PART IV
CRITIQUE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP
CRITIQUE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP
The trial, Jan. 30, begins with a PRAYER by Chaplin Berry Black:
"Permit our Senators to feel Your presence during this impeachment trial. Illuminate their minds with the light of Your wisdom, exposing truth and resolving uncertainties. May they understand that You created them with cognitive capabilities and moral discernment to be used for Your glory. Grant that they will comprehend what really matters, separating the relevant from the irrelevant."
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the Senate: Do you swear to all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you God.
[Senators said, I do]
Article 1 section 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. Article 2 section 4 states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 1 section 5 states the Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings: it has three previous presidential impeachments to serve as models for the impeachment of President Trump [2020]: Andrew Johnson [1868], Richard Nixon, who resigned facing impeachment [1974], and Bill Clinton [1998]. and the impeachment of other civil officers, judges, etc.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced S. Res. 483 for the members of the Senate to vote on containing the Senate impeachment rules for the impeachment trial of President Trump and it passed: 53 ayes [all Republicans] to 47 noes [all 45 Democrats and 2 Independent].
It gave 3 days for the House managers to present their case and 3 days for Trump’s team to defend the President.
Next, members of the Senate are given 16 hours to ask questions of House managers and Trump’s team of lawyers: answers limited to 5 minutes.
Next, the parties were given 4 hours, equally divided, to argue to subpoena witnesses and documents. The Senate then will decide that issue by a majority vote.
At the conclusion of deliberations, the Senate will vote on each article of impeachment: 2/3rds needed to convict.
Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced these eleven amendments to S. Res. 483:
1. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the White House blocked by Trump.
2. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the DOS blocked by Trump.
3. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the OMB blocked by Trump.
4. purpose: to subpoena the acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney blocked by Trump
5. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the DOJ blocked by Trump.
6. purpose: to subpoena Robert Blair, assistant to the President, blocked Trump.
7. purpose: to prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials.
8. purpose: to subpoena John Bolton, Nat. Sec. Adviser; initially, blocked by Trump.
9. purpose: to provide that motions to subpoena witnesses or documents shall be in order after question period.
10. purpose: to allow additional time to file motions.
11. purpose: to help ensure impartial justice by requiring the Chief Justice of the United States to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents.
All eleven amendments defeated by 53 noes to 47 ayes along party lines, except for #10, 52 to 48, Sen. Susan Collins voting with Democrats.
These are the House Managers:
Adam Schiff, Jerrod Nadler, Sylvia Garcia, Zoe Lofgren, Val Demings, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jason Crow.
Article I and section 2 of Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment: that means conduct investigations and compose articles of impeachment. Section 5 states it also may determine the rules of its proceedings. The articles of impeachment of President Trump were composed in the House and passed by a vote of 230 to 197 on Article 1 and 229 to 198 on Article 2. The vote was largely split along party lines. Following passage in the House they were sent to the Senate for trial.
The Two Articles of Impeachment:
1. abuse of power
2. obstruction of Congress
The House Managers are up first, they make the case to impeach the president by presenting the evidence to the members of the Senate. They are the jurors who will vote to acquit or convict.
ARTICLE 1
1. Rep. Adam Schiff introduced today’s House manager’s plan to prove Article I of the impeachment of President Trump: the abuse of power. He said, Democrats will present their arguments and Republicans will present their arguments; then, you have 16 hours to ask questions and hopefully you get to hear from the witnesses yourself. Then, after closing arguments it will be your hands, the members of the Senate. And, he yielded to manager Nadler.
2. Rep. Jerrod Nadler said the articles of impeachment are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House in spite of Trump complete stonewalling.
He said, the first Article of Impeachment -- the abuse of the power of his office to solicit a foreign nation to interfere in our election for his personal benefit.
That, itself, is a constitutional abuse of power. But, President Trump went further than that to secure his favor: he withheld $391 million in military aid and a sought after White House meeting
The president’s conduct is wrong, illegal, and dangerous.
And he put on screen statements by two law experts:
─ Professor Michael Gerhardt called by the Democrats said, “If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then, nothing is impeachable.”
─ Professor Jonathon Turley called by the Republicans said, “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”
Nadler says, the facts of the charges are indisputable.
3. Rep. Sylvia Garcia put up a slide on the screen of Article 1: dividing Trump’s abuse of power into 4 categories: You can read:
"Permit our Senators to feel Your presence during this impeachment trial. Illuminate their minds with the light of Your wisdom, exposing truth and resolving uncertainties. May they understand that You created them with cognitive capabilities and moral discernment to be used for Your glory. Grant that they will comprehend what really matters, separating the relevant from the irrelevant."
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the Senate: Do you swear to all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you God.
[Senators said, I do]
Article 1 section 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. Article 2 section 4 states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 1 section 5 states the Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings: it has three previous presidential impeachments to serve as models for the impeachment of President Trump [2020]: Andrew Johnson [1868], Richard Nixon, who resigned facing impeachment [1974], and Bill Clinton [1998]. and the impeachment of other civil officers, judges, etc.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced S. Res. 483 for the members of the Senate to vote on containing the Senate impeachment rules for the impeachment trial of President Trump and it passed: 53 ayes [all Republicans] to 47 noes [all 45 Democrats and 2 Independent].
It gave 3 days for the House managers to present their case and 3 days for Trump’s team to defend the President.
Next, members of the Senate are given 16 hours to ask questions of House managers and Trump’s team of lawyers: answers limited to 5 minutes.
Next, the parties were given 4 hours, equally divided, to argue to subpoena witnesses and documents. The Senate then will decide that issue by a majority vote.
At the conclusion of deliberations, the Senate will vote on each article of impeachment: 2/3rds needed to convict.
Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced these eleven amendments to S. Res. 483:
1. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the White House blocked by Trump.
2. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the DOS blocked by Trump.
3. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the OMB blocked by Trump.
4. purpose: to subpoena the acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney blocked by Trump
5. purpose: to subpoena certain documents from the DOJ blocked by Trump.
6. purpose: to subpoena Robert Blair, assistant to the President, blocked Trump.
7. purpose: to prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials.
8. purpose: to subpoena John Bolton, Nat. Sec. Adviser; initially, blocked by Trump.
9. purpose: to provide that motions to subpoena witnesses or documents shall be in order after question period.
10. purpose: to allow additional time to file motions.
11. purpose: to help ensure impartial justice by requiring the Chief Justice of the United States to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents.
All eleven amendments defeated by 53 noes to 47 ayes along party lines, except for #10, 52 to 48, Sen. Susan Collins voting with Democrats.
These are the House Managers:
Adam Schiff, Jerrod Nadler, Sylvia Garcia, Zoe Lofgren, Val Demings, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jason Crow.
Article I and section 2 of Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment: that means conduct investigations and compose articles of impeachment. Section 5 states it also may determine the rules of its proceedings. The articles of impeachment of President Trump were composed in the House and passed by a vote of 230 to 197 on Article 1 and 229 to 198 on Article 2. The vote was largely split along party lines. Following passage in the House they were sent to the Senate for trial.
The Two Articles of Impeachment:
1. abuse of power
2. obstruction of Congress
The House Managers are up first, they make the case to impeach the president by presenting the evidence to the members of the Senate. They are the jurors who will vote to acquit or convict.
ARTICLE 1
1. Rep. Adam Schiff introduced today’s House manager’s plan to prove Article I of the impeachment of President Trump: the abuse of power. He said, Democrats will present their arguments and Republicans will present their arguments; then, you have 16 hours to ask questions and hopefully you get to hear from the witnesses yourself. Then, after closing arguments it will be your hands, the members of the Senate. And, he yielded to manager Nadler.
2. Rep. Jerrod Nadler said the articles of impeachment are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House in spite of Trump complete stonewalling.
He said, the first Article of Impeachment -- the abuse of the power of his office to solicit a foreign nation to interfere in our election for his personal benefit.
That, itself, is a constitutional abuse of power. But, President Trump went further than that to secure his favor: he withheld $391 million in military aid and a sought after White House meeting
The president’s conduct is wrong, illegal, and dangerous.
And he put on screen statements by two law experts:
─ Professor Michael Gerhardt called by the Democrats said, “If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then, nothing is impeachable.”
─ Professor Jonathon Turley called by the Republicans said, “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”
Nadler says, the facts of the charges are indisputable.
3. Rep. Sylvia Garcia put up a slide on the screen of Article 1: dividing Trump’s abuse of power into 4 categories: You can read:
She said, the July 25 phone was setup to carrying out U.S. policy between Volodymyr Zelensky, the newly elected president of the Ukraine, and the United States. President Trump, instead of following those talking points, used the phone call to carrying out his bribery scheme. That is an abuse of power.
And, she put a second slide on the screen 10 reasons Trump abused his power, put himself first -- you can read:
And, she put a second slide on the screen 10 reasons Trump abused his power, put himself first -- you can read:
And, she put video clips of Yovanovitch, Kent, and Dr. Hill testifying at the House deposition hearings backing up Trump’s abuse of power and put a video clip of the FBI Director Christopher Wray stating, “we have no evidence that the Ukraine interfered in our 2016 election.
4. Rep. Zoe Lofgren describes three official acts of the president Trump that were an abuse of power:
1. soliciting foreign interference
2. conditioning White House meeting on investigations
3. conditioning military aid on investigations.
And, she said, there is evidence that President Trump, himself, demanding that Ukraine conduct these investigations, but also delegated his authority to Rudy Giuliani, his lawyer, to carry out this scheme. She showed a letter, May 10, 2019, that Giuliani wrote to Zelensky requesting an interview and was rebuffed. President Trump retaliated by cancelling VP Pence trip to his inauguration and replacing it with a delegation led by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. Rep. Lofgren said, because, Giuliani’s efforts failed: Trump withheld the White House meeting to pressure Zelensky to do the investigations. She said, President Trump hand picking a number of political appointees to work with Giuliani to advance his plan to get Zelensky, Ukraine’s President, to announce in public the two investigations to benefit Trump. Those were the “three amigos.”
After, describing the role Giuliani played to gather dirt on the Bidens to benefit Trump’s reelection, she turned it over to Ms. Demings.
5. Rep. Val Demings focused on the Trump’s abuse of power by the removal of the Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an anti-corruption crusader, April 25, 2019, by false and baseless claims.
And she said, Giuliani told us why, to get her out of the way of Trump’s bribery scheme of Zelensky, the newly elected president of the Ukraine, and she said, I think that is disgraceful.
Demings said, in a May 23 meeting at the White House Trump told top officials to work with Giuliani.
And she played a video clip of Ambassador to the UN, Gordan Sondland saying, “In respond to our persisted efforts, in that meeting, to change his mind, President Trump directed us to quote “talk with Rudy”. We understood that Rudy meant Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren’t happy with the president’s directive to talk to Rudy, we did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters, none the less, because of the president’s directions, we were faced with a choice, we can abandon the efforts to schedule a White House phone call and a White House visit between Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest or we could do what President Trump had directed, and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but, because it was the only constructive path open to us.”
Rep. Demings said, from that point on US officials worked with Trump’s personal agent to carrying out investigations to benefit Trump’s reelection.
Rep. Demings finished by saying, President Trump acting corruptly, abused the powers of office, by ordering US officials to work with his personal agent to carry out his scheme “to cheat to win” in this year’s election.
6. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries put up numerous slides on the screen of emails, texts, call records, and video clips from House deposition testimonies that proved Trump engaged in a corrupt quid pro quo, two phony investigations in exchange for a Zelensky meeting at the White House – “this for that.”
One video clip he put up, where Goldman, counsel for the Democrats, asked Ambassador Sondland, “You would agree that the message that is expressed here, is that President Zelensky needs to convince Trump, that he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a visit to Washington D.C. -- is that correct?”
Sondland answered, “that is correct.”
However, Zelensky was no sap: Jeffries put up a slide of an email from Yermak, aid to Zelensky, sent to Kurt Volker, US special envoy to the Ukraine, that said, “I think it’s possible to make this declaration and mention all these things. Which we discussed yesterday, but it will be logic to do after we receive confirmation of date.”
You see, Zelensky did not trust Trump.
They agree on a date:
But, there was another hitch: the public statement that Zelensky was going to make did not include Burisma and the 2016 election. Giuliani said, that would not be “credible,” it had to target VP Biden and mention the conspiracy theory, Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
And, Jeffries put up a slide of an email that Volker sent to Yermak on August 13, 2019, that said, the announcement must contain the “two key items.” That is proof two investigations was contingent on a White House meeting and at this point negotiations stalled, because, Zelensky balked.
Volker said, subsequently, no date was set: the Ukrainians did not think it was worth it.
And, Jeffries put up a another video clip, where Ambassador Sondland was asked, Was there quid pro quo, in regards to phone call and the White House meeting? And he said, “the answer to the question is Yes.”
Rep. Jeffries concludes by saying this is more than a corrupt quid pro quo: it’s about liberty, because in America for all of us, what keeps us free from tyranny, it’s this sacred principle in this great country – no one is above the law.
7. Rep. Jason Crow said, how do we know the president ordered the hold to pressure the Ukraine to announce investigations that would help his personal political campaign. In other words, how do we know why it happened? We know it, because to this day there is no other explanation. We know it, because, senior administration officials including the president’s own senior political appointees have confirmed it. We know it, because the president’s chief of staff said it at a national press conference.
And, he said,
Trump asked Zelensky for a favor in the July 25 phone call, we know what it was for, multiple US officials confirmed it. The hold was lifted only after his scheme was exposed. There was no other explanation. The chief of staff confirmed why we held up the money.
The truth came out, the President Trump held up military aid in exchange for fabricated dirt on his opponent “this for that.”
That is Article I – abuse of power.
And Rep. Crow put up video clips of Sondland, Taylor, and Morrison confirming it “dollars for dirt”. Trump’s denial is the general response of criminals when questioned. You can’t trust Trump, he is a pathological liar.
Rep. Crow said, Trump broke the law: that is the truth. And, the facts presented by the House managers prove it.
And Rep. Crow said, then, Trump tried to conceal it: that is Article 2, obstruction of Congress.
Rep. Crow yielded to manager Schiff and he ended the day, January 23, with this statement, if, you find Trump is guilty, you must remove from office, because right matters and truth matters; otherwise, we are lost.
ARTICLE 2
Rep. Val Demings said, President Trump to cover up his corrupt scheme issued a blanket order directing the entire executive branch to withhold all documents and testimonies from the House probe: it was categorical, indiscriminate, and historically—unprecedented. And she put up this slide:
4. Rep. Zoe Lofgren describes three official acts of the president Trump that were an abuse of power:
1. soliciting foreign interference
2. conditioning White House meeting on investigations
3. conditioning military aid on investigations.
And, she said, there is evidence that President Trump, himself, demanding that Ukraine conduct these investigations, but also delegated his authority to Rudy Giuliani, his lawyer, to carry out this scheme. She showed a letter, May 10, 2019, that Giuliani wrote to Zelensky requesting an interview and was rebuffed. President Trump retaliated by cancelling VP Pence trip to his inauguration and replacing it with a delegation led by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. Rep. Lofgren said, because, Giuliani’s efforts failed: Trump withheld the White House meeting to pressure Zelensky to do the investigations. She said, President Trump hand picking a number of political appointees to work with Giuliani to advance his plan to get Zelensky, Ukraine’s President, to announce in public the two investigations to benefit Trump. Those were the “three amigos.”
After, describing the role Giuliani played to gather dirt on the Bidens to benefit Trump’s reelection, she turned it over to Ms. Demings.
5. Rep. Val Demings focused on the Trump’s abuse of power by the removal of the Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an anti-corruption crusader, April 25, 2019, by false and baseless claims.
And she said, Giuliani told us why, to get her out of the way of Trump’s bribery scheme of Zelensky, the newly elected president of the Ukraine, and she said, I think that is disgraceful.
Demings said, in a May 23 meeting at the White House Trump told top officials to work with Giuliani.
And she played a video clip of Ambassador to the UN, Gordan Sondland saying, “In respond to our persisted efforts, in that meeting, to change his mind, President Trump directed us to quote “talk with Rudy”. We understood that Rudy meant Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren’t happy with the president’s directive to talk to Rudy, we did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters, none the less, because of the president’s directions, we were faced with a choice, we can abandon the efforts to schedule a White House phone call and a White House visit between Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest or we could do what President Trump had directed, and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but, because it was the only constructive path open to us.”
Rep. Demings said, from that point on US officials worked with Trump’s personal agent to carrying out investigations to benefit Trump’s reelection.
Rep. Demings finished by saying, President Trump acting corruptly, abused the powers of office, by ordering US officials to work with his personal agent to carry out his scheme “to cheat to win” in this year’s election.
6. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries put up numerous slides on the screen of emails, texts, call records, and video clips from House deposition testimonies that proved Trump engaged in a corrupt quid pro quo, two phony investigations in exchange for a Zelensky meeting at the White House – “this for that.”
One video clip he put up, where Goldman, counsel for the Democrats, asked Ambassador Sondland, “You would agree that the message that is expressed here, is that President Zelensky needs to convince Trump, that he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a visit to Washington D.C. -- is that correct?”
Sondland answered, “that is correct.”
However, Zelensky was no sap: Jeffries put up a slide of an email from Yermak, aid to Zelensky, sent to Kurt Volker, US special envoy to the Ukraine, that said, “I think it’s possible to make this declaration and mention all these things. Which we discussed yesterday, but it will be logic to do after we receive confirmation of date.”
You see, Zelensky did not trust Trump.
They agree on a date:
But, there was another hitch: the public statement that Zelensky was going to make did not include Burisma and the 2016 election. Giuliani said, that would not be “credible,” it had to target VP Biden and mention the conspiracy theory, Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
And, Jeffries put up a slide of an email that Volker sent to Yermak on August 13, 2019, that said, the announcement must contain the “two key items.” That is proof two investigations was contingent on a White House meeting and at this point negotiations stalled, because, Zelensky balked.
Volker said, subsequently, no date was set: the Ukrainians did not think it was worth it.
And, Jeffries put up a another video clip, where Ambassador Sondland was asked, Was there quid pro quo, in regards to phone call and the White House meeting? And he said, “the answer to the question is Yes.”
Rep. Jeffries concludes by saying this is more than a corrupt quid pro quo: it’s about liberty, because in America for all of us, what keeps us free from tyranny, it’s this sacred principle in this great country – no one is above the law.
7. Rep. Jason Crow said, how do we know the president ordered the hold to pressure the Ukraine to announce investigations that would help his personal political campaign. In other words, how do we know why it happened? We know it, because to this day there is no other explanation. We know it, because, senior administration officials including the president’s own senior political appointees have confirmed it. We know it, because the president’s chief of staff said it at a national press conference.
And, he said,
Trump asked Zelensky for a favor in the July 25 phone call, we know what it was for, multiple US officials confirmed it. The hold was lifted only after his scheme was exposed. There was no other explanation. The chief of staff confirmed why we held up the money.
The truth came out, the President Trump held up military aid in exchange for fabricated dirt on his opponent “this for that.”
That is Article I – abuse of power.
And Rep. Crow put up video clips of Sondland, Taylor, and Morrison confirming it “dollars for dirt”. Trump’s denial is the general response of criminals when questioned. You can’t trust Trump, he is a pathological liar.
Rep. Crow said, Trump broke the law: that is the truth. And, the facts presented by the House managers prove it.
And Rep. Crow said, then, Trump tried to conceal it: that is Article 2, obstruction of Congress.
Rep. Crow yielded to manager Schiff and he ended the day, January 23, with this statement, if, you find Trump is guilty, you must remove from office, because right matters and truth matters; otherwise, we are lost.
ARTICLE 2
Rep. Val Demings said, President Trump to cover up his corrupt scheme issued a blanket order directing the entire executive branch to withhold all documents and testimonies from the House probe: it was categorical, indiscriminate, and historically—unprecedented. And she put up this slide:
She said, it included every department, every office, and every person: a total rejection of the Congress’s authority to hold the president accountable.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia to show the breadth and scope of the president’s obstruction of Congress, she put up this slide:
Rep. Sylvia Garcia to show the breadth and scope of the president’s obstruction of Congress, she put up this slide:
She said, it included every department, every office, and every person: a total rejection of the Congress’s authority to hold the president accountable.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia to show the breadth and scope of the president’s obstruction of Congress, she put up this slide:
Rep. Sylvia Garcia to show the breadth and scope of the president’s obstruction of Congress, she put up this slide:
And, she the House also issued a subpoena to Mulvaney, director of the OMB, Robert Blair, and Eisenberg and the White House sent a letter to their attorney telling them not to testify; beside the blanket order, he forbid specify officials that has knowledge of his conduct to testify.
She said, Trump’s did not stop there: he ordered 12 other witnesses who could shed light on these matters not to testify; his total defiance of subpoenas and requests for information prevents the House from exercising its constitutional power. She said, this defiance of the House has never happened in U.S. history.
Rep. Jerrod Nadler said, he [Trump] is the first and only president ever to declare himself unaccountable and to ignore subpoenas backed by the constitution’s impeachment power, if he is not removed from office, if he is permitted to defy the Congress entirely, categorically, to say that subpoenas from the Congress in the impeachment inquiry are nonsense, then we will have lost, the House will have lost, the Senate; certainly, will have lost all power to hold any president accountable. This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all-powerful. He does not have to respect the Congress. He does not have to respect the representatives of the people. Only his will goes. He is a dictator. This must not stand and that is why another reason he must be removed from office.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said, Presidents are required to comply with subpoenas. Trump’s complete defiance of subpoenas, itself, is a high crime and misdemeanor.
And he put up these two slides:
# 1
She said, Trump’s did not stop there: he ordered 12 other witnesses who could shed light on these matters not to testify; his total defiance of subpoenas and requests for information prevents the House from exercising its constitutional power. She said, this defiance of the House has never happened in U.S. history.
Rep. Jerrod Nadler said, he [Trump] is the first and only president ever to declare himself unaccountable and to ignore subpoenas backed by the constitution’s impeachment power, if he is not removed from office, if he is permitted to defy the Congress entirely, categorically, to say that subpoenas from the Congress in the impeachment inquiry are nonsense, then we will have lost, the House will have lost, the Senate; certainly, will have lost all power to hold any president accountable. This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all-powerful. He does not have to respect the Congress. He does not have to respect the representatives of the people. Only his will goes. He is a dictator. This must not stand and that is why another reason he must be removed from office.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said, Presidents are required to comply with subpoenas. Trump’s complete defiance of subpoenas, itself, is a high crime and misdemeanor.
And he put up these two slides:
# 1
Rep. Jeffries said, “As the Supreme Court emphatically stated, in unanimous fashion, in its decision on the Nixon tapes, confidentiality interests of the President must yield to an impeachment inquiry when there is a legitimate need for the information, as there is here today.
# 2
# 2
And, Jeffries said, The President’s obstruction has no basis in law and should yield to this body’s coequal authority to investigate impeachable and corrupt conduct.
And, I put up this slide: # 3
And, I put up this slide: # 3
Rep. Jeffries said, Trump’s defense appears to be: I can do whatever I want to do, and he puts up on the screen a video where Trump’s says: Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives him that power.
And he says his argument fails for 4 reasons:
1. The House, not the president, has the sole power of impeachment. 2. There is no basis in law or practice that he can defy subpoenas 3. He is being treated differently [or unfairly]; completely, lacks merit. 4. He has ignored House subpoenas, because, he wants to be the Judge of his crimes; requires the House of Representatives to charge him with obstruction of Congress. The president is not a King.
Rep. Jason Crow said, Article 2 describes President Trump’s impeachable conduct obstructing Congress, on its own, warrants removal from office.
That is true.
He says, after learning that he himself was under investigation, President Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel [Robert Mueller], sought to curtail the special counsel’s investigation, instructed the White House Counsel to create a false record and make false public statements, and tampered with at least two key witnesses in the investigation.
He says, the President’s obstruction fits a disturbing pattern. In one moment, President Trump used the powers of his office to obstruct the special counsel, and the next, he used the powers of his office to obstruct the House impeachment inquiry. And, says, President Trump has used all the authority of his office to block the full truth from coming to light. He has defied subpoenas and ordered others to do so. He has publicly intimidated and threatened witnesses. He has attacked the House for daring to investigate him. And he has lobbed an endless volley of personal attacks on witnesses and meritless complaints about procedure to sow confusion and distract the American people. The President’s abuses are unfolding before our eyes, and they must be stopped.
Rep. Crow says, The American people deserve the full truth.
Rep. Adam Schiff said, President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means. Number one, directing the White House to defy lawful subpoenas by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees. That has been proved. Directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the Department of State, the Office of Management Budget, Department of Energy and Department of Defense refused to produce a single record or document. That has been proved. Direct and current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which nine administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony namely John Michael Mick Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl. That has been proved.
He ends by saying: I implore you, give America a fair trial. Give America a fair trial. She’s worth it. Thank you.
Trump’s Defense Team:
Pat Cipollone, Patrick Philbin, Jay Sekulow, Michael Purpura, Robert Ray, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Jane Raskin, Pam Bondi, and Erich Herschmann.
1. Pat Cipollone begins: These are twelve of his lies:
1. The president did absolutely nothing wrong.
2. The phone transcript is the best evidence of what happened.
3. What they said about the call is, simply, not true
4. House managers said things, over and over again, that are not true.
5. House managers don’t believe the facts of their case.
5. They locked out everybody from the president’s side.
7. Trump’s impeachment violates our constitution and our history.
8. It does not even allege a violation of law.
9. Schiff’s parody of the Trump phone call was a complete fake.
10. The House acted against the will of the people.
11. One of his biggest lies: Trump is a man of his word.
12. They [House mangers] are asking you to impeach with no evidence
--that is his biggest lie.
And, he said Jan. 25, 2019, I’m going to turn it over to my colleagues and they will walk you through their record and they will show you things that they didn’t show you. One of those things, he says, Trump’s call, proves his motive for freezing military aid was because of lack of EU burden sharing.
That is false.
The facts show the before and after the phone call meetings and negotiations between Trump’s team and the Ukraine proves the freeze of military aid was done, primarily, to force Zelensky to conduct two investigations: the Bidens and the 2016 election.
The EU lack of aid to the Ukraine was never the reason for the freeze or contingent for its release.
It was a phony excuse used by Trump and his lawyers. The real reason is as plain as day.
It was done, as House managers stated, to force Zelensky to do what Trump requested.
Cipollone to show you what the House managers did not show you, he read part of the July 25 phone memo, where Trump said, the U.S. is doing much more for the Ukraine than European countries.
That is false.
The U.S. gave $1.96 billion between 2014 and 2018: the EU twice as much.
Trump said, Germany does almost nothing. That is false. It gave $860 million. It is GDP is about 1/5 the size of the US.
As usual Trump say whatever pops into his head to make a point, regardless, whether it’s true.
He said these things—to disguise or deflect from his real motive for withholding the WH meeting and the freeze: he wanted President Zelensky’s help to win reelection.
One more thing about Cipollone: Bolton’s book, says Cipollone, White House counsel for the president, participated in White House meetings and knew what was happening and here at the trial—claims Trump did nothing wrong.
He is brazen liar.
2. Patrick Philbin also made false claims:
1. Trump has a legal basis to defy House subpoenas.
Not the reason he used.
2. To ask a foreign leader to investigate the malfeasance of an US citizen was “perfectly legitimate.”
Not the way Trump did it.
3. The House 12 subpoenas are invalid, he says, because it issued them before the formal House vote. That is also false.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a long time congresswoman, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, a former judge, and Rep. Hakeem Jefferies explained why that is a false argument; like, the Senate, the House has the sole power granted by the Constitution to make the rules, investigate, compose, and bring charges of impeachment to the Senate. In the Nixon case, the full House voted on the power to issue subpoenas, but that rule was changed in January giving House committees the power to issue subpoenas, so, they are valid.
Despite this fact, Philbin continued to argue, they were invalid. That shows he will ignore the truth and the facts to defend Trump.
Other false claims:
Philbin says along with Sekulow the abuse of power, House 1 impeachment article is too malleable. He used the word 19 times in his attack statement on Jan. 28. Yes, it is malleable—all crimes: treason, bribery, higher crimes and misdemeanors are an abuse of power. But the House managers describe what they mean by abuse of power in the text of the impeachment articles, in summary form, and extensively in their 3-day oral presentation of facts. That solidifies the abuse of power. The abuse of power is no longer malleable after when you give a factual description.
The specifics makes it concrete.
Philbin argues, if, you don’t charge a crime in the articles of impeachment; what, House managers established orally—in three days of arguments—that don’t count: it hast to be statutory crime in writing.
That is nonsense.
He goes on to say, “And it also shows an inherent flaw in the house managers’ theory of abuse of power regardless of whether or not one accepts the view that an impeachable offense has to be a crime, a defined crime, there is still the flaw in their definition of abuse of power, that it is so malleable based on purely subjective standards that it does not provide any cognizable notice of an offense. It is so malleable, it in effect recreates the offensive maladministration that the framers expressly rejected as professor Dershowitz explained.”
Did you understand that? He says, House managers have based abuse of power on purely subjective standards that it does not provide any cognizable notice of an offense: that is false, because, what they mean by abuse of power is explained in the text of the articles and the oral presentation and it is recognizable as bribery or what is akin to bribery. Rep. Nadler said, “First we will examine the law of impeachable offenses” and “apply the law to the facts.” Schiff responding to those that said the impeachment is not based on a high crime said, “Well, there is a crime here of bribery or extortion.” The federal bribery statute requires the government to prove that the defendants acted with corrupt intent to engage in a quid pro quo, that is, “a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” That the House managers did in 3 days in presenting the facts of Trump’s misconduct.
The House managers are not describing maladministration or bad policies; although, that could be added. I agree with George Mason, a framer and signer of the US Constitution, it should be an impeachable offense, it depends on type and gravity.
It is similar to reckless driving.
House managers; correctly, assert the crime quid pro quo when done with a corrupt motive: that is no different than bribery and because Trump added pressure to coerce the exchange of “aid for dirt”, that is bribery-extortion. Rep. Adam Schiff said, in his opening statement, that Trump’s freeze violated the Impoundment Control Act (i.e., he cannot stop funding of security assistance to the Ukraine approved by Congress without notifying them and seeking their approval, which he did not do).
That is clearly cognizable.
The Articles of Impeachment states according to the U.S. Constitution the president can be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” and that President Trump by soliciting the president of the Ukraine to publicly announce two investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political rival and to condition the release of $391 million in military aid that Congress had appropriate on Zelensky publicly announcing these investigations constitutes a high crime, the abuse of presidential power, and the attempted cover up, the second high crime, the obstruction of Congress.
Philbin says, the impeachment is null and void, because, no statutory crime was charged in the Articles of Impeachment. Philbin can disputes the facts, so he is using a bogus technical defect in the impeachment articles to defend Trump.
Have you ever wondered what the constitution meant by high crimes and misdemeanors: Nadler explains:
The Framers based it on the old British standard: the abuse of power, betrayal of nation through foreign entanglements, corrupting the electoral process, disregarding the powers of the parliament, betraying the public trust and those were adopted in our constitution as the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Philbin says the House impeachment is based purely on a subjective standard or subjective opinions. That is wrong. It is an objective rational judgment based on their subjective knowledge of the law and the facts uncovered by the House’s probe that proves Trump committed articles 1 and 2.
Philbin, Trump’s lawyer, argues it has to be based on statutory crimes -- it can be, but, that is not what the constitution meant; exclusively, it can based on misconduct or wrongdoing—not in the statute book.
Philbin is confusing criminal prosecutions with impeachment and the removal the president from office—for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors that relate to conduct of government officers, because, in a criminal prosecution, he states, if, no statutory crime is charged, it would’ve been an automatic mistrial. The House managers are citing two political crimes of POTUS based on an old British standard adopted by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution —a corrupt and tyrannical president.
They are not based on Title 18 of the US code.
That was first published in 1874 and is constantly being updated: it does not cover all political crimes.
