talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Flynn Could Serve 0-6 Months For Lying To FBI But Probation Is ‘Reasonable,’ Feds Say

Just hours after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn argued in a court filing that prosecutorial misconduct in his case had been so egregious that it warranted dismissing the case entirely , prosecutors backed away from the harsh language they ’ d used in months past and said probation would be a “ reasonable ” sentence for Flynn .
Still , they maintained , sentencing guidelines allowed for the former Trump official to serve up to 6 months in prison for lying to the FBI .
It was just the latest bizarre back-and-forth in the government ’ s years-long effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States just before the Trump administration began .
Flynn ’ s turn against prosecutors has been fueled by his new defense team , hired last June and led by the prominent critic of Robert Mueller ’ s Russia probe , Sidney Powell .
In a lengthy set of filings Wedensday , Powell argued that prosecutors as well as Flynn ’ s old lawyers had hopelessly biased the case against him .
The only answer , she said , was for Judge Emmett Sullivan to throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another motion , earlier this month , to withdraw Flynn ’ s guilty plea .
( Judge Sullivan , as it happens , has not been especially sympathetic to Flynn ’ s antagonistic and at times conspiratorial accusations against the government . )
In its sentencing memo Wednesday , prosecutors acknowledged Flynn ’ s motion to withdraw his plea — though they noted the several times in writing and in court that he had acknowledged his guilt — and said they would respond to it in a separate filing of their own .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impose an appropriate sentence for the defendant ’ s criminal conduct in lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador , ” they said .
On that front , the sentencing memo was slightly different than the memo prosecutors filed earlier this month .
In that filing , they pointed to other cases of defendants who had lied to the FBI and served prison sentences .
No mention was made of a potential probation sentence .
And though they mentioned Flynn ’ s extensive record of public service , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s national security past “ should have made him particularly aware of the harm caused by providing false statements to the government.
” In the new filing , prosecutors went through each of Flynn ’ s military and government posts , listed examples of similar cases in which defendants had served probation , and explicitly said at the end of the memo that they did not oppose a probation sentence .
“ Based on all of the relevant facts and for the foregoing reasons , the government submits that a sentence within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of incarceration is appropriate and warranted in this case , agrees with the defendant that a sentence of probation is a reasonable sentence and does not oppose the imposition of a sentence of probation , ” the memo concluded .
Flynn ’ s sentencing has already been delayed multiple times : Once after he downplayed his wrongdoing in court in 2018 — on the day he was set to receive a sentence — again late last year ahead of an inspector general ’ s report on the FBI ’ s conduct during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again this month when he filed to withdraw his guilty plea .

Just hours after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn argued in a court filing that prosecutorial misconduct in his case had been so egregious that it warranted dismissing the case entirely, prosecutors backed away from the harsh language they’d used in months past and said probation would be a “reasonable” sentence for Flynn.
Still, they maintained, sentencing guidelines allowed for the former Trump official to serve up to 6 months in prison for lying to the FBI.
It was just the latest bizarre back-and-forth in the government’s years-long effort to pin Flynn for lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States just before the Trump administration began. Flynn’s turn against prosecutors has been fueled by his new defense team, hired last June and led by the prominent critic of Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, Sidney Powell.
In a lengthy set of filings Wedensday, Powell argued that prosecutors as well as Flynn’s old lawyers had hopelessly biased the case against him. The only answer, she said, was for Judge Emmett Sullivan to throw out the case entirely.
That followed another motion, earlier this month, to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea. (Judge Sullivan, as it happens, has not been especially sympathetic to Flynn’s antagonistic and at times conspiratorial accusations against the government.)
In its sentencing memo Wednesday, prosecutors acknowledged Flynn’s motion to withdraw his plea — though they noted the several times in writing and in court that he had acknowledged his guilt — and said they would respond to it in a separate filing of their own.
“The task at hand is to impose an appropriate sentence for the defendant’s criminal conduct in lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador,” they said.
On that front, the sentencing memo was slightly different than the memo prosecutors filed earlier this month.
In that filing, they pointed to other cases of defendants who had lied to the FBI and served prison sentences. No mention was made of a potential probation sentence. And though they mentioned Flynn’s extensive record of public service, that was followed by the caveat that Flynn’s national security past “should have made him particularly aware of the harm caused by providing false statements to the government.”
In the new filing, prosecutors went through each of Flynn’s military and government posts, listed examples of similar cases in which defendants had served probation, and explicitly said at the end of the memo that they did not oppose a probation sentence.
“Based on all of the relevant facts and for the foregoing reasons, the government submits that a sentence within the Guidelines range of 0 to 6 months of incarceration is appropriate and warranted in this case, agrees with the defendant that a sentence of probation is a reasonable sentence and does not oppose the imposition of a sentence of probation,” the memo concluded.
Flynn’s sentencing has already been delayed multiple times: Once after he downplayed his wrongdoing in court in 2018 — on the day he was set to receive a sentence — again late last year ahead of an inspector general’s report on the FBI’s conduct during the Russian election meddling investigation, and again this month when he filed to withdraw his guilty plea.
Read the DOJ filing below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Ross Claims China’s Deadly Coronavirus Is An Opportunity For US Job Growth

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross sees a silver lining to the fatal coronavirus that ’ s infected thousands of people in China .
During an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on Thursday morning , Ross said that while he doesn ’ t “ want to talk about a victory lap ” regarding the disease , “ the fact is it does give businesses yet another thing to consider when they go through their review of their supply chain.
” The Trump official ticked off other major disease outbreaks that originated in China over the past 20 years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Now you have this , ” Ross said .
“ It ’ s another risk factor that people need to take into account.
” “ So I think it will help to accelerate the return of jobs to North America , ” he continued .
“ Some to U.S. , probably some to Mexico as well.
” The BBC reported on Thursday that the coronavirus , a respiratory illness that originated in Wuhan , China in early January , has spread through every region in China , infecting over 7,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries globally , including the U.S .
The death toll in China has climbed to 170 as of Wednesday .
There have been no recorded deaths outside the country so far .

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross sees a silver lining to the fatal coronavirus that’s infected thousands of people in China.
During an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on Thursday morning, Ross said that while he doesn’t “want to talk about a victory lap” regarding the disease, “the fact is it does give businesses yet another thing to consider when they go through their review of their supply chain.”
The Trump official ticked off other major disease outbreaks that originated in China over the past 20 years, such as SARS and African swine fever.
“Now you have this,” Ross said. “It’s another risk factor that people need to take into account.”
“So I think it will help to accelerate the return of jobs to North America,” he continued. “Some to U.S., probably some to Mexico as well.”
The BBC reported on Thursday that the coronavirus, a respiratory illness that originated in Wuhan, China in early January, has spread through every region in China, infecting over 7,000 people, and has reached at least 15 other countries globally, including the U.S.
The death toll in China has climbed to 170 as of Wednesday. There have been no recorded deaths outside the country so far.
Watch Ross below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Trump’s ‘Very Powerful’ Border Wall Partially Collapses On Mexico’s Side

You can ’ t make this stuff up .
A newly constructed section of President Donald Trump ’ s prized wall in Calexico , California toppled over into Mexicali , Mexico due to strong gusts of wind on Wednesday .
According to local CNN affiliate KYMA , several of the wall ’ s steel panels collapsed at around 12 PM PST .
Border Patrol Agent Carlos Pitones told KYMA that the panels had been recently moored to a concrete foundation that had not fully hardened .
Pitones also told the Los Angeles Times that Mexican authorities “ responded quickly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearby street.
” “ [ Customs and Border Protection ] will work with the construction contractor to mitigate the impact of high winds as construction continues , ” he said .
The latest incident isn ’ t the only time Trump ’ s “ very powerful wall ” has signaled more fragility than the President has let on : smugglers have been breaking through the wall using simple power tools and makeshift ladders .
“ We have a very powerful wall , ” he said in November .
“ But no matter how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in all fairness .
”

You can’t make this stuff up.
A newly constructed section of President Donald Trump’s prized wall in Calexico, California toppled over into Mexicali, Mexico due to strong gusts of wind on Wednesday.
According to local CNN affiliate KYMA, several of the wall’s steel panels collapsed at around 12 PM PST. Border Patrol Agent Carlos Pitones told KYMA that the panels had been recently moored to a concrete foundation that had not fully hardened.
Pitones also told the Los Angeles Times that Mexican authorities “responded quickly and were able to divert traffic from the nearby street.”
“[Customs and Border Protection] will work with the construction contractor to mitigate the impact of high winds as construction continues,” he said.
The latest incident isn’t the only time Trump’s “very powerful wall” has signaled more fragility than the President has let on: smugglers have been breaking through the wall using simple power tools and makeshift ladders.
But those breaches apparently don’t bother Trump.
“We have a very powerful wall,” he said in November. “But no matter how powerful, you can cut through anything, in all fairness.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--Trump’s Reality TV State Of The Union

Trump’s Reality TV State Of The Union

Three years into his presidency , President Trump is still the most comfortable when he ’ s leaning into his previous life as a reality TV star .
Tuesday ’ s State of the Union address featured several staged “ surprises , ” meant to delight — or infuriate — Trump ’ s audience .
The annual presidential speech before Congress has always been theatrical , with the topics a President chooses to highlight and even his selection of guests laden with symbolism .
But Trump , as is his wont , made the somewhat quiet part very , very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giveaways , and even an awards ceremony perfectly crafted for the cameras .
The most controversial such moment was his on-the-spot presentation of a Presidential Medal of Freedom — the highest civilian award — to conservative firebrand Rush Limbaugh , who recently announced a lung cancer diagnosis .
Trump ’ s interest in granting Limbaugh the honor was floated in an off-the-record lunch the White House held with broadcasters earlier Tuesday .
News that the President invited him to the speech seeped out around the same time .
Trump ’ s move to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of racist and sexist commentary , divided the room .
When his presence was announced , Republicans gave a standing ovation while Democrats sat quietly .
There were some Democratic groans of disbelief when Trump had First Lady Melania Trump present the medal to Limbaugh right there in the balcony .
Democrats were more reserved for Trump ’ s bit awarding an African American girl from Philadelphia with a so-called “ school choice ” scholarship .
Trump at first highlighted the presence of his guest , fourth-grader Janiyah , to bash Democratic Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a program expanding tax credits for donations to scholarships for children to attend private or charter schools .
As Trump then announced that Janiyah would receive such a scholarship , Republicans cheered enthusiastically .
Democrats lent some applause , but others looked uncomfortable with the moment .
The ultimate example of Trump ’ s use of the speech for made-for-TV moments was the family reunion he staged between a military wife , her small children and her husband , a sergeant who had been serving in Afghanistan .
The wind-up for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ sacrifice ” of Amy Williams , the wife who was sitting with the First Lady as a guest , while noting her 3-year old and 6-year-old had not seen their father in “ many months.
” He then departed from his prepared remarks to announce the “ very special surprise ” that her husband Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams was back from his deployment and was at the Capitol tonight .
With perfect timing , the veteran came down the balcony for Trump ’ s guests , and was greeted with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his wife .
That moment earned bipartisan applause , including a standing ovation from some Democrats , who were willing to go along with this segment of Trump ’ s show .
For all the stagecraft of the night , the grand finale was robbed from President Trump by Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
After he ended the address , she dramatically tore up his speech , while still in her position immediately behind the President , right where the cameras could see her .

Three years into his presidency, President Trump is still the most comfortable when he’s leaning into his previous life as a reality TV star.
Tuesday’s State of the Union address featured several staged “surprises,” meant to delight — or infuriate — Trump’s audience.
The annual presidential speech before Congress has always been theatrical, with the topics a President chooses to highlight and even his selection of guests laden with symbolism.
But Trump, as is his wont, made the somewhat quiet part very, very loud, with family reunions, scholarship giveaways, and even an awards ceremony perfectly crafted for the cameras.
The most controversial such moment was his on-the-spot presentation of a Presidential Medal of Freedom — the highest civilian award — to conservative firebrand Rush Limbaugh, who recently announced a lung cancer diagnosis.
Trump’s interest in granting Limbaugh the honor was floated in an off-the-record lunch the White House held with broadcasters earlier Tuesday. News that the President invited him to the speech seeped out around the same time.
Trump’s move to highlight Limbaugh, who has a history of racist and sexist commentary, divided the room. When his presence was announced, Republicans gave a standing ovation while Democrats sat quietly. There were some Democratic groans of disbelief when Trump had First Lady Melania Trump present the medal to Limbaugh right there in the balcony.
Democrats were more reserved for Trump’s bit awarding an African American girl from Philadelphia with a so-called “school choice” scholarship. Trump at first highlighted the presence of his guest, fourth-grader Janiyah, to bash Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s veto of a program expanding tax credits for donations to scholarships for children to attend private or charter schools.
As Trump then announced that Janiyah would receive such a scholarship, Republicans cheered enthusiastically. Democrats lent some applause, but others looked uncomfortable with the moment.
The ultimate example of Trump’s use of the speech for made-for-TV moments was the family reunion he staged between a military wife, her small children and her husband, a sergeant who had been serving in Afghanistan. The wind-up for the moment included Trump’s gratitude for the “sacrifice” of Amy Williams, the wife who was sitting with the First Lady as a guest, while noting her 3-year old and 6-year-old had not seen their father in “many months.”
He then departed from his prepared remarks to announce the “very special surprise” that her husband Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams was back from his deployment and was at the Capitol tonight. With perfect timing, the veteran came down the balcony for Trump’s guests, and was greeted with hugs from his children and a kiss from his wife.
That moment earned bipartisan applause, including a standing ovation from some Democrats, who were willing to go along with this segment of Trump’s show.
For all the stagecraft of the night, the grand finale was robbed from President Trump by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. After he ended the address, she dramatically tore up his speech, while still in her position immediately behind the President, right where the cameras could see her.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--GOP Hype For A Bipartisan Acquittal Backfires

Democrats fell short on their biggest goal going into President Trump ’ s impeachment trial : getting witnesses .
But when it ended , they were able to achieve the second best thing they could have hoped for , given an acquittal was always guaranteed .
The vote for conviction was bipartisan , with Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) breaking with his party on the abuse of power article , while only Republicans voted for acquittal .
That outcome flipped on its head a talking point Trump and the GOP had embraced coming out of the House inquiry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and two Democrats voted against both counts .
And it injected one final dramatic , albeit not decisive , twist in a final trial vote that otherwise lacked suspense .
Sens .
Joe Manchin ( D-WV ) and Kristen Sinema ( D-AZ ) , two Democrats being watched closely for potential acquittal votes on at least one of the articles , announced their support for conviction on both counts just minutes before the vote was held .
Romney ’ s decision to vote for convicting Trump on one of the articles reportedly blindsided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even as Romney staged several media interviews to be rolled out once he announced his decision shortly before the vote Wednesday .
“ I think it ’ s pretty amazing when you think that the presidential nominee of one of the political parties votes to convict and nobody in the party follows them because fear does the business in this place , ” Sen. Sherrod Brown ( D-OH ) told TPM .
Having failed to secure the votes for additional witness and document subpoenas ( a measure Romney also supported ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused his closing arguments on swaying even just one Republican “ Every single vote — even a single vote , by a single member — can change the course of history , ” Schiff said last week from the Senate floor .
“ Is there one among you who will say : ‘ Enough ’ ?
” Romney did say , enough , with a floor speech on Wednesday afternoon that dissected the President ’ s defense , brushed off calls that he vote with team , and called Trump ’ s abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destructive violation of one ’ s oath of office that I can imagine.
” Meanwhile , it was not clear until the very end whether any Democrats , particularly those representing red or purple states , would join Republicans in acquitting on either article .
Manchin had previously told reporters he would not make a decision until entering the chamber for the final vote , though he did ultimately have a statement ready right before it was cast .
“ I was proud that the Democrats hung together .
I was impressed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brian Schatz ( D-HI ) told reporters after the vote .
“ We were never going to get to 67 , ” Schatz said , referring to the number of votes required for removal .
“ But I think there ’ s significant symbolic importance that the vote to convict was bipartisan.
” As they bashed the House process , Republicans had frequently touted the fact that the House votes in December on the two articles — as well an earlier vote on impeachment procedures — were strictly partisan .
( Michigan Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year , and voted with the Democrats on impeachment issues . )
They further embraced the defections of those Democrats — one of them , Rep. Van Drew of New Jersey , ultimately joining the GOP right after impeachment article vote — to argue that there was in fact bipartisan opposition to how the House conducted itself .
They predicted a similar bipartisan acquittal at the end of the Senate trial “ We ’ ve already had Democrats come across and join with Republicans when it came to the impeachment articles in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-NC ) , advisor to Trump ’ s impeachment team , said last week .
“ To have a bipartisan acquittal verdict certainly would carry the same message.
” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) acknowledged after Wednesday ’ s vote that if it was a fair argument for Republicans to make after the House vote , then it was fair for Democrats now .
“ It ’ s a nice talking point , but it ’ s immaterial , ” he said .
Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow blew off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and refusing to give to a reaction to Romney ’ s decision while talking to reporters after the vote .
Even some Democrats were hesitant to find a silver lining in the outcome .
Sen. Doug Jones ( D-AL ) , whose vote was also closely watched , told reporters that what he believed would be most remembered was the trial ’ s lack of witnesses , rather than the bipartisan conviction .
“ Judge Taylor in ‘ To Kill a A Mockingbird ’ said , you know people hear what they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to see , ” Jones said .
“ I think people can read into what they want to .
”

Democrats fell short on their biggest goal going into President Trump’s impeachment trial: getting witnesses. But when it ended, they were able to achieve the second best thing they could have hoped for, given an acquittal was always guaranteed.
The vote for conviction was bipartisan, with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) breaking with his party on the abuse of power article, while only Republicans voted for acquittal.
That outcome flipped on its head a talking point Trump and the GOP had embraced coming out of the House inquiry, where no Republicans supported the impeachment articles and two Democrats voted against both counts. And it injected one final dramatic, albeit not decisive, twist in a final trial vote that otherwise lacked suspense.
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kristen Sinema (D-AZ), two Democrats being watched closely for potential acquittal votes on at least one of the articles, announced their support for conviction on both counts just minutes before the vote was held. Romney’s decision to vote for convicting Trump on one of the articles reportedly blindsided the White House and GOP Senate leadership, even as Romney staged several media interviews to be rolled out once he announced his decision shortly before the vote Wednesday.
“I think it’s pretty amazing when you think that the presidential nominee of one of the political parties votes to convict and nobody in the party follows them because fear does the business in this place,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told TPM.
Having failed to secure the votes for additional witness and document subpoenas (a measure Romney also supported), House Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) focused his closing arguments on swaying even just one Republican
“Every single vote — even a single vote, by a single member — can change the course of history,” Schiff said last week from the Senate floor. “Is there one among you who will say: ‘Enough’?”
Romney did say, enough, with a floor speech on Wednesday afternoon that dissected the President’s defense, brushed off calls that he vote with team, and called Trump’s abuse of power the “most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”
Meanwhile, it was not clear until the very end whether any Democrats, particularly those representing red or purple states, would join Republicans in acquitting on either article. Manchin had previously told reporters he would not make a decision until entering the chamber for the final vote, though he did ultimately have a statement ready right before it was cast.
“I was proud that the Democrats hung together. I was impressed that Mitt Romney displayed courage,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) told reporters after the vote.
“We were never going to get to 67,” Schatz said, referring to the number of votes required for removal. “But I think there’s significant symbolic importance that the vote to convict was bipartisan.”
As they bashed the House process, Republicans had frequently touted the fact that the House votes in December on the two articles — as well an earlier vote on impeachment procedures — were strictly partisan. (Michigan Rep. Justin Amash switched from Republican to independent last year, and voted with the Democrats on impeachment issues. ) They further embraced the defections of those Democrats — one of them, Rep. Van Drew of New Jersey, ultimately joining the GOP right after impeachment article vote — to argue that there was in fact bipartisan opposition to how the House conducted itself. They predicted a similar bipartisan acquittal at the end of the Senate trial
“We’ve already had Democrats come across and join with Republicans when it came to the impeachment articles in the House,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), advisor to Trump’s impeachment team, said last week. “To have a bipartisan acquittal verdict certainly would carry the same message.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) acknowledged after Wednesday’s vote that if it was a fair argument for Republicans to make after the House vote, then it was fair for Democrats now. “It’s a nice talking point, but it’s immaterial,” he said.
Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow blew off the argument altogether, stressing the overall acquittal and refusing to give to a reaction to Romney’s decision while talking to reporters after the vote.
Even some Democrats were hesitant to find a silver lining in the outcome.
Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), whose vote was also closely watched, told reporters that what he believed would be most remembered was the trial’s lack of witnesses, rather than the bipartisan conviction.
“Judge Taylor in ‘To Kill a A Mockingbird’ said, you know people hear what they want to hear, they see what they want to see,” Jones said. “I think people can read into what they want to.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--Senate Acquits Trump Leaving The Presidency Unbound And Unaccountable

The Senate voted Wednesday to acquit President Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to his Ukraine conduct , bringing to an end a fast-tracked two-week impeachment trial .
The vote for conviction was ultimately bipartisan , robbing Trump and Republicans of a key talking point , while those voting for acquittal were strictly Republican .
No Democrats voted with Republicans to clear Trump on either of the articles , while one Republican , Sen. Mitt Romney ( UT ) voted to remove the President on abuse of power .
Because conviction required a two-thirds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 53 seats , an acquittal always seemed guaranteed .
Wednesday ’ s vote served as a denouement to a more contentious fight over bringing additional witnesses and documents into the Senate proceedings .
Democrats failed in that effort , and previewed arguments that Wednesday ’ s acquittal was illegitimate because it was not produced by a “ fair ” trial .
Nonetheless , Senate Republicans in their handling of the proceedings have mostly shirked any obligation to hold the President accountable for a scheme that involved withholding military aid from Ukraine to force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political rivals .
In the statements explaining the vote , many Republicans suggested the President ’ s actions were justified .
Others avoided weighing in on his conduct by focusing on complaints about the House ’ s problems , or claiming that the House ’ s allegations , even if true , would never amount to an impeachable offense .
Only a few GOP senators voiced any concerns about the behavior exposed by the trial as they headed into the acquittal vote .
The scandal was first forced into public view with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the administration — that the House became aware of last fall .
The complaint centered around a July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump prodded Zelensky for investigations into Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory alleging Ukraine 2016 election interference .
The House impeachment inquiry further exposed a months-long effort led by Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and his associates to dig up dirt on the Bidens and to smear anyone who appeared to get in the way of the scheme .
Several administration witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry , but the White House successfully blocked the cooperation of aides closest to Trump , who could have provided first-hand accounts of Trump ’ s involvement in the effort .
The administration also withheld production of documents subpoenaed by the House .
While explaining their votes against Senate trial subpoenas and in favor of acquittal , some Senate Republicans conceded that Trump ’ s behavior was “ inappropriate ” but that it did not warrant his removal — particularly so close to an election .
The House , meanwhile , argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 election put the election itself at risk .
Regardless , several Republicans appeared to embrace a radical argument put forward by Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense .
The repercussions of the acquittal will be felt through the 2020 election and beyond .
President Trump is unlikely to feel humbled , even with the occasional GOP statement condemning his behavior , and many see Wednesday ’ s acquittal vote as emboldening his efforts to use U.S. foreign policy to smear a possible electoral opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will push for investigations into the baseless allegations against the Bidens that had driven Trump ’ s Ukraine crusade .
A handful of Republicans who criticized the President whiling voting to acquit the him claimed that Trump had learned his lesson because of the verbal pushback he received over his Ukraine behavior .
Trump , meanwhile , reportedly told journalists on Tuesday that he disagreed with that assessment and still believed he had done nothing wrong .

The Senate voted Wednesday to acquit President Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to his Ukraine conduct, bringing to an end a fast-tracked two-week impeachment trial.
The vote for conviction was ultimately bipartisan, robbing Trump and Republicans of a key talking point, while those voting for acquittal were strictly Republican. No Democrats voted with Republicans to clear Trump on either of the articles, while one Republican, Sen. Mitt Romney (UT) voted to remove the President on abuse of power.
Because conviction required a two-thirds majority in a Senate where Republicans have 53 seats, an acquittal always seemed guaranteed. Wednesday’s vote served as a denouement to a more contentious fight over bringing additional witnesses and documents into the Senate proceedings.
Democrats failed in that effort, and previewed arguments that Wednesday’s acquittal was illegitimate because it was not produced by a “fair” trial.
“If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said last week.
Nonetheless, Senate Republicans in their handling of the proceedings have mostly shirked any obligation to hold the President accountable for a scheme that involved withholding military aid from Ukraine to force announcements of investigations into Trump’s political rivals.
In the statements explaining the vote, many Republicans suggested the President’s actions were justified. Others avoided weighing in on his conduct by focusing on complaints about the House’s problems, or claiming that the House’s allegations, even if true, would never amount to an impeachable offense. Only a few GOP senators voiced any concerns about the behavior exposed by the trial as they headed into the acquittal vote.
The scandal was first forced into public view with a whistleblower complaint — initially withheld from Congress by the administration — that the House became aware of last fall. The complaint centered around a July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump prodded Zelensky for investigations into Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory alleging Ukraine 2016 election interference.
The House impeachment inquiry further exposed a months-long effort led by Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and his associates to dig up dirt on the Bidens and to smear anyone who appeared to get in the way of the scheme. Several administration witnesses defied Trump to participate in the House inquiry, but the White House successfully blocked the cooperation of aides closest to Trump, who could have provided first-hand accounts of Trump’s involvement in the effort. The administration also withheld production of documents subpoenaed by the House.
While explaining their votes against Senate trial subpoenas and in favor of acquittal, some Senate Republicans conceded that Trump’s behavior was “inappropriate” but that it did not warrant his removal — particularly so close to an election. The House, meanwhile, argued that Trump’s effort to cheat in the 2020 election put the election itself at risk.
Regardless, several Republicans appeared to embrace a radical argument put forward by Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
The repercussions of the acquittal will be felt through the 2020 election and beyond.
President Trump is unlikely to feel humbled, even with the occasional GOP statement condemning his behavior, and many see Wednesday’s acquittal vote as emboldening his efforts to use U.S. foreign policy to smear a possible electoral opponent. Some Senate Republicans have vowed that they will push for investigations into the baseless allegations against the Bidens that had driven Trump’s Ukraine crusade.
A handful of Republicans who criticized the President whiling voting to acquit the him claimed that Trump had learned his lesson because of the verbal pushback he received over his Ukraine behavior.
Trump, meanwhile, reportedly told journalists on Tuesday that he disagreed with that assessment and still believed he had done nothing wrong.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--Republican Senators Laugh Off Trump Jr.’s Cry To Boot Romney From The Party

Immediately after Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) announced that he would vote to convict President Donald Trump on the abuse of power impeachment article , Donald Trump Jr. raised a battle cry to expel Romney from the party .
Some Republicans dismissed the idea out of hand , in one case literally laughing off the idea .
Sen. Kevin Cramer ( R-ND ) was nonplussed .
“ I don ’ t really know how you expel someone from the Republican party , ” he said , adding : “ I ’ m glad Mitt ’ s a Republican.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Cramer , adding that Romney has stuck with the party on other issues .
“ No , I don ’ t think so , ” he said on whether Romney even could be removed .
“ Mitt ’ s been very supportive on a number of other issues .
This is just where we respectfully disagree.
” Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) was terse : “ Nope , not at all.
” Some of Romney ’ s colleagues , however , dodged Trump Jr. ’ s suggestion rather than casting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) brushed off the question , urging reporters to focus on Trump ’ s inevitable acquittal .
Sen. Steve Daines ( R-MT ) also avoided answering the question , instead saying that Romney ’ s was a “ disappointing vote.
” Sen. John Kennedy ( R-LA ) joined his taciturn colleagues , saying that Romney ’ s decision is “ between him and the good people of Utah.
” Romney will be the only Republican to defect on the vote to convict the President .
Besides his yes vote on conviction for abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strictly along party lines and the President will be acquitted thanks to the Republican majority .

