Democrats Struggle To Find Fourth GOP Vote To Call Impeachment Witnesses

It was always understood that there would be little chance of removing Donald Trump from office through impeachment due to the requirement for a mass defection of Republican senators to get to the 67 votes required by the Constitution. Any victory in the Senate would be a moral one in which a small number of Republicans might join with Democrats to at least call more witnesses and get the truth about Trump’s actions out to the American people. Such a political victory would rely upon at least four Senate Republicans crossing the aisle to form a temporary anti-Trump coalition of 51 votes. A week into the Senate trial of the president, we still don’t know what the outcome of this aspect of impeachment will be.

Earlier this week, the Senate voted to delay the decision on whether to call witnesses to testify during the trial. At this point, it looks as though Democrats may be able to get three Republicans to join them in their quest, but the fourth may be a bridge too far.

Three Republicans have indicated that they are open to calling witnesses. These senators include Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah.

Axios reports that several senators were targeted to be the fourth vote but that so far none has committed. The possibles include Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Joni Ernst of Iowa. The Hill adds Martha McSally of Arizona, Jerry Moran of Kansas, and Rob Portman of Ohio to the list.

Already Tillis has planted a flag on Trump’s side, calling the impeachment a “sham” and telling Fox News, “I don’t want to spend a lot of time doing what I expected the House to do. You’d think if there was any truth to it, they would have spent the time in the House to actually bring it forward”

The North Carolina senator is facing a tough re-election fight and seems to be concentrating on firming up the Republican base in a state where Trump’s approval rating is at 48 percent, a net of zero. There has been no recent polling on the Senate race but a poll from last spring showed Tillis trailing likely Democratic nominee Erica Smith.

Sen. McSally’s recent attack on a CNN reporter likely indicates which side she is on as well. McSally is another very vulnerable Republican as she prepares to face Mark Kelly in this year’s senate race. The Arizona Republican is already trailing in a number of recent polls and she can ill afford to lose support from the Republican base by angering Trump.

Corey Gardner and Joni Ernst might be more likely targets. Trump’s approval is 18 points underwater in Colorado and nine points in the negative in Iowa. Both senators are up for re-election this year as well and Gardner is already trailing in preliminary polling by double-digit margins. There are no public polls of the Iowa senate race so far.

But vulnerable Republicans may be between a rock and a hard place. CBS News reports that Senate Republicans were warned, “Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” Republican leadership seems to be gambling with their Senate majority that voters will not hold swing state incumbents accountable for conducting a show trial and speedy acquittal.

Portman in bellwether Ohio may be a good bet for the fourth vote. Portman told the Dayton Daily News recently that he thinks the trial “should be a fair process” and that “we should hear from both sides.”

Even if the Portman, Gardner, and Ernst can be kept on the reservation, there is another possibility. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is not running for re-election and might be more insulated from pressure. The 79-year-old is unlikely to have his eye on higher office. Still, Alexander is close to Senate leaders and called impeachment “a mistake” back in October. A lot of new evidence has come forth since then, however.

“He is very well-respected by the entire conference and is close to Mitch McConnell. I’ve found Lamar to be one of the most effective members of the entire Senate,” Sen. Collins said of Alexander in Politico. “I don’t know what his position will be. I suspect that he’s waiting until he’s heard the case presented and the questions answered for the senators. And that’s a very logical position to take.”

An added complication is the possibility that Democrats might lose votes from their own caucus. Red-state Democrats such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin or Alabama’s Doug Jones may well defect and make the math even more difficult.
 

If no fourth Republican comes forward, then votes on whether to call witnesses could end in a 50-50 tie. In that case, it would be up to Chief Justice John Roberts to decide the issue of witnesses. Roberts has given no indication of how he would vote, but NBC News speculates that judges often rule in favor of allowing relevant testimony. The fact that Roberts would be going against his party’s wishes and seems to place a high priority on not undermining the Supreme Court’s authority and image makes the situation more complicated, however.

Meanwhile, Republicans are still unable to explain why, if the president is not guilty of the impeachment allegations against him, they are so staunchly opposed to hearing witnesses who could offer exonerating evidence. On the contrary, Trump’s defenders are already making plans to stonewall testimony in the event that the Senate does vote to call witnesses such as former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Republicans say that the White House would probably block the testimony on grounds of executive privilege and national security. The resulting court battle would lead to a long, drawn-out battle that might not be resolved before the election.

That’s a lot of trouble to go to stonewall testimony about a “perfect phone call” from witnesses that the president has said he would “love” to hear.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Impeachment Update: A Dem Says ‘Fine’ To Hunter Biden Testimony While GOP Considers ‘Kill Switch’

As the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump gets underway, senators are establishing ground rules for the proceeding. As we’ve reported before, it now seems likely that the Senate will hear witnesses and at least one Democratic senator is agreeable to the idea that Hunter Biden could be called to testify. At the same time, Republicans are floating the idea of a way to rapidly end the trial with a dismissal vote if things get out of hand.

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said yesterday that he thought it would be “fine” if Hunter Biden was called to testify before the Senate. The son of Joe Biden, Hunter’s association with Ukrainian energy company Burisma has been called unethical by Republicans and is at the root of President Trump’s decision to freeze military aid to Ukraine.

"We take the position that we want to hear from the witnesses. I don't know what Hunter Biden has to do with the phone call the President made," Senator Brown said. "The point is we need witnesses, we need to know who they are with the right to call witnesses, additional witnesses later. But I don't understand how you come to the American public, make the case that this is a real trial, if there are no witnesses and there is no new evidence."

On Fox News, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said that the Senate guidelines would include reciprocity of witnesses.

“What does that mean?” Cruz asked rhetorically. “It means if the prosecution gets a witness, the defense gets a witness. If the prosecution gets two, the defense gets two. That means if the prosecution gets to call John Bolton, then the president gets to call Hunter Biden.”

There is so far no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of either Hunter or Joe Biden, but Republicans were critical of the House decision not to allow the Bidens to be called as witnesses during impeachment hearings in the lower body.

In other impeachment news, Fox reports that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is close to finalizing a rule that would implement a “kill switch” for the impeachment proceedings. The provision would act as a “safety valve” to prevent the trial from dragging on into the primary election season.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told Axios that the resolution would “give the president's team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time..." Hawley said that he would be "very, very surprised” if the organizing resolution for the trial did not include such a provision.

The difficulty for Republicans is that even if the rules for the trial allow the president’s supporters to move for a summary dismissal, so far there is not enough support among Republican senators for such a vote to pass. As Resurgent detailed last week, the Republican leadership has acknowledged that there are currently not enough votes to dismiss the matter without a full hearing.

The Senate is expected to pass an organizing resolution on Tuesday. The text of the resolution has not been released but CNN reports that it is expected to delay the issue of whether witnesses will be called until after opening arguments have been made. At a later point, senators will have an opportunity to vote on whether witnesses should be called. Polling has indicated broad support for calling more witnesses during the Senate trial.

The two Republican initiatives seem at odds with each other. The threat to call extraneous witnesses such as Hunter Biden would prolong the trial without offering insight into what Rudy Giuliani’s introductory letter to President Zelensky referred to as a private mission rather than one that involved Donald Trump’s role as president.

Republicans could accomplish their stated goal of keeping the trail brief by limiting witnesses to people who are material to the charges against President Trump, people who were involved with the phone call and the subsequent aid freeze. In that vein, one would expect Trump’s defense team to call witnesses who could exonerate the president on the charges of abuse of power and obstruction such as Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Mike Pence.

I wonder why they won’t.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Evidence Against Trump (So Far)

After a week of public testimony in the impeachment inquiry, there are now mountains of transcripts regarding President Trump’s handling of relations with Ukraine. The argument for impeachment boils down to a comparatively few nuggets of information, however, and there is much chaff mixed with the grains of wheat. To that end, I thought it would be useful to identify some of the main pieces of evidence against the president.

So far, it is Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, who has emerged as the key witness against the president. Sondland, a Seattle millionaire who made his money in the hotel industry, was a Trump supporter in 2016 but canceled a fundraiser for the Republican nominee after Trump attacked the Khan family, Muslim-American parents of a fallen US soldier. Sondland later donated $1 million to the Trump inaugural committee and was subsequently appointed ambassador to the EU in March 2018.

In his public testimony, Sondland, who said that he did not have “access to all of my phone records, State Department e-mails and many, many other State Department documents” and was “told I could not work with my E.U. staff to pull together the relevant files and information,” said that Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker “worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the expressed direction of the president of the United States.” Together, Perry, Volker, and Sondland are referred to as “the Three Amigos.”

“We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland said, but “We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So, we followed the president's orders.”

“Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” according to Sondland. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president.”

“In July and August of 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid,” Sondland continued. “I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer; still haven't to this day.”

After President Trump told the Three Amigos to “talk with Rudy,” Sondland says that the group kept other members of the Cabinet and White House staff in the loop, stressing that they believed that they were pursuing legitimate policy goals and were not a rogue operation. Specifically, Sondland named Secretary of State Pompeo, his Counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, his Executive Secretary Lisa Kenna, Ambassador John Bolton, Dr. Fiona Hill, Tim Morrison, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney's Senior Advisor Rob Blair. Sondland also said that he raised his concerns about the delayed aid in a meeting with Vice President Pence that included several other people. So far, all of the people named by Sondland have refused to testify with the exceptions of Hill and Morrison.

“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said.

As it turns out, Rudy Giuliani had been working on the Ukrainians for a while already. The New York Times reported last May that Giuliani was headed to Ukraine in hopes of pushing the Ukrainians into investigating two matters that could benefit Trump in his quest for reelection. “One is the origin of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election,” The Times said. “The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.”

Sondland said he remembered the July 10 meeting with Ukrainians and recalled “mentioning the prerequisite of investigations before any White House call or meeting.” However, he disputed the accounts of NSC staffer Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Vindman that John Bolton abruptly terminated the meeting at that point.

Over the course of the negotiations, the prerequisite for an investigation evolved into the mere announcement of an investigation. “He had to announce the investigations,” Sondland testified. “He didn't actually have to do them, as I understood it.”

