1 Like
I had something on this. I didn’t see that there was a specific show, but I know there was a script, and there were talks of whether he was to do it or the newly-elected prosecutor general.
I found these and they’re new:
This is how close Trump’s plan came to working
Zelensky — who won election as an anti-corruption reformer — decided to capitulate. He’d announce the investigations in an interview with CNN on Sept. 13, Kramer said. The Ukrainians told Sondland on Sept. 8 and he shared it with Taylor.
So apparently this is breaking news and, yes, Trump was days from pulling off his grand scheme.
4 Likes
Is it time to dial down references to “quid pro quo,” and amp up the term “bribery”?
[Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts], a Democratic member of one of the committees leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine, said Thursday that instead of using the term “quid pro quo,” Democrats should consider describing the allegations against the President as “bribery” because the term is more accurate.
I agree with Lynch that the term “quid pro quo,” although legally accurate, will be ineffectual in removing Trump. Let’s face it, it just doesn’t sound like a serious crime. I’ve been using the term “extortion” as in “speak into the microphone or I’ll withhold military aid.” However, I’m coming around to the emerging consensus that “bribery” is the best term to use, as in “if you speak into the microphone, I’ll give you military aid.”
The strongest case for using the term “bribery” is that it’s specifically mentioned in the impeachment article in the Constitution:
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
“Extortion” would certainly classify as a “high crime,” but I think we need to keep this really, really simple if we’re going to have any hope at all of flipping enough Trump supporters to reach a tipping point.
Also, the fact that Trump additionally offered a White House meeting in exchange for speaking into the mic, is definitely classified as a bribe.
So from now on, I’ll be using the term “bribery,” sometimes throwing in an “extortion” for good measure since, in the case of the withheld military aid, they’re two sides of the same coin – plus I like the ring of “extortion.” But to present a united front, my go to description is now “bribery”! Of course, this is all just IMO.
P.S. It’s no wonder that a Latin term like “quid pro quo” causes people’s eyes to glaze over. Imagine an orator today ending a rousing speech with “E Pluribus Unum!” – blank stares all 'round. But if the speech ended with “United We Stand!” – the crowd would burst into cheers!
5 Likes
Committees Release George Kent’s Deposition Transcript as Part of Impeachment Inquiry
Today, Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, the Acting Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, released the transcript from the joint deposition of George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State.
The three Chairs issued the following statement announcing today’s release:
“The testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent strongly corroborates testimony from numerous other witnesses. Mr. Kent affirms that he and his colleagues recognized the impropriety of pressuring Ukrainian officials to undertake politically-motivated investigations to help President Trump’s reelection prospects in 2020.
“Mr. Kent not only affirms testimony released this week by the Committees, but he also describes his contemporaneous documentation of conversations and events. Yet, the State Department and White House continue to withhold these key documents from the Committees in defiance of duly authorized subpoenas. These actions demonstrate the President’s clear obstruction of Congress and support the inference that these documents further corroborate the testimony of presidential misconduct that we have received.
“We look forward to Mr. Kent’s public testimony.”
The testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent can be found here.
Key excerpts from Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent can be found here.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Cross-posting 
3 Likes
New tab on the House Intelligence Committee’s website.
3 Likes
I love the sound of Republicans turning on each other.
Lindsey Graham trashes Gordon Sondland that donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration: “Why did Sondland change his testimony?” “Was there a connection between Sondland and Democratic operatives?"
3 Likes
Scoop: House committees subpoena Mick Mulvaney
The House committees investigating President Trump and Ukraine issued a subpoena Thursday night for acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to testify at 9 am on Friday as part of their impeachment inquiry, two sources familiar tell Axios.
Why it matters: Mulvaney is the highest-ranking White House official to be subpoenaed yet, and the midnight-hour move suggests the committees are reaching into the final phase of their private investigation as they prepare to take their inquiry public next week.
- The committees first subpoenaed Mulvaneyto turn over documents in October, but subpoenaing him to appear for a hearing is a further escalation, and signals the committees are determined to hear him describe firsthand his role in the Ukraine saga.
5 Likes
Handy document treasure trove.
3 Likes
4 Likes
Committees Release Vindman and Hill Transcripts as Part of Impeachment Inquiry
Today, Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, the Acting Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, released transcripts from joint depositions of one current and one former White House official responsible for Ukraine policy: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Dr. Fiona Hill.
The three Chairs issued the following statement announcing today’s release:
“Lieutenant Colonel Vindman—an active duty military officer who was awarded the Purple Heart after being injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq—performed another duty to the country by testifying before the Committees about presidential misconduct that he witnessed during his service at the White House. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president led him to report immediately to lawyers at the White House his serious concerns about political investigations the President pressed for on the call.
“Lt. Col. Vindman also told the Committees that the ‘demand’ by President Trump for the announcement of a politically-motivated investigation into a U.S. citizen by a foreign country forced him to make a‘moral and ethical’ judgment, and led to his concern that the act could ‘undermine U.S. national security.’ He also detailed a pressure campaign waged by the President and his allies ahead of the call, and how he properly reported this activity to the same White House legal advisors.
