Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Wednesday called for President Trump’s impeachment for the first time, blistering Mr. Trump as a threat to American democracy and accusing him of “shooting holes in the Constitution.”
Escalating his language in an effort to rebut Mr. Trump’s unfounded claims about his actions with Ukraine, Mr. Biden set aside months of restraint to demand Congress move against the president.
“To preserve our Constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity, he should be impeached,” the former vice president told supporters here, accusing Mr. Trump of having “betrayed this nation.”
Mr. Biden linked Mr. Trump’s false claims to the so-called Big Lie idea promulgated by the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. “You say it long enough, often enough, people may believe it,” he said, invoking Goebbels by name.
FFS
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment
This is impressive…51% wants him impeached and removed. 
Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.
A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.
Here comes Fiona Hill, former T WH Russian expert due to testify Monday 10.14.19. I had thought she may have been the whistle blower, but we learned the WB was part of the CIA. She is a Russian hawk…and may have a take on what was being said about Ukraine.
The House committees investigating President Trump and Ukraine have requested that his former Russia advisor Fiona Hill appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, as well as turn over several documents dating back to January 2017.
Context: Hill left her role as Trump’s top Russia aide in August, although she had wrapped up most of her work by mid-July. It’s unclear how much she knew about the controversial July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which is at the center of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
- Hill, a longstanding policy expert and critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, served under both H.R. McMaster and John Bolton on the National Security Council.
What to watch: The White House made it clear in a letter to House Democratic leaders on Tuesday that it has no plans to cooperate with the committees’ interview or document requests.
- It was unclear as of Wednesday evening whether the Trump administration plans to block Hill from complying.
Cross-posting
Posting here since these two are linked to the Ukraine scandal and will probably be called to testify in the Impeachment proceedings.
This is huge because Parnas and Fruman were also part of a scheme to scam money from the Ukrainian gas company, Naftogaz – their lawyer, enabling the scam was Giuliani (of course) – Energy Secretary Perry was also involved – see above.
Two Soviet-born businessmen with ties to Rudy Giuliani were arrested on Wednesday on federal charges of violating campaign finance laws through a six-figure donation they facilitated to President Donald Trump’s official super PAC.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were taken into custody in New York, the Wall Street Journal reported. The precise charges against them were not immediately clear, but a company run by the two men, Global Energy Producers LLC, has been accused of violating campaign finance laws through a $325,000 donation to the group America First Action, as first reported by The Daily Beast.
Parnas and Fruman are central to an ongoing impeachment inquiry against Trump. The two men assisted Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, in his efforts to dig up dirt on Trump’s political opponents in Ukraine. Among the objectives they sought was the removal of the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, whom Giuliani believed was standing in the way of investigations he and Trump wanted to see launched into Joe and Hunter Biden’s work in the country.
America First Action ended up spending more than $3 million to help elected former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) after he wrote a letter calling for the ambassador’s firing.
Parnas and Fruman are expected to appear in court on Thursday, the Journal reported.
I would say these guys are a major flight risk – the court would be crazy to grant them bail. We’ll find out soon. 
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has coffee with Lev Parnas at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 20.
From left to right: Igor Fruman, Lev Parnas, President Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani. [Miami Herald]
UPDATE: Ha ha! These guys refused to comply with impeachment inquiry subpoenas – now they’ve been arrested on other charges. Cosmic justice is coming down on them like a ton of bricks. In addition to refusing to supply documents, Parnas refused to show up to a deposition today – the same day he’s arrested. LOL.
UPDATE #2: These guys have been arrested for campaign finance violations – check out some of the top Republicans they cozied up to, including Florida’s governor and Donald Trump Jr.
A Soviet-born businessman who helped President Donald Trump’s personal attorney dig for dirt in Ukraine on his political opponents also helped raise significant sums of money last year for Ron DeSantis as he campaigned to become Florida’s governor.
Lev Parnas, one of two South Florida businessmen called to testify before Congress as part of an impeachment investigation, hosted two fundraisers for DeSantis in the summer and fall of 2018, the Miami Herald has learned. One of the events was an exclusive affair held at a South Florida residence with fewer than 30 people attending, including the governor. The other gathering was headlined by Donald Trump Jr.