In an answer to Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent made clear the nature of the statement that Zelensky was being asked to present. “That was not an anti-corruption statement, sir,” Kent said. The Three Amigos “shared a draft with Rudy Giuliani and Rudy Giuliani said it would not be acceptable if it didn't mention Biden, Burisma, and 2016.”

Sondland did not dispute David Holmes’ account of a phone call between Sondland and the president on July 26. He also said that he had no reason to believe that investigations were not discussed as Holmes testified. He said that the subject of the Burisma investigation likely came up because “because we had been hearing about it from Rudy and we presumed Rudy was getting it from the president.”

Sondland said that he first learned about the hold on the Ukrainian aid package on July 18. It was in this conference call that Ambassador Taylor testified that a White House Office of Management and Budget employee had said “her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of security assistance for Ukraine until further notice.” The direct “boss” of the OMB is Mick Mulvaney, who also serves as chief of staff and reports directly to the president, but the term also could have referred to President Trump himself.

Negotiations had been in process with Ukraine since May regarding the phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky. Sondland said that the White House requests began as “very generic for an investigation of corruption in a very vanilla sense” but “as time went on, more specific items got added to the menu, including the Burisma and 2016 election meddling, specifically -- the DNC server, specifically.”

While Sondland says that he was not specifically told that the aid package was subject to the same conditions as the White House meeting, he says that was the implication. Indeed, Sondland said that he relayed that belief to Andriy Yernak, a top advisor to Zelensky, just after a meeting that included Pence during the vice president’s trip to Warsaw for the Sept. 1 anniversary of the beginning of World War II. Sondland also expressed his belief that release of the aid was connected to the announcement of investigations to Taylor and Lt. Col. Vindman.

Sondland also said around Sept. 9 that he finally asked the president “an open-ended question… what do you want from Ukraine?”

He said that Trump answered, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” However, it should be noted that Trump’s denial came as the scheme was falling apart and the White House was gearing up for damage control.

The witnesses provide important background to the summary of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Several of the witnesses were present for the call and reported that they concerned enough to talk to legal counsel. The summary itself backs up the claims of the witnesses and is itself important evidence against President Trump.

On the call, Trump first laments that the relationship between Ukraine and the US is not “reciprocal.” Zelensky then says that Ukraine would like to buy more Javelin missiles from the US. Trump immediately responds by asking for a “favor.” Trump then specifically cites Crowdstrike, the company that investigated the DNC hack in 2016 and cites a discredited conspiracy theory that the DNC server was sent to Ukraine. Zelensky then responds that his administration has already been in contact with Rudy Giuliani on the matter. Trump next asks that Zelensky “look into” Burisma but specifically mentions “Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution… and Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution.” Zelensky promises that the new Ukrainian prosecutor “will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned….”

Ambassador Sondland was not on the July 25 call and said that he only read the transcript when it was publicly released. “Looking back, I find it very odd -- very odd that neither I, nor Ambassador Taylor, nor Ambassador Volker ever received a detailed read-out of that call with the Biden references,” he mused.

If any doubt as to the motives of Trump and Giuliani remained, Giuliani admitted in a CNN interview on Sept. 20 that he asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and on Oct. 17 Mick Mulvaney told reporters at a press conference that “corruption related to the DNC server” was “why we held up the money.” Back in June, as negotiations were underway on the “anti-corruption statement,” President Trump told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, “ I think I'd take it” if a foreign country offered him dirt on a political opponent.

While it is true that no one has yet testified that President Trump directly ordered that the aid be exchanged for the Ukrainian announcement, there seems to have been no doubt among White House staff as to the president’s intent. There is an abundance of circumstantial evidence as well as the words of President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Mick Mulvaney that supports the understanding of the witnesses. There are also problems with the Republican denials.

First, only the president had the authority to delay the aid package. This is not a decision that could have been made by low-level staffers. Testimony indicates that the State, Defense, and NSC were unanimous in their disapproval of the delay even if they had the power to enact it. Even Mulvaney would not have made a call of this sort without presidential approval.

Second, the Trump Administration claimed that the aid was delayed due to concerns about corruption. In reality, the Defense Department had certified that Ukraine had met the congressional standards placed on the aid not once but twice. The first certification was in May, not long after the Times reported on Rudy Giuliani’s trip to Ukraine. The second was in July just prior to the conference call in which Sondler and Vindman learned of the hold placed by “the boss.”

Even though Ukraine had been certified as meeting the standards to receive the aid, the money was not released until more than two months later. The hold was finally removed from the aid package on Sept. 11, two days after the inspector general of the intelligence community notified Democrats and Republicans of the House intelligence committee that he had received the whistleblower complaint and found the information credible.

Finally, the Republican stonewalling lends credence to the claims of the witnesses against the Administration. So far, senior Trump Administration officials have denied the witness allegations, but have declined to do so under oath. The Administration has also refused congressional requests for documents and information. Failure to answer a congressional subpoena is itself grounds for impeachment per Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and it is fair to assume that if the Administration possessed exculpatory evidence that it would make it public.

