Impeachment

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The walls are closing in.

Trump officials drafted statement for Ukraine leader to pledge desired probes: report

Two Trump administration officials reportedly drafted a statement meant to be released by the Ukrainian government announcing investigations related to President Trump's political rivals in the U.S.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Kurt Volker, Trump's former envoy to Ukraine who tendered his resignation last week, was involved in drafting the statement along with Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union (EU).

The statement pledged Ukraine's support for an investigation into the energy company Burisma, where former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter sat on the board, as well as a probe into allegations that Ukrainian officials sought to help Hillary Clinton's campaign against Trump in 2016, the Times reported.

The two officials reportedly drafted the statement in the weeks following a widely-scrutinized call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in late July during which Trump pressed the Ukrainian leader to open an investigation into Biden, the current Democratic presidential front-runner

The two officials include the one whose testimony today the Republicans claimed didn't support the impeachment, and the one who pushed back on the claim that Trump was asking for Ukraine to do those investigations as a quid pro quo for military aid.

Uh huh.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

It is incredibly distressing to watch the president, from the White House lawn no less, to ask for foreign governments to interfere in our elections in exchange for personal 'favors'.. a good trade deal here, a denial of Russian involvement there in exchange for the 'luxury' of being able to purchase weapons to protect their citizens from Russia. To agree not to mention the human rights violations in Hong Kong ... sickening. He's unhinged .. untethered, and he should be called out on it by those in his party or they are complicit in this extortion.
It's the political equivalent of shooting someone on 5th avenue and getting away with it.

FEC chair, Again; Soliciting Foreign Election Help is Illegal

[Cerin]

I have been trying to gain an understanding of Congressional subpoena power, because I read that Schiff's committee doesn't currently have the power to enforce subpoenas. If that is true, I'm wondering if it is related to the fact that Speaker Pelosi has declined to have the House vote to officially launch an impeachment inquiry and refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee (this is how it was done with the Nixon and Clinton impeachments). According to my reading, authorizations for subpoena power for specific investigations require a vote, and I wonder if a House vote approving an official impeachment inquiry and referring the matter to the Judiciary Committee would suffice as a vote authorizing subpoena power for that investigation (I would assume so). But maybe after that point, all investigation would have to be done by that one committee, and Pelosi prefers to have different committees involved at this point, and that's why she hasn't called for such a vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-strea ... nforcement

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So far as I know, there is no validity to the GOP claim that there is a requirement that a full house vote be taken, and certainly has no impact on the ability to enforce subpoenas. As for why the Speaker has avoided taking a vote, I would guess it is to avoid forcing representatives from purple and Trump-supporting districts from officially taking a stand, one way or the other, even though more than 218 members have publicly supported the inquiry.

My understanding is that the White House is considering sending a letter saying that they will only cooperate with the investigation if a formal vote is held. Of course, if they do that, and she calls their bluff and holds the vote, then they will have a more difficult time stonewalling. So it will be interesting to see what happens.

Meanwhile, the text messages that were turned over by Kurt Volker were released, and apparently it was made explicitly clear that a meeting between Mr. Trump and President Zelensky was being conditioned on Ukraine announcing that they would do the investigations that Trump was asking for.

[yovargas]

Meanwhile, the text messages that were turned over by Kurt Volker were released, and apparently it was made explicitly clear that a meeting between Mr. Trump and President Zelensky was being conditioned on Ukraine announcing that they would do the investigations that Trump was asking for.

Made clear how? By the exchanges in the texts?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

Which have been published in full. See also

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ne-scandal

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson just did Trump no favors on Ukraine

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Johnson disclosed that Trump assured him on Aug. 31 that there was no quid pro quo between him and Ukraine. “He said — expletive deleted — No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?” Johnson said.

The more significant part of the conversation, though, is why Johnson even asked Trump in the first place:

Mr. Johnson said he learned of the potential arrangement involving military aid through a phone call with Mr. [Gordon] Sondland that occurred the day before Mr. Johnson spoke to Mr. Trump. Under the arrangement, Mr. Johnson said Mr. Sondland told him, Ukraine would appoint a strong prosecutor general and move to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending,” recounted Mr. Johnson.

“At that suggestion, I winced,” Mr. Johnson said. “My reaction was: Oh, God. I don’t want to see those two things combined.”

Gordon Sondland, you might recall, was one of three top U.S. diplomats whose text messages were disclosed to Congress by former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker on Thursday. In those texts, Sondland twice responds to suggestions of a military aid quid pro quo by suggesting they talk about such things on the phone rather than via text. In the second case, he also rather curiously issues an extensive and carefully worded denial of the quid pro quo that almost seems intended for a situation in which the texts eventually became public.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” Sondland wrote to Bill Taylor, the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Ukraine. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

Of the three U.S. diplomats on those texts, in fact, Sondland was the only one who did not allude to at least the possibility of some kind of a quid pro quo. Volker referred to the idea that the White House was withholding a meeting with Trump from Ukrainian President Zelensky to make sure he pursue the investigations Trump wanted. Later on, Taylor twice refers to the idea that hundreds of millions of dollars was “conditioned on investigations” and was being withheld “for help with a political campaign.”

