President Trump referred to the impeachment process as a “lynching.” In colloquial usage, the word means that a person is being unfairly treated – outside the bounds of law and tradition. We often call our adversaries in such a situation as a “lynch mob.”
It is, of course, a rhetorical allusion – not a statement of literality. It is a “catch phrase” that has been in common use for generations.
In its current manifestation, it is also another example of how Trump hatred has distorted and reversed the norms of civil discourse. Within moments of Trump’s use of the word, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement went into high gear – claiming that Trump is engaging in racist rhetoric.
According to virtually every Democrat presidential candidate, the use of the word was ripping open the deep wounds of slavery and segregation – alluding to an era in which more than 4000 people were summarily hanged without due process or the right of a fair trial. About three- fourths of the victims were black Americans.
According to such shameless race baiters as Al Sharpton, Trump’s use of the word was more evidence of his racist soul – minimally an insensitivity to the impact such language has on the African American community.
As with all anti-Trump narratives, the concocted lynching controversy was played out in the elitist east coast media for days and would be archived for periodic future use – whenever the propaganda press chose to pile on with a repetitious history of condemnations of Trump. It has now become a permanent addition to the media echo chamber.
As with much of the negative reporting on Trump, the lynching controversy requires a complete re-invention of history and reality. As an allusion the use of “lynch mob” and “lynching” have been as common as mosquitoes on a hot humid day in Georgia.
Former Vice President Joe Biden was one of the Democrat hopefuls who did not have much to say about Trump’s use of the word. Maybe that is because in a television interview during the Clinton impeachment hearing, Biden referred to the process as a … you guessed it … lynching.
In a total escape from logic and reality, Biden now claims that Trump used the word deliberately while he, Biden, used the word unintendedly – without malice aforethought. Really? Biden then added his use of the “L” word to his growing list of apologies of past statements and actions.
Democrat Congressman Jim Mc Dermott also used the newly forbidden word – and he even went further in a speech on the House floor during the Clinton impeachment hearing. He factiously suggested that Republicans were “… going to find a rope, find a tree, and ask questions later.” And how did his Democrat colleagues respond? They applauded.
Then-Senator John Kerry and then-Senate Leader Harry Reid were also among the verbalizers of the “L” word from the Senate floor, no less.
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler criticized House Republicans for criticizing the impeachment process by saying, “In pushing the process, in pushing the arguments of fairness and due process the Republicans so far have been running a lynch mob.”
Perhaps the most notable examples of using the “L” word came from New York Congressman Gregory Meeks and Illinois Congressman Danny Davis. Meeks called the impeachment of Clinton a “political lynching” and Davis referred to it as a “lynching in the People’s House.” Meeks and Davis are both black legislators. If “lynching” was such a hurtful racist word, you would think they – above all people – would have known that.
It is obvious what is going on here. Reality cannot stand in the way of maligning Trump – and that hypocrisy remains the dominant characteristic of the political class.
So … ignore the mock shock. And, if you want to get away from all the heavy political news of the day, you can always play “Hangman” online at hangmanwordgame.com – or as a “cool math game” at coolmathgames.com. There are other sites featuring what is described as a “classic fun game.”
FOOTNOTE: If there is any value in conjuring up the historic reality of lynchings in America it might be to remind us that virtually every lynching of a black American was done by Democrats with the tacit approval – or even participation of – the racist and segregationist Democrat leadership in Dixie. Repeated Republican attempts to make lynching a federal civil rights crime in the 1930s, were defeated by President Franklin Roosevelt and his Democrat allies in Congress. Just saying.
So, there ‘tis.
Yes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually said that – and the pro-impeachment press played her comment without rebuttal. That let her blatant and obvious political lie stand. That is what the elitist media do.
But what about … ?
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters calling for Trump’s impeachment BEFORE he was inaugurated. She raised that desire during the transition period when the Democratic Party, the political left and most of the east coast liberal media were in a state of shock. The knee-jerk mood on the left was to undo what the public had done – elect Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States.
Since it is not possible to impeach a President before he takes office – despite what unhinged folks like Waters seem to think — the dazed left tried to get Electoral College electors to break faith by defying the vote of their constituents to elect someone – anyone else — to be President. That was not even the craziest idea emanating from the deranged left.
