Impeachment Inquiry of Donald John Trump

[TopHatter]

As Inquiry Widens, McConnell Sees Impeachment Trial as Inevitable

WASHINGTON — It was only a few weeks ago that the top Senate Republican was hinting that his chamber would make short work of impeachment.

But this week, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, sat his colleagues down over lunch in the Capitol and warned them to prepare for an extended impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

According to people who were there, he came equipped with a PowerPoint presentation, complete with quotes from the Constitution, as he schooled fellow senators on the intricacies of a process he portrayed as all but inevitable.

Few Republicans are inclined to convict Trump on charges that he abused his power to enlist Ukraine in an effort to smear his political rivals. Instead, McConnell, R-Ky., sees the proceedings as necessary to protect a half-dozen moderates in states like Maine, Colorado and North Carolina who face reelection next year and must show voters they are giving the House impeachment charges a serious review.

It’s people like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who will be under immense political pressure as they decide the president’s fate.

“To overturn an election, to decide whether or not to convict a president is about as serious as it gets,” Collins said.

McConnell is walking a careful line of his own in managing the fast-moving impeachment process. On Friday, the senator wrote a scathing op-ed criticizing the president’s decision to pull back troops from northern Syria, calling it a “grave strategic mistake,” without naming Trump. But McConnell, who is known for his ruthless partisan maneuvering, also views it as his role to protect a president of his own party from impeachment, and in a recent fundraising video, he vowed to stop it.

The mood among Republicans on Capitol Hill has shifted from indignant to anxious as a parade of administration witnesses has submitted to closed-door questioning by impeachment investigators and corroborated central elements of the whistleblower complaint that sparked the inquiry.

They grew more worried still Thursday, after Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, undercut the president’s defense by saying that Trump had indeed withheld security aid from Ukraine in order to spur an investigation of his political rivals. Mulvaney later backtracked, but the damage was done.

“I couldn’t believe it — I was very surprised that he said that,” said Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., who mocked Mulvaney’s attempts to take back comments, that had been broadcast live from the White House briefing room.

“It’s not an Etch-A-Sketch,” Rooney said, miming the tipping movement that erases the toy drawing board. “There were a lot of Republicans looking at that headline yesterday when it came up, I certainly was.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who is seen as potentially open to removing Trump from office — told reporters that a president should never engage in the kinds of actions that Mulvaney appeared to acknowledge.

“You don’t hold up foreign aid that we had previously appropriated for a political initiative,” she said. “Period.”

Still, Republicans said they did not detect a significant shift that would pose a serious threat to the president in the Senate. It would require 20 Republicans to side with Democrats in convicting Trump, and few observers believe that will happen.

McConnell, his allies said, regards the impeachment fight in much the same way as he did the struggle last year to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, in which he was primarily concerned with protecting his Senate majority by insulating vulnerable incumbents. Then, as now, they said, McConnell is focused on keeping Republicans as united as possible, while allowing those with reservations about Trump’s conduct and their own political considerations to justify their decision to their constituents.

“I think he will play it straight,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a close McConnell ally, who noted his party’s narrow voting margin. “I don’t think he has any alternative. When you are operating with 53 you have thin margins and you can’t jam anybody or you end up with undesirable consequences.”

McConnell has told colleagues he expects the House to impeach Trump quickly, possibly by Thanksgiving, an educated hunch based on the pace of the inquiry so far and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to keep the inquiry narrowly focused on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. He plans to move swiftly too, he told colleagues, using the approach of Christmas to force the Senate to complete its work before the beginning of 2020.

Yet an impeachment trial is a spectacle that is by its nature unpredictable, and most of the senators who will act as jurors were not around for the last one, of Bill Clinton in 1999. McConnell reminded senators that Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over the trial, and would have wide latitude in handling motions that might be made, including any motion to dismiss the charges that Republicans might try to put forward to short circuit the process.

McConnell’s declaration that the Senate would move forward was in part designed to show he had no choice, an effort to deflect criticism from conservatives outraged that the Senate would even consider impeachment.

On Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pushed for Senate Republicans to write a letter to Pelosi declaring that they would not remove the president. But some senators raised objections, worrying that some of their colleagues would not want to sign on, a result that would expose disunity among Republicans. Graham’s colleagues said they believe they staved off the letter, which they viewed as a mistake.

McConnell has made it clear that he plans to sit down with Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to see if they can find a mutually acceptable way to move forward as Democrats and Republicans did in 1999 when they unanimously agreed on the framework for the impeachment trial. The Senate is much more polarized now, though Schumer this week held out hope.

“We have to do this trial in a fair and bipartisan way and I hope that Leader McConnell would obey those strictures,” Schumer said. In the battle for Senate control, Democrats have their own political risks to consider since impeachment could prompt a backlash against some of their candidates if enough voters conclude that the president was pursued unfairly.

