WTF Community

The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

General Discussion
, , , ,
#935

Absolutely! Thanks for that link. A couple highlights:

Firtash is an “upper-echelon” associate of Russian organized crime, according to a 2017 Justice Department court filing. He told a U.S. ambassador of his consultations with the notorious Russian mob boss Semion Mogilevich, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable…

As the founder of RosUkrEnergo, Firtash acted as a middleman between the Russian and Ukrainian national natural gas companies, and allegedly played a central role in a corrupt scheme to use the profits from reselling cheap Russian gas to fund pro-Russia political forces in Ukraine.

Firtash worked with Paul Manafort on an abortive effort in 2008 to redevelop a New York hotel for $895 million. Firtash also reportedly played a role in Manafort’s 2005 hiring as a consultant to the Party of Regions, the pro-Russian political party of which Firtash was a major backer.

John Herbst, who served as ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, said the association with Firtash undermines the entire effort by Trump allies to push for investigations of the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian election interference. "The Giuliani team does not understand Ukraine. If it did, members of his team would not be representing Dmytro Firtash, perhaps the most odious oligarch in Ukraine,” said Herbst, now director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council. “Shokin’s defense of Firtash underscores that he was never and is not today a fighter against corruption.”

“It’s preposterous,” said Adrian Karatnycky, a Ukraine expert and former president of the pro-democracy NGO Freedom House, of the story laid out in the affidavit. Pointing to Firtash’s Kremlin ties, he said, "There is now a distinct possibility of a Russian hand in all this.”
…
And Firtash isn’t the only Ukrainian oligarch with big legal problems who now faces questions from investigators: On Monday, the House Oversight Committee demanded documents and communications related to influential billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky as part of its subpoena of Giuliani.

The involvement of Kolomoisky and Firtash complicates the already mind-boggling array of factions and agendas that form the backdrop of the Ukraine scandal. Because both face potential criminal liability in the U.S., both have reason to align themselves with Trump and try to ingratiate themselves to the president’s allies, according to Ukraine experts.

But the exact nature of Kolomoisky’s role in this saga isn’t yet clear. …

The rest of the article gives some fascinating background on Kolomoisky and his possible connections to this scandal, but at this point he’s still in the “watch this space” category.

3 Likes
#936

I was saving for a rainy day. Thanks putting this into context. It really helps to see it all laid out and to have someone else confirm that I’m not going crazy. :crazy_face:

3 Likes
#937

Here’s the Maddow segment - discussing how Giuliani’s relationships with Igor and Lev as their lawyer as well as the President’s lawyer.

Here is a breakdown of how T got people removed from Ukraine, US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

Also, here’s how they all were linked with Giuliani at the forefront, manipulating all of them. The one way flights to Vienna for the these two, and subsequently for Giuliani
meant there was something cooking there.

At 13:15 = Maddow talks about what could be awaiting them in Vienna…Firtash, and Rudy holds up the propaganda document which was created by FIRTASH.

So listen how she ties in Rudy and Firtash and the others. You have to conjecture that Rudy knows Firtash with this document.

@Keaton_James and @Pet_Proletariat -maybe worth watching for some links.

2 Likes
#938

The adage that T 'n Co have no guardrails…well, they also do not have competent staff either, as they sent out for a SECOND TIME the R’s talking points after Amb Yovanovitch’s 9 hour testimony to the Dems.

Truth is weirder than fiction for sure… :tipping_hand_woman:

The White House accidentally sent Democrats a list of talking points related to ex-Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s Friday House deposition, two sources with knowledge of the email told The Hill, the second time in a month the administration has sent its Ukraine talking points to Democrats.

The email included guidance for Republicans seeking to defend the president from potentially damaging witness testimony from an ambassador who was removed from her post in May under controversial circumstances.

In copies of the guidance shared with The Hill, the White House encouraged Republicans to adopt a series of messages designed to turn the tables back on Democrats, including attacks on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) handling of the investigation.

Yovanovitch told House lawmakers that she was removed after “a concerted campaign" against her from President Trump and his allies.

She also said in her opening statement that the State Department had "been under pressure from the president to remove me since the summer of 2018."

Yovanovitch’s ouster came two months before Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president — now at the center of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry — in which Trump asked Kiev to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 presidential candidate.

“We are not concerned with any information Yovanovitch might share, because the President did nothing wrong,” the White House email meant for Republicans said. “But we are concerned that Schiff is putting her a precarious position by having her testify in secret without State Department lawyers be present.”

“It raises serious questions about why Schiff is willing to put career officials in such risky situations while bullying them with legally unfounded threats of obstruction charges,” the email continued.

It added that Schiff "is willing to ride roughshod over fair process and to use career officials to further a baseless political objective."

The email marks the second time the White House has unintentionally sent talking points to Democrats in recent weeks, after an administration official inadvertently emailed them suggested rhetoric defending the July 25 phone call.

The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

3 Likes
#939

AGAIN? This is the stupidest collection of incompetents and petty criminals ever collected.

Also.

Rudy Giuliani Is Now Tweeting Incriminating Evidence Against Trump

Trump’s lawyer is locked in a fight with Trump’s State Department, which Trump’s lawyer tried to win by tweeting incriminating evidence against Trump.

1 Like
#940

This about the texts. Trump told Sondland on a phone call that there was no quid pro quo before he had the text exchange. :joy:

Trump’s envoy to testify that ‘no quid pro quo’ came from Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-envoy-who-denied-quid-pro-quo-now-says-he-isnt-certain/2019/10/12/4abe0902-bc19-44e8-8c38-9aa35c544859_story.html

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, intends to tell Congress this week that the content of a text message he wrote denying a quid pro quo with Ukraine was relayed to him directly by President Trump in a phone call, according to a person familiar with his testimony.

Sondland plans to tell lawmakers he has no knowledge of whether the president was telling him the truth at that moment. “It’s only true that the president said it, not that it was the truth,” said the person familiar with Sondland’s planned testimony, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters.

The Sept. 9 exchange between Sondland and the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine has become central to the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into whether the president abused his office in pressuring Ukraine to open an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden and his son, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The White House and its defenders have held up Sondland’s text, which included “no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” as proof that none was ever considered.

1 Like
#941
2 Likes
#942

Whole lot of CYA for Ambassador Sondland…EXCEPT that the tone of his texts do make it seem Sondland was trying to shift the gist of the Ukrainian holding Military funds in exchange for dirt on Bidens.

Trump%20Sondland%20texts
Trump%20Sondland%20texts595×539 112 KB

2 Likes
#943

Fox’s Jeanne Pirro gets the question to T as to whether G is his lawyer…T says yes.

But that brings T closer to the Igor and Lev group…

The Client-Attorney defense can ONLY work for client but not under the conditions that there was some kind of illegal activities going on between them.

2 Likes
#944

@dragonfly9

Wow

Mini-rant:

Giuliani was either working on behalf of the President or not. There’s no way Giuliani can pretend like there’s a veil of separation between his clients here, re: everything we laid out this morning. C’mon!

3 Likes
#945

T stands by Giuliani…Aides do not like the hyperbolic nature of Rudy’s comment…Round and round they go…

Behind the scenes, however, many of Trump’s closest aides and advisers, inside and outside the White House, quietly wish the president would cut ties with Giuliani, whose leadership of New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks earned him worldwide admiration and the moniker of “America’s mayor.”

Giuliani was a force in Trump’s defense during the lengthy Russia investigation by the special counsel. Yet the effort to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller led Giuliani to Ukraine, which now entangles the former federal prosecutor and mayor in legal jeopardy and is central to the danger threatening the presidency he labored to protect.

