talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--Schiff Opens Impeachment Case Alleging Broad Pattern Of Trump Soliciting Foreign Help

President Trump ’ s decision to strong-arm Ukraine into becoming a domestic political ally for the 2020 election is merely the latest example of a pattern of soliciting foreign help , Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) argued in his opening statement in the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday .
Schiff ’ s argument ties Trump ’ s alleged misconduct around soliciting foreign help in the 2020 election to 2016 and the resulting investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference .
The argument transforms allegations that Trump pressured Kyiv for dirt on Democratic candidate Joe Biden into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns the impeachment trial away from an effort to punish Trump for an isolated wrong and toward a push to remove him for repeated misdeeds .
To that end , Schiff played the infamous clip of then-candidate Trump asking Russia to “ hack ” Hillary Clinton ’ s email server during the 2016 election .
“ Russia , if you ’ re listening , I hope you ’ re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing , ” Trump said at the time .
“ I think you will probably be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after that , Schiff played footage of former National Security Council aide Fiona Hill ’ s testimony before the House impeachment inquiry , in which she said that Russia attacked American democracy by interfering in the 2016 election .
Schiff addressed this early on in his opening statement .
He said that the House decided to open an impeachment inquiry into Trump “ with the knowledge that this was not the first time the President solicited foreign interference into our elections.
” “ Candidate Trump implored [ Russia ] to hack opponents ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Something that the Russian military intelligence agency did only hours later.
” The Los Angeles Democrat linked Trump ’ s 2016 statement to an October 2019 pronouncement the President made on the White House lawn , in front of a small army of reporters , in which he called for China to investigate the Bidens .
“ The President has made it clear this was now going to be the last time , ” Schiff said .
Schiff also relied heavily on the nature of the allegations that Trump and his personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Schiff referenced a recent , allegedly Russian state-sponsored hack on Ukrainian energy company Burisma — the focus of one strain of allegations against the Biden pushed by Trump .
“ President Trump has made it abundantly clear that he would like nothing more than to make use of such dirt against Mr. Biden just as he made use of Secretary Clinton ’ s hacked and released emails in his previous presidential campaign , ” Schiff said .
Another such conspiracy theory — which Trump brought up to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focuses on Crowdstrike , a firm that the DNC hired to investigate the Russian cyber-intrusion .
Trump pushed Zelensky on the call to investigate what Schiff referred to as a “ fabrication , ” in order to “ remove what he perceived to be a cloud over his legitimacy , the legitimacy over his last election , Russia ’ s assistance with his campaign and suggest it was the Democratic Party that was the real beneficiary of help.
” Schiff went on to accuse Trump , by these examples , of using and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disposal to seek advantage in the next election ” and of having “ undermined our free and fair elections and compromised our national security.
” “ Maybe the President really is above the law because they say you can ’ t indict the President , ” Schiff added .
“ The attorney general ’ s position is that you can ’ t even investigate the President.
” The impeachment manager concluded with a question to the assembled Senators : “ Are we really ready to say that ?
That the only answer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over it ? '
”

President Trump’s decision to strong-arm Ukraine into becoming a domestic political ally for the 2020 election is merely the latest example of a pattern of soliciting foreign help, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) argued in his opening statement in the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday.
Schiff’s argument ties Trump’s alleged misconduct around soliciting foreign help in the 2020 election to 2016 and the resulting investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference.
The argument transforms allegations that Trump pressured Kyiv for dirt on Democratic candidate Joe Biden into a broad pattern of alleged misconduct, and turns the impeachment trial away from an effort to punish Trump for an isolated wrong and toward a push to remove him for repeated misdeeds.
To that end, Schiff played the infamous clip of then-candidate Trump asking Russia to “hack” Hillary Clinton’s email server during the 2016 election.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said at the time. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Immediately after that, Schiff played footage of former National Security Council aide Fiona Hill’s testimony before the House impeachment inquiry, in which she said that Russia attacked American democracy by interfering in the 2016 election.
Schiff addressed this early on in his opening statement. He said that the House decided to open an impeachment inquiry into Trump “with the knowledge that this was not the first time the President solicited foreign interference into our elections.”
“Candidate Trump implored [Russia] to hack opponents’ email accounts,” Schiff said. “Something that the Russian military intelligence agency did only hours later.”
The Los Angeles Democrat linked Trump’s 2016 statement to an October 2019 pronouncement the President made on the White House lawn, in front of a small army of reporters, in which he called for China to investigate the Bidens.
“The President has made it clear this was now going to be the last time,” Schiff said.
Schiff also relied heavily on the nature of the allegations that Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed Ukraine to investigate.
Schiff referenced a recent, allegedly Russian state-sponsored hack on Ukrainian energy company Burisma — the focus of one strain of allegations against the Biden pushed by Trump.
“President Trump has made it abundantly clear that he would like nothing more than to make use of such dirt against Mr. Biden just as he made use of Secretary Clinton’s hacked and released emails in his previous presidential campaign,” Schiff said.
Another such conspiracy theory — which Trump brought up to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in their infamous July 25 phone call — focuses on Crowdstrike, a firm that the DNC hired to investigate the Russian cyber-intrusion.
Trump pushed Zelensky on the call to investigate what Schiff referred to as a “fabrication,” in order to “remove what he perceived to be a cloud over his legitimacy, the legitimacy over his last election, Russia’s assistance with his campaign and suggest it was the Democratic Party that was the real beneficiary of help.”
Schiff went on to accuse Trump, by these examples, of using and abusing “the vast powers at his disposal to seek advantage in the next election” and of having “undermined our free and fair elections and compromised our national security.”
“Maybe the President really is above the law because they say you can’t indict the President,” Schiff added. “The attorney general’s position is that you can’t even investigate the President.”
The impeachment manager concluded with a question to the assembled Senators: “Are we really ready to say that? That the only answer to presidential misconduct is to, ‘get over it?'”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--Flynn’s Lawyers Say He Shouldn’t Serve Any Time, Accuse DOJ Of ‘Vindictiveness’

Accusing federal prosecutors of “ retaliation and vindictiveness , ” former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn ’ s lawyers argued in a new sentencing memo Wednesday that he should serve no prison time for allegedly making false statements to the FBI .
Flynn is scheduled for sentencing next month , after riding a multi-year roller coaster since pleading guilty in Dec. 2017 to lying to the FBI .
He was originally supposed to be sentenced in Dec. 2018 , but delayed that sentencing date when a judge angrily pushed back on his attempts to play down his guilt in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his relationship with prosecutors — who originally did not seek prison time for Flynn due to his “ substantial ” cooperation — has grown hostile .
Flynn ’ s accusations against the government in the Wednesday court filing center around a dispute over testimony he was expected to provide in the summer 2019 trial of Bijan Rafiekian , a Flynn associate involved in Flynn ’ s Turkey lobbying .
Flynn has claimed that prosecutors pressured him to lie on the stand about his awareness that his registration forms for the lobbying work omitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn fired the team of lawyers who negotiated his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller and replaced them with a prominent Mueller critic .
Prosecutors ultimately bailed on their plans to have him testify , and in an amended sentencing memo filed earlier this month , took a harsher tone than in their 2018 sentencing memo .
Flynn responded by withdrawing his plea in a scathing court filing that reiterated accusations of prosecutorial misconduct that he had made after hiring the new attorneys .
In the filing on Wednesday , Flynn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trying to “ punish Mr. Flynn for pushing back against requests to give false evidence.
” He said the court should “ applaud Mr. Flynn ’ s courage to stand firm against attempted coercion.
” “ If other cooperators know that they will be rewarded for testifying truthfully , not testifying to please prosecutors , the search for justice will be enhanced .
Conversely , attempts by prosecutors to use their extraordinary leverage in an attempt to change the facts to meet their theory , rather than the truth , should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has so far rejected the conspiracy theories Flynn has pushed about prosecutors , which are related to the Russia probe as well as the prosecution of his business partner ’ s Turkey lobbying .

Accusing federal prosecutors of “retaliation and vindictiveness,” former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s lawyers argued in a new sentencing memo Wednesday that he should serve no prison time for allegedly making false statements to the FBI.
Flynn is scheduled for sentencing next month, after riding a multi-year roller coaster since pleading guilty in Dec. 2017 to lying to the FBI. He was originally supposed to be sentenced in Dec. 2018, but delayed that sentencing date when a judge angrily pushed back on his attempts to play down his guilt in his 2018 sentencing memo.
Since then, his relationship with prosecutors — who originally did not seek prison time for Flynn due to his “substantial” cooperation — has grown hostile.
Flynn’s accusations against the government in the Wednesday court filing center around a dispute over testimony he was expected to provide in the summer 2019 trial of Bijan Rafiekian, a Flynn associate involved in Flynn’s Turkey lobbying.
Flynn has claimed that prosecutors pressured him to lie on the stand about his awareness that his registration forms for the lobbying work omitted key facts. The dispute arose after Flynn fired the team of lawyers who negotiated his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller and replaced them with a prominent Mueller critic. Prosecutors ultimately bailed on their plans to have him testify, and in an amended sentencing memo filed earlier this month, took a harsher tone than in their 2018 sentencing memo.
Flynn responded by withdrawing his plea in a scathing court filing that reiterated accusations of prosecutorial misconduct that he had made after hiring the new attorneys.
In the filing on Wednesday, Flynn’s lawyer Jesse Binnall accused the government of trying to “punish Mr. Flynn for pushing back against requests to give false evidence.”
He said the court should “applaud Mr. Flynn’s courage to stand firm against attempted coercion.”
“If other cooperators know that they will be rewarded for testifying truthfully, not testifying to please prosecutors, the search for justice will be enhanced. Conversely, attempts by prosecutors to use their extraordinary leverage in an attempt to change the facts to meet their theory, rather than the truth, should be overtly chastised,” Flynn said.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has so far rejected the conspiracy theories Flynn has pushed about prosecutors, which are related to the Russia probe as well as the prosecution of his business partner’s Turkey lobbying.
Read the filing below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--Feds And Parnas Feud Over Why It Was So Hard To Unlock His iPhone

FBI agents had to hack into Lev Parnas ’ s iPhone , prosecutors alleged in a late Tuesday letter , after the Giuliani associate refused to provide them with a password .
Manhattan federal prosecutors made the accusation after Parnas attorney Joe Bondy claimed on Monday that the government was purposefully withholding evidence in a bid to prevent the South Florida businessman from complying with a subpoena in the House ’ s impeachment inquiry .
“ The two largest sources of delay with respect to the Government ’ s ability to produce the contents of Parnas ’ s devices to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( without objection from the Government ) to HPSCI on January 12 , 2020—are directly attributable to Parnas himself , ” Manhattan federal prosecutors wrote .
The government added that it gave Parnas his phone on New Year ’ s Eve , but “ Parnas ’ s counsel was unable to figure out how to open the device extraction on his own computer.
” The government added that it provided “ a paralegal and technical expert—during the holidays—to sit with Parnas ’ s counsel to troubleshoot his technical issues.
” It was then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the phone to House panels investigating the President , generating a firestorm of press coverage days before Trump ’ s impeachment trial was set to begin .
Bondy denied the allegations that he was the source of the delay in a subsequent letter filed in court .
He said that prosecutors could have provided the iPhone contents as early as Dec. 3 , when the information was first extracted , as well as other paper records .
Bondy did not respond in the letter to a separate accusation from prosecutors that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which to receive the data , but did call the footnote in which the accusations were conveyed “ self-serving.
” “ Unfortunately , the Government ’ s complaint about the timing of the production of a 1TB hard drive is appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge , as was the tactic of causing our request to be delayed until after it had made its filing , ” the letter reads .
Parnas alleged in part across multiple media appearances that Attorney General Bill Barr was “ in the loop ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Firtash exonerated in exchange for the post-Soviet gas billionaire generating useful to President Trump .
Bondy alleged in the Monday letter that Barr ’ s supposed role in the as-of-yet unfulfilled scheme demanded his recusal from Parnas ’ s case .
“ In addition to harmful perceptions , this conflict of interest appears to have caused actual harm to Mr. Parnas who , given delays in the production of discovery in this federal case , was rendered unable to comply with a duly-issued congressional subpoena in time for congressional investigators to make complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Parnas as a potential witness , ” Bondy wrote .
Prosecutors wrote that they expect to deliver all evidence in the case to defendants by mid-March .

FBI agents had to hack into Lev Parnas’s iPhone, prosecutors alleged in a late Tuesday letter, after the Giuliani associate refused to provide them with a password.
Manhattan federal prosecutors made the accusation after Parnas attorney Joe Bondy claimed on Monday that the government was purposefully withholding evidence in a bid to prevent the South Florida businessman from complying with a subpoena in the House’s impeachment inquiry.
“The two largest sources of delay with respect to the Government’s ability to produce the contents of Parnas’s devices to him—including an iPhone 11 that he produced (without objection from the Government) to HPSCI on January 12, 2020—are directly attributable to Parnas himself,” Manhattan federal prosecutors wrote.
The government added that it gave Parnas his phone on New Year’s Eve, but “Parnas’s counsel was unable to figure out how to open the device extraction on his own computer.”
The government added that it provided “a paralegal and technical expert—during the holidays—to sit with Parnas’s counsel to troubleshoot his technical issues.”
It was then supposedly that Bondy began to transfer information from the phone to House panels investigating the President, generating a firestorm of press coverage days before Trump’s impeachment trial was set to begin.
Bondy denied the allegations that he was the source of the delay in a subsequent letter filed in court. He said that prosecutors could have provided the iPhone contents as early as Dec. 3, when the information was first extracted, as well as other paper records. Bondy did not respond in the letter to a separate accusation from prosecutors that he had failed to provide a medium in which to receive the data, but did call the footnote in which the accusations were conveyed “self-serving.”
“Unfortunately, the Government’s complaint about the timing of the production of a 1TB hard drive is appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge, as was the tactic of causing our request to be delayed until after it had made its filing,” the letter reads.
Parnas alleged in part across multiple media appearances that Attorney General Bill Barr was “in the loop” on a plot to have Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash exonerated in exchange for the post-Soviet gas billionaire generating useful to President Trump.
Bondy alleged in the Monday letter that Barr’s supposed role in the as-of-yet unfulfilled scheme demanded his recusal from Parnas’s case.
“In addition to harmful perceptions, this conflict of interest appears to have caused actual harm to Mr. Parnas who, given delays in the production of discovery in this federal case, was rendered unable to comply with a duly-issued congressional subpoena in time for congressional investigators to make complete use of his materials or properly assess Mr. Parnas as a potential witness,” Bondy wrote.
Prosecutors wrote that they expect to deliver all evidence in the case to defendants by mid-March.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--UN Experts: Bezos’ Phone Likely Hacked After MBS Sent Him A Message

Two independent experts told the UN that Amazon CEO and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos ’ phone was likely hacked in 2018 after an account owned by Saudi Arabia crown prince Mohammed bin Salman sent him a WhatsApp message .
Agnes Callamard , UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions and extrajudicial killings , and David Kaye , UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression , said that the timing suggests an attempt from the crown prince to get some control over the Washington Post ’ s reporting .
Bezos and bin Salman exchanged WhatsApp numbers about a month before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bin Salman sent Bezos a message , there was a massive spike of data being removed from Bezos ’ phone .
The experts suspect that malware was embedded in the message .
Jamal Khashoggi , the columnist for the Washington Post who was murdered by Saudi Arabian agents in October 2018 , saw his phone hacked right around the same time that Bezos ’ was .
After Khashoggi ’ s murder , the Washington Post aggressively reported on the circumstances surrounding it and the involvement of Bin Salman .
Accordingly , the crown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private life not available from public sources .
At the same time , Bezos was being aggressively maligned in a Saudi social media campaign .
In January 2019 , the National Enquirer exposed Bezos ’ extramarital affair with Lauren Sanchez , a former TV host , with their private text messages .
Bezos wrote a Medium post that February saying that he was investigating how the outlet obtained his texts and exposing exchanges with the Nation Enquirer where an editor blackmailed him with explicit photos traded between him and Sanchez .
The UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khashoggi ’ s murder as well as the “ growing role of the surveillance industry in permitting the unaccountable use of spyware to intimidate journalists , human rights defenders , and owners of media outlets .
”

Two independent experts told the UN that Amazon CEO and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos’ phone was likely hacked in 2018 after an account owned by Saudi Arabia crown prince Mohammed bin Salman sent him a WhatsApp message.
Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions and extrajudicial killings, and David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, said that the timing suggests an attempt from the crown prince to get some control over the Washington Post’s reporting.
Bezos and bin Salman exchanged WhatsApp numbers about a month before the alleged hack. In May, after bin Salman sent Bezos a message, there was a massive spike of data being removed from Bezos’ phone. The experts suspect that malware was embedded in the message.
Jamal Khashoggi, the columnist for the Washington Post who was murdered by Saudi Arabian agents in October 2018, saw his phone hacked right around the same time that Bezos’ was.
After Khashoggi’s murder, the Washington Post aggressively reported on the circumstances surrounding it and the involvement of Bin Salman. Accordingly, the crown prince started sending Bezos messages about his private life not available from public sources. At the same time, Bezos was being aggressively maligned in a Saudi social media campaign.
In January 2019, the National Enquirer exposed Bezos’ extramarital affair with Lauren Sanchez, a former TV host, with their private text messages. Bezos wrote a Medium post that February saying that he was investigating how the outlet obtained his texts and exposing exchanges with the Nation Enquirer where an editor blackmailed him with explicit photos traded between him and Sanchez.
The UN experts pledged to continue their investigations into Khashoggi’s murder as well as the “growing role of the surveillance industry in permitting the unaccountable use of spyware to intimidate journalists, human rights defenders, and owners of media outlets.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--Gabbard Sues Clinton, Her ‘Political Rival,’ For A Whopping $50 Million

