WTF Community

The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

General Discussion
, , , ,
#1901

Cross-posting :pray:

tenor

2 Likes
#1902

Weekly Summary of the Impeachment of Trump

December 2nd - 13th

anigif_sub-buzz-393-1576721116-3

Congress is on break until January 6, 2020

General Impeachment News:

Senate Trial:

Sideshow Rudy:

Documents:

Public Hearings:

Full House Session:

:newspaper: Timeline has been updated. Breaking news starts below. :point_down:

4 Likes
Day 1064
#1903

Indeed; I expect a conservative take on things there that I am going to disagree with on many points, but that is apparently THE largest evangelical magazine coming out against Trump. Those are some big cracks opening up.

Also, for your amusement, here’s the part where Donnie called the magazine “far left” and “very progressive.”

image
image1242×697 81.7 KB

…Donnie also apparently confused CT with ET, Entertainment Tonight.

3 Likes
#1904

Opinion: Yes, Republicans, The Impeachment Process Has Been A Partisan Sham – Because Of You

George Conway: Republican senators run the risk of being shamed by Trump himself

4 Likes
#1905

OH COME ON!

White House considers arguing that Trump wasn’t impeached

The White House is considering making the argument that President Trump has not officially been impeached, given that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, two sources involved in the president’s impeachment defense told CBS News.

The House voted to impeach Mr. Trump on two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — on Wednesday. However, Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that the House would wait to deliver the articles until the Senate had laid out the rules for the trial.

“When we see the process that’s set forth in the Senate, then we’ll know the number of managers we’ll have to move forward, and who we would choose,” the California Democrat said. The House must vote on a resolution designating impeachment managers to prosecute the case against Mr. Trump in the Senate before delivering the articles.

The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg’s opinion page Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump’s impeachment and removal from office.

“Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial,” Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. “Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.”

“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all,” Feldman wrote.

However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that he disagreed with Feldman’s analysis, saying that “under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period.” That portion of the Constitution says that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

The sources told CBS News that the White House views Pelosi’s delay as “a Christmas gift.” They plan to use the delay to argue that the Democrats have so little faith in their own case for impeachment, they are too scared to trigger a trial they know they will lose. The two sources also say that the president, while “angry” about what he views as an unfair process, is actually in a “very good mood,” and feels confident he can win the messaging war via Twitter while lawmakers are back home for the holidays.

A senior White House official said the White House might pursue that line of messaging, but the White House is also in a “wait and see” attitude over the Christmas holiday. Right now, the official said they preferred to focus on “happy” messaging, not “flogging” impeachment messaging over the holidays.

Republicans in Congress are already making this argument. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday that Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles from the Senate shows Democrats “may be too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy echoed those comments: “She’s admitting defeat by not sending them. By refusing to send impeachment over, she knows its outcome is not good.”

Pelosi and Democrats in the House and Senate are trying to pressure the Senate to call for more documents and for witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment proceedings because the White House prevented them from appearing.

“I told leader McConnell that we would not support any trial without witnesses or documents,” House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday.

Mr. Trump’s legislative director told CBS News that Mr. Trump is “baffled” by the possibility that Pelosi might withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate for an extended period of time.

“I think the president is completely baffled at the theory that Nancy Pelosi appears to have that somehow holding back impeachment articles will leverage some sort of specific behavior out of the Senate,” Eric Ueland told CBS News chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett in an interview for “The Takeout” podcast.

Ueland suggested that holding the articles could be “constitutionally questionable.” He also said it would be “extraordinarily unprecedented” if articles were to be withheld in order to force a legislative outcome.

In a rare interview that will air Sunday, the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, told “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan that her father was “energized” by his impeachment, which she called “the first purely partisan impeachment.”

Still, Ueland and White House counsel Pat Cipollone were offered the opportunity to tour the Senate floor, which would serve as a courtroom, and check out the support spaces behind the scenes. They also have the chance to be introduced to people who are there every day when the Senate is in session, and would be for any Senate trial.

3 Likes
#1906

Pelosi and McConnell step into impeachment abyss

Some legal scholars say the Senate can simply declare that the president has been impeached — citing the House’s approval of two articles charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — and hold a trial without delay. Conversely, some Trump allies say perhaps the brouhaha about transferring articles means the president technically hasn’t been impeached yet; if he already is, the thinking goes, the Senate wouldn’t have to wait on the perfunctory transfer of articles from the House to begin a trial.

A hitch in that argument is the Senate’s own 1,500-page manual of rules of procedure, which declare that an impeachment trial can’t begin until the House names “impeachment managers” to deliver the case to the Senate. Though the Senate has the power to change that process, so far there’s been no effort or energy to do so. The remaining Senate procedures on the books spell out the conduct of the Senate trial once it begins.

The House, which has its own 1,500-page manual, offers only limited answers about the process of sending articles to the Senate. Once the House adopts articles of impeachment, according to the manual, there is no timeframe for when it must name managers to formally notify the Senate. Typically, this is done in a resolution after the impeachment vote, which names the managers, informs the Senate and authorizes manager to begin preparing for trial.

Pelosi alluded to that separate resolution during her press conference Thursday. “There is a bill made in order by the Rules Committee that we can call up at any time, in order to send it over to the Senate and to have the provisions in there to pay for the impeachment,” she said. "And then, the next step, whatever you want to call it, the trial. That is where you put the managers. I was not prepared to put the managers in that bill yet because we don’t know the arena that we are in."

Some lawmakers believe Pelosi is adopting this stance to make the Senate sweat and infuriate Trump, who’s desperate to put on his impeachment defense, even though she’ll ultimately deliver the articles soon after the two-week Christmas recess. All of the discussion would become moot if McConnell and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer strike a deal on trial procedures in the meantime. But on Friday, the two sides were still in conflict, with little optimism for a breakthrough anytime soon.

Let’s look at those “sole powers“ in the constitution.

House

Senate

Rules come after the constitution in the order of operations. Constitutionally it seems like the House decides who is impeached and the Senate has the power to try any impeachment passed by the House. No mention of transferring documents or any of the procedures, which were later developed.

I suppose it could be consider a mini constitutional crisis if the Senate claims they can’t honor the oath they are to undertake as jurors in the impeachment trial. But perhaps those who feel they can’t honor that oath should just recuse themselves and vote present. :woman_shrugging:t2: What do y’all think?

5 Likes
#1907

Incidentally related, Speaker Pelosi’s invitation to Trump for the State of the Union is some epic shade-throwing, and reminding him of what the Constitution says.

image
image1059×1067 115 KB


2 Likes
#1908

Nancy very effectively uses “mean girl” tactics against the President. I’ve used this method on trolls and can personally vouch for the efficiency at troll dispersal. But you have to absolutely commit to the full “Regina”.

:smirk::wink:

4 Likes
#1909

Trump wants to impeach Nancy Pelosi for “looking for a quid pro quo with the Senate” because he doesn’t comprehend boundaries or morality or laws.

He thinks might makes right.

Remember his “but Obama has a Netflix deal” argument? Enough said.
image

2 Likes
#1910

Trump did not hand over a single document to the House during the Impeachment Inquiry. Here’s the list of documents he continues to hide.

During this entire scandal, Trump released only two documents: the call readouts. However, those were not released to Congress as a result of a subpoena; the were released to the public in response to public pressure. The committees also received some text messages, but those were not received from the White House, but directly from the witnesses who possessed them.

It’s interesting to review the list of crucial documents Trump refused to release (see the section below, “What documents did Trump block?”). His stonewalling, along with nearly every Republican in Congress, continues to this day. They protest that the process is unfair, yet that claim is laughable when you consider that they categorically refuse to release a single document beyond the call readouts that could actually get to the bottom of what happened.

These documents are absolutely critical to conducting a fair trial. As one example, consider how Amb. Gordon Sondland, during his testimony before the House, strongly asserted that he wished he could refer to his call records and many other documents that would help him refresh his memory of events, but he was denied access to all of them (video).

On a day that ended with President Donald Trump becoming the third U.S. president to be impeached, House Democrats hammered Trump for refusing to comply with their investigation, saying his stonewalling proved he has something to hide.

"(This) was an attempt by Donald J. Trump to aim Ukrainian corruption straight at the heart of the presidential election of 2020," said Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "The president knows this, which is why he has not given this Congress a single email, phone record or document."

