I think it has been a mistake for Adam Schiff to emphasize "investigations into the Bidens" as Trump's essential sin of self-interest. If Republicans can prove that "the Bidens" received a lot more money than Hunter Biden's knowledge actually contributed to the Burisma Board of Directors, it will reduce this impeachment inquiry to two corrupt families accusing each other while the public gets more disgusted by the day.
The far more important dimensions of Trump's misbehavior have to do with the fact that he violated a congressional mandate to bolster our national security with military aid to Ukraine until its leader expressed a willingness to announce an investigation into a hoax about the 2016 election actually developed by Russian intelligence agents - the very people who were responsible for the election interference.
It is national security and congressional mandates that must be protected from presidential abuse of power, not "the Bidens" per say. What Democrats should be screaming about is that Trump has adopted the narrative of our enemy - and even exposed an ally to danger by withholding military assistance - in a vain attempt to clear the name of the very enemy who helped him win by interfering in the 2016 election. And, of course, his vanity would be bolstered by having the Ukrainian president confer credibility on that false narrative by announcing the investigation. If this does not at least border on treason, I don't know what does.
7
So, will the 2 individuals who resigned be identified and called to testify?
3
Attempts to prevent witnesses from testifying will likely continue because like his tax returns they will shed light on the true nature of the man and his pals. His argument that he is protecting the office of the president for the future is ridiculous. These people are not patriots, they are something else.
5
Delaying or blocking funds appropriated by Congress was something Nixon did, and Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) in response to his malfeasance.
“…Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.”
Trump gave no reasons for blocking the aid to Ukraine, in violation of this law:
“…The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.”
https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter
22
"Though": (adverb) However(indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously) -e.g. I was hunting for work. Jobs were scarce though.
Trump says read the transcript-OK
1) T-Congrats
2)Z-Thank you. 2nd Call. U should call more often.
3)T-(laughs)
4)Z-We are trying to drain the swamp in Ukraine-learning from U.
5)T-US does a lot for Ukraine. Europe/Germany...not so much. US is very good to Ukraine.
6)Z-Talked to Merkel/Macron. They not enforcing sanctions. US much bigger partner especially in enforcing sanctions v. Russia. Thank you. "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the NEXT STEPS specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins (anti-tank missiles) from the US for defense purpose."
7)T-"I would like you to do us a favor THOUGH because our country has been thru a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."
Don't leave out the "THOUGH" from the quote-It most certainly QUALIFIES or IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS on what was said previously.
4
Sadly the horse has already gone out through the barn door. More “lifelong career civil servants” and “true patriots” bravely stepping forward to do their civic duty, more anonymous whistle blowers, more leaks, more tiresome cliches, more pious sermonizing, more constitutional crises threatening our American way of life, more bunk. It’s over. He beat you again.
2
The House is legally obligated to do these investigations by the constitution, the founders wanted it that way. Just as the DOJ can reciprocally investigate house members. Lay out the evidence and see where it goes.
When the President does dumb things (like hiring Hand Grenade Rudy) and telling us his misdeeds he is forcing Congress' hand - they have no choice, they are legally obligated to investigate. It's not presidential interference it's them doing their job.
As to the politics and public opinion, the Dems continue to botch the narrative. It's obvious (and sad) that the American public is more focused on what's good for me vs the good of the Republic. The Dems need to shift this story to 'why it matters to us personally' to get ahead of the narrative.
2
As to the seeming dilemma facing House Judicial Committee chair Jerrold Nadler as to whether or not to involve the White House officials and staff to testify, I would hope that the facts needing to be known by key players take precedence over the supposed wrangling of the procedure by Trump's followers.
Given what the House Intelligence Committee's public hearings revealed about the flimsy footing on which Republicans stand so far, I say let the White House bring forth key witnesses, their lawyers, and other players so that once again it's shown how the possible abuse of power and obstruction of justice are key to this impeachment inquiry by the Democrats.
The more testimony the better--that way the president's men are in no position to publicly complain that they've been unduly misrepresented by not being able to defend the actions of the president.
1
Everyone thought the old eastern Europe style of dictator had vanished once the Berlin Wall came down. Sorry to say it has resurrected itself here in the USA.
2
This is the pattern within the Trump Administration: lose good people who have a conscience. Select top officials and then anger them to quit because he micro-manages every petty aspect of the Office. The others who stick around are there simply to smother Trump's ego and allow him to get away with lies and crimes (including his lawyers!!!) Why would we, as a country, think this the kind of leader we'd want?
1
Trump Paints himself as "The Saviour" of a Rigged System. This a man with a checked background, a Man that praises Roy Cohen. How long before the Voters and the Republicans in Congress see they have been Played?
1
@frank monaco
They're not going to see it since all but the true Dumpers already know it. But no way they are going to let go of the golden goose and white privilege. Face it, we are done as a country. The only thing left is for the shooting to start.
1
So we are to believe that Mr. Trump would actually like his top aides/cabinet members to testify as it would help the president's legal argument. But out of concern for the integrity of the office of the president and for any future occupants of that office, he is willing to put aside his own personal interest.
Oh please, you're killing me.
2
Three more public servants including Sandy corroborate the whistle-blower's report that Trump, Pompeo, Pence et al. extorted Ukraine into sabotaging our 2020 elections. In a clear indication that they knew they were engaged in wrongdoing, Trump and the White House immediately released the aid upon learning of the whistle-blower's report.
1
Operation Get-Me-Outta-Here is now in play. Speaker Pelosi knows the only result of continuing this fakery about a mythical impeachment scheme is utter disaster for the Democratic Party outside of Hillary's few dozen counties.
Rather than lose her gavel again for a decade, she is detailing the obviously-in-doubt Dems to begin wiggling their way out of the impeachment fiasco, filling in all the dead air with hate-spews about the GOP that may end up with a majority of voters of color next time.
1
Why didn't these people resign in 2015 when Obama denied Ukraine its aid? I don't remember the media and progressives pursuing impeachment of 44. Did I miss something?
1
“I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “Other than that, I would actually like people to testify.” I cannot believe Trump "wrote" this tweet. I believe this tactic is the idea of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who may also have typed it for Trump to post. I do believe the tweeted photo of Trump's head on Sylvester Stallone's 1985 body may have been Trump's own idea. But of course, someone else did the Photoshop.
"Mr. Trump has insisted. . . ." You can safely ignore the rest of that sentence, or any others like it. This is the same Donald Trump who advertised Trump Tower apartments as being ten floors higher than reality (he called it "truthful hyperbole" in his "book").
1
On the eve of Thanksgiving, we, the citizens of the United States of America, learn about yet another brazen (and illegal) action by the fake president to bolster his personal ego at the expense of the country he took an oath to serve. Putin/Trump: Make Russia Great Again.
1
The evidence against the Trump criminal cabal is clinching, absolute, and irrefutable to anyone with a brain. How 40% of Americans still refuse to see what is right under their nose and stay in a total state of denial is both mind blowing and a very sad commentary on how many cannot distinguish between factual Truth; and total mindless spin and snake oil lies is both depressing and heartbreaking. Anything short of a direct intervention by GOD may be Americans only salvation. As we continue to hurtle toward a day when the Earth can no longer support life thanks to idiots who bury their heads in the sand; is but one example of how insane this whole Trumpocracy fiasco is making things worse for all of humanity every single day.
1
"Russia’s Doping Violations Are Cheating Its Own Athletes."
Russia has been doping the GOP and is cheating all Americans.
1
Not sure how the NYT can run this story since it was “unclear”’whether the resignations were directly connected to the Ukrainian aid controversy. Were they getting a better job or moving out of town? Surely Sandy knows this. Why was it unclear?
1
After trump is impeached his pardon powers will be removed which is great no more pardoning war criminals and bigots.
2
The honest people are leaving because they are not heard when they try to do their jobs. That leaves the shady characters in charge of our money and our policy.
2
The idea that Fox "News" and Trump would continue to obsess over the whistle blower at this point is absurd.
We now know there were people spread throughout government, at various levels and different departments and different times throughout the process, all raising alarms about what Trump was doing. These people in the OMB may have even quit their jobs rather than carry out an illegal demand by Trump. US Ambassadors were getting smeared and fired for not going along with Trump's scheme. Even way back in May when Giuliani was forced to cancel his trip to Ukraine, that was due to push back on Trump asking Ukraine (through his personal lawyer) to investigate his political opponents. So, for months leading up to the whistle blower complaint, Trump was aware that people all over government, including the State Dept., the Defense Dept., the OMB, the White House, and Congress (including Republican lawmakers), were more than concerned about his "shadow Ukraine policy".
But it is so much easier to build a case against one whistle blower...
3
What has become clear from the latest Trump attack on our Democracy is that we have some very fine people working on our behalf. What Trump sneeringly calls the deep state are actually some very fine people who serve as the firewall between the true enemies of the state and we the people. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. In this case our friends are Trump's enemies.
5
Too bad many of these dedicated federal workers are leaving or being fired because of their moral principals.
Who does that leave to blow the next whistle?
1
1. President Trump Never Impounded Even One Dollar from Ukraine Aid.
2. The statute authorizing security assistance requires Ukraine to crack down on corruption, so our money doesn't end up in the pockets of oligarchs. It mandates:
https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf
Note: John C. Rood notified Congress in February that the Pentagon was going ahead with the first $125 million in security assistance. Mr. Rood, in his letter, noted that 'there remain areas that require significant attention' by Ukraine, and that the United States remains committed to helping its 'multi-year effort,' suggesting that fighting corruption was seen as a long-term project. By law, certification of Ukraine's progress against corruption and in defense reforms was required before the second $125 million in aid could be provided. An additional $141.5 million in State Department funds were granted to Ukraine separately from the $250 million in security assistance. Half of the $250 million was spent by July. Trump did not withhold "nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine."
3. The Trump Administration has increased Military Aid to Ukraine significantly.
See: “Security Assistance in Focus: Ukraine”
http://www.securityassistance.org/fact_sheet/security-assistance-focus-ukraine
See: “U.S. Bulks Up Ukraine’s Navy to Thwart Russia”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-bulks-up-ukraines-navy-to-thwart-russia-11552302001
1
First sentence:
"Two officials at the White House budget office resigned this year partly because of their concerns about President Trump’s decision to hold up congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine"
Yet, in paragraph 13 it is revealed that:
"He (Mark Sandy) equivocated when asked whether both his former colleagues resigned because of their concerns about the aid, making it clear that he drew the conclusion himself"
Until there is actual evidence that the two officials resigned partly due to their "concerns" over the aid....this is simply pure speculation on the part of Sandy and the NYTimes.
2
@John
Your first quote is incomplete, so that you can accuse the Times of speculation when it is simply reporting Sandy’s speculation. After the word “Ukraine” the article continues “a third aide at the office told impeachment investigators, revealing dissent within a key agency about Mr. Trump’s refusal to release the money.”
This was Sandy’s testimony to Congress. You can’t legitimately blame the Times for reporting it. You go too far in trying to dismiss this news.
4
The article reveals that "Mr. Trump has insisted he never pressured Ukraine for the investigations or made the aid contingent upon them, and was instead withholding the money out of concern for corruption in Ukraine..."
Well if the president of the United States says that is what happened, I believe it. When has the greatest President ever been untruthful? God would not have chosen him, if that were true. I don't believe the report. No way in the world has Mr Trump ever used the word "contingent". God wants him to investigate corruption in Ukraine. God bless the President and may he have a wonderful Thanksgiving. At the Florida rally Trump said that people want to change the name from Thanksgiving. He wouldn't lie about that would he?
People are saying that some people want to change the name of Florida. It sounds a bit like a Mexican word. There is a street called Florida in Buenos Aires where they also speak Mexican.
24
This “greatest president” has been untruthful about 10,000 times since taking office according to the fact checkers.
Why would you start believing him now?
16
@KD. I believe Bob was being sarcastic
5
@KD I love America and Americans but I have noticed that there is a tendency for you guys to not detect irony. I dunno, maybe read more Joseph Conrad or Charlie Dickens
6
Criminal Trump started the birther scam. Are any of his crimes since then really a surprise or the company he keeps?
43
Amazing that Democrats and ‘progressives’ herein have to lie to themselves and ignore the fact that Joe Biden, while VP of the United States of America, openly bragged that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired so he could grift that nation for the benefit of his ne’er-do-well son.
The boorish and appalling DJT, in comparison, is a choir boy.
5
I am in awe of your Byzantine dot connecting
35
I know many Democrats and Progressives, myself included, that think Biden should step down too. No double standards here.
5
Sources? I thought so.
Please see “Debunking Four Rumours” in the 29 Oct. NYT. From that article:
“Vice President Biden was overseeing American policy toward Ukraine at the time, and he did push for the removal of the country’s top prosecutor, who was seen as corrupt or ineffectual by the United States and Western European governments. But there is no evidence he did so to benefit Hunter Biden or the oligarch who owns Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky.”
Amazing the regressive conspiracy theory zealots who show up herein peddling their shopworn counterfeits.
20
With all due respect, the House Intelligence Committee hearing was not a circus until the clowns were called in: Jim Jordan being the chief motormouth. Devin Nunez may find himself in hot water with his Ukrainian explorations. I found both of them to be insulting and rude to the chair. Just because you raise your voice when you lie doesn't make it so.
52
Trump is “An Abuse” of anything & everything he’s involved with.
He’ll destroy the office of Presidency, and most likely America if voters don’t wake up from their Denial.
19
"No, no, there's nothing to see here folks. Our King is a very good man..."
28
Good riddance. Hopefully the rest will follow.
10
@HENRY
No room in Trump’s administration for anyone with a functioning conscience, got it.
4
These elected officials appear to have no sense of priority. To borrow from the late Steven Covey’s, “7 Habits of Highly Successful People,” “First things first,” Mr Nadler and his elected compatriots in both houses, are not very successful - or successful at all for that matter.
2
What priority should that be? Passing more legislation in the House that the Senate sits on?
16
The lower staffed White House workers in the GOP seem to know right from wrong and resign when they see corruption from their boss . Trump needs to follow their wise move and resign instead of taking America down a catastrophic road where our Democracy may be ending.
5
@D.j.j.k. - Donald Trump deserves Impeachment.
1
Nobody would quit their job because of this. These people work in the budget office for the US government. They fund everything. If every time funds aren’t released when expected people would quit, then someone will quit everyday. Except for holidays.
2
The Right doesn't have the votes to amend the Constitution so they attack it with a wannabe King.
So far, Trump has been allowed to directly contradict and violate the Constitution on TV over and over, without most Democrats or the media pointing it out.
On TV, Trump said he would take information from a foreign country and use it in elections, BEFORE calling the FBI. That was a statement of intent by the President to do exactly what the Founders feared, seek foreign interference in internal politics.
Then, on TV, Trump asked China to investigate the Bidens. That is Solicitation of foreign interference in our elections. That is a High Crime discussed by the Founders.
After years of taking payments from foreign governments, Trump said the Emoluments Clause is "phony."
Contradicting the First Amendment, Trump says, "the Press is the enemy of the People," and calls for violence against journalists and news organizations, on TV.
Contradicting the 14th Amendment, Trump claims that he can take away birthright citizenship.
Contradicting the whole point of a Constitution that is supposed to replace political violence with debate, voting, and non-political policing, Trump calls for violence against citizens without due process.
Trump says he will by President for "16 years."
They never mention amending the Constitution to do these things.
Contradicting the Constitution violates Trump's oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution," making these statements High Crimes.
8
I do not envy the good public servants who have labored to do the right thing under this corrupt administration, and I thank them for their service. Nor do I blame them for resigning when it becomes clear that their efforts to do the right thing are unwelcome. However, their job is not done when they clear out their desks. It remains their duty to step forward now and inform the public, their former employer, of the insults to their person or to their profession that necessitated their resignation.
8
I came to a very sad conclusion recently about some friends that are Trump supporters and prior had been rational republicans that based their beliefs on facts and moral beliefs. I have been confused about their willingness to forgo logic and their own morals. The realization was that to deny Trump was to deny the excuses he provides people aspects of their lives where their actions or in-actions have led to dis-appointment. They ignore the fact that the reason they haven't been promoted was the because others worked harder. That the children still in their basement was because their parenting consisted of giving their children money. That there desire to enjoy life beyond their budget has left them unprepared to retire. That they spent more time in college drinking beer than studying. Trump gives them an out. Its the governments fault that their children aren't educated for the modern world . Its social programs for the poor that has robbed them of their retirement funds. Its the immigrants who have taken their jobs . This is Trump's magic. He provides excuses absolving people of their responsibility for how their lives have gone wrong. To deny Trump is to look in the mirror and see the truth that while some people have had unfortunate circumstances many times its a result of decisions they made or efforts they didn't make. it's easier to accept Trump's koolaid than face the reality of their lives.
7
Well said. I would add that they don't realize that the policies he is putting in place will only make their lives harder.
1
The only way Trump is going to have his due is thru the courts. Congress is corrupted by money. Trump is corrupted by money. They both cancel each other out. Our last hope is rule of law.
1
@LM Not much hope there either. McConnell has shaped the court with the right wing Federalist puppets and Barr acts as Trump's firewall.
2
Under the law of criminal attempts, it is possible to renounce an attempt. Regrettably for the president, it is not possible after authorities have detected the crime. Renunciation must be free, voluntary, and not motivated by fear of detection. Trump's crime had already been detected when he released the funds. He knew that. He has no defense. And despite Jim Jordan's and Devin Nunes's fumings (and neither of them deserves the title of lawyer), shooting at someone with intent to kill is attempted murder. The shooter's poor aim is not a defense to the attempt charge.
Mr. Trump, many other people are now serving prison time for attempted crimes. Please join them.
8
@WTig3ner - Thanks for the good point.
"shooting at someone with intent to kill is attempted murder. The shooter's poor aim is not a defense to the attempt charge."
3
Keep in mind, Trump was selecting from a B team from the start. Now he's into the D team for replacements which will hurt out Country. If he is not removed by the Senate following the likely impeachment, he must be removed by the voters so we can get back to "regular order". His views of America are not working and imperil the Nation.
8
This is another important missing link in the massive Ukraine criminal conspiracy that directly ties Donald Trump in violating the Impoundment Control Act in illegally freezing military assistance to Ukraine. It most certainly will be an article of impeachment. The OMB employees were right in questioning the legality of Trump's actions and were courageous in resigning. The only "hoax" is the one that Trump is trying to perpetrate on a gullible and ill-informed public aided and abetted by Congressional Republicans who are shamelessly excusing and defending blatant criminality by the president himself. It would help educate the American public if these two OMB employees and Mark Sandy were brought before the House Intelligence Committee.
49
@Paul Wortman - - Ukraine is poison in two inescapable ways for the Democrats:
1. The Bidens came away from Burisma with over $3 million in their pockets that we KNOW of. This is precisely what American voters hate hearing about.
2. Barack the Faint-Hearted SHOULD have sent arms to Ukraine so those people could defend themselves, but he was and remains afraid of Valdimir Putin (among other evil warts on humanity.)
You already know what patriots think of THAT.
1
@Paul Wortman
PAUSE the Impeachment Hearings for this new evidence.
@Paul Wortman . . .well said. I would add however to "gullible and ill-informed public" uncaring. People far from Washington simply do not care. They do not care one whit about foreign policy, nor how important it is for continuing the kind of lives they have the potential to live here in our country. They seem to think: So what? The economy is great. Who cares if Russia takes over the Ukrainians? They do not understand the importance of the principle of the Self-Determination of Nations and how our nation exists because of that.
3
We now have sufficient evidence to impeach Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Problem is most Americans think the basis is withholding military aid to Ukraine for a couple months and that it was released anyway.
Unless Judiciary hearings make it clear this matter is about treason, defiance of the Constitution and extortion, it will not lead to removal.
First question that must be answered is Russia an enemy?
Second question is did Trump repeatedly give aid and assistance to Russia?
First question has a simple answer- Yes because there are bipartisan sanctions on Russia and its undelings since 2016 for blatant cyber attack and interference in our elections, money laundering through the NRA and attack on our ally, Ukraine.
Second question becomes clearer every day since Trump's nomination in 2016. Trump coddling Russia and enabling of Russian operatives started in 2016. Blaming Ukraine for meddling and withholding military aid directly benefit Russia.Trump has publicly embraced Putin and Russian operatives defying Congressional findings that Russia is an enemy.
Unless article one of the impeachment is for treason, GOP will have no motive to defy Trump. The public specter of members of GOP being clearly labeled as Russian assets will make them pariahs forever. That can start right now with Senators McConnell Graham and Kennedy
who gladly embraced Russian meddling and disinformation by supporting the libel of Ukraine being the culprit.
Impeach for Treason now!
6
I doubt that Rudy will quit as he has insurance. It is warrantied by Trump not throwing Rudy under the Ukraine bus, although we now are hearing the latest Trump line of 'Rudy has many clients.' I wonder how long it will take Rudy to use his insurance. It will come.
5
Suggestion: Place a placard at the witness table reading: President Donald J. Trump, and to its left, White House Counsel. If the chairs remain empty, we'll know that Trump & Co. are afraid to show up or refuse (more obstruction).
5
Trump must be held responsible for violating a federal law. Taking his order the White House Office of Management withheld the aid money to Ukraine.
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act is a legislation that forbids the withholding of congressionally-approved aid. Ukraine is at war with Russia and needs the taxpayer funded military assistance urgently to defend itself.
Instead Trump used it to further his own personal interests.
6
The White House lawyers are themselves legally compromised for having hidden the 7/25 call transcript.
Allow me to repeat that: The White House lawyers are themselves legally compromised for having hidden the 7/25 call transcript. That's obstruction of justice.
These budget office resignations are simply more evidence -- already ample -- that reasonable, subject matter experts sensed criminal actions in the president's conduct in withholding the security aid. And yes, the testimony and actions of subject matter experts -- so broad and compelling in this case -- is very much admissible evidence. It's a smoking artillery battery.
Had the president been interested in getting other countries to do their fair share in security aid to Ukraine, he should have made his reasons for withholding the aid very public. "Everyone else should pony up," he should have said. "America is not releasing this aid until other countries do their fair share." Instead, it was a big secret that not even the budget office was entitled to know.
Trump was leveraging "a favor" -- a political favor for him, personally, to skew an American presidential election. Sondland said it most directly: "Trump doesn't care about Ukraine."
And that, America, is criminal.
6
Trump is now denying that Rudy was in Ukraine working on his behalf.
This comes after Trump denies ever talking to Igor and Lev, now indicted and awaiting trial, despite several photos of Trump posing with the two (and Rudy).
How does the GOP defend this with a straight face? Have they completely lost the ability to feel shame and lost all decency in general?
7
@Joe Arena - I am sure the GOP will think of something, they always do. We will have to remind the GOP early and often of their malfeasance.
1
Another case of "employees" trying to control policy. What gives with workers trying to tell management how to run things? I worked at a major computer maker for many, many years and not once did it occur to me to tell management how to run the business. All these clowns work for the President and as such are supposed to do what they're told. Good riddance for more "resistors".
1
I'm a VP of a publicly traded company. I refuse to be surrounded by 'yes men'. I want to hear from those under me - what are we doing wrong? what are we doing right? The profit improvements in my department have proven my case. Besides profits, it's resulted in building a team of critical thinkers who can grow with the company or move on to other bigger and better things.
Back in the day a flight officer was never allowed to question an action or decision by a captain on a commercial airliner. Ailines have changed that mentality, yes the captain is in charge but the first officer is allowed to politely call out anything they see. The result is the rate of incidents and accidents have dropped.
2
@August Braun:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. All federal employees, including the President, work for US and none of them is above the law.
2
The dishonesty of this man is growing as he gets more desperate And the equally incredible part is that like a lying chid he thinks he can get away with it. He was given notice of the whistleblower (I am not sure, but I think it is illegal or not proper) so after universal criticism, he releases the money. He then puts out a convenient disclaimer in a phone call that he wants nothing from Ukraine. However, the very insistence: I want nothing, I want nothing, I don't want a quid pro quo, smacks of trying to put something on record.
He wants to establish his innocence, like putting a fake date on a check.
4
Of course Big Brother counterprograms- offering a mirror image of the truth, sometimes called a lie, and confusing the issue, so that only he can tell you what the real truth is. That’s exactly what Winston Smith was doing at the Ministry of Truth: counterprogramming by rewriting history every time Big Brother wanted to create Doublethink.
1
But Trump’s defense is, “But they got the money, didn’t they?”
Sir, that’s not the point.
3
Think of the impeachment process as a car driving down the road. Think of the Senate as a roadblock. When the Democrats’ car crashes through the road block the driver will be bloodied, Senate security officers will charge the driver with reckless driving and all onlookers will assume the driver was drunk. The car can be repaired. But the driver will never be the same.
1
@michjas
Seriously, I don’t understand. Do you mean the Democrats should stop impeaching him? Do you have a credible, reasonably honorable alternative in mind?
3
I wonder why this wasn’t reported at the time, or why the mass exodus of staff from the White House cyber security division isn’t getting more press. Canaries fleeing the coal mine matter!
2
Sandy did not say anyone resigned because of the hold. He speculated it might has been part of the reason for their resignations. He said “I never want to attribute that [the hold] as the, you know, sole purpose for an individual's actions, but I am aware of their frustrations in that area.”
His testimony revealed that Ukraine was never in any danger of losing the military assistant money. The administration was concerned about complying with the Impoundment Control Act, which provides that president cannot impound funds allocated by Congress without congressional permission more than 45 days. This is why Ambassador Volker was able to assure the Ukrainians they were not going to lose the aid.
Sandy also confirmed Volker’s and Morrison’s testimony that the hold did not affect the delivery of weapons, including Javelin antitank missiles, to Ukraine, as was frequently reported by the news media. The delivery of weapons system are funded out of a separate account—the Foreign Military Finance account—that was not affected by he hold. Sandy also testified the OBM was told the rational for the hold was the president’s concern that other European nations were not contributing their fair share to Ukrainian defense
2
"The Justice Department appealed that ruling on Tuesday," Huh!? A judge in the Justice Department renders a ruling and the JD appeals that ruling? Why not wait for one of the parties to appeal? Oh, I get it, the decision hurts the boss!
2
NO QUID. NO QUO. That is the cry.
The truth is the GOP has NO STATESMEN.
2
Has Rupert Murdoch registered as a foreign agent yet? So much of what Trump does is a direct reaction to something he sees on Fox.
2
You might as well just stop.
Reason #57
Two nameless, faceless bureaucrats of indeterminate rank supposedly quit.
We have no actual idea why they quit, but for now we will presume they quit because Trump delayed Ukraine’s graft package for a few weeks.
Trump is now being accused of delaying the wasting of US taxpayer funds by a matter of weeks and therefore upsetting fragile budget analysts, causing them to leave.
He’s so mean.
We must impeach.
Reaching toward the bottom of the barrel.
1
Thank goodness that some decent people still speak out! Thank goodness these people were able to take action to protect their integrity! Thank goodness for whistleblower laws that can help other decent people do something without fear of reprisal.
Who would you have been in the 30s in Germany? The silent majority, or someone who tries to stop what happened? Trumpers are the same as the millions of Germans who shut their eyes to horror. A few dollars in their pockets buys their souls. McConnell is just as bad as Trump, Pence, Miller, and the other thugs. Vote and donate blue.
3
Could the NYT please do an article on Presidential impoundment of Congressionally authorized expenditures? President Nixon tried this nearly 50 years ago and I believe the Supreme Court ruled against him.
1
WOW!
Just to be clear here - people don't regularly quit a good paying job, especially a good paying government job for shucks and grins.
These two OMB employees quit over concerns about Trump's questionable decision to without military assistance. They are not lone wolves in this nightmare but two more individuals who knew in their head and their heart that what Trump was attempting to do was wrong.
Just how many other government employees will quit in disgust and contempt over this president's private and personal agenda that would benefit him and his party?
3
Sidebar:
Instead of a next-meeting @ Camp David, trump should call his republican 'soldiers' to come to the former home of Joseph ("Joe the Barber") Barbera in Apalachin, NY … there to declare -- OR ELSE -- their continuing homage to their don(ald) … and, with a kiss of the back of his hand (or his ring, if he wears one), require each to swear an allegiance to him that will continue ('ir'regardless, as trump would likely 'put' it) through and beyond any and all impeachment proceedings.
(I'm not sure trump would want to travel to the no-trump-resort Catskills. I am sure that the trump-sycophants -- being all republicans in Congress and The Cabinet, particularly -- would cancel any conflicting plans and make haste to Apalachin if called.)
1
The White House has already reached out to the Federalist Society to appoint witnesses. Maybe Kavanaugh will be one . He can hoist a few cold ones and tell us why we are part of a left wing Clinton conspiracy.
3
Mr. Trump keeps saying he's always looking for corruption. Doesn't the White House have any mirrors?
3
Trump may liquidate the State Department - letting Giuliani, GOP grifters, Jared and assorted corrupt US and Russian oligarchs run US foreign policy, vacate the Budget Office - run it as a secret "privileged" executive function out of Trump Tower, fire US attorneys who don't display total loyalty to him and replace the Secret Service with his "killing machines" and favorite war criminals if he is re-elected. The latter could be a "palace guard", used to carry out reprisals against "the enemies of the people and traitors", that being the free press, "Never Trumper" judges and Democratic Party leaders.
In the impeachment inquiry we may be witnessing the last final act of an American democracy. A legacy that is being undermined, gamed and suffocated by a Party whose sole goal is holding total power, for which it will tell any lie and subvert any oath to achieve.
4
NYT: Please do a deep investigation into Ivanka and Jared Trump. How much money are we the people paying them for their total lack of experience? How many patents has Ivanka had 'approved'? This is serious corruption and the American people are paying for it.
The hypocrisy of the right is endless.
4
I am curious what these people thought of Obama’s not paying the aid at all?
1
This echoes the Saturday Night Massacre, when two officials resigned rather than do Nixon’s bidding.
2
By the Trump’s term as POTUS reaches its end, there will be a lot fewer ethical, principled public employees left in federal government. Who knew draining the swamp would leave only crooked alligators behind?
3
What kills me is this is and has seemingly
has always been Trump's MO.
Treats, intimidations, loud mouthing, bad-mouthing...
The list is numerous.
And judges have allowed him to get away with it.
WHY?
Are they on the take also?
You'd think one would have learned that once one's gets involved in the clutches of Trump's shenanigans, you are now stuck.
I'm happy to know that for some, they refuse to even play ball.
That's a good thing.
In the future, there will be a book written:
When America was taken in by a CON ARTIST
3
Sounds like we need a nice, long Senate Trial, with Lots of Witnesses. So let's get the party started Dems. Go ahead and pull the trigger and send it on over to the Senate.
2
Any chance of giving us a Thanksgiving weekend break from all the anti - Trump hit jobs?
1
Based on his lack of command of the English (not to mention Latin) language(s), it beggars belief that Donald Trump would utter the phrase 'quid pro quo' on his own.
It seems clear that when he denied any 'quid pro quo' to Sondland and then, again, during his recent presser on the WH lawn, your president was parroting a phrase that he had learned and been warned about.
His latest Word of the Day, BTW is 'warrior', which he applied to convicted criminal Eddie Gallagher and to Conan, 'warrior dog' of the al-Baghdadi raid.
NOT my president
4
Trump is always the victim. Others are always out to “get him.” He always wears the white cowboy hat, and yet in spite of all that innocence the courts find him guilty when the facts and reality are actually looked at.
Truly sad are the thousands of supporters at his rallies who feel as if he’s actually doing something for them simply by expressing their own resentments and feelings of getting the short end of the stick and being put upon by government.
Meanwhile, the 400 plus bills passed by the Democrats in the House to address the complaints of the voters are piling up on McConnell’s desk because he won’t bring to the floor anything that Trump won’t sign.
So his supporters think that Trump is talking about himself but they should get it right: those being used and accused and put upon are those supporters themselves who buy into his sob story and whose votes are tallied for Senators and Representatives who aren’t working for them.
15
There are good reasons why the American people demand that government employees, whether in high office, or low, keep meticulous records. The main reasons being that governments are too powerful to be trusted, and so that government cannot be bent to serve government itself, nor any individual, instead of the people.
Trump's only work prior to election, was in a family business that he ran as an autocrat. He will not accept that working in government is a higher service and that democracy requires that the workings of government be recorded and open to scrutiny. Instead, Donald Trump has withheld documents and shut every window in to his "civil service." His obstruction and misuse of the Justice Department is corrupt and dangerous to the nation And Trump has stated that as president he can do anything he wants, while his complicit Attorney General, Bill Barr, blocks the only organization in the world capable of competently investigating and prosecuting Trump's convoluted criminal conduct.
They are going to fall, because there are still civil servants in the Justice Department, who have kept meticulous records and who understand that the 240 year old American democratic experiment is in danger.
And those true civil servants will serve the vast majority of Americans who will not abide anyone being above the law, nor having an American king.
53
whatever the Judiciary Committee does when the ball is in its court, please please please avoid the circus that Corey Lewandowski made of his appearance. Keep it tight and focused as Adam Schiff managed to do; do not countenance inanity.
23
I'm stuck on one sentence in this story:
"Mr. Sandy testified that he was informed that the aid freeze came directly from Mr. Trump, who he was told began inquiring about the assistance package on June 19, after seeing a news media report."
I wonder if The Orange Pustule wasn't told, or paid no attention to briefings, about the Ukraine military aid?
18
@Mark Stave - Maybe Trump forgot that he ordered the aid to be withheld? - Donald Trump is a mad man steering the USA off a cliff. And the GOP is helping him to do that.
All this article shows is that anything that comes out of Trump's mouth is a lie and that is already well known.
What we need is an article that shows Trump's base is finally waking up and seeing the truth.
30
@BTO
What a wonderful Xmas present that would be, but I really do believe he could shoot someone and get away with it.
Sad
@BTO - What if Trump's mind is unable to do that? - Then what should we do?
Someone needs to check communication logs and any informal interactions between Russia and White House beginning in June 2019 related to issue of Congressional allocations to Ukraine being put on hold.
25
It would be helpful to be familiar with ALL communications between Trump and Putin. Also whether either of them has delegated anyone else to communicate on their behalf.
19
It was released in a report aid was withheld for 40 some odd days because Trump thought Europe wasn’t helping equally, not a quid pro quo. That’s actually not that long. The last administration held up Ukraine Aid for 1600 days. 7 years ago during the Texas wild fires the Obama Administration not only refused calls from our governor, Fema ignored disaster requests for 90 days. All for purely political reasons. Trump has treated disasters in blue & red states equally. I think I can tolerate 45 days for Ukraine Aid to ensure Europe does their fair share.
3
@JOSEPH without context or backdrop your argument is totally invalid. Are the pillows soft in Dreamland?
37
None of Trumps team said funding was held for NATO’s accountability.
They ALL said it was held to get Ukraine to investigate Trumps political rival, Biden.
2
@JOSEPH
Why was the money released — Did Europe pay their fair share all of a sudden?
2
Just remember - the folks who watch Fox actually know less about what is going on than folks who watch no news at all. I support the folks who get their news in a place like this but am not willing to bet the bank on it making a crucial difference.
22
So far nobody has testified under oath that they heard Trump say that he ordered the hold on the military aid because for lack of an investigation into the Bidens. Sounds like a lost cause without that first-hand account.
2
@CC
'Scuse me, but that is exactly the first-hand testimony of State Department official Holmes, who overheard Sondland's phone call. Holmes was corroborated by a second first-hand source, Suriya Jayanti.
That's two first-hand accounts of Trump involvement.
BTW we now have more evidence against Trump than in the average RICO case, according to career prosecutors.
55
But the aid was, in fact, withheld even though Congress approved it so no witnesses needed.
13
@CC Trump so far will not allow anyone with first hand knowledge to testify, nor will he provide any White House documentation. Since he obviously wants us all to know the truth, I’m certain that will quickly change, proving his motives were all for the good of the American public. Who can argue against truth being the basis for judgement?
12
How about subpoenaing a constitutional scholar and former President? That would be an expert witness.
22
@Lon Newman
It would be beyond fiction, fantasy and everything else.
