What's new

Donald Trump acquitted by Senate in impeachment trial

Mueller didn’t clear him. He left it to the justice department to take further action.

Mueller report will come back to bite trump once he’s no longer President.
 
Imagine this level of cognitive dissonance and delusion. Imagine if a Pak PM tries to get India's help to discredit a Pak national and Pak intelligence agency and vice versa. That person will be lynched even if they are the PM

Imagine thinking in a democratic country the president can ask for the enemy's help to investigate its own citizens. My IQ just dropped a bit by reading you say its politics

Being a Trump supporter must come with a mandatory drop in IQ I guess. Today Trump called for China help on air. to investigate his election rival in Biden. Imagine you thinking their is nothing wrong with a President using his presidential power to ask an enemy nation to investigate his own citizens

Seriously some of you guys will be studied in history as the prime example of delusions and low IQ. And out of all people of the world you got only Trump to support and be in a delusional cult of? It's ridiculous

We will see wont we.
 
Mueller didn’t clear him. He left it to the justice department to take further action.

Mueller report will come back to bite trump once he’s no longer President.

You can’t have debate with Trump’s supporters, they are some of the dumbest supporters.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h1Q67tAUiMg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now he admits it PUBLICLY ! Stop digging a hole for yourself man, can't you avoid comment for once ?
 
Texts released by Democrats in Congress reveal how US officials worked to push the Ukrainian president into opening a public inquiry into President Trump's leading opponent, Joe Biden.

The messages come as Mr Trump faces a formal impeachment inquiry about it.

The exchanges show a senior diplomat saying it would be "crazy" to withhold military aid to Ukraine for Mr Trump's political gain in the 2020 election.

US law bans soliciting foreign help for electoral purposes.

But Mr Trump denies any wrongdoing and, on Thursday, publicly called on Ukraine and China to investigate Mr Biden and his son Hunter over their political and business dealings, even though he has not offered specific evidence.

He accuses his opponents of a "witch hunt".

Impeachment in the House of Representatives would remove Mr Trump from office - but only if endorsed by the Republican-controlled Senate.

What do the texts say?
The impeachment inquiry stems from a 25 July call in which Mr Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his rival.

The wide-ranging text message discussions are connected to allegations by the Democrats that Mr Trump dangled military aid as a way to press Ukraine to dig dirt on Mr Biden.

Sent between July and September, they involve high-ranking officials:

On 19 July, the three diplomats discussed arranging a phone call between Mr Zelensky and Mr Trump.

Mr Volker told the other two he had had breakfast with Mr Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani that morning - and identified the main purpose of the upcoming phone call.

"Most impt [important] is for Zelensky to say that he will help the investigation," he told the others.

But Bill Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine, warned that President Zelensky "is sensitive" about Ukraine being seen "as an instrument in Washington domestic, re-election politics".

Ahead of the call, Mr Volker texted that he had heard from the White House that it would result in a formal visit to Washington for Mr Zelensky, "assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened in 2016'" - a reference to allegations of Ukrainian officials being involved in the US presidential election in 2016 which US intelligence agencies have blamed on Russia. Both Mr Trump and Russia have denied any involvement.

What were the diplomat's concerns?
In the call, Mr Trump asked Mr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden "as a favour".

But text messages show US officials discussed what the Ukrainian president should say in a statement afterwards.

By 13 August, Kurt Volker advised that Mr Zelensky's statement should address interference in US politics, "especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians" - and Burisma, the company Joe Biden's son was involved in.

There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.

Then, on 29 August, the tone of discussions changed. Mr Zelenksy's aide Andriy Yermak sent a curt message to Mr Volker, including a link to a Politico story headlined Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia.

Mr Taylor, the senior diplomat in Ukraine, seemed to voice his concerns about the motives for the delay.

"I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," he said.

That suggestion, however, was firmly pushed back by Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who said Mr Taylor was misunderstanding the president's intentions:

What are Democrats and Republicans saying?
In a letter alongside the release of the texts, top-ranking Democrats criticised Mr Trump's "now open defiance of our core values as American citizens."

"The President and his aides are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and misdirection in an attempt to normalise the act of soliciting foreign powers to interfere in our elections," it said.

"This is not normal or acceptable. It is unethical, unpatriotic, and wrong."

But Republican Jim Jordan said Mr Volker's testimony on Thursday had "undercut the salacious narrative that Representative Adam Schiff is using to sell his impeachment ambitions".

The House Oversight Committee - of which Mr Jordan is the ranking Republican member - tweeted that "this information [contained in the text messages] cannot possibly be understood without Volker's explanations from yesterday's testimony".

He has called for the entire transcript of the testimony to be released.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49930863
 
Last edited:
The texts have busted Trump and his cronies.

Before Trump fans cry media bias, the texts were obtained by Trump's media cell AKA Fox News of all places.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fm...em-led-house-committee-in-closed-door-session

Meanwhile, new encrypted text messages obtained by Fox News show Volker and other U.S. officials battling internally last month over whether Trump was engaged in a "quid pro quo" with Ukraine as he pressed for the country to look into the Biden family, while holding back U.S. aid. The texts with Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Bill Taylor indicate that the nature of a potential arrangement between the U.S. and Ukraine was a matter of dispute.

"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Taylor said in a text exchange.
We've now also learned Mike Pence was in on the efforts to pressurise Zelensky hence why the White House didn't let him attend his inauguration.
 
US Democratic lawmakers have demanded documents from the White House as part of their impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

The documents relate to a call between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 July.

In the call, Mr Trump pushed Mr Zelensky to investigate his leading Democratic political rival, Joe Biden.

The impeachment inquiry stems from the call, which was flagged up by a whistleblower in August.

Mr Trump has denied any wrongdoing, accusing his political opponents of a "witch hunt".

But in a move to crank up the pressure on the president, the three House committees leading the investigation have given him until 18 October to hand over the documents.

"We deeply regret that President Trump has put us - and the nation - in this position, but his actions have left us with no choice but to issue this subpoena," the Democrats wrote in a letter to the White House.

The subpoena - an order to hand-over evidence - was issued on Friday by the chairmen of the committees for Oversight, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham sought to play down the subpoena, saying it "changes nothing".

A separate request for records has also been sent to Vice-President Mike Pence, with Democrats asking him to clarify "any role you may have played" in Mr Trump's overtures to Ukraine.

If Democrats manage to impeach Mr Trump - by way of a vote in the House of Representatives - a trial would be held in the Senate.

Senators would have to vote to convict Mr Trump by a two-thirds majority to remove him from office.

But that outcome is seen as unlikely given that the president's fellow Republicans control the Senate.

What documents are the Democrats demanding?
In their letter to the White House, the committees accused Mr Trump of "stonewalling" multiple requests for records relating to his July 25 call with Mr Zelensky.

By refusing to voluntarily release the documents, the Democrats said Mr Trump had "chosen the path of defiance, obstruction, and cover-up".

Failure to comply with the subpoena would amount to "evidence of obstruction", which is also an impeachable offence, the committees warned.

What's the latest reaction?
On Friday, Mr Trump said Democrats "unfortunately have the votes" to impeach him, but predicted he would win in a trial in the Republican-led Senate.

Most Republicans are standing squarely behind Mr Trump, though two Republican senators have spoken out against the president.

Mitt Romney of Utah labelled the president's actions "appalling" on Friday.


Media captionTrump calls for China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens
His remarks came a day after Mr Trump publicly called on Ukraine and China to investigate Mr Biden and his son, Hunter.

There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, who served on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma until earlier this year.

On the same day, text messages released by congressional Democrats showed how US officials worked to prod the Ukrainian president into opening a public inquiry into Mr Biden.

Could there be a second whistleblower?
As the fast-moving investigation into Mr Trump escalates, there are reports of a second intelligence official considering making a complaint against the president.

The New York Times said the unnamed official had "more direct information" about the events surrounding Mr Trump's phone call with Mr Zelensky.

Michael Atkinson, the general inspector of the intelligence community, interviewed this official to corroborate the original whistleblower's allegations, the paper reported.

Given the original whistleblower, reported to be a CIA official, did not directly witness the call, the testimony of a second official could prove valuable to the Democrats' inquiry.

Four quick questions on Trump-Ukraine
Why is Mr Trump being investigated?

A whistleblower alleges he used "the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the US 2020 election", by asking Ukraine to investigate his main rival, Joe Biden.

Is this illegal?

If this is what he's proven to have done, then yes: it's illegal to ask foreign entities for help winning a US election. Mr Trump says it's a witch-hunt and he did nothing wrong.

What could happen next?

If the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach Mr Trump, there'd be a trial in the Senate.

Could he be removed?

A Senate vote needs a two-thirds majority to convict, but Mr Trump's Republican party controls the Senate so that's unlikely. And the Mueller inquiry made clear you can't charge a sitting president with a crime.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49942394
 
A second whistleblower has come forward in the impeachment case against US President Donald Trump, according to lawyers representing the first one.

Mark Zaid told ABC News the second person was also an intelligence official and they had spoken to the inspector general.

The White House has not commented. President Trump has repeatedly rejected the original complaint.

No details have been released about the second whistleblower's claims.

However, Mr Zaid said the person had first-hand knowledge of allegations associated with the phone call Mr Trump made with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 July.

The impeachment inquiry stems from the call, which was flagged up by the initial whistleblower in August.

On Friday, the New York Times reported that a second person was considering coming forward who had "more direct information" about the events surrounding the call.

It is not yet known if this is the person represented by Mr Zaid.

Mr Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani tweeted that he was not surprised there was another "secret source", calling the inquiry politically motivated and lashing out at the "swamp media".

What difference could a second report make?
The Democrat-led investigating committee is eager to speak to someone who witnessed the call directly or has more information.

They are hopeful that this could be that person.

The White House insists it has been open and released a transcript of the call, after the concerns came to light.

However, investigators point out that this was only a partial transcript. They have subpoenaed the State Department for more documents related to the call.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49953225
 
Do the Dems feel that Trump has a strong chance of getting reelected? Or do they abhor Trump/consider him so dangerous that reducing the 4 year term by a few months is a plus? Both?

I think they should focus on the 2020 election. If they go ahead with the impeachment process (probably will impeach him in Congress but won't be able to remove him in the Senate) and likely fail in removing Trump, he actually comes across stronger to his marginal supporters. Even if they do succeed, it may be in the country's best interest to let him just finish his term. Trump won't be presidential like Nixon. His ego will make sure he burns things around him down to the ground if he is forced out.
 
You can’t have debate with Trump’s supporters, they are some of the dumbest supporters.

Agreed.
I might be wrong here... feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But where are the Indian posters who used to defend him to the hilt because they thought Trump was the chosen Hindutva guru to liberate them from Pakistani tyranny.
 
Interesting, reports coming out that Adam shiff sent one of his staffers (Thomas Eager) to Ukraine in late August which is not abnormal but it was paid for by Atlantic council.

Who is the Atlantic council, well they signed an agreement with Burmisa in 2017.

Who is Burmisa, well they were the company that paid Hunter Biden $83,000 a month to be on the Ukraine gas board.

The stench is getting bad on this.
 
Instead of rebuilding their party, the Democrats have squandered their time moaning, crying, complaining, etc since Trump was elected.

Trump isn't going anywhere, neither is this impeachment. Dead before it even walks.
 
Instead of rebuilding their party, the Democrats have squandered their time moaning, crying, complaining, etc since Trump was elected.

Trump isn't going anywhere, neither is this impeachment. Dead before it even walks.

Agree, this thing is not going anywhere. A complete waste of time and $$$. Just more lost opportunity for the Democrats to get their message across and actually talk about issues. Also, this will only take them away from the White House and could have consequence to their majority in the house.
 
So two associates of Rudy Guiliani, Trump's personal lawyer, have been charged with election finance violations for channeling foreign money into the president’s campaign.

Meanwhile the White House continues to prevent people from testifying before Congress. More whistleblowers are coming forward and now a MAJORITY of Americans support impeachment and removal of Trump according to several polls including even one from Fox News.

Yet the three posters above think there's no case to answer. There's no cure for stupidity.
 
So two associates of Rudy Guiliani, Trump's personal lawyer, have been charged with election finance violations for channeling foreign money into the president’s campaign.

Meanwhile the White House continues to prevent people from testifying before Congress. More whistleblowers are coming forward and now a MAJORITY of Americans support impeachment and removal of Trump according to several polls including even one from Fox News.

Yet the three posters above think there's no case to answer. There's no cure for stupidity.

Why cant they impeach him then?
 
Why cant they impeach him then?

Impeachment votes haven't started. He'll likely be convicted in the House, but will be blocked by Republicans in the Senate where you need a two thirds majority.

The reason why Republicans won't hold Trump accountable is because he's still very popular amongst the rabidly racist and ageing GOP base, so they fear losing primaries to Trumpist candidates, not to mention getting assaulted by Trump on Twitter.
 
[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] - What you also need to remember is these Congressional Republicans couldn't care less about their own voters - as long as they get their precious tax cuts for their wealthy campaign donors they will turn a blind eye to any amount of lawbreaking and scandal from the President.

The only guy who's come out against Trump is Justin Amash.
 
[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] - What you also need to remember is these Congressional Republicans couldn't care less about their own voters - as long as they get their precious tax cuts for their wealthy campaign donors they will turn a blind eye to any amount of lawbreaking and scandal from the President.

The only guy who's come out against Trump is Justin Amash.

So US democracy is flawed. If the President has gone against the constitution but still cant be removed, the whole thing is a farce.

Tbh bro, you're wasting time following this hollywood drama or any US poltics, both sides are pretty much the same anyway. The whole democracy show is but a school play for children to watch.
 
So two associates of Rudy Guiliani, Trump's personal lawyer, have been charged with election finance violations for channeling foreign money into the president’s campaign..

They were arrested trying to fly out of the country on one-way tickets, the night before they were scheduled to testify before the House of Representatives, and a few hours after having lunch with Giuliani at a Trump hotel.

All coincidental of course, nothing suspicious.
 
So US democracy is flawed. If the President has gone against the constitution but still cant be removed, the whole thing is a farce.

Tbh bro, you're wasting time following this hollywood drama or any US poltics, both sides are pretty much the same anyway. The whole democracy show is but a school play for children to watch.

I'd say it's distorted by the $$$$$$$$$ power of the lobbyists.
 
Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has refused to hold a chamber-wide vote to authorise the impeachment inquiry, despite vehement pushback from the White House and Republicans. Why not?

What's the debate about?
Mrs Pelosi affirmed on Tuesday that there is no need for a full chamber vote as her party's probe proceeds.

"There's no requirement that we have a vote, so at this time we will not be having a vote and I'm very pleased with the thoughtfulness of our caucus with the path that we are on," she told reporters.

But Republicans, who control the Senate, where any impeachment measure would go to trial, disagree.

Citing past impeachments, the president's supporters have called for a full House vote to formally start the inquiry and to give Republican lawmakers more powers, like being able to issue subpoenas for their own witnesses and schedule hearings.

As it stands, several House committees, all chaired by Democrats, are investigating the president, looking for evidence to support impeachment. The White House has refused to co-operate.

"We're not here to call bluffs. We're here to find the truth, to uphold the Constitution of the United States," Mrs Pelosi said on Tuesday.

"This is not a game for us. This is deadly serious, and we're on a path that is getting us to a path to truth and timetable that respects our Constitution."

So what does the constitution say?
Article One of the constitution simply states that the House "shall have the sole power of impeachment", acting as grand jury and levying charges. The Senate, meanwhile, has "the sole power to try all impeachments" and convict a president of any "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours".

The nation's founding document does not expand on how the chambers ought to carry out impeachment.

Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University, explains: "The Constitution does not require anything other than a majority vote of the House to impeach a president.

"It is silent on the procedures used to reach that vote, and courts have largely deferred to Congress to create its own internal rules and processes in fulfilling constitutional functions."

But he adds, at least historically, "a vote of the chamber as a whole was required to commit a matter to the House Judiciary Committee or a select committee for an impeachment investigation of a sitting president".

The US Supreme Court has held up the broad powers promised to Congress in the constitution.

In a 1993 case over the Senate's impeachment rights, the justices unanimously ruled that the constitution's use of "the word 'sole' is of considerable significance" and meant the Supreme Court could not intervene - particularly as impeachment is an important check on the judiciary branch by the legislative.

Indeed, the court noted, the word "sole" appears only twice in the constitution - when granting Congress the right to impeach.

But what does precedent suggest?
Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the Republican minority leader in the House, said in a letter to Mrs Pelosi earlier this month that she offered "no clear indication as to how your impeachment inquiry will proceed - including whether key historical precedents or basic standards of due process will be observed".

The White House echoed a similar complaint in counsel Pat Cipollone's letter to Mrs Pelosi, which stated the inquiry was "constitutionally invalid" without a full vote.

"In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorise such a dramatic constitutional step."

But that may not be entirely true.

There have only been two presidential impeachments in US history - Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998.

Richard Nixon was not impeached, but in 1974, the House held a full vote to authorise the formal impeachment investigation against him.

A similar vote was called in the Clinton case - though the initial investigation into the president had already been conducted by an outside counsel. With President Johnson, who saw two attempts to impeach him, the House voted on resolutions to investigate but there was no explicit authorisation, according to a New York Times fact check.

Mrs Pelosi has responded to Republican pushback by saying House committees are allowed to begin investigations as they see fit, including impeachment.

