Impeachment 3: The MF Has Been Impeached! The Trial Has Begun!

[GreyhoundFan]

"One sign that Trump is worried about impeachment? His avalanche of tweets."

Spoiler

Shortly after the sun came up on Thursday, President Trump was tweeting. Over the next three hours, he tweeted or retweeted other people 89 times, making it one of his most active days on Twitter since he announced his presidential candidacy in 2015. But he was far from done; by 2 p.m., he’d tacked on 20 more tweets and retweets.

Nine of the tweets came in the first half an hour after noon, when Trump was scheduled to be receiving his intelligence briefing.

The president and his allies like to have it both ways on his tweeting. He has repeatedly argued that he considers it a vital way to communicate with his base but, should the media pay attention to the volume or content of the tweets, it’s all waved away as immaterial or trolling. It’s a neat trick, suggesting tweets should be considered seriously only on terms that favor the president.

But it should not be considered a coincidence that Trump is tweeting so much in this moment, as the House Judiciary Committee is finalizing articles of impeachment against him. Since June 16, 2015, when he announced his candidacy, he has never tweeted as much as he had by 2 p.m. on Thursday, a volume of tweets exceeding even the period right before the election in 2016. And Thursday wasn’t an aberration; the previous record for the most tweets in a day came on Sunday.

Over the past seven days, he has averaged about 60 tweets a day, which is at least 10 tweets more than any prior seven-day period in the past four years.

Smaller surges have occurred in the past. In July 2015, the month after he entered the presidential race, Trump tweeted a lot, engaging with broad condemnation of the comments about Mexican immigrants he made at his campaign launch. From October through the early primaries, his pace of tweeting slowed a bit, spiking again in the last month of the campaign.

During the first year of his presidency, he tweeted fairly modestly, the rate increasing again as the midterm election approached. Then 2019 arrived.

By April, the month of the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump was tweeting at a midterm-election rate. By October, after the impeachment inquiry began, he had set a new monthly record.

The theme, in other words, is that Twitter is how Trump does battle. The volume of tweets correlates to his interest in engaging in a fight.

Bear in mind, the data above are monthly totals. If we look at those totals as a function of tweets per day, this month — 12 days so far — stands out. Most of his tweets this month have been retweets, a little click of a button that also makes it much easier to tweet quickly and in volume.

For a sense of scale here, Barack Obama tweeted 352 times from his official @POTUS account — ever. Granted, he got the account in May 2015, but Trump had tweeted more on Thursday by 2 p.m. than Obama had from May 2016 through January 2017.

Of course, Obama wasn’t facing impeachment.

 

[fraurosena]

 

[JMarie]

32 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

 

Yay! She's my congresswoman!

[GreyhoundFan]

"Name-calling, insults and scandals dominate all-day impeachment hearing"

Spoiler

Hunter Biden’s drug problem. Allegations about President Trump’s sex life. A congressman’s past DUI arrest.

No controversy even marginally related to the House impeachment proceeding was overlooked Thursday as Republican and Democratic lawmakers waged one last battle over articles of impeachment before the matter moves to the House floor next week.

Frustration had built for both parties over a month of tightly controlled hearings, where committee procedures restrained the partisan conflict just enough to keep the impeachment process moving. But Thursday’s markup session in the House Judiciary Committee unfolded without those controls, in an open format that allowed members more than eight hours of spontaneous and at times nasty confrontation.

Lawmakers from both parties took advantage.

“Today I’m reminded of Judas,” said Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.). “Because Judas for 30 pieces of silver betrayed Jesus. For 30 positive tweets for easy reelection, the other side is willing to betray the American people.”

“You guys don’t respect the 63 million people who voted for this guy,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Democrats. “That’s why the speaker of the House called the president an ‘impostor.’ That’s what’s wrong.”

The historic markup reflected the partisan divisions that have hardened in the Trump era and become more rancorous around the impeachment inquiry, in which Democrats concluded that Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine to pressure the country’s leaders into announcing investigations that would benefit him politically. Often, the markup veered into a broader debate over Trump’s conduct, with Democrats highlighting other controversial episodes from his presidency. Republicans accused their counterparts of knee-jerk hatred and the same autocratic tendencies critics decry in Trump.

The committee met on a day already tinged with controversy. Two hours before the markup gaveled to order, Trump mocked 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg on Twitter, telling her to “chill” and “work on her Anger Management problem.” Thunberg, who has said she has Asperger’s syndrome, was announced as Time magazine’s Person of the Year on Wednesday.