Immediately after Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) announced that he would vote to convict President Donald Trump on the abuse of power impeachment article, Donald Trump Jr. raised a battle cry to expel Romney from the party.
Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS. He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he’s joining them now. He’s now officially a member of the resistance & should be expelled from the @GOP. — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 5, 2020
Some Republicans dismissed the idea out of hand, in one case literally laughing off the idea.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) was nonplussed. “I don’t really know how you expel someone from the Republican party,” he said, adding: “I’m glad Mitt’s a Republican.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) sided with Cramer, adding that Romney has stuck with the party on other issues.
“No, I don’t think so,” he said on whether Romney even could be removed. “Mitt’s been very supportive on a number of other issues. This is just where we respectfully disagree.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was terse: “Nope, not at all.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) merely laughed.
Some of Romney’s colleagues, however, dodged Trump Jr.’s suggestion rather than casting it aside.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) brushed off the question, urging reporters to focus on Trump’s inevitable acquittal.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) also avoided answering the question, instead saying that Romney’s was a “disappointing vote.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) joined his taciturn colleagues, saying that Romney’s decision is “between him and the good people of Utah.”
Romney will be the only Republican to defect on the vote to convict the President. Besides his yes vote on conviction for abuse of power, the vote will be strictly along party lines and the President will be acquitted thanks to the Republican majority.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--Hannity Was Set To Play Early Role In Response To Impeachment Inquiry

Fox News host Sean Hannity was set to play an early role in the response to President Trump ’ s impeachment inquiry .
TPM obtained text messages between Lev Parnas and a Fox News producer and booker as they attempted to arrange an interview between Hannity and Viktor Shokin , a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor with an axe to grind against Joe Biden .
The exchange occurred in early October , days before Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were intercepted by FBI agents at Washington-Dulles International Airport as they boarded a flight on a one-way ticket to Vienna .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were headed to Vienna for the interview between Shokin and Hannity .
Texts obtained by TPM show that two Fox News employees — booker Alyssa Moni and executive producer Tiffany Fazio — reached out to Parnas on Oct. 6 asking about when to book a studio for Shokin in Vienna .
Shokin is a central figure in the debunked allegations into which President Trump pressured Ukraine to announce investigations .
As general prosecutor of Ukraine in 2015 and 2016 , Shokin was frequently criticized for alleged corruption and for being ineffectual , failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court or to make progress in investigating the murder of more than 100 protestors during the country ’ s 2014 revolution .
Among the companies that Shokin was criticized for failing to investigate was Burisma , a gas company owned by a former government official accused of embezzlement .
Under pressure from the international community and others , including Vice President Joe Biden , Shokin was fired in March 2016 .
Shokin has gone on to present a different narrative , in which he was fired not for lack of action , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The company had added Biden ’ s son Hunter to its board in 2014 , along with other people perceived to have political influence , including a former Polish president and a Bush administration counterterrorism official .
Shokin has claimed that Biden had him fired to protect his son from the investigation .
Parnas told TPM in an interview with his attorney Joseph A. Bondy that Shokin was set to make the same claims to Hannity in the Oct. 10 interview .
There ’ s no evidence to support Shokin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his client President Trump have seized on the narrative as a justification for why Ukraine should open an investigation into a political opponent of the President ’ s .
Giuliani pressured two presidents of Ukraine — Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky — to do so .
Moni , the Hannity booker , wrote to Parnas that the show needed “ to book a translator — we want to get the best person .
Should it be a Ukrainian or Russian speaker ?
John Solomon suggested Russian.
” Parnas later told the pair that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Shokin to appear at the Vienna studio , noting that he was “ still recovering.
” But the interview never took place .
Parnas and Fruman were arrested on the eve of the planned interview on criminal campaign finance charges .
Giuliani asked Parnas and Fruman for at least one piece of information in advance of the interview .
On the day that the pair were arrested , they had lunch with Giuliani at the Trump Hotel in D.C. A Giuliani assistant — Christianne Allen — asked Parnas that day for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete ] Sessions ( R-TX ) wrote to the President to remove Yovanovitch.
” When CNN first reported the planned interview in October , Hannity said through a spokesperson that “ we never reveal our sources , potential sources , or persons they may or may not request to interview .
Sean Hannity takes the First Amendment seriously.
” Hannity confirmed the attempt to interview Shokin in a statement to TPM .
“ My staff did make attempts independently to interview Prosecutor Shokin who was fired after Joe Biden leveraged $ 1 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just like ABC and the Washington Post interviewed him , ” Hannity told TPM .
Though the interview with Shokin never took place , the disgraced prosecutor later spoke with Giuliani for a One America News series about the allegations .
As the House conducted its impeachment inquiry , Giuliani traveled to Kyiv for the series — a feat he was unable to accomplish while the pressure campaign was occurring somewhat behind closed doors .
“ I am extremely proud of my team for their hard work and dedication , ” Hannity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proud of the fact that while the media mob was lying daily about alleged Trump and Russian collusion , my team was busy breaking news daily and exposing FISA abuse and the Clinton bought and paid for the dirty Russian dossier .
As the recent IG report confirmed , our reporting was completely accurate , and the media mob was wrong again .
”

Fox News host Sean Hannity was set to play an early role in the response to President Trump’s impeachment inquiry.
TPM obtained text messages between Lev Parnas and a Fox News producer and booker as they attempted to arrange an interview between Hannity and Viktor Shokin, a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor with an axe to grind against Joe Biden.
The exchange occurred in early October, days before Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were intercepted by FBI agents at Washington-Dulles International Airport as they boarded a flight on a one-way ticket to Vienna.
As CNN reported last year, the pair were headed to Vienna for the interview between Shokin and Hannity.
Texts obtained by TPM show that two Fox News employees — booker Alyssa Moni and executive producer Tiffany Fazio — reached out to Parnas on Oct. 6 asking about when to book a studio for Shokin in Vienna.
Shokin is a central figure in the debunked allegations into which President Trump pressured Ukraine to announce investigations.
As general prosecutor of Ukraine in 2015 and 2016, Shokin was frequently criticized for alleged corruption and for being ineffectual, failing to bring any grand corruption cases to court or to make progress in investigating the murder of more than 100 protestors during the country’s 2014 revolution.
Among the companies that Shokin was criticized for failing to investigate was Burisma, a gas company owned by a former government official accused of embezzlement.
Under pressure from the international community and others, including Vice President Joe Biden, Shokin was fired in March 2016.
Shokin has gone on to present a different narrative, in which he was fired not for lack of action, but rather because he was aggressively investigating Burisma. The company had added Biden’s son Hunter to its board in 2014, along with other people perceived to have political influence, including a former Polish president and a Bush administration counterterrorism official.
Shokin has claimed that Biden had him fired to protect his son from the investigation. Parnas told TPM in an interview with his attorney Joseph A. Bondy that Shokin was set to make the same claims to Hannity in the Oct. 10 interview.
There’s no evidence to support Shokin’s allegations. But Giuliani and allies of his client President Trump have seized on the narrative as a justification for why Ukraine should open an investigation into a political opponent of the President’s. Giuliani pressured two presidents of Ukraine — Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky — to do so.
Moni, the Hannity booker, wrote to Parnas that the show needed “to book a translator — we want to get the best person. Should it be a Ukrainian or Russian speaker? John Solomon suggested Russian.”
Parnas later told the pair that Oct. 10 would be the best day for Shokin to appear at the Vienna studio, noting that he was “still recovering.”
But the interview never took place. Parnas and Fruman were arrested on the eve of the planned interview on criminal campaign finance charges.
Giuliani asked Parnas and Fruman for at least one piece of information in advance of the interview. On the day that the pair were arrested, they had lunch with Giuliani at the Trump Hotel in D.C.
A Giuliani assistant — Christianne Allen — asked Parnas that day for a copy of “the letter [Rep. Pete] Sessions (R-TX) wrote to the President to remove Yovanovitch.”
When CNN first reported the planned interview in October, Hannity said through a spokesperson that “we never reveal our sources, potential sources, or persons they may or may not request to interview. Sean Hannity takes the First Amendment seriously.”
Hannity confirmed the attempt to interview Shokin in a statement to TPM.
“My staff did make attempts independently to interview Prosecutor Shokin who was fired after Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion taxpayer dollars and demanded he be fired, just like ABC and the Washington Post interviewed him,” Hannity told TPM.
Though the interview with Shokin never took place, the disgraced prosecutor later spoke with Giuliani for a One America News series about the allegations. As the House conducted its impeachment inquiry, Giuliani traveled to Kyiv for the series — a feat he was unable to accomplish while the pressure campaign was occurring somewhat behind closed doors.
“I am extremely proud of my team for their hard work and dedication,” Hannity added. “I am also extremely proud of the fact that while the media mob was lying daily about alleged Trump and Russian collusion, my team was busy breaking news daily and exposing FISA abuse and the Clinton bought and paid for the dirty Russian dossier. As the recent IG report confirmed, our reporting was completely accurate, and the media mob was wrong again.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--New Evidence Shows Pressure Campaign Started Earlier With Prior Ukraine Prez