The New York Times reported Friday, citing a pair of anonymous sources familiar with the matter, that the investigation is linked to Giuliani’s efforts to undermine Marie Yovanovitch, formerly the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has declined to comment on the Times report.

On Saturday, Trump deployed in Giuliani’s defense the same two-word phrase — “Witch Hunt!” — he repeatedly used to attack the legitimacy of the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now the House impeachment inquiry against him.

“So now they are after the legendary ‘crime buster’ and greatest Mayor in the history of NYC, Rudy Giuliani,” Trump tweeted while on the way to his northern Virginia golf club. “He may seem a little rough around the edges sometimes, but he is also a great guy and wonderful lawyer.”

…

Asked if he still represented Trump, Giuliani replied to The Associated Press with a one-word text message: “Yes.”

White House officials have been flabbergasted by Giuliani’s performance on Trump’s behalf, particularly his habit of revealing embarrassing information without so much as a heads-up to the president’s full-time aides.

Aides have come to view Giuliani’s behavior much as they have their boss’ — with resignation that they will rarely be consulted beforehand to develop a strategic plan, and that any plan will be ignored.

One White House aide said there was frustration among aides that they have borne the brunt of criticism from some in Trump’s orbit for not having a more coordinated response to the impeachment probe, saying they were operating without visibility into what Giuliani has been doing. The aide and others who spoke on this subject did so on the condition of anonymity.

White House lawyers rarely deal with Giuliani directly, preferring to coordinate when necessary with Jay Sekulow, viewed as the more even-keeled lawyer on the president’s outside team.

Aides who spoke on this subject said the general feeling among them is that Trump has yet to fully grasp the extent of Giuliani’s side-dealings and hope Trump will eventually sour on his fellow New Yorker.

Giuliani was first brought on as the public face of Trump’s defense of the Russia investigation, with Trump valuing his pugnacious style from the 2016 campaign and his reputation as “America’s mayor.”

…

Many in the administration — including in the West Wing and at the State Department — have tried to distance themselves from Giuliani’s dealings in Ukraine, eagerly leaking to reporters unflattering stories about the former mayor’s clumsy investigative efforts.

And while there is a grudging respect among some Trump allies and in the reelection campaign at Giuliani’s willingness to defend the president on TV, something few others in the White House have done of late, many believe his interviews have become too hyperbolic and his undisciplined manner of speaking could put Trump at risk.

But though Trump himself has at time grown frustrated with Giuliani, he has defended the former mayor to people around him. Trump has spoken admiringly of Giuliani’s no-nonsense style and willingness to go all-out to defend the administration and attack the president’s Democratic foes and the news media, according to three White House officials and Republicans close to the White House. The officials insisted on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Trump admired Giuliani’s two terms as mayor and has told confidants he was the last “strong” mayor his hometown had.

1 Like
#946

:smirk::clap::clap:

Wow what perfect description

3 Likes
#947

Check out these arguments laid out by our friend Marcy Wheeler, at Emptywheel.net.

She pivots her argument on a statement John Dowd had made on behalf of T Oct 3rd…I am not a lawyer, nor do I think like one…but I believe this letter could be significant in that it joins T in with all those other indicted creeps Igor and Lev, and places T and Giuliani in sort of a joint defense agreement. Read on…and tell me what you think. It worked during the Mueller Report proceedings with all that back-and-forth info sharing and stalling…

If we survive Trump and there are still things called museums around that display artifacts that present things called facts about historic events, I suspect John Dowd’s October 3 letter to the House Intelligence Committee will be displayed there, in all its Comic Sans glory.

In it, Dowd memorializes a conversation he had with HPSCI Investigation Counsel Nicholas Mitchell on September 30, before he was officially the lawyer for Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, now placed in writing because he had since officially become their lawyer. He describes that there is no way he and his clients can comply with an October 7 document request and even if he could — this is the key part — much of it would be covered by some kind of privilege.