The evidence that Donald Trump abused his office as president and bartered aid approved by Congress for an announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden that would benefit him personally is strong. The case is made stronger by the fact that Republicans who have direct knowledge of the President’s actions refuse to testify and provide exculpatory evidence. However, the president cannot escape the consequences of his actions by ordering his subordinates not to cooperate with Congress.

The Trump Administration should provide any information that could prove the president’s innocence to congressional investigators. At a minimum, Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo should testify under oath so that the country can learn the truth.

To justify the president’s actions, the Trump Administration must explain why the aid to Ukraine was delayed for months and why it was not released until after the scandal broke.

If not, it’s time to impeach.

Originally published on The Resurgent

House Releases Impeachment Transcripts

The House committees investigating President Donald Trump’s actions with respect to a quid pro quo with Ukraine for an investigation into the company that hired Joe Biden’s son have released the full transcripts to the public. In a joint statement, the chairs of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees said, “The American public will begin to see for themselves the evidence that the committees have collected” and that more is being learned “about the President’s attempt to manipulate the levers of power to his personal political benefit.”

The transcripts released so far include the testimonies of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch and former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State Ambassador P. Michael McKinley. Ms. Yovanovitch’s complete testimony can be viewed here and key excerpts are located here. Mr. McKinley’s complete testimony is here and excerpts can be found here.

Among other things, the excerpts reveal that Ambassador Yovanovitch was the woman that President Trump said was “bad news” and that was “going to go through some things” in the July 25 phone call with Ukrainian officials.

Yovanovitch also learned from staff members that Rudy Giuliani and Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko were allegedly “looking to hurt” her “in the US.” Afterward, she said that Lutsenko began to spread “falsehoods” about her. Minister of Internal Affairs Arson Avakov told Yovanovitch that “Ukrainian officials was [sic] very concerned” about Giuliani and that she should watch her back.

The falsehoods apparently relate to documents sent to Secretary of State Pompeo earlier this year. In addition to targeting Yovanovitch, the documents also referenced Hunter Biden. It is not known precisely what the documents alleged or who sent them to Pompeo.

Yovanovitch said that she communicated her concerns to superiors in the State Department, including Acting Assistant Secretary Phil Reeker of the European Bureau, Undersecretary for Political Affairs David Hale, Fiona Hill of the NSC, and Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the EU. She said that Sondland recommended that she “tweet out there that you support the President and that all these [disinformation claims from Lutsenko and Giuliani] are lies.”

For his part, McKinley said, “In 37 years in the Foreign Service and different parts of the globe and working on many controversial issues, working 10 years back in Washington, I had never” seen an effort to use the State Department to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

McKinley proposed releasing a statement from the State Department supporting Ambassador Yovanovitch, but Secretary of State Pompeo denied the request, ostensibly to protect Yovanovitch by not drawing “undue attention to her.”

McKinley raised the issue with Pompeo several more times and eventually resigned over the “lack of public support for Department employees.” In a final conversation with Pompeo, McKinley told the Secretary, “This situation isn’t acceptable.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Another Day, More Damaging Testimony In Ukraine Scandal

More damaging testimony is expected today in Congress as part of the House’s Ukraine probe. Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, is scheduled to testify about his concerns regarding President Trump’s July 25^th phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky. Vindman listened in on the call and promptly reported his concerns to NSC lawyers.

As with other depositions so far, Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony will be given behind closed doors, but Republican members of committees investigating the scandal will be present and have the opportunity to ask questions. Vindman’s opening statement was released last night, however, and is available here.

Lt. Col. Vindman is a career army officer who fled the Soviet Union with his family as a child. He has served in the US Army for more than 20 years, including a combat tour in Iraq where he received a Purple Heart after being wounded by an IED. He has also been posted at the US embassies to Ukraine and Russia. He has been a staff member on the National Security Council since July 2018.

Vindman listened in on an April 2019 call between President Trump and then-President-elect Zelensky, which he called “positive,” and then was part of the US delegation that attended Zelensky’s inauguration in May.

The first sign that Vindman saw that something was wrong occurred on July 10 when Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor John Bolton that included Ambassadors Volker and Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

“Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short,” Vindman says in his statement.

“Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma,” Vindman continues. “I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.”

“Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC's lead counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC's lead counsel,” the colonel added.

On July 25, Vindman says that he listened in on the now-infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky from the White House Situation Room. Regarding that conversation, Vindman says, “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel.”

Vindman also discusses the high stakes of foreign policy involving Ukraine and Russia, noting that Ukraine has been “under assault from Russia for more than five years” but has still “taken major steps towards integrating with the West.”

“Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West,” Vindman says. If left unchecked, Russian aggression could lead to more direct conflict with NATO and the United States.

Interestingly, the allegation that Donald Trump linked a meeting with Ukraine's president to performance of the personal favor of investigating the Bidens is similar to accusations against the Clintons. The Clintons allegedly linked donations to the Clinton Foundation to access to Hillary Clinton in her position as secretary of state for Barack Obama.

In summary, Lt. Col. Vindman, who is not the whistleblower but says he knows that person’s identity, heard disturbing demand placed on Ukrainian officials on two separate occasions. On both occasions, he raised red flags with his superiors. Vindman also corroborates other testimony that John Bolton also resisted the Trump Administration’s attempts to link Ukraine aid to investigations of Hunter Biden and Burisma.

Vindman, a military veteran who was wounded in the service of America, is no liberal Deep State member. As a refugee from the Soviet Union, he probably also understands better than most the danger of politicizing national security and law enforcement. While certain members of Republican media, such as Fox News host Laura Ingraham, are attacking Vindman as a traitor and a spy, there is no evidence that this spurious charge is true.

Instead, Lt. Col. Vindman seems to be one of many honorable Americans who have raised red flags about President Trump’s actions. Those Americans who oppose the president’s abuses of power cut across party and ideological lines with the common belief that American presidents are not above the law.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Shouldn’t Gloat Over Mueller Testimony

In 1960, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off in the first nationally televised presidential debate. Nixon, who was leading by eight points in the polls going into the debate, had been recently hospitalized and refused to wear makeup. Kennedy, tanned from the campaign trail, decided at the last minute to wear makeup. Visually, the two candidates contrasted sharply with Nixon appearing pale and unshaven and Kennedy looking tan and fit. People who listened to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won, but Kennedy’s edge with television viewers was enough to erode Nixon’s lead. Yesterday’s Mueller testimony was a lot like that.

For those of us who were unable to watch the hearings but were able to hear parts of it on the radio, Mueller sound calm, collected and careful. However, those who watched the hearings on television thought that Mueller underperformed. Much of the difference seems to be a question of style versus substance.

In the hours that followed, Republicans attacked Mueller’s style as well as his refusal to answer questions about the Steele dossier, even though his opening statement made clear that he would not comment on ongoing matters or privileged information from within the Justice Department. This is consistent with Mueller’s public statement in May in which he said that any testimony would not go beyond his office’s written report.

Mueller’s grueling testimony before two committees seemed to largely consist of Democrats baiting him to attack President Trump and Republicans attacking the Russia investigation vicariously through him and chortling when he failed to show that he had every passage of his two-volume report memorized. Mr. Mueller didn’t give either side what it wanted, parsing his words carefully as lawyers tend to do.

The main thrust of Mueller’s testimony consisted of four points which were emphasized in his opening statement. First, Mueller pointed out once again that the “Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” This fact continues to be downplayed by President Trump and Republicans. Second, there was not enough evidence to charge any member of the Trump campaign in a criminal conspiracy related to that interference. Third, the special counsel investigated attempts to obstruct justice and lie to investigators, but, fourth, “based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Even though President Trump and Republicans are celebrating in the aftermath of Mueller’s testimony, the grilling did more damage to President Trump’s image. In an exchange with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) Mueller conceded that Trump’s actions seemed to meet the three-pronged test for criminal obstruction that consists of an obstructive act, connection to an official proceeding, and corrupt intent.

In another exchange, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Hawaii), said, “We have heard today that the President ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The President ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we’ve heard the President ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he, you, stop investigating the President. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. And I like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President. Correct?”

“That is correct,” Mueller answered.

Lieu pressed, “The fact that their orders by the President were not carried out. That is not a defense because the statute itself is quite broad. It says that as long as you endeavor or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also constitute a crime.”

“I’m not getting into that at this juncture,” Mueller answered.

Later in the day, Mueller clarified his answer to Lieu, stating in his opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee, “Now before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m ready to answer questions.”

In another short exchange, Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) asked, “Isn't it fair to say that the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful?”

Mueller answered, “I would say generally.”

If the president’s written statement to investigators was untrue, then Donald Trump could be indicted for lying to investigators. In a separate exchange, Mueller did acknowledge that Trump could be indicted after he leaves office for crimes that he might have committed while he was president.

In another moment that directly contradicted Trump’s claims, Rep. Nadler asked, “The president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and it completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct, not what the report said,” Mueller answered, effectively calling the president a liar.

If Democrats failed to score a knockout blow at the hearings, so did Republicans. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out on Twitter, Mueller hardly seemed like the zealous head of witch hunt. Instead, the special counsel was very restrained and repeatedly failed to seize opportunities to attack Trump.

https://twitter.com/JonahNRO/status/1154039243863285762?s=20

One of his most direct criticisms of the president was Mueller’s statement condemning Trump’s 2016 embrace of WikiLeaks. When asked if Trump’s statements were a problem, Mueller replied, “Problematic is an understatement, in terms of what it displays, in terms of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

The hearings were not must-see TV, but they were not a bust either. For Republicans to celebrate that Mueller did not indict the president represents a low moment for the Grand Old Party. The facts consistently presented by Mueller paint the picture of a chief executive with no respect for the rule of law.

In the end, the allegations that President Trump acted to block the Russia investigation on multiple occasions stood. Democrats made their point that Trump’s actions meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice even if Mueller’s adherence to the OLC memo prevents him from saying so publicly. Republicans are left to defend a president whose actions can only be defended by saying that he was unsuccessful in attempts to obstruct justice because his subordinates failed to follow his orders.

