'Don't mess with me when it comes to words like that' Nancy Pelosi asked if she 'hates' Donald Trump
Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox
Get our free Inside Washington email
House speaker Nancy Pelosi has ordered the House to draw up articles of impeachment against Donald Trump over the Ukraine scandal.
“The facts are uncontested. The president abused power for his personal benefit at the expense of national security by withholding military aid and crucial Oval Office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival,” she said at a short press conference on Capitol Hill.
Her announcement followed Wednesday’s combative seven-hour House Judiciary Committee hearing at which three academic legal experts agreed that Mr Trump’s apparent attempt to extort a quid pro quo from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky met the standard for impeachment in a fiery session defined by Republican obstruction and bickering.
Later, Ms Pelosi snapped at a reporter during her weekly press conference, when asked by him if she hates the president.
Citing her Catholic religion, Ms Pelosi said she does not hate anybody, and told the reporter not to test her on the issue.
Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal
Show all 26
Another Democrat in completely different circumstances also had a moment in which he snapped, when Joe Biden called an Iowa voter a "damn liar" over a question about his son Hunter and Ukraine.
“The world is laughing at President Trump. They see him for what he really is: dangerously incompetent and incapable of world leadership,” commented Democratic 2020 front-runner Joe Biden.
For his part, Trump has blamed the media for "belittling" his efforts in London, insisting the summit was "VERY successful" and that he received only "deep respect" from his peers.
Since getting home last night, Trump has been frantically tweeting clips of Republicans coming to his defence at the latest House impeachment inquiry hearing (more on which in a moment) and claiming that in his 25 July call with President Zelensky of Ukraine - at the centre of this whole sorry mess - he was really asking him for a favour on behalf of "us" (the people of the United States), not himself. Which is a new one, at least.
Presidents' actions meet the standards for impeachment, legal scholars agree
While that sideshow was going on, the House Judiciary Committee heard from four academic legal experts on Wednesday who agreed that Trump’s apparent attempt to extort a quid pro quo from Zelensky met the standard for impeachment.
Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law all appeared before the committee to help establish the constiutional framework for impeachment, with only Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School offering a dissenting voice, having been summoned by the GOP specifically to provide one.
"President Trump's conduct as described in the testimony in evidence clearly constitutes impeachable high crimes and misdemeanours under the Constitution," said Professor Feldman, a preppy New Yorker subscriber who cut an extremely impressive appearance.
"If we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy - we live in a monarchy, or we live under a dictatorship," he added.
"The record compiled thus far shows the president has committed several impeachable offenses, including bribery, abuse of power, and soliciting of personal favour from a foreign leader to benefit himself personally, obstructing justice, and obstructing Congress," Gerhardt agreed.
"I just want to stress - if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable."
Professor Karlan offered the fiercest presence, asking of the assembled congressmen and women: "Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that's prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for... what would you think if that president said, 'I would like you to do us a favour? I'll meet with you and I'll send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.' Wouldn't you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office? That he betrayed the national interest and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process?"
Here are Andrews Feinberg and Buncombe to round-up another extraordinary day on Capitol Hill.
Republicans showboat, stall and complain about hard chairs and cold hearing room
The GOP did their very best to disrupt yesterday's proceedings overseen by Democratic chairman Jerrold Nadler, with ranking Republican Doug Collins of Georgia doing his utmost to be a nuisance and make a mockery of the day, complaining about everything from procedural points of order to his uncomfortable chair and the temperature in the Longworth Office Building.
Texas congressman Louie Gohmert even moaned about Nadler striking his gavel too hard.
Collins, leading the charade, echoed the familiar Trump-Fox line that the impeachment process is a "sham" and said the committee had been sidelined as other panels led the investigation. "What a disgrace to this committee, to have the committee of impeachment simply take from other committees and rubber stamp," he said.
Collins also criticised the quick pace of the probe, Democrats hoping to hold a final vote by Christmas. "If you want to know what's really driving this, there are two things - a clock and a calendar," he griped.
None of it mattered, however.
Here's Andrew Feinberg, who was in he room for the marathon seven-hour session, on the Democrats easily shooting down a particularly desperate argument raised by Turley.
Melania Trump attacks professor for joking about son Barron's name
One moment the Republicans worked hard to make huge political capital out of was Professor Karlan's somewhat ill-advised joke about the president's 13-year-old son's name.
"Contrary to what President Trump says, Article II does not give him the power to do anything he wants," she said. "I will give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is, the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while Trump can name his son 'Barron,' he can't make him a baron."
Florida goon Matt Gaetz went after her in the hearing, saying the remark "makes you look mean".
He did force an apology from her...
...but that wasn't enough to appease the boy's mother, who weighed in angrily on Twitter, as did Don Jr and White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham (never one to miss an opportunity) who described the joke as "classless".
Democrat argues Trump's racist rhetoric deserves inclusion among articles of impeachment
As the inquiry turns its attention towards drawing up articles of impeachment for the House of Representatives to vote on, Texas Democrat Al Green has sent a memo to colleagues arguing that the president's racist, bigoted rhetoric also amounts to an impeachable offence and should be added to the charge sheet.
“How will history judge this Congress that passed a resolution indicating President Trump made harmful, racist comments if it does not impeach him for his impeachable racist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, transphobic, xenophobic language instigating enmity and inciting violence within our society?” Green asks his colleagues.
The veteran pointed to the House passing a resolution in July condemning the president's Twitter attack on "The Squad" - in which he told four progressive congresswomen of colour to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" - as a case of Congress not doing enough to tackle the matter.
"Why should we pass a resolution condemning the president’s racist comments and then get back to racism as usual, where racism is more of a talking point than an action item?" he wrote.
An independent voice to the last, Green also justifiably attacked the Judiciary Committee for calling four white witnesses to argue the toss on Wednesday.
Rudy Giuliani travelled to Hungary, Ukraine to make documentary 'debunking' inquiry
Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has flown out to Budapest and Kiev this week to shoot a documentary "debunking" the impeachment case against President Trump, according to The New York Times.
He is said to have met up with ex-Ukraine prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko in Hungary on Tuesday before tracking down two more incumbents of that role - Viktor Shokin and Kostiantyn Kulyk - in the Ukrainian capital, the former the same man US vice president Joe Biden urged the country's government to remove from office in 2016 over corruption concerns, a point of obsession for Republican conspiracy theorists.
Giuliani is apparently interviewing the men for a pro-Trump series to be aired on conservative TV channel One America News.
But the trip has understandably raised eyebrows at the State Department, with the lawyer's "irregular" diplomatic backchannel to Kiev already a focal point for the impeachment inquiry.
Here's Trump ducking a very good question indeed on Rudy in London yesterday.
Trump's sudden departure from Nato summit disrupts hundreds of Ryanair passengers' journeys
The president's abrupt exit from Watford in a huff yesterday caused major disruption to British air travel, with more than 500 Ryanair travellers landed at the wrong airports as Air Force One prepared to leave Stansted.
Here's our travel correspondent Simon Calder with the gory details.
William Barr's handpicked investigator 'cannot prove Russia investigation was Justice Department set-up'
In more bad news for the president, the man handpicked by his attorney general William Barr to lead a review of the Russia investigation into Trump's campaign has told inspector general Michael Horowitz that he cannot support the idea that it was all a setup by the Obama-era Justice Department, having found no evidence to the contrary.
Connecticut district attorney John Durham had been conducting his own review at the instigation of Barr - distinct from Horowitz's probe, a report on which is due on Monday - but informed the IG that his own findings could not prove a right-wing conspiracy theory that US intelligence had engineered the Russia collusion narrative to discredit Trump, according to The Washington Post.
Horowitz is understood to have contacted US intelligence agencies asking whether Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, who interacted with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos regarding emails stolen from Democratic presidential candidate Hllary Clinton in 2016, was in fact a secret American asset, which they denied.
His draft report will include details of his exchange with Durham and conclude that the FBI did have cause to investigate the Trump campaign and had committed no wrongdoing, a verdict Barr is thought to dispute.
“[Horowitz's] excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves,” a spokeswoman for the Justice Department told The Post. “Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
Trump was asked about the report on Monday and attempted to pre-spin the outcome: "We have to read it and see it but I think there's a lot of devastating things in that report. But we'll see what happens."
Nancy Pelosi to give statement on 'status of impeachment inquiry'
We're hearing that the House speaker will be giving an update on the inquiry at 9am EST (2pm GMT) today from the Speaker’s Balcony Hallway, the same spot from which she first announced the impeachment proceedings would be going ahead back in September.
We will of course cover what she has to say right here.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies