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 63)

Trump Acquitted of Two Impeachment Charges in Near Party-Line Vote

WASHINGTON — After five months of hearings, investigations and cascading revelations about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, a divided United States Senate acquitted him on Wednesday of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress to aid his own re-election, bringing an acrimonious impeachment trial to its expected end.

In a pair of votes whose outcome was never in doubt, the Senate fell well short of the two-thirds margin that would have been needed to remove Mr. Trump, formally concluding the three-week-long trial of the 45th president that has roiled Washington and threatened the presidency. The verdicts came down almost entirely upon party lines, with every Democrat voting “guilty” on both charges and Republicans uniformly voting “not guilty” on the obstruction of Congress charge.

Only one Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, broke with his party to judge Mr. Trump guilty of abuse of power.

It was the third impeachment trial of a president and the third acquittal in American history, and it ended the way it began, with Republicans and Democrats at odds over Mr. Trump’s conduct and his fitness for office, even as some members of his own party conceded the basic allegations that undergirded the charges, that he sought to pressure Ukraine to smear his political rivals.

“Senators how say you?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the presiding officer, asked shortly after 4 p.m. from the Senate floor. “Is the respondent, Donald John Trump, president of the United States guilty or not guilty?”

Seated at their wooden desks, senators stood one by one to answer “guilty” or “not guilty” to each of the two articles of impeachment.

“It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles,” declared Chief Justice Roberts, after the second article was defeated.

Westlake Legal Group impeachment-vote-results-promo-final-articleLarge Trump Acquitted of Two Impeachment Charges in Near Party-Line Vote United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Schumer, Charles E Romney, Mitt Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 McConnell, Mitch impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party

Trump Impeachment Results: How Democrats and Republicans Voted

See how each senator will vote on whether to convict and remove President Trump from office.

But in a sign of the widening partisan divide testing the country and its institutions, the verdict did not promise finality. Democratic leaders immediately insisted the result was illegitimate, the product of a self-interested cover-up by Republicans, and promised to continue their investigations of Mr. Trump.

The president, vindicated in what he has long called a politically motivated hoax to take him down, prepared to campaign as an exonerated executive. And both parties conceded that voters, not the Senate, would deliver the final judgment on Mr. Trump when they cast ballots in just nine months.

Video

transcript

Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump

In a pair of historic votes, 52 to 48 and 53 to 47, senators acquitted President Trump of two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“Hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, president of the United States.” “The clerk will now read the first article of impeachment.” “Article 1, abuse of power.” “Is the respondent, Donald John Trump, guilty or not guilty? A roll call vote is required. The clerk will call the roll.” “Mr. Alexander.” “Not guilty.” “Mr. Alexander, not guilty. Ms. Baldwin.” “Guilty.” “Ms. Baldwin, guilty. “Mr. Romney.” “Guilty.” “Mr. Romney, guilty.” This article of impeachment 48 senators have pronounced Donald John Trump president of the United States guilty as charged. 52 senators have pronounced him not guilty as charged. 2/3 of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty. The senate judges that the respondent Donald John Trump president of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the first article of impeachment article 2 obstruction of Congress. Mr. inhofe not guilty. Mr. Johnson not guilty. Mr. Jones guilty Mr. Cain guilty on this article of impeachment 47 senators have pronounced Donald John Trump president of the United States guilty as charged. 53 senators have pronounced him not guilty as charged. 2/3 of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty. The senate judges that respondent Donald John Trump president of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the Second Article of Impeachment. The senate having tried Donald John Trump president of the United States upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and 2/3 of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump b. And he is hereby acquitted of the charges and said articles.

Westlake Legal Group 05dc-impeach-video-videoSixteenByNine3000 Trump Acquitted of Two Impeachment Charges in Near Party-Line Vote United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Schumer, Charles E Romney, Mitt Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 McConnell, Mitch impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party

In a pair of historic votes, 52 to 48 and 53 to 47, senators acquitted President Trump of two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.CreditCredit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

As expected, the tally in favor of conviction fell far below the 67-vote threshold necessary for removal on each article. The first charge was abuse of power, accusing Mr. Trump of a scheme to use the levers of government to coerce Ukraine to do his political bidding, did not even garner a majority vote, failing on a vote of 48 to 52, with Mr. Romney voting with the Democrats. The second article, charging Mr. Trump with obstructing Congress for an across-the-board blockade of House subpoenas and oversight requests, failed 47 to 53, strictly on party lines.

Like this one, the trials of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton also concluded in acquittal — a reflection of the Constitution’s high burden for removing a chief executive.

But in a stinging rebuke of the country’s leader aimed at history, Mr. Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, voted to convict Mr. Trump of abuse of power. He said that the president’s pressure campaign on Ukraine was “the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” Though he voted against the second article, Mr. Romney became emotional on the Senate floor in the hours before the verdict on Wednesday as he described why he deemed Mr. Trump guilty of abuse of power, calling it a matter of conscience. He was the first senator ever to vote to remove a president of his own party.

“I am sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters,” Mr. Romney said. “Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?”

Video

transcript

Romney Says He Will Vote to Convict Trump

During a statement to his colleagues, Senator Mitt Romney said he would vote to convict President Trump of abuse of power, becoming the first Republican to break party ranks.

In the last several weeks I’ve received numerous calls and texts. Many demanded in their words that I stand with the team. I can assure you that thought has been very much on my mind. You see, I support a great deal of what the president has done. I’ve voted with him 80 percent of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me, for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.

Westlake Legal Group 05-video-romney-videoSixteenByNine3000-v2 Trump Acquitted of Two Impeachment Charges in Near Party-Line Vote United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Schumer, Charles E Romney, Mitt Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 McConnell, Mitch impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party

During a statement to his colleagues, Senator Mitt Romney said he would vote to convict President Trump of abuse of power, becoming the first Republican to break party ranks.CreditCredit…Al Drago for The New York Times

Mr. Romney’s defection, which he announced a couple of hours before the final vote, was a stark reflection of the sweeping transformation of the Republican Party over the past eight years into one that is now dominated entirely by Mr. Trump. And it deprived the president of the monolithic Republican support he had eagerly anticipated.

At the White House, Mr. Trump was expected to accept the decision with characteristic bravado, and badly wanted to deliver a public statement immediately afterward to declare victory. But his advisers argued forcefully against the move, and shortly after the Senate vote, he wrote on Twitter that he would wait until noon Thursday to appear at the White House “to discuss our Country’s VICTORY on the Impeachment Hoax.”

The president has looked forward to the Senate’s verdict as an authoritative rejection of the House’s case that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors, even if many in his party ultimately broke from his absolute insistence that his actions were “perfect.” Still, Mr. Trump, too, was looking beyond it toward the long campaign season ahead, vowing retribution from the forces that he believes have tried to destroy him: the Democrats, the news media and a deep state of government bureaucrats.

Several Republican senators ultimately acknowledged the heart of the House case — that Mr. Trump undertook a concerted pressure campaign on Ukraine to secure politically beneficial investigations into his rivals, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., using nearly $400 million in military aid as leverage. Still, all but one voted to acquit and suggested it had not been a close call. Earlier, not a single House Republican had voted for impeachment, either, rendering Mr. Trump’s impeachment historically partisan.

Some Republican senators argued that the conduct was not sufficiently dangerous to warrant the Senate removing a president from office for the first time in history — and certainly not with an election so near. Others dismissed Democrats’ arguments altogether, insisting their case was merely one more attempt to dress up hatred for Mr. Trump and his policies as a constitutional case.

A few Republicans urged Mr. Trump to be more careful with his words in the future, particularly when speaking with foreign leaders, but there was no serious attempt to censure him as there was around the trial of Mr. Clinton.

Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two Republican swing votes who have tilted against the president in the past, both voted against conviction and removal. And two Democrats from traditionally red states, Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, voted to convict Mr. Trump, denying him a badly wanted bipartisan acquittal.

Democrats, who had lobbied hard to include witnesses and documents that Mr. Trump shielded from the House in the Senate proceeding, wasted little time in declaring the trial a sham. Senators had been offered evidence, including testimony by the former national security adviser John R. Bolton, that would have further clarified the president’s actions and motivations, they said. All but two Republicans refused, making the trial the first impeachment proceeding in American history to reach a verdict without calling witnesses.

As they closed their case this week, the seven Democratic House managers who prosecuted the case argued that Mr. Trump would emerge emboldened in his monarchical tendencies, and that those who appeased him would be judged harshly by history. Republicans, they said, had chosen to leave the president’s future up to voters in the very election in which they believe Mr. Trump is still trying to cheat.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, made a similar case in the minutes before the vote.

“The verdict of this kangaroo court will be meaningless,” Mr. Schumer said. “By refusing the facts — by refusing witnesses and documents — the Republican majority has placed a giant asterisk, the asterisk of a sham trial, next to the acquittal of President Trump, written in permanent ink.”

Seldom used in American history, impeachment is the Constitution’s most extreme mechanism for checking a corrupt or out of control office holder. In unsheathing it, even reluctantly, House Democrats took on political risk that could backfire in November on their presidential nominee or the House majority if voters conclude the effort was an overzealous partisan attack. Senate Republicans and Democrats up for re-election in swing states may face their own judgment for their stances on including witnesses in the trial or on Mr. Trump’s guilt.

At least one Democrat, Senator Doug Jones of Alabama, glancingly acknowledged that his vote to convict would most likely contribute to his loss this fall in deeply conservative Alabama.

“There will be so many who will simply look at what I am doing today and say it is a profile in courage,” Mr. Jones said before the vote. “It is not. It is simply a matter of right and wrong.”

For now, the impeachment of Mr. Trump appears to have evenly divided the nation. Public opinion polls suggest that as the proportion of Americans grew in recent weeks who agreed that the president most likely abused his office and acted improperly to deny Congress the ability to investigate, never meaningfully more than half of the country agreed he should be removed from office.

If Mr. Trump’s standing among the public has been hurt by the trial, it is not yet evident. To the contrary, the latest Gallup poll, released on Tuesday, showed that 49 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing as president — the highest figure since he took office three years ago.

The possibility of impeachment has hung like a cloud over Mr. Trump’s presidency virtually since it began. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, had resisted when the special counsel released the findings of his investigation into Russian election interference in 2016 and possible collaboration with the Trump campaign. Impeachment was too divisive and unlikely to gain bipartisan support, she said then.

Her calculations changed in September, when the Trump administration was forced to give the House an anonymous C.I.A. whistle-blower that accused the president of marshaling the powers of government to press Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and a theory that Democrats had colluded with Ukraine in the 2016 election. Authorizing the third impeachment inquiry in modern times, Ms. Pelosi tasked the House Intelligence Committee to investigate the scheme and build a case for impeachment.

Mr. Trump issued a blanket directive to all government agencies not to comply with the inquiry — a fateful order that robbed investigators of key witnesses and facts that could have filled out their case but which ultimately gave rise to the obstruction of Congress charge.

Still, a dozen and a half American diplomats and White House officials came forward, offering testimony in private and then in scintillating public hearings, that confirmed nearly every aspect of the whistle-blower complaint. On Dec. 18, the House voted to impeach Mr. Trump on both counts, despite their earlier pledges not to pursue a partisan impeachment.

To protect his Senate majority as much as the presidency, Mr. McConnell promised a swift acquittal and he delivered it. From the time the articles of impeachment were first read on the Senate floor to Wednesday’s vote was just 20 days. By comparison, the 1999 Clinton trial lasted five weeks and in 1868, the Senate took the better part of three months to try Johnson.

With acquittal never really in doubt, the real fight of the trial over witnesses and Mr. McConnell used the full accumulated force of his position to ensure none were called. Mr. Trump’s lawyers used their time on the Senate floor to argue that none were needed not only because the president’s behavior toward Ukraine was a legitimate expression of his concern about corruption there, but because neither charge constituted high crimes and misdemeanors.

The final shift in defenses by all but the most conservative of Mr. Trump’s allies came just last week, when The New York Times reported the first in a series of stories revealing that Mr. Trump told Mr. Bolton in August that he would not release the military aid for Ukraine until the country helped out with the investigations into the Bidens and other Democrats.

Each of those decisions will loom large over history. Just as Mr. Trump’s impeachment was constantly measured against the precedents set in 1999 and 1974 and 1868, so any future one will be measured against the decisions made by House Democrats and Senate Republicans this time around.

Impeachment was seriously contemplated for a president only once in the first two centuries of the American republic; it now has been so three times since the 1970s, and two of the past four presidents have been impeached.

Reporting was contributed by Emily Cochrane, Catie Edmondson, Patricia Mazzei, Michael D. Shear and Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

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

Full Transcript: Mitt Romney’s Speech Announcing Vote to Convict Trump

Westlake Legal Group 05romney-promo-facebookJumbo-v2 Full Transcript: Mitt Romney’s Speech Announcing Vote to Convict Trump United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Speeches and Statements Senate Romney, Mitt impeachment

Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, announced on the Senate floor on Wednesday that he intended to vote to convict President Trump of abuse of power. He was the only Republican to break with his party and support removing Mr. Trump from office.

“The president’s purpose was personal and political,” Mr. Romney said of the president’s actions toward Ukraine. “Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

The following is a transcript of Mr. Romney’s speech, as transcribed by The New York Times.

SENATOR MITT ROMNEY, Republican of Utah: The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House managers presented evidence supporting their case, and the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the president’s team presented three defenses, first that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime, second that the Bidens’ conduct justified the president’s actions, and third, that the judgment of the president’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address those three defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the founders and my own reasoned judgment convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they’re not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason.

The president’s counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the vice president should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong. With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory, but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There’s no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president.

Hamilton explained that the founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to the voters was intended to minimize, to the extent possible, the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasked senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.

The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.

What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I’ve received numerous calls and texts. Many demanded, in their words, that I “stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind: You see, I support a great deal of what the president has done. I voted with him 80 percent of the time.

But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton, not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he might say could raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I’m convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We’ve come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the president from office. The results of this Senate court will, in fact, be appealed to a higher court, the judgment of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the president’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate, but irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability believing that my country expected it of me.

I will only be one name among many, no more, no less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong. We are all footnotes at best in the annals of history, but in the most powerful nation on Earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that distinction is enough for any citizen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

The Super Bowl’s Real Winner Was … Bill Murray?

Westlake Legal Group 05superbowl-ads-01-facebookJumbo The Super Bowl’s Real Winner Was … Bill Murray? Trump, Donald J Television Super Bowl Pepsico Inc Murray, Bill Google Inc DeGeneres, Ellen Anheuser-Busch InBev NV Advertising

Who won the Super Bowl?

Technically, the Kansas City Chiefs. But to the brands that shelled out millions to place commercials on the broadcast, the big question is, which ad took the top spot?

Was it Bill Murray, playing a jovial version of his jaded TV weatherman character in a Jeep commercial that was a takeoff to the 1993 comedy “Groundhog Day”? Or was it Google, with its tear-jerking tale of an old-timer trying to recall his longtime love?

Maybe Hyundai’s Boston-besotted “Smaht Pahk” commercial hit home with viewers beyond the paht of the country where the “r” sound is often dropped? And what about the Western dance-off duel between Sam Elliott and Lil Nas X?

Take your pick.

More than a dozen rankings emerged after Pat Mahomes led the heartland team over the San Francisco 49ers on Sunday night. And each one claims to have identified the most successful ad that ran during the broadcast, which brought Fox an audience of 99.9 million.

The rankings help extend the promotional spectacle of the Super Bowl, which includes the fanfare around the halftime entertainment and the weekslong process of teasing game-time commercials.

Commercials from Jeep, Google, Hyundai and Doritos were the ones that popped up the most — but the lists did not agree on which of the four deserved the top spot.

Using an array of differing metrics, companies tried to judge a fundamentally subjective contest — finding the best ad among more than 80 big-budget commercials.

Ad Meter, which counts public votes from a website hosted by USA Today, gave the crown to the Jeep commercial with Mr. Murray. YouTube announced that the top ad, as measured by worldwide views through 10 p.m. eastern on Sunday, was the Amazon commercial featuring the ubiquitous pitchwoman Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, pondering what life was like in the time before Amazon’s Alexa voice assistant.

Twitter’s Brand Bowl measure concluded that Google was the fan favorite for driving “the highest overall positivity.”

Salesforce analyzed comments and images on social media and found that President Trump’s campaign ad about criminal justice reform generated the most mentions around the world, with 75.6 percent expressing positive sentiment (the same ad was ranked last by Ad Meter voters).

At the New York office of the McCann agency, a panel of more than a dozen advertising executives gathered Monday morning to make their own determination.

Considering factors such as the creative bravery of the ads and the likely difficulty of production, the group deemed the winner of the sixth annual Super Clio award — an offshoot of the industry’s coveted Clio Awards — to be a Snickers commercial that showed a giant candy bar being dropped into a gaping hole as a crowd of people sang.

Other companies tried to measure the emotional effect.

Ipsos, a research company, invited 40 people to a Super Bowl screening in New York and fitted their wrists and fingers with various gizmos to “passively capture galvanic skin response.” By this scheme, the Doritos commercial with Lil Nas X and Mr. Elliott was the best of the broadcast.

A similar measurement, by the video ad technology company Unruly, declared Google’s tear-jerker about loss the “most effective” commercial of the game. Among the factors the company considered was “emotional intensity.”

“At best,” such rankings “tell only part of the story,” said Alixandra Barasch, an assistant marketing professor at the New York University Stern School of Business.

“Everyone wants certain answers about ad effectiveness, and almost no one has them,” she said in an email. “But with so little agreement over how to measure effectiveness and impact, everyone can find some way to claim success and advance their own interests.”

Long after the current crop of commercials has been forgotten, the companies that come up with the lists of top ads often use the rankings to promote their proprietary metrics. The rankings also give ad agencies and their clients bragging rights.

“The lack of true accountability presents a lot of opportunities,” Ms. Barasch said.

Companies spent an estimated $435 million on the 2020 Super Bowl ads, a record, according to the research firm Kantar. Anheuser Busch likely spent $41 million, while PepsiCo spent $31 million. Some companies invested as much as $5.6 million on 30 seconds of airtime, more than double the cost of an equivalent ad during the Oscars broadcast.

Researchers have waffled on whether the commercials are worth the cost. Jay Pattisall, a Forrester analyst, wrote in a recent blog post that the price of a Super Bowl ad was disproportionate to its returns.

The Harvard Business Review once claimed that a Super Bowl ad “is the equivalent of lighting money on fire.” Researchers from Google and Microsoft said in 2013 that companies would always struggle to justify an investment in a game-time ad, citing what they called the “Super Bowl Impossibility Theorem.”

And with so many ways to measure success, how can a company prove that an ad is serving its purpose?

“That may not be truly measurable for weeks or even months,” said Mark Taylor, the chief creative officer of the Mering ad agency in California.

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

We Went to the National Mall to Ask Americans About Impeachment

Westlake Legal Group 00IMPEACH-QUIZ-promo-facebookJumbo-v2 We Went to the National Mall to Ask Americans About Impeachment United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 National Mall (Washington, DC) impeachment Democratic Party

WASHINGTON — The impeachment of President Trump has played out like a searing snapshot of the partisan divide, the two parties mostly inhabiting turf so different they might as well be on different planets.

We asked Americans visiting the National Mall last weekend to share their thoughts on impeachment. The goal was to see if people’s statements broke down as neatly and predictably on partisan lines as the vast majority of the views expressed in Congress.

One thing was clear: Almost everyone agreed that impeachment has been a fraught process that has further divided Americans and made them reconsider where we are as a nation. Alas, that may be all we agree on.

Ms. Morasch is a retired social worker from Fairfax City, Va. Though she voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, she is not registered with a party. She came to Washington to protest how the Senate was conducting the impeachment trial.

The way everything gets twisted, you know, whatever your belief is, you can make that the truth. So I don’t have a lot of hope. And it’s sad. That’s the frightening thing. I’m 71 and it’s sad not to have hope at this age.

You know, I was thinking about the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem when we go to the ballgames. And the last line, America, “The land of the free and the home of the brave.” And I thought, what happened?

And I do think he’s going to be re-elected. I’m just afraid for my grandchildren.

Mr. Mullis is a retired sports administration official from Houston. He is a Republican.

I don’t think he did anything wrong. If you scrutinized every president and every president’s tight-knit circle, could you say something regarding something that happened? There’d be a lot of presidents that would be scrutinized under that. Ultimately, the Democrats are not going to benefit at all.

I have always felt good about the country. I think sometimes politics gets in the way of everything that really needs to be done. All the representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, and they really haven’t done that, in order to get new legislation done since Trump’s been elected. Actually, the citizens of the United States are the ones who have been hurt by this.

Mr. Williams is an entrepreneur who was visiting Washington from Philadelphia. He said he was “not a fan of Trump.”

I just felt over all it’s kind of sketchy. It doesn’t give the American people, or people globally, confidence about where America is headed.

I don’t think they’re giving the trial a chance to play out if they’re not bringing witnesses. If you’re not bringing witnesses, you have something to hide. So it’s very suspicious why they don’t want to bring witnesses. Him not bringing witnesses forward is like saying you can hit somebody with your car but get away with it at the same time.

Ms. Fletcher is a sophomore at Belmont University, in Nashville, who is studying music business. She is from Tulsa, Okla., and a registered Republican who said that if the election were today, she would “vote for Trump.”

I don’t think there’s enough to convict him for. If it’s a question of character, I don’t think it’s enough for impeachment. I think the Senate’s so polarized right now. I don’t think the Republicans are going to be willing to impeach him.

I feel like, if anything, less hopeful, not more hopeful. It’s just upsetting that we’re at that place right now where we have to go through a trial in the first place. The fact that we have to go through this as a country isn’t a positive thing.

Mr. Hadden is a veteran of the Vietnam War from North Augusta, S.C., and was in Washington for a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. Politically, he leans Republican. He voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.

Look at the economy, everything is great. I think it’s been a sham. It was a basic phone call. We give too much money to foreign countries anyway. He was right to hold it for corruption. I think he’s done the right thing. I don’t think what he did was corrupt. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were just wasting time.

Ms. Hadden also voted for Mr. Trump and said she planned to do so again in November.

I think that impeachment has hurt the country because if you can impeach him, I just think it’s wrong. We’re just glad it’s over. We’re America. We need everybody to get along. Why can’t they?

Ms. Williams was visiting Washington for the weekend from Columbus, Ohio, where she works in information technology. She is an independent who voted for Mrs. Clinton in 2016.

I think the G.O.P., they have a lot to lose, and they don’t really want to spend the time to invest in a new candidate. I think it will probably hurt Democrats, which is unfortunate to say. I think at this point people just feel like it’s a waste of time and a waste of money, and they feel like he’s gotten away with so much anyway.

At this point I just feel like it’s created more division in the country. At this point, the Democrats just need to put their energy behind getting really strong candidates for the 2020 election.

Mr. Gately is a project manager in HVAC sales in Raleigh, N.C. He said he tended to view himself as a “little bit of a moderate.”

I don’t think President Trump did anything wrong. I think he was looking after the taxpayers’ dollars on the way they would be spent; he wanted to make sure to spend appropriately. He wanted to make sure it wasn’t wasted and involved in any corruption.

It’s not about the American people anymore. I think the Democrats are just making it all politics. I just want to see more for the American people.

Ms. Akins is from Norman, Okla., and is an account manager at a software company. She is a Democrat who was in Washington to tour the United States Capitol and witness the impeachment trial.

I think that any president and actually any political appointee who uses their office to gain personal benefit and uses resources outside of the government to try to coerce and bribe a foreign government to benefit him and or his election should be removed, and actually never allowed to serve again, in any public capacity.

We actually were touring the U.S. Capitol today. We were going to go into the Senate impeachment trial to watch, and I was standing in line. So where have we come to in politics? President Trump and all of the elected officials — who typically are Republicans — who support and turn a blind eye to his behavior, his character, the way that he bullies people, it’s just we’re losing our democracy based on corruption, on bullying from the highest places in office. It’s just really sad to me, and I actually was tearing up in the line. I had to leave because I didn’t want to witness it. It’s just disgusting.

Mr. Riddle is an equipment company manager based in Charleston, W.Va., who identifies as a Republican.

It appears it’s completely partisan, mostly hearsay. And what evidence has been available to the general public has not been convincing me at all. I believe that all of the efforts that have been spent on this could have been much better spent on a lot of other issues this country has going on right now, such as the economy, the China trade deals, things President Trump’s trying to work on.