For Prof Turley, the lack of a full chamber vote in the face of these precedents only serves to "undermine the position of the House".

"The reason for that traditional practice is obvious. Before the House takes the momentous step toward impeachment of an American president, all of its members should be on record with that consequential action.

"Most importantly, it gives clarity to a federal court in balancing congressional demands against executive privilege."

"The 'impeachment by press conference' action of Pelosi is an entirely new animal," Prof Turley adds. "It is now clear that the casual approach is by design. The question is 'why'."

With almost every Democrat in the House on board, Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass an impeachment inquiry resolution. So why hasn't she pulled the trigger?

The House speaker might be trying to protect the handful of holdout Democrats or view the move as a waste of time. She might also be afraid that a House vote would encourage Republicans to press for the kinds of investigatory powers that congressional minority parties had in past impeachment proceedings.

The last thing Democrats want is congressional Republicans subpoenaing Joe or Hunter Biden in an attempt to shift the focus away from Donald Trump.

Ms Pelosi could also be hoping that the longer the investigation grinds on, the greater the chance Democrats could uncover that damning bit of evidence that breaks Republicans ranks. She may believe that it would be easier for Republicans to support impeachment if they weren't on the record voting against an investigation.

Without a vote, however, Trump administration officials will continue to cite it as a reason why they should not comply with requests for documents and depositions.

It's a judgement call, and for the moment Ms Pelosi decided it's a move she doesn't need to make.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50061727.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/17/gordon-sondland-testimony-trump-giuliani-ukraine

Busted ! But regardless of the mounting evidence, Trump cultists will see no evil hear no evil.

Donald Trump instructed US diplomats to go through his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to make the Ukrainian president’s access to the White House dependent on launching investigations into Trump’s political opponents, the US ambassador to the EU has testified.

In his opening statement to Congress on Thursday, Gordon Sondland, a wealthy hotelier and Trump donor, sought to distance himself from the president, saying he had been “disappointed” Trump had chosen to conduct an important strategic relationship through his lawyer.

But Sondland insisted he only realised later that the aim of the investigations Trump was demanding was to target the Democratic party and a potential rival for the presidency in 2020, Joe Biden.

Sondland is the sixth US official to give evidence at impeachment hearings, and all the more significant because he was a Trump loyalist who was at the centre of deliberations on how to deal with Ukraine. His statement reflects a defection from Trump’s ranks and a further sign that the president’s efforts to gag public servants have failed.

Sondland had been first been due to give testimony on 8 October but was blocked from appearing by the Trump administration. After the House committees issued a subpoena, Sondland defied state department orders, saying he was keen to testify.

The ambassador to the EU testified that Trump personally directed the drive to make the investigation a condition for a phone call from Trump to Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and a White House visit for the new Ukrainian president. It is a significant point in the impeachment proceedings being held by three House committees, which are looking for evidence Trump abused his office for political gain.
 
A senior White House official has admitted military aid to Ukraine was withheld partly to pressure Kyiv to investigate allegations on the Democrats and the 2016 election.

Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said President Donald Trump had mentioned Democratic "corruption".

But Mr Trump was also concerned about wider corruption in Ukraine, he said.

Mr Mulvaney later backtracked on his earlier remarks, saying the media had "decided to misconstrue my comments".

Meanwhile, President Trump said he had "a lot of confidence" in Mr Mulvaney, describing him as "a good man".

The question of whether military aid for Ukraine was withheld in exchange for a "quid pro quo" to investigate Donald Trump's political rivals is central to an impeachment inquiry against the president.

The White House has denied any such conditions were imposed.

What did Mr Mulvaney say?
Briefing reporters on Thursday, Mr Mulvaney gave a lengthy answer to a question about Ukraine, saying the president had told him Ukraine was a "corrupt place" and that Mr Trump didn't want to spend aid and "have them use it to line their own pockets".

Mr Mulvaney also said that the president "did not like" the fact that European countries weren't providing much military aid to Ukraine.

"Those were the driving factors," he said. "Did he also mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC [Democratic National Committee] server? Absolutely. No question about that.

"But that's it. That's why we held up the money."

The DNC server refers to unsubstantiated claims that Democrats have a computer server hidden somewhere in Ukraine, and that Ukraine - not Russia - hacked the server and helped President Trump in the 2016 election.

What was the justification?
When reporters put to him that he had described a "quid pro quo", Mr Mulvaney replied: "We do that all the time with foreign policy,

"There's going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences. And foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration," he said.

He also said that the move had been made in connection with "an ongoing investigation by our Department of Justice".

But a senior Justice Department official told CBS News: "If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation with any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us."

A person familiar with the reaction inside the department said officials were "utterly confused" and "angry" at Mr Mulvaney for saying the aid was withheld in connection to an investigation, CBS reports.

Mr Trump is also accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden - a main rival for the 2020 presidential election.

But the acting chief of staff rebuffed that suggestion, saying the money being held up "had nothing to do with [Joseph] Biden".

What about Mr Mulvaney's later statement?
He later said that "the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump".

"Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election."The White House's official position up until Thursday afternoon was that there was no "quid pro quo" involved in the decision to withhold congressionally authorised military aid to Ukraine.

That assertion, as they used to say in the Nixon White House, is no longer operative.

Now the line, per acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney, is that there may have been a quid pro quo, but it was no big deal because it was about investigating 2016 election-hacking theories and not Joe Biden.

The challenge for the White House is that there is plenty of evidence that damaging Mr Biden was indeed an administration goal - in text messages among Trump officials and from the mouth of the president himself, in the readout of the phone conversation he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

A "the president can do whatever he wants on foreign policy" explanation was always going to be the last line of defence for the White House, and it is the space they now occupy, courtesy of Mulvaney.

If Republicans continue to stick together, however, it may be the only defence Donald Trump needs to stay in office - even if impeachment seems like an increasingly probable outcome.

What's happening in the impeachment inquiry?
Earlier on Thursday, a top US envoy told a congressional impeachment inquiry that he was "disappointed" in President Trump over his dealings with Ukraine.

The US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland said he questioned the involvement of Mr Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine policy.

In a prepared opening statement, he said: "Our view was that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of US foreign policy towards Ukraine."

Mr Sondland's statement says he and colleagues chose to do as the president had asked.

"But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice-President Biden," his statement reads.

"Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming US election would be wrong. I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings."

The US ambassador to the EU is seen as a key figure in the impeachment inquiry. Texts that were recently made public showed him discussing efforts to pressure Ukrainian leaders to investigate corruption claims with other US diplomats.

Quick facts on impeachment
Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office

If the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment, the Senate is forced to hold a trial

A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict - unlikely in this case, given that Mr Trump's party controls the chamber

Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached but neither was convicted and removed

President Nixon resigned before he could have been impeached

Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50087392.
 
US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, who has been drawn into the Trump impeachment inquiry, will resign.

President Donald Trump has confirmed the former Texas governor will depart his administration.

Mr Perry's exit had been rumoured for months even before he became entangled in a controversy over Ukraine.

US lawmakers are scrutinising Mr Perry's role in efforts to pressure Ukraine's president to investigate Mr Trump's political rival, Joe Biden.

At an event in Texas, Mr Trump said: "He's [Rick Perry] been outstanding and we already have his replacement, Rick has done a fantastic job at energy.

"But it was time, three years is a long time, and he'll be leaving towards the end of the year."

Mr Perry was one of three US officials - dubbed the Three Amigos - who had influence over US policy on Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Mr Perry refused to say whether he would comply with a subpoena from Democratic impeachment investigators in Congress who are probing whether Mr Trump illegally sought to have Ukraine open an investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In a 2011 campaign for the presidency, during a live TV debate, Mr Perry forgot the name of a government department that he planned to abolish.

The name of the agency that had slipped his mind was the energy department.

But as Trump energy secretary, he presided over a significant expansion of the department's budget, while championing a surge in US fossil fuel output.

During the 2016 election season Mr Perry's hopes once again quickly fizzled.

He had called Mr Trump's candidacy "a cancer on conservatism", only to ultimately join his administration.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50090538.
 
I listened to Trumps speech at the UNGA, it was the best speech he has ever delivered imo.

It seems the Globalists who are really in charge of US policies have had enough of Trump. One of the reasons imo is his unwillingness to attack Iran which resulted in the sacking of Bolton. Now I think the globalists want him out. Dont be surprised if he is impeached and it's likely he wont win the next election now if still in office.

Trump has now also mentioned the military industrial complex wanting to further US wars which he is now against. This is another big statement.

He's a gonner for sure, if not impeachment he will lose the next election, I have no doubt.
 
So US democracy is flawed. If the President has gone against the constitution but still cant be removed, the whole thing is a farce.

Tbh bro, you're wasting time following this hollywood drama or any US poltics, both sides are pretty much the same anyway. The whole democracy show is but a school play for children to watch.

The only thing that gives me hope is the rise of Sanders and Warren. Finally there's a progressive voice in US politics and in the Democratic Party which from the mid-1980s onwards was little more than Republican-lite.

Trump has now also mentioned the military industrial complex wanting to further US wars which he is now against. This is another big statement.

He's a gonner for sure, if not impeachment he will lose the next election, I have no doubt.

Don't buy any of his public statements - he says one thing and does another.

He didn't withdraw from Syria but simply redeployed US troops away from the Syrian border. He talks about ending the "endless wars" yet sent 2000 troops to Saudi Arabia !
 
The only thing that gives me hope is the rise of Sanders and Warren. Finally there's a progressive voice in US politics and in the Democratic Party which from the mid-1980s onwards was little more than Republican-lite.



Don't buy any of his public statements - he says one thing and does another.

He didn't withdraw from Syria but simply redeployed US troops away from the Syrian border. He talks about ending the "endless wars" yet sent 2000 troops to Saudi Arabia !

Of course he makes hypoctritcal statements all the time. But to mention globalists and the military industrial complex wanting him to futher wars is a rare admission by any US president. They are the real ones in power and to go against them is political suicide. John Bolton being sacked was the start of his end. They are only spinning it into a phone call , Ukraine etc but his refusal to follow their policies is the real reason.
 
Of course he makes hypoctritcal statements all the time. But to mention globalists and the military industrial complex wanting him to futher wars is a rare admission by any US president. They are the real ones in power and to go against them is political suicide. John Bolton being sacked was the start of his end. They are only spinning it into a phone call , Ukraine etc but his refusal to follow their policies is the real reason.

He was saying this leading upto the 2016 Elections...

Saudi’s spread Wahabism etc etc...

His lies have been exposed time and again and he’s sounding like desperate man who’s doing his outmost to rally his base whilst st the same time trying to attack the institutions..

I hope people don’t fall for this nonsense again...
 
A whistleblower complaint and details of a call with the president of Ukraine have made Donald Trump the target of a congressional impeachment inquiry.

Potential fallout from the swirling controversy isn't limited to the White House, however, as former Vice-President Joe Biden, a Democratic candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, is being pulled into the vortex whether he likes it or not.

Whether he deserves it or not.

The explanation is straightforward. Mr Trump is in the impeachment cross-hairs because he requested that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky investigate Mr Biden for pressuring the Ukrainian government in 2015 to fire a prosecutor who had looked into an energy firm with ties to the vice-president's son, Hunter.

If Mr Trump can successfully call into question Mr Biden's actions, then his Ukrainian phone request appears more proper. As the president and his defenders have said, asking a foreign government - particularly one receiving US aid - to crack down on corruption is well within the authority of a US president.

The challenge for the Trump team is that the allegations against Mr Biden have yet to be substantiated. The then-vice-president's 2015 efforts to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor weren't freelancing for family benefit, they were advancing the stated goal of the Obama administration, European allies and Ukrainian reformers.

Last week, Mr Biden directly addressed the latest Trump attacks.

"Let me make something clear to Trump and his hatchet men and the special interests funding his attacks against me," Mr Biden said in a Nevada speech. "I'm not going anywhere. You're not going to destroy me. And you're not going to destroy my family. I don't care how much money you spend or how dirty the attacks get."

He followed it up with similar sentiment in an opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post, where he said Mr Trump was abusing the powers of the presidency.

There are questions, however, about whether Hunter Biden's business credentials were bolstered by his familial relations. Using personal connections and a famous last name for professional advancement is an unsavoury reality of power and politics in the US. And while it is perfectly legal, it could present a political liability.

While much of the media (rightly) focused on Mr Trump's Thursday morning public call for Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens, the president revealed a strategy for how Hunter Biden's business activities could fit in with the Trump campaign's "drain the swamp" strategy.

"That's probably why China for so many years has had a sweetheart deal where China rips off the USA because they deal with people like Biden, where they give the son a billion and a half dollars," Mr Trump said.

No one gave Hunter Biden a billion dollars. A Chinese investment fund tied to Hunter Biden - created after the Biden son returned from a 2013 trip to China with his father - hoped to raise $1.5bn, but it never did. Hunter Biden says he didn't have a financial interest in the fund until 2017, well after his father left public office.

None of that may matter, however. As the impeachment process swirls on, and as the 2020 presidential election draws closer, the Trump campaign strategy will be to call into question Hunter Biden's business dealings and any intersection with the elder Biden's official activities, painting it as a way that the rich and well-connected get richer.

According to a New York Times article, some Biden advisors are concerned that the former vice-president hasn't been forceful enough in responding to the president's attacks. It reports that Mr Biden himself is wary of getting baited into a "dirty fight".

"Facing one of the greatest challenges of his candidacy, Mr Biden has plainly struggled to meet the moment, or fully reconcile his own cautious instincts with his protectiveness of his family's privacy and his preference for taking the moral high road against Mr Trump," the Times reporters write.

The worst, however, may be yet to come. If the US Senate conducts an impeachment trial, expect allegations against the Bidens to be a central component of the president's defence - perhaps even requiring them to testify in person.

If Mr Biden continues to run ahead of Mr Trump in head-to-head presidential polls, expect the Trump campaign to ramp up attacks Mr Biden. One spot - which the cable network CNN has deemed misleading (and disparaging to its journalists) and refused to air - has already been circulated online.

One of Biden's key strengths among Democratic primary voters - perhaps his biggest strength - is the perception that he is the candidate best equipped to defeat Mr Trump in a general election.

If Democrats begin to worry that Mr Biden could get bogged down in an ugly fight with the president over his son's business dealings, they may opt for another candidate - perhaps one, like Ms Warren, who is explicitly running on a government-reform message.

There's also the possibility that the more Mr Trump and his team attack Mr Biden, the more Democrats may be inclined to rally around their embattled frontrunner.

Early indications, however, are that the past two weeks of wall-to-wall Ukraine coverage may be taking a toll on Mr Biden's presidential prospects. FiveThirtyEight estimates he had more mentions in the media than all the other 2020 candidates combined.

Since 23 September, shortly after the whistleblower story broke and the day before Nancy Pelosi announced the formal impeachment probe, Mr Biden has seen his RealClearPolitics polling average drop from 30.3% to 26.3% - into a virtual tie with Ms Warren.

Perhaps more concerning, a 2 October Monmouth national poll found 42% of Americans believe Mr Biden probably did "put pressure on Ukrainian officials to get them not to investigate his son's business dealings". Only 37% said he didn't (with 22% unsure).

Again, there is no evidence at the moment to support this belief. In American politics, however, truth is not always a necessary ingredient for a story to be politically damaging.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49926043.
 
US President Donald Trump has called the congressional impeachment investigation that may seek to remove him from office "a lynching".

Mr Trump condemned the inquiry in a tweet as "without due process or fairness or any legal rights".

Democrats may seek to impeach the Republican president by Christmas.

A racially loaded term in the US, lynching refers to historic extrajudicial executions by white mobs mainly against African Americans.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley told reporters on Tuesday that Mr Trump did not mean to be racially insensitive.

"The president has used many words, all types of language, to talk about the way the media has treated him," the deputy press secretary said.

He added: "The president wasn't trying to compare himself to the horrific history in this country at all."

The impeachment inquiry is examining whether the Republican president abused his office by improperly pressuring Ukraine to launch an investigation into former US Vice-President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic 2020 presidential nomination.

Mr Trump denies holding up US military aid to Ukraine so they would investigate Mr Biden's son, who worked for a Ukrainian gas company.

What's the reaction?
Mr Trump has repeatedly called the impeachment inquiry, as well as an earlier investigation into foreign meddling in the 2016 election, a "witch hunt".

But his likening of a process enshrined in the US constitution to racist killings provoked outrage among African-American lawmakers.

Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, told CNN: "That is one word that no president ought to apply to himself."

"I've studied presidential history quite a bit and I don't know if we've ever seen anything quite like this."

Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, tweeted to Mr Trump: "What the hell is wrong with you?

"Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched, since the inception of this country, by people who look like you."

He called on Mr Trump to delete the tweet.

Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, said: "The president should not compare a constitutionally mandated impeachment inquiry to such a dangerous and dark chapter of American history."

Republican lawmakers mostly defended Mr Trump, but not necessarily his choice of language.

Jim Jordan, of Ohio, said the comment showed that "the president's frustrated".

Senator Lindsey Graham said: "This is a lynching in every sense."

Tim Scott, the only black Republican US senator, said: "There's no question that the impeachment process is the closest thing to a political death row trial, so I get his absolute rejection of the process.

"I wouldn't use the word lynching."

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters: "That's not the language I would use."

Career US diplomat William Taylor - the acting US ambassador to Ukraine - is being interviewed by the impeachment committees at Congress on Tuesday.

