Category: trump

Lev Parnas pours gasoline on McConnell’s fire, detailing gigantic conspiracy he could testify to

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas has already publicly documented how deeply enmeshed he was in Donald Trump's world and now, in a letter sent by his lawyer to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Friday, he is outlining exactly what he would testify to if given the opportunity. Spoiler alert: It would be absolutely disastrous for Trump.

If allowed to testify, the letter asserts that Parnas would detail Trump's entire Ukraine conspiracy front to back, with receipts, while implicating multiple high-level Trump officials in the process. "If Lev Parnas was called as a witness, he would provide testimony based upon personal knowledge, corroborated by physical evidence including text messages, phone records, documentary evidence, and travel records, which is directly relevant to the President's impeachment inquiry," writes Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy.

Bondy says Parnas will reveal the "genesis" of the relationship between Trump and Rudy Giuliani along with all the GOP operatives who assisted in the effort to remove Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and gather "dirt" on the Bidens. 

"Those holding various roles in the plot included GOP Super PAC America First, President Trump, Vice President Pence, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Bill Barr, Senator Lindsey Graham, Congressman Devin Nunes, Nunes's Staffer Derek Harvey, Journalist John Solomon, Attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, Mr. Giuliani, and others," Bondy writes. Yowzer. That's quite a list. Sen. Graham, eh? That would sure explain a lot. 

Bondy promises that Parnas will illuminate the "thousands of micro-steps" he took to lay the groundwork for the plan, including multiple trips to Ukraine in order to meet with top Ukrainian officials and "directly convey the President's 'quid pro quo.'"

In short, Parnas is offering to give congressional investigators a treasure trove of information. Sure, Parnas comes to the table with a tarnished reputation. But he has the exact profile of a witness that prosecutors use to build criminal cases all the time. Even better, he appears to have documented nearly everything and has somehow managed to finally get control of all his materials and evidence. 

As former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance tweeted, "If his testimony is corroborated by John Bolton, something that his lawyer’s letter suggests but that we won’t know for certain unless they both testify, then Trump is in deep trouble, even if the Senate whitewashes this."

New Bolton revelation: ‘The kind of bombshell Mitch McConnell has been afraid of all along’

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Former national security adviser John Bolton’s new revelation about White House counsel Pat Cipollone being in on Trump’s Ukraine conspiracy as early as May 2019 is dropping like a bomb on Washington. "This is the kind of bombshell that Mitch McConnell has been afraid of all along," reporter Kasie Hunt said on MSNBC.

Indeed, a day that seemed almost certainly headed toward a no-witness vote and fast acquittal just in time for Donald Trump’s victory laps on Fox News and at next week’s State of the Union address now holds a slew of question marks. Hill reporters are now musing that the Senate trial could go into next week, “maybe even mid-week,” tweeted Politico’s John Bresnahan. Trump’s already in damage control, tweeting out fantasies like a drunken sailor on hallucinogens. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski still hasn’t announced her vote on witnesses, which is bad news for McConnell because she hasn’t owed the GOP caucus anything since 2010, when she won reelection as a write-in candidate. Murkowski’s now a “no” on witnesses.

As Americans, we should still be rooting for witnesses. The citizenry deserves to hear from Bolton in his own words, among others.

But as Democrats, we can also feast on the political peril this represents for Republicans, who have now admitted that Trump did everything House managers said he did and that they just don’t care. As commentators on MSNBC absorbed the new Bolton bombshell, they almost unanimously declared it an electoral disaster in the making for Senate Republicans, especially given where public opinion has been on witnesses all along. 

"This makes that vote against witnesses political suicide,” former GOP operative Nicolle Wallace observed, adding, “I hope they take it."

Even former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was bullish on the prospects for Democrats. “If these Republicans shut this trial down and say, No more,” she said, “it is a great gift to the Democrats in November.”

As Sen. Kamala Harris noted before the news dropped, "There can be no true exoneration if there's not been a fair trial. Period." Now more than ever, Senate Republicans are also on trial. At least some of them seem to know it.

