Politics: Your impeachment questions, answered - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

Politics Your impeachment questions, answered

22:27  29 november  2019
22:27  29 november  2019 Source:   washingtonpost.com

Stefanik: The left is 'spun up' after her impeachment hearing performance

  Stefanik: The left is 'spun up' after her impeachment hearing performance In an interview with radio talk show host John Catsimatidis, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said that Democrats are "spun up" after her performance during the public impeachment hearings. © The Hill Stefanik: The left is 'spun up' after her impeachment hearing performance "I was focused on the facts and the substance in my questions of witnesses as part of these impeachment hearings," the House Intelligence Committee member told Catsimatidis. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

We’ve been soliciting your impeachment questions throughout this impeachment inquiry. As it wraps up its second month and enters a new phase — writing of the actual articles of impeachment against President Trump — here are some of your most common questions, answered.

Rudy Giuliani wearing a suit and tie: Rudy Giuliani campaigning for Trump in 2016. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/)© Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Rudy Giuliani campaigning for Trump in 2016. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/)

Got more questions? Ask them here, and I’ll try to answer them in an upcoming 5-Minute Fix impeachment newsletter.

Can Trump be subpoenaed in the investigation? Not without a court case going all the way to the Supreme Court. The court has never ruled if a president can be subpoenaed in a grand jury, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker described it as a “thorny legal thicket.” We could presume the same holds for a subpoena from Congress. Even if they could subpoena Trump, Democrats have no illusions that he would talk, considering how many White House officials have ignored subpoenas.

House Democrat says he plans to vote against all articles of impeachment

  House Democrat says he plans to vote against all articles of impeachment Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, one of two Democrats to vote against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, said he plans to vote against all the articles of impeachment "unless there's something that I haven't seen, haven't heard before."Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, one of two Democrats to vote against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, said he plans to vote against all the articles of impeachment "unless there's something that I haven't seen, haven't heard before.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

As the House Judiciary Committee begins hearings next week on writing articles of impeachment, they’ve invited Trump and his lawyers to join and even question witnesses. He’s expressed no interest.

Why hasn’t Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani been subpoenaed? Possibly because he’s Trump’s private attorney and could try to avoid talking by saying everything he knows would be protected by attorney-client privilege (There’s some dispute that it would be, though). Democrats have also been more focused on talking to past and present government officials. Trump’s personal lawyer can take the lead on defending the president in a Senate trial, though the president has several lawyers, and it would seem risky, to say the least, to task Giuliani with his defense there.

Ivanka Trump Tweets Out Fake de Tocqueville Quote to Bash Impeachment as a ‘Decline of Public Morals’

  Ivanka Trump Tweets Out Fake de Tocqueville Quote to Bash Impeachment as a ‘Decline of Public Morals’ “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.” Those words, Ivanka Trump claimed, were spoken by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. In a Thursday evening tweet, the first daughter used the quotation to bash the impeachment hearings against her father, President Donald Trump.

When Trump decided to release the Ukraine military aid after a months-long freeze, what justification was given? Well, Trump has said he was worried about corruption in Ukraine and concern that European countries weren’t doing their part to protect Ukraine from Russian-backed separatists.

But the White House didn’t give a specific reason when it released the aid in September after freezing it in early July. Officials were under growing pressure from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to give it to Ukraine. And we now know Trump had been briefed on the existence of the whistleblower complaint, according to a New York Times report.

It’s easy to understand Russian interest in influencing our election but what motivation does Ukraine possibly have? Things seem pretty unsettled there. Ukraine didn’t interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Not according to the U.S. intelligence agencies who have said it was Russia.

Wide partisan gulf on display at impeachment hearing

  Wide partisan gulf on display at impeachment hearing Democrats and Republicans might have been in the same hearing room Wednesday, but the first day of testimony in this phase of the impeachment process of President Donald Trump underscored just how little the parties are engaging with each other. And the daylong House Judiciary Committee hearing dedicated to exploring the Constitution’s impeachment standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” offered little hope of some mutual agreement on the facts that House Democrats uncovered, how to interpret them or the entire impeachment process.[Impeachment hearing more about Judiciary panel than witnesses] Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Fiona Hill is Trump’s former top Russia adviser in the White House, and when she testified in the impeachment inquiry she did a good job explaining that some Ukrainians bet on the wrong horse in 2016 (Hillary Clinton). But that’s not the same as a widespread, systematic effort, directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, to help Trump win. Hill testified that to equate what Ukraine did to what Russia did “is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”

When the Senate trial begins, will Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. be in the position to enforce subpoenas? No. Subpoenas are entirely Congress’s purview. And it will be senators who will decide which witnesses to call. Roberts’s job is to interpret the rules, not set them. As we get closer to a Senate trial (ETA: January), I’ll start exploring how this works. Here’s a theoretical look at how Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), could shape the trial to benefit Trump.

If Trump is impeached and convicted in the Senate, could he run again as president in 2020? Probably not, but it depends on how the Senate convicts him. Constitutional scholar Josh Chafetz told me that the Senate normally takes two votes when it decides whether to convict someone who has been impeached by the House: 1. To convict and kick that official out of office; 2. To bar that official from holding office ever again. Theoretically, I guess the Senate could take the first vote and not the other. But if Senate Republicans defected and decided to convict Trump, they’d probably have no problem taking the next step barring him from running for office again.

'Ramblings of a basement blogger': White House press secretary slams Schiff impeachment report

  'Ramblings of a basement blogger': White House press secretary slams Schiff impeachment report White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham tore into the impeachment report released by House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. © Provided by Washington ExaminerThe report, released on Tuesday, accuses President Trump of withholding almost $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in exchange for politically expedient investigations, including into rival Joe Biden. Grisham, 43, ripped Rep. Adam Schiff, who is the chairman of the committee, in a statement released shortly after the report was made public.

Here’s more on the basics of impeachment and a Senate trial.

Not a word about Attorney General William P. Barr in weeks. He was named alongside Giuliani in Trump’s call to Ukraine’s president, as someone who could do Trump’s bidding. What is he doing, and where is he? Barr and the Justice Department have distanced themselves from Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. But Barr still seems very much Trump’s defender as he does his job. He recently characterized Congress’s impeachment inquiry as a “war” against a “duly elected government.” The impeachment inquiry did not try to talk to Barr, but a separate committee sued Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Tuesday for not turning over documents in an investigation into the 2020 Census.

Why doesn’t Congress hold administration officials who have defied subpoenas in inherent contempt, by jailing or fining them? Jailing them would be a heavy lift, arguably more invasive than impeaching the president. Congress doesn’t have any jail, and it could backfire in public sentiment. Fining people is a possibility, but impeachment investigators have seemed more focused on talking to the people who will comply with a subpoena than figuring out how Congress can fine an executive branch official. Here’s more on what inherent contempt is.

Rudy Giuliani Slams GOP Counsel in Trump Impeachment Hearing For 'Picking Up Democrat Lies' About His Work in Ukraine .
Ambassador Gordon Sondland directly implicated Giuliani in the "quid pro quo" arrangement between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. "Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma," he added, referring to the Ukrainian energy company whose board once included Joe Biden's son Hunter.Giuliani lashed out at both Sondland and the GOP counsel, Steve Castor, in a series of tweets on Wednesday."Sondland is speculating based on VERY little contact.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!