Trump is stonewalling Congress. The House should respond with a formal impeachment inquiry vote.

President Donald Trump speaks after a signing ceremony for a trade agreement with Japan in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Monday, Oct. 7, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

On the afternoon of Oct. 8, the White House sent a letter to House Democrats describing the ongoing impeachment inquiry as “constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process.” This followed the Trump administration’s decision to block Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, from testifying before Congress earlier that day about his discussions with other U.S. diplomats regarding President Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations that would be to the president’s political advantage.

The administration’s full-court press to stonewall the House’s inquiry only underlines the necessity of hearings, evidence and testimony to establish a full accounting of the facts. The details of Mr. Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine, overlapping in time with the delayed release of congressionally authorized military aid, raise concerns about a possible, deeply disturbing misuse of presidential power, which can only be resolved by a full investigation. While enough facts are still unknown that a decision on impeachment itself is premature, an inquiry is absolutely necessary.

Advertisement

The administration’s full-court press to stonewall the House’s inquiry only underlines the necessity of hearings, evidence and testimony to establish a full accounting of the facts.

Yesterday’s letter by the president’s legal counsel contains no convincing objection to such an inquiry. The letter claims that an impeachment inquiry must be authorized by a formal vote, but this is neither constitutionally nor otherwise legally required for the House to hold hearings or subpoena witnesses. Since the administration has already frequently refused to cooperate with congressional oversight even when unconnected to any potentially impeachable matters and declined yesterday to commit to cooperating even if an inquiry is formally authorized, this sudden assertion of an imaginary constitutional requirement rings false.

Neither is there any requirement at this early stage for the president to be able to see evidence in advance and cross-examine witnesses during a process which the Constitution entrusts to the “sole Power” of the House. House committee proceedings already allow both parties to make their concerns heard, and an impeachment inquiry is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, not a trial. If the House does not, during the full course of the inquiry, make sufficient allowance for the president to present a defense, then the proper remedy is for him to do so in the Senate trial that would follow a vote to impeach.

Instead, the letter accuses House Democrats of seeking to overturn the 2016 election and shockingly concludes that the president “cannot allow [the House’s] constitutionally illegitimate proceeding to distract him” and will therefore refuse to cooperate with the inquiry. In fact, such a manifestly absurd dismissal of a co-equal branch of government is itself an alarming overreach of executive power, which itself amounts to a rejection of the 2018 election that gave Democrats a majority in the House.

Nonetheless, even though its power to exercise oversight, investigate and call witnesses does not depend on it, the House should formally vote to open an impeachment inquiry. While Mr. Trump has no authority to require it of the House or to refuse cooperation without it, such a resolution would be helpful and prudent for many reasons. A House-wide vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry would follow the precedents established by the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, reaffirm the House’s constitutional responsibility in the impeachment process and make it even clearer that refusal to cooperate with the inquiry is itself an affront to the constitutional order.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

The apparent reasons that Democrats have not yet held a formal vote are underwhelming: the desire to spare vulnerable members a politically costly vote and the additional concern that Republicans would in turn demand subpoena power, which they could use to pursue the smokescreen allegations of misconduct on the part of the president’s opponents contained in the administration’s letter. Those risks are far outweighed by the benefits of embracing the House’s constitutional duty and requiring all its members to go on the record as to whether Mr. Trump’s apparent use of foreign policy for his personal political advantage and his manifest disdain for the system of checks and balances warrants a House-sanctioned investigation and possible impeachment.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
E.Patrick Mosman
1 month ago

The following will educate on the meaning of impeachment and it is not how the clown show and its ringmaster Schiff are running it.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/06/bob-barr-trump-impeachment/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10352
If the democrats truly believe they have a case for impeachment hold the
vote in the House as Trump already said and the Editors have seconded.

Dionys Murphy
1 month ago

They don't have to. They don't have to bow down to the emperor with no clothes. There is nothing in the constitution or past examples that requires or suggests that.

E.Patrick Mosman
1 month ago

" There is nothing in the constitution or past examples" Obviously you are ignoring the history of the last two Impeachment actions, Nixon and Clinton.In both cases the House voted for an impeachment inquiry before any other action was taken.
Time to follow tradition.

