同情特朗普

  • 主题发起人 主题发起人 ccc
  • 开始时间 开始时间
upload_2019-10-20_19-23-25.png


Democrats building a case for impeachment are working to prove that when it came to pressuring Ukraine to investigate Democrats, Rudy Giuliani was Donald Trump’s brain.

“Rudy Giuliani is Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is Rudy Giuliani,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

After a week of depositions from key figures in the impeachment inquiry, Democrats are coalescing around a push to prove that Trump committed impeachable offenses at least partly by showing that Trump had intimate knowledge of and directed Giuliani’s plans, goals and tactics.

Buttressing their strategy is a modest but intensifying public outcry among Republicans over Giuliani’s shadow diplomacy , in which the former New York City mayor sought to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and revive a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.

And it’s not just Democrats like Swalwell who represent safe liberal districts. Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), a moderate freshman whose Orange County seat Republicans are targeting, said it is clear that Trump had a deep understanding of the details of Giuliani’s Ukraine crusade.

“I’m pretty sure they’re not just talking about the weather and their golf games,” Rouda quipped in a brief interview, referencing the pair’s frequent meetings and phone calls. “Especially when it’s also very clear from the evidence that President Trump directed members of the State Department to work directly with Giuliani in their efforts in Ukraine. So the nexus is there. There is no debating the facts.”

Democrats say they’re beginning to see a GOP strategy developing — one that tacitly criticizes Giuliani but treats his actions in Ukraine as a rogue, one-man mission that was not specifically sanctioned by Trump.

“The idea is let’s throw everyone including Rudy under the bus to protect the president,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “The cast of characters around him continue to change all the time. But there's one constant — and that constant is the source of all the chaos, and that's him.”

Despite the impeachment inquiry’s laserlike focus on Giuliani, Trump has given no indication he intends to cut ties with the former New York City mayor any time soon — even if Giuliani’s actions in Ukraine become the central driver of Trump’s impeachment.

“He may seem a little rough around the edges sometimes, but he is also a great guy and wonderful lawyer,” Trump said Saturday.

In contrast to his treatment of Giuliani, Trump bashed his former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen after Cohen became embroiled in legal trouble in part for work he did for the president. The break began when Cohen turned on the president, ultimately blaming his former client for landing him in prison over campaign-finance violations that prosecutors say Trump directed.

But some Democrats say it’s only a matter of time until Trump treats Giuliani to the same fate.

“We’ve seen this movie before, with Michael Cohen,” Rouda said. “Giuliani’s going to get thrown under the bus. The president's going to make it sound like ‘I didn’t tell him to do this or that, he was rogue, he went out on his own.’ And we all know that’s not true, but I think we can all lay a bet down on how this story ends. And that’s what you’re going to see.”

Democrats seeking to substantiate Trump’s intimate involvement with Giuliani’s Ukraine efforts have been bolstered by a parade of witnesses detailing the extent to which Trump sought to run his Ukraine policy through Giuliani, who was pressing Kyiv to launch probes of Trump’s political rivals. That body of testimony is set to grow next week, when Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, testifies on Tuesday, in addition to some State Department and Pentagon officials later in the week.

One witness who has already testified for nine hours, Gordon Sondland, underscored the “nexus” that Democrats see between Trump and Giuliani. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, said he was ultimately “disappointed” with Trump’s desire to involve Giuliani.

“It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the president’s mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland told investigators, according to a copy of his opening statement obtained by POLITICO.

In text messages Friday, Giuliani said he couldn't discuss his private discussions with his client, Trump, but that his work on Ukraine was actually less than meets the eye -- and all done in public view.

"I was never in Ukraine at all and my investigatory work was done when it was still possible [special counsel Robert] Mueller would charge Russian collusion. Almost all of it was published in the Hill, so [Trump] and everyone else was aware of it," Giuliani said. "Hardly anything not public."

Giuliani said all of his work to unearth information on Biden was made public in April. Subsequently, he said, then-Hill columnist John Solomon "picked it up and did much more." Giuliani said his actual work on Ukraine is less than it appears because the reporting on it that followed his own efforts added to the material he was collecting.

"Since the public record is more extensive than what I did, he and all of you probably think I did more than I really did," Giuliani said.

