Mediaboss Marketing

Impeachment by its nature, its a political process. What people think is going to happen can turn out to be very different from what happens. Because it has to do with elected officials holding another elected official to account for their conduct. When the framers of the Constitution created a process to remove a president from office, they were well kind of vague. So to understand how its going to play out, the past is really our best guide. I think were just all in for a really crazy ride. Collectively, these New York Times reporters have covered U.S. politics for over 150 years. Im also a drummer in a band, so Theyve reported on past impeachment inquiries. Yea, Im lost in Senate wonderland. And they say that the three weve had so far have been full of twists and turns. The president of the United States is not guilty as charged. In short, expect the unexpected. First, the process. Impeachment is technically only the initial stage. Common misconceptions about impeachment are that impeachment by itself means removal from office. It doesnt. The impeachment part of the process is only the indictment that sets up a trial. The Constitution describes offenses that are grounds for removing the president from office as bribery, treason and They say high crimes and misdemeanors, which, really, is in the eye of the beholder. The framers didnt give us a guidebook to it. They simply said, that the House had the responsibility for impeachment and the Senate had the responsibility for the trial. One of the things missing from the Constitution? How an impeachment inquiry should start. And that has generally been a source of drama. Basically, anything goes. In fact, in the Andrew Johnson case they voted to impeach him without even having drafted the articles of impeachment. For Richard Nixon, his case started with several investigations that led to public hearings. That part of the process went on for two years, and yielded revelation after revelation, connecting Nixon to a politically-motivated burglary at D.N.C. headquarters located in the Watergate office building. and its subsequent cover-up. Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president? I was aware of listening devices. Yes, sir. This was a shocker. Everybody in the White House recognized how damaging this could be. As the House drafted articles of impeachment, Nixon lost the support of his party. O.K., I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. I was asked to write the farewell piece that ran the morning after Nixon resigned. And this is what I wrote: The central question is how a man who won so much could have lost so much. So for Nixon, it more or less ended after the investigations. But for Bill Clinton, that phase was just the beginning. This is the information. An independent counsels investigation into his business dealings unexpectedly turned into a very public inquiry about his personal life. The idea that a president of the United States was having an affair with a White House intern and then a federal prosecutor was looking at that, it was just extraordinary. That investigation led to public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. When the Starr Report was being delivered to Congress it was a little bit like the O.J. chase, only a political one. There were two black cars. They were being filmed live on CNN. They were heading towards the Capitol. We were watching it and a little bit agog. Public opinion is key. And the media plays a huge part in the process. This was definitely true for Clinton. You know it was just a crazy time. We worked in the Senate press gallery. All your colleagues are kind of piled on top of each other. We had crummy computers, the fax machine would always break. The printer would always break. After committee hearings, the House brought formal impeachment charges. It was very tense. I thought that the Saturday of the impeachment vote in the House was one of the most tense days Id experienced in Washington. And it turned out, also, full of surprises. The day of impeachment arrived, everyones making very impassioned speeches about whether Bill Clinton should or should not be impeached and Livingston rises to give an argument for the House Republicans. He started to talk about how Clinton could resign. You, sir, may resign your post. And all of a sudden people start booing and saying, Resign, resign! So I must set the example. He announced he was resigning because he had had extramarital affairs and challenged President Clinton to do the only honorable thing, in his view I hope President Clinton will follow. to resign as well, so there was all this drama unfolding even in the midst of impeachment. Then it went to the Senate for trial. The Constitution gets a little more specific about this part. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to preside over that trial. Rehnquist, he showed up in this robe he had made for himself, which had gold stripes on the sleeves because he liked Gilbert and Sullivan. The Senate is the actual jury. You will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help you, God. This is a copy of the rules of the Senate for handling impeachment. Theyre actually very specific. Meet six days a week. Convene at noon. The senators have to sit at their desks and remain quiet in their role as jurors. And not talk, which trust me, is going to be a problem for some of the senators who are used to talking all the time. Its just like a courtroom trial. There are prosecutors who present the case against the president. That was perjury. Only, theyre members of the House, and theyre called managers. Then the senators, or the jurors, vote. And things are still, unpredictable. The options are guilty or not guilty. But there was one senator Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania. Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proved. which is not a thing. And everybody just looks, you know, how do you even record that vote? In the end, there were not enough votes to oust Clinton. Whats amazing about this whole thing to me wasnt so much the constitutional process. It was that it felt to me like the beginning of really intense partisanship, the weaponization of partisanship. And heres the thing: An impeachment charge has never gotten the two-thirds majority it needs in the Senate to actually oust a president from office. So you could end up having a situation where the president is impeached, acquitted and runs for re-election and wins re-election. And that would be a first. This is my ticket to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. I dont think youll find these on StubHub.

