Impeachment Thoughts

[lennygoran]

What a week of hearings and news-I'm watching these developments both today and next week. Of course most important-we need witnesses! Regards, Len


1. 'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired
Trump apparently heard discussing firing Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

"A recording obtained by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York.

The recording appears to contradict statements by Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

"Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/recordi ... d=68506437




2. Impeachment Schedule Explained: Why the Trial Could Last Weeks

The rules adopted by the Senate early Wednesday lay out a timeline for a trial that could be over in two weeks — or stretch much longer.

"Under a clause inserted by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, the rules allow Mr. Trump’s legal team to move after opening arguments to object to pieces of evidence the House impeachment investigators collected in their inquiry. If the president’s legal team did so, it is not clear whether Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would rule on those objections or if the Senate would debate and vote on them, but the process could take some time."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/us/p ... edule.html

"The House managers and president’s counsel can raise objections at any time. The chief justice will rule on most of them but may leave them for the Senate to decide (without debate). Senators will certainly appeal rulings they dislike; those appeals will be decided by majority vote. House managers are itching to request witnesses; they would like to depose additional witnesses — John Bolton, say — and present new evidence. The chief justice could frame these issues in a way that influences pivotal senators’ votes."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ent-trial/






3. Schiff sparks blowback with head on a 'pike' line

"House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is sparking immediate, bipartisan backlash after he referenced a CBS News report saying Republican senator heads will be on a 'pike' if they break with President Trump on the impeachment fight.

Schiff referenced the report as he was in the final stretch of his closing argument on the Senate floor on Friday night.

"CBS News report that a Trump confidant said that GOP senators were warned '... vote against the president and your head will be on a pike,'" Schiff said from the Senate floor. "

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479 ... -pike-line








4. Radio reporter says Pompeo cursed at her after testy interview

"WASHINGTON -- U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cursed at a National Public Radio reporter and repeatedly "used the F-word" in a shouted diatribe after she questioned him about Ukraine and the ousted American ambassador to Kiev in an interview on Friday, NPR said.

Mary Louise Kelly interviewed Pompeo for NPR's "All Things Considered" program, asking him about Iran and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was ousted by President Donald Trump last May, NPR said in a statement. Yovanovitch's removal was a key event in the actions that prompted Trump's impeachment in the House of Representatives.

"Afterwards, Pompeo proceeded to shout his displeasure at being questioned about Ukraine. He used repeated expletives, according to Kelly," NPR said.

"He asked, 'do you think Americans care about Ukraine?' He used the F-word in that sentence and many others," Kelly said, according to NPR.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kelly said Pompeo shouted at her "for about (the) same amount of time as the interview itself." Pompeo then had aides bring a blank map of the world and asked Kelly to show Ukraine, NPR said.

"People will hear about this," Pompeo said after the reporter pointed at Ukraine on the map, according to NPR."

[Holden Fourth]

From an outsiders point of view so take it with a grain of salt.

From the very moment of his election there has been a section of the US political spectrum who adopted a “We was robbed” (I believe that might have been an actual headline somewhere in the media) attitude “and by golly we are going to do something about it.” It’s currently happening here in our own country - depending on who you read or listen to of course.

This seems to be a pointless exercise (unless people see pettiness as having a point). The outcome is predictable. The lower house, which is Democrat controlled, will impeach. The senate, which is Republican controlled, will overturn the Senate’s decision and you are back exactly where you started from.

This is how I, as an outsider, see this and I strongly suspect that I am in the majority group regarding this point of view. We outsiders just see it as a pointless exercise which has had a load of money and effort thrown at it.

[lennygoran]

From an outsiders point of view so take it with a grain of salt...This is how I, as an outsider, see this and I strongly suspect that I am in the majority group regarding this point of view. We outsiders just see it as a pointless exercise which has had a load of money and effort thrown at it.

Sorry you see it that way-well next week will be very important-it may end it but may not stop further investigations-we'll see. What if you saw Trump's taxes and it was proved he cheated? Regards, Len

[Rach3]

Rex Tillerson, hardly a “ we was robbed” guy, correctly stated Trump was a “moron”. Tillerson was too kind by at least half. Corrupt, demented Trump and his GOP lapdogs are the biggest threat to America ever.Ever.

[barney]

I don't see it that way either. I was very surprised that Trump was elected, like most people, and there probably were Russian shenanigans which might even have turned the election. That said, Trump WAS elected and became President, and I accept that (not that my opinion matters a jot). It's what he's done SINCE, as President, that makes it imperative for him to be impeached, in my view, though I know you are absolutely right and he will be acquitted on party lines. But to me that just shows that the Constitution is a waning force in American politics, and it is the Republicans who are destroying it.

It's largely the same here, that standards have collapsed. Look at the Nationals and Bridget McKenzie's very sleazy rorting of sports grants. (For our American friends, the audit office slammed her spending as sports minister of $100 million on sports grants where she targeted her own party's seats and marginals they hoped to win from the Opposition, giving far less deserving cases funds at the expense of much more deserving cases recommended by her own department. To me, this is corrupt.)

When a Labor sports minister did something similar in the 1980s, she was forced out. (Notthat I think that Labor is necessarily any more moral than the Liberals today.) As someone posted on social media: "In the 70s, I remember Andrew Peacock offering to resign when his then wife did a TV ad, perched decorously on a chair, endorsing Sheridan's newly introduced printed sheets. In 1982, Michael MacKellar, a Fraser Government Minister, brought a colour TV into the country, but listed it on the customs form as black and white, therefore avoiding duty. He was sacked, along with the Minister for Customs, John Moore, who handled the issue clumsily. In 1984, when Customs officials searched a suitcase belonging to the wife of Hawke Government Cabinet Minister, Mick Young, they found a Paddington bear. Then, I'm sure to their absolute horror, they discovered that the minister hadn't declared it, therefore dodging who knows how much in duty. Young had to resign until he was judicially cleared. Just a bit of history to show the standards of the Morrison government with Bridget McKenzie hanging on to her job despite the $100 million sports grants."

[Rach3]

Our great President Abraham Lincoln said that you could fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.Unfortunately,bith times occurred together in 2016.

[Holden Fourth]

From an outsiders point of view so take it with a grain of salt...This is how I, as an outsider, see this and I strongly suspect that I am in the majority group regarding this point of view. We outsiders just see it as a pointless exercise which has had a load of money and effort thrown at it.

Sorry you see it that way-well next week will be very important-it may end it but may not stop further investigations-we'll see. What if you saw Trump's taxes and it was proved he cheated? Regards, Len

To clarify, I'm not pro Trump in any way at all. I don't live in the US and from a domestic stand point what he's done doesn't really affect me.

The media have clouded the argument from both sides of the fence and I'm no longer sure if what I read, see on TV, is the full story. Barney comes from a era of journalists where their professional integrity really mattered to them. I'm not so sure that this is true for the majority of today's media.

[david johnson]

I believe nothing will change. Both Trump and those who are mad because Hil lost the election should be fined exorbitantly for nuisance behaviors and the $$ given to orphan's homes and vet hospitals.

[lennygoran]

The media have clouded the argument from both sides of the fence and I'm no longer sure if what I read, see on TV, is the full story. Barney comes from a era of journalists where their professional integrity really mattered to them. I'm not so sure that this is true for the majority of today's media.

What are you unclear about with regard to Trump's offenses-if you only watch Fox News of course you'd not get the truth. For example do you think his call to Zelensky was perfect-what don't you get about abuse of power-do you believe Trump's an honest person-what about the taxes-there's so much good evidence out there against him. Don't you think direct fact witnesses and documents-all of which Trump is not allowing--should be allowed at this impeachment? BTW how come Trump said he doesn't know Lev Parnas-keep those tapes coming! Regards, Len

[barney]

Len, I think it's safe to say that you are following matters with a far greater intensity than most of us. I've followed it a bit, but only by reading a variety of reports. You've been watching the proceedings. And I'm a broken record here, but absolutely there should be evidence and documents. The Constitution charges the Senate with impartiality and proper investigation; the corrupt Republicans made clear from the start there would be none of that. It seems to me that however politically motivated the Democrats may be, there is absolutely a case to answer.

Holden Fourth, that's very acute of you. Integrity was far and away the most important thing to me in my career, although I think it was easier then. I hope you are wrong about modern journalists - most of them, as most politicians do or did, enter their career with high motives but gradually get beaten down. Still, I fear that you may have a point, just as I think that the practice of picking politicians from the political class (such as ministerial advisers), who have been manoeuvring since they left school, rather than the former breeding ground of teachers, farmers etc, has greatly contributed to the loss in quality of standards and debate.

[lennygoran]

And I'm a broken record here, but absolutely there should be evidence and documents.

Barney so true. Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

And I'm a broken record here, but absolutely there should be evidence and documents.

Barney now there's this! Regards, Len [fingers crossed]




Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial.


By Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt

Published Jan. 26, 2020
Updated Jan. 27, 2020, 7:44 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Just after midnight on Monday, Mr. Trump denied telling Mr. Bolton that the aid was tied to investigations. “If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book,” he wrote on Twitter, reprising his argument that the Ukrainians themselves felt “no pressure” and falsely asserting that the aid was released ahead of schedule.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.

During a previously reported May 23 meeting where top advisers and Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, briefed him about their trip to Kyiv for the inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Trump railed about Ukraine trying to damage him and mentioned a conspiracy theory about a hacked Democratic server, according to Mr. Bolton.

The White House did not provide responses to questions about Mr. Bolton’s assertions, and representatives for Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.

He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none.

The submission to the White House may have given Mr. Trump’s aides and lawyers direct insight into what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify at Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying, according to two people familiar with their concerns.

The White House has ordered Mr. Bolton and other key officials with firsthand knowledge of Mr. Trump’s dealings not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Mr. Bolton said in a statement this month that he would testify if subpoenaed.

In recent days, some White House officials have described Mr. Bolton as a disgruntled former employee, and have said he took notes that he should have left behind when he departed the administration.

Mr. Trump told reporters last week that he did not want Mr. Bolton to testify and said that even if he simply spoke out publicly, he could damage national security.

“The problem with John is it’s a national security problem,” Mr. Trump said at a news conference in Davos, Switzerland. “He knows some of my thoughts. He knows what I think about leaders. What happens if he reveals what I think about a certain leader and it’s not very positive?”

“It’s going to make the job very hard,” he added.

The Senate impeachment trial could end as early as Friday without witness testimony. Democrats in both the House and Senate have pressed for weeks to include any new witnesses and documents that did not surface during the House impeachment hearings to be fair, focusing on persuading the handful of Republican senators they would need to join them to succeed.

But a week into the trial, most lawmakers say the chances of 51 senators agreeing to call witnesses are dwindling, not growing.

Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said the Bolton manuscript underscored the need for him to testify, and the House impeachment managers demanded after this article was published that the Senate vote to call him. “There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president’s defense,” they said in a statement.

Republicans, though, were mostly silent; a spokesman for the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, declined to comment.

Mr. Bolton would like to testify for several reasons, according to associates. He believes he has relevant information, and he has also expressed concern that if his account of the Ukraine affair emerges only after the trial, he will be accused of holding back to increase his book sales.

Mr. Bolton, 71, a fixture in conservative national security circles since his days in the Reagan administration, joined the White House in 2018 after several people recommended him to the president, including the Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson.

But Mr. Bolton and Mr. Trump soured on each other over several global crises, including Iranian aggression, Mr. Trump’s posture toward Russia and, ultimately, the Ukraine matter. Mr. Bolton was also often at odds with Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney throughout his time in the administration.

Key to Mr. Bolton’s account about Ukraine is an exchange during a meeting in August with the president after Mr. Trump returned from vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J. Mr. Bolton raised the $391 million in congressionally appropriated assistance to Ukraine for its war in the country’s east against Russian-backed separatists. Officials had frozen the aid, and a deadline was looming to begin sending it to Kyiv, Mr. Bolton noted.

He, Mr. Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper had collectively pressed the president about releasing the aid nearly a dozen times in the preceding weeks after lower-level officials who worked on Ukraine issues began complaining about the holdup, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Trump had effectively rebuffed them, airing his longstanding grievances about Ukraine, which mixed legitimate efforts by some Ukrainians to back his Democratic 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, with unsupported accusations and outright conspiracy theories about the country, a key American ally.

Mr. Giuliani had also spent months stoking the president’s paranoia about the American ambassador to Ukraine at the time, Marie L. Yovanovitch, claiming that she was openly anti-Trump and needed to be dismissed. Mr. Trump had ordered her removed as early as April 2018 during a private dinner with two Giuliani associates and others, a recording of the conversation made public on Saturday showed.

In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.

The president often hits at multiple opponents in his harangues, and he frequently lumps together the law enforcement officials who conducted the Russia inquiry with Democrats and other perceived enemies, as he appeared to do in speaking to Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Bolton also described other key moments in the pressure campaign, including Mr. Pompeo’s private acknowledgment to him last spring that Mr. Giuliani’s claims about Ms. Yovanovitch had no basis and that Mr. Giuliani may have wanted her removed because she might have been targeting his clients who had dealings in Ukraine as she sought to fight corruption.

