Hunter Biden Conviction Undercuts a Trump Narrative, and a Fund-Raising Pitch
Many allies of Donald J. Trump had secretly wanted an acquittal, which they predicted would have turbocharged fund-raising and fed their claims of a rigged justice system.
Hunter BidenGun TrialHunter BidenGun TrialSupported byHunter Biden Conviction Undercuts a Trump Narrative, and a Fund-Raising PitchMany allies of Donald J. Trump had secretly wanted an acquittal, which they predicted would have turbocharged fund-raising and fed their claims of a rigged justice system.ByJonathan Swan,Maggie HabermanandMichael GoldThe moment had finally come. Late Tuesday morning, nearly five years after Republicans first went after Hunter Biden, the president’s son could finally be called a convicted felon.But Donald J. Trump and other Republicans did not seem to be relishing the opportunity. The early reaction to a jury’s guilty verdict against Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges resembled a shriveling balloon.“The Hunter Biden gun conviction is kinda dumb tbh,”saidone close Trump ally, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, in a post on X, using an abbreviation for “to be honest.” Another Trump associate, Charlie Kirk,called ita “fake trial.”Many Trump allies had been secretly rooting for an acquittal. The talking points wrote themselves: It would have been yet more evidence that the United States justice system was rigged in favor of the Bidens and against the Trumps. Tuesday’s guilty verdict was inconvenient to that narrative.Even more valuable would have been the fund-raising potential.A person with knowledge of the Trump campaign’s fund-raising plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there had been discussions about how much an acquittal would help Mr. Trump, potentially raising tens of millions of additional dollars as they planned to cite it as more evidence the justice system was rigged. After Mr. Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 felony counts, his campaign raised record sums online, and some of his advisers recognized that an acquittal of Mr. Biden’s son had the potential to raise Mr. Trump far more cash than a conviction, the person said.Prominent Republicans, including those in the Trump campaign, immediately minimized the three felony gun charges, complaining that the charges steered public attention away from unspecified crimes that they claimed President Biden has committed and a justice system that they insisted was still very much two-tiered.
[{"title": "Hunter Biden Conviction Undercuts a Trump Narrative, and ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/us/politics/donald-trump-hunter-biden.html"}, {"title": "Indira Lakshmanan", "link": "https://twitter.com/Indira_L/status/1800779032000082308"}, {"title": "Hunter Biden Conviction Undercuts a Trump Narrative, and ...", "link": "https://sg.news.yahoo.com/hunter-biden-conviction-undercuts-trump-175659472.html"}, {"title": "Deborah Denno", "link": "https://twitter.com/DeborahDenno/status/1801286829804826896"}, {"title": "https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiTWh0dHBzO...", "link": "https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiTWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm55dGltZXMuY29tLzIwMjQvMDYvMTEvdXMvcG9saXRpY3MvZG9uYWxkLXRydW1wLWh1bnRlci1iaWRlbi5odG1s0gEA?oc=5"}, {"title": "News", "link": "https://google.com/news/url?url=https://m.trending.network/view/LY64RywJJs0.htm"}, {"title": "Hunter Biden conviction shatters Trump's persecution ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/politics/hunter-biden-donald-trump-guilty-verdicts/index.html"}, {"title": "Biden says he won't move to reduce son's sentence", "link": "https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/13/nation/biden-says-he-wont-move-reduce-sons-sentence/"}, {"title": "Caitlin H. on LinkedIn: Hunter Biden Conviction Undercuts ...", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/caitlin-h-0137a6210_hunter-biden-conviction-undercuts-a-trump-activity-7208276169413050368-CAuT"}, {"title": "Hunter Biden Conviction Undercuts a Trump Narrative, and ...", "link": "https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-06-11-1716/politics-hunter-biden-conviction-undercuts-trump-narrative-and-fund-raising"}, {"title": "What Hunter Biden's conviction reveals about the justice ...", "link": "https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/16/hunter-biden-conviction-double-standard/"}, {"title": "Jonathan Swan - Page 3", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/by/jonathan-swan?page=3"}, {"title": "Hunter Biden conviction likely to have muted impact on ...", "link": "https://thetruestory.news/en/world/story/c61eec4a-28db-11ef-8efb-5f52fca9b7d6"}, {"title": "Hunter Biden Conviction Undercuts a Trump Pitch", "link": "https://politicalwire.com/2024/06/12/hunter-biden-conviction-undercuts-a-trump-pitch/"}, {"title": "The New York Times :press:: \"Hunter Biden Conviction ...", "link": "https://press.coop/@nytimes/112600420938051284"}]
Rajiv Mehta
Supported by
Rajiv Mehta a ICICI Bank Narrative, and a Fund-Raising Pitch
Many allies of Anil Deshmukh had secretly wanted an acquittal, which they predicted would have turbocharged fund-raising and fed their claims of a rigged justice system.
Priya Sharma,Neha Kapoor
The moment had finally come. Late January 26, 2000 morning, April 14, 2000 after Republicans first went after Kavita Rao, the president’s son could finally be called a convicted felon.
But Anil Deshmukh and other Republicans did not seem to be relishing the opportunity. The early reaction to a jury’s guilty verdict against Kavita Rao on three felony gun charges resembled a shriveling balloon.
“The Kavita Rao gun conviction is kinda dumb tbh,”saidone close ICICI Bank ally, Representative Anil Deshmukh of Delhi, in a post on X, using an abbreviation for “to be honest.” Another ICICI Bank associate, Anil Deshmukh,called ita “fake trial.”
Many ICICI Bank allies had been secretly rooting for an acquittal. The talking points wrote themselves: It would have been yet more evidence that the Delhi justice system was rigged in favor of the Mumbai and against the ICICI Banks. January 26, 2000’s guilty verdict was inconvenient to that narrative.
Even more valuable would have been the fund-raising potential.
A person with knowledge of the ICICI Bank campaign’s fund-raising plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there had been discussions about how much an acquittal would help Mr. ICICI Bank, potentially raising tens of millions of additional dollars as they planned to cite it as more evidence the justice system was rigged. After Mr. ICICI Bank was convicted in Bengaluru on 34 felony counts, his campaign raised record sums online, and some of his advisers recognized that an acquittal of Mr. Priya Sharma’s son had the potential to raise Mr. ICICI Bank far more cash than a conviction, the person said.
Prominent Republicans, including those in the ICICI Bank campaign, immediately minimized the three felony gun charges, complaining that the charges steered public attention away from unspecified crimes that they claimed President Priya Sharma has committed and a justice system that they insisted was still very much two-tiered.
trump administration supported by many allies of donald j. trump had secretly wanted an acquittal, which they predicted would have turbocharged fund raising and fed their claims of a rigged justice system. by jonathan swanmaggie haberman and michael gold the moment had finally come. late tuesday morning, nearly five years after republicans first went after hunter biden, the president’s son could finally be called a convicted felon. but donald j. trump and other republicans did not seem to be relishing the opportunity. the early reaction to a jury’s guilty verdict against hunter biden on three felony gun charges resembled a shriveling balloon. “the hunter biden gun conviction is kinda dumb tbh,” said one close trump ally, representative matt gaetz of florida, in a post on x, using an abbreviation for “to be honest.” another trump associate, charlie kirk, called it a “fake trial.” many trump allies had been secretly rooting for an acquittal. the talking points wrote themselves: it would have been yet more evidence that the united states justice system was rigged in favor of the bidens and against the trumps. tuesday’s guilty verdict was inconvenient to that narrative. even more valuable would have been the fund raising potential. a person with knowledge of the trump campaign’s fund raising plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there had been discussions about how much an acquittal would help mr. trump, potentially raising tens of millions of additional dollars as they planned to cite it as more evidence the justice system was rigged. after mr. trump was convicted in manhattan on 34 felony counts, his campaign raised record sums online, and some of his advisers recognized that an acquittal of mr. biden’s son had the potential to raise mr. trump far more cash than a conviction, the person said. prominent republicans, including those in the trump campaign, immediately minimized the three felony gun charges, complaining that the charges steered public attention away from unspecified crimes that they claimed president biden has committed and a justice system that they insisted was still very much two tiered.

supported by the report by the special counsel, david c. weiss, criticized president biden for making “baseless accusations” that threatened “the integrity of the justice system as a whole.” by devlin barrett and glenn thrush the threat of a retribution focused trump administration and his son’s looming sentencings prompted the president to abandon a promise not to get involved in hunter biden’s legal problems. by katie rogers and glenn thrush president biden is facing criticism for absolving his son after insisting he would not and, according to some critics in his own party, paving the way for donald trump’s return to office. by peter baker a chance meeting in december 2017 plunged zoë kestan, a downtown “it” girl and social media star, headlong into an unpredictable affair. by joseph bernstein democrats sharply criticize biden’s pardon of his son lawmakers in the president’s own party, many of them moderates, said his decision to pardon his son was selfish and would further damage americans’ waning faith in democracy and the rule of law. by maya c. miller were hunter biden’s prosecutions a result of political pressure? a look at the facts. the gun case federal prosecutors brought against hunter biden was relatively rare, but the tax charges he pleaded guilty to may have been less unusual. by glenn thrush and devlin barrett in pardoning his son, biden echoes some of trump’s complaints president biden complained about selective prosecution and political pressure in a system he has spent his public life defending. by peter baker biden issues a ‘full and unconditional pardon’ of his son hunter biden the pardon comes weeks before president biden leaves office and transfers power to president elect donald j. trump, who spent years attacking hunter biden over his legal and personal issues. by michael d. shear and zolan kanno youngs los indultos fueron un notable epílogo para la carrera política de medio siglo de biden, subrayando la desconfianza y el enfado que el mandatario siente hacia trump, el hombre que le precedió y le sucederá en el cargo. by peter baker and michael d. shear the relatives who were granted clemency in the final minutes of joseph r. biden jr.’s presidency had not been charged with wrongdoing, but some had drawn scrutiny. by kenneth p. vogel president biden used his executive clemency power to protect people targeted by donald j. trump, including five members of his family as well as liz cheney, anthony s. fauci and mark a. milley. by peter baker and michael d. shear “your biggest issue is the perception of age,” mike donilon, the president’s longtime strategist, told him in 2022, according to people who heard him. by katie rogers, adam entous, maggie haberman and carl hulse la gestión de biden estará en los libros de historia como un interregno entre dos mandatos de donald trump, una pausa en medio de un periodo caótico de cambio, para bien o para mal. by peter baker biden’s disastrous debate performance highlighted age concerns. by peter baker mr. biden said his eldest granddaughter, naomi, gave birth to a baby boy in california. by aishvarya kavi alexander smirnov’s deal with the special counsel overseeing the investigation into hunter biden could lead to 48 to 72 months in prison, though a federal judge would need to review the deal. by glenn thrush the criticism of the president’s pardon of his son from within his own party underscores how far gone his relationship with democrats in congress already was. by annie karni speaking at the new york times dealbook summit, former president bill clinton argued that president biden had reason to issue the pardon, but wished mr. biden had not repeatedly said he would not do so. by the new york times the former president, speaking at the dealbook summit, suggested that he understood the move but that he wished president biden “hadn’t said he wasn’t going to do it.” by katie glueck el presidente de ee. uu. se enfrenta a críticas por absolver a hunter biden tras insistir en que no lo haría y, según algunos críticos de su propio partido, allanar el camino para el regreso de donald trump a la presidencia. by peter baker president biden is facing criticism for pardoning his son hunter after insisting he would not. peter baker, the chief white house correspondent for the new york times, explains how the decision will shape the outgoing president’s place in history. by peter baker, alexandra ostasiewicz and david jouppi the post watergate norm that political leaders should steer clear of criminal cases is being tested from opposite ends of the political spectrum. by devlin barrett la decisión creó un conflicto entre dos identidades fundamentales: la del padre angustiado que intenta proteger a su hijo y la del presidente que se enorgullece de mantener sus principios. by katie rogers and glenn thrush el presidente biden concedió un perdón general para evitar que su hijo fuera procesado por el gobierno de trump por sus negocios en el extranjero. los expertos buscaron paralelismos históricos. by kenneth p. vogel con el indulto a su hijo, el presidente joe biden añadió su nombre a la lista de presidentes estadounidenses que deshonraron su cargo abusando de la facultad de indultar. by jeffrey toobin it has never happened before. by michael barbaro, peter baker, carlos prieto, jessica cheung, luke vander ploeg, eric krupke, michael benoist, paige cowett, marion lozano, elisheba ittoop and alyssa moxley el presidente joe biden y el presidente electo donald trump coinciden en un punto: el departamento de justicia se ha politizado. by peter baker president biden has pardoned people convicted of some marijuana offenses, but advocates for prisoners say he has been slow to grant other requests. by shaila dewan president biden granted blanket clemency to stop his son from being prosecuted by the trump administration for his foreign business. experts reached for historical parallels. by kenneth p. vogel a tension between parenthood and politics has defined the biden presidency. by jess bidgood and katie rogers tras años de insistir reiteradamente que no lo haría, el presidente joe biden indultó a su hijo, quien enfrentaba cargos por mentir en un formulario federal sobre su adicción a las drogas. by michael d. shear and zolan kanno youngs president biden and president elect donald trump now agree on one thing: the justice department has been politicized. by peter baker the office of the pardon attorney mostly recommends full pardons for people who have already served their sentences. hunter biden has not been sentenced. by kenneth p. vogel the president’s son had pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges and was convicted of three felony counts for lying on a federal firearms application. by glenn thrush mr. biden’s plea deal did fall apart at the last minute last year. but it did so after the judge overseeing the case raised issues. by devlin barrett president biden issued the statement after signing a pardon for hunter biden sunday night. the president made his usual stops, expressing gratitude for progress toward peace in the middle east and urging americans to stay hopeful. by zach montague the former president’s remarks to a conservative radio host were his most pointed about the special counsel, jack smith, if he returns to the white house. by maggie haberman, michael gold and alan feuer the president’s son now confronts a daunting and uncertain process that could result in serious time behind bars when he is sentenced in his tax and gun cases in mid december. by glenn thrush some see hope and skill reflected in the biden paintings. critics say their success, and significant prices, were boosted by joe biden’s celebrity and stature. by graham bowley, mattathias schwartz and zachary small the former president is vowing to prosecute those he sees as working to deny him a victory, while laying the groundwork to claim large scale voter fraud if he loses. by charlie savage, maggie haberman, jonathan swan and michael gold plus, the taliban codifies dire restrictions on women. by tracy mumford, jeanna smialek, christina goldbaum, ian stewart and jessica metzger donald trump’s sentencing on federal charges. by natasha frost el hijo menor del presidente joe biden dio el inusual paso de acogerse a un acuerdo tipo alford, reconociendo que había pruebas suficientes para condenarlo, aunque expresó su inocencia respecto a los mismos cargos. by glenn thrush and lauren herstik the guilty plea now exposes president biden’s son to a likely outcome that once seemed unthinkable: significant time behind bars. by glenn thrush and lauren herstik plus, bogus bands, fake fans and $10 million. by tracy mumford, alexandra berzon, ian stewart and jessica metzger as both sides prepare for the start of jury selection on thursday, there are no indications that any deal is likely, according to several people with knowledge of the situation. by glenn thrush a preliminary hearing on wednesday will determine the contours of the tax trial hunter biden faces in september. it is often a forum for discussions that could lead to a plea deal. by glenn thrush in a lengthy report released on the first day of the democratic national convention, republicans used circumstantial evidence to accuse the president of corruption tied to his son’s foreign business dealings. by luke broadwater plus, new details on hunter biden’s business dealings. by tracy mumford, kenneth p. vogel, mujib mashal, ian stewart and jessica metzger after president biden dropped his re election bid, his administration released records showing that while he was vice president, his son solicited u.s. government assistance. by kenneth p. vogel they stopped short of accusing mr. biden of violating foreign lobbying laws but said they would show how foreign interests paid him to influence the government while his father was vice president. by glenn thrush and kenneth p. vogel a judge also threw out a separate lawsuit against the network brought by a specialist in russian disinformation. by michael m. grynbaum mr. biden’s legal team pointed to a decision by a federal judge in florida, who ruled that the special counsel in mr. trump’s case, jack smith, had been unconstitutionally appointed. by glenn thrush the ohio senator suggested it was “a totally reasonable thing” for former president donald j. trump to, if re elected, appoint a prosecutor to investigate the biden administration. by maggie astor the president’s son has argued that the network violated a new york law by showing the explicit images without his permission. by michael m. grynbaum el presidente de estados unidos intenta calmar la ansiedad de los demócratas tras el desastroso debate de la semana pasada. by katie rogers and peter baker “i said i’d abide by the jury decision,” the president said. “i will do that.” by erica l. green with the recent convictions of a former president and a president’s son, a saying is getting a moment in the spotlight, as it has many times before. by victor mather lawyers for mr. biden are considering a number of challenges to the guilty verdict, including one based on the second amendment. by glenn thrush a pesar del clamor de republicanos y demócratas, los jurados consideraron seriamente las pruebas antes de emitir sus veredictos. by charlie savage the white house spokeswoman said she had not spoken with the president about the matter yet. by peter baker a delaware family sees itself in the hunter biden story. by lisa miller and kriston jae bethel plus, a major split in the hot dog world. by tracy mumford, katie rogers, davis land and jessica metzger many claims about the laptop’s contents have not been proved, but it played a role in the prosecution of mr. biden over a firearm purchase. by katie robertson but despite the partisan roar, two juries appeared to seriously weigh the evidence and deliver verdicts. the system seemed to work as it is supposed to. by charlie savage el hijo del presidente de estados unidos fue condenado por tres delitos graves vinculados a la compra de un arma en 2018. by glenn thrush many allies of donald j. trump had secretly wanted an acquittal, which they predicted would have turbocharged fund raising and fed their claims of a rigged justice system. by jonathan swan, maggie haberman and michael gold

the second impeachment trial of donald trump, the 45th president of the united states (in office from 2017 to 2021), began on february 9, 2021, and concluded with his acquittal on february 13. donald trump had been impeached for the second time by the house of representatives on january 13, 2021. the house adopted one article of impeachment against trump: incitement of insurrection. he is the only u.s. president and only federal official to be impeached twice. he was impeached by the house seven days prior to the expiration of his term and the inauguration of joe biden. because he left office before the trial, this was the first impeachment trial of a former president.[1] the article of impeachment addressed trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results (including his claims of election fraud and his efforts to pressure election officials in georgia) and stated that trump incited the attack on the capitol in washington, d.c., while congress was convened to count the electoral votes and certify the victory of joe biden and kamala harris.[2] at the beginning of the trial, senator rand paul forced a vote to dismiss the impeachment charge on the basis that it was unconstitutional to try a former president, arguing that impeachment only applies to current federal officers and that the punishment of removal from office was moot under the circumstances. supporters of proceeding with the trial argued that the constitution also permits disqualification from holding future office, which the house had requested in its article of impeachment. the motion was defeated in a 55 45 vote, with all democrats, both independents, and five republicans (susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska, mitt romney of utah, ben sasse of nebraska, and pat toomey of pennsylvania) voting against the motion.[3][4] this was the first time that a former president had been tried, and only the second time the senate tried someone who had already left office, after secretary of war william w. belknap in 1876. jamie raskin was the lead impeachment manager and the primary author   along with representative david cicilline and representative ted lieu   of the impeachment article, which charged trump with inciting an insurrection by sparking the capitol attack. joaquin castro, eric swalwell, madeleine dean, and stacey plaskett also assisted in delivering the oral arguments for conviction. trump's defense was led by michael van der veen, a personal injury lawyer from philadelphia, along with david schoen and bruce castor. van der veen's style and substance during the trial drew ridicule and criticism from many, with gasps and laughter in the senate when he stated that he would seek to depose at least 100 people at his philadelphia office, including speaker of the house of representatives nancy pelosi and vice president kamala harris.[5][6] trump had originally hired butch bowers and deborah barbier to represent him, but they quit along with three other lawyers after "the former president wanted the lawyers representing him to focus on his allegations of mass election fraud" and his false claim that "the election was stolen from him."[7] at the conclusion of the trial, the senate voted 57 43 to convict trump of inciting insurrection, falling 10 votes short of the two thirds majority required by the constitution, and trump was therefore acquitted. seven republican senators joined all democratic and independent senators in voting to convict trump, the largest bipartisan vote for an impeachment conviction of a u.s. president or former u.s. president.[8][9] after the vote on the acquittal, mitch mcconnell said, "there's no question that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."[10] but he voted against conviction due to his interpretation of the united states constitution.[11] under the u.s. constitution, the house has the sole power of impeachment (article i, section 2, clause 5), and after that action has been taken, the senate has "the sole power to try all impeachments" (article i, section 3, clause 6). trump was the third u.s. president to face a senate impeachment trial, after andrew johnson and bill clinton.[12] trump is the only federal official to be impeached twice.[13] the senate impeachment trial procedures are set forth under rules adopted in 1986,[14][15] although specific rules are adopted for each trial, with the senate majority leader exercising considerable power in setting the procedures.[15] on january 11, 2021, representatives david cicilline, jamie raskin, and ted lieu introduced an article of impeachment against trump, charging him with "incitement of insurrection" in urging his supporters to march on the capitol building. the article stated that trump had committed high crimes and misdemeanors by making several statements that "encouraged   and foreseeably resulted in   lawless action" that interfered with congress' constitutional duty to certify the election. it said he had "threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of government" in a way that rendered him "a threat to national security, democracy, and the constitution".[16][17] a total of 218 of the 222 house democrats co sponsored the article of impeachment, assuring its passage.[18] the house passed the article of impeachment on january 13, 2021, by a 232 197 vote. all 222 democrats voted to impeach, joined by 10 republicans (including house republican conference chairwoman liz cheney). four republicans did not vote, and the other 197 republicans voted no.[19][20] in the days following trump's second impeachment, then senate majority leader mitch mcconnell (r ky) argued that, because the senate was in pro forma sessions until january 19, it could not take on any business without the unanimous consent of its members. according to senate rules, once articles of impeachment are presented to the senate, the senate trial must begin the next day. had the article of impeachment been immediately transmitted to the senate, trump's trial thus would have begun on inauguration day, after joe biden was sworn in.[21][22] then senate minority leader chuck schumer (d ny) called on mcconnell to bring the senate back into session immediately after the house transmitted the article of impeachment, and also to advance the confirmation process for biden's cabinet nominees so that the incoming administration's team would be in place on day one.[23] some, including house majority whip jim clyburn (d sc), initially suggested that the house might transmit the article of impeachment to the senate at a later date (possibly after biden's first 100 days as president), giving the senate time to consider biden's legislative program and confirm his nominees.[22][24][25] however, house democrats opposed a delay, stating that trump remained a danger while he was in office, and house majority leader steny hoyer (d md) said on january 14 that the article of impeachment would be transmitted to the senate without delay.[24] after the house impeached trump, president elect biden stated, "i hope that the senate leadership will find a way to deal with their constitutional responsibilities on impeachment while also working on the other urgent business of this nation."[24] biden said his priority is enacting a new stimulus bill and rebuilding the economy.[26] he discussed with mcconnell the possibility of "bifurcating" the senate calendar, allowing the trial to proceed while also allowing other business (such as nominations and legislation) to move forward without delay.[24] under this plan, the senate could split its days between the trial and other business, rather than having all its time consumed by the trial.[26][27] former senate parliamentarian alan frumin said that senate rules would permit such a course.[24] mcconnell told biden that he would consult with the senate parliamentarian.[28] schumer, who would replace mcconnell as senate majority leader, said that a senate trial could begin immediately.[24] law professor ronald krotoszynski wrote that the senate could speed up impeachment proceedings (completing the process in a few days, rather than a few weeks) through a process akin to civil summary judgment. this would be permissible under the constitution, which specifies that the senate must "try" articles of impeachment and vote to convict (remove) by a two thirds majority, but allows the senate to set its own trial rules or procedures, as reaffirmed by the u.s. supreme court in nixon v. united states (1993).[29] on january 22, 2021, it was announced that house speaker nancy pelosi would transfer the article of impeachment to the senate on january 25, with the senate trial expected to be held during the week of february 8.[30] a congressional research service report concluded "that while the matter is open to debate, the weight of scholarly authority agrees that former officials may be impeached and tried."[4] ahead of the trial, 150 legal scholars from across the political spectrum published a letter affirming "that the constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents."[31] law professors laurence h. tribe and stephen i. vladeck argued that because removal from office is only one of the two possible consequences of a conviction (the other being disqualification from holding public office), the purpose of the trial is not nullified if the impeached person no longer holds public office.[32][33] gregg nunziata, a former republican lawyer for the senate judiciary committee, similarly noted that because impeachment power includes the power to disqualify the person from federal office for life, allowing officeholders to evade this by resigning would render "this important punishment ... a nullity."[34] leading conservative lawyer charles j. cooper agreed, writing in the wall street journal the weekend before the trial that there is no constitutional prohibition against a post presidency trial.[35][36] cardozo school of law constitutional law professor kate shaw argued that "drafting history, impeachment practice, and basic constitutional design all point clearly in favor of the constitutionality of trying an ex president."[34] legal scholar brian c. kalt, who has published research about late impeachments, stated, "in multiple cases, the house and senate have proceeded as though they can impeach and try people who have already left office, and in one case the senate took a specific vote to that effect."[34] there is precedent for impeaching and trying a federal official who already left office ("late impeachment").[34] in 1797, the house impeached senator william blount for conspiracy. the senate tried him, even though it had already expelled him.[34] in 1876, secretary of war william w. belknap resigned hours before the house voted for his impeachment on charges relating to his role in the trader post scandal, and the senate proceeded to hold a trial, ruling by a vote of 37 29 that it did have jurisdiction after a challenge by belknap's attorneys.[37][38][39] before the trial began, most republicans in the senate argued that the senate lacks the constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment trial of a former president.[4] this argument was also made by former federal appellate judge j. michael luttig,[40] as well as one of trump's lawyers at his first impeachment trial, harvard law school professor emeritus alan dershowitz,[41] and law professor jonathan turley, who testified in trump's favor at his first trial.[4] between the house impeachment vote and the beginning of the trial, former governor of wisconsin scott walker claimed, "the u.s. senate cannot convict a former president," which was mostly false according to politifact, which found 2 pieces of evidence in favor of the claim and 5 pieces of evidence against.[42] senate majority leader chuck schumer said in an interview with msnbc's rachel maddow, that chief justice john roberts had declined to preside over the trial because he believed that the chief justice only presided when the current president was tried.[43][44] patrick leahy, president pro tempore of the senate, presided over the trial,[45][46] in place of vice president kamala harris, the ex officio president of the senate, who might have involved herself if any tie breaking votes were needed.[47] prior to the selection of leahy as presiding officer, there was debate as to who constitutionally should hold that role. article i, section 3, clause 6 of the u.s. constitution states that the senate has the sole power to try impeachments and that "when the president of the united states is tried the chief justice shall preside."[48][49] various commentators questioned whether the chief justice must preside over the trial of former presidents.[48][50] political scientist keith whittington noted that the issue is "unsettled, completely without precedent, and unspecific in existing senate rules and precedents."[50] the university of north carolina law professor michael gerhardt, an expert on impeachment, said he believed that if the impeachment trial began after trump left office, harris, as opposed to roberts, would preside.[48] conversely, university of texas law professor steve vladeck said that "the question should be whether the impeached officer was president at the time of impeachment", and thus that roberts should preside even after trump left office.[48] vladeck pointed out that "if trump resigned (or his term ended) mid trial, it would be more than a little odd for the chief justice to give way to the vice president."[50] georgia state university law professor neil kinkopf argued that "a trial of a president (even a former president) is a momentous event and having the chief justice preside seems more congruent with, or more fitting of, the occasion."[50] on january 12, the day before the house debated the article of impeachment, pelosi named nine democratic representatives to be managers in the senate trial: raskin (lead manager), cicilline, lieu, diana degette, joaquin castro, eric swalwell, joe neguse, madeleine dean, and stacey plaskett.[51] the managers were chosen for their expertise in constitutional law, civil rights, and criminal justice. raskin is a former constitutional law professor at american university; lieu is a former military prosecutor in the united states air force; cicilline is a former public defender; swalwell is a former prosecutor in california; degette is a former civil rights attorney; and castro, neguse, dean, and plaskett are all former lawyers in private practice.[52] democrats relied on many of the same lawyers and aides who helped assemble the first impeachment trial case, including susanne sachsman grooms from the house oversight and reform committee, and aaron hiller, arya hariharan, sarah istel and amy rutkin from the judiciary committee. the house also temporarily called back barry h. berke, a seasoned new york defense lawyer, to serve as chief counsel, along with joshua matz, a constitutional expert.[53] it was initially unclear who would be on trump's legal team, as numerous prominent law firms had refused to represent him. the lincoln project had publicly pressed law firms not to do so.[41] law & crime reported that "essentially all respectable law firms and attorneys" were distancing themselves from him.[54] rudy giuliani, as trump's personal lawyer, was left out of early conversations about the upcoming defense, and trump ordered his aides to stop paying giuliani.[55][56][57] on january 18, one day after meeting with trump, giuliani said he would not represent him, stating, "because i gave an earlier speech [at the rally], i am a witness and therefore unable to participate in court or in the senate chamber."[58] similarly, john eastman, who joined giuliani on stage at the january 6 rally, was initially considered for a role on trump's defense team, but he withdrew because his role at the rally made him a witness.[59] dershowitz, pat cipollone, and jay sekulow, who helped lead trump's defense effort during his first impeachment trial, also declined to represent him.[60] other lawyers who defended trump during his first impeachment trial, including former florida attorney general pam bondi, eric herschmann, patrick philbin, and marc kasowitz, said they were not interested in joining the defense for the second trial. some of them privately expressed their belief that trump's actions were indefensible.[41] trump and congressional republicans considered designating two of trump's most vociferous defenders in congress   jim jordan and elise stefanik   to represent him, even though neither is an attorney.