Sen. Rand Paul tries to out whistleblower during impeachment, #ArrestRandPaul goes viral on Twitter

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Wednesday evening, reports came out that Sen. Rand Paul was trying his darndest to out the alleged “whistleblower” by getting Chief Justice Roberts to say the name inside of a question, to be read during the Senate impeachment trial. It’s the kind of rich kid douchebaggery one expects from a 1980s teen movie villain … and Rand Paul. Because of the bad press that justifiably rained down on him, Sen. Paul illegally went out to talk with reporters during the Senate impeachment trial to clear his name by continuing to be a gruesome person and even worse senator. It’s important to note here that Sen. Rand Paul does shitty things on occasion like this, mostly to remind the country that he’s still here. Also because, like his dad, he’s mostly interested in his own power, and also like his dad, his libertarian ideas are worthless and cyclically ebb and flow with the rise and fall of fascism.

And so Rand was able to make the day’s headlines, and stay in those headlines, but not because people think the gold-diapered baby senator is a patriot. No, people had Sen. Paul on their minds for a very different reason altogether—American history and common sense. #ArrestRandPaul began to trend on Twitter, and took off.

x

x

No. No there’s not.

x

x

And people aren’t saying it simply as a joke.

x

And while it is preaching to the choir, the depth of this move, the true inhumanity and bleakness of soul that it takes to put people’s lives in jeopardy over some worthless political points that you might get from Donald Trump, is pathetic.

x

If our justice system was even half working at this point, Sen. Rand Paul would be in a whole heap of very real trouble.

x

Elizabeth Warren asks killer trial question on Supreme Court legitimacy. Chief Justice Roberts wilts

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren clearly wanted Chief Justice John Roberts to ponder his place in history Thursday when she sent this doozy to him to read aloud at the Senate impeachment trial: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?” 

In other words: Hey, we all know this is a sham trial, the American people know this is a sham trial. Any chance you’ll do the right thing and protect the integrity of the court and your legacy by casting your vote for witnesses in the event of a 50-50 tie? Kapowie!

Do yourself a favor and watch Roberts read it below.

x

Harvard professor repeatedly cited by Dershowitz in impeachment trial calls Trump defense a ‘joke’

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team has about as much integrity as a fishing net made out of toilet paper. On Wednesday, lawyer Alan Dershowitz provided one of the most truly wicked and specious arguments in the history of law when he explained during Trump’s Senate impeachment trial that a public official, no matter how corrupt, could not commit a crime if they believe that their corrupt action is in the public interest. His exact quote was, “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.”

Dershowitz, like the toadstool of a person he is, later tweeted that he didn’t say what he said and that people saying he did were misunderstanding what he said. He went on to say he stood by what he didn’t say, but he didn’t say it … so don’t say he said it. A large part of Dershowitz’s theatrical display of intellectual dishonesty was dedicated to citing fellow Harvard Law professor Nikolas Bowie as someone who agreed with the argument that abuse of power does not warrant impeachment. Bowie then spoke with Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin on CNN to clear up what he actually wrote and believes.

Abuse of power is a crime. There are people around the country who have been convicted of it recently. It's a crime that’s existed since this country was founded. And it's a criminal offense. To equate it with "maladministration," as my colleague professor Dershowitz does, is the equivalent of saying that criminal corruption is the same thing as getting a bad performance evaluation. “Maladministration” is just an 18th-century term for doing a bad thing at your job, for, you know, not filing papers correctly. And I think he’s right: A president shouldn’t be impeached for getting a bad performance evaluation. But to equate that with criminal corruption? That’s a joke.

He’s right. But, like everything in this current authoritarian climate, it’s a terrible, terrible joke.

x

We can all stop pretending Republicans want to preserve the republic. They don’t

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

L'état, c'est moi. I am the state. That is where we are—a declaration of self as sovereign once made famous by France's Louis XIV, whose pre-revolutionary reign as king lasted 72 years until his death in 1715. This appears to be exactly what Senate Republicans are preparing to embrace on Friday when they will likely vote against hearing witness testimony so they can summarily move to acquit Donald Trump without engaging even the most basic due diligence of any fair fact-seeking trial.

At least we won't have to endure any more insulting bothsidesisms from the media like this New York Times classic from December asserting that "the lawmakers from the two parties could not even agree on a basic set of facts in front of them." Actually, House Republicans hadn't even pretended to deal in facts, they were too busy deploying the distraction of emotional hyperbole. 

