buzzfeed--2020-01-28--John Bolton Wrote In His Memoir That Trump Did The Very Thing He’s Been Impeached For, As The Trial

John Bolton Wrote In His Memoir That Trump Did The Very Thing He’s Been Impeached For, As The Trial Continues

Bolton , who has worked for presidential administrations dating back to Ronald Reagan ’ s , is highly regarded in conservative policymaking circles .
Bolton ’ s recollections completely cut against Trump ’ s main defense : That withholding the aid had nothing to do with his desire for an investigation into the Biden family .
He ’ s also the first to say he heard that directly from Trump , undercutting a major defense argument .
The substance of that information , revealed Sunday in the New York Times , isn ’ t new — it ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeach the president .
But the messenger is new , and significant .
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ’ s former national security adviser reportedly wrote in an unpublished book manuscript that Trump withheld military aid from a key ally , Ukraine , until he got guarantees that the country would investigate his political rivals , the Biden family .
The Impeachment Today podcast gets you up to date with the day ’ s most important impeachment news .
Catch up on all the episodes , or subscribe on the iHeartRadio app , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you listen to your favorite shows .
Bolton ’ s revelation will reignite the argument over whether Senate Republicans will agree to call witnesses during the impeachment trial .
Bolton was offered the chance to testify to the House — he declined , despite Trump lying and saying the House didn ’ t ask him to appear — saying he would only testify if subpoenaed .
House Democrats did not ultimately subpoena him .
The question is if Bolton ’ s account is enough to move some Republican senators to vote in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative figures are saying Bolton isn ’ t credible and withheld the revelation just to promote his upcoming book .
Republican senators discussed Bolton 's book in a lunch on Monday , including , `` what ’ s in the manuscript exactly , what ’ s the motivation for doing it , the timing of it , '' Sen. Mike Braun told reporters .
`` I think there was some snide remarks like ‘ it ’ s a $ 2-million book advance ’ and all that stuff.
” Braun added he thinks it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a copy of the manuscript , but it remains unclear if Republicans will support calling Bolton himself to testify .
`` I think Leader McConnell had some good advice : take a deep breath , we ’ re going to get there anyway , and think about whether you need it , '' he said .
On Monday , a senior Democratic staffer on the impeachment trial dismissed speculation that Bolton had coordinated recently with Democrats on the release of the New York Times story .
“ We ’ ve had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lawyers , ” the staffer said .
Amid this , Trump ’ s lawyers are continuing to make their defense .
They spoke for nearly 8 hours on Monday and will wrap up their case Tuesday .
Trump was charged with the two articles of impeachment in the House for his decision to withhold vital military aid from the country while pressuring it to investigate his political rival , former vice president Joe Biden .
Trump ’ s legal team , led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , began their opening arguments Saturday , focusing their attacks on House Democrats and the impeachment process and citing an unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election ( as the intelligence community has concluded , it was Russia ) .
Monday was the second of three days the president ’ s team has to make their case .
In total , they ’ ll have 24 hours to argue before the Senate , but they ’ ve said repeatedly they don ’ t intend to use their full time to draw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 23 hours over three days ) and appease tired senators .
Trump ’ s defense has so far argued that the president did not condition the military aid to Ukraine on his desire for the investigations into the Bidens , though multiple witnesses in the House investigation have said that link was clear .
Trump ’ s defense has also emphasized that the military aid to Ukraine was eventually released , in September , though that was after a whistleblower had filed a complaint about Trump ’ s call with Ukrainian President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigations .
After the call , some federal officials had raised questions about the legality of continuing to withhold the aid .
Trump ’ s defense on Saturday focused heavily on an argument that House Democrats had withheld evidence from senators — though the House literally sent carts worth of testimony and other documents to the Senate when it wrapped up its own case .
Trump ’ s lawyers argued that Democrats ignored some testimony that was helpful to the president , while themselves ignoring testimony that was not helpful to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday with a broad argument against the legitimacy of impeachment from the most unlikely of sources — Ken Starr , the former special counsel whose investigation led to the impeachment of former president Bill Clinton .
He argued that Trump should not be impeached because he was not accused of breaking a specific law .
But he also expanded far beyond the current circumstances to make a sweeping argument against impeaching presidents in general .
He warned that impeachment “ overturns a national election ” and causes a “ grave disruption of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Starr ’ s previous role as a champion of Congress ’ s impeachment powers .
He even cited the Clinton impeachment he once championed as a reason that Congress should avoid this course of action .
“ The very divisive Clinton impeachment demonstrates that , while highly relevant , the commission of a crime is by no means sufficient to warrant the removal of our duly elected president , ” said Starr .
Over the course of an hour , Starr highlighted how unusual impeachment has been — Trump ’ s trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American history .
He implored the Senate to end the era in American history where Congress regularly wielded its impeachment powers .
“ I respectfully submit that the Senate should close this chapter , this idiosyncratic chapter , on this increasingly disruptive act , this era , this age of resort to the Constitution ’ s ultimate democratic weapon for the presidency , ” said Starr .
“ Let the people decide.
” Later in the day Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth , an Iraq war combat veteran , criticized Starr 's statement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous impeachment experience to being in war .
I 've been in war and sitting in a nice building , getting breaks for lunch and dinner is not like war , '' she said .
The Biden family took center stage in the afternoon portion of the trial Monday as Trump ’ s legal team turned their focus to the presidential contender and his son , Hunter Biden .
“ We would prefer not to be talking about this , ” said former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi , a member of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his allies , and other Republicans have spent months talking about Hunter Biden .
But Bondi said they had no choice but to bring up the Bidens because House impeachment managers first broached the issue in their opening statements .
The White House team heavily implied Biden , when he was vice president , forced Ukraine to fire a prosecutor , Viktor Shokin , who was investigating a company tied to the Biden family — a discredited conspiracy theory .
Trump 's defense quoted Shokin claiming that he was fired for investigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had Hunter Biden on its board — a theory Shokin only floated long after his removal .
Shokin was fired under pressure from Democrats and Republicans in the US and allies across the west and Biden bragged publicly about his role in Shokin 's ouster .
But Shokin was no longer investigating Burisma at the time and was widely seen by Western nations as a corrupt prosecutor who was blocking anti-corruption efforts .
Biden 's campaign responded in a statement , saying that Trump 's team was relying on a `` conspiracy theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
`` Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory .
It 's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump , '' Biden 's rapid response director Andrew Bates wrote .
Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz , another member of the White House 's defense team , closed Monday 's arguments with a lengthy legal argument , suggesting that the Founding Fathers did not intend for any president to be removed from office for abuse of power and that impeachment can only be used for violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton was charged with abuse of power among other articles and Dershowitz argued at the time that the president did n't need to commit a crime to be impeached .
Dershowitz went on to say Monday that even if Trump did withhold military aid from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on his political opponent , it would n't matter , and addressed Bolton 's allegations directly .
`` Nothing in the Bolton revelations even if true , would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear from the language of the Constitution , '' he said .
`` You can not turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like ‘ quid pro quo ’ and ‘ personal benefit.
’ It is inconceivable that the framers would have intended so politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as ‘ abuse of power ’ to be weaponized as a tool of impeachment .
It is precisely the kind of vague open-ended and subjective term that the framers feared and rejected.
” After the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren , a former law professor , told reporters that Dershowitz ' arguments were `` contrary to both law and fact . ''
`` His characterization of the law simply is unsupported .
He is a criminal law professor who stood in the well of the Senate and talked about how law never inquires into intent and that we should not be using the president 's intent as part of understanding impeachment .
Criminal law is all about intent .
Mens rea is the heart of criminal law .
That 's the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes his whole presentation just nonsensical .
I truly could not follow it . ''
When Trump 's defense team finishes their case Tuesday , the Senate will then enter a 16-hour period in which senators can submit handwritten questions to both legal teams .
After that , senators will take up an issue that has loomed large over the trial : whether they will call any witnesses to give testimony .
Democrats have pushed hard for witnesses , while the majority of Republicans have argued it is unnecessary .
Sens .
Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling witnesses ( along with all Republicans ) earlier in the trial but have suggested that they are likely to vote in favor of witnesses later this week .
`` I would like to hear from John Bolton , '' Romney told reporters Monday .
`` I 've said that for some time , in part because of the fact that he 's been one-on-one with the president , and has been pointed out so far by the House managers as well as the defense that there has not been evidence if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said , or what his motives were , or what he did . ''
In addition to Bolton , Democrats have discussed calling acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to testify .
Mulvaney was allegedly deeply involved in the scheme to withhold the Ukraine aid .
He acknowledged the link between those actions in a bizarre White House press conference in October , calling it “ absolutely appropriate , ” but later tried to walk back those comments .
`` We 've got both Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigation , '' Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said Monday , adding he 's hopeful Republicans will support calling witnesses .
`` I pray that they will because if they do n't , they will assign this trial to a standard that 's lesser than a trial in the traffic division of the Richmond General District Court , '' Kaine said .
Senate Majority Whip John Thune , whose job it is to count Republican votes in the Senate , declined to say Monday if there were enough votes to support bringing witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there 's been some fluidity in people who have entertained the possibility but also have a lot of questions about what that looks like , '' he said .
`` There are a lot of mitigating factors right now and obviously our folks are evaluating it and listening to all the arguments . ''
Other new evidence has emerged as the trial has gone on .
On Saturday , Lev Parnas — one of two indicted allies of Rudy Giuliani — released a tape , which was obtained by BuzzFeed News , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ get rid of ” the then-US ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch .
Giuliani and Parnas have said that Yovanovitch , who testified in the House ’ s impeachment inquiry , was an obstacle to their campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and had campaigned to remove her .
Additionally , both Ukraine and the US are now investigating whether Yovanovitch was under surveillance by Giuliani associates at the time .
She was ultimately recalled from her post in Kyiv and told that the president had wanted her out .


