“It is with the highest amount of solemn Monday that I announced my intention to introduce Articles of Impeachment today on the head of this ‘America-last’ executive branch that has been working since Jan. 20, 2021, to systematically destroy this country,” Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told reporters at the Capitol.

The firebrand congresswoman added the articles she introduced against Biden represent just the “first round” of purported offenses, and said she hopes House Republicans can find additional charges to bring against the president.

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://nypost.com/2023/05/18/marjorie-taylor-greene-introduces-impeachment-articles-against-biden/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The post Marjorie Taylor Greene introduces impeachment articles against Biden first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Sen. Chuck Schumer announces Trump Impeachment trail first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump said Friday he “will not be going to the Inauguration” of President-elect Joe Biden — an extraordinary move that will make him the first to skip the inaugural ceremony of his successor since 1869.

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th,” the president tweeted.

The post Trump says he ‘will not be going’ to Biden’s inauguration first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Watch the Impeachment Trial videos

Day One – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 1

Day Two – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 2

Day Three – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 3

Day Four – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 4

Day Five – Complete video
Fox Business: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 5

Day Six – Complete video
C-Span2: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 6

Day Seven – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 7

Day Eight – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 8

Day Nine – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 9

Day Ten – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 10

Day Eleven – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 11

Day Twelve – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 12

Final Day of US Senate Trial – Final vote
Final Senate Vote on Impeachment – 5 February 2020

Source: https://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/

The post Watch the US Senate Impeachment Trial Videos first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Unlike now, the highly partisan members of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF) were heavily involved in staffing the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) during its deliberations. Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski even bragged to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward in a December 5, 1974 interview that:

“Most important ‘focus’ in his [Jaworski’s] view was working out arrangement to get the material to House Judiciary…HJC was ‘very slow’ getting started, he sez, and would never have gotten off the ground without the info provided by the SPO [Special Prosecutor’s Office]. It was a ‘road map’ he stressed more than a few times. Sez HJC ‘had a very difficult time getting underway,’ that Doar admitted to him. Doar ‘an excellent man there. Still, he had nothing to catch hold of; he was engulfed by the Watergate Committee material’ but it was badly organized and not nearly definitive enough. ‘What we did — the first real step — was to cast the die.'”

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS WITH BITTER DISPUTE OVER RULES

Regardless of whether it was lawful and appropriate for technical members of the executive branch to staff an impeachment effort by the legislative branch, WSPF prosecutors supplied the precise and detailed testimony and other evidence from grand jury deliberations that enabled the HJC to properly frame its charges.

If Pelosi’s legal strategy seems to be out of a sitcom that’s because it is being guided by politicians who are eager to play the role of prosecutor during a TV trial.

In contrast, when the Mueller investigation came up empty, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her crew rushed to find an alternative – anything to get rid of Trump.

Racing against a self-imposed political clock, they skipped the idea of a criminal investigation into Trump’s Ukraine call because legitimate inquiries take time. Instead, they opted for what seemed like an attractive shortcut: impeachment.

That choice resulted in a politician-led kangaroo court during the House hearings. The American public was treated to brief and inconsistent questioning by alternating committee members – switching back and forth at five-minute intervals like a slow-motion Wimbledon tennis match – with each member grandstanding for their moment in the spotlight. This sloppy process resulted in a predetermined partisan success but now Democrats find themselves in a Senate trial without persuasive evidence whatsoever.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

In Watergate, the Ervin Committee let counsel first question the witnesses, with members able to chime in afterward. The result was a far more cogent picture. Of course, chief counsel Samuel Dash later admitted that he had prepared and distributed suggested questions to committee members to avoid duplication or lapses in the preferred storyline.

The post Geoff Shepard: Pelosi, House Democrats’ legal strategy at Trump impeachment trial is straight out of a sitcom first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

-McConnell, in opening remarks, says, ‘finally, some fairness’

-House managers complain about proposed trial rules, claiming McConnell is orchestrating a cover-up

-On party-line votes, Senate rejects Schumer amendments to subpoena White House, State Department, OMB for witnesses and documents

This is how the day unfolded.

7:24 p.m. GOP-controlled Senate rejects Democrats’ effort to subpoena OMB records

McConnell calls for a vote to table, or set aside, Schumer’s amendment calling for the Senate to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for documents related to the military aid to Ukraine.

The amendment is killed 53-47 along strict party lines — just as happened with the two previous Democratic amendments.

Schumer announces a fourth amendment — to subpoena testimony from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

With it still unclear how many more amendments Democrats might offer — and how many more hours of debate that might mean — the Senate then breaks for dinner.

As GOP senators leave the chamber — many grabbing phones and furiously typing on their electronics — they’re huddling just off the floor to enjoy a dinner of — pizza.

7:10 p.m. A long day for senators, stuck in seats, listening to hours of arguments

The first long day of the president’s impeachment trial has taken its toll on senators, who have been forced to sit in silence, relying on water and snacks to sustain them through hours of debate over the resolution setting the parameters for the impeachment trial.

The first person caught dozing was Republican Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho.

At about 5:30 p.m., as Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., spoke in favor of an amendment to subpoena the State Department for records, Risch was slumped over with his head resting in his right hand, and appeared to be sleeping or close to it, though he stirred repeatedly to rub his eyes.

Risch perked up later as Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for President Trump, and Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, took to the floor following Demings.

“What time is it?” Risch could be heard asking when Schiff appeared to run over the time allotted for the managers. He then started tapping the face of his wristwatch, which echoed through the chamber.

Other senators relied on gum and mints to stay alert. GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina was seen popping a mint into his mouth at about 6:10 p.m. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon was seen chewing on his pen.

The Senate is expected to break for dinner between 8 and 9 p.m. ET after a vote to table the Democrats’ third amendment, which seeks to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for records.

— ABC’s Benjamin Siegel

7:04 p.m. Sekulow argues Ukraine aid ultimately delivered without investigation announcement

The president’s personal attorney and part of his defense team Jay Sekulow repeated arguments from Republicans that the Trump administration ultimately provided aid to Ukraine that was authorized by Congress and went further than aid provided by the Obama administration.

Sekulow said that the fact that the aid was ultimately provided without an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens or Burisma undercuts the Democrats’ argument that President Trump held back the money for his own political benefit.

6:39 p.m. House manager Jason Crow argues OMB documents would show President Trump used national defense funds for his political benefit

House manager Jason Crow begins his argument in favor of the amendment to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget by sharing some of his personal history as an Army Ranger serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Crow is in his first term in Congress and served in the 82nd Airborne Division before joining the 75th Ranger Regiment, with which he served two tours in Afghanistan as part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force.

He says the decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine was “personal” to him and that OMB played a key role in the decisions to hold back aid approved by Congress.

“These documents would provide insight into critical aspects of the military-aid hold. They would show the decision-making process and motivations behind President Trump’s freeze. They would reveal the concerns expressed by career OMB officials including lawyers that the hold was violating the law. They would expose the lengths to which OMB went to justify the president’s hold,” he says.

“They would reveal concerns about the impact of the freeze on Ukraine and U.S. national security. They would show senior officials repeatedly attempted to convince President Trump to release the hold. In short, they would show exactly how the president carried out the scheme to use our national defense funds to benefit his personal political campaign,” Crow says.

6:20 p.m. Senate rejects second Democratic amendment, for State Department documents, also along party lines

Schiff appeals directly to the senators sitting silently in the chamber in his argument that they should vote to subpoena the State Department for additional evidence in the impeachment trial.

“You’re going to have 16 hours to ask questions. Sixteen hours — that’s a long time to ask questions. Wouldn’t you like to be able to ask about the documents during those 16 hours?”

Schiff references the “three amigos,” three administration officials who took the lead in the administration’s policy in Ukraine.

Adam Schiff speaks on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.ABC News

Although Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland both testified as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Schiff pointed out that the third “amigo” – former Energy Secretary Rick Perry – has thus far refused to cooperate with investigators or provide any documents.

“Wouldn’t you like to know? Don’t you think the American people have a right to know what the third Amigo knew about this scheme?” Schiff asks.

McConnell calls for a vote to table Schumer’s second amendment, calling for the Senate to subpoena the State Department for documents related to the administration’s involvement in Ukraine and the decision to withhold military aid. That amendment is tabled — or killed– along party lines, just his first one calling for White House witnesses was rejected.

Schumer then offers a third amendment to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for documents.

Some color from our reporters inside the chamber watching from above in the press gallery:

During the defense’s statements, the most aggressive Republican note-takers were GOP Sens. Murkowski and Collins (two of the four Republicans we are watching closely). The two women wrote for multiple minutes as White House counsel Pat Cipollone spoke.

A few aides have been walking on and off the floor to deliver notes to members, who for the most part remain quiet and attentive.

Also coming on and off the floor – Senate pages who have been vigorously delivering water glasses to both the House legal team and the members over the last few minutes.

— ABC’s Allison Pecorin

6:05 p.m. Chief Justice John Roberts has to be back at his first job tomorrow morning

Even as it’s unclear how much longer the Senate will go tonight debating Democratic amendments, one of the few people in the chamber who will have to be back at work first thing tomorrow morning — running an entire branch of government — is the chief justice.

The U.S. Capitol building exterior is seen at sunset, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.Sarah Silbiger/Reuters

He’ll preside over oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a major case involving religion and school choice that public school unions say is “crucial” for their funding. That begins at 10 a.m.

The senators and other staff presumably won’t be back in business until midday when the trial’s opening arguments are expected to begin at 1 p.m. and Roberts will need to be back on the Senate dais as presiding officer.

— ABC’s Devin Dwyer

5:20 p.m. Democratic Rep. Val Demings argues Senate must subpoena State Department documents

House manager Val Demings is now making an argument in favor of an amendment to subpoena to State Department for documents related to Ukraine.

Demings, 62, made an impression in questioning witnesses when the testified before both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

Val Demings speaks on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.ABC News

Unlike the other House managers, Demings doesn’t have a background as a litigator but she did work in the criminal justice system as the first female police chief in the Orlando Police Department, where she served for 27 years.

A Florida State University and Webster University graduate, Demings is the only member of the managing team without a law degree and the only member with a law enforcement background.

– ABC’s Ben Siegel

Sen. Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters during a brief recess on the first full day of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 21, 2020.Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

4:40 p.m. Senate rejects Schumer amendment calling for a subpoena for White House witnesses and documents

On a party-line vote, 53-47, the Senate votes to put aside — or kill — Schumer’s amendment to subpoena witnesses and documents from the White House.

