Pentagon Aid to Ukraine Was Frozen Right After Trump Spoke With Country’s Leader https://nyti.ms/34Hgwdv
Pentagon Aid to Ukraine Was Frozen Right After Trump Spoke With Country’s Leader
Emails also suggest President Trump first began asking about $250 million in Pentagon aid after a June 19 article in the Washington Examiner.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine arriving in Paris this month for a summit meeting.Credit...Ludovic Marin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By Edward Wong
Dec. 21, 2019Updated 9:28 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — About 90 minutes after President Trump held a controversial telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in July, the White House budget office ordered the Pentagon to suspend all military aid that Congress had allocated to Ukraine, according to emails released by the Pentagon late Friday.
A budget official, Michael Duffey, also told the Pentagon to keep quiet about the aid freeze because of the “sensitive nature of the request,” according to a message dated July 25.
An earlier email that Mr. Duffey sent to the Pentagon comptroller suggested that Mr. Trump began asking aides about $250 million in military aid set aside for Ukraine after noticing a June 19 article about it in the Washington Examiner.
The emails add to public understanding of the events that prompted the Democratic-led House to call for Mr. Trump to be removed from office. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress along a party-line vote after documents and testimony by senior administration officials revealed that he had withheld $391 million in aid to Ukraine at the same time that he asked for investigations from the Ukrainian president that would benefit him politically.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, has pressed for Mr. Duffey, a political appointee who is associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget, to testify in a Senate trial. On Twitter on Saturday, he pointed to the July 25 email as “all the more reason” Mr. Duffey and others must appear. Republican Senate leaders have indicated they do not plan to call witnesses.
The email raises further questions about the process by which Mr. Trump imposed the hold on the military aid, and the link between the hold and the requests he made of Mr. Zelensky in the telephone call, which prompted concern among national security officials with knowledge of the conversation.
In the call, after Mr. Zelensky mentioned Ukraine was ready to buy anti-tank missiles to use in a war against a Russian-backed insurgency, Mr. Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor though,” according to a reconstructed transcript released by the White House. He then pressed Mr. Zelensky to open an investigation based on a conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 United States elections and one based on unsubstantiated claims of corrupt acts by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential candidate.
That call took place from 9:03 a.m. to 9:33 a.m. At 11:04 a.m., Mr. Duffey emailed Defense Department officials telling them of the aid, “Please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process.” Obligation refers to the process of a government agency designating how funds will be spent.
In addition, he wrote, “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.”
The budget office declined to comment on Saturday, and the Pentagon did not reply to a request for comment.
A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to publicly discuss the matter, said the timing of the email — an hour and a half after Mr. Trump’s July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky — was coincidental.
The official said the email was part of a weekslong exchange over aid to Ukraine. The July 25 email came after the budget office issued a formal, written hold on the aid, the official said. The reference to sensitivity around the discussions, the official said, was based on the potential for concerns about career officials at the agency that had arisen from previous instances when aid had been cut.
In a June 19 email, Mr. Duffey asked Elaine McCusker, the Pentagon comptroller, about the aid in the context of the Washington Examiner article, saying, “The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been tasked to follow-up with someone over there to get more detail.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
According to the private testimony of Mark Sandy, a senior budget official, Mr. Trump began inquiring about the aid on June 19 after seeing a news report. Mr. Sandy said in a closed-door deposition before lawmakers in November that he learned of Mr. Trump’s decision to freeze the aid through a July 12 email from Robert Blair, an aide to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff.
The budget office initially blocked the State Department’s $141 million portion of the aid package on July 3.
The emails underscore what some officials say was the central role that the Office of Management and Budget played in Mr. Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign, which he orchestrated with the help of his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Democratic leaders in Congress have called for testimonies from Mr. Mulvaney, the director of the budget office; John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser; and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. None have agreed to testify.