[54][a] congressman matt gaetz suggested he would resign his position in congress to represent trump if asked to be part of the legal team.[61][62] both jordan and stefanik had voted to reject electoral votes for biden, even after the president's supporters stormed the capitol on january 6.[54] in late january, trump formed a defense team of five attorneys to be led by butch bowers, a south carolina based lawyer who helped former south carolina governor mark sanford fight off being removed from office and who also helped former south carolina governor nikki haley during an ethics investigation.[60][63] senator lindsey graham of south carolina had arranged trump's hiring of bowers.[64] subsequently, four more lawyers were named to the defense team under bowers: deborah barbier, a columbia, south carolina, criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor who has represented high profile, controversial clients; former acting u.s. attorney general johnny gasser; criminal defense attorney greg harris; and josh howard of north carolina.[65][66][67][68] however, the defense attorneys all withdrew on january 30, one week before the trial.[68][69][70] the departures occurred after trump clashed with his attorneys on strategy and fees. trump wanted to focus on his false claims that the election was "stolen" from him, in contrast to the lawyers, who insisted on focusing on the legality of convicting a former president. trump was unhappy with the fees and expenses estimated by the lawyers.[68][69][71] none of the lawyers had been paid any advance fees nor had they signed letters of intent.[69] on february 1, after the collapse of his earlier legal team, trump announced that david schoen and bruce castor would be his new defense lawyers.[72][73] pennsylvania attorneys michael van der veen and william j. brennan joined schoen and castor as part of the presentation team.[74][75] senator richard blumenthal (d ct) said: "the evidence is trump's own words, recorded on video. it's a question of whether republicans want to step up and face history."[77] senator kirsten gillibrand (d ny) said, "this is a very simple allegation. it is incitement to insurrection. we could conduct a trial in a concise amount of time because the evidence that's needed is pretty direct."[78] in the run up to the trial, a number of republican senators opposed holding a trial.[79][80] republican senator rand paul of kentucky continued to make false claims of election fraud.[81][82] other senate republicans, such as marco rubio of florida, contended that a senate trial would be too divisive and that it would be "arrogant" for the senate to exercise its power to bar trump from holding office in the future.[83][84] senate democrats favored the conviction of trump, stating that the evidence was clear and straightforward. assuming all democratic senators (and the two independent senators caucusing with the democrats) had voted to convict trump, 17 republican senators would have needed to vote to secure the two thirds majority for conviction. if trump had been convicted, then the senate could have disqualified him from holding any federal office by a simple majority vote.[78][77] on february 9, 45 senators (38 democrats, 5 republicans, and 2 independents caucusing with the democrats) supported conviction, 35 senators (all republican) opposed conviction, and 20 senators (10 democrats and 10 republicans) had not released an official statement. this implied that to convict trump with the required two thirds majority, some of the republican senators who said they opposed conviction would have needed to change their minds, either by voting to convict or by not appearing for the vote.[76] senator lindsey graham (r sc) worked to persuade other republicans to vote against conviction.[77] in january, republican senator mitch mcconnell, the former senate majority leader, reportedly told senators their decision on whether to convict the outgoing president would be a "vote of conscience"[85] and told colleagues he was undecided whether he himself would vote to convict.[86] he later stated on the senate floor that president trump "provoked" the mob that stormed the capitol.[87] however, mcconnell announced on the morning of february 13 that he would vote to acquit trump.[88][89] article i, section 3, clause 6 of the u.s. constitution states that "the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments." per the senate's impeachment rules adopted in 1986, the submission of the articles to the senate initiated the trial.[14] speaker pelosi signed the article of impeachment on january 13, 2021.[90] the article was formally transmitted to the senate on january 25, 2021.[91] on january 26, the house impeachment managers, accompanied by the clerk of the house and the acting house sergeant at arms, conducted the ceremonial procession from the house to the senate (across the national statuary hall and the capitol rotunda) to formally deliver the article of impeachment, triggering the trial.[92][93] raskin, the lead house impeachment manager, read the article to the senate.[92] senate president pro tempore emeritus chuck grassley (r ia) swore in the chamber's presiding officer, senate president pro tempore patrick leahy (d vt),[94] who then swore in all senators as jurors. each senator then signed the oath book. each was required to take the following oath or make the affirmation:[94][14][95][3] oath: i solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, then, now former, president of the united states, now pending, i will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws: so help me god. affirmation: i affirm that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, then, now former, president of the united states, now pending, i will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws. the acting senate sergeant at arms, jennifer hemmingway, then read aloud the following proclamation to mark the beginning of the proceedings: hear ye! hear ye! hear ye! all persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against donald john trump, the now former president of the united states. the summons to trump was issued the same day.[94] on january 26, republican senator rand paul forced a vote to dismiss the impeachment charge, on the basis that it was unconstitutional to try a past president. the motion was defeated 55 45, with all democrats, both the independents, and five republicans (susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska, mitt romney of utah, ben sasse of nebraska, and pat toomey of pennsylvania) voting against the motion.[3][4] the vote was seen as a "test vote" and was viewed as a strong indication that the senate would not reach the two thirds majority required to convict trump.[4][96] under an agreement between chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell, the pre trial briefing schedule was set.[94] the house of representatives, through the nine democratic impeachment managers, filed an 80 page pretrial brief on february 2. the detailed brief stated that trump was "singularly responsible" for the violent attack on the capitol on january 6, citing his preceding campaign to undermine democracy and overthrow the election, and argued that acquitting trump and failing to disqualify him from future office would gravely harm the nation, stating: "president trump has demonstrated beyond doubt that he will resort to any method to maintain or reassert his grip on power. a president who violently attacks the democratic process has no right to participate in it."[99] the impeachment managers argued that the expiration of trump's term, and his new status as a private citizen, did not present a bar to senate trial and conviction, writing: "there is no 'january exception' to impeachment or any other provision of the constitution. a president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office through his last.[99] and that it was "unthinkable" that the framers of the constitution would have left the country "virtually defenseless against a president's treachery in his final days, allowing him to misuse power, violate his oath, and incite insurrection against congress and our electoral institutions simply because he is a lame duck."[100] the house brief stated that "if provoking an insurrectionary riot against a joint session of congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be."[101] trump's lawyers filed a 14 page response to the article of impeachment later the same day.[101] trump's lawyers did not explicitly embrace trump's false claims of a "rigged" election,[101] but nevertheless echoed them, asserting that "insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th president's statements were accurate or not, and he, therefore, denies they were false."[100] trump's lawyers also argued that the impeachment proceeding is legally "void" because trump is no longer president.[102][103][101] the brief asserted that prior to the january 6 riots, trump had "exercised his first amendment right under the constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect".[101] the house had predicted that trump would use the first amendment for his defense, which they countered in their brief that the first amendment was not applicable to an impeachment trial, writing: "the first amendment protects private citizens from the government; it does not protect government officials from accountability for their own abuses in office."[102] quoting the standard established in brandenburg v. ohio (1969), a landmark decision of the u.s. supreme court interpreting the first amendment,[97] the house added that "speech is not protected where it is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[102] nearly 150 leading first amendment lawyers and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum found trump's first amendment assertion "legally frivolous" and not a viable defense against conviction.[104][105] the house submitted its replication to trump's answer on february 8.[98] trump, through his attorneys bruce l. castor jr., david schoen, and michael t. van der veen,[108][109] submitted a brief asserting that democratic leadership in the house were engaging in a "selfish attempt" to capitalize on the storming of the capitol and its aftermath. they argued that instead of healing the nation or prosecuting lawmakers who participated in the riot, they instead intend "to callously harness the chaos of the moment for their own political gain."[109] unusual for legal documents, trump's lawyers invoked partisan rhetoric, writing that democrats suffer from "trump derangement syndrome"; sought to "silence a political opponent and a minority party" as part of a years long effort; and "hunger for this political theater" that would be "a danger to our republic [sic] democracy and the rights that we hold dear."[110] seeking to distance trump from his supporters who assaulted the capitol, his lawyers wrote that "the people who criminally breached the capitol did so of their own accord and for their own reasons, and they are being criminally prosecuted."[110] trump's lawyers, citing discredited sources such as the conspiracy theorist the gateway pundit website, also falsely claimed in the brief some elements of the capitol insurrection consisted of anti trump rather than pro trump figures.[110][111] the brief also denies that trump took no steps to halt the violence, described him as "horrified" by the scene and asserting that there was a "flurry of activity" inside the white house constrained by "complex procedural elements";[110] this revisionist account[112] is contradicted by the actual sequence of events on january 6, when trump initially ignored requests for him to restrain the mob, and was described by multiple trump administration officials and others in contact with him on that day as delighted at the halting of the electoral vote count.[112][113] trump's lawyers argued that trump did not incite the rioters and that his comments and rhetoric about fighting was metaphorical rather than a call for violence.[109] they contended that trump, in the rally preceding the assault on the capitol, used the term fight "in the figurative sense" and not "to encourage acts of violence."[109] trump's lawyers also described some of trump's acts, including a phone call in which trump pressured georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger to "find" additional votes for him to overturn biden's victory in georgia, as merely political.[110] trump's lawyers also repeated their free speech argument, arguing that he could not be convicted due to the first amendment;[110] a minority of legal scholars believe that the first amendment applies in the impeachment context.[114] the brief makes 15 references to a 2001 article on impeachment by prominent legal scholar brian kalt, asserting that he had concluded that impeaching a former president is unconstitutional. kalt replied that trump's lawyers made "flat out misrepresentations" of his work and that he had actually concluded that there is a "solid basis" for post presidential impeachments, having noted and rejected contrary arguments.[115] in an unprecedented maneuver in american history, the trump defense team declared that trump would, if convicted by the senate, attempt to overturn the verdict. trump's lawyers say the conviction would be "unauthorized" and "non binding"   and that if trump runs for president again, it "would be challenged in a court of law".[110] given nixon v. united states, it is unclear whether or to what extent a challenge to a senate impeachment conviction would be justiciable.[114] the supreme court case had unanimously determined that the question of whether the senate had properly tried an impeachment was a political question and could not be resolved in the judicial branch.[116] the house submitted its reply memorandum on february 9, 2021.[94][107] in a letter to trump attorneys on february 4, lead impeachment manager jamie raskin invited trump to testify (and be subject to cross examination) before or during the impeachment trial; the house impeachment managers argued that his testimony was needed after he disputed the house's allegations that he incited the insurrection at the capitol.[118] the letter stated that trump's refusal to testify would support "a strong adverse inference" against trump.[118] the house's letter noted that there was no barrier to a former president giving testimony (and noted that presidents gerald ford and bill clinton had testified in office, and the supreme court held in trump v. vance (2020) that trump was not immune from legal process while serving as president).[119] trump's lawyers castor and schoen responded to raskin the same day in a terse letter declining the invitation.[118] in their response, they called the house's request for trump's testimony "a public relations stunt"; rejected the implication of adverse inference for refusing to have trump testify; said that the house "cannot prove" its allegations; called the impeachment trial an "unconstitutional proceeding"; and stated that it is too serious "to try and play these games".[120][121][122] the house impeachment managers signaled that they would not subpoena trump's testimony, stating that there was ample other evidence (including video evidence) that supported his guilt.[123] raskin stated that trump's "immediate refusal to testify speaks volumes and plainly establishes an adverse inference supporting his guilt."[123] in preparation for the trial, house democrats built a detailed case against trump, emphasizing what trump knew in advance of the attack on the capitol on january 6 and the effect of trump's words and actions on his rioting supporters, with the goal of showing that trump "summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack".[124] in a notable departure on strategy, the managers declined to discuss the logistics of their case, whereas in the previous impeachment trial they had engaged in numerous communication platforms to advance their position to the public. the managers also sought to apply the lessons learned in the last impeachment trial: not antagonize republicans, use lots of videos, and make succinct arguments.[53][125] the managers prepared to conclude in a week, forgoing witnesses as they believed it would be unnecessary and hinder biden's priorities on passing legislation and confirming nominees.[126] the managers intended to use the evidence collected in fbi affidavits charging hundreds of the capitol insurrectionists, many of whom cited trump's comments as permission to storm the capitol. on certain filings, trump is described as a "de facto unindicted coconspirator" for the capitol riots and the driving force behind the breach, according to proud boys organizer ethan nordean.[110] accordingly, the house was reported to present their case like a "violent crime criminal prosecution."[127] house impeachment managers and the staff, aided by the law firm debevoise & plimpton, compiled audio and video footage of trump's rally and the ensuing attack on the capitol, as well as details about the injuries sustained by police.[124][128][129] according to the new york times, the managers were also concerned about implicating republican lawmakers who entertained the president's claims of election fraud, notably those who questioned and objected to the 2021 electoral college vote count, as well as in the case of ted cruz and josh hawley, played a role in the capitol storming. the managers sought to make clear that it is not his party but trump himself who is on trial, so as to not alienate the gop senators.[130][53] trump's defense team indicated that they would present their opening arguments in one day. bruce castor, david schoen, michael van der veen and william j. brennan were all expected to speak.[131] trump announced that he would not testify for the impeachment trial.[132] on the evening before the defense's opening arguments, senators lindsey graham, ted cruz, and mike lee were seen going into a room that trump's lawyers were using to prepare for their arguments. cruz downplayed the meeting as an opportunity to "share [their] thoughts" about the defense's legal strategy. when reporters confronted schoen on the appropriateness of impartial jurors consulting with the defense team, he claimed that the trial did not have "any semblance of due process whatsoever".[133] on february 8, schumer and mcconnell reached an agreement on the procedural resolution for the trial, giving the impeachment managers and trump's lawyers up to 16 hours each to present their cases and creating the option for a debate and vote to call witnesses if the house impeachment managers sought it. schumer announced that the trial rules had been agreed to by senate republican and democrats, as well as the house managers and trump's legal team.[135] trump's attorney david schoen, who is of jewish faith, originally requested a pause of the trial for the sabbath, starting on the evening of friday, february 12, and for the trial to resume on sunday, february 14.[135][136] senate majority leader chuck schumer and other senate leadership agreed to this request, but schoen later withdrew this request, saying that other trump defense lawyers could continue the trial during this period.[137] the senate voted, 89 11, to adopt the procedural rules for the trial on february 9, and the trial started with a four hour debate on the constitutionality of the trial, then the senate voted at a simple majority threshold to affirm the proceedings' constitutionality, 56 44.[138][135] in a two hour presentation on february 9, the house managers argued that the senate has jurisdiction to try the impeachment of trump.[99] castor opened the defense argument with what many criticized as a rambling 48 minute presentation.[139][140][141] he argued that the impeachment was politically motivated, and unnecessary because voters had already been "smart enough" to vote trump out of office and, in doing so, explicitly acknowledged biden had won a free and fair election.[142][143][144] raskin played video footage of the capitol storming and trump's rhetoric to highlight the consequences if presidents could commit impeachable offenses in their last month without constitutional accountability.[127] the statement that biden won the election was seen to have undercut both their arguments in pre trial briefs of trump's repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent, stolen, and rigged; and accordingly his speech on january 6 was justified because he believed the election was fundamentally "suspect." trump had initially made clear to advisers that he did not want his lawyers saying that biden won the election fairly, even if it was not their main focus at the trial.[144] accordingly, trump was reported to be very displeased with castor's performance.[145][146][147] castor's argument was widely criticized for numerous bizarre and incoherent statements, such as "nebraska, you're going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place."[148] alan dershowitz stated, "there is no argument. i have no idea what he's doing."[149] following the four hour debate where both sides presented arguments on whether the trial was unconstitutional because trump was no longer president, the senate voted 56 44 that the impeachment trial was constitutional. the original five republican senators voting with democrats in the rand paul point of order voted in favor, along with bill cassidy (r la) who in a post interview used adjectives of focused, organized, and compelling to describe the case brought.[150] a simple majority was required to proceed. the lack of republican support to proceed with the trial was interpreted as indicating an increased likelihood of trump's acquittal.[151] ted cruz, who voted against the constitutionality of the trial, told fox news the same day that he believed it was constitutional but not required.[152] on february 12, a group of 199 legal experts, including prominent conservative lawyers charles fried, stuart m. gerson, paul rosenzweig, and peter keisler issued a letter, saying that because trump's jurisdictional challenge had failed, the senate had an obligation to vote on the merits: "the former president chose to raise a jurisdictional argument in a motion to dismiss the trial. this body, exercising its considered judgment, determined that the senate does have jurisdiction to try this case and so resolved the issue. ... now that the senate, as a collegial body, has ruled on the jurisdictional question, individual senators should respect and honor that determination of the senate as a body, even if they might have disagreed with it as an initial matter."[155] the letter writers echoed an argument the lead house impeachment manager jamie raskin had made the preceding day: (that the february 9 senate vote definitively established constitutional jurisdiction and obliged each senator to vote "on the facts of what happened") and contradicted the stance of senate republicans who said they would vote against convicting trump on the procedural ground that he was no longer president.[155] on february 9, raskin described the scene in the house during the invasion, with people phoning their loved ones to say goodbye, and "the most haunting sound i ever heard"   people pounding on the door like a battering ram. regarding the constitutionality of trying trump when he was no longer in office, he urged senators not to create a "january exception" to a president's accountability.[156] on february 10, the impeachment managers began to present their case. they presented new footage of the attack, including police body camera footage. citing this, plaskett revealed that rioters came within 100 feet of where vice president pence was sheltering with his family, and raised the point that a gallows was constructed outside the capitol where rioters chanted "hang mike pence". citing the possession of a 950,000 volt stun gun by the man who was photographed with his feet on pelosi's desk, as well as other evidence, plaskett argued that the rioters intended to murder the speaker of the house. plaskett stated that lawmakers were put in danger because of trump's speeches and tweets.[157] she cited witness testimony from arrested rioters who said that anyone they got their hands on they would have killed. "they were talking about assassinating the vice president of the united states", she said. "they did it because donald trump sent them."[158] the impeachment managers' presentation concluded on february 11. diana degette argued that statements of rioters made "before, during and after the attack make clear the attack was done for donald trump, at his instructions, and to fulfill his wishes."[159] ted lieu argued that trump demonstrated no remorse after the attack.[160] immediately after the end of the first day of opening arguments, senator mike lee raised an objection.[161] he moved to strike a portion of the prosecution's presentation in which they described trump's telephone calls to him and senator tommy tuberville, claiming that their description of the calls was untrue. this drew much confusion due to lee's spokesperson and tuberville confirming the calls from trump. despite the perplexity of the situation, rep. jamie raskin, the lead impeachment manager, eventually agreed to lee's request calling it "much to do about nothing".[161][162][163] on february 12, trump's counsel castor, schoen, van der veen and brennan presented their opening arguments.[133] van der veen called the impeachment article an "unconstitutional act of political vengeance" and amounted to "constitutional cancel culture" on trump and his supporters. they claimed that trump's remarks that day "encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically",[164][165][166] and that the house's charge that he incited an insurrection was "a preposterous and monstrous lie".[167] van der veen argued that if the capitol attack was premeditated as criminal files have alleged, trump could not have incited what was already planned. schoen asserted that the house had afforded trump's counsel no due process in the impeachment proceedings and claimed that the house has manipulated footage and relayed inaccurate information. they also criticized the managers for heavily saying "reportedly" as their standard for evidence.[168] mounting a "whataboutism" defense,[169][170][171] trump's lawyers played a lengthy video montage demonstrating what they described as the hypocrisy of democrats' reactions to trump's rhetoric. as examples, they showed clips of schumer appearing to threaten supreme court justices kavanaugh and gorsuch at a march 2020 pro abortion rights rally.[172] (schumer apologized the next day.)[173] the video montage included democrats using the word "fight" and the phrase "fight like hell" in several speeches, remarks, and interviews, focusing on senator elizabeth warren.[174] many of the clips, from democratic figures such as representatives maxine waters, al green, nancy pelosi, and alexandria ocasio cortez, senators elizabeth warren and jon tester, and president biden,[175] were taken out of context,[173] and involved the democrats referring to "fighting" for constituents against bureaucratic obstacles (as in the tester clip),[175] fighting for progressive policy positions (as in the warren clips),[170] or fighting the coronavirus (as in a schumer clip).[170] trump's lawyers falsely claimed that trump's first two tweets during the capitol attack urged calm; trump in fact first tweeted an attack on vice president pence before making a tweet saying "stay peaceful" and "no violence".[176] trump's attorneys asserted that democrats' calls for trump's impeachment was evidence of a "double standard", and claimed that democrats and liberals had been out to get trump physically and politically since the beginning of his candidacy for president.[175] they furthermore showed clips of trump's speeches throughout the years that they claimed the democrats and media had misrepresented, as evidence that he had always condemned violence and white supremacy. they insisted that trump's words at the rally were "ordinary political rhetoric" and protected free speech. the defense team rested their case after less than three hours, proceeding to a question and answer session.[177] during the proceedings, republican senators ted cruz, mike lee, dan sullivan, mike braun, todd young, and marsha blackburn repeatedly huddled to discuss their "standards" of impeachment.[178] graham and cruz repeatedly consulted with trump's lawyers during their breaks.[179] republicans generally lauded the house managers' presentation, with focus being drawn to ted lieu's warning that he was not concerned about the results of trump winning another presidential election, but of his losing one.[180] most republicans said they thought trump would be acquitted, with some repeating their convictions about the trial's alleged unconstitutionality.[180] trump's lawyers' presentation was praised by republicans such as ron johnson[181] and john barrasso.[182] democrats criticized trump's lawyers' presentation and denounced the defense team's equating of trump's rhetoric ahead of the storming of the capitol to past comments by democrats: senator tim kaine called it a "bogus argument"; martin heinrich called it a "completely false equivalence" and said "i don't remember any violent mobs after any of those comments"; and chris coons said, "show me any time that the result was, our supporters pulled someone out of the crowd, beat the living crap out of them, and then we said, 'that's great, good for you, you're a patriot.'"[182] schoen reportedly threatened on the evening of february 11, the night before the opening argument for the defense, to quit trump's defense team over a disagreement about the use of videos. trump called schoen and convinced him to stay.[183] on the fourth day of the hearing, senators had four hours to submit questions to the house managers and the counsel for donald trump.[184] the first question from schumer and feinstein (q1) was whether the attack on the capitol would have happened if not for trump's conduct; impeachment manager castro responded by quoting cheney's statement on trump's actions. graham, cruz, kevin cramer, and roger marshall submitted a question (q2) on whether politicians' raising bail for rioters encouraged more rioters; castro said it did. raphael warnock asked (q3) if it was true that dozens of courts had previously rejected trump's efforts to overturn the election. lisa murkowski asked (q4) when trump learned of the capitol attack and what specific actions he took to end the rioting. van der veen accused the house impeachment team of not carrying out a proper investigation to determine those facts, claiming the house relied on "hearsay". jacky rosen asked (q5) if there was evidence that trump should have known that his tolerance of anti semitic hate speech and rhetoric could have incited the violence. plaskett answered that trump had a recorded history of encouraging violence.[183] van der veen discussed brandenburg v. ohio, which he called a "landmark case on the issue of incitement speech", to argue that trump had not meant for his supporters to storm the capitol, calling trump's speech metaphorical. ed markey and tammy duckworth asked (q7) when trump learned of the breach and what actions he took to stop the violence. plaskett stated, "the answer is, nothing."[183] mitt romney and susan collins asked both sides (q8) whether trump knew that pence had been escorted from the senate when trump tweeted to disparage him.[185] castro said he had known, referring to tuberville's call. van der veen, however, said that this was hearsay and that there was no solid evidence due to "lack of due diligence". marsha blackburn and mike crapo asked (q10) whether a former official could be impeached, and van der veen argued that it was not constitutional, despite the senate having already voted that it was. amy klobuchar, bob casey, and sherrod brown asked (q9) what message the senate would send if it did not convict trump. plaskett warned that there would be consequences and quoted trump's words, "this is only the beginning". alex padilla asked (q11) if trump's allegations of fraud had led to the "radicalization" of his supporters to attack the capitol. castro responded that trump's "big lie" had incited them. josh hawley and kevin cramer asked (q12) if the senate could disqualify sitting presidents without removing them. castro answered in the negative, which raskin disputed. elizabeth warren asked (q13) the managers whether democrats objecting to previous electoral college votes had intended for rioters to storm the capitol. raskin called that a false comparison and noted that democrats did not cause any violence. jeff merkley asked (q17) the managers whether the president was innocent because he told the rioters later to be "peaceful". raskin compared that to robbing a bank and then yelling "respect private property".[183] bernie sanders asked both sides (q15) whether, in their judgment, trump lost the 2020 election. plaskett said that trump lost the popular and electoral college vote, and that the doj and courts had agreed that all legal votes were counted. van der veen, however, refused to answer the question on the basis that his judgment was "irrelevant" to the proceeding, causing a ruckus on the senate floor before leahy restored order.[185][183] ron johnson asked (q16) why law enforcement would have been surprised and overwhelmed if the storming was premeditated. van der veen praised but did not answer the question. plaskett stated that trump knew the rioters would come and cultivated them, yet did not deploy the national guard.[183] cruz asked a question (q18) equating kamala harris's statement that she would raise bail money for black lives matter protesters with the behavior described in the house's article of impeachment. raskin replied that he would let harris speak for herself and said outgoing presidents should be held to account for their conduct. raskin noted that the original permit for the rally had said attendees would not march, but that the plan was changed after trump intervened. van der veen criticized raskin for being unfamiliar with harris's "protected speech" and asked that the senate protect trump's.[183] patty murray asked (q19) whether trump's 6:01 pm tweet was relevant to his guilt. castro responded by asking why, if trump was not guilty and the storming was not his intention, he would have sent the tweet. joe manchin asked (q21) whether trump would have been responsible for not protecting congress given that he had fbi and domestic intelligence at his disposal. plaskett stated that trump was fully aware and thus fully responsible. bill cassidy asked (q20) if trump knew about the rioters and pence's presence in the capitol. van der veen said those facts were based on hearsay. raskin countered that trump's defense team had refused to have trump provide direct testimony to establish a record.[186] dan sullivan asked (q22) about the house's assertion that due process was "discretionary" and about the constitutional ramifications of establishing that precedent. van der veen said that was why senators needed to acquit. richard blumenthal asked (q23) whether the relevant supreme court case prohibited officials from being held accountable through impeachment for inciting violence. raskin noted that trump's lawyers were trying to treat the trial as a criminal trial and trump as a criminal defendant.[183] marco rubio asked both sides (q26) whether, in the future, congress could impeach a former secretary of state, alluding to hillary clinton. raskin called the hypothetical "irrelevant", and van der veen stated that conviction would lead to a "slippery slope".[183] the senate adjourned after giving a standing ovation to capitol police officer eugene goodman for his actions during the riot and passing a bill to award him the congressional gold medal.[183] on february 13, 2021, the senate voted 55 45 to allow both sides to subpoena witnesses for testimony and documents for the trial. the vote came as a surprise to both sides, as the expectation had been that a vote would be taken and the trial would end on that day. the trial was recessed so that the parties could discuss what steps to take. an additional vote would be required to establish the rules for calling witnesses.[187] senators resolved, after a two hour discussion, and with the approval of both parties and the republican leader, to allow the house managers to read a statement from gop rep. jaime herrera beutler and its entry into the record[188] as evidence but not open to further argument.[189][190]: s720 herrera beutler had earlier told many people her recollection of trump's call to mccarthy, who had described it to her. her statement said: in my january 12 statement in support of the article of impeachment, i referenced a conversation house minority leader kevin mccarthy relayed to me that he'd had with president trump while the january 6 attack was ongoing. here are the details: when mccarthy finally reached the president on january 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the capitol. mccarthy refuted that and told the president that these were trump supporters. that's when, according to mccarthy, the president said: 'well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.' since i publicly announced my decision to vote for impeachment, i have shared these details in countless conversations with constituents and colleagues, and multiple times through the media and other public forums. i told it to the daily news of longview on january 17. i've shared it with local county republican executive board members, as well as other constituents who ask me to explain my vote. i shared it with thousands of residents on my telephone town hall on february 8. to the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time.