We can recall that there was even a totally idiotic effort to have the Congress refuse to seat President Trump – even though the Congress has no authority to do that. And the Congress can only impeach AFTER a person takes office. Duh! And that is exactly what they are trying to do now.
In offering up her mendacious talking point, Nancy appears to have conveniently forgotten that Maxine Waters repeated and repeated her call for an impeachment of Trump throughout his years in office. Pelosi seems to have forgotten that Texas Congressman Al Green entered a bill of impeachment in the first year of the Trump presidency. Other bills of impeachment were entered subsequently. These folks obviously came to Congress with malice of forethought to impeach Trump.
Did Pelosi forget about Minnesota Congresswoman Rashid Tlaib who told her young son that she was going to Washington to “Impeach the m*****f****r.” When she relayed that bit of dubious motherhood to the others in her freshman class, she was cheered and applauded vigorously.
New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made no secret of her intent to push for impeachment of the President as soon as she was sworn in.
Contrary to Pelosi’s contention that no one comes to Congress with a desire to impeach a President, it is more accurate to say that the vast majority of her Democrat caucus in the 116th Congress came there motivated by one unifying thought – impeach President Trump.
So, there, tis.
It seems pretty much a given that Articles of Impeachment will be drafted against President Trump in the House. However, it is also just as likely that he will not be convicted and removed from office in the Republican dominated Senate.
However, some political experts are predicting that while Trump will stay, the GOP majority in the Senate could be a victim of the fallout from an impeachment trial. Democrats are targeting President Trump. What they may get instead is the Senate, and could this really be their plan all along?
According to David M. Drucker, writing for the Washington Examiner, here is how and why this can play out.
In a Senate trial to adjudicate articles of impeachment sent up by the House, “at least a handful of vulnerable Senate Republicans risk the wrath of grassroots conservatives if they vote to convict and remove Trump from office. The same group, staring down impeachment with the 2020 primary season drawing near, could just as easily alienate general election voters with a vote to acquit the president,” writes Drucker.
He goes on to say that while Trump is unlikely to be convicted by the Senate, some Republicans will be tempted to support it.
“The House makes the articles of impeachment; we sit as a jury,” Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley told reporters Monday. “There isn’t any way you’re going to know how that plays out until it’s part of public discussion.”
As of the most recent polls, Republican voters are heavily against impeachment. Democrats are strongly in favor, and independents are leaning supportive. It is that dynamic that could squeeze Republican incumbents up for reelection in battleground states, forcing them to choose between appeasing a feverishly pro-Trump GOP base or distancing themselves from an unpopular president to appeal to swing voters and soft partisans. Among them are Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, and Martha McSally of Arizona.
“They were all going to have tough races to begin with, and Trump isn’t making it any easier on them,” said a Republican strategist, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly.
Republicans Senators Will Be Bound By the Rules
Under Senate rules, Republicans during a trial would be severely limited from running interference for Trump. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would preside and hold significant power over motions, and that could present more problems for Republicans. Republicans could find themselves fending off accusations from the Right that they are abetting the Democrats if the trial goes poorly for the president.
“Senators don’t have an active role. The rules mandate that we sit silently,” Sen. Josh Hawley told the Washington Examiner. The Missouri Republican conceded that there would be virtually nothing he or his GOP colleagues could do to overturn rulings made by Roberts that might damage Trump. “It will be strange and it will be hard,” he said.
If you follow the recent polls – and God knows why you would – they indicate that a slim majority – around 52 percent or so – favor impeaching President Trump. Some polls even indicate that a majority of the American public favor removing him from office.
That gives Democrats a rationale for moving ahead with their three-and-a-half-year campaign to undo the 2016 election. It is now 99.9 percent certain that they will impeach the President. They are claiming popular support.
Since at least one or two Republicans in the House and Utah Senator Mitt Romney in the Senate have expressed support for the impeachment inquiry, Democrats also claim bipartisan support. A few outliers are not, however, an indication of bipartisan support.