Perhaps more importantly, though, Republicans have indicated they’re uncomfortable with Giuliani’s behavior toward Ukraine and have questioned his methods and mission. Though Trump’s allies are careful to pin any questionable conduct on Giuliani alone, Democrats see their unwillingness to defend Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine as an opening to tie potential wrongdoing to the president.

Republicans, though, are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, saying they’re not sure that the president had full awareness of Giuliani’s actions.

“I don’t know if the president knew everything that Rudy was saying and doing. And if I was asked to make an assumption, I would say that he didn’t know,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

But even some of the president’s closest allies have suggested that Giuliani’s involvement wasn’t above-board. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) distanced himself from the “Crowdstrike” theory that both Giuliani and Trump have pursued and amplified — the debunked assertion that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election.

“I’ve never been a ‘Crowdstrike’ fan,” Meadows told POLITICO, adding: “I would not, on my dime, send a private attorney looking for some server in a foreign country.”

But Meadows said it was understandable that Trump, who feels aggrieved that he has been investigated for ties to Russia, would listen to Giuliani.

“When you get falsely accused of a number of things that are not facts, you’re willing to listen to a whole lot of things that may have been a problem,” Meadows said.

But attempts by Republicans seeking to separate Trump from Giuliani were complicated Thursday when Trump’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney declared that the White House withheld military assistance from Ukraine in part because Trump wanted assurances that the country’s new president would probe the debunked Crowdstrike matter. Mulvaney later walked back the comments.

There are indications, though, that some House Republicans are beginning to question Trump’s handling of Ukraine.

“It’s painful to me to see this kind of amateur diplomacy riding roughshod over our State Department apparatus,” said Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), a former ambassador and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Rooney on Friday indicated that he was open to supporting impeachment but is awaiting more witness interviews.

“I want to get the facts and do the right thing,” he added. “Because I’ll be looking at my children a lot longer than I’m looking at anybody in this building.”


https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/trump-giuliani-impeachment-050870
 
Putin strikes crucial deal in Syria thanks to Trump
Moscow (CNN)Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met in the southern Russian resort city of Sochi on Tuesday with a shared agenda of shaping the endgame in Syria's eight-year civil war.

The two leaders unveiled a 10-point memorandum of understanding with an unstated bottom line: The Americans do not have a place in shaping the future of Syria
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/middleeast/putin-erdogan-syria-deal-hodge-analysis-intl/index.html
image.jpeg
 
最后编辑:
Fox的Trish发推公布了Trump写给土耳其总统的信,好多新闻机构以为是“恶搞”,纷纷向白宫求证,结果是真的,水平确实不咋的,但“通俗易懂”,肯定是Trump亲自起草的。。。浏览附件862458浏览附件862459


这个写得很好。

当年成吉思汗写的战书就六个字:
你要战,便来战。
 
upload_2019-10-24_19-10-14.png


(CNN) On Wednesday night in Pittsburgh, President Donald Trump said this:

"And we're building a wall on the border of New Mexico and we're building a wall in Colorado, we're building a beautiful wall, a big one that really works that you can't get over, you can't get under and we're building a wall in Texas. We're not building a wall in Kansas but they get the benefit of the walls we just mentioned."

Then, just after midnight, Trump added this:

"(Kiddingly) We're building a Wall in Colorado' (then stated, 'we're not building a Wall in Kansas but they get the benefit of the Wall we're building on the Border') referred to people in the very packed auditorium, from Colorado & Kansas, getting the benefit of the Border Wall!."

OK, let's break this down -- step by step.

1. Trump said that he was building a wall in Colorado.
2. He then said, in a tweet, that he was kidding.
3. He also said, in that tweet, that he mentioned Colorado and Kansas because there were people in the audience from those states.

And now for some facts.
1. Colorado is not a border state -- as Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy reminded Trump with this helpful map.

upload_2019-10-24_19-12-58.png


2. Watch the video; Trump quite clearly isn't kidding about a wall in Colorado.

3. This was a speech in Pittsburgh. Is it possible that Trump either had met or just knew that there were people in the audience from Colorado and Kansas? I suppose -- but that still doesn't explain why Trump would say a border wall was being built in Colorado, right? Unless Trump not only met someone from Colorado in the crowd and that person told Trump of a desire for a wall in Colorado. Which seems, uh, unlikely.