High crimes and misdemeanors in the constitution do not mean what we think of today—as felonies and minor crimes.
Those are for a separate criminal prosecution that can results in the forfeiture of life, liberty, and property. The Office of Legal Counsel decided in 1973 that a president cannot face criminal charges while in office. That was to protect Richard Nixon from going to prison over Watergate.
High crimes and misdemeanors can be criminal and also political offenses against the nation, different from criminal, the misuse of executive power that can result in the president’s impeachment and removal from office.
I am going to give Sen. Mitt Romney the final word, “the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgment convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would remove from office.”
That makes sense.
Philbin claims, House manager have this subjective theory of impeachment that will show abuse of power by focusing just on the President’s subjective motives. That is also false. They know Trump’s subjective motives by what he does. His request for a favor was not for the US benefit—because, he set up an irregular channel and US officials working with his lawyer to carried a scheme to benefit himself using the power of his office.
When you use a clandestine irregular path to achieve your goal: you have a corrupt motive. And it was clandestine: it was kept secret from Congress until Sept.9, when, the Inspector General informed the House Intelligence Committee of the whistleblower’s complaint and that was not made public until the Wall Street Journal published a story on September 20.
The Trump administration kept this “urgent” and “credible” matter secret from August 12 when it was first filed to September 9, when the Inspector General went over the head of the DNI and reported it to Congress.
President Trump called the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, a “disgrace” and fired him for notifying Congress of the report, which he called “absolutely terrible” and “inaccurate.”
It accuses the president of “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” It is not inaccurate. The report is not terrible, it is terrible for Trump, because the House probe proved the 7-page report is accurate.
IG Atkinson is one of seven top level people that Trump has fired who disagree with his abuse of power and misdeeds and dozens more have resigned: the third reason: Trump’s not the genius he thinks he is.
He says, “Is there a way we can do something like that” ingest or inject disinfectants into the body to kill the corona virus, or use sunlight that can pass through the skin or use it internally to kill the virus. He looked at Dr. Deborah Birx and said, “it would be interesting to check that.”
Once, he realized the world was laughing at him, he said, he was being “sarcastic”. That made it worst. He lied; it was not sarcasm. He was serious, when he said these things.
Michael Wolff says, “100 percent of the people around” Donald say, “he’s a moron, an idiot.”
And, the above statement and others confirms it.
And, gets rid of or insults—anybody who disagrees with him. That means he is a fascist, like, Benito Mussolini.
He recently fired Steve Linich, State Department Inspector General, who opened up an investigation of Mike Pompeo."
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi warned of a "dangerous pattern of retaliation against patriotic public servants."
She is right.
It is a crime to influence, obstruct, or impede those engaged in the proper administration of law, or charged with ensuring government accountability, or retaliating against whistleblowers.
One or two; maybe, can be tolerated, but not 5, 6, 7…. That is an impeachable offense.
Trump has become more emboldened since his acquittal and has become vindictive towards Democrats, the Press, and critics.
He is replacing dedicated people with his yes-men and lambasting, anybody, that criticizes him. Trump called Tillerson “dumb as a rock’ and replaced him Mike Pompeo. Actually, it is Trump that is dumb.
And, Pompeo is a yes-man [or sycophant].
He never once; publicly—criticized Trump—for his attempt to bribe and extort favors from the Zelensky, the newly elected President of the Ukraine, and he knew about it. He went along with it and was subpoenaed by House and refuses to testify: he is helping Trump avoid impeachment.
Since, Trump is not being held accountable for lying to voters, obstructing justice, and abusing his powers:
He continues his wrongdoing.
He recently called the whistleblower’s complaint a “fake report.” It is not.
The whistleblower’s complaint, filed in Aug. 12, 2019, first mentions the controversial Trump‑Zelensky July 25 phone call and that was verified by the release of the phone transcript in late September.
Sept. 13, Maguire denies Schiff’s request for a copy of the complaint and Schiff issues a subpoena. His excuse for not reporting the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress, as required by law in seven days, after conferring with the WH: it contained potentially privileged information. That was a phony excuse to break the law.
It was an urgent matter.
He later resigned in disgraced.
Sept. 22, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter calling for the Trump administration to allow the Congress access to the whistleblower’s compliant, accusing it of lawlessness, for blocking release of.
Schiff appeared on CNN saying impeachment might be the "only remedy" if reports of Trump withholding military aid were true.
It was true.
Public exposure of these two documents by the Press forced the White House to release these two documents and the House begins an inquiry.
Twice, early on, Trump obstructed Congress:
1. By placing the T-Z phone memo in a classified computer file.
2. By failing to notify Congress of the whistleblower complaint.
However, internal pressure built up causing the Trump built Dam to burst!
Trump, then, denounced the probe as a “witch hunt” and said, the phone call was “perfect.”
That is false!
The House of Representatives verified most of the whistleblower’s complaint by conducting closed door and public hearings in October, November, and December and voted overwhelmingly to impeach.
Next, the House delivered the 2 Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial in January 15, 2020.
I checked the opening statement of Cipollone, Philbin, Sekulow, and Purpura: they never mentioned—the irregular channel. Bill Taylor, the new active Ambassador to the Ukraine, said, when he arrived in Kiev in June, he discovered two channels. On the regular channel Trump was carrying out US policy in the Ukraine, while, on the other hand, he was carrying out a bribery scheme on the irregular channel. One difference that he noticed—on the irregular channel DOS staff and notetakers were excluded from phone call between Sondland and Zelensky on June 28. That tells us, it was meant to conceal Trump’s bribery scheme and he was not interested in wiping out corruption in the Ukraine, because, he took no such actions on the official U.S. channel. He wanted the Ukraine to engage in it on the irregular channel to help him get reelected and President Zelensky resisted; however, that did not deter Trump, he continued his pressure campaign.
Another difference between the regular and irregular channels: those taking instructions from Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, were working on the irregular. Bill Taylor, the new acting ambassador to Ukraine, told House investigations, it was “clear” that this “irregular” foreign policy was led by Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer.
If, Trump wanted to root out corruption in the Ukraine, as his defense team argues during the trial, he would not have removed Ambassador Jovanovich, an anti-corruption crusader, after his personal attorney conducted a false smear campaign for him. That is a segment of Trump’s abuse of power.
If, Trump’s request for two investigations were to wipe out corruption in the Ukraine it would have been done through the regular channel, not through his personal lawyer: personal lawyers are for personal affairs. Trump put Giuliani, his attorney, in charge of his illegal scheme at a WH meeting on May 23; when, he told the three amigos—talk to Rudy [for his plan for the Ukraine]. Ambassador Sondland and Volker believed Giuliani’s directives were Trump’s, as well as Yermak, aid to Zelensky, that is why he flew from Kiev to Madrid to meet with him.
And, Trump also tried to put Zelensky under RG.
He said in his July 25 phone call, “I will ask him to call you.”
Why? This was not part of U.S. official policy.
This was his scheme conducted on the irregular channel and Trump tried to misled Zelensky that his request for a favor was US policy by saying he will also have the U.S. attorney general, William Barr, call him to help pressure Zelensky to do him a favor: deliver the two sham investigations.
Only, an idiot would think—this would work. It shows Trump is a con man, he never consulted with Barr about this beforehand and never ask him to call afterwards: it was personal bribery‑extortion scheme masquerading as US government policy.
He; covertly, held back military aid without given a credible explanation or justification and without notifying Congress and withheld a coveted oval office meeting to force President Zelensky to publicly announce that the Ukraine was conducting a corruption investigation into the Bidens intended to hurt Joe Biden, his top rival, and help his reelection in 2020.
That is a corrupt quid pro quo.
Zelensky was forced to do something for Trump—called the “deliverable” to get the oval office meeting. That was the first demand. That did not work, so the military aid freeze was added.
Taylor, charge d’affaires at Kiev, testified, Alexander Danyliuk told him, President Zelensky did not want to be used as an instrument in US elections. That is proof of intent or motive from the other side.
Trump went to great lengths to do this—and the facts are indisputable—even though, it eventually failed.
The free press exposed it.
Trump called it “fake news.”
Patrick Philbin accuses the Democrats of making bad faith arguments. That is also false. It is Trump’s defense team.
Here is one of many:
Philbin said, they did a process that wasn’t fair. That is false. There is nothing unfair about the way House wrought charges. The lawyer for the Democrats and lawyer for the Republicans were given equal time to cross-examine witnesses in the House, Trump was allowed witness; but, not irrelevant: Joe and Hunter Biden and the not the whistleblower to protect from Trump’s reprisal. His written complaint is sufficient. It has been; mostly, corroborated by the House probe. And certainly not these people: Alexander Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, and Devan Archer, they have no knowledge of Trump’s misdeeds. Republicans are trying to resuscitate two discredited conspiracy theories. What is unfair: Trump blocked relevant witnesses from testifying and relevant documents. What is unfair: a trial in the Senate without out relevant witnesses and documents. That is unprecedented in US History. Philbin is skilled at making [false] counter-arguments.
There is glaring difference, between Rep. Nadler, a juris doctor, when he speaks: it’s understandable, truthful, and right; when, Philbin, Trump’s attorney, speaks: it is false, wrong, and legalistic jargon.
Philbin says, in the field of foreign affairs and national security, that we have here, the president has the right of absolute immunity.
The reason for that he say, the House could impeach for the wrong reasons.
OK let’s have a test—if, any witness or document has evidence of wrongdoing that Trump is hold back: that is proof of obstruction.
The House managers believe, there is that proof, and it can be released without threatening national security, and by not releasing it blocks the House’s constitutional power to investigate higher crimes and misdemeanors of the president and puts Trump above the law and undermines our Republic.
One of Philbin’s biggest lies: he said, “there is no there - there.” He should read the House 361‑ page Donald Trump Impeachment Report.
3. Jay Sekulow spent a lot time talking about the Mueller Report on Jan. 21, 25, & 28, which is irrelevant—not part of the impeachment. Then, why would he mention it. He has a subjective motive. He has a tank-like authoritarian demeanor when he gets to podium, but don’t be deceived he is right.
He brings up the Mueller Report, Crossfire Hurricane, the FISA court, its location, authorization, how it operates, its FBI scathing order, the letter sent to Yuriy Lutsenko in May 4, 2018, Carter Page, etc. (i.e., to impress you); however, these are off subject, have nothing to do the impeachment of President Trump.
He says, Democrats are trying to re-litigate the Mueller case. No, the Ukrainian bribery scheme occurred months after the Mueller Report was completed.
The impeachment is based on different high crimes and misdemeanors.
He says, the Mueller investigation was a failed attempt by Democrats to remove the present from office and the impeachment is a second attempt that is without merit—or both hoaxes.
He holds of 199 pages of the Mueller Report and says, this cost $32 million to investigate Trump, had 2,800 subpoenas and 500 witness interviews and Sekulow said, it found no evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government in 2016.
That is irrelevant—here; because, there are no such charges in the Articles of Impeachment. It is, primarily, based on Trump’s attempted bribery-extortion of Zelensky, who was elected president of the Ukraine April 21, 2019, and his coverup of those nefarious and unlawful acts.
Notwithstanding, I will respond: the Mueller Report did not exonerate Trump of all offenses. It left it to the Congress to make that determination. Mueller said, Trump’s written answers were generally untruthful and the White House blocked key witnesses from answering more than 200 questions. Democrats are having the same problems impeaching Trump, because, he is defying subpoenas and key witnesses are refusing to talk. Refusal to answer questions or respond to a subpoena issued by the House of Representatives in an impeachment probe is an obstruction of Congress. President Trump is no exception. He put himself above law by refusing to answer questions, under oath, orally, in the Mueller and the House impeachment investigations. That, itself, is an impeachable offense. The Mueller probe, however, was not a total loss, some of Trump’s men were convicted and sent to prison and it did prove Russian sweeping and systematic interference in the 2016 election favoring Trump over Clinton.
The Mueller Report also found five incidences that had the three elements of Trump’s obstruction of justice: Don McGahn was one: Trump; allegedly, asked McGahn, his White House counsel, to instruct top justice department officials to dismiss special counsel Robert Mueller. He refused. The House tried to subpoena him and President Trump fought it on the basis of extending executive immunity for his top aides. The Judge Jackson in the district court of Colombia ruled in November: Trump couldn’t claim “absolute immunity” to prevent his former aides from testifying. A federal judge issued a stay to allow President Trump to appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Jackson rejected the request, calling the DOJ's assertion that the House Judiciary Committee would not be harmed by a stay "disingenuous." DOJ argued that any further delay will not be harmful to the House Judiciary Committee. That is false, it was harmful. Schiff says after 9 months there is no final resolution. The DOJ under the leadership of Atty. Gen. Barr is helping Trump block the House of Representatives from investigating the president’s high crimes and misdemeanors.
William Barr is the American Victor Shokin.
He defied a subpoena to release the unredacted Mueller Report…
He misrepresented the report….
He refused to assist the House’s impeachment investigation….
So, the House has based its case on witnesses that were subpoenaed and agreed to testify: Taylor, Kent, Sondland, Vindman, Hill, Cooper, Holmes, etc.
It is hampered by Trump’s defiance of subpoenas to turnover pertinent documents and permit key witnesses to testify.
And, based on the McGahn’s case—decided to proceed without all of the evidence and for that: the Trump defense team is accusing them of not following the law until all legal options are exhausted. Adam Schiff says, that would take months, if not years. Philbin is blaming the House managers for not taking that step, go to the court; then, when the House did in the McGahn case, Trump’s lawyers argued, “The committee lacks Article III standing to sue to enforce a congressional subpoena demanding testimony from an individual on matters related to his duties as an Executive Branch official.” They are blocked again in court with an invalid argument by Trump lawyers.
If, the House waited for a final ruling, Trump’s term in office would end, before the House could complete an inquiry.
The DOJ under AG Barr is stalling and blocking the House of Representative’s authority to issue subpoenas [helping Trump].
Sekulow said, “You cannot decide this case in a vacuum.” I think he means: no evidence that Trump conditioned releasing the military aid to making the investigations. Well, he is not that stupid. That is why–criminals wear a mask when robbing the bank. He did it, mostly, through his team. The House tried to subpoena Bolton, his National Security Adviser, he said, if, you do. I’ll sue; so, the House dropped the subpoena, because, it would take too long based on the McGahn case, still unresolved. Now, Bolton is willing to testify and says in his book, that Trump told him, he did not want to release nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine until the country agreed to investigate his top political rival for corruption.
Sekulow says his revelations are inadmissible.
Adam Schiff wants to subpoena Bolton for the Senate trial and Sekulow has argued strongly against that. He is against a fair trial.
He says, disagreement with Trump’s foreign polices is not an impeachable offense. He says Schiff and Nadler should know that. However, that is not what the impeachment charges are based on.
Sekulow argues on Jan. 28, the House impeachment is really based on—policy differences. That is blatantly false.
And, Schumer’s Amendment 8 -- to subpoena Bolton for the Trump’s trial in the Senate was voted down by Republican controlled Senate.
It has one last chance—vote for witnesses and documents at the end of Senate deliberations.
Sekulow ends by saying, “They think you can read minds. I think you look at the words.” What that means: House managers see in the Trump July 25th phone, his subjective motives by connecting it to events that happened before and afterwards that are related; whereas, Sekulow’s defense of Trump is based on words of the call-- standing alone.
He sees only the top of the iceberg. Since, the House managers came first, he is ignoring the facts underwater [hidden].
Those facts were uncovered by the House probe and incorporated in the 2 Articles of Impeachment.
Sekulow is making arguments in direct contradiction to facts presented by the House managers.
He sold his soul to the Devil.
He failed to tell you: the Mueller investigation uncovered the crimes of Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, and he implicated the president in the payoff of Stormy Daniels, by signing the reimbursement checks, a violation of the campaign finance law, and President Trump lied about it to the American people.
That is a high crime and misdemeanor. That alleged crime has been turned over the Southern District of New York.
Sekulow distorted the facts:
He claims, “When the Russia investigation failed, it devolved into the Ukraine, a quid pro quo.” No, the impeachment trial is based on the whistleblower’s complaint and that is a continuation of Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors in office.
He evolved into a more bold and lawless president, because, he escaped accountability for his previously committed offences beginning with his campaign in 2016 and has continued throughout his presidency.
Sekulow is extremely bias, he spends a lot time talking about the Mueller Report, even reading part of an order critical of the FBI, which has nothing to do with impeachment and spends no time talking about the “urgent” and “credible” 7-page whistleblower’s complaint which triggered the impeachment of President Trump. He is not fair-minded [or deceitful].
The whistleblower’s complaint has been verified by the House investigation, except the part Trump is illegally hiding.
Sekulow’s reasoning is bad.
He accused Manager Schiff of putting words into transcripts -- referring to his parody of Trump’s July 25th phone call. Subsequent facts, reveal it was a fairly accurate description of the underlying meaning; however, the impeachment is not based on the parody, it is based on the phone transcript.
Sekulow on the other hand wrongly describes the wording of the Articles of Impeachment in court. He said, [they] have allegations about non-crime allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
In the Articles of Impeachment, they are called “high crimes and misdemeanors” the reason for his impeachment. They are political crimes. They are not allegations, they are charges based on evidence [facts].
House managers are using that evidence to prove he committed those high crimes and misdemeanors during the Senate trial.
Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer, is either deceitful or ignorant of the facts of the House impeachment of Trump—on day 1.
He got mad and ripped into Nadler for saying, “executive privilege and other nonsense.” He called it treacherous and said, “Mr. NADLER, it is not nonsense.” Let me explain this: he is wrong for a number of reasons. First, he said Nadler, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said this on January 22. No, it was January 21. Sekulow said, executive privilege is a privilege recognized by the Supreme Court. That is true, but, the reason Sekulow is wrong and Nadler is right: Trump is not claiming executive privilege to bock House subpoenas. Sekulow falsely argued Nadler said, Trump’s use of executive privilege to block House subpoenas was unconstitutional, but that is not what he said.
These are the words of Rep. Nadler:
“Ambassador Bolton has made clear that he is ready, willing, and able to testify about everything he witnessed, but President Trump does not want you to hear from Ambassador Bolton, and the reason has nothing to do with executive privilege or this other nonsense. The reason has nothing to do with national security. If the President cared about national security, he would not have blocked military assistance to a vulnerable strategic ally in the attempt to secure a personal political favor for himself.
No, the President does not want you to hear from Ambassador Bolton because the President does not want the American people to hear firsthand testimony about the misconduct at the heart of this trial.”
Sekulow is badly mistaken. He got angry defending his client, and said, “Mr. NADLER? Is that the way you view the U.S. Constitution? Because that is not the way it was written. That is not the way it is interpreted, and that is not the way the American people should have to live.”
He needs to apologize!
And, it was not ignorance of the facts that Sekulow errored: it was deceitfulness, because, on the last day of the trial, Feb. 3, he continued to defend Trump’s right of executive privilege to defy subpoenas which he never claimed: he claimed absolute immunity, which is not recognized by the Supreme Court.
House managers made this clear during the trial, so, Sekulow is either deaf and blind or dishonest.
The second count:
What Nadler meant by other nonsense: Trump’s lawyers argument: he cannot be impeached for abuse of power.
Sekulow said, “it is not nonsense.”
He is wrong and dangerous.
All impeachable crimes and wrongdoing are an abuse of executive power. He is so off-center, he does not think right.
One of Sekulow’s most ludicrous arguments: the House managers’ claim what Trump did in the Ukraine was for his benefit: he is claiming it was done to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Here are his words: “They raised it: This President is only doing things for himself while the leaders of opposing parties, by the way, at the highest level, to obtain peace in the Middle East.”
He is conflating two different issues.
The Ukraine is not in the Middle East.
Sekulow, Trump’s lawyer, tried to misled Senators, he said, “the evidence is overwhelming —the president did nothing wrong.” That is a colossal false statement. The evidence is overwhelming Trump is guilty—of the 2 articles of impeachment.
4. Michael Purpura presented six key facts in defense of President Trump, which he says “that have not and will not change.”
It is a bogus defense, because, Democrats have presented facts and newly released facts prove they are not facts or lies.
Here are the six:
1. The July 25 call transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything.
That is false:
The phone transcript is only one part of the bribery-extortion scheme: the request and what he wanted: investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election. Dangling in background, like a noose, the freeze put in place days earlier. Later, those two were connected by later communications. The impeachment charges are not based solely on the July 25 phone transcript. It is based on the whistleblower’s complaint, the phone memo, testimony of 17 witnesses during the House closed door and public deposition hearings, other phone calls, text messages, emails, and meetings sewed together.
The call transcript shows what Trump had in mind, when he asked for a favor, by following the uncovered chain of events.
His plan began in March, when the polls show Joe Biden ahead of him. In April, he gets rid of Ambassador Yovanovitch, the anti-corruption crusader, that was in his way. In May, Giuliani, his lawyer, told the Press he was going to the Ukraine to ask Zelensky to investigate Biden for corruption: his motive tarnish his reputation; after the election of Zelensky in April, at a White House on May 23, Trump put his scheme in the hands of Sondland, Volker, and Perry dubbed the “three amigos” and told them to “talk to Rudy” (i.e., for instructions); Robert Blair, senior White House aide, calls Russell Vaught, acting head of the OMB, he needs to hold $250 million in Ukrainian aid from the Pentagon on June 19; the Volker meeting with Zelensky at Toronto, July 2, to prep him for the Trump phone call; the “drug deal” that Sondland and Mulvaney were cooking up in the White House on July 10; Trump freezing an additional $141 million in aid from the State Department on July 18, Sondland calling Zelensky on July 19 to further prepare him for the Trump call; on the morning of July 25 Volker emails Yermak, that if Zelensky promises an investigation, they'll set a date for a visit to Washington, D.C.; shortly afterwards, President Trumps made his phone call to the Ukrainian President Zelensky and asked for a favor: two investigations; 90 minutes after that call, Michael Duffey sent an email to the DOD to hold any further military assistance to the Ukraine; the Sondland phone call to Trump July 26 from a restaurant in Kiev; David Holmes testified, Sondland hold him, Trump was interested in the “big stuff” (i.e., is he going to do it], he did not give a shit about the war in Donbas; next, the setting up the date for the White House meeting in August between Volker and Yermak; VP Pence goes to Warsaw Sept. 1 to meet Zelensky and Sondland telling Yermak, his top aide, in a side meeting that announcing the investigations would get them the release of the security assistance and Sondland after speaking with Trump on Sept. 7 told Morrison that Trump demanded Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations and should want to do it; and after that phone call, Sondland calls Zelensky and tells him, that everything was dependent on such an announcement including security; Sept. 9, Congress was notified of Trump’s Zelensky bribery‑extortion scheme and top US officials force Trump to release the illegal hold on Ukrainian aid on September 11. These are some of the before and after events that are linked to the infamous July 25th Trump-Zelensky phone call.
Purpura is looking at the potato plant above the ground and not seeing the potatoes (i.e., the related facts to the phone call underground).
2. Zelensky and other Ukrainians have repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo or pressure on them to launch investigations.
That is false:
a. Dec. 2, Zelensky said to the Associated Press, he only learned after their phone call that the U.S. blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the Ukraine.
b. Dec. 2, to the Time Magazine “We’re at war,” Zelensky said. “If you are our strategic partner, then, you can’t go blocking anything for us.” And he added, “I think that’s just about fairness.” Trump never considered that principle in his mafia-type shakedown of a foreign leader, endangering their security for his benefit.
c. Danyliuk, aid to Zelensky, said, Trump’s request for investigations rattled the Ukrainian president.
d. Zelensky said, at his meeting with Trump at the UN, “I didn’t want to be involved in US elections.” That is an admission he was instructed by Volker at Toronto, July 2, what was needed to satisfy Trump; Sondland calling Zelensky on July 19 and recommended he use the phrase “I will leave no stone unturned (i.e., in his Trump requested investigations),” by Volker texting Yermak 30 minutes before the Trump July 25 phone call telling him, "Heard from White House -- assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate ‘get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016 we will nail down date for visit to Washington," the infamous July 25 phone call, where Trump ask Zelensky for a favor; Aug. 2 Giuliani met Yermak, Zelensky’s top aid, in Spain to urge the Ukraine to launch an investigation into the former VP Joe Biden; the negotiations for a White House meeting between Volker and Yermak in August; VP Pence according to the Washington Post pressured Zelensky at the Warsaw meeting Sept.1 and by the pull aside meeting with Yermak, Zelensky’s top aid, by Sondland telling him, assistance would not likely flow without the public announcements; and Sondland’s call to Zelensky following his Sept.7 phone call with President Trump telling him what Trump wanted. That is direct pressure from Trump thru Rudy Guiliani, Trump’s lawyer, Volker, and Ambassador Sondland.
e. New York Times reported, Sondland Says He Followed Trump’s Orders To Pressure Ukraine.
It was a protracted campaign over a number of months and involving several US officials working on the irregular channel and Giuliani to solicit and pressure the Ukraine to conduct two investigations for Trump’s personal benefit by withholding diplomatic support and military aid, even as it was facing Russian armed aggression.
Trump’s team tries to defend Trump by isolating the evidence to just the one July 25 phone [edited memo], which Trump calls perfect. It was not perfect and just one link in a long chain of [underground] events.
3. Zelensky and Ukrainian officials did not even know the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call.
That is false:
a. Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, testified Ukrainian officials had known in July about the holdup in the security aid.
b. Catherine Croft, Foreign Service Officer, said, Ukrainian officials began quietly asking about the holdup before it became public.
c. Ex-top official in Kyiv, Ms. Serkal, says Ukraine knew of aid freeze in July. That was reported in the NY Times. Yermak, aide to Zelensky, told her to keep this secret, they did not want this made public.
4. Not a "single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything."
That is false:
a. Ambassador Sondland testified under oath, that he later came to believe the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public announcement of the investigations, and he told VP Pence on Sept.1 at Warsaw about it, but, when questioned, would not admit Trump; directly, told him.
Nevertheless, he did, because, he told Tim Morrison and Bill Taylor that his orders came from the President Trump on Sept. 8, 2019.
The end of August was a critical juncture in this episode: Zelensky rejected what Trump wanted and he decided to play his Ace in the Hole, the Military Aid freeze to break the logjam.
And, it was Sondland—that conveyed that message first to Yermak, Zelensky’s senior, aide on Sept.1 and then, to President Zelensky, Sept. 7, after he spoke with the president, he had to clear things up.
When he said, Trump did tell him; directly, he was protecting the president: he sort of lied. Trump told him indirectly, when, he asked Trump what he wanted, he said, “Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” What did that mean? It meant what he told Zelensky.
Sondland said, by Sept. 8th, everybody knew the military aid release was tied to the investigations.
There is no other creditable explanation.
Sondland, Ambassador to the EU, lied for the president, when he said, there was no quid pro quo at his first closed door House deposition hearing—and reversed himself in the second House public deposition hearing, saying there was, as the facts became crystal clear, there was. And, here he is doing it again, saying: Trump did not tell him; maybe not directly, but he did indirectly by multiple phone conversations. The reason he did not take notes and has a bad memory was to protect President Trump.
b. After the Politico exposé —on Oct. 28, Taylor texted Sondland on Sept. 1, “Are we now saying that security assistance and the WH meeting are conditioned on investigations.”
Sondland texted back, “Call me.”
Taylor did, took notes, and testified, Sondland told him after speaking with Trump, earlier, on Sept. 1, that the Trump told him that he wanted Zelensky in a public box and both the oval office meeting and security assistance were contingent on Zelensky making these two announcements.
Sondland emphasized: the announcements:
The actually investigations—not stressed.
Sondland does not deny the conversation or the phone call: he denies Trump, directly, told him; nonetheless, it makes no difference, whether it was direct or indirect: it came from the President.
I believe Taylor more, because he was decisive and took notes and Sondland did not take notes. In fact, many of Sondland answers to questions on day 4 by the House panel were evasive. He was trying to protect Trump.
The truth of matter, Sondland got his orders from the President.
It was based on his four phone calls with Trump: July 24 & 26 and September 1 & 7. Sondland did not tell us everything that was said.
He got his orders from the President—directly, indirectly, or by innuendo and it was based on what Trump said and did.
He linked them together: He described it as 2+2=4.
And, when, Sondland called Trump Sept.1 after Politico announced the suspension of military aid that would have; logically, been the subject of conversation and what he said to Yermak, Zelensky’s top aid, afterwards is proof.
You cannot say these momentous things unless it came from President Trump or by guessing. He got the answer when asked the President, What he wanted, he said, Zelensky must do the right thing; that is, make the public announcements to get the aid and the WH meeting.
Those two things remained in effect.
Sondland said, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, gave him permission to relay the Trump message to Zelensky. That confirms it was from President Trump and Pompeo was in the loop and supported Trump’s scheme. He denies the conversation, in my opinion that is a lie, coverup.
He has not been forthright.
He also is a top Trump stonewaller: blocked/refused 4 House requests/subpoenas for documents and witnesses. He is hiding evidence.
c. Tim Morrison, Dr. Hill’s replacement, testified under oath: that Sondland texted him on Sept. 8 that the oval office meeting and the release of the military aid was conditioned upon Zelensky announcing these investigations and these demands came for the President.
d. Bill Taylor, top Ukrainian diplomat, said, Sondland also texted him on Sept. 8, that Trump told him: he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma (i.e., the Bidens) and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and everything was dependent on such an investigation including security assistance.
Sept. 9, Taylor sent a text to Volker and Sondland, saying, "Withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be crazy."
That establishes proof—where Taylor stood on this matter and what he learnt from the EU Ambassador, Sondland, who was rerouted to the Ukraine undercutting the authority of Taylor, the acting Ukrainian Ambassador.
Sondland was working on the irregular channel.
Bill Taylor was working on the regular channel.
Sondland leaked Trump’s scheme to Morrison and Taylor, two credible witnesses, I believe on purpose.
He wanted the world to know the truth.
Sondland began working on the official channel; then, was transferred by Trump to work on the irregular channel under Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, and at the House public deposition hearing decided to expiate himself—tell the truth.
He was not happy with that transfer.
Goldman, counsel for the Democrats, asked Sondland at the House impeachment hearings, “as of Sept. 9th , you understood, did you not, President Trump either himself or through his agents required President Zelensky make a public announcement of the two investigations that the President care about in order to get both the White House meeting and to release the security assistance. Is that correct?”
Sondland answered, “I believe that is correct.”
More proof:
e. Mick Mulvaney, acting White House Chief of Staff, said on national TV -- he discussed with the President the quid pro quo (i.e., if the Ukraine does not do this, they won’t get that from Trump). He was also in the loop and a coadjutor. Bolton said, “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” It was Trump’s bribery scheme.
f. John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, writes in his book, Trump told him that nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine would not be released until it offered assistance with investigations of Democratic targets, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. And he said, the president asked for his assistance. He was also in the loop, but not a coadjutor. He was a vocal critic and opponent of Trump’s scheme and was fired or resigned because of it.
g. Sondland learnt from Rudy Guiliani, Trump’s lawyer, that the White House meeting was conditioned upon Zelensky making the investigations.
There is more evidence:
h. What Trump knows…
i. What others know in the loop including VP Pence and SOS Pompeo. Both were subpoenaed by House—and refused to testify.
j. What the notes of diplomats, text messages, cables, and other documents say that were subpoenaed by House that Trump is hiding.
k. All evidence points to Trump, the mastermind
l. “It was no secret,” Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, finally admits, “everybody was in the loop [knew Trump ordered the Ukraine pressure campaign]”.
That is so, totally, obvious.
5. Security assistance was released on September 11 and a Trump-Zelensky "presidential meeting" happened on September 25, without Ukraine announcing any investigations.
That is false.
At that meeting at the UN in NY—Zelensky said to President Trump, “And I want to thank you for the invitation to Washington.”
Trump, “Right.”
Zelensky, “You invited me. But I think — I'm sorry, but I think you forgot to tell me the date. But I think in the near future.”
Trump, “They'll tell you the date.”
Zelensky did not think the White House meeting at Washington D.C. had happened yet, neither did Trump, just Trump’s crooked lawyers at the trial.
They argue this meeting at the UN fulfills the promised WH meeting, so they can argue Zelensky got the White House meeting without announcing the corruption investigation into the Bidens; therefore, no bribe, but that is not the way it happened. Trump got caught before his bribery scheme was consummated and afterwards Zelensky canceled his scheduled CNN announcement and Zelensky never got the White House meeting.
6. Democrats' "blind drive" to impeach Trump doesn't change that he's been a "better friend" and "stronger supporter" of Ukraine than his predecessor.
That is false:
First of all, it is not a blind drive: that is an example of misrepresentation. The fact Trump would freeze military aid, when the Ukraine desperately needed it to fight the Russian invasion and armed support of separatists on its territory; solely, for his benefit, he is not a good friend. President Zelensky—still has not got the White House meeting, that would show strong military support, he needs to negotiate with Putin to end the war in Donbas. He subjected the Ukraine to mental trauma by the freeze of $391 million in military aid conditioned on conducting two phony investigations that would benefit his reelection. Top officials from the DOS, DOD, the CIA and national security adviser all tried to get this overturned without success. He wanted something in return. That is not a good friend. And, he now wants the Ukraine to pay for Javelins, instead of buying them with US financial aid. And, don’t give Trump credit for releasing it in Sept.11, top officials forced him to do it when he got caught red handed extorting Zelensky to do him a favor.
Michael Purpura said in his opening statement at the trial, January 25th, the Democrats’ allegation that the President engaged in a quid pro quo is unfounded and contrary to the facts.
Here are two of his other lies: Trump did nothing wrong and said, you have been lied to – by Democrats.
How could he sit here through 3 days of hearing and seeing the Dump Truck Load of evidence presented by the House managers in this chamber and say these things? Answer: Trump pays him for his farcical defense.
He should reveal how much!
5. Robert Ray begins by saying, the House articles of impeachment do not allege a crime [necessary for impeachment]. That is false: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are “other high crime,” than, treason and bribery, that are impeachable. He says, that the constitution or Framers’ intent dictates: impeachable must be based on a high crime and constitute an abuse of public trust. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress satisfies both those requirements; when, you use the power of the presidency for personal gains, rather than US official interest: that is an abuse of public trust. If, obstructing the House of Representatives from carrying out its constitutional duty to impeach a president for abuse of power is not a high crime, nothing is. If, the House does not carry out that function, it betrays the public trust. By impeding that function, as Trump has done, is an abuse of power and public trust. Ray gets tangled up and trapped in his own words. He does not understand “other high crimes and misdemeanors” in the constitution are impeachable political crimes; not necessarily, statutory criminal crimes.
When the president commits statutory criminal crimes: he should be prosecuted in the criminal court.
“Other high crimes and misdemeanors” are political crimes that require impeachment and removal from office.
Although impeachment can be based on a mixture of both: that did not happen in the Trump impeachment.
Secondly, he argues the evidence is insufficient and does not rise to the level of impeachment—“the charge must be treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Trump’s crimes fit those criteria exactly: the facts prove Trump committed bribery-extortion. In impeachment article 1, that is called “abuse of power.” The text of article 1 describes bribery or what is akin to. It is not necessary to call the crime bribery. It can be called abuse of power, which is another high crime. Trump defense team also does not understand: the meaning of “misdemeanors.” It did not; necessarily, mean minor crimes back when the constitution was written. It meant what the word means. Let me break it down: demeanor means the way you act, behavior -- mis means badly or wrongly -- put them together: it means misconduct, bad behavior, or wrongdoing. Trump’s over 15,000 lies or misleading claims in 3 years with 1 year to go is an impeachable offense or violation of public trust; Trump’s 29th trip to Mar-a-Lago brings the tab to 334 years of presidential salary, that is an impeachable crime, an excessive cost to taxpayers. He violated the campaign finance law in 2016, misusing funds in his charity foundation, defrauding students in the Trump University, using his payment to Cohen for the repayment of payment to Stormy Daniels, as business expense; allegedly, exaggerated assets to get a bank loan, etc. There are dozens of cases of sexual misconduct allegations. There is evidence of nepotism, cronyism, defamation, witness intimation, and violations of the emolument clauses. And, if you go back further, the Trump’s Taj Mahal violated anti-money laundering rules in 1990s. Trump is also blocking investigations into the Trump Organization and his tax returns and since he cheated in his businesses, his election campaign, his presidency, his university, his charitable foundation, his marriage, cheats at golf, and he likely has cheated on his taxes too and there are more than a dozen state and federal criminal investigations underway.
Although, these are not mentioned in the articles of impeachment, it requires a profile look at the president, in general, to determine if a person has a bad character. Senators know these facts. It should be part of their judgment. These other high crimes and misdemeanors alleged, proven, and under investigation, in addition to impeachment articles 1 and 2 -- show a pattern of corruption throughout and requires President Donald Trump be impeached and removal from office.
Prosecution for criminal offenses should follow after he leaves office. He is the most corrupt, unhinged, and lawless president in U.S. History.
He just purged the government of people who testified against him including the Inspector General, who reported the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress and misused the power of pardon. He is no different than a Mafia syndicate crime Boss.
He belongs in prison with Michael Cohen.
Robert Ray’s most bogus argument: House managers have trumped‑up articles of impeachment, when no crime has been committed. No one, would say that, unless he was paid or a shyster.
6. Ken Starr based on what he said, is a deranged sanctimonious professor of the principles of impeachment: he referred to what Theodore Parker called the Ark of the Moral Universe, he said, basically, it is fairness.
He says, the House impeachment is not fair, because, they did not follow the Nixon and Clinton impeachment rules.
That is wrong for three reasons:
a. They are not required to follow those rules.
b. He equates rules with fairness—not always.
c. Each presidential impeachment is different.
Then he makes a second serious mistake: guilt or innocence should be determined by whether the House followed the rules. No. It should be determined by whether House managers proved Trump is guilty of the two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress
He mentioned the author of God Bless American, Irving Berlin, Martin Luther King Jr. given his dream speech with the Lincoln memorial in the background, to get you to think he some kind of pious moral counsel.
He is not, he is an eccentric imposter.
Starr does not know what fairness is: he pushed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton –based on a telling a lie about a sex affair. That is not impeachable. Then, he says, the Trump impeachment is weak.
It is hundreds of times stronger than the Clinton case and Trump is an entirely corrupt president, accused [or suspected] of committing dozens of crimes. This is a LIST:
Starr says, “There is no national consensus’ for Trump’s impeachment. That is not correct. There are two parts to this impeachment:
The House:
1. NY Times report, Oct. 1, 2019: Impeachment polls show a steady rise in support: A majority of registered voters now approve of the House's inquiry.
The Senate:
2. New CNN poll, Jan. 20, 51% says Senate should impeach and remove Trump from office and that is with Fox News and other media outlets spreading misinformation. That number will increase – as the people become more; truthfully, enlightened.
Ken Starr says, the constitution commands us to be impartial, when invoking impeachment and cites the Rodino Rule: impeachments must be bipartisan.
And, he says, this impeachment is not; because, no Republican in House voted for the two Articles of Impeachment.
He failed to mention: no Republican voted for the probe--either. They don’t want the public to know the truth.
Ken Starr failed to mention: Republicans voted against a fair trial: new Quinnipiac poll: 75% of voters want witnesses. All Republicans voted against witnesses and documents at the impeachment trial. To be a bipartisan impeachment‑‑ both sides have to be fair minded. Republicans voted against investigation and fairness.
Yes, the vote in House Judicial Committee to impeach Nixon was bipartisan, but, the Republican Party, since then, has become a plutocratic polarized cult. Starr said, it is the party of Lincoln. No.
It has become a different Party—since the 1980s.
Members are loyal to the Party—not the people.
And, the reason for that: they are punished and not supported financially in their political campaigns unless they support the party agenda.
They need the financial support of the Party to win, because of the way the finance campaign law has changed: the huge amount of money flowing into Super PACs that goes to the Party and Party decides who to support, not the people.
Millions flow in from corporations and billionaires.
They want to protect their big Trump tax cuts.
In order words, Ken Starr’s criticism of the way the impeachment of Trump is conducted by the House of Representatives is partisan.
He did not point out the impeachment trial of Trump is rigged in the Senate: Republicans have already decided not to convict.
They love money and power more than justice.
Starr’s lecture on impeachment, in its historical context, was bias and he went off course into Whitewater, federal agents violating the Bivens family rights, the Justice Harlan matrix, the Pentagon papers, the Iran‑Contra, the impeachment of Samuel Chase, etc. These you might hear about in a university lecture on impeachment—not here.
And, he also made these erroneous arguments:
1. Impeachment should or must be based on crimes, that is wrong because misdemeanors are not [minor] crimes.
2. He said, all House subpoenas issued prior the full House vote on Res. 660 are invalid, they are void; like, Patrick Philbin said.
He is wrong.
3. He said, Trump’s impeachment was idiosyncratic and disruptive. He should not criticize: he was obsessed with impeaching Bill Clinton, spent $40 million and came up empty—he, then, to redeem himself pushed the impeachment Clinton based on a sex scandal; therefore, idiosyncratic.
The Trump impeachment is a Bull’s Eye.
4. He says, it violated the Rodino rule. No, the Clinton impeachment was partisan, which he engaged in. House manager, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, who was in Congress at the time said, it did not abuse presidential power.
That is true.
Trump’s impeachment is not partisan; because, it is based on constitutional and lawful principles and indisputable facts.
5. He says, despite the time litigation takes—go to court—follow the path of the law. In this case, Trump lawyers have blocked it.
6. He said, don’t release the documents Mr. President, if you do, you’re injuring the presidency. He is a two-faced deceitful lawyer.
He was appointed independent counsel during President Bill Clinton’s administration and said, “the one thing that we can’t deal with are lies. Lies are impossible to deal with, so please, simple tell us the truth” –referring to his affair with a White House staffer.
Now, as Trump’s lawyer, he has no objection to Trump’s over 15,000 lies and tells President Trump—conceal from the public—your bribery-extortion scheme of Zelensky, the newly elected president of the Ukraine.
7. He said, under our constitution, the Speaker of the House was powerless to do, what she did. She needs a full House vote before she acts.
He is wrong.
8. He says, the constitution implies [statutory] crimes, when it mentions high crimes and misdemeanors.
He is wrong.
9. He said the process in the House lacked fairness: they tore apart their procedures from the Nixon and Clinton era; but, failed to point out Trump’s trial in the Senate was unfair, because, Republicans voted against amendments requiring witnesses and documents.
He is partisan.
10. He says, the Senate should not impeach Trump for his high crimes and misdemeanors encapsulated in Articles of Impeachments 1 and 2. He thinks the House should dismiss Trump’s bribery‑extortion scheme of a foreign leader and let the people decide in the next election.
That is wrong. The U.S. Constitution requires the Congress remove a president for high crimes and misdemeanors—not the people.
Nixon’s abuse of power and Trump’s abuse of power were both serious; definitely, impeachable; however, Trump’s obstruction of Congress is far more serious than Nixon’s, and his misconduct far more extensive in scope. The U.S. Constitution requires impeachment for both cases.
What has changed—the Senate’s makeup.
Republicans in the Senate have become a cult of rich elitist men; like, the old British House of Lords that ruled over the House of Commons.
The character of the Republican Party—has changed since Nixon. Reagan changed it into a party of Plutocrats.
More than 90% swore their allegiance to Grover Norquist—and signed the no tax increase pledge [for any reason].
Ken Starr’s lecture was partial, wrong, and went off the rails. One thing he said that was correct, Will law professors agree with him? No.
7. Alan Dershowitz: let me tell you something: he defended OJ Simpson, who savagely murdered two people. Why, probably for money and fame.
Now, he is defending President Trump, who committed two high crimes: the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress.
He said, “it’s a great honor for me to stand before you today to present a constitutional argument against the impeachment and removal not only of this president, but of all and any future presidents who may be charged with the unconstitutional grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.”
Is he right? No.
He says, the idea of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are so far from what the Framers had in mind that they so clearly violate the Constitution and would place Congress above the law.
Dershowitz is wrong.
Elbridge Gerry, American politician and diplomat, who was at the 1787 convention at Philadelphia stated that impeachment was needed as a check against presidential abuse of power.
The British Parliament invented impeachment in 1376, to protect the people against the royal abuses of power. Abuses of power, can be treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors and the obstruction of Congress. It puts the president above the law; when, you hide evidence. The House of Representatives is unable to conduct an investigation to impeach. Article 1, the Title, the abuse of power is just the top of the charge, like the title for a book: the text that follows are the specifics of the crimes he committed. President Trump veering off course, using a covert irregular channel and put his personal lawyer in charge of his squad to bribe a foreign leader offering military aid release and a White House meeting, if he announces a sham corruption investigation of his political rival and 2016 election interference.
Danyliuk, aid to Zelensky, said he resigned his post in Kiev in September in part, because, of Trump’s attempt to force the Ukraine to become entangled in US politics. Even, the Ukrainians knew what President Trump was doing was wrong including President Zelensky. He said at the UN Trump meeting, he did not want to be involved in US politics which would have been the consequence of Trump’s request.
After Politico made it public on Oct. 28—Trump had placed a freeze on military aid to the Ukraine, Taylor, the acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, expressed his grave concerns to John Bolton, the NSA, and he urged Taylor to send a cable to Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, and he did on Oct. 29th, saying, he thought it was folly to withhold security assistance.
He did not get an answer.
When Taylor realized Trump had taken over US policy in the Ukraine with his own, he considering resigning and said, “I could not and would not defend such a policy.” He was working on the U.S. official channel.
The House managers took 3 days describing what that abuse of power was, as Rep. Jeffries said, he tried to cheat, got caught and is working hard to cover it up.
The crimes that Trump has committed are exactly—what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind. Article 2, there is no doubt that Trump obstructed Congress. He is he first president in US history to defy of all subpoenas-- putting himself above the law.
Dershowitz argues the president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection. Adam Schiff said, that is “the decent into madness.”
He is correct.
You can do legal things, if you think it will help you to win, but can can’t break the law. Trump directed and engaged in a quid pro quo that is the same as bribery-extortion or akin to.
The motive was corrupt.
The freeze was illegal.
It was an abuse of power.
He obstructed justice…
And lied to the people.
Dershowitz said in 1998 on CNN, "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime.”
That is correct!
What made him change his mind?
He now says impeachment must be based on statutory crimes: that is wrong. The U.S. Constitution did not enumerate and define what it meant by other high crimes and misdemeanors and that has led to numerous misinterpretations.
They could be statutory crimes.
They also could be what Framers at the time considered political crimes: based on old English law.
It is up to judgment of the House of Representatives what they are, except for treason and bribery.
Dershowitz said, he strongly supported Nixon’s impeachment: one of the charges: abuse of executive power.
Now, he is against it for Trump.
Some lawyers argue on both sides of an issue based on compensation, ideology, and subjective motive; like, Trump is a buddy of Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is also mired in corruption in Israel.
Do you see Trump’s duplicity here?
Netanyahu recently visited the White House – no waiting for months for meeting or prerequisites required.
Dershowitz goes on to say, House managers “claim that any electoral benefit would constitute an impeachable quid pro quo.” No, that is not what they say. That is a blatant misrepresentation. But I will give him credit for this statement “The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty.” That is a quote from the past—not in the trial.
Dershowitz would; probably, change his mind and join the Democrats, if, Trump held up aid for Israel.
So, his arguments should be dismissed—as bias: he might say two different things: depending who he is defending.
He states the Senate when exercising its impeachment powers must consider three issues:
1. Does the House prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes, it did, beyond any doubt.
2. Does this conduct rise to an impeachable crime? Yes, besides attempting to secretly bribe a foreign leader, the freeze violated the Impoundment Control Act, it undermines our electoral democracy and is a danger to our national security: Ukraine’s defense, the largest country by land area in Europe, is our defense against Russian revanchism and he openly and unabashedly prevented the House of Representatives from investigating these crimes by the use of a spurious strategy: absolute immunity.
3. Is impeachment for these crimes authorized by the constitution? Yes, Article 1, the bribery‑extortion of a foreign leader is an abuse of power. Article 2, the obstruction of Congress. You mean obstruction of Congress is not impeachable; then, you are insane. It states in the Articles of Impeachment: In response without lawful cause of excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power of Impeachment” vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
Rep. Jason Crow said, Trump obstructed Congress every step of the way, put himself above congressional oversight.
That is a high impeachable crime.
Dershowitz says, to be impeachable—it has to be enumerated and defined by the constitution or law: that is wrong; because, other high crimes and misdemeanors are not enumerated and defined in the context what are impeachable offenses. The Title 18 of the US code as written is not a text book for impeachment. It is designed for criminal prosecutions.
Rep. Maxine Waters is right.
Impeachment is whatever Congress say it is, there is no law, if you choose to impeach for other high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than treason or bribery [or other statutory crimes].
Do misdemeanors mean only minor crimes? No. Minor crimes would not be suitable impeachable crimes.
However, evil, wrong, bad, behavior would be. They can be classified as high crimes which are not statutory.
If misdemeanors mean only minor crimes; then, you cannot impeach for misconduct or wrongdoing that is not codified.
You have to use common sense—and not be held to a one side strict interpretation, that allows bad or evil behavior to be unimpeachable.
Impeachment—means—removal from office: it is not the same as criminal prosecuting: that results in fines, imprisonment, and capital punishment: those types of prosecution are based on statutory crimes.
Those crimes a tried in a court of law.
The Office of Legal Counsel states a president cannot be prosecuted for criminal crimes while in office. Dershowitz says, impeachment must be based on statutory crimes: that is a head-on-collusion.
So, impeachment is based on a different criterion.
Otherwise, it creates double jeopardy.
After impeachment, can the president be prosecuted again for the same statutory crimes: that is headed in unchartered waters, something, the DOJ and Congress has never faced.
Obvious, impeachment and criminal prosecutions are two different legal actions: one to remove a president from office, and the other to fine, imprison, and punish with the death sentence for crimes of a criminal nature.
If criminal offenses are excluded, impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors consists of wrongdoing, evil or misconduct of the president, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States. You have to use your common sense and your conscience or intuition, if you have it.
It can be the Devil speaking to you.
The record shows: impeachments charges have been mixed: statutory and non-statutory [misdemeanors].
John Pickering, a judge, District of NH, was convicted of impeachment—and one of the accusations: drunkenness.
Thomas Porteous, a judge, District of LA, was convicted—and one of the accusations: corruption—“a level of moral depravity”.
Other high crimes and misdemeanors are political in nature: using the power of office in a wrong, corrupt or evil way.
Mendacity should be a misdemeanor.
Trump made that mandatory.
Ten lies are petty—15,000 are high.
Dershowitz says lying is a sin—not a crime.
You can lie to the police and be charged with a crime.
Perjury is lying and it’s a crime.
Bearing false witness is a crime.
When, the president takes the oath of office—he is not supposed to lie, habitually, to the American people. That is a wrong.
Dershowitz says, the key argument that he has presented today—abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside of impeachable offenses. That means: he is a mixed-up crackpot lawyer.
The historical record shows: 3 impeachments included abuse of power: 2 obstruction of justice, 1 contempt of Congress
Dershowitz does not recognize two types of quid pro quo: one that is legal and for a good purpose and one that is illegal and for a bad purpose.
Trump’s was illegal, corrupt, and not U.S. policy.
He missed the boat: what House manages call abuse of power is Trump’s attempt to bribe and extort a foreign leader [for his benefit].
That is a statutory crime—or akin to.
He also said, you cannot impeach for obstruction of Congress, Article 2: that means he is crazy.
Article 2, is based on defying House subpoenas. The criminal-contempt statute, passed in 1857, makes it a federal crime to defy congressional subpoenas.
All House subpoenas are valid.
Dershowitz says, refusing to obey is not an impeachment offense. That means you cannot investigate the POTUS for misconduct or abuses of power: he is not subject to the criminal contempt statute.
That is wrong.
Dershowitz deserves be put on a train to Auschwitz to think things out and meditation. He is a danger to our legal system of government. Here are five more of his insane or diabolical statements:
1. Trump’s climate change policies, which are a crime against humanity, are not an impeachable office.
False, they are a high crime in this age.
2. He says the phrase abuse of power is open-ended and vague: that is a false: that is the title of the charge: the text that follows in Articles of Impeachment describe the specifics and they are not vague. Then, the House managers elaborate further –orally, for three days: Dershowitz must have been day dreaming—or not listening.
3. He claims the House managers have based impeachment on psychoanalyzes, reading Trump’s mind. That is false: it is based on the facts, what Trump says and does reveal his subjective motives.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia put up a slide on screen: 10 reasons Trump actions were corrupt, for himself:
Number 5. Investigations Outside Official Channels [that is not for official U.S. purposes].
4. Dershowitz turns and looks to his right, like, some higher legal authority on constitutional law and says, “I’m sorry House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria (i.e., for impeaching the president).”
He needs to apologize. He is wrong!
5. He says, Article 1, abuse of power, and 2, obstruction of Congress, are not statutory crimes—so, they are not impeachable. These are the very reasons: framers put this power [or law] of impeachment in the constitution. So, you can peacefully remove a president for this kind of conduct, rather than resort to assassination or bloody revolution. They fall under the classification of high crimes and misdemeanors. It includes all high statutory crimes and bad, evil, or misconduct of men in high office.
These are crimes of Adolf Hitler.
6. The House manager’s use of what is truth [or false], trust [or distrust], honesty [dishonesty], right [wrong], are not applicable to impeachment, because they are not statutory crimes. He is insane. These are all qualities of a president that you consider; whether, to impeach or not impeach. These are qualities that determine whether conduct is a misdemeanor or a high crime. Dershowitz is claiming: what is moral and immoral, our constitution excludes in determining what is an impeachable offense: that is insanity. Truth, justice and what is good and right preserves a nation and lies, injustice, and what is wrong and evil destroys a nation.
Adolf Hitler was immoral, distrustful, etc.
Dershowitz says, I do my own thinking.
That is the problem.
And, what he says is rubbish.
I think I know his motive for defending Trump.
His love of Israel
And, for pecuniary reasons and fame.
He is writing a book.
This is the second half:
8. Jane Raskin says, “If both the law and the facts are against you, present a distraction, emphasize a sensational fact or perhaps a colorful or controversial public figure who appears on the scene, then distort certain facts, ignore others, even when they are the most probative, make conclusory statements, and insinuate the shiny object is far more important than the actual facts allow; in short, divert attention from the holes in your case.”
She says, “Rudy Giuliani is the House managers’ colorful distraction.” No, her statement is an exact description of Trump’s lawyers defense of Trump and the colorful distraction is the Bidens.
She says, Rudy Giuliani was a “minor player” in Trump’s corrupt scheme: that is false. When, this is fully investigated, it will show Giuliani played a key role.
That is why John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, called Giuliani a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up.
Phone records show Giuliani had direct contact with the WH.
Trump put Rudy Giuliani in charge of his scheme to get dirt on Biden working inside the federal government on irregular channel.
When Volker and Yermak were negotiating for WH meeting in August, he said for Zelensky’s announcement to be “credible” it must contain two key items: investigations into Biden/Burisma and the 2016 election meddling.
President Trump refuses to turnover relevant communication documents between him and Rudy Giuliani, his lawyer.
He played a role in the removal of the Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch and as an intermediary between Trump and Ukrainian officials in setting up Trump’s corrupt quid pro quo [this for that].
He went to the Ukraine to concoct dirt on the Bidens to benefit Trump’s reelection campaign.
He was subpoenaed by the House and refused to testify.
Raskin’s part in this trial; it appears, defending Giuliani, Trump’s main coadjutor. She says, the evidence does not support their [House managers] claims. That is patently false. They proved both articles of impeachment and Giuliani’s participation.
House managers never used detraction to present their Trump impeachment case, that is the strategy used by the Trump lawyers defending Trump, because, the law and the facts are not on their side.
Jane Rashin is totally wrong.
9. Pam Bondi alleges that the former VP Joe Biden’s pressure campaign to dismiss Ukraine’s corrupt prosecutor, Victor Shokin was part of an effort to protect his son, Hunter Biden. There is no hard evidence of that. Daria Kaleniuk, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a leading anti-corruption voice in Ukraine, tweeted May 2, 2019, that Shokin’s firing was not about protecting the company Hunter Biden was working for. The firing "was obviously not because the prosecutor wanted to investigate Burisma & Zlochevsky." Ex-VP Joe Biden had Ukrainian domestic and international support for what he did and was part of US policy.
Bondi claims Hunter Biden was paid millions of dollars for doing almost nothing: that appears to be true. Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, was obvious paying for influence. Steven Pifer, former ambassador to Ukraine, said, “it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence. In 2017, on the Burisma website, Zlochevsky’s American lawyer, John Buretta, a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, says that a court in Kyiv ordered a case closed in September 2016 because no evidence of wrongdoing had been presented.
Yuriy Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General, said the Bidens did not violate Ukrainian laws.
The reason Bondi brought it up during the impeachment trial—to try and prove President Trump had a legitimate reason to investigate ex-VP Joe Biden. Bondi, former Florida AG, seems to know more than Nazar Kholodnitsky, Ukraine’s chief anti‑corruption prosecutor, when asked, should the Bidens be investigated? -- said, that to do so they would need to see information that would signal possible wrongdoing.
“As of now, there is nothing there,” he said. “If it comes up, measures will be taken to check the information.”
If, Trump or the Republican Party can pay Pam Bondi enough money to cook up this false narrative, that the former Vice President Joe Biden’s threat to withhold a $1 billion loan to force the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, was to stop an investigation in Burisma where his son had a seat on the board, and at the same time defend Trump, the most corrupt president in US history; there must be similar cases when she was the Attorney General of Florida.
Pam Bondi said in a CBS This Morning interview: Trump “did nothing wrong”… and the impeachment is a “sham court.” If, she can say this about Donald Trump, no doubt for money, she is a corrupt female Viktor Shokin.
Yes, Hunter Biden cashed on his dad’s name. It is somewhat unethical in this case, but it is not a crime. It is a common practice.
Whereas, Trump’s misdeeds are huge, political and criminal. Trump is whale and Hunter Biden is a minnow; comparatively, in terms of bad behavior.
And, there is no proof—Joe Biden benefited.
Pam Bondi attacks the Bidens based on a debunked conspiracy theory and defends President Trump, when there is mountains of factual evidence of wrongdoing that shows lack of good sense and integrity as a lawyer and former AG of Florida.
It has to be; mainly, for monetary reasons.
10. Erich Herschmann says Trump’s approval rating while we are sitting here in the middle of these impeachment proceedings have hit an all-time high. A recent poll shows that the American people are the happiest they have been by the direction of the country in fifteen years, whether, it is the economy, security, military preparedness, safer streets, safer neighborhoods are all way up.
The flip-side of the coin: Trump’s approval rating has never exceeded 50%, he has added $3.145 trillion to the national debt in 3 years, the number of people that have no health insurance has increased by 7 million, nearly 700 people dies of gun violence each week, his anti-science environmental policies has acerbated climate change, and the gap between the rich and poor has increased.
Herschmann spent a lot of time criticizing Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with Burisma Holdings, son of the U.S. vice-president.
He did not criticize Ivanka Trump’s 18 trademark protections given to her by China, daughter of the U.S. president.
That shows lopsidedness and he twisted the facts to make Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation into the Bidens – U.S. policy.
And he went way off course to defend Trump by comparing President Obama’s hot mic conversation with President Medvedev with President Trump asking President Zelensky for a favor—as equivalent.
This is absurd.
He says, where were House managers, then? If, this was impeachable, Republicans would have jumped on it. It was not even close.
Herschmann claims what Obama’s actions were worse than Trump’s: there is not an ounce of truth in that statement.
One clearly legal—one is clearly not.
Herschmann said at the trial of Trump, the people are entitled to know what happened with Biden/Burisma. They are not entitled to know what happened inside the Trump White House: that is backwards.
Herschmann’s biggest falsehood, “Democrats are as wrong now about the Articles of Impeachment as they were in 2016 about the Russian collusion.” That is like comparing a sunken battleship to newly launched aircraft carrier with squadron of jets on deck delivering bombs on target, that has suffered no damage in this Trump impeachment trial.
All Trump lawyers in this trial have made numerous false arguments to defend President Trump for a price. They are like, mob hit men.
--------------
Pat Cipollone ended Trump’s team arguments for January 27 with this statement: Democrats are trying to impeach the president from the day of Inauguration for no reason. That is a lie.
There are seven reasons:
1. He violated the campaign finance law to get elected.
2. He was not elected by the popular vote.
3. He had the help of Russian interference.
4. He lied and misled to get elected.
5. He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
6. They recognize he is incompetent.
7. They recognized – he is a tyrannical con man.
# 1. Key Q & A
Chief Justice: The question reads as follows: House managers say the president demands absolute immunity. The president’s council disputes this. Can either of you name a single witness or document to which the president has given access to the House when requested?
Patrick Philbin: Mr. Chief Justice, thank you, minority Schumer for the question. Let me try to be clear and distinguish a couple of things, the House managers have said there was a blanket defiance, that is the way they characterized it, just, we’re not going to give you anything. And, that is all we said, there is just blanket defiance we are not going to respond. What I tried to explain, several times, is, that was not the president’s response. There were specifically, articulated responses to different requests based on different legal rationales, because, there are different problems with different subpoenas. So, one problem is, all subpoenas up until October 31st were not validly authorized. So, those subpoenas, we said, we are not going to respond to because, they were not validly issued, it wasn’t an assertion of executive privilege, it wasn’t an assertion of absolute immunity or anything else, it was the fact they weren’t validly authorized. They pointed out that, aha, we subpoenaed, I think they mentioned, acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney, after October 31st. That is true, we did not rely on the fact the subpoena was not authorized, we pointed out the doctrine of the absolute immunity of senior advisers to the president. This is not some blanket absolute immunity for the entire executive branch. It does not apply to all the subpoenas they issued, as we explain in our brief, it applies to three. There were three people they subpoenaed as witnesses that were on this basis alone that the president declined to make them available: acting Chief of Staff, Mulvaney, the legal adviser to the National Security Council, John Eisenberg and deputy national Security adviser Mr. Kupperman. I believe, but it is in our brief. It was those three who had immunity, a doctrine asserted by every President since Nixon. Then, there was a different problem with some subpoenas, some of the other witnesses who were not senior advisors to the president. The president did not assert they had absolute immunity. Instead, these subpoenas refused to allow those executive branch personal to have executive branch counsel accompany them. And, there is an OC opinion that has been published, it is online, it’s cited in our trial memorandum -- stating it is unconstitutional to refuse to allow executive branch personnel to have the assistance of executive branch counsel to protect privileged information during questioning, and, therefore, it is not valid to force them to appear without that counsel. [thank you].
In other words, Trump did not provide any witnesses. Philbin, Trump’s defense lawyer, gave three reasons:
1. Subpoenas were invalid: that is false.
2. The doctrine of absolute immunity: that is false.
3. Executive branch personal were not allowed to have counsel present during questioning: that is false. Trump did not claim executive privilege.
These men did not testify, because, they were told by the Trump administration not to testify: it was blanket defiance.
They were either Trump henchmen or afraid of reprisal.
Those that did testify, truthfully, against Trump are out.
Secondly, Philbin did not answer the second half of the question: what documents did Trump provide?
Rep. Zoe Lofgren: Mr. chief justice and senators, you know, we’ve received nothing as part of our impeachment inquiry. It’s worth pointing out that House committees subpoenas before the House vote had standing authority under the House rules and they were the Oversight Committee, which has under standard authority, to investigate any matter, at any time, as well, as the Foreign Affairs Committee, they have the authority under the rules of the House, adopted January 11 to issue subpoenas, they did and they were defied. The idea of absolute immunity has never been upheld by any court and it’s really incomprehensible to think somehow this concept of absolute immunity has lurked in hiding for centuries, for a president to use it in this day. It’s when you think of the two cases of the Miers case and the McGahn case the U.S. Courts rejected the idea of absolute immunity.
