Colorado Republican Cory Gardner Is a ‘No’ for New Impeachment Witnesses

Colorado Republican Cory Gardner Is a ‘No’ for New Impeachment WitnessesSenator Cory Gardner (R., Colo.) said in a statement Wednesday that he does “not believe” additional witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial are necessary, casting doubt on a Tuesday claim that at least four Republicans were willing to call additional witnesses.“I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness," the Colorado Republican told Colorado Politics in a statement. "I have approached every aspect of this grave constitutional duty with the respect and attention required by law, and have reached this decision after carefully weighing the House managers and defense arguments and closely reviewing the evidence from the House, which included well over 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses.”Gardner’s public stance comes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) told his caucus that at least four Republicans wanted testimony from more witnesses. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, with 51 votes needed to call more witnesses.Senators Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski all expressed interest in hearing from former national security adviser John Bolton, following a report that Bolton heard Trump link Ukrainian investigations to U.S. military aid.“I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton,” Romney told reporters Monday. “I have spoken with others who have opined upon this.”Other Senate Republicans, including Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley, responded by suggesting Hunter Biden or the Ukraine whistleblower could be called as Trump’s preferred witnesses.Before the Bolton news, GOP sources in the Senate said last week that the Democrats’ efforts to convince Republicans of the need for witnesses were unlikely to prove successful.


