Impeachment Trial Begins, Lev Parnas Surfaces with New Damning Evidence

With 290 days until the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the impeachment of President Donald Trump dominates the news. On Wednesday, January 15, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the two articles of impeachment against Trump, who is charged with abuse of presidential power, and obstruction of Congress.

Prior to signing the articles, Pelosi announced the names of the seven impeachment managers she has chosen to present the case for impeachment to the Senate. They are House Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Val Demings (D-Fla.), Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Jason Crow (D-Colo.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas). After the signing of the articles, Pelosi and the impeachment managers walked across the Capitol to the Senate chamber to deliver the articles, per protocol.

The articles charge that Trump abused his power by withholding already-approved military aid to Ukraine, as well as the promise of a White House meeting with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskiy in order to pressure Zelenskiy to announce an investigation of Democratic primary candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who held a high-paying job as consultant to Burisma, Ukraine’s largest energy provider. The articles further charge that Trump obstructed Congress by blocking key evidence and testimony.

The Senate formally accepted the articles on Thursday. On Thursday afternoon, Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial in the Senate, administered the jurors’ oath to all 100 senators, to swear to deliver “impartial justice.” It should be noted, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already openly promised not to be impartial.

“This is an example of all of the president’s henchmen,” Pelosi reflected, “and I hope that the senators do not become part of the president’s henchmen.”

The actual trial is expected to begin on Tuesday, January 21.

Meanwhile, The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, has determined this week that Trump’s hold on the military aid to Ukraine was a violation of federal law governing how the White House may disburse funds approved by Congress.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the decision states. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”

Though impeachment does not require violation of a federal law, this development will no doubt be significant as the impeachment trial plays out. Republicans are already trying to point out that the GAO is pointing the finger at the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), not at the president. It was the president, however, who ordered that the military funds be put on hold.

And as impeachment trial preparations were brewing this week, additional evidence was unearthed, appearing to confirm the nature of Trump’s motivation in his plan to have the Bidens investigated.

Trump maintains that he was simply motivated by his concern about corruption in Ukraine for the sake of “the American people.” Strong evidence indicates, however, that Trump was motivated purely by personal gain — uncovering dirt on the Bidens, or, at the very least, stirring up controversy and casting doubt on Joe Biden’s integrity as he runs for president.

Lev Parnas, a former associate of Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has provided documents and granted interviews containing information that indicate that Donald Trump was directly involved in the Ukraine pressure campaign, and that his motivation was for personal gain, not for the good of the U.S. Further, Trump’s intent was to investigate the Bidens, not to investigate general corruption in Ukraine.

James Hohmann of the Washington Post writes, “Evidence of the president’s hands-on role bolsters the Democratic case that Trump himself abused his power, not outside advisers who were pursuing personal interests in the president’s name.”

Included in Parnas’ documents was a message thread from March 2019 between Parnas and Robert Hyde, a current Republican candidate for Congress in Connecticut. The subject of the messages was former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled from her post by the Trump administration in May 2019. In his interviews with the media this week, Lev Parnas confirmed that Yovanovitch was seen as an obstacle to Trump’s plan for investigation of the Bidens.
The messages suggest Hyde and others may have been following the diplomat in Kiev. “They are moving her tomorrow,” Hyde wrote to Parnas. “The guys over there asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them.”

He then noted that Yovanovitch turned off her phone and computer.

“They are willing to help if we/you would like a price,” Hyde said. “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money … what I was told.”

“Lol,” Parnas responded, indicating “laugh out loud.”.

Several days later, Hyde wrote: “It’s confirmed we have a person inside.”

Though the U.S. State Department continues to remain silent about the exchanges and the possibility of unauthorized surveillance of Yovanovitch by associates of Trump, Ukraine has announced that it will launch an investigation.

“Ukraine’s position is not to interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States of America,” Ukraine’s Interior Ministry stated. “Ukraine cannot ignore such illegal activities on the territory of its own state.”

Parnas has since said that he didn’t take the exchange seriously. Hyde, too, dismissed it as a joke.

Though some of Parnas’ new information still needs to be corroborated, other portions of it support the existing evidence against Trump and his associates. It’s yet to be determined whether, or if, this new evidence will be used in the Senate impeachment trial.

On the other side of the world, Russia’s entire cabinet resigned on Wednesday. Russian president Vladimir Putin had, earlier on Wednesday, announced that he would be pushing through reforms to the constitution. The changes would redistribute power so that parliament and the prime minister would have more power, but Putin’s successor as president would be considerably weakened. Putin, whose term as president ends in 2024, could then take on a new role and continue to be a powerful figure in the Russian government. (Speaking of abuse of power…)

Putin simply thanked his former government and said that “not everything worked out.”

Given what our president has successfully been able to get away with, given his statement, “Then I have an Article 2 (of the U.S. Constitution), where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” and given that our current GOP largely disregards the checks and balances system of our three-branch government, we can only hope that Election 2020 eliminates the possibility of something similar happening in the U.S.

Impeachment process moves ahead amid new revelations from Lev Parnas | CBS News [2020-01-16]

Trump reacts to photograph of him with Lev Parnas: “I take thousands of pictures” | Global News [2020-01-16]

“Governing by Chaos:” Soleimani Killed, Trump Team Struggles to Define “Imminent Threat”

There are 297 days until the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and our current president, Donald J. Trump, continues, as Senator Kirsten Giliibrand (D-NY) puts it, “to govern by chaos.”

Early last Friday morning, January 3, Trump, without notifying Congress, ordered a drone strike to kill General Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful general, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people.

Trump first said that he had ordered the strike in retribution, at least in part, for the death of an American contractor at an Iraqi military base, possibly by Iranian-backed forces. In order for the strike to have been legal without Trump’s consulting Congress, however, there must be evidence that the strike was called to fend off an imminent threat.

Consequently, the Pentagon was quick to tell the public that the strike was intended to stop an imminent attack on Americans.

Following the strike, Trump threatened on Twitter that if Iran retaliated, the U.S. would “quickly and fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner.”

“If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets,” he tweeted, “The U.S. has targeted 52 Iranian sites — some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.”

After the media, Trump’s advisors, and lawmakers in Trump’s own party, quickly pointed out that destroying a nation’s cultural sites would be a war crime, Trump responded by saying, “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people, and we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”

But…Yes, yes it does. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo assured the world that the administration would remain within the law.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, too, rushed to walk back Trump’s threat, saying “We will follow the laws of armed conflict.”

Iran’s response happened on Tuesday, when it launched more than 12 missiles aimed at two Iraqi bases holding U.S. troops. There were no American casualties, and there is evidence that Iran warned Iraq of the strikes in advance, purportedly so that Americans would know they were coming. At first, many believed that as long as Trump didn’t further escalate, things might remain quiet for now. Since then, however, Iran has pledged “severe revenge” on the U.S.

The administration refuses to provide evidence of an imminent attack by Iran, but continues to work to convince the public that Trump’s drone strike was justified. Sidestepping the question of “imminence,” they point to Soleimani’s previous actions, saying that they indicate that Soleimani would continue to act in the same way. They also claim that eliminating Soleimani was part of a larger strategy.

Previous administrations, it should be noted, had strategically chosen not to eliminate Soleimani, not because they supported him, but because of possible other chain reactions Soleimani’s demise could set into motion — such as a war.

The administration’s larger strategy was what Senate lawmakers had expected to learn more about during a national security briefing on Wednesday evening. They were disappointed, however— insulted, even —when they received no more insight than what they had already read in the news. Lawmakers on both sides were angered at the implication that they didn’t need to know, and were told that to debate the appropriateness of a military intervention in Iran would be unpatriotic.

While this was all unfolding, former national security advisor John Bolton, who had previously complied with the White House edict not to cooperate in the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, said that if subpoenaed, he would testify before the Senate.

Trump, as expected, said he would be fine with Bolton testifying, but that they should respect “privilege.” In other words, Bolton should only be allowed to say what Trump allowed him to say.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi continues to hold the articles of impeachment until, as she says, she can be assured of a fair and impartial trial in the Senate. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has said he has the votes to go ahead with a trial, even without the articles (and without witnesses — or impartiality).

Congress has just voted in favor of restricting the president’s war powers against Iran, meaning he must get authorization from Congress. The Senate is also working on a similar resolution. This may ultimately amount to nothing more than a strong message to Donald Trump, since he can veto the resolution. Nevertheless, it’s a message.

Senator Tammy Duckworth said, “Is America safer today than before trump made this rash decision (to kill Soleimani)? My answer is No.”

Senator Rand Paul echoed that sentiment, saying “…Now the whole country of Iran is consumed with revenge… If you’re asking yourself, ‘Will there be attacks on America?’ I think there’s much more likely to be attacks now with his death. But you also have to ask, if anybody thinks there’s a possibility that diplomacy would work, how’s it going to work when you kill the major general of another country?”

As we hurtle toward the 2020 presidential election, another question to consider: “Is America safer today than it was before Trump was elected?” Chaos cannot govern a country that remains free.

Iran’s Top General Killed In US Airstrike, Could ‘Put Americans At Risk’ | TODAY [2020-01-03]

Iran attacks U.S. forces as Trump prepares to address crisis | CBS News [2020-01-08]