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( D-HI ) sued Hillary Clinton for $ 50 million Wednesday , claiming that Clinton ’ s allusion to Gabbard as a “ Russian asset ” caused the Presidential hopeful “ anguish and damage to her reputation.
” The complaint , filed in the Southern District of New York , is peppered with insults , referring to Clinton as a “ cutthroat politician by any account , ” a candidate who “ lost in surprise upsets ” and someone known to hold “ long-time grudges.
” Gabbard , on the other hand , is painted as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a child , Tulsi ’ s parents would enlist her and her siblings in ‘ service days , ’ where the family would pick up litter from beaches or prepare food for homeless families , ” it notes .
The root of Gabbard ’ s complaint is a comment Clinton made on the podcast Campaign HQ With David Plouffe in October .
Clinton referred obliquely to somebody in the primary being “ groomed ” for a third-party run .
“ She ’ s the favorite of the Russians , ” Clinton said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
She ’ s a Russian asset , I mean , totally .
They know they can ’ t win without a third party candidate.
” Afterwards , Clinton ’ s spokesman Nick Merrill made a Pulitzer-worthy quip in response to a reporter asking if Gabbard was the candidate in question .
“ If the nesting doll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said multiple times that she does not plan to launch a third-party bid for the White House .
Gabbard seized on Clinton ’ s remark , immediately blasting out fundraising emails based on the quotes , pledging that “ rich and powerful ” in the party “ will not silence us.
” She also sent a flurry of tweets and did a live shot from a parking lot outside her Iowa rally to discuss Clinton on Fox News ’ “ Tucker Carlson Tonight ” while her supporters waited for over an hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of criticism for firing off the allegation without proof .
But the kerfuffle directed attention toward some of the more bizarre dynamics surrounding Gabbard ’ s bid .
Her campaign has been heavily featured in Russian outlets like RT since she announced .
A legion of bots boost her on social media , and users on sites like 4chan used to flood instant online polls just after the debates to proclaim Gabbard the winner ( she hasn ’ t qualified for the debate stage since November ) .
She ’ s never hesitated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether it be joining with Republicans to demand former President Barack Obama use the phrase “ radical Islam ” or scheduling a Trump Tower meeting with President-elect Donald Trump just after the 2016 election .
In early 2016 , she very publicly resigned her vice chairmanship at the DNC in early 2016 and endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) over Clinton , a move which she now says inflamed Clinton ’ s lingering animosity .
She has also refused time and time again to condemn Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for the crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting with him in person in 2017 .
She used her weird position on the issue to attack Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) during the October debate , demanding that the senator adopt her position on what she calls a “ regime-change war.
” During the same debate , she attacked hosts from CNN and the New York Times for calling her a “ Russian asset ” — neither did ; the outlets merely pointed out the resonance her candidacy was having in Russian propaganda circles .
Gabbard is essentially a non-factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to Real Clear Politics , she ’ s polling around 1 percent and has failed to qualify for multiple debates .
However , she has previously pledged that she will see her run all the way to the convention , even if she lacks the delegates to win .
And as she has now declined to run for her House seat again , she ’ ll have some time on her hands — plenty to bring her “ political rival ” Hillary Clinton to justice , once and for all .

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) sued Hillary Clinton for $50 million Wednesday, claiming that Clinton’s allusion to Gabbard as a “Russian asset” caused the Presidential hopeful “anguish and damage to her reputation.”
The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, is peppered with insults, referring to Clinton as a “cutthroat politician by any account,” a candidate who “lost in surprise upsets” and someone known to hold “long-time grudges.”
Gabbard, on the other hand, is painted as a beacon of service and selflessness. “As a child, Tulsi’s parents would enlist her and her siblings in ‘service days,’ where the family would pick up litter from beaches or prepare food for homeless families,” it notes.
The root of Gabbard’s complaint is a comment Clinton made on the podcast Campaign HQ With David Plouffe in October. Clinton referred obliquely to somebody in the primary being “groomed” for a third-party run.
“She’s the favorite of the Russians,” Clinton said. “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. She’s a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third party candidate.”
Afterwards, Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill made a Pulitzer-worthy quip in response to a reporter asking if Gabbard was the candidate in question.
“If the nesting doll fits,” he said.
Gabbard has said multiple times that she does not plan to launch a third-party bid for the White House.
Gabbard seized on Clinton’s remark, immediately blasting out fundraising emails based on the quotes, pledging that “rich and powerful” in the party “will not silence us.” She also sent a flurry of tweets and did a live shot from a parking lot outside her Iowa rally to discuss Clinton on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” while her supporters waited for over an hour inside.
Clinton did receive her share of criticism for firing off the allegation without proof. But the kerfuffle directed attention toward some of the more bizarre dynamics surrounding Gabbard’s bid.
Her campaign has been heavily featured in Russian outlets like RT since she announced. A legion of bots boost her on social media, and users on sites like 4chan used to flood instant online polls just after the debates to proclaim Gabbard the winner (she hasn’t qualified for the debate stage since November).
She’s never hesitated to distance herself from her party, whether it be joining with Republicans to demand former President Barack Obama use the phrase “radical Islam” or scheduling a Trump Tower meeting with President-elect Donald Trump just after the 2016 election.
In early 2016, she very publicly resigned her vice chairmanship at the DNC in early 2016 and endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) over Clinton, a move which she now says inflamed Clinton’s lingering animosity.
She has also refused time and time again to condemn Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for the crimes he perpetrated against his own people, meeting with him in person in 2017. She used her weird position on the issue to attack Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) during the October debate, demanding that the senator adopt her position on what she calls a “regime-change war.”
During the same debate, she attacked hosts from CNN and the New York Times for calling her a “Russian asset” — neither did; the outlets merely pointed out the resonance her candidacy was having in Russian propaganda circles.
Gabbard is essentially a non-factor in the Democratic primary at this point. According to Real Clear Politics, she’s polling around 1 percent and has failed to qualify for multiple debates. However, she has previously pledged that she will see her run all the way to the convention, even if she lacks the delegates to win.
And as she has now declined to run for her House seat again, she’ll have some time on her hands — plenty to bring her “political rival” Hillary Clinton to justice, once and for all.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--Fox’s Chris Wallace Unimpressed By WH Defense: ‘I Would Not Be Especially Pleased’ If I Were Trump

During the Senate ’ s debate over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ’ s ( D-NY ) amendments to subpoena @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment trial on Tuesday night , Wallace commented that Trump impeachment lawyers Pat Cipollone @ @ @ @ @ making a mistake ” by simply insisting that President Donald Trump did nothing wrong , @ @ @ @ @ arguments .
“ They are basically saying , ‘ There ’ s nothing to see @ @ @ @ @ is bogus , ’ while the House managers are taking every second of their one @ @ @ @ @ they want to make , ” the Fox News host said , asserting that Cipollone @ @ @ @ @ use of their allotted time .
“ I don ’ t know why you wouldn @ @ @ @ @ and every second you have to make an argument on behalf of the President , @ @ @ @ @ If I were the President watching this , I would not be especially pleased .
@

Color Fox News host Chris Wallace underwhelmed.
During the Senate’s debate over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) amendments to subpoena key witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial on Tuesday night, Wallace commented that Trump impeachment lawyers Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow were “making a mistake” by simply insisting that President Donald Trump did nothing wrong, with little substance in their arguments.
“They are basically saying, ‘There’s nothing to see here, all of this is bogus,’ while the House managers are taking every second of their one hour to make whatever case they want to make,” the Fox News host said, asserting that Cipollone and Sekulow had made little use of their allotted time.
“I don’t know why you wouldn’t take the time and every second you have to make an argument on behalf of the President,” he said. “If I were the President watching this, I would not be especially pleased.”
Watch Wallace below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--House GOP’s Legal Expert Torches WH’s Defense Against Impeachment

