December 13, 2019

Trump Administration, Week 152, Friday, 13 December – Thursday, 19 December 2019 (Days 1,058-1,064)

 

 

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, 13 December 2019, Day 1,058:

 

House Judiciary Committee Approves Impeachment Articles and Sends Charges for a House Vote, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 13 December 2019: “A fiercely divided House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Friday, setting up a historic vote as early as next week before the full House that would make him only the third president to be impeached. The impeachment articles, passed over fierce Republican protests, accused the president of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. The votes and a fractious two-day debate preceding them reflected the realities of the hyperpartisan divisions in American politics that have grown wider during Mr. Trump’s three years in office.” See also, House set for historic floor vote next week after the House Judiciary Committee approves two articles of impeachment against Trump, The Washington Post, Mike DeBonis, John Wagner, and Toluse Olorunnipa, Friday, 13 December 2019: “The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Friday, officially laying out charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in a historic step toward removing him from office. With the party-line 23-to-17 vote, Trump became only the fourth president in U.S. history to face impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ The committee took just 10 minutes to approve both articles, following a 14-hour session Thursday, teeing up a history-making floor vote next week and a Senate trial in January to determine Trump’s fate.” See also, House Judiciary Committee sends articles of impeachment to the floor for vote next week, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb, Friday, 13 December 2019. See also, House Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment, paving way for floor vote, Politico, Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio, Friday, 13 December 2019. See also, House Judiciary Committee Approves Trump Impeachment Articles, Setting Up a Full House Vote Next Week, The Wall Street Journal, Siobhan Hughes and Natalie Andrews, Friday, 13 December 2019. See also, House Judiciary Committee votes to advance articles of impeachment against Trump, The Guardian, Tom McCarthy, Friday, 13 December 2019. See also, The House Judiciary Committee Approves Articles of Impeachment, The Nation, John Nichols, Friday, 13 December 2019: “‘Abuse of presidential power and obstruction of Congress are the highest of constitutional crimes and the gravest of betrayals,’” Pramila Jayapal said during Friday’s vote.” See also, Fact-based impeachment can’t penetrate the pro-Trump Web, The Washington Post, Isaac Stanley-Becker, Friday, 13 December 2019: “As the House Judiciary Committee convened Friday to approve articles of impeachment against President Trump, a watch party got underway in a private Facebook group that rallies its more than 75,000 members around the banner, ‘THE TRUMP DEPLORABLES.’ The comments that streamed forth in the group illustrate how Trump’s most ardent supporters have fashioned alternative realities for themselves — as well as for Republican lawmakers aiming to turn the charge of corruption back on those investigating the president. The feed — from Fox News, a major source of news for the president’s supporters — showed the same scene available to viewers tuning in on various networks all over the country. But in the online enclave where the self-described ‘deplorables’ had gathered to watch the committee vote, Democrats are the lawbreakers who ‘should be impeached,’ as one viewer wrote. Trump’s word is truth. And the federal employees who question his version of events are not just mistaken, they are ‘scum,’ as Trump labeled members of the intelligence community at a rally this week in Hershey, Pa. The decision by the committee’s Republicans to close ranks around the president, as Democrats in a party-line vote approved two articles of impeachment, may have prompted head-scratching among Americans who learned on the nightly news or read on mainstream websites or in the morning paper how Trump had turned American policy in Ukraine toward his own ends. But the defense mounted by Trump’s allies made perfect sense to those following live on social media, in groups sealed off from general scrutiny, where facts are established by volume, and confirmation comes from likes.”

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Trump Can Block the Release of His Financial Records, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 13 December 2019: “The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether President Trump can block the release of his financial records, setting the stage for a blockbuster ruling on the power of presidents to resist demands for information from prosecutors and Congress. The court’s ruling, expected by June, could require disclosure of information the president has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect. Or the justices could rule that Mr. Trump’s financial affairs are not legitimate subjects of inquiry so long as he remains in office. Either way, the court is now poised to produce a once-in-a-generation statement on presidential accountability. The case will test the independence of the court, which is dominated by Republican appointees, including two named by Mr. Trump. In earlier Supreme Court cases in which presidents sought to avoid providing evidence, the rulings did not break along partisan lines.” See also, Supreme Court will take up Trump’s broad claims of protection from investigation, The Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Friday, 13 December 2019: “The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether President Trump may shield disclosure of his financial information from congressional committees and a New York prosecutor, raising the prospect of a landmark election-year ruling on a president’s immunity from investigation while he is in office. Trump asked the court to accept the cases, and they will be heard in March, with a ruling before the court’s session ends in late June. It means that whatever the outcome of Trump’s separate impeachment proceedings, the controversies over investigations into Trump’s conduct will continue into the heart of the presidential election campaign.” See also, Supreme Court to hear Trump pleas to block subpoenas for financial records, CNN Politics, Ariane de Vogue, Friday, 13 December 2019.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Coordinating With the White House, Lays Plans for Impeachment Trial, The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Friday, 13 December 2019: “With the House headed to a vote to impeach President Trump next week, Senator Mitch McConnell was working hand in hand with the White House to make plans for a Senate trial, a proceeding steeped in tradition and rules but one fraught with political peril for vulnerable Republicans. Mr. Trump said on Friday that he had no preference for how the trial — expected to begin in early January — unfolds, but he has privately pushed for a prolonged process that would allow him to mount a theatrical defense. Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has resisted that idea in favor of a shorter, more dignified event. Outraged Democrats, meanwhile, accused Mr. McConnell on Friday of abandoning his duty to render ‘impartial justice’ in an impeachment trial — a response to a television interview in which Mr. McConnell dismissed House Democrats’ articles of impeachment as ‘so darn weak.’ He added that he was ‘taking my cues’ from the White House in shaping the trial…. Representative Val B. Demings, Democrat of Florida and a member of the House Judiciary Committee who is being mentioned as a possible House manager during the impeachment trial, … called Friday for Mr. McConnell to recuse himself from the proceedings. ‘No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to also serve as the accused’s defense attorney,’ Ms. Demings said in a statement. ‘The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution, he will be in violation of that oath.'” See also, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow of ‘total coordination’ with the White House on Senate impeachment trial angers Democrats, The Washington Post, Mike DeBonis, Friday, 13 December 2019: “In a late Thursday interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, McConnell (R-Ky.) all but guaranteed a Trump acquittal, saying there was ‘zero chance’ the president would be removed from office, and promised ‘total coordination’ with the White House and Trump’s defense team. ‘The case is so darn weak coming over from the House,’ he said. ‘We all know how it’s going to end.’ Those remarks infuriated House Democrats as they voted to advance the fourth-ever set of presidential impeachment articles toward a Senate trial where, they said, the fix appeared to be in…. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) [called] on McConnell to recuse himself from the Senate proceedings based on his Fox News remarks. ‘He’s working hand in hand with the White House, the president’s attorney, and yet we are supposed to expect him to manage a fair and impartial impeachment inquiry?’ she said.” See also, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he will work in ‘total coordination’ with the White House on impeachment trial. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reminds senators they will take an oath to render ‘impartial justice.’ ABC News, Mariam Khan and Libby Cathey, Friday, 13 December 2019: “[Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer released a statement Friday on the heels of McConnell’s comments, reminding his colleagues about the oath they must take before the trial to ‘render impartial justice. If articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, every single senator will take an oath to render “impartial justice.” Making sure the Senate conducts a fair and honest trial that allows all the facts to come out is paramount,’ Schumer said, citing the Senate rules for impeachment trials.”

