This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
The Trump Impeachment Inquiry: What Happened Today
(about 5 hours later)
Democratic leaders announced on Monday the plan for the vote, ushering in a new phase as they prepare to go public with their investigation into Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
In a letter to House Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House will take its first formal vote on Thursday to “affirm” the impeachment investigation. The resolution they will vote on also outlines procedures for holding public hearings and releasing interview transcripts.
Democrats described the vote, in which they plan to “affirm” the impeachment inquiry, as a necessary next step to be able to push it forward, rather than a response to sustained criticism from Republicans and the White House, who have accused them of throwing out past impeachment precedents and denying the president due process rights.
Republicans have long criticized Democrats for not formally authorizing the proceedings, using the issue to justify their lack of cooperation. Ms. Pelosi had insisted a vote was not necessary, making her announcement today a precautionary step. She said the measure would “eliminate any doubt” as to whether the White House was required to comply.
But it will mark the first time that the full House has gone on record with regard to an inquiry that has been underway since late September. And it comes after Democrats have insisted for weeks that they did not need a formal vote of the full House to authorize the proceedings.
Representative Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman leading the investigation, said that House Democrats will not ask federal courts to compel testimony from uncooperative witnesses. Mr. Schiff said petitioning the courts would “allow the White House to engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the vote in a letter to colleagues Monday afternoon.
Charles Kupperman, the former deputy national security adviser, defied a House subpoena today by not showing up for scheduled testimony. The White House claims he is immune from testifying, and Mr. Kupperman has filed a lawsuit seeking to clarify whether he should testify.
“This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the president and his counsel,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement.
[Sign up to get the Impeachment Briefing in your email inbox every weeknight.]
— Nicholas Fandos
The Times has obtained a copy of the opening statement that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, plans to deliver to House impeachment investigators on Tuesday. Here are four highlights:
Charles M. Kupperman, the former deputy national security adviser and one of Mr. Trump’s “closest confidential” advisers, notified lawmakers through his lawyer on Sunday that he would not appear to testify, despite a subpoena. Mr. Kupperman’s lawyer said that he was following orders from Mr. Trump.
1. He was on the July 25 phone call. Colonel Vindman was listening in when President Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky — a call that kick-started the investigation. He said he was alarmed by Mr. Trump’s request that Mr. Zelensky investigate the president’s political rivals.
“It is President Trump, and every president before him for at least the last half century, who have asserted testimonial immunity for their closest confidential advisers,” Mr. Kupperman’s lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, wrote.
2. He raised concerns about Ukraine. On two occasions, Colonel Vindman went to the top lawyer at the National Security Council with concerns about the administration’s conduct with Ukraine. The first was on July 10, when he said Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the E.U., urged Ukrainian officials to assist with the president’s political priorities. The second was after the phone call on July 25.
On Friday, Mr. Kupperman took the unusual step of filing a lawsuit and asking a federal judge to rule on his appearance.
3. He tried to get military aid restored. In August, at the direction of his superiors at the National Security Council — including John Bolton, then the president’s national security adviser — Colonel Vindman drafted a memo to restart security aid that had been withheld from Ukraine. Mr. Trump refused to sign it.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam B. Schiff and two other lawmakers leading the investigation, warned Mr. Kupperman’s lawyer that failing to appear could expose Mr. Trump to more charges of obstruction of Congress.
4. His testimony is a first. Colonel Vindman is the first current National Security Council staffer to testify, defying an order from the Trump administration not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. He is also an active-duty military officer and received a purple heart after being injured in Iraq by a roadside bomb, which could make him a more difficult witness to rebut than his civilian counterparts.
On Monday, Mr. Schiff said that Democrats would not take the time to pursue the matter in court. Instead, he said, they would assume that if Mr. Kupperman had testified, he would have confirmed details of their case against the president, and would press forward without him. He left open the possibility that the former official could be held in contempt of Congress.
Over the weekend, John Kelly, Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff, said that he told Mr. Trump that if he hired a “yes man” as a replacement, “you will be impeached.” The comment implicitly criticized Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney.
— Nicholas Fandos
Citing “Hamilton” and the 12th Amendment, a law professor at the University of Texas wrote in our Opinion pages today about the historical evidence that impeachment is not an attempt to “overturn” an election — something Mr. Trump and Republicans have claimed.
A familiar impeachment witness was spotted in the Capitol Monday morning descending into the basement chambers of the House Intelligence Committee with a mild smile.
If impeachment grinds Congress to a halt, it could further complicate the already fraught process of passing spending bills and preventing another government shutdown, less than a year after the start of the last one.
Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, returned to review a transcript of his deposition with impeachment investigators earlier this month, according to an official familiar with the investigation. Witness testimony has placed Mr. Sondland at the center of efforts by Mr. Trump and his private lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the president’s political rivals.
The Trump campaign wants to retain supporters, and find new ones, as the president rages against impeachment. High-profile campaign officials such as the president’s daughter-in-law are leading the effort.
But Mr. Sondland’s own answers to investigators have come under scrutiny in recent days after William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, testified last week that he learned from Mr. Sondland that security aid for Ukraine and an Oval Office meeting between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine were both contingent on the Ukrainians announcing that they would investigate matters that would benefit Mr. Trump politically. That account appeared to go much farther than Mr. Sondland had in his own account, and over the weekend, his lawyer indicated the ambassador was willing to return for additional questioning if requested.
More than $13.6 million has been spent trying to change public opinion on impeachment since the inquiry was announced, according to an analysis by Advertising Analytics, an ad monitoring company.
— Nicholas Fandos
The Impeachment Briefing is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every weeknight.
Investigators have been rapidly building their case against the president in back-to-back depositions with administration witnesses who have appeared in spite of the White House edict not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. But the closer they get to Mr. Trump, the more complicated their work becomes. Democratic lawmakers are trying to secure testimony from advisers who had more interactions with the president — witnesses who are, by definition, more easily blocked from testifying to Congress.
The House’s ability to hear from these witnesses will affect how quickly their investigation concludes, and the quantity of evidence they are able to collect. While many Democrats believe they have more than enough evidence already to impeach Mr. Trump, they are keenly aware it could take even more to persuade Republicans and the American public to remove him from office.
Still, Mr. Schiff indicated on Monday that he is determined not to allow the impeachment inquiry to stall amid a prolonged legal fight to secure cooperation from crucial witnesses.
“We are not willing to let the White House engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope in the courts, so we press ahead,” Mr. Schiff said.
The Justice Department on Monday said it would appeal a federal judge’s ruling last week that ordered the Trump administration to provide secret grand-jury evidence to impeachment investigators. The evidence includes portions of the Russia investigation report by the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, that were redacted in the version Congress received, and underlying transcripts of witness testimony.
The ruling, by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell, included the finding that the House’s impeachment inquiry is lawful. The Trump legal team has argued that the impeachment inquiry is a sham because the full House has not voted on a resolution formally authorizing one. Judge Howell’s ruling undercuts a key argument the White House has invoked to justify ordering executive branch officials to defy congressional subpoenas about the Ukraine affair.
Judge Howell had ordered the department to turn over the grand-jury evidence by Oct. 30. In addition to notifying the court that it would appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the administration asked Judge Howell to suspend that deadline while the appeals court weighs the issues.
President Trump repeatedly pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Here’s a timeline of events since January.
A C.I.A. officer who was once detailed to the White House filed a whistle-blower complaint on Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Read the complaint.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in September that the House would open a formal impeachment proceeding in response to the whistle-blower’s complaint. Here’s how the impeachment process works and here’s why political influence in foreign policy matters.
House committees have issued subpoenas to the White House, the Defense Department, the budget office and other agencies for documents related to the impeachment investigation. Here’s the evidence that has been collected so far.
