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 > Posts tagged "Trump, Donald J" (Page 121)

Who Is Pamela Karlan? Legal Leader Committed to Progressive Causes

Pamela S. Karlan’s formidable reputation as a scholar and Supreme Court advocate, coupled with a deep commitment to progressive causes, have made her a leader of the sometimes disorganized liberal legal movement.

Ms. Karlan, 60, received bachelor’s, master’s and law degrees from Yale and clerked for Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the Supreme Court. She is now a director of Stanford Law School’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Ms. Karlan made regular media appearances discussing the 2000 presidential election and recount, and was one of the authors of “When Elections Go Bad: The Law of Democracy and the Presidential Election of 2000.”

During the Obama administration, she worked in the Justice Department’s civil rights division and received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, the highest award employees there can earn.

She has also worked on the California Fair Political Practices Commission and for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Ms. Karlan has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court, most recently in October, when she argued that employees should not be fired over sexual orientation.

Her litigation experience also includes work on big cases like the affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges.

“She is a brilliant, scrupulously careful scholar,” said David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford who has known Ms. Karlan for more than three decades. “She is also honest and candid, and she has a deep commitment to fairness and the rule of law.”

He added, “If you want to know what something in the Constitution means, it’s hard to think of a better person to ask.”

Video

transcript

Admit It: You Don’t Know How Impeachment Works. We Can Help.

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.

“Impeachment by its nature, it’s a political process.” “What people think is going to happen can turn out to be very different from what happens.” “Because it has to do with elected officials holding another elected official to account for their conduct.” When the framers of the Constitution created a process to remove a president from office, they were well … kind of vague. So to understand how it’s going to play out, the past is really our best guide. “I think we’re just all in for a really crazy ride.” Collectively, these New York Times reporters have covered U.S. politics for over 150 years. “I’m also a drummer in a band, so …” They’ve reported on past impeachment inquiries. “Yea, I’m lost in Senate wonderland.” And they say that the three we’ve had so far have been full of twists and turns. “The president of the United States is not guilty as charged.” In short, expect the unexpected. First, the process. Impeachment is technically only the initial stage. “Common misconceptions about impeachment are that impeachment by itself means removal from office. It doesn’t. The impeachment part of the process is only the indictment that sets up a trial.” The Constitution describes offenses that are grounds for removing the president from office as bribery, treason and — “They say high crimes and misdemeanors, which, really, is in the eye of the beholder.” “The framers didn’t give us a guidebook to it. They simply said, that the House had the responsibility for impeachment and the Senate had the responsibility for the trial.” One of the things missing from the Constitution? How an impeachment inquiry should start. And that has generally been a source of drama. Basically, anything goes. “In fact, in the Andrew Johnson case they voted to impeach him without even having drafted the articles of impeachment.” For Richard Nixon, his case started with several investigations that led to public hearings. That part of the process went on for two years, and yielded revelation after revelation, connecting Nixon to a politically-motivated burglary at D.N.C. headquarters — “… located in the Watergate office building.” — and its subsequent cover-up. “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?” “I was aware of listening devices. Yes, sir.” “This was a shocker. Everybody in the White House recognized how damaging this could be.” As the House drafted articles of impeachment, Nixon lost the support of his party. “O.K., I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.” “I was asked to write the farewell piece that ran the morning after Nixon resigned. And this is what I wrote: The central question is how a man who won so much could have lost so much.” So for Nixon, it more or less ended after the investigations. But for Bill Clinton, that phase was just the beginning. “This is the information.” An independent counsel’s investigation into his business dealings unexpectedly turned into a very public inquiry about his personal life. “The idea that a president of the United States was having an affair with a White House intern and then a federal prosecutor was looking at that, it was just extraordinary.” That investigation led to public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. “When the Starr Report was being delivered to Congress it was a little bit like the O.J. chase, only a political one. There were two black cars. They were being filmed live on CNN. They were heading towards the Capitol. We were watching it and a little bit agog.” Public opinion is key. And the media plays a huge part in the process. This was definitely true for Clinton. “You know it was just a crazy time. We worked in the Senate press gallery.” “All your colleagues are kind of piled on top of each other.” “We had crummy computers, the fax machine would always break. The printer would always break.” After committee hearings, the House brought formal impeachment charges. “It was very tense. I thought that the Saturday of the impeachment vote in the House was one of the most tense days I’d experienced in Washington.” And it turned out, also, full of surprises. “The day of impeachment arrived, everyone’s making very impassioned speeches about whether Bill Clinton should or should not be impeached and Livingston rises to give an argument for the House Republicans. He started to talk about how Clinton could resign.” “You, sir, may resign your post.” “And all of a sudden people start booing and saying, ‘Resign, resign’!” “So I must set the example.” “He announced he was resigning because he had had extramarital affairs and challenged President Clinton to do the only honorable thing, in his view —” “I hope President Clinton will follow.” “— to resign as well, so there was all this drama unfolding even in the midst of impeachment.” Then it went to the Senate for trial. The Constitution gets a little more specific about this part. “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to preside over that trial.” “Rehnquist, he showed up in this robe he had made for himself, which had gold stripes on the sleeves because he liked Gilbert and Sullivan.” “The Senate is the actual jury.” “You will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help you, God.” “This is a copy of the rules of the Senate for handling impeachment. They’re actually very specific.” “Meet six days a week.” “Convene at noon. The senators have to sit at their desks and remain quiet in their role as jurors. And not talk, which trust me, is going to be a problem for some of the senators who are used to talking all the time.” It’s just like a courtroom trial. There are prosecutors who present the case against the president. “That was perjury.” Only, they’re members of the House, and they’re called managers. Then the senators, or the jurors, vote. And things are still, unpredictable. “The options are guilty or not guilty. But there was one senator —” “Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania.” “Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proved.” “— which is not a thing.” “And everybody just looks, you know, how do you even record that vote?” In the end, there were not enough votes to oust Clinton. “What’s amazing about this whole thing to me wasn’t so much the constitutional process. It was that it felt to me like the beginning of really intense partisanship, the weaponization of partisanship.” And here’s the thing: An impeachment charge has never gotten the two-thirds majority it needs in the Senate to actually oust a president from office. “So you could end up having a situation where the president is impeached, acquitted and runs for re-election and wins re-election.” And that would be a first. “This is my ticket to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. I don’t think you’ll find these on StubHub.”

Westlake Legal Group xx-impeachment-explainer-vid-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600 Who Is Pamela Karlan? Legal Leader Committed to Progressive Causes United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Karlan, Pamela S impeachment House of Representatives

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.CreditCredit…Photo illustration by Aaron Byrd

Ms. Karlan has not been very vocal about her stance on the impeachment inquiry. She does not appear to have written columns or made appearances commenting on the proceedings.

But she is widely known in liberal circles. Ms. Karlan is the chairwoman of the board of directors for the left-leaning American Constitution Society. And in December 2016, she and other liberal scholars signed a letter expressing concern over President Trump’s statements and actions during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In May 2017, after reports that Mr. Trump had asked the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, to end an investigation into Michael T. Flynn, then the national security adviser, Ms. Karlan said in an interview with the BBC that Mr. Trump was “behaving extraordinarily badly.” And, she said, “if it becomes clear that the president is trying to obstruct justice and Congress does nothing, that moves us towards a constitutional crisis.”

In 2009, Ms. Karlan was a favorite of the left, cited by some as their choice for the Supreme Court. She did not make President Barack Obama’s short list.

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

Hearing Live Updates: Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, 3 Scholars to Testify

Video

Westlake Legal Group 04dc-impeachbriefing-livevid-videoSixteenByNine3000 Hearing Live Updates: Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, 3 Scholars to Testify Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

The Judiciary Committee House panel begins its hearings to debate and determine articles of impeachment. They will hear from four legal scholars about the basis for impeachment.CreditCredit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Here’s what you need to know:

Three constitutional scholars invited by Democrats to testify at Wednesday’s impeachment hearings will say that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for political gain clearly meet the historical definition of impeachable offenses, according to copies of their opening statements.

The three law professors are appearing in the first impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as it kicks off a debate about whether to draft articles of impeachment against the president.

Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, planned to argue that attempts by Mr. Trump to withhold a White House meeting and military assistance from Ukraine as leverage for political favors constitute impeachable conduct, as does the act of soliciting foreign assistance on a phone call with Ukraine’s leader.

“President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency,” Mr. Feldman planned to say. “Specifically, President Trump abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.”

Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina, planned to argue that Mr. Trump “has committed several impeachable offenses” by taking actions regarding Ukraine that were worse than Richard Nixon’s misconduct during Watergate.

“If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the next election,” Mr. Gerhardt plans to say, adding that Mr. Trump’s actions “are worse than the misconduct of any prior president.”

Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, will tell lawmakers that the president’s attempt to “strong arm a foreign leader” would not be considered politics as usual by historical standards.

“It is, instead, a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power,” she planned to say. “Put simply, a candidate for president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand it. If we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_165029526_bf5d3225-afdb-47b8-9159-d2730480502a-articleLarge Hearing Live Updates: Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, 3 Scholars to Testify Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

President Trump at the White House last month.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who was invited to testify at Wednesday’s impeachment hearing by the committee’s Republicans, will offer the lone dissent, arguing in his opening statement that Mr. Trump should not be impeached.

In a 53-page written statement submitted to the committee, Mr. Turley makes it clear that he is not a supporter of the president and believes that the Ukraine matter warrants investigation. But he plans to say that the Democratic impeachment case is dangerously “slipshod” and premature.

“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” he planned to say. “If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”

Offering an exhaustive and colorful account of the history of impeachment, Mr. Turley will agree with the other panelists that “a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.”

But for that to be the case, he will say, the evidence has to be stronger. Witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, must be heard from — not just spoken about by other witnesses. He will argue the current case is destined for “collapse in a Senate trial.”

Westlake Legal Group 00impeachment-archetypes-videopromo-image-articleLarge-v2 Hearing Live Updates: Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, 3 Scholars to Testify Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

The Impeachment Inquiry’s Main Players

Here are the lawmakers to watch as the process unfolds.

Testimony from the legal scholars will place Mr. Trump’s actions in historical context for lawmakers who will eventually have to vote on whether the president committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be impeached and removed from office.

Three of the scholars — Mr. Feldman, Ms. Karlan and Mr. Gerhardt — were invited to deliver remarks by the Democratic majority on the committee. Mr. Turley was invited by Republicans.

The scholars may focus their testimonies on what the country’s founders were trying to achieve by providing a process for Congress to remove a president. They are expected to discuss the impeachment efforts for Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton.

But lawmakers are likely to press the witnesses to offer their own assessments about whether impeachment is appropriate for Mr. Trump, which could prompt sharp exchanges between committee members and the scholars.

The Judiciary Committee features some of the most outspoken partisans in Congress, which promises to generate fireworks as the two parties clash over the fate of Mr. Trump’s presidency.

Liberals on the 41-member committee include Representatives Zoe Lofgren of California, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Eric Swalwell of California and Pramila Jayapal of Washington. Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio, Louie Gohmert of Texas and Matt Gaetz of Florida are among the deeply conservative members on the panel.

Unlike the House Intelligence Committee, which has about half the number of members, the Judiciary Committee is often a forum for intense debates, and Mr. Nadler does not have a reputation for instilling discipline among the membership.

One result could be a series of angry procedural disputes as Republicans on the panel seek to disrupt the hearing in the hopes of drawing attention to what they say is an unfair and illegitimate inquiry. Mr. Jordan said as much on Monday as he began viewing a draft of the Intelligence Committee’s report.

“We’re going to, I’m sure, raise all kinds of issues and all kinds of concerns,” he told reporters who asked about Wednesday’s hearing. “That’s kind of what we do in these things when it’s this ridiculous.”

House Democrats have signaled they intend to use the Judiciary Committee hearings as another opportunity to generate public support for the impeachment inquiry. Nearly two weeks of testimony by witnesses during Intelligence Committee hearings failed to significantly increase that support.

The Democratic strategy is focused on using the 300-page Intelligence Committee report as evidence that Mr. Trump’s actions were clearly an abuse of power and that the president must be held accountable.

During Mr. Clinton’s impeachment inquiry, many of his defenders repeatedly condemned his affair with Monica Lewinsky even as they argued that his conduct — however reprehensible — and lying about it to the American people and a grand jury did not rise to the level of an impeachable act.

Mr. Trump’s allies have embraced a different strategy that will most likely be on display on Wednesday. Following Mr. Trump’s lead, they have insisted that he did nothing wrong and is the victim of an unfair and illegitimate partisan process.

  • Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including the former vice president. Here’s a timeline of events since January.

  • A C.I.A. officer who was once detailed to the White House filed a whistle-blower complaint on Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Read the complaint.

Video

transcript

Admit It: You Don’t Know How Impeachment Works. We Can Help.

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.

“Impeachment by its nature, it’s a political process.” “What people think is going to happen can turn out to be very different from what happens.” “Because it has to do with elected officials holding another elected official to account for their conduct.” When the framers of the Constitution created a process to remove a president from office, they were well … kind of vague. So to understand how it’s going to play out, the past is really our best guide. “I think we’re just all in for a really crazy ride.” Collectively, these New York Times reporters have covered U.S. politics for over 150 years. “I’m also a drummer in a band, so …” They’ve reported on past impeachment inquiries. “Yea, I’m lost in Senate wonderland.” And they say that the three we’ve had so far have been full of twists and turns. “The president of the United States is not guilty as charged.” In short, expect the unexpected. First, the process. Impeachment is technically only the initial stage. “Common misconceptions about impeachment are that impeachment by itself means removal from office. It doesn’t. The impeachment part of the process is only the indictment that sets up a trial.” The Constitution describes offenses that are grounds for removing the president from office as bribery, treason and — “They say high crimes and misdemeanors, which, really, is in the eye of the beholder.” “The framers didn’t give us a guidebook to it. They simply said, that the House had the responsibility for impeachment and the Senate had the responsibility for the trial.” One of the things missing from the Constitution? How an impeachment inquiry should start. And that has generally been a source of drama. Basically, anything goes. “In fact, in the Andrew Johnson case they voted to impeach him without even having drafted the articles of impeachment.” For Richard Nixon, his case started with several investigations that led to public hearings. That part of the process went on for two years, and yielded revelation after revelation, connecting Nixon to a politically-motivated burglary at D.N.C. headquarters — “… located in the Watergate office building.” — and its subsequent cover-up. “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?” “I was aware of listening devices. Yes, sir.” “This was a shocker. Everybody in the White House recognized how damaging this could be.” As the House drafted articles of impeachment, Nixon lost the support of his party. “O.K., I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.” “I was asked to write the farewell piece that ran the morning after Nixon resigned. And this is what I wrote: The central question is how a man who won so much could have lost so much.” So for Nixon, it more or less ended after the investigations. But for Bill Clinton, that phase was just the beginning. “This is the information.” An independent counsel’s investigation into his business dealings unexpectedly turned into a very public inquiry about his personal life. “The idea that a president of the United States was having an affair with a White House intern and then a federal prosecutor was looking at that, it was just extraordinary.” That investigation led to public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. “When the Starr Report was being delivered to Congress it was a little bit like the O.J. chase, only a political one. There were two black cars. They were being filmed live on CNN. They were heading towards the Capitol. We were watching it and a little bit agog.” Public opinion is key. And the media plays a huge part in the process. This was definitely true for Clinton. “You know it was just a crazy time. We worked in the Senate press gallery.” “All your colleagues are kind of piled on top of each other.” “We had crummy computers, the fax machine would always break. The printer would always break.” After committee hearings, the House brought formal impeachment charges. “It was very tense. I thought that the Saturday of the impeachment vote in the House was one of the most tense days I’d experienced in Washington.” And it turned out, also, full of surprises. “The day of impeachment arrived, everyone’s making very impassioned speeches about whether Bill Clinton should or should not be impeached and Livingston rises to give an argument for the House Republicans. He started to talk about how Clinton could resign.” “You, sir, may resign your post.” “And all of a sudden people start booing and saying, ‘Resign, resign’!” “So I must set the example.” “He announced he was resigning because he had had extramarital affairs and challenged President Clinton to do the only honorable thing, in his view —” “I hope President Clinton will follow.” “— to resign as well, so there was all this drama unfolding even in the midst of impeachment.” Then it went to the Senate for trial. The Constitution gets a little more specific about this part. “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to preside over that trial.” “Rehnquist, he showed up in this robe he had made for himself, which had gold stripes on the sleeves because he liked Gilbert and Sullivan.” “The Senate is the actual jury.” “You will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help you, God.” “This is a copy of the rules of the Senate for handling impeachment. They’re actually very specific.” “Meet six days a week.” “Convene at noon. The senators have to sit at their desks and remain quiet in their role as jurors. And not talk, which trust me, is going to be a problem for some of the senators who are used to talking all the time.” It’s just like a courtroom trial. There are prosecutors who present the case against the president. “That was perjury.” Only, they’re members of the House, and they’re called managers. Then the senators, or the jurors, vote. And things are still, unpredictable. “The options are guilty or not guilty. But there was one senator —” “Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania.” “Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proved.” “— which is not a thing.” “And everybody just looks, you know, how do you even record that vote?” In the end, there were not enough votes to oust Clinton. “What’s amazing about this whole thing to me wasn’t so much the constitutional process. It was that it felt to me like the beginning of really intense partisanship, the weaponization of partisanship.” And here’s the thing: An impeachment charge has never gotten the two-thirds majority it needs in the Senate to actually oust a president from office. “So you could end up having a situation where the president is impeached, acquitted and runs for re-election and wins re-election.” And that would be a first. “This is my ticket to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. I don’t think you’ll find these on StubHub.”

Westlake Legal Group xx-impeachment-explainer-vid-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600 Hearing Live Updates: Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, 3 Scholars to Testify Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.CreditCredit…Photo illustration by Aaron Byrd

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

Who Is Michael J. Gerhardt? Professor Made Impeachment His Specialty

Westlake Legal Group merlin_157851348_c51b2986-83a7-40bb-871b-8be586e876c5-facebookJumbo Who Is Michael J. Gerhardt? Professor Made Impeachment His Specialty Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry impeachment Ethics and Official Misconduct Elections, House of Representatives

For the second time, Michael J. Gerhardt will appear before Congress as an expert on impeachment. In 1998, when President Bill Clinton was facing impeachment, he was the only expert on a panel of 19 witnesses summoned by both parties to offer insight into the process.

Thirty years ago, Mr. Gerhardt published his first law review article, titled “The Constitutional Limits on Impeachment and Its Alternatives.” Since then, Mr. Gerhardt, 63, an Alabama native who earned degrees from Yale University, the London School of Economics and the University of Chicago, has focused on constitutional conflicts between presidents and Congress. He has written six books on impeachment, constitutional authority and the separation of powers.

Mr. Gerhardt, now a law professor at the University of North Carolina, has written more than 100 law review articles and dozens of editorials on the subject, including for The New York Times. He also served as CNN’s expert on the impeachment process during the proceedings against Mr. Clinton, a role he is reprising this year.

As a recognized authority, Mr. Gerhardt has pushed back against the criticism unleashed by President Trump and his allies against the current impeachment inquiry, deeming it to be “fully legitimate.” In The Atlantic last month, he declared that “the nonsense that the president’s defenders have proliferated,” combined with the president’s “protestation that the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants,” results in an executive branch that belies the vision established in the Constitution.

In an interview last week with Slate, he said Mr. Trump “has dismissed the rule of law as being relevant to his life.”

“Some of us who still take the Constitution rather seriously believe that those articles of impeachment that had been approved against Richard Nixon turn out to be relevant, as well, to the misconduct of President Trump,” he said.

Democrats invited Mr. Gerhardt, who also testified before the House Judiciary Committee this year as part of their hearings on the findings of the final report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

He served as deputy media director for former Vice President Al Gore’s first Senate campaign, and was involved in Mr. Clinton’s transition to the White House in the early 1990s. But he has said that Mr. Clinton “made his impeachment almost inevitable” in part because he “testified under oath in a way that was false.”

Mr. Gerhardt has been involved in confirmation proceedings for seven of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. For two of those nominations, he was special counsel to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, during his time as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kitty Bennett contributed research.

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

Who Is Noah Feldman? Scholar Specializes in Constitutional Law

Westlake Legal Group 04dc-feldman-facebookJumbo Who Is Noah Feldman? Scholar Specializes in Constitutional Law United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House of Representatives Feldman, Noah Democratic Party Constitution (US)

Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, is part of a vanishing breed, a public intellectual equally at ease with writing law review articles, books aimed at both popular and scholarly audiences and regular opinion columns, all leaning left but with a distinct contrarian streak.

In October, he declared that the country was in a constitutional crisis, caused by the events that followed the disclosure of a July 25 phone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. When Mr. Trump told Congress that he would not participate in any of the House’s impeachment proceedings, it left the country with “situation where the Constitution does not provide a clear, definitive answer to a basic problem of governance,” Mr. Feldman wrote.

Mr. Feldman, 49, specializes in constitutional law and the relationship between law and religion and free speech. A graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School and a Rhodes Scholar, he clerked for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. Justice Souter was appointed by a Republican president, and was expected to serve as a conservative voice on the court, but he later regularly sided with the liberal wing.

With years of teaching constitutional law at some of the country’s most elite institutions, Mr. Feldman will bring a deep analysis of different aspects of the Constitution and a lot of historical context. A prolific writer, he has written eight books and been published broadly, including in The New York Times Magazine and Bloomberg News. And he has been outspoken about his views that the country is in a crisis without a simple solution to resolve it.

As one of the witnesses summoned by the Democrats, Mr. Feldman will most likely argue that there are constitutional grounds for impeaching Mr. Trump.

And he is not shy about what he thinks of Mr. Trump’s policies. For example, Mr. Feldman does not think Trump administration officials should have immunity from the impeachment proceedings; he does not think the president has the constitutional authority to engage in a this-for-that deal with a foreign country; and he thinks a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Attorney General William P. Barr and Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Feldman, who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish community, served as a constitutional adviser to the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

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

Who Is Noah Feldman? Scholar Specializes in Constitutional Law

Westlake Legal Group 04dc-feldman-facebookJumbo Who Is Noah Feldman? Scholar Specializes in Constitutional Law United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House of Representatives Feldman, Noah Democratic Party Constitution (US)

Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, is part of a vanishing breed, a public intellectual equally at ease with writing law review articles, books aimed at both popular and scholarly audiences and regular opinion columns, all leaning left but with a distinct contrarian streak.

In October, he declared that the country was in a constitutional crisis, caused by the events that followed the disclosure of a July 25 phone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. When Mr. Trump told Congress that he would not participate in any of the House’s impeachment proceedings, it left the country with “situation where the Constitution does not provide a clear, definitive answer to a basic problem of governance,” Mr. Feldman wrote.

Mr. Feldman, 49, specializes in constitutional law and the relationship between law and religion and free speech. A graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School and a Rhodes Scholar, he clerked for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. Justice Souter was appointed by a Republican president, and was expected to serve as a conservative voice on the court, but he later regularly sided with the liberal wing.

With years of teaching constitutional law at some of the country’s most elite institutions, Mr. Feldman will bring a deep analysis of different aspects of the Constitution and a lot of historical context. A prolific writer, he has written eight books and been published broadly, including in The New York Times Magazine and Bloomberg News. And he has been outspoken about his views that the country is in a crisis without a simple solution to resolve it.

As one of the witnesses summoned by the Democrats, Mr. Feldman will most likely argue that there are constitutional grounds for impeaching Mr. Trump.

And he is not shy about what he thinks of Mr. Trump’s policies. For example, Mr. Feldman does not think Trump administration officials should have immunity from the impeachment proceedings; he does not think the president has the constitutional authority to engage in a this-for-that deal with a foreign country; and he thinks a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Attorney General William P. Barr and Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Feldman, who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish community, served as a constitutional adviser to the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

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

Who Is Noah Feldman? Scholar Specializes in Constitutional Law

Westlake Legal Group 04dc-feldman-facebookJumbo Who Is Noah Feldman? Scholar Specializes in Constitutional Law United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House of Representatives Feldman, Noah Democratic Party Constitution (US)

Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, is part of a vanishing breed, a public intellectual equally at ease with writing law review articles, books aimed at both popular and scholarly audiences and regular opinion columns, all leaning left but with a distinct contrarian streak.