The Judiciary Committee, with 40 members in attendance, started debate on the first proposed amendment about 9 a.m. It was not defeated until just before noon.

Early stages of the markup gave lawmakers a rare opportunity to debate the facts of the Ukraine saga in an informal way, and they produced a handful of lucid moments.

Soon, however, the arguments became more charged.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), who served during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, said the difference with Trump’s was that “President Clinton committed a crime: perjury.”

“This president isn’t even accused of committing a crime,” Chabot said.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who also served during Clinton’s impeachment, argued that Trump had committed a far greater offense — and brought up one of Trump’s alleged sexual partners to make her point.

“I would just like to note that [Republicans’] argument that somehow lying about a sexual affair is an abuse of presidential power, but the misuse of presidential power to get a benefit somehow doesn’t matter,” she said. “If it’s lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels’s case ahead of us. We don’t believe that’s a high crime and misdemeanor.”

Daniels, an adult film actress, alleged that she had a brief affair with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied a relationship.

One of the most dramatic moments of the markup came after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment to add a mention of Hunter Biden and his former position on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, to the articles of impeachment.

Biden is the son of former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Gaetz then proceeded to discuss Biden’s struggle with drug addiction, reading directly from a New Yorker article that discussed it and an episode involving a crack pipe discovered in Biden’s Hertz rental car.

The article noted that the glass pipe contained cocaine residue, according to test results, but investigators didn’t find any fingerprints on it and public prosecutors declined to bring a case against Hunter “citing a lack of evidence” that Biden used the pipe.

“I don’t want to make light of anybody’s substance abuse issues. I note that the president is working real hard to solve those throughout the country. But it’s a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz,” Gaetz said.

This stunned at least one Democrat, who responded by indirectly noting Gaetz’s previously reported DUI arrest in 2008. He was not convicted.

“The pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), without specifically naming Gaetz.

The moment left the room momentarily silent as Johnson waited for Gaetz to respond.

Democrats vented their frustration with several colorful comments throughout the day.

Johnson pointed to a meeting between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in New York in late September, in which Trump told reporters “there was no pressure.”

“You saw President Zelensky shaking his head as if his daughter was downstairs in the basement, duct-taped. There is an imbalance of power in that relationship. It always has been,” Johnson said.

 

[fraurosena]

It’s incredible that the Dems didn’t bring up this fact during the hearings. It would obliterate the trumplican cry “But they got the aid without doing anything in return! No quid pro quo!”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

 

[fraurosena]

Of course he won't recuse. But it's still good to see that he's being called out publicly.

 

[fraurosena]

Interesting... 

On impeachment, Democrats can put Republicans on defense. Here’s how.

Quote

When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blithely suggested on Fox News that he will conduct the Senate impeachment trial in full collusion with President Trump’s legal team, he handed Democrats a big opening.

If Democrats play their procedural cards right, they can pressure Republicans to allow for a much fairer and more open trial that could actually produce new revelations — and if they refuse, extract a political price for it.

By telling Sean Hannity that the process of Trump’s trial will be set up “in coordination with Trump’s legal team,” McConnell told the world he wants to rig the process to produce maximal benefit for Trump.

But McConnell might not actually be able to do this, if he doesn’t have 51 GOP votes for it — which could be the case, if vulnerable GOP senators don’t want to go along with it.

And that allows Democrats to make a public case for a much fairer and more open process — and to try to force those vulnerable GOP senators to take a stand on whether they, too, want a fair and open process.

Democrats could demand that the mountains of documents the administration refused to turn over to the House impeachment inquiry be admitted as evidence at the Senate trial. The administration stonewalled those documents on the absurd grounds that the inquiry was illegitimate.

But McConnell presumably can’t argue that his own impeachment trial is illegitimate, rendering that excuse a dead letter.

So Democrats could insist that the administration produce some of these documents during the trial.

That could be revelatory. During the inquiry, House Democrats subpoenaed documents from the State Department, the Office of Management and Budget, Vice President Pence and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, among others.

Those subpoenas solicited documents related to everything from Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president to the withholding of military aid. But all refused to comply — depriving Democrats of a paper trail that could have reconstructed the scandal in even more damning detail.

Democrats could also insist on the right to call witnesses, such as acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton (both of whom likely have direct knowledge of Trump’s decision to freeze aid to extort Ukraine), as well as Giuliani.

How could such demands be made? Here’s where the process comes in.

How the process works

According to Molly Reynolds, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution who has studied past impeachment processes, Democrats could use the 1999 impeachment of Bill Clinton as a model to press such demands.