I think it’s been a distraction. I feel like if we all got together and made some compromises and quit building walls between each other, we could probably get a lot more done in this country. It seems harder to do that today than it’s ever been. And that part is troubling.

Ms. Peebles is a cabinetmaker from Prineville, Ore., and identifies as a Republican. She said the impeachment against Mr. Trump — and overall partisan politics — had left her worried about the country’s future.

I don’t really think there was anything to impeach him on. No crime. Politics, but no crime. I think it was purely political. And I don’t think I’m really right-wing, but I just don’t think they proved it. I do think that political favoring is wrong, but I think everybody does that. But I don’t think it raised the bar of coercion or bribery. But you’re not going to tell me every other president hasn’t said, “Hey, you do this for me,” you know, the idea?

It scares me if we get, let’s say, a Democratic president, House and Senate, or something, it just scares me what could happen. I think we’re so political now. It worries me that there’s not enough reasonable people to compromise. It’s your way or the highway lately.

Kitty Bennett contributed research.

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

Romney, Breaking With Republicans, Will Vote to Convict Trump of Abuse of Power

Westlake Legal Group 05-video-romney-facebookJumbo-v2 Romney, Breaking With Republicans, Will Vote to Convict Trump of Abuse of Power United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Speeches and Statements Senate Romney, Mitt Republican Party impeachment Ethics and Official Misconduct

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitt Romney of Utah announced on Wednesday that he would vote to convict President Trump of abuse of power, making him the first Republican to support removing Mr. Trump for his bid to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

“I think the case was made,” Mr. Romney said in an interview in his Senate office on Wednesday morning, ahead of an afternoon floor speech in which he grew emotional as he explained his decision. He declared Mr. Trump “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

Mr. Romney said he would vote against the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, arguing that House Democrats had failed to exhaust their legal options for securing testimony and other evidence they had sought. But the first-term senator said that Democrats had proved their first charge, that the president had misused his office for his own personal gain.

“I believe that attempting to corrupt an election to maintain power is about as egregious an assault on the Constitution as can be made,” Mr. Romney said during the interview, appearing by turns relieved and nervous — but also determined — as he laid out his thinking. “And for that reason, it is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I have no choice under the oath that I took but to express that conclusion.”

Notwithstanding Mr. Romney’s position, the Senate is expected to acquit Mr. Trump of both impeachment charges in a vote later Wednesday afternoon. But the defection of Mr. Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, is a dramatic capstone on the evolution of a party that has thoroughly succumbed to the vice grip of Mr. Trump. And it deprives the president of the monolithic Republican support he had eagerly anticipated at the end of an impeachment saga that he has been eager to dismiss as a politically motivated effort carried out exclusively by Democrats.

On the Senate floor on Wednesday, Mr. Romney placed his decision in the context of his faith, his family and how history would remember it.

“I will only be one name among many, no more, no less to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial,” Mr. Romney said. “They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong.”

In the interview earlier, Mr. Romney, who has been critical of Mr. Trump at various points since 2016, said he was acutely aware that he would suffer serious political ramifications for his decision, particularly in light of the strict loyalty the president has come to expect from elected officials of his own party. No House Republican voted to impeach Mr. Trump in December. (Representative Justin Amash, an independent from Michigan, fled the Republican Party last year over his differences with Mr. Trump and voted in favor of both articles.)

“I recognize there is going to be enormous consequences for having reached this conclusion,” Mr. Romney said. “Unimaginable” is how he described what might be in store for him.

Mr. Romney served as governor of Massachusetts before his unsuccessful run against President Barack Obama in 2012, after which he moved to Utah and eventually ran for the Senate. He said he had come under enormous pressure in recent weeks from rank-and-file members of a party whose support for Mr. Trump has become nearly unanimous.

“I don’t want to be the skunk at the garden party and I don’t want the disdain of Republicans across the country,” Mr. Romney said in the interview.

He already has endured a great deal of it, namely from Mr. Trump himself, who recently derided Mr. Romney as “a pompous ass.” At a grocery store in Florida last weekend, after he voted in favor of calling witnesses to testify in the Senate trial — another break with Republicans — Mr. Romney said a man called him a “traitor,” while another shouted, “Stick with the team!

As of late Wednesday morning, Mr. Romney said he had not yet informed Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, on how he would vote. He added that he made his final decision late last week, after the final round of questions between the Senators and the respective sides in the impeachment trial. The magnitude of the matter weighed heavily on him.

“There’s not been a morning that I’ve gotten up after 4 a.m., just obviously thinking about how important this is, what the consequence is,” Mr. Romney said.

Looking back over his political career, Mr. Romney recalled times in which his decisions had been influenced “in some cases by political benefit.”

“And I regret that,” he added, without specifying the particular decisions on his mind. He became increasingly reflective as the interview wore on.

“I have found, in business in particular but also in politics, that when something is in your personal best interests, the ability of the mind to rationalize that that’s the right thing is really quite extraordinary,” Mr. Romney said. “I have seen it in others and I have seen it in myself.”

As Mr. Romney revealed on the Senate floor how he would cast his votes, Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, dabbed at his eyes.

“I had an instinct,” he said afterward, “that this might be a moment.”

“He’s been grappling with it,” added Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana, who sits next to Mr. Romney on the Senate floor. He said that he respects Mr. Romney’s decision.

The lead-up to Mr. Romney’s announcement was a rare cliffhanger in a process whose ultimate conclusion — the president’s acquittal — was never seriously in doubt.

Mr. Romney’s address, a copy of which his office provided Wednesday afternoon on an embargoed basis, called the actions of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “unsavory but also not a crime.” He added that Mr. Trump’s lawyers provided no evidence that a crime was committed by either of the Bidens.

“The president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit,” Mr. Romney said. “There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.”

When asked Wednesday morning if he had any special flourishes planned for his speech, Mr. Romney just shrugged. “I’m planning on tearing it up when I’m finished,” he quipped, a reference to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response to the President’s State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.

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

Romney, Breaking With Republicans, Will Vote to Convict Trump of Abuse of Power

Westlake Legal Group 05dc-defect-1-facebookJumbo Romney, Breaking With Republicans, Will Vote to Convict Trump of Abuse of Power United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Speeches and Statements Senate Romney, Mitt Republican Party impeachment Ethics and Official Misconduct

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitt Romney of Utah announced on Wednesday that he would vote to convict President Trump of abuse of power, making him the first Republican to support removing Mr. Trump for his bid to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

“I think the case was made,” Mr. Romney said in an interview in his Senate office on Wednesday morning, ahead of an afternoon floor speech in which he grew emotional as he explained his decision. He declared Mr. Trump “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

Mr. Romney said he would vote against the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, arguing that House Democrats had failed to exhaust their legal options for securing testimony and other evidence they had sought. But the first-term senator said that Democrats had proved their first charge, that the president had misused his office for his own personal gain.

“I believe that attempting to corrupt an election to maintain power is about as egregious an assault on the Constitution as can be made,” Mr. Romney said during the interview, appearing by turns relieved and nervous — but also determined — as he laid out his thinking. “And for that reason, it is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I have no choice under the oath that I took but to express that conclusion.”

Notwithstanding Mr. Romney’s position, the Senate is expected to acquit Mr. Trump of both impeachment charges in a vote later Wednesday afternoon. But the defection of Mr. Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, is a dramatic capstone on the evolution of a party that has thoroughly succumbed to the vice grip of Mr. Trump. And it deprives the president of the monolithic Republican support he had eagerly anticipated at the end of an impeachment saga that he has been eager to dismiss as a politically motivated effort carried out exclusively by Democrats.

On the Senate floor on Wednesday, Mr. Romney placed his decision in the context of his faith, his family and how history would remember it.

“I will only be one name among many, no more, no less to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial,” Mr. Romney said. “They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong.”

In the interview earlier, Mr. Romney, who has been critical of Mr. Trump at various points since 2016, said he was acutely aware that he would suffer serious political ramifications for his decision, particularly in light of the strict loyalty the president has come to expect from elected officials of his own party. No House Republican voted to impeach Mr. Trump in December. (Representative Justin Amash, an independent from Michigan, fled the Republican Party last year over his differences with Mr. Trump and voted in favor of both articles.)

“I recognize there is going to be enormous consequences for having reached this conclusion,” Mr. Romney said. “Unimaginable” is how he described what might be in store for him.

