Trump– Ukraine controversy

2019 U.S. political scandal

President of the United States
Incumbent

Presidency

  • Transition
  • Inauguration
  • Timeline
  • Executive actions
    • proclamations
    • pardons
  • Trips
    • 2017
    • 2018
    • 2019
    • international
  • Summits
    • Riyadh
    • Singapore
    • Helsinki
    • Hanoi
    • DMZ
  • Shutdowns
    • Jan 2018
    • 2018–2019
  • Polls
  • Protests
  • Impeachment
  • Efforts to impeach
  • Impeachment inquiry
  • Trump–Ukraine controversy
  • Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman

Appointments

  • Cabinet
    • formation
  • Ambassadors
  • Federal judges
    • Gorsuch
    • Kavanaugh
    • Supreme Court candidates
  • U.S. Attorneys
  • Dismissals
    • Comey

Policies

  • Economy
    • tax cuts
    • tariffs
    • China trade war
    • infrastructure
  • Environment
    • Paris withdrawal
  • Foreign policy
    • Iran deal
    • Jerusalem
    • Golan
  • Immigration
    • travel ban
    • wall
    • family separation
    • migrant detentions
    • national emergency
  • Social issues
    • cannabis
  • Space

Presidential campaigns

  • 2000
    • primaries
  • 2016
    • election
    • primaries
    • endorsements
    • rallies
    • convention
    • debates
    • Never Trump movement
      • people
    • sexual misconduct allegations
      • Access Hollywood tape
    • wiretapping allegations
    • Spygate
  • 2020
    • election
    • primaries
    • endorsements

Controversies involving Russia

  • Business projects in Russia
  • Election interference
    • timeline
    • transition
    • threads
  • Associates’ links with Russian officials
  • Steele dossier
  • Trump Tower meeting
  • Classified information disclosure
  • Special Counsel investigation
    • Crossfire Hurricane
    • transition period
    • 2017
    • 2018
    • 2019
    • charges
    • Mueller Report
    • Barr letter

Business and personal

  • Business career
    • The Trump Organization
    • The Apprentice
    • wealth
    • tax returns
  • Books
  • Eponyms
  • Family
  • Foundation
  • Golf
  • Honors
  • Legal affairs
    • Stormy Daniels
  • Nicknames
  • Racial views
  • Residences
  • Social media
  • Veracity

  • v
  • t
  • e

The Trump–Ukraine controversy is ongoing in the United States. The controversy relates to whether U.S. President Donald Trump and top Trump administration officials were soliciting foreign interference in American elections for Trump’s personal and political benefit or simply pursuing their duties to investigate corruption and a cover up by their political opponents.[1][2][3][4][5] Historians, diplomats, and former White House officials of both parties have said that it was unprecedented for a U.S. president to seek to enlist assistance from foreign powers to damage domestic political opponents.[6][7] The controversy sparked an impeachment inquiry against Trump.[8]

The controversy was launched by a whistleblower report which revealed that Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July 2019 to investigate Joe Biden, Trump’s potential opponent in the 2020 presidential election, as well as his son Hunter Biden and the company CrowdStrike, and to discuss these matters with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.[9][10] These allegations were confirmed by a non-verbatim summary of the conversation released by the White House.[11][12][13] Trump acknowledged he had told Zelensky “we don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son [contributing] to the corruption already in the Ukraine.”[14] The whistleblower alleged that the call was part of a wider campaign by Trump, his administration, and Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens, which may have included Trump’s cancelling a scheduled trip to Ukraine by Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump withholding $400 million in military aid from Ukraine.[15][16][17]

Immediately after the Trump-Zelensky call ended, White House national security aides discussed their deep concerns, with at least one National Security Council (NSC) official alerting White House national security lawyers.[18][19] A text message between a State department envoy to Ukraine and a Ukrainian official showed the envoy understood from the White House that a Zelensky visit with Trump was contingent upon Ukraine’s investigating a conspiracy theory about alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 American election.[20]

Additionally, the whistleblower alleged that records of the Trump–Zelensky call were moved from the system where presidential call transcripts are typically stored to a system reserved for the government’s most sensitive secrets.[15][21] The Trump White House later confirmed that a record of that conversation had indeed been stored in a highly restricted system.[22][23] After the controversy broke, the media reported that the Trump administration had also restricted access to records of Trump’s conversations with the leaders of China,[24] Russia, Saudi Arabia,[25] and Australia.[3] It was subsequently revealed that this placement was made for political rather than for national security reasons, which are the only valid reasons to use such a server.[26]

The first whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12, 2019, reportedly by a CIA officer detailed to the White House.[27] It was based both on “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct” and on the accounts of more than “half a dozen U.S. officials”.[28][29] The complaint was eventually released to congressional intelligence committees on September 25, 2019,[30] and a redacted version of the complaint was made public the next day.[31] On October 6, 2019, attorney Mark Zaid announced the existence of a second official whistleblower, an intelligence official with firsthand knowledge who had spoken with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community but had not yet contacted the congressional committees involved in the investigation.[32]

The whistleblower’s complaint prompted a referral to the Department of Justice Criminal Division. On September 25, a Department of Justice spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, announced that the division had “concluded the matter” and determined that the call did not constitute a campaign finance violation.[33][34][35] On October 3, after Trump publicly called for China and Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden,[36] Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair Ellen Weintrau reiterated that “it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”[37][38]

Trump denied all wrongdoing with regard to the controversy.[39] He confirmed that he had withheld aid from Ukraine, while offering contradicting reasons for doing so: he first claimed it was withheld because of corruption in Ukraine, but later said it was because other nations, including those in Europe, were not contributing enough aid to Ukraine.[40][41][42]

Trump has repeatedly criticized the whistleblower,[43] sought information about the whistleblower,[44] and called for the whistleblower’s sources to be outed.[45] In October 2019, after mentioning that the United States has “tremendous power” in the trade war with China “if they don’t do what we want”, Trump publicly urged Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens.[46] As of October 2019, there has been no evidence produced of any alleged wrongdoing by the Bidens.[47] Trump, his supporters, and right-wing media have spread multiple conspiracy theories regarding Ukraine, the Bidens, the whistleblower, and the foreign interference in the 2016 election.[48][49][50] The scope of the controversy expanded on October 9, when arrests were made by the FBI of two of Giuliani’s clients involved in political and business affairs in the United States and Ukraine,[51] as well as news two days later that Giuliani himself was under federal investigation.[52]

Contents

  • 1 Background
    • 1.1 Donald Trump
    • 1.2 Ukraine and the Bidens
    • 1.3 Rudy Giuliani
    • 1.4 State gas company
  • 2 Communications with Ukrainian officials
  • 3 Secrecy of transcripts
  • 4 Withholding of Ukrainian military aid
  • 5 First whistleblower complaint
    • 5.1 Submission of complaint and withholding from Congress
    • 5.2 Release and substance of the complaint
  • 6 Second whistleblower complaint
  • 7 Communications with other governments
    • 7.1 Australia
    • 7.2 Italy
    • 7.3 China
  • 8 Impeachment inquiry proceedings
  • 9 Subsequent developments
    • 9.1 Arrest of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman
  • 10 Reactions
    • 10.1 Congress
    • 10.2 Trump and the White House
    • 10.3 Ukraine
    • 10.4 European Union
    • 10.5 Russia
    • 10.6 Former U.S. officials
    • 10.7 American press coverage
    • 10.8 Public opinion
    • 10.9 Resignations
    • 10.10 Internet communities
  • 11 Conspiracy theories
    • 11.1 CrowdStrike
    • 11.2 First whistleblower
    • 11.3 George Soros
    • 11.4 Mitt Romney
  • 12 See also
  • 13 Notes
  • 14 References
  • 15 External links

Background

Donald Trump

In a July 25, 2019, phone call, Trump asked Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky (pictured) to investigate matters related to Hunter Biden.

Before this controversy came to light, U.S. President Donald Trump indicated he would accept foreign intelligence on his political rivals. In June 2019, Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, who asked: “If foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?” Trump responded: “I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I don’t. There’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country – Norway – we have information on your opponent. Oh. I think I’d want to hear it.”[53] After Trump said this, the chair of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, reminded Americans that according to federal law: “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”[54] Previously in July 2016, while Trump was still a candidate in the 2016 United States presidential election, he made a request: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from fellow presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email server.[55][56]

Ukraine and the Bidens

In 2014, the Obama administration was trying to provide diplomatic support to the post-2014 Ukrainian revolution Yatsenyuk government in Ukraine, and then-vice president Joe Biden was “at the forefront” of those efforts.[57] Biden’s son Hunter Biden joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company, on April 18, 2014.[58][59][60] Hunter, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with “corporate governance best practices”, and a consulting firm in which Hunter is a partner was also retained by Burisma.[58][61][62] In a December 2015 interview, Joe Biden said he had never discussed Hunter’s work at Burisma.[63] Joe Biden traveled to Ukrainian capital Kiev on April 21, 2014, and urged the Ukrainian government “to reduce its dependence on Russia for supplies of natural gas.”[64][65] He discussed how the United States could help provide technical expertise for expanding domestic production of natural gas.[64]

Since 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating Burisma’s owner, oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.[58] In 2015, Viktor Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as “an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts”.[66][67] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma, to the extent that Obama administration officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[58] Shokin has stated he believes he was fired because of his Burisma investigation, where Hunter Biden was allegedly a subject; however, that investigation was dormant at the time Shokin was fired.[63][68] In December 2015, then-vice president Biden visited Kiev and informed the Ukrainian government that $1 billion in loan guarantees would be withheld unless anti-corruption reforms were implemented, including the removal of Shokin.[69] Ukraine’s parliament voted to dismiss Shokin in March 2016.[69][70] The loan guarantees were finally approved on June 3, after additional reforms were made.[69]

At the time, corruption in Ukraine was a matter of bipartisan concern in the U.S., with Republican senators Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson co-signing a Senate Ukraine Caucus letter in February 2016 urging then-President Poroshenko to implement reforms, including “to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office”.[71] Biden was not alone in targeting Shokin for anti-corruption reasons; he was joined by other European and U.S. officials. U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt and the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland both said in 2015 that Shokin’s office was failing to root out corruption. Meanwhile, protests within Ukraine were calling for Shokin’s removal, and the International Monetary Fund also threatened to delay $40 billion of aid in light of corruption in Ukraine.[72] The European Union eventually praised Shokin’s dismissal due to a “lack of tangible results” of his office’s investigations, and also because people in Shokin’s office were themselves being investigated.[73]

Hunter Biden in 2013

As of October 2019, there is no evidence that Biden acted to protect his son’s involvement with Burisma, although Trump, Giuliani, and their allies have fueled speculation.[61][74][75] Shokin’s successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, initially took a hard line against Burisma, but within a year he announced that all legal proceedings and pending criminal allegations against Zlochevsky had been “fully closed”.[58] In a related 2014 investigation by the United Kingdom, British authorities froze U.K. bank accounts tied to Zlochevsky;[76] however, the investigation was later closed due to a lack of evidence. Lutsenko stated in May 2019 that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens, but he was planning to provide information to attorney general Bill Barr about Burisma board payments so American authorities could verify whether Hunter Biden had paid U.S. taxes.[77]

Rudy Giuliani

Since at least May 2019, Giuliani has been pushing for Volodymyr Zelensky, the newly elected president of Ukraine, to investigate Burisma, as well as to check if there were any irregularities in the Ukrainian investigation of Paul Manafort. He said such investigations would be beneficial to his client, Trump, and that his efforts had Trump’s full support.[78] Giuliani’s efforts began as an attempt to provide cover for Trump to pardon Manafort, who had been convicted of eight felony counts in August 2018.[79] On May 10, Giuliani canceled a scheduled trip to Ukraine where he had intended to urge president-elect Zelensky to pursue inquiries into Hunter Biden, as well as whether Democrats colluded with Ukrainians to release information about Manafort.[80][81] Giuliani claimed he has sworn statements from five Ukrainians stating they were brought into the Obama White House in January 2016 and told to “go dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort”, although he has not produced evidence for the claim.[82] Giuliani asserted he cancelled the trip because he had been “set up” by Ukrainians who objected to his efforts, and blamed Democrats for trying to “spin” the trip. Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials to press the case for an investigation in June 2019 and August 2019.[83]

As early as May 2019, Trump had instructed State Department officials attempting to set up a meeting with Zelensky to work with Giuliani. Establishing Giuliani as a gatekeeper in this fashion circumvented official channels.[84]

State gas company

Perry with Zelensky at Zelensky’s inauguration, May 2019.

Starting in March 2019, while Giuliani was pressing the Ukrainian administration to investigate the Bidens, a group of businessmen and Republican donors used their ties to Trump and Giuliani to try to replace the leadership of Ukrainian state-owned oil and gas company Naftogaz. The group sought to have Naftogaz contracts granted to businesses owned by allies of Trump, but this effort hit a setback when Volodymyr Zelensky won the 2019 Ukrainian Presidential Election.[85] During a state visit for President Zelensky’s inauguration in May, U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry reportedly pressured President Zelensky to fire members of the Naftogaz supervisory board,[85] but Perry denied this, stating in a press conference on October 7: “That was a totally dreamed-up story”.[86] On October 10, Perry was issued a subpoena by the House Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, partially concerning his interactions with Naftogaz.[87][88][89]

Communications with Ukrainian officials

A memorandum with a non-verbatim record of the call between Trump and Zelensky released by the White House

On September 20, 2019, The Washington Post reported that Trump had in a July 25 conversation repeatedly pressed Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate matters relating to Hunter Biden.[90] The New York Times reported that Trump told Zelensky to speak to Giuliani,[91][92] and according to The Wall Street Journal, he urged Zelensky “about eight times” to work with Giuliani and investigate Biden’s son.[83] On September 22, Trump acknowledged he had discussed Joe Biden during the call with Zelensky, and that he had said: “We don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating [sic] to the corruption already in the Ukraine.”[14] As of October 2019, there has been no evidence produced of any of the alleged wrongdoing by the Bidens.[47]

The Wall Street Journal reported on September 30 that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also listened in on the call.[93] Two days later, the Washington Post reported that Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Advisor Keith Kellogg had listened in on the call as well, and that “Pence should have had access to the transcript within hours.”[2] Others on the line included Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia; Rob Blair, an aide to Mick Mulvaney; and possibly Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert for the NSC.[18]

Days before Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky, Giuliani spoke on the phone with Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak [uk] about a Biden investigation, as well as a prospective White House meeting between Zelensky and Trump that was sought by Ukrainian officials.[94] According to Zelensky’s advisor Serhiy Leshchenko, Trump was willing to have a phone conversation with Zelensky only on the precondition that they discuss the possibility of investigating the Biden family. Leshchenko later sought to backtrack his comments, saying he did not know if officials had viewed discussing Biden as a precondition for a meeting.[95]

Text messages given to Congress by special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker in October suggest that Zelensky’s aide Yermak was told that Zelensky would be invited for a White House visit only if he promised to carry out the requested investigations. On July 25, just before Trump’s phone call, Volker texted to Yermak: “heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”[96]

On September 25, the administration released the White House’s five-page, declassified memorandum of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky.[97][98][99][a] In the call, Trump pressed for an investigation into the Bidens and CrowdStrike, saying: “I would like to have the [U.S.] Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”[98] Trump falsely told Zelensky “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution” of his son, Hunter; Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.[100]

Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. Yovanovich testified to Congress, “I met with the Deputy Secretary of State, who informed of the curtailment of my term. He said that the President had lost confidence in me and no longer wished me to serve as his ambassador. He added that there had been a concerted campaign against me, and that the Department had been under pressure from the President to remove me since the Summer of 2018. He also said that I had done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause.”[101]

Trump also presented Giuliani as a key U.S. contact for Ukraine, although Giuliani holds no official U.S. government position. Trump stated three times that he would ask both Attorney General William Barr and Giuliani to call Zelensky,[102] and added: “So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”[97] In response, Zelensky said his candidate for Ukraine’s chief prosecutor “will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue”. After Zelensky said this, Trump offered to meet with Zelensky at the White House.[98] On the same call with Zelensky, Trump espoused the conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton’s email server was in Ukraine;[103][104] criticized the U.S.’s European allies (in particular Germany),[102] and disparaged the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, a career U.S. diplomat whom the Trump administration had abruptly recalled several months earlier.[105][106]

During the conversation, Zelensky mentioned that on his last visit to the United States, he had stayed in Trump Tower. Ethics advocacy groups described this comment as an attempt to curry favor.[107]

Shortly after the conversation, White House aides began asking one another whether they should alert other senior officials who had not participated.[18] The first whistleblower described one White House official as being “visibly shaken by what had transpired”. In a July 26 memo, the whistleblower reported, “The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official’s view, the president had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own re-election bid in 2020.”[108][109]

During the period prior to and immediately after the July 25 call, at least four national security officials warned National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg that the Trump administration was attempting to pressure Ukraine for political purposes.[19]

Days after the Trump call, Giuliani met with Yermak in Madrid. Giuliani stated on September 23 that the State Department had asked him to “go on a mission for them” to speak with Yermak.[110] The State Department had stated on August 22 that its Ukraine envoy Volker had connected the men, but that Giuliani was acting as a private citizen and Trump attorney,[111] although he briefed the State Department after the trip.[94] Giuliani stated he told Yermak, “Your country owes it to us and to your country to find out what really happened.” Yermak stated he was not clear if Giuliani was representing Trump, but Giuliani stated he was not, and the White House referred questions about Giuliani’s role to the State Department, which did not respond. Appearing on television on September 19, Giuliani first denied he had asked Ukrainian officials to investigate Joe Biden, but moments later stated, “Of course I did.”[112][113][114] Former prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko told the Los Angeles Times Giuliani had repeatedly demanded that the Ukrainians investigate the Biden family. “I told him I could not start an investigation just for the interests of an American official,” Lutsenko informed the Times.[115]

Letter from the chairs of the House Committees on Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs, including copies of text-message conversations involving Volker, Sondland, and others.

In August, Volker and American ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland drafted a statement they wanted Zelensky to read publicly that would commit Ukraine to investigate Burisma and the conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton. However, Zelensky never made the statement.[96] Volker also provided to congressional investigators a September text message exchange between Sondland, a major Trump donor and political appointee, and Bill Taylor, a career diplomat who was the senior official at the Ukrainian embassy after the recall of Ambassador Yovanovitch. In the messages, Taylor wrote: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Four hours later, after speaking with Trump, Sondland responded: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He then suggested they continue discussing the matter by phone rather than text.[116][117][118] The Washington Post reported on October 12 that Sondland would tell congressional investigators the following week that he had relayed Trump’s assertion of no quid pro quo, but he did not know if it was actually true.[119]

American embassy officials in Kiev repeatedly expressed concerns about Giuliani’s meetings, and during closed-door congressional testimony on October 4, Volker reportedly stated he had warned Giuliani that Ukrainian political figures were giving him untrustworthy information about the Bidens.[20][81] He also testified that Joe Biden was a “man of integrity”, saying: “I have known former vice president Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as vice president by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. I know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country.”[120]

Secrecy of transcripts

The first whistleblower’s report said that “senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call,” an act that indicated those officials “understood the gravity of what had transpired”.[b] They performed the “lock down” by placing the record of the call on a top-secret server intended for the most highly classified material,[121][122][123] under the direction of John Eisenberg.[25] It was later confirmed that on orders from National Security Council attorneys, the call with Ukraine was moved from TNet,[21] the regular NSC computer system, to the top-secret codeword NICE system, reserved for closely guarded secrets.[124][122] On September 27, it was reported that records of calls with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Russia had also been stored on NICE.[25]

On September 27, the White House acknowledged that a record of the call between Trump and Zelensky was sealed in a highly classified system, as per the advice of National Security Council lawyers.[22][23]

Also on September 27 it was reported that the records of Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Russian officials in May 2017 had been unusually closely held, with distribution limited to a few officials.[125] White House advisor Kellyanne Conway said the procedure for handling records of Trump’s calls with world leaders had been tightened early in 2017 because of leaks to the press about his conversations with the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Australia.[126]

It was subsequently revealed that this placement on the top-secret server was made for political rather than for national security reasons, which are the only valid reasons to use such a server.[26]

On October 2, Trump falsely asserted that the publicly released transcript was “an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation”. Analysts noted that its use of ellipses to denote omitted material was uncommon for government transcripts, and that it was surprisingly brief for a thirty-minute conversation, even allowing for the time delays due to the use of an interpreter.[127]

Withholding of Ukrainian military aid

Further information: United States foreign aid, Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), Cold War II, Proxy war, and Ukraine–United States relations

The U.S. Congress has mandated increased military aid to Ukraine over the period of Trump’s presidency.[128][129] Congress appropriated $400 million in military aid to Ukraine for fiscal year 2019, to be used to spend on weapons and other equipment as well as programs to assist the Ukrainian military in combating threats from Putin’s Russia and Russian-backed separatists of the self-proclaimed separatist entities in eastern Ukraine.[130][131] The administration notified Congress in February 2019 and May 2019 that it intended to release this aid to Ukraine.[130] Despite the notifications to Congress, in June 2019, the Trump administration placed military aid to Ukraine on hold.[132] The date of the hold was originally reported as mid-July.[130][131][133] The Washington Post reported on September 23 that at least a week before his July 25 call with Zelensky, Trump directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to withhold[clarify] $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. This directive was conveyed by the Office of Management and Budget to the State Department and Pentagon, stating Trump had concerns about whether the money should be spent, with instructions to tell lawmakers the funds were being delayed due to an “interagency process”.[130] Fox News reported that the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council unanimously supported the Ukraine aid and that Trump had acted alone in withholding it.[134] The Ukrainian government was unaware that the Trump administration froze military aid to the country until a month after the Trump–Zelensky phone call.[135][136]

In the July 25 call with Trump, Zelensky thanked Trump for the U.S.’s “great support in the area of defense”, an apparent reference to military aid, and expressed an interest in acquiring more missiles. Trump replied, “I would like you to do us a favor though,”[97] suggesting an investigation into CrowdStrike, an American cybersecurity firm that investigated the cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee in 2015 and 2016. CrowdStrike was one of three firms whose analysis assisted the U.S. intelligence community in determining that Russian intelligence was responsible for the DNC hack.[102] Trump also asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son.[137] Ukraine relies on extensive American military aid to fight Russian-backed separatists in the Donbass, and the Trump administration’s suspension of the Congressionally-mandated aid was reportedly a shock to Ukrainian government officials who found out about it only “much later, and then through nonofficial channels.”[138] Trump’s addition of the word “though” has been interpreted as a condition made by Trump that his decisions would be based on Ukraine’s compliance with his requests.[139]

On September 9, before news of the whistleblower complaint, three Democratic-controlled House committees—the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform—announced they would investigate whether Trump and Giuliani attempted to coerce Ukraine into investigating the Bidens by withholding the military aid.[140] On September 11, the Trump administration released the aid.[131]

In a September 20 tweet, Giuliani appeared to confirm suspicion that there was a connection between the withholding of military assistance funds and the investigation he and Trump wanted Ukraine to undertake.[141][142] He said: “The reality is that the President of the United States, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. If you’re so damn corrupt that you can’t investigate allegations – our money is going to get squandered.”[143] Trump himself appeared to make a similar connection on September 23, telling reporters: “We want to make sure that country is honest. It’s very important to talk about corruption. If you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?”[133] Trump later clarified: “I did not make a statement that ‘you have to do this or I’m not going to give you aid.’ I wouldn’t do that. I wouldn’t do that … I put no pressure on them whatsoever. I could have. I think it would probably, possibly have been ok if I did. But I didn’t. I didn’t put any pressure on them whatsoever.”[133]

Trump has offered inconsistent justifications for withholding the aid.[40] He originally said that the aid was not released due to “corruption” in the country and that the topic of conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky was about “the fact that we don’t want our people, like vice-president Biden and his son, [adding] to the corruption already in the Ukraine”.[144] He later disputed his original statement and said that the aid was initially held back due to a lack of similar contribution from other European nations.[40][145]

Republican senator Ron Johnson told The Wall Street Journal in October that American ambassador Gordon Sondland told him in August that military aid to Ukraine was linked to the desire of Trump and his allies for the Ukrainian government to investigate matters related to the 2016 American elections.[146] Sondland told a State department diplomat in September via text message that there was no quid pro quo.[147] On October 12, however, The Washington Post reported that, according a person familiar with Sondland’s testimony, Sondland plans to testify to Congress that the content of the message “was relayed to him directly by President Trump in a phone call” and that he did not know if the claim denying quid pro quo was actually true.[148]

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that career civil servants at the Office of Management and Budget were concerned about the legality of freezing the aid funds, and that the White House granted a political appointee, Michael Duffey, the authority to keep the aid on hold.[149]

First whistleblower complaint

Submission of complaint and withholding from Congress

A redacted version of the whistleblower complaint

On August 12, 2019, an unnamed CIA officer[27] filed a whistleblower complaint with Michael Atkinson, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG),[150] under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA).[151] Atkinson looked into the complaint and interviewed several government officials whom the whistleblower identified as having information to substantiate his claims.[27] On August 26, having found the complaint to be both “credible” and “of urgent concern” (as defined by the ICWPA), and noting the “subject matter expertise” of the whistleblower, Atkinson transmitted the complaint to Joseph Maguire, the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI).[152][29][153]

Maguire withheld the complaint from congressional intelligence committees, citing the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel’s rationale that the whistleblower complaint did not relate to an “intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority” of the acting DNI.[154] Maguire also testified that the whistleblower “followed the law every step of the way”.[155][156]

Under ICWPA, the DNI “shall” within seven days of receipt forward the complaint to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Maguire did not do so, and the deadline passed on September 2. On September 9 Atkinson wrote to several lawmakers, telling them about the existence of the whistleblower report, which Maguire had not forwarded to Congress.[157] On September 10, House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) chairman Adam Schiff wrote to Maguire, asking why he had not provided it. According to Schiff, Maguire stated he had been told to withhold it on direction from a “higher authority” because it involved an “issue of privileged communications”. Schiff stated he was also told “the complaint concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community.”[158][152][159] The Trump administration withheld the complaint on the basis of the Justice Department’s assertion that the complaint was not within the purview of the ICWPA.[c] On September 13, Schiff subpoenaed Maguire to appear before the HPSCI,[161] and Maguire agreed to testify on September 26.[162] The Washington Post reported that Maguire threatened to resign if the White House sought to constrain his testimony, although Maguire later denied he had contemplated resigning.[163]

On September 18, The Washington Post broke the story of the whistleblower report, saying that the complaint concerned a “promise” Trump had made during communication with an unnamed foreign leader. White House records showed Trump had made communications or interactions with five foreign leaders during the five weeks before the whistleblower complaint was filed.[164] During a previously scheduled closed-door hearing before the HPSCI on September 19, Atkinson told lawmakers the complaint referred to a series of events,[83] and that he disagreed with the position that the complaint lay outside the scope of the ICWPA, but declined to provide details.[165] On September 19, The Washington Post reported that the complaint related to Ukraine.[165]

After the ICIG found that the call was a possible violation of federal campaign finance laws, which prohibits the solicitation of foreign contributions, the ICIG referred the matter to the FBI, and the DNI referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for a possible criminal investigation of Trump’s actions.[97] Courtney Simmons Elwood, general counsel for the CIA, became aware of the whistleblower’s complaint through a colleague and, on August 14, made what she considered a criminal referral of the matter during a conference call with the top national security lawyer at the White House and the chief of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.[166] A Justice Department official said the ICIG suspected the call could have broken federal law if Trump’s request to the Ukrainian government to investigate a political opponent constituted the solicitation of campaign contribution from a foreign government.[167] According to a Justice Department spokeswoman, the department’s criminal division reviewed “the official record of the call” and determined there was no campaign finance violation.[168][98] The Justice Department’s determination not to launch an investigation took only weeks; the department did not conduct interviews or take steps beyond reviewing the call record.[35] A senior Justice Department official told The Washington Post the Justice Department had determined Trump’s conduct did not constitute the solicitation of a quantifiable “thing of value” subject to the campaign finance laws.[98][35] The Justice Department’s review looked into whether there was evidence of a campaign violation law, and did not look into possible violations of federal corruption statutes.[35] Some legal experts said there seemed to be evidence warranting an investigation into both; for example, Richard L. Hasen, an election-law scholar, believes the provision of opposition research, e.g. valuable information about a political rival, could be considered a contribution in kind under campaign finance law.[35]

Release and substance of the complaint

On September 24, the top Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees said an attorney for the whistleblower had contacted the committees about providing testimony.[169] Members and staff of congressional intelligence committees were allowed to examine the whistleblower complaint on September 25.[170] After the release of the whistleblower complaint to congressional committees, Republican Senators Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney called the complaint contents “really troubling” and “troubling in the extreme”, respectively.[171][172] That same day, the complaint itself was declassified with “minimal redactions”.[173] The House Intelligence Committee released the declassified, redacted version of the complaint on September 26.[174]

In the complaint, the whistleblower stated that Trump abused the powers of his office for personal gain and put national security in danger, and that White House officials engaged in a cover-up.[174][175] The whistleblower wrote:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.[174]

In addition to the July 25 phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president Zelensky, the whistleblower alleged that Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, had engaged in a campaign to pressure Ukrainian authorities to pursue Joe Biden, including in an August 2 meeting in Madrid between Giuliani and Zelensky aide as “a direct followup” to the July 25 call and contact with a number of other officials in Zelensky’s government. These officials included Zelensky’s Chief of Staff, Andriy Bohdan, and the then-acting head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Ivan Bakanov.[174] The whistleblower further alleged in the complaint that White House officials had tried to limit access to the record of Trump’s telephone conversation with Zelensky, writing:

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.[174]

Second whistleblower complaint

A second whistleblower, who is also an intelligence official, came forward on October 5, 2019, with “first-hand knowledge of allegations” associated with the phone call between Trump and Zelensky, according to Mark Zaid, a lawyer on the team representing both whistleblowers.[32][176] Zaid stated that the second whistleblower had been interviewed by the ICIG but had not at that time filed a written complaint.[177] Nor, as of October 6, had the second whistleblower communicated with any committee in the House of Representatives.[32]

As of October 6, it is not known whether this intelligence official is the same individual mentioned in a New York Times report from October 4 about an intelligence official who was then weighing the possibility of filing an ICIG complaint and testifying before Congress.[32][178]

Communications with other governments

Mitt Romney was critical of Trump, saying: “When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated.”[179]

Australia

On October 1, 2019, it was reported that the transcript of a call with Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison had been placed on the same top-secret server as the other transcripts. Trump was reported to have requested Morrison’s aid in William Barr’s investigation of the Mueller inquiry.[180] Trump’s request focused on the origins of the Mueller inquiry as a conversation between Australia’s former foreign minister Alexander Downer and Trump campaign team member George Papadopoulos led to the investigation.[181] The Australian government confirmed the call had taken place and that Morrison had articulated to the President that “the Australian Government has always been ready to assist and cooperate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation,” but did not elaborate on what, if any, assistance had been offered.[180] In a letter to William Barr dated May 28, Joe Hockey, Australia’s ambassador to the United States, pledged that the Australian government would “use its best endeavours” to support Barr’s investigation.[180] Hockey later rejected claims that Downer had been part of a conspiracy among intelligence agencies around the world to prevent Trump’s election and undermine his eventual presidency.[182]

The White House responded by dismissing the reports, claiming it was part of a routine request to grant Australian authorities access to Department of Justice resources to facilitate an investigation that had been open for several months.[180] When questioned by a journalist, Morrison rejected Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese’s accusation that he had jeopardized Australia’s national security for the sake of a personal relationship with the President and instead insisted that cooperating with Barr’s investigation was in the national interest. Morrison claimed that no specific request had been made of his government, but refused to go into detail as to what support had been provided, citing national security concerns.[183]

Italy

On September 30, it was reported that William Barr had travelled to Rome to enlist the support of Italian authorities in his investigation.[184] Barr sought information related to a conspiracy theory that Joseph Mifsud was a Western intelligence operative who allegedly entrapped Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in order to establish a false predicate for the FBI to open an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Contrary to the conspiracy theory, that investigation was actually initiated after the Australian government notified American authorities that its diplomat Alexander Downer had a chance encounter with Papadopoulos, who boasted about possible access to Hillary Clinton emails held by the Russian government. Mifsud was last known to be in Rome in 2017, but had since disappeared.[3][185]

China

On October 3, Trump publicly called on China to investigate Hunter Biden’s business activities there while his father was vice president.[41] “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,” Trump told reporters.[36] In 2013, Biden, Devon Archer, and Chinese businessman Jonathan Li founded BHR Partners, a business focused on investing Chinese capital in companies based outside of China.[186][187][76] In September, Trump falsely claimed Biden “walk[ed] out of China with $1.5 billion in a fund” and earned “millions” of dollars from the BHR deal.[188][189]

Trump discussed the political prospects of Biden—as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren, another political rival—during a June 18 phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The record of the call was stored on the same highly restricted computer system used for the Trump–Zelensky call record. According to two people familiar with the discussion, on the same call, Trump “also told Xi he would remain quiet on Hong Kong protests as trade talks progressed.”[24]

The day after Trump’s call for China to investigate Hunter Biden, Mitt Romney said: “it strains credulity to suggest that [the request] is anything other than politically motivated.”[179]

On October 8, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stated: “We have no intention of intervening in the domestic affairs of the United States.”[190]

Impeachment inquiry proceedings

Main article: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

On September 24, 2019, a formal impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives into President Trump was announced by House Speaker Pelosi. Six House committees (Judiciary, Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, and Ways and Means)[191] will begin or continue their formal inquiries. Pelosi said, “The actions of the Trump presidency have revealed the dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.”[192]

The president quickly replied on Twitter, saying the Democrats “ruined and demeaned” a day of significance at the United Nations, where he was addressing the General Assembly. He also called the inquiry “Witch Hunt garbage”.[192] The decision to look into impeachment came after Pelosi consulted with allies, and after reports over a seven day period “… that Trump may have pressured a foreign leader to investigate former vice president and potential 2020 campaign rival Joe Biden and his family.”[192]

The impeachment inquiry came in the wake of a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.[16][97][193] Concurrently, the Trump administration released a memorandum of the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, confirming that Trump had asked Zelensky to “look into” the Biden controversy as a favor.[13] The whistleblower complaint also implicated Giuliani and U.S. Attorney General William Barr as part of a wider pressure campaign directed towards the Ukrainian government.[15][194] Within days, Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker resigned and three House committees issued a subpoena to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to schedule depositions for Volker and four other State Department employees, and to compel the release of documents.[195][196] In a letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot Engel, Pompeo declined to allow the depositions until “we obtain further clarity on these matters”, asserting the demand was “an attempt to intimidate, bully, and treat improperly, the distinguished professionals of the Department of State”.[197] In response to Pompeo’s letter, the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees wrote to deputy secretary of state John Sullivan that because Pompeo took part in the Trump–Zelensky call, he was now considered a witness with a conflict of interest that should preclude him from making such decisions. The congressmen also warned that witness intimidation and withholding of documents could constitute obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.[198][199]

Roughly an hour after Pompeo’s letter was received, the State department inspector general Steve Linick requested an “urgent” meeting with several House committees the next day, relating to documents on Ukraine.[200] After the meeting, Democrats said Linick had provided a “package of disinformation, debunked conspiracy theories and baseless allegations in an envelope marked ‘White House’ and containing folders labeled “Trump Hotel'”. Pompeo’s counsel Ulrich Brechbuhl told Linick he had spoken with Pompeo, who said the package “came over”, presumably from the White House. The package included a cover sheet addressed to Pompeo indicating it was from the White House. Among the allegations in the documents was that Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled in May 2019, had been installed by George Soros and “until she is removed Soros has as much, or more, power over Yovanovitch as the President and the Secretary of State”. The materials reportedly arrived at the State department in spring 2019 and Linick had passed them on to the FBI. Giuliani later said he had sent some of the materials, saying, “They told me they were going to investigate it.”[201][202][203][204] A subpoena was also issued to Giuliani for production of documents.[205]

The House of Representatives sought testimony from Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, whose text messages revealed his involvement with Ukrainian officials in arranging a meeting with Trump. The Trump administration blocked Sondland from testifying, claiming that the process would be a “totally compromised kangaroo court” and that “Republican’s [sic] rights have been taken away and true facts are not allowed out for the public.”[206]

On October 8 the White House sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders addressing their concerns with the current impeachment inquiry. In the eight page letter the White House officially declined to cooperate with what they claimed was an illegitimate effort “to overturn the results of the 2016 election.” The letter signed by White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued that the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump was “constitutionally invalid” and “violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.” Additionally the White House council objected to the current probe rules that prevent Trump from cross-examining witnesses and receiving transcripts of testimony. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the letter stating that “The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the president’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.” It would appear that the two branches of government are headed for a constitutional showdown.[207][208]

Subsequent developments

Arrest of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman

Main article: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman
Subpoena issued to John M. Dowd, regarding his clients Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Click on image to expand and read

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman are associates of Rudy Giuliani, aiding him with his investigation into Joe Biden. Both are Soviet-born Florida real estate businessmen and naturalized American citizens.[85][209] The two were arrested on the evening of October 9, 2019, and charged with planning to direct funds from a foreign government “to U.S. politicians while trying to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations”. They were arrested while trying to leave the United States and their arrest constitutes the first criminal charges to occur from the United States government’s controversial relationship with Ukraine. Their arrest was described as a “complex web of financial and political interactions linking diplomacy to alleged violations of campaign finance law”.[51] The head of the New York’s FBI office described the investigation as “about corrupt behavior, deliberate lawbreaking”.[51]

The charges have also directly connected Parnas and Fruman to the campaign to oust the United States ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, from her post and have her recalled.[210] This occurred over many months.[85] In 2018, the operation included Parnas and Fruman donating funds and pledging later additional money to an unnamed Congressman, who was recruited for the “campaign to oust her”.[210] Some of the funds violated campaign limits. Parnas and Fruman were also charged with unlawful campaign contributions. Former congressional Representative Pete Sessions (R-Texas) correlates with campaign finance filings, identifying him as the unnamed Congressman. At the time, as the Chairman of the House Rules Committee, he wrote a May 9, 2018 letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “saying that Ms. Yovanovitch should be fired for privately expressing ‘disdain’ for the current administration.”[210] Earlier that day, Parnas and his business partner David Correia visited Sessions in his Capitol Hill office.[211]

In 2018, Parnas and Fruman were sent by Guiliani to Ukraine to extract damaging information on Trump’s U.S. political rivals. “Their mission was to find people and information that could be used to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation, and also to damage former Vice President Joseph R. Biden.”[212] Both were also at the center of the pro-Trump forces’ push to remove the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine because her loyalty to President Trump was deemed deficient “as he pursued his agenda there”.[212] Also, over the course of a year beginning in 2018, the two brought Giuliani to Ukrainians who were amenable to promoting “a largely unsubstantiated narrative about the Bidens”.[212] These willing Ukrainians included Yuriy Lutsenko, a former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, who was essential to aiding Giuliani’s efforts to produce damaging information.[citation needed]

The FBI’s New York field office, along with SDNY prosecutors, are conducting a criminal investigation of Giuliani’s relationship with Parnas and Fruman.[213] Giuliani is under investigation for potentially violating lobbying laws.[52]

Referring to Parnas and Fruman, on October 10 Trump stated, “I don’t know those gentlemen,” although that day The Wall Street Journal reported Trump had dinner with the men in the White House in early May 2018.[214][215] BuzzFeed News features photos of Lev Parnas posing with President Trump and both Parnas and Fruman posing with other Republicans in Washington, DC.[216] Trump was photographed with Parnas as early as April 2014.[217]

Reactions

Congress

On September 22, House speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that if the administration continued to withhold the whistleblower complaint from Congress, “they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, stating he had previously been “very reluctant” to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump, said, “we may very well have crossed the Rubicon here.”[218] The vast majority of Republicans did not comment on the matter, with notable exceptions of senators Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney, both of whom suggested Trump should release information to resolve the situation.[219]

On September 24, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent a sense of the Senate resolution calling for the whistleblower complaint to be immediately transmitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee.[220]

Following the release of the memorandum of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky, Senator Romney called the memorandum “deeply troubling” and asked for more information to be made public.[221] Pelosi stated that the memorandum “confirms that the President engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office he holds and our national security.”[222][223]

Some Republican senators dismissed the credibility of the whistleblower complaint as hearsay, but legal analysts subsequently found that assertions the whistleblower made in the complaint were verified by the memorandum record of Trump’s telephone call.[224][225]

On September 26, during a House hearing, Representative Adam Schiff gave a summary of the “essence” and the “character” of the Trump–Zelensky call. One part of Schiff’s retelling was not represented in the non-verbatim memorandum of the call provided by the White House, when Schiff stated: “And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that.” After Representative Mike Turner accused Schiff of “just making it up”, Schiff responded that his summary “was meant to be at least part in parody” and acknowledged that “the president never said if you don’t understand me, I’m going to say it seven more times.” However, Schiff argued: “That’s the message that the Ukraine president was receiving in not so many words.”[226]

Senator Graham urged British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to assist Attorney General Barr with investigation “as the Department of Justice continues to investigate the origins and extent of foreign influence in the 2016 U.S. presidential election”.[227] Trump supporters on television, radio, and the Internet have pressured Republicans to continue supporting Trump. Republicans that have spoken out against Trump, expressed concern, or defended the whistleblower, such as Senators Mitt Romney, Charles Grassley, Ben Sasse and Representative Adam Kinzinger, have come under criticism online by right-wing websites, with Romney becoming the target of baseless conspiracy theories and virally spread disinformation.[228]

Trump and the White House

Play media President Trump answers questions from the press on September 22, 2019

In his initial comments to reporters on September 20, Trump characterized the whistleblower as “partisan”, but added, “I do not know the identity of the whistleblower” and called the story “just another political hack job”.[229][d] Trump also said: “Somebody ought to look into Joe Biden’s statement because it was disgraceful where he talked about billions of dollars that he’s not giving to a certain country unless a certain prosecutor is taken off the case. So somebody ought to look into that,” suggesting the press was not reporting it. The press has reported on the Joe Biden matter for months but found no evidence of wrongdoing.[232][77][74] On September 23, Trump asserted: “If a Republican ever did what Joe Biden did, if a Republican ever said what Joe Biden said, they’d be getting the electric chair right now.”[233] Before the White House released a rough transcript, Trump claimed that his call with Zelensky was “largely congratulatory” and “largely [discussed] corruption”. However, the White House’s rough transcript showed only a short congratulatory comment and no mentions of corruption.[234]
Within six hours of the impeachment inquiry being announced on September 24, Trump and his campaign team started a fundraising drive for an “Impeachment Defense Team”. Forty-eight hours later, they had raised in excess of $13 million dollars and signed up 50,000 new donors.[235][236]

On September 25, during a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky, Trump said: “I want [Zelensky] to do whatever he can. Biden’s son walks out of Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars. I think it’s a horrible thing.”[237] Trump denied explicitly tying U.S. military aid to Ukraine’s corruption investigation involving Burisma Holdings.[238] On September 27, Trump characterized the whistleblower as “close to a spy”, adding: “you know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.”[239] On September 29, Trump requested to meet the whistleblower, saying that he and the American people “deserved” to meet them. He later stated that the White House was trying to learn the identity of the whistleblower. He also demanded that Adam Schiff be arrested and questioned “at the highest level” for fraud and treason.[240][241]

In a letter from the whistleblower’s lawyers addressed to the Director of National Intelligence, the whistleblower claimed to be afraid for their safety.[240] On October 1, Trump claimed that any attempt to remove him from office would result in a “Civil War-like fracture”. He also called for Schiff to be arrested for treason,[242] and later claimed that Nancy Pelosi was “every bit as guilty as Liddle’ [sic] Adam Schiff for High Crimes and Misdemeanours, and even Treason” before calling for both Schiff and Pelosi to be impeached themselves as they had “evilly ‘Colluded'”.[243]

Vice President Mike Pence and US delegation meets with President Zelensky in Warsaw on 1 September 2019

On October 3, after stating that the United States has “tremendous power” and “many options” in the trade war with China “if they don’t do what we want”, Trump was asked by a reporter on what he hoped Zelensky would do after his phone call. Trump responded by publicly urging both Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens.[46] Later in the day, Vice President Mike Pence voiced his support of Trump’s comments, saying: “I think the American people have a right to know if the vice president of the United States or his family profited from his position.”[244] Pence stated that the activities of the Biden family were “worth looking into”.[245] Trump later claimed that when he called upon China to investigate the Bidens, his only interest was in thwarting corruption. Mitt Romney was critical of this, saying: “When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that this is anything other than politically motivated.”[246]

Ukranian President Zelensky with Kurt Volker and Rick Perry, May 2019.

On October 4, Trump told Congressional Republican leaders that the only reason he called Zelensky was at the urging of Energy Secretary Rick Perry, saying Perry wanted him to discuss a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and that Trump had not even wanted to make the call. However, there is no mention of LNG in the publicly released summary of the conversation, and text messages exchanged among aides who were setting up the phone call made no mention of Perry, instead suggesting that Giuliani was the primary mover.[247] Perry had been the administration’s official representative at Zelensky’s inauguration in May. During that trip; he pressured Zelensky to fire board members of Naftogaz, the national oil and gas company of Ukraine, and informed government and industry officials that the Trump administration wanted the entirety of Naftogaz’s supervisory board replaced.[85] Perry denied pressing for change at Naftogaz in a press conference on October 7, describing that as “a totally dreamed up story”.[86] On October 10, however, Perry was issued a subpoena by the House Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, partially concerning his interactions with Naftogaz.[87][88][89]

Ukraine

Play media Volodymyr Zelensky meets with Donald Trump in New York City on September 25, 2019

On September 20, Roman Truba, head of the Ukraine State Bureau of Investigations, told The Daily Beast that his agency had not investigated the Biden–Burisma connection and there were no signs of illegality there. Anton Herashchenko, a senior advisor to the Ukraine interior minister, told The Daily Beast that Ukraine will open such an investigation if there is an official request, along with details of why an investigation is needed and what to look for. Trump’s requests have come through unofficial representatives such as Giuliani.[82] On September 22, Senator Chris Murphy said Zelensky told him he had no intention to get involved with an American election.[248]

In an interview released on September 24, Ukrainian diplomat and politician Valentyn Nalyvaichenko told The Daily Beast that Ukrainian authorities would be reopening corruption investigations into multiple individuals and organizations including, potentially, Burisma, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, TV host Larry King, and former prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko. King was suspected of receiving slush fund payments recorded in the “black ledger” that also named Manafort. Nalyvaichenko accused Lutsenko of having been in communication with associates of Trump “for vindictive purposes”.[249]

During a joint press conference with Trump to reporters gathered at the United Nations General Assembly, Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters on September 25: “We had I think good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. So, I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.”[237][250][251] Ukrainian foreign minister Vadym Prystaiko told a Ukrainian news outlet on September 21: “I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers.”[252] Prystaiko was also quoted as saying: “I want to say that we are an independent state, we have our secrets.”[252] Finally, regarding the investigation into the Biden issue, Zelensky made it clear that he was not going to interfere with the intra-American party confrontation.[253] During the joint press conference with Trump, Zelensky said he had not pressured anyone nor made any promises, and that the Prosecutor General Ruslan Riaboshapka would investigate all domestic cases without prejudice.[254]

European Union

During the conversation, Zelensky and Trump criticized German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Union for a lack of support toward Ukraine.[255] Elmar Brok, special adviser on Ukraine for President Jean-Claude Juncker, refuted the criticism, pointing to the economic boost provided by the European Union through a free trade agreement. In addition, he claimed the United States has not signed a similar agreement with Ukraine.[255] The conversation prompted Europeans to calculate the amount of aid given to Ukraine since 2014, and by approximate estimates, the EU and European financial institutions have provided assistance to more than $16 billion in grants and loans.[256]

In the overall ranking in 2016–2017, the European Union is the leader in terms of aid, the U.S. the second, and Germany is the third.[257] However, Ukrainian media analyzed the data and found that from 2014, Germany provided aid of 1.4 billion euros: 500 million euros is a loan that will be repaid, 200 million euros is a share of Germany from European Union assistance, and the rest is really full-fledged assistance.[258][259] Germany has stated that its attitude towards Ukraine has not changed.[260][261]

Russia

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov expressed support for an investigation into Hunter Biden. Azarov fled to Russia in 2014 following the Euromaidan protests; he is currently in exile in Moscow, has called for a pro-Russian ‘regime change’ in Ukraine,[262] is wanted for prosecution in Ukraine for abuse of power and embezzlement, and has set up a government in exile that is widely seen as a pro-Russian puppet.[263][264][265]

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated: “You have to admit, the publication of a full transcript of a conversation — be it by phone or face-to-face — is uncommon in interstate diplomatic practice. At least, uncommon until now.”[266][267] Speaking at an energy conference in Moscow, Putin said: “I didn’t see during the telephone conversation that Trump demanded some compromising information from Zelensky at all costs, and threatened that he would [otherwise] not provide assistance to Ukraine.”[268]

Former U.S. officials

More than 300 former U.S. foreign policy and national security officials who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations signed an open letter on September 27, supporting a congressional impeachment inquiry into Trump’s conduct relating to Ukraine. The officials, who formerly served in the U.S. Intelligence Community, National Security Council, and departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, wrote that Trump’s actions raised “a profound national security concern” and that “President Trump appears to have leveraged the authority and resources of the highest office in the land to invite additional foreign interference into our democratic processes. If we fail to speak up—and act—now our foreign policy and national security will officially be on offer to those who can most effectively fulfill the President’s personal prerogatives.”[269][270]

The American Foreign Service Association and American Academy of Diplomacy, representing members of the U.S. diplomatic corps, expressed alarm at Trump’s disparagement of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in his call with Zelensky.[271]

Ten former White House chiefs of staff, who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents[e] described it as unprecedented for an incumbent president to “personally apply pressure to foreign powers to damage political opponents”.[7] When the ten were interviewed, “none recalled any circumstance under which the White House had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds.”[7]

American press coverage

The day after the whistleblower complaint was released, the print editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today each ran large front-page headlines characterizing the matter as an alleged White House “cover-up”.[272][273] On September 25, 2019, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote an editorial urging Congressional Republicans to call for Trump’s resignation.[274]

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace characterized the spin by Trump allies in the immediate aftermath of the whistleblower complaint becoming public as “astonishing” and “deeply misleading”.[275]

Trump’s unsubstantiated claims about Biden were repeated in a reelection campaign commercial that said: “when President Trump asks Ukraine to investigate corruption, the Democrats want to impeach him and their media lapdogs fall in line.” CNN refused to broadcast the ads because Trump’s claims had already been debunked and for disparaging its journalists.[276]

Public opinion

See also: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump § Public opinion

In the days after the controversy arose, multiple polls showed a surge in support for an impeachment inquiry, or impeachment itself.[277][278][279]

Resignations

The American special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, resigned one day after the complaint was released. The whistleblower complaint alleges Volker “sought to ‘contain the damage’ from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s outreach to Ukraine’s government about the Biden family.”[280] On October 10, Michael McKinley, a senior advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, resigned over disappointment in Pompeo’s lack of public support for those named in the controversy.[281]

Internet communities

After the whistleblower complaint was publicized, discussion forums on the Internet tried to identify its author. These attempts at “doxing” were marked by disorganized speculation, racism and misogyny.[282]

Conspiracy theories

CrowdStrike

George Stephanopoulos described the details of the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory as “both convoluted and false”.

During the July 25, 2019, phone call between Trump and Zelensky, Trump referred to a far-right conspiracy theory pushed by internet trolls, right-wing blogs, and right-wing news websites.[283][284][285] This conspiracy theory concerns CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity and internet security firm that first investigated the 2015–2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) network and determined that Russian military intelligence (GRU) was behind these cyber attacks. Tom Bossert, Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, stated in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that Trump was repeatedly warned by his staff that the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory was “completely debunked”. Of the conspiracy theory, Stephanopoulos said: “The details are both convoluted and false.” Bossert blamed Giuliani for Trump’s fixation upon the conspiracy theory.[286][287]

The overarching theme of this conspiracy theory is that the DNC fabricated evidence to implicate Russia in the cyber attacks.[288] CrowdStrike’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a naturalized American citizen born in the Soviet Union.[289][290] According to the hoax, Alperovitch is a Ukrainian who was ordered by the DNC to discredit Russia for the election interference, and he was personally motivated to get even with Vladimir Putin. Also, according to the theory, CrowdStrike is owned by a rich Ukrainian[100] and the actual server involved in the cyber attack is in Ukraine. CrowdStrike is actually a publicly traded company headquartered in California. “The” server is actually 140 servers, decommissioned and located in the United States.[291] The theory additionally says FBI agents were not allowed to examine the server because such action would expose the DNC plot,[288] although in fact—and as documented in the Mueller Report—images and traffic logs of the DNC servers were provided to the FBI.[291][292] This conspiracy theory originated from a “GRU persona, ‘Guccifer 2.0’, created to cast doubt on Russia’s culpability in the DNC [intrusion].”[288][293]

First whistleblower

Various right-wing commentators speculated the whistleblower had help from others, perhaps constituting a coordinated conspiracy. Speculation centered around Adam Schiff, the press, Fusion GPS, Media Matters, a team of lawyers or a research firm, and the intelligence community in general.[294][295][296][297] After the whistleblower had informed the CIA’s general counsel of his concerns, he grew troubled by “how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the CIA was unfolding”, according to The New York Times. He then contacted an aide for the House Intelligence Committee and provided a vague statement. The aide then followed standard procedure and advised the whistleblower to find a lawyer and file a complaint with the ICIG. Neither Rep. Schiff nor the other members of the Committee saw the complaint until the night before they released it publicly, and the Committee was not involved in writing the complaint.[298][299] Schiff and the Committee had no role in helping the whistleblower select an attorney. According to Mark S. Zaid, a member of the whistleblower’s pro bono legal team: “The whistleblower took the advice to find an attorney and did what most people do, they asked around to trusted friends as to who they should contact. Andrew [Bakaj]’s name was provided and he was retained. Exactly how it happens every day.”[300] During a news conference on October 2, Trump claimed that the New York Times article proved Schiff had helped write the whistleblower complaint,[298] prompting one of the reporters who wrote the story to reply on Twitter that their story said no such thing and that Schiff had not even known the whistleblower’s identity.[301]

In late September, Trump put forth the conspiracy theory that “whistleblower rules” were changed “just before” the whistleblower’s report was submitted to accommodate the complaint against him.[302] Senator Lindsey Graham made a similar claim about the “hearsay rule”, while Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow claimed that the old situation was: “No firsthand information, no report”.[303][304][305] Trump’s claim was based on an article from The Federalist, which accused the ICIG of having “secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings”, by revising their complaint form sometime between May 2018 and August 2019, removing a section from the old form containing the sentence: “If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”[303][304] According to The Daily Beast, the article written by The Federalist neglected to mention that the old form did have checkboxes where the whistleblower could indicate that their information was “direct” or from either “other employees” or other indirect sources.[305][306]

The IC IG responded the whistleblower’s complaint was submitted with the old form (before the forms changed), and that the whistleblower’s complaint was based on both “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct” and knowledge from other employees.[28][29] The IC IG also stated that the old form had been under review, and that “in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint”, the form was changed because “certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint”.[28] The IC IG also said that by law a complainant is not required to have “first-hand information” themselves, and that their office “cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law”.[28]

PolitiFact and The Washington Post reported that the “rules” for whistleblowing arise from Intelligence Community Directive 120, last updated in 2016. The directive states that the requirement for a complaint is to be one which the whistleblower “reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule or regulation”.[303][306] According to CNN, the burden of obtaining and evaluating first-hand knowledge for credibility is placed on the IC IG, who has 14 days to conduct an investigation to do so.[302] In this case, the preliminary review done by the IC IG did find more information to support the allegations as credible.[307] Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit watchdog organization, stated that only around 10% of all credible whistleblower complaints have firsthand information.[308]

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, a prominent supporter of whistleblowers and author of whistleblowing laws, declared: “the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren’t legal ones. It’s just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”[309][310]

George Soros

In late-September television appearances, Giuliani asserted without offering any evidence that George Soros, a frequent subject of conservative conspiracy theories, was running an anti-Trump scheme in Ukraine while Biden was protecting Soros from prosecution there.[311][312] The lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing appeared as guests on The Sean Hannity Show to promote the conspiracy theory that Soros funded the whistleblower. They cited the whistleblower’s footnote references to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, an organization that has received grants from Soros’ Open Society Foundations among multiple other funding sources.[313] Soros was also invoked, again without evidence, by the media organization Breitbart News.[282]

Discredited allegations against Soros were also part of a “packet of propaganda and disinformation” that had been circulating within the State Department since May, 2019, until being revealed to Congress on October 2.[314]

Mitt Romney

On September 22, 2019, Republican senator Mitt Romney said it “would be troubling in the extreme” if Trump had requested Zelensky to investigate a political rival. The next day, Bill Kristol, a conservative columnist, speculated that Romney’s comments may have “helped reassure” Speaker Nancy Pelosi as House Democrats planned an impeachment inquiry. On September 25, Trump-supporting radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Romney “had phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her that there was Republican support to remove Trump”, resulting in conspiracy theories spread on right-wing websites.[228][315] The next day, the conservative American Thinker website pointed out that an ex-adviser for Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign was now on Burisma’s board of directors. As a result, this sparked false theories online and on radio shows that Romney himself had meaningful ties to Burisma. However, the ex-adviser is no longer affiliated with Romney, and he joined Burisma in 2017, years after Romney’s presidential campaign ended.[228]

See also

  • United States portal
  • Ukraine portal
  • Corruption in the United States
  • Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections
  • List of federal political scandals in the United States
  • List of impeached presidents
  • List of “-gate” scandals

Notes

  • ^ The document, titled a “memorandum of telephone conversation” includes a notation stating that it was “not a verbatim transcript” and was prepared based on “notes and recollections of Situation Room duty officers” and National Security Council staff.[97] Senior administration officials said voice recognition software was also used in preparing the memorandum.[18][97] Some sources describe the document as a “rough transcript”.[98]
  • ^ §II, p. 3
  • ^ On September 3, 2019, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a classified memorandum, written by the office’s head, Steven A. Engel, stating that the acting DNI did not need to give the complaint to Congress because, in his view, the complaint was not related to “an intelligence activity” under the acting DNI’s authority.[35][160] Engel’s letter stated that the whistleblower’s complaint should instead be referred to the Justice Department.[35] A declassified version of the OLC’s memo was released on September 24, 2019.[160]
  • ^ Michael Atkinson, the ICIG who found the whistleblower complaint credible and urgent, was appointed during the Trump administration.[230][231]
  • ^ The chiefs of staff were from the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations.[7]
  • References