Charles Monsen
1 month ago

The comment " there is nothing in he constitution" is verifiable and objectively true. If you read some other comments here you will see that the investigation in the Nixon case began before the vote to investigate. And in the case of Clinton the vote was taken after the Star report was given to congress. However it make no matter. The Congress, as a co-equal branch or government, duly elected by the people of the United States, operating under the explicit authority of the Constitution of the United States is empowered to conduct this investigation, and if they feel appropriate, draft articles of impeachment as they see fit. The POTUS has no input in this process. The only appropriate response from the POTUS should be complete cooperation with a co- equal branch of government, as they attempt to fulfill their responsibility as explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

E> Patrick Mosman

Powerline did not educate about impeachment. It was merely a one-sided, partisan view supporting Trump.

The Daily Caller is known as a right-wing source. Bob Barr was one of the leaders to bring impeachment against Clinton. I remember him well. Barr, along with approximately 10 other Republican leaders for impeachment, were all found to have committed adultery. The hypocrisy was over the top. Barr was having an affair with his third wife while married to his second wife. Barr was strongly anti-choice. He was accused of arranging an abortion for a girlfriend, but it has not been proven. I don’t know if Barr is such a good source for you. By the time Barr and the other Republicans were done, Clinton was found not guilty and his ratings went way up. But, you are welcome to him.

E.Patrick Mosman
1 month ago

So the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNNABCCBSNBC et al and the media in general are laughingly considered the fount of all unbiased
sourced about the President, the whistle blower did. With regard to adulterers you should add Presidents Johnson and Kennedy and Clinton to your list . Apparently it is not an impeachable offense. FYI the Powerline bloggers unmasked Dan Rather and his phony documents being used to smear President Bush.
They have more credibility than the media giants.

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

From http://bit.ly/2McZE7t 8 years ago - It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information...So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal...This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

J Cosgrove---
Your comment is funny since that is the same thing liberals feel about Trump supporters. Nor could you find any errors in my comment. You use Dinesh D'Souza as a source, a man who is utterly repudiated by political scholars. Plus, he is a convicted felon. Oh yes, I know, he was pardoned by Trump. Typical of Trump.

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

All you did was arbitrarily say a source was invalid. Thank you for making the very point I was claiming.
Why bring up D’Souza? He is irrelevant to this discussion. Also he has literally made about a thousand claims in his recent writings. I haven’t seen one substantially refuted. Why don’t you point out a few? Why don’t you also tell everyone what D’Souza was convicted of? You undermine your criticism of others by resorting to these specious arguments. Keep it up though. It says the other person is correct.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

J Cosgrove--

You do this all the time. Specifically, what point did I make that you were claiming? Specifically, how did I make your point?

You presented a source to support your claim about liberals. The article was written by John Hawkins who labels himself as a right winger. See https://rightwingnews.com/ His article proves nothing about liberals. He merely gave his own opinion without offering any proof. It is ironical you use him to show what is wrong with liberals when his article is nothing but a right-wing screed. You often post someone’s opinion and you present it as though it is a fact.

Since Hawkins and you are critical of liberal sources, I pointed out that you use D’Souza as a source (as do many on the right), even though he lacks credibility. To point out the invalidity of Hawkins and your claims is hardly specious.

More of Hawkins’ credibility? He claimed that Head Start is a program that doesn’t work and is a waste of billions of dollars. He provided no proof of this. His claim was astounding since so many on both sides of the aisle support Head Start. Republicans have praised and supported Head Start. I don’t know if the Trump Party does or not. As for Head Start’s “failure,” please see the two following sources.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-long-term-impact-of-the-head-start-program/ and https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/head-start-programs-have-significant-benefits-children-bottom-skill-distribution

You can tell people what D’Souza was convicted of. You are the one who seems to think his behavior is acceptable; I don’t. I told you before how easy it is to find criticism of D’Souza, but you don’t bother. You like his views so you refuse to seriously research him.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

E.Patrick Mosman--
E.Patrick Mosman
You are responding to things I did not say. You used Powerline and the Daily Caller so that is what I responded to. I said nothing about the NYT, etc.
Adultery. There are many more names I could mention about adultery. I kept it just with those involved with the Clinton impeachment because that is what Barr was involved with and it showed the hypocrisy of Barr and the others. Powerline may have unmasked Rather. That is irrelevant to my issue which is that Powerline did not educate about impeachment. It was merely a one-sided, partisan view supporting Trump. It is difficult to believe that Powerline has much credibility since it said it was going to educate us about impeachment when it was merely a political hit.

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

I suggest the editors and all interested readers listen to the video that Mr Mosman provided. They should also read the transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. They should also read the complaint by the so called “whistleblower” who got the call wrong and was essentially just speculating on the rest. So we have an impeachment circus based on a false report and speculation. And the editors have fallen for it.

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

The Democrats used several foreign entities to create a false narrative against a political opponent that becomes the biggest hoax in American history. Now that hoax is being investigated but the president must be impeached because he is using the same governments to help him clear his name. Clearing his name gives him an unfair political advantage. Absurd but true as the crazies demand access to everything in the hope that something might appear. Resist these absurd demands and the charge is stonewalling.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

J Cosgrove---

Lindsey Graham was one of the prosecutors from the House of Representatives during the trial in the Senate to remove President Clinton from office.
Below are statements Graham made on the Senate floor about removing a president from office. You can find both of these statements on tape at https://theweek.com/speedreads/870557/lindsey-graham-clearly-disagreed-trumps-impeachment-obstruction-back-1998

“So the point I’m trying to make is you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury.”

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

What’s your point? It didn’t address anything I said. In the case of Nixon and Clinton both had theoretically committed a crime. Trump is being attacked because he is trying to look into crimes.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

J Cosgrove---
I merely posted it so you could see on what grounds Trump’s pal, Lindsey Graham, claims you may convict a president. Trump is looking into crimes? Well, yes, that is what he says, but as we have seen he lies constantly.

Fred Keyes
1 month ago

Cosgrove, the crime was clear: solicitation of information for political advantage. *That's* clearly illegal. If you think Trump did what he did because he's only interested in rooting out corruption, why didn't he report his suspicion and evidence to the FBI? (Answer: No such evidence exists, unless maybe you know something nobody else does?)

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

Fred Keyes---
Great comments. Along that line, if Trump has nothing to hide, why doesn't he turn over the documents the House wants and permit people in the Executive branch to testify?

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

solicitation of information for political advantage...clearly illegal

One of the more absurd statements on this site. I assume you want Hillary Clinton in jail and all her campaign staff for doing this in the 2016 election. As I said above Biden was in charge of Ukraine foreign policy when the fake Russia collusion story arose there. He had to know this. Let's investigate to find out if he is either incompetent or corrupt or maybe both.

Fred Keyes
1 month ago

No, sir. Let's recognize an utterly false conspiracy theory when we hear it.

BTW I can make up a conspiracy theory too. I'll bet Putin suggested the whole Ukraine nonsense to Trump in one of his unrecorded meetings with him. Like you Cosgrove, I have no facts to prove it. I doubt you will admit the same thing about your baseless theory.

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

The conspiracy theory you seem to be objecting to is in sworn testimony before Congress. The FBI knew Clinton's organization was trying to get information from foreign operatives to discredit Trump. Where have you been for the last 3 years?

Fred Keyes
3 weeks 6 days ago

So to you, sworn testimony = prima facie evidence, all by itself? Give us probative facts, Cosgrove.

Stuart Meisenzahl
3 weeks 5 days ago

Fred
Sworn testimony in a setting where cross examination has taken place or been allowed, such as a congressional hearing, is prima facia evidence which shifts the burden of proof/disproof. J Cosgrove correctly cites this un-rebutted evidence for his point and it is probative. Murder convictions have been based and upheld on just such “sworn testimony”

Fred Keyes
3 weeks 5 days ago

So someone testified that Biden both knew and was aware that someone in Ukraine was working to support Clinton's campaign? And this person swore to this in a congressional hearing? How is such testimony credible and how can just saying it shift the burden of proof? Sources please.

Stuart Meisenzahl
1 month ago

The Editors defensive call for a formal vote omits that the House Inquiry is currently being run the public is seeing no first hand testimony; transcripts of closed hearings are not being provided; and the Democrats are refusing to provide them ...yet selective leaks of parts of the transcripts are being leaked without context with the goal of “creating a narrative”.
A House inquiry may be like a Grand Jury but the Editors fail to note that even the subject matter of Grand Jury investigations is secret and the testimony sealed! Schiff et al are engaged in daily publicity releases and leaks.
Check out comments by Trey Gowdy who quit the House in disgust after dealing with Schiff misrepresentations and Schiff leaking.

