Adam Schiff insists there doesn't need to be proof of a 'quid pro quo' to impeach Donald Trump

Adam Schiff insists there doesn’t need to be proof of a ‘quid pro quo’ to impeach Donald Trump but maintains there are TWO potential instances of conditions set in the now-infamous phone call

Senator Adam Schiff says proof of a ‘quid pro quo’ is not needed for impeachment
Democrats claim Trump froze military aid in exchange for the Ukrainian government’s help in digging up dirt on Joe Biden
But now, Schiff is also insisting there could be a second instance of a ‘quid pro quo’
He claims Trump set a condition for a meeting between the two in exchange for the investigation into Biden and his son Hunter

By Katelyn Caralle, U.s. Political Reporter For Dailymail.com

Published: 21:45 BST, 13 October 2019 | Updated: 22:08 BST, 13 October 2019

Adam Schiff said Congress does not have to prove a ‘quid pro quo’ in order to pursue impeachment against Donald Trump.

When asked to clarify what the potential offer was from Donald Trump in exchange for the Ukrainian government launching a probe into Joe Biden, the Intelligence Committee chairman outlined two, but insisted that there doesn’t need to be a ‘quid pro quo’ for impeachment.

‘There doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo,’ the Democratic congressman told CBS on Face the Nation Sunday morning.

Trump’s call with his Ukrainian counterpart in July 25 was revealed last month, and led Democrats to claim the president was withholding military aid, which they claimed he was insinuating he would release to Ukraine after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelesnky provided some sort of assistance in improving his chances in 2020.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said there doesn’t need to be proof of a ‘quid pro quo’ to impeach Donald Trump

He also claimed during an interview Sunday that there are potentially two instances of a ‘quid pro quo’ set by the president during his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelesnky this summer

Schiff said Trump was asking another country to interfere in the upcoming presidential elections.

A transcript of the call, released by the White House, shows that Trump did pressure Zelensky to probe Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine – a move the president said was to help minimize foreign corruption.

But Schiff suggested in his interview Sunday that Trump could have also set a ‘quid pro quo’ in just agreeing to meet with Zelensky to show that he had a ‘powerful’ relationship with the U.S. and president and potentially help boost his image.

Zelensky was elected as the new president of Ukraine earlier this year and assumed office in late May.

‘If is clear already, I think, from the text messages that this meeting the Ukraine president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to interfere in the U.S. election to help the president,’ Schiff told CBS. ‘That is a terrible abuse of the president’s power. Now whether that abuse goes further, that is the withholding of military aid also as leverage, there’s certainly strong indications that that is true as well.’

Trump froze millions in military aid to Ukraine a few days before his call with Zelensky – another move that led Democrats to claim the president was setting a ‘quid pro quo.’

However, Trump says the money had nothing to do with the conversation about corruption, and Zelensky insists he did not feel pressured by Trump and says the two did not discuss the military aid in their call.

Nancy Pelosi announced last month that the House was launching an impeachment inquiry into Trump

A few days after the whistle-blower’s complaint detailing the call was revealed, House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Schiff is leading the impeachment proceedings against the president, and has even taken over some of the hearings committees he does not chair are holding in relation to the phone call.

He also said that Republicans want the hearings to be public so they can try and continue to act as ‘lawyers’ and defenders of Trump and allow witnesses to hear what others say during their testimony.

‘If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses, they would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so they know what they can know what they can give away and what they can’t give away,’ Schiff said.

Hunter Biden took a board position with Ukrainain oil company Burisma Holdings in 2014 – while his father was still vice president. He stepped down from that board earlier this year.

Trump also claims that Hunter made $1.5 billion from a private equity firm in China after he flew there in December 2013 with his father aboard Air Force Two.

Hunter has denied playing a role in forming the Chinese company or having equity in it while his father was in office and insists the board position was unpaid.

The former vice president’s son has stepped down from his post on the board of the Chinese-backed private equity company.

The lawyer and lobbyist also vowed to avoid any conflict of interest and claims he will forego all foreign work if his father is elected president in 2020, stressing that he never discussed any of his business activities with his father.

This is, however, contrasted by his earlier comments this summer where he said in 2015 he discussed the status of his position with Burisma.

Trump claims that Hunter has ‘disappeared’ ever since controversy surrounding his business dealings have come to the forefront.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THE VERY COMPLICATED STEPS INVOLVED IN IMPEACHING DONALD TRUMP

Nancy Pelosi announcing a formal impeachment investigation is only the start of what will be an epic legal and constitutional clash.

Here is how impeachment goes from here.

1) Investigations step up

Six committees are now tasked by Pelosi with investigating Donald Trump with the intention of deciding whether he should be impeached. They are the House Judiciary, Oversight, Intelligence, Ways and Means, Financial Services and Foreign Affairs committees. All of them are now likely to issue a flurry of subpoenas which is certain to lead to a new:

2) Court battle over subpoenas – which could go to the Supreme Court

The Trump administration has so far resisted subpoenas by claiming executive privilege and is certain to continue to do so. Federal judges are already dealing with litigation over subpoenas for Trump’s tax and financial records and many more cases are likely to follow. But the courts have never settled the limits of executive privilege and whether an impeachment inquiry effectively gives Congress more power to overcome it. If Trump fights as hard as he can, it is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, expect:

3) More hearings

Democrats know they need to convince the public that Trump needs to be put on trial and the best way to do that is hearings like those which electrified the nation during Watergate. They botched the Mueller hearing but if they produce question and answer sessions with people from Trump-world which cause public outrage, they are on their way to:

4) Drawing up formal articles of impeachment in committee

The charge sheet for impeachment – the ‘articles’ – set out what Trump is formally accused of. It has no set format – it can be as long or as short as Congress decides. Three such set of articles have been drawn up – for Andrew Johnson on 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. Johnson’s were the most extensive at 11, Nixon faced three, and Bill Clinton four but with a series of numbered charges in each article. Once drawn up, the judicial committee votes on them and if approved, sends them to the House for:

5) Full floor vote on impeachment

The constitution says the House needs a simple majority to proceed, but has to vote on each article. Nixon quit before such a vote so Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only precedent. The House passed two out of the three articles against Clinton and all 11 against Johnson. Passing even one article leads to:

6) Senate impeachment trial

Even if the Senate is clearly not in favor of removing the president, it has to stage a trial if the House votes for impeachment. The hearing is in not in front of the full Senate, but ‘evidentiary committees’ – in theory at least similar to the existing Senate committees. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over it, but the procedures are set by senators. Members of the House prosecute Trump as ‘managers,’ bringing witnesses and presenting evidence to set out their case against the president. The president can defend himself, or, as Clinton did, use attorneys to cross-examine the witnesses. The committee or committees report to the full Senate. Then it can debate in public or deliberate in private on the guilt or innocence of the president. It holds a single open floor vote which will deliver:

7) The verdict

Impeachment must be by two-thirds of the Senate. Voting for impeachment on any one article is good enough to remove the president from office. There is no appeal.

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk