usatoday--2020-01-23--Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton over Russia comment

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is suing 2016 Democratic nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for defamation , escalating a feud between the two lawmakers after Clinton appeared to call Gabbard `` a favorite of the Russians '' last year .
In the lawsuit filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan , Gabbard claims that Clinton made her remarks as `` retribution '' for the Hawaii congresswoman endorsening Sen. Bernie Sanders over Clinton in 2016 .
`` Clinton has not gotten over her loss in that election and still dwells on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding that `` Clinton blames many persons for her loss , '' including Sanders .
`` But Clinton reserves a special hatred and animosity for Tulsi—who never endorsed Clinton , did not campaign for her , and to top it off , gave the nomination speech for Senator Sanders at the 2016 Democratic National Convention . ''
Asked to comment on the lawsuit , Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told USA TODAY , “ That 's ridiculous.
” Gabbard in the lawsuit claims she has `` suffered significant actual damages , personally and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 50 million—and continue to this day '' because of Clinton 's comments .
Clinton gave a wide-ranging interview on Democratic strategist David Plouffe 's podcast in October , where she suggested that the GOP was `` grooming '' a Democratic presidential candidate to run as a third-party candidate .
Although Clinton did n't name Gabbard specifically , the comment was seemingly directed to the Hawaii Democrat .
More : Bernie Sanders surges into first in CNN national poll ; Joe Biden maintains lead in another '' She 's the favorite of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far , and that 's assuming Jill Stein will give it up , which she might not , because she 's also a Russian asset , '' Clinton said .
`` Yeah , she 's a Russian asset , I mean totally .
They know they ca n't win without a third party candidate . ''
Following Clinton 's comments , Gabbard wrote in a tweet : `` Great !
Thank you @ HillaryClinton .
You , the queen of warmongers , embodiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long , have finally come out from behind the curtain . ''
Gabbard over the past several months has struggled to make the Democratic primary debate stage , missing both the December and January debates .
.
She has said she will not run for president as a third-party candidate .
Want to talk more about politics ?
: Join our Facebook group : ‘ Across the Aisle , Across the Nation .
’

Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton over Russia comment
Show Caption Hide Caption 5 things to know about Tulsi Gabbard The congresswoman from Hawaii is joining a growing pool of Democrats ready to take on President Trump. Here are 5 things to know about Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is suing 2016 Democratic nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for defamation, escalating a feud between the two lawmakers after Clinton appeared to call Gabbard "a favorite of the Russians" last year.
In the lawsuit filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Gabbard claims that Clinton made her remarks as "retribution" for the Hawaii congresswoman endorsening Sen. Bernie Sanders over Clinton in 2016.
"Clinton has not gotten over her loss in that election and still dwells on what happened," the lawsuit says, adding that "Clinton blames many persons for her loss," including Sanders. "But Clinton reserves a special hatred and animosity for Tulsi—who never endorsed Clinton, did not campaign for her, and to top it off, gave the nomination speech for Senator Sanders at the 2016 Democratic National Convention."
Asked to comment on the lawsuit, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told USA TODAY, “That's ridiculous.”
Gabbard in the lawsuit claims she has "suffered significant actual damages, personally and professionally, that are estimated to exceed $50 million—and continue to this day" because of Clinton's comments.
How Russian interference could affect the 2020 election, too Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and helped Donald Trump win. We look back at history and ask: Will they do it again? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Clinton gave a wide-ranging interview on Democratic strategist David Plouffe's podcast in October, where she suggested that the GOP was "grooming" a Democratic presidential candidate to run as a third-party candidate. Although Clinton didn't name Gabbard specifically, the comment was seemingly directed to the Hawaii Democrat.
More: Bernie Sanders surges into first in CNN national poll; Joe Biden maintains lead in another
"She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They know they can't win without a third party candidate."
Following Clinton's comments, Gabbard wrote in a tweet: "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain."
Gabbard over the past several months has struggled to make the Democratic primary debate stage, missing both the December and January debates. . She has said she will not run for president as a third-party candidate.
Want to talk more about politics?: Join our Facebook group: ‘Across the Aisle, Across the Nation.’
Contributing: The Associated Press


usatoday--2020-01-24--Democrats take impeachment back to 1999 and other moments from the Senate trial

WASHINGTON — Democratic impeachment managers honed in on the abuse of power impeachment article in their second day of opening arguments for the Senate trial of President Donald Trump on Thursday .
Over another nine-hour session , the House managers attempted to persuade senators that the evidence presented in part one of their opening arguments is grounds for Trump 's removal from office based on the Constitution .
The president is accused of holding up nearly $ 400 million in military aid money and a desired White House meeting in order to pressure Ukraine to commit to investigations that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeached in the House on two articles of impeachment : abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The day before , Democrats rehashed the testimony of House impeachment witnesses , the now-infamous July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and public statements Trump has made on the matter .
Impeachment updates , once a day : All the updates in one summary to your inbox : Sign up here Catch up : Highlights from Democrats ' opening arguments in the Trump impeachment Senate trial Here are some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins sent a note to Roberts before admonishment Sen. Susan Collins , R-Maine , said she was `` stunned '' by remarks given by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler at the start of the trial , where he accused senators of being complicit in a cover-up if they shot down measures to hear from additional witnesses .
Collins , a key moderate who Democrats are hoping to convince that more witnesses should be heard from during the trial , said the remarks caused her to write a note to Chief Justice John Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been violated .
`` I was stunned by Congressman Nadler ’ s approach , and it reminded me that if we were in a normal debate in the Senate , that the rule will be invoked to strike the words of the Senator , for impugning another Senator in this case , '' she explained in an interview with Politico , remarks that were confirmed by her office .
`` So , I did write a note raising the issue of whether there had been a violation of the rules of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the note to Laura Dove , the secretary for the Senate majority .
Shortly after the note was delivered , Roberts admonished both house managers and Trump 's counsel for the testy back-and-forth .
`` I was glad that he did , '' Collins said .
Democrats : Crime not necessary for impeachment House Democrats attempted to rebut a claim that Republicans have advanced in defense of Trump : The president did not commit a crime and therefore , there is no basis for impeachment .
The House managers on Thursday referred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were impeachment witnesses to argue that the process does n't require a statutory crime .
The Constitution allows impeachment for “ high crimes and misdemeanors , ” a term that has been debated during the Trump investigation .
Rep. Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , said that a trifecta of high crimes and misdemeanors made a strong case against Trump : abuse , betrayal and corruption , or the 'ABCs ' of impeachment .
He said Trump abused his office to solicit election interference from Ukraine ; betrayed U.S. national security interests and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the intent to corrupt the 2020 election for his own benefit .
`` Impeachment is the Constitution 's final answer for a president who mistakes himself for a king , '' Nadler said .
Nadler replayed footage from the hearings of House impeachment witnesses who said that impeachment does not necessitate the breaking of a law , and noted that Republican-called witness Jonathan Turley also said a crime need not be committed .
Nadler quoted constitutional scholars who testified at a Dec. 4 hearing in the impeachment inquiry .
Michael Gerhardt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina , said the Constitution “ plainly does not ” require a violation of law for impeachment .
`` If what we 're talking about is not impeachable , then nothing is impeachable , '' Gerhardt said at the time .
“ Impeachment is not a punishment for crimes .
Impeachment exists to address threats to the political system , '' Nadler said .
What the law scholars said : 'If what we 're talking about is not impeachable , then nothing is' To make his point that impeachment does n't require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1999 video of Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , a manager during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , who was acquitted .
“ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start using your office and you ’ re acting in a way that hurts people , you ’ ve committed a high crime.
” Nadler rejected Republicans ' challenging of the impeachment articles as vague and not grounded in established law .
“ This view is completely wrong , ” Nadler said 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.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ when that clip was played , however .
Asked about the use of Graham 's old view , some Republican senators shrugged off the video .
`` I do n't think you can hold that against Lindsey , '' Mike Braun , R-Ind.
, said .
Alan Dershowitz , too , was thrust into the spotlight by Nadler .
Dershowitz is a member of Trump 's impeachment defense team and has pointed out he was opposed to Bill Clinton 's impeachment .
He said in 1998 that an impeachable offense `` certainly does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Dershowitz retracted that statement earlier this week , tweeting , `` To the extent there are inconsistencies between my current position and what I said 22 years ago , I am correct today . ''
Republicans have played the game too , however : As the impeachment inquiry was underway in the House , GOP representatives played up footage of Nadler from the Clinton days , when he opposed the impeachment .
A president must not be impeached `` without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nadler said at the time . '
I don ’ t think you can hold that against Lindsey ' : Democrats use Graham 's 1999 impeachment speech in Trump trial Democrats took a deep dive into the two investigations they say Trump wanted from Ukraine : the Bidens and 2016 election interference .
In order to justify Trump 's desire to investigate the Bidens , Republicans have claimed that Joe Biden pressed Ukraine to fire a top prosecutor when he was vice president to benefit his son Hunter Biden , who served on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This allegation is without credible evidence .
Republicans have argued the Bidens should have to testify .
Explainer : Biden , allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he did n't pursue corruption cases House managers laid out an extensive defense of Biden during Thursday 's arguments , explaining that Biden pushed out the prosecutor , Viktor Shokin , because he was lax on corruption in Ukraine , and that his removal was supported by international organizations .
Graham chuckled to himself and looked around at his GOP colleagues during the House managers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He huddled with Sens .
Barasso , R-WY , and Cornyn , R-TX , and they all seemed exasperated .
Democrats also used the testimony of Fiona Hill , a Russia expert and former National Security Council official , to debunk the notion that Ukraine , rather than Russia , interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election .
Rep. Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas , and Schiff went through the reasons Democrats allege Trump was seeking personal gain , citing the following claims , which they displayed for senators in the chamber : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Investigations Part Of U.S. Official Policy • The White House Attempted To Bury The Call • President Told Us In His Own Statements • President Did Not Care About Anti-Corruption Efforts In Ukraine Senators have so far listened to upward of 16 hours of Democrats ' arguments , and Republicans in the chamber are eagerly anticipating arguments from Trump 's legal defense team , which is slated to start on Saturday .
“ They 're well prepared and they 've been prepared , ” said Rep. Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , who explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been meeting with Trump ’ s legal team at the White House on multiple occasions .
“ They 've been following the case all the way through.
” Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo.
, noted it would be the first time Americans have really heard the full story from the president .
“ Well , I think we want to hear their version of events , ” he said .
“ There ’ s all kinds of allegations that have been thrown up in the air and so they 'll have a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of events.
” Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , said he wanted Americans to hear more about Ukraine ’ s corruption , how the president viewed this and more about the Biden family .
“ I love Joe Biden but I can tell you if the name was Trump , there would be a lot of questions asked , ” he said .
In an interview with WBUR , Jordan also outlined what he thought Trump 's team would cover in their defense : the `` unconstitutional nature '' of the articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due process '' in the Democratic-controlled House impeachment investigation .