Be advised that Messrs. Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump. Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman have also been represented by Mr. Giuliani in connection with their personal and business affairs. They also assisted Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing in their law practice. Thus, certain information you seek in your September 30, 2019, letter is protected by the attorney-client, attorney work product and other privileges.

Once that letter was sent, under penalty of prosecution for false statements to Congress, it became fact: Parnas and Fruman do work for Rudy Giuliani in the service of the President of the United States covered by privilege, Rudy does work for them covered by privilege, and they also do work for Joseph Di Genova and Victoria Toensing about this matter that is covered by privilege.

Dowd might be forgiven if he immediately adopted the strategy that worked so well in guiding Trump through the Mueller investigation: just engage in a 37-person conspiracy to obstruct justice and name it a Joint Defense Agreement. Indeed, there are even similarities with current events. Then, John Dowd, Jay Sekulow, and Rudy Giuliani offered things of value to the others in the JDA — pardons — in exchange for their silence or even lies. Conspicuously, Toensing represented two people that — the Mueller Report seems to suggest — weren’t entirely candid in their testimony, Erik Prince (who managed to lose texts that explained why he was taking back channel meetings with Russians) and Sam Clovis (who sustained his lack of memory of being told that Russians were offering emails long enough for George Papadopoulos to change his mind on that front). Papadopoulos even managed to call Marc Kasowitz, when he still represented the President, to ask if he also wanted to represent a coffee boy with an inclination to lie to the FBI. The strategy all built to its successful crescendo when, instead of cooperating with prosecutors as he signed up to do, Paul Manafort instead figured out what they did and didn’t know, lied to keep them confused, and reported it all back through his own attorney, Kevin Downing, and Rudy to the President.

…

It all might have worked, too, if Parnas and Fruman hadn’t gotten arrested before they managed to flee the country, headed for what seems to have been a planned meeting a day later with their sometime attorney Rudy Giuliani in Vienna, just one day after a lunch meeting with him at Trump Hotel across the street from the Department of Justice that was busy inking an indictment against the Ukrainians even as they paid money to Trump Organization for their meal.

I mean, it still could work. Trump is still the President and DOJ, at least, will give some consideration to the attorney-client claims, so long as Rudy and Trump can maintain the illusion that Rudy is and was really doing legal work for the President.

But something that Dowd may not have considered, before he sent a letter to Congress laying out an incestuous nest of ethical atrocities, is that by the time he sent the letter, DiGenova and Toensing were on the record as representing Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch who was named in some of the early search warrants targeting Paul Manafort. And in March, Rudy Giuliani went on the record to explain that Firtash was, “one of the close associates of [Semion] Mogilevich, who is the head of Russian organized crime, who is Putin’s best friend.” Yesterday, Reuters closed the circle, making it clear that Parnas and Fruman work for Firtash, the former as a translator for DiGenova and Toensing’s representation of Firtash.

Firtash, by the way, is in Vienna, where Parnas and Fruman attempted to flee and where the President’s lawyer was planning to meet them a day later.

2 Likes
#948

I love this paragraph— I think about this all the time. How will Trump be remembered?

5 Likes
#949

When asked about the incriminating texts, this is the very text Trump quoted, claiming it “nullified” all of the impeachment charges against him.

Watch as Trump quotes himself, “exonerating” himself:

I fixed Trump’s words for him. First, here’s his lying statement:

The one text message that I saw was just … the last text message. Because I don’t even know most of these ambassadors. I didn’t even know their names. But the text message that I saw from ambassador Sondland, who’s highly respected, was “there’s no quid pro.” He said that. … He said, “By the way, there’s no quid pro quo.” … And that was the text message that I saw and that nullified everything.

Fixed in bold:

The one text message that I saw wrote was just … the last text message. Because I don’t even know most of these ambassadors. I didn’t even know their names. But the text message that I saw from wrote for ambassador Sondland, who 's highly respected has no qualifications for being an ambassador, but got the job because he donated $1 million to my inauguration, was “there’s no quid pro quo.” He I said that. … He I said, “By the way, there’s no quid pro quo.” … And that was the text message that I saw wrote and that nullified everything means I’m guilty as hell.