Schumer proposes a new amendment to subpoena documents from the State Department related to calls between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

The Senate Chamber as members vote on the amendment offered by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.ABC News

There will be another two hours of debate on that amendment. McConnell says he will move to table that amendment as well.

4:14 p.m. Trump’s lawyers argue all the Democrats’ subpoenas have been invalid

Patrick Philbin, one of the lawyers on President Trump’s defense team, pushes back on the Democrats’ argument that the White House refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

He says the White House did respond to subpoena requests with a letter laying out why it saw the subpoenas were invalid – primarily that the House had not voted to authorize an official impeachment inquiry.

“All of those subpoenas were invalid,” he says.

“And that was explained to the House, to manager Schiff and the other chairman of the committees at the time in that October 18th letter. Did the House take any steps to remedy that? Did they try to dispute that? Did they go to court? Did they do anything to resolve that problem? No.”

After Philbin finishes, Schiff speaks again.

“Let’s get this trial started, shall we?” Schiff says in response to the president’s lawyers’ claim that Democrats are pushing for more evidence because the House’s case isn’t strong enough.

“We are ready to present our case. We are ready to call our witnesses. The question is will you let us?” he asks.

As arguments conclude, McConnell makes a motion to put Schumer’s amendment aside.

3:42 p.m. Former GOP Sen. Jeff Flake watches from Senate Gallery

Former Sen. Jeff Flake is in the chamber. He is seated in the upper level that is reserved for staff and guests. He looked over to the press area where reporters are seated and smiled.

The former senator and fierce Trump critic announced in 2017 that he would not seek reelection.

Flake notably has said that if the Senate held a secret ballot to remove Trump from office, more than 30 Republicans would vote to oust him.

3:34 p.m. House manager Zoe Lofgren says documents Democrats want subpoenaed would reveal ‘the truth’

House manager Zoe Lofgren argues Schumer’s amendment to subpoena key evidence from the White House would circumvent President Trump’s efforts to block the House impeachment investigation by refusing to release documents or blocking officials from cooperating.

She says evidence released through Freedom of Information Act requests and messages from Ruddy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas made public after the House impeachment vote show that the White House documents could further implicate the president in wrongdoing concerning the withheld aid to Ukraine.

“The documents include records of the people who may have objected to this scheme, such as Ambassador (John) Bolton. This is an important impeachment case against the president. The most important documents are going to be at the White House. The documents Senator Schumer’s amendment targets would provide clarity and context about president Trump’s scheme,” Lofgren says.

“We don’t know with certainty what the documents will say. We simply want the truth … whatever that truth may be. So, so do the American people. They want to know the truth. And so should everybody in this chamber regardless of our party affiliation,” she adds.

Lofgren points out that multiple witnesses in the House investigation testified they took detailed, handwritten notes around relevant events like the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

She says documents like those notes would provide a first-hand look at how Trump’s behavior was perceived by those around him at the time.

3:26 p.m. Schiff argues the president’s lawyers didn’t even mention the rules resolution

After the break, Schiff pushes back on accusations from the president’s lawyers that the House impeachment proceedings were unfair and that Republicans and representatives of the president weren’t allowed to participate. He says it is “just plain wrong” to say Republicans weren’t allowed in the depositions with witnesses or that the president wasn’t allowed to send a representative to Judiciary Committee proceedings.

“I’m not going to suggest to you they are being deliberately misleading here, but it is just plain wrong. You have also heard my friends at the other table make attacks on me and chairman Nadler. You will hear more of that. I am not going to do them the dignity of responding to them, but I will say this. They make a very important point, although it’s not the point I think they’re trying to make,” Schiff said.

“When you hear them attack the House managers, what you are really hearing is “we don’t want to talk about the president’s guilt. We don’t want to talk about the McConnell resolution and how patently unfair it is.”

2:55 p.m. Inside the Senate chamber, senators taking notes, exchanging messages

As the Senate took a break, ABC’s Mariam Khan reports senators, for the most part, were sitting quietly at their desks while Cipollone, Sekulow, and Schiff took turns speaking.

Senators seem to be paying close attention, maintaining eye contact with the speakers, and taking notes.

As Schiff spoke about the charges against the president, Trump’s key allies – GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Jim Risch, James Inhofe, and several others, stared stoically ahead.

Moderate GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — who are seated next to each other — are taking copious amounts of notes, their faces expressionless.

While Schiff was speaking, Graham started to look a little bored, shifting in his seat constantly. While senators cannot speak to one another during the proceedings, he scribbled out a note on his legal notepad and shared it with his seatmate, Sen. John Barrasso.

Barrasso read the note, exchanged a knowing look with Graham and the two quietly chuckled.

When Schiff went on about the need for witnesses, Graham appeared to smirk.

When Schiff played a video of Trump saying he wanted to hear from witnesses – Minority Leader Schumer began to grin widely. He looked pleased.

Meanwhile, senators are still getting messages from the outside world. Aides are discreetly walking on to the floor to hand-deliver paper messages to senators. Senate pages are walking around filling up water glasses.

