Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

[Cuddles]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/marie-yovanovitch-testimony-ukraine/index.html

Former US ambassador to Ukraine says Trump wanted her removed and blames 'unfounded and false claims'

Yovanovitch told lawmakers at a closed-door deposition that she was informed by Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan there had been "a concerted campaign against me" and that Trump had lost confidence in her, adding that the State Department had "been under pressure from the President to remove me since the Summer of 2018."

Yovanovitch said she believed she had been removed because of "unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives," a reference to the effort led by Trump's personal attorney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his associates to remove her as ambassador.

Yovanovitch appeared Friday after the White House and State Department had directed her not to attend, according to a statement from the three Democratic committee chairmen leading the impeachment inquiry. In response, the chairmen issued a subpoena to compel her testimony.

Her deposition is a key part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into the President and Ukraine, which has been fueled by a whistleblower complaint alleging the President sought help from Ukraine to investigate his political rival and the White House tried to cover it up. Yovanovitch suggested some of those associates had financial motivations for pushing her out.

"With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue," she said, according to her prepared statement. "I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine."

She was unexpectedly pulled from her position in the spring, and her ousting was cited in the whistleblower's complaint as having raised red flags about whether the President was abusing his office by soliciting foreign interference in the election to help find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.


get fucked Donnie

 

[Snarkhund]

One of the reasons why the dems do not want to vote on a formal impeachment inquiry is because the minority party -ie. the dems then gets subpoena rights too- so they would be empowered to call witnesses in House proceedings too - if they wanted. It's complicated. The dems would be and are already calling him now but they control the agenda, the amount of time, whether he will return, whether it recorded or not and on and on. A vote for a formal impeachment gives them greater/equal power to participate/control those interactions.
The dems don't want that of course, but they want to impeach him. Well figure out what you really want because some things go with the turf if you start down that road.

The comparison to the judicial process is useful but then it becomes limited.
The proceeding in the House phase are very much akin to the function of a grand jury - whereby both are tasked with deciding whether the defendant will be charged and what the charges will be.

However, a grand jury is a mostly secretive process, as opposed to the impeachment phase in the House which -by any definitions is one of the most widely followed circuses in the world with everyone trying to weigh in. A defendant before a grand jury has no attorney- may or may not even appear himself unless it is just for a specific question- has no ability to know what is going on with his larger case, no ability to communicate with the press and work his case in the public to prevent being charged based on what is being looked at in the grand jury, no ability to call witnesses at that phase while the prosecutor calls them by the pantload, etc. etc. But in a house hearing the defendant- even at the indictment phase- sees what is going on overall- has hundreds of congressional reps on his side, to question and probe and bloviate and posture with the media and the public to try to stop the process from going to the next level. You have thousands of people around the country who probably indicted last month and wont even know about until next year. It's not that kind of environment in an impeachment indictment. It's the closest thing to nude mud wrestling in public that they have in DC, and the defendant has all sorts of opportunities to be defended by his political allies even at the indictment level.

And of course there is also the obvious point that in a grand jury proceedings you are trying to convince independent citizens sitting as jurors. There are no unbiased, independent deciders at any level in an impeachment.

Let's get this thing going. Either proceed or be seen as losers. You have passed the point of no return.

Good post.

The thing is, in an impeachment attempt the administration will respond to the political nature of the beast. In a scenario where the House conducts a bipartisan impeachment hearing the administration feels pressure to allow people to testify, supply requested documents and generally try to comply.

In a scenario where the House is going to implement hyper-partisan rules denying the presence of the President's counsel, denying the right to call witnesses to testify, denying the right to even question those testifying.... well the administration is going to respond in a way that is equally political. They are simply not going to cooperate and the public will perceive the political nature of the Democrat's effort.

