Author: SeniorWomenWeb

  • The Uber and Lyft of Dog Walking Fight State Oversight

    Dogcare

    By: Elaine S. Povich, Stateline Article, Pew Trusts

    Dogs running in the yard at a dog daycare; Wikipedia

    All Connecticut state Rep. Kim Rose wanted was to make sure home-based “doggie day cares” followed the same health and safety rules as commercial kennels. It sounded deceptively simple.

    But as soon as the Democrat introduced her bill in January, web-based pet care services such as Rover and Wag worked to exempt their business model from the bill. They feared that making their contractors subject to the same licensing and taxes as a commercial kennel would undermine their business.

    Often referred to as the Uber and Lyft of the pet care industry, Rover and Wag contract with freelance dog walkers, pet sitters and in-home pet care workers. Those workers are linked up via the companies’ apps and sent to clients’ houses on demand. Very often, the workers keep pets in their own homes, sometimes during the day, sometimes overnight.

    The gig-economy model for pet care has disrupted a standing industry in somewhat the same way that ride-hailing services upended the taxi industry. And just like in those cases, cities and states are scrambling to make their regulations fit.

    In addition to Connecticut, many other states and cities, including Colorado, Massachusetts and California, are grappling with overseeing the pet care platforms, whether by implementing new statutes or considering legislation that specifically addresses how they do business.

    Yet Rover and Wag have successfully fended off regulations in state after state in recent years, earning exemptions that relieve their gig workers from the oversight required of kennels and pet care professionals.

    As a result, millions of pets are being walked, boarded and cared for by people with no formal training or licensing, whom consumers often don’t know personally and whose homes haven’t been inspected. Traditional kennels say the exemptions aren’t fair and put animals at risk.

    But critics of more regulation say the lax oversight makes sense for gig pet sitters, calling some state lawmakers’ efforts to license dog walkers government overreach and pointing out that unlicensed babysitters routinely care for children.

    “Rover hired a bunch of high-paid lobbyists. They sent out emails to their customers saying we were trying to shut down the biz entirely.” Kim Rose (D)state representative CONNECTICUT

    The app-based model works well for on-call pet sitters, like college students picking up a little extra cash, but it threatens professional pet care operations, said Erin Hatton, a sociology professor at the University of Buffalo who has studied the gig economy.

  • Jo Freeman’s Book Review: Give Me Liberty: A History of America’s Exceptional Idea

    Give Me Liberty: A History of America’s Exceptional Idea

    By Richard Brookhiser

    Published by Basic Books, 2019;  292 pages

    by Jo Freeman

    The desire for liberty is at the core of the United States — which Brookhiser calls America — from long before there were any states. In 13 detailed case studies ranging from 1619 to 1987, the author identifies instances in which the pursuit of liberty has framed the future.

    Liberty takes many forms. In 1619 it was the idea of elected representatives voting on matters of public importance in the Jamestown General Assembly. When the colonies rebelled 150 years later, an extension of that idea was used to justify rejection of the King’s “absolute Tyranny over these States.” These chapters take you into the words of the participants to explore in detail what led them to these conclusions.

    Others explore less seminal moments. Peter Stuyvesant was sent by the Dutch to run its trading post of New Amsterdam. He was “both a martinet and a bigot.” A firm believer in the Dutch Reformed Church, he would not let those of other faiths worship openly in his colony. Quakers, Jews and Lutherans all felt his wrath. The response by 30 villagers, known as the Flushing Remonstrance*, planted the seed of religious liberty. Those who know of the many things named for Stuyvesant in New York should study this chapter. Stuyvesant High School may need to follow the fate of Robert E. Lee High School.

    Slavery was the antithesis of liberty. The first attack on slavery came in 1688, not surprisingly from Pennsylvania Quakers. Some patriot slave-owners understood the contradiction; some did not. Nine of the 13 states began gradual emancipation; four tightened slavery’s grip. Brookhiser writes about New York, “a middling state where slavery was concerned.” New York City had a large population of slaves, but it was a small percentage of the total population. A manumission society was formed in 1785; slavery was legally abolished in 1827.

