usatoday--2020-01-14--Facing Iran and impeachment, Donald Trump reaches out to supporters at LSU-Clemson game

WASHINGTON – Facing intense challenges over Iran and impeachment , President Donald Trump took time out Monday in a familiar setting : a sports stadium .
Trump flew to New Orleans to attend the college football championship game between Clemson and Louisiana State University , the latest example of efforts to bond with backers and other Americans over a major sporting event .
Since October , Trump has attended a World Series game ( where he got booed ) ; a UFC mixed martial arts bout ( a mix of cheers and boos ) ; the LSU-Alabama game ( cheers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( cheers for the commander in chief ) .
`` We 're going to the game .
It 'll be a great game , '' Trump told reporters at the White House before leaving on Monday .
`` It 'll be something that a lot of people want to see .
And we 'll be in New Orleans and we look forward to it . ''
Before the game , the president and First Lady Melania Trump stood on the field with an honor guard for the national anthem .
Afterward , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he liked in the game .
Two years ago this month , Trump traveled to Atlanta for the college football title game between Alabama and Georgia .
Like many of his predecessors , Trump has used sports events in order to be seen by voters .
Yet this president has been more political with his athletic activity , from attacking professional football players who knelt during the national anthem to protest racism to promoting his November appearance at the LSU-Alabama game during a rally for a governor 's candidate in Louisiana .
Football @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political tool '' for Trump , said Erin Tarver , author of `` The I in Team : Sports Fandom and the Reproduction of Identity . ''
Sports a political tool : Trump attends Alabama-LSU game during Louisiana election .
How he , other presidents , use sports for politics During a 2017 rally in Alabama , at the same time he was excoriating players who knelt during the national anthem , Trump protested new NFL rules that penalized players for hard hits that targeted opponents ' heads .
`` Today , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , throw him out of the game , '' Trump said at one point .
`` They 're ruining the game , right ? ''
Tarver , an associate professor of philosophy at Emory University in Atlanta , said all of this points to come `` common Trump themes : the desire to be perceived as tough , the assertion of masculinity and a nostalgic view of the past when America was really 'great . '
'' Trump has long shown a preference for football , mostly of the professional variety .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey Generals of the old United States Football League ( and some blame him for the league 's demise ) .
Before his political career , he reportedly flirted with the idea of buying the NFL 's Buffalo Bills .
In recent weeks , Trump also seems to have amped up his sports commentary in general .
During a string of Sunday tweets , many of them dealing with Iran and impeachment , Trump also found time to praise tennis great Serena Williams for winning her first tennis title since 2017 – `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even greater person '' – and the Tennessee Titans for their NFL playoff upset over the Baltimore Ravens .
`` Congratulations to the Great State of Tennessee , '' he tweeted .
`` You ’ ve got yourselves a fantastic football team . ''
Trump heads to the Clemson-LSU game in the wake of a confrontation with Iran , including his decision to authorize the deadly drone strike that killed a top Iranian general .
The president also faces the prospect of a Senate impeachment trial that could start later this month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by asking the nation of Ukraine to investigate a U.S. political rival , Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
Describing impeachment as a politically motivated `` hoax , '' Trump has sought to rally his political base against the Democrats who are pushing the allegations .
Much of his base is in the South , the heart of college football country .
It 's a safe bet that there are a lot of Trump backers in the Clemson and LSU fan bases , and among Southern football fans in general .
`` It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demonstrate that he gets regular people , '' said Bruce Haynes , a former Republican campaign consultant ( and a big Clemson fan ) .
`` It 's his way of saying , I 'm not with the elite – ' I 'm with you . '
'' Haynes , now a vice chair with the SVC Public Affairs in Washington , D.C. , added : `` Southern college football is a mix of faith , family and football – with a splash of bourbon on the side . ''
Robert Mann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said it seems like Trump `` gets a lot of energy from doing this kind of stuff '' – and it does n't hurt that Monday 's game involves the Trump-friendly states of Louisiana and South Carolina .
`` There 's not a lot of risk of going before that crowd and getting booed , '' Mann said .

Facing Iran and impeachment, Donald Trump reaches out to supporters at LSU-Clemson game
Show Caption Hide Caption LSU vs. Clemson: Our experts predict deciding factor and who wins SportsPulse: Gameday is finally upon us. Our experts provide their one deciding factor and who's going to be holding the trophy in the end. Hint: there is no consensus. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Facing intense challenges over Iran and impeachment, President Donald Trump took time out Monday in a familiar setting: a sports stadium.
Trump flew to New Orleans to attend the college football championship game between Clemson and Louisiana State University, the latest example of efforts to bond with backers and other Americans over a major sporting event.
Since October, Trump has attended a World Series game (where he got booed); a UFC mixed martial arts bout (a mix of cheers and boos); the LSU-Alabama game (cheers); and the traditional Army-Navy game (cheers for the commander in chief).
"We're going to the game. It'll be a great game," Trump told reporters at the White House before leaving on Monday. "It'll be something that a lot of people want to see. And we'll be in New Orleans and we look forward to it."
Before the game, the president and First Lady Melania Trump stood on the field with an honor guard for the national anthem. Afterward, the president played diplomat when asked which team he liked in the game.
“Both,” he said.
Two years ago this month, Trump traveled to Atlanta for the college football title game between Alabama and Georgia.
Like many of his predecessors, Trump has used sports events in order to be seen by voters.
Yet this president has been more political with his athletic activity, from attacking professional football players who knelt during the national anthem to protest racism to promoting his November appearance at the LSU-Alabama game during a rally for a governor's candidate in Louisiana.
Football in particular has long been a "political tool" for Trump, said Erin Tarver, author of "The I in Team: Sports Fandom and the Reproduction of Identity."
Sports a political tool: Trump attends Alabama-LSU game during Louisiana election. How he, other presidents, use sports for politics
Trump booed at Game 5 of the World Series President Donald Trump was booed by the crowd at Game 5 of the World Series between the Washington Nationals and Houston Astros. USA TODAY
During a 2017 rally in Alabama, at the same time he was excoriating players who knelt during the national anthem, Trump protested new NFL rules that penalized players for hard hits that targeted opponents' heads. "Today, if you hit too hard, 15 yards, throw him out of the game," Trump said at one point. "They're ruining the game, right?"
Tarver, an associate professor of philosophy at Emory University in Atlanta, said all of this points to come "common Trump themes: the desire to be perceived as tough, the assertion of masculinity and a nostalgic view of the past when America was really 'great.'"
Trump has long shown a preference for football, mostly of the professional variety.
During the 1980s, Trump owned the New Jersey Generals of the old United States Football League (and some blame him for the league's demise). Before his political career, he reportedly flirted with the idea of buying the NFL's Buffalo Bills.
In recent weeks, Trump also seems to have amped up his sports commentary in general.
During a string of Sunday tweets, many of them dealing with Iran and impeachment, Trump also found time to praise tennis great Serena Williams for winning her first tennis title since 2017 – "she is a great player and an even greater person" – and the Tennessee Titans for their NFL playoff upset over the Baltimore Ravens.
"Congratulations to the Great State of Tennessee," he tweeted. "You’ve got yourselves a fantastic football team."
Trump heads to the Clemson-LSU game in the wake of a confrontation with Iran, including his decision to authorize the deadly drone strike that killed a top Iranian general.
The president also faces the prospect of a Senate impeachment trial that could start later this month. Trump is accused of abuse of power by asking the nation of Ukraine to investigate a U.S. political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Describing impeachment as a politically motivated "hoax," Trump has sought to rally his political base against the Democrats who are pushing the allegations.
Much of his base is in the South, the heart of college football country. It's a safe bet that there are a lot of Trump backers in the Clemson and LSU fan bases, and among Southern football fans in general.
"It's just another way he's trying to demonstrate that he gets regular people," said Bruce Haynes, a former Republican campaign consultant (and a big Clemson fan). "It's his way of saying, I'm not with the elite – 'I'm with you.'"
Haynes, now a vice chair with the SVC Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., added: "Southern college football is a mix of faith, family and football – with a splash of bourbon on the side."
Robert Mann, a mass communications professor at LSU, said it seems like Trump "gets a lot of energy from doing this kind of stuff" – and it doesn't hurt that Monday's game involves the Trump-friendly states of Louisiana and South Carolina.
"There's not a lot of risk of going before that crowd and getting booed," Mann said.


usatoday--2020-01-14--Griff the kingmaker? This bulldog has become a 'must' for presidential hopefuls

DES MOINES — There 's an unofficial checklist that most Democratic presidential candidates have followed while campaigning in Iowa this caucus season .
Speak at the Iowa State Fair , the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding and the Liberty and Justice Dinner .
Tour the state by bus .
Stop at as many coffee shops and diners as possible , in as many of the state 's 99 counties as possible .
And meet Griff the bulldog , Drake University ’ s live mascot ( and a very good boy ) .
So far in this caucus cycle , Griff , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic current and former presidential contenders .
He 's greeted most with his trademark look : a seemingly disinterested , I-would-rather-be-napping scowl — unless , of course , treats are involved .
“ That ’ s pretty much how he is , ” said Erin Bell , the director of Drake ’ s live mascot program and Griff ’ s owner .
“ He keeps an even keel.
” The photo ops are likely to continue next week when the top-polling candidates arrive at Drake for the Jan. 14 debate , hosted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Register .
“ We want to ( be ) one of those things that they know they have to do when they ’ re in Iowa , when they ’ re at Drake , ” Bell said .
More : Meet the dogs of the 2020 presidential election Griff is missing only a few candidates on his list : former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , former U.S. Rep. John Delaney and U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard .
The bulldog even met Republican candidate Bill Weld on Wednesday , though Griff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quick snooze .
“ Was he partial to any one of us ?
” U.S. Sen. Cory Booker inquired last week in Des Moines before he dropped out of the race .
“ I would like him to caucus for me.
” In July , former Vice President Joe Biden crouched down to talk with Griff about Champ and Major , his German shepherds .
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts told Griff in October that he and her golden retriever , Bailey , could be running mates .
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greet the loaf of a dog at Mars Cafe in August .
His youngest daughter , Anne , is a particularly big fan .
Former U.S. Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke took a seat to massage the pup ’ s ears during his visit to Drake , much to Griff ’ s enjoyment .
O'Rourke has since suspended his campaign .
“ He really spent a lot of time with Griff , clearly , genuinely happy to be meeting him , ” Bell said .
“ Griff definitely knows when someone likes him.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had awkward encounters .
U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California was sitting on a chair behind him at Mars Cafe in April when he dropped his noggin to the ground but left his behind up in the air , his classic “ Downward Griff ” pose .
The then-presidential candidate shrugged and laughed , unsure what to do about the bulldog butt facing her .
“ He ’ s tired , but he doesn ’ t want to go all the way down because he knows he ’ ll have to get all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , explaining the canine yoga .
So far , he ’ s met the candidates when they come to campus or make a stop nearby at student hangouts such as Papa Keno 's .
Often , he ’ ll be wearing his red , white and blue campaign tie , the “ best $ 7 I ’ ve ever spent , ” Bell said .
Griff ’ s celebrity has its benefits for Bell , who also gets to meet the people vying to become the next leader of the free world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wild experience , for sure , ” she said .
Griff , a former show dog who became Drake ’ s live mascot in 2015 , got his first taste of the caucuses four years ago at the Democratic presidential debate at Drake ’ s Sheslow Auditorium .
The Jan. 14 debate also will be held at Sheslow .
He even found his way to the post-debate spin room , where candidates and their surrogates offer their takes on the night 's festivities .
Just like four years ago , Griff ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't look for Griff 's name among the candidates listed in the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll .
The Vote Griff 2020 campaign is designed to encourage voting and engagement at Drake , which has branded itself a hotspot for journalism and political science students in the first-in-the-nation caucus state .
More : A guide to Democrats running for president and what likely Iowa caucus participants think of them Drake 's top dog will appear at campaign rallies , where students can collect Griff buttons and posters .
And he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bell during debate day , when he could meet Buttigieg .
Jason Noble , Warren 's campaign communications director in Iowa , said the senator would `` love '' to see Griff again at the debate .
She or other candidates looking for the coveted Griff endorsement could make inroads with two things : snacks from his favorite store , Bone-a-Patreat in Des Moines , and ear rubs .
‘ Would you help me get a dog ?
’ Griff isn ’ t the only dog who comes up on the campaign trail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an announced presidential candidate in February , Booker was asked by a child in Cedar Rapids if he ’ s ever had a dog .
The senator from New Jersey told 11-year-old Fayde Foens that he wants to get one if he ’ s elected .
“ If I become president of the United States , would you help me get a dog ?
” he asked Foens to cheers .
At Des Moines ’ Capital City Pride Fest in June , O ’ Rourke ’ s staff tried in vain to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mix with , “ Hi Beto !
” written in blue paint on his left side .
But you know who did meet Simon ?
Gideon Kidd , the 11-year-old from Cedar Falls who runs the much-loved “ I ’ ve Pet That Dog ” Twitter account .
Kidd has been keeping an eye on the ongoing presidential contest and even attended a Warren event .
He noted that she and Buttigieg have dogs he ’ d like to pet , though he isn ’ t picky .
( Warren has Bailey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
“ I ’ d love to pet all of them , ” he said .
When asked if Bailey Warren could make an Iowa appearance before the caucuses on Feb. 3 , Noble said the retriever 's `` travel schedule is a work in progress . ''
Register reporter Tony Leys contributed information to this story .
Austin Cannon covers the city of Des Moines for the Register .
Reach him at awcannon @ registermedia.com or 515-284-8398 .

Griff the kingmaker? This bulldog has become a 'must' for presidential hopefuls
Show Caption Hide Caption Meet the dog that every presidential candidate wants to pet Drake University's live mascot Griff is trying to meet every presidential candidate as they campaign in Iowa. Kelsey Kremer, kkremer@dmreg.com
DES MOINES — There's an unofficial checklist that most Democratic presidential candidates have followed while campaigning in Iowa this caucus season.
Speak at the Iowa State Fair, the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding and the Liberty and Justice Dinner. Tour the state by bus. Stop at as many coffee shops and diners as possible, in as many of the state's 99 counties as possible. And meet Griff the bulldog, Drake University’s live mascot (and a very good boy).
So far in this caucus cycle, Griff, 7, has met at least 13 Democratic current and former presidential contenders. He's greeted most with his trademark look: a seemingly disinterested, I-would-rather-be-napping scowl — unless, of course, treats are involved.
“That’s pretty much how he is,” said Erin Bell, the director of Drake’s live mascot program and Griff’s owner. “He keeps an even keel.”
The photo ops are likely to continue next week when the top-polling candidates arrive at Drake for the Jan. 14 debate, hosted by CNN in partnership with the Des Moines Register.
“We want to (be) one of those things that they know they have to do when they’re in Iowa, when they’re at Drake,” Bell said.
More: Meet the dogs of the 2020 presidential election
Meeting the candidates
Griff is missing only a few candidates on his list: former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former U.S. Rep. John Delaney and U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.
The bulldog even met Republican candidate Bill Weld on Wednesday, though Griff took some of that time for a quick snooze.
“Was he partial to any one of us?” U.S. Sen. Cory Booker inquired last week in Des Moines before he dropped out of the race. “I would like him to caucus for me.”
In July, former Vice President Joe Biden crouched down to talk with Griff about Champ and Major, his German shepherds. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts told Griff in October that he and her golden retriever, Bailey, could be running mates.
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet’s entire family dropped down to greet the loaf of a dog at Mars Cafe in August. His youngest daughter, Anne, is a particularly big fan.
Former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke took a seat to massage the pup’s ears during his visit to Drake, much to Griff’s enjoyment. O'Rourke has since suspended his campaign.
“He really spent a lot of time with Griff, clearly, genuinely happy to be meeting him,” Bell said. “Griff definitely knows when someone likes him.”
Like the candidates, Griff has had awkward encounters. U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California was sitting on a chair behind him at Mars Cafe in April when he dropped his noggin to the ground but left his behind up in the air, his classic “Downward Griff” pose.
The then-presidential candidate shrugged and laughed, unsure what to do about the bulldog butt facing her.
“He’s tired, but he doesn’t want to go all the way down because he knows he’ll have to get all the way back up,” Bell said, explaining the canine yoga.
So far, he’s met the candidates when they come to campus or make a stop nearby at student hangouts such as Papa Keno's. Often, he’ll be wearing his red, white and blue campaign tie, the “best $7 I’ve ever spent,” Bell said.
Griff’s celebrity has its benefits for Bell, who also gets to meet the people vying to become the next leader of the free world.
“It’s a pretty wild experience, for sure,” she said.
A political animal
Griff, a former show dog who became Drake’s live mascot in 2015, got his first taste of the caucuses four years ago at the Democratic presidential debate at Drake’s Sheslow Auditorium. The Jan. 14 debate also will be held at Sheslow.
He even found his way to the post-debate spin room, where candidates and their surrogates offer their takes on the night's festivities.
Just like four years ago, Griff’s “running,” too. But don't look for Griff's name among the candidates listed in the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll.
The Vote Griff 2020 campaign is designed to encourage voting and engagement at Drake, which has branded itself a hotspot for journalism and political science students in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
More: A guide to Democrats running for president and what likely Iowa caucus participants think of them
Drake's top dog will appear at campaign rallies, where students can collect Griff buttons and posters.
And he will be “making the rounds” with Bell during debate day, when he could meet Buttigieg.
Jason Noble, Warren's campaign communications director in Iowa, said the senator would "love" to see Griff again at the debate.
She or other candidates looking for the coveted Griff endorsement could make inroads with two things: snacks from his favorite store, Bone-a-Patreat in Des Moines, and ear rubs.
‘Would you help me get a dog?’
Griff isn’t the only dog who comes up on the campaign trail.
During his first visit to Iowa as an announced presidential candidate in February, Booker was asked by a child in Cedar Rapids if he’s ever had a dog.
The senator from New Jersey told 11-year-old Fayde Foens that he wants to get one if he’s elected.
“If I become president of the United States, would you help me get a dog?” he asked Foens to cheers.
At Des Moines’ Capital City Pride Fest in June, O’Rourke’s staff tried in vain to find Simon, a 6-year-old Rhodesian Ridgeback mix with, “Hi Beto!” written in blue paint on his left side.
But you know who did meet Simon? Gideon Kidd, the 11-year-old from Cedar Falls who runs the much-loved “I’ve Pet That Dog” Twitter account.
Kidd has been keeping an eye on the ongoing presidential contest and even attended a Warren event. He noted that she and Buttigieg have dogs he’d like to pet, though he isn’t picky. (Warren has Bailey, while the Buttigiegs own Truman and Buddy.)
“I’d love to pet all of them,” he said.
When asked if Bailey Warren could make an Iowa appearance before the caucuses on Feb. 3, Noble said the retriever's "travel schedule is a work in progress."
Register reporter Tony Leys contributed information to this story. Austin Cannon covers the city of Des Moines for the Register. Reach him at awcannon@registermedia.com or 515-284-8398.


usatoday--2020-01-14--House unveils new impeachment evidence against Trump from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas

WASHINGTON – Four House committees unveiled additional impeachment evidence Tuesday they received from Lev Parnas , an indicted associate of President Donald Trump ’ s personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani .
The evidence includes Parnas ' handwritten notes on stationery from the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Vienna , including one about Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky announcing an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden .
The note said : `` get Zalensky to annouce that the Biden case will be Investigated . ''
House Democrats impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for urging Ukraine to investigate Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a July 25 call to Zelensky .
The notes appear to corroborate that Parnas was helping that effort .
Other messages show Zelensky was aware of accusations against Biden in May , months before that call , according to the committees .
A statement from the Democratic chairmen of four committees that investigated Trump said the documents “ demonstrate that there is more evidence relevant to the President ’ s scheme , but they have been concealed by the President himself.
” “ All of this new evidence confirms what we already know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit the President politically , ” the statement said .
The three committees that investigated Trump 's dealings with Ukraine – Foreign Affairs , Intelligence , and Oversight and Reform – submitted the evidence to the Judiciary Committee .
The Judiciary Committee plans to submit the evidence to the Senate along with the articles of impeachment .
The House is expected to vote Wednesday on sending the articles to the Senate , where the trial is expected to begin Tuesday .
Parnas faces campaign-finance charges unrelated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parnas helped Giuliani work for the removal of Marie Yovanovitch , the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , and to pursue an investigation of Biden .
Trump said he was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine and said he would be exonerated at trial .
The committees that led the Ukraine investigation subpoenaed Parnas on Oct. 10 for the evidence after he was arrested .
Parnas sought and won approval from a federal judge in New York to share documents and evidence from two phones and an iPad with the House .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Intelligence Committee , Jerry Nadler of New York at Judiciary , Carolyn Maloney of New York at Oversight , and Eliot Engel of New York at Foreign Affairs – had said they would continue to investigate Trump after the Dec. 18 vote to impeach the president .
The evidence includes an Oct. 2 email showing contact between Jay Sekulow , a member of Trump 's legal team , and former Trump lawyer John Dowd about the topic of `` representation '' for Parnas and one his co-defendants , Igor Fruman .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ representation with the President , '' Sekulow writes .
`` The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr .
Fruman . ''
The day after that email was sent , the committees said , Dowd wrote to the Intelligence Committee to clarify that he was representing Parnas and Fruman , and that they `` assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump . ''
Messages translated by the committees showed contact between Parnas and top Ukrainian officials during the campaign to pressure Ukraine to open investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by instant message with Ivan Bakanov , the head of Ukraine 's Security Service , and Serhiy Shefir , a top aide to Zelensky .
Parnas tried to arrange meetings between the aides and Giuliani , and also sent them articles about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden – as well as a New York Times story about Giuliani 's investigative goals in Ukraine .
`` If you are currently on vacation please connect someone else who is close to President Voldomyr [ and ] who can call me back so I can connect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Bakanov in a May 2 , 2019 message .
Bakanov responded that he `` shared the information he [ Parnas ] provided with Mr. President via the established channel , '' though he did not schedule a meeting with Giuliani .
The committee said those messages between Bakanov and Parnas documented that Zelensky knew of the Biden allegations in May .
The evidence includes a previously-undisclosed letter from Giuliani to Zelensky on May 10 , 2019 .
“ In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you on this upcoming Monday , May 13th , or Tuesday , May 14th , ” Giuliani wrote .
House investigators wrote that the letter “ makes clear that his trip , which he publicly described at the time as an effort to “ meddle in in investigation , ” was undertaken with the `` knowledge and support of President Trump.
” WhatsApp messages obtained by the Intelligence Committee show Parnas was in contact with Robert F. Hyde , a pro-Trump congressional candidate in Connecticut who claimed to have Yovanovitch under surveillance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles critical of Yovanovitch , to which Hyde responded , `` Wow .
ca n't believe Trumo [ sic ] has n't fired this b**** . ''
Hyde responded with a series of messages suggesting he had hired people in Ukraine to surveil the ambassador , alluding to `` the guys over there , '' and updating Parnas on what he said was Yovanovitch 's location .
`` Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money ... what I was told , '' Hyde told Parnas .
The Intelligence Committee also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yovanovitch 's firing — the day before she was told to come back to America .
Victoria Toensing , a Washington , D.C. , lawyer that had hired Parnas as a translator , also received the messages .
`` He fired her again , '' Giuliani texted Parnas on April 23 .
Parnas Parnas responded , `` I pray it happens this time .
I 'll call you tomorrow my brother . ''
A federal indictment unsealed in October charged Parnas , 47 , and Belarus-born associate Fruman with conspiring to funnel hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy influence with U.S. political candidates and campaign committees .
Evidence in the case includes $ 325,000 allegedly contributed under a false name to a political action committee supporting Trump .
Two other associates , David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin , are charged separately with contributing foreign funds to candidates in Nevada and other states in a bid to win support for a planned cannabis business .
Some of the money allegedly was supplied by a Russian businessman who was not identified in the indictment .
The four men have pleaded pleaded @ @ @

Bart Jansen, Nicholas Wu and Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY

New impeachment evidence: Lev Parnas, associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, pressed for Ukraine investigation into Joe Biden
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump's Ukraine phone call: U.S. and Ukraine relationship, explained U.S. and Ukraine relations go further back than the now infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky. We explain their relationship. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Evidence unveiled Tuesday in the impeachment proceeding against President Donald Trump shows an associate of his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, worked to get the Ukraine government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
The documents appear to show that Giuliani and Lev Parnas, who faces unrelated campaign finance charges, knew the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine would be removed the day before it happened last year.
The materials, provided to Congress by Parnas' lawyer on Monday, were released Tuesday by four House committees.
They include Parnas' handwritten notes on stationery from the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Vienna, the committees said. One page refers to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky: "get Zalensky to annouce that the Biden case will be Investigated."
House Democrats impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for withholding military aid and a White House visit in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden. That included Trump's personal request to Zelensky for an investigation, made in a July 25 call.
Evidence released Tuesday shows Zelensky was aware of accusations against Biden in May, well before that call, according to the committees.
U.S. officials have discredited accusations about Ukraine and the Bidens as conspiracy theories. U.S. officials testified in the impeachment inquiry that accusations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election are Russian propaganda, and it wasn’t credible Biden would influence policy for financial or personal motives.
A statement from the Democratic chairmen of four committees that investigated Trump said the documents “demonstrate that there is more evidence relevant to the President’s scheme, but they have been concealed by the President himself.”
“All of this new evidence confirms what we already know: the President and his associates pressured Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit the President politically,” the statement said.
The three committees that investigated Trump's dealings with Ukraine – Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform – submitted the evidence to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee plans to submit it to the Senate along with the articles of impeachment.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday on sending the articles to the Senate, where the trial is expected to begin Tuesday.
Giuliani says he gave info to Trump on Yovanovitch Rudy Giuliani says he provided the president with information that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was impeding investigations that could benefit Trump. AP Domestic
Trump said he was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine and predicted he would be exonerated at trial.
The committees that led the Ukraine investigation subpoenaed Parnas on Oct. 10 for the evidence, a day after he was arrested. Parnas won approval from a federal judge in New York to share documents and evidence from devices seized by investigators, including two phones and an iPad.
The committee chairmen – Reps. Adam Schiff of California at the Intelligence Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York at Judiciary, Carolyn Maloney of New York at Oversight, and Eliot Engel of New York at Foreign Affairs – had said they would continue to investigate Trump after the Dec. 18 vote to impeach the president.
Trump's lawyers agreed to represent Parnas and an associate before they were arrested
The evidence includes an Oct. 2 email showing contact between Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump's legal team, and former Trump lawyer John Dowd about the topic of "representation" for Parnas and one his co-defendants, Igor Fruman.
"I have discussed the issue of representation with the President," Sekulow wrote to Dowd. "The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman."
The day after that email was sent, the committees said, Dowd wrote to the Intelligence Committee to clarify that he was representing Parnas and Fruman, and that they "assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump."
Those messages were sent a week before Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles International Airport with one-way tickets to Europe.
A federal indictment unsealed in October charged Parnas, 47, and Belarus-born associate Fruman with conspiring to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money to buy influence with U.S. political candidates and campaign committees. Evidence in the case includes $325,000 allegedly contributed under a false name to a political action committee supporting Trump.
Two other associates, David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin, are charged separately with contributing foreign funds to candidates in Nevada and other states in a bid to win support for a planned cannabis business. Some of the money allegedly was supplied by a Russian businessman who was not identified in the indictment.
The four men have pleaded pleaded not guilty.
Parnas tried to arrange meetings between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials
Messages translated by the committees showed communication between Parnas and top Ukrainian officials during the campaign to pressure that country to open investigations.
In May, Parnas communicated by instant message with Ivan Bakanov, the head of Ukraine's Security Service, and Serhiy Shefir, a top aide to Zelensky. Parnas tried to arrange meetings between the aides and Giuliani. He sent them articles about Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a New York Times story about Giuliani's investigative goals in Ukraine.
"If you are currently on vacation please connect someone else who is close to President Voldomyr [and] who can call me back so I can connect them with Giuliani," Parnas wrote to Bakanov on May 2.
Bakanov responded that he "shared the information he [Parnas] provided with Mr. President via the established channel," though he did not schedule a meeting with Giuliani.
The Intelligence Committee said those messages documented that Zelensky knew of the Biden allegations in May.
The evidence includes a photograph of a previously-undisclosed letter from Giuliani to Zelensky on May 10. “In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday, May 13th, or Tuesday, May 14th,” Giuliani wrote.
House investigators wrote that the letter “makes clear that his trip, which he publicly described at the time as an effort to 'meddle in in investigation, was undertaken with the knowledge and support of President Trump.”
Trump ally claimed U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was under surveillance
WhatsApp messages obtained by the Intelligence Committee show Parnas was in contact with Robert F. Hyde, a pro-Trump congressional candidate in Connecticut who claimed to have Yovanovitch under surveillance.
In March, Parnas sent Hyde articles critical of Yovanovitch, to which Hyde responded, "Wow. can't believe Trumo [sic] hasn't fired this b****."
Hyde sent a series of messages suggesting he had hired people in Ukraine to surveil the ambassador, alluding to "the guys over there," and updating Parnas on what he said was Yovanovitch's location.
"Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money...what I was told," Hyde told Parnas.
Yovanovitch's attorney Lawrence Robbins called the alleged surveillance "disturbing" and called for an investigation.
"Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing," Robbins said in a statement.
Giuliani, Parnas knew ambassador would be removed before it happened
The Intelligence Committee also obtained messages between Giuliani and Parnas about Yovanovitch's firing — the day before she was told to come back to America.
"He fired her again," Giuliani texted Parnas on April 23. Parnas responded, "I pray it happens this time. I'll call you tomorrow my brother."
Yovanovitch told House investigators she learned Giuliani was communicating with people in Ukraine in late 2018.
She said people in the Ukrainian government told her Giuliani was in touch with a former Ukrainian prosecutor general, "and that they had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me."


usatoday--2020-01-14--What makes the Iowa caucus so special?

What makes the Iowa caucus so special?

Iowa caucus : Just how much influence does it have on the Primary ?
The Iowa caucus is sure to @ @ @ @ @ But what makes them different from primaries ?
And what makes it so unique ?

Iowa caucus: Just how much influence does it have on the primary?
The Iowa caucus is sure to be competitive this year. But what makes caucuses different from primaries?
Just the FAQs


usatoday--2020-01-14--Chris Christie sits in as Supreme Court considers whether Bridgegate was actually a crime

WASHINGTON — United States Supreme Court justices on both the court 's conservative and liberal wings today signaled that they harbored major questions about the validity of the federal convictions of two close aides to former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie in the Bridgegate case .
Christie , in a surprise move , was present for arguments before the nation 's highest court , listening with his wife , Mary Pat .
Afterward , he left quietly and did not comment .
In an hour-long session , justices spelled out a variety of concerns that prosecutors may have misused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former deputy chief of staff , Bridget Anne Kelly , and former Port Authority deputy director William Baroni , for their roles in the traffic-as-political-payback case that upended former Christie 's presidential ambitions and opened a window on New Jersey 's brass-knuckle politics .
`` What is it ? ''
asked Associate Justice Elena Kagan , one of the court 's liberal members , at one point , summarizing what seemed to be a common question among the justices on how to look at the legal complexities of the Bridgegate case .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading to the George Washington Bridge during portions of five days in September 2013 that became known as the Bridgegate plot was meant to punish the borough ’ s Democratic mayor , Mark Sokolich , for his refusal to endorse the re-election of Christie , a Republican .
Read the transcript below .
If you can not see the document , you can read it here .
The plan backfired , however .
After the public learned of the cutthroat politics behind the traffic jams , Christie 's popularity fell and his plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While politics seemed on the minds of many in the court on Tuesday , including the justices , the arguments centered on legal fine points — namely whether any federal laws were violated even though the Bridgegate scheme came to be viewed as a colossal abuse of political power .
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer , part of the court 's liberal contingent , described Fort Lee 's traffic nightmare in September 2013 as `` quite a problem . ''
But , like other justices , Breyer indicated that he was having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be applied to the case .
He was not alone .
`` When we write the opinion , if we were to write one in your favor , how would we explain your result with the language of the statute ? ''
Associate Justice Samuel Alito , a former U.S. attorney in New Jersey and a member of the court 's conservative wing , asked in a series of pointed questions of Kelly 's attorney , Yaakov Roth .
Roth did not offer too many hints — other than to say he thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reversed because prosecutors overstepped federal fraud laws .
But in his opening remarks to the justices Roth pointed to a legal issue at the center of his appeal — and one that appears to be a chief concern to the justices .
`` Once again , '' Roth said , `` the government is trying to use the open-ended federal fraud statutes to enforce honest government at the state and local levels . ''
What NJ lawmakers failed to get done : Legal weed , plastic bag ban , tax breaks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has struck down a series of federal convictions of political officials , ruling that zealous prosecutors overstepped their bounds .
Many legal observers feel that the Bridgegate case may be another instance in which the court — sometimes with liberals and conservatives joining forces — could impose even more limits on federal prosecutions of corruption and other wrongs by public officials .
Roth added later that upholding the verdicts against Kelly and Baroni would have a `` chilling on honest public servants '' because it would open the door for federal prosecutors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionable decisions based on political motives .
Merely raising questions about the case is not necessarily a sign of how any Supreme Court justice might rule .
But the significance of liberal and conservative justices targeting similar issues in the Bridgegate case was hard to ignore .
Besides Associate Justices Kagan , Breyer and Alito , Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor , another member of the liberal contingent , and Chief Justice John Roberts , among the court 's conservatives but sometimes its swing vote , pointedly challenged assumptions by both sides .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Feigin , who spoke on behalf of the prosecution , Roberts conceded that the Bridgegate traffic scheme may have been a misuse of public resources .
But Roberts also noted — as did other justices — that those resources were not geared to private use by Kelly or Baroni that would have made them fraudulent .
`` They 're still being used for public purposes , '' Roberts said of the decision to create traffic tie-ups by closing two of three access lanes to the George Washington Bridge .
`` I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of questions , `` I thought the scheme was to make life difficult for Fort Lee . ''
It was one of several references to the crowded borough atop the Palisades that was thrust into the national political spotlight when the Bridgegate revelations surfaced .
Some justices wondered about the chain of command in the Port Authority — and , in particular , who had the authority to approve of a lane realignment that would cause such massive traffic jams .
`` This is a bi-state agency , '' Alito said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led by political appointees from New York and New Jersey .
`` Why ?
Why would New Jersey agree to an arrangement like that ? ''
That question was not answered .
It may never be .
But it nevertheless illustrates how complicated the Bridgegate affair became .
Speaking outside on the steps of the Supreme Court building in a light rain , Kelly , whose `` time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee '' email in August 2013 launched the Bridgegate scheme , said `` today is about hope and justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see Christie but did not speak to him inside the Supreme Court .
On Monday , Christie rode the same Amtrak train as Kelly and her lawyers from New Jersey to Washington .
But Kelly said she and Christie did not speak to each other .
`` I 'm glad he 's paying attention , '' Kelly said of Christie 's decision to come to Washington for the Bridgegate arguments .
`` It 's been a long six years , '' she added , referring to her firing from her deputy chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I hope he has a harder time seeing me than I have seeing him . ''
Baroni declined to comment after the hearing on Christie 's presence , but he said he was hopeful that his conviction would be overturned based on what he heard from the justice .
`` There 's a clear difference between politics and a crime , '' said Michael Levy , Baroni 's lawyer .
Attorneys for Kelly and Baroni had 30 minutes to make their case that their federal fraud and conspiracy convictions in the Bridgegate scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
Solicitor General ’ s Office , who represented federal prosecutors in the case , also had a half-hour to argue that those convictions should stand .
Kelly , 47 of Ramsey , N.J. , and Baroni , 48 , of Manhattan , were each found guilty in November 2016 of fraud , conspiracy and civil rights violations for their roles in orchestrating the crippling traffic jams on roads leading to the George Washington Bridge .
A federal appeals panel threw out the civil rights convictions , leaving the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly was sentenced to 13 months in prison .
A single mother of four , she has been allowed to remain free on bail while awaiting the Supreme Court ’ s ruling , probably sometime this spring .
Baroni began his 18-month jail sentence last spring but was released on bail in early July after the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case .
If the Supreme Court rules against them , both will likely head to prison .
Popular among New Jersey voters and viewed as a powerful new voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his governorship — and re-election in 2013 — as a springboard for a run for the presidency in 2016 .
But the uproar over the traffic scheme — first disclosed by NorthJersey.com — quashed Christie ’ s White House bid and caused his popularity with New Jersey voters to plummet .
Christie was not charged in the Bridgegate plot .
He has denied knowing about the plan ahead of time or as it was unfolding .
But Kelly and Baroni both testified during the six-week trial in Newark that Christie knew of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long claimed that they were scapegoated for their role in the Bridgegate affair .
Both say they were drawn into the scheme by David Wildstein , a Port Authority executive and renowned political dirty trickster who cut a deal with prosecutors and testified against them .
Kelly and Baroni also claim that federal prosecutors should have targeted Christie and high ranking officials in his administration .
Wildstein , 58 , who pleaded guilty to two conspiracy charges and escaped prison by testifying against Baroni and Kelly , has declined to comment on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be vindicated .
“ I ’ ve been waiting and waiting for the truth to be told , ” she said .
“ I want my life back .
I want my kids to have their lives back.
” Mike Kelly is an award-winning columnist for NorthJersey.com .

