Carter Page FISA warrant lacked probable cause, DOJ admits in declassified assessment

 

At least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause, according to a newly declassified summary of a Justice Department assessment released Thursday by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
The DOJ's admission essentially means that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant authorizations to surveil Page, when stripped of the FBI's misinformation, did not meet the necessary legal threshold and should never have been issued. Democrats, including California Rep. Adam Schiff, had previously insisted the Page FISA warrants met "rigorous" standards for probable cause, and mocked Republicans for suggesting otherwise.
The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was among the two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.
“Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system," Page said in a statement to Fox News. "I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries.”
Added Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, who previously chaired the Judiciary Committee: “It’s about time.  It’s about time federal authorities entrusted with our most powerful and intrusive surveillance tools begin to own up to their failures and abuses, and take steps to restore public confidence. ... Time will tell if the department will continue working to fix its errors and restore trust that it won’t disregard Americans’ civil liberties. Its admission and cooperation with the FISC is a step in the right direction."
FISC Presiding Judge James Boasberg, in the Jan. 7 order that was published for the first time Thursday, further required the government to explain in a written statement by Jan. 28 the "FBI's handling of information" obtained through the Page warrants and subsequent renewals.
Boasberg specifically noted the DOJ found "there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power" because of the "material misstatements and omissions" in the warrant applications.

Then-FBI acting director Andrew McCabe, now a CNN contributor, approved one of the now-discredited FISA applications. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

Although the DOJ assessment technically only covered two of the applications to renew the Page FISA warrant, the DOJ "apparently does not take a position on the validity" on the first two Page FISA applications, Boasberg said, seemingly indicating that the DOJ seemingly did not want to defend their legality either.
The government "intends to sequester information acquired pursuant to those" FISA applications "in the same manner as information acquired pursuant to the subsequent dockets," the judge said, possibly indicating that those applications are still under review.
Boasberg noted that it is illegal for the government to intentionally disclose or use "information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having any reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized." A lawful FISA warrant, when approved by the FISC, allows the FBI to surveil not only the target of the warrant, but also individuals who communicate with the target and the target's associates.
It was not clear what information, if any, the FBI gleaned from the Page FISA and then used in subsequent court arguments; any such evidence would likely be ruled inadmissible, given the DOJ's admission that the underlying warrants were invalid.
The revelations Thursday were yet another embarrassment for the FBI, which DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found made repeated errors and misrepresentations -- and, in one case, deliberately falsified evidence -- before the FISC as the bureau sought to surveil Page in 2016 and 2017.
The FBI's FISA applications to monitor Page heavily relied, Horowitz confirmed, on a now-discredited dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC), as well as on news reports that secretly relied on the dossier's author.
Much of the Steele dossier has been proved unsubstantiated, including the dossier's claims that the Trump campaign was paying hackers in the United States out of a non-existent Russian consulate in Miami, or that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russians. Special Counsel Robert Mueller also was unable to substantiate the dossier's claims that Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of Rosneft, a Russian oil giant, or that a lurid blackmail tape involving the president existed.
Pursuant to Boasberg's order, the government must also sequester relevant information and provide further "explanations" concerning the damning findings of bureau misconduct contained in Horowitz's recent report, as well as "related investigations and any litigation."
That could be a reference to a variety of outstanding matters concerning the FBI's apparent mischaracterization of evidence before the FISC.
For example, the FISC has already ordered the bureau to look at all previous FISA applications involving ex-FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, whom Horowitz found to have doctored an email from the CIA. The FBI had reached out to the CIA and other intelligence agencies for information on Page; the CIA responded in an email by telling the FBI that Page had contacts with Russians from 2008 to 2013, but that Page had reported them to the CIA and was serving as a CIA operational contact and informant on Russian business and intelligence interests.
Clinesmith then allegedly doctored the CIA's email about Page to make it seem as though the agency had said only that Page was not an active source. The FBI also included Page's contacts with Russians in the warrant application as evidence he was a foreign "agent," without disclosing to the secret surveillance court that Page was voluntarily working with the CIA concerning those foreign contacts.

"Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system."
— Former Trump aide Carter Page

Further, Horowitz found specific evidence of oversights and errors by several top FBI employees as they sought to obtain a warrant to surveil Page. In particular, an unidentified FBI supervisory special agent (SSA) mentioned in the IG report was responsible for ensuring that the bureau's "Woods Procedures" were followed in the Page warrant application, but apparently didn't do so.
According to the procedures, factual assertions need to be independently verified, and information contradicting those assertions must be presented to the court. Horowitz found several instances in which the procedures were not followed. Horowitz's report leaves little doubt that the unnamed SSA is Joe Pientka -- a current bureau employee.
Pientka briefly appeared on the FBI's website as an "Assistant Special Agent in Charge" of the San Francisco field office late last year, according to the Internet archive Wayback Machine -- although Pientka no longer appears on any FBI website. Pientka was removed shortly after Fox News identified him as the unnamed SSA in the IG report. Twitter user Techno Fog first flagged the Wayback Machine's archive of the page.
The FBI has repeatedly refused to respond to Fox News' request for clarification on Pientka's status, even as Republicans in Congress have sought to question him.
While the FBI has promised corrective action, it apparently has not gone far enough. Earlier this month, David Kris, who has been appointed by the FISC to oversee the FBI's proposed surveillance reforms, alerted the court that the bureau's proposals are "insufficient" and must be dramatically "expanded" -- even declaring that FBI Director Christopher Wray needs to discuss the importance of accuracy and transparency before the FISC every time he "visits a field office in 2020."

In December 2017, then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information," according to a House GOP memo's findings. McCabe is now a CNN contributor.

The unclassified findings were a stark rebuke to Wray, who had filed assurances to the FISC that the agency was implementing new procedures and training programs to assure that the FBI presents accurate and thorough information when it seeks secret warrants from FISC judges. At the same time, Wray acknowledged the FBI's "unacceptable" failures as it pursued FISA warrants to monitor Page.
Kris is a former Obama administration attorney who has previously defended the FISA process on "The Rachel Maddow Show" and in other left-wing venues, making his rebuke of Wray something of an unexpected redemptive moment for Republicans who have long called for more accountability in how the bureau obtains surveillance warrants. ("You can’t make this up!" President Trump tweeted on Sunday. "David Kris, a highly controversial former DOJ official, was just appointed by the FISA Court to oversee reforms to the FBI’s surveillance procedures. Zero credibility. THE SWAMP!”)
Wray had specifically promised to change relevant forms to "emphasize the need to err on the side of disclosure" to the FISC, to create a new "checklist" to be completed "during the drafting process" for surveillance warrants that reminds agents to include "relevant information" about the bias of sources used, and to "formalize" the role of FBI lawyers in the legal review process of surveillance warrants.
Additionally, Wray said the FBI would now require "agents and supervisors" to confirm with the DOJ Office of Intelligence that the DOJ has been advised of relevant information. Wray further indicated that the FBI would formalize requirements to "reverify facts presented in prior FISA applications and make any necessary corrections," as well as to make unspecified "technological improvements."
But in a 15-page letter to Judge Boasberg, obtained by Fox News, Kris declared that the proposed corrective actions "do not go far enough to provide the Court with the necessary assurance of accuracy, and therefore must be expanded and improved" -- and he took aim at Wray himself.
"The focus on specific forms, checklists and technology, while appropriate, should not be allowed to eclipse the more basic need to improve cooperation between the FBI and DOJ attorneys," Kris said, noting that the FBI and DOJ have historically not always worked well together.
"A key method of improving organizational culture is through improved tone at the top, particularly in a hierarchical organization such as the FBI," Kris said, noting that Wray's public statements on the matter, while positive, have not gone far enough. "Director Wray and other FBI leaders, as well as relevant leaders at the Department of Justice, should include discussions of compliance not only in one or two messages, but in virtually every significant communication with the workforce for the foreseeable future."
Republican calls for more accountability may not go unanswered for long. Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham announced last year that he did not "agree" with the IG's assessment that the FBI's probes were properly predicated, highlighting Durham's broader criminal mandate and scope of review.
Durham is focusing on foreign actors, as well as the CIA, while Horowitz concentrated his attention on the Justice Department and FBI.
"Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened," Durham said in his statement, adding that his "investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department" and "has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S."