Michael Bindner
1 month ago

That is because Trump is obstructing witnesses. We were not born yesterday.

Richard Goulah
1 month ago

Trump is obstructing witnesses? I think you were born yesterday.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

Richard Goulah--
Are you not aware that when witnesses are subpoena and they work within the Executive branch, that Trump orders them not to testify?

Stuart Meisenzahl
1 month ago

Judith
Yes ....that is the way it is designed to work...then it goes to a Court to determine whether or not there is a Fishing trip subpoena” and whether substance of testimony would be subject to Executive Privilege. Congress does not have an absolute right to anyone or thing within the Executive Branch. Similarly the Executive cannot just demand access to any Congreve Persons files or personnel ....
As you well know Separation Of Powers was created for just these cross purposes with a Court determining which will prevail.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

Stuart:

Trump has claimed he will not cooperate with the House at all. He is also trying to tell the House how to run the impeachment. He has no constitutional power to do that. This is not how things are done. I can’t remember if I showed this to you or not; but, read below.

Lindsey Graham was one of the prosecutors from the House of Representatives during the trial in the Senate to remove President Clinton from office. Below are statements Graham made on the Senate floor about removing a president from office. You can find both of these statements on tape at https://theweek.com/speedreads/870557/lindsey-graham-clearly-disagreed-trumps-impeachment-obstruction-back-1998

Lindsey Graham said:

“So the point I’m trying to make is you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury.”
Stuart--

Stuart Meisenzahl
1 month ago

Judith
As I have noted in another place.....you really need to check out the comments of House Judiciary Chairman Gray Nadler at the time of the Clinton Impeachment...and then after you absorb it, you should quietly and graciously retire from rooting out political hypocrites. But if Gerry Nadler’s prior comments on Impeachment process are insufficient , then check out Nancy Pelosi’s comments at the time of the Clinton Impeachment.

Judith Jordan
4 weeks ago

Stuart:

I can’t find where we were posting about legal scholars positions on quid pro quo. So I shall just post my comment here.

Many decades ago, I was a great admirer of Alan Dershowitz. As time moved on, I did not think some of his actions were so admirable.
Eventually, I did not hear much or pay any attention to him. Perhaps it is because he started appearing on right wing outlets which I only periodically watch.
Suddenly he was on TV denying any sexual involvement with the young girls who worked for Epstein. Frankly, I don’t know if he did or didn’t.

I have a subscription to The New Yorker and it is considered a credible source. The below New Yorker article about Dershowitz is revealing about many issues I did not know about him. I think you will find it interesting.

“Alan Dershowitz, Devil’s Advocate”
The noted lawyer’s long, controversial career—and the accusations against him.
By Connie Bruck July 29, 2019

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/alan-dershowitz-devils-advocate

Stuart Meisenzahl
3 weeks 5 days ago

Judith
I believe you were the person who posted a comment to the effect that “ad hominem arguments” were a definitive sign of a losing position. You should really accept the advice you were so eager to deliver.
A bit of research on your part would have been able to uncover that Dershowitz sued to compel the disclosure of all of the evidence surrounding the allegations against him. As a result all of the information about the Epstein case was made public and it included a written statement from the accuser that her book PR person suggested she include any number of names including Dershowitz’s in her book because it would boost her sales!
The author accuser has admitted she had no information concerning Dershowitz’s involvement.
I believe that Dershowitz is going to sue David Boise for withholding taped evidence exonerating him from the accusation.

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 month ago

Trump is absolutely obstructing justice and we're witnessing it. I am appalled that I actually voted for him. May God forgive me.

Judith Jordan
1 month ago

Shelley---
Good for you, Shelley. It is not often one finds a Trump supporter courageous enough to withdraw support of him. You have your eyes wide open and that is good for the country.

