Archives for October 2019

Trump Administration, Week 145, Friday, 25 October – Thursday, 31 October 2019 (Days 1,009-1,015)

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 25 October 2019, Day 1,009:

 

Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal, Judge Rules, Giving Democrats a Victory, The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Emily Cochrane, Friday, 25 October 2019: “A federal judge handed a victory to House Democrats on Friday when she ruled that they were legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a decision that undercut President Trump’s arguments that the investigation is a sham. The declaration came in a 75-page opinion by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She ruled that the House Judiciary Committee was entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Typically, Congress has no right to view such evidence. But in 1974, the courts permitted lawmakers to see such materials as they weighed whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon. The House is now immersed in the same process focused on Mr. Trump, Judge Howell ruled, and that easily outweighs any need to keep the information secret from lawmakers.” See also, U.S. judge orders Mueller grand jury materials released to House Judiciary Committee in impeachment inquiry, The Washington Post, Spencer S. Hsu, Friday, 25 October 2019: “A federal judge Friday ordered the Justice Department to release certain grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation to the House Judiciary Committee amid its impeachment inquiry. The materials must be disclosed by Wednesday. In a 75-page opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington handed a victory to House Democrats, saying the House was legally engaged in a judicial process that exempts Congress from normal grand jury secrecy rules.”  See also, Federal Judge Rules Mueller Grand Jury Materials Must Be Transmitted to Congress, The Wall Street Journal, Byron Tau, Friday, 25 October 2019: “A federal judge ruled Congress can get its hands on grand-jury evidence collected by former special counsel Robert Mueller, and also determined that wide-ranging House inquiries into President Trump have legal standing as an impeachment investigation. U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell granted a request from the House Judiciary Committee for access to material that was redacted from the 448-page special counsel report, released in the spring, as well as some of the exhibits and transcripts referenced in the report. The Justice Department has sought to prevent Congress from getting the full, unredacted report. As part of her ruling on Friday, Judge Howell also rejected arguments from Mr. Trump and his allies that the impeachment inquiry isn’t valid without a full House vote to authorize the process, the first time the judiciary has weighed in on the legality of the House inquiry. The administration has used that lack of a vote as a reason to try to keep witnesses from testifying and to ignore requests for documents.” See also, Federal judge rules the Department of Justice must turn over Mueller grand jury material to House Democrats, Politico, Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, Friday, 25 October 2019.

Government Inspectors General Demand Justice Department Withdraw Whistle-Blower Ruling, The New York Times, Julian E. Barnes, Friday, 25 October 2019: “The government’s inspectors general sharply criticized a Justice Department ruling from last month that determined that the whistle-blower complaint about President Trump’s call with Ukraine’s leader should not go to Congress. The opinion could ‘seriously impair whistle-blowing” and deter intelligence officials from reporting waste, fraud and misconduct, about 70 inspectors general from across the government warned in the letter, dated Oct. 22 and released on Friday. ‘Whistle-blowers play an essential public service in coming forward with such information, and they should never suffer reprisal or even the threat of reprisal for doing so,’ wrote the inspectors general, who serve as independent watchdogs for their agencies.”

How a Veteran Reporter Worked with Giuliani’s Associates to Launch the Ukraine Conspiracy, ProPublica, Jake Pearson, Mike Spies and J. David McSwane, Friday, 25 October 2019: “Last March, a veteran Washington reporter taped an interview with a Ukrainian prosecutor that sparked a disinformation campaign alleging Joe Biden pressured Ukrainians into removing a prosecutor investigating a company because of its ties to the former vice president’s son. The interview and subsequent columns, conducted and written by a writer for The Hill newspaper, John Solomon, were the starting gun that eventually set off the impeachment inquiry into the president. Watching from the control booth of The Hill’s TV studio was Lev Parnas, who helped arrange the interview. Parnas and his partner Igor Fruman were working with the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to promote a story that it was Democrats and not Republicans who colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted the duo this month on allegations that they illegally funneled foreign money into U.S. political campaigns.”

