#NNPA BlackPress

Leader Schumer, in Letter to Leader McConnell, Puts Forward Structure for a Fair and Honest Bipartisan Impeachment Trial in Senate

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Specifically, Schumer Asks For Testimony From Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Michael Duffey And Robert Blair; Schumer Says Dems Are Open To Hearing From Additional Witnesses With Direct Knowledge Of Admin’s Decisions Related To The Delay In Security