Jonathan Turley , the constitutional scholar at George Washington University whom House Republicans had chosen to testify in the House Judiciary Committee ’ s impeachment hearings , smacked down the White House ’ s legal argument in the Senate trial on Tuesday .
In an op-ed published in Washington Post , Turley took aim at White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow ’ s claim that the President can not be impeached because he did not commit a crime when he withheld military aid to Ukraine while asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution , ” the legal expert wrote of Cipollone and Sekulow ’ s defense .
He warned that adopting their interpretation of impeachable offenses “ would create lasting harm for the constitutional system ” because it is “ far too narrow.
” Turley compared the White House ’ s argument to Democrats ’ defense of President Bill Clinton in 1999 , which “ created a dangerous precedent ” for “ criminal , non-impeachable conduct.
” “ The developing defense by the White House is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ expand the space for executive conduct ’ by reducing the definition of impeachable conduct to the criminal code , ” the lawyer wrote .
“ It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted.
” House Republicans had appointed Turley as their witness in the House Judiciary Committee ’ s impeachment hearing in December , during which he argued that the Democrats ’ legal case for Trump ’ s impeachment was “ not just woefully inadequate , but in some respects , dangerous , as the basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger , ” he said at the time .
“ If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations , this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding , with the thinnest evidentiary record , and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president .
”

Jonathan Turley, the constitutional scholar at George Washington University whom House Republicans had chosen to testify in the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings, smacked down the White House’s legal argument in the Senate trial on Tuesday.
In an op-ed published in Washington Post, Turley took aim at White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow’s claim that the President cannot be impeached because he did not commit a crime when he withheld military aid to Ukraine while asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.
“It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution,” the legal expert wrote of Cipollone and Sekulow’s defense.
He warned that adopting their interpretation of impeachable offenses “would create lasting harm for the constitutional system” because it is “far too narrow.”
Turley compared the White House’s argument to Democrats’ defense of President Bill Clinton in 1999, which “created a dangerous precedent” for “criminal, non-impeachable conduct.”
“The developing defense by the White House is also a mistake. It would again ‘expand the space for executive conduct’ by reducing the definition of impeachable conduct to the criminal code,” the lawyer wrote. “It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted.”
House Republicans had appointed Turley as their witness in the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing in December, during which he argued that the Democrats’ legal case for Trump’s impeachment was “not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.”
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” he said at the time. “If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--Meanwhile, In Giuliani-World, The Ukraine Scheme Continues

As impeachment managers churn on through the second day of opening arguments in President Trump ’ s impeachment trial , one thing hasn ’ t stopped : the conduct that got Trump impeached in the first place Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani tweeted Thursday morning that he intends to release “ the evidence ” at an unspecified date and time , presumably in the near future .
Giuliani purportedly prepared a report after traveling to Kyiv in December and meeting with an array of discredited figures , each with obvious interests in making explosive allegations about Joe Biden and supposed Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not clear to what new allegations Giuliani may be referring .
TPM reported last month on what the former NYC mayor ’ s Ukrainian interlocutors claimed to have told him .
Giuliani ’ s attempts to dig up dirt on the Bidens have featured at the center of the case for removing President Trump from office .
After his most recent trip to Kyiv in December , Giuliani reportedly fielded a phone call from President Trump while on the tarmac upon arrival from the Ukrainian capital .
One America News , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 visit to the Ukrainian capital , and which subsequently made a bizarre documentary about it , announced on the first day of the impeachment trial , Tuesday , that it will release a new “ investigative series ” on Biden ’ s past in Ukraine .
“ Ukrainian political leaders interviewed in the program insist the Biden-Burisma gambit was a get-rich-quick scheme that the Ukrainian people find transparently corrupt , ” the announcement reads .
OAN describes the show as starting with Ukraine ’ s 2014 EuroMaidan Revolution or , more precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 protestors at the revolution ’ s end .
Per the description , the revolution resulted in Biden becoming “ the American viceroy of Ukraine.
” “ As a result , his son Hunter became fabulously wealthy from the nation ’ s corrupt gas company , Burisma Holdings , ” the statement reads .
There ’ s no evidence to support the proposition that Hunter Biden ’ s position on the board of Burisma at all affected Joe Biden ’ s activities as vice president .
House impeachment managers took aim at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismantle it before President Trump ’ s defense team could posit it as an alternative narrative .
What nobody could account for , apparently , was the notion that the campaign to extract dirt from Ukraine would continue unabated .

As impeachment managers churn on through the second day of opening arguments in President Trump’s impeachment trial, one thing hasn’t stopped: the conduct that got Trump impeached in the first place
Yes, that’s right.
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani tweeted Thursday morning that he intends to release “the evidence” at an unspecified date and time, presumably in the near future.
Everything I tried to tell the press last March is now coming out, and more. I will now start to reveal the evidence directly to you, the People. The Biden Family Enterprise made millions by selling public office. Then when Joe was Obama’s Point Man, they ALL made millions. — Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 23, 2020
Giuliani purportedly prepared a report after traveling to Kyiv in December and meeting with an array of discredited figures, each with obvious interests in making explosive allegations about Joe Biden and supposed Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
It’s not clear to what new allegations Giuliani may be referring. TPM reported last month on what the former NYC mayor’s Ukrainian interlocutors claimed to have told him.
Giuliani’s attempts to dig up dirt on the Bidens have featured at the center of the case for removing President Trump from office. After his most recent trip to Kyiv in December, Giuliani reportedly fielded a phone call from President Trump while on the tarmac upon arrival from the Ukrainian capital.
One America News, the network that hosted Giuliani’s 2019 visit to the Ukrainian capital, and which subsequently made a bizarre documentary about it, announced on the first day of the impeachment trial, Tuesday, that it will release a new “investigative series” on Biden’s past in Ukraine.
“Ukrainian political leaders interviewed in the program insist the Biden-Burisma gambit was a get-rich-quick scheme that the Ukrainian people find transparently corrupt,” the announcement reads.
OAN describes the show as starting with Ukraine’s 2014 EuroMaidan Revolution or, more precisely, with the killings of more than 100 protestors at the revolution’s end.
Per the description, the revolution resulted in Biden becoming “the American viceroy of Ukraine.”
“As a result, his son Hunter became fabulously wealthy from the nation’s corrupt gas company, Burisma Holdings,” the statement reads.
There’s no evidence to support the proposition that Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma at all affected Joe Biden’s activities as vice president. House impeachment managers took aim at the theory on Thursday, attempting to preemptively dismantle it before President Trump’s defense team could posit it as an alternative narrative.
What nobody could account for, apparently, was the notion that the campaign to extract dirt from Ukraine would continue unabated.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--GOPers Repeat Calls For Biden Testimony As Dems Debunk Conspiracy Theories

A focus by House impeachment managers on debunking the Ukraine conspiracy theories President Trump has pushed collided this week with a growing push by Senate Republicans to call witnesses like Joe Biden , ostensibly to litigate those very theories .
A spotlight on the former vice president and 2020 contender is precisely what Trump wanted when he pressured the Ukrainian government to announce investigations into the Bidens — the very alleged abuse of power that lead to Trump ’ s impeachment .
House Democrats have made a significant part of their case explaining why Trump ’ s Biden obsession was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have taken the opportunity to argue that calling Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses is now fair game .
“ If we ’ re going to call witnesses , I think it ’ s now clear we absolutely must call Hunter Biden , and we probably need to call Joe Biden , ” Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) told reporters Thursday .
“ I think they ’ ve raised the issue , frankly , to a higher level than it was intended to be , than it would have been , probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kevin Cramer ( R-ND ) told reporters Wednesday .
When TPM asked why it took Republicans years to question Biden ’ s supposed corruption in Ukraine , if it was so obviously troubling years ago , Cramer pointed to the new leadership in Ukraine .
“ A couple of years ago , we didn ’ t have a new president of Ukraine that ran on an anti-corruption platform , ” he said .
“ So now there ’ s perhaps an opportunity that there wasn ’ t prior to that election.
” Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate trial , Cramer said , “ remains to be seen .
But I was a little bit surprised at how much attention it got from the managers today .
It ’ s not necessary to acquit the President , but it may help exonerate him.
” Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow played coy Wednesday when reporters brought up Republicans ’ interest in hearing from the Bidens .
The President ’ s legal team , he said , would wait to see the full House case before settling on its response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe or Hunter Biden testify in exchange for the testimony of key Trump administration witnesses .
Joe Biden , for his part , has said he ’ d refuse to be a party to such a trade .
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) pushed back on the plan on Thursday , as have the House managers themselves .
Republicans , nonetheless , have argued that House managers ’ own trial strategy makes the Bidens relevant .
“ It begs questions like , does that mean the Bidens are completely off limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even touch it ?
” Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) said Thursday .
Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) said the managers made a “ very serious strategic error ” by involving the Bidens .
“ It is directly relevant , I got to say , the need for the Senate to hear the testimony of Hunter Biden , ” Cruz said , adding : “ The House Democrats have now made Hunter Biden central to the question of the President ’ s interests .
”