buzzfeed--2020-01-28--Michael Bloomberg Is Campaigning To Win Back Trump’s Jewish Supporters

Michael Bloomberg is launching a pitch to moderate Jewish voters aimed also at wooing away those who have supported Donald Trump .
Speaking at a Jewish center in Miami on Sunday , Bloomberg said he was committed to battling growing anti-Semitism , reiterated strong support for Israel , and said that while he opposed the Obama administration ’ s Iran nuclear deal he would seek to revive it .
The former New York mayor began with a thinly veiled reference to Bernie Sanders : “ I know I ’ m not the only Jewish candidate running for president .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to turn America into a kibbutz.
” Sanders , who briefly lived on a kibbutz in Israel , has broad appeal among a rising tide of progressive Jews , in part because he has been critical of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and denounced the occupation , going so far as to say he could make US aid to the country conditional on improving conditions in Gaza and elsewhere .
Bloomberg ’ s pitch is far more in keeping with traditional Democratic rhetoric , and though he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday he also backed some of the president ’ s policies that have won him support among more conservative Jewish voters .
After making a couple of Jewish jokes ( referencing both the Torah and pickles ) , Bloomberg said at the event , which launched “ United for Mike , ” a new coalition targeting Jewish Americans , that he “ will always have Israel ’ s back .
I will never impose conditions on our military aid , including missile defense — no matter who is prime minister.
” He then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran deal originally , saying it was not strong enough , before criticizing Trump ’ s decision to unilaterally withdraw from it .
An aide to Bloomberg told BuzzFeed News : “ Mike supports rejoining the nuclear deal , and then aggressively negotiating to improve it.
” Bloomberg also singled out Trump ’ s controversial decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem .
“ There are those who will cite the embassy move to as a reason to support the president , ” Bloomberg said .
“ And to that I say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you will never have to choose between supporting Israel and supporting our values here at home.
” An aide told BuzzFeed News that “ Mike believes that moving the US embassy there was the right thing to do , but it was a mistake to do so unilaterally and outside the context of the broader Israeli–Palestinian dialogue.
” Bloomberg linked an increase in anti-Semitic attacks , and hate crimes more broadly , with Trump ’ s presidency .
“ Anti-Semitism is hardly the exclusive domain of one political party .
It can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left — on town squares and campus quads , ” he said .
“ When the president calls his supporters ‘ real Americans ’ — an echo of the language that nativists , anti-Semites , and the KKK used for many decades — he undermines our fundamental national values .
When he is silent — and even supportive , through his words and tweets — as racist groups spread hate , he puts the public safety of our communities at risk.
” There is just no escaping the direct line between his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent attacks targeted at minority groups across the country , ” he said .
Many of the moves Trump has undertaken , including in Israel , have been designed to appeal to his evangelical base , and while he has denounced anti-Semitism he has also repeatedly trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes .
Managing to both disparage Democrats and trade on anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish loyalty , he said last year : “ In my opinion , if you vote for a Democrat , you 're being very disloyal to Jewish people and you 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Gallup , around 65 % of Jewish Americans identify as or lean toward Democrats , while 30 % identify with or lean toward the Republican Party .
Trump ’ s approval rating is lower among Jews than among Americans at large , according to Gallup , which found only 29 % approved in the first half of last year , compared to 42 % more broadly .
Bloomberg , who entered the race late and is skipping the early states including Iowa and New Hampshire , could be seeking to capitalize on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was targeting Trump voters in particular , the aide said : “ The campaign would welcome the support of all Jewish voters — regardless of who they voted for in the past.
” Rep. Max Rose of Staten Island , who earlier this month became the first member of Congress to endorse Bloomberg , gave the former mayor credit for rebuilding New York after Sept. 11 ( a mantle often worn by Trump ’ s lawyer Rudy Giuliani ) and said , “ America now finds itself at a similar fork in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment , ” Rose said .
“ I ’ ve got Jews in my community who are afraid to go outside with their kippah on , afraid to speak Hebrew in public , afraid to congregate together .
And Mike Bloomberg is the type of leader who is well versed in these issues and able to rise above the partisan fray so that we are not attributing it to one side of the political spectrum or the other , we ’ re not using Israel as a political football.
” He praised what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political courage ” and appeal to various audiences .
“ It doesn ’ t seem like people often want to speak about this but if you want to get a piece of legislation signed in 2021 by the president of the United States , you ’ re going to have to get conservative Democrats and Republicans on board .
Plain and simple , and that ’ s going to require leadership .
”

Michael Bloomberg is launching a pitch to moderate Jewish voters aimed also at wooing away those who have supported Donald Trump.
Speaking at a Jewish center in Miami on Sunday, Bloomberg said he was committed to battling growing anti-Semitism, reiterated strong support for Israel, and said that while he opposed the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal he would seek to revive it.
The former New York mayor began with a thinly veiled reference to Bernie Sanders: “I know I’m not the only Jewish candidate running for president. But I am the only one who doesn’t want to turn America into a kibbutz.” Sanders, who briefly lived on a kibbutz in Israel, has broad appeal among a rising tide of progressive Jews, in part because he has been critical of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and denounced the occupation, going so far as to say he could make US aid to the country conditional on improving conditions in Gaza and elsewhere.
Bloomberg’s pitch is far more in keeping with traditional Democratic rhetoric, and though he repeatedly criticized Trump and his approach on Sunday he also backed some of the president’s policies that have won him support among more conservative Jewish voters.
After making a couple of Jewish jokes (referencing both the Torah and pickles), Bloomberg said at the event, which launched “United for Mike,” a new coalition targeting Jewish Americans, that he “will always have Israel’s back. I will never impose conditions on our military aid, including missile defense — no matter who is prime minister.” He then reminded the crowd he was against the Iran deal originally, saying it was not strong enough, before criticizing Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from it. An aide to Bloomberg told BuzzFeed News: “Mike supports rejoining the nuclear deal, and then aggressively negotiating to improve it.”
Bloomberg also singled out Trump’s controversial decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. “There are those who will cite the embassy move to as a reason to support the president,” Bloomberg said. “And to that I say very clearly: If I am elected, you will never have to choose between supporting Israel and supporting our values here at home.” An aide told BuzzFeed News that “Mike believes that moving the US embassy there was the right thing to do, but it was a mistake to do so unilaterally and outside the context of the broader Israeli–Palestinian dialogue.”
Bloomberg linked an increase in anti-Semitic attacks, and hate crimes more broadly, with Trump’s presidency. “Anti-Semitism is hardly the exclusive domain of one political party. It can be found on both the right and the left — on town squares and campus quads,” he said. “When the president calls his supporters ‘real Americans’ — an echo of the language that nativists, anti-Semites, and the KKK used for many decades — he undermines our fundamental national values. When he is silent — and even supportive, through his words and tweets — as racist groups spread hate, he puts the public safety of our communities at risk.”
There is just no escaping the direct line between his conduct in office and the rise of violent attacks targeted at minority groups across the country,” he said.
Many of the moves Trump has undertaken, including in Israel, have been designed to appeal to his evangelical base, and while he has denounced anti-Semitism he has also repeatedly trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes. Managing to both disparage Democrats and trade on anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish loyalty, he said last year: “In my opinion, if you vote for a Democrat, you're being very disloyal to Jewish people and you're being very disloyal to Israel.”
According to Gallup, around 65% of Jewish Americans identify as or lean toward Democrats, while 30% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. Trump’s approval rating is lower among Jews than among Americans at large, according to Gallup, which found only 29% approved in the first half of last year, compared to 42% more broadly.
Bloomberg, who entered the race late and is skipping the early states including Iowa and New Hampshire, could be seeking to capitalize on that.
Asked if the Bloomberg campaign was targeting Trump voters in particular, the aide said: “The campaign would welcome the support of all Jewish voters — regardless of who they voted for in the past.”
Rep. Max Rose of Staten Island, who earlier this month became the first member of Congress to endorse Bloomberg, gave the former mayor credit for rebuilding New York after Sept. 11 (a mantle often worn by Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani) and said, “America now finds itself at a similar fork in the road.”
“This is a scary moment,” Rose said. “I’ve got Jews in my community who are afraid to go outside with their kippah on, afraid to speak Hebrew in public, afraid to congregate together. And Mike Bloomberg is the type of leader who is well versed in these issues and able to rise above the partisan fray so that we are not attributing it to one side of the political spectrum or the other, we’re not using Israel as a political football.”
He praised what he saw as Bloomberg’s “political courage” and appeal to various audiences. “It doesn’t seem like people often want to speak about this but if you want to get a piece of legislation signed in 2021 by the president of the United States, you’re going to have to get conservative Democrats and Republicans on board. Plain and simple, and that’s going to require leadership.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-29--Trump’s Defense Team Wraps Up Their Case In The Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ’ s defense team wrapped up their opening arguments in the impeachment trial just before 3 p.m. Tuesday , urging senators not to remove him from office .
The House voted to impeach Trump in December , charging him with abuse of power for withholding aid to Ukraine until the country agreed to announce an investigation into Trump ’ s political rivals , former Vice President Joe Biden and his family , as well as with obstructing Congress during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry on the issue .
`` I have every confidence — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the only thing you can do , what you must do , what the Constitution compels you to do , reject these articles of impeachment for our country and for the American people , '' White House counsel Pat Cipollone told senators in his closing statement Tuesday afternoon .
`` It will show that you put the Constitution above partisanship .
It will show that we can come together on both sides of the aisle and end the era of impeachment for good .
...
It will allow you all to spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your enormous talent and all of your resources on doing what the American people sent you here to do , to work together , to work with the president to solve their problems .
So this should end now as quickly as possible . ''
Now that the president 's defense has concluded , the trial has ended for the day .
Senators will return on Wednesday at 1 p.m. to begin a 16-hour question and answer period , where senators can submit written questions to both legal teams .
Since they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial , senators will write down their questions and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial , will ask them .
During a press conference Monday morning , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he has not given Democrats guidelines as to what they can ask , but they ’ ll avoid duplicating the same questions .
On Monday , Trump 's defense attorneys argued House Democrats failed to present enough evidence , even as an explosive report from the New York Times emerged suggesting Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his former national security adviser , to withhold aid to Ukraine until it announced the Biden investigations — exactly what he has been impeached for .
Bolton ’ s account could fill the last gap in the House impeachment case by offering a first-hand account of Trump ’ s demand .
Trump ’ s legal team leveled a two-pronged attack at Bolton Tuesday , saying the allegations in his upcoming book are not credible , but even if they were they are not impeachable .
Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow dismissed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more copies of his book .
He referred to the subject of the Times report as “ an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says .
I mean that ’ s what the evidence , if you want to call that evidence , I don ’ t know what you ’ d call that .
I ’ d call it inadmissible.
” Several Republicans have said they want to see a copy of the manuscript , while Democrats and Republican Sen. Mitt Romney want to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Senators will vote on whether to allow witnesses at all in the case later this week , likely Friday .
But Sekulow also argued Tuesday that even if Bolton ’ s account were accurate , the president ’ s actions are not impeachable because he has not committed any crime .
Sekulow told the Senate that the articles of impeachment must be rejected “ even if there was a quid pro quo , which we clearly have established there was not.
” Rep. Adam Schiff , who is leading the Democratic prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday .
“ Once again , the president 's team — in a way that only they could — have further made the case for calling John Bolton , '' he told reporters .
Previously , Trump 's defense team has argued that the president ’ s actions were justified .
They claimed over the course of arguments on Saturday and Monday : The president has the right to withhold aid when he wants , Democrats held ” secret ” hearings hampering due process , and there was no quid pro quo because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zelensky never announced an investigation into Biden and the aid money was eventually released .
Democrats have countered that the aid was only released after government officials started raising questions about whether the hold was illegal and after a whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump ’ s request to Zelensky .
Deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura argued the president was awaiting information on anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine before releasing the security assistance .
Schiff told reporters Monday that if the president was interested in corruption he would have launched an actual investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This case is about a president of the United States shaking down the president of Ukraine by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in military a and a coveted Oval Office meeting to get him to help in cheating in the next election , ” Schiff told reporters during a break from the trial Tuesday .
Following the White House 's presentation Tuesday , Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama told reporters he is considering voting separately on the articles of impeachment , potentially voting to remove Trump from office for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s not in for a penny , in for a pound , ” he said .
The Q & A portion of the trial is expected to take up Wednesday and Thursday .
Senators are then expected to vote on whether to include additional evidence outside of the House ’ s impeachment inquiry , including calling witnesses to testify .
Democrats likely need 51 votes to allow witnesses , which means they would need at least four Republicans to break party lines on the issue .
Republicans have largely resisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine have said they are open to it .
`` I would like to hear from John Bolton .
I 've said that for some time , in part because of the fact that he 's been one-on-one with the president , ” Romney told reporters Monday .
Democrats have indicated that they are interested in hearing from Bolton directly , as well as acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , who is a central figure in the Ukraine saga and acknowledged in October that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country in exchange for investigations into the Bidens as well as the 2016 election .

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s defense team wrapped up its opening arguments in the impeachment trial just before 3 p.m. Tuesday, urging senators not to remove him from office.
The House voted to impeach Trump in December, charging him with abuse of power — for withholding aid to Ukraine until the country agreed to announce an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden and his family — as well as obstructing Congress during the House’s impeachment inquiry on the issue.
"I have every confidence — every confidence in your wisdom you will do the only thing you can do, what you must do, what the Constitution compels you to do, reject these articles of impeachment for our country and for the American people," White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told senators in his closing statement Tuesday afternoon. "It will show that you put the Constitution above partisanship. It will show that we can come together on both sides of the aisle and end the era of impeachment for good. ... It will allow you all to spend all of your energy and all of your enormous talent and all of your resources on doing what the American people sent you here to do, to work together, to work with the president to solve their problems. So this should end now as quickly as possible."
Now that the president's defense has concluded, the trial has ended for the day. Senators will return Wednesday at 1 p.m. to begin a 16-hour question-and-answer period, for which senators can submit written questions to both legal teams. Since they are required to be silent as jurors in the trial, senators will write down their questions and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, will ask them.
During a press conference Monday morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he has not given Democrats guidelines as to what they can ask, but they’ll avoid duplicating any questions.
On Monday, Trump's defense attorneys argued House Democrats failed to present enough evidence, even as an explosive report from the New York Times emerged suggesting Trump gave direct orders to John Bolton, his former national security adviser, to withhold aid to Ukraine until it announced the Biden investigation — exactly what he has been impeached for. Bolton’s account could fill the last gap in the House impeachment case by offering a firsthand account of Trump’s demand.
Trump’s legal team leveled a two-pronged attack at Bolton on Tuesday, saying the allegations in his upcoming book are not credible — but even if they were, they are not impeachable.
Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow dismissed the claims as Bolton looking to sell more copies of his book. He referred to the subject of the Times report as “an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says. I mean, that’s what the evidence — if you want to call that evidence — I don’t know what you’d call that. I’d call it inadmissible.”
Several Republicans have said they want to see a copy of the manuscript, while Democrats and Republican Sen. Mitt Romney want to hear from Bolton personally in the Senate trial. Senators will vote on whether to allow witnesses at all in the case later this week, likely Friday.
But Sekulow also argued Tuesday that even if Bolton’s account were accurate, the president’s actions are not impeachable, because he has not committed any crime. Sekulow told the Senate that the articles of impeachment must be rejected “even if there was a quid pro quo, which we clearly have established there was not.”
Rep. Adam Schiff, who is leading the Democratic prosecution against Trump, dismissed Sekulow's argument Tuesday. “Once again, the president's team — in a way that only they could — have further made the case for calling John Bolton," he told reporters.
Previously, Trump's defense team has argued that the president’s actions were justified. They claimed over the course of arguments on Saturday and Monday: The president has the right to withhold aid when he wants, Democrats held ”secret” hearings hampering due process, and there was no quid pro quo — because, after all, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky never announced an investigation into Biden and the aid money was eventually released.
Democrats have countered that the aid was only released after government officials started raising questions about whether the hold was illegal and after a whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump’s request to Zelensky.
Michael Purpura, the deputy White House counsel, argued the president was awaiting information on anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine before releasing the security assistance. Schiff told reporters Monday that if the president were interested in corruption, he would have launched an actual investigation rather than requesting that Zelensky announce one.
“This case is about a president of the United States shaking down the president of Ukraine by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and a coveted Oval Office meeting to get him to help in cheating in the next election,” Schiff told reporters during a break from the trial Tuesday.
Following the White House's presentation Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama told reporters he is considering voting separately on the articles of impeachment, potentially voting to remove Trump from office for one, but not the other. “It’s not in for a penny, in for a pound,” he said.
The Q&A portion of the trial is expected to take up Wednesday and Thursday. Senators are then expected to vote on whether to include additional evidence outside of the House’s impeachment inquiry, including calling witnesses to testify. Democrats likely need 51 votes to allow witnesses, which means they would need at least four Republicans to break party lines on the issue. Republicans have largely resisted the idea of calling witnesses, but Romney and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine have said they are open to it.
"I would like to hear from John Bolton. I've said that for some time, in part because of the fact that he's been one-on-one with the president,” Romney told reporters Monday.
Democrats have indicated that they are interested in hearing directly from Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. A central figure in the Ukraine saga, Mulvaney acknowledged in October that the president had withheld aid to the country in exchange for investigations into the Bidens as well as the 2016 election.


buzzfeed--2020-01-28--Elizabeth Warren Is Endorsing A Progressive Candidate In The Primary To Replace Nita Lowey

WASHINGTON — Sen. Elizabeth Warren will endorse Mondaire Jones in the heated Democratic primary for New York ’ s 17th Congressional district , her campaign told BuzzFeed News .
Jones is a candidate in New York ’ s June 23 Democratic primary to replace Rep. Nita Lowey .
He ’ s running on a progressive platform in an effort to become the first-ever openly gay black member of Congress .
Jones is not accepting any corporate dollars , nor is he taking money from a super PAC .
“ Mondaire Jones knows that we ’ re in a fight to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families , '' Warren said .
`` With Mondaire in Congress , we ’ ll gain another chance to achieve the hard-fought wins that bring us closer to big , structural change , and I ’ m glad to stand with him.
” Warren is wading into the primary at a tense time for her presidential campaign .
The Iowa caucus is less than a week away , and senators have been busy with the Senate ’ s impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
Warren is trying to stage a come-from-behind victory after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent weeks .
Throughout her presidential campaign , Warren has made selective endorsements of progressives in congressional primaries .
Last fall , she endorsed against conservative Democratic incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar to back challenger Jessica Cisneros .
And she endorsed Sen. Ed Markey ’ s reelection in a tense primary fight against Rep. Joe Kennedy III , who had taken classes with Warren at Harvard Law School .
Jones , a 32-year-old attorney , had already announced his candidacy to challenge Lowey , whose district encompasses an area directly north of New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Westchester counties , before she announced her retirement in October .

WASHINGTON — Sen. Elizabeth Warren will endorse Mondaire Jones in the heated Democratic primary for New York’s 17th Congressional district, her campaign told BuzzFeed News.
Jones is a candidate in New York’s June 23 Democratic primary to replace Rep. Nita Lowey. He’s running on a progressive platform in an effort to become the first-ever openly gay black member of Congress. Jones is not accepting any corporate dollars, nor is he taking money from a super PAC.
“Mondaire Jones knows that we’re in a fight to put power in the hands of working families," Warren said. "With Mondaire in Congress, we’ll gain another chance to achieve the hard-fought wins that bring us closer to big, structural change, and I’m glad to stand with him.”
Warren is wading into the primary at a tense time for her presidential campaign. The Iowa caucus is less than a week away, and senators have been busy with the Senate’s impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Warren is trying to stage a come-from-behind victory after slipping in national and state polls in recent weeks.
Throughout her presidential campaign, Warren has made selective endorsements of progressives in congressional primaries. Last fall, she endorsed against conservative Democratic incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar to back challenger Jessica Cisneros. And she endorsed Sen. Ed Markey’s reelection in a tense primary fight against Rep. Joe Kennedy III, who had taken classes with Warren at Harvard Law School.
Jones, a 32-year-old attorney, had already announced his candidacy to challenge Lowey, whose district encompasses an area directly north of New York City, including parts of Rockland and Westchester counties, before she announced her retirement in October.


buzzfeed--2020-01-28--AOC Is Campaigning For Bernie Sanders In Iowa And Voters Are Falling In Love

AMES , Iowa — With Sen. Bernie Sanders largely stuck in DC in the days leading up to the first contest of the 2020 election , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is storming across Iowa for his campaign and making a big name for herself in the process .
On Saturday morning , the Sanders campaign ’ s field office in Cedar Rapids was filled with chants of “ AOC ” as Ocasio-Cortez walked to the front of the room .
Her reputation — driven by her Twitter presence , her role in the vanguard of a new generation of progressive Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her from the right — had somewhat preceded her .
“ I would have her be president .
She ’ s unabashed .
She ’ s not afraid of the political garbage that we have , ” said Joe Organist , 60 , at the stop in Cedar Falls .
“ If I were running for president , she ’ d be the only one I ’ d want speaking for me.
” He added that he ’ d come to the Sanders event partly because he knew Ocasio-Cortez would be there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ events in Iowa on Saturday , however , this was their first time really getting to know her , and in some cases , the first time they ’ d even heard of her .
Close to two dozen voters who spoke to BuzzFeed News over the course of the four-stop day , including two with Sanders , said they were impressed with her — several adding that they would like to see her be part of a Sanders cabinet , and could see her running for president down the track .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet old enough to be president or vice president . )
“ I actually didn ’ t know anything about her .
My friend told me about this , ” said Dominique Eniola , 21 , a student at the University of Northern Iowa .
“ I have heard that a lot of politicians don ’ t like her because she ’ s a woman and because she ’ s very ‘ radical.
’ I think a lot of people throw around the word radical very interchangeably because they might not like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it is very hard being a woman and not having people take you seriously.
” “ I didn ’ t even know who she was , to be honest , ” said Angela Hodge , 45 , at a town hall in Marshalltown .
“ I love her .
I love that she ’ s multicultural , being multicultural myself , I am Hispanic … I would like to see her in more politics because I think she really has a lot to say and it ’ s very meaningful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she made.
” Ocasio-Cortez made her second swing through Iowa this weekend — last time she was here , in November with Sanders , her focus was on a climate forum at Drake University .
In December , she spoke at a campaign stop in Las Vegas entirely in Spanish , in an event that saw young Latino Sanders supporters bring in their parents and grandparents to engage directly in their first language for the first time in the presidential campaign .
Ocasio-Cortez ’ s approach on the presidential campaign trail — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City rally after endorsing Sanders in October — is a combination of sweeping progressive discourse tied in to very personal stories .
This weekend , she talked about the “ surreal ” experience of sleeping on an air mattress in her first days in Congress , and then walking to work on the Hill , where she says she was “ told that our lives are too politically inconvenient to fight for .
”

AMES, Iowa — With Sen. Bernie Sanders largely stuck in DC in the days leading up to the first contest of the 2020 election, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is storming across Iowa for his campaign and making a big name for herself in the process.
On Saturday morning, the Sanders campaign’s field office in Cedar Rapids was filled with chants of “AOC” as Ocasio-Cortez walked to the front of the room. Her reputation — driven by her Twitter presence, her role in the vanguard of a new generation of progressive Democrats, and by the prolific attacks on her from the right — had somewhat preceded her.
“I would have her be president. She’s unabashed. She’s not afraid of the political garbage that we have,” said Joe Organist, 60, at the stop in Cedar Falls. “If I were running for president, she’d be the only one I’d want speaking for me.”
He added that he’d come to the Sanders event partly because he knew Ocasio-Cortez would be there.
For other voters at the Sanders campaign events in Iowa on Saturday, however, this was their first time really getting to know her, and in some cases, the first time they’d even heard of her.
Close to two dozen voters who spoke to BuzzFeed News over the course of the four-stop day, including two with Sanders, said they were impressed with her — several adding that they would like to see her be part of a Sanders cabinet, and could see her running for president down the track. (Ocasio-Cortez, who is 30, is not yet old enough to be president or vice president.)
“I actually didn’t know anything about her. My friend told me about this,” said Dominique Eniola, 21, a student at the University of Northern Iowa. “I have heard that a lot of politicians don’t like her because she’s a woman and because she’s very ‘radical.’ I think a lot of people throw around the word radical very interchangeably because they might not like just one key thing about someone. I think it is very hard being a woman and not having people take you seriously.”
“I didn’t even know who she was, to be honest,” said Angela Hodge, 45, at a town hall in Marshalltown. “I love her. I love that she’s multicultural, being multicultural myself, I am Hispanic … I would like to see her in more politics because I think she really has a lot to say and it’s very meaningful. She has a lot of good points that she made.”
Ocasio-Cortez made her second swing through Iowa this weekend — last time she was here, in November with Sanders, her focus was on a climate forum at Drake University. In December, she spoke at a campaign stop in Las Vegas entirely in Spanish, in an event that saw young Latino Sanders supporters bring in their parents and grandparents to engage directly in their first language for the first time in the presidential campaign.
Ocasio-Cortez’s approach on the presidential campaign trail — dating back to her first New York City rally after endorsing Sanders in October — is a combination of sweeping progressive discourse tied in to very personal stories. This weekend, she talked about the “surreal” experience of sleeping on an air mattress in her first days in Congress, and then walking to work on the Hill, where she says she was “told that our lives are too politically inconvenient to fight for.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-29--Trump’s Defense Team Wrapped Up Its Case In The Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ’ s defense team wrapped up its opening arguments in the impeachment trial just before 3 p.m. Tuesday , urging senators not to remove him from office .
The House voted to impeach Trump in December , charging him with abuse of power — for withholding aid to Ukraine until the country agreed to announce an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden and his family — as well as obstructing Congress during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry on the issue .
`` I have every confidence — every confidence in your wisdom you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , what you must do , what the Constitution compels you to do , reject these articles of impeachment for our country and for the American people , '' White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told senators in his closing statement Tuesday afternoon .
`` It will show that you put the Constitution above partisanship .
It will show that we can come together on both sides of the aisle and end the era of impeachment for good .
...
It will allow you all to spend all of your energy and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your resources on doing what the American people sent you here to do , to work together , to work with the president to solve their problems .
So this should end now as quickly as possible . ''
Now that the president 's defense has concluded , the trial has ended for the day .
Senators will return Wednesday at 1 p.m. to begin a 16-hour question-and-answer period , for which senators can submit written questions to both legal teams .
Since they are required to be silent as jurors in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial , will ask them .
During a press conference Monday morning , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he has not given Democrats guidelines as to what they can ask , but they ’ ll avoid duplicating any questions .
On Monday , Trump 's defense attorneys argued House Democrats failed to present enough evidence , even as an explosive report from the New York Times emerged suggesting Trump gave direct orders to John Bolton , his former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ukraine until it announced the Biden investigation — exactly what he has been impeached for .
Bolton ’ s account could fill the last gap in the House impeachment case by offering a firsthand account of Trump ’ s demand .
Trump ’ s legal team leveled a two-pronged attack at Bolton on Tuesday , saying the allegations in his upcoming book are not credible — but even if they were , they are not impeachable .
Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow dismissed the claims as Bolton looking to sell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to the subject of the Times report as “ an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says .
I mean , that ’ s what the evidence — if you want to call that evidence — I don ’ t know what you ’ d call that .
I ’ d call it inadmissible.
” Several Republicans have said they want to see a copy of the manuscript , while Democrats and Republican Sen. Mitt Romney want to hear from Bolton personally in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow witnesses at all in the case later this week , likely Friday .
But Sekulow also argued Tuesday that even if Bolton ’ s account were accurate , the president ’ s actions are not impeachable , because he has not committed any crime .
Sekulow told the Senate that the articles of impeachment must be rejected “ even if there was a quid pro quo , which we clearly have established there was not.
” Rep. Adam Schiff , who is leading the Democratic prosecution against Trump , dismissed Sekulow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the president 's team — in a way that only they could — have further made the case for calling John Bolton , '' he told reporters .
Previously , Trump 's defense team has argued that the president ’ s actions were justified .
They claimed over the course of arguments on Saturday and Monday : The president has the right to withhold aid when he wants , Democrats held ” secret ” hearings hampering due process , and there was no quid pro quo — because , after all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation into Biden and the aid money was eventually released .
Democrats have countered that the aid was only released after government officials started raising questions about whether the hold was illegal and after a whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump ’ s request to Zelensky .
Michael Purpura , the deputy White House counsel , argued the president was awaiting information on anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine before releasing the security assistance .
Schiff told reporters Monday that if the president were interested in corruption , he would have launched an actual investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This case is about a president of the United States shaking down the president of Ukraine by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and a coveted Oval Office meeting to get him to help in cheating in the next election , ” Schiff told reporters during a break from the trial Tuesday .
Following the White House 's presentation Tuesday , Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama told reporters he is considering voting separately on the articles of impeachment , potentially voting to remove Trump from office for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s not in for a penny , in for a pound , ” he said .
The Q & A portion of the trial is expected to take up Wednesday and Thursday .
Senators are then expected to vote on whether to include additional evidence outside of the House ’ s impeachment inquiry , including calling witnesses to testify .
Democrats likely need 51 votes to allow witnesses , which means they would need at least four Republicans to break party lines on the issue .
Republicans have largely resisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine have said they are open to it .
`` I would like to hear from John Bolton .
I 've said that for some time , in part because of the fact that he 's been one-on-one with the president , ” Romney told reporters Monday .
Democrats have indicated that they are interested in hearing directly from Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
A central figure in the Ukraine saga , Mulvaney acknowledged in October that the president had withheld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigations into the Bidens as well as the 2016 election .


buzzfeed--2020-01-30--Trump’s Team Argued Presidents Can Demand Quid Pro Quos to Get Reelected. Even Republicans Won’t Tou

Trump’s Team Argued Presidents Can Demand Quid Pro Quos to Get Reelected. Even Republicans Won’t Touch This Defense.

“ Every public official I know believes that his election is in the public interest .
And mostly you ’ re right , ” he said .
“ Your election is in the public interest .
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 quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
” While responding to questions from senators Wednesday , Dershowitz argued that presidents can not be impeached for demanding a quid pro quo to help get themselves reelected .
WASHINGTON — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents can not be impeached for using their powers of office to boost their own political fortunes , as long as they believe their reelection is best for the country .
Even Republicans aren ’ t following him down that trail .
The Impeachment Today podcast gets you up to date with the day ’ s most important impeachment news .
Catch up on all the episodes , or subscribe on the iHeartRadio app , Apple Podcasts , Spotify , or wherever you listen to your favorite shows .
Dershowitz laid out three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , political interest , and private financial interest .
Acting for personal financial gain — such as withholding foreign aid unless you receive a million-dollar kickback — is clearly corrupt , argued Dershowitz .
“ But a complex middle case is ‘ I want to be elected .
I think I ’ m a great president .
I think I ’ m the greatest president that ever was , and if I ’ m not elected , the national interest will suffer greatly.
’ That can not be an impeachable offense , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding up almost $ 400 million of military aid from Ukraine unless the country announced an investigation involving former vice president Joe Biden and his family .
Democrats have portrayed this as a political quid pro quo to help to damage Trump ’ s possible presidential contender and boost his reelection chances .
Under Dershowitz ’ s view , this would not be an impeachable action .
Asked if they agreed with this argument , Republican senators distanced themselves from it .
“ I wanted to separate myself from that part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding that he believes the suggestion that Trump acted purely to get himself reelected is flawed .
Scott said that Dershowitz was speaking hypothetically , not about the circumstances of the Trump impeachment .
He said that in Trump ’ s case , there was a legitimate interest in demanding the investigation because of concerns about corruption in Ukraine .
“ He said ‘ a president , ’ not President Trump .
I think he was talking about a philosophical perspective , ” said Scott .
Sen. Mike Braun agreed .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blend of public and political interests — when he demanded the investigation .
That , said Braun , makes the action legitimate .
Asked if he believes in Dershowitz ’ s legal interpretation , he said , “ I don ’ t think anybody has to grapple with that because that ’ s not the case here .
It was mixed motives .
”