The White House did release summaries of Trump’s April 21 and July 25 phone calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

But when we examined whether the administration transmitted any other records to Congress, we found that it defied the House’s multiple requests and subpoenas for documents.
…

The White House pledged not to cooperate

In early October, the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees subpoenaed the White House for Ukraine-related documents that Democrats had requested but not received.

In response, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to Congress saying the executive branch would not be participating in the investigation. At the White House’s direction, several top administration officials also defied subpoenas seeking testimony or documents.

The night before European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland was expected to testify, for example, his attorneys received a last-minute call from the State Department informing them that the Trump administration would not allow his testimony.

Sondland eventually testified against the White House’s orders and in response to a subpoena, but his recollections in both his private and public testimony were limited because the White House refused to turn over documents and call records.

Nine administration officials defied similar subpoenas from the House.
…

What documents did Congress get?

According to the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees’ reports, “not a single document” was produced by the White House, the vice president’s office, the Office of Management and Budget, the State Department, the Defense Department or the Energy Department.

In total, those agencies received “71 specific, individualized requests or demands for records,” the committees’ reports said.

The House did obtain some documents, such as text messages that former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker exchanged with Sondland and other U.S. and Ukrainian diplomats, that were in witnesses’ “personal possession,” according to the Judiciary Committee’s report.

What documents did Trump block?

… multiple witnesses testified to the existence of other key White House documents that Congress never received. These materials included:

  • Talking points prepared ahead of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director for European affairs at the National Security Council.

  • Notes taken during Trump’s call with Zelensky by Vindman and by Tim Morrison, the former top Russia expert on the NSC.

  • A memo prepared by Vindman that former National Security Adviser John Bolton was expected to present to Trump conveying “the consensus views from the entire deputies small group” that “the security assistance be released.”

  • Call records between Trump and Sondland.

  • Notes from NSC legal advisor John Eisenberg detailing his discussions with Vindman about a July 10 meeting with a top Ukrainian official, during which Sondland suggested that investigations could help secure a White House meeting for Zelensky.

  • The readout of Trump’s Sept. 25 meeting with Zelensky in New York.

The House Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority report does not dispute that Trump’s White House withheld these and other documents. But it notes that Trump made readouts of his April 21 and July 25 phone calls with Zelensky publicly available, calling them “directly relevant.”

Himes spokesman Patrick Malone said the readouts were released in response to public pressure rather than congressional subpoenas. The White House published the July 25 call summary on Sept. 25, days after news of the whistleblower complaint broke and one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched the House impeachment inquiry.

“They weren’t released to Congress in response to our requests,” Malone said. “They were released to the public.”

Our ruling

Himes said Trump “has not given this Congress a single email, phone record or document.”

The White House told Congress that it would not cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry, and all evidence suggests that the White House stood by that pledge.

The White House did, however, release two call readouts. They were not in response to congressional subpoenas as part of the House’s investigation.

We rate Himes’ statement Mostly True.

4 Likes
#1911

And for those who were prevented from testifying…some sage advise from Law Professor Lawrence Tribe who is writing Sen McConnell.

4 Likes
#1912

Did someone mention Ukraine? Why should the WH ok this…requirement that funds be forwarded to Ukraine within 45 days of their approval?

Well, it’s complicated…and the WH would not sign off on this. :woman_shrugging:

Senior Trump administration officials in recent days threatened a presidential veto that could have led to a government shutdown if House Democrats refused to drop language requiring prompt release of future military aid for Ukraine, according to five administration and congressional officials.

The language was ultimately left out of mammoth year-end spending legislation that passed the House and Senate this week ahead of a Saturday shutdown deadline. The White House said President Trump signed the $1.4 trillion package Friday night.

The Ukraine provision was one of several items the White House drew a hard line on during negotiations to finalize the spending legislation, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the developments. It would have required the White House to swiftly release $250 million in defense money for Ukraine that was part of the spending package.

The White House this year refused to release congressionally appropriated defense aid to Kyiv during a period when President Trump had asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former vice president and 2020 candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who had served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. Trump’s request of Zelensky as the White House delayed the aid was at the heart of House Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump this week on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

3 Likes
#1913

Giulani and Fruman enter into joint defense agreement – a sign that Rudy expects to be indicted

This is a fascinating, in-depth exposé of the conspiratorial entanglements that developed between Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, and Igor Fruman as they orchestrated a campaign of corrupt shadow diplomacy in Ukraine – highly recommended for a “weekend read.” However, I’m going to focus on just one revelation that is buried halfway through the article: According to Giuliani, he and Fruman have entered into a joint defense agreement:

Mr. Fruman has not spoken publicly since his arrest, and his lawyer, Todd Blanche, declined to comment. Mr. Giuliani said in the interview that his and Mr. Fruman’s legal teams entered into an agreement about two months ago allowing them to share information.

This news flew under the radar until it was picked up on Friday by Brian Williams during an interview with legal analyst and former Federal prosecutor, Joyce Vance – here she points out what this type of agreement signifies:

UPDATE – The video link to the interview didn’t work so here’s a transcription of Vance’s remarks (if you have access to MSNBC’s 11th Hour, 12/20/19, you can view this exchange about halfway through the show):

WILLIAMS (referring to the above paragraph in the NYT article): What do you think this is all about?

VANCE: So this is a joint defense agreement. We’ve seen this before. There was actually some reporting, ironically it was Rudy Giuliani who let it slip, that during the Mueller investigation the President was involved in a joint defense agreement that let them talk with other potential subjects or targets of the investigation and that’s what a joint defense agreement is for – it’s for people who believe that they are about to be indicted, probably in a conspiracy together, and it lets them share information without taking that information outside of the attorney-client privilege. The information is still protected while they’re sharing it. They can coordinate on a defense strategy. They can learn what people are telling prosecutors. This is what you do when you think that you are going to be indicted and this is what Rudy Giuliani, the President’s lawyer, is doing.

:running_man: :police_car:

4 Likes
#1914

Ukraine Aid Frozen 91 minutes after Trump’s call with Zelensky

Newly released documents show the White House ordered a freeze on aid to Ukraine less than two hours after President Donald Trump’s now-infamous July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. The documents were obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit news organization, through a Freedom of Information Act request. Among the heavily redacted documents that the Center for Public Integrity received after a legal battle there is a memo that sheds new light into the timeline of the actions that are at the heart of impeachment proceedings.

A mere 91 minutes after the call that ended at 9:33 a.m., Michael Duffey, a political appointee at the Office of Management and Budget, sent an email to the deputy secretary of defense, David Norquist, the Acting Secretary of Defense Chief of Staff Eric Chewning, and a Pentagon comptroller, Elaine McCusker, telling them that all aid to Ukraine should be halted. “Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process,” Duffey wrote at 11:04 a.m.

Duffey seemed to know that calling for the hold on the aid could raise questions and he sought to limit the amount of exposure the order would receive. “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction,” he wrote. CPI explains that while “a formal notification would be sent later that day” this email “was the first clear sign that the aid was being held, and it came immediately after the phone call.”

The question, of course, becomes who exactly gave Duffey the “guidance” that he wrote about in the email. As some were quick to point out, Sen. Chuck Schumer has demanded Duffey be called as a witness in the impeachment trial. Duffey wrote another email on Sept. 11 explaining that the aid would be released. He was asked what happened and the first part of his response is redacted but goes on to say he was “glad to have this behind us.”

The Center for Public Integrity points out that the heavily redacted emails show many government officials were worried that the White House was “asking the officials involved to take an action that was not merely unwise but flatly illegal.”

The law in question is known as the Impoundment Control Act and “says that once Congress appropriates funds – like the Ukraine assistance – and the president signs the relevant spending bill, the executive branch must spend those funds,” explains CPI. For the funds to be withheld, Congress must be informed and must approve, which obviously did not happen in this case. Government officials were worried that by delaying the aid it would make it difficult to make sure all the money was spent by the deadline of Sept. 30. Officials at both the OMB and the Pentagon were so concerned about the freeze in aid that they tried to think of ways to convince Trump to let the aid flow. None of their efforts seem to have worked.

Here’s Schumer’s tweet insisting that this email shows Duffey must testify:

Here’s the email (if you click on it and then use the download link at the bottom of the image, you can enlarge it once it’s on you computer):

CPI-v-DoD-Dec-20-2019-Release-p78-normal
CPI-v-DoD-Dec-20-2019-Release-p78-normal700×906 65.7 KB

And here’s the Center for Public Integrity’s report on the most recent batch of released emails, including a link to the searchable archive.

4 Likes
#1915

The National Review, the ultra-conservative publication founded by William F. Buckley Jr., calls for Trump’s impeachment.

Four Tests for Impeachment

4 Likes
#1916

There’s a huge loophole in the GOP’s claim that Trump’s sale of Javelin missiles to Ukraine shows his support for the country

Republicans involved in the impeachment inquiry have repeatedly touted the Trump administration’s sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine as evidence the president is supportive of the country against Russian aggression, but they’ve left out key details in the process.

Under the rules of the sale, the Javelin missiles have to be stored in western Ukraine, which is far from the frontlines of the ongoing conflict in the eastern part of the country (the Donbas region) against pro-Russia separatists.

In short, the Javelins were essentially provided to Ukraine under the condition that they not be used in the conflict zone.

Accordingly, the Javelins have yet to be used in the fighting, though US personnel are training some Ukrainian forces how to use them against tanks.

‘They’ve had symbolic and psychological impact’

Experts on Ukraine have offered mixed reviews on the impact of the US-provided anti-tank missiles, but largely seem to agree they serve as a deterrent against Russia.

Charles Kupchan, former director for European affairs on the National Security Council in the Obama administration, recently told Slate that the missiles “have not been deployed anywhere near the battlefront.”

Kupchan added: “They’ve had symbolic and psychological impact.”

Meanwhile, David Holmes, a top staffer at the US embassy in Ukraine and witness in the impeachment inquiry, told House investigators on Thursday that the Javelins provide an “important strategic deterrent.” He added that the weapons are “not actively employed in combat operations right now.”

The Javelin missiles were mentioned in a phone call at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

Javelins were mentioned in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that led to a whistleblower complaint and spiraled into an impeachment inquiry, and they’ve repeatedly come up in the public impeachment hearings. During the call, Trump urged Zelensky to launch investigations into his political rivals - including former Vice President Joe Biden.

At the time, Trump had placed roughly $400 million of congressionally-approved security assistance to Ukraine on hold, and the president is accused of dangling the aid over Zelensky as part of a broad scheme to pressure him into launching the investigations. The aid was ultimately released on September 11, less than a week after three House committees launched investigations into his administration’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection camapgin.

As the impeachment inquiry has escalated, Trump has faced harsh criticism for freezing the security assistance, and allegations of risking both US and Ukrainian national security for personal gain.

But Republican lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York have pointed to Trump’s sale of the missiles to Ukraine to counter the narrative that Trump places his personal political agenda above national security concerns.

Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted a clip of one such exchange in defense of the president.

Trump, however, was reluctant to sell the missiles to Ukraine and did so only after he was persuaded it would be good for US business, current and former officials familiar with the decision told Foreign Policy.

The Trump administration first approved the sale of Javelins to Ukraine in December 2017. The sale was competed in March 2018, when the State Department announced it would sell Ukraine 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers worth $47 million. The State Department approved an additional sale of the anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in October.

The Obama administration provided assistance to Ukraine as well, but would only offer non-lethal aid for fear of exacerbating the conflict and tensions with the Kremlin. There were also concerns that the anti-tank missiles could fall into the wrong hands.

The nonlethal aid provided to Ukraine under former President Barack Obama included US personnel to train Ukrainian forces, Humvees, night-vision goggles, advanced radar, patrol boats, body armor, and humanitarian assistance.

Olga Oliker, the director for Europe and Central Asia at the International Crisis Group, recently told Foreign Policy that nonlethal aid is actually considered more helpful than the Javelins, even as Ukrainian officials have celebrated their arrival.

“While generals and politicians in Kyiv played up the Javelins, in my own experience, soldiers in the field talked more about getting insufficient quantities of the nonlethal aid that they really needed - secure communications, armored vehicles, counterbattery radars,” Oliker said.

‘Even as we sit here today, the Russians are attacking Ukrainian soldiers’

Witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, including the current top diplomat to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, have underscored the importance of US assistance to Ukraine in thwarting Russia. Taylor was on the frontlines of the conflict less than a week before his public testimony to House investigators earlier this month.

In his testimony, Taylor said: “Even as we sit here today, the Russians are attacking Ukrainian soldiers in their own country and have been for the last four years. I saw this on the front line last week; the day I was there a Ukrainian soldier was killed and four were wounded.”

Taylor added: “The security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine’s defense and to the protection of the soldiers I met last week. It demonstrates to Ukrainians- and Russians - that we are Ukraine’s reliable strategic partner. It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression.”

The Ukraine conflict began in 2014 and has led to roughly 13,000 deaths and displaced roughly 1.5 million people.

3 Likes
#1917

Cross post :v:

2 Likes
#1918

House Democrats say in court filings new impeachment charges possible

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/house-democrats-say-in-court-filings-new-impeachment-charges-possible/2019/12/23/e8e21c22-24fe-11ea-ad73-2fd294520e97_story.html#click=https://t.co/Z0kIKCSqRj

The House of Representatives said in court filings Monday that more impeachment charges against President Trump are possible based on the testimony they are seeking from his former White House counsel and grand jury material they want to review from the Russia investigation.

“The Committee is continuing to conduct its inquiry into whether the President committed other impeachable offenses,” attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee wrote. “The Committee’s investigations did not cease with the House’s recent impeachment vote.”

That assertion was made in response to an argument from attorneys for the Department of Justice that the impeachment vote has undercut the rationale behind the House’s demands.

“It is far from clear that the Committee. . .will have any further role in the impeachment process at all,” they wrote. “The Committee has referred articles of impeachment to the House; the House has approved those articles; once the articles are transmitted to the Senate, the next steps are for the Senate to determine.”

“The Committee’s investigations did not cease with the House’s recent impeachment vote.”

4 Likes
#1919
5 Likes
#1920

Parnas, hard up for cash, dismisses one of his two attorneys

This move is significant because it shows Lev Parnas is running out of cash to fund his legal defense. This provides all the more incentive for him to strike a deal. He is already co-operating with Congress and this means he will be even more motivated to provide the committees and the courts with information in order cast him in the most favorable light as he tries to strike the best possible deal.

Looks like he’s already burned through the $1 million he received from Putin-enriched oligarch, Dmitry Firtash. He paid $500,000 to Giuliani so that put a dent in it.

One of the attorneys who has been representing indicted Rudy Giuliani business associate Lev Parnas in a Southern District of New York criminal case has filed a motion to withdraw.

Attorney Edward MacMahon filed a motion to withdraw in Judge J. Paul Oetken’s court on Christmas Eve, saying that the well, so to speak, is running dry.

“In this action, I am joined by New York-based criminal defense attorney Joseph A. Bondy as co-counsel,” MacMahon said. “Since I entered my appearance, Mr. Parnas’ apparent ability to fund his defense has diminished. It thus would constitute a significant hardship for Mr. Parnas to continue being represented by two attorneys in this matter.”

Attorney Joseph A. Bondy will continue to represent Parnas, MacMahon said.

“I have discussed this matter fully with Mr. Parnas, who, given my location out of district and his circumstances, consents to my filing the instant request to withdraw from his criminal matter,” the Tuesday filing continued. “I have also discussed this matter with Mr. Bondy, who is prepared to assume all aspects of Mr. Parnas’ defense.”

Parnas’s money has been in the news for other reasons of late. Prosecutors accused him of lying about his income and assets, and attempted to have Parnas jailed ahead of trial.

Parnas faces two counts of conspiracy, one count of making false statements, and one count of falsification of records, in connection with a “scheme to funnel foreign money” to Republican candidates (alleged campaign finance violations).

The judge denied prosecutors’ request to revoke Parnas’s bail, saying “I find that they’re not obvious misstatements.” The judge still voiced concerns.

“There’s certainly lots of suspicious activity here,” Oetken said.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donaleski, Parnas concealed a $1 million “loan,” which was deposited in Svetlana Parnas’s (Lev Parnas’s wife’s) bank account. Prosecutors wonder if this was really a loan to buy a home or a loan disguised as a payment from Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

Firtash is a Ukrainian oligarch under indictment for bribery in the U.S., whose success is said to have been “built on remarkable sweetheart deals brokered by associates of Russian leader Vladimir Putin,” allegedly deposited the $1 million through Swiss attorney Ralph Isenegger.

4 Likes