“Dr. Fiona Hill—a respected Russia and Ukraine expert who served as Lt. Col. Vindman’s supervisor—detailed how senior officials at the White House, including National Security Advisor John Bolton, shared her serious concern about efforts prior to the July 25 call to push Ukraine to undertake these politically-motivated investigations, and about her efforts, at Mr. Bolton’s direction, to report this activity to senior White House officials.
“Lt. Col. Vindman and Dr. Hill—two courageous and patriotic Americans—testified despite pressure by the White House to silence their testimony. Their superiors in the White House have declined to cooperate with the inquiry, but transcripts released today show clearly that individuals close to the President were alarmed by a presidential scheme as illicit and corrupt as a ‘drug deal.’”
The testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman can be found here.
Key excerpts of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman’s testimony can be found here.
The testimony of Dr. Fiona Hill can be found here.
Key excerpts of Dr. Fiona Hill’s testimony can be found here.
3 Likes
Mulvaney defies House subpoena, cites immunity ‘one minute’ before deposition
The big take away connection people are noting is that the two transcripts released directly implicate Mulvaney. So this is getting interesting. I doubt they play into his decision to troll the House, though.
3 Likes
Lawyer for Ukraine whistleblower sends White House cease and desist letter to stop Trump’s attacks
A lawyer for the Ukraine whistleblower, whose complaint document triggered the House impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, has sent a letter to the White House warning the President to “cease and desist” attacking his client.
"I am writing out of deep concern that your client, the President of the United States, is engaging in rhetoric and activity that places my client, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower, and their family in physical danger," Andrew Bakaj wrote to White House counsel Pat Cipollone in a Thursday letter obtained by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
"I am writing to respectfully request that you counsel your client on the legal and ethical peril in which he is placing himself should anyone be physically harmed as a result of his, or his surrogates’, behavior," he said.
3 Likes
Bolton Knows About ‘Many Relevant Meetings’ on Ukraine, Lawyer Says
The former national security adviser would be an important witness in the impeachment inquiry, but his lawyer wants a court to rule on whether he should testify.
ATLANTA — John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, has knowledge of “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators do not yet know about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday.
The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony in their impeachment proceedings but expressed unwillingness to go to court to get an order compelling it.
Mr. Cooper did not elaborate on what meetings and conversations he was referring to, leaving it to House Democrats to guess at what he might know.
Mr. Bolton did not show up for a deposition scheduled on Thursday because, his lawyer said, he wants a judge to determine whether he or his former deputy, Charles M. Kupperman, should testify in defiance of the White House. In effect, Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman are asking for a court ruling on competing demands by the executive branch, which does not want them to testify, and the legislative branch, which does.
The House chairmen have withdrawn a subpoena for Mr. Kupperman and indicated they would not seek one for Mr. Bolton because they said they did not want to get dragged into lengthy court proceedings. Instead, Democrats have suggested that they may cite the refusal to testify by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman as evidence of obstruction of Congress by the president, which could form its own article of impeachment.
In representing Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman, Mr. Cooper denied that they were trying to delay proceedings and insisted that their legal position was not coordinated with the White House. Mr. Cooper argued that if the House was serious about an inquiry, then Mr. Bolton would be a logical person to question.
Mr. Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far,” Mr. Cooper wrote in the letter.
Many witnesses who have testified so far have placed Mr. Bolton at the center of key events, describing him as exasperated by the efforts by people around the president — led by his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani — to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats. He said he wanted nothing to do with the “drug deal,” as he put it, that other presidential advisers were orchestrating and called Mr. Giuliani a “hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”
He also directed aides to report their dealings with Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union who was involved in the pressure campaign, to a White House lawyer. And he objected to Mr. Trump’s decision to suspend $391 million in security aid to Ukraine and the decision to call President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on July 25.
During that call, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to “do us a favor” and investigate Ukrainian connections to Democrats in 2016 and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden.
Unlike most of those who have testified so far, though, Mr. Bolton would bring knowledge of what the president himself said about the matter. Most of the witnesses have described what people around the president said, but few recounted any direct conversations with Mr. Trump. As his national security adviser who saw him daily, Mr. Bolton presumably could take investigators into the Oval Office as none of their witnesses have.
House Democrats have argued that ongoing court proceedings to compel Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s former White House counsel, to testify on other matters should guide Mr. Bolton and Mr. Kupperman. But Mr. Cooper said any final judgment on Mr. McGahn would still not answer the question about whether his clients should testify because they would be asked about national security matters in a way that Mr. McGahn would not be.
Mr. Cooper cited the House Judiciary Committee’s own brief in the McGahn case, which made the point that the panels interest in the former White House counsel “did not involve the sensitive topics of national security or foreign affairs.”
“Here, unlike McGahn, information concerning national security and foreign affairs is at the heart of the committees’ impeachment inquiry, and it is difficult to imagine any question that the committees might put to” Mr. Kupperman or Mr. Bolton “that would not implicate these sensitive areas,” Mr. Cooper wrote.
