The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Syt]

So the White House have issued a letter stating they will refuse to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.

Trump defies Democrats with all-out political warfare on impeachment

(CNN)Donald Trump drove Democrats to the first crucial pivot point of their impeachment confrontation on Tuesday with a defiant declaration that his administration would not cooperate with the investigation.

In a fierce counter-attack after days of failing to control a torrent of damaging disclosures, the Trump White House branded the inquiry an illegal bid to overthrow the 2016 election and blocked testimony from a top diplomat.

"Never before in our history has the House of Representatives -- under the control of either political party -- taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue," White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her key committee chairs.

The letter in effect gave notice of all out political warfare as part of the administration's strategy to deprive investigators of all the testimony and evidence that they have demanded, in a clear effort to throttle the capacity of the probe into whether Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent -- Joe Biden.

Pelosi says there is no constitutional requirement supporting Trump's demand for a full House vote to initiate impeachment proceedings -- one justification given for the President's refusal to cooperate.

But Trump's move left her with grave strategic decisions on what to do next in a confrontation that puts to the test the integrity of America's bedrock separation of powers and will determine whether she truly gamed out this duel several steps ahead.

Challenging Trump's position in court could bog down the impeachment drive in months of legal challenges. Folding the President's obstruction into articles of impeachment in short order could play into his claims that she's running a "kangaroo court" and rushing the most consequential function of Congress.

The American people will now be effectively asked whether a President who accepts few limits on his power can be held in check by a separate branch of government or whether he can avoid such an examination, a decision that will echo through history.

Democrats are already arguing that Trump's position is a de facto admission of guilt based on a legal and political house of sand.

"I guess they haven't read the Constitution," said Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, a Democrat who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"If they don't defend themselves, against the copious evidence that we already have, then I think it disadvantages them," Malinowski told CNN's Erin Burnett.

"This is not the kind of investigation where we are starting with nothing -- we are starting with everything."

Trump's call 'crazy' and 'frightening'

The nation's most serious political crisis in decades came to a head as more shocking details emerged of Trump's attempt to pressure Ukraine.

The now famous whistleblower wrote a memo that describes a White House official as characterizing the call with Volodymyr Zelensky as "crazy" and "frightening," a source familiar with the whistleblower complaint said.

The New York Times, which first reported the new details, said in its piece that White House lawyers discussed how to handle the discussion because in the official's view the president had clearly committed a criminal act."

The nugget raises the possibility that Sondland's text to a colleague that there was no quid pro quo involved was on the orders of the President himself -- a possibility Democrats will surely want to investigate.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff suggested Monday that Sondland had texts and emails on a personal device that the State Department was refusing to hand over.

The new revelations explain why the White House is refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. It can't allow a window into wild, self-serving and possibly even criminal behavior by the President in his dealings with Ukraine that could turn Americans against him.

As Democrats seek to make a case that the President defies constitutional norms and abuses his power by setting foreign policy for personal political ends, Trump's aides must try to slow their momentum and weave a tale of congressional overreach.

The struggle intensified further after multiple polls showed a majority of Americans now support opening an impeachment inquiry.

But there is not yet a majority for removing the President from office, underscoring the critical impact of the political battle in Washington now being fully joined by both sides.

Trump dares Pelosi to hold risky vote

Trump's letter effectively dares Pelosi, who may want to protect her more moderate members from political damage, to hold a full vote in the House on moving forward with the inquiry.

Such a vote was held in the last two impeachment sagas concerning Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, but there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates such a vote. Trump's team says the absence of such a vote means that he has no choice but to withhold cooperation to preserve the scope of his office for future occupants.

"At a constitutional level, that is what we call complete and total nonsense," said CNN legal and national security analyst Susan Hennessey on "The Situation Room."

The White House maintained that without such a vote, the President and other Executive Branch officials will be denied basic rights available to all Americans.

It accused Pelosi of denying Trump the right to cross-examine witnesses, to have access to evidence, and for counsel to be present during depositions.

"Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen," Cipollone wrote.

He also argued that the President did nothing wrong in his call with Zelensky, and claimed that Democrats had prejudiced the case with unfair process and had violated the separation of powers.

