counter create hit The Impeachment Report: The House Intelligence Committee's Report on the Trump-Ukraine Investigation, with the House Republicans' Rebuttal - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

The Impeachment Report: The House Intelligence Committee's Report on the Trump-Ukraine Investigation, with the House Republicans' Rebuttal

Availability: Ready to download

With an Introduction by Acclaimed Legal Scholar and New York Times Bestselling author Alan Dershowitz, The Official Impeachment Inquiry Report on The Results of The Trump-Ukraine Investigation—Plus the Articles of Impeachment and the Republican Report Disputing the Results of the Democratic Investigation. Donald Trump is on the verge of being only the third US President im With an Introduction by Acclaimed Legal Scholar and New York Times Bestselling author Alan Dershowitz, The Official Impeachment Inquiry Report on The Results of The Trump-Ukraine Investigation—Plus the Articles of Impeachment and the Republican Report Disputing the Results of the Democratic Investigation. Donald Trump is on the verge of being only the third US President impeached by the House of Representatives, but is this a case of a president abusing his power and obstructing justice, or is it a partisan witch hunt protecting the Deep State? Can you trust the mainstream media, or do you want to read the Report for yourself?   This groundbreaking report—released by the U.S. House Of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Adam Schiff—contains the results of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s actions as he sought for Ukraine to announce investigations into Hunter Biden, as well as the Committee’s conclusions about whether those actions are impeachable offenses. Covering topics ranging from the anonymous whistleblower’s first attempts to spread the word about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to the Congressional testimony of Trump’s advisers and ambassadors, to the statements of Rudy Giuliani and William Barr, and even the President’s efforts to influence the inquiry, The Impeachment Report offers readers the full findings of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, the articles of impeachment themselves, a rebuttal report from Republican representatives that disputes the process and results of the Democratic investigation, an introduction by esteemed attorney Alan Dershowitz, and information about the impeachment process itself. It is the ultimate resource for anyone who wants to know whether impeachment is warranted, and is a critical text in the ongoing back-and-forth battle to protect American democracy.


Compare

With an Introduction by Acclaimed Legal Scholar and New York Times Bestselling author Alan Dershowitz, The Official Impeachment Inquiry Report on The Results of The Trump-Ukraine Investigation—Plus the Articles of Impeachment and the Republican Report Disputing the Results of the Democratic Investigation. Donald Trump is on the verge of being only the third US President im With an Introduction by Acclaimed Legal Scholar and New York Times Bestselling author Alan Dershowitz, The Official Impeachment Inquiry Report on The Results of The Trump-Ukraine Investigation—Plus the Articles of Impeachment and the Republican Report Disputing the Results of the Democratic Investigation. Donald Trump is on the verge of being only the third US President impeached by the House of Representatives, but is this a case of a president abusing his power and obstructing justice, or is it a partisan witch hunt protecting the Deep State? Can you trust the mainstream media, or do you want to read the Report for yourself?   This groundbreaking report—released by the U.S. House Of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Adam Schiff—contains the results of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s actions as he sought for Ukraine to announce investigations into Hunter Biden, as well as the Committee’s conclusions about whether those actions are impeachable offenses. Covering topics ranging from the anonymous whistleblower’s first attempts to spread the word about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to the Congressional testimony of Trump’s advisers and ambassadors, to the statements of Rudy Giuliani and William Barr, and even the President’s efforts to influence the inquiry, The Impeachment Report offers readers the full findings of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, the articles of impeachment themselves, a rebuttal report from Republican representatives that disputes the process and results of the Democratic investigation, an introduction by esteemed attorney Alan Dershowitz, and information about the impeachment process itself. It is the ultimate resource for anyone who wants to know whether impeachment is warranted, and is a critical text in the ongoing back-and-forth battle to protect American democracy.