  • ^ Savage, Charlie; Williams, Josh (October 4, 2019). “Read the Text Messages Between U.S. and Ukrainian Officials”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 11, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019. A newly released set of text exchanges revealed details about President Trump’s efforts to use American foreign policy to benefit himself..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ a b Miller, Greg; Jaffe, Greg; Parker, Ashley (October 2, 2019). “Trump involved Pence in efforts to pressure Ukraine’s leader, though aides say vice president was unaware of pursuit of dirt on Bidens”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Mazzetti, Mark; Benner, Katie (September 30, 2019). “Trump Pressed Australian Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry’s Origins”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Baker, Peter; Sullivan, Eileen (October 3, 2019). “Trump Publicly Urges China to Investigate the Bidens”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Multiple sources:
    • Tillett, Emily (September 27, 2018). “Over 300 former national security professionals call out Trump for “unconscionable abuse of power””. CBS News. Archived from the original on September 29, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019. “President Trump appears to have leveraged the authority and resources of the highest office in the land to invite additional foreign interference into our democratic processes. That would constitute an unconscionable abuse of power. It also would represent an effort to subordinate America’s national interests – and those of our closest allies and partners – to the president’s personal political interest,” the bipartisan group wrote.
    • Hals, Tom; Wolfe, Jan (September 27, 2019). “Abuse of power, not criminality, key to Trump impeachment”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019. Democratic lawmakers have a strong case for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump if they can prove he abused his power when he asked Ukraine’s president to “look into” an American political rival, several legal experts said.
    • Miller, Greg; Jaffe, Greg; Parker, Ashley (October 2, 2019). “Trump involved Pence in efforts to pressure Ukraine’s leader, though aides say vice president was unaware of pursuit of dirt on Bidens”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019. Trump’s deployment of Pence is part of a broader pattern of using both executive authority and high-ranking officials in his administration to advance his personal or political interests — even in cases when those subordinates appear to not know that another agenda is in play.
    • Mazzetti, Mark; Benner, Katie (September 30, 2019). “Trump Pressed Australian Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry’s Origins”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019. And like the call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, the discussion with Mr. Morrison shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests …
    • Gibson, Ginger; Oliphant, James; Reid, Tim (September 27, 2019). “Biden looks to Ukraine flap to jolt his 2020 presidential campaign”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019. A whistleblower report released on Thursday alleged that Trump not only abused his office in attempting to solicit Ukraine’s interference in next year’s election for his own political benefit, but that the White House also tried to “lock down” evidence about that conduct.
  • ^ Sources:
    • Haltiwanger, John (September 28, 2019). “Trump’s actions with Ukraine were ‘profoundly stupid’ and beyond anything any president has ever done, historians and veteran diplomats say”. Business Insider. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
    • Cobbs, Elizabeth A.; Longley, Kyle; Osgood, Kenneth; Suri, Jeremi (October 4, 2019). “Historians on Trump: We’ve never seen anything like this”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Baker, Peter (October 6, 2019). “‘We Absolutely Could Not Do That’: When Seeking Foreign Help Was Out of the Question”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas (September 24, 2019). “Nancy Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Santucci, John; Mallin, Alexander; Thomas, Pierre; Faulders, Katherine (September 25, 2019). “Trump urged Ukraine to work with Barr and Giuliani to probe Biden: Call transcript”. ABC News. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Bump, Philip (September 25, 2019). “Trump wanted Russia’s main geopolitical adversary to help undermine the Russian interference story”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Bump, Philip (September 27, 2019). “Trump says the whistleblower complaint isn’t accurate. The White House keeps showing how it is”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Helderman, Rosalind S. (October 5, 2019). “Mounting evidence buttresses the facts laid out in whistleblower complaint”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ a b White House Press Secretary (September 25, 2019). “Statement from the Press Secretary”. whitehouse.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b Baker, Peter (September 22, 2019). “Trump Acknowledges Discussing Biden in Call With Ukrainian Leader”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Balsamo, Michael; Long, Colleen (September 26, 2019). “6 takeaways from the whistleblower complaint, including Rudy Giuliani’s central role”. Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ a b Cohen, Marshall; Polantz, Katelyn; Shortell, David (September 26, 2019). “Whistleblower says White House tried to cover up Trump’s abuse of power”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ Olorunnipa, Toluse; Parker, Ashley (September 27, 2019). “Pence seeks to dodge impeachment spotlight as his Ukrainian moves attract notice”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Brown, Pamela; Diamond, Jeremy; Collins, Kaitlan; Liptak, Kevin (October 8, 2019). “Inside the White House’s effort to contain Ukraine call fallout”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 9, 2019. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ a b Miller, Greg; Jaffe, Greg (October 10, 2019). “At least four national security officials raised alarms about Ukraine policy before and after Trump call with Ukrainian president”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 10, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2019.
  • ^ a b Demirjian, Karoun; Bade, Rachael; Dawsey, Josh; Hudson, John (October 4, 2019). “Volker: Giuliani was warned that claims of Biden’s misconduct were not credible, ex-envoy tells lawmakers”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 6, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b Savage, Charlie; Rosenberg, Matthew; Goldman, Adam (October 1, 2019). “The Extra-Secret White House Computer System, Explained”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b Brown, Pamela (September 27, 2019). “First on CNN: White House says lawyers directed moving Ukraine transcript to highly secure system”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b Miller, Zeke; Tucker, Eric; Balsamo, Michael (September 28, 2019). “Subpoenas mark first concrete steps for Trump impeachment”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b Atwood, Kylie; Liptak, Kevin; Brown, Pamela; Sciutto, Jim; Borger, Gloria (October 4, 2019). “Trump raised Biden with Xi in June call housed in highly secure server”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Brown, Pamela; Sciutto, Jim; Liptak, Kevin (September 27, 2019). “White House restricted access to Trump’s calls with Putin and Saudi crown prince”. CNN. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ a b Subramanian, Courtney; Brook, Tom Vanden (September 26, 2019). “Trump Ukraine: ‘lock down’ of call a sign of White House cover up”. USA Today. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Barnes, Julian E.; Schmidt, Michael S.; Goldman, Adam; Benner, Katie (September 26, 2019). “Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d “Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints” (PDF). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. September 30, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Cohen, Zachary (September 30, 2019). “Intelligence community watchdog debunks whistleblower conspiracy pushed by Trump and other Republicans”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Segers, Grace (September 25, 2019). “Lawmakers get first look at whistleblower complaint and one calls it “nothing short of explosive””. CBS News. Archived from the original on September 29, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ “Read the full text of the whistleblower complaint”. NBC News. September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Meek, James Gordon; Flaherty, Anne (October 6, 2019). “2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney”. ABC News. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Mallin, Alexander (September 25, 2019). “Trump’s DOJ clears president of violating campaign finance law in Ukraine-Biden call”. ABC News. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 13, 2019.
  • ^ “Justice Department found Trump didn’t commit a campaign finance crime raised by whistleblower”. PBS NewsHour. September 25, 2019. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 13, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e f g Zapotosky, Matt; Barrett, Devlin (September 25, 2019). “Justice Dept. rejected investigation of Trump phone call just weeks after it began examining the matter”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Borger, Julian; Gambino, Lauren (October 3, 2019). “Trump calls on China to investigate Biden in extraordinary demand”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Wise, Justin (October 3, 2019). “FEC chairwoman reiterates illegality of soliciting campaign help from foreign governments”. The Hill. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ “Trump’s Trifecta”. Axios. October 2, 2019. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019. It’s not normal for presidents to solicit foreign interference in our elections. It’s also against the law, as Federal Elections Commission chair Ellen Weintraub tweeted today.
  • ^ Law, Tara; Mansoor, Sanya; Abramson, Alana (September 26, 2019). “The Whistleblower’s Complaint on Trump and Ukraine Has Been Released. These Sections Will Receive the Most Scrutiny”. Time. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Forgey, Quint (September 24, 2019). “Trump changes story on withholding Ukraine aid”. Politico. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Wagner, John; Sonmez, Felicia (October 3, 2019). “Live updates: Trump calls for China to investigate Bidens; former Ukraine envoy testifies on Capitol Hill”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Everett, Burgess (October 2, 2019). “Trump praises ‘honorable’ Portman for corroborating Ukraine aid story”. Politico. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Gregorian, Dareh; Barrett, Maura (October 3, 2019). “Another GOP senator breaks from Trump to defend Ukraine whistleblower”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Jackson, David (September 30, 2019). “Donald Trump: ‘We’re trying to find out’ the identity of whistleblower who made Ukraine complaint”. USA Today. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Samuels, Brett (October 2, 2019). “Trump rails against whistleblower, ‘spy’ within administration”. The Hill. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b Rucker, Philip; Bade, Rachael; Itkowitz, Colby (October 4, 2019). “Trump publicly calls on China to investigate Bidens”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b Multiple sources:
    • “Trump: I want to meet my accuser”. Agence France-Presse. September 30, 2019. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Brandishing what he said were affidavits incriminating Biden’s son Hunter over his work at a Ukrainian company, Giuliani said Trump was duty bound to raise the issue with Kiev. Trump and his allies claim Biden, as Barack Obama’s vice president, pressured Kiev to fire the country’s top prosecutor to protect his son Hunter, who sat on the board of a gas company, Burisma Holdings, accused of corrupt practices. Those allegations have largely been debunked and there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens.
    • Matthias, Williams; Polityuk, Pavel (September 26, 2019). “Zelenskiy opponents say comments about Europeans to Trump could hurt Ukraine”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Trump pressed Zelenskiy to investigate the business dealings of the son of his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic front-runner to challenge Trump in an election next year. Zelenskiy agreed. Biden’s son Hunter worked for a company drilling for gas in Ukraine. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
    • “White House ‘tried to cover up details of Trump-Ukraine call'”. BBC News. September 26, 2019. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.
    • Timm, Jane (September 25, 2019). “There’s no evidence for Trump’s Biden-Ukraine accusations. What really happened?”. NBC News. Archived from the original on September 29, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. But despite Trump’s continued claims, there’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
    • Sonner, Scott (October 3, 2019). “Biden to Trump on baseless attacks: ‘I’m not going anywhere'”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019. Yet no one has produced evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
    • LeBlanc, Paul (October 3, 2019). “Ukraine scandal drives another day of breaking news in Washington. Here’s the latest”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Shane, Scott (October 3, 2019). “How a Fringe Theory About Ukraine Took Root in the White House”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Cohen, Zachary; Lybrand, Holmes (October 1, 2019). “Fact check: Trump and other Republicans falsely claim whistleblower rules changed just before Ukraine complaint”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Pilkington, Ed (September 30, 2019). “Five fantasies Trump is pushing about the Ukraine scandal – and the truth”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Barrett, Devlin; Wagner, John; Helderman, Rosalind S. (October 10, 2018). “Two business associates of Trump’s personal attorney Giuliani have been arrested on campaign finance charges”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2018.
  • ^ a b Schmidt, Michael S.; Protess, Ben; Vogel, Kenneth P.; Rashbaum, William K. (October 11, 2019). “Giuliani Is Said to Be Under Investigation for Ukraine Work”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Wolf, Zachary B. (October 2, 2019). “Trump has already said he’s OK working with foreign governments against his US rivals”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Higgins, Tucker (October 3, 2019). “FEC chair tweets reminder that accepting foreign help in an election is illegal after Trump urges China to investigate Joe Biden”. CNBC. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Parker, Ashley (September 20, 2019). “Ukraine, if you’re listening . . .: How Trump tries to quell controversies by saying the quiet part out loud”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 21, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Dowd, Kathy Erich (April 18, 2019). “President Trump Told Mueller He Was Just Joking When He Asked Russia to Hack Hillary Clinton”. Time. Archived from the original on April 18, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Braun, Stephen; Berry, Lynn (September 23, 2019). “The story behind Biden’s son, Ukraine and Trump’s claims”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 10, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e Vogel, Kenneth P. (September 22, 2019). “Trump, Biden and Ukraine: Sorting Out the Accusations”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  • ^ “Vice President Joe Biden’s son joins Ukraine gas company”. BBC News. May 14, 2014. Archived from the original on May 15, 2014. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Koren, Marina (May 13, 2014). “Another Biden Has Waded Into the Ukraine Crisis – The vice president’s son has taken a new role in the country’s energy industry”. National Journal. Washington DC. Archived from the original on May 15, 2014. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Vogel, Kenneth P.; Mendel, Iuliia (May 1, 2019). “Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on May 4, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Jacobson, Louis; Kruzel, John (September 23, 2019). “Trump’s Ukraine call, a whistleblower and the Bidens: What we know, what we don’t”. PolitiFact. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Baker, Stephanie; Krasnolutska, Daryna (May 7, 2019). “Timeline in Ukraine Probe Casts Doubt on Giuliani’s Biden Claim”. Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ a b Wilson, Scott (April 21, 2014). “Biden arrives in Ukraine to demonstrate U.S. support for new government as crisis with Russia continues”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 15, 2014. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Higgins, Andrew; Roth, Andrew (April 22, 2014). “Biden Offers Strong Support to Ukraine and Issues a Sharp Rebuke to Russia”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Cullison, Alan (September 22, 2019). “Biden’s Anticorruption Effort in Ukraine Overlapped With Son’s Work in Country”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019. Messrs. Trump and Giuliani have suggested that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s general prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016 to stop an investigation into Burisma. In Ukraine, government officials and anticorruption advocates say that is a misrepresentation … Mr. Shokin had dragged his feet into those investigations, Western diplomats said, and effectively squashed one in London by failing to cooperate with U.K. authorities … In a speech in 2015, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Otto Pyatt, called the Ukrainian prosecutor “an obstacle” to anticorruption efforts
  • ^ Baker, Peter (September 23, 2019). “Instead of ‘No Collusion!’ Trump Now Seems to Be Saying, So What if I Did?”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Birnbaum, Michael; Stern, David L.; Gryvnyak, Natalie (September 26, 2019). “Hunter Biden ‘did not violate’ Ukraine laws, says former top prosecutor”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Kessler, Glenn (October 2, 2019). “Correcting a media error: Biden’s Ukraine showdown was in December 2015”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Kramer, Andrew E. (March 29, 2016). “Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Kaczynski, Andrew; Steck, Em (October 3, 2019). “Republican senators echoed Biden in urging Ukrainian president to reform prosecutor general’s office”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Subramanian, Courtney (October 3, 2019). “Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn’t pursue corruption cases”. USA Today. Archived from the original on October 10, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ McLaughlin, Daniel (March 29, 2016). “EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin”. The Irish Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b Jacobson, Louis (May 7, 2019). “Fact-checking Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Ukraine”. PolitiFact. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ “Ukraine ex-minister rejects Trump’s Biden claims”. BBC News. September 27, 2019. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019. [Pavlo Klimkin] said it was important to have a full reshuffle of the offices, and pressure was coming from the whole international community, not just Mr Biden or the US individually.
  • ^ a b Entous, Adam (July 1, 2019). “Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?”. The New Yorker. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b Krasnolutska, Daryna; Choursina, Kateryna; Baker, Stephanie (May 16, 2019). “Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens”. Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Waas, Murray (September 25, 2019). “Trump, Giuliani, and Manafort: The Ukraine Scheme”. The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 11, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani Cancels His Trip to Ukraine, Blaming Democrats’ ‘Spin'”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 11, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Dawsey, Josh; Sonne, Paul; Kranish, Michael; Stern, David L. (September 20, 2019). “How Trump and Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate the president’s rivals”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 21, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Mangan, Dan (September 20, 2019). “Trump urged Ukraine president eight times during call to investigate Joe Biden’s son, report says”. CNBC. Archived from the original on September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Cullison, Alan; Ballhaus, Rebecca; Volz, Dustin (September 20, 2019). “Trump Repeatedly Pressed Ukraine President to Investigate Biden’s Son”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on September 21, 2019. Retrieved September 21, 2019.
  • ^ Polantz, Katelyn; Borger, Gloria; Atwood, Kylie (October 9, 2019). “First on CNN: Trump told Perry and State Department officials as early as May to talk to Giuliani about Ukraine”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e Butler, Desmond; Biesekler, Michael; Lardner, Richard (October 6, 2019). “AP sources: Trump allies pressed Ukraine over gas firm”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 7, 2019.
  • ^ a b Adragna, Anthony (October 7, 2019). “Perry denies pressing Ukraine on energy company, says he’s not resigning”. Politico. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2019.
  • ^ a b Higgins, Tucker (October 10, 2019). “Energy Secretary Rick Perry hit with subpoena in Trump impeachment probe”. CNBC. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ a b Engel, Eliot L.; Schiff, Adam B.; Cummings, Elijah E. (October 10, 2019). “Joint Cover Letter re Subpoena” (PDF). Congress of the United States. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Schedule” (PDF). Congress of the United States. October 10, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Zapotosky, Matt; Miller, Greg; Nakashima, Ellen; Leonnig, Carol D. (September 20, 2019). “Trump whistleblower: President pressed Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Fandos, Nicholas; Sullivan, Eileen; Rosenberg, Matthew (September 19, 2019). “Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Schmidt, Michael S.; Vogel, Kenneth P.; Goldman, Adam; Haberman, Maggie (September 20, 2019). “Trump Pressed Ukraine’s Leader as Giuliani Pushed for Biden Inquiry”. The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ McBride, Courtney; Gurman, Sadie (September 30, 2019). “Pompeo Took Part in Trump-Zelensky Phone Call, Official Says”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b Vogel, Kenneth P. (September 20, 2019). “Behind the Whistle-Blower Case, a Long-Held Trump Grudge Toward Ukraine”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Reevell, Patrick; Bruggeman, Lucien (September 25, 2019). “Ukrainians understood Biden probe was condition for Trump-Zelenskiy phone call: Ukrainian adviser”. ABC News. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ a b Lederman, Josh (October 4, 2019). “U.S. ambassadors pushed Ukraine to investigate as condition for White House visit, texts show”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e f g Shear, Michael D.; Haberman, Maggie (September 25, 2019). “‘Do Us a Favor’: Calls Shows Trump’s Interest in Using U.S. Power for His Gain”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e f Barrett, Devlin; Zapotosky, Matt; Leonnig, Carol D.; Dawsey, Josh (September 25, 2019). “Transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian president shows him offering U.S. assistance for Biden investigation”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Hohmann, James (September 25, 2019). “The Daily 202: The Ukraine transcript is full of fresh fodder for Democrats who want to impeach Trump”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ a b Dale, Daniel; Cohen, Marshall (September 25, 2019). “Fact check: Trump made false claim to Ukrainian president to justify his Biden request”. CNN. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ “Read Marie Yovanovitch’s prepared deposition statement”. The Washington Post. October 11, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Timmons, Heather (September 25, 2019). “Factbox: Six new pieces of information in memo on Trump’s Ukraine call”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Timberg, Craig; Harwell, Drew; Nakashima, Ellen (September 25, 2019). “In call to Ukraine’s president, Trump revived a favorite conspiracy theory about the DNC hack”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Timm, Jane C. (September 25, 2019). “Trump promotes conspiracy theory: Clinton’s deleted emails are in Ukraine”. NBC News. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Hansler, Jennifer (September 25, 2019). “Trump’s comments on former Ukraine ambassador raise further questions”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ MacKinnon, Amy; Gramer, Robbie (September 25, 2019). “Trump Blasts Own Ambassador in Call With Ukrainian President”. Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ O’Connell, Jonathan (September 26, 2019). “Trump’s other Ukraine problem: new concern about his business”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas (October 8, 2019). “Trump’s Ukraine Call Was ‘Crazy’ and ‘Frightening’, Official Told Whistle-Blower”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 9, 2019. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ Farhi, Arden (October 9, 2019). “Read the whistleblower’s memo about Trump’s Ukraine call, as described to CBS News”. CBS News. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ Krawczyk, Kathryn (September 24, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani blabs to Fox News’ Sean Hannity his Ukraine talks were ordered by the State Department”. The Week. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P. [@kenvogel] (August 22, 2019). “The @StateDept, which facilitated @RudyGiuliani’s communications with the Ukrainian gov’t (during which he urged an investigation of @JoeBiden), says Giuliani “acts in a personal capacity as a lawyer for President TRUMP. He does not speak on behalf of the US Government.”” (Tweet). Retrieved September 29, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • ^ Karni, Annie; Haberman, Maggie (September 20, 2019). “Giuliani Revels in Another Cable Dust-up Defending Trump”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 21, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P.; Kramer, Andrew E. (August 21, 2019). “Giuliani Renews Push for Ukraine to Investigate Trump’s Political Opponents”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 28, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Pilkington, Ed (September 21, 2019). “Ukraine furore confirms Giuliani as Trump’s most off-kilter advocate”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on September 21, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Wilkinson, Tracy; Loiko, Sergei L. (September 29, 2019). “Former Ukraine prosecutor says he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas; Barnes, Julian E.; Baker, Peter (October 3, 2019). “Texts from Top Diplomat Described ‘Crazy’ Plan to Keep Aid from Ukraine”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P.; Schmidt, Michael S. (October 3, 2019). “Trump Envoys Pushed Ukraine to Commit to Investigations”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ “Volker Texts on Ukraine Shared With Congress Uploaded by ABC News Politics”. ScribD. October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Davis, Aaron C.; Hudson, John (October 12, 2019). “Trump’s envoy to testify that ‘no quid pro quo’ came from Trump”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Sonne, Paul; Jaffe, Greg (October 4, 2019). “Volker defends Biden as ‘man of integrity’ in testimony to Congress”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Lee, Carol E. (September 27, 2019). “Whistleblower allegation of server misuse raises alarm bells”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b Mangan, Dan (September 26, 2019). “An alleged cover-up, a secret server and more bombshells in Trump whistleblower complaint”. CNBC. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Goldiner, Dave (September 27, 2019). “White House admits lawyers hid transcript of damning Trump call in top-secret server”. New York Daily News. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Crowley, Michael; Rosenberg, Matthew; Mazzetti, Mark (September 27, 2019). “White House Classified Computer System Is Used to Hold Transcripts of Sensitive Calls”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Harris, Shane (September 27, 2019). “Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn’t concerned about Moscow’s interference in U.S. election”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ “Trump to Russians in 2017: Not Concerned About Election Meddling, Report Says”. VOA News. Reuters. September 28, 2019. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Leonnig, Carol D.; Timberg, Craig; Harwell, Drew (October 2, 2019). “Odd markings, ellipses fuel doubts about the ‘rough transcript’ of Trump’s Ukraine call”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 10, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Maza, Cristina (September 17, 2018). “U.S. May Give Ukraine More Lethal Weapons As Tensions Rise With Russia, Official Says”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on February 8, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Vajdich, Daniel P. (April 13, 2018). “Trump’s Russia Policy Is Better Than Obama’s Was”. Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on May 12, 2018. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Demirjian, Karoun; Dawsey, Josh; Nakashima, Ellen; Leonnig, Carol D. (September 23, 2019). “Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Zengerle, Patricia (September 12, 2019). “Trump administration reinstates military aid for Ukraine”. Reuters. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Murray, Sara (October 2, 2019). “Trump demanded a Ukraine policy review. Months later, no one will say what happened”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Pettypiece, Shannon; Smith, Allan (September 23, 2019). “Trump suggests he tied Ukraine funding to corruption, cites Biden allegations”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Blitzer, Ronn (September 29, 2019). “Giuliani was not working alone in Biden Ukraine probe”. Fox News. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Haberman, Maggie; Fandos, Nicholas; Crowley, Michael; Vogel, Kenneth P. (September 23, 2019). “Trump Said to Have Frozen Aid to Ukraine Before Call With Its Leader”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Miller, Christopher (October 2, 2019). “Ukraine Was Still Checking Its Bank Account For US Aid For A Month After The Trump Call”. BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Segers, Grace; Watson, Kathryn; Hymes, Clare; Tillett, Emily (September 26, 2019). “Trump call summary shows he pressed Ukrainian president to probe Biden”. CBS News. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Kramer, Andrew E. (September 22, 2019). “Trump’s Hold on Military Aid Blindsided Top Ukrainian Officials”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Beauchamp, Zack (September 25, 2019). “The Trump-Ukraine ‘transcript’, explained”. Vox. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Demirjian, Karoun (September 9, 2019). “Democrats investigate whether Trump, Giuliani pressured Ukraine to aid 2020 reelection bid”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Rupar, Aaron (September 20, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani’s viral CNN meltdown over Trump and Ukraine, briefly explained”. Vox. Archived from the original on September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 20, 2019.
  • ^ Riley-Smith, Ben; Lowell, Hugo (September 20, 2019). “Whistleblower complaint may have been sparked by Donald Trump asking Ukrainians for dirt on Biden”. The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Collinson, Stephen (September 12, 2019). “New revelations deepen scandal over Trump whistleblower complaint”. CNN. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Stacey, Kiran (September 24, 2019). “Trump admits raising Biden case with Ukraine president”. Financial Times. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Robertson, Lori (September 26, 2019). “Trump Wrong on European Aid to Ukraine”. FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Hughes, Siobhan; Ballhaus, Rebecca (October 4, 2019). “Trump, in August Call With GOP Senator, Denied Official’s Claim on Ukraine Aid”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas; Barnes, Julian E.; Baker, Peter (October 3, 2019). “Texts From Top Diplomat Described ‘Crazy’ Plan to Keep Aid From Ukraine”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Davis, Aaron C.; Hudson, John (October 12, 2019). “Trump’s envoy to testify that ‘no quid pro quo’ came from Trump”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Duehren, Andrew; Lubold, Gordon (October 10, 2019). “White House Shifted Authority Over Ukraine Aid Amid Legal Concerns”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 10, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2019.
  • ^ Cohen, Zachary (September 23, 2019). “Whistleblower controversy thrusts little-known Trump appointee into the limelight”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ McClanahan, Kel (September 17, 2019). “Q&A on Whistleblower Complaint Being Withheld from Congressional Intelligence Committees”. Just Security. The Reiss Center on Law and Security. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Taylor, Margaret (September 17, 2019). “The Mysterious Whistleblower Complaint: What Is Adam Schiff Talking About?”. Lawfare. Archived from the original on September 18, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ “Key dates in the Trump impeachment investigation”. Associated Press. October 1, 2019. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Nakashima, Ellen (October 2, 2019). “Whistleblower sought informal guidance from Schiff’s committee before filing complaint against Trump”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Harris, Shane; Demirjian, Karoun; Nakashima, Ellen (September 26, 2019). “Acting intelligence chief Maguire defends his handling of whistleblower complaint in testimony before Congress”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Zengerle, Patricia; Morgan, David; Chiacu, Doina (September 27, 2019). “Whistleblower report complains of White House cover-up on Trump-Ukraine scandal”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Bowden, John (September 21, 2019). “Timeline: The Trump whistleblower complaint”. The Hill. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  • ^ Litt, Robert S. (September 17, 2019). “Unpacking the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Complaint”. Lawfare. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Brown, Pamela; Perez, Evan; Liptak, Kevin; Raju, Manu (September 19, 2019). “White House also involved in advising DNI not to share whistleblower complaint”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Schulz, Jacob (September 25, 2019). “OLC Issues an Opinion About the “Urgent Concern” Determination on the Whistleblower Complain by the DNI”. Lawfare. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Cheney, Kyle (September 13, 2019). “Schiff accuses top intel official of illegally withholding ‘urgent’ whistleblower complaint”. Politico. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Cohen, Zachary; Brown, Pamela; LeBlanc, Paul; Raju, Manu (September 25, 2019). “Whistleblower tentatively agrees to testify, attorneys say, as long as they get appropriate clearances to attend hearing”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Miller, Greg; Harris, Shane; Demirjian, Karoun (September 25, 2019). “Acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign if he couldn’t speak freely before Congress”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Miller, Greg; Nakashima, Ellen; Harris, Shane (September 18, 2019). “Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and Congress, former officials say”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 21, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Nakashima, Ellen; Harris, Shane; Miller, Greg; Leonnig, Carol D. (September 19, 2019). “Whistleblower complaint about President Trump involves Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Dilanian, Ken; Ainsley, Julia (October 4, 2019). “CIA’s top lawyer made ‘criminal referral’ on whistleblower’s complaint”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 6, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ “Trump says he put ‘no pressure’ on Ukrainian president during phone call”. CBC News. Associated Press. September 25, 2019. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Balsamo, Michael (September 25, 2019). “Justice Department Says Trump’s Ukraine Call Doesn’t Constitute Campaign Finance Violation”. Time. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Bertr, Natasha; Matishak, Martin; Everett, Burgess (September 24, 2019). “Whistleblower wants to appear before Congress, Dems say”. Politico. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Jalonick, Mary Clare (September 25, 2019). “Lawmakers, staff view secret Trump whistleblower complaint”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Cole, Devan (September 23, 2019). “Romney: If Trump pressured Ukrainian president ‘it would be troubling in the extreme'”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Frias, Lauren (September 26, 2019). “GOP Sen. Ben Sasse calls whistleblower complaint ‘troubling’ and says Republicans should not rush to ‘circle the wagons’ and protect Trump”. Business Insider. Archived from the original on September 29, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Helsel, Phil (September 26, 2019). “Whistleblower complaint against Trump declassified, could be released Thursday”. CNBC. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e Barrett, Devlin (September 26, 2019). “Whistleblower claimed Trump abused his office and that White House officials tried to cover it up”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Shear, Michael D. (September 26, 2019). “Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Says White House Tried to ‘Lock Down’ Ukraine Call Records”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ “Trump impeachment: Second whistleblower emerges”. BBC News. October 5, 2019. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Allyn, Bobby (October 6, 2019). “2nd Whistleblower With Direct Knowledge Of Ukraine Call Steps Forward, Lawyer Says”. NPR. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Schmidt, Michael S.; Goldman, Adam (October 4, 2019). “2nd Official Is Weighing Whether to Blow the Whistle on Trump’s Ukraine Dealings”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b Gregorian, Dareh (October 4, 2019). “Romney blasts Trump over ‘wrong and appalling’ call for China to probe Bidens”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Probyn, Andrew; Connor, Duffy; Greene, Andrew; Worthington, Brett (October 1, 2019). “Donald Trump reportedly pressed Scott Morrison for help to discredit Mueller inquiry”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ LaFraniere, Sharon; Mazzetti, Mark; Apuzzo, Matt (December 30, 2017). “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on May 17, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Duffy, Connor (October 4, 2019). “Donald Trump-Mueller inquiry conspiracy theory about Alexander Downer rejected by Joe Hockey”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Worthington, Brett (October 2, 2019). “Scott Morrison insists he’s acting in Australia’s interest helping Donald Trump with inquiry”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Barrett, Devlin; Harris, Shane; Zapotosky, Matt (September 30, 2019). “Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Blake, Aaron (October 1, 2019). “Barr’s probing of Australia, Britain and Italy suggests a conspiracy focus”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Layne, Nathan; Ruwitch, John; Shen, Samuel; Tham, Engen; Zhai, Keith (October 4, 2019). “Explainer: Trump’s claims and Hunter Biden’s dealings in China”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ LaFraniere, Sharon; Forsythe, Michael (October 3, 2019). “What We Know About Hunter Biden’s Business in China”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Subramaniam, Tara (October 3, 2019). “Fact-checking Trump’s claims about the Bidens in China”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Kessler, Glenn (September 26, 2019). “A quick guide to Trump’s false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Ng, Teddy (October 8, 2019). “China rejects Donald Trump’s call to investigate Democrat rival Joe Biden and son”. South China Morning Post. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ McPherson, Lindsey; McPherson, Lindsey (September 24, 2019). “Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry, but leaves some questions”. Roll Call. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Bade, Rachael; DeBonis, Mike; Demirjian, Karoun (September 24, 2019). “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry of Trump, says his actions were a ‘betrayal of national security'”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Cheney, Kyle (September 26, 2019). “Whistleblower says White House officials tried to ‘lock down’ details of Trump’s Ukraine call”. Politico. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Document: Read the Whistle-Blower Complaint”. The New York Times. September 26, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Toosi, Nahal (September 27, 2019). “Ukraine envoy resigns amid scandal consuming Trump’s presidency”. Politico. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Frazin, Rachel; Wong, Scott; Lillis, Mike (September 27, 2019). “Democrats subpoena Pompeo for Ukraine documents”. The Hill. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ DeYoung, Karen (October 1, 2019). “Pompeo says State Dept. officials won’t show up for scheduled impeachment depositions this week”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “House chairmen suggest Pompeo conflict of interest, warn against witness intimidation”. Axios. October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas; Jakes, Lara (October 1, 2019). “As Impeachment Fights Begin, Administration and Congress Clash Over Deposition”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Wagner, Meg; Hayes, Mike; Rocha, Veronica (October 1, 2019). “The latest on the Trump impeachment inquiry”. CNN. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Swanson, Ian (October 2, 2019). “Dems say State watchdog turned over ‘packet of propaganda'”. The Hill. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Landay, Jonathan; Hosenball, Mark (October 3, 2019). “Democrats say Trump administration used misinformation to attack U.S. diplomat”. Reuters. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Carney, Jordain (October 2, 2019). “Giuliani says some documents turned over by State watchdog came from him”. The Hill. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ “Three Chairs Statement on State IG Briefing”. United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs (Press release). October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Pramuk, Jacob (September 30, 2019). “House Democrats subpoena Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani in impeachment probe”. CNBC. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ “Donald Trump blocks US ambassador to European Union from testifying in impeachment inquiry”. abc.net.au. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. October 9, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ Hagen, Lisa. “READ: White House Letter Declares Impeachment Inquiry Unconstitutional”. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas; Baker, Peter; Schmidt, Michael S.; Haberman, Maggie (October 8, 2019). “White House Declares War on Impeachment Inquiry, Claiming Effort to Undo Trump’s Election”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ Berman, Geoffrey S. “United States of America v. Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, David Correia, and Andrey Kukushkin” (PDF) (Sealed indictment). United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. p. 5. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019 – via The Wall Street Journal.
  • ^ a b c Mazzetti, Mark; Sullivan, Eileen; Goldman, Adam; Rashbaum, William K. (October 10, 2019). “2 Giuliani Associates Tied to Ukraine Scandal Arrested on Campaign Finance Charges”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Biesecker, Michael; Butler, Desmond (October 11, 2019). “Pete Sessions appears to be ‘Congressman 1′ ensnared in Guiliani associates’ indictment”. PBS NewsHour. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Vogel, Kenneth P. (October 10, 2019). “Giuliani’s Ukraine Team: In Search of Influence, Dirt and Money”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Katersky, Aaron; Margolin, Josh (October 11, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani’s relationship with arrested men is subject of criminal investigation: Sources”. ABC News. Archived from the original on October 11, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Sonmez, Felicia; Itkowitz, Colby; Wagner, John (October 10, 2019). “House Democrats subpoena Perry, Giuliani associates; Trump to hold first campaign rally since impeachment inquiry launch”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Viswanatha, Aruna; Ballhaus, Rebecca; Gurman, Sadie; Tau, Byron (October 10, 2019). “Two Giuliani Associates Who Helped Him on Ukraine Charged With Campaign-Finance Violations”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Sallah, Michael; Loop, Emma (October 9, 2019). “Two Key Players In The Ukraine Controversy Spent Lavishly As They Dug For Dirt on Biden”. BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Schreckinger, Ben (October 12, 2019). “2014 photograph shows earlier ties between Trump and indicted Giuliani associate”. Politico. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ Shabad, Rebecca (September 23, 2019). “Impeachment pressure escalates as Democrats demand release of whistleblower’s Trump complaint”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas; Martin, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie (September 22, 2019). “As Trump Confirms He Discussed Biden With Ukraine, Pressure to Impeach Builds”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ “S.Res.325 – A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the whistleblower complaint received on August 12, 2019, by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community should be transmitted immediately to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives”. 116th Congress (2019-2020). Congress.gov. September 24, 2019. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Smith, David (September 25, 2019). “Romney reiterates that he finds the Ukraine call memo ‘troubling'”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ “Pelosi Statement on Notes of Call Between President Trump and Ukrainian President” (Press release). Office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. September 25, 2019. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Byrd, Haley (September 25, 2019). “Pelosi says rough transcript confirms Trump “engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of our elections””. CNN. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Levine, Marianne; Everett, Burgess (September 27, 2019). “Republican senators accuse whistleblower of ‘hearsay'”. Politico. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Lambe, Jerry (September 28, 2019). “Legal Experts Demolish Lindsey Graham’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense of Trump”. Law & Crime. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Robertson, Lori (October 1, 2019). “Schiff’s ‘Parody’ and Trump’s Response”. FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Leon, Melissa (October 3, 2019). “Lindsey Graham asks three countries to cooperate with AG’s probe of 2016 election interference”. Fox News. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Stanley-Becker, Issac (October 3, 2019). “Trump’s removal would require Republican dissidents. But those who speak out become targets of viral disinformation”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Faulders, Katherine; Parkinson, John (September 20, 2019). “Trump denies knowing whistleblower’s identity, calls controversy ‘political hack job'”. ABC News. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Groom, Debra J. (November 12, 2017). “Trump nominates Pulaski grad to intelligence post”. Watertown Daily Times. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ “PN1252 — Michael K. Atkinson — Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 115th Congress (2017-2018)”. Congress.gov. May 14, 2018. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Kessler, Glenn; Rizzo, Salvador (September 23, 2019). “Analysis: Fact-checking Trump’s latest claims on Biden and Ukraine”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Vazquez, Maegan (September 23, 2019). “Trump outrageously claims Republicans would get ‘electric chair’ if they did what he wrongly claims Biden did”. NBC2 News. CNN. Archived from the original on September 29, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Bump, Philip (September 25, 2019). “Where Trump’s and Giuliani’s claims about the Ukraine call don’t match the rough transcript”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Daniel, Zoe; Olson, Emily (October 4, 2019). “Trump’s impeachment could backfire on the Democrats. Here’s why”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ “Trump Raises $13M After Pelosi Announces Impeachment Inquiry”. The New York Times. Associated Press. September 26, 2019. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved October 13, 2019.
  • ^ a b Stuart, Tessa (September 25, 2019). “‘No Pressure’, Trump Insists, While Sitting With Ukraine’s Zelensky at U.N.” Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Re, Gregg; Emanuel, Mike (September 25, 2019). “Flurry of House Dems back impeachment inquiry, amid bombshell reports Trump withheld Ukraine aid”. Fox News. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Itkowitz, Colby; Thebault, Reis (September 27, 2019). “‘Almost a spy’: Transcript and video of Trump’s remarks at private U.N. event about whistleblower”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Trump: I want to meet my accuser”. Agence France-Presse. September 30, 2019. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Karni, Annie; Sullivan, Eileen (September 30, 2019). “Trump Seeks Whistle-Blower’s Identity”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ “Donald Trump retweets pastor’s warning of ‘civil war-like fracture’ as impeachment talks intensify”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Reuters / Associated Press. October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Lawyer says second whistleblower backs complaint against US President Donald Trump”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Associated Press. October 7, 2019. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 7, 2019.
  • ^ Samuels, Brett (October 3, 2019). “Pence defends Trump’s calls for Ukraine to investigate Biden”. The Hill. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ “Pence Says Biden, Son Should Be Investigated for Ukraine Dealings”. The New York Times. Reuters. October 3, 2019. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ ABC/wires (October 5, 2019). “White House ordered to turn over documents to support Donald Trump impeachment probe”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Treene, Alayna; Swan, Jonathan (October 5, 2019). “Scoop: Trump pins Ukraine call on Energy Secretary Rick Perry”. Axios. Archived from the original on October 6, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Klar, Rebecca (September 22, 2019). “Democratic senator: Ukrainian president said he has ‘no intention’ to interfere with US election”. The Hill. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved September 22, 2019.
  • ^ Nemtsova, Anna (September 24, 2019). “Ukraine Likely to Reopen Probe of Hunter Biden Firm: Sources”. The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ O’Reilly, Andrew (September 25, 2019). “Ukraine president, in meeting with Trump, says ‘nobody pushed me’ to probe Biden”. Fox News. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ MacDonald, Jordan (September 26, 2019). “Ukraine’s president on Trump call: ‘Nobody pushed me'”. CNBC. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ a b Williams, Matthias (September 21, 2019). Deepa, Babington; Russell, Ros, Babington (ed.). “Ukraine minister denies Trump put pressure on Zelenskiy during call: report”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • ^ Sukhov, Oleg (September 30, 2019). “Zelensky rebuffs Trump’s request to investigate Biden”. Kyiv Post. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Romanenko, Maria (September 26, 2019). “Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Denies Singling Out “Biden Case””. Hromadske.TV. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b O’Grady, Siobhán; Noack, Rick (September 27, 2019). “Why Ukraine’s Zelensky isn’t taking more heat for his fawning call with Trump”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Robertson, Lori (September 26, 2019). “Trump Wrong on European Aid to Ukraine”. FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “OECD DAC Aid at a glance by recipient_new”. OECD. Retrieved October 1, 2019 – via Tableau.
  • ^ “Зеленський на догоду Трампу критикує Німеччину – й німці вже рахують, скільки грошей дали Україні” [Zelensky criticizes Germany for Trump’s sake – and Germans already count how much money they gave Ukraine]. ТЕКСТИ (in Ukrainian). September 26, 2019. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Ukraine-Krise: Deutschland hat der Ukraine mit fast 1,4 Milliarden Euro geholfen” [Ukraine Crisis: Germany has given Ukraine nearly 1.4 billion euros in aid]. Die Zeit (in German). September 26, 2019. ISSN 0044-2070. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Berlin not to change attitude to Kyiv despite Trump-Zelensky call”. Ukrinform. September 27, 2019. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ “Berlin Maintains Warm Relations With Kyiv Despite Controversial Trump-Zelensky Phone Call”. UATV. September 27, 2019. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ “Ex-Ukraine PM Forms ‘Salvation Committee'”. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. August 3, 2015. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Zverev, Anton; Zhegulev, Ilya (September 28, 2019). “Ukraine must investigate Joe Biden’s son, says ex-Ukrainian PM”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Wise, Justin (September 29, 2019). “Ex-Ukrainian prime minister says Joe Biden’s son must be investigated”. The Hill. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Korewa, Aaron (August 20, 2015). “Putin’s Latest Ukraine Gambit: A Puppet Government in Exile”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on February 11, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “‘Anti-Russian and Dirty’: Russia Reacts to Trump-Zelenskiy Call”. The Moscow Times. September 26, 2019. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Brennan, David (September 27, 2019). “Russia reacts to ‘humiliating’ Trump Ukraine call, says scandal is making U.S. a ‘laughing stock'”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Simmons, Ann M. (October 2, 2019). “Putin Wouldn’t Oppose Releasing Transcripts of His Meetings With Trump”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  • ^ DeYoung, Karen (September 27, 2019). “More than 300 former officials call Trump’s actions concerning Ukraine ‘profound national security concern'”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ “Statement from National Security Professionals”. National Security Action. September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019 – via The Washington Post.
  • ^ Hansler, Jennifer (September 26, 2019). “Diplomats express alarm over Trump’s treatment of former Ukraine ambassador”. CNN. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Goldstein, Steve (September 27, 2019). “‘Coverup’ blared across headlines of top newspapers after release of whistleblower’s complaint about Trump”. MarketWatch. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ @USATODAY (September 27, 2019). “Today’s #frontpage: The whistleblower complaint states that White House officials were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system where presidential call transcripts are typically stored. pic.twitter.com/gdoHT82yDN” (Tweet). Retrieved September 29, 2019 – via Twitter.[better source needed]
  • ^ “Editorial: Trump is exhausting the nation’s and his party’s patience. Time to dump him”. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. September 25, 2019. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ McLaughlin, Aidan (September 27, 2019). “Chris Wallace Demolishes ‘Misleading’ Trump-Ukraine Spin”. Mediaite. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Duffy, Conor; Olson, Emily (October 9, 2019). “Donald Trump made big claims about Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine. Here’s what you need to know”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ Russonello, Giovanni (October 1, 2019). “Support for Impeachment Is Rising, Polls Show”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ De Pinto, Jennifer; Salvanto, Anthony; Backus, Fred; Khanna, Kabir (September 29, 2019). “CBS News poll: Majority of Americans and Democrats approve of Trump impeachment inquiry”. CBS News. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Shepard, Steven (September 26, 2019). “Support for impeachment jumps in new poll”. Politico. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Pappas, Alex; Edson, Rich (September 27, 2019). “Kurt Volker resigns as Ukraine envoy after mention in whistleblower complaint: report”. Fox News. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ DeYoung, Karen (October 10, 2019). “Senior adviser to Pompeo resigns”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 11, 2019. Retrieved October 13, 2019.
  • ^ a b Timberg, Craig; Harwell, Drew (September 28, 2019). “Amateur pro-Trump ‘sleuths’ scramble to unmask whistleblower: ‘Your president has asked for your help'”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Sandler, Rachel (September 26, 2019). “The CrowdStrike Conspiracy: Here’s Why Trump Keeps Referencing The Cybersecurity Firm”. Forbes. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Wolff, Josephine (September 25, 2019). “What “Server” Is Trump Babbling About?”. Slate. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Broderick, Ryan (September 26, 2019). “Here’s How Donald Trump Ended Up Referencing A Russian-Promoted 4chan Conspiracy Theory In His Call To The Ukrainian President”. BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Francescani, Chris (September 29, 2019). “President Trump’s former national security advisor ‘deeply disturbed’ by Ukraine scandal: ‘Whole world is watching'”. ABC News. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019. It’s not only a conspiracy theory. It is completely debunked. I don’t want to be glib about this matter but last year, retired former Senator Judd Gregg wrote in The Hill magazine Five Ways or Three Ways to Impeach Oneself and the third way was to hire Rudy Giuliani.
  • ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (September 29, 2019). “Former Trump Security Adviser Says He’s ‘Deeply Disturbed’ by Ukraine Call”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Poulsen, Kevin (September 25, 2019). “The Truth About Trump’s Insane Ukraine ‘Server’ Conspiracy”. The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on October 11, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ Reilly, Steve (September 25, 2019). “What to know about CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity company mentioned in Trump’s phone call with Zelensky”. USA Today. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ McDonald, Scott (September 25, 2019). “What is CrowdStrike, the U.S. Company Trump Asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr to Look Into?”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Poulsen, Kevin (July 16, 2018). “Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server”. The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on July 17, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller, Robert S., III (March 2019). Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (PDF) (Report). p. 40. Retrieved September 29, 2019 – via the United States Department of Justice. As part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs.
  • ^ Sullivan, Eileen (September 25, 2019). “How CrowdStrike Became Part of Trump’s Ukraine Call”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ Ecarma, Caleb (September 27, 2019). “Fox News Goes All in on Theory Whistleblower Had Outside Help”. Mediaite. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Kleefeld, Eric (September 26, 2019). “Conservative media go for conspiracy theories on the whistleblower report”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Fox’s Geraldo Rivera suggests whistleblower complaint can be traced to ‘a group like Media Matters'”. Media Matters for America. September 27, 2019. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Hagle, Courtney (September 30, 2019). “Fox News runs with debunked talking point about requirements for filing a whistleblower complaint”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b Barnes, Julian E.; Schmidt, Michael S.; Rosenberg, Matthew (October 2, 2019). “Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Gazis, Olivia [@olivia_gazis] (October 2, 2019). “I am told by spokespeople for both @SenatorBurr and @MarkWarner that it would be ***standard practice*** for intel committee to tell a potential whistleblower to hire counsel and file a complaint with an agency IG or the IC IG. **Bipartisan. Both parties say this.**” (Tweet). Retrieved October 2, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • ^ Cohen, Zachary [@ZcohenCNN] (October 2, 2019). “.@MarkSZaidEsq tells me: “Andrew Bakaj was not connected to HPSCI nor was the whistleblower referred by HPSCI to him. The whistleblower took the advice to find an attorney and did what most people do, they asked around to trusted friends as to who they should contact.” 1/2″ (Tweet). Retrieved October 2, 2019 – via Twitter.
    Cohen, Zachary [@ZcohenCNN] (October 2, 2019). “”Andrew’s name was provided and he was retained. Exactly how it happens every day,” Zaid said. 2/2″ (Tweet). Retrieved October 2, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • ^ Rosenberg, Matthew [@AllMattNYT] (October 2, 2019). “Despite what Trump claimed today, the @nytimes did NOT report that Adam Schiff helped write the whistleblower’s complaint. In fact, Schiff did not even know the whistleblower’s identity, officials told the NYT” (Tweet). Retrieved October 2, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • ^ a b Lybrand, Holmes; Cohen, Zachary (October 1, 2019). “Fact check: Trump and other Republicans falsely claim whistleblower rules changed just before Ukraine complaint”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 5, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Greenberg, Jon (October 1, 2019). “Donald Trump’s false claim about a change in whistleblower rules”. PolitiFact. Archived from the original on October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ a b Gore, D’Angelo (October 1, 2019). “No Hearsay Rule Change for Whistleblowers”. FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ a b Poulsen, Kevin (September 30, 2019). “GOP Shows Russian Trolls How It’s Done With Whistleblower Smear”. The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b Kessler, Glenn (September 30, 2019). “Trump’s false claim that the rules for whistleblowers were recently changed”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Seitz, Amanda; Yen, Hope (October 1, 2019). “Trump’s fiction about whistleblower complaint”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Palma, Bethania (October 1, 2019). “Did US Intelligence Eliminate a Requirement That Whistleblowers Provide Firsthand Knowledge?”. Snopes. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ King, Ledyard (October 2, 2019). “IG rebuts claims by Trump and his backers that rules were changed to allow whistleblower complaint”. USA Today. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Gregorian, Dareh (October 2, 2019). “Chuck Grassley defends Ukraine whistleblower, breaking with GOP and Trump”. NBC News. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Sommer, Will; Suebsaeng, Asawin (September 26, 2019). “Rudy’s Big Plan to Defend Trump on Ukraine: Play the George Soros Card”. The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Mackey, Robert (September 23, 2019). “Reporters Should Stop Helping Donald Trump Spread Lies About Joe Biden and Ukraine”. The Intercept. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Brennan, David (September 27, 2019). “Hannity guests claim George Soros’ ‘dirty money’ backed Ukraine whistleblower report: ‘This was a set-up'”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Landay, Jonathan; Hosenball, Mark (October 2, 2019). “Democrats say Trump administration used misinformation to attack U.S. diplomat”. Reuters. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Burr, Thomas (September 27, 2019). “Rush Limbaugh claims Mitt Romney told Nancy Pelosi the Senate would convict Trump. It isn’t true”. The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • External links

    • Declassified whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019 (released in redacted form on September 26, 2019)
    • Declassified letter from Intelligence Community Inspector General to acting Director of National Intelligence (August 26, 2019), regarding the whistleblower complaint
    • Memorandum of the July 25, 2019, telephone conversation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy
    • Text messages between Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland, Bill Taylor and Andrey Yermak

    <!–
    NewPP limit report
    Parsed by mw1319
    Cached time: 20191013141342
    Cache expiry: 2592000
    Dynamic content: false
    Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1]
    CPU time usage: 3.016 seconds
    Real time usage: 3.264 seconds
    Preprocessor visited node count: 18877/1000000
    Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
    Post‐expand include size: 814358/2097152 bytes
    Template argument size: 31164/2097152 bytes
    Highest expansion depth: 15/40
    Expensive parser function count: 9/500
    Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
    Unstrip post‐expand size: 1121123/5000000 bytes
    Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 1/400
    Lua time usage: 1.744/10.000 seconds
    Lua memory usage: 7.94 MB/50 MB
    Lua Profile:
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::match 240 ms 12.9%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getAllExpandedArguments 200 ms 10.8%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::find 180 ms 9.7%
    ? 180 ms 9.7%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::gsub 160 ms 8.6%
    160 ms 8.6%
    dataWrapper 100 ms 5.4%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction 100 ms 5.4%
    select_one 80 ms 4.3%
    recursiveClone 60 ms 3.2%
    [others] 400 ms 21.5%
    –>

    Impeachment query versus Donald Trump

    Inquiry into a possible impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump

    President of the United States
    Incumbent

    Presidency

    • Transition
    • Inauguration
    • Timeline
    • Executive actions
      • proclamations
      • pardons
    • Trips
      • 2017
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • international
    • Summits
      • Riyadh
      • Singapore
      • Helsinki
      • Hanoi
      • DMZ
    • Shutdowns
      • Jan 2018
      • 2018–2019
    • Polls
    • Protests
    • Efforts to impeach
    • Impeachment inquiry
    • Trump–Ukraine controversy

    Appointments

    • Cabinet
      • formation
    • Ambassadors
    • Federal judges
      • Gorsuch
      • Kavanaugh
      • Supreme Court candidates
    • U.S. Attorneys
    • Dismissals
      • Comey

    Policies

    • Economy
      • tax cuts
      • tariffs
      • China trade war
      • infrastructure
    • Environment
      • Paris withdrawal
    • Foreign policy
      • Iran deal
      • Jerusalem
      • Golan
    • Immigration
      • travel ban
      • wall
      • family separation
      • migrant detentions
      • national emergency
    • Social issues
      • cannabis
    • Space

    Presidential campaigns

    • 2000
      • primaries
    • 2016
      • election
      • primaries
      • endorsements
      • rallies
      • convention
      • debates
      • Never Trump
        • people
      • sexual misconduct allegations
        • Access Hollywood tape
      • wiretapping allegations
      • Spygate
    • 2020
      • election
      • primaries
      • endorsements

    Controversies involving Russia

    • Business projects in Russia
    • Election interference
      • timeline
      • transition
      • threads
    • Associates’ links with Russian officials
    • Steele dossier
    • Trump Tower meeting
    • Classified information disclosure
    • Special Counsel investigation
      • Crossfire Hurricane
      • transition period
      • 2017
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • charges
      • Mueller Report
      • Barr letter

    Business and personal

    • Business career
      • The Trump Organization
      • The Apprentice
      • wealth
      • tax returns
    • Books
    • Eponyms
    • Family
    • Foundation
    • Golf
    • Honors
    • Legal affairs
      • Stormy Daniels
    • Nicknames
    • Racial views
    • Residences
    • Social media
    • Veracity

    • v
    • t
    • e

    An impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the 45th and current president of the United States, was initiated on September 24, 2019, by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.[1][2][3] It began after revelations that President Trump and top administration officials had allegedly pressured leaders of multiple foreign nations, most notably Ukraine, in ways presumably intended to advance Trump’s personal and political interests.[4][5][6][7] Additional allegations of misconduct emerged in the days afterwards.[5]

    Pelosi initiated the inquiry in the wake of a whistleblower report that alleged an ongoing widespread abuse of power and subsequent cover-up by Trump and his administration’s officials during Trump’s presidency, in “order to advance [Trump’s] personal interests”.[8][9][10][11] The whistleblower’s report was largely based upon information given to them by more than “half a dozen U.S. officials”[11] and has been largely corroborated.[6] The whistleblower report also implicated Giuliani and U.S. Attorney General William Barr as part of a more widespread pressure campaign directed towards the Ukrainian government.[12] The first whistleblower’s complaint was given to Congress on September 25, 2019, and released to the public on September 26.[13] A second whistleblower came forward on October 5 with “first-hand knowledge of allegations” associated with the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.[14]

    From May to August 2019, Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani repeatedly pressed the Government of Ukraine to investigate his political opponent Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice president and candidate for the 2020 U.S. Democratic presidential nomination, as well as his son Hunter.[15][16] On July 18, 2019, through his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, Trump instructed his staff to place a hold on congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine.[17][18] During a phone call a week later, he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch two investigations, including one into the actions of Joe and Hunter Biden. The whistleblower also accused the White House of attempting to cover up the contents of this phone call.[12] In response to the report, the Trump administration released a memorandum of this phone call, which confirmed that Trump had asked Zelensky to “look into” the Biden controversy.[19]

    Two close associates of Trump told The New York Times that Trump’s alleged behavior in the controversy was “typical” of his interactions with foreign leaders.[20] The whistleblower’s report recorded that Trump’s violations “were so obviously egregious that White House officials promptly launched a cover-up to minimize the chance that Trump’s efforts to have a foreign power dig up dirt on a leading Democratic presidential contender would become public.” One such action was intentionally misclassifying the transcript of the Ukraine phone call, and other evidence of presidential misconduct and politically damaging material, so as to place it on top secret servers where very few people would have access to it;[13][21][22] administration officials had begun placing transcripts of conversations with world leaders onto these servers following high-profile leaks in 2017.[23]
    On October 8, 2019, the White House sent a letter to Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as “constitutionally invalid”. The White House officially declined to cooperate with the inquiry,[24] further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government.[25]

    Contents

    • 1 Background
      • 1.1 Previous efforts for impeachment
      • 1.2 Congressional support for an inquiry
      • 1.3 Trump–Ukraine controversy
      • 1.4 Further revelations
        • 1.4.1 Investigation into the Russia probe and Mueller report
        • 1.4.2 Second whistleblower
    • 2 Inquiry
      • 2.1 White House refusal to participate in the investigation
    • 3 Timeline
    • 4 Responses
      • 4.1 Trump and the White House
      • 4.2 Whistleblower and their lawyers
      • 4.3 Politicians
        • 4.3.1 Members of Congress
        • 4.3.2 State governors
      • 4.4 Media
      • 4.5 Legal profession
      • 4.6 Academia
    • 5 Public opinion
    • 6 See also
    • 7 References
    • 8 External links

    Background

    Previous efforts for impeachment

    Further information: Efforts to impeach Donald Trump

    Efforts to impeach President Donald Trump have been made by various people and groups.[26][27] Talk of impeachment began even before Trump took office.[28] Formal efforts were initiated by Representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman, both Democrats (D), in 2017, the first year of his presidency.[29][30][31] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the then Republican-led House by a 58–364 margin.[32]

    Democrats gained control of the House following the 2018 elections and launched multiple investigations into Trump’s actions and finances.[33][34] On January 17, 2019, new accusations involving Trump surfaced, claiming he instructed his long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie under oath surrounding Trump’s involvement with the Russian government to erect a Trump Tower in Moscow.[35] This also sparked calls for an investigation and for the president to “resign or be impeached” should such claims be proven genuine.[36]

    The Mueller Report, released on April 18, 2019, reached no conclusion as to whether Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice.[37] Special Counsel Robert Mueller strongly hinted that it was up to Congress to make such a determination. Congressional support for an impeachment inquiry increased as a result.[38] Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment.[39] In May 2019, she indicated that Trump’s continued actions, which she characterized as obstruction of justice and refusal to honor congressional subpoenas, might make an impeachment inquiry necessary.[40][41] An increasing number of House Democrats (and a then-Republican) were requesting such an inquiry.[42]

    As of September 2019[update], the following resolutions had been introduced in the 116th Congress regarding possible impeachment:

    • H. Res. 13 (alleging interference with the Mueller investigation) introduced on January 3, 2019, by Representative Sherman (D-California)[43]—immediately referred to the Judiciary Committee and to Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on February 4, 2019.[44]
    • H. Res. 257 (which would launch an impeachment inquiry with no specific allegations) introduced on March 27, 2019, by Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan)[45]—referred to the Rules Committee.[46]
    • H. Res. 396 (which names 19 areas of inquiry) introduced on May 22, 2019, by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)[47]—referred to the Rules Committee.[48]
    • H. Res. 498 (which alleges Trump is unfit for office due to racism comments) introduced on July 17, 2019, by Representative Green (D-Texas)[49]—a privileged resolution that was blocked from proceeding by a vote of 332–95.[50][51][52]

    Less than 20 Representatives in the House supported impeachment by January 2019, but this number grew after the Mueller Report was released in April and after Mueller testified in July, up to around 140 Representatives before the Trump–Ukraine controversy began.[53]

    Congressional support for an inquiry

    A majority of House members support the initiation of the impeachment inquiry.[54] As of October 3, 2019[update], this includes 225 Democrats, and one independent, Representative Justin Amash from Michigan,[55] who left the Republican Party on July 4, 2019, in the wake of his protests regarding the lack of holding Trump accountable.[56] Amash became a leading supporter of impeachment after the whistleblower report was released, stating that the call script was a “devastating indictment of the president”.[57] After further allegations of misconduct came to light in the days afterwards, Nevada representative Mark Amodei was reportedly the first Republican in the House of Representatives to support an impeachment inquiry,[58] but later clarified that he supported an “oversight process” but did not support an “inquiry,” without explaining the distinction between the two.[59][60]

    Trump–Ukraine controversy

    Main article: Trump–Ukraine controversy
    The whistleblower complaint regarding a phone conversation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
    A memorandum of the call between Trump and Zelensky released by the White House on September 25, 2019

    From May to August 2019, Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government to investigate business activities of Hunter Biden,[61] the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden,[62][63][64][65][16] who took a board seat on Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings.[66][67] Despite the allegations, as of September 2019, there has been no evidence produced of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.[68][69][70][71][72]

    The whistleblower report centered around one instance of such pressure that occurred in a July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, in which Trump mentioned two investigations he wanted to see Ukraine launch.[12][19] One of these would concern allegations that connected the American cybersecurity technology company CrowdStrike to Ukrainian actors supposedly interfering in the 2016 election.[73][74] Trump had been repeatedly told by aides that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election, but refused to accept these assurances.[75] The theory, which originated on 4chan in 2017, has been spread by blogs, social media, and Fox News.[76] The other requested investigation concerned Joe Biden, former U.S. Vice President and a candidate for the 2020 presidential election, and the Ukrainian business dealings of his son Hunter Biden.[12][2][15] At the time of the inquiry, Joe Biden was the leading candidate in Democratic Party primary polling, according to poll aggregators, making him Trump’s most likely 2020 election opponent.[77] On September 25, the White House released part of a transcript of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky following a promise to do so the previous day;[78][79] on the same day, the whistleblower complaint was released to Congress.[80]

    On July 18, 2019, Trump had placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine[18] while “providing no explanation”;[81] he lifted it in September.[81] Trump did not mention the hold in his conversation with Zelensky, but he repeatedly pointed out that the United States has been “very very good” to Ukraine, with which Zelensky agreed. Zelensky then expressed interest in obtaining more U.S. missiles, to which Trump replied “I would like you to do us a favor though” and brought up his request for investigations.[82] Democratic candidate for president Elizabeth Warren described this sentence as a “smoking gun” suggesting a quid pro quo.[82] Prominent Democrats, including Senators Robert Menendez and Chris Murphy, suggested that the hold may have been intended to implicitly or explicitly pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden.[17] Former Ukrainian presidential advisor Serhiy Leshchenko said it was made a “clear fact” that Ukraine’s communication with the United States was dependent on discussing a future investigation into the Bidens,[83] while another anonymous Ukrainian lawmaker stated that Trump attempted to “pressure” and “blackmail” them into accepting a “quid-pro-quo” agreement based upon cooperation.[84]

    The New York Times reported on October 3 that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker had in August drafted a statement for Velensky to sign that would commit Ukraine to investigate Burisma, the company that Hunter Biden worked for, as well as the conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton.[85]

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on September 13, 2019, that he had issued a subpoena to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, as Maguire had failed to release a whistleblower’s complaint filed under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act on August 12, 2019, to the congressional intelligence committees as was arguably required by the relevant statute. Schiff argued that he had concerns that the complaint might have been withheld from Congress “in an unlawful effort to protect the President and conceal from the Committee information related to his possible ‘serious or flagrant’ misconduct, abuse of power, or violation of law.”[86][87]

    On September 22, shortly after the whistleblower’s allegations became public, Trump acknowledged that he had discussed Joe Biden during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. Trump stated that “The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact that we don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating [sic] to the corruption already in Ukraine.”[88] Trump denied that his hold on military aid for Ukraine was linked to the Ukrainian government’s refusal to investigate the Hunter Biden controversy, while also saying that withholding aid for this reason would have been ethically acceptable if he had done it.[89] On September 26, 2019, Trump accused the whistleblower of being a “spy” and guilty of treason, before noting that treason is punishable by death.[90][91][92] As a result of Trump’s comments, the whistleblower’s lawyers said their client feared for his or her safety.[68]

    Two people close to Trump told The New York Times that the behavior in the scandal was “typical” of his “dealings on the phone with world leaders”: “Engage in flattery, discuss mutual cooperation, and bring up a [personal] favor that then could be delegated to another person on Mr. Trump’s team.”[20] In an interview, Giuliani defended Trump, calling the president’s request of the Ukrainian president “perfectly appropriate,” while also indicating that he himself may have made a similar request to Ukrainian officials.[93]

    Further revelations

    Play media President Trump states “China should start an investigation into the Bidens”; video from the White House.

    Details emerged on September 27, 2019, that the White House had used the most highly classified computer system to store memorandums of conversations with the leaders and officials of countries including Ukraine, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Administration officials had began storing these transcripts into this system after Trump’s conversations with Australia’s prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto leaked earlier in 2017.[23] This was seen by critics and the media as a deliberate attempt to hide potentially damaging information.[94] Also on September 27, it was reported that Trump had told Russian officials in 2017 that he was unconcerned about Russian interference in U.S. elections.[95][96] On October 4, 2019, Trump held a news conference where he publicly said that Ukraine should investigate the Bidens, and also called on China to investigate the Bidens.[97]

    Investigation into the Russia probe and Mueller report

    Soon after the release of the Mueller report, Trump began urging an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, wanting to “investigate the investigators” and possibly discredit the conclusions of the FBI and Mueller.[98] In April 2019, Attorney General William Barr announced that he had launched a review of the origins of the FBI’s investigation,[99][100] even though the origins of the probe were already being investigated by the Justice Department’s inspector general and by U.S. attorney John Huber, who had been appointed to the same task in 2018 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.[101] Barr assigned U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead the probe,[102] and Trump directed the American intelligence community to “promptly provide assistance and information” to Barr, and delegated to him the “full and complete authority” to declassify any related documents.[98][103] Although Durham was nominally in charge of the investigation, Barr himself began contacting foreign governments to ask for information about the origins of the FBI probe. Barr personally traveled to the United Kingdom and Italy to seek information; Italy’s parliament is expected to begin its own investigation into Barr’s meetings with Italian secret services.[104] At Barr’s request, Trump himself phoned the prime minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, to ask for assistance.[105][106]

    Second whistleblower

    A second whistleblower, who is also an intelligence official, came forward on October 5, 2019, with “first-hand knowledge of allegations” associated with the phone call between Trump and Zelensky, according to Mark Zaid, the lawyer representing both whistleblowers.[14]

    Inquiry

    Play media Representative John Lewis says that “the time to begin impeachment proceedings, against this president, has come”; video published by C-SPAN on September 24, 2019.

    On the evening of September 24, 2019, Pelosi announced that six committees of the House of Representatives would undertake a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Pelosi accused Trump of betraying his oath of office, U.S. national security, and the integrity of the country’s elections.[1][2][3] The six committees charged with the task are the committees on Financial Services, the Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means.[107]

    In a private conference call with Democratic lawmakers on September 29, 2019, Pelosi explained how three of these House committees will begin investigating the President’s alleged abuse of power. The Intelligence Committee will focus on the contents of the whistleblower complaint and whether the complaint may have been wrongfully hidden from Congress, while the Foreign Affairs Committee will focus on interactions the State Department may have had with the President’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and the Oversight and Reform Committee will investigate whether White House classification systems were used to secure potentially damaging records of phone calls between the President and leaders of various countries around the world.[108]

    Joseph Maguire, the Acting Director of National Intelligence who delayed the whistleblower complaint from reaching Congress, testified before the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, 2019.[109] Maguire defended his decision not to immediately forward the whistleblower complaint to Congress and explained that he had consulted the White House Counsel and the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department but was unable to determine if the document was protected by executive privilege. Democrats on the committee questioned his actions, arguing that the law demands that he “shall” forward such complaints to the committee. Maguire countered that the situation was unique since the complaint involves communications of the president. Members of the Intelligence Committee also asked the director why he chose to consult with White House lawyers when he was not required to do so by law, to which he responded that he believed “it would be prudent to have another opinion”.[110]

    The day after Maguire’s testimony, a subpoena request was issued by the House to obtain documents Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to release earlier. Said documents include several interactions between Trump, Giuliani, and Ukrainian government officials. The documents are requested to be filed with the involved committees probing the issue; the failure to do so “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry,” as stated in a letter written to Pompeo.[111] The subpoena comes after several requests by the House to receive the documents from the Secretary which he did not fulfill. Several members of the House involved with the impeachment inquiry sent him subsequent letters stating that they will be meeting with members of the State Department who may provide further information.[112][113] The following week, a subpoena was also issued to Giuliani for production of documents.[114]

    On October 4, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas both to the White House and to Vice President Mike Pence for documents related to the whistleblower complaint.[115] Among the White House documents requested include audio tapes, transcripts, notes, and other White House documents related to the whistleblower controversy.[116] After the State Department Inspector General Steve Linick provided Congressional staff with a packet documenting unfounded accusations directed at Biden and the former U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, Giuliani announced he had given the packet to Pompeo, receiving in return assurances that the claims would be investigated. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the ranking democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then sent a letter to Linick, urging him to investigate the State Department’s delay in providing assistance to Ukraine and to specifically examine State Department officials’ roles in the Trump–Ukraine controversy, including Secretary of State Pompeo and his Counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, who may have “wittingly or unwittingly” participated in the inappropriate political agenda of the president in using taxpayer resources.[117][non-primary source needed]

    Letter written by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Committee Chairmen Adam Schiff, Eliot Engel, and Elijah Cummings on October 8, 2019, indicating that “President Trump and his [a]dministration cannot participate in [the House’s] partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances”.

    White House refusal to participate in the investigation

    On October 8, 2019 the White House announced that it would cease all cooperation with the investigation in a letter from White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone to Speaker Pelosi and the three committee chairmen conducting the impeachment investigation. In the letter Cipollone stated that the investigation “violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent” and that “The President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch”. The letter went on to state that “[the investigation’s] unprecedented actions have left the president with no choice in order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the presidency, President Trump and his administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the letter stating that “The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the president’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.” It would appear that the two branches of government are headed for a constitutional showdown.”[24][25][118][119][120]

    On the morning of the Cipollone letter Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland had been scheduled to testify before the House regarding his involvement in the withholding of aid from the Ukraine. However, he was instructed not to attend at the last minute by the state department upon Trump’s command.[118]

    Timeline

    • September 24, 2019: The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, announces a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and explained that committees charged with this would be Financial Services, the Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means.[1]
    • September 26, 2019: Joseph Maguire, the Acting Director of National Intelligence who delayed the whistleblower complaint from reaching Congress, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee.[109]
    • September 27, 2019: The Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform committees send subpoenas to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for documents that describe a pattern of interactions between President Donald Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and senior Ukrainian officials who they pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden which was also accompanied by a schedule of depositions for senior State Department officials who have been identified as important players in the Ukraine episode.[111]
    • September 29, 2019: On a private conference call with Democratic lawmakers, Pelosi says that the Intelligence committee will focus on the contents of the whistleblower complaint and whether the complaint may have been wrongfully hidden from Congress, while the Foreign Affairs committee will focus on interactions the Department of State may have had with the president’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and the Oversight and Reform committee will investigate whether White House classification systems were used to secure potentially damaging records of phone calls between the President and leaders of various countries around the world.[108]
    • October 3, 2019: The House committees release text messages between envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland, and ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor. A July 25 text message from Volker described that “assuming [Zelensky] convinces [T]rump he will investigate” the events surrounding the 2016 U.S. election, “we will nail down [a] date for [a] visit to Washington.”[121]
    • October 4, 2019: The intelligence committee issues subpoenas both to the White House and to Vice President Pence for documents related to the whistleblower complaint.[115]
    • October 8, 2019: The White House sends a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as “constitutionally invalid” and further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government.[25] Ambassador Gordon Sondland was due to voluntarily testify before House committees, but did not do so, citing that the State Department had stopped him from doing so. .[118]

    Responses

    Trump and the White House

    “… If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

    September 29, 2019[122]

    In the wake of the inquiry, the White House threatened to “shut down” all major legislation as political leverage. Trump said there would be “no more infrastructure bills, no more anything”.[123] Despite this declaration, legislators continued to work, with an emphasis on spending bills.[124]

    Following the initiation of the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment.[125] Rudy Giuliani took a lead role in television appearances.[126] One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son over alleged but unproven misconduct involving Ukraine.[71] Another aspect of the campaign focused on discrediting the whistleblower over his motivations and for making the complaint on hearsay.[127]

    Trump took to Twitter, attacking opponents and praising supporters.[128] On September 30, 2019, he suggested that one of the investigators, Representative Schiff, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, could be arrested for treason,[129] and that a Second American Civil War would occur if he was removed from office.[130] In further tweets, he said that he wanted to meet the whistleblower who had portrayed him in a “totally inaccurate and fraudulent way”; he said the individual illegally gave the information and potentially spied on the United States, and hinted they would face major consequences.[131] Trump also falsely described the impeachment inquiry as “a coup, intending to take away the power of [the] people, their vote, [and] their freedoms,”[132] and said the Democrats were “wasting everyone’s time and energy on bullshit”.[133]

    Trump allegedly told supporters at a private event on September 26, which was recorded and later reported by the Los Angeles Times, that the individual’s actions were “close to a spy” and: “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.” This was an apparent reference to execution.[131][134] On September 30, Trump said “we’re trying to find out” who the whistleblower was.[135]

    On September 30, it was revealed[vague] that Trump and his reelection campaign had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Facebook advertisements to push for his defense. More than 1,800 ads on Trump’s Facebook page that mentioned “impeachment” have run the week prior, and have been viewed between 16–18 million times on Facebook. Analysis by the New York University Tandon School of Engineering indicates that the campaign spent between $600,000 and $2 million on the ads, which reportedly attempted to rally and enlist people for the “Official Impeachment Defense Task Force”. A further $700,000 is believed to have been spent for ads on Vice President Mike Pence’s Facebook page, which mirrored the content on Trump’s.[136]

    On October 3, with the impeachment inquiry ongoing, Trump told reporters that in addition to Ukraine, China should also investigate the Bidens.[137] Later in the day, Pence voiced his support for Trump’s comments, saying, “I think the American people have a right to know if the vice president of the United States or his family profited from his position.”[138] After Pence was requested to turn over related documents on October 4, his press secretary, Katie Waldman, criticized the request as a ploy.[139]

    Whistleblower and their lawyers

    Mark Zaid, a lawyer for the whistleblower, said in a statement in September 2019 that the individual’s identity must be protected by law, and cited testimony by Maguire which drew upon the Whistleblower Protection Act. The statement was released after Trump questioned the validity of the whistleblower’s statements on Twitter.[140] Another lawyer for the whistleblower took to Twitter to issue a warning on September 30 that the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity, is protected by laws and policies, and is not to be retaliated against; to do so would violate federal law.[131]

    A joint letter was sent to Maguire on September 28 and made public on September 29, in which they raised concerns about the language used by Trump, amongst other things. In the letter the lawyers state “The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client’s identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm’s way.” The letter also mentioned the $50,000 “bounty” that two conservative Trump supporters have offered as a “reward” for information about the whistleblower.[141]

    Politicians

    Members of Congress

    Trump’s Republican allies were initially opposed to impeachment. Senator Lindsey Graham criticised the whistleblower, calling his complaint hearsay and a sham.[142] Many Republicans who had been stout defenders of congressional oversight during the Obama Administration joined Trump’s resistance to the investigation.[143] Notable Republican critics of Trump included Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who called Trump’s actions “troubling in the extreme” and “wrong and appalling”. Romney said it strained credulity to say that Trump’s actions were anything other than politically motivated.[144]

    State governors

    Phil Scott, the governor of Vermont,[145] became the first Republican governor to support the impeachment inquiry. Charlie Baker, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, also announced his support.[146]

    Media

    The New York Times editorial board stated that Trump appeared to be “operating on the assumption that the more shameless his assault on democratic norms and laws, the more he can get away with”.[147] The Guardian released an editorial calling Trump an abuser of his office.[148] In response to the October 8 letter from the White House to Pelosi a New York Times editorial said the letter argued that it was right for the president of the United States to use his office to seek a foreign government’s interference on his behalf in an election — even by way of extortion. At the same time, the letter argued, it is illegitimate for Congress, a coequal branch of government, to undertake any investigation into the president or members of his administration, or even his associates regarding this behavior. The editorial additionally called the letter “a formal assertion of executive power and impunity without precedent in American history.” noting that the neither the constitution, nor federal law proscribed the process for impeachment, and that therefore it was for the house to decide how to carry out the investigation.[149]. The Washington Post Editorial Board called the letter unhinged and stated that Trump was asserting autocratic authority.[150]

    Legal profession

    A group of 17 former Watergate special prosecutors published an opinion piece in the Washington Post in unanimous agreement that the public record contained prima facie evidence that Trump had committed impeachable acts.[151]

    Academia

    Historians and diplomats called the severity of the allegations “unprecedented” in American history.[152]

    Some academics responded to tweets by Trump in which he quoted a longtime evangelical pastor who warned of a “civil war” if Democrats continued the inquiry. On Twitter, John Coates from Harvard Law cautioned that the tweet was an independent basis for impeachment as the sitting President was threatening civil war if Congress exercised its constitutionally authorized power.[153] A fellow faculty member of Harvard Law, Laurence Tribe, agreed but cautioned that, due to the typical tone of Trump’s tweets, the statement could be interpreted as “typical Trumpian bloviating” that would not be taken seriously or literally.[154]

    Academic historian Kevin Kruse took issue with Trump’s assertion that the Democrats would be solely responsible for his impeachment. Kruse said that to remove Trump from office, 20 Republicans would need to join the 45 Democrats and two Independents, and blaming only the Democrats was both “dangerous” and “dumb”.[153]

    Public opinion

    Given all the statistical ties, polling has indicated that Americans are generally split on their support of the impeachment inquiry. A YouGov poll on September 24, 2019, found that 55% would support impeachment and 26% would oppose if Trump was confirmed to have pressured the Ukrainian government.[155] A Marist Poll for NPR and PBS around the same timeframe found that a 50–46 plurality approved of the House’s decision to start an impeachment inquiry.[156] A Politico/Morning Consult poll released shortly after Pelosi announced her support for the inquiry found support for impeachment increased seven percentage points compared to the poll of the previous week.[157] A Business Insider poll on September 27 found that 45% supported an impeachment inquiry while 30% opposed.[158] A September 30 Quinnipiac University poll found that 56 percent of those polled thought members of Congress who support impeaching President Trump are doing so more on the basis of partisan politics than on the basis of the facts.[159]

  • ^ a b c d These polls are color-coded relative to the margin of error (×2 for spread). If the poll is a statistical tie, both colors are used.
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i Polled registered voters.
  • See also

    • Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
      • Tenure of Office Act (1867)
    • Impeachment process against Richard Nixon
      • Watergate scandal
    • Impeachment of Bill Clinton
      • Clinton–Lewinsky scandal
    • List of federal political scandals in the United States
    • List of impeached presidents

    References

  • ^ a b c Bade, Rachael; DeBonis, Mike (September 24, 2019). “Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry, says Trump’s courting of foreign political help is a ‘betrayal of national security'”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ a b c Fandos, Nicholas (September 24, 2019). “Nancy Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Przybyla, Heidi; Edelman, Adam (September 24, 2019). “Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry of Trump”. NBC News. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Miller, Greg; Jaffe, Greg; Parker, Ashley (October 2, 2019). “Trump involved Pence in efforts to pressure Ukraine’s leader, though aides say vice president was unaware of pursuit of dirt on Bidens”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2019. Trump’s deployment of Pence is part of a broader pattern of using both executive authority and high-ranking officials in his administration to advance his personal or political interests — even in cases when those subordinates appear to not know another agenda is in play.
  • ^ a b Mazzetti, Mark; Benner, Katie (September 30, 2019). “Trump Pressed Australian Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry’s Origins”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019. Like the call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, the discussion with Mr. Morrison shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests
  • ^ a b Sheth, Sonam (October 1, 2019). “The White House is ‘paralyzed’ and ‘teetering on the edge of a cliff’ as it grapples with Ukraine fallout and ‘Hurricane Rudy'”. Business Insider. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Baker, Peter; Sullivan, Eileen (October 3, 2019). “Trump Publicly Urges China to Investigate the Bidens”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Cohen, Marshall; Polantz, Katelyn; Shortell, David; Kupperman, Tammy; Callahan, Michael (September 26, 2019). “Whistleblower says White House tried to cover up Trump’s abuse of power”. CNN. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ Shear, Michael D.; Haberman, Maggie (September 25, 2019). “‘Do Us a Favor’: Calls Shows Trump’s Interest in Using U.S. Power for His Gain”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  • ^ Cheney, Kyle (September 26, 2019). “Whistleblower says White House officials tried to ‘lock down’ details of Trump’s Ukraine call”. Politico. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b Staff (September 26, 2019). “Document: The Whistleblower Report”. The New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d “Document: Read the Whistle-Blower Complaint”. The New York Times. September 26, 2019.
  • ^ a b Mangan, Dan (September 26, 2019). “An alleged cover-up, a secret server and more bombshells in Trump whistleblower complaint”. CNBC. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Trump impeachment: Second whistleblower emerges”. BBC News. October 7, 2019. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ a b Rucker, Philip; Bade, Rachael; Costa, Robert (September 25, 2019). “Trump deflects and defies as Democrats speed up impeachment strategy”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ a b Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 4, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Demirjian, Karoun; Dawsey, Josh; Nakashima, Ellen; Leonnig, Carol D. (September 23, 2019). “Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Ballhaus, Rebecca; Restuccia, Andrew; Hughes, Siobhan (September 24, 2019). “Trump Put Hold on Military Aid Ahead of Phone Call With Ukraine’s President”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Statement from the Press Secretary”. The White House. September 25, 2019.
  • ^ a b Haberman, Maggie; Crowley, Michael; Rogers, Katie (September 25, 2019). “Trump’s Not-So-Excellent Day”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ Lee, Carol E. (September 27, 2019). “Whistleblower allegation of server misuse raises alarm bells”. NBC News. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Goldiner, Dave (September 27, 2019). “White House admits lawyers hid transcript of damning Trump call in top-secret server”. Daily News. New York. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b Lee Smith (October 7, 2019). “It’s Not All About the Bidens: Why Trump Has Ukraine on the Brain”. RealClearPolitics. Retrieved October 8, 2019. … Trump deputies had begun using the system after his conversations with world leaders were leaked to the press early during the administration.
  • ^ a b “White House ‘will not co-operate with impeachment inquiry'”. BBC News. October 9, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Hagen, Lisa. “READ: White House Letter Declares Impeachment Inquiry Unconstitutional”. US News and World Report. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ Revesz, Rachael (January 20, 2017). “Website aiming to impeach Donald Trump so popular it crashed”. The Independent. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ Gold, Matea (January 20, 2017). “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 22, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2017.
  • ^ Fox, Emily Jane (December 15, 2016). “Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump”. Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on October 8, 2019. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ Singman, Brooke (June 7, 2017). “Reps. Green and Sherman announce plan to file articles of impeachment”. Fox News. Archived from the original on June 7, 2017. Retrieved June 7, 2017.
  • ^ Draft resolutions: Sherman, Brad (June 12, 2017). “Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors” (PDF). United States House of Representatives. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 12, 2017. Retrieved June 12, 2017. and Green, Al (May 17, 2017). “Calling for Impeachment of the President” (PDF). Congressional Record. Vol. 63 no. 85. United States House of Representatives. pp. H4227–H4228. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 1, 2017. Retrieved May 17, 2017. (video at YouTube Archived June 9, 2017, at the Wayback Machine)
  • ^ McPherson, Lindsey (June 12, 2017). “Democratic Rep. Sherman Drafts Article of Impeachment Against Trump”. Roll Call. Archived from the original on July 1, 2017. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
  • ^ DeBonis, Mike (December 6, 2017). “House votes to kill Texas lawmaker’s Trump impeachment effort”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 7, 2017. Retrieved December 6, 2017.
  • ^ Werner, Erica; DeBonis, Mike (November 7, 2018). “Democrats take House, breaking up GOP’s total control of government”. The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas (March 4, 2019). “With Sweeping Document Request, Democrats Launch Broad Trump Corruption Inquiry”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on September 4, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Leopold, Jason; Cormier, Anthony (January 17, 2019). “President Trump Directed His Attorney Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project”. Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on January 18, 2019. Retrieved January 18, 2019.
  • ^ Barnes, Tom (January 18, 2019). “Trump told to ‘resign or be impeached’ if reports he instructed attorney Cohen to lie to congress are proven”. The Independent. Archived from the original on January 18, 2019. Retrieved January 18, 2019.
  • ^ Morgan, David; Wolfe, Jan (July 24, 2019). “Mueller says Trump was not exonerated; Trump declares victory”. Reuters. Archived from the original on July 27, 2019. Retrieved July 27, 2019.
  • ^ Hayes, Christal (May 29, 2019). “Democratic calls for Donald Trump impeachment grow after Mueller’s first public remarks”. USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC. Archived from the original on June 2, 2019. Retrieved June 5, 2019.
  • ^ Jalonick, Mary Clare; Mascaro, Lisa (March 11, 2019). “Pelosi waves off impeachment, says it would divide country”. The Seattle Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 10, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Breuninger, Kevin; Wilkie, Christina (May 7, 2019). “Nancy Pelosi: Trump is ‘goading’ Democrats to impeach him to solidify his base”. CNBC. Archived from the original on May 20, 2019. Retrieved May 23, 2019.
  • ^ Foran, Clare; Serfaty, Sunlen; Killough, Ashley (May 9, 2019). “Pelosi: Trump ‘is almost self-impeaching because he is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice'”. CNN. Archived from the original on May 23, 2019. Retrieved May 23, 2019.
  • ^ Watkins, Eli; Bohn, Kevin (May 19, 2019). “GOP Rep. Amash becomes first Republican to say Trump ‘engaged in impeachable conduct'”. CNN. Archived from the original on May 19, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Connolly, Griffin (January 3, 2019). “Brad Sherman to introduce impeachment articles against Trump on first day of Democratic Congress”. Roll Call. Archived from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ “Actions – H.Res.13 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors”. Congress.gov. United States House of Representatives. February 4, 2019. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Serfaty, Sunlen; Killough, Ashley (March 27, 2019). “Tlaib formally submits impeachment resolution”. CNN. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ “Actions – H.Res.257 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Inquiring whether the House of Representatives should impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America”. Congress.gov. United States House of Representatives. March 27, 2019. Archived from the original on April 17, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Mathis-Lilley, Ben (May 21, 2019). “House Democrat Announces Plan to (Deep Breath) Introduce Inquiry Into Investigating Whether to Consider Impeachment”. Slate. Archived from the original on August 22, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ “Actions – H.Res.396 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise the power vested by article 1, section 2, clause 5 of the Constitution in respect to acts of misconduct by Donald John Trump, President of the United States”. Congress.gov. May 23, 2019. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Herb, Jeremy; Killough, Ashley (July 16, 2019). “Democratic lawmaker introduces articles of impeachment against Trump”. CNN. Archived from the original on August 13, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ “Actions – H.Res.498 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high misdemeanors”. Congress.gov. July 17, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ McPherson, Lindsey (July 17, 2019). “House blocks Al Green articles of impeachment of Trump”. Roll Call. Archived from the original on September 3, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Segers, Grace; Kaplan, Rebecca; Brown, Kimberly (July 17, 2019). “House votes down rogue effort to impeach Trump”. CBS News. Archived from the original on August 4, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Bump, Philip (September 25, 2019). “The most important number in the impeachment fight keeps getting smaller”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Cheney, Kyle (October 3, 2019). “Majority of House supports impeachment inquiry”. Politico. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Parlapiano, Alicia; Kao, Jason; Cochrane, Emily; Edmondson, Catie (October 3, 2019). “Complete List: Who Supports an Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump?”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Burman, Max (July 4, 2019). “Rep. Justin Amash announces he’s leaving Republican Party”. NBC News. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Wise, Justin (September 25, 2019). “Amash: Trump’s Ukraine call a ‘devastating indictment of the president'”. The Hill. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ Kim, Catherine (September 28, 2019). “One House Republican now favors the impeachment inquiry”. Vox. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Vigdor, Neil (September 28, 2019). “Republican Mark Amodei Tiptoes Around Impeachment Inquiry”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Klar, Rebecca (September 29, 2019). “GOP lawmaker clarifies he doesn’t back impeachment after voicing support for inquiry”. The Hill. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Pilkington, Ed; Roth, Andrew (September 29, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani: Ukraine sources detail attempt to construct case against Biden”. The Guardian. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Cullison, Alan; Ballhaus, Rebecca; Volz, Dustin (September 21, 2019). “Trump Repeatedly Pressed Ukraine President to Investigate Biden’s Son”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Zapotosky, Matt; Miller, Greg; Nakashima, Ellen; Leonnig, Carol D. (September 20, 2019). “Trump pressed Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Schmidt, Michael S.; Vogel, Kenneth P.; Goldman, Adam; Haberman, Maggie (September 20, 2019). “Trump Pressed Ukraine’s Leader on Inquiry Into Biden’s Son”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Lemire, Jonathan; Balsamo, Michael; Mascaro, Lisa (September 21, 2019). “Trump, in call, urged Ukraine to investigate Biden’s son”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on September 21, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P.; Mendel, Iuliia (May 1, 2019). “Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Schreckinger, Ben (August 3, 2019). “The Biden family’s strange business history”. Politico. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Trump: I want to meet my accuser”. Agence France-Presse. September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. US President Donald Trump said on Sunday he wants and deserves to meet the anonymous whistleblower at the center of the fast-moving scandal that has triggered an impeachment probe against him … Brandishing what he said were affidavits incriminating Biden’s son Hunter over his work at a Ukrainian company, Giuliani said Trump was duty bound to raise the issue with Kiev. Trump and his allies claim Biden, as Barack Obama’s vice president, pressured Kiev to fire the country’s top prosecutor to protect his son Hunter, who sat on the board of a gas company, Burisma Holdings, accused of corrupt practices. Those allegations have largely been debunked and there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens.
  • ^ Matthias, Williams; Polityuk, Pavel (September 26, 2019). “Zelenskiy opponents say comments about Europeans to Trump could hurt Ukraine”. Reuters. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Trump pressed Zelenskiy to investigate the business dealings of the son of his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic front-runner to challenge Trump in an election next year. Zelenskiy agreed. Biden’s son Hunter worked for a company drilling for gas in Ukraine. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
  • ^ Isachenkov, Vladimir (September 27, 2019). “Ukraine’s prosecutor says there is no probe into Biden”. Associated Press. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son.
  • ^ a b “White House ‘tried to cover up details of Trump-Ukraine call'”. BBC News. September 26, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.
  • ^ Timm, Jane (September 25, 2019). “There’s no evidence for Trump’s Biden-Ukraine accusations. What really happened?”. NBC News. Retrieved October 1, 2019. But despite Trump’s continued claims, there’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
  • ^ Reilly, Steve (September 25, 2019). “What to know about CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity company mentioned in Trump’s phone call with Zelensky”. USA Today. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ McDonald, Scott (September 25, 2019). “What is CrowdStrike, the U.S. Company Trump Asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr to Look Into?”. Newsweek. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Stolberg (September 30, 2019). “Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked'”. The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Collins, Ben (October 3, 2019). “Trump seized on a conspiracy theory called the ‘insurance policy.’ Now, it’s at the center of an impeachment investigation”. NBC News. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Lee, Jasmine C.; Daniel, Annie; Lieberman, Rebecca; Migliozzi, Blacki; Burns, Alexander (June 14, 2019). “Which Democrats Are Leading the 2020 Presidential Race?”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Barrett, Devlin; Zapotosky, Matt; Leonnig, Carol D.; Dawsey, Josh (September 24, 2019). “Trump offered Ukrainian president Justice Dept. help for Biden investigation, memo shows”. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Smith, Allan; Edelman, Adam (September 24, 2019). “Trump says he will release a transcript of call with Ukraine president”. NBC News. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Segers, Grace (September 25, 2019). “DNI to provide Congress with whistleblower complaint — live updates”. CBS News. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ a b Zengerle, Patricia; Brice, Makini (September 12, 2019). Osterman, Cynthia; Maler, Sandra (eds.). “Trump administration reinstates military aid for Ukraine”. Reuters. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Stevenson, Chris (September 25, 2019). “‘I would like you to do us a favour though’: The one sentence that could bring Trump down”. The Independent. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Reevell, Patrick; Bruggeman, Lucien (September 25, 2019). “Biden probe was condition for Trump-Zelenskiy phone call: Ukrainian adviser”. ABC News. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Engel, Richard [@RichardEngel] (September 30, 2019). “A former Ukrainian lawmaker deeply familiar with the Giuliani dirt-digging campaign told me Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president asking for an investigation into the Bidens, while withholding vital military aid, was “pressure,” “blackmail,” and “quid pro quo”” (Tweet). Retrieved September 30, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P.; Schmidt, Michael S. (October 3, 2019). “Trump Envoys Pushed Ukraine to Commit to Investigations”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (September 13, 2019). “Chairman Schiff Issues Subpoena for Whistleblower Complaint Being Unlawfully Withheld by Acting DNI from Intelligence Committees”. United States House of Representatives (Press release). Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ “The complaint” (PDF). Retrieved October 6, 2019 – via house.gov.
  • ^ Baker, Peter (September 22, 2019). “Trump Acknowledges Discussing Biden in Call With Ukrainian Leader”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Haberman, Maggie; Fandos, Nicholas; Crowley, Michael; Vogel, Kenneth P. (September 23, 2019). “Trump Said to Have Frozen Aid to Ukraine Before Call With Its Leader”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Haberman, Maggie (September 26, 2019). “Trump Attacks Whistle-Blower’s Sources and Alludes to Punishment for Spies”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ Sheth, Sonam; Panetta, Grace (September 26, 2019). “Trump suggested the whistleblower who filed a complaint against him is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death”. Business Insider. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ Stokols, Eli (September 26, 2019). “Trump at private event: ‘Who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy'”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ Itkowitz, Colby (September 20, 2019). “Giuliani admits to asking Ukraine about Joe Biden after denying it 30 seconds earlier”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Heath, Brad (September 27, 2019). “A computer server haunted Clinton in 2016. Now it may be Trump’s turn”. Reuters. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Becker, Carlin (September 27, 2019). “Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he was unconcerned about election meddling”. Washington Examiner. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Beech, Eric (September 29, 2019). “Trump told Russians in 2017 he was not concerned about election meddling: Washington Post”. Reuters. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Borger, Julian; Gambino, Lauren (October 4, 2019). “Trump calls on China to investigate Biden in extraordinary demand”. The Guardian. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Trump Steps Up Calls for Investigation Into Origin of Russia Investigation”. KTLA. Associated Press. May 23, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie; Schmidt, Michael S. (May 13, 2019). “Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry”. The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
  • ^ Johnson, Kevin (May 14, 2019). “Attorney General taps top Connecticut federal prosecutor for review of Trump-Russia inquiry”. USA Today. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  • ^ Balsamo, Michael (May 14, 2019). “AP source: Barr launches new look at origins of Russia probe”. Associated Press. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam; Fandos, Nicholas (May 14, 2019). “Scrutiny of Russia Investigation Is Said to Be a Review, Not a Criminal Inquiry”. The New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  • ^ Chalfant, Morgan (May 24, 2019). “Trump orders intel agencies to cooperate with Barr probe into ‘spying’ on 2016 campaign”. The Hill. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Reports: White House asked UK, Italy, Australia to help discredit Russia probe”. The Times of Israel. October 2, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Prokop, Andrew (September 30, 2019). “Trump and Barr have been urging foreign governments to help them investigate the Mueller probe’s origins”. Vox. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Duffy, Connor; Greene, Andrew (October 1, 2019). “Donald Trump reportedly pressed Scott Morrison for help to discredit Mueller inquiry”. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ McPherson, Lindsey (September 24, 2019). “Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry, but leaves some questions”. Roll Call. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ a b Ferris, Sarah (September 29, 2019). “Dem leaders plot impeachment messaging war with Trump”. Politico. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ a b Bertr, Natasha; Matishak, Martin; Everett, Burgess (September 24, 2019). “Whistleblower wants to appear before Congress, Dems say”. Politico. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Harris, Shane; Demirjian, Karoun; Nakashima, Ellen (September 26, 2019). “Acting intelligence chief Maguire defends his handling of whistleblower complaint in testimony before Congress”. The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ a b Cheney, Kyle (September 27, 2019). “Democrats subpoena Pompeo as part of impeachment inquiry”. Politico. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Pramuk, Jacob (September 27, 2019). “House panels subpoena Secretary of State Pompeo for documents related to Trump impeachment probe”. CNBC. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Lowell, Hugo (September 29, 2019). “Democrats decide on rapid timetable for Trump impeachment inquiry”. The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Pramuk, Jacob (September 30, 2019). “House Democrats subpoena Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani in impeachment probe”. CNBC. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ a b Tracy, Ben (October 5, 2019). “House Democrats s⟨⟩ubpoena White House for documents in impeachment inquiry”. CBS News. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas; Baker, Peter (October 2, 2019). “We’re Not Fooling Around:” House Democrats Vow to Subpoena”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ “Menendez Requests State Departmnet IG Open Formal Investigation Into Trump-Ukraine Scandal”. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Borger, Julian; Pengelly, Martin (October 8, 2019). “Trump says he blocked ambassador’s testimony and attacks ‘kangaroo court'”. The Guardian. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Blake, Aaron (October 9, 2019). “The White House’s scathing and legally dubious impeachment letter, annotated”. Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Nicholas Fandos, Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman. “White House Declares War on Impeachment Inquiry, Alleging Effort to Undo Trump’s Election”. New York Times. Retrieved October 8, 2019.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • ^ Stieb, Matt (October 4, 2019). “Republicans’ ‘No Quid Pro Quo’ Defense of Trump Collapses With Release of Volker Texts”. New York Magazine. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Donald Trump [@realDonaldTrump] (September 29, 2019). “”… If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor [[Robert Jeffress]], @FoxNews” (Tweet) – via Twitter. URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  • ^ Bennett, John T.; Bennett, John T. (September 25, 2019). “White House threatens to shut down legislative process during impeachment inquiry”. Roll Call. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Bennett, John T. (September 27, 2019). “Congress did not get the ‘impeachment destroyed legislation’ memo”. Roll Call. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Stanley-Becker, Isaac; Romm, Tony (September 27, 2019). “Trump campaign launches anti-impechment blitz on Facebook, targeting four minority congresswomen”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Pilkington, Ed (September 30, 2019). “Giuliani leads battle against intensifying Trump impeachment inquiry”. The Guardian. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Pilkington, Ed (September 30, 2019). “Donald Trump has put whistleblower in danger, lawyers say”. The Guardian. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Cohen, David (September 30, 2019). “Trump launches Twitter tirade against Fox News’ Ed Henry”. Politico. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Sullivan, Eileen (September 30, 2019). “Trump Raises Idea of Arresting House Chairman for Treason”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Kellman, Laurie (September 30, 2019). “Trump Warns of Treason, Civil War; GOP Congressman Outraged”. Associated Press. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Wise, Justin (September 30, 2019). “Whistleblower attorney warns retaliating against client violates law after Trump comments”. The Hill. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Sharman, Jon; Buncombe, Andrew (October 2, 2019). “Trump falsely calls impeachment probe ‘a coup’ designed to strip citizens of rights in wild Twitter tirade”. The Independent. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ “Temperamental Trump Blows His Top Over Impeachment Inquiry”. The New York Times. Reuters. October 3, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Pettypiece, Shannon (September 27, 2019). “Trump says those who gave info to the whistleblower are like spies, reports say”. NBC News. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Jackson, David (September 30, 2019). “Donald Trump: ‘We’re trying to find out’ the identity of whistleblower who made Ukraine complaint”. USA Today. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ O’Sullivan, Donie; Wright, David (September 30, 2019). “Trump is using Facebook to run thousands of ads about impeachment”. CNN. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Segers, Grace; Watson, Kathryn; Becket, Stefan (October 3, 2019). “Trump suggests Ukraine and China should investigate Bidens — live updates”. CBS News. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Lejeune, Tristan (October 3, 2019). “Pence defends Trump’s calls for Ukraine to investigate Biden”. The Hill. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Gregorian, Dareh; Moe, Alex (October 4, 2019). “Impeachment inquiry turns to Vice President Mike Pence”. NBC News. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Lejeune, Tristan (September 30, 2019). “Trump: White House ‘trying to find out’ whistleblower’s identity”. The Hill. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ “Trump is endangering whistleblower, lawyers warn”. BBC. September 30, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Barrett, Ted (October 1, 2019). “How Lindsey Graham’s support for Trump — a man he once called a ‘jackass’ — has evolved”. CNN. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ DeBonis, Mike; Bade, Rachel (October 10, 2019). “GOP players in Benghazi probe drop strong defense of congressional oversight”. Washington Post.
  • ^ Wood, Benjamin (October 4, 2019). “Mitt Romney ratchets up his response to Trump accusations going from ‘troubling’ to ‘appalling'”. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ Astor, Maggie (September 26, 2019). “Phil Scott Is First G.O.P. Governor to Back Impeachment Inquiry”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ Thebault, Reis (September 26, 2019). “Two Republican governors say they support impeachment inquiry of Trump”. The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ Editorial Board (October 3, 2019). “Trump, the Self-Impeaching President”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ “The Guardian view on Donald Trump: an abuser of his office”. The Guardian. October 5, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Editorial Board (October 9, 2019). “Trump Wants a Fight. Pelosi Can Hit Back”. New York Times. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Editorial Board (October 9, 2019). “It’s tempting to ignore Trump’s unhinged letter to Congress. But this is different”. Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ 17 former Watergate special prosecutors (October 10, 2019). “We investigated the Watergate scandal. We believe Trump should be impeached”. Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  • ^ Haltiwanger, John (September 28, 2019). “Trump’s actions with Ukraine were ‘profoundly stupid’ and beyond anything any president has ever done, historians and veteran diplomats say”. Business Insider. Retrieved September 29, 2019.
  • ^ a b Hutzler, Alexandra (September 30, 2019). “Trump’s ‘Civil War’ Quote Tweet Is Actually Grounds for Impeachment, Says Harvard Law Professor”. Newsweek. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Moye, David (September 30, 2019). “Trump’s ‘Civil War’ Tweet May Be Grounds For Impeachment: Harvard Law Professor”. HuffPost. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Ballard, Jamie (September 26, 2019). “Most Americans support impeachment if Trump pressured Ukraine”. YouGov. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ a b Results: “TRUDP105. NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll National Tables September 25th, 2019” (PDF). Marist Poll. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ Shepard, Steven (September 26, 2019). “Support for impeachment jumps in new poll”. Politico. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  • ^ Sabur, Rozina (September 27, 2019). “America backs impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, new polls suggest”. The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ “September 30, 2019 – Support For Impeachment Grows Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Of Voters Approve Of Impeachment Inquiry”. Quinnipiac University Poll. Retrieved October 7, 2019.
  • ^ a b Murray, Patrick (October 1, 2019). “National: Impeachment support up slightly but Trump JOB rating steady” (PDF). Monmouth.edu. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ Shepard, Steven (September 26, 2019). “Support for impeachment jumps in new poll”. Politico / Morning Consult. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Results: Morning Consult; Politico (September 24–26, 2019). “National Tracking Poll #190970” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ Bonn, Tess (September 27, 2019). “Support for Trump impeachment rises 12 points in new poll”. The Hill. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. Archived from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ De Pinto, Jennifer; Salvanto, Anthony; Backus, Fred; Khanna, Kabir (September 29, 2019). “CBS News poll: Majority of Americans and Democrats approve of Trump impeachment inquiry”. CBS News. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Results: “CBS News poll — Impeachment, 9.29.19.pdf”. Google Doc. September 26–27, 2019. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Kahn, Chris (September 30, 2019). “American support for impeaching Trump rises to 45% amid Ukraine matter: Reuters/Ipsos poll”. Reuters. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Results: “Reuters/Ipsos Poll: Trump/Biden/Ukraine Survey” (PDF). Reuters. October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Pellicano, Teresa (September 30, 2019). “Support for Trump impeachment grows, Quinnipiac national poll”. WTNH. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ “September 30, 2019 – Support For Impeachment Grows Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Of Voters Approve Of Impeachment Inquiry”. Quinnipiac Universtity Poll. September 30, 2019. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  • ^ Piacenza, Joanna (October 2, 2019). “Voters Who’ve Heard ‘a Lot’ About Impeachment Are More Supportive of It”. Morning Consult. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  • ^ “Nearly Half of Americans Support Trump Impeachment” (PDF). Ipsos. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Poll: Majority of Americans say they endorse opening of House impeachment inquiry against Trup”. Washington Post. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Support for Trump impeachment inquiry rises, new poll shows” (PDF). Marist Poll. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Majority of Americans Back Trump Impeachment Probe, WSJ/NBC Poll Finds”. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  • ^ a b Blanton, Dana (October 9, 2019). “Fox News Poll: Record support for Trump impeachment”. Fox News. Retrieved October 10, 2019. Results: “Fox News Poll results October 6-8, 2019”. October 8–9, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2019.
  • ^ a b Shepard, Steven (October 9, 2019). “Poll: Half of voters support impeaching and removing Trump”. Politico / Morning Consult. Retrieved October 9, 2019. Results: Morning Consult; Politico (October 7–8, 2019). “National Tracking Poll #190970”. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  • ^ HuffPost; YouGov (September 24–26, 2019). “HuffPost: Impeachment” (PDF). HuffPost. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
  • ^ Agiesta, Jennifer (September 30, 2019). “CNN Poll: Support for impeaching Trump rises among independents and Republicans”. CNN. Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved September 30, 2019. Results: “Overview” (PDF). CNN. September 30, 2019. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • External links

    • Memorandum of July 25, 2019, telephone conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy
    • Trump-Ukraine whistleblower complaint, August 12, 2019

    <!–
    NewPP limit report
    Parsed by mw1339
    Cached time: 20191011114253
    Cache expiry: 2592000
    Dynamic content: false
    Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1]
    CPU time usage: 1.864 seconds
    Real time usage: 2.172 seconds
    Preprocessor visited node count: 11171/1000000
    Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
    Post‐expand include size: 492688/2097152 bytes
    Template argument size: 29003/2097152 bytes
    Highest expansion depth: 21/40
    Expensive parser function count: 12/500
    Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
    Unstrip post‐expand size: 595865/5000000 bytes
    Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 1/400
    Lua time usage: 1.056/10.000 seconds
    Lua memory usage: 8.5 MB/50 MB
    Lua Profile:
    ? 240 ms 20.0%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::match 200 ms 16.7%
    dataWrapper 200 ms 16.7%
    recursiveClone 60 ms 5.0%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::plain 60 ms 5.0%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction 60 ms 5.0%
    mw.executeFunction 40 ms 3.3%
    40 ms 3.3%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::gsub 40 ms 3.3%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::test 40 ms 3.3%
    [others] 220 ms 18.3%
    –>

    Hunter Biden

    Son of former Vice President of the United States Joe Biden

    Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American lawyer and lobbyist who is the second son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. He is a partner at Rosemont Seneca Partners, an international consulting firm.

    Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. In 2019, President Donald Trump claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation.[1][2][3][4] However, Hunter Biden was not under investigation.[5] Trump’s alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens by withholding foreign aid[6][7][8] triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019.

    Contents

    • 1 Early life
    • 2 Career
      • 2.1 Early positions, 1996–2009
      • 2.2 Later career, 2009–present
        • 2.2.1 U.S. Navy Reserve
        • 2.2.2 BHR Partners
        • 2.2.3 Burisma Holdings
    • 3 Personal life
    • 4 See also
    • 5 References
    • 6 External links

    Early life

    Further information: Biden family

    Biden was born on February 4, 1970,[9] in Wilmington, Delaware. He is the second son of Neilia Biden (née Hunter) and Joe Biden, the latter of whom represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009 and served as Vice President of the United States from 2009 to 2017.[2] Hunter Biden’s mother and younger sister, Naomi, were killed in an automobile crash on December 18, 1972.[10][11] Biden and his older brother, Beau, were also seriously injured in that crash.[2] Hunter and Beau Biden later encouraged their father to marry again,[12] and Jill Jacobs became Hunter and Beau’s stepmother in 1977.[2] Biden’s half-sister, Ashley, was born in 1981.[13]

    Like his father and brother, Biden attended Archmere Academy, a Catholic high school in Claymont, Delaware. In 1992, he graduated from Georgetown University with a bachelor’s degree in history. During the year after he graduated from college, he served as a Jesuit volunteer at a church in Portland, Oregon, where he met and eventually married Kathleen Buhle. After attending Georgetown University Law Center for one year, he transferred to Yale Law School, graduating in 1996.[2]

    Career

    Early positions, 1996–2009

    After graduating from law school, Biden took a position at MBNA America, a major bank holding company which was also a major contributor to his father’s political campaigns. By 1998, he had risen to the rank of executive vice president.[2] From 1998 to 2001, he served in the United States Department of Commerce, focusing on ecommerce policy.[14] Biden became a lobbyist in 2001, co-founding the firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair.[15] According to Adam Entous of The New Yorker, Biden and his father established a relationship in which “Biden wouldn’t ask Hunter about his lobbying clients, and Hunter wouldn’t tell his father about them.”[2] In 2006, Biden and his uncle, James Biden, attempted to buy Paradigm, a hedge-fund group, but the deal fell apart before completion.[2] That same year, Biden was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of Amtrak; he was on the board of Amtrak from 2006 to 2009.[14]

    Later career, 2009–present

    After his father was elected as vice president in 2008, Biden resigned from his position on the Amtrak board of directors and left his career as a lobbyist.[2] Along with Christopher Heinz, stepson of John Kerry, and Devon Archer, Biden founded the investment firm Rosemont Seneca.[15]

    He also became an attorney with the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,[2] and founded Eudora Global, a venture capital firm.[13]

    U.S. Navy Reserve

    In May 2013, Biden was selected as a direct commission officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, receiving an age-related waiver and a second waiver due to a past drug-related incident.[16] Joe Biden administered the commissioning oath to Hunter Biden in a White House ceremony.[2]

    The following month, Biden tested positive for cocaine during a urinalysis test and was subsequently discharged.[17] According to Biden, he had unwittingly consumed the cocaine after being given cigarettes he believed were surreptitiously laced with the drug.[2] He chose not to appeal the matter due to the likelihood news of his discharge would leak to the press, though it was ultimately revealed to The Wall Street Journal by a Navy official who provided information to the newspaper on condition of anonymity.[2][16]

    BHR Partners

    In 2013, Biden, Devon Archer, and Chinese businessman Jonathan Li founded BHR Partners, a business focused on investing Chinese capital in companies based outside of China.[2] In September 2019, President Trump falsely claimed that Biden “walk[ed] out of China with $1.5 billion in a fund” and earned “millions” of dollars from the BHR deal, while Trump was also accusing Biden of malfeasance in Ukraine.[18][19] Trump publicly called on China to investigate Hunter Biden’s business activities there while his father was vice president.[20][21]

    Burisma Holdings

    In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Mykola Zlochevsky faced a money laundering investigation,[22][23] and his company Burisma Holdings, the largest natural gas producer in Ukraine,[2] assembled a “high-profile international board” in response.[24][23] Chris Heinz, John Kerry’s stepson, opposed his partners Devon Archer and Hunter Biden joining the board in 2014 due to the reputational risk.[23] Among those who joined the board of directors in April 2014 were Biden, Archer and former Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski.[25] Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[26] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months.[15][27][28] Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Ukrainian anti-corruption advocates[3][29] and Obama administration officials expressed concern that Hunter Biden’s having joined the board could create the appearance of a conflict of interest and undermine Vice President Biden’s anti-corruption work in Ukraine.[2][23] While serving as vice president, Joe Biden joined other Western leaders in encouraging the government of Ukraine to fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin,[1][30] who was widely criticized for blocking corruption investigations.[31][32] The Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Shokin in March 2016.[33][34]

    In 2019, President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, claimed that Vice President Biden had actually sought the dismissal of Shokin in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings.[35] In May 2019, Shokin claimed that he was fired because he was actively investigating Burisma,[36] but U.S. and Ukrainian officials have stated that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time of Shokin’s dismissal.[23][36][37] The Ukrainian anti-corruption investigation agency stated in September 2019 that their investigation of Burisma was restricted solely to the period of 2010 to 2012, before Hunter Biden joined Burisma in 2014.[5] There is no evidence that Vice President Biden sought the removal of Shokin to protect Hunter Biden or Burisma Holdings.[1][2][3][38][39][29][40] In July 2019, Trump ordered the freezing of $391 million in military aid[41] shortly before a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump asked Zelensky to initiate an investigation of the Bidens.[42][43] Trump falsely told Zelensky that “[Joe] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution” of his son; Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.[44] On September 24, 2019, the United States House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump on the grounds that he may have sought to use U.S. foreign aid and the Ukrainian government to damage Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.[45][46]

    Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko said in May 2019 that Hunter Biden had not violated Ukranian law. After Lutsenko was replaced by Ruslan Ryaboshapka as prosecutor general, Lutsenko and Ryaboshapka said in September and October 2019 respectively that they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.[1][47][48]

    Personal life

    Biden married Kathleen Buhle in 1993,[2] and they have three daughters.[13] Biden and Kathleen separated in 2015 and divorced in 2017.[49] In 2016, he began dating Hallie Biden, the widow of his brother, Beau;[50] they ended their relationship by early 2019.[51]

    In May 2019, Biden married Melissa Cohen, a South-African filmmaker.[52][53]

    See also

    • Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2020

    References

  • ^ a b c d Kiely, Eugene (September 24, 2019). “Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine”. FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. Retrieved October 6, 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Entous, Adam (July 1, 2019). “Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?”. The New Yorker. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Braun, Stephen; Berry, Lynn (September 23, 2019). “The story behind Biden’s son, Ukraine and Trump’s claims”. Associated Press. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Multiple sources:
    • “Trump: I want to meet my accuser”. Agence France-Presse. September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. US President Donald Trump said on Sunday he wants and deserves to meet the anonymous whistleblower at the center of the fast-moving scandal that has triggered an impeachment probe against him … Brandishing what he said were affidavits incriminating Biden’s son Hunter over his work at a Ukrainian company, Giuliani said Trump was duty bound to raise the issue with Kiev. Trump and his allies claim Biden, as Barack Obama’s vice president, pressured Kiev to fire the country’s top prosecutor to protect his son Hunter, who sat on the board of a gas company, Burisma Holdings, accused of corrupt practices. Those allegations have largely been debunked and there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens.
    • Matthias, Williams; Polityuk, Pavel (September 26, 2019). “Zelenskiy opponents say comments about Europeans to Trump could hurt Ukraine”. Reuters. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Trump pressed Zelenskiy to investigate the business dealings of the son of his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic front-runner to challenge Trump in an election next year. Zelenskiy agreed. Biden’s son Hunter worked for a company drilling for gas in Ukraine. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
    • Isachenkov, Vladimir (September 27, 2019). “Ukraine’s prosecutor says there is no probe into Biden”. Associated Press. Retrieved October 1, 2019. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son.
    • “White House ‘tried to cover up details of Trump-Ukraine call'”. BBC News. September 26, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.
    • Timm, Jane (September 25, 2019). “There’s no evidence for Trump’s Biden-Ukraine accusations. What really happened?”. NBC News. Retrieved October 1, 2019. But despite Trump’s continued claims, there’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
  • ^ a b Ivanova, Polina; Polityuk, Pavel (September 27, 2019). “Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined”. Reuters. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  • ^ Forgey, Quint (September 24, 2019). “Trump changes story on withholding Ukraine aid”. Politico. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Pettypiece, Shannon; Smith, Allan (September 23, 2019). “Trump suggests he tied Ukraine funding to corruption, cites Biden allegations”. NBC News. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Rupar, Aaron (September 20, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani’s viral CNN meltdown over Trump and Ukraine, briefly explained”. Vox. Retrieved September 20, 2019.
  • ^ Phelps, Jordyn; Saenz, Arlette (August 25, 2015). “Hunter Biden Denies Ashley Madison Account Is His”. ABC News. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Connelly, Kevin (August 28, 2008). “Biden shows more bark than bite”. London, England: BBC News. Retrieved May 7, 2014.
  • ^ Broder, John M. (August 28, 2008). “Biden Opens New Phase With Attack on McCain”. The New York Times. New York City. Retrieved May 7, 2014.
  • ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (August 24, 2008). “Jill Biden Heads Toward Life in the Spotlight”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 10, 2008. Retrieved August 25, 2008.
  • ^ a b c Newman, Meredith; Jagtiani, Sarika; Sharp, Andrew (September 26, 2019). “Hunter Biden: Who is former Vice President Joe Biden’s son mentioned in Ukraine-Trump call?”. USA Today. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b Peligri, Justin (October 18, 2014). “Who is Hunter Biden?”. CNN. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Schrekinger, Ben (August 2, 2019). “Biden Inc”. Politico.
  • ^ a b Nelson, Colleen McCain; Barnes, Julian E. (October 16, 2014). “Biden’s Son Hunter Discharged From Navy Reserve After Failing Cocaine Test”. The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ “US Navy expelled Vice-President Biden’s son after positive cocaine test”. South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. October 17, 2014. Retrieved October 17, 2014.
  • ^ Kessler, Glenn (September 26, 2019). “Trump’s false claims about Hunter Biden’s China dealings”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Subramaniam, Tara (October 4, 2019). “Fact-checking Trump’s claims about the Bidens in China”. CNN. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ “Explainer: Trump’s claims and Hunter Biden’s dealings in China”. Reuters. October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ LaFraniere, Sharon; Forsythe, Michael (October 3, 2019). “What We Know About Hunter Biden’s Business in China”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Bullough, Oliver (April 12, 2017). “The money machine: how a high-profile corruption investigation fell apart”. The Guardian. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e Sonne, Paul; Kranish, Michael; Viser, Matt (September 28, 2019). “The gas tycoon and the vice president’s son: The story of Hunter Biden’s foray into Ukraine”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Risen, James (December 8, 2015). “Joe Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Seddon, Max (May 14, 2014). “Biden’s Son, Polish Ex-President Quietly Sign On To Ukrainian Gas Company”. BuzzFeed News. New York City. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P.; Mendel, Iuliia (May 1, 2019). “Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Nguyen, Tina (May 2, 2019). “Hunter Biden’s Work in Ukraine Emerges as a Potential 2020 Scandal”. Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Vogel, Kenneth P. (September 22, 2019). “Trump, Biden and Ukraine: Sorting Out the Accusations”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b Cullison, Alan (September 22, 2019). “Biden’s Anticorruption Effort in Ukraine Overlapped With Son’s Work in Country”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 6, 2019. Messrs. Trump and Giuliani have suggested that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s general prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016 to stop an investigation into Burisma. In Ukraine, government officials and anticorruption advocates say that is a misrepresentation … Mr. Shokin had dragged his feet into those investigations, Western diplomats said, and effectively squashed one in London by failing to cooperate with U.K. authorities … In a speech in 2015, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Otto Pyatt, called the Ukrainian prosecutor “an obstacle” to anticorruption efforts
  • ^ Bump, Philip; Blake, Aaron (September 24, 2019). “The full Trump-Ukraine timeline — as of now”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ McLaughlin, Daniel (March 29, 2016). “EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin”. The Irish Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Baker, Peter (September 23, 2019). “Instead of ‘No Collusion!’ Trump Now Seems to Be Saying, So What if I Did?”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ “News – Verkhovna Rada Chairperson Volodymyr Groysman calls on all people’s deputies to take part in voting for dismissal of prosecutor general Shokin – Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”. iportal.rada.gov.ua (Press release). March 29, 2016. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Kessler, Glenn (October 2, 2019). “Correcting a media error: Biden’s Ukraine showdown was in December 2015”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  • ^ Raymond, Adam K. (May 7, 2019). “Everything We Know About the Joe Biden–Ukraine Controversy”. New York. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ a b Baker, Stephanie; Krasnolutska, Daryna (May 7, 2019). “Timeline in Ukraine Probe Casts Doubt on Giuliani’s Biden Claim”. Bloomberg. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Parker, Ashley; Dawsey, Josh; Rucker, Philip (September 25, 2019). “Seven days: Inside Trump’s frenetic response to the whistleblower complaint and the battle over impeachment”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Birnbaum, Michael (September 26, 2019). “Hunter Biden ‘did not violate’ Ukraine laws, says former top prosecutor”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ “Ukraine ex-minister rejects Trump’s Biden claims”. BBC News. September 27, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Volz, Dustin; Strobel, Warren P.; Hughes, Siobhan (September 27, 2019). “Whistleblower Alleges White House Effort to Conceal Details of Trump Call With Ukraine”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 6, 2019. “The prosecutor was the target of widespread criticism from the U.S. and other countries and had in fact hampered the investigation into the company, Burisma Group. Ukraine’s prosecutor general in May said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son.”
  • ^ Haberman, Maggie; Fandos, Nicholas; Crowley, Michael; Vogel, Kenneth P. (September 24, 2019). “Trump Said to Have Frozen Aid to Ukraine Before Call With Its Leader”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Haberman, Maggie; Shear, Michael D.; Benner, Katie (September 25, 2019). “Trump Asks Ukraine’s Leader to ‘Do Us a Favor’ and Also Urges Inquiry of Biden”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Barrett, Devlin; Zapotosky, Matt; Leonnig, Carol D.; Dawsey, Josh (September 25, 2019). “Trump offered Ukrainian president Justice Dept. help for Biden investigation, memo shows”. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Dale, Daniel; Cohen, Marshall (September 25, 2019). “Fact check: Trump made false claim to Ukrainian president to justify his Biden request”. CNN. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Fandos, Nicholas (September 24, 2019). “Nancy Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Stuart, Tessa (September 25, 2019). “‘No Pressure,’ Trump Insists, While Sitting With Ukraine’s Zelensky at U.N.” Rolling Stone. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Wilkinson, Tracy; Loiko, Sergei (September 29, 2019). “Former Ukraine prosecutor says he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ “Ukraine to review cases on gas firm linked to Joe Biden’s son”. Al Jazeera. October 4, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
  • ^ Marsh, Julia (April 14, 2017). “Hunter and Kathleen Biden finalize divorce”. Page Six. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Pearl, Diana (March 2, 2017). “Hallie Biden’s Father Says He Supports Her Relationship with Hunter Biden, Her Late Husband’s Brother”. People. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Nguyen, Tina (May 1, 2019). “Hunter Biden Has Reportedly Broken Up with His Late Brother’s Wife”. Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Newman, Meredith (July 1, 2019). “Hunter Biden talks about his addiction, ‘I was in that darkness'”. Delaware News-Journal. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  • ^ Heil, Emily (June 12, 2019). “Hunter Biden’s messy personal life is back in the news. Will it cause political headaches for his dad?”. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 13, 2019.
  • External links

    • World Food Program USA: The Philippines and honoring Bob Dole (video)
    • Appearances on C-SPAN
    • Much-referenced May 2019 story in The New York Times on Bidens, Burisma, and possible appearance of conflict-of-interest


    Impeachment of Bill Clinton

    1999 Presidential impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president’s personal counsel on the right.

    • Political positions
    • Electoral history
    • Early life
    • Family
    • Public image
    • Sexual misconduct allegations

    Governor of Arkansas

    • Governorship

    President of the United States

    • Presidency
      • timeline

    Policies

    • Economic
    • Gun control
    • Environmental
    • Foreign
      • Clinton Doctrine
      • International trips

    Appointments

    • Cabinet
    • Judiciary

    First term

    • 1st inauguration
    • Health Security Act
    • NAFTA
    • Republican Revolution
    • AmeriCorps
    • Dayton Agreement
    • Timeline
      • ’93
      • ’94
      • ’95
      • ’96

    Second term

    • 2nd inauguration
    • One America Initiative
    • Balanced Budget
    • Operation Infinite Reach
    • Bombing of Iraq
    • Bombing of Yugoslavia
    • Timeline
      • ’97
      • ’98
      • ’99
      • ’00
      • ’01

    Presidential campaigns

    • 1992
      • Primaries
      • Convention
      • Election
    • 1996
      • Primaries
      • Convention
      • Debates
      • Election

    Controversies

    • Whitewater
    • White House travel office
    • Pardon

    Post-presidency

    • Presidential Library
    • My Life
    • Activities
    • Clinton Foundation
    • Clinton Bush Haiti Fund
    • One America Appeal

    • v
    • t
    • e

    The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States, for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which were subsequently detailed in two articles of impeachment. The specific charges against the president were lying under oath and obstruction of justice, charges that stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. The catalyst for the president’s impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee.[1]

    On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the other being Andrew Johnson who was impeached in 1868),[a] when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. The trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Consequently, Clinton remained in office for the balance of his second term.[4]

    Contents

    • 1 Background
    • 2 Independent counsel investigation
    • 3 Impeachment by House of Representatives
    • 4 Senate trial
      • 4.1 Pretrial
      • 4.2 Testimony
      • 4.3 Verdict
    • 5 Subsequent events
      • 5.1 Contempt of court citation
      • 5.2 Civil settlement with Paula Jones
      • 5.3 Political ramifications
      • 5.4 Ensuing events for 13 House managers
    • 6 See also
    • 7 Notes
    • 8 References
    • 9 External links

    Background

    In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas. Clinton attempted to delay a trial until after he left office, but in May 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the case to proceed and shortly thereafter the pre-trial discovery process commenced. Jones’ attorneys wanted to prove that Clinton had engaged in a pattern of behavior with women that lent support to her claims. In late 1997, Linda Tripp began secretly recording conversations with her friend Monica Lewinsky, a former intern and Department of Defense employee, in which Lewinsky divulged that she had had a sexual relationship with the President. Tripp shared this information with Paula Jones’ lawyers, who put Lewinsky on their witness list in December 1997. According to the Starr Report, after Lewinsky appeared on the witness list Clinton began taking steps to conceal their relationship, including suggesting she file a false affidavit, suggesting she use cover stories, concealing gifts he had given her, and helping her obtain a job to her liking.

    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a “sexual relationship”, “sexual affair” or “sexual relations” with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky’s affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky. The Starr Report states that the following day, Clinton “coached” his secretary Betty Currie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify.

    After rumors of the scandal reached the news, Clinton publicly stated, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”[5] Months later, Clinton admitted that his relationship with Lewinsky was “wrong” and “not appropriate”. Lewinsky engaged in oral sex with Clinton several times.[6][7]

    The judge in the Jones case later ruled the Lewinsky matter immaterial, and threw out the case in April 1998 on the grounds that Jones had failed to show any damages. After Jones appealed, Clinton agreed in November 1998 to settle the case for $850,000 while still admitting no wrongdoing.[8]

    Independent counsel investigation

    The charges arose from an investigation by Ken Starr, an Independent Counsel. Originally dealing with the Whitewater controversy, Starr, with the approval of United States Attorney General Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses, including the Whitewater controversy, the firing of White House travel agents, and the alleged misuse of FBI files. On January 12, 1998, Linda Tripp, who had been working with Jones’ lawyers, informed Starr that Lewinsky was preparing to commit perjury in the Jones case and had asked Tripp to do the same. She also said Clinton’s friend Vernon Jordan was assisting Lewinsky. Based on the connection to Jordan, who was under scrutiny in the Whitewater probe, Starr obtained approval from Reno to expand his investigation into whether Lewinsky and others were breaking the law.

    A much-quoted statement from Clinton’s grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word “is”. Contending that his statement that “there’s nothing going on between us” had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement”.[9] Starr obtained further evidence of inappropriate behavior by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky. Based on the president’s conflicting testimony, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury. Starr submitted his findings to Congress in a lengthy document, the Starr Report, which was released to the public via the internet a few days later, and included descriptions of encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky, on the Internet.[10] Starr was criticized by Democrats for spending $70 million on an investigation that substantiated only perjury and obstruction of justice.[11] Critics of Starr also contend that his investigation was highly politicized because it regularly leaked tidbits of information to the press in violation of legal ethics, and because his report included lengthy descriptions which were humiliating yet irrelevant to the legal case.[12][13]

    Impeachment by House of Representatives

    Since Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 midterm elections. Nevertheless, impeachment was one of the major issues in the election.

    In November 1998, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House although the Republicans still maintained majority control.[14] The results were a particular embarrassment for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who, before the election, had been reassured by private polling that Clinton’s scandal would result in Republican gains of up to thirty House seats.[14] Shortly after the elections, Gingrich, who had been one of the leading advocates for impeachment,[15] announced he would resign from Congress as soon as he was able to find somebody to fill his vacant seat;[14] Gingrich fulfilled this pledge, and officially resigned from Congress on January 3, 1999.[16]

    Impeachment proceedings were initiated during the post-election, “lame duck” session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress. Unlike the case of the 1974 impeachment process against Richard Nixon, the committee hearings were perfunctory but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides. The Speaker-designate, Representative Bob Livingston, chosen by the Republican Party Conference to replace Gingrich as House Speaker, announced the end of his candidacy for Speaker and his resignation from Congress from the floor of the House after his own marital infidelity came to light.[17]
    In the same speech, Livingston also encouraged Clinton to resign. Clinton chose to remain in office and urged Livingston to reconsider his resignation.[18]
    Many other prominent Republican members of Congress (including Dan Burton,[17] Helen Chenoweth,[17] and Henry Hyde,[17] the chief House manager of Clinton’s trial in the Senate) had infidelities exposed about this time, all of whom voted for impeachment. Publisher Larry Flynt offered a reward for such information, and many supporters of Clinton accused Republicans of hypocrisy.[17]

    Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[19] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[20] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[21] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).[22] Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868, and the third against whom articles of impeachment have been brought before the full House, that being Richard Nixon in 1974.

    Five Democrats (Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm and Gene Taylor) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge. Five Republicans (Amo Houghton, Peter King, Connie Morella, Chris Shays and Mark Souder) voted against the first perjury charge. Eight more Republicans (Sherwood Boehlert, Michael Castle, Phil English, Nancy Johnson, Jay Kim, Jim Leach, John McHugh and Ralph Regula), but not Souder, voted against the obstruction charge. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against the second perjury charge, sending it to defeat, and eighty-one voted against the abuse of power charge.

    Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[23]

  • the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
  • prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
  • prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
  • his attempts to tamper with witnesses
  • Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[24]

  • encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
  • encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
  • concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
  • attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
  • permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
  • attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie
  • making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
  • Senate trial

    Tickets dated January 14 and 15, 1999, for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.

    Pretrial

    The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding. The first day consisted of formal presentation of the charges against Clinton, and of Rehnquist swearing in all arguants in the trial.

    Thirteen House Republicans from the Judiciary Committee served as “managers”, the equivalent of prosecutors: Henry Hyde (chairman), Jim Sensenbrenner, Bill McCollum, George Gekas, Charles Canady, Steve Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Cannon, James E. Rogan and Lindsey Graham.

    Clinton was defended by Cheryl Mills. Clinton’s counsel staff included Charles Ruff, David E. Kendall, Dale Bumpers, Bruce Lindsey, Nicole Seligman, Lanny A. Breuer and Gregory B. Craig.[25]

    A resolution on rules and procedure for the trial was adopted unanimously on the following day; however, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial. The trial remained in recess while briefs were filed by the House (January 11) and Clinton (January 13).

    Testimony

    The managers presented their case over three days, from January 14 to 16, with discussion of the facts and background of the case; detailed cases for both articles of impeachment (including excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony that Clinton had made the previous August); matters of interpretation and application of the laws governing perjury and obstruction of justice; and argument that the evidence and precedents justified removal of the President from office by virtue of “willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation’s system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice.”[26] The defense presentation took place from January 19–21. Clinton’s defense counsel argued that Clinton’s grand jury testimony had too many inconsistencies to be a clear case of perjury, that the investigation and impeachment had been tainted by partisan political bias, that the President’s approval rating of more than 70 percent indicated that his ability to govern had not been impaired by the scandal, and that the managers had ultimately presented “an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from office”.[26] January 22 and 23 were devoted to questions from members of the Senate to the House managers and Clinton’s defense counsel. Under the rules, all questions (over 150) were to be written down and given to Rehnquist to read to the party being questioned.

    On January 25, Senator Robert Byrd moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment for lack of merit. On the following day, Rep. Bryant moved to call witnesses to the trial, a question that the Senate had scrupulously avoided to that point. In both cases, the Senate voted to deliberate on the question in private session, rather than public, televised procedure. On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a nearly party line vote of 56–44, while the motion to depose witnesses passed by the same margin. A day later, the Senate voted down motions to move directly to a vote on the articles of impeachment and to suppress videotaped depositions of the witnesses from public release, Feingold again voting with the Republicans.

    Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton’s friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky.

    On February 8, closing arguments were presented with each side allotted a three-hour time slot. On the President’s behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared:

    .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}

    There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit.[26]

    Chief Prosecutor Henry Hyde countered:

    A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious … We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President … And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done.[26]

    Verdict

    On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[3][27][28] Senator Arlen Specter voted “not proved”[b] for both charges,[29] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of “not guilty”. All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted “not guilty” on both charges, as did five Republicans; they were joined by five additional Republicans in voting “not guilty” on the perjury charge.[3][27][28]

    Robe worn by Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the impeachment trial
    Congressional Record page, February 12, 1999, showing the opening of the final day of President Clinton’s impeachment trial

    Sources: [30][31][32]

    Subsequent events

    Contempt of court citation

    In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[33]

    Regarding Clinton’s January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

    Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false …[33]

    On the day before leaving office in January 2001, Clinton, in what amounted to a plea bargain, agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with the independent counsel Robert Ray to end his investigation without filing any criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice.[34][35] Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar as a result of his law license suspension. However, as is customary, he was allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment. Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar during the 40-day appeals period.[36]

    Civil settlement with Paula Jones

    Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.[37][38]

    Political ramifications

    Opponents of Clinton’s impeachment demonstrating outside the Capitol in December 1998

    Polls conducted during 1998 and early 1999 showed that only about one-third of Americans supported Clinton’s impeachment or conviction. However, one year later, when it was clear that House impeachment would not lead to the ousting of the President, half of Americans said in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that they supported impeachment but 57% approved of the Senate’s decision to keep him in office and two thirds of those polled said the impeachment was harmful to the country.[39]

    While Clinton’s job approval rating rose during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment, his poll numbers with regard to questions of honesty, integrity and moral character declined.[40] As a result, “moral character” and “honesty” weighed heavily in the next presidential election. According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, “post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character.”[41][42][43]
    According to an analysis of the election by Stanford University:

    A more political explanation is the belief in Gore campaign circles that disapproval of President Clinton’s personal behavior was a serious threat to the vice president’s prospects. Going into the election the one negative element in the public’s perception of the state of the nation was the belief that the country was morally on the wrong track, whatever the state of the economy or world affairs. According to some insiders, anything done to raise the association between Gore and Clinton would have produced a net loss of support—the impact of Clinton’s personal negatives would outweigh the positive impact of his job performance on support for Gore. Thus, hypothesis four suggests that a previously unexamined variable played a major role in 2000—the retiring president’s personal approval.[44]

    The Stanford analysis, however, presented different theories and mainly argued that Gore had lost because he decided to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign. The writers of it concluded:[44]

    We find that Gore’s oft-criticized personality was not a cause of his under-performance. Rather, the major cause was his failure to receive a historically normal amount of credit for the performance of the Clinton administration … [and] failure to get normal credit reflected Gore’s peculiar campaign which in turn reflected fear of association with Clinton’s behavior.[44]

    According to the America’s Future Foundation:

    In the wake of the Clinton scandals, independents warmed to Bush’s promise to ‘restore honor and dignity to the White House’. According to Voter News Service, the personal quality that mattered most to voters was ‘honesty’. Voters who chose ‘honesty’ preferred Bush over Gore by over a margin of five to one. Forty Four percent of Americans said the Clinton scandals were important to their vote. Of these, Bush reeled in three out of every four.[45]

    Political commentators have argued that Gore’s refusal to have Clinton campaign with him was a bigger liability to Gore than Clinton’s scandals.[44][46][47][48][49] The 2000 US Congressional election also saw the Democrats gain more seats in Congress.[50] As a result of this gain, control of the US Senate was split 50–50 between both parties,[51] and Democrats would gain control over the US Senate after Republican Senator Jim Jeffords defected from his party in the spring of 2001 and agreed to caucus with the Democrats.[52]

    Al Gore reportedly confronted Clinton after the election, and “tried to explain that keeping Clinton under wraps [during the campaign] was a rational response to polls showing swing voters were still mad as hell over the Year of Monica”. According to the AP, “during the one-on-one meeting at the White House, which lasted more than an hour, Gore used uncommonly blunt language to tell Clinton that his sex scandal and low personal approval ratings were a hurdle he could not surmount in his campaign … [with] the core of the dispute was Clinton’s lies to Gore and the nation about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.”[53][54][55] Clinton, however, was unconvinced by Gore’s argument and insisted to Gore that he would have won the election if he had embraced the administration and its good economic record.[53][54][55]

    Ensuing events for 13 House managers

    Of the 13 members of the House who managed Clinton’s trial in the Senate, one lost to a Democrat in his 2000 bid for re-election (James E. Rogan, to Adam Schiff). Charles Canady retired from Congress in 2000, following through on a previous term limits pledge to voters, and Bill McCollum ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate. Asa Hutchinson, after being re-elected in 2000, left Congress after being appointed head of the Drug Enforcement Administration by President George W. Bush. In 2014, Hutchinson was elected governor of Arkansas. In 2002, two former House managers lost their seats after redistricting placed them in the same district as another incumbent (Bob Barr lost to John Linder in a Republican primary, and George Gekas lost to Democrat Tim Holden), while two more ran for the U.S. Senate (Lindsey Graham successfully, Ed Bryant unsuccessfully). The other five remained in the House well into the 2000s (decade), and two (Jim Sensenbrenner and Steve Chabot) are still members (although Chabot lost his seat to Steve Driehaus in the 2008 elections; Chabot defeated Driehaus in a 2010 rematch). In 2009, Sensenbrenner served again as a manager for the impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent of Texas[56] as well as serving in 2010 as Republican lead manager in the impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana.[57]

    See also

    • Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
    • Impeachment process against Richard Nixon
    • Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
    • List of federal political scandals in the United States
    • List of federal political sex scandals in the United States
    • Second-term curse
    • Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton

    Notes

  • ^ In a third case, Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, while an impeachment process against him was underway in the House of Representatives.[2] A fourth case, against Donald Trump, was initiated in September 2019 and is ongoing.
  • ^ a verdict used in Scots law
  • References

  • ^ Glass, Andrew (October 8, 2017). “House votes to impeach Clinton , Oct. 8, 1998″. Politico. Retrieved June 12, 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ “House begins impeachment of Nixon”. history.com. A&E Television Networks. February 26, 2019 [Published November 24, 2009]. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Baker, Peter (February 13, 1999). “The Senate Acquits President Clinton”. The Washington Post. The Washington Post Co. Archived from the original on November 10, 2013. Retrieved December 4, 2013.
  • ^ Riley, Russell L. “Bill Clinton: Domestic Affairs”. millercenter.org. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Miller Center, University of Virginia. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  • ^ “What Clinton Said”. The Washington Post. September 2, 1998. Archived from the original on February 5, 2012. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  • ^ “The Stained Blue Dress that Almost Lost a Presidency”. University of Missouri-Kansas School of Law. Archived from the original on July 3, 2008. Retrieved July 10, 2008.
  • ^ Ross, Brian (March 19, 1998). “Hillary at White House on ‘Stained Blue Dress’ Day – Schules Reviewed by ABC Show Hillary May Have Been in the White House When the Fateful Act Was Committed”. ABC News. Archived from the original on June 19, 2008. Retrieved July 10, 2008.
  • ^ Baker, Peter (November 14, 1998). “Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved June 3, 2018.
  • ^ “Starr Report: Narrative”. Nature of President Clinton’s Relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. May 19, 2004. Archived from the original on December 3, 2000. Retrieved May 9, 2009.
  • ^ “Starr report puts Internet into overdrive”. CNN. September 12, 1998. Archived from the original on September 13, 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ “Report: The Independent Counsel’s Final Report”. Aim.org. Archived from the original on November 30, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ “News leaks prompt lawyer to seek sanctions against Starr’s Office”. Thefreelibrary.com. Archived from the original on December 28, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ Palermo, Joseph A. (March 28, 2008). “The Starr Report: How To Impeach A President (Repeat)”. Huffington Post. Archived from the original on February 14, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ a b c Gibbs, Nancy; Duffy, Michael (November 16, 1998). “Fall Of The House Of Newt”. Time. Archived from the original on August 21, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.(subscription required)
  • ^ JAKE TAPPER (@jaketapper) (March 9, 2007). “Gingrich Admits to Affair During Clinton Impeachment – ABC News”. Abcnews.go.com. Archived from the original on February 28, 2012. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ “Special election set to replace Gingrich”. Ocala Star-Banner. January 5, 1999 – via Google News archive.
  • ^ a b c d e Kurtz, Howard, “Larry Flynt, Investigative Pornographer” Archived May 18, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post, December 19, 1998. Page C01. Retrieved 21-June-2010.
  • ^ Karl, Jonathan; Associated Press (December 19, 1998). “Livingston bows out of the speakership”. All Politics. CNN. Archived from the original on March 13, 2007. Retrieved May 9, 2009.
  • ^ Miller, Lorraine C. (December 19, 1998). “Final vote results for roll call 543”. Office of the Clerk. Archived from the original on January 6, 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
  • ^ Miller, Lorraine C. (December 19, 1998). “Final vote results for roll call 545”. Office of the Clerk. Archived from the original on March 2, 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
  • ^ Miller, Lorraine C. (December 19, 1998). “Final vote results for roll call 544”. Office of the Clerk. Archived from the original on March 2, 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
  • ^ Miller, Lorraine C. (December 19, 1998). “Final vote results for roll call 546”. Office of the Clerk. Archived from the original on March 2, 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
  • ^ Text of Article I Archived December 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Washington Post December 20, 1998
  • ^ Text of Article IIII Archived December 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Washington Post December 20, 1998
  • ^ Defense Who’s Who Archived June 17, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post, January 19, 1999.
  • ^ a b c d The History Place (2000). “The History Place – Impeachment: Bill Clinton”. The History Place. Archived from the original on May 14, 2010. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  • ^ a b “How the senators voted on impeachment”. CNN. February 12, 1999. Retrieved June 8, 2019.
  • ^ a b Riley, Russell L. “Bill Clinton: Domestic Affairs”. Charlottesville, Virginia: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
  • ^ Specter, Arlen (February 12, 1999). “Sen. Specter’s closed-door impeachment statement”. CNN. Archived from the original on June 14, 2008. Retrieved March 13, 2008. My position in the matter is that the case has not been proved. I have gone back to Scottish law where there are three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proved. I am not prepared to say on this record that President Clinton is not guilty. But I am certainly not prepared to say that he is guilty. There are precedents for a Senator voting present. I hope that I will be accorded the opportunity to vote not proved in this case. … But on this record, the proofs are not present. Juries in criminal cases under the laws of Scotland have three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not proved. Given the option in this trial, I suspect that many Senators would choose ‘not proved’ instead of ‘not guilty’.
    That is my verdict: not proved. The President has dodged perjury by calculated evasion and poor interrogation. Obstruction of justice fails by gaps in the proofs.
  • ^ Linder, Douglas O. “Senate Votes on the Articles of Impeachment in the Trial of President Clinton: February 12, 1999”. Famous Trials. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Retrieved June 8, 2019.
  • ^ “Roll Call of Votes on Articles of Impeachment”. The New York Times. Associated Press. February 12, 1999. Retrieved June 8, 2019 – via New York Times archive.
  • ^ 145 Cong. Rec. (1999) 2376–77. Retrieved June 8, 2019.
  • ^ a b Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony – April 12, 1999 Archived April 8, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  • ^ “Mr. Clinton’s Last Deal”. The New York Times. January 20, 2001. Archived from the original on April 30, 2019. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
  • ^ Neal v. Clinton, Civ. No. 2000-5677, Agreed Order of Discipline (Ark. Cir. Ct. January 19, 2001) (“Mr. Clinton admits and acknowledges … that his discovery responses interfered with the conduct of the Jones case by causing the court and counsel for the parties to expend unnecessary time, effort, and resources …”).
  • ^ US Supreme Court Order Archived January 22, 2002, at the Wayback Machine. FindLaw. November 13, 2001.
  • ^ “Jones v. Clinton finally settled”. CNN. November 13, 1998. Archived from the original on January 13, 2010. Retrieved January 16, 2009.
  • ^ “Clinton-Jones Settlement Text”. CNN. November 13, 1998. Archived from the original on January 23, 2009. Retrieved January 13, 2009.
  • ^ Keating Holland. “A year after Clinton impeachment, public approval grows of House decision” Archived March 3, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. CNN. December 16, 1999.
  • ^ David S. Broder, Richard Morin (August 23, 1998). “American Voters See Two Very Different Bill Clintons”. The Washington Post. p. A1. Archived from the original on November 22, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017.
  • ^ Deborah Arotsky (May 7, 2004). “Singer authors book on the role of ethics in Bush presidency”. The Daily Princetonian. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
  • ^ Stephen E. Sachs (November 7, 2000). “Of Candidates and Character”. The Harvard Crimson. Archived from the original on December 31, 2006. Retrieved April 1, 2007.
  • ^ Bishin, B. G.; Stevens, D.; Wilson, C. (Summer 2006). “Character Counts?: Honesty and Fairness in Election 2000”. Public Opinion Quarterly. 70 (2): 235–48. doi:10.1093/poq/nfj016.
  • ^ a b c d Fiorina, M.; Abrams, S.; Pope, J. (March 2003). “The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved?” (PDF). British Journal of Political Science. Cambridge University Press. 33 (2): 163–87. doi:10.1017/S0007123403000073. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 7, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2008.
  • ^ Todd J. Weiner (May 15, 2004). “Blueprint for Victory”. America’s Future Foundation. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 12, 2015.
  • ^ “S/R 25: Gore’s Defeat: Don’t Blame Nader (Marable)”. Greens.org. Archived from the original on May 10, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ Jacob Weisberg (November 8, 2000). “Why Gore (Probably) Lost”. Slate.com. Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ “An anatomy of 2000 USA presidential election”. Nigerdeltacongress.com. Archived from the original on May 16, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ “Beyond the Recounts: Trends in the 2000 US Presidential Election”. Cairn.info. November 12, 2000. Archived from the original on May 10, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
  • ^ Ripley, Amanda (November 20, 2000). “Election 2000: Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader: Partisan from the Prairie”. Time. Archived from the original on November 22, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  • ^ Schmitt, Eric (November 9, 2000). “THE 2000 Elections: The Senate; Democrats Gain Several Senate Seats, but Republicans Retain Control”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 18, 2013. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  • ^ “The Crist Switch: Top 10 Political Defections”. Time. April 29, 2009. Archived from the original on May 3, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  • ^ a b Margaret Carlson (February 11, 2001). “When a Buddy Movie Goes Bad”. Time. Archived from the original on June 4, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2008.
  • ^ a b “Clinton and Gore have it out”. Associated Press. February 8, 2001. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015.
  • ^ a b Harris, John F. (February 7, 2001). “Blame divides Gore, Clinton”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  • ^ “Sensenbrenner, House Vote to Impeach Judge Kent of Texas” (Press release). Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. June 19, 2009. Archived from the original on January 22, 2011. Retrieved January 22, 2011. After voting to impeach, Sensenbrenner was selected to serve as one of the five House Managers who will try the case in the Senate.
  • ^ “Sensenbrenner to Serve as House Manager for Porteous Impeachment” (Press release). Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. March 11, 2010. Archived from the original on January 22, 2011. Retrieved January 22, 2011. Sensenbrenner was selected to serve as one of the five House Managers who will try the case in the Senate after the resolution passed.
  • External links

    • United States portal
    • Politics portal
    • 1990s portal
    • “The Articles Explained”. The Washington Post. (December 18, 1998.) Archived August 16th, 2000 from the original link.
    • “The Starr Report”, The Washington Post (September 16, 1998)
    • “Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, together with additional, minority, and dissenting views” (H. Rpt. 105-830) (440 pages), December 16, 1998
    • “Dale Bumpers: Closing Defense Arguments – Impeachment Trial of William J. Clinton”


    Impeachment in the United States

    Process of bringing charges against a civil officer for crimes alleged to have been committed
    The 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding.

    Impeachment in the United States is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, this is at the discretion of the House of Representatives. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which officials have been impeached and subsequently convicted for crimes committed prior to taking office.[1] The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held. That trial, and their removal from office if convicted, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Analogous to a trial before a judge and jury, these proceedings are (where the legislature is bicameral) conducted by the upper house of the legislature, which at the federal level is the Senate.

    Impeachment may occur at the federal level, or the state level. The federal House can impeach federal officials, including the President, and each state’s legislature can impeach state officials, including the governor, in accordance with their respective federal or state constitution.

    Contents

    • 1 Federal Impeachment
      • 1.1 Constitutional provisions
      • 1.2 Impeachable offenses: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”
      • 1.3 Officers subject to impeachment: “civil officers of the United States”
      • 1.4 Procedure
        • 1.4.1 Rules
        • 1.4.2 Calls for impeachment, and Congressional power to investigate
        • 1.4.3 House of Representatives: Impeachment
        • 1.4.4 Senate: Trial
        • 1.4.5 Conviction and disqualification
      • 1.5 History of federal constitutional impeachment
      • 1.6 Federal impeachment investigations formally commenced and officials impeached
    • 2 Impeachment in the states
      • 2.1 State and territorial officials impeached
        • 2.1.1 State governors
    • 3 See also
    • 4 Notes
    • 5 References
    • 6 Further reading
    • 7 External links

    Federal Impeachment[edit]

    Constitutional provisions[edit]

    The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    — Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    —Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

    [The President] … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    —Article II, Section 2

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    —Article II, Section 4

    Impeachable offenses: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”[edit]

    See also: High crimes and misdemeanors

    The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.[2] The precise meaning of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution itself.

    The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”[3] Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”[3] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” a broad reading, “finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.”[4][1]

    The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][5] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a “remedial” tool; it serves to effectively “maintain constitutional government” by removing individuals unfit for office.[6][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the “public trust”—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[6][4][1]

    In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct.[1] Less than one-third of the articles that the House have adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word “criminal” or “crime” to describe the conduct alleged.[1] Officials have been impeached and removed for drunkenness, biased decision-making, or inducing parties to enter financial transactions, none of which is specifically criminal.[1] Two of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made “harangues” criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act, each of which brought the presidency “into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace”.[7] A number of individuals have been impeached for behavior incompatible with the nature of the office they hold.[1] Some impeachments have addressed, at least in part, conduct before the individuals assumed their positions: for example, Article IV against Judge Porteous related to false statements to the FBI and Senate in connection with his nomination and confirmation to the court.[1]

    On the other hand, the Constitutional Convention rejected language that would have permitted impeachment for “maladministration,” with Madison arguing that “[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” [8]

    Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment “do not all fit neatly and logically into categories” because the remedy of impeachment is intended to “reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office”.[6][1] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

    (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
    (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
    (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.[6][1]

    Conversely, not all criminal conduct is impeachable: in 1974, the Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment against President Nixon alleging that he committed tax fraud, primarily because that “related to the President’s private conduct, not to an abuse of his authority as President.”[1]

    Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a “high Crime or Misdemeanor”, especially since the Supreme Court decided in Nixon v. United States that it did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly “tried” a defendant.[9] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”[10]

    Of the 17 impeachments voted by the House:

    • No official has been charged with treason. (In 1797, Senator Blount was impeached for assisting Britain in capturing Spanish territory. In 1862, Judge Humphries was impeached and convicted for siding with the Confederacy and taking a position as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.)
    • Three officials have been charged with bribery, and all three removed (Secretary Belknap, Judge Archibald, and Judge Hastings).
    • The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under the category of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

    The standard of proof required for impeachment and conviction is also left to the discretion of individual Representatives and Senators, respectively. Defendants have argued that impeachment trials are in the nature of criminal proceedings, with convictions carrying grave consequences for the accused, and that therefore proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be the applicable standard. House Managers have argued that a lower standard would be appropriate to better serve the purpose of defending the community against abuse of power, since the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property, for which the reasonable doubt standard was set.[11]

    Officers subject to impeachment: “civil officers of the United States” [edit]

    The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution does not articulate who qualifies as a “civil officer of the United States”.[12]

    Federal judges are subject to impeachment. In fact, 15 of 19 officers impeached, and all eight officers removed after Senate trial, have been judges.

    Within the executive branch, any Presidentially-appointed “principal officer,” including a head of an agency such as a Secretary, Administrator, or Commissioner, is a “civil officer of the United States” subject to impeachment.[1] At the opposite end of the spectrum, lesser functionaries, such as federal civil service employees, do not exercise “significant authority”, and are not appointed by the President or an agency head. These employees do not appear to be subject to impeachment, though that may be a matter of allocation of House floor debate time by the Speaker, rather than a matter of law.

    The Senate has concluded that members of Congress (Representatives and Senators) are not “civil officers” for purposes of impeachment.[13] As a practical matter, expulsion is effected by the simpler procedures of Article I, Section 5, which provides “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members … Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” (see List of United States senators expelled or censured and List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded). This allows each House to expel its own members without involving the other chamber. In 1797, the House of Representatives impeached Senator William Blount of Tennessee,[14] The Senate expelled Senator Blount under Article I, Section 5, on the same day. However, the impeachment proceeding remained pending (expulsion only removes the individual from office, but conviction after impeachment may also bar the individual from holding future office, so the question of further punishment remained to be decided). After four days of debate, the Senate concluded that a Senator is not a “civil officer of the United States” for purposes of the Impeachment clause, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.[13][15] The House has not impeached a Member of Congress since Blount.

    Procedure[edit]

    At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

    • First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
    • Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been “impeached”.
    • Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate’s usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.

    Rules[edit]

    A number of rules have been adopted by the House and Senate, and are honored by tradition.

    Jefferson’s Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives,[16] states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges proferred by a memorial, a member’s resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

    The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House[17] is a reference source for information on the rules and selected precedents governing the House procedure, prepared by the House Parliamentarian. The manual has a chapter on the House’s rules, procedures, and precedent for impeachment.

    In 1974, as part of the preliminary investigation in the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry of the House Judiciary Committee prepared a report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.[6] The primary focus of the Report is the definition of the term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and the relationship to criminality, which the Report traces through history from English roots, through the debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and the history of the impeachments before 1974.

    The 1974 report has been expanded and revised on several occasions by the Congressional Research Service, and the current version Impeachment and Removal dates from October 2015.[1] While this document is only staff recommendation, as a practical matter, today it is probably the single most influential definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    The Senate has formal Rules and Procedures of Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials.[18]

    Calls for impeachment, and Congressional power to investigate[edit]
    See also: Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials

    While the actual impeachment of a federal public official is a rare event, demands for impeachment, especially of presidents, are common,[19] going back to the administration of George Washington in the mid-1790s.

    While almost all of them were for the most part frivolous and were buried as soon as they were introduced, several did have their intended effect. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon[20] and Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas both resigned in response to the threat of impeachment hearings, and, most famously, President Richard Nixon resigned from office after the House Judiciary Committee had already reported articles of impeachment to the floor.

    In advance of the formal resolution by the full House, the relevant committee may investigate, subpoena witnesses, and prepare a preliminary report of findings. For example:

    • In 1970, then–House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor.[21] The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.
    • In 1973, the Senate Watergate hearings (with testimony from John Dean, and the revelation of the White House tapes by Alexander Butterfield) were held in May and June 1973, and the House Judiciary Committee authorized Chairman Rodino to commence an investigation, with subpoena power, on October 30, 1973. The full House voted to initiate impeachment proceedings on February 6, 1974, that is, after nine months of formal investigations by various Congressional committees.
    • Other examples are discussed in the article on Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials.

    Targets of congressional investigations have challenged the power of Congress to investigate before a formal resolution commences impeachment proceedings. For example, President Buchanan wrote to the committee investigating his administration:

    I do, therefore, … solemnly protest against these proceedings of the House of Representatives, because they are in violation of the rights of the coordinate executive branch of the Government, and subversive of its constitutional independence; because they are calculated to foster a band of interested parasites and informers, ever ready, for their own advantage, to swear before ex parte committees to pretended private conversations between the President and themselves, incapable, from their nature, of being disproved; thus furnishing material for harassing him, degrading him in the eyes of the country …[22]

    He maintained that the House of Representatives possessed no general powers to investigate him, except when sitting as an impeaching body.

    When the Supreme Court has considered similar issues, it held that the power to secure “needed information … has long been treated as an attribute of the power to legislate. … [The power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation’s history:] It was so regarded in the British Parliament and in the colonial Legislatures before the American Revolution, and a like view has prevailed and been carried into effect in both houses of Congress and in most of the state Legislatures.” McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 161 (1927). The Supreme Court also held, “There can be no doubt as to the power of Congress, by itself or through its committees, to investigate matters and conditions relating to contemplated legislation.” Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 160 (1955).

    The Supreme Court has also explained that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to investigate so it can inform the public of the operations of government:

    It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.[23]

    House of Representatives: Impeachment[edit]
    “House Manager” redirects here. For theater operations, see House management.

    Impeachment proceedings may be requested by a member of the House of Representatives on his or her own initiative, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be requested by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, or state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition. An impeachment proceeding formally begins with a resolution adopted by the full House of Representatives, which typically includes a referral to a House committee.

    The type of impeachment resolution determines the committee to which it is referred. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment, it will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Articles of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee’s recommendations.

    The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article for the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as “House managers”, with a “lead House manager”) are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. These managers are roughly the equivalent of the prosecution or district attorney in a standard criminal trial.

    Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.

    Senate: Trial[edit]
    Depiction of the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding.

    The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached.[24] The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[18] Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The trial is not an actual criminal proceeding and more closely resembles a civil service termination appeal in terms of the contemplated deprivation. Therefore, the removed official may still be liable to criminal prosecution under a subsequent criminal proceeding. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting Federal criminal case.[25]

    Beginning in the 1980s with Harry E. Claiborne, the Senate began using “Impeachment Trial Committees” pursuant to Senate Rule XI.[18] These committees presided over the evidentiary phase of the trials, hearing the evidence and supervising the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The committees would then compile the evidentiary record and present it to the Senate; all senators would then have the opportunity to review the evidence before the chamber voted to convict or acquit. The purpose of the committees was to streamline impeachment trials, which otherwise would have taken up a great deal of the chamber’s time. Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as this did not meet the constitutional requirement for their cases to be “tried by the Senate”. Several impeached judges, including District Court Judge Walter Nixon, sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary could not review such proceedings, as matters related to impeachment trials are political questions and could not be resolved in the courts.[26]

    In theory at least, as President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States could preside over their own impeachment, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in their own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

    To convict an accused, “the concurrence of two thirds of the [Senators] present” for at least one article is required. If there is no single charge commanding a “guilty” vote of two-thirds majority of the senators present, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

    Conviction and disqualification[edit]

    Conviction immediately removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. As the threshold for disqualification is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Senate has taken the position that disqualification votes only require a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority. The Senate has used disqualification sparingly, as only three individuals have been disqualified from holding future office.[27]

    Conviction does not extend to further punishment, for example, loss of pension. However, the convicted party is not protected from further criminal or civil proceedings in state and federal courts.

    History of federal constitutional impeachment[edit]

    In the United Kingdom, impeachment was a procedure whereby a member of the House of Commons could accuse someone of a crime. If the Commons voted for the impeachment, a trial would then be held in the House of Lords. Unlike a bill of attainder, a law declaring a person guilty of a crime, impeachments did not require royal assent, so they could be used to remove troublesome officers of the Crown even if the monarch was trying to protect them.

    The monarch, however, was above the law and could not be impeached, or indeed judged guilty of any crime. When King Charles I was tried before the Rump Parliament of the New Model Army in 1649 he denied that they had any right to legally indict him, their king, whose power was given by God and the laws of the country, saying: “no earthly power can justly call me (who is your King) in question as a delinquent … no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King.” While the House of Commons pronounced him guilty and ordered his execution anyway, the jurisdictional issue tainted the proceedings.

    With this example in mind, the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention chose to include an impeachment procedure in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution which could be applied to any government official; they explicitly mentioned the President to ensure there would be no ambiguity. Opinions differed, however, as to the reasons Congress should be able to initiate an impeachment. Initial drafts listed only treason and bribery, but George Mason favored impeachment for “maladministration” (incompetence). James Madison argued that impeachment should only be for criminal behavior, arguing that a maladministration standard would effectively mean that the President would serve at the pleasure of the Senate.[28] Thus the delegates adopted a compromise version allowing impeachment for “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors”.

    Federal impeachment investigations formally commenced and officials impeached[edit]

    The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings 62 times since 1789.[citation needed]

    The House has impeached 19 federal officers. Of these:

    • 15 were federal judges: thirteen district court judges, one court of appeals judge (who also sat on the Commerce Court), and one Supreme Court Associate Justice.
    • two were Presidents: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton; both were later acquitted by the Senate.[29]
    • one was a Cabinet secretary
    • one was a U.S. Senator.

    Of the 19 impeachments by the House, two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office, seven were acquitted, and eight officials were convicted, all of whom were judges.[30][31] One, former judge Alcee Hastings, was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives after being removed from office.

    Additionally, an impeachment process against Richard Nixon was commenced, but not completed, as he resigned from office before the full House voted on the articles of impeachment.[26] To date, no president has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

    The following table lists federal officials for whom impeachment proceedings were instituted and referred to a committee of the House of Representatives. Numbered lines of the table reflect officials impeached by a majority vote of the House. Unnumbered lines are those officials for whom an impeachment proceeding was formally instituted, but ended when (a) the Committee did not vote to recommend impeachment, (b) the Committee recommended impeachment but the vote in the full House failed, or (c) the official resigned or died before the full House vote.

    There have been unsuccessful attempts to initiate impeachment proceedings against John Tyler, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

    One notable impeachment attempt that never reached the point of House resolution was an attempt to impeach Associate Justice William O. Douglas by then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford. The Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress prepared a report as part of Ford’s vetting for confirmation as Vice President in 1973.[21]

    President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles: one was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote); the second accused Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. The votes in the Senate to remove him from office did not reach two-thirds vote on either charge: 45–55 on obstruction of justice and 50–50 on perjury.

    See also:

    • Attempt to impeach John Tyler
    • Impeachment investigation against James Buchanan
    • Harry S Truman—Truman’s firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur led to introduction of two resolutions of impeachment and hearings in the Senate
    • Impeachment process against Richard Nixon
    • Impeachment of Bill Clinton
    • Efforts to impeach George W. Bush
    • Efforts to impeach Barack Obama
    • Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

    Impeachment in the states[edit]

    State legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, in every State except Oregon. The court for the trial of impeachments may differ somewhat from the federal model—in New York, for instance, the Assembly (lower house) impeaches, and the State Senate tries the case, but the members of the seven-judge New York State Court of Appeals (the state’s highest, constitutional court) sit with the senators as jurors as well.[52] Impeachment and removal of governors has happened occasionally throughout the history of the United States, usually for corruption charges. A total of at least eleven U.S. state governors have faced an impeachment trial; a twelfth, Governor Lee Cruce of Oklahoma, escaped impeachment conviction by a single vote in 1912. Several others, most recently Missouri’s Eric Greitens, have resigned rather than face impeachment, when events seemed to make it inevitable.[53] The most recent impeachment of a state governor occurred on January 14, 2009, when the Illinois House of Representatives voted 117–1 to impeach Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges;[54] he was subsequently removed from office and barred from holding future office by the Illinois Senate on January 29. He was the eighth U.S. state governor to be removed from office.

    The procedure for impeachment, or removal, of local officials varies widely. For instance, in New York a mayor is removed directly by the governor “upon being heard” on charges—the law makes no further specification of what charges are necessary or what the governor must find in order to remove a mayor.

    In 2018, the entire Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia was impeached, something that has been often threatened, but had never happened before.

    State and territorial officials impeached[edit]

    State governors[edit]

    At least four state governors have been impeached and removed from office:

    • James E. Ferguson, Democratic Governor of Texas, was impeached for misapplication of public funds and embezzlement. In July 1917, Ferguson was convicted and removed from office.
    • Jack C. Walton, Democratic Governor of Oklahoma, was impeached for a variety of crimes including illegal collection of campaign funds, padding the public payroll, suspension of habeas corpus, excessive use of the pardon power, and general incompetence. In November 1923, Walton was convicted and removed from office.[95]
    • Evan Mecham, Republican Governor of Arizona, was impeached for obstruction of justice and misusing government funds[96] and removed from office in April 1988.
    • Rod Blagojevich, Democratic Governor of Illinois, was impeached for abuse of power and corruption, including an attempt to sell the appointment to the United States Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Barack Obama.[97] He was removed from office in January 2009.

    See also[edit]

    • Censure in the United States
    • Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
    • Impeachment process against Richard Nixon
    • Impeachment of Bill Clinton
    • Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
    • Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials
    • Impeachment investigations of United States federal judges
    • Jefferson’s Manual
    • List of federal political scandals in the United States
    • Recall election

    Notes[edit]

    • Stephen B. Presser, Essays on Article I: ImpeachmentPresser, Stephen B. “Essays on Article I: Impeachment”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 14, 2018..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ “Removed and disqualified” indicates that following conviction the Senate voted to disqualify the individual from holding further federal office pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[j]udgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
  • ^ During the impeachment trial of Senator Blount, it was argued that the House of Representatives did not have the power to impeach members of either House of Congress; though the Senate never explicitly ruled on this argument, the House has never again impeached a member of Congress. The Constitution allows either House to expel one of its members by a two-thirds vote, which the Senate had done to Blount on the same day the House impeached him (but before the Senate heard the case).
  • ^ Judge Nixon later challenged the validity of his removal from office on procedural grounds; the challenge was ultimately rejected as nonjusticiable by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
  • References[edit]

    Attribution

     This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Government.

  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Cole, J. P.; Garvey, T. (October 29, 2015). “Report No. R44260, Impeachment and Removal” (PDF). Congressional Research Service. pp. 15–16. Retrieved 22 September 2016. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. An earlier version from 2005 is at https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf.
  • ^ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4
  • ^ a b THE FEDERALIST No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton)
  • ^ a b Impeachment of Walter L. Nixon, Jr., H.Rept. 101-36 at 5 (1989).
  • ^ Storey, Joseph (1833) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §794-803
  • ^ a b c d e Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93rd Conf. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 1974), 1974 Impeachment Inquiry Report
  • ^ See Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, in Impeachment—Selected Materials, Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., Impeachment—Selected Material 692 (Comm. Print 1973).
  • ^ Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 729-30 (1986)
  • ^ “Nixon vs. United States”. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent School of Law. Retrieved July 29, 2014.
  • ^ Gerald Ford’s Remarks on the Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas April 15, 1970. Retrieved 21 March 2019.]
  • ^ Ripy, Thomas B. “Standard of Proof in Senate Impeachment Proceedings”. Congressional Research Service.
  • ^ The Constitution also discusses the President’s power to appoint “Officers of the United States,” “the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments,” and “Inferior officers.” That’s different.
  • ^ a b Senate Journal, 5th Cong., 3rd Sess., Dec. 17, 1798 to Jan. 10, 1799.
  • ^ Senate List of Impeachment trials Archived December 2, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  • ^ Buckner F. Milton (1998). The First Impeachment. Mercer University Press. ISBN 9780865545977.
  • ^ “House Rules”. Archived from the original on December 12, 2010. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
  • ^ Parliamentarian of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, at https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/house-practice. Each Congress adopts its own rules, available at https://rules.house.gov/resources
  • ^ a b c “Rules and Procedures of Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials” (PDF). Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws and Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate. United States Senate. August 16, 1986. Section 100–126, 105th Congress, pp. 177–185. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  • ^ Clark, Richard C. (2008-07-22). “McFadden’s Attempts to Abolish the Federal Reserve System”. Scribd. Archived from the original on 2010-03-02. Retrieved 2009-06-20. Though a Republican, he moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover in 1932 and introduced a resolution to bring conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
  • ^ “National Affairs: Texan, Texan & Texan”. Time. January 25, 1932. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  • ^ a b Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, Role of Vice-President Designate Gerald R. Ford in the Attempt to Impeach Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
  • ^ James Buchanan, The Works of James Buchanan Vol. XII, pp. 225–26 (John Bassett Moore ed., J.B. Lippincott Company) (1911)
  • ^ United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 43 (1953), quoting Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics, 303.
  • ^ “What would Trump have to do to get impeached?”. whatifhq.com. Retrieved 2018-08-26.
  • ^ Gerhardt, Michael J. “Essays on Article I: Punishment for Impeachment”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  • ^ a b Presser, Stephen B. “Essays on Article I: Impeachment”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  • ^ Foley, Edward B. (September 25, 2019). “Congress Should Remove Trump from Office, But Let Him Run Again in 2020”. Politico.
  • ^ “Welcome to The American Presidency”. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2007-04-20.
  • ^ Erskine, Daniel H. (2008). “The Trial of Queen Caroline and the Impeachment of President Clinton: Law As a Weapon for Political Reform”. Washington University Global Studies Law Review. 7 (1). ISSN 1546-6981.
  • ^ “U.S. Senate: Impeachment”. www.senate.gov. Retrieved 2018-09-19.
  • ^ “Impeachment History”. Infoplease. Retrieved 2013-07-12.
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r “Chapter 4: Complete List of Senate Impeachment Trials”. United States Senate. Archived from the original on 2010-12-02. Retrieved 2010-12-08. ()
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r U.S. Joint Committee on Printing (September 2006). “Impeachment Proceedings”. Congressional Directory. Retrieved 2009-06-19. (Archived by WebCite)
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad “Impeachments of Federal Judges”. Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved 2017-05-16.
  • ^ “1801: Senate Tries Supreme Court Justice”. November 25, 2014.
  • ^ PBS NewsHour
  • ^ Baker, Jean H.: James Buchanan; Times Books, 2004
  • ^ U.S. House Journal, 36th Congress, 1st session, Page 450
  • ^ Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)
  • ^ a b “Judges of the United States Courts – Delahay, Mark W.” Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved 2009-06-20.
  • ^ “Hinds’ Precedents, Volume 3 – Chapter 78 – The Impeachment and Trial of Charles Swayne”.
  • ^ House Rept 93–774
  • ^ House Res. 93-803, Resolution providing appropriate power to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct an investigation of whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States
  • ^ House Report 93-1305, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States
  • ^ https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/house-report/830 House Report 105-830 – Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States
  • ^ Erskine, Daniel H (2008). “The Trial of Queen Caroline and the Impeachment of President Clinton: Law As a Weapon for Political Reform”. Washington University Global Studies Law Review. Washington University in St. Louis. 7 (1). Archived from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved April 8, 2019.
  • ^ Gamboa, Suzanne (2009-06-30). “White House accepts convicted judge’s resignation”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 26, 2010. Retrieved 2009-07-22.
  • ^ Gamboa, Suzanne (2009-07-22). “Congress ends jailed judge’s impeachment”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 22, 2011. Retrieved 2010-12-08.
  • ^ Powell, Stewart (2009-06-19). “U.S. House impeaches Kent”. Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on June 21, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-19. In action so rare it has been carried out only 14 times since 1803, the House on Friday impeached a federal judge—imprisoned U.S. District Court Judge Samuel B. Kent …
  • ^ Alpert, Bruce; Tilove, Jonathan (2010-12-08). “Senate votes to remove Judge Thomas Porteous from office”. New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved 2010-12-08.
  • ^ Alpert, Bruce (2010-03-11). “Judge Thomas Porteous impeached by U.S. House of Representatives”. New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved 2010-03-11.
  • ^ NYS Constitution, Article VI, § 24
  • ^ Suntrup, Jack; Erickson, Kurt. “Embattled Gov. Eric Greitens resigns”. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
  • ^ “House votes to impeach Blagojevich again”. Chicago Tribune. 2009-01-14. Retrieved 2009-01-14.
  • ^ Bateman, Newton; Selby, Paul; Shonkwiler, Frances M.; Fowkes, Henry L. (1908). Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois. Chicago, IL: Munsell Publishing Company. p. 489.
  • ^ a b c “Impeachment of State Officials”. Cga.ct.gov. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
  • ^ a b Blackmar, Frank (1912). Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History. Standard Publishing Co. p. 598.
  • ^ “Letters Relating to the Efforts to Impeach Governor Harrison Reed During the Reconstruction Era”. floridamemory.com. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-11-04.
  • ^ “State Governors of Louisiana: Henry Clay Warmoth”. Enlou.com. Archived from the original on 2008-04-06. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
  • ^ a b News & Observer: NC’s dark impeachment history by Rob Christensen
  • ^ “Sulzer Impeached by Assembly But Refuses to Surrender Office”, Syracuse Herald, August 13, 1913, p. 1
  • ^ “High Court Removes Sulzer from Office by a Vote of 43 to 12”, Syracuse Herald, October 17, 1913, p. 1
  • ^ Block, Lourenda (2000). “Permanent University Fund: Investing in the Future of Texas”. TxTell (University of Texas at Austin). Archived from the original on 2009-02-04. Retrieved 2009-02-14.
  • ^ Official Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana, April 6, 1929 pp. 292–94
  • ^ “Raulston Schoolfield, Impeached Judge, Dies”. UPI. October 8, 1982. Retrieved 2016-01-27.
  • ^ “Impeachment Trial Finds Judge Guilty”. AP. July 11, 1958. Retrieved 2016-01-27.
  • ^ “Attorney General is Impeached”. AP. 1984-03-14. Retrieved 2012-10-11.
  • ^ “Nebraskan Found Not Guilty”. AP. 1984-05-04. Retrieved 2012-10-11.
  • ^ Gruson, Lindsey (1988-02-06). “House Impeaches Arizona Governor”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
  • ^ Gruson, Lindsey (1988-04-05). “Arizona’s Senate Ousts Governor, Voting Him Guilty of Misconduct”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
  • ^ AP staff reporter (1989-03-30). “Impeachment in West Virginia”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-17.
  • ^ Wallace, Anise C. (1989-07-10). “Treasurer of West Virginia Retires Over Fund’s Losses”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-17.
  • ^ “Kentucky House Votes To Impeach Jailed Official”. Orlando Sentinel. 1991-01-26. Retrieved 2015-11-16. The House voted unanimously Friday to impeach the agriculture commissioner six days after he began serving a one-year sentence for a payroll violation.
  • ^ “Jailed Official Resigns Before Impeachment Trial”. Orlando Sentinel. 1991-02-07. Retrieved 2015-11-16. Kentucky’s commissioner of agriculture, serving a one-year jail sentence for felony theft, resigned Wednesday hours before his impeachment trial was scheduled to begin in the state Senate.
  • ^ Hinds, Michael deCourcy (1994-05-25). “Pennsylvania House Votes To Impeach a State Justice”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-01-24. A State Supreme Court justice convicted on drug charges was impeached today by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
  • ^ Moushey, Bill; Tim Reeves (1994-10-05). “Larsen Removed Senate Convicts Judge On 1 Charge”. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pittsburgh, PA. p. A1. Retrieved 2013-09-14. Rolf Larsen yesterday became the first justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to be removed from office through impeachment. The state Senate, after six hours of debate, found Larsen guilty of one of seven articles of impeachment at about 8:25 p.m, then unanimously voted to remove him permanently from office and bar him from ever seeking an elected position again.
  • ^ Young, Virginia (1994-10-07). “Moriarty Is Impeached – Secretary Of State Will Fight Removal”. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. St. Louis, MO. p. 1A. Retrieved 2013-09-14. The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to impeach Secretary of State Judith K. Moriarty for misconduct that “breached the public trust”. The move, the first impeachment in Missouri in 26 years, came at 4:25 p.m. in a hushed House chamber.
  • ^ Young, Virginia; Bell, Kim (1994-12-13). “High Court Ousts Moriarty”. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. St. Louis, MO. p. 1A. Retrieved 2013-09-14. In a unanimous opinion Monday, the Missouri Supreme Court convicted Secretary of State Judith K. Moriarty of misconduct and removed her from office.
  • ^ Vogel, Ed (2004-11-12). “Augustine impeached”. Review-Journal. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
  • ^ Whaley, Sean (2004-12-05). “Senate lets controller keep job”. Review-Journal. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
  • ^ Jenkins, Nate (2006-04-11). “Hergert impeached”. Lincoln Journal Star. Retrieved 2012-10-11. With the last vote and by the slimmest of margins, the Legislature did to University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert Wednesday what it hadn’t done in 22 years—move to unseat an elected official.
  • ^ “Hergert Convicted”. WOWT-TV. 2006-08-08. Archived from the original on 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2012-10-11. University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert was convicted Friday of manipulating campaign-finance laws during his 2004 campaign and then lying to cover it up. The state Supreme Court ruling immediately removed Hergert, 66, from office.
  • ^ Staff reporter (2009-01-09). “Illinois House impeaches Gov. Rod Blagojevich”. AP. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
  • ^ Mckinney, Dave; Wilson, Jordan (2009-01-14). “Illinois House impeaches Gov. Rod Blagojevich”. Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2009-02-01. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
  • ^ Long, Ray; Rick Pearson (2009-01-30). “Blagojevich is removed from office”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  • ^ Eugenio, Haidee V. (2009-01-09). “CNMI governor impeached on 13 charges”. Saipan Tribune. Retrieved 2013-09-14.
  • ^ “The Latest: All 4 West Virginia justices impeached”. Herald-Dispatch. Associated Press. 2018-08-13. Retrieved 2018-08-14.
  • ^ “WV Supreme Court Justice Robin Davis retires after her impeachment”. Herald-Dispatch. Associated Press. 2018-08-14. Retrieved 2018-08-14.
  • ^ a b Effort to remove convicted Justice Loughry from office continues
  • ^ “The Latest: W.Va. lawmakers won’t meet after justice resigns”. Associated Press. November 11, 2018.
  • ^ Allen Adams, Steven (November 12, 2018). “Facing Possible Impeachment, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Resigns”. Governing.
  • ^ MetroNews, WSAZ News Staff, WV. “Senators reprimand Justice Walker, but vote to not impeach”. www.wsaz.com. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
  • ^ writer, Phil Kabler Staff. “With Workman impeachment trial blocked, Senate debates next move”. Charleston Gazette-Mail. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
  • ^ MORRIS, JEFF (2018-10-11). “West Virginia Supreme Court halts impeachment trial for Justice Workman”. WCHS. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
  • ^ O’Dell, Larry. “WALTON, JOHN CALLOWAY (1881–1949)”, Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture Archived April 16, 2009, at the Wayback Machine. (accessed July 2, 2013)
  • ^ Watkins, Ronald J. (1990). High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Term and Trials of Former Governor Evan Mecham. New York: William Morrow & Co. ISBN 978-0-688-09051-7.
  • ^ Saulny, Susan (2009-01-09). “Illinois House Impeaches Governor”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2009.
  • Further reading[edit]

    • Berger, Raoul (1999). Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674444782.
    • Black, Charles L. (1998). Impeachment: A Handbook. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300079500.
    • Lichtman, Allan J. (2017), The Case for Impeachment, Dey Street Books, ISBN 978-0062696823
    • Sunstein, Cass R. (2017). Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674983793.

    External links[edit]

    • An Overview of the Impeachment Process at congressionalresearch.com

    Pending

    • Congressional Apportionment
    • Titles of Nobility
    • Corwin Amendment
    • Child Labor

    Unsuccessful

    • Equal Rights
    • District of Columbia Voting Rights
    • Amendment proposals in Congress
    • Convention to propose amendments
    • State ratifying conventions

    Formation

    • History
    • Articles of Confederation
    • Mount Vernon Conference
    • Annapolis Convention
    • Philadelphia Convention
      • Virginia Plan
      • New Jersey Plan
      • Connecticut Compromise
      • Three-Fifths Compromise
      • Committee of Detail
      • Signing
      • Independence Hall
      • Syng inkstand
    • The Federalist Papers
    • Anti-Federalist Papers
    • Massachusetts Compromise
    • Virginia Ratifying Convention
    • New York Circular Letter
    • Hillsborough Convention
    • Fayetteville Convention
    • Rhode Island ratification
    • Drafting and ratification timeline

    Clauses

    • Appointments
    • Appropriations
    • Assistance of Counsel
    • Case or Controversy
    • Citizenship
    • Commerce
    • Compact
    • Compulsory Process
    • Confrontation
    • Congressional enforcement
    • Contract
    • Copyright and Patent
    • Double Jeopardy
    • Due Process
    • Elections
    • Equal Protection
    • Establishment
    • Exceptions
    • Excessive Bail
    • Ex post facto
    • Extradition
    • Free Exercise
    • Free Speech
    • Fugitive Slave
    • Full Faith and Credit
    • General Welfare
    • Guarantee
    • Impeachment
    • Import-Export
    • Ineligibility
    • Militia
    • Natural-born citizen
    • Necessary and Proper
    • New States
    • No Religious Test
    • Oath or Affirmation
    • Origination
    • Pardon
    • Petition
    • Postal
    • Presentment
    • Presidential succession
    • Privileges and Immunities
    • Privileges or Immunities
    • Recess appointment
    • Recommendation
    • Self-Incrimination
    • Speech or Debate
    • Speedy Trial
    • State of the Union
    • Supremacy
    • Suspension
    • Take Care
    • Takings
    • Taxing and Spending
    • Territorial
    • Title of Nobility
    • Treaty
    • Trial by Jury
    • Vesting
    • Vicinage
    • War Powers
    • List of clauses

    Interpretation

    • Concurrent powers
    • Constitutional law
    • Criminal procedure
    • Criminal sentencing
    • Dormant Commerce Clause
    • Enumerated powers
    • Equal footing
    • Executive privilege
    • Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
    • Judicial review
    • Nondelegation doctrine
    • Preemption
    • Saxbe fix
    • Separation of church and state
    • Separation of powers
    • Taxation power
    • Unitary executive theory

    Display
    and legacy

    • National Archives
      • Charters of Freedom Rotunda
    • Independence Mall
    • Constitution Day
    • Constitution Gardens
    • National Constitution Center
    • Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
    • A More Perfect Union (film)
    • USS Constitution
    • Worldwide influence

    United States Portal • Law Portal • Wikipedia book
    LeadersDistricts

    • List
    • Apportionment

    Caucuses,
    women and
    minorities

    • Congressional caucus
    • African Americans in the House
      • Congressional Black Caucus
    • African Americans in the Senate
    • Arab and Middle Eastern members
    • Asian Pacific American members
      • Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
    • Hispanic and Latino members
      • Congressional Hispanic Caucus
      • Congressional Hispanic Conference
    • Jewish members
    • LGBT members
      • Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus
    • Native American members
    • Women in the House
      • Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues
    • Women in the Senate

    Related

    • By length of service historically
    • Current members by wealth
    • From multiple states

    Media

    • C-SPAN
    • Congressional Quarterly
    • The Hill
    • Politico
    • Roll Call

    EmployeesLibrary of
    Congress

    • Congressional Research Service (reports)
    • Copyright Office (Register of Copyrights)
    • Law Library
    • Poet Laureate
    • THOMAS
    • Adams Building
    • Jefferson Building
    • Madison Building

    Government
    Publishing Office

    • Public Printer
    • Congressional Pictorial Directory
    • Congressional Record
    • Official Congressional Directory
    • United States Government Manual
    • Serial Set
    • Statutes at Large
    • United States Code

    Capitol

    • Brumidi Corridors
    • Congressional Prayer Room
    • Crypt
    • Dome
      • Statue of Freedom
    • Rotunda
    • Hall of Columns
    • Statuary Hall
    • Visitor Center
    • The Apotheosis of Washington
    • Statue of Freedom
    • Declaration of Independence painting
    • Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States
    • Apotheosis of Democracy
    • First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln
    • Surrender of General Burgoyne
    • Surrender of Lord Cornwallis
    • Revolutionary War Door
    • Columbus Doors
    • Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way
    • Vice President’s Room
    • Vice Presidential Bust Collection

    Office
    buildingsOther
    facilities

    • Botanic Garden
    • Health and Fitness Facility
    • House Recording Studio
    • Senate chamber
    • Old Senate Chamber
    • Old Supreme Court Chamber
    • Power Plant
    • Webster Page Residence
    • Subway


    Impeachment

    This article is about a step in the removal of a public official. For challenging a witness in a legal proceeding, see Witness impeachment.
    Formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity

    Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and South Korean President Park Geun-hye were both impeached and removed from office.

    Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official from office; it is the equivalent to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the statement of charges against the official. Once an individual is impeached, they must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgment which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment would entail the official’s removal from office.

    Because impeachment and conviction of officials involve an overturning of the normal constitutional procedures by which individuals achieve high office (election, ratification, or appointment) and because it generally requires a supermajority, they are usually reserved for those deemed to have committed serious abuses of their office. In the United States, for example, impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors[1]”.[2]

    Impeachment exists under constitutional law in many countries around the world, including Brazil, France, India, Ireland, the Philippines, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.

    Contents

    • 1 Etymology and history
    • 2 In various jurisdictions
      • 2.1 Austria
      • 2.2 Brazil
      • 2.3 Bulgaria
      • 2.4 Croatia
      • 2.5 Czech Republic
      • 2.6 France
      • 2.7 Germany
      • 2.8 Hong Kong
      • 2.9 India
      • 2.10 Iran
      • 2.11 Ireland
      • 2.12 Italy
      • 2.13 Liechtenstein
      • 2.14 Lithuania
      • 2.15 Norway
      • 2.16 Pakistan
      • 2.17 Philippines
        • 2.17.1 Impeachable offenses and officials
        • 2.17.2 Impeachment proceedings and attempts
      • 2.18 Peru
      • 2.19 Poland
      • 2.20 Romania
      • 2.21 Russia
      • 2.22 South Korea (Republic of Korea)
      • 2.23 Taiwan
      • 2.24 Turkey
      • 2.25 Ukraine
      • 2.26 United Kingdom
      • 2.27 United States
    • 3 See also
    • 4 References
    • 5 Further reading

    Etymology and history[edit]

    The word “impeachment” derives from Old French empeechier from Latin word impedīre expressing the idea of catching or ensnaring by the ‘foot’ (pes, pedis), and has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede. Medieval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latin impetere (to attack).

    Beyond ancient Greek and Roman political systems, impeachment was first used in England.[citation needed] Specifically, the process was first used by the English “Good Parliament” against Baron Latimer in the second half of the 14th century. Following the British example, the constitutions of Virginia (1776), Massachusetts (1780) and other states thereafter adopted the impeachment mechanism, but they restricted the punishment to removal of the official from office.

    In various jurisdictions[edit]

    Austria[edit]

    The Austrian Federal President can be impeached by the Federal Assembly (Bundesversammlung) before the Constitutional Court. The constitution also provides for the recall of the president by a referendum. Neither of these courses has ever been taken. This is likely because while the President is vested with considerable powers on paper, they act as a largely ceremonial figurehead in practice, and are thus hardly in a position to abuse their powers.

    Brazil[edit]

    See also: Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff and Impeachment proposals against Michel Temer

    The President of the Federative Republic of Brazil may be impeached by the Chamber of Deputies and tried and removed from office by the Federal Senate. State governors and municipal mayors can also be impeached, tried and removed by the respective legislative bodies. Upon conviction, the officeholder has his political rights revoked for eight years—which has the effect of barring him from running for any office.

    Fernando Collor de Mello, the 32nd President of Brazil, resigned in 1992 amidst impeachment proceedings. Despite his resignation, the Senate nonetheless voted to convict him and bar him from holding any office for eight years, due to evidence of bribery and misappropriation.

    In 2016, the Chamber of Deputies initiated an impeachment case against President Dilma Rousseff on allegations of budgetary mismanagement.[3] Following her conviction, she was replaced by Vice President Michel Temer, who had served as acting president while Rousseff’s case was pending.[4]

    Bulgaria[edit]

    The President of Bulgaria can be removed only for high treason or violation of the constitution. The process is started by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parliament to impeach the President, whereupon the Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. If he is found guilty, he is removed from power. No Bulgarian President has ever been impeached. The same procedure can be used to remove the Vice President of Bulgaria, which has also never happened.

    Croatia[edit]

    The process of impeaching the President of Croatia can be initiated by a two-thirds majority vote in favor in the Sabor and is thereafter referred to the Constitutional Court, which must accept such a proposal with a two-thirds majority vote in favor in order for the president to be removed from office. This has never occurred in the history of the Republic of Croatia. In case of a successful impeachment motion a president’s constitutional term of five years would be terminated and an election called within 60 days of the vacancy occurring. During the period of vacancy the presidential powers and duties would be carried out by the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament in his/her capacity as Acting President of the Republic.[5]

    Czech Republic[edit]

    Prior to 2013 the President of the Czech Republic could be impeached only for an act of high treason (which is not defined in the Constitution of the Czech Republic itself). The process has to start in the Senate of the Czech Republic which only has the right to impeach the president, this passes the case to the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic which has to decide whether the President is guilty or not. If the Court decides that the President is guilty then the President loses his office and the ability to be elected President of the Czech Republic ever again.[6] No Czech president has ever been impeached, though members of the Senate sought to impeach President Vaclav Klaus in 2013.[7] This case was dismissed by the court reasoning that his mandate has expired.[8]

    In 2013 the constitution changed; now the process can be started by at least three-fifths of present senators and must be approved by at least
    three-fifths of all members of Parliament. Also, the President can be impeached not only for high treason (newly defined in the Constitution) but also for a serious infringement of the Constitution.[9]

    France[edit]

    The President of France can be impeached by the French Parliament for willfully violating the Constitution or the national laws. The process of impeachment is written in the 68th article of the French Constitution.[10] A group of senators or a group of members of the National Assembly can begin the process. Then, Both the French National Assembly and the French Senate have to acknowledge the impeachment. After the upper house and the lower house’s agreement, both the two houses unite to form the High Court. Finally, the High Court must decide to declare the impeachment of the President of France or not.

    Germany[edit]

    The Federal President of Germany can be impeached both by the Bundestag and by the Bundesrat for willfully violating federal law. Once the Bundestag or the Bundesrat impeaches the president, the Federal Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty as charged and, if this is the case, whether to remove him or her from office. The Federal Constitutional Court also has the power to remove federal judges from office for willfully violating core principles of the federal constitution or a state constitution. The impeachment procedure is regulated in Article 61 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.

    There is no formal impeachment process for the Chancellor of Germany, however the Bundestag can replace the chancellor at any time by voting for a new chancellor (constructive vote of no confidence, Article 67 of the Basic Law).

    There has never been an impeachment against the President so far. Constructive votes of no confidence against the Chancellor occurred in 1972 and 1982, with only the second one being successful.

    Hong Kong[edit]

    The Chief Executive of Hong Kong can be impeached by the Legislative Council. A motion for investigation, initiated jointly by at least one-fourth of all the legislators charging the Chief Executive with “serious breach of law or dereliction of duty” and refusing to resign, shall first be passed by the Council. An independent investigation committee, chaired by the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, will then carry out the investigation and report back to the Council. If the Council find the evidence sufficient to substantiate the charges, it may pass a motion of impeachment by a two-thirds majority.[11]:Article 73(9)

    However, the Legislative Council does not have the power actually to remove the Chief Executive from office, as the Chief Executive is appointed by the Central People’s Government (State Council of China). The Council can only report the result to the Central People’s Government for its decision.[11]:Article 45

    India[edit]

    The president and judges, including the chief justice of the supreme court and high courts, can be impeached by the parliament before the expiry of the term for violation of the Constitution. Other than impeachment, no other penalty can be given to a president in position for the violation of the Constitution under Article 361 of the constitution. However a president after his term/removal can be punished for his already proven unlawful activity under disrespecting the constitution, etc.[12] No president has faced impeachment proceedings. Hence, the provisions for impeachment have never been tested. The sitting president cannot be charged and needs to step down in order for that to happen.

    Iran[edit]

    The Assembly of Experts can impeach the Supreme Leader of Iran and appoint a new one.

    The President of Iran can be impeached jointly by the members of the Assembly (Majlis) and the Supreme Leader. A new presidential election is then triggered. Abolhassan Banisadr, Iran’s first president, was impeached in June 1981 and removed from the office. Mohammad-Ali Rajai was elected as the new president.

    Cabinet ministers can be impeached by the members of the Assembly. Presidential appointment of a new minister is subject to a parliamentary vote of confidence. Impeachment of ministers has been a fairly commonly used tactic in the power struggle between the president and the assembly during the last several governments.

    Ireland[edit]

    In the Republic of Ireland formal impeachment only applies to the Irish president. Article 12 of the Irish Constitution provides that, unless judged to be “permanently incapacitated” by the Supreme Court, the president can only be removed from office by the houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) and only for the commission of “stated misbehaviour”. Either house of the Oireachtas may impeach the president, but only by a resolution approved by a majority of at least two-thirds of its total number of members; and a house may not consider a proposal for impeachment unless requested to do so by at least thirty of its number.

    Where one house impeaches the president, the remaining house either investigates the charge or commissions another body or committee to do so. The investigating house can remove the president if it decides, by at least a two-thirds majority of its members, both that the president is guilty of the charge, and that the charge is sufficiently serious as to warrant the president’s removal. To date no impeachment of an Irish president has ever taken place. The president holds a largely ceremonial office, the dignity of which is considered important, so it is likely that a president would resign from office long before undergoing formal conviction or impeachment.

    The Republic’s Constitution and law also provide that only a joint resolution of both houses of the Oireachtas may remove a judge. Although often referred to as the “impeachment” of a judge, this procedure does not technically involve impeachment.[13]

    Italy[edit]

    In Italy, according to Article 90 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic can be impeached through a majority vote of the Parliament in joint session for high treason and for attempting to overthrow the Constitution. If impeached, the President of the Republic is then tried by the Constitutional Court integrated with sixteen citizens older than forty chosen by lot from a list compiled by the Parliament every nine years.

    Italian press and political forces made use of the term “impeachment” for the attempt by some members of parliamentary opposition to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 90 against Presidents Francesco Cossiga (1991),[14][better source needed] Giorgio Napolitano (2014)[15][better source needed] and Sergio Mattarella (2018).[16][better source needed]

    Liechtenstein[edit]

    Members of the Liechtenstein Government can be impeached before the State Court for breaches of the Constitution or of other laws.[17]:Article 62 As a hereditary monarchy the Sovereign Prince can not be impeached as he “is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and does not have legal responsibility”.[17]:Article 7 The same is true of any member of the Princely House who exercises the function of head of state should the Prince be temporarily prevented or in preparation for the Succession.[17]:Article 7

    Lithuania[edit]

    In the Republic of Lithuania, the President may be impeached by a three-fifths majority in the Seimas.[18] President Rolandas Paksas was removed from office by impeachment on April 6, 2004 after the Constitutional Court of Lithuania found him guilty of having violated his oath and the constitution. He was the first European head of state to have been impeached.[19]

    Norway[edit]

    Main article: Impeachment (Norway)

    Members of government, representatives of the national assembly (Stortinget) and Supreme Court judges can be impeached for criminal offenses tied to their duties and committed in office, according to the Constitution of 1814, §§ 86 and 87. The procedural rules were modeled after the US rules and are quite similar to them. Impeachment has been used eight times since 1814, last in 1927. Many argue that impeachment has fallen into desuetude. In cases of impeachment, an appointed court (Riksrett) takes effect.

    Pakistan[edit]

    The country’s ruling coalition said on August 7, 2008, that it would seek the impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf, alleging the U.S.-backed former general had “eroded the trust of the nation” and increasing pressure on him to resign. He resigned on August 18, 2008. Another kind of impeachment in Pakistan is known as the vote of less-confidence or vote of mis-understanding and has been practiced by provincial assemblies to weaken the national assembly.

    Impeaching a president requires a two-thirds majority support of lawmakers in a joint session of both houses of Parliament.

    Philippines[edit]

    Main article: Impeachment in the Philippines

    Impeachment in the Philippines follows procedures similar to the United States. Under Sections 2 and 3, Article XI, Constitution of the Philippines, the House of Representatives of the Philippines has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment against the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commissions (Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit), and the Ombudsman. When a third of its membership has endorsed the impeachment articles, it is then transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines which tries and decide, as impeachment tribunal, the impeachment case.[20]

    A main difference from US proceedings however is that only one third of House members are required to approve the motion to impeach the President (as opposed to a simple majority of those present and voting in their US counterpart). In the Senate, selected members of the House of Representatives act as the prosecutors and the Senators act as judges with the Senate President presiding over the proceedings (the Chief Justice jointly presides with the Senate President if the President is on trial). Like the United States, to convict the official in question requires that a minimum of two thirds (i.e. 16 of 24 members) of all the Members of the Senate vote in favor of conviction. If an impeachment attempt is unsuccessful or the official is acquitted, no new cases can be filed against that impeachable official for at least one full year.

    Impeachable offenses and officials[edit]

    The 1987 Philippine Constitution says the grounds for impeachment include culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust. These offenses are considered “high crimes and misdemeanors” under the Philippine Constitution.

    The President, Vice President, Supreme Court justices, and members of the Constitutional Commission and Ombudsman are all considered impeachable officials under the Constitution.

    Impeachment proceedings and attempts[edit]

    President Joseph Estrada was the first official impeached by the House in 2000, but the trial ended prematurely due to outrage over a vote to open an envelope where that motion was narrowly defeated by his allies. Estrada was deposed days later during the 2001 EDSA Revolution.

    In 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, impeachment complaints were filed against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, but none of the cases reached the required endorsement of ​1⁄3 of the members for transmittal to, and trial by, the Senate.

    In March 2011, the House of Representatives impeached Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, becoming the second person to be impeached. In April, Gutierrez resigned prior to the Senate’s convening as an impeachment court.

    In December 2011, in what was described as “blitzkrieg fashion”, 188 of the 285 members of the House of Representatives voted to transmit the 56-page Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

    To date, three officials had been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and two were not convicted. The latter, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, was convicted on May 29, 2012 by the Senate under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment (for betraying public trust), with 20–3 votes from the Senator Judges.

    Peru[edit]

    See also: First impeachment process against Pedro Pablo Kuczynski Peru’s President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski speaks about the impeachment process against him.

    Poland[edit]

    In Polish law there is no impeachment procedure defined, as it is present in the other countries. Infringements of the law can be investigated only by special Parliament’s Committee or (if accusations involve people holding the highest offices of state) by the State Tribunal. The State Tribunal is empowered to rule for the removal of individuals from public office but it is not a common practice.

    Romania[edit]

    The President can be impeached by Parliament and is then suspended. A referendum then follows to determine whether the suspended President should be removed from office. President Traian Băsescu was impeached twice by the Parliament: in 2007 and more recently in July 2012. A referendum was held on May 19, 2007 and a large majority of the electorate voted against removing the president from office. For the most recent suspension a referendum was held on July 29, 2012; the results were heavily against the president, but the referendum was invalidated due to low turnout.[21][circular reference]

    Russia[edit]

    The President of Russia can be impeached if both the State Duma (which initiates the impeachment process through the formation of a special investigation committee) and the Federation Council of Russia vote by a two-thirds majority in favor of impeachment and, additionally, the Supreme Court finds the President guilty of treason or a similarly heavy crime against the nation and the Constitutional Court confirms that the constitutional procedure of the impeachment process was correctly observed. In 1995–1999, the Duma made several attempts to impeach then-President Boris Yeltsin, but they never had a sufficient number of votes for the process to reach the Federation Council.

    South Korea (Republic of Korea)[edit]

    See also: Impeachment of Park Geun-hye

    According to the Article 65 Clause 1 of Constitution of South Korea, if President, Prime Minister, or other state council members including Supreme Court and Constitutional court members, violate the Constitution or other laws of official duty, the National Assembly can impeach them. Clause 2 states the impeachment bill may be proposed by one third or more of the total members of the National Assembly, and shall require majority voting and approved by two thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly. This article also states that any person against whom a motion for impeachment has been passed shall be suspended from exercising his power until the impeachment has been adjudicated and shall not extend further than removal from public office. Provided, That it shall not exempt the person impeached from civil or criminal liability.

    Two presidents have been impeached since the foundation of the Sixth Republic of Korea and adoption of the new Constitution of South Korea in 1987. Roh Moo-hyun in 2004 was impeached by the National Assembly but was overturned by the Constitutional Court. Park Geun-hye in 2016 was impeached by the National Assembly, and the impeachment was confirmed by the Constitutional Court on March 10, 2017.

    Taiwan[edit]

    In Taiwan, according to the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China, impeachment of the president or the vice president by the Legislative Yuan shall be initiated upon the proposal of more than one-half of the total members of the Legislative Yuan and passed by more than two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, whereupon it shall be presented to the grand justices of the Judicial Yuan for adjudication.

    Turkey[edit]

    In Turkey, according to the Constitution, the Grand National Assembly may initiate an investigation of the President, the Vice President or any member of the Cabinet upon the proposal of simple majority of its total members, and within a period less than a month, the approval of three-fifth of the total members.[22] The investigation would be carried out by a commission of fifteen members of the Assembly, each nominated by the political parties in proportion to their representation therein. The Commission would submit its report indicating the outcome of the investigation to the Speaker within two months. If the investigation is not completed within this period, the Commission’s time renewed for another month. Within ten days of its submission to the Speaker, the report would be distributed to all members of the Assembly, and ten days after its distribution, the report would be discussed on the floor. Upon the approval of two thirds of the total number of the Assembly by secret vote, the person or persons, about whom the investigation was conducted, may be tried before the Constitutional Court. The trial would be finalized within three months, and if not, a one-time additional period of three months shall be granted.
    The President, about whom an investigation has been initiated, may not call for an election. The President, who is convicted by the Court, would be removed from office.

    The provision of this article shall also apply to the offenses for which the President allegedly worked during his term of office.

    Ukraine[edit]

    During the crisis which started in November 2013, the increasing political stress of the face-down between the protestors occupying Independence Square in Kiev and the State Security forces under the control of President Yanukovych led to deadly armed force being used on the protestors. Following the negotiated return of Kiev’s City Hall on February 16, 2014, occupied by the protesters since November 2013, the security forces thought they could also retake “Maidan”, Independence Square. The ensuing fighting from 17 through 21 February 2014 resulted in a considerable number of deaths and a more generalised alienation of the population, and the withdrawal of President Yanukovych to his support area in the East of Ukraine.

    In the wake of the President’s departure, Parliament convened on February 22; it reinstated the 2004 Constitution, which reduced Presidential authority, and voted impeachment of President Yanukovych as de facto recognition of his departure from office as President of an integrated Ukraine. The President riposted that Parliament’s acts were illegal as they could pass into law only by Presidential signature.

    United Kingdom[edit]

    Main article: Impeachment in the United Kingdom

    In the United Kingdom, in principle anybody may be prosecuted and tried by the two Houses of Parliament for any crime.[23] The first recorded impeachment is that of William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer during the Good Parliament of 1376. The last was that of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville in 1806.[23] Over the centuries, the procedure has been supplemented by other forms of oversight including select committees, confidence motions, and judicial review, while the privilege of peers to trial only in the House of Lords was abolished in 1948,[24] and thus impeachment, which has not kept up with modern norms of democracy or procedural fairness, is generally considered obsolete.[23]

    United States[edit]

    Main article: Impeachment in the United States
    The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president’s personal counsel on the right, much in the fashion of President Andrew Johnson’s trial.

    Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the U.S. federal government. (Various state constitutions include similar measures, allowing the state legislature to impeach the governor or other officials of the state government.) In contrast to the British system, in the United States impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction during the second stage requires “the concurrence of two thirds of the members present”.[25] Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he or she was removed.

    Impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment.

    The article on Impeachment in the United States discusses the following topics:

    • Impeachable offenses: High Crimes and Misdemeanors
    • Officials subject to impeachment
    • Procedure
    • Federal impeachment investigations formally commenced and officials impeached

    The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings only 64 times since 1789, only 19 of these proceedings actually resulting in the House’s passing Articles of Impeachment, and of those, only eight resulted in removal from office (all federal judges).

    • History of federal constitutional impeachment
    • Impeachment in the states

    Two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998; neither was convicted by the Senate. Additionally, there were efforts to impeach John Tyler and Richard Nixon (Nixon resigned before proceedings began).[26]

    On September 24, 2019, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was “moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump.[27][28]

    See also[edit]

    • List of impeached presidents

    References[edit]

  • ^ Baltzell, George W. “The Constitution of the United States – We the People – an easy to read and use version”. constitutionus.com. Retrieved April 12, 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ Erskine, Daniel H. (2008). “The Trial of Queen Caroline and the Impeachment of President Clinton: Law As a Weapon for Political Reform”. Washington University Global Studies Law Review. 7 (1). ISSN 1546-6981.
  • ^ Andrew Jacobs (April 17, 2016). “Brazil’s Lower House of Congress Votes for Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff”. The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
  • ^ “Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff to face impeachment trial”. BBC News. May 12, 2016. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
  • ^ “Constitution of Croatia” (PDF). § 105. Retrieved March 12, 2017.
  • ^ Ústava České republiky. Psp.cz. Retrieved 2013-07-12.
  • ^ “Czech President Vaclav Klaus faces treason charge”. BBC News. March 4, 2013. Retrieved October 23, 2016.
  • ^ Rob Cameron (March 28, 2013). “Constitutional Court throws out treason charges against ex-president Klaus”. Radio Praha.
  • ^ Ústava České republiky. Psp.cz. Retrieved on 2016-10-23.
  • ^ “Le président de la République peut-il être destitué ? Et si oui, pour quelles raisons ?”. Libération.fr. July 25, 2018.
  • ^ a b “Basic Law of Hong Kong”. basiclaw.gov.hk. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
  • ^ “The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act of 1971” (PDF). Retrieved July 2, 2017.
  • ^ DON., RILEY (2017). LOCK HIM UP : impeachments in the united states. [S.l.]: LULU COM. ISBN 9781365960857. OCLC 1004843561.
  • ^ Cowell, Alan (December 13, 1991). “President of Italy is Making Political Waves”. The New York Times.
  • ^ “Italy parliament rejects bid to impeach President Napolitano”. Reuters. February 11, 2014.
  • ^ Horowitz, Jason (May 28, 2018). “Italian President’s Loyalty to the Euro Creates Chaos”. The New York Times.
  • ^ a b c “Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein” (PDF). hrlibrary.umn.edu. Legal Service of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein. 2003. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
  • ^ “The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”. Retrieved April 4, 2016.
  • ^ “Lithuanian Parliament Removes Country’s President After Casting Votes on Three Charges”. The New York Times. April 7, 2004. Retrieved April 4, 2016.
  • ^ Chan-Robles Virtual Law Library. “The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines – Article XI”. Retrieved July 25, 2008.
  • ^ ro:Referendumul pentru demiterea președintelui României, 2012
  • ^ “Grand National Assembly of Turkey” (PDF). tbmmgov.tr. 2018.
  • ^ a b c Simson Caird, Jack (June 6, 2016). “Commons Briefing papers CBP-7612” (PDF). House of Commons Library. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
  • ^ For details, see Judicial functions of the House of Lords § Trials.
  • ^ U.S. Constitution. Article I, § 3, clause 6. November 12, 2009.
  • ^ Gerhardt, Michael J. (2000). The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226289571.
  • ^ Becket, Stefan; Watson, Kathryn; Montoya-Galvez, Camilo; Segers, Grace (September 25, 2019). “Pelosi launches formal Trump impeachment inquiry”. CBS News. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  • ^ Andrews, Natalie; Duehren, Andrew (September 25, 2019). “Pelosi Announces Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump”. The Wall Street Journal.
  • Further reading[edit]


    Marine Accident Investigation Branch

    The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) is a UK government organisation, authorised to investigate all maritime accidents in UK waters and accidents involving UK registered ships worldwide. Investigations are limited to establishing cause, promoting awareness of risks and preventing recurrence. It also participates in other maritime investigations where British citizens are involved.

    Contents

    • 1 History
    • 2 Responsibilities
    • 3 Location
    • 4 Publications
    • 5 See also
    • 6 References
    • 7 External links

    History[edit]

    The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) was established in 1989 as a result of a recommendation of the public enquiry into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster in 1987, when a ro-ro passenger ferry capsized off Zeebrugge, leading to the loss of 193 lives, many of them British citizens.[1]

    Responsibilities[edit]

    The MAIB is a branch of the United Kingdom Department for Transport which can investigate any accident occurring in UK waters, regardless of the nationality of the vessel(s) involved, and accidents involving UK registered ships worldwide.[2][3]

    Empowered by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, it is a government organisation headed by the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, currently Andrew Moll, who served in the Royal Navy prior to joining the MAIB.[4] The MAIB is the marine equivalent of the much older Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the more recent Rail Accident Investigation Branch all of which report directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.[5]

    Investigations are thorough but are strictly limited to establishing cause, promoting awareness of risks and preventing recurrence. Reporting of accidents to the MAIB is mandatory for all commercially operated vessels in UK waters and for all UK registered vessels worldwide. The MAIB receives around 1,200 accident reports annually of which 25 to 30 become full investigations with published reports. The choice of which accidents are investigated is made on the basis of the scope of the safety lessons which may be learned as a result of the investigation. The reports which are without prejudice, do not apportion blame and do not establish liability.[6]

    Location[edit]

    Its current offices are located in Spring Place, Commercial Road, Southampton, Hampshire.[2]

    Beginning in 3 August 2009 the MAIB had been headquartered in the Mountbatten House in Southampton.[7][8] Previously the MAIB was headquartered in the Carlton House in Southampton.[9]

    Publications[edit]

    Accident reports provide a very detailed analysis of one specific accident and recommendations to parties involved.
    Annual Safety digests summarise the type of accidents and lessons which can be learnt. This is now classified by vessel type.
    Safety flyers are issued if an investigation reveals an urgent general risk.

    Safety studies look at patterns of accidents to inform policy makers, including the International Maritime Organization, Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Health and Safety Executive, some of whom have overlapping responsibilities. For example, the Review of lifeboats and launching systems’ accidents revealed that 16% of fatalities investigated on merchant ships occurred during lifeboat training exercises. Unfortunately not one life was saved by a ship’s lifeboat, reported in the UK, in the same 10-year period.[10]

    See also[edit]

    • United Kingdom portal
    • Nautical portal
    • Disasters portal

    Other British accident investigation agencies

    • Air Accidents Investigation Branch – Responsible for air accidents in the United Kingdom
    • Rail Accident Investigation Branch – Responsible for rail accidents in the United Kingdom

    Equivalent agencies in other countries

    • Bureau d’Enquêtes sur les Événements de Mer – France
    • Federal Bureau for Maritime Casualty Investigation – Germany
    • National Transportation Safety Board – United States
    • Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board – Canada

    References[edit]

  • ^ The Herald of Free Enterprise – The official investigation report (Report of court No. 8074) (PDF) (Third ed.). Taunton: Department of Transport, UK (DOT) and Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). 1 September 1987. Retrieved 8 June 2017..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ a b “MAIB – About us”. www.gov.uk. MAIB. Retrieved 8 June 2017.
  • ^ “What really happened, Learning by in depth accident investigation”. Archived from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 4 September 2009.
  • ^ “Department for Transport: Steve Clinch appointed as new Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents”. Department for Transport. 15 February 2010. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  • ^ “After the political union of England and Scotland in 1707, the nation’s official name became ‘Great Britain'”, The American Pageant, Volume 1, Cengage Learning (2012)
  • ^
    “MAIB Information leaflet”. Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
  • ^ “Welcome to the MAIB website.” Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Retrieved on 21 September 2009.
  • ^ “How to find us.” Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Retrieved on 21 September 2009.
  • ^ “About Us.” Marine Accident Investigation Branch. 22 June 2007. Retrieved on 21 September 2009.
  • ^
    “Review of lifeboats and launching systems’ accidents”. MAIB. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
  • External links[edit]

    • Official website


    Wayne Williams

    For other people named Wayne Williams, see Wayne Williams (disambiguation).

    Wayne Bertram Williams (born May 27, 1958) is an American murderer serving life imprisonment for the 1981 killing of two adult men in Atlanta, Georgia,[1] and believed by police to be responsible for at least 23 of the 30 Atlanta murders of 1979–1981, or the Atlanta Child Murders. He was never tried for the child murders and continues to maintain his complete innocence.

    Contents

    • 1 Biography
    • 2 Trial and conviction
    • 3 Aftermath
    • 4 Reopening investigations
    • 5 Media
    • 6 References
    • 7 Cited works and further reading
    • 8 External links

    Biography[edit]

    Wayne Williams was born on May 27, 1958, and raised in the Dixie Hills neighborhood of southwest Atlanta, Georgia by Homer and Faye Williams. Both parents were teachers. Williams graduated from Douglass High School and developed a keen interest in radio and journalism. He constructed his own carrier current radio station and began frequenting stations WIGO and WAOK, where he befriended a number of the announcing crew and began dabbling in becoming a pop music producer and manager.[2]

    Trial and conviction[edit]

    Williams first became a suspect in the Atlanta murders in May 1981, when a police surveillance team, watching a bridge spanning the Chattahoochee River (a site where several victims’ bodies had been discovered), heard a “big loud splash”, suggesting that something had been thrown from the bridge into the river below.[3] The first automobile to exit the bridge after the splash, at roughly 2 a.m., belonged to Williams. When stopped and questioned, he told police that he was on his way to check on an address in a neighboring town ahead of an audition the following morning with a young singer named Cheryl Johnson. However, both the phone number he gave police and Cheryl Johnson turned out to be fictitious.[4]

    Two days later, on May 24, the nude body of 27-year-old Nathaniel Cater, who had been missing for three days, was discovered in the river. The medical examiner ruled he had died of probable asphyxia, but never specifically said he had been strangled. Police theorized that Williams had killed Cater and that his body was the source of the sound they heard as his car crossed the bridge. Williams subsequently failed three polygraph tests, and hairs and fibers retrieved from the body of another victim, Jimmy Ray Payne, were found to be consistent with those from his home, car, and dog. Co-workers told police they had seen Williams with scratches on his face and arms around the time of the murders which, investigators surmised, could have been inflicted by victims during a struggle.[5] Williams held a press conference outside his home to proclaim his innocence, volunteering that he had failed the polygraph tests — a fact that would have been inadmissible in court.[6] He was arrested on June 21, 1981, for the murders of Cater and Payne.[7]

    Williams’ trial began on January 6, 1982, in Fulton County. During the two-month trial, prosecutors matched nineteen different sources of fibers from Williams’ home and car—his bedspread, bathroom, gloves, clothes, carpets, dog and an unusual tri-lobal carpet fiber—to a number of victims. Other evidence included eyewitness testimony placing Williams with several victims while they were alive, and inconsistencies in his accounts of his whereabouts. Williams took the stand in his own defense but alienated the jury by becoming angry and combative.[8] After twelve hours of deliberation, the jury found him guilty on February 27 of the murders of Cater and Payne. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.[9]

    In the late 1990s, Williams filed a habeas corpus petition and requested a retrial. Butts County Superior Court judge Hal Craig denied his appeal. Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker said that “although this does not end the appeal process, I am pleased with the results in the habeas case,” and that his office will “continue to do everything possible to uphold the conviction”.[10] In early 2004, Williams sought a retrial once again, with his attorneys arguing that law enforcement officials covered up evidence of involvement by the Ku Klux Klan, and that carpet fibers linking him to the crimes would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.[11] A federal judge rejected the request for retrial on October 17, 2006.

    Aftermath[edit]

    Neither Williams nor anyone else was ever tried for the murder of a boy—later identified as Curtis Walker, aged 13—whose body was dumped into Atlanta’s South River in 1981. This was the same case which led to the stakeouts of Atlanta bridges by the Atlanta Police and the FBI that resulted in Williams becoming a suspect in May 1981 and his apprehension in the following month.[12] Williams is serving his sentence at Telfair State Prison.[13]

    Reopening investigations[edit]

    Williams has maintained his innocence from the beginning, and claimed that Atlanta officials covered up evidence of KKK involvement in the killings to avoid a race war in the city. His lawyers have said the conviction was a “profound miscarriage of justice” that has kept an innocent man incarcerated for a majority of his adult life and allowed the real killers to go free.[14] In contrast, Joseph Drolet, who prosecuted Williams at trial, has stood by Williams’ convictions, noting that after Williams was arrested, “the murders stopped and there has been nothing since.”[15]

    Other observers have criticized the thoroughness of the investigation, and the validity of its conclusions.[12][16] The author James Baldwin, in his essay The Evidence of Things Not Seen (1985), raised questions about Williams’ guilt. Members of his community and several of the victims’ parents did not believe that Williams, the son of two professional teachers, could have killed so many.[17] On May 6, 2005, DeKalb County Police Chief Louis Graham ordered the reopening of the murder cases of four boys killed in that county between February and May 1981 that had been attributed to Williams.[17][18] The announcement was welcomed by relatives of some victims, who said they believe the wrong man was blamed for many of the murders.[19]

    Graham, an assistant police chief in neighboring Fulton County at the time of the murders, said his decision to reopen the cases was driven solely by his belief in Williams’ innocence. Former DeKalb County Sheriff Sidney Dorsey, who was an Atlanta homicide detective at the time, also said he believed Williams was wrongly blamed for the murders. “If they arrested a white guy,” he said, “there would have been riots across the U.S.”[20][21][22][23] Dorsey is currently serving a life sentence for ordering the murder of his election opponent Derwin Brown.[24]

    Fulton County authorities have not reopened any of the cases under their jurisdiction.[17]

    According to an August 2005 report, Charles T. Sanders, a white supremacist affiliated with the KKK—and an early suspect in the murders—once praised the crimes in secretly recorded conversations. Although Sanders did not publicly claim responsibility for any of the deaths, he told an informant for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation in the 1981 recording that the killer had “wiped out a thousand future generations of niggers”.[25] An anonymous alleged former friend of Sanders told documentarian Payne Lindsey (Atlanta Monster) that Sanders had taken credit for the murders mentioned in a 1986 Spin article,[26] claiming that his brothers were also involved. He did not directly implicate the KKK or lead his friend to believe that anyone else from the organization was involved. Sanders allegedly mused over how lucky he was that he and Williams’ had the same carpet and that they both owned a white German shepherd. The anonymous former friend went on to say that, “Once it was pinned on Wayne Williams, they were through. That was their way out.”[27] Police dropped the probe into possible Klan involvement when Sanders and two of his brothers passed lie detector tests. The case was once again closed on July 21, 2006.[28][29]

    Former FBI profiler John E. Douglas wrote in his book Mindhunter that, in his opinion, “forensic and behavioral evidence points conclusively to Wayne Williams as the killer of eleven young men in Atlanta.” He added, however, that he believed there was “no strong evidence linking him to all or even most of the deaths and disappearances of children in that city between 1979 and 1981”.[30]

    DNA testing was performed in 2010 on scalp hairs found on the body of 11-year-old victim Patrick Baltazar. While the results were not firmly conclusive, the DNA sequence found appears in only 29 out of 1,148 African-American hair samples in the FBI’s database. The Baltazar case was included among ten additional victims presented to the jury at Williams’ trial, although he was never charged in any of those cases. Dog hairs also found on Baltazar’s body were tested in 2007 by the genetics laboratory at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, which found a DNA sequence also present in the Williams family’s German shepherd. However, the director of the laboratory, Elizabeth Wictum, pointed out that while the results were “fairly significant”, they were not conclusive. Only mitochondrial DNA was tested which, unlike nuclear DNA, cannot be shown to be unique to one dog. This means that while the report said the hairs on the bodies contained the same DNA sequence as Williams’ dog, the same DNA sequence occurs in about 1 in 100 dogs.[31] The FBI report stated only that “Wayne Williams cannot be excluded” as a suspect in the case.[32]

    A Department of Justice study, released in April 2015, concluded that numerous hair analyses conducted by FBI examiners during the 1980s and ’90s “may have failed to meet professional standards.” Defense attorney Lynn Whatley immediately announced that the report would form the basis for a new appeal; but prosecutors responded that hair evidence played only a minor role in Williams’ conviction.[33]

    On March 21, 2019, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields announced that officials would re-test evidence from the murders, which will be gathered by the Atlanta Police Department, Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, and Georgia Bureau of Investigation. In a news conference, Mayor Bottoms said, “It may be there is nothing left to be tested. But I do think history will judge us by our actions and we will be able to say we tried.”[34][35]

    Media[edit]

    Williams is the main antagonist and criminal in Season 2 of the Netflix series Mindhunter. The main characters, a pair of FBI investigators, pioneer the early use of offender profiling as an investigative methodology while in the Behavioral Analysis Unit (then known as the Behavior Science Unit). This, to capture murderers by interviewing people such as Charles Manson and serial killer David Berkowitz in the early 1980s.[36][37]

    References[edit]

  • ^ Saferstein, Richard. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. 8. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall – 2004. 75. Print..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ Stuart, Reginald (June 22, 1981). “Suspect in Atlanta: Young, Big Ideas, But a Career of Limited Achievement”. New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  • ^ “Police Officer possibly asleep on bridge: expert”. Gadsden Times. Gadsden, Alabama: New Media Investment Group. February 21, 1982.
  • ^ CNN SPECIAL: Atlanta Child Murders July 4, 2011
  • ^ “CNN: Victims linked to Atlanta serial killings”. June 1, 2010. Retrieved November 4, 2013.
  • ^ Polk, Jim; Zdanowicz, Christina (September 6, 2010). “CNN viewers: Williams ‘guilty’ in Atlanta child murders”. CNN. Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved September 8, 2014.
  • ^ “Lawyer Sees Hope for Retrial in Atlanta Murders”. The New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. August 30, 1987. Retrieved December 10, 2015.
  • ^ Rawls, Wendell Jr. (February 25, 1982). “Final Testimony Hurts Defense In Atlanta Trial”. The New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ Rowson, Kevin (April 30, 2015). “Atlanta Child Murders: Wayne Williams hopes for appeal”. USA Today. McLean, Virginia: Gannett Company. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ Robinson, Daryl A. (July 10, 1998). “Attorney General Baker Announces Wayne Williams’ Convictions Upheld” (Press release). Atlanta, Georgia: Department of Law, State of Georgia. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ “Convicted killer blamed for Atlanta child murders seeks new trial”. WDUN. Atlanta, Georgia. The Associated Press. February 24, 2004. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ a b Breed, Allen G. (May 15, 2005). “Atlanta Revisits 1981 Child Murders”. Associated Press. Retrieved May 29, 2018 – via truthinjustice.org.
  • ^ Boone, Christian (August 10, 2012). “Wayne Williams’ old car finds a new home”. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Atlanta, Georgia: Cox Enterprises. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ Radzicki McManus, Melanie (January 26, 2018). “Was the Wrong Person Convicted in the Atlanta Child Murders?”. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ “Police Reopen Atlanta Child Killing Cases”. Fox News. New York City: News Corp. Associated Press. May 7, 2005. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ Kays, John (June 9, 2010). “Just a Few of The Anomalies of The Atlanta Child Murders!”. NewsBlaze. Adelaide, South Australia: NewsBlaze Pty. Ltd. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ a b c “Missing in Atlanta”. The Investigators. Season 5. Episode 141. May 20, 2004. TruTV.
  • ^ Police reopen some Atlanta child killing cases in The Augusta Chronicle May 7, 2005
  • ^ Atlanta murder cases are reopened after 20 years in The Augusta Chronicle on October 5, 2005
  • ^ Police chief reopens 5th child slaying case in The Augusta Chronicle on May 11, 2005
  • ^ “Cold-case squad to probe decades-old Atlanta murders”. CNN Justice. May 7, 2005. Archived from the original on July 8, 2012.
  • ^ Former DeKalb sheriff prefers talk of Williams’ innocence in The Augusta Chronicle on May 30, 2005
  • ^ Child killer called innocent in The Augusta Chronicle on June 4, 1998
  • ^ Joshua Sharpe, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “18 years ago: DeKalb’s sheriff had his political rival murdered”. ajc. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
  • ^ Weber, Harry R. (August 7, 2005). “Klan Was Probed in Child Killings In Atlanta”. Washington Post. Washington DC: Nash Holdings LLC. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  • ^ “Atlanta Child Murders: Our 1986 Feature, “A Question of Justice””. Spin Magazine (Excerpt from original September 1986 article and full article investigating and exploring the Sanders brothers involvement.).
  • ^ “Atlanta Monster”. Season 1 Episode 7: Conspiracy? 36:50.
  • ^ “Was Wayne Williams framed?/Recruiter for KKK said to admit role in Atlanta murders”. Houston Chronicle. Section A, Page 4, 2 STAR Edition. October 9, 1991. Archived from the original on June 15, 2012.
  • ^ New Questions in Atlanta Murders – Did prosecutors withhold evidence of Klan involvement in children’s death? p. 36 in ABA Journal, The Lawyers Magazine in May 1992
  • ^ Douglas, J. and Olshaker, M. Mindhunter: Inside the FBI Elite Serial Crime Unit. William Heinemann (1986), p. 147-9. ISBN 0434002623.
  • ^ Harry R. Weber (June 26, 2007). “DA: DNA Tests Link Williams to Killings”. Associated Press. Retrieved November 26, 2017.
  • ^ Jim Polk, CNN (September 6, 2010). “DNA test strengthens Atlanta child killings case”. CNN.com. Retrieved February 10, 2014.
  • ^ “Atlanta Child Murders: Wayne Williams hopes new information leads to appeal”. Retrieved June 10, 2015.
  • ^ Sharpe, Joshua. “Police plan to re-test Atlanta Child Murders evidence”. ajc. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  • ^ “Atlanta’s Mayor pushes for review in ‘Child Murders’ cases”. The Public’s Radio. March 21, 2019. Retrieved March 22, 2019.
  • ^ Sharff, Zach (July 30, 2019). “Mindhunter’ Season 2 First Trailer: Manson, Son of Sam, and Lots of Heinous Crimesdate”. Indiewire. Retrieved July 30, 2019.
  • ^ Barcella, Laura (February 1, 2018). “Was Serial Killer Wayne Williams Really the Atlanta Monster Who Murdered Dozens of Black Kids?”. A&E. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  • Cited works and further reading[edit]

    • Whittington-Egan, Richard; Whittington-Egan, Molly (1992). The Murder Almanac. Glasgow: Neil Wilson Publishing. p. 160. ISBN 1-897784-04-X.
    • Wynn, Douglas (1996). On Trial for Murder. U.K.: Pan Books. pp. 128–131. ISBN 0-330-33947-8.

    External links[edit]

    • Crime Library case details


    Atlanta murders of 1979– 81.

    “The Atlanta Child Murders” redirects here. For the 1985 miniseries, see The Atlanta Child Murders (miniseries).

    The Atlanta murders of 1979–1981, sometimes called the Atlanta child murders were a series of murders committed in Atlanta, Georgia, from the middle of 1979 until May 1981. Over the two-year period, at least 28 children, adolescents, and adults were killed.

    Wayne Williams, an Atlanta native who was 23 years old at the time of the last murder, was arrested, tried, and convicted of two of the adult murders and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. Police subsequently have attributed a number of the child murders to Williams, although he has not been charged in any of those cases, and Williams himself maintains his innocence. In March 2019, the Atlanta police, under order of mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, reopened the cases in hopes that new technology will lead to a conviction.[1]

    Contents

    • 1 Murders
    • 2 Capturing the suspect
    • 3 Trial
    • 4 Aftermath
    • 5 Later developments
    • 6 Known child victims
    • 7 Known adult victims
    • 8 Media coverage and adaptations
    • 9 See also
    • 10 References
    • 11 Further reading
    • 12 External links

    Murders[edit]

    In the middle of 1979, Edward Hope Smith (also known as “Teddy”) and Alfred Evans (also known as “Q”), both 14, disappeared four days apart. (Terry Pue, who later went missing in early 1981, lived in the same apartment as Smith.) Their bodies were both found on July 28 in a wooded area,[1] Smith with a .22 caliber gunshot wound in his upper back. They were believed to be the first victims of the putative “Atlanta Child Killer”.

    On September 4, the next victim, 14-year-old Milton Harvey, disappeared while on an errand to the bank for his mother. He was riding a yellow 10-speed bike, which was found a week later in a remote area of Atlanta. His body was not recovered until November of that year.

    On October 21, 9-year-old Yusuf Bell went to a store to buy snuff for a neighbor, Eula Birdsong. A witness said she saw Yusuf getting into a blue car before he disappeared. His body was found on November 8 in the abandoned E. P. Johnson Elementary School by a school janitor who was looking for a place to urinate. Bell’s body was found clothed in the brown cut-off shorts he was last seen wearing, though they had a piece of masking tape stuck to them. He had been hit over the head twice and the cause of death was strangulation. Police did not immediately link his disappearance to the previous killings.

    On March 4, 1980, the first female victim, 12-year-old Angel Lenair, disappeared. She left her house around 4 p.m., wearing a denim outfit, and was last seen at a friend’s house watching the television program Sanford and Son. Lenair’s body was found six days later, in a wooded vacant lot along Campbellton Road, wearing the same clothes in which she had left home. A pair of white panties that did not belong to Lenair were stuffed in her mouth, and her hands were bound with an electrical cord. The cause of death was strangulation.[2]

    On March 11, one week after Lenair’s disappearance, 11-year-old Jeffrey Mathis disappeared while on an errand for his mother. He was wearing gray jogging pants, brown shoes, and a white and green shirt. Months later a girl said she saw him get into a blue car with a light-skinned man and a dark-skinned man. The body of Jeffrey Mathis was found in a “briar-covered patch of woodlands”, 11 months after he disappeared, by which time it was not possible to identify a cause of death.

    On May 18, 14-year-old Eric Middlebrooks disappeared. He was last seen answering the telephone at home and then leaving in a hurry on his bicycle, taking with him a hammer to repair the bicycle. His body was found the following day next to his bicycle in the rear garage of an Atlanta bar. The bar was located next door to what was then the Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation. His pockets were turned inside out, his chest and arms had slight stab wounds, and the cause of death was determined to be blunt force trauma to the head. A few weeks before he disappeared, Middlebrooks had testified against three juveniles in a robbery case.

    On June 9, 12-year-old Christopher Richardson went missing on his way to a local pool. He was wearing blue shorts, a light blue shirt, and blue tennis shoes. His body was not found until the following January, clothed in unfamiliar swim trunks, along with the body of a later victim, Earl Terrell. The cause of Richardson’s death was not determined.

    On June 22, 7-year-old Latonya Wilson disappeared from her parents’ apartment. According to a witness, she appeared to have been abducted by two men, one of whom was seen climbing into the apartment window and then holding Wilson in his arms as he spoke to the other man in the parking lot. On October 18, Wilson’s body was found in a fenced-in area at the end of Verbena Street in Atlanta. By then the body had skeletonized and no cause of death could be established.

    The next day, June 23, 10-year-old Aaron Wyche disappeared after having been seen near a local grocery store, getting into a blue Chevrolet with either one or two black men. The witness’s description of the car matched a description of a similar car implicated in the earlier Jeffrey Mathis disappearance. At 6 p.m., Wyche was seen at a shopping center. The following day, Wyche’s body was found under a bridge; the official cause of death was asphyxiation from a broken neck suffered in a fall.

    In July 1980, two more children, Anthony Carter and Earl Terell, were murdered.

    Between August and November 1980, five more killings took place. All the victims were African-American children, between the ages of 7 and 14, and most were killed via asphyxiation.

    The murders continued into 1981. The first known victim in the new year was Lubie Geter, who disappeared on January 3. Geter’s body was found on February 5. Geter’s friend Terry Pue also went missing in January. An anonymous caller told the police where to find Pue’s body.[3]

    In February and March 1981, 6 more bodies were discovered, believed to be linked to the previous homicides. Among the dead was the body of Eddie Duncan, the first adult victim.

    In April, 20-year-old Larry Rogers, 28-year-old John Porter, and 21-year-old Jimmy Ray Payne were murdered. Porter and Payne were ex-convicts, and had just recently been released from Alto Correctional Institute after serving time for burglary.

    The next victim was 17-year-old William “Billy Star” Barrett whose body was found on May 12, 1981. Barrett’s body was discovered by FBI agents on a curb in a wooded area, near his home. A witness, 32-year-old Harold Wood, a custodian from Southwest HS, had run out of gas about a mile from the scene. Wood described a black man, with a white over blue Cadillac, standing over and observing where the body was found, before driving away.

    During the end of May, 1981 the last reported victim was added to the list. 27-year-old Nathaniel Cater was last seen by gardener Robert I. Henry at the entrance of the Rialto Theatre in Atlanta, reportedly holding hands with Wayne Williams. His body was discovered just hours later.

    Investigator Chet Dettlinger created a map of the victims’ locations. Despite the difference in ages, the victims fell within the same geographic parameters. They were connected to Memorial Drive and 11 major streets in the area.

    Capturing the suspect[edit]

    A mugshot of Wayne Williams taken after his arrest.

    During the murders, a total of more than 100 agents were working on the investigation.[1] The city of Atlanta imposed curfews, and parents in the city removed their children from school and forbade them from playing outside.[1]

    As the media coverage of the killings intensified, the FBI confidently predicted that the killer might dump the next victim into a body of water to conceal any evidence. Police staked out nearly a dozen area bridges, including crossings of the Chattahoochee River. During a stakeout on May 22, 1981, detectives got their first major break when an officer heard a splash beneath a bridge. Another officer saw a white 1970 Chevrolet station wagon turn around and drive back across the bridge.[4]

    Two police cars later stopped the suspect station wagon about a half mile from the bridge. The driver was 23-year-old Wayne Bertram Williams, a supposed music promoter and freelance photographer.[4] The Chevrolet wagon belonged to his parents. Dog hair and fibers recovered from the rear of the vehicle were later used as evidence in the case against Williams, as similar fibers were found on some of the victims. They were found to match his dog and the carpet in his parents’ house. During questioning, Williams said he was on his way to audition a woman, Cheryl Johnson, as a singer. Williams claimed she lived in the nearby town of Smyrna. Police did not find any record of her or the appointment.

    Two days later, on May 24, the nude body of Nathaniel Cater, 27, was found floating downriver a few miles from the bridge where police had seen the suspicious station wagon.[4] The body had extensive water damage and may have been in the water for up to two weeks.[5] Based on this evidence, including the police officer’s hearing of the splash, police believed that Williams had killed Cater and disposed of his body while the police were nearby.

    Much circumstantial evidence led the police to consider Williams as the prime suspect. First, he was the only person stopped during the month-long stakeout of 12 bridges, and Williams had stopped on the bridge immediately before the splash was heard. According to FBI Special Agent In Charge John Glover, Williams admitted to stopping his car, but claimed that he was dumping trash; later during the trial, Williams would claim that he never stopped his car but instead had turned around in an adjacent lot. Second, police noted that Williams’ appearance resembled a composite sketch of the suspect, including a bushy Afro sticking out from the sides of a baseball cap, and a birthmark or scar on the left cheek.[6]

    Furthermore, investigators who stopped Williams on the bridge noticed gloves and a 24-inch nylon cord sitting in the passenger seat. According to investigators, the cord looked similar to ligature marks found on Cater and other victims, but the cord was never taken into evidence for analysis. Adding to a growing list of suspicious circumstances, Williams had handed out flyers in predominantly black neighborhoods calling for young people ages 11–21 to audition for his new singing group that he called Gemini. Notably, Williams failed an FBI-administered polygraph examination. Polygraph results are not admissible as evidence in criminal courts.[7]

    Even more evidence seemed to implicate Williams. Fibers from a carpet in the Williams residence were found to match those observed on two of the victims.[1] Additional fibers from the Williamses’ home, vehicles, and pet dog were later matched to fibers discovered on other victims.[8] Furthermore, witness Robert Henry claimed to have seen Williams holding hands and walking with Nathaniel Cater on the night Cater is believed to have died.[9] On June 21, 1981, Williams was arrested. A grand jury indicted him for first-degree murder in the deaths of Nathaniel Cater and Jimmy Ray Payne, aged 22.[4] The trial date was set for early 1982.

    FBI Agent John E. Douglas, who had previously conducted a widely reported interview with People magazine about profiling the killer as a young black man, stated that when the news of Williams’ arrest was officially released (his status as a suspect had previously been leaked to the media), he stated that if it was Williams then he was ‘looking pretty good for a good percentage of the killings’. This was widely reported across media outlets as the FBI effectively declaring Williams guilty, and Douglas was officially censured by the director of the FBI.[10]

    Trial[edit]

    Jury selection began on December 28, 1981, and lasted six days. The jury comprised nine women and three men, among them eight African Americans and four Caucasians.

    The trial officially began on January 6, 1982, with Judge Clarence Cooper presiding. The most important evidence against Williams was the fiber analysis between the victims Williams was indicted for, Jimmy Ray Payne and Nathaniel Cater, and the 12 pattern-murder cases in which circumstantial evidence culminated in numerous links among the crimes. This included witnesses testifying to seeing Williams with the victims, and some witnesses suggesting that he had solicited sexual favors.[4]

    The prosecution’s presentation of the case has been criticized, to the extent that in some jurisdictions it might have resulted in a mistrial. In particular, two separate FBI special agents testified that the chances of the victims not having come into contact with Williams was “virtually impossible,” based only on the comparative rarity of the fibers found on the victims that seemed to match the suspect’s car and home.[11] Georgia Supreme Court Justice George T. Smith, after reviewing the case, deemed the evidence, or lack thereof, inadmissible.[12]

    On February 27, 1982 – after eleven hours of deliberation – the jury found Wayne Bertram Williams guilty of the two murders. He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms in Georgia’s Hancock State Prison in Sparta.[4]

    On May 6, 2005, the DeKalb County, Georgia, Police Chief Louis Graham ordered the reopening of the murder cases of five boys who were killed in DeKalb County between February and May 1981 that had been attributed to Williams. Police Chief Graham believed that Williams may have been innocent of these and other murders. The remaining cases are under the jurisdiction of Fulton County, Georgia, and those authorities consider their related murder cases closed with the arrest, trial and conviction of Williams for the two murders for which he was charged.

    Aftermath[edit]

    The Omni Coliseum in 1979

    Musicians performed concerts to honor the victims and to provide benefits to the victims’ families. Performers included Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr.. The Jacksons performed on July 22, 1981, at the Atlanta Omni Coliseum during their Triumph Tour raising $100,000 for the Atlanta Children’s Foundation in response to the kidnappings and murders. Wayne Williams’s father, who was a media photographer in Atlanta at the time, could be seen on stage with Frank Sinatra. Still in 1981, Gladys Knight & The Pips recorded “Forever Yesterday (For The Children)”, a song in memorial of the victims written by Glenn Smith.

    In 1981, actor Robert De Niro, when accepting the Best Actor Oscar for his role in the film Raging Bull, wore a green ribbon as a sign of solidarity with the children of Atlanta. He is believed to be the first celebrity to have worn a ribbon at a major event as an awareness-raising effort.

    Later developments[edit]

    Now 61 years old, Wayne Williams continues to maintain his innocence.[1]

    In May 2004, about six months after becoming the DeKalb County Police Chief in November 2003, Graham reopened the investigations into the deaths of the five DeKalb County victims:[13] Aaron Wyche, 10; Curtis Walker, 13; Yusuf Bell, 9; William Barrett, 17; and Patrick Baltazar, 11. Graham, one of the original investigators in these cases, said he never believed Wayne Williams, the man convicted of two of the killings and blamed for 22 others, was guilty of any of them.

    On August 6, 2005, journalists reported that Charles T. Sanders once praised the crimes in secretly recorded conversations. Although Sanders did not claim responsibility for any of the deaths, lawyers for Williams believed that the evidence will help their bid for a new trial for Williams. (The police had investigated Sanders in relation to the murders, but dropped the probe into his and the KKK’s possible involvement, after Sanders was kept under close surveillance for seven weeks, during which four more victims were killed, and after Sanders and two of his brothers volunteered for, and passed, lie detector tests.)[citation needed]

    The criminal profiler John E. Douglas said that, while he believes that Williams committed many of the murders, he does not think that he committed them all. Douglas added that he believes that law enforcement authorities have some idea of who the other killers are, cryptically adding, “It isn’t a single offender and the truth isn’t pleasant.”[14]

    On June 21, 2006, the DeKalb County Police dropped its reinvestigation of the Atlanta child murders. After resigning, Graham was replaced by the acting chief, Nick Marinelli, who said, “We dredged up what we had, and nothing has panned out, so until something does or additional evidence comes our way, or there’s forensic feedback from existing evidence, we will continue to pursue the [other] cold cases that are [with]in our reach.[6]

    On January 29, 2007, attorneys for the State of Georgia agreed to allow DNA testing of the dog hair that was used to help convict Williams. This decision was a response to a legal filing as a part of Williams’ efforts to appeal his conviction and life sentences. Williams’ lawyer, Jack Martin, asked a Fulton County Superior Court judge to allow DNA tests on canine and human hair and blood, stating the results might help Williams win a new trial.

    On June 26, 2007, the DNA test results were published, but they failed to exonerate Williams. In fact, the results were that the hairs on the bodies contained the same mitochondrial DNA sequence as Williams’ dog, and that the DNA sequence occurs in only about 1 out of 100 dogs. Dr. Elizabeth Wictum, director of the UC Davis laboratory that carried out the testing, told The Associated Press that while the results were “fairly significant,” they “don’t conclusively point to Williams’ dog as the source of the hair”, because the lab was able to test only for mitochondrial DNA which, unlike nuclear DNA, cannot be shown to be unique to one dog.[15]

    Later in 2007, the FBI performed DNA tests on two human hairs found on one of the victims. The mitochondrial DNA sequence in the hairs would eliminate 99.5% of persons by not matching their DNA. The mitochondrial DNA sequence in the hairs would eliminate 98% of African American persons by not matching their DNA. However, they matched Williams’ DNA and so did not eliminate the possibility that the hairs were his.[16]

    On March 21, 2019, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields announced that officials would re-test evidence from the murders, which will be gathered by the Atlanta Police Department, Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, and Georgia Bureau of Investigation. In a news conference, Mayor Bottoms said, “It may be there is nothing left to be tested. But I do think history will judge us by our actions and we will be able to say we tried.”[17][18]

    Known child victims[edit]

    Known adult victims[edit]

    Media coverage and adaptations[edit]

    The first national media coverage of the case was in 1980, when a team from ABC News 20/20, Stanhope Gould and Bill Lichtenstein, producer Steve Tello and correspondent Bob Sirkin, from the ABC Atlanta bureau looked into the case. They were assigned to the story after ABC News president Roone Arledge read a tiny story in the newspaper that said police had ruled out any connection between a day care explosion, which turned out to be a faulty furnace, and the cases of lost and missing children, which had been previously unreported on in the national media. In a week, the team reported on the dead and missing children, and they broke the story that the Atlanta Police Task Force was not writing down or following up every lead they received through the police hotline that had been set up.

    In 1981 British novelist Martin Amis published “The Killings in Atlanta” for The Observer, later compiled into The Moronic Inferno: And Other Visits to America (1986).

    In 1982, writer Marty Pasko dedicated an issue of Saga of the Swamp Thing to “the good people of Atlanta, that they may put the horror behind them… but not forget.” The story revolved around a serial killer who targeted minority children in the fictional town of Pineboro, Arkansas, who is revealed to be a demon that had possessed the TV host “Uncle Barney” (a thinly-veiled parody of Fred Rogers). While the demon is ultimately vanquished, the story ends on an ominous note criticizing the social inequalities that made the non-white children such attractive targets, as well as children’s television shows that encourage blind trust of strangers.[citation needed]

    In 1985, the television miniseries The Atlanta Child Murders was released. The film was centered around the murders and the arrest of the suspect. Like JFK, the film revolved mainly around the aftermath of the killings and the trials. The film starred Calvin Levels, Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, Rip Torn, Jason Robards, Martin Sheen, and Bill Paxton. Atlanta officials criticized The Atlanta Child Murders film, claiming that it distorted the facts of the case. After a series of negotiations, CBS executives agreed to insert a disclaimer alerting viewers that the film is based on fact but contains fictional elements.

    Also in 1985, James Baldwin published The Evidence of Things Not Seen, a non-fiction examination not only of the case and Williams’ trial, but also of race relations in Atlanta and, by extension, America. The book grew out of an assignment to write about the murders for Playboy, commissioned by then-editor Walter Lowe.[19]

    In 2000, Showtime released a drama film titled Who Killed Atlanta’s Children? Like JFK, the film centered mainly around the possibility of a conspiracy.[clarification needed]

    On June 10, 2010, CNN broadcast a documentary, The Atlanta Child Murders, with interviews by Soledad O’Brien of some of the people involved including Wayne Williams. The two-hour CNN documentary invited viewers to weigh the evidence presented and then go to CNN.com to cast votes on whether Williams was “guilty,” “innocent”—or the case is “not proven.” 68.6% of respondents said Williams was guilty, 4.3% said he was innocent and 27.1% chose “not proven”.[20]

    In the song “The Ends” by rapper Travis Scott on his sophomore album Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight, André 3000 raps about the killings as he was alive during the murders.

    In January 2018, documentary film maker Payne Lindsey began releasing a podcast called Atlanta Monster covering the murders with interviews from family members of victims, law enforcement officials, individuals alive in the Atlanta area at the time of the murders and even Wayne Williams himself.

    In August 2019, the second season of Mindhunter covers the murders starting from the sixth murder when Holden meets with Camille Bell, Venus Taylor and Willie Mae Mathis, the mothers of Yusuf, Jeffrey, and Angel — the fourth, sixth, and first female victims, respectively. Later the FBI are brought officially into the cases after it is believed the twelfth victim – Earl is being held for ransom. In the season’s last episode Wayne Williams is arrested and charged with the murders of two adults. [21]

    See also[edit]

    • Post-civil rights era African-American history
    • Leaving Atlanta, a 2002 novel based on the murders

    References[edit]

  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Burch, Audra D. S. (30 April 2019). “Who Killed Atlanta’s Children?”. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 May 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ “The Atlanta Youth Murders and the Politics of Race” Bernard D. Headley, Published by Southern Illinois University Press, December 1, 1999
  • ^ “Famous Atlanta Child Murders & Wayne Williams” Archived May 27, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, The Crime Library
  • ^ a b c d e f WALTER ISAACSON;Anne Constable, “A Web of Fiber and Fact”, Time Magazine, 8 March 1982, accessed 27 Nov 2009
  • ^ Atlanta Child Murders – Wayne Williams FBI Files By BACM Research. Page mcclxviii
  • ^ a b “The Esoteric Codex: Unidentified Serial Killers” Royce Leighton, Published by lulu.com, March 27, 2015
  • ^ Saxe, L.; Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). “Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert” (PDF). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 5 (1): 203–223. Retrieved 25 June 2017.
  • ^ Trace Evidence: Dead People Do Tell Tales By Stephen Eldridge Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1 July 2011 pg39-49
  • ^ “CNN Transcripts: Atlanta Child Murders
  • ^ MindHunter Pg 215
  • ^ Johnson, J. James (1984) “The Odds of Criminal Justice in Georgia: Mathematically Expressed Probabilities in Georgia Criminal Trials” Georgia State University Law Review: Volume 1: Issue 1, Article 9.
  • ^ “Why TV Movie About Atlanta Child Murders Had to Be Made”. The New York Times. 1985-03-01. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-01-19.
  • ^ “Police chief behind probe in new killings resigns”, Kentucky New Era, May 4, 2006
  • ^ “Mind Hunter”, John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Published by Scribner, November 26, 1998
  • ^ “DA, defense spar over meaning of new DNA test on dog hairs in Atlanta child murder case”, Sign on San Diego, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 26 Jun 2007
  • ^ “Mind Hunter”, John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, August 1, 1996, ISBN 0671528904
  • ^ Sharpe, Joshua. “Police plan to re-test Atlanta Child Murders evidence”. ajc. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  • ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/atlanta-child-murders-family-reaction/index.html
  • ^ Flemming, John (November 24, 1985). “The Evidence of Things Not Seen”. movies2.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2019-07-24.
  • ^ CNN: CNN viewers: Williams ‘guilty’ in Atlanta child murders Archived January 31, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  • ^ “Netflix’s Mindhunter will return for a second season in August”. Retrieved July 12, 2019.
  • Further reading[edit]

    • Keppel, Robert. The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer. New York, Pocket Books, 2004 (revised and updated). Contains a chapter on the Atlanta Child Murders and Keppel’s participation as a consultant with the investigation.
    • Jones, Tayari. Leaving Atlanta. New York, Warner Books, 2002. A novel that focuses on children during the time of the murders.
    • Bambara, Toni Cade. Those Bones Are Not My Child. New York, Pantheon Books, 1999. A novel about a mother who lost a child as part of the murders.
    • Reid, Kim. No Place Safe, New York: Kensington Publishing Corp., 2007. A memoir by the daughter of one of the police investigators.
    • James Baldwin, The Evidence of Things Not Seen 1985. Holt, Rinehart and Winston
    • Chet Dettlinger, Jeff Prugh, The List 1983. Philmay Enterprises, Inc. The most comprehensive account in print written by the private detective once considered a suspect because of his thorough knowledge of the case.
    • John E. Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit, Scribner, 1995, See: Chapter 11, Atlanta, paqes 199-224.
    • Mallard, Jack. “The Atlanta Child Murders: the Night Stalker” (Jack Mallard, 392pgs) released 2010-12-02. Available on Amazon. Jack Mallard was one of the Fulton County Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted Wayne Williams for two murders. Includes footnotes and charts of testimony, physical evidence, trial strategy that led to the guilty verdicts.

    External links[edit]

    • IMDB – The Atlanta Child Murders
    • IMDB – Who Killed Atlanta’s Children?
    • FBI file on the Atlanta Child Murders
    • Crime Library: The Atlanta Child Murders
    • Atlanta’s Missing and Murdered


    Chicago Tylenol murders

    String of murders in Chicago in 1982 involving poisoned Tylenol medicine

    The Chicago Tylenol Murders were a series of poisoning deaths resulting from drug tampering in the Chicago metropolitan area in 1982. The victims had all taken Tylenol-branded acetaminophen capsules that had been laced with potassium cyanide.[1] A total of seven people died in the original poisonings, with several more deaths in subsequent copycat crimes.

    No suspect was ever charged or convicted of the poisonings. New York City resident, James William Lewis, was convicted of extortion for sending a letter to Johnson & Johnson that took credit for the deaths and demanded $1 million to stop them, but evidence tying him to the actual poisoning never emerged.

    The incidents led to reforms in the packaging of over-the-counter substances and to federal anti-tampering laws. The actions of Johnson & Johnson to reduce deaths and warn the public of poisoning risks have been widely praised as an exemplary public relations response to such a crisis.[2]

    Contents

    • 1 Incidents
    • 2 Investigations
      • 2.1 Suspects
      • 2.2 Ongoing investigations
    • 3 Aftermath
      • 3.1 Copycats
      • 3.2 Johnson & Johnson response
      • 3.3 Pharmaceutical changes
    • 4 References
    • 5 Further reading
    • 6 External links

    Incidents[edit]

    On September 29, 1982, twelve-year-old Mary Kellerman of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, died after taking a capsule of Extra-Strength Tylenol.[3] Adam Janus (27) of Arlington Heights, Illinois, died in the hospital later that day after ingesting Tylenol; his brother Stanley (25) and sister-in-law Theresa (19), of Lisle, Illinois, later also died after taking Tylenol from the same bottle.[3] Within the next few days, Mary McFarland (31) of Elmhurst, Illinois, Paula Prince (35) of Chicago, and Mary Reiner (27) of Winfield all died in similar incidents.[4][5][6] Once it was realized that all these people had recently taken Tylenol, tests were quickly carried out, which soon revealed cyanide present in the bottles. Warnings were then issued via the media and patrols using loudspeakers, warning residents throughout the Chicago metropolitan area to discontinue use of Tylenol products.[4]

    Police, knowing that various sources of Tylenol were tampered with, ruled out manufacturers, as the tampered-with bottles came from different pharmaceutical companies—and the seven deaths had all occurred in the Chicago area, so sabotage during production was ruled out. Instead, police concluded that they were likely looking for a culprit who was believed to have acquired bottles of Tylenol from various retail outlets.[3] Furthermore, they concluded the source was most likely supermarkets and drug stores, over a period of several weeks, with the culprit likely adding the cyanide to the capsules, then methodically returning to the stores to place the bottles back on the shelves.[4] In addition to the five bottles that led to the victims’ deaths, three other contaminated bottles were later discovered.

    In a concerted effort to reassure the public, Johnson & Johnson distributed warnings to hospitals and distributors and halted Tylenol production and advertising. On October 5, 1982, it issued a nationwide recall of Tylenol products; an estimated 31 million bottles were in circulation, with a retail value of over US $100 million ($267 million in 2018).[7] The company also advertised in the national media for individuals not to consume any of its products that contained acetaminophen after it was determined that only these capsules had been tampered with. Johnson & Johnson also offered to exchange all Tylenol capsules already purchased by the public for solid tablets.

    Investigations[edit]

    Suspects[edit]

    During the initial investigations, a man named James William Lewis sent a letter to Johnson & Johnson demanding $1 million to stop the cyanide-induced murders.[4] Identified via fingerprints and the envelope used, police were unable to link him with the crimes, as he and his wife were living in New York City at the time. He was, however, convicted of extortion, and later served 13 years of a 20-year sentence, and was paroled in 1995. WCVB Channel 5 of Boston reported that court documents released in early 2009, “show Department of Justice investigators concluded Lewis was responsible for the poisonings, despite the fact that they did not have enough evidence to charge him”. In January 2010, both Lewis and his wife submitted DNA samples and fingerprints to authorities.[8] Lewis stated “if the FBI plays it fair, I have nothing to worry about”.[8] Lewis continues to deny all responsibility for the poisonings.[8][9]

    A second man, Roger Arnold, was identified, investigated and cleared of the killings. He had a nervous breakdown due to the media attention, which he blamed on Marty Sinclair, a bar owner. In the summer of 1983, Arnold shot and killed John Stanisha, an unrelated man whom he mistook for Sinclair and who did not know Arnold.[10] Arnold was convicted in January 1984 and served 15 years of a 30-year sentence for second-degree murder.[4] He died in June 2008.

    Laurie Dann, who poisoned and shot an unknown number of people in a May 1988 rampage in and around Winnetka, Illinois, was briefly considered as a suspect, but no direct connection was found.[11]

    Ongoing investigations[edit]

    In early 1983, at the FBI’s request, Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene published the address and grave location of the first and youngest victim, Mary Kellerman. The story, written with the Kellerman family’s consent, was proposed by FBI criminal analyst John Douglas on the theory that the perpetrator might visit the house or gravesite if he were made aware of their locations. Both sites were kept under 24-hour video surveillance for several months, but the killer did not surface.[4][12]

    A surveillance photo of Paula Prince purchasing cyanide-tampered Tylenol at a Walgreen’s on 1601 North Wells St. was released by the Chicago Police Department. Police believe that a bearded man seen just feet behind Prince may be the killer.[13]

    In early January 2009, Illinois authorities renewed the investigation. Federal agents searched the home of Lewis in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and seized a number of items.[14] In Chicago, an FBI spokesman declined to comment but said “we’ll have something to release later possibly”.[15] Law enforcement officials have received a number of tips related to the case coinciding with its anniversary. In a written statement,[16] the FBI explained,

    This review was prompted, in part, by the recent 25th anniversary of this crime and the resulting publicity. Further, given the many recent advances in forensic technology, it was only natural that a second look be taken at the case and recovered evidence.

    On May 19, 2011, the FBI requested DNA samples from “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski in connection to the Tylenol murders. Kaczynski denied having ever possessed potassium cyanide.[17] The first four Unabomber crimes happened in Chicago and its suburbs from 1978 to 1980, and Kaczynski’s parents had a suburban Chicago home in Lombard, Illinois, in 1982, where he stayed occasionally.[4][18]

    Aftermath[edit]

    Copycats[edit]

    Hundreds of copycat attacks involving Tylenol, other over-the-counter medications, and other products also took place around the United States immediately following the Chicago deaths.[3][19]

    Three more deaths occurred in 1986 from tampered gelatin capsules.[20] A woman died in Yonkers, New York, after ingesting “Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules laced with cyanide”.[21] Excedrin capsules in Washington state were tampered with, resulting in the deaths of Susan Snow and Bruce Nickell from cyanide poisoning and the eventual arrest and conviction of Nickell’s wife, Stella, for her intentional actions in the crimes and connected to both murders.[22] That same year, Procter & Gamble’s Encaprin was recalled after a spiking hoax in Chicago and Detroit that resulted in a precipitous sales drop and a withdrawal of the pain reliever from the market.[23]

    In 1986 a University of Texas student, Kenneth Faries, was found dead in his apartment after succumbing to cyanide poisoning.[24] Tampered Anacin capsules were determined to be the source of the cyanide found in his body. His death was ruled as a homicide on May 30, 1986.[25]

    Johnson & Johnson response[edit]

    Johnson & Johnson received positive coverage for its handling of the crisis; for example, an article in The Washington Post said, “Johnson & Johnson has effectively demonstrated how a major business ought to handle a disaster”. The article further stated that “this is no Three Mile Island accident in which the company’s response did more damage than the original incident”, and applauded the company for being honest with the public.[26] In addition to issuing the recall, the company established relations with the Chicago Police Department, the FBI, and the Food and Drug Administration. This way it could have a part in searching for the person who laced the capsules and they could help prevent further tampering.[27] While at the time of the scare the company’s market share collapsed from thirty-five percent to eight percent, it rebounded in less than a year, a move credited to the company’s prompt and aggressive reaction. In November, it reintroduced capsules but in a new, triple-sealed package, coupled with heavy price promotions and within several years, Tylenol had regained the highest market share for the over-the-counter analgesic in the U.S.[28]

    Pharmaceutical changes[edit]

    The 1982 incident inspired the pharmaceutical, food, and consumer product industries to develop tamper-resistant packaging, such as induction seals and improved quality control methods.[4] Moreover, product tampering was made a federal crime.[29] The new laws resulted in Stella Nickell’s conviction in the Excedrin tampering case, for which she was sentenced to ninety years in prison.[22]

    Additionally, the incident prompted the pharmaceutical industry to move away from capsules, which were easy to contaminate as a foreign substance could be placed inside without obvious signs of tampering. Within the year, the FDA introduced more stringent regulations to avoid product tampering. This led to the eventual replacement of the capsule with the solid “caplet”, a tablet made in the shape of a capsule, as a drug delivery form and with the addition of tamper-evident safety-seals to bottles of many sorts.[3]

    References[edit]

  • ^ Douglas, John E.; Olshaker, Mark (1999). The Anatomy of Motive – The FBI’s Legendary Mindhunter Explores the Key to Understanding and Catching Violent Criminals. New York City: Scribner. pp. 103–104. ISBN 978-0-684-84598-2..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ “5 Crisis Management Truths from the Tylenol Murders”. MissionMode.com. October 4, 2012.
  • ^ a b c d e Markel, Howard (September 29, 2014). “How the Tylenol murders of 1982 changed the way we consume medication”. PBS NewsHour. Retrieved December 6, 2017.
  • ^ a b c d e f g h “Case 118: The Chicago Tylenol Murders”. Casefile: True Crime Podcast. July 21, 2019. Retrieved July 24, 2019.
  • ^ Douglas, 106.
  • ^
    Bell, Rachael. “The Tylenol Terrorist”. Crime Library. truTV. Archived from the original on July 5, 2008.
  • ^ Emsley, John. Molecules of Murder: Criminal Molecular and Classic Cases. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008, p. 174.
  • ^ a b c Lavoie, Denise (January 11, 2010). “Friend: Tylenol Suspect Submits DNA, Fingerprints”. Associated Press (via ABC News). Retrieved November 29, 2014.
  • ^ “Feds Convinced Lewis Was Tylenol Killer”. WCVB-TV. February 12, 2009. Archived from the original on October 30, 2011. Retrieved May 12, 2009.
  • ^ “Tylenol Figure Is Convicted”. Associated Press (via The New York Times). January 15, 1984.
  • ^ “Tragedy in Winnetka: The Answers Are Few”. Milwaukee Sentinel. May 25, 1988. Retrieved December 30, 2009.
  • ^ Greene, B. American Beat. Penguin Books (1984), pp. 344–50. ISBN 0140073205
  • ^ “The trail of The Tylenol Man”. Boston.com. February 6, 2009.
  • ^ Saltzman, Jonathan (February 5, 2009), “Fatal Tampering Case Is Renewed”, The Boston Globe
  • ^ “FBI Searches Home of Man Linked to Tylenol Deaths”. Fox News. Associated Press. February 4, 2009. Archived from the original on August 19, 2014. Retrieved March 7, 2010.
  • ^ Fifis, Fran (February 5, 2009). “Law Enforcement To Review Tylenol Murders”. CNN. Retrieved March 7, 2010.
  • ^ Woolner, Ann (May 19, 2011). “FBI Wants Una9bomber’s DNA for 1982 Tylenol Poisoning Probe”. Bloomberg News. Retrieved May 19, 2011.
  • ^ “FBI wants to test Unabomber DNA in Tylenol killings”.
  • ^ Fletcher, Dan (February 9, 2009). “A Brief History of the Tylenol Poisonings”. TIME. Retrieved January 25, 2018.
  • ^ Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services (November 4, 1998). “Tamper-Evident Packaging Requirements for Over-the-Counter Human Drug Products (Final Rule)”. Federal Register. 63 (213): 59463–59471. Retrieved January 25, 2018.
  • ^ Norman, Michael (February 14, 1986). “2D Tainted Bottle of Tylenol Found by Investigators”. The New York Times. p. B2. Retrieved January 25, 2018.
  • ^ a b Tibbits, George. “Woman Guilty of Killing 2 in Poisoned Excedrin Case”. The Boston Globe  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Seattle, Washington. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved May 10, 2012.
  • ^ “Retired Drugs: Failed Blockbusters, Homicidal Tampering, Fatal Oversights”. Wired.com. October 1, 2008.
  • ^ “A University of Texas chemistry student whose body was…” UPI. Retrieved July 24, 2019.
  • ^ “Cyanide Death Called a Homicide”. Chicago Tribune. United Press International. May 30, 1986.
  • ^ Jerry Knight (October 11, 1982). “Tylenol’s Maker Shows How to Respond to Crisis”. The Washington Post. p. WB1.
  • ^ Kaplan, Tamara. “The Tylenol Crisis: How Effective Public Relations Saved Johnson & Johnson”. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved February 12, 2010.
  • ^ N. R. Kleinfield. “Tylenol’s Rapid Comeback”. The New York Times.
  • ^ “§ 1365. Tampering with consumer products” (PDF). TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. United States Government Printing Office. pp. 343–345. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  • Further reading[edit]

    • Bergmann, Joy (November 2, 2000). “A Bitter Pill – Someone Killed Seven People by Putting Cyanide in Tylenol Capsules – When James Lewis Was Caught for Writing an Extortion Letter, Prosecutors Appeared To Stop Looking for the Killer – Almost 20 Years Later No One Has Been Convicted of the Murders”. Chicago Reader. Retrieved May 19, 2011.
    • Mikkelson, Barbara & David P. “Tylenol Murders” at Snopes.com: Urban Legends Reference Pages.
    • Wolnik, Karen A.; Fricke, Fred L.; Bonnin, Evelyn; Gaston, Cynthia M.; Satzger, R. Duane (March 1984). “The Tylenol Tampering Incident – Tracing the Source”. Analytical Chemistry. 56 (3): 466A–470A, 474A. doi:10.1021/ac00267a003. PMID 6711821.

    External links[edit]

    • Professionalism/Johnson & Johnson’s Response to the 1982 Tylenol Poisonings at Wikibooks
    • Chicago portal
    • Illinois portal
    • Criminal justice portal
    • Pharmacy and Pharmacology portal