Mr. Romney served as governor of Massachusetts before his unsuccessful run against President Barack Obama in 2012, after which he moved to Utah and eventually ran for the Senate. He said he had come under enormous pressure in recent weeks from rank-and-file members of a party whose support for Mr. Trump has become nearly unanimous.

“I don’t want to be the skunk at the garden party and I don’t want the disdain of Republicans across the country,” Mr. Romney said in the interview.

He already has endured a great deal of it, namely from Mr. Trump himself, who recently derided Mr. Romney as “a pompous ass.” At a grocery store in Florida last weekend, after he voted in favor of calling witnesses to testify in the Senate trial — another break with Republicans — Mr. Romney said a man called him a “traitor,” while another shouted, “Stick with the team!

As of late Wednesday morning, Mr. Romney said he had not yet informed Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, on how he would vote. He added that he made his final decision late last week, after the final round of questions between the Senators and the respective sides in the impeachment trial. The magnitude of the matter weighed heavily on him.

“There’s not been a morning that I’ve gotten up after 4 a.m., just obviously thinking about how important this is, what the consequence is,” Mr. Romney said.

Looking back over his political career, Mr. Romney recalled times in which his decisions had been influenced “in some cases by political benefit.”

“And I regret that,” he added, without specifying the particular decisions on his mind. He became increasingly reflective as the interview wore on.

“I have found, in business in particular but also in politics, that when something is in your personal best interests, the ability of the mind to rationalize that that’s the right thing is really quite extraordinary,” Mr. Romney said. “I have seen it in others and I have seen it in myself.”

As Mr. Romney revealed on the Senate floor how he would cast his votes, Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, dabbed at his eyes.

“I had an instinct,” he said afterward, “that this might be a moment.”

“He’s been grappling with it,” added Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana, who sits next to Mr. Romney on the Senate floor. He said that he respects Mr. Romney’s decision.

The lead-up to Mr. Romney’s announcement was a rare cliffhanger in a process whose ultimate conclusion — the president’s acquittal — was never seriously in doubt.

Mr. Romney’s address, a copy of which his office provided Wednesday afternoon on an embargoed basis, called the actions of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “unsavory but also not a crime.” He added that Mr. Trump’s lawyers provided no evidence that a crime was committed by either of the Bidens.

“The president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit,” Mr. Romney said. “There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.”

When asked Wednesday morning if he had any special flourishes planned for his speech, Mr. Romney just shrugged. “I’m planning on tearing it up when I’m finished,” he quipped, a reference to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response to the President’s State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.

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

Live Updates Ahead of the Senate Vote on Impeachment

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_168412695_1cefeb4b-45b9-44b3-ad60-8761a51c6cc3-articleLarge Live Updates Ahead of the Senate Vote on Impeachment Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, leaving the State of the Union address in the Capitol on Tuesday.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Here’s what you need to know:

Just because it will soon be over does not mean it will actually be over. Hours before the expected Senate vote ending President Trump’s trial, a senior House Democrat indicated that he will continue the investigation on his side of the Capitol, starting with a subpoena for John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters that he would “likely” subpoena Mr. Bolton, who has confirmed in an unpublished book that Mr. Trump conditioned security aid on Ukraine’s willingness to investigate the president’s Democratic rivals, the central allegation in the trial.

“I think it’s likely, yes,” said Mr. Nadler, one of the seven House managers prosecuting the charges against Mr. Trump. “When you have a lawless president, you have to bring that to the fore, you have to spotlight that, you have to protect the Constitution despite the political consequences.”

The House asked Mr. Bolton to testify before the December impeachment vote, but he did not agree and Democrats opted not to subpoena him because it could result in a lengthy court fight. When the articles of impeachment reached the Senate, however, Mr. Bolton publicly said he would comply with a Senate subpoena and testify if called. But Senate Republicans rushed to block any new evidence from being considered, and succeeded last week in holding together enough votes to beat back a bid by Democrats to seek new testimony and documents.

It was not clear whether he would be willing to comply with a subpoena without a court fight if issued by the House outside the context of an impeachment trial. A spokeswoman for Mr. Bolton had no comment on Wednesday. Even if he did, Mr. Trump could assert executive privilege to try to block his testimony, provoking the legal battle Democrats hoped to avoid.

Senator Doug Jones, Democrat of Alabama, announced Wednesday that he planned to vote to convict President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, joining his Democratic colleagues in support of Mr. Trump’s removal.

Mr. Jones, a moderate who is facing re-election in a state the president won in 2016 by nearly 28 points, was regarded as one of the few Democrats who might break with his party and support an acquittal of the president. But on Wednesday, hours before the vote, he dashed that speculation.

“After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the president for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” he said in a statement.

All eyes on Wednesday afternoon will be on a few moderate senators — two other Democrats and one Republican who might cross party lines on the verdict. Mr. Trump would love nothing more than to be able to trumpet a bipartisan acquittal. He has made it clear that he will not tolerate any Republican defections, hoping for monolithic opposition from his party just as he had when the House voted late last year to impeach him.

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has left the door open to acquittal but declined to say how he would vote. Mr. Manchin earlier in the week floated the idea of censuring the president, a largely symbolic gesture, but the idea has gained no traction in the polarized Senate. Senator Krysten Sinema of Arizona, another moderate Democrat, is also seen as a wild card.

Republicans are watching how Senator Mitt Romney of Utah will vote. He has criticized Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and was one of only two Republican senators to vote with Democrats in an unsuccessful bid to consider hearing from additional witnesses and evidence in the trial. (The other was Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who said Tuesday that she would vote to acquit Mr. Trump.)
Emily Cochrane

The Senate is poised on Wednesday to acquit President Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, casting a pair of historic votes to render a verdict in an impeachment trial that has further cleaved the two political parties and provided a bitter backdrop for the 2020 presidential campaign.

The afternoon votes are expected to fall almost entirely along party lines, with all eyes on the few moderate senators on both sides of the aisle who have left the door open to defecting. Even if they did, with the Senate’s 53 Republicans almost uniformly in opposition, Democrats pressing to remove Mr. Trump are all but certain to fall short of the two-thirds majority required under the Constitution — 67 senators, if everyone is present — to convict a president and deliver the ultimate remedy of taking him out of office.

There are two articles of impeachment. The first accuses President Trump of abuse of power, alleging that he used his office to pressuring Ukraine to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. House investigators concluded he withheld $391 million in military aid and an official visit to the White House for the country’s president as leverage to push Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rivals, including former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Trump is also accused of obstruction of Congress for directing federal agencies and officials not to comply with the lawmakers’ inquiry or subpoenas.

The Senate is set to vote on the articles beginning at 4 p.m. Eastern.

Ahead of the votes, senators will appear on the Senate floor and explain their decisions to convict or acquit Mr. Trump.

Delivering an address from the rostrum of the House of Representatives that frequently sounded like a campaign stump speech, Mr. Trump nonetheless steered clear during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night of mentioning his impeachment trial.

That was a departure from last year, when Mr. Trump upbraided the House for what he called “ridiculous partisan investigations” and declared: “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation.”

It is not clear if the restraint will hold on Wednesday, after the Senate’s expected votes to acquit him. Mr. Trump told television anchors at a lunch on Tuesday at the White House that he hoped to give a second set of remarks after the impeachment saga had ended.

Mr. Trump would like to hold a news conference or give a short statement. But most of his advisers have been urging him against it, wanting to ease pressure on senators for whom the vote was politically difficult.

Normally a staid body, the Senate for the past two weeks has been roiled day after day by the impeachment trial, leaving several senators dejected and dug into their partisan corners.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said in a speech on the Senate floor that the chamber “should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display here,” adding later: “It’s my hope that we’ve finally found bottom here.” She said she planned to acquit Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump’s likely acquittal has also left Democrats embittered about the future of the institution in which they serve. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said that while he wasn’t surprised by Mr. Trump’s abuse of power, he was surprised by the Senate’s “capitulation” to the president.

“Unchallenged evil spreads like a virus,” Mr. Kaine said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “We have allowed a toxic President to infect the Senate and warp its behavior.”

So where does that leave the Senate? Other senators sounded a more optimistic note.