Think about in these terms: trump stole $400MM dollars from the Ukrainians. Whether he intended to "permanantly" deprive them of the money is not relevant, because theft is also defined as "temporairly" depriving them of their money.
In exchange he wanted the Ukrainians to trash Joe Biden and admit that THEY, the Ukrainians, hacked the 2016 election.
Classic mob shakedown because there was no guarantee trump would have released the money even if the Ukranians did as he demanded. Had it not been for the Whistleblower, we would have never known. We now see why the Whistleblower (the rat) is so important to trump.
42
Resignation seems a bit extreme, maybe they should get some other interests outside of work. They are taking they're jobs way to seriously. The Federal government needs to lay off about 2/3rds of their workers anyway, maybe this could start a trend.
If I'm President-Elect and I find out that the previous administration's nepotistic VP had gotten his brother a 1/2 billion dollar no-bid military contract, followed by getting his son a spot sitting on the Board of Directors of a Ukraine Gas Company WITH NO EXPERIENCE for $100K/mo., I'd have some questions for the President of the Ukraine myself. Considering #CrookedJoe is seeking the office of POTUS, I for one as a voter would like to know how much the Biden clan has looted from the U.S. Treasury and all other entities they've strong armed.
2
Jared and Ivanka made $87,000 last year. They work in the white house with no gov’t experience. Kids will be kids.
47
Where is the evidence and if any of this were true what were Republicans doing for the two years they had house, senate and White House. I don’t like Hillary, but investigating as a political tactic so you have something to Tweet or turn into a rally chant is abhorrent to me. They investigated Hilary for years with no charges. 
42
@Kate Somerville Yeah, but anybody can and does work for the government; a pulse is all that’s necessary as they have no bottom line. But a private sector oil and gas company requires experience. It’s essential to their strategic survival. Young Biden could provide only one service, corrupting policy via his father, VPOTUS seeking to become POTUS to enrich himself, his family and cronies even more.
2
Withholding the aid was just another way of siding with Russia again. Who benefited from Trump's actions, time and time again?
Russia, Trump's new friend, and our country's adversary.
51
The question I would like to have answered by this administration is what changed in Ukraine to cause the release of the aid money?
I’ve heard about the aid being held up, the administration’s reason for the hold up, but never what transpired to have the administration change its mind and finally release the aid.
So what happened?
16
@galtsgultch: The whistleblower and pressure from an incensed Congress, that’s what happened. Trump tried to cover his tracks, but it was too late already.
12
The Whistleblower happened.
@galtsgultch What happened? The whistleblower.
Nobody forced these so-called "aides" to resign. They resigned on their own volition. It was their choice; their decision. And besides, perhaps their resignations were for the best. The Trump administration needs people on board who are with the program; the program to Make America Great Again, which the President so far has achieved magnificently, despite resistance and subterfuge from the political opposition. Thank you.
2
No healthcare plan
No infrastructure
No middle class tax cut
No reduction in prescription drug
Prices
Meddling in the good order of our military
Support of dictators
No trade deal
Do deal in Korea
Systematic ruining of AMERICAN Family Farms
Weakening our world standing
Nepotism in WH with two relatives who can’t get real security clearances in jobs
And yes my investments are doing well, but percentage wise no better than last 3 years of Obama.
67
Make America Great Again is a slogan and as such a simplistic idea with no connection with reality, just saying..
18
The slogan is a euphemism for make America WHITE again. So far, on that front, the so-called president is doing a smashing job of making anyone who isn't white feel threatened enough to shut up about justice and equality so us white people can go on with our lives feeling entitled and superior.
12
If you oversell your case you lose credibility. Be wary here. Attend to the facts. Two budget officials quit. It may or may not have been about the questionable legality of withholding aid. Neither then knew why the aid had been withheld. All they knew was that it had been withheld. Nobody has ever suggested that the mere withholding of aid is illegal. And aid is withheld all the time. Based on what is here, the resignations make no sense. And they were mostly about other stuff anyway.
We’re building a good case. Don’t lose credibility over this paltry evidence. Quickly return to the good stuff.
6
@michjas
You are right. The press plays an odd, outsize role when the jurors are the Senate. On the other hand, maybe some Democratic staffer should just talk to the two budget officials and hear what they do or don't have to say. Perhaps that's already in the works? If I can think of that, so can others. Next thought is maybe they've been threatened and are scared. Pelosi and Schiff have been entirely methodical so far, and have played their cards close to the vest. Let's see what happens.
2
[Please read with previous message sent in error before it was finished.]
Third, do those witnesses still refusing to testify in response to subpoenas (Bolton and others) realize that their continued refusal can be deemed not only unjustified by the waiver of enforcement, but, more important, as admissions of statements and actions attributed to them in other testimony (by Hill, Sondland, and others)?
All of this arises in the context of the workplace. By standards generally applied in workplace disputes, Schiff and his colleagues have built a very strong case against the President as the chief executive.
6
The people who resigned were not identified and it’s not known how directly Ukraine factored in their decision. Talk how about fake news.
6
@Shamrock
Reporting on congressional testimony IS news. The report states what was the testimony was and how it fits into the larger impeachment narrative.
You might choose to not believe this witness and think every witness lied in some great conspiracy but that’s on you.
But labeling reporting on congressional testimony as “fake news” is just ignorant.
35
@Shamrock
This article reports testimony and its apparent implications. The reporters (and we) don't have to pretend that they don't know anything just because they don't know everything, they just need to label what is and is not known, which they do. The reporters are careful not to jump to conclusions. There is no "fake news," just reporting you apparently don't like.
If you want "fake news," like ungrounded speculation based on no evidence at all presented as fact, you'll need to return to Fox and other Big Lie outlets.
13
So if you believe the GOP and their dear Leader these two resigned for no reason. The very stable genius would have you believe that they just left for nothing; just as he would have you fall for his Florida rally straw man that the "dishonest" press claimed he has suffered a "massive heart attack". Nobody reported that, but his gullible myrmidons just swallowed the false narrative whole. The lying thing might be more bearable if he were less grandiose and pompous about it (though).
17
United States of America continues to lose some of its best people because of trump. It is a crying shame. This is the absolute most corrupt Administration I have ever seen in my almost seven decades of life. This is also the most corrupt president I have ever seen during the same seven decades. God help we change that in 2020
42
@Never Ever Again - - We have a shodow gov't spread throughout the intel, defense, and diplomatic agencies that hold no loyalty to any president.
It was up to Obama whether to play along with them or not, and he chose to cooperate. Trump the Outsider realizes now that he should have replave ten times as many bureaucrats as he did.
The next outsider prez will have to work on this.
Even Harry Truman regretted setting up the CIA because they were doing stuff he never asked for before HE left office.
2
@L osservatore
No one in American government should "hold loyalty" to any president. The idea is 100% unAmerican. Government officials' loyalty, including the president's, which they all swear to, is to the Constitution. We have every right to expect them to stand up to corruption, like Trump's in Ukraine, and Constitutional violations, a daily event under Trump.
The government isn't the problem. Right-wing liars like the sociopath demagogue Trump, his morally deformed henchmen, and his Big Lie media outlets are the problem.
2
@L osservatore Those from your “shodow” government testified under oath. When can we expect those from the Trump Administration to do the same, and release the White House documentation that Trump is withholding? After all, Trump supporters only want the American people to know the truth, so let’s hear their testimony and finish this.
2
Oh, great. More unidentified sources who “it was unclear how senior they were or how directly their resignations were tied to their concerns over the withholding of the aid.” And that is the ground for an article to claim precisely that tie.
What exactly do they teach at journalism schools these days?
9
@HMI
The grounds for the article is that it was congressional testimony. Believe the testimony or don’t believe the testimony m, your choice. But it is in fact testimony to the United States Congress, reported as testimony to the United States Congress and therefore it is news. This is how news works, as opposed to say conspiracy theory.
27
You have a good point. I see no reason to report this until at least one of those folks can explain the reason(s) for resigning. Much less to place this “above the fold.” I follow the NYT because of the solid reporting and regrettably it has jumped the gun here.
1
Beyond Newspeak! Now you know why the Republicans have been weakening basic education. Everything has come to fruition with the bone spur president.
Clinton might have personal weakness but he has separated his public duties with his private life. If his wife has come to terms with it, who is to judge. Trump is only for Trump Inc. but yet people eat up all the lies and hypocrisies.
Some defend Trump saying he is good to the people in the farm and rust belts. Really? While it defies common sense, it is difficult to believe people, some very educated and some not, to buy these lies and betrayals. And when Franklin Graham pumps Trump, he shows his own idolatry. Quite a sad spectacle
22
Couple of chumps. They resign over aid held up a few weeks. Everything in government goes through hold ups. Another story about how people feel.
6
@Mkm the story is about congressional testimony, it’s news as opposed to say conspiracy theory
20
@Mkm
They resigned because they didn’t want to be part of Trump’s illegal activity.
While the president has a good deal of latitude when it comes to foreign policy, he or she may not hold up congressional mandated expenditures. This power of the purse is for the House.
Not to mention Trump was doing this to benefit his re-election campaign, which is also illegal.
At least the swamp is still draining. Who is left? Putin?
History will not look kindly upon this ongoing charade by the WH.
Trump, for all his protestations, will not attend the hearings, nor will he let his rather (insert insulting word here) staff do so, I believe.
Even Devin Nunes' cow will not attend.
10
The most harmful thing America can do to Ukraine is to sell it weapons that, once used, will cause massive destruction inside the country. It will end up just like the massive destruction America created in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, etc etc etc.
How long must American registered Voters, Taxpayers, AND readers of real and accurate Journalism WAIT until the boot-dragging testimony of all witnesses are allowed to speak the Truth about what they knew, and when, regarding Trump's holding up Ukraine's $ Aid for his Political favors ??
The evidence is beyond too clear. The US Judicial System has become weaker than "our" president's son-in-Law.
What a pathetic expression of Democracy.
16
Really? Tell us who they are, and what are their vested interests in the Ukraine policy.
8
@Mark Thomason, tell they resigned because they hated their job or couldn’t stand the commute and that l’d believe.
@Mark Thomason
Are you saying the Times should wait to report on newly-released testimony until they've completed the background investigation on its contents? Baselessly presuming "vested interests" is crossing the line into conspiracy theory.
2
yet nothing has changed and he's still out there playing president of the United States.
but ask yourselves this...
who worse? pence or let trump ride this out till election day?
1
@HunG
You're asking if it's okay to tolerate gross misbehavior by a high-school student, like arson, because they are going to graduate soon.
Trump is unstable and in the pocket of multiple foreign governments and has committed unconscionable acts of corruption, malfeasance and incompetence against the Presidency and the Constitution. If we let this slide we create a precedent by which we may never be able to impeach again.
9
New transcripts just released bout the 2 resignations over the suspension of aid to Ukraine. I bet the GOP government employees - politicians- paid for by taxpayers don't even bother to read them. Easier just to repeat an absurd conspiracy theory. Less trouble. Gee they are lazy. Love how many people with family responsibilities lose their jobs while Trump keeps his.
7
The evidence of wrongdoing is overwhelming. Trump's actions are an assault on our democracy and our constitution. To defend trump's actions in this matter is to defend an assault on our democracy and our constitution. Where are the Republicans who call themselves patriots ? Time to speak up.
24
So actual experts (unlike faux experts like Jared) think the withholding of Congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine (an ally under attack by Russia!) was "illegal," harmful to a US ally, and not in America's own best interests?
Sounds like the consensus among knowledgeable professionals, and also worldwide verdict on pretty much of ALL Trump's "genius" decisions!
14
The only thing both the Democrats and Republicans/Trump can agree on is that hurting animals is bad. The animal's sex, on the other hand, still seems to be a matter of dispute, apparently.
The intent is noble and there is nothing to lose except time I suppose, but will propping up a bunch of scholars (that's "elites" to the right) on television really build consensus on constitutional issues? Regrettably, I think the House is overestimating the depth and patience of the American people.
If someone believes that what Clinton did is more impeachable than what Trump has done (take your pick of violations), no amount of constitutional scholar testimony is going to change his/her mind.
4
How far we've fallen as a country. Why should any of us obey the law in the face of such blatant criminality? Trump is guilty. Mulvaney is guilty. Pompeo is guilty. Pence is guilty. Giuliani is guilty. Nunes is guilty. Perry is guilty.
And the only Republican senator who even mildly criticized Trump by calling him, "ignoble," had to take to the fainting couch afterwards it took so much out of him.
25
So these people don't just resign out of moral indignation. The prospect of sitting on the dock, either the enemy of a vindictive crook or enemy of the law, surely must be part of the incentive to abandon what should be one of the great jobs of a person's career ...
4
Why is Washington so intent on sending military aid to Ukraine anyway? Several thousand have died on both sides of a ruinous civil war which Washington meddling helped ignite. Obama rejected sending any military aid to the far right forces of western Ukraine and now Democrats act like that military aid is so vital.
3
@tmauel
You're changing the subject. You're missing the point. Intentionally? This isn't about whether the aid is a good or bad idea. Trump used the aid to try to coerce Ukraine into making Biden look dirty, to help Trump rig the next election. That's a crime.
1
@tmauel, that's a political question that's not at issue here, except to the extent it reveals Trump's efforts to benefit Putin. Congress decided to send the aid to Ukraine to repel the Russian invasion (it's not simply a "civil war") and it's not up to Trump to leverage it for any reason, including a reason he has not thought of.
1
The White House knew it was illegal and they did it anyway.
They know Trump is very successful at selling up false conspiracy theories to his supporters and a master in branding others regardless of thruth.
The fact that there are still many willing to loose their liberty and put their family at risk to support this man is beyond me.
I wonder if those already in Prison for supporting Trump still think it was worth it...
10
Tonight at a rally our President said, with a straight face,“They’re attacking me because I’m exposing a rigged system that enriched itself at your expense and I’m restoring government of, by and for the people,” he told the crowd at the BB&T Center.
It's not sad that Trump has built his life, and his presidency, actually exploiting, not exposing, the "rigged system." It's sad that Trump, and his Republican enablers, have been able to dupe so many. George Orwell could not imagine the reality of "doublespeak" in 2019. Fox News can.
409
@judgeroybean
~"It's sad that Trump, and his Republican enablers, have been able to dupe so many."~
Take the time to talk to a "trump supporter" and you will understand why it is so easy to "dupe" them. The insidious fact is that the system is rigged to allow their votes to count more than yours.
41
@judgeroybean How about sending that useless military tax money to give us clean drinking water instead of wasting it on useless weapons never to be used. The US has sent over over 5 Billion tax money to Ukraine since the 90's which could and should have been used here at home. Start with health care, start with infrastructure, start with educational and criminal rot in poor areas etc. Russia doesn't want war and it doesn't want NATO on its borders so why are we needlessly pushing that - endless war expenditures.
4
@judgeroybean
You are so right. Trump is the Ministry of Truth, he is the disinformation chief.
25
Implicit in support for Trump in the Ukraine matter is the belief, part of the isolationist America First propaganda, that the US should not provide aid, whether miitary or economic, to any nation, except perhaps to Russia. That he witheld it in order to extort a favor to investigate a political rival doesn't matter to his followers and in fact invites their approval and admiration.
7
Trump states that he is, "...fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President.” The only thing he is fighting for is his self preservation.
13
several people in the CIA have lost faith and confidence in Mr. Comey. These are the greatest lies that both sides say. Several unnamed sources. Trump is going to have fun with this one and even when you point out the Sarah Sanders lie, they will keep on with their games. If you can't name a name or they're not being called publicly, then what's the point?
2
Two Office of Management people resigned at least in part because they disagreed with the Ukraine extortion scheme. Yep, they resigned. Nope, they didn't speak out even though the scheme and its cover-up were illegal and unconstitutional. Resigning is good. And a sign that they knew the scheme was wrong. But what's with not speaking out? Isn't that participating in the cover-up? Elsewhere today we read that they stopped the scheme (released the aid) when Trump learned of the whistle-blower complaint. I guess that's because they knew there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
3
At the rate of resignations we are just now learning about, the hollowing-out of the federal government must be more dramatic than we know. People don't leave jobs, they leave managers.
Remember, trump said he likes having acting managers because he's the decision-maker and this gives him "more flexibility."
If management is getting fired or resigning at this alarming rate, maybe seasoned career staff are leaving or retiring st the same rate, we don't know. The upcoming unseasoned staff do not have the deep knowledge and experience with the law. They do have a deep need to keep their job to fully earn their pensions. Imagine. They will be guided by the Mike Pompeos, Mark Espers, Bill Barrs, Mike Duffeys and Steve Millers, who don't care about what the law says.
trump was right! It is a coup!
It is trump's coup to take over the federal government and the Republican held Senate is complicit in purposefully enabling trump's coup.
If this goes to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's vote goes 5 to 4 in favor of the president's claim that he can not be held accountable to court orders and subpoenas, that he can claim absolute immunity, that he can shoot someone on 5th Avenue, then we will be witness to our "democratically elected coup" against ourselves and its political Supreme Court.
Welcome to the Reign of the Republican Party. Our kids will NEVER forgive us, if they live that long.
7
“Mr. Sandy testified that he was informed that the aid freeze came directly from Mr. Trump”
Who was it informed Sandy that? Surely that person should be called to testify if it was Trump who told him/her to freeze the aid. And is it wasn’t Trump, who told that person, etc. etc.
There must be a paper trail / chain of witnesses.
2
@Harbo
Right, but our American friends do things somewhat differently to us. They are a different culture. We don't have Thanksgiving, Halloween Sen John Kerry, or the Trumps although we have absurdities in other forms such as Pauline Hanson, Andrew Bolt and Mark Latham. Don't ever say "surely" in reference to the USA
Smart to offer an invitation with a deadline, but Trump and his counsel seem to be too busy obstructing Congress and denying all testimonies given to actually engage in a substantive discussion.
Much easier for Trump to tweet lies and smear public servants from the couch.
21
Someone with access to the White House should consider teaching a short course in American priorities. We clearly must be able to do better than a 3rd rate reality tv program actor who is lost in his character.
14
I hope Nadler has the tools to stop Trump from sidetracking the issues of impeachment with acknowledged false conspiract theories. Just imagine how much it cost US taxpayers to have Guiliani, Barr and others continue to explore these theories--reminds me of the waste of money on the Benghazi hearing!
15
I recall the movie “The Untouchables” when Al Capone was in the courtroom hearing his accountant testify about all his illegal accounts and money laundering. The prosecutor noticed Capone was too nonchalant. Elliot Ness followed one of Capone’s henchmen and got a list of jurors who were bought off. The judge switched the jury, and that new jury convicted Al Capone. Probably didn’t happen like that in the 1930’s Chicago, but too bad there isn’t a way to switch the US Senate as the jury. The Republicans are compromised—they have said trump can do no wrong and that they will not convict trump and remove him from office. Republicans said they are not reading the testimonies and legitimate transcripts. Some have even threatened not to hold an impeachment trial. The Republicans are compromised and “bought off” by God knows what. Switch them out. Maybe have governors from their respective states be the jury—after all the rules of impeachment trial are drawn in the House, correct? This is an unprecedented time that calls for unprecedented measures. Of course, if I were Republican Senators I’d watch how trump is hanging Rudy out to dry, because trump would never be so loyal them...
9
Whether the impeachment process playing out in DC hurts or helps the Democrats or hurts or helps the Republicans is interesting but not really the most important point. What really matters is that years from now, when the history of this unusual American era is written, there’s documented proof that that the system worked, that someone took the many possibly illegal and clearly questionable actions of Trump seriously and investigated. If we’re lucky historians will be able to describe his presidency as an aberration and not the beginning of the end.
592
@PSB Agree with most of what you say. But there are many ways to prove the system worked and I would like a swift and sensible resolution. We drop the charges. Trump steps down when his term is done. Happens in other countries. Why not here?
2
@PSB
Agree, and a very central point here is that Trump’s abuse of office and blackmail of the Ukraine to manufacture dirt on a political opponent at home are the definition proper of despotism.
By comparison, payments to Stormy Daniels or Bill Clinton’s fling are utterly victimless outside of their immediate families.
As you say, historians will view with merit the attempt to maintain a democracy in the Western tradition when Trump and Giuliani endeavored to push it over the precipice.
38
@PSB Why is Washington giving military aid to Ukraine anyway? Thousands have died in the civil war that Washington helped ignite. And this military aid, which Obama rejected, is adding fuel to the fire.
Going back to Hillary, both of those who ran in 2016 have been continually under investigation for about four years. At first, it seemed to be controlled by Comey. Then it was controlled by Mueller. Then Pelosi. Now Schiff. Next the Judiciary Committee. And then maybe the House and the Senate. In the present investigation, everything was done first in the dark and then in broad daylight. The public proceedings have gone for days and have exceeded the attention span of most. They are like a tennis match, going this way and that. And the witnesses go here, there, and everywhere. As for the offense under investigation, it started as extortion and turned into bribery.
Meanwhile, witnesses like today's and the Courts steal the headlines, taking us in new directions. As for the headlines, they are ever larger and are giving most of us a headache as we try to keep up.
This is not going well. That is obvious. And except for those who have been certain from the start, one way or the other, the public is losing confidence. Confidence, that is, in the process. The polls show no movement for Trump's approval ratings, everything is frozen.
The result of any case is only as good as the public says it is. If there is no confidence in the process, there is no confidence in the result. This thing has been going on way too long and there is no end in sight. Every day it is less likely that any good will come of it.
2
I am among those (foreign observers) who are still believing that there are checks and balances in place. If the President’s actions and behavior are swept under the carpet, as the Republicans suggest, then what is next? Abolish the House if Representatives? Proclaim Donald as the first king of America? The reputation of the US as a functioning democracy with rule of law is seriously under threat.
The current investigations are crucial to restore faith of the world into what was once known as the only superpower.
26
@michjas. I feel the same way. trump has managed to create so much deafening chaos, the public is almost at the "wake me when it's over" space.
@UB. The strategy of the GOP to hold so many judicial appointments open for years is really paying off now. So the checks and balances are being tilted to the hard right.
The reason the GOP is willing to drive this is that they believe they will win in 2020. That confidence that they will win and NOT be held accountable to the laws they are breaking, are what alarm me the most. Their hubris is suffocating.
6
@michjas, they make medicine for the person with the attention span that is so short it hampers his quality of life. Trump's abuses of power, especially regarding Ukraine, are overwhelmingly obvious and not at all hard to follow.
1
I'm glad that at least a few Trump Administration personnel had the courage to stand up for what is right. Alas, their departure leaves two fewer personnel willing to stand up for what is right. Trump certainly won't; his false claims about Ukraine and his antics there will persist. His claim that he embraces executive privilege to benefit future presidents is not at all credible. He is working to protect himself and his allies in Congress. If he cared about the impact of his actions on future presidents, he wouldn't lie as often as he does. He wouldn't have welcomed political help from Russia in 2016 and would have worked very hard to prevent similar actions in 2020.
9
What would get you to resign -- the fact that the aid was delayed or the fact that it contributed to a war where more than 13,000 have died, including 298 in a passenger jet shot down, with about $1 billion in taxpayer money going to the military-industrial complex?
5
is it known what the actual mechanism was to withhold these funds?
1
When a boss says do XYZ most people do it, not because they are automatons but because the order is lawful and not treasonous.
1
There was more documentation just revealed concerning the Budget Committee directly linking Trump withholding the aid. The case is overwhelming; so does the Senate just disregard the evidence and expect to hold the GOP majority?
Wow!
13
@Bob Guthrie. Well, the Senate Republicans have ignored all the evidence about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, so we probably shouldn't get our hopes up.
16
For a moment, let's take Trump at his word - that the hold on the aid was done out of concern for corruption and other countries not pulling their weight...
So, where's the supporting evidence that demonstrate Trump halted the aid and provided those reasons? Did the Administration outline how to resolve those issues? Did Trump tell the OMB why?
This is Trump's chance to actually help his case. I won't hold my breath though
12
A lot of folks have been ruined taking Trump at his word. So let’s not, even hypothetically, because that’s a fool’s errand.
I support the efforts of the 4th Estate to ferret out stories like this. I support and encourage leaking by disgruntled and alarmed government officials. Why? Because I want Trump to be rendered ineffective and then removed from office by Senate trial, or voted out, because I care what happens to this country. He’s a menace to it.
9
Let's hope Nadler steps up this time. The Cory Lewandowski hearing wasn't exactly Nadler's finest hour and Adam Schiff has set a high bar for how to conduct impeachment hearings.
6
Donald Trump leaves a trail of failure and despair.
He is evil incarnate.
34
First, he's not a president. He's a fraud.
Second, how many legitimate public servants have had their jobs and/or careers destroyed for the sake of this one fraud? He's so slimy you wouldn't want to get within 100 feet of him.
47
He should have stayed in reality estate.
Wowza.
11
From the article about Trump knowing about the whistleblower complaint when he released the aid.
“‘No way,’” Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Johnson. “‘I would never do that. Who told you that?’”
For all practical purposes this is a quote from Mr Johnson of Donald J Trump confessing to being guilty of holding the aid for "some action". I don't have the grammar but an experienced interrogator could explain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-complaint-ukraine.html
6
I do not think it’s time to proceed with impeachment.
We have barely scratched the surface of the criminality.
If IMPEACHMENT drags out until May or June but is comprehensive ... too bad for the GOP if they end up without a candidate.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of thugs.
38
@Horatio
I’m willing to bet that Mitt Romney has been foaming at the mouth for months now, hoping to the heavens that this scenario becomes a reality.
5
Legal implications?
As if applying a rational standard to dt and his sycophants has any validity.
11
I heard today that public opinion on impeachment has not changed following last week's testimony. Proof that the right-wing propaganda machine is working just fine. Truth is no longer relevant, at least to the taters.
21
@chairmanj. The truth may percolate down eventually. Sometimes this sort of thing seeps downward and laterally only gradually. Lots and lots of people need to call attention to it again and again.
6
Republicans will set a precedent by sticking by their President. The precedent being that ALL Presidents from here to evermore are not bound by the US Constitution and are above all laws (while in office?). So this and future Presidents will then see the requirement to stay in office past the usual expiration date of 4 or 8 years. Trump has already teased about this. He has also used the pardon as no previous occupant of the White House has done and teased about pardoning himself and all around him. Republicans used to cry like babies that President Obama was acting like “a King”. We now see Donald Trump acting’s like the Emperor Nero. Fiddling while the US Government is burning down by the flames he set. But if he does not manage to stay in power after he is voted out the paybacks will be vicious. Conversely if he does become President for life all of his enemies will end up in internment camps. We have become Germany 1931.
20
The only proper course of action when one is a subordinate of Donald Trump is to resign. All those who continue to work for him are one of two things: as corrupt as he is or monumentally naive.
22
In any other democracy in a comparable modern country, Trump would have been long gone through a vote of no confidence.
47
The aid in question includes sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radar, electronic warfare detection, counter-sniper equipment, tactical drones and, most notably, Javelin anti-tank missiles.
Over the years, authorization of Ukrainian aid has often involved unscrupulous bargaining between the parties. In the end, one party got this and the other party got that and Ukraine got the rest. Repeated quid pro quos. The final packages have appropriated more than a billion dollars, much of it going to Haliburton, General Dynamics and Raytheon, better known as the military-industrial complex.
In the course of fighting, about 10,000 armed Ukrainians have died along with 3,000 civilians and thousands of Russian forces. In addition 298 passengers of a Maylasian passenger airliner died when an antiaircraft missile inadvertently shot it down. The West blames Russia. Russia blames Ukraine.
Thankfully, no antiaircraft missiles were given to the Ukrainians. But a misfired Javelin missile could cause countless deaths on the ground.
The whole business of Ukrainian aid is about quid pro quos and carnage. The key distinction now is that the previous outrages were legal, whereas Trump's outrages used to be extortion but now are bribery.
In the end we're all going to burn.
2
@michjas
Oh, come on, you know better than to make snide cracks about extortion vs. bribery. Coercing something of value by threatening harm is extortion, by withholding an official act is bribery, that is, solicitation. If withholding the military aid makes the recipient more vulnerable to harm, as with Ukraine, it’s obviously both. Solicitation fits like a glove, so bribery’s the charge, and this is also, as it happens, an explicitly impeachable offense. Making an issue of this distinction without a difference just provides Trump’s defenders with a red herring to promote confusion.
As for predictions of burning, in 2016, before the election, Tony Schwartz, co-author of Trump’s book Art of The Deal, said, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
11
Russia blames Ukraine? How do you give any credence to that? Enough of this ridiculous moral equivalency. Russia invaded Ukraine, and Russia murdered countless civilians, in countless ways, in Ukraine, Russia, Syria, and even our ally the UK.
3
@michjas, Trump abused his office: He leveraged a White House visit and the Ukraine aid (already appropriated by Congress, thus mooting all of your too-earnest handwringing) to extract an announcement about sham investigations into Biden and an insane DNC conspiracy theory. Let's restate that in simpler terms: He used the Presidency for personal gain. Your efforts at distraction and whattaboutism are a tacit acknowledgment that you have no answer at all to the obvious truth that President Trump abused his office.
1
The pressure is on and The Donald Ego does not do well in this kind of situation. It knows it's being backed into a corner from which it is unlikely to escape. It will become increasingly threatened and increasingly desperate.
In truth, fellows like Trump have been building their own gallows for years. In Trump's case, he's climbed the steps and stands on the trap door, a noose of his own making tight around his neck.
There won't be a et eye in the crowd when he drops through to the ignominy he so richly deserves.
7
It seems that it’s matter of seconds before the video is released. What else do we need to reach the obvious conclusion: Trump is so many iMessage over guilty of extortion.
Likewise, Michael Bloomberg has way too much on his echoed to survive for long.
4
So you work your way through school and finally land a job working for the WH. There u are rising in the ranks and loving your position and the people u work with. You are there for 10 years, 20, 30 years. You received awards, accolades and friends that are like family. Then all of a sudden a storm hits and people are either resigning, quitting, forced out, reputation ruined and fired. All of these good people gone to be replaced by acting replacements because one evil man wants the WH to be skeletal so there'd be less "leaks" and more crooks and cronies. Everything is about trump but what about all those people that lost everything they worked for? They'd still be there if it weren't for him. The good is gone and the evil is prevailing.
20
Why are we only just now hearing about these resignations?
14
Headline Says: Mark Sandy, an official at the Office of Management and Budget, testified that two of his colleagues quit after expressing concerns about President Trump’s decision to withhold military assistance.
Text says "two of his colleagues quit PARTLY because of concerns about President Trump's decision...."
And the officials themselves said nothing. Hearsay from a colleague.
So much of trumps rancid behavior smacks of exactly how Hitler navigated to ultimate power. His pardoning of the Navy Seal war criminals seems like a precursor to doing the same for any military action against our own citizens.
We have much to fear and much to do. The GOP have proven themselves to be as blind as their historical Nazi counterparts.
26
Trump, Pence, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani and their subordinates are all co-conspirators in their failed attempt for a shakedown of the Ukraine government. There is a huge amount of prima facie evidence turned up by the House Intelligence Committee that all of these corrupt men were criminally involved in this effort.
Now this corruption is going over to the House Judiciary Committee. Other than having life membership in the far right wing Federalist Society, does anyone actually know if Barr, McGahn and Trump's current consigliere, Pasquale Cippolone, have law degrees and recognized licenses to practice law? They all seem mob connected too.
36
Don’t forget Nunes
14
When will you drop the lies, GOP?
When will you stop minimising and normalising President Trump’s abuses of the Constitution? When will you obey the oath you took?
49
The GOP doesn't HAVE to obey the oath they took after they've filled the courts with conservative judges who will look the other way while they self-deal. It's all legal now.
Trump is blocking cabinet and key White House officials from testifying “to protect future presidents.”
Haha. Isn’t that rich? Nothing to do with the fact that he is guilty of abusing the power of his office, illegally soliciting help from a foreign government for his personal benefit, misuse of campaign funds, obstructing justice and Congress, misappropriating funds allocated by Congress, and likely lying on a sworn statement. I’m probably missing more high crimes and misdemeanor stuff.
Nixon too said it was all a “witch hunt” until he resigned.
25
This guy! Such an altruist! I love this guy!
Dear friends in the United States,
You are already living under a dictatorship. The damage is so much deeper and wider than anyone could have imagined. Please do not be under any illusion that the institutions you look to to uphold democracy and the rule of law are still intact. They have already crumbled. How shocking that they should prove to be so fragile.
43
@Donna Who could have predicted that? I will answer: anyone who has studied sociopathy. Because sociopaths have spent their lives causing trouble they are experts at it. They know it is coming before you do. They have been there before; normal people acting in good faith are always taken by surprise. You are Canadian; I am Australian. We both want our America back.
17
Why is the summary that people resigned because they thought the actions were "legally questionable and potentially harmful to Ukraine"? None has ever resigned because they thought something was "potentially harmful to Ukraine".
Now, if someone thought that a corrupt president was illegally selling out America and Ukraine to advance Russian interests, yeah, that might explain why a long-standing government employee might walk away from her pension.
24
When is the Supreme Court going to wake up and smell the odor coming from the WH. It's time they get with the Constitution and hold trump accountable?
Everyone else seems to be up to the task...except the GOP who failed their oath of office test.
16
Sandy did not say anyone resigned because of the hold. He speculated it might has been part of the reasons for their resignations. He said “I never want to attribute that as the, you know, sole purpose for an individual's actions, but I am aware of their frustrations in that area.”
The most important parts of his testimony was that the reason give for the whole was the president’s concern America was paying more than its share of aid. He said, “I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President's concern about countries not contributing more to Ukraine." The white House asked for data on how much European nations were paying. He also testified the White House was worried about the violating the Impoundment Control Act. He said the White House rereleased the funds became the end-of-fiscal-year deadline was fast approaching.
2
The other reason was the incessant throwing up a little bit in the mouth
6
@William Case
So why didn’t Trump explain this concern to Congress? Why didn’t he say anything at all to Congress, as the law required? Because he was really holding back the aid as part of a secret “drug deal” to coerce Ukraine into dirtying Joe Biden, maybe?
I get you’re making defense lawyer-type arguments but the cover story you’re pushing is flimsy, completely inconsistent with the way an honest president would have handled this situation, and completely inconsistent with everything we know about Trump. In other words, it’s unbelievable.
5
@William Case
So why didn’t Trump explain this concern to Congress? Why didn’t he say anything at all to Congress, as the law required? Because he was really holding back the aid as part of a secret “drug deal” to coerce Ukraine into dirtying Joe Biden, maybe?
I get you’re making defense lawyer-type arguments but the cover story you’re pushing is flimsy, completely inconsistent with the way an honest president would have handled this situation, and completely inconsistent with everything we know about Trump. In other words, it’s unbelievable.
1
One hopes Rep Nadler is a quick learner from his pratfall during the Mueller et al testimonies. Offering DJT participation with what appears to be minimal requirements for honoring Congressional subpoenas suggests he probably is not a quick study. The Judiciary hearings are likely to demonstrate he is not up to the task of wrangling a determined cadre of DJT lawyers and shameless Republican committee members.
4
This is how Trumpism hollows out the government. Can we even imagine what Trump will do in his second term?
15
Wow, just wow. I guess I shouldn't really be surprised that the most incompetent and scandal-ridden administration in this nation's history would produce a mountain of incontrovertible evidence of their impeachable and criminal acts. But does it have to be so damning? Blocking the aid the same day as the phonecall . . . how are they going to spin this?
33
The circus of trump is hollowing out our government. He is like a cancer that has metastasized. Another day, another revelation of incompetence, criminal activity and lies.
32
ok..so does this mean the "noose" is tightening around the White House and the ship's rodents are fleeing the ship? Or, are the ship's rodents fleeing the ship because the "Golden" toilet isn't flushing properly any more? Please advise.
3
This is becoming a circus. Everyday there is another piece of evidence implicating the president and his gang of miscreants. This is far, far worse than Watergate.
The Trump Train is really coming off the rails.
18
I expect to see Rudy Guilliani, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil Gorsuch among those attending the Judiciary Committee hearing representing Corrupt Trump's legal team.