A focus by House impeachment managers on debunking the Ukraine conspiracy theories President Trump has pushed collided this week with a growing push by Senate Republicans to call witnesses like Joe Biden, ostensibly to litigate those very theories.
A spotlight on the former vice president and 2020 contender is precisely what Trump wanted when he pressured the Ukrainian government to announce investigations into the Bidens — the very alleged abuse of power that lead to Trump’s impeachment.
House Democrats have made a significant part of their case explaining why Trump’s Biden obsession was motivated by electoral concerns — and Republicans have taken the opportunity to argue that calling Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses is now fair game.
“If we’re going to call witnesses, I think it’s now clear we absolutely must call Hunter Biden, and we probably need to call Joe Biden,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told reporters Thursday.
“I think they’ve raised the issue, frankly, to a higher level than it was intended to be, than it would have been, probably, going into this,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told reporters Wednesday.
When TPM asked why it took Republicans years to question Biden’s supposed corruption in Ukraine, if it was so obviously troubling years ago, Cramer pointed to the new leadership in Ukraine.
“A couple of years ago, we didn’t have a new president of Ukraine that ran on an anti-corruption platform,” he said. “So now there’s perhaps an opportunity that there wasn’t prior to that election.”
Whether the Biden angle becomes part of the Senate trial, Cramer said, “remains to be seen. But I was a little bit surprised at how much attention it got from the managers today. It’s not necessary to acquit the President, but it may help exonerate him.”
Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow played coy Wednesday when reporters brought up Republicans’ interest in hearing from the Bidens. The President’s legal team, he said, would wait to see the full House case before settling on its response.
Some Democrats have reportedly floated having Joe or Hunter Biden testify in exchange for the testimony of key Trump administration witnesses. Joe Biden, for his part, has said he’d refuse to be a party to such a trade. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pushed back on the plan on Thursday, as have the House managers themselves.
Republicans, nonetheless, have argued that House managers’ own trial strategy makes the Bidens relevant. “It begs questions like, does that mean the Bidens are completely off limits, to where you couldn’t even touch it?” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said Thursday.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said the managers made a “very serious strategic error” by involving the Bidens.
“It is directly relevant, I got to say, the need for the Senate to hear the testimony of Hunter Biden,” Cruz said, adding: “The House Democrats have now made Hunter Biden central to the question of the President’s interests.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--Dems Systematically Debunk Trump’s Bogus Conspiracy Theories On Biden

Rep. Sylvia Garcia ( D-TX ) , one of House impeachment managers , took aim at GOP-backed conspiracy theories around Burisma during the second day of opening impeachment arguments on Thursday , dismantling a key allegation linking Joe Biden to the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden sat .
Introducing the theory early on into arguments suggests that the impeachment managers are anticipating Trump ’ s defense team leaning heavily into the validity of the Burisma conspiracy , among others , for their own defense .
Trump was impeached in part over his attempts to pressure the Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among other topics .
The nub of the conspiracy theory is that Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to have a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired .
Biden withheld a U.S. government loan to Ukraine on the condition that the prosecutor be fired ; Giuliani and others take this as evidence of bribery .
Relying on footage of testimony from the public portion of the House ’ s impeachment inquiry and other documentary evidence , Rep. Garcia demolished the theory , pointing out that the timeline does not add up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s firing because it was “ consistent with U.S. policy , ” and that the loan had to do with shoring up anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine .
Hunter Biden had nothing to do with what happened .
“ Vice President Biden ’ s conduct was uniformly validated by the witnesses in the House investigation who confirmed his conduct was consistent with U.S. policy , ” Garcia said .
“ Every single witness who was asked about the allegations again and said that Biden had nothing to do with it and it was false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Vice President Biden was carrying out official U.S. policy.
” To be fair , this is not a hard theory to debunk : it was clear from the beginning that the Burisma allegations were nonsense .
But as a trial strategy , it does suggest that the House feels the need to establish early on the insanity of the allegations that Trump ’ s defense may put forward .

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), one of House impeachment managers, took aim at GOP-backed conspiracy theories around Burisma during the second day of opening impeachment arguments on Thursday, dismantling a key allegation linking Joe Biden to the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden sat.
Introducing the theory early on into arguments suggests that the impeachment managers are anticipating Trump’s defense team leaning heavily into the validity of the Burisma conspiracy, among others, for their own defense.
Trump was impeached in part over his attempts to pressure the Ukrainian government into announcing investigations into Burisma, among other topics.
The nub of the conspiracy theory is that Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to have a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired. Biden withheld a U.S. government loan to Ukraine on the condition that the prosecutor be fired; Giuliani and others take this as evidence of bribery.
Relying on footage of testimony from the public portion of the House’s impeachment inquiry and other documentary evidence, Rep. Garcia demolished the theory, pointing out that the timeline does not add up, that Biden pushed for the prosecutor’s firing because it was “consistent with U.S. policy,” and that the loan had to do with shoring up anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Hunter Biden had nothing to do with what happened.
“Vice President Biden’s conduct was uniformly validated by the witnesses in the House investigation who confirmed his conduct was consistent with U.S. policy,” Garcia said. “Every single witness who was asked about the allegations again and said that Biden had nothing to do with it and it was false. They testified that he acted properly and every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Vice President Biden was carrying out official U.S. policy.”
To be fair, this is not a hard theory to debunk: it was clear from the beginning that the Burisma allegations were nonsense.
But as a trial strategy, it does suggest that the House feels the need to establish early on the insanity of the allegations that Trump’s defense may put forward.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--Nadler Uses Words Of Trump’s Allies Against Him At Impeachment Trial

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ’ s argument Thursday against President Trump ’ s interpretation of what constitutes an impeachable offense used the words of Trump ’ s top supporters against him .
At the Senate impeachment trial , Nadler played clips or showed writings of Attorney General Bill Barr , Sen. Lindsay Graham ( R-SC ) and Alan Dershowitz , a lawyer on Trump ’ s defense team , that contradicted the legal claims that Trump made in legal briefs filed over the weekend .
“ Abuse of power is clearly an impeachable offense under the Constitution .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a controversial statement .
I find it amazing that the president rejects it , yet he does , ” Nadler said as he teed up the clips .
In their legal brief , Trump ’ s lawyers argued that “ abuse of power ” was a theory “ newly invented ” by Democrats that “ collapses at the threshold ” of impeachment “ because it fails to allege any violation of law whatsoever.
” Nadler ’ s presentation in front of the Senate trial , which kicked off Thursday ’ s proceedings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laying out why Trump ’ s Ukraine-related conduct warrants his removal .
To rebut Trump ’ s claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense , Nadler played a Dershowitz clip from 1998 , when the House was considering Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment .
“ It certainly doesn ’ t have to be a crime .
If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of President and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty , you don ’ t need a technical crime , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2018 memo written by Barr , before he was appointed by Trump , that referenced impeachment while arguing against criminally indicting a President .
Barr wrote that the fact that the President “ is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cause.
” “ In other words , Attorney General Barr , who believes , along with the [ Justice Department ] Office of Legal Counsel , that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that that ’ s okay , we don ’ t need that safeguard against a president who would commit abuses of power .
It ’ s okay , because he can be impeached , ” Nadler said .
Addressing Trump ’ s assertion that a president must violate a statute to be impeached , Nadler played a clip of Graham from when he was a House manager in the Clinton impeachment .
“ What ’ s a high crime ?
” Graham said .
“ How about if an important person hurts somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not very scholarly .
But I think it ’ s the truth .
I think that ’ s what they meant by high crime .
It 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.
” Graham had exited the chamber by the time the clip of his remarks was being played .
Nadler also pointed to an op-ed written by law professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s testimony in front of Congress last year .
Turley , a favorite on Fox News , was the Republicans ’ witness at one of the House Judiciary Committee ’ s impeachment hearings , where he argued that the House had not gathered enough evidence to prove the Trump conduct it alleged .
“ The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one ’ s political opponent , if proven , can be an impeachable offense , ” Turley said in written testimony Nadler displayed on the screen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say in a recent op-ed about Trump ’ s current legal arguments .
“ It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted , ” Turley said in the op-ed .

