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 > News Corporation (Page 89)

Reporter’s Notebook: House votes on impeachment articles would be monumental decisions

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6113947537001_6113941356001-vs Reporter's Notebook: House votes on impeachment articles would be monumental decisions fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox news fnc/politics fnc e9dfefc4-495f-5cf9-831d-0c50626c4516 Chad Pergram article

There are important roll call votes on Capitol Hill — but votes on articles of impeachment against President Trump would be monumental.

Think about votes cast in 2009 and and 2010 for or against ObamaCare. A failed effort to undo ObamaCare in 2017. Votes in 2008 to salvage the economy with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Votes last Congress on tax reform. Various votes to fund the government and hike the debt ceiling. And, in the Senate, votes to confirm Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

News organizations and political firms have traved major votes on the floors of the House and Senate each year. Some of those votes may define a career. Look at the nay vote cast by the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to end Republican efforts to unwind ObamaCare. Separately, voters in Maine and Colorado respectively took note of the votes by Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Cory Gardner to confirm Kavanaugh last fall. That vote is sure to resonate in the reelection bids for Collins and Gardner next year.

All of those votes have been major, reverberating throughout a given Congress – and even for decades to come. Despite multiple efforts to gut ObamaCare, it has remained the law of the land. Still, “aye” ballots for ObamaCare proved to help end the congressional careers of  many House and Senate Democrats. Republicans weaponized that vote against those Democrats. Some paid with their political lives in 2010 and beyond. Lots of House Republicans lost the House for the same reason last year because of their votes for the tax bill and for trying to repeal ObamaCare.

We won’t know if the votes by Collins and Gardner for Kavanaugh will sway the outcomes of their Senate contests next year. But, barring illness, the 54-year-old Kavanaugh could serve on the high court for decades. The decisions by Collins and Gardner to confirm Kavanaugh are likely to echo in American jurisprudence for years.

These are all high-profile roll call votes, as weighty as can be. But, there is yet one more, hyper-elite classification of House and Senate votes, more consequential than the rest. These are votes to go to war and to impeach a president.

These momentous votes have filtered through the decades. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., is still known as the only House member to oppose the war resolution following Sept. 11, 2001. The late Rep. Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont., was the first woman ever elected to Congress, but in addition to her trailblazing for women, historians have recalled her votes opposing U.S. involvement in World War I and World War II.

“I cannot vote for war,” said Rankin when she opposed the U.S. declaring war against Germany in World War I. Rankin’s words about war were emblazoned on the base of her statue in the U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center. It’s one of two statues from Montana in the official congressional collection.

Other lawmakers voted against the U.S. entering World War I. But, Rankin was the only member of either body to vote “nay” after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Many prominent members, including future Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., then a congressman, tried to persuade Rankin to vote “aye” so the tally would be unanimous. But, Rankin resisted. Her position was so unpopular that she abstained from voting on future war declarations against Germany and Italy. Her political career ended soon afterwards.

This brings us to present day.

NUNES BLASTS SCHIFF FOR ‘BLATANT DISREGARD’ OF IMPEACHMENT RULES

The House Judiciary Committee is likely to entertain three to five articles of impeachment for Trump. The House would not simply throw a broad resolution on the floor with members voting up or down to impeach. These articles would be honed and massaged, narrow and concrete. Members would focus on what they accused the president of doing, such as an indictment. It’s then up to the Judiciary Committee to actually approve the articles and send them to the House floor. The House must then vote to adopt or reject those articles.

Without question, these votes on articles of impeachment would be the most critical ballots cast in the 116th Congress. They could be the cardinal votes many lawmakers would make during their congressional tenures. That said, 55 House members who voted on the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 have remained in the House.

In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee considered five articles of impeachment and approved three for then-President Richard Nixon. Nixon resigned before the articles went to the House floor. In 1998, the Judiciary Committee prepared four articles of impeachment but the full House okayed only two of them.

Details of the articles would paramount, so members of Congress from both parties would want to evaluate the articles — study them, ponder them, and then, with a deep sigh, decide how to vote.

We always hear an array of TV commercials from upstarts and political neophytes just before each congressional election, boasting about how if you elect them, they’ll head to Washington and have the courage “to take the tough votes.”

Well, congratulations, members of the 116th Congress. You won the lottery.

Americans are likely to remember how all current 431 members of the House voted, yea or nay, on each article of impeachment.

Think of the vulnerable, freshmen Democrats who helped propel their party to the majority in 2018, representing districts Trump won in 2016. There are 31 such Democrats. Look closely at how freshmen Democrats like Reps. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Anthony Brindisi of New York and Joe Cunningham of South Carolina vote.

Republicans wouldn’t be out of the woods yet, either. Consider the challenges of an impeachment vote for swing-district Republicans including Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan, John Katko of New York and Don Bacon of Nebraska.

Potential articles of impeachment have centered on “bribery” — specifically mentioned in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution — abuse of power, contempt of Congress and obstruction of justice. All such potential articles would be fissionable enough to incinerate many a political career if a lawmaker were to vote the wrong way.

But, one potential article of impeachment would be practically thermonuclear: treason.

Again, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution mentions “treason” as a defined transgression worthy of impeachment. One could see how House Democrats might try to make a case for treason with President Trump.

The House essentially accused Sen. William Blount of Tennessee of treason in the republic’s first impeachment in 1797. The House argued Blount covertly worked with Britain to acquire territory in the south. The House impeached Federal Judge West Hughes Humphreys in 1862 for supporting the Confederacy. No other House impeachments have ever wandered into treason as possible grounds for impeachment.

This speaks to why the House may impeach President Trump on some articles and not others. That’s why members are so curious to learn what the articles may be and decide how to vote on each individual.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It’s just a simple question, right? Binary. Yea or nay? Members do this all day long.

But, votes on the impeachment of Trump are likely to be the most momentous of a lawmaker’s career. And, the decisions lawmakers make will pulsate through the American experience like no other ballot they cast before.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6113947537001_6113941356001-vs Reporter's Notebook: House votes on impeachment articles would be monumental decisions fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox news fnc/politics fnc e9dfefc4-495f-5cf9-831d-0c50626c4516 Chad Pergram article   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6113947537001_6113941356001-vs Reporter's Notebook: House votes on impeachment articles would be monumental decisions fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox news fnc/politics fnc e9dfefc4-495f-5cf9-831d-0c50626c4516 Chad Pergram article

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

Pensacola Gunman Said to Have Fumed Over Instructor Months Before Shooting

The investigation into the fatal shooting last week at a Navy training center in Florida was officially characterized as a terrorism inquiry on Sunday, as new details emerged about the Saudi Air Force trainee who killed three sailors on the base where he was a visiting student.

As the F.B.I. continues to conduct interviews with everyone at the Pensacola Naval Air Station who may have had contact with the gunman, identified as Second Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani, a new report emerged that the Saudi trainee filed a formal complaint earlier this year against one of his instructors, who left him “infuriated” in class by tagging him with a derogatory nickname.

The complaint, quoted in a communication circulated among people connected to the flight training, said that the instructor referred to Lieutenant Alshamrani as “Porn Stash” in front of about 10 other aviation students, embarrassing and angering him.

”I was infuriated as to why he would say that in front of the class,” the Saudi trainee wrote in his complaint, as quoted in the summary. The document was reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by a person who spoke with Lieutenant Alshamrani shortly after the incident.

The F.B.I. declined to comment on the April incident, and the special agent in charge of the agency’s Jacksonville office, Rachel Rojas, said on Sunday that investigators are still searching for a motive for the Friday morning attack. There has been nothing to suggest that the classroom incident had any connection to the shooting, which did not occur until more than seven months later.

Yet little is known of Lieutenant Alshamrani’s life in Florida during his months as a trainee, and the incident in April appears to have been upsetting enough that two American students in the class helped him file his complaint, according to the person who spoke with him about it.

Lieutenant Alshamrani reported that the confrontation came at the end of a meteorology class, when the instructor, James Day, asked whether students had any questions before he dismissed them.

The instructor then turned to Lieutenant Alshamrani and asked whether he had any questions, addressing him as “Porn Stash” — spelled that way in the complaint — in an apparent reference to the mustache of a porn actor.

“Laughing, he continued to ask, ‘What? Have you not seen a porn star before?’” the lieutenant wrote in his complaint, according to the summary. “After I did not respond, he just let go of the subject.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group 08gunman3-popup Pensacola Gunman Said to Have Fumed Over Instructor Months Before Shooting United States Defense and Military Forces PENSACOLA, Fla. Naval Air Station Pensacola Military Bases and Installations mass shootings International Study and Teaching Foreign Students (in US) Florida Federal Bureau of Investigation Day, James Alshamrani, Mohammed Saeed

Second Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani, in an undated photo. Credit…Federal Bureau of Investigation, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Brian Busey, the president of the company that employs Mr. Day, Delaware Resource Group of Oklahoma, declined to discuss details of the classroom incident, but said the company had dealt with the matter in April. He said the company was cooperating with the F.B.I.’s investigation into the shooting.

“Appropriate personnel action was taken regarding the incident in question, corrective action was taken, the matter was closed back in April, and we have no further comment,” Mr. Busey said.

Mr. Day also declined, through Mr. Busey, to comment. Officials at the Navy base referred questions to the F.B.I., which also did not comment.

“We are unable to confirm this type of information due to the active and ongoing investigation,” Amanda Warford Videll, a spokeswoman for the bureau’s Jacksonville office, said in a statement.

Separately, F.B.I. officials said they are continuing to conduct interviews with anyone who may have had contact with the gunman, who was shot and killed by a sheriff’s deputy at the scene of the attack. They said they are operating on the assumption that he acted alone.

More details have emerged about the gunman’s actions in the days leading up to the shooting.

The night before the attack, Lieutenant Alshamrani showed videos of mass shootings at a dinner party, according to a person who was briefed on the investigation.

Days earlier, he and three other Saudi military trainees were in New York City, visiting several museums and Rockefeller Center. There has been no indication that the trip was more than a sightseeing tour.

Still, several dozen F.B.I. agents and New York Police Department detectives have been working to learn everything they can about the visit, which lasted for about four days, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The agents and detectives have been tracing their movements through credit cards, surveillance video and other means, the person said.

It was not clear whether the April classroom incident will play any role in the investigation.

According to the communication describing the encounter, Lieutenant Alshamrani was visibly upset and reported what happened to managers of CAE USA, which provides instruction to civil and military aviation students. (Delaware Resource Group is a subcontractor to CAE.) The American student who helped the lieutenant draft the complaint was one of two who accompanied him when he went to file it, according to the person who spoke with the Saudi trainee about the complaint.

The CAE managers offered to have the instructor apologize, but Lieutenant Alshamrani turned that offer down, and instead spoke to the naval office that oversees international students, the person said.

Several government employees thought that disciplinary action should be taken against Mr. Day, but he continued to instruct students, the person said. About a week after the incident in April, Lieutenant Alshamrani was paired with Mr. Day for simulated flight training, according to a schedule reviewed by The Times. He again complained to CAE managers, and the session was canceled and rescheduled with a different instructor, the person said.

As part of a terrorism investigation, federal authorities will also be attempting to determine whether there was a political or ideological motive behind the shooting.

The SITE Intelligence Group has flagged a Twitter account that it believes is connected to the gunman, with a posting shortly before the attack that was critical of America’s support for Israel, as well as the “invasion” of other countries by United States troops. The statement, which quoted Osama bin Laden, accused the United States of “committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity.”

Lieutenant Alshamrani began training with the United States military in August 2017 and was scheduled to complete the training in August 2020, Pentagon officials said. He initially attended language school at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. He spent breaks back home in Saudi Arabia. When he returned to the United States in February, friends and colleagues noticed that he had become more religious, according to a person briefed on the investigation.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said on “Fox News Sunday” that the Pentagon would review screening procedures for foreigners on American military bases but would maintain the training programs.

“The ability to bring foreign students here to train with us, to understand American culture, is very important to us,” he said. “We have something that our potential adversaries, such as Russia and China, don’t have.”

Mr. Esper confirmed that several friends of the gunman were detained during the military’s investigation of the shooting, and said that of those who were detained, “some one or two were filming” the shooting.

“I’m not trying to pass a judgment on this,” Mr. Esper said. “Today, people pull out their phones and film everything and anything that happens.”

Contributing reporting were Frances Robles, Patricia Mazzei, Eric Schmitt, Adam Goldman, Chris Cameron and William K. Rashbaum. Susan C. Beachy contributed research.

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

Schiff: focus on ‘overwhelming evidence’ in Trump impeachment

Westlake Legal Group NgAwPM-bVsvm_ohYjV9ugm3anpvS_uSlE5OdzhjTdgQ Schiff: focus on 'overwhelming evidence' in Trump impeachment r/politics

If Trump goes down, he will bring these zealots down with him: Rudy Guilani, Bill Barr, Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Doug Collins, Devin Nunez, Mark Meadows, Elise Stefanik, Ron Johnson, Robert Kennedy, 14 and counting.

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

Nunes blasts Schiff for ‘blatant disregard’ of impeachment rules; blames ‘vendetta’ against Trump

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_5740806077001_5740736887001-vs Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/devin-nunes fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox news fnc/politics fnc Brooke Singman b39face4-296e-5258-94fa-b271d8b2f7f7 article

EXCLUSIVE: House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes blasted committee Chairman Adam Schiff for what he called an “alarming” and “blatant disregard” for the rules governing the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, saying Schiff transmitted his investigative findings to the Judiciary Committee for the next phase in the proceedings without consulting him.

Fox News exclusively obtained the letter Nunes, R-Calif., sent to Schiff, D-Calif., on Sunday night. In the letter dated Friday, Nunes wrote that Schiff chose not to consult with him so that he could meet a “bogus” deadline for impeaching the president. The GOP congressman also accused the Democrat of having a “vendetta” against the president.

“I write in objection to your December 6, 2019 transfer of additional records and other materials relating to the Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry to the House Committee on the Judiciary,” Nunes wrote.

He went on to cite the rules governing the impeachment inquiry, passed in the House in October, which stated that “the chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.”

“As the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I received no consultation prior to the transfer of materials, in violation of H. Res. 660,” Nunes wrote. “Accordingly, I expect that you immediately provide me a full accounting of documents that were provided to the Committee on the Judiciary.”

“Your consistent and blatant disregard for the rules is alarming,” Nunes continued. “I can see no reason for you to continue to ignore these rules, which the Democratic majority put in place, other than to meet a bogus deadline of impeaching the President by Christmas.”

He added: “I urge you to put an immediate end to your vendetta against the President, stop your constant rule breaking, and begin treating this Committee and its oversight responsibilities with the seriousness they deserve.”

Last week, the Intelligence Committee voted to adopt and issue a scathing report on its findings from its impeachment inquiry. Democrats on the panel asserted that their inquiry “uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.”

NUNES LOOKS AT LEGAL OPTIONS AFTER SCHIFF RELEASES PHONE RECORDS IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

In their impeachment inquiry, the committee conducted extensive interviews with witnesses connected to the Trump administration’s relationship with Ukraine, after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint alleging that during a July 25 phone call, Trump tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as issues related to the 2016 presidential election.

The president’s request came after millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats and witnesses have claimed showed a “quid pro quo” arrangement. Trump repeatedly has denied any wrongdoing.