The failure of House Republicans to lay a factual foundation for Trump’s defense is exactly why, over the course of the past week, the arguments of Trump's legal team have effectively devolved from "he didn't commit a crime" to "it doesn't matter if he did" to "it's perfectly legal and acceptable for a president to break the law in pursuit of his self interests because his interests are the state's interests." 

“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,” Alan Dershowitz told U.S. senators Wednesday, only to refute himself on Thursday.

“The idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake,” White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin offered. “Information that is credible that potentially shows wrongdoing by someone who happens to be running for office, if it’s credible information, is relevant information for the voters to know about.”

Trump's so-called "information" seeking about Biden was never credible. But that's clearly immaterial to Philbin. He doesn't even think Trump seeking something of value from a foreign government to win reelection is criminal, when it actually is under 52 U.S.C. 30121. But who cares? C'est la vie. He's president. Get over it. 

That's basically the exact same argument Trump made to ABC journalist George Stephanopoulos last June. "It's not an interference, they have information—I think I'd take it," Trump said of dirt offered to him by a foreign government. Trump also told Stephanopoulos that FBI Director Christopher Wray was "wrong" when he advised Congress that politicians should report any approaches made by foreign entities to the FBI.

The next day, Trump was momentarily shamed into walking back his comments, saying "of course" he would report such an instance to the FBI. That whiplash 180 came after Republican lawmakers like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham flatly rejected the idea of accepting foreign help in campaigns. “If a foreign government comes to you as a public official, and offers to help your campaign giving you anything of value, whether it be money or information on your opponent, the right answer is no,” Sen. Graham said on June 14, 2019.

Oh, those were the days, when Trump lackeys like Graham still gave at least some deference to the law.

Now the Wall Street Journal editorial board is endorsing the presidential exceptionalism that Trump’s lawyers advanced. "Every President equates his re-election self-interest with the public interest. It isn’t grounds for impeachment," read the subhead of the board's jaw-dropping editorial. The board cited Philbin asserting, “All elected officials, to some extent, have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions, will affect the next election. ... It can’t be a basis for removing a President from office.”

In a rebuttal, House Intelligence Committee chair and floor manager Adam Schiff pointed out the disingenuousness of that argument. "We're calling that policy now. It's the policy of the president to demand foreign interference and withhold money from an ally at war unless they get it," Schiff said. "That's what they call policy. I'm sorry, that's what I call corruption."

But by Thursday morning, none other than the GOP chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee was echoing Philbin's folly. “I have no problem with what Philbin said,” Burr told reporters. “I think that the idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake. ... If it’s credible information, [it's] relevant information for the voters to know about.” 

In other words, Republicans are removing the origin of the information as the standard of criminality and replacing it with a subjective determination about whether the information is "credible." And according to Trump, the president, his corruption concerns were credible enough to bypass the U.S. Department of Justice on the way to demanding an investigation led by a government so corrupt, he wouldn’t release foreign aid to it. 

It doesn't pass the smell test, folks, but Schiff got it right on both counts. That's corruption, plain and simple. And that's also what Republicans call policy now.

Watch Schiff’s rebuttal.

x

Watch this ‘Daily Show’ truck blast clips of Trump mocking senators in downtown Washington D.C.

Posted on by Marissa Higgins

Donald Trump has a long history of insulting people, including senators. Unsurprisingly, he has no problem insulting progressives, like calling Sen. Bernie Sanders “crazy” and Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pochahontas.” He’s also insulted a number of Republicans, including saying that Sen. Mitt Romney is “not a smart person,” and of course, dubbing Sen. Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Now, The Daily Show has compiled clips of these insults into a loop video that’s playing on the side of a truck that’s bopping around Washington D.C. during his impeachment trial, as reported by the Washingtonian. Because this video focuses on senators, we don’t even need to get into all of the times he has insulted women, including Hillary Clinton.

Here is the original video.

x

Here is what The Daily Show truck driving around downtown Washington D.C. looks like.

x

The Washingtonian reports that The Daily Show has been airing 30- and 60-second versions of this video on local news channels in D.C. The publication says the truck has been on the move in the Capitol since Monday.