Dershowitz laid out three types of presidential motivations: public interest, political interest, and private financial interest. Acting for personal financial gain — such as withholding foreign aid unless you receive a million-dollar kickback — is clearly corrupt, argued Dershowitz.
“But a complex middle case is ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president that ever was, and if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense,” he said.
Trump is accused of holding up almost $400 million of military aid from Ukraine unless the country announced an investigation involving former vice president Joe Biden and his family. Democrats have portrayed this as a political quid pro quo to help to damage Trump’s possible presidential contender and boost his reelection chances. Under Dershowitz’s view, this would not be an impeachable action.
Asked if they agreed with this argument, Republican senators distanced themselves from it.
“I wanted to separate myself from that part of the conversation,” said Sen. Tim Scott, adding that he believes the suggestion that Trump acted purely to get himself reelected is flawed.
Scott said that Dershowitz was speaking hypothetically, not about the circumstances of the Trump impeachment. He said that in Trump’s case, there was a legitimate interest in demanding the investigation because of concerns about corruption in Ukraine.
“He said ‘a president,’ not President Trump. I think he was talking about a philosophical perspective,” said Scott.
Sen. Mike Braun agreed. He said Trump had mixed motives — a blend of public and political interests — when he demanded the investigation. That, said Braun, makes the action legitimate.
Asked if he believes in Dershowitz’s legal interpretation, he said, “I don’t think anybody has to grapple with that because that’s not the case here. It was mixed motives.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-29--"We Would Still Like Our Money Back": Democrats Want Rep. Jeff Van Drew To Return Their Donations Af

"We Would Still Like Our Money Back": Democrats Want Rep. Jeff Van Drew To Return Their Donations After He Joined The Republican Party

WASHINGTON — Rep. Jeff Van Drew left the Democratic Party days after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump .
Now , some of his former colleagues want their donations back .
More than a dozen members of Congress and political action committees donated to Van Drew ’ s upcoming 2020 reelection campaign , according to Federal Election Commission data .
But a month after the New Jersey Democrat turned Republican announced his departure from the party , several of his congressional colleagues say attempts to get back more than $ 30,000 they ’ ve donated have been ignored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their money back is the House Majority PAC , a super PAC focused on keeping a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives .
“ We have not received the $ 2500 refund we requested and that speaks to the lack of integrity Jeff Van Drew has displayed throughout this entire episode , in which Jeff Van Drew has repeatedly told his supporters one thing before doing another , ” Caitlin Legacki , a spokesperson for the PAC told BuzzFeed News in a statement .
“ Sadly , it is not surprising that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Republican while using money raised by and for Democrats to fuel his campaign , ” Legacki added .
“ We would still like our money back.
” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer donated $ 4,000 to Van Drew ’ s 2020 campaign .
Hoyer ’ s aide told BuzzFeed News that Van Drew was asked to return the donations but hasn ’ t done so yet .
Democratic Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York , Bill Foster of Illinois , and Ted Lieu of California have not received their donations back either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drew last quarter and we have requested the money back , ” Lieu ’ s spokesperson told BuzzFeed News .
“ We have not heard back from his campaign yet.
” Van Drew , who represents southern New Jersey , voted against the impeachment inquiry and sided with House Republicans not to impeach Trump last year .
A day after the House impeached the president , Van Drew pledged his “ undying support ” to the president during an avail in the Oval Office of the White House .
The first-term lawmaker 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this article .
On Tuesday , Van Drew appeared at Trump ’ s Wildwood , New Jersey rally where he spoke for just under three minutes during Trump ’ s hourlong campaign stump .
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway — also from Southern New Jersey — appeared at the rally as well .
The same day rumors emerged that Van Drew would leave the party , the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee , which works to elect Democrats to the House , worked with CFO Consulting Partners , a financial consulting firm representing Van @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations were reimbursed to Democratic members .
But a spokesperson for the DCCC told BuzzFeed News that midway through the negotiations Van Drew ’ s campaign left CFO and switched to Red Curve Solutions — a financial compliance firm usually contracted by Republicans in Congress .
Since then , the DCCC has been advising Democrats to reach out to Red Curve directly .
Red Curve did not respond to a request for comment .
The DCCC was able to secure returns for the committee ’ s chair , Rep. Cheri Bustos , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of New York , Frank Pallone of New Jersey , Julia Brownley of California , and Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland had given to Van Drew ’ s campaign .
The Blue Dog Coalition — a group of moderate Democrats in Congress — also received a refund for the $ 6,000 they donated to Van Drew .
But other donations are still sitting in Van Drew ’ s campaign account as he seeks reelection as a Republican .
The DCCC is also recommending that New Jersey residents request refunds from his campaign , per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BuzzFeed News .
“ Congressman Van Drew betrayed his donors , his colleagues , and the New Jersey nurses and school teachers who sent him their hard-earned dollars , ” Lucinda Guinn , executive director of the DCCC , told BuzzFeed News in a statement .
“ We ’ ll continue working with elected officials and small donors across the country to help them recoup the money they gave to Van Drew when he still voted with Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time and was publicly pledging to stay a Democrat .
@

WASHINGTON — Rep. Jeff Van Drew left the Democratic Party days after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump. Now, some of his former colleagues want their donations back.
More than a dozen members of Congress and political action committees donated to Van Drew’s upcoming 2020 reelection campaign, according to Federal Election Commission data. But a month after the New Jersey Democrat turned Republican announced his departure from the party, several of his congressional colleagues say attempts to get back more than $30,000 they’ve donated have been ignored.
Among the groups seeking to get their money back is the House Majority PAC, a super PAC focused on keeping a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. “We have not received the $2500 refund we requested and that speaks to the lack of integrity Jeff Van Drew has displayed throughout this entire episode, in which Jeff Van Drew has repeatedly told his supporters one thing before doing another,” Caitlin Legacki, a spokesperson for the PAC told BuzzFeed News in a statement.
“Sadly, it is not surprising that Jeff Van Drew continues to campaign as a Republican while using money raised by and for Democrats to fuel his campaign,” Legacki added. “We would still like our money back.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer donated $4,000 to Van Drew’s 2020 campaign. Hoyer’s aide told BuzzFeed News that Van Drew was asked to return the donations but hasn’t done so yet. Democratic Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York, Bill Foster of Illinois, and Ted Lieu of California have not received their donations back either.
“We did contribute to Van Drew last quarter and we have requested the money back,” Lieu’s spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “We have not heard back from his campaign yet.”
Van Drew, who represents southern New Jersey, voted against the impeachment inquiry and sided with House Republicans not to impeach Trump last year. A day after the House impeached the president, Van Drew pledged his “undying support” to the president during an avail in the Oval Office of the White House.
The first-term lawmaker's campaign did not respond to questions for this article.
On Tuesday, Van Drew appeared at Trump’s Wildwood, New Jersey rally where he spoke for just under three minutes during Trump’s hourlong campaign stump. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway — also from Southern New Jersey — appeared at the rally as well.
The same day rumors emerged that Van Drew would leave the party, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to the House, worked with CFO Consulting Partners, a financial consulting firm representing Van Drew’s campaign, to ensure donations were reimbursed to Democratic members. But a spokesperson for the DCCC told BuzzFeed News that midway through the negotiations Van Drew’s campaign left CFO and switched to Red Curve Solutions — a financial compliance firm usually contracted by Republicans in Congress. Since then, the DCCC has been advising Democrats to reach out to Red Curve directly. Red Curve did not respond to a request for comment.
The DCCC was able to secure returns for the committee’s chair, Rep. Cheri Bustos, along with thousands of dollars Reps. Nita Lowey of New York, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, Julia Brownley of California, and Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland had given to Van Drew’s campaign. The Blue Dog Coalition — a group of moderate Democrats in Congress — also received a refund for the $6,000 they donated to Van Drew.
But other donations are still sitting in Van Drew’s campaign account as he seeks reelection as a Republican. The DCCC is also recommending that New Jersey residents request refunds from his campaign, per a sample letter the committee provided to BuzzFeed News.
“Congressman Van Drew betrayed his donors, his colleagues, and the New Jersey nurses and school teachers who sent him their hard-earned dollars,” Lucinda Guinn, executive director of the DCCC, told BuzzFeed News in a statement. “We’ll continue working with elected officials and small donors across the country to help them recoup the money they gave to Van Drew when he still voted with Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time and was publicly pledging to stay a Democrat.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-29--The DNC Approved And Kept Private A Generous Exit Package For Tom Perez And Two Top Deputies