The Democrats’ report claimed that Trump withheld nearly $391 million in military aid from Ukraine, conditioning its delivery as well as a White House visit with Zelensky on a public announcement that Zelensky was conducting the investigations. It also accused Trump of obstruction of justice for instructing witnesses not to comply with congressional subpoenas.

Nunes took issue with the issuance of the report to the Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., without consulting with him, as well as the transmission of additional underlying investigative material, according to an aide familiar with the matter. Also part of the committee’s report were Nunes’ phone records, which Schiff subpoenaed and released in connection with the impeachment inquiry.

Meanwhile, House Republicans issued their own report earlier this week delivering a point-by-point rebuttal to Democrats’ impeachment efforts.

“The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” Republicans said in their report released Monday.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Nevertheless, Nadler and Judiciary Committee Democrats, in consultation with Intelligence Committee and Oversight Committee Democrats, and at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have begun drafting articles of impeachment, which are likely to encompass two major themes: abuse of office and obstruction.

The Judiciary Committee is set to hold a hearing Monday, when counsels for the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees’ Democrats and Republicans are to present evidence in the case.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_5740806077001_5740736887001-vs Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/devin-nunes fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox news fnc/politics fnc Brooke Singman b39face4-296e-5258-94fa-b271d8b2f7f7 article   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_5740806077001_5740736887001-vs Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/devin-nunes fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox news fnc/politics fnc Brooke Singman b39face4-296e-5258-94fa-b271d8b2f7f7 article

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

New York City ISIS supporter seen as ‘ticking time bomb’ gets decades in prison

A U.S. citizen who kept an Islamic State flag and a cache of weapons in his New York City apartment was sentenced Friday to 22 years in prison after pleading guilty to providing material support to the terrorist group, the Justice Department announced.

Sajmir Alimehmeti, a 26-year-old Albanian turned U.S. citizen, was sentenced Friday by U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, who called him a “ticking time bomb.” He called the Bronx man’s conduct “terrifying.”

In February 2018, Alimehmeti admitted providing material support to the group.

Westlake Legal Group Sajmir-Alimehmeti New York City ISIS supporter seen as 'ticking time bomb' gets decades in prison fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/us/terror/conspiracies-plots fox news fnc/us fnc dd6185a6-0eef-555b-97ea-be60347bf384 Bradford Betz article

Sajmir Alimehmeti was ordered to spend over decades behind bars for supporting ISIS, the Justice Department announced.  (DOJ)

Alimehmeti, a onetime plumbing assistant who had studied funeral services, was arrested in May 2016 on evidence assembled over eight months by two undercover New York City police officers and an undercover FBI employee posing as ISIS recruits.

The man started collecting weapons such as combat knives that could be used in a “lone-wolf” style terrorist attack, investigators said.

SAUDI STUDENT WATCHED MASS SHOOTING VIDEOS DURING DINNER PARTY BEFORE FLORIDA NAVAL BASE ATTACK

Arresting agents reported recovering terrorist propaganda, the flag and images of jihadist fighters.

Alimehmeti had traveled overseas to support ISIS’ terror campaign by buying military-grade weapons and helping another recruit get travel documents, equipment and encryption technology to fight with the group in Syria, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said in a news release.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Even after his incarceration, Alimehmeti continued his supportive conduct for ISIS by working with convicted Chelsea bomber Ahmad Khan Rahimi, to distribute ISIS propaganda in prison,” Berman said.

In addition to 22 years in prison, Alimehmeti also was sentenced to five years supervised release, the DOJ said.

Westlake Legal Group Sajmir-Alimehmeti New York City ISIS supporter seen as 'ticking time bomb' gets decades in prison fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/us/terror/conspiracies-plots fox news fnc/us fnc dd6185a6-0eef-555b-97ea-be60347bf384 Bradford Betz article   Westlake Legal Group Sajmir-Alimehmeti New York City ISIS supporter seen as 'ticking time bomb' gets decades in prison fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/us/terror/conspiracies-plots fox news fnc/us fnc dd6185a6-0eef-555b-97ea-be60347bf384 Bradford Betz article

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

Trump Slammed For Insisting ‘Killer’ Real Estate Jews Will Back Him To Save Their Wealth

Westlake Legal Group 5ded88952500005358d2f844 Trump Slammed For Insisting ‘Killer’ Real Estate Jews Will Back Him To Save Their Wealth

Jewish groups denounced President Donald Trump Sunday for anti-Semitic tropes after he referred to some Jewish voters in the real estate business as “brutal killers” who will vote for him to dodge a wealth tax. 

Trump also complained that some Jews “don’t love Israel enough” in a speech Saturday at the Israeli American Council National Summit in Florida before a supportive crowd that chanted “four more years.”

Halie Soifer, the executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, called Trump’s comments “vile and bigoted” in a statement. Trump’s “deeply offensive remarks … including his unconscionable repeating of negative stereotypes that have been used historically to target Jews, only reinforce our belief … that Donald Trump is the biggest threat to American Jews,” Soifer added. 

Author Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg tweeted: “It’s not even coded anti-semitism. It’s not a dog whistle. He’s saying this. Out loud. To a room full of Jews.”

The president also resurrected his own version of a Native American slur by again calling Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) “Pocahontas,” who he falsely claimed wants to take “100% of your wealth away.”

Trump told the crowd: “A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers. Not nice people at all.” Some in the crowd laughed. “But you have to vote for me; you have no choice. You’re not going to vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that … You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax.” (See the video above at 27:00.)

He added: “Even if you don’t like me; some of you don’t. Some of you I don’t like at all, actually. And you’re going to be my biggest supporters because you’ll be out of business in about 15 minutes if they [Democrats] get” the presidency.

Progressive Jewish advocacy group J Street tweeted that Trump is “incapable of addressing Jewish audiences without dipping into the deep well of anti-Semitic tropes that shape his worldview.”

Rabbi Alissa Wise of the Jewish Voice for Peace called it “reprehensible that President Trump can’t manage to address a Jewish audience without immediately peddling in anti-Semitic tropes.

Soifer complained that Trump “even had the audacity to suggest that Jews ‘have no choice’ but to support him.” In fact, Soifer noted, an “overwhelming majority of Jews are both pro-Israel and anti-Trump because of his incendiary rhetoric … [and] because he’s emboldened the rise of white nationalism in America, which has directly led to increased hatred and violence targeting Jews.” 

Trump’s “Pocahontas” slam against Warren has also angered Native Americans. The National Congress of American Indians issued a statement earlier this year condemning Trump’s “continued use of the name ‘Pocahontas’ as an insult for political gain. Not only does it disrespect Pocahontas’ legacy and life, it likens her name to a slur … We call on all Americans to denounce the continued use of such terms and the sentiments they express.” 

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

The Indispensable Man: How Giuliani Led Trump to the Brink of Impeachment

Westlake Legal Group xxRudy-1-facebookJumbo The Indispensable Man: How Giuliani Led Trump to the Brink of Impeachment United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Giuliani, Rudolph W Corruption (Institutional)

Not so long ago, it seemed to Rudolph W. Giuliani that he would be presiding over a hefty part of the world.

Holding court a few nights after the 2016 election in a private cigar bar on Fifth Avenue, glass of Macallan at hand, Mr. Giuliani boasted to friends that President-elect Donald J. Trump would soon nominate him to the most prestigious of cabinet posts.

“How about,” Mr. Giuliani asked, “secretary of state?”

Chief global representative of the United States in war, peace and trade.

It would be a sublime reward for having thrown in with Mr. Trump when the respectable Republican establishment was keeping its distance, a fresh burst of stardom in a public life that had been fading fast. Mr. Giuliani made himself indispensable to the Trump campaign by doing dirty work that no one else wanted and trudging ahead even after the candidate lashed him with humiliations.

Three years on, Mr. Giuliani never got the job he believed he had coming — “a bitter disappointment,” his now-estranged wife says — but in his five decades as a public figure, he has never been more prominent in national affairs.

Step by step, he has escorted President Trump to the brink of impeachment. Mr. Giuliani himself is now under criminal investigation by federal prosecutors in the very office where he enjoyed his first extended draughts of fame nearly four decades ago. The separate troubles he has gotten his client and himself into are products of the uniquely powerful position he has fashioned, a hybrid of unpaid personal counsel to the president and for-profit peddler of access and advice.

Practically no name, other than Mr. Trump’s, was mentioned more than Mr. Giuliani’s at the impeachment hearings and in a subsequent Democratic report that described him as the hub of a grievous abuse of presidential power (or legitimate advocate for Mr. Trump, in the Republicans’ minority response).

A dozen witnesses testified over five days, and if Mr. Giuliani were somehow subtracted from their stories, there seems to be no one in or out of government who could take his place as the president’s man on the ground. No one to carry out a campaign to force a vulnerable ally, Ukraine, to damage a political opponent of Mr. Trump and undermine a special counsel investigation in ways that would help both Mr. Trump and an ally now in prison for laundering millions of dollars.

No impeachment train, picking up steam.

Mr. Giuliani has been the voice in Mr. Trump’s ear when others could not be heard, and served as the voice of Mr. Trump in places where presidents dare not go.

Each modern impeachment saga — of Richard M. Nixon, Bill Clinton and now Mr. Trump — has been shaped not by grievances over policy differences, but by human vanities and appetites. In this case, those include Mr. Giuliani’s, which have run in strong currents for decades, unconcealed.

The forces that have returned Mr. Giuliani to the stage at age 75 are the same ones that made him a star federal prosecutor as a young man, a memorable mayor of New York in the 1990s and a scorched-earth advocate for Mr. Trump in 2016: his relentless drive to put himself at the center of public life and his very high regard for his own virtuousness.

Patrick Oxford, a former law partner and chairman of Mr. Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign, who praises him as “a fine man,” says he has not changed.

“He’s just a whole lot more of what he was,” Mr. Oxford said. “I’ve noticed that political figures have a hard time retiring from the scene. I think my friend Rudy may be trying too hard to remain involved.”

[Watch a special episode of “The Weekly” about Rudy Giuliani’s wild, decades-long career. Available for Times subscribers in the U.S.]

His personal life has descended into the sort of well-appointed shambles that material wealth can disguise, though not necessarily make any less fraught.

A third marriage has fallen into divorce court ruins, revealing monthly expenses of $230,000 for six homes and 11 country club memberships. By taking President Trump as a client, he lost a position at a law firm in 2018 that paid him $6 million annually, according to court filings. In October, he broke with a partner in a security consultancy, a former police officer who had been at his side for three decades. He was so badly hurt in a fall two years ago that his wife put off divorce plans and looked after him for a while. She laments that before he appears in public, no one tells him that dye has given his hair an orange tinge.

He betrays no distress at any aspect of his life, only delight.

Working on a laptop at a restaurant table in the Trump International Hotel in Washington, he has bathed in the warm acclaim of friends and strangers who recognize him from his television advocacy. “I enjoyed the fact that people were coming by and tapping me on the back,” Mr. Giuliani said.

He was there so often, he said, that he set up a plaque.

Rudolph W. Giuliani

Attorney at law

“He doesn’t just like the spotlight,” his estranged wife, Judith Giuliani, said in an interview. “He craves it, for validation.”

She said she could scarcely believe he was working for Mr. Trump, given his disdain for people like Mr. Clinton, whom he saw as dishonest. But public attention, even refracted through Mr. Trump, was irresistible, she said.

Perhaps that helps explain the velvet-glove treatment he lavished on two Soviet-born American businessmen.

Mr. Giuliani brought one of them, a former penny-stock trader with a string of bad debts, to the state funeral of President George H. W. Bush last December.

And both men were Mr. Giuliani’s guests this year at an annual dinner he gives for a band of people, mostly city workers, knitted together after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Other guests were perplexed by the men’s presence.

Had they been at Ground Zero in 2001?

No, they had not.

They were part not of Mr. Giuliani’s past but of his wished-for future.

He deployed both men to find pressure points in Ukraine, and joined them in undermining an American ambassador. His intentions, he says, were pure. “As a person who finds public corruption a cancer,” Mr. Giuliani said, “I cannot ignore it.”

He may also have been trying to improve the chances for Rudolph W. Giuliani to persist into his ninth decade as an indispensable man.

Poised to take off from La Guardia Airport, the Trump campaign plane had to wait for one more passenger. It was a chilly, cloudy Sunday in New York, the 9th of October 2016. That evening, Mr. Trump would debate his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in St. Louis.

Inside the custom-fitted Boeing 757-2000, about 40 people were in their seats, including candidate Trump. They could not leave without one last person: Rudy Giuliani.

Why were they waiting for him?

That moment, as much as any, maps the ground between Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani.

They had known each other for nearly 40 years. Mr. Trump was the gaudy, gold-veneered developer who somehow navigated the shoals of organized crime, labor racketeering and official corruption in the New York real estate market of the 1980s, even as Mr. Giuliani was becoming so well known as a federal prosecutor that he kept a mental scorecard of his television appearances. (“Actually, it was only two nights,” Mr. Giuliani told a man in 1985 who mentioned he had just seen him five times on television. “Last week, it was five.”)

Mr. Giuliani, then mayor of New York, with Donald J. Trump in 1999. The two have known each other for decades.Credit…Ruby Washington/The New York Times

With Mr. Trump as co-chairman of his first campaign fund-raiser, Mr. Giuliani ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 1989. He won the next time, in 1993, and served until the end of 2001. For the world, he embodied resilience following Sept. 11, a stature he would parlay into wealth but not a successful presidential candidacy. After a dismal showing in the 2008 Republican primaries, in which he spent more than $60 million and won no delegates, he and Mrs. Giuliani retreated to her family’s home in Florida. There he fell into what she called a lingering “catatonic” state. He never fully returned to his law firm, Bracewell Giuliani — “his specialty was being Rudy,” his ex-partner, Mr. Oxford, said — but in time resumed giving paid speeches and running a lucrative security consultancy.

As the years of Barack Obama’s presidency passed, Mr. Giuliani’s voice seemed to carry farthest when it was keyed to harsh or apocalyptic tones. Faintly echoing Mr. Trump’s falsehood about the president’s origins, he questioned Mr. Obama’s Americanism (“He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up, and I was brought up, through love of this country,” he said). Apart from such flare-ups, he largely dropped out of public conversation.

“Before the 2016 election, Rudy was running around hawking Life Lock on commercials that ran at 2 a.m. on channel 83,” a longtime close aide said.

Mr. Giuliani had not raced to sign on with Trump 2016, waiting until the nomination was nearly inevitable, but few bigger names beat him to it.

Prominent Republicans who now style themselves devoted allies of Mr. Trump spoke of him then with acid revulsion or clenched-teeth neutrality. The campaign needed someone able to dial into a steady state of rage on a moment’s notice, even a high-mileage ex-politician scarcely known to a younger generation of voters.

Given a speaking spot of honor at the Republican convention, Mr. Giuliani roared: “There’s — there’s — there’s no next election! This is it! There’s no more time for us left to revive our great country!”

During the last three months of the campaign, he spun like a tornado from one television studio to the next or jetted around the country, at every stop hurling charges of corruption like boiling brimstone at anyone standing in Mr. Trump’s way.

“He’d do an event with then-candidate Trump, and then he’d speak at a different event with Pence and then do one on his own,” David Bossie, the deputy campaign manager, said.

None of that compared to his work on the Sunday when the Trump campaign jet waited at La Guardia.