The tone of the letter however was far more partisan in tone than legalistic, reflecting that the battle over Trump's fate will now come down to a vicious political fight. Mostly, it appeared to defend Trump based on the perceived unfairness of the political process rather than the merits of the Ukraine case.

Pelosi vowed in her own letter to House Democrats: "The President will be held accountable. When it comes to impeachment, it is just about the facts and the Constitution," she wrote.

"At the same time as President Trump is obstructing justice, abusing power and diminishing the office of the presidency, we have a responsibility to strengthen the institution in which we serve.
This is essential if we are to honor the separation of powers which is the genius of the Constitution."

The Speaker could decide to call the President's bluff by scheduling a full House vote. But there is no guarantee that Trump would cooperate if a full House vote takes place.
"We don't want to speculate on what would happen in various hypothetical situations" Cipollone wrote.

A vote would also give Republicans a platform to grandstand and to turn the impeachment process into a circus -- as they have done in previous Democratic oversight hearings -- a factor that might weigh on Pelosi's deliberations.

But there is also an argument that offering Trump a blueprint for an open process, with clearly defined impeachment goals, is not just politically smart but it's the right thing to do at a perilous national moment that demands basic standards of fairness.

As the shockwaves of Trump's letter rocked Capitol Hill, Democrats issued a subpoena for testimony and evidence from Sondland, who was stopped from offering a deposition on Capitol Hill by the White House hours before his Tuesday appointment.

Still, as this tumultuous presidency has shown, refusing a congressional subpoena is less risky than ignoring a criminal summons. Democrats could hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt but that would entail the kind of legal imbroglio they are seeking to avoid, which Trump plans to create.

Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff hinted that the remedy for the refusal of Sondland and other key officials to testify would rebound against the President.

"The failure to produce this witness, the failure to produce these documents we consider yet additional strong evidence of obstruction of the constitutional functions of Congress," Schiff told reporters.

Girding for the battle ahead, the White House contacted outside lawyers as it seeks impeachment counsel. One of those attorneys is former South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, CNN's Pamela Brown reported on Tuesday.

[grumbler]

So the White House have issued a letter stating they will refuse to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.

...House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff suggested Monday that Sondland had texts and emails on a personal device that the State Department was refusing to hand over....

Commence Republicans baying at the moon, a la the Clinton story.

[Josephus]

aaah, I pine for the good old days when the biggest scandal was the U.S. president saluting a marine with a coffee in his hand.

[Saladin]

Say what you will of McCarthy, he'd have kept a Russian appeasing trump out of office

[FunkMonk]

A Fox News poll just came out showing a majority of Americans support impeaching and removing Donald as President   

[Valmy]

A Fox News poll just came out showing a majority of Americans support impeaching and removing Donald as President   

This world is not that kind.

[jimmy olsen]

Several polls have recently come out with support at or slightly above 50%.

[Eddie Teach]

Not enough to tip Republican senators, I'm afraid.

[Admiral Yi]

A Fox News poll just came out showing a majority of Americans support impeaching and removing Donald as President   

That's actually right.

Impeachment is the action in the House analogous to an indictment.  To be removed from office requires the Senate vote.

Not sure why someone would support impeachment but not conviction however.

[viper37]

Is the removal from office final after the Senate vote, or can the President appeal to the Supreme Court?

[Habbaku]

Conviction in the Senate trial results in immediate removal from office and the VP becoming President.

[Syt]

A Fox News poll just came out showing a majority of Americans support impeaching and removing Donald as President   

That's actually right.

Impeachment is the action in the House analogous to an indictment.  To be removed from office requires the Senate vote.

Not sure why someone would support impeachment but not conviction however.

I guess theoretically you could want to investigation in what looks shady, but reserve judgment until after proof has been presented and witnesses have been heard.

[Valmy]

Is the removal from office final after the Senate vote, or can the President appeal to the Supreme Court?

A bunch of judges have been impeached in the past and AFAIK none have ever been given the opportunity to appeal once convicted. I don't see why the President would be able to.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is the removal from office final after the Senate vote, or can the President appeal to the Supreme Court?