2:39 p.m. President Trump’s lawyers argue the Democrats failed to pursue their case in the courts

President Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow begins his argument by slamming the process in the House impeachment inquiry.

“And what we just heard from manager Schiff, courts have no role, privileges don’t apply, what happened in the past we should just ignore. In fact, manager Schiff just said try to summarize my colleagues’ defense of the president,” Sekulow says.

“He said not in those words of course, which is not the first time Mr. Schiff has put words into transcripts that did not exist. Mr. Schiff also talked about a trifecta,” Sekulow says.

“I’ll give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. And the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. This is a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Schiff did say the courts really don’t have a role in this. Executive privilege, why would that matter? It matters because it is based on the Constitution of the United States,” Sekulow continues.

The president and his counsel could not participate in person during the depositions that House Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight committees held but once the hearings moved to the House Judiciary Committee, the White House and the president chose not to participate even though they were invited to present a defense.

Pat Cipollone also says that Schiff was keeping Republicans out of the impeachment depositions. That is not true. Republicans on the committees mentioned participated in the depositions.

Sekulow argues that the only reason we are here is because Democrats want the president removed from office.

“What are we dealing with here? Why are we here? Are we here because of a phone call? Or are we before a great body because, since the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed.”

He says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her impatience and contempt for the proceedings and waiting for the courts to rule when she said: “we cannot be at the mercy of the courts.”

“That is why we have courts … to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude,” he said, although it should be noted that the administration has argued that the courts should not have a role here,” he says.

-ABC’s Katherine Faulders

ABC News Politics@ABCPolitics

2:13 p.m. GOP’s Collins pressed to have arguments take place over 3 — not 2 — days

ABC’s Trish Turner on Capitol Hill reports aides to moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins say she and others raised concerns about trying to fit the 24 hours of opening statements in two days under the proposed rules and the admission of the House transcript of the evidence into the Senate record.

Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible, the aides say. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement, they say.

Later, during a break, a Republican senator – who asked not to be quoted – said the discussion of the tweaks to McConnell resolution was the topic of discussion at the GOP lunch today.

Some of the key senators, like Collins, “were clearly concerned about the topics around which changes were made,” this senator said, reports ABC’s Trish Turner.

”It was clear there was quite a bit of concern,” so it was changed, the senator said.

Sen. Ron Johnson said, “There was pretty strong feeling which is why it got changed,” saying the concern extended even beyond moderate senators. Republicans wanted to take an argument away from Schumer, he said. “We are not trying to hide testimony in the wee hours of the morning.”

2:08 p.m. Trump tweets from Switzerland

President Trump appears to be monitoring the Senate trial from his trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, reports ABC’s Elizabeth Thomas.

A few minutes after he left a dinner with Global Chief Executive Officers, the last scheduled event of the day in Davos, Trump tweeted, “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” — one of his favorite defenses, as he has often said before, referring to his calls with Ukraine’s president — calls which he calls “perfect.”

1:34 p.m. Schiff says Trump is arguing there is nothing Congress can do about his conduct

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff makes his first remarks in Tuesday’s session, speaking on behalf of the House impeachment managers against McConnell’s resolution.

He says Trump is arguing that there is nothing Congress can do about the behavior in question in the trial and the trial won’t be fair if both sides are blocked from introducing new evidence.

“If a president can obstruct his own investigation, if he can effectively nullify a power, the Constitution gives solely to Congress and indeed the ultimate power, the ultimate power the Constitution gives to prevent presidential misconduct, then the president places himself beyond accountability, above the law,” Schiff says.

“It makes him a monarch, the very evil which against our Constitution and the balance of powers the Constitution was laid out to guard against,” he says.

ABC News Politics@ABCPolitics

2:13 p.m. GOP’s Collins pressed to have arguments take place over 3 — not 2 — days

ABC’s Trish Turner on Capitol Hill reports aides to moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins say she and others raised concerns about trying to fit the 24 hours of opening statements in two days under the proposed rules and the admission of the House transcript of the evidence into the Senate record.

Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible, the aides say. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement, they say.

Later, during a break, a Republican senator – who asked not to be quoted – said the discussion of the tweaks to McConnell resolution was the topic of discussion at the GOP lunch today.

Some of the key senators, like Collins, “were clearly concerned about the topics around which changes were made,” this senator said, reports ABC’s Trish Turner.

”It was clear there was quite a bit of concern,” so it was changed, the senator said.

Sen. Ron Johnson said, “There was pretty strong feeling which is why it got changed,” saying the concern extended even beyond moderate senators. Republicans wanted to take an argument away from Schumer, he said. “We are not trying to hide testimony in the wee hours of the morning.”

2:08 p.m. Trump tweets from Switzerland

President Trump appears to be monitoring the Senate trial from his trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, reports ABC’s Elizabeth Thomas.

A few minutes after he left a dinner with Global Chief Executive Officers, the last scheduled event of the day in Davos, Trump tweeted, “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” — one of his favorite defenses, as he has often said before, referring to his calls with Ukraine’s president — calls which he calls “perfect.”

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The post Trump impeachment trial: Senate rejects Democrats’ effort to subpoena witnesses, documents first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump’s lawyers argue that his impeachment is a “brazenly political act.”Credit…T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, unveiled ground rules on Monday for President Trump’s impeachment trial that would attempt to speed the proceeding along and refuse to admit the evidence against the president unearthed by the House without a separate vote.

Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, showed his hand hours after Mr. Trump’s legal team called on the Senate to “swiftly reject” the impeachment charges and acquit him, arguing that Democrats would “permanently weaken the presidency” if they succeeded in removing him from office over what the team characterized as policy and political differences.

In a 110-page brief submitted to the Senate the day before Mr. Trump’s trial begins in earnest, the president’s lawyers advanced their first sustained legal argument since the House opened its inquiry in the fall, contending that the two charges approved largely along party lines were constitutionally flawed and set a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers dismissed the validity of both articles of impeachment lodged against him — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — because they do not state any specific violation of the law, advancing a constrained and widely rejected interpretation of the power to impeach a president. While the lawyers did not contest the basic facts of the case, they maintained that Democrats’ accusations in effect seek to punish Mr. Trump for foreign policy decisions and efforts to preserve executive prerogatives.

“They do not remotely approach the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office,” the brief said. “The diluted standard asserted here would permanently weaken the presidency and forever alter the balance among the branches of government in a manner that offends the constitutional design established by the founders.”

The White House also announced on Monday night that it had assembled a team of eight House Republicans to serve as part of the president’s defense team, including some of his fiercest defenders, like Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mark Meadows of North Carolina and John Ratcliffe of Texas.

Mr. McConnell’s trial rules, which limited each side’s arguments to 24 hours over two days, gave the White House a helping hand at the outset and drew swift anger from Democrats. The rules left open the possibility that the Senate could not only decline to hear new evidence not uncovered in the House impeachment inquiry but could also sidestep considering the House case against Mr. Trump altogether — although such a vote is considered unlikely.

“Under this resolution, Senator McConnell is saying he doesn’t want to hear any of the existing evidence, and he doesn’t want to hear any new evidence,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “It’s a cover-up, and the American people will see it for exactly what it is.”

The post McConnell Pushes to Speed Impeachment Trial as Trump Requests Swift Acquittal first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

US Senate trial: The House targets Trump for seeking foreign help to influence the 2020 election; Trump insists the charges are an attack on voters

Read the impeachment trial memorandum of the US House of Representatives.

Read the response from President Trump, provided by NPR.

Read the trial memorandum of the president, provided by CNN.

Schedule for Briefs
Jan 18 House trial brief; president’s response to charges Jan 20 Noon House response; president’s trial brief Jan 21 Noon House rebuttal; trial

US House of Representatives Impeachment Trial Memorandum

“If the President could both avoid accountability under the criminal laws and preclude an effective impeachment investigation, he would truly be above the law. But that is what President Trump has attempted to do, and why President Trump’s conduct is the Framers’ worst nightmare.”

““The Constitution entrusts Congress with the exclusive power to impeach the President and to convict and remove him from office.”

Use of Official Power to Pressure Ukraine to Aid Reelection

“President Trump illegally ordered the Office of Management and Budget to withhold $391 million in the taxpayer-funded military and other security assistance to Ukraine. (110) ….President Trump ultimately released the military assistance, but only after the press publicly reported the hold, after the President learned that a whistleblower within the Intelligence Community had filed a complaint about his misconduct, and after the House publicly announced an investigation of the President’s scheme.”

“To this day, President Trump maintains leverage over President Zelensky. A White House meeting has still not taken place, (128) and President Trump continues publicly to urge Ukraine to conduct these investigations.”

“President Trump abused the power of the Presidency by pressuring a foreign government to interfere in an American election on his behalf. (88) He solicited this foreign interference to advance his reelection prospects at the expense of America’s national security and the security of Ukraine, a vulnerable American ally at war with Russia, an American adversary. (89)”

“President Trump sought to pressure President Zelensky publicly to announce an investigation into a conspiracy theory that Ukraine had colluded with the Democratic National Committee to interfere in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in order to help the campaign of Hillary Clinton against then-candidate Donald Trump.101 This theory was not only pure fiction but malign Russian propaganda.102 In the words of one of President Trump’s own top National Security Council officials, President Trump’s theory of Ukrainian election interference is ‘a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves’ to deflect from Russia’s culpability and to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine. (17)”

Obstruction

“By categorically obstructing the House’s impeachment inquiry, President Trump claimed the House’s sole impeachment power for himself and sought to shield his misconduct from Congress and the American people….

“In response to President Trump’s directives, OMB, the Department of State, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce any documents to the House, even though witness testimony has revealed that additional highly relevant records exist. (205) To date, the House Committees have not received a single document or record from these departments and agencies pursuant to subpoenas, which remain in effect. President Trump personally demanded that his top aides refuse to testify in response to subpoenas, and nine Administration officials followed his directive and continue to defy subpoenas for testimony.”

Interference  

“Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the announcement of investigations on which President Trump conditioned the official acts had no legitimate policy rationale, and instead were corruptly intended to assist his 2020 reelection campaign.

“First, although there was no basis for the two conspiracy theories that President Trump advanced (131), public announcements that these theories were being investigated would be of immense political value to him – and him alone. The public announcement of an investigation of former Vice President Biden would yield enormous political benefits for President Trump, who viewed the former Vice President as a serious political rival in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election…. President Trump would have grounds to claim – falsely – that he was elected President in 2016 not because he was the beneficiary of Russian election interference but in spite of Ukrainian election interference aimed at helping his opponent….