7
true, quitting your job in the white house is one way to "express frustrations," but doing so because you "don't understand" an executive decision is ludicrous. clearly, they understood all too well.
14
He won't show up. He hates/scared stiff of face to face confrontations.
13
Democrats must subpoena Pence, Pompeo and Bolton. Turning over the controls to Mitch McConnell before doing so would be a disaster.
20
Many more will likely be resigning over Trump’s illegal actions. I’m hoping that this is the start of an internal fissure that spreads beyond repair.
13
Had the Whistleblower not stepped up would all of these new developments ever have come to light? I'm thankful for the Patriots who have testified and those who share what they know but especially thankful the Whistleblower got this ball rolling.
30
Yet another example of breathless, "breaking news" reporting with little to no substance to back it up. So two lower or mid-level officials resigned, for reasons that may or may not (no one seems to be sure) have been related to a decision the President may have made, perhaps appropriately or at least reasonably, so we are to conclude...what, exactly? Those opposed to Trump continue to grasp at straws and the flaying continues to make the Democrats and the media look petulant.
2
@Steve
These are really big straws, stuffed with evidence of malfeasance.
6
Yet another example of breathless, "breaking news" reporting with little to no substance to back it up. So two lower or mid-level officials resigned, for reasons that may or may not (no one seems to be sure) have been related to a decision the President may have made, perhaps appropriately or at least reasonably, so we are to conclude...what, exactly? Those opposed to Trump continue to grasp at straws and the flaying continues to make the Democrats and the media look petulant.
1
May have legs, may not. But I support the digging because there sure is a mountain of you know what
5
The real losers in all this are We the People, and that wonderful “dream”, realized in blood, named the United States of America’s. “My Country tis of Thee. Land of Liberty. Of the I Weep”.
17
This is all a clown car going round and round in circles in a clown circus . We've seen this act before and we were not amused.
14
"And his Republican allies have argued that the funding’s eventual release proves that Mr. Trump did nothing wrong."
Mick Mulvaney told all of us exactly why the aid was released in his 10/17 press conference.
Keep in mind here that the fiscal year ends on September 30th and if Congressionally appropriated monies are not spent before that the money literally goes poof and would have to be re-approprited in the next fiscal year.
"The Budget Control Improvement Act of 1974 says that if Congress appropriates money you have to spend it...and we knew that money had to go out the door by the end of September or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it."
~Mick Mulvaney~ 10/17/2019
Obviously they did not have a "really, really good" reason.
13
They will soon be called 'never Trumpers' as if that disqualifies their actions; and of course someone who dislikes Trump would wait to quit with this one and only event and none of the hundreds of other earlier outrages/scandals.
6
Now we are close to the actual presidential election, closer to the campaign. Trump & team hope to avoid, obstruct, deny, smear, confuse, conflate and lie lie lie ... in the hope that enough voters will still say 'nothing was proven'.
That will probably happen, but hopefully those who cling to the false hope will be a steadily shrinking number ...My real fear is those who know Trump should be gone will continue to lie to themselves. They've invested so much already.
Chris Cuomo's interview with Senator Kennedy last night on CNN was a disturbing example of how people who know better lie to themselves then present a rationale which sounds 'logical'.
It won't work, meanwhile our nations business is not being attended to or worse, is being mismanaged beyond belief.
The impeachment process, whether it removes Trump or not, is bringing to light too much criminal behavior to deny.
He will not be re elected, and in January 2021 serious prison time will make impeachment seem like a picnic.
21
The attitude of some that Trump can do exactly what he wants to. Are they for real? There's an actual law folks. And Trump would need to notify the Congress of what he says doing. If he'd delayed any longer the fiscal year would end and Ukranians don't get the money. And, surprise, the reason he didn't tell Congress Is that he didn't want to expose the scam. And nobody in their right mind at OMB would want to sign the docs the Trumpies came up with. Want to be convicted?
15
There is something not “rational” about government professionals, of whatever disciplines, roles, years of experience in their work, types, levels and qualities of daily responsibilities and necessary personal accountability, in their judgements and decision-making, asking for, and expecting, a reasonable, ethical, corrupt-free “rational” for any of the faux-policies made by the President. Or by his select,loyal, close group of advisors, who have not yet resigned,been charged and incarcerated or are yet to BE!
As they awaited a reasonable explanation to their concerns, did any of them, in any way, wonder-consider “ What is likely to be told to us from the same source who lies daily; “kidnaps,” and cages children who are then neglected and abused; supports the Saudi war against Yemin in which innocent children are dying from wounds, bombs and starvation; doesn’t believe America’s intelligence agencies’ consensus...and so much more!
Is it “rational” to consider that their waiting was a rational judgement and decision!?
Was their resignation the best viable option for each of them personally as well as for the nation which they chose to serve at some point in their life?
How rational is it that so many ordinary good folk, kin, ken and strangers, choose to be so complacent about...or so complicit with...ALL around.
In a daily, enabling, toxic, WE-THEY culture. Which violates. Selected People. Democracy’s laws. Principles. Values. Norms,Ethics. Mutual trust. Respect and help?
1
I thought Trump got the best people. Once a con always a con.
16
This entire scenario stinks to high heaven. And all indications suggest this is the way they do business every day! What this impeachment investigation is doing is permitting the world to peek behind the door of the oval office, into the filth and dishonor that is the essence of Trump and his mob.
Yes, by all means, Trump belongs in a cell today, this very moment.
42
These two are “first in their class” - standing up for principle rather than keeping their mouth shut. Bolton and Pompeo could learn a lot from these two.
17
Is anyone really shocked by anything President Trump does anymore? Come on. Virtually all of his erroneous statements are unbelievable:
-climate change doesn't exist
-windmills cause cancer
-we have the cleanest air
-wild fires caused by rakes
-he knows more than anyone else
to name a few. I think one my favorite is the blasphemous claim that he"is the chosen one!"
You have to question where he came by these ridiculous claims. I can tell you it wasn't at any school I attended. So why would we be surprised that so many good people have quit their jobs rather the be demoralized by a ruthless politician with an assumed IQ in the single digits?
16
I don’t want to continue writing to the NYT to express my opinion on Trump. This man is messing with all of us. He wins every time he opens his mouth. He wins because he gets press that is so determined to keep it balanced. There is no rational explanation for a man so unfit to be president. I have to believe that he is good for ratings and good for distribution. He’s systematically destroying the rule of law that has held for centuries. Ratings?
17
What a relief. Two fewer Commander-in-Chiefs. We’re down to a few thousand.
3
They only appear to be outpaced by the GOP House Representatives, 100 of whom are leaving after Trump's arrival.
3
@Tom: Yup, the next ones to go are the ones who make sure you get your social security checks on time, your food is safe to eat and the engines don’t fall off that plane you took.
15
Now Trump is saying he is fighting so that future Presidents can act just like him.
Want me to repeat that?
61
Poor Dems are clutching at straws in their desperate attempts to avoid facing President Trump at the polls on November 3rd 2020. Even if articles of Impeachment are passed by the House, the agreement of 67 Senators is needed to convict President Trump. Dems simply don’t have the votes. Dems are just wasting the nation’s time and money. Retribution is coming to hapless Dems on Election Day 2020. Trump Victory!
5
That's a lot of chicken counting before they hatch. There's overwhelming evidence that Trump has disgraced the constitution and the evidence grows almost as fast as Donald tweets.
19
I note that not a single word in your paragraph relates to the man's innocence...
30
Do you not care at all about America’s integrity?
12
Trump is more than willing to express his version of events and call other people liars on Fox News. But will he do so under oath and provide evidence to support his claims? Not a chance. I'm sure Fox and the Republicans are already fighting over the excuses for not showing up.
19
To Stay or Not to Stay.
We do need honest people to stay and provide a measure of stability and to document the chaos.
But is it asking too much, in that they may be besmirched for doing the right thing by staying?
I am heartened that the military is questioning whether they can remain in a position where they might have to follow orders that are in violation of human rights and ethical policies.
When will the pubic become fully aware of the uncommon pressure the military and WH staff are facing? When will we fully address the danger of keeping Trump in the Oval Office?To Stay or Not to Stay.
We do need honest people to stay and provide a measure of stability and to document the chaos.
But is it asking too much, in that they may be besmirched for doing the right thing by staying?
I am heartened that the military is questioning whether they can remain in a position where they might have to follow orders that are in violation of human rights and ethical policies.
When will the pubic become fully aware of the uncommon pressure the military and WH staff are facing? When will we fully address the danger of keeping Trump in the Oval Office?
5
"Mr. Sandy is the only official at the budget office to testify in the impeachment inquiry. Several others, including Russell T. Vought, the acting director of the office, have refused to appear. "
They should be cut from the budget.
They are biting the hand that feeds them, us, the we, the People.
9
Heard from one of the architects of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. He believes that trump has outdone Richard Nixon for whom the Act was targeted - the president is breaking the law, pure and simple, by withholding or redirecting funds approved for a specified distribution. Trump has been caught and confessed. Send for the judge and jury now.
17
Of course Trump was never going to go before any committee and expose himself for the fraud he is. Imagine Trump submitting to eleven hours of grilling (like Hillary Clinton) and keeping his composure. None of his lawyers or political appointees will show up either, otherwise how is he going to whine to the public about how unfair it all is because he has not been given a fair hearing?
13
Everyday more information come out supporting that Trump is a conman, cheat, liar and a deeply angry at America and Americans (or may be all of West).
And it also becomes clear that; GOP is part of Russia; unless they start swimming in real Potomac; GOP will be consumed by Black Sea Whirlpool.
9
And we all know how unbiased Jerry Nadler is.
4
...Learned everything he knows from Mitch and Lindsay....
1
Do I have to say it again...I didn’t vote for Trump? But really...2 un-named aides...resigned. Lower level folks in the OMB are frustrated because they aren’t given a good explanation? Really. Do you think junior staffers in any organization are given “good” explanations when the CEO sends down an order? What planet do you guys live on?
3
@Gail
A planet in which no man is above the law.
I realize that Trump defenders like you (who always begin, I didn't vote for Trump, but.....he's right, he's right and everyone else is wrong.) believe Trump is above the law. And you hope that the US will turn into a country where the President is above the law and can re-elect himself unlimited number of times because, well, because William Barr says he can and no one can stop him.
16
Umm...one where even “low level bureaucrats” have ethical standards?
17
Officials are never junior staffers, except perhaps in the WH.
6
Oh My! Imagine: two aides resigned over an executive decision! Whatever shall we do! This is how desperate the media is. What's next, that an aid's dog won't eat after it watched Jerry Nadler's opening statement?
4
@Matt Andersson
oh my, Obama wore a tan suit.
Why don't you go back to your right wing universe where Presidents can break any law they want and withhold aid to foreign countries whenever they need a personal favor that harms the US (but benefits the President). I realize that the one thing you would never countenance is Trump wearing a tan suit. But if he wants to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, well.....Trump already explained that you would be good with that.
22
@Matt Andersson
You are so sadly typical ... Those 2 aides are just more proof. Did you miss some of the testimony from Ms. Hill & Mr. Sondland ?
You've missed the point, because your 'dear leader' wants you to be confused. It's not about the media, or being 'entertaining'.
Watch some re runs of 'The Apprentice' if you want entertainment. Unless you've memorized them all.
Good luck.
6
In many ways, the law is an attempt to structure and define ethics and morals since no two people share exactly the same values. As society evolves, or changes, ethics and morals will change with it. The law tries to keep up will always be lagging.
These impeachment hearings, or the whole Trump presidency for that matter, is a fight between one thing that is static, the law and the transformable element which is ethics and morals. The Republicans know they don't have the law in their side so they concentrate fully on making us believe and accept that what they are doing is right although the law does not agree.
If Trump "win" this one, there will be a problem. The law will have proven to be toothless, wrong even, because it is not close enough to what can be considered the general opinion about morals and ethics.
What to do then? Strengthen the law so it can stand up against public opinion? In that case, the law steps away from the evolution of society.
Weaken the law? Someone should ask the Republicans if they would like that to happen.
I think it would be very dangerous if the Republicans, and Trump, win this. It will be very difficult for many to respect the law and the people responsible for maintaining it.
14
The goal of the law is for all to know what to expect where and when people must cooperate for a common purpose and consequences for when people come into conflict. Trump relies on the power of money and what people might hope he can provide to them to get what he needs or wants.
3
@Casual Observer
Exactly, but when a law does not make sense, if the people in general feel it is wrong, then democracy has failed.
Translation being ... anyone with any integrity is beginning to see the light and understand that working for trump is an accident waiting to happen.
25
Trump’s level of corruption knows no bounds, or depth. It’s encouraging that these members of the OMB felt inclined to resign rather than acede to Trump’s criminal edict to withhold aid to Ukraine. Bureaucrats throughout Washington and around the country who feel similarly but are reticent to act need to come forward now, tell their stories, share their angst over the criminal syndicate now running Washington, and let the nation know what they know, how they feel, and that there is a light at the end of this ghastly tunnel named Trump. With impeachment imminent, it’s more important than ever to learn of the oppression that these Federal workers are forced to endure while laboring under the most corrupt administration in American history.
13
Impeachyment may be a very satisfyingt outcome, but when it goes to the intransigent Senate it will be stopped in its tracks, on top of which so will the campaign of any Democratic candidate for any office.
Vote him out in less than a year rather than wasting time with these self satisfying and informative, but otherwise utterly useless and time consuming hearings.
5
@Ian MacFarlane So, IOW, bury our heads in the sand for a year?
8
The President is guilty and violated our laws. I can't wait to see GOP senators cast thier vote one by one, then we will really know where the most deliberate body in the world really stands.
4
@Maggie & greg
We all want him removed, but short of the 5th Avenue scenario and a still smoking gun found in his trembling hand, what will stop the apparently rabid majority in the upper house and our however outdated electoral college from returning him to power and the rest of us to a life of probable civil disruption?
If the impeachment proceedings prove beyond any doubt he is guilty such an impeachable offense what is to stop the Senate and our heavily stacked Supreme Court from exercising their proven and shameless disregard of the majority?
The only sure way to remove him from office is to vote him out and even that, with gerrymandering, hacking and disinformation, is liable to be a tough row to furrow.
Come on, the White House OMB is Mick Mulvaney's baby. The man MUST testify to a House committee before anything goes to the Senate. It's time to open the floodgate!
19
Trump is actually anti-military (see slandering of Lt Colonel Vindman) yet he is quick with the pardon to someone who breached military rules (Gallagher); now he is planning to have convicted criminal, Eddie Gallagher working with him for his electoral campaign. Criminality is something Don the don can relate to. His withholding narrative is full of holes.
44
Because of Trump's actions, we have civil servants risking their lives and careers by filing whistleblower complaints, testifying in front of inquiry panels, and resigning. On the other hand, we have Republicans clinging to discredited conspiracy theories and refusing to cooperate in order to placate Trump's base and stay in office. It's obvious which group has the moral high ground. I pray that the majority of American people will side with what is true and right and demand the removal of Trump.
59
When Trump leaves, I hope people like these get hired again to safeguard our country for corrupt people like Trump. I'd say the same thing if it were Obama or Clinton or whoever. I'm glad we have relatively non-corrupt and decent people working in our government making sure those who are elected don't overstep their legal and ethical boundaries.
21
No one is supposed to question Trump's decisions about anything. Even when he ignores the law, promotes war criminals, insults public servants, entrusts national secrets to his "personal attorney," or endangers the lives of our troops by freezing financial assistance to Ukraine to negotiate leverage for his personal political campaign.
We are fortunate to have public servants with enough integrity to refuse to just cooperate with a president who lacks the intelligence, experience, education and integrity to carry out the duties of his office responsibly.
19
Well. Not everyone reflexively flouts the law, even in the Trump White House. Thank you for your civil service, civil servants.
15
This keeps up and we will end up with the worst, most crooked government in the World. I hear that Trump and the Republican Party has an order out for 10,000 banana trees.
12
@Jeff Banana Republic brought to you by the Banana Republican Party.
2
Our military. Our government. Our citizens. We must all now mutiny against the trump menace!
18
A question for the legal commentors.
At what point does the defense of Trump, the legal culpability of Barr, or other lawyers in the administration, constitute grounds for disbarrment?
48
It's very clear the Trumptanic is sinking rapidly and on the verge of capsizing.
10
The House needs to call members of the intelligence community to formally state the Ukraine 2016 interference theories have been investigated and debunked. This is a key part of the story which needs to be heard, not just from what is called "the deep state". Otherwise the narrative that a legitimate inquiry was being pursued by the White House will continue. I know Fiona hill said it but we need someone maybe from the FBI to say it. It would also help to have this be stated about the Bidens: okay, Hunter got overpaid significantly for this job, but Burisma did not get any favors out of it. If I was on the other side, I would need to hear if there was any justification for the pressure Trump was putting on Ukraine.
18
Based on the totality of his actions -- the Ukraine scandal, his pardoning of war criminals over the strong advice of both military and civilian advisor, his relentless attacks on professionals with genuine expertise, his blatant self-serving decision, and his constant lying -- it is clear that Trump has no respect for the rule of law. To Trump, the Constitution with its limits on arbitrary power is just a hindrance.
Unfortunately for the USA, both the GOP-controlled Senate and the Supreme Court have proven themselves willing to indulge Trump's every fantasy. While the Court has not yet rules against the various subpoenas related to the impeachment process and financial crimes, by consistently placing a stay on all actions pending an as-yet-unscheduled review, the SCOTUS is playing the role of the willing accomplice in Trump's gambit to simply run out the clock.
We are genuinely in a Constitutional crisis and the fate of our nation's experiment in democracy hangs in the balance.
34
Long ago this topped being about governing, leadership and the public good. On both sides of the aisle it is about clicks, boomers, media presence and power. America is ready to throw out the entire lot, both democrats and republicans.
3
@jibaro I’ll settle for kicking out Republicans.
2
Trump playing his version of diplomacy/personal advancement is egregiously unethical but when one sees how much internal confusion and conflicts were produced, something a whole lot more concerning is emerging.