Continue reading Week 145, Friday, 25 October – Thursday, 31 October 2019 (Days 1,009-1,015)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 144, Friday, 18 October – Thursday, 24 October 2019 (Days 1,002-1,008)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 18 October 2019, Day 1,002:

 

On Day 1,001, Trump Made It Clear: Being ‘Presidential’ Is Boring. If he acted ‘presidential,’ Mr. Trump said Thursday night in Dallas, ‘everybody would be out of here so fast.’ The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 18 October 2019: “After 1,000 days of the Trump Show, the capacity for surprise has long since diminished and comments or actions that would have set off days of front-page coverage and howls from Capitol Hill now barely register. The shocker that consumed Twitter three hours ago is so quickly overwhelmed by the next one that it seems impossible to digest any single moment to assess its meaning or consequences…. After 1,000 days in office, Mr. Trump has redefined what it means to be presidential. On the 1,001st day of his tenure, which was Thursday, all pretense of normalcy went out the window. It was a day when he boasted of saving ‘millions of lives’ by temporarily stopping a Middle East war that he effectively allowed to start in the first place, then compared the combatants to children who had to be allowed to slug each other to get it out of their system. It was a day when he announced without any evident embarrassment that officials of the federal government that answers to him had scoured the country for a site for next year’s Group of 7 summit meeting and determined that the perfect location, the very best site in all the United States, just happened to be a property he owned in Florida.”

Clashes and Confusion Mar Attempt at Cease-Fire in Syria, The New York Times, Patrick Kingsley and Carlotta Gall, Friday, 18 October 2019: “Sporadic fighting continued in northern Syria on Friday, casting uncertainty over an American-brokered truce, as conflicting reports emerged about whether Kurdish forces were retreating or hunkering down and whether Turkish troops were advancing or holding fire.”

In admitting then denying quid pro quo, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney turns harsh impeachment spotlight on himself, The Washington Post, Toluse Olorunnipa and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 18 October 2019: “The hastily announced White House news conference was supposed to be a full-throated defense of President Trump’s controversial decision to host next year’s Group of Seven summit at his private golf club in Florida. By the time it was over, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had made much more explosive news — adding to Trump’s impeachment troubles and calling into question his ability to lead the White House staff in a time of crisis. Mulvaney’s performance the day before continued to reverberate Friday as Republican lawmakers, the Justice Department, Trump’s personal attorney, conservative media figures and several White House officials panned the news conference or distanced themselves from its contents.”

Continue reading Week 144, Friday, 18 October – Thursday, 24 October 2019 (Days 1,002-1,008)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 143, Friday, 11 October – Thursday, 17 October 2019 (Days 995-1,001)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 11 October 2019, Day 995:

 

Appeals Court Rules Congress Can Seek Trump’s Financial Records, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Friday, 11 October 2019: “President Trump’s accounting firm must comply with a House committee’s demands for eight years of his financial records, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Friday in a major victory for House Democrats in their struggle against his vow to stonewall ‘all’ of their oversight subpoenas. In a 66-page ruling, the panel rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that Congress had no legitimate legislative authority to seek his business records from the firm, Mazars USA, because the committee was trying to determine whether he broke existing laws — not weighing whether to enact a new one. ‘Having considered the weighty issues at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,’ wrote Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Mr. Trump is virtually certain to appeal the ruling, either to the full Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court. But the decision — affirming an earlier ruling by a Federal District Court judge — was the first test at the appeals court level of the Trump legal team’s sweeping challenges to the constitutional authority of Congress to conduct oversight of his activities.” See also, Appeals court rules against Trump in fight with Congress over president’s accounting firm records, The Washington Post, David A. Fahrenthold, Spencer S. Hsu, and Ann E. Marimow, Friday, 11 October 2019: “Congress can seek eight years of President Trump’s business records from his accounting firm, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled Friday in one of several legal battles over access to the president’s financial data. In a 2-to-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld Congress’s broad investigative powers and rejected the president’s bid to block lawmakers from subpoenaing the documents. That three-judge panel’s ruling is a significant victory for the Democratic-led House, but it will not result in the House obtaining Trump’s tax returns — at least, not immediately. The House agreed to hold off on enforcing the subpoenas while Trump’s appeal is pending. Trump could keep it pending for weeks or months by appealing the case to the full D.C. Circuit.” See also, Trump loses appeal to withhold financial records from Democrats, Politico, Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein, Friday, 11 October 2019.