In that impeachment, Reynolds says, Senate leaders Tom Daschle (the Democrat) and Trent Lott (the Republican) presided over negotiations to develop a process by which the House impeachment managers — the equivalent of prosecutors of the indictment detailed in the House impeachment articles — and the president’s representatives could solicit witness testimony and introduce other evidence.

Under that process, when House impeachment managers made requests for witnesses or other evidence, they were subject to a simple-majority Senate vote.

Following this model, Reynolds says, Senate Democrats could now demand that Senate Republicans agree to a similar process: one that would allow for votes during the trial on requests from House managers to admit documents that the impeachment inquiry subpoenaed — but was denied.

That process could also allow a vote during the trial (per requests from the House managers) on whether to hear testimony from witnesses like Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani and others.

Democrats could demand that the Senate hold a vote on setting up such a process. If McConnell allowed such a vote, and it passed by simple majority, that process would structure the impeachment trial, Reynolds notes.

McConnell could of course refuse, and instead call a full Senate vote on a process that precludes witness testimony and the soliciting of documents — which McConnell reportedly favors, because he wants a quick trial with no circuslike calls for Hunter Biden’s head — and no damning new revelations. If that passed by simple majority, that would become the process.

Of course, McConnell might not have 51 votes for such a process — because a handful of vulnerable GOP senators might balk at voting for something so obviously rigged to protect Trump. Indeed, reporting indicates he doesn’t have those votes yet — which means he can’t yet do what he promised Hannity he’d do.

So Democrats might be able to try to negotiate a more open process with a handful of those vulnerable GOP Senators, Reynolds says.

If such a more open process did get implemented, House impeachment managers could then demand Senate votes on their demands for documents and witness testimony, Reynolds says.

This, too, would challenge GOP senators to vote against learning the full truth.

“What we are likely to see depends on what 51 senators will agree to,” Reynolds told us. “A lot is likely to come down to what a handful of Republican senators, including those up for reelection in swing states, want to see out of the process.”

Democrats can seize on McConnell’s sneering proclamation that he’ll turn the trial into a massive coverup (which he may not even be able to do) to press for a process that could do the opposite — allow for a full airing out of aspects of this scandal that the White House has tried to keep buried.

And that might not be so easy for vulnerable GOP senators to resist.

 

[WiseGirl]

1 minute ago, fraurosena said:

Interesting... 

On impeachment, Democrats can put Republicans on defense. Here’s how.

 

Hoping the Democrats are reading this. 

As always Auntie has a way with words.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is so true:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Dana Milbank: "Impeachment is rare. Republicans’ histrionics are historic."

Spoiler

“Today is an historic day,” CNN reported Thursday.

“Historic day on Capitol Hill,” agreed CBS.

“Historic,” MSNBC concurred.

They were off by a syllable. History would have to wait. This was a day was for histrionics.

Both sides had planned to wrap up the impeachment debate in the House Judiciary Committee by about 5 p.m., allowing Republicans to attend a White House Christmas party. Lisa Collins, wife of ranking Republican member Doug Collins (Ga.), wore sequined red holiday finery to the hearing.

But mid-afternoon, Collins had a brief private word with his wife and made an announcement to the committee Democrats: “We’re going to be here a long time tonight,” he said. “There’s plenty of balls we can go to, so if anybody thinks that might be in our plans, don’t worry about it … because if we have to fact-check you all night, we will.”

He wasn’t kidding. Republicans floated amendments and assaulted the process — for 14 hours. Democrats deduced that Republicans were delaying so they could say the committee approved impeachment articles “in the middle of the night” — much like they complained that the Intelligence Committee held hearings in a “basement” (neglecting to mention that’s where the committee’s hearing room is).

So Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) answered the GOP stunt with one of his own. “It is now very late at night,” he said at 11:15 p.m., then summarily announced the committee would recess for the night so members could “search their consciences” and vote at 10 a.m. — in broad daylight.

Republicans erupted.

“Stalinesque,” hollered Rep. Louie Gohmert (Tex.). “Let’s have a dictator.”

“Chairman Nadler’s integrity is zero!” said Collins.“Kangaroo court… I have never seen anyone want to get in front of these cameras more than this group right here.”

And with that, Collins went — you guessed it — in front of the cameras, to deliver some more epithets: “Bush league! … Runshodding the rules!”

Fox News’s Chad Pergram pointed out that Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) had hours earlier congratulated Nadler on his handling of proceedings.

