usatoday--2020-01-25--Fact-checking the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump

Wednesday , the House Democrats began formal arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
A number of people involved made not-quite-accurate claims over everything from Trump 's phone call July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the Obama administration 's aid to Ukraine .
Democrats focus on delaying aid , after Trump claims Ukraine got funds ‘ long before schedule ’ As Democratic House managers wrapped up their presentation about the first article of impeachment alleging abuse of power , Manager Jason Crow , D-Colo. said President Donald Trump ’ s defenders might argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military aid to Ukraine wasn ’ t important because it was short-lived and the money was eventually released .
“ This defense would be laughable if this issue wasn ’ t so serious , ” said Crow , a former Army Ranger .
“ No , the delay wasn ’ t meaningless .
Just ask the Ukrainians sitting in trenches now.
” Ukraine needed the funding because it had been invaded by Russia and was fighting for its territorial integrity .
Crow played a video of Jennifer Williams , a State Department aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s office , who attended a Sept. 1 meeting between Pence and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky .
“ President Zelensky explained that equally with the financial and fiscal value , that it was the symbolic nature of that assistance that really was the show of U.S. support for Ukraine and for Ukraine ’ s sovereignty and territorial integrity , ” Williams said , in her testimony during the House inquiry .
“ He was stressing that to the vice president , to really underscore the need for the security assistance to be released.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money to use it as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
“ The scheme was unraveling , ” Crow said .
“ He only released it after he got caught.
” Earlier this week , Trump said while speaking at a news conference in Davos , Switzerland that Ukraine got the “ money long before schedule.
” “ That ’ s false , ” FactCheck.org said of Trump ’ s claim .
And the Associated Press concluded Ukraine “ got the money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AP both point to the fact that the hold was lifted by the Trump administration after a complaint was submitted by a whistleblower .
And FactCheck.org writes that the White House was “ under pressure from members of Congress and administration officials ” when the money was released .
Furthermore , FactCheck.org points out that Congress had to grant an extension to make sure the aid could be spent past the deadline originally set by Capitol Hill , adding that a Pentagon official said earlier this week the Defense Department had “ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Ukraine and was ‘ working to obligate the remainder.
’ ” Finally , a government watchdog agency recently concluded that the Trump administration violated federal law when it withheld the funds intended to help Ukraine .
`` Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law , '' the report by the Government Accountability Office says .
`` OMB withheld funds for a policy reason , which is not permitted '' under the law .
A spokesperson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreed with the GAO ’ s conclusion .
One of the managers , Rep. Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas , spent her presentation Thursday outlining allegations of potential corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter , were false .
Garcia argued that President Donald Trump urged Ukraine to investigate Biden based on a debunked theory and at a time in 2019 when Biden was leading polls as the Democratic contender to challenge Trump .
“ The entire premise of the investigation that the president wanted Ukraine to pursue was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is simply no evidence – nothing , nada – in the record to support this baseless allegation.
” Live impeachment trial updates : Trump says Saturday TV ratings for his team 's opening arguments will be like 'Death Valley' Garcia recited the history that Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings in 2014 , at a time when the Ukraine gas company was under investigation because of its oligarch owner .
Viktor Shokin became Ukraine ’ s prosecutor general in 2015 and he allowed the investigation to go dormant , Garcia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden called for the removal of Shokin because he was widely perceived as ineffective and corrupt , Garcia said .
Shokin ’ s removal was also sought by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund , Garcia said .
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent a letter Feb. 12 , 2016 , urging Shokin ’ s removal .
Shokin was fired a month later .
George Kent , who was the second-in-command at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine , testified that Shokin routinely lived more lavishly than his government salary would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden called for removal of the prosecutor at the direction of U.S. policy because the prosecutor was widely perceived as corrupt , ” Garcia said .
But in a phone call July 25 , 2019 , Trump urged Ukraine ’ s new President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and Burisma because he had heard “ horrible ” things about potential corruption in Ukraine .
The call came after Trump hadn ’ t pursued anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 , but at a time when Biden was leading in polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He pushed for an investigation in 2019 because that is when it would be valuable to him , President Trump , ” Garcia said .
“ He had good reason to be concerned.
” As USA TODAY has explained , Biden pushed for Shokin ’ s ouster because the prosecutor wasn ’ t pursuing corruption by Ukrainian politicians .
Furthermore , USA TODAY spent a week in Ukraine and reported “ the message from two dozen government officials and anti-corruption investigators quickly became clear : The allegations against the Bidens are entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notion that it was Ukraine -- rather than Russia -- who interfered in the 2016 presidential election , is a debunked theory , one of a handful of debunked theories Trump has espoused , USA TODAY has reported .
But one of the lawyers representing Trump in the trial said Thursday evening that the House managers ’ focus on Joe Biden throughout their hours of presentations earlier in the day “ opened the door ” for Trump 's team to concentrate on the former vice president in their rebuttal on behalf of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours , it 's been a lot about Joe Biden and Burisma , ” Jay Sekulow said , “ They kind of opened the door for that response so we 'll determine as a defense team the appropriate way to do it.
” Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , agreed , arguing that the House managers ’ decision to focus on Biden and Burisma had several consequences , including making Hunter Biden , the vice president ’ s son , “ not only relevant .
He is now critical.
” And , Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats claim that allegations against the Bidens have been debunked , he isn ’ t so sure .
Graham thinks more questions should be asked about why Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma and why he was hired after then-Vice President Joe Biden was put in charge of the government ’ s portfolio dealing with Ukraine .
“ I do n't know .
Does n't pass the smell test to me , ” Graham told reporters Thursday .
Graham said he wasn ’ t accusing Joe Biden of corruption , but saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bidens in Ukraine are warranted .
“ I do n't know anything about the Biden connection to the Ukraine , ” Graham said .
“ So when the managers tell me this has been looked at and debunked , by who ?
” During the trial Thursday , House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , challenged the argument from President Trump ’ s defenders that impeachment must allege a violation of statutory law .
To make his point , Nadler played a 1999 video of Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton .
The Constitution allows impeachment for “ high crimes and misdemeanors , ” a term that has been debated during the Trump investigation .
“ What ’ s a high crime ?
” Graham asked in the well of the Senate in 1999 .
“ How about an important person hurting somebody of low means ?
It ’ s not very scholarly , but I think it ’ s the truth .
I think that ’ s what they meant by high crimes .
Doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s just when you start using your office and you ’ re acting in a way that hurts people , you ’ ve committed a high crime.
” Republicans have challenged the accusations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as vague and not grounded in established law .
For example , during the Dec. 18 debate by the full House on the articles of impeachment , Rep. James Sensenbrenner , R-Wis. , who was a manager during President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial said : “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the President , may be impeached for treason , bribery , or other high crimes and misdemeanors .
Unlike the Nixon and Clinton cases , there are no allegations that the President has committed a crime .
We have had almost 3 years of nonstop investigations .
We have had the Mueller report , we have had the Schiff investigation , we have had the Nadler investigation , and at no time has there been any evidence that indicates that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statute of the United States.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nadler said Thursday of the Republican argument .
“ It has no support in constitutional text and structure , original meaning , congressional precedents , common sense or the consensus of credible experts .
In other words , it conflicts with every relevant consideration.
” Nadler quoted two constitutional scholars who testified at a Dec. 4 hearing in the impeachment inquiry .
Michael Gerhardt , a law professor at the University of North Carolina , said the Constitution “ plainly does not ” require a violation of law for impeachment .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes , ” Gerhardt said .
“ We look , again , at the context and gravity of the misconduct.
” Jonathan Turley , a law professor at George Washington University , submitted written testimony that said : “ it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power.
” During a break Thursday , Sen. Mazie Hirono , D-Hawaii , said she would like to hear a rebuttal from Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse of power isn ’ t an impeachable offense .
“ I am not particularly interested in legal arguments such as abuse of power is not impeachable because that has been rebutted by real constitutional scholars , ” Hirono told reporters .
Trump switches up dates of Schiff ’ s version of Zelensky phone call President Donald Trump repeated one of his frequent factual errors Wednesday about Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ’ s exaggerated version of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky .
The president said the White House released its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Schiff ’ s rendition , but it was released the day before , on Sept. 25 .
Speaking during an Intelligence Committee hearing on Sept. 26 , Schiff did a `` parody ” of Trump ’ s words on the call , and the president reacted by accusing him of treason .
“ I ’ d watch his lies , ” Trump said in a Fox Business interview Wednesday .
“ I watch where they ’ ve actually played a rerun , which they shouldn ’ t even do , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , and he makes a statement that I made , and it was a total fraud .
I never made it .
“ That ’ s why I released the conversation , because if I didn ’ t release it , people would have said that I made the statement that he made .
This guy is a fraud , ” Trump said .
The president made a similar claim during a news conference in Davos , Switzerland , on Wednesday .
“ When we released that conversation , all hell broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , 'Wait a minute .
This is much different than Shifty Schiff told us . '
`` Trump is correct that Schiff ’ s version was not totally accurate , relative to the summary of the call released by the White House , but the administration could not have released the call summary in response to Schiff .
Rather , Schiff ’ s version was based on the White House 's summary .
Schiff gave `` an embellished rendition of the White House memo of the July phone call , '' FactCheck.org @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained before , Schiff said he was recounting 'the essence of what the president communicates ' and 'in not so many words . '
`` Schiff : In 2016 , Russia hacked Democrats after Trump ’ s 'Russia , if you ’ re listening …' Schiff , the lead House impeachment manager , said Wednesday , “ In 2016 , candidate Trump implored Russians to hack his opponent ’ s email account , something the Russian military agency did hours later .
Only hours later , they hacked his opponent ’ s campaign.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ made July 27 , 2016 , during a news conference in Florida where he said he hoped Moscow could locate emails associated with his rival Hillary Clinton : `` Russia , if you 're listening , I hope you 're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing , '' he said .
`` I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press . ''
The report on Russian interference in the 2016 election issued by special counsel Robert Mueller noted that “ within approximately five hours of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] officers targeted for the first time Clinton ’ s personal office , ” including 15 email accounts at a specific domain , one of which belonged to a Clinton aide .
As noted by The New York Times , the events of that day in the summer of 2016 were part of an indictment against a dozen Russians charged with hacking by the Justice Department .
In written responses provided by Trump during the Mueller investigation , the president said he made the “ Russia , if you ’ re listening … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as was apparent to any objective observer.
” Although federal prosecutors said in the hacking indictment that the Russian hackers corresponded with several Americans , a top Justice Department lawyer said in unveiling the indictment that there was no evidence that the Americans were aware they were corresponding with Russian intelligence officers .
Cruz : Obama administration sent 'blankets and MREs ' to Ukraine During a break in the trial Wednesday night , Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , said the Obama administration `` sent blankets and MRE 's '' to Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal aid . ''
`` I traveled to Ukraine in 2014 , came back and urged Barack Obama to give lethal military aid to Ukraine .
The Obama administration refused to do so , '' Cruz said .
`` Instead , they sent blankets and MRE 's . ''
Cruz 's remarks echo others by fellow Republicans .
Trump said Obama provided Ukraine with `` pillows and sheets . ''
In 2015 , Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. , said , `` The Ukrainians are being slaughtered , and we ’ re sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do well against Russian tanks.
” Milk or water : For senators at Trump impeachment trial , there are only 2 beverage options : milk and water The Obama administration provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine , according to CNN and PolitiFact.com .
Cruz is correct that lethal military aid began to be provided to Ukraine only during Trump 's tenure .
`` The first lethal deliveries came from Trump , '' Jim Townsend , deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans , Trump allowed to participate in the House inquiry ?
In a wide-ranging pair of speeches on the Senate floor Tuesday , Jay Sekulow , a private lawyer for Trump , and White House counsel Pat Cipollone accused Democrats of seeking to remove Trump since he was elected .
Sekulow said Schiff committed a “ trifecta ” of improprieties by denying Trump access to evidence , counsel at hearings and the right to cross-examine witnesses during the House inquiry .
“ That ’ s a trifecta , a trifecta that violates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sekulow said .
Alexander Hamilton : Rep. Adam Schiff opens Trump impeachment trial arguments with a quote from Alexander Hamilton House Democrats on three committees held closed-door depositions during the inquiry , but Republicans were allowed to attend and ask questions .
The Judiciary Committee invited Trump 's lawyers to attend and participate in hearings by questioning witnesses , but the White House declined to participate in what Cipollone called a `` baseless and highly partisan '' inquiry .
GOP lawmakers were a part of the depositions , and the White House lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House Judiciary Committee hearings , as detailed by PolitiFact and FactCheck.org .
What the Mueller report found on obstruction of justice Sekulow said Tuesday that “ there was no obstruction , ” referring to the special counsel ’ s report on Russian interference .
The report detailed 11 episodes of conduct by Trump that might have constituted obstruction , but Mueller refused to make a firm conclusion on the issue .
As USA TODAY explained , “ In leaving that issue unanswered , Mueller neither charged Trump with an offense nor exonerated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Congress.
” FactCheck.org said that in punting on the question , the Mueller report pointed to “ difficult [ legal ] issues ” involved in indicting a sitting president , including concerns about violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers as detailed in an October 2000 legal opinion by the Justice Department .