Mr. Bolton is said to have opposed the pressure campaign on Ukraine, while Mr. Pompeo enabled it — he spoke with Mr. Giuliani weeks before he helped Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump with the April ouster of the United States ambassador to Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch, who promoted anticorruption efforts.
Mr. Sandy’s private testimony disclosed that some budget officials were disturbed by the aid freeze to Ukraine. Two budget officials resigned this year in part out of frustration at the freeze, he said. One official had been frustrated by not understanding the reason for the hold, Mr. Sandy said, and another had offered a “dissenting opinion” on whether the hold was legal.
Mr. Trump released the aid on Sept. 11, after he learned of the whistle-blower complaint in late August. Mr. Bolton had resigned the previous day, though to what degree that was tied to Ukraine is unclear. Mr. Duffey wrote an email to Ms. McCusker at 9:52 p.m. on Sept. 11 saying he hoped that the signing of the release order would take place that night, and that he was “glad to have this behind us.”
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York.
Edward Wong is a diplomatic and international correspondent who has reported for The Times for more than 20 years, 13 from Iraq and China. He received a Livingston Award and was on a team of Pulitzer Prize finalists for Iraq War coverage. He has been a Nieman Fellow at Harvard and a Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton. @ewong
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The super religious zealot who loves Fox News and the racist/bigot/sexual assaulter/adulterer/corrupt/treasonous POTUS is calling people brainwashed. Amusing.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
My evidence will be presented in less then a year....And thanks for the Troll label, that’s when one know’s they have Won. I will try to leave this safe space alone for a bit. I understand misery needs company and conservatives are not welcome here. Isn’t that ironic, don’t ya think?? AM Have a blessed day
Impeachment isn't official until the articles of impeachment are sent over to the Senate. So Donald Trump has not officially been impeached yet. It has been voted on by the House yes! But it hasn't been sent over to the Senate yet, so nothing's official yet. If they don't send the Articles over to the Senate, it will be rendered null and void. If they do send it over to the Senate, they will have their Senate trial and he will be acquitted. So pick your poison.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
hot take. its Impeached AND aquitted or Impeached AND convicted.
They seem to suggest if the Senate chooses to not take it up(unconstitutional imo) then that nullifies the House action?
I dont believe that, given each chamber has its own seperate role and powers in regards to this.
Frankly, let this all play out and not listen to what amounts to click bait bullshit in any media platform. They are trying to fill air time with cheap and easy. Instead of informing us of what all else is going on in the world, which is a lot......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The articles haven't been sent over to the Senate yet because they do not want a trial there because the senate trial will call up whoever they want under oath. That would be devastating. The Dems know they can't remove him, so They just wanted the label tagged on Trump. (Trump Impeached) (impeached doesn't mean removed) they hope that we the people don't know the difference. No president has ever been removed. Nixon got the closest but resigned ahead of the Senate vote, so technically he wasn't removed either. They don't want the label (Trump Impeached but Acquitted) and they don't want to have to answer those nasty questions under oath that they would get. This is fact not opinion. The dems are in a box. They are stalling trying to by time & figure out a way to wiggle out of the bind that they are in. That is the problem. All of this distraction during an election year? How is the Dem candidate going to get his or her message out? Bottom line you're still trying to undo 2016. Good luck.
Johnson acquitted in Senate trial STILL IMPEACHED.
Nixon rendered moot after resignation. STILL IMPEACHED
Clinton aquitted in Senate STILL IMPEACHED
Trump IMPEACHED Senate trial pending
STILL IMPEACHED.....
btw, this is about his preformance AS president. Not a 3 yr old election......
Almost positive Nixon was not impeached. Only three presidents were ever impeached: Johnson, Clinton and trump.
yeah, you are right. the committee approved 3 rejected 2 articles. It hadnt gone to a full house vote yet.
McTeach for the win......
Nixon was definitely on his way to being impeached. I wonder how much it burns Trump knowing he is on this very short list.