No longer, Collins said. “We have members who have flights! We have members who are getting on trains!”

Impeach the president, sure. But don’t mess with lawmakers’ travel plans. Collins kept shouting: “Lack of taste!” “Ludicrous!” “Crap!” Midway in this extraordinary stream of invective, he announced: “I’m just beyond words.”

This impeachment is historic, in the sense that it is rare, only the third in the nation’s history. But it seems more like an extension of politics as usual. Republicans aimed for this: If they could turn the proceedings into a circus, they could discredit President Trump’s impeachment. Maybe they succeeded, because the Fox News-viewing public remains steadfastly opposed. But in the process they have bludgeoned not just this impeachment but impeachment itself, the powers of Congress, the legitimacy of government, the law and any sense of objective truth. What’s historic about this moment is the near-complete dysfunction of, and loss of confidence in, American democracy.

Heckuva job, Putin.

In between Fox News appearances, Republicans in the hearing room Thursday vied for the most-Trumpian insults — “Y’all are an EPA hazardous waste site,” Collins offered, and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida mocked Hunter Biden’s drug use — and some Democrats responded in kind. Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.) likened Republicans to Judas, betraying Americans “for 30 positive tweets.”

Overnight, Republicans produced a new poster for the dais, with red horror-movie letters over a graveyard scene saying “It’s Friday the 13th….Chairman Nadler’s Impeachment Nightmare.” For the impeachment vote itself, Republicans marched silently from their cloakroom Friday morning and maintained solemnity (except for Gohmert, who after voting insisted on having his vote read back to him because “I want to make sure”) as each voted against the two articles, and each Democrat voted for. After just seven minutes, both articles had been approved. The clocks in the Ways & Means hearing room displayed 10:09 am.

Then Republican committee members went straight to the cameras in the Longworth Building lobby and resumed the previous night’s epithets.

Gohmert: “Abuse … Outrageous … Kangaroo court ... Witch hunt … Scam … Crucify … Farce.”

Debbie Lesko (Ariz.): “Travesty … Unfair … Rigged railroad job …Corruption.”

Mike Johnson (La.): “Charade … Rigged … Ambush … Radical left.”

Gaetz, fresh from his derision of Biden for drug addiction, said: “For Democrats, impeachment is their drug.”

Asked about the behavior of Trump, who just used the power of the presidency to attack a teenager on the autism spectrum as having an “anger-management problem,” Republicans’ epithets suddenly ran dry.

Johnson excused Trump’s latest disgrace as “unorthodox.” By contrast, he said, the Democrats would pay “a huge political price” for impeaching Trump.

If only Republicans cared about the huge price we will all pay for their decision to defend a president’s wrongdoing with a Trumpian campaign of reckless invective.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Sen. Graham: ‘Not trying to pretend to be a fair juror’"

Spoiler

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Saturday that he’s made up his mind that President Trump should be acquitted, dismissed the notion that he has to be a “fair juror” and said he doesn’t see the need for a formal trial in the Senate.

Graham, a staunch defender of the president, made the comments overseas during an interview with CNN International at the Doha Forum in Qatar.

“I think impeachment is going to end quickly in the Senate. I would prefer it to end as quickly as possible,” Graham said. “Use the record that was assembled in the House to pass impeachment articles as your trial record.”

Asked whether it was appropriate for him to share those thoughts given his purported role as a juror in a Senate trial, Graham replied, “Well, I must think so because I’m doing it.”

“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,” he added.

Graham’s comments come after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) disclosed that he intends to work in concert with the Trump legal team on how a Senate trial will play out.

Many senators have refused to weigh in on the merits of the Trump impeachment case, citing their future role as impartial jurors. When asked to react to McConnell’s plans to take his cues from the White House counsel, spokespeople for GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Martha McSally (Ariz.) and Mitt Romney (Utah) never responded.

In a pretaped interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday, Graham said he has no interest in inviting former vice president Joe Biden or his son Hunter Biden to testify in a Senate trial. Questions Republicans have for them regarding their dealings with Ukraine can be dealt with separately, Graham said.

The impeachment inquiry centers on Trump’s desire to dig up evidence of corruption by the Bidens in Ukraine and his request that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky launch an investigation.

Graham also told CBS he’d be interested in hearing separately from Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has launched his own investigation into the Bidens in Ukraine.

“I want to end this matter quickly and move on to other things,” Graham said. “We can look at what Rudy’s got and Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and anything else you want to look at after impeachment, but if Rudy wants to come to the Judiciary Committee and testify about what he found, he’s welcome to do so.”

On Saturday, a clip of Graham during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton made the rounds on social media, showing the then-representative make an appeal to his colleagues not to rush through the process or make a judgment before it’s over.

“I have a duty far greater than just getting to the next election,” Graham said then. “Members of the Senate have said, ‘I understand everything there is about this case, and I won’t vote to impeach the president.’ Please allow the facts to do the talking. … Don’t decide the case before the case’s end.”

I wonder if the mango moron or Putin have a pee tape of Lindsey...they have to have some dirt on him.

[Smash!]

I'm looking forward to pictures of people taking the streets [emoji3] https://www.impeach.org/event/impeach-and-remove-attend/search/

[fraurosena]

This probably should go in Giuliani's own thread, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this will be relevant for Trump's impeachment.

 

[fraurosena]

Rudy Colludy has started to tweet out his promised 'evidence'. 

What evidence? That piece of paper that you're waving about, but not showing? That piece of paper with large scribbles and arrows on it, obviously handwritten -- with a sharpie? That's your evidence? That and the out of context video of Joe Biden? Also funny how you are now accusing the Bidens of doing all those things that Trump -- and you! -- are being accused of... 

Yes, yes indeed we question the credibility of these so-called 'witnesses'. Will they be testifying before Congress? Will you be giving your evidence to Congress? Somehow I don't think so...

Lutsenko is known to be corrupt, and someone who has publicly stated he hated Yovanovitch for outing his corruption and wanted to get back at her. And he's your 'witness'? No wonder you had to tweet about witness credibility!

Another 'witness' with credibility problems: According to the international intelligence agencies, Shokin is the most corrupt Ukrainian on the planet. 

As we all know you are accusing the Bidens of what Trump and his coterie are guilty of themselves, I'm rather apprehensive at the last sentence in your tweet.

Also, does anyone else get the impression that Trump is soon to ditch Faux, of whom he has become rather critical of late, and turn to OAN as his preferred propaganda machine?

 

[thoughtful]

He included OAN videos in his tweets that are supposed to prove his point?

How very . . . Rudy.

[fraurosena]

Hmmm....?

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Senate GOP defends Trump, despite oath to be impartial impeachment jurors"

Spoiler

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler accused Senate Republicans of violating their oath to be impartial jurors in an impeachment trial, as GOP senators defended their right to work for President Trump’s acquittal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that he was working in “total coordination” with the White House — something Nadler (D-N.Y.) characterized Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” as akin to “the foreman of the jury saying he’s going to work hand in glove with the defense attorney.”

“That’s in violation of the oath that they’re about to take, and it’s a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme,” Nadler said.

Senators take an oath to “do impartial justice” at the start of any impeachment trial — but several Republican senators argued that impartiality doesn’t cover politics.

“I am clearly made up my mind. I’m not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Graham called “this whole thing” a “crock” and warned that Democrats were “weaponizing impeachment.”

“I want to end it. I don’t want to legitimize it,” he said.

“Senators are not required, like jurors in a criminal trial, to be sequestered, not to talk to anyone, not to coordinate. There’s no prohibition,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said on “This Week,” calling impeachment “inherently a political exercise” and Trump’s impeachment a “partisan show trial.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), speaking Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” also argued that there was nothing wrong with senators having already made up their minds. Calling impeachment an effort to “criminalize politics,” he noted that “we’re going to hear the evidence repeated, but we’re not going to hear any new evidence.”

Senate GOP leaders have been telling allies that they want to limit the trial to a short proceeding, omitting any witnesses from testifying. That isn’t sitting well with House Democratic leaders, who contend that senators should use their trial to secure evidence and testimony that the White House prevented House investigators from accessing.

“They don’t want the American people to see the facts,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday on ABC, appearing alongside Nadler.

“They realize that what’s been presented in the House is already overwhelming, but that there’s more damning evidence to be had,” Schiff continued. “I hope that the senators will insist on getting the documents, on hearing from other witnesses, on making up their own mind, even if there are some senators who have decided out of their blind allegiance to this president that he can do nothing wrong.”

Nadler added that senators should “demand the testimony” of people like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, “who at the president’s instruction have refused to testify.”

There are some Senate Republicans who want to hear from witnesses at the trial. But they aren’t thinking about Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton; they’re thinking about the whistleblower and Hunter Biden.

“You can be sure we’re going to allow the president to defend himself,” Cruz said, adding: “That means, I believe, if the president wants to call witnesses, if the president wants to call Hunter Biden or wants to call the whistleblower, the senate should allow the president to do so.”