Chris Christie sits in as Supreme Court considers whether Bridgegate was actually a crime
Show Caption Hide Caption Bridget Kelly: Record columnist talks about his exclusive interviews Record columnist Mike Kelly talks about his conversations with Bridget Kelly about life after the infamous "Bridgegate" case. Michael V. Pettigano, Mike Kelly, Ed Forbes and Chris Pedota, NorthJersey.com
WASHINGTON — United States Supreme Court justices on both the court's conservative and liberal wings today signaled that they harbored major questions about the validity of the federal convictions of two close aides to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the Bridgegate case.
Christie, in a surprise move, was present for arguments before the nation's highest court, listening with his wife, Mary Pat. Afterward, he left quietly and did not comment.
In an hour-long session, justices spelled out a variety of concerns that prosecutors may have misused federal fraud laws to convict Christie's former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, and former Port Authority deputy director William Baroni, for their roles in the traffic-as-political-payback case that upended former Christie's presidential ambitions and opened a window on New Jersey's brass-knuckle politics.
"What is it?" asked Associate Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberal members, at one point, summarizing what seemed to be a common question among the justices on how to look at the legal complexities of the Bridgegate case.
The gridlock across Fort Lee's narrow streets leading to the George Washington Bridge during portions of five days in September 2013 that became known as the Bridgegate plot was meant to punish the borough’s Democratic mayor, Mark Sokolich, for his refusal to endorse the re-election of Christie, a Republican.
Read the transcript below. If you cannot see the document, you can read it here.
The plan backfired, however. After the public learned of the cutthroat politics behind the traffic jams, Christie's popularity fell and his plan to run for president in 2016 crumbled.
Did prosecutors over-reach?
While politics seemed on the minds of many in the court on Tuesday, including the justices, the arguments centered on legal fine points — namely whether any federal laws were violated even though the Bridgegate scheme came to be viewed as a colossal abuse of political power.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, part of the court's liberal contingent, described Fort Lee's traffic nightmare in September 2013 as "quite a problem." But, like other justices, Breyer indicated that he was having a difficult time figuring what federal law could be applied to the case.
He was not alone.
"When we write the opinion, if we were to write one in your favor, how would we explain your result with the language of the statute?" Associate Justice Samuel Alito, a former U.S. attorney in New Jersey and a member of the court's conservative wing, asked in a series of pointed questions of Kelly's attorney, Yaakov Roth.
Roth did not offer too many hints — other than to say he thought the convictions of Kelly and Baroni should be reversed because prosecutors overstepped federal fraud laws. But in his opening remarks to the justices Roth pointed to a legal issue at the center of his appeal — and one that appears to be a chief concern to the justices.
"Once again," Roth said, "the government is trying to use the open-ended federal fraud statutes to enforce honest government at the state and local levels."
Overreach?: Supreme Court's war on prosecutors meets 'Bridgegate'
What NJ lawmakers failed to get done: Legal weed, plastic bag ban, tax breaks and more
In recent years, the court has struck down a series of federal convictions of political officials, ruling that zealous prosecutors overstepped their bounds. Many legal observers feel that the Bridgegate case may be another instance in which the court — sometimes with liberals and conservatives joining forces — could impose even more limits on federal prosecutions of corruption and other wrongs by public officials.
Roth added later that upholding the verdicts against Kelly and Baroni would have a "chilling on honest public servants" because it would open the door for federal prosecutors to charge them with crimes if they made questionable decisions based on political motives.
Merely raising questions about the case is not necessarily a sign of how any Supreme Court justice might rule. But the significance of liberal and conservative justices targeting similar issues in the Bridgegate case was hard to ignore.
Besides Associate Justices Kagan, Breyer and Alito, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another member of the liberal contingent, and Chief Justice John Roberts, among the court's conservatives but sometimes its swing vote, pointedly challenged assumptions by both sides.
In an exchange with U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin, who spoke on behalf of the prosecution, Roberts conceded that the Bridgegate traffic scheme may have been a misuse of public resources. But Roberts also noted — as did other justices — that those resources were not geared to private use by Kelly or Baroni that would have made them fraudulent.
"They're still being used for public purposes," Roberts said of the decision to create traffic tie-ups by closing two of three access lanes to the George Washington Bridge.
"I'm sorry," said Sotomayor in beginning a series of questions, "I thought the scheme was to make life difficult for Fort Lee."
It was one of several references to the crowded borough atop the Palisades that was thrust into the national political spotlight when the Bridgegate revelations surfaced. Some justices wondered about the chain of command in the Port Authority — and, in particular, who had the authority to approve of a lane realignment that would cause such massive traffic jams.
"This is a bi-state agency," Alito said of the Port Authority, which is led by political appointees from New York and New Jersey. "Why? Why would New Jersey agree to an arrangement like that?"
That question was not answered. It may never be. But it nevertheless illustrates how complicated the Bridgegate affair became.
Kelly, Baroni speak
Speaking outside on the steps of the Supreme Court building in a light rain, Kelly, whose "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" email in August 2013 launched the Bridgegate scheme, said "today is about hope and justice."
Kelly said she was surprised to see Christie but did not speak to him inside the Supreme Court. On Monday, Christie rode the same Amtrak train as Kelly and her lawyers from New Jersey to Washington. But Kelly said she and Christie did not speak to each other.
"I'm glad he's paying attention," Kelly said of Christie's decision to come to Washington for the Bridgegate arguments.
"It's been a long six years," she added, referring to her firing from her deputy chief of staff post by Christie. "I hope he has a harder time seeing me than I have seeing him."
Baroni declined to comment after the hearing on Christie's presence, but he said he was hopeful that his conviction would be overturned based on what he heard from the justice.
"There's a clear difference between politics and a crime," said Michael Levy, Baroni's lawyer.
Attorneys for Kelly and Baroni had 30 minutes to make their case that their federal fraud and conspiracy convictions in the Bridgegate scandal should be thrown out.
Lawyers from the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office, who represented federal prosecutors in the case, also had a half-hour to argue that those convictions should stand.
Kelly, 47 of Ramsey, N.J., and Baroni, 48, of Manhattan, were each found guilty in November 2016 of fraud, conspiracy and civil rights violations for their roles in orchestrating the crippling traffic jams on roads leading to the George Washington Bridge. A federal appeals panel threw out the civil rights convictions, leaving the Supreme Court to rule on fraud and conspiracy.
Story continues below gallery.
Kelly was sentenced to 13 months in prison. A single mother of four, she has been allowed to remain free on bail while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling, probably sometime this spring.
Baroni began his 18-month jail sentence last spring but was released on bail in early July after the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case.
If the Supreme Court rules against them, both will likely head to prison.
Popular among New Jersey voters and viewed as a powerful new voice in the Republican Party, Christie saw his governorship — and re-election in 2013 — as a springboard for a run for the presidency in 2016. But the uproar over the traffic scheme — first disclosed by NorthJersey.com — quashed Christie’s White House bid and caused his popularity with New Jersey voters to plummet.
Christie was not charged in the Bridgegate plot. He has denied knowing about the plan ahead of time or as it was unfolding. But Kelly and Baroni both testified during the six-week trial in Newark that Christie knew of the traffic scheme.
Kelly and Baroni have long claimed that they were scapegoated for their role in the Bridgegate affair. Both say they were drawn into the scheme by David Wildstein, a Port Authority executive and renowned political dirty trickster who cut a deal with prosecutors and testified against them.
Kelly and Baroni also claim that federal prosecutors should have targeted Christie and high ranking officials in his administration.
Wildstein, 58, who pleaded guilty to two conspiracy charges and escaped prison by testifying against Baroni and Kelly, has declined to comment on the case.
Kelly said she hopes to be vindicated.
“I’ve been waiting and waiting for the truth to be told,” she said. “I want my life back. I want my kids to have their lives back.”
Mike Kelly is an award-winning columnist for NorthJersey.com.
Email: kellym@northjersey.com Twitter: @mikekellycolumn


usatoday--2020-01-14--Senate Democrats say they have enough votes to curb Trump's war powers after strike on Iranian gener