Continue reading Week 152, Friday, 13 December – Thursday, 19 December 2019 (Days 1,058-1,064)

[Read more…]

December 13, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
December 6, 2019

Trump Administration, Week 151, Friday, 6 December – Thursday, 12 December 2019 ( Days 1,051-1,057)

 

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, 6 December 2019, Day 1,051:

 

White House Signals Trump Won’t Mount House Impeachment Defense, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 6 December 2019: “The White House signaled on Friday that it did not intend to mount a defense of President Trump or otherwise participate in the House impeachment proceedings, sending Democrats a sharply worded letter that condemned the process as “completely baseless” and urged them to get it over with quickly…. The White House position clears the way for House committees to debate and approve impeachment articles as soon as next week, allowing a vote by the full House by Dec. 20, the final legislative day of the year. And it all but ensures that the president’s defense will not be heard before early January, when the Senate is expected to begin a trial to hear whatever case the House presents. The White House stance is a departure from impeachments past. When the House moved to charge Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton, their lawyers fully participated in the proceedings, including presenting lengthy defenses before the Judiciary Committee. In the case of Mr. Trump, the president and his allies have complained for months that they deserve legal representation in the inquiry. Now, they are refusing an invitation to avail themselves.” See also, White House rejects House Democrats’ invitation to participate in impeachment process as Trump focuses on friendly Senate, The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner, Friday, 6 December 2019. See also, White House says it won’t participate in House impeachment hearing, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb and Jim Acosta, Friday, 6 December 2019: “Nadler responded to the White House’s refusal to participate, saying, ‘If the President has no good response to the allegations, then he would not want to appear before the Committee. Having declined this opportunity, he cannot claim that the process is unfair,’ he continued. ‘The President’s failure will not prevent us from carrying out our solemn constitutional duty. The White House’s decision removes one potential hurdle to the House voting on articles of impeachment before Christmas. After Monday’s hearing where two committees will present their evidence, the Judiciary panel could debate and approve articles as soon as the end of next week.”

House Passes Voting Rights Bill Despite Near Unanimous Republican Opposition, The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Emily Cochrane, Friday, 6 December 2019: “The House voted on Friday to reinstate federal oversight of state election law, moving to bolster protections against racial discrimination enshrined in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights statute whose central provision was struck down by the Supreme Court. Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, who was beaten in 1965 while demonstrating for voting rights in Alabama, banged the gavel to herald approval of the measure, to applause from his colleagues on the House floor. It passed by a vote of 228 to 187 nearly along party lines, with all but one Republican opposed. The bill has little chance of becoming law given opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate and by President Trump, whose aides issued a veto threat against it this week.” See also, House passes voting rights bill to restore protections struck down by Supreme Court in 2013, The Washington Post, Colby Itkowitz, Friday, 6 December 2019: “The House passed legislation Friday restoring protections of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that were undone when the Supreme Court struck down federal oversight of elections in states with a history of discriminating against minority communities. The bill passed 228 to 187, with unanimous Democratic support and the vote of one Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.). See also, House passes voting rights package aimed at restoring protections, Politico, Caitlin Oprysko, Friday, 6 December 2019: “The House on Friday passed a package of bills aimed at restoring protections of the Voting Rights Act rolled back by a key Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling. The Voting Rights Advancement Act would, among other things, update the formula used to determine which states must preclear their voter registration practices, require public notice for voting registration changes, and allow the attorney general to send federal observers anywhere in the U.S.”

