We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
LAST UPDATE | 13 Nov 2019
THE FIRST TELEVISED hearings of the impeachment probe into Donald Trump begun today, revealing new evidence as Trump himself said he was “too busy” to watch it.
The top US diplomat in Ukraine levelled a stark new accusation about White House efforts to pressure on the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden.
William Taylor, the acting US ambassador to Ukraine, told the House Intelligence Committee today, that he was told Trump cared more about the probe into his likely 2020 rival Biden, than he did about Ukraine.
Trump is accused by Democrats in the House of Representatives of abusing his power by using US military aid to pressure Kiev into opening an investigation into Biden and his son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
Trump, who maintains he did nothing wrong, dismissed the impeachment inquiry as a “witch hunt” and said he was too busy to watch the first televised hearings.
TIME / TwitterPresident Trump says he is "too busy to watch" the public impeachment inquiry hearings https://t.co/7pVmJFavBR pic.twitter.com/qywLnyImok
— TIME (@TIME) November 13, 2019
Details of Taylor’s evidence
Taylor, who testified in a closed hearing last month, said he had since become aware of a telephone call between Trump and Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU, that was overheard by a member of Taylor’s staff.
Taylor said the staff member heard Trump asking Sondland about the status of the investigations. He said the staff member asked Sondland after the call what Trump thought about Ukraine.
“Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cared more about the investigations of Biden,” Taylor said.
In his opening statement, Taylor recalled his opposition to making US military aid to Ukraine contingent on Ukraine opening an investigation of the Bidens.
“Withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be crazy,” he said. “I believed that then and I believe it now.”
Taylor said an “irregular policy channel” involving former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, was pushing for the Ukrainian probe into the Bidens.
On Friday, Marie Yovanovitch, the US ambassador to Ukraine whom Trump removed earlier this year, will testify.
The grounds for impeachment
Democrats have amassed evidence that Trump sought to leverage Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s desire for a meeting between the two leaders and for some $391 million in aid to get Ukraine to find dirt on Biden, who could face Trump in next year’s presidential election.
The key evidence is the official White House transcript of a 25 July phone call showing Trump pressuring Zelensky to open investigations into Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory.
The White House has refused to hand over other records on Ukraine policy or allow top Trump aides involved in the decision to pressure Zelensky to testify.
Yesterday, Trump’s chief of staff Mick Mulvaney – who has publicly confirmed the broad outlines of Democrats’ allegations – rejected a subpoena to appear before the committee.
Trump previously called the inquiry “corrupt” and “illegal,” and maintains he did nothing wrong.
“Democrats in Washington would rather pursue outrageous hoaxes and delusional witch hunts, which are going absolutely nowhere. Don’t worry about it,” he said confidently in a speech to the Economic Club of New York yesterday.
But the investigation threatens to make him only the third US president to be impeached, after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, and placed on trial in the Senate for possible removal from office.
“On the basis of what the witnesses have had to say so far, there are any number of potentially impeachable offenses: including bribery, including high crimes and misdemeanors,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who will lead the hearings, told NPR radio yesterday.
Neither Johnson or Clinton was convicted and removed. But in 1974 Richard Nixon resigned in the face of certain impeachment and removal from office for the Watergate scandal.
Hearings are expected to be fiery as a series of government officials take the stand to testify on Trump’s Ukraine machinations during the middle of this year.
Both sides have spent the past several days rehearsing for the showdown.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The impeachment process is a waste of time. It needs to get thru the Senate also, which is 53-45 R vs. D. It’s never happening.
@jacquoranda: Trump getting elected was never happening either…
@jacquoranda: if public opinion is high enough the Republicans will vote against him. He wasn’t a popular choice for many of them beforehand so they won’t be turning their back on him. Don’t forget all his insults about many of them.
@jacquoranda: depending what comes out, Republicans could vote for it.
I wouldnt rule it out on the arithmetic alone
@jacquoranda: By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?
A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will immediately move to hold a trial to adjudicate the articles of impeachment if and when the Senate receives them from the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution does not set many parameters for the trial, except to say that “the Chief Justice shall preside,” and “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” That means the Senate has sole authority to draft its own rules for the impeachment trial, without judicial or executive branch oversight.
During the last impeachment of a president, Bill Clinton, the rules were hammered out by Democrats and Republicans in a collaborative process, as then Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle recently pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed. The rules passed unanimously. That’s unlikely this time, given the polarization that now defines our politics. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are much more likely to dictate the rules with little input from Democrats.
But, according to current Senate procedure, McConnell will still need a simple majority—51 of the 53 Senate Republicans—to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn’t like. (Vice President Mike Pence can’t break ties in impeachment matters.) Those three senators, in turn, could demand a secret ballot and condition their approval of the rest of the rules on getting one.