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats said Tuesday that they have enough votes to win passage of a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump 's ability to wage war with Iran .
“ We now have a majority of colleagues , Democratic and Republican , who will stand strong for the principle that we should n't be at war without a vote of Congress , '' Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. , said .
Kaine is the chief sponsor of a resolution that would bar Trump from using military force against Iran unless Congress specifically voted to authorize such action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ come up for a Senate vote as early as next week .
The United States should not order American troops to risk their lives in the Middle East `` unless we have the guts to have the debate and have the vote to say that a war is in the national interest , '' Kaine said .
Democrats argued that Trump acted recklessly when he authorized a drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani – a decision that heightened U.S.-Iranian tensions and sparked fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most GOP senators are likely to oppose the resolution , arguing it 's unnecessary and unconstitutional .
Kaine said four GOP senators agreed to support his resolution : Sens .
Rand Paul of Kentucky , Mike Lee of Utah , Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana .
Young expressed concerns about an earlier version of Kaine 's bill .
Kaine said he revised it to win more GOP support , and a spokeswoman for Young , Amy Grappone , confirmed Tuesday that he will support the revised bill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , called the war powers measure a `` blunt instrument '' and suggested it could project American weakness at a critical moment .
`` Consider what message the Senate should send to Iran and the world at the very moment that America ’ s actions are challenging the calculus in Tehran for the better , ” McConnell said in a Senate floor speech Monday .
“ We appear to have restored a measure of deterrence in the Middle East , so let ’ s not screw it up.
” The House of Representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but GOP leaders slammed it as a meaningless PR stunt .
Unlike the Senate measure , the House bill does not carry the force of law ; Trump can ignore it .
Lee said he decided to vote for Kaine 's resolution last week after Trump administration officials delivered a classified briefing on the Soleimani strike that he called `` insulting and demeaning . ''
Lee said officials warned lawmakers against debating the merits of war with Iran , arguing it would `` embolden '' Tehran to see division in Congress .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` we need to be good little boys and girls and not debate this in public , ” Lee said .
“ I find that absolutely insane .
It ’ s un-American , it ’ s unconstitutional , and it ’ s wrong.
” Even if Kaine 's resolution passes the Senate and the House , Trump is likely to veto it .
There 's little chance Kaine and his allies could get the two-thirds super-majority needed to override a veto .
But debate in Congress will probably ratchet up pressure on Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his advisers have given conflicting accounts of the intelligence behind the decision .
AG Barr : 'The president clearly had the authority to act ' in Soleimani strike Secretary of State Mike Pompeo initially suggested Soleimani planned an `` imminent '' attack on U.S. interests in the Middle East – then said he did n't know where or when that attack would unfold .
Trump said Friday that Soleimani planned an attack against four U.S. embassies .
Sunday , Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he had not seen intelligence to support that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani-planned strike was `` imminent '' is crucial ; if it was n't , Trump should have sought congressional approval before killing him , lawmakers and national security experts said .
The strike would be legal if Soleimani `` was involved in mounting a military action that was imminent – that is , about to happen , '' and if by killing him , the plot was foiled , said Richard Haass , president of the Council on Foreign Relations and diplomat during the George W. Bush administration .
If those criteria were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be widely viewed as an action of choice and not necessity , one leading to an open-ended conflict between the United States and Iran , '' Haass told lawmakers at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday .
The chairman of that committee , Rep. Eliot Engel , D-N.Y. , mocked the administration 's shifting justifications for the attack .
`` We heard the strike went forward because Soleimani did so many bad things in the past and was plotting for the future .
Then , when that did n't work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we did n't know when or where it would take place , '' Engel said .
`` Next , it was going to be an embassy attack .
Then four embassies were going to be attacked .
Then maybe it was n't four embassies . ''
Engel blasted Pompeo for declining to testify at Tuesday 's hearing and said he will ask the Trump administration for its official legal justification for the strike .
`` I think the administration is not being straight with the country or the Congress , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California on Tuesday .
He has staunchly defended the Soleimani strike as a legally appropriate action against a terrorist .
He said Americans are safer as a result .

Senate Democrats say they have enough votes to curb Trump's war powers after strike on Iranian general
Show Caption Hide Caption Iran war powers resolution passes the House, but what does it mean? Iran news: the House passed a war powers resolution to rein in the president's powers, but what does such a non-binding vote mean? Hannah Gaber, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats said Tuesday that they have enough votes to win passage of a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump's ability to wage war with Iran.
“We now have a majority of colleagues, Democratic and Republican, who will stand strong for the principle that we shouldn't be at war without a vote of Congress," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said.
Kaine is the chief sponsor of a resolution that would bar Trump from using military force against Iran unless Congress specifically voted to authorize such action. The Virginia Democrat said the legislation could come up for a Senate vote as early as next week.
The United States should not order American troops to risk their lives in the Middle East "unless we have the guts to have the debate and have the vote to say that a war is in the national interest," Kaine said.
Democrats argued that Trump acted recklessly when he authorized a drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani – a decision that heightened U.S.-Iranian tensions and sparked fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East.
Republicans hold a 53-seat majority, and most GOP senators are likely to oppose the resolution, arguing it's unnecessary and unconstitutional. Kaine said four GOP senators agreed to support his resolution: Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana.
Young expressed concerns about an earlier version of Kaine's bill. Kaine said he revised it to win more GOP support, and a spokeswoman for Young, Amy Grappone, confirmed Tuesday that he will support the revised bill.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the war powers measure a "blunt instrument" and suggested it could project American weakness at a critical moment.
"Consider what message the Senate should send to Iran and the world at the very moment that America’s actions are challenging the calculus in Tehran for the better,” McConnell said in a Senate floor speech Monday. “We appear to have restored a measure of deterrence in the Middle East, so let’s not screw it up.”
Are we really ready for a World War III? Fears are mounting around the world following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani - but is World War 3 about to happen? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
The House of Representatives passed a similar resolution last week, but GOP leaders slammed it as a meaningless PR stunt. Unlike the Senate measure, the House bill does not carry the force of law; Trump can ignore it.
Kaine’s version carries the force of law.
Lee said he decided to vote for Kaine's resolution last week after Trump administration officials delivered a classified briefing on the Soleimani strike that he called "insulting and demeaning." Lee said officials warned lawmakers against debating the merits of war with Iran, arguing it would "embolden" Tehran to see division in Congress.
The message in that closed-door briefing was that "we need to be good little boys and girls and not debate this in public,” Lee said. “I find that absolutely insane. It’s un-American, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s wrong.”
Even if Kaine's resolution passes the Senate and the House, Trump is likely to veto it. There's little chance Kaine and his allies could get the two-thirds super-majority needed to override a veto.
But debate in Congress will probably ratchet up pressure on Trump to justify his decision. The president and his advisers have given conflicting accounts of the intelligence behind the decision.
AG Barr: 'The president clearly had the authority to act' in Soleimani strike
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo initially suggested Soleimani planned an "imminent" attack on U.S. interests in the Middle East – then said he didn't know where or when that attack would unfold.
Trump said Friday that Soleimani planned an attack against four U.S. embassies. Sunday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he had not seen intelligence to support that assertion.
The question of whether a Soleimani-planned strike was "imminent" is crucial; if it wasn't, Trump should have sought congressional approval before killing him, lawmakers and national security experts said.
The strike would be legal if Soleimani "was involved in mounting a military action that was imminent – that is, about to happen," and if by killing him, the plot was foiled, said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and diplomat during the George W. Bush administration.
If those criteria were not met, “what took place will be widely viewed as an action of choice and not necessity, one leading to an open-ended conflict between the United States and Iran," Haass told lawmakers at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday.
The chairman of that committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., mocked the administration's shifting justifications for the attack.
"We heard the strike went forward because Soleimani did so many bad things in the past and was plotting for the future. Then, when that didn't work, they went back to an imminent threat, but we didn't know when or where it would take place," Engel said. "Next, it was going to be an embassy attack. Then four embassies were going to be attacked. Then maybe it wasn't four embassies."
Engel blasted Pompeo for declining to testify at Tuesday's hearing and said he will ask the Trump administration for its official legal justification for the strike.
"I think the administration is not being straight with the country or the Congress," Engel said.
Pompeo was traveling in California on Tuesday. He has staunchly defended the Soleimani strike as a legally appropriate action against a terrorist. He said Americans are safer as a result.
Contributing: William Cummings


usatoday--2020-01-14--"Bridgegate" case heard by the Supreme Court

A case surrounding the political retribution and corruption charges around 2013 's `` Bridgegate '' is heard by SCOTUS .