But then there are those other polls – the ones that get much less notice by the east coast left-wing news media. Those are the state-based polls in such battleground states as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. In those key states, most folks OPPOSE impeachment. In those critical swing congressional districts in which a Democrat won in a district previously carried by Trump, the voters are very much OPPOSED to impeachment. The numbers generally run in the 53 to 40 range against — with the remainder undecided.
These numbers should scare the hell out of Democrats presidential candidates and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It could mean the re-election of Trump and the re-taking of the House by the GOP if they proceed with impeachment – and they have little choice but to impeach. If they did not vote to impeach, their radical base would go nuts and Trump would rightfully declare all their talk of criminal and impeachable behavior to be political nonsense.
The apparent disparity in the polling numbers between the national figures and the state-based figures reflects the same dynamic that gave Trump the majority in the Electoral College even as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. It could happen again based on the current polling numbers.
It is the weight of the large populations in blue states. Such states a California, New York and Illinois produce HUGE numbers for the Democrats – ergo votes for impeachment. But no matter how lopsided the numbers, the votes in the Electoral College would favor Trump. You can win California with 90 percent of the vote, but if you lose Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, you are losing the election.
In 2016, California alone gave Clinton the votes needed to gain a majority of the popular vote. But it was Trump’s narrow victories in several of the key battleground states that gave him the Electoral College by a significant amount – and with it, the presidency.
If you translate the current polling numbers to votes in the 2020 General Election – and assume that Trump can carry states and congressional districts in which there is opposition to impeachment, much less removal – it is very possible that 2020 could be a repeat of 2016. The Democrat candidate might again win the popular vote – based on lopsided majorities in California and New York — and still, lose the Electoral College votes to Trump.
An additional danger for Pelosi is that many of those Trump congressional districts that flipped in 2018 will flop in 2020 – giving back the majority in the House to the GOP and sending Pelosi into retirement.
Pelosi & Company fully understand that it is extremely unlikely that the Senate will remove Trump from office. They are banking on inflicting enough damage on Trump and the Republican brand to enable them to win both the White House and the Senate. It is a high-risk strategy with no guarantee that it will not backfire. But Democrats are already well down the slippery slope of impeachment. Whether it is a good strategy for Democrats or a potential disaster, only time will tell.
So, there ‘tis.
For all of those who have been saying how “brave” it has been for Senator Mitt Romney to speak out against President Trump the way he has, meet “Pierre Delecto.” That is the name on a fictitious twitter account the Utah Senator created to anonymously criticize the president.
Two journalists from different publications have pieced together enough clues to confirm that Senator Mitt Romney has a secret Twitter account — under the amusing and vaguely French “nom de plume,” Pierre Delecto. The former Republican presidential nominee created the account in 2011, just before announcing his bid for the White House.
During an interview with The Atlantic this week, Romney mentioned to writer McKay Coppins that he indeed uses a secret Twitter account — “What do they call me, a lurker?” he said. Romney also maintains a verified personal account and an official one as senator from Utah. While Romney revealed his secret Twitter habit, he did not reveal the handle. That took some sleuthing by Slate writer Ashley Feinberg who assumed Romney would be following his family members with the secret Twitter persona, and by tracing the follower of his family, she discovered the common friend “Pierre Delecto.”
According to Feinberg, what was so telling about Delecto’s account was the content. His first follow was Romney’s oldest son, Tagg, Feinberg found. He also followed lesser-known Romney family members and quite a number of high-profile Republicans and political pundits. Feinberg also noted that of Delecto’s 257 “likes,” 30 were on tweets from Romney’s real Twitter account. She was confident that Delecto was, in fact, Mitt Romney himself – and she was right!
Meanwhile It’s Open Season on Mittens By the GOP
Despite the secret account, Romney has continued to be openly critical of the president, even publicly supportive of his impeachment, which has most of the GOP furious. Once conservative, now Trumpian groups such as the Club For Growth call him a “Democratic secret asset” for not completely discounting the idea of impeachment.
President Trump himself has lashed out at Romney’s disloyalty to him, and by extension the Republican Party. At a recent press conference the President complained that Republicans were not united enough in defending him against what he called “vicious” adversaries bent on removing him. Launching into a series of attacks on Democrats, Trump said that they were “vicious and they stick together. They don’t have Mitt Romney in their midst — they don’t have people like that.”