Judges Strike Several Blows to Trump Immigration Policies. Judges in three states ruled against a policy that would withhold green cards to immigrants who receive public assistance such as Medicaid. Another judge rejected Trump’s plan to divert funds to erect a border wall. The New York Times, Miriam Jordan, Friday, 11 October 2019: “President Trump’s immigration agenda ran into legal blockades in courts around the country on Friday as judges in four states barred his administration from trying to withhold green cards from people who use public benefits and rejected his plan to divert funds to erect a border wall. In three rulings, federal judges in New York, California and Washington State issued injunctions temporarily blocking the ‘public charge’ rule, which would impose serious impediments to legal residency for those who use benefits such as Medicaid or those deemed likely to use them in the future. The rule, widely seen as an attempt to keep out immigrants who are poor or in need of help, was one of the Trump administration’s signature immigration policies — and it ran into a legal brick wall in three corners of the country on a single day…. Trump faced yet another legal setback in Texas, where a senior federal judge in El Paso ruled on Friday that he had acted unlawfully in announcing he would tap $3.6 billion in Pentagon money intended for military construction to build a barrier along the nation’s southwestern border.” See also, Federal Judges in 3 States Block Trump’s ‘Public Charge’ Rule for Green Cards, NPR, Laurel Wamsley, Pam Fessler, and Richard Gonzales, Friday, 11 October 2019: “Federal judges in three states — New York, California and Washington — have issued temporary injunctions against the Trump administration’s ‘public charge’ rule, preventing it from taking effect on Oct. 15. The controversial rule would make it more difficult for immigrants to get green cards if it looks as though they might need public assistance. Titled ‘Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,’ the rule sparked several legal challenges. See also, Judge rules Trump violated the law on wall funding with national emergency. In February 2019 Trump ordered that money for Pentagon construction projects be used instead for the barrier on Mexico’s border. NBC News, Pete Williams, Friday, 11 October 2019: “A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he used his declaration of a national emergency to get millions for building a wall on the southern border. The ruling is a victory for El Paso County, Texas, and the Border Network for Human Rights, which sued to stop border construction in their community. They argued that Trump had no legal authority to spend more than what Congress appropriated for the wall project. In January the president asked for $5.7 billion to build ‘a steel barrier for the Southwest border,’ but Congress approved only $1.375 billion. In February, Trump declared a national emergency and ordered that money for Pentagon construction projects would be used instead for the wall.”

Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Says She Was Told Trump Wanted Her Our Over Lack of Trust. Her Boss Told Her She Had ‘Done Nothing Wrong.’ The New York Times, Sharon La Franiere, Nicholas Fandos, and Andrew E. Kramer, Friday, 11 October 2019: “The State Department’s request went in early March to Marie L. Yovanovitch, a longtime diplomat who had served six presidents: Would she extend her term as ambassador to Ukraine, scheduled to end in August, into 2020? Less than two months later came another departmental communiqué: Get ‘on the next plane’ to Washington. Her ambassadorship was over. How and why Ms. Yovanovitch was removed from her job has emerged as a major focus of the impeachment inquiry being conducted by House Democrats. And in nearly nine hours of testimony behind closed doors on Capitol Hill on Friday, Ms. Yovanovitch said she was told after her recall that President Trump had lost trust in her and had been seeking her ouster since summer 2018 — even though, one of her bosses told her, she had ‘done nothing wrong.’ Her version of events added a new dimension to the tale of the campaign against her. It apparently began with a business proposition being pursued in Ukraine by two Americans who, according to an indictment against them unsealed on Thursday, wanted her gone, and who would later become partners with the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani in digging up political dirt in Ukraine for Mr. Trump…. DOCUMENT: Read Ms. Yovanovitch’s opening statement.” See also, Marie Yovanovitch, ousted ambassador to Ukraine, tells Congress Trump pressured the State Department to remove her, The Washington Post, John Hudson, Karoun Demirjian, Rachael Bade, and Paul Sonne, Friday, 11 October 2019: “The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine whose abrupt ouster in May has become a focus of House impeachment investigators said Friday in remarks before Congress that her departure came as a direct result of pressure President Trump placed on the State Department to remove her. The account by Marie Yovanovitch depicts a career Foreign Service officer caught in a storm of unsubstantiated allegations pushed by the president’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and a cast of former Ukrainian officials who viewed her as a threat to their financial and political interests. She told lawmakers that she was forced to leave Kiev on ‘the next plane’ this spring and subsequently removed from her post, with the State Department’s No. 2 official telling her that, although she had done nothing wrong, the president had lost confidence in her and the agency had been under significant pressure to remove her since the summer of 2018.”