Trump still uses his personal cell phone despite warnings and increased call scrutiny, CNN Politics, Kaitlan Collins, Maegan Vazquez, and Zachary Cohen, Friday, 6 December 2019: “President Donald Trump has continued to use his personal cell phone to make calls, despite repeated warnings from his staff that the practice could leave him vulnerable to foreign surveillance, multiple officials told CNN. The Democratic impeachment inquiry has resurrected concerns about the security and potential vulnerability of the President’s communications. Witness testimony revealed some top officials repeatedly failed to follow protocol intended to prevent sensitive phone conversations, including those involving the President, from being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Several former US officials have told CNN it is highly likely that US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s cell phone call to Trump from a restaurant in Ukraine over the summer was picked up by intelligence agencies from numerous foreign countries, including Russia.” See also, White House officials say Trump ‘routinely’ made sensitive calls on lines open to Russian Surveillance, Independent, Paul Sonne, Friday, 6 December 2019: “Donald Trump has routinely communicated with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and other individuals speaking on mobile phones vulnerable to monitoring by Russian and other foreign intelligence services, say current and former US officials.” See also, Phone logs in impeachment report renew concern about security of Trump communications, The Washington Post, Paul Sonne, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller, Friday, 6 December 2019.

Continue reading Week 151, Friday, 6 December – Thursday, 12 December 2019 (Days 1,051-1,057)

[Read more…]

December 6, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 29, 2019

Trump Administration, Week 150, Friday, 29 November – Thursday, 5 December 2019 (Days 1,044-1,050)

 

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, 29 November 2019, Day 1,044:

 

Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Has Wide Support, Except Among Republican Men With College Degrees, The New York Times, Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley, Friday, 29 November 2019: “Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan to tax the assets of America’s wealthiest individuals continues to draw broad support from voters, across party, gender and educational lines. Only one slice of the electorate opposes it staunchly: Republican men with college degrees. Not surprisingly, that is also the profile of many who’d be hit by Ms. Warren’s so-called wealth tax, which has emerged as the breakout economic proposal in the Democratic presidential primary race. Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it, the wealth tax has the support of six in 10 Americans, according to a new nationwide poll conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey for The New York Times. That support has dipped slightly since July, but Ms. Warren’s plan remains more popular than most proposed tax increases, and its appeal across coalitions is unusual among high-profile campaign proposals.”

Trump faces December 6 deadline to say whether he’ll send lawyer to impeachment hearings, The Washington Post, Toluse Olorunnipa, Friday, 29 November 2019: “President Trump has until Dec. 6 to decide whether to have his counsel participate in the House’s impeachment hearings, according to a letter sent Friday by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). ‘In particular, please provide the Committee with notice of whether your counsel intends to participate, specifying which of the privileges your counsel seeks to exercise, no later than 5:00 pm on December 6, 2019,’ Nadler wrote in the letter, which was addressed to Trump. ‘I look forward to your prompt response.’ Trump and his Republican allies have repeatedly complained that the Democratic-led impeachment probe is being conducted unfairly, with several specifically saying that the president was not allowed to have his lawyers participate in the process.” See also, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Gave Trump Until Next Friday to Say If He Will Present Impeachment Defense, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Friday, 29 November 2019: “The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee asked President Trump on Friday whether he intends to mount a defense during the committee’s consideration of impeachment articles, setting a deadline of next Friday for Mr. Trump and his lawyers to decide if they will present evidence or call witnesses. In a letter to the president, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the committee chairman, said Mr. Trump has the right to review the evidence against him, ask questions of his accusers during public hearings that begin next week and present evidence and request witness testimony.”

Danielle Stella, a Republican challenger to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), is barred by Twitter after suggesting congresswoman should be hanged, The Washington Post, Marisa Iati, 29 November 2019: “Twitter has shut down the accounts of Danielle Stella, a Republican challenger to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in Omar’s bid for reelection, after Stella twice tweeted about hanging the congresswoman. The campaign account for Stella, a candidate in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, posted Tuesday that ‘If it is proven @IlhanMN passed sensitive info to Iran, she should be tried for #treason and hanged.’ The account later tweeted a link to a blog post about her comment and added an image of a stick-figure being hanged. Stella’s remark about Omar’s supposedly giving information to Iran is a reference to the baseless allegation that Qatari officials recruited the congresswoman to give intelligence to Qatar and Iran. No evidence has been offered to support that claim.” See also, Twitter Permanently Suspends Accounts of Danielle Stella, Ilhan Omar’s Potential Republican Challenger, The New York Times, Derrick Bryson Taylor, published on Saturday, 30 November 2019: “Twitter suspended the accounts of Danielle Stella, a Republican candidate hoping to challenge Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota next year, after she suggested the congresswoman should be tried for treason and hanged.”

Continue reading Week 150, Friday, 29 November – Thursday, 5 December 2019 (Days 1,044-1,050)

[Read more…]

November 29, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 22, 2019

Trump Administration, Week 149, Friday, 22 November – Thursday, 28 November 2019 (Days 1,037-1,043)

 

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, 22 November 2019, Day 1,037:

 

Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts, The New York Times, Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage, Friday, 22 November 2019: “A highly anticipated report by the Justice Department’s inspector general is expected to sharply criticize lower-level F.B.I. officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, but to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump, according to people briefed on a draft. Investigators for the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said.” See also, Justice Department watchdog finds political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI’s Russia investigation, but it documents errors, The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima, Matt Zapotosky, and Devlin Barrett, Friday, 22 November 2019: “The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to find in a forthcoming report that political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, while at the same time criticizing the bureau for systemic failures in its handling of surveillance applications, according to two U.S. officials. The much-anticipated report due out Dec. 9 from Inspector General Michael Horowitz will allege that a low-level FBI lawyer inappropriately altered a document that was used during the process to renew a controversial warrant for electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser, the officials said. The inspector general referred that finding to U.S. Attorney John Durham, and the lawyer involved is being investigated criminally for possibly making a false statement, they said.”