    Of course everyone should read the chapter on the Seneca Falls Convention, out of which came the **Declaration of Sentiments for women’s rights. Brookhiser tells us what brought Elizabeth Cady Stanton to draft the Declaration, whose most controversial provision was Suffrage but says nothing about Lucretia Mott. Suffrage came slowly. Of the hundred signers, only one lived to see the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

    Among the other seminal moments are chapters on the Statue of Liberty, embossed with Emma Lazarus famous poem***, William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold speech, and one of FDR’s fireside chats.

    There is an unintended subtheme. Culture change is slow. Even when lighted by the lamp of liberty, ending slavery and giving women the vote took a long time.

    If you like to re-live historical moments, you will enjoy this book. Brookhiser takes you inside, using words to help you feel and see what it was like to be there.

    Copyright ©2019 Jo Freeman for SeniorWomen.com

  • 4.7 Million Uninsured People Nationally Could Get a No-Premium Bronze Plan in the ACA Marketplace, Though Deductibles Would be High

    Analysis: Health care sign up

    Half Live in Four Large States: Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia

    As the Affordable Care Act’s open enrollment period nears an end in most areas this week, a new KFF analysis finds that 4.7 million currently uninsured people could get a bronze-level plan for 2020 and pay nothing in premiums after factoring in tax credits, though the deductibles would be high.

    That works out to 28 percent of the 16.7 million uninsured individuals who are potential customers for coverage through ACA marketplaces.

    Half of the uninsured who could get a free bronze plan live in one of four large states: Texas (1,151,300 people), Florida (694,800), North Carolina (338,200) and Georgia (303,600). The analysis has detailed data on the number and share of the uninsured in each state who have access to a free bronze plan.

    Iowa by far has the largest share (59%) of potential marketplace customers who could enroll in a bronze plan without having to pay a premium. This reflects a combination of factors, including the state’s relatively high premiums for its benchmark silver plan that results in larger tax credits for low- and moderate-income residents.

    Other states with large shares of uninsured residents who could sign up for a no-premium bronze plan include Alaska (45%), Wyoming (44%), Idaho (41%), South Dakota (41%), North Carolina (40%), Oklahoma (40%) and South Carolina (40%).

    Chart: More Than a Quarter of Uninsured People Could Get a No-Premium Bronze Plan in the ACA Marketplace

    A bronze plan could provide the uninsured with access to some primary care, no-cost preventive services, and financial protection against high health costs, though they come with very high annual deductibles ($6,506 on average in 2020).

    Consumers may want to consider paying a premium for a silver plan instead so that they can benefit from cost-sharing subsidies available under the ACA. The ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies are available to people with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level who sign up for a silver plan, resulting in deductibles ranging from $209 to $3,268 depending on income level. 

    In most states, potential customers have until Sunday, Dec. 15 to sign up for a marketplace plan, though a few states that run their own marketplaces have extended open enrollment periods. KFF’s Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator allows users to enter their income, age, and family size and get estimates of premiums and available subsidies for insurance purchased on the ACA exchanges. In addition, KFF has updated its searchable online collection of 300 frequently asked questions about the health insurance marketplace, tax credits and other open-enrollment consumer issues.

     

    Read the Issue Brief

     

    Filling the need for trusted information on national health issues, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, California.

  • The Judiciary is Introducing Two Articles of Impeachment Charging the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, With Committing High Crimes and Misdemeanors

    Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following remarks announcing the introduction of articles of impeachment:The Constitution

    “Over the last several months, the investigative committees of the House have been engaged in an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s efforts to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 elections — efforts that compromised our national security and threatened the integrity of our elections.  Throughout this inquiry, he has attempted to conceal the evidence from Congress and the American people.

    “Our President holds the ultimate public trust.  When he betrays that trust, and puts himself before country, he endangers the Constitution, he endangers our democracy and he endangers our national security.  The Framers prescribed a clear remedy for Presidents who violate their Oath of Office.  That is the power of impeachment.  

    “Today, in service to our duty to the Constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment charging the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, with committing high Crimes and Misdemeanors.  