In even the biggest corporations, the message that management wants understood is well known and while people may not like it they have no confusion about what it is being done and the rationale. With this White House, this Administration, the members are continually confused and taken by surprise by what the President says and does. They are not infrequently finding themselves asserting one thing only to hear the President express something different. There is an absence of a sense of all being working towards the same objectives, of knowing what they are supposed to be doing and why.
6
Who cares if there was no investigation into the Bidens.
Who cares if there was no quid pro quo.
Does anyone really care if Ukraine got their money on time or not?
These hearings are about impeaching Trump that's what is important. Nothing else matters. Let's keep our eye on the ball.
3
@P&L The Bidens are irrelevant. Foreign aid to Ukraine is a completely separate issue. Trump brought it up as a convenient (and fake) reason to withhold the meeting and the aid.
2
@P&L
I care very much actually.
I care that the president tried to extort a favor for his personal political benefit.
I also care about promised aid being distributed to our allies on a timely basis.
I care about the trustworthiness of the United States.
22
Who are these people at the slightest moral indignation can just pack up and resign? Obviously they didn’t need the job in the first place or had another already lined up and were just looking for an easy dramatic exit and martyrdom at the next liberal cocktail party.
2
@John Doe
Never resigned on principle, eh?
No big surprise.
24
@John Doe Seriously, why do you need morals when you can just watch Fox & Fiends and have a dramatic, group hug at the next Big Truck event?
14
@Dave C
So who is the Juan Williams equivalent on CNN? On MSNBC? What? No one on those networks argue the opposing view? How refreshing.
I would like to offer that a lot of this inside-baseball alt-right nonsense being peddled as government policy has been originating for decades from Free Republic, a website that was apparently spawned from Clinton-derangement syndrome in the late 1990s. Every grievance Jim Robinson, the site owner, and his cult of 1960s-era cultural rejects ever felt has turned into a network of alternate-reality stories about just about everything. If you want to know why only a few viewers even know what Rudy Giuliani or Devin Nunes are talking about, you have to go to Free Republic to see why anyone even knows or cares about the issues they're pushing. Nobody ever heard of Terry Schiavo, or Kate Steinle, or Navy Seal Gallagher, until Jim Robinson's minions mobilized to make news outlets like Breitbart, Fox News, and CSPAN's Washington Journal have to discuss them.
5
If the defections continue, we might one day be treated to Donald Trump, in deepest despair, quoting Shakespeare: “Christ in twelve found one; I in ten thousand, none!”
7
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
I'm hoping for "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse," and its aftermath. Burial beneath a carpark afterwards optional, but fitting.
1
You keep reporting and commenting like Trump is the problem, he would have been gone years ago if the Senate did their job instead of supporting him and covering for him
51
Brilliant!
5
The systemic flow of White House associated employees leaving their government positions speaks volumes about the intransigent law revisionist in the current administration and the "thin ice" they stand upon. VOTE THIS STAIN OUT IN 2020!
24
Why are these proceedings in secret if the committee is cleared to hold them in public?
3
'Secret' is a funny word choice. It means no one would know about them. Yet, here we are...typing about them. So, no, they are not 'secret'.
9
@DEE
Show us where it is written that they are in secret.
5
*** "Mr. Trump has insisted he never pressured Ukraine for the investigations or made the aid contingent upon them, and was instead withholding the money out of concern over corruption in Ukraine and a desire to have other countries pay their fair share."
Disclosure to Reader:
This *** should be placed on all journalism that refers to Trump statements. *** is a qualifier giving notice to the reader that Trump has on record over 13,000 documented lies and increasing each day.
President Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 993 days. Source: Fact Checker. Quoted in Washington Post.
15
When the Mueller report was pending, I debated with my friends whether Mueller would "play it by the book" and consequently get played by the Republicans, or whether he and his team had gamed it all out and were planning their counter moves. Unfortunately, we got a pretty clear answer to that one.
It is too much to hope now that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler & Co. are thinking through their moves and counter moves? That they have anticipated the Republican attempts to obfuscate and devised strategies to neutralize them?
8
With every new revelation about the ethics and patriotism of career feds, I become more certain that we will survive trump.
17
At least they did the right thing.
They quit.
Instead of turning into leakers.
5
@Dr. John
There are lots of "right things," and leaking is one of them, as far as I'm concerned. The ones who do nothing and continue to enable the destruction of the rule of law, those people are the opposite of what we need.
15
@Dr. John all the while, the "enablers" stay on, feeding His Worshipfulness the strokes he needs to stand upright. I'll take a leaker in a corrupt adminstration over its enablers any day.
6
This is such good news. I love these hearing they're so much fun. Nadler will get better ratings than Schiff. It will be better TV. During the intermissions, they should bring in some talent so people will keep watching. It would great if they could get Bruce or Taylor Swift.
3
You know that there is no chaos in the White House when the turnover is greater than Mickey Ds in the summer.
Even Trump’s direct hires are leaving, not to mention those who have been criminally convicted.
But hey, the love of his life is still there.
Ivanka, of course.
17
It’s not just that Trump is corrupt or that he surrounds himself with corrupt people - it’s that he drives out those who refuse to be corrupted.
50
@Larry Roth
It's surprising how many are willing to be corrupted or enable corruption, including anyone who votes for him and who continues to support the GOP, because the GOP is no longer the party we grew up with, it's a hotbed of thugs and white supremacists, greedy and dangerous.
8
They should have resigned when President Obama refused to supply any military weapons.
5
@Dr. John Yes. Donald Trump is a better man than Barack Obama. Happy?
5
@Dr. John
Or maybe when James Comey threw the election to Trump by announcing investigation of Hilary's emails 11 days before the national election?
No, no wait: maybe they should have resigned when Trump said Robert Mueller was a fake and dishonest?
Er...ah... perhaps they should have split when Trump started defending Kim Jung Un, Duterte and Orban?
No... this is it: they should have resigned when Trump told the world that he trusted Putin on the 2016 election more than the US intelligence agencies. That's DEFINITELY when they should have resigned.
16
You need to keep up. There has been a change of administration in Ukraine since Obama made that decision.
14
He’s obstructing justice by fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President? Does he mean future Kings of America, drawn from his direct descendants, and the throne they will sit on?
9
Why would the White House want to participate and legitimatize a political coup. I would advise it to.
1
In case you've forgotten, the Constitution gives the House oversight power over the executive branch, including the right to impeach the president. The House also has the right to make its own rules, which means it can implement its right to impeach the president according to procedural rules of its own devising.
None of this constitutes a "coup" in any way, shape, or form. Learn the difference. Impeachment is a constitutionally legal method for removing a president who has committed criminal acts. No one is above the law. No one.
6
So what. They dissent. They leave.
It happens all the time.
7
Of course, the White House should only be able to participate if they fully do so by allowing leadership to testify.
2
Trump is now saying that Rudy did it all by himself.
Will Rudy be the fall guy, or will he produce his insurance?
What a bunch of gangsters.
51
Trump's lawyer Guilliani to be involved? Would Trump throw him under the bus? Anyone remember Trump's former lawyer and current prison inmate Michael Cohen?
18
@Jim
Trump will pathologically throw anybody under the bus to protect himself, including Golden Child Ivanka, if it came to that.
Protecting the super-fragile ego is all there is.
8
Trump’s insistence on anyone in the administration not testifying is a continuance of his life-long refusal to be answerable to the law. He is amoral lawless, and contemptuous of the Constitution.
His statement “I run America” is a glimpse into his pathological, malignantly narcissistic extension of seeing no boundary between himself and the USA.
He is being impeached in accordance with the Constitution, that part of the Constitution which he called “phony”.
Trump doesn’t know the Constitution, and doesn’t understand or agree with those parts of it people have tried to educate or counsel him on. His legendary short attention span, his disinterest and inability to learn are incompatible with the duties of the Presidency.
The Constitution is standing in his way.
This next phase of the Inquiry is very important and instructive.
74
Now this is what is “ Perfect “.
Well stated
3
@Gracie
Trump is so inconsistent and impulsive that when his people testify openly, the questions will increase exponentially the more that they relate what they have perceived. Separating the noise and signal from this great information dump will make it the center of attention, instead of Trump.
1
recently i heard a pundit make the analogy to a boxing match - that sometimes you can win on points but sometimes you need a knockout punch. i would like to think impeachment and removal can be decided on the merits of the case. but i fear that nothing short of an extreme shock to the republican system can get their members to put reason and loyalty to the constitution above party feeling and allegiance to trump.
28
@pi
Republicans value money over everything, and if someone hits them in their wallets, they may learn to at least pretend to support the Constitution.
4
What if the house takes questions from the public, ahead of time, to ask the panel?
6
Since the current WH acknowledges neither expertise nor truth, there will be no reason for them to show up for such a discussion.
16
@David L
Great idea.
Question #1. Nancy promised we would hear from the whistleblower. When will that happen?
2
@Dr. John
When did she promise that, and if she did, it ain't over yet.
7
Where did you hear that? On Fox?
8
Terrific idea. Include the President or his representatives. Let them understand the process so they can't say it is unfair. Invite the loudest critics from the Republican party so they can explain why they disagree with the process. This is not an opportunity to criticize the information, that comes later. Just get everyone involved so they cannot complain about the process, lack of, or transparency. Tie Trump to a chair and make him watch the meetings on his TV so he will understand what the process will be and can't come back later and say he wasn't given the chance to participate.
12
Yes I'm certain Mr. Trump and his lawyers are very interested to hear from constitutional scholars.
Mr. Trump especially will listen with bated breath, and ask probing questions.
NOT.
34
That’s good parody!
5
Yes I'm certain Mr. Trump and his lawyers are very interested to hear from constitutional scholars.
Mr. Trump especially will listen with bated breath, and ask probing questions.
NOT.
3
It's no longer a question of proven illegal activity, but one of political gamesmanship. Democrats should be on every TV channel repeating over and over again the same message - that of an invitation to Trumpy to personally defend himself in Congress, under oath. Put him and his sycophants on the defensive. Use colloquial language, not legal jargon. The Democrats need to get the late-night comedians to train them to communicate.
32
I wonder if anyone who works for Trump has the skill and self-confidence to face the Judiciary Committee. Giuliani will be shredded. Barr will look like the fool that he’s been playing. Maybe they could get Michael Cohen to make a cameo appearance.
12
I especially like the idea of inviting Trump himself to come testify before the committee. When he then peddles his lies and falsehoods minute by minute, Dems should always lead their response by reminding the public that he refuses to go under oath.
14
The principal clowns at the 'circus' to which you allude were Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes As others here have noted, many advisors close to the President who might have spoken in his defense were asked to testify and declined. The facts seem clear enough: Pres. Bone Spurs tried to shake down a foreign government for a political favor by withholding promised military aid, If that's what you wish to defend as 'no big deal', be my guest.
39
That's the kind of hardball play he would make. if he has nothing to hide then why won't he testify?
3
Would it be smarter politically to recommend censure and not removal?
The hearings will unfold against a backdrop of intense political polarization and bitter partisan feuding, less than a year before Mr. Trump faces re-election.
To a completely neutral observer, could not this Democratic impeachment investigation at taxpayer expense right at the onset of 2020 campaigning also be seen to be taken as a form of election interference?
2
To neutral observers, no. To right wing partisans, I’ve no doubt.
30
@John Doe
Trump tried to extort a political hit on his most likely election opponent. That is the election interference this is all about.
7
@Therese, they say vampires don’t see their own reflection either.
1
Hopefully, Laurence Tribe will testify. The man is at least as qualified as anyone to address these questions .. or, even more so.
But, I doubt that Trump's legal team will show up. Why bother? At the end of the day, the fix is in at the Senate. And, Trump can count on the fealty of his cultish electorate. To these people, the hearings are nothing me than a noisy waste of time.
Sad ...
9
@JH, like with the debates, rotate the networks’ contributing legal experts to search for the truth about the Constitution for their moment, then average them all out.
1
I would just like to see these hearings air during prime time so as many Americans as possible can witness proceedings without having others (e.g., Fox) interpret them later.
7
Keep the pressure on. Trump is doing an about face so the GOP have "Talking Points". But until subpoenaed documents are given to the Impeachment Committees, and people subpoenaed show up to testify, there is *no* excuse and the Dems need to forge ahead with the inquiry.
Giving the pResident the opportunity to have counsel present at the hearings is a good sign for validity to the process. It is going to be an interesting week next week.
The fast paced strategy is perfect, IMHO. The GOP who are better at "messaging" than the Dems, and the GOP will always been in a state of "catching up" and defense.
The Dems are being smart in their strategy.
9
The circus continues. Only those "legal scholars" whose opinion supports one side will testify.
I have heard legal scholars from both sides giving very reasoned opinions, yet coming to different conclusions. The legal question becomes whether or not the President's actions rise to the level of impeachable conduct justifying removal from office, as opposed to bad conduct best left for the people to judge in an election.
There is no objective test for this, so even the most learned scholars will disagree, regardless of their political views.
In a typical trial, jurors hear testimony from competing experts. Then, the jurors decide whom to believe.
Unfortunately, the people will be deprived of the same opportunity in this matter, because the committee will permit only experts favoring one side, creating the false impression that there is only one side. This is not a search for the truth. Rather it is an exercise in self validation.
I happen to be a lawyer ( though I would hesitate to call myself a "scholar"). It is obvious to me, as it would be to most intellectually honest lawyers, that there indeed two sides here which each can and should be effectively presented and argued.
I would love to hear legal experts from both sides so I can form my own reasoned conclusion. Unfortunately, I know full well that I will not get that opportunity.
2
@Gene Gambale
first - Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Second, Adam Schiff and the other Dems on the Intelligence Committee didn't prevent members of the administration from providing testimony - Trump did! The only witnesses that the republicans want to testify are those who will spout conspiracy theories that have been proven to have no validity. So which side is obstructing justice - I wonder...
20
In an election republicans leave open to foreign meddling. That they undermine with voter suppression efforts and extreme gerrymandering. It’s so disingenuous to hear those who are clearly partisan say “leave it to the voters.” More gaslighting from the right.
13
@Gene Gambale do you mean an impartial legal scholar like Rudi, who said “The truth isn’t truth.? You can hear the other side of the Constitutional argument, just watch your favorite a Fox News show!
7
First, publicly present all evidence that has been forthcoming. Then, develop a legal argument based on that evidence (or, in the case of obstruction, the lack of evidence) to the public directly. A savvy move here by the democrats, especially because it quashes one of the lingering criticisms of the process that the President hasn't been represented through council during proceedings.
During the previous committees, the GOP lawyer (who, by the way, WAS in a sense representing the President) seemed to struggle to make a case. This will make the Judiciary Committee hearings really interesting, because it will either show that there is an exculpatory case to be pried from the mouths of witnesses or that Trump's defense is based on the stretching filaments of ever-weakening conspiracy theories.
3
Trump cronies like Nunes will call this foul and announce this is a continuation of circus and there is no point in calling Trump lawyers because the conclusion is foregone. When you are part of the mob you support the mob any which way you can and that’s what exactly will happen
9
The Real Issue is ‘what do American’s expect from their President ?’ Truthfulness ? Clearly not, as Donald Trump was a known lifelong Liar before he was elected. Integrity ? Clearly not, as Donald Trump was known to have stiffed his vulnerable suppliers in his business & Cheated thousands of gullible students who trusted his tall claims of Trump University. Patriotism ? Clearly not, as Donald Trump was a known Draft Dodger. The American people only want a con man as their President who can pull a fast one over the world & get Americans a quick buck. That is why Impeachment of Donald Trump gets no traction among the American people.
3
@S Venkatesh you mean gets no traction with a minority of Americans.
6
"If the president ... recommends that the committee call witnesses related to two unproven theories about Democrats that he pressed Ukraine to investigate"
If the theories were proven why would anybody need witnesses?
1
Why bother? Impeach Trump ASAP so the Senate can exonerate him and we'll be done with this whole affair. The voters will make the final decision next November.
1
The White House position is quite clear: pretend impeachment isn't happening, except on twitter, where nothing matters.
8
The president has labeled this effort a total hoax (or "phony hoax," whatever that is). If that line of thinking prevails, he would want no part of the judiciary proceedings. Yet, ironically, perhaps for the first time ever in his presidency, his presence would actually give something a sense of legitimacy.
Far safer for him to make his presence known via Fox. Just think of the number of times he could say "That's what they tell me..." and get away with it.
6
Which prompts the question, who is Trump's legal team? Rudy Guilliani, Judge Janine Piro, Bill Barr, Sean Hannity? What great legal minds will Trump rely on to turn this sober Judiciary hearing into a three ring circus? What slim legal arguments will be fortified and augmented by screaming falsehoods at the committee? What evil this way comes?
1455
@Rick Gage
Presumably the lawyer who argued that the President could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and be subject to zero investigation or legal or congressional process. They lost that in round one and will find the majority of the Judiciary Committee equally dismissive.
157
Barr’s son-in-law is on the presidents team.
79
@Rick Gage Would love to see Rudy humiliate himself in this.
75
Rep. Nadler is beginning his impeachment hearing in a fair way by inviting white house lawyers and this hearings could be more credible than the circus of Schiff's hearings.
51
@Girish Kotwal The only contributors to those hearings being a "circus" were the clowns on the right.
767
@Girish Kotwal will be interesting to see what objections the Republicans will raise regarding the legal scholars’ discussions . Watch for them to demand that Hannity and Tucker Carlson be sworn in as expert witnesses!
382
@Girish Kotwal ……..the impeachment hearings were also fair. There were representatives from both sides.
396
I feel awful about the thrill of glee I felt anticipating the paroxysms of discomfited anguish that will no doubt soon start flowing out of the White House like a bad case of something Mom used to give me Pepto-Bismol for when I was a kid.
48
This is a brilliant strategy. I am proud of these fine, tempered-in-the-fire-of-realpolitick public servants, and their staffs! How can they do this jaw-dropping work while running on what must be dead exhaustion? Just very proud of all of you !
12
By all means the House should continue to publicly investigate presidential misdeeds and misdemeanors like the Ukraine bribery attempt by Trump-Giuliani-Sondland. Keep up the pressure but by no means should the whole House vote on whether to send articles of impeachment to McConnell's Senate where they will die allowing Trump to declare exoneration. The Democrats should not let Trump and the Republicans set the rules of the game. So far the current plan seems ingenious.