See original here:
A Mysterious -1 and Other Call Records Show How Giuliani Pressured Ukraine - The New York Times

Donald Trump Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images

The House Intelligence Committees impeachment inquiry report demonstrates in exhaustive detail that President Trump and numerous aides pressured Ukraine to open investigations for Trumps political benefit. The report describes this as a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.

But the effort almost certainly took place over years, not months. Indeed it grew directly out of the ties developed between Trumps campaign and Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign.

The Ukraine scandal burst into the view of Congress and the public this summer when the House Intelligence Committee obtained a whistle-blowers report. The report focused on a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, and Trumps plot to withhold military aid as leverage. But the fact that this sequence of events was exposed does not mean it is the entirety of the plot. The sequence of events instead suggests that Trump has been extorting Ukraine for his own political gain not only in 2017, but during the previous two years as well.

Begin with Trumps notion that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked Democratic emails. This is the idea he raises in his call with Zelensky, asking his befuddled Ukrainian counterpart to locate a server that, according to this bizarre conspiracy theory, was handed by Democrats over to Ukrainians and that would prove Russia had been framed. American intelligence officials have described the theory as a Russian-backed disinformation campaign.

Where did Trump get this idea from? He seems to have first heard it in the summer of 2016, from Paul Manafort, his campaign manager. Manaforts deputy, Rick Gates, told Robert Mueller that Manafort had been spouting the theory that Ukrainians framed Russia since the summer of 2016, and that the theory seemed to come from Manaforts partner, Konstantin Kilimnik, who American officials believed was a Russian intelligence operative.

By April 2017, Trump was repeating this theory in public, falsely telling an Associated Press reporter that a Ukrainian-based company had taken the Democratic server with the stolen emails. A few months after that, Rudy Giuliani began meeting with Ukrainian officials. Giuliani recently explained that he pursued the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had hacked Democratic emails because it would exonerate Trump. Obviously, Trump could not have colluded with Russia to exploit stolen emails if Russia hadnt stolen the emails in the first place. I knew they were hot and heavy on this Russian collusion thing, even though I knew 100 percent that it was false, he told Glenn Beck. I said to myself, Hallelujah. Ive got what a defense lawyer always wants: I can go prove someone else committed this crime.

Giuliani undertook what appear to be two previous episodes of trading diplomatic favors to Ukrainians in return for steps to protect Trump from the Mueller investigation. The first apparent trade involved a meeting between Trump and Ukraines then-president Petro Poroshenko in return for a Ukrainian investigation that would exonerate Manafort, then a prime target of Muellers.

Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake summarizes the timeline:

June 8, 2017: Trump ally Rudolph W. Giuliani meets with Poroshenko and then-Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko.June 9, 2017: Lutsenkos office joins an existing investigation into the black ledger, which implicated former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The investigation had previously been handled only by Ukraines independent National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), and critics alleged the new move was meant to bury the scandal.June 14, 2017: Reports in Europe indicate Poroshenko will meet with Trump.June 19, 2017: Spicer says Poroshenko will meet with Vice President Pence, but doesnt confirm a meeting with Trump.June 20, 2017: Poroshenko gets a brief drop-in visit with Trump.This is either a direct trade, or an exchange of mutually-beneficial actions that coincidentally occurred in very rapid succession.

The next apparent quid pro quo took place the next year. The U.S. sold desperately needed Javelin missiles to Ukraine that year, and the New York Times reported at the time that Ukraine suspended cooperation with the Mueller investigation. (This is another one of those Trump-era episodes where a credible report of shocking misconduct immediately sinks without a trace into the vast ooze of other Trumpian outrages.) In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials, one Ukrainian lawmaker and close ally of President Poroshenko explained to the Times.