3 Likes
#950

Looks like Defense Sec Mark Esper will be cooperating with the request for documents from the Congressional committees and asking that records be kept. It is unclear if Esper will adhere to the deadline that was asked of them. But for now, T appointee Esper is playing ball.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Sunday signaled he would attempt to comply with a subpoena from House Democrats related to their impeachment inquiry but did not commit to honoring the order’s deadline for documents from the Pentagon.

“We will do everything we can to respond to their inquiry, Chris,” Esper told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

“My general counsel a week or two ago sent out a note, as we often do in these situations, to the key members in the Pentagon to say, ‘Retain your documents and institute other controls,’” he continued. “So, again, we will respond as we can.”

Congressional Democrats have demanded Esper, as well as acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, produce any documents having to do with the administration’s decision over the summer to withhold military aid to Ukraine.

Lawmakers are probing whether the freezing of those funds marked an effort by President Donald Trump to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into pursuing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Trump pushed Zelensky to scrutinize the Bidens over unfounded allegations of corruption in a July phone call that lies at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment push.

“The enclosed subpoena demands documents that are necessary for the Committees to examine this sequence of these events and the reasons behind the White House’s decision to withhold critical military assistance to Ukraine that was appropriated by Congress to counter Russian aggression,” the three House Democratic chairmen leading the impeachment inquiry wrote in letters to Esper and Vought.

Although the subpoena requests the documents by Tuesday, Esper refused Sunday to say whether the Pentagon would meet that target date.

1 Like
#951

Some choice words from Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi Responds to Trump on Impeachment at The New Yorker Festival | The New Yorker

After President Trump accused the Speaker of the House of Representatives of hating America, Nancy Pelosi struck back. During an appearance at the twentieth annual New Yorker Festival, speaking with the staff writer Jane Mayer, she described the President as having “a grotesque personality” and accused him of “undermining the integrity of our elections” in a way that was “not only wrong and unconstitutional—it’s poisonous.”
Pelosi said that Trump’s pressuring of a foreign head of state to dig up dirt for his personal political benefit was “so beyond” that “he’s made lawlessness normal. He’s almost trying to make lawlessness a virtue.” She said that she couldn’t tell whether Trump was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or if he simply doesn’t care. When he described his Ukrainian actions to her as “perfect,” in a phone call last month, she decided it was time to launch an impeachment inquiry.

“We’ll have an inquiry,” she told Mayer. “Give him all the opportunity to introduce whatever exculpatory information he might have, any evidence that might prove something to the contrary, to be very fair.” She acknowledged that impeachment is “divisive” and said that she understood those who say, of Trump, “I just don’t think he’s worth it to divide the country any further”—a position Pelosi once occupied. But she also argued that Trump has so violated norms and laws that “this is not about him.” She added, “The Constitution is worth it. The Republic is worth it. Our democracy is worth it.”

“Everything he says is a projection of himself. When he calls me ‘Nervous Nancy,’ I know he’s very nervous,” she said, in response to Trump’s name-calling. “When he calls Adam Schiff this or that, this and that, I think he’s projecting. He knows the argument that could be made against him—at least I think he should, or does—so he projects it onto somebody else. And you think, There’s his weakness. He knows.”
Pelosi called Trump’s attacks on Hunter Biden, the son of his potential Democratic Presidential rival Joe Biden, a “ridiculous thing,” and an example of his projecting onto others his own weaknesses: “His kids are so financially invested. Every place . . .” The live audience drowned out the rest of her sentence in laughter and applause.

2 Likes
#952

Tick Tock…

Pelosi/Schiff and Dems have the evidence. One of the many things that may slow this process down I am hearing, is that Pelosi wants to protect her House Dems who have declared they are for the Impeachment inquiry, committing to a vote may affect their chances of re-election in very close and T country elections.