4
The federal indictment in New York previously returned against the now imprisoned Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, which also implicated him (“Individual #1.”) as an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen, should definitely be included in the final Articles of Impeachment lodged against the corrupt President. Both violated federal election law, a felony, with only Cohen paying a high “price” for having done so while Trump has thus far escaped any accountability despite his central role in intentionally evading the reporting requirements of that law. This totally unjust situation demands that Trump be held at least to account under the Constitution, particularly with Cohen presently being imprisoned.
7
"“Other than that, I would actually like people to testify.”
I would love to show you my tax returns.....as soon as I'm no longer under audit.....
8
This phase should be really juicy given the ancient animus Nadler and Trump have for one another dating back to Nadler's scuttling of Trump's doomed Television City project.
If anyone knows Trump and his bag of dirty tricks, it's Nadler. I doubt Trump will have his attorneys present because that would be an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the process, contradicting his claims of a hoax.
Rudy and Jay Sekulow would create a carnival like atmosphere.
3
"I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President."
Such an institutionalist our President is. If you believe that, you probably believe Trump actually cares about corruption.
8
Republicans will of course immediately and continuously try to discredit as liberal and partisan any constitutional scholars Democrats bring in, no matter who they are.
3
I am heartened by Trump’s mention of “future presidents”. My greatest fear is that he plans to remain president for life, and that Republicans in the Senate and the Supreme Court will support him in that plan.
Outlandish? I would have thought so only a few years ago, but....
7
I took his reference to ‘future presidents’ to mean himself and his offspring.
8
@Weave Good point. His best bud Kim’s family is in its third generation. Putin and Sisi will never leave.
Who needs democracy?
4
@Weave
Me too.
1
Good to ask them to participate but they will probably just be defensive and try to steer the discussions in another direction.
1
It would be fascinating to see Trumps attorneys argue against a transparent government, against the rule of law and the congressional right of oversight of the executive branch. Would they argue that Trump is above the law? That he is a king?
Perhaps they can send the press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, as she has commented that the latest ruling by Judge Jackson actually goes against precedent!
6
It would be interesting if Mr. Nadler allowed the president to voice his conspiracy theories in the judiciary committee hearings. Particularly if the president tried to block administration officials and security agencies from testifying to refute those same theories. This would dramatically illustrate to the entire country the hypocrisy of the president’s and congressional republicans’ position on Russia and Ukraine.
Mr. President, what do you have to hide? Why don’t you trust your own administration to testify and support your position?
At minimum congress would gain another article of impeachment.
408
@ClydeS
"This would dramatically illustrate to the entire country the hypocrisy of the president’s and congressional republicans’ position on Russia and Ukraine. "
Not that "the entire country" is prepared to be persuaded by reason and facts. Many people's hypocrisy detectors have lost their batteries and no longer function.
34
@ClydeS Aside from his: weight, wealth, and crimes--he isn't hiding anything.
19
@Daniela
You omitted a big one. His health.
10
This is one of the most brilliant political moves of the 21st century. Nadler is one shrewd fellow.
9
If the lawyers show up they'd be admitting that Trump did something wrong, and that would invalidate the entire Republican defense:
1) No quid pro quo
2) Burisma
3) But … but …. Biden....
4) Never Trumper
5) It's 2nd hand information that he did something wrong
6) Couldn't have heard Trump's voice on phone
7) Wouldn't hang my picture in the embassy
The lawyers won't show up.
8
@Martin
Perfect summary of the defense. Actually triggered my first feeling of amusement during this whole impeachment travail. Listening in real time to the R’s is so cringeworthy and also discouraging. Even the late-night comedians aren’t funny anymore because they just seem pure evil—and likely to “win”, on some semantic or lawyerly technicality.
3
Oh, I think they'll accept. There are some well respected conlaw experts that will say something like "we really don't know if this is impeachable, because we've never seen this before." That will be enough for Republicans to play their whataboutism game. Remember, this is a party who holds onto the 0.00001% of scientists who don't believe in climate change. No loophole is too small, no conspiracy theory too far-fetched. Like ethics and integrity, a basic understanding of Occam's razor eludes them.
8
Trump will offer to answer written questions!!!
1
@TrueNorth
Will he reply in 48-point boldface Sharpie?
But on a more serious note, I have read lately that he is facing perjury for his written responses to Mueller. No big shock here with a president of 14,000 lies.
This, IMHO, is a stroke of genius. "Put up or shut up."
16
Exactly!
1
If I were guilty of crimes against my nation, I, too, would be disinclined to cooperate. In this, Trump's decision not to cooperate seems uncharacteristically rational. Any reasonable criminal, given the opportunity, would make the same decision as Trump has.
8
@Dan Where does it say he wouldn’t cooperate?
I think the word you seek is ‘hasn’t’. He hasn’t yet cooperated and has stated that he will not.
3
@Jackson He certainly has not cooperated so far, and his stonewalling is working out spectacularly for him
2
According to Trump, "taking the 5th" is just like saying you're guilty. By not testifying, the Trump Cabinet and Trump himself are essentially taking the 5th, just in more crude manner.
Therefore, no testimony equals guilty.
14
@MrDeepState
Yesss, but be careful of the potentially Trumpian false equivalence here. The fifth Amendment is a Constitutional protection. Not showing up is not only not protected, it's a crime: contempt.
If President Trump is involved there will be lies, dissemination of facts , manipulation and a sleazy attempts at mind control. The louder someone shouts the weaker their stance.
I applaud Chairman Nadler's attempts for fairness or due process. I have no doubt that President Trump will find a reason not to participate. To date President Trump has managed to avoid any legal proceeding that could result in his being held accountable for the lies and deception he is so prolific at.
He can't send Rudy Giuliani to represent him because Rudy will not put himself in a court for the same reason the President won't. What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve...
13
Is there any evidence to suggest that the White House or Republicans in general care about Constitutionality?
17
Seriously? First, an “expert” is someone paid to say whatever the client wants to hear. No one hires an expert who will disagree with your theory of the case. So this testimony is necessary window dressing. Second, there is no way El Presidente will trade the hidden likely explosive documents for the ability to cross-examine the Committee’s hand-picked experts. Let’s just impeach. Senate acquits. Voters- the true jury will decide in November 2020. Vote Democratic. Help save America.
5
@Eric Harold You really think Nadler and Schiffless care about anything other than their careers?
2
@Jackson: Actually, yes, I do believe that they sincerely care about the good of the country. Not everyone is as cynically depraved as Trump, McConnell, Barr, Nunes, Graham, Mulvaney, and most of Trump’s other enablers.
6
The constitutional scholars should have been asked if Trumps actions warrant impeachment before the inquiry. But this is just another TV show. We will have allot of questions with the word if. If Trump did this or if Trump did that. What if this and what if that. This is going to more boring then the inquiry. Just a terrible sequel.
5
Of course, they needed to know what he did before commenting on whether it’s impeachable. That’s been largely established now, minus the holes left by the obstruction of the White House.
1
It doesn't matter. The Senate will not convict.
5
“I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President" is trump's argument for not letting his lapdogs testify.
Does anyone with a functioning brain actually believe trump gives a hoot about future presidents or (even more laughable) the Office of the President that he has disgraced on a daily basis since before inauguration?
38
Can the President's Legal Team and Republicans call their own witnesses and constitutional scholars?
2
@Sam Freeman
Read the article.
6
The chances of the White House participating in this next stage of the impeachment hearings are "when pigs fly"...
3
We all know the answer: of course his actions violated the Constitution. You don't need a constitutional scholar to know this. You just need to get your news from a source other than Fox, Breitbart, etc....
5
Irony that would be too good to be true:
Barack Obama was a "senior lecturer" at the University of Chicago in constitutional law.
Possible legal expert called to testify?
Would that be enough "pizzazz" for our ratings obsessed?
15
What are the chances Trump and/or his attorneys will show up at the Judiciary Committee hearing to question witnesses?
Slim or none and Slim just left town.
9
As far as Ukraine’# preference for Clinton : Did Trump speak early for his confidence in working with Putin and did Trump not say that Crimea was of mostly Russians language speakers? If I was an Ukrainian and I was ok with Crimea never to be returned I would consider myself a traitor. Of course Trump was very vocal that he was not advocating for Ukraine and FACT — that since the Russian backed incursions, separatists — Trump, the only candidate in any NATO country political contest since Crimea invasion to speak so positively towards Russia and Putin.
Why was this not spoken to by Adam Schiff?
1
I predict a fiasco or no-show.
Donnybrook, anyone?
4
I am guessing the White House will be a no show, because other wise wouldn’t they be admitting the Impeachment isn’t a hoax!! Come Christmas morning trump probably won’t be happy with Santa when he unwraps his gift from the House.
3
We all know the answer: of course his actions violated the Constitution. You don't need a constitutional scholar to know this. You just need to get your news from a source other than Fox, Breitbart, etc....
13
These clowns will do anything except the national business. I hope Trump tells them to take a hike or better yet, get back to business.
4
@Mike- Over 200 House bills passed. Take up the "will do anything except the national business" with Mitch.
3
@Mike I assume by 'clowns' you're speaking of the obstructionists in the Republican dominated Senate, as well as the entire White House Cabinet ?
2
@Mike
Funny, that's exactly what i hope they tell Trump.
3
The possibility of Trump's legal team appearing and participating in this impeachment hear is about as likely as Trump stating he was going to meet with Robert Mueller and answering his questions.
19
Probably a good thing Trump did not meet face to face with Mueller. Bumbling Mueller, as revealed at his public testimony, would have made Trump sound intelligent.
parody is impossible, reality has replaced it. this is beyond brilliant.
8
“The hearings will unfold against a backdrop of intense political polarization and bitter partisan feuding, less than a year before Mr. Trump faces re-election.”
Both sides aren’t equal. We have a group of people who don’t respect the rule of law and want absolute authority over our society promoting their agenda through the Republican Party apparatus. If this aspect of corruption and propaganda wasn’t so extreme and forceful we could simply have a discussion.
This all starts and ends with republicans and their actions. If they respected the rule of law and actually tried to represent people instead of disenfranchise and suppress this would all go away.
One party and one group of people is causing this. Period.
51
They better call on Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter to advise.
3
Let's see if the White House will boycott the opportunity to have the Trump lawyers participate. It's a nice Gambit on Schiff's part. First, he needs to buy a couple weeks of time to see if the Supreme Court will finally agree to hear Trump's appeals. Chief Justice Roberts would be inviting a hot mess, if he allowed the court to hear these cases, and they dragged on for months....
Second, this undermines a key talking point of the Trump Defenders, in that Trump is invited to directly participate. If he opts to has his Lawyers come to this phase of the Impeachment investigation, it will make Schiff and Nadler look evenhanded, even magnanimous. If Trump boycotts, he simply looks petulant.
13
Few people will say much of anything because they don't like conflict. What is true is that most people, even ideologues get tired of spectacle. Inviting the WH to send reps simply means Mr. Trump will have another opportunity to further damage his case. Nancy Pelosi understands quite well that conviction in the Senate is not so important. The stain of impeachment is enough. Mr. Trump will find out soon enough he had hurt his brand and place in history by his own antics.
16
The is very astute: An open-handed offer to join the inquiry as to what exactly constitutes impeachable conduct. Trump is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
No one he can send (Barr? Cipollone? Giuliani?) stands a chance trying to challenge real lawyers with Constitutional Law knowledge. If he blusters that it is all a hoax and he won't be bothered to participate, he is clearly afraid (or is unable) to present any legal argument to stop the process. The Factual Train left the station when Schiff adjourned the Intelligence Committee hearings. That will leave him with no evidence in support of his "perfect" actions, nor any law on his side.
Nothing anyone can say will cause a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpie from following him over the cliff; they are not the target. The voters to be won over are open-minded people (a still wavering independent, or moderate Republican), who want to be fair. That is the appropriate approach, but not something the "accidental president" comprehends.
12
Someone tell the president that he'll get big ratings if he testifies. Like really yuge. The best.
87
The president's lawyers definitely won't show for this particular hearing. That would add credence to the impeachment process, and that's the last thing Republicans want.
Instead, House R's will be yammering to the cameras that the entire process is unfair and illegitimate, that the president has done nothing wrong, and, if he did, it's not much worse than a speeding violation.
And it won't stop there. We'll hear endlessly from their side about the supposed Russian 'collusion delusion', Burisma and the Bidens, Ukrainian corruption, the DNC server, and that attempted extortion isn't a crime (clearly it is, but that's how they roll). And did I mention they'll bring up the Bidens and Ukrainian corruption?
It's no accident that our right wingers believe in the old fascist saw that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.
7
Pretty darned generous of Nadler, all things considered. Yet I won't be surprised when Trump starts dumping on him.
4
Nancy Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are playing chess whilst the White House and it's legal team are playing tiddlywinks in the corner of a padded room. The biggest dunce is with his cap on, watching tv most of the day and tweeting nonsense.
21
Build a cache of evidence and They will come.
Perhaps, but more than likely, not.
1
I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Congressman Nadler has been positively weak and pitiful in his role. Republicans are probably going to walk all over him and the message.
5
@Tim Berry The Republicants haven’t been doing so well with that “walking” thing so far. More like “bellowing and staggering,” if Jim Jordan is an example.
3
I must stop underestimating Nancy P. This is brilliant! If the White House lawyers don't come, televised hearings will feature criticism without direct support, only the yammering of committee Republicans, which we will get anyway.
If they do come, they undermine the case for the stonewalling of testimony by McGann, Guiliani, Bolton, and the rest. Queen to Rook 8, Check.
1066
@Speakin4Myself
How does coming undermine the case for stonewalling?
Normally, if you assert privilege with respect to a matter, you don't get to make arguments about that matter (no sword and shield). Pelosi has arguably waived the sword and shield argument that Trump should be allowed to have it both ways.
It would have been better had she conditioned Trump's participation on his waiver of privilege. The way she has set this up, Trump's lawyers will be permitted to make speeches about what Trump said or didn't say to whom and what he did or did not intend, all the while denying access to those with first-hand knowledge that might contradict his assertions.
16
@Yellow Dog Democrat Great reply! I love it.
2
Ah - but is it the King’s rook or the Queen’s rook? It. Makes such a difference in the outcome.
7
I will be surprised if the White house is willing to go head to head with a panel of constitutional scholars, who will seek truth.
905
The White House may not be, but Trump is now calling the shots from his dizzying spin through his own peculiar reality. His life is strewn with ill-advised diktats.
47
@Chris
I agree, especially the part about the White House "seeking the truth."
15
@Jackson you may have missed in the article that Nadler is just running the session. There will be Constitutional scholars there.
19
This is an important and strategic move by the Judiciary Committee. The House needs input from legal and constitutional scholars, motivated by facts and steeped in scholarship and history. Trump's legal team, if they show up, will be as effective in this venue as they have been in so many legal proceedings where judges continue to vigorously reject Trump's legal arguments.
717
@A Goldstein "legal scholars." Gee I wonder what the chances are that the Dem-controlled Committee hasn't already selected "experts" who will agree with their conclusions on impeachment. And since we're constantly lectured by Dems about how impeachment is a political, not a legal process, I wonder what possible relevance there is to the opinion of a law professor from Harvard.
2
R.P., Jim Jordan screaming at the top of his lungs and Devin Nunes spouting every conspiracy theory under the sun seems to be the best that the GOP has to offer in terms of constitutional understanding.
80
@R.P. Well, Impeachment is defined by the Constitution, so there’s that.
And of course like in every single case in his life that 45 did not like the way any given legal matter went, he will appeal to SCOTUS, so it is important to get opinions on Constitutional issues ahead of time.
33
I’ll make this quick. Donald Trump’s lawyers will not show up next week to hear Constitutional scholars debate the merits of the impeachment process. If they did, and were proven to be either unprepared or unprofessional, their appearance would cement the growing impression that the White House is in way over its head on this matter.
Pat Cipollone and his staff will be undressed in public, an embarrassment not helpful to the president’s cause. Also, such a setting will discomfit the Republican phalanx in the House and in the Senate. They’re hardly eager to hear impartial experts on this topic educate both the public and elected officials in a forum on what the Founding Fathers wrote about removing a president.
I will be very surprised if the White House accepts the invitation. They don’t want to be exposed as amateurish. Obstructionist, yes; and if the distinguished panel speaks truth to power, the president’s case may unravel before the House votes formal articles.
1128
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 of course they won't show. But the simple act of invitation is BRILLIANT.
500
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Another stellar comment Red!!!
Trump's lawyers spend more time, energy and tax payers' money on reasons and justifications for neither Trump nor his staff to testify than they do his alleged innocence. If he were so dang "innocent" then all of the prior witnesses must be delusional and liars.
I have never known anyone who has worked so hard to convince the world that the moon is made of green cheese. That is what Trump, the Justice Department and his entire legal team is trying to sell the American public, especially his base.
290
If Trump pressures his lackluster legal team to show, or that fatuous windbag Bill Barr, I wonder how long it will be before he fires them after some genuine legal lions make mincemeat out of them.
149
I found fault that Dems didn’t emphasize Ukrainian incident to extent Trump and cabal are willing to usurp Constitution. GOP Senators, supplication to Trump, suggest there aren’t breaches to boundaries against democracy they won’t defend. Media and intelligentsia, by not warning publicly to risk of GOP’s enabling authoritarianism, are not checking Senators point of no return.
I'm not sure I see the point of this move by the House Judiciary Committee. Who are they trying to educate and inform, and for what purpose? Convening a panel of scholars to clarify for Democrats matters of constitutional law pertaining to impeachment may be informative; but it's basically preaching to the choir. They'll take on board what they need to pursue the impeachment process. Doing the same for Republicans is akin to having scientists offer evidence and arguments concerning the reality of climate change. They're neither interested nor care about what scholars or "experts" have to say about anything, unless what they hear confirms their preexisting convictions.
Some of us may still like to believe that, partisan politics and polarization notwithstanding, persuasion on the basis of reasoned argumentation, historical understanding, factual analysis, and consideration of evidence, is possible and views are open to change. Scholars matter, research counts, knowledge is power, etc. But this is all beside the point, nothing more than a joke and a farce to the Trump White House and its Republican minions, as we'll see in the days to come.