Tim O'Leary
1 month ago

I agree with the editors that there should be a House vote. I also believe that Republicans should have subpoena power to investigate the secret communications of Rep. Schiff and his allies, especially the shenanigans around the fraudulent Steele memo. It is very suspicious that the so-called whistleblower is a Democratic Party operative and CIA employee who seems to have coordinated his letter with Schiff. Schiff may have to recuse himself for the public to believe anything is true.

I cannot see anything criminal or impeachable in the released transcript of the call with the Ukrainian president, and certainly nothing that rises to the "high crimes" standard, but maybe there is more that could be revealed in an investigation. It is true that there has been a continuous informal impeachment push in the media and among the most partisan Democrats since the inauguration, so it would be good to get it all out.

Charles Monsen
1 month ago

Are you operating under the assumption that a whistle blower who happens to be a democrat or a member of the CIA by definition is incapable of telling the truth ?

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

The person is not a whistleblower. The term has been used to generate sympathy for the person. The person did not have first hand information of anything and actually used a source funded by George Soros as well as press articles. They also got the call very wrong. It was mostly about the Russian collusion hoax which originated in the Ukraine.

Dionys Murphy
1 month ago

"The person is not a whistleblower. " - By every definition, they are a whistleblower. So is the second whistleblower.

Michael Bindner
1 month ago

And he is also a Republican

Michael Bindner
1 month ago

The only way Pence will not be forced out is if he or his staff were the source for the whistleblower.

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 month ago

You are so right, and even provided the definition. Thx

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me

This is the total about Biden, 60 words out of 1950 words in the phone call. Biden sounds horrible to me too.

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

Here is the text of the phone call to Zelensky

The President:

Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations

President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following the first time, you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

The President: [laughter] That's a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible

President Zelensky: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough

The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people

President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support

The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine

The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President

The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations

President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye

Charles Monsen
1 month ago

A simple question - at the heart of the issue. Do you find nothing worthy of an investigation when the POTUS asks leaders of foreign nations to investigate his leading political rival ?

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

He mentioned Biden in passing. The investigation Trump was talking about was the Russian collusion hoax which originated in the Ukraine.

Charles Monsen
1 month ago

That is not an answer to the question I posed. I have seen this direct question asked many times to those who support the president, and it is never given a direct answer. That is telling.

JR Cosgrove
1 month ago

The Ukrainians were already investigating Biden. They reopened the investigation in February before the current president was elected. Biden was in charge of US foreign policy to Ukraine when the false Russia collusion story started there. He should be cleared or indicted one or the other but he should be investigated. That people do not want Biden to be investigated is telling. He had to know the narrative about Manafort and Trump was false. He is either corrupt or incompetent.

SHELLEY HIBBLER
1 month ago

You do realize this narrative is ridiculous, right? Conspiracy theory used once again to throw the public off the actual issue?

Stuart Meisenzahl
1 month ago

Shelly
Ok ....just exactly what will your position be if Inspector General Horowitz or US attorney Durham come back with reports that demonstrate John Brennan ,Clapper, and Comey (perhaps Susan Rice as well) were involved in asking The Uk, Australia, Italy etc to investigate the Trump Campaign or its members?
,

Advertisement

The latest from america

Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president-elect of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, responds to a question during a news conference at the fall general assembly of the USCCB in Baltimore Nov. 12, 2019. Also pictured are: Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark, N.J., and Archbishop Leonard P. Blair of Hartford, Conn. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)
U.S. bishops: “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself.... At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.”
Michael J. O’LoughlinNovember 12, 2019
Refugees and migrants at a camp on the Greek island of Samos, on Oct. 18.  (AP Photo/Michael Svarnias)
More people have been forced to flee their homes than at any time in recorded history, writes Kevin White of Jesuit Refugee Service. But there is good news about global initiatives to address the problem.
Kevin White, S.J.November 12, 2019
On Nov. 12, the U.S. bishops elected Archbishop Gomez to be the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on the first ballot.
J.D. Long-GarcíaNovember 12, 2019
Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, right, applauds as Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles acknowledges the applause after being named the new president during the fall general assembly of the USCCB in Baltimore Nov. 12, 2019. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)
Archbishop Gomez leads the largest U.S. diocese, Los Angeles, home to more than four million Catholics, and has been a vocal proponent of rights for immigrants.
Michael J. O’LoughlinNovember 12, 2019