“I think we heal in part by surprising the people and coming out from our partisan corners and getting stuff done,” Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, said, citing addressing the opioid crisis and crumbling infrastructure as examples. “Stuff that they care about that affects the families we were sent here to represent.”

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

Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates Ahead of the Final Votes

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_168412695_1cefeb4b-45b9-44b3-ad60-8761a51c6cc3-articleLarge Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates Ahead of the Final Votes Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, leaving the State of the Union address in the Capitol on Tuesday.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Here’s what you need to know:

Just because it will soon be over does not mean it will actually be over. Hours before the expected Senate vote ending President Trump’s trial, a senior House Democrat indicated on Wednesday that he will continue the investigation on his side of the Capitol, starting with a subpoena for John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters that he would “likely” subpoena Mr. Bolton, who has confirmed in an unpublished book that Mr. Trump conditioned security aid on Ukraine’s willingness to investigate the president’s Democratic rivals, the central allegation in the trial.

“I think it’s likely, yes,” said Mr. Nadler, one of the seven House managers prosecuting the charges against Mr. Trump. “When you have a lawless president, you have to bring that to the fore, you have to spotlight that, you have to protect the Constitution despite the political consequences.”

The House asked Mr. Bolton to testify before the December impeachment vote, but he did not agree and Democrats opted not to subpoena him because it could result in a lengthy court fight. When the articles of impeachment reached the Senate, however, Mr. Bolton publicly said he would comply with a Senate subpoena and testify if called. But Senate Republicans rushed to block any new evidence from being considered, and succeeded last week in holding together enough votes to beat back a bid by Democrats to seek new testimony and documents.

It was not clear whether he would be willing to comply with a subpoena without a court fight if issued by the House outside the context of an impeachment trial. A spokeswoman for Mr. Bolton had no comment on Wednesday. Even if he did, Mr. Trump could assert executive privilege to try to block his testimony, provoking the legal battle Democrats hoped to avoid.

Senator Doug Jones, Democrat of Alabama, announced Wednesday that he planned to vote to convict President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, joining his Democratic colleagues in support of Mr. Trump’s removal.

Mr. Jones, a moderate who is facing re-election in a state the president won in 2016 by nearly 28 points, was regarded as one of the few Democrats who might break with his party and support an acquittal of the president. But on Wednesday, hours before the vote, he dashed that speculation.

“After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the president for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” he said in a statement.

All eyes on Wednesday afternoon will be another few moderate senators — two other Democrats and one Republican who might cross party lines on the verdict. Mr. Trump would love nothing more than to be able to trumpet a bipartisan acquittal. He has made it clear that he will not tolerate any Republican defections, hoping for monolithic opposition from his party just as he had when the House voted late last year to impeach him.

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has left the door open to acquittal but declined to say how he would vote. Mr. Manchin earlier in the week floated the idea of censuring the president, a largely symbolic gesture, but the idea has gained no traction in the polarized Senate. Senator Krysten Sinema of Arizona, another moderate Democrat, is also seen as a wild card.

Republicans are watching how Senator Mitt Romney of Utah will vote. He has criticized Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and was one of only two Republican senators to vote with Democrats in an unsuccessful bid to consider hearing from additional witnesses and evidence in the trial. (The other was Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who said Tuesday that she would vote to acquit Mr. Trump.)
Emily Cochrane

The Senate is poised on Wednesday to acquit President Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, casting a pair of historic votes to render a verdict in an impeachment trial that has further cleaved the two political parties and provided a bitter backdrop for the 2020 presidential campaign.

The afternoon votes are expected to fall almost entirely along party lines, with all eyes on the few moderate senators on both sides of the aisle who have left the door open to defecting. Even if they did, with the Senate’s 53 Republicans almost uniformly in opposition, Democrats pressing to remove Mr. Trump are all but certain to fall short of the two-thirds majority required under the Constitution — 67 senators, if everyone is present — to convict a president and deliver the ultimate remedy of taking him out of office.

There are two articles of impeachment. The first accuses President Trump of abuse of power, alleging that he used his office to pressuring Ukraine to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. House investigators concluded he withheld $391 million in military aid and an official visit to the White House for the country’s president as leverage to push Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rivals, including former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Trump is also accused of obstruction of Congress for directing federal agencies and officials not to comply with the lawmakers’ inquiry or subpoenas.

The Senate is set to vote on the articles beginning at 4 p.m. Eastern.

Ahead of the votes, senators will appear on the Senate floor and explain their decisions to convict or acquit Mr. Trump.

How to follow it: The New York Times’s congressional and White House teams will be following all of the developments of the day. Visit nytimes.com for a live stream and vote tracker of the proceedings.

Normally a staid body, the Senate for the past two weeks has been roiled day after day by the impeachment trial, leaving several senators dejected and dug into their partisan corners.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said in a speech on the Senate floor that the chamber “should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display here,” adding later: “It’s my hope that we’ve finally found bottom here.” She said she planned to acquit Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump’s likely acquittal has also left Democrats embittered about the future of the institution in which they serve. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said that while he wasn’t surprised by Mr. Trump’s abuse of power, he was surprised by the Senate’s “capitulation” to the president.

“Unchallenged evil spreads like a virus,” Mr. Kaine said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “We have allowed a toxic President to infect the Senate and warp its behavior.”

So where does that leave the Senate? Other senators sounded a more optimistic note.

“I think we heal in part by surprising the people and coming out from our partisan corners and getting stuff done,” Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, said, citing addressing the opioid crisis and crumbling infrastructure as examples. “Stuff that they care about that affects the families we were sent here to represent.”

Delivering an address from the rostrum of the House of Representatives that frequently sounded like a campaign stump speech, Mr. Trump nonetheless steered clear during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night of mentioning his impeachment trial.

That was a departure from last year, when Mr. Trump upbraided the House for what he called “ridiculous partisan investigations” and declared: “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation.”

It is not clear if the restraint will hold on Wednesday, after the Senate’s expected votes to acquit him. Mr. Trump told television anchors at a lunch on Tuesday at the White House that he hoped to give a second set of remarks after the impeachment saga had ended.

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

Beyond the Partisan Fight, a Wealth of Evidence About Trump and Ukraine

Westlake Legal Group 04dc-evidence1-facebookJumbo Beyond the Partisan Fight, a Wealth of Evidence About Trump and Ukraine Zelensky, Volodymyr Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Shokin, Viktor Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Parnas, Lev impeachment Giuliani, Rudolph W Fruman, Igor Burisma Holdings Ltd Biden, Joseph R Jr Biden, Hunter

WASHINGTON — When all the partisan posturing, parliamentary wrangling and legalistic arguing are stripped away, the impeachment process that dominated Washington for months produced a set of facts that is largely beyond dispute: The president of the United States pressured a foreign government to take actions aimed at his political opponents.

As the Senate moved toward acquitting President Trump on Wednesday, even some Republicans stopped trying to defend his actions or dispute the evidence, focusing instead on the idea that his conduct did not deserve removal from office, especially in an election year.

Mr. Trump’s “behavior was shameful and wrong,” and “his personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation,” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said on Monday. She went on to declare that she would nonetheless vote to acquit.

Mr. Trump’s public statements, plus testimony and documents introduced during the impeachment process and revelations independent from the congressional inquiry, establish a narrative of the president’s involvement in the effort led by Rudolph W. Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to persuade Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating two topics.

One centered on purported efforts by Ukrainians to undercut Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The other was the overlap between former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine and his son Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company widely associated with accusations of corruption.

There are still unanswered questions about the details of Mr. Trump’s involvement, and additional information could emerge later.

But a review of thousands of documents and dozens of interviews reveals how Mr. Trump developed a bitter grudge against Ukraine and then became personally involved in pressuring its leaders. Evidence of Mr. Trump’s role comes from a variety of sources.

Some of the clearest evidence comes from Mr. Trump’s own statements, both in his phone conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on July 25 and in public remarks he later made.

A reconstructed transcript of the call, made public by the White House in October, makes clear that Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to pursue investigations into the Bidens and into one element of his belief that Ukraine worked against his election in 2016: a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine rather than Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, and that Ukraine had possession of a server that would shed light on the theory.

I would like you to do us a favor though,” Mr. Trump said, asking Mr. Zelensky’s government to work with Attorney General William P. Barr and Mr. Giuliani to pursue the investigations.