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler’s argument Thursday against President Trump’s interpretation of what constitutes an impeachable offense used the words of Trump’s top supporters against him.
At the Senate impeachment trial, Nadler played clips or showed writings of Attorney General Bill Barr, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer on Trump’s defense team, that contradicted the legal claims that Trump made in legal briefs filed over the weekend.
“Abuse of power is clearly an impeachable offense under the Constitution. To be honest, this should not be a controversial statement. I find it amazing that the president rejects it, yet he does,” Nadler said as he teed up the clips.
In their legal brief, Trump’s lawyers argued that “abuse of power” was a theory “newly invented” by Democrats that “collapses at the threshold” of impeachment “because it fails to allege any violation of law whatsoever.”
Nadler’s presentation in front of the Senate trial, which kicked off Thursday’s proceedings, was focused on rebuking those assertions and laying out why Trump’s Ukraine-related conduct warrants his removal.
To rebut Trump’s claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, Nadler played a Dershowitz clip from 1998, when the House was considering Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
“It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of President and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime,” Dershowitz said then.
Nadler also presented a 2018 memo written by Barr, before he was appointed by Trump, that referenced impeachment while arguing against criminally indicting a President.
Barr wrote that the fact that the President “is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cause.”
“In other words, Attorney General Barr, who believes, along with the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel, that a president may not be indicted, believes that that’s okay, we don’t need that safeguard against a president who would commit abuses of power. It’s okay, because he can be impeached,” Nadler said.
Addressing Trump’s assertion that a president must violate a statute to be impeached, Nadler played a clip of Graham from when he was a House manager in the Clinton impeachment.
“What’s a high crime?” Graham said. “How about if an important person hurts 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 crime. It 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.”
Graham had exited the chamber by the time the clip of his remarks was being played.
Nadler also pointed to an op-ed written by law professor Jonathan Turley, as well as Turley’s testimony in front of Congress last year. Turley, a favorite on Fox News, was the Republicans’ witness at one of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings, where he argued that the House had not gathered enough evidence to prove the Trump conduct it alleged.
“The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense,” Turley said in written testimony Nadler displayed on the screen.
Nadler also read what Turley had to say in a recent op-ed about Trump’s current legal arguments.
“It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted,” Turley said in the op-ed.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--The Wandering Senators: Are Lawmakers Allowed To Roam About During Trial?

Reporters present at the impeachment trial in the Senate have noticed a whole host of lawmakers wandering in and out of the chamber during the lengthy days , which earlier this week stretched on until 2 a.m .
ET .
The observations raise two issues : one of legality and one of optics .
Nothing in the official Senate impeachment rules forbids it .
The rules , dating from March 2 , 1868 , make little mention of the chamber at all , except to determine that the doors to the Senate should be left open , unless the members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell ( R-KY ) and Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) circulated their own guidance ahead of the trial , where they made passing mention of the attendance expectations .
“ Senators should plan to be in attendance at all times during the proceedings , ” they wrote in the decorum guidelines .
“ During the impeachment proceedings , standing will not be permitted on the floor and this requirement will be strictly enforced , ” they also wrote .
“ Accordingly , all Senators are requested to remain in their seats at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the impeachment proceedings.
” But that ’ s about it .
And some senators are having little trouble bucking what limited guidance they ’ ve been given .
Per CNN , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) spent more time out of his seat than in it Wednesday night .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) also left for stretches , while Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) could be seen using his iPhone in the Democratic cloakroom ( electronics are banned from the chamber during the trial ) .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most to lose by being sequestered stayed securely in place for the duration on Wednesday .
According to CNN , Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , both running for President , stayed in the chamber for the entirety of the proceedings .
They were reportedly joined by Sens .
Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) and Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , two of the most scrutinized lawmakers due to their past willingness to vote with Democrats .
Does It Look Bad ?
It might , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the draconian press restrictions of the Senate impeachment trial dictates that only the Senate cameras can film in the chamber , and they are trained on the dais .
So , it ’ s easy for senators to slip out or walk around unnoticed by those not in the room itself .
Klobuchar told CNN on Wednesday that aside from people wandering out to use the bathroom or get coffee , she ’ d estimate that the chamber is filled to about “ 95 % ” capacity at any time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has no issue with people milling about and talking at the back of the room .
Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) told CNN that senators are struggling to understand why they have to sit there in the first place , accusing Democrats of presenting the “ same arguments over and over and over again .
”

Reporters present at the impeachment trial in the Senate have noticed a whole host of lawmakers wandering in and out of the chamber during the lengthy days, which earlier this week stretched on until 2 a.m. ET.
A tally from freelance reporter Michael McAuliff during Wednesday’s proceeding:
Just counted 21 empty seats on the GOP side of the Senate, 2 on the Dem side, a couple hours into Schiff’s presentation. Some are just stretching their legs, but most are not in the chamber. Some of them have been out of there for a while. — Michael McAuliff (@mmcauliff) January 22, 2020
The observations raise two issues: one of legality and one of optics.
Is It Allowed?
Nothing in the official Senate impeachment rules forbids it. The rules, dating from March 2, 1868, make little mention of the chamber at all, except to determine that the doors to the Senate should be left open, unless the members are in deliberations.
Senate leaders Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) circulated their own guidance ahead of the trial, where they made passing mention of the attendance expectations.
“Senators should plan to be in attendance at all times during the proceedings,” they wrote in the decorum guidelines.
“During the impeachment proceedings, standing will not be permitted on the floor and this requirement will be strictly enforced,” they also wrote. “Accordingly, all Senators are requested to remain in their seats at all times they are on the Senate floor during the impeachment proceedings.”
But that’s about it. And some senators are having little trouble bucking what limited guidance they’ve been given.
Per CNN, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spent more time out of his seat than in it Wednesday night. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also left for stretches, while Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) could be seen using his iPhone in the Democratic cloakroom (electronics are banned from the chamber during the trial).
Meanwhile, some of those who may have the most to lose by being sequestered stayed securely in place for the duration on Wednesday. According to CNN, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), both running for President, stayed in the chamber for the entirety of the proceedings. They were reportedly joined by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME), two of the most scrutinized lawmakers due to their past willingness to vote with Democrats.
Does It Look Bad?
It might, if we could see it. A part of the draconian press restrictions of the Senate impeachment trial dictates that only the Senate cameras can film in the chamber, and they are trained on the dais. So, it’s easy for senators to slip out or walk around unnoticed by those not in the room itself.
Senators who’ve addressed the absences seem largely unbothered.
Klobuchar told CNN on Wednesday that aside from people wandering out to use the bathroom or get coffee, she’d estimate that the chamber is filled to about “95%” capacity at any time.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that he has no issue with people milling about and talking at the back of the room.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told CNN that senators are struggling to understand why they have to sit there in the first place, accusing Democrats of presenting the “same arguments over and over and over again.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--Mnuchin Attacks Greta Thunberg, Says She Needs To Study Economics

The 17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg truly seems to be getting under the Trump administration ’ s skin .
On Wednesday , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin took a shot at the teen during a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland after she pleaded with world leaders to stop investing in fossil fuels .
“ Is she the chief economist ?
Who is she ?
I ’ m confused , ” Mnuchin joked .
“ After she goes to college and studies economics in college , she can come back and explain that to us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Trump official on Thursday , tweeting out a graph video of the shrinking carbon budget by Carbon Brief , a climate science website .
“ 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 , ” she continued .
When the hosts of CNBC ’ s “ Squawk Box ” asked Mnuchin about his comments on Thursday , the secretary claimed the administration ’ s environmental policies “ are misunderstood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports a clean environment.
” Trump has mocked Thunberg and openly fumed about TIME choosing the activist as its 2019 Person of the Year , a title Trump desperately covets .
“ So ridiculous , ” he tweeted .
“ Greta must work on her Anger Management problem , then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend !
Chill Greta , Chill !
” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that he doesn ’ t “ really know anything about her ” but that she ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she wouldn ’ t have bothered speaking to Trump about climate change at the United Nations summit on the issue .
“ Honestly , I don ’ t think I would have said anything because obviously he ’ s not listening to scientists and experts , so why would he listen to me ?
” she said during a BBC interview .

The 17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg truly seems to be getting under the Trump administration’s skin.
On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin took a shot at the teen during a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland after she pleaded with world leaders to stop investing in fossil fuels.
“Is she the chief economist? Who is she? I’m confused,” Mnuchin joked.
“After she goes to college and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us,” he added.
Thunberg fired back at the Trump official on Thursday, tweeting out a graph video of the shrinking carbon budget by Carbon Brief, a climate science website.
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. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/1virpuOyYG — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 23, 2020
“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,” she continued.
When the hosts of CNBC’s “Squawk Box” asked Mnuchin about his comments on Thursday, the secretary claimed the administration’s environmental policies “are misunderstood” and that President Donald Trump “supports a clean environment.”
Trump has mocked Thunberg and openly fumed about TIME choosing the activist as its 2019 Person of the Year, a title Trump desperately covets.
“So ridiculous,” he tweeted. “Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”
Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that he doesn’t “really know anything about her” but that she’s “very angry.”
Thunberg said in December that she wouldn’t have bothered speaking to Trump about climate change at the United Nations summit on the issue.
“Honestly, I don’t think I would have said anything because obviously he’s not listening to scientists and experts, so why would he listen to me?” she said during a BBC interview.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-24--Senate GOP Is Coming Around To The Idea That What Trump Did Was Okay