“Second, agents and associates of President Trump who helped carry out his agenda in Ukraine confirmed that his efforts to pressure President Zelensky into announcing the desired investigations were intended for his personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose….

“Third, the involvement of President Trump’s personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani – who has professional obligations to the President but not the Nation – underscores that President Trump sought the investigations for personal and political reasons rather than legitimate foreign policy reasons….

“Fourth, President Trump’s pursuit of the sham investigations marked a dramatic deviation from longstanding bipartisan American foreign policy goals in Ukraine….

“Fifth, American and Ukrainian officials alike saw President Trump’s scheme for what it was: improper and political….

Finally, there is no credible alternative explanation for President Trump’s conduct.”

National Security Threat

“… his conduct is all the more alarming because it endangered U.S. national security, jeopardized our alliances, and undermined our efforts to promote the rule of law globally….”

“By refusing to hold this meeting, President Trump denied Ukraine a showing of strength that could deter further Russian aggression and help Ukraine negotiate a favorable end to its war with Russia.179 The withheld meeting also undercuts President Zelensky’s domestic standing, diminishing his ability to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reforms. (180)

“Equally troubling is that President Trump’s scheme sent a clear message to our allies that the United States may capriciously withhold critical assistance for our President’s personal benefit, causing our allies to constantly “question the extent to which they can count on us.” (181)

Excuses

“President Trump’s refusal to provide information is not a principled assertion of executive privilege, but rather is a transparent attempt to cover-up wrongdoing and amass power that the Constitution does not give him, including the power to decide whether and when Congress can hold him accountable….

The White House cannot justify a blanket refusal to respond to Congressional subpoenas based on an executive or other privilege it never in fact invoked. Regardless, executive privilege is inapplicable here, both because it may not be used to conceal wrongdoing – particularly in an impeachment inquiry – and because the President and his agents have already diminished any confidentiality interests by speaking at length about these events in every forum except Congress.”

Why Not Let the Courts Decide?

“President Trump is telling one story to Congress while spinning a different tale in the courts. He is saying to Congress that the Committees should have sued the Executive Branch in court to enforce their subpoenas. But he has argued to that court that Congressional Committees cannot sue the Executive Branch to enforce their subpoenas. (228) President Trump cannot tell Congress that it must pursue him in court, while simultaneously telling the courts that they are powerless to enforce Congressional subpoenas.”

Failure to Pressure Ukraine and a Warning

“Although his sweeping cover-up effort ultimately failed – seventeen public officials courageously upheld their duty testified, and provided documentary evidence of the President’s wrongdoing (35) – his obstruction will do long-lasting and potentially irreparable damage to our constitutional system of divided powers if it goes unchecked.

“….If it does not, future Presidents will feel empowered to resist any investigation into their own wrongdoing, effectively nullifying Congress’s power to exercise the Constitution’s most important safeguard against Presidential misconduct. That outcome would not only embolden this President to continue seeking foreign interference in our elections but would telegraph to future Presidents that they are free to engage in serious misconduct without accountability or repercussions.”

” History will judge each Senator’s willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly, and defend the Constitution.”

“…Failure to remove President Trump would signal that a President’s personal interests may take precedence over those of the Nation, alarming our allies and emboldening our adversaries.

“An acquittal would also provide license to President Trump and his successors to use taxpayer dollars for personal political ends. Foreign aid is not the only vulnerable source of funding; Presidents could also hold hostage federal funds earmarked for States – such as money for natural disasters, highways, and healthcare – unless and until State officials perform personal political favors. Any Congressional appropriation would be an opportunity for a President to solicit a favor for his personal political purposes – or for others to seek to curry favor with him. Such an outcome would be entirely incompatible with our constitutional system of self-government.

“President Trump has betrayed the American people and the ideals on which the Nation was founded. Unless he is removed from office, he will continue to endanger our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our elections, and undermine our core constitutional principles.”

President Trump’s Response

“The Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever…. The Articles themselves – and the rigged process that brought them here – are a transparently political act by House Democrats.”

First Article – Abuse of Power

“The President’s actions on the July 25 telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine… and in all surrounding and related events, were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest…

“Despite the House Democrats having run an entirely illegitimate and one-sided process, several simple facts were established that prove the President did nothing wrong:

“First, the transcripts of both the April 21 call and the July 25 call make absolutely clear that the President did nothing wrong.

“Second, President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly confirmed that we call was “good” and “normal,” that there was no quid pro quo, and that no one pressured them on anything.

“Third, the two individuals who have stated for the record [Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and Senator Ron Johnson] that they spoke to the President on the subject actually exonerate him…

“Fourth, the bilateral presidential meeting took place…and the security assistant was sent….

Second Article – Obstruction

… the notion that President Trump obstructed Congress is absurd. President Trump acted with extraordinary and unprecedented transparency ….

Seizing Power

The Articles of Impeachment violate the Constitution. They are defective in their entirety…. In the first Article, the House attempts to seize the President’s power under Article II of the Constitution to determine foreign policy. In the second Article, the House attempts to control and penalize the assertion of the Executive Branch’s constitutional privileges, while simultaneously seeking to destroy the Framers’ system of checks and balances….

