Category: Impeachment

House attorneys are using arguments Trump’s legal team made in Senate to fight Trump’s own DOJ

Posted on by Mark Sumner

Yes, you can. No, you can’t. Yes, you can! Those are not just the lyrics to an old show tune; they’re also the refrain in a disconnect between the case Donald Trump’s attorneys are pressing in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial and positions that Trump’s Department of Justice is taking in multiple courtrooms. In particular, the motley crew of con man lawyers undertaking Trump’s defense before the Senate has shouted that the place to obtain cooperation from subpoenaed witnesses is the courts. At the same time, the DOJ is continuing a case that claims that Congress can’t go to court to enforce subpoenas of Trump’s advisers.

Under Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has argued that Trump isn’t subject to indictment. It’s argued that Trump can’t be mentioned as a suspect in legal proceedings. It’s argued that Trump can’t even be investigated. And now it’s arguing that when Trump says no to a subpoena, Congress has no recourse at all.

And now the House is using the Trump lawyers’ argument in the Senate to battle Barr’s argument in court.

As The Washington Post reports, attorneys representing the House of Representatives brought the position argued by Trump’s impeachment team into federal court with them on Thursday in the ongoing fight with the Justice Department. In a case that’s already been mentioned several times on both sides of the impeachment proceedings, House attorneys have been seeking testimony from former White House counsel Donald McGahn. When the House dropped cases against other Trump advisers who had resisted subpoenas, it was because its legal team was concentrating on the McGahn case in the hope of making it a model that could force quick obedience to any other subpoena. 

The House already won its case in federal court, with a decisive ruling that was highly dismissive of the case presented by White House attorneys. However, the McGahn case was immediately appealed, and the DOJ argument to the appeals court is that … the appeals court has no business even hearing arguments. Incredibly, the DOJ has argued that the appeals court is “barred from considering subpoena-enforcement suits brought by the House.”

The argument is that the judicial branch was to withdraw from any dispute between the executive and legislative branches. Which is convenient for Trump, since he has no intention of cooperating with congressional oversight in any way. In past cases, courts have been reluctant to engage in this kind of dispute, and have frequently backed away while ordering the other branches of government to work out their differences. But there’s a very big difference between that reluctance to get involved and the idea that the judiciary is barred from making a ruling—especially when the White House has made it clear that it has no interest in negotiating.

Now the House attorneys are back with fresh evidence in the form of the claims that Trump’s attorneys have made in the Senate. Trump’s team has repeatedly claimed that if the House wanted to see witnesses cooperate, it would take them to court. With Trump’s own attorneys arguing a case contradictory to the DOJ position, the House has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to make a quick ruling on the basis that the ruling could affect the Senate outcome.

If the court rules that it really is barred from intervening in such cases, then claims that the House should have taken witnesses to court are moot … and Trump apparently has unlimited authority to obstruct. On the other hand, if the court rules that McGahn must testify, it’s very likely that subpoenas will then go out to John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. If the Senate does not issue such subpoenas, the House will.

The most likely outcome is that the court will come down where it has in the past: The other branches of government should work out their differences without coming to court. But if they have to come to court, the court will give them a ruling.

The only way that Trump comes out a winner is a ruling that his privilege cannot be challenged. In which case the losers are everyone in America.

Trump Attorney: Not Simply Going on Defense, We’re Going to Attack the Democrats

Posted on by Rusty Weiss

Attorney to the President, Jay Sekulow, explained that the legal team isn’t content to offer a rebuttal to Democrats impeachment arguments, they plan on attacking them.

Sekulow made the comments during an appearance on ‘Fox and Friends First,’ where he accused the resistance party of selectively editing witness testimony to fit their argument that the President should be impeached and removed from office.

“Adam Schiff, who is the House management leader, has had a problem with the truth since he’s been holding these hearings in the House of Representatives, all the way back to the Mueller report,” Sekulow told viewers. “So, we will not, in a sense, it’s not a rebuttal.”

Instead, he added, “what we are going to do is attack.”

RELATED: Trey Gowdy Unloads On Adam Schiff’s ‘Wildly Stupid’ Trial Strategy

On the Offensive

Sekulow went on to suggest the President’s legal team would be more proactive than defensive when it came to swatting back the impeachment sham.

We will “attack all the misstatements, all of the half-played clips that didn’t play the entire clip, the entire statement, which ends up changing the entire meaning of what they tried to imply,” he said.

