talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--DOJ Denies Bolton And Barr Discussed Trump’s ‘Personal Favors’ To Autocratic Leaders

Early Tuesday morning , the Justice Department pushed back on the New York Times ’ report on former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s unpublished manuscript , which contained an explosive account of Bolton ’ s conversation with Attorney General Bill Barr .
According to the Times , Bolton wrote that he had told Barr he was worried that President Donald Trump was granting personal favors for Chinese President Xi Jinping and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan , two authoritarian leaders whom Trump has often praised .
Barr then reportedly expressed concern over how Trump ’ s friendliness with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was exercising “ undue influence , ” in the Times ’ words , on the DOJ ’ s probes into businesses in Turkey and China .
Department of Justice spokesperson Kerri Kupec claimed in a statement that while the DOJ has not read the manuscript , the Times had “ grossly mischaracterized ” the conversation between the two Trump officials .
“ There was no discussion of ‘ personal favors ’ or ‘ undue influence ’ on investigations , nor did Attorney General Barr state that the President ’ s conversations with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written , then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own views–views with which Attorney General Bill Barr does not agree , ” she continued .

Early Tuesday morning, the Justice Department pushed back on the New York Times’ report on former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript, which contained an explosive account of Bolton’s conversation with Attorney General Bill Barr.
According to the Times, Bolton wrote that he had told Barr he was worried that President Donald Trump was granting personal favors for Chinese President Xi Jinping and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, two authoritarian leaders whom Trump has often praised.
Barr then reportedly expressed concern over how Trump’s friendliness with the two leaders gave the impression that he was exercising “undue influence,” in the Times’ words, on the DOJ’s probes into businesses in Turkey and China.
Department of Justice spokesperson Kerri Kupec claimed in a statement that while the DOJ has not read the manuscript, the Times had “grossly mischaracterized” the conversation between the two Trump officials.
“There was no discussion of ‘personal favors’ or ‘undue influence’ on investigations, nor did Attorney General Barr state that the President’s conversations with foreign leaders was improper,” Kupec said.
“If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own views–views with which Attorney General Bill Barr does not agree,” she continued.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--At Long Last, Trump Defense Team Bearhugs Rudy’s Dirt-Digging Campaign

The campaign to dig up dirt in Ukraine on Trump ’ s political opponents began earlier than some senators had suggested , a lawyer for Trump said on Wednesday , bear-hugging Rudy Giuliani in what appears to be the deepest defense Trump ’ s team has offered of the President ’ s outside lawyer ’ s conduct .
Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin made the statement in response to a question from Sens .
Susan Collins ( R-ME ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) , two lawmakers whose votes could be key to allowing witness testimony .
The pair asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did Trump ever mention the Bidens in relation to corruption in Ukraine ?
If so , to whom and when ?
” To answer the question , Philbin offered a comprehensive defense of Giuliani ’ s attempts to gain dirt — true or not — about Trump ’ s political rival , and about the 2016 election .
GOP Senators and Trump ’ s legal team have largely veered away from openly defending the conduct of the former U.S Attorney for the Southern District of New York , instead opting to either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Philbin instead rationalized specific actions that Giuliani undertook in late 2018 and January 2019 as part of his work “ as the President ’ s private lawyer.
” “ Mr .
Giuliani , as counsel for the president , was looking into what went on in Ukraine , was there anything related to 2016 and other things , and he was given information and tips about [ Hunter Biden ] and he started to pursue that as well , ” Philbin said .
The Trump attorney specifically cited a January 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yuriy Lutsenko in New York City , during which he also held a telephone interview with former general prosecutor Viktor Shokin .
Philbin then , in an effort to suggest that the dirt-digging campaign was not tied only to Biden ’ s candidacy but to broader anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine , hinted that Giuliani briefed Trump on his efforts .
“ We know that Mr. Giuliani is the President ’ s private counsel , and so I can ’ t represent specific conversations they had , ” Philbin said , because “ that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know from the testimony that the President said in a May 23 Oval Office meeting with respect to Ukraine , ‘ talk to Rudy , ' ” the Trump lawyer added .
In response to a separate , similar question , Philbin also pointed to a number of other activities that would normally appear incriminating .
“ John Solomon in The Hill published an article in March , and Rudy Giuliani tweeted about it in March , ” Philbin told lawmakers , in an effort to suggest that the pressure campaign predated Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles and Giuliani ’ s role in their publication played a key role in Trump ’ s impeachment , in part because of how the columns spread false allegations against Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch .
Philbin offered other defenses of Trump ’ s conduct with respect to Giuliani .
He , at one point , characterized Trump ’ s focus on the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden sat as “ the President ’ s way of pinpointing specific issues related to corruption .
”

The campaign to dig up dirt in Ukraine on Trump’s political opponents began earlier than some senators had suggested, a lawyer for Trump said on Wednesday, bear-hugging Rudy Giuliani in what appears to be the deepest defense Trump’s team has offered of the President’s outside lawyer’s conduct.
Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin made the statement in response to a question from Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), two lawmakers whose votes could be key to allowing witness testimony.
The pair asked, “before Biden entered the race, did Trump ever mention the Bidens in relation to corruption in Ukraine? If so, to whom and when?”
To answer the question, Philbin offered a comprehensive defense of Giuliani’s attempts to gain dirt — true or not — about Trump’s political rival, and about the 2016 election.
GOP Senators and Trump’s legal team have largely veered away from openly defending the conduct of the former U.S Attorney for the Southern District of New York, instead opting to either change the subject or refrain from judgment.
But Philbin instead rationalized specific actions that Giuliani undertook in late 2018 and January 2019 as part of his work “as the President’s private lawyer.”
“Mr. Giuliani, as counsel for the president, was looking into what went on in Ukraine, was there anything related to 2016 and other things, and he was given information and tips about [Hunter Biden] and he started to pursue that as well,” Philbin said.
The Trump attorney specifically cited a January 2019 meeting Giuliani held with then-Ukraine general prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko in New York City, during which he also held a telephone interview with former general prosecutor Viktor Shokin.
Philbin then, in an effort to suggest that the dirt-digging campaign was not tied only to Biden’s candidacy but to broader anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, hinted that Giuliani briefed Trump on his efforts.
“We know that Mr. Giuliani is the President’s private counsel, and so I can’t represent specific conversations they had,” Philbin said, because “that would be privileged.”
“But we know from the testimony that the President said in a May 23 Oval Office meeting with respect to Ukraine, ‘talk to Rudy,'” the Trump lawyer added.
Biden announced his candidacy on April 25.
In response to a separate, similar question, Philbin also pointed to a number of other activities that would normally appear incriminating.
“John Solomon in The Hill published an article in March, and Rudy Giuliani tweeted about it in March,” Philbin told lawmakers, in an effort to suggest that the pressure campaign predated Biden’s candidacy.
Solomon’s articles and Giuliani’s role in their publication played a key role in Trump’s impeachment, in part because of how the columns spread false allegations against Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
Philbin offered other defenses of Trump’s conduct with respect to Giuliani.
He, at one point, characterized Trump’s focus on the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden sat as “the President’s way of pinpointing specific issues related to corruption.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--Murkowski And Collins Draw Blood In Pointed Question On Trump’s Political Motives

Sens .
Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) and Susan Collins ( R-ME ) pitched President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers a curve ball Wednesday , asking a question that underscored the political motive behind Trump ’ s sudden interest in Ukrainian corruption .
The senators asked if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to corruption in Ukraine before the former Vice President announced his candidacy for president in April 2019 .
Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin struggled to defuse the loaded question , spending some time explaining that his knowledge of what the President said comes only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that some points were not “ thoroughly pursued ” in the record ( he did not elaborate that the record was so curtailed because of the White House ’ s blocking of key administration figures from testifying ) .
Philbin eventually answered : “ …I can ’ t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.
” Philbin quickly pivoted to smearing the Bidens and rehashing Rudy Giuliani ’ s fact-finding mission .
The question , coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s alleged passion for cleaning up Ukrainian corruption has been a frequent defense from his lawyers by way of explaining why he held up the military aid .
The query shows that these two lawmakers may not be buying it .
And while guessing at the thoughts behind the senators ’ questions involves some measure of tea-leaf reading , this exchange reveals at least that they are actively engaging with testimony about Trump ’ s nefarious motives and willing to ask the President ’ s team unflattering questions .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes time to vote on witnesses , this small measure of rebellion is surely worrying .