4 Likes
Cross-posting
2 Likes
Jim Jordon wins spot on House Intel Committee on same day 2nd witness says he knew about prolific sexual abuse by doctor on his wrestling team, but did nothing
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced Friday that Rep. [Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) will be placed on the House Intelligence Committee for the duration of the impeachment inquiry.
Jordan, who currently serves as the top Republican on the Oversight and Reform Committee and is one of President Trump’s most vocal defenders in the lower chamber, has played a leading role in the impeachment hearings held behind closed doors.
…
In tapping Jordan, Republicans have a member who is a vocal defender of the president and a regular on cable news at a time when the House enters a highly visible phase of the impeachment investigation.Proponents of the move feel Jordan will help strengthen the GOP’s ability to fight back against Democrats’ attacks on the president as the majority party prepares to bring forward witnesses they see as having the most damning testimony against Trump’s handling of Ukraine policy.
Jordan will do his best to malign the impeachment witnesses who are bringing Trump to justice, but he lives in a glass house and shouldn’t be throwing stones. NBC just posted this bombshell report that Jordan has been further implicated as enabling sex abuse during his time as a wrestling coach by hushing up reports of the abuse that were made directly to him.
Normally, I would post this in Mentionable News, but I’m posting it here because I believe that just as the impeachment hearings go public and Jordon begins his usual ugly grandstanding in defense of Trump, this developing story could severely damage his credibility.
Referee says he told Rep. Jim Jordan that Ohio State doctor performed sex act in shower
A professional referee says in a lawsuit filed Thursday that disgraced doctor Richard Strauss masturbated in front of him in a shower after a wrestling match at Ohio State University, and that he reported the encounter directly to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who was then the assistant coach.
“Yeah, that’s Strauss,” Jordan and then-head coach Russ Hellickson replied, according to the lawsuit, when the referee, identified in court papers as John Doe 42, told them about the incident. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Ohio, implies that Jordan’s response to the incident, which the referee said happened in 1994, was essentially a shrug.
John Doe 42 is the second person to say he told Jordan directly about either being approached or molested by Strauss, who was found by independent investigators to have sexually abused 177 male students over two decades.
Jordan, a powerful Republican congressman and a top defender of President Donald Trump in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, has repeatedly denied knowing anything about what Strauss did to the wrestlers he helped coach from 1986 to 1994.
…
John Doe 42 said that when he informed Jordan and Hellickson about what happened, their response was, “Yeah, yeah, we know.”
…
Former Ohio State wrestler Dunyasha Yetts was the first person to say he spoke to Jordan directly about Strauss. He previously described how he went to see Strauss for a thumb injury, and when the doctor tried to pull down his pants, he stormed out and complained to Jordan and Hellickson.“It’s good that people are starting to come forward and say the truth, which is that Jordan and the other coaches knew what was going on and they blew it off,” Yetts told NBC News.
4 Likes
This is not just an impeachment. It’s the endgame for Trump’s relentless assault on the institutions, norms, and practices of America’s liberal democracy for the past three years. It’s also a deeper reckoning. It’s about whether the legitimacy of our entire system can last much longer without this man being removed from office.
I’m talking about what political scientists call “regime cleavage” — a decline in democratic life so severe the country’s very institutions could lose legitimacy as a result of it. It is described by one political scientist as follows: “a division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing system itself — in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions, and laws may be ignored, subverted, or replaced.” A full-on regime cleavage is, indeed, an extinction-level event for our liberal democratic system. And it is one precipitated by the man who is supposed to be the guardian of that system, the president.
Let us count the ways in which Trump has attacked and undermined the core legitimacy of our democracy. He is the only candidate in American history who refused to say that he would abide by the results of the vote. Even after winning the 2016 election, he still claimed that “millions” of voters — undocumented aliens — perpetrated massive electoral fraud in the last election, and voted for his opponent. He has repeatedly and publicly toyed with the idea that he could violate the 22nd Amendment, and get elected for three terms, or more.
…
In the current scandal over Ukraine, Trump is insisting that he did “nothing wrong” in demanding that Ukraine announce investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden, or forfeit desperately needed military aid. If that is the president’s position — that he can constitutionally ask any other country to intervene on his behalf in a U.S. election — it represents a view of executive power that is the equivalent of a mob boss’s. It is best summed up in Trump’s own words: Article 2 of the Constitution permits him to do “anything I want.”
We have become so used to these attacks on our constitutional order that we fail to be shocked by Trump’s insistence that a constitutional impeachment inquiry is a “coup.” By any measure, this is an extraordinary statement, and itself an impeachable offense as a form of “contempt for Congress.” We barely blink anymore when a president refuses to cooperate in any way, demands his underlings refuse to testify and break the law by flouting subpoenas, threatens to out the first whistle-blower’s identity (in violation of the law), or assaults and tries to intimidate witnesses, like Colonel Alexander Vindman.
6 Likes
Nailed it!
If Trump’s base has the capacity to learn just one truth about Trump during the impeachment hearings, this should be the one. He’s not a maverick, he’s a mob boss.
3 Likes
Trump and Giuliani remain in touch as impeachment drama heats up
2 Likes