In October, he declared that the country was in a constitutional crisis, caused by the events that followed the disclosure of a July 25 phone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. When Mr. Trump told Congress that he would not participate in any of the House’s impeachment proceedings, it left the country with “situation where the Constitution does not provide a clear, definitive answer to a basic problem of governance,” Mr. Feldman wrote.

Mr. Feldman, 49, specializes in constitutional law and the relationship between law and religion and free speech. A graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School and a Rhodes Scholar, he clerked for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. Justice Souter was appointed by a Republican president, and was expected to serve as a conservative voice on the court, but he later regularly sided with the liberal wing.

With years of teaching constitutional law at some of the country’s most elite institutions, Mr. Feldman will bring a deep analysis of different aspects of the Constitution and a lot of historical context. A prolific writer, he has written eight books and been published broadly, including in The New York Times Magazine and Bloomberg News. And he has been outspoken about his views that the country is in a crisis without a simple solution to resolve it.

As one of the witnesses summoned by the Democrats, Mr. Feldman will most likely argue that there are constitutional grounds for impeaching Mr. Trump.

And he is not shy about what he thinks of Mr. Trump’s policies. For example, Mr. Feldman does not think Trump administration officials should have immunity from the impeachment proceedings; he does not think the president has the constitutional authority to engage in a this-for-that deal with a foreign country; and he thinks a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Attorney General William P. Barr and Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Feldman, who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish community, served as a constitutional adviser to the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

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

What to Watch For in the Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing

The next phase of the impeachment inquiry begins Wednesday morning with the first public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers will hear from four legal scholars about the constitutional basis for impeachment and whether President Trump’s actions meet those standards.

The hearing kicks off what is likely to be a sharply partisan brawl over the coming days as the committee debates whether to draft and approve articles of impeachment that could lead to a Senate trial and Mr. Trump’s removal from office.

Who: Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School, Michael J. Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina Law School and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School.

What: The House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, opens consideration of impeachment articles.

When and Where: The proceedings start at 10 a.m. Eastern in the Longworth House Office Building near the Capitol. They will most likely last into the afternoon.

How to Watch: The New York Times will stream the testimony live, and a team of reporters in Washington will provide key updates with context and analysis on this page. Stay tuned.

Westlake Legal Group 00impeachment-archetypes-videopromo-image-articleLarge-v2 What to Watch For in the Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

The Impeachment Inquiry’s Main Players

Here are the lawmakers to watch as the process unfolds.

Testimony from the legal scholars will place Mr. Trump’s actions in historical context for lawmakers who will eventually have to vote on whether the president committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be impeached and removed from office.

Three of the scholars — Mr. Feldman, Ms. Karlan and Mr. Gerhardt — were invited to deliver remarks by the Democratic majority on the committee. Mr. Turley was invited by Republicans.

The scholars may focus their testimonies on what the country’s founders were trying to achieve by providing a process for Congress to remove a president. They are expected to discuss the impeachment efforts for Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton.

But lawmakers are likely to press the witnesses to offer their own assessments about whether impeachment is appropriate for Mr. Trump, which could prompt sharp exchanges between committee members and the scholars.

  • Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including the former vice president. Here’s a timeline of events since January.

  • A C.I.A. officer who was once detailed to the White House filed a whistle-blower complaint on Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Read the complaint.

Video

transcript

Admit It: You Don’t Know How Impeachment Works. We Can Help.

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.