The articles haven't been sent over to the Senate yet because they do not want a trial there because the senate trial will call up whoever they want under oath. That would be devastating. The Dems know they can't remove him, so They just wanted the label tagged on Trump. (Trump Impeached) (impeached doesn't mean removed) they hope that we the people don't know the difference. No president has ever been removed. Nixon got the closest but resigned ahead of the Senate vote, so technically he wasn't removed either. They don't want the label (Trump Impeached but Acquitted) and they don't want to have to answer those nasty questions under oath that they would get. This is fact not opinion. The dems are in a box. They are stalling trying to by time & figure out a way to wiggle out of the bind that they are in. That is the problem. All of this distraction during an election year? How is the Dem candidate going to get his or her message out? Bottom line you're still trying to undo 2016. Good luck.
Johnson acquitted in Senate trial STILL IMPEACHED.
Nixon rendered moot after resignation. STILL IMPEACHED
Clinton aquitted in Senate STILL IMPEACHED
Trump IMPEACHED Senate trial pending
STILL IMPEACHED.....
btw, this is about his preformance AS president. Not a 3 yr old election......
Almost positive Nixon was not impeached. Only three presidents were ever impeached: Johnson, Clinton and trump.
yeah, you are right. the committee approved 3 rejected 2 articles. It hadnt gone to a full house vote yet.
McTeach for the win......
Nixon was definitely on his way to being impeached. I wonder how much it burns Trump knowing he is on this very short list.
I hope he hasn't had a solid nights sleep since....or in the weeks that led up to it. He certainly acts delirious enough for this to be the case. But, then again, that's been the case for over 3 years, sooooo....
"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
Impeachment isn't official until the articles of impeachment are sent over to the Senate. So Donald Trump has not officially been impeached yet. It has been voted on by the House yes! But it hasn't been sent over to the Senate yet, so nothing's official yet. If they don't send the Articles over to the Senate, it will be rendered null and void. If they do send it over to the Senate, they will have their Senate trial and he will be acquitted. So pick your poison.
Stop with the name-calling, everyone. It's never ok. Just discuss the topic and do not get personal with each other.
Reality check. He's impeached. period. It's not an opinion. It's a reality.
I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season. Try to take a break from this stuff, if possible. Enjoy your families, if possible, lol. Cheers to everyone.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
They'll say impeached. He has been charged officially with high crimes and misdemeanors. He hasn't been convicted. It's pretty straightforward
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
Whole thing is moo anyway. Does anyone think Pelosi is never going to send them over? Ha. She wants a fair trial. Not too much to ask.
Certainly no one involved with this is looking for a fair trial. Politicians only move forward if the odds (public or legal) are stacked in their favor.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
They'll say impeached. He has been charged officially with high crimes and misdemeanors. He hasn't been convicted. It's pretty straightforward
The guy who made the argument, Noah Feldman, was a Democrat witness in the hearings. He's not some hack from OANN. It's an interesting argument if you care enough to indulge it. It's definitely not worth pounding your fist on the table over, though.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
Whole thing is moo anyway. Does anyone think Pelosi is never going to send them over? Ha. She wants a fair trial. Not too much to ask.
I don't understand what Pelosi's leverage is. McConnell agrees to certain terms or else what?
And to be clear, I think it's insane that we're even discussing whether or not the Senate will have a good faith trial.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
Whole thing is moo anyway. Does anyone think Pelosi is never going to send them over? Ha. She wants a fair trial. Not too much to ask.
I don't understand what Pelosi's leverage is. McConnell agrees to certain terms or else what?
And to be clear, I think it's insane that we're even discussing whether or not the Senate will have a good faith trial.
She has no leverage. When Mitch says he’s going to transparently do what is best for the Red Team, he means it. And I think we have learned that the res of the GOP will go along with it. They are going to clear him. And quickly.
I do love the irony of Republicans bitching about her slowing the process down #merrickgarland.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
Whole thing is moo anyway. Does anyone think Pelosi is never going to send them over? Ha. She wants a fair trial. Not too much to ask.
