Impeachapalooza

A blog about the impeachment of Donald Trump

  • Meet the Democrats Who Voted Against the Impeachment Inquiry

    October 31, 2019

    Jeff Van Drew

    Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ)Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP

    In a display of unity that would have been unthinkable just two months ago, 231 House Democrats voted Thursday morning to formalize the impeachment process. Over the summer, the party seemed hopelessly split on the issue. That all changed after the emergence in September of a whistleblower complaint revealing President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations against his political enemies.

    This week, several longtime holdouts from districts Trump won—Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Anthony Brindisi of New York, and Jared Golden of Maine—announced their support for the impeachment resolution. Democrats also had the backing of Michigan independent Justin Amash, a one-time Freedom Caucus conservative who left the Republican Party earlier this year after calling for impeachment.

    Still, two Democrats voted against the impeachment probe Thursday. Here’s who they are:

    Jeff Van Drew

    One of four New Jersey Democrats to flip GOP congressional seats last year, Van Drew has been particularly skeptical about impeachment. “If we are going to have an impeachment inquiry and procedure [leading up to the] 2020 elections, it will be very counterproductive,” Van Drew said in September, according to the Press of Atlantic City. Van Drew, whose district Trump won by 5 points, is among the most conservative members of the House Democratic caucus. He told the Philadelphia Inquirer that impeachment could “secure the presidency for Donald Trump” and, according to the paper, he echoed a series of GOP talking points about the Ukraine scandal. This week, he told Politico that he was leaning toward a “no” vote. “I didn’t know that it was really necessary at this point,” he said.

    Collin Peterson

    Like Van Drew, Peterson is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. Unlike Van Drew, he’s been on Capitol Hill for decades. His rural Minnesota district has moved sharply to the right in recent years—Trump won it by 30 points in 2016, and Peterson’s recent victories have been narrow ones. “If anyone thinks a partisan impeachment process would constrain President Trump, they are fooling themselves,” he told the Detroit Lakes Tribune in September. “Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment proceedings will be a lengthy and divisive action with no resolution.”

  • The House Just Voted to Go Forward With the Impeachment Inquiry

    October 31, 2019

    Tom Williams/Zuma

    The impeachment resolution proposed earlier this week passed the House of Representatives Thursday by a 232-196 vote with overwhelming Democratic backing, formalizing the impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump.

    Republicans for weeks have argued that the impeachment investigation violates due process because the House had not voted to authorize it. Last week, however, a federal judge ruled that the investigation was legal and that Republican arguments to the contrary are not supported by the Constitution. Still, some Republicans are unsatisfied with the vote; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said “it falls way short,” and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said that Democrats were “trying to put a ribbon on an already terrible process.”

    The resolution will place the House Intelligence Committee in charge of public hearings and allow the committee to release transcripts of depositions that have already taken place behind closed doors. Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will be able to authorize up to 45 minutes of questioning for himself and for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the committee. Republicans will be able to call witnesses and issue subpoenas, subject to veto by Schiff and committee Democrats, according to Politico.

    When the Intelligence Committee finishes hearing witnesses, it will issue a report to the House Judiciary Committee, which will determine which articles of impeachment to write up.

  • Did a House Republican Just Admit That Trump Demanded a Quid Pro Quo?

    October 31, 2019

    President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in September.Evan Vucci/AP

    Since the beginning of the Ukraine scandal, President Donald Trump has insisted that there was “no quid pro quo” involving his demands that Ukrainian officials investigate his political enemies. The president’s defenders have been particularly aggressive in pushing back against the specific allegation that Trump withheld vital military aid to Ukraine in an effort to secure an investigation of an energy company connected to Joe Biden’s son. But on Thursday, as Congress debated a resolution to formalize the impeachment inquiry, one Republican lawmaker appeared to directly contradict Trump’s defense.

    In the middle of a fiery speech attacking Democrats, Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that the president “was doing his job, ensuring that if taxpayer dollars from my constituents and yours was going to the other side of the world, that it would be paired with a commitment to crack down on corruption at all levels—no matter who someone’s daddy is or what their political ambitions are.”

    That’s a clear reference to Biden and his son Hunter, and the implication seems unavoidable: In Babin’s view, Trump withheld military aid in the hopes of securing a “commitment” from a foreign government to investigate the Democratic presidential frontrunner. Babin isn’t claiming the quid pro quo never happened; instead, he appears to be saying that it did happen and that he’s fine with it.

    Babin isn’t the first prominent Trump defender to seemingly acknowledge a quid pro quo involving Ukrainian military aid. White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney did so earlier this month, when he told reporters that Trump withheld the funds in part to secure a Ukrainian investigation into a conspiracy theory about the Democratic National Committee. Mulvaney later tried to retract those comments.

  • House Democrats Ask John Bolton to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry

    October 30, 2019

    Viktor Tolochko/AP

    Congressional investigators have asked John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, to testify next week as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

    The New York Times and the Daily Beast reported on Wednesday that House Democrats summoned Bolton for a voluntary deposition on November 7.

    Witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have described Bolton as alarmed by the aggressive efforts of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and EU ambassador Gordon Sondland to pressure Ukraine into investigating Trump’s domestic political rivals. Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia adviser, testified that Bolton told her to tell the National Security Council’s top attorney about the back-channeling. “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” Hill said Bolton told her.

    Trump pushed Bolton, a hardline foreign policy hawk, out of the administration in September amid major policy disagreements.

    A spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) declined to comment bout the deposition request. It’s unclear whether Bolton will comply with it. Investigators have also called on former top NSC attorney John Eisenberg and a deputy, Michael Ellis, for voluntary depositions on November 4.  

    Update: John Bolton’s attorney Charles Cooper says the former national security adviser won’t show up to testify voluntarily. 

  • The “Transcript” of Trump’s Ukraine Call Omits Key Details, Says White House Official

    October 29, 2019

    Welcome back, my friends…

    Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to restore them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

    …to the show that never ends…

    The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.

    …we’re so glad you could attend…

    Some lawmakers indicated Colonel Vindman would make a good candidate to appear again at a public hearing next month.

    …come inside! Come inside!

  • House Democrats Just Released the Text of Their Impeachment Resolution

    October 29, 2019

    Ron Sachs/Zuma

    House Democrats have just released the text of the impeachment resolution that the full House of Representatives is expected to vote on Thursday.

    The resolution directs committees to continue their ongoing impeachment investigations and also lays the groundwork for making the process “open and transparent” to the public. It says House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will oversee questioning witnesses, while House Republicans can request subpoenas.

    Read the full text of the resolution here:

  • “Some People Might Call That Espionage.” Conservatives Smear Vindman as Double Agent

    October 29, 2019

    Bill Clark/ZUMA

    Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, is testifying today before House impeachment investigators. According to his prepared opening statement, Vindman contacted an NSC lawyer after Gordon Sondland—the GOP megadonor who President Donald Trump appointed as ambassador to the European Union—”emphasized the importance that Ukraine delivers the investigations” into Trump’s political enemies. Two weeks later, according to his testimony, Vindman became so alarmed after listening in to Trump’s infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he once again reported his concerns to an NSC attorney. 

    As a direct witness to the phone call, Vindman’s testimony will undermine one of Trump’s go-to attacks against the impeachment investigation: that so far, a number of the allegations surrounding the call have been based on second-hand information. And Vindman’s credentials—Iraq War veteran who was awarded the Purple Heart, a Harvard graduate, a respected public servant—will make his case that much more compelling.

    So it’s not a surprise that Trump’s defenders are treating Vindman’s emergence as something of a crisis. Still, their attacks on him have been nothing short of stunning. On Monday, Fox News quickly began suggesting that Vindman may be some sort of double-agent for Ukraine. The basis for such an outrageous theory, according to Laura Ingraham, is the fact that Ukrainian officials “sought advice” from him about how to deal with demands from Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer—a detail Ingraham suggested that the New York Times conveniently “buried” in its report on Vindman’s opening statement.

    “Here we have a US national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president’s interest, and usually, they spoke in English. Isn’t that kind of an interesting angle on this story?” Ingraham asked.

    “You know, some people might call that espionage,” John Yoo, a former Justice Department official under George W. Bush, said.

    Brian Kilmeade took the baton Tuesday morning on “Fox and Friends,” emphasizing that Vindman “tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine”:

    The smears extended to an ex-lawmaker, with former Republican Rep. Sean Duffy repeatedly questioning whether Vindman prioritized Ukrainian interests over US interests. “We all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from,” he told CNN.

    It’s only a matter of time before Trump emerges from his anti-impeachment retweeting spree this morning to parrot the ugly line of attack. 

  • NSC Officer Confirms Ukrainegate, Fox News Suggests He’s a Traitor

    October 28, 2019

    Alexander Vindman is a lieutenant colonel who currently serves in the White House as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council. He was an eyewitness to President Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and on Tuesday he is going to testify before Congress. The New York Times has the story:

    “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement….“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.

    Vindman was also present during a White House meeting between American and Ukrainian officials:

    [It was] a stormy meeting in which Mr. Bolton is said to have had a tense exchange with Mr. Sondland after the ambassador raised the matter of investigations he wanted Ukraine to undertake. That meeting has been described in previous testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

    At a debriefing later that day attended by the colonel, Mr. Sondland again urged Ukrainian officials to help with investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

    “Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,” Colonel Vindman said in his draft statement.

    “I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate” and that the “request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the N.S.C. was going to get involved in or push,” he added.

    Most of this has been reported before, but Vindman is an eyewitness, and an unusually credible one. He’s an active duty officer who’s an Iraq war veteran; he immigrated from Russia to the US at age three; he speaks Ukrainian; and he’s widely regarded as a diligent and earnest civil servant. So how do you deal with someone like that? If you’re Fox News, you do it like this:

    Is there truly nothing these people won’t do or say? This is just so despicable.