Mediaboss Marketing

As day two of his impeachment trial began in the Senate, President Donald Trump departed Switzerland, en route to Washington, DC.

The trip to Davos, a high-powered conference for the jet set and global elite, was very successful, the third president ever to be impeached said. For USA.

Had the conference not gone well for other countries? Unclear. What was it George Washington said during his Second Inaugural? Screw em or some such?

The flight wentwell, it went. The flight flew and didnt crash. So in that sense, it was a good flight. But how did the flight go in relative terms to most flights? Maybe not so great.

The president broke a personal record for most tweets and retweets.

He did some retweets of people saying nice things about him.

He retweeted some videos of himself complaining about democrats.

He retweeted some compliments from his sons, Don Jr. and Mike.

He retweeted some weird tweets by the guy who runs social media for his campaign.

He tweeted no pressure before immediately retweeting a set of tweets from a congressman credibly accused of failing to report sexual abuse.

He then sent about a million retweets of crazy people I am not going to bother putting here.

Finally, he topped it off with a Trump golden classic, threatening immigrants:

We wish he could have stayed in Davos longer, many Americans and no Swiss thought.

tl;dr: Donald Trump spent this Wednesday the same way he spends most Wednesdays, the only difference being this Wednesday he was live-tweeting Fox News on a plane and also facing removal from office in the Senate.

See more here:
Donald Trump Did a Zillion Tweets Today and Each One Is Terrible - Mother Jones

On Friday, ABC reported that a recording by Lev Parnas from April 2018 captured President Donald Trump telling associates that he wanted to get rid of the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. On Saturday, a lawyer for Parnas released the full video.

The video, which according to BuzzFeed was released by Joseph Bondy, a lawyer for Parnas, is over an hour long.

(The video is not actually in the tweet below. Its a still with a play button added to it. The full video is at the bottom of this post.)

In its report about the video, PBS describes one of the key moments:

About 42 minutes into the video, Parnas appears to say, The biggest problem there, I think where we need to start, is we gotta get rid of the ambassador. Shes still left over from the Clinton administration.Trump then appears to say, Where? The ambassador to Ukraine?Parnas replies, Yes. Shes basically walking around telling everybody Wait, hes gonna get impeached, just wait.A few seconds later, Trump appears to say, Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I dont care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.Bondy said Parnas attended the dinner along with Igor Fruman, another of Giulianis business associates. Both Parnas and Fruman have been indicted on federal charges, including violating campaign finance laws.

When ABC News first reported the news on Friday, Dan Friedman described the same exchange:

[A]n intimate April 2018 dinner at Trumps Washington hotel that included, among others, the president and Lev Parnas, the since-indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani. According to the news outlet, a voice that sounds like Trump states during the recording: Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I dont care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it. Trump said this, according to ABC, after Parnas told him that Yovanovitch was a problem and was basically walking around telling everybody, Wait, hes gonna get impeached. Just wait. Its not clear exactly who Trump was instructing to get rid of her.

You can watch the full video below.

Go here to read the rest:
The video of Donald Trump telling associates to "get rid of" Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch has been released - Mother Jones

On the day House managers transmitted two articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan public auditor, reported that President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump denies telling Bolton Ukraine aid was tied to investigations Former senior Senate GOP aide says Republicans should call witnesses Title, release date revealed for Bolton memoir MORE violated the Impoundment Control Act by unilaterally withholding $214 million of legislatively appropriated Defense Department aid for Ukraine without obtaining authorization from Congress. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

A violation of the Impoundment Control Act is not a minor technicality. At the height of the Watergate scandal in 1974, Congress passed the law to prevent a rogue president like Richard Nixon from withholding lawfully appropriated funds. A president who seeks to put a hold on such funds for policy purposes must transmit to both the House and Senate a special message specifying the amount of budget authority which he proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved and the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved.

Recent documents released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by American Oversight and unredacted by Just Security disclose that the White House Office of Management and Budget had blocked the military aid under direct orders from the president and knowingly failed to file a report with Congress. Last August, Elaine McCusker, acting comptroller of the Defense Department, had asked Michael Duffey, associate director for national security programs with the Office of Management and Budget, What is the status of the impoundment paperwork? Duffey replied, I am not tracking that. Is that something you are expecting? McCusker said yes, but the paperwork never showed. Duffey said in an email that there was clear direction from the president to continue to hold.

Trump disputed the conclusion of the Government Accountability Office, saying that he acted lawfully under his authority to carry out American foreign policy. Rather than forthrightly putting his concerns in the legally required memo, Trump only mentioned after the fact that he was fighting corruption in Ukraine and getting European nations to contribute their fair share of aid. The evidence shows that both claims are pretextual.

The White House readout of his congratulatory call with president elect Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine last April said that Trump expressed his commitment" to work with Zelensky to root out corruption. But despite the urging of his national security team, the call transcript shows that Trump never once raised the issue of Ukrainian corruption. In his second call to Zelensky in July, Trump again failed to mention corruption. Instead, in the context of discussing American military aid, he asked Zelensky to investigate political rival Joe Biden and the discredited propaganda line that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election.

Last May, the Defense Department certified that Ukraine had indeed met the anticorruption benchmarks needed to support programs and receive the military aid. Instead, Trump blocked this implementation and ordered no additional review of corruption in Ukraine. Indeed, Trump has shown no interest in fighting corruption in Ukraine or anywhere else. His recent budgets have proposed massive cuts in corruption aid to Ukraine and other nations. Congress rejected his plan to slash anticorruption aid to Ukraine by 57 percent down to $13 million. Trump fired Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine who focused on anticorruption, after his attorney Rudy Giuliani organized a smear campaign against her.

In September, Zelensky proposed new laws and a court system to fight corruption. Despite these anticorruption initiatives, Trump continued to hold the aid and released it only after House committees had learned of a whistleblower complaint that the administration tried to cover up. Those House committees announced the opening of investigations into the alleged pressure campaign by Trump and Giuliani in Ukraine.

European nations have not lagged behind the United States in funding aid to Ukraine. Europe and its financial institutions have documented some $16 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014, which well exceeds contributions by the United States. In his testimony, Gordon Sondland, American ambassador to the European Union, did not reference any approach to European nations about their assistance to Ukraine.

The plausible explanation for the illegal conduct of the president is that he wanted to keep his hold on the aid to Ukraine secret because it had lacked a legitimate policy justification. The Senate will now test at trial the House claim that Trump withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations that would help him cheat in the 2020 election.

Allan Lichtman is an election forecaster and distinguished professor of history at American University. He is the author of the forthcoming book Repeal the Second Amendment and is on Twitter at @AllanLichtman.

See the article here:
What law did Donald Trump break? | TheHill - The Hill

Trumps critics, including myself, have argued that the president placed his own political future above the nations interests. Blackman says that the calculus isnt that simple. Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future, he wrote. Otherwise legal conduct, even when plainly politically motivatedbut without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gaindoes not amount to an impeachable abuse of power. The Houses shortsighted standard will fail to knock out Mr. Trump but, if taken seriously, threatens to put virtually every elected official in peril. The voters, and not Congress, should decide whether to reward or punish this self-serving feature of our political order.

He elaborated on his argument in an accompanying post at Reason, citing The Times length constraints. (For that same reason, he only addresses the abuse-of-power charge and not the obstruction charge.) Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare, while, in the back of their minds, considering how those actions will affect their popularity, he explained. Often, the two concepts overlap: Whats good for the country is good for the officials re-election. All politicians understand this dynamic, evenor perhaps especiallyMr. Trump. And there is nothing corrupt about acting based on such competing and overlapping concerns.

If Trump had withheld military aid and diplomatic favor from Ukraine out of legitimate concerns about widespread corruption, Blackmans argument here would carry more weight. But as Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler noted in a separate Reason piece, the facts suggest otherwise. As virtually all of the evidence in the record shows, what [Trump] asked for was the announcement of an investigation, and that he had no interest in combating actual corruption of any kind, he wrote. This difference may seem small, but it is keyand Joshs argument only works if this distinction is obscured.

To build his case, Blackman asserts that Trump is not the first president to consider his political future while executing the office. One of his two examples is a letter from President Abraham Lincoln to General William Sherman on September 19, 1864, about Indianas elections that fall. In the letter, Lincoln asks Sherman to let as many soldiers in his army from Indiana return home to vote as possible. The State election of Indiana occurs on the 11th of October, and the loss of it to the friends of the Government would go far towards losing the whole Union cause, he wrote. The bad effect upon the November election, and especially the giving the State Government to those who will oppose the war in every possible way, are too much to risk, if it can possible [sic] be avoided.

See the original post here:
The Best Defense of Donald Trump - The New Republic

President Donald Trump took his war on Rep. Adam Schiff to new heights Sunday morning, tweeting that the Democrats lead impeachment manager had not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!

Trumps tweet drew immediate outrage, with many suggesting it might incite violence against Schiff. What do you say to somebody who says, President Trump is saying that Adam Schiff needs to pay a pricethis is in the midst of Adam Schiff getting death threats,' askedCNNs Jake Tapper during an interview with GOP Sen. James Lankford (Okla.).

I just dont think its a death threat, Lankford responded. I dont think hes encouraging a death threat.

People who are supporters of the president have heard his rhetoric and then actually tried to bomb and kill politicians and the media, Tapper shot backa reference to Cesar Sayoc, a Trump supporter who last year pleaded guilty to mailing pipe bombs to prominent Democrats and CNN in 2018.

Theres little question that Trumps past rhetoric has inspired death threats against his enemies. But Lankford is probably correct that the presidents purpose in sending Sundays tweet wasnt to provoke violence. Rather, Trumps intention was likely to do something that is horrifying in a different wayhe was trying to build the case that Schiff should be prosecuted for daring to oppose him.

Look again at that tweet. Trump called Schiff a CORRUPT POLITICIAN. He didnt mean this in a broad, figurative sensemy enemies are part of a corrupt Washington culture. No, he meant this literally. (And seriously.)

For months, Trump has been arguing that Schiff somehow broke the law when, during a congressional hearing, Schiff loosely paraphrased the essence of Trumps words from the infamous July 25 phone call with Ukraines president. (Republicans claimed that Schiff had intentionally misled viewers by deviating from Trumps precise wording. Schiff countered that everyone understood that he was merely mocking the presidents conduct.) At the time, Trump claimed that Schiff fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & twisted words into my call.

In October, Trump tweeted that his attorneys should sue the Democrats and Shifty Adam Schiff for fraud. The following month, Trump took the matter further, making clear that he had more than just a civil lawsuit in mind. He tweeted that Schiffalong with the Ukraine whistleblower and the whistleblowers lawyershould be investigared [sic] for fraud! Investigated by whom? He didnt say. But as I wrote at the time, Trump has a long history of demanding that the FBI, the DOJ, and even foreign governments open investigations into his political foeseveryone from Hillary Clinton, to Joe Biden, to James Comey.

Which brings us back to today. Trump didnt just call Schiff corrupt. He called him a conman who made a fraudulent statement to Congress. And Trump once again accused Schiff of illegally making up my phone call.

Trumps accusations are entirely meritless. Even if they werent, its incredibly unlikely that hed succeed in suing, let along criminally prosecuting, Schiffmembers of Congress enjoy broad legal immunity for what they say in committee hearings. But that doesnt mean Trump wont try. And thats terrifying.

Read the rest here:
Trump Says Schiff Has Not Paid the Price, Yet. That's Even More Terrifying Than You Thought. - Mother Jones