Romney, a frequent Trump critic, has called the president’s attempts to solicit dirt on a political rival “wrong and appalling,” making him one of the most outspoken Republicans on the president’s behavior in office, and has declined to rule out impeaching him. In a fiery speech last week, Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, said the Syria withdrawal would be seen as “a bloodstain on the annals of American history.”
As we recently reported, Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo, walked back her announcement that the Justice Department inspector general’s report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses would be released as early as Friday, October 18.
Bartiromo has now gone on record saying that the long anticipated IGs report will likely not be out until “the end of the month.”
However, those goalposts seem to be moving again. As Fox News is reporting, “As soon as Horowitz is done with his review of the FISA warrant application, the counterintelligence investigation, the Trump campaign, we’ll have a hearing in public with Horowitz and we’ll call a bunch of witnesses,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Fox Business’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Last month, Horowitz submitted a draft of his report to Attorney General Bill Barr, who was reviewing the document — fueling the belief that the public release was coming soon.
But a Justice Department official told Fox News last week that the report is still in the declassification process — one of the final steps to be completed before the report is released to the public.
“The FBI and the DOJ are working together smoothly on the declassification process,” the official told Fox News.
President Trump — who has the authority to declassify and release as much of the report as he wants — has been hyping its forthcoming release. “The IG report is going to come out soon, and we’ll see what happens,” the president told reporters last week, adding he’s “waiting for the report like everybody else.”
“But I predict you will see things that you don’t even believe, the level of corruption — whether it’s [James] Comey; whether it’s [Peter] Strzok and his lover, [Lisa] Page; whether it’s so many other people — [Andrew] McCabe; whether it’s President Obama himself,” Trump charged.
Trump added, “Let’s see whether or not it’s President Obama. Let’s see whether or not they put that in.”
Horowitz announced the completion of his investigation one month ago. The inspector general gave a draft to the Justice Department and the FBI for a classification review, after which the final draft will be delivered to Congress.
Republicans assert that top Justice Department and FBI officials misled the FISA court by using an unverified dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele to obtain warrants to electronically monitor onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Democrats have dismissed the allegations of wrongdoing during the Trump-Russia investigation and are concerned that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the early stages of the Russia investigation, being overseen by Attorney General William Barr, may be an effort to discredit the work of special counsel Robert Mueller.
On top of Trump Deranged Syndrome (TDS), for First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is showing signs of Terminal Russian Universal Meddling Paranoia (TRUMP).
Do not misunderstand. I do believe that the Russians meddled in the 2016 General Election. In fact, I am quite sure that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been meddling in our domestic and foreign affairs before and since. I think that is also true of the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Cubans – and even the Brits, the French the Germans and that guy in all-white in teeny-tiny Vatican City.
In fact, we meddle in other country’s elections. One need only recall how a bunch of President Obama’s political advisors traveled to Israel to try to defeat President Benjamin Netanyahu. We meddled in any number of South and Central American national elections. We meddled big time when we used the Army to remove and arrest Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega. He is still serving time in an American prison.
Though there is some equivalency, that is not to minimize the extensive and elaborate efforts undertaken by Putin to disrupt our political and social harmony. It is just that Hillary seems to have gone over the edge.
Granted, losing the presidency to Donald Trump had to be a YUGE blow to her ambitions and ego. I mean … on the morning of Election Day 2016, this lady was prepared to be giving a victory speech later in the day. Was to become the first female President in American History and the first First Lady to become President – the most powerful woman in the world. The emotional and mental shock of losing was commensurate with the perceived certainty of her victory. And she loses everything to … Donald Trump.
No doubt, every day of the Trump presidency must be an agonizing mental comparison of the “only if …” The bitterness and rage within her soul must be a consuming conflagration that intensifies rather than subsides.
As a result, the lady has gone bonkers. As a defense … an explanation … of her failure, she appears to have created her own internal reality. And when it rises to the surface like the hot magma of a volcano, it reveals her emotional state.