And, she put of up this slide: You can read:
The House:
1. NY Times report, Oct. 1, 2019: Impeachment polls show a steady rise in support: A majority of registered voters now approve of the House's inquiry.
The Senate:
2. New CNN poll, Jan. 20, 51% says Senate should impeach and remove Trump from office and that is with Fox News and other media outlets spreading misinformation. That number will increase – as the people become more; truthfully, enlightened.
Ken Starr says, the constitution commands us to be impartial, when invoking impeachment and cites the Rodino Rule: impeachments must be bipartisan.
And, he says, this impeachment is not; because, no Republican in House voted for the two Articles of Impeachment.
He failed to mention: no Republican voted for the probe--either. They don’t want the public to know the truth.
Ken Starr failed to mention: Republicans voted against a fair trial: new Quinnipiac poll: 75% of voters want witnesses. All Republicans voted against witnesses and documents at the impeachment trial. To be a bipartisan impeachment‑‑ both sides have to be fair minded. Republicans voted against investigation and fairness.
Yes, the vote in House Judicial Committee to impeach Nixon was bipartisan, but, the Republican Party, since then, has become a plutocratic polarized cult. Starr said, it is the party of Lincoln. No.
It has become a different Party—since the 1980s.
Members are loyal to the Party—not the people.
And, the reason for that: they are punished and not supported financially in their political campaigns unless they support the party agenda.
They need the financial support of the Party to win, because of the way the finance campaign law has changed: the huge amount of money flowing into Super PACs that goes to the Party and Party decides who to support, not the people.
Millions flow in from corporations and billionaires.
They want to protect their big Trump tax cuts.
In order words, Ken Starr’s criticism of the way the impeachment of Trump is conducted by the House of Representatives is partisan.
He did not point out the impeachment trial of Trump is rigged in the Senate: Republicans have already decided not to convict.
They love money and power more than justice.
Starr’s lecture on impeachment, in its historical context, was bias and he went off course into Whitewater, federal agents violating the Bivens family rights, the Justice Harlan matrix, the Pentagon papers, the Iran‑Contra, the impeachment of Samuel Chase, etc. These you might hear about in a university lecture on impeachment—not here.
And, he also made these erroneous arguments:
1. Impeachment should or must be based on crimes, that is wrong because misdemeanors are not [minor] crimes.
2. He said, all House subpoenas issued prior the full House vote on Res. 660 are invalid, they are void; like, Patrick Philbin said.
He is wrong.
3. He said, Trump’s impeachment was idiosyncratic and disruptive. He should not criticize: he was obsessed with impeaching Bill Clinton, spent $40 million and came up empty—he, then, to redeem himself pushed the impeachment Clinton based on a sex scandal; therefore, idiosyncratic.
The Trump impeachment is a Bull’s Eye.
4. He says, it violated the Rodino rule. No, the Clinton impeachment was partisan, which he engaged in. House manager, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, who was in Congress at the time said, it did not abuse presidential power.
That is true.
Trump’s impeachment is not partisan; because, it is based on constitutional and lawful principles and indisputable facts.
5. He says, despite the time litigation takes—go to court—follow the path of the law. In this case, Trump lawyers have blocked it.
6. He said, don’t release the documents Mr. President, if you do, you’re injuring the presidency. He is a two-faced deceitful lawyer.
He was appointed independent counsel during President Bill Clinton’s administration and said, “the one thing that we can’t deal with are lies. Lies are impossible to deal with, so please, simple tell us the truth” –referring to his affair with a White House staffer.
Now, as Trump’s lawyer, he has no objection to Trump’s over 15,000 lies and tells President Trump—conceal from the public—your bribery-extortion scheme of Zelensky, the newly elected president of the Ukraine.
7. He said, under our constitution, the Speaker of the House was powerless to do, what she did. She needs a full House vote before she acts.
He is wrong.
8. He says, the constitution implies [statutory] crimes, when it mentions high crimes and misdemeanors.
He is wrong.
9. He said the process in the House lacked fairness: they tore apart their procedures from the Nixon and Clinton era; but, failed to point out Trump’s trial in the Senate was unfair, because, Republicans voted against amendments requiring witnesses and documents.
He is partisan.
10. He says, the Senate should not impeach Trump for his high crimes and misdemeanors encapsulated in Articles of Impeachments 1 and 2. He thinks the House should dismiss Trump’s bribery‑extortion scheme of a foreign leader and let the people decide in the next election.
That is wrong. The U.S. Constitution requires the Congress remove a president for high crimes and misdemeanors—not the people.
Nixon’s abuse of power and Trump’s abuse of power were both serious; definitely, impeachable; however, Trump’s obstruction of Congress is far more serious than Nixon’s, and his misconduct far more extensive in scope. The U.S. Constitution requires impeachment for both cases.
What has changed—the Senate’s makeup.
Republicans in the Senate have become a cult of rich elitist men; like, the old British House of Lords that ruled over the House of Commons.
The character of the Republican Party—has changed since Nixon. Reagan changed it into a party of Plutocrats.
More than 90% swore their allegiance to Grover Norquist—and signed the no tax increase pledge [for any reason].
Ken Starr’s lecture was partial, wrong, and went off the rails. One thing he said that was correct, Will law professors agree with him? No.
7. Alan Dershowitz: let me tell you something: he defended OJ Simpson, who savagely murdered two people. Why, probably for money and fame.
Now, he is defending President Trump, who committed two high crimes: the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress.
He said, “it’s a great honor for me to stand before you today to present a constitutional argument against the impeachment and removal not only of this president, but of all and any future presidents who may be charged with the unconstitutional grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.”
Is he right? No.
He says, the idea of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are so far from what the Framers had in mind that they so clearly violate the Constitution and would place Congress above the law.
Dershowitz is wrong.
Elbridge Gerry, American politician and diplomat, who was at the 1787 convention at Philadelphia stated that impeachment was needed as a check against presidential abuse of power.
The British Parliament invented impeachment in 1376, to protect the people against the royal abuses of power. Abuses of power, can be treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors and the obstruction of Congress. It puts the president above the law; when, you hide evidence. The House of Representatives is unable to conduct an investigation to impeach. Article 1, the Title, the abuse of power is just the top of the charge, like the title for a book: the text that follows are the specifics of the crimes he committed. President Trump veering off course, using a covert irregular channel and put his personal lawyer in charge of his squad to bribe a foreign leader offering military aid release and a White House meeting, if he announces a sham corruption investigation of his political rival and 2016 election interference.
Danyliuk, aid to Zelensky, said he resigned his post in Kiev in September in part, because, of Trump’s attempt to force the Ukraine to become entangled in US politics. Even, the Ukrainians knew what President Trump was doing was wrong including President Zelensky. He said at the UN Trump meeting, he did not want to be involved in US politics which would have been the consequence of Trump’s request.
After Politico made it public on Oct. 28—Trump had placed a freeze on military aid to the Ukraine, Taylor, the acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, expressed his grave concerns to John Bolton, the NSA, and he urged Taylor to send a cable to Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, and he did on Oct. 29th, saying, he thought it was folly to withhold security assistance.
He did not get an answer.
When Taylor realized Trump had taken over US policy in the Ukraine with his own, he considering resigning and said, “I could not and would not defend such a policy.” He was working on the U.S. official channel.
The House managers took 3 days describing what that abuse of power was, as Rep. Jeffries said, he tried to cheat, got caught and is working hard to cover it up.
The crimes that Trump has committed are exactly—what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind. Article 2, there is no doubt that Trump obstructed Congress. He is he first president in US history to defy of all subpoenas-- putting himself above the law.
Dershowitz argues the president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection. Adam Schiff said, that is “the decent into madness.”
He is correct.
You can do legal things, if you think it will help you to win, but can can’t break the law. Trump directed and engaged in a quid pro quo that is the same as bribery-extortion or akin to.
The motive was corrupt.
The freeze was illegal.
It was an abuse of power.
He obstructed justice…
And lied to the people.
Dershowitz said in 1998 on CNN, "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime.”
That is correct!
What made him change his mind?
He now says impeachment must be based on statutory crimes: that is wrong. The U.S. Constitution did not enumerate and define what it meant by other high crimes and misdemeanors and that has led to numerous misinterpretations.
They could be statutory crimes.
They also could be what Framers at the time considered political crimes: based on old English law.
It is up to judgment of the House of Representatives what they are, except for treason and bribery.
Dershowitz said, he strongly supported Nixon’s impeachment: one of the charges: abuse of executive power.
Now, he is against it for Trump.
Some lawyers argue on both sides of an issue based on compensation, ideology, and subjective motive; like, Trump is a buddy of Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is also mired in corruption in Israel.
Do you see Trump’s duplicity here?
Netanyahu recently visited the White House – no waiting for months for meeting or prerequisites required.
Dershowitz goes on to say, House managers “claim that any electoral benefit would constitute an impeachable quid pro quo.” No, that is not what they say. That is a blatant misrepresentation. But I will give him credit for this statement “The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty.” That is a quote from the past—not in the trial.
Dershowitz would; probably, change his mind and join the Democrats, if, Trump held up aid for Israel.
So, his arguments should be dismissed—as bias: he might say two different things: depending who he is defending.
He states the Senate when exercising its impeachment powers must consider three issues:
1. Does the House prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes, it did, beyond any doubt.
2. Does this conduct rise to an impeachable crime? Yes, besides attempting to secretly bribe a foreign leader, the freeze violated the Impoundment Control Act, it undermines our electoral democracy and is a danger to our national security: Ukraine’s defense, the largest country by land area in Europe, is our defense against Russian revanchism and he openly and unabashedly prevented the House of Representatives from investigating these crimes by the use of a spurious strategy: absolute immunity.
3. Is impeachment for these crimes authorized by the constitution? Yes, Article 1, the bribery‑extortion of a foreign leader is an abuse of power. Article 2, the obstruction of Congress. You mean obstruction of Congress is not impeachable; then, you are insane. It states in the Articles of Impeachment: In response without lawful cause of excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power of Impeachment” vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
Rep. Jason Crow said, Trump obstructed Congress every step of the way, put himself above congressional oversight.
That is a high impeachable crime.
Dershowitz says, to be impeachable—it has to be enumerated and defined by the constitution or law: that is wrong; because, other high crimes and misdemeanors are not enumerated and defined in the context what are impeachable offenses. The Title 18 of the US code as written is not a text book for impeachment. It is designed for criminal prosecutions.
Rep. Maxine Waters is right.
Impeachment is whatever Congress say it is, there is no law, if you choose to impeach for other high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than treason or bribery [or other statutory crimes].
Do misdemeanors mean only minor crimes? No. Minor crimes would not be suitable impeachable crimes.
However, evil, wrong, bad, behavior would be. They can be classified as high crimes which are not statutory.
If misdemeanors mean only minor crimes; then, you cannot impeach for misconduct or wrongdoing that is not codified.
You have to use common sense—and not be held to a one side strict interpretation, that allows bad or evil behavior to be unimpeachable.
Impeachment—means—removal from office: it is not the same as criminal prosecuting: that results in fines, imprisonment, and capital punishment: those types of prosecution are based on statutory crimes.
Those crimes a tried in a court of law.
The Office of Legal Counsel states a president cannot be prosecuted for criminal crimes while in office. Dershowitz says, impeachment must be based on statutory crimes: that is a head-on-collusion.
So, impeachment is based on a different criterion.
Otherwise, it creates double jeopardy.
After impeachment, can the president be prosecuted again for the same statutory crimes: that is headed in unchartered waters, something, the DOJ and Congress has never faced.
Obvious, impeachment and criminal prosecutions are two different legal actions: one to remove a president from office, and the other to fine, imprison, and punish with the death sentence for crimes of a criminal nature.
If criminal offenses are excluded, impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors consists of wrongdoing, evil or misconduct of the president, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States. You have to use your common sense and your conscience or intuition, if you have it.
It can be the Devil speaking to you.
The record shows: impeachments charges have been mixed: statutory and non-statutory [misdemeanors].
John Pickering, a judge, District of NH, was convicted of impeachment—and one of the accusations: drunkenness.
Thomas Porteous, a judge, District of LA, was convicted—and one of the accusations: corruption—“a level of moral depravity”.
Other high crimes and misdemeanors are political in nature: using the power of office in a wrong, corrupt or evil way.
Mendacity should be a misdemeanor.
Trump made that mandatory.
Ten lies are petty—15,000 are high.
Dershowitz says lying is a sin—not a crime.
You can lie to the police and be charged with a crime.
Perjury is lying and it’s a crime.
Bearing false witness is a crime.
When, the president takes the oath of office—he is not supposed to lie, habitually, to the American people. That is a wrong.
Dershowitz says, the key argument that he has presented today—abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside of impeachable offenses. That means: he is a mixed-up crackpot lawyer.
The historical record shows: 3 impeachments included abuse of power: 2 obstruction of justice, 1 contempt of Congress
Dershowitz does not recognize two types of quid pro quo: one that is legal and for a good purpose and one that is illegal and for a bad purpose.
Trump’s was illegal, corrupt, and not U.S. policy.
He missed the boat: what House manages call abuse of power is Trump’s attempt to bribe and extort a foreign leader [for his benefit].
That is a statutory crime—or akin to.
He also said, you cannot impeach for obstruction of Congress, Article 2: that means he is crazy.
Article 2, is based on defying House subpoenas. The criminal-contempt statute, passed in 1857, makes it a federal crime to defy congressional subpoenas.
All House subpoenas are valid.
Dershowitz says, refusing to obey is not an impeachment offense. That means you cannot investigate the POTUS for misconduct or abuses of power: he is not subject to the criminal contempt statute.
That is wrong.
Dershowitz deserves be put on a train to Auschwitz to think things out and meditation. He is a danger to our legal system of government. Here are five more of his insane or diabolical statements:
1. Trump’s climate change policies, which are a crime against humanity, are not an impeachable office.
False, they are a high crime in this age.
2. He says the phrase abuse of power is open-ended and vague: that is a false: that is the title of the charge: the text that follows in Articles of Impeachment describe the specifics and they are not vague. Then, the House managers elaborate further –orally, for three days: Dershowitz must have been day dreaming—or not listening.
3. He claims the House managers have based impeachment on psychoanalyzes, reading Trump’s mind. That is false: it is based on the facts, what Trump says and does reveal his subjective motives.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia put up a slide on screen: 10 reasons Trump actions were corrupt, for himself:
Number 5. Investigations Outside Official Channels [that is not for official U.S. purposes].
4. Dershowitz turns and looks to his right, like, some higher legal authority on constitutional law and says, “I’m sorry House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria (i.e., for impeaching the president).”
He needs to apologize. He is wrong!
5. He says, Article 1, abuse of power, and 2, obstruction of Congress, are not statutory crimes—so, they are not impeachable. These are the very reasons: framers put this power [or law] of impeachment in the constitution. So, you can peacefully remove a president for this kind of conduct, rather than resort to assassination or bloody revolution. They fall under the classification of high crimes and misdemeanors. It includes all high statutory crimes and bad, evil, or misconduct of men in high office.
These are crimes of Adolf Hitler.
6. The House manager’s use of what is truth [or false], trust [or distrust], honesty [dishonesty], right [wrong], are not applicable to impeachment, because they are not statutory crimes. He is insane. These are all qualities of a president that you consider; whether, to impeach or not impeach. These are qualities that determine whether conduct is a misdemeanor or a high crime. Dershowitz is claiming: what is moral and immoral, our constitution excludes in determining what is an impeachable offense: that is insanity. Truth, justice and what is good and right preserves a nation and lies, injustice, and what is wrong and evil destroys a nation.
Adolf Hitler was immoral, distrustful, etc.
Dershowitz says, I do my own thinking.
That is the problem.
And, what he says is rubbish.
I think I know his motive for defending Trump.
His love of Israel
And, for pecuniary reasons and fame.
He is writing a book.
This is the second half:
8. Jane Raskin says, “If both the law and the facts are against you, present a distraction, emphasize a sensational fact or perhaps a colorful or controversial public figure who appears on the scene, then distort certain facts, ignore others, even when they are the most probative, make conclusory statements, and insinuate the shiny object is far more important than the actual facts allow; in short, divert attention from the holes in your case.”
She says, “Rudy Giuliani is the House managers’ colorful distraction.” No, her statement is an exact description of Trump’s lawyers defense of Trump and the colorful distraction is the Bidens.
She says, Rudy Giuliani was a “minor player” in Trump’s corrupt scheme: that is false. When, this is fully investigated, it will show Giuliani played a key role.
That is why John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, called Giuliani a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up.
Phone records show Giuliani had direct contact with the WH.
Trump put Rudy Giuliani in charge of his scheme to get dirt on Biden working inside the federal government on irregular channel.
When Volker and Yermak were negotiating for WH meeting in August, he said for Zelensky’s announcement to be “credible” it must contain two key items: investigations into Biden/Burisma and the 2016 election meddling.
President Trump refuses to turnover relevant communication documents between him and Rudy Giuliani, his lawyer.
He played a role in the removal of the Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch and as an intermediary between Trump and Ukrainian officials in setting up Trump’s corrupt quid pro quo [this for that].
He went to the Ukraine to concoct dirt on the Bidens to benefit Trump’s reelection campaign.
He was subpoenaed by the House and refused to testify.
Raskin’s part in this trial; it appears, defending Giuliani, Trump’s main coadjutor. She says, the evidence does not support their [House managers] claims. That is patently false. They proved both articles of impeachment and Giuliani’s participation.
House managers never used detraction to present their Trump impeachment case, that is the strategy used by the Trump lawyers defending Trump, because, the law and the facts are not on their side.
Jane Rashin is totally wrong.
9. Pam Bondi alleges that the former VP Joe Biden’s pressure campaign to dismiss Ukraine’s corrupt prosecutor, Victor Shokin was part of an effort to protect his son, Hunter Biden. There is no hard evidence of that. Daria Kaleniuk, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a leading anti-corruption voice in Ukraine, tweeted May 2, 2019, that Shokin’s firing was not about protecting the company Hunter Biden was working for. The firing "was obviously not because the prosecutor wanted to investigate Burisma & Zlochevsky." Ex-VP Joe Biden had Ukrainian domestic and international support for what he did and was part of US policy.
Bondi claims Hunter Biden was paid millions of dollars for doing almost nothing: that appears to be true. Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, was obvious paying for influence. Steven Pifer, former ambassador to Ukraine, said, “it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence. In 2017, on the Burisma website, Zlochevsky’s American lawyer, John Buretta, a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, says that a court in Kyiv ordered a case closed in September 2016 because no evidence of wrongdoing had been presented.
Yuriy Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General, said the Bidens did not violate Ukrainian laws.
The reason Bondi brought it up during the impeachment trial—to try and prove President Trump had a legitimate reason to investigate ex-VP Joe Biden. Bondi, former Florida AG, seems to know more than Nazar Kholodnitsky, Ukraine’s chief anti‑corruption prosecutor, when asked, should the Bidens be investigated? -- said, that to do so they would need to see information that would signal possible wrongdoing.
“As of now, there is nothing there,” he said. “If it comes up, measures will be taken to check the information.”
If, Trump or the Republican Party can pay Pam Bondi enough money to cook up this false narrative, that the former Vice President Joe Biden’s threat to withhold a $1 billion loan to force the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, was to stop an investigation in Burisma where his son had a seat on the board, and at the same time defend Trump, the most corrupt president in US history; there must be similar cases when she was the Attorney General of Florida.
Pam Bondi said in a CBS This Morning interview: Trump “did nothing wrong”… and the impeachment is a “sham court.” If, she can say this about Donald Trump, no doubt for money, she is a corrupt female Viktor Shokin.
Yes, Hunter Biden cashed on his dad’s name. It is somewhat unethical in this case, but it is not a crime. It is a common practice.
Whereas, Trump’s misdeeds are huge, political and criminal. Trump is whale and Hunter Biden is a minnow; comparatively, in terms of bad behavior.
And, there is no proof—Joe Biden benefited.
Pam Bondi attacks the Bidens based on a debunked conspiracy theory and defends President Trump, when there is mountains of factual evidence of wrongdoing that shows lack of good sense and integrity as a lawyer and former AG of Florida.
It has to be; mainly, for monetary reasons.
10. Erich Herschmann says Trump’s approval rating while we are sitting here in the middle of these impeachment proceedings have hit an all-time high. A recent poll shows that the American people are the happiest they have been by the direction of the country in fifteen years, whether, it is the economy, security, military preparedness, safer streets, safer neighborhoods are all way up.
The flip-side of the coin: Trump’s approval rating has never exceeded 50%, he has added $3.145 trillion to the national debt in 3 years, the number of people that have no health insurance has increased by 7 million, nearly 700 people dies of gun violence each week, his anti-science environmental policies has acerbated climate change, and the gap between the rich and poor has increased.
Herschmann spent a lot of time criticizing Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with Burisma Holdings, son of the U.S. vice-president.
He did not criticize Ivanka Trump’s 18 trademark protections given to her by China, daughter of the U.S. president.
That shows lopsidedness and he twisted the facts to make Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation into the Bidens – U.S. policy.
And he went way off course to defend Trump by comparing President Obama’s hot mic conversation with President Medvedev with President Trump asking President Zelensky for a favor—as equivalent.
This is absurd.
He says, where were House managers, then? If, this was impeachable, Republicans would have jumped on it. It was not even close.
Herschmann claims what Obama’s actions were worse than Trump’s: there is not an ounce of truth in that statement.
One clearly legal—one is clearly not.
Herschmann said at the trial of Trump, the people are entitled to know what happened with Biden/Burisma. They are not entitled to know what happened inside the Trump White House: that is backwards.
Herschmann’s biggest falsehood, “Democrats are as wrong now about the Articles of Impeachment as they were in 2016 about the Russian collusion.” That is like comparing a sunken battleship to newly launched aircraft carrier with squadron of jets on deck delivering bombs on target, that has suffered no damage in this Trump impeachment trial.
All Trump lawyers in this trial have made numerous false arguments to defend President Trump for a price. They are like, mob hit men.
--------------
Pat Cipollone ended Trump’s team arguments for January 27 with this statement: Democrats are trying to impeach the president from the day of Inauguration for no reason. That is a lie.
There are seven reasons:
1. He violated the campaign finance law to get elected.
2. He was not elected by the popular vote.
3. He had the help of Russian interference.
4. He lied and misled to get elected.
5. He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
6. They recognize he is incompetent.
7. They recognized – he is a tyrannical con man.
# 1. Key Q & A
Chief Justice: The question reads as follows: House managers say the president demands absolute immunity. The president’s council disputes this. Can either of you name a single witness or document to which the president has given access to the House when requested?
Patrick Philbin: Mr. Chief Justice, thank you, minority Schumer for the question. Let me try to be clear and distinguish a couple of things, the House managers have said there was a blanket defiance, that is the way they characterized it, just, we’re not going to give you anything. And, that is all we said, there is just blanket defiance we are not going to respond. What I tried to explain, several times, is, that was not the president’s response. There were specifically, articulated responses to different requests based on different legal rationales, because, there are different problems with different subpoenas. So, one problem is, all subpoenas up until October 31st were not validly authorized. So, those subpoenas, we said, we are not going to respond to because, they were not validly issued, it wasn’t an assertion of executive privilege, it wasn’t an assertion of absolute immunity or anything else, it was the fact they weren’t validly authorized. They pointed out that, aha, we subpoenaed, I think they mentioned, acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney, after October 31st. That is true, we did not rely on the fact the subpoena was not authorized, we pointed out the doctrine of the absolute immunity of senior advisers to the president. This is not some blanket absolute immunity for the entire executive branch. It does not apply to all the subpoenas they issued, as we explain in our brief, it applies to three. There were three people they subpoenaed as witnesses that were on this basis alone that the president declined to make them available: acting Chief of Staff, Mulvaney, the legal adviser to the National Security Council, John Eisenberg and deputy national Security adviser Mr. Kupperman. I believe, but it is in our brief. It was those three who had immunity, a doctrine asserted by every President since Nixon. Then, there was a different problem with some subpoenas, some of the other witnesses who were not senior advisors to the president. The president did not assert they had absolute immunity. Instead, these subpoenas refused to allow those executive branch personal to have executive branch counsel accompany them. And, there is an OC opinion that has been published, it is online, it’s cited in our trial memorandum -- stating it is unconstitutional to refuse to allow executive branch personnel to have the assistance of executive branch counsel to protect privileged information during questioning, and, therefore, it is not valid to force them to appear without that counsel. [thank you].
In other words, Trump did not provide any witnesses. Philbin, Trump’s defense lawyer, gave three reasons:
1. Subpoenas were invalid: that is false.
2. The doctrine of absolute immunity: that is false.
3. Executive branch personal were not allowed to have counsel present during questioning: that is false. Trump did not claim executive privilege.
These men did not testify, because, they were told by the Trump administration not to testify: it was blanket defiance.
They were either Trump henchmen or afraid of reprisal.
Those that did testify, truthfully, against Trump are out.
Secondly, Philbin did not answer the second half of the question: what documents did Trump provide?
Rep. Zoe Lofgren: Mr. chief justice and senators, you know, we’ve received nothing as part of our impeachment inquiry. It’s worth pointing out that House committees subpoenas before the House vote had standing authority under the House rules and they were the Oversight Committee, which has under standard authority, to investigate any matter, at any time, as well, as the Foreign Affairs Committee, they have the authority under the rules of the House, adopted January 11 to issue subpoenas, they did and they were defied. The idea of absolute immunity has never been upheld by any court and it’s really incomprehensible to think somehow this concept of absolute immunity has lurked in hiding for centuries, for a president to use it in this day. It’s when you think of the two cases of the Miers case and the McGahn case the U.S. Courts rejected the idea of absolute immunity.
And, she put of up this slide: You can read:
She said, the president is not permitted by the constitution, for the law, to assert any kind of absolute immunity. That does not exist in America and as the judges have pointed out, that would be something that, a King would assert. I am not saying that [the judge is], but I will say this, it something our Founders set up, our checks and balances, to prevent that nobody has absolute power in our system of government, not the Senate and the House, not the president, not the judiciary. This is unprecedented. And, it is just wrong as a matter of law and a matter of constitution. Thank you.
Update
President Trump appealed Judge Jackson’s ruling, cited by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, and on August 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the House could enforce its subpoena against McGahn; so, even though Trump was wrong, he succeeded in running out the clock. That was 6 months after his trial ended.
# 2. Key Q & A
Chief Justice:
The question to both parties and House Managers will go first. What did National Security Advisor John Bolton mean when he referenced, “Whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this,” and did he ever raise that issue in any meeting with President Trump?
Adam Schiff:
Mr. Justice, Senators, when John Bolton and this is according to Doctor Hill’s testimony, brought up the drug deal, it was in the context of a July 10th meeting at the White House. There were two meetings that day. There was a meeting that Ambassador Bolton was present for and then there was a follow-on meeting after Ambassador Bolton abruptly ended the first meeting. In the first meeting, the Ukrainians naturally wanted to raise the topic of getting the White House meeting that President Zelensky, so desperately wanted and after raising the issue at some point, Ambassador Sondland said, “No, no. We’ve got a deal. They’ll get the meeting once they announce the investigations,” and this is the point where Ambassador Bolton stiffened. You can look up Doctor Hill’s exact words, I’m paraphrasing here, but this is the point where Ambassador Bolton stiffens and he ends the meeting.
Dr. Hill then goes, follows Sondland and the delegation into another part of the White House (i.e., the Ward room in the basement) where the meeting continues between the American delegation and the Ukrainian delegation and there it’s even more explicit because in that second meeting Sondland; specifically, brings up the Bidens.
Dr. Hill then goes to talk to Bolton and informs him what’s taken place in the following [or second] meeting and Bolton’s response is, “Go talk to the lawyers and let them know, I don’t want to be part of this drug deal that Sondland and Mulvaney have got cooking up.”
So at that point, that specific conversation is a reference to the quid pro quo over the White House meeting. Now we know of course from other documents and testimony about the quid pro quo about the White House meeting and all the efforts by Giuliani to make sure that the specific investigations are mentioned in order to make this happen.
But don’t take my word for it. We can bring in John Bolton and ask him exactly what he was referring to when he described the drug deal.
Patrick Philbin:
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you, Senator for the question. The question asks about what Ambassador Bolton meant in a comment that is reported is hearsay by someone else saying what he supposedly said.
Patrick Philbin said Sondland denies that he said that.
Listen, that is not exactly right, he said, he had a different recollection, but admitted that investigations were discussed earlier and it was no secret. So, I am going call Philbin’s version false [that this was unreliable hearsay], because Lt. Col. Vindman was also present at the meeting and he says, Zelensky was required to deliver specific investigations in order to meet with President Donald Trump and that was, when, Bolton, the National Security Adviser, cut the meeting short. And, Vindman said, following the meeting, Dr. Hill and I agree to report the incident to NSC's lead counsel, Mr. John Eisenberg.
And, what Philbin said about Bolton’s characterization of this meeting as “drug deal” I’m not going to speculate about what he meant by that.
Well, then, we can call Bolton to testify.
But, Patrick Philbin is against that.
So, I am going to call him—an evil lawyer.
And, you know something else: Dr. Hill resigned or was fired nine days later. And, Lt. Col. Vindman, recently, was fired from his White House job. So, Trump punishes whistleblowers.
He is no different than a Mafia Boss.
# 3. Key Q & A
Chief Justice:
The question from Senator King is for both counsel for the President and House managers: President Trump’s former chief of staff, General John Kelly has reportedly said, ‘‘I believe John Bolton’’ and suggests Bolton should testify, saying, ‘‘If there are people that could contribute to this, either innocence or guilt, I think they should be heard.’’ Do you agree with General Kelly that they should be heard?
I think, counsel for the President, it is your turn to go first.
Jay Sekulow said, “the New York Times account of this conversation grossly mischaracterizes what Attorney General Barr and Mr. Bolton discussed.”
Sekulow’s did not answer the question.
And, it is not about a conversation between the Vice President and the President. Sekulow said, the VP said in every conversation with the President in preparation for his trip to Poland, the President consistently expressed his frustration that the United States was bearing the lion’s share of responsibility.
This is going off course again. What is important here is what Bolton and Trump discussed. He claims in his book titled The Room Where It Happened, the president tied the aid to the investigations, that is the smoking gun.
And, Sekulow said, “I think it is not correct” for the Senate to call him as a witness. He gets rattled– scared to death--by the possibility of Bolton testifying. That would capsize the Trump’s Team defense.
He complains, if House managers get Bolton, “the President’s lawyers get no witnesses.”
This is perverse thinking: John Bolton is Trump’s former top adviser, the Trump lawyers should also want to call him as their witness.
But, they are opposed, because, what he says in his Book: contradicts Trump’s defense.
He knows too much!
Sekulow warns the Senators not to do it, saying, “Let’s be clear, it should not be…it would change the nature of the trial.”
His complaint “the President’s lawyers get no witnesses.” That is not true. President Trump sent a letter to Speaker of the House, on October 8, that he would not participate in the impeachment hearing.
That is after he was invited to…
Rep. Nadler said, if Trump had a witness that could prove his innocent: he would demand that he testify.
Well, what is wrong with John Bolton, his former White House National Security Adviser, testifying before the Senate?
Sekulow’s response to that suggestion: he would call the Bidens and the whistleblower and, personally, cross-examine House witnesses again – to drag out the impeachment until kingdom come.
That is sabotaging the impeachment trial.
On this subject, he says Schiff said, he could call any witnesses he wanted: that is a misrepresentation: he said, relevant.
Sekulow does not want a fair trial. He would; aggressively, defend a guilty man as innocent, if, he was a friend of Netanyahu.
Adam Schiff:
Yes, we should be able to call witnesses and yes, so should the President. He says, the President says that you can’t believe John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney says you can’t believe John Bolton. Well, let the President call Mick Mulvaney, another relevant witness with firsthand information. If he’s willing to say publicly, not under oath, that Bolton is wrong, let him come and say that under oath. Yes, we’re not saying that just one side gets to call witnesses. Both sides get to call relevant witnesses.
Rep. Adam Schiff wants a fair trial and represents the will of the majority of voters: they also want witnesses.
# 4. Key Q & A
Chief Justice:
For both parties: How would the verdict for the trial alter the balance of power of the executive and legislative branches in the future? The president’s team is first.
Pat Cipollone said a verdict, the final judgment, for acquittal would be the best thing for the country and would send a message that will; actually, help in our separation of powers. Here is why, as I said repeatedly, and according to the standard articulated, so well, during the Clinton impeachment. What we are dealing with here, we are dealing with a purely partisan impeachment, and by partisan opposition, no crime, no violation of law, in an election year, OK, never happened before, no investigation, no due process, nothing.
It is obvious; these are a bunch of lies.
He says it is purely a partisan trial, but he goes on to say, with the greatest respect for the Chief Justice, he does not want him to decide; whether, we should have witnesses or decide conflict of issues between parties.
In other words, does not want an impartial—trial.
You would destroy executive privilege, etc.
He says, it is constitutional right protected by the Supreme Court. That is true, but it is not absolute, you have no right to hide evidence of a crime.
Cipollone says, they are talking about the removal of the president from the ballot in the next election. Duh, that is the purpose of impeachment.
The people don’t want Trump abusing his powers.
Cipollone says, Partisan impeachment is what the framers of constitution feared. First, of all, this is not a partisan impeachment. The Bill Clinton impeachment was partisan: it was a Republican impeachment. The first half of the Trump impeachment produced in the House of Representatives is not partisan: it is based on the law, the facts—and fairness: the second half in the Senate, the trial, is not based on fair rules. They don’t want new witnesses. It is partisan.
The Trump abuses of power are high crimes: he violated the public trust, attempted the bribery-extortion of a foreign head of state, his act undermines fair and transparent elections, the hold on military aid threatened the security of the Ukraine, our Allies, and the US and violated the Impoundment Control Act, and obstructed congressional investigation of his extortion plot. Compare that to the Clinton impeachment—lying about a sex affair: Does none of these things.
Trump abuses of power are100 times worst.
Cipollone claims Trump’s impeachment would destroy executive privilege that would alter our balance of power of for generations, if we go down that road [his time ends].
That is patently wrong.
As, the House managers repeatedly said, Trump did not claim executive privilege, he is claiming absolute immunity.
This is impeachable high crime.
Adam Schiff said, it may be different in a court, than it is in this chamber and the House, but, when anybody begins with a sentence with the phrase, I have the greatest respect for (i.e., the Chief Justice), I have to look for what follows [laugher].
We trust the Chief Justice will make the right decision. There is nothing in the constitution that precludes that. If, the President can defy all subpoenas, it will eviscerate our power of the legislative branch.
That is right.
Trump’s Defense Team Bogus Arguments
The Washington Post reports: More than 500 law professors say Trump committed 'impeachable conduct’. Despite that, Trump’s lawyers say, Trump is innocent. Here are ten select bogus arguments:
I. Trump-Zelensky July 25 phone call was perfect—or proper.
That is baloney.
Lt. Col. Vindman who was listening thought it was “inappropriate.”
Dr. Fiona Hill who was also listening thought it was “pretty blatant.”
Both reported it to John Eisenberg, the National Security Council’s chief lawyer. He warned officials not to tell anyone about the phone call and had a transcript of the conversation placed in a code‑word secret NSC server.
Shortly, afterwards, Dr. Hill was fired or resigned and Trump, recently, fired Lt. Col. Vindman from his White House job –for telling the truth. There are repercussions, if you testify against President Trump.
That, itself, is an abuse of power.
Another impropriety: Trump says to Zelensky, I’m going to tell the AG Barr to call you: he can’t be directed to facilitate Trump’s corrupt scheme.
That shows how lawless and dumb Trump is.
He thinks U.S. Attorney General is his flunky.
And, Barr really never complained about it.
Trump also said, I will also ask Mr. Giuliani to call you. He said, he was the major of New York City, a great major, not his personal attorney. That was deceitful.
He tried to integrate his policy with US.
Zelensky was prepped, beforehand, to appease Trump.
He knew what was at stake….
President Trump was also prepped for the phone call, what should be the official talking points between the US and Ukraine, instead, he deviated from the script and made the phone call with Zelensky personal, alarming people that were listening in the WH Situation Room.
One more thing about the July 25 phone call, Trump thought Crowdstrike was a server in the Ukraine, he said, “Ukraine has it.”
And, he said, “I guess you have one of your wealthy people….”
President Trump made two mistakes here: it is a cybersecurity company based in Sunnyvale, California.
And, the owner is not a wealthy Ukrainian. Its three founders are U.S. Citizens. He was asking Zelensky, president the Ukraine, to investigate an American company, which already had been investigated by the FBI.
He was on a wild goose chase.
Jennifer Williams, aide to Vice President Pence, who also listen in on the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, testified it was “unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be domestic political matter.” And, she also submitted additional classified information to the House impeachment investigators. Adam Schiff asked for it to be declassified and VP Pence refused.
The July 25 phone call was just one link in a chain of events involving a Trump-Ukrainian bribery scheme.
II. Another bogus argument: No harm – no foul, because his bribery scheme was never completed: that is wrong; for example, a man robs a bank of $10,000 and after 30 days gets caught and he returns the money: you, mean, he has committed no crime?
What, if, Trump was not caught and refused to release the military aid for some reason. That is the ‘nightmare’, that acting Ambassador Taylor feared.
Donald Trump said in 2016, “I will always put the interests of the American people and American security, above all else.”
He lied to get elected.
This hold on Ukrainian military aid, our Ally at war with Russia, and diplomatic recognition of its newly elected President was not for the benefit of the United States. It was for Trump’s reelection benefit.
It was a string of unlawful and nefarious acts conducted on the unofficial channel and Trump obstructed Congress by blocking the House of Representatives from investigating his high crimes and misdemeanors.
These High Crimes cannot be dismissed.
III. President Trump by withholding aid and demanding two investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election interference was conducting official U.S. policy objectives. That is false; because, there is no evidence of those objectives being carried out on the regular channel through federal agencies and U.S. officials, if there were, his defense team would have presented it; whereas, the House managers have presented overwhelming evidence that Trump carried out an illegal scheme on the irregular channel through his team and personal attorney.
In fact, top US officials working on the official channel were opposed to Trump’s scheme being carried outside the official channel.
Trump’s defense team is ignoring those facts.
The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report states on page 114, President Zelensky’s aides asked whether an official request for legal assistance with investigations had been made through appropriate channels at the U.S. Department of Justice. No such formal request was ever made. Consequently, Ukrainian officials made clear to Kurt Volker, that they did not support issuing a public statement because it could “play into” U.S. domestic politics.
Trump’s defense persistently and blatantly contradicts the facts. They don’t even believe the Ukrainians. It should be obvious his hold on assistance and WH meeting was not done to make President make good on his campaign promise to root out corruption in the Ukraine. He was asking Zelensky to engage in corruption to help his reelection campaign.
Ambassador Taylor noted that “a formal U.S. request to the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law” was “improper” and advised Volker to “stay clear.” That was a clear abuse of presidential power. And, the hold on military aid violated U.S. law.
In fact, when the new Ukrainian Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka learnt Trump’s request was not made on the official channel, he told the Financial Times in late November 2019 that Attorney General Barr had made no formal request regarding a potential investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by former Vice President Biden. In an apparent reference to President Trump’s demand that Ukraine interfere in U.S. elections, Mr. Ryaboshapka added: “It’s critically important for the west not to pull us into some conflicts between their ruling elites, but to continue to support so that we can cross the point of no return.”
Despite these facts, Trump’s defense team argued his request for investigations were not personal, but, a legitimate part of the U.S. official policy.
That is absurd. The impeachment charges are based on what took place on the irregular channel, not the regular.
IV. The Trump’s team use of detraction to defend Trump; that is, ignore the facts of Trump’s crimes and focus on what is not relevant: the Mueller Report, Crossfire Hurricane, the FISA Court, FISA warrants, Christopher Steele, the Steele dossier, Bruce Ohr, Fusion GPS, Mykola Zolchevsky’s offenses, Hunter Biden, Fast and Furious, Whitewater, the Bivens family rights, etc. Sekulow the most serious offender, he says, I know something about the [Mueller] Report, but this is the trial of Trump. It is based on House of Representative’s 361-page Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report -- dated December 2019, a product of the House 3-month probe.
Something, Trump’s lawyers never quoted, referred to, or refuted. They relied on distortions, the process was defective, and falsities.
V. The Trump Team defense of Trump’s defiance of all House subpoenas: executive privilege is his constitutional right is bogus, because, Trump did not claim executive privilege, as Schiff explained: you cannot use executive privilege to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or crimes and you must show proof. Trump; therefore, is claiming absolute immunity, which would put him above the law. Manager Schiff said, “This claim of absolute immunity is absolutely nonsense, and there is no precedent for it in the 250 years of jurisprudence on the subject.”
President Trump’s response to that argument: impeach me: his words “do it now, fast.” So, the House of Representatives voted to impeach, rather than allow Trump to defy the law and allow him to become a Dictator.
VI. Trump lawyers argue Trump’s behavior is bad, but does not merit impeachment. That is bogus. Professor Michael Gerhardt, an expert on impeachment, says, “Donald Trump’s behavior is worse than the misconduct of every prior president.” And he said at the House public impeachment hearing, “If Congress fails to impeach Here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning.”
Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman who also testified at the House impeachment hearing confirmed that it is his opinion that the president “has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Stanford Law Professor Pamela S. Karlan said at the impeachment hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee, “everything I know about our Constitution and its values, and my review of the evidentiary record, tells me that when President Trump invited—indeed, demanded—foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the “republic” to which we pledge allegiance. That demand constituted an abuse of power. Indeed, as I want to explain in my testimony, drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.”
And she ends by says, “If we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account.”
Legal scholars are a more reliable source of truth than Trump’s lawyers that work for a negotiated fee to defense his criminal conduct.
Trump’s abuses of power exceed the threshold for impeachment and removal from office. Trump tried to stay in office fraudulently—and when caught—tried to unlawfully cover it up: those are the two articles of impeachment.
The evidence is overwhelming.
VII. Philbin, Starr, Ray, and Dershowitz argued impeachment must be based on a federal or statutory crime. They are wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, Founding Father, said in Federalist, no. 65, about the purpose of impeachment: “The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injury done to society itself.”
This perfectly fits Trump’s offenses in office.
Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearing asked Harvard Professor Michael Gerhardt, “does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime?”
He answered, “No, it plainly does not. Everything we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes, and again, not all crimes are impeachable offenses. We look at, again, at the context and gravity of the misconduct.”
Why is his answer correct? He is not being paid by President Trump to lie or attack the articles of impeachment. And his answer agrees Hamilton and the House Managers, who are dedicated servants of the people.
VIII. Trump’s lawyers argued President Trump did not commit an impeachable high crime.
Noman Eisen, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, asked the three law professors based on the evidence uncovered by the House impeachment hearings, “did President Trump commit an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power?”
Noah Feldman, “based on that evidence and those findings, the president did commit and impeachable abuse of power.”
Pamelia S. Karlan, “same answer.”
Michael Gerhardt, “We three all are unanimous.”
This is an non-partisan informed correct verdict.
IX. Trump’s lawyers, particularly, Dershowitz, said during the trial, that our constitution and its terms high crimes and misdemeanors do not encompass the two articles, charging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He states the words in the constitution, “other high crimes and misdemeanors”: regarding impeachment mean: statutory felonies and misdemeanors.
There is a problem with that interpretation: the Office of Legal Counsel has decided: you can’t prosecute a sitting president for criminal crimes.
That means: that leave you with no legal basis to impeach a president unless you impeach for the same major and minor crimes.
That smacks of double jeopardy. Can: the president be impeached and prosecuted for the same statutory crimes?
That is great question: something—never faced.
However, there is an alternative meaning to the words: “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Here is how it came to be:
Framers of the constitution were concerns about these things besides criminal behavior, such as: treason and bribery to impeach or remove a president from office; such, as “mal-practice or neglect of duty”—“attempts to subvert the constitution” – “maladministration” –“wanton removal of meritorious officers” --“pardon crimes which were advised by himself”—“to stop inquire and prevent detection” –creating the “foetus of monarchy” --“loss of capacity or corruption” – “usurpation or abuse of power” –- to cover of these things they used the term: other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Framers and legal scholars agree: impeachment does not have to be based on statutory crimes. It can be, for example: treason and bribery, but that is not the correct meaning of other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Stefanie Lindquist, foundation professor of law and political science, at Arizona State University, writes:
As law professor and historian Frank Bowman has pointed out, in the context of British law at the time “misdemeanor” did not solely mean a less serious criminal offense. Rather, “crimes and misdemeanors” was used more colloquially to mean bad behavior. Impeachment be based on abuse of executive power, because, that includes all types of crimes and misconduct.
Article 1, does not charge Trump with a statutory crime, because, this is not a criminal prosecution. The House leaves that open to the attorney general after Trump leaves office. It is a constitutional legal action to impeach, remove Trump from office, based on the abuse of power.
As for article 2, obstruction of Congress: another framer James Iredell concluded that presidential acts to obscure or withhold information from Congress could also constitute a violation of the impeachment clause if Congress was induced to act based on the deception.
I am sorry, Dershowitz is kaput.
X. Some of Trump’s defense team are using President Zelensky’s statement at the UN meeting Sept. 25, “no body pushed [me]” in Trump’s defense. Is it valid? No.
The reporter asked, “have you felt any pressure from President Trump to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden?”
He answered, “I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. And I - so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed - pushed me.”
And, President Trump jumped in and said, “In other words: no pressure.”
The timeline is important here: this is not the whole truth.
This was a carefully worded answer to a single question.
Zelensky at the time of the call did not know of the hold on military aid: that was not made public until Aug. 28.
The phone call taken literally and separate from other events: there was no obvious pressure or threat to withhold a WH meeting.
At the time of the UN meeting, the other numerous events where Zelensky, his aids, and Ukrainian officials were pressured by Giuliani, Sondland, Volker, by text, telephone calls, at the White House, etc. were hidden.
The reason for that: the Pelosi, Speaker of the House, did not announce the formal investigation into this scheme until Sept. 24.
The hearings in October were behind closed doors: these other events were not made public until November, when, the hearings were made public.
However, President Zelensky knew of them: Why, didn’t he say, something? First, he thought, he was asked only about the July 25 phone call.
The contents of that call were made public— in the morning of Sept. 25, the same day as the meeting at the UN.
And, to volunteer to bring up these other incidences would have infuriated President Trump, not a wise thing to do. The military aid freeze was already lifted.
So, when Trump added: there was no pressure: he was lying: he had intimate knowledge of these other multiple events in July, August, and early September where Zelensky, his aids, and Ukrainian officials were told: the oval office meeting and lifting freeze on security assistance were conditioned on announcing these two investigations mentioned in July 25 phone call.
2 TRIFECTAS
Adam Schiff’s: True.
Abuse of Power is an impeachable offense. The Framers made this clear, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, James Iredell, and Edmund Randolph. The Supreme Court has recognized as much, as did the House Judiciary Committee in President Richard Nixon’s case. When the Framers wrote the Impeachment Clause, they aimed it squarely at abuse of office for personal gain, betrayal of the national interest through foreign entanglements, and corruption of elections. President Trump has engaged in the trifecta of constitutional misconduct warranting removal. He is the Framers’ worst nightmare come to life.
Jay Sekulow’s: False
Mr. SCHIFF also talked about a trifecta. I will give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the President was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses; the President was denied the right to access evidence; and the President was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. That is a trifecta—a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States.
That is false: the Impeachment Memorandum of the U.S. House of Representatives states, page 39, President Trump received a fair trial.
It says, No president has ever been permitted to participate during the initial fact‑finding process: not Nixon or Clinton. The reasons: proceedings are kept confidential to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with witnesses. It says, the president could have participated in multiple ways. He could have, through his counsel, objected during witness examination, cross-examined witnesses, and submitted evidence of his own, but chose not to do so. Having deliberately chosen not to avail himself of these procedural protections, President Trump cannot now pretend they did not exist.
Sekulow is wrong to say these procedures violate the Constitution of the United States.
Janet Reno
Philbin used an opinion of Janet Reno, Attorney General during the President Clinton impeachment [1998], to defend Trump’s defiance of House subpoenas issued to his senior advisers.
She explained that “the immunity such [immediate] advisers enjoy from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee is absolute and may not be overborne by competing congressional interests.’’
She changed her mind: In a sealed motion filed with the court, Attorney General Janet Reno took the position that White House claims of governmental attorney-client privilege were not absolute.
According to U.S. District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson in her order issued Tuesday, Reno concluded the court should "recognize a qualified privilege that would balance the demands of criminal law enforcement against the asserted need for confidentiality [by the White House]."
Comparing 3 Presidential Impeachments
(i.e., the charges on a scale of 1 to 10)
Andrew Johnson [1868]—I’m not going to evaluate.
These are in my life-time:
Richard Nixon [1973-4]:
Article I: obstruction of justice: 7
Article II: abuse of power*: 8
*more criminal
Article III: contempt of Congress: 7
Bill Clinton [1998]:
: Article I: perjury: 3.6
Article II: obstruction of justice: 1-2
Donald Trump [2020]:
Article I: abuse of power*: 8
*more political
Article II: obstruction of Congress: 10
Other differences between Nixon, Clinton, and Trump:
1. Trump succeeding in concealing 40% to 60%
of evidence related to his impeachment.
2. Nixon and Clinton did not have an extensive
history of misconduct, like Trump.
3. 80% or more of Trump’s high crimes and
misdemeanors excluded from the impeachment
articles.
4. There are five main reasons:
a. It was an enormous undertaking, the
amount of alleged criminality--mind boggling
b. Trump blocked investigations
c. AG Barr acted to protect Trump
rather than aid the House of Representatives
impeachment investigation. He was a top
stonewaller: blocked/refused 5 House
requests/subpoenas for documents and
witnesses. Pelosi says, Barr has ‘gone rogue.’
d. Federal and state investigations not
completed.
e. The policy of OLC….
5-e. More than 700 prosecutors say there is enough
evidence to charge the president with felonies.
The reason DOJ doesn’t: the OLC decided in
1973 not to indict or prosecute a sitting
president. That is not based on constitutional
law. It may be an infringement. Trump is placed
temporality above the law, like, a King.
Will there, then, be indictments and
prosecutions after Trump leaves office?
This a list of:
Update
President Trump appealed Judge Jackson’s ruling, cited by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, and on August 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the House could enforce its subpoena against McGahn; so, even though Trump was wrong, he succeeded in running out the clock. That was 6 months after his trial ended.
# 2. Key Q & A
Chief Justice:
The question to both parties and House Managers will go first. What did National Security Advisor John Bolton mean when he referenced, “Whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this,” and did he ever raise that issue in any meeting with President Trump?
Adam Schiff:
Mr. Justice, Senators, when John Bolton and this is according to Doctor Hill’s testimony, brought up the drug deal, it was in the context of a July 10th meeting at the White House. There were two meetings that day. There was a meeting that Ambassador Bolton was present for and then there was a follow-on meeting after Ambassador Bolton abruptly ended the first meeting. In the first meeting, the Ukrainians naturally wanted to raise the topic of getting the White House meeting that President Zelensky, so desperately wanted and after raising the issue at some point, Ambassador Sondland said, “No, no. We’ve got a deal. They’ll get the meeting once they announce the investigations,” and this is the point where Ambassador Bolton stiffened. You can look up Doctor Hill’s exact words, I’m paraphrasing here, but this is the point where Ambassador Bolton stiffens and he ends the meeting.
Dr. Hill then goes, follows Sondland and the delegation into another part of the White House (i.e., the Ward room in the basement) where the meeting continues between the American delegation and the Ukrainian delegation and there it’s even more explicit because in that second meeting Sondland; specifically, brings up the Bidens.
Dr. Hill then goes to talk to Bolton and informs him what’s taken place in the following [or second] meeting and Bolton’s response is, “Go talk to the lawyers and let them know, I don’t want to be part of this drug deal that Sondland and Mulvaney have got cooking up.”
So at that point, that specific conversation is a reference to the quid pro quo over the White House meeting. Now we know of course from other documents and testimony about the quid pro quo about the White House meeting and all the efforts by Giuliani to make sure that the specific investigations are mentioned in order to make this happen.
But don’t take my word for it. We can bring in John Bolton and ask him exactly what he was referring to when he described the drug deal.
Patrick Philbin:
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you, Senator for the question. The question asks about what Ambassador Bolton meant in a comment that is reported is hearsay by someone else saying what he supposedly said.
Patrick Philbin said Sondland denies that he said that.
Listen, that is not exactly right, he said, he had a different recollection, but admitted that investigations were discussed earlier and it was no secret. So, I am going call Philbin’s version false [that this was unreliable hearsay], because Lt. Col. Vindman was also present at the meeting and he says, Zelensky was required to deliver specific investigations in order to meet with President Donald Trump and that was, when, Bolton, the National Security Adviser, cut the meeting short. And, Vindman said, following the meeting, Dr. Hill and I agree to report the incident to NSC's lead counsel, Mr. John Eisenberg.
And, what Philbin said about Bolton’s characterization of this meeting as “drug deal” I’m not going to speculate about what he meant by that.
Well, then, we can call Bolton to testify.
But, Patrick Philbin is against that.
So, I am going to call him—an evil lawyer.
And, you know something else: Dr. Hill resigned or was fired nine days later. And, Lt. Col. Vindman, recently, was fired from his White House job. So, Trump punishes whistleblowers.
He is no different than a Mafia Boss.
# 3. Key Q & A
Chief Justice:
The question from Senator King is for both counsel for the President and House managers: President Trump’s former chief of staff, General John Kelly has reportedly said, ‘‘I believe John Bolton’’ and suggests Bolton should testify, saying, ‘‘If there are people that could contribute to this, either innocence or guilt, I think they should be heard.’’ Do you agree with General Kelly that they should be heard?
I think, counsel for the President, it is your turn to go first.
Jay Sekulow said, “the New York Times account of this conversation grossly mischaracterizes what Attorney General Barr and Mr. Bolton discussed.”
Sekulow’s did not answer the question.
And, it is not about a conversation between the Vice President and the President. Sekulow said, the VP said in every conversation with the President in preparation for his trip to Poland, the President consistently expressed his frustration that the United States was bearing the lion’s share of responsibility.
This is going off course again. What is important here is what Bolton and Trump discussed. He claims in his book titled The Room Where It Happened, the president tied the aid to the investigations, that is the smoking gun.
And, Sekulow said, “I think it is not correct” for the Senate to call him as a witness. He gets rattled– scared to death--by the possibility of Bolton testifying. That would capsize the Trump’s Team defense.
He complains, if House managers get Bolton, “the President’s lawyers get no witnesses.”
This is perverse thinking: John Bolton is Trump’s former top adviser, the Trump lawyers should also want to call him as their witness.
But, they are opposed, because, what he says in his Book: contradicts Trump’s defense.
He knows too much!
Sekulow warns the Senators not to do it, saying, “Let’s be clear, it should not be…it would change the nature of the trial.”
His complaint “the President’s lawyers get no witnesses.” That is not true. President Trump sent a letter to Speaker of the House, on October 8, that he would not participate in the impeachment hearing.
That is after he was invited to…
Rep. Nadler said, if Trump had a witness that could prove his innocent: he would demand that he testify.
Well, what is wrong with John Bolton, his former White House National Security Adviser, testifying before the Senate?
Sekulow’s response to that suggestion: he would call the Bidens and the whistleblower and, personally, cross-examine House witnesses again – to drag out the impeachment until kingdom come.
That is sabotaging the impeachment trial.
On this subject, he says Schiff said, he could call any witnesses he wanted: that is a misrepresentation: he said, relevant.
Sekulow does not want a fair trial. He would; aggressively, defend a guilty man as innocent, if, he was a friend of Netanyahu.
Adam Schiff:
Yes, we should be able to call witnesses and yes, so should the President. He says, the President says that you can’t believe John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney says you can’t believe John Bolton. Well, let the President call Mick Mulvaney, another relevant witness with firsthand information. If he’s willing to say publicly, not under oath, that Bolton is wrong, let him come and say that under oath. Yes, we’re not saying that just one side gets to call witnesses. Both sides get to call relevant witnesses.
Rep. Adam Schiff wants a fair trial and represents the will of the majority of voters: they also want witnesses.
# 4. Key Q & A
Chief Justice:
For both parties: How would the verdict for the trial alter the balance of power of the executive and legislative branches in the future? The president’s team is first.
Pat Cipollone said a verdict, the final judgment, for acquittal would be the best thing for the country and would send a message that will; actually, help in our separation of powers. Here is why, as I said repeatedly, and according to the standard articulated, so well, during the Clinton impeachment. What we are dealing with here, we are dealing with a purely partisan impeachment, and by partisan opposition, no crime, no violation of law, in an election year, OK, never happened before, no investigation, no due process, nothing.
It is obvious; these are a bunch of lies.
He says it is purely a partisan trial, but he goes on to say, with the greatest respect for the Chief Justice, he does not want him to decide; whether, we should have witnesses or decide conflict of issues between parties.
In other words, does not want an impartial—trial.
You would destroy executive privilege, etc.
He says, it is constitutional right protected by the Supreme Court. That is true, but it is not absolute, you have no right to hide evidence of a crime.
Cipollone says, they are talking about the removal of the president from the ballot in the next election. Duh, that is the purpose of impeachment.
The people don’t want Trump abusing his powers.
Cipollone says, Partisan impeachment is what the framers of constitution feared. First, of all, this is not a partisan impeachment. The Bill Clinton impeachment was partisan: it was a Republican impeachment. The first half of the Trump impeachment produced in the House of Representatives is not partisan: it is based on the law, the facts—and fairness: the second half in the Senate, the trial, is not based on fair rules. They don’t want new witnesses. It is partisan.
The Trump abuses of power are high crimes: he violated the public trust, attempted the bribery-extortion of a foreign head of state, his act undermines fair and transparent elections, the hold on military aid threatened the security of the Ukraine, our Allies, and the US and violated the Impoundment Control Act, and obstructed congressional investigation of his extortion plot. Compare that to the Clinton impeachment—lying about a sex affair: Does none of these things.
Trump abuses of power are100 times worst.
Cipollone claims Trump’s impeachment would destroy executive privilege that would alter our balance of power of for generations, if we go down that road [his time ends].
That is patently wrong.
As, the House managers repeatedly said, Trump did not claim executive privilege, he is claiming absolute immunity.
This is impeachable high crime.
Adam Schiff said, it may be different in a court, than it is in this chamber and the House, but, when anybody begins with a sentence with the phrase, I have the greatest respect for (i.e., the Chief Justice), I have to look for what follows [laugher].
We trust the Chief Justice will make the right decision. There is nothing in the constitution that precludes that. If, the President can defy all subpoenas, it will eviscerate our power of the legislative branch.
That is right.
Trump’s Defense Team Bogus Arguments
The Washington Post reports: More than 500 law professors say Trump committed 'impeachable conduct’. Despite that, Trump’s lawyers say, Trump is innocent. Here are ten select bogus arguments:
I. Trump-Zelensky July 25 phone call was perfect—or proper.
That is baloney.
Lt. Col. Vindman who was listening thought it was “inappropriate.”
Dr. Fiona Hill who was also listening thought it was “pretty blatant.”
Both reported it to John Eisenberg, the National Security Council’s chief lawyer. He warned officials not to tell anyone about the phone call and had a transcript of the conversation placed in a code‑word secret NSC server.
Shortly, afterwards, Dr. Hill was fired or resigned and Trump, recently, fired Lt. Col. Vindman from his White House job –for telling the truth. There are repercussions, if you testify against President Trump.
That, itself, is an abuse of power.
Another impropriety: Trump says to Zelensky, I’m going to tell the AG Barr to call you: he can’t be directed to facilitate Trump’s corrupt scheme.
That shows how lawless and dumb Trump is.
He thinks U.S. Attorney General is his flunky.
And, Barr really never complained about it.
Trump also said, I will also ask Mr. Giuliani to call you. He said, he was the major of New York City, a great major, not his personal attorney. That was deceitful.
He tried to integrate his policy with US.
Zelensky was prepped, beforehand, to appease Trump.
He knew what was at stake….
President Trump was also prepped for the phone call, what should be the official talking points between the US and Ukraine, instead, he deviated from the script and made the phone call with Zelensky personal, alarming people that were listening in the WH Situation Room.
One more thing about the July 25 phone call, Trump thought Crowdstrike was a server in the Ukraine, he said, “Ukraine has it.”
And, he said, “I guess you have one of your wealthy people….”
President Trump made two mistakes here: it is a cybersecurity company based in Sunnyvale, California.
And, the owner is not a wealthy Ukrainian. Its three founders are U.S. Citizens. He was asking Zelensky, president the Ukraine, to investigate an American company, which already had been investigated by the FBI.
He was on a wild goose chase.
Jennifer Williams, aide to Vice President Pence, who also listen in on the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, testified it was “unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be domestic political matter.” And, she also submitted additional classified information to the House impeachment investigators. Adam Schiff asked for it to be declassified and VP Pence refused.
The July 25 phone call was just one link in a chain of events involving a Trump-Ukrainian bribery scheme.
II. Another bogus argument: No harm – no foul, because his bribery scheme was never completed: that is wrong; for example, a man robs a bank of $10,000 and after 30 days gets caught and he returns the money: you, mean, he has committed no crime?
What, if, Trump was not caught and refused to release the military aid for some reason. That is the ‘nightmare’, that acting Ambassador Taylor feared.
Donald Trump said in 2016, “I will always put the interests of the American people and American security, above all else.”
He lied to get elected.
This hold on Ukrainian military aid, our Ally at war with Russia, and diplomatic recognition of its newly elected President was not for the benefit of the United States. It was for Trump’s reelection benefit.
It was a string of unlawful and nefarious acts conducted on the unofficial channel and Trump obstructed Congress by blocking the House of Representatives from investigating his high crimes and misdemeanors.
These High Crimes cannot be dismissed.
III. President Trump by withholding aid and demanding two investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election interference was conducting official U.S. policy objectives. That is false; because, there is no evidence of those objectives being carried out on the regular channel through federal agencies and U.S. officials, if there were, his defense team would have presented it; whereas, the House managers have presented overwhelming evidence that Trump carried out an illegal scheme on the irregular channel through his team and personal attorney.
In fact, top US officials working on the official channel were opposed to Trump’s scheme being carried outside the official channel.
Trump’s defense team is ignoring those facts.
The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report states on page 114, President Zelensky’s aides asked whether an official request for legal assistance with investigations had been made through appropriate channels at the U.S. Department of Justice. No such formal request was ever made. Consequently, Ukrainian officials made clear to Kurt Volker, that they did not support issuing a public statement because it could “play into” U.S. domestic politics.
Trump’s defense persistently and blatantly contradicts the facts. They don’t even believe the Ukrainians. It should be obvious his hold on assistance and WH meeting was not done to make President make good on his campaign promise to root out corruption in the Ukraine. He was asking Zelensky to engage in corruption to help his reelection campaign.
Ambassador Taylor noted that “a formal U.S. request to the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law” was “improper” and advised Volker to “stay clear.” That was a clear abuse of presidential power. And, the hold on military aid violated U.S. law.
In fact, when the new Ukrainian Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka learnt Trump’s request was not made on the official channel, he told the Financial Times in late November 2019 that Attorney General Barr had made no formal request regarding a potential investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by former Vice President Biden. In an apparent reference to President Trump’s demand that Ukraine interfere in U.S. elections, Mr. Ryaboshapka added: “It’s critically important for the west not to pull us into some conflicts between their ruling elites, but to continue to support so that we can cross the point of no return.”