    “The first article is for Abuse of Power.  It is an impeachable offense for the President to exercise the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest.  

    “We must be clear: no one, not even the President, is above the law.

    “I want to recognize the great contributions of the investigative chairs, particularly Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, the Committee on Oversight and Reform’s former Chairman, the late Elijah Cummings, and its new Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, and Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, who helped lay the foundation for the articles we are introducing today.  I also want to thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, who were critical in our work to hold the President accountable and in the drafting of these articles.

    “Later this week, the Judiciary Committee will meet to consider these articles of impeachment, and to make a recommendation to the full House of Representatives.  We do not take this action lightly.  But we have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and —unlike President Trump — we understand that our duty, first and foremost, is to protect the Constitution and the interests of the American people.  That is why we must take this solemn step today. 

    “Elections are the cornerstone of democracy and are foundational to the rule of law.  But the integrity of our next election is at risk from a President who has already sought foreign interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and who consistently puts himself above country.  That is why we must act now.”

  • An Example of Whistleblower Rights and Protections from the US Department of Justice

     Pentagon PapersEditor’s Note: We’re following the House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings but thought that since the issue of the whistleblower  might come up, we would refer to the Whistleblower Rights and Protections as outlined, in this case, by the US Justice Department. There are different rules for private and federal employers so laws and rights will be different for those categories; there is a government website that covers the federal concerns and a number of sites that cover private companies.

    Whistleblower Rights and Protections

    Whistleblowers perform an important service for the public and the Department of Justice (DOJ) when they report evidence of wrongdoing. All DOJ employees, contractors, subcontractors, grantees, subgrantees, and personal services contractors are protected from retaliation for making a protected disclosure. Reports concerning wrongdoing by DOJ employees or within DOJ programs can always be submitted directly to the OIG Hotline.

    If you have any questions about any of the information on this web page, or are concerned that you have experienced retaliation for blowing the whistle, you may contact the OIG’s Whistleblower Protection Coordinator for additional information. You may also consult the web site of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or review this OSC pamphlet, “Know Your Rights When Reporting Wrongs.”

    HOW TO MAKE A PROTECTED DISCLOSURE

    It is unlawful for your employer to retaliate against you for making a “protected disclosure.” A disclosure is protected if it meets two criteria:

    1. The disclosure must be based on a reasonable belief that wrongdoing has occurred. The definition of wrongdoing varies slightly depending on your place of employment.
    2. The disclosure must also be made to a person or entity that is authorized to receive it. Employees who reasonably believe they have evidence of wrongdoing are always protected for submitting that information to the OIG Hotline. However, as explained in the chart below, the other authorized audiences are different, depending on your place of employment.

    Disclosing Classified Information

    A disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse that includes classified information is not a protected disclosure under the whistleblower laws unless the disclosure is made in accordance with the laws and rules that govern the proper handling and transmission of classified information. For example, you are not protected for disclosing classified information to an unauthorized recipient, even if you reasonably believe the information is evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse. You can make a protected disclosure of classified information to the OIG, but the information may not be transmitted using the OIG’s unclassified hotline. For more information on how to properly provide classified information to the OIG, please contact the OIG’s hotline at (800) 869-4499 or the OIG Whistleblower Protection Coordinator.

    In addition, section 8H of the Inspector General Act sets forth a detailed process for employees in the Intelligence Community, including FBI employees and employees of FBI contractors, who intend to provide classified information to Congress. Prior to initiating a report of classified information under section 8H of the Inspector General Act, the employee should carefully review the Inspector General Act’s provisions or contact the OIG Whistleblower Protection Coordinator for additional information.

    Whistleblower Protection Coordinator

    The Inspector General Act requires the DOJ OIG to designate an individual to serve as the OIG’s Whistleblower Protection Coordinator. The OIG’s Whistleblower Protection Coordinator carries out a number of key functions, including:

    • Educating DOJ employees and managers about prohibitions on retaliation for protected disclosures;
    • Educating employees who have made or are contemplating making a protected disclosure about the rights and remedies available to them;
    • Ensuring that the OIG is promptly and thoroughly reviewing complaints that it receives, and that it is communicating effectively with whistleblowers throughout the process; and
    • Coordinating with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, other agencies, and non-governmental organizations on relevant matters.