Bart Jansen, Jeanine Santucci, Savannah Behrmann and Martina Stewart, USA TODAY

Fact-checking the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump
Show Caption Hide Caption Impeachment: Democrats make abuse of power case On Thursday, House Democrat impeachment managers laid out their case for abuse of power, the first of two articles of impeachment against Pres. Trump. USA TODAY
Wednesday, the House Democrats began formal arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
A number of people involved made not-quite-accurate claims over everything from Trump's phone call July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the Obama administration's aid to Ukraine.
Democrats focus on delaying aid, after Trump claims Ukraine got funds ‘long before schedule’
As Democratic House managers wrapped up their presentation about the first article of impeachment alleging abuse of power, Manager Jason Crow, D-Colo. said President Donald Trump’s defenders might argue that the suspension of $391 million in military aid to Ukraine wasn’t important because it was short-lived and the money was eventually released.
“This defense would be laughable if this issue wasn’t so serious,” said Crow, a former Army Ranger. “No, the delay wasn’t meaningless. Just ask the Ukrainians sitting in trenches now.”
Ukraine needed the funding because it had been invaded by Russia and was fighting for its territorial integrity. Crow played a video of Jennifer Williams, a State Department aide assigned to Vice President Mike Pence’s office, who attended a Sept. 1 meeting between Pence and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“President Zelensky explained that equally with the financial and fiscal value, that it was the symbolic nature of that assistance that really was the show of U.S. support for Ukraine and for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Williams said, in her testimony during the House inquiry. “He was stressing that to the vice president, to really underscore the need for the security assistance to be released.”
Crow argued that Trump only released the money to use it as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
“The scheme was unraveling,” Crow said. “He only released it after he got caught.”
Earlier this week, Trump said while speaking at a news conference in Davos, Switzerland that Ukraine got the “money long before schedule.”
“That’s false,” FactCheck.org said of Trump’s claim. And the Associated Press concluded Ukraine “got the money months late.”
USA TODAY and the AP both point to the fact that the hold was lifted by the Trump administration after a complaint was submitted by a whistleblower. And FactCheck.org writes that the White House was “under pressure from members of Congress and administration officials” when the money was released.
Furthermore, FactCheck.org points out that Congress had to grant an extension to make sure the aid could be spent past the deadline originally set by Capitol Hill, adding that a Pentagon official said earlier this week the Defense Department had “‘executed 99.8% of the funds’ for Ukraine and was ‘working to obligate the remainder.’”
Finally, a government watchdog agency recently concluded that the Trump administration violated federal law when it withheld the funds intended to help Ukraine. "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the report by the Government Accountability Office says. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted" under the law.
Watchdog: White House budget office violated federal law by withholding Ukraine security funds
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget disagreed with the GAO’s conclusion.
– Martina Stewart and Bart Jansen
The Bidens, Burisma, a Ukraine prosecutor and a debunked theory
One of the managers, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, spent her presentation Thursday outlining allegations of potential corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, were false. Garcia argued that President Donald Trump urged Ukraine to investigate Biden based on a debunked theory and at a time in 2019 when Biden was leading polls as the Democratic contender to challenge Trump.
“The entire premise of the investigation that the president wanted Ukraine to pursue was false,” Garcia said. “There is simply no evidence – nothing, nada – in the record to support this baseless allegation.”
Live impeachment trial updates: Trump says Saturday TV ratings for his team's opening arguments will be like 'Death Valley'
Garcia recited the history that Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings in 2014, at a time when the Ukraine gas company was under investigation because of its oligarch owner. Viktor Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general in 2015 and he allowed the investigation to go dormant, Garcia said.
In late 2015, Joe Biden called for the removal of Shokin because he was widely perceived as ineffective and corrupt, Garcia said. Shokin’s removal was also sought by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, Garcia said. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent a letter Feb. 12, 2016, urging Shokin’s removal. Shokin was fired a month later. George Kent, who was the second-in-command at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified that Shokin routinely lived more lavishly than his government salary would allow and covered up crimes.
“Biden called for removal of the prosecutor at the direction of U.S. policy because the prosecutor was widely perceived as corrupt,” Garcia said.
But in a phone call July 25, 2019, Trump urged Ukraine’s new President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and Burisma because he had heard “horrible” things about potential corruption in Ukraine. The call came after Trump hadn’t pursued anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine in 2017 and 2018, but at a time when Biden was leading in polls to challenge Trump, Garcia said.
“He pushed for an investigation in 2019 because that is when it would be valuable to him, President Trump,” Garcia said. “He had good reason to be concerned.”
As USA TODAY has explained, Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster because the prosecutor wasn’t pursuing corruption by Ukrainian politicians.
Furthermore, USA TODAY spent a week in Ukraine and reported “the message from two dozen government officials and anti-corruption investigators quickly became clear: The allegations against the Bidens are entirely lacking in evidence.”
And, the notion that it was Ukraine -- rather than Russia -- who interfered in the 2016 presidential election, is a debunked theory, one of a handful of debunked theories Trump has espoused, USA TODAY has reported.
But one of the lawyers representing Trump in the trial said Thursday evening that the House managers’ focus on Joe Biden throughout their hours of presentations earlier in the day “opened the door” for Trump's team to concentrate on the former vice president in their rebuttal on behalf of the president.
“For the last five hours, it's been a lot about Joe Biden and Burisma,” Jay Sekulow said, “They kind of opened the door for that response so we'll determine as a defense team the appropriate way to do it.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, agreed, arguing that the House managers’ decision to focus on Biden and Burisma had several consequences, including making Hunter Biden, the vice president’s son, “not only relevant. He is now critical.”
And, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said when Democrats claim that allegations against the Bidens have been debunked, he isn’t so sure. Graham thinks more questions should be asked about why Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma and why he was hired after then-Vice President Joe Biden was put in charge of the government’s portfolio dealing with Ukraine.
“I don't know. Doesn't pass the smell test to me,” Graham told reporters Thursday.
Graham said he wasn’t accusing Joe Biden of corruption, but saying that more questions about the activities of both Bidens in Ukraine are warranted. “I don't know anything about the Biden connection to the Ukraine,” Graham said. “So when the managers tell me this has been looked at and debunked, by who?”
– Bart Jansen, Christal Hayes, Nicholas Wu, and Martina Stewart
Must an impeachable offense involve a statutory crime?
During the trial Thursday, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., challenged the argument from President Trump’s defenders that impeachment must allege a violation of statutory law.
To make his point, Nadler played a 1999 video of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was a manager 21 years ago in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. The Constitution allows impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term that has been debated during the Trump investigation.
“What’s a high crime?” Graham asked in the well of the Senate in 1999. “How about an important person hurting somebody of low means? It’s not very scholarly, but I think it’s the truth. I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. Doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.”
Republicans have challenged the accusations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as vague and not grounded in established law.
For example, during the Dec. 18 debate by the full House on the articles of impeachment, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who was a manager during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial said: “the Constitution says that any civil officer, including the President, may be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Unlike the Nixon and Clinton cases, there are no allegations that the President has committed a crime. We have had almost 3 years of nonstop investigations. We have had the Mueller report, we have had the Schiff investigation, we have had the Nadler investigation, and at no time has there been any evidence that indicates that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statute of the United States.”
“This view is completely wrong,” Nadler said Thursday of the Republican argument. “It has no support in constitutional text and structure, original meaning, congressional precedents, common sense or the consensus of credible experts. In other words, it conflicts with every relevant consideration.”
Nadler quoted two constitutional scholars who testified at a Dec. 4 hearing in the impeachment inquiry.
Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, said the Constitution “plainly does not” require a violation of law for impeachment.
“Everything that we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes,” Gerhardt said. “We look, again, at the context and gravity of the misconduct.”
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, submitted written testimony that said: “it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power.”
During a break Thursday, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she would like to hear a rebuttal from Trump’s legal team that goes beyond saying abuse of power isn’t an impeachable offense.
“I am not particularly interested in legal arguments such as abuse of power is not impeachable because that has been rebutted by real constitutional scholars,” Hirono told reporters.
– Bart Jansen
Trump switches up dates of Schiff’s version of Zelensky phone call
President Donald Trump repeated one of his frequent factual errors Wednesday about Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s exaggerated version of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
The president said the White House released its partial transcript of the call in response to Schiff’s rendition, but it was released the day before, on Sept. 25. Speaking during an Intelligence Committee hearing on Sept. 26, Schiff did a "parody” of Trump’s words on the call, and the president reacted by accusing him of treason.
“I’d watch his lies,” Trump said in a Fox Business interview Wednesday. “I watch where they’ve actually played a rerun, which they shouldn’t even do, it was so bad, where he goes before Congress, and he makes a statement that I made, and it was a total fraud. I never made it.
“That’s why I released the conversation, because if I didn’t release it, people would have said that I made the statement that he made. This guy is a fraud,” Trump said.
Live impeachment trial updates: Trump attacks Democrats in morning tweet storm
The president made a similar claim during a news conference in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday. “When we released that conversation, all hell broke out with the Democrats, because they say, 'Wait a minute. This is much different than Shifty Schiff told us.' "
Trump is correct that Schiff’s version was not totally accurate, relative to the summary of the call released by the White House, but the administration could not have released the call summary in response to Schiff. Rather, Schiff’s version was based on the White House's summary.
Schiff gave "an embellished rendition of the White House memo of the July phone call," FactCheck.org said. "As we’ve explained before, Schiff said he was recounting 'the essence of what the president communicates' and 'in not so many words.' "
– Jeanine Santucci
Schiff: In 2016, Russia hacked Democrats after Trump’s 'Russia, if you’re listening …'
Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, said Wednesday, “In 2016, candidate Trump implored Russians to hack his opponent’s email account, something the Russian military agency did hours later. Only hours later, they hacked his opponent’s campaign.”
Schiff referred to a remark Trump made July 27, 2016, during a news conference in Florida where he said he hoped Moscow could locate emails associated with his rival Hillary Clinton: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
The report on Russian interference in the 2016 election issued by special counsel Robert Mueller noted that “within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, [Russian military intelligence] officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office,” including 15 email accounts at a specific domain, one of which belonged to a Clinton aide.
As noted by The New York Times, the events of that day in the summer of 2016 were part of an indictment against a dozen Russians charged with hacking by the Justice Department.
In written responses provided by Trump during the Mueller investigation, the president said he made the “Russia, if you’re listening …” remark “in jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer.”
Although federal prosecutors said in the hacking indictment that the Russian hackers corresponded with several Americans, a top Justice Department lawyer said in unveiling the indictment that there was no evidence that the Americans were aware they were corresponding with Russian intelligence officers.
– Martina Stewart
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
Cruz: Obama administration sent 'blankets and MREs' to Ukraine
During a break in the trial Wednesday night, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the Obama administration "sent blankets and MRE's" to Ukraine, "but they wouldn't give lethal aid."
"I traveled to Ukraine in 2014, came back and urged Barack Obama to give lethal military aid to Ukraine. The Obama administration refused to do so," Cruz said. "Instead, they sent blankets and MRE's."
Cruz's remarks echo others by fellow Republicans. Trump said Obama provided Ukraine with "pillows and sheets." In 2015, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, "The Ukrainians are being slaughtered, and we’re sending them blankets and meals. Blankets don’t do well against Russian tanks.”
Milk or water: For senators at Trump impeachment trial, there are only 2 beverage options: milk and water
The Obama administration provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, according to CNN and PolitiFact.com.
Cruz is correct that lethal military aid began to be provided to Ukraine only during Trump's tenure. "The first lethal deliveries came from Trump," Jim Townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the Obama administration, told PolitiFact.
– Martina Stewart and Savannah Behrmann
Were Republicans, Trump allowed to participate in the House inquiry?
In a wide-ranging pair of speeches on the Senate floor Tuesday, Jay Sekulow, a private lawyer for Trump, and White House counsel Pat Cipollone accused Democrats of seeking to remove Trump since he was elected.
Sekulow said Schiff committed a “trifecta” of improprieties by denying Trump access to evidence, counsel at hearings and the right to cross-examine witnesses during the House inquiry.
“That’s a trifecta, a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States,” Sekulow said.
Alexander Hamilton: Rep. Adam Schiff opens Trump impeachment trial arguments with a quote from Alexander Hamilton
House Democrats on three committees held closed-door depositions during the inquiry, but Republicans were allowed to attend and ask questions. The Judiciary Committee invited Trump's lawyers to attend and participate in hearings by questioning witnesses, but the White House declined to participate in what Cipollone called a "baseless and highly partisan" inquiry.
GOP lawmakers were a part of the depositions, and the White House lawyers representing the president declined to participate in the House Judiciary Committee hearings, as detailed by PolitiFact and FactCheck.org.
– Bart Jansen
What the Mueller report found on obstruction of justice
Sekulow said Tuesday that “there was no obstruction,” referring to the special counsel’s report on Russian interference.
The report detailed 11 episodes of conduct by Trump that might have constituted obstruction, but Mueller refused to make a firm conclusion on the issue.
As USA TODAY explained, “In leaving that issue unanswered, Mueller neither charged Trump with an offense nor exonerated him, leaving the next moves up to Congress.”
FactCheck.org said that in punting on the question, the Mueller report pointed to “difficult [legal] issues” involved in indicting a sitting president, including concerns about violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers as detailed in an October 2000 legal opinion by the Justice Department.
– Martina Stewart


