Trump Trial Winners and Losers: We’ll Help You Decide

By David Kamioner | January 22, 2020

In a couple of hours, we’re again diving into what may become another late-night session in the Senate trial of President Donald Trump.

But before that news eclipses last night’s events, let’s look at an overview of Monday’s hijinks and see how they played out legally and politically.

Presidential lawyers Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow knocked it out of the park yesterday in their defense of the president. Cipollone especially shined as he had just the right mix of scholarly demeanor and lawyerly aggression.

He knocked down Dem arguments like swatting away slow-learning gnats and his consistent success at the podium drove Dems to fits of agitation. That agita made Jerry Nadler lose it at the end, as we covered in a previous piece.

RELATED: President Trump Wins His First Impeachment Trial Victory as Senate Votes 53 to 47

Adam Schiff fared no better, as his personal mannerisms got truly odd as the trial wore on.

He seemed not to know what to do with his hands at the rostrum, first holding them together, then kneading them against one another in scenes that made him look like Lady MacBeth in a bad suit.

The Dems used a PowerPoint demonstration that would have embarrassed a third grader as they trudged from point to redundant point not ever moving enough Republicans by their exertions to win the vote on a single amendment.

In fact, during the entire night, they got one Republican one time, Susan Collins of Maine, to break ranks. It didn’t matter and the GOP won that vote too.

RELATED: Hillary Clinton Slams Bernie: ‘Nobody Likes Him’ and His Supporters are Misogynists

It seems the Dems are not playing to the Senate, as they almost admitted a couple of times. They are playing to the media, to give them their talking points, and to the fall election. The agitprop bullets you see on the screen at the trial you will see again in Dem messaging in the fall election.

Speaking of that benighted political group, three of their coterie, Senators Warren, Sanders, and Klobuchar, must be seething in their seats as the trial promises to bleed into long days, longer nights, and has the potential to go weeks.

That will keep the trio off the campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire and is a serious boon to Joe Biden and the rest of the Dem field.

Whether Chuck Schumer has intentionally designed it that way is an interesting idea to contemplate.

 

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
President Trump Wins His First Impeachment Trial Victory as Senate Votes 53 to 47
Tim Tebow Officially Tied the Knot and Their Wedding Photos Are Stunning
Liberals Shamelessly Boo President Trump and Vice President Pence During Visit to MLK Memorial

The post Trump Trial Winners and Losers: We’ll Help You Decide appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump doesn’t just confess to obstruction—he brags about it

Being in the gold-plated, billionaire-infused reaches of Davos clearly makes Donald Trump comfortable. At an early-Wednesday press shindig, Trump scoffed at the impeachment trial that opened in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. In particular, Trump was amused by the idea that the legislature might actually want the information he’s been withholding from both the House and the Senate—an action that’s the second article of Trump’s impeachment.

"Honestly, we have all the material," said Trump. "They don't have the material." That’s right: Trump isn’t just admitting that he’s blocking the Congress and the public from seeing critical information that reveals the truth behind the charges. He’s doing it with a big, proud middle finger delivered from a meeting of the world’s wealthiest.

x

New emails emerge: OMB officials were planning to withhold Ukraine aid before Trump call to Zelensky

In a midnight squeaker, the Office of Management and Budget decided to obey a federal court order and produced nearly 200 pages of documents directly related to the withholding of U.S. military assistance from Ukraine. The collection of emails was turned over in response to a FOIA request from the website American Oversight, which made the information public even as the Senate was debating an amendment to seek other information from the OMB.

The emails obtained show that OMB officials were already aware of Donald Trump’s plans to suspend Ukraine aid before his “perfect” call to the president of Ukraine. Included is a planning document from political appointee Michael Duffey—one of the four people Sen. Chuck Schumer has sought to subpoena for Trump’s Senate impeachment trial—that show that the OMB was planning to bring down the hammer on Ukraine assistance even before Trump put in a demand for “a favor” in the form of political investigations.

The FOIA request had a midnight deadline. OMB avoided further court action by turning over the redacted emails with just two minutes to spare.

Included is a document prepared on the evening of July 24, hours before Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This "Ukraine Prep Memo" was sent to Duffey, but just what it says isn’t clear—because almost all of the email is hidden behind redactions. Which shows that, important as these FOIA requests may be, they’re no substitute for a subpoena.

What can be seen is that Duffey responded to a Department of Defense announcement in June and communicated with OMB official Mark Sandy to discuss Ukraine assistance. And the two of them said … redacted. Duffey spent some time reviewing public announcements of DOD’s approval of Ukraine assistance, and the announcement that it was prepared to provide material to Kyiv. Then he and Sandy discussed the topic again, saying … redacted. They worked out a draft of a note to go back to DOD, the contents of which are … redacted. And all through the day of Trump’s call, they passed versions of their note around the OMB—a note that remains fully redacted. With the names of most of those who received the note also redacted. In all, there are more than a dozen emails zipping around the OMB on July 25 alone, with Duffey seeking to meet with the general counsel’s office and dispatching notes to unknown recipients. But the contents of those emails is completely—completely—redacted.

Which isn’t so much a FOIA response as it is a teaser reel. It’s possible to see that Duffey was keeping an eye on Ukraine issues in the days before Trump’s call, and that he reviewed what appears to be every public release of information from the DOD, as well as how that information was being reported in the press. Then, in the period directly around Trump’s call, Duffey opened a floodgate of communication on the Ukraine topic to every point of the OMB compass and to other officials in unknown agencies. With even most of the recipients of the emails redacted, it’s impossible to tell which higher officials were in the chain.

And, while it’s certainly easy to guess that Duffey was telling everyone to stay quiet on Ukraine as Trump began an illegal hold on assistance, none of that really leaks past the black boundaries, as every single word of substantive content at this point is hidden.

The pattern continues into August, with every substantive word and most of the recipients in the exchanges still redacted. However, Duffey continued to send dozens of notes, and to complain about the “challenges” he was facing on the Ukraine issue. And while the redaction hides any recipients of the notes within the DOD, one in-the-clear line notes that Duffey had some questions from the DOD, showing that the department was involved in the back-and-forth.

There is some information from a presentation available deep in the exchange. It shows that Duffey was communicating with the DOD about shifts in both the “commitment date” and the “obligation date” for the assistance to Ukraine. It also shows that everyone was aware that deadlines were looming that would render the assistance legislation moot. But much of this presentation has been blacked out to leave nothing but the dates, disguising real topics of concern.

Sixty-four pages in, there is a document from Duffey indicating that “we have no interest in delaying any action up until just before the obligation date,” but the statement is made in response to a request that’s been redacted, and the remainder of the sentence is redacted. It appears that Duffey is saying that the DOD should continue to prepare as if the aid would be provided … but it is far from clear. Similarly, there’s an indication in one email that funds “will go into the system” and be obligated on Aug. 19, but since Duffey’s reply to that statement is redacted, it’s impossible to tell if he agrees with that move or acts to stop it. In fact, looking at the connection between that note and another on Aug. 17, it seems possible that the funds under discussion are not even allocated to Ukraine.

Overall, what can be learned from the emails is that Ukraine was the subject of a furious exchange on the day of Trump’s phone call and was a frequent target of Duffey’s concern from June right up until the whistleblower report on the issue was made public. Duffey’s clear interest in the DOD announcement and his review of publications that followed the announcement show that he was looking at how much information had been released, which fits with other information showing that he not only helped clamp down on the assistance, but also told military officials to go quiet on the subject of Ukraine.

However, the biggest thing that can be learned from the FOIA response is that Duffey and the OMB absolutely thumbed their noses at the federal order. Technically they’ve “responded” to the request. Practically, they’ve done so by releasing no more than a collection of email headers and occasional sentences that reveal more about when Duffey was having lunch than about Ukraine assistance.

Some Democrats reportedly open to boosting Republican talking points with impeachment witness trade

Behind the scenes of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, some Democrats are reportedly pondering a deal that could go wrong in about a dozen ways. With Republicans blocking witnesses while yelling about Hunter Biden, these Democrats are considering a trade in which they’d get to call White House officials like former national security adviser John Bolton, an actual witness to Trump’s actions that prompted impeachment, and Republicans would get to call Hunter Biden, a Republican talking point with no actual connection to impeachment.

While Democrats have repeatedly said that calling either Hunter or former Vice President Joe Biden would be irrelevant and a distraction, “behind closed doors, a small group of Democratic senators and aides has begun to question that logic, sounding out colleagues on whether to back a witness deal that could lead to testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton or other administration officials with possible firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine controversy,” The Washington Post reports, citing “multiple Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.”

Some Democrats have sent mixed messages. Sen. Chris Coons said that “If you want to give Joe Biden an opportunity to sit in the well of the Senate and answer the question, ‘Do you think the president acted appropriately?’ go right ahead”—but he also tweeted that “Trials have witnesses, and the witnesses have to be relevant to the case. It isn’t complicated. The President is on trial here, not anyone with the last name Biden. VP Biden and Hunter Biden are not relevant witnesses.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown told CNN’s State of the Union that he was “fine” with a Biden testifying in exchange for administration officials, but on Tuesday he called the idea “a typical Donald Trump-Mitch McConnell distraction that the national media continues to play with and continues to assist them.”

The big question at this point is not what Democrats are saying publicly, though. It’s what they’re talking about behind the scenes.