    The OIG Whistleblower Protection Coordinator cannot act as a legal representative, agent, or advocate for any individual whistleblower.

    For more information, you may contact the OIG Whistleblower Coordinator program.

    Nondisclosure Agreements

    Pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, the following statement applies to non-disclosure policies, forms, or agreements of the federal government with current or former employees, including those in effect before the Act’s effective date of December 27, 2012:

    “These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive Order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive Orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.”

    The controlling Executive Orders and statutory provisions in the event of any conflict with a non-disclosure policy, form, or agreement include, as of March 14, 2013:

    • Executive Order No. 13526 (governing classified national security information);
    • Section 7211 of Title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to Congress);
    • Section 1034 of Title 10, United States Code as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to Congress by members of the military);
    • Section 2302(b)(8) of Title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats);
    • Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents);
    • The statutes which protect against disclosure that may compromise the national security, including Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of Title 18, United States Code; and
    • Section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)).
  • Monday, Dec.9th, 2019: House Judiciary Hearing to Receive Counsel Presentations of Evidence in the Impeachment Inquiry of President Donald Trump

    Dec 7, 2019

    Washington, D.C. – On Monday, December 9, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to receive presentations from counsels to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee, as authorized by the House of Representatives under H. Res. 660.  Today, Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the names of the counsels who will present before the Committee:

    House Committee on the JudiciaryBarry Berke

    Barry Berke, right
    Majority Counsel

    Stephen Castor ( (seen on right below with Rep.  Jim Jordan who has his hand in front of his face)
    Minority Counsel

    House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

    Daniel Goldman
    Majority Counsel

    Stephen CastorSteve Castor with Jim Jordan
    Minority Counsel

    Pursuant to the Judiciary Committee procedures adopted under H. Res. 660, Monday’s hearing will proceed in two phases.  First, Majority and Minority counsel for the Judiciary Committee will present opening statements for up to one hour, equally divided.  Second, Majority and Minority counsel for the Intelligence Committee will present for up to 90 minutes, equally divided.  Majority and Minority counsel for the Intelligence Committee will then take questions from the Committee.

    Date:               Monday, December 9, 2019

    Time:              9:00 a.m. EST

    Location:        1100 Longworth House Office Building,  Washington D.C.

    Livestream:    The House Judiciary Committee hearing will stream live here.

    116th Congress

    Press Release from the Minority:

    “Chairman Nadler has no choice but to postpone Monday’s hearing in the wake of a last-minute document transmission that shows just how far Democrats have gone to pervert basic fairness. . . . Democrats waited until after Speaker Pelosi announced that articles of impeachment were imminent and chose the eve of the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing to share loads of documents that Chairman Schiff has had since this investigation began.” 

    Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, has demanded Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, delay Monday’s hearing after Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Foreign Affairs Committee and Budget Committee transmitted thousands of pages of documents to House Judiciary Republicans less than 48 hours before Judiciary’s hearing scheduled to examine impeachment presentations from Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

    The document release comes 25 days after Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Chairman Nadler requesting all documents related to the impeachment investigation according to House Rule XI, 2(e)2(a). Republicans received no response from the chairman.

    “Chairman Nadler has no choice but to postpone Monday’s hearing in the wake of a last-minute document transmission that shows just how far Democrats have gone to pervert basic fairness. Nearly a month after every Republican on our committee asserted our clear right to see all underlying documents held by the committees involved in the impeachment investigation, we have received no response from the chairman. Instead, Democrats waited until after Speaker Pelosi announced that articles of impeachment were imminent and chose the eve of the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing to share loads of documents that Chairman Schiff has had since this investigation began. It is impossible for Judiciary members to sift through thousands and thousands of pages in any meaningful way in a matter of hours,” said Collins.