usatoday--2020-01-26--Des Moines Register editorial board endorses Elizabeth Warren for president

DES MOINES — The Des Moines Register ’ s editorial board has endorsed U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president , arguing her ideas are needed at a moment “ when the very fabric of American life is at stake.
” “ She is a thinker , a policy wonk and a hard worker , ” the board wrote in its endorsement .
“ She remembers her own family ’ s struggles to make ends meet and her own desperation as a working mother needing child care .
She cares about people , and she will use her seemingly endless energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The endorsement , which appeared online Saturday , comes just days before Iowans go to caucus Feb. 3 and amid a still-unsettled field of Democratic candidates .
Rachel Paine Caufield , a professor of political science at Drake University in Des Moines , Iowa , and author of the book “ The Iowa Caucus , ” noted there are two conversations going on around the election right now : A national conversation and a local one .
“ The Des Moines Register is at the heart of that local conversation , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing it long before most of America is paying attention.
” So while the Iowa caucuses are definitely of national interest , they are also a very local thing , and the Register endorsement still carries local interest , Caufield said .
The Register has endorsed candidates since the 1988 caucuses .
In 2016 the board endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Marco Rubio .
Caufield noted there are still many caucusgoers who are undecided about which candidate to caucus for and “ ( The endorsement ) lends legitimacy and credibility to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters.
” In the most recent Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa poll conducted earlier this month , only 40 % of likely Democratic caucusgoers had made up their mind about who to caucus for .
In the next week-plus , while campaigns make their final pitch to caucusgoers , the endorsement can offer an injection of energy .
“ These final days before the caucus , momentum matters a great deal , the energy behind a campaign matters , ” Caufield said .
“ I think it really helps ( campaigns ) make that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t get the endorsement , “ it could be disappointing to a campaign , ” Caufield said .
“ It could undermine some of its central claims , particularly about electability.
” Register executive editor Carol Hunter told USA TODAY , “ The board starts with a very basic question : Who would be the best president ?
But also asks who would be the best president for these times ?
That ’ s one of the main factors that led us to Elizabeth Warren .
“ We feel that income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field so much toward the wealthy and away from the middle class has put the American dream at risk.
” In the United States , there was always a belief that if you worked hard , you could offer your children a better life than you had , Hunter said .
“ We believe that is at risk .
“ Elizabeth Warren is someone who has devoted her life ’ s work to rebuilding the middle class .
That ’ s why we think she ’ s the best leader for these times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board a week ago punted on a firm decision , choosing instead to endorse both Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar .
Hunter said that wasn ’ t an option for the Register ’ s board .
“ We could certainly identify with the Times ’ dilemma , ” Hunter said .
“ We think there are many candidates in this field who could make a fine president .
“ But we think that Iowans going to caucus face making a choice .
They can ’ t stand in two preference groups .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one name.
” But the board did assess many candidates , “ because we do think that many offer different experiences and backgrounds and areas of expertise that also would recommend them for these times.
” “ A lot of what we want to do is offer people ways to think about these candidates as they work to arrive at their own decision.
” The Register published Saturday a separate opinion piece , paired with the endorsement , that details the board ’ s thoughts and reservations about other candidates in the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision is “ not telling anyone how to vote .
We offer our views as another piece of information as Iowans go about making their choices.
” The editorial board invited each of the candidates to meet at the Register ’ s offices for formal interviews .
Nine current candidates accepted the invitation , as well as several who have since left the race .
Two Republicans are challenging President Donald Trump , the presumptive nominee in his party .
The Register is not endorsing a candidate in the Republican caucus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion staff and it did not play a role in making the endorsement .
The board wrote that Warren “ is not the radical ” some perceive her to be .
Her ideas aren ’ t radical , the editorial said .
“ They are right.
” The board ’ s members wrote that they like Warren ’ s plans to target corruption , expand health care , tackle climate change and ensure government works for the people .
But the endorsement did not come without qualification ; some of Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it said .
“ Some of her ideas for ‘ big , structural change ’ go too far , ” the editorial said .
“ This board could not endorse the wholesale overhaul of corporate governance or cumulative levels of taxation she proposes .
While the board has long supported single-payer health insurance , it believes a gradual transition is the more realistic approach .
But Warren is pushing in the right direction.
” The editorial praised Warren ’ s resilience and courage , saying she has “ proven she is tough and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be perceived as divisive , as can rhetoric that vilifies the wealthy , lobbyists and corporations that employ millions of people , ” the editorial said .
“ Relentless attack mode threatens to further fracture a country riven by party , income and racial divides .
Unifying the country may not be possible , but to gain the support required to govern , she must show that her vision will lift people up rather than divide them.
” The Register editorial board also shared its thoughts about some of the other candidates in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Joe Biden : The board said he “ far outdistances the field in knowledge of foreign policy and familiarity with world leaders ” and he has an “ unrivaled experience in knowing how to get legislation passed through Congress.
” But , the board said it had reservations because he lacked a bold agenda , and in particular lacked expertise on income inequality issues .
• Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg : The board described him as “ a gifted speaker who demonstrates an impressive command of policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but said his “ eight-year tenure of heading a city the size of Davenport ” was not enough preparation to be president .
The board added : “ His relative lack of support among communities of color also raises questions about his ability to unite the country.
” • U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar : The board wrote that her candidacy was appealing because she has a “ proven record of working across the aisle to get things done . ''
But it questioned whether she would be bold enough in needed policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the board wrote that his campaigns for president has benefited the nation by bringing attention to the “ rigged ” economy it expressed concern about his ability to build consensus and his routine opposition of trade agreements .
• Businessman activist Tom Steyer : The board said it questioned whether “ another billionaire businessman with no previous government experience ( is ) the best choice ” after Trump .
• Entrepreneur Andrew Yang : The board said Yang has brought attention to the peril of the coming technological transformation but said his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical nature of his universal basic income plan were drawbacks .
• The editorial board also listed U.S. Sens .
Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California as “ two voices that are missed.
” Both Democrats campaign significantly in Iowa , including meeting with the editorial board , but dropped out of the race .
The board did not consider former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick , former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , or U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii because they have not focused on campaigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief politics reporter for the Register .
Reach her at bpfann @ dmreg.com or 515-284-8244 .
Follow her on Twitter at @ brianneDMR .