Hunter Biden, son of former vice president Joe Biden, sat on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma for five years and was paid as much as $50,000 a month, despite having no expertise on the subject matter. As Democrats have made the case that Trump tried to use his office to pressure a foreign leader into announcing investigations against a political rival, several Republicans have rallied around the countercharge that Trump was right to be concerned about “corruption” involving the Bidens — though it does not appear that Joe Biden, who was closely involved in Ukraine policy, made any decisions to advantage the company.

“I love Joe Biden, but none of us are above scrutiny,” Graham said Sunday. He added that the Senate could look at all of those issues — as well as whatever new information Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani unearthed in his latest trip to Ukraine — “after impeachment.”

On Sunday, Giuliani tweeted out a string of vague and unsubstantiated allegations about what he called “Obama-era corruption” in Ukraine — including a charge that Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor general who was ousted on suspicion of rampant corruption, “was poisoned, died twice, and was revived.”

It is not clear whether the senate will be forced to hold separate votes on witnesses — or if most of the GOP would hold rank in that situation. It takes 51 senators to approve a motion. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate, meaning the GOP can afford to lose no more than two senators on any motion for McConnell to fully control the course of the trial.

Paul guessed that, ultimately, two Democratic senators would end up joining all Republicans in voting to acquit Trump, just as a handful of Democrats are expected to join the GOP in the House to vote against impeachment.

Paul did not say who those two Democrats might be. At this point, some Democratic senators are taking pains to avoid committing to vote to convict the president, even if they are otherwise echoing House Democrats’ frustrations with the president’s actions.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on “State of the Union” that Trump “did things Richard Nixon never did.” But he hedged when asked whether Trump’s transgressions rose to the need for removal, noting that senators should make that decision “based on the evidence.”

 

[Howl]

This idiotic Rudy crap is very, very dangerous.  It's a distraction, provides talking points for Fox and OAN, and the credulous right will eat it right up, because they are clueless about the actual history of corruption in Ukraine and Paul Manfort's role in it.  This will neuter all of the actual testimony in the House hearings. 

Also, someone pointed out on Twitter that Rudy does not have an active law license in New York, the implication being that Rudy-Trump communications would not be covered by attorney-client privilege because Rudy isn't legally credentialed.  I'll be alert to anymore information about this, if it is indeed true. 

[fraurosena]

9 hours ago, Howl said:

Also, someone pointed out on Twitter that Rudy does not have an active law license in New York, the implication being that Rudy-Trump communications would not be covered by attorney-client privilege because Rudy isn't legally credentialed.  I'll be alert to anymore information about this, if it is indeed true. 

According to this op-ed dated October 2 this year, he does have a license to practice law. However, they make the case that what he's doing cannot be considered 'practicing law'. Which to my mind at least, makes the case that what Giuliani is doing cannot be seen as acting in the capacity of an attorney for Trump. Therefore, their conversations about these activities do not fall under attorney client privilege. 

Rudy Giuliani Is Not Practicing Law, And Billing Him As Trump’s Attorney Degrades The Value Of A Law License

Quote

Rudy Giuliani is an exaggerated cartoon metaphor for millennials’ slow awaking about the fallibility and tragic decline of their parents. He graduated from law school in 1968, went on to serve as a federal prosecutor, and eventually became mayor of New York. When 9/11 happened, we were all scared and confused, and Rudy stood up there and gave us some confidence in the future. He looked like a leader.

And then, as his star faded, there came a decade of irrelevance. His former prowess battered, but his pride intact, he reached for the spotlight with one final, self-destructive act: enthralling himself to Donald Trump. Rudy Giuliani has become a national embarrassment, not to mention a black mark on the entire legal profession.

Rudy Giuliani is billed as Donald Trump’s private lawyer. And sure, he has a law license. But not everything everyone who has a law license does is lawyering. I went duck hunting with my dad last weekend, and nobody said I was acting as his personal lawyer by going on a duck hunt with him. But they might as well have, because that is pretty much what almost everyone in the media is doing with Rudy Giuliani.

Let’s look at the ABA’s draft model definition of the practice of law. It says:

(1) The ‘practice of law’ is the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person that require the knowledge and skill of a person trained in the law.