Supreme Court hears "Bridgegate" case, skeptical of criminality
A case surrounding the political retribution and corruption charges around 2013's "Bridgegate" is heard by SCOTUS.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-14--Senate impeachment trial for Trump to begin Jan. 21, McConnell says

WASHINGTON – The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will begin Jan. 21 , after the House is scheduled to vote Wednesday to formally send the articles across the Capitol .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , told reporters that the Senate will likely take up “ housekeeping ” measures on the trial this week , possibly including swearing in senators and bringing over Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to preside .
The trial would then likely begin Tuesday , McConnell said .
His announcement came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would vote Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , to the Senate .
She asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , on Friday to prepare a resolution that would authorize and appoint the House lawmakers called managers , who will prosecute the case during the Senate trial , although she did n't name managers during the meeting .
“ The president and the senators will be held accountable , ” said Pelosi , D-Calif. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , D-Md.
, said the vote on the resolution would happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes .
Each side will be given five minutes for debate .
The precise timing has n't been set , he said .
The formal procession across the Capitol from the House to the Senate to deliver the articles could happen after the vote or wait until Thursday morning , Hoyer said .
Pelosi delayed sending the articles after the House voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18 , so she could learn more about how the trial would be conducted , such as whether witnesses would be called .
Members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether Pelosi offered them manager positions or whether they 'd even spoken about it with her .
As the names remained secret , lawmakers leaving the meeting said they expect the managers to be deeply familiar with the details of the House case , to be knowledgeable about the law and to offer diversity in skills , background and race .
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon , D-Pa. , who as vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee is one of the lawmakers who could be tapped , called it “ the biggest guessing game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she and others wish they could take bets on .
Senators of both parties voiced frustration with the delay .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , said he would n't haggle with the House over trial procedures in what he called Pelosi 's `` one-woman blockade . ''
Pelosi and McConnell : Pelosi warns McConnell , Senate Republicans they will 'pay a price ' if they engage in 'cover-up' “ The president ’ s opponents are afraid of having the Senate judge the case they actually are going to send us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor .
“ They are afraid of having the Senate judge the case they themselves voted on .
That alone speaks volumes.
” The articles accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The president said he expects to be exonerated in the Senate trial .
A two-thirds majority would be required to convict Trump and remove him from office , which is unlikely in a Senate where Republicans outnumber Democrats 53 to 47 .
A major sticking point between Republicans and Democrats has been over whether witnesses will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats argued the trial should include witnesses who did n't testify during the House inquiry .
McConnell said he has the votes to begin the trial without deciding on whether to call witnesses until after both sides have presented opening statements .
Former national security adviser John Bolton , who declined an invitation to testify in the House inquiry , said Jan. 6 he is prepared to testify under subpoena in the Senate trial .
Pelosi said Bolton 's offer justified the delay in sending the articles to the Senate .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indication of the fear that he and President Trump have regarding the facts of the president 's violations for which he was impeached , '' Pelosi said .
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , urged testimony from four witnesses , including Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney .
Democrats need at least four Republicans to join them to reach a majority of 51 senators to approve subpoenas for witnesses and documents , and a handful of Republicans said they are open to hearing from witnesses after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block Bolton 's testimony under executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of advice presidents get from top aides .
The House accused Trump of abusing the power of his office by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden , while Trump withheld a White House meeting and $ 391 million in military aid .
The House also accused Trump of obstructing Congress by directing aides and agencies to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony , although some officials did testify .
Trump and congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set foreign policy and was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine .

Bart Jansen, Christal Hayes and Nicholas Wu, USA TODAY

Senate impeachment trial for Trump to begin Jan. 21, McConnell says
Show Caption Hide Caption Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will begin Jan. 21, after the House is scheduled to vote Wednesday to formally send the articles across the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters that the Senate will likely take up “housekeeping” measures on the trial this week, possibly including swearing in senators and bringing over Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to preside. The trial would then likely begin Tuesday, McConnell said.
His announcement came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would vote Wednesday to send the articles, which accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, to the Senate. She asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., on Friday to prepare a resolution that would authorize and appoint the House lawmakers called managers, who will prosecute the case during the Senate trial, although she didn't name managers during the meeting.
“The president and the senators will be held accountable,” said Pelosi, D-Calif.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the vote on the resolution would happen in the afternoon and take only 10 minutes. Each side will be given five minutes for debate. The precise timing hasn't been set, he said.
The formal procession across the Capitol from the House to the Senate to deliver the articles could happen after the vote or wait until Thursday morning, Hoyer said.
Pelosi delayed sending the articles after the House voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18, so she could learn more about how the trial would be conducted, such as whether witnesses would be called.
Members of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees declined to say whether Pelosi offered them manager positions or whether they'd even spoken about it with her.
As the names remained secret, lawmakers leaving the meeting said they expect the managers to be deeply familiar with the details of the House case, to be knowledgeable about the law and to offer diversity in skills, background and race.
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., who as vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee is one of the lawmakers who could be tapped, called it “the biggest guessing game on Capitol Hill,” one that she and others wish they could take bets on.
Senators of both parties voiced frustration with the delay. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wouldn't haggle with the House over trial procedures in what he called Pelosi's "one-woman blockade."
Pelosi and McConnell: Pelosi warns McConnell, Senate Republicans they will 'pay a price' if they engage in 'cover-up'
“The president’s opponents are afraid of having the Senate judge the case they actually are going to send us,” McConnell said Monday from the Senate floor. “They are afraid of having the Senate judge the case they themselves voted on. That alone speaks volumes.”
The articles accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The president said he expects to be exonerated in the Senate trial. A two-thirds majority would be required to convict Trump and remove him from office, which is unlikely in a Senate where Republicans outnumber Democrats 53 to 47.
A major sticking point between Republicans and Democrats has been over whether witnesses will be allowed to testify during the Senate trial. Democrats argued the trial should include witnesses who didn't testify during the House inquiry. McConnell said he has the votes to begin the trial without deciding on whether to call witnesses until after both sides have presented opening statements.
Former national security adviser John Bolton, who declined an invitation to testify in the House inquiry, said Jan. 6 he is prepared to testify under subpoena in the Senate trial. Pelosi said Bolton's offer justified the delay in sending the articles to the Senate.
"Leader McConnell's tactics are a clear indication of the fear that he and President Trump have regarding the facts of the president's violations for which he was impeached," Pelosi said.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., urged testimony from four witnesses, including Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Democrats need at least four Republicans to join them to reach a majority of 51 senators to approve subpoenas for witnesses and documents, and a handful of Republicans said they are open to hearing from witnesses after the opening statements.
Trump said he might block Bolton's testimony under executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of advice presidents get from top aides.
The House accused Trump of abusing the power of his office by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while Trump withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in military aid. The House also accused Trump of obstructing Congress by directing aides and agencies to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony, although some officials did testify.
Trump and congressional Republicans argued he had the authority to set foreign policy and was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine.


usatoday--2020-01-14--What is an impeachment manager and what do they do?