Two days earlier, an off-camera tape from the television show “Access Hollywood” had been released of Mr. Trump speaking in crude terms about how his celebrity status gave him license to sexually assault women.

Mr. Trump’s usual surrogates — Kellyanne Conway, Reince Priebus, Chris Christie — had been booked to appear on the Sunday shows before the tape came out. When it did, they all bailed.

Then Mr. Giuliani stepped forward.

“Rudy was the only person willing to go on television to defend Donald Trump,” Mr. Bossie said.

Mr. Giuliani spent that morning rushing between studios — he appeared on all five major networks — pausing long enough to strike a penitential chord and write off Mr. Trump’s words as unfortunate locker-room talk.

Considering the circumstances, the campaign staff believed Mr. Giuliani had blunted the political blow Mr. Trump had inflicted on Mr. Trump. “Most people thought he did a great job,” Mr. Bossie said.

When Mr. Giuliani boarded the plane, spent from his labors, he strode down the aisle a conquering hero, swapping high-fives. Then he settled across from Mr. Trump.

Everyone could hear what the candidate said next.

“Man, Rudy,” Mr. Trump said, “you sucked. You were weak. Low-energy.”

Mr. Giuliani slumped in his seat, one witness said. The plane grew silent.

By day’s end, Mr. Giuliani was back in front of the cameras, claiming victory for Mr. Trump in the debate. And his most important work for the campaign was yet to come.

On Oct. 25, 2016, exactly two weeks until Election Day, Mr. Giuliani appeared on “Fox and Friends,” and was asked what the Trump campaign would do with the remaining time.

“We’ve got a couple of surprises left,” Mr. Giuliani said, chuckling but coyly refusing to be drawn out on specifics.

“I think he’s got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days,” he told another interviewer. “I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”

Unknown to the public, the F.B.I. had recently obtained a laptop used by one of Mrs. Clinton’s aides that had not been examined during the investigation of her private email server. That inquiry had concluded in July without charges, but the newly discovered laptop contained about 50,000 emails that might have been relevant. F.B.I. agents planned to go through them in due course, but several ranking officials did not see that any mad rush was called for, the Justice Department inspector general would later report. They believed — correctly, as it turned out — that the emails would be similar to the hundreds of thousands already examined.

Then Mr. Giuliani began dropping those broad hints of a “surprise,” adding that he knew F.B.I. agents were very upset. It seemed apparent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that leaks were coming from the New York office of the F.B.I., according to the inspector general. Faced with the likelihood that word of the emails would be coming out one way or another, the F.B.I. director, James Comey, announced a review of the newly discovered cache. It played as a stunning piece of news, a fresh gust of scandal 11 days before the election.

Mr. Giuliani would later deny that he had heard about the emails from F.B.I. agents, though he had bragged about that in broadcast interviews.

Years before, he had shown that working with virtually nothing, he could cultivate the mere existence of investigations to his political benefit. Early in his first term as mayor, facing criticism over patronage hires, Mr. Giuliani and aides announced spectacular claims that a widely respected commissioner in the previous administration, Richard Murphy, had overspent his budget by millions of dollars for political reasons. Moreover, computer records seemed to have been destroyed in a suspicious burglary. The heat shifted from the reality of Mr. Giuliani’s patronage hires to the wispy vapors of the Murphy investigation. A year later, it emerged that Mr. Murphy had neither overspent nor done anything wrong, and that no records had been destroyed or stolen. Mayor Giuliani shrugged.

“This happens all the time,” he said. “And you write about those things all the time. Sometimes they turn out to be true. And sometimes they turn out to be wrong.”

So it was with the emails. With two days to go until the 2016 election, Mr. Comey said the review of the material in the laptop had not changed the bureau’s view that Mrs. Clinton had not committed a crime. The unquantifiable damage, though, had been done.

Declaring victory on election night, Mr. Trump hailed his family and his campaign staff.

One more person was singled out.

“I want to give a very special thanks to our former mayor, Rudy Giuliani,” Mr. Trump shouted, to chants of “Rudy, Rudy.” “That Rudy never changes. Where’s Rudy? Where is he?” A moment later, spotting him, Mr. Trump called again, “Oh, Rudy, get up here.”

With that, Mr. Giuliani stepped onto the stage, holding his wife’s hand, joining the Trump family.

Representing the president of the United States was, Mr. Giuliani said, “kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

He grabbed it. He strode across the public stage as a man without border or boundary, Full Throttle Giuliani — “I am a high-functioning human being, able to outwork people half my age,” he told New York magazine — blending the rare opportunity to serve the president with far more ordinary chances to profit from his closeness to power.

He became a one-stop human bazaar for the trade of money, favors and influence, certain that he was incorruptible.

“I’m probably the most ethical person you ever met,” he said.

There are conflicting accounts of why Mr. Giuliani did not get the State Department position he campaigned for in 2016, and of whether anyone other than himself even thought it was a real possibility, but his years of lucrative consulting payments from foreign governments since leaving City Hall would certainly have made for a complicated Senate confirmation.

So he returned in January 2017 to his partnership at Greenberg Traurig. He was also running a consulting company, Giuliani Security & Safety, with mostly foreign clients.

Yet for all that, he seemed to be itching to get back inside.

Out of the blue, he would call John Dowd, an old colleague from their days as young lawyers. Mr. Dowd had known Mr. Giuliani as a 30-year-old prosecutor whose withering cross-examination drove a sitting congressman to halt his own trial and plead guilty.

Now, though, Mr. Dowd was the president’s chief lawyer in the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani would phone just to volunteer suggestions or help, Mr. Dowd said.

“When I had the lead,” Mr. Dowd said, “he always had my back.”

In year one of the investigation, President Trump went through multiple lawyers, including Mr. Dowd. By spring 2018, Mr. Trump was having a hard time getting top legal talent to work on the case.

Up stepped Mr. Giuliani, who said he would serve without pay.

The Trump administration turned out to be very good for the business of being Rudy Giuliani, though it was no simple matter to say precisely what that was.

“Probably in the last two years, people have talked to me about hundreds of deals,” Mr. Giuliani said this fall.

As an insurgent, Mr. Trump arrived in Washington without the camp followers of brand-name lobbyists and insiders who set up shop with each new administration. Their absence heightened the value of the few people known to have influence with Mr. Trump, like Mr. Giuliani. Before and after he became the president’s personal lawyer, he thrived.

He hired himself out to a Turkish money launderer, Reza Zarrab, and argued his case directly to the president and the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, in the Oval Office. Mr. Zarrab had been accused of moving $10 billion in gold and cash to Iran, evading American sanctions. He eventually pleaded guilty and became a prosecution witness.

That was not the only piece of Turkish business Mr. Giuliani brought before the president, or so aides to Mr. Trump suspected. They believed that on his regular visits to the White House, he was pushing the president to deport a Turkish Muslim cleric — a prize sought by Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Ergodan, who saw the man as an enemy of his regime. Mr. Giuliani called the claim that he was lobbying on that issue “stupid” and untrue. Still, for a short time, his access to the Oval Office was curbed.

He got paid to promote an ethane-methane deal in Uzbekistan. His security consultancy signed contracts with the government of Bahrain and a Ukrainian-Russian developer. Other work included engagements with governments, groups, individuals and causes in Romania, Iran, Brazil and Venezuela.

Trying to dazzle a woman on a date, he took her to a reception on the rooftop of the Hay Adams Hotel thrown by a lobbyist for the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Congolese, who were hoping to get America to back off sanctions, wanted his advice on how to please the Trump administration.

He seemed taken aback when reporters questioned him about his private business clients. “I’m not going to answer any more of your goddamn questions because this is getting to be harassment,” he said in an interview last month.

One of those clients had cost him big dollars.

When he announced that he would be representing Mr. Trump, he said he would be taking a leave of absence from Greenberg Traurig. But his partners, and some of their clients, had had their fill of being associated with Mr. Trump. The firm said Mr. Giuliani was resigning. He said it was a mutual decision.

The loss of the $6 million income came with one consolation. No longer would Mr. Giuliani be subject to a moratorium on his TV appearances, imposed by the firm’s buttoned-down reticence. “The last year and a half, I haven’t been on television,” Mr. Giuliani said in May 2018. “Frankly, I’ve missed it.”

He returned to the airwaves with mesmerizing announcements and claims. Contradicting Mr. Trump, he said the president had indeed reimbursed one of his former lawyers, Michael Cohen, for the hush money paid to a pornographic film actress who said she had had a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump. A typical errand for a lawyer, he averred, though many begged to differ.

Mr. Giuliani denounced F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors investigating the president and Mr. Cohen as thugs, storm troopers, bumbling. (Mr. Cohen, now in prison for his role in the hush-money scheme, said the investigators who raided his office had been polite; when he turned against Mr. Trump, he was declared a “scumbag” by Mr. Giuliani.)

Other lawyers on the Trump team were dismayed by his rhetoric, but Mr. Giuliani said it was tactical, regardless of how unhinged it seemed. Once he learned that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, had decided that Justice Department policy forbade the criminal indictment of a sitting president, he said, he viewed impeachment as Mr. Trump’s only risk. That would be a public relations war, not a legal one, he explained, with the battles fought on television — an arena that Mr. Mueller did not contest. During his barrage, public opinion shifted slightly against an impeachment based on the Mueller findings, and Congress showed little appetite for pursuing it. Mr. Giuliani took victory laps.

With scant attention at first, he shifted the theater of combat away from television screens, and into murky Ukraine politics.

Without Mr. Giuliani’s push for money and frank yearning for relevance, the Trump Ukrainian initiative might never have amounted to much more than presidential tweetstorms. Mr. Giuliani compressed the digital gases of the president’s suspicions and wishful theories into what is now the molten core of impeachment.

Nothing shows how few limits Mr. Giuliani observed as plainly as his extended bear-hugs of Lev Parnas or Igor Fruman, his friends, clients and fellow emissaries for the president of the United States — the men he brought to his 9/11 dinner at the Maloney & Porcelli steakhouse in Manhattan.

In just about every snapshot from their travels, and there are many, Mr. Giuliani has a big grin on his face when he poses with Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, two Florida men who were trying to hustle up business in Ukraine for an energy company they had just created.

They are simultaneously minor characters in the impeachment saga and very telling ones.

Mr. Giuliani may have been stopped from becoming secretary of state in 2017 by his business entanglements, but as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer in 2019, he created and oversaw the dominant American foreign-policy channel with Ukraine, running the president’s affairs, his clients’ and his own through it.

That brought Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman into the president’s wake, sea gulls following an ocean liner.

When they met Mr. Giuliani last year, Mr. Parnas, born in Ukraine, and Mr. Fruman, a native of Belarus, were on the prowl for influence to help their companies, and over time would plow about $700,000 into political campaigns.

Mr. Fruman also had a business distributing luxury products in Ukraine, including yachts, jewelry, cars and electronics.

Mr. Parnas’s résumé includes work for companies that sold penny stocks in New York, a string of evictions and lawsuits in Florida and a judgment, now approaching $700,000, owed to an investor in a film project. He started a company called Fraud Guarantee, to provide due diligence services for investors. Like other business ventures of his, it was a bust. But it managed to pay $500,000 to Mr. Giuliani, who served as godfather for Mr. Parnas’s newborn son and attended the bris in Boca Raton, Fla.

The three men enjoyed private dinners in Washington, Florida, New York. Trips to Paris, Warsaw, Madrid. At a Yankee game in London, Mr. Giuliani, sporting one of the four diamond-encrusted World Series rings he’d gotten from the team, ushered them onto the field and into the dugout.

Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Parnas, second from left, at the Yankees game in London.

Mr. Giuliani opened doors for them, and they reciprocated at an opportune moment.

Late last year, Mr. Giuliani began to pursue information in Ukraine that he believed might show that the Mueller inquiry was built on a false premise, that it was really Ukrainians who meddled in the election and then framed the Russians for it.

This had long been the claim of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, now serving seven and a half years in federal prison for laundering millions of dollars from the Russia-aligned political party in Ukraine.

Mr. Manafort maintained that he and Mr. Trump were victims of Ukrainian meddling that took two forms: the release of a mysterious slush fund ledger that detailed payments by the Russia-aligned party, including $12.7 million earmarked for Mr. Manafort; and the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers that was blamed on Russia.

“The original investigation came to me from an investigator who had a client who said that the Ukrainians were the ones who did the hacking,” Mr. Giuliani said in April. In addition, he said, he was told that the release of the ledger was a malignant act by Ukrainian forces hostile to Mr. Trump — and that it might be a forgery.

So, he said, he had a duty to Mr. Trump to run it down.

“I think if I didn’t do it, I wouldn’t be a good lawyer,” Mr. Giuliani said.

Far more than a lawyer serving a client in a legal matter, though, Mr. Giuliani continued his Ukraine project long after Mr. Trump was clear of any jeopardy from the Mueller investigation, which ended in March.

Pinning the 2016 cyberattacks on Ukraine was a steep hill to climb, as the Senate Intelligence Committee had unequivocally found that they were a Russian operation. Even so, Mr. Giuliani demanded that the country’s new president announce an investigation of it, according to Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union.

Equally difficult would be showing that Mr. Manafort was a victim of a forged paper ledger: Electronic bank records were so overwhelming that he pleaded guilty.

Nevertheless, if blame were seen to have shifted to Ukraine in these episodes, Mr. Giuliani would provide balm for Mr. Trump’s lingering furies that the findings of Russian involvement had tainted his presidency. Debunking the slush-fund ledger could also help build the case for a pardon of Mr. Manafort, Mr. Giuliani said.

Enter Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, guides in Mr. Giuliani’s search for vindication of assorted conspiracy theories.

They connected Mr. Giuliani to a former prosecutor in Ukraine who added another twist to the plot. He claimed that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had forced his removal because Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, had been given a lucrative, little-show position by an oligarch who wanted the prosecutor out. Proving this would be yet another steep hill to climb, as the prosecutor’s record was so dismal that his dismissal was also sought by the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, the G7 and Ukrainians who protested his actions.

Still, Mr. Giuliani’s project expanded from Mr. Manafort to include the vilification of Mr. Biden and yet one more person: the American ambassador in Kyiv, Marie Yovanovitch.

The ambassador, an advocate for reforms in the Ukrainian energy sector, testified that she believed Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman saw her as an obstacle to their business plans. Mr. Parnas assured people — prophetically — that she would be removed in short order.

Mr. Giuliani fed claims about the ambassador and Mr. Biden to a writer at The Hill, bundled articles and memos into folders from Trump hotels and sent it all to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a big White House envelope. Though the charges against the ambassador were decried by the State Department as fabrications, they were amplified on Twitter by Donald Trump Jr. She was abruptly ordered home.

Phone records show that Mr. Giuliani was in frequent touch with the White House during this time, including with a regular caller identified only as “-1,” who Congressional investigators suspect may be the president.

Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman also dangled American favors in front of Petro O. Poroshenko, president of Ukraine at the time, and two exiled Ukrainian oligarchs facing legal problems in the United States. In exchange, the oligarchs and the president were asked for their help in implicating the Bidens in bribery, or Ukraine in 2016 meddling.

In August, Mr. Giuliani met in Madrid with an adviser to Volodymyr Zelensky, the new Ukrainian president, and also told Mr. Sondland, the ambassador, that he wanted the Ukrainians to announce investigations. As Mr. Giuliani knew from experience, such an announcement at the right moment can be as lethal as a poison arrow, needing only to break the skin to do its damage.

By fall, as a whistle-blower’s complaint brought the pressure campaign into the light, the foundations of Mr. Giuliani’s work were crumbling. An ally of Mr. Giuliani said he saw no evidence that Vice President Biden or his son had broken Ukrainian law.

Mr. Giuliani himself publicly conceded in a Sept. 29 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that there was no evidence that Ukraine had hacked the Democratic computers, and said that he had never actively investigated it.

A few days before, he had appeared on CNN.

“Did you ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?” asked Chris Cuomo, the host.

“No,” Mr. Giuliani replied. “I actually didn’t.”

He held that position for 27 seconds. Mr. Cuomo followed up, “So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?”

“Of course I did,” Mr. Giuliani replied.

His project to deliver a crushing blow against a Trump opponent, and to establish that Mr. Trump — not the Democrats — had been the victim of foreign interference in the 2016 election, would fade into a toxic fog of impeachment charges.

At the same time, The New York Times reported that contrary to Mr. Giuliani’s claim that he had no business interests in Ukraine, he had negotiated with officials there for up to $500,000 in contracts that would involve the recovery of looted assets.

And during an August trip to Spain, Mr. Giuliani also did business unrelated to Ukraine: He met with a Venezuelan oligarch facing legal troubles from federal prosecutors in Florida, as The Washington Post reported. (One month later, as The Times reported, Mr. Giuliani held a high-level meeting on the man’s case with Justice Department officials in Washington.)

Mr. Giuliani and his two friends got together for lunch on Oct. 9, at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, the company cafeteria of Trump-world, where hamburgers go for $26 and the least expensive shots of Macallan are $29.

All three were heading to Vienna — Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman that very evening, Mr. Giuliani the next night. One of their sources, the unhappy ex-prosecutor, was going to be interviewed there by Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality.

They probably did not know that this would turn out to be their last get-together, at least for a while.

That evening, as they waited to board their Vienna flight, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman were arrested on charges of making illegal campaign contributions — in part, prosecutors charge, to influence the removal of the ambassador.

Few people could have been more astonished at Mr. Parnas’s access to the halls of power and prestige than those who say they were bilked or stiffed by him. A lawyer, Robert J. Hantman, represents a creditor with a judgment against Mr. Parnas.

“It’s unbelievable that these people would be in the White House, or be hanging out with Giuliani,” Mr. Hantman said. “For Giuliani, the president, or anyone who wants to work with him to not have googled him, it’s unreal.”

In a world with few boundaries or limits, it was very real.

Mr. Giuliani was far from a Lone Ranger in the Ukraine pressure campaign. Top figures in the administration knew of it or worked with him. “Everyone was in the loop,” Mr. Sondland testified.

But it was Mr. Giuliani who served as the wrangler of business hustlers, compromised ex-prosecutors, Ukrainian oligarchs and a host of bewildered American diplomats and Ukrainian elected officials who could not entirely fathom how he had come to wield such outsize influence, or to what ends he was wielding it.

And what of his relationship going forward with Mr. Trump, who effortlessly throws people under the bus? In October, the president praised Mr. Sondland on Twitter as a “really good man and great American.” When the ambassador testified last month that he had been acting on the president’s orders in pressuring Ukraine, Mr. Trump said: “I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much.”

After signs of distance between the president and Mr. Giuliani — when the president hesitated about confirming that he was still his personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani made a “joke” to The Guardian about having “very, very good insurance” — Mr. Trump gushed praise for him on Twitter and on “Fox and Friends.”

Mr. Giuliani said he appreciated the show of support, but added: “I’m not some little schmuck that needs Daddy to protect him.”

The Rudolph W. Giuliani business has been hurt, he said, because potential clients are afraid of being exposed to the endless scrutiny of his affairs.

His need for money shows no sign of ebbing. In addition to his domestic cash burdens, Mr. Giuliani is now said to be under investigation by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. He has hired a team of lawyers to represent him. Legal fees could approach seven figures.

Reports indicate that the prosecutors are looking at his compliance with restrictions on lobbying. “I don’t do lobbying, goddamn it,” Mr. Giuliani said, scoffing at the possibility of criminal charges. Although he negotiated with Ukrainian officials about representing them, and carried their messages to American officials and journalists, they ultimately did not come to any agreement, he said.

“I represented the president of the United States,” Mr. Giuliani said. “It is totally ridiculous to say that I was representing anyone else.”

Anthony Carbonetti, a City Hall aide to Mr. Giuliani and a longtime friend, said he worried that what he saw as Mr. Giuliani’s groundbreaking years as New York mayor would be forgotten behind the sky-filling spectacle of Mr. Trump.

“The fact that this is what he’ll be known for is painful,” Mr. Carbonetti said. “His public persona has been dominated by his representation of the president for the last two years, so that has become the public perception of him. I don’t think anyone goes back in time.”

Whatever his friends’ misgivings, Mr. Giuliani remains sure as ever that he is in the right.

His mission, he maintained, uncovered “one of our more major scandals.” Evidence against the Bidens is in his safe, he wrote on Twitter, adding, “If I disappear, it will appear immediately.”

Just last week, The Times reported, he returned to Ukraine to create television programs for a conservative network that he believes will show that he is right and House Democrats are wrong. Mr. Trump said on Saturday that Mr. Giuliani wanted to tell Congress what he had found.

So far, Mr. Giuliani has declined to testify, and described the impeachment hearings on Twitter as an “attempted coup takedown.”

The story, then, is being left to the people who survived being buried alive by Mr. Giuliani, including the cashiered Ambassador Yovanovitch.

“How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government?” she asked in her testimony.

The face Mr. Giuliani sees in the mirror, he has always said, is of a man compelled by his idealism to purify government. “I get completely disgusted when I see public corruption,” he said.

Anyone who sees something else in him is mistaken, he said.

“I really try very hard to be super-ethical and always legal,” Mr. Giuliani said. “If it seems I’m not — it’s wrong, and I can explain it.”

As for how he will be viewed in the future, he has, at times, professed indifference. But in an interview with The Atlantic, Mr. Giuliani predicted that he would emerge from all the investigations wreathed in glory, an indispensable man who served the country against the odds.

“These morons,” Mr. Giuliani said. “When this is over, I will be the hero.”

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

Northwestern students who allegedly tried disrupting Jeff Sessions’ speech hit with citations

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6101736026001_6101735680001-vs Northwestern students who allegedly tried disrupting Jeff Sessions' speech hit with citations Frank Miles fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/illinois fox-news/us/personal-freedoms/first-amendment fox-news/us/education/controversies fox-news/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement fox news fnc/us fnc article 181d8670-9320-5505-9210-d3c95e5ebc98

Some of the students who protested former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ speech at Northwestern University in Illinois last month will receive citations including fines for trying to get in the way of police, university officials announced Sunday.

“Following a month-long Northwestern University Police Department (NUPD) investigation, a small number of individuals have been issued citations by NUPD for disorderly conduct and interfering with the duties of a police officer. Each citation carries a maximum fine of $125. The citations are civil actions and do not create a criminal record,” the officials said in a statement.

They added: “The citations were issued for conduct directed toward police, such as pushing, grabbing or kicking police officers as they attempted to perform their duties and secure the building.”

Sessions’ speech, titled “The Real Meaning of the Trump Agenda,” was sponsored by Northwestern’s College Republicans, whose decision to invite the former U.S. senator from Alabama was debated on campus for weeks.

“I’m just gonna tell you: This is stupid. This is not right,” Sessions said at one point, according to tweets posted by Northwestern student journalists. “This great university … should not be putting up [with] this kind of trash.”

The school on Sunday reiterated: “Northwestern supports vigorous debate and free expression, ideals that are core values to our institution.”

Numerous appearances by conservative speakers on the nation’s college campuses have been disrupted or postponed in recent years amid what’s come to be called “cancel culture” — the efforts by some groups to silence any speakers with whom they disagree.

One student, identified as Zachery Novicoff, told campus publication North by Northwestern he didn’t believe Sessions should be welcome.

“There’s a limitation to free speech,” Novicoff told the publication. “That ends at overtly racist old white dudes.”

The Daily Northwestern faced backlash after it ran a nine-paragraph apology for the way the paper covered the Sessions speech.

The paper apologized for sending a reporter to cover the students who were protesting the event.

“We recognize that we contributed to the harm students experienced, and we wanted to apologize for and address the mistakes that we made that night,” the paper wrote in the lengthy apology signed by eight staff members.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Later, the university’s journalism dean defended the paper, although he called its apology “heartfelt, though not well-considered.”

Sessions delivered a 45-minute speech and answered questions for another 30 minutes.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6101736026001_6101735680001-vs Northwestern students who allegedly tried disrupting Jeff Sessions' speech hit with citations Frank Miles fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/illinois fox-news/us/personal-freedoms/first-amendment fox-news/us/education/controversies fox-news/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement fox news fnc/us fnc article 181d8670-9320-5505-9210-d3c95e5ebc98   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6101736026001_6101735680001-vs Northwestern students who allegedly tried disrupting Jeff Sessions' speech hit with citations Frank Miles fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/illinois fox-news/us/personal-freedoms/first-amendment fox-news/us/education/controversies fox-news/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement fox news fnc/us fnc article 181d8670-9320-5505-9210-d3c95e5ebc98

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

African migrants heading to US-Mexico border in record numbers in 2019

The numbers of African migrants heading to the U.S. through its border with Mexico have more than doubled in the past year, recent data from the federal government showed.

In 2019, about 5,800 African migrants headed to the U.S. by way of Mexico, according to data cited by the Los Angeles Times on Sunday.

Last year, that figure was 2,700, the report said.

Westlake Legal Group AP19340857764200 African migrants heading to US-Mexico border in record numbers in 2019 fox-news/world/world-regions/location-mexico fox-news/world/world-regions/latin-america fox-news/world/world-regions/americas fox-news/world/world-regions/africa fox-news/world/disasters/refugees fox-news/us/immigration/mexico fox news fnc/world fnc e03a0d65-1408-5455-8262-611e1d6154ed Bradford Betz article

Border Patrol agents apprehending a man thought to have entered the country illegally, near McAllen, Texas, along the U.S.-Mexico border.  (AP, File)

The 2019 figures have shown a significant rise since 2007, when Mexico first included African migrants in its annual migration reports. That year, the number of African migrants was only 460.

Guerline Jozef, the director and co-founder of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, said she was surprised to meet migrants from Haiti, Congo, Cameroon, and Sierra Leone waiting to enter the U.S. from Tijuana back in 2016.

“At the time, honestly, I did not believe it,” she said. “Not, almost four years later, we have thousands and thousands of black migrants.”

Rebecca Alemayehu, a California-based immigration lawyer, said despite obstacles African migrants faced, there was no evidence their numbers were slowing down. She said African migrants have arrived at the Mexico-Guatemala border every day.

BORDER APPREHENSIONS DROPPED IN NOVEMBER FOR 6TH CONSECUTIVE MONTH: DHS DATA

“What I think for me is shocking and just really sad is that a lot of these asylum seekers just don’t have enough representation,” Alemayehu said. “They are in these hearings by themselves.”

With the number of African migrants increasing, U.S. elected officials have taken notice.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Last month, members from the Congressional Black Caucus visited black migrants at the border.

“There are record numbers of African immigrants seeking asylum at the U.S. border, particularly as Europe closes its doors to migrants,” they said in a statement.

Westlake Legal Group AP19340857764200 African migrants heading to US-Mexico border in record numbers in 2019 fox-news/world/world-regions/location-mexico fox-news/world/world-regions/latin-america fox-news/world/world-regions/americas fox-news/world/world-regions/africa fox-news/world/disasters/refugees fox-news/us/immigration/mexico fox news fnc/world fnc e03a0d65-1408-5455-8262-611e1d6154ed Bradford Betz article   Westlake Legal Group AP19340857764200 African migrants heading to US-Mexico border in record numbers in 2019 fox-news/world/world-regions/location-mexico fox-news/world/world-regions/latin-america fox-news/world/world-regions/americas fox-news/world/world-regions/africa fox-news/world/disasters/refugees fox-news/us/immigration/mexico fox news fnc/world fnc e03a0d65-1408-5455-8262-611e1d6154ed Bradford Betz article

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

New England Patriots lose to Kansas City Chiefs in nail-biter, ending streak of 21 wins at home

Westlake Legal Group og-fox-news New England Patriots lose to Kansas City Chiefs in nail-biter, ending streak of 21 wins at home fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/massachusetts fox-news/sports/nfl/new-england-patriots fox-news/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs fox-news/person/tom-brady fox news fnc/sports fnc article 933d0db8-53b7-56c8-88cd-dbb8e8225aa6

The New England Patriots and a flustered Tom Brady lost to the Kansas City Chiefs 23-16 on Sunday — the Pats’ first loss at home in 21 games.

The Patriots hadn’t lost at home since Oct. 1, 2017, when the Carolina Panthers won 33-30 at New England. Since then, the Patriots won 21 consecutive home game, including playoffs.

Sunday’s loss marked the Pats’ second straight defeat, and their third in five games since starting out 8-0 in defense of their latest Super Bowl championship.

Brady, 42, was bewildered by New England’s out-of-sync offense, and Bill Belichick appeared flummoxed by the Patriots’ uncharacteristic defensive breakdowns.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

The tense game led to a dustup in the fourth quarter.

Sammy Watkins and Stephon Gilfmore got into a tussle on the Kansas City sideline after one play. Gilmore was guarding the Chiefs receiver and they threw each other to the ground as they went over the sideline.

Watkins remained on top of Gilmore, and that led to some pushback. The referees and some other players came over to break it up before it got out of hand.

The Chiefs rebounded Sunday after an equipment fiasco nearly ended in disaster.

A container holding some of their team’s shoulder pads, helmets and footballs was sent to Newark, N.J., by accident, but it safely arrived in Foxborough, Mass., after the team rushed it back to Boston for arguably its biggest game of the season.

Speculation about Brady’s future in the NFL has been swirling since he commented on the possibility of leaving the Patriots after the 2019 season.

Brady acknowledged in an interview on WEEI radio in October that he didn’t know what the future held for him. He said there will be a time where he has had “enough,” but those decisions will be coming at the “appropriate times.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“That is the great part for me, I don’t know,” he said. “I think that has been a unique situation that I have been in because I think when you commit to a team for a certain amount of years you kind of feel like [there is] the responsibility to always fulfill the contract.”

He added: “For me, it’s been good because I am just taking it day by day and I am enjoying what I have. I don’t know what the future holds and the great part is for me, football at this point is all borrowed time.”

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6090247544001_6090245327001-vs New England Patriots lose to Kansas City Chiefs in nail-biter, ending streak of 21 wins at home fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/massachusetts fox-news/sports/nfl/new-england-patriots fox-news/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs fox-news/person/tom-brady fox news fnc/sports fnc article 933d0db8-53b7-56c8-88cd-dbb8e8225aa6   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6090247544001_6090245327001-vs New England Patriots lose to Kansas City Chiefs in nail-biter, ending streak of 21 wins at home fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/massachusetts fox-news/sports/nfl/new-england-patriots fox-news/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs fox-news/person/tom-brady fox news fnc/sports fnc article 933d0db8-53b7-56c8-88cd-dbb8e8225aa6

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