Charges of Ukrainian Meddling in 2016 Presidential Election? A Russian Operation, U.S. Intelligence Says. The New York Times, Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg, Friday, 22 November 2019: “Republicans have sought for weeks amid the impeachment inquiry to shift attention to President Trump’s demands that Ukraine investigate any 2016 election meddling, defending it as a legitimate concern while Democrats accuse Mr. Trump of pursuing fringe theories for his benefit. The Republican defense of Mr. Trump became central to the impeachment proceedings when Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating ‘a fictional narrative.’ She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it. In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill’s testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow’s own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair.”

Trump Attacks Impeachment Inquiry and Accuses a Witness of Lying, The New York Times, Eileen Sullivan, Friday, 22 November 2019: “President Trump unleashed a series of falsehoods on Friday in an effort to invalidate the impeachment inquiry and counter sworn testimony from officials in his own administration, after a week of damaging public hearings. In a 53-minute phone interview with ‘Fox & Friends,’ Mr. Trump accused David Holmes, a political counselor to the top American diplomat in Ukraine, of fabricating a phone call between Mr. Trump and the ambassador to the European Union. Mr. Holmes told impeachment investigators that he had overheard the president asking the ambassador, Gordon D. Sondland, about Ukrainian investigations into his political rivals, a consequential detail in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry…. In his own testimony under oath, Mr. Sondland corroborated Mr. Holmes’s account.” See also, Trump’s Long List of Inaccurate Statements on ‘Fox & Friends,’ The New York Times, Linda Qiu, Friday, 22 November 2019. See also, Trump makes at least 18 false claims in ranting Fox & Friends interview, CNN Politics, Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam, Friday, 22 November 2019: “Fox & Friends tried harder than usual — not especially hard, but harder than usual — to challenge President Donald Trump. It did not work very well. Trump ranted dishonestly for much of his 53-minute Friday interview with his favorite morning show, repeatedly refusing to let the show’s co-hosts get a word in edgewise. When they did manage to make a semi-critical point, Trump brushed them off.” See also, Impeachment Briefing: How Republicans Are Using Hearings, The New York Times, Noah Weiland, Friday, 22 November 2019.

Continue reading Week 149, Friday, 22 November – Thursday, 28 November 2019 (Days 1,037-1,043)

[Read more…]

November 22, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 15, 2019

Trump Administration, Week 148, Friday, 15 November – Thursday, 21 November 2019 (Days, 1,030-1,036)

 

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, 15 November 2019, Day 1,030:

 