As the Senate votes to acquit President Trump over his bid to extort the Ukrainian government into providing him with domestic political help , TPM has new evidence suggesting that the pressure campaign came far closer to succeeding and at an earlier stage than was previously known .
Months before President Trump pressured Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations during the infamous July 25 phone call , henchmen working for his attorney nearly succeeded in doing the same with the previous Ukrainian leader .
Text messages obtained by TPM show that former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko was scheduled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election to John Solomon of The Hill in March 2019 .
Ultimately , Poroshenko backed out of the interview at the last minute .
The planned appearance came in the wake of a late February meeting that the then-Ukrainian leader held with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , in which they offered what Parnas has described as a “ quid pro quo ” on behalf of Rudy Giuliani and his client , President Trump : announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election , and receive in return a state visit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s re-election chances .
Poroshenko ’ s planned appearance suggests that he had , at least initially , agreed to the deal , before backing out .
It also highlights that the campaign to turn Ukraine into a domestic political bludgeon for Trump began far earlier than Giuliani ’ s aborted May 2019 dirt-digging trip to Kyiv .
“ This was not just the July 25 call , it was a months-long scheme , or effort , or whatever you wan na call it put together by the President , Giuliani , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a telephone interview with his attorney Joseph A. Bondy .
It took Trump and Giuliani months of pressure to convince Poroshenko ’ s successor , Zelensky , to agree to a TV news appearance , on CNN in September .
Zelensky also backed out at the last minute .
Parnas sent Poroshenko ’ s press secretary a list of questions ahead of the planned interview : “ this will be questions , ” Parnas said in an accompanying text .
The questions , obtained by TPM , goad Poroshenko into describing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate .
The questions cover two distinct topics : allegations that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was bad-mouthing President Trump in Kyiv and allegations that Joe Biden had abused his position to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired in a bid to protect his son Hunter Biden from an investigation .
One question on the Yovanovitch portion appears to reference a May 2018 letter sent by Rep. Pete Sessions ( R-TX ) to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , demanding the ambassador ’ s removal .
“ I recently was shown a letter from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was saying derogatory things about president Trump .
Do you have any evidence that has happened ?
” the question reads .
The line of questions about the Bidens conclude in the following sequence : “ Did VP Biden have an interest personally in the prosecutor ’ s office and its activities ?
” “ Was the VP ’ s son and his company Barisma Holdings under investigation and how serious were the allegations ?
” “ What happened to that case after the vice president ’ s intervention ?
” Parnas told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The topics do not cover allegations of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election — a right-wing hobbyhorse raised on Trump ’ s call with Zelensky , and a story in which Poroshenko is supposedly implicated .
Robert Costello , an attorney for Giuliani , denied that his client was involved in a scheme to pressure Poroshenko , calling Parnas ’ allegation “ untrue.
” Costello accused Parnas in a statement to TPM of “ trying to inflate his role and importance because he thinks it is in his best interest or he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Darya Khudyakova , the Poroshenko spokeswoman who communicated with Parnas , did not deny the matter in a statement to TPM , but also did not directly address the allegations .
“ We greatly value the relations of strategic partnership between Ukraine and the US , and thus would ask you not to drag Ukraine into the internal debates that belong to the US and American people only , ” Khudyakova said .
The White House would not comment to TPM for this story .
Solomon did not reply to repeated requests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past that he stands by his reporting .
The planned interview with Solomon was set to occur as Poroshenko fought a losing battle for re-election , against Zelensky and former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko .
On Feb. 20 , Poroshenko had effusively praised President Trump in a separate Fox News appearance during a visit to New York City .
“ I have a feeling that this U.S. administration clearly understands the possible danger of Putin , ” Poroshenko told America ’ s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer .
“ Only the leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe.
” Parnas ’ allegations about the Poroshenko pressure campaign are supported by contemporaneous Russian-language texts between Parnas and Yuriy Lutsenko , Ukraine ’ s prosecutor general at the time .
A series of texts beginning in early March shows Parnas attempting to arrange the Poroshenko interview through Lutsenko , who was present at the February meeting in Kyiv .
The House Intelligence Committee released the texts the week before the Senate began the third impeachment trial in U.S. history .
Parnas supplied the panel with the texts after receiving them from Manhattan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign finance case .
On March 8 , Parnas sent Lutsenko the names of Solomon and Fox News ’ Sean Hannity along with a March 5 Washington Post article that took a critical look at “ the feedback loop between Fox News and the Oval Office.
” In the same exchange , Parnas sent Lutsenko a story from The Hill from December 2018 , casting doubt on the FBI ’ s conduct in the Russia investigation .
In response to the messages , Lutsenko began to complain about Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a response .
But then , Parnas told Lutsenko , using a diminutive for Yuriy , that , “ Yura , we ’ re aware of everything.
” “ Try to do an interview tomorrow at one , ” Parnas added , apparently referring to an interview that Lutsenko later had with Solomon .
Lutsenko replied that he would try to call , and then wrote that an unnamed person “ will definitely be in the Administration , ” apparently referring to the Presidential Administration , which houses Ukraine ’ s executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connect you earlier.
” One minute later , Parnas wrote “ and be sure that this will be a friendly interview with the President of Ukraine , a state partner of America !
!
!
” Parnas added in a later text that “ we will try to agree that that they do an interview with you tomorrow as well.
” Parnas wrote that “ we are now in the [ studio ] and will now call the President ’ s secretary.
” He followed up with screenshots of what appeared to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutor whose firing Yovanovitch demanded .
In the March 8 exchange , Khudyakova asked Parnas if it would be possible to schedule an interview that Tsegolko had made her “ responsible to negotiate.
” Khudyakova described the interview to Parnas as “ an important moment for us.
” Parnas sent her an image showing a document with the list of questions , covering allegations against both Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Joe Biden .
Khudyakova told Parnas that she received the questions , and initially agreed to have Poroshenko do the interview on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day .
But something happened in the intervening time , and Poroshenko called it off .
Lutsenko told Parnas “ these are not questions for an acting President — in the heat of the campaign he can not respond to questions about the ambassador , Biden , etc.
” Khudyakova wrote to Parnas on the day that the interview was supposed to be held that “ it seems that a probability of interview with the President late tonight today is very unlikely.
” It would appear from the texts that Poroshenko ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to walk away from the interview , perhaps sensing it unwise .
Or , as Lutsenko wrote a few days later , “ I ’ m ready to screw your competitor , but you just want more.
” It would appear from the context that Lutsenko is referring to “ Biden ” as the “ competitor , ” but it ’ s unclear from the text itself .
But Lutsenko himself eventually spoke to Solomon and got his end of the deal , or at least part of it : Yovanovitch was removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April , and formally removed from Kyiv in early May .
Lutsenko told Bloomberg in a May 16 interview after Yovanovitch ’ s departure that there was no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on Biden ’ s part .
“ I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of U.S. presidential elections , ” Lutsenko told Bloomberg .
“ Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now , we do not see any wrongdoing .
”

As the Senate votes to acquit President Trump over his bid to extort the Ukrainian government into providing him with domestic political help, TPM has new evidence suggesting that the pressure campaign came far closer to succeeding and at an earlier stage than was previously known.
Months before President Trump pressured Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations during the infamous July 25 phone call, henchmen working for his attorney nearly succeeded in doing the same with the previous Ukrainian leader.
Text messages obtained by TPM show that former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko was scheduled to announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election to John Solomon of The Hill in March 2019. Ultimately, Poroshenko backed out of the interview at the last minute.
The planned appearance came in the wake of a late February meeting that the then-Ukrainian leader held with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, in which they offered what Parnas has described as a “quid pro quo” on behalf of Rudy Giuliani and his client, President Trump: announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election, and receive in return a state visit to the U.S. that could bolster Poroshenko’s re-election chances.
Poroshenko’s planned appearance suggests that he had, at least initially, agreed to the deal, before backing out. It also highlights that the campaign to turn Ukraine into a domestic political bludgeon for Trump began far earlier than Giuliani’s aborted May 2019 dirt-digging trip to Kyiv.
“This was not just the July 25 call, it was a months-long scheme, or effort, or whatever you wanna call it put together by the President, Giuliani, and others,” Parnas told TPM in a telephone interview with his attorney Joseph A. Bondy.
It took Trump and Giuliani months of pressure to convince Poroshenko’s successor, Zelensky, to agree to a TV news appearance, on CNN in September. Zelensky also backed out at the last minute.
Parnas sent Poroshenko’s press secretary a list of questions ahead of the planned interview: “this will be questions,” Parnas said in an accompanying text. The questions, obtained by TPM, goad Poroshenko into describing the allegations that Trump would later want Zelensky to investigate.
The questions cover two distinct topics: allegations that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was bad-mouthing President Trump in Kyiv and allegations that Joe Biden had abused his position to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired in a bid to protect his son Hunter Biden from an investigation.
One question on the Yovanovitch portion appears to reference a May 2018 letter sent by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, demanding the ambassador’s removal.
“I recently was shown a letter from a member of Congress who suggested Ambassador YO-van-NO-witch was saying derogatory things about president Trump. Do you have any evidence that has happened?” the question reads.
The line of questions about the Bidens conclude in the following sequence:
“Did VP Biden have an interest personally in the prosecutor’s office and its activities?”
“Was the VP’s son and his company Barisma Holdings under investigation and how serious were the allegations?”
“What happened to that case after the vice president’s intervention?”
Parnas told TPM that Solomon formulated the questions. The topics do not cover allegations of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election — a right-wing hobbyhorse raised on Trump’s call with Zelensky, and a story in which Poroshenko is supposedly implicated.
Robert Costello, an attorney for Giuliani, denied that his client was involved in a scheme to pressure Poroshenko, calling Parnas’ allegation “untrue.” Costello accused Parnas in a statement to TPM of “trying to inflate his role and importance because he thinks it is in his best interest or he is being given bad advice to do that.”
Darya Khudyakova, the Poroshenko spokeswoman who communicated with Parnas, did not deny the matter in a statement to TPM, but also did not directly address the allegations.
“We greatly value the relations of strategic partnership between Ukraine and the US, and thus would ask you not to drag Ukraine into the internal debates that belong to the US and American people only,” Khudyakova said.
The White House would not comment to TPM for this story. Solomon did not reply to repeated requests for comment, but has said in the past that he stands by his reporting.
The planned interview with Solomon was set to occur as Poroshenko fought a losing battle for re-election, against Zelensky and former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
On Feb. 20, Poroshenko had effusively praised President Trump in a separate Fox News appearance during a visit to New York City.
“I have a feeling that this U.S. administration clearly understands the possible danger of Putin,” Poroshenko told America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer. “Only the leadership of President Trump can keep the world safe.”
Parnas’ allegations about the Poroshenko pressure campaign are supported by contemporaneous Russian-language texts between Parnas and Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s prosecutor general at the time.
A series of texts beginning in early March shows Parnas attempting to arrange the Poroshenko interview through Lutsenko, who was present at the February meeting in Kyiv.
The House Intelligence Committee released the texts the week before the Senate began the third impeachment trial in U.S. history. Parnas supplied the panel with the texts after receiving them from Manhattan federal prosecutors as discovery in his criminal campaign finance case.
On March 8, Parnas sent Lutsenko the names of Solomon and Fox News’ Sean Hannity along with a March 5 Washington Post article that took a critical look at “the feedback loop between Fox News and the Oval Office.” In the same exchange, Parnas sent Lutsenko a story from The Hill from December 2018, casting doubt on the FBI’s conduct in the Russia investigation.
In response to the messages, Lutsenko began to complain about Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and the State Department’s support for her as a response.
But then, Parnas told Lutsenko, using a diminutive for Yuriy, that, “Yura, we’re aware of everything.”
“Try to do an interview tomorrow at one,” Parnas added, apparently referring to an interview that Lutsenko later had with Solomon.
Lutsenko replied that he would try to call, and then wrote that an unnamed person “will definitely be in the Administration,” apparently referring to the Presidential Administration, which houses Ukraine’s executive offices. “I will try to connect you earlier.”
One minute later, Parnas wrote “and be sure that this will be a friendly interview with the President of Ukraine, a state partner of America !!!” Parnas added in a later text that “we will try to agree that that they do an interview with you tomorrow as well.”
Lutsenko gave Parnas the phone number of Poroshenko’s press secretary, Svyatoslav Tsegolko.
Parnas wrote that “we are now in the [studio] and will now call the President’s secretary.” He followed up with screenshots of what appeared to be Solomon interviewing Nazar Kholodnytsky, a Ukrainian prosecutor whose firing Yovanovitch demanded.
TPM obtained texts between Parnas and Darya Khudakova, Poroshenko’s foreign media press secretary.
In the March 8 exchange, Khudyakova asked Parnas if it would be possible to schedule an interview that Tsegolko had made her “responsible to negotiate.”
Khudyakova described the interview to Parnas as “an important moment for us.”
Parnas sent her an image showing a document with the list of questions, covering allegations against both Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Joe Biden.
Khudyakova told Parnas that she received the questions, and initially agreed to have Poroshenko do the interview on Monday, March 11, after Parnas proposed the day.
But something happened in the intervening time, and Poroshenko called it off.
Lutsenko told Parnas “these are not questions for an acting President — in the heat of the campaign he cannot respond to questions about the ambassador, Biden, etc.”
Khudyakova wrote to Parnas on the day that the interview was supposed to be held that “it seems that a probability of interview with the President late tonight today is very unlikely.”
It would appear from the texts that Poroshenko’s team chose at the last minute to walk away from the interview, perhaps sensing it unwise.
Or, as Lutsenko wrote a few days later, “I’m ready to screw your competitor, but you just want more.”
It would appear from the context that Lutsenko is referring to “Biden” as the “competitor,” but it’s unclear from the text itself.
But Lutsenko himself eventually spoke to Solomon and got his end of the deal, or at least part of it: Yovanovitch was removed from her post as ambassador in late April, and formally removed from Kyiv in early May.
Lutsenko told Bloomberg in a May 16 interview after Yovanovitch’s departure that there was no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on Biden’s part.
“I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of U.S. presidential elections,” Lutsenko told Bloomberg. “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--Romney Will Cast Historic Vote To Convict Trump Of Abuse Of Power

Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) on Wednesday announced that he would vote to convict and remove President Donald Trump from office for abusing his power .
His voice shaking during a speech on the Senate floor , Romney said Trump was no longer fit to lead the nation .
“ The great question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor , ” Romney said .
“ Yes , he did.
” The President , Romney said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine to announce a politicized investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden — something the senator characterized as the most serious violation of Trump ’ s oath imaginable .
“ Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one ’ s oath of office that I can imagine , ” he said .
Romney ’ s vote will not lead to the President ’ s removal from office — a two-thirds vote is needed and pro-removal senators make up less than half of the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significance : Romney will be the first senator in American history to vote for the removal from office of a president of his own party .
The response from the Trump administration , at least at first , was muted but foreboding .
The White House canceled an Oval Office photo opportunity with the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó .
And White House director of legislative affairs Eric Ueland , asked what he thought of a bi-partisan vote to convict the President , said “ We have a reaction that we are very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquitting the President.
” Republican senators speaking to reporters after Romney ’ s announcement attempted to downplay the news .
“ Clearly , this is an issue he grappled with , and to be honest , I couldn ’ t have predicted how it was going to go , ” Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) said of Romney .
Asked if the vote might strain Romney ’ s relationships with fellow Republicans , Sen. John Thune ( R-SD ) said Romney and President Trump “ had a little bit of a complicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the [ Senate Republican ] conference , he is somebody that we all know is a very independent person .
Obviously , we ’ re going to continue to work with him , ” Thune said .
In his floor speech Wednesday , Romney picked apart arguments from the President ’ s defense team , one by one .
The argument that only statutory crimes are impeachable , he said , “ defies reason.
” Trump ’ s pressure campaign on Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political pursuit , ” he said .
The senator dismissed the Trump team arguments that the President was interested in fighting corruption in America and Ukraine .
“ There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden , the President would never have done what he did , ” Romney said .
Romney had pre-recorded an interview with Fox News ’ Chris Wallace that the network played after he announced his vote .
“ I believe that the act he took , an effort to corrupt an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oath of office and on our Constitution as I can imagine , ” he said .
Romney told the Wallace that the decision was the most difficult of his career , but that he could bear the consequences of the President ’ s almost certain wrath .
“ I believe he made a very serious miscalculation of judgment , ” Romney said .
“ One that strikes at the very core of our Constitution .
And in a setting like that , not to acknowledge that would place a greater burden on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) on Wednesday announced that he would vote to convict and remove President Donald Trump from office for abusing his power.
His voice shaking during a speech on the Senate floor, Romney said Trump was no longer fit to lead the nation.
“The great question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor,” Romney said. “Yes, he did.”
The President, Romney said, had corrupted the 2020 election by pressuring Ukraine to announce a politicized investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden — something the senator characterized as the most serious violation of Trump’s oath imaginable.
“Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine,” he said.
FULL SPEECH: Sen. Romney says he will vote in favor of the article of impeachment on abuse of power against President Trump. "With my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me." pic.twitter.com/m4KhVCzhBS — NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) February 5, 2020
Romney’s vote will not lead to the President’s removal from office — a two-thirds vote is needed and pro-removal senators make up less than half of the Senate — but his vote is of historical significance: Romney will be the first senator in American history to vote for the removal from office of a president of his own party.
The response from the Trump administration, at least at first, was muted but foreboding. The White House canceled an Oval Office photo opportunity with the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó.
And White House director of legislative affairs Eric Ueland, asked what he thought of a bi-partisan vote to convict the President, said “We have a reaction that we are very gratified that today the Senate will be acquitting the President.”
Republican senators speaking to reporters after Romney’s announcement attempted to downplay the news.
“Clearly, this is an issue he grappled with, and to be honest, I couldn’t have predicted how it was going to go,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said of Romney.
Asked if the vote might strain Romney’s relationships with fellow Republicans, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said Romney and President Trump “had a little bit of a complicated relationship to start with.”
“In the [Senate Republican] conference, he is somebody that we all know is a very independent person. Obviously, we’re going to continue to work with him,” Thune said.
In his floor speech Wednesday, Romney picked apart arguments from the President’s defense team, one by one.
The argument that only statutory crimes are impeachable, he said, “defies reason.”
Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden was “hard to explain, other than as a political pursuit,” he said.
The senator dismissed the Trump team arguments that the President was interested in fighting corruption in America and Ukraine.
“There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did,” Romney said.
Romney had pre-recorded an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace that the network played after he announced his vote.
“I believe that the act he took, an effort to corrupt an election, is as destructive an attack on the oath of office and on our Constitution as I can imagine,” he said.
Romney told the Wallace that the decision was the most difficult of his career, but that he could bear the consequences of the President’s almost certain wrath.
“I believe he made a very serious miscalculation of judgment,” Romney said. “One that strikes at the very core of our Constitution. And in a setting like that, not to acknowledge that would place a greater burden on my conscience even than on his.”
Tierney Sneed contributed reporting.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--Biden Looks Ahead After ‘Gut Punch’ In Iowa

After an apparent fourth-place finish in Iowa ( with 72 percent of precincts reporting ) , former Vice President Joe Biden is trying to pivot to the next early voting states .
“ I ’ m not going to sugarcoat it .
We took a gut punch in Iowa , ” he said Wednesday at a campaign event in Somersworth , New Hampshire , the next state to hold a primary contest .
“ The whole process took a gut punch .
But look , this isn ’ t the first time in my life I ’ ve been knocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate , New Hampshire will be the first state to vote and asked his supporters to “ rocket me out of here to make sure this thing works , ” per NBC News .
Biden wasn ’ t necessarily expected to win Iowa and will surely push ahead to states like South Carolina and Nevada , where his massive lead with African American voters will factor heavily .
But a fourth-place finish would be a blow , and take some steam out of his sails heading into another primary state with an overwhelmingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden also went after former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) by name during his remarks , according to the Associated Press .
Biden said that if Sanders is the nominee , “ every Democrat in America up and down the ballot , in blue states , red states , purple states and easy districts and competitive ones ” will be labeled a socialist .
On Buttigieg , Biden said he has great “ respect ” for the the former mayor , but that it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s never held an office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana.
” As things stand with the Iowa results so far , Buttigieg has a slight lead over Sanders , followed by Warren and Biden .
More results are expected to be released Wednesday afternoon .
Biden ’ s New Hampshire speech is a step removed from his campaign ’ s immediate reaction during the delays that bogged down the Iowa caucus .
His general counsel fired off a letter Monday night demanding an explanation on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaigns deserve full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing , and an opportunity to respond , before any official results are released , ” wrote campaign lawyer Dana Remus .
Biden ’ s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield took the campaign ’ s concerns a step further during a CNN hit on Tuesday .
Saying she had “ real concerns about the integrity of the process , ” Bedingfield added that it ’ s a “ real concern ” if “ you have a process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the results that are being reported are reflective of the votes that people cast.
” Senior adviser Symone Sanders got into a testy exchange with CNN ” s Brianna Keilar about Bedingfield ’ s comments Wednesday , conceding finally that they ’ ll have to “ take the Iowa Democratic party at its word ” that the delayed vote tallies are accurate .
The campaign seems to be scrambling to move past the Iowa comments and caucus as a whole , to coalesce behind an “ I get knocked down , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message .
His campaign is hoping to survive Iowa and New Hampshire , sustaining as few blows as possible , to pick up steam in Nevada and South Carolina and to have a banner showing on Super Tuesday , an amalgamation of states much more diverse than the first two .

After an apparent fourth-place finish in Iowa (with 72 percent of precincts reporting), former Vice President Joe Biden is trying to pivot to the next early voting states.
“I’m not going to sugarcoat it. We took a gut punch in Iowa,” he said Wednesday at a campaign event in Somersworth, New Hampshire, the next state to hold a primary contest. “The whole process took a gut punch. But look, this isn’t the first time in my life I’ve been knocked down.”
Biden says he and the whole process took a “gut punch” in Iowa pic.twitter.com/6oCIksOGv8 — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) February 5, 2020
He joked that at this rate, New Hampshire will be the first state to vote and asked his supporters to “rocket me out of here to make sure this thing works,” per NBC News.
Biden wasn’t necessarily expected to win Iowa and will surely push ahead to states like South Carolina and Nevada, where his massive lead with African American voters will factor heavily. But a fourth-place finish would be a blow, and take some steam out of his sails heading into another primary state with an overwhelmingly white electorate.
In New Hampshire, Biden also went after former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) by name during his remarks, according to the Associated Press.
Biden said that if Sanders is the nominee,“every Democrat in America up and down the ballot, in blue states, red states, purple states and easy districts and competitive ones” will be labeled a socialist.
On Buttigieg, Biden said he has great “respect” for the the former mayor, but that it would be a risk to pick someone “who’s never held an office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana.”
As things stand with the Iowa results so far, Buttigieg has a slight lead over Sanders, followed by Warren and Biden. More results are expected to be released Wednesday afternoon.
Biden’s New Hampshire speech is a step removed from his campaign’s immediate reaction during the delays that bogged down the Iowa caucus.
His general counsel fired off a letter Monday night demanding an explanation on the technological failures.
“We believe that the campaigns deserve full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing, and an opportunity to respond, before any official results are released,” wrote campaign lawyer Dana Remus.
Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield took the campaign’s concerns a step further during a CNN hit on Tuesday.
Saying she had “real concerns about the integrity of the process,” Bedingfield added that it’s a “real concern” if “you have a process where you can’t be confident that the results that are being reported are reflective of the votes that people cast.”
Senior adviser Symone Sanders got into a testy exchange with CNN”s Brianna Keilar about Bedingfield’s comments Wednesday, conceding finally that they’ll have to “take the Iowa Democratic party at its word” that the delayed vote tallies are accurate.
The campaign seems to be scrambling to move past the Iowa comments and caucus as a whole, to coalesce behind an “I get knocked down, but I get up again” kind of message.
His campaign is hoping to survive Iowa and New Hampshire, sustaining as few blows as possible, to pick up steam in Nevada and South Carolina and to have a banner showing on Super Tuesday, an amalgamation of states much more diverse than the first two.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--SCOTUS Keeps Alive Chance Of Deciding Big Obamacare Case Before The Election

The Supreme Court left open the possibility that it could decide a major Obamacare case coming out of Texas by the end of this term , with a scheduling notice Wednesday indicating the justices will discuss whether to take up the case on Feb. 21 .
Those seeking to defend the Affordable Care Act in the litigation had laid out a Feb. 21 conference date in one of their proposed timelines for review of the case that would allow the Supreme Court to issue a final ruling by the summer .
The case is a legal challenge by several Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Justice Department , that , if successful would dismantle the health care law in its entirety .
The challengers argue that the 2017 tax law , by zeroing out the individual mandate , rendered the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional .
Blue states and localities , as well as the House of Representatives , are defending the health care law in the case and sought the Supreme Court ’ s intervention last month .
A federal judge in 2018 sided with the GOP challengers , ruling that the entire law must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling on hold while it was appealed .
The appeals court in December upheld the judge ’ s decision that the individual mandate was unconstitutional , but sent the case back to him to reconsider whether the mandate could be severed from the rest of the law .
The maneuver had the effect of putting off the next major decision in the case for several months , if not years , taking political pressure off of Republicans as they head into the 2020 election and letting uncertainty swirl around the law .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Supreme Court take up the case , and that it expedite that review so that Obamacare ’ s fate could be decided this term .
That gambit had appeared to fail when the court form formally rejected the request for expedited treatment on Jan. 10 .
It takes only four votes for the Supreme Court to grant review of a case — meaning the liberal wing alone could decide to take it up — but five votes to fast-track a case , meaning that a conservative justice would need to join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of under-the-radar moves since then led to Wednesday ’ s revival of the possibility that the court could hear the case this term after all .
After the denial for expedited consideration , the Republican state challengers had sought an extension for the deadline to respond to the Democrats ’ request that the Supreme Court grant review of the case .
The extension would have put a nail in the coffin for the possibility of the case being heard this term .
But on Jan. 24 , in a move that did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied the extension request .
It ’ s unclear how that denial decision was made .
The extension denial made it possible for the court to discuss the case on Feb. 21 , which still allows it to grant review in time to hear the case this term .
Still , several other things must go the Democrats ’ way for the case to be decided this year .
First , the justices will need to announce that they ’ re granting review of the case by either the afternoon of Feb. 21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases that are granted by the Supreme Court are discussed for two rounds of conferences .
If the justices do grant review after just one conference discussion of the case , they will also need to lay out an abbreviated briefing schedule to get oral arguments on their calendar by late Spring .
Under the proposal laid out in the House ’ s request for the case to be fast-tracked , oral arguments would occur either during the last week in April or in a special session called in May .