“I mean, how many times in those videos did you hear, did you see someone’s mouth keep going and the clip stop?”

Heck, we even saw it well before the impeachment trial got underway, as Democrats and their kindred spirits in the media doctored a phone transcript to turn a mundane phone conversation into something more nefarious.

RELATED: Media, Democrats Blatantly Doctor Trump-Ukraine Transcript to Create Fake News

Attack!

It shouldn’t be all that difficult for Trump’s team to dismantle the many lies coming out of Schiff, or Jerry Nadler, or any of the other Democrat impeachment team’s mouths.

Former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy chastised Schiff for presenting unto the American people a “wildly stupid trial strategy.”

Sekulow and his team will find their biggest challenge in getting the facts out to the American people.

President Trump took to social media to complain that his team is forced to present their case on a Saturday when it’s nearly guaranteed to audience will be much smaller.

Aside from that, there will be the usual media bias in which the legal team for the President is shut down if they make a good point.

Exhibit A:

Still, Sekulow believes they’ll get the message out.

“We’re going to make sure the American people and all one hundred U.S. senators get to see exactly what those Democrat witnesses – that’s all they were: 17 Democrat witnesses – what they had to say, in full,” he insisted.

“Because, what they had to say – in full – is on our side.”

The post Trump Attorney: Not Simply Going on Defense, We’re Going to Attack the Democrats appeared first on The Political Insider.

Ted Cruz: Democrats Made ‘Very Serious Strategic Error,’ Hunter Biden Testimony Now Needed

Posted on by Guest Author

This week, Senator Ted Cruz said Democrats made a “very serious strategic error” in making their case for removing President Donald Trump from office. And, that flub meant that testimony from Hunter Biden, 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, was now necessary.

House Managers Made ‘Strategic Error’

“I think the House managers made a very serious strategic error today,” Cruz said to reporters. “Adam Schiff’s arguments to open the day today directly drew into question Hunter Biden and made not only his testimony relevant, which it already was, but it is now critical because the House Democrats have built their entire case on the proposition that any investigation into Burisma and corruption was a sham, that it was completely debunked.”

This is particularly interesting because Schiff has explicitly said including Hunter Biden in the trial was not only unnecessary, but would be an “abuse” of the impeachment process.

Cruz pressed on regarding the former vice president’s son.

RELATED: Hunter Biden’s Baby Mama Allegedly Paid by His Company

“The problem is there is very significant prima facie evidence of corruption,” Cruz continued. “Hunter Biden, the son of the then-sitting Vice President Joe Biden, was being paid $83,000 a month, a million dollars a year, this is someone with no background in oil and gas, no experience, and at the same time Joe Biden has publicly admitted that he threatened Ukraine, he withheld, or threatened to withhold a billion dollars of aid unless and until Ukraine fired the prosecutor that was potentially investigating the company on which his son served on the board.”

Hunter Biden’s employment by Burisma is curious to say the least.

Democrats are very curious about President Trump’s every move. Hunter Biden? Not so much.

We need to ‘hear the testimony of Hunter Biden’

Cruz added, “If the House managers case is based on the allegations of corruption concerning Hunter Biden and Joe Biden being a sham than it is directly relevant and I got to say the need for the Senate to hear the testimony of Hunter Biden and the need for the Senate to grant the White House lawyers the ability to take that testimony has become all the more relevant.”

Later, Cruz responded to comments made by House Judiciary Committee Chairman and impeachment manager Jerry Nadler during the Senate trial.

“One last observation: Yesterday, representative Nadler threw up great indignation and he said out of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian companies, how can it be that President Trump was just concerned with this one, this one company Burisma?” Cruz said. “Well, the obvious answer that the House managers ignore is Burisma was the only Ukrainian company that had the son of the vice president that had real prima facie indications of American corruption.”

RELATED: Biden Says You Can’t Have Military Strikes Without Congressional Approval–the Exact Opposite of What He Said in 2008

The Democrats Case For Impeachment Is Getting Weaker By The Day

“We’re not talking about some abstract interest in any sort of corruption that might exist in Ukraine but if you have a sitting vice president making public policy decisions to benefit his family to the tune of a million bucks a year that raises a serious question of corruption and a president not only is justified in asking for that to be investigated, but has a responsibility to see that that’s investigated and that was a question not about Ukrainian corruption, but a question about American corruption and Ukraine being integral in helping investigate whether there was, in fact, American corruption,” Cruz said.