Marie Yovanovitch, Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, ‘Devastated’ as Trump Vilified Her, The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Friday, 15 November 2019: “The former United States ambassador to Ukraine told the House impeachment inquiry on Friday that she felt threatened by President Trump and ‘shocked, appalled, devastated’ that he vilified her in a call with another foreign leader, as Mr. Trump attacked her in real time on Twitter, drawing a stern warning about witness intimidation from Democrats. The extraordinary back-and-forth unfolded on the second day of public impeachment hearings as Marie L. Yovanovitch, who was ousted as the envoy to Ukraine on Mr. Trump’s orders, detailed an unsettling campaign by the president’s allies to undermine her as she pushed to promote democracy and the rule of law. In deeply personal terms, Ms. Yovanovitch described to the House Intelligence Committee how Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, worked hand in hand with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to circumvent official channels, smear her and push her out of her job.” See also, Key Takeaways From Marie Yovanovitch’s Hearing in the Impeachment Inquiry, The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 15 November 2019: “Marie L. Yovanovitch recounted in powerful and personal terms on Friday the devastation and fear she felt as she was targeted first by President Trump’s allies and later by the president himself, saying she felt threatened. Removed from her post as ambassador to Ukraine, Ms. Yovanovitch said she was bereft when she came under fire from the president’s personal attorney and eldest son last spring, but was even more stunned in September when she learned that Mr. Trump himself had disparaged her in his now-famous July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president. ‘It was a terrible moment,’ she told the House Intelligence Committee on the second day of public impeachment hearings. ‘A person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face. I think I even had a physical reaction. I think, you know, even now, words kind of fail me.’ In the July call, according to a rough transcript released by the White House, Mr. Trump called Ms. Yovanovitch ‘bad news’ and said that ‘she’s going to go through some things.’ Asked her reaction when she read that, Ms. Yovanovitch said: ‘Shocked. Appalled. Devastated that the president of the United States would talk about any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state — and it was me. I mean, I couldn’t believe it.’ Asked what the words ‘going to go through some things’ sounded like to her, she said, ‘It sounded like a threat.'” See also, Read Marie Yovanovitch’s Prepared Opening Statement From the Impeachment Hearing, The New York Times, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Marie Yovanovitch’s Account of Acid Attack on a Young Anticorruption Activist Spotlights Ukraine’s Anticorruption Wars, The New York Times, Michael Crowley, Friday, 15 November 2019: “On the April night she answered a 1 a.m. phone call instructing her to take the next plane back to Washington, Marie L. Yovanovitch, the ousted United States ambassador to Ukraine, was at her home in Kiev — after having just finished hosting an event to honor a young anticorruption activist who had been killed in horrific fashion. The activist, Kateryna Handziuk, was outside her home in the Ukrainian city of Kherson in July 2018 when someone splashed her with a quart of sulfuric acid, severely burning more than 30 percent of her body. After 11 surgeries over three months, Ms. Handziuk succumbed to her excruciating wounds. She was 33. In public impeachment hearings, the former ambassador testified Friday about the chronology of her abrupt recall from Ukraine after a campaign of unsubstantiated allegations against her that reached President Trump. Speaking before a House committee, she also spotlighted Ms. Handziuk’s story, and underscored why she had been honoring her legacy that April night in an official award ceremony attended by Ms. Handziuk’s father. ‘She very tragically died because she was attacked by acid, and several months later died a very, very painful death,’ Ms. Yovanovitch testified. ‘We thought it was important that justice be done for Katya and others who fight corruption in Ukraine because it’s not kind of a tabletop exercise there. Their lives are in the balance.'” See also, Who Is Marie Yovanovitch? Former Ambassador to Ukraine Testifies in Impeachment Hearing. The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Impeachment Briefing: What Happened Today, The New York Times, Noah Weiland, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, With a Tweet, Trump Upends Republican Strategy for Dealing with Yovanovitch, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Trump Attack on Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch During Her Testimony Raised Charges of Witness Intimidation, The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Michael D. Shear, Friday, 15 November 2019: “President Trump on Friday attacked Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former United States ambassador to Ukraine he summarily removed this year, even as she testified in the impeachment inquiry about how she felt threatened by Mr. Trump. Did his behavior amount to witness tampering? If the question is what could be charged in court, the answer is probably not. But impeachment is not limited to ordinary crimes. As House Democrats weigh bringing articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump — including one potentially based on his obstruction of congressional investigations — the president’s Twitter onslaught may well have handed them more fodder. As Ms. Yovanovitch was telling the House Intelligence Committee about the devastation and fear she felt this year when she was targeted first by Mr. Trump’s allies and later by the president himself during a phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Mr. Trump fired off a tweet denigrating her anew. ‘Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?’ Mr. Trump wrote, assailing her on Twitter to his 66 million followers.” See also, Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified at the impeachment hearing of Trump, and State Department career diplomat David Holmes says Trump asked about ‘investigation’ into Bidens by Ukraine, The Washington Post, John Wagner, Colby Itkowitz, and Michael Brice-Saddler, Friday, 15 November 2019: “Democrats are seeking to build a case that Trump sought to withhold military assistance and an Oval Office meeting until Zelensky announced investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and his son, as well as an unfounded theory that Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 presidential election to hurt Trump.” See also, ‘Stand up’: Marie Yovanovitch uses moment in the spotlight to call on U.S. leaders to defend diplomatic corps, The Washington Post, Karoun Demirjian and Rosalind S. Helderman, Friday, 15 November 2019: “Former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch began her testimony in the House impeachment hearing Friday with praise for Ukrainians who took a stand against corruption in their country in a 2014 movement called the Revolution of Dignity. The reference doubled as a call to action that she directed at U.S. leaders — a pointed reminder of their obligation to defend the dignity of civilian career diplomats around the world. Yovanovitch — who was abruptly yanked from her post in Kyiv after being targeted in a smear campaign that reached President Trump — warned that the State Department was ‘being hollowed out’ and in ‘crisis.’ She called on its leadership ‘to stand up for the institution and the individuals who make that institution the most effective diplomatic force in the world.’ The testimony of the former ambassador put a compelling human face on a complex international scandal that has involved a cast of unfamiliar Ukrainian characters, descriptions of shadowy back-channels and constitutional debates… [O]ver and over again, Yovanovitch sought to turn the focus away from her personally and back on the larger implications of her ouster. ‘Our Ukraine policy has been thrown into disarray, and shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American ambassador who does not give them what they want,’ she said. ‘After these events, what foreign official, corrupt or not, could be blamed for wondering whether the ambassador represents the president’s views? And what U.S. ambassador could be blamed for harboring the fear that they cannot count on our government to support them?'” See also, 4 takeaways from Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Who is Marie Yovanovitch, and why does her public testimony matter? The Washington Post, Amber Phillips, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Defiant Yovanovitch says she was ‘kneecapped’ amid Trump ‘smear campaign,’ Politico, Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney, Friday, 15 November 2019: “The ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine said Friday she was the target of a ‘smear campaign’ by President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani — an effort she said undermined U.S. national security interests and emboldened Russia. Marie Yovanovitch, delivering emotional public testimony before House impeachment investigators, told lawmakers she was ‘kneecapped’ by Americans who allied themselves with corrupt Ukrainian interests, and was abandoned by State Department leaders who refused to publicly defend her.” See also, Witness intimidation in real-time’: Democrats see more evidence of Trump obstruction, Politico, Sarah Ferris, Melanie Zanona, and John Bresnahan, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Ousted Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Testifies in Impeachment Probe–Live Coverage, The Wall Street Journal, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Impeachment inquiry hearing with Marie Yovanovitch, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, CNN Politics, Veronica Rocha and Meg Wagner, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Read: Adam Schiff’s opening remarks at second public impeachment hearing, CNN Politics, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Read: Devin Nunes’ opening remarks at second public impeachment hearing, CNN Politics, Friday, 15 November 2019.