Democrats take impeachment back to 1999 and other moments from the Senate trial
Show Caption Hide Caption Impeachment trial questions: Why a trial if the votes won't convict? USA TODAY Washington correspondent Christal Hayes answers the internet on why have a trial if the votes won't convict. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Democratic impeachment managers honed in on the abuse of power impeachment article in their second day of opening arguments for the Senate trial of President Donald Trump on Thursday.
Over another nine-hour session, the House managers attempted to persuade senators that the evidence presented in part one of their opening arguments is grounds for Trump's removal from office based on the Constitution.
The president is accused of holding up nearly $400 million in military aid money and a desired White House meeting in order to pressure Ukraine to commit to investigations that would benefit Trump in 2020. He was impeached in the House on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The day before, Democrats rehashed the testimony of House impeachment witnesses, the now-infamous July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and public statements Trump has made on the matter.
Impeachment updates, once a day: All the updates in one summary to your inbox: Sign up here
Catch up: Highlights from Democrats' opening arguments in the Trump impeachment Senate trial
Here are some of the highlights from Thursday's session:
Collins sent a note to Roberts before admonishment
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she was "stunned" by remarks given by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler at the start of the trial, where he accused senators of being complicit in a cover-up if they shot down measures to hear from additional witnesses.
Collins, a key moderate who Democrats are hoping to convince that more witnesses should be heard from during the trial, said the remarks caused her to write a note to Chief Justice John Roberts, asking whether the Senate's rules had been violated.
"I was stunned by Congressman Nadler’s approach, and it reminded me that if we were in a normal debate in the Senate, that the rule will be invoked to strike the words of the Senator, for impugning another Senator in this case," she explained in an interview with Politico, remarks that were confirmed by her office. "So, I did write a note raising the issue of whether there had been a violation of the rules of the Senate."
Collins said she gave the note to Laura Dove, the secretary for the Senate majority. Shortly after the note was delivered, Roberts admonished both house managers and Trump's counsel for the testy back-and-forth. "I was glad that he did," Collins said.
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
Democrats: Crime not necessary for impeachment
House Democrats attempted to rebut a claim that Republicans have advanced in defense of Trump: The president did not commit a crime and therefore, there is no basis for impeachment.
The House managers on Thursday referred to the Constitution and interpretation by legal scholars who were impeachment witnesses to argue that the process doesn't require a statutory crime.
The Constitution allows impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term that has been debated during the Trump investigation.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said that a trifecta of high crimes and misdemeanors made a strong case against Trump: abuse, betrayal and corruption, or the 'ABCs' of impeachment. He said Trump abused his office to solicit election interference from Ukraine; betrayed U.S. national security interests and abandoned diplomatic support of Ukraine; and had the intent to corrupt the 2020 election for his own benefit.
"Impeachment is the Constitution's final answer for a president who mistakes himself for a king," Nadler said.
Nadler replayed footage from the hearings of House impeachment witnesses who said that impeachment does not necessitate the breaking of a law, and noted that Republican-called witness Jonathan Turley also said a crime need not be committed. Nadler quoted 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.
"If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable," Gerhardt said at the time.
“Impeachment is not a punishment for crimes. Impeachment exists to address threats to the political system," Nadler said.
What the law scholars said: 'If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is'
Resurfacing of old impeachment views
To make his point that impeachment doesn't require a statutory crime, Nadler played a 1999 video of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a manager during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, who was acquitted.
“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.”
Nadler rejected Republicans' challenging of the impeachment articles as vague and not grounded in established law.
“This view is completely wrong,” Nadler said 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.”
Graham was absent from the room when that clip was played, however. Asked about the use of Graham's old view, some Republican senators shrugged off the video.
"I don't think you can hold that against Lindsey," Mike Braun, R-Ind., said.
Alan Dershowitz, too, was thrust into the spotlight by Nadler. Dershowitz is a member of Trump's impeachment defense team and has pointed out he was opposed to Bill Clinton's impeachment. He said in 1998 that an impeachable offense "certainly doesn't have to be a crime."
Dershowitz retracted that statement earlier this week, tweeting, "To the extent there are inconsistencies between my current position and what I said 22 years ago, I am correct today."
Republicans have played the game too, however: As the impeachment inquiry was underway in the House, GOP representatives played up footage of Nadler from the Clinton days, when he opposed the impeachment.
A president must not be impeached "without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity," Nadler said at the time.
"There must never be a narrowly-voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other.”
"Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy."
Good point, Chairman Nadler. pic.twitter.com/wlrxXb2Aji — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) December 4, 2019
'I don’t think you can hold that against Lindsey': Democrats use Graham's 1999 impeachment speech in Trump trial
Debunking Biden, Ukraine interference claims
Democrats took a deep dive into the two investigations they say Trump wanted from Ukraine: the Bidens and 2016 election interference.
In order to justify Trump's desire to investigate the Bidens, Republicans have claimed that Joe Biden pressed Ukraine to fire a top prosecutor when he was vice president to benefit his son Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. This allegation is without credible evidence. Republicans have argued the Bidens should have to testify.
Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
House managers laid out an extensive defense of Biden during Thursday's arguments, explaining that Biden pushed out the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was lax on corruption in Ukraine, and that his removal was supported by international organizations.
Graham chuckled to himself and looked around at his GOP colleagues during the House managers’ argument for Biden's innocence. He huddled with Sens. Barasso, R-WY, and Cornyn, R-TX, and they all seemed exasperated.
Democrats also used the testimony of Fiona Hill, a Russia expert and former National Security Council official, to debunk the notion that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Trump, Russia and Ukraine: Five presidential conspiracy theories debunked
Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, and Schiff went through the reasons Democrats allege Trump was seeking personal gain, citing the following claims, which they displayed for senators in the chamber:
President Cared Only About Announcement Of Investigations
Of Investigations President Cared Only About "Big Stuff": Investigating Biden
President Used Personal Attorney: This Isn't "Foreign Policy"
Attorney: This Isn't "Foreign Policy" Investigations Never Part Of U.S. Official Policy
Part Of U.S. Official Policy Investigations Outside Official Channels
Official Channels Multiple Administration Officials Reported Concerns
Concerns Ukraine Expressed Concerns: Investigations Political
The White House Attempted To Bury The Call
President Told Us In His Own Statements
President Did Not Care About Anti-Corruption Efforts In Ukraine
Looking ahead to Trump defense
Senators have so far listened to upward of 16 hours of Democrats' arguments, and Republicans in the chamber are eagerly anticipating arguments from Trump's legal defense team, which is slated to start on Saturday.
“They're well prepared and they've been prepared,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who explained that he and other House Republicans have been meeting with Trump’s legal team at the White House on multiple occasions. “They've been following the case all the way through.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., noted it would be the first time Americans have really heard the full story from the president.
“Well, I think we want to hear their version of events,” he said. “There’s all kinds of allegations that have been thrown up in the air and so they'll have a chance to lay out their timeline, their version of events.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he wanted Americans to hear more about Ukraine’s corruption, how the president viewed this and more about the Biden family.
“I love Joe Biden but I can tell you if the name was Trump, there would be a lot of questions asked,” he said.
In an interview with WBUR, Jordan also outlined what he thought Trump's team would cover in their defense: the "unconstitutional nature" of the articles of impeachment and the "lack of due process" in the Democratic-controlled House impeachment investigation.
Impeachment trial: Read USA TODAY's coverage of Thursday's session
Contributing: Christal Hayes, Bart Jansen, David Jackson, Nicholas Wu, Ledyard King, Savannah Behrmann, Maureen Groppe


usatoday--2020-01-24--What was the Senate chamber like while Rep. Adam Schiff made his final Thursday speech?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff decided to close the Thursday Senate impeachment proceedings by reading passages from President Donald Trump ’ s July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky to “ point out a few things that really struck my attention.
” Schiff joked he decided to take Trump ’ s directions to “ read the transcript , ” noting Trump had told his Twitter followers to do so earlier in the trial .
The California Democrat went on to read through several chunks from the call summary , adding his own analysis .
“ If you would speak to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Talk to Rudy , ” Schiff said , quoting from the July 25 call record .
Impeachment updates , just once a day : Get a summary of the day 's impeachment news to your inbox : Sign up here Schiff pointed out how unusual it was for the president to suggest another world leader discuss political issues with his personal attorney .
The democrats will be back on Friday to finish making their opening arguments to convict and remove Trump , whose defense team takes the stage starting Saturday .
Republicans say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the July 25 call record .
Earlier in the evening , Sen. James Lankford , R-Okla. , told reporters Democrats were “ cherry-picking ” parts of transcripts , including that of the July 25 call .
“ There ’ s parts they are conveniently cherry-picking out that I look at and say , 'Let ’ s get the whole story , ' ” Lankford said .
Sen .
Rob Portman , R-Ohio , said some of Trump 's actions were not `` appropriate '' but removing him from office was a step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that asking for new impeachment trial witnesses could create lengthy executive privilege debate '' Some of the things are not appropriate , '' Portman said .
`` That 's a very different question from removing someone from office who was duly elected in the middle of a presidential election . ''
Sen. Bill Cassidy , R-La.
, said Schiff is saying there 's a `` fight for facts '' but `` therefore we must remove now , because we ca n't afford to wait eight months , we ca n't trust the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wo n't have time to do it . ''
Reaction in the chamber to Schiff 's closing speech A few GOP senators stood up and gravitated toward the back of the chamber , where they stood in clumps , making quiet remarks to each other .
Sens .
Ben Sasse , R-Neb.
, and Tom Cotton , R-Ark.
, leaned over chairs as they watched Schiff , occasionally exchanging glances as Schiff offered some analysis of Trump ’ s July 25 call .
When Schiff asked the chamber if there was any doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , R-.S.C.
, scoffed and nodded while looking at notes .
`` Whether we can say it publicly , we all know what we 're dealing with here with this president .
Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies ... that makes him dangerous ... why would anyone in their right mind believe Giuliani over Christopher Wray ? ''
Schiff questioned the chamber .
In response , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stared straight ahead while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer peeked at his GOP colleagues .
Sens .
Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , R-Alaska sat next to each other , expressionless .
The two moderates will be critical votes in the trial .
During a portion of Schiff ’ s closing , a member of the public section of the balcony overlooking the chamber wiped his eyes with a handkerchief .
The rest of the public gallery appeared intrigued , leaning into Schiff ’ s testimony as he became more impassioned .
Schiff mentioned Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman ’ s gripping story from his testimony , Schiff quoted Vindman , stating that “ Here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sen. Marsha Blackburn , R-Tenn. , who has been tweeting her grievances of Vindman throughout Thursday ’ s trial , stared straight ahead or would occasionally pick her nails during Schiff ’ s recounting of his testimony .
“ If right doesn ’ t matter , it doesn ’ t matter how good the constitution is , ” he continued .
“ The framers could not protect us from ourselves if right and truth don ’ t matter .
And you know what he [ Trump ] did was not right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the old country where Colonel Vindman ’ s father came from , the old country that my great-grandfather came from or the old country that my ancestors came from , or maybe where you came from.
” “ Because right matters .
And the truth matters .
Otherwise , we are lost , ” he concluded to a silent chamber .
As he walked out of the room as the Senate adjourned , many of his Democratic colleagues expressed to him that he had done his job well .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and gave him a thumbs up .
Most of his GOP counterparts were quick to leave the room .