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) pitched President Donald Trump’s lawyers a curve ball Wednesday, asking a question that underscored the political motive behind Trump’s sudden interest in Ukrainian corruption.
The senators asked if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to corruption in Ukraine before the former Vice President announced his candidacy for president in April 2019.
Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin struggled to defuse the loaded question, spending some time explaining that his knowledge of what the President said comes only from the House’s limited inquiry and that some points were not “thoroughly pursued” in the record (he did not elaborate that the record was so curtailed because of the White House’s blocking of key administration figures from testifying).
Philbin eventually answered: “…I can’t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.”
Philbin quickly pivoted to smearing the Bidens and rehashing Rudy Giuliani’s fact-finding mission.
The question, coming from those two senators, is significant. Trump’s alleged passion for cleaning up Ukrainian corruption has been a frequent defense from his lawyers by way of explaining why he held up the military aid. The query shows that these two lawmakers may not be buying it.
And while guessing at the thoughts behind the senators’ questions involves some measure of tea-leaf reading, this exchange reveals at least that they are actively engaging with testimony about Trump’s nefarious motives and willing to ask the President’s team unflattering questions.
For Republicans hoping to keep the caucus unified when it comes time to vote on witnesses, this small measure of rebellion is surely worrying.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--Flynn Moves To Dismiss Mueller Case, Alleging ‘Outrageous’ Prosecutorial Wrongdoing

Michael Flynn accused prosecutors of withholding and manipulating evidence in a Wednesday motion to dismiss his case , marking the latest move in the onetime National Security Adviser ’ s turn from government cooperator to conspiratorial agitator .
Alleging “ outrageous misconduct , ” Flynn is trying to convince a federal judge to throw his case out “ in the interests of justice ” due to allegedly overwhelming prosecutorial wrongdoing .
Flynn is making the request after withdrawing his guilty plea in the false statements case , which saw him briefly cooperating with the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent Justice Department inspector general report , allegations that a federal prosecutor suborned perjury , and allegations of withheld exculpatory evidence to claim that he was framed and setup by his own government in shockingly inappropriate and wrongful conduct by the ‘ leadership ’ of the FBI , DOJ , and ‘ intelligence officials . '
” “ Only the dismissal of this prosecution in its entirety would begin to get the attention of the government , the FBI , and the DOJ needed to impress upon them the ‘ reprehensible nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote Sidney Powell , counsel for Flynn .
Flynn argued that a DOJ inspector general report which identified omissions in FISA warrant applications last month exposed how the prosecution against him was politically motivated .
The IG report itself drew no such conclusion ; but , to Flynn , it was a “ scathing indictment of the conduct of the leadership and small group in the FBI that ran this operation against Mr. Flynn.
” “ The IG Report evinces that Mr. Flynn has still not been provided with all the evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Security Advisor to President Trump as part of their larger anti-Trump scheme , ” the motion reads .
Flynn also implied at one point in the filing that he remained some kind of unspecified source for the Defense Intelligence Agency after leaving it .
“ The documentation of his work with the DIA after he retired is a significant part of the Brady evidence the government has refused to produce to Mr. Flynn , ” his defense attorneys alleged .
The former national security adviser also pointed a finger at Brandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who now heads up the Justice Department ’ s Foreign Agents Registration Act unit .
Enforcement of FARA , which mandates that lobbyists for foreign interests register with the Justice Department , is being ramped up .
Flynn accused van Grack of trying to suborn perjury , saying that the prosecutor “ sought to have Mr. Flynn make a false statement in his EDVA interview on June 25 , 2019 , and was encouraging subornation of perjury by Mr. Flynn.
” The FARA episode came out during the July 2019 prosecution of former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Flynn ’ s former lawyer , testified at the time that the former national security adviser reviewed and approved a FARA filing to the DOJ which contained false statements .
But in Flynn ’ s motion to dismiss , he paints the episode as all part of a grand conspiracy — in which both he and President Trump are victims .
“ From the FBI ’ s insertion of [ a confidential source ] into the August 17 , 2016 presidential briefing of candidate Trump and Mr. Flynn , to the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on national television about his own cleverness and violations of FBI/DOJ rules in dispatching agents to the White House to interview the new President ’ s National Security Advisor , to the still missing original FBI FD-302 of the January 24 , 2017 interview — everything about this prosecution has violated long-standing standards and policy for the FBI and the DOJ , ” Flynn argued in the Wednesday filing .
He went on to argue that the government ’ s conduct “ perverts the rule of law and grossly abuses its power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department recommended that Judge Emmett Sullivan sentence Flynn to between zero and six months behind bars .
Last month , Sullivan rejected similar , deep state-oriented theories that Flynn and his legal team had put forth .

Michael Flynn accused prosecutors of withholding and manipulating evidence in a Wednesday motion to dismiss his case, marking the latest move in the onetime National Security Adviser’s turn from government cooperator to conspiratorial agitator.
Alleging “outrageous misconduct,” Flynn is trying to convince a federal judge to throw his case out “in the interests of justice” due to allegedly overwhelming prosecutorial wrongdoing.
Flynn is making the request after withdrawing his guilty plea in the false statements case, which saw him briefly cooperating with the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Now, Flynn has taken a recent Justice Department inspector general report, allegations that a federal prosecutor suborned perjury, and allegations of withheld exculpatory evidence to claim that he was framed and setup by his own government in shockingly inappropriate and wrongful conduct by the ‘leadership’ of the FBI, DOJ, and ‘intelligence officials.'”
“Only the dismissal of this prosecution in its entirety would begin to get the attention of the government, the FBI, and the DOJ needed to impress upon them the ‘reprehensible nature of its acts and omissions,'” wrote Sidney Powell, counsel for Flynn.
Flynn argued that a DOJ inspector general report which identified omissions in FISA warrant applications last month exposed how the prosecution against him was politically motivated.
The IG report itself drew no such conclusion; but, to Flynn, it was a “scathing indictment of the conduct of the leadership and small group in the FBI that ran this operation against Mr. Flynn.”
“The IG Report evinces that Mr. Flynn has still not been provided with all the evidence of egregious government misconduct dishonestly wielded to destroy the National Security Advisor to President Trump as part of their larger anti-Trump scheme,” the motion reads.
Flynn also implied at one point in the filing that he remained some kind of unspecified source for the Defense Intelligence Agency after leaving it. “The documentation of his work with the DIA after he retired is a significant part of the Brady evidence the government has refused to produce to Mr. Flynn,” his defense attorneys alleged.
The former national security adviser also pointed a finger at Brandon van Grack, a former Mueller prosecutor who now heads up the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Act unit.
Enforcement of FARA, which mandates that lobbyists for foreign interests register with the Justice Department, is being ramped up.
Flynn accused van Grack of trying to suborn perjury, saying that the prosecutor “sought to have Mr. Flynn make a false statement in his EDVA interview on June 25, 2019, and was encouraging subornation of perjury by Mr. Flynn.”
The FARA episode came out during the July 2019 prosecution of former Flynn associate Bijan Rafiekian. Robert Kelner, Flynn’s former lawyer, testified at the time that the former national security adviser reviewed and approved a FARA filing to the DOJ which contained false statements.
But in Flynn’s motion to dismiss, he paints the episode as all part of a grand conspiracy — in which both he and President Trump are victims.
“From the FBI’s insertion of [a confidential source] into the August 17, 2016 presidential briefing of candidate Trump and Mr. Flynn, to the former Director of the FBI bragging and laughing on national television about his own cleverness and violations of FBI/DOJ rules in dispatching agents to the White House to interview the new President’s National Security Advisor, to the still missing original FBI FD-302 of the January 24, 2017 interview — everything about this prosecution has violated long-standing standards and policy for the FBI and the DOJ,” Flynn argued in the Wednesday filing.
He went on to argue that the government’s conduct “perverts the rule of law and grossly abuses its power and might.”
Flynn withdrew his plea after the Justice Department recommended that Judge Emmett Sullivan sentence Flynn to between zero and six months behind bars. Last month, Sullivan rejected similar, deep state-oriented theories that Flynn and his legal team had put forth.
Read the filing here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--NBC: Trump Fan Tied To Yovanovitch Surveillance Scheme Pretended To Be DEA Officer

Anthony de Caluwe , a Dutch Trump fan with ties to indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas , pretended to be an officer for the Drug Enforcement Administration while purportedly tracking former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , NBC News reported Wednesday .
Several people told NBC News that de Caluwe , who provided the updates of Yovanovitch ’ s supposed locations that American landscaper Robert Hyde had sent to Parnas , introduced himself to them as law enforcement at the DEA or sometimes the CIA or FBI .
Hyde said de Caluwe had told him he did “ drug ops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer , and apparently that was a fairly frequent disguise for the Dutch man .
“ He said he was with the DEA and all that , law enforcement , ” said Leland McKee , a fellow fan of President Donald Trump who met de Caluwe in 2018 .
McKee also said that de Caluwe was “ trying to solicit money from anyone he could get money from , and I knew there was something not quite right.
” Three other unnamed people who were acquainted with de Caluwe recounted that he claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other Latin American countries .
A spokesperson for de Caluwe would not tell NBC News whether her client had actually worked for the DEA , only that he “ did work in El Salvador.
” The communications offices at the DEA and FBI did not respond to request for TPM ’ s comment .
The impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump exposed de Caluwe and Hyde as players in Parnas ’ and Rudy Giuliani ’ s smear campaign against Yovanovitch .
Hyde sent Parnas several texts informing him of Yovanovitch ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from de Caluwe .
Parnas has claimed he did not take Hyde seriously , and de Caluwe told NBC News he had “ no connection ” to Ukraine despite having a romantic relationship with a Ukrainian woman .

Anthony de Caluwe, a Dutch Trump fan with ties to indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, pretended to be an officer for the Drug Enforcement Administration while purportedly tracking former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, NBC News reported Wednesday.
Several people told NBC News that de Caluwe, who provided the updates of Yovanovitch’s supposed locations that American landscaper Robert Hyde had sent to Parnas, introduced himself to them as law enforcement at the DEA or sometimes the CIA or FBI.
Hyde said de Caluwe had told him he did “drug ops in South America” as a DEA officer, and apparently that was a fairly frequent disguise for the Dutch man.
“He said he was with the DEA and all that, law enforcement,” said Leland McKee, a fellow fan of President Donald Trump who met de Caluwe in 2018.
McKee also said that de Caluwe was “trying to solicit money from anyone he could get money from, and I knew there was something not quite right.”
Three other unnamed people who were acquainted with de Caluwe recounted that he claimed he investigated drug rings in El Salvador and other Latin American countries.
A spokesperson for de Caluwe would not tell NBC News whether her client had actually worked for the DEA, only that he “did work in El Salvador.”
DEA spokesperson Katherine Pfaff told TPM, “We can confirm that this individual was not a DEA agent.”
The FBI declined to comment.
The impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump exposed de Caluwe and Hyde as players in Parnas’ and Rudy Giuliani’s smear campaign against Yovanovitch. Hyde sent Parnas several texts informing him of Yovanovitch’s supposed movements, which Hyde had received from de Caluwe.
Parnas has claimed he did not take Hyde seriously, and de Caluwe told NBC News he had “no connection” to Ukraine despite having a romantic relationship with a Ukrainian woman.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--House Foreign Policy Chair Says Bolton Told Him To Look Into Yovanovitch Ouster

In September , former National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to look into the recall of former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch , the chairman , Rep. Eliot Engel ( D-NY ) , said Wednesday .
Yovanovitch was ultimately recalled last spring after a months-long smear campaign led by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman .
After Bolton ’ s tenure as National Security Adviser ended , Engel said in his statement , he reached out to Bolton to talk to him , in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversight efforts .
During the call , on Sept. 23 , “ Ambassador Bolton suggested to me — unprompted — that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch , ” Engel said .
“ He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.
” Engel said he informed his investigative colleagues on the Foreign Affairs committee , as well as on the Intelligence and Oversight committees , but said nothing publicly at the time about what Bolton had told him .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t say anything about the Trump-Ukraine Scandal at the time the President fired him , ” the chairman said in his statement , linking to one of the President ’ s recent tweets that asserted as much .
“ He said something to me.
” Democrats have called for Bolton to testify in the ongoing impeachment trial after the New York Times reported that a manuscript from Bolton recalled a conversation he had with the President about the military aid Trump had withheld from Ukraine .
According to reports about Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-national security adviser that he preferred to withhold the aid until Ukraine provided the investigative materials that the President , as well as Giuliani and others , had long pressured the country ’ s leadership for .
That pressure campaign is now at the center of the President ’ s impeachment trial .
In September , Congress became aware of a whistleblower ’ s complaint regarding Trump ’ s actions .
On Sept. 24 , the day after Engel says he spoke to Bolton , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @

In September, former National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to look into the recall of former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the chairman, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), said Wednesday.
Yovanovitch was ultimately recalled last spring after a months-long smear campaign led by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.
After Bolton’s tenure as National Security Adviser ended, Engel said in his statement, he reached out to Bolton to talk to him, in order to aid the committee’s foreign policy oversight efforts.
During the call, on Sept. 23, “Ambassador Bolton suggested to me — unprompted — that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,” Engel said.
“He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.”
Engel said he informed his investigative colleagues on the Foreign Affairs committee, as well as on the Intelligence and Oversight committees, but said nothing publicly at the time about what Bolton had told him.
“President Trump is wrong that John Bolton didn’t say anything about the Trump-Ukraine Scandal at the time the President fired him,” the chairman said in his statement, linking to one of the President’s recent tweets that asserted as much. “He said something to me.”
Democrats have called for Bolton to testify in the ongoing impeachment trial after the New York Times reported that a manuscript from Bolton recalled a conversation he had with the President about the military aid Trump had withheld from Ukraine.
According to reports about Bolton’s manuscript, Trump told the then-national security adviser that he preferred to withhold the aid until Ukraine provided the investigative materials that the President, as well as Giuliani and others, had long pressured the country’s leadership for. That pressure campaign is now at the center of the President’s impeachment trial.
In September, Congress became aware of a whistleblower’s complaint regarding Trump’s actions. On Sept. 24, the day after Engel says he spoke to Bolton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced an impeachment probe of the president.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--Shokin Demands Criminal Probe Of Joe Biden In Declaration To Kyiv Prosecutors

Discredited Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin demanded in a Tuesday affidavit that Kyiv prosecutors open a criminal investigation into Joe Biden .
Shokin repeated long-debunked allegations in the declaration , accusing Biden of “ blackmail ” and violating international law in pushing for Shokin to be fired in 2016 .
The filing marks the latest attempt to have Ukraine open a criminal investigation into a potential opponent of President Trump ’ s in the 2020 election .
It comes as the Senate holds an impeachment trial of President Trump over allegations that he attempted to have Ukraine announce investigations into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shokin has popped up throughout the pressure campaign on Ukraine as a source of debunked information for President Trump ’ s attorney Rudy Giuliani , alleging that Joe Biden fired Shokin to block an investigation he was conducting into a Ukrainian gas firm on whose board Hunter Biden — the Vice President ’ s son — sat .
But the facts tell a different story .
Shokin left his post as Ukraine ’ s top prosecutor amid outcry both within Ukraine and abroad over his lack of progress in investigating corruption cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that led to particularly acute criticism — even from the then-U.S. ambassador — was that of Burisma , a gas company whose owner was accused of stealing government funds .
The owner fled Ukraine after the country ’ s 2014 revolution , and Burisma hired a slew of well-connected foreigners to join its board , including former Polish President Aleksandr Kwasniewski and Hunter Biden .
Shokin was criticized for not investigating corruption at Burisma and , under pressure from Ukraine ’ s international backers including Joe Biden , was fired in March 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed with Ukraine ’ s State Bureau of Investigations , Shokin describes himself as a “ victim.
” He said that he only resigned “ as a result of lengthy pressure on me from U.S. Vice President Joe Biden ” which included “ blackmail through providing financial guarantees ” — a reference to a $ 1 billion loan guarantee that the U.S. partly conditioned on Ukraine intensifying its anti-corruption efforts , including by firing Shokin .
“ As a person who puts the interests of his country above his own , I agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general prosecutor of Ukraine , ” Shokin added .
Giuliani interviewed Shokin in January 2019 , and spoke with the former prosecutor general on camera as part of a One America News TV show which told the story that investigations demanded by Giuliani and Trump aimed to support .
Shokin described his own conduct in the declaration as having a “ principled position ” towards bringing the Burisma case to a “ quick and objective ” resolution .
Because of that , he claimed , “ Joseph Biden began to have persistent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both private and public statements demanding Shokin ’ s firing “ in exchange for ” a $ 1 billion loan guarantee .
Shokin went on in the declaration to say that “ the illicit influence of Joseph Biden ” was evidence of “ interfering in the activities of a law enforcement officer.
” Shokin demanded that Ukrainian prosecutors open a criminal investigation based off of his declaration .
A Ukrainian-language version of the filing is available here :

Discredited Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin demanded in a Tuesday affidavit that Kyiv prosecutors open a criminal investigation into Joe Biden.
Shokin repeated long-debunked allegations in the declaration, accusing Biden of “blackmail” and violating international law in pushing for Shokin to be fired in 2016.
The filing marks the latest attempt to have Ukraine open a criminal investigation into a potential opponent of President Trump’s in the 2020 election. It comes as the Senate holds an impeachment trial of President Trump over allegations that he attempted to have Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 elections.
Shokin has popped up throughout the pressure campaign on Ukraine as a source of debunked information for President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, alleging that Joe Biden fired Shokin to block an investigation he was conducting into a Ukrainian gas firm on whose board Hunter Biden — the Vice President’s son — sat.
But the facts tell a different story.
Shokin left his post as Ukraine’s top prosecutor amid outcry both within Ukraine and abroad over his lack of progress in investigating corruption cases. One case that Shokin failed to investigate that led to particularly acute criticism — even from the then-U.S. ambassador — was that of Burisma, a gas company whose owner was accused of stealing government funds.
The owner fled Ukraine after the country’s 2014 revolution, and Burisma hired a slew of well-connected foreigners to join its board, including former Polish President Aleksandr Kwasniewski and Hunter Biden.
Shokin was criticized for not investigating corruption at Burisma and, under pressure from Ukraine’s international backers including Joe Biden, was fired in March 2016.
But in the Tuesday affidavit, filed with Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigations, Shokin describes himself as a “victim.”
He said that he only resigned “as a result of lengthy pressure on me from U.S. Vice President Joe Biden” which included “blackmail through providing financial guarantees” — a reference to a $1 billion loan guarantee that the U.S. partly conditioned on Ukraine intensifying its anti-corruption efforts, including by firing Shokin.
“As a person who puts the interests of his country above his own, I agreed to step down from the post of general prosecutor of Ukraine,” Shokin added.
Giuliani interviewed Shokin in January 2019, and spoke with the former prosecutor general on camera as part of a One America News TV show which told the story that investigations demanded by Giuliani and Trump aimed to support.
Shokin described his own conduct in the declaration as having a “principled position” towards bringing the Burisma case to a “quick and objective” resolution. Because of that, he claimed, “Joseph Biden began to have persistent, unpleasant relations towards me,” resulting in both private and public statements demanding Shokin’s firing “in exchange for” a $1 billion loan guarantee.
Shokin went on in the declaration to say that “the illicit influence of Joseph Biden” was evidence of “interfering in the activities of a law enforcement officer.”
Shokin demanded that Ukrainian prosecutors open a criminal investigation based off of his declaration.
A Ukrainian-language version of the filing is available here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--NRSC Assails Collins’ ‘Selfish’ And ‘Shortsighted’ Senate Bid

The National Republican Senatorial Committee blasted Rep. Doug Collins ( R-GA ) Wednesday for announcing his challenge to Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) in her attempt to hang on to her appointed seat in November .
“ The shortsightedness in this decision is stunning , ” the NRSC said in a press release .
“ Doug Collins ’ selfishness will hurt David Perdue , Kelly Loeffler , and President Trump.
” Loeffler was appointed to fill former Sen. Johnny Isakson ’ s ( R-GA ) seat after he retired late last year due to health problems .
Collins had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and had the backing of President Donald Trump .
However , Gov .
Brian Kemp ( R ) tapped Loeffler , believing that she ’ d be better-suited to winning over suburbanites and women .
The two will go head to head in a jungle primary in November , where the top two vote-getters will proceed to a January runoff if no one exceeds 50 percent .
Loeffler has promised to use her prodigious wealth to boost her name recognition in the state , a necessity if an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans , only a third have a favorable view of Loeffler .
Over half have a positive view of Collins , likely due to his ardent support of Trump during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry and ubiquitous presence on Fox News .