“I think we’re gonna hear another two and a half days of arguments from the House Democrats, but the longer they talk at this point, the weaker the case is getting,” Cruz concluded.

The Democrats case for the impeachment Donald Trump is getting weaker by the day. A Hunter Biden testimony could be its death knell.

The post Ted Cruz: Democrats Made ‘Very Serious Strategic Error,’ Hunter Biden Testimony Now Needed appeared first on The Political Insider.

House managers wrap up their opening argument for impeachment: Live coverage #1

Posted on (Updated by Laura Clawson

It’s the final day of the House managers’ opening arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff delivered a closing argument for the ages on Thursday night, and now we get to find out what he left for the actual closing argument.

Schiff will again be joined by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler and Reps. Val Demings, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Sylvia Escobar, and Jason Crow. Daily Kos will have continuing coverage.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 7:21:51 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Ongoing coverage can be found here.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:10:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The House management team is expected to finish up dealing with abuse of power today, then focus on the charge of obstruction before working back to a summation.

Considering the closing that Adam Schiff provided on Thursday, it could well be amazing.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:13:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Expect events today to wrap up around 10 PM Eastern, with the usual scattering of breaks.

Jason Crow picks up the review of the abuse charge by reviewing how Donald Trump only released the military assistance to Ukraine after the hold was under attack from all directions.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:16:10 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

In the House hearings, Republicans claimed that the assistance was released because Trump was waiting for additional meetings between Zelensky and U.S. officials, or the passage of an anti-corruption bill in the Ukrainian parliament.

However, Trump never made these claims. They were never mentioned until Trump’s supporters in the House felt they had to invest something to cover up his clear crimes.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:23:21 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Crow making it clear that this sessions is intended to address the arguments that the Trump team can be expected to make in defending the hold. 

There was no additional review by the DOD, no matter what Republicans have claimed.

There was no additional review by the State Department, no matter what Republicans have claimed.

There was no “inter-agency” review at all, no matter what Republicans have claimed.

The military assistance for Ukraine was completely cleared on May 23. The review, headed by the DOD, showed that Ukraine had already met legislative targets for fighting corruption and for upholding democracy. There was never any other review or investigation.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:29:14 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Crow completes a quite fast review of the reasons provided for the hold. Which isn’t surprising — because there were none. Every reason that’s been presented was an after-the-fact invention. No one was given a reason at the time, even when they asked directly.

Hakeem Jeffries steps up to begin looking at obstruction, so it looks like there’s not going to be a summary step between Article 1 and Article 2 of the impeachment.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:34:57 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

After the morning reports of a recording showing Trump screaming for Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman to “take out” Ambassador Yovanovitch, the White House has responded by saying, "Every President in our history has had the right to place people who support his agenda and his policies within his Administration.”

Which certainly does not sound like a denial.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:38:32 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries running through the efforts both before, and after, Trump’s phone call to restrict knowledge of Trump’s Ukraine scheme within the White House. Until the July 25 call, the knowledge was pretty well confined to a handful of officials, many of whom seemed not to realize that Trump was a full participant in the scheme. But following the July 25 call, it was clear to everyone that Trump wasn’t just in the loop, he was driving the effort.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:43:12 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Since the July 25 call made clear that Trump was leading the effort to extort Ukraine, his team in the White House did what they could to hide the call.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:47:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

It seems increasingly likely that this recording is going to have some impact into today’s trial. It may be why Adam Schiff did not pause between the case on Article 1 and Article 2 for any summary.

x

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:51:50 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries moving into the whistleblower complaint, and showing again the baffling decision by the acting director of national intelligence to take the complaint straight to the White House—giving Trump a huge heads-up on the complaint and its contents, as well as giving the White House a chance to tell the acting director to hide the complaint from Congress. 

The OLC’s involvement in this phase of the cover-up is flat out criminal on its face.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 6:58:13 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries talking about the ability of the United States to “make it to the other side” and listing off the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, the Jim Crow era, September 11 and how America always “made it to the other side” is another fantastic speech.

Describes Trump’s action as “an attack on our character” and returns to talking about abuse of power in showing that it wasn’t adversity that caused Trump to act in Ukraine, it was his inability to handle power.