We ’ re three days into the impeachment trial , and Senate Republicans have begun floating their “ what President Trump did was okay ” trial balloon .
For the most part , they ’ re still avoiding weighing in directly about the Trump conduct House managers have described , and instead have thrown around procedural complaints or claims about how the Trump administration ’ s Ukraine policy has been stronger than the Obama ’ s .
But listen closely to the main themes in their reactions to the House ’ s meticulously built case .
What you ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepts that Trump mounted a secret pressure campaign to force a Ukrainian investigation into his 2020 rival and a defense that concludes that such an effort was permissible .
Nowhere is this growing GOP embrace of Trump ’ s Ukraine behavior more evident than in how they ’ re handling the ongoing debate over calling witnesses .
Several Senate Republicans are now proposing the idea that if Democrats secure the votes to subpoena the House ’ s desired witnesses , Republicans will push to bring in the Bidens .
They claim that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focusing so much of their presentation on debunking the Biden allegations Trump was pushing .
But the subtext of that GOP argument is that Trump ’ s demand that Ukraine open investigations into the Biden family was justified .
“ They can claim it could be about soliciting Ukraine ’ s assistance in our politics , when what we don ’ t know is what did our Vice President potentially give to Ukraine to not investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma , ” Sen. Kevin Cramer ( R-ND ) said .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly , to a higher level than what it is intended to be — than it would have been going into this.
” A legitimate rationale behind Trump ’ s request for a Biden probe is obvious even without the testimony of Hunter or Joe Biden , Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) claimed Thursday .
“ When President Trump ’ s lawyers stand up and present their defense , they are going to have the opportunity to present the very significant evidence that supported and still supports this investigation into corruption and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that corruption , ” Cruz said .
As GOP senators tell reporters that they ’ re looking forward to the side of the story Trump legal team puts forward , they have had few , if any holes , to poke themselves into the account laid out by the House .
The other prevalent GOP response to the House ’ s presentation also suggests that Republicans don ’ t seriously contest the facts the managers are presenting , but rather don ’ t fight those facts troubling .
Senate Republicans have complained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they allege this repetition is aimed at making the conduct the House is describing sound more troubling .
“ We ’ ve heard the same story : rinse it , recycle it , repeat it ; rinse it recycle it and repeat it , ” Sen. Tim Scott said ( R-SC ) .
“ And what is that story ?
The story is that the President of the United States has no responsibility whatsoever to look for injustice , corruption anywhere.
” President Trump has had cheerleaders in the Senate who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have said they had no qualms with Trump ’ s Biden probe demand of Ukraine made on his call with President Volodymyr Zelensky .
But plenty of other Republicans , included Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , stopped short of saying what Trump did was appropriate , and once it was clear that the scandal was heading towards impeachment , those members have deferred commenting on the behavior until it was presented within the trial .
That excuse won ’ t hold for many days longer , and the groundwork is being laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facts aren ’ t there , but because the behavior the facts establish isn ’ t concerning .
Ironically , the third major GOP reaction to the House ’ s presentation this week exploited a catch-22 created by those initial dodges .
After months of Senate Republicans , citing the inevitable trial , saying they weren ’ t paying attention to the several reveals coming out of the House impeachment ’ s inquiry , they ’ re now claiming they ’ ve learned “ nothing new ” in the case the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Braun ( R-IN ) was asked Wednesday if he found anything the House managers presented to be troubling .
“ Not any more troubling or less troubling than before , ” he said .

We’re three days into the impeachment trial, and Senate Republicans have begun floating their “what President Trump did was okay” trial balloon.
For the most part, they’re still avoiding weighing in directly about the Trump conduct House managers have described, and instead have thrown around procedural complaints or claims about how the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy has been stronger than the Obama’s.
But listen closely to the main themes in their reactions to the House’s meticulously built case. What you’ll hear being shaped is a defense that accepts that Trump mounted a secret pressure campaign to force a Ukrainian investigation into his 2020 rival and a defense that concludes that such an effort was permissible.
Nowhere is this growing GOP embrace of Trump’s Ukraine behavior more evident than in how they’re handling the ongoing debate over calling witnesses.
Several Senate Republicans are now proposing the idea that if Democrats secure the votes to subpoena the House’s desired witnesses, Republicans will push to bring in the Bidens. They claim that the House managers invited such a move by focusing so much of their presentation on debunking the Biden allegations Trump was pushing. But the subtext of that GOP argument is that Trump’s demand that Ukraine open investigations into the Biden family was justified.
“They can claim it could be about soliciting Ukraine’s assistance in our politics, when what we don’t know is what did our Vice President potentially give to Ukraine to not investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said. “I think they’ve raised the issue, frankly, to a higher level than what it is intended to be — than it would have been going into this.”
A legitimate rationale behind Trump’s request for a Biden probe is obvious even without the testimony of Hunter or Joe Biden, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) claimed Thursday.
“When President Trump’s lawyers stand up and present their defense, they are going to have the opportunity to present the very significant evidence that supported and still supports this investigation into corruption and Burisma and whether Joe Biden participated in that corruption,” Cruz said.
As GOP senators tell reporters that they’re looking forward to the side of the story Trump legal team puts forward, they have had few, if any holes, to poke themselves into the account laid out by the House.
The other prevalent GOP response to the House’s presentation also suggests that Republicans don’t seriously contest the facts the managers are presenting, but rather don’t fight those facts troubling.
Senate Republicans have complained that the managers keep repeating the same points and they allege this repetition is aimed at making the conduct the House is describing sound more troubling.
“We’ve heard the same story: rinse it, recycle it, repeat it; rinse it recycle it and repeat it,” Sen. Tim Scott said (R-SC). “And what is that story? The story is that the President of the United States has no responsibility whatsoever to look for injustice, corruption anywhere.”
President Trump has had cheerleaders in the Senate who, from when Trump released the call transcript, have said they had no qualms with Trump’s Biden probe demand of Ukraine made on his call with President Volodymyr Zelensky.
But plenty of other Republicans, included Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, stopped short of saying what Trump did was appropriate, and once it was clear that the scandal was heading towards impeachment, those members have deferred commenting on the behavior until it was presented within the trial.
That excuse won’t hold for many days longer, and the groundwork is being laid for Republicans to acquit Trump not because the facts aren’t there, but because the behavior the facts establish isn’t concerning.
.@SenSasse slammed Ukraine call when transcript dropped. Now spox says: “Ben isn’t thinking about politics during Adam Schiff’s clown show — he’s doing his job by listening and taking notes, even when Schiff repeats himself over and over and over again.”https://t.co/AHgGOrW91R — Joseph Morton (@MortonOWH) January 24, 2020
Ironically, the third major GOP reaction to the House’s presentation this week exploited a catch-22 created by those initial dodges.
After months of Senate Republicans, citing the inevitable trial, saying they weren’t paying attention to the several reveals coming out of the House impeachment’s inquiry, they’re now claiming they’ve learned “nothing new” in the case the House was now presenting them.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) was asked Wednesday if he found anything the House managers presented to be troubling.
“Not any more troubling or less troubling than before,” he said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--The 10 Things Dems Say Prove Trump Acted Corruptly In Ukraine Scheme