The National Republican Senatorial Committee blasted Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) Wednesday for announcing his challenge to Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) in her attempt to hang on to her appointed seat in November.
“The shortsightedness in this decision is stunning,” the NRSC said in a press release. “Doug Collins’ selfishness will hurt David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and President Trump.”
Collins announced his bid earlier Wednesday morning:
For months, I have given serious deliberation to the role I should serve that would best benefit GA, the country and @realDonaldTrump. Today, I have officially launched my campaign for Senate to do just that. I invite you to join our campaign here:https://t.co/xubaYUr5RP — Doug Collins (@CollinsforGA) January 29, 2020
Loeffler was appointed to fill former Sen. Johnny Isakson’s (R-GA) seat after he retired late last year due to health problems. Collins had also thrown his name into the hat, and had the backing of President Donald Trump. However, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) tapped Loeffler, believing that she’d be better-suited to winning over suburbanites and women.
The two will go head to head in a jungle primary in November, where the top two vote-getters will proceed to a January runoff if no one exceeds 50 percent.
Loeffler has promised to use her prodigious wealth to boost her name recognition in the state, a necessity if an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll from last week is any indication.
Among Republicans, only a third have a favorable view of Loeffler. Over half have a positive view of Collins, likely due to his ardent support of Trump during the House’s impeachment inquiry and ubiquitous presence on Fox News.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--Giuliani Calls Bolton A ‘Backstabber,’ Denies Adviser Told Him To Stop Ukraine Scheme

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani attacked former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Wednesday , claiming Bolton had sold him down the river with regards to Giuliani ’ s Ukraine scheme .
“ He never said to me , ‘ I ’ ve got a problem with what you are doing in Ukraine , ' ” Giuliani told CBS News reporter Catherine Herridge during a pre-taped interview .
“ Never once .
Never winked , never sent me a little note .
That ’ s classic backstabbing.
” The lawyer ’ s claims contradict the testimony of former National Security Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House impeachment investigators that Bolton had said Giuliani was , in Bolton ’ s words , “ a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up ” with the lawyer ’ s operations in Ukraine , particularly his smear campaign against former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch .
“ Here ’ s the only conclusion I can come to , and it ’ s a harsh one , and I feel very bad about it : He ’ s a backstabber , ” Giuliani said on Wednesday .
He argued that Bolton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate impeachment trial if he ’ s subpoenaed , should not testify “ if the President feels that it is executive privileged material.
” Giuliani “ never , ever discussed military aid with the President with regard to Ukraine , ” the lawyer claimed , despite an overwhelming number of witnesses testifying that Giuliani was carrying out the pressure campaign on Ukraine with Trump ’ s approval .

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani attacked former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Wednesday, claiming Bolton had sold him down the river with regards to Giuliani’s Ukraine scheme.
“He never said to me, ‘I’ve got a problem with what you are doing in Ukraine,'” Giuliani told CBS News reporter Catherine Herridge during a pre-taped interview. “Never once. Never winked, never sent me a little note. That’s classic backstabbing.”
The lawyer’s claims contradict the testimony of former National Security Council senior director Fiona Hill, who told House impeachment investigators that Bolton had said Giuliani was, in Bolton’s words, “a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up” with the lawyer’s operations in Ukraine, particularly his smear campaign against former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
“Here’s the only conclusion I can come to, and it’s a harsh one, and I feel very bad about it: He’s a backstabber,” Giuliani said on Wednesday.
He argued that Bolton, who has offered to provide testimony in the Senate impeachment trial if he’s subpoenaed, should not testify “if the President feels that it is executive privileged material.”
Giuliani “never, ever discussed military aid with the President with regard to Ukraine,” the lawyer claimed, despite an overwhelming number of witnesses testifying that Giuliani was carrying out the pressure campaign on Ukraine with Trump’s approval.
Watch the interview below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--Trump Lashes Out At Bolton In Wake Of Bombshell Manuscript: ‘Nasty & Untrue Book’

President Donald Trump blew up at former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Wednesday morning after Bolton ’ s damning accounts in his unpublished manuscript threw a wrench in Republican senators ’ plan to block witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial .
“ For a guy who couldn ’ t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago , couldn ’ t get approved for anything since , ‘ begged ’ me for a non Senate approved job , which I gave him despite many saying ‘ Don ’ t do it , sir , ’ takes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ on T.V.
, and many more mistakes of judgement , ” Trump ranted via Twitter .
“ Gets fired because frankly , if I listened to him , we would be in World War Six by now , and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book.
” The President also fired off at midnight a shorter complaint about Bolton , who departed from the White House on sour terms with Trump in September .
“ Why didn ’ t John Bolton complain about this ‘ nonsense ’ a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly terminated , ” Trump tweeted .
“ He said , not that it matters , NOTHING !
” However , it ’ s extremely unlikely Trump was unaware of the contents of Bolton ’ s upcoming book given that the White House was given the manuscript for review on December 30 .
According to the New York Times ’ report on the manuscript this week , Trump explicitly told Bolton that he wanted to continue freezing the military aid to Ukraine until Ukrainian officials handed over documents pertinent to an investigation into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bolton ’ s manuscript describes how the former adviser told Attorney General Bill Barr that he was concerned Trump was doing personal favors for the presidents of China and Turkey .
The revelations seem to have complicated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s ( R-KY ) Trump-approved scheme to rush the impeachment trial without allowing witnesses to testify ; Sens .
Susan Collins ( R-ME ) and Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) have admitted Bolton ’ s manuscript makes a strong case for witness testimony , and McConnell privately told his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet have the votes to block witnesses .

President Donald Trump blew up at former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Wednesday morning after Bolton’s damning accounts in his unpublished manuscript threw a wrench in Republican senators’ plan to block witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial.
“For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, ‘begged’ me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying ‘Don’t do it, sir,’ takes the job, mistakenly says ‘Libyan Model’ on T.V., and many more mistakes of judgement,” Trump ranted via Twitter. “Gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book.”
The President also fired off at midnight a shorter complaint about Bolton, who departed from the White House on sour terms with Trump in September.
“Why didn’t John Bolton complain about this ‘nonsense’ a long time ago, when he was very publicly terminated,” Trump tweeted. “He said, not that it matters, NOTHING!”
However, it’s extremely unlikely Trump was unaware of the contents of Bolton’s upcoming book given that the White House was given the manuscript for review on December 30.
According to the New York Times’ report on the manuscript this week, Trump explicitly told Bolton that he wanted to continue freezing the military aid to Ukraine until Ukrainian officials handed over documents pertinent to an investigation into Joe Biden.
The Times also reported that Bolton’s manuscript describes how the former adviser told Attorney General Bill Barr that he was concerned Trump was doing personal favors for the presidents of China and Turkey.
The revelations seem to have complicated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) Trump-approved scheme to rush the impeachment trial without allowing witnesses to testify; Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) have admitted Bolton’s manuscript makes a strong case for witness testimony, and McConnell privately told his caucus on Tuesday that he does not yet have the votes to block witnesses.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-29--McConnell Tells GOP Senators There Aren’t Enough Votes To Block Witnesses Yet

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) told his GOP caucus on Tuesday that he doesn ’ t have the votes needed to block witnesses from the impeachment trial at the moment , according to multiple reports .
Fox News , the Washington Post , CNN , and the Wall Street Journal reported that McConnell broke the news to his fellow Republican senators during a private meeting .
However , several senators reportedly haven ’ t made up their minds yet , still leaving open the possibility of McConnell quashing Democrats ’ efforts to have key witnesses , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , testify .
An unnamed Trump administration official told the Wall Street Journal that the White House is “ still in the game ” and hasn ’ t given up on the fight against witnesses .
After the New York Times reported on several of Bolton ’ s damning accounts in his unpublished manuscript , including one in which President Donald Trump explicitly tied Ukraine military aid to assistance with an investigation into Joe Biden , Sens .
Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) and Susan Collins ( R-ME ) expressed support for allowing @ @ @ @