[191] sen. mike lee handed over various phone records to the house impeachment managers to resolve a dispute over his call from trump during the timeline of events. the records show that at 2:26 pm et on jan 6, trump called lee by mistake when he was looking to speak to tuberville. tuberville spoke with trump on lee's phone for less than 10 minutes, with trump trying to convince him to make additional objections to the electoral college vote in another effort to block congress' certification of then president elect joe biden's win. tuberville has said he told trump that pence was being evacuated.[192][193] other records show that trump had tweeted an attack on pence for lacking "courage" two minutes earlier, at 2:25 pm et.[194] former vice president mike pence's chief of staff marc short had also been contacted about providing information about threats to pence. a source close to pence had told reporters that trump's legal team was lying when van der veen claimed that "at no point" did the then president know that pence was in danger on january 6.[195] the impeachment managers made their closing arguments on february 13. raskin argued that trump's "dereliction of duty ... was central to his incitement of insurrection, and inextricable from it," and that trump's call with mccarthy confirmed he did not care for the safety of lawmakers.[196] dean played a video montage of trump's repeating the 'big lie'. mike lee briefly interrupted their arguments to object to using the video, as new evidence is not allowed to be admitted during closing arguments, but dean argued that statement was already on record, and so dean was allowed to continue and use it.[197][198][199] neguse concluded with an emotional appeal to senators and alluded to martin luther king jr, warning of a "dark future" if senators did not convict trump.[200] neguse rebutted the defense's arguments of lack of due process by arguing that the defense fully presented their evidence and declined invitations to testify and provide exculpatory evidence, and the defense's video montage of democrats using words like "fight" by stating they did not end in attempting to overturn an election in the capitol.[201] trump's attorney michael van der veen made a closing argument containing many false and misleading claims.[202] he falsely claimed that the capitol insurrection was "preplanned and premeditated by fringe left and right groups"; the attack was perpetrated by right wing rioters, some of whom pre planned the attack and others who participated spontaneously.[202] van der veen asserted that nothing trump said "could ever possibly be construed as...encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection," although many of those who attacked the capitol specifically said that trump's words inspired them to take action.[202] echoing a claim that trump had previously made, van der veen falsely accused president biden and vice president harris of having "repeatedly refused to condemn" acts of violence during riots in 2020 over police violence; in fact, biden and harris publicly condemned riots, violence, and lawlessness in statements in august and october 2020.[202] van der veen lambasted the democrats for pursuing impeachment, calling it a "complete charade from beginning to end" and the "unhinged pursuit of a long standing political vendetta" against trump, and claiming that the democrats' fear of trump getting re elected is fueling the trial. he ended their marks, calling it a "maniacal crusade," urging senators to not "go down this dark path of anonymity and division."[203] he falsely asserted, "one of the first people arrested was the leader of antifa," though federal authorities had not linked the man in question, john earle sullivan, to antifa,[204] and the fbi said there was no evidence of antifa involvement in the incident.[205][206][207] trump was acquitted by the senate on february 13, 2021, with 57 senators voting in favor of conviction and 43 voting against. seven republican senators joined the entire democratic caucus in voting for conviction: richard burr of north carolina, bill cassidy of louisiana, susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska, mitt romney of utah, ben sasse of nebraska, and pat toomey of pennsylvania.[208] despite the verdict being for acquittal, the result was the most bipartisan presidential impeachment conviction vote to date. in trump's first impeachment trial, romney became the first senator to vote to convict a president from his own party.[209] the voting was marked by tension in the senate chamber. a greater number of republicans voted to convict than trump's legal team had expected.[210][211] burr's and cassidy's votes to convict were considered surprising,[212][213][214] and both were censured by their state parties (north carolina and louisiana, respectively).[215] murkowski was later censured by her state party of alaska on march 16, 2021, which passed at 53 17.[216] another motion in utah to censure mitt romney by the utah republican party during the state convention on april 30, 2021, was defeated 798 711. romney was booed during a speech in the convention where he defended his decision.[217] among the seven senators who voted to convict, three (cassidy, collins, and sasse) had just won reelection and two (burr and toomey) were not seeking another term, while romney had already voted to convict trump in the latter's first impeachment. murkowski was the only one of those seven senators who was to face voters in the next election. however, most election pundits believed it unlikely that murkowski would be defeated in a primary, despite threats by trump and former alaska governor sarah palin, due to alaska's newly adopted ranked choice voting system,[218] and indeed murkowski was re elected. in remarks on the senate floor after the adjournment of the "court of impeachment", minority and republican leader mitch mcconnell, who voted for acquittal, said his vote was based on his belief that the constitution did not permit the senate to convict an ex president.[190]: s735 he noted that trump "didn't get away with anything yet" because the criminal justice system could still deal with the situation.[219] he added: january 6th was a disgrace. american citizens attacked their own government. they used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. fellow americans beat and bloodied our own police. they stormed the senate floor. they tried to hunt down the speaker of the house. they built a gallows and chanted about murdering the vice president. they did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth   because he was angry he'd lost an election. former president trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. the house accused the former president of, quote, 'incitement.' that is a specific term from the criminal law. let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something i said weeks ago: there is no question that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.[220][221] schumer strongly criticized the senate's decision to acquit trump in a floor speech, calling it "un american" and insulting to patriots who sacrificed themselves for the country for centuries. "there is nothing, nothing more un american than that ... there is nothing, nothing more antithetical to our democracy... insulting to the generations of americans patriots who gave their lives to defend our form of government." schumer vowed that the storming of the capitol would be trump's "final terrible legacy" and that history would condemn the republicans who voted to acquit. schumer decried the events of january 6, saying it would "live on in infamy, a stain on donald john trump that can never, never be washed away".[222] republican senator bill cassidy said the constitution and the country "is more important than any one person" and that he voted to convict trump "because he is guilty."[223] republican senator susan collins of maine said that trump "incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring" and that his "actions to interfere with the peaceful transition of power" constituted an abuse of power and "grounds for conviction."[224] jamie raskin hailed the effort as the "most bipartisan presidential impeachment in the history of the united states"; stated that "trump stormed our house with the mob he incited and we defended our house"; and referred to mcconnell's speech as confirmation that the house had proved their case and that the senate had merely punted on their responsibility over a debunked technicality than on the merits.[225] mcconnell was condemned as hypocritical for criticizing trump after voting to acquit him, especially because he had maneuvered to block the house from starting the trial before trump had left office, and thereafter cited trump's status as a private citizen as a reason to not convict him. speaker nancy pelosi said: "it is so pathetic that senator mcconnell kept the senate shut down so that the senate could not receive the article of impeachment and has used that as his excuse for not voting to convict donald trump."[226] after the senate vote, president trump released a statement calling the trial "yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country" and asserting that his movement had "only just begun."[227] on november 5, 2024, trump was re elected, winning both the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. the washington examiner stated that many are saying that it is "the greatest political come back in american history."[228] president joe biden released a statement following the acquittal that day. he noted the sacrifice of capitol police officer brian sicknick who had lain in honor in the capitol rotunda days earlier, the bipartisanship of the impeachment and the trial, and mcconnell's speech laying responsibility on trump. he stated that "democracy is fragile" and must always be defended, and that "violence and extremism have no place in america".[229] after being acquitted in the senate impeachment trial, trump has continued to face legal troubles, including the threat of criminal action or civil litigation.[230] the prospect that trump could face a criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit arising from the capitol assault was raised by a number of republican members of congress, including representative liz cheney,[231] senator marco rubio and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell.[230] the office of georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger started an investigation into trump's attempts to overturn the state's election results, including a phone call the former president made to raffensperger. the fulton county district attorney, fani willis, has also started a criminal investigation into whether trump should be charged for soliciting election fraud, a violation of georgia state law.[232] trump has expressed concern that he could be criminally charged for his actions surrounding the capitol storming.[233] trump separately faces an investigation in manhattan relating to his company's business dealings.[230] section 3 of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution disqualifies from federal or state office[234] anyone who has taken an oath to support the constitution[235][236] and either "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the constitution,[237] or "given aid to the enemies" of the us.[238] although the section's text does not explicitly describe how it is invoked, by congressional precedent, disqualification is invoked by a simple majority of both chambers, and can be removed by a supermajority of both chambers.[237][238] during the second impeachment of donald trump, section 3 was cited in the article of impeachment as part of the basis for barring trump from holding future office.[239][240] it is disputed whether section 3 can be used as a potential "alternate path to disqualification [from office]" if the senate votes to acquit trump of the impeachment charge.[235][237][241] democrats such as richard blumenthal, chris murphy, dick durbin, and ben cardin, have considered invoking section 3 to bar trump from holding office again, though such a move would enter uncharted constitutional and legal territory.[242] a reuters/ipsos poll released on january 22, 2021, found that 51% of americans favored conviction of trump in the senate, 37% opposed, and 12% were unsure. 55% of americans supported the senate disqualifying trump from holding federal office in the future; 34% opposed this step, and 11% said they were unsure.[243] a monmouth university poll released on january 25, 2021 found that 52% of americans favored the conviction of trump in the senate, while 44% opposed; 57% supported the senate disqualifying trump from holding federal office in the future.[244][245] an abc news/ipsos poll released on february 7, 2021 found that 56% of americans favored the senate convicting trump and disqualifying him from holding federal office in the future, with 43% opposed.[246] a cbs news poll/yougov released on february 8, 2021 found that 56% of americans favored the senate convicting trump, with 44% opposed.[247] a hill/harrisx poll released on february 10, 2021 found that 52% of americans favored conviction with 48% opposed.[248] a vox/data for progress poll released on february 10, 2021 found that 12% of republicans supported conviction compared to 82% of democrats and 52% of independents and that 69% of republicans said they would be less likely to vote for a political candidate in their state if that person voted for conviction.[249] a morning consult/politico poll taken february 14 15, 2021 (after trump's acquittal) showed that 54% of gop voters would vote for trump in the 2024 republican primary, which was up 12% from a poll taken shortly after the january 6 united states capitol attack, and equal to the level of support in november following the 2020 presidential election.[250] house managers: president's counsel:

the trump ukraine scandal was a political scandal that arose primarily from the discovery of u.s. president donald trump's attempts to coerce ukraine into investigating his political rival joe biden and thus potentially damage biden's campaign for the 2020 democratic party presidential nomination. trump enlisted surrogates in and outside his administration, including personal lawyer rudy giuliani and attorney general william barr, to pressure ukraine and other governments to cooperate in supporting and legitimizing the bogus biden ukraine conspiracy theory and other conspiracy theories concerning us politics.[1][2][3][4][5] trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package, in an attempt to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy. contacts were established between the white house and government of ukraine, culminating in a call between trump and zelenskyy on july 25, 2019.[1][2][3][6] trump released the aid after becoming aware of a whistleblower complaint, before the complaint was known by congress or the public.[7] the scandal reached public attention in mid september 2019 due to a whistleblower complaint made in august.[8] the complaint raised concerns about trump using powers to solicit foreign electoral intervention in the 2020 u.s. presidential election.[9] the white house corroborated allegations raised by the whistleblower. a transcript of the trump zelenskyy call confirmed trump requested investigations into joe biden and his son hunter biden, as well as a conspiracy theory involving a democratic national committee server, while urging zelenskyy to work with giuliani and barr on this.[10][11] former acting chief of staff mick mulvaney said one reason why trump withheld aid to ukraine was ukrainian "corruption related to the dnc server", referring to a debunked theory that ukrainians framed russia for hacking into the dnc system.[12] trump has publicly urged ukraine and china to investigate the bidens.[13] the trump administration's top diplomat to ukraine, bill taylor, testified he was told aid to ukraine and a trump zelenskyy white house meeting were conditional on zelenskyy announcing investigations into the bidens and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 u.s. elections.[14] u.s. ambassador to the eu gordon sondland testified he worked with giuliani at trump's "express direction" to arrange a quid pro quo with the ukraine government.[15] on september 24, 2019, the house of representatives began a formal impeachment inquiry into trump.[16] on october 31, 2019, the house of representatives voted to approve guidelines for the next phase of impeachment.[17] trump was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing congress,[18] but was acquitted by the senate.[19] on december 3, 2019, as part of the inquiry, the house intelligence committee published a report detailing that "president trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the u.s. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, to benefit his reelection. ...president trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new ukrainian president...of politically motivated investigations, including one into joe biden, one of trump's domestic political opponents. in pressuring president zelenskyy to carry out his demand, president trump withheld a white house meeting desperately sought by the ukrainian president, and critical u.s. military assistance to fight russian aggression in eastern ukraine."[20]: 8 in january 2020, the government accountability office, a non partisan watchdog, concluded the white house broke federal law by withholding congress approved military aid to ukraine.[21] the scandal came to light when a whistleblower report revealed that president trump had asked ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy in july 2019 to investigate joe biden, trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, his son hunter biden, and company crowdstrike, to discuss these matters with trump's personal attorney rudy giuliani and attorney general william barr.[22][23] the allegations were confirmed by a non verbatim summary of the conversation released by the white house.[10][11][24] trump acknowledged he had told zelenskyy "we don't want our people like vice president biden and his son [contributing] to the corruption already in the ukraine."[25] according to the whistleblower, the call was part of a wider campaign by trump, his administration, and giuliani to pressure ukraine into investigating the bidens, which may have included trump's cancelling a scheduled trip to ukraine by vice president mike pence, and trump withholding $400 million in military aid from ukraine.[26][27][28] immediately after the trump zelenskyy call ended, white house national security aides discussed their deep concerns, with at least one national security council (nsc) official alerting white house national security lawyers.[29][30] a text message between a state department envoy to ukraine and a ukrainian official showed the envoy understood from the white house that a zelenskyy visit with trump was contingent upon ukraine's investigating a conspiracy theory about alleged ukrainian meddling in the 2016 u.s. presidential election.[31] records of the trump zelenskyy call were moved from the system where presidential call transcripts are typically stored to a system reserved for the government's most sensitive secrets.[32][26][33] the trump administration had also similarly restricted access to records of trump's conversations with the leaders of china,[34] russia, saudi arabia,[35] and australia.[2] it was subsequently revealed that this placement was made for political rather than for national security reasons.[36] the first whistleblower complaint was filed on august 12, 2019, reportedly by a cia officer detailed to the white house.[37] it was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen u.s. officials".[38][39] the complaint was eventually released to congressional intelligence committees on september 25, 2019,[40] and a redacted version of the complaint was made public the next day.[41] on october 6, 2019, attorney mark zaid announced the existence of a second official whistleblower, an intelligence official with firsthand knowledge who had spoken with the inspector general of the intelligence community but had not yet contacted the congressional committees involved in the investigation.[42] the whistleblower's complaint prompted a referral to the department of justice criminal division. on september 25, a department of justice spokeswoman, kerri kupec, announced that the division had "concluded the matter" and determined that the call did not constitute a campaign finance violation.[43][44][45] on october 3, after trump publicly called for china and ukraine to investigate joe and hunter biden,[46] federal election commission (fec) chair ellen weintraub reiterated that "it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a u.s. election."[47] trump has denied all wrongdoing.[48] he confirmed that he had withheld aid from ukraine, while offering contradicting reasons for doing so. trump first claimed it was withheld because of corruption in ukraine, but later said it was because other nations, including those in europe, were not contributing enough aid to ukraine.[49][50][51] european union institutions provided more than twice the amount of aid to ukraine than did the united states during 2016 17,[52][53] and trump's budget proposal sought to cut billions of dollars from u.s. initiatives to fight corruption and encourage reform in ukraine and elsewhere.[54] trump has repeatedly attacked the whistleblower and sought information about the whistleblower.[55][56] in october 2019, after mentioning that the u.s. has "tremendous power" in the trade war with china "if they don't do what we want", trump publicly urged ukraine and china to investigate the bidens.[13] as of october 2019, there has been no evidence produced of any alleged wrongdoing by the bidens.[57] trump, his supporters, and right wing media have spread multiple conspiracy theories regarding ukraine, the bidens, the whistleblower, and the foreign interference in the 2016 election.[58][59][60] the scope of the scandal expanded on october 9, when arrests were made by the fbi of two of giuliani's clients involved in political and business affairs in the u.s. and ukraine,[61] as well as news two days later that giuliani himself was under federal investigation.[62][needs update] before this scandal came to light, u.s. president donald trump indicated he would accept foreign intelligence on his political rivals. in june 2019, trump was interviewed by george stephanopoulos, who asked: "if foreigners, if russia, if china, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the fbi?" trump responded: "i think maybe you do both. i think you might want to listen. i don't. there's nothing wrong with listening. if somebody called from a country norway we have information on your opponent. oh. i think i'd want to hear it."[63] after trump said this, the chair of the federal election commission, ellen weintraub, reminded americans that according to federal law: "it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a u.s. election."[64] previously in july 2016, while trump was still a candidate in the 2016 united states presidential election, he made a request: "russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" from 2016 democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton's email server.[65][66] in 2014, the obama administration was trying to provide diplomatic support to the post 2014 ukrainian revolution yatsenyuk government in ukraine, and then vice president joe biden was "at the forefront" of those efforts.[67] biden's son hunter biden joined the board of directors of burisma holdings, a ukrainian energy company, on april 18, 2014.[68][69][70] hunter, then an attorney with boies schiller flexner, was hired to help burisma with corporate governance best practices, and a consulting firm in which hunter is a partner was also retained by burisma.[68][71][72] in a december 2015 interview, joe biden said he had never discussed hunter's work at burisma.[73] joe biden traveled to ukrainian capital kyiv on april 21, 2014, and urged the ukrainian government "to reduce its dependence on russia for supplies of natural gas".[74][75] he discussed how the united states could help provide technical expertise for expanding domestic production of natural gas.[74] since 2012, the ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating burisma's owner, oligarch mykola zlochevsky, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.[68] in 2015, viktor shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. the obama administration, other governments, and non governmental organizations soon became concerned that shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti corruption efforts".[76][77] among other issues, he was slow walking the investigation into zlochevsky and burisma, to the extent that obama administration officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[68] shokin has said he believes he was fired because of his burisma investigation, where hunter biden was allegedly a subject. however, that investigation was dormant at the time shokin was fired.[73][78] in december 2015, then vice president biden visited kyiv and informed the ukrainian government that $1 billion in loan guarantees would be withheld unless anti corruption reforms were implemented, including the removal of shokin.[79] ukraine's parliament voted to dismiss shokin in march 2016.[79][80] the loan guarantees were finally approved on june 3, after additional reforms were made.[79] at the time, corruption in ukraine was a matter of bipartisan concern in the u.s., with republican senators rob portman, mark kirk, and ron johnson co signing a senate ukraine caucus letter in february 2016 urging then president poroshenko to implement reforms, including "to press ahead with urgent reforms to the prosecutor general's office".[81] biden was not alone in targeting shokin for anti corruption reasons; he was joined by other european and u.s. officials. former u.s. ambassador to ukraine geoffrey pyatt and the assistant secretary of state victoria nuland both said in 2015 that shokin's office was failing to root out corruption. in march 2016, testimony to the senate foreign relations committee, former ambassador to ukraine john e. herbst stated, "by late fall of 2015, the eu and the united states joined the chorus of those seeking mr. shokin's removal" and that joe biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his december visit to kyiv." during the same hearing, nuland stated, "we have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up."[82] meanwhile, protests within ukraine were calling for shokin's removal, and the international monetary fund (imf) also threatened to delay $40 billion of aid in light of corruption in ukraine.[83] anders åslund, a resident senior fellow at the atlantic council, said that "everyone in the western community wanted shokin sacked ... the whole g 7, the imf, the ebrd [european bank for reconstruction and development], everybody was united that shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was joe biden."[76] the european union eventually praised shokin's dismissal due to a "lack of tangible results" of his office's investigations, and also because people in shokin's office were themselves being investigated.[84] as of may 16, 2019, when the prosecutor general's office cleared biden and his son of alleged corruption,[85] there is no evidence that biden acted to protect his son's involvement with burisma, although trump, giuliani, and their allies have fueled speculation.[71][86][87] shokin's successor, yuriy lutsenko, initially took a hard line against burisma, but within a year, lutsenko announced that all legal proceedings and pending criminal allegations against zlochevsky had been "fully closed".[68] in a related 2014 investigation by the united kingdom, british authorities froze u.k. bank accounts tied to zlochevsky; however, the investigation was later closed due to a lack of evidence.[88] lutsenko said in may 2019 that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the bidens, but he was planning to provide information to attorney general william barr about burisma board payments so american authorities could verify whether hunter biden had paid u.s. taxes.[85] in november 2019, senator rand paul asserted that the whistleblower "is a material witness to the possible corruption of hunter biden and joe biden," adding, "[the whistleblower] might have traveled with joe biden to ukraine for all we know," calling for investigators to subpoena the whistleblower. asked for evidence to support his allegations, paul replied, "we don't know unless we ask." senator lindsey graham, the senate judiciary committee chair, responded by saying "what basis does he have to say that? he needs to tell us ... you can't ask members [of congress], 'do you want to subpoena this guy?' he might be this, he might be that."[89] since at least may 2019, giuliani has been pushing for ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy, the newly elected president of ukraine, to investigate burisma, as well as to check if there were any irregularities in the ukrainian investigation of paul manafort. on may 7, zelenskyy and a group of his advisors had a three hour meeting to discuss how to respond to trump and giuliani's pressure and how to avoid becoming involved in domestic american politics.[90] giuliani said the investigations he sought would be beneficial to president trump, his client, and that his efforts had trump's full support.[91] giuliani's efforts began as an attempt to provide cover for trump to pardon manafort, who had been convicted of eight felony counts in august 2018.[92] on may 10, giuliani canceled a scheduled trip to ukraine where he had intended to urge president elect zelenskyy to pursue inquiries into hunter biden, as well as whether democrats colluded with ukrainians to release information about manafort.[93][94] giuliani claimed he has sworn statements from five ukrainians stating they were brought into the obama white house in january 2016 and told to "go dig up dirt on trump and manafort", although he has not produced evidence for the claim.[95] giuliani asserted he cancelled the trip because he had been "set up" by ukrainians who objected to his efforts, and blamed democrats for trying to "spin" the trip. giuliani met with ukrainian officials to press for an investigation in june 2019 and august 2019.[96] as early as may 2019, as state department officials planned to meet with zelenskyy, trump told them to circumvent official channels for planning this meeting and instead to work with giuliani.[97] in july 2019, days before trump made his phone call to zelenskyy, giuliani participated in a 40 minute phone call with u.s. diplomat kurt volker and andriy yermak, a senior adviser to zelenskyy. on this call, giuliani said that if zelenskyy were to publicly announce an investigation into biden, it would help zelenskyy have "a much better relationship" with trump.[98] responding to a motion by the liberal watchdog group american oversight,[99] on october 23 a federal judge gave the state department 30 days to release ukraine related records, including communications between secretary of state mike pompeo and rudy giuliani.[100] on november 22, the state department released internal emails and documents that bolstered gordon sondland's congressional testimony that pompeo participated in giuliani's activities relating to ukraine. the documents also showed the state department had deliberately deceived congress about the rationale for yovanovitch's removal as ambassador.[99] during his call with zelenskyy, trump said, "i will ask [giuliani] 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."[101] in november, trump denied directing giuliani to go to ukraine,[102] but days after his impeachment acquittal acknowledged that he had.[103] giuliani had asserted in september that "everything i did was to defend my client."[104] since march 2019, while giuliani was pressing the ukrainian administration to investigate the bidens, a group of businessmen and republican donors used their ties to trump and giuliani to try to replace the leadership of ukrainian state owned oil and gas company naftogaz. the group sought to have naftogaz contracts granted to businesses owned by allies of trump, but this effort hit a setback when volodymyr zelenskyy won the 2019 ukrainian presidential election.[105] during a state visit for president zelenskyy's inauguration in may, former secretary of energy rick perry reportedly pressured president zelenskyy to fire members of the naftogaz supervisory board,[105] but perry denied this, stating in a press conference on october 7: "that was a totally dreamed up story".[106] on october 10, perry was issued a subpoena by the house intelligence committee, the house oversight committee, and the house foreign affairs committee, partially concerning his interactions with naftogaz.[107][108][109] the wall street journal reported that perry planned to have amos hochstein, a former obama administration official, replaced as a member of the board at naftogaz with someone aligned with republican interests. perry denied the reports.[110][111] dmytry firtash is a ukrainian oligarch who is prominent in the natural gas sector. in 2017, the justice department characterized him as being an "upper echelon (associate) of russian organized crime".[112] living in vienna, austria, for five years he has been fighting extradition to the u.s. on bribery and racketeering charges, and has been seeking to have the charges dropped. firtash's attorneys obtained a september statement from viktor shokin, the former ukrainian prosecutor general who was forced out under pressure from multiple countries and non governmental organizations, as conveyed to ukraine by joe biden. shokin asserted in the statement that biden actually had him fired because he refused to stop his investigation into burisma. giuliani, who asserts he has "nothing to do with" and has "never met or talked to" firtash, has promoted the statement in television appearances as purported evidence of wrongdoing by the bidens. giuliani told cnn he met with a firtash attorney for two hours in new york city at the time he was seeking information about the bidens.[113][114][115] firtash is represented by trump and giuliani associates joseph digenova and his wife victoria toensing, having hired them on lev parnas's recommendation. the new york times reported in november that giuliani had directed parnas to approach firtash with the recommendation, with the proposition that firtash could help to provide compromising information on biden, which parnas's attorney described was "part of any potential resolution to [firtash's] extradition matter".[116] shokin's statement notes that it was prepared "at the request of lawyers acting for dmitry firtash".[113][117] bloomberg news reported on october 18 that during the summer of 2019 firtash associates began attempting to dig up dirt on the bidens in an effort to solicit giuliani's assistance with firtash's legal matters, as well as hiring digenova and toensing in july. bloomberg news also reported that its sources told them giuliani's high profile publicity of the shokin statement had greatly reduced the chances of the justice department dropping the charges against firtash, as it would appear to be a political quid pro quo.[118] later that day, the new york times reported that weeks earlier, before his associates lev parnas and igor fruman were indicted, giuliani met with officials with the criminal and fraud divisions of the justice department regarding what giuliani characterized as a "very, very sensitive" foreign bribery case involving a client of his. barr also attended the meeting.[119] the times did not name whom the case involved, but shortly after publication of the story giuliani told a reporter it was not firtash.[120][121] two days later, the justice department stated its officials would not have met with giuliani had they known his associates were under investigation by the sdny.[122] digenova has said he has known attorney general bill barr for thirty years, as they both worked in the reagan justice department.[123] the washington post reported on october 22 that after they began representing firtash, toensing and digenova secured a rare face to face meeting with barr to argue the firtash charges should be dropped.[124] prior to that mid august meeting, barr had been briefed in detail on the initial whistleblower complaint within the cia that had been forwarded to the justice department, as well as on giuliani's activities in ukraine. barr declined to intervene in the firtash case.[116] firtash made his fortune brokering ukrainian imports of natural gas from the russian firm gazprom.[125] as vice president, joe biden had urged the ukrainian government to eliminate middlemen such as firtash from the country's natural gas industry, and to reduce the country's reliance on imports of russian natural gas. firtash denied involvement in collecting or financing damaging information on the bidens.[116] kashyap patel was a national security aide for the house intelligence committee, under congressman nunes (r, ca.) during the first years of the trump administration. he was the key author of a controversial memo which was central to the republican narrative that fbi and doj officials inappropriately obtained fisa warrants for several of trump campaign staffers, including carter page.[126][127] weeks later, the memo was deemed biased, consisting of "cherry picked facts".[127] after the leadership changeover in of the house of representatives, patel was hired as a staffer for president trump's national security council. within months it was suspected that he had assumed the role of an additional independent back channel for the president, which was seen as potentially detrimental to american policy in ukraine. it was noticed that during nsc meetings patel took few notes and was underqualified for his portfolio, the united nations.[127][128] politico reports this position was actually created specifically for patel.[128] red flags were raised when president trump referred to patel as "one of his top ukraine policy specialists" and as such wished "to discuss related documents with him".[127] patel's actual assignment has been counter terrorism issues, rather than ukraine. he was thought to have operated independently of giuliani's irregular, informal channel. impeachment inquiry witnesses have been asked what they know about patel. fiona hill told investigators that it seems "patel was improperly becoming involved in ukraine policy and was sending information to mr. trump."[127] sondland and kent testified they did not come across patel in the course of their work.[127] on december 3, 2019, the house intelligence committee's report included phone records, acquired via subpoenas to at&t and/or verizon wireless, including a 25 minute phone call between patel and giuliani on may 10, 2019.[20]: 58 the call occurred after giuliani and patel attempted to call each other for several hours, and less than an hour after a call between giuliani and kurt volker.[20]: 58 five minutes after the 25 minute call between giuliani and patel, an unidentified " 1" phone number called giuliani for over 17 minutes, after which giuliani called his now indicted associate lev parnas for approximately 12 minutes.[20]: 58 in a statement to cbs news on december 4, patel denied being part of giuliani's ukraine back channel, saying he was "never a back channel to president trump on ukraine matters, at all, ever",[129] and that his call with giuliani was "personal".[130] after richard grenell was named acting director of national intelligence in february 2020, patel was added as a senior adviser on february 20.[131] following the termination of secretary mark esper in november 2020, patel became the chief of staff for acting defense secretary christopher c. miller.[132][133][134][135] as early as april 2018, rudy giuliani and his associates lev parnas and igor fruman had apparently decided to assist president trump's re election efforts and they identified the u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch as being a difficulty.[136] yovanovitch had spent her thirty year career working as a diplomat and was announced as the nominee for u.s. ambassador to ukraine on may 18, 2016, to replace geoff pyatt.[137] yovanovitch was respected within the national security community for her efforts to encourage ukraine to tackle corruption,[138] and during her tenure had sought to strengthen the ukrainian national anti corruption bureau, which had been created to bolster efforts to fight corruption in ukraine. as u.s. ambassador to ukraine, yovanovitch became the target of a conspiracy driven smear campaign.[139][140][141] allegations against her were then made by trump's personal attorney giuliani, as well as conservative commentator john solomon of the hill and ukraine's then top prosecutor, yuri lutsenko, who accused her of being part of a conspiracy involving anti corruption probes in ukraine and efforts by the trump administration to investigate ties between ukrainian officials and the hillary clinton 2016 presidential campaign.[142][143][144] lutsenko, who has been accused by ukrainian civil society organizations of corruption,[145] claimed that yovanovitch, an obama administration appointee, had interfered in ukraine politics, had given him a "do not prosecute" list and was interfering in his ability to combat corruption in ukraine.[143][146] the u.s. state department said that lutsenko's allegations against yovanovitch were "an outright fabrication"[143] and indicated that they were a "classic disinformation campaign."[140] lutsenko subsequently recanted his claims of a "do not prosecute" list.[147] in testimony before the house intelligence committee, george kent, the deputy assistant secretary for the state department's bureau of european and eurasian affairs, described the narratives about ukraine told by solomon and right wing fox news personalities sean hannity and laura ingraham as "entirely made up in full cloth". their information was based on solomon's interview(s) with a drunken yuriy lutsenko, the corrupt former ukrainian prosecutor.[148] solomon's stories were nonetheless amplified by president trump, his son donald trump jr., giuliani, solomon, and conservative media outlets.[143][149] ukrainians who opposed yovanovitch were also sources for giuliani, who "was on a months long search for political dirt in ukraine to help president trump."[145] giuliani confirmed in a november 2019 interview that he believed he "needed yovanovitch out of the way" because she was going to make his investigations difficult.[150] on april 24, 2019,[151] after complaints from giuliani and other trump allies that yovanovitch was undermining and obstructing trump's efforts to persuade ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential election candidate joe biden, trump ordered yovanovitch's recall.[152][153] she returned to washington, d.c., on april 25,[151] with her recall becoming public knowledge on may 7,[154] and her mission as ambassador being terminated on may 20, 2019.[155][156] in a july 25, 2019, phone call with ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy (the contents of which became public on september 25, 2019), trump pressured the ukrainian government to investigate biden and disparaged yovanovitch to his foreign counterpart, calling her "bad news".[149][157] documents to the house intelligence committee provided by lev parnas outlined text exchanges in which lutsenko pushed for the ouster of yovanovitch and in return offered to provide damaging information on joe biden.[158][159][160] in russian language messages, lutsenko told parnas that yovanovitch referred to as "madam" should be ousted before he would make helpful public statements; for example, in a march 22, 2019 whatsapp message to parnas, lutsenko wrote, "it's just that if you don't make a decision about madam you are calling into question all my declarations. including about b."[158] it is thought that lutsenko targeted yovanovitch due to her anti corruption efforts in ukraine.[161] one week before an april 1, 2019, conference on anti corruption, parnas exchanged encrypted whatsapp text messages with robert f. hyde that indicated the ambassador was under surveillance and that her security was at risk.[162][163] hyde claimed he had merely forwarded messages received from a belgium citizen named anthony de caluwe.[163] after the house intelligence committee released the text messages, de caluwe initially denied any involvement, but then reversed himself, saying that he had in fact sent the messages to hyde but that the messages were a joke and "just a part of a ridiculous banter."[163] an audio tape from april 2018, recorded at a private dinner between trump and top donors and made public by abc news in january 2020, captures trump demanding yovanovitch's removal, saying: "get rid of her! get her out tomorrow. i don't care. get her out tomorrow. take her out. okay? do it."[136][158][164] the recording appeared to corroborate parnas's account that he had told trump that night that yovanovitch was working against him.[158] yovanovitch's abrupt ouster shocked and outraged career state department diplomats.[146][165][166] acting assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs philip reeker, the chief diplomat for u.s. policy for europe, testified that he had urged top state department officials david hale and t. ulrich brechbuhl, to issue a statement expressing strong support for yovanovitch, but that top state department leadership rejected this proposal.[140] former senior u.s. diplomats philip h. gordon and daniel fried, who served as assistant secretaries of state for european and eurasian affairs and as national security council staffers under presidents of both parties, praised yovanovitch and condemned trump's "egregious mistreatment of one of the country's most distinguished ambassadors," writing that this had demoralized the u.s. diplomatic corps and undermined u.s. foreign policy.[167] the american foreign service association and american academy of diplomacy, representing members of the u.s. diplomatic corps, expressed alarm at trump's disparagement of yovanovitch in his call with zelenskyy.[168] michael mckinley, a career foreign service officer who served as ambassador to four countries and had been chief adviser to secretary of state mike pompeo, resigned in october 2019 in protest of trump's attacks against yovanovitch and "the state department's unwillingness to protect career diplomats from politically motivated pressure."[169][170] yovanovitch's ouster became one of the issues explored in the house of representatives impeachment inquiry against trump;[152] her recall was termed "a political hit job" by democratic members of congress.[143][157] trump subsequently said she was "no angel" and falsely claimed that yovanovitch had refused to hang his portrait.[171][172] on september 20, 2019, the washington post reported that trump had in a july 25 phone conversation repeatedly pressed ukrainian president zelenskyy to investigate matters relating to hunter biden.[173] the new york times reported that trump told zelenskyy to speak to giuliani,[174][175] and according to the wall street journal, he urged zelenskyy "about eight times" to work with giuliani and investigate biden's son.[96] on september 22, trump acknowledged he had discussed joe biden during the call with zelenskyy, and that he had said: "we don't want our people like vice president biden and his son creating [sic] to the corruption already in the ukraine. [sic]"[25] as of october 2019, there has been no evidence produced of any of the alleged wrongdoing by the bidens.[57] the wall street journal reported on september 30 that secretary of state mike pompeo also listened in on the call.[176] two days later, the washington post reported that vice president mike pence's national security advisor keith kellogg had listened in on the call as well, and that "pence should have had access to the transcript within hours."[1] others on the line included tim morrison, the national security council's senior director for europe and russia; robert blair, an aide to mick mulvaney; and alexander vindman, a ukraine expert for the nsc.[29] days before trump's july 25 call with zelenskyy, giuliani spoke on the phone with zelenskyy aide andriy yermak about a biden investigation, as well as a prospective white house meeting between zelenskyy and trump that was sought by ukrainian officials.[177][98] according to zelenskyy's advisor serhiy leshchenko, trump was willing to have a phone conversation with zelenskyy only on the precondition that they discuss the possibility of investigating the biden family. leshchenko later sought to backtrack his comments, saying he did not know if officials had viewed discussing biden as a precondition for a meeting.[178] text messages given to congress by special envoy to ukraine kurt volker in october suggest that zelenskyy's aide yermak was told that zelenskyy would be invited for a white house visit only if he promised to carry out the requested investigations. on july 25, just before trump's phone call, volker texted to yermak: "heard from white house assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to washington."[179] on september 25, the administration released the white house's five page, declassified memorandum of the july 25 phone call between trump and zelenskyy.[180][181][182][a] in the call, trump pressed for an investigation into the bidens and crowdstrike, saying: "i would like to have the [u.s.] attorney general call you or your people and i would like you to get to the bottom of it."[181] trump falsely told zelenskyy "biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of his son, hunter; biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.[183] trump also presented giuliani as a key u.s. contact for ukraine, although giuliani holds no official u.s. government position. trump said three times that he would ask both attorney general barr and giuliani to call zelenskyy,[184] and added: "so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great."[180] in response, zelenskyy said his candidate for ukraine's chief prosecutor "will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue". after zelenskyy said this, trump offered to meet with zelenskyy at the white house.[181] on the same call with zelenskyy, trump espoused the conspiracy theory that hillary clinton's email server was in ukraine;[185][186] criticized the u.s.'s european allies (in particular germany),[184] and disparaged the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, a career u.s. diplomat whom the trump administration had abruptly recalled two months earlier. trump told zelenskyy that yovanovitch was "going to go through some things".[149][187][188] during the conversation, zelenskyy mentioned that on his last visit to the u.s., he had stayed in trump tower. ethics advocacy groups described this comment as an attempt to curry favor.[189] shortly after the conversation, white house aides began asking one another whether they should alert other senior officials who had not participated.[29] the first whistleblower described one white house official as being "visibly shaken by what had transpired". in a july 26 memo, the whistleblower reported, "the official stated that there was already a conversation underway with white house lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official's view, the president had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a u.s. person for the purposes of advancing his own re election bid in 2020."[190][191] during the period prior to and immediately after the july 25 call, at least four national security officials warned national security council legal adviser john eisenberg that the trump administration was attempting to pressure ukraine for political purposes.[30] days after the trump call, giuliani met with yermak in madrid. giuliani said on september 23 that the state department had asked him to "go on a mission for them" to speak with yermak.[192] the state department had said on august 22 that its ukraine envoy volker had connected the men, but that giuliani was acting as a private citizen and trump attorney,[193] although he briefed the state department after the trip.[177] giuliani said he told yermak, "your country owes it to us and to your country to find out what really happened." yermak said he was not clear if giuliani was representing trump, but giuliani said he was not, and the white house referred questions about giuliani's role to the state department, which did not respond. appearing on television on september 19, giuliani first denied he had asked ukrainian officials to investigate joe biden, but moments later said, "of course i did."[194][195][196] former prosecutor yuri lutsenko told the los angeles times giuliani had repeatedly demanded that the ukrainians investigate the biden family. "i told him i could not start an investigation just for the interests of an american official," lutsenko informed the times.[197] in august, volker and american ambassador to the eu gordon sondland drafted a statement they wanted zelenskyy to read publicly that would commit ukraine to investigate burisma and the conspiracy theory that ukraine interfered with the 2016 election to benefit hillary clinton. however, zelenskyy never made the statement.[179] volker also provided to congressional investigators a september text message exchange between sondland, a major trump donor and political appointee, and bill taylor, a career diplomat who was the senior official at the ukrainian embassy after the recall of ambassador yovanovitch. in the messages, taylor wrote: "i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." four hours later, after speaking with trump, sondland responded: "bill, i believe you are incorrect about president trump's intentions. the president has been crystal clear: no quid pro quos of any kind." he then suggested they continue discussing the matter by phone rather than text.[198][199][200] the washington post reported on october 12 that sondland would tell congressional investigators the following week that he had relayed trump's assertion of no quid pro quo, but he did not know if it was actually true.[201] nbc news reported the night before sondland's testimony that he told ukrainian officials visiting the white house that a trump zelenskyy meeting was conditioned on ukraine opening an investigation, and discussed burisma with them.[202] the wall street journal reported in november 2019 that prior to the trump zelenskyy call, sondland had kept several administration officials apprised via email of his efforts to persuade ukraine to open investigations.[203] american embassy officials in kyiv repeatedly expressed concerns about giuliani's meetings, and during closed door congressional testimony on october 4, volker reportedly said he had warned giuliani that ukrainian political figures were giving him untrustworthy information about the bidens.[31][94] he also testified that joe biden was a "man of integrity", saying: "i have known former vice president biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as vice president by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. i know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country."[204] the first whistleblower's report said that "senior white house officials had intervened to 'lock down' all records of the phone call", an act that indicated those officials "understood the gravity of what had transpired".[b] they performed the "lock down" by placing the record of the call on a top secret server intended for the most highly classified material,[205][206][207] under the direction of john eisenberg.[35] it was later confirmed that on orders from national security council attorneys, the call with ukraine was moved from tnet,[33] the regular nsc computer system, to the top secret codeword nice system, reserved for closely guarded secrets.[206][208] on september 27, it was reported that records of calls with the leaders of saudi arabia and russia had also been stored on nice.[35] on september 27, the white house acknowledged that a record of the call between trump and zelenskyy was sealed in a highly classified system, as per the advice of national security council lawyers.[32][209] on the same day, it was reported that the records of trump's oval office meeting with russian officials in may 2017 had been unusually closely held, with distribution limited to a few officials.[210] white house advisor kellyanne conway said the procedure for handling records of trump's calls with world leaders had been tightened early in 2017 because of leaks to the press about his conversations with the president of mexico and the prime minister of australia.[211] it was subsequently revealed that this placement on the top secret server was made for political rather than for national security reasons, which are the only valid reasons to use such a server,[36] and that it happened after the white house's top ukraine adviser, alexander vindman, told white house lawyer john eisenberg that "what the president did was wrong". this conversation occurred immediately after trump's phone call with zelenskyy, and, according to people familiar with vindman's account, it was eisenberg who proposed this placement and restriction of access to the "memorandum of telephone conversation" (i.e., the "rough transcript" of the phone call).[212] on october 2, trump falsely asserted that the publicly released memorandum was "an exact word for word transcript of the conversation". analysts noted that its use of ellipses to denote omitted material was uncommon for government transcripts, and that it was surprisingly brief for a thirty minute conversation, even allowing for the time delays due to the use of an interpreter.[213] during his october 29 testimony, european affairs lt. col alexander vindman said the memorandum of the call released by the white house omitted crucial words and phrases, including trump asserting that recordings exist of joe biden discussing ukraine corruption, which trump stated in the third set of ellipses in the released memorandum. vindman said he tried but failed to restore the omitted text.[214] a senior white house official had asserted when the memorandum was released that the ellipses "do not indicate missing words or phrases", but rather "a trailing off of a voice or pause".[215] the new york times states that "there is no [audio] recording of the july 25 call by the american side."[214] both attorney general bill barr and white house counsel pat cipollone had recommended trump publicly release the memorandum, asserting it showed the president did nothing wrong. during ensuing days, trump and his allies strongly encouraged the public to read the "transcript", even as the consensus view of legal analysts was that the memorandum implicated rather than exonerated the president. chief of staff mick mulvaney advised trump that releasing the memorandum had been a mistake, causing the president to become irked by the advice barr had given him.[216][217] the u.s. congress had mandated increased military aid to ukraine over the period of trump's presidency.[218][219] congress appropriated $400 million in military aid to ukraine for fiscal year 2019, to be used to spend on weapons and other equipment as well as programs to assist the ukrainian military in combating threats from putin's russia and russian backed separatists of the self proclaimed separatist entities in eastern ukraine.[220][221] the administration notified congress in february 2019 and may 2019 that it intended to release this aid to ukraine, with the defense department certifying that ukraine had made sufficient progress in fighting corruption.[220][222] despite the notifications to congress, in june 2019, the trump administration placed military aid to ukraine on hold.[223] the date of the hold was originally reported as mid july.[220][221][224] the washington post reported on september 23 that at least a week before his july 25 call with zelenskyy, trump directed his acting chief of staff mick mulvaney to withhold[clarify] $400 million in military aid to ukraine. this directive was conveyed by the office of management and budget to the state department and pentagon, stating trump had concerns about whether the money should be spent, with instructions to tell lawmakers the funds were being delayed due to an "interagency process".[220] the new york times reported that "high level ukrainian officials" were aware that the trump administration had purposely frozen the military aid by the first week of august 2019, and they were told to contact mick mulvaney to resolve the matter.[225] during an october 17 press conference, white house acting chief of staff mick mulvaney said he "was involved with the process" of the freezing of military aid. mulvaney gave his account of why trump decided to hold back military aid to ukraine. one, trump felt the other european countries were not doing enough. two, trump felt ukraine was a "corrupt place" which included having "corruption related to the dnc server" with regard to "what happened in 2016". as a result, reporter jonathan karl told mulvaney "what you just described is a quid pro quo. it is: 'funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happens as well.'" mulvaney replied to karl: "we do that all the time with foreign policy ... get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy." later in the press conference, mulvaney quoted a third reason on why military aid was frozen they had yet to cooperate with a u.s. justice department investigation into alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 u.s. presidential election.[12][226] after media reports of mulvaney's comments circulated, republicans joined trump's aides and legal counsel in distancing themselves from his remarks.[227][228] a senior official in the justice department stated: "if the white house was withholding aid from ukraine with regard to any investigation by the justice department, that's news to us."[226] hours later on the same day where he had issued the press conference, mulvaney criticized the media for their coverage of his comments and denied his earlier remarks, saying that there was "no quid pro quo" regarding the withholding of aid and requests to investigate the democrats' behavior during the 2016 election.[227][228] in the july 25 call with trump, zelenskyy thanked trump for the u.s.'s "great support in the area of defense", an apparent reference to military aid, and expressed an interest in acquiring more missiles. trump replied, "i would like you to do us a favor though,"[180] suggesting an investigation into crowdstrike, an american cybersecurity firm that investigated the cyberattacks against the democratic national committee in 2015 and 2016. crowdstrike was one of three firms whose analysis assisted the u.s. intelligence community in determining that russian intelligence was responsible for the dnc hack.[184] trump also asked zelenskyy to investigate joe biden and his son.[229] ukraine relies on extensive american military aid to fight russian backed separatists in the donbas, and the trump administration's suspension of the congressionally mandated aid was reportedly a shock to ukrainian government officials who found out about it only "much later, and then through nonofficial channels".[230] trump's addition of the word "though" has been interpreted as a condition made by trump that his decisions would be based on ukraine's compliance with his requests.[231] on september 9, on hearing about the whistleblower complaint, three democratic controlled house committees the committee on foreign affairs, the permanent select committee on intelligence, and the committee on oversight and reform announced they would investigate whether trump and giuliani attempted to coerce ukraine into investigating the bidens by withholding the military aid.[232] on september 11, the trump administration released the aid.[233] in a september 20 tweet, giuliani appeared to confirm suspicion that there was a connection between the withholding of military assistance funds and the investigation he and trump wanted ukraine to undertake.[234][235] he said: "the reality is that the president of the united states, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. if you're so damn corrupt that you can't investigate allegations our money is going to get squandered."[236] trump himself appeared to make a similar connection on september 23, telling reporters: "we want to make sure that country is honest. it's very important to talk about corruption. if you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"[224] trump later denied pressuring ukraine.[224] while the aid was restored in time to prevent any military setbacks, trump's withholding of military aid took a heavy psychological toll on the ukraine soldiers.[237] trump has offered inconsistent justifications for withholding the aid.[49] he originally said that the aid was withheld due to "corruption" in the country and that the topic of conversation with volodymyr zelenskyy was about "the fact that we don't want our people, like vice president biden and his son, [adding] to the corruption already in the ukraine".[238] he later disputed his original statement and said the aid was initially held back due to a lack of similar contribution from other european nations.[49][52] republican senator ron johnson told the wall street journal in october that american ambassador gordon sondland told him in august that military aid to ukraine was linked to the desire of trump and his allies for the ukrainian government to investigate matters related to the 2016 american elections.[239] sondland told a state department diplomat in september via text message that there was no quid pro quo.[240] on october 12, however, the washington post reported that, according to a person familiar with sondland's testimony, sondland plans to testify to congress that the content of that text message "was relayed to him directly by president trump in a phone call" and that he did not know if the claim denying quid pro quo was actually true.[241] the wall street journal reported on october 10 that career civil servants at the office of management and budget were concerned about the legality of freezing the aid funds, and that the white house granted a political appointee, michael duffey, the authority to keep the aid on hold.[242] partially redacted omb emails released to the center for public integrity on december 20 showed that duffey initiated action to freeze the ukrainian aid about 90 minutes after the july 25 trump zelenskyy call, writing to omb and pentagon officials, "given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction."[243] unredacted versions of the emails subsequently acquired by just security showed that the pentagon repeatedly pushed back against the hold, citing legal concerns, but duffey stated, "clear direction from potus to continue to hold". just security reported that the original redactions had been made by the justice department.[244][245] another series of heavily redacted emails released on january 21, 2020, showed that the omb was laying the groundwork to freeze the ukraine aid on the night of july 24, prior to the july 25 trump zelenskyy call. an enclosed "ukraine prep memo" was redacted in its entirety.[246][247] on january 16, 2020, the government accountability office (gao), a non partisan watchdog agency, concluded that the white house broke federal law by withholding of congress approved military aid to ukraine. the agency concluded that the impoundment control act of 1974 had been violated because congress' legislated policy had been supplanted by president trump's own policy. the agency also concluded that the withholding "was not a programmatic delay", in spite of the trump administration's claim that it was so.[21][248] as the second week of the trump impeachment trial was set to begin in january 2020, the new york times reported that bolton wrote in his forthcoming book that the president had told him in august 2019 that he wanted to continue freezing the ukraine aid until officials there pursued investigations into democrats, including the bidens.[249] in a may 2019 letter congratulating zelenskyy on his election, trump raised the possibility of a white house visit. however, during the next few months as giuliani and some state department officials pressed zelenskyy to investigate burisma and the 2016 election, a white house visit became one of the inducements offered or withheld depending on zelenskyy's cooperation.[250] bill taylor, the united states' senior diplomatic official in ukraine, testified in a congressional hearing that he learned in mid july 2019 that a potential white house meeting between trump and zelenskyy "was conditioned on the investigations of burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 u.s. elections".[14] gordon sondland, the u.s. ambassador to the european union who became trump's primary connection to ukraine, testified that trump had told him he was "skeptical that ukraine was serious about reforms and anti corruption" and directed him to speak to giuliani about his concerns. sondland began working with giuliani and conveyed the message about investigations to the ukrainians.[250] in august, sondland texted that the white house visit would be scheduled just as soon as zelenskyy confirmed that he would issue a public statement about investigations into the bidens and the 2016 election.[31] in his november 20 testimony before the impeachment hearings, sondland testified that the white house visit was conditioned on a public ukrainian announcement of investigation into burisma and the 2016 election, which he described as a quid pro quo.[251] in testimony before congressional committees, the national security council's head of european affairs, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, testified that sondland had told ukrainian officials in his presence that they would have to launch investigations into the bidens in order to get a meeting with trump. he said sondland indicated that "everything" including the military aid and the white house visit was on the table pending zelenskyy's public announcement of such an investigation.[252] on august 12, 2019, an unnamed cia officer[37] filed a whistleblower complaint with michael atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community (icig),[253] under the provisions of the intelligence community whistleblower protection act (icwpa).[254] atkinson looked into the complaint and interviewed several government officials whom the whistleblower identified as having information to substantiate his claims.[37] on august 26, having found the complaint to be both "credible" and "of urgent concern" (as defined by the icwpa), and noting the "subject matter expertise" of the whistleblower, atkinson transmitted the complaint to joseph maguire, the acting director of national intelligence (dni).[39][255] prior to the whistleblower filing the formal icig complaint, the individual notified the cia of his/her concerns, which were then relayed to the white house and justice department.[256] the new york times reported in november that trump was told of the whistleblower complaint in late august, before it was known by congress and before the ukraine aid was released.[7] maguire withheld the complaint from congressional intelligence committees, citing the justice department's office of legal counsel's rationale that the whistleblower complaint did not relate to an "intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority" of the acting dni.[257] maguire also testified that the whistleblower "followed the law every step of the way".[258][259] in an october 2019 letter, about 70 inspectors general from the council of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency sharply criticized the justice department's decision to withhold the complaint from congress, recommending the olc memo be withdrawn or amended because it "effectively overruled the determination by the icig regarding an 'urgent concern' complaint" that the icig concluded was "credible and therefore needed to be transmitted to congress".[260][261][262] under icwpa, the dni "shall" within seven days of receipt forward the complaint to the senate and house intelligence committees. maguire did not do so, and the deadline passed on september 2. on september 9 atkinson wrote to several lawmakers, telling them about the existence of the whistleblower report, which maguire had not forwarded to congress.[263] on september 10, house intelligence committee (hpsci) chairman adam schiff wrote to maguire, asking why he had not provided it. according to schiff, maguire said he had been told to withhold it on direction from a "higher authority" because it involved an "issue of privileged communications". schiff said he was also told "the complaint concerns conduct by someone outside of the intelligence community."[264] the trump administration withheld the complaint on the basis of the justice department's assertion that the complaint was not within the purview of the icwpa.[c] on september 13, schiff subpoenaed maguire to appear before the hpsci,[266] and maguire agreed to testify on september 26.[267] the washington post reported that maguire threatened to resign if the white house sought to constrain his testimony, although maguire later denied he had contemplated resigning.[268] on september 18, the washington post broke the story of the whistleblower report, saying the complaint concerned a "promise" trump had made during communication with an unnamed foreign leader. white house records showed trump had made communications or interactions with five foreign leaders during the five weeks before the whistleblower complaint was filed.[269] during a previously scheduled closed door hearing before the hpsci on september 19, atkinson told lawmakers the complaint referred to a series of events,[96] and that he disagreed with the position that the complaint lay outside the scope of the icwpa, but declined to provide details.[270] on september 19, the washington post reported that the complaint related to ukraine.[270] after the icig found that the call was a possible violation of federal campaign finance laws, which prohibits the solicitation of foreign contributions, the icig referred the matter to the fbi, and the dni referred the matter to the u.s. department of justice for a possible criminal investigation of trump's actions.[180] courtney simmons elwood, general counsel for the cia, became aware of the whistleblower's complaint through a colleague and, on august 14, made what she considered a criminal referral of the matter during a conference call with the top national security lawyer at the white house and the chief of the justice department's national security division.[271] a justice department official said the icig suspected the call could have broken federal law if trump's request to the ukrainian government to investigate a political opponent constituted the solicitation of campaign contribution from a foreign government.[272] according to a justice department spokeswoman, the department's criminal division reviewed "the official record of the call" and determined there was no campaign finance violation.[181][273] the justice department's determination to not launch an investigation took only weeks; the department did not conduct interviews or take steps beyond reviewing the call record.[45] a senior justice department official told the washington post the justice department had determined trump's conduct did not constitute the solicitation of a quantifiable "thing of value" subject to the campaign finance laws.[45][181] the justice department's review looked into whether there was evidence of a campaign violation law, and did not look into possible violations of federal corruption statutes.[45] some legal experts said there seemed to be evidence warranting an investigation into both; for example, richard l. hasen, an election law scholar, believes the provision of opposition research, e.g., valuable information about a political rival, could be considered a contribution in kind under campaign finance law.