Rough Transcript of Trump’s First Phone Call With Ukrainian Leader Is Released. The call does not mention ‘corruption,’ which appeared in an earlier description of the conversation. The New York Times, Mark Mazzetti and Eileen Sullivan, Friday, 15 November 2019: “President Trump on Friday released a memorandum of an April telephone conversation he had with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that differed from a summary of the call released by the White House months ago. The memorandum of the call, which took place after Mr. Zelensky won a landslide presidential election, shows the two men praising each other’s political acumen and predicting an era of warm relations between the United States and Ukraine….  But a White House readout of the call in April offers a different account. In that summary, provided to reporters shortly after the call took place, the administration said that Mr. Trump promised to work with Mr. Zelensky ‘to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity and root out corruption.'” See also, Read Trump’s First Call in April With the New Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, The New York Times, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, Rough transcript of call shows Ukraine leader Zelensky wanted Trump to attend his inauguration, The Washington Post, Josh Dawsey, Friday, 15 November 2019: “Ukraine’s incoming president, Volodymyr Zelensky, repeatedly asked President Trump to attend his inauguration during their first phone call in April, according to a White House rough transcript of the call released Friday…. The rough transcript of the call does not match the White House readout of the call from April 21. A White House readout is the administration’s post-call description of the conversation. The White House readout said the call underscored ‘the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.’ The readout also said Trump spoke with Zelensky about ‘reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity and root out corruption.'” See also, White House releases rough transcript of Trump’s first Ukraine call, CNN Politics, Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins, and Kylie Atwood, Friday, 15 November 2019.

David Holmes, an Official From the American Embassy in Ukraine, Confirms Trump Asked About Whether Ukraine Was Going to Move Forward With an Investigation He Wanted Into One of His Leading Political Rivals, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 15 November 2019: “An official from the United States Embassy in Kiev confirmed to House impeachment investigators on Friday that he had overheard a call between President Trump and a top American diplomat in July in which the president asked whether Ukraine was going to move forward with an investigation he wanted. The official, David Holmes, testified privately that he was at a restaurant in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, when he overheard Mr. Trump on a cellphone call loudly asking Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, if Ukraine’s president had agreed to conduct an investigation into one of his leading political rivals. Mr. Sondland, who had just come from a meeting with top Ukrainian officials and the country’s president, replied in the affirmative. ‘So, he’s going to do the investigation?’ Mr. Trump asked, according to a copy of Mr. Holmes’s opening statement posted by CNN and confirmed by The New York Times.” See also, David Holmes, a US official in Kiev, says he overheard Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union, tell Trump that Ukraine would investigate Biden, CNN Politics, Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb, Friday, 15 November 2019: “David Holmes told lawmakers in a closed-door impeachment inquiry Friday that US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland had told Trump the Ukrainian President would do ‘anything you ask him to’ and that Sondland had confirmed the Ukrainians were going to ‘do the investigation,’ one day after Trump had asked Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a copy of Holmes’ opening statement obtained by CNN.” See also, Read: State Department aide David Holmes’ opening statement, CNN Politics, Friday, 15 November 2019. See also, The Impeachment Inquiry Reveals the Absurdity of Claims That Trump Wanted to Clean up the Corruption in Ukraine, The New York Times, Editorial Board, Friday, 15 November 2019: “Republican defenders of Donald Trump have argued that he withheld congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine and a promised White House meeting because he wanted assurances that Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was serious about fighting corruption. Sworn testimony in the House impeachment inquiry on Friday obliterated that defense, revealing that Mr. Trump was interested in assurances of a very different kind. David Holmes, an official in the American Embassy in Kiev, testified to lawmakers privately that he had overheard a telephone conversation in which the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, assured the American president that his Ukrainian counterpart ‘loves your ass’ and will do ‘anything you ask him to,’ including to open investigations into the family of Mr. Trump’s leading Democratic rival, Joe Biden.” See also, Impeachment witness David Holmes provides firsthand account of hearing Trump demand ‘investigation’ of the Bidens by Ukraine, The Washington Post, Karoun Demirjian, Rachael Bade, John Hudson, and Toluse Olorunnipa, Friday, 15 November 2019: “President Trump specifically inquired about political investigations he wanted carried out by Ukraine during a July phone call with a top U.S. diplomat who then told colleagues that the president was most interested in a probe into former vice president Joe Biden and his son, a State Department aide said Friday in closed-door testimony that could significantly advance House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. David Holmes, an embassy staffer in Kyiv, testified that he overheard a July 26 phone call in which Trump pressed U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland about whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would ‘do the investigation,’ according to three people who have read his opening statement and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe its contents.” See also, A Friday night surprise: David Holmes throws a wrench in Trump’s impeachment defense, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, published on Saturday, 16 November 2019.

Continue reading Week 148, Friday, 15 November – Thursday, 21 November 2019 (Days 1,030-1,036)

[Read more…]

November 15, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 8, 2019

Trump Administration, Week 147, Friday, 8 November – Thursday, 14 November 2019 ( Days 1,023-1,029)

 

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, 8 November 2019, Day 1,023:

 