Nicholas Wu and Savannah Behrmann, USA TODAY

What was the Senate chamber like while Rep. Adam Schiff made his final Thursday speech?
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
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff decided to close the Thursday Senate impeachment proceedings by reading passages from President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky to “point out a few things that really struck my attention.”
Schiff joked he decided to take Trump’s directions to “read the transcript,” noting Trump had told his Twitter followers to do so earlier in the trial.
The California Democrat went on to read through several chunks from the call summary, adding his own analysis.
“If you would speak to him, that would be great. Talk to Rudy,” Schiff said, quoting from the July 25 call record.
Impeachment updates, just once a day: Get a summary of the day's impeachment news to your inbox: Sign up here
Schiff pointed out how unusual it was for the president to suggest another world leader discuss political issues with his personal attorney.
The democrats will be back on Friday to finish making their opening arguments to convict and remove Trump, whose defense team takes the stage starting Saturday.
GOP criticism
Republicans say Democrats have been selective in their reading of the July 25 call record. Earlier in the evening, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told reporters Democrats were “cherry-picking” parts of transcripts, including that of the July 25 call.
“There’s parts they are conveniently cherry-picking out that I look at and say, 'Let’s get the whole story,'” Lankford said.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said some of Trump's actions were not "appropriate" but removing him from office was a step too far.
More: Senators worry that asking for new impeachment trial witnesses could create lengthy executive privilege debate
"Some of the things are not appropriate," Portman said. "That's a very different question from removing someone from office who was duly elected in the middle of a presidential election."
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said Schiff is saying there's a "fight for facts" but "therefore we must remove now, because we can't afford to wait eight months, we can't trust the American people to do it, because they won't have time to do it."
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
Reaction in the chamber to Schiff's closing speech
A few GOP senators stood up and gravitated toward the back of the chamber, where they stood in clumps, making quiet remarks to each other.
Sens. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., leaned over chairs as they watched Schiff, occasionally exchanging glances as Schiff offered some analysis of Trump’s July 25 call.
When Schiff asked the chamber if there was any doubt Trump was guilty, Sen. Tim Scott, R-.S.C., scoffed and nodded while looking at notes.
More: Democrats use Lindsey Graham's Clinton impeachment speech in Trump Senate trial
"Whether we can say it publicly, we all know what we're dealing with here with this president. Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies... that makes him dangerous... why would anyone in their right mind believe Giuliani over Christopher Wray?" Schiff questioned the chamber.
In response, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stared straight ahead while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer peeked at his GOP colleagues.
Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska sat next to each other, expressionless. The two moderates will be critical votes in the trial.
During a portion of Schiff’s closing, a member of the public section of the balcony overlooking the chamber wiped his eyes with a handkerchief. The rest of the public gallery appeared intrigued, leaning into Schiff’s testimony as he became more impassioned.
Schiff mentioned Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s gripping story from his testimony, Schiff quoted Vindman, stating that “Here, right matters.”
As he did so, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who has been tweeting her grievances of Vindman throughout Thursday’s trial, stared straight ahead or would occasionally pick her nails during Schiff’s recounting of his testimony.
“If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the constitution is,” he continued. “The framers could not protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter. And you know what he [Trump] did was not right. That’s what they do in the old country where Colonel Vindman’s father came from, the old country that my great-grandfather came from or the old country that my ancestors came from, or maybe where you came from.”
“Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost,” he concluded to a silent chamber.
As he walked out of the room as the Senate adjourned, many of his Democratic colleagues expressed to him that he had done his job well.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D- R.I., shouted “Adam!” and gave him a thumbs up. Most of his GOP counterparts were quick to leave the room.


usatoday--2020-01-24--House impeachment managers make case for abuse of power

On Thursday , House Democrat impeachment managers laid out their case for abuse of power , the first of two @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump .

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


usatoday--2020-01-24--Impeachment trial: Democrats focus on accusation that Trump obstructed their Ukraine inquiry

WASHINGTON – House Democrats will focus on the accusation that President Donald Trump obstructed Congress when they resume and complete their opening argument Friday in the Senate trial .
The seven prosecutors , who are called managers , spent Wednesday outlining the two articles against Trump and detailing the evidence they gathered for the accusations of abuse of power and obstruction .
They spent Thursday outlining the legal and constitutional reasons that they said the evidence justified the charge of abuse of power .
On Friday , the managers will explain how the law and Constitution apply to the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , said Thursday that the arguments condensed hundreds of hours of depositions and testimony , but that there might be repetition in the presentations as more context is provided .
“ We will now show you these facts and many others and how they are interwoven , ” Schiff said .
“ You will see some of these facts and videos therefore in a new context , in a new light , in the light of what else we know and why it compels a finding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some method to our madness.
” The third session of up to eight hours will complete the opening argument from House Democrats .
Trump ’ s legal team is expected to begin Saturday up to 24 hours of opening argument spanning three sessions .
“ We ’ re going to respond of course to what the House managers have put forward , ” Jay Sekulow , one of Trump ’ s private lawyers , told reporters Wednesday .
“ And we ’ re going to make an affirmative case defending the president.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether Trump ’ s defenders would need six hours or 24 hours to make their arguments because House Democrats were still making their case .
“ When you ’ re in a proceeding like this , you have to be flexible , you have to be fluid , ” Sekulow said .
Republican senators said they are eager to hear from Trump ’ s defense team .
“ There ’ s all kinds of allegations that have been thrown up in the air and so they 'll have a chance to lay out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo .
In focusing on abuse of power Thursday , another manager , Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , said Trump could have been impeached just for asking Ukraine to investigate his political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
But Nadler said Trump went further , withholding $ 391 million in vital military aid and a White House meeting .
`` Since President George Washington took office in 1789 , no president has abused his power in this way , '' Nadler said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections . ''
Nadler said the accusation of obstruction stems from Trump directing his administration to defy all subpoenas for testimony and documents during the investigation .
“ The articles are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House , notwithstanding the president ’ s complete stonewalling , his attempt to block all witnesses and all documents from the United States Congress , ” Nadler said .
“ It puts even President Nixon to shame .
”

