web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Democratic Party

Live Impeachment Trial Highlights

Video

Westlake Legal Group 27vid-impeach-videoSixteenByNine3000 Live Impeachment Trial Highlights United States Politics and Government Schiff, Adam B Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party Bolton, John R

President Trump’s lawyers continue their opening arguments before the Senate amid intensifying calls for witnesses to appear in the impeachment trial.CreditCredit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

Here’s what you need to know:

President Trump’s lawyers avoided on Monday any mention of a newly disclosed firsthand account from his former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, that directly undercuts one of the defense’s main arguments.

The New York Times first reported details from drafts of Mr. Bolton’s upcoming book Sunday night, including Mr. Bolton’s assertion that Mr. Trump said he wanted to continue a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

Calls for witnesses intensified as a result, and three Republican senators — Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — indicated they might vote with Democrats to allow new witnesses to testify at the trial. Democrats need four Republicans for such a measure to pass.

Mr. Romney told reporters on Monday, “I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton.”

The decision not to address Mr. Bolton’s explosive account hung over the lawyers’ first round of arguments as they repeated many of the same assertions offered over the past six months from Mr. Trump and the White House about why a hold was placed on military aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump denied Mr. Bolton’s account on Monday.

Mr. Bolton said weeks ago that he would testify at the Senate trial if he was subpoenaed to do so. Democrats have said Republican attempts to prevent new witnesses like Mr. Bolton from coming forward suggests they are covering up for Mr. Trump.

One of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Michael Purpura, said the president’s decisions regarding Ukraine were rooted in his desire to get European countries to pitch in more with aid.

“Scrutinizing, and in some cases curtailing, foreign aid was a central plank of his campaign platform,” Mr. Purpura said. “President Trump is especially wary of sending American taxpayer dollars abroad when other countries refuse to pitch in.”

Mr. Purpura left out details about Trump administration officials scrambling to find legal justification for freezing the military aid. An independent government watchdog concluded that Mr. Trump’s decision to withhold the funds was against the law.

Jane Raskin, a member of the president’s defense team, raised the topic of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and his role in the Ukraine affair.

Ms. Raskin listed Mr. Giuliani’s accomplishments and called him a “colorful distraction.” She said the central role Democrats have affixed to him is undercut by their decision not to subpoena him to testify in the impeachment inquiry last year. (Democrats subpoenaed Mr. Giuliani to provide documents, but he did not comply).

In the midst of the White House efforts to pressure Ukraine, Mr. Bolton last summer described Mr. Giuliani as “a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” according to testimony from one of Mr. Bolton’s aides. And it was in part the involvement of Mr. Giuliani, who was not a government official, in American foreign policy that prompted an intelligence officer to file a whistle-blower complaint that ultimately led to the impeachment of Mr. Trump.

Ken Starr, the dogged independent counsel during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, resumed Mr. Trump’s defense on Monday afternoon with a discursive and at times academic overview of the history of impeachment.

“Like war, impeachment is hell. Or at least presidential impeachment is hell,” said Mr. Starr, who has been a regular guest on Fox News during the Trump administration.

Mr. Trump added Mr. Starr to his legal team shortly before his trial began.

“Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment, including members of this body, full well understand that a presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic war, but thankfully protected by our beloved First Amendment, a war of words and a war of ideas,” said Mr. Starr, who resigned as independent counsel in 1999 over the “intense politicization” of the investigation.

Mr. Starr’s choice to dwell on history appeared to ignore criticism from some Republican senators that the House managers spent too much time last week on the rehashing of historical references and past legal precedents to justify removing Mr. Trump from office. Mr. Trump’s other lawyers have steered clear of any suggestion that the proceedings will leave an indelible mark on the nation’s history.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Impeachment Trial Stream: Full Highlights

Here’s what you need to know:

Video

Westlake Legal Group 27vid-impeach-videoSixteenByNine3000 Trump Impeachment Trial Stream: Full Highlights United States Politics and Government Schiff, Adam B Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party Bolton, John R

President Trump’s lawyers continue their opening arguments before the Senate amid intensifying calls for witnesses to appear in the impeachment trial.CreditCredit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

House impeachment managers and Senate Democrats have been clamoring to persuade Republicans to allow new evidence and witnesses into President Trump’s Senate trial. In particular, they want John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, who has already said he would be willing to appear if subpoenaed.

Those calls intensified on Sunday night when The New York Times reported details from Mr. Bolton’s upcoming book, including Mr. Bolton’s assertion that Mr. Trump said he wanted to continue a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals. The revelation could undercut a key element of Mr. Trump’s impeachment defense: that the hold was separate from the investigations Mr. Trump wanted.

Mr. Trump denied Mr. Bolton’s account on Monday.

It was not yet clear whether the details from Mr. Bolton would be enough to persuade the handful of Senate Republicans needed to join Democrats voting in favor of calling witnesses. But one of the Republicans who has been open to hearing new witnesses, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, said late Monday morning that he expected other Senate Republicans to come around.

It’s rare to see a defendant attack the lead prosecutor in the middle of a trial. But that’s what Mr. Trump did a day after his defense team began their opening arguments, making the case that the president should not be removed from office.

Mr. Trump on Sunday lashed out at Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who led the House impeachment inquiry and is serving as the lead prosecutor in the Senate trial.

Mr. Schiff is “a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man,” Mr. Trump wrote in a Twitter post, followed by a warning: “He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”

Asked if he took that to be a threat, Mr. Schiff on Sunday, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said, “I think it’s intended to be.”

Mr. Trump’s defense team used just two hours on Saturday out of their 24-hour allotment in their first opportunity in the Senate to respond to the case made by House impeachment managers last week during the trial.

The president’s team went straight to offense, accusing the Democrats of levying a partisan witch hunt against Mr. Trump to help gain an advantage in the 2020 presidential election. As part of that, they offered a diametrically different interpretation of the Constitution than the Democrats presented a week earlier, and argued that nothing that Mr. Trump did warranted removing a president from office.

The length of the arguments on Saturday — just two hours compared with the Democrats’ eight hours on their first day — was notable, as some Republican senators had complained about the repetition of the House managers’ arguments over the course of their three days.

Mr. Trump has also complained that the Saturday television viewership was less than ideal and previously said it “is called Death Valley in T.V.” in the world of television ratings.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Live Trump Impeachment Trial Stream

Here’s what you need to know:

Video

Westlake Legal Group 27vid-impeach-videoSixteenByNine3000 Live Trump Impeachment Trial Stream United States Politics and Government Schiff, Adam B Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party Bolton, John R

President Trump’s lawyers continue their opening arguments before the Senate amid intensifying calls for witnesses to appear in the impeachment trial.CreditCredit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

House impeachment managers and Senate Democrats have been clamoring to persuade Republicans to allow new evidence and witnesses into President Trump’s Senate trial. In particular, they want John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, who has already said he would be willing to appear if subpoenaed.