Despite these facts, Trump’s defense team argued his request for investigations were not personal, but, a legitimate part of the U.S. official policy.
That is absurd. The impeachment charges are based on what took place on the irregular channel, not the regular.
IV. The Trump’s team use of detraction to defend Trump; that is, ignore the facts of Trump’s crimes and focus on what is not relevant: the Mueller Report, Crossfire Hurricane, the FISA Court, FISA warrants, Christopher Steele, the Steele dossier, Bruce Ohr, Fusion GPS, Mykola Zolchevsky’s offenses, Hunter Biden, Fast and Furious, Whitewater, the Bivens family rights, etc. Sekulow the most serious offender, he says, I know something about the [Mueller] Report, but this is the trial of Trump. It is based on House of Representative’s 361-page Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report -- dated December 2019, a product of the House 3-month probe.
Something, Trump’s lawyers never quoted, referred to, or refuted. They relied on distortions, the process was defective, and falsities.
V. The Trump Team defense of Trump’s defiance of all House subpoenas: executive privilege is his constitutional right is bogus, because, Trump did not claim executive privilege, as Schiff explained: you cannot use executive privilege to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or crimes and you must show proof. Trump; therefore, is claiming absolute immunity, which would put him above the law. Manager Schiff said, “This claim of absolute immunity is absolutely nonsense, and there is no precedent for it in the 250 years of jurisprudence on the subject.”
President Trump’s response to that argument: impeach me: his words “do it now, fast.” So, the House of Representatives voted to impeach, rather than allow Trump to defy the law and allow him to become a Dictator.
VI. Trump lawyers argue Trump’s behavior is bad, but does not merit impeachment. That is bogus. Professor Michael Gerhardt, an expert on impeachment, says, “Donald Trump’s behavior is worse than the misconduct of every prior president.” And he said at the House public impeachment hearing, “If Congress fails to impeach Here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning.”
Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman who also testified at the House impeachment hearing confirmed that it is his opinion that the president “has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Stanford Law Professor Pamela S. Karlan said at the impeachment hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee, “everything I know about our Constitution and its values, and my review of the evidentiary record, tells me that when President Trump invited—indeed, demanded—foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the “republic” to which we pledge allegiance. That demand constituted an abuse of power. Indeed, as I want to explain in my testimony, drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.”
And she ends by says, “If we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account.”
Legal scholars are a more reliable source of truth than Trump’s lawyers that work for a negotiated fee to defense his criminal conduct.
Trump’s abuses of power exceed the threshold for impeachment and removal from office. Trump tried to stay in office fraudulently—and when caught—tried to unlawfully cover it up: those are the two articles of impeachment.
The evidence is overwhelming.
VII. Philbin, Starr, Ray, and Dershowitz argued impeachment must be based on a federal or statutory crime. They are wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, Founding Father, said in Federalist, no. 65, about the purpose of impeachment: “The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injury done to society itself.”
This perfectly fits Trump’s offenses in office.
Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearing asked Harvard Professor Michael Gerhardt, “does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime?”
He answered, “No, it plainly does not. Everything we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes, and again, not all crimes are impeachable offenses. We look at, again, at the context and gravity of the misconduct.”
Why is his answer correct? He is not being paid by President Trump to lie or attack the articles of impeachment. And his answer agrees Hamilton and the House Managers, who are dedicated servants of the people.
VIII. Trump’s lawyers argued President Trump did not commit an impeachable high crime.
Noman Eisen, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, asked the three law professors based on the evidence uncovered by the House impeachment hearings, “did President Trump commit an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power?”
Noah Feldman, “based on that evidence and those findings, the president did commit and impeachable abuse of power.”
Pamelia S. Karlan, “same answer.”
Michael Gerhardt, “We three all are unanimous.”
This is an non-partisan informed correct verdict.
IX. Trump’s lawyers, particularly, Dershowitz, said during the trial, that our constitution and its terms high crimes and misdemeanors do not encompass the two articles, charging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He states the words in the constitution, “other high crimes and misdemeanors”: regarding impeachment mean: statutory felonies and misdemeanors.
There is a problem with that interpretation: the Office of Legal Counsel has decided: you can’t prosecute a sitting president for criminal crimes.
That means: that leave you with no legal basis to impeach a president unless you impeach for the same major and minor crimes.
That smacks of double jeopardy. Can: the president be impeached and prosecuted for the same statutory crimes?
That is great question: something—never faced.
However, there is an alternative meaning to the words: “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Here is how it came to be:
Framers of the constitution were concerns about these things besides criminal behavior, such as: treason and bribery to impeach or remove a president from office; such, as “mal-practice or neglect of duty”—“attempts to subvert the constitution” – “maladministration” –“wanton removal of meritorious officers” --“pardon crimes which were advised by himself”—“to stop inquire and prevent detection” –creating the “foetus of monarchy” --“loss of capacity or corruption” – “usurpation or abuse of power” –- to cover of these things they used the term: other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Framers and legal scholars agree: impeachment does not have to be based on statutory crimes. It can be, for example: treason and bribery, but that is not the correct meaning of other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Stefanie Lindquist, foundation professor of law and political science, at Arizona State University, writes:
As law professor and historian Frank Bowman has pointed out, in the context of British law at the time “misdemeanor” did not solely mean a less serious criminal offense. Rather, “crimes and misdemeanors” was used more colloquially to mean bad behavior. Impeachment be based on abuse of executive power, because, that includes all types of crimes and misconduct.
Article 1, does not charge Trump with a statutory crime, because, this is not a criminal prosecution. The House leaves that open to the attorney general after Trump leaves office. It is a constitutional legal action to impeach, remove Trump from office, based on the abuse of power.
As for article 2, obstruction of Congress: another framer James Iredell concluded that presidential acts to obscure or withhold information from Congress could also constitute a violation of the impeachment clause if Congress was induced to act based on the deception.
I am sorry, Dershowitz is kaput.
X. Some of Trump’s defense team are using President Zelensky’s statement at the UN meeting Sept. 25, “no body pushed [me]” in Trump’s defense. Is it valid? No.
The reporter asked, “have you felt any pressure from President Trump to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden?”
He answered, “I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. And I - so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed - pushed me.”
And, President Trump jumped in and said, “In other words: no pressure.”
The timeline is important here: this is not the whole truth.
This was a carefully worded answer to a single question.
Zelensky at the time of the call did not know of the hold on military aid: that was not made public until Aug. 28.
The phone call taken literally and separate from other events: there was no obvious pressure or threat to withhold a WH meeting.
At the time of the UN meeting, the other numerous events where Zelensky, his aids, and Ukrainian officials were pressured by Giuliani, Sondland, Volker, by text, telephone calls, at the White House, etc. were hidden.
The reason for that: the Pelosi, Speaker of the House, did not announce the formal investigation into this scheme until Sept. 24.
The hearings in October were behind closed doors: these other events were not made public until November, when, the hearings were made public.
However, President Zelensky knew of them: Why, didn’t he say, something? First, he thought, he was asked only about the July 25 phone call.
The contents of that call were made public— in the morning of Sept. 25, the same day as the meeting at the UN.
And, to volunteer to bring up these other incidences would have infuriated President Trump, not a wise thing to do. The military aid freeze was already lifted.
So, when Trump added: there was no pressure: he was lying: he had intimate knowledge of these other multiple events in July, August, and early September where Zelensky, his aids, and Ukrainian officials were told: the oval office meeting and lifting freeze on security assistance were conditioned on announcing these two investigations mentioned in July 25 phone call.
2 TRIFECTAS
Adam Schiff’s: True.
Abuse of Power is an impeachable offense. The Framers made this clear, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, James Iredell, and Edmund Randolph. The Supreme Court has recognized as much, as did the House Judiciary Committee in President Richard Nixon’s case. When the Framers wrote the Impeachment Clause, they aimed it squarely at abuse of office for personal gain, betrayal of the national interest through foreign entanglements, and corruption of elections. President Trump has engaged in the trifecta of constitutional misconduct warranting removal. He is the Framers’ worst nightmare come to life.
Jay Sekulow’s: False
Mr. SCHIFF also talked about a trifecta. I will give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the President was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses; the President was denied the right to access evidence; and the President was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. That is a trifecta—a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States.
That is false: the Impeachment Memorandum of the U.S. House of Representatives states, page 39, President Trump received a fair trial.
It says, No president has ever been permitted to participate during the initial fact‑finding process: not Nixon or Clinton. The reasons: proceedings are kept confidential to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with witnesses. It says, the president could have participated in multiple ways. He could have, through his counsel, objected during witness examination, cross-examined witnesses, and submitted evidence of his own, but chose not to do so. Having deliberately chosen not to avail himself of these procedural protections, President Trump cannot now pretend they did not exist.
Sekulow is wrong to say these procedures violate the Constitution of the United States.
Janet Reno
Philbin used an opinion of Janet Reno, Attorney General during the President Clinton impeachment [1998], to defend Trump’s defiance of House subpoenas issued to his senior advisers.
She explained that “the immunity such [immediate] advisers enjoy from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee is absolute and may not be overborne by competing congressional interests.’’
She changed her mind: In a sealed motion filed with the court, Attorney General Janet Reno took the position that White House claims of governmental attorney-client privilege were not absolute.
According to U.S. District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson in her order issued Tuesday, Reno concluded the court should "recognize a qualified privilege that would balance the demands of criminal law enforcement against the asserted need for confidentiality [by the White House]."
Comparing 3 Presidential Impeachments
(i.e., the charges on a scale of 1 to 10)
Andrew Johnson [1868]—I’m not going to evaluate.
These are in my life-time:
Richard Nixon [1973-4]:
Article I: obstruction of justice: 7
Article II: abuse of power*: 8
*more criminal
Article III: contempt of Congress: 7
Bill Clinton [1998]:
: Article I: perjury: 3.6
Article II: obstruction of justice: 1-2
Donald Trump [2020]:
Article I: abuse of power*: 8
*more political
Article II: obstruction of Congress: 10
Other differences between Nixon, Clinton, and Trump:
1. Trump succeeding in concealing 40% to 60%
of evidence related to his impeachment.
2. Nixon and Clinton did not have an extensive
history of misconduct, like Trump.
3. 80% or more of Trump’s high crimes and
misdemeanors excluded from the impeachment
articles.
4. There are five main reasons:
a. It was an enormous undertaking, the
amount of alleged criminality--mind boggling
b. Trump blocked investigations
c. AG Barr acted to protect Trump
rather than aid the House of Representatives
impeachment investigation. He was a top
stonewaller: blocked/refused 5 House
requests/subpoenas for documents and
witnesses. Pelosi says, Barr has ‘gone rogue.’
d. Federal and state investigations not
completed.
e. The policy of OLC….
5-e. More than 700 prosecutors say there is enough
evidence to charge the president with felonies.
The reason DOJ doesn’t: the OLC decided in
1973 not to indict or prosecute a sitting
president. That is not based on constitutional
law. It may be an infringement. Trump is placed
temporality above the law, like, a King.
Will there, then, be indictments and
prosecutions after Trump leaves office?
This a list of:
Trump’s Bogus Defense
Trump’s lawyers claim the House’s impeachment of Trump is unconstitutional; because, the Articles of Impeachments do not charge Trump with a federal crime. That is a flawed [or false] argument. The Articles of Impeachment is a summary of what the House calls an abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The impeachment of Trump should be judged, mainly, on the House managers’ 3 day presentation of facts [evidence of wrongdoing], the Main Meal, the Articles of Impeachment, the Appetizer.
That wrongdoing is clearly recognizable as bribery-extortion of the newly elected President of the Ukraine.
GAO says, Trump’s freeze on military aid violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. He did it willfully, knowingly, and lied about it. It caused damage: both psychological and physical. DOD was unable to spend $35 million, 14% of aid, before it expired because of the hold, if, were not for an act of Congress extending the time period, it would have been lost. It shows, Trump is a bad child-like president that needs adult supervision.
He converted US policy into his.
It can be a statutory crime or other high crimes and misdemeanors: it leaves up to the judgment of the House of Representatives.
To say, you can’t impeach for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is an insane, dangerous, argument.
If you cannot impeach for these two high crimes, there is big hole in our constitution and needs to be rewritten.
Philbin says the House managers’ charges are antithetical to the Framers approach: he is wrong, dangerous, and evil. He would toss Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors out because, he says, the House process is defective.
Richard Lempert, former Brookings expert, to the question: Does impeachment required criminal behavior? Said in a word, “No.”
One reason for that: the constitution states a president can be impeached for misdemeanors, which are not crimes, but types of misconduct.
The constitution says, you can also impeach for treason, bribery, or other high crimes. Trump’s team is saying, you can’t impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors until Congress defines and codifies them.
That leaves Congress manacled.
These are high crimes and misdemeanors:
1. abuse of power 2. betrayal of public trust 3. corruption in office 4. violating federal and constitutional laws 5. obstruction of justice 6. crimes against the nation 7. crimes against the people 8. corrupting the electoral process 9. usurping congressional and judiciary powers 10. violating the oath of office 11. crimes against humanity 12. crimes against other nations 13. maladministration 14. mendacity 15. extravagance 16. conflict of interest 17. drunkenness 18. dereliction of duty, 19. substance abuse 20. unlawful enrichment 21. incitement of resurrection 22. and other offenses.
All types of serious crimes and wrongdoing of men in high public office is what the constitution means by high crimes and misdemeanors.
It is all-inclusive, except for treason and bribery.
Treason is defined in Article III section 3 of the US Constitution, but not bribery.
Philbin said, the inherent flaw in the House managers theory of abuse of power, “it does not provide any recognizable notice of offense.”
He is wrong.
Merriam-Webster definition of a bribe: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. That is exactly what Trump did in the Zelensky interaction: this for that -- and it had a corrupt motive, because, it was not U.S. policy.
It was made a federal statutory crime by Congress in 1962.
So, other high crimes are statutory and crimes that may become statutory in the future.
New crimes are always cropping up. What Trump did is similar to the federal bribery statute, but a different version.
It is far worse than bribery. It has many tentacles, arms, and legs, like an octopus, and Trump is the Head.
It involved offering releasing nearly $400M in security assistance and diplomatic recognition, sign of US support in its war with Russian backed separatists to compel the President of Ukraine to conduct two investigations.
At first, Zelensky agreed to conduct the investigations, as Sondland told Trump, “Zelensky loves your ass”; however, that did not satisfied Trump, Sondland told Taylor, Trump wanted Zelensky in public box to get a White House meeting, he had to make the public announcement of a corruption investigation into the Bidens and meddling in the 2016 election by the Ukraine.
Zelensky was not willing.
That was the stalemate.
That is why VP Pence was sent to Warsaw, Poland, to meet with Zelensky to break the logjam. To do that, the release of nearly $400M in security assistance was added to the bribery scheme. That is when Zelensky relented and agreed to make a CNN public announcement.
But, Trump’s sinister scheme was unraveling: the whistleblower’s complaint filed back in Aug. 12 was determined to be “urgent’ and “credible” by the ICIG, Michael Atkinson; however, Trump’s puppet DNI, Joseph Maguire, failed to notify Congress within 7 days required by law for specious excuses that he gave to the Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
Giuliani rejected the draft submitted by Yermak, Aug. 12, that stated, we intend to initiate a transparent and unbias investigation.
He said, that was not “credible.”
President Zelensky rejected the Giuliani-Volker-Sondland draft that added the “two key items”, Burisma and the 2016 U.S. election, submitted on Aug. 13.
He did not want to be involved in US politics.
This was the logjam.
They became suspicious of Trump’s motives.
On Aug. 28, Politico made public: Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia.
This did not set well with members of Congress.
They already had approved the military aid….
The Ukrainians were confused and distraught…
President Zelensky asked VP Pence at Warsaw, Sept 1 —what is the reason for the hold?
VP Pence said, he would speak to President Trump about it.
Sondland informed his top aid, Yermak, why! The money probably would not come unless Ukraine announced the investigations.
The Washington Post editorial board wrote on Sept. 5: “[W]e’re reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is holdback U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.”
Sondland’s called and spoke with the President on Sept. 7th and afterwards; promptly, told President Zelensky unless he cleared things up: the hold on the WH meeting and military aid would continue.
He; then, agreed to make the announcement on CNN.
Atkinson, the Inspector General, went over the head of his boss, Joseph Maguire, and notified Congress of the existence of the whistleblower’s complaint on Sept. 9.
That prompted three House committees to investigate Trump’s exposed in‑progress bribery‑extortion scheme of a foreign leader and pressure from public exposure and from top U.S. officials, the military, and members of Congress, President Trump had no other choice but to tap out and released the security assistance on Sept. 11.
His scheme went down in flames.
This was not US foreign policy.
It was for Pres. Trump’s benefit.
It undermines fair U.S. elections
& jeopardized Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
It was an abuse of power
And, he tried to cover it up.
Adding, a second-high crime.
President Trump said, “I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible” referring to Atkinson, the Inspector General, who reported the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress. That shows--Trump is a vile vindictive person—or fascist.
The IG did the right thing.
And, he was subsequently fired for it.
After the aid was released, at the urging of acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, Bill Taylor, Zelensky cancelled the public announcement on CNN and never got the desired White House meeting.
And probably won’t get it; because, President Trump is vindictive and embarrassed by the public exposure and failure of his solicitation and bribery of foreign leader to conduct two shame investigations to help his reelection in 2020 and hurt ex-Vice President Biden who was ahead in the polls.
Today, he can’t look at Zelensky in the face and say, no pressure! That would be a lie, because, Zelensky admitted he was pressured on December 2, 2019, to the Times Magazine and the Associated Press.
There were multiple incidences of pressure:
a. directly to Zelensky
b. to Yermak, his aide
c. to Ukrainian diplomats
d. by Trump’s team
e. by Rudy Giuliani
f. by Trump, himself
His July 25 phone call seen in retrospect and tied to these other meetings, phone calls, and texts: his request, was actually, a demand in exchange for the release of security assistance and a coveted White House meeting.
This became clear by the freeze on military aid just before and immediately after the July 25th phone call that President Trump used, subsequently, to force Zelensky to announce; publicly, Ukraine, would conduct the two investigation Trump requested.
The scheme failed, because Trump got caught.
The call was like the top of the potato plant.
The extortion plot were the potatoes underground.
The House probe dug up those potatoes [facts].
Trump also cheated in the 2016 election, asking for Russian help, and is an unindicted co‑conspirator in the violation of the campaign finance law.
This also was an underhanded operation.
Details of this crime was revealed in Cohen’s congressional hearing and numerous other criminal investigations are underway.
Misdemeanors in the constitution are not meant to be; primarily, minor crimes; they are meant to be bad behavior or misconduct; like, failing to do your job, or doing it badly. It could be unethical, unscrupulous or immoral behavior.
Impeachment is the same as firing the president for a bad job and/or criminal [or corrupt] behavior, something high, not low.
Philbin is so embroiled in legalistic arguments he lacks common sense: it says bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are prohibited by the constitution; why, the House Articles of Impeachment are neither of these two.
That is confusing cars with boats.
Trump’s team is saying new crimes, no matter how horrible, are not impeachable, because, they are not statutory. That is insane.
Trump’s team also called the impeachment of Trump by Democrats partisan, because, no Republican voted for the House Articles, except two: that is wrong, if you mean blind, prejudicial allegiance to Party. When, you are aligned with the truth, the law, what is right—you are not partisan.
There is no legitimate defense of the President, so, Trump’s lawyers lied, attacked the process, called it slapdash, half-baked, and used sophisticated arguments to create doubt and disbelief.
Max Bergmann, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and others said, no matter how the House Managers structured it, Trump’s lawyers would have picked it apart.
That is true.
No righteous lawyer would be on Trump’s team and defend him based on his claims or wishes: I committed no crime, the phone call was perfect, the trial is a scam. Those are all patently false.
Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer, says, “There is no violation of law” in what Trump did: contradicts the facts.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, say Trump committed five crimes:
I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)
II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)
III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)
IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)
V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)
The House rather than get in a legalistic quagmire, choose two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, which are irrefutable, and are other high crimes and misdemeanors in the U.S. Constitution
So, Jay Sekulow must be motivated by something more, than compensation; like, he doesn’t want Trump to be impeached because he is a staunch supporter of Israel.
The problem with that—disloyalty to the U.S.
Trump has put himself above the law; like a King, moved the nation closer to a Soviet-type dictatorship, legally stole close to $800 billion from the US Treasury so far; he played golf at his resorts 248 times at the cost to taxpayers of $133.8 million since beginning president with nine months to go; he said, “I’m going to be working for you, I’m not going to have time to play golf” -- he lied to get elected. Cipollone said, “Trump is a man of word”. Cipollone is a lair. Trump said, “If I decide to run for office, I will produce my tax returns, absolutely.” Now, in office, his lawyers are fighting their release in court. Sekulow is one. He claims, Trump is being harassed. That is a phony defense, Sekulow has never seen Trump’s tax returns. Poll: two-thirds of voters think he should release his tax returns. There are serious allegations of fraud. This case in now in the courts and has not been resolved. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruled: he must release his tax returns—but, was given a stay, so he can appeal to the Supreme Court—a second time. He is given special treatment. Trump has corrupted the federal government by ousting qualified officials in the federal government without justification and replacing them with his flunkies. For example, he appointed Steven Mnuchin, as Secretary of Treasury, and he would not turn over eight years of Trump’s tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee, as required by law: he claims the request “lack a legitimate purpose.” He said that out of loyalty to the president. He has pecuniary and political motives for shielding the president. It is a false statement. It is contrary to the best interest of the American people. They want to know if their president is a tax cheat. There are serious, creditable allegations he is. Facts presented at the impeachment trial prove Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and has never been brought to justice: criminally or politically, and is the most dangerous, corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent president in US History.
Sekulow argues, danger, danger, danger, to impeach and remove a president for the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
He is an enemy of the people.
You can’t say there was no crime.
He bore false witness to the facts.
He violated the eighth commandment of יּﬣוֹﬣ. יהוה
He said, “we have clearly established there was no quid pro quo.” That is false statement. The facts that he did are indisputable.
He said, “You cannot impeachment a president on an unsourced allegation.” He is grasping at straws to save Trump.
The name of whistleblower is not necessary.
The House has proven his allegation.
That is what is essential!
Sekulow’s bogus and gung ho defense of Trump is likely for three reasons: compensation as a defense lawyer, donations to his non-profits, and he sees Trump as a strong defender of Israel, which makes him off-center [politically].
He does not believe House Mgrs.
He does not believe Sondland.
He does not believe Bill Taylor.
He does not believe George Kent.
He does not believe John Bolton.
He does not believe the evidence.
He believes President Trump.
He said, “Their [House managers’] entire process was corrupt from the beginning.” No. It is based on the U.S. Constitution, rules passed by both Houses, the whistleblower’s complaint, and the facts uncovered by the House three-month investigation of closed and public hearings.
Also, the way the Mueller investigation was handled is completely separate from the House investigation.
Sekulow tried to convince Senators both were fraudulent: he tried to infect the House impeachment with the FISA virus. He even read from the FISA report: flaws in the FISA Court process have nothing to do with House’s impeachment of Trump.
It is a distraction, an attempt—to sully it.
Sekulow is a shady lawyer. He failed to mention the 361-page House Impeachment Report—once: that is the Bible in this case. You can’t look at 361 pages of evidence and try to convinces jurors, they are fictitious. He has done that. If, he has not read the House Impeachment Report, that is negligence: an honest-righteous lawyer would.
He would want to know the facts:
President Trump is the one that is corrupt, inept, and dangerous and has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
And, Trump is a non-stop-pathological liar.
House managers has proven both articles.
I did not say, Trump was totally—bad or wrong on every issue. He is just; broadly, corrupt, dishonest, and inept.
To win—he is willing to break the law; then, lie about it and hire lawyers to use sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, to defend him.
He has been involved in thousands of lawsuits.
That is his MO—hire lawyers: he has the dough. He will appeal court rulings and drag out litigation and wear out his opponents mentally and financially.
The fact, President Trump was told by John Bolton, his National Security Adviser, top officials from OMB, DOD, DOS, and Congress that his hold on Ukrainian Security Assistance approved by Congress was ill-advised, contrary to US interests, and unlawful and he rejected that advice and continued to purse his personal interests; that is, increase his prospects of winning reelection in 2020 election, by smearing his political rival, and when his crime was exposed by the whistleblower, tried to cover up it ordering the entire executive branch to defy House of Representatives subpoenas for witnesses and documents. That is grounds for impeachment and removed from office.
The House managers presented enough factual evidence, if you are fair-minded, sufficient to find Trump guilty of impeachment Articles 1 & 2.
Although, Trump is hiding up to 90% of documentary evidence and he admits it, saying “we have all the material.” He claims the House of Representatives’ impeachment is a con job. That is false. The part of the impeachment trial that I watched or read, there was no falsehoods in the House managers’ presentation; on the other hand, his defense by Trump lawyers was totally bogus.
In the words of Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, “they lie, and lie, and lie, and lie. Trump’s lawyers should be disbarred from practicing law for their blatant lying in their defense of President Trump.
Seeing your client gets a fair trial—is good.
Lying to defend your client—is bad [evil].
The different between Trump’s lawyers and House managers: Trump’s lawyers are paid a hefty sum to defend President Trump by fabricating long, false, legalistic arguments attacking the House’s two articles of impeachment. House managers, on the other hand, were elected by the people to enforce the law, impeach and removed a president for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, motivated by what is right and wrong, truth and justice and based on the U.S. Constitution and indisputable facts.
Trump’s defense is wrong
&
based on an unlawful defiance of subpoenas.
Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel for the president, says the articles of impeachment violate the constitution, because they “flagrantly denied the president any due process.”
That’s flagrantly false.
He sent a letter to Nadler—December 6 calling the House investigation “a charade.” That letter is garbage.
Former White House counsel, Robert Bauer wrote, “It misrepresents constitutional law and precedent that it is pleading on the president’s behalf.”
Who is right? Not Cipollone.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia said, the House invited Trump to participate, provide relevant witnesses and afforded all due rights and he refused to participate -- and claimed it was an illegal impeachment and send them a letter --do your thing, he wanted to be tried in the Senate.
The reason he did not participate, request his witnesses, there are no witness or documents that can exonerate him.
All witnesses and documents the House subpoenaed, believing they have culpatory evidence, President Trump blocked preventing the House of Representatives from forging a stronger case.
The House had to rely on witnesses that were subpoenaed and willing to testify and documents that were accessible to make a case.
The House was blocked by President Trump’s phony claim of absolute immunity from congressional oversight.
If, Trump was innocent, he would not block subpoenas: he would want his team to testify, to prove these allegations false.
They are not.
All subpoenas issued by House were blocked by Trump and supported by the DOJ under AG William Barr and the OLC under assistant AG Steven Engel: both appointees of President Trump.
Is Trump, right? No.
The Supreme Court says, the issuance of a subpoena pursuant to an authorized investigation is “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking” and it must be backed up “by means of compulsion.”
House committees cannot initiate criminal investigations without that power. That gives the House information to draft Impeachment Articles. That has to proceed before the full House can vote on them.
House acted in step by step forward logical matter; first, investigate, then, voted whether impeachment is warranted.
OLC says, the full House must vote to authorize subpoenas first. Professor Ken Starr said, he believes that is correct. It is not—they all already have that power.
The constitution gives the House sole power to make its rules and change them for different impeachments.
In the Nixon and Clinton cases, the full House voted to give committees the power to issue subpoenas; however, it can change the rules for each case. It does have to follow the Nixon and Clinton impeachment rules.
In the case of Nixon and Clinton: their misdeeds had national exposure. What Trump did was 95% hidden. The whistleblower complaint needed investigation and corroboration first, before the House vote.
The constitution does not require a full House vote to begin a preliminary impeachment probe or issue subpoenas.
In Trump’s case, the Speaker of the House, Pelosi, initiated a formal inquiry on September 24th after whistleblower complaint was made public accusing him of using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election and the Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs committees began issuing subpoenas.
Philbin said on the first day of the trial, “no committee of the House can exercise that authority.”
He is wrong; because, the rules of the House of Representatives were changed on January 11, 2019, as House Mangers Garcia, Lofgren, and Jeffries argued.
Rule XI clause 2, 3(A)(1) states-- a subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation. It is not necessary for full House to vote to issue subpoenas; because, it has ready voted to give House committees the power to issue subpoenas.
Philbin in his opening statement said, “Subpoenas that had been issued by Manager Schiff’s committees were invalid because the House has not authorized your committees to conduct any such inquiry or to subpoena information in furtherance of it.”
Philbin is wrong—again!
Under rules of the House of Representatives passed by both Houses January 11, 2019, states under Rule XI clause 2, 3(A)(1): The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair of the committee under such rules and under such limitations as the committee may prescribe.
Therefore, based on the rule changes passed by both Houses in January, all subpoenas issued by the House are valid.
Pat Cipollone said in his Dec. 6 letter, “the Speaker of the House yesterday ordered House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment before your Committee has heard a single shred of evidence.”
That is false. The House collected substantial evidence in closed door hearings during the month of October, before the full House voted on October 31; at least, he admitted—investigations must come first.
You see how Trump’s team contradict themselves: They want the Full House to vote first, before investigations.
And here, he is crying foul: they proceeded without an investigation. He gets trapped in his words. That is a pitfall of liars.
President Trump, despite the law, is defying all subpoenas the House Committees has issued after September 24, during the month of October, claiming they were issued before the full House voted on Res. 660, Oct. 31. That vote was for opening the House impeachment hearings from closed door to public.
That is baseless, yet OLC is backing Trump.
These are the officials or people that were subpoenaed and refuse to testify or told by the White House not to testify.
Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney, Russell Vought, Mark Esper, Rick Perry, Charles Kupperman, and Rudy Giuliani.
They refuse to testify; because, they were either involved in Trump’s scheme or afraid of retribution—knowing he a vengeful-vile Strongman.
This is a list of men that the House of Representatives subpoenaed in November after the full House vote on Oct. 31 and were told by the White House not to testify and they refused:
1. John Eisenberg, Deputy legal counsel to the President
2. Mick Mulvaney, White House acting Chief of Staff
3. Robert Blair, White House aide
4. Michael Ellis, National Security aide
5. Brian McCormack, DOE chief of staff
6. Preston Wells Griffith, White House adviser
Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Trump November 26 warming him against refusing to make witnesses and documents available to committees, and Trump sent a letter December 1 to Nadler, saying, he would not cooperate. This also was after the full House vote, so it made no difference:
Before the full House vote: the subpoenas were invalid.
After the full House vote: Trump had absolute immunity.
Both of those arguments: bogus.
President Trump has refused to give a single email, phone record, or document. That is; plainly, an obstruction of Congress.
He also told the OMB, DOS, DOD, and DOE not to provide the House of Representatives with witnesses or documents: he is hiding evidence of his wrongdoing: that is; clearly, the obstruction of Congress.
Trump knows it; but, this is his evil strategy: impeach me for it; knowing in the Republican controlled Senate: he will be acquitted.
"We all know how it's going to end," Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News on December 12.
Before the trial, Sen. Lindsey Graham, made clear that they would not uphold the oaths of impartiality taken by senators at the start of the trial.
Trump used the power of his office to remove a sterling career diplomat for personal reasons, he used rooms in the White House to hatch his nefarious scheme, he used his presidential phone, July 25, to conduct his business with a head of state, and we know it was for his personal business, because, he asked Zelensky to speak with his attorney [for details of his plan], and he misused US officials, airplanes, and resources to carry out his scheme to benefit himself and hurt his political rival and he used taxpayer funded security assistance to enforce his bribe on Zelensky, the newly elected president of the Ukraine; and he used the power of his office to conceal his crime and we don’t have to read his mind to know why, he admitted it: the Ukraine “tried to take me down.” He is referring to voices in the Ukraine that preferred Hillary Clinton over Trump and his policies for the Ukraine.”
He wanted to silence free speech.
That is the reason for one request.
And two, help him win reelection.
Trump’s phony denial!
