign, but it might make a lot of trouble for the impeachment case.
Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1) — 12/5/2019 @ 10:45 am“How long can Joe Biden skate through this without him having to admit that? What can Joe Biden say> That he bad a bad memory, and he dreamed that?”
Do you think the senate will enforce its subpoenas more aggressively than the house has? Seems to me that Biden could just decline to attend.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/5/2019 @ 10:51 amYou’re right, Victor. Like I said, my cynicism meter is dialed up. According to CNN, James Rosen and Pelosi have a history, and he probably knows how to push her buttons.
Paul Montagu (5f10a7) — 12/5/2019 @ 10:53 amThe sad fact is that you cannot impeach someone for things the voters knew when they elected him, or you are impeaching the voters.
So, off the table are his dishonesty, his lies, his boorishness, not to mention his lack of curiosity, learning or intellect — as much as I would use them as charges, the voters chose this turd over the other turd.
What we have left is an instance where he pushed a foreign leader to investigate the son of a likely challenger. This may be mitigated by the son (and maybe the father) being a crook, but it is at least unseemly. You could add in some obstruction charges regarding other matters.
Is it enough? That’s a political question which boils down to “who loses most?” Does the GOP lose more by convicting him or by sustaining him? Do swing-district Democrats (hello, Orange County) lose more by impeaching than they do by not impeaching?
The actual facts no longer matter much, so it’s just politics. We’ll see,
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:20 amSeems to me that Biden could just decline to attend.
That would depend. The Senate is FAR more likely to press contempt charges against Biden than the House was, and you better believe Trump’s DoJ would act on the complaint.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:22 amHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
That’s what Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sundland was telling the Ukrainians in early September after he had already heard from Donald Trump the words “I want nothing.”
And that he (Trump) just wanted Zelinksy to do the right thing and carry out the reform platform he ran on.
Trump hung up the phone before Sondland could question him more closely.
So Sondland decided to tell Zelinsky that he needed to make an announcement of an investigation, and they had decided that he would do it in an interview with Fareed Zakaria that would be done on CNN on September 13, 2019.
He was guessing, and in fact he’d been guessing all along, and William Taylor was very worried that that would not result in the release of the aid: (which was the more important thing)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html
Bldfae mine.
The next day (this is all on Eastern time although they were all in Europe more or less 6 hours ahead)
I never said I was “right”
Lets hope it works.
Is this Trump giving anyone instructions?
Oh yes. It’s supposed to come through Giuliani. Trump’s instructing Sondland trough Giuliani. Now where’s the evidence about that? If this is not disputed it is because it hadn’t even really been alleged.
Is this based on the legal principle that a lawyer is an agent of the client? Is that also now a factual principle? That anything a lawyer does is at the request of the client?
And did this idea come from Giuliani anyway? At that time? If Giuliani told Sondland that does Sondland have confidence that that’s what Trump wants? He clearly doesn’t.
And why does hearsay from Giuliani (supposing it happened and Giuliani said that’s what Trump wants) trump what he hears from Trump himself?
By the way, Sondland in his earliest timeline made the “I want nothing” call to Trump happen on September 9, most likely because his lawyer wanted to be more certain about the details than Sondland in fact was, and he hadn’t budgeted enough time to figure things out. But reading the ext messages it is clear that Sondland is talking about acall he had already mentioned and that call probably took place on September 6 (not 7th – the 7th is when he told Morrison about it)
Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:28 am“The Senate is FAR more likely to press contempt charges against Biden than the House was”
It would definitely be interesting to see Barr, currently himself charged with contempt of congress, start prosecution vs Biden.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:36 amIn a Senate impeachment trial, a subpoena would seem to be issued by the Chief Justice, not the Senate itself (and in any event by request of one of the parties — the House managers or, in this case, Trump’s defense team).
Refusing such a summons would 1) make the news; 2) deprive the defense of a (hostile) witness; and 3) piss off the CJ. I would expect Roberts to set a precedent here.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:41 amIt would definitely be interesting to see Barr, currently himself charged with contempt of congress, start prosecution vs Biden.
Prosecutorial discretion. Obama lived off it.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:42 amAlso, the whistleblower and several admin officials would find themselves served. It’s not just Biden.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:43 amAnd then there’s the high class terminoloy.