Those calls intensified on Sunday night when The New York Times reported details from Mr. Bolton’s upcoming book, including Mr. Bolton’s assertion that Mr. Trump said he wanted to continue a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals. The revelation could undercut a key element of Mr. Trump’s impeachment defense: that the hold was separate from the investigations Mr. Trump wanted.

Mr. Trump denied Mr. Bolton’s account on Monday.

It was not yet clear whether the details from Mr. Bolton would be enough to persuade the handful of Senate Republicans needed to join Democrats voting in favor of calling witnesses. But one of the Republicans who has been open to hearing new witnesses, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, said late Monday morning that he expected other Senate Republicans to come around.

It’s rare to see a defendant attack the lead prosecutor in the middle of a trial. But that’s what Mr. Trump did a day after his defense team began their opening arguments, making the case that the president should not be removed from office.

Mr. Trump on Sunday lashed out at Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who led the House impeachment inquiry and is serving as the lead prosecutor in the Senate trial.

Mr. Schiff is “a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man,” Mr. Trump wrote in a Twitter post, followed by a warning: “He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”

Asked if he took that to be a threat, Mr. Schiff on Sunday, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said, “I think it’s intended to be.”

Mr. Trump’s defense team used just two hours on Saturday out of their 24-hour allotment in their first opportunity in the Senate to respond to the case made by House impeachment managers last week during the trial.

The president’s team went straight to offense, accusing the Democrats of levying a partisan witch hunt against Mr. Trump to help gain an advantage in the 2020 presidential election. As part of that, they offered a diametrically different interpretation of the Constitution than the Democrats presented a week earlier, and argued that nothing that Mr. Trump did warranted removing a president from office.

The length of the arguments on Saturday — just two hours compared with the Democrats’ eight hours on their first day — was notable, as some Republican senators had complained about the repetition of the House managers’ arguments over the course of their three days.

Mr. Trump has also complained that the Saturday television viewership was less than ideal and previously said it “is called Death Valley in T.V.” in the world of television ratings.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

In Iowa, the ‘Not Sanders’ Democrats Find Voters Torn

Westlake Legal Group 27iowa1-facebookJumbo In Iowa, the ‘Not Sanders’ Democrats Find Voters Torn Warren, Elizabeth Vilsack, Tom Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Polls and Public Opinion Klobuchar, Amy Iowa Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr

BETTENDORF, Iowa — As they streamed out of the ballroom following a Scott County fund-raising banquet Saturday night, one after the other Iowa Democrats admitted that they still had not decided whom to support just over a week before the state’s presidential caucuses.

But by not mentioning his name as they rattled off their short lists, they made it clear whom they would not support: Senator Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont who has taken the lead in recent polls.

Instead, every one of the 30 still-undecided Democratic activists here rattled off some combination of the same four names — Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.

As Mr. Sanders tightens his grip on the party’s young and left-wing voters in Iowa, more traditional Democrats, the ones who happily sit through marathon banquet dinners to hear the candidates and their representatives, remain split between his four leading competitors or remain unsure altogether about whom to rally behind.

“I have told my colleagues all along: Bernie Sanders can win with 27 percent of the vote here,” said Representative Dave Loebsack, an Iowa Democrat supporting Mr. Buttigieg, alluding to his fellow lawmakers, many of whom are deeply uneasy about running with Mr. Sanders on top of the ticket.

The fracture among mainstream Democrats here carries profound implications for a primary that has already unsettled the party establishment and prompted late entrants into the race.

Mr. Sanders is threatening to seize control in the early states, taking narrow but clear polling leads in Iowa and New Hampshire and increasingly menacing Mr. Biden’s advantage in national polls. With his mammoth online fund-raising operation, Mr. Sanders appears to be in a position of financial strength unmatched by any other candidate besides Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City.

Mr. Sanders’s endurance, and his apparent rise in the earliest primary and caucus states, reflects both the loyalty of his core supporters and their conviction that Mr. Sanders would bring the same fighting resilience to the general election. But even among many liberals who admire Mr. Sanders’s campaign, or some of his policy ideas, there is deep concern about the implications of nominating a candidate from the left whom President Trump is sure to portray as extreme.

“I think that Bernie is just a bridge too far for the country,” said Bonnie Campbell, a former Iowa attorney general who is supporting Mr. Biden. Ms. Campbell said she would have no difficulty supporting Mr. Sanders in the general election, but added, “I can tell you, I hear from friends and colleagues who say: ‘Oh my God, what are we going to do if Bernie wins?’”

But in Iowa, Democrats who hope to avert that outcome do not appear close to settling on another candidate as an alternative to Mr. Sanders. And if more moderate voters don’t coalesce behind an alternative by next week’s caucus, party traditionalists fear, Mr. Sanders could win Iowa with only a modest plurality, emboldening his leading rivals to remain in the race, and then notch another victory again a week later in New Hampshire. No Democrat in modern times has lost contested races in both Iowa and New Hampshire and claimed the nomination.

The early primary and caucus outcomes could have an outsize impact on later primaries, including the large states voting in March, some of which begin collecting mail-in and early ballots in the immediate aftermath of Iowa. If a candidate like Mr. Sanders were to seize momentum next week, it could help him build a head start in states like California and Texas.

It is a scenario that is deeply alarming to establishment-aligned Democrats, if not unfamiliar. Four years ago, convinced Donald Trump could not win the presidency, they watched with delight as he snatched the Republican nomination without winning majorities because his more traditional rivals divided the vote and refused to bow out.

The Democrats in this race have been as reluctant to target Mr. Sanders as the Republicans were to target Mr. Trump four years ago; in each case they were skeptical of his staying power and believed they had more to gain by attacking other rivals.

Even now, as Mr. Sanders takes a lead in the first two early states, his opponents have not delivered a sustained argument against his candidacy, and remain reluctant to take him on: while Mr. Buttigieg drew attention for warning in a fund-raising solicitation that a Sanders nomination would be too risky, he notably declined to amplify his rhetoric in television interviews over the weekend. The closest he has come to confronting his rival on the left is to make oblique references to the often-bitter 2016 primary between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Sanders.

“Most of us would agree the less 2020 resembles 2016 the better — in all respects,” Mr. Buttigieg said in a brief interview. Each of the would-be Stop Sanders candidates has built enough political strength to justify forging ahead: Mr. Biden remains the national front-runner, with unmatched support among black voters; Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Warren both have double-digit support in New Hampshire polls, and sizable war chests; Ms. Klobuchar has the thinnest operation beyond Iowa of the group, but over the weekend she earned the endorsement of New Hampshire’s influential Union Leader newspaper.

Should all four move forward from Iowa, with their perceived strengths and weaknesses, it could make it difficult for any of them to become a rallying point for voters uneasy about Mr. Sanders.

Complicating matters further for traditionalists, and making this race potentially even messier than Mr. Trump’s primary, is the presence of Mr. Bloomberg, who is not contesting the traditional early states in February but has already poured more than $270 million in advertising into later contests and made clear to allies that he will remain in the race should Mr. Sanders come roaring into March.

Mr. Bloomberg was on Ms. Klobuchar’s mind as she left the dinner here Saturday. She was asked if she would remain in the race if she did not break into the top three in the caucuses, which has often been the number of viable candidates who leave the state.

Even if you’re in fourth, she was asked?

“You think it’s only going to be down to four candidates even by New Hampshire?” she said before answering the question. “No, it’s not.”

Then, pointing to Mr. Bloomberg, she explained why the Democratic vote may remain splintered.

“Why would I get out while he’s still in?” Ms. Klobuchar demanded.

With nearly 40 percent of Iowa voters indicating in a new New York Times-Siena College poll that they were still not certain about whom to support, Mr. Sanders could still suffer a reversal of fortune here.

That’s in part because of the state’s complex, multiphase caucusing process, which allows supporters of underdog candidates to shift to stronger contenders. If Mr. Sanders has the most enthusiastic base of support in Iowa, he may be less well positioned to expand his bloc in later rounds should moderate voters rally to one of the four other leading candidates.

And it’s Ms. Klobuchar whom Iowa Democrats are watching most closely. If she does not reach 15 percent in most precincts, her supporters could determine the statewide winner if they migrate mostly to one candidate.

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Mr. Biden’s most prominent supporter in the state, was blunt about why Ms. Klobuchar’s backers should support the former vice president.

Mr. Biden has the best chance of winning the general election, he shares Ms. Klobuchar’s pragmatic politics and “Joe is going to need a running mate,” Mr. Vilsack said.

A more urgent concern for Mr. Vilsack was the prospect of Iowa producing a muddled result, a scenario that’s more likely this year because the state party, for the first time, is releasing raw vote totals from the initial round of balloting as well as the final results and delegate allocations.

“If I had to make one prediction, there will be a split decision and that’ll have repercussions,” he said. “Because whoever quote-unquote wins can claim that they won, and talk about it going into New Hampshire.”

So while they still hope to best Mr. Sanders in Iowa or New Hampshire, several of Mr. Sanders’s rivals have begun emphasizing their strengths in states later in the calendar.

Mr. Biden’s advisers and surrogates have been stressing his support among minority communities that become important starting with the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, while Ms. Warren’s campaign circulated a memo last week detailing its preparations in the March primaries that will award most of the delegates that will settle the Democratic nomination.

And in a conversation with volunteers before a town hall-style meeting in Davenport on Sunday, Ms. Warren reiterated her determination to compete into March and beyond, telling supporters she already has staff in 30 states, according to a volunteer who attended the meeting and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“We all know that this is very likely to be a long nomination process,” said California Assemblyman David Chiu, who on Sunday was opening a campaign headquarters in San Francisco for Ms. Warren and said of her campaign: “They are going to put up a tremendous fight here in the state.”

That phase of the race is also when Mr. Bloomberg, with his vast personal fortune, could become a more urgent factor, either rising as an obstacle for Mr. Sanders or further fracturing the party’s moderate wing.

In California, Mayor Robert Garcia of Long Beach, who endorsed Mr. Biden this month, said he expected the former vice president to consolidate support there “once it becomes clear that there’s a few candidates left.”

But gathering support around just a few candidates could also be difficult in California, Mr. Garcia noted, because the state’s mail-in ballots would list the names of candidates who falter or withdraw over the course of February.

“There are going to be a lot of candidates in California, because they are going to be on the ballot,” he said. “There will be some drop-off, but they’re all competitive here and that’s going to continue.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Denies Telling Bolton That Ukraine’s Aid Depended on Biden Investigations

Westlake Legal Group 27dc-REAX-facebookJumbo Trump Denies Telling Bolton That Ukraine’s Aid Depended on Biden Investigations United States Politics and Government Ukraine Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday pushed back on a firsthand account from his former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, about tying military aid for a foreign ally to his own personal agenda, as senators consider the president’s future in the Oval Office.

“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Mr. Trump wrote just after midnight, referring to a widely debunked theory that the president had pursued about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.

In an unpublished manuscript of his upcoming book, Mr. Bolton described the White House decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine until he left the White House in September. As national security adviser, Mr. Bolton would have been involved in many of the high-level discussions about Ukraine.

Mr. Bolton’s account directly undercuts one of Mr. Trump’s defense arguments, that the frozen funding was not connected to his petitioning of Ukraine’s leader, President Volodymyr Zelensky, to help him in the 2020 presidential election by announcing an anticorruption investigation into the Bidens.

The new details come at a time when senators approach making a final decision — possibly by the end of the week — on whether to allow new evidence and new witnesses, like Mr. Bolton, to be introduced in Mr. Trump’s trial in the Senate. Mr. Trump’s defense team started presenting his defense on Saturday and has through Tuesday to argue against his removal from office.

Hours after his midnight posts, Mr. Trump falsely stated that the Democrats never asked Mr. Bolton to testify during the House impeachment inquiry last year. Republicans and Mr. Trump’s defense team have argued that to call witnesses at this stage in the impeachment proceedings amounts to Democrats telling the Senate to do the work the House did not.

Mr. Trump also falsely claimed that his White House released the critical military aid to Ukraine ahead of schedule.

Democrats have been pushing the Republican-led Senate to allow new witnesses, and others could include Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff who played a key role in the Ukraine pressure campaign. A handful of Republican senators had indicated they would be open to hearing new witnesses, but by the end of last week, there were few signs that they would vote with Democrats on the matter.

“There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president’s defense,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said in a joint statement on Sunday after The New York Times’s article about Mr. Bolton’s account was published.

Mr. Bolton’s potentially explosive details about Mr. Trump’s motivations for freezing the military aid could provide the impetus that could potentially sway some Republican senators to reconsider hearing new testimony.

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents, which Mr. Bolton submitted for a standard security review 12 days after the House impeached Mr. Trump. It is possible that the submission of Mr. Bolton’s book to the White House deepened desires to keep Mr. Bolton from testifying.

By Monday morning, some Republican senators had reached out to the White House, pressing for who had visibility into Mr. Bolton’s manuscript as the Senate trial unfolded a week earlier.

In his manuscript, Mr. Bolton describes an effort, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, to push Mr. Trump to release the aid. Mr. Bolton said he also spoke with Attorney General William P. Barr about his concerns over the parallel diplomacy with Ukraine led by the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Mr. Barr, whom Mr. Trump mentioned in his July phone call with Mr. Zelensky, has tried to distance himself from Mr. Giuliani and the Ukraine matter.

Mr. Bolton, who has said he would testify at the Senate trial if he was subpoenaed, wrote in the manuscript that Mr. Pompeo told him privately that there was no basis to criticize the American ambassador to Ukraine at the time, Marie L. Yovanovitch. Career diplomats have testified that there was no justification to fire Ms. Yovanovitch. Mr. Giuliani and two of his associates had been pushing Mr. Trump to fire her since the spring of 2018.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Denies Telling Bolton That Ukraine’s Aid Depended on Biden Investigations

Westlake Legal Group 27dc-REAX-facebookJumbo Trump Denies Telling Bolton That Ukraine’s Aid Depended on Biden Investigations United States Politics and Government Ukraine Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday pushed back on a firsthand account from his former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, about tying military aid for a foreign ally to his own personal agenda, as senators consider the president’s future in the Oval Office.