That and not having any real Republican support on the Senate side…with Romney being the only one who has stuck his neck out.

Impeachment alone will be a huge black mark on T’s back, and as such, makes him testier and more disruptive.

But a vote could happen soon…even by Thanksgiving or sooner to impeach. The 51% Fox poll could be enough to send chills down the R’s backs to not back T any longer.

Not sure of the timing but am sure there is a huge concern that T is not equipped to be president, and he’s done wrong by the people. The T Supporters are gonna stick to him no matter what.

Opinions

We investigated the Watergate scandal. We believe Trump should be impeached.

Read the op-ed from 17 Watergate special prosecutors.

The House, through its Judiciary Committee, fulfilled that responsibility by reviewing the evidence, interviewing witnesses and concluding that the facts warranted adopting three articles of impeachment: one for obstruction, one for abuse of power and one for contempt of Congress. Shortly thereafter, the president resigned rather than face a Senate trial.

In our considered view, the same three articles of impeachment could be specified against Trump, as he has demonstrated serious and persistent abuses of power that, in our view, satisfy the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” For example:

● Trump conditioned protection of the military security of the United States and of an ally (Ukraine) on actions for his personal political benefit.

● Trump subordinated the integrity of our national electoral process to his own personal political interest by soliciting and encouraging foreign government interference in our electoral process, including by Russia and China. He also appears to have demanded that Ukraine investigate a potential 2020 political opponent and pursue the conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election, despite the unanimous conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community that it was Russia that had interfered.

● According to the evidence laid out in the Mueller report, Trump engaged in multiple acts of obstruction of justice in violation of federal criminal statutes and of his oath of office to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Because Mueller viewed Justice Department policy as precluding him from filing criminal charges against the president, the special counsel appropriately stated that these abuses are for Congress to address.

● Trump obstructed lawful congressional investigations by systematically withholding evidence and by directing government agencies and employees to refuse to cooperate with legitimate oversight by Congress. Most significantly, the president’s blanket refusal to honor requests for relevant information sought by House members conducting an impeachment inquiry constitutes impeachable contempt and obstruction. The public is entitled to know the facts, and Congress is the body our democracy has entrusted with uncovering them.

The Constitution provides for the elected representatives of the people to resort to impeachment in extraordinary circumstances showing that this drastic remedy is necessary to restrain, and possibly remove, a president who has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. Proper regard for reestablishing and protecting the rule of law requires firm and resolute action by the House. Lawmakers should not allow any refusal by the president to cooperate in its process to frustrate the performance of its constitutional duties.

If a bill of impeachment comes before the Senate, we urge all members of the Senate to put aside partisan loyalties and carry out their own constitutional duties courageously and honestly. In 1974, it was a group of Republican senators who put national interest over party loyalty and informed Nixon that his conduct was indefensible and would compel conviction by the Senate and removal from office. We hope the current Senate would similarly put honor and integrity above partisanship and personal political interest.

2 Likes
#953

Cross-posting

3 Likes
#954

Schiff says on Face The Nation this AM that he wants to make sure all the witnesses’ testimony is said behind closed doors so that T 'n Co can not corroborate on what is said, and what is not said. Every precaution is being used to tailor this process like a grand jury. Bravo.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff defended holding testimony behind closed doors in the impeachment inquiry he’s heading up against President Donald Trump, likening this phase of the investigation to a “grand jury.”

“We want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests,” the California Democrat said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Schiff said they may call some or all of the witnesses to return to testify in public later, though that might not include the whistle-blower who triggered the impeachment fight in the first place.

While Trump and some of his Republican allies have hoped to unmask the official and question him or her, Schiff said his priority now is to protect the whistle-blower and said they don’t need the person’s testimony to find out what happened on the phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

https://news.yahoo.com/schiff-says-secret-testimony-aimed-165106637.html

2 Likes