Look. It seems very clear what happened here. Trump misspoke. He threw in Colorado in his building-a-big-beautiful-wall riff, forgetting that it isn't a border state. Which isn't great! But politicians make mistakes like this. Remember Barack Obama said there were 57 states on the campaign trail in 2008?

But because this is Trump, he is incapable of just saying "yeah, I made a verbal slip. Big whoop." And so, he makes a ridiculous excuse -- I was kidding! There were people in the audience from Colorado! -- that turns what is a small story into a much bigger story.

It reminds me of "covfefe." Remember that one? Shortly after midnight -- sounds familiar?!?! -- in May 2017, Trump tweeted this: "Despite the negative press covfefe,"

The tweet was later deleted but Trump sent this one the following morning: "Who can figure out the true meaning of 'covfefe' ??? Enjoy!" Reporters followed up with then White House press secretary Sean Spicer to find out what Trump meant. "The President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," Spicer responded.

WHAT? It seemed then -- and seems now -- that Trump meant to type "coverage" -- as in "negative press coverage" -- and just flubbed it. No big deal! People, and this President especially, make lots of typos on Twitter! But, no, because Trump simply cannot be wrong or admit an error -- no matter how small! -- we had to listen to Spicer tell us that "the President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

Give me a break!

This is, of course, totally ridiculous. But it speaks to a broader truth about Trump and the way in which he runs his administration. If the boss can never be wrong -- even when it is a dumb mistake that is totally understandable and totally fixable -- and the mechanisms of government are bent to make this impossible reality "true," you get Colorado's border wall and "covfefe."

Which, well, ugh.
 
upload_2019-10-24_19-17-14.png



The advisory posted on the Interfax-Ukraine news agency website on July 1 sounded innocuous enough.

On the busy agenda of events planned for Volodymyr Zelensky, the newly elected Ukrainian president making his first visit to Canada, would be a meeting with Kurt Volker, the U.S. special representative to Ukraine.

Zelensky, the comic actor who upended Ukraine politics with a decisive win in the April presidential election, was in Toronto for the multilateral Ukraine Reform Conference. His schedule also included a July 2 meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

The meeting between Zelensky and Trudeau went ahead. But what became of Zelensky's scheduled meeting with Volker is now in the spotlight, after veteran U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor gave closed-door testimony to a group of U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Taylor's testimony came as Democrats in the House of Representatives conduct inquiries into whether President Donald Trump committed any impeachable offences by pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt that would ultimately harm Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Taylor, the chargé d'affaires for Ukraine, was the latest official to appear before House committees looking into the Trump administration's dealings with the eastern European country. The questioning began in earnest in early September, after Democrats officially learned of an Aug. 12 whistleblower complaint that raised concern about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, among other events.

trump-impeachment-ukraine-taylor.jpg

U.S. diplomat William Taylor testified in the Democrats' impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump earlier this week. (J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

In the 15-page opening statement Taylor prepared for his Tuesday appearance before lawmakers, the long-time diplomat explained the significance of the meeting in Toronto between Zelensky and Volker. Taylor said Volker "planned to be explicit" in that meeting as to why the Ukraine leader's potential visit to the White House was not yet happening, despite it being broached by the Americans as early as May.

Namely, that Trump wanted Zelensky to commit to investigating the Biden family.

'Get to the bottom of things'
According to Taylor, Volker said he was going to relay to Zelensky in Toronto that Trump wanted co-operation on investigations to "get to the bottom of things." Taylor said it was unclear to him what exactly Trump or Volker meant, and his opening statement doesn't delve into the meeting further.

It's not entirely clear whether Volker followed through on his promise to be "explicit." Taylor's statement jumps ahead to developments beginning in mid-July, and reporting of details from Tuesday's closed session didn't offer any further details around what might have happened in Toronto.


ukraine-election-zelenskiy.jpg

Ukrainian President Zelensky campaigned on a promise to root out corruption in his country. (Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters)

Volker himself appeared before the House committees on Oct. 4, and his opening statement does mention meeting the Ukraine president in Toronto. To the extent he discusses it, Volker casts it as cautioning Zelensky in a private discussion that Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was likely negatively influencing the U.S. president when it came to Ukraine policy.