 

[Cuddles]

they're desperate
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/klobuchar-booker-trump-impeachment-trial-recusal

Klobuchar, Booker rule out recusing themselves from Trump impeachment trial

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

asking for recusal is nutty, but the republicans should not fail to get maximum mileage out of exposing the true motivations of the dems.

most of them are on record as demanding impeachment and removal without even seeing the trial or the evidence presented. that is yet another area where the comparison with a judicial system trial falls short. not one of those clowns would be qualfied to sit on a jury, having already stated in advance that the defendant is guilty as charged, or even worse, they are saying "we dont even know what the charges are yet but we know we are going to find him guilty."

a lot of bloviating going on by the dems. Actual voting out of an impeachment inquiry and voting on actual charges? ahhhhh, not so much. they have found him guilty but are still trying to find a crime.

as i said, requiring recusal would be nutty, but there is nothing "desperate" - the word the poster used above- about aggressively pointing out the extreme bias of senators sitting in judgement if it gets that far. that is an absolute requirement of the defense in any proceedings. those clowns are running a kangaroo court and no opportunity to show that to the public should be left unused.

 

[Black_Cat]

 

[Cuddles]

Anyone heard from TomB, haven't seen him in a while.

 

[Cuddles]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/marie-yovanovitch-testimony-ukraine/index.html

Former US ambassador to Ukraine says Trump wanted her removed and blames 'unfounded and false claims'

Yovanovitch told lawmakers at a closed-door deposition that she was informed by Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan there had been "a concerted campaign against me" and that Trump had lost confidence in her, adding that the State Department had "been under pressure from the President to remove me since the Summer of 2018."

Yovanovitch said she believed she had been removed because of "unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives," a reference to the effort led by Trump's personal attorney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his associates to remove her as ambassador.

Yovanovitch appeared Friday after the White House and State Department had directed her not to attend, according to a statement from the three Democratic committee chairmen leading the impeachment inquiry. In response, the chairmen issued a subpoena to compel her testimony.

Her deposition is a key part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into the President and Ukraine, which has been fueled by a whistleblower complaint alleging the President sought help from Ukraine to investigate his political rival and the White House tried to cover it up. Yovanovitch suggested some of those associates had financial motivations for pushing her out.

"With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue," she said, according to her prepared statement. "I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine."

She was unexpectedly pulled from her position in the spring, and her ousting was cited in the whistleblower's complaint as having raised red flags about whether the President was abusing his office by soliciting foreign interference in the election to help find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.


get fucked Donnie

 

[Cuddles]

 

[Cuddles]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/sondland-trump-ukraine-impeach.html
Witness in Trump-Ukraine Matter Ordered Not to Speak in Impeachment Inquiry

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration directed a top American diplomat involved in its pressure campaign on Ukraine not to appear Tuesday morning for a scheduled interview in the House’s impeachment inquiry.

The decision to block Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, from speaking with investigators for three House committees is certain to provoke an immediate conflict with potentially profound consequences for the White House and President Trump. House Democrats have repeatedly warned that if the administration tries to interfere with their investigation, it will be construed as obstruction, a charge they see as potentially worthy of impeachment.

Democrats from the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Government Affairs committees did not immediately respond on Tuesday.

But in making the decision, hours before he was scheduled to sit for a deposition in the basement of the Capitol, the Trump administration appears to be calculating that it is better off risking the House’s ire than letting Mr. Sondland show up and set a precedent for cooperation with an inquiry they have strenuously argued is illegitimate.

Robert Luskin, Mr. Sondland’s lawyer, said in a statement that as a State Department employee, his client had no choice but to comply with the administration’s direction. He said Mr. Sondland had been prepared and happy to testify, and would do so in the future if allowed.

“Ambassador Sondland is profoundly disappointed that he will not be able to testify today,” Mr. Luskin said. “Ambassador Sondland believes strongly that he acted at all times in the best interests of the United States, and he stands ready to answer the committee’s questions fully and truthfully.”

Mr. Sondland has become enmeshed in the burgeoning scandal into how the president sought to push the Ukrainians to investigate his political rivals. Although Ukraine is not in the union, Mr. Trump instructed Mr. Sondland — a wealthy hotelier and campaign contributor — to take a lead in relations between the Trump administration and the country. Democrats consider him a key witness to what transpired between the two countries.

Mr. Sondland interacted directly with Mr. Trump, speaking with the president several times around key moments that House Democrats are now investigating, including before and after Mr. Trump’s July call with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The president asked Mr. Zelensky on the call to do him “a favor” and investigate the business dealings of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son and a conspiracy theory about Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.

Text messages provided to Congress last week showed that Mr. Sondland and another senior diplomat had worked on language for a statement they wanted the Ukrainian president to put out in August that would have committed him to the investigations sought by Mr. Trump. The diplomats consulted with Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, about the statement, believing they needed pacify him in order to allow the United States to normalize relations with the Ukrainians.

Mr. Sondland was also involved in a back and forth with top American diplomats to Ukraine over text last month demonstrating that some senior State Department officials believed that Mr. Trump may have been holding up $391 million in security aid for Ukraine as leverage for getting its leaders to conduct the investigations Mr. Trump wanted.

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” William B. Taylor Jr., a top American official in Ukraine, wrote in one exchange in early September.

After receiving the text, Mr. Sondland called Mr. Trump, who asserted it was false.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” Mr. Sondland wrote in the messages. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

Mr. Sondland added: “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”

There have been conflicting accounts of Mr. Sondland’s views, however. Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, told The Wall Street Journal last week that Mr. Sondland had told him in August that the release of the aid was contingent upon Ukraine opening the investigations. Mr. Johnson was alarmed and asked Mr. Trump if there was a quid pro quo involved. The president adamantly denied it, he said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...chment-witness-key-player-ukraine/3867905002/
Impeachment: Gordon Sondland, donor-turned-diplomat, a central player in Ukraine controversy

WASHINGTON – Gordon Sondland, President Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, was a controversial appointee even before the Ukraine scandal broke.

He came to the post as a GOP donor with no diplomatic experience and raised eyebrows with a brash style that did not sit well in Brussels, where he is stationed.

A wealthy former hotel magnate from Oregon, Sondland was tapped for the EU ambassador position after donating $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee. He made the contributions through four separate limited liability corporations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations.

Surely there will be records of this phone call and they won't just lie to congress again? Surely having this statement from the getgo and not blocked then suddenly unblocked will lend more credence to his testimony?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...be0902-bc19-44e8-8c38-9aa35c544859_story.html

Trump’s envoy to testify that ‘no quid pro quo’ came from Trump

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, intends to tell Congress this week that the content of a text message he wrote denying a quid pro quo with Ukraine was relayed to him directly by President Trump in a phone call, according to a person familiar with his testimony.

Sondland plans to tell lawmakers he has no knowledge of whether the president was telling him the truth at that moment. “It’s only true that the president said it, not that it was the truth,” said the person familiar with Sondland’s planned testimony, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters.

The Sept. 9 exchange between Sondland and the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine has become central to the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into whether the president abused his office in pressuring Ukraine to open an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden and his son, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The White House and its defenders have held up Sondland’s text, which included “no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” as proof that none was ever considered.

 

[Cuddles]

Another fox news hire
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/fox...amid-reports-he-joined-trumps-legal-team.html
Fox News terminates Trey Gowdy as contributor amid reports he joined Trump’s legal team

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html
Inside Trump’s Botched Attempt to Hire Trey Gowdy

For 24 hours last week, Trey Gowdy, the former South Carolina congressman best known for leading congressional investigations of Hillary Clinton, was the new face of President Trump’s outside legal defense and a symbol of a streamlined effort to respond to a fast-moving impeachment inquiry.

A day later, the arrangement fell apart, with lobbying rules prohibiting Mr. Gowdy from starting until January, possibly after the inquiry is over. Now, according to two people familiar with events, Mr. Gowdy is never expected to join the team. And Trump advisers are back to square one, searching for a different lawyer.

How a celebrated announcement quickly ended in disarray offers a rare public glimpse into the internal posturing — and undercutting of colleagues — that has been playing out in the West Wing on a daily basis since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry last month. Even as the White House confronts a deepening threat to Mr. Trump’s presidency, it has struggled to decide how to respond, and who should lead that response.