Tag: Trump impeachment inquiry

Republicans are clearly spooked as the most dangerous witness in Trump’s impeachment speaks to Congress

AlterNet logoEver since texts from the behind-the-scenes State Department efforts to induce Ukraine into investigating President Donald Trump’s political opponents were released, it’s been clear that the House’s impeachment inquiry desperately needed to hear from acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

While much of what is publicly known about the Trump administration’s machinations with Ukraine is already impeachable, texts sent by Taylor, first provided to the House by U.S. envoy Kurt Volker, showed an even darker scheme at work. And they also suggested that Taylor, of all the people involved in the efforts, was most alarmed about and willing to speak out with regard to Trump’s wrongdoing. In one particularly memorable text, Taylor told another official of Trump’s Ukraine plot: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” This implicated the president directly in criminal, and undoubtedly impeachable, activity.

With Taylor set to appear at a closed session of Congress on Tuesday, expectations for his testimony were high. And while his comments have not yet been made public as of this writing, Democrats were already sending strong indications that his testimony was explosive, with one lawmaker calling it “incredibly damaging to the president.”

View the complete October 22 article by Cody Fenwick on the AlterNet website here.

Democrats say they have game changer on impeachment

The Hill logoA top U.S. diplomat gave explosive testimony Tuesday tying Ukraine aid to politically motivated investigations, a development Democrats called a game changer that could extend the impeachment inquiry into 2020.

William Taylor, the head of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, informed House lawmakers he was told nearly $400 million in military aid was contingent on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, the Burisma energy company and 2016 election interference.

Taylor’s testimony, that he understood the Trump administration was pushing for a quid pro quo, added more fuel to the Democrats’ hard-charging

View the complete October 22 article by Scott Wong and Cristina Marcos on The Hill website here.

‘My most disturbing day in Congress’: Democrat leaves US diplomat’s hearing shaken by Ukraine testimony

AlterNet logoThe US diplomat who protested against President Trump’s pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival in exchange for military aid is testifying on Capitol Hill today in a closed-door session. According to reports, Taylor, who was the top American diplomat in Ukraine after Trump’s ouster of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, is expected to be questioned by House investigators on what he thinks Trump’s motives were in trying to orchestrate a quid pro quo with Ukraine’s government.

While details on Taylor’s exact testimony are still unknown, Fox News reporter Chad Pergram suggested in a tweet this Tuesday that Taylor is already confirming Democrats worst fears. One of those Democrats, Rep. Andy Levin (MI), was overheard saying, “It’s only noon and this is my most disturbing day in Congress so far.”

Taylor became a central figure in President Trump’s Ukraine fiasco after leaked text messages showed him condemning Trump’s push for a quid pro quo.

View the complete October 22 article from Raw Story on the AlterNet website here.

Trump made Ukraine aid contingent on public pledge to investigate Bidens and 2016 election, U.S. envoy says he was told

Washington Post logoAmerica’s top diplomat in Ukraine delivered a forceful blow to President Trump’s account of his “perfect” dealings with that nation, telling lawmakers Tuesday that the White House had threatened to withdraw much-needed military aid unless Kyiv announced investigations for Trump’s political benefit.

The explosive, closed-door testimony from acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. undermined Trump’s insistence that he never pressured Ukrainian officials in a potentially improper “quid pro quo.” It also offered House investigators an expansive road map to what Taylor called a “highly irregular” channel of shadow diplomacy toward Ukraine that lies at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

In a 15-page opening statement, obtained by The Washington Post, Taylor repeatedly expressed his shock and bewilderment as he watched U.S. policy toward Ukraine get overtaken by Trump’s demand that newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky “go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of [Democratic presidential candidate Joe] Biden and 2016 election interference.”

View the complete October 22 article by Rachael Bade, Anne Gearan, Karoun Demirjian and Mike DeBonis on The Washington Post website here.

Trump’s Top Defenders Used To Agree That It’s Wrong To Withhold Information From Congress

On Tuesday, the White House released a letter saying that it would not comply with the House’s impeachment inquiry. Withholding information from Congress is wrong and defying a subpoena is an impeachable offense, but you don’t have to take our word for it:

Jim Jordan said it’s wrong for a president of the United States to go on national television and say there’s no corruption in his administration, and that his friends shouldn’t be allowed to run the investigation.