Annah Aschbrenner and Brianne Pfannenstiel, Des Moines Register

Des Moines Register editorial board endorses Elizabeth Warren for president
Show Caption Hide Caption Electoral College vs. the popular vote, explained President Trump and President George W. Bush won the electoral vote during the election, but not the popular vote. How does the electoral college work? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
DES MOINES — The Des Moines Register’s editorial board has endorsed U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president, arguing her ideas are needed at a moment “when the very fabric of American life is at stake.”
“She is a thinker, a policy wonk and a hard worker,” the board wrote in its endorsement. “She remembers her own family’s struggles to make ends meet and her own desperation as a working mother needing child care. She cares about people, and she will use her seemingly endless energy and passion to fight for them.”
The endorsement, which appeared online Saturday, comes just days before Iowans go to caucus Feb. 3 and amid a still-unsettled field of Democratic candidates.
What it means
Rachel Paine Caufield, a professor of political science at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, and author of the book “The Iowa Caucus,” noted there are two conversations going on around the election right now: A national conversation and a local one.
“The Des Moines Register is at the heart of that local conversation,” she said. “And they’re doing it long before most of America is paying attention.”
So while the Iowa caucuses are definitely of national interest, they are also a very local thing, and the Register endorsement still carries local interest, Caufield said.
The Register has endorsed candidates since the 1988 caucuses. In 2016 the board endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Marco Rubio.
Caufield noted there are still many caucusgoers who are undecided about which candidate to caucus for and “(The endorsement) lends legitimacy and credibility to a campaign’s … case to the voters.”
In the most recent Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa poll conducted earlier this month, only 40% of likely Democratic caucusgoers had made up their mind about who to caucus for.
In the next week-plus, while campaigns make their final pitch to caucusgoers, the endorsement can offer an injection of energy.
“These final days before the caucus, momentum matters a great deal, the energy behind a campaign matters,” Caufield said. “I think it really helps (campaigns) make that final case.”
For the candidates who didn’t get the endorsement, “it could be disappointing to a campaign,” Caufield said. “It could undermine some of its central claims, particularly about electability.”
A brief look at Elizabeth Warren's path through Iowa U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren attended 82 public events in Iowa in 2019. Kelsey Kremer, kkremer@dmreg.com
Register executive editor Carol Hunter told USA TODAY, “The board starts with a very basic question: Who would be the best president? But also asks who would be the best president for these times? That’s one of the main factors that led us to Elizabeth Warren.
“We feel that income inequality and the tilting of the playing field so much toward the wealthy and away from the middle class has put the American dream at risk.”
In the United States, there was always a belief that if you worked hard, you could offer your children a better life than you had, Hunter said. “We believe that is at risk.
“Elizabeth Warren is someone who has devoted her life’s work to rebuilding the middle class. That’s why we think she’s the best leader for these times."
The New York Times’ editorial board a week ago punted on a firm decision, choosing instead to endorse both Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Hunter said that wasn’t an option for the Register’s board.
“We could certainly identify with the Times’ dilemma,” Hunter said. “We think there are many candidates in this field who could make a fine president.
“But we think that Iowans going to caucus face making a choice. They can’t stand in two preference groups. So we felt pressure to come up with one name.”
But the board did assess many candidates, “because we do think that many offer different experiences and backgrounds and areas of expertise that also would recommend them for these times.”
“A lot of what we want to do is offer people ways to think about these candidates as they work to arrive at their own decision.”
The Register, part of the USA TODAY Network, published Saturday a separate opinion piece paired with the endorsement, that details the board’s thoughts and reservations about other candidates in the race.
Hunter noted the editorial board’s decision is “not telling anyone how to vote. We offer our views as another piece of information as Iowans go about making their choices.”
Elizabeth Warren learns she’s been endorsed by the @DMRegister pic.twitter.com/lR7xPItkFz — Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) January 26, 2020
Warren was campaigning in Iowa when staff informed her of the news. She looked surprised, and nearly shouted, "I did?!" before doing a little dance.
She soon after told reporters, “I just heard, and I’m delighted. It really means a lot to me,” according to POLITICO.
How the process works
The editorial board invited each of the candidates to meet at the Register’s offices for formal interviews. Nine current candidates accepted the invitation, as well as several who have since left the race. Two Republicans are challenging President Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee in his party. The Register is not endorsing a candidate in the Republican caucus. The news team is separate from the opinion staff and it did not play a role in making the endorsement.
The board wrote that Warren “is not the radical” some perceive her to be. Her ideas aren’t radical, the editorial said. “They are right.”
The board’s members wrote that they like Warren’s plans to target corruption, expand health care, tackle climate change and ensure government works for the people.
But the endorsement did not come without qualification; some of Warren’s ideas “go too far,” it said.
“Some of her ideas for ‘big, structural change’ go too far,” the editorial said. “This board could not endorse the wholesale overhaul of corporate governance or cumulative levels of taxation she proposes. While the board has long supported single-payer health insurance, it believes a gradual transition is the more realistic approach. But Warren is pushing in the right direction.”
The editorial praised Warren’s resilience and courage, saying she has “proven she is tough and fearless.”
“But toughness can also be perceived as divisive, as can rhetoric that vilifies the wealthy, lobbyists and corporations that employ millions of people,” the editorial said. “Relentless attack mode threatens to further fracture a country riven by party, income and racial divides. Unifying the country may not be possible, but to gain the support required to govern, she must show that her vision will lift people up rather than divide them.”
The Register editorial board also shared its thoughts about some of the other candidates in the 2020 field.
Former Vice President Joe Biden: The board said he “far outdistances the field in knowledge of foreign policy and familiarity with world leaders” and he has an “unrivaled experience in knowing how to get legislation passed through Congress.” But, the board said it had reservations because he lacked a bold agenda, and in particular lacked expertise on income inequality issues.
The board said he “far outdistances the field in knowledge of foreign policy and familiarity with world leaders” and he has an “unrivaled experience in knowing how to get legislation passed through Congress.” But, the board said it had reservations because he lacked a bold agenda, and in particular lacked expertise on income inequality issues. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: The board described him as “a gifted speaker who demonstrates an impressive command of policy nuances and offers refreshing, common-ground approaches” but said his “eight-year tenure of heading a city the size of Davenport” was not enough preparation to be president. The board added: “His relative lack of support among communities of color also raises questions about his ability to unite the country.”
The board described him as “a gifted speaker who demonstrates an impressive command of policy nuances and offers refreshing, common-ground approaches” but said his “eight-year tenure of heading a city the size of Davenport” was not enough preparation to be president. The board added: “His relative lack of support among communities of color also raises questions about his ability to unite the country.” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar: The board wrote that her candidacy was appealing because she has a “proven record of working across the aisle to get things done." But it questioned whether she would be bold enough in needed policies.
The board wrote that her candidacy was appealing because she has a “proven record of working across the aisle to get things done." But it questioned whether she would be bold enough in needed policies. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders: While the board wrote that his campaigns for president has benefited the nation by bringing attention to the “rigged” economy it expressed concern about his ability to build consensus and his routine opposition of trade agreements.
While the board wrote that his campaigns for president has benefited the nation by bringing attention to the “rigged” economy it expressed concern about his ability to build consensus and his routine opposition of trade agreements. Businessman activist Tom Steyer: The board said it questioned whether “another billionaire businessman with no previous government experience (is) the best choice” after Trump.
The board said it questioned whether “another billionaire businessman with no previous government experience (is) the best choice” after Trump. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang: The board said Yang has brought attention to the peril of the coming technological transformation but said his lack of any government experience and the radical nature of his universal basic income plan were drawbacks.
The board said Yang has brought attention to the peril of the coming technological transformation but said his lack of any government experience and the radical nature of his universal basic income plan were drawbacks. The editorial board also listed U.S. Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California as “two voices that are missed.” Both Democrats campaigned significantly in Iowa, including meeting with the editorial board, but dropped out of the race.
The board did not consider former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, or U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii because they have not focused on campaigning in Iowa.
Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics reporter for the Register. Reach her at bpfann@dmreg.com or 515-284-8244. Follow her on Twitter at @brianneDMR.


usatoday--2020-01-25--Senate impeachment trial: Fact-checking opening arguments of Trump's defense team

Saturday , the defense of President Donald Trump began in his impeachment trial in the Senate .
Here 's a look at claims and issues raised by the president 's lawyers as they lay out their response to the case made by the Democratic House managers prosecuting the articles of impeachment – for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – against Trump .
Sekulow : It was Trump – not Obama – that provided Ukraine with lethal military aid As the president ’ s legal team made its opening arguments Saturday , Jay Sekulow , one of the private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that it was Trump -- not his predecessor Barack Obama -- who provided Ukraine with lethal military aid , including anti-tank Javelin missiles .
Indeed , Sekulow said that U.S. policy toward Ukraine policy under Trump got stronger , stronger than it had been under former President Obama .
While Sekulow is correct about the provision of lethal aid , the charge in the impeachment trial against Trump for abuse of power turns on his decision to delay aid to Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress and his motivations for doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aid in order to pressure Ukraine ’ s newly elected president into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden , a top Trump political rival , and into entertaining a debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election .
“ The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014 , ” PolitiFact writes , after Russia invaded Crimea .
“ But the United States under Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons , ” PolitiFact adds .
The Obama administration rejected a request from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even after its then-president visited Washington and reportedly said “ Blankets and night vision goggles are important , but one can not win a war with a blanket.
” “ U.S .
officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia , ” PolitiFact writes , adding “ key allies , including Germany , were not keen on sending weapons into the conflict zone.
” In 2014 , the Obama administration approved $ 53 million in aid “ that included vehicles , patrol boats , body armor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanitarian assistance , ” according to PolitiFact .
And , between 2014 and 2016 , the U.S. committed more than $ 600 million in security assistance to Ukraine .
While the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act had called for lethal assistance , “ the equipment ultimately provided during Obama ’ s tenure was non-lethal aid , ” PolitiFact writes .
`` ’ The first lethal deliveries came from Trump , ’ '' Jim Townsend , deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the Obama administration , told PolitiFact .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Obama was what had been “ recommended by European command and others who went in to see what [ the Ukrainians ] needed . ''
But Trump has been impeached and is facing trial in the Senate over the delay in congressionally approved aid to the U.S. ally as it fights Russian aggression .
On that issue , a government watchdog agency recently concluded that the Trump administration violated federal law when it withheld the funds intended to help Ukraine .
`` Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those that Congress has enacted into law , '' the report by the Government Accountability Office says .
`` OMB withheld funds for a policy reason , which is not permitted '' under the law .
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget disagreed with the GAO ’ s conclusion .
And speaking Saturday , Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators “ the president did absolutely nothing wrong.
” He added : “ The president was at all times acting in our national interest and pursuant to his oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focuses on his concern with burden-sharing in helping Ukraine In laying out their defense of President Trump , his legal team touched Saturday on his concerns about whether European allies were doing enough to help Ukraine .
“ The president rightly had real concerns about whether European and other countries were contributing their fair share to ensuring Ukraine ’ s security , ” Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators .
Earlier this week , during an interview with Fox Business Network , the president expressed those concerns again .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always stressing , ” the president said during the cable TV interview .
“ Why isn ’ t Germany and France and U.K. and all these other countries in Europe that are much more affected than us , why aren ’ t they paying something ?
” “ They are paying plenty.
“ the Associated Press wrote in assessing Trump ’ s assertion .
While the AP observed that “ the U.S. is a heavy source of military assistance ” to Ukraine , it also pointed out that “ Since 2014 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 16 billion to help Ukraine ’ s economy , counter corruption , build institutions and strengthen its sovereignty against further incursions by Russia after its annexation of Crimea.
” FactCheck.org reached a similar conclusion : “ In fact , the European Union and European financial institutions have contributed more than $ 16.4 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014.
” And , “ the U.S. isn ’ t even the majority contributor of total official development assistance ” to Ukraine , according to FactCheck.org .
One analyst has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given almost twice as much per year to Ukraine since 2014 than the U.S. has averaged .
With regard to just military aid , a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine told The Washington Post ’ s Fact Checker that “ ‘ The United States is the largest provider of military aid to Ukraine.
” This is because of “ ‘ skittishness ’ among many European countries that ‘ don ’ t want to provoke Russia , ’ ” former Ambassador John Herbst said .
Furthermore , the Post explained : “ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the United States and the Europeans , with the United States providing the muscle and Europe providing the ‘ soft power ’ to stabilize troubled nations .
”

Senate impeachment trial: Fact-checking opening arguments of Trump's defense team
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump impeachment trial: Pat Cipollone, defense gives opening argument Pat Cipollone, part of President Donald Trump's legal defense team, summarized their defense during their opening arguments on January 25, 2020. USA TODAY
Saturday, the defense of President Donald Trump began in his impeachment trial in the Senate. Here's a look at claims and issues raised by the president's lawyers as they lay out their response to the case made by the Democratic House managers prosecuting the articles of impeachment – for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – against Trump.
Trump’s team puts the Bidens on trial over Burisma
Trump’s lawyers focused Monday evening on Hunter Biden, the son of his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, during their arguments in the Senate impeachment trial.
Pam Bondi said the defense team would have preferred to avoid Biden and his work on the board at Burisma Holdings, a natural gas company in Ukraine. But the impeachment articles accuse Trump of abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and Burisma.
"We would prefer not to be discussing this,” she said. “But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it."
Bondi focused on news reports that suggested Hunter Biden was hired solely because he was son of the former vice president. Bondi also highlighted a number of media reports chronicling what could appear to be a conflict-of-interest for the vice president due to him and the Obama administration’s pressuring Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had previously attempted to probe Burisma.
House managers had said that allegations against Burisma had been debunked. Biden’s effort to have Shokin fired for corruption was part of the U.S. national policy and was supported by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
USA TODAY has reported that Shokin was ousted because he wasn’t pursuing corruption by Ukraine’s politicians. More specifically, Bondi’s implication Monday that then-Vice President Biden withheld $1 billion in aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the government to remove Shokin because the top prosecutor was investigating Burisma and its oligarch owner -- a move that Trump and his allies say benefited Hunter Biden -- is a suggestion contradicted by foreign diplomatic officials who were following the issue at the time.
More: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
And FactCheck.org concluded “there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation or that his father pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin on his behalf.”
Eric Herschmann, another private lawyer representing Trump who addressed senators after Bondi, questioned why Hunter Biden was hired and paid so much by Burisma without any experience in the natural-gas industry, the energy sector generally or with Ukraine.
“What are the House managers afraid of finding out?” Herschmann asked.
A former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the Clinton administration told USA TODAY it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence.
USA TODAY spent a week in Ukraine and reported “the message from two dozen government officials and anti-corruption investigators quickly became clear: The allegations against the Bidens are entirely lacking in evidence.”
More: Trump's conspiracy theories thrive in Ukraine, where a young democracy battles corruption and distrust
Hunter Biden told ABC News in October 2019 that he was focused on corporate governance while on Burisma’s board.
“Bottom line is that I know I was completely qualified to be on the board to head up the corporate governance and transparency committee on the board, and that’s all that I focused on,” Biden said in the video that Herschmann played at the trial.
But during the same interview, Biden refused to disclose how much he was paid. Bondi said public records from an unrelated criminal case suggested that Biden was paid $83,333 per month for 17 months. Herschmann said Democrats circled the wagons in August to protect Joe Biden, but that questions linger.
"They contend that any investigation into the millions of dollars in payments by a corrupt Ukrainian company owned by a corrupt Ukraine oligarch to the son of the second highest officer holder in our land, who was supposed to be in charge of fighting corruption in Ukraine – they’re calling that type of inquiry a sham, debunked,” Herschmann said. “But there has never been an investigation, so how could it be a sham?"
Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesman, said accusations against Biden and his son had been debunked by fact-checkers at the Washington Post, New York Times and others. "Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory," Bates said. "It's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump."
The lead House manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Trump’s lawyers spent about two hours trashing the Bidens, but couldn’t explain why the president only took an interest in investigating them during 2019. Schiff said it was “crystal clear” that the pressure for investigations came after Joe Biden had announced his Democratic candidacy to challenge Trump.
“At the end of the day, they don’t contest that President Trump sought to coerce Ukraine into conducting two political investigations in order to help him cheat in the election,” Schiff said.
–Bart Jansen, Christal Hayes, and Martina Stewart
Trump falsely claims House of Representatives never asked Bolton to testify
As bombshell reporting surfaced about the contents of a forthcoming book by Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, lawmakers grappled Monday with new calls for witnesses to be allowed in the Senate impeachment trial, and Trump falsely claimed Bolton was never asked to testify by House Democrats.
Democrats have called for witnesses like Bolton and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to be subpoenaed in the trial, and Republicans argue that the House missed its chance to hear from those witnesses during the House's impeachment inquiry.
Trump went so far as to tweet Monday morning before the trial resumed, “The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate!”
The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
In fact, the House committees overseeing the impeachment inquiry asked Bolton to testify in a letter dated Oct. 30, 2019, and had scheduled a deposition for Nov. 7, at which he did not appear.
More: John Bolton defies House summons for closed-door testimony
Bolton’s counsel said he would only testify if he was legally compelled to do so by a subpoena, and indicated he would join onto a lawsuit by his deputy Charles Kupperman. Kupperman wanted the courts to decide whether he could be legally compelled to testify by subpoena from the legislative branch when the executive branch, the White House, was directing him not to cooperate with the inquiry.
House investigators withdrew their subpoena of Kupperman, and his case was dismissed by a judge. Democrats also decided not to issue a subpoena to Bolton because it would delay the investigation.
After Trump was impeached by the House, Bolton said in a statement that he would be willing to testify in the Senate if subpoenaed. Reporting on his upcoming book includes that Bolton wrote Trump told him that aid money to Ukraine was directly tied to investigations into the Bidens and election interference.
More: What we know about John Bolton's allegations about Trump and Ukraine
"There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump," the seven Democratic House impeachment managers said.
–Jeanine Santucci
Sekulow: It was Trump – not Obama – that provided Ukraine with lethal military aid
As the president’s legal team made its opening arguments Saturday, Jay Sekulow, one of the private attorneys on Trump’s team, said that it was Trump -- not his predecessor Barack Obama -- who provided Ukraine with lethal military aid, including anti-tank Javelin missiles.
Indeed, Sekulow said that U.S. policy toward Ukraine policy under Trump got stronger, stronger than it had been under former President Obama.
While Sekulow is correct about the provision of lethal aid, the charge in the impeachment trial against Trump for abuse of power turns on his decision to delay aid to Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress and his motivations for doing so. House Democrats allege Trump delayed the aid in order to pressure Ukraine’s newly elected president into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, a top Trump political rival, and into entertaining a debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
“The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014,” PolitiFact writes, after Russia invaded Crimea. “But the United States under Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons,” PolitiFact adds.
The Obama administration rejected a request from Ukraine for lethal aid in 2014, even after its then-president visited Washington and reportedly said “Blankets and night vision goggles are important, but one cannot win a war with a blanket.”
“U.S. officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia,” PolitiFact writes, adding “key allies, including Germany, were not keen on sending weapons into the conflict zone.”
In 2014, the Obama administration approved $53 million in aid “that included vehicles, patrol boats, body armor and night-vision goggles, as well as humanitarian assistance,” according to PolitiFact. And, between 2014 and 2016, the U.S. committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine.
While the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act had called for lethal assistance, “the equipment ultimately provided during Obama’s tenure was non-lethal aid,” PolitiFact writes.
"’The first lethal deliveries came from Trump,’" Jim Townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the Obama administration, told PolitiFact. Townsend also explained that the aid provided by Obama was what had been “recommended by European command and others who went in to see what [the Ukrainians] needed."
But Trump has been impeached and is facing trial in the Senate over the delay in congressionally approved aid to the U.S. ally as it fights Russian aggression.
On that issue, a government watchdog agency recently concluded that the Trump administration violated federal law when it withheld the funds intended to help Ukraine.
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the report by the Government Accountability Office says. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted" under the law.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget disagreed with the GAO’s conclusion.
Watchdog: White House budget office violated federal law by withholding Ukraine security funds
And speaking Saturday, Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators “the president did absolutely nothing wrong.”
He added: “The president was at all times acting in our national interest and pursuant to his oath of office.”
–Martina Stewart
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
Trump’s defense focuses on his concern with burden-sharing in helping Ukraine
In laying out their defense of President Trump, his legal team touched Saturday on his concerns about whether European allies were doing enough to help Ukraine.
“The president rightly had real concerns about whether European and other countries were contributing their fair share to ensuring Ukraine’s security,” Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura told senators.
Earlier in the week, during an interview with Fox Business Network, the president expressed those concerns again. “There’s something else I’m always stressing,” the president said during the cable TV interview. “Why isn’t Germany and France and U.K. and all these other countries in Europe that are much more affected than us, why aren’t they paying something?”
“They are paying plenty.“ the Associated Press wrote in assessing Trump’s assertion.
While the AP observed that “the U.S. is a heavy source of military assistance” to Ukraine, it also pointed out that “Since 2014, the EU and European financial institutions have mobilized more than $16 billion to help Ukraine’s economy, counter corruption, build institutions and strengthen its sovereignty against further incursions by Russia after its annexation of Crimea.”
FactCheck.org reached a similar conclusion: “In fact, the European Union and European financial institutions have contributed more than $16.4 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014.”
And, “the U.S. isn’t even the majority contributor of total official development assistance” to Ukraine, according to FactCheck.org.
One analyst has concluded that on average the EU has given almost twice as much per year to Ukraine since 2014 than the U.S. has averaged.
With regard to just military aid, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine told The Washington Post’s Fact Checker that “‘The United States is the largest provider of military aid to Ukraine.” This is because of “‘skittishness’ among many European countries that ‘don’t want to provoke Russia,’” former Ambassador John Herbst said. Furthermore, the Post explained: “This is how the aid burden is usually divided between the United States and the Europeans, with the United States providing the muscle and Europe providing the ‘soft power’ to stabilize troubled nations.”
–Martina Stewart
More: Fact-checking the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump


usatoday--2020-01-25--President Trump's attorney accuses Democrats of trying to interfere with 2020 election

Pat Cipollone , part of President Donald Trump 's legal defense team , summarized their defense during their opening arguments @ @ @ @ @ .

Trump impeachment trial: Pat Cipollone, defense gives opening argument
Pat Cipollone, part of President Donald Trump's legal defense team, summarized their defense during their opening arguments on January 25, 2020.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-25--Fox News' Sean Hannity to interview President Trump before the Super Bowl

WEST PALM BEACH , Fla , — Fox News host Sean Hannity will interview President Donald Trump in a piece to air just before next Sunday ’ s Super Bowl .
Trump expects to be in Palm Beach County next weekend , where he stays at his Mar-a-Lago estate on Palm Beach .
He normally hosts a Super Bowl party on the day of the game at his Trump International Golf Club in suburban West Palm Beach .
The interview is expected to be taped while Trump is in the White House , according to SI.com .
While Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not unusual for a president to be interviewed before the Super Bowl .
And this year the Super Bowl , to be played at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens , home of the Miami Dolphins , will be broadcast by Fox .
According to The Hill , the network that carries the Super Bowl traditionally airs interviews with the sitting president .
Rights to the game work on a rotating basis between CBS , NBC and Fox .
Hannity told Variety that he intends to ask Trump about the Senate impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and the Trump-ordered killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
The game , between the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers , begins at 6:30 p.m .
The interview will be part of Fox ’ s pregame show and will air at around 3:30 p.m .
According to SI.com , Trump held a pre-Super Bowl interview in 2017 with Fox News ’ Bill O ’ Reilly , who left the network that April following allegations of sexual harassment .
In 2018 , Trump did not sit down for a pre-Super Bowl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invitation .
Last year , he sat down with CBS .
President Barack Obama did a pre-Super Bowl interview during each of the eight years he was in the White House .
Trump is expected in Palm Beach County next week because the Federal Aviation Administration last week issued an advisory for pilots cautioning that flight restrictions will be in effect in the county from Friday , Jan. 31 , to Sunday , Feb. 2 .
The early FAA advisories have become the first sign of when Palm Beach County residents can expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump be at the Super Bowl ?
While there may be speculation that Trump may go to the Super Bowl — partly because it ’ s being played only 58 miles south and partly because his fellow Palm Beacher , Stephen Ross , owns both Hard Rock Stadium as well as the Miami Dolphins — it ’ s most likely a logistics nightmare as far as security is concerned .
What ’ s more likely is that Trump may attend , or at least stop by , the Trumpettes annual party at Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game .
The Trumpettes USA Inc. has scheduled its third annual bash at Mar-a-Lago on Feb. 1 — Super Bowl Eve .
Trumpettes USA founder Toni Holt Kramer has not confirmed to The Palm Beach Post that Trump would stop by her organization ’ s event .
Trump did not travel to Mar-a-Lago on the weekend of the inaugural Trumpettes gala in 2018 because of a federal government shutdown .
He was not at Mar-a-Lago the weekend of the Trumpettes party last year , although he sent a video address that was played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Trumpettes event is arguably now the biggest at Mar-a-Lago during Palm Beach ’ s social season , drawing 700 guests , the maximum allowed by the fire marshal .
It also represents a shift in clientele at the club , once the most sought after venue for high-society , philanthropic galas .
During Trump ’ s visit last year at this time , on that Saturday , the president golfed with Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods at Trump ’ s Jupiter club — even tweeting a photo with the two legends .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Woods shot a 64 , and Nicklaus ’ “ putting is amazing.
” “ Jack & Tiger really like each other , ” the president added .
Nicklaus , a big fan of Trump who turned 80 last week , is a longtime North Palm Beach resident , while Woods lives in Jupiter Island .

John Bisognano, The Palm Beach Post, Palm Beach Post (Palm Beach, FL)

Fox News’ Sean Hannity to interview President Trump before the Super Bowl
Show Caption Hide Caption Impeachment trials: Comparing Bill Clinton to Donald Trump Discover the similar charges and differing reactions to the impeachment trials of President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump. USA TODAY
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla, — Fox News host Sean Hannity will interview President Donald Trump in a piece to air just before next Sunday’s Super Bowl.
Trump expects to be in Palm Beach County next weekend, where he stays at his Mar-a-Lago estate on Palm Beach. He normally hosts a Super Bowl party on the day of the game at his Trump International Golf Club in suburban West Palm Beach.
The interview is expected to be taped while Trump is in the White House, according to SI.com.
While Trump and Hannity retain a close relationship, it is not unusual for a president to be interviewed before the Super Bowl. And this year the Super Bowl, to be played at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, home of the Miami Dolphins, will be broadcast by Fox. According to The Hill, the network that carries the Super Bowl traditionally airs interviews with the sitting president. Rights to the game work on a rotating basis between CBS, NBC and Fox.
Hannity told Variety that he intends to ask Trump about the Senate impeachment trial, the state of the U.S. economy and the Trump-ordered killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
The game, between the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers, begins at 6:30 p.m. The interview will be part of Fox’s pregame show and will air at around 3:30 p.m.
According to SI.com, Trump held a pre-Super Bowl interview in 2017 with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, who left the network that April following allegations of sexual harassment. In 2018, Trump did not sit down for a pre-Super Bowl interview, declining NBC’s open invitation. Last year, he sat down with CBS. President Barack Obama did a pre-Super Bowl interview during each of the eight years he was in the White House.
Trump is expected in Palm Beach County next week because the Federal Aviation Administration last week issued an advisory for pilots cautioning that flight restrictions will be in effect in the county from Friday, Jan. 31, to Sunday, Feb. 2. The early FAA advisories have become the first sign of when Palm Beach County residents can expect the president to visit here.
Will Trump be at the Super Bowl?
While there may be speculation that Trump may go to the Super Bowl — partly because it’s being played only 58 miles south and partly because his fellow Palm Beacher, Stephen Ross, owns both Hard Rock Stadium as well as the Miami Dolphins — it’s most likely a logistics nightmare as far as security is concerned.
What’s more likely is that Trump may attend, or at least stop by, the Trumpettes annual party at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago the night before the game.
The Trumpettes USA Inc. has scheduled its third annual bash at Mar-a-Lago on Feb. 1 — Super Bowl Eve.
Trumpettes USA founder Toni Holt Kramer has not confirmed to The Palm Beach Post that Trump would stop by her organization’s event. Trump did not travel to Mar-a-Lago on the weekend of the inaugural Trumpettes gala in 2018 because of a federal government shutdown. He was not at Mar-a-Lago the weekend of the Trumpettes party last year, although he sent a video address that was played at the start of the evening.
The Trumpettes event is arguably now the biggest at Mar-a-Lago during Palm Beach’s social season, drawing 700 guests, the maximum allowed by the fire marshal. It also represents a shift in clientele at the club, once the most sought after venue for high-society, philanthropic galas.
During Trump’s visit last year at this time, on that Saturday, the president golfed with Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods at Trump’s Jupiter club — even tweeting a photo with the two legends. He subsequently disclosed in a follow-up tweet that Woods shot a 64, and Nicklaus’ “putting is amazing.”
“Jack & Tiger really like each other,” the president added. Nicklaus, a big fan of Trump who turned 80 last week, is a longtime North Palm Beach resident, while Woods lives in Jupiter Island.
Follow John Bisognano on Twitter: @jbisognano.


usatoday--2020-01-25--House impeachment managers wrap up their opening arguments on Obstruction of Congress

In their final day of opening arguments , Democrats lay out the Obstruction of Congress charge which is the second @ @ @ @ @ Trump .

Democrats wrap opening arguments on Obstruction of Congress
In their final day of opening arguments, Democrats lay out the Obstruction of Congress charge which is the second Article of Impeachment against President Trump.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-25--Impeachment manager Adam Schiff quotes report of threat to GOP Senators: 'Head on a pike'

In closing , Rep. Adam Schiff quotes a CBS report that a Trump confidant threatened GOP Senators with 'head on @ @ @ @ @ vote against Trump .

Adam Schiff quotes 'head on a pike' threat to GOP Senators
In closing, Rep. Adam Schiff quotes a CBS report that a Trump confidant threatened GOP Senators with 'head on a pike' if they vote against Trump.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-26--'I stand with Greta': Mnuhcin's wife defends teen activist after husband tells her to get a degree

Louise Linton , the wife of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin , appeared to side with climate change activist Greta Thunberg – whom her husband had belittled during the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland – in an Instagram post that she then deleted , according to screengrabs of the post shared on social media .
Thunberg , 17 , also attended the gathering last week of the world 's top political and business leaders , where she called on the world to divest from investments in fossil fuels .
When asked about her demand , Mnuchin quipped , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is she ?
I ’ m confused . ''
`` After she goes and studies economics in college , she can come back and explain that to us , '' he added .
`` I stand with Greta on this issue .
( I do n't have a degree in economics either ) , '' the post from his wife 's Instagram account read , according to the screengrabs Saturday .
`` We need to drastically reduce our fossil fuels .
Keep up the fight @ gretathunberg . ''
Lashing out : Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greta Thunberg to get an economics degree Though she deleted that post , the actress added another one , titled `` Bullies , '' to her Instagram story in which she responded to harsh criticism of her husband 's comments about Thunberg .
`` I am not my husband , '' she wrote .
`` I happen to love Greta .
Whatever he says has nothing to do with my views or opinions and what you just did was bully me , unjustly . ''
Thunberg also responded to Mnuchin 's comments about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap year ends in August , but it doesn ’ t take a college degree in economics to realise that our remaining 1,5° carbon budget and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and investments don ’ t add up , '' Thunberg wrote on Twitter .
`` So either you tell us how to achieve this mitigation or explain to future generations and those already affected by the climate emergency why we should abandon our climate commitments . ''

'I stand with Greta': Mnuchin's wife defends teen activist after husband tells her to get a degree
Show Caption Hide Caption Greta Thunberg makes bold demand at Davos Climate activist Greta Thunberg told a World Economic Forum panel that activists were demanding an end to all investment in fossil fuel exploration. USA TODAY
Louise Linton, the wife of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, appeared to side with climate change activist Greta Thunberg – whom her husband had belittled during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – in an Instagram post that she then deleted, according to screen grabs of the post shared on social media.
Thunberg, 17, also attended the gathering last week of the world's top political and business leaders, where she called on the world to divest from investments in fossil fuels.
When asked about her demand, Mnuchin quipped, "Is she the chief economist? Who is she? I’m confused."
"After she goes and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us," he added.
"I stand with Greta on this issue. (I don't have a degree in economics either)," the post from his wife's Instagram account read, according to the screen grabs Saturday. "We need to drastically reduce our fossil fuels. Keep up the fight @gretathunberg."
Lashing out: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin tells climate change activist Greta Thunberg to get an economics degree
steven mnuchin’s wife, the actress Louise Linton, posted this on Instagram after his comments on Greta Thunberg. pic.twitter.com/1T1a38LzFQ — andrew kaczynski🤔 (@KFILE) January 25, 2020
Though she deleted that post, the actress added another one, titled "Bullies," to her Instagram story in which she responded to harsh criticism of her husband's comments about Thunberg.
"I am not my husband," she wrote. "I happen to love Greta. Whatever he says has nothing to do with my views or opinions and what you just did was bully me, unjustly."
Thunberg also responded to Mnuchin's comments about getting an economics degree.
"My gap year ends in August, but it doesn’t take a college degree in economics to realise that our remaining 1,5° carbon budget and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and investments don’t add up," Thunberg wrote on Twitter. "So either you tell us how to achieve this mitigation or explain to future generations and those already affected by the climate emergency why we should abandon our climate commitments."
Warmest decade: 2019 ended Earth's warmest decade since record-keeping began, scientists say