Just 15 senators remain in office from the time Clinton was put on trial. McConnell warned them of the weight of the trial, where they can be required to be on the floor all afternoon six days a week without speaking — a major challenge for senators who relish their chances to be heard.

“It will mean day after day sitting in chamber, listening to the two sides, writing questions for them to answer that go through the chief justice,” said Collins, one of the Republicans who voted to acquit Clinton 20 years ago. “Members who have not been through this before will find it is a great deal of work.”
_______________________

One of those most satisfying aspects of impeachment (besides the horrific psychological effects it'll have on Trump) will be watching Senators being forced to both work and be silent.

Conviction or acquittal, this is going to be entertaining after the last 3 years of watching Trump shit all over the Constitution and the Republicans enabling him every step of the way.

Speaking of impeachment, once the House votes...I wonder how much more obstruction of justice Trump will be able to engage in without further digging his own political grave?

[TopHatter]

I suspect the decision to host the G7 leaders at a Trump resort may soon feature regularly on this thread. This is precisely the sort of easily understood issue that Congress might decide to take on, especially as it is directly addressed by the Constitution. It is so symbolic of Trump's 'the President can do anything he wants' attitude.

For anyone curious, check out Fox contributor Andrew Napolitano - not exactly a flaming liberal.

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-ju...cision-1466094

I wonder if Trump's serial violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 will be one of the articles of impeachment...Certainly this could be Exhibit A.

Regarding Andrew Napolitano, somebody here on the WAB once dismissed him as "more of a libertarian"...as if that somehow negates his criticism of Trump.

[Bigfella]

I wonder if Trump's serial violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 will be one of the articles of impeachment...Certainly this could be Exhibit A.

It is sufficiently blatant that proceeding on it would make sense. I get the impression Pelosi wants to keep the focus pretty tight here, so it isn't clear if this will get used or not. Of course, it hasn't happened yet. They could still move it to Camp David or somewhere else.

Regarding Andrew Napolitano, somebody here on the WAB once dismissed him as "more of a libertarian"...as if that somehow negates his criticism of Trump.

I increasingly get the impression that Trump apologists divide the world into 'fer/agin', and if you are agin then it doesn't matter who you are or what your credentials are. If Reagan rose from the grave and attacked Trump the mob would decry him as a RINO and enemy of America.



Afternoon edit: Looks like Trump isn't going to risk it - summit moved.

[TopHatter]

I increasingly get the impression that Trump apologists divide the world into 'fer/agin', and if you are agin then it doesn't matter who you are or what your credentials are. If Reagan rose from the grave and attacked Trump the mob would decry him as a RINO and enemy of America.

No doubt about it. Look at the list of (former) conservative icons and totems that Trump that has shit all over...and Trump's legion of sycophants haven't so much as blinked. Heh, Jim Jones was a rank amateur.

Afternoon edit: Looks like Trump isn't going to risk it - summit moved.

Rare instance of somebody(s) (Moscow Mitch?) getting through that thick narcissistic "I'm above all law" head of his that G7 at Doral was a red-hot danger zone for him. Damn shame, would've been fun to see the fallout from that.

[TopHatter]

Sen. Lindsey Graham indicates he may support Trump impeachment if inquiry establishes 'quid pro quo'

Sen. Lindsey Graham has become one of President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders on Capitol Hill.

But Graham – who sharply opposed Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria this month – said in an interview with Axios that he will not support the president "at all costs."

And the South Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee did not rule out voting to convict Trump if he is impeached in the House and more evidence against him comes to light.

"Sure," Graham said when asked if there was anything that could persuade him to support Trump's impeachment. "Show me something that is a crime. If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing."

Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry centered on the allegation that he withheld military aid to Ukraine as leverage to prompt that country's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, into investigating claims that former Vice President Joe Biden used his influence to oust a prosecutor who was looking into a company tied to Biden's son Hunter Biden.

But officials in the U.S. and Ukraine who have looked into the matter concluded neither Biden was guilty of any wrongdoing.

Trump also wanted Zelensky to look into a claim that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign and that a missing DNC server could offer proof. Trump's former homeland security adviser Thomas Bossert has said the idea is "a conspiracy theory" that has been "completely debunked."

One of the primary pieces of evidence that have been made public in the impeachment inquiry is a summary of a July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky in which Trump said he would need a "favor though" after Zelensky said he would like to buy more missiles from the U.S.

Graham has been highly critical of House Democrats' handling of the impeachment inquiry (calling it a "sham" and a "charade"), as he was of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. And he has consistently said he does not think the transcript of the July 25 call established proof of a "quid pro quo" tying the release of aid to the opening of investigations – though many congressional Democrats say the transcript itself proves Trump's guilt.