A request to Ukraine to check out a specific (wrongheaded – and probably originating with Russian intelligence) accusation against Joe Biden morphs into asking for a sham investigation or a sham announcement (because Trump is a political genius and would never expect the Ukrainians to frame Joe Biden but he might hope they would give him some bad publicity that Joe Biden couldn’t defend himself against)
Or into a fishing expedition or witch hunt.
What are the words?
“trying to corrupt…the election” “jeopardizing the integrity of our elections.”
It’s not even asked whether Trump believed in any of the accusations against Joe Biden, or believed it could be true – it is just assumed he knew it was false.
Well, of course he should have known it was false (based on every bit of evidence)
That doesn’t mean that he actually did.
Look a Trump trying to puzzle it out on September 25:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-zelensky-ukraine-bilateral-meeting-new-york-ny/
Biden didn’t brag about stopping an investigation!
But Trump buys the spin he’s supplied with (by Guiliani or another source but ultimately by Russian intelligence) instead of listening carefully.
Biden never says he pressed to fire the prosecutor in order to stop an investigation
But what does Trump say on July 25?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
According to Alexander Vindman, Trump mentioned hearing a recording in the lost words right before “It sounds horrible to me” (the transcript was put away so fast into the super secret storage system that maybe the process of editing the call record ended early – a NYT story)
Now the investigations of Burisma had more or less been stalled already before Biden’s imaginary) intervention on his 12th ir 13th trip to Kiev (of 6 total) and in his speech, Biden didn’t claim he did to cover up anything, yet that’s what Trump says:
“Undermining our national security” you could argue (badly because this was not vital military supplies, but for the future, and an indication of a continuing alliance) but if you argue that you can drop everything about Biden and about Crowdstrike and about any reason you can imagine and rest your case on the secret hold itself.
Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:53 amThe failure of either major party to move to censure Donald Trump the day after Helsinki says it all about the cowardly self-interests of Congresscritters. When was the last time they exercised the courage of their convictions and actually declared a war?
You can thank the likes of Newtie and his fellow travelers for weaponizing impeachment into a triviality; indicative of lazy-azzed politicians failing persuade while aiding adversaries overseas at the same time. The intent this time is to merely damage for the upcoming election cycle, not remove. Nancy wants the voters to do her dirty work and reap the bennies at the poll while Mitch torpedoes it to save his Senate.
We’re all being manipulated by these twits.
Both these major parties- parties fewer and fewer Americans actually belong to— have done more damage to the U.S. than any overseas adversary could have dreamed. Destroy from within: Calendar Boy Putin isn’t just smiling- he’s beaming in those snappy new suits.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:00 pmHere’s my prediction:
None of these bombshell witnesses are going to happen. Justice Roberts will be running the impeachment trial, not McConnell, and he’s not going to want to preside over a circus. Trump is the one on trial, not Biden.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:01 pm@24. OT on JoeyBee: ‘Plagiarist Calls Voter A Damn Liar.’
And while you’re at it– “get off my lawn,” eh, Joe?
Idiot.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:03 pm@7. “Trump was right about one thing, when he said that Pelosi “gave up on the ridiculous Mueller ‘stuff’”
I’m not so sure of that…it’s likely that an Obstruction Article of Impeachment will be based on some of the Mueller report’s ten actions of the president that fit the definition of Obstruction of Justice, and its statements that:
1) if the Special counsel had been able to clear the president of these potential crimes, it would have done so, and it did not
2) per DoJ guidance, further legal action against a sitting President is reserved for Congressional processes
During Mueller’s testimony to Congress, he stated he wouldn’t answer any specific questions about the president’s potential charges because it is unfair for the government to accuse someone of a crime while not allowing that person to answer the accusation in a formal judicial proceeding.
The Congressional process of Impeachment followed by Senate trial is a formal judicial proceeding overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, during which the President would be able to present a complete legal defense.
It seems likely that in these changed circumstances, Mueller and members of his staff would be able to testify before House Committees on whether they’d recommend charges of Obstruction of Justice based on the ten documented presidential actions, and that they could then cooperate with the House Impeachment Managers (prosecutors) just like they did in the Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos and Stone trials that all resulted in guilty pleas or convictions.
Think it’s of benefit to include clear charges beyond just the Ukraine issues, and this is the clearest of the many other items that could potentially be included.
Purple Martin (34703c) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:14 pm#27
Man DCSCA, you hate Biden almost as much as you hate Goldwater….