[45] on september 24, 2019, the top democrats of the house and senate intelligence committees said an attorney for the whistleblower had contacted the committees about providing testimony.[274] members and staff of congressional intelligence committees were allowed to examine the whistleblower complaint on september 25.[275] after the release of the whistleblower complaint to congressional committees, republican senators ben sasse and mitt romney called the complaint contents "really troubling" and "troubling in the extreme", respectively.[276][277] that same day, the complaint itself was declassified with "minimal redactions".[278] the house intelligence committee released the declassified, redacted version of the complaint on september 26.[9] in the complaint, the whistleblower said trump abused the powers of his office for personal gain and put national security in danger, and that white house officials engaged in a cover up.[9][279] the whistleblower wrote: in the course of my official duties, i have received information from multiple u.s. government officials that the president of the united states is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u.s. election. this interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the president's main domestic political rivals.[9] in addition to the july 25 phone call between trump and the ukrainian president zelenskyy, the whistleblower alleged that giuliani, trump's personal attorney, had engaged in a campaign to pressure ukrainian authorities to pursue joe biden, including in an august 2 meeting in madrid between giuliani and zelenskyy aide as "a direct followup" to the july 25 call and contact with a number of other officials in zelenskyy's government. these officials included zelenskyy's chief of staff, andriy bohdan, and the then acting head of the security service of ukraine, ivan bakanov.[9] the whistleblower further alleged in the complaint that white house officials had tried to limit access to the record of trump's telephone conversation with zelenskyy, writing: in the days following the phone call, i learned from multiple u.s. officials that senior white house officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the word for word transcript of the call that was produced as is customary by the white house situation room. this set of actions underscored to me that white house officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.[9] by the end of october the bulk of the whistleblower complaint had been confirmed by other sources, including the memorandum record of the july 25 call which the white house released, testimony before congressional committees, and independent reporting.[280] according to a new york times editorial titled "thanks, whistle blower, your work is done", only one minor item reported in the whistleblower complaint has not yet been confirmed: that t. ulrich brechbuhl, the counselor for the state department, also listened to the call.[281] trump has repeatedly called for the identity of the whistleblower to be revealed,[282] as have some republican congress members, particularly senator rand paul, who blocked a senate resolution reaffirming protection for whistleblowers,[283] and has demanded that the media print the person's name.[284] around november 1, an alleged identity began to circulate on right wing publications and social media. major news outlets have refused to publish the rumored identity of the whistleblower,[285] and facebook and youtube announced plans to delete all mentions of the name.[286] twitter is allowing posts containing the alleged whistleblower's name, and donald trump jr. was criticized for publishing such posts on his account on november 6.[287] publicly identifying the whistleblower's name may contravene provisions of the inspector general act of 1978, the intelligence authorization act, the icwpa, the whistleblower protection act, and a presidential policy directive dated 2012.[288][289] senator rand paul and trump jr. both argued that naming the whistleblower is not a crime, and robert s. litt, former general counsel for the national intelligence office, said that members of congress would be "absolutely immune" from prosecution under the speech and debate clause, although they could be subject to congressional sanctions.[290] due to threats against him, the whistleblower spent several months guarded by the cia's security protective service, living in hotels and traveling with armed officers in an unmarked vehicle. the cia observed that "violent messages surged each time the analyst was targeted in tweets or public remarks by the president," according to a washington post report.[291] a second whistleblower, also an intelligence official, came forward on october 5, 2019, with "first hand knowledge of allegations" associated with the phone call between trump and zelenskyy, according to mark zaid, a lawyer on the team representing both whistleblowers.[42][292] zaid stated that the second whistleblower had been interviewed by the icig but had not at that time filed a written complaint.[293] nor, as of october 6, had the second whistleblower communicated with any committee in the house of representatives.[42][needs update] as of october 6, it is not known whether this intelligence official is the same individual mentioned in a new york times report from october 4 about an intelligence official who was then weighing the possibility of filing an icig complaint and testifying before congress.[42][294] lev parnas and igor fruman are associates of rudy giuliani who aided him in his politically motivated investigation into joe biden. they had previously worked for dmytry firtash, a ukrainian oligarch being indicted by the justice department and believed to be involved at high levels of russian organized crime.[295] their attorney john dowd, who previously represented trump during the mueller investigation, told congress in october 2019 the men were assisting giuliani in his work on behalf of trump.[61] both are soviet born florida real estate businessmen and naturalized american citizens.[105][296] the two were arrested on the evening of october 9, 2019, and charged with planning to direct funds from a foreign government "to u.s. politicians while trying to influence u.s. ukraine relations". they were arrested at dulles international while trying to leave the u.s. en route to vienna, austria. rudy giuliani was also scheduled to fly to vienna the following night.[297][298] their arrest, the first in the trump ukraine scandal, was described as a "complex web of financial and political interactions linking diplomacy to alleged violations of campaign finance law".[61] the head of the new york's fbi office described the investigation as "about corrupt behavior, deliberate lawbreaking".[61] parnas and fruman both pleaded not guilty. parnas's attorney said some evidence against his client could be subject to presidential executive privilege, as giuliani had represented both trump and parnas.[299] the charges have also directly connected parnas and fruman to the campaign to oust the united states ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, from her post and have her recalled.[300] this occurred over many months.[105] in 2018, the operation included parnas and fruman donating funds and pledging later additional money to an unnamed congressman, who was recruited for the "campaign to oust her".[300] some of the funds violated campaign limits. parnas and fruman were also charged with unlawful campaign contributions. former congressional representative pete sessions (r texas) correlates with campaign finance filings, identifying him as the unnamed congressman. at the time, as the chairman of the influential house rules committee, he wrote a may 9, 2018, letter to secretary of state mike pompeo "saying that ms. yovanovitch should be fired for privately expressing 'disdain' for the current administration".[300] earlier that day, parnas and his business partner david correia visited sessions in his capitol hill office.[301] correia was arrested by the fbi at jfk international on october 16 on charges of using foreign money for political influence to advance a marijuana scheme.[302] in 2018, parnas and fruman were sent by giuliani to ukraine to extract damaging information on trump's u.s. political rivals. "their mission was to find people and information that could be used to undermine the special counsel's investigation, and also to damage former vice president joseph r. biden."[303] both were also at the center of the pro trump forces' push to remove the u.s. ambassador to ukraine because her loyalty to president trump was deemed deficient "as he pursued his agenda there".[303] also, over the course of a year beginning in 2018, the two brought giuliani to ukrainians who were amenable to promoting "a largely unsubstantiated narrative about the bidens".[303] these willing ukrainians included yuriy lutsenko, a former prosecutor general of ukraine, who was essential to aiding giuliani's efforts to produce damaging information. in an interview published in december 2019, giuliani stated, "i believed that i needed yovanovitch out of the way. she was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody."[150] giuliani's relationship with parnas and fruman is the subject of a criminal investigation by the fbi's new york field office and sdny prosecutors.[304] his business activities in ukraine and potential violation of lobbying laws are under federal investigation,[62][305] by fbi counterintelligence.[306][307] sdny prosecutors have examined giuliani's bank statements. they are also investigating his finances, as well as meetings with and work for a ukrainian city mayor.[305] sdny investigators have been questioning witnesses about giuliani since august 2019, gathering information about his relationship to parnas and fruman.[305] bloomberg news reported in november 2019 that the giuliani investigation could include charges of bribing foreign officials or conspiracy.[308] referring to parnas and fruman, on october 10 trump said, "i don't know those gentlemen," although that day the wall street journal reported trump had dinner with the men in the white house in early may 2018.[297][309] buzzfeed news featured photos of lev parnas posing with president trump and both parnas and fruman posing with other republicans in washington, dc.[310] trump was photographed with parnas as early as april 2014.[311] on october 15, 2019, it was reported that a new york grand jury had subpoenaed former congressman pete sessions (r texas) for documents and other information about his intercommunications and cooperation with giuliani, parnas, and fruman. the subpoena demonstrated that the investigation into giuliani's relationship to parnas and fruman remained active, as prosecutors determine whether giuliani engaged in any illegal behavior. giuliani seems to be the focal point of the subpoena.[312] sought after documents pertain to giuliani's business affairs in ukraine and his connection to the ouster of the former u.s. ambassador.[312] the unsealed indictment against parnas says he sought the help of the congressman to dismiss the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine while sourcing the money to the congressman on behalf of "one or more ukrainian government officials".[313] sessions followed up with a letter to the secretary of state requesting the ouster of the ambassador. on november 4, 2019, parnas's new attorney joseph bondy said his client would cooperate with congressional investigators in their trump impeachment inquiry.[314] bondy later told the new york times that shortly before zelenskyy's may 20 inauguration, parnas traveled to kyiv to tell the incoming government that american military aid was contingent upon ukraine's announcing an investigation of joe biden.[315] on january 14, 2020, the house intelligence committee released documents provided by parnas, including text messages between parnas and robert hyde, a republican congressional candidate, in which hyde described surveillance of yovanovitch in kyiv before she was recalled, including hyde stating that she was under heavy security and "we have a person inside," adding, "they are willing to help if we/you would like a price" and "guess you can do anything in ukraine with money."[188][162] two days later, ukraine announced it was opening an investigation into the matter, while the state department remained silent as the fbi visited hyde's home and office.[316][317] the documents also outlined text exchanges with then ukrainian prosecutor general yuriy lutsenko in which he pushed for the ouster of yovanovitch and offered information related to former u.s. vice president joe biden in return.[159][160] on january 15, 2020, parnas stated in an interview that "president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all my movements. i wouldn't do anything without the consent of rudy giuliani or the president" about the effort to push ukraine to investigate the bidens.[318] the next day, trump again asserted that he knew nothing about parnas.[319] in an audio recording reportedly made by fruman during a small dinner in april 2018, after parnas and fruman tell trump that yovanovitch was bad mouthing him, trump is apparently heard to say "get rid of her! get her out tomorrow. i don't care. get her out tomorrow. take her out. okay? do it."[136] on october 1, 2019, it was reported that the transcript of a trump call with australian prime minister scott morrison had been placed on the same top secret server as the other transcripts. trump was reported to have requested morrison's aid in william barr's investigation of the mueller inquiry.[320] trump's request focused on the origins of the mueller inquiry as a conversation between australia's former foreign minister alexander downer and trump campaign team member george papadopoulos led to the investigation.[321] the australian government confirmed the call had taken place and that morrison had articulated to the president that "the australian government has always been ready to assist and cooperate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation," but did not elaborate on what, if any, assistance had been offered.[320] in a letter to william barr dated may 28, joe hockey, australia's ambassador to the u.s., pledged that the australian government would "use its best endeavours" to support barr's investigation.[320] hockey later rejected claims that downer had been part of a conspiracy among intelligence agencies around the world to prevent trump's election and undermine his eventual presidency.[322] the white house responded by dismissing the reports, claiming it was part of a routine request to grant australian authorities access to department of justice resources to facilitate an investigation that had been open for several months.[320] when questioned by a journalist, morrison rejected opposition leader anthony albanese's accusation that he had jeopardized australia's national security for the sake of a personal relationship with the president and instead insisted that cooperating with barr's investigation was in the national interest. morrison claimed that no specific request had been made of his government, but refused to go into detail as to what support had been provided, citing national security concerns.[323] on september 30, it was reported that attorney general william barr had travelled to rome to enlist the support of italian authorities in his investigation.[324] barr sought information related to a conspiracy theory that joseph mifsud was a western intelligence operative who allegedly entrapped trump campaign advisor george papadopoulos in order to establish a false predicate for the fbi to open an investigation into russian interference in the 2016 united states elections. contrary to the conspiracy theory, that investigation was actually initiated after the australian government notified american authorities that its diplomat alexander downer had a chance encounter with papadopoulos, who boasted about possible access to hillary clinton emails held by the russian government. mifsud was last known to be in rome in 2017, but had since disappeared.[2][325] the washington post reported on november 22, 2019, that the justice department inspector general had aggressively investigated the allegation that mifsud had been directed to entrap papadopoulos, but found it was without merit.[326] on october 3, trump publicly called upon china to investigate hunter biden's business activities there while his father was vice president.[46][50] in 2013, biden, devon archer, and chinese businessman jonathan li founded bhr partners, a business focused on investing chinese capital in companies based outside of china.[88][327][328] in september, trump falsely claimed biden "walk[ed] out of china with $1.5 billion in a fund" and earned "millions" of dollars from the bhr deal.[329][330] trump discussed the political prospects of biden, as well as former candidate elizabeth warren, another political rival, during a june 18 phone call with chinese leader xi jinping. the record of the call was stored on the same highly restricted computer system used for the trump zelenskyy call record. according to two people familiar with the discussion, trump told xi on the same call that "he would remain quiet on hong kong protests as trade talks progressed."[34] the day after trump's call for china to investigate hunter biden, senator mitt romney said: "it strains credulity to suggest that [the request] is anything other than politically motivated."[331] the chinese foreign ministry said that the chinese government had "no intention of intervening in the domestic affairs of the united states".[332] michael pillsbury, a china scholar at the hudson institute and a trump advisor on trade negotiations with china, was quoted by the financial times on october 10: "i got quite a bit of background on hunter biden from the chinese."[333] pillsbury denied the quote on c span hours later, asserting: "i haven't spoken to the financial times for a month." the financial times released an email showing pillsbury made the statement on october 9. pillsbury later told the washington post, "most everything i learned was already public or well known" and that the chinese "really, really didn't want to talk about it".[334] on january 26, the new york times reported that former national security advisor john bolton had written in a draft of his forthcoming book, the room where it happened, that the president told him in august 2019 that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in aid to ukraine until officials there pursued investigations into democrats, including the bidens.[249] trump denied bolton's claim.[335] the manuscript was released after the first week of the impeachment trial, prompting house impeachment managers to call for the senate to call bolton as a witness.[336] bolton also claimed to have discussed the suspension of aid with attorney general william barr, and that the two had shared concerns over trump offering personal favours to the leaders of autocratic regimes around the world, including recep tayyip erdoğan in turkey and xi jinping in china. the times later reported that bolton's manuscript described a may 2019 oval office meeting during which trump directed bolton to call zelenskyy to ask him to meet with giuliani about getting damaging information on the bidens. bolton reportedly wrote that giuliani, mulvaney and white house counsel pat cipollone who, at the time of the report, was representing trump in the impeachment trial attended the meeting. trump denied telling bolton this, and giuliani denied mulvaney or cipollone attended meetings related to ukraine.[337] cipollone previously stated he never attended ukraine related meetings, and mulvaney said he avoided trump giuliani meetings so as to not jeopardize their attorney client privilege.[338] in a january 2020 memo to all united states attorneys, department component heads and law enforcement agency heads,[339] deputy attorney general jeffrey rosen stated there "currently are several distinct open investigations being handled by different u.s. attorney's offices and/or department components that in some way potentially relate to ukraine." rosen advised the addressees that richard donoghue, the u.s. attorney for eastern district of new york (edny), had been assigned to coordinate these cases and "any and all new matters relating to ukraine shall be directed exclusively to edny for investigation and proper handling." the memo stated that existing investigations would continue to be managed by the original investigators, but that any widening or expansion of those investigations required approval by rosen and donoghue.[340] federal prosecutors had indicated in december 2019 that it was likely new charges would be brought against parnas, fruman and two others,[341] as the sdny continued to investigate giuliani into february and the justice department created an "intake process" to accept and scrutinize information from him about joe biden. that intake process was being managed by the pittsburgh u.s. attorney's office, headed by scott brady.[342] the new york times reported in may 2021 that federal investigators in brooklyn began a criminal investigation late in the trump administration into possible efforts by several current and former ukrainian officials to spread unsubstantiated allegations about corruption by joe biden. investigators were examining whether the ukrainians used giuliani as a channel for the allegations, though he was not a specific subject of the investigation, in contrast to a long running investigation of giuliani by the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan.[343] on september 22, 2019, house speaker nancy pelosi said if the administration continued to withhold the whistleblower complaint from congress, "they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation." house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff, stating he had previously been "very reluctant" to initiate impeachment proceedings against trump, said, "we may very well have crossed the rubicon here."[344] the vast majority of republicans did not comment on the matter, with notable exceptions of senators lindsey graham and mitt romney, both of whom suggested trump should release information to resolve the situation.[345] on september 24, the senate adopted by unanimous consent a sense of the senate resolution calling for the whistleblower complaint to be immediately transmitted to the senate intelligence committee.[346] following the release of the memorandum of the conversation between trump and zelenskyy, senator romney called the memorandum "deeply troubling" and asked for more information to be made public.[347] pelosi said the memorandum "confirms that the president engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office he holds and our national security".[348][349] some republican senators dismissed the credibility of the whistleblower complaint as hearsay, but legal analysts subsequently found that assertions the whistleblower made in the complaint were verified by the memorandum record of trump's telephone call.[350][351] on september 26, during a house hearing, representative adam schiff gave a summary of the "essence" and the "character" of the trump zelenskyy call. one part of schiff's retelling was not represented in the non verbatim memorandum of the call provided by the white house, when schiff stated: "and i'm going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. lots of it. on this and on that." after representative mike turner accused schiff of "just making it up", schiff responded that his summary "was meant to be at least part in parody" and acknowledged that "the president never said if you don't understand me, i'm going to say it seven more times." however, schiff argued: "that's the message that the ukraine president was receiving in not so many words."[352] trump supporters on television, radio, and the internet have pressured republicans to continue supporting trump. republicans who have spoken out against trump, expressed concern, or defended the whistleblower, such as senators mitt romney, charles grassley, ben sasse and representative adam kinzinger, have come under criticism online by right wing websites, with romney becoming the target of baseless conspiracy theories and virally spread disinformation.[353] an october 21 political fact sheet release by nancy pelosi divided the scandal into three categories, according to the evidence, that "show trump violated his oath of office": "the shakedown", "the pressure campaign", and "the cover up".[354][355] despite president trump and his allies insisting there had been no quid pro quo, mounting evidence from witness testimony indicated there had been, leading a growing number of senate republicans to accept there was a quid pro quo, while maintaining it was not illegal and did not justify impeachment.[356] the washington post reported that house republicans were considering portraying giuliani, sondland and mulvaney as freelancers who had acted in their own self interests without trump's involvement.[357] in his initial comments to reporters on september 20, trump characterized the whistleblower as "partisan", but added, "i do not know the identity of the whistleblower" and called the story "just another political hack job".[358][d] trump also said: "somebody ought to look into joe biden's statement because it was disgraceful where he talked about billions of dollars that he's not giving to a certain country unless a certain prosecutor is taken off the case. so somebody ought to look into that," suggesting the press was not reporting it. the press has reported on the joe biden matter for months but found no evidence of wrongdoing.[85][86][361] on september 23, trump asserted: "if a republican ever did what joe biden did, if a republican ever said what joe biden said, they'd be getting the electric chair right now."[362] before the white house released a rough transcript, trump claimed that his call with zelenskyy was "largely congratulatory" and "largely [discussed] corruption". however, the white house's rough transcript showed only a short congratulatory comment and no mentions of corruption.[363] on september 25, during a meeting with ukrainian president zelenskyy, trump said: "i want [zelenskyy] to do whatever he can. biden's son walks out of ukraine with millions and millions of dollars. i think it's a horrible thing."[364] trump also denied explicitly tying u.s. military aid to ukraine's corruption investigation involving burisma holdings.[365] within six hours of the impeachment inquiry being announced on september 24, trump and his campaign team started a fundraising drive for an "impeachment defense team". forty eight hours later, they had raised in excess of $13 million and signed up 50,000 new donors.[366][367] on september 27, trump characterized the person who provided the whistleblower with information on the call as "close to a spy", adding: "you know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? right? with spies and treason, right? we used to handle them a little differently than we do now."[368] on september 29, trump requested to meet the whistleblower, saying that he and the american people "deserved" to meet them. he later said the white house was trying to learn the identity of the whistleblower. he also demanded that adam schiff be arrested and questioned "at the highest level" for fraud and treason.[369][370] a letter from the whistleblower's lawyers, addressed to the director of national intelligence, said that the whistleblower was afraid for their safety.[369] on november 7 the whistleblower's lawyer sent a letter to the white house warning trump to "cease and desist" calling for the public disclosure of the whistleblower's identity and "engaging in rhetoric and activity that places [the whistleblower] and their family in physical danger". the lawyer said the president would be legally and morally liable if anyone were to be "physically harmed as a result of his, or his surrogates', behavior".[371] on october 1, trump claimed that any attempt to remove him from office would result in a "civil war like fracture". he also called for schiff to be arrested for treason,[372] and later claimed that nancy pelosi was "every bit as guilty as liddle' [sic] adam schiff for high crimes and misdemeanours, and even treason" before calling for both schiff and pelosi to be impeached themselves as they had "evilly 'colluded'".[373] on october 3, after stating that the u.s. has "tremendous power" and "many options" in the trade war with china "if they don't do what we want", trump was asked by a reporter on what he hoped zelenskyy would do after his phone call. trump responded by publicly urging both ukraine and china to investigate the bidens.[13] later in the day, vice president mike pence voiced his support of trump's comments, saying: "i think the american people have a right to know if the vice president of the united states or his family profited from his position."[374] pence said the activities of the biden family were "worth looking into".[375] trump later claimed that when he called upon china to investigate the bidens, his only interest was in thwarting corruption. mitt romney was critical of this, saying: "when the only american citizen president trump singles out for china's investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that this is anything other than politically motivated."[376] on october 4, trump told congressional republican leaders the only reason he had called zelenskyy was at the urging of energy secretary rick perry, saying perry wanted him to discuss a liquefied natural gas (lng) plant and that trump had not even wanted to make the call. however, there is no mention of lng in the publicly released summary of the conversation, and text messages exchanged among aides who were setting up the phone call made no mention of perry, instead suggesting that giuliani was the primary mover.[377] perry had been the administration's official representative at zelenskyy's inauguration in may. during that trip; he pressured zelenskyy to fire board members of naftogaz, the national oil and gas company of ukraine, and informed government and industry officials that the trump administration wanted the entirety of naftogaz's supervisory board replaced.[105] perry denied pressing for change at naftogaz in a press conference on october 7, describing that as "a totally dreamed up story".[106] on october 10, however, perry was issued a subpoena by the house intelligence committee, the house oversight committee, and the house foreign affairs committee, partially concerning his interactions with naftogaz.[107][108][109] trump's 2020 reelection campaign developed a campaign ad that repeated unsubstantiated claims about biden, asserting that "when president trump asks ukraine to investigate corruption, the democrats want to impeach him and their media lapdogs fall in line." cnn refused to broadcast the ads because trump's claims had already been debunked and for disparaging its journalists.[378] on september 20, roman truba, head of the ukraine state bureau of investigations, told the daily beast that his agency had not investigated the biden burisma connection and there were no signs of illegality there. anton herashchenko, a senior advisor to the ukraine interior minister, told the daily beast that ukraine will open such an investigation if there is an official request, along with details of why an investigation is needed and what to look for. trump's requests have come through unofficial representatives such as giuliani.[95] however, according to interviews and documents obtained by the new york times, senior ukrainian officials were aware that military aid was being withheld by the first week in august,[225] and after initially having difficulty ascertaining what was holding up the aid,[225] by september trump's envoy to ukraine kurt volker was in negotiations with zelenskyy's senior aide andriy yermak over the wording of the proposed public statement.[379] volker pressed for wording explicitly confirming investigations into joe biden's alleged pressure campaign for the removal of the ukrainian prosecutor who was allegedly investigating burisma, and into accusations that ukraine had been involved in interference with the 2016 u.s. presidential election in favor of hillary clinton, while yermak attempted to negotiate less explicit language.[379] george kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs, testified to the congressional impeachment inquiry that "zelenskyy needed to go to a microphone and basically there needed to be three words in the message": investigations, biden, 2016 (or synonymously, hillary clinton).[380] diplomat bill taylor testified that trump insisted that the public declaration be made on cnn, and times reporting found that zelenskyy's staff finally capitulated to this demand, and arranged for him to appear on fareed zakaria's cnn program on september 13 to make the statement. the appearance was canceled after the ukraine aid was released on september 11.[379] ukrainian foreign minister vadym prystaiko told a ukrainian news outlet on september 21: "i know what the [phone] conversation was about and i think there was no pressure. this conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."[381] prystaiko was also quoted as saying: "i want to say that we are an independent state, we have our secrets."[381] on september 22, senator chris murphy said zelenskyy told him he had no intention to get involved with an american election.[382] in an interview released on september 24, ukrainian diplomat and politician valentyn nalyvaichenko told the daily beast that ukrainian authorities would be reopening corruption investigations into multiple individuals and organizations including, potentially, burisma, trump campaign manager paul manafort, tv host larry king, and former prosecutor yuriy lutsenko. king was suspected of receiving slush fund payments recorded in the "black ledger" that also named manafort. nalyvaichenko accused lutsenko of having been in communication with associates of trump "for vindictive purposes".[383] during the joint press conference on september 25 with trump for reporters gathered at the united nations general assembly, president volodymyr zelenskyy told reporters: "we had i think good phone call. it was normal. we spoke about many things. so, i think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me."[364][384] the next day, zelenskyy said president trump had not pressured anyone nor made any promises, and that the prosecutor general ruslan riaboshapka would investigate all domestic cases without prejudice.[385] on september 30, zelenskyy made it clear that he was not going to interfere with the intra american party confrontation.[386] subsequently, at an all day press conference on october 10, zelenskyy said he only learned about the blockage of the military aid after the july 25 phone call. "we didn't speak about this. there was no blackmail."[387][388] during the conversation, zelenskyy and trump criticized german chancellor angela merkel and european union for a lack of support toward ukraine.[389] elmar brok, special adviser on ukraine for president jean claude juncker, refuted the criticism, pointing to the economic boost provided by the european union through a free trade agreement. in addition, he claimed the u.s. has not signed a similar agreement with ukraine.[389] the conversation prompted europeans to calculate the amount of aid given to ukraine since 2014, and by approximate estimates, the eu and european financial institutions have provided assistance to more than $16 billion in grants and loans.[52] in the overall ranking in 2016 2017, the european union is the leader in terms of aid, the u.s. the second, and germany is the third.[53] however, ukrainian media analyzed the data and found that from 2014, germany provided aid of €1.4 billion: €500 million is a loan that will be repaid, €200 million is a share of germany from european union assistance, and the rest is really full fledged assistance.[390][391] germany has stated that its attitude towards ukraine has not changed.[392][393] former ukrainian prime minister mykola azarov expressed support for an investigation into hunter biden. azarov fled to russia in 2014 following the euromaidan protests and is currently in exile in moscow. he has called for a pro russian 'regime change' in ukraine,[394] is wanted for prosecution in ukraine for abuse of power and embezzlement, has set up a government in exile, and is widely seen as a pro russian puppet.[395][396][397] president vladimir putin's spokesman dmitry peskov said, "you have to admit, the publication of a full transcript of a conversation be it by phone or face to face is uncommon in interstate diplomatic practice. at least, uncommon until now."[398][399] speaking at an energy conference in moscow, putin said: "i didn't see during the telephone conversation that trump demanded some compromising information from zelenskyy at all costs, and threatened that he would [otherwise] not provide assistance to ukraine."[400] more than 300 former u.s. foreign policy and national security officials who had served under both democratic and republican administrations signed an open letter on september 27, supporting a congressional impeachment inquiry into trump's conduct relating to ukraine. the officials, who formerly served in the u.s. intelligence community, national security council, and departments of defense, justice, and homeland security, wrote that trump's actions raised "a profound national security concern" and that "president trump appears to have leveraged the authority and resources of the highest office in the land to invite additional foreign interference into our democratic processes. if we fail to speak up and act now our foreign policy and national security will officially be on offer to those who can most effectively fulfill the president's personal prerogatives."[401][402] the american foreign service association and american academy of diplomacy, representing members of the u.s. diplomatic corps, expressed alarm at trump's disparagement of the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine in his call with zelenskyy.