It is tempting to think that having Bolton or other current or former Trump officials testify could blow this thing wide open, but there are so many risks it’s hard to count them. Like, Hunter or Joe Biden testifies, giving Republicans the distraction they crave, and then Bolton refuses, or Trump manages to block Bolton. Just for starters. The Biden campaign is calling it right, saying that this is a “sad and obvious attempt at diversion” by Republicans. 

This impeachment trial is about Donald Trump and what Donald Trump did. 

Chief Justice Roberts Forced to Play Referee During Impeachment Trials

By David Kamioner | January 22, 2020

Tuesday’s first day of the Senate trial of President Donald Trump was a relatively boring affair, up until almost the end.

The GOP shield wall held up on vote after vote, losing only one member, Collins of Maine, one time on a small procedural matter. At the end of the night, the score was Trump 11, the Dems 0.

Fans of the president cheered and chortled on social media as 11 out of 11, save the one noted above, pathetic Schumer amendments were shot down in flames on 53-47 party line votes.

RELATED: President Trump Wins His First Impeachment Trial Victory as Senate Votes 53 to 47

After a night of that kind of battering the Dems started to lose their equilibrium. You could see it in Schiff. He began to oddly glare at the GOP lawyers as if he could conjure up a death stare that would make them cease and desist legally beating him like a rug.

They didn’t seem to even notice him.

At almost the end, not long before 1am, the Dems could stand it no longer.

The frustration that they were convincing no Republican in the Senate to break party ranks enough to give them even one victory overwhelmed the already delicate sensibilities of Dem House Manager Jerry Nadler. He let loose.

He called GOP legal actions “treacherous.” Nadler claimed the Senate was engaged in a “cover-up” and that “only guilty people try to hide evidence.” He went on to say that “the Senate is on trial” and asked if they would “betray your pledge to be an impartial juror.”

RELATED: Twitter Reacts to Dems First Disastrous Day of Impeachment Trial and It’s Beyond Hilarious

The president’s personal lawyer struck back hard.

“We’ve made our arguments to you. And you don’t deserve, and we don’t deserve, what just happened. Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false allegations against all of you; he accused you of a cover-up. He’s been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler is you, for the way you’ve addressed the United States Senate. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here. … It’s about time we bring this power trip in for a landing,” said Cipollone.

It got so heated that Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the trial, had to warn both sides on their language. He scolded, “Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

The night ended soon after with complete GOP victory and Dem loss. Day two starts in mere hours.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
President Trump Wins His First Impeachment Trial Victory as Senate Votes 53 to 47
Tim Tebow Officially Tied the Knot and Their Wedding Photos Are Stunning
Liberals Shamelessly Boo President Trump and Vice President Pence During Visit to MLK Memorial

The post Chief Justice Roberts Forced to Play Referee During Impeachment Trials appeared first on The Political Insider.

Chuck Schumer and House impeachment managers destroy Team Trump on first night of Senate trial

All through Tuesday afternoon, and evening, and night, and the early hours of Wednesday, the Democratic team of House managers fought the good fight, seeking subpoenas of documents and witnesses as well as procedural changes that would close loopholes intentionally built into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s design for the Senate impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump. And they lost every time. In fact, except for a single early morning vote from faux moderate Susan Collins, Republicans voted exactly as expected, giving Trump and McConnell a 53-47 party line victory on nine straight proposed amendments.

But if that made it seem that the day was a waste … it wasn’t. Yes, Republicans batted down attempts to get documents, call witnesses, and prevent the White House from flooding the zone with cherry-picked documents. However, with every amendment, House managers got the chance to lay out their case. They introduced the facets of Trump’s malfeasance step by step, pillar by pillar, with each member of the team stepping up to carry the load on a specific area. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team was left sputtering and looping back over not just talking points, but also obvious lies. It might have been a losing effort—but it was still magnificent.

At first, it wasn’t clear exactly what was happening. After an introductory speech from both sides—during which Trump attorneys Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow burned up every talking point they had—Schumer introduced a proposal to seek documents from the White House. This provided for an hour on each side to debate the merits of the amendment. Except the Democratic team used that time for a detailed review of those documents that were being withheld by the White House and how key they were to the case ahead. Trump’s attorneys responded by repeating their talking points and throwing on more personal insults for the case managers.

This pattern then repeated for an incredible nine more amendments. After the second, it became clear just what was happening: Chuck Schumer structured the amendments not as simple requests, but as detailed explanations that mentioned specific exchanges, particular conversations, critical meetings, and other events that were known to have happened, but were missing from the evidence available to the House team. During the debate period for each amendment, different members of that House team rose to give an even more detailed defense of the need for those documents, with Zoe Lofgren, Val Demings, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jason Crow all doing spectacular jobs in dealing with requests from the White House, State Department, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Defense.