Sure , the bogus investigations that President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to launch into Joe Biden and the 2016 election were conspiratorial garbage .
But beyond that , House impeachment manager Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) argued Thursday , there are 10 clear reasons that the push for the investigations was corrupt on its face .
On the Senate floor , Schiff brought up an exhibit listing them in neat sentences : Here ’ s how he argued the case : 1 .
President Trump Cared Only About The Of Investigations Several witnesses said , and records show , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine for investigations cared more about the announcement of those probes .
Schiff pointed to the testimony of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland that “ the only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form ” — not that they had to actually start or be completed .
Schiff also pointed to a recently revealed note from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas : “ Get [ Ukrainian President Volodymyr ] Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.
” Schiff pointed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overheard a call between Sondland and Trump the day after Trump personally pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens .
Holmes testified that he overheard Trump ask Sondland if Zelensky was “ going to do the investigation ?
” In a conversation after the call , Holmes testified that Sondland told him , “ the President only cares about ‘ big stuff , ' ” such as “ the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.
” Trump subsequently called publicly for a Biden investigation , Schiff noted .
3 .
President Trump Used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Foreign Policy ” Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly confirmed this point himself , Schiff said .
In a letter to the Ukrainian president , Giuliani told Zelensky , “ I am private counsel to Donald J. Trump .
Just to be precise , I represent him as a private citizen , not as President of the United States.
” Giuliani also told The New York Times in May last year that the fruits of his investigative work in Ukraine could be “ very , very helpful to my client.
” 4 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Multiple national security officials either testified that Trump ’ s push for investigations on the phone with Zelensky wasn ’ t part of Trump ’ s prepared talking points for the call — or that they expressed concern after the call about Trump ’ s push .
Trump wasn ’ t bound to use official talking points , Schiff said , but “ if it was U.S. policy , it probably would have been in the talking points and briefing materials.
” What ’ s more , Schiff argued , the push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the region — one of support for Ukraine in order to push back against Russia , and of support for legitimate anti-corruption efforts within Ukraine .
5 .
The Bogus Investigations Were Official Channels After the call record showed that Trump brought up Attorney General Bill Barr during his July call with Zelensnky , the Justice Department quickly distanced itself the Ukraine pressure campaign , Schiff said .
“ If these legitimate investigations that were in the national interest , why was Bill Barr ’ s Justice Department so quick to divorce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The simple answer is that , as we see so clearly , they were against U.S. official policy and our national security .
The Justice Department wanted nothing to do with it .
And by asking for these investigations , the President was abusing his power.
” Multiple witnesses told investigators they flagged their concerns about Trump ’ s call with Zelensky to government lawyers , Schiff said .
Then-Acting Ukraine Ambassador Bill Taylor flagged his concerns with withholding aid to Ukraine , Schiff said , and George Kent , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Eastern Europe , expressed concerns about the State Department ’ s response to a document request from congressional impeachment investigators .
Ukrainian officials expressed alarm to their American counterparts about being dragged into domestic U.S. politics , Schiff said , citing text messages turned over to Congress by former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker .
“ President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously , not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic , reelection politics , ” Taylor texted Sondland in July , Schiff noted .
The involvement in U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the perception that Ukraine had positioned itself counter to the Republican or Democratic Party — but also that Ukraine was seen as a pawn in domestic politics at all .
Zelensky himself said , after the White House made his call record with Trump public , “ I ’ m sorry , but I don ’ t want to be involved in democratic , open elections — elections of USA.
” 8 .
The White House Attempted To Bury The Call The White House issued only a “ short , incomplete summary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Zelensky , Schiff argued , and it made no mention of Trump ’ s push for bogus investigations .
In addition , NSC official Tim Morrison acknowledged that he requested that access to the memorandum of the Trump-Zelensky call be restricted .
John Eisenberg , the NSC legal advisor , said the call memorandum had been restricted by mistake , Morrison testified .
“ I ’ m sure it was a very innocent mistake , ” Schiff said .
“ However , mistake or no mistake , it remained on that system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 2019.
” 9 .
President Told Us In His Own Statements Schiff returned to the call Holmes overheard between Trump and Sondland on July 26 .
“ So he ’ s going to do the investigation ?
” Trump asked Sondland , according to Holmes .
Sondland replied that Zelensky would .
Sondland didn ’ t dispute Holmes ’ recollection and further testified , “ Actually , I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations , particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , after the White House had made his call memorandum with Zelensky public , Trump told reporters of Ukraine , “ I would think that , if they were it honest about it , they would start a major investigation into the Bidens .
It ’ s a very simple answer.
” 10 .
President Did Not Care About Anti-Corruption Efforts In Ukraine “ There ’ s no evidence he cared one whit about anticorruption efforts a at all , ” Schiff said of Trump .
Rather , Trump focused his concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even after the White House made his call memorandum with Zelensky public .
“ When Biden ’ s son walks away with millions of dollars from Ukraine , and he knows nothing , and they ’ re paying him millions of dollars , that ’ s corruption , ” Trump said , sitting next to Zelensky , the day after the memorandum was made public .
A few days later , Schiff noted , Trump said after referring to Zelensky : “ There was a lot of corruption having to do with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s purported concerns about corruption in Ukraine , Schiff argued , started despite the election in Ukraine anti-corruption reformer candidate — Zelensky — but after Joe Biden started his presidential campaign in earnest .

Sure, the bogus investigations that President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to launch into Joe Biden and the 2016 election were conspiratorial garbage. But beyond that, House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) argued Thursday, there are 10 clear reasons that the push for the investigations was corrupt on its face.
On the Senate floor, Schiff brought up an exhibit listing them in neat sentences:
Here’s how he argued the case:
1. President Trump Cared Only About The Announcement Of Investigations
Several witnesses said, and records show, that Trump’s envoys who were pushing Ukraine for investigations cared more about the announcement of those probes. Schiff pointed to the testimony of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland that “the only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form” — not that they had to actually start or be completed.
Schiff also pointed to a recently revealed note from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas: “Get [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.”
2. President Trump Cared Only About “Big Stuff”: Investigating Biden
Schiff pointed to the testimony of diplomat David Holmes, who overheard a call between Sondland and Trump the day after Trump personally pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. Holmes testified that he overheard Trump ask Sondland if Zelensky was “going to do the investigation?”
In a conversation after the call, Holmes testified that Sondland told him, “the President only cares about ‘big stuff,'” such as “the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.” Trump subsequently called publicly for a Biden investigation, Schiff noted.
3. President Trump Used His Personal Attorney: This Isn’t “Foreign Policy”
Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly confirmed this point himself, Schiff said. In a letter to the Ukrainian president, Giuliani told Zelensky, “I am private counsel to Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States.” Giuliani also told The New York Times in May last year that the fruits of his investigative work in Ukraine could be “very, very helpful to my client.”
4. The Bogus Investigations Were Never Part Of Official U.S. Policy
Multiple national security officials either testified that Trump’s push for investigations on the phone with Zelensky wasn’t part of Trump’s prepared talking points for the call — or that they expressed concern after the call about Trump’s push. Trump wasn’t bound to use official talking points, Schiff said, but “if it was U.S. policy, it probably would have been in the talking points and briefing materials.” What’s more, Schiff argued, the push for investigations undermined the existing U.S. policy in the region — one of support for Ukraine in order to push back against Russia, and of support for legitimate anti-corruption efforts within Ukraine.
5. The Bogus Investigations Were Outside Official Channels
After the call record showed that Trump brought up Attorney General Bill Barr during his July call with Zelensnky, the Justice Department quickly distanced itself the Ukraine pressure campaign, Schiff said.
“If these legitimate investigations that were in the national interest, why was Bill Barr’s Justice Department so quick to divorce themselves from it?” he said. “The simple answer is that, as we see so clearly, they were against U.S. official policy and our national security. The Justice Department wanted nothing to do with it. And by asking for these investigations, the President was abusing his power.”
6. Multiple Administration Officials Reported Concerns
Multiple witnesses told investigators they flagged their concerns about Trump’s call with Zelensky to government lawyers, Schiff said. Then-Acting Ukraine Ambassador Bill Taylor flagged his concerns with withholding aid to Ukraine, Schiff said, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eastern Europe, expressed concerns about the State Department’s response to a document request from congressional impeachment investigators.
7. Ukraine Expressed Concerns: Investigations Political
Ukrainian officials expressed alarm to their American counterparts about being dragged into domestic U.S. politics, Schiff said, citing text messages turned over to Congress by former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker. “President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics,” Taylor texted Sondland in July, Schiff noted.
The involvement in U.S. politics, Schiff argued, risked not only the perception that Ukraine had positioned itself counter to the Republican or Democratic Party — but also that Ukraine was seen as a pawn in domestic politics at all. Zelensky himself said, after the White House made his call record with Trump public, “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved in democratic, open elections — elections of USA.”
8. The White House Attempted To Bury The Call
The White House issued only a “short, incomplete summary” of the July call between Trump and Zelensky, Schiff argued, and it made no mention of Trump’s push for bogus investigations. In addition, NSC official Tim Morrison acknowledged that he requested that access to the memorandum of the Trump-Zelensky call be restricted.
John Eisenberg, the NSC legal advisor, said the call memorandum had been restricted by mistake, Morrison testified. “I’m sure it was a very innocent mistake,” Schiff said. “However, mistake or no mistake, it remained on that system until at least the third week of September 2019.”
9. President Told Us In His Own Statements
Schiff returned to the call Holmes overheard between Trump and Sondland on July 26. “So he’s going to do the investigation?” Trump asked Sondland, according to Holmes. Sondland replied that Zelensky would. Sondland didn’t dispute Holmes’ recollection and further testified, “Actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the President’s concerns.”
On Oct. 3, after the White House had made his call memorandum with Zelensky public, Trump told reporters of Ukraine, “I would think that, if they were it honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”
10. President Did Not Care About Anti-Corruption Efforts In Ukraine
“There’s no evidence he cared one whit about anticorruption efforts a at all,” Schiff said of Trump. Rather, Trump focused his concerns about “corruption” on the Bidens even after the White House made his call memorandum with Zelensky public. “When Biden’s son walks away with millions of dollars from Ukraine, and he knows nothing, and they’re paying him millions of dollars, that’s corruption,” Trump said, sitting next to Zelensky, the day after the memorandum was made public.
A few days later, Schiff noted, Trump said after referring to Zelensky: “There was a lot of corruption having to do with the 2016 election, against us.” Trump’s purported concerns about corruption in Ukraine, Schiff argued, started despite the election in Ukraine anti-corruption reformer candidate — Zelensky — but after Joe Biden started his presidential campaign in earnest.