@Terrence Edwards: a secret ballot so the voters will not see how they voted? This is a characteristic of the swamp.
@Mark Fields: exactly the opposite. By making it secret they’re free to vote on the merits of the case rather than looking over their shoulder at their swamp overlords
How about an investigation into Noel Grealish comments? A bit of journalism to see if the figures he quoted are bogus or not.
Irish news
@Joseph Lyons: also the “Ireland’s attitude to marijuana” article has no link embedded
@Joseph Lyons: was just looking at that, why post it if nothing is there?
@Joseph Lyons: 2 articles up Joey.
As Donald J. Trump says himself
“The circus is coming to town. The corrupt, compromised, coward & congenital liar Adam Schiff Show on Capital Hill, brought to you by his raging psychotic Democrats & the top allies in the Media Mob. Everything you’re going to see in the next two weeks is rigged…..
Nothing will happen it’s all for show.
#FAKE NEWS
@Leo The Liar: oh ffs
@Leo The Liar:
What about the Republicans who now admit that he threatened to withold aid to Ukraine unless they followed his personal agenda?
@Leo The Liar: Was asking a foreign govt to investigate a SPECIFIC political rival an impeachable offence?
No one can deny that’s what he did so that’s all it comes down to.
Add the threat of withholding funds Ukraine desperately needed to defend against Russia (funds that had Congressional Approval), is that impeachable as an abuse of power?
Anyone that says “No” is being deliberately disingenuous.
@The Great Unwashed: Who?
@Leo The Liar:
Congrats Leo on joining Leo last month… I think it is so lovely of so many commentors who have joined twitter in the last couple of months..
@Leo The Liar: The Liar in Chief
@Burn_the_Witch:
John Kennedy
Tec Cruz
Brian Babin
etc.
With Bill Taylor changing his testimony they know the evidence for a quid pro quo is overwhelming, so the narrative has shifted from “he didn’t do it” to “so what if he did it”.
@The Great Unwashed: Sondland changed his testimony.
Taylor has always said Ukraine was expected to announce publicly that an investigation would be taking place into Burisma and the Bidens before:
1 – a White House meeting would take place
2 – Congressionally approved funds to help fight Russia would be released.
@Bob Earner: Can you point me to where Taylor has substantiated evidence of a quid pro quo please. Thanks
@Burn_the_Witch: ““As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Mr. Taylor wrote on Sept. 9 to Mr. Volker and Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union.”
Or was he lying on the text?
And on pages 189-190 of the transcript, Taylor described a “clear understanding” of the situation, seemingly agreeing that it fits the definition of a quid pro quo.
Taylor: Mr. Chairman, what I know for sure is what Mr. Morrison told me that he must have heard Ambassador Sondland tell Mr. Yermak. And as I said, this was the first time I’d heard those two put together.
Schiff: And when you say that, this was the first time I heard that the security assistance – not just the White House meeting – was conditioned on the investigation, when you talk about conditioned, did you mean that if they didn’t do this, the investigations, they weren’t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance?
Taylor: That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President committed to pursue the investigation.
Schiff : So if they don’t do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding?
Taylor: Yes, sir.
Schiff: Are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that?
Taylor: I am.
@Burn_the_Witch: But let me guess they’re all lying. It’s just “their opinion” and not evidence because there isn’t a literal (and I use “literal” deliberately) handwritten note by Donald Trump saying “Don’t give them anything until President Zelensky publicly announces an investigation into Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Burisma”.
Anything less and you’ll just keep up with “there’s no evidence!!!”
yeah, you have to be getting paid for this, no one can be THAT blind to the obvious Abuse of Power.
@Burn_the_Witch: And then you have Sondland’s updated testimony which supports Taylors:
“I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” He’s referring to Andriy Yermak, a top aide to President Volodymyr Zelensky.”
Remarkable how all their recollections are of the SAME THING!
So now even Sondland is what? Part of the Deep State? Paid $`1,000,000 to get an Ambassadorship to the EU all to bring down Trump? And he initially “didn’t recall” only to revise his testimony later to what? Risk perjuring himself in front of Congress?
You’re so DESPERATELY grasping at straws there pal.
@Bob Earner:
My bad – I was indeed thinking of Gordon Sondland (a committed republican) who is now testifying against Trump, having suddenly regained his memory.
@Bob Earner:
PS. not sure if burn_the_witch will be back on this thread after receiving such a kicking. He’s truly in denial.
@Cowboy Paddy: You’re welcome pal we all have to join sometime just like yourself once did.
Thanks for making me feel welcomed.
@Bob Earner: Sorry Bob, I was away visiting the People’s Republic of Cork for the day.
Now I asked you for Substantiated evidence, not hearsay or 3rd/4th hand information, which I knew you’d throw my way. That doesn’t stand up in a court of law. The Congress isn’t a court of law, but neither is it a kangaroo court, try as the dem’s might to make it one.
Jim Jordan makes my point beautifully when questioning Taylor today.
It won’t stand up.
@Burn_the_Witch: “We are keeping the oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil.”
Sounds almost right like Putin is telling Trump what to say verbatim so as to undermine US foreign policy in the Middle East. He basically got Trump to validate a Russian propaganda point used against the US for decades.
Trump is a disaster. He basically runs his mouth and hasn’t a clue about foreign policy.
The oil in Syria belongs to the Syrians
@Diaspora’d: I totally agree with you that Syria’s oil is for Syria. Unfortunately the US wouldn’t be the US if it wasn’t thieving someone’s oil. Trump is just the latest in a long line. His non interventionist foreign policy is streets ahead of recent presidents however. I don’t agree with it all, but compared to what came before, I find not starting wars much easier to accept.
@Leo The Liar: grow up
Could Trump stand for election again after being impeached and removed from office? I genuinely don’t think he understands why he is being investigated or why he was wrong in his Biden actions, which makes the whole thing funny and sad (for the US) at the same time.
@y6Qe5BN3: Yes. There is nothing in the Constitution that says he couldn’t.
But, if he is impeached (without a pardon deal in place with Pence) there is a good change that the “Individual number one” in the Michael Cohen case could be triggered.
This is going to be the best impeachment ever.
@JoyMonkey: It truly is. I personally can’t wait for the trial. I mean, imagine Schiff having to give testimony. Or Nellie Ohr, Hunter Biden etc. It will be mouth watering. I can’t see them bringing it to trial though, they’ll just drag it out as long as possible. It would be suicidal for the dems to bring it to trial and open it up to the Republicans to bring up their own witnesses who they aren’t allowing in the inquiry.
@Burn_the_Witch: Let’s go with your belief that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Bursima is corrupt. Let’s even believe your delusion that it was Ukraine that hacked the DNC even though all legitimate security organisations think that’s complete nonsense.
How exactly does ANY of that negate a President using Congressionally approved aid to force a foreign govt into publicly announcing an investigation into his political rival?
You understand that the Bidens could legitimately be corrupt and what Trump did is STILL an Impeachable offence right?
Except there isn’t a single scrap of evidence supporting the claim that Biden or his son is corrupt. Or that Ukraine has the DNC server (which would conveniently get “prove” that it wasn’t Russia that has been interfering in the US elections.) And I’m sure that could then be extrapolated to assume they’re not also interfering elsewhere.
@Bob Earner: Bob you’re being delusional again. Nowhere did I ever say Ukraine hacked the DNC servers. I have said on a number of occasions however, including yesterday or this morning, can’t remember which, that the DNC wasn’t hacked by anybody because the data transfer took place four times quicker than the fastest web connection. It was downloaded locally to a device. Inside job I’m afraid and proven by a CIA whistleblower Montgomery who was in charge of designing the system for all foreign CIA surveillance internationally. This system was called the hammer and John Brennan turned it on all US citizens. Hence why he turned whistleblower.
sorry to be pedantic Journal — can you make an effort at basic standards please ….if you are going to cover the US politics then at the very least try get the facts and headlines and descriptions correct….this is not an ‘Impeachment Trial’ ,…..this is the public hearings of an Impeachment Inquiry…. at least pretend you want to try credible journalism ffs.
He’s going to implode on live TV I bet.
@Keith O’Reilly: He already has started to implode (explode?) He triggered tweeted 82 times last Saturday. He will become even more unstable over the next while. So then…..who is actually doing the presidenting of the US?
I actually adore Trump , he just doesn’t give a b0llócks.
John told Mary who told Willie who overheard Jimmy tell Annie that he heard that a guy heard something, the jist of Jim Jordan questioning a witness. Ground breaking stuff
@Vote4Pedro: Yeah, as the Democrats said, hearsay can be better than direct evidence. Boom! Boom!
Boring news also fake news hey democrats find a real job
@Punters Pal: worst and most pathetic botski post…..ever!
Did you or did you not get the Russians to hand you the election? No. I did not. Now listen well, did you or did you not get the Russians to hand you the election?…. yeah I did Ted…!
Everytime I hear Trump, or read what he says/Tweets I get dumber.
@David A. Murray: Seems you’ve listened to him quite a bit David.
Season 4 of The President is heating up.
Of course he did
If he gets impeached, what happens then? Is an election called immediately or do the Republicans hold on to power in the shape of Pence?
@Richie Kennedy: Pence will take over. Unless he’s also impeached.
Then it’ll be the House Speaker so Nancy Pelosi.
Until the election in Nov 2020 and I assume then inauguration in 2021
@Bob Earner: Wise up Bob.
have your say