The Trump Impeachment Inquiry: Latest Updates, The New York Times, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Transcripts of testimony from Fiona Hill and Lt. Col Alexander Vindman are released, Republicans add a Trump ally [Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio] to the Intelligence Committee for public hearings, and Mulvaney ignored a subpoena to be questioned by House investigators.” See also, Hill and Vindman Testimony: Key Excerpts From Impeachment Inquiry Transcripts, The New York Times, Friday, 8 November 2019: “House impeachment investigators on Friday released two more transcripts of closed-door depositions before the first public hearings in the inquiry begin next week. The transcripts include the testimonies of Fiona Hill, President Trump’s former adviser on Russia and Europe, and Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council. Significant portions of what they had to say have already been reported, but the transcripts offer a fuller picture of what they knew about an apparent effort by the president and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations of political rivals. New York Times reporters read through the depositions, highlighting key excerpts and offering context and analysis.” See also, Read the Transcript of Alexander Vindman’s Testimony, The New York Times, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who heard President Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president, told impeachment investigators last month that he tried and failed to restore key details from the conversation — that the White House had removed — to a rough transcript of the call.” See also, Read Fiona Hill’s Testimony to Impeachment Investigators, The New York Times, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Fiona Hill, President Trump’s former top adviser on Russia and Europe, told House investigators that John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, objected strongly to the effort by Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to pressure Ukraine for political help. Ms. Hill, who stepped down last summer, also said that Mr. Bolton called Mr. Giuliani a ‘hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up.'” See also, Impeachment Briefing: Anatomy of a Scene From the Hill Testimony, The New York Times, Noah Weiland, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Impeachment investigators released interview transcripts on Friday for two major witnesses: Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, and Fiona Hill, President Trump’s former adviser on Russia and Europe. Tucked into Ms. Hill’s testimony is a cinematic scene at the White House. She describes how she and Mr. Bolton tried to foil attempts by Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, to pressure Ukraine into an investigation, racing through the West Wing to stop him from promising a presidential meeting. (The scene can be found on pages 66 to 71.)” See also, 5 Impeachment Developments From This Week, The New York Times, Kaly Soto, published on Saturday, 9 November 2019. See also, Lt. Col Alexander S. Vindman, Ukraine expert who listened to Trump’s call, says ‘there was no doubt’ the president was seeking investigations of political rivals, The Washington Post, John Wagner, Colby Itkowitz, and Michael Brice-Saddler, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a Ukraine expert who listened to President Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said ‘there was no doubt’ that Trump was seeking political investigations of political rivals, according to a transcript of his deposition. The transcript was one of two made public Friday by House impeachment investigators, who also released one documenting the closed-door deposition of another National Security Council official, Fiona Hill, who also expressed concerns about efforts to pressure Ukraine. Both Vindman and Hill are in discussions to testify publicly after open hearings begin next week, according to people familiar with the plan.” See also, ‘There was no ambiguity’: What Alexander Vindman told House impeachment investigators, Politico, Natasha Bertrand and Andrew Desiderio, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Impeachment investigators on Friday released the much-anticipated deposition transcript of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer and Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council staff. Vindman, a participant in the now-famous July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, told lawmakers in his Oct. 28 testimony that he was troubled by what he saw as political considerations impinging on U.S. national security — and that he was told by a top White House lawyer to keep quiet about the call.” See also, National Security Council Ukraine expert Alexander Vindman and former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill testify quid pro quo effort was coordinated with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Two White House officials told lawmakers the ‘blatant’ push for politically motivated investigations from President Donald Trump left ‘no ambiguity’ what the Ukrainians needed to do to secure a highly sought meeting — and the effort was coordinated by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, according to deposition transcripts released Friday.” See also, 4 big takeaways from Fiona Hill’s and Alexander Vindman’s transcripts, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Friday, 8 November 2019. See also, ‘Hateful calls and conspiracy theories”: What Fiona Hill told impeachment investigators, Politico, Nahal Toosi and Kyle Cheney, Friday, 8 November 2019. See also, The five most important things that happened this week in the impeachment inquiry, The Washington Post, Jacqueline Alemany, Friday, 8 November 2019.

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney refuses to comply with House subpoena and doesn’t show up for impeachment deposition, CNN Politics, Caroline Kelly, Jim Acosta, and Jeremy Herb, Friday, 8 November 2019: “Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney refused to comply with House impeachment investigators’ subpoena for a closed-door deposition Friday, citing ‘absolute immunity’ from testifying…. The subpoena came Thursday night following House investigators’ request on Tuesday that Mulvaney testify on Capitol Hill, ratcheting up their investigation to target the President’s top aide. The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees sent Mulvaney a letter requesting he appear for a closed-door deposition as part of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Trump and Ukraine. Mulvaney dramatically confirmed last month that Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine partially to pressure the country into investigating Democrats — and proceeded hours later to deny having said so.” See also, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney defies subpoena to testify in impeachment inquiry, Politico, Kyle Cheney, published on Thursday, 7 November 2019: “House impeachment investigators late Thursday subpoenaed Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, demanding that he testify about his knowledge of President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine. Mulvaney had already signaled he would probably refuse lawmakers’ demands to testify, and on Friday an official said Mulvaney’s outside counsel said the acting chief of staff wouldn’t comply with the subpoena and asserted ‘absolute immunity.’ The White House has issued a blanket order against cooperating with the impeachment inquiry.”

Lawyer Says Former National Security Adviser John Bolton Knows About ‘Many Relevant Meetings’ on Ukraine, The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 8 November 2019: “John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, knows about ‘many relevant meetings and conversations’ connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators have not yet been informed about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday. The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony in their impeachment proceedings, arguing that his client would be willing to talk but only if a court rules that he should ignore White House objections.”