I don't understand what Pelosi's leverage is. McConnell agrees to certain terms or else what?
And to be clear, I think it's insane that we're even discussing whether or not the Senate will have a good faith trial.
I've wondered about what exactly her leverage is as well. Here's what I've come up with: By not sending over the articles, she's implying "We'll have a fair trial, or no trial at all." That might sound like a win for Trump at first, to not have to go to trial. But I think being acquitted in a Senate trial (which will happen) is way more of a win for him. So putting that off might be her play.
Also, I don't know how long she can drag this out (not sending over the articles), but hypothetically, I wonder if she can wait as long as she wants. Like, when there's a Democrat-controlled Senate. Not that I see that happening any time soon though.
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
Whole thing is moo anyway. Does anyone think Pelosi is never going to send them over? Ha. She wants a fair trial. Not too much to ask.
I don't understand what Pelosi's leverage is. McConnell agrees to certain terms or else what?
And to be clear, I think it's insane that we're even discussing whether or not the Senate will have a good faith trial.
I've wondered about what exactly her leverage is as well. Here's what I've come up with: By not sending over the articles, she's implying "We'll have a fair trial, or no trial at all." That might sound like a win for Trump at first, to not have to go to trial. But I think being acquitted in a Senate trial (which will happen) is way more of a win for him. So putting that off might be her play.
Also, I don't know how long she can drag this out (not sending over the articles), but hypothetically, I wonder if she can wait as long as she wants. Like, when there's a Democrat-controlled Senate. Not that I see that happening any time soon though.
If he's gonna "win" either way, I'm less concerned with degrees than putting every Senator on the record. Romney, Collins, et al. get off pretty easy if there's no vote. Depending on how the GOP winds are blowing say 5 years from now, they can make all sorts of claims about what they "would have done." All the more reason I think they should have seen through trying to get testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney, etc.
Thanks for good answers to my questions, all. And thanks Kat for the reminder to take a break from this stuff. Like (no doubt) others here, I find myself a bit obsessed with all of this, just hoping and hoping we will only have to endure the current POTUS (I don't even like mentioning his name anymore) for much longer.
Cheer y'all!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
He’s officially impeached but since Pelosi has not sent the articles to the Senate, it’s tantamount to someone being charged with or indicted on a crime, but are out on bail with their court date pending.
I would agree he is impeached. But I don’t agree with this analogy and is why I don’t think it is far-fetched for those who claim he hasn’t been impeached yet. There is no pending trial. Its more like being out on bail but the prosecutor refuses to set a trial date so they can hang the label of being charged over your head indefinitely. At some point a judge is going to say Move forward with a trial or drop the charges. I think in 75 years when anyone who can remember this is dead or senile history will remember this as an impeachment with all democratic votes who decided they didn’t have enough for trial.
Thanks for good answers to my questions, all. And thanks Kat for the reminder to take a break from this stuff. Like (no doubt) others here, I find myself a bit obsessed with all of this, just hoping and hoping we will only have to endure the current POTUS (I don't even like mentioning his name anymore) for much longer.
Cheer y'all!
After soul-eater is gone, and I hope it's soon, we'll all still be here and we'll have families to celebrate holidays with. He'll, hopefully, just be a bad memory.
And a few other thoughts based on the discussions, I feel that Speaker Pelosi is giving time for people to think and do the right thing. She's patient and after the holidays, hopefully, I seem to be saying hopefully a lot, the people in power will have time to plan on an honest trial with witnesses and lots of testimony. Also, citizens have this time to contact their Senators and express how they'd like to be represented. I don't want my Senators to be a part of a rigged trial with no witness testimony. That would be fake and wrong and corrupt. I will express that to my Senators.