“Impeachment by its nature, it’s a political process.” “What people think is going to happen can turn out to be very different from what happens.” “Because it has to do with elected officials holding another elected official to account for their conduct.” When the framers of the Constitution created a process to remove a president from office, they were well … kind of vague. So to understand how it’s going to play out, the past is really our best guide. “I think we’re just all in for a really crazy ride.” Collectively, these New York Times reporters have covered U.S. politics for over 150 years. “I’m also a drummer in a band, so …” They’ve reported on past impeachment inquiries. “Yea, I’m lost in Senate wonderland.” And they say that the three we’ve had so far have been full of twists and turns. “The president of the United States is not guilty as charged.” In short, expect the unexpected. First, the process. Impeachment is technically only the initial stage. “Common misconceptions about impeachment are that impeachment by itself means removal from office. It doesn’t. The impeachment part of the process is only the indictment that sets up a trial.” The Constitution describes offenses that are grounds for removing the president from office as bribery, treason and — “They say high crimes and misdemeanors, which, really, is in the eye of the beholder.” “The framers didn’t give us a guidebook to it. They simply said, that the House had the responsibility for impeachment and the Senate had the responsibility for the trial.” One of the things missing from the Constitution? How an impeachment inquiry should start. And that has generally been a source of drama. Basically, anything goes. “In fact, in the Andrew Johnson case they voted to impeach him without even having drafted the articles of impeachment.” For Richard Nixon, his case started with several investigations that led to public hearings. That part of the process went on for two years, and yielded revelation after revelation, connecting Nixon to a politically-motivated burglary at D.N.C. headquarters — “… located in the Watergate office building.” — and its subsequent cover-up. “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?” “I was aware of listening devices. Yes, sir.” “This was a shocker. Everybody in the White House recognized how damaging this could be.” As the House drafted articles of impeachment, Nixon lost the support of his party. “O.K., I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.” “I was asked to write the farewell piece that ran the morning after Nixon resigned. And this is what I wrote: The central question is how a man who won so much could have lost so much.” So for Nixon, it more or less ended after the investigations. But for Bill Clinton, that phase was just the beginning. “This is the information.” An independent counsel’s investigation into his business dealings unexpectedly turned into a very public inquiry about his personal life. “The idea that a president of the United States was having an affair with a White House intern and then a federal prosecutor was looking at that, it was just extraordinary.” That investigation led to public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. “When the Starr Report was being delivered to Congress it was a little bit like the O.J. chase, only a political one. There were two black cars. They were being filmed live on CNN. They were heading towards the Capitol. We were watching it and a little bit agog.” Public opinion is key. And the media plays a huge part in the process. This was definitely true for Clinton. “You know it was just a crazy time. We worked in the Senate press gallery.” “All your colleagues are kind of piled on top of each other.” “We had crummy computers, the fax machine would always break. The printer would always break.” After committee hearings, the House brought formal impeachment charges. “It was very tense. I thought that the Saturday of the impeachment vote in the House was one of the most tense days I’d experienced in Washington.” And it turned out, also, full of surprises. “The day of impeachment arrived, everyone’s making very impassioned speeches about whether Bill Clinton should or should not be impeached and Livingston rises to give an argument for the House Republicans. He started to talk about how Clinton could resign.” “You, sir, may resign your post.” “And all of a sudden people start booing and saying, ‘Resign, resign’!” “So I must set the example.” “He announced he was resigning because he had had extramarital affairs and challenged President Clinton to do the only honorable thing, in his view —” “I hope President Clinton will follow.” “— to resign as well, so there was all this drama unfolding even in the midst of impeachment.” Then it went to the Senate for trial. The Constitution gets a little more specific about this part. “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to preside over that trial.” “Rehnquist, he showed up in this robe he had made for himself, which had gold stripes on the sleeves because he liked Gilbert and Sullivan.” “The Senate is the actual jury.” “You will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help you, God.” “This is a copy of the rules of the Senate for handling impeachment. They’re actually very specific.” “Meet six days a week.” “Convene at noon. The senators have to sit at their desks and remain quiet in their role as jurors. And not talk, which trust me, is going to be a problem for some of the senators who are used to talking all the time.” It’s just like a courtroom trial. There are prosecutors who present the case against the president. “That was perjury.” Only, they’re members of the House, and they’re called managers. Then the senators, or the jurors, vote. And things are still, unpredictable. “The options are guilty or not guilty. But there was one senator —” “Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania.” “Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proved.” “— which is not a thing.” “And everybody just looks, you know, how do you even record that vote?” In the end, there were not enough votes to oust Clinton. “What’s amazing about this whole thing to me wasn’t so much the constitutional process. It was that it felt to me like the beginning of really intense partisanship, the weaponization of partisanship.” And here’s the thing: An impeachment charge has never gotten the two-thirds majority it needs in the Senate to actually oust a president from office. “So you could end up having a situation where the president is impeached, acquitted and runs for re-election and wins re-election.” And that would be a first. “This is my ticket to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. I don’t think you’ll find these on StubHub.”

Westlake Legal Group xx-impeachment-explainer-vid-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600 What to Watch For in the Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.CreditCredit…Photo illustration by Aaron Byrd

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

Trump Inflames the Trade Wars, Again

Westlake Legal Group 03dc-Trade01-facebookJumbo Trump Inflames the Trade Wars, Again United States Politics and Government United States International Relations United States Economy Trump, Donald J Taxation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development North Atlantic Treaty Organization International Trade and World Market France Customs (Tariff) China

LONDON — President Trump left the global economy unsettled on Tuesday when he threatened NATO allies and suggested that he could wait a year to reach a trade agreement with China, sending stock markets swooning.

In comments to reporters sandwiched between meetings with fellow leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Mr. Trump said a trade deal with China might not be finalized until after the 2020 presidential election in November. Earlier this fall, he hinted that a deal was near completion, signaling that the trade war could be winding down.

But this week, peace no longer seems at hand. Beyond Mr. Trump’s downbeat assessment of the conflict with China, his administration is considering tariffs as high as 100 percent on French items including wines, cheeses and handbags. He promised to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel from Brazil and Argentina. And he raised fresh doubts about international negotiations that were supposed to defuse a growing conflict over how American technology companies are taxed in Europe.

The president’s affinity for using unpredictability as a negotiating tactic has angered trading partners and at times roiled financial markets — including on Tuesday, when stocks dropped in Europe and the United States after Mr. Trump’s trade comments. The S&P 500 index fell about 0.7 percent Tuesday, after a similar decline Monday.

“In some ways I like the idea of waiting until after the election for the China deal,” Mr. Trump told reporters during a 52-minute appearance in London with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general. He added: “But they want to make a deal now, and we’ll see whether or not the deal’s going to be right. It’s got to be right.”

The president also said Tuesday that he might impose new import taxes on goods from Germany and any other NATO ally that did not fully pay its dues to the organization, an inaccurate description of how the military alliance is maintained. Member states are expected to maintain robust military spending, but they do not pay dues.

He then renewed a threat, which his administration made in a formal trade investigation concluded on Monday, to place tariffs of up to 100 percent on some French exports. That would be in response to a new French tax on online economic activity, which will hit American giants like Amazon and Facebook. His administration has threatened similar actions in response to digital tax pushes in Italy, Turkey and Austria.

“They’re American companies,” Mr. Trump said. “We want to tax American companies. That’s important. We want to tax them, not somebody else.”

The threat of such draconian tariffs, which were spearheaded by Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, raised speculation that the Trump administration could abandon the tax talks taking place through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. However, the Treasury Department, which is leading those negotiations, is expected to proceed with them.

The events of recent days seem to have put an end to weeks of relative calm and record highs in the stock market, after more than a year of tumult largely caused by Mr. Trump’s decisions to impose tariffs on a variety of products, including $250 billion of imports from China.

The jolt to the stock market this week stood out after three straight months of placid trading and incremental gains. Measures of global policy uncertainty, while still historically elevated, had dipped this fall as Mr. Trump suggested a breakthrough with China was near. Farmers, who have been hurt by Chinese retaliatory tariffs against the United States, had reported a surge of economic optimism in November, according to an index compiled by Purdue University.

While some analysts argued that Mr. Trump’s bravado was a negotiating tactic that markets should ignore, others said the falling stock prices were a sign that investors had been too optimistic about the trade war. European leaders warned that they would retaliate if Mr. Trump levied tariffs on French goods, blaming him for escalating what is becoming a multinational fight over the taxation of tech companies. Some economic forecasters warned that Mr. Trump was risking the health of the global economy.