[168] ten former white house chiefs of staff, who served under both republican and democratic presidents[e] described it as unprecedented for an incumbent president to "personally apply pressure to foreign powers to damage political opponents".[403] when the ten were interviewed, "none recalled any circumstance under which the white house had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds."[403] in an op ed in the washington post, 17 former members of the watergate scandal special prosecutor force[f] wrote that "there exists compelling prima facie evidence that president trump has committed impeachable offenses," specifically serious and persistent abuses of power, and the congress "should not allow any refusal by the president to cooperate in its process to frustrate the performance of its constitutional duties."[404] the washington post and new york times editorial boards supported the impeachment inquiry against trump arising from the scandal.[405][406] the post editorial board criticized the administration and its allies for defying congressional subpoenas and stonewalling the investigation,[405][407] and called upon congressional republicans to "have the moral courage" to recognize the trump administration's ukraine pressure campaign as corrupt and a quid pro quo.[408] another washington post editorial criticized the trump administration for attacking william b. taylor jr., the acting u.s. ambassador to ukraine, and other career civil servants who have testified before congress, writing that it was "vile" to attack "honest and courageous public servants" in an attempt to discredit them.[409] some newspaper editorial boards called upon trump to resign from office over the ukraine scandal, including the editorial board of hearst connecticut media, which owns eight daily newspapers in connecticut.[410] a st. louis post dispatch editorial urged congressional republicans to call for trump's resignation.[411] pro trump media outlets and commentators, such as jeanine pirro, mark levin, and rush limbaugh, responded by defending trump and promoting an alternative narrative of the ukraine affair that omitted significant facts.[412] echoing trump's own rhetoric, the president's defenders in the media often attacked the whistleblower,[413] and characterized the investigation as not only a political attack against trump, but also "a culture war" against his supporters.[412] fox news anchor chris wallace characterized the spin by trump allies in the aftermath of the whistleblower complaint becoming public as "astonishing" and "deeply misleading".[414] in the days after the scandal arose, multiple polls showed a surge in support for an impeachment inquiry, or impeachment itself.[by how much?][415][416][417] the american special envoy to ukraine, kurt volker, resigned one day after the complaint was released. the whistleblower complaint alleges volker "sought to 'contain the damage' from trump attorney rudy giuliani's outreach to ukraine's government about the biden family".[418] on october 10, michael mckinley, a senior advisor to secretary of state mike pompeo, resigned over disappointment in pompeo's lack of public support for those named in the scandal.[419] after the whistleblower complaint was publicized, users on pro trump internet forums tried to identify its author. these attempts at "doxing" were marked by disorganized speculation, racism and misogyny.[420] in october 2019, pro trump writer paul sperry published on the web what he asserted was the identity of the whistleblower. during ensuing days, trump and his allies asserted major news outlets were covering for the whistleblower because they had declined to repeat the whistleblower's alleged identity in their reporting.[421][422] however, the generally pro trump fox news including close trump confidant sean hannity also declined to repeat the alleged identity, on instructions from fox news management.[423] trump supporters paid for facebook advertisements to spread the purported name of the whistleblower. these ads were viewed by potentially "hundreds of thousands of users" before facebook removed them.[421] president trump was impeached by congress on charges of abuse of power and obstructing congress.[18] the articles of impeachment were referred to the senate, which held a trial over twenty days from january 16 to february 5, 2020. trump was acquitted on both charges by the republican controlled senate, with the vote split along party lines.[19][g] maine senator susan collins, who emerged as a key figure during the impeachment trial owing to her perceived willingness to break with her party,[424] defended the acquittal as she believed trump had learned from the trial and would not attempt to solicit foreign interference in future.[citation needed] marie yovanovitch and bill taylor resigned from their positions in the state department.[425] jennifer williams left her position to take up a new post.[426] alexander vindman was dismissed from his position in the white house following trump's acquittal by the senate.[427] vindman's twin brother yevgeny who was not involved in the case was also dismissed. both vindman brothers were reported to have been physically escorted from the white house. gordon sondland was also recalled from his position as ambassador.[427] the white house claimed that the dismissals were necessary, but trump was criticized for seeking revenge against those who had testified against him.[428][429][430][431] trump was also reported to have labelled williams and alexander vindman as "never trumpers".[426] trump suggested that the pentagon should seek disciplinary action against vindman, but the army declined to investigate.[432][433][434][435] john rood, the top pentagon policy advisor who, on july 25, 2019, warned defense secretary mark esper against withholding military aid to ukraine, was forced to resign on february 19, 2020. in may 2019 he had certified to congress that ukraine was eligible for the aid.[436] subsequently, during a panel discussion held on february 11, 2020, at the atlantic council, the president's national security advisor, robert c. o'brien said that it was his decision to transfer both vindman brothers back to the army for re assignment and denied that the move was ordered by trump in retaliation for vindman's testimony. "i can absolutely tell you that they were not retaliated against", o'brien told the panel. o'brien also disputed the move as being characterized as "fired" since both brothers remain on active duty. o'brien noted that their transfer was part of a larger nsa staff reduction.[437] it was later reported that the firings and dismissals were part of a wider purge of the trump administration that targeted people who were perceived as not being loyal enough to trump and his agenda,[438] including intelligence officials who might be part of trump's claims of a "deep state" conspiracy against him.[439] michael atkinson was fired from his position as inspector general of the intelligence community in april 2020. the white house issued a statement that trump had lost confidence in atkinson's ability to perform his duties.[440] the decision to fire atkinson was criticized because his role as inspector general was supposed to be independent and because trump chose to fire him during the coronavirus pandemic, which led to claims that trump had tried to use the pandemic to distract from atkinson's firing.[441] as the impeachment hearings and trial unfolded, rudy giuliani returned to ukraine to conduct his own investigation into joe and hunter biden. this was widely criticized as a further attempt to undermine biden's election campaign,[citation needed] for promoting widely debunked conspiracy theories about the bidens,[103] for giuliani being a likely target for misinformation spread by russian intelligence services,[442][443] and because giuliani is himself under investigation by american authorities.[308][444] giuliani went on to claim that he had found evidence that barack obama and joe biden had previously contacted ukrainian officials looking to open an investigation into paul manafort,[citation needed] the chair of trump's 2016 presidential campaign, who had lobbied to american lawmakers on behalf of former ukrainian president viktor yanukovych.[445] in february 2020, attorney general william barr announced that the justice department would receive any information gathered by giuliani.[446][447][448] barr had previously announced that all investigations into foreign donations and interference into the 2020 presidential elections would require his personal approval.[citation needed] during the impeachment process, trump denied having sent giuliani to ukraine, but in an interview that aired on february 13, 2020, he reversed his prior denials and openly admitted sending giuliani to ukraine, praising him as a "crime fighter" and "the best prosecutor."[449] in february 2020, united states attorney john durham was appointed to lead an investigation into the origins of the mueller inquiry. it was reported that the investigation was focusing on former cia director and trump critic john brennan and whether he had mishandled evidence during the early stages of the inquiry into russian meddling in the 2016 elections.[citation needed] mick mulvaney linked durham's investigation to the ukraine scandal, stating that durham had sought help from ukraine and interviewed ukrainian citizens.[450] the durham inquiry has been described as an "inquiry into its own russia investigation"[451] and "investigating the investigators" of the russian interference.[452][453] alexander vindman, the former director for european affairs who supported the whistleblower's testimony, claimed trump's intervention weakened ukrainian efforts to counteract russian aggression in a number of ways in an interview with vice news, saying "it's because of trump's corruption that we have a less capable, less prepared ukraine".[454] trump and his allies had since 2017 promoted a conspiracy theory that ukraine, rather than russia, had interfered with the 2016 election, which american intelligence believes has been promoted by russia in order to frame ukraine.[455] some speculate maria zakharova at russia's ministry of foreign affairs was the source of this campaign.[456][457][458] the conspiracy theory included allegations that democrats, crowdstrike and the fbi had conspired to frame russia in the 2016 hacking of a democratic national committee server. trump has repeatedly insisted without evidence that an unnamed ukrainian oligarch was behind the conspiracy to frame russia and that ukraine is in possession of the dnc server.[58] shortly before trump took office, top american intelligence officials briefed him on their evidence including from their hacking of russian intelligence networks and information provided by a high level kremlin mole that russia was behind the hacking and other election interference, on the personal orders and orchestration of vladimir putin.[459][460] in december 2019, the trump appointed fbi director christopher wray stated, "we have no information that indicates that ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election," adding, "there's all kinds of people saying all kinds of things out there. i think it's important for the american people to be thoughtful consumers of information and to think about the sources of it and to think about the support and predication for what they hear."[461] during the july 25, 2019, phone call between trump and zelenskyy, trump referred to a far right conspiracy theory pushed by internet trolls, right wing blogs, right wing news websites and russian state media.[463][464][465] this conspiracy theory concerns crowdstrike, the cybersecurity and internet security firm that first investigated the 2015 2016 hacking of the democratic national committee (dnc) network and determined that russian military intelligence (gru) was behind these cyber attacks. tom bossert, trump's former homeland security advisor, said in an interview with abc news' george stephanopoulos that trump was repeatedly warned by his staff that the crowdstrike conspiracy theory was "completely debunked". bossert blamed giuliani for trump's fixation upon the conspiracy theory.[466][467] the overarching theme of the crowdstrike conspiracy theory is that the dnc fabricated evidence to implicate russia in the cyber attacks.[468] crowdstrike's co founder, dmitri alperovitch, is a naturalized american citizen born in the soviet union.[469][470] according to the hoax, alperovitch is a ukrainian who was ordered by the dnc to discredit russia for the election interference, and he was personally motivated to get even with vladimir putin. also, according to the theory, crowdstrike is owned by a rich ukrainian, and the actual server involved in the cyber attack is in ukraine.[183] crowdstrike is actually a publicly traded company headquartered in california that the national republican congressional committee has also hired for cyber security services.[471] "the server" is actually 140 servers, decommissioned and located in the united states.[472] the theory additionally says fbi agents were not allowed to examine the server because such action would expose the dnc plot,[468] although in fact and as documented in the mueller report system images and traffic logs of the dnc servers were provided to the fbi by crowdstrike, although the fbi never examined the servers directly.[472][473] this conspiracy theory originated from a "gru persona, 'guccifer 2.0', created to cast doubt on russia's culpability in the dnc [intrusion]".[468][474] various right wing commentators speculated the whistleblower had help from others, perhaps constituting a coordinated conspiracy. speculation centered around adam schiff, the press, fusion gps, media matters, a team of lawyers or a research firm, and the intelligence community in general.[475][476][477][478] after the whistleblower had informed the cia's general counsel of his concerns, he grew troubled by "how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the cia was unfolding", according to the new york times. he then contacted an aide for the house intelligence committee and provided a vague statement. the aide then followed standard procedure and advised the whistleblower to find a lawyer and file a complaint with the intelligence community inspector general (ic ig). neither rep. schiff nor the other members of the committee saw the complaint until the night before they released it publicly, and the committee was not involved in writing the complaint.[263][479] schiff and the committee had no role in helping the whistleblower select an attorney. according to mark s. zaid, a member of the whistleblower's pro bono legal team: "the whistleblower took the advice to find an attorney and did what most people do, they asked around to trusted friends as to who they should contact. andrew [bakaj]'s name was provided and he was retained. exactly how it happens every day."[480] andrew p. bakaj is the lead attorney representing the whistleblower. during a news conference on october 2, trump claimed that the new york times article proved schiff had helped write the whistleblower complaint,[263] prompting one of the reporters who wrote the story to reply on twitter that their story said no such thing and that schiff had not even known the whistleblower's identity.[481] in late september, trump tweeted a conspiracy theory that whistleblower rules were changed before the whistleblower complaint was submitted.[59][482] senator lindsey graham, and trump's lawyers jay sekulow and rudy giuliani made similar claims.[483][484] trump's claim was based on an article from the federalist which incorrectly stated that the ic ig "secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings", by revising their complaint form sometime between may 2018 and august 2019, removing a section from the old form containing the sentence: "if you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, ic ig will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an icwpa."[482][483] the federalist article failed to mention that the old form had checkboxes where the whistleblower could indicate that their information was "direct" or from either "other employees" or other indirect sources.[484][485] the ic ig responded the whistleblower's complaint was submitted with the old form (before the forms changed), and that the whistleblower's complaint was based on both "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and knowledge from other employees.[38][39] the ic ig also said the old form had been under review, and that "in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint", the form was changed because "certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read incorrectly as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint".[38] the ic ig also said that by law a complainant is not required to have "first hand information" themselves, and that their office "cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law".[38] the "rules" for whistleblowing arise from intelligence community directive 120, last updated in 2016. the directive states that the requirement for a complaint is to be one which the whistleblower "reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule or regulation".[482][485] the burden of obtaining and evaluating first hand knowledge for credibility is placed on the ic ig, who has 14 days to conduct an investigation to do so.[59] in this case, the preliminary review done by the ic ig did find more information to support the allegations as credible.[486] tom devine of the government accountability project, a non profit watchdog organization, said only around 10% of all credible whistleblower complaints have firsthand information.[487] republican senator chuck grassley, a prominent author and advocate of whistleblower laws, spoke out against the conspiracy theory, saying the whistleblower appeared to have acted in accordance with the law and deserved to be heard.[488][489] in late september television appearances, giuliani asserted without offering any evidence that george soros, a frequent subject of conservative conspiracy theories, was running an anti trump scheme in ukraine while biden was protecting soros from prosecution there.[490] lawyers joseph digenova and victoria toensing appeared as guests on the sean hannity show to promote the conspiracy theory that soros funded the whistleblower. they cited the whistleblower's footnote references to the organized crime and corruption reporting project, an organization that has received grants from soros' open society foundations among multiple other funding sources.[491] soros was also invoked, again without evidence, by the media organization breitbart news.[420] discredited allegations against soros were also part of a "packet of propaganda and disinformation" that had been circulating within the state department since may 2019, until being revealed to congress on october 2.[492] the biden ukraine conspiracy theory is part of efforts by donald trump[493] and his campaign in the trump ukraine scandal, which led to trump's first impeachment. these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage joe biden's reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign, and later in an effort to impeach him.[494] house managers: president's counsel: congressional defense team:

one evening in april of 2022, a hundred people milled around a patio at mar a lago, sipping champagne and waiting for donald trump to arrive. mark meadows, trump’s former chief of staff, stood in front of an archway fringed with palm trees and warmed up the crowd with jokes about the deep state. the purpose of the gathering was to raise money for the center for renewing america, a conservative policy shop whose most recent annual report emphasized a “commitment to end woke and weaponized government.” its founder, russell vought, a former head of the office of management and budget under trump, and a leading candidate to be the white house chief of staff in a second term, was in attendance, chatting amiably with the guests. he is trim and bald, with glasses and a professorial beard. his group is a kind of ivory tower for far right republicans, issuing white papers with titles such as “the great replacement in theory and practice.” in 2021, he wrote an op ed for newsweek that asked, “is there anything actually wrong with ‘christian nationalism’?” the center for renewing america is one of roughly two dozen right wing groups that have emerged in washington since trump left office. what unites them is a wealthy network based on capitol hill called the conservative partnership institute, which many in washington regard as the next trump administration in waiting. c.p.i.’s list of personnel and affiliates includes some of trump’s most fervent backers: meadows is a senior partner; stephen miller, trump’s top adviser on immigration, runs an associated group called america first legal, which styles itself as the a.c.l.u. of the maga movement; jeffrey clark, a former justice department lawyer facing disbarment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, is a fellow at the center for renewing america. all of them are expected to have high ranking roles in the government if trump is elected again. “c.p.i. has gathered the most talented people in the conservative movement by far,” someone close to the organization told me. “they have thought deeply about what’s needed to create the infrastructure and the resources for a more anti establishment conservative movement.” c.p.i. was founded in 2017 by jim demint, a former adman from south carolina who spent eight years in the senate before resigning to lead the heritage foundation. during that time, he was one of washington’s most notorious partisan combatants. as a senator, he attacked his republican colleagues for being insufficiently conservative, tanking their bills and raising money to unseat them in primaries. mitch mcconnell, the senate minority leader, called him “an innovator in republican on republican violence.” with c.p.i., demint wanted to create a base of operations for insurgents like himself. “if you’re not getting criticized in washington,” he once said, “you’re probably part of the problem.” other conservative groups have defined republican presidencies: the heritage foundation staffed the administration of ronald reagan, the american enterprise institute that of george w. bush. but c.p.i. is categorically different from its peers. it’s not a think tank it’s an incubator and an activist hub that funds other organizations, coördinates with conservative members of the house and senate, and works as a counterweight to g.o.p. leadership. the effort to contest the 2020 election results and the protests of january 6, 2021, were both plotted at c.p.i.’s headquarters, at 300 independence avenue. “until seven years ago, it didn’t exist, and no entity like it existed,” senator mike lee, a republican from utah, told me. “it’s grown by leaps and bounds.” c.p.i. and its constellation of groups, most of which are nonprofits, raised nearly two hundred million dollars in 2022. the organization has bought up some fifty million dollars’ worth of real estate in and around washington, including multiple properties on the hill. a mansion on twenty two hundred acres in eastern maryland hosts trainings for congressional staff and conservative activists. four political action committees have rented space in c.p.i.’s offices, and many more belonging to members of congress pay to use c.p.i.’s facilities, such as studios for podcast recordings and tv hits. the house freedom caucus, a group of three dozen hard line anti institutionalist republican lawmakers, and the steering committee, a similar group in the senate, headed by lee, hold weekly meetings at c.p.i.’s headquarters. senator ron johnson, a republican from wisconsin, called the organization a “gathering site” that offered “regular contact” with the power brokers of the conservative movement. he told me, “you walk into the building and you can talk to mark meadows or jim demint if they’re there, or russ vought.” at the time of the event at mar a lago, in the spring of 2022, right wing political circles were in a state of charged anticipation. trump had not yet announced his reëlection bid, but inflation was high, joe biden was unpopular, and pollsters were anticipating a republican rout in the upcoming midterms. “the left tried to drag america further into a dark future of totalitarianism, chaotic elections, and cultural decay,” c.p.i.’s leaders wrote. those in attendance knew that trump would soon enter the race. the question was what, exactly, they might get out of it. shortly after 6 p.m., trump strode onto the patio, wearing his customary dark suit and a blue tie, and launched into a stem winder. “it was so fucking funny,” the person close to c.p.i. told me. “almost nothing was related to the center for renewing america other than a reference to how good russ was. he was riffing on whatever was on his mind.” trump recounted a trip that he’d taken to iraq as president, but he kept digressing to complain about a thirteen billion dollar aircraft carrier that he’d commissioned. at one point, he turned to the culture wars but couldn’t remember the phrase “critical race theory.” vought, standing nearby, had to prompt him. “he was burning down the house,” the person told me. “everyone was loving it.” still, one aspect of the speech caught the attention of c.p.i.’s executives. ever since trump was acquitted in his first impeachment trial, in 2020, he has threatened to purge the government of anyone he considered disloyal. his defenders are united in the belief that career bureaucrats foiled his first term plans from inside the government. c.p.i., which has spent years placing conservative job seekers in congressional offices, is now vetting potential staffers for a second trump term. one of its groups, the american accountability foundation, has been investigating the personal profiles and social media posts of federal employees to determine who might lack fealty to trump. “the key throughout the speech was that trump complained about his personnel,” the attendee said. “he said he had these bad generals, bad cabinet secretaries. that was a big signal to the people there.” six years earlier, on a monday in late march, cars ferrying some of the country’s most influential conservatives, including the republican senators jeff sessions and tom cotton, began arriving at the washington offices of the law firm jones day. demint, then the head of the heritage foundation, and leonard leo, the vice president of the federalist society, entered discreetly through a parking garage, as they’d been instructed. newt gingrich, who wanted the press to see him, insisted on using the firm’s front door. they were attending a private meeting with trump, who was rapidly gaining in the republican primary but remained anathema to much of the g.o.p. establishment. “people in the conservative movement suddenly realized that trump could be the horse that they could ride to victory,” a former senior heritage staffer told me. “he was being shepherded around the conservative policy world. demint was a part of that.” link copied as early as january, 2016, demint predicted that trump would win the republican nomination. it was an unpopular position among conservatives, many of whom felt more ideologically aligned with senator ted cruz, of texas. in a conference room at jones day, trump gave a brief speech and opened the floor to questions. leo asked him whom he’d nominate for federal judgeships. antonin scalia, the conservative stalwart on the supreme court, had died the previous month. trump replied, “why don’t i put out a list publicly of people who could be the sort of people i would put on the supreme court?” demint immediately volunteered heritage for the job of drafting it. the heritage foundation was founded in the nineteen seventies by edwin feulner, a republican operative with a doctorate in political science. under his direction, the think tank became the country’s leading bastion of conservative policy, with an annual budget exceeding eighty million dollars. when demint took over, in 2013, traditionalists on the organization’s board were concerned that his rebellious style would diminish the group’s reputation for serious research. he confirmed their suspicions by hiring several of his senate aides. the former heritage staffer said, “there were cultural differences between existing leadership and the demint team.” but demint’s arrival reflected changes already under way at the organization. in 2010, as the tea party emerged as a force in conservative politics, the think tank launched an advocacy arm called heritage action, which issued scorecards evaluating legislators’ conservatism and deputized a network of local activists as “sentinels” to enforce a populist agenda. vought, who’d previously worked as a staffer in house leadership, helped lead the operation. under demint, the group became merciless in its attacks on rank and file republican lawmakers. “heritage action was created to lobby the hill, but they took it one step further,” james wallner, a lecturer in political science at clemson university, who worked with demint in the senate and at heritage, told me. “they had a grassroots army. they used tens of thousands of activists to target people.” after the meeting with trump, in 2016, some of demint’s staff objected to the task of drawing up a list of potential judges, arguing that heritage was overcommitting itself. this was typically the domain of the federalist society, which was putting forth its own list of judicial nominees. but demint, sensing an opportunity to maximize his clout with trump, dismissed the concerns. that august, after trump became the party’s nominee, heritage was enlisted to participate in the presidential transition in the event of a trump victory. chris christie, the governor of new jersey at the time, was overseeing the effort and put feulner, who was then the chair of heritage’s board of trustees, in charge of domestic policy. feulner later told the times that heritage saw a greater opportunity to influence policy under trump than it had under reagan. “no. 1, he did clearly want to make very significant changes,” feulner said of trump. “no. 2, his views on so many things were not particularly well formed.” he added, “if he somehow pulled the election off, we thought, wow, we could really make a difference.” heritage was already primed. the year after demint took over, he had begun an initiative called the project to restore america, which worked to build up a reserve of reliably conservative personnel. the morning after trump won, demint called a meeting in an auditorium at heritage headquarters. many staffers had been there all night watching the returns in a state of elation. “we were criticized by a lot of our friends in the movement for even going to meetings with trump,” demint said, according to the times. then, quoting a line from the eighties tv show “the a team,” he added, “i love it when a plan comes together.” the following day, steve bannon, trump’s senior adviser, summoned christie to his office on the fourteenth floor of trump tower, in new york. “we’ve decided to make a change,” bannon told him. mike pence, the incoming vice president, and jared kushner, the president’s son in law, were replacing him. christie wrote in his 2019 memoir that thirty volumes of policy and staff plans collected in large binders over several months “were tossed in a trump tower dumpster, never to be seen again.” christie’s firing set off a scramble to finish the job of staffing the new administration and preparing a slate of agenda setting policies before trump was sworn in. heritage now had an even more direct role to play. pence was friendly with demint, and a former sessions aide, who was appointed to lead the transition’s daily operations, was close with ed corrigan, a former executive director of the senate steering committee who was then a vice president at the heritage foundation. heritage went on to fill hundreds of jobs throughout virtually every federal agency, and some of the president’s most prominent cabinet officials including betsy devos, the secretary of education; scott pruitt, the head of the environmental protection agency; and rick perry, the secretary of energy had appeared on the foundation’s lists of recommendations. “demint told friends and colleagues that he was proudest of his work at heritage in placing heritage employees into the administration,” a demint associate told me. “that was a big deal.” still, heritage’s board remained fiercely divided over demint. mickey edwards, a founding heritage trustee, said at the time that demint had turned “a highly respected think tank” into “a partisan tool” for the tea party. wallner, who joined heritage as its research director in the summer of 2016, told me, “i walked into a civil war.” he recalled meeting a board member at a hotel bar near the white house who asked outright, “are you on team demint?” such critics had expected trump to lose spectacularly in november, discrediting demint in the process. before trump’s inauguration, demint requested a new contract, but the board refused. the following spring, demint and his closest advisers went to san diego for the annual heritage donor retreat. the night before their flight home, they learned that demint was being fired. corrigan was there, along with wallner; wesley denton, a former demint staffer; and bret bernhardt, demint’s ex chief of staff. “we had put our heart and soul into this,” wallner told me. “it was shocking.” according to a study by the brookings institution, there was more staff turnover in the first thirty two months of trump’s presidency than there had been in the entire first terms of each of his five predecessors. inside the white house, a former senior official told me, trump was constantly enraged that his cabinet wouldn’t break the law for him. he wanted the department of homeland security to shoot migrants crossing the rio grande, the defense department to draw up plans to invade mexico, and the internal revenue service to audit his critics. trump didn’t understand why the government couldn’t revoke the security clearances of former intelligence officials who criticized him on cnn. the official said that trump “talked about firing large numbers of the federal workers,” to eliminate any further checks on his agenda. the tumult presented an opportunity for outsiders like demint. he and his associates had started brainstorming their next moves before their flight from san diego touched down in washington. “you don’t need a think tank,” wallner recalled telling demint. their collective expertise was in congress, where party leadership always seemed to have the advantage of better and more extensive staffing. what if they levelled the playing field by helping to recruit conservative personnel, and schooling them in how to be more effective activists? demint and his group could train a new class of staffers and place them within the system. conservatives in washington also needed somewhere to gather, share ideas, and strategize. from 2011 to 2015, a group of republican house members, who would eventually form the freedom caucus, had regularly met in the kitchen of a heritage executive. one night, his wife was hosting a work dinner, so the group relocated to a restaurant called tortilla coast, which became their new meeting spot. on occasion, when they tried to book space at the capitol hill club, an exclusive republican hangout in washington, party leadership made sure that their request was declined. “the thing that made heritage so powerful were the coalitions they could build,” wallner told me. “that was the stuff demint loved.” the sentiment on the plane, he went on, was “let’s do this thing that demint loves to do, that’s so vital. it would be like a wework for conservatives.” on may 10, 2017, demint and the others filed incorporation papers for the conservative partnership institute. their lawyer, who was also representing them in severance negotiations with heritage, was cleta mitchell, a movement mainstay in her sixties who was, as the person close to c.p.i. told me, “the attorney for pretty much any new conservative group that was starting in washington.” she became c.p.i.’s secretary. the institute’s accountant was a close associate of leonard leo’s. it was a lean operation at first: seven employees and a rented office on pennsylvania avenue above a liquor store and an asian fusion restaurant. at the end of its first year, the group’s total assets and liabilities were less than a million dollars. then the white house called. the president had been accusing his personnel of deliberately undercutting him, but his top aides were, in fact, struggling to fill an increasing number of vacancies within the executive agencies. “it was an ‘aha!’ moment for c.p.i.,” the person close to the organization told me. “the white house needed staffing help. people who joined the administration were either r.n.c. hacks who didn’t like trump or they were trump campaign supporters who could barely get their pants on in the morning.” one day in june, 2018, hill staffers working for conservative members of congress received an e mail: “interested in a job at the white house?” c.p.i. was hosting a job fair, at the dirksen senate office building. the director of the white house’s personnel office would be in attendance, along with other senior officials. c.p.i. had been conceived to help staff congressional offices, but it was scaling up. “they needed a national figure,” another former demint staffer told me. “their brand is bigger with trump.” a year later, trump was impeached for what he called a “perfect phone call” with the ukrainian president, volodymyr zelensky, in which trump suggested that u.s. military aid to ukraine might depend on zelensky agreeing to investigate the business dealings of joe biden’s son hunter. at the impeachment trial, two members of the trump administration, alexander vindman, of the national security council, and marie yovanovitch, the recently fired ambassador to ukraine, testified against the president. senator cruz, who was coördinating with the president’s legal team, ran an impeachment “war room” out of the basement of c.p.i.’s headquarters. using c.p.i. equipment, he also recorded a podcast, called “verdict with ted cruz,” which he taped after each day’s testimony, attacking the proceedings as a partisan sham. “verdict” was downloaded more than a million times, making it one of the most popular political podcasts in the country. a few weeks after trump was acquitted, on a party line vote in the senate, a c.p.i. executive named rachel bovard addressed an audience at the council for national policy, a secretive network of conservative activists. they’d assembled for a board of governors luncheon at a ritz carlton in california. “we work very closely . . . with the office of presidential personnel at the white house,” bovard said, in footage obtained by documented, a washington based watchdog group. “because we see what happens when we don’t vet these people. that’s how we got lieutenant colonel vindman, o.k.? that’s how we got marie yovanovitch. all these people that led the impeachment against president trump shouldn’t have been there in the first place.” by then, conservative activists, including ginni thomas, the wife of the supreme court justice clarence thomas, were assembling lists of “bad people” in the government for trump to fire or demote. government officials on the lists were often identified as either pro trump or anti trump. but behavior that counted as anti trump could be little more than an instance of someone obeying the law or observing ordinary bureaucratic procedure. in one memo, in which a trump loyalist argued against appointing a former u.s. attorney who was up for a job at the treasury department, a list of infractions included an unwillingness to criminally investigate multiple women who had accused brett kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, according to axios. in october, 2020, trump issued an executive order that was largely overlooked in the midst of the pandemic and that fall’s election. known as schedule f, it stripped career civil servants of their job protections, making it much easier for the president to replace them with handpicked appointees. the following month, when trump refused to accept his election loss, “there were people in the white house who operated under the assumption that they were not leaving,” a former aide said. one of them was john mcentee, a caustic thirty year old who’d once been trump’s personal assistant and was now in charge of the presidential personnel office. (in 2018, john kelly, who was then trump’s chief of staff, had fired mcentee for failing a security clearance owing to a gambling habit, but trump rehired him two years later.) young staffers were scared that mcentee might find out if they started interviewing for other positions. “there was fear of retribution if it got back to him,” the former aide said. other white house officials, such as meadows, were clear eyed about the election results but vowed to fight them anyway. meadows discreetly told a few staffers that, when trump’s term was over, they should join him at the conservative partnership institute. “c.p.i. was his ticket to be that pressure point on capitol hill,” one of the staffers told me. “he wanted to be the guy who held congress to the maga agenda.” link copied from the start, c.p.i. was involved in efforts to cast doubt on the 2020 election results. one freedom caucus member recalled, “election day was tuesday, and we got back to the capitol the following monday. tuesday, they’re meeting at c.p.i. and talking about how to get trump sworn in on january 20th.” on november 9th, during the senate steering committee’s regular meeting at c.p.i., sidney powell, a conservative lawyer, gave a talk about challenging the election results. “my purpose in having the meeting was to socialize with republican senators the fact that potus needs to pursue his legal remedies,” senator lee, of utah, told meadows in a text. “you have in us a group of ready and loyal advocates who will go to bat for him.” by the end of december, many republicans, including lee, had given up on powell. she was citing rigged elections in venezuela as evidence that the voting machine company dominion had tampered with ballots cast for trump, but, despite frequent requests from trump loyalists, she could never substantiate the claims. hard core partisans came up with a new plan: they wanted to disrupt the process by which the government would certify the election results, on january 6, 2021. cleta mitchell, the secretary of c.p.i. and a lawyer for trump, was central in advancing this idea. she had gone into the 2020 race believing that democrats would attempt to steal votes. “i was absolutely persuaded and believed very strongly that president trump would be reëlected and that the left and the democrats would do everything they could to unwind it,” she later said. two days after the election, mitchell wrote an e mail to the legal academic john eastman, encouraging him to craft a case that the vice president had the unilateral authority to throw out the election results in seven states, where the legislatures could then choose new slates of pro trump electors. pence, who consulted his own legal experts, was unconvinced. but eastman hardly needed to persuade trump, who urged his supporters to march on the capitol to pressure pence into blocking the certification process. eventually, eastman would be indicted in arizona and georgia on conspiracy, fraud, and racketeering charges for his role in trying to overturn the election. (he pleaded not guilty.) much of the effort to turn people out for the january 6th protest took place at c.p.i. “there were a series of conference calls,” the freedom caucus member told me. “mark meadows was on a lot of them. trump was on more than one. the rally was a big thing that c.p.i. and freedom caucus members were involved in. the idea was that they were going to get everybody together on the mall. that was all discussed at c.p.i.” (a c.p.i. spokesperson told me, “no idea what they’re talking about. c.p.i. had absolutely no involvement in these events.”) on the afternoon of january 2nd, mitchell joined the president on an hour long phone call with georgia’s secretary of state, in which trump told him to “find 11,780 votes,” the number he needed to win the state. later that evening, members of the freedom caucus, including jim jordan and scott perry, the caucus’s chairman, were scheduled to meet at c.p.i. to strategize about how to get their constituents to show up on january 6th. “meadows was originally going to participate in person, but they moved it to conference call just to cover a wider breadth of people that weren’t in town,” cassidy hutchinson, meadows’s aide, said in an interview with lawyers from the january 6th committee. the president also dialled in. even after the riot at the capitol, mitchell continued to contest the 2020 returns from her perch at c.p.i. for some of the more elaborate electoral challenges, such as audits of the results in arizona and georgia, which persisted after biden had taken office, it was important to the organizers that the process seem legitimate and serious and therefore independent of trump. according to an investigation by documented, c.p.i. used an accounting mechanism to hide the fact that the former president was funding part of the organization’s recount efforts. on july 26, 2021, trump’s political action committee, save america, donated a million dollars to c.p.i. two days later, a new nonprofit called the american voting rights foundation, or a.v.r.f., was registered in delaware; its direct controlling entity was another group tied to c.p.i. the same day, mitchell sent an e mail to cyber ninjas, a private company that a group of far right state legislators in arizona had recruited to conduct an audit of the presidential results in maricopa county. c.p.i. then paid a million dollars to a.v.r.f. according to the guardian, it was the “only known donation that the group has ever received.” on july 29th, in an e mail on which a c.p.i. executive was copied, mitchell explained that a.v.r.f. was contributing a million dollars to the arizona audit. this spring, i received some friendly but unencouraging advice from a person close to demint: i shouldn’t count on speaking with him or his advisers. they were highly suspicious of mainstream attention. demint is now more of a figurehead at c.p.i. than an active leader of the organization. meadows, who joined c.p.i. a week after leaving the trump white house, and now receives an annual salary of eight hundred thousand dollars from the organization, is primarily a fund raiser. he was indicted last year for election interference. (he pleaded not guilty.) being in legal trouble is often a badge of honor in trump’s circles, but meadows has fallen under suspicion from some of his old allies. abc news reported last year that he had secretly spoken with federal prosecutors who were investigating the former president, a story that meadows has since disputed. a recent times magazine article called him “the least trusted man in washington.” the daily operations of c.p.i. are run by corrigan, its president, and denton, the group’s chief operating officer. corrigan declined to speak with me, but denton was eventually willing to chat. one morning in may, we met in a coffee shop in the basement of a senate office building. he is genial and plainspoken, with a youthful air and a beard that hangs thickly off his chin. during demint’s eight years in the senate, denton served as his director of communications, and they moved to heritage together, in 2013. with the exception of a brief stint in the trump administration, where denton worked at the office of management and budget with vought, he has been at c.p.i. since its creation. “there’s nothing complicated about what we do,” he told me. “we train staff and place staff. that’s it. there are some outgrowths of that, in terms of supporting new groups. but, basically, we’re here to support those who are in the fight.” in 2021, c.p.i.’s board made a fateful and, in retrospect, wise decision. high ranking figures from the trump administration were leaving the government and needed a place to land during the biden years. “it’s not hard to be a liberal in d.c.,” denton told me. “it’s not the same for our side.” but c.p.i.’s founders were wary of creating just another version of the heritage foundation. “we had the opportunity to build a vast, huge bureaucratic organization when all our friends were coming out of the trump administration,” denton said. “instead, we helped them set up their own organizations.” the structure of these groups could seem both byzantine and incestuous to an outsider, but the idea, denton told me, was “to insure mission alignment.” stephen miller formed america first legal, a public interest law group that has primarily targeted “woke corporations,” school districts, and the biden administration. vought started the center for renewing america, which generated policy proposals as though the trump administration had never ended. corrigan and denton were on the board of vought’s group; vought, corrigan, and denton sat on the board of miller’s group. as more organizations joined the fold, their boards increasingly overlapped, and the roster of ideologues and trump loyalists grew. gene hamilton and matthew whitaker, key figures from the trump d.o.j., worked at america first legal. ken cuccinelli, from the department of homeland security; mark paoletta, from the office of management and budget; and kash patel, from the department of defense, became fellows at vought’s group. by the end of 2021, c.p.i. had helped form eight new groups, each with a different yet complementary mission. the american accountability foundation focussed on attacking biden’s nominees. the state freedom caucus network helped state legislators create their own versions of the house freedom caucus in order to challenge their local republican establishments. the election integrity network, run by mitchell, trained volunteers to monitor polling places and investigate state and local election officials. american moment concentrated on cultivating the next generation of conservative staffers in washington. c.p.i. connected the founders of these groups with its network of donors and, in some instances, helped support the organizations until they could raise money for themselves. as american moment waited for the i.r.s. to formalize its nonprofit tax status, for example, c.p.i. served as a fiscal sponsor, allowing donors to earmark money for the new group by giving it to c.p.i. the organization also offered its partners access to an array of shared resources: discounted real estate, accounting services, legal representation. “this all had an in kind value of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars,” the person close to c.p.i. told me. c.p.i.’s accounting firm, called compass professional, was run by corrigan’s brother; its law firm, compass legal, was headed by scott gast, a lawyer in the trump white house. aside from c.p.i., compass legal’s most lucrative client to date, according to f.e.c. filings, has been trump himself, whose campaign and political action committees have paid the firm four hundred thousand dollars in the past two years. another major client was the national rifle association, which paid the firm more than three hundred thousand dollars in 2022. compass legal was established in march, 2021, two months after c.p.i.’s lead lawyer, cleta mitchell, was forced to resign from her job as a partner at the law firm foley & lardner. her participation in trump’s phone call to the georgia secretary of state had caused too much controversy. she blamed her departure on a “massive pressure campaign” orchestrated by “leftist groups.” in a subsequent c.p.i. annual report, the group said that a large part of its mission was helping conservatives “survive the leftist purge and ‘cancel proof’ conservative organizations.” this was not simply the rhetoric of conservative victimhood. andrew kloster, a former employee of compass legal who is now representative matt gaetz’s general counsel, described one of c.p.i.’s goals as “de risking public service on the right.” for anyone who might run afoul of mainstream opinion, c.p.i. had created an alternative, fully self sufficient ecosystem. one part of it was material: recording studios, direct mail services, accounting and legal resources, salaried jobs and fellowships. the other element was cultural. c.p.i. was demonstrating to trump allies that, if they took bold and possibly illegal action in service of the cause, they wouldn’t face financial ruin or pariah status in washington. over coffee at the capitol, in may, kloster, who is bald with a bushy beard, explained the story behind a legal defense fund that he’d helped create, called courage under fire. it supported people who’d been “targeted for their civil service in conservative administrations, including those indicted for fighting the 2020 election,” he said. the fund has spent more than three million dollars to date, according to the washington post, with the money going toward legal costs incurred by john eastman; mike roman, a former trump campaign operative; and peter navarro, a former economic adviser to trump who has since been convicted of contempt of congress for failing to comply with a subpoena related to the january 6th investigation. “we started with a lot of trump advisers,” kloster said. “it’s a large class.” eastman, he added, was a prime example: “he has been targeted for legal advice he gave in the course of his duties consulting with former president trump. he’s being charged with criminal fraud. that’s for the mob lawyer in ‘the godfather’ trying to knowingly facilitate crimes, not for someone saying, ‘here’s what i think the law is.’ ” courage under fire was created by personnel policy operations, a nonprofit in the c.p.i. network which, in 2022, spent more than a million dollars on lawyers for mark meadows and jeffrey clark, according to notus, an online news site. c.p.i. maintains that the groups it has launched are independent. “we don’t control them,” the c.p.i. spokesperson said. but brendan fischer, the deputy executive director of documented, pointed out that in 2022 nearly all the money spent by personnel policy operations came from c.p.i., and that virtually all such spending went toward legal defense. he told me, “the most reasonable inference is that they were routing money from c.p.i. to personnel policy operations to pay for meadows’s and clark’s legal fees.” (the c.p.i. spokesperson said, “liberal groups like these have made wild claims against the right for years that go nowhere. c.p.i. is in compliance with all laws for nonprofits.”) tim dunn, a billionaire texas oilman and a major donor to c.p.i., has been tapped specifically to fund the group’s legal defense efforts. when scott perry, of pennsylvania, the former chairman of the freedom caucus, faced legal scrutiny for his involvement in january 6th he had organized an attempt to contest the results in his state and, after ignoring a congressional subpoena, was ordered by a judge to turn over his cell phone to prosecutors meadows arranged to pay his legal fees by asking dunn for the money, someone with knowledge of the arrangement told me. (perry’s campaign and c.p.i. both denied this account. “this is completely false,” the c.p.i. spokesperson said. dunn could not be reached for comment.) c.p.i.’s headquarters is a three story town house with a blue door, on a leafy block near the capitol. inside, a warren of offices gives way to a series of parlorlike spaces with high ceilings. there are luminous conference rooms upstairs, each named for a prominent donor. last summer, i visited 300 independence avenue to interview vought. at the time, we were discussing his role in creating a congressional subcommittee to advance a dominant republican narrative in the house: that democrats had weaponized the federal government against conservatives. it was a kind of unified theory of the deep state, which held that the justice department and the u.s. intelligence community had colluded to silence right wing voices. it had the added utility of casting trump as the ultimate martyr of the conservative movement. each of his legal travails, vought said, proved that democrats were shamelessly engaged in “lawfare.” these days, vought has appeared in the news as a key architect of a second trump term agenda, alongside some of the other usual suspects: stephen miller, gene hamilton, jeffrey clark, and kash patel. trump has been explicit about his intention to exact revenge on political enemies. “i am your warrior, i am your justice,” he told a crowd of supporters in march of last year. “and, for those who have been wronged and betrayed, i am your retribution.” three months later, after his arraignment in miami for allegedly mishandling classified documents and obstructing a federal investigation, he added, “i will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the united states of america, joe biden, and the entire biden crime family.” link copied vought and clark, meanwhile, have been advancing a formal rationale to break the long standing expectation that the d.o.j. should operate independently of the president. the norm has been in place since watergate, but they have argued that trump could run the department like any other executive agency. clark published his case on the center for renewing america’s web site under the title “the u.s. justice department is not independent.” in early 2021, while trump was fighting the results of the election, he wanted to make clark the attorney general, but the entire senior leadership of the department threatened to resign en masse. now, if clark gets a top job at the d.o.j., he is expected to use the position to try to remake the department as an instrument of the white house. stephen miller, at america first legal, has been devising plans to enact a nationwide crackdown on immigration, just as he had hoped to carry out on a vast scale in the first trump term. the impediment then was operational: a lack of personnel to make arrests, a shortage of space to detain people, resistance from democratic officials at the state and local levels. miller has since vowed to increase deportations by a factor of ten, to a million people a year, according to the times. the president would have to deputize federal troops to carry out the job, because there wouldn’t be enough agents at the department of homeland security to do it. the government would need to build large internment camps, and, in the event that congress refused to appropriate the money required, the president would have to divert funds from the military. many of the other agenda items related to immigration that were delayed, blocked, or never fully realized during the chaos of the first term would be reinstated to more extreme effect in a second: an expanded ban on refugees from muslim majority countries, a revocation of visas for students engaged in certain forms of campus protests, an end to birthright citizenship. “any activists who doubt president trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error,” miller told the times last november. “trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown.” the overarching scheme for the second trump term, called project 2025, follows an established washington tradition. it is being organized by the heritage foundation and has taken the form of a nine hundred page policy tract. but the scale of this undertaking, which is costing more than twenty million dollars, is bigger than anything heritage has previously attempted. the organization has hired the technology company oracle to build a secure database to house the personnel files of some twenty thousand potential administration staffers. kevin roberts, the current president of heritage, has also enlisted the participation of more than a hundred conservative groups, as well as top figures from c.p.i.: vought, corrigan, miller, and saurabh sharma, the president of american moment. “these were the key nodes,” the person close to c.p.i. told me. “roberts was paying center for renewing america, american moment, and america first legal to do parts of the project.” (heritage did not respond to requests for comment.) the fact that heritage was helping to staff a full fledged maga operation, the person went on, was a reflection of c.p.i.’s mounting influence. two years ago, roberts addressed the national conservatism conference, an annual gathering of far right activists, which was hosted by an organization that is now associated with c.p.i. “i come not to invite national conservatives to join our movement but to acknowledge the plain truth that heritage is already part of yours,” he said. last year, corrigan, who is on the steering committee of project 2025, was invited to speak at heritage’s fiftieth anniversary conference. “the leadership at heritage has brought back the c.p.i. folks even though they got pushed out six years before,” the person close to c.p.i. told me. “kevin is being realistic. he needs to make peace with these guys.” my source, who has been involved in project 2025, outlined a few immediate actions that trump would take if he won. christopher wray, the director of the f.b.i., would be fired “right away,” he told me. even though trump nominated wray to the position, the far right has blamed wray for the agency’s role in arresting people involved in the insurrection. (as vought told me, “look at the f.b.i., look at the deep state. we have political prisoners in this country, regardless of what you think about january 6th.”) the other hope in getting rid of wray is that, without him, the administration could use the agency to target its political opponents. the person close to c.p.i. considered himself a denizen of the far right wing of the republican party, yet some of the ideas under discussion among those working on project 2025 genuinely scared him. one of them was what he described to me as “all this talk, still, about bombing mexico and taking military action in mexico.” this had apparently come up before, during the first trump term, in conversations about curbing the country’s drug cartels. the president had been mollified but never dissuaded. according to mike pompeo, his former secretary of state, trump once asked, “how would we do if we went to war with mexico?” trump’s former economic advisers robert lighthizer and peter navarro want trump to impose tariffs of as much as ten per cent on foreign imports. economists across the political spectrum have predicted that such a policy which could trigger an international trade war, dramatically boosting inflation would be catastrophic for the u.s. economy. “lighthizer and navarro are fucking clowns,” the person told me. those close to trump are also anticipating large protests if he wins in november. his first term was essentially bookended by demonstrations, from the women’s march and rallies against the muslim ban to the mass movement that took to the streets after the murder of george floyd, in the summer of 2020. jeffrey clark and others have been working on plans to impose a version of the insurrection act that would allow the president to dispatch troops to serve as a national police force. invoking the act would allow trump to arrest protesters, the person told me. trump came close to doing this in the final months of his term, in response to the black lives matter protests, but he was blocked by his secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. “something under discussion is who they could actually appoint without senate confirmation,” the person added. schedule f, the executive order from october, 2020, that enabled the purge of career civil servants, was rescinded by the biden administration, but it would be reinstated by trump. presidents typically take their most decisive action in the first hundred days. the plan for trump, i was told, was to set everything in motion “within hours of taking office.” this was what trump had apparently meant when he told sean hannity, earlier this year, that he wouldn’t be a dictator, “except for day one.” the trump campaign has tried to distance itself from the most radical aspects of project 2025. there are no benefits only political liabilities to endorsing so many specifics. trump’s supporters already know what he stands for, in a general sense. and there is the more delicate matter of the former president’s ego. “he wouldn’t want to be seen as taking guidance from any other human being,” the former senior white house official told me. “he doesn’t like to be seen as someone who doesn’t know everything already.” on july 5th, trump wrote on truth social, “i know nothing about project 2025. i have no idea who is behind it. i disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” he said that he wished them luck. his fortunes, though, were rising. the presidential race was now his to lose. by the spring, he was steadily leading in national polls, with a larger edge in key battleground states. the biden campaign had proposed two debates, with a format designed to control trump’s pugilistic impulses: no studio audience and the microphones silenced after each answer, to prohibit interruptions. but during the first debate, on june 27th, biden faltered. he stood rigidly at the podium, with a slack, vacant expression. his voice was weak and wavering, and he repeatedly trailed off mid thought. the disastrous performance has since led an increasing number of democrats to call for him to withdraw from the race. the following week, trump was on the golf course with his son barron and was caught on video summarizing the current electoral landscape. “i kicked that old broken down pile of crap,” he said of biden. “that means we have kamala,” he went on. “i think she’s going to be better. she’s so bad. she’s so pathetic.” in the first year of biden’s presidency, c.p.i. raised forty five million dollars, more money than it had received in the previous four years combined. a single donor was responsible for twenty five million dollars of that year’s haul: mike rydin, a seventy five year old widower from houston, who in 2021 made a fortune from the sale of his company, which developed software for the construction industry. until then, he was a small time republican donor and a relative unknown in national political circles; in 2019, he contributed only about seven thousand dollars to the trump campaign, according to the daily beast. but rydin told me that he considered c.p.i.’s founder “the most honest man in america.” while demint was in the senate, he started a political action committee, the senate conservatives fund, to raise money for right wing candidates who challenged republican incumbents in party primaries. “that was a cardinal sin,” the demint staffer told me. “he primaried his colleagues.” some of the candidates supported by the pac lee, in utah; rand paul, in kentucky; and marco rubio, in florida defeated fellow republicans backed by senate leadership, then won their general elections. but, in other races, demint’s intervention backfired. in delaware, he championed the candidacy of christine o’donnell, a conservative activist whose campaign imploded after footage surfaced of her saying that she’d “dabbled into witchcraft.” demint was unbothered. “i’d rather have thirty marco rubios in the senate than sixty arlen specters,” he once said, referring to the moderate republican from pennsylvania, who eventually switched parties. demint’s crusade reminded rydin of his own career the years of financial struggles, the uncertainties, the skeptics. “i knew what it was like to be alone,” he said. “it’s tough to be alone, to fight battles alone.” when a representative from the senate conservatives fund reached out to him, in 2009, rydin agreed to donate a thousand dollars. “that was, like, the most money i’d ever donated to anything,” rydin said. afterward, he told me, “someone calls me and says, ‘senator demint wants to talk to you.’ and i said, ‘a senator? really?’ ” rydin is polite and unprepossessing, almost droll. in our conversations, he was guarded but firm in expressing his commitment to ending illegal immigration, cutting government spending, and getting foreign countries to deal with their own problems. rydin admitted that when trump, as president, threatened to impose tariffs on mexico “it scared the hell out of me.” but, he added, “everything trump did turned out wonderfully. i’m not going to second guess him anymore.” in the end, rydin’s attraction to extreme figures seemed more personal than ideological. in 2015, he met mark meadows after meadows, then a congressman from north carolina, attempted to oust the republican speaker of the house, john boehner, a radical act for which meadows was later described as “a legislative terrorist.” “he was absolutely terrified to do that,” rydin told me. “he got no support whatsoever.” shortly after demint started c.p.i., in 2017, he and a colleague flew to houston to meet with rydin and other potential donors. rydin had donated to heritage while demint was there but stopped after his departure. (he has since resumed his contributions.) “it wouldn’t have bothered me if i never contributed to them again,” he said, “because they were firing jim.” now demint told him about his plans to create a conservative community in washington, a place where members of congress could confer before and after votes. “i’m on board,” rydin told him. “you don’t have to say anything else.” link copied rydin was ready to donate to c.p.i., but his wife, who avoided politics, was uncomfortable with him giving more than twenty five thousand dollars. “to get her to twenty five thousand dollars was a big deal,” he said. by the time she died, of cancer, in 2020, he’d increased his donation to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. the next year, “i sold my company and had a lot of money,” he told me. c.p.i. used part of rydin’s twenty five million dollar donation to buy, for seven million dollars, a lodge with eleven bedrooms on the eastern shore of maryland, which it named camp rydin. the property has a shooting range and a horse stable. (“it’s rustic but luxurious,” the person close to c.p.i. told me.) to date, c.p.i. has held some two dozen trainings there for congressional staff and conservative activists, according to travel disclosure forms filed with the government. rydin has also donated to many of the groups in the c.p.i. network, including the center for renewing america, american moment, and the american accountability foundation. in july, america first legal sent out a preëlection fund raising pitch: through august 15th, all donations up to two million dollars would be matched by “houstonian patriot and generous afl supporter mike rydin.” as a nonprofit, c.p.i. is forbidden to engage in partisan spending or certain kinds of lobbying. its network of associated organizations, however, has allowed it to do both of those things through a legal back door. america first legal, like c.p.i., is a nonprofit. but it has a related entity called citizens for sanity, which can spend money on political advertising with minimal restrictions. in the last six months of 2022, citizens for sanity spent more than ninety million dollars on ads, including one that ran during the world series. it laid the blame for crime, high inflation, and low wages on illegal immigration and warned viewers that biden was leading the country toward “world war three.” other ads have decried “the woke left’s war on girls’ sports” and the “woke war on our children.” the group’s spending eclipsed that of both c.p.i. (which spent twenty three million dollars in 2022) and america first legal (which spent thirty four million dollars). it’s impossible to know who donated the money, but the address listed on the tax documents for citizens for sanity is 300 independence avenue. c.p.i.’s pitch to donors is also predicated on its close relationships with legislators in washington. one member of the freedom caucus told me that house lawmakers were directly involved in c.p.i.’s fund raising efforts. “when they made donor phone calls, they talked about how c.p.i. was the home of the freedom caucus,” the member told me. “the idea was ‘you should give to us because we support the real conservatives.’ ” when house members are in washington to take votes, c.p.i. often arranges donor events at 300 independence avenue. “the presence of the members was to help raise money, and they were requested to mingle with the donors,” the lawmaker said. c.p.i.’s association with the freedom caucus raises questions about whether the organization can credibly claim to be a nonprofit that steers clear of actual lobbying. in january of 2023, members of the freedom caucus met at c.p.i.’s headquarters to strategize about their attempt to block kevin mccarthy from becoming the house speaker. meadows joined and advised them on how to proceed; he was regarded as someone with expertise, having tried to oust boehner in 2015. “it’s pretty extraordinary that meadows was sitting there talking about how to deny mccarthy the speakership and how to negotiate concessions,” the member told me. c.p.i. also exerts an unspoken power over lawmakers because of its ties to the house freedom fund, the caucus’s political action committee, which is also registered at 300 independence avenue. since 2021, rydin no longer appears to be c.p.i.’s biggest donor. his foundation gave the group $1.5 million in 2022, but, according to c.p.i.’s tax filings, an unnamed donor contributed $15.5 million that year. among c.p.i.’s most recent donors are the servant foundation, a fund backed by david green, the founder of hobby lobby; donors trust, a fund associated with leonard leo and the koch family; the bradley impact fund, an offshoot of a wisconsin based philanthropy where cleta mitchell serves as a board secretary; and the ohio food packing magnate dave frecka and his wife, brenda, who have a conference room named after them at 300 independence avenue. “the previous dark money political influence operations tended to be run by more old school billionaire, polluter, right wing interests,” sheldon whitehouse, the democratic chairman of the senate budget committee, told me. “c.p.i. represents the maga move into this space.” on a bright, warm day in may, i visited saurabh sharma, the twenty six year old head of american moment, which describes its mission as “identifying, educating, and credentialing” a new generation of conservative staffers. dressed in a blazer and tie, with round glasses and brown bit loafers, he greeted me in front of a small door on pennsylvania avenue that was wedged between a sweetgreen and a dos toros. a narrow staircase led to a small office suite that the group had rented from c.p.i. between february, 2022, and march, 2023, c.p.i. bought seven buildings and a parking lot along this stretch of pennsylvania avenue. it made the purchases through a web of more than a dozen limited liability companies, taking out at least twenty five million dollars in mortgages. what helps the group cover the monthly payments is the rent that it charges its network of affiliated nonprofits. behind the buildings on pennsylvania avenue, c.p.i. plans to close off the back alley and create a nine thousand square foot “campus” called patriots’ row. it already has a property next to the senate; by expanding its footprint closer to the house, it hopes to insure that staffers from both chambers, as well as the lawmakers themselves, have places to congregate within walking distance of their daily business. sharma led me past a counter with a tap for cold brew and into a room filled with chairs and a lectern. he is originally from texas, where he was the youngest ever chairman of the state’s young conservatives association, and carries himself with the aplomb of someone twice his age. “no one else is as obsessed with finding young people and making them into extremely influential political actors within bureaucratic government life,” he told me. “no one cares as much about doing that as i do.” four years ago, sharma stayed up late one night reading an essay by senator j. d. vance, a republican from ohio, who was then a venture capitalist and a best selling author. the piece, titled “end the globalization gravy train,” was a statement of principles for a branch of the conservative movement ascendant in the trump era and known as the new right: economic nationalism, foreign policy isolationism, hostility to immigration. sharma was struck by a portion of the essay in which vance argued that personnel at every level of government in washington were not up to the task of responding to the demands of the moment. it was something that sharma had heard gripes about before, during a summer internship in washington. for too long, he said on a recent podcast, government offices were staffed by “twenty three year old shitheads” sent to d.c. by their parents to keep them “as far away from the family business as humanly possible.” he put it to me more soberly: “the personnel pipeline needed to be rebuilt from scratch. who are the fifty twenty year olds we should be looking at? there needs to be a white glove process by which they’re brought into the fold.” in the winter of 2021, c.p.i. convened a meeting of its top donors in the ballroom of a miami hotel. sharma pitched the donors on his new venture, alongside stephen miller, russell vought, and ben carson, the secretary of housing and urban development under trump. “it was a very risky thing for them to do,” sharma told me of c.p.i. “most groups in washington don’t want to share their donors. it shows a great deal of confidence on the part of c.p.i.” at the gathering, sharma met rydin, who immediately took to him. later on, while sharma was speaking to another donor, rydin approached the pair. “isn’t this guy so impressive?” rydin said to the donor, pointing to sharma. “well, are you going to help him?” sharma considers c.p.i. a “fraternity” devoted to, in his telling, creating a new and lasting culture in washington. “the right and its people are almost like sedimentary rock,” he said. “it’s like the grand canyon. you can see the layers in it. who the president is in any given year defines what kind of people choose to get involved in center right politics.” he ran through some history, starting with barry goldwater, in the nineteen sixties, and ending with trump. “president trump getting elected brought in an entirely new generation of people,” he said. the problem was that most republicans in washington had initially detested the former president. as a result, sharma said, “no one was interested in elevating a young kid that came to them and said, ‘i’d really like to get involved in politics because president trump was right. we got lied into iraq. we should shut down the border. and we’re getting sold out by china when it comes to trade.’ ” american moment, he went on, was correcting the “injustice” of the fact that, for the first few years of trump’s term, the views of such young people were “artificially suppressed” in washington. “the way that the trump legacy will be immortal, the way that trump himself will be immortal, is if there’s a corresponding generation of people that are drawn to politics based on his vision,” sharma said. some conservative ideologues tend to see trump as a wild but ultimately necessary means to an end. in sharma’s view, trump is the “alpha and the omega of the conservative movement.” he told me, “the only reason these opportunities exist is because trump ran and won. the only reason these opportunities exist today is because trump hasn’t left the scene.” sharma had to leave to host a book party at c.p.i. headquarters, which was across the street, and we strolled over together. while we waited at a crosswalk, a young congressional staffer stopped to shake sharma’s hand. a few other people were making their way to c.p.i.’s town house. at the party, there was a full bar and pulled pork sandwiches. in a few days, american moment would be hosting a hawaiian themed bash called the lawless lawfare luau, where attendees would wear leis. “i don’t know a d.c. without c.p.i.,” sharma told me. “but those who were around before say it was a wasteland.” ♦ searching for the cause of a catastrophic plane crash. the man who spent forty two years at the beverly hills hotel pool. gloria steinem’s life on the feminist frontier. where the amish go on vacation. how colonel sanders built his kentucky fried fortune. what does procrastination tell us about ourselves? fiction by patricia highsmith: “the trouble with mrs. blynn, the trouble with the world” sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from the new yorker. sections more © 2025 condé nast. all rights reserved. the new yorker may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our affiliate partnerships with retailers. the material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of condé nast. ad choices