Thanks for good answers to my questions, all. And thanks Kat for the reminder to take a break from this stuff. Like (no doubt) others here, I find myself a bit obsessed with all of this, just hoping and hoping we will only have to endure the current POTUS (I don't even like mentioning his name anymore) for much longer.
Cheer y'all!
After soul-eater is gone, and I hope it's soon, we'll all still be here and we'll have families to celebrate holidays with. He'll, hopefully, just be a bad memory.
And a few other thoughts based on the discussions, I feel that Speaker Pelosi is giving time for people to think and do the right thing. She's patient and after the holidays, hopefully, I seem to be saying hopefully a lot, the people in power will have time to plan on an honest trial with witnesses and lots of testimony. Also, citizens have this time to contact their Senators and express how they'd like to be represented. I don't want my Senators to be a part of a rigged trial with no witness testimony. That would be fake and wrong and corrupt. I will express that to my Senators.
In bold, hugely good idea! I will do just that!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm not sure what the deal is here. Even the lawyers can't seem to agree on this. Is there anyone here qualified to really know what is what here? I know I'm not!
The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page
Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist
merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the
articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both
parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The
House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to
prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If
the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't
actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted,
Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all,"
Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that
he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec.
2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain
impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House
of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It doesn't really matter. It's basically Constitutional lawyers arguing over what the history books would say if a meteor hit DC tomorrow.
They'll say impeached. He has been charged officially with high crimes and misdemeanors. He hasn't been convicted. It's pretty straightforward
The guy who made the argument, Noah Feldman, was a Democrat witness in the hearings. He's not some hack from OANN. It's an interesting argument if you care enough to indulge it. It's definitely not worth pounding your fist on the table over, though.
It doesn't make a difference to me who is making the argument. It's specious because there's nothing in the Constitution that says it's some continuous process and if part two isn't completed, then it's "null and void" which is what the Trump team is trying to argue. Each chamber has their role. Once the House votes, he's impeached. And then the trial starts. Even when acquitted, he's impeached, just like Johnson and Clinton.
Comments
Pentagon Aid to Ukraine Was Frozen Right After Trump Spoke With Country’s Leader
Emails also suggest President Trump first began asking about $250 million in Pentagon aid after a June 19 article in the Washington Examiner.
By Edward Wong
WASHINGTON — About 90 minutes after President Trump held a controversial telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in July, the White House budget office ordered the Pentagon to suspend all military aid that Congress had allocated to Ukraine, according to emails released by the Pentagon late Friday.
A budget official, Michael Duffey, also told the Pentagon to keep quiet about the aid freeze because of the “sensitive nature of the request,” according to a message dated July 25.
An earlier email that Mr. Duffey sent to the Pentagon comptroller suggested that Mr. Trump began asking aides about $250 million in military aid set aside for Ukraine after noticing a June 19 article about it in the Washington Examiner.
The emails add to public understanding of the events that prompted the Democratic-led House to call for Mr. Trump to be removed from office. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress along a party-line vote after documents and testimony by senior administration officials revealed that he had withheld $391 million in aid to Ukraine at the same time that he asked for investigations from the Ukrainian president that would benefit him politically.
The emails were in a batch of 146 pages of documents released by the Pentagon late Friday to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit news organization and watchdog group, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, has pressed for Mr. Duffey, a political appointee who is associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget, to testify in a Senate trial. On Twitter on Saturday, he pointed to the July 25 email as “all the more reason” Mr. Duffey and others must appear. Republican Senate leaders have indicated they do not plan to call witnesses.
The email raises further questions about the process by which Mr. Trump imposed the hold on the military aid, and the link between the hold and the requests he made of Mr. Zelensky in the telephone call, which prompted concern among national security officials with knowledge of the conversation.
In the call, after Mr. Zelensky mentioned Ukraine was ready to buy anti-tank missiles to use in a war against a Russian-backed insurgency, Mr. Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor though,” according to a reconstructed transcript released by the White House. He then pressed Mr. Zelensky to open an investigation based on a conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 United States elections and one based on unsubstantiated claims of corrupt acts by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential candidate.
