The House Intelligence Committee is holding hearings on impeaching the President of the United States. It doesn\u2019t get any more serious than that. And, unlike the Nixon impeachment, this is not a cooperative effort among Democrats and Republicans. It\u2019s as ugly as it can get, with Democrats laser focused on eliciting witness testimony, and Republicans consistently questioning the validity of the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are at potentially four articles (or charges) of impeachment being considered. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The President attempted to gain help in his personal political campaign by having the government of Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son for corruption.\u00a0\u00a0The investigation didn\u2019t need to be legitimate, or substantive.\u00a0\u00a0All the President wanted was an announcement that Ukraine was doing it.\u00a0\u00a0The Ukrainian government was within days of doing exactly that. They scheduled a CNN interview that was ultimately cancelled when the \u201cwhistleblower\u201d report was revealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The President used the threat of withholding Congressional funds, mandated for Ukrainian defense, to leverage Ukrainian President Zelenskiy to make the announcement. He also used the \u201creward\u201d of a White House, Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy. Both of those actions are a \u201cbribe\u201d to Zelenskiy, using official government acts as the \u201cprize\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The President of the United States obstructed justice.\u00a0\u00a0He prohibited information from the Executive Branch, lawfully subpoenaed by the Congress, from being produced.\u00a0\u00a0He ordered members of the Executive Branch; including the State Department, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security staff and the White House staff not to testify to Congress.\u00a0\u00a0A few have ignored these orders and answered the subpoenas, but most have not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He then used that obstruction as a \u201creason\u201d why the charges are unproved.\u00a0\u00a0His defenders are claiming that there is little \u201cfirst hand\u201d information, yet most of those directly involved he has prohibited from testifying.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, the White House acted to hide their actions, covering-up the actual transcripts of identified phone calls by placing them on a high security server not used for that purpose, and releasing misleading and \u201cdoctored\u201d versions of the calls.\u00a0\u00a0They then claimed that everything done was \u201cproper,\u201d and that Congress, the media, and the American people needed to, \u201cget over it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The President of the United States intimidated witnesses.\u00a0\u00a0Those named to testify have been publicly criticized and even threatened by the President, particularly through social media.\u00a0\u00a0A clear example was his Twitter attack on Maria Yovanovitch WHILE SHE WAS TESTIFYING.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition he has declared in public that the \u201cwhistleblower,\u201d who lawfully worked within existing statute was in fact a \u201ctraitor\u201d and deserves death. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The President of the United States has the Constitutional duty to carry out the laws passed by Congress and signed by him.\u00a0\u00a0He failed in that duty, by willfully withholding the defense funds desperately needed by a US ally, Ukraine, for personal gain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Republicans on the Committee, and the President himself, seem desperate to \u201cout\u201d the whistleblower. Some far-right publications have already offered up a candidate, and if he\u2019s the one, then he has significant attachments to previous Democratic Administrations. Republicans would like to parade him in front of the world and America, tying him to Biden, Obama, and the \u201cdeep state\u201d of former CIA Director John Brennan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But as far as impeachment is concerned, it doesn\u2019t matter who the \u201cwhistleblower\u201d is. The original report was not a first hand description of much. Instead it was an investigation of what happened in the White House and National Security Council. The report was based on second hand accounts of others, about the phone call, withholding money from Ukraine, covering-up the transcripts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what the whistleblower did was provide a map for Congressional investigation.\u00a0\u00a0He\/she didn\u2019t supply \u201cevidence,\u201d but showed where that evidence was.\u00a0\u00a0Because of this, who he or she is doesn\u2019t matter; they have nothing more to add to the investigation.\u00a0\u00a0As one Democrat put it, he or she \u201cpulled the fire alarm,\u201d now it is time for others to put out the fire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what \u201couting\u201d the whistleblower will do is continue to send a message that the President and Republicans are already screaming:\u00a0\u00a0stand up against this President, and be attacked, threatened, fired and professionally destroyed.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s what Mr. Trump did to those who investigated the Russia connections: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr,Brennan and the others. And it\u2019s what he\u2019s threatened to do to Ms. Yovanovitch and the \u201cwhistleblower.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others<\/em> (Black’s Law Dictionary)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Republicans and the President have made their argument against the witnesses based on the legal concept of \u201chearsay.\u201d In fact, Congressman Nunes dismissed the entire testimony of Maria Yovanovitch as, \u201c\u2026more appropriate for the Foreign Relations Committee, Sub-Committee on Personnel,\u201d as if her complaint was merely a job issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She has no \u201cfirst hand\u201d knowledge of the actions of the President.\u00a0\u00a0She didn\u2019t talk to him, or get written communication from him.\u00a0\u00a0That doesn\u2019t mean she had nothing to add.\u00a0\u00a0Yovanovitch, and Ambassador Taylor and Assistant Secretary Kent, were\u00a0\u00a0\u201cfoundation witnesses,\u201d giving the Committee, and the American people, an understanding of what was going on in Ukraine.\u00a0\u00a0They also highlighted the difference between \u201cnormal\u201d in Ukrainian relations, and the aberrations committed by the Trump administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She also demonstrated President Trump\u2019s disdain for the professionals who work in the government.\u00a0\u00a0As she said, \u201c\u2026 I served at the pleasure of the President, all he had to do is ask me to leave \u2013 I didn\u2019t need to be smeared.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0While his actions towards her might not rise to the level of impeachment, they certainly demonstrate his ignorance of what our government does, even in his administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Ambassador Taylor had first hand knowledge that the money was withheld. So did Mr. Kent. They had their own \u201cbosses\u201d explanation of why the money was being withheld, first hand from them (not the President.) And they had first hand knowledge of what the impact of failing to deliver the money would be, how desperate Ukraine was. This lends and understanding to why President Zelenskiy was willing to announce an investigation of the Biden\u2019s, and why he continues to say there was no pressure from Mr. Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The President has every opportunity to have \u201cfirst hand\u201d testimony. Mr. Bolton, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Pompeo and others could testify, if the President allowed them. But he continues to obstruct the Congress, adding to another Article of Impeachment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dan Goldman is the lead counsel for the Democratic majority on the Intelligence Committee. Along with Chairman Adam Schiff, Goldman has led the first hour of witness questioning.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0He has the skills of his former employment, a Federal Prosecutor.\u00a0\u00a0Goldman carefully lets the witnesses tell their stories, guiding them to the points he wants to make.\u00a0\u00a0He is an expert at his craft, and he has a good case with good witnesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stephen Castor is the lead counsel for the Republican minority on the Committee. He has a long history of serving Republicans in Congress, with investigations including Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the IRS. And while he\u2019s been a good lawyer (at least from the Republican point of view) he\u2019s not had the interrogating experience of Goldman. And he doesn\u2019t have as strong a case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It showed in Friday\u2019s testimony, when Castor kept asking leading and whiny questions of Ms. Yovanovitch. She answered with confidence, and quickly saw the \u201ctraps\u201d Castor was laying. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It reminded me of the Kavanaugh hearing, when the Republicans brought in a \u201cguest\u201d prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell from Phoenix, to question Ms. Blasey-Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh. When the questioning was trending against the nominee, the Republicans took a recess. When they returned, the \u201cguest\u201d was done, and Senator Lindsey Graham led the way with a temper tantrum against the Democrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Friday, I kept waiting for Lindsey to storm into the hearing room and \u201csave\u201d Castor. He needed it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Direct Testimony<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Lawyers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n