Continue reading Week 143, Friday, 11 October – Thursday, 17 October 2019 (Days 995-1,001)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 142, Friday, 4 October – Thursday, 10 October 2019 (Days 988-994)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 4 October 2019, Day 988:

 

Trump Denies Quid Pro Quo for Ukraine, but Text Messages and Testimony Collected by Congressional Investigators Indicated That His Own Representatives Saw It Differently, The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 4 October 2019: “President Trump denied again on Friday that there was any quid pro quo attached to his pressure on Ukraine to investigate his political enemies, but text messages and testimony collected by congressional investigators indicated that his own representatives saw it differently. Envoys representing Mr. Trump sought to leverage the power of his office to prod Ukraine into opening investigations that would damage his Democratic opponents at home. They made clear to Ukrainian officials that the White House invitation their newly inaugurated president coveted depended on his commitment to the investigations. And the senior American diplomat posted in Ukraine suspected it went even further than a trade of an Oval Office visit. He told colleagues that it appeared that unfreezing $391 million in American aid that Mr. Trump had blocked was contingent on the former Soviet republic following through on the politically charged investigations sought by the president and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, a conclusion sharply denied by another diplomat who said there were ‘no quid pro quo’s.’ The text messages, provided to three Democrat-led House committees by the former special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt D. Volker, may shape the impeachment inquiry now threatening the future of Mr. Trump’s presidency. They provided new pieces of a timeline of events in recent months and a road map for further investigation by House Democrats.” See also, Read the Text Messages Between U.S. and Ukrainian Officials, The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Josh Williams, Friday, 4 October 2019. See also, Texts of senior State Department officials reveal belief that Trump wanted investigations as condition of meeting with Ukraine’s president, The Washington Post, Karoun Demirjian, Rachael Bade, Josh Dawsey, and John Hudson, Friday, 4 October 2019: “House investigators released numerous text messages late Thursday night illustrating how senior State Department officials coordinated with the Ukrainian president’s top aide and President Trump’s personal lawyer to leverage a potential summit between the heads of state on a promise from the Ukrainians to investigate the 2016 U.S. election and an energy company that employed the son of 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The texts, which former special U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker provided investigators during a nearly 10-hour deposition Thursday, reveal that officials felt Trump would not agree to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky unless Zelensky promised to launch the investigations — and did so publicly. Although the texts do not mention Biden by name, congressional Democrats leading an impeachment inquiry are pointing to them as clear evidence that Trump conditioned normal bilateral relations with Ukraine on that country first agreeing ‘to launch politically motivated investigations,’ top Democrats said in a statement Thursday night.” See also, Former State Department Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker Gives New Details on Rudy Giuliani’s Role in Ukraine Policy, The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 4 October 2019: “The former State Department special envoy for Ukraine told congressional investigators that Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, demanded that Ukraine specifically commit to investigate involvement in the 2016 election and a firm tied to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. During testimony behind closed doors on Thursday, the special envoy, Kurt D. Volker, said Mr. Giuliani rejected a generic draft statement that Ukraine’s government had agreed to issue committing to fighting corruption generally. Instead, Mr. Giuliani said the Ukrainians had to promise to pursue two specific investigations that could damage the president’s political domestic adversaries.” See also, Texts Indicate the Trump Administration Used Potential Meeting to Pressure Ukraine on Biden, The Wall Street Journal, Rebecca Ballhaus, Siobhan Hughes, and Dustin Volz, Friday, 4 October 2019: “The Trump administration sought to use a potential meeting between the president and his Ukrainian counterpart as leverage to press Kyiv to investigate Joe Biden, newly released text messages indicated, as President Trump called on China to also investigate his political rival. The president’s efforts to persuade Ukraine in a July phone call to investigate Mr. Biden have already set off an impeachment inquiry by House Democrats, who are looking at whether the president abused the power of his office for political gain. Text messages released by House committees late Thursday revealed that Trump administration officials sought to use a White House meeting between Mr. Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart as leverage to press the Ukrainian government to pursue an investigation into Mr. Biden and other matters. The messages indicate that U.S. officials coordinated with aides to the Ukrainian president and Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, on a draft statement in which Kyiv would announce an investigation into Mr. Biden and the 2016 U.S. election—at the same time as announcing a visit by the Ukrainian president to the White House.” See also, Damning text messages detail Trump pressure on Ukraine, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb and Paul LeBlanc, Friday, 4 October 2019: “Text messages released on Thursday between US diplomats and a senior Ukrainian aide show how a potential Ukrainian investigation into the 2016 election was linked to a desired meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump.” See also, Trump, in August Phone Call With Republican Senator Ron Johnson, Denied Official’s Claim on Ukraine Aid, The Wall Street Journal, Siobhan Hughes and Rebecca Ballhaus, Friday, 4 October 2019: “A Republican senator said he was told by an American diplomat in August that the release of U.S. aid to Ukraine was contingent on an investigation desired by President Trump and his allies, but Mr. Trump denied pursuing any such proposal when the lawmaker pressed him on it. Sen. Ron Johnson said that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had described to him a quid pro quo involving a commitment by Kyiv to probe matters related to U.S. elections and the status of nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Ukraine that the president had ordered to be held up in July.” See also, Kurt Volker, Former Special Envoy to Ukraine, Told Congress That Trump’s Biden Conspiracy ‘Has No Credibility to Me,’ BuzzFeed News, Christopher Miller, Sarah Mimms, and Zoe Tillman, Friday, 4 October 2019.