Jim Jordan in 2014: “And the fact that the president of the United States, the highest official in the executive branch, goes on national television and says there’s no corruption, not even a smidgen, is wrong. The bad guy doesn’t get to have his friends run the investigation like we see here.” Continue reading “Trump’s Top Defenders Used To Agree That It’s Wrong To Withhold Information From Congress”

Amid Mounting Evidence of a Quid Pro Quo, DFL Calls on Republican Congressmen to Support Investigation

SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA – On October 22, Bill Taylor, an Army veteran and the top United States diplomat to Ukraine, testified before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees that President Donald Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure their government into declaring they would investigate one of Trump’s domestic political opponents. This is the latest piece of evidence of a quid pro quo in which Donald Trump sought to exchange U.S. military aid for electoral support from the Ukranian government.

Late last month, the White House released a summary of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. In that call, Zelensky requested the military aid that Congress passed and Trump blocked, to which Trump responded “I would like you to do us a favor though…” Trump then asks Zelensky to investigate his political rivals in what many argue is an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. Two weeks ago, text message between top U.S. diplomats strongly corroborated the existence of that quid pro quo. Last week, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney openly confessed to a quid pro quo before attempting to walk his comments back.

In response to the growing evidence of a quid pro quo, DFL Chairman Ken Martin released the following statement calling on Minnesota’s Republican Congressional Delegation to support the House investigation into Trump’s conduct: Continue reading “Amid Mounting Evidence of a Quid Pro Quo, DFL Calls on Republican Congressmen to Support Investigation”

House rejects GOP measure censuring Schiff

The Hill logoDemocrats in the House turned aside a GOP-led privileged resolution to censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Monday in a straight party-line 218-185 vote.

Republicans and President Trump have increasingly targeted Schiff, a public face of the impeachment effort.

They have taken issue with Schiff’s exaggerated account of the details of President Trump‘s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a hearing in September. Schiff has defended his remarks as being an intentional parody of Trump’s comments.

View the complete October 21 article by Juliegrace Brufke on The Hill website here.

Trump urges GOP to defend him more strongly on impeachment

The Hill logoPresident Trump on Monday urged Republicans to offer him a tougher defense on impeachment amid a few signs of GOP discontent with his administration.

At a Cabinet meeting, Trump praised Democratic unity while criticizing his own party for not sticking together.

“The two things they have: They’re vicious and they stick together,” he said of Democrats. “They don’t have Mitt Romney in their midst. They don’t have people like that.”

View the complete October 21 article by Brett Samuels on The Hill website here.

Exclusive: Mitt Romney’s Trump indictment In an interview with “Axios on HBO,” Sen. Mitt Romney spoke plainly about President Trump.

Axios logoSen. Mitt Romney, in an interview with “Axios on HBO,” outlined a broad indictment of President Trump, criticizing his rhetoric, his abandonment of the Kurds, his plea to Ukraine and China to undermine a political opponent, his character and past personal life.

Why it matters: Romney, who has emerged as the party’s most prominent Trump critic, is getting overtures to run against the president (he won’t) or lead the charge to get senators to convict Trump if the House impeaches him.

If impeachment comes to the Senate – 5 questions answered

Editor’s note: If the House of Representatives concludes its impeachment inquiry by passing articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump, attention will turn to the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, is known as a master of the Senate’s rules, and has been raising campaign donations with ads touting the power he would have over impeachment proceedings. Constitutional scholar Sarah Burns from the Rochester Institute of Technology answers some crucial questions already arising about what McConnell might be able to do, to either slow down the process or speed things along.

1. Will the Senate even take up a House impeachment?

The Constitution does not give any details about exactly how an impeachment trial should proceed. Instead, the Senate itself has set rules that govern the process. The first of those rules says the Senate must receive members of the House of Representatives to present the articles of impeachment – which McConnell has said he will do, should they pass the House.

The rules go on to say that senators have 24 hours to “proceed to consideration of such articles” and must continue until they reach a “final judgment.”

However, the Senate can adapt or change its rules, often by a simple majority vote. That means McConnell and other senators are much more free to take actions that influence the trial than members of a jury or even the judge in a standard criminal proceeding.

View the complete October 15 article by Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology, on the Conversation website here.