Category: Impeachment

Second day of Trump impeachment trial ends with Adam Schiff delivering closing argument for the ages

Posted on by Mark Sumner

On Thursday, House managers of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump shifted gears from the chronology of events as laid out on Wednesday to the corrupt intent behind Trump’s actions. The entire day was focused on just the issue of abuse of power and why it is an impeachable offense, and on evidence that Trump’s actions in Ukraine were taken with a deeply corrupt intent. Over the course of the day, that meant revisiting some of the same statements and clips from the hearings that were presented on Wednesday. But the tone of the day was quite different. More pedantic in places. More insistent in others. 

And then the whole thing ended with Adam Schiff giving a 10-minute closer that, in any other circumstance, should have brought on a standing ovation. It was a masterful demonstration not just of how to make a point, but of why Donald J. Trump really has to go.

The opening of the day was really left to House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, who spoke of the basic idea of abuse of power and grounded the first article of Trump’s impeachment in historical thought. For Republicans who love to hear those quotes from founders, Nadler’s talk delivered. From The Federalist papers to English common law to the Constitution itself, Nadler reviewed the origins of both the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and the way in which abuse of power had become defined as a crime that can only be committed by someone who is, obviously, in a position of power.

After that beginning, each of the House managers took a turn at methodically plowing through the history of past impeachments before switching to look at how Trump’s actions compared to those past cases. Schiff took part in carrying one of those segments at mid-morning, but, as the day wore on, it was Rep. Val Demings and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries who again emerged as stars of the management team. Both of them looked specifically at how Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine were taken not out of any concern over corruption or out of any national interest, but purely to benefit Trump personally.

Jeffries in particular did a knock-out job of destroying the argument that Republicans have used so often: the idea that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky felt “no pressure.” Reviewing the steps that began before U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was forced from her position and proceeding to the moment when Trump relented to release military assistance to Ukraine, Jeffries showed that Zelensky recognized that what Trump and Rudy Giuliani were trying to force on him was corrupt and wrong. Zelensky actually tried to resist that effort until Trump piled on the freshman president with a push that came from all directions, and with statements that made it obvious that giving in to Trump was the price of Ukraine’s security.

Over the course of the day, the Democratic team also took the time to pre-puncture some other parts of the Trump argument, with Schiff stepping in to detail the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory, and show that what Ukraine was being asked to support wasn’t some generic review of actions in 2016. Zelensky was being asked to support Russian propaganda, even as Russia was crushing Ukrainian troops at his eastern border. Overall, the day was another powerful, deeply convincing turn from the House team, which is expected to continue talking about abuse of power before moving to discussion of obstruction on Friday.

Then, at the end of the day, Schiff rose again for a brief conclusion. This wasn’t the closing argument for the team. It wasn’t the closing argument for this phase of the presentation. It wasn’t even the closing argument for the case on article one. This was just the closing argument for Thursday. 

But it was amazing. Devastating. A plea for the ages that should have brought the room to its feet, and created a spark of doubt in even the biggest Trump supporter. In less than 10 minutes, Schiff laid out not just why what Trump did was wrong, but why it is vital to the nation that Donald J Trump be removed from office. Immediately. And it started with a very simple question.

Schiff said, "Whether we can say it publicly, we all know what we're dealing with here with this president. Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies ... that makes him dangerous ... Why would anyone in their right mind believe Giuliani over Christopher Wray?" 

x

Schiff continued, “If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. The framers could not protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter. And you know what he did was not right. That’s what they do in the old country, where Colonel Vindman’s father came from, the old country that my great-grandfather came from, or the old country that my ancestors came from, or maybe where you came from.

“Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost.”

The Senate chamber was silent as he left the podium. But that silence was ringing.

Today in impeachment: Obstruction of Congress to take center stage as House Democrats wrap up

Posted on by Laura Clawson

After a powerful closing Thursday night, Rep. Adam Schiff and the rest of the House impeachment managers return Friday for their final day of opening arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The question remains whether any Republican senators are even listening amid all the fidget spinning and playing hooky.

Schiff, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, and Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Sylvia Garcia, Val Demings, and Jason Crow have another eight hours to make their case, but they aren’t required to use it all, and some have suggested they might wrap up early. In Thursday’s arguments, the Democrats prebutted key parts of the Trump defense and did exactly what Trump is always saying people should do: read the “transcript” of his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Friday they are expected to show how Trump obstructed Congress (and why that’s wrong, since Republicans seem fine with it).

On Saturday, Trump’s defense team begins to make its case, which evidence suggests will consist of a lot of lies, attacks on Schiff, and blatant pandering to Trump’s ego.

Friday’s arguments once again start at 1 PM ET.

Cartoon: Join the Trump legal defense team!

Posted on by Mark Fiore

x Vimeo Video

We have now seen — in ranting “legal” briefs — how President Trump’s team is planning on defending him in the Senate impeachment trial. In short, they’re going to rant and rave, blame everyone else and wrap the whole package in faux legalese.

That’s what happens when you pick most of your legal team from the Fox News bench. You don’t necessarily get the brightest legal minds by doing it that way. (In their defense, even the most brilliant legal mind would have a tough time defending Trump.) Good thing the president has the Republican-held Senate to throw down roadblocks and acquittals as needed.

The more we review the details of what led to impeachment, the more disheartening it is that the Senate will likely let him off the hook. Who knows, maybe more revelations and evidence outside the Senate trial will lead to additional articles of impeachment. Extorting Ukraine is just one of the many threads of criminality woven through this administration.

Enjoy the cartoon, which you would have seen along the way to completion if you were one of my Patreon supporters :-)

Dems Have Had A Chance To Show They Care For The Rule Of Law For Over 20 Years — And Failed

Posted on by Wayne Dupree

The Articles of Impeachment were a forgone conclusion, from the morning after the election, and before the then-GOP candidate, Donald Trump took over the Presidency.

The only question was which specific charges would be included. But, as Nancy Pelosi has infamously said earlier, you have to vote FOR them, to find out what they may contain.

The Democrat party has proven itself wholly and utterly unfit to lead. IF they had any involvement in the incredible past three years of economic development and wealth creation, they would at least be able to say they did something of value.

RELATED: Opinion: If The Dems Case Is So Strong And So Obvious, As They Insist, Why Need More Docs And Witnesses?

Still, they did nothing but “protest,” complain, and lie to the American people at every turn. The results of the upcoming election will be theirs to own, as voters take them to task for their failures. Seventy-five million (75,000,0000), that’s the number of votes Trump will get this election. Mark my word. Republicans will win at least one more seat in the Senate, and the Democrats will lose the House. You’ll see.

Democrats had the chance to show how much they care about Rule of Law numerous times over the past 20 years, starting in the late 90s with Clinton’s impeachment, and their vote that obstruction of justice didn’t warrant impeachment, to “sanctuary laws” and pretending immigration law is exempt from the concept of Rule of Law.

Rep. Adam Schiff keeps saying that there is overwhelming evidence that has been presented, and “the extensive evidence” that was collected in the House impeachment process will be given. So if the House has done its job, there’s no need for additional witnesses, and the Senate can make their determination on the case the House managers present.

Remember, every “star” witness called by the Democrats was asked on cross-examination if they witnessed the president committing any crimes – and everyone said “no.”

Let’s say this again. It is NOT the responsibility of the Senate to find evidence. That task is up to the House of Reps, which is what they are supposed to use to decide whether to bring Articles of Impeachment. Obviously, they’ve decided to bring Articles of Impeachment and then try to find evidence to support them.

RELATED: Opinion: This Impeachment Is Based Only On Political Desire And Opinion, Not The Constitution Or The Law

This is just a bunch of nervous Democrats fearing that if they don’t get rid of a president that is getting closer to exposing their dirty games and affecting their bank accounts, they will be out of a job.

Senate trials have ONE purpose. To remove officials who have done very serious crimes. Bill Clinton committed a felony (lying under oath), and he was not removed. Nixon committed a felony and resigned instead of going through a Senate trial in which he would have been pronounced guilty. What we are looking at here are hardly crimes, if crimes at all. They certainly are not worthy of a Senate trial.

Once you understand that, you know that this could be nothing other than a sham.

More Stories From WayneDupree.com

The post Dems Have Had A Chance To Show They Care For The Rule Of Law For Over 20 Years — And Failed appeared first on The Political Insider.

New clip of young Lindsey Graham talking about impeachment confirms his hypocrisy knows no bounds

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds. It is hard to write this in new ways every few minutes, but it is the job of any honest person to acknowledge it. With Donald Trump’s impeachment trial playing out in the Senate and a Republican Party now actively colluding to cover up his crimes, old videos of very visible Republicans and Trump allies contradicting their current positions have started springing up.

Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the more obvious examples because his 180-degree turnabout on executive powers, the abuse of those powers, and the subject of impeachment is arguably the most transparent example of how craven the Republican Party has become in its amoral quest for power. 

Dating back to Jan. 23, 1999, the clip below shows a younger Sen. Graham speaking at a press conference and basking in that camera limelight he so clearly desired and now requires.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The law allows a different disposition if the offender comes before the court: “yes I’m guilty and I’m sorry and I throw myself on the mercy of the court.”  The sentence is usually different in a case like that versus someone who takes the legal system to the bitter end, and uses every twist and turn, and every gimmick, to try and beat the charges, for lack of a better word. So I’m going to argue that proportionality is something we need to consider, but is something that the defendant usually has to earn. And when you have someone who has flouted the law at every turn, then usually the sanctions are much more severe.

This was Sen. Graham’s attempt to dismiss the fact that the Republican Party’s “high crime” against then president Bill Clinton was that he obstructed justice in order to hide and lie about an extramarital affair he was having. The “proportionality” being brought to his mouth was the fact that none of it seemed very high crime-like, and Graham wanted to angle for the idea that Clinton’s lack of remorse showed an elitism and a belief he was above the law.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has arguably committed high crimes not only every day that he has been president, but every day since he began running for president.

x

House managers continue to build devastating impeachment case against Trump: Live coverage #6

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Donald Trump has been impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—and in case there was any doubt he’s guilty, he’s bragging about obstruction. But that’s not enough for Senate Republicans determined to protect him at all cost.

On day one of opening arguments, the House impeachment managers, led by Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, gave a master class in conveying complicated information clearly and persuasively, while Republicans conveyed their contempt for the proceedings by leaving the room and Chief Justice John Roberts failed to do his job by rebuking their absences. Even before Democrats began to make their case, a majority of Americans believed Trump should be removed from office.

The House impeachment managers—Schiff, Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, and Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia—continue to make their case in the second day of opening arguments. Daily Kos will be following live.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 1:42:44 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And we’re back with Val Demings.

Unless you made the mistake of listening to C-SPAN callers over the break. In which case, check in when you arrive at your new home in [Some other country, Any other country].

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 1:45:27 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

While Jeffries and Garcia concentrated on the White House meeting, and on the general level of pressure that the United States can level against Ukraine just by the nature of the relationship, Demings is speaking directly to the military assistance.

Expect Demings to make some effort to cut off Team Trump’s distortion of the level of assistance under Obama. The “Obama only gave them blankets” lie has been floated dozens of times across the House hearings and are a constant on Fox land.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 1:49:20 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

While it’s still ridiculous that the Republicans refuse to subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney or others, I’m appreciating the way that the House impeachment team is able to use the hours of canned testimony from the hearings to deliver brief quotes directly to the point.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 1:56:18 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Demings ends her presentation surprisingly quickly after punching hard at the importance of the military assistance package and the release of the package in past years.

Zoe Lofgren steps up to continue the story from there, looking at how Trump stepped in after the DOD had approved the assistance and cleared Ukraine on its efforts to fight corruption.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 2:00:58 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lofgren starts by detailing the flurry of activity that began immediately after the Pentagon announced that it was releasing funds to Ukraine. Within a day, OMB officials clamped down, without giving a reason. 

Lofgren also explains that Trump gave an interview with Fox the same day, in which he brought up the “Crowdstrike” conspiracy theory involving Ukraine.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 2:06:18 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Like every manager today, Lofgren makes a pitch for obtaining some of the missing documents and points out the places in her story where a piece if missing because of Trump’s obstruction.

It’s a good tactic both in raising every scrap of possible pressure for issuing a subpoena, and for making clear how much the trial is affected by Trump’s obstruction — a charge that will be discussed tomorrow.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 2:12:22 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lofgren points out the lack of any reason for the hold. No witness provided any reason.

All the various reasons provided during the House hearings were invented by Jordan, Nunes, and others during those hearings, and dropped when they clearly didn’t make sense. They floated ideas that Trump wanted more military aid from Europe — which made zero sense, especially for a hold made in secret. And they floated the idea that Trump was conducting an inter-agency review. which was simply not true. And they floated the idea that Trump held the aid because he was waiting for legislation to pass in Ukraine. But there was not one mention of any of the factors during the time the aid was actually being held.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 2:22:57 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

If Trump was actually concerned about corruption … why didn’t he tell Congress?

If Trump was actually seeking more funds from Europe … why didn’t he tell Congress?

If Trump was seeking more information from Zelensky … why didn’t he tell Congress?

He didn’t tell Congress, because none of that was true. None of it was even mentioned until House Republicans began to scramble to make up an excuse that could explain Trump’s actions without admitting to his extortion scheme.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 2:29:23 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lofgren finishes up after doing a very solid job. Once again, I have think how much better these presentations are the the things we get in the House when talk-time is cut into five minute chunks.

Jason Crow up to talk about how we know Trump’s motives.

Tennessee senator tries to burn Adam Schiff, but Twitter roasts her almost instantly

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Sen. Marsha Blackburn is well-known around these here parts for being a pretty detestable human being. Then again, detestability seems to be the only qualification for being a Republican senator these days. And Blackburn has indeed been doing her job as a Republican senator: groveling at the feet of Donald Trump while dismantling our democratic processes. 

As Donald Trump’s impeachment trial goes into another day, Republicans in the Senate are spending their time not paying attention with the deck already loaded, the fix already in. But having all of this obdurate criminality in place does not stop Republicans like Marsha Blackburn from being dumb as dirt. The senator from Tennessee decided to go and give her two cents, in a classic Republican attempt at gotcha-style politics:

x

Sorry! I should have warned you that your mind might be blown clear from your skull by Blackburn’s wit and wisdom. The Twitterverse very quickly realized that Marsha Blackburn had said something—something too stupid and unbelievably hubristic to let lie.

x

But people were also pissed.

x

Damn. “Guttersnipe” sounds awful.

x

x

And it didn’t stop. In fact, the ratio just took off on Sen. Blackburn

x

x

Some literature for Blackburn to read while she doesn’t fulfill her sworn oath on the Senate floor:

x

And some more reminders:

x

Before you knew it, #Marsha was trending. And not because The Brady Bunch is getting a reboot.

x

That Tweet is to remind people that Sen. Marsha Blackburn is trash.

x

And finally:

x

House managers continue to build devastating impeachment case against Trump: Live coverage #5

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Donald Trump has been impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—and in case there was any doubt he’s guilty, he’s bragging about obstruction. But that’s not enough for Senate Republicans determined to protect him at all cost.

On day one of opening arguments, the House impeachment managers, led by Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, gave a master class in conveying complicated information clearly and persuasively, while Republicans conveyed their contempt for the proceedings by leaving the room and Chief Justice John Roberts failed to do his job by rebuking their absences. Even before Democrats began to make their case, a majority of Americans believed Trump should be removed from office.

The House impeachment managers—Schiff, Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, and Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia—continue to make their case in the second day of opening arguments. Daily Kos will be following live.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 12:16:50 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

We’re back, with Hakeem Jeffries continuing what’s been a powerful presentation with an insightful and fresh approach.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 12:30:56 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries continues to demonstrate, step by step, just how ridiculous Donald Trump’s claims of “no pressure” really are. Ukraine needed the military assistance. They needed the White House meeting.

They didn’t just want them. They required them to survive.

So long as it was just Rudy Giuliani representing himself as Trump’s personal attorney, they resisted announcing investigations, because they knew it would risk their bipartisan support in Congress. But Trump didn’t leave it at Giuliani. He pushed the State Department to take their marching orders from Giuliani, and with the help of calls from Sondland, Volker, and others, Zelensky was driven to cooperate with Giuliani.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 12:31:35 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries: “This is corruption and abuse of power in it’s purest form.”

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 12:37:01 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

In case you missed it 

The new position from Republicans is that since Trump has said he'll invoke privilege if Bolton is subpoenaed … they won't subpoena Bolton. Because if they subpoena, and Trump invokes privilege, they would have to go to court. And if they go to court, Trump will fight. And if Trump fights, they’ll have to appeal. And that could mean this trial goes on for weeks. So they’re not even going to issue a subpoena. Obstruction beats obstruction charges, Q.E.D. Notice that Trump didn’t even have to invoke privilege or resist a subpoena to get the Republicans to fold. Because they come pre-folded.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 12:49:11 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries: “In America, for all of us, what keeps us free from tyranny, is the sacred principle: No one is above the law.”

Wraps a fantastic presentation on the pressure applied to Ukraine and how Zelensky was badgered into making a deal for the military assistance he should have had to begin with.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 12:49:48 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Slyvia Garcia is back up, and pounding the phrase “quid pro quo.” 

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 1:02:38 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Garcia is showing a series of clips, demonstrating that the State Department and NSC officials were not just aware of the extortion scheme Trump was conducting, but aware that it was wrong.

In clip after clip, Hill, Vindman, Taylor, and others demonstrate that they see what’s going on, and immediately acted to report that there was an issue.

Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 1:18:30 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner Like Jeffries, Garcia demonstrated that Zelensky and team tried every way they could to not give into the corrupt investigations Trump was demanding. They only buckled to his demands after they were getting regular calls from Sondland, Volker, Giuliani and otehrs to make it clear they had no choice. Friday, Jan 24, 2020 · 1:21:31 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Five minute break at the request of the House management team. Unclear why.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries destroys Donald Trump’s claims of ‘no pressure’ in critical presentation

Posted on by Mark Sumner

Stopped in a hallway outside the Senate chamber, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked what she’d seen that was “new.” Her immediate response — the presentation that had just finished from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. Warren is right. The facts that Jeffries reviewed may have come from the House hearings, but what they revealed in his presentation placed a whole new light on a key element of Trump’s impeachment.

On Wednesday morning, Trump began his record day of tweets by simply tweeting “No pressure.” That claim, that the Ukrainian government did not feel pressured to give Trump the investigations he wanted, is critical to the case for Trump’s defense. And Jeffries’ presentation showed just how ridiculous that claim really is.

1) The White House meeting and military assistance were both vital to Ukraine's very existence. As a independent democracy.

2) The pressure to maintain a stable relationship with the United States was enormous, because that relationship is the most important connection Ukraine has, and the only partnership that can safeguard them against a serious Russian incursion.

3) When Rudy Giuliani approached incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky saying that he was Trump's personal attorney, Zelensky and team fended off the demands that were passed from Trump through Giuliani for months.

4) Behind the scenes Ukrainian officials scrambled madly to preserve the U.S. relationship without doing something they knew was wrong. They saw what Giuliani was doing, but in supporting corrupt figures from past Ukrainian governments, and smearing ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, but did their best to stay out of it. 

5) Zelensky’s government understood what Trump wanted, but they knew that giving it to him risked losing the bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress that was vital to continued assistance from the U.S. So, as long as it was just Giuliani pushing them, they resisted.

6) Unhappy that Giuliani had not been able to get the investigations started, Trump assigned the “three amigos” to listen to Giuliani and support his play. 

7) After Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland talked with Giuliani, reinforced the demands, and made it clear that U.S. foreign policy had been subverted to support Trump’s personal goals, Zelensky could see that the only way to preserve any U.S.-Ukraine relationship in the short term was to go along with Trump’s demands. 

8) Even so, Ukrainian officials didn’t come to this position willingly. They drafted a version of the announcement that they hoped would satisfy Trump without making enemies in Congress. But Trump’s team shoved it back and forced them to make it more explicit.

9) With Giuliani, Sondland, Volker and others all pounding the Ukrainian team for announcements of the investigations, Zelensky eventually folded and agreed to the CNN interviews. Sondland walked Zelensky through what he needed to say to Trump to please him.

10) The interviews were only stopped when Trump was pinned down by the whistleblower, congressional inquiries, and public knowledge that forced him to release the military assistance. Without the pressure of the pending aid package, Zelensky withdrew from the interviews.

When Rudy Giuliani pulled up at Zelensky’s door and represented himself as Trump’s personal attorney, Zelensky was able to resist responding to the demands passed to him. It wasn’t until Trump backed Giuliani with senior officials—until “everyone was in the loop”— that officials in Ukraine realized just how corrupt the U.S. had become. And Zelensky saw that, for the sake of his nation, he had no choice to bend to the immeasurable pressure being applied by Trump.