“In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.”

Trial Memorandum of the President

“The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution and to our democratic institutions. The Articles themselves—and the rigged process that brought them here—are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected. They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails.”

“By limiting impeachment to cases of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,”1 the Framers restricted impeachment to specific offenses against “already known and established law.” (2) That was a deliberate choice designed to constrain the impeachment power…. House Democrats’ concocted theory that the President can be impeached for taking permissible actions if he does them for what they believe to be the wrong reasons would also expand the impeachment power beyond constitutional bounds. It would allow a hostile House to attack almost any presidential action by challenging a President’s subjective motives.”

Flawed Process

“The process that resulted in these Articles of Impeachment was flawed from the start. Since the Founding of the Republic, the House has never launched an impeachment inquiry against a President without a vote of the full House authorizing it…..

“The proceedings began with secret hearings in a basement bunker before three committees under the direction of Chairman Schiff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). The President was denied any right to participate at all. He was denied the right to have counsel present, to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, and to see and present evidence….

“House Democrats’ impeachment crusade started the day the President took office….

“The Senate may not rely on a corrupted factual record derived from constitutionally deficient proceedings to support a conviction of the President of the United States. Nor is it the Senate’s role to attempt to remedy the House’s errors by providing a “do-over” to develop the record anew in the Senate.”

No Obstruction

“President Trump Properly Asserted Executive Branch Prerogatives. The President directed three of his most senior advisers not to comply with subpoenas seeking their testimony because they are immune from compelled testimony before Congress….

“Defending the Separation of Powers Is Not an Impeachable Offense. In a government of laws, asserting legal defenses cannot be treated as obstruction; it is a fundamental right.”

No Evidence on Article I

“….In an unprecedented display of transparency, the President released the transcript of his July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and it shows that the President did nothing wrong…. President Zelenskyy, his Foreign Minister, and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo and no pressure placed on them by anyone…. The military aid flowed on September 11, 2019, and a presidential meeting was first scheduled for September 1 and then took place on September 25, 2019, all without the Ukrainian government having done anything about investigations…. The undisputed reality is that U.S. support for Ukraine against Russia has increased under President Trump. President Trump provided Ukraine Javelin anti-tank missiles to use against Russia after President Obama refused to provide that assistance.”

No Obstruction

“The President directed three of his most senior advisers not to comply with subpoenas seeking their testimony because they are immune from compelled testimony before Congress.”

Ukraine and 2016 Election Interference

“House Democrats’ assertion that asking historical questions about the last election somehow equates to securing “improper interference” in the next election is nonsensical. Asking about the past cannot be twisted into interference in a future election. Even if facts uncovered about conduct in the last election were to have some impact on the next election, uncovering historical facts is not improper interference. Nor can House Democrats self-servingly equate asking any questions about Ukraine with advocating that Ukraine, instead of Russia, interfered in 2016. (55) Actors in more than one country can interfere in an election at the same time, in different ways and for different purposes.”

Precedent

“House Democrats’ standard would open virtually every presidential decision to partisan attack based on questioning a President’s motives.”

Personal Political Gain

“House Democrats’ theory raises particular dangers because it makes “personal political benefit” one of the “forbidden reasons” for taking government action. (224) Under that standard, a President could potentially be impeached and removed from office for taking any action with his political interests in view. In a representative democracy, however, elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election. And there is nothing wrong with that.”

America First

“Millions of Americans voted for President Trump precisely because he promised to disrupt the foreign policy status quo. He promised a new, “America First” foreign policy that many in the Washington establishment derided. And the President has delivered, bringing fresh and successful approaches to foreign policy in a host of areas, including relations with NATO, China, Israel, and North Korea. In particular, with respect to Ukraine and elsewhere, his foreign policy has focused on ensuring that America does not shoulder a disproportionate burden for various international missions, that other countries do their fair share, and that taxpayer dollars are not squandered….”

Foreign Entanglements

“When the Framers spoke about foreign “entanglements” they had a particular danger in mind. That was the danger of the young country becoming ensnared in alliances that would draw it into conflicts between European powers. When President Washington asserted that “history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government,” he was not warning about Chief Executives meriting removal from office. (235) He was advocating for neutrality in American foreign policy, and in particular, with respect to Europe. (236)…

“The Framers were also concerned about the distinct problem of foreign attempts to interfere in the governance of the United States.240 But on that score, they identified particular concerns based on historical examples and addressed them specifically. They were concerned about officials being bought off by foreign powers….

“[Democrats] essentially argue that because the Framers showed concern about the Nation being betrayed in these specific provisions, any accusations that relate to foreign influence must equally amount to impeachable conduct. That simply does not follow.

Difference over Legal Opinion

“House Democrats’ reckless “obstruction” theory is further flawed because it asks the Senate to remove a duly elected President from office based on differences of legal opinion in which the President acted on the advice of OLC.”

Politics

“Democrats have been fixated on impeachment and Russia for the past three years for two reasons. First, they have never accepted the results of the 2016 election and have been consumed by an insatiable need to justify their continued belief that President Trump could not “really” have won….