“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Mr. Trump wrote just after midnight, referring to a widely debunked theory that the president had pursued about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.

In an unpublished manuscript of his upcoming book, Mr. Bolton described the White House decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine until he left the White House in September. As national security adviser, Mr. Bolton would have been involved in many of the high-level discussions about Ukraine.

Mr. Bolton’s account directly undercuts one of Mr. Trump’s defense arguments, that the frozen funding was not connected to his petitioning of Ukraine’s leader, President Volodymyr Zelensky, to help him in the 2020 presidential election by announcing an anticorruption investigation into the Bidens.

The new details come at a time when senators approach making a final decision — possibly by the end of the week — on whether to allow new evidence and new witnesses, like Mr. Bolton, to be introduced in Mr. Trump’s trial in the Senate. Mr. Trump’s defense team started presenting his defense on Saturday and has through Tuesday to argue against his removal from office.

Hours after his midnight posts, Mr. Trump falsely stated that the Democrats never asked Mr. Bolton to testify during the House impeachment inquiry last year. Republicans and Mr. Trump’s defense team have argued that to call witnesses at this stage in the impeachment proceedings amounts to Democrats telling the Senate to do the work the House did not.

Mr. Trump also falsely claimed that his White House released the critical military aid to Ukraine ahead of schedule.

Democrats have been pushing the Republican-led Senate to allow new witnesses, and others could include Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff who played a key role in the Ukraine pressure campaign. A handful of Republican senators had indicated they would be open to hearing new witnesses, but by the end of last week, there were few signs that they would vote with Democrats on the matter.

“There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president’s defense,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said in a joint statement on Sunday after The New York Times’s article about Mr. Bolton’s account was published.

Mr. Bolton’s potentially explosive details about Mr. Trump’s motivations for freezing the military aid could provide the impetus that could potentially sway some Republican senators to reconsider hearing new testimony.

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents, which Mr. Bolton submitted for a standard security review 12 days after the House impeached Mr. Trump. It is possible that the submission of Mr. Bolton’s book to the White House deepened desires to keep Mr. Bolton from testifying.

By Monday morning, some Republican senators had reached out to the White House, pressing for who had visibility into Mr. Bolton’s manuscript as the Senate trial unfolded a week earlier.

In his manuscript, Mr. Bolton describes an effort, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, to push Mr. Trump to release the aid. Mr. Bolton said he also spoke with Attorney General William P. Barr about his concerns over the parallel diplomacy with Ukraine led by the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Mr. Barr, whom Mr. Trump mentioned in his July phone call with Mr. Zelensky, has tried to distance himself from Mr. Giuliani and the Ukraine matter.

Mr. Bolton, who has said he would testify at the Senate trial if he was subpoenaed, wrote in the manuscript that Mr. Pompeo told him privately that there was no basis to criticize the American ambassador to Ukraine at the time, Marie L. Yovanovitch. Career diplomats have testified that there was no justification to fire Ms. Yovanovitch. Mr. Giuliani and two of his associates had been pushing Mr. Trump to fire her since the spring of 2018.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bernie Sanders and His Internet Army

The defense from Bernie Sanders was straightforward: It wasn’t me.

He had been milling about on the Senate floor one day in the summer of 2017 when a colleague, Kamala Harris, stepped toward him. “Do we have a problem?” Ms. Harris asked, according to Democrats familiar with the exchange.

Some prominent Sanders supporters had been flaming Ms. Harris publicly as the preferred choice of the corporate Democratic establishment against which Mr. Sanders had long railed, a view amplified among Sanders-boosting accounts across social media. “Pre-emptive strike,” one person wrote on the popular SandersForPresident Reddit group, where Sanders fans were sharing details of Ms. Harris’s recent fund-raising swing in the Hamptons with former Hillary Clinton donors. “Start the conversation now, end it before 2020.”

Mr. Sanders assured Ms. Harris that there was no issue, the Democrats familiar with their conversation said. He insisted that he could not control how his followers communicated.

But two years later, as both senators pursued the party’s 2020 presidential nomination and Ms. Harris returned to the Hamptons to collect campaign checks, Mr. Sanders broadcast an observation of his own after Ms. Harris raised doubts about his “Medicare for all” plan. “I don’t go to the Hamptons to raise money from billionaires,” he tweeted last August, elevating a message that supporters had already been pushing. Thousands of retweets followed.

Since the start of Mr. Sanders’s first presidential campaign in 2016, his colossal online support base has been by turns a source of peerless strength and perpetual aggravation — envied and caricatured by rivals who covet such loyalty, feared by Democrats who have faced harassment from his followers, and alternately cherished and gently scolded by the candidate himself.

The zeal of Mr. Sanders’s fans has helped establish him as one of the 2020 front-runners a week before the Iowa caucuses. No other Democrat attracts supporters more dedicated to forcefully defending their candidate and lashing his foes, more willing to repeatedly donate their time and money to sustain his bid. Through the end of 2019, Mr. Sanders had raised nearly $100 million from over five million individual donations, without ever holding traditional fund-raisers, leading the primary field.

Yet as Mr. Sanders moves to position himself as a standard-bearer for a party he has criticized from the left for decades, the power of his internet army has also alarmed Democrats who are familiar with its underside, experienced in ways large and small.

Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter.

Other notable targets have included Ady Barkan, a prominent liberal activist with A.L.S. — whom some Sanders-cheering accounts accused of lacking decision-making faculties due to his illness as he prepared to endorse Senator Elizabeth Warren — and Fred Guttenberg, the father of a shooting victim from the 2018 Parkland massacre, who had criticized Mr. Sanders’s statements about gun violence.

“Politics is a contact sport,” said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina State legislator who supported Ms. Harris in the Democratic primary. “But you have to be very cognizant when you say anything critical of Bernie online. You might have to put your phone down. There’s going to be a blowback, and it could be sexist, racist and vile.”

In recent days, he said, one man sent a profanity-filled private message on Instagram, calling Mr. Sellers, who is black, an “Uncle Tom” and wishing him brain cancer.

When Mr. Sanders’s supporters swarm someone online, they often find multiple access points to that person’s life, compiling what can amount to investigative dossiers. They will attack all public social media accounts, posting personal insults that might flow in by the hundreds. Some of the missives are direct threats of violence, which can be reported to Twitter or Facebook and taken down.

More commonly, there is a barrage of jabs and threats sometimes framed as jokes. If the target is a woman, and it often is, these insults can veer toward her physical appearance.

For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The message seemed clear: We know where you live.

— Bernie Sanders, in a 2019 letter to supporters

Interviews with current and former staff members and major online supporters make clear that top advisers — and often, Mr. Sanders himself — are acutely aware of the bile spread in his name.