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told his GOP caucus on Tuesday that he doesn’t have the votes needed to block witnesses from the impeachment trial at the moment, according to multiple reports.
Fox News, the Washington Post, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal reported that McConnell broke the news to his fellow Republican senators during a private meeting.
However, several senators reportedly haven’t made up their minds yet, still leaving open the possibility of McConnell quashing Democrats’ efforts to have key witnesses, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton, testify.
An unnamed Trump administration official told the Wall Street Journal that the White House is “still in the game” and hasn’t given up on the fight against witnesses.
After the New York Times reported on several of Bolton’s damning accounts in his unpublished manuscript, including one in which President Donald Trump explicitly tied Ukraine military aid to assistance with an investigation into Joe Biden, Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) expressed support for allowing Bolton to testify.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--5 Most Notable Moments From Senate Trial’s First Day Of Questioning

Senators asked a whopping 93 questions of House impeachment managers and President Trump ’ s legal defense team Wednesday , the first day of the question-and-answer phase of the impeachment trial .
After spending the first week of the trial in silence while House impeachment managers and President Trump ’ s legal team made their cases , senators now have the opportunity to ask any burning questions , read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts .
Once the Q & A period wraps up , the Senate will move on to debate whether to call witnesses .
Here are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session : When the key GOP senators teamed up to ask the President ’ s lawyers if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to the Ukraine pressure campaign before former Vice President Joe Biden launched his presidential campaign , Trump lawyer Pat Philbin initially hedged about the limited scope of the record based on the House ’ s inquiry .
He then said that “ I can ’ t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dodged the question , saying that “ we ’ ve been advised by House managers that they were going to object if we attempted to introduce anything that was not either in the public domain.
” Collins ’ and Murkowski ’ s joint question is notable because they are being closely watched for any signs that they will break with the bulk of their Republican colleagues to call for witnesses in the trial .
“ As a matter of law , does it matter if there was a quid pro quo ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often used in foreign policy ?
” Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) asked .
Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz responded with a pretty stunning assertion , saying that “ every public official ” he knows “ believes that his election is in the public interest , and mostly you ’ re right.
” Dershowitz said that if a lawmaker does something that will help him get elected and in the public interest , then it doesn ’ t count as an impeachable offense .
“ Your election is in the public interest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
” House impeachment manager Adam Schiff asked senators to consider what would happen in a hypothetical scenario where former President Barack Obama tried to pressure Russia into investigating Romney before the 2012 election .
“ Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct ?
” Schiff asked .
Schiff would later take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey Graham and Cruz — who posed a hypothetical where Romney ’ s son was being paid by a corrupt Russian company and Romney was acting to benefit the company , asking if Obama would have the authority to investigate it — and shut it down .
“ Would it have been impeachable if Barack Obama had tried to get ( former Russian President ) Medvedev to do an investigation of Mitt Romney whether it was justified or unjustified ?
” he asked .
“ The reality is for a president to withhold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hypothetical to withhold it to benefit an adversary , to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt .
Period .
End of story.
” Philbin argued that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney was merely “ garbled and/or misunderstood ” when he made his quid pro quo admission during a damaging press conference on October 17 that Ukraine military aid funds were frozen because Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the debunked Crowdstrike conspiracy theory ( “ That ’ s it , and that ’ s why we held up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Predictably , Sekulow didn ’ t include his client , President Trump , but he entertained spectators with a dream list of witnesses he would call on to testify if he ’ s forced to do so .
Sekulow first listed Schiff , referencing an earlier statement from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that Trump , if he wanted , could have any witness or testimony introduced to the trial .
“ I want Hunter Biden .
I want Joe Biden , ” Sekulow added .
“ I want the whistleblower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there may be additional people within the House Intelligence Committee who may have had conversations with that whistleblower .
”

Senators asked a whopping 93 questions of House impeachment managers and President Trump’s legal defense team Wednesday, the first day of the question-and-answer phase of the impeachment trial.
After spending the first week of the trial in silence while House impeachment managers and President Trump’s legal team made their cases, senators now have the opportunity to ask any burning questions, read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Once the Q&A period wraps up, the Senate will move on to debate whether to call witnesses.
Here are the most notable answers from Wednesday’s session:
Philbin’s answer to Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) joint question
When the key GOP senators teamed up to ask the President’s lawyers if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to the Ukraine pressure campaign before former Vice President Joe Biden launched his presidential campaign, Trump lawyer Pat Philbin initially hedged about the limited scope of the record based on the House’s inquiry. He then said that “I can’t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.”
Philbin would later deny that he dodged the question, saying that “we’ve been advised by House managers that they were going to object if we attempted to introduce anything that was not either in the public domain.”
Collins’ and Murkowski’s joint question is notable because they are being closely watched for any signs that they will break with the bulk of their Republican colleagues to call for witnesses in the trial.
COLLINS/MURKOWSKI: Did Trump ever express worry about corruption in Ukraine before Biden started running? TRUMP LAWYER PHILBIN: I can't point to something in the record that shows him mentioning something related to the Bidens. But he did talk about corruption in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/QXFK0O4jDB — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 29, 2020
Dershowitz’s stunning assertion in response to Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) question
“As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked.
Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz responded with a pretty stunning assertion, saying that “every public official” he knows “believes that his election is in the public interest, and mostly you’re right.” Dershowitz said that if a lawmaker does something that will help him get elected and in the public interest, then it doesn’t count as an impeachable offense.
“Your election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And if a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Romney being name-dropped in hypothetical situations
House impeachment manager Adam Schiff asked senators to consider what would happen in a hypothetical scenario where former President Barack Obama tried to pressure Russia into investigating Romney before the 2012 election.
“Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct?” Schiff asked.
Schiff would later take a hypothetical question submitted by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Cruz — who posed a hypothetical where Romney’s son was being paid by a corrupt Russian company and Romney was acting to benefit the company, asking if Obama would have the authority to investigate it — and shut it down.
“Would it have been impeachable if Barack Obama had tried to get (former Russian President) Medvedev to do an investigation of Mitt Romney whether it was justified or unjustified?” he asked. “The reality is for a president to withhold military aid from an ally or in the hypothetical to withhold it to benefit an adversary, to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt. Period. End of story.”
Adam Schiff had an interesting hypothetical during the impeachment trial today: What would have happened if somebody had ordered a probe into Mitt Romney? “Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct?" https://t.co/MMUldPLYSS pic.twitter.com/l9gyA7isGP — POLITICO (@politico) January 29, 2020
Philbin’s defense of Mulvaney’s quid pro quo admission
Philbin argued that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney was merely “garbled and/or misunderstood” when he made his quid pro quo admission during a damaging press conference on October 17 that Ukraine military aid funds were frozen because Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the debunked Crowdstrike conspiracy theory (“That’s it, and that’s why we held up the money,” Mulvaney told reporters).
Sekulow’s dream list of witnesses
Predictably, Sekulow didn’t include his client, President Trump, but he entertained spectators with a dream list of witnesses he would call on to testify if he’s forced to do so.
Sekulow first listed Schiff, referencing an earlier statement from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that Trump, if he wanted, could have any witness or testimony introduced to the trial.
“I want Hunter Biden. I want Joe Biden,” Sekulow added. “I want the whistleblower. I want — I also understand that there may be additional people within the House Intelligence Committee who may have had conversations with that whistleblower.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Team Trump Trips Over GOP Questions About Facts Of The Ukraine Gambit

Through eight hours of senator questions Wednesday , President Trump ’ s legal team stumbled the most when facing questions about the underlying facts of the case against the President — including questions posed by GOP senators .
Twice , Trump ’ s lawyers struggled to distinguish how the President ’ s obsession with investigating Joe Biden could be separated from the political advantage of smearing a possible electoral opponent .
They also fumbled a softball question about Hunter Biden ’ s allegedly corrupt activities in the Ukraine .
All three questions were put forward by Republicans , as Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House managers .
The difficulty the Trump team has had with grappling with the facts bolstering the Democrats case may be the reason many Republicans are coalescing around an acquittal argument that will assert the President did nothing wrong in his Ukraine gambit .
It also explains why other Republicans are glomming onto a far-outside-the-norm legal theory put forward by the Trump team asserting that abuse of power , which the House alleges , is not an impeachable offense .
The first instance of the friendly fire the Trump team took on from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sens .
Susan Colins ( ME ) and Lisa Murkowksi ( AK ) , two moderates who are considering voting in favor of additional witnesses testifying at the Senate trial .
They asked the Trump team whether Trump mentioned Biden in connection with the broader anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine prior to the April announcement of Biden ’ s presidential candidacy .
After some meandering about the House ’ s impeachment process , White House attorney Pat Philbin conceded that he couldn ’ t “ point to something in the record that shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.
” Instead , he pointed to the pre-April efforts by Trump private attorney Rudy Giuliani to dig up dirt in Ukraine .
But even that is a dicy answer , given the Giuliani has said publicly that those efforts were not about foreign policy , but rather driven by his personal representation of Trump .
The picture didn ’ t get much clearer when the Trump team got another bite of the apple via a question from Sens .
Deborah Fischer ( R-NE ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Risch ( R-ID ) — all Trump loyalists .
They asked more generally about when the U.S. government developed concerns about the Burisma , the Ukrainian energy that hired Hunter Biden to its board while Vice President Joe Biden was leading an anti-corruption campaign in Ukraine .
This time , Philbin tied an even closer link between Trump ’ s Biden interest and the rogue efforts of Giuliani and his associates to orchestrate a smear campaign against Biden .
Philbin rattled off an anti-Biden dossier Giuliani turned over to the State Department and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solomon , among other reports about the Bidens .
In doing so , he validated key facts and events in the House ’ s impeachment case , rather than undermined them .
The House Intelligence Committee impeachment report surfaced evidence of coordination between Solomon , Giuliani and his associates , while arguing that the push to investigate Biden was being driven by channels outside the U.S. policy making apparatus , rather than as part of an official anti-corruption campaign .
Nowhere did Philbin ’ s answer point to concerns about Burisma coming internally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands from Trump himself .
Even a gim me question from Sens .
John Kennedy ( R-LA ) and Jerry Moran ( R-KS ) asking what Hunter Biden did for the money that Burisma paid him , posed issues for the defense .
Trump attorney Pam Bondi appeared unsure of the key points she was aiming to drive home about Biden ’ s tenure at the Burisma , at one point spending several seconds , while turning pages in her binder , to finish a sentence detailing when Biden left the board .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clip of the flub .
Trump ’ s team seemed more at ease when airing their complaints about the House ’ s impeachment process , or attacked the House managers .