Mueller’s testimony and written report show that on multiple occasions, Donald Trump tried to interfere with and block the Russia investigation. Either the president knew he was acting illegally, in which case he is corrupt, or he was ignorant of the requirements of his job and unwilling to listen to advisors who tried to help him. In either case, Trump is unfit for office.

Nunes 'Expects Worst' From Mueller Testimony

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, says that he “expect[s] the worst” when former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before Congress next week. Speaking to Fox News, the California congressman said that he expects Mueller to show up for the testimony and hinted that what he tells Congress could be damaging to President Trump.

“I really expect the worst, because Bob Mueller does not have to show up,” Nunes said. “So, he's doing this on his own free will. That tells me the last time he operated on his own free will, everybody forgets, (Attorney General William) Barr came out with a memo, was very clear about the decisions that he had made, and then a few days later, Mueller decided on his own to go out and hold a nine-minute press conference.”

“So I am very concerned,” Nunes continued. “I think we should expect the worst because he only has to say a couple [of] things and the rest of the media -- not saying you here at Fox, but 90 percent of the media will take one little phrase and run with it and try to run towards impeachment.”

“And look, I know there was no collusion and I know there was no obstruction, so in that sense it was fine,” Nunes added. “However, there shouldn't -- this whole investigation was an obstruction of justice trap.”

Nunes fails to point out that avoiding the “obstruction of justice trap” was a simple matter. All the president had to do was not attempt to obstruct the ongoing investigation. Per the testimony of Trump Administration officials contained in the Mueller report, however, the president did not meet this low bar.

Since the Mueller report was released last April following a summary version by Barr in March, Republicans have claimed that Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction. However, Nunes’ uneasiness with Mueller’s testimony indicates that the claim is on shaky ground. Mueller’s previous public statement in May seemed explicitly tailored to counter Republican claims that the report had exonerated the president.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller pointed out in both the written report and his public statement. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

Not making a determination is not the same thing as an exoneration.

In his statement, Mueller went on to explain why his team did not make a determination as to whether President Trump broke the law, saying, “Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office…. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

“A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy,” Mueller continued. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

Mr. Mueller will testify in open session on July 24 before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. His testimony was originally scheduled for July 17 but was moved in order to give members of both parties more time for questioning. It is also possible that the change could have been due to the fact that President Trump had scheduled a rally in North Carolina for the same day, which could have distracted from Mueller’s testimony.

At this point, no one knows what Mueller will say in his testimony, but Republicans are obviously nervous that he will undercut their claims that President Trump did not obstruct justice in his attempts to block the Russia investigation. A question that is certain to be asked is whether Mueller would have indicted Mr. Trump for his actions if he had not been president. If Mr. Mueller answers directly, it could do more serious damage to President Trump’s already shaky reputation.

Another likely line of questioning involves Mueller’s letter to Barr contradicting his public characterization of the report. In the private letter sent after the release of Barr’s summary but before his decision to release a redacted version of the report, Mueller said that the public summary “did not fully capture the context nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions” and that it had led to “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

The bottom line is that if, as President Trump and Republicans have claimed for the past several months, that the president did nothing wrong then there would be nothing to fear from Robert Mueller’s testimony. The fact that Republicans “expect the worst” from the author of a report that the GOP has claimed exonerates the president should make us wonder how honest Republicans have been in their defenses of the Donald Trump.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Mueller To Testify Before Congress

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify publicly before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees after Democrats issued a subpoena. In his press conference on May 29, Mueller indicated that he did not want to testify before Congress and intended his report to be his testimony.

“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,” Mueller said at the time, adding, “The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”

Nevertheless, many Americans want to hear more from Mr. Mueller. “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia's attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign's acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates' obstruction of the investigation into that attack,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

Other Americans pointedly don’t want to hear more about the special counsel investigation. As the news of Mueller’s upcoming testimony broke on Tuesday, President Trump tweeted, “Presidential harassment!”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1143709133234954241

Even if, as is likely, Mr. Mueller brings no new details of Russian collusion or presidential obstruction of justice to the witness chair, there are lingering questions about his report that his testimony could help answer. First and foremost is whether Mueller would have recommended prosecution of Donald Trump for obstruction of justice if he had not been president. Along that line is whether Trump’s actions, in Mueller’s opinion, constituted impeachable offenses.

There is also the question of Mueller’s letter to Attorney General William Barr. It was only after Mueller sent a letter complaining about Barr’s characterization of the Mueller report that the attorney general agreed to release a redacted version of the report to the public. Did Barr originally intend to mislead the public with summary that allowed the president to claim “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION” while not revealing that Mueller’s failure to recommend prosecution for obstruction was because he did not make a prosecutorial judgment due to Justice Department policy that prohibits indictment of a sitting president?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1109918388133023744

For their part, Republicans will likely use the opportunity to attack the credibility of the Special Counsel’s office and the FBI as well as question the origins of the Russia investigation. Republicans can be expected to question Mueller about the Steele dossier as well as probe whether the FBI was biased in its investigation of the Trump campaign. Many Republicans, including AG Barr, have alleged that the FBI behaved in a corrupt fashion during the investigation but have not provided evidence to support their claims.