A group of Democratic National Committee officials approved and then withheld from their own leadership a proposal to carve out a generous exit package for the party chair , Tom Perez , and two top lieutenants , leaving Democrats confounded over the weekend by the optics and timing of the decision on the eve of the presidential primary .
The proposal , put forward as an official DNC resolution during a meeting of the party ’ s budget and finance committee last Friday , would have arranged for Perez and two of his top deputies , CEO Seema Nanda and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive a lump-sum bonus equaling four months ’ salary within two weeks of the time they eventually leave their roles .
Senior DNC officers , including members of Perez ’ s own executive committee , learned of the compensation package after its approval , through the rumor mill , setting off a furious exchange of emails and texts over the weekend to determine what had been proposed , and by whom .
After BuzzFeed News inquired about the proposal late on Monday evening , Perez told DNC officers in an email that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept any “ extra compensation ” when they leave their posts .
Perez has said he will serve a four-year term as chair through the end of the 2020 election .
Nanda and Cornale have worked closely with Perez for years , including at the Department of Labor during Barack Obama ’ s presidency — though the structure at the DNC could see changes this summer when Democrats choose a nominee during the party ’ s national convention , at which point the winning campaign typically subsumes staff management of the DNC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied having any prior involvement in or knowledge of the resolution .
“ One-hundred percent of our resources are going towards beating Donald Trump , ” said DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa .
“ DNC leadership will not accept any extra compensation recommended by the budget committee , which didn ’ t operate at the direction of DNC leadership .
The resolution was crafted by the budget committee and did not involve the Chair , CEO , or Deputy CEO.
” Two members of the DNC ’ s budget and finance committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibility for the resolution , describing it as the initial step in a larger plan to prepare for a “ smooth transition ” between Perez ’ s tenure and the incoming chair after the 2020 election .
In interviews earlier this week , Halpern and Korge both defended the resolution as above-board and a common business practice , even as Perez distanced himself from the effort , saying he would not accept the money .
After the measure had been approved on Friday , at least two DNC officers heard about and requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive a response .
On Saturday , at a meeting of the DNC executive committee , which is the top governing body of the party , members of the DNC budget and finance committee did not disclose the resolution .
In his email to DNC officers on Monday night , Perez asked that “ we hold off sending around the resolution , ” according to a copy of the message .
In an interview on Tuesday , Halpern declined to provide the resolution to BuzzFeed News .
“ There was nothing done that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
According to the text of the resolution , which one DNC official read aloud in a phone call , the proposal emphasizes the importance of a “ smooth transition ” between the current DNC leadership and the next , including providing “ compensation for certain key outgoing personnel.
” The resolution , which only applies to the 2021 transition , states that the outgoing chair , CEO , and deputy CEO will help facilitate donor and “ stakeholder ” relations , and convey “ institutional knowledge ” to the next chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements of the transition than the details of the compensation package : a lump sum of four months ’ pay , paid within two weeks , unless either Perez , Nanda , or Cornale is terminated for “ gross misconduct.
” On Tuesday , Halpern said the resolution was meant to serve only as a “ nonbinding ” starting point to ensure “ continuity ” between Perez ’ s tenure and the next party chair .
Outside the party ’ s budget and finance committee , DNC leadership who spoke on the condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn that on the eve of the presidential primary , and at a time when the Democratic Party is facing a tremendous fundraising deficit , plans were being made to propose a generous compensation package for Perez and such a select group of his top deputies .
“ I think it is completely short-sighted and really stupid , ” one senior official said .
Other members of the DNC senior staff have still not seen the resolution and had no knowledge of the resolution until reached for comment late on Monday night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ monthly filings , the resolution would have arranged for an estimated post-tax lump-sum payment of about $ 69,000 to Perez , $ 61,000 to Nanda , and $ 39,000 to Cornale .
Those figures don ’ t include taxes , which would also come out of the DNC budget .
Since the Obama years , the DNC has struggled with fundraising , routinely lagging behind their counterparts at the RNC .
And as Democrats have given millions directly to candidates and to outside groups focused on elections in the era of Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perez himself , an intended unity candidate for a thankless job backed by Obama allies , has not always been a unifying figure in practice .
But he ’ s argued the complaints aren ’ t taken in proper perspective .
`` For every booer , '' he said in 2017 , there are hundreds more `` who want the party to succeed , have frustrations , and want to make sure that somebody is listening to them . ''

A group of Democratic National Committee officials approved and then withheld from their own leadership a proposal to carve out a generous exit package for the party chair, Tom Perez, and two top lieutenants, leaving Democrats confounded over the weekend by the optics and timing of the decision on the eve of the presidential primary.
The proposal, put forward as an official DNC resolution during a meeting of the party’s budget and finance committee last Friday, would have arranged for Perez and two of his top deputies, CEO Seema Nanda and deputy CEO Sam Cornale, to each receive a lump-sum bonus equaling four months’ salary within two weeks of the time they eventually leave their roles.
Senior DNC officers, including members of Perez’s own executive committee, learned of the compensation package after its approval, through the rumor mill, setting off a furious exchange of emails and texts over the weekend to determine what had been proposed, and by whom.
After BuzzFeed News inquired about the proposal late on Monday evening, Perez told DNC officers in an email that he, Nanda, and Cornale would not accept any “extra compensation” when they leave their posts.
Perez has said he will serve a four-year term as chair through the end of the 2020 election. Nanda and Cornale have worked closely with Perez for years, including at the Department of Labor during Barack Obama’s presidency — though the structure at the DNC could see changes this summer when Democrats choose a nominee during the party’s national convention, at which point the winning campaign typically subsumes staff management of the DNC.
Perez, Nanda, and Cornale have denied having any prior involvement in or knowledge of the resolution.
“One-hundred percent of our resources are going towards beating Donald Trump,” said DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa. “DNC leadership will not accept any extra compensation recommended by the budget committee, which didn’t operate at the direction of DNC leadership. The resolution was crafted by the budget committee and did not involve the Chair, CEO, or Deputy CEO.”
Two members of the DNC’s budget and finance committee, Daniel Halpern and Chris Korge, took responsibility for the resolution, describing it as the initial step in a larger plan to prepare for a “smooth transition” between Perez’s tenure and the incoming chair after the 2020 election.
In interviews earlier this week, Halpern and Korge both defended the resolution as above-board and a common business practice, even as Perez distanced himself from the effort, saying he would not accept the money.
After the measure had been approved on Friday, at least two DNC officers heard about and requested copies of the resolution and did not receive a response. On Saturday, at a meeting of the DNC executive committee, which is the top governing body of the party, members of the DNC budget and finance committee did not disclose the resolution. In his email to DNC officers on Monday night, Perez asked that “we hold off sending around the resolution,” according to a copy of the message. In an interview on Tuesday, Halpern declined to provide the resolution to BuzzFeed News. “There was nothing done that was clandestine or nefarious,” Halpern said.
According to the text of the resolution, which one DNC official read aloud in a phone call, the proposal emphasizes the importance of a “smooth transition” between the current DNC leadership and the next, including providing “compensation for certain key outgoing personnel.”
The resolution, which only applies to the 2021 transition, states that the outgoing chair, CEO, and deputy CEO will help facilitate donor and “stakeholder” relations, and convey “institutional knowledge” to the next chair, but is less specific about the requirements of the transition than the details of the compensation package: a lump sum of four months’ pay, paid within two weeks, unless either Perez, Nanda, or Cornale is terminated for “gross misconduct.”
On Tuesday, Halpern said the resolution was meant to serve only as a “nonbinding” starting point to ensure “continuity” between Perez’s tenure and the next party chair.
Outside the party’s budget and finance committee, DNC leadership who spoke on the condition of anonymity said they were astounded to learn that on the eve of the presidential primary, and at a time when the Democratic Party is facing a tremendous fundraising deficit, plans were being made to propose a generous compensation package for Perez and such a select group of his top deputies.
“I think it is completely short-sighted and really stupid,” one senior official said.
Other members of the DNC senior staff have still not seen the resolution and had no knowledge of the resolution until reached for comment late on Monday night.
Based on the committee’s recent monthly filings, the resolution would have arranged for an estimated post-tax lump-sum payment of about $69,000 to Perez, $61,000 to Nanda, and $39,000 to Cornale. Those figures don’t include taxes, which would also come out of the DNC budget.
Since the Obama years, the DNC has struggled with fundraising, routinely lagging behind their counterparts at the RNC. And as Democrats have given millions directly to candidates and to outside groups focused on elections in the era of Donald Trump, the situation has not significantly improved. Perez himself, an intended unity candidate for a thankless job backed by Obama allies, has not always been a unifying figure in practice. But he’s argued the complaints aren’t taken in proper perspective.
"For every booer," he said in 2017, there are hundreds more "who want the party to succeed, have frustrations, and want to make sure that somebody is listening to them."