2nd Official Is Weighing Whether to Blow the Whistle on Trump’s Ukraine Dealings, New York Times, Michael S. Schmidt and Adam Goldman, Friday, 4 October 2019: “A second intelligence official who was alarmed by President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine is weighing whether to file his own formal whistle-blower complaint and testify to Congress, according to two people briefed on the matter. The official has more direct information about the events than the first whistle-blower, whose complaint that Mr. Trump was using his power to get Ukraine to investigate his political rivals touched off an impeachment inquiry. The second official is among those interviewed by the intelligence community inspector general to corroborate the allegations of the original whistle-blower, one of the people said.The inspector general, Michael Atkinson, briefed lawmakers privately on Friday  about how he substantiated the whistle-blower’s account. It was not clear whether he told lawmakers that the second official was considering filing a complaint.”

Impeachment Investigators Subpoena White House and Ask Vice President Mike Pence for Documents on Ukraine, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 4 October 2019: “House impeachment investigators widened the reach of their inquiry on Friday, subpoenaing the White House for a vast trove of documents and requesting more from Vice President Mike Pence to better understand President Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. The subpoena, addressed to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, calls for documents and communications that are highly delicate and would typically be subject in almost any White House to claims of executive privilege. If handed over by the Oct. 18 deadline, the records could provide keys to understanding what transpired between the two countries and what steps, if any, the White House has taken to cover it up.” See also, House Democrats subpoena White House for Ukraine documents. They also demanded Ukraine documents from Vice President Mike Pence. Politico, Andrew Desiderio, John Bresnahan, and Heather Caygle, Friday, 4 October 2019: “Three top House Democrats subpoenaed the White House on Friday night seeking documents related to President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian officials to target his political rivals, a dramatic escalation of the impeachment fight with the president. The subpoena was sent to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney by three Democratic committee chairmen — Reps. Adam Schiff of Intelligence, Eliot Engel of Foreign Affairs and Elijah Cummings of Oversight…. Democrats gave the White House a two-week deadline of Oct. 18 to comply with their demand, and they warned Mulvaney — a former House member himself — that his ‘failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena, including at the behest of the President or others at the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstructing the House’s impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President.'” See also, What happened on impeachment on Friday, The Washington Post, John Wagner, Colby Itkowitz, and Marisa Iati, Friday, 4 October 2019: “The House committees leading the impeachment inquiry requested a long list of documents and communications Friday from Vice President Pence related to Ukraine. Earlier, President Trump said that Democrats ‘unfortunately have the votes’ to impeach him in the House, but he predicted he would ‘win’ in a trial in the Republican-led Senate…. Trump’s comments to reporters at the White House came as fallout continued Friday from the late-night release of text messages by House investigators, while another key figure, the inspector general of the intelligence community, testified on Capitol Hill behind closed doors. The texts released late Thursday show how State Department officials coordinated with Zelensky’s top aide and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to leverage a potential summit between Trump and Zelensky on a promise from the Ukrainians to investigate an energy company, Burisma, that had employed Hunter Biden.” See also, House Democrats subpoena White House over Ukraine documents, The Guardian, Tom McCarthy and Julia Carrie Wong, Friday, 4 October 2019. See also, House Democrats subpoena White House for Ukraine documents, escalating impeachment inquiry, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb, Friday, 4 October 2019.

Continue reading Week 142, Friday, 4 October – Thursday, 10 October 2019 (Days 988-994)

[Read more…]