Search

Tag: Mick Mulvaney

Democrats lay out case for Wednesday Donald Trump impeachment vote

Donald Trump

House Democrats laid out their impeachment case against President Donald Trump on Monday, a sweeping report accusing him of betraying the nation and deserving to be ousted, as key lawmakers began to signal where they stand ahead of this week’s landmark votes. What Democrats once hoped would be a bipartisan act, only the third time in U.S. history the House will be voting to impeach a president, is now on track to be a starkly partisan roll call Wednesday. No Republicans are breaking with the president and almost all Democrats are expected to approve the charges against him. A raucous town hall Monday in the Detroit suburbs put on display the nation’s wrenching debate over the unconventional president and the prospect of removing the him from office. Freshman Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin was both heckled and celebrated as she announced her support for impeachment. “There’s certainly a lot of controversy about this,” Slotkin told the crowd of 400. “But there just has to be a moment where you use the letter of the law for what they were intended.” Trump faces two articles of impeachment brought by Democrats. They say he abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden and obstructed Congress by aggressively trying to block the House investigation and its oversight duties as part of the nation’s system of checks and balances. The president “betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections,” says the 650-page report from the House Judiciary Committee. He withheld military aid from the ally as leverage, the report says, and ”Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.” The report says the president then engaged in an unprecedented attempt to block the investigation and “cover up” his misconduct. “In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry,” it says. Trump, tweeting from the sidelines after instructing the White House not to participate in the House inquiry, insists he has done nothing wrong. He is promoting lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s alternative theory that it was actually Biden and Ukraine that interfered, a conspiracy-laden idea that other most other Republicans are actively avoiding. Sticking to the language he has relied on for months, he tweeted on Monday, “The Impeachment Hoax is the greatest con job in the history of American politics!” As the House prepares for Wednesday’s vote, just a handful of Democrats are expected to break ranks to oppose impeachment as Speaker Nancy Pelosi marches the majority toward a vote she hoped to avoid having Democrats take on their own. One freshman Democrat, Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, lost five key staff members Monday after he said he would vote against impeachment and indicated he was switching parties to become a Republican. Another Democrat, Rep. Collin Peterson, a Minnesota centrist, has not decided how he will vote, his spokeswoman said As the House was detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, attention was turning to the Senate where the top Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, called anew for fresh evidence and testimony from key White House officials for the Senate impeachment trial. “What is President Trump hiding?” Schumer said Monday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hoping to avoid a drawn-out spectacle in his chamber, though Trump, a former reality TV show host, has signaled that is what he prefers as he seeks vindication. Republicans, who hold the majority, are expected to acquit Trump of the charges during a trial starting in January. In a letter to McConnell, Schumer proposed hearing testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and two others as part of a detailed offer he made to Republicans as an opening offer for negotiations. Democrats want to hear from Bolton, who once labeled the alternative foreign policy orchestrated by Trump lawyer Giuliani a “drug deal’’ he wanted no part of. Bolton left the White House in September. The Democrats also want to hear from Mulvaney, who has acknowledged the military aid to Ukraine was being held up, as well as two other White House officials who defied House subpoenas to testify. McConnell is facing criticism for saying he’s taking his “cues” from the White House as he ensures Trump there will not be the 67 votes needed in the Senate to convict the president. Democrats complain that he and other Republicans are not operating as impartial jurors. The GOP leader is planning to meet soon with Schumer to discuss the contours of next month’s trial, McConnell’s office said. The report released Monday by the House Judiciary Committee, a historic marker like those produced during impeachment proceedings for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, formally lays the groundwork for the vote. It outlines the panel’s findings and includes those from the Intelligence Committee’s months-long investigation that was sparked by a still-anonymous government whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. It also includes Republican rebuttals. The House Rules Committee will meet Tuesday in what is expected to be a marathon session to set the parameters for Wednesday’s debate. By Lisa Mascaro and Mary Clare Jalonick Associated Press. Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Alan Fram in Washington, David Eggert in Rochester, Mich., and Steve Karnowski in Minnesota contributed to this report. Republished with the Permission of the Associated Press.

Donald Trump wants drama, but GOP wants it over

Donald Trump Speaking at Rally

Donald Trump wants more than acquittal. He wants vindication. With impeachment by the House appearing certain, the president has made clear that he views the next step, a trial in the GOP-controlled Senate, as his focus. The president sees the senators not just as a jury deciding his fate, but as partners in a campaign to discredit and punish his Democratic opponents. His Senate allies aren’t so sure that’s a good idea. In recent weeks, Trump has devised a wish list of witnesses for the Senate trial, relishing the opportunity for his lawyers to finally cross-examine his accusers and argue the case that his actions toward Ukraine, including the July 25 call when he asked for a favor, were “perfect.” Trump and his allies have been building up the likely Senate trial, an effort to delegitimize the Democratic-controlled House’s impeachment process by contrast. In the Senate, the Trump team has argued, the president would get the opportunity to challenge witnesses and call some of his own, such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the still-anonymous intelligence community whistleblower, or even Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. He sees that as a chance to embarrass Democrats, including the former vice president and 2020 Democratic rival, and use the friendlier ground to portray himself as the victim of a partisan crusade. “It is pretty clear the president wants a trial,” says Hogan Gidley, the principal deputy White House press secretary. “The president is eager to get his story out.” But it is increasingly clear that Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have other ideas. McConnell, who is fiercely protective of his 53-47 Senate majority, has signaled that he wants none of the spectacle Trump desires. Instead he wants a swift trial, potentially with no new witnesses called. “Here’s what I would anticipate: The House managers would come over, make their arguments, the president’s lawyers would then respond. And at that point the Senate has two choices,” McConnell told reporters this week. “It could go down the path of calling witnesses and basically having another trial. Or it could decide — and again 51 members could make that decision — that they’ve heard enough.” In other words, the president, who is almost certain to be found not guilty by the Republican-controlled Senate, can win the hard way or the easy way. Senate Trump allies and advisers inside the White House have in recent days urged the president to temper his expectations and choose the path of least resistance. But Trump, according to three people familiar with the conversations, has responded by repeating his desire for a politically charged trial that drags the Bidens and others into the impeachment spotlight. Still, some aides believe Trump will ultimately relent to McConnell’s advice. Trump’s solicitation of Ukraine for investigations into the Bidens — while withholding military aide from the ally nation facing Russian aggression — forms the core of one article of impeachment against the president. His efforts to block the House investigation forms the second. On Capitol Hill, the emerging GOP consensus is that doing Trump’s defense his way would jeopardize a predictable outcome, test GOP’s fragile loyalties to him and open a Pandora’s Box of unanticipated consequences. “People are beginning to realize that could be a pretty messy and unproductive process,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Wednesday. “If you start opening up to witnesses, you start opening up to all witnesses. And so I think the president’s got to really decide, to what extent does he want to start going down that road versus just making a strong case.” Democrats would be expected to retaliate by trying to call the president’s senior-most advisers, including acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Under Senate rules, McConnell’s ability to control the proceedings are limited. The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, presides over the trial and any senator may be able to put a motion on witnesses up for a vote. That means defections by just a few GOP senators could thwart McConnell’s plans. With the Republicans slim majority, it’s not at all clear they want to start down the path of a full-blown trial. Should they try to call the whistle-blower or the Bidens to testify, they may not find enough votes of support from their ranks. At the same time, they would have to consider whether to accept or fend off witness requests from Democrats. McConnell also worries that a prolonged impeachment trial would not benefit the handful of GOP senators setting out in the new year on potentially tough reelection bids. Swing state Sens. Susan Collins in Maine, Cory Gardner in Colorado, Joni Ernst in Iowa and Martha McSally in Arizona are among those whose actions will be closely watched. They would much rather be talking about the economy or the pending U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement than engaging in a prolonged, unpredictable impeachment trial. But Republicans also acknowledge they are unlikely to find the 51 votes needed to dismiss the charges against the president outright. Some vulnerable lawmakers and Trump skeptics, such as Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah who has said he is troubled by Trump’s actions, will insist on some semblance of trial. Comparisons are being made to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, in which the Senate had to deal at length with allegations of sexual misconduct, though his confirmation by the Republicans was becoming increasingly apparent. “I think the American people are pretty tired of this,” says Sen. Pat Roberts, Republican-Kansas. “I think if we can honor the White House’s concern, OK. But let’s do it in a reasonable time limit. We don’t need six weeks like we did with Clinton.” Around the White House, a divide has emerged between aides and allies embracing the president’s call to use the Senate trial to get back at Democrats and those, particularly in the White House counsel’s office, advising him to heed the warnings of the GOP lawmakers.

What’s next in impeachment: Judiciary Committee up next?

Nancy Pelosi

After two weeks of public hearings, Democrats could soon turn the impeachment process over to the House Judiciary Committee. They’re moving “expeditiously” ahead as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has instructed. In the coming weeks, the House intelligence panel will submit a report to the Judiciary panel, and then Democrats will consider drafting articles of impeachment on President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and the administration’s attempts to block the investigation. The articles could cover matters beyond Trump’s efforts to push Ukraine to investigate Democrats, including special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but no decisions have been made. There could be several steps along the way, including a Judiciary committee vote, a House floor vote and, finally, a Senate trial. What’s next in impeachment: INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WRAPS UP Democrats on the House intelligence committee believe they have enough evidence to write a report and move forward. But it’s still unclear whether they will hear any last-minute testimony. Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Sunday he won’t foreclose the possibility of his committee undertaking more depositions and hearings in the impeachment inquiry of Trump. Schiff said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that his committee continues to conduct investigative work, but he won’t let the Trump administration stall the inquiry. Schiff’s staff and others are compiling the panel’s findings to submit to the House Judiciary Committee, which is expected to open its own hearings to consider articles of impeachment and a formal recommendation of charges. He said his committee may need to file addendums to its report so that the Judiciary Committee can move ahead. “The investigation isn’t going to end,” Schiff said. Several potentially key witnesses — former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, among others — have declined to provide testimony or documents on Trump’s orders. Democrats have said they don’t want to get tied up in lengthy court battles to force those witnesses to cooperate with subpoenas. But they could still hear testimony if one of them changed their mind, or if other key witnesses emerged. “We’ve heard and seen compelling evidence that the president committed serious wrongdoing,” says Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro, a member of the intelligence panel. “There are other witnesses, including some principal witnesses that we would have liked to have heard from, but the evidence has been pretty damning that the president committed an impeachable act.” Time is running short if the House is to vote on impeachment by Christmas, which Democrats privately say is the goal. The intelligence panel is expected to spend the Thanksgiving week writing, and maybe even completing, a report of evidence gathered through more than six weeks of closed-door depositions and public hearings. Once the report is done, the panel could vote to pass it on to the House Judiciary Committee. That could happen as soon as the first week of December, when lawmakers return from the Thanksgiving break. JUDICIARY TAKES CHARGE Pelosi has instructed the intelligence panel, along with other committees that have investigated Trump, to submit evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. That panel is then expected to hold hearings and vote on articles of impeachment — a process that could take up the first two weeks of December. The articles of impeachment are expected to mostly focus on Ukraine, though discussions continue. Democrats are considering an overall “abuse of power” article against Trump, which could be broken into categories like bribery or extortion. The article would center on the Democrats’ assertion, based on witness testimony, that Trump used his office to pressure Ukraine into politically motivated investigations. Additional articles of impeachment could include obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice. The latter could incorporate evidence from Mueller’s report. HOUSE FLOOR VOTE The Judiciary panel could take several days to debate the articles and then vote on them — sending impeachment to the House floor, where they could immediately be called up for consideration. Debate on impeachment would be handled similarly to any other bill or resolution. If articles of impeachment reach the House floor, Democrats will be looking to peel off Republicans to make the vote bipartisan. So far, however, it appears few, if any, Republicans will break ranks. Not a single Republican backed the resolution launching the impeachment hearings. Once an impeachment vote is done, Democrats would appoint impeachment managers for a Senate trial. SENATE TRIAL House Democrats are hoping to be finished with an impeachment vote by Christmas, sending articles to the Republican-controlled Senate for a trial in 2020. Unless political dynamics change, Trump is expected to have the backing of majority Republicans in that chamber to be acquitted. It’s still unclear how long a trial would last, what it would look like or what witnesses might be called. Top White House officials met Thursday with Republican senators to discuss strategy but made no decisions about the length of a trial or other tactics, two people familiar with the session said. Participants in the meeting expressed more interest in voting as soon as they have the 51 votes needed to acquit Trump than in setting a specific timetable for the proceedings, according to one Senate GOP aide. That aide and a senior White House official said a trial lasting two weeks was discussed, but not agreed to. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a private meeting. By Mary Clare Jalonick Associated Press. Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press. 

What to watch during the Donald Trump impeachment hearings

Donald Trump

Exactly what is Gordon Sondland’s story? Certainly it’s full of international mystery, which House impeachment investigators are sorting through as they probe President Donald Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. But the intrigue is largely due to other witnesses recalling conversations with Sondland that he did not mention to impeachment investigators. Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, an Oregon hotelier and million-dollar Trump donor, Sondland has said he cannot recall many of the episodes involving him that others have recounted in colorful detail. What he does recall he sometimes remembers differently. The discrepancies with other witnesses, and Sondland’s with himself, matter as he testifies Wednesday under oath and penalty of perjury. What to watch when the hearings open at 9 a.m. EST: AT ISSUE Listen for how Sondland describes his role in Trump’s Ukraine policy and whether that policy was to hold up military aid until Ukraine made a public announcement that it was investigating Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Former White House national security aide Fiona Hill testified in private that Sondland informed her that he was in charge of Ukraine policy because the Republican president said so. Asked about that conversation during a deposition, Sondland said: “I don’t recall. I may have; I may not have. Again, I don’t recall.” Besides, he says now that he viewed his role on Ukraine as one of support rather than leadership. JULY 10 MEETINGS Testimony from multiple witnesses have described a pair of pivotal, sometimes tense, meetings at the White House on July 10 involving combinations of U.S. and Ukrainian leaders. Several of those present say Sondland explicitly connected a coveted White House visit to a public announcement by Ukraine of corruption investigations. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman remembers Sondland saying that day that the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens. Sondland tells a different version, saying he doesn’t recall mentioning Ukraine investigations or Burisma, the gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served. The only conflict he describes from that day is a disagreement on whether to promptly schedule a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Sondland was in favor. EVERYTHING’ William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, told lawmakers that Sondland said that “everything” Ukraine wanted — a White House visit for its new leader and the release of military aid — was contingent on a public announcement of investigations into the 2016 election and into Burisma. Sondland tells a more complex story. In his closed-door testimony, Sondland stated that he wouldn’t have withheld military aid for any reason. Not only that, he said he didn’t recall any conversations with the White House about withholding military assistance in return for Ukraine helping with Trump’s political campaign. Even then, though, he left himself some wiggle room, saying a text message he sent to Taylor reassuring him that there was no quid pro was simply what he had heard from Trump. Weeks later, after testimony from Taylor and National Security Council official Tim Morrison placed him at the center of key discussions, Sondland revised his account in an extraordinary way, saying “I now recall” more details. He amended his testimony to confirm that Taylor’s account was correct. Among the conversations Sondland now recalled was telling an aide to Zelenskiy in September that military aid likely would not occur until Ukraine made public announcements about corruption investigations. HOW INVOLVED WAS MULVANEY? Multiple witnesses describe a cozy relationship between Sondland and Mick Mulvaney, the White House acting chief of staff. Vindman, a National Security Council official, says Sondland cited a discussion with Mulvaney when pushing Ukrainian officials to open the investigations that Trump wanted into the 2016 presidential election and Biden. Fiona Hill, another White House national security official, says the then-national security adviser, John Bolton, told her he didn’t want to be part of “whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Sondland suggests he knows Mulvaney only well enough to wave and say hello. TRUMP, REPUBLICANS? Of the nine witnesses testifying over three days this week, White House officials are concerned most about Sondland — because they aren’t sure what he’s going to say. If Sondland’s name-dropping is accurate, he may have had direct conversations with Trump. It’ll be hard for the president to attack his own EU ambassador, or for Republicans aware of the president’s expectation of loyalty, to do so. HOW SONDLAND IS SEEN OVERSEAS He calls himself a “disruptive diplomat.” Sondland may not be missed on the Continent as he testifies in Washington. Even before he got involved in Ukraine, Sondland’s caustic style had already created problems in Brussels, where he is the U.S. ambassador to the 28-nation EU. He visited Ukraine twice, even though it is not part of the EU and not part of his formal responsibilities. He also gave an interview with Ukrainian television boasting of his closeness to Trump and laying out his views of Ukraine, almost like instructions: “They’re Western and they’re going to stay Western.” Sondland is known for the grand gesture. At a party for diplomats and journalists last month at the ornate Cercle Gaulois club between the Belgian parliament and royal palace, he highlighted his close links with Trump and the president’s confidants. He spoke of a three-hour “family dinner” in Manhattan with two incoming EU leaders, Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner. There was also a special guest: comedian Jay Leno, who is said to be among Zelenskiy’s heroes. By Laurie Kellman Associated Press Follow Kellman on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/APLaurieKellman Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.