    “Moreover, Democrats still refuse to release all documentation in their possession, though Republicans have demanded this according to rules of the House — which Democrats themselves adopted in January. The information Democrats released today is partial, biased and curated to support accusations that have, to date, been thinner than cotton candy.

    “Americans still don’t have access to any information that Adam Schiff hasn’t chosen to weave into his trail of lies. On behalf of millions of American voters who deserve the truth, Chairman Nadler must postpone this hearing while the Judiciary Committee examines these documents. At the same time, Chairman Schiff must release to House members the complete body of underlying evidence that he has concealed.

    “The unfairness and dishonesty of this impeachment sham continue to be unprecedented. In violating the rules that this House adopted democratically, Democrats have violated their oaths of office. Under Speaker Pelosi’s leadership, House Democrats have eroded the integrity of our chamber and sacrificed the confidence of Americans who trust Congress to balance power, not abuse it.”

  • Making Marvels: Science and Splendor at the Courts of Europe; Don’t Miss The Draughtsman-Writer

    Making Marvels
    Image: Gerhard Emmoser (German, active 1556–84). Celestial globe with clockwork, 1579. Partially gilded silver, gilded brass (case); brass, steel (movement).  Diameter of globe: 5 1/2 in. (14 cm). Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

     

    Related Videos

    Between 1550 and 1750, nearly every royal family in Europe assembled vast collections of exquisite and entertaining objects. Lavish public spending and the display of precious metals were important expressions of power, and possessing artistic and technological innovations conveyed status. In fact, advancements in art, science, and technology were often prominently showcased in elaborate court entertainments that were characteristic of the period.  Making Marvels: Science and Splendor at the Courts of Europe  explores the complex ways in which the wondrous objects collected and displayed by early modern European monarchs expressed these rulers’ ability to govern. 

  • “In America, No One Is Above the Law”: House of Representatives Moving Forward with Articles of Impeachment

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered remarks announcing that the House of Representatives will move forward with drafting articles of impeachment.  Below are the Speaker’s remarks as delivered; Common Dreams photo

    Speaker Pelosi.  Good morning.

    pelosi + articles of impeachment speech

    Let us begin where our Founders began in 1776: ‘When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…’

    With those words, our Founders courageously began our Declaration of Independence from an oppressive monarch, for, among other grievances, the King’s refusal to follow rightfully-passed laws.

    In the course of today’s events, it becomes necessary for us to address, among other grievances, the President’s failure to faithfully execute the law.

    When crafting the Constitution, the Founders feared the return of a monarchy in America.  And, having just fought a war of independence, they specifically feared the prospect of a king president corrupted by foreign influence.

    During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison – the architect of the Constitution – warned that a President might ‘betray his trust to foreign powers… which might prove fatal to the republic.’

    Another Founder, Gouverneur Morris, feared that a president ‘may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust.’  He emphasized that, ‘This Magistrate is not the King…The people are the King.’

    They therefore created a constitutional remedy to protect against a dangerous or corrupt leader: impeachment.

    Unless the Constitution contained an impeachment provision, one Founder warned, a president might ‘spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.’

    Similarly, George Mason insisted that a president who ‘procured his appointment in the first instance’ through improper and corrupt acts might ‘repeat his guilt’ and return to power.

    During the debate over impeachment at the Constitutional Convention, George Mason asked: ‘Shall any man be above justice?  Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?’

    In his great wisdom, he knew that injustice committed by the President erodes the rule of law – the very idea that – of fair justice, which is the bedrock of our democracy. 

    And if we allow a president to be above the law, we do so surely at the peril of our republic.

  • 10 AM, EST, Wednesday Hearings Livestreamed: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump; Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment

    On Wednesday, December 4, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.”

    Livestream:    The House Judiciary Committee hearing will stream live here.

    Our Social Media Link House Judiciary Cmte

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary 

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HouseJudDems/

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/housejuddems/ 

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement in response to White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone’s letter informing the Committee that President Trump would not participate in its first impeachment hearing scheduled for tomorrow: 


    “Late last night, the President and his counsel turned down our invitation to participate in Wednesday’s hearing. His response is unfortunate because allowing the President to participate has been a priority for the House from the outset. That is why the House included the opportunity to participate in H. Res 660.