In February 2019, shortly after announcing his second presidential run, Mr. Sanders emailed a letter to surrogates. “I want to be clear,” he said, “that I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space.”

That he felt compelled to append this note to his national reintroduction was perhaps as telling as its contents.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_163025088_86bbb9f9-f4fe-44bd-a623-581bf2a819b3-articleLarge Bernie Sanders and His Internet Army Warren, Elizabeth Social Media Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Harris, Kamala D Democratic Party Cyberharassment Clinton, Hillary Rodham

Mr. Sanders at a campaign rally in Queens in October. Credit…Christopher Lee for The New York Times

The Sanders campaign declined to discuss its 2020 digital operation and the extent to which it monitored social media discussions.

A spokesman, Mike Casca, flagged Mr. Sanders’s call for civility from last February. The campaign also released a statement from a spokeswoman, Sarah Ford, emphasizing the candidate’s previous remarks. “As the senator has said loudly and clearly,” she said, “there is no room in the political revolution for abuse and harassment online.”

Sanders aides routinely decide against commenting publicly about an online spat, reasoning that to do so would only elevate the conflict. The candidate’s defenders are quick to reject any suggestion that Mr. Sanders is responsible for the most egregious conduct of his followers, who are disproportionately young and overrepresented online, when the vast majority proceed with greater care.

His allies also argue that online combat is not unique to the Sanders side, with some high-profile women who support the senator saying they have been attacked, too.

“The same folks who want to complain that Sanders supporters are more vicious than anybody else never come out to chastise the supporters of other candidates,” said Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and Mr. Sanders’s national campaign co-chair.

But many political veterans outside the Sanders operation fault the campaign’s handling of the vitriol.

Jess Morales Rocketto, a progressive strategist who worked on campaigns for Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton, said Mr. Sanders had empowered aides and surrogates who “have a tendency to aggressively amplify things that a campaign would normally shut down amongst supporters.”

“There are always people who say things that are problematic. It’s not that that is unique to Bernie’s campaign,” she said. “What’s unique is it is a consistent problem in the universe of Bernie Sanders.”

— RoseAnn DeMoro, a Sanders supporter and former leader of National Nurses United

With more than 10 million followers on Twitter, Mr. Sanders has a larger audience on the platform than Ms. Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Senator Amy Klobuchar combined. A sizable number could be automated bots or fictitious accounts. Federal prosecutors have detailed coordinated efforts by Russian nationals to interfere in the 2016 election, with an emphasis on two candidates — Donald J. Trump and Mr. Sanders — whom the Russians hoped to bolster while denigrating their opponents.

In a party gripped with anxiety about unifying to defeat Mr. Trump, the venom among Sanders backers and their counterparts supporting other candidates is of serious concern to Democrats.

Peggy Huppert, an Iowa activist who consulted for the 2016 Sanders campaign, said she had decided to support Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., in 2020 “in large part because of the way he conducts himself.” She praised Mr. Sanders’s letter to supporters after his announcement but said that this message had plainly failed to resonate.

“Obama set the tone for his campaign: ‘You are positive, you are respectful, you are civil,’” Ms. Huppert said. “I guess Bernie hasn’t.”

In recent days, Sanders supporters have filled the social media feeds of Ms. Warren and her allies with snakes — emojis, GIFs, doctored photographs — following the candidates’ quarrel over whether Mr. Sanders had told Ms. Warren privately in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency. And last week, Mrs. Clinton resurfaced to revisit old wounds, telling The Hollywood Reporter that Mr. Sanders was to blame for permitting and “very much supporting” a toxic campaign culture.

For many of Mr. Sanders’s admirers, the interview only reinforced a conviction that traditional Democratic forces wish him political harm.

So why, they ask, should he be expected to stifle his most potent megaphone?

“You can’t control these folks,” RoseAnn DeMoro, a vocal Sanders supporter and former leader of National Nurses United, said of his online base. “I should say, ‘us folks.’”

There was a running joke inside the Clinton campaign’s 2016 Brooklyn headquarters: The cruelest surprise her digital team could pull on staff members was to retweet their personal account from the candidate’s handle, putting them on the radar of Mr. Sanders’s followers.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides mostly marveled at the scope and intensity of an ostensible long shot’s online base.

Mr. Sanders’s supporters, now often identified on Twitter by the rose emoji of the Democratic Socialists of America, loosely coordinated in private channels on Slack, a messaging service designed for the workplace, and congregated on Reddit, posting memes, news and jokes. (Today, there are 384,000 members in the SandersForPresident group on Reddit. The central group for Mr. Biden has about 3,100.)

— Michael Ceraso, a 2016 Sanders aide

Top Sanders aides initially worked to assemble traditional campaign infrastructure with staff on the ground in early nominating states like Iowa and New Hampshire. But much of the rest of the map was effectively the province of volunteers, who were responsible for helping to translate online enthusiasm into in-person support.

To Mr. Sanders, who had long bet his career on the power of mass movements, the online momentum did not necessarily register as unusual, even if he did not understand all the nuts and bolts.

Zack Exley, a senior adviser in 2016, said someone once asked Mr. Sanders how he had managed to draw so many people to his events.

“What do you mean?” the candidate replied, according to Mr. Exley. That was just how movements worked.

“If you’re in that position,” Mr. Exley said, “I don’t think you’re actually curious about how they got there.”

Others suggested that Mr. Sanders was highly attuned to what was happening online. His campaign aides tracked popular hashtags and, at times, encountered caustic posts. The candidate was particularly cognizant of, and grateful for, his online supporters’ capacity for small-dollar fund-raising.

“It would stun me that he wouldn’t know what was going on, positive or negative, online,” said Michael Ceraso, a Sanders aide in 2016 who worked for Mr. Buttigieg’s presidential campaign for part of last year.

While Mr. Sanders has said he does not have Twitter or any other apps on his phone, he is aware of the power of his online platform. “Given the fact that I have more social media followers than maybe all of my opponents combined, I guess we’re doing something right on that,” he told The New York Times editorial board. “What I have recognized is the importance of it.”

Ro Khanna, a California congressman who is now Mr. Sanders’s national campaign co-chair, said that the same internet that helped usher in the presidencies of Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama had made Mr. Sanders an unlikely juggernaut.

“If it weren’t for social media, if it weren’t for the use of email, Bernie Sanders would never have been a major contender,” he said. “It’s a glimpse, I think, into what the future of what campaigns may be.”

— a message received by Maya Contreras, co-founder of a feminist think tank who has been critical of Mr. Sanders

That is precisely what some Democrats fear. As the 2016 primary grew increasingly fractious, Mr. Sanders’s campaign found a drawback to such fervor: the online bullying among some supporters.

Sady Doyle, a progressive feminist author and Sanders critic who has been the subject of his followers’ ire, recalled one message she received from a stranger: “If you ever have a child, I’m going to dash it on the walls of Troy.” She said her husband asked her not to attend protests alone while pregnant.