Texts show Mr Taylor raised the alarm to other US envoys about pulling US aid to Ukraine.

"I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Mr Taylor wrote in one message.

During a cabinet meeting at the White House on Monday, Mr Trump called for his party "to get tougher and fight" the impeachment inquiry.

Initially hopeful that the inquiry would be done by November's Thanksgiving holiday, Democrats are now signalling it may drag on towards Christmas.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50142172
 
Mick Mulvaney, WH Chief of Staff, and now Bill Taylor, ambassador to Ukraine, admit there was quid pro quo and Trump tied military aid and a meeting with President Zelenskiy to an investigation of the Bidens.

My God Trump supporters how much more evidence do you need ? This would've been an impeachable offence under any other President.
 
A top US diplomat says President Trump made the release of military aid to Ukraine conditional on a pledge they would investigate a political rival.

Ambassador Bill Taylor testified before an impeachment inquiry that he was told Mr Trump wanted Ukraine to probe ex-Vice-President Joe Biden's dealings.

Mr Taylor said relations with Ukraine had been "fundamentally undermined" for "domestic political reasons".

President Trump insists there has been no quid pro quo in Ukraine policy.

Responding to the latest testimony in Congress, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement: "President Trump has done nothing wrong - this is a co-ordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution".

Mr Taylor, a career diplomat who has been the US envoy to Ukraine since June, is the latest witness to testify before lawmakers in the Democratic-led inquiry into suspected abuse of power by President Trump.

A transcript of a call Mr Trump made to Ukraine's new President Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 July shows he urged him to investigate discredited corruption allegations against Mr Biden and his son, Hunter.

While Mr Biden had a key role in US policy towards Ukraine as vice-president, Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

The company had been investigated by former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin.

What did Taylor say?
Mr Taylor told lawmakers that the president had made it clear that he wanted a publicly announced inquiry into the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election.

"Our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of US, policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons," Mr Taylor said in opening remarks carried by US media.

The "informal" channel included US envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Mr Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

By mid-July, Mr Taylor said, it was apparent the meeting Mr Zelensky wanted with Mr Trump "was conditioned on the investigation of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US elections".

"It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr Giuliani."

Mr Taylor also noted that he heard a White House budget and management staffer say she was ordered not to release aid to Ukraine and realised "one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened".

"I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be 'crazy'," Mr Taylor said. "I believed that then, and I still believe that."

Mr Taylor's remarks appear to contradict Mr Sondland's earlier statement before lawmakers, where he said he had had "no discussions" with state department or White House officials regarding the investigating the Bidens.

Text messages showed Bill Taylor had issues with the way the White House was conducting its foreign policy toward Ukraine. On Tuesday, he told Congress why - in damning detail.

Much of Mr Taylor's opening statement corroborates other reported accounts of White House efforts to get Ukraine to open investigations that could be damaging to Democrats, and Vice-President Joe Biden in particular. The acting ambassador to Ukraine fleshed out the picture, however, and added new perspective.

In one particular passage, Mr Taylor relates a conversation he had with Gordon Sondland - one of the co-ordinators of what he said was an "irregular, informal channel of US policymaking".

Mr Sondland, he said, told him "everything" - including military aid and a White House visit - was dependent on the Ukrainian president making a public statement that he would order these investigations.

In Latin they call that a "quid pro quo".

The president's defenders will try to undermine Mr Taylor's credibility, although the career diplomat makes for a compelling witness. They may eventually assert that even if Mr Taylor's claims are true, it's still within the president's foreign policy powers.

That will, of course, be up to members of the House - and, perhaps, senators in an impeachment trial - to decide.

What is the impeachment inquiry about?
Three committees in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives are investigating allegations of wrongdoing by the president.

Democrats accuse him of illegally pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival.

But there is a fierce debate about whether Mr Trump committed an impeachable offence - he himself says he has done nothing wrong.

If the House finds sufficient evidence, articles of impeachment will be put to a vote. If they are approved, proceedings will move to trial in the Senate, which is controlled by Mr Trump's Republicans.

What's the reaction?
Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz described Mr Taylor's appearance as "the most damning testimony I've heard".

"He drew a very specific direct line from President Trump to the withholding of foreign aid and the refusal of a [presidential] meeting."

Fellow Democrats echoed this idea and praise Mr Taylor's "meticulous" note taking.

Congressman Tom Malinowski said it was the "most thorough" account that filled in "details that some other witnesses, somehow, forgot".

But Republican congressman Mark Meadows, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters he did not hear "anything that has advanced the quid pro quo or the promise of anything with foreign aid".

"There's no-one who can be intellectually honest and come out of that deposition and suggest otherwise."

Earlier on Tuesday, Mr Trump controversially called the inquiry "a lynching" - a term referring to historic killings by white mobs mainly against black Americans.

During a cabinet meeting at the White House on Monday, Mr Trump said Republicans should "get tougher and fight" impeachment proceedings.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50147223.
 
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump on Tuesday likened the impeachment investigation against him to a “lynching”, a racially charged word from the darkest days of America’s slavery legacy.

There was an immediate backlash to Trump’s tweet in which he claimed that impeachment was unfair and stripping him of his legal rights, although a senior Republican senator backed up the president.

“All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching. But we will WIN!,” Trump tweeted.

Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said she was “sickened to see Trump’s gross misappropriation of this term today”. Clarke said that 4,743 people were lynched in the US between 1882 and 1968, of which 3,446 were African Americans. “Lynchings were crimes against humanity and an ugly part of our nation’s history of racial violence,” she said.

“It’s beyond shameful to use the word ‘lynching’ to describe being held accountable for your actions,” said Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro.

Senator Lindsey Graham, an influential Republican, however, said he fully agreed with Trump’s complaint. “Yes this is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American,” he told reporters.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1512455/trump-likens-impeachment-to-lynching.
 
Mick Mulvaney, WH Chief of Staff, and now Bill Taylor, ambassador to Ukraine, admit there was quid pro quo and Trump tied military aid and a meeting with President Zelenskiy to an investigation of the Bidens.

My God Trump supporters how much more evidence do you need ? This would've been an impeachable offence under any other President.

His supporters are not swayed by evidence. Trump makes them feel better about themselves.
 
I find it hilarious that people in the UK are concerned with Trump, when here we have the likes of Jo Swinson who has committed an unlawful act by bypassing protocol and speaking with the EU to deny Brexit by any means necessary - THIS is what you call collusion!

Trump is the enemy of the system, while Jo is the enemy of Democracy. I know which is worse and which deserves more attention in the UK.
 
His supporters are not swayed by evidence. Trump makes them feel better about themselves.

This .The country is divided af right now.It's like Dem v Rep team sport. My team can never be wrong attitude. Seems like Kremlin got what it wanted , so much discord .
 
Rudy Giuliani, personal lawyer to US President Donald Trump, has left two unintended voicemail messages on a reporter's phone, NBC News reports.

In the calls, Mr Giuliani reportedly spoke about needing money and attacked Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Mr Giuliani has not yet commented on the calls.

Lawmakers demanded documents from Mr Giuliani earlier this month as part of the presidential impeachment inquiry.

In the past he publicly admitted asking Ukrainian officials to investigate widely debunked corruption allegations against Mr Biden.

Three Democratic-led committees are currently investigating whether President Trump tried to pressure Ukraine's president into investigating Mr Biden in exchange for military aid.

What did Giuliani say?
NBC investigative reporter Rich Shapiro says he received two voicemails from Mr Giuliani in the space of a month.

He described them as the result of "what is known, in casual parlance, as a butt dial".

A "butt dial" happens when someone unknowingly calls one of their contacts by accidentally applying pressure to their phone's buttons while it is in their pocket.

Mr Shapiro missed the first call, mid-afternoon on 28 September, because he was at a child's birthday party. He had interviewed Mr Giuliani for an article the day before.

For the entirety of the ensuing three-minute voicemail, the president's personal lawyer reportedly attacked Mr Biden and his family.

"Biden has been been trading in on his public office since he was a senator," Mr Giuliani reportedly said to an unidentified man. In the conversation, he brought up the discredited allegations that Joe Biden, when vice-president, stopped an investigation in Ukraine to protect his son Hunter.

"He did the same thing in China. And he tried to do it in Kazakhstan and in Russia," Mr Giuliani reportedly added.

In the second voicemail, left on the night of 16 October, Mr Giuliani again recorded a conversation with an unknown man.

"We need a few hundred thousand," Mr Giuliani reportedly said at one point, in a conversation that Mr Shapiro says covered Bahrain and an unknown man named Robert.

Who is Rudy Giuliani?
Mr Giuliani was mayor of New York City from 1994 until 2001, and was in office during the 9/11 terror ttacks.

He was one of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, before withdrawing and backing eventual candidate John McCain.

Since April 2018, he has served as a lawyer for President Trump.

Mr Giuliani was present during Mr Trump's call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, which is the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

His own activities in Ukraine are also under investigation.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50193767.
 
WASHINGTON — House impeachment investigators are speeding toward new White House barriers meant to block crucial testimony and evidence from the people who are closest to President Trump — obstacles that could soon test the limits of Democrats’ fact finding a month into their inquiry.

What has been a rapidly moving investigation securing damning testimony from witnesses who have defied White House orders may soon become a more arduous effort. Investigators are now trying to secure cooperation from higher-ranking advisers who can offer more direct accounts of Mr. Trump’s actions but are also more easily shielded from Congress.

Democrats are likely to face the first such roadblock on Monday, when one of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers is expected to defy a subpoena as he awaits a federal court to determine whether he can speak with impeachment investigators. But others could soon follow, legal experts and lawmakers say, forcing Democratic leaders toward a consequential choice: Try to force cooperation through the courts or move on to begin making an argument for impeachment in public.

At stake is not just how quickly the investigation concludes, but how much evidence ultimately undergirds the case against Mr. Trump.

Many Democrats involved in the inquiry already believe they have collected enough to impeach him for abusing his power by enlisting a foreign government to smear his political rivals. But to persuade the public — and the necessary number of Republican senators — that the president should be convicted and removed from office, they may need additional proof tying him directly to certain elements of the alleged wrongdoing. They could potentially unearth stronger evidence by turning to the courts, but that could also stall the case for months and risk losing public support, much as some Democrats believe happened in the Russia inquiry.

“As in many investigations, you get to a point where you have to decide how much is enough and whether the incremental value of the additional juice is worth the squeeze,” said Ross H. Garber, a lawyer who is one of the nation’s leading experts on impeachment. “If anything, they may be surprised by how much cooperation they have gotten from witnesses already, notwithstanding the position of the executive branch.”

For now, Democrats have not yet exhausted testimony from officials who appear willing to cooperate and have at least peripheral knowledge of the case. At least two more White House officials are scheduled to testify this week, and are expected to confirm key events. Other officials from the State and Defense Departments involved in Ukraine policy are set to appear, as well.

Democrats believe a reconstructed transcript released by the White House of a July phone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine also significantly bolsters their case. In the call, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and unproven theories about Democratic collusion with Ukraine during the 2016 election

“We have a tremendous table of evidence before us that fills in all of the principal, material questions that were raised by the whistle-blower,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, referring to an anonymous C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint about Mr. Trump’s actions toward Ukraine helped prompt the impeachment inquiry.

But the story lawmakers have uncovered so far has also pointed further into Mr. Trump’s inner circle, offering tantalizing leads that Democrats have signaled they intend to at least try to run down.

They have indicated that they want to talk to John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, who is said to have been deeply alarmed by what he saw transpiring with Ukraine. They may also seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff who helped carry out Mr. Trump’s order to freeze the aid; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who was deeply involved in implementing the president’s agenda. And then there is Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, who appears to have orchestrated the campaign to secure the investigations.

The president has greater powers to shield from Congress his conversations with close aides, as well as greater pull on the loyalties of potential witnesses, who have already begun to indicate they cannot simply defy White House orders like others who have already testified.

One of the first signs Democrats would now face a more difficult trek emerged late on Friday when the president’s former deputy national security adviser, Charles M. Kupperman, took the unusual move of filing the lawsuit, asking a federal judge to rule on whether he should be forced to testify about his conversations with Mr. Trump. Democrats had subpoenaed Mr. Kupperman to appear on Monday but Mr. Trump ordered him not to by invoking a rarely used and untested theory that top presidential aides are absolutely immune from testimony.

Mr. Kupperman worked directly with Mr. Trump on Ukraine policy and served as his acting national security adviser in September, when Mr. Trump decided to release $391 million in aid for Ukraine that he had temporarily frozen. Some impeachment witnesses have said the president had been using the aid as leverage to force the Ukranians to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

The suit could have ramifications that go far beyond Mr. Kupperman. The lawyer who filed the suit, Charles Cooper, also represents Mr. Bolton, and Mr. Cooper will almost certainly handle requests for Mr. Bolton’s testimony the same way.

Mr. Trump’s advisers are bullish that claims of absolute immunity and executive privilege can help gum up Democrats’ progress and may force them to leave certain potential witnesses and documentary evidence uncollected in the interest of time.

Indeed, the suit and the potential that the White House could invoke immunity over other top aides raises profound and largely unanswered legal questions about the extent of the president’s ability to shield private communications from Congress, especially in the face of an impeachment inquiry. Even on an expedited schedule, the disputes could take months to sort out and end up before the Supreme Court.

The challenge does not have a neat historical parallel. Unlike in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton, the House is not building its case on a federal law enforcement investigation, which obviated the need for the kind of primary fact finding underway right now.

Though they have not entirely ruled out using the courts to knock down claims of immunity they view as spurious, Democrats led by Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, have hinted for weeks now that they do not intend to wait around for decisions. They still, however, want to force each witness to decide how to respond, testing for additional cracks in the president’s stonewall.

On Saturday, Mr. Schiff and two others leading the inquiry wrote to Mr. Kupperman’s lawyer that if Mr. Kupperman fails to show up on Monday as scheduled, he will expose the president to further charges of obstructing Congress — possibly an impeachable offense — and run the risk of being held in contempt of Congress.

The House, they wrote, may well assume “that your client’s testimony would have corroborated other evidence gathered by the committees showing that the president abused the power of his office by attempting to press another nation to assist his own personal political interests, and not the national interest.”

Several current and former diplomats have backed up that account in private testimony in recent days. The most startling came last week from William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, who told investigators that Mr. Trump sought to condition the entire United States relationship with Ukraine, including the aid package and a coveted White House meeting for Mr. Zelensky, on a promise that the country would publicly investigate his rivals.

Mr. Taylor said that when he objected to what he saw as the manipulation of the aid, Mr. Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon D. Sondland, told him there was no quid pro quo but went on to describe just that.

The testimony privately shook the confidence of many Republican lawmakers, and Democrats claimed it was a smoking gun. But allies of the president quickly pointed to what could be a central topic of debate if the Democrats proceed to impeach: Mr. Taylor’s account was not based on firsthand encounters with the president.

“How would you really know,” asked Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, noting that Mr. Taylor’s information appeared to be second- and thirdhand.

Mr. Sondland, a Trump supporter testified a week before, is the closest anyone directly interacting with Mr. Trump has come to implicating him. He told investigators that Mr. Trump had handed over Ukraine policy to Mr. Giuliani to his alarm. On Saturday, Mr. Sondland’s lawyer acknowledged that his client had also testified that he believed Mr. Trump had withheld a White House meeting from the Ukrainians as part of a quid pro quo to secure the politically beneficial investigations, a development first reported by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/us/politics/trump-impeachment-democrats.html.
 
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) on Friday ripped House Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Trump, calling it a “despicable violation of the American Constitution.”

Gingrich in an interview with Hill.TV took issue with the way Democrats have handled the inquiry, questioning why much of it so far has been conducted behind closed doors and knocking Democrats for limiting members' access to transcripts.

“This is such a one-sided, dishonest and corrupt process that’s astonishing,” said Gingrich, who served as House Speaker in the 1990s and was a vocal advocate for President Clinton's impeachment.

The conservative figure accused Democrats of "holding secret hearings" without representation from the president's legal team and "with all the records being kept by the Democrats — the Republicans can’t take anything out of the room.”

Multiple House committees have conducted closed-door depositions with Trump administration officials as part of their inquiry, prompting outrage from the president and his Republican allies over what they view as a lack of transparency in the process.

A group of House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday barged into a secure hearing room in the Capitol basement and disrupted a closed-door testimony in protest of the handling of the inquiry.

The Republican lawmakers delayed the House deposition with Laura Cooper, a top Pentagon official who oversees U.S. policies towards Ukraine, by almost five hours as a result.

Gaetz defended the move following criticism, telling Fox News that Republicans had the "audacity to want to know what in the world is going on behind closed doors."

Meanwhile, Democrats have pointed out that, under House rules, closed-door depositions are limited to Republican and Democrats of the three committees leading the investigation, which include the Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs.

Democrats have defended their handling of the impeachment probe so far.

Earlier this month, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) maintained that closed-door testimonies do not break with historic precedent, noting that special counsels in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments were investigated privately. He also stated that the House committees will eventually make transcripts related to the impeachment inquiry depositions public.

—Tess Bonn

Source: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...rocess-a-despicable-violation-of-the-american.
 
The US House of Representatives plans to take its first formal vote this week on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the vote "sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel".

The president and his allies have argued the lack of a vote by the full chamber renders the inquiry invalid.

The House is investigating claims Mr Trump pressured a foreign government to investigate his political rivals.