Schiff ends Democrat arguments with warning, Trump's lawyers to state case Saturday - impeachment trial latest
Show Caption Hide Caption 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
WASHINGTON – House Democrats completed their three days of opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump by itemizing his alleged misconduct, but without clearly recruiting Republicans to support subpoenaing witnesses or convicting the president to remove him from office.
The lead manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., charged that Trump abused the power of his office by withholding $391 million in vital military aid for Ukraine in a scheme to cheat in the 2020 election by pressuring the country to investigate his rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
But Schiff warned that the second accusation of obstruction of Congress will echo beyond impeachment – if Trump isn’t convicted and removed from office – because the president defied all subpoenas during the House inquiry.
“In the history of the republic, no president ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry,” Schiff said. “Ukraine will survive and so will we, but that will be an unending injury to this country because the balance of power that our founders set out will never be the same.”
Trump’s defense team will have up to 24 hours spread over three days to make their case starting Saturday. Jay Sekulow, a private lawyer defending Trump, said the team will refute the Democratic arguments and make an argument supporting the president.
“We’re going to put on I believe without question a compelling case,” Sekulow said.
Trump’s conviction has always been unlikely because it would require a two-thirds vote in a chamber with 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats. But Democrats had hoped to win support from at least four Republicans joining them in a 51-vote majority to subpoena witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Votes on witnesses are expected after the Trump team’s presentation and then up to 16 hours of written questions posed by senators to both sides. But no Republicans stepped forward to support subpoenas after the arguments from the seven House prosecutors, who are called managers.
“I’m not going to be requesting any additional witnesses, especially when they say the evidence is overwhelming and the facts are undisputed,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “In the world I've grew up in, that means there's no need for additional witnesses.”
Rather than take more time in the trial to call witnesses, Republicans turned their attention to acquitting Trump and moving on.
“I personally am in favor of a motion to acquit or convict," said Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind. "I think the former is what’s going to happen because the case has not been made."
– Bart Jansen
GOP senators slam Schiff speech
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., made an impassioned plea to Republicans to put country over party and to think about their own values rather than politics, but some of his points drew mixed reactions from the senators.
When Schiff referenced a CBS report that a Trump confidante had told senators not vote against him or "your head would be on a pike," Republican senators audibly voiced their disapproval, one of the first times in the trial.
"That's not true," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, could be heard saying, along with several other senators.
She shook her head in disapproval.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., laughed at the remark, pulled out his fidget spinner, and started twirling it.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., denied that Republicans had been told by Trump that their heads would be on a pike.
“That is completely, totally false,” Lankford said. “All of us were shaking our heads.”
Lankford said it was an example of Schiff weaving facts and fiction together for his narrative of the case.
“To cap it off that all these Republicans live in fear of the president, that their head will be on a pike,” Lankford said. “Not true.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told reporters that Schiff "lost me there" when he brought up the pike comment, according to National Public Radio. But she said she did not mean that Schiff had lost her vote on whether to call witnesses or on the verdict. She said she is waiting to hear Trump's defense team before making her decisions.
Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, said Schiff “could have used a different metaphor.” He said all his friends and colleagues across the aisle said it was not true, so “I believe them."
– Nicholas Wu and Bart Jansen
Schiff expects to be attacked by defense team
When President Trump’s team takes the floor, Rep. Adam Schiff expects the defense to go after Schiff’s dramatic representation of Trump’s July phone call that he gave during a House hearing on the whistleblower complaint.
In Schiff’s closing remarks Friday, he said the defense team will likely attack the impeachment managers as terrible people, “especially that Schiff guy” who “mocked the president.”
Schiff said he learned something significant by distilling Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into what he called “the essence of what the president communicates.”
“For a man who loves to mock others, he does not like to be mocked,” Schiff said. “Turns out he has a pretty thin skin. Who would have thought it?”
After Schiff’s rendition at that September hearing, Trump suggested that Schiff should be arrested for “treason” and charged with “lying to Congress.”
Schiff told senators that when they hear attacks on him and other managers, they should ask themselves “from what do they want to distract my attention?”
What they don’t want you to do, Schiff said, is to “consider the president’s misconduct.”
- Maureen Groppe
Thune: 'neither side wants any kind of closed session'
During a break in trial proceedings, Republican senators suggested closed sessions would be kept to a minimum next week.
The resolution setting up rules for the trial allowed for senators to deliberate behind closed doors.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the number-two Republican, told reporters, “neither side wants any kind of closed session.”
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he hoped there would be no closed sessions.
“Going into closed session sort of invites suspicion and skepticism,” Cornyn said. “I think one of the advantages of this process compared to what the House did is, everything's transparent and the American people can see everything.”
- Nicholas Wu
Lofgren: Nixon allowed witnesses to testify, unlike Trump
How much has President Trump stonewalled Congress? None of the other presidents who faced impeachment took the “extreme step” of stopping witnesses, argued California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, one of the House impeachment managers.
Even President Richard Nixon let his senior staff testify, she said. She displayed a quote from Nixon saying all members of the White House staff would appear voluntarily, when requested, and will “answer fully” all proper questions.
Trump, by contrast, called the impeachment inquiry invalid and directed executive branch employees to defy subpoenas, she said.
“No president ever used the official power of his office to prevent witnesses from giving testimony to Congress in such a blanked and indiscriminate manner,” Lofgren said. “There is no telling how many government officials would have come forward if the president hadn’t issued this order.”
For example, Lofgren said, Trump stopped the testimony of officials in the budget office who were at the center of the president’s efforts to block congressionally approved aid to Ukraine.
“If the Senate is prepared to accept that,” Lofgren said, “it will mean that not only President Trump, but all presidents after him will have veto power over Congress’ ability to conduct oversight.”
- Maureen Groppe
After interview, Pompeo cursed at NPR reporter, yelled
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo used the "F-word" and other expletives after a testy interview with a National Public Radio host on Friday, the news outlet said Friday.
Pompeo unloaded on NPR's Mary Louise Kelly after an interview in which she questioned him on Ukraine, Iran, and a host of other hot-button issues. He grew extremely irritated by Kelly's Ukraine questions, according to NPR.
"'Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?'" Pompeo apparently shouted at Kelly after the interview.
Pompeo is scheduled to travel to Ukraine next week for a meeting with that country's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, a central figure in the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. Ukraine is a pivotal U.S. ally in the effort to counter Russian aggression.
The State Department said Pompeo is going to Kyiv to "highlight U.S. support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity." The Eastern European country is at war with Russia.
In an account released with the interview transcript, Kelly said she was taken to the secretary of State's private living room after the interview, where Pompeo was waiting for her. "He shouted at me for about same amount of time as the interview itself. He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine," Kelly said.
She said he used the F-word and "many others" when he asking her if Americans cared about Ukraine. He then asked her if she could find Ukraine on a map.
"I said yes, and he called out for aides to bring us a map of the world with no writing. I pointed to Ukraine," she recounted.
Then he said: "'People will hear about this.'"
- Deirdre Shesgreen
You say FOIA, I say...lawyer?
Texas Democrat Sylvia Garcia, one of the House Impeachment managers, made a point Friday of enunciating each letter of the acronym FOIA, which stands for the "Freedom of Information Act," instead of the much shorter and commonly used "FOIA" (pronounced foy-ya).
She used the acronym in her presentation about attempts to obtain documents from the White House and other federal agencies related to Trump's impeachment investigation.
It may have been to prevent any confusion with the phrase “lawyer lawsuits,” which became a thing on Tuesday after a rant by White House lawyer Jay Sekulow.
"And by the way — lawyer lawsuits?" Sekulow said during Tuesday’s 11-hour debate about trial rules and procedures.
"Lawyer lawsuits? We're talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, duly elected, and the members — the managers are complaining about lawyer lawsuits? The Constitution allows lawyer lawsuits. It's disrespecting the Constitution of the United States to even say that in this chamber — lawyer lawsuits."
His comments, which drew blank stares, arched eyebrows and quizzical looks, came in response to a presentation by impeachment manager Val Demings, D-Fla., who mentioned “lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act, a.k.a. FOIA lawsuits.”
In his rebuttal to Sekulow, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), said he had no clue whatsoever about what Sekulow meant.
While some observers posited that Sekulow had confused “FOIA lawsuits” with “lawyer lawsuits,” White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland told reporters that Sekulow did not make a mistake.
- John D’Anna
Trump recording reignites debate on witnesses
The recording of President Donald Trump appearing to want to get rid of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, reignited the Senate debate Friday about whether to subpoena witnesses or documents in Trump’s impeachment trial.
House Democrats have argued that Trump removed Yovanovitch, who was heavily criticized by the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to clear the way for Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. The recording published Friday by ABC News was of Trump with Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Giuliani.
“I want to ask about the recording that has been released today because President Trump has said that he didn’t know Parnas and obviously he’s in a conversation with him about taking out one of his ambassadors,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “We obviously have a right to that information. Hopefully we will have access to it.”
The recording: Recording shows Trump called for firing of former Ukraine ambassador, report says
Gillibrand said two witnesses she wanted most to hear from are former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Other officials have said Bolton opposed the pressure for Ukraine investigations and Mulvaney said such pressure is routine in diplomacy.
“I would like to hear directly from him when he understood that, under what context and how many conversations he had with President Trump about it,” Gillibrand said. “I do think we’re getting closer to witnesses.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Friday it was more likely that witnesses would be called. “Yes,” she said.
Republicans such as Sen Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have said more witnesses aren’t necessary. The Senate rejected subpoenas for Bolton and Mulvaney on party-line votes of 53-47, although more votes could called after opening arguments from House Democrats and Trump’s legal term.
- Bart Jansen
Schiff to senators: 'The next time, it just may be you’
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead manager in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, tried to get senators to put themselves in the shoes of Joe Biden and Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
How would they feel if the most powerful person in the world were asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation into them? How would they react if, like Yovanovitch, they had devoted their life to public service, served in dangerous places around the world, only to be hounded out of their post? Schiff asked while speaking on the Senate floor Friday.
“Because I will tell you something,” Schiff said. “The next time, it just may be you.”
No matter how close a senator may be to Trump now, he prodded them, do they have any doubt that Trump would investigate them if he felt it was in his interest?
“If somewhere, deep down below, you realize that he would, you cannot leave a man like that in office,” he said. “It shouldn’t matter it was Joe Biden. It could be any of us. It may be any of us.”
- Maureen Groppe
Schiff: Trump's policy is 'Trump first, not America first'
The lead House impeachment manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., summarized the accusation that President Donald Trump abused the power of his office by arguing that withholding military aid from Ukraine hurt an ally, emboldened an adversary in Russia and undermined efforts to fight corruption abroad.
“This is Trump first, not America first,” Schiff said.
“The Constitution does not permit it because that conduct is the quintessential abuse of power,” Schiff added. “The use of official power for personal gain, putting personal interest over the national interest and putting personal benefits over our nation’s security.”
Schiff said Americans might not understand why Ukraine, a small country, is important to the U.S. But he argued that Ukraine is hungry for reform after emerging from the former Soviet Union, which collapsed in what Russian President Vladimir Putin called the greatest catastrophe of the 20th Century.