Maya Contreras, a graduate student and co-founder of a feminist think tank who has criticized Mr. Sanders on Twitter, recalled a deluge in the lead-up to the 2016 election. “I got messages saying ‘go back to where you came from’ — which is Denver, Colorado, where I was born,” she said.

“Someone tweeted and said ‘You better watch where you’re going or something’s going to happen to you,’” Ms. Contreras added. “I also got ‘die bitch.’”

In person, serious violence has been avoided, it seems, though there have been occasional low-grade clashes. A May 2016 fight over delegates in Nevada included reports of thrown chairs, which some Sanders supporters dispute, and threats against the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, who changed her phone number after receiving a torrent of menacing messages about her, her grandchild and other relatives.

Former Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a Clinton supporter who had been at the Nevada convention, said she worried for her safety after being booed offstage.

“After the incident, Bernie and I talked on the phone, and he said, ‘I can’t believe that, my supporters would never do that,’” Ms. Boxer recalled. “I said, ‘Well, you ought to get to the bottom of it, Bernie.’”

She said Mr. Sanders responded, “Those cannot be my people.”

By early 2016, the behavior of Mr. Sanders’s online supporters, short-handed in the media as “Bernie Bros,” had become a stubborn trope, diagnosed as a political problem at the highest levels of the senator’s campaign, even as aides largely blamed Mrs. Clinton’s operation for overblowing it.

At times in public, Mr. Sanders tried to disclaim unseemly conduct. “We don’t want that crap,” he said in February 2016.

But he and his senior team also nursed a sharp sense of grievance. Jeff Weaver, a top Sanders strategist, played down the gravity of the Nevada unrest, telling CNN afterward that “no one had a right to feel threatened.”

“What happens,” he said, “is that when you rig the process and you get an angry crowd, you know, they’re not used to that.”

When the story broke this month detailing the private conversation between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren about female electability, Sanders surrogates received a message from the campaign, advising them against going out of their way to engage with it publicly.

But later that day, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, told CNN that whoever had pushed the Warren story was lying. Shaun King, a civil rights activist and prominent Sanders supporter with more than one million Twitter followers, said he saw an opportunity.

Among other widely circulated tweets, Mr. King wrote that he had spoken to Warren campaign staff members who reported that she “routinely embellishes stories.” He alleged that the Warren campaign and its allies “leaked this attack against Bernie to the press for political gain.”

Eventually, Ms. Turner, the campaign co-chair, got in touch. “She called me and said, ‘Shaun, just let up on it,’” he said. He did, to an extent. But by then, much of the Sanders-aligned internet was about to begin tweeting snakes at Ms. Warren and her supporters en masse.

In that instance and more than a handful of others over the past year, the campaign has publicly distanced itself from the rancor. Mr. Sanders’s wife, Jane, called for unity as the Warren squabble persisted. Mr. Sanders weighed in when some followers scorched Mr. Barkan, the activist with A.L.S., after his endorsement of Ms. Warren. “Bernie and all of his staff and surrogates were incredibly gracious and kind when I made the difficult decision to endorse one of my heroes over the other,” Mr. Barkan said in a statement.

The campaign recognizes the possible political downsides in any extreme behavior, but aides are perhaps most wary of the “bro” portion of the “Bernie Bro” descriptor, as Mr. Sanders prepares to make his case to a diverse Democratic electorate later in the primary calendar. Ms. Ford, the Sanders spokeswoman, said opponents were perpetuating “a false myth to discount the diversity of our supporters.”

While Mr. Sanders’s poll numbers with nonwhite voters are stronger than many rivals’, female and nonwhite Sanders critics say they continue to face disproportionate harassment from ostensibly progressive forces. “People talk about white dudes getting radicalized on the right,” said Imani Gandy, a senior legal analyst for Rewire.News behind a popular Twitter account, @AngryBlackLady. “I feel like white dudes in Brooklyn are being radicalized too.”

Candice Aiston, a lawyer who supported Ms. Harris before she left the primary, sparred with Sanders supporters last year and found herself targeted beyond Twitter: Some condemned her in Google reviews of her law practice and reported her to the Oregon state bar association, which dismissed the complaints.

(“She’s O.K. at her job, but her right wing ideology screams too loud,” one online review read. “Would not recommend.”)

For the campaign, the balance is delicate — tut-tutting at times without diluting the force of online support. Mr. Khanna, the congressman and campaign co-chair, called Mr. Sanders “the one person on our side who can counter what Trump’s formidable presence is going to be online.”

This view is shared among some online supporters who have turned Sanders fandom into something approaching a full-time job. Rodney Latstetter, a 62-year-old retiree in Illinois who posted repeatedly in 2017 about Ms. Harris’s Hamptons fund-raising, said he and a partner spent about seven hours a day running dozens of pro-Sanders social media groups. His Twitter page boosts Mr. Sanders and raises doubts about his rivals to more than 17,000 followers.

“Some of my followers — there are a few of them that have a little bit of an issue with their mouth or something like that,” Mr. Latstetter said, adding that he was unsure if he would support any of the other Democratic candidates if they won the nomination. “I also have my moments, too, where I have my limits, and I come out fighting.”

Such digital combat has seeped perceptibly into popular culture. The singer John Legend, endorsing Ms. Warren in a tweet this month, added a note of caution for Sanders supporters: “Try not to drive people away with your nastiness. I will happily vote for him if he wins the primary. Chill.”

This did not necessarily land with its intended audience.

“Some of you millionaires need to realize that many of us actually *need* Bernie Sanders to win the Presidency,” one account replied. “We can’t just ‘chill.’”

Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

Westlake Legal Group 26dc-bolton-facebookJumbo Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry State Department Senate Pompeo, Mike Mulvaney, Mick Johnson, Ron (1955- ) Inhofe, James M impeachment Giuliani, Rudolph W Democratic Party Bolton, John R Biden, Joseph R Jr

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.

During a previously reported May 23 meeting where top advisers and Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, briefed him about their trip to Kyiv for the inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Trump railed about Ukraine trying to damage him and mentioned a conspiracy theory about a hacked Democratic server, according to Mr. Bolton.

Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for Mr. Bolton, declined to comment. The White House did not provide responses to questions about Mr. Bolton’s assertions, and representatives for Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Bolton’s submission of the book to the White House may have given the White House lawyers direct insight into what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify at Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying, according to two people familiar with their concerns.

The White House has ordered Mr. Bolton and other key officials with firsthand knowledge of Mr. Trump’s dealings not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Mr. Bolton said in a statement this month that he would testify if subpoenaed.

In recent days, some White House officials have described Mr. Bolton as a disgruntled former employee, and have said he took notes that he should have left behind when he departed the administration.

Mr. Trump told reporters last week that he did not want Mr. Bolton to testify and said that even if he simply spoke out publicly, he could damage national security.

“The problem with John is it’s a national security problem,” Mr. Trump said at a news conference in Davos, Switzerland. “He knows some of my thoughts. He knows what I think about leaders. What happens if he reveals what I think about a certain leader and it’s not very positive?”

“It’s going to make the job very hard,” he added.