buzzfeed--2020-01-29--Watch Live: Senators Can Now Ask Questions In Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Republicans and Democrats will switch alternately asking questions , offering a glimpse at what senators are most focused on as they consider whether to remove Trump from office for two articles of impeachment .
Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine while pressuring the country to investigate his political rival , former vice president Joe Biden , and for preventing members of administration from testifying in Congress ’ investigation of the Ukraine scandal .
Senators have had to remain silent as jurors throughout the trial , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday and Thursday they will have the opportunity to submit written questions to either House Democrats or Trump ’ s defense team .
The questions will then be read by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who is overseeing the trial .
The Impeachment Today podcast gets you up to date with the day ’ s most important impeachment news .
Catch up on all the episodes , or subscribe on the iHeartRadio app , Apple Podcasts , Spotify , or wherever you listen to your favorite shows .
Early questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offering their side the chance to serve up talking points on Trump 's impeachment .
Sen. Susan Collins did ask a question on behalf of herself and Sens .
Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski — all three Republicans to watch , who have indicated they may vote Friday to allow witnesses in the trial .
The trio asked Trump 's lawyers to explain whether they believe the president could be removed from office if he had multiple motivations for withholding the aid money from Ukraine , `` such as the pursuit of personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the promotion of national interest . ''
Romney plans to ask the same question of the House Democratic team , per a copy of his planned questions which he tweeted out Wednesday .
White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin responded that if even Trump was motivated by personal gain , but was also , even in small part , seeking to advance the US 's national interest , then his actions were justified .
Alan Dershowitz , a constitutional lawyer arguing on behalf of the president , later told senators that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid in order to get reelected — that 's in the public 's interest .
`` Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest .
And mostly you are right , your election is in the public interest .
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 quid pro quo that results in impeachment ... Every president believes that , '' he said .
Even Republicans steered clear of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murkowski asked the White House team whether Trump had ever brought up concerns about Biden and his son Hunter `` in connection with corruption in Ukraine '' before the former vice president entered the 2020 presidential race .
This timeline is important because the president 's lawyers have claimed that Trump was justified in withholding aid to Ukraine because of sincere concerns about corruption and Bidens , while Democrats have argued Trump acted largely in self-interest related to his concerns about facing Biden in the 2020 presidential election .
Philbin responded on behalf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ca n'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 said he was limited to what was in the record of the House investigation .
A trio of Republican senators used their impeachment question to float the unsupported theory that the whistleblower whose report kicked off the Ukraine scandal was involved in shady behavior with the Bidens .
The anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint against Trump in August , raising questions about his July 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusing Trump of “ [ abusing ] his office for personal gain.
” Though the whistleblower ’ s allegations have been backed up by a White House record of Trump ’ s call and numerous witnesses in the House ’ s investigation , Republicans have remained focused on the whistleblower 's identity and have been trying to out a person who they allege is the whistleblower for months .
Trump ’ s allies have been attacking that person since 2017 , long before the complaint was filed .
On Wednesday , Sens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerry Moran asked House Democrats if the anonymous whistleblower worked with Joe Biden in getting a former Ukrainian prosecutor fired .
It is not the first time Republicans have raised this theory .
In November Sen. Rand Paul made similar allegations and called for the whistleblower to be subpoenaed by Congress .
The basis of the theory is a preliminary review by the Intelligence Community ’ s inspector general Michael Atkinson , which identified “ an indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the [ whistleblower ] in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atkinson ultimately found the complaint to be credible .
Some Trump defenders have spread the theory that the whistleblower worked with the Bidens and that the complaint was a politically-motivated attack on Trump .
Schiff rejected this view as “ a complete and total fiction ” in his response .
“ First of all I don ’ t know who the whistleblower is .
I haven ’ t met them or communicated with them in any way , ” he said .
Schiff said the substance of the whistleblower complaint has been verified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry .
“ There ’ s no need for that whistleblower anymore , except to further endanger that person ’ s life , ” said Schatz .
The Q & A period will last up to eight hours on both Wednesday and Thursday .
There are few rules about what senators can ask , but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters earlier this week that his side will coordinate to avoid duplicating questions .
On Friday , after the Q & A is over , senators will answer the biggest question looming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call any witnesses to testify .
Democrats have pushed to call former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , both of whom have firsthand knowledge of Trump ’ s decision to withhold the Ukrainian aid .
Many Republicans have said that witnesses are unnecessary , with some arguing bizarrely that Democrats haven ’ t provided enough evidence to remove Trump from office — so there ’ s no reason to call for more evidence .
Romney and Collins have said they ’ re keen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for calling witnesses .
Democrats will likely need two more Republicans to join them on that vote .
If the vote to call witnesses fails , the Senate could vote to end the trial — and very likely acquit the president — as soon as Friday .
This is a developing story .
Check back for updates and follow BuzzFeed News on Twitter.

Sen. Susan Collins did ask a question on behalf of herself and Sens. Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski. All three Republicans have indicated they may vote Friday to allow witnesses in the trial. The trio asked Trump's lawyers to explain whether they believe the president could be removed from office if he had multiple motivations for withholding the aid money from Ukraine, "such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of national interest."
Romney plans to ask the same question of the House Democratic team, per a copy of his planned questions which he tweeted Wednesday.
White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin responded that if even Trump had been motivated by personal gain — but was also, even in small part, seeking to advance the US's national interest — then his actions were justified.
Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer arguing on behalf of the president, later told senators he believes that even if Trump withheld the aid in order to get reelected — that's in the public's interest. "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you are right, your election is in the public interest. 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. ... Every president believes that," he said.
Even Republicans steered clear of that argument.
Later in the trial, Schiff responded. "Alan Dershowitz lost a criminal case in which he argued that if a corrupt motive was only part of the motive, you can't convict. And the court said, yes, you can. If a corrupt motive is any part of it, you can convict," he told senators.
Collins and Murkowski also asked the White House team Wednesday whether Trump had ever brought up concerns about Biden and his son Hunter "in connection with corruption in Ukraine" before the former vice president entered the 2020 presidential race. This timeline is important because the president's lawyers have claimed Trump was justified in withholding aid to Ukraine because of sincere concerns about corruption and Bidens, while Democrats have argued Trump acted largely in self-interest related to his concerns about facing Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
Philbin responded on behalf of Trump's team, "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 said he was limited to what was in the record of the House investigation.
Later Wednesday, Republican senators asked the White House lawyers whether there had been any past investigation into Hunter Biden's position on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company — one of the things Trump asked Ukraine to investigate. The White House's lawyers said that no, there had not ever been any federal investigation into it.
Although Hunter Biden took the job in 2014, Republicans are now focusing the need to investigate his role with Burisma since it became a part of Trump's impeachment and trial. Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal lawyer,
Three Republican senators used their impeachment question to float the unsupported theory that the whistleblower whose report kicked off the Ukraine scandal was involved in shady behavior with the Bidens.
The anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint against Trump in August, raising questions about his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and accusing Trump of “[abusing] his office for personal gain.” Though the whistleblower’s allegations have been backed up by a White House record of Trump’s call and numerous witnesses in the House’s investigation, Republicans have remained focused on the whistleblower's identity and have been trying to out a person who they allege is the whistleblower for months. Trump’s allies have been attacking that person since 2017, long before the complaint was filed.
On Wednesday, Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Jerry Moran asked House Democrats if the anonymous whistleblower worked with Joe Biden in getting a former Ukrainian prosecutor fired. It is not the first time Republicans have raised this theory. In November, Sen. Rand Paul made similar allegations and called for the whistleblower to be subpoenaed by Congress.
The basis of the theory is a preliminary review by the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, who identified “an indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the [whistleblower] in favor of a rival political candidate.” Atkinson ultimately found the complaint to be credible.
Some Trump defenders have spread the theory that the whistleblower worked with the Bidens and that the complaint was a politically motivated attack on Trump. Schiff rejected this view as “a complete and total fiction” in his response.
“First of all, I don’t know who the whistleblower is. I haven’t met them or communicated with them in any way,” he said.
Schiff said the substance of the whistleblower complaint has been verified by multiple witnesses during the House impeachment inquiry. “There’s no need for that whistleblower anymore, except to further endanger that person’s life,” said Schiff.
The Q&A period will last up another eight hours on Thursday.
On Friday, after the Q&A is over, senators will answer the biggest question looming over the trial — whether they will call any witnesses to testify. Democrats have pushed to call former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, both of whom have firsthand knowledge of Trump’s decision to withhold the Ukrainian aid.
Many Republicans have said that witnesses are unnecessary; some have argued bizarrely that Democrats haven’t provided enough evidence to remove Trump from office — so there’s no reason to call for more evidence.
Romney and Collins have said they’re keen to hear from Bolton and are likely to vote for calling witnesses. Democrats will likely need two more Republicans to join them on that vote.
If the vote to call witnesses fails, the Senate could vote to end the trial — and very likely acquit the president — as soon as Friday.