Trump’s willingness to pursue a political investigation of his rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, rather than the U.S. interest in helping an ally maintain its independence from Russia justifies removing the president from office, Schiff argued.
“If someone sacrifices the national interest in favor of his own, and is not removed from office, our democracy is in jeopardy. It’s just that simple,” Schiff said. “The grave consequences of President Trump’s misconduct demand our attention.”
- Bart Jansen
Schiff plays John McCain interview on Ukraine
Explaining the importance of Ukraine to national security interests, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., brought in an interesting voice.
Schiff played a clip of a television interview with the late Sen. John McCain, whom he called a war hero and statesman “who is no stranger to this body.”
McCain, Schiff said, recognized the threat posed when Russia took over parts of Ukrainian Crimea.
“We are all Ukrainians,” McCain said at the time.
In the TV clip Schiff showed, McCain said that it would make Russia very nervous if Ukraine is able to thrive.
Showcasing McCain may have been an attempt to appeal to Republicans who were close to him.
One of those Republicans, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, has been one of Trump’s most vocal defenders.
During the video of McCain, Graham seemed to show some emotion. He looked down at his desk and up at the video, before looking up towards the ceiling and blinking several times.
Republican senators were mostly stone-faced during the video. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told reporters the video strengthened a Democratic point that Republicans didn't need.
“I don’t think they need to convince us that Ukraine is really important,” Cramer said. “I think it’s all to play for TV."
Sen. Any Klobuchar, D-Minn., also a Democratic presidential candidate, said the video had a “strong” message for her colleagues.
“I kept thinking if John McCain was in the chamber today, or if he had heard the aid had been withdrawn, it might have been a different story,” she told reporters.
- Maureen Groppe and Nicholas Wu
Jeffries asks: 'Who ordered the cover-up?'
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., raised the specter that someone directed the National Security Council’s top lawyer to put a transcript of President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on a secure server.
Did anyone senior to attorney John Eisenberg direct him to hide it? Why did it remain on the server even after this so-called error was discovered? Jeffries asked rhetorically.
“Who ordered the cover-up of the call record?” he asked senators. “The American people deserve to know.”
Jeffries, who is helping make the House manager’s argument that Trump obstructed Congress, said there are many outstanding questions because Eisenberg refused to testify. Other officials testified that Eisenberg ordered that access to the transcript be restricted after he was told what it contained, Jeffries said.
That strongly suggests, Jeffries continued, that senior officials attempted to conceal, rather than address, Trump’s misconduct. The cover-up continued, he said, after a whistleblower filed a complaint about the call. That prompted a two-part strategy to block Congress and the public from learning about the call while trying to convince Trump to lift his hold on military assistance to Ukraine before anyone could find out what was happening, Jeffries argued.
After Eisenberg and White House counsel Pat Cipollone reportedly briefed Trump on the whisteblower’s complaint, Jeffries said, the White House’s Office of Legal Council issued a secret opinion concluding that the complaint did not have to be shared with Congress.
- Maureen Groppe
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
Democrats stress importance of delaying aid to Ukraine
Democratic House impeachment manager Jason Crow, D-Colo. said President Donald Trump’s defenders might argue that the suspension in $391 million in military aid 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.”
- Bart Jansen
Final day of Democrat's opening arguments begins
House Democrats prosecuting the Senate impeachment trial against President Donald Trump resumed their arguments Friday.
On the final day of impeachment managers' opening arguments, they'll focus on the charge of obstruction of Congress, and how rejecting witnesses in the trial would further obstruct Congress.
The lead manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said if Trump or his legal team claimed executive privilege to block testimony from witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, that would add to the obstruction.
The Senate rejected proposals to subpoena witnesses before the opening arguments on party-line votes of 53 to 47. The rules from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., call for more votes on witnesses after the opening arguments from the House and White House lawyers are over, and after up to 16 hours of questions from senators.
Fact-check: Fact-checking the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump
Schiff urged senators not to reject witnesses at that point.
Trump and some congressional Republicans have said he could block testimony from top aides such as Bolton and Mulvaney under executive privilege, to protect confidential advice for future presidents. But Schiff said executive privilege can’t be used to hide misconduct.
The House managers are expected to finish their argument about abuse of power by early afternoon and then conclude their opening argument on its third day with a discussion of obstruction of Congress, Schiff said.
- Bart Jansen
Trump team to begin defense Saturday at 10 a.m. EST
Right before the House managers began their final day of arguments, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced that the president’s team would begin its defense at 10 a.m. EST on Saturday and the session will run “for several hours.”
Like the House managers, the defense team has up to 24 hours spread over three days to make their case.
Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s private lawyers, later told reporters his team will stop around 1 p.m. EST Saturday, at the request of senators, and resume Monday.
“The Senate asked for an accommodation,” he said. “We were prepared to go as long as they wanted us to go tomorrow.”
Sekulow said he hasn’t determined how much overall time they’ll need.
“Trust me,” he added. “There’ll be plenty to cover.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, one of eight House lawmakers who are part of Trump's defense team, told reporters Friday that the team is “very confident” because all of the facts are on the president’s side.
“I think this case is open and shut for the president,” Jordan said.
--Maureen Groppe
The witness question: Senators worry that asking for new impeachment trial witnesses could create lengthy executive privilege debate
Graham: ‘I admire Joe Biden’ but …
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had some kind words for former Vice President Joe Biden. Sort of.
The staunch Trump ally questioned his former Senate colleague’s judgment for allowing his son, Hunter, to join the board of Burisma Holdings in 2014 as the Ukraine gas company was under investigation because of its oligarch owner.
“As much as I like Joe Biden — and I do respect him and I do admire him. I’ve traveled the world with him," Graham began.
"I think it’s bad foreign policy, if you’re going to be in charge of dealing with corruption in Ukraine, that your son hook up with the most corrupt company in the Ukraine and turn Ukraine into an ATM machine,” Graham said during a Friday morning news conference on Capitol Hill.
Biden has often cited his role in rooting out corruption in Ukraine during the Obama administration.
When you put your family member in that situation, it’s not good folks,” Graham continued. “The vice president said he didn’t know anything about it. That questions how hard he was looking.”
One of the impeachment managers, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, spent her presentation Thursday trying to poke holes in that Republican argument.
She argued that Trump urged Ukraine to investigate a debunked theory that Biden was protecting his son from an anti-corruption effort because Biden was leading polls as the Democratic challenger to 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.”
- Ledyard King
Alexander says he'll wait to decide on witnesses, documents
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a potential Republican swing vote on subpoenaing witnesses and documents, said Friday that he'll wait to decide on whether additional evidence should be compelled until after the first stage of the trial.
Speaking after a briefing with health officials on the coronavirus outbreak, Alexander said that once the initial presentations from both sides are over, his question would be “do we need more evidence? Do we need to hear witnesses? Do we need more documents? And I think that question can only be answered then.”
“As the house managers have said many times, they presented us with a mountain of overwhelming evidence so we have a lot to consider,” he said.
Republicans control the Senate by a 53-47 majority, meaning at least four Republicans would have to join all Democrats to vote to call more witnesses and documents in the trial.
Alexander is one of a handful of GOP senators that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer presumably was appealing to Friday when he made a pitch to allow more witnesses and documents.
“We’re seeking the truth at a momentous time in the American republic,” Schumer said. “It is on the shoulders of four Republican senators to join us in demanding it. We’ve made the argument forcefully. The American people have made the argument forcefully that they want to truth. Will four Republican senators, just four, rise to the occasion, do their duty to the constitution, to their country to seek the truth?”
Schumer did not name names, but the Republican senators seen as potentially open to more witnesses and documents include Alexander, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah.
– Nicholas Wu and Ledyard King
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
Trump not happy with Saturday TV slot for his team's opening arguments
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's beef with the impeachment schedule? His lawyers must start presenting his case on a Saturday – a bad day for television ratings.
In one of a series of Friday morning tweets slamming the Senate impeachment trial, Trump took aim not only at Rep. Adam Schiff, D-CA, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, but the timing of his side's arguments.
"After having been treated unbelievably unfairly in the House, and then having to endure hour after hour of lies, fraud & deception by Shifty Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer & their crew, looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V.," Trump said in an early morning round of tweets Friday.
After having been treated unbelievably unfairly in the House, and then having to endure hour after hour of lies, fraud & deception by Shifty Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer & their crew, looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2020
The former star of The Apprentice is no novice when it comes to understanding television ratings.
– David Jackson
'Truth matters': Schiff sets up Friday arguments
"Right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost."
With those words, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff Thursday night tried to drive home the abuse of power charge the House filed against President Donald Trump that's at the center of the Senate impeachment trial. The trial resumes Friday at 1 p.m. with the California Democrat and other House managers laying out their case for the second impeachment article: obstruction of Congress.
Unbiased jury: Can senators who have already voiced opinions do 'impartial justice' at Trump impeachment trial?
Closing words: What was the Senate chamber like while Rep. Adam Schiff made his final Thursday speech?
In his closing speech Thursday, Schiff drew from U.S. Army Col. Alexander Vindman’s gripping testimony that he delivered to the House in November. In that hearing Vindman, a National Security Council official expressed deep concerns about the president's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, including Joe Biden.
“If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the constitution is,” Schiff told the rapt chamber. "The framers could not protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter. And you know what (Trump) did was not right."
Friday's argument: Trump obstructed Congress
House Democrats will focus on the accusation that President Donald Trump obstructed Congress when they resume and complete their opening argument Friday in the Senate trial.
The seven prosecutors, who are called managers, spent Wednesday outlining the two articles against Trump and detailing the evidence they gathered for the accusations of abuse of power and obstruction. They spent Thursday outlining the legal and constitutional reasons that they said the evidence justified the charge of abuse of power.
Impeachment player: The middleman: How Lev Parnas joined Team Trump and became Rudy Giuliani's fixer in Ukraine
On Friday, the managers will explain how the law and Constitution apply to the evidence for obstruction. Schiff, the lead manager, said Thursday that the arguments condensed hundreds of hours of depositions and testimony, but that there might be repetition in the presentations as more context is provided.
“We will now show you these facts and many others and how they are interwoven,” Schiff said. “You will see some of these facts and videos therefore in a new context, in a new light, in the light of what else we know and why it compels a finding of guilt and conviction. So there is some method to our madness.”
The third session of up to eight hours will complete the opening argument from House Democrats. Trump’s legal team is expected to begin Saturday up to 24 hours of opening argument spanning three sessions.
“We’re going to respond of course to what the House managers have put forward,” Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s private lawyers, told reporters Wednesday. “And we’re going to make an affirmative case defending the president.”
Republican senators eager to hear from Trump’s defense team.
“There’s all kinds of allegations that have been thrown up in the air and so they'll have a chance to lay out their timeline, their version of events,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.
In focusing on abuse of power Thursday, another manager, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said Trump could have been impeached just for asking Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. But Nadler said Trump went further, withholding $391 million in vital military aid and a White House meeting.
"Since President George Washington took office in 1789, no president has abused his power in this way," Nadler said. "No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections."
Nadler said the accusation of obstruction stems from Trump directing his administration to defy all subpoenas for testimony and documents during the investigation.
“The articles are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House, notwithstanding the president’s complete stonewalling, his attempt to block all witnesses and all documents from the United States Congress,” Nadler said. “It puts even President Nixon to shame.”
Contributing: David Jackson