These last five minutes of Jeffries presentation are another much-watch moment.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 7:01:44 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jason Crow up again to discuss the cover-up effort as the whistleblower, congressional investigations, and public inquiries unravel Trump’s far-from-perfectly-secret hold.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 7:09:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Crow showing just how badly things had unraveled as September began. By September 5, not only was the hold visible, not only had multiple members of Congress requested a reason for the hold — and received none — but the Washington Post had already published an op-ed drawing the clear line between Trump’s withholding the assistance and the investigations that he and Giuliani had been demanding for months.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 7:13:19 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

After the whistleblower complaint was in the hands of the White House, only then did they begin an attempt to create an excuse for the hold on assistance. It wasn’t until then, in early September, that an White House official indicated that the hold was tied to Trump being concerned about donations from Europe. They also began looking for details on European contributions … two months after the hold was placed.

At the same time, Duffey at the OMB sent an email to DOD completely backtracking over the previous two months and pretending that there never had been a hold to begin with.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 7:21:38 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Just as how Jeffies’ description of the “no pressure” claim on Thursday gave fresh insight into how that claim is ridiculous, Crow’s review of the excuses provided for the hold show really opened up just how much Trump’s team scrambled, especially at the end, in an effort to paper over the scheme.

McConnell’s second impeachment cover-up is hiding how Republicans are blowing off their jobs

Posted on by Laura Clawson

As you watch the impeachment trial, with its unrelenting single camera angle, remember that this is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s other cover-up. McConnell has most famously rigged the rules of the trial so that it’s extremely unlikely to include witnesses or new evidence. But he’s also responsible for the limited view of the Senate during the trial, and it’s not just an aesthetic issue.

Sign the petition: We need fair media access to the Senate impeachment trial.

C-SPAN, CNN, and other networks asked to have more cameras recording the historic event, but McConnell wasn’t having it—he kept the video feed limited to a government-controlled camera that shows basically nothing but the person speaking, with the occasional shot of the entire room. Combined with a prohibition on still cameras and sharp restrictions on press access to senators during the trial, this means that viewers can’t see senators’ reactions. Or senators napping. Or—and this is where it especially matters—when senators leave the room rather than honoring their duty as jurors.

As political historian Julian Zelizer told CNN, “The last thing Republicans want right now is for a camera to pan the chamber to show a bunch of the senators aren't there. That would be problematic and politically embarrassing.” But that's exactly what's happening, and what McConnell’s restrictions on cameras are keeping from public view.

We don't have a view of how many senators are playing hooky or reading books at any given time, and we don’t know what else we’re missing. ”With the Senate in control of what images are broadcast and disseminated, the public loses that right to independent access and are left reliant on what the government wishes them to see and hear,” said the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association.

As Mitch McConnell wants it.

Senate Republicans’ latest cover-up excuse: Trump will obstruct witnesses, so why bother?

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Senate Republicans are using Donald Trump’s obstruction of Congress as an excuse for letting him get away with obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. Trump would assert executive privilege to prevent former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying, they say, leading to a long court fight, so … there’s no point in having him testify.

“There will be parts of their testimony, they will be covered by executive privilege and parts that are not. Those have to be litigated. That'll take a couple of months to be able to go through the process,” according to Sen. James Lankford. Enough other Republicans say similar things for it to be a verified talking point, not just an individual concern.

There are so many problems with this. For one thing:

x

Okay, actually that was two points: Trump claiming executive privilege to shield himself in an impeachment trial would be unprecedented, and executive privilege is not a gag order on Bolton, who has already said that he would testify under subpoena.

Additionally, Republicans are talking about the courts taking too long. Guess who’s presiding over the impeachment trial? United States Chief Justice John Roberts. Gonna bet that he could short-circuit the court battle on this.

But beyond that, seriously, Republicans? I know your lack of shame knows no bounds, but “He doesn’t want the witnesses to testify so really there’s nothing to be done” would be pathetic if it was sincere. As it is, it’s simply one more piece of evidence of how far Republicans will go to maintain power, embracing the most ridiculous of excuses to avoid making even more details of Trump’s abuses of power public.

As a reminder, large majorities of Americans say the Senate should call witnesses in this impeachment trial, and it would take just four Republican senators to make it happen.

Trey Gowdy Unloads On Adam Schiff’s ‘Wildly Stupid’ Trial Strategy

Posted on by Rusty Weiss

Fox News contributor and former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy hammered impeachment manager Adam Schiff for his “wildly stupid trial strategy.”

Gowdy made the comments during the third day of President Trump’s impeachment trial, opining on whether or not Schiff’s argument that the American people can not decide the next election is a valid one.

“We are here today to consider a much more grave matter, and that is an attempt to use the powers of the presidency to cheat in an election,” Schiff announced.