The benefit of this move to Trump was immense. Manafort and Kilimnik were key figures in the Mueller probe. Mueller found that Manafort had slipped Kilimnik 75 pages of polling data during a meeting in the summer of 2016. Here you have proof that Trumps campaign manager gave valuable, detailed information to a known Russian spy, at a time when the Russians were running a pro-Trump media operation. But Mueller never determined what the polling was for. And Kilimnik was able to leave Ukraine and escape to Russia, where Mueller could not interview him. A State Department document concluded that Lutsenko, who had met with Giuliani, allowed Kilimnik to leave the country.

Neither of these episodes has been investigated in anything like the depth of the 2019 episodes. But both bear all the same superficial hallmarks to what occurred this year. In both instances, Giuliani had contacts with Ukrainian officials, and traded the same things (a presidential meeting and military aid). Also in both cases, Ukraine put its famously corrupt judicial system at the disposal of Trumps domestic interests.

In 2017 and 2018, Trump was consumed by the Mueller investigation, and seems to have pushed Ukraine to take steps to stymie it. By 2019, Giuliani had taken an interest in claims of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and added demands for a Biden probe to his push for investigations that would exonerate Russias (and therefore Trumps) behavior in 2016.

By 2019, Trump and Giuliani were barely hiding their actions. Giuliani was boasting about his activities to every reporter who would listen. And Trump was directing a growing array of officials to follow Giulianis lead, despite the obvious impropriety of placing American foreign policy in the hands of his private attorney who was openly working on his political behalf.

Why did they flaunt their scheme so widely and carelessly? Most likely because they had already been doing the same thing for two years.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

Original post:
Trump Extorted Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 Before Getting Caught This Year - New York Magazine

Mark Sandy, from the Office of Management and Budget, arrives to the U.S. Capitol earlier this month for a deposition regarding whether President Trump ordered a hold on military assistance to Ukraine. Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images hide caption

Mark Sandy, from the Office of Management and Budget, arrives to the U.S. Capitol earlier this month for a deposition regarding whether President Trump ordered a hold on military assistance to Ukraine.

One thing all parties in the impeachment saga can agree on: $391 million in security assistance earmarked for Ukraine was withheld this past summer by the Trump White House and released on Sept. 11.

There's far less consensus, though, about just when that hold began. It's a key question, since that date may prove crucial for establishing whether the aid freeze violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, or ICA.

The Democratic-led House budget and appropriations committees have expressed "serious concerns that President Trump and his administration violated the ICA in withholding these funds." The committees have put the Trump administration on notice that they "are examining when, why, and how these funds were withheld; and whether these actions prevented agencies from spending the full amount that Congress provided for these activities, thus thwarting the will of Congress."

Here's a timeline of what's been learned about the timing of the Ukraine aid hold. It's based on testimony heard during the two weeks of the House intelligence committee's public impeachment hearings, as well as from transcripts that have been released of closed door depositions:

June 18, 2019: The Pentagon announces plans "to provide $250 million to Ukraine in security cooperation funds for additional training, equipment and advisory efforts to build the capacity of Ukraine's armed forces."

June 19: President Trump starts asking about the Ukraine military assistance, according to Mark Sandy, a career official in the Office of Management and Budget. Sandy told House investigators he learned of Trump's queries in an e-mail from Mike Duffey, a political appointee who oversees funding for military, intelligence and international affairs at OMB. This was the same day a report about the Pentagon's announced Ukraine assistance appeared in the Washington Examiner, a conservative website and weekly tabloid.

July 3: This is the earliest publicly known date when a hold on the Ukraine assistance appears to have been imposed. "On July 3, I learned," Jennifer Williams, a Russia adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, told the House Intelligence panel, "that the Office of Management and Budget had placed a hold on a tranche of security assistance designated for Ukraine."

July 12: Further evidence of a hold on the Ukraine aid is found in an email that OMB's Sandy received on this date from Robert Blair, a senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Asked at a closed door deposition what was said in that email, Sandy replied, "to the best of my recollection, that the president is directing a hold on military support funding for Ukraine."

July 18: The hold becomes more widely known within the Trump administration. State Department Ukraine expert Catherine Croft, who'd been detailed to the National Security Council, told a public hearing of the impeachment inquiry that on this date, "I participated in a sub-Policy Coordination Committee video conference where an OMB representative reported that the White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, had placed an informal hold on security assistance to Ukraine. The only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the President."

July 19: The Department of Defense has been notified of the hold, according to OMB's Sandy, who told House investigators he was informed of this by OMB political appointee Mike Duffey. Sandy said he asked Duffey what the duration of the hold would be "and was told there was not clear guidance on that." He also expressed concern to Duffey about the freeze on funds possibly violating the Impoundment Control Act, since it could lead to the expiration of those funds.

July 25: OMB's Sandy signs the first document making the hold official and valid through Aug. 5. This is the same day Trump called Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and asked for "a favor": that Zelenskiy would probe Joe Biden and his son Hunter's activities in Ukraine as well as a debunked claim that Ukraine, not Russia, had hacked the Democratic National Committee's computer server.

Hours after that phone call takes place, the State Department receives two emails from Ukraine's embassy in Washington. That's according to Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. "One was received on July 25, at 2:31 p.m. That email said that the Ukrainian embassy and House foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance," Cooper told the House intelligence committee. "The second email was received July 25 at 4:25 p.m. That email said the Hill knows about the [Foreign Military Financing] situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian embassy."

July 30: OMB's Sandy is informed he will no longer be approving the holds on Ukraine assistance. Instead, he tells House investigators, political appointee Mike Duffey would sign off on such documents. "He had an interest in being more involved in daily operations," says Duffey, "and he regarded this responsibility as a way for him to learn more about the specific accounts in his area."

Mid-August to early September: Duffey signs "at least half a dozen" additional temporary holds on the Ukraine assistance, according to Sandy.

August 28: Politico scoops a previously unreported story: that the Trump administration is "slow-walking $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine."

Sept. 11: The hold is lifted on the Ukraine assistance, 85 days after the Pentagon announced that aid had become available. That leaves only 19 days to obligate that funding.

Sept. 30: End of the fiscal year. According to OMB's Sandy, $35 million in funds do not get spent in time to meet the deadline. Congress includes that same amount in a continuing resolution to ensure the aid reaches Ukraine.

Link:
Impeachment testimony builds a timeline for withholding Ukrainian aid - NPR

NYON, Switzerland As world heavyweight boxing champions for more than a decade, Wladimir Klitschko and his brother Vitali helped establish Ukraine on the sports map.

Now that Ukraine and its capital city of Kyiv where Vitali is mayor are part of the United States daily news agenda, learning about the eastern European countrys place in the world is not so difficult.

Not anymore, Wladimir Klitschko told The Associated Press in an interview at the home of European soccer body UEFA, where he is a trustee of the groups childrens charity foundation. There is no doubt that at least people will know, in the U.S. especially.

The younger Klitschko brother visited Switzerland after spending time this month in New York, where rolling cable news coverage is repeating a theme that corruption is rife in his home country.

With something bad, there is also something good, said Klitschko, who projects positive thinking and developed a Swiss university course in innovative management. It is much more fun to solve a challenge than to have a problem.

Klitschko, a gold medalist at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, celebrated Ukraine like the national soccer team qualifying for the 2020 European Championship.

Have you seen what Shevchenko has done for the team? he enthused.

Like Klitschko, Ukraine coach Andriy Shevchenko is a beloved athlete at home trying to give something back to fans.

Ukrainians, as a nation, we are super-talented, Klitschko said, praising hit HBO drama Chernobyl for showing the toughness of its people. We are well educated, we are serving society.

The Klitschko Foundation has involved more than 1.8 million children and youths in Ukraine since being created in 2003, the year Wladimirs first world title reign ended. He regained versions of the heavyweight belt in 2006 and stayed unbeaten for nine more years.

One of its established projects, to equip schools with sports equipment, was among 42 schemes that won UEFA Foundation for Children funding this month worth a combined $5.2 million.

We are trying to motivate, Klitschko said. You need to be active. You need to be the driving force in your community, in the school.

When Klitschko talks about Ukrainian leaders, a common thread emerges linking men born in the 1970s in the former Soviet Union.

He and Shevchenko are 43. So is the co-founder of WhatsApp, Jan Koum. Mayor Vitali Klitschko is 48. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the former comic actor and producer who has an unwitting central role in the U.S. presidential impeachment process, soon turns 42.

Klitschko noted: (Were) trying to bring more for this talented nation.

He is cautious, however, when asked if a nation of 44 million people prefers public leaders they already admired in another field.