Appalled (1a17de) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:35 pm@29. And that’s no malarkey -for sure. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:37 pmEven blacks say they are against impeachment in latest poll.
asset (276037) — 12/5/2019 @ 1:00 pm…because they know the wages of this is to reward McConnell with the gutting of safety net (the food stamp recision is the first salvo), or if it is actually successful, Tulsa centennial.
urbanleftbehind (2c4db4) — 12/5/2019 @ 1:04 pmWhen Pelosi ‘lost it’ w/a reporter at her presser it was quite the tell.
She knows they’ve gone ‘a bridge too far.’ Shudda exercised some authority and initiated smack down censure proceedings a long time ago, dear.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/5/2019 @ 1:10 pmHere’s a musical interlude of some significance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rUOLtbQDk
Gawain's Ghost (6da1c0) — 12/5/2019 @ 1:19 pm8. “Democrats are beclowning themselves” and “Donald J. Trump is unfit for dog catcher, let alone the presidency” are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Gryph (08c844) — 12/5/2019 @ 2:34 pmOne thing: Why did Trump place the hold on he aid, or waht ddi trump really want from Ukraine. He never told anyone, it seems.
I think though, the transcript of the July 25 2019 telephone call makes it pretty clear why Trump withheld the aid. He was thinking about 2019, and not 2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
Trump presumably wants Giuliani to brief Zelensky on who are the bad people in Ukraine. He was inept as an executive, AND NONE OF HIS SUBORDINATES EVER FIGURED IT OUT.
In short, Trump withheld the aid mainly because he thought there were bad people in the Ukrainian government, some of them being the same people who had done whatever he imagined happened in 2016, and he wanted Zelensky to get rid of them.
Sammyu Finkelman (02a146) — 12/5/2019 @ 2:38 pm9. Of course, she doesn’t hate Trump. This isn’t personal. It’s never personal. Politics is a game to simply be won or lost. I don’t know Trump well enough to hate him, myself. I simply believe that he is fundamentally and utterly unfit for elected office of any kind.
Gryph (08c844) — 12/5/2019 @ 2:42 pm36. Be that as it may, I’d say that’s a pretty charitable way to look at this. Even if it is true and Trump held back the aid with the purest of intentions, giving the Dems this kind of opening ought to, at the very least, put to lie the assertion that he’s a political genius.
Gryph (08c844) — 12/5/2019 @ 2:46 pm26. Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:01 pm
But the accusation is that Trump maliciously tried to sic the government of Ukraine onto Biden, so his basis for doing so is important.
It all depends on how important the Senate thinks some witnesses are. If Roberts follows the Rehnquist precedent, he will try to do nothing in particular, and do it very well.
https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1200782803958423552
In the Clinton impeachment it was the Senate which set a limit of three on the total number of witnesses who could be subpoenaed.
So if McConnell (and or Lindsey Graham) understand the situation, and don’t want to look bad themselevs, they may indeed summon Joe Biden.
Sammyu Finkelman (02a146) — 12/5/2019 @ 2:48 pmWho punches your tickets on Amtrak, Joe?
Idiot.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/5/2019 @ 2:50 pmThe Senate determines the rules of its proceedings. The Chief Justice presiding over an impeachment only rules on whether those rules are being followed.
nk (dbc370) — 12/5/2019 @ 2:59 pmIt’s come up before in other impeachments. Alcee Hastings for example. The Senate appointed a 12-member committee to determine the facts and present its report to the full Senate. The facts only, no recommendations as to guilt or innocence. The full Senate “trial” only took four hours — two hours for each side to argue the report of the committee. Hastings challenged the procedure in court and the Supreme Court said “Tough turkeys, we don’t have jurisdiction over Senate impeachment proceedings”.
nk (dbc370) — 12/5/2019 @ 3:11 pm38. now Trump also did want investigations, but that was a secondary matter, and the Biden investigation was secondary to Crowdstrike and the servers. He couched that as a favor.
Now the Democrats have said several things about that. First, of course, there was Adam Schiff trying to say it’s like people from the Mafia (who have to fear the criminal law, though) I think that idea has been dropped.
Then there was the legitimate point that the power disparity made it difficult for Zelensky to say no. True, but that’s not intentional pressure, and it’snot pressure, from Trump’s perspective, to do something wrong, either..
Then, there’s the claim that the request was in fact, in exchange for aid.