“For precisely this reason, the President’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box—for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”

RELATED: Rand Paul Invites Trump as Guest to Attend Impeachment Trial

“Adam’s Ordinarily Not That Stupid But…”

Fox News host Bret Baier queried Gowdy on what he called ‘the big question’

“Is the way that Adam Schiff said it, do voters never get to trust the vote and only lawmakers can decide what the line is, that a president can get kicked out of office for?” Baier asked.

Gowdy didn’t hold back, starting off with a ‘but’ that you simply knew was going to leave a mark on Schiff.

“Yeah, Brett, Adam’s ordinarily not that stupid but when you tell the jury, the Senate, on one day that they’re corrupt and then you tell the American people they cannot be trusted to pick the commander in chief, that’s just a wildly stupid trial strategy,” he replied.

RELATED: Trey Gowdy Levels ‘Wannabe Senator’ Adam Schiff For Opposing Probe Into Obama-Era Spying

Schiff’s Threat to Democracy

Gowdy was quick to point out that Democrats – including Schiff – were up in arms when then-candidate Donald Trump suggested he might not accept the results of the 2016 election.

“It’s hard to believe the nominee of a major party won’t commit to accepting the election result,” Schiff tweeted at the time. “Unfit for any office.”

Now it seems, it’s perfectly okay for Democrats to suggest an election might be rigged.

“Remember when Donald Trump, as a candidate, began to question the reliability of the vote?” Gowdy asked Baier.

“Well Adam Schiff has done exactly the same thing,” he continued assuming a Democrat’s voice. “American people, we don’t trust you to factor this in in November, so we need a hundred senators to decide that.”

Gowdy reiterated, “It is a wildly stupid trial strategy, only surpassed by Jerry Nadler’s insulting of the jury two days ago.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has been a favorite target of Gowdy’s over the years.

Last year, he referred to Schiff as a “wannabe senator” for opposing investigation of Obama-era spying on the Trump campaign.

And, despite contending in this interview that “Adam’s ordinarily not that stupid,” he has in the past referred to him as “consistently wrong,” “deeply partisan,” and joined Fox News personality Tucker Carlson in mocking Schiff as “an irresponsible buffoon.”

The post Trey Gowdy Unloads On Adam Schiff’s ‘Wildly Stupid’ Trial Strategy appeared first on The Political Insider.

Dem Representative Jerry Nadler’s Impeachment Hypocrisy Exposed

Posted on by Jack Hadfield

Representative Jerry Nadler’s hypocrisy on impeachment is completely unacceptable. According to him, it both is and isn’t acceptable to impeach a President on a partisan basis.

Nadler Flipflops On Impeachment

In 1998, Nadler opposed the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton on some very simple grounds. Nadler said that there must never be “a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties, and largely opposed by the other,” as such an impeachment “would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come.”

I agree! Impeachment done on a partisan basis, as we can see today, only provokes a reaction from the American people of disgust and anger at one side trying to get rid of a democratically elected President.

CNN’s Dana Bash confronted Nadler about this in December, when he and other top Democrats were pushing forward with the impeachment of President Trump.

“So, right now, you are moving forward with impeachment proceedings against a Republican president without support from even one congressional Republican,” Bash put to him. “Is it fair to say that this impeachment, in your words from back then, will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come?”

RELATED: Nadler: Hunter Biden ‘Is Not a Relevant Witness’ In Impeachment Trial

Nadler, of course, dodged the question. “I think what puts bitterness and divisiveness into our politics is the conduct of the president, who calls – who questions the patriotism of people who don’t agree with him, who calls political opponents human scum, who talks about the fake press, who derides the judiciary, who questions – who attacks all our democratic institutions,” Nadler responded to Bash.

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh Says ‘IG Report Has Totally Exposed Nadler As A Full-Fledged, 100 Percent Liar’

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Nadler!

It certainly seems ironic that only on Thursday, Nadler tried to use the words of Senator Lindsey Graham from Clinton’s impeachment proceedings as a reason why the President should be impeached today.

How does this man have the gall to pull a stunt like that, when his hypocrisy has been so clear in the past? Senator Graham even said last week that the impeachment proceedings backfired against the Republicans in the 1990s!

I think Nadler should take some advice from his Congressional colleague. Hypocrisy does not pay off!

The post Dem Representative Jerry Nadler’s Impeachment Hypocrisy Exposed appeared first on The Political Insider.