If Johnson’s version is correct, that suggests that even Sondland believed there was — or at least might be — some kind of quid pro quo going on (whether he had direct knowledge of it or not). So it sounds like pretty much everyone involved in this diplomatic episode at the highest levels at least suspected this was a quid pro quo.

And that wasn’t the only interview Johnson gave Friday that pointed in the direction of a potential quid pro quo. In a separate interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Johnson explained that he tried to get Trump to let him tell Ukraine that the aid would be coming through. Trump said no at that point, according to Johnson.

But yet again, the more interesting part came after all that. In this particular interview, Johnson also discloses the reason Trump gave him:

Johnson said Trump said he was considering withholding the aid because of alleged corruption involving the 2016 U.S. election.

"What happened in 2016? What happened in 2016? What was the truth about that?” Johnson said.

One of two investigations Trump pushed for in his phone call with Zelensky involves CrowdStrike, which initially analyzed the hacked Democratic National Committee server in 2016. According to some conspiracy theories, Ukraine played a role in wrongly pinning the blame on Russia. In other words, Johnson seems to be saying that Trump was withholding the military aid because of that.

And it’s not a big leap from there to suggest maybe it was being withheld until, Trump believed, Ukraine got to the bottom of all of it.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

To be clear, soliciting alone (asking for) foreign interference in American elections is illegal according to our campaign finance laws, it doesn't matter if there was 'pressure' or quid pro quo. Those things add to the criminal element of corruption or additional crimes/the misuse of American taxpayer funds for personal gain, but it is the soliciting that is impeachable.

According to the FEC chair Ellen L Weintraub:

I would not have thought that I needed to say this.

Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about "foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence." They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
June 13, 2019

The FEC chair put out a further statement regarding the interpretive rule regarding 'of value'.


Of additional interest from Voronwë's post, it was none other than Sen. Ron Johnson who signed a letter back in 2016:

GOP senator says he doesn't remember signing 2016 letter urging 'reform' of Ukraine prosecutor's office
in part:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters Thursday he did not recall signing a letter urging reforms in the office of the Ukrainian prosecutor President Trump has alleged former Vice President Joe Biden improperly had ousted, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

According to the New York Times, a second intelligence official who has "more direct" knowledge of the president's activities "may" file another whistleblower complaint. Of course, there is no guarantee that this is true, or that the person will actually go through with it, or that the complaint won't get successfully blocked by the administration, or that the person has any information that would be a difference-maker (or more of a difference-maker than what we have already seen, which is pretty significant).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tucker Carlson says Trump's Ukraine call was inappropriate: 'There's no way to spin this'

Tucker Carlson? Short of Sean Hannity, there is no one in media that I would be more surprised to see if this fairly mild criticism coming from.

[Frelga]

Yeah, but that IS spinning, as "inappropriate" but not illegal.

[RoseMorninStar]

Tucker Carlson says Trump's Ukraine call was inappropriate: 'There's no way to spin this'

Tucker Carlson? Short of Sean Hannity, there is no one in media that I would be more surprised to see if this fairly mild criticism coming from.

I was watching a news show yesterday, the host asked one of the guests, who was familiar with the Watergate era, who in journalism today could possibly say something that could possibly turn the tide of public opinion/shake Trump up the way a Walter Cronkite would. At first the guest was at a loss because we are so fractured that no one reporter holds the same respect and trust across the board that Cronkite did, and she said Hannity will never 'turn' but after some thought she said (to paraphrase) 'Tucker Carlson is smart. I don't see it happening, but if someone does, it could be Tucker.'

If a person is smart and wants to save themselves and their journalistic career, they need to stop gaslighting the public.

[Frelga]

Scoop: Trump pins Ukraine call on Energy Secretary Rick Perry

Gosh, and Perry was so close to getting out of the administration without a scandal.

[Sunsilver]

Meanwhile [New Flash!] Trump's supporters remain clueless:

I am friends with this person because we have similar interests (horses, dogs, leatherwork) and fortunately, she doesn't post a lot of political stuff. But when she does, I frequently have to hide her posts. Sometimes, people will try to show her the truth, and I'll chime in, and she doesn't seem to mind. At least she hasn't unfriended me yet!

[yovargas]

It's a sad day when half the American public is living in a different version of reality than the other half.

[Sunsilver]

Indeed, Yov, indeed!

BTW, I posted the above quote from the FEC chairman, Ellen Weintraub, plus the link to the text of the phone call on her FB page. So far there's been no response.

That's how I deal with people on the other side of the political spectrum: no name-calling, no emotional rants, 'just the facts, ma'am!'

Sometimes I actually get a 'thank you', if the person has posted something that's totally false. Other times, it stimulates some civil discussion. [win!]

With really hard-core Trump fans, who are in total denial, I've been told Snopes is wrong and is part of the 'fake news' media.

And sometimes (very rarely) I get blocked!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Lawyer for Ukraine whistleblower says he represents second whistleblower on Trump's actions

[Frelga]

At least it's not Avenatti this time.

[Voronwë the Faithful]