That position conflicts with statements made by Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who told reporters last week that an investigation into Ukraine's role in the missing DNC server was one of the conditions that had to be met before the aid was released. He did not deny a quid pro quo and indicated he felt there would be nothing wrong if Trump had asked for one.

Mulvaney has since retracted those comments, telling Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday, "There was never any connection between the flow of money and the server."

Mulvaney said he "didn't speak clearly" and "folks misinterpreted what I said."

"You said what you said," Wallace told him.

Mulvaney's comments were made after Axios' interview with Graham, which was taped on Tuesday. But Axios reported that Graham's spokesman Kevin Bishop said on Friday that Graham "still has not heard or seen anything that he deems impeachable."

On Sunday, Graham told Fox News he supports Trump's call for an investigation into corruption in Ukraine that includes a look at 2016 election interference.

"I think Ukraine was involved in the 2016 election. I think they were trying to hurt Trump. They may have been working with the Democrats," Graham said on "Sunday Morning Futures."

He called for "somebody to look at Ukraine involvement in our 2016 election like Mueller looked at the Russian involvement."
____________________

What a truckload of bullshit. Graham will support impeachment and/or conviction when Trump's approval ratings drop below 30 percent, and not before.

Quid Pro Quo: "Something for Something" Trump said he wanted something after pointing out all the great things the US has done for Ukraine.
Mulvaney clearly admitted that was the case and even told reporters to "get over it". You "get over" something that's upsetting...so what was Mulvaney talking about if not quid pro quo...which was EXACTLY what the reporters were asking him about.

[astralis]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5ce_story.html

Bowing to Republican criticism, the president abandoned his push to host next year’s Group of Seven summit of industrialized nations at his Trump National Doral Miami resort. But he kept talking up his private club Monday and slammed the constitutional clause that forbids presidents from profiting from the office.

“George Washington, they say, had two desks. He had a presidential desk and a business desk,” Trump said. “You people with this phony emoluments clause.”

[TopHatter]

“George Washington, they say, had two desks. He had a presidential desk and a business desk,” Trump said. “You people with this phony emoluments clause.”

"Phony...Emoluments...Clause..."

"I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...except the parts that I think are phony. I'll start with Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and work my way around....so help me God"

How? How is anyone still defending this pile of hammered dog shit?

[TopHatter]

Top U.S. Diplomat In Ukraine Offers Damning Testimony

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. emissary to Ukraine painted a devastating portrait in testimony Tuesday on Capitol Hill of what appeared to be White House-directed efforts to pressure the government in Kiev to investigate a Democratic political rival.

American diplomacy was conducted along two “channels,” according to William B. Taylor Jr., the senior U.S. diplomat to Ukraine. As Taylor explained to congressional investigators on Tuesday, one was the “regular, formal” channel, which included “the bulk of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion” that has been a persistent threat for a half-decade.

It is the other, “irregular, informal” channel that is of interest to members of Congress.

Guided by Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now a personal lawyer for President Trump, the irregular efforts described by Taylor were intended to force the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden.

Hunter Biden sat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that has been accused of corrupt practices. He no longer has any ties to Burisma, but his father is running for president, and some of President Trump’s allies see Hunter Biden’s business dealings as potentially damaging to the former vice president — and therefore helpful to Trump’s chances of winning reelection next year.

Democrats, for their part, have opened an impeachment inquiry into efforts by Trump and Giuliani to exert pressure on Ukraine to launch an investigation into Biden.

Right around the time that Taylor prepared to testify in a closed-door hearing room on Capitol Hill, Trump attempted to cast himself as the victim of a “lynching.” But using the language of racist violence appeared to quickly backfire, with even some Republicans denouncing him. In one poignant rebuke, Michael Steele, the first and only African-American head of the Republican National Committee, tweeted the photo of a lynched black man hanging from a tree.

“It’s pathetic that you act like you’re such a victim,” Steele wrote. “You should know better.”

As details of Taylor’s testimony became public, it was clear that Trump’s day was only going to get worse. In his opening statement, which was provided to the Washington Post, Taylor described ongoing efforts throughout the spring and summer of 2019 to withhold some $400 million in assistance from Ukraine — including $250 million in military aid — unless Ukraine launched an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens. Giuliani and others were also adherents of a conspiracy theory that elements within Ukraine interfered on Hillary Clinton’s behalf in the 2016 presidential election.

In his opening statement, Taylor described the “confusing and unusual arrangement” he encountered when arriving in Kiev in the late spring of 2019, in which Giuliani and others “operated mostly outside of official State Department channels.” Taylor appeared to implicate the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, in the Giuliani-led push for a political investigation by the new Ukrainian government.