Because, look! Hadn’t Zelensky just mentioned the Javelins?
Yes he did. But what Zelensky had said was not that he needed the Javelins but that he (almost) promised to buy them. (Remember all this military aid was not for immediate use, but money to buy weapons.)
Evidently he thought that the reason the aid was slow in coming was that Trump wanted them to “Buy American!”
(Zelensky knew the aid was slow in coming. A person can tell if he didn’t get a check or a direct deposit that he expected. To say that they didn’t know that they didn’t get the money, like Trump tweeted, in his often inaccurate and oversimplified fashion, is ….ridiculous snd impossible.)
It looks to me like Zelensky thought that what could be holding up the aid was that not enough money would be used to purchase weapons from U.S. based companies.
Now the thing is we all know how Trump is concerned about the trade deficit.
That’s a very reasonable thought.
You can see how it goes here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
The point here is that Ukraine didn’t need the Javelins desprately and there was a question as to whether they should spend some of their limited amount of funds that way or not.
Javelins are anti-tank weapons. But Russia had stopped using tanks in the war. Now it was still useful as a deterrent. They were “almost ready,” he tells Trump, to buy the Javelins.
And then another thing; Pamela Karlin said (undoubtedly something she picked up from someone else) Trump said “us” It’s the royal we! Now Trump, true, is identifying his wishes with that of the United States (he’s the president after all) but it’s not the royal we.
And the “favor, though” is for this reason: Trump had spoken about how much the United States was doing for Ukraine – and that
And then Zelensky speaks for awhile and then Trump says that (although Ukraine has not been reciprocal, and he’s not demanding that it be) he would like them to do us a favor, though.
And then speaks not about Biden but about Crowdstrike and the servers. The Democrats have barely mentioned that because to discuss it would reveal that Trump was deluded, and if Trump was deluded it undermines their whole case. Believing Russian disinformation is not grounds for impeachment, and if this was made clear – and it couldn’t be explored too much without becoming clear – there’s a possibility that Trump would realize it, and admit a mistake, and then it really wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment.
Sammyu Finkelman (02a146) — 12/5/2019 @ 4:02 pmThere’s nothing to string out, so lets have the vote with all the D’s voting FOR, and 95% of the R’s voting R and get on with it. The Senate SHOULD be making clear this is a waste of time and an abuse of power, BUT they really want to do the people’s work either. And they hate Trump and his supporters almost as much as the House Democrats.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/5/2019 @ 4:16 pmAnd there’s another problem with thsi whole withholding the aid because Trump wanted an investigation.
Zelensky said YES! to the Biden investigation!
Except that he couched it in terms of Burisma, which indeed legitimately needs to be re-investigated
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
and there are other places in the call where he seaks of co-operation. Throughout the Juky 25 call, Zelensky is promising nothing but co-operaton.
Which of course raises the question: If he was going ahead, could that have been the reason for the hold?
Sammyu Finkelman (02a146) — 12/5/2019 @ 4:42 pmNow I have to explain two more things: Why Zelensky didn’t follow through and why it is still not happening.
The Ukrainians were being quietly urged by Ambassador Taylor and maybe others not to do them, because they needed bipartisan support and this would anger the Democrats. It was probably Ambassador Taylor who discouraged him from investigating Burisma, and if you read between the lines in teh whistleblower complaint you can see that too, except that the whistleblower seems to think it was Sondland and Volker who
That means the whistleblower thought they were discouraging Zelensky from listening to Giuliani. I read that quote as meaning the WB thought Sondland and Volker were telling them to ignore anythin Giuliani said to do that was not backed up by the regular channel – i.e. them NOT to do the investigations.
I think he had the message right, but the messengers wrong. That was mainly, or only, Taylor. Sondland was on the other side. What was the most official channel? William Taylor. Taylor said in various places, including his testimony, that Ukraine needed bipartisan support and could endanger its bipartian support by doing the Giuliani requested investigations, and he told them that.
So I think that while he got the messenger wrong he didn’t get wrong that Ukraine had changed its mind about starting the probes.
You can deduce that the whistleblower thinks they had previously agreed because he writes:
* the time frame is either from mid-May or late May till early July. It’s mid-May in one place, and late May in the other. Mid-may is about the point at which a decision was transmitted to the Vice President’s office that he would NOT be going to the Ukrainian President’s inauguration.
in spite of the fact that Trump had made a promise to Zelensky on April 21 that if he himself wouldn’t come, he’d send very hihh level people to his inauguration. The highest ranking person sent was Energey Secretary Rick Perry.