Since losing the election, Clinton has expressed several theories to explain her loss – and they all have to do with ignoring the facts and advancing her narrative-of-choice. Most have to do with the Russians. Though everyone concluded that the election was not stolen. There were no examples of wholesale flipping of votes by Russians hacking into the various voting systems.
It was also reported – and conveniently forgotten – that some of the Russian disinformation campaigns on social media was directed against Trump – and that much of it was designed to trigger social unrest along racial lines. But everyone from President Obama on down assured America that while there was Russian meddling it did not … repeat NOT … alter the outcome of the election. It was much later when Democrats and their media cronies spun the narrative in a much different direction.
In the spirit that she did not lose the election, but it was stolen, Clinton now believes that had it not been for Russian meddling, she would have won the election in the Electoral College – although there is no evidence to support that claim.
Suffering from “the phone doesn’t ring much anymore,” – not to mention all those big-dollar speaking engagements – Clinton is using her limited exposure to the national spotlight to advance increasingly bizarre and irrational theories and accusations.
It is difficult to image that Clinton could conceivably top her latest. In a recent podcast, the former First Lady alleged that Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” Not just soft on Russia as a matter of policy, but as a witting operative of Vladimir Putin.
Clinton goes on to suggest that Gabbard will abandon her run for President in the Democratic primaries to become a third-party candidate for the sole purpose of siphoning off enough Democrat votes to get Trump re-elected. That is unless the 2016 Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, serves in that role AGAIN. Yes, again.
It seems Clinton believes Stein was part of the Russian meddling – a Putin asset – designed to take away votes from Democrats. Under that theory, you might also believe that Ralph Nader was Russia’s guy to take votes from Vice President Al Gore. And what international conspiracy empowered Ross Perot to damage the re-election effort of President George H. W. Bush?
Whatever her state of mind, Clinton’s public statements are increasingly sounding like a plot from a Russian novel. Her only chance of preserving a reputation of dignity may be to take a vow of silence.
So, there ‘tis.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recapped Wednesday’s tumultuous White House showdown with President Trump over Syria, saying she told him his troop pullout was a gift to Vladimir Putin, and questioned him about helping Saudi Arabia, before Trump had what she called “a meltdown.”
However, according to President Trump and others in the meeting, it was “Nervous Nancy” who had the “meltdown.” After Pelosi walked out on the meeting, the president took to Twitter, responding to the latest Democrat attacks questioning his mental health and saying that it was he who had the “meltdown.” Trump tweeted that either Pelosi has mental problems or she and other Democrats deliberately put their partisan interests above the interests of those of the country.
Pelosi reportedly stormed out of the meeting with top White House officials, citing disrespectful treatment by President Trump. Republican lawmakers who were at the meeting, however, have said Pelosi’s claims make no sense.
“Inside the meeting, what I listen to, the speaker referred to the President I thought was unbecoming. The only thing that happened in this meeting was the Democrat leadership got up and walked away. When there was a time of crisis, leaders should stay whether they like what is said or not and actually work to solve a problem.”
— Representative Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif.)
Meanwhile, Democrats are increasingly focusing on the 2020 elections, while also continuing their push for presidential impeachment. Pelosi defended her party’s impeachment effort, saying it was about the rule of law, not electoral politics.
“I keep saying to people impeachment is about the truth and the Constitution of the United States. Any other issues that you have disapproving of the way the president has dealt with Syria, whatever the subject is, the reluctance and cowardice to do something about gun violence, the cruelty of not wanting to help our Dreamers and transgender people, the denial about the climate crisis we face, the list goes on,” she said. “That’s about the election. That has nothing to do with what is happening in terms of our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.”
Trump has slammed the impeachment process as a witch hunt and scam by the Democrats, because they know they can’t beat him at the ballot box.
As reported by the Associated Press and other news outlets, Maryland Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, died Thursday of complications from longstanding health problems. He was 68 years old. Cummings was a sharecropper’s son who rose to become a civil rights champion and the powerful chairman of one of the U.S. House committees leading an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
As chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Cummings often found himself at odds with President Trump. Cummings led investigations of the president’s governmental dealings, including probes in 2019 relating to Trump’s family members serving in the White House.