"I made it clear that [Giuliani] does not speak for the U.S. government, but is a private citizen and the president's personal attorney," said Volker, who resigned from his post before appearing before lawmakers.

Based on reporting, Trump's own statements and a partial readout of the July 25 call provided by the White House, getting to "the bottom of things" appears to have had two main components.

Trump wanted Zelensky to have officials in Ukraine investigate 2020 presidential candidate Biden and his son, Hunter — who had served on the board of Ukraine-based energy giant Burisma for over two years while his father was U.S. vice-president — for potential corruption.

While many have questioned the wisdom of Hunter Biden taking on the role in Ukraine, no credible allegations of illegality have emerged concerning the Bidens.

The president also expressed hope Zelensky's administration would pursue a theory, often posited in right-wing media outlets, that a Democratic committee server breach ahead of the 2016 U.S. election emanated from Ukraine. A host of investigations, both in Congress and in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, have traced the cyber-intrusions to Russia.

'Irregular channel'
According to his opening statement, Taylor told lawmakers that he realized, after arriving in Kyiv, that in addition to the normal diplomatic processes run through the State Department, there was an "irregular channel" for Ukraine. It consisted of Volker, ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and Giuliani, who is not a State Department or national security official.

Congressionally approved U.S. security assistance to Ukraine worth around $400 million US was delayed for several weeks and only released on Sept. 11, two days after the House intelligence committee was notified of the whistleblower complaint.


file-ukraine-usa-whistleblower-complaint-trump-biden.jpg

Kurt Volker, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, had a meeting booked with the Ukrainian president in Toronto on July 1. (EPA-EFE)

Taylor's unease with what he was seeing unfold in Ukraine was public before his appearance on Capitol Hill. Among texts and documents released by Democrats in early October, Taylor told Sondland on Sept. 9, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Trump has insisted there was no quid pro quo attached to his request to Ukraine regarding the potential probes. The U.S. president has also said his interest regarding the Bidens is not personal, but part of a commitment to root out corruption.

The president was also unimpressed with what he heard about Taylor's session on Capitol Hill, branding him a "Never Trumper" on Twitter.

A host of Taylor's former colleagues have attested publicly in media reports in recent weeks that Taylor was apolitical, and his career includes three decades of work serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Taylor, who had served as ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration, replaced Marie (Masha) Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted abruptly in the spring.

A number of Trump loyalists disrupted for a time Wednesday's deposition with Laura Cooper, assistant secretary of defence. The Republicans have been angered by the closed-door nature of the hearings, but Democrats have said public testimony will come in the near future.

The hearings will continue with a Saturday session featuring testimony from Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs.
 
upload_2019-10-24_19-20-24.png

191024-bill-taylor-se-608p_76741be5b4b007aff97ed860190f3483.fit-2000w.jpg

William Taylor arrives at a closed-door hearing at the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 22, 2019.Alex Wong / Getty Images

Oct. 24, 2019, 5:57 PM EDT / Updated Oct. 24, 2019, 6:03 PM EDT
By Leigh Ann Caldwell, Andrea Mitchell, Heidi Przybyla and Alex Moe

WASHINGTON — One stunning moment during a top diplomat's testimony this week may prove pivotal to the congressional impeachment inquiry and even led to gasps in the room, according to one source who was present.

It occurred when William Taylor, the lead U.S. envoy to Ukraine, described a video conference call in July with officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget. Even Republicans who were present expressed concern, the source said, because the call made a direct link between President Donald Trump and the withholding of military aid to Ukraine for political purposes.

One OMB official, who was not named by Taylor during his appearance on Tuesday before the House Intelligence Committee, informed those on the call that there was a hold on U.S. military aid. While that OMB official didn't know why the funds were being frozen, a second OMB aide, who was not on camera, said "the directive had come from the president to the chief of staff to OMB," according to Taylor. The call occurred one week before Trump's discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

"There were audible sighs and 'ughs' (during Taylor's deposition) when that process was described," according to the source.

One member of Congress who was in the room, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said the moment made the connection clear between the withholding of aid and Trump's demand that Ukraine conduct an investigation that could implicate his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.

"He drew a very direct line in a series of events he described as being President Trump's decision to withhold funds and refuse a meeting with Zelenskiy," Wasserman Schultz said, "unless there was a public pronouncement by him of investigations of Burisma."