Also improtant is the significance of the whistleblower ending the timeframe for this in early July. Early July is BEFORE the July 25 call. This termination date of early July was not because the whistleblower’s access to U.S. diplomats was cut off then, because he writes elsewhere that he kearned from multiple U.S. offciaials that on Augist 2, Giulianihad reportedly traveled to MAdrid to meet with Andriy Yermak, one of President Zelesnky’s advisers.
Now if not just a meeting but a phone call between Trump and Zelensky would only happen if Zelensky agreed to “play ball”
AND
The phone call happened on July 25, it folllows that by July 25…
Selensky had agreed to “play ball.”
Now the whistleblower may have a lot of details here wrong but in the call, Zelensky indeed seems to agree to play ball
Sammyu Finkelman (02a146) — 12/5/2019 @ 4:43 pmAnd now?
Zelensky is holding the investigation back now because he doesn’t want to take sides in the impeachment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-president-holds-back-on-probe-linked-to-impeachment-inquiry-11575490990 Ukraine President Holds Back on Probe Linked to Impeachment Inquiry
Politicians, officials say Volodymyr Zelensky wants to avoid getting country more caught up in U.S. politics
…..A dozen members of Ukraine’s parliament this fall decided to seek an investigation by the legislative body of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that in 2014 put then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter on its board. The lawmakers—chiefly from opposition parties but including some members of Mr. Zelensky’s party—submitted a request to the president to give the probe the backing needed for it to proceed…
…More than a month later, they say their request to Mr. Zelensky has gone unanswered, leaving the investigation immobilized, since the president’s Servant of the People party holds an overwhelming majority in parliament. A spokeswoman for Mr. Zelensky didn’t respond to a request for comment.
For the Zelensky administration, Burisma and the allegations around it have become so wound up in U.S. politics that it has decided to hold off taking any actions for now, fearing proceeding would damage Ukraine’s bipartisan support in Washington, according to officials and other politicians.
“Burisma has become so political, that unlike other similar situations, upholding the rule of law has its costs,” said Igor Novikov, adviser to Mr. Zelensky on U.S. affairs.
Progress has also stalled around efforts by the country’s new prosecutor-general, appointed by Mr. Zelensky in August, to review more than a dozen previously closed investigations into Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky and other wealthy, politically connected businessmen.
Sammyu Finkelman (02a146) — 12/5/2019 @ 4:44 pm14. To be clear, because I think I might not have been, CBS News didn’t say anything about Joe Biden l being in a lot of trouble if he’s asked anything about his speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations on January 23, 2018, just about the fact that (some Senators) want to call him as a witness in an impeachment trial.
The rest is my thoughts as to what could happen in that event, and maybe what somebody in the Senate might know and expect to see happen. It will have a good possibility of happening if somebody knows about the problems with Joe Biden’s anecdote.
Joe Biden’s last trip to Kiev (which was his 5th of 6) before Viktor Shokin left his office was in December, 2015; he left office in March, 2016; his replacement, Andriy Lutsenko, was named in April; and Ukraine got the third $1.5 billion loan guarantee only in early June 2016, right after the Ukrainian Parliament Parliament passed a package of U.S. endorsed anti-corruption legislation.
The announcement was made at a press conference at which the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine was present, but not Vice President Joe Biden. hat was Geoff Pyatt, whose replacement, Marie (Masha) Yovanovitch had already been nominated. (She was nominated May 18, 2016 and confirmed by voice vote of the Senate on July 14, 2016. She was abruptly recalled in April, 2016, before Trump could get the Giuliani report on the “bad” people in Ukraine and the “fact” she was associating with them (Trump may even have been under the impression that she was already gone.)
I had my name wrong for the last couple of messages on another computer
Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1) — 12/5/2019 @ 5:36 pmThere must be plenty of people in Ukraine who know the truth about Joe Biden’s anecdote. He only told this tale just this one time, apparently. There are some other ways he claimed he tried to get that prosecutor fired, like telephone calls to Petro Poreshenko.