“It is remarkable how President Trump seems impervious to the delicate state of an economic expansion that is clearly long in the tooth,” Bernard Baumohl, the chief global economist for the Economic Outlook Group, wrote in a research note. He called Mr. Trump’s trade remarks “disheartening to say the least.”

Business groups expressed alarm about Mr. Trump’s China comments.

“We want and need to see a deal as soon as possible,” said David French, the senior vice president for government relations for the National Retail Federation. “The tariffs continue to hurt U.S. businesses, workers and consumers and are a substantial drag on the U.S. economy.”

But delaying a China deal could have political benefits for Mr. Trump, some analysts said.

“Any deal reached now will be subject to scrutiny for the next 12 months and the harsh disinfectant of sunlight during the general election cycle,” said Henrietta Treyz, the director of economic policy research at Veda Partners, an investment advisory firm. “Trade wars are political — right now, President Trump has the benefit of widespread bipartisan U.S. voter opposition to China and a robust consumer spending cycle.”

Mr. Trump’s trademark volatility was on full display Tuesday. At points, he seemed to suggest tensions with trading partners like France and even the long standoff with China could be easily resolved. At others, he suggested that he would make final deals only when he felt like it, and that more tariffs could be on the way in the interim. At one point, he said he would not settle for an “even” agreement with China — only one that favored the United States.

Administration officials sounded increasingly pessimistic that a first phase of any China deal would be reached anytime soon.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Tuesday that he believed holding off on a deal until after the election would give Mr. Trump more leverage in negotiations — assuming he won.

“Because once the election occurs — and the president seems to be in very good shape for the election — once it occurs and he’s back in, now that’s no longer a distraction that can detract from our negotiating position,” Mr. Ross told CNBC.

Mr. Ross said that the agreement in principle that Mr. Trump promoted in October was at the “40,000-foot level,” but that coming to terms on details such as what American agriculture products China would buy and how the deal would be enforced had proved to be more challenging. He said that barring a breakthrough, additional tariffs scheduled to be imposed on Dec. 15 would go into effect.

“We don’t have a breakthrough until it’s in black and white, on paper — signed, sealed and delivered,” he said.

Katie Rogers reported from London, and Jim Tankersley and Alan Rappeport from Washington. Matt Phillips contributed reporting from New York, Keith Bradsher from Shanghai and Ana Swanson from Boston.

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

A Mysterious ‘-1’ and Other Call Records Show How Giuliani Pressured Ukraine

WASHINGTON — In the two days before President Trump forced out the American ambassador to Ukraine in April, his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was on the phone with the White House more than a dozen times.

Phone records cited in the impeachment report released Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee illustrate the sprawling reach of Mr. Giuliani’s campaign first to remove the ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch, then to force Ukraine’s new government to announce criminal investigations for Mr. Trump’s political gain.

That effort accelerated through the spring and summer into a full-court press to force Ukraine’s new president to accede to Mr. Trump’s wishes or risk losing $391 million in military assistance desperately needed to hold off Russian-led forces waging a separatist war in eastern Ukraine.

From March 26 to Aug. 8, as he developed an irregular foreign policy channel that eventually sidelined both National Security Council and State Department aides, Mr. Giuliani — who is not a government employee — was in touch with top-ranking officials, the newly revealed call records suggested.

He reached out to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; the national security adviser at the time, John R. Bolton; Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee itself; midlevel White House officials; the Fox News host Sean Hannity; a conservative columnist; an associate who has been charged in a scheme related to Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster; and the owner of a mysterious number, “-1.”

Investigators are trying to determine whether the unidentified phone number belongs to Mr. Trump, said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who leads the House Intelligence Committee. If so, the phone calls with Mr. Giuliani could be further evidence of the president’s direct involvement in the Ukraine affair.

Westlake Legal Group read-the-document-1575399772992-articleLarge A Mysterious ‘-1’ and Other Call Records Show How Giuliani Pressured Ukraine Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Pompeo, Mike Patel, Kashyap Parnas, Lev Nunes, Devin G National Security Council impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W

Read the House Democrats’ Report on the Impeachment Inquiry

Democrats on three House committees on Tuesday released a report documenting the impeachment case against President Trump.

The report gave no indication of what conversations took place or how investigators obtained the telephone records, which were apparently produced in response to a subpoena to AT&T. Nonetheless, the timing and volume of the calls buttressed testimony by witnesses who portrayed Mr. Giuliani at the center of a shadow foreign policy that dismayed and baffled many in the administration.

The call records showed “considerable coordination among the parties, including the White House” to falsely portray Ms. Yovanovitch as disloyal to the president and to manipulate administration policy for his personal benefit, Mr. Schiff told reporters.

The report detailed a game of phone tag between the -1 phone number and Mr. Giuliani on Aug. 8. That same week, Mr. Giuliani was vigorously pressing State Department officials to persuade President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into the Biden family and whether Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.

Mr. Giuliani missed calls from -1 on Aug. 8 to two of his cellphones. Mr. Giuliani then called the White House switchboard and the White House Situation Room, before connecting with -1.

Circumstantial evidence shows that some of the -1 calls involved Mr. Trump, Mr. Schiff said, adding that his committee was working “to find out definitively.”

House investigators suspect that the number may belong to Mr. Trump in part because of phone records used as evidence in the criminal case against Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime friend and former campaign adviser who was convicted last month of seven felonies, including lying to Congress. Mr. Stone, who talked directly to Mr. Trump, received a call from a number listed only as -1, the records from his trial show.

Mr. Schiff declined to say how the committee obtained the phone records.

Mr. Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine are under intense scrutiny by federal prosecutors as well as congressional investigators. Prosecutors in New York are looking into whether he violated foreign lobbying laws in trying to oust the American ambassador and also scrutinizing any financial dealings he might have pursued with Ukrainian officials. Two of his associates — including one whose records were also in the House report, Lev Parnas — have been indicted on charges of violating campaign finance laws and other infractions.