Thursday's vote planned by Mrs Pelosi and her fellow Democrats is not to impeach Mr Trump, but to set out ground rules for their inquiry.

Mrs Pelosi, the most powerful elected Democrat, has until now rebuffed calls from Republicans to hold any such formal vote.

But in her letter to fellow Democrats on Monday, the California congresswoman pointed out the US constitution does not require such a step.

She said the move would "eliminate any doubt" as to whether the White House can withhold documents, disregard subpoenas or prevent witnesses from giving testimony. Several administration officials have failed to testify to committees involved in the inquiry.

Mrs Pelosi said the resolution in the Democratic-controlled House would also "ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward".

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the vote supported Mr Trump's contention "that Democrats were conducting an unauthorised impeachment proceeding".

She said Mrs Pelosi's party was "refusing to give the President due process, and their secret, shady, closed-door depositions are completely and irreversibly illegitimate".

Last week some Republicans - who argue there has been a lack of transparency in the proceedings - disrupted and delayed a hearing being held behind closed doors.

On Monday, Charles Kupperman, who was a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton, failed to appear before a House panel involved in the inquiry.

Democrats want to hear Mr Kupperman's testimony on Mr Trump's 25 July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

A rough transcript of the call has revealed that Mr Trump urged President Zelensky to investigate former US Vice-President Joe Biden, the frontrunner to take on Mr Trump in next year's election, as well as Mr Biden's son.

Quick facts on impeachment
Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office.

If the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment, the Senate is forced to hold a trial.

A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict - unlikely in this case, given that Mr Trump's party controls the chamber.

Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached, but neither was convicted and removed.

President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50214895.
 
An official who heard a call between US President Donald Trump and Ukraine's president says he was concerned by Mr Trump's "demand" to scrutinise a rival.

Alexander Vindman told Congress he twice reported his objections to Mr Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate leading US Democrat Joe Biden.

Col Vindman is the first White House official who heard the call to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry.

The inquiry concerns alleged abuse of power by the Republican president.

Col Vindman, a decorated army veteran, was among select officials who were authorised to listen in on Mr Trump's 25 July call with newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which sparked a whistleblower complaint and led to the impeachment probe.

Mr Trump is accused of trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating unsubstantiated corruption claims against Mr Biden and his son, who worked with Ukrainian gas company Burisma while his father was the US vice-president.

Mr Trump has denied wrongdoing and called the impeachment inquiry a "witch hunt".

Though the White House has called on witnesses to disregard congressional subpoenas, as an active-duty military officer, Col Vindman could have faced sanction for doing so.

What did Col Vindman say?
In an opening statement released ahead of Tuesday's testimony, Col Vindman said his worries began at a 10 July meeting between US and Ukrainian national security officials.

The meeting was cut short by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton when talk arose of Ukraine opening investigations for the White House, Col Vindman said.

"The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents," Col Vindman said, noting that Ukraine saw this as "critically important" for maintaining US support.

US Ambassador Gordon Sondland then brought up "Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president" which alarmed Mr Bolton and Col Vindman.

At a debriefing afterwards, Col Vindman said the ambassador again "emphasised the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma".

"I stated to Amb Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security."

Following this incident, Col Vindman reported his concerns to the National Security Council's lead counsel. He reported his objections again after the 25 July call.

"I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US citizen," Col Vindman says in the statement. "I was worried about the implications for the US government's support of Ukraine."

He said having that country look into the Bidens would "undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained".

"This would all undermine US national security," he added.

A dangerous game
When acting US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor offered sharp testimony last week, the White House's response was to paint the diplomat as a "radical unelected bureaucrat waging war on the US constitution".

Such a label will be harder to pin on Col Vindman. Both he and Mr Taylor have outlined what they saw as inappropriate White House efforts to pressure Ukraine. Unlike Mr Taylor, however, Col Vindman was a first-hand witness to many of the Washington episodes central to the impeachment investigation, including Donald Trump's controversial call.

Already there is evidence that the White House line of attack will be to question the allegiance of the Soviet-born Col Vindman, note that the decorated officer spoke to Ukrainian diplomats in their native tongue and suggest that he was working to subvert White House interests.

"Some people might call that espionage," former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo said on Fox News. Making such allegations is a very dangerous game. Col Vindman appears to be a compelling witness. If it's his word against the president's, the public may feel sympathetic to the soldier in uniform whose patriotism is being disparaged.

What's the latest on the impeachment inquiry?
Just hours after Col Vindman gave evidence, Democrats in the US House of Representatives published a resolution that sets out the next steps in their investigation.

The House, where the Democrats are in a majority, will vote on the measure on Thursday.

It sets out a formal structure for the congressional committees' inquiry into whether there are grounds to remove President Trump from office.

Responding to the resolution, the White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham called it an "illegitimate sham".

What's the reaction?
As the testimony was due to begin, Mr Trump suggested Col Vindman was a "Never Trumper witness" in a tweet.

Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrumpEnd of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Other conservatives have also attacked Col Vindman's credibility because he was born in Ukraine - though some have since defended the veteran officer.

Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney denounced these gibes as "shameful" at a news conference with other House Republican leaders.

But many other Republicans stood by Mr Trump. House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy said Col Vindman was "wrong".

"Nothing in that phone call is impeachable," he said.

Who is Col Vindman?
In 2018, Col Vindman joined the security council under former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who was fired by Mr Trump earlier this year.

His family fled the Soviet Union in 1979, when he was three years old. He has served in the military for two decades as an active officer and diplomat.

As an infantry officer, he was deployed to Iraq - where he was wounded and received the Purple Heart military award.

Col Vindman later served at US embassies in Ukraine and Russia.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50223635.
 
Democrats in the US House of Representatives have published a resolution setting out the next steps in their impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump.

The motion sets out a more public phase of the inquiry and hands the lead role in hearings to the chairman of the intelligence committee, Adam Schiff.

The House, controlled by the Democrats, will vote on the measure on Thursday.

A White House spokeswoman said the resolution was an "illegitimate sham".

So far, hearings have been held behind closed doors. This vote to make the impeachment process public is about the procedure, and not a ballot on whether or not to impeach the president.

Republicans have criticised Democrats for the closed hearings up to this point, in which Republican lawmakers have also taken part. But Democrats insist they were needed to gather evidence ahead of the public stage of the inquiry, and deny allegations they have been secretive.

President Trump is accused of trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating unsubstantiated corruption claims against his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son who worked with Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

Mr Trump denies wrongdoing and calls the impeachment inquiry a "witch hunt".

On Tuesday, the impeachment inquiry heard from Lt Col Alexander Vindman, a White House official who had monitored a phone call on 25 July between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

That call sparked a whistleblower complaint and led to the impeachment probe.

Col Vindman said he was "concerned" by the call as he "did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US citizen".

Some details of the call were omitted from the official transcript, despite his attempts to have them included, Col Vindman added, according to US media citing sources.

What does the resolution say?
The eight-page document sets out a two-stage process for the next phase of the inquiry.

In the first, the House Intelligence Committee will continue its investigations and hold public hearings. It will have the right to make public transcripts of depositions taken in private.


Media captionTrump impeachment: Last week was the most dramatic so far
In the second phase, a public report on the findings will be sent to the House Judiciary Committee which will conduct its own proceedings and report on "such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper".

President Trump's lawyers will be allowed to take part in the Judiciary Committee stage.

Republicans on the committees will be able to subpoena documents or witnesses - although they could still be blocked as both committees are Democrat-controlled.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said a House vote on the resolution would take place on Thursday. She has previously said such a vote is not required under the US Constitution.

What do Mr Trump's supporters say?
"The resolution put forward by Speaker Pelosi confirms that House Democrats' impeachment has been an illegitimate sham from the start as it lacked any proper authorisation by a House vote," said White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, speaking before the resolution was unveiled, said the entire process was a "sham."

Referring to the closed-door meetings and depositions he said: "You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Due process starts at the beginning."

What did Col Vindman say?
In an opening statement released ahead of Tuesday's closed-door testimony, Col Vindman said his worries began at a 10 July meeting between US and Ukrainian national security officials.

The meeting was cut short by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton when talk arose of Ukraine opening investigations for the White House, Col Vindman said.

US ambassador Gordon Sondland had brought up "Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure [a] meeting with the president", which alarmed Mr Bolton and Col Vindman.

At a debriefing afterwards, Col Vindman said the ambassador had again "emphasised the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma".

"I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security."

Following this incident, Col Vindman reported his concerns to the National Security Council's lead counsel. He reported his objections again after the 25 July call.

Col Vindman said he attempted to edit a White House transcript of the call to include some missing details, US media cite sources as saying.

While some amendments were accepted, other omissions remained, including a reference to Burisma by Mr Zelensky, and Mr Trump alleging there were recordings of Mr Biden discussing corruption in Ukraine, the New York Times and Washington Post report.

President Trump has previously described the transcript as "exact".

What was the reaction?
As the testimony was due to begin, Mr Trump suggested Col Vindman was a "Never Trumper witness" in a tweet.

Other conservatives have also attacked Col Vindman's credibility because he was born in Ukraine - though some have since defended the veteran officer.


Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney denounced these gibes as "shameful", while Senator Mitt Romney called the criticism "absurd" and "disgusting".

"This is a decorated American soldier and he should be given the respect that his service to our country demands," he said.

But many other Republicans stood by Mr Trump. House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy said Col Vindman was "wrong".

"Nothing in that phone call is impeachable," he said.

Quick facts on impeachment
Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office.

If the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment, the Senate is forced to hold a trial.

A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict - unlikely in this case, given that Mr Trump's party controls the chamber.

Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached, but neither was convicted and removed.

President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50230276
 
Trump impeachment: Official says she was repeatedly urged to oust Ukraine ambassador by Republican lobbyist

A US government official has reportedly told politicians leading the impeachment hearings against Donald Trump that she was urged by a Republican-linked lobbyist to remove the US ambassador to Ukraine from her post, as the president's allies launched a smear campaign against her.

Catherine Croft, a Ukraine expert who worked at the US State Department, said she was repeatedly contacted by lobbyist Robert Livingston about ousting Marie Yovanovitch, according to prepared remarks obtained by NPR.

Mr Livingston, who previously served as the Republican congressman from Louisiana, reportedly described Ms Yovanovitch as an “Obama holdover” and claimed she was “associated with George Soros” while urging Ms Croft to fire her.

“It was not clear to me at the time — or now — at whose direction or at whose expense Mr Livingston was seeking the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch,” Ms Croft reportedly wrote.

The former State Department official went on to note that she reported the interactions with Mr Livingston to Fiona Hill, who previously served as the former top Russia adviser to the White House and has already testified to the House committees leading the impeachment probe.

“It is my hope that even as this Committee’s process plays out, we do not lose sight of what is happening in Ukraine,” Ms Croft added.

Christopher Anderson, another former State Department official, was also giving evidence on Capitol Hill about the president’s dealings surrounding Ukraine.

Mr Anderson reportedly described the president’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani as an obstacle in US-Ukraine relations during his opening remarks on Wednesday.

According to his prepared statement, John Bolton, the former national security adviser, told Mr Anderson that Mr Giuliani “was a key voice with the president on Ukraine which could be an obstacle to increased White House engagement” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Mr Trump removed Ms Yovanovitch after continued attacks against the diplomat from his personal attorney and others apparently seeking to undermine her influence in US-Ukraine relations. He referred to her in the 25 July phone call with Mr Zelensky which is the basis for the impeachment probe, calling her "the woman" and "bad news", adding: "Well, she's going to go through some things."

The president has been accused of withholding almost $400 million of military aid to Ukraine while demanding Mr Zelensky launch investigations into one of his 2020 political rivals, Joe Biden, as well as his son, Hunter, who previously served on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm. There has been no evidence of illegal wrongdoing on either part of the Bidens.

Several diplomats have come forward in recent weeks to provide evidence of an apparent “shadow diplomacy” surrounding Ukraine, in which Mr Giuliani and others close to the president were allegedly working to secure public statements from the Ukrainian president that his country was investigating the Bidens, as well as the origins of the US probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Ms Croft reportedly said on Wednesday that “the only reason given” to withhold the crucial financial aid to Ukraine “was that the order came at the direction of the president”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ie-yovanovitch-ukraine-giuliani-a9178091.html
 
Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton has been summoned to testify in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

House of Representatives investigators have invited him to appear next month.

Mr Trump has denied using the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate former US Vice-President Joe Biden and his son.

Mr Bolton likened the alleged proposal to a "drug deal", according to witness testimony.

It is unclear if Mr Bolton, who left his position in September after falling out of favour with the president, will appear as scheduled on 7 November.

His lawyer, Charles Cooper, told US media his client was not willing to appear voluntarily before the House committee members.

But Mr Cooper said he was ready to accept a subpoena - or legal summons to compel testimony - on Mr Bolton's behalf.

At the heart of the impeachment inquiry is a phone call on 25 July between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

A rough transcript of the call shows Mr Trump asking Mr Zelensky to investigate unsubstantiated corruption claims against Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who held a lucrative board position with a Ukrainian natural gas firm.

According to US media, Mr Bolton was alarmed about a back-channel operation in Ukraine by President Trump's private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Mr Giuliani acknowledged last month in a TV interview having asked Ukraine to investigate Mr Biden.

The former US vice-president is a leading Democratic candidate to challenge Mr Trump for the White House next year.

Mr Bolton's anger over alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine for political help reportedly triggered heated confrontations at the White House over the summer.

President Trump's former top adviser on Russia, Fiona Hill, testified that Mr Bolton had told her to alert White House lawyers about Mr Giuliani, according to US media.

Mr Bolton reportedly also criticised Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the EU, and Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff.

"I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up," Mr Bolton is said to have told Ms Hill.

Meanwhile, a top adviser to Mr Trump on Russia and Europe, is reportedly stepping down on the eve of his testimony to the congressional impeachment investigators.

Tim Morrison, a National Security Council official, was one of the officials authorised to listen in on Mr Trump's July call with the president of Ukraine.

Mr Morrison is still expected to testify on Thursday, despite the White House urging officials to shun the proceedings.

Also on Thursday, the House is preparing to take its first formal vote on the path ahead for the impeachment process, which has until now been conducted behind closed doors.

Democrats are planning public hearings in a matter of weeks, and considering the possibility of drafting articles of impeachment against the president.

The Trump-Zelensky phone call was the subject of a complaint by a whistleblower, whose identity has been closely protected by lawmakers.

On Wednesday evening, a conservative author named a CIA officer as the whistleblower.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50242402.
 
The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to formally proceed with the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The measure detailed how the inquiry will move into a more public phase and was not a vote on whether to impeach the president.

The vote was the first formal test of support for impeachment in the Democratic-controlled house.

The White House condemned the vote, which passed along party lines.

Only two Democrats - representing districts that Mr Trump won handily in 2016 - voted against the resolution, along with all Republicans, for a total count of 232 in favour and 196 against.

The resolution also sets out the rights Mr Trump's lawyers would have.

President Trump is accused of trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating unsubstantiated corruption claims against his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son who worked with Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

Mr Trump denies wrongdoing.

After the vote, the White House Press Secretary said in a statement: "Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have done nothing more than enshrine unacceptable violations of due process into House rules."

What Trump's Ukraine phone call really means
Also on Thursday, another White House official present on the Ukraine call began testifying, and was expected to corroborate earlier statements about conditions placed to the release of US military aid to Ukraine.

Republicans have criticised Democrats for the closed hearings up to this point, in which Republican lawmakers have also taken part. But Democrats insist they were needed to gather evidence ahead of the public stage of the inquiry, and deny allegations they have been secretive.

The vote moves the inquiry into a new phase, which could eventually see articles of impeachment recommended against Mr Trump. If that happened, and the House voted to pass the articles, a trial would be held in the Senate.

What will the resolution say?
Earlier this week, Democrats in the House released an eight-page document setting out the two-stage process for the next phase of the inquiry.

In the first stage, the House Intelligence Committee will continue its investigations and hold public hearings. It will have the right to make public transcripts of depositions taken in private.

In the second stage, a public report on the findings will be sent to the House Judiciary Committee which would conduct its own proceedings and report on "such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper".

President Trump's lawyers will be allowed to take part in the Judiciary Committee stage. Republicans on the committees will be able to subpoena documents or witnesses although they could still be blocked as both committees are controlled by Democrats.

Democrats are planning public hearings to be held in coming weeks and are considering the possibility of drafting articles of impeachment against the president.

What's behind the impeachment inquiry?
At the heart of the impeachment inquiry, which was announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last month, is a phone call on 25 July between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

A rough transcript of the call shows Mr Trump asking Mr Zelensky to investigate unsubstantiated corruption claims against Joe Biden, a leading Democratic candidate to challenge Mr Trump for the White House next year, and his son, Hunter.

The Trump-Zelensky phone call was the subject of a complaint by a whistleblower, whose identity has been closely protected by lawmakers. On Wednesday, a conservative author named a CIA officer as the whistleblower.


Media captionWhat does it take to impeach a president?
What about Thursday's testimony?
Tim Morrison, who served as top adviser on Russia and Europe at the National Security Council, is testifying before lawmakers.

He was one of the officials authorised to listen in on Mr Trump's call with the president of Ukraine, and resigned from his position on Wednesday.

Mr Morrison is due to provide a first-hand account of conversations with Ukrainian officials about the president's alleged demands tying military aid to investigation into the Bidens.

This would confirm prior testimony by Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, House investigators invited former US National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify on 7 November. His lawyer, Charles Cooper, told US media his client was not willing to appear voluntarily but that he was ready to accept a subpoena - or legal summons to compel testimony - on Mr Bolton's behalf.

US media say Mr Bolton was alarmed by a back-channel operation in Ukraine carried out by President Trump's private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who acknowledged last month having asked Ukraine to investigate Mr Biden.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50246324
 
President Trump suggested Sunday that Republicans should release their own versions of transcripts of interviews in the House's ongoing impeachment inquiry.

In a tweet, Trump claimed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) "will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes." His tweet came as Schiff said Democrats were planning to release transcripts of the interviews held in the probe so far.

"If Shifty Adam Schiff, who is a corrupt politician who fraudulently made up what I said on the 'call,' is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes," he tweeted.

"Republicans should give their own transcripts of the interviews to contrast with Schiff’s manipulated propaganda. House Republicans must have nothing to do with Shifty’s rendition of those interviews. He is a proven liar, leaker & freak who is really the one who should be impeached!" Trump added.

Trump is a vocal critic of Schiff, whom he has accused without evidence of being in contact with a whistleblower whose complaint to the intelligence community's inspector general about Trump's phone call with Ukraine's president is credited with sparking the impeachment inquiry.

The House voted this week on procedures for the inquiry, a major step toward formally impeaching Trump. The White House has refused to cooperate in the process, while Republicans have criticized it as overly secretive and partisan.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ublicans-should-release-their-own-versions-of.
 
A recalled US ambassador at the centre of the Trump impeachment inquiry said she felt threatened by a cryptic remark the president made about her on a call.

Ex-envoy to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch told Congress she was "very concerned" by President Donald Trump's comment in the phone call with Ukraine's leader.

Mr Trump told his counterpart: "Well, she's [Ms Yovanovitch] going to go through some things."

Democrats have just released the first transcripts from closed-door testimony.

The Republican president is accused of trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating unsubstantiated corruption claims against his US political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden, who worked with a Ukrainian gas company.

Ms Yovanovitch said she was "shocked" by what the president said about her in a 25 July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"I didn't know what it meant," she said about Mr Trump's words. "I was very concerned. I still am."

The House Intelligence Committee released Ms Yovanovitch's testimony from 11 October on Monday.

On the Trump-Zelensky call, details of which were previously released by the White House, the US president also described Ms Yovanovitch as "bad news".

In her testimony, the seasoned US diplomat said when she sought advice from the US Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor, he suggested Ms Yovanovitch tweet praise of the president.

Ms Yovanovitch added that Mr Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani began efforts to discredit her in late 2018.

Mr Giuliani enlisted Ukraine's prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, to spread "falsehoods" about her in order to "hurt" her "in the US", according to Ms Yovanovitch.

She said she was warned by Ukraine's justice minister "I really needed to watch my back".

Ms Yovanovitch left Ukraine in May months ahead of her scheduled departure.

On Monday the House Intelligence Committee also released the transcript from testimony by a former top adviser to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Michael McKinley, who appeared before Congress on 16 October for a private hearing, said he tried but failed to get Mr Pompeo to defend Ms Yovanovitch.

Mr McKinley said he had suggested a letter "that's not political, stating clearly that we respect the professionalism, the tenure of Ambassador Yovanovitch in the Ukraine".

But he told lawmakers he received a call from a Department of State spokeswoman telling him Mr Pompeo had rejected his idea.

Mr McKinley resigned from his post days before his congressional testimony last month.

He told the committee he had stepped down over his concerns about "the engagement of our missions to procure negative political information for domestic purposes".

Mr McKinley said he had never seen such alleged tactics in 37 years of working for the US government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50293139
 
Nothing will eventually happen and the clown will probably keep marching on - an unfortunate reality. I do hope I'm proven wrong about this.
 
Nothing will eventually happen and the clown will probably keep marching on - an unfortunate reality. I do hope I'm proven wrong about this.

The only way to get him out of the office is through elections.

Unfortunately, racism and ignorance is alive and kicking among Caucasian of US.
 
The only way to get him out of the office is through elections.

Unfortunately, racism and ignorance is alive and kicking among Caucasian of US.

I imagine that would be what the extremists are peddling.
 
I imagine that would be what the extremists are peddling.

How is that bigger, stronger, better and tremendous wall coming along, has the cutter from Walmart able to cut through it?

An absolute perfect example of racism and ignorance which a cult member would fall for it in hoping to preserve 'one kind'.
 
How is that bigger, stronger, better and tremendous wall coming along, has the cutter from Walmart able to cut through it?

An absolute perfect example of racism and ignorance which a cult member would fall for it in hoping to preserve 'one kind'.

Yes we have to deal with racist and extremist people all the time.
 
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took aim at the latest impeachment inquiry developments on Tuesday and called the process a "bunch of B.S."

He has "written the whole process off," Graham told reporters when asked if he would read newly released transcripts of testimony given by former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Democrats released hundreds of pages of testimony on Tuesday that reflected a mixed picture of whether or not President Trump presented a "quid pro quo" of some sort, involving either the release of U.S. military aid or a meeting at the White House.

The transcripts also revealed that Sondland revised his prior testimony to reflect that he told a top Ukrainian official U.S. aid likely wouldn't resume unless the country released a corruption statement. Many Democrats interpreted this as evidence of a quid pro quo.

Of Sondland's revised testimony, Graham said Tuesday: "That's his opinion."

"This, to me, is a manufactured issue created by some unknown whistleblower who needs to be known, and the phone call is the basis for the impeachment allegation," the South Carolina senator continued. "I don’t think the president did anything wrong."

The House of Representatives last Thursday voted largely along party lines to approve a resolution that established "ground rules" for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, setting the framework for a more public investigation following weeks of closed-door depositions that drew scrutiny from Republicans who demanded more transparency and fairness in the process.

Democrats launched the inquiry following an intelligence community whistleblower complaint about a phone call the president had with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, over the summer. The complaint accused the president of soliciting a quid pro quo, allegedly threatening to withhold U.S. military aid unless Ukraine investigated former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter and their business dealings in the county.

The White House later released a memorandum of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, and it showed that while Trump sought an investigation into the Biden family for corruption, he did not explicitly leverage military aid in order to get Ukraine to investigate.

Fox News asked Graham on Tuesday if he would still say the whistleblower didn't have any credibility, to which the senator replied: "I don't know if they have... credibility or not. I don’t know who they are."

"You shouldn't have an impeachment inquiry that was started by an anonymous allegation," Graham continued. "Whistleblower statutes are designed to protect people from being fired, who report misconduct or corruption. They're not designed to shield the person from being challenged in terms of accusation. So the whistleblower statutes [are] being used unfairly."

He added: "Their biases have to be known if they have any."

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Tuesday that the newly released transcripts showed less evidence for the "illegitimate impeachment sham than previously thought."

While Sondland "presumed" there was a link to the military aid being withheld, he "cannot identify any solid source for that assumption," she added.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-impeachment-inquiry.
 
They have named the whistleblower, he was involved in the fake dossier on Trump that the democrats created. He also worked for Adam Shiff and is a member of the Democrat party.

Adam Shiff lied on television when asked if he had contact with this person, when asked on television if he had contact with this person he denied that he had contact. This has been proven to be a lie. This is the same man who is conducting the inquiry and has been proven to lie about it.

It will all come out in the end but it looks like another russian collusion witch hunt.
 
Congressional Democrats have announced the first public hearings next week in an inquiry that may seek to remove President Donald Trump from office.

Three state department officials will testify first. So far lawmakers from three key House committees have heard from witnesses behind closed doors.

The impeachment inquiry centres on claims that Mr Trump pressured Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into political rival Joe Biden.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, who is overseeing the inquiry, told reporters on Wednesday that an impeachment case was building against the president.

He said: "We are getting an increasing appreciation for just what took place during the course of the last year - and the degree to which the president enlisted whole departments of government in the illicit aim to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent."

Mr Trump has been making discredited corruption claims about former US vice-president Joe Biden, whose son Hunter Biden once worked for a Ukrainian gas company.

The Capitol Hill hearings will now be broadcast live, with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers questioning witnesses.

One of the first to appear will be Bill Taylor, acting US ambassador to Ukraine, who delivered some of the most explosive private testimony last month.

On Wednesday - a week ahead of his scheduled public hearing - House Democrats released a transcript of his evidence.

It shows Mr Taylor told lawmakers it was his "clear understanding" that the president had withheld nearly $400m (£310m) in US military aid because he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Joe Biden is a Democratic front-runner for the presidential election a year from now.

Also scheduled to testify publicly next Wednesday is career state department official George Kent.

Mr Kent reportedly told lawmakers that department officials had been sidelined as the White House put political appointees in charge of Ukraine policy.

He testified that he had been warned to "lay low" by a superior after expressing concern about Mr Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was lobbying Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Mr Giuliani has denied wrongdoing.

Former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled in May after falling from favour with the White House, is due to testify on Friday next week.

She told the hearing last month that she had felt threatened by Mr Trump's remark to Ukraine's president that was "going to go through some things".

The military aid to Ukraine was released in September, after a whistleblower raised the alarm about a 25 July phone call in which Mr Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens.

The whistleblower's complaint prompted House Democrats to launch the impeachment inquiry.

Quick facts on impeachment
Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office.

If, following the hearings, the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment, the Senate is forced to hold a trial.

A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the president - unlikely in this case, given that Mr Trump's party controls the chamber.

Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached, but neither was convicted.

President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50323190.
 
The whistleblower is being represented by lawyer Mark S Zaid

Some of the tweets from Mark S Zaid from 2017.

30th Jan 2017
Mark S Zaid
#Coup has started. First of many steps #Rebellion#Impeach will follow ultimately #Lawyers.

4th July 2017
Mark S Zaid
Not shocking at all, I predict @CNN will play a role in Donald Trump not finishing out his full term as president.

There are many more tweets where he talks about removing Trump.
 
Those who oppose Trump do nothing all day but moan and complain, as they have for the past 3 years. Moan moan moan, blame the Russians blah blah blah, but in the end these people are simply not smart enough to figure out where the cause lies. This behaviour has extended to UK politics too, where all you hear is how people voted for Brexit are racists, and how Boris is a liar blah blah blah.

Get over it. Stop crying. A leaders is NOTHING without support. Go, I dare you, ask the people who voted for Trump, and why. Ask the people who voted for Brexit, and why.

The reality is the world has changed. Move on. You lost because of your arrogance and complete disconnect with reality. Then again, there is always Killary Clinton, the messiah of fairness & freedom - NOT!
 
US President Donald Trump has denied asking the justice department to clear him of wrongdoing over a phone call with Ukraine's president that is at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.

Attorney General William Barr declined Mr Trump's request to clear him in a press conference.

The president has dismissed the reports as a "con job".

The Democratic-led inquiry hinges on whether Mr Trump pressured Ukraine on that call to investigate a rival.

Mr Trump denies using US military aid as a bargaining chip to prod Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky into launching a corruption investigation against Democratic White House contender Joe Biden.

According to a rough transcript released by the White House, Mr Trump suggested Mr Zelensky work with Mr Barr during the call.

A Department of Justice spokeswoman later said Mr Barr was unaware he had been mentioned by the president until "several weeks" after the call.

The US president, a Republican, has repeatedly insisted his call with Ukraine's leader was "perfect".

"The Justice Department already ruled that the call was good," Mr Trump wrote on Twitter on Thursday.

The president appeared to be referring to a statement issued by the Department of Justice in September, saying it had "reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted".

Mr Trump blasted the Washington Post, which broke the story, as "degenerate", though its report has since been confirmed by other US media, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the BBC's US partner, CBS News.

House Democrats will hold the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry next week.

One of the first to appear will be Bill Taylor, acting US ambassador to Ukraine.

Mr Taylor said in a private hearing last month it was his "clear understanding" that the president had withheld nearly $400m (£310m) in US military aid because he wanted Ukraine to investigate Mr Biden.

President Trump has claimed without evidence that Joe Biden used his position as US vice-president to quash an investigation into Ukrainian gas company Burisma. His son, Hunter Biden, worked for Burisma.

In August, an anonymous intelligence whistleblower wrote a letter expressing concern over the 25 July Trump-Zelensky call, which took place shortly after Mr Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine.

The whistleblower's identity has so far been closely guarded by Democrats, amid demands from their Republican colleagues to hear from the individual directly. Lawyers for the whistleblower have told investigators their client is only willing to answer written questions.

The conservative Fox News network, which is generally supportive of Mr Trump, has reportedly instructed its hosts not to identify the purported whistleblower. Other right-wing media outlets have already done so.

Most media organisations, including the BBC, have not named the source.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50336197
 
US President Donald Trump has called for the whistleblower who triggered the impeachment inquiry to be unmasked, ignoring a cease-and-desist warning.

On Thursday a lawyer for a whistleblower told the White House that Mr Trump's rhetoric was placing his client and family in physical danger.

Undeterred by the letter, Mr Trump renewed his attacks on the whistleblower and lawyer on Friday.

The individual's identity has so far been fiercely guarded by Democrats.

In August the whistleblower filed a report that eventually triggered impeachment proceeding against Mr Trump.

The report expressed concern over a phone call a month earlier in which Mr Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, a Democratic front-runner for the 2020 US presidential election.

In Thursday's letter, sent to White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the whistleblower's lawyer Andrew Bakaj cites many examples of the president's "fixation" on the identity of his client in his comments to the media, at rallies and on Twitter.

"Such statements seek to intimidate my client - and they have," Mr Bakaj writes.

He continued: "Should any harm befall any suspected named whistleblower or their family, the blame will rest squarely with your client."

Whistleblower 'a disgrace' - Trump
But the next day, Mr Trump launched a fresh attack at the White House.

"The whistleblower is a disgrace to our country... and the whistleblower because of that should be revealed," he told reporters.

"And his lawyer who said the worst things possible two years ago, he should be sued, and maybe for treason."

Mr Trump may have been referring to the whistleblower's other lawyer, Mark Zaid, who has been under fire from the president's allies over tweet posted in 2017 in which he vowed - among other things - to "get rid of him [Mr Trump]".

Meanwhile, the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, said in an interview with the Associated Press news agency that she did not believe the whistleblower's identity was "particularly relevant".

"The whistleblower shouldn't be a substantive part of the conversation," she said, adding that the person "did not have firsthand information".

She echoed her father's view that the impeachment investigation was about "overturning the results of the 2016 election".

What's the background to this?
Democrats have said the whistleblower's identity is immaterial. They argue that the complaint, which alleges abuse of power by Mr Trump, has been substantiated by witness testimony to the impeachment committees.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives will next week hold televised hearings for the first time in this inquiry.

If the House eventually votes to impeach Mr Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a trial of the president.

If Mr Trump is convicted - which is widely viewed at present as unlikely - he would be removed from office.

But Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican, said on Thursday that he wanted to know the identity of the whistleblower if there was an impeachment trial.

He also said the president's team should be able to question the anonymous official.

"How else are we going to evaluate the content and the truthfulness of these people if we don't know who they are?" Mr Hawley told Missouri radio station KFTK.

What is the latest on the impeachment front?
Also on Friday, transcripts of testimony from White House National Security Council (NSC) experts Fiona Hill and Lt Col Alexander Vindman revealed new claims about acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

The closed-door depositions last month showed that both officials said Mr Mulvaney had played a key role in co-ordinating a reported exchange of favours, under which Ukraine would announce an inquiry into the Bidens in exchange for the release of congressionally approved military aid.

Ms Hill, the White House's top Russia expert, quoted her former boss on the NSC John Bolton as saying that he wanted no part of the "drug deal" being arranged by Mr Mulvaney and other Trump appointees.

Lt Col Vindman, the NSC's top Ukraine expert and Army veteran told the House committees that Mr Mulvaney had "co-ordinated" a plan to condition a White House meeting with Mr Trump in exchange for an investigation into the Biden family.

Mr Mulvaney was ordered by Congress to testify behind closed doors on Friday, but refused, citing an "absolute immunity".

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50350011.
 
It has been a torrid introduction to diplomacy for the wealthy hotelier appointed US ambassador to the EU by Donald Trump.

Gordon Sondland is now at the centre of the impeachment inquiry, which seeks to establish whether President Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into discrediting potential 2020 election rival Joe Biden.

Mr Sondland made headlines after suddenly changing his testimony to Congress and suggesting that a potentially impeachable offence had been committed by President Trump.

He had been a little-known figure until that 5 November testimony. So how is he viewed in Brussels?

Speaking anonymously, one EU Council diplomat said he had "a way about him that can rub people the wrong way" and another said he was "not everyone's cup of tea".

Questions are being asked about Mr Sondland's admission that he was given a "special assignment" in Ukraine by President Trump, despite the fact that Ukraine is not in the EU.

Mr Sondland offered a glimpse into his personal life in a "getting to know you" video, posted on YouTube by the US embassy in Brussels a year ago.

He sits on the sofa with his wife of 25 years and chats about his family, his European immigrant roots, his love for flying as a trained pilot, and his extensive art collection. The video is a cosy, open portrait of a wealthy family looking forward to a life in Europe.

He is the 20th US ambassador to the EU, in his first foreign posting, which is also his political debut.

His background has echoes of the president who chose him: a multi-millionaire hotelier and businessman who set his sights on politics.