Sammy, you have twisted yourself into a pretzel on this one. We know that Trump knew what was going on because he says it in the phone call. Trump asked for what he wanted, he told Zelensky that Giuliani would be talking to him on Trumps behalf, and Giuliani did. There are legitimate channels Trump could have gone through to request a legitimate investigation. He didn’t. It isn’t that complicated.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:32 pm”There are legitimate channels Trump could have gone through to request a legitimate investigation. He didn’t. It isn’t that complicated.”
Nic (896fdf) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:32 pm
Legitimate channels said he tinkled on a bed in Moscow, colluded with Russia to rig an election, and texted “Viva le Resistance”.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/5/2019 @ 9:13 pmDoes antifa recruit here?
mg (8cbc69) — 12/5/2019 @ 9:43 pmI think it’s clear at this point that Democrats are obstructing justice and trying to pressure Ukraine not to investigate Burisma because they are afraid of what would be found. That is not in dispute or there wouldn’t be a holdup on the investigation in Ukraine.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/5/2019 @ 10:12 pm@50 Pretty sure the government’s legitimate channels to request an investigation from a foreign government aren’t Fusion. Pretty sure, in fact, that it’s the justice department that is the legitimate channel which has been run by Jeff Sessions and then Bill Barr. I don’t believe either of them have accused Trump of inappropriate urination.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/5/2019 @ 11:51 pmOT- Biden insists he did not ‘lose his temper’ in confrontation w/Iowa voter.
Malarkey.
Idiot.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/6/2019 @ 1:49 amI think they are determined to impeach, but, within that constraint, a majority of the Democratic leadership, including House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, want to make he most plausible case possible. Verdict first, but opinion last.
Trump apparently, doesn’t want to slow the proceedings in the House down if he has no possibility of stopping it. The faster this goes, the more sloppy the case will be, and the easier the defense.
So, from his point of view, why help the Democrats remove flaws from their cases by participating in this proceeding? Let it be as badly flawed as possible. He’ll stop it in the Senate. I can’t say this is an actual strategy of his, or his lawyers, though what he seems to be saying makes sense that way.
Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1) — 12/6/2019 @ 2:33 am@52 The DOJ can launch an investigation any time they want. If they’re not than you should probably tweet trump or bar to get it started if you think a crime was committed. Also, trump wasn’t asking for an ivestigation. he was asking for one to be announced.
Time123 (53ef45) — 12/6/2019 @ 5:29 amLegitimate channels said he tinkled on a bed in Moscow,
as well as many others, but then he started wearing Depends;
colluded with Russia to rig an election,
and they sent their top female agent to meet with Don Jr., Jared, and Manafort but all she was interested in was repealing the Magnitsky Act;
and texted “Viva le Resistance”,
which is “Lyddle’ Covfefe” in French.
nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2019 @ 5:34 amAnd guess what else Trumpablicans ain’t gittin’ in their stockin’:
Read the whole thing.
nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2019 @ 5:38 amEven Steve Bannon said that meeting with Veselnitskaya that Don Jr. arranged was treasonous. Treasonous! Steve Bannon!
nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2019 @ 5:42 amOT, but catnip for a certain old man:
http://www.axios.com/joe-biden-interview-axios-hbo-bf5df4b3-c627-4390-acde-0ec8d44f6915.html
urbanleftbehind (9a7be6) — 12/6/2019 @ 6:11 am”Read the whole thing.”
nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2019 @ 5:38 am
Yeah, read the whole thing — so you can get that unique Politico context. LOL
Sometimes the hypocrisy in Washington is so bad it is almost laughable. The House impeachment witch hunt reached that level this week with the revelations that Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had acquired and published personal phone records of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., (the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee), two of President Trump’s personal attorneys, and an investigative journalist Schiff doesn’t like.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-schiffs-release-of-phone-records-is-absolutely-outrageous-heres-what-has-to-happen-next
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/6/2019 @ 7:55 amThat’s not even Faux News, emphasis on “News”, it’s Faux News *Opinion*, with the opinionator pulling the allegation out if his hat, a red, baseball-type MAGA hat.
nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2019 @ 8:01 amAnd, Politico is news because it says right there, “News”. LOL
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/6/2019 @ 8:07 amSo Politico made up a fake quote from Graham?
nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2019 @ 8:24 amI’m sorry, you’re asking if Politico conveniently omitted the context of the quote? Why, yes — yes, they did. Glad you asked.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/6/2019 @ 8:40 amSen Rand Paul wrote that piece.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/6/2019 @ 8:42 amYes, NJRob, I know. They are neither Nunes’s nor reporter Solomon’s phone records. They are Rudy Giuliani’s and Lev Parnas’s phone records and show calls to and from Nunes and Solomon.
nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2019 @ 9:15 amBased on the evidence testified to under oath I think it’s reasonable to conclude that President Trump used US military aid to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden. Using the power of the office to push a foreign government to attack a political rival is an abuse of power, and in lower offices which are more constrained by law would be a crime. Because of this I think he should be impeached.