After Politico first published on Oct, 28, 2019. the military aid to the Ukraine had been suspended, Ambassador Sondland called and asked Trump, what do you want? He said, “I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo,” knowing he was exposed -- lied about his intentions; but, nevertheless said, unless President Zelensky does the right thing --go to the microphone and announced these investigations there would be a stalemate including security assistance.
That is a quid pro quo!
He always wanted the two investigations:
He never told Zelensky he wanted nothing!
He never told Sondland to tell Zelensky to cancel the two requested investigations of the Burisma/Bidens and 2016 Ukrainian election meddling.
He never suspended the two prerequisites for an oval office meeting and lifting the freeze on military aid put in place in July and not made public until the end of August and added it to the bribery scheme in early September and remained in effect until President Trump got caught.
When Trump said, “I want nothing” that was a phony statement to protect himself: knowing he was exposed.
I want nothing was a fake admission, because, he did not back it up with an official act.
He did not scrape his two July 25th phone requests.
The two requests remained in-effect until the end.
More proof, Trump’s denial was fake:
On Aug. 31, Sen. Ron Johnson, ally of the president, investigating the Zelensky extortion plot, in a conversation with the President, asked Trump to give him authority to tell Zelenky that the aid was coming.
Trump refused to give him that power.
His extortion plot remained in-effect.
He refused to take action to rescind it.
It states in the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, page 65, the quid pro quo begin to take shape in April 21, 2019, and grew more insidious. It began with a simple Trump telephone request. Then, the WH meeting that Zelensky desperately needed to show U.S. support against Russian aggression in Donbass, eastern Ukraine, was made contingent on conducting these investigations. The Ukrainian government statement -- it would initiate these investigations did not satisfy Trump: he wanted the “two key items” inuntil he got caught.
That is the common response of criminals when caught or accused, they declare their innocence, even though the facts prove otherwise.
We have a truckload of dugged up potatoes (i.e., solid evidence or facts)—as proof. That is House impeachment report of Donald Trump: 116-346.
Then, they clam up and lawyer up —as Trump did thinking he can beat the rap, the lower House 2 articles of impeachment.
Trump and his lawyers are wrong!
Nadler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said: “More recently, a group of the Nation’s leading constitutional scholars— ranging across the ideological spectrum from Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe to former Ronald Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried—issued a statement affirming that ‘‘abuse of power counts as an instance of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution.’’ They added: ‘‘That was clearly the view of the Constitution’s framers.’’ I could go on, Nadler said, but you get the point. Everyone, except President Trump and his lawyers, agrees that Presidents can be impeached for abuse of power. The President’s position amounts to nothing but self-serving constitutional nonsense. And it is dangerous nonsense at that. A President who sees no limit on his power manifestly threatens the Republic.
An Important Point
Patrick Philbin, Trump’s attorney, made an important statement in favor of House managers, he said, “The Supreme Court has explained that, for over 250 years, our legal tradition has recognized cross‑examination as the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
That is true, but he failed to denounce President Trump for refusing to be cross examined and refusing cross examination of his team that had firsthand information of his high crimes and misdemeanors—or were assistants.
And, his reason— unconstitutional.
He and they had absolute immunity.
That turns off this great legal engine.
Golden Nuggets
Professor Noah Feldman made this statement before the House Judiciary Committee, “The Framers reserved impeachment for situations where the President abused his office, that is, used it for his personal advantage. And, in particular, they were specifically worried about a situation where the President used his office to facilitate corruptly his own reelection.”
Nadler explained, William Davie, the 10th Governor of NC, warned that a President who abused his office might spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected and, thus, to escape justice.
And Nadler said, George Mason built on Davie’s position, asking: ‘‘Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment to the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?’’
The evidence presented at this trial, House investigations and hearings overwhelmingly proves that is exactly what President Trump tried to do and tried to cover it up by defying all subpoenas based on an unconstitutional premise, he had absolute immunity, obstructing Congress.
Nadler said, Professor Karlan is right.
He said, in a last-ditch legal defense of their client, the President’s lawyers argue that impeachment and removal are subject to statutory crimes or to offenses against established law, that the President cannot be impeached because he has not committed a crime. This view is completely wrong. It has no support in constitutional text and structure, original meaning, congressional precedents, common sense, or the consensus of credible experts.
The Failure of U.S. Law
It states in the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, “Congress has also enacted statutes to support its power to investigate and oversee the Executive Branch. These laws impose criminal and other penalties on those who fail to comply with inquiries from Congress or block others from doing so, and they reflect the broader Constitutional requirement to cooperate with Congressional investigations.”
1. The biggest failure of US law: the failure of the Mueller and House investigations to cross‑examine President Trump under oath—put in the Hot Seat.
2. President Trump ordered federal agencies and officials to disregard all voluntary requests for documents and defy all duly authorized subpoenas for records. He also directed all federal officials in the Executive Branch not to testify.
This is a list of twelve that Trump directed not to testify in defiance of subpoenas issued by House impeachment inquiry -- and they refused:
1. Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff
2. Robert B. Blair, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff
3. Ambassador John Bolton, Former National Security Advisor
4. John A. Eisenberg, Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs
5. Michael Ellis, Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Deputy Legal Advisor
6. Preston Wells Griffith, Senior Director for International Energy and Environment
7. Dr. Charles M. Kupperman, Former Deputy Assistant to the President for National SecurityAffairs
8. Russell T. Vought, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
9. Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security Programs
10. Brian McCormack, Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science
11. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, Counselor, Department of State
12. Secretary Rick Perry, Department of Energy
And, as of August 2020, more than nine months later, there has been no criminal or other penalties imposed on President Trump and those that failed to comply with these lawfully issued subpoenas by three House committees in the investigation of President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Why has there been no consequences?
a. The House of Representatives gave in…
b. The enemy was too formidable…
c. U.S. constitutional law has no teeth…
d. The DOJ has become politicized and corrupt under Trump and his appointed Attorney General, Willian Barr.
And, it gets worst…
On December 18, the full House of Representatives voted on the Articles Impeachment: 1. abuse of power and 2. obstruction of Congress, and were passed by a supermajority vote, and delivered them to the Senate on January 15 for trial.
In the second stage of impeachment, the Senate trial, the Republicans voted down eleven Sen. Schumer’s amendments to have witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial in the Senate and allowing the Chief Justice do decide; whether, a witness or document was relevant. So, the House managers are blocked again from getting evidence of Trump’s offenses.
Here in the Senate controlled by Republicans Trump is safe.
At the end of the deliberations – House managers had one last chance—the Senate would vote to subpoena witnesses and documents for the trial.
The Republican controlled Senate—changed the law!
The Senate Impeachment rules adopted on March 2, 1868, was designed for the first US president impeached: Andrew Johnson. The power to subpoena documents and witnesses were considered axiomatic: self-evident. It was Senate impeachment rule VI and it laid the groundwork for questioning witnesses: rule XVI, XVII, and XVIII.
Rule VI states “the Senate shall have the power”….“to enforce obedience to its orders” and it says, this was “essential or conducive to the ends of justice.”
It was thought inconceivable—not to do that.
All impeachment trials had them—until Trump.
You can’t have a trial without both sides having the power to subpoena witnesses and documents: that is an inviolable universal principle of fairness.
On January 22, 2020, however, the Republican controlled Senate voted into law a different set of rules for the impeachment President Donald Trump: Senate Resolution 483: it reversed itself, and removed rule VI, denied the House of Representatives the right to subpoena documents and witnesses in the Senate trial of President Trump.
That is wrong [evil].
It removed the rule essential to achieve justice.
There are three main reasons why Republicans removed rule VI in Trump’s Senate trial:
1. Republicans had no witnesses and documents to call that could prove Trump’s innocence.
2. Democrats had many witnesses and documents they wanted to subpoena that could prove Trump’s guilt.
3. Trump was a Republican—not a Democrat.
Here is the subterfuge: Senate Resolution 483 gave the Senate at the end of the deliberations, the opportunity to vote to give both parties the power to subpoena witnesses and documents, knowing full well, the Republican controlled Senate would vote it down.
Arguments for the right of both sides to subpoena witnesses and documents in the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate.
HOUSE MANAGERS
Rep. Adam Schiff said, Today we were greeted with another new development in this case, when NY Times reported what the headline says, Trump told Bolton to help his Ukraine pressure campaign--book says [and] in that meeting in the oval office in May: Mulvaney, Giuliani, and Cipollone were present…
Schiff says, another reason we should hear from witnesses.
Rep. Val Demings said, you have heard about the documents and witnesses that President Trump has blocked…in all previous impeachments, there has been witnesses…that is how trials work. Today, we ask you to vote for witnesses.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia said, the president says there is no direct evidence, while, blocking it, and she puts up on a video clip of Pat Cipollone saying, “impeachment should not be a shell game, they [House managers] should give you the facts.” What is he going say when it’s time to argue for witnesses and documents and the end of deliberations? It is the Trump administration that is hiding the facts, not House managers. They want to make them public.
And, Cipollone, Chief WH Counsel, locked/refused 4 House of Representative requests/subpoenas for documents and witnesses pertinent to the trial.
Another top stonewaller: WH Chief Staff, Mulvaney.
Garcia said, the American people deserve to hear the truth…you should want to hear all relevant facts before you make your decision….we should hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and others…if Trump was innocent, he would want witnesses and documents…..his counsels here today should be asking for witnesses…..Quinnipiac poll: 75% of voters want an impeachment with witnesses….to have a fair trial we must have witnesses.
Rep. Jason Crow put up this slide of 4 key witnesses necessary for a fair trial that have been subpoenaed by the House of Representative and Trump has forbidden to testify:
cluded. And, he wanted Zelensky to make this announcement in public, himself. Zelensky resisted getting involved in U.S. politics. So, Trump went for the jugular: made it known, the purpose of the Ukrainian military aid freeze.
In other words, for Zelensky to get the oval office meeting and the freeze on military aid lifted: he had to do what Trump wanted. That is corrupt quid pro quo, not U.S. official policy—and that bribery-extortion scheme to help his reelection remained in effect until he got caught and he; unlawfully, tried to cover it up.
Trump’s statement, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo” was a lie to protect himself, knowing he was in deep legal trouble.
Rep. Jim Jordan used this false denial to defend Trump’s innocence on day 4 of the House public hearing. He made a fool out of himself—again.
Sondland sat there smiling: he is so cockeyed.
And, Trump lawyers also used this false denial as evidence: Trump is innocent. It is not based on the facts. It is a false denial.
He wanted two things--
Trump’s lawyers claim the House’s impeachment of Trump is unconstitutional; because, the Articles of Impeachments do not charge Trump with a federal crime. That is a flawed [or false] argument. The Articles of Impeachment is a summary of what the House calls an abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The impeachment of Trump should be judged, mainly, on the House managers’ 3 day presentation of facts [evidence of wrongdoing], the Main Meal, the Articles of Impeachment, the Appetizer.
That wrongdoing is clearly recognizable as bribery-extortion of the newly elected President of the Ukraine.
GAO says, Trump’s freeze on military aid violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. He did it willfully, knowingly, and lied about it. It caused damage: both psychological and physical. DOD was unable to spend $35 million, 14% of aid, before it expired because of the hold, if, were not for an act of Congress extending the time period, it would have been lost. It shows, Trump is a bad child-like president that needs adult supervision.
He converted US policy into his.
It can be a statutory crime or other high crimes and misdemeanors: it leaves up to the judgment of the House of Representatives.
To say, you can’t impeach for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is an insane, dangerous, argument.
If you cannot impeach for these two high crimes, there is big hole in our constitution and needs to be rewritten.
Philbin says the House managers’ charges are antithetical to the Framers approach: he is wrong, dangerous, and evil. He would toss Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors out because, he says, the House process is defective.
Richard Lempert, former Brookings expert, to the question: Does impeachment required criminal behavior? Said in a word, “No.”
One reason for that: the constitution states a president can be impeached for misdemeanors, which are not crimes, but types of misconduct.
The constitution says, you can also impeach for treason, bribery, or other high crimes. Trump’s team is saying, you can’t impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors until Congress defines and codifies them.
That leaves Congress manacled.
These are high crimes and misdemeanors:
1. abuse of power 2. betrayal of public trust 3. corruption in office 4. violating federal and constitutional laws 5. obstruction of justice 6. crimes against the nation 7. crimes against the people 8. corrupting the electoral process 9. usurping congressional and judiciary powers 10. violating the oath of office 11. crimes against humanity 12. crimes against other nations 13. maladministration 14. mendacity 15. extravagance 16. conflict of interest 17. drunkenness 18. dereliction of duty, 19. substance abuse 20. unlawful enrichment 21. incitement of resurrection 22. and other offenses.
All types of serious crimes and wrongdoing of men in high public office is what the constitution means by high crimes and misdemeanors.
It is all-inclusive, except for treason and bribery.
Treason is defined in Article III section 3 of the US Constitution, but not bribery.
Philbin said, the inherent flaw in the House managers theory of abuse of power, “it does not provide any recognizable notice of offense.”
He is wrong.
Merriam-Webster definition of a bribe: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. That is exactly what Trump did in the Zelensky interaction: this for that -- and it had a corrupt motive, because, it was not U.S. policy.
It was made a federal statutory crime by Congress in 1962.
So, other high crimes are statutory and crimes that may become statutory in the future.
New crimes are always cropping up. What Trump did is similar to the federal bribery statute, but a different version.
It is far worse than bribery. It has many tentacles, arms, and legs, like an octopus, and Trump is the Head.
It involved offering releasing nearly $400M in security assistance and diplomatic recognition, sign of US support in its war with Russian backed separatists to compel the President of Ukraine to conduct two investigations.
At first, Zelensky agreed to conduct the investigations, as Sondland told Trump, “Zelensky loves your ass”; however, that did not satisfied Trump, Sondland told Taylor, Trump wanted Zelensky in public box to get a White House meeting, he had to make the public announcement of a corruption investigation into the Bidens and meddling in the 2016 election by the Ukraine.
Zelensky was not willing.
That was the stalemate.
That is why VP Pence was sent to Warsaw, Poland, to meet with Zelensky to break the logjam. To do that, the release of nearly $400M in security assistance was added to the bribery scheme. That is when Zelensky relented and agreed to make a CNN public announcement.
But, Trump’s sinister scheme was unraveling: the whistleblower’s complaint filed back in Aug. 12 was determined to be “urgent’ and “credible” by the ICIG, Michael Atkinson; however, Trump’s puppet DNI, Joseph Maguire, failed to notify Congress within 7 days required by law for specious excuses that he gave to the Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
Giuliani rejected the draft submitted by Yermak, Aug. 12, that stated, we intend to initiate a transparent and unbias investigation.
He said, that was not “credible.”
President Zelensky rejected the Giuliani-Volker-Sondland draft that added the “two key items”, Burisma and the 2016 U.S. election, submitted on Aug. 13.
He did not want to be involved in US politics.
This was the logjam.
They became suspicious of Trump’s motives.
On Aug. 28, Politico made public: Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia.
This did not set well with members of Congress.
They already had approved the military aid….
The Ukrainians were confused and distraught…
President Zelensky asked VP Pence at Warsaw, Sept 1 —what is the reason for the hold?
VP Pence said, he would speak to President Trump about it.
Sondland informed his top aid, Yermak, why! The money probably would not come unless Ukraine announced the investigations.
The Washington Post editorial board wrote on Sept. 5: “[W]e’re reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is holdback U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.”
Sondland’s called and spoke with the President on Sept. 7th and afterwards; promptly, told President Zelensky unless he cleared things up: the hold on the WH meeting and military aid would continue.
He; then, agreed to make the announcement on CNN.
Atkinson, the Inspector General, went over the head of his boss, Joseph Maguire, and notified Congress of the existence of the whistleblower’s complaint on Sept. 9.
That prompted three House committees to investigate Trump’s exposed in‑progress bribery‑extortion scheme of a foreign leader and pressure from public exposure and from top U.S. officials, the military, and members of Congress, President Trump had no other choice but to tap out and released the security assistance on Sept. 11.
His scheme went down in flames.
This was not US foreign policy.
It was for Pres. Trump’s benefit.
It undermines fair U.S. elections
& jeopardized Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
It was an abuse of power
And, he tried to cover it up.
Adding, a second-high crime.
President Trump said, “I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible” referring to Atkinson, the Inspector General, who reported the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress. That shows--Trump is a vile vindictive person—or fascist.
The IG did the right thing.
And, he was subsequently fired for it.
After the aid was released, at the urging of acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, Bill Taylor, Zelensky cancelled the public announcement on CNN and never got the desired White House meeting.
And probably won’t get it; because, President Trump is vindictive and embarrassed by the public exposure and failure of his solicitation and bribery of foreign leader to conduct two shame investigations to help his reelection in 2020 and hurt ex-Vice President Biden who was ahead in the polls.
Today, he can’t look at Zelensky in the face and say, no pressure! That would be a lie, because, Zelensky admitted he was pressured on December 2, 2019, to the Times Magazine and the Associated Press.
There were multiple incidences of pressure:
a. directly to Zelensky
b. to Yermak, his aide
c. to Ukrainian diplomats
d. by Trump’s team
e. by Rudy Giuliani
f. by Trump, himself
His July 25 phone call seen in retrospect and tied to these other meetings, phone calls, and texts: his request, was actually, a demand in exchange for the release of security assistance and a coveted White House meeting.
This became clear by the freeze on military aid just before and immediately after the July 25th phone call that President Trump used, subsequently, to force Zelensky to announce; publicly, Ukraine, would conduct the two investigation Trump requested.
The scheme failed, because Trump got caught.
The call was like the top of the potato plant.
The extortion plot were the potatoes underground.
The House probe dug up those potatoes [facts].
Trump also cheated in the 2016 election, asking for Russian help, and is an unindicted co‑conspirator in the violation of the campaign finance law.
This also was an underhanded operation.
Details of this crime was revealed in Cohen’s congressional hearing and numerous other criminal investigations are underway.
Misdemeanors in the constitution are not meant to be; primarily, minor crimes; they are meant to be bad behavior or misconduct; like, failing to do your job, or doing it badly. It could be unethical, unscrupulous or immoral behavior.
Impeachment is the same as firing the president for a bad job and/or criminal [or corrupt] behavior, something high, not low.
Philbin is so embroiled in legalistic arguments he lacks common sense: it says bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are prohibited by the constitution; why, the House Articles of Impeachment are neither of these two.
That is confusing cars with boats.
Trump’s team is saying new crimes, no matter how horrible, are not impeachable, because, they are not statutory. That is insane.
Trump’s team also called the impeachment of Trump by Democrats partisan, because, no Republican voted for the House Articles, except two: that is wrong, if you mean blind, prejudicial allegiance to Party. When, you are aligned with the truth, the law, what is right—you are not partisan.
There is no legitimate defense of the President, so, Trump’s lawyers lied, attacked the process, called it slapdash, half-baked, and used sophisticated arguments to create doubt and disbelief.
Max Bergmann, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and others said, no matter how the House Managers structured it, Trump’s lawyers would have picked it apart.
That is true.
No righteous lawyer would be on Trump’s team and defend him based on his claims or wishes: I committed no crime, the phone call was perfect, the trial is a scam. Those are all patently false.
Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer, says, “There is no violation of law” in what Trump did: contradicts the facts.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, say Trump committed five crimes:
I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)
II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)
III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)
IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)
V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)
The House rather than get in a legalistic quagmire, choose two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, which are irrefutable, and are other high crimes and misdemeanors in the U.S. Constitution
So, Jay Sekulow must be motivated by something more, than compensation; like, he doesn’t want Trump to be impeached because he is a staunch supporter of Israel.
The problem with that—disloyalty to the U.S.
Trump has put himself above the law; like a King, moved the nation closer to a Soviet-type dictatorship, legally stole close to $800 billion from the US Treasury so far; he played golf at his resorts 248 times at the cost to taxpayers of $133.8 million since beginning president with nine months to go; he said, “I’m going to be working for you, I’m not going to have time to play golf” -- he lied to get elected. Cipollone said, “Trump is a man of word”. Cipollone is a lair. Trump said, “If I decide to run for office, I will produce my tax returns, absolutely.” Now, in office, his lawyers are fighting their release in court. Sekulow is one. He claims, Trump is being harassed. That is a phony defense, Sekulow has never seen Trump’s tax returns. Poll: two-thirds of voters think he should release his tax returns. There are serious allegations of fraud. This case in now in the courts and has not been resolved. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruled: he must release his tax returns—but, was given a stay, so he can appeal to the Supreme Court—a second time. He is given special treatment. Trump has corrupted the federal government by ousting qualified officials in the federal government without justification and replacing them with his flunkies. For example, he appointed Steven Mnuchin, as Secretary of Treasury, and he would not turn over eight years of Trump’s tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee, as required by law: he claims the request “lack a legitimate purpose.” He said that out of loyalty to the president. He has pecuniary and political motives for shielding the president. It is a false statement. It is contrary to the best interest of the American people. They want to know if their president is a tax cheat. There are serious, creditable allegations he is. Facts presented at the impeachment trial prove Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and has never been brought to justice: criminally or politically, and is the most dangerous, corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent president in US History.
Sekulow argues, danger, danger, danger, to impeach and remove a president for the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
He is an enemy of the people.
You can’t say there was no crime.
He bore false witness to the facts.
He violated the eighth commandment of יּﬣוֹﬣ. יהוה
He said, “we have clearly established there was no quid pro quo.” That is false statement. The facts that he did are indisputable.
He said, “You cannot impeachment a president on an unsourced allegation.” He is grasping at straws to save Trump.
The name of whistleblower is not necessary.
The House has proven his allegation.
That is what is essential!
Sekulow’s bogus and gung ho defense of Trump is likely for three reasons: compensation as a defense lawyer, donations to his non-profits, and he sees Trump as a strong defender of Israel, which makes him off-center [politically].
He does not believe House Mgrs.
He does not believe Sondland.
He does not believe Bill Taylor.
He does not believe George Kent.
He does not believe John Bolton.
He does not believe the evidence.
He believes President Trump.
He said, “Their [House managers’] entire process was corrupt from the beginning.” No. It is based on the U.S. Constitution, rules passed by both Houses, the whistleblower’s complaint, and the facts uncovered by the House three-month investigation of closed and public hearings.
Also, the way the Mueller investigation was handled is completely separate from the House investigation.
Sekulow tried to convince Senators both were fraudulent: he tried to infect the House impeachment with the FISA virus. He even read from the FISA report: flaws in the FISA Court process have nothing to do with House’s impeachment of Trump.
It is a distraction, an attempt—to sully it.
Sekulow is a shady lawyer. He failed to mention the 361-page House Impeachment Report—once: that is the Bible in this case. You can’t look at 361 pages of evidence and try to convinces jurors, they are fictitious. He has done that. If, he has not read the House Impeachment Report, that is negligence: an honest-righteous lawyer would.
He would want to know the facts:
President Trump is the one that is corrupt, inept, and dangerous and has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
And, Trump is a non-stop-pathological liar.
House managers has proven both articles.
I did not say, Trump was totally—bad or wrong on every issue. He is just; broadly, corrupt, dishonest, and inept.
To win—he is willing to break the law; then, lie about it and hire lawyers to use sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, to defend him.
He has been involved in thousands of lawsuits.
That is his MO—hire lawyers: he has the dough. He will appeal court rulings and drag out litigation and wear out his opponents mentally and financially.
The fact, President Trump was told by John Bolton, his National Security Adviser, top officials from OMB, DOD, DOS, and Congress that his hold on Ukrainian Security Assistance approved by Congress was ill-advised, contrary to US interests, and unlawful and he rejected that advice and continued to purse his personal interests; that is, increase his prospects of winning reelection in 2020 election, by smearing his political rival, and when his crime was exposed by the whistleblower, tried to cover up it ordering the entire executive branch to defy House of Representatives subpoenas for witnesses and documents. That is grounds for impeachment and removed from office.
The House managers presented enough factual evidence, if you are fair-minded, sufficient to find Trump guilty of impeachment Articles 1 & 2.
Although, Trump is hiding up to 90% of documentary evidence and he admits it, saying “we have all the material.” He claims the House of Representatives’ impeachment is a con job. That is false. The part of the impeachment trial that I watched or read, there was no falsehoods in the House managers’ presentation; on the other hand, his defense by Trump lawyers was totally bogus.
In the words of Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, “they lie, and lie, and lie, and lie. Trump’s lawyers should be disbarred from practicing law for their blatant lying in their defense of President Trump.
Seeing your client gets a fair trial—is good.
Lying to defend your client—is bad [evil].
The different between Trump’s lawyers and House managers: Trump’s lawyers are paid a hefty sum to defend President Trump by fabricating long, false, legalistic arguments attacking the House’s two articles of impeachment. House managers, on the other hand, were elected by the people to enforce the law, impeach and removed a president for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, motivated by what is right and wrong, truth and justice and based on the U.S. Constitution and indisputable facts.
Trump’s defense is wrong
&
based on an unlawful defiance of subpoenas.
Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel for the president, says the articles of impeachment violate the constitution, because they “flagrantly denied the president any due process.”
That’s flagrantly false.
He sent a letter to Nadler—December 6 calling the House investigation “a charade.” That letter is garbage.
Former White House counsel, Robert Bauer wrote, “It misrepresents constitutional law and precedent that it is pleading on the president’s behalf.”
Who is right? Not Cipollone.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia said, the House invited Trump to participate, provide relevant witnesses and afforded all due rights and he refused to participate -- and claimed it was an illegal impeachment and send them a letter --do your thing, he wanted to be tried in the Senate.
The reason he did not participate, request his witnesses, there are no witness or documents that can exonerate him.
All witnesses and documents the House subpoenaed, believing they have culpatory evidence, President Trump blocked preventing the House of Representatives from forging a stronger case.
The House had to rely on witnesses that were subpoenaed and willing to testify and documents that were accessible to make a case.
The House was blocked by President Trump’s phony claim of absolute immunity from congressional oversight.
If, Trump was innocent, he would not block subpoenas: he would want his team to testify, to prove these allegations false.
They are not.
All subpoenas issued by House were blocked by Trump and supported by the DOJ under AG William Barr and the OLC under assistant AG Steven Engel: both appointees of President Trump.
Is Trump, right? No.
The Supreme Court says, the issuance of a subpoena pursuant to an authorized investigation is “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking” and it must be backed up “by means of compulsion.”
House committees cannot initiate criminal investigations without that power. That gives the House information to draft Impeachment Articles. That has to proceed before the full House can vote on them.
House acted in step by step forward logical matter; first, investigate, then, voted whether impeachment is warranted.
OLC says, the full House must vote to authorize subpoenas first. Professor Ken Starr said, he believes that is correct. It is not—they all already have that power.
The constitution gives the House sole power to make its rules and change them for different impeachments.
In the Nixon and Clinton cases, the full House voted to give committees the power to issue subpoenas; however, it can change the rules for each case. It does have to follow the Nixon and Clinton impeachment rules.
In the case of Nixon and Clinton: their misdeeds had national exposure. What Trump did was 95% hidden. The whistleblower complaint needed investigation and corroboration first, before the House vote.
The constitution does not require a full House vote to begin a preliminary impeachment probe or issue subpoenas.
In Trump’s case, the Speaker of the House, Pelosi, initiated a formal inquiry on September 24th after whistleblower complaint was made public accusing him of using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election and the Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs committees began issuing subpoenas.
Philbin said on the first day of the trial, “no committee of the House can exercise that authority.”
He is wrong; because, the rules of the House of Representatives were changed on January 11, 2019, as House Mangers Garcia, Lofgren, and Jeffries argued.
Rule XI clause 2, 3(A)(1) states-- a subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation. It is not necessary for full House to vote to issue subpoenas; because, it has ready voted to give House committees the power to issue subpoenas.
Philbin in his opening statement said, “Subpoenas that had been issued by Manager Schiff’s committees were invalid because the House has not authorized your committees to conduct any such inquiry or to subpoena information in furtherance of it.”
Philbin is wrong—again!
Under rules of the House of Representatives passed by both Houses January 11, 2019, states under Rule XI clause 2, 3(A)(1): The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair of the committee under such rules and under such limitations as the committee may prescribe.
Therefore, based on the rule changes passed by both Houses in January, all subpoenas issued by the House are valid.
Pat Cipollone said in his Dec. 6 letter, “the Speaker of the House yesterday ordered House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment before your Committee has heard a single shred of evidence.”
That is false. The House collected substantial evidence in closed door hearings during the month of October, before the full House voted on October 31; at least, he admitted—investigations must come first.
You see how Trump’s team contradict themselves: They want the Full House to vote first, before investigations.
And here, he is crying foul: they proceeded without an investigation. He gets trapped in his words. That is a pitfall of liars.
President Trump, despite the law, is defying all subpoenas the House Committees has issued after September 24, during the month of October, claiming they were issued before the full House voted on Res. 660, Oct. 31. That vote was for opening the House impeachment hearings from closed door to public.
That is baseless, yet OLC is backing Trump.
These are the officials or people that were subpoenaed and refuse to testify or told by the White House not to testify.
Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney, Russell Vought, Mark Esper, Rick Perry, Charles Kupperman, and Rudy Giuliani.
They refuse to testify; because, they were either involved in Trump’s scheme or afraid of retribution—knowing he a vengeful-vile Strongman.
This is a list of men that the House of Representatives subpoenaed in November after the full House vote on Oct. 31 and were told by the White House not to testify and they refused:
1. John Eisenberg, Deputy legal counsel to the President
2. Mick Mulvaney, White House acting Chief of Staff
3. Robert Blair, White House aide
4. Michael Ellis, National Security aide
5. Brian McCormack, DOE chief of staff
6. Preston Wells Griffith, White House adviser
Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Trump November 26 warming him against refusing to make witnesses and documents available to committees, and Trump sent a letter December 1 to Nadler, saying, he would not cooperate. This also was after the full House vote, so it made no difference:
Before the full House vote: the subpoenas were invalid.
After the full House vote: Trump had absolute immunity.
Both of those arguments: bogus.
President Trump has refused to give a single email, phone record, or document. That is; plainly, an obstruction of Congress.
He also told the OMB, DOS, DOD, and DOE not to provide the House of Representatives with witnesses or documents: he is hiding evidence of his wrongdoing: that is; clearly, the obstruction of Congress.
Trump knows it; but, this is his evil strategy: impeach me for it; knowing in the Republican controlled Senate: he will be acquitted.
"We all know how it's going to end," Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News on December 12.
Before the trial, Sen. Lindsey Graham, made clear that they would not uphold the oaths of impartiality taken by senators at the start of the trial.
Trump used the power of his office to remove a sterling career diplomat for personal reasons, he used rooms in the White House to hatch his nefarious scheme, he used his presidential phone, July 25, to conduct his business with a head of state, and we know it was for his personal business, because, he asked Zelensky to speak with his attorney [for details of his plan], and he misused US officials, airplanes, and resources to carry out his scheme to benefit himself and hurt his political rival and he used taxpayer funded security assistance to enforce his bribe on Zelensky, the newly elected president of the Ukraine; and he used the power of his office to conceal his crime and we don’t have to read his mind to know why, he admitted it: the Ukraine “tried to take me down.” He is referring to voices in the Ukraine that preferred Hillary Clinton over Trump and his policies for the Ukraine.”
He wanted to silence free speech.
That is the reason for one request.
And two, help him win reelection.
Trump’s phony denial!
After Politico first published on Oct, 28, 2019. the military aid to the Ukraine had been suspended, Ambassador Sondland called and asked Trump, what do you want? He said, “I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo,” knowing he was exposed -- lied about his intentions; but, nevertheless said, unless President Zelensky does the right thing --go to the microphone and announced these investigations there would be a stalemate including security assistance.
That is a quid pro quo!
He always wanted the two investigations:
He never told Zelensky he wanted nothing!
He never told Sondland to tell Zelensky to cancel the two requested investigations of the Burisma/Bidens and 2016 Ukrainian election meddling.
He never suspended the two prerequisites for an oval office meeting and lifting the freeze on military aid put in place in July and not made public until the end of August and added it to the bribery scheme in early September and remained in effect until President Trump got caught.