Cummings died at Gilchrist Hospice Care, a Johns Hopkins affiliate. As chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, he was one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, and he has played a key role in the House Democrats’ ongoing efforts to impeach Trump.
Tributes poured in Thursday from lawmakers and others in politics on both sides of the aisle.
“I was shocked and saddened to learn the news this morning of my dear friend’s passing,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a fellow Maryland Democrat, said in a statement. “Elijah Cummings was a man of principle, patriotism, and conviction, whose loss will be deeply felt throughout the State of Maryland and our country.”
At the White House, the flag was lowered to half-staff. Despite Cummings and Trump often tossing unkind words at one another, the president had nothing but praise for the deceased congressman.
“My warmest condolences to the family and many friends of Congressman Elijah Cummings,” Trump tweeted. “I got to see first-hand the strength, passion and wisdom of this highly respected political leader. His work and voice on so many fronts will be very hard, if not impossible, to replace!”
Cummings Had “Longstanding” Health Issues
Cummings’ office said in a brief statement that he died “due to complications concerning longstanding health challenges.” Cummings had been in ill health the past few years, navigating the Capitol in a motorized cart and using a walker.
“He worked until his last breath because he believed our democracy was the highest and best expression of our collective humanity,” his wife, Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, said Thursday.
Cummings did not return to work after an undisclosed medical procedure that he said would only keep him away for about a week. The New York Times reported that Cummings had heart surgery in 2017 and had a bacterial infection in his knee.
However, Cummings had not been seen the past few weeks at closed-door interviews, alongside House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel. Yet, every subpoena, document request or statement which was issued on impeachment of late was done in the name of all three committee chairs. New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney is next in seniority to take over the gavel of the committee.
The committee postponed a planned hearing Thursday.
Rudy Giuliani said that he was “disappointed” in former National Security Adviser John Bolton, after reports emerged that he had called Giuliani a “hand grenade” over his Ukraine investigations and that Bolton had told a top aide to alert a lawyer in the National Security Council over Giuliani’s apparent meddling in State affairs.
“I am disappointed in John,” Giuliani said in a statement to Fox News. “I’m not sure he realizes I received all this evidence as part of my representation of the president. It was all part of the evidence, and suppression of evidence, involving Ukrainian collusion and the origin of some of the false information against the president.”
The comments from the president’s personal attorney came after it emerged that Fiona Hill, a former senior director to Russian and Eurasian affairs, told lawmakers Monday that a meeting between Ukrainian and U.S. officials left her and Bolton so concerned that he told her to alert John Eisenberg, a lawyer at the NSC. According to the New York Times, Hill said Bolton told her to notify Eisenberg about the efforts by Giuliani, and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland to press Ukraine to investigate Democrats.
“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Bolton allegedly told Hill, according to the Times. Hill said Bolton had previously called Giuliani a “hand grenade who’s going to blow everyone up.”
The dramatic testimony demonstrated how Giuliani and others’ efforts to investigate activity in Ukraine — particularly that of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter– has split the White House.
House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry last month, alleging that Trump withheld crucial US military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force the Ukrainians into investigating his political opponent — specifically Biden’s role in the firing of a top prosecutor who had been investigating a Ukrainian gas company, where Hunter Biden sat on the board.
Trump has denied any quid pro quo, and claims instead that he was only looking to crackdown on corruption. He has instead attempted to direct attention to Hunter Biden’s activities in both Ukraine and China.
As the impeachment inquiry has heated up, it has also brought more scrutiny to Giuliani’s role in spearheading a separate investigation into Ukraine. The New York Times reported Friday that prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether the former New York City mayor broke lobbying laws in his own dealings with Ukraine. On Monday, Reuters first reported that Giuliani’s firm had been paid $500,000 in 2018 by one of the two Ukrainian-American businessmen arrested last week on campaign finance charges.
Trump gave his backing to Giuliani on Saturday, tweeting that he was a “great guy and wonderful lawyer.”
“So now they are after the legendary “crime buster” and greatest Mayor in the history of NYC, Rudy Giuliani. He may seem a little rough around the edges sometimes, but he is also a great guy and wonderful lawyer,” he tweeted. “Such a one-sided Witch Hunt going on in USA. Deep State. Shameful!”