Democrat Russian Threat Cartoons

Iran uses violence, politics to try to push US out of Iraq

BEIRUT (AP) — Iran has long sought the withdrawal of American forces from neighboring Iraq, but the U.S. killing of an Iranian general and an Iraqi militia commander in Baghdad has added new impetus to the effort, stoking anti-American feelings that Tehran hopes to exploit to help realize the goal.

The Jan. 3 killing has led Iraq’s parliament to call for the ouster of U.S. troops, but there are many lingering questions over whether Iran will be able to capitalize on the sentiment.

An early test will be a “million-man” demonstration against the American presence, called for by influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and scheduled for Friday.

It is not clear whether the protesters will try to recreate a New Year’s Eve attack on the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad by Iran-supported militias in the wake of U.S. airstrikes that killed 25 militiamen along the border with Syria. Iran might simply try to use the march to telegraph its intention to keep up the pressure on U.S. troops in Iraq.

But experts say Iran can be counted on to try to seize what it sees as an opportunity to push its agenda in Iraq, despite an ongoing mass uprising that is targeting government corruption as well as Iranian influence in the country.

“Iran is unconstrained by considerations of Iraqi sovereignty, domestic public opinion, or legality when compared to the Western democracies,” said David Des Roches, an expert with The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. “This is Iran’s strategic advantage; they should be expected to press it.”

A withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would be a victory for Iran, and Tehran has long pursued a two-pronged strategy of supporting anti-U.S. militias that carry out attacks, as well as exerting political pressure on Iraqi lawmakers sympathetic to its cause.

Despite usually trying to keep attacks at a level below what might provoke an American response, Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah fired a barrage of rockets at a military base in Kirkuk in December, killing a U.S. contractor and wounding several U.S. and Iraqi troops. The U.S. responded first with deadly airstrikes on Iran-affiliated militia bases in western Iraq and Syria, then followed with the Jan. 3 drone attack that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful military officer, along with Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis as they left Baghdad’s airport.

The severity of the U.S. response surprised Iran and others, and it had the unanticipated result of bolstering Tehran’s political approach by prompting the Iraqi parliament to pass the nonbinding resolution pushed by pro-Iran political factions calling for the expulsion of all foreign troops from the country. In response, President Donald Trump has threatened sanctions on Iraq.

“What they want to do is get rid of U.S. troops in what they see as a legitimate political manner,” said Dina Esfandiary, a London-based expert with The Century Foundation think tank. “If Iraqis themselves are voting out U.S. troops, it looks a lot better for Iran than if Iran is a puppet master in Iraq trying to get rid of them — and on top of that it would be a more lasting decision.”

The legitimacy of the resolution is a matter of dispute. Not only was the session boycotted by Kurdish lawmakers and many Sunnis, but there also are questions of whether Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has the ability to carry it out. Abdul-Mahdi resigned in November amid mass anti-government protests but remains in a caretaker role.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo bluntly rejected the call for the troops’ removal, instead saying Washington would “continue the conversation with the Iraqis about what the right structure is.”

Abdul-Mahdi strongly supported the resolution, but since then has said it will be up to the next government to deal with the issue, and there are indications he has been working behind the scenes to help keep foreign troops in the country.

After closed-door meetings with German diplomats last week, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said the prime minister had assured them that he had “great interest” in keeping the Bundeswehr military contingent and others part of the anti-Islamic State coalition in Iraq.

The U.S., meantime, said it had resumed joint operations with Iraqi forces, albeit on a more limited basis than before.

Trump met Iraqi President Barham Saleh on Wednesday on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, and said Washington and Baghdad have had “a very good relationship” and that the two countries had a “host of very difficult things to discuss.” Saleh said they have shared common interests including the fight against extremism, regional stability and an independent Iraq.

Asked about the plan for U.S. troops in Iraq, Trump said, “We’ll see what happens.”

In a sign that bodes well for NATO’s continuing mission in the country, Iraq’s deputy foreign minister went to Brussels last week for talks with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the alliance’s presence in Iraq.

The mixed message of publicly calling for the troops to go but privately wanting them to stay is an indication of Iran’s strong influence, particularly among its fellow Shiite Muslims, Des Roches said.

“For any Iraqi politician in Baghdad — particularly a Shia politician — to defy Iran openly is to risk political as well as physical death,” he said. “So we shouldn’t be surprised if the public and the private lines espoused by Iraqi politicians differ.”

American forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the government to help battle the Islamic State after the extremist group seized vast areas in the north and west of the country. A U.S.-led coalition provided crucial air support as Iraqi forces, including Iran-backed militias, regrouped and drove IS out in a costly three-year campaign. There are currently some 5,200 American troops in the country.

Even before the drone strike, there were growing calls in nationwide protests across sectarian lines, which started in October centered in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, for the end of all foreign influence in the country. The demonstrations also targeted government corruption and poor public services.

The rejection of Iranian influence over Iraqi state affairs has been a core component of the movement, and pro-Iranian militias have targeted those demonstrations along with Iraqi security forces, killing hundreds and injuring thousands. Protesters fear that with the focus on the push for the U.S. troop withdrawal in response to the attack that killed Soleimani, they may be even easier targets for those forces and that their message will be lost.

“I think Iraq has had enough of having to deal with the Americans and the Iranians alike,” Esfandiary said. “But the assassination of al-Muhandis, almost more so than Solemani, was such a glaring oversight of sovereignty and of all agreements they had signed on to with the U.S. in terms of the U.S. presence in Iraq, that it has kind of taken some of the attention away from Iran, to Tehran’s delight.”

Friday’s march called for by al-Sadr is expected to redirect the focus onto the U.S. troops. The cleric, who also leads the Sairoon bloc in parliament, derives much of his political capital through grassroots mobilization.

The Tahrir Square protesters initially rejected that call, saying they want the escalating conflict between Iran and the U.S. off of Iraqi soil.

Since then, al-Sadr has reached out to them directly, saying the demonstrations against the government and against the American troops are “two lights from a single lamp,” and it is not yet clear whether that might convince them to participate in the march.

___

Associated Press writers Darlene Superville in Davos, Switzerland, and Samya Kullab in Baghdad contributed to this story.

___

This story has been corrected to show that the first name of teh Iraqi prime minister is Adel, not Abdel.

Mnuchin says Greta Thunberg should study economics before calling for fossil fuel divestment

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took a shot at Greta Thunberg -- the famed teen climate activist -- on Thursday over her push at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, for companies to immediately cease all investments in fossil fuels.
Mnuchin was at a news conference in the Alpine town when he was asked about Thunberg's earlier appeal to abandon older sources of energy, according to Reuters.
"Is she the chief economist? ... After she goes to college and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us," he was quoted saying.
Thunberg, 17, from Sweden, has been embraced by celebrities and is seen by supporters as a fierce, young voice capable of rallying support for her cause: to clean up the environmental mess left by previous generations. Her detractors view her as a media-generated star who admitted that she was surprised when she was named Time magazine's "Person of the Year."
There appears to be no love lost between Thunberg and President Trump, who called Time magazine's decision "ridiculous."
Thunberg said in September that talking to Trump at the U.N. General Assembly in New York City would have been a waste of time. In Davos, Thunberg took part in a panel discussion hosted by The New York Times, where she told the audience there is a real need for immediate action on climate change.
"Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour,” she said, according to the Times. "Let's be clear. We don’t need a 'low carbon economy.' We don't need to 'lower emissions.' Our emissions have to stop."
Trump and Thunberg were both in Davos at the same time and "sparred indirectly," the Reuters report said, though Trump appeared to "extend an olive branch" when he told reporters he wished that he was able to hear her speak before he left.

Biden says he won’t be part of witness deal some Democrats reportedly eyeing

Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic presidential frontrunner, said Wednesday he wants "no part" of a witness swap reportedly being discussed by some members of his own party.
Under the hypothetical deal, Democrats would reportedly offer up Biden or his son Hunter Biden to testify at President Trump's Senate impeachment trial in return for testimony from a Republican figure, such as ex-national security adviser John Bolton.
The Washington Post quoted the former vice president admitting that it was "not an irrational question" but said Trump's trial was a "constitutional issue." He said he does not want to see the trial turn into a "farce or some kind of political theater."
Biden, while campaigning in Iowa, denied that talks of a witness swap were taking place. When told by a Post reporter that the topic was being discussed, he responded, "No they're not," the paper reported.
A witness swap that would result in Hunter Biden and Bolton testifying would be the most dramatic development in the trial thus far. At the heart of the impeachment trial is Trump's July 25, 2019 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump said the call was focused on corruption in Kiev and raised Biden as an example.
Hunter's position on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma while his father was vice president has been a rallying point for Republicans as they try to defend Trump against impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Democrats see Bolton as a potential witness who could provide first-hand testimony linking Trump's decision to withhold U.S. aid from Ukraine directly to the country's willingness to investigate the Bidens.
Fiona Hill, a former top White House expert on Russia, testified in November that Bolton shared her concern about what she saw as a push to get Ukraine to conduct the investigations.
She testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee and recalled Bolton expressing his own concerns about the push and told her to tell National Security Council lawyer John Eisenberg that he does not want to be a part of this "drug deal."
"He was saying that sarcastically, of course, I mean, just to be clear. Actually, he was angry, but he was also sarcastic. I mean — he wasn’t inferring that they were cooking up an actual drug deal in the War Room," she said.
Trump and Zelensky have both denied any quid pro quo. Trump called the entire impeachment process a political witch hunt. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son.
The Post reported that some of the Democrats taking part in the discussion about a potential witness swap believe Biden could actually benefit politically from testifying because it would give him a chance to deliver a statesmanlike performance.
Both Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have spoken out against the potential of a witness swap.
"Trials aren't trades for witnesses," Schiff said.
Fox News' Brooke Singman and Adam Shaw and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Schiff warns of Russian attack on US mainland, as Day 2 of Trump's Senate impeachment trial concludes

House Democrats launched into lengthy arguments that broke little ground, if any, in President Trump's impeachment trial Wednesday -- as the head impeachment manager, California Rep. Adam Schiff, suggested that Russians could attack the U.S. and insisted that removing Trump from office was necessary because the integrity of the 2020 election could not be "assured."
Trump's lawyers sat by, waiting their turn, as the president blasted the proceedings from afar, threatening jokingly to face off with the Democrats by coming to "sit right in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces."
The challenge before the House managers has been clear. Democrats were given 24 hours over three days to prosecute the charges against Trump, trying to win over not just fidgety senators sitting silently in the chamber but an American public, deeply divided over the president and his impeachment in an election year.
Most senators sat at their desks throughout the day, as the rules stipulated, though some stretched their legs, standing behind the desks or against the back wall of the chamber, passing the time. Visitors watched from the galleries, one briefly interrupting in protest.
Almost immediately after Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled in Wednesday's session, bored and weary senators started openly flouting some basic guidelines. The Associated Press reported that a Democrat in the back row leaned on his right arm, covered his eyes and stayed that way for nearly a half-hour, and some lawmakers openly snickered when Schiff said he'd speak for only 10 minutes.
"I do see the members moving and taking a break," freshman Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., one of the House prosecutors, said mid-speech at the center podium. "I probably have another 15 minutes."
"You just have to stretch and you just got to stand. Those chairs, they look nice, [but] they are not comfortable chairs," Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, a key swing-vote moderate, said of the restlessness while Schiff spoke.
The previous day of the trial lasted for more than 12 hours, and ended well past midnight on a testy note as Roberts admonished both sides for their conduct. On Wednesday, Murkowski slammed Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., for arguing the previous evening that senators who didn't vote for immediate subpoenas were defying their oaths of office: “As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended," Murkowski said.
Perhaps sensing the ennui in the chamber on Day 2 of the trial, Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sought to keep the stakes high. He suggested at one point that military aid to Ukraine was essential so the U.S. would not have to fight Russians at home, as soldiers did in the videogame "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2."
"As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here," Schiff said, drawing rebukes from commentators across the political spectrum.
"Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq," wrote journalist Max Blumenthal. "Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power."
Schiff attracted the most criticism, however, for later making the head-turning argument that Trump must be removed from office by the Senate -- rather than by voters in the 2020 election -- because it is impossible to be sure the 2020 election won't be compromised.
"The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won," Schiff remarked. He did not elaborate.
Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz, who will speak against impeachment, is expected to argue before the Senate that removing a president is a fundamentally undemocratic remedy that requires "criminal-like" conduct -- a standard he will argue is not met by Democrats' two articles of impeachment, which do not allege federal crimes.
But, both Republicans and left-of-center commentators didn't wait long to deride Schiff's incendiary arguments in more direct terms.
"And right here is proof of the Democrats’ plan all along," Trump campaign director of communications Tim Murtaugh said in response. "Every moment of the impeachment sham has been geared toward interfering with the 2020 election. Schiff is preemptively calling into question the results of an election that is still more than 9 months away."
Aaron Mate, a contributor at The Nation, added: "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in US elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 US election? This is a joke."
And during the proceedings, Trump retweeted a post from Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul: "The more we hear from Adam Schiff, the more the GOP is getting unified against this partisan charade." Trump added, "True!"
Meanwhile, the Republican House leader, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, suggested during the day that Schiff should be censured by the House for constantly lying, including by apparently misrepresenting key documents from Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate.
Schiff, though, was undeterred. Attempting to underscore the human cost of Trump's temporary aid holdup, Schiff further asserted that the money was "designed to help Ukraine defend itself from the Kremlin's aggression" and that "more than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies."
Republicans erupted when Schiff made a similar argument during last year's House impeachment probe. Trump's lawyers were likely to fire back when it's their turn to present arguments -- in part because former President Obama provided less aid to Ukraine than the Trump administration has.
Additionally, Republicans have pointed out that the temporary lack of aid has not been directly linked to any casualties, and that the U.S. cannot reasonably be held responsible for the actions of Russian-backed militants in Ukraine.
Schiff also repeatedly made the false claim that White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had said people should "get over" the idea that Trump was tying foreign aid to political investigations. Mulvaney, in fact, had remarked only that politics and foreign policy sometimes overlap.
Schiff, who had previously claimed to have evidence that the Trump campaign secretly colluded with Russia, was outlining what the Democrats contended was the president's "corrupt scheme" to abuse his presidential power and then obstruct Congress' investigation.
He called on senators not to be "cynical" about politics, but to draw on the intent of the nation's Founding Fathers who provided the remedy of impeachment.
"Over the coming days, we will present to you—and to the American people—the extensive evidence collected during the House’s impeachment inquiry into the president's abuse of power," Schiff argued. "You will hear their testimony at the same time as the American people. That is, if you will allow it."
The proceedings were unfolding at the start of an election year, and there have been few signs that Republicans were interested in calling more witnesses or going beyond a fast-track assessment likely to bring a quick vote on charges related to Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
Some Democrats sounded a note of concern that Republicans haven't expressed much interest in crossing the aisle concerning witness and document requests. "I can only speak for myself: strikingly little," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said after the proceedings adjourned, when asked how much Republican outreach he has seen.
The trial has marked just the third time the Senate has weighed whether an American president should be removed from office. Democrats argued Trump abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden while withholding crucial military aid, and also obstructed Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe.
Republicans have defended Trump's actions and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken the president in the midst of his reelection campaign. Specifically, Republicans have pointed out that Ukrainian leaders said they felt no undue pressure; that the longstanding constitutional executive privilege shielded the White House from having to respond to comprehensive subpoenas; and that the Democrats' case was based largely on hearsay.
Trump's legal team also has argued that Democrats' impeachment case couldn't be as "open-and-shut" as advertised given the apparently urgent need for new evidence even after the House impeachment inquiry.
In any event, the White House has said Trump's suggested probe into Biden was appropriate.
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public was slightly more likely to say the Senate should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not, 45 percent to 40 percent. But, a sizable percentage, 14 percent, said they didn't know enough to have an opinion.
One question on which there was wide agreement: Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial. About 7 in 10 said so, including majorities of Republicans and Democrats, according to the poll.
The strategy of more witnesses, though, seemed all but settled. Wrangling over rules for the trial stretched past midnight Tuesday night, with Republicans shooting down one-by-one Democrats' efforts to get Trump aides including former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to testify.
Senators are likely to repeat those rejections next week, shutting out any chance of new testimony.
One longshot idea to pair one of Trump's preferred witnesses — Biden's son Hunter — with Bolton or another whom Democrats wanted was swiftly rejected.
"That's off the table," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters.
Trump, who was in Davos, Switzerland, attending a global economic forum, praised his legal team and suggested he would be open to his advisers testifying, though it seemed unlikely. He said "national security" concerns would stand in the way.
After the House prosecutors present their case, the president's lawyers are set to follow with another 24 hours over three days. They are expected to take only Sunday off.
"There's a lot of things I'd like to rebut," Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said at the Capitol, "and we will rebut."
Sekulow also said that he thought it was unlikely that Democrats would meet the threshold necessary to demonstrate the need for additional witnesses, but that the Trump team was preparing for every contingency.
Then there will be 16 hours for senators, who must sit quietly at their desks, no speeches or cellphones, to ask written questions, and another four hours for deliberations.
The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election. All four senators who are presidential candidates have been off the campaign trail, seated as jurors.
Campaigning at stops in Iowa, Joe Biden also rejected having his son testify, or even appearing himself. "I want no part of that," he said.
"People ask the question, isn't the president going to be stronger and harder to beat if he survives this? Yes, probably. But Congress has no choice," Biden added, saying senators must cast their votes and "live with that in history.”
Some Republicans expressed disdain for it all.
Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst spoke sarcastically about how excited she was to hear the "overwhelming evidence" the House Democrats promised against Trump. "Once we've heard that overwhelming evidence," she added, raising her voice mockingly, "I don't know that we'll need to see additional witnesses, but let's hear about that overwhelming evidence."
The trial began with an apparent setback on Tuesday for Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, who backed off his plans to limit each side's arguments to two days, as the White House had preferred.
But, in a strong show of Republican unity, the GOP-led Senate repeatedly resisted Democrats' amendments to McConnell's rules, and ultimately approved a rules package pushing off a final decision on whether to seek additional testimony until late in the trial.
Schumer bemoaned the remaining limitations, saying Wednesday the impeachment trial "begins with a cloud hanging over it, a cloud of unfairness."
Republicans have been eager for a swift trial. Still, Trump's legal team passed on an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss the case on Wednesday, an acknowledgment that there were not enough Republican votes to support it.
The White House legal team, in its court filings and presentations, has not disputed Trump's actions, but the lawyers insisted the president did nothing wrong.
Fox News' Chad Pergram, Marisa Schultz, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Pencil Neck Cartoons

Senate approves impeachment trial rules, rejecting witnesses

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Senate plunged into President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial with Republicans abruptly abandoning plans to cram opening arguments into two days but solidly rejecting Democratic demands for more witnesses to expose what they deem Trump’s “trifecta” of offenses.

The daylong session started Tuesday with the setback for Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and the president’s legal team, but it ended near 2 a.m. Wednesday with Republicans easily approving the rest of the trial rules largely on their terms. The result is Trump’s historic trial, unfolding amid a watchful public in an election year.

“We have a great case,” Trump said as he began his second day at a global economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. He said he thought his legal time was doing a “very good job.”

The trial is now on a fast-track with almost no signs of Republican resistance to the actions that led to his impeachment.

“It’s about time we bring this power trip in for a landing,” said White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the president’s lead lawyer, lashing out at the House Democrats prosecuting the case.

“It’s a farce,” he said about the impeachment proceeding, “and it should end.”

Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled open the session, with House prosecutors on one side, Trump’s team on the other, in the well of the Senate, as senators sat silently at their desks, under oath to do “impartial justice.” No cellphones or other electronics were allowed.

As the day stretched deep into the night, lawyerly arguments gave way to more pointedly political ones. Tempers flared and senators paced the chamber. Democrats pursued what may be their only chance to force senators to vote on hearing new testimony.

After one particularly bitter post-midnight exchange, Roberts intervened, taking the rare step of admonishing both the Democratic House managers prosecuting the case and the White House counsel to “remember where they are.”

“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” the usually reserved Roberts said. He told them that description of the Senate stemmed from a 1905 trial when a senator objected to the word “pettifogging,” because members should “avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”

Over and over, Republicans turned back Democratic amendments to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department, Defense Department and budget office. By the same 53-47 party-line, they turned away witnesses with front-row seats to Trump’s actions including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton, the former national security adviser critical of the Ukraine policy.

Only on one amendment, to allow more time to file motions, did a single Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, join Democrats. But it, too, was rejected, 52-48.

“It’s not our job to make it easy for you,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the prosecution, told the Senate. “Our job is to make it hard to deprive the American people of a fair trial.”

As the visitors’ gallery filled earlier with guests, actress-and-activist Alyssa Milano among them, and Trump’s most ardent House allies lining the back rows, the day that began as a debate over rules quickly took on the cadence of a trial proceeding over whether the president’s actions toward Ukraine warranted removal from office.

Cipollone led the prosecution, scoffing that the House charges against Trump were “ridiculous,” insisting the president “has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

The White House legal team did not dispute Trump’s actions, when he called Ukraine and asked for a “favor,” which was to investigate Democrat Joe Biden as the U.S. was withholding military aid the ally desperately needed as it faced off with hostile Russia on its border. But the lawyers insisted the president did nothing wrong. “Absolutely no case,” Cipollone said.

Schiff, the California Democrat, said America’s Founders added the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution with “precisely this type of conduct in mind — conduct that abuses the power of office for a personal benefit, that undermines our national security, and that invites foreign interference in the democratic process of an election.”

Said Schiff: “It is the trifecta of constitutional misconduct justifying impeachment.″

The other lead lawyer on Trump’s team, Jay Sekulow, retorted, “I’ll give you a trifecta,” outlining complaints over the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry process.

The impeachment trial is testing whether Trump’s actions toward Ukraine warrant removal as voters are forming their own verdict on his White House.

All four senators who are presidential candidates were off the campaign trail, seated as jurors. “My focus is going to be on impeachment,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, told reporters.

McConnell stunned senators and delayed the start of proceedings with his decision to back off some of his proposed rules. He made the adjustment after encountering resistance from Republicans during a closed-door lunch meeting. Senators worried about the political optics of “dark of night” sessions that could come from cramming the 24 hours of opening arguments from each side into just two days.

Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, who often buck party leadership, along with a substantial number of other Republicans, wanted to make the changes, according to people familiar with the situation.

It was only when the clerk started reading the dry language of the resolution that the hand-written changes to extend debate to three days became apparent. It also allowed the House impeachment record to be included in the Senate.

The turnaround was a swift lesson as White House wishes run into the reality of the Senate. The White House wanted a session kept to a shorter period to both expedite the trial and shift more of the proceedings into late night, according to a person familiar with the matter but unauthorized to discuss it in public.

“READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” the president tweeted from overseas, at a global leaders conference in Davos, Switzerland.

That’s the transcript of his phone call in which he asked new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for “a favor.” The Democrats cite that transcript as solid evidence against Trump, though he repeatedly describes it as “perfect.”

The House impeached Trump last month on a charge of abuse of power for pushing Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Biden and his son Hunter Biden as the White House was withholding military aid from Ukraine. Trump also was impeached on a second charge, of obstruction of Congress, in the House probe.

Trump’s legal team, absent its TV-showcase attorneys, Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr who were not in the chamber, argued that in seeking new evidence the House was bringing a half-baked case.

But Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, one of the House managers and the first woman to argue for the prosecution in a presidential impeachment trial, said the House wasn’t asking the Senate to do the job for them. “The House is asking the Senate to do its job, to have a trial,” she said. “Have you ever heard of a trial without evidence?″

The White House had instructed officials not to testify in the House inquiry, and refused to turn over witnesses or documents, citing what is says is precedence in defiance of congressional subpoenas.

The ambassadors and national security officials who did appear before the House delivered often striking testimony, highlights that were displayed on television screens during the Senate proceeding.

At one point, Democrat Schiff displayed video of Trump himself suggesting there should be more witnesses testifying.

One by one, the House managers made the case, drawing on their own life experiences.

Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., a former police chief, said she never saw anyone take “such extreme steps to hide evidence.″ Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, seemed to capture senators’ attention when he told them near he knew the hour was late, but it was morning in Ukraine where soldiers were waking up to fight Russia, depending on U.S. aid.

It was when Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee chairman also leading the prosecution, said the White House lawyers “lie” that Cipollone and Sekulow retorted that Nadler should be embarrassed and apologize, leading to Roberts’ admonition.

No president has ever been removed from office. With its 53-47 Republican majority, the Senate is not expected to mount the two-thirds vote needed for conviction.

___

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Eric Tucker, Alan Fram, Laurie Kellman, Andrew Taylor, Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama in Washington, Jamey Keaten in Davos, Switzerland and David Pitt in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.

Trending on AP News