“We’re trying to always think of ways to take jokes that we have and take them outside the boundaries of 11:00 to 11:30. Like, how can we exist in the real world? How can we get closer to the people that we’re covering?” Ramin Hedayati, a producer at The Daily Show, told the Washingtonian in an interview. “Literally driving a truck outside of the building they’re in is a way to do that.”

Of course, it’s far from the first time The Daily Show has taken the Trump administration to task. On Monday, host Trevor Noah called out Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, as well as Trump’s defense lawyers.

Trump attacks everyone from government officials to private citizens seemingly with little regard to the possible consequences. People say that actions speak louder than words, but with Trump, his words and actions actually line up pretty well—and it’s nothing good.

Nixon backers’ obits suggest history won’t be kind to those who don’t support Trump impeachment

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Ryan Goodman, editor in chief over at Just Security, published a very interesting piece on Wednesday. In it, Goodman goes back through history and looks at the 10 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who voted both for and against the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon in 1974. More importantly, he looks at their obituaries to see whether his backers’ decisions to support a clearly unhinged and corrupt politician were remembered. According to Goodman, not only was it mentioned in these long-deceased officials’ obituaries, but it was the defining moment of their careers. Reading some of obituary headlines, you begin to get the scope.

“Former Rep. Joseph Maraziti, 78, Defender of Nixon on Watergate”

“Wiley Mayne; House GOP Member Who Voted Not to Impeach Nixon”

“Sandman, Nixon Supporter, Dies”

“Charles Wiggins, 72, Dies; Led Nixon’s Defense in Hearings”

Alternately, Goodman looked at the obituaries of Republican congressmen who voted in favor of impeaching Nixon. Those GOP officials’ careers were also definitively marked by their decision to break with party rank-and-file to make the right decision. 

Just Security is a U.S. national security law and policy think tank and media outlet. 

Lev Parnas says there were ‘many quid pro quos’ and Trump knew ‘everything’ going on

Posted on by Lauren Floyd

On his way to listen to the Senate impeachment trial for President Donald Trump, Lev Parnas, indicted associate of the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, hinted Wednesday that there is much more to the impeachment allegations against the president, reports CNN. So it’s not just the July phone call in which Trump allegedly attempted to trade military aid to Ukraine for info on a political rival. Taking questions from surrounding reporters as he walked, Lev Parnas can be seen on video saying: "The president knew everything that was going on in Ukraine, and he put pressure, and there was many quid pro quos."

Parnas went on to say “a lot” happened before the call in question July 25. “I think there’s a lot of evidence,” he said. But when asked to detail that evidence, he, responded: “I think I should leave that to when I’m under oath because I think that would be more powerful than just giving different tidbits. I think I’ve said enough.”

Parnas has been submitting files, text messages, and audio recordings to assist House impeachment investigators, CNN reported. In one recording from a dinner April 2018, Trump can be heard demanding the removal of Marie Yovanovich, who at the time was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the news network reported. When Parnas was asked whether he thought additional recordings submitted in the trial should be made public, he said: “I want everything to be made public.” 

x

If Senate Republicans vote to block witnesses, just imagine what a monster Trump will become

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

It's extremely likely—though not a certainty—that Senate Republicans will make the short-sighted determination that blocking witnesses altogether will at least stem the bleeding for now. Just imagine, as veteran journalist Ronald Brownstein noted, what kind of message that will send to Donald Trump.

Over half the country now believes Trump should be removed from office (51% in both Pew and CNN polling, not mention 50% in Fox). Some 70% of Americans want witness testimony. Some 80% are clamoring by name for John Bolton, an erstwhile conservative hero who has indicated he has direct evidence that Trump did exactly what House managers have charged. Trump's defenders aren't even arguing anymore about whether or not Trump extorted/bribed Ukraine—he clearly did. All they are arguing is that Trump isn't impeachable no matter what he does—a clear shredding of all constitutional precedent and norms. 

Please give $3 to our nominee fund to help Democrats take the Senate back.

And yet, just imagine that against all reason, all evidence, a virtual consensus of public opinion, and a practical death blow to the Constitution, Republicans vote against witnesses and subsequently vote to acquit in time for Trump to take a victory lap on Fox News during the Super Bowl and finally at his State of the Union address. Just imagine how emboldened he'll be, how he'll take aim at anything or anyone with complete and total impunity. Just imagine what an unbelievable monster Senate Republicans will have created. It's frightening.