Ms. Yovanovitch, a Canadian immigrant whose parents fled the Soviet Union and Nazis, was a well-regarded career diplomat who was known as a vigorous fighter against corruption in Ukraine. She was abruptly removed last year and told the president had lost trust in her, even though a boss assured her she had “done nothing wrong.”


Mr. Bolton also said he warned White House lawyers that Mr. Giuliani might have been leveraging his work with the president to help his private clients.

At the impeachment trial, Mr. Trump himself had hoped to have his defense call a range of people to testify who had nothing to do with his efforts related to Ukraine, including Hunter Biden, to frame the case around Democrats. But Mr. McConnell repeatedly told the president that witnesses could backfire, and the White House has followed his lead.

Mr. McConnell and other Republicans in the Senate, working in tandem with Mr. Trump’s lawyers, have spent weeks waging their own rhetorical battle to keep their colleagues within the party tent on the question of witnesses, with apparent success. Two of the four Republican senators publicly open to witness votes have sounded notes of skepticism in recent days about the wisdom of having the Senate compel testimony that the House did not get.

Since Mr. Bolton’s statement, White House advisers have floated the possibility that they could go to court to try to obtain a restraining order to stop him from speaking. Such an order would be unprecedented, but any attempt to secure it could succeed in tying up his testimony in legal limbo and scaring off Republican moderates wary of letting the trial drag on when its outcome appears clear.



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/p ... raine.html

[barney]

Yes, I read that. But the Republicans are so dug in that there is simply no evidence possible that would make them take their responsibilities seriously. I believe Trump was right that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
I'm stopping here. I can feel my blood pressure rising and I'm grinding my teeth. Time for a coffee in the morning sun in the tea-house.

[lennygoran]

But the Republicans are so dug in that there is simply no evidence possible that would make them take their responsibilities seriously.

Barney you're probably right-still I'm hoping there can at least be some witnesses presented-after all it is supposed to be a trial. Regards, Len [sipping his morning coffee]

[Rach3]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics ... index.html

[jserraglio]

WAPO
1/28 12:15 PM

Former Trump chief of staff John Kelly says he believes Bolton, not Trump

John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff from July 2017 through January 2019, suggested Monday that he’d take Bolton’s word over that of his former boss.

Kelly was asked about Bolton’s claim in a yet-to-be-released book that Trump had told him he wanted to make aid to Ukraine contingent on an investigation into the Bidens.

“If John Bolton says that in a book, I believe John Bolton,” Kelly said, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Trump has vigorously denied Bolton’s account.
_________________________________________

Vigorous denial, possibly using Twitter boilerplate . . . ________ worked for me for only a very short time in a very miner capacity (we're doing great things for the coal minors by the way), he was like a WH coffee boy. Actually, I hardly know who he is, couldn't pick him out of a Crowd. I never talked to him, don't even know the man. I guess because I might have swore at him a couple times after he spilled the Coffee, he used some very bad words about me by the way, some very nasty Swear Words, calling me a F---ing Moron, so they're trying to make something out of that. NO COLLUSION!!!! IT'S A HOAX! WHY DON'T THEY LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN INSTEAD?

[barney]

WAPO
1/28 12:15 PM



Trump has vigorously denied Bolton’s account.
_________________________________________

Vigorous denial, possibly using Twitter boilerplate . . . ________ worked for me for only a very short time in a very miner capacity (we're doing great things for the coal minors by the way), he was like a WH coffee boy. Actually, I hardly know who he is, couldn't pick him out of a Crowd. I never talked to him, don't even know the man. I guess because I might have swore at him a couple times after he spilled the Coffee, he used some very bad words about me by the way, some very nasty Swear Words, calling me a F---ing Moron, so they're trying to make something out of that. NO COLLUSION!!!! IT'S A HOAX! WHY DON'T THEY LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN INSTEAD?

Wonderful parody, or it would be if he weren't beyond parody.

[lennygoran]

WAPO
1/28 12:15 PM

Former Trump chief of staff John Kelly says he believes Bolton, not Trump

John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff from July 2017 through January 2019, suggested Monday that he’d take Bolton’s word over that of his former boss.

Unfortunately we seem to be one vote short of getting him as a witness. Regards, Len