Through eight hours of senator questions Wednesday, President Trump’s legal team stumbled the most when facing questions about the underlying facts of the case against the President — including questions posed by GOP senators.
Twice, Trump’s lawyers struggled to distinguish how the President’s obsession with investigating Joe Biden could be separated from the political advantage of smearing a possible electoral opponent. They also fumbled a softball question about Hunter Biden’s allegedly corrupt activities in the Ukraine.
All three questions were put forward by Republicans, as Democrats have mostly aimed their questions at the House managers.
The difficulty the Trump team has had with grappling with the facts bolstering the Democrats case may be the reason many Republicans are coalescing around an acquittal argument that will assert the President did nothing wrong in his Ukraine gambit. It also explains why other Republicans are glomming onto a far-outside-the-norm legal theory put forward by the Trump team asserting that abuse of power, which the House alleges, is not an impeachable offense.
The first instance of the friendly fire the Trump team took on from the GOP came from a question posed by Sens. Susan Colins (ME) and Lisa Murkowksi (AK), two moderates who are considering voting in favor of additional witnesses testifying at the Senate trial.
They asked the Trump team whether Trump mentioned Biden in connection with the broader anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine prior to the April announcement of Biden’s presidential candidacy.
After some meandering about the House’s impeachment process, White House attorney Pat Philbin conceded that he couldn’t “point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.”
Instead, he pointed to the pre-April efforts by Trump private attorney Rudy Giuliani to dig up dirt in Ukraine. But even that is a dicy answer, given the Giuliani has said publicly that those efforts were not about foreign policy, but rather driven by his personal representation of Trump.
The picture didn’t get much clearer when the Trump team got another bite of the apple via a question from Sens. Deborah Fischer (R-NE), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Jim Risch (R-ID) — all Trump loyalists.
They asked more generally about when the U.S. government developed concerns about the Burisma, the Ukrainian energy that hired Hunter Biden to its board while Vice President Joe Biden was leading an anti-corruption campaign in Ukraine.
This time, Philbin tied an even closer link between Trump’s Biden interest and the rogue efforts of Giuliani and his associates to orchestrate a smear campaign against Biden. Philbin rattled off an anti-Biden dossier Giuliani turned over to the State Department and claims pushed by then Hill columnist John Solomon, among other reports about the Bidens.
In doing so, he validated key facts and events in the House’s impeachment case, rather than undermined them. The House Intelligence Committee impeachment report surfaced evidence of coordination between Solomon, Giuliani and his associates, while arguing that the push to investigate Biden was being driven by channels outside the U.S. policy making apparatus, rather than as part of an official anti-corruption campaign. Nowhere did Philbin’s answer point to concerns about Burisma coming internally from the U.S. government, beyond the demands from Trump himself.
Even a gimme question from Sens. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) asking what Hunter Biden did for the money that Burisma paid him, posed issues for the defense. Trump attorney Pam Bondi appeared unsure of the key points she was aiming to drive home about Biden’s tenure at the Burisma, at one point spending several seconds, while turning pages in her binder, to finish a sentence detailing when Biden left the board. The DNC quickly cut and tweeted out a clip of the flub.
TFW you can’t remember your own conspiracy theory pic.twitter.com/yDAdrxFJ5A — DNC War Room (@DNCWarRoom) January 29, 2020
Trump’s team seemed more at ease when airing their complaints about the House’s impeachment process, or attacked the House managers.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Report: John Roberts Stops Rand Paul From Revealing Whistleblower’s Identity

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has blocked Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) from using questions at President Trump @ @ @ @ @ reveal the name of a person thought to be the Ukraine whistleblower , Politico reports @ @ @ @ @ R-KY ) reportedly composed questions which would expose the tipster ’ s identity .
But @ @ @ @ @ before being handed them on the Senate floor , reportedly blocked them from being read @ @ @ @ @ urged news organizations to print the name of the supposed whistleblower , whose August 2019 @ @ @ @ @ s demands to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky set off the inquiry which led to the @ @ @ @ @ .
Roberts reportedly communicated to senators that he would block any mention of the whistleblower @ @ @ @ @ details about the supposed tipster .

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has blocked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) from using questions at President Trump’s impeachment trial to reveal the name of a person thought to be the Ukraine whistleblower, Politico reports.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) reportedly composed questions which would expose the tipster’s identity.
But Roberts, who screened questions before being handed them on the Senate floor, reportedly blocked them from being read in public.
SPaul has urged news organizations to print the name of the supposed whistleblower, whose August 2019 complaint about President Trump’s demands to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky set off the inquiry which led to the third impeachment in U.S. history.
Roberts reportedly communicated to senators that he would block any mention of the whistleblower’s name or identifying details about the supposed tipster.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Parnas’ Disclosure To House Intel Committee Throws Wrench Into Criminal Case

NEW YORK — Tempers flared at a Thursday hearing in the prosecution of Lev Parnas , as an attorney for the former friend of Rudy Giuliani ’ s was accused of ethical misconduct .
The hearing , held in Manhattan federal court , dealt with two issues sparked by Parnas ’ s ongoing campaign to transfer evidence in his case to the House Intelligence Committee .
The first issue came up after Manhattan federal prosecutors tried to block Parnas from transferring his iCloud account , which they had gained access to through discovery , to the House Intelligence Committee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parnas , had generated the material that they had access to .
The second issue exposed a rift between Parnas and his longtime associate Igor Fruman , whose attorney Todd Blanche was visibly annoyed that potentially privileged information in the case may have been transferred to Congress .
Parnas and Fruman were indicted in October , along with two associates , on campaign finance charges .
The first issue , involving the Manhattan feds , was dispatched very quickly .
Just before the hearing began , Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy , wearing an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his jacket , approached prosecutors and told them something , eliciting grins from the government .
But it wasn ’ t until District Judge Paul Oetken for the Southern District of New York arrived that it was clear what had happened .
According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Zolkind , Bondy had told the government just before the hearing began that he had been unaware that it was possible for Parnas to access his own iCloud account because he was the account holder ; Bondy was able to download the iCloud account ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need the government to hand them over .
Zolkind explained that Bondy would do so , and that he plans on transferring the materials to the House .
“ We will withdraw our request , ” Bondy said .
“ Younger people in my office identified that we can do this.
” Prosecutors also said that the iPhones seized from Parnas may yet have “ additional material ” that has not been extracted or provided to the House .
With one half of the hearing ’ s rationale rendered moot , the hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Parnas .
Blanche , Fruman ’ s attorney , accused Bondy of blithely handing over material to the House Intelligence Committee without checking whether any documents contained within might be protected by Fruman ’ s attorney-client privilege .
This could be extremely relevant to the case , Blanche explained : Fruman and Parnas hired a lawyer after the Federal Election Commission opened an investigation into a $ 325,000 contribution they made to a pro-Trump Super PAC .
The pair ’ s indictment deals in part with that same contribution .
Bondy replied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , typical privilege rules did not apply .
He also alluded to a Nov. 5 meeting in which he told Blanche that Parnas intended to comply with the subpoena .
“ Our paths diverged , ” Bondy said , suggesting that that was the time to raise any privilege concerns .
At one point , Bondy brought up his request that Attorney General Bill Barr recuse himself from the case .
Nobody else subsequently addressed it .
The conversation continued to deteriorate , with Blanche telling Bondy that he wasn ’ t “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to release privileged material of a third party .
“ I don ’ t believe I ’ ve breached any rule of ethics , ” Bondy replied .
Judge Oetken ordered Bondy to ask the House Intelligence Committee not to release publicly documents relevant to the names of a few attorneys and law firms that present privilege risks .
Oetken also noted that only a “ tiny percentage ” of what Bondy gave to the House has so far been released to the public .

NEW YORK — Tempers flared at a Thursday hearing in the prosecution of Lev Parnas, as an attorney for the former friend of Rudy Giuliani’s was accused of ethical misconduct.
The hearing, held in Manhattan federal court, dealt with two issues sparked by Parnas’s ongoing campaign to transfer evidence in his case to the House Intelligence Committee.
The first issue came up after Manhattan federal prosecutors tried to block Parnas from transferring his iCloud account, which they had gained access to through discovery, to the House Intelligence Committee. Prosecutors argued that Apple, and not Parnas, had generated the material that they had access to. The second issue exposed a rift between Parnas and his longtime associate Igor Fruman, whose attorney Todd Blanche was visibly annoyed that potentially privileged information in the case may have been transferred to Congress.
Parnas and Fruman were indicted in October, along with two associates, on campaign finance charges.
The first issue, involving the Manhattan feds, was dispatched very quickly. Just before the hearing began, Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, wearing an American flag pin on the lapel of his jacket, approached prosecutors and told them something, eliciting grins from the government.
But it wasn’t until District Judge Paul Oetken for the Southern District of New York arrived that it was clear what had happened. According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Zolkind, Bondy had told the government just before the hearing began that he had been unaware that it was possible for Parnas to access his own iCloud account because he was the account holder; Bondy was able to download the iCloud account’s contents — he didn’t need the government to hand them over. Zolkind explained that Bondy would do so, and that he plans on transferring the materials to the House.
“We will withdraw our request,” Bondy said. “Younger people in my office identified that we can do this.”
Prosecutors also said that the iPhones seized from Parnas may yet have “additional material” that has not been extracted or provided to the House.
With one half of the hearing’s rationale rendered moot, the hearing moved on to a dispute between Fruman and Parnas.
Blanche, Fruman’s attorney, accused Bondy of blithely handing over material to the House Intelligence Committee without checking whether any documents contained within might be protected by Fruman’s attorney-client privilege.
This could be extremely relevant to the case, Blanche explained: Fruman and Parnas hired a lawyer after the Federal Election Commission opened an investigation into a $325,000 contribution they made to a pro-Trump Super PAC. The pair’s indictment deals in part with that same contribution.
Bondy replied that, because of the impeachment inquiry, typical privilege rules did not apply. He also alluded to a Nov. 5 meeting in which he told Blanche that Parnas intended to comply with the subpoena.
“Our paths diverged,” Bondy said, suggesting that that was the time to raise any privilege concerns.
At one point, Bondy brought up his request that Attorney General Bill Barr recuse himself from the case. Nobody else subsequently addressed it.
The conversation continued to deteriorate, with Blanche telling Bondy that he wasn’t “permitted under the rules for attorneys” to release privileged material of a third party.
“I don’t believe I’ve breached any rule of ethics,” Bondy replied.
Judge Oetken ordered Bondy to ask the House Intelligence Committee not to release publicly documents relevant to the names of a few attorneys and law firms that present privilege risks.
Oetken also noted that only a “tiny percentage” of what Bondy gave to the House has so far been released to the public.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Bipartisan Question Leads To ‘Startling Admission’ From Trump’s Legal Team

A bipartisan question from the senators prompted a major admission from President Trump ’ s legal team Thursday : Rudy Giuliani was not conducting foreign policy in his capacity as the President ’ s private attorney .
The question was posed by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema ( D-AZ ) , and joined by Sens .
Joe Manchin ( D-WV ) , Susan Collins ( R-ME ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) .
“ Will the President assure the American public that private citizens will not be directed to conduct American foreign policy or national security policy unless they have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the State Department to do so ?
” the senators asked Trump ’ s legal team .
Patrick Philbin , the deputy White House counsel , responded that “ there was no conduct of foreign policy being carried on here by a private person.
” “ Ambassador Volker was clear that he understood Mr. Giuliani just to be a source of information for the president , ” Philbin said .
“ And someone who knew about Ukraine and someone who spoke to the President.
” Philbin added that although he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledges for the President here , ” the President ’ s “ policy is always to abide by the laws.
” Philbin then went on a tangent about how former Presidents George Washington , Franklin Roosevelt and “ a list of others mentioned in some of the testimony during the House proceedings ” have “ relied on persons who are their trusted confidants ” to conduct foreign policy .
“ What President ’ s counsel said was that no foreign policy was being conducted by a private party here .
That is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
Rudy Giuliani was not conducting policy , ” Schiff said .
“ That is a remarkable admission , because to the degree they have attempted to suggest or claim or insinuate that this is a policy difference , that a concern over burden sharing or something corruption was a policy issue , they have now acknowledged the person in charge of this was not conducting policy .
That is a startling admission .
”

A bipartisan question from the senators prompted a major admission from President Trump’s legal team Thursday: Rudy Giuliani was not conducting foreign policy in his capacity as the President’s private attorney.
The question was posed by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and joined by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
“Will the President assure the American public that private citizens will not be directed to conduct American foreign policy or national security policy unless they have been specifically and formally designated by the President and the State Department to do so?” the senators asked Trump’s legal team.
Patrick Philbin, the deputy White House counsel, responded that “there was no conduct of foreign policy being carried on here by a private person.”
“Ambassador Volker was clear that he understood Mr. Giuliani just to be a source of information for the president,” Philbin said. “And someone who knew about Ukraine and someone who spoke to the President.”
Philbin added that although he’s “not in a position to make pledges for the President here,” the President’s “policy is always to abide by the laws.” Philbin then went on a tangent about how former Presidents George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt and “a list of others mentioned in some of the testimony during the House proceedings” have “relied on persons who are their trusted confidants” to conduct foreign policy.
Watch Philbin’s remarks below:
Bipartisan question prompts a major admission from Trump's legal team pic.twitter.com/Hm6gph2gTd — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) January 30, 2020
House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) picked up on Philbin’s “breathtaking admission.”
“What President’s counsel said was that no foreign policy was being conducted by a private party here. That is, Rudy Giuliani was not conducting U.S. foreign policy. Rudy Giuliani was not conducting policy,” Schiff said. “That is a remarkable admission, because to the degree they have attempted to suggest or claim or insinuate that this is a policy difference, that a concern over burden sharing or something corruption was a policy issue, they have now acknowledged the person in charge of this was not conducting policy. That is a startling admission.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Top Senate GOPer Lays Out How Trump Impeachment Trial Could End By Friday

Top GOP senators are predicting that the Senate impeachment trial could end in an acquittal vote as soon as Friday , with the only thing standing in their way being any procedural delay tactics Democrats employ after a vote on witnesses Friday that is expected to fail .
Sen. John Barrasso ( R-WY ) , the third highest ranking Senate Republican , previewed how Friday could go down in a scrum with reporters during a break in the question period Thursday .
Friday ’ s vote on witnesses — which would not be votes on individual witness subpoenas , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be made in order — will be preceded by four hours of debate equally divided .
If that vote fails , it is unclear whether there would then be a dedicated time for closing arguments , as there was in the Clinton impeachment trial .
The organizing resolution Senate Republicans approved at the beginning of the current proceedings did not guarantee one .
On Thursday , Barrasso said his caucus believed that the four hour witness debate could also serve as the closing arguments .
He said that Democrats could , nonetheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate closing argument period after the witness vote fails .
He also didn ’ t rule out a McConnell resolution that would set up the final stages , but Barrasso emphasized that such a resolution would not allow for “ extended ” closing arguments .
Barrasso promised that Republicans were prepared to stay in session for as long as it took to get past any other procedural hurdles Democrats threw up to delay getting to a final vote .
He compared that scenario to the debate over the opening procedural resolution that lasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendments Democrats put forward .
During that debate , Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) offered to let everyone go home and come back the next day to finish up the amendments — an offer Majority Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) rejected .
“ We ’ re not going to do that , ” Barrasso said , of taking up a similar offer , if made , on Friday .

Top GOP senators are predicting that the Senate impeachment trial could end in an acquittal vote as soon as Friday, with the only thing standing in their way being any procedural delay tactics Democrats employ after a vote on witnesses Friday that is expected to fail.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the third highest ranking Senate Republican, previewed how Friday could go down in a scrum with reporters during a break in the question period Thursday.
Friday’s vote on witnesses — which would not be votes on individual witness subpoenas, but rather whether those subpoena motions can even be made in order — will be preceded by four hours of debate equally divided.
If that vote fails, it is unclear whether there would then be a dedicated time for closing arguments, as there was in the Clinton impeachment trial. The organizing resolution Senate Republicans approved at the beginning of the current proceedings did not guarantee one.
On Thursday, Barrasso said his caucus believed that the four hour witness debate could also serve as the closing arguments. He said that Democrats could, nonetheless, put forward a measure to establish a separate closing argument period after the witness vote fails. He also didn’t rule out a McConnell resolution that would set up the final stages, but Barrasso emphasized that such a resolution would not allow for “extended” closing arguments.
Barrasso promised that Republicans were prepared to stay in session for as long as it took to get past any other procedural hurdles Democrats threw up to delay getting to a final vote. He compared that scenario to the debate over the opening procedural resolution that lasted until 2 a.m. because of the 11 amendments Democrats put forward. During that debate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered to let everyone go home and come back the next day to finish up the amendments — an offer Majority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rejected.
“We’re not going to do that,” Barrasso said, of taking up a similar offer, if made, on Friday.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Parnas Attorney Releases New Recording Of Another Trump Donor Event

The attorney for Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas on Thursday released yet another recording of President Donald Trump huddling with donors behind closed doors and discussing policy .
The Daily Beast first reported the tape , followed by The Washington Post and Politico .
Parnas ’ attorney , Joseph Bondy , told the Post he ’ d also given a copy to House impeachment investigators .
Over 37 minutes in April 2018 — just days from the other recording of a Trump fundraiser event , made by Parnas ’ associate Igor Fruman — Trump can be heard speaking about Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unlike the previously released recording , more high-ranking Republicans besides Trump were in attendance : Then-Rep. Pete Sessions ( R-TX ) , who was subsequently subpoenaed in the criminal case against Parnas and Fruman , and Ronna McDaniel , the Republican National Committee chairwoman , also attended and spoke to donors .
And , unlike the other recorded fundraising event which was held at Trump ’ s Washington , D.C. hotel , the event revealed in the recording Thursday took place at the President ’ s membership-based South Florida club , Mar-a-Lago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted by Politico , McDaniel can be seen walking into the room in which the event was held , spotting Parnas and greeting him warmly with a hug .
“ I ’ m so glad you ’ re here , ” she tells him in the tape , before asking Parnas whether he ’ d been to Mar-a-Lago before .
“ On a given day , the chairwoman greets hundreds if not thousands of people at events across the country , ” an RNC spokesperson told multiple outlets in a statement .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over the course of the recording , Trump can be heard fielding questions and campaign suggestions from attendees about cultivating Hindu-American support , his Syria policy , and concerns about a financial services bill , the latter from an attendee who identifies himself as Bill Edwards .
Trump is heard asking Sessions about the bill .
“ I see every piece of legislation through the Rules Committee , and I was unaware of this , ” Sessions responds .
“ I told Bill , ‘ You have to talk to the President about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recording consists of Sessions , McDaniel and Trump running through Republicans ’ prospects for the upcoming midterm elections .
“ The Democrats are energized , they want to take it back , they want to do everything they can do obstruct and resist , they have no message , ” she ’ s heard saying at one point .
“ We know what they will do to our country .
They will turn back the clock to the dark ages of Schumer and Pelosi .
”

The attorney for Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas on Thursday released yet another recording of President Donald Trump huddling with donors behind closed doors and discussing policy.
The Daily Beast first reported the tape, followed by The Washington Post and Politico. Parnas’ attorney, Joseph Bondy, told the Post he’d also given a copy to House impeachment investigators.
Over 37 minutes in April 2018 — just days from the other recording of a Trump fundraiser event, made by Parnas’ associate Igor Fruman — Trump can be heard speaking about Republicans’ prospects in the 2018 midterm elections.
Unlike the previously released recording, more high-ranking Republicans besides Trump were in attendance: Then-Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who was subsequently subpoenaed in the criminal case against Parnas and Fruman, and Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, also attended and spoke to donors.
And, unlike the other recorded fundraising event which was held at Trump’s Washington, D.C. hotel, the event revealed in the recording Thursday took place at the President’s membership-based South Florida club, Mar-a-Lago.
In a clip from the recording posted by Politico, McDaniel can be seen walking into the room in which the event was held, spotting Parnas and greeting him warmly with a hug.
“I’m so glad you’re here,” she tells him in the tape, before asking Parnas whether he’d been to Mar-a-Lago before.
“Yes,” Parnas responds.
“Okay, then, well, forget it,” McDaniel responds jokingly.
“On a given day, the chairwoman greets hundreds if not thousands of people at events across the country,” an RNC spokesperson told multiple outlets in a statement. “This is nothing more than that.”
Over the course of the recording, Trump can be heard fielding questions and campaign suggestions from attendees about cultivating Hindu-American support, his Syria policy, and concerns about a financial services bill, the latter from an attendee who identifies himself as Bill Edwards.
Trump is heard asking Sessions about the bill.
“I see every piece of legislation through the Rules Committee, and I was unaware of this,” Sessions responds. “I told Bill, ‘You have to talk to the President about this.’”
The bulk of the recording consists of Sessions, McDaniel and Trump running through Republicans’ prospects for the upcoming midterm elections.
“The Democrats are energized, they want to take it back, they want to do everything they can do obstruct and resist, they have no message,” she’s heard saying at one point. “We know what they will do to our country. They will turn back the clock to the dark ages of Schumer and Pelosi.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--After Blowback, Dershowitz Walks Back Alarming ‘Public Interest’ Defense Of Trump

Alan Dershowitz , one of President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment lawyers , claimed on Thursday that the media “ willfully distorted ” his shocking argument that presidents can do whatever they want to get reelected because said reelection is “ in the public interest ” –even though that ’ s precisely the argument he made .
“ They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest , he can do anything , ” he wrote in a long series of tweets .
“ I said nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard what I said can attest.
” Dershowitz insisted that his argument was merely that a president was allowed to have a “ mixed motive , ” which he defined as helping “ the national interest in a way that helps your reelection efforts.
” The lawyer claimed ( without presenting evidence ) that former presidents Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln had “ mixed motives ” when the former broke his promise that he would bomb Syria and the latter sent troops to Indiana during the Civil War .
“ I did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do anything to reassure his reelection , only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt , citing the Lincoln and Obama examples , ” Dershowitz tweeted .
Except that ’ s exactly what he argued on Wednesday when he was defending Trump ’ s pressure campaign on Ukraine .
“ Your election is in the public interest , ” the attorney said .
“ And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Dershowitz ’ s defense immediately sent shockwaves throughout the political sphere , which is likely what prompted the Dershowitz tweet screed .

Alan Dershowitz, one of President Donald Trump’s impeachment lawyers, claimed on Thursday that the media “willfully distorted” his shocking argument that presidents can do whatever they want to get reelected because said reelection is “in the public interest”–even though that’s precisely the argument he made.
“They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything,” he wrote in a long series of tweets. “I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.”
Dershowitz insisted that his argument was merely that a president was allowed to have a “mixed motive,” which he defined as helping “the national interest in a way that helps your reelection efforts.”
The lawyer claimed (without presenting evidence) that former presidents Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln had “mixed motives” when the former broke his promise that he would bomb Syria and the latter sent troops to Indiana during the Civil War.
“I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples,” Dershowitz tweeted.
Except that’s exactly what he argued on Wednesday when he was defending Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine.
“Your election is in the public interest,” the attorney said. “And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Dershowitz’s defense immediately sent shockwaves throughout the political sphere, which is likely what prompted the Dershowitz tweet screed.
Here's the ugly truth at the core of all of this: the president actually can do whatever he wants – rob, cheat, steal, murder – if he can hold 34 senate votes. — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 29, 2020
Genuinely wish I still had the tweet saved where I predicted that the Trump defense would eventually boil down to “Well, technically, re-electing Trump is in the best interest of the country, so it’s okay that he tried to rig the 2020 election.” pic.twitter.com/Ved6ETbuiu — Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) January 29, 2020
If the president drops nuclear bombs on New York and California to neutralize their electoral votes because he believes it is in the national interest, it is not impeachable, according to Alan Dershowitz. https://t.co/qgdcq5G52m — Adam Serwer? (@AdamSerwer) January 29, 2020


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-30--Senators Sound Increasingly Sure We Are Bound For A Witness-Less Trial

A day before Friday ’ s vote , senators on both sides are sounding fairly confident that this will be the first witness-less impeachment trial in U.S. history .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-RI ) said Thursday on CNN that he does not expect witnesses to be part of the proceedings .
“ What I see is a party that is bound and determined to get this behind them , ” he said , adding that he ’ s heard Trump wants his acquittal before the Super Bowl .
Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) , the minority whip , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the trial .
“ It ’ s within the power of Mitch McConnell to move this very quickly and dismiss it without a single witness , ” Durbin said Thursday on MSNBC .
“ If he is able to just hold this to three or fewer Republicans voting he may be inclined to say ‘ fine , let ’ s put an end to the whole thing .
We ’ re tired of answering questions why this isn ’ t a real trial , why there ’ s no evidence , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve had enough pain .
We ’ ve got to get this over for the Super Bowl . '
” Republicans seem equally sure , though less dejected .
Per the Hill , after Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) had a meeting Wednesday morning , there was no talk of witnesses at the GOP lunch .
“ We ’ re going to get it done by Friday , hopefully , ” Sen. Mike Rounds ( R-SD ) said .
He added that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ moving forward.
” “ If I had to guess , no witnesses , ” Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) said .
“ We ’ ll be in a place where I think everyone is going to have their mind made up and I believe that we ’ ll be able to move to a verdict , and the witness question will be clear at that point.
” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) did tell reporters though that there are “ 53 votes to call Hunter Biden ” if senators do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that Republicans will lose a couple members on the witness vote — Sens .
Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) and Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , most likely — but hold the line enough to still block the motion .

A day before Friday’s vote, senators on both sides are sounding fairly confident that this will be the first witness-less impeachment trial in U.S. history.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said Thursday on CNN that he does not expect witnesses to be part of the proceedings.
“What I see is a party that is bound and determined to get this behind them,” he said, adding that he’s heard Trump wants his acquittal before the Super Bowl.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the minority whip, is already looking ahead to the end of the trial.
“It’s within the power of Mitch McConnell to move this very quickly and dismiss it without a single witness,” Durbin said Thursday on MSNBC. “If he is able to just hold this to three or fewer Republicans voting he may be inclined to say ‘fine, let’s put an end to the whole thing. We’re tired of answering questions why this isn’t a real trial, why there’s no evidence, why there are no witnesses, and we’ve had enough pain. We’ve got to get this over for the Super Bowl.'”
Republicans seem equally sure, though less dejected.
Per the Hill, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had a meeting Wednesday morning, there was no talk of witnesses at the GOP lunch.
“We’re going to get it done by Friday, hopefully,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said. He added that talk during the lunch meeting was about “moving forward.”
“If I had to guess, no witnesses,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said. “We’ll be in a place where I think everyone is going to have their mind made up and I believe that we’ll be able to move to a verdict, and the witness question will be clear at that point.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did tell reporters though that there are “53 votes to call Hunter Biden” if senators do opt to call witnesses.
It seems possible that Republicans will lose a couple members on the witness vote — Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), most likely — but hold the line enough to still block the motion.