Congressional hearings will also provide Mueller with a platform to draw attention to what he seems to see as the bigger elephant in the room: the fact that Russia went to great lengths to tamper with the election. As Mueller stressed in his press conference, “There were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.”

House Democrats will be certain to point out that Republicans, who traditionally have been strong on national security, have spent two years blocking efforts to beef up election security and minimizing the effect of Russian cyber attacks on election infrastructure. As recently as this week, Senate Republicans blocked a bill by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would have required backup paper ballots and provided election security grants to states.

Ultimately, much can be gleaned from the expectations of the two parties. The eager anticipation of Democrats shows that they think it is likely that Mueller’s testimony will be damaging to the president. The panicked reaction of the Republicans shows that they agree.

Mueller’s testimony is scheduled for July 17.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Barr Bails Amid Mueller Message Mess

Attorney General Bill Barr canceled his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee after the body decided to allow an extra hour of questioning by staff lawyers. The Department of Justice objected to the extended questioning. The hearing was scheduled to begin Thursday at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time without Barr’s participation.

In a statement, the Department of Justice said that “having staff question the Attorney General, a Senate-confined Cabinet member, is inappropriate.” There was no explanation for why this would be inappropriate.

The statement also notes that the majority of the committee “are themselves attorneys, and the Chairman has the ability and authority to fashion the hearing in a way that allows for efficient and thorough questioning by the Members themselves, the Chairman’s request is also unnecessary.” That authority would presumably include the authority to delegate the questioning to professional attorneys.  It is worth noting that Senate Republicans hired an outside counsel to question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, last September.

Axios reports that House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) had previously said that he would subpoena Barr if he refused to testify voluntarily. If Barr ignores the subpoena then he could be held in contempt of Congress.

Barr’s refusal to testify leaves House Democrats with few good options. NBC News explains that most likely scenario to force Barr’s testimony is to pursue a contempt case in civil court. A judge could impose sanctions in an attempt to get Barr to comply with the subpoena.

Even without testimony from the attorney general, the brouhaha over the Mueller report and Barr’s characterization of it is not likely to go away. The obvious next step is for House Democrats to invite Robert Mueller to testify.

When he released the redacted version of the Mueller report on April 18, Barr said he had “no objection” to allowing Mueller to testify. It will be interesting to see if Barr is still open to that possibility. It will also be interesting to see if Mueller’s sworn testimony backs up Barr’s claim from yesterday that the special counsel “was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report.”

As with most of the details from the Russia scandal, Barr’s testimony left many questions unanswered. With denials of wrongdoing from an administration that is well-known for covering up embarrassing behavior, the only logical course is to go straight to the horse’s mouth for answers. It’s time to hear from Robert Mueller.   

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Lawyers Seek To Head Off Presidential Testimony

He may consider Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation a “hoax,” but that won’t necessarily stop President Trump from being called to testify. Sources familiar with the matter say that the president’s legal team is already holding discussions with the FBI that may give Trump alternatives to a face-to-face confrontation with investigators.

NBC News reports that Trump’s lawyers are questioning whether and under what circumstances the president would be interviewed by Mueller’s team. Points of negotiation include when and where the interview might take place, the topics to be discussed and how long the interview might last.

Team Trump is also considering options that would prevent a personal interview of the president from taking place at all. These options might include having the president provide written answers to a list of questions or signing an affidavit denying any wrongdoing. The president also has the Fifth Amendment right not to provide testimony against himself.

A former US attorney and chief of staff for James Comey, Chuck Rosenberg, said that the odds against investigators accepting such a deal are “somewhere between infinitesimally small and zero.”

“Prosecutors want to see and hear folks in person,” Rosenberg, currently a NBC News legal analyst, said. “They want to probe and follow up. Body language and tone are important. And they want answers directly from witnesses, not from their lawyers.”

“I would never let the prosecution interview my client,” said famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, “but I don't represent the president of the United States, and presidents don't want to plead the Fifth. So, this route makes sense.”

In June 2017, the reporters asked the president if he would be willing to testify before Mueller’s team. “One hundred percent,” Trump answered. “I would be glad to tell him exactly what I told you.” Since then, however, Trump has become more critical of Mueller and the Department of Justice.

Given President Trump’s penchant for going off-script, the possibility him testifying under oath likely terrifies his lawyers. The appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel can be traced to one such moment after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. In a May 2017 interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt, the president linked the firing of Comey to “this Russia thing” despite the official line that Comey was fired for bungling the investigation of Hillary Clinton. Amid the furor that followed, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the matter and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as an independent investigator.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Mike Flynn Is the Key To the Trump-Comey Dispute

As the furor rages unabated after the testimony of James Comey, both sides are coming to the realization that it settled nothing. Comey said just enough to allow both sides to reinforce their preconceived notions and declare a victory. Comey’s testimony is not the end, but is more like pulling a thread that causes other threads to unravel. Even though Comey did not present irrefutable evidence of criminal activity by the president, he did make a blatant accusation that the president is corrupt. The investigations will continue and, at this point, it seems that the trails all point toward Michael Flynn.