The lawmakers chosen by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve as managers during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will get a distinction earned by only a few people in history .
Not to mention , the stakes are high for Pelosi 's selection of a small , exclusive group of managers .
Their presentations before the Senate are among Democrats ' last chances to persuade Republicans – and the American public – on the merits of impeachment .
The House of Representatives is expected to vote on a resolution naming the impeachment managers on Wednesday , therefore starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment to the Senate .
Congressional rules specify that `` managers , '' members of the House whose roles are similar to prosecutors , are tasked with presenting the case for impeachment to the Senate .
The trial will determine whether Trump should be convicted and removed from office .
Removal requires a two-thirds majority vote , or 67 votes .
The House approved two articles of impeachment against Trump on Dec. 18 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The charges stem from allegations Trump pressured Ukraine to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigation .
McConnell : GOP will move on without Democrats to set rules for Senate impeachment trial of Trump John Bolton : says he will testify in Trump 's impeachment trial if Senate subpoenas him Manager vote : House to vote Wednesday to send Trump impeachment articles to Senate There have only been two other impeachment trials in the nation 's history so the historical precedent for the process and managers ' roles is sparse .
Here is what you need to know about the managers : Trump impeachment : Trump says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the Constitution does not afford him that .
Who are the managers ?
Managers are members of the House of Representatives .
In the past , all of the impeachment managers have been from the same party because they generally all supported the impeachment of the president .
It is likely that all of the managers for Trump 's impeachment will be Democrats , as almost all Democrats voted for the articles of impeachment in the House , and all Republicans voted against the articles .
Pelosi might try to appeal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her approach to picking managers , given that the trial takes place in an election year .
“ I think the managers will represent people who could potentially hold appeal in both purple House districts and to the handful of undecided voters in swing states , ” said Democratic strategist Michael Gordon .
An ideal choice of manager , Gordon said , would be a `` credible , least partisan-seeming '' member , whereas a less ideal choice would be an `` overly partisan '' member who would `` not really be open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in choosing managers , noted Joe Lockhart , a former press secretary to Bill Clinton during his impeachment , is that congressional politics might win out over the most qualified managers .
`` You could go , for example , with committee chairs and you could go by seniority , '' he explained .
`` And that does n't necessarily give you the most effective prosecution . ''
Under the rules passed for Trump 's impeachment , a separate resolution will be introduced in the House of Representatives to appoint managers for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picked for their legal experience , or for their skills of argumentation .
They were traditionally all members of the House Judiciary Committee because it led past impeachments .
`` A number of those , and I 'm not one of those , were former U.S .
Attorneys , and had fairly recently become members of the Congress and then of the House Judiciary Committee , '' explained Bill McCollum , a former congressman from Florida and a Clinton impeachment manager .
McCollum was a senior member of the Judiciary Committee at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress remain at impasse on articles of impeachment against Trump How many managers are there ?
The number of managers varies depending on the trial .
There were seven managers for President Andrew Johnson 's impeachment in 1868 , and 13 managers for Clinton 's impeachment .
James Rogan , a former Republican congressman from California who served as an impeachment manager during the Clinton impeachment , said he had suggested four managers for Clinton 's impeachment , with each manager presenting an article of impeachment .
The Judiciary Committee had drafted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the full House only passed two articles .
In the end , however , then-Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde , R-Ill. , picked 13 managers .
Hyde died in 2007 , but Rogan recalled Hyde telling him after all the managers were picked , `` Everybody on the committee that asked if they could be the House manager .
I told him , I could n't say no . ''
The number of managers for Trump 's impeachment trial has not yet been determined .
More : Republicans , Democrats in Congress remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump What responsibilities do impeachment managers have ?
A manager 's role is similar to prosecutor 's in a criminal trial .
The managers will present the case for impeachment while members of the Senate serve as jurors .
The chief justice of the Supreme Court , John Roberts , will preside over the trial and the president 's lawyers will serve as his defense attorneys .
Rogan said the managers in that trial all adopted separate roles in presenting the evidence against Clinton .
`` I ended up basically making the presentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hutchinson handled the presentation on obstruction of justice , '' Rogan recalled .
Rogan said he gave a two-hour-long opening statement on Clinton 's alleged crime of perjury for lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky .
Rogan was also responsible for cross-examining Clinton , but he never came and testified before the Senate .
If past precedent is any prediction of the trial , managers are unlikely to change senators ' minds about impeachment or the impeachment trial process .
Rep. Steve Chabot , R-Ohio , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the other managers were presenting to senators who had mostly made up their minds .
`` You know beforehand that a fair number , if not all of them have either come to a conclusion before the thing even starts or certainly are biased in one direction or another , '' Chabot told USA TODAY .
How long do managers get to present ?
During the Clinton impeachment , both the impeachment managers and the president 's lawyers had 24 hours each to present .
Senators were then given 16 hours to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time given during the Trump trial has not been specified .
More : Dozens of Iranians and Iranian Americans report being detained at US border crossing Do managers control the format of a trial ?
Impeachment managers do not control how a trial runs .
Instead , the format and rules for a trial are left to the Senate , which can introduce and pass motions on trial rules by a simple majority of 51 votes , as opposed to the two-thirds majority required to convict and remove a president from office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial .
Democrats want to be able to call witnesses during the trial , but in past impeachments , the Senate voted against calling witnesses to testify directly .
`` I think she can name managers that can make the case through the power of fair presentation that we need the witnesses , '' said Lockhart , who added that the managers ' presentation at the beginning of Clinton 's impeachment trial helped ensure Republicans had the votes to call witnesses later in the trial , albeit as videotaped depositions rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers after ?
For some members of Congress , being selected as an impeachment manager can be a good opportunity because of the high visibility of the position .
Only three of the 13 managers from Clinton 's impeachment are still in Congress : Chabot , Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner , R-Wisc.
, and Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. Chabot said Democrats brought Hillary and Bill Clinton to his Cincinnati-area district to raise money for his opponents .
He has won every election since then .
That said , `` It 's certainly hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I can think of , '' explained Chabot .
That member was Rogan , who lost to then-California state Sen. Adam Schiff in the 2000 election .
Schiff has been a prominent figure in Trump 's impeachment as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee .

What is an impeachment manager, and what do they do?
Show Caption Hide Caption Impeachment 101: Who and what are the 'impeachment managers'? The managers' presentations before the Senate are among Democrats' last chances to persuade Republicans and the American public on the merits of impeachment. USA TODAY
The lawmakers chosen by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve as managers during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will get a distinction earned by only a few people in history.
The managers' presentations before the Senate are among Democrats' last chances to persuade Republicans – and the American public – on the merits of impeachment.
Pelosi named as managers: Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.; Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla.; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.; Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo.; and Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas.
Congressional rules specify that managers, members of the House whose roles are similar to prosecutors, are tasked with presenting the case for impeachment to the Senate. The trial will determine whether Trump should be convicted and removed from office. Removal requires a two-thirds majority vote, or 67 votes.
The House approved two articles of impeachment against Trump on Dec. 18, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The charges stem from allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine to open politically motivated investigations and that he stonewalled the investigation.
McConnell: GOP will move on without Democrats to set rules for Senate impeachment trial of Trump
John Bolton: Says he will testify in Trump's impeachment trial if Senate subpoenas him
Manager vote: House to vote Wednesday to send Trump impeachment articles to Senate
There have been only two other impeachment trials in the nation's history, so the historical precedent for the process and managers' roles is sparse.
Trump impeachment: Trump says he has been denied due process. But the Constitution does not afford him that.
Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Question: Who are the managers?
Answer: All impeachment managers have been from the same party because they generally all supported the impeachment of the president. Almost all Democrats voted for the articles of impeachment against Trump in the House, and all Republicans voted against the articles.
An ideal choice of manager, Democratic strategist Michael Gordon said, would be a "credible, least-partisan-seeming" member, rather than an "overly partisan" member who would "not really be open to the facts."
One risk in choosing managers, noted Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for President Bill Clinton during his impeachment, is that congressional politics might win out over the most qualified managers.
"You could go, for example, with committee chairs and you could go by seniority," he explained. "And that doesn't necessarily give you the most effective prosecution."
Q: How are managers picked?
A: Under the rules passed for Trump's impeachment, a resolution will be introduced in the House of Representatives to appoint managers for the Senate trial.
Historically, managers were picked for their legal experience or for their skills of argumentation. They were traditionally all members of the House Judiciary Committee because it led impeachments.
"A number of those, and I'm not one of those, were former U.S. attorneys and had fairly recently become members of the Congress and then of the House Judiciary Committee," said Bill McCollum, a former congressman from Florida and a Clinton impeachment manager. McCollum was a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
Impeachment: Republicans, Democrats in Congress remain at impasse on articles of impeachment against Trump
Q: How many managers are there?
A: The number of managers varies depending on the trial.
There were seven managers for President Andrew Johnson's impeachment in 1868 and 13 managers for Clinton's impeachment.
James Rogan, a former Republican congressman from California who served as an impeachment manager, said he suggested four managers for Clinton's impeachment, each of whom would present an article of impeachment. The Judiciary Committee drafted four articles of impeachment against Clinton, though the full House passed only two. Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., picked 13 managers.
Rogan recalled Hyde telling him after all the managers were picked, "Everybody on the committee that asked if they could be the House manager, I told him I couldn't say no."
More: Republicans, Democrats in Congress remain at impasse on articles of impeachment against Trump
Q: What responsibilities do impeachment managers have?
A: A manager's role is similar to a prosecutor's in a criminal trial.
The managers will present the case for impeachment while members of the Senate serve as jurors. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, will preside over the trial, and the president's lawyers will serve as his defense attorneys.
Rogan said managers in the Clinton trial all adopted separate roles in presenting the evidence.
"I ended up basically making the presentation on perjury. (Rep. Asa) Hutchinson handled the presentation on obstruction of justice," Rogan recalled. Rogan said he gave a two-hour opening statement on Clinton's alleged crime of perjury for lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Rogan was responsible for cross-examining Clinton, but he never testified before the Senate.
If precedent is any prediction of the Trump trial, managers are unlikely to change senators' minds about impeachment.
"You know beforehand that a fair number, if not all of them have either come to a conclusion before the thing even starts or certainly are biased in one direction or another," Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, a Clinton impeachment manager, told USA TODAY.
Q: How long do managers get to present?
A: During the Clinton trial, the impeachment managers and the president's lawyers had 24 hours each to present. Senators were given 16 hours to question either side.
The amount of time for the Trump trial has not been specified.
More: Dozens of Iranians and Iranian Americans report being detained at US border crossing
Q: Do managers control the format of a trial?
A: Impeachment managers do not control how a trial runs. The format and rules for a trial are left to the Senate, which can introduce and pass motions by a simple majority of 51 votes, as opposed to the two-thirds majority required to convict and remove a president from office.
Democrats want to call witnesses during the trial, but in past impeachments, the Senate voted against calling witnesses to testify directly.
"I think she can name managers that can make the case through the power of fair presentation that we need the witnesses," Lockhart said. He said the managers' presentation at the beginning of Clinton's impeachment trial helped ensure Republicans had the votes to call witnesses, albeit as videotaped depositions rather than live testimony.
Q: What happens to the managers after the trial?
A: For some members of Congress, being selected as an impeachment manager can be a good opportunity because of the high visibility of the position.
Only three of the 13 managers from Clinton's impeachment are still in Congress: Chabot, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Chabot said Democrats brought Hillary and Bill Clinton to his Cincinnati-area district to raise money for his opponents. He has won every election since then.
That said, "it's certainly hurt the congressional career of at least one member that I can think of," Chabot said.
That member was Rogan, who lost to then-California state Sen. Adam Schiff in the 2000 election. Schiff has been a prominent figure in Trump's impeachment as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.


usatoday--2020-01-14--Cory Booker ends White House bid after failing to qualify for second straight debate

Cory Booker ends his bid for the Democratic Party nomination for the White House after failing to qualify for his @ @ @ @

Cory Booker end presidential campaign with low poll numbers
Cory Booker ends his bid for the Democratic Party nomination for the White House after failing to qualify for his second straight debate.
USA TODAY