18 review for The Impeachment Report: The House Intelligence Committee's Report on the Trump-Ukraine Investigation, with the House Republicans' Rebuttal

  1. 5 out of 5

    Bobbie

    A very interesting look into the inner workings of the House of Representatives regarding the impeachment of Donald Trump. I'm sure that the Democrats are blind (due to rage) to how their own report exposes their desperation in developing and then carrying out yet another hoax on the American people A very interesting look into the inner workings of the House of Representatives regarding the impeachment of Donald Trump. I'm sure that the Democrats are blind (due to rage) to how their own report exposes their desperation in developing and then carrying out yet another hoax on the American people

  2. 4 out of 5

    Ronan Conroy

    It’s all here in the report. Actually it was all there in the call transcript already, but in case you needed a little more context, the Report lays out the findings after exhaustive testimony and documentation of evidence - the phone call with the quid pro quo; the actions of Trump’s team as they worked to prevent military aid reaching Ukraine and push Ukraine to make public statements in support of Trump’s conspiracy theories; Trump’s refusal to understand that cooperating with an impeachment It’s all here in the report. Actually it was all there in the call transcript already, but in case you needed a little more context, the Report lays out the findings after exhaustive testimony and documentation of evidence - the phone call with the quid pro quo; the actions of Trump’s team as they worked to prevent military aid reaching Ukraine and push Ukraine to make public statements in support of Trump’s conspiracy theories; Trump’s refusal to understand that cooperating with an impeachment proceeding is not optional. That last in particular is of the gravest concern. Yet again Trump has pushed the boundaries and set a dangerous precedent future Presidents may follow, eroding more checks and balances and the fabric of our democracy. As the House impeachment report puts it: “Donald Trump is the first and only President in American history to openly and indiscriminately defy all aspects of a Constitutional impeachment process, ordering all federal agencies and officials categorically not to comply with voluntary requests or compulsory demands for documents or testimony.” The publication exhumes countless examples of groundless time wasting and obfuscation, attempts to delay and hold back military aid to the Ukraine. Witness this infuriating sample of bureaucratic gibberish in which the DOD explains on July 31st, 6 days after Trump’s call with Zelensky, that they have limited time to spend money within the financial year before the funding elapses, and then you have Duffey, associate director for National Security Programs at the Office of Management and Budget, somehow needing more info on what that means. It means spend it or lose it, by the deadline. Asking for more info was clearly just a ploy to slow things down and get them tangled in red tape, allowing them to go back and forth for weeks. Gibberish. “After the July 31 interagency meeting at which Ms. Cooper announced that DOD would have to start obligating the funds on or about August 6, Mr. Duffer sought clarification. Ms. Cooper explained to Mr. Duffey that at a certain point DOD would not have sufficient time to fully obligate the funds before they expired at the end of the fiscal year. In response, Mr. Duffey ‘wanted more information on the precise nature of how long does it take to obligate, and how many cases, and that sort of thing.’ Ms. Cooper referred Mr. Duffey to the DOD comptroller and to the Defense Security Cooperating Agency. During the month of August, Mr. Duffey and Ms. McCusker communicated about the implementation of the hold on the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative Funds.” The Report also clarifies for those who needed it that the conspiracy theories Trump was expounding were debunked. “Witnesses unanimously testified that President Trump’s claims about former Vice President Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election have been discredited. The witnesses reaffirmed that in late 2015 and early 2016, when former Vice President Biden advocated for the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, he acted in accordance with a ‘broad-based consensus’ and the official policy of the Unites States, the European Union, and major international financial institutions. Witnesses also unanimously testified that the removal of that prosecutor made it more likely that Ukraine would investigate corruption, not less likely.” The report shows how the call transcript, damning as it was, was still tampered and censored to remove critical evidence that made the quid pro quo even clearer. “Mr. Morrison, Lt. Col. Vindman, and Ms. Williams all agreed that the publicly released record of the call was substantially accurate, but Lt. Col. Vindman and Ms. Williams both testified that President Zelensky made an explicit reference to ‘Burisma’ that was not included in the call record. Specifically, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that his notes indicated President Zelensky used the word ‘Burisma’ - instead of generally referring to ‘the company’ - when discussing President Trump’s request to investigate the Biden’s. Ms. Williams’ notes also reflected that President Zelensky had said ‘Burisma’ later in the call when referring to a ‘case.’” And in an echo of the kind of forehead-slapping incompetence and cowboy diplomacy we read about ad nauseam in the Mueller report, we see fresh examples of the thoughtless amateur behavior of Trump’s officials, such as “a U.S. Ambassador picking up his mobile phone at an outdoor cafe and dialing the President of the United States” on an unsecured line to discuss matters of foreign policy. “Later during the meal, Ambassador Sondland ‘said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update.’ Ambassador Sondland then placed a call on his unsecured mobile phone. Mr. Holmes was taken aback. He told the Committee, ‘it was, like, a really extraordinary thing, it doesn’t happen very often.’” The testimony helps us understand how little President Trump really cared about the plight of the Ukrainians, caring only about what directly affected him: “Mr. Holmes, who had learned about the freeze on U.S. security assistance days earlier, was attempting to clarify the President’s thinking, and said he ‘took the opportunity to task Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President’s views on Ukraine’: ‘In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not give a shit about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not give a shit about Ukraine. I asked, why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated, the President only cares about, quote, unquote, “big stuff.” I noted there was, quote, unquote, big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. And Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant, quote, unquote, “big stuff” that benefits the President, like the, quote, unquote, “Biden investigation” that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.’” The testimony shows how Trump’s officials worked to ensure “Biden investigation” was central in a public statement the Ukrainians would make on air, rejecting an earlier “draft statement” which “did not explicitly mention Burisma or the 2016 election in interference, as was expected.” “On August 13, around 10 a.m. Eastern Time, Ambassador Volker texted Mr. Giuliani: ‘Mr mayor - trying to set up call in 5 min via state Dept. If now is not convenient, is there a time later today?’ Phone records show that, shortly thereafter, someone using a State Department number called Mr. Giuliani and connected for more than nine minutes. Ambassador Volker told the Committees that, during the call, Mr. Giuliani stated: ‘If [the statement] doesn’t say Burisma and 2016, it’s not credible, because what are they hiding?’ Ambassador Volker asked whether inserting references to ‘Burisma and 2016’ at the end of the statement would make it ‘more credible.’ Mr. Giuliani confirmed that it would.” The revised draft statement, into which references to Burisma and the 2016 election had been inserted, was texted to Mr. Yermak, then Ukraine’s Presidential Aide for Foreign Policy Issues. In other words, Trump’s team dictated to Ukraine what was to be said. The statement had to explicitly support the conspiracy theory that Biden or his son was complicit in some kind of Ukrainian corruption, and that Russia was not behind the 2016 election interference. Such a statement would bolster Trump’s position while discrediting Biden’s. As a bonus, this edition also contains an introduction by Alan Dershowitz and a rebuttal by Republicans desperate to build some a the Senate could hang its acquittal on. Frankly I’m disappointed in Alan Dershowitz, having previously found him a decent writer and reasonable thinker when I read his “How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000.” I find it hard to believe this is the same Dershowitz now arguing against the grounds for impeachment. As for the rebuttal, it’s flimsy, emotional, and ultimately flawed. All manner of irrelevant avenues are opened, yet none of them bear on the central facts. And the impeachment hearings in the Senate followed this narrative pretty closely. Trump is: innocent of trying to pressure Zelensky because he says so. innocent of soliciting foreign aid in a domestic election because he’s always been a bit suspicious of Ukraine. innocent of trying to get Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election because he never said the words “2020 election.” innocent of tying Ukraine’s military aid to investigations that would aid his reelection chances because foreign aid has been paused in the past for a variety of reasons. innocent because other countries don’t give as much as the US does (which is actually not true, anyway: “The European Union is the single largest contributor of total foreign assistance to Ukraine, having provided EUR15 billion in grants and loans since 2014.”). innocent because the Mueller report. innocent because the Democrats just can’t get over losing in 2016. This puerile tirade of ridiculous excuses not only debases the Republicans in the House and the Senate, it also falls short of being a serious rebuttal. Let’s examine a few of these laughable arguments. “President Trump has publicly and repeatedly that he did not pressure President Zelensky to investigate his political rival.” 1. The transcripts of the calls and testimony of witnesses show Trump’s repeated statements are false. 2. A congenital liar says “I didn’t do it,” and this is good enough for the Senate Republicans to hold up as some kind of rebuttal, evidence that Trump did not in fact try to pressure a foreign power into aiding him in a domestic election? The sad fact is that this desperate and pathetic maneuver is actually very convincing to many minds in America. For Republican Senators, Trump’s denial is “evidence,” rather than just Trump saying stuff, and it’s “persuasive because the President made the same denial twice to two separate senior U.S. officials in private, where there is no reason for the President to be anything less than completely candid.” He said it twice, so it must be true. This is the level of idiocy now being purveyed as reason and logic in the houses of US government. And as for “he said it in private, where he has no reason to be other than candid”: nonsense. Trump has no reason to be truthful in any forum or setting, and routinely demonstrates the opposite. “The whistleblower sensationally alleged that President Trump ‘sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.’ The call summary, however, contains no reference to 2020 or President Trump’s reelection bid.” Here again we have the Republicans masquerading as complete idiots. “Hey, Trump never said the words ‘2020’ and ‘reelection’ so he’s all clear. I don’t see anything, do you?” And this, sadly, is good enough for many. But for anyone with reasonable facets of analytical capabilities, this is shockingly irrelevant. The investigations Trump clearly asked for in a quid pro quo would indisputably have benefited Trump’s reelection, while discrediting his political rival. The entire rebuttal attempts to build an alternative narrative, including a carefully constructed argument that Trump was just uncomfortable with Ukraine and suspicious of their corruption, which is why he delayed everything. And look, didn’t the Ukrainians say really nasty things about Trump a few years back? Who can blame Trump for overriding already agreed and committed military aid that received bi-partisan Congressionally approval and is needed in a fight against Russian annexation in a war that has implications for the entire west? All of this is a nonsense smokescreen that does not alter any of the basic facts. Watching the pathetic powerpoint slides and hearing the brainless arguments of the Republicans during the impeachment hearing was maddening, because I knew that none of this would fly in any legitimate court of law. Within the narrative, to give due credit, there is one compelling argument that there is a precedent whereby foreign aid has at times been paused, and the argument cites a number of examples. While this is a strong starting point to making a case that aid does, at times, get paused, what’s missing here is any thorough examination of whether, in the other examples, evidence of quid pro quo existed; or whether call transcripts demonstrated the President clearly seeking aid from a foreign power in a domestic election. It’s another smokescreen. The Republicans also could not resist adding the Mueller report to the narrative, as if to say “look how wrong they were before!” Again, this would not fly in any legitimate court of law. No matter how long Mueller’s report took to produce; no matter how few or how many (clue: it was many) indictments and charges resulted from it; no matter how much the report did or did not (clue: it did) point to obvious acts of obstruction of justice on the part of Trump - none of this information, in any capacity, has any bearing, at all, to any degree, on whether Trump did or did not seek foreign aid in a domestic election. On that question, nothing regarding the Mueller report has any bearing on the evidence in front of us: the facts that clearly show Trump did seek such aid from a foreign power in a domestic election. But mentioning the Mueller report, and claiming it was all a waste of time and turned up nothing (can only say that if you didn’t read it or are deliberately lying about what’s in there) is sure to get the old Republican and Trump-loyalist blood boiling, that old victim mentality going. It’s a surefire tactic to get a slice of the public on your side, irrespective of the truth. And as such, is a tactic of the Republican Senate that demonstrates an abject lack of honor and dignity. It is, as Cicero might put it, expedient, but it is not honorable. Such is our current government. The rebuttal builds up quite a head of steam as it rolls towards its summation, accusing the House Democrats of a single-minded agenda to impeach Trump from day one. True, some House Democrats did introduce impeachment bills early in the game, but as we all witnessed, these lacked any broad support among Democrats and did not proceed. The acts of one or two naive representatives does not indicate a monolithic agenda. “Less than a year before the 2020 election and Democrats in the House still cannot move on from the results of the last election,” concludes the rebuttal. Impeachable acts committed in 2019 have zero to do with attitudes towards the 2016 election. The rebuttal is flimsy and irrelevant, but as we know, the Republican Senators never had any intention of conducting a truthful honorable assessment of impeachment charges, and were always committed to rejecting it on any grounds possible, justified or otherwise. Their names will be recorded with great dishonor and disgrace in the annals of American history.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Victor Negut

    Much more readable than the Muller report. Requires a bit more critical analysis than the Muller report did but it presents both sides of the argument well.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Michael Brown

  5. 4 out of 5

    Donald Santucci

  6. 4 out of 5

    Chad Horlock

  7. 4 out of 5

    Walter

  8. 5 out of 5

    Eric Bumpus

  9. 5 out of 5

    Brandy Caverly

  10. 5 out of 5

    Vicki

  11. 5 out of 5

    Lee Wilson

  12. 5 out of 5

    Antonella

  13. 5 out of 5

    Niko

  14. 5 out of 5

    Krzysiek (Chris)

  15. 5 out of 5

    Cyerra

  16. 4 out of 5

    Heather

  17. 5 out of 5

    Deb Madigan

  18. 5 out of 5

    Heather

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.