I’m open to mitigating arguments but none have been presented under oath or in a way that can be cross examined.
I could get my head around censure instead of removal, but I can’t see not impeaching him at this point. I really don’t want a future president to be able to couple that precedent with a higher level of sophistication/plausible deniability and do similar, or worse, things to their political rivals. I’m skeptical of slippery slope arguments in general, but given that recent violations of political norms have demonstrably escalated I thin it’s a valid concern.
Time123 (af99e9) — 12/6/2019 @ 11:58 amInteresting commentary on what experts on Impeachment should’ve been about:
whembly (51f28e) — 12/6/2019 @ 12:23 pmhttps://www.theepochtimes.com/what-the-expert-panel-should-have-told-you-about-impeachment-but-didnt_3166413.html
Time123 (53ef45) — 12/6/2019 @ 5:29 am
That’s waht they are saying now.
It was Gordon Sondland who asked for that after Trump had told him “I want nothing.”
It was his idea or possibly Giuliani’s but I don’t know when Giulliani might have suggested that. I read something where soimeone wrote iin the spring.
Neitehr Trump nor Sondland was not looking for a phony announcement. Sondland suggested an announcement because that is what could happen fast.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/6/2019 @ 12:53 pm@68. “Based on the evidence testified to under oath I think it’s reasonable to conclude that President Trump used US military aid to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden. Using the power of the office to push a foreign government to attack a political rival is an abuse of power, and in lower offices which are more constrained by law would be a crime. Because of this I think he should be impeached.”
Well-said. in saner days this would not be controversial.
JRH (52aed3) — 12/6/2019 @ 12:58 pmDCSCA (797bc0) — 12/6/2019 @ 1:49 am
He just oretended to get alittle angry to shut him up.
The Iowa voter had it wrong because he had Biden Sr finding his son that job. I doubt it. Biden would ahve chosen something more safe like membership on the board of Amtrak.
Which hw in fact did. Hunter Biden found that job himself.
The Wall St Journal editorial page also has it wrong today.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiff-impeaches-biden-11575591017
The prosecutor was NOT at the time of Biden’s imaginary intervention, (as cited in his speech) investigating Burisma. That is added disinformation, supplied by Ukrainioan crooks to Giuliani with no basis in any fact.
Malarkey.
Idiot.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/6/2019 @ 1:02 pmCan somebody find out for me the date that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was told to take the next plane home? That’s just alittle bit ahead of when Trump was going to act on corrutin (it interested him because he was told they were the dame people who tried to take him down in 2016)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/6/2019 @ 1:03 pmSprry I didn’t mean to re-quote
Biden as I sad was acting a little angry (outraged actuallY) and he was right on that point.
He didn’t tell his son Hunter to take that job.
Why do people oversimplify and make worse?
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/6/2019 @ 1:05 pm49. Nic (896fdf) — 12/5/2019 @ 8:32 pm
Sammy Finkelman (592d97) — 12/8/2019 @ 10:43 amWhile Spnd;and reported what he did to the State De[artment, it is not clear how much got through to Trump. As far as pressure is concerned, no we don’t, because everyone putting on pressure, which was mostly, if only Sondland, was completely guessing what was needed to lift the hold, as is seen in the text messages I quoted above.
Which I quoted.
And it wasn’t to get an investigation of what seems to be an allegation of Ukraine (falsely, in his version of the facts?) blaming Russia for hacking the Democratic National Committee, and it wasn’t Biden/Burisma, but it was getting rid of the influence of the same corrupt people who, he was told, had been influencing the recalled Ambassador, Marie Yovanovich. Only he was inarticulate about it.
Here it is, again:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
Why important? Because it related to the future. And he doesn’t mean important for himself, for the 2020 election – becaise why should finding out about the 2016 election be important for 2020? Well, maybe you could say he thinks the same people are going to work against him.
Sammy Finkelman (592d97) — 12/8/2019 @ 3:49 pm