The Senate's judgement is not reviewable.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate trial.

[Razgovory]

Uh, what the fuck just happened?  Two people connected to Giuliani and the Ukraine were just arrested.

CNN)Two associates of Rudy Giuliani connected to efforts to dig up dirt in Ukraine on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden have been arrested and indicted on criminal charges for allegedly funneling foreign money into US elections.

The charges against the men suggest Giuliani's push on Ukraine and President Donald Trump's receptiveness to it had ties to an illegal effort to influence US politics and policy using foreign funds. The indictment involves two people central to the impeachment inquiry in the House.
The two Giuliani-linked defendants, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were detained at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington on Wednesday and are scheduled to appear in court in Virginia at 2 p.m. ET Thursday.
Overall, four men were indicted Thursday on two counts of conspiracy, one count of false statements to the Federal Election Commission and one count of falsification of records. The four are alleged in the indictment unsealed by New York federal prosecutors to have conducted a scheme beginning in March 2018 to evade campaign finance laws.
Along with Fruman and Parnas, Andrey Kukushkin has been arrested and is expected to appear in court Thursday in the Northern District of California, according to the Manhattan US Attorney's office. The fourth man, David Correia, hasn't been arrested. All four are US citizens, according to the indictment.
Parnas was Giuliani's fixer in Ukraine, introducing him to current and former officials as far back as 2018, according to CNN's reporting.

Starting in November 2018, Giuliani told CNN, Parnas and Fruman introduced him to former and current Ukrainian officials who provided information that Giuliani claims is damaging to some of Trump's political enemies, including Biden. House Democrats have subpoenaed documents from Giuliani relating to those interactions.
The request from Congress is the second set of subpoenas linking Giuliani and other Trump affiliates to Parnas. The first set, part of a lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida earlier this year, sought Parnas' financial records and included a request for any work he may have done on Giuliani's behalf.
They gave hundreds of thousands in donations to a Trump-allied super PAC, according to the Miami Herald.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the arrests.

Fruman and Parnas asked a US congressman to help get the US ambassador to Ukraine fired at the same time that they were committing to raise tens of thousands of dollars for that congressman's re-election effort, according to the indictment. Parnas made their request to the congressman, who is not named, in part at the behest of one of more Ukraine government officials, the indictment states.
The ambassador at the time, Marie Louise Yovanovitch, was eventually recalled in May after earning the ire of Trump and other conservatives, who viewed her as biased against the President.
Yovanovitch has become one of the central figures in the ongoing impeachment effort in the House and is expected to appear before lawmakers for a deposition on Friday.

As they sought to raise a promised $20,000 for the congressman, Fruman allegedly made a donation to the lawmaker in Parnas' name to skirt limits on individual donations, in violation of campaign finance law, the indictment says.
America First Action, the super PAC, told CNN in a statement they have not used the donation made by the men.
"America First Action placed that contribution in a segregated bank account, it has not been used it for any purpose and the funds will remain in this segregated account until these matters are resolved," America First Action's spokeswoman Kelly Sadler said in a statement. "We take our legal obligations seriously and scrupulously comply with the law and any suggestion otherwise is false."
Push for marijuana retail licenses

Part of the alleged scheme revolved around an effort to curry favor with politicians who could help them win licenses for a retail marijuana business they hoped to establish. The business venture and the ensuing lobbying effort was largely funded by a Russian national, running afoul of campaign finance violations that prohibit political donations from foreigners, the indictment states.
The Russian is not named but identified in court documents as a businessman. At one point, Kukushkin is quoted in the indictment discussing ways to hide the funder's "Russian roots" because of the "current political paranoia about it."
Parnas and Fruman, as well as the two other defendants, are said to have drafted a chart that outlined a "multi-state license strategy," planning for $1 to $2 million dollars in political donations to federal and state committees that were backed by the Russian national.
The foreign national eventually made wire transfers totaling $1 million to Fruman and another unnamed individual last year, and the defendants used those funds to make donations to a number of political candidates in Nevada that they thought could help further their plans for the marijuana business, the indictment says.
The marijuana business never actually came to fruition, according to the indictment.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html