The Senate impeachment trial could end as early as Friday without witness testimony. Democrats in both the House and Senate have pressed for weeks to include any new witnesses and documents that did not surface during the House impeachment hearings to be fair, focusing on persuading the handful of Republican senators they would need to join them to succeed.

But a week into the trial, most lawmakers say the chances of 51 senators agreeing to call witnesses are dwindling, not growing.

Mr. Bolton would like to testify for several reasons, according to associates. He believes he has relevant information, and he has also expressed concern that if his account of the Ukraine affair emerges only after the trial, he will be accused of holding back to increase his book sales.

Mr. Bolton, 71, a fixture in conservative national security circles since his days in the Reagan administration, joined the White House in 2018 after several people recommended him to the president, including the Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson.

But Mr. Bolton and Mr. Trump soured on each other over several global crises, including Iranian aggression, Mr. Trump’s posture toward Russia and, ultimately, the Ukraine matter. Mr. Bolton was also often at odds with Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney throughout his time in the administration.

Key to Mr. Bolton’s account about Ukraine is an exchange during a meeting in August with the president after Mr. Trump returned from vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J. Mr. Bolton raised the $391 million in congressionally appropriated assistance to Ukraine for its war in the country’s east against Russian-backed separatists. Officials had frozen the aid, and a deadline was looming to begin sending it to Kyiv, Mr. Bolton noted.

He, Mr. Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper had collectively pressed the president about releasing the aid nearly a dozen times in the preceding weeks after lower-level officials who worked on Ukraine issues began complaining about the holdup, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Trump had effectively rebuffed them, airing his longstanding grievances about Ukraine, which mixed legitimate efforts by some Ukrainians to back his Democratic 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, with unsupported accusations and outright conspiracy theories about the country, a key American ally.

Mr. Giuliani had also spent months stoking the president’s paranoia about the American ambassador to Ukraine at the time, Marie L. Yovanovitch, claiming that she was openly anti-Trump and needed to be dismissed. Mr. Trump had ordered her removed as early as April 2018 during a private dinner with two Giuliani associates and others, a recording of the conversation made public on Saturday showed.

In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.

The president often hits at multiple opponents in his harangues, and he frequently lumps together the law enforcement officials who conducted the Russia inquiry with Democrats and other perceived enemies, as he appeared to do in speaking to Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Bolton also described other key moments in the pressure campaign, including Mr. Pompeo’s private acknowledgment to him last spring that Mr. Giuliani’s claims about Ms. Yovanovitch had no basis and that Mr. Giuliani may have wanted her removed because she might have been targeting his clients who had dealings in Ukraine as she sought to fight corruption.

Ms. Yovanovitch, a Canadian immigrant whose parents fled the Soviet Union and Nazis, was a well-regarded career diplomat who was known as a vigorous fighter against corruption in Ukraine. She was abruptly removed last year and told the president had lost trust in her, even though a boss assured her she had “done nothing wrong.”

Mr. Bolton also said he warned White House lawyers that Mr. Giuliani might have been leveraging his work with the president to help his private clients.

At the impeachment trial, Mr. Trump himself had hoped to have his defense call a range of people to testify who had nothing to do with his efforts related to Ukraine, including Hunter Biden, to frame the case around Democrats. But the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, repeatedly told the president that witnesses could backfire, and the White House has followed his lead.

Mr. McConnell and other Republicans in the Senate, working in tandem with Mr. Trump’s lawyers, have spent weeks waging their own rhetorical battle to keep their colleagues within the party tent on the question of witnesses, with apparent success. Two of the four Republican senators publicly open to witness votes have sounded notes of skepticism in recent days about the wisdom of having the Senate compel testimony that the House did not get.

Since Mr. Bolton’s statement, White House advisers have floated the possibility that they could go to court to try to obtain a restraining order to stop him from speaking. Such an order would be unprecedented, but any attempt to secure it could succeed in tying up his testimony in legal limbo and scaring off Republican moderates wary of letting the trial drag on when its outcome appears clear.

Katie Benner and Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘Good Not to Be In Washington’: Senators Return to Iowa for Burst of Campaigning

Westlake Legal Group 25dems06-facebookJumbo ‘Good Not to Be In Washington’: Senators Return to Iowa for Burst of Campaigning United States Politics and Government Presidential Election of 2020 Midterm Elections (2018) Endorsements Democratic Party Biden, Joseph R Jr Axne, Cindy

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa — Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar dashed back to Iowa for a frenzied burst of campaigning on Saturday after a week in which they were confined to Washington for the impeachment trial of President Trump.

Their appearances took place amid signs of growing strength in Mr. Sanders’s candidacy, particularly a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely caucusgoers released Saturday that showed him leading the field in Iowa. Given the fears of some Democrats that he could be portrayed as too far to the left to defeat Mr. Trump, his show of strength is likely to alarm some of his detractors as much as it pleases his own supporters coming so close to the Feb. 3 caucuses.

Pete Buttigieg’s campaign sent a fund-raising email on Saturday warning that “Bernie Sanders could be the nominee of our party,” followed by another email that cast doubt on Mr. Sanders’s ability to beat Mr. Trump. And former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in a tweet took an implicit jab at Mr. Sanders over his campaign’s promotion of an endorsement from Joe Rogan, the popular podcast host who has been criticized for comments he has made on race and about transgender people.

Mr. Sanders, sounding a bit congested, made it to Iowa in time to attend a rally in Marshalltown with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and the filmmaker Michael Moore.

He made no mention of his poll showing, but he didn’t have to.

“We’re taking on the establishment, and the establishment is getting a little bit nervous,” he told a modest but enthusiastic crowd.

But he did take a swipe at the impeachment trial for scrambling his campaign plans.

“As you well know, we have had to radically change our schedule in the last week — kind of toss it into the garbage can and begin anew,” he said. “But we are going to be back here in Iowa in the next week every moment that we possibly can.”

Mr. Sanders plans to hold events across the northwestern part of Iowa on Sunday before the trial resumes on Monday.

Before he settled into his familiar talking points, Mr. Sanders also issued something of a warning, suggesting he was aware of the renewed attacks from rivals as he continued to display strength in Iowa and other early voting states.

“In the last week of a campaign, a lot of stuff is going to be thrown around — that’s what happens in campaigns,” he said. “But I would hope that this state, New Hampshire and the country does not lose focus on what are the most important issues.”

The day also brought good news for Ms. Warren, who returned to Iowa for the first time since the impeachment trial with a town-hall-style event at a middle school in Muscatine. “Good not to be in Washington,” she told reporters.

She was working her way through her selfie picture line when the news broke that she had received the coveted endorsement of The Des Moines Register. In other endorsements Saturday, The New Hampshire Union Leader backed Ms. Klobuchar, and The Sioux City Journal in Iowa gave its support to Mr. Biden.

Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who has struggled to gain traction in the primary race and has also been tethered to Washington because of the impeachment trial, traveled to New Hampshire on Saturday and planned to campaign there through the weekend.

Two other leading contenders, Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg, were not stuck in Washington this past week. Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., arrived in Iowa for the beginning of a 10-day sprint across the state before the caucuses. His first stop was a town-hall-style event before about 300 people inside of an old opera house in Fort Dodge.

Mr. Buttigieg began his remarks by reminding the audience that, after 13 months of candidate events, they were in “the final days” of the race in which he has outlasted a handful of adversaries who began the race better-known and better financed than the mayor of South Bend.

After a town-hall-style event in Storm Lake, he was asked about his campaign’s reference to Mr. Sanders in one of the fund-raising emails as “a risk we can’t take.”

“I believe that we should be very mindful that one of the worst risks we can take at a time like this is to recycle the same Washington-style political warfare that brought us to this point,” he said. “If we believe it’s important to win, then the best thing we can do is put forward a candidate who offers something new, something different and something that will break us through the dynamics that have gotten us into this era that’s just got to change.”

Mr. Biden flew to Iowa after beginning his day with an event in Salem, N.H. Speaking in an elementary school gym, Mr. Biden alluded to the impeachment trial that is playing out in Washington and reminded the crowd that he had come under relentless attack from Mr. Trump.

“My guess if you go back and turn your TV on today, you’re going to find the name ‘Biden’ mentioned many, many, many times,” Mr. Biden said. “I wonder why he doesn’t want to run against me.”

Mr. Biden also received a boost on Saturday when he picked up the endorsement of Representative Cindy Axne of Iowa, a freshman Democrat who unseated a Republican incumbent.

“He is who I believe is the one sure bet to beat Donald Trump,” Ms. Axne said in an interview.

Ms. Axne hails from the kind of swing district that was key to the party’s takeover of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, and will be crucial to its continued control of the chamber.

Ms. Axne appeared with Mr. Biden on Saturday night at an event in her district in Ankeny, a suburb of Des Moines.

“It’s not just that Joe’s been there, and he’s been in the Situation Room,” she told the crowd in Ankeny. “We also need somebody who’s running on a message of hope, a message of unification of this country.”

Mr. Biden has now been endorsed by two of Iowa’s three Democrats in Congress. Representative Abby Finkenauer, another freshman who flipped a Republican-held seat in 2018, endorsed him in early January. The state’s other House Democrat, Representative Dave Loebsack, has endorsed Mr. Buttigieg.

Ms. Axne’s district includes Iowa’s most populous city, Des Moines, and covers the southwestern corner of the state. President Barack Obama won the district in 2012, but Mr. Trump carried it in 2016. Two years later, in the midterm elections, Ms. Axne unseated a two-term Republican, David Young.

Ms. Axne said she believed that Mr. Biden would drive turnout in districts like hers, and emphasized the importance of protecting the Democratic majority in the House.

She also nodded to what she suggested was Mr. Biden’s broad appeal. “I truly believe that there are Iowans that would have some difficulty with some of the positions by other people running in this party,” she said.

Sydney Ember reported from Marshalltown, and Thomas Kaplan from Salem, N.H. Shane Goldmacher contributed reporting from Muscatine, Iowa; Reid J. Epstein from Fort Dodge, Iowa; and Maggie Astor from Ankeny, Iowa.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Des Moines Register Endorses Elizabeth Warren as Iowa Caucuses Approach

Westlake Legal Group 25iowa-endorsement-warren-facebookJumbo Des Moines Register Endorses Elizabeth Warren as Iowa Caucuses Approach Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Iowa Endorsements Des Moines Register Democratic Party

DES MOINES — The Des Moines Register endorsed Senator Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic presidential nomination on Saturday night, calling her “the best leader for these times.”

The newspaper, Iowa’s largest and most influential, gave Ms. Warren a boost just over a week before the caucuses on Feb. 3, when Iowans will take part in the first nominating contest of the primary cycle.

In its editorial, the Register praised Ms. Warren as “a thinker, a policy wonk and a hard worker.”

“Warren’s competence, respect for others and status as the nation’s first female president would be a fitting response to the ignorance, sexism and xenophobia of the Trump Oval Office,” the editorial stated.

After more than a year of campaigning, the Democratic race is extraordinarily volatile in Iowa, as residents continue to fret over which candidate can beat President Trump.

In recent days, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has shown momentum in the state, and he led a poll of likely caucusgoers published Saturday by The New York Times and Siena College, which showed him earning 25 percent support and his three top rivals clustered behind him.

His rise in Iowa has come at the expense of Ms. Warren, his fellow progressive, who dropped to 15 percent in the survey, down from 22 percent in the last survey conducted by the organizations, in late October, when she led the field.

Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was at 18 percent in the poll, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was at 17 percent. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was the only other candidate approaching double digits, at 8 percent.

The Register’s endorsement landed as Ms. Warren worked her way through her selfie line after a town-hall-style event in Muscatine, Iowa.

She did not find out until after she took the final picture, when her communications director, Kristen Orthman, pulled her aside to share the news.

Ms. Warren leapt back in excitement — pulling her hands to her chest, as if to say, “what, me?” — and then pumped both hands in the air and did a little dance. Ms. Orthman then appeared to show Ms. Warren the editorial on her phone.

Ms. Warren gulped down a sip of coconut water, one of her campaign trail staples, and headed over to a gathered group of reporters and microphones with a smile.

“I just heard and I’m delighted,” Ms. Warren said of the endorsement. “It really means a lot to me. I’m very happy.”

In a tweet thanking The Register for the endorsement, she wrote that “Iowans are ready to make big, structural change — and I’m going to fight my heart out for everyone in Iowa and across the country.”

In its editorial, the Register praised Ms. Warren’s approach to the economy, health care, climate change and other issues.

“She says corporations should have less Washington influence, children should be protected from gun violence, child care should be affordable, immigrants deserve compassion, mass incarceration should end and the wealthy should pay more in taxes,” the editorial stated. “Those ideas are not radical. They are right.”

It also argued that any of the Democrats campaigning in Iowa would be “more inclusive and thoughtful than the current occupant of the White House.”

In making its decision, The Register’s editorial board interviewed nine current Democratic candidates who have spent considerable time campaigning in Iowa, several candidates who have since left the race, and two Republicans who are challenging Mr. Trump. The Register is not endorsing in the Republican race.

The newspaper made clear that the endorsement was the product of its editorial board, and that its news staff, including the editors and reporters who cover the presidential race, had no involvement in the process.

The Register’s endorsements, which began in 1988, are not predictions and have had a mixed record of swaying the caucuses. In 2016, the paper backed Senator Marco Rubio of Florida in the Republican primary, and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic one, when she was in a tight race against Mr. Sanders.

Nevertheless, the endorsements make national news. The paper also sponsors a closely watched poll of Iowa caucusgoers — the last of which is set to be released on Feb. 1, two days before the caucuses.

The Register, along with CNN, also sponsored a Democratic debate this month, the last before caucusing and voting begin in February.

Sydney Ember reported from Des Moines, and Michael Levenson from New York. Shane Goldmacher contributed reporting from Muscatine, Iowa.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com