For example, on June 27, Sondland allegedly told Taylor that if Zelensky expected an Oval Office meeting, he “needed to make clear” that he “was not standing in the way of ‘investigations,’” according to Taylor’s opening statement.

“By mid-July,” Taylor told congressional investigators, “it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.” (The national security establishment believes that interference in the 2016 election was conducted by Russia, not Ukraine, and that it was on behalf of Trump, not Clinton.)

Taylor added that it was “clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.”

Additional pressure came from the Office of Management and Budget, which halted the military aid that had been appropriated by Congress the year before. Like many Pentagon officials, Taylor was confused by the hold. “I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened,” he said in his congressional testimony.

Ukrainian territory has been occupied by Russian-backed forces since 2014. The aggressive administration of Vladimir Putin wants to reassert its control over much of eastern Ukraine, which it sees as a kind of Russian birthright. American assistance has been critical in holding back those efforts.

But according to Taylor, the Giuliani team saw things differently, subordinating national interests to Trump’s political prospects. “Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman,” Taylor said in his testimony. “When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”

Taylor plainly disagreed. “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” he said at the time.

The president’s critics are bound to see, in Taylor’s detailed testimony, the very kind of quid pro quo arrangement that they believe to be firm grounds for impeachment. Indeed, Democrats who were privy to Taylor’s hours-long testimony described it in dramatic terms.

“This testimony is a sea change. I think it could accelerate matters,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass. Meanwhile, Rep. Andy Levin, D-Mich., called it his “most disturbing day” since he entered the House of Representatives 10 months ago.

Several more national security and diplomatic officials will testify later this week. They are expected to confirm much of what Taylor said on Tuesday.
______________

[astralis]

christ jesus, if Minskaya was still around, she would call a lightning bolt on Trump's head.

[Bigfella]

Taylor is basically the antithesis of everything Trump stands for - a guy who volunteered for Vietnam & then spent most of his career serving his nation in a variety of (mainly foreign) postings, including a stint in Iraq. In other words, someone whose career is defined by putting his nation first and who can't be bought off.

Watch Trump and his supporters go absolutely feral over this guy.

Anyone remember when Republicans used to respect war veterans & patriots? Seems so long ago now.

[Bigfella]

christ jesus, if Minskaya was still around, she would call a lightning bolt on Trump's head.

What makes you think she isn't doing it from beyond the grave. :-)

[TopHatter]

Taylor is basically the antithesis of everything Trump stands for - a guy who volunteered for Vietnam & then spent most of his career serving his nation in a variety of (mainly foreign) postings, including a stint in Iraq. In other words, someone whose career is defined by putting his nation first and who can't be bought off.

Watch Trump and his supporters go absolutely feral over this guy.

Anyone remember when Republicans used to respect war veterans & patriots? Seems so long ago now.

All I can remember is Trump shitting all over US POWs, a Gold Star family, and numerous respected generals, such as James "The World's Most Overrated General" Mattis....and his base saying nothing. Or finding excuses for him saying it.

That's hardly a surprised though, considering how easily and with a light heart they are able to overlook the bigotry, the serial sex predation, the pathological lying and on and on and on and on....

There's literally nothing they won't give him a pass one. And he knows it.

Like I said, he makes Jim Jones look an amateur...not to mention a saint from heaven.

[Mihais]

I have yet to see one that completely ignores Trump's flaws.But also to see one of his opponents that actually gives a damn about why his base is willing to overlook such a character.And the reason is very easy to find and is that the alternative to Trump is considered loathsome by his base.Why is this the case?In short,in foreign policy it means more war in the Middle East,appeasement to the only actual threat to the US that is China.In internal matters,it means more migration and more ''social change''.
Frankly,Trump's presidency has been a failure,even when it comes to fulfilling his base's aspirations to an acceptable degree.But there is no ending of the issues that saw him elected in the first place,only of emphasizing them.

[astralis]

the reason why you don't see it is because Trump's positions are not popular with the Democratic base, which has moved from inland blue-collar workers to the coastal middle-class/upper-middle class.

and within the context of the overall US populace, those positions aren't popular either...and get less popular on a daily basis as the US continues to diversify and undergo generational transition. it is essentially a problem that will largely solve itself, whether in this upcoming election or the next.

[astralis]

as a straight mathematical demonstration of this-- assuming that -every- trend remains the same except for demographic change, generic Dem X would increase on Clinton's popular-vote margin from +2.1% to +3.2%, and win the EC 279-259.

obviously trends can be beaten, as Trump showed in 2016, but why would a Democratic candidate use a political strategy that involves trying to win a shrinking voter pool?