The trust needs to be stronger, Klitschko said. But trust comes only with time and corruption needs to be reduced. We probably cannot get rid of it. Evil and good is always going to be neighbors.

He supports closer ties with the European Union and expressed admiration for leadership values in Germany, where both brothers often fought title bouts.

Its been more than 2 years since his final fight an 11th-round loss to Anthony Joshua in front of 90,000 people at Wembley Stadium, a modern record crowd for a heavyweight contest. He believes Joshua will regain his title belts in a rematch with Andy Ruiz Jr. next week in Saudi Arabia.

Retired from the ring, Klitschko foresees a big future for himself and his country.

Nothing is impossible. A boxer could become a mayor of 4 million people. A comedian can become president, he said. Its not only in America. Anything can happen in Ukraine.

___

Go here to see the original:
AP Interview: Boxing Champ Klitschko Proud to Be Ukrainian - The New York Times

Mark Sandy, a senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget, outside the Capitol before his close-door deposition earlier this month. Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images hide caption

Mark Sandy, a senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget, outside the Capitol before his close-door deposition earlier this month.

Updated at 7:57 p.m. ET

White House officials questioned whether President Trump might be breaking the law when he ordered military assistance for Ukraine frozen in July, according to transcripts released on Tuesday by House Democrats.

A career official with the Office of Management and Budget told impeachment investigators that he wasn't given details about why millions of dollars for Ukraine should not be paid but he observed to superiors that the move would raise big legal questions.

Mark Sandy, deputy associate director for national security within the Office of Management and Budget, talked with impeachment investigators behind closed doors on Nov. 16.

The transcript of his deposition was released on Tuesday along with that of Philip Reeker, a top State Department official.

An OMB attorney was said to have resigned at least in part over concerns about the need to follow the law, Sandy told investigators. A second OMB employee also resigned in September, Sandy said, after expressing "frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold."

In Sandy's case, he described receiving an email on July 12 from a supervisor that announced Trump wanted to hold up military-support funding for Ukraine.

No other country was mentioned and no explanation was included, according to the transcript. The message Sandy took away in so many words was: Stop the assistance now, and then you may learn why later.

" 'Let the hold take place' and I'm paraphrasing here 'and then revisit this issue with the president,' " was how Sandy described a conversation between two other White House officials.

No explanation was offered about freezing the assistance until September, Sandy said, when he remembered seeing an email about Trump's concern that other allies weren't contributing enough to Ukraine's defense.

Allegations about abuse of power

Sandy's testimony is important to Democrats' argument that Trump used his power capriciously the president did not say in real time, according to this account, that he was worried about corruption in Ukraine and wanted to freeze assistance until he was satisfied with reforms there.

That has been among explanations that the White House and others have since given about why Trump acted as he did. What Sandy's testimony illustrated was that no explanation was given in real time.

Moreover, critics argue, the law obligates Trump to dispose of funds in whatever way Congress designates. Sandy told investigators that when he learned of the hold, he warned about its implications under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.

The funds Trump wanted to freeze had to be used by Sept. 30, Sandy said. If they weren't, "they basically expire and they return to the Treasury."

A new summary released by the House Budget Committee earlier on Tuesday describes how the first official act to stop $250 million in security assistance took place on July 25 in a letter signed by an OMB official.

Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees warned the Trump administration in an Aug. 3 letter that any such hold could constitute an "illegal impoundment" of funds, the new document says.

That echoed the concerns that Sandy said he and some colleagues voiced inside the administration.

Ultimately, the White House released the Ukraine assistance in early September. Trump and aides had wrought a policy over the year aimed on extracting concessions from Ukraine's leader.

In exchange for a meeting and the military assistance, witnesses have said, Trump wanted Ukraine's president to announce investigations that Trump thought might help him in the 2020 election.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy never made such a commitment.

Nonetheless, Democrats call the actions in the Ukraine affair an abuse of power that could merit impeachment. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said on Tuesday that he plans to convene the next hearing in the process on Dec. 4.

Defenders: All's well that ended well

Republican defenders argue that the totality of Trump's actions on Ukraine over this year show there was no improper exchange. Trump's allies reject Democrats' claims of "attempted bribery" or "attempted extortion."

Trump maintains that his July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy was "perfect."

Read the original:
White House Officials Worried Freezing Ukraine Aid Could Break The Law - NPR