Posted in Uncategorized

Democrats Plead for Impeachment Trial Witnesses While McConnell Leans on GOP

Democrats Plead for Impeachment Trial Witnesses While McConnell Leans on GOP(Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats are making a final run at persuading at least a few GOP senators to call witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial as lawmakers grilled the defense team and House prosecutors in an attempt to shape the debate for a showdown vote later this week.That next phase of the trial got under way Wednesday amid doubt about the outcome of a vote to subpoena former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton or others -- including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son and the unnamed whistle-blower who’s complaint launched the impeachment case.”Don’t wait for the book,” lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff said, referring to leaked revelations in Bolton’s manuscript that would bolster the Democrats’ case. “Don’t wait until March 17 when it is in black and white to find out the answer to your question.”Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is working behind the scenes to keep Republicans in line to reject a drive by Democrats to call witnesses in a pivotal vote as soon as that could come as soon as Friday. Defeating that motion would lead to a quick wrap-up of the trial before Trump’s State of the Union address next Tuesday.That outcome was thrown into question by the bombshell disclosure that Bolton wrote in a still-unpublished book that the president directly linked giving aid to Ukraine to getting the country’s new president to announce a probe of Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.Question of MotivesDemocrats argued Trump’s motive was to help himself politically by tarnishing a serious challenger to his re-election.Trumps defense lawyers sought to dismiss that allegation by arguing it doesn’t matter. Law professor Alan Dershowitz asserted that a president’s power is expansive and he can’t be impeached for taking actions that are partly motivated by a desire to help his political prospects.“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said in response to a question from Republican Senator Ted Cruz. “And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”Any testimony by Bolton is unlikely to change the outcome of the trail -- Trump’s acquittal. But calling witnesses would extend the proceedings and be potentially politically damaging to Trump and Senate Republicans.McConnell told his colleagues at a hastily called meeting of GOP senators on Tuesday afternoon that there weren’t yet 51 firm Republican votes to block calling witnesses, according a GOP aide. But senior Republicans were publicly more confident on Wednesday that the trial would soon end.Pressure CampaignUnder increased pressure from McConnell and the White House, the pool of potential Republican votes for fresh evidence continued to narrow. Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican facing a tough re-election fight in November, said he’ll vote against witnesses. Another GOP holdout, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, said he’s “very, very unlikely” to back subpoenas.Some Trump loyalists were blunt.“After watching the House cobble together a flimsy case and listening to all of the arguments from both sides, I do not believe we need additional testimony to prolong this trial,” Senator Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican, said in a statement.Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said it’s “an uphill fight” to get the votes for calling witnesses “because the president and Mitch McConnell put huge pressure on these folks.” Still, he said, Democrats have a “decent” chance to win the fight.Three GOP senators -- Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski -- have expressed interest in hearing from Bolton, and they’re being intensely lobbied by both sides, as are several others who haven’t committed one way or the other.Crucial InformationRomney said Wednesday that Bolton is a crucial witness in deciding the impeachment case.“I have a great deal of confidence in John Bolton,” Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, told reporters. He said Bolton could answer key questions such as what explanation Trump gave advisers when he decided to delay military aid for Ukraine, and even whether the “president himself” told them the aid was held “in order to encourage them to investigate the Bidens.”After she left a meeting with McConnell Wednesday morning, Murkowski refused to discuss her latest thinking with reporters.The first question in Wednesday’s session came from Collins, co-signed by Murkowski and Romney, asking Trump’s counsel how they should consider various motives by Trump for his actions. As Collins rose to ask their question, other senators paid keen attention.Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin answered that if there are mixed motives, for both policy and political reasons, “their case fails and you can’t possibly have impeachment.”Many of the questions asked by senators in both parties seemed geared toward giving either side a rebuttal opportunity. Schumer asked House Democratic prosecutors whether there is a way to render a fair judgment without hearing from Bolton, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and others.Schiff said there is no way for the trial to be fair without witnesses, and said senators should hear from Bolton himself to determine whether he knows of Trump’s real motives.The White House kept up its own pressure campaign to end the trial quickly without Bolton’s testimony. Trump unleashed a series of tweets denigrating Bolton and warning Republicans against voting for witnesses, writing, “Don’t let the Dems play you!”The National Security Council also wrote to Bolton’s lawyer last week saying that his book manuscript “appears to contain significant amounts of classified information” and can’t be published unless that material is deleted. The letter was obtained on Wednesday.Schumer blasted some Republicans who say they don’t want witnesses because it won’t change the outcome.“A fair trial matters whatever the outcome,” Schumer said.On Wednesday, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin became the first Democrat to break ranks and say he would vote to call Hunter Biden as a witness if U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, deems him pertinent to the case. “I want to hear everything I can,” Manchin told MSNBC.Manchin is one of three Democrats who are being closely watched for indications they would vote to acquit Trump. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, and Alabama Democrat Doug Jones also haven’t indicated whether they think Trump is guilty of the House’s two articles of impeachment.“I’m going to see how it ends up and judge the evidence I have before me,” said Jones, who faces voters in November in a heavily Republican state.The impeachment charges alleged that Trump wanted Ukraine to initiate an investigation of Biden, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his son to help with the president’s re-election campaign.Despite the lingering uncertainty on witnesses, South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune expressed confidence that the trial would get wrapped up quickly. He said Wednesday that GOP leaders will know where Republican votes are on the matter of more witnesses well before the tally is taken.The key votes will be held Friday, first on whether to allow witness testimony and then to select witnesses. A simple majority of 51 senators will decide. Even if witnesses are called, no Republican has suggested Trump’s eventual acquittal is in question. It would take 67 votes to convict Trump and remove him from office. Multiple GOP senators have said that even if Bolton’s account is true it isn’t enough to convict.(Updates with remarks by Schiff, Dershowitz, senators beginning in third paragraph. An earlier version corrected the name of the Trump lawyer responding to questions.)\--With assistance from Erik Wasson, Daniel Flatley, Mike Dorning and Laura Davison.To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net;Steven T. Dennis in Washington at sdennis17@bloomberg.net;Billy House in Washington at bhouse5@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.


Posted in Uncategorized

Bribery. The crime is bribery. Say it

The Trump defense against impeachment is premised on layers upon layers of nonsense, but the notion that Donald Trump's act—suspension of military aid to a foreign nation until its government announced an investigation of his just-announced domestic political opponent—does not constitute a crime is among the most blatant.

Bribery. The crime is that Donald Trump demanded a personal bribe in exchange for an official act of his office. And soliciting a bribe is, unequivocally, a criminal act.

The defense theory that Trump was allowed to target a specific political opponent for an "investigation" as a supposed foreign policy is inherently corrupt. There is no other word for it. Criminal defender Alan Dershowitz went further still, claiming that if Trump believed that his winning reelection was genuinely in the public's best interest, then any action he took to sabotage his opponents would be legal and allowable. In every other public context, this is recognized unequivocally as an act of corruption.

Ex-House Republican Chris Collins was indicted for insider trading—using private information to make stock trades meant to benefit himself. Ex-Rep. Duncan Hunter was indicted for stealing, outright, campaign funds for his own personal gain. The then-governor of Illinois, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, was impeached, removed, and imprisoned for seeking to trade political appointments, an official act of his office, for personal bribes.

It is Blagojevich's case that is a close analogue to what Trump himself did. Trump unilaterally delayed military aid allocated by the House and Senate to a foreign ally. Trump distanced his White House from that government, refusing a meeting the newly elected Ukrainian leader considered of utmost importance in signaling to Russia that his nation had the support of the United States. He withheld both acts, indisputably now, to procure an announcement from the Ukrainian government that his potential election opponent was now being investigated for corruption.

That is soliciting a bribe. Trump could have requested that his Department of Justice "investigate" his election opponent itself; it would still likely be a crime. Trump could have made the request without using the tools of his office to pressure the desperate Ukrainian government into compliance; doing so in his official capacity as president would still likely be a crime. Trump did the most corrupt of all versions, however.

Trump demanded that Ukraine announce two specific investigations, one of Biden and one promoting an anti-Democratic Party conspiracy theory boosted by the same Russian government known to have targeted Trump’s election opponents in the past. The only investigations Trump demanded were focused on his domestic political opponents.

Trump coordinated the effort not through the United States' robust law enforcement and foreign policy agencies, but through his personal lawyer, working with now-indicted Ukrainian criminals, coordinating "evidence"-gathering with a known-to-be-corrupt Ukrainian official seeking to trade that evidence to Trump's team in exchange for getting his own criminal indictment squashed by Trump's Department of Justice. This gaggle of criminals was elevated above the official United States foreign policy apparatus, and quickly succeeded in getting a member of that foreign policy apparatus, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, removed from her position by convincing Trump she was a political, not a policy, opponent.

Trump ordered multiple members of his Cabinet to take official actions, actions determined at the time to be baseless and soon afterwards judged to be illegal, intended to put maximum pressure on Ukraine to comply in providing the “favor’ he’d asked for. He ordered his subordinates to perform official acts meant to extort Ukraine into compliance—literally at gunpoint.

Trump provided no public explanation for his acts, Trump's subordinates provided their own government subordinates no private explanations for those acts; an after-the-fact effort was launched to investigate any possible rationale that could be offered for his acts; White House officials swiftly moved to conceal his acts as numerous White House and government officials alerted White House lawyers of the potentially criminal nature of those acts; and when Congress eventually learned of his acts, Trump offered no explanation, but instead ordered all agencies to refuse document requests, subpoenas for testimony, and other basic tools of oversight.

Donald Trump sought a bribe from Ukraine. Donald Trump demanded that the government of Ukraine grant him two very specific personal favors, both targeting his election enemies, and withheld official acts of his government to procure them. Trump ordered his administration to take official acts to obstruct congressional investigation of those acts.

Seeking something of personal value in exchange for performing an act as a public official is seeking a bribe. It is not hard to understand. It does not matter if it is called a new "foreign policy" in which personal bribes are, now, supposedly both official policy and good for the country.

It's bribery. Just say it. And every Republican senator either knows full well that Trump was soliciting a bribe or, by denying it, has indicated that they too are sufficiently corrupt to consider demanding precisely the same thing in exchange for doing their own official duties.

That is likely the case. It is evident, at this point, that nearly every Republican senator both stipulates that Trump did exactly what John Bolton claims to be an eyewitness to and is taking the official position that members of their party are indeed allowed to solicit such "favors" without repercussion or recourse. But it is unambiguously bribery, and each of them is now conspiring in that act.

Trump impeachment lawyer criticised for 'very odd' quid pro quo theory

Trump impeachment lawyer criticised for 'very odd' quid pro quo theoryOne of Donald Trump's plucked-from-television impeachment lawyers argued every action taken by a sitting president is in the interests of the country – even if carried out mostly to win re-election."If the president does something that he thinks will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," Alan Dershowitz, a celebrity Harvard University professor, told senators.


Posted in Uncategorized

#WeWantWitnesses takes off on Twitter as Americans demand justice

As the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump continues, the Republican Party, behind Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, continues to work a cover-up. Americans everywhere are fed up with the transparent abuses of power of the conservative-led Senate, and #WeWantWitnesses has begun to trend on social media.

x

x

And people are taking this opportunity to make those calls ...

x

… and to organize people on the ground.

x

x

“Do your job.”

x

And the theatricality resulting from McConnell’s creation of a fiction to hide the facts increases.

x

And while all of this is going on, the White House, after saying that John Bolton’s book didn’t matter, is making a legal play because … it seems to matter.

x

And a reminder: Donald Trump is guilty.

x