usatoday--2020-01-24--Senators worry that asking for new impeachment trial witnesses could create lengthy executive privil

Lawmakers in the Senate impeachment trial expressed concern Thursday that requesting witnesses not previously heard during the House impeachment inquiry could lead to lengthy litigation over executive privilege .
Senate Democrats have argued they need testimony from witnesses and additional documents that were not provided during the impeachment inquiry because of the Trump administration 's failure to comply with congressional issued subpoenas .
They highlight former national security adviser John Bolton and White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney as witnesses whose testimony could be `` illuminating '' because of their firsthand knowledge of events described in the allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note to Chief Justice Roberts prior to his admonishing of Senators Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , said calling for any additional witnesses or documents would “ substantially prolong ” the Senate impeachment trial due to the almost-certain lawsuits that would be filed .
“ If the Senate votes to subpoena additional witnesses that means that this impeachment trial will be delayed weeks , if not months because the litigation that will ensue could easily take months or longer , ” he said .
He pointed out that it ’ s an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate can simply decide whether or not executive privilege is warranted .
President Donald Trump has said he would consider asserting executive privilege if his former national security adviser John Bolton were subpoenaed to testify before the Senate .
Sen. Mike Braun , R-Ind.
, said there were constitutional experts “ divided ” on the question of executive privilege , and the fight over witnesses could be even “ accentuated ” from existing debates .
Sen. Mike Rounds , R-S.D.
, said he was unsure if “ you would ever be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any way , shape or form.
” Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , the second-highest-ranking Senate Democrat , told USA TODAY the Trump administration was “ doing everything in their power to stop the evidence , witnesses , and truth.
” “ That ’ s their strategy , and I think they ’ ll play it to the end , ” he continued .
Durbin noted the reason the House moved impeachment forward because the battles over witnesses were mired in the courts .
“ They realized they were slow-walking through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nothing will happen for months ”

Nicholas Wu, Christal Hayes and Savannah Behrmann, USA TODAY

Senators worry that asking for new impeachment trial witnesses could create lengthy executive privilege debate
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
Lawmakers in the Senate impeachment trial expressed concern Thursday that requesting witnesses not previously heard during the House impeachment inquiry could lead to lengthy litigation over executive privilege.
Senate Democrats have argued they need testimony from witnesses and additional documents that were not provided during the impeachment inquiry because of the Trump administration's failure to comply with congressional issued subpoenas.
They highlight former national security adviser John Bolton and White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney as witnesses whose testimony could be "illuminating" because of their firsthand knowledge of events described in the allegations against Trump.
More: Collins wrote note to Chief Justice Roberts prior to his admonishing of Senators
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said calling for any additional witnesses or documents would “substantially prolong” the Senate impeachment trial due to the almost-certain lawsuits that would be filed.
“If the Senate votes to subpoena additional witnesses that means that this impeachment trial will be delayed weeks, if not months because the litigation that will ensue could easily take months or longer,” he said.
He pointed out that it’s an “open legal question” as to whether the Senate can simply decide whether or not executive privilege is warranted.
More: Democrats use Lindsey Graham's Clinton impeachment speech in Trump Senate trial
President Donald Trump has said he would consider asserting executive privilege if his former national security adviser John Bolton were subpoenaed to testify before the Senate.
Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., said there were constitutional experts “divided” on the question of executive privilege, and the fight over witnesses could be even “accentuated” from existing debates.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he was unsure if “you would ever be able to break that (executive privilege) in any way, shape or form.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the second-highest-ranking Senate Democrat, told USA TODAY the Trump administration was “doing everything in their power to stop the evidence, witnesses, and truth.”
“That’s their strategy, and I think they’ll play it to the end,” he continued.
Durbin noted the reason the House moved impeachment forward because the battles over witnesses were mired in the courts.
“They realized they were slow-walking through the courts,” Durbin said. “Nothing will happen for months”
Want to talk more about politics?: Join our Facebook group: ‘Across the Aisle, Across the Nation.’