Continue reading Week 147, Friday, 8 November – Thursday, 14 November 2019 (Days 1,023-1,029)

[Read more…]

November 8, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 1, 2019

Trump Administration, Week 146, Friday, 1 November – Thursday, 7 November 2019 (Days 1,016-1,022)

 

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, 1 November 2019, Day 1,016:

 

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader, testified that he was told to keep quiet by John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security council, The Washington Post, Tom Hamburger, Carol D. Leonnig, Greg Miller, and Ellen Nakashima, Friday, 1 November 2019: “Several days after President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine, a top White House lawyer instructed a senior national security official not to discuss his grave concerns about the leaders’ conversation with anyone outside the White House, according to three people familiar with the aide’s testimony. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said. The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.” See also, White House lawyer John Eisenberg told Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman not to discuss Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Zelensky, Politico, Natasha Bertrand, Friday, 1 November 2019: “The senior White House lawyer who placed a record of President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president in a top-secret system also instructed at least one official who heard the call not to tell anyone about it, according to testimony heard by House impeachment investigators this week. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Army officer who served as the National Security Council’s director for Ukraine, told lawmakers that he went to the lawyer, John Eisenberg, to register his concerns about the call, in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, according to a person in the room for Vindman’s deposition on Tuesday. Eisenberg recorded Vindman’s complaints in notes on a yellow legal pad, then conferred with his deputy Michael Ellis about how to handle the conversation because it was clearly ‘sensitive,’ Vindman testified. The lawyers then decided to move the record of the call into the NSC’s top-secret codeword system—a server normally used to store highly classified material that only a small group of officials can access. Vindman did not consider the move itself as evidence of a cover-up, according to a person familiar with his testimony. But he said he became disturbed when, a few days later, Eisenberg instructed him not to tell anyone about the call—especially because it was Vindman’s job to coordinate the interagency process with regard to Ukraine policy.”

As Trump moves to bully witnesses and derail impeachment, Democrats see obstruction, The Washington Post, Philip Rucker, Rachael Bade, and Rosalind S. Helderman, Friday, 1 November 2019: “President Trump has sought to intimidate witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, attacking them as ‘Never Trumpers’ and badgering an anonymous whistleblower. He has directed the White House to withhold documents and block testimony requested by Congress. And he has labored to publicly discredit the investigation as a ‘scam’ overseen by ‘a totally compromised kangaroo court.’ To the Democratic leaders directing the impeachment proceedings, Trump’s actions to stymie their investigation into his conduct with Ukraine add up to another likely article of impeachment: obstruction.” See also, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggests impeachment inquiry could expand beyond Ukraine, The Hill, Christina Marcos, Friday, 1 November 2019: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday it’s possible that controversies beyond Ukraine could be part of the impeachment case against President Trump. House Democrats have recently sought to narrow their impeachment inquiry to the allegations stemming from an intelligence community whistleblower complaint that said Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to initiate politically charged investigations in return for the release of congressionally approved security aid. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine have united nearly all House Democrats around their impeachment probe, though many had previously pushed for impeachment over the president’s efforts to undermine former special counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation into Russia’s election interference. Pelosi on Friday emphasized that the decision on articles of impeachment will be up to the committees handling the inquiry. She did not rule out the possibility that the obstruction of justice allegations against Trump in Mueller’s report could come up.”

Elizabeth Warren Proposes $20.5 Trillion Health Care Plan, The New York Times, Thomas Kaplan, Abby Goodnough, and Margot Sanger-Katz, Friday, 1 November 2019: “Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday revealed her plan to pay for an expansive transformation of the nation’s health care system, proposing huge tax increases on businesses and wealthy Americans to help cover $20.5 trillion in new federal spending. The plan represents a significant bet that enough voters will favor an approach that dismantles the current system and replaces it with ‘Medicare for all,’ a government-run health insurance program. And it comes after decades in which Democrats have largely tiptoed around policy proposals that relied on major tax increases and Republicans ran on tax cuts.” See also, Ending the Stranglehold of Health Care Costs on American Families, Medium, Elizabeth Warren, Friday, 1 November 2019. See also, Elizabeth Warren’s Plan Is a Massive Win for the Medicare for All Movement, The Intercept, Ady Barkan, Friday, 1 November 2019: “The movement for single-payer health care has taken some big strides forward in recent years. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., put the issue at the center of the Democratic Party’s debate with his run for president in 2016. In partnership with the nurses union and other champions, he then got 19 senators to co-sponsor his bill in 2017. After Democrats took back the House of Representatives, we demanded and got hearings in multiple powerful committees on the fantastic bill spearheaded by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. (The successor to that of the progressive hero and former Michigan Rep. John Conyers, who died this week.) These were our victories, earned by a movement that has been fighting for many decades. The plan that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren just released is another enormous win for us. It will help persuade our friends and families and neighbors to support Medicare for All, and in the not-too-distant future, to convince Congress too.” Elizabeth Warren Unveils a Medicare for All Financing Plan, The New Yorker, John Cassidy, published on Saturday, 2 November 2019: “On Friday, Warren unveiled a Medicare for All financing plan, which her campaign developed in consultation with a number of experts, including two veterans of the Obama years: Donald Berwick, the former head of the federal agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid programs, and Betsey Stevenson, a former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers…. [Warren’s plan] would transform an industry that represents roughly a sixth of the U.S. economy and come with a price tag of at least $20.5 trillion over ten years. Rather than tacking to the center, she is betting that Democratic voters—and members of the American electorate—are so fed up with the current health-care system, even after the Obamacare reforms, that they are ready to rip it up and start again. That is an audacious move.” See also, Elizabeth Warren rolls out a $20.5 trillion health-care plan, The Washington Post, Annie Linskey, Friday, 1 November 2019: “Warren’s plan, a version of the Medicare-for-all idea that has become a mantra for many on the Democratic Party’s left, includes a raft of new taxes on businesses and the wealthy but, she insisted, would not be funded on the backs of middle-class Americans.”

Continue reading Week 146, Friday, 1 November – Thursday, 7 November 2019 (Days 1,016-1,022)

[Read more…]

November 1, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
October 25, 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…]

October 25, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
October 18, 2019

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…]

October 18, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
October 11, 2019

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…]

October 11, 2019 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle, Uncategorized
« Go back
Show More »