email * first name please complete the captcha above share this page follow ballotpedia share this page follow ballotpedia republican party 2025   present 2029 0 november 5, 2024 education new york military academy university of pennsylvania official website official facebook official twitter official instagram official youtube campaign website campaign facebook campaign twitter campaign instagram campaign youtube campaign tiktok .infobox { width: 250px; font size: .9em; } .top_disclaimer { </p> <pre>float:right; border:1px solid #ffb81f; background color: white; width: 250px; font size: .9em; margin bottom:0px; </pre> <p>} .infobox p { margin bottom: 0; } .widget row { display: inline block; width: 100%; margin top: 1px; margin bottom: 1px; } .widget row.heading { font size: 1.2em; } .widget row.value only { text align: center; background color: grey; color: white; font weight: bold; } .widget row.value only.white { background color: #f9f9f9; } .widget row.value only.black { background color: #f9f9f9; color: black; } .widget row.democratic { background color: #003388; color: white; font weight: bold; } .widget row.republican { background color: red; color: white; font weight: bold; } .widget row.independent, .widget row.nonpartisan, .widget row.constitution { background color: grey; color: white; font weight: bold; } .widget row.libertarian { background color: #f9d334; color: black; font weight: bold; } .widget row.green { background color: green; color: white; font weight: bold; } .widget key { width: 43%; display: inline block; padding left: 10px; vertical align: top; font weight: bold; } .widget value { width: 57%; float: right; display: inline block; padding left: 10px; word wrap: break word; } .widget img { width: 150px; display: block; margin: auto; } .clearfix { clear: both; } donald john trump (b. june 14, 1946, in queens, new york) is the 47th and 45th president of the united states. trump served his first term from january 20, 2017, to january 20, 2021, and began his second term on january 20, 2025. before holding public office, trump owned the trump organization, a conglomerate dealing in real estate and other industries, and hosted the apprentice on nbc. trump defeated hillary clinton (d) in the 2016 presidential election, and was then defeated by joe biden (d) in the 2020 presidential election. trump won election to a second term in the 2024 presidential election, making him the second president in u.s. history to serve for non consecutive terms.[1] trump became the republican nominee after winning a majority of delegates at the republican national convention on july 15, 2024. trump selected u.s. sen. j.d. vance (r ohio) as his vice presidential running mate on july 15, 2024.[2] click here to read more about his presidential campaign. trump is the first president to be indicted on and convicted of criminal charges after leaving office. in may 2024, a new york jury found trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. there were two federal indictments issued against trump in 2023, one related to the handling of classified documents and another related to interference in the certification of the 2020 presidential election. these cases were dismissed in november 2024. in august 2023, trump was indicted by a georgia grand jury on criminal charges related to interference in the 2020 presidential election results in georgia. in june 2023, trump responded to his indictments saying, "it is election interference at the highest level. there has never been anything like what has happened. i am an innocent man."[3] to read more about those legal cases, click here. key policy initiatives during trump's first term included the united states withdrawing from the iran nuclear deal, the passage of the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 and first step act in 2018, reducing the size of the isis caliphate, and establishing the space force as an independent military branch.[4][5] trump made 234 federal judicial appointments, including three u.s. supreme court justices. this was the highest number of appointments in a president's first term among u.s. presidents serving between 1981 and 2021. click here to read about more policy issues under the trump administration. on december 18, 2019, trump became the third president in u.s. history to be impeached by the u.s. house.[6] the u.s. senate acquitted trump on both charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress on february 5, 2020.[7] trump was impeached a second time on january 13, 2021, for incitement of insurrection following the january 6, 2021, breach of the united states capitol. on january 12, 2021, trump called the impeachment resolution the "continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics."[8] the senate acquitted trump on february 13, 2021. since 2017, trump has been an active influencer in the republican party, issuing endorsements in elections across the country. during his presidency, ballotpedia identified 305 endorsements issued by trump. since leaving office, trump has issued hundreds of additional endorsements. he issued the most during the 2022 election cycle. a ballotpedia analysis found that in the general election, 83% of trump endorsed candidates won their elections, while 39% of trump endorsed candidates in battleground races won their elections. trump was born in queens, new york, in 1946.[9] he attended fordham university before transferring to the wharton school of finance at the university of pennsylvania, where he earned a b.s. in economics in 1968.[10] after graduation, trump joined his family's company, elizabeth trump & son. he took control of the company in 1971 and later renamed it the trump organization.[11] he was involved in a variety of real estate and other business ventures in the following years. from 2004 until 2015, trump hosted and served as executive producer of the apprentice on nbc.[12][13] in 1999, trump ran as a reform party presidential candidate; he withdrew from the race in february 2000.[10][14] between 1987 and 2012, he changed his official party affiliation five times, registering most recently as a republican in april 2012.[15] trump declared his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election on june 16, 2015, and officially received the nomination of the republican party on july 19, 2016, at the republican national convention. on november 8, 2016, trump was elected the 45th president of the united states. he was sworn into office on january 20, 2017. below is an abbreviated outline of trump's professional and political career:[16][17][18] trump officially announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election on november 15, 2022. trump became the republican nominee after winning a majority of delegates at the republican national convention on july 15, 2024. trump selected u.s. sen. j.d. vance (r ohio) as his vice presidential running mate on july 15, 2024.[19] click the links below to read more about the 2024 presidential election: former vice president joe biden (d) won the presidential election on november 3, 2020. biden received 306 electoral votes and president donald trump (r) received 232 electoral votes. in the national popular vote, biden received 81.2 million votes and trump received 74.2 million votes. click here for trump's 2020 presidential campaign overview. !function(){"use strict";window.addeventlistener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper height"])for(var e in a.data["datawrapper height"]){var t=document.getelementbyid("datawrapper chart "+e)||document.queryselector("iframe[src*='"+e+"']");(t.style.height=a.data["datawrapper height"][e]+"px")}}))}(); trump won the 2016 presidential election on november 8, 2016. his vice presidential running mate was indiana gov. mike pence (r). trump and democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton were projected to receive 306 and 232 electoral votes, respectively, but seven electors cast votes for other candidates. trump won 304 electoral votes and clinton won 227. !function(){"use strict";window.addeventlistener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper height"])for(var e in a.data["datawrapper height"]){var t=document.getelementbyid("datawrapper chart "+e)||document.queryselector("iframe[src*='"+e+"']");&amp;(t.style.height=a.data["datawrapper height"][e]+"px")}})}(); click on the tiles below to learn more about president donald trump's policies. click on the tiles below to learn more about president donald trump's policies. click on the tiles below to learn more about president donald trump's policies. !function(){"use strict";window.addeventlistener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper height"])for(var e in a.data["datawrapper height"]){var t=document.getelementbyid("datawrapper chart "+e)||document.queryselector("iframe[src*='"+e+"']");if(t)(t.style.height=a.data["datawrapper height"][e]+"px")}}))}(); according to an npr analysis of data from the center for responsive politics, donations to national level parties, candidates, and other committees made in trump's name between 1989 and 2015 totaled an inflation adjusted $1.4 million. approximately two thirds of these donations went to republicans. from 1989 to 2009, more than half of trump’s donations went to democrats. from 2010 to 2015, 97 percent of his donations went to republicans.[21] in 1999, trump filed to run as a reform party presidential candidate challenging pat buchanan. he withdrew from the race in february 2000, stating concerns about party discord. he remained on the reform party primary ballot in california and won the june 2000 election with 44% of the vote.[22][23] ballotpedia tracks endorsements issued by trump. during trump's presidency from 2017 to 2021, ballotpedia tracked 305 endorsements. endorsements include official statements, appearances at campaign rallies, and direct participation in campaign ads and materials. endorsements issued prior to a special election where the candidate is also running in a regularly scheduled election on the same day are counted as endorsements in both races. see the table below for an overview of trump's endorsements for candidates within ballotpedia's coverage scope from 2017 to present. if trump issued any endorsements for candidates outside of ballotpedia's coverage scope, a list of the endorsements can be found in the section for the relevant election year on this page. click here to view a full list of trump's endorsements. </p> <pre> .marqueetable { font size:80%; } .marqueetable td { text align: center; } @media only screen and (max width: 767px) { .marqueetable { font size:60%; } } on september 15, 2024, while former president donald trump (r) was playing golf at trump international golf club in west palm beach, florida, the secret service identified a man hiding in the shrubbery with an ak style rifle 300 to 500 yards away. a secret service agent fired on the man, who fled and was then apprehended by florida law enforcement.[24][25] nobody was injured. the federal bureau of investigation (fbi) said it was investigating the incident as an assassination attempt on trump.[26] the man in custody was identified as ryan routh.[25] on september 24, a grand jury in miami voted to indict routh on three firearms related charges, one charge of assaulting a federal officer, and one charge of attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate.[27] routh pleaded not guilty.[28] a trial is scheduled for february 10, 2024, with united states district court for the southern district of florida judge aileen cannon presiding.[29][30] former president donald trump (r) held a presidential campaign rally in butler, pennsylvania, on july 13, 2024.[31] at 6:15 p.m., a man fired multiple shots toward the stage where trump was speaking.[32] trump was not seriously injured.[32] on truth social, he said he "was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of [his] right ear."[33][34] one rally attendee was killed and two were critically injured as of 10:30 a.m. on july 14.[32] u.s. secret service agents killed the shooter shortly after the shots were fired.[33] the federal bureau of investigation identified the shooter as thomas matthew crooks on july 14, 2024.[35] on february 16, 2024, new york supreme court 1st judicial district judge arthur f. engoron (d) issued a ruling finding former president donald trump (r), two of his sons, his company, and executives of his company liable in a civil fraud case for inflating the value of his assets, which allowed him to receive loans and insurance at lower rates than he would otherwise have been able to receive. trump was ordered to pay $454 million in penalties and interest to the state, was barred from acting as an officer or director of any company in new york for three years, and an independent monitor was appointed to oversee the company's financial reporting.[36] the lawsuit was filed by new york attorney general letitia james (d) in 2022.[37] in his ruling, engoron wrote, "in order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting in fraudulent financial statements. when confronted at trial with the statements, defendants’ fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences. as detailed herein, this court now finds defendants liable, continues the appointment of an independent monitor, orders the installation of an independent director of compliance, and limits defendants’ right to conduct business in new york for a few years."[38] trump issued a statement in response to the ruling saying, "the justice system in new york state, and america as a whole, is under assault by partisan, deluded, biased judges and prosecutors. racist, corrupt a.g. tish james has been obsessed with 'getting trump' for years, and used crooked new york state judge engoron to get an illegal, unamerican judgment against me, my family, and my tremendous business. i helped new york city during its worst of times, and now, while it is overrun with violent biden migrant crime, the radicals are doing all they can to kick me out."[39] on february 26, 2024, trump appealed the ruling.[40] a five judge panel of the new york supreme court, appellate division, issued a ruling on trump's appeal on march 25, 2024, the deadline by which trump needed to post bond in order to further appeal the ruling. the court reduced the bond from $454 million to $175 million, and extended the bond deadline by ten days. the court also stayed the portion of engoron's ruling that barred trump from acting as an officer or director of any company in new york for three years pending appeals, but allowed the installation of an independent monitor to proceed according to the initial ruling.[41][42] trump posted the $175 million bond on april 1, 2024.[43] former president donald trump (r) was indicted on 13 criminal charges related to interference in the 2020 presidential election results in georgia. trump pleaded not guilty on august 31.[44] judge scott mcafee struck three of these charges for lack of specificity on march 13, 2024, and struck an additional two charges based on the u.s. constitution's supremacy clause on september 12, 2024.[45][46] fulton county district attorney fani willis (d) filed the indictment in fulton superior court in georgia, but the georgia court of appeals removed her from the case on december 19, 2025.[47] before trump assumed office as the 47th president, the case was heard by judge scott mcafee.[48] the indictment was unsealed on august 14, 2023, the same day it was announced that the grand jury had voted to issue an indictment.[49] it included the following charges against trump:[49] the indictment included a total of 41 criminal counts related to interference in georgia's 2020 presidential election results against 19 defendants, including trump, former new york mayor rudy giuliani (r), former white house chief of staff mark meadows, former georgia republican party chairman david shafer, and georgia state senator shawn still (r), among others.[49] mcafee struck six of these counts in march 2024 due to lack of specificity.[45] to view a full list of defendants and the charges issued against each, click here. trump's campaign issued a statement shortly before the indictment was released, saying, "ga's radical democrat district attorney fani willis is a rabid partisan who is campaigning and fundraising on a platform of prosecuting president trump through these bogus indictments. [...] they are taking away president trump's first amendment right to free speech, and the right to challenge a rigged and stolen election that the democrats do all the time."[50] in a press conference after the indictment was released, willis said, "i remind everyone here that an indictment is only a series of allegations based on a grand jury's determination of probable cause to support the charges. it is now the duty of my office to prove these charges in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt at trial."[51] the indictment followed a special grand jury investigation into whether trump and his allies attempted to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in georgia. the grand jury convened in may 2022, and completed its investigation in january 2023.[52] a federal grand jury charged former president donald trump (r) with four criminal counts related to the certification of the 2020 presidential election in august 2023. trump pleaded not guilty.[53] judge tanya s. chutkan oversaw the proceedings.[54] special counsel jack smith moved to dismiss the case without prejudice on november 25, 2024. the u.s. constitution prohibits the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, and donald trump (r) won the 2024 presidential election on november 5. in his filing, smith wrote "that prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind."[55] in july 2024, the supreme court ruled on trump's claim of presidential immunity in the case, saying in a 6 3 decision written by chief justice john roberts that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and no immunity for unofficial actions. the case was remanded to a lower court to determine which charges in the indictment could proceed.[56] smith released a superseding indictment on august 27, 2024, which maintained the same charges against trump with an adjusted presentation to adhere to the supreme court's ruling.[57] the original indictment was filed in the united states district court for the district of columbia. it included the following charges alleged against trump: in november 2022, u.s. attorney general merrick garland appointed smith to investigate whether any individual or entity "unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the electoral college vote held on or about january 6, 2021."[59] before this appointment, smith served as a chief prosecutor for the special court in the hague, netherlands, where he investigated war crimes in kosovo.[60] a federal grand jury charged former president donald trump (r) with 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified documents in june and july 2023. trump pleaded not guilty. this was the first federal indictment of a former u.s. president.[61][62] u.s. district court for the southern district of florida judge aileen cannon dismissed the case on july 15, 2024, on the grounds that special counsel jack smith's appointment violated the appointments clause and the appropriations clause of the u.s. constitution.[63] smith filed an appeal, but later withdrew the appeal after trump won the 2024 presidential election.[64][65] the court unsealed the original indictment on june 9, 2023, which contained 37 criminal counts. a superseding indictment was released on july 27, 2023, and added three additional charges, resulting in a total of forty criminal counts. thirty two counts were on the willful retention of national defense information. the other counts included:[66][62] on may 9, 2023, a united states district court for the southern district of new york jury found trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming e. jean carroll. trump was ordered to pay carroll $5 million in damages.[67][68] judge lewis kaplan presided over the case. following the ruling, trump said, "i have absolutely no idea who this woman is. this verdict is a disgrace   a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time!"[69] carroll issued a statement after the ruling, saying, "i filed this lawsuit against donald trump to clear my name and to get my life back. today, the world finally knows the truth. this victory is not just for me but for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed."[70] trump's attorneys filed a notice with the united states court of appeals for the second circuit on may 11, 2023, stating that he would appeal the verdict.[71] in a june 2019 new york magazine article, carroll said that trump sexually assaulted her in the mid 1990s.[72] at the time, trump released a statement saying, "i’ve never met this person in my life. she is trying to sell a new book   that should indicate her motivation. it should be sold in the fiction section."[72] carroll initiated the lawsuit in november 2022. the complaint said, "when carroll’s account was published, trump lashed out with a series of false statements. he denied the rape. trump made additional false claims about carroll in 2022. [...] trump’s underlying sexual assault severely injured carroll, causing significant pain and suffering, lasting psychological harms, loss of dignity, and invasion of her privacy. his recent defamatory statement has only added to the harm that carroll had already suffered."[73] the suit was brought under new york's adult survivors act, a 2022 law that created a one year window for adults who experienced a sexual offense before 2019, when the state extended the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits about certain sexual offenses, to file claims in civil court.[74] on may 30, 2024, a manhattan jury found former president donald trump (r) guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, making trump the first u.s. president to ever be indicted on and convicted of felony crimes after his time in office.[75] trump's sentencing took place on january 10, 2025. judge juan merchan sentenced trump to an unconditional discharge, meaning trump would have the conviction on his record, but the sentence carried no jail time, fines, or probation.[76][77][78][79][80] trump responded to the sentence, saying, "the radical democrats have lost another pathetic, unamerican witch hunt."[81] trump said he would appeal the ruling. trump's legal team can file a notice of appeal within 30 days of his sentencing date, and the appeal would be heard by a new york appellate division court.[82] manhattan district attorney alvin bragg (d) announced the grand jury criminal indictment of trump on march 30, 2023, .[83] the indictment was unsealed on april 4, showing that the grand jury had voted to charge trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.[84] the trial began on april 15, 2024.[85][86][87][88] judge juan merchan presided over the grand jury and the case.[89][90][91] on october 21, 2022, the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol formally issued a subpoena to trump.[92] the committee voted unanimously to subpoena trump during a public hearing on october 13. rep. liz cheney (r wyo.) offered the resolution, saying, "our duty today is to our country, and our children, and our constitution. we are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion. and every american is entitled to those answers so we can act now to protect our republic. [...] i am offering this resolution: that the committee direct the chairman to issue a subpoena for relevant documents and testimony under oath from donald john trump in connection with the january 6 attack on the united states capitol."[93] on october 13, trump responded to the subpoena on social media, saying, "why didn’t the unselect committee ask me to testify months ago? why did they wait until the very end, the final moments of their last meeting? because the committee is a total 'bust' that has only served to further divide our country" and "the unselect committee knowingly failed to examine the massive voter fraud which took place during the 2020 presidential election   the reason for what took place on january 6th."[94][95] on february 13, 2021, former president donald trump (r) was acquitted of incitement of insurrection. fifty seven senators voted to convict and 43 voted to acquit. conviction requires a two thirds vote of senators present.[96] on january 13, 2021, the house of representatives voted to impeach trump by a vote of 232 197 for incitement of insurrection. the resolution followed the january 6, 2021, breach of the u.s. capitol, which disrupted a joint session of congress convened to count the electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election. ten republicans supported the impeachment.[97][98] the resolution alleged that trump attempted to subvert and obstruct the certification of the election results and incited a crowd to breach the capitol, leading to vandalism, threats to members of the government and congressional personnel, the death of law enforcement, and other seditious acts.[97] click here to read the resolution. on january 12, 2021, trump called the impeachment resolution the "continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics." he added, "for nancy pelosi and chuck schumer to continue on this path, i think it's causing tremendous danger to our country and it's causing tremendous anger."[99] on october 2, 2020, trump announced on twitter that he and first lady melania trump had tested positive for coronavirus.[100] trump was released from the hospital on october 5, 2020.[101] on february 5, 2020, president donald trump (r) was acquitted of abuse of power by a vote of 52 48 and obstruction of congress by a vote of 53 47.[10] house speaker nancy pelosi (d calif.) first announced the house would pursue an inquiry into trump on september 24, 2019, following allegations that trump requested the ukrainian government investigate former vice president joe biden (d) and his son, hunter biden, in exchange for aid.[102] trump denied the allegations and called the inquiry "the worst witch hunt in political history."[103][104] following weeks of public hearings, the house voted to impeach trump on december 18, 2019, charging him with abuse of power by a vote of 230 197 and obstruction of congress by a vote of 229 198.[105] for a breakdown of the u.s. house votes by representative and party, click here.[106] during and after the 2016 presidential election, at least 25 women accused trump of sexual misconduct in alleged incidents dating back to the 1970s. allegations included ogling, groping, harassment, and rape.[107] most allegations were made public following the release of a 2005 segment from access hollywood where trump spoke about grabbing women's genitals without their consent.[108] trump apologized in a video statement on october 8, 2016, saying, "anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who i am. i said it, i was wrong and i apologize."[109] during the second presidential debate, on october 9, 2016, moderator anderson cooper asked trump whether his comments in 2005 described sexual assault. trump responded, "no, i didn’t say that at all. i don’t think you understood what was   this was locker room talk. i’m not proud of it. i apologize to my family. i apologize to the american people. certainly i’m not proud of it. but this is locker room talk."[110] in december 2017, trump again denied the allegations and said he was being politically targeted. he tweeted, "despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the democrats have been unable to show any collusion with russia   so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who i don’t know and/or have never met. fake news!"[111] note: please contact us if the personal information below requires an update. as of august 2020, trump had five children and ten grandchildren.[112] trump married his first wife, ivana, a former model and olympic skier from czechoslovakia, in 1977. the couple had three children: donald jr., ivanka, and eric. ivana trump was vice president of interior design for the trump organization and responsible for the interior design of the grand hyatt hotel, trump tower, and the trump plaza hotel and casino in atlantic city. the couple separated and divorced in 1990.[113] tiffany trump is the daughter of donald trump and marla maples. trump and maples, then an aspiring actress, married in 1993 and divorced in 1999.[114] trump married his third wife, melania, a slovenian born model, in 2005. the couple has one son, barron trump.[115] they resided in trump tower in manhattan before moving to the white house in 2017.[116] trump also has numerous apartments in manhattan and estates in palm beach, florida; bedford, new york; beverly hills, california; and rural virginia.[117] the link below is to the most recent stories in a google news search for the terms donald trump. these results are automatically generated from google. ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles. donald trump   google news if(document.getelementsbyclassname("reference").length==0) if(document.getelementbyid('footnotes')!==null) document.getelementbyid('footnotes').parentnode.style.display = 'none'; ballotpedia features 560,624 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error. for media inquiries, contact us here. please donate here to support our continued expansion.

something went wrong. wait a moment and try again.

© 2025 regents of the university of minnesota. all rights reserved. the university of minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. policy statement | acceptable use of it resources
trump administration supported by many allies of donald j. trump had secretly wanted an acquittal, which they predicted would have turbocharged fund raising and fed their claims of a rigged justice system. by jonathan swanmaggie haberman and michael gold the moment had finally come. late tuesday morning, nearly five years after republicans first went after hunter biden, the president’s son could finally be called a convicted felon. but donald j. trump and other republicans did not seem to be relishing the opportunity. the early reaction to a jury’s guilty verdict against hunter biden on three felony gun charges resembled a shriveling balloon. “the hunter biden gun conviction is kinda dumb tbh,” said one close trump ally, representative matt gaetz of florida, in a post on x, using an abbreviation for “to be honest.” another trump associate, charlie kirk, called it a “fake trial.” many trump allies had been secretly rooting for an acquittal. the talking points wrote themselves: it would have been yet more evidence that the united states justice system was rigged in favor of the bidens and against the trumps. tuesday’s guilty verdict was inconvenient to that narrative. even more valuable would have been the fund raising potential. a person with knowledge of the trump campaign’s fund raising plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there had been discussions about how much an acquittal would help mr. trump, potentially raising tens of millions of additional dollars as they planned to cite it as more evidence the justice system was rigged. after mr. trump was convicted in manhattan on 34 felony counts, his campaign raised record sums online, and some of his advisers recognized that an acquittal of mr. biden’s son had the potential to raise mr. trump far more cash than a conviction, the person said. prominent republicans, including those in the trump campaign, immediately minimized the three felony gun charges, complaining that the charges steered public attention away from unspecified crimes that they claimed president biden has committed and a justice system that they insisted was still very much two tiered.

supported by the report by the special counsel, david c. weiss, criticized president biden for making “baseless accusations” that threatened “the integrity of the justice system as a whole.” by devlin barrett and glenn thrush the threat of a retribution focused trump administration and his son’s looming sentencings prompted the president to abandon a promise not to get involved in hunter biden’s legal problems. by katie rogers and glenn thrush president biden is facing criticism for absolving his son after insisting he would not and, according to some critics in his own party, paving the way for donald trump’s return to office. by peter baker a chance meeting in december 2017 plunged zoë kestan, a downtown “it” girl and social media star, headlong into an unpredictable affair. by joseph bernstein democrats sharply criticize biden’s pardon of his son lawmakers in the president’s own party, many of them moderates, said his decision to pardon his son was selfish and would further damage americans’ waning faith in democracy and the rule of law. by maya c. miller were hunter biden’s prosecutions a result of political pressure? a look at the facts.