The Supreme Court left open the possibility that it could decide a major Obamacare case coming out of Texas by the end of this term, with a scheduling notice Wednesday indicating the justices will discuss whether to take up the case on Feb. 21.
Those seeking to defend the Affordable Care Act in the litigation had laid out a Feb. 21 conference date in one of their proposed timelines for review of the case that would allow the Supreme Court to issue a final ruling by the summer.
The case is a legal challenge by several Republican states, and supported by President Trump’s Justice Department, that, if successful would dismantle the health care law in its entirety. The challengers argue that the 2017 tax law, by zeroing out the individual mandate, rendered the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
Blue states and localities, as well as the House of Representatives, are defending the health care law in the case and sought the Supreme Court’s intervention last month.
A federal judge in 2018 sided with the GOP challengers, ruling that the entire law must be struck down, but putting that ruling on hold while it was appealed. The appeals court in December upheld the judge’s decision that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but sent the case back to him to reconsider whether the mandate could be severed from the rest of the law. The maneuver had the effect of putting off the next major decision in the case for several months, if not years, taking political pressure off of Republicans as they head into the 2020 election and letting uncertainty swirl around the law.
The law’s Democratic defenders then requested that the Supreme Court take up the case, and that it expedite that review so that Obamacare’s fate could be decided this term. That gambit had appeared to fail when the court form formally rejected the request for expedited treatment on Jan. 10.
It takes only four votes for the Supreme Court to grant review of a case — meaning the liberal wing alone could decide to take it up — but five votes to fast-track a case, meaning that a conservative justice would need to join them in expediting the review.
A series of under-the-radar moves since then led to Wednesday’s revival of the possibility that the court could hear the case this term after all.
After the denial for expedited consideration, the Republican state challengers had sought an extension for the deadline to respond to the Democrats’ request that the Supreme Court grant review of the case. The extension would have put a nail in the coffin for the possibility of the case being heard this term.
But on Jan. 24, in a move that did not attract much attention, the court denied the extension request. It’s unclear how that denial decision was made. The extension denial made it possible for the court to discuss the case on Feb. 21, which still allows it to grant review in time to hear the case this term.
Still, several other things must go the Democrats’ way for the case to be decided this year. First, the justices will need to announce that they’re granting review of the case by either the afternoon of Feb. 21 or the following Monday. Typically, cases that are granted by the Supreme Court are discussed for two rounds of conferences. If the justices do grant review after just one conference discussion of the case, they will also need to lay out an abbreviated briefing schedule to get oral arguments on their calendar by late Spring.
Under the proposal laid out in the House’s request for the case to be fast-tracked, oral arguments would occur either during the last week in April or in a special session called in May.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--‘He Shredded The Truth, So I Shredded His Speech’: Pelosi Unloads On Trump After SOTU

First , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) shredded President Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union speech .
Then she did the same to the man himself , during a closed-door meeting with her Democratic caucus on Wednesday morning , according to Politico .
“ He shredded the truth , so I shredded his speech , ” Pelosi reportedly said .
“ What we heard last night was a disgrace.
” Heather Caygle , one of the Politico journalists who reported on the meeting , tweeted that Pelosi claimed she had not planned the defiant act .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there to tear up the speech , and I didn ’ t even care that he didn ’ t shake my hand , in fact , who cares ?
” the Democratic leader said .
Pelosi reportedly told her fellow Democrats that as she was speed-reading through Trump ’ s speech during the address , she realized the President was “ selling a bill of goods like a snake oil salesman , ” and so she “ started to stack my papers in a way that were tear-able.
” Cue the House speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The stunning gesture left her feeling “ liberated , ” according Politico ’ s sources .
Since then , Trump has furiously retweeted nearly two dozen posts decrying the episode .

First, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) shredded President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech. Then she did the same to the man himself, during a closed-door meeting with her Democratic caucus on Wednesday morning, according to Politico.
“He shredded the truth, so I shredded his speech,” Pelosi reportedly said. “What we heard last night was a disgrace.”
Heather Caygle, one of the Politico journalists who reported on the meeting, tweeted that Pelosi claimed she had not planned the defiant act.
“I didn’t go in there to tear up the speech, and I didn’t even care that he didn’t shake my hand, in fact, who cares?” the Democratic leader said.
Pelosi reportedly told her fellow Democrats that as she was speed-reading through Trump’s speech during the address, she realized the President was “selling a bill of goods like a snake oil salesman,” and so she “started to stack my papers in a way that were tear-able.”
Cue the House speaker ripping the document on live television.
The stunning gesture left her feeling “liberated,” according Politico’s sources.
Since then, Trump has furiously retweeted nearly two dozen posts decrying the episode.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-05--FBI Director Sashays Around Questions About Politicized Investigations

The FBI director on Wednesday danced around a question about whether the President Donald Trump or anyone from his administration had sought investigations from the Bureau as retaliation over Trump ’ s impeachment .
Some reporting has indicated Trump is seeking payback against members of Congress and others involved in his impeachment .
For example , one unnamed source briefed on private conversations told Vanity Fair that “ Trump has been calling people and telling them to go after [ former National Security Adviser John ] Bolton.
” But when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-CO ) brought up that reporting in a hearing Wednesday , FBI Director Christopher Wray didn ’ t answer directly .
“ Has the President , the attorney general or any other administration official asked the FBI to open an investigation into Joe Biden , Hunter Biden , John Bolton or any member of Congress ?
” he asked .
Wray chuckled slightly , then said “ I have assured the Congress , and I can assure the Congress today that the FBI will only open investigations based on the facts and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , he said .
“ And I assume that it is correct that neither the President , the attorney general or any other administration official has asked the FBI to open improper political investigations ?
” Again , Wray didn ’ t exactly answer the question .
“ And no one has asked me to open an investigation based on anything other than the facts , the law and proper predication , ” he said .
Neguse returned to Nadler ’ s question later in the hearing , pressing Wray on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate Bolton at all — regardless of whether the request was considered proper or not , or whether an investigation was actually carried out .
“ I ’ m simply asking if they ’ ve asked you to do so , ” he prompted Wray .
“ I understand why you ’ re asking the question and I would just tell you my commitment to doing things by the book includes not talking about whether or not any particular investigation does or does not exist , ” Wray responded .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he continued .
“ That ’ s not a hint that anything ’ s happening , it ’ s just , I don ’ t think that ’ s a question that I can responsibly answer if I ’ m going to be faithful to my commitment to doing things by the book.
” Wray then offered , almost word for word , the answer he ’ d given Nadler : “ No one has asked me to open any investigation on anything that ’ s not consistent with the facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This post has been updated .

The FBI director on Wednesday danced around a question about whether the President Donald Trump or anyone from his administration had sought investigations from the Bureau as retaliation over Trump’s impeachment.
Some reporting has indicated Trump is seeking payback against members of Congress and others involved in his impeachment. For example, one unnamed source briefed on private conversations told Vanity Fair that “Trump has been calling people and telling them to go after [former National Security Adviser John] Bolton.”
But when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and, later, Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) brought up that reporting in a hearing Wednesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray didn’t answer directly.
“Has the President, the attorney general or any other administration official asked the FBI to open an investigation into Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Bolton or any member of Congress?” he asked.
Wray chuckled slightly, then said “I have assured the Congress, and I can assure the Congress today that the FBI will only open investigations based on the facts and the law and proper predication.”
Nadler understood that, he said. “And I assume that it is correct that neither the President, the attorney general or any other administration official has asked the FBI to open improper political investigations?”
Again, Wray didn’t exactly answer the question.
“And no one has asked me to open an investigation based on anything other than the facts, the law and proper predication,” he said.
Wray: "No one has asked me to open an investigation based on anything other than the facts, the law and proper predication." pic.twitter.com/hxtJNKsthj — Matt Shuham (@mattshuham) February 5, 2020
Neguse returned to Nadler’s question later in the hearing, pressing Wray on whether or not any request had been made to investigate Bolton at all — regardless of whether the request was considered proper or not, or whether an investigation was actually carried out.
“I’m simply asking if they’ve asked you to do so,” he prompted Wray.
“I understand why you’re asking the question and I would just tell you my commitment to doing things by the book includes not talking about whether or not any particular investigation does or does not exist,” Wray responded.
“You shouldn’t read anything into that,” he continued. “That’s not a hint that anything’s happening, it’s just, I don’t think that’s a question that I can responsibly answer if I’m going to be faithful to my commitment to doing things by the book.”
Wray then offered, almost word for word, the answer he’d given Nadler: “No one has asked me to open any investigation on anything that’s not consistent with the facts, the law and proper predication.”
This post has been updated.