Now, there is a lot of nuance to what exactly constitutes the practice of law, and the precise definition varies by jurisdiction. Deciding whether or not someone is engaged in the practice of law is not always easy. But consider the ABA’s presumptions as to when a person is in fact practicing law:

(c) A person is presumed to be practicing law when engaging in any of the following conduct on behalf of another:

(1) Giving advice or counsel to persons as to their legal rights or responsibilities or to those of others;

(2) Selecting, drafting, or completing legal documents or agreements that affect the legal rights of a person;

(3) Representing a person before an adjudicative body, including, but not limited to, preparing or filing documents or conducting discovery; or

(4) Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of a person.

Let’s see… no, I don’t see digging up dirt on a person’s political opponent on there. I don’t see soliciting foreign interference in an American election or fueling a baseless conspiracy theory for political gain. I definitely don’t see going on cable news every night to lie and contradict yourself in the same breath.

A nifty trick for determining if something is the practice of law is looking at whether someone who is not a lawyer can do it without getting into trouble (trouble from the jurisdictional licensing authority, anyway). There are plenty of non-lawyers who go on cable news shows to parrot Trump’s lies, who try to get foreign help in smearing Trump’s political rivals, and who spread Trump’s nonsense conspiracy theories. None of that is the practice of law, and just because Rudy Giuliani is the one doing it does not make it the practice of law.

Even if we give Rudy Giuliani the benefit of the doubt and accept his explanation that his adventure in Ukraine was for the purpose of conducting an investigation to defend his client, that’s still not something that is the practice of law. Lawyers can investigate things, and certainly do, but a lawyer’s investigation is more poring over documents under harsh fluorescent lighting (see the “conducting discovery” presumption) than it is international espionage in the field. If I need something investigated in the field, I have a PI for that, who is much better than I am at finding people and following them around, and bills at a much lower hourly rate than I do. When my PI comes back from a job, I listen to what he has to say and read his report, but I don’t ever accuse him of practicing law without a license.

So, I hope that anyone in the media who reads this will at least consider ceasing to refer to Rudy Giuliani as Trump’s personal attorney. He may be acting as Trump’s political operative, he may be acting as Trump’s spokesperson, there is even a good case to be made for calling him Trump’s Propaganda Minister, but he is definitely not acting as Trump’s lawyer.

Calling Rudy Giuliani Trump’s lawyer just because he has a law license might seem harmless, but for a lot of members of the public, seeing Rudy Giuliani on TV is currently the extent of their involvement with the legal profession. When people start to think that is what lawyers actually do, it degrades the value of a law license for all the real attorneys out there. Even worse, it further degrades collective faith in the justice system. Lawyers are supposed to be officers of the court. While it’s perfectly fine for people who have law degrees and law licenses to move into other professional fields, you don’t get to pretend you’re still being a lawyer once you’ve become the day manager at Caribou Coffee. That’s not what lawyers do. People shouldn’t be given the impression that it is.

 

[fraurosena]

 

House Judiciary Committee publishes full impeachment report

Quote

The House Judiciary Committee released its full report on the impeachment of President Donald Trump early Monday, ahead of consideration by the full House as early as Wednesday.

The 658-page document, issued just after midnight, is an explanation in four parts of the committee's process and justification for recommending two articles of impeachment against Trump, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The committee, led by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., devotes part one to detailing the process by which the House Intelligence Committee investigated the case against Trump. Part two is dedicated to examining the standards of impeachment laid out in the Constitution.

Part three delves into the details of Democrats' case that Trump abused the power of his office to pressure a foreign government, Ukraine's, to investigate his domestic political rival and interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

"President Trump has realized the Framers' worst nightmare. He has abused his power in soliciting and pressuring a vulnerable foreign nation to corrupt the next United States Presidential election by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, Russia," the committee wrote.

Part four makes a case that the president obstructed Congress' ability to hold the executive branch accountable by flouting House investigators' requests for documents and testimony.

"Other Presidents have recognized their obligation to provide information to Congress under these circumstances," the report states. "President Trump's stonewall, by contrast, was categorical, indiscriminate, and without precedent in American history."

The committee concludes that Trump "has fallen into a pattern of behavior: this is not the first time he has solicited foreign interference in an election, been exposed, and attempted to obstruct the resulting investigation. He will almost certainly continue on this course."

"For all the reasons given above, President Trump will continue to threaten the Nation’s security, democracy, and constitutional system if he is allowed to remain in office. That threat is not hypothetical," the report states.

n a response to the Democratic findings, Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the committee, said the articles failed to establish any impeachable offense, arguing that "an accusation of abuse of power must be based on a higher and more concrete standard than conduct that 'ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.'"

"The people, through elections, decide what constitutes the 'interests of the nation,'" Collins wrote.

"It is no surprise the allegations shifted from quid pro quo, bribery, and extortion to settle on an undefined 'abuse of power,'" according to Collins.

The minority also argued that obstruction of Congress isn't an impeachable offense per se because "the Founders intended to create interbranch conflict."

"The fact that conflict exists here does not mean the President has committed either a high crime or a high misdemeanor," Collins wrote, arguing that Congress should pursue the matter in the courts.

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., proposed terms for a likely impeachment trial in the Senate, including calling former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney as witnesses.

The terms laid out in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was evidence that Democrats are seeking an evidentiary trial, not intending to rely on the House investigation. McConnell responded that that he would meet with Schumer "soon" to discuss plans for a possible trial.

The link to the full report is here.

[fraurosena]

Somebody is shitting his pants...

After new Fox News poll shows increased support for impeachment, Trump explodes in Twitter rant

Quote

Donald Trump loves to cite the words of Fox News hosts who might as well be on his payroll given the lengths to which they go to defend his most indefensible actions.

However, the minute the cable news network broadcasts anything remotely contradicting his party line, the president immediately drops his loyalty to the network that many people credit — along with the Kremlin — with helping him win the 2016 election with its ever-present gift of free media coverage of his every utterance.

Besides lashing out at the few network anchors who take their roles as journalists seriously and report the facts no matter how damaging they be for the president, Trump has been particularly critical of Fox News‘ polling operations which simply compile the statistical responses of a cross-section of Americans asked their opinions about the issues of the day.

Thus, when the network released the results today of its latest poll concerning attitudes towards Trump’s impeachment, Trump chose to shoot the messenger delivering the unfavorable news that the number of people supporting his impeachment and his removal from office had risen slightly since the last tally in late October.

The new poll from the conservative news channel has a full 50% of the sample wanting Trump to be ejected from the presidency, with 4% supporting impeachment without removal from office, and 41% who want him to stay put.

While the poll could be interpreted as somewhat favorable for Trump since the 1% uptick in those wanting his eviction from the White House is barely a major increase given the hours of testimony broadcast on live television detailing the evidence of his crimes, the president nonetheless could not withstand the implicit criticism of the results stating that half the country wants him gone without attacking the credibility of the poll from what is normally his biggest media booster.

The ludicrousness of the assertion that Fox News is biased in its polling towards the Democrats while its daily broadcasts are so openly partisan towards Trump is mindblowing.

What Trump is stating by questioning the accuracy of the Fox News polling operation and suggesting that the network hire new statisticians is that numbers have no inherent truth beyond their favorability to his own aims and desires.

It’s as if the president were to say “I don’t like the fact that 2+2=4, so hire a new mathematician who will give me the result that I want, someone willing to tell the world that 2+2=7.”

To prove this point, the very next tweet that Trump posted consisted of entirely made up polling numbers that don’t correspond to any of the figures that major polling organizations have recently reported.

To correct the blatant lies that Trump is disseminating on social media, FiveThirtyEight.com‘s average of major polling organizations pegs the president’s overall approval rating at 42%, nearly nine points below his claimed 51%, and his disapproval rating at 53.3%. Only one outlier poll from Rasmussen Reports — rated only C+ for accuracy by FiveThirtyEight — comes close to Trump’s claimed figure with 49% of its respondents approving of Trump’s performance, a number equal to those who disapprove of it.

The president even inflated the number of Republican voters who approve of his performance.

The latest Gallup poll puts his GOP approval at only 90%, not the record 95% that he claims and a recent poll from The Washington Post and ABC News found that Trump’s approval fell to its lowest level yet among Republicans in the outlets’ polling with only 74% of GOP members approving of Trump’s performance as president.

Think of where the president would be if he only wasn’t the world’s most compulsive liar, complaining about “Witch Hunts” while presiding over a cauldron of swampy self-interest.

Hopefully, Senate Republicans will be consulting accurate poll numbers when they make their politically-motivated decisions as to whether they should follow the evidence and convict the president in his likely upcoming trial or calculate their reelection possibilities if they decide to continue pretending that Trump is morally fit to continue in office.

Already a party representing a fractional minority of the voters in this country, their decisions in any impeachment trial could signal the end of democracy in this country and lead them to advocate the interests of the even smaller group of wealthy donors above those of the average American.

Oh wait, that’s what they have been doing for decades, so really it’s just a matter of dropping the pretense.

 

[fraurosena]

Who else wants to see this happen?