State Department phone records cited in the House report show Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Pompeo spoke on March 26 and 28. In an interview in late November, Mr. Giuliani said he spoke to Mr. Pompeo to give him the results of his Ukraine research, including the role he believes that Ukrainians played trying to disrupt Mr. Trump’s 2016 election campaign.

At the time, Mr. Pompeo was under pressure from both Mr. Giuliani and the White House to remove Ms. Yovanovitch from her post. A month later, she was recalled to Washington, even though multiple high-ranking State Department officials testified that she had done nothing wrong.

The records of Mr. Giuliani’s calls also suggest that Mr. Nunes may have played a deeper role than was previously known in Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to manipulate the administration’s policy toward Ukraine.

On April 10, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Nunes traded short calls before Mr. Giuliani reached Mr. Nunes and the two spoke for about three minutes.

While the subject of their conversation is not known, they were most likely speaking about Ukraine, the report suggested. In the days beforehand, Mr. Giuliani said on Fox News that Ukraine had improperly interfered in the 2016 election and posted on Twitter citing criticism of Ms. Yovanovitch and accusing Ukrainian officials of interfering in American politics.

During the impeachment hearings, Mr. Nunes led the defense of Mr. Trump, repeatedly raising questions about Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election and urging an investigation into Hunter Biden, the younger son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, who was hired onto the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Schiff raised questions about Mr. Nunes’s role. “It is, I think, deeply concerning that at a time when the president of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Mr. Schiff said.

Mr. Nunes ignored questions about the call records in the Capitol, and his spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. But Republican leaders backed him on Tuesday. “Devin Nunes has a right to talk to anybody,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the top Republican in the House, told reporters.

Mr. Giuliani also spoke with current and former members of Mr. Nunes’s staff, including Kashyap Patel, who left Mr. Nunes’s office in February and joined the National Security Council staff to work on issues involving the United Nations and other international organizations. The two men had a 25-minute call on May 10, according to the records, despite the fact that Mr. Bolton, then the national security adviser, had said that no one in his office should be talking to Mr. Giuliani, according to congressional testimony.

Mr. Patel had no formal responsibility for Ukraine policy, and Fiona Hill, then a senior aide to Mr. Bolton, had raised questions about whether he was straying from his official portfolio. She asked Charles Kupperman, then Mr. Bolton’s top deputy, in late May whether Mr. Patel had assumed a role in Ukraine matters but received no answer, according to the impeachment report.

After The New York Times published an article in October about Ms. Hill’s testimony, Mr. Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against the news organization. In that lawsuit, Mr. Patel denied he “played a role in shadow foreign policy” aimed at pushing Ukraine to pursue investigations sought by Mr. Trump.

A National Security Council spokesman declined to comment when asked about Mr. Giuliani’s phone call with Mr. Patel.

Nicholas Fandos and Kenneth P. Vogel contributed reporting.

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

Impeachment Report Says Trump Solicited Foreign Election Interference

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Tuesday released a 300-page impeachment report asserting that President Trump abused his power by trying to enlist Ukraine to help him in the 2020 presidential election. The report said that Mr. Trump “placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States,” seeking to undermine American democracy and endangering national security.

The document, drawn up by the House Intelligence Committee that has led the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, left it to another panel to decide whether to recommend his impeachment and removal. But it laid out in searing fashion what are all but certain to be the grounds on which the Democratic-led House moves to impeach the president.

The lengthy document outlined more than two months of public and private testimony from diplomats and other administration officials who described a campaign by the president and his allies to pressure Ukraine for investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats, while withholding nearly $400 million in military assistance and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president.

“The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a monthslong effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election,” said the report, released ahead of a vote Tuesday evening by the Intelligence Committee to formally approve it. It asserts that Mr. Trump’s “scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential re-election campaign.”

Westlake Legal Group read-the-document-1575399772992-articleLarge Impeachment Report Says Trump Solicited Foreign Election Interference washington dc Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Schiff, Adam B House Committee on the Judiciary House Committee on Intelligence

Read the House Democrats’ Report on the Impeachment Inquiry

Democrats on three House committees on Tuesday released a report documenting the impeachment case against President Trump.

The report also lays out what it calls an “unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry” by Mr. Trump, in light of his move to prevent the release of documents from agencies including the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House budget office and instructing potential witnesses not to cooperate.

“The damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the president’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked,” the report concluded. “Any future president will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three.”

The report is a watershed moment for the months-old inquiry. Its delivery sets in motion the next phase in the impeachment of Mr. Trump, accelerating a constitutional clash that has happened only three times in the nation’s history. Both parties are poised for a fierce, partisan debate in the House Judiciary Committee over whether the president should be removed from office.

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin its debate on Wednesday with a public hearing that features four constitutional scholars discussing the historical standards for impeachment and their assessment about whether Mr. Trump’s actions constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors” that warrant his removal from office.

Lawyers for the Intelligence Committee are expected to formally present the report to the Judiciary panel and answer questions from its members in the coming days, though no hearing has been scheduled. Mr. Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill released their own report on Monday, condemning the Democratic impeachment effort as illegitimate, and asserting that the president was not seeking personal political advantage when he pressed Ukraine’s leaders to investigate his rivals, but was instead urging the country to address corruption.

In London for a NATO meeting, Mr. Trump accused Democrats of trying to overturn the results of the 2016 elections, saying the impeachment inquiry “turned out to be a hoax.”

“It’s done for purely political gain,” Mr. Trump continued. “They’re going to see whether or not they can do something in 2020, because otherwise they’re going to lose.”

The Intelligence Committee is also expected to vote to transmit all the raw evidence it collected to the Judiciary Committee. Though Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the Intelligence panels, has indicated that investigative work could continue, the report largely brings an end his committee’s inquiry, which began after Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally opened the impeachment inquiry in late September.

The Judiciary Committee will also consider potential evidence presented by other investigative committees — and renew an earlier debate among Democrats over whether Mr. Trump should be impeached for his attempts to thwart attempts by Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and any connections to the Trump campaign.

If a majority of the House voted to approve articles of impeachment, which would be drafted by the Judiciary Committee, the president would be impeached. The proceedings would move to the Senate for a trial. Two-thirds of senators would have to vote to convict Mr. Trump to end his presidency.

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