Burisma is the Ukrainian energy firm for which Biden's son Hunter served as a board member.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Last week, the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, acknowledged during a news conference that the aid was held up as part of a quid pro quo, although he later insisted his words had been misreported by the press.

In a July phone call with Zelenskiy, Trump asked him for a "favor" and then asked for help in investigating both the origins of the investigation into 2016 Russian election interference, as well as an energy company tied to Hunter Biden.

Taylor could be a linchpin of any impeachment case against Trump and that sentiment was realized when he delivered his opening statement to the committee on Tuesday. The gravity of the moment and the realization of what is at stake in the impeachment probe was palpable in the room, according to multiple sources who were in attendance.

At one point, "one prominent (Republican) member who will go nameless turned to an aide and said, 'This isn't good,'" a person in the room said.

Taylor's testimony was by far the most heavily attended of those who have appeared before the committee to date and the secure space in the basement of the U.S. Capitol was standing-room-only, filled with staff members and at least 20 lawmakers from the three committees tasked with running the inquiry.

The room fell to a silent during Taylor’s 45-minute opening statement in a steady yet confident tone, stopping just a few times to take a sip of water, according to a source in the room.

"You could hear a pin drop," one source said.

Typed on 15 pages, Taylor's opening statement outlined what he thought was "crazy" about withholding security aid until the Ukrainians helped with a U.S. political campaign. He gave a detailed timeline explicitly laying out instances of the U.S. withholding aid and access until the Ukrainian government complied.

"The room got super silent and heavy as he was reading his opening statement," a third person in the room, said. "Democrats (were) looking at each other in shock. Republicans not looking up from the paper."

Another critical moment in Taylor's testimony that drew disbelief occurred when he told congressional investigators that he was told that Ambassador Gordon Sondland told him that "everything" — nearly $400 million of military and security aid and a meeting at the White House between Zelenskiy and Trump — was dependent upon a public declaration by the Ukrainian leader that he commit to investigating Burisma and Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.

People in the room described Taylor as an extremely careful and credible witness who took "meticulous" notes during his tenure. He referred to them often, people in the room said.

Taylor is expected to be called back to testify in public as part of a second phase of the Democratic-led inquiry that will be critical to building public support for impeachment, according to one Democratic aide involved in the process.

Republicans have struggled to figure out a message since Taylor's testimony since it potentially undercuts Trump's argument that there was "no quid pro quo." Republicans interrupted a planned deposition on Thursday by storming the secure room where the depositions are taking place, which is a violation of House rules that say only members of the appropriate committees are able to listen to the depositions.

While Republicans' arguments are based mostly on process and not substance, their tactics on Thursday did successfully change the narrative away from Taylor's testimony.

Taylor reluctantly came out of retirement to replace the former Ambassador to Ukraine Maria "Masha" Yovanovitch after she was ousted at the direction of the president after Rudy Giuliani ran a smear campaign against her.

He told congressional investigators that he agreed to serve because he received a commitment from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the United States' position on Ukraine, which includes a strong defense of the former Soviet-bloc country, remains the same.
 
upload_2019-10-24_19-23-56.png


President Donald Trump’s own records "strongly corroborate" the sexual assault accusations of Summer Zervos and belie the president’s denials, the former contestant on "The Apprentice" said in a court filing Thursday.

Zervos has alleged Trump "repeatedly touched her, groped her, and kissed her" on multiple occasions in late 2007 and early 2008, but he has denied it and called her a liar.

"To be clear, I never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago," Trump said in a 2016 statement. "That is not who I am as a person, and it is not how I’ve conducted my life."

(MORE: Judge deals Trump a blow in defamation case: Sitting presidents can be sued)
Now, Zervos said there is corroborating evidence the Trump Organization was forced to turn over as part of her defamation lawsuit filed in New York Supreme Court earlier this year.

summer-zrvos-ap-jt-191024_hpEmbed_3x2_992.jpg

Mary Altaffer/AP, FILE
In this Oct. 18, 2018, file photo, Summer Zervos leaves New York state appellate court in New York.

"In particular the Trump Organization has produced copies of Defendant’s calendar entries and itineraries from late 2007 through early 2008 – the period in which Ms. Zervos reported she met with and was assaulted by Defendant," the court filing states.

One document that Zervos says she got from the Trump Organization to support her claims includes itinerary documents that show Trump flew from Las Vegas to Los Angeles on Dec. 21, 2007, and stayed at the Beverly Hills Hotel for two nights, including when Zervos has alleged Trump "grabbed and sexually assaulted her in his Beverly Hills Hotel bungalow."

Zervos also included a copy of an email that she said was sent to the Fox News tip line with the subject line "Trump hit on me."

"I was on the Apprentice. After the show was completed, Trump invited me to a hotel room under the guise of working for him. He had a different agenda. Please contact me to speak further as I have tried to make contact," the email stated, according to the court filing.

There is an additional piece of evidence Zervos is seeking, an unspecified nine-page document the Trump Organization has designated confidential. Zervos has asked the judge to force the Trump Organization to lift the designation.

trump-gty-jt-191024_hpEmbed_3x2_992.jpg

Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
President Donald Trump speaks during the 9th Shale Insight Conference at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center on October 23, 2019, in Pittsburgh, Penn.

"Defendant evidently is aware that the documents at issue closely corroborate Plaintiff’s detailed account of their interactions," her court filing said. "That is not a valid reason for Defendant to use the Confidentiality Stipulation to continue to conceal the truth."

Trump's attorneys have not commented on the latest court filing.

Trump faces a deadline of Dec. 6 to sit for a deposition in this case. In a ruling issued last week, the court ordered Trump to submit four possible deposition dates between now and then

The president argued unsuccessfully that the state had no jurisdiction over him to hear Zervos’ defamation case. He had threatened to appeal to New York’s highest court but has never followed through.
 
upload_2019-10-24_23-8-10.png


(CNN) Faced with a barrage of damaging headlines for President Donald Trump stemming from impeachment inquiry testimony, congressional Republicans are beginning to coalesce around a strategy aimed at discrediting key witnesses and taking a more confrontational stance against the Democratic-led impeachment process.

Republicans on Thursday ramped up their skepticism of the testimony delivered by US diplomat Bill Taylor — which undercut White House claims Ukraine aid wasn't tied to an investigation that could help him politically — and the Senate's No. 2 Republican Sen. John Thune walked back earlier concerns he expressed about Taylor's opening statement.

Republicans in the Senate have also shown little interest in investigating the frozen Ukraine aid, with two committee chairmen signaling that's not a priority right now.

Congressional Republican lawmakers and aides say they are taking the reins to defend the President in the impeachment inquiry amid mounting fears that the White House is not consistent nor organized enough to lead the President's defense. But their efforts come as the President publicly and privately is pushing congressional Republicans to toughen up their defense of him as the Democratic impeachment process marches forward.

And the strategy congressional Republicans have formulated was on display this week when Republicans launched a political stunt to disrupt Wednesday's deposition, launching a five-hour delay that gave their protest of the closed-door process broad media coverage even as some Republicans broke House rules themselves by bringing electronics into the secure facilities.

The effort was a success in the eyes of the President.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/gop-sharpens-impeachment-defense/index.html
 
浏览附件864055

(CNN) On Wednesday night in Pittsburgh, President Donald Trump said this:

"And we're building a wall on the border of New Mexico and we're building a wall in Colorado, we're building a beautiful wall, a big one that really works that you can't get over, you can't get under and we're building a wall in Texas. We're not building a wall in Kansas but they get the benefit of the walls we just mentioned."

Then, just after midnight, Trump added this:

"(Kiddingly) We're building a Wall in Colorado' (then stated, 'we're not building a Wall in Kansas but they get the benefit of the Wall we're building on the Border') referred to people in the very packed auditorium, from Colorado & Kansas, getting the benefit of the Border Wall!."

OK, let's break this down -- step by step.

1. Trump said that he was building a wall in Colorado.
2. He then said, in a tweet, that he was kidding.
3. He also said, in that tweet, that he mentioned Colorado and Kansas because there were people in the audience from those states.

And now for some facts.
1. Colorado is not a border state -- as Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy reminded Trump with this helpful map.

浏览附件864056

2. Watch the video; Trump quite clearly isn't kidding about a wall in Colorado.

3. This was a speech in Pittsburgh. Is it possible that Trump either had met or just knew that there were people in the audience from Colorado and Kansas? I suppose -- but that still doesn't explain why Trump would say a border wall was being built in Colorado, right? Unless Trump not only met someone from Colorado in the crowd and that person told Trump of a desire for a wall in Colorado. Which seems, uh, unlikely.

Look. It seems very clear what happened here. Trump misspoke. He threw in Colorado in his building-a-big-beautiful-wall riff, forgetting that it isn't a border state. Which isn't great! But politicians make mistakes like this. Remember Barack Obama said there were 57 states on the campaign trail in 2008?

But because this is Trump, he is incapable of just saying "yeah, I made a verbal slip. Big whoop." And so, he makes a ridiculous excuse -- I was kidding! There were people in the audience from Colorado! -- that turns what is a small story into a much bigger story.

It reminds me of "covfefe." Remember that one? Shortly after midnight -- sounds familiar?!?! -- in May 2017, Trump tweeted this: "Despite the negative press covfefe,"

The tweet was later deleted but Trump sent this one the following morning: "Who can figure out the true meaning of 'covfefe' ??? Enjoy!" Reporters followed up with then White House press secretary Sean Spicer to find out what Trump meant. "The President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," Spicer responded.

WHAT? It seemed then -- and seems now -- that Trump meant to type "coverage" -- as in "negative press coverage" -- and just flubbed it. No big deal! People, and this President especially, make lots of typos on Twitter! But, no, because Trump simply cannot be wrong or admit an error -- no matter how small! -- we had to listen to Spicer tell us that "the President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

Give me a break!

This is, of course, totally ridiculous. But it speaks to a broader truth about Trump and the way in which he runs his administration. If the boss can never be wrong -- even when it is a dumb mistake that is totally understandable and totally fixable -- and the mechanisms of government are bent to make this impossible reality "true," you get Colorado's border wall and "covfefe."

Which, well, ugh.


川普可能脑子真出问题了
 
upload_2019-10-25_17-26-3.png


A U.S. judge on Friday granted a request by a House of Representatives committee for access to information that was blacked out of former special counsel Robert Mueller's report on his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., gave the Justice Department a deadline of Oct. 30 to hand over the materials to the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee's need for disclosure of the materials "is greater than the need for continued secrecy," the judge said.

The ruling is a major victory for House Democrats, who sought access to the redacted materials as part of their effort to build a case for removing U.S. President Donald Trump from office through impeachment proceedings.

A Justice Department spokeswoman could not be immediately reached for comment.

The Mueller probe found that the Russian state ran a hacking and propaganda operation to disrupt the U.S. election and undermine Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Mueller found insufficient evidence to establish that Trump, then the Republican candidate, and his campaign had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

1137864967.jpg

A Department of Justice review of the Russia probe is now a criminal investigation, an anonymous source says. (Chandan Khanna/AFP/Getty Images)

The Justice Department reportedly shifted its review of the Russia probe to a criminal investigation, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday, a move that is likely to raise concerns Trump and his allies may be using government powers to go after their political opponents.

The revelation comes as Trump is already facing scrutiny about a potential abuse of power, including a House impeachment inquiry examining whether he withheld military aid in order to pressure the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of former vice-president and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

The person who confirmed the criminal investigation was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

It is not clear what potential crimes are being investigated, but the designation as a formal criminal investigation gives prosecutors the ability to issue subpoenas, potentially empanel a grand jury and compel witnesses to give testimony and bring federal criminal charges.

The Justice Department had previously considered it to be an administrative review, and Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to lead the inquiry into the origins of special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. It's not clear when Durham's inquiry shifted to a criminal investigation.

The chairmen of the House judiciary and intelligence committees, which are leading the impeachment inquiry, said in a statement late Thursday the reports "raise profound new concerns" that Barr's DOJ "has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump's political revenge."


usa-trump-congress-barr.jpg

The Justice Department is led by Attorney General William Barr, who appointed John Durham to lead the inquiry into the origins of Mueller's probe. (Aaron Bernstein/Reuters)

"If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution, or to help the President with a political narrative for the next election, the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage," Democratic Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff said.

The New York Times first reported that Durham's inquiry had become a criminal investigation.
 
后退
顶部