That call took place from 9:03 a.m. to 9:33 a.m. At 11:04 a.m., Mr. Duffey emailed Defense Department officials telling them of the aid, “Please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process.” Obligation refers to the process of a government agency designating how funds will be spent.
In addition, he wrote, “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.”
The budget office declined to comment on Saturday, and the Pentagon did not reply to a request for comment.
A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to publicly discuss the matter, said the timing of the email — an hour and a half after Mr. Trump’s July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky — was coincidental.
The official said the email was part of a weekslong exchange over aid to Ukraine. The July 25 email came after the budget office issued a formal, written hold on the aid, the official said. The reference to sensitivity around the discussions, the official said, was based on the potential for concerns about career officials at the agency that had arisen from previous instances when aid had been cut.
In a June 19 email, Mr. Duffey asked Elaine McCusker, the Pentagon comptroller, about the aid in the context of the Washington Examiner article, saying, “The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been tasked to follow-up with someone over there to get more detail.”
continues....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
According to the private testimony of Mark Sandy, a senior budget official, Mr. Trump began inquiring about the aid on June 19 after seeing a news report. Mr. Sandy said in a closed-door deposition before lawmakers in November that he learned of Mr. Trump’s decision to freeze the aid through a July 12 email from Robert Blair, an aide to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff.
The budget office initially blocked the State Department’s $141 million portion of the aid package on July 3.
The emails underscore what some officials say was the central role that the Office of Management and Budget played in Mr. Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign, which he orchestrated with the help of his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Democratic leaders in Congress have called for testimonies from Mr. Mulvaney, the director of the budget office; John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser; and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. None have agreed to testify.
Mr. Bolton is said to have opposed the pressure campaign on Ukraine, while Mr. Pompeo enabled it — he spoke with Mr. Giuliani weeks before he helped Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump with the April ouster of the United States ambassador to Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch, who promoted anticorruption efforts.
Mr. Sandy’s private testimony disclosed that some budget officials were disturbed by the aid freeze to Ukraine. Two budget officials resigned this year in part out of frustration at the freeze, he said. One official had been frustrated by not understanding the reason for the hold, Mr. Sandy said, and another had offered a “dissenting opinion” on whether the hold was legal.
Mr. Trump released the aid on Sept. 11, after he learned of the whistle-blower complaint in late August. Mr. Bolton had resigned the previous day, though to what degree that was tied to Ukraine is unclear. Mr. Duffey wrote an email to Ms. McCusker at 9:52 p.m. on Sept. 11 saying he hoped that the signing of the release order would take place that night, and that he was “glad to have this behind us.”
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York.
Edward Wong is a diplomatic and international correspondent who has reported for The Times for more than 20 years, 13 from Iraq and China. He received a Livingston Award and was on a team of Pulitzer Prize finalists for Iraq War coverage. He has been a Nieman Fellow at Harvard and a Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton. @ewong
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."
"If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all," Feldman wrote.
However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And to be clear, I think it's insane that we're even discussing whether or not the Senate will have a good faith trial.
She has no leverage. When Mitch says he’s going to transparently do what is best for the Red Team, he means it. And I think we have learned that the res of the GOP will go along with it. They are going to clear him. And quickly.
I do love the irony of Republicans bitching about her slowing the process down #merrickgarland.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Also, I don't know how long she can drag this out (not sending over the articles), but hypothetically, I wonder if she can wait as long as she wants. Like, when there's a Democrat-controlled Senate. Not that I see that happening any time soon though.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Its more like being out on bail but the prosecutor refuses to set a trial date so they can hang the label of being charged over your head indefinitely. At some point a judge is going to say Move forward with a trial or drop the charges.
I think in 75 years when anyone who can remember this is dead or senile history will remember this as an impeachment with all democratic votes who decided they didn’t have enough for trial.