2
@Rip This era in history will be widely documented. The impeachment process is not a charade. Every action, research and rebuttal will be documented. Every player will be exposed.
6
@Rip
I'm kind of a wonk and I assume I'll learn something. If a number of Americans get a lesson in Constitutional law, that can't be a bad thing. Especially if a bunch in swing states learn something.
4
I am now totally confused.
Why does the House Judiciary Committee need to have hearings?
I thought that the Intel Committee had hearings, and then would send a report to the Judiciary Committee, and then the Judiciary Committee would decide whether to draft Article(s) of Impeachment and then have a full House vote, and, if it passed, send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
What am I missing? Process wise?
@Alexandra Brockton I think the idea is that the Intel Committee is acting as the finders of fact while the Judiciary Committee is acting as the finders of law. We've heard the defenses from the pundits muddy the waters between these two, but we ought to have our representatives separately spell out what happened and what is wrong about it.
In conventional criminal trials, the findings of law is usually already clear by the time the jury is acting as the finders of fact (if the accused did this, then they are guilty of violating that law). In the case of impeachment, there is less agreement or clarity over whether a certain action constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.
More generally, I think they are looking into the face of overwhelming partisanship and looking for any avenue which might produce a fruitful conversation about the expectations of officeholders.
2
Dear Santa
I have been very good this year. Here is my Christmas list
1) Donald Trump will testify under oath during the impeachment hearings and subsequent trial. He is a very stable genius and I really want him to show this to the country.
2) make the vote in the Senate to remove President Trump from office anonymous. This way all of the Democratic senators who support him can vote for him without worryingly about what their constituents will think.
Other than that I’d like a cup of coffee
Merry Christmas to one and all
8
I'd love to know who will be presiding on the House Judiciary Committee in which Representative Jerrold Nadler will be chairman as well who the "panel of constitutional scholars" will be. It never hurts for a viewer to do a little due diligence on his or her part before the hearing.
To be completely honest, I can't help but feel this will be either a sham and/or a complete waste of time and money. The Republicans already have their small minds made up. I doubt sun light has pierced through in decades.
But I'm still going to watch this hearing. I think ALL Americans should watch it as well and form their own opinion rather than what Fox and Friends tell them to believe.
9
@Marge Keller
Why would it be a sham?
2
@Pia
You are correct and I misspoke/wrote. Apologies.
If the Republicans continue to behave like they did in the prior hearing, then I worry this hearing will not be fruitful.
2
With constitutional scholars center front, one would hope the hearing will proceed in a serious manner with the decorum that the subject of impeachment demands. We don't know if Trump's legal team will participate or what they will bring to the hearing, but we do know about Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
The hearing will present another opportunity for Rep. Jim Jordan to display his sideshow barker oratory, a profuse torrent of words, signifying nothing.
But America won't just get another painful dose of Jordan's nonstop nonsense about Democrats conducting unfair hearings and making a mockery of the Constitution, we are also likely to get an earful of Rep. Louie Gohmert's Christian fundamentalism, anti-immigration and Islamophobia all woven (more like jumbled together) into an argument that the Judiciary Hearing is unconstitutional and an attack on Christianity.
We will have to wait to see if Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner decides to grace the hearing with his presence. He didn't shown much interest in hearing the impeachment witness depositions. But it should be noted that he probably was too busy planning his retirement from Congress and filling out his resume for lucrative lobby jobs.
Of course we should not overlook the potential penny-dreadful theater optics of Rep. Matt Gaetz. He's the party savant who recently led a sounder of Republicans to storm a confidential impeachment witness deposition. He's in competition with Jordan for who can embarrass themselves most.
7
I hope the house judiciary committee is thinking very carefully about how to make the testimony of legal scholars accessible to the American public. There is no sense televising this testimony if all it does is muddy the waters and convince Trump supporters that a bunch of pointy-headed scholars mumbling legalese are unable to explain the rationale for impeaching a president.
249
@Dominic
Don't hold back, please offer suggestions.
15
@Dominic It's time we respected legal and other scholars again. The age of Trump needs to end. There's a reason people study these matters. No one can know everything in this era.
77
@Dominic yes, explaining this stuff to Trump supporters is like trying to explain to your pet why they should not soil the floor.
86
Yes. It's time for Trump's enablers to "put up or shut up."
5
Trump should definitely attend. He always says he is the most transparent president ever. Prove it !!
7
The House committee's invitation to the White House, for this or any other purpose, should be conditioned upon the Executive Branch abandoning all assertions of executive privilege in response to subpoenas from House committees and abandoning any pending claims for same now pending in court. Quid pro quo.
26 Nov 19 1547
1
No way will the White House send anyone. What could they say when the panel declares that directing Administration employees to ignore Congressional subpoenas is impeachable obstruction of Congress?
3
Nobody will show up.
Only the rich and powerful have the option of ignoring subpoenas. You and I would go directly to jail.
So why would they care to attend a seminar on what and what is not impeachable?
8
God save us from this committee! We can only hope that Schiff writes "proposed"articles of impeachment and Pelosi instructs Nadler to hold a vote on them. This committee is where impeachment will slowly twist in whatever wind Trump whistles. Nadler is a process nut, enamored with court proceedings. In his own bumbling way he will let the impeachment die. He will unwittingly be Nunes' best friend.
Who will be playing the roles of Nunes and Jordan on the Judiciary Committee?
3
First news that gives me a hardy chuckle. Such fun!!
4
Very SAD, The president did nothing that warrants a high crime or even a misdemeanor. The Democrats still can't deal with the loss by HRC. And they fear waiting until the election because DJT is going to win a second term HUGELY.
3
@jo
That sounds a *lot like "Whistling Past the Graveyard", jo.
But it is certainly sticking to the weak Republican Talking Points, and imitating our thought/speech-impaired President to a "T".
28
@jo
Looks like this judiciary committee hearing will be a learning opportunity. Please, all, listen to the constitutional scholars with an open mind.
40
@jo
"The president did nothing that warrants a high crime or even a misdemeanor. "
He tried to obstruct an investigation; that is the crime that caused Nixon to resign.
He has failed to uphold his oath of office, to protect the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. His personal gains are more important to hm than what is best for the country as a whole.
He has constantly lied, every day, about everything. Is that Presidential Behavior?
Americans are not afraid to wait to the election; bad behavior needs to be dealt with in the manner the Constitution stated.
36
If memory serves: President Obama was, and presumably remains, a constitutional law expert. Any chance he might be invited??? Any chance he would come if invited? !!
53
@Kathy Doubt he will come. He's way too busy making big bucks and fixing up that mansion he just bought on the beach for $15 million in Martha's Vineyard, and if my sources are correct, Michelle's out pitching her latest book in prep to jump into the race at the last minute because of the weak democrats vying poorly.
2
Yes, he's a constitutional law expert. no he won't be invited or come if invited.
That would be unprecedented, but I'd like to see him there.
4
What a cynical and ungrateful response. Trump is the worst president you’ve ever had and it will take years to repair your country. Obama was one of the best.
14
Nadler will lose control. It will be Lewandowski all over again.
5
@Billy The Kid
Good point. Nadler needs to use the Schiff protocol. The committee chair and majority counsel ask questions for 45 minutes. Then adjourn for a vote. Then when most people have tuned out, the Rs can start their blather.
1
I think Nadler was caught off guard by the blatant disregard for Congressional hearings, once... Once.
1
This is a fine effort by the committee to inform the public about some pretty basic but quite important civics while killing some time before this president's appeals run out and SCOTUS allows the tax returns to be revealed which will allow other committees to follow the Trump money back to Moscow. Once Trump's money laundering activities come to official light even the Republican led Senate may be loathe to officially grant pardon to the racketeer in chief.
Maybe...
37
Nadler has proven completely inept and tossing these proceedings to him will be a disaster for Democrats. They’re also likely to pack this panel of constitutional experts with virulent Trump haters who are already widely known to CNN audiences. If so, Fox News will run clips of their anti Trump comments 24/7 to gut their credibility. It would be smart to let Republicans choose two of the experts to look fair. If they don’t you’re looking at Lewendosky 2
6
So, you think if the WH chooses to forego representation it bodes well for them?
Given the appalling, craven and stonewalling conduct of Republicans so far I don’t see that they deserve anything. Endless cries of “witch hunt!” and discrediting long-serving decent public servants shows they are incapable and unwilling to treat this hearing seriously. And anyway, as much of the world are “virulent Trump haters” (I include myself) what does your country stand to lose by impeaching this your most horrible president ever? You only stand to gain by getting someone - anyone - other than trump.
3
If they actually go they will just debate everything Trump is accused of because what else would they do?
And does the committee expect his lawyers to agree that his actions are grounds for impeachment and do they think his co-conspirators in the GOP and his supporters care?
If they do go they have had plenty of time to practice airing their objections already so they will be well prepared.
3
There is no other way to look at Schiff's and Pelosi's completely bankrupt impeachment against Donald Trump except as a colossal blunder! The ship of fools sailed and, after two agonizing weeks, it sank. There are not many house seats immune from the disaster.
4
@JW
You might want to spend less time on Breitbart and Fox, and try to really study some true information, such as investigative journalism, fact based journalism, compare and contract numerous polling sources, read comments of readers of left, middle, right and alt-right publications.... Adam Smith had something in mind with the phrase "invisible hand" that was not intellectual self-abuse....
9
@JW Thanks for your comic relief at such a serious time in the nation. Not only a comedian, you are also a fortune teller, a clairvoyant physic about the year away 2020 election results. How good were you at predicting the outcomes of the 2018 midterm elections?
4
The evidence for impeachment is overwhelming. if you'd rather have a president enlist the aid of foreign governments to meddle in domestic elections, argue that. But dont argue trump's shooting someone (on 5th Ave.) as a nothing burger.
5
That's deliciously neighborly, don't you think? It would surely dismiss as gratuitous any White House claim the right questions weren't asked of those who testified in closed and open hearings.
Even if the Senate makes the trial a badly-acted charade, preparation for, and scripting of, White House inclusion in the Judiciary Committee's scrutiny would likely demand more work in the next week than the West Wing has put into anything except daily talking points to divert attention for lack of ANY activity in the executive branch - except that of dodging bullets.
19
@drjillshackford : And, further, takes away the complaint of no input
7
I want to learn more about Devin Nune's trip to Ukraine! If he took this trip, he should be arrested and fired.
170
@Dolly PPatterson You certainly will, but you won't like it, or its consequences, I fear.
3
@Dolly Patterson yes, and we should codify into law that when any member of Congress is fired for wrongdoing, they no longer retain any federal benefits including congressional medical insurance, pension, etc., just like in the private sector.
12
I think this is brilliant. In educating the White House, the larger public is educated. Thank you, House of Representatives!
145
@Manny
Add it to the high school curriculum too.
2
If the WH shows up and uses the 65 million voted for Trump excuse for why no action of his is impeachable, someone please retort with how many people voted for the other candidates.
.
35
This is not a good move; Doesn't Rep. Nadler remember Corey Lewandowski? They'll send in bomb throwers like Corey, Mark Meadows and Gym Jordan to make an utter mockery of the hearings, leaving the general public even more apathetic than they are now.
3
@L.Braverman : No hearing. They will be discussing Constitutional Law and the application thereof
9
@L.Braverman I agree. I hope Nader has taken some crowd control lessons from Schiff. Any antics like twerp Lewandowski exhibited should result in immediate contempt charges.
1
It won’t be surprising if somehow they are able to bob and weave and distract from the facts, and confuse or embolden the voters who probably wouldn’t care if Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue.
Sadly whether they show up or not the committee will continue preaching to the choir and won’t change the minds of Trump supporters or his co-conspirators in the GOP.
6
I'm going to trust Nadler, Pelosi and Schiff, but not sure if White House counsel will simply continue smearing and spreading propaganda. It's giving them a microphone. Hope we can keep this from spinning out of control.
8
It will be interesting to hear the White House Lawyers explain how finding factual information ought not happen.
77
According to Trump, this was supposed to be a kangaroo court without due process for the swamp monster. What's up? Trump is never wrong, right.
11
This is a good move, and proves once again that Pelosi (now joined by Schiff) knows how to play constitutional chess. She is building an ironclad case, step by step. Diplomats, career service people, and now independent constitutional scholars are being heard from. If and when Trump is impeached, the record will show beyond any doubt that many reasonable people thought this was the only legitimate conclusion. When today’s Republicans scream “partisan! Look at the party line vote!” they’ll be shouting into the historical void.
203
I am reminded of the Hans Christian Andersen classic Danish tale "The Emperor's New Clothes". I fear that nothing - not even a panel of constitutional experts - will make those who do not want to see the truth (because everything 'the Emperor' tells them is true has to be true) accept the fact that 'the Emperor' is strolling around as naked as the day he was born.
62
@@waritalks The thought of seeing this particular self-styled Emperor unclothed is unsettling to say the least.
7
Brilliant strategy. I hope Judiciary Committee releases their rules for this hearing like Intel did. And I have swampland in Florida for anyone thinking trump’s attorneys will make any headway against the scholars plus the Dems attorneys already on the Committee. I hear the GOP really likes swamp.
40
I can just hear what Trump's legal team will probably say throughout next week's public hearing - "I object based on National Security issues".
28
It will be interesting to see scholars discuss the historical background of the impeachment clauses in the Constitution, particularly the fears of the founders that a would-be monarch might subvert the presidency. My guess is that GOP Representatives who hail originalism as a judicial philosophy will not be so comfortable as impeachment is contemplated by the legislative branch.
77
"Ain't nothing gonna happen." Kenan Thompson, SNL
4
@NICHOLS COURT yes. Hilarious but sadly true.
1
everyone knows the vote and trial will be rank and file partisan politics, regardless of the facts. just get it over with.
3
I would like the WH lawyers to present their justification in a manner that even a democratic president would receive the same conclusion.
26
Now the White House can't claim representative weren't invited to the impeachment prom. Instead, they will complain
they weren't allowed to choose witnesses.
Some are justifiably concerned about Rep. Nadler's handling of the Judicial Committee hearings. Perhaps, as Republicans did with Jim Jordan, Democrats should bring Adam Schiff into the Judiciary Committee fold.
62
It's critical that Nadler use competent counsel to ask the bulk of the questions in at least a 45-minute segment, as Schiff did. A skilled questioner can elicit a compelling narrative from witnesses, as did the Democrats' counsel on the Intelligence Committee. Most of the House members are not competent questioners and are only interested in grandstanding anyway (Schiff himself is excepted from this criticism).
Nadler's prior stint at conducting a hearing on the Mueller report was a chaotic mess. We can only hope he has learned his lesson. The stakes could not be higher.
251
@al I agee. As much as I want the impeachment to proceed, Nadler’s best days are behind him. The less he talks the better.
24
@al. Yes, please dear God, no repeat of the Mueller hearing. If that occurs, all the important work of the public hearings in the Intelligence Committee will be lost. This is a case that shows the weakness of seniority rules determining chair positions. Others on the committee, including Zoe Lofgren, who was a staffer during the Nixon impeachment, and Ted Lieu, are certainly more capable and have a stronger presence against the inevitable Republican obstruction that will take place. The fast talking but feeble thinking Doug Collins, as ranking member of the committee, will certainly be more obnoxious than Devin Nunes, and we need a strong hand, comparable to Adam Schiff’s, to hold him (and repeat performances by Gym Jordan and John Radcliffe) and Trump sycophant Matt Gaetz in check.
10
@al
Perhaps Mr Nadler could appoint Mr Schiff as pinch hitter. Schiff was splendid in the Intelligence hearings.
3
NYT can you print a follow up about how this might help with any potential move that the WH might try to pull with SCOTUS?
35
The construction specifically mentions bribery. The evidence is overwhelming. Sad that the GOP is immune to law and reality. I pray we can avoid autocracy.
407
@Jamie....extorsion, threatening behaviour, mob practise, illicite demands...No, there are too many, I can't go on.
41
@Jamie
Bribery by any other name would still be impeachable. As would obstruction of justice, receiving foreign and domestic emoluments, and abuse of the power of the Presidency.
Bottom line: if the President fails in his duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States he should be removed from office.
58
@Jamie What has been described as Pres. Trumps question and hold back of Congressional funding for the Ukrainians is the definition of bribery. As defined by Black's Law Dictionary " as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any time of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of public or legal duty." "With regard to governmental operations, essentially, bribery is "Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action". As in promised funding to be released if Ukrain dug up dirt on Biden. The funding being the "official action" for receiving the requested dirt. Are we clear now?
16
We are less than a year away from the next presidential election. Let the voters decide this issue at the ballot box. There is no need for any of this now.
6
@Jon S the constitution allows for this process and if a co-equal branch of our ELECTED government feels there has been some sort of abuse of power they most definitely should hold these proceedings. If he is not removed from office at that time then the voters get to decide.
134
@Jon S IF you believe that Trump is a great danger to this country and by extension the world, that a narcissist
and criminal shouldn't have access to the nuclear codes, then yes, time is of the essence in removing this outlier.
164
A habitual thief steal from a store and is caught. He is already scheduled for a trial on a previous theft charge three months from now. So I guess the police shouldn’t arrest him because he’s already got a trial scheduled. Great logic.
102
Well, they asked for it.
Now it's the White House's opportunity to put up or shut up. (Substance-free outbursts not welcome.)
203
Good idea. Lay it out there for all to see, Mr. Nadler. We will also then be able to see for ourselves how the president's lawyers play fast and loose with the truth.
175
As for the White House legal team's questioning tactics, I don't think adopting the Devin Nunes or Jim Jordan approach will serve their client well, which is why I hope they do exactly that.
294
Mr. Trump's legal team is in no way interested in the truth. Their job is to deflect by muddying the waters with conspiracy theories and outright lies.
The Republican Party has become the Party of Russia; only interested in gaining and maintaining power at any cost....vote!
224
Brilliant move by Nadler to call the President's bluff. I suspect that, like every other time the White House has been offered a chance to testify they will hide behind immunity and beggar off from doing so.
392
This means Jim Jordan and Matthew Gaetz will also get to spread lies in public.
25
I expect Trump's legal team will find the title of the inquiry to be a little off-putting. Maybe that's why the Committee chose it.
29