“The second reason for Democrats’ fixations is that they desperately need an illegitimate boost for their candidate in the 2020 election, whoever that may be. Put simply, Democrats have no response to the President’s record of achievement in restoring growth and prosperity to the American economy, rebuilding America’s military, and confronting America’s adversaries abroad. They have no policies and no ideas to compete against that.”

Pauses on Aid

“Placing a temporary pause on aid is not unusual. Indeed, the President has often paused, re-evaluated, and even canceled foreign aid programs.”

Acquittal

“The Senate should reject the Articles of Impeachment and acquit the President immediately.”

Source: https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/impeachment-trial-brief-and-response

The post Impeachment Trial Brief and Response first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away,” the legal filing said. “The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.”

“The articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face,” the seven-page filing continued.

The legal paperwork is the first formal response to the two articles of impeachment read in the Senate on Thursday for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

PELOSI GLOATS: TRUMP HAS BEEN IMPEACHED ‘FOREVER’

Trump’s lawyers argued that the articles of impeachment “violate the Constitution” and are “defective in their entirety” because they were the product of invalid House proceedings that “flagrantly denied the President any due process rights.”

At the crux of Trump’s defense is that he did nothing wrong in his July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine when he asked for investigations into Democrats. The White House argues that military aid to Ukraine was ultimately released without any announcement of investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The lawyers contend House Democrats fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone, high crimes or misdemeanors.

“In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become the ‘new normal,’ and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.”

The response is the first of many expected in the coming days from Trump’s growing legal team as they battle to acquit the commander in chief in the Senate impeachment trial.

The House impeachment managers released their opening trial briefing Saturday evening, and Trump’s lawyers will give their response by Monday at noon.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS URGE SENATE TO ‘ELIMINATE THE THREAT’ OF TRUMP, IN OPENING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SALVO

Adding to the Democrats’ case is a legal opinion Thursday from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which found that the Trump administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to Ukraine. But a source close to Trump’s legal team rejected the findings and accused the GAO of trying to insert itself into the impeachment “news cycle.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The third presidential impeachment trial formally began Thursday when Chief Justice John Roberts swore in the senators and each signed an “oath book” to cement their role as impartial jurors.

The trial will kick off in earnest Tuesday when House impeachment managers will prosecute the case and Trump’s lawyers will offer a robust defense over a period of days.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawyers-respond-impeachment-articles

The post Trump lawyers respond to articles of impeachment: ‘Constitutionally invalid’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“I think our members, generally are not interested in the motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is part of GOP leadership.

It will be only the third presidential impeachment trial in American history, a serious and dramatic endeavor coming amid the backdrop of a politically divided nation and the start of an election year.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not set the timing for the House vote that will launch the Senate action. Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House last month on charges of abuse of power over pushing Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden and obstruction of Congress in the probe. Democrats said the vote could be Wednesday.

With the impeachment trial starting in a matter of days, senators are still debating the rules of the proceedings. GOP senators are conferring privately about whether to allow a motion to dismiss the charges against the president or to call additional witnesses for testimony.

Trump suggested over the weekend he might prefer simply dismissing the charges rather than giving legitimacy to charges from the House, which he considers a “hoax.”

It was an extraordinary suggestion, but one being proposed by Trump allies with support from some GOP senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

But it is clear McConnell does not have the votes needed from his GOP majority to do that.

One key Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said she too would oppose a motion to dismiss the charges.

Collins is leading an effort among some Republicans, including Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to ensure the ground rules include plans to eventually consider voting to call witnesses.

“My position is that there should be a vote on whether or not witnesses should be called,” Collins said.

Romney said he wants to hear from John Bolton, the former national security adviser at the White House, who others have said raised alarms about the alternative foreign policy toward Ukraine being run led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

“I’ve said I’d like to hear from John Bolton,” Romney told reporters Monday. “I expect that barring some kind of surprise, I’ll be voting in favor of hearing from witnesses after those opening arguments.”

Democrats have been pushing Republicans, who have the majority in the Senate, to consider new testimony, arguing that fresh information has emerged during Pelosi’s monthlong delay in transmitting the charges.

McConnell is drafting an organizing resolution that will outline the steps ahead. Approving it will be among the first votes senators take after they are sworn as jurors by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court of Impeachment.

Republicans control the chamber, 53-47, and are all but certain to acquit Trump. McConnell is hesitant to call new witnesses who would prolong the trial. He prefers to model Trump’s trial partly on the process used for then-President Bill Clinton’s trial in 1999.

It takes just 51 votes during the impeachment trial to approve rules or call witnesses. Just four GOP senators could form a majority with Democrats to insist on new testimony. It also would take only 51 senators to vote to dismiss the charges against Trump.

Most Republicans appear willing to go along with McConnell’s plan to start the trial first then consider witnesses later, rather than upfront, as Democrats want.

Collins is pushing to have at least the promise of witness votes included in the organizing resolution. She and the others appear to be gathering support.

“I’ve been working to make sure that we will have a process that we can take a vote on whether or not we need additional information, and yes, that would include witnesses,” Murkowski told reporters.

McConnell is expected to huddle privately with senators at their weekly lunch Tuesday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters the House vote might come Wednesday. “Could be,” he said.

__

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Andrew Taylor, and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.

Source: https://apnews.com/6e5c0f64eadfd10e6850d59a0085d49c

The post GOP senators reject plans to dismiss Trump impeachment first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.