When Trump said, “I want nothing” that was a phony statement to protect himself: knowing he was exposed.
I want nothing was a fake admission, because, he did not back it up with an official act.
He did not scrape his two July 25th phone requests.
The two requests remained in-effect until the end.
More proof, Trump’s denial was fake:
On Aug. 31, Sen. Ron Johnson, ally of the president, investigating the Zelensky extortion plot, in a conversation with the President, asked Trump to give him authority to tell Zelenky that the aid was coming.
Trump refused to give him that power.
His extortion plot remained in-effect.
He refused to take action to rescind it.
It states in the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, page 65, the quid pro quo begin to take shape in April 21, 2019, and grew more insidious. It began with a simple Trump telephone request. Then, the WH meeting that Zelensky desperately needed to show U.S. support against Russian aggression in Donbass, eastern Ukraine, was made contingent on conducting these investigations. The Ukrainian government statement -- it would initiate these investigations did not satisfy Trump: he wanted the “two key items” inuntil he got caught.
That is the common response of criminals when caught or accused, they declare their innocence, even though the facts prove otherwise.
We have a truckload of dugged up potatoes (i.e., solid evidence or facts)—as proof. That is House impeachment report of Donald Trump: 116-346.
Then, they clam up and lawyer up —as Trump did thinking he can beat the rap, the lower House 2 articles of impeachment.
Trump and his lawyers are wrong!
Nadler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said: “More recently, a group of the Nation’s leading constitutional scholars— ranging across the ideological spectrum from Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe to former Ronald Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried—issued a statement affirming that ‘‘abuse of power counts as an instance of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution.’’ They added: ‘‘That was clearly the view of the Constitution’s framers.’’ I could go on, Nadler said, but you get the point. Everyone, except President Trump and his lawyers, agrees that Presidents can be impeached for abuse of power. The President’s position amounts to nothing but self-serving constitutional nonsense. And it is dangerous nonsense at that. A President who sees no limit on his power manifestly threatens the Republic.
An Important Point
Patrick Philbin, Trump’s attorney, made an important statement in favor of House managers, he said, “The Supreme Court has explained that, for over 250 years, our legal tradition has recognized cross‑examination as the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
That is true, but he failed to denounce President Trump for refusing to be cross examined and refusing cross examination of his team that had firsthand information of his high crimes and misdemeanors—or were assistants.
And, his reason— unconstitutional.
He and they had absolute immunity.
That turns off this great legal engine.
Golden Nuggets
Professor Noah Feldman made this statement before the House Judiciary Committee, “The Framers reserved impeachment for situations where the President abused his office, that is, used it for his personal advantage. And, in particular, they were specifically worried about a situation where the President used his office to facilitate corruptly his own reelection.”
Nadler explained, William Davie, the 10th Governor of NC, warned that a President who abused his office might spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected and, thus, to escape justice.
And Nadler said, George Mason built on Davie’s position, asking: ‘‘Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment to the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?’’
The evidence presented at this trial, House investigations and hearings overwhelmingly proves that is exactly what President Trump tried to do and tried to cover it up by defying all subpoenas based on an unconstitutional premise, he had absolute immunity, obstructing Congress.
Nadler said, Professor Karlan is right.
He said, in a last-ditch legal defense of their client, the President’s lawyers argue that impeachment and removal are subject to statutory crimes or to offenses against established law, that the President cannot be impeached because he has not committed a crime. This view is completely wrong. It has no support in constitutional text and structure, original meaning, congressional precedents, common sense, or the consensus of credible experts.
The Failure of U.S. Law
It states in the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, “Congress has also enacted statutes to support its power to investigate and oversee the Executive Branch. These laws impose criminal and other penalties on those who fail to comply with inquiries from Congress or block others from doing so, and they reflect the broader Constitutional requirement to cooperate with Congressional investigations.”
1. The biggest failure of US law: the failure of the Mueller and House investigations to cross‑examine President Trump under oath—put in the Hot Seat.
2. President Trump ordered federal agencies and officials to disregard all voluntary requests for documents and defy all duly authorized subpoenas for records. He also directed all federal officials in the Executive Branch not to testify.
This is a list of twelve that Trump directed not to testify in defiance of subpoenas issued by House impeachment inquiry -- and they refused:
1. Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff
2. Robert B. Blair, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff
3. Ambassador John Bolton, Former National Security Advisor
4. John A. Eisenberg, Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs
5. Michael Ellis, Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Deputy Legal Advisor
6. Preston Wells Griffith, Senior Director for International Energy and Environment
7. Dr. Charles M. Kupperman, Former Deputy Assistant to the President for National SecurityAffairs
8. Russell T. Vought, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
9. Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security Programs
10. Brian McCormack, Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science
11. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, Counselor, Department of State
12. Secretary Rick Perry, Department of Energy
And, as of August 2020, more than nine months later, there has been no criminal or other penalties imposed on President Trump and those that failed to comply with these lawfully issued subpoenas by three House committees in the investigation of President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Why has there been no consequences?
a. The House of Representatives gave in…
b. The enemy was too formidable…
c. U.S. constitutional law has no teeth…
d. The DOJ has become politicized and corrupt under Trump and his appointed Attorney General, Willian Barr.
And, it gets worst…
On December 18, the full House of Representatives voted on the Articles Impeachment: 1. abuse of power and 2. obstruction of Congress, and were passed by a supermajority vote, and delivered them to the Senate on January 15 for trial.
In the second stage of impeachment, the Senate trial, the Republicans voted down eleven Sen. Schumer’s amendments to have witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial in the Senate and allowing the Chief Justice do decide; whether, a witness or document was relevant. So, the House managers are blocked again from getting evidence of Trump’s offenses.
Here in the Senate controlled by Republicans Trump is safe.
At the end of the deliberations – House managers had one last chance—the Senate would vote to subpoena witnesses and documents for the trial.
The Republican controlled Senate—changed the law!
The Senate Impeachment rules adopted on March 2, 1868, was designed for the first US president impeached: Andrew Johnson. The power to subpoena documents and witnesses were considered axiomatic: self-evident. It was Senate impeachment rule VI and it laid the groundwork for questioning witnesses: rule XVI, XVII, and XVIII.
Rule VI states “the Senate shall have the power”….“to enforce obedience to its orders” and it says, this was “essential or conducive to the ends of justice.”
It was thought inconceivable—not to do that.
All impeachment trials had them—until Trump.
You can’t have a trial without both sides having the power to subpoena witnesses and documents: that is an inviolable universal principle of fairness.
On January 22, 2020, however, the Republican controlled Senate voted into law a different set of rules for the impeachment President Donald Trump: Senate Resolution 483: it reversed itself, and removed rule VI, denied the House of Representatives the right to subpoena documents and witnesses in the Senate trial of President Trump.
That is wrong [evil].
It removed the rule essential to achieve justice.
There are three main reasons why Republicans removed rule VI in Trump’s Senate trial:
1. Republicans had no witnesses and documents to call that could prove Trump’s innocence.
2. Democrats had many witnesses and documents they wanted to subpoena that could prove Trump’s guilt.
3. Trump was a Republican—not a Democrat.
Here is the subterfuge: Senate Resolution 483 gave the Senate at the end of the deliberations, the opportunity to vote to give both parties the power to subpoena witnesses and documents, knowing full well, the Republican controlled Senate would vote it down.
Arguments for the right of both sides to subpoena witnesses and documents in the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate.
HOUSE MANAGERS
Rep. Adam Schiff said, Today we were greeted with another new development in this case, when NY Times reported what the headline says, Trump told Bolton to help his Ukraine pressure campaign--book says [and] in that meeting in the oval office in May: Mulvaney, Giuliani, and Cipollone were present…
Schiff says, another reason we should hear from witnesses.
Rep. Val Demings said, you have heard about the documents and witnesses that President Trump has blocked…in all previous impeachments, there has been witnesses…that is how trials work. Today, we ask you to vote for witnesses.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia said, the president says there is no direct evidence, while, blocking it, and she puts up on a video clip of Pat Cipollone saying, “impeachment should not be a shell game, they [House managers] should give you the facts.” What is he going say when it’s time to argue for witnesses and documents and the end of deliberations? It is the Trump administration that is hiding the facts, not House managers. They want to make them public.
And, Cipollone, Chief WH Counsel, locked/refused 4 House of Representative requests/subpoenas for documents and witnesses pertinent to the trial.
Another top stonewaller: WH Chief Staff, Mulvaney.
Garcia said, the American people deserve to hear the truth…you should want to hear all relevant facts before you make your decision….we should hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and others…if Trump was innocent, he would want witnesses and documents…..his counsels here today should be asking for witnesses…..Quinnipiac poll: 75% of voters want an impeachment with witnesses….to have a fair trial we must have witnesses.
Rep. Jason Crow put up this slide of 4 key witnesses necessary for a fair trial that have been subpoenaed by the House of Representative and Trump has forbidden to testify:
cluded. And, he wanted Zelensky to make this announcement in public, himself. Zelensky resisted getting involved in U.S. politics. So, Trump went for the jugular: made it known, the purpose of the Ukrainian military aid freeze.
In other words, for Zelensky to get the oval office meeting and the freeze on military aid lifted: he had to do what Trump wanted. That is corrupt quid pro quo, not U.S. official policy—and that bribery-extortion scheme to help his reelection remained in effect until he got caught and he; unlawfully, tried to cover it up.
Trump’s statement, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo” was a lie to protect himself, knowing he was in deep legal trouble.
Rep. Jim Jordan used this false denial to defend Trump’s innocence on day 4 of the House public hearing. He made a fool out of himself—again.
Sondland sat there smiling: he is so cockeyed.
And, Trump lawyers also used this false denial as evidence: Trump is innocent. It is not based on the facts. It is a false denial.
He wanted two things--
And he said, the Trump team say, there is no link, that is not true; but we should vote to ask these witnesses that have direct contact with President, what he has said. President Trump said, he did not tell John Bolton he linked the military aid to Zelensky making investigations in a Tweet, but he is not under oath.
So, he said, if you want to know the truth call John Bolton.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said, Ambassador Sondland said, Mulvaney was directly involved in President Trump’s scheme, so, let’s call Mulvaney, Trump’s Chief of Staff, and question him in the Senate trial under oath…and Mr. Blair and Mr. Duffey….a fair trial means witnesses….a fair trial means documents….
Rep. Zoe Lofgren said, it’s not about just hearing from witnesses, you need documents. There are specific documents, relevant to this impeachment trial, in the custody of White House, OMB, DOD, and the State Department and the president has hidden them from us. You should ask for these documents on behalf of the American people.
These arguments by House managers are meant to convince members of the Senate to vote for them. It is in their hands.
TRUMP’S LAWYERS
Patrick Philbin said, there is no need for witnesses here, because, these articles impeachment on their face are defective. On article 2, obstruction of Congress: it cannot be an impeachable offense for Trump to defend the separation of powers. That is not right. No witnesses are going to say anything that makes a difference here.
Here we go with legalistic bunk:
He says, That all has to do with the validity of the grounds the President asserted, the fact that he asserted longstanding constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch in specific ways to resist specific deficiencies in the subpoenas that were issued.
And on Article 1, abuse of power, he says, that too is defective on its face. House managers have this subjective theory of impeachment that will show abuse of power by focusing just on the President’s subjective motives. And they said again today here that the way they can show the President did something wrong is that he defied the foreign policy of the United States and I talked about that before, this theory that he defied the agencies within the executive branch. He wasn’t following the policy of the executive branch. That’s not a constitutionally coherent statement.
That is legalistic nonsense.
Philbin argued against a fair trial.
Jay Sekulow said, I have not had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses in the House deposition hearings: I want that opportunity, if we have witnesses, he will sabotage the trial. These witnesses have already been cross-examined by Steve Castro, attorney for the Republicans. There is no need for him to do it—again.
He says, House managers have said, they have proven the charges; therefore, they don’t need witnesses. Yes, they have proven the charges, if you are fair minded, but Republicans are not. House managers need witnesses in the loop to testify that Trump has forbidden to testify to convince Republicans.
Sekulow argued against a fair trial.
Furthermore, he said, on Jan. 29, if witnesses are called, it would be a violation of fundamental fairness: that is the Devil speaking.
Facts you should know:
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries D-CA stated at the trial, “This distinguished body has conducted 15 impeachment trials. All have included witnesses. Sometimes those trials included just a handful of witnesses, as indicated on the screen. At other times, they included dozens. In one case, there were over 100 different witnesses. As the slide shows, the average number of witnesses to appear at a Senate impeachment trial is 33, and in at least 3 of those instances, including the impeachment of Bill Clinton, witnesses appeared before the Senate who had not previously appeared before the House. That is because the Senate, this great institution, has always taken its responsibility to administer a fair trial seriously. The Senate has always taken its duty to obtain evidence, including witness testimony, seriously. The Senate has always taken its obligation to evaluate the President’s conduct based on a full body of available information seriously. This is the only way to ensure fundamental fairness for everyone involved.”
Vote for Witnesses and Documents:
January 31, 2020
The results of the vote: the motion fails to pass: 51 Republican noes to 49 ayes: 45 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 2 Republicans. It was a partisan vote controlled by Republican majority in the Senate--only, Mitt Romney and Susan Collins changed their minds.
Let’s see happens:
Next: the Vote on Impeachment:
February 5, 2020
The results: President Trump is acquitted on a partisan vote:
Article 1: 48 guilty -- 45 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 2 Independents -- and 52 not guilty—all Republicans
Article 2: 47 guilty -- 45 Democrats and 2 Independents – and 53 not guilty, all Republicans.
Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote for conviction on Article 1, abuse of power. He stated afterwards he thought House managers proved that Trump was guilty and said, he came to that conclusion with the help of God. That means: 52 Republicans decided to acquit without the help of God.
Mitt Romney voted not guilty on Article 2, obstruction of Congress. There is; absolutely, no question that President Trump obstructed Congress by blocking House requests/subpoenas for documents and witnesses; so, Mitt Romney and 52 other Republicans are wrong. Rep. Zoe Lofgren said during the trial, “the President of the United States issued in order forbidding every single person who worked for the executive branch of our government from given testimony to the House as part of an impeachment investigation.” That has not been disputed. He is guilty of obstructing the House of Representatives from carrying out its constitutional duty to impeach a president for high crimes and misdemeanors. That requires an unimpeded investigation. The power of subpoena is what prevents a president from becoming a King, hiding his crimes and wrongdoing from the people. House managers have clearly and decisively proven Trump unabashedly violated that principle—putting himself above the law; therefore, a not guilty vote is anti‑American: they want Trump as their King. He is their big tax‑cutter of the rich and corporations and fundraiser for the Republican Party.
They are going to spend time in Hell.
It was a rigged trial: 52 senators did not do impartial justice on Article 1 and 53 on Article 2 as they took an oath to do—as Sen. Lindsey Graham foretold.
The facts are were crystal clear and indisputable.
▬ The 45 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 1 Republican that voted guilty, agreed with the facts, they are not partisan.
▬ The 52 Republicans that voted not guilty, disagreed with the facts, they are partisan.
They decided not to convict; before the trial, before they heard the evidence; therefor, all 52 Republicans should have been dismissed—as jurors.
James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution said, the power of impeachment is —"indispensable . . . for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." Pat Cipollone, counsel for the president, said, we must end the era of impeachment--the President did nothing wrong. 52 Republicans agreed with Trump’s White House counsel, the most outrageous and shameful liar during the impeachment trial.
He repeatedly said the trial is “ridiculous.”
He was an ‘in the room’ witness and lied.
And, he was a top individual stonewaller.
45 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 1 Republicans agreed with James Madison, if the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. The House managers did prove the 2 articles of impeachment. When you look at all Trump’s misdeeds, his daily prolific lying, his extravagance, his maladministration, his abuse of power, his replacement of competent people with his cronies, his violation of campaign law, his peculation, his intimidation of witnesses, his slander of good people, his usurpation of the power of the purse, his attempt to bribe and extort a foreign leader, his obstruction of justice, his incompetency: he should be removed from office. Adam Schiff, lead House manager, put it this way, at the end of trial, mid‑night in Washington, DC, counsels for the president, still maintains his innocence, while opposing any additional evidence that would prove otherwise. Now, that Trump has been acquitted by a Republican controlled Senate, the people must live with the consequences of a corrupt, self‑promoting, free press [or truth] hating, incompetent, dictatorial leader at the helm with his hands on the levers of executive power. Now, it is up to the voters to reelect or remove Trump from office in the next presidential election.
John Roberts failed as Chief Justice!
He warns both sides to avoid using language not conducive to a Senate proceeding and reminded them of the 1906 Swain trial, a Senator objected to the use of the term: pettifogging….
That was his best advice.
He presided over a rigged trial:
The impeachment law in the constitution was drafted in the days of the horse and buggy, although; basically, correct: today, a better design could be drafted that would eliminate these deficiencies, set a new framework, a modern car design, that could remove the driver (i.e., the president) from the wheel for committing certain abuses of power; that is, violating laws, endangering and injuring society, crimes against the nation, corruption in office, obstructing Congress or justice, the betrayal of public trust, etc. that would prevent this type of wrongdoing, the president defying all subpoenas issued by the House, the delaying of House subpoenas for months and years in the courts, the lack of a defined criteria for impeachment to prevent bogus defenses of the President, the power of the Senate to block the House to subpoena documents and witnesses in the Senate trial, and the ability of the president, the vice-president, and his senior aides to avoid cross-examination under oath by a grand jury, special counsel, and by the House of Representatives, and at trial.
One of fears of Framers, the Senate would not be impartial judges, Hamilton argued, they would not be so bias as to be blind to "evidences of guilt so extraordinary”; but, in the impeachment of President Trump they were, because, the Senate is controlled by a corrupt cult of rich men and women that blocked that extraordinary evidence. They were not loyal to the American people. They were loyal to the Republican Party—and their millionaire and billionaire donors who they have given tax cuts. They pay about half, today, compared to what they paid from 1950 to 1980, because, of the Reagan, G.W.B. and the Trump tax cuts. That increase in wealth gives corporations and the top 1 percent, the power to control the Congress, particularly, the Senate. If, the framework for impeachment is not designed right--evil men will take advantage of it. Therefore, rules and procedures need to be clarified, improved, and modernized to make impeachments fair and effective.
The impeachment of President Trump:
-- shows the deficiencies of US law
It shows the demonic mindfulness of 116th Republican controlled Senate.
Trump was guilty—and acquitted.
(i.e., evil)
Eventually, the Truth will come out!
New Revelation from the Washington Post:
1/30/21
Ukraine stayed quiet during Trump-era pressures. Now it’s sharing some Giuliani tales.
KEIV — There was a consistent message from Ukraine's leadership over everything from the Trump campaign's dirt digging to Ukraine's central role in the first impeachment proceedings:
Representative Devin Nunes said during the House impeachment hearing, “the Democrats said, Trump tried to get the Ukraine to manufacture dirt on the Bidens, that is backed by zero evidence, Democrats simply made it up.” He is lair. Ukraine, after gangster Trump is out of office, now admits it.
Jane Raskin, Trump’s lawyer, said, Rudy Giuliani was a “minor player.” She is also a lair.
Igor Novikov, who served an adviser to Zelensky, said, “Until we were 100 percent certain that Rudy was the go-to guy, and nothing would happen without him, we were trying to avoid him as much as possible,”
The Ukaine says, “Giuliani’s overall goal, according to the accounts, was to have Zelensky’s government validate the Trump campaign’s unsupported claims — including that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine and that then vice president Biden attempted to cover it up.”
“Giuliani, saying he was acting on President Trump’s behalf, also was promoting a false narrative that the Ukrainian government colluded to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections against Trump — an unproven claim that sought to deflect attention from Russia’s interference in the campaign.”
These were President Trump’s two phone call requests: both bogus.
“Can you imagine what would have been the reaction one second after that interview?” said Oleksandr Danyliuk, the former head of Zelensky’s security council. “Zelensky would be looked upon as a toy, as a soft toy — not as a president. Nobody would have respected him.”
“Giuliani’s tone and actions during his dealings with the Ukrainians were “aggressive and threatening,” said one Zelensky insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
But the Ukrainians, he said in his testimony, steadfastly refused to “play ball.”
Ambassador Kurt Volker, one of the “three amigos”, also lied for Trump concerning a phone call July 22, 2019, between him, Giuliana, and Yermak, he said, according to his House testimony, “that it was short and that he did not remember any discussion of Ukraine opening investigations.”
However, Igor Novikov, who served as an adviser to Zelensky, who sat next to Yermak and took notes, “said the call lasted more than 40 minutes, during which Giuliani spelled out what he wanted.”
Volker knew exactly what President Trump was doing—on the irregular channel—and he played a role, worked with Giuliani, and is not being honest about it.
Shame on Trump’s lawyers, who put a phony defense and the criminal minded Republicans who acquitted President Trump, the most corrupt and unhinged president in U.S. history.
His reaction to Joe Biden’s election is more proof of that!
So, he said, if you want to know the truth call John Bolton.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said, Ambassador Sondland said, Mulvaney was directly involved in President Trump’s scheme, so, let’s call Mulvaney, Trump’s Chief of Staff, and question him in the Senate trial under oath…and Mr. Blair and Mr. Duffey….a fair trial means witnesses….a fair trial means documents….
Rep. Zoe Lofgren said, it’s not about just hearing from witnesses, you need documents. There are specific documents, relevant to this impeachment trial, in the custody of White House, OMB, DOD, and the State Department and the president has hidden them from us. You should ask for these documents on behalf of the American people.
These arguments by House managers are meant to convince members of the Senate to vote for them. It is in their hands.
TRUMP’S LAWYERS
Patrick Philbin said, there is no need for witnesses here, because, these articles impeachment on their face are defective. On article 2, obstruction of Congress: it cannot be an impeachable offense for Trump to defend the separation of powers. That is not right. No witnesses are going to say anything that makes a difference here.
Here we go with legalistic bunk:
He says, That all has to do with the validity of the grounds the President asserted, the fact that he asserted longstanding constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch in specific ways to resist specific deficiencies in the subpoenas that were issued.
And on Article 1, abuse of power, he says, that too is defective on its face. House managers have this subjective theory of impeachment that will show abuse of power by focusing just on the President’s subjective motives. And they said again today here that the way they can show the President did something wrong is that he defied the foreign policy of the United States and I talked about that before, this theory that he defied the agencies within the executive branch. He wasn’t following the policy of the executive branch. That’s not a constitutionally coherent statement.
That is legalistic nonsense.
Philbin argued against a fair trial.
Jay Sekulow said, I have not had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses in the House deposition hearings: I want that opportunity, if we have witnesses, he will sabotage the trial. These witnesses have already been cross-examined by Steve Castro, attorney for the Republicans. There is no need for him to do it—again.
He says, House managers have said, they have proven the charges; therefore, they don’t need witnesses. Yes, they have proven the charges, if you are fair minded, but Republicans are not. House managers need witnesses in the loop to testify that Trump has forbidden to testify to convince Republicans.
Sekulow argued against a fair trial.
Furthermore, he said, on Jan. 29, if witnesses are called, it would be a violation of fundamental fairness: that is the Devil speaking.
Facts you should know:
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries D-CA stated at the trial, “This distinguished body has conducted 15 impeachment trials. All have included witnesses. Sometimes those trials included just a handful of witnesses, as indicated on the screen. At other times, they included dozens. In one case, there were over 100 different witnesses. As the slide shows, the average number of witnesses to appear at a Senate impeachment trial is 33, and in at least 3 of those instances, including the impeachment of Bill Clinton, witnesses appeared before the Senate who had not previously appeared before the House. That is because the Senate, this great institution, has always taken its responsibility to administer a fair trial seriously. The Senate has always taken its duty to obtain evidence, including witness testimony, seriously. The Senate has always taken its obligation to evaluate the President’s conduct based on a full body of available information seriously. This is the only way to ensure fundamental fairness for everyone involved.”
Vote for Witnesses and Documents:
January 31, 2020
The results of the vote: the motion fails to pass: 51 Republican noes to 49 ayes: 45 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 2 Republicans. It was a partisan vote controlled by Republican majority in the Senate--only, Mitt Romney and Susan Collins changed their minds.
Let’s see happens:
Next: the Vote on Impeachment:
February 5, 2020
The results: President Trump is acquitted on a partisan vote:
Article 1: 48 guilty -- 45 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 2 Independents -- and 52 not guilty—all Republicans
Article 2: 47 guilty -- 45 Democrats and 2 Independents – and 53 not guilty, all Republicans.
Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote for conviction on Article 1, abuse of power. He stated afterwards he thought House managers proved that Trump was guilty and said, he came to that conclusion with the help of God. That means: 52 Republicans decided to acquit without the help of God.
Mitt Romney voted not guilty on Article 2, obstruction of Congress. There is; absolutely, no question that President Trump obstructed Congress by blocking House requests/subpoenas for documents and witnesses; so, Mitt Romney and 52 other Republicans are wrong. Rep. Zoe Lofgren said during the trial, “the President of the United States issued in order forbidding every single person who worked for the executive branch of our government from given testimony to the House as part of an impeachment investigation.” That has not been disputed. He is guilty of obstructing the House of Representatives from carrying out its constitutional duty to impeach a president for high crimes and misdemeanors. That requires an unimpeded investigation. The power of subpoena is what prevents a president from becoming a King, hiding his crimes and wrongdoing from the people. House managers have clearly and decisively proven Trump unabashedly violated that principle—putting himself above the law; therefore, a not guilty vote is anti‑American: they want Trump as their King. He is their big tax‑cutter of the rich and corporations and fundraiser for the Republican Party.
They are going to spend time in Hell.
It was a rigged trial: 52 senators did not do impartial justice on Article 1 and 53 on Article 2 as they took an oath to do—as Sen. Lindsey Graham foretold.
The facts are were crystal clear and indisputable.
▬ The 45 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 1 Republican that voted guilty, agreed with the facts, they are not partisan.
▬ The 52 Republicans that voted not guilty, disagreed with the facts, they are partisan.
They decided not to convict; before the trial, before they heard the evidence; therefor, all 52 Republicans should have been dismissed—as jurors.
James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution said, the power of impeachment is —"indispensable . . . for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." Pat Cipollone, counsel for the president, said, we must end the era of impeachment--the President did nothing wrong. 52 Republicans agreed with Trump’s White House counsel, the most outrageous and shameful liar during the impeachment trial.
He repeatedly said the trial is “ridiculous.”
He was an ‘in the room’ witness and lied.
And, he was a top individual stonewaller.
45 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 1 Republicans agreed with James Madison, if the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. The House managers did prove the 2 articles of impeachment. When you look at all Trump’s misdeeds, his daily prolific lying, his extravagance, his maladministration, his abuse of power, his replacement of competent people with his cronies, his violation of campaign law, his peculation, his intimidation of witnesses, his slander of good people, his usurpation of the power of the purse, his attempt to bribe and extort a foreign leader, his obstruction of justice, his incompetency: he should be removed from office. Adam Schiff, lead House manager, put it this way, at the end of trial, mid‑night in Washington, DC, counsels for the president, still maintains his innocence, while opposing any additional evidence that would prove otherwise. Now, that Trump has been acquitted by a Republican controlled Senate, the people must live with the consequences of a corrupt, self‑promoting, free press [or truth] hating, incompetent, dictatorial leader at the helm with his hands on the levers of executive power. Now, it is up to the voters to reelect or remove Trump from office in the next presidential election.
John Roberts failed as Chief Justice!
He warns both sides to avoid using language not conducive to a Senate proceeding and reminded them of the 1906 Swain trial, a Senator objected to the use of the term: pettifogging….
That was his best advice.
He presided over a rigged trial:
The impeachment law in the constitution was drafted in the days of the horse and buggy, although; basically, correct: today, a better design could be drafted that would eliminate these deficiencies, set a new framework, a modern car design, that could remove the driver (i.e., the president) from the wheel for committing certain abuses of power; that is, violating laws, endangering and injuring society, crimes against the nation, corruption in office, obstructing Congress or justice, the betrayal of public trust, etc. that would prevent this type of wrongdoing, the president defying all subpoenas issued by the House, the delaying of House subpoenas for months and years in the courts, the lack of a defined criteria for impeachment to prevent bogus defenses of the President, the power of the Senate to block the House to subpoena documents and witnesses in the Senate trial, and the ability of the president, the vice-president, and his senior aides to avoid cross-examination under oath by a grand jury, special counsel, and by the House of Representatives, and at trial.
One of fears of Framers, the Senate would not be impartial judges, Hamilton argued, they would not be so bias as to be blind to "evidences of guilt so extraordinary”; but, in the impeachment of President Trump they were, because, the Senate is controlled by a corrupt cult of rich men and women that blocked that extraordinary evidence. They were not loyal to the American people. They were loyal to the Republican Party—and their millionaire and billionaire donors who they have given tax cuts. They pay about half, today, compared to what they paid from 1950 to 1980, because, of the Reagan, G.W.B. and the Trump tax cuts. That increase in wealth gives corporations and the top 1 percent, the power to control the Congress, particularly, the Senate. If, the framework for impeachment is not designed right--evil men will take advantage of it. Therefore, rules and procedures need to be clarified, improved, and modernized to make impeachments fair and effective.
The impeachment of President Trump:
-- shows the deficiencies of US law
It shows the demonic mindfulness of 116th Republican controlled Senate.
Trump was guilty—and acquitted.
(i.e., evil)
Eventually, the Truth will come out!
New Revelation from the Washington Post:
1/30/21
Ukraine stayed quiet during Trump-era pressures. Now it’s sharing some Giuliani tales.
KEIV — There was a consistent message from Ukraine's leadership over everything from the Trump campaign's dirt digging to Ukraine's central role in the first impeachment proceedings:
Representative Devin Nunes said during the House impeachment hearing, “the Democrats said, Trump tried to get the Ukraine to manufacture dirt on the Bidens, that is backed by zero evidence, Democrats simply made it up.” He is lair. Ukraine, after gangster Trump is out of office, now admits it.
Jane Raskin, Trump’s lawyer, said, Rudy Giuliani was a “minor player.” She is also a lair.
Igor Novikov, who served an adviser to Zelensky, said, “Until we were 100 percent certain that Rudy was the go-to guy, and nothing would happen without him, we were trying to avoid him as much as possible,”
The Ukaine says, “Giuliani’s overall goal, according to the accounts, was to have Zelensky’s government validate the Trump campaign’s unsupported claims — including that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine and that then vice president Biden attempted to cover it up.”
“Giuliani, saying he was acting on President Trump’s behalf, also was promoting a false narrative that the Ukrainian government colluded to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections against Trump — an unproven claim that sought to deflect attention from Russia’s interference in the campaign.”
These were President Trump’s two phone call requests: both bogus.
“Can you imagine what would have been the reaction one second after that interview?” said Oleksandr Danyliuk, the former head of Zelensky’s security council. “Zelensky would be looked upon as a toy, as a soft toy — not as a president. Nobody would have respected him.”
“Giuliani’s tone and actions during his dealings with the Ukrainians were “aggressive and threatening,” said one Zelensky insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
But the Ukrainians, he said in his testimony, steadfastly refused to “play ball.”
Ambassador Kurt Volker, one of the “three amigos”, also lied for Trump concerning a phone call July 22, 2019, between him, Giuliana, and Yermak, he said, according to his House testimony, “that it was short and that he did not remember any discussion of Ukraine opening investigations.”
However, Igor Novikov, who served as an adviser to Zelensky, who sat next to Yermak and took notes, “said the call lasted more than 40 minutes, during which Giuliani spelled out what he wanted.”
Volker knew exactly what President Trump was doing—on the irregular channel—and he played a role, worked with Giuliani, and is not being honest about it.
Shame on Trump’s lawyers, who put a phony defense and the criminal minded Republicans who acquitted President Trump, the most corrupt and unhinged president in U.S. history.
His reaction to Joe Biden’s election is more proof of that!