    “The American people deserve transparency. If the President thinks the call was ‘perfect’ and there is nothing to hide then he would turn over the thousands of pages of documents requested by Congress, allow witnesses to testify instead of blocking testimony with baseless privilege claims, and provide any exculpatory information that refutes the overwhelming evidence of his abuse of power.”

    Witnesses:
                             Noah Feldman 
                             Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law; 
                            Harvard Law School
                      

                            Pamela S. Karlan
                            Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, 
                            Supreme Court Litigation Clinic;  Stanford Law School

                           Michael Gerhardt 
                           Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence
                           The University of North Carolina School of Law

                          Jonathan Turley
                          J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
                          The George Washington University Law School

    Date:            Wednesday, December 4, 2019

    Time:            10:00 a.m. EST

    Location:     1100 Longworth House Office Building,  Washington DC

    Wed, 12/04/2019 – 10:00am/EST; 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
     

    Chairman Nadler Statement on White House Refusal to Participate in First Impeachment Hearing

    Dec 2, 2019

     Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement in response to White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone’s letter informing the Committee that President Trump would not participate in its first impeachment hearing scheduled for tomorrow: 

    “Late last night, the President and his counsel turned down our invitation to participate in Wednesday’s hearing. His response is unfortunate because allowing the President to participate has been a priority for the House from the outset. That is why the House included the opportunity to participate in H. Res 660.

    “The American people deserve transparency. If the President thinks the call was ‘perfect’ and there is nothing to hide then he would turn over the thousands of pages of documents requested by Congress, allow witnesses to testify instead of blocking testimony with baseless privilege claims, and provide any exculpatory information that refutes the overwhelming evidence of his abuse of power.”

    116th Congress
  • “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report” – House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Released the Draft Report to All Members and the Public

    Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the draft report – “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report” – to all Members and the public. The Committee will vote tonight to issue the report, before the Chairman of the Committee transmits it and any accompanying materials to the House Judiciary Committee consistent with H.Res. 660. (below, Time Magazine illustration of Nixon Impeachment)OMB

    The draft report was written by the staff of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs Committees.

    After releasing the report to all Members and the public, Chairman Adam Schiff, Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney and Chairman Eliot Engel stated:

    “We want to thank the Members and staff of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs Committees for their hard work in conducting this investigation over the last three months and preparing this report.

    “The evidence is clear that President Trump used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election. These investigations were designed to benefit his 2020 presidential reelection campaign. 

    “The evidence is also clear that President Trump conditioned official acts on the public announcement of these investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.

    “Finally, the evidence is clear that after his scheme to secure foreign help in his reelection was uncovered, President Trump engaged in categorical and unprecedented obstruction in order to cover-up his misconduct.

    “These matters are not seriously contested. To the contrary, they make it plain that President Trump abused the power of his office for personal and political gain, at the expense of our national security.

    “The President’s actions have damaged our national security, undermined the integrity of the next election, and violated his oath of office. They have also challenged the very core of our Constitutional system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law.

    “It will be up to the Congress to determine whether these acts rise to the level of an impeachable offense, whether the President shall be held to account, and whether we as a nation are committed to the rule of law—or, instead, whether a president who uses the power of his office to coerce foreign interference in a U.S. election is something that Americans must simply ‘get over.’

    “With the release of our report, the American people can review for themselves the evidence detailing President Trump’s betrayal of the public trust.”

    As stated in the Executive Summary to the draft report, the Committees concluded that:

    The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.  As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign.  The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations:  a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.

    During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance.  President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory.  In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.  Although President Trump’s scheme intentionally bypassed many career personnel, it was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of senior Administration officials, including the President’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.  In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to “get over it.”

    President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President’s reelection campaign.  Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today.  However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country:  impeachment.  Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President’s misconduct warrants that remedy.

    In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry.  Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.  As required under House Resolution 660, the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, has prepared this report to detail the evidence uncovered to date, which will now be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration.