Connect with us

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump wants the House to vote on impeachment as soon as possible — ideally, three weeks ago.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Not so much.

The White House put proof of its stance in an eight-page letter on Tuesday evening — half lawyerly complaint, half campaign fundraising message — accusing the Democratic-led House of running a sham investigation and announcing Trump would block any further participation by his administration.

The letter challenged the rights of the House to set the rules of impeachment, charged Democrats with trying to reverse the results of the 2016 election and influence the 2020 contest, and concluded that there is “no legitimate basis” for the inquiry Pelosi is calling “impeachment” that’s already underway.

“For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people,” White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote.

The Constitution vests the House with “the sole Power of Impeachment” in Article I, Section 2, and prescribes in Article I, Section 5, that “each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” What’s really going on is a fight over when the House will first take a vote involving Trump that has any form of the word “impeach” in it.

Though Cipollone’s letter stops short of demanding it, Trump and his allies are trying to force Pelosi to do that sooner rather than later — with a full House vote to launch a formal “impeachment inquiry.” The speaker, House Democratic sources have long said, would prefer to vote on actual articles of impeachment after an inquiry, which she created without a roll-call vote, wraps up.

There are some substantive and procedural reasons for Trump and Pelosi to take their respective positions, but this battle is really over gaining the upper hand in the politics of impeachment — both inside Washington and in shaping its effect on the 2020 elections.

For Trump, it’s a race against the clock. For Pelosi, it’s a matter of building momentum.

Public support for an impeachment investigation — and for removing Trump from office — has grown since it was revealed that he asked Ukraine to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, who is one of the Democrats running for the right to face him in 2020.

In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday, 51 percent of Americans said allegations arising from the Ukraine scandal are serious and should be investigated, and a combined 55 percent said either there is enough evidence to remove him from office now or that an inquiry should be conducted to determine whether he should be impeached and removed.

A Quinnipiac survey, also released Tuesday, found 45 percent support for removing Trump from office and 49 percent opposition among registered voters — a change from 37 percent in favor and 57 percent opposed on Sept. 25 and a minor deviation from a 47-to-47 split last week.

Full coverage: Trump impeachment inquiry

On the surface, Trump and Pelosi have engaged in an unlikely role reversal — a commander in chief demanding a move toward Congress’ form of indictment and the leader of the opposition party holding back. But it’s one that, after taking shape slowly for several months, has been super-charged by the matter of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

The subtext of the fight has everything to do with the politics inherent to the impeachment process.

There are two factors, in a way at odds with each other, that are nonetheless entrenching their respective positions. On the one hand, it’s Pelosi who has more to lose with any politically tough vote because her party holds the majority, and Republicans want her incumbents who represent districts Trump won to go on the record now and as often as possible.

“It’s not popular” in Democratic-held districts that Trump won, said Michael Steel, who served as an aide to former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. “They think the Democrats in swing districts will suffer blowback.”

And Trump would like to see a party-line vote, which could bolster his argument that Democrats are dividing the country unnecessarily for political gain.

On the other hand, public opinion is shifting away from the president, meaning it’s getting easier for rank-and-file Democrats to vote in favor of impeachment and perhaps a bit harder for a handful of Republicans to vote against it. The sooner Trump gets a vote, the less likely he is to see Republican defections. And, if he can force Pelosi to hold an impeachment inquiry vote, it would be extremely difficult for any Republican who votes against that to cast a vote for impeachment later.

Former Rep. David Jolly, who represented a Florida district as a Republican, said that along with the friction created by Trump and Pelosi’s conflicting goals with regard to getting lawmakers of both parties on record, they are clashing over litigation strategy.

“The absence of a floor resolution allows the administration grounds to litigate and delay everything, as we’re currently seeing,” said Jolly, who is a lawyer. “But so, too, does a resolution that inevitably would limit minority procedural rights around subpoenas and disclosure of material evidence, creating a second round of litigation and delay.”

While Pelosi doesn’t want to lose momentum toward actually impeaching the president, she is also in no rush to force a vote on launching an inquiry when she already has one that has produced big headlines. Some Democrats are convinced that polling numbers will move in their direction. Even if there’s no clear-cut call for the president’s ouster right now, they believe new evidence could sway voters.

On Tuesday, Pelosi told reporters that the probe should be conducted “carefully, not hastily” — which is a far cry from how she described the process to House Democrats on Sept. 24, when she told them at a closed door meeting that she wanted to move “expeditiously.”

The two sides are involved in a court battle over whether the administration can block the House from obtaining grand jury testimony that was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe because, as the Justice Department argues, the House has not voted to start a formal impeachment inquiry. The House’s position is that it has the sole power to determine when it is conducting an impeachment investigation.

Trump could have jump-started the process — formal or informal — at any point if he had allowed administration officials to testify and turn over documents that House Democrats requested and, in some cases, subpoenaed.

And Cipollone left the White House an exit ramp if Pelosi were to accede to the president’s demands.

“If the committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process,” he wrote.

But it was hard to see those words, cloaked as they were, in a chest-thumping letter that couldn’t have been more clearly designed to rile up partisans on both sides and pressure Pelosi to act on impeachment quickly.

She was unmoved.

“The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the president’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction,” Pelosi wrote in a response Tuesday. “Mr President, you are not above the law. You will be held accountable.”

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


George Kent tells lawmakers he was told to ‘lay low’ after raising concerns about Giuliani



WASHINGTON — State Department official George Kent told lawmakers in a closed-door deposition Tuesday that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney appointed three other Trump administration officials to spearhead the president’s efforts in Ukraine.

According to Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who was present for the deposition, Kent testified that Mulvaney oversaw a meeting where he sidelined State Department officials and tapped three political appointees — Energy Secretary Rick Perry, European Ambassador Gordon Sondland and special envoy Kurt Volker — to oversee Ukraine policy for the United States.

Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state who worked on Ukraine and five other countries, told congressional investigators that the trio called themselves “the three amigos” and elbowed all the other officials at State out of the way, according to Connolly.

This not the first time Mulvaney was mentioned in depositions as part of the impeachment inquiry. President Donald Trump’s former Russia adviser Fiona Hill testified that then-national security adviser John Bolton said he wanted nothing to do with Mulvaney and Giuliani’s objectives in Ukraine, which Bolton said amounted to a “drug deal.”

Just weeks before the May 23 meeting, Marie Yovanovich was told that she was being recalled as the ambassador to Ukraine despite being told that she had done nothing wrong, according to her congressional testimony last week.

According to Connolly, Kent also testified that after the May 23 meeting, he was told to “lay low” by a superior when he raised concerns about Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was working to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden.

“The way I took it,” Connolly told NBC News, was that Kent “had just finished describing how he had told people that this is wrong, that Giuliani is out of control.”

Kent also said, according to Connolly, that the Trump allies who pushed for Ukraine to investigate corruption made it clear that “POTUS” wanted cooperation from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian government.

Kent, who attended meetings and receptions with Zelenskiy and his advisers, said that Sondland and Volker floated the idea of a meeting with Trump, according to Connolly. Text messages between Volker and Sondland released this month also show that Zeleneskiy’s cooperation was expected in order to meet with Trump.

Volker testified behind closed doors last week that Trump wanted the Ukrainian government to investigate corruption in Ukraine but that there was “no quid pro quo” for military and security aid, which the administration had put on hold for nearly four months. Sondland is expected to testify under subpoena on Thursday.

During his nearly 10 hours of testimony, Kent also told members of Congress and their staff that Burisma, the energy company where Hunter Biden was a board member, was corrupt, according to a separate person who was present in the room. Kent said he told the Obama administration in 2016 that they should not hold an event with Burisma because of the company’s extensive corruption in Ukraine.

Kent was called in to testify because he raised the alarm about the disinformation campaign that Giuliani and his associates pushed regarding Ukraine, according to a emails included in the packet that the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General Michael Atkinson provided to Congress, obtained by NBC News. He sent a series of emails to colleagues alerting them of the “fake news driven smear out of Ukraine.”

Source link

Continue Reading


At debate, Democrats agree: Trump is a 'corrupt president'



At the fourth Democratic presidential debate, 2020 hopefuls Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris and Tom Steyer take aim at Republican President Trump.

Source link

Continue Reading


Buttigieg and Gabbard, both veterans, spar on Syria policy



Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, both veterans, disagree on U.S. involvement in Syria during the fourth Democratic presidential debate.

Source link

Continue Reading