Donald Trump confronts limits of his impeachment defense strategy

President Donald Trump is confronting the limits of his main impeachment defense. As the probe hits the one-month mark, Trump and his aides have largely ignored the details of the Ukraine allegations against him. Instead, they’re loudly objecting to the House Democrats’ investigation process, using that as justification for ordering administration officials not to cooperate and complaining about what they deem prejudicial, even unconstitutional, secrecy. But as a near-daily drip of derogatory evidence emerges from closed-door testimony on Capitol Hill, the White House assertion that the proceedings are unfair is proving to be a less-than-compelling counter to the mounting threat to Trump’s presidency. Some senior officials have complied with congressional subpoenas to assist House Democratic investigators, defying White House orders. Asked about criticism that the White House lacks a coordinated pushback effort and could do a better job delivering its message, spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said, “It’s hard to message anything that’s going on behind closed doors and in secret.” “It’s like you’re fighting a ghost, you’re fighting against the air. So we’re doing the best we can,” she said on Fox News Channel. It was a rare public admission from the White House that despite the Republican president’s bravado, real risks remain. White House officials, who have been treating unified Republican support for Trump as a given, have grown increasingly fearful of GOP defections in a House impeachment vote and a potential Senate trial. While they do not believe there will be enough votes to remove the president, as Democrats hope, the West Wing believes more must be done to shore up Republican support to avoid embarrassment and genuine political peril. Trump has been upset with his own top aides — including Grisham and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — for not sufficiently changing the story line. Instead he relies on his Twitter account and Q&A sessions with reporters to launch daily attacks on the probe. And while Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has added to the smoke screen, much as he did during the Russia probe, the former New York City mayor has dramatically scaled back his media appearances since several of his associates were arrested in connection with Ukraine. Complaining privately and publicly that Democrats “stick together” better than the GOP, Trump has leaned on Republican congressional allies to do more, according to White House officials and Republicans close to the West Wing. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. At first, Trump was angry that his surrogates failed to defend him effectively. Those included House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who stumbled through a “60 Minutes” interview. Trump urged the GOP earlier this week to fight back, a lesson that was taken to heart by a group of conservative Republicans, including members of the Freedom Caucus, who stormed a Capitol Hill hearing room on Wednesday to disrupt testimony in the probe.Trump allies cheered that maneuver, believing it showed that Republicans throughout Washington were coming to grips with the severity of the situation. But the GOP complaints still are largely about process and may have limited potency: Trump’s defenders are complaining that the interviews are being conducted in secret, which may soon change, and that Republicans are not involved, though GOP members can ask questions right alongside the Democrats. The contradictions are telling. On Thursday, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a top ally of Trump, introduced a resolution condemning the Democratic-controlled House for pursuing a “closed door, illegitimate impeachment inquiry.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is a co-sponsor of that measure. But Graham also said he’s talked to Mulvaney about what seems to be a lackluster White House pushback. During President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Graham said, “he had a team that was organized, had legal minds that could understand what was being said versus the legal proceedings in question. And they were on message every day.” Republicans have been complaining for weeks that the Trump White House has no such defense system in place — partly a result of the inability to identify qualified talent but also Trump’s own qualms about projecting concern in the face of the investigation. “I think they’re working on getting a messaging team together,” Graham said. Democrats reject Trump arguments that the House interview process is unfair, and White House officials privately acknowledge their legal objections may not win the day. But they believe it’s a political argument that will hold sway with the American people. However, the White House strategy comes with an expiration date: In coming weeks, the closed-door testimony will give way to public hearings. Democrats are expected to call a narrow group of witnesses to testify that Trump encouraged Ukraine to conduct investigations that could benefit him politically in 2020 and to address whether those requests were tied to conditions for giving Ukraine military aid and a White House meeting. Some Trump allies believe the White House can’t afford not to directly address what’s already been revealed. They note that as more Trump appointees offer disparaging information to Congress, and as it is corroborated by official sources, the president will have increasing difficulty simply complaining he is the target of a new “witch hunt.” The president continues to insist he has done nothing wrong, a contention that can be difficult to square with the testimony coming on a nearly daily basis from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Tuesday’s testimony by the top U.S. envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor, only raised the stakes as he gave House impeachment investigators a detailed roadmap of Trump’s efforts to squeeze that country’s leaders for damaging information about his Democratic political rivals. Taylor, who read a lengthy opening statement, is expected to be a star witness at the Democrats’ planned public hearings. Though the White House derided Taylor’s testimony as third-hand information, he vividly described, with the help of contemporaneous notes, his concerns about a parallel foreign policy apparatus run by Giuliani that involved American military aid being withheld unless

Shifting explanations for withholding aid draw GOP alarm

Donald Trump

The shifting White House explanation for President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine drew alarm Friday from Republicans as the impeachment inquiry brought a new test of their alliance. Trump, in remarks at the White House, stood by his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, whose earlier comments undermined the administration’s defense in the impeachment probe. Speaking Thursday at a news conference, Mulvaney essentially acknowledged a quid pro quo with Ukraine that Trump has long denied, saying U.S. aid was withheld from Kyiv to push for an investigation of the Democratic National Committee and the 2016 election. He later clarified his remarks. Trump appeared satisfied with Mulvaney’s clarification and the president dismissed the entire House inquiry as “a terrible witch hunt. This is so bad for our country.” But former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who ran against Trump in the 2016 Republican primary, said he now supports impeaching the president. Mulvaney’s admission, he said, was the “final straw.” ”The last 24 hours has really forced me to review all of this,” Kasich said on CNN. In Congress, at least one Republican, Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida, spoke out publicly, telling reporters that he and others were concerned by Mulvaney’s remarks. Rooney said he’s open to considering all sides in the impeachment inquiry. He also said Mulvaney’s comments cannot simply be undone by a follow-up statement. “It’s not an Etch-A-Sketch,” said Rooney, a former ambassador to the Holy See under President George W. Bush. “The only thing I can assume is, he meant what he had to say — that there was a quid pro quo on this stuff,” he said. The tumult over Mulvaney’s remarks capped a momentous week in the impeachment investigation as the admission, from highest levels of the administration, undercut the White House defense and pushed more evidence into the inquiry. GOP leaders tried to contain the fallout. But four weeks into the inquiry, the events around Trump’s interaction with the Ukraine president, which are are at the heart of impeachment, have upended Washington. The Energy Secretary, Rick Perry, who has been caught up in the probe, announced his resignation. A beloved House chairman, Rep. Elijah Cummings, Democrat-Maryland, a leading figure in the investigation, died amid ongoing health challenges. The march toward an impeachment vote now seems all but inevitable, so much so that the highest-ranking Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, privately told his GOP colleagues this week to expect action in the House by Thanksgiving with a Senate trial by Christmas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has given no timeline for conclusion but wants the inquiry completed “expeditiously.” She said Thursday that facts of the investigation will determine next steps. “The timeline will depend on the truth line,” she told reporters. This week’s hours of back-to-back closed-door hearings from diplomats and former top aides appeared to be providing investigators with a remarkably consistent account of the run-up and aftermath of Trump’s call with Ukraine President Volodymy Zelenskiy. In that July call, Trump asked the newly elected Zelenskiy for a “favor” in investigating the Democratic National Committee’s email situation, which was central to the 2016 election, as well as a Ukraine gas company, Burisma, linked to the family of Trump’s 2020 Democratic rival, Joe Biden, according to a rough transcript of the phone conversation released by the White House. Republican leaders tried to align with Trump Friday, amid their own mixed messages as House Democrats, who already issued a subpoena to Mulvaney for documents, now want to hear directly from him. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House GOP leader, cited Mulvaney’s clarification as evidence that there was no quid pro quo. He said witnesses have also testified similarly behind closed doors in the impeachment inquiry. “We’ve been very clear,” McCarthy said. “There was no quid pro quo.” Lawmakers involved in the three House committees conducting the investigation want to hear more next week, which promises another packed schedule of witnesses appearing behind closed doors. Republicans want the interviews made open to the public, including releasing transcripts. Democrats in the probe being led by Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, are keeping the proceedings closed for now, partly to prevent witnesses from comparing notes. Three House committees investigating impeachment have tentatively scheduled several closed-door interviews next week, including one with Bill Taylor, the current top official at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. Taylor’s interview, scheduled for Tuesday, is significant because he was among the diplomats on a text message string during the time around the July phone call. He raised a red flag and said it was “crazy” to withhold the military aid for a political investigation. It’s unclear whether all the witnesses will appear, given that the White House is opposing the inquiry and trying to block officials from testifying. The schedule includes a mix of State Department officials and White House aides. By Lisa Mascaro, Andrew Taylor, Mary Clare Jalonick Associated Press Republished with the permission of the Associated Press

Copyright 2024 – ALToday.com | All Rights Reserved. | Login

About Us

Alabama Today will be the first place Alabamians of influence go for an inside look at breaking statewide, political and business news. The Alabama Today team includes freelance news reporters, as well as guest columnists from around the state.

Follow Us
Submit a News Tip

MORE STORIES