He had originally backed a Trump rival in the 2016 presidential race - Jeb Bush. Back then, Mr Sondland said Donald Trump was out of touch with his personal beliefs "on so many levels".

But, when Donald Trump was elected, Mr Sondland donated $1m (£781,000) to his inaugural committee. Soon after that he was made ambassador to Brussels.

Ukraine 'special assignment'
His political patch extended to Ukraine, and he split much of his time between Brussels and Kyiv.

Earlier this year he told a Ukrainian reporter: "We are what are called the three amigos and the three amigos are [Energy] Secretary [Rick] Perry, Ambassador [Kurt] Volker and myself, and we've been tasked with sort of overseeing the US-Ukraine relationship, between our contacts at the highest levels of the US government and the highest levels of the Ukrainian government."

This role has since been called into question by the previous US Ambassador to the EU, Anthony Gardner, who described it as "extremely unusual", since it had little to do directly with the European Union.

Mr Sondland called it a "special assignment". And that Ukraine role has put him in the spotlight as a key witness in the impeachment investigation.

On 5 November Mr Sondland abruptly changed his testimony to Congress, saying he now recalled telling a top adviser to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky that nearly $400m in military aid to Kyiv would not be released unless the Ukraine government announced an investigation - that President Trump wanted - into the business dealings of Joe Biden's son, Hunter.

Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm.

It was essentially a quid pro quo arrangement with Ukraine that Mr Sondland had previously denied.

The testimony adds credibility to the central accusation that President Trump abused his power in office by pressuring the Ukrainian government to take action that would help his 2020 presidential campaign. President Trump denies this.

Abrasive or just plain-speaking?
For Gordon Sondland, his sudden declaration has caused incredulity, and endless comic material on US prime-time TV networks.

On the CBS Late Show, comedian Stephen Colbert commented: "Why did Sondland decide to revise his statement to Congress? According to him, incriminating testimony from other witnesses 'refreshed my recollection about certain conversations' .. huh, you know that testimony I just heard? It really refreshed the old noodle."

Mr Sondland's reputation in Brussels is mixed, according to ambassadors and senior EU officials I spoke to. Impressions range from outward dislike of his style to open admiration.

They agreed to speak frankly, on condition of anonymity.

One senior EU Council diplomat said "he talks in high tones - he's got a manner and a way about him that can rub people the wrong way.

"He's certainly an expert in alienation. Most other ambassadors in this job know the way it ticks, have other ambassadors' mobile numbers, and are plugged into the way things work. He hasn't come from this world of diplomacy, doesn't know it and seems not to want to know it either. And we haven't seen that much of him here in Brussels."

Another said they would "try to be diplomatic" - before making clear that they much preferred the previous ambassador. "This one's not, well not everyone's cup of tea, as you say. Maybe a Lapsang Souchong.... it can leave a bitter taste."

'Very professional'
On the subject of tea, it's anecdotally reported that Ambassador Sondland uses a silent buzzer device during diplomatic meetings in Brussels to signal to his staff that he wants a cup of tea.

One ambassadorial adviser who has spent decades in Brussels had kinder words. "He's aggressive, he's combative, some people might say highfalutin. But he seems very open and you get where he's coming from. I know where he stands and respect that."

The official on-the-record view offers a different take. Mina Andreeva is chief spokeswoman for the EU Commission, and said: "We have always experienced him as a very professional counterpart, who has been helpful in continuing our transatlantic relations."

Diplomacy at its most diplomatic.

Ambassador Sondland and his team in Brussels were contacted for comment this week, but were unavailable. Reluctance to engage with reporters appears to be out of step with the ambassador's previous efforts to reach out to journalists.

The chief Europe correspondent for Politico, Matthew Karnitschnig, tells a story which suggests that up until recently, Ambassador Sondland went out of his way to make a name for himself.

"Not too long ago, we did a profile of the US ambassador to Germany. As soon as that story ran, all of a sudden our phone at Politico was ringing and it was none other than Ambassador Sondland, wondering why we weren't paying more attention to him. So I think it's quite interesting. This drive to get Trump's attention may have gone a little too far here in engaging with Ukraine and trying to do Trump's bidding."

The impeachment hearings into Donald Trump go public this week.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50349431.
 
It is "inexplicable and shameful" that the UK government has not yet published a report on alleged Russian interference in British politics, Hillary Clinton has told the BBC.

The report has formal security clearance, but it will not be released until after the 12 December election.

"Every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens," the former US presidential candidate said.

The report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee examines Russian activity in UK democracy.

It includes allegations of espionage, subversion and interference in elections.

It contains evidence from UK intelligence services such as GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 concerning covert Russian attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum and 2017 general election.

The report was finalised in March and referred to No 10 on 17 October.

But approval for its publication has yet to be given - and is not due to happen until after polling day.

MPs on the intelligence committee have been highly critical of that outcome, but the government has said the timing is not unusual.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme while in the UK on a book tour, Mrs Clinton said she was "dumbfounded" that the government would not release the report.

"That should be an absolute condition," she said.

"Because there is no doubt - we know it in our country, we have seen it in Europe, we have seen it here - that Russia in particular is determined to try to shape the politics of western democracies.

"Not to our benefit, but to theirs."

She also told BBC Radio 5 Live's Emma Barnett: "I find it inexplicable that your government will not release a government report about Russian influence. Inexplicable and shameful."

Mrs Clinton said the US had a similar problem in the 2016 election, when she was defeated as the Democrat's candidate for president by Republican Donald Trump.

Trump and his campaign, she said, were under investigation for their connections with Russia, Russian agents, and others promoting Russian interests. But the American public did not know before the election.

The Russians were still "in" her country's electoral system, she said, still "pumping out propaganda".

"So there's no doubt of the role that Russia played in our 2016 election and is continuing to play.

"I would hate to see that happen here. Whatever the outcome. I don't know what's in it, (the report) any more than anybody else does.

"But certainly, people who are about to vote in a month or so deserve to know what is in a report that one has to speculate, must have something of concern, otherwise why wouldn't it be publicly disclosed?"

Chancellor Sajid Javid has told the BBC the timescale for the publication of the report was "perfectly normal" because of the sensitive nature of the content.

However, Labour's shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry has said the decision not to clear the report for publication before Parliament closed ahead of the general election was "clearly politically motivated".

Speaking in the Commons last week, she suggested the report could lead to questions about links between Russia, Brexit and the Tory leadership, which could derail the Conservative election campaign.

Sources have told the BBC there was no objection from any other government agency or department to the report's publication - leaving the decision to release it with Downing Street.

In the US, the Mueller Inquiry laid out a broad pattern of interference in the US 2016 presidential election - particularly using social media and leaking of documents.

However it did not establish any criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

So far no evidence of a cyber campaign on a similar scale has been produced in the UK and government ministers have said there is no evidence of "successful" Russian interference in UK elections.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50382668.
 
WASHINGTON: Donald Trump faces the prospect of becoming only the third US president to be impeached when open hearings begin this week into his alleged effort to bolster his re-election hopes by pushing Ukraine to find dirt on a Democratic rival.

Having survived special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump now faces potential removal from office for pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Democrats have amassed evidence — from a whistleblower complaint to the rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky and testimony from a dozen witnesses — that the president abused his office by withholding aid and a requested White House meeting to force Zelensky into helping his personal political agenda.

“This is a very simple, straightforward act. The president broke the law,” Democratic Representative Jackie Speier said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” programme.

“This is a very strong case of bribery, because you have an elected official, the president, demanding action of a foreign country, in this case...and he is withholding aid,” said Speier.

The hearings begin on Wednesday in the House Intelligence Committee, with the first witnesses two officials who have already provided evidence against Trump in private testimony: Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent.

On Sunday, Trump repeated his charge that the investigation is a “witch hunt” and that he did nothing wrong.

“The call to the Ukrainian President was PERFECT. Read the Transcript!” he tweeted.

“Republicans, don’t be led into the fools trap of saying it was not perfect, but is not impeachable. No, it is much stronger than that. NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG!” But Democrats say the evidence against him is strong.

Once the coming Intelligence Committee hearings are complete, the Judiciary Committee can draw up articles of impeachment, or formal charges, against Trump.

Those would then be voted on by the full House of Representatives, reportedly before the end of the year.

Impeachment would likely pass the Democratic-controlled House. The case would then be sent for trial in the Senate, where Republicans dominate and support for Trump remains firm.

Coming just one year before national elections, and broadcast live, the impeachment hearings carry great risks for both parties and no certain reward, with the US electorate deeply divided and weary of Washington infighting.

Polls show a slim majority of Americans favor impeaching the president. But they also show that Trump’s sizable voter base, which delivered his shock victory in 2016, is so far impervious to the allegations.

Republicans who disapprove of Trump’s behavior suggest they will continue to support him.

“I believe it’s inappropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival,” Republican Representative Mac Thornberry said on ABC’s “This week.” “I don’t believe it was impeachable,” he said.

“Most Republicans have said that would be a violation of the law,” another Republican lawmaker, Will Hurd, told “Fox News.” However, he said, they “have to truly consider whether impeachment is the right tool or not.”

The hearings are likely to be fiery, with Republicans determined to paint witnesses as biased against Trump.

They are prepared to disrupt testimony and shift the subject to the allegations Trump raised with Zelensky: that Biden protected his son Hunter’s allegedly corrupt relationship with a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, and that Ukraine helped Democrats in the 2016 race.

No evidence has surfaced to support either claim, but transcripts from earlier testimony show Republicans pressing witnesses on both counts.

In closed-door testimony, the Intelligence Committee chairman, Adam Schiff, a veteran prosecutor, proved able to fend off disruptions and maintain a focus on the allegations against Trump. But that could change in front of a national television audience.

Republicans are moving one of their wiliest and most agile counter-attackers, Jim Jordan, to the committee to joust with Schiff over control of the narrative.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1516232/impeachment-hearings-against-trump-open-tomorrow.
 
The US impeachment inquiry emerges from behind closed doors at last.

For more than a month, the process - which could end in a Senate vote on Donald Trump's removal from office - has been shrouded in mystery.

The biggest revelations have come from leaks, anonymous media reports and voluminous deposition transcripts where even the most explosive and revealing moments can be drained of drama when presented on the written page.

That all changes on Wednesday.

Here are four things to keep in mind as the lights go up and the cameras turn on in the House Intelligence Committee hearing room.

Are the witnesses credible?
It's unlikely there will be many surprises in the testimony offered by the three witnesses scheduled to testify this week.

Acting US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch have already appeared at closed-door committee hearings, and transcripts of their depositions have been released (and, before that, leaked to the press).

The bombshells, for those who want to view them as such, have already exploded. The allegations of an exchange of favours (a quid pro quo) and a shadow foreign policy have already been disclosed and picked over.

If things go according to plan for Democrats, the three witnesses will simply repeat their previous answers - only this time, with the public watching. What may be important is not what they say but how they say it. Do they look and sound credible? Are there hints of doubt in their recollections? Will they be rattled by hostile Republican questioning?

Public opinion has hardened around partisan lines. Democrats are hoping increased public support could persuade wavering Republicans to support the president's removal.

The impeachment process is rife with legal language - depositions and due process, evidence and examinations - but it is, at its heart, a political undertaking. Politicians are the prosecutors, defenders, judges and jury. And politicians, in the end, are answerable to the people who elected them.

It is the people, the voters, for whom the politicians will be performing. The goal of this week's impeachment theatre is to shape their views and win them over.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50395008.
 
Ukrainians 'were confused'

Taylor says that then-National Security Adviser John Bolton "opposed a call between President Zelenskyy and President Trump".

He adds: "The Ukrainians in the meetings were confused. Ambassador Bolton, in the regular Ukraine policy decision-making channel, wanted to talk about security, energy, and reform; Ambassador Sondland, a participant in the irregular channel, wanted to talk about the connection between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations."

"There appeared to be two channels of US policy-making: one regular and one highly irregular. As acting ambassador, I had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic processes."

"At the same time I encountered an irregular, informal channel of policy making," he continues, adding that it was "unaccountable to Congress".

That irregular channel was led by US officials Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland, Rick Perry, Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani, he says.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-50399361
 
Last edited:
Washington (CNN)The gravity and drama of the first televised impeachment hearings into Donald Trump's presidency on Wednesday will imprint themselves on history and reverberate far from Washington.

The most crucial stage of the Ukraine investigation so far has profound implications beyond the political and personal reputation of Trump and the question of whether he abused his power by seeking political favors from a foreign power.

His fate will have sweeping consequences for the future understanding of powers vested within the presidency itself. The hearings will test whether the ancient machinery of US governance can effectively investigate a President who ignores the charges against him and fogs fact in defining a new post-truth political era. And notwithstanding Trump's current Republican firewall, the hearings will begin to decide whether a presidency that has rocked America and the world will reach its full natural term.

The fact that there is an impeachment process at all -- and a debate over whether the President is so corrupt he should be ousted between elections -- is in itself something of a national tragedy. There's a reason why Gerald Ford called the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974 before he was formally impeached, a "long national nightmare."

The next few months will scar America for years to come. As the Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson impeachments did before it, this process will reflect and intensify the ideological civil war that is tearing at national unity and threatening the nation's forward momentum.

Democratic leaders, who long resisted demands from their party's liberal activists to impeach Trump, are taking a considerable risk by embarking on this momentous constitutional road. Given the explosive revelations about Trump's conduct in Ukraine however, they may have had little political choice.

In all likelihood, Republican senators will not vote to convict and oust Trump, opening the possibility of a political backlash. It's just not clear yet whether Democrats or the GOP would come off worse. Trump is likely to view an eventual escape from censure as a validation of his unrestrained behavior and a license to continue to test constitutional customs.

The case against Trump

"I've always thought that the strongest argument for impeachment was also the strongest argument against it, which is, if you don't impeach a president who commits conduct of this kind, what does that say to the next president about what they can do and to the next Congress?" House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said in an interview with National Public Radio on Tuesday.

"At the same time, if you do impeach, but the President is acquitted, what does that say to the next president? The next Congress? There's no good or simple answer," he said.

Yet for all the bitterness and uncertainty that it stirs, the impeachment process is also a reaffirmation and test of the democratic codes of self-government first set down in Philadelphia nearly two-and-a-half centuries ago.

It will provide the most significant judgment yet on a riotous presidency that has already skipped past one existential scandal in the Russia election meddling scheme.

The Democratic charge that could see Trump shamed as only the third impeached President in history could hardly be more grave. He is effectively accused of committing a crime against the nation itself and the political system that guards its freedoms.

Specifically, Democrats charge Trump with conspiring with a foreign power to influence a US election, an offense many observers believe satisfies the impeachable standard of "Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The eventual case may encompass campaign finance offenses, the flouting of his presidential oath to uphold the law and the Constitution and allege obstruction over his withholding of witnesses and evidence. In more symbolic terms, it would validate the fears of America's founders of one of the greatest threats to their democratic experiment.

"History and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government," wrote the first President, George Washington, in his farewell address.

The Democratic tactics

To force Trump's removal from office, Democrats must use the hearings beginning on Wednesday to turn independents and moderate Republicans against him.

They hope that the testimony of witnesses including foreign service lifers such as Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Kiev, who opens proceedings on Wednesday, will come across as credible and defang the GOP counterattack. They will portray ousted US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie "Masha" Yovanovitch, who will testify on Friday, as a victim of Trump's scheme to benefit himself and not US national interests.

They are striving to change the political calculation of GOP senators currently unlikely to desert Trump and build the two-thirds majority to convict him in a Senate trial. Failing that, Trump could be so damaged by impeachment that his hopes of breaking out beyond his base in the 2020 will be doomed.

In essence, Democrats are seeking to build made-for-TV moments that can tell the story of the Ukraine scandal in simple terms -- as the Senate Watergate hearings did in the Nixon era.

It is unclear whether they have a witness to match the impact of former White House counsel John Dean, who testified that he told Nixon that "there was a cancer growing on the presidency."

Democrats argue Trump built a sophisticated back-door diplomatic effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and a conspiracy theory that Kiev and not Russia meddled in the 2016 election. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.

Democrats allege that the quid pro quos in this equation involved $400 million in delayed military aid to Ukraine and conditions initially imposed on a White House visit for its President, Volodymyr Zelensky.

The rough transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky in July -- in which the US leader asked for a "favor" and mentioned Biden -- forms the core of the case.

Democrats have also collected evidence that Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was barnstorming around in Europe trying to close the deal with Ukraine and bypassing US diplomats.

"Go talk to Rudy, he knows all about Ukraine," GOP mega-donor turned US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that Trump told his subordinates.

Trump has refused to produce, or Democrats have declined to launch long legal challenges to access, key witnesses who could establish or rule out any direct link with the President.

Yet acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney effectively confirmed a quid pro quo with Ukraine over military aid in a stunning White House briefing that included the words: "Get over it."

Ultimately, the Democratic appeal to the American people will come down to this: Is it credible that all this was going on and Trump did not direct it -- or at least knew all about it?

The Republican defense

Since the Ukraine scandal erupted, Republicans have struggled to coin a consistent defense of the President.

His rough transcript of the call with Zelensky backfired as it was far from "perfect" as Trump said it was.

A flow of leaked witness testimony has deepened Trump's trouble. In response, the GOP has demanding the unmasking of a whistleblower in the intelligence community that first raised the alarm about Trump's call with Zelensky.

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are certain to stage sideshows to thwart Democratic hopes of presenting the public with a clear narrative.

Democrats have struggled to stop previous high-profile hearings from turning into circuses. This time, Schiff has decreed witnesses will first be questioned by professional counsel from both sides -- at least delaying political hijinks.

In a strategy memo released on Monday, GOP House members signaled they would argue that there was no coercion in the Trump-Zelensky call. They say that the fact military aid was eventually released in September means there is no case to answer and that it was Trump's skepticism of corruption in Ukraine that led him to delay it in the first place.

Each point is debatable. Perhaps that's one reason why Trump is desperate to discredit the impeachment probe just as he did with Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation.

The President is flooding the zone with a characteristic trove of conspiracy theories, outright lies, distractions and misinformation designed to confuse the public and fog clarity.

Yet an impeachment hearing is such a profound moment that the President's normal weapons may not work so well this time.

"The Republicans have staked their defense on a variety of techniques that don't address the charges. They claim this a biased investigation, that this is a witch hunt," said Claire Finkelstein, faculty director at the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

The Republican approach is essentially a bet that their hurricane force rhetoric will obscure the seriousness of the charges that are being presented to the public.

"There are some signs this is wearing thin for the American people and that they are actually attending to the content of the investigations," Finkelstein said.

"Once the public hearings begin the public will focus on the actual charges. That is what happened with Nixon in the Watergate hearings."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/trump-impeachment-hearing-today/index.html
 
Last edited:
A top US diplomat told impeachment hearings that President Trump directly asked about a Ukrainian investigation into his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

In previously unheard testimony, Bill Taylor, the acting US ambassador to Ukraine, said a member of his staff was told Mr Trump was preoccupied with pushing for a probe into Mr Biden.

He was speaking at the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry.

Mr Trump told reporters he did not recall making such comments.

Mr Trump is accused of withholding US military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the country's new president to publicly announce a corruption inquiry into Mr Biden, among the favourites to take him on in the 2020 presidential race.

Mr Trump denies any wrongdoing and has called the inquiry a "witchhunt".

What did Trump allegedly ask about?
During a detailed opening statement, Mr Taylor said a member of his staff had overheard a telephone call in which the president inquired about "the investigations" into Mr Biden.

The call was with Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, who reportedly told the president over the phone from a restaurant in Kyiv that "the Ukrainians were ready to move forward".

After the call, the staff member "asked ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine", Mr Taylor said.

Mr Taylor said: "Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden."

Meanwhile observers and former officials have drawn attention to the security implications of making the call from a restaurant, potentially exposing the conversation to eavesdropping by Russian intelligence.

When asked about Mr Sondland earlier this month, the president had said: "I hardly know the gentleman."

Responding to queries from reporters after the hearing, Mr Trump said: "I know nothing about that, first time I've heard it."

He said he recalled Mr Sondland's testimony, in which the diplomat said he spoke to the president "for a brief moment" and Mr Trump had "said no quid pro quo under any circumstances".

He did not recall the phone call Mr Taylor described, "not even a little bit", and "in any event it's more second hand information", he said.

The impeachment inquiry has been going on for more than a month - but all previous hearings were private, with reports based on leaks and sources speaking to the media.

Wednesday's public hearings were the first time the public heard from witnesses directly and a chance for Democrats and Republicans to win over voters.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50395015.
 
Washington (CNN)Dramatic new disclosures on Day 1 of the House impeachment hearings painted an incriminating picture of Donald Trump as a President instinctively willing to sacrifice America's interests for his own.

In the most critical step so far in the investigation into Trump's alleged scheme to coerce Ukraine's help for his reelection campaign, Democrats posed a question to every US citizen at the core of this dark national chapter.

"If this is not impeachable conduct, what is?" House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, asked, arguing that the republic's values and the concept of an accountable presidency were at stake for future generations.

Using as their first witnesses two conscientious, apolitical diplomats who devoted their lives to national service, Democrats built a foundation for a case that Trump abused his far greater power. It is a story certain to play out again and again in the coming weeks as lawmakers contemplate whether to deal Trump the historic stigma of being only the third president to be impeached.

In Wednesday's most striking moment, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, revealed a previously undisclosed call between Trump and the US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that took place a day after Trump's notorious talk with Ukraine's President in July.

He said that an aide -- who heard the call on a mobile phone while in a restaurant in a scenario that raised national security concerns -- reported that Trump asked Sondland about "the investigations" into former Vice President Joe Biden that he had requested from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump told reporters on Wednesday he had no memory of the event.

"I know nothing about that. First time I heard it," Trump said at the White House. "In any event, it's more secondhand information. I don't recall it, not at all, not even a little bit."

The new detail deals a blow to Republican claims that there is no evidence of any direct link between Trump and an attempt to pressure Ukraine into targeting Biden. Since Trump has previously claimed of Sondland: "I hardly know the gentleman" the testimony also poked new holes in Trump's denials. And it raised already extreme pressure on Sondland himself, who is due to testify next week.

Taylor and his colleague George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, also provided testimony to back up the theory that Trump demanded political dirt from on Biden.

In a political world ruled by fact and where polarized differences still allowed dispassionate debate, Trump's position immeasurably worsened over an intense day of testimony.

But his Republican allies -- who mostly defended him with bluster, conservative media conspiracy theories and process complaints -- underscored the daunting Democratic task ahead. The GOP's attack dogs may have succeeded in complicating what Democrats hoped would be an easy-to-understand case that could convince the public of Trump's malfeasance in a way that former special counsel Robert Mueller's voluminous Russia report could not. Democrats will need to do more to crystallize all the coming testimony in a compelling and concise case that could change the political winds.

If Democrats are to pull off a longshot bid to oust Trump, they need to break the dam of GOP support built up by a President who has an extraordinary hold on his party. Their longer-term goal of so damaging Trump through impeachment that his 2020 race becomes a fool's errand may be a more feasible objective.

At the outset of the hearings, there is no sign yet of a collapse in Trump's Republican support.

Unlike in the Richard Nixon era, a battery of conservative media pundits, talk radio hosts and Trump supporters on Fox News prime time have the wattage to rally GOP voters and keep Trump's Washington coalition intact.

Republican senators in any subsequent impeachment trial may however be a little more impervious to pressure than Trump's crew in the House, especially those who face tough reelection races in swing states.

Still, one of Trump's most committed champions, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, claimed Democrats' opening gambit was a bust.

"I think it is a sad chapter for the country but frankly a good day for the facts and the President of the United States," he said.

At times however, the GOP counterattack misfired badly. At one point, Republican counsel Stephen Castor, who struggled to establish a consistent line of questioning, caused Taylor to burst out laughing when he tried to get him to agree that Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani's backdoor Ukraine policy channel was not "as outlandish as it could be."

"It's not as outlandish as it could be, I agree," Taylor said.

It could be days before it becomes clear how the Washington drama is playing in the nation as a whole.

But some voters in the crucial 2020 swing district of Maricopa County in Arizona did not like what they heard of the President's conduct.
"I no longer recognize the Republican Party of my youth," said 38-year-old Carly Rebuck, who did not vote for Trump last time and thinks he should be impeached.

Boyce O'Brien, a registered Republican who has lived in Phoenix for 22 years, also decried the GOP.

"Where are those Christian Republicans when it comes to integrity? They've ignored what this President has done," he told CNN's Kyung Lah.
But Kent Jeffers, a visiting Wisconsinite, said the hearings won't shake his support for Trump.

"It's a constant block of everything President Trump is trying to do. OK, Mueller didn't get him. Other people didn't get him. Now we need to find another narrative. I think everyone's numb to it," Jeffers said.

The Democratic plan over the next two weeks is to keep up a drumbeat of testimony designed to prove that Trump hijacked America's foreign policy interests for venal political gain.

This scheme allegedly ignored the desperation of a struggling democracy fighting a Russian invasion that needed $400 million in held-up US military aid to survive.

As Taylor, paraphrasing a comment by Sondland, put it: Trump "cares more about the investigations of Biden" than Ukraine.
Wednesday was a day of contrasts.

Taylor and his bow-tied colleague Kent emerged from the obscurity of decades of service in the Foreign Service to put on a show of duty and restraint that marked a sharp distinction from the hyper-partisan hothouse in the House hearing room.

A Vietnam War veteran who went against his better judgment to go back to Kiev to replace Marie "Masha" Yovanovitch, Taylor repeatedly reminded lawmakers he had no political motivation.

Kent and Taylor were both the epitome of the post-World War II diplomatic consensus that sees America's interests best advanced through global leadership and transatlantic alliances.

"Europe's security and prosperity contributed to our security and prosperity," Kent said.

But this is a conventional, establishment worldview that Trump, with his "America First" outlook and mistrust of allies he sees as freeloaders, wants to destroy.

Rep. Devin Nunes, a staunch Trump ally, branded both witnesses as denizens of a "politicized bureaucracy" that had caused immense damage to Americans' faith in government.

"Elements of the civil service have decided that they, not the President, are really in charge," the California Republican said.

As if to underline the gulf in the rival visions of America's global role, Trump appeared at a news conference with Turkish strongman President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as the hearing ended.

The President heaped praise on Erdoğan, whose forces assaulted America's Kurdish allies in a recent operation in Syria greenlit by Trump. And in another affront to traditional US values, Trump joked about Erdoğan's friendly press pack. Journalists have been rounded up and imprisoned in droves in Turkey.

For Schiff, the next few weeks are about proving that Trump's values and behavior are inconsistent with the expectations of a president.
In his closing statement, he said the process was about "whether we're prepared to accept in the presence of the United States a situation where the President, for their own personal or political benefit can condition military aid, diplomatic meetings or any other performance of an official act in order to get help in their reelection."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-hearing/index.html
 
The television cameras were rolling on the impeachment hearings for the first time this week. It was a big event in Washington but what about in the Trump heartlands?

Many people in the western part of Pennsylvania, a battleground state in the 2020 campaign, were deeply suspicious of the Democratic lawmakers during the first public hearings in the impeachment effort that may remove the US president from office.

These Pennsylvanians strongly defended the president, and their views of Trump and Washington could once again determine the outcome of the election.

Lynn Gramling, a businesswoman, watched the hearing in her living room on Wednesday. When Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, spoke, she made a face. "Shifty Schiff", she said, using the president's nickname for the lawmaker.

Schiff and the other Democrats were examining Trump's dealings with the Ukrainian leader during an open hearing in Washington, an historic event that featured senior-level US diplomats. Through the hearing, Schiff and the other Democrats are trying to make a case to the American people that the president has abused his power and should be removed from office.

The Democrats need their support to continue with the impeachment. If they fail to remove the president from office, they will try to vote him out in 2020.

The efforts of Schiff and the other Democratic lawmakers did not go over well with Gramling. Like more than a dozen people in western Pennsylvanian whom I spoke with about the hearing, she expressed admiration for Trump and his term in office and scepticism for Schiff and the way that he handled the hearing.

Pennsylvania is a key state in the 2020 campaign. Trump lost the national vote by two points. But he won the presidency because he had the majority of electoral votes, an accomplishment made possible through his victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan and several other states that are rich in electoral votes.

He will need to win Pennsylvania and a number of these electoral-rich states again to stay in the White House, according to a New York Times study.

Pennsylvania could go either way. People in the western region are likely to vote for Trump. But people in suburbs dislike him. Plus swing voters - people who have not yet decided whom to support - make up about 15% of the electorate, according to surveys.

Political operatives are watching closely to see how Gramling and others in western Pennsylvania react to the impeachment inquiry. The hearings offer a window into their thinking and how things are shaking out in one of the most contested states in the nation.

Gramling's hometown, Johnstown, was once a workers' paradise for immigrants from Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Yet it has suffered the same fate of other US cities that relied on coal and steel. Mills stand empty. Unemployment is nearly double the national average, says George Hayfield, the city manager.

Glosser Brothers, a department store, closed years ago. The place was owned by the family of Stephen Miller, a senior White House advisor, and he spent summers here while growing up.

Miller came here with Trump for a 2016 rally: "For the rest of your life, you're going to remember this day," Trump said. "The change you've been waiting for will finally arrive."

Big change has not come for Johnstown, but Gramling remains hopeful.

She herself has done well in the Trump years. After selling her building-supply business, she moved into a white-brick house and bought "French salon"-style furniture. The living room is decorated with wall-to-wall carpeting, beige paint and a scented candle ("Winter Wonderland").

Her commitment to the president reflects the lead he commands in this part of Pennsylvania. Here people admire him for his brashness and occasional lack of "couth", as one small-business owner says.

Says Gramling: "I like that he doesn't take any guff from anyone."

Her feelings about Schiff are just as strong. Sitting on her couch, she scowled at him on her wide-screen TV. He "cross-questions" the diplomats, she says, telling me that he pushes witnesses so their testimony will "suit his agenda".

With her mistrust of Schiff, she reflects the region's conservative bent. People here, explains Ray Wrabley, a political-science professor at University of Pittsburgh in Johnstown, see the hearings as an attack on the president, "an effort to undo the previous election".

The name of the Pennsylvania county, Cambria, where Johnstown is located is Welsh, and people here once supported Democrats: the county voted for Barack Obama in 2008. But after years of neglect, they turned to Republicans. The county went for Trump by a big margin in 2016.

Still some oppose him, and their disenchantment matters: victory in Pennsylvania can be decided by a few thousand people. "It doesn't take too many votes to swing the state back away from Trump," says Prof Wrabley.

Outside Gramling's house snow lay thickly in the grass. It was near-record cold in western Pennsylvania: 13 degrees Fahrenheit (-10C), the same as on this day in 1911. People in nearby Ligonier huddled over mugs of coffee and club sandwiches at a diner in the evening.

David Johnston, a burly man who works for an electrical supplies store, says the hearing was tainted because Democrats called up the witnesses. For that reason, he says, the proceedings were "skewed", adding: "It's political in nature more than substantive."

Johnston's personal history reflects the region's demographic changes. His father worked in a steel mill and was a Democrat. Johnston is a Trump supporter and sees Democrats as unscrupulous: "From day one the Democratic establishment has tried to destroy his presidency."

But some support the Democratic effort. Tammy Fiffick, a Republican, voted for Trump but regrets her decision. An administrative assistant for a synagogue, she is also a billing clerk for lawyers, and she caught up with the hearing while driving to her two jobs.

She says the hearing confirmed what she thought - the president is abusing his power: "They were looking - rightfully so - for something, and this is the one thing they could ding him on."

But most here still cheer him on, and the impeachment inquiry has not changed their minds.

I left Gramling's house as the hearing wound down and called out: "Maybe you'll see something at the end, and you'll say: 'Impeach him.'"

She shook her head. "No," she shouted. "That will never happen." She shut the door.

The loyalty she feels towards the president is deep and could help him score another victory - regardless of any hearing.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50424392.
 
Donald Trump’s approval rating rises after start of impeachment

President Trump appears to have emerged unscathed from the first day of public impeachment hearings, with a poll yesterday showing a rise in his approval rating.

It climbed two points to 48 per cent, according to the conservative pollster Rasmussen, which suggested that it was a sign of Republican loyalty and the effectiveness of the party’s message that impeachment was a Democratic witch-hunt. However, 51 per cent of respondents still disapproved of Mr Trump’s performance as president.

The poll was taken after Bill Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Kiev, testified to the House of Representatives on Tuesday that the president was overheard pressing an aide about Ukraine’s willingness to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The Democrats hope to show that the president misused his powers by withholding $400 million of military aid until Ukraine began an investigation.

The second day of public hearings will today hear from the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who is expected to say that she was ousted from her job by Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer.

The Republican Party has rallied round the president but both sides are watching the polls closely for significant swings in public opinion. While several polls suggest that a slim majority of voters back the impeachment process, more than three quarters of Republican voters oppose it.

Republican senators hinted yesterday that they would hold impeachment trial hearings and votes early next year to coincide with key primary votes in Iowa, in an effort to spoil the election process for the six Democratic senators in the running for their party’s presidential nomination.

The impeachment investigation also appears to have had a negative effect on Mr Biden’s campaign for the Democratic nomination, with questions emerging over why his son was given a highly paid job with a Ukrainian energy company when his father was vice-president. Sensing a palpable desire for a more promising centrist candidate, Deval Patrick, 63, the former Massachusetts governor, announced a late entry into the race last night. Mike Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, is also considering a run.

Mr Trump is accused of pressing President Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden, a lawyer who served on the board of a Kiev-based energy company accused of corruption. Mr Taylor and George Kent, a state department official, gave evidence under oath on Wednesday that the efforts were known to members of Mr Trump’s inner circle, and that policy on Ukraine was reshaped to find political ammunition for the 2020 election.

Although he is likely to be impeached by the Democrat-controlled House, where a simple majority is needed to approve the measure, the Republican-controlled Senate has indicated that it will stick by Mr Trump. A two-thirds majority is needed to remove an impeached president facing a Senate trial.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ter-start-of-impeachment-poll-shows-0lkbmm668
 
Summary so far:

The second day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump is under way
The inquiry centres on Trump's dealings with Ukraine and whether he abused presidential power for political ends
Ex-US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch says she was abruptly recalled from her post after "concerted effort against her" was led by Trump
She told lawmakers "shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American ambassador"
She is the third witness to publicly testify in the Democratic impeachment effort to oust Trump
If Trump is impeached in the weeks ahead by the House of Representatives, a trial will take place in the Senate
 
Trump impeachment inquiry: President's real-time attack 'very intimidating', says ousted US envoy

A former US envoy has said she found it "very intimidating" that Donald Trump was attacking her on Twitter as she testified to an impeachment inquiry.

Marie Yovanovitch also said her abrupt removal as US ambassador to the Ukraine by the White House in May played into the hands of "shady interests the world over".

And she told the Democrat-led probe, that previous comments made by the president that "she's going to go through some things", "sounded like a threat".

As the career diplomat gave evidence to the hearing, Mr Trump unleashed criticism of her, writing in a tweet: "Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?"

Asked by the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff for her reaction to the tweet, displayed on a screen in the room, Ms Yovanovitch said it was "very intimidating."

"I can't speak to what the president is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating," she said.

Mr Schiff replied: "Well, I want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously."

Appearing as a witness, Ms Yovanovitch described a "smear campaign" against her by Mr Trump's allies, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

In her opening remarks she said: "These events should concern everyone in this room.

"Shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American ambassador who does not give them what they want."

The daughter of immigrants who fled the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, she described a 33-year career, during which she served both Republican and Democratic presidents.
https://news.sky.com/story/real-tim...ry-intimidating-says-ousted-us-envoy-11862141
 
Democrats are shameless creatures. It looks like they have given up on defeating Trump unless he is forcibly removed from the office.

Elections are just 1 year away and they cannot wait till then.
 
US President Donald Trump has attacked the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, on Twitter, in the middle of her testimony to the impeachment inquiry.

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad," Mr Trump wrote. "She started off in Somalia, how did that go?"

Asked for her response, Ms Yovanovitch called it "very intimidating".

Mr Trump later hit back, arguing his tweets were not intimidating "at all".

He told reporters he had watched part of the impeachment hearing and considered it "a disgrace".

WARNING: This report contains strong language.
What happened at the hearing?
While giving her evidence, Ms Yovanovitch was alerted to the president's criticism by hearing chairman Adam Schiff.

Responding directly to Mr Trump's tweet, in which he appeared to blame her for upheaval in Somalia, Ms Yovanovitch replied: "I don't think I have such powers, not in Mogadishu and Somalia and not in other places.

"I actually think that where I've served over the years I and others have demonstrably made things better, you know, for the US as well as for the countries that I've served in.

Her response was broadcast live during the televised hearing.

Mr Schiff, the Democratic Chairman of the Intelligence Committee overseeing the impeachment inquiry, suggested the president's tweets could be classed as witness intimidation.

What's the impeachment inquiry doing?
The inquiry is currently investigating whether Mr Trump withheld US military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the country's new president to announce a corruption inquiry into former Vice-President Joe Biden, now his rival for the US presidency.

Mr Trump denies any wrongdoing and has branded the proceedings "presidential harassment".

Ms Yovanovitch was removed as ambassador to Kyiv in May, two months before a controversial phone call between Mr Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, which is now key to the inquiry.

A rough transcript of the call revealed that Mr Trump had urged President Zelensky to investigate unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Biden and his son Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

Who else testified on Friday?
A US diplomatic aide told the impeachment inquiry he overheard a phone call President Trump had with the US envoy to the EU, Gordon Sondland, in which "investigations" are said to have been discussed.

State department official David Holmes testified behind closed doors on Friday about the call by Mr Sondland, from a restaurant in Kyiv, to Mr Trump.

According to a copy of his opening statement obtained by CBS News, Mr Holmes said: "Sondland told Trump that [Ukrainian President] Zelensky 'loves your ***.'"

"I then heard President Trump ask, 'So, he's gonna do the investigation?'

"Ambassador Sondland replied that 'he's gonna do it', adding that President Zelensky will do 'anything you ask him to'."

Mr Holmes' deposition appears to corroborate Wednesday's testimony to the impeachment inquiry by US ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

He said one of his aides heard the same chat.

The aide said Mr Trump had asked about "investigations" and Mr Sondland had replied that Ukraine was ready to move forward.

According to Mr Taylor, Mr Sondland then told the aide that the president cared more about the investigation of the Bidens than anything else involving Ukraine.

The call - which the US president has denied any knowledge of - allegedly happened on 26 July, the day after the now-famous Trump-Zelensky phone call.

What else did Yovanovitch tell the inquiry?
In earlier closed-door testimony, Ms Yovanovitch alleged she had fallen victim to a smear campaign at the hands of Mr Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

She said Mr Giuliani had worked to discredit her while attempting to push Ukraine into the anti-Biden investigations.

Why Ukraine is so important to the US
How right-wing media covered impeachment hearings
On Friday, the former envoy accused the US state department - headed by Mike Pompeo - of failing to resist "foreign and corrupt interests" she said had "hijacked" America's policy towards Ukraine.

When Ms Yovanovitch left her post, she was replaced by Bill Taylor, the current acting ambassador to Ukraine.

Mr Taylor has testified before the impeachment inquiry that a member of his staff overheard a telephone call in which the president inquired about "the investigations" into Mr Biden.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50436521.
 
President Donald Trump has said he likes "the idea" of testifying in the impeachment inquiry against him.

In a tweet on Monday Mr Trump said he would "strongly consider" the move after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested it over the weekend.

The Democrat-led inquiry is establishing whether Mr Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in return for an inquiry into ex-Vice President Joe Biden.

The Republican president has dismissed it as a "witch hunt".

On Sunday, Ms Pelosi said the president was welcome to "speak all the truth that he wants if he wants" before investigators.

"If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it," she told the CBS News programme Face the Nation.

In his tweets, Mr Trump attacked Ms Pelosi as "Our Crazy, Do Nothing" speaker, but said he would consider testifying "in order to get Congress focused again".
 
House of Representatives investigators are looking into whether President Donald Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller during the Russia probe.

"Did the president lie?" a House lawyer said in court as he requested files from the special counsel's inquiry.

Congressional impeachment lawmakers are reportedly scrutinising the president's statements to Mr Mueller on WikiLeaks.

The main thrust of the Democratic-led inquiry is on alleged abuse of power by Mr Trump in US-Ukraine relations.

Lawmakers first requested classified grand jury materials from the report in July.

A judge in October granted this access, though the Department of Justice appealed. Monday's hearing was to determine whether the appeal should temporarily block the previous grant of access.

Congress has seen most of the Mueller report - including some redacted parts - but certain grand jury material has remained secret.

Doug Letter, representing the House Judiciary Committee - which would eventually be responsible for filing articles of impeachment against the president - spoke to the federal appeals court on Monday.

He said the impeachment inquiry was looking into the Ukraine matter but revealed lawmakers were also investigating whether Mr Trump lied to Mr Mueller during the course of the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Mr Letter has requested the redacted parts of the Mueller report and the full transcripts related to those portions.

Mr Trump did not testify in the Mueller investigation, but he did submit written responses to some questions from the Mueller team.

During Mr Mueller's testimony before Congress in July, he was asked whether Mr Trump's incomplete written responses showed he was not always telling the truth. Mr Mueller replied: "I would say, generally."

It is unclear what exactly Mr Mueller meant by his response, but Mr Letter told the court on Monday he believed it meant the president "had been untruthful in some of his answers".

US media report Mr Letter may have been referring to whether Mr Trump lied about contacts with WikiLeaks and knowledge that they were going to publish hacked Democratic emails.

Mr Letter added that evidence from the recent trial of Trump adviser Roger Stone strengthened lawmakers' argument for obtaining the secret material.

Stone, who was convicted last week of lying to Congress about his work with WikiLeaks, had several calls with Mr Trump during the 2016 election.

The president has said he did not know of any contact between his campaign and WikiLeaks and that he did not discuss WikiLeaks with Stone.

A lawyer for the justice department argued that the impeachment inquiry was not a judicial proceeding and thus it was not legal for lawmakers to view classified grand jury material.

But the precedent exists: during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, a federal judge granted the House access to grand jury materials.

Following Monday's oral arguments, the appeals panel is considering the matter.

Ahead of the news of this additional thread in the inquiry, Mr Trump tweeted that he would "strongly consider" testifying to the impeachment inquiry "in order to get Congress focused again".

As he did with the Mueller report, the president has dismissed the impeachment probe as a "witch hunt".

This week, eight individuals are due to testify before House lawmakers as a part of the impeachment proceedings.

On Tuesday, Lt Col Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who listened in on Mr Trump's July call with Ukraine's President Zelensky, will testify.

The July call sparked a whistleblower complaint that eventually led to the start of the impeachment inquiry.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50464261.
 
Update summary:

Two White House aides who listened in on Trump-Ukraine call that sparked impeachment inquiry are testifying

Lt Col Vindman says Trump’s request to Ukraine to look into Joe Biden was "improper"

That prompted him to report that phone call between the US president and the president of Ukraine

Jennifer Williams, a career diplomat, said in her opening statement she found that July call to be "unusual"

President Trump is accused of abusing his power to hurt 2020 election rival Biden

These hearings in US House of Representatives could lead to articles of impeachment and Trump's removal from office


https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-50476314
 
Trump is mad at Pompeo for not staffing the State Department with cronies who would lie to Congress for him.

Yes that's right, he's mad State Department officials are telling the truth in these hearings and not breaking the law on behalf of the mafia boss.
 
WASHINGTON: US lawmakers heard on Tuesday from two direct witnesses to the Ukraine call at the heart of the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, both of whom said in open session for the first time they were surprised and concerned by the president’s demands for investigations of Joe Biden.

One of the witnesses, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, said he was so alarmed by what he heard on the call that he reported the “inappropriate” discussion to lawyers of the National Security Council “out of a sense of duty.”

The other witness, Jennifer Williams, a foreign service adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, said Trump’s reference to Biden in the July 25 call with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was “unusual” in that it delved into domestic US politics.

Williams and Vindman, a senior NSC official, were among four key witnesses testifying on the third day of impeachment hearings into whether Trump abused the power of his office.

Democrats are seeking to show that Trump leveraged nearly $400 million in military aid and a White House meeting with Zelensky to extract a commitment from the new Ukrainian leader to probe former vice president Biden and son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukraine energy firm.

“It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent,” Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee hearing.

“This would have significant implications if it became public knowledge and it would be perceived as a partisan play.” The Trump-Zelensky call has become the fulcrum of the investigation.

Williams, a career foreign service officer detailed to Pence’s office, also listened to the call.

“I found the July 25th phone call unusual because ... it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter,” she told the hearing.

“The reference to Biden sounded political to me.” The open testimony amplifies the depositions that both officials delivered during the closed-door portion of the inquiry.

Republicans had savaged the secrecy of the closed-door sessions, and have also sought to discredit several of the witnesses who have defied White House orders not to speak with investigators.

On Monday, in a letter to Republican investigators, Senator Ron Johnson made the unsubstantiated accusation that “it is entirely possible” that Vindman has never accepted Trump as a legitimate president.

Last week during testimony by the former ambassador to Ukraine, Trump launched an extraordinary attack against her via Twitter. He also criticized Williams after her deposition when she described Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine as “inappropriate.” Vindman took issue with the attacks in his opening statement. “The character attacks on these servants are reprehensible,” Vindman said.

“We are better than personal attacks.” Vindman was born in Ukraine and moved to America as a child, and he movingly addressed his father during his testimony, saying he “made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union” and seek a better life for his family in the United States.

“Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.” Trump faces a week of potentially damning testimony in the Ukraine scandal.

But in a surprising move, Trump, faced with the prospect of becoming only the third president in US history to be impeached, said Monday he might himself testify in the probe.

Nine officials in total are set to testify in public hearings in the House of Representatives this week.

They include Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union who allegedly transmitted to the Ukraine government Trump’s demands for help in finding dirt on his Democratic rivals ahead of next year’s presidential election.

The hearings also include diplomats who previously testified privately that Trump and Sondland repeatedly pushed Kiev to open investigations into the Bidens and withheld nearly military aid and a White House meeting as pressure.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1517688/u...nt-probe-of-concerns-over-trumps-ukraine-call.
 
On day three of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry, the witnesses included top aides who listened in on President Trump's call with Ukraine's leader. What did we learn?

One was a decorated Iraq War veteran who was born in Ukraine and came to the US as a child, Lt Col Alexander Vindman.

The other was US Vice-President Mike Pence's top adviser on Russia, Jennifer Williams.

With the TV cameras rolling on Capitol Hill, they repeated concerns they had aired behind closed doors about the July phone call between the two leaders.

But much of Tuesday's hearing was spent talking about a person who was probably not even in the room - the whistleblower.

Here are my takeaways.

'I do not know who the whistleblower is'
Did Alexander Vindman talk to the whistleblower about Trump's 25 July phone call with Ukraine's president?

That certainly seems to be what Republican Devin Nunes believes.

After a few questions about Hunter Biden and Ukraine, Nunes started asking the two witnesses about whether they spoke to the press about the now famous Trump phone call.

He started with Jennifer Williams, who said she did not, but that was just a feint. The real fireworks came when Vindman spoke of the two people he talked to. The first was George Kent, the senior State Department Ukraine expert who had himself testified before the committee last week.

The other was... an intelligence community official.

For those who haven't been following closely, it has been widely reported that the whistleblower - the individual whose complaint set off the chain reaction that has led to these impeachment hearings - was a member of the intelligence community.

When Democrat Adam Schiff cut in, saying "these proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower", the audience let out an audible "oooh".

But Vindman has testified that he doesn't know who the whistleblower is, Nunes responded, so how could he out that person?

Things got tense.

When Nunes referred to Vindman as "Mr", the Army officer curtly corrected him that it he should be addressed as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman".

Despite being pressed, Vindman and his lawyer dug in. He would not name names. Democrats have asserted that the impeachment investigation has become much bigger than the whistleblower, whose original complaint has been largely corroborated and whose identity is protected under federal law.

Republicans - from the president on down - return time and time again to the whistleblower's identity, however, and what motivations he may have had to file his complaint.

They may believe that if they undercut that person's credibility, the rest of the allegations will be treated with greater scepticism.

Body language
In his Wednesday morning testimony, Vindman spoke of a 10 July White House meeting with Ukrainian officials where Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU, twice brought up announcing investigations in exchange for a White House visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The first time, he says, National Security Advisor John Bolton abruptly cut the meeting short. Vindman testified that after a brief photo session, Sondland once again spoke of investigations of the Bidens, Ukrainian energy company Burisma and alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

Other Democratic questioning attempted to place Donald Trump's 25 July phone call with Zelensky, to which Vindman also was a first-hand witness, within the context of Sondland's Ukrainian efforts.

Vindman testified that it seemed like Zelensky was "prepped" for Trump's ask for a Biden investigation. They suggested that the 10 July Sondland activity was exactly that kind of prepping.

If what Vindman said was important, how he said it in the public hearings also mattered.

Behind closed doors, veteran ambassadors Bill Taylor and Marie Yovanovitch were reportedly smooth while Vindman was halting and nervous. Those observations have been confirmed by their public testimony.

When Vindman delivered his opening statement, a few yards from where I was seated, his hands trembled slightly. He occasionally stumbled over his words.

Republicans could paint that as weakness or uncertainty, but it might also be seen by Americans as giving his testimony a touch of humanity - particularly when paired with the emotional closing words to Vindman's opening statement.

Vindman offered reassurance to his father, who brought his children to the US from the Soviet Union 40 years ago, that he was sitting in the US Capitol and would be "fine for telling the truth".

Toward the end of Vindman's appearance, he was asked by a Democratic congressman to read that line again - and then added why he's not afraid of testifying today.

"Because this is America," he said. "This is the country I have served and defended... and here, right matters."

A smattering of applause broke out from supporters in the hearing-room audience. But Vindman's testimony will only add to the contentious debate among Democrats and Republicans over who is right and exactly what the truth is.

Did Republican witnesses help Democrats more?
Later on Tuesday, the lawmakers heard from former National Security Council official Tim Morrison and US ex-special to Ukraine Kurt Volcker. They had been listed as two men Republicans wanted to talk to during the public impeachment hearings.

It turns out they hurt Donald Trump's defence as much as they helped it.

Morrison did say there was nothing illegal or concerning about Donald Trump's 25 July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and no ill motive for moving the rough transcript of that call to a more secure government server.

He also, however, corroborated reports that US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine to open investigations that could prove politically helpful to Donald Trump - and that Sondland was in regular contact with the president.

Volcker said he recalled past instances where the US had held up aid to a foreign nation and saw no evidence of bribery in this case, but he also turned out to be a character witness for Joe Biden.

Not only did he assert that there was nothing untoward about the former vice-president's dealings with Ukraine, but he expressed dismay to learn that when Trump administration officials were calling for investigations into Ukrainian energy company Burisma, they were really looking to damage the Democratic presidential hopeful.

That, and his acknowledgement that military aid may have been held up to increase the pressure on Ukraine, represented a change from Volcker's closed-door testimony - given as one of the investigation's first witnesses.

Democrats may suspect that Volcker's new assertion is convenient naiveté or intentional obliviousness to avoid culpability, but it means his testimony still was of relatively little use for Republicans.

Now the stage is set for Wednesday's appearance by Sondland - a man whose name came up throughout the day on Tuesday. The ambassador has already had to revise earlier sworn testimony to reflect memories he said were refreshed by other witnesses. He'll be further pressed by both Democrats and Republicans in what could be the most unpredictable appearance of any of the witnesses so far.

Republican Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina, one of the president's most ardent defenders, calls Sondland a "wild card". Tomorrow we may have a better idea which side has a winning hand.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50481877.
 
Back
Top