“I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike,” Mr. Trump said, referring to an American cybersecurity firm and the debunked theory about Ukraine’s involvement in the hack of the Democratic Party. “The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

He went on to bring up the Bidens.

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great,” Mr. Trump said, according to the reconstructed transcript. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it.”

What Mr. Trump first said in private to Mr. Zelensky, he later said in public. In early October, answering questions from reporters outside the White House, Mr. Trump repeated and expanded on his calls for foreign help in investigating the Bidens.

“I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens,” Mr. Trump said. “Because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked.”

He also suggested that Ukraine was not the only country that should dig into Hunter Biden’s international business dealings.

“China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,” Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump has defended himself by saying that there was nothing wrong with asking another government for help in fighting corruption.

Mr. Trump removed a United States diplomat from her post after Mr. Giuliani and his associates accused her of opposing him politically and impeding their push for the investigations. And the president directed other government officials to work with Mr. Giuliani as he sought a public commitment from Mr. Zelensky to pursue those investigations.

In conversations with Mr. Trump in early 2019, Mr. Giuliani claimed that the United States ambassador to Kyiv, Marie L. Yovanovitch, a widely respected 33-year career diplomat, was hindering efforts to gather evidence from Ukrainians to defend the president and to target his rivals.

Mr. Trump connected Mr. Giuliani with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in late March to discuss the allegations, according to an interview with Mr. Giuliani and emails showing at least two telephone calls between the men, including one arranged with guidance from Mr. Trump’s personal assistant.

Mr. Trump ordered the recall of Ms. Yovanovitch in late April. Later, during the July phone call with Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Trump called her “bad news” and said, “she’s going to go through some things.”

Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo “relied on” Mr. Giuliani’s claims in their decision to oust Ms. Yovanovitch, Mr. Giuliani said.

In early May, Mr. Trump asked John R. Bolton, his national security adviser at the time, to call Mr. Zelensky to ensure he would meet with Mr. Giuliani, according to Mr. Bolton’s unpublished book manuscript. Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani denied Mr. Bolton’s account.

When Mr. Giuliani failed in his efforts to meet with Mr. Zelensky to press for the investigations, Mr. Trump enlisted an ad hoc team to work with Mr. Giuliani. The team included Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union; Kurt D. Volker, then the State Department’s special envoy for Ukraine; and Rick Perry, then the energy secretary.

When the three government officials sought to convince Mr. Trump that Mr. Zelensky deserved the full support of the United States, the president responded with anger toward the Ukrainians during a late May meeting. “They’re terrible people,” Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Volker’s testimony. “They’re all corrupt, and they tried to take me down.”

If they wanted to engage further with Ukraine, Mr. Trump told them, they would need to coordinate with Mr. Giuliani. “He just kept saying: ‘Talk to Rudy, talk to Rudy,’” Mr. Sondland later testified.

Over the next few months, according to extensive evidence introduced in the House impeachment inquiry, Mr. Sondland and Mr. Volker would work to convince the Ukrainians that in order for Mr. Zelensky to be granted a key request — a high-profile Oval Office meeting signaling United States support for his government in its conflict with Russia — he would have to commit to the investigations sought by Mr. Trump.

The White House meeting was not the only leverage used by Mr. Trump’s team in pressuring the Ukrainians.

In late June, Mr. Trump told top aides to look into the military assistance the United States provides to Ukraine, setting in motion a process that led him to order the withholding of $391 million in congressionally approved aid that Ukraine needed for its grinding war against Russian-backed separatists.

Mr. Trump’s order distressed officials in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, and eventually Kyiv, where at least some officials were aware of the aid freeze as early as July 25, according to officials in Ukraine and the United States. The freeze was not made public until the end of August.

The senior members of Mr. Trump’s national security team tried in August to persuade him to release the aid, but he refused.

Mr. Sondland eventually told Ukrainian officials that the release of the assistance would be dependent on Mr. Zelensky publicly committing to an investigation of Burisma, according to testimony in impeachment proceedings from Mr. Sondland and William B. Taylor Jr., who served as the top American diplomat in Kyiv after Ms. Yovanovitch’s recall.

The aid was released in September, after the freeze was made public and congressional Republicans lobbied Mr. Trump to release the money — and after Mr. Trump became aware of a whistle-blower complaint detailing key elements of the pressure campaign. Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, later told a news briefing that the aid had been withheld as part of the pressure campaign — and then tried to walk back his comments.

Mr. Trump’s defense has been that he wanted to make sure the aid would not be squandered by corruption in Ukraine, and that the money was released without Mr. Zelensky agreeing to the investigations.

Mr. Trump’s grievances with Ukraine date from his 2016 campaign but were channeled into action by Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who in April 2018 became part of the legal team defending the president against the special counsel’s investigation. Mr. Giuliani has repeatedly cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to divulge details of their conversations about Ukraine.

But in interviews, public statements and material gathered by House impeachment investigators, Mr. Giuliani has acknowledged that his Ukraine-related efforts were initiated and pursued with Mr. Trump’s knowledge and consent.

That was something he made explicit in a letter that he sent Mr. Zelensky in May 2019. In the letter, Mr. Giuliani sought a meeting with Mr. Zelensky during a planned trip to Kyiv, where, he told The New York Times at the time, he intended to press the Ukrainians to carry out the investigations sought by Mr. Trump. Mr. Giuliani canceled the trip, and the meeting with Mr. Zelensky never happened.

Mr. Giuliani’s initial interest was in undermining the special counsel’s investigation by raising questions about some of the events on its periphery. He sought to cast doubt on the authenticity of a ledger showing off-the-books payments from a Russia-aligned Ukrainian party earmarked for Paul Manafort, who served as Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman in 2016. Mr. Giuliani also questioned the motivations of the Ukrainians who disseminated it and their relationships with officials at the United States Embassy in Kyiv, who, he argued, were aligned with Hillary Clinton and out to get Mr. Trump.

Mr. Giuliani enlisted two Soviet-born American businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to help him connect early last year with Ukrainian prosecutors who could be of assistance. Those prosecutors made unsubstantiated claims about the Bidens’ work in Ukraine that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani would embrace in subsequent months, as the president ramped up his re-election campaign and the former vice president made clear he would seek the Democratic nomination to challenge him.

Even after Democrats began impeachment proceedings, Mr. Giuliani continued trying to collect information from Ukrainians who he argued would prove that Mr. Trump was justified in calling for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the ledger.

In December, Mr. Giuliani told an associate that he briefed Mr. Trump before traveling to Budapest and Kyiv to film interviews with former Ukrainian officials. As soon as Mr. Giuliani returned from the trip, Mr. Trump reportedly asked him what he had collected. “More than you can imagine,” he replied.

Mr. Giuliani has told his associates that he played the videos of his interviews for an appreciative Mr. Trump.

Ben Protess contributed reporting from New York.

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

Trump Claims End of ‘American Decline’ While Avoiding Mention of Impeachment in State of the Union

Westlake Legal Group merlin_168401274_29054352-3652-48c0-91fc-0d0d12bee2d4-facebookJumbo Trump Claims End of ‘American Decline’ While Avoiding Mention of Impeachment in State of the Union United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J State of the Union Message (US) Senate Schumer, Charles E Schiff, Adam B Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Republican Party Pelosi, Nancy impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party Biden, Joseph R Jr

WASHINGTON — President Trump claimed credit for a “great American comeback” in a speech to Congress on Tuesday night, boasting of a robust economy, contrasting his successes with the records of his predecessors and projecting optimism in the face of a monthslong Democratic effort to force him from office.

Mr. Trump, who lamented what he called “American carnage” when he was inaugurated in January 2017, described a different country today, declaring in his third State of the Union address that the nation’s future was once again “blazing bright.”

“In just three short years, we have shattered the mentality of American Decline and we have rejected the downsizing of America’s destiny,” Mr. Trump said in a speech that lasted 78 minutes. “We have totally rejected the downsizing. We are moving forward at a pace that was unimaginable just a short time ago, and we are never, ever going back!”

“The state of our union,” Mr. Trump declared, “is stronger than ever before.”

Welcomed by enthusiastic applause from Republican lawmakers, the president marched confidently into the same historic chamber where he was impeached 49 days earlier. Mr. Trump described the nation as enjoying what he called a “blue-collar boom,” fueled by trade agreements and his success in “restoring our nation’s manufacturing might.”