After the OMB request, Schumer mixed things up a bit by requesting a personal subpoena of Mick Mulvaney. Again, this wasn’t just a “Give us Mulvaney” request, but a detailed summons that included a recitation of Mulvaney’s interactions with Trump, his role in blocking military assistance to Ukraine, and—wonderfully—his press conference confession, complete with the “Get over it” moment. The individual subpoenas continued, allowing Sylvia Garcia and Jerry Nadler to join in the fray. Those subpoenas bracketed additional requests for changes to the structure of the proceedings to eliminate wording that made it excessively easy for the White House to pretend to respond to a request by producing only documents that are favorable to Trump, and another section that gave Republicans multiple chances to kill future requests for witnesses.

By the sixth proposed amendment—at around 9:30 p.m.—a clearly dragging Mitch McConnell begged for mercy. He called for a quorum vote to force a delay, trying to negotiate Schumer into making all his remaining requests in a lump so Republicans could give them a single down vote and go home.

But Schumer had no inclination to make such a deal for a very, very good reason. Over the course of 10 amendments, the team of Democratic House managers introduced the case against Trump in loving detail. Without touching a minute of the 24 hours that the proposal allots to each team, the House managers made a 10-hour introduction to the case, spelling out the players and the crimes.

Through it all, both McConnell and the Trump team seemed utterly unprepared, while the Democrats had clearly practiced this maneuver for weeks. Despite McConnell’s vaunted reputation as a master of Senate secrets, he seemed utterly unable to deal with Schumer’s moves as the Democratic team slowly, methodically, and systematically bulldozed the Republican team. 

There were some highlights for Trump’s attorneys, but not in a good sense. While Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin stepped in to occasionally spell Sekulow and Cipollone, it was after 11 p.m. before Trump lawyer Pam Bondi was allowed to make a five-minute appearance in which she not only failed to even mention the topic at hand, but also sat down without even noting that her moment in the spotlight was done. The other top-notch moment came when Jay Sekulow apparently misheard Val Demings talking about “FOIA lawsuits” and spent his entire time period making an incoherent rant about “lawyer lawsuits,” and “how dare” Demings talk about “lawyer lawsuits”?

The Bolton subpoena was near the end of the proceedings, and when a still-wound-up-at-midnight Nadler rose to support that amendment, he jumped in with both feet, taking a much more aggressive tone than previous House managers. The usually much more pedantic House Judiciary Committee chair called Republican votes to suppress subpoenas “treacherous” and accused Republicans in the Senate of being part of the cover-up as they voted to shut out witnesses. Nadler’s sharply worded performance seemed to wake up Trump’s tired team, and both Cipollone and Sekulow jumped in to flat-out scream at Nadler in response—following which Chief Justice John Roberts saw fit to waggle a finger at both sides, cautioning them about the Senate’s rules against personal insults. Notably, Roberts had not been stirred to make such a comment despite hundreds of insults and lies from the Republican team earlier in the night.

In the end, the Republicans got everything they wanted. On paper. But the Democratic team didn’t put on a pointless show. It showed that it’s come loaded for a serious fight, and that neither McConnell nor Trump’s legal team is prepared. It’s almost as if the House managers spent that time that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave them planning strategy and tactics and practicing their approach to the material. Which suggests that, like Tuesday night, the rest of the week might not go quite as well for Team Trump as they’ve been expecting.

Schumer and the House team may not have won the votes, but they absolutely won the evening. By miles. And everyone on the other side of the aisle should be sweating.

Impeachment trial opening arguments kick off Wednesday after marathon Tuesday debate

Opening arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump begin at 1 PM ET on Wednesday, after a brutal nearly 13-hour day of procedural debate on Tuesday that ended at nearly 2 AM. Democrats offered a series of amendments to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s cover-up plan, seeking to be able to call witnesses or subpoena new evidence that the White House has obstructed, but Republicans voted down proposal after proposal, making clear again and again that they do not want the facts.

On Wednesday, the House impeachment managers will begin to make their case, for which they have 24 hours over three days. That means arguments could stretch past 9 PM, depending on how many breaks the Senate takes. The day will be especially exhausting for Chief Justice John Roberts, who presides over the trial and will also be hearing arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning.

The House managers—Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, and Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia—will lay out the case that Trump abused power and obstructed Congress. In fact, they already began to make that argument on Tuesday as they argued for why the Senate trial should include more witnesses and evidence, showing themselves to be far sharper and more prepared than Trump’s defense team, even before you consider that the facts are on the House managers’ side. Wednesday, they have the opportunity to put it all together uninterrupted.

Trump will spend most of the day in the air on his way back from Davos, Switzerland, where he conducted several typically lie-riddled interviews before leaving.