The investigation of Michael Flynn is at the center of the dispute between James Comey and President Trump. In Comey’s opening statement, the former director claimed that it was the investigation of Flynn that prompted Trump’s alleged request that, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.”

Who is Michael Flynn? Flynn is a retired US Army general who rose to command the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama. He served honorably in both the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of the War on Terror. Flynn abruptly retired a year early from his position at the DIA, apparently under pressure from the Obama Administration. Sean Spicer confirmed in May that Barack Obama had warned the Trump camp about getting too close to Flynn.

In fact, Flynn became an early advisor to the Trump campaign and was considered as a vice presidential candidate. Flynn eventually was appointed as President Trump’s National Security Advisor after delivering a fiery speech to the Republican National Convention.

As National Security Advisor, Flynn lasted just over three weeks. The issue was false statements that Flynn had made to Vice President Pence, Press Secretary Spicer and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Before the election and during the transition, Flynn had secret communications with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in which he discussed sanctions that the Obama Administration had imposed on Russia in response their interference in the election. Flynn denied discussing the sanctions until the Washington Post reported that leaks revealed that there was evidence from surveillance that Flynn was not being truthful.

Even after Flynn’s duplicity was revealed, Trump waited 18 days before finally deciding to fire him. Shortly after the Flynn’s dismissal on the basis of loss of trust, The Hill reported that Trump called him “a wonderful man” and said that the media had treated him “badly.” The is in sharp contrast to the firing of Comey, who was attacked by Trump on Twitter in the days after his dismissal.

Since leaving the White House, Flynn’s troubles have only gotten worse. Flynn is under investigation for failing to disclose a $33,000 payment from the Russian state-owned propaganda network, RT, after leaving the DIA. The New York Times reported in April that Flynn initially failed to disclose other payments from “companies linked to Russia.”

Flynn also may have broken the law by doing consulting work that benefitted the government of Turkey without the permission of the US government. After being fired by Trump, Flynn registered with the US government as a paid foreign agent for work done the year before that could have aided the Turkish government. Flynn may have also failed to fully disclose his contracts and payments from the Turkish consulting work.

Further, the Wall Street Journal reported that Flynn met with Turkish government contacts last summer, while he was still working for the Trump campaign, and discussed the possibility of returning Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric that Turkey blames for last summer’s failed military coup, without going through legal US extradition procedures. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said the discussion involved “a covert step in the dead of night to whisk this guy away.” Woolsey said he did not hear a specific plan and would have objected if he had.

Even before Donald Trump was nominated as the Republican candidate, Flynn drew criticism for his ties to Russia. In December 2015, Flynn was paid $45,000 by RT to speak at the network’s 10^th anniversary gala. The network also paid airfare for the trip and hosted Flynn at a luxury hotel in Moscow according to NBC News. Flynn sat at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin at the event.

In 2013, as head of the DIA, Flynn arranged a controversial trip to Russia for a group of US intelligence officers with the goal of building a working relationship with the GRU, Russian military intelligence. Flynn planned to host GRU officers in the US, but the Russian invasion of Crimea led to chilled relations between the two countries.

There are many questions about Mike Flynn that are unanswered. There is not even a definitive answer on how Flynn and Trump came to know each other. In an interview with the New Yorker, Flynn claimed he hit it off immediately with Trump in an August 2015 meeting in New York. In his interview with NBC News in May 2017, Trump denied knowing Flynn in 2015 In any case, Flynn was identified as an advisor to Trump by February 2016.

Trump’s relationship with Michael Flynn is central to the question of whether the president tried to interfere in the investigation of Flynn and whether he abused his authority in firing Director Comey. Trump is also alleged to have asked other intelligence officials to back off from the Flynn investigation. When asked by senators, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Advisor Mike Rogers said that they have never been “pressured” to interfere in an investigation. Neither would answer the question of whether Trump had ever broached the subject, however.

Right now, even after James Comey’s testimony, there are far more questions than answers. At this point, it is unknown whether a crime has been committed by either Mike Flynn or Donald Trump, but if there has been no crime then what has the White House cover-up been about? Did President Trump act illegally to protect Flynn? If so, why? Why did Trump really fire Comey? And why fire him when he did, months after taking office and seemingly out of the blue? The timing of the firing endangered the Republican legislative agenda at a time when the Republican health care reform had just passed the House and the party was looking towards tax reform.

Mike Flynn seems to hold many of the answers, but he isn’t talking. The retired general is invoking his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and refusing to comply with a subpoena to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Flynn also initially refused to comply with a subpoena for personal documents relating to his businesses. Eventually Flynn agreed to provide some documents after senators issued subpoenas his businesses as well.

With Special Counsel Bob Mueller likely investigating Flynn alongside the Senate Intelligence Committee, the probe into the Russian interference in the election and possible collaboration by members of the Trump campaign isn’t over yet. It’s just getting started and the relationship between President Trump and Gen. Flynn is likely to generate many more headlines before it’s over. 

Originally published on The Resurgent