On the eve of a Senate vote expected to acquit him, Mr. Trump never mentioned the impeachment inquiry that has threatened his presidency and consumed Washington. But his interactions on Tuesday night with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who started the investigation by Democrats that has forever stained his legacy, underscored the deep bitterness between them.

As he arrived at the rostrum, Mr. Trump turned to hand copies of his speech to Ms. Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence. But when Ms. Pelosi offered her hand to shake, the president pointedly turned away without taking it.

Seated just behind the president, Ms. Pelosi grimaced and shook her head several times during his address. Moments after Mr. Trump finished and was basking in applause from Republicans, the speaker ripped up the pages of his speech, holding them high for the cameras to catch her unmistakable statement of scorn.

With the theatrical touches of a showman-turned-president, Mr. Trump surprised the wife of an Army soldier with the soldier’s return home from battle, highlighted the story of a 100-year-old Tuskegee airman and his 13-year-old great-grandson, and — in a remarkable moment — awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, the combative conservative talk radio host and for decades a villain to the left.

Standing next to Mr. Limbaugh, who recently learned he has advanced lung cancer, Melania Trump, the first lady, draped the medal around his neck as Mr. Trump thanked him for “decades of tireless devotion to our country.”

As the president fights for a second term in an election that will require him to broaden his appeal, he boasted of increasing funding for historically black colleges and singled out several African-Americans in the House chamber for praise, a striking departure for a president who derided African nations as “shithole countries” and repeatedly criticized the city of Baltimore, represented at the time by one of the nation’s leading black politicians, Representative Elijah E. Cummings, who died last year.

At the same time, Mr. Trump used the speech as a clarion call to his most conservative supporters, prompting some Republicans in the chamber to chant, “Four more years.” The president also boasted that he was building “a long, tall and very powerful wall” across the southwestern border and vowed to oppose what he called a “socialist takeover” of the health care system by Democrats in Washington and those running to replace him in the White House.

“To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know: We will never let socialism destroy American health care!” Mr. Trump declared.

Even as he delivered his remarks, it was Democrats who were in disarray, still unable to declare a final winner in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. State officials said they expected to release more results later Tuesday evening in a botched election process that Mr. Trump was quick to mock online.

“The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster,” the president crowed on Twitter earlier in the day. “Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare website, that should have cost 2% of that. The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is ‘Trump.’”

Mr. Trump was not the first president to face his accusers even as they try to remove him from office. In 1999, President Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union address to Congress in the middle of his impeachment trial on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from a sexual harassment lawsuit. Mr. Clinton did not mention the Senate trial, then still underway.

Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Trump did not use the nationally televised address to reprise his daily rants about impeachment, his made on Twitter. Instead, Mr. Trump — who is infamous for his rambling, invective-filled speeches at his rallies — largely stuck to an optimistic, if not always bipartisan, script.

The president did not unveil any major new initiatives, but called on Congress to pass bills to encourage school choice, lower prescription drug prices, provide a small amount of funding for neonatal research, ban late-term abortions and work toward improving the nation’s roads, bridges and tunnels.

As he has done each year, Mr. Trump focused a large part of the speech on immigration. He called on Congress to ban “free government health care for illegal aliens” and to pass legislation allowing the victims of crimes by undocumented immigrants to sue so-called sanctuary cities.

The president described a “gruesome spree of deadly violence” by an undocumented immigrant in California and introduced the brother of one of the victims, Rocky Jones, who was shot eight times.

“Our hearts weep for your loss,” Mr. Trump told the victim’s brother, Jody Jones, “and we will not rest until you have justice.”

The title of the president’s speech was “The Great American Comeback,” a more formal slogan that combines the sentiments of “Make America Great Again,” the president’s viral phrase from the 2016 campaign, and the more recent “Keep America Great” mantra that he has used to fire up crowds at rallies.

In his speech, he bragged about significant economic successes, even “though predictions were that this could never be done.” But his boast to have added 12,000 new factories overstated his claim to delivering an economic miracle to white working-class voters in the industrial Midwest.

Employment in construction, manufacturing and mining combined grew more slowly last year than at almost any other point in the current expansion. Manufacturing employment growth slowed to less than 50,000 jobs for the year in 2019, the worst rate of his presidency and the second-worst of the long recovery from recession.

Turning to trade, he said he had succeed in revising the North American Free Trade Agreement, something supported by many Democrats as well as Republicans.

“Many politicians came and went, pledging to change or replace NAFTA, only to do absolutely nothing,” Mr. Trump said, asserting the successes without acknowledging the more nuanced reality. “But unlike so many who came before me, I keep my promises.”

In the official Democratic response to Mr. Trump’s speech, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan challenged the president’s boasts about the economy.

“It doesn’t matter what the president says about the stock market,” Ms. Whitmer said. “What matters is that millions of people struggle to get by or don’t have enough money at the end of the month after paying for transportation, student loans or prescription drugs.”

Many of the female Democratic lawmakers attending the speech were dressed in white, symbolizing the suffragist movement and women’s rights. Several Democratic lawmakers, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts, were not in attendance after announcing they were boycotting it.

“I will not use my presence at a state ceremony to normalize Trump’s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

While discussing national security, Mr. Trump celebrated in macabre terms two targeted killings he had ordered in recent months.

He hailed the October raid leading to the death of the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whom Mr. Trump called “a bloodthirsty killer” and whose demise he cast as justice for the murder of Kayla Mueller, a young American humanitarian worker kidnapped in Syria in 2013. Mr. Trump said that Ms. Mueller, whose parents he introduced, was “tortured and enslaved by ISIS” after “more than 500 horrifying days of captivity.”

The president also recalled with relish the Jan. 3 missile strike that killed the Iranian commander Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a “ruthless butcher” who Mr. Trump said had “orchestrated the deaths of countless men, women and children.”

He cast Mr. Suleimani’s death as another act of patriotic vengeance, recalling the Iranian’s role in supplying bombs believed to have killed hundreds of American soldiers during the Iraq war, and telling the story of an American soldier, Christopher Hake, “who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country” when his Bradley vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb.

And in a brief passage noting his desire to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Mr. Trump assured that he was “not looking to kill hundreds of thousands of people” in the country, “many of them innocent.”

The president introduced a parade of guests during his speech, including a 13-year-old boy with aspirations to join the Space Force and Charles McGee, his 100-year-old great-grandfather, one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. Mr. Trump said he promoted Mr. McGee to brigadier general in a ceremony at the White House before the speech.

In addition to Mr. McGee, the president highlighted the story of Tony Rankins, an Army veteran who fought back from drug addiction, and Stephanie Davis, to whom he granted an Opportunity Scholarship for her fourth-grade daughter, Janiyah, to go to the school of her choice. All were African-American.

Mr. Trump also introduced the wife and son of an Army staff sergeant who died in Iraq by a roadside bomb supplied by General Suleimani.

At another point, the president singled out Juan Guaidó, the leader of Venezuela’s opposition movement, who received his most visible show of support yet from Mr. Trump: a seat in the president’s guest box for the State of the Union.

Many White House aides had hoped to have the impeachment trial behind them before Mr. Trump’s speech. But as it turned out, his third State of the Union address was part of a remarkable political collision on the calendar: He delivered the speech a day before the final impeachment vote and a day after Iowans participated in the first voting of the 2020 campaign season.

There is no question that the president will be acquitted on Wednesday by the Republican-controlled Senate, giving him the chance to claim vindication in what he views as an attempted political assassination by his enemies. But he will forever be the third impeached president in American history and only the first to ask voters for re-election after being charged with committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

Set in motion last year by Ms. Pelosi after Democrats took control of the House in 2018, the move to impeachment was directed by House managers during a two-week Senate trial. It was built on damning evidence that the president withheld security aid for Ukraine and a coveted Oval Office meeting as leverage for investigations that could damage the political fortunes of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden.

Tuesday was the second day that senators announced their judgments on the president’s behavior, delivering speeches on the Senate floor. Notable among them were the condemnations of Republicans who accepted the truth of the accusations against Mr. Trump even as they said they planned to vote to acquit him.

“The president’s behavior was shameful and wrong,” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said Monday night on the Senate floor even as she denounced an unfair, fiercely partisan process and announced, “I cannot vote to convict.”

Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, Jim Tankersley, Lara Jakes, Michael Crowley and Maggie Haberman.

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