This Facebook screen shot provided by The Campaign Legal Center, shows from left, Donald Trump, Jr., Tommy Hicks, Jr., Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, posted on May 21, 2018. (The Campaign Legal Center via AP) [AP]
State and campaign documents show that Parnas and Fruman’s contact with DeSantis’ campaign goes back at least to June 21, 2018, when they gave DeSantis’ political committee $50,000 through a company called Global Energy Producers. The donation, which has been previously reported, came one day before Trump officially endorsed DeSantis for Florida governor.
…Starting in 2017, the duo gave more than $400,000 to Republican candidates in Florida and Washington, including Sen. Rick Scott and DeSantis’ Republican primary opponent, Adam Putnam. The bulk of the money came in May of 2018, when Global Energy Producers was listed as the source of a $325,000 donation to Trump-aligned Super PAC America First Action.
Two months later, in July, Parnas’ name appeared on an invitation as part of a host committee for an event featuring Donald Trump Jr. and benefiting DeSantis’ primary campaign. The July 18 fundraiser at the Alaqua Country Club in Longwood — a small town in Central Florida — was headlined by Trump Jr. and FOX News host Jeanine Pirro.
Ousted Ukraine envoy expected to testify in impeachment probe despite White House vow not to cooperate, congressional aides say
Congressional investigators expect that Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, will appear as planned for a Friday deposition in the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry, despite the White House’s emphatic pledge not to cooperate with Democrats’ efforts to investigate President Trump, according to congressional officials involved with the process.
Yovanovitch and her lawyer are “on board,” according to a senior congressional aide, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations. State Department officials would not address questions about the matter, and efforts to contact Yovanovitch on Wednesday were unsuccessful.
See calendar
The Feds are zeroing in…they know where the chinks in the armor are located. Good pulling them in…maybe this will get some other of the flatfooted, “we’re not testifying” gang to testify. see Sondland, Giuliani, McGahn, etc.
I like this move…SURPRISE…we mean business pals.
#AlmostGangstaStyle 
The full text of the memo, as described to CBS News:
26 July 2019
The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The official who listened to the entirety of the phone call was visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call. After my call with this official I [redacted] returned to my office, and wrote up my best recollection of what I had heard.
The official described the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The official asserted that the President used the call to persuade Ukrainian authorities to investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official’s view, the President had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own reelection bid in 2020.
The phone call lasted approximately half an hour. The two leaders spoke through interpreters. My conversation with the official only lasted a few minutes, and as a result, I only received highlights:
- The President asserted that “it all started in Ukraine,” referring to the allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the subsequent investigation into the Trump campaign’s contact with Russian individuals
- The President asked Zelenskyy to locate the “Crowdstrike server” and turn it over to the United States, claiming that Crowdstrike is “a Ukrainian company,” (Note: This appears to be a reference to the DNC server from which Russian hackers stole data and emails that were subsequently leaked in mid-2016; the DNC hired cyber security firm Crowdstrike to do the forensic analysis, which informed the FBI’s investigation. It is not clear what the president was referring to when he claimed Crowdstrike is a Ukrainian company; one of its cofounders was born in Moscow.)
- The President told Zelenskyy that he would be sending his personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to Ukraine soon and requested that Zelenskyy meet with him. Zelenskyy reluctantly agreed that, if Giuliani traveled to Ukraine, he would see him.
- The President raised the case of Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s role in the company, and former Vice President Biden’s role in setting Ukraine policy. The President urged Zelenskyy to [end page 1] investigate the Bidens and stated that Giuliani would discuss this topic further with Zelenskyy during his trip to Kyiv.
- The President urged Zelenskyy not to fire Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who the President claimed was doing a good job. (Note: Lutsenko has spearheaded various politicized investigations, including on Burisma Holdings and alleged “Ukrainian interference” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Lutsenko is widely reviled in Ukraine, and Zelenskyy has pledged to fire him but has been unable to secure approval from the legislature.)
- The President stated that he wanted Attorney General William Barr to speak with Zelenskyy as soon as possible. (Note: It was not clear whether this conversation was to be in reference to Crowdstrike or the investigations of the Bidens.)
- The President reiterated his concern that Zelenskyy was surrounded by people who were enemies of the President, including “bad oligarchs.”
The President did not raise security assistance. According to the official, Zelenskyy demurred in response to most of the President’s requests.
I did not review a transcript or written notes, but the official informed me that they exist.
- The standard White House practice for Presidential-level phone calls with world leaders is for the White House Situation Room to produce a word-for-word electronic transcript that memorializes the call. The transcript is typically then circulated to key White House officials to be transformed into a formal memorandum that is distributed as an eyes-only document, to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA.
- In this case, the official told me that such a transcript had indeed been produced and was being treated very sensitively, in hard copy only. Moreover, several additional senior White House officials listened to the entire phone call in an adjacent room in the Situation Room suite and they presumably took written notes on the call.
- The official did not know whether the President was aware that other people were listening and that the call was being transcribed. The official also was not certain whether anyone else was in the Oval Office with the President during the call.
- On the Ukrainian side, it is unclear who listened to the call or whether a record was produced.
[quote=“Pet_Proletariat, post:869, topic:4547”]
Two Soviet-born donors to a pro-Trump fundraising committee who helped Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to investigate Democrat Joe Biden were arrested
Interesting that AG Barr was at the Manhattan DA yesterday as a preplanned visit and became aware that these two would be arrested today. And he held his cards perhaps…
John Dowd, who headed Mr. Trump’s legal team until spring 2018 and is a lawyer for the two men, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Giuliani said he hasn’t been contacted by Manhattan federal prosecutors.
Attorney General William Barr discussed the case on Thursday with federal prosecutors in Manhattan, where he was making a preplanned visit. A Justice Department official said Mr. Barr was supportive of their work on the case, on which he was first briefed shortly after being confirmed as attorney general in February. He was aware the pair would be charged and taken into custody last night, the official said.
Letter from Checks and Balances - Republican Lawyers group written and signed with 16 lawyers including George Conway III
In the past several weeks, it has become clear to any observer of current events that the president is abusing the office of the presidency for personal political objectives. Although new facts are being revealed on a daily basis, the following are undisputed, to date:
In a July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine – a summary of which has been released by the White House – the president requested “a favor” in the context of a discussion of Ukrainian security matters. Specifically, immediately after President Zelensky thanked the president “in the area of defense” and indicated a readiness to buy additional armaments consistent with a U.S. defense proposal, President Trump asked for “a favor.” The favor was to investigate a baseless theory relating to the 2016 investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. The U.S. president further requested that the Ukrainian president coordinate the requested investigation with both his personal attorney and the Attorney General of the United States, presenting both a blurring of lines between personal legal representation and official U.S. government business, and, the appearance of inappropriate politicization of the Office of the Attorney General. He then requested, additionally, that the Ukrainian government look into allegations relating to his Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, saying “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”
Between July and September 2019, the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, the (former) State Department Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and the Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, exchanged a series of telephone calls and text messages revealing that U.S. diplomats were involved in negotiating an exchange involving a White House meeting and foreign aid on one hand, and a Ukrainian investigation into a meritless allegation involving former Vice President Joe Biden, on the other hand. The text messages reveal that U.S. diplomats were seeking from President Zelensky an assurance that “he will help [the] investigation” while concurrently negotiating a “visit to Washington” and “security assistance.” These circumstances led career Ambassador Taylor to communicate that in his judgment it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” These facts are derived from text messages provided to the House of Representatives in connection with the deposition of former Special Envoy Volker and have been released publicly.
On October 3, 2019, the president stood in front of U.S. press cameras outside the White House and said, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.” The president’s statement was broadcast widely.
A president takes the following oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These acts, based on what has been revealed to date, are a legitimate basis for an expeditious impeachment investigation, vote in the House of Representatives and potential trial in the Senate. Additional evidence that was detailed in the Special Counsel’s Report, related matters of foreign emoluments, and persistent obstructive activities should also inform these proceedings. In addition, given that some of the critical facts under consideration by the Congress have been facilitated by a complaint presented to the Inspector General of the U.S. Intelligence Community, any efforts by U.S. government personnel to inappropriately pressure, intimidate or expose the whistleblower or future whistleblowers who follow the procedures provided by law are contrary to the norms of a society that adheres to the rule of law.
As we said in an April 2019 statement**, “free and fair elections, without foreign interference, are at the heart of a healthy democracy.”** The Special Counsel’s report revealed, among other things, that the Trump 2016 campaign was open to and enthusiastic about receiving Russian government-facilitated assistance to gain an advantage in the previous election. The report was not only an exposition, it was a warning. The present circumstances are materially worse: we have not just a political candidate open to receiving foreign assistance to better his chances at winning an election, but a current president openly and privately calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections. These activities, which are factually undisputed, undermine the integrity of our elections, endanger global U.S. security and defense partnerships, and threaten our democracy.
Jonathan H. Adler Donald B. Ayer George T. Conway III Carrie F. Cordero Charles Fried Stuart M. Gerson Peter D. Keisler Orin S. Kerr Marisa C. Maleck Trevor Potter Alan Charles Raul Jonathan C. Rose Paul Rosenzweig Andrew Sagor Jaime D. Sneider J.W. VerretEach of us speaks and acts solely in our individual capacities, and our views should not be attributed to any organization with which we may be affiliated.
The eight-page letter signed by Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, and sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats outlined a bevy of grievances about the House inquiry, some procedural and others political.
It argued that “this purported ‘impeachment inquiry’” was not valid because the House did not vote to authorize it, as it did in the cases of Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton, with Ms. Pelosi taking it upon herself instead to declare the existence of an impeachment process by fiat. It complained that Republicans have not been granted subpoena power of their own and that the president’s lawyers have not been allowed to attend closed-door interviews, cross-examine witnesses or call their own witnesses to testify.
But it also threw in a hodgepodge of Mr. Trump’s favorite objections, essentially memorializing some of his many Twitter blasts at Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who is leading the inquiry and has become the president’s chief target.
“You look at all the irregularities, you can come to the conclusion that this is an illicit hearing,” Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, said in an interview. “This is the first time that a president hasn’t had the ability to have his party to call witnesses in the preliminary phase. It sounds like they’re singling him out for unfair treatment.”
Constitutional scholars, though, were not impressed. “It looks like a pathetic attempt to make a legal argument when the president is really expressing rage at the Congress for trying to stop him,” said Corey Brettschneider, an impeachment expert at Brown University. “What’s sad about it is it’s so poorly drafted and the legal arguments are so nonexistent that you wonder who’s advising the president.”
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former senior Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Trump’s position was more political than constitutional.
“The White House letter’s legal objections don’t have merit,” he said. “The letter, like the ‘official impeachment inquiry’ itself, is a hardball tactic designed to achieve maximum political advantage” before the public.
Indeed, it could ultimately end up being a negotiating position. Mr. Trump, who on Tuesday denounced the “kangaroo court,” told reporters on Wednesday that he could change his mind and cooperate if the House voted to formally authorize the impeachment inquiry. “Yeah, that sounds O.K.,” he said. “We would if they give us our rights. It depends.”
As a matter of historical precedent, Mr. Cipollone was correct in saying that Mr. Clinton and his lawyers and Democratic allies were eventually granted more rights during his impeachment in 1998 than Mr. Trump has been, at least so far. Mr. Clinton’s lawyer, for instance, was given the opportunity to cross-examine his main accuser, the independent counsel Ken Starr, during an open House Judiciary Committee hearing.
But the Constitution makes no guarantees of such rights for a president facing impeachment, simply saying that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Indeed, the House impeached President Andrew Johnson in 1868 without even drawing up articles of impeachment until after the vote. Legal experts said nothing in the White House letter justified a president or his administration unilaterally defying congressional subpoenas.
In fact, such resistance has been used against presidents in past impeachment efforts. One of three articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Nixon before he resigned in 1974 charged that he “willfully disobeyed” congressional subpoenas, thereby “substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry.”
WaPo has it too.
Here they are…
Expect more subpoenas. Which reminds me, I was going to bake some cookies today.
House Democrats prepared on Wednesday to force the Trump administration anew to answer questions in their impeachment investigation, one day after President Trump and the White House declared that they would defy Congress in one of the most extraordinary assertions of executive authority in modern times.
House chairmen leading the impeachment inquiry planned to issue additional subpoenas for witness testimony and records related to Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine as soon as Thursday, lawmakers and aides said, after a pause for the Jewish High Holy Days.
They want to force executive branch officials to answer to their demands, generating a detailed record of refusals that could shape an impeachment article charging Mr. Trump with obstructing Congress. Democrats also still see other meaningful avenues for gathering evidence that go around the Trump administration’s defiance, including questioning private citizens, former officials, career diplomats near retirement and the whistle-blowers whose revelations fueled the inquiry.
“There is more we want to do,” said Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the second-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He called the White House’s stonewalling “a brazen political move to try to align what has been a fragmented and uncertain strategy to defend the president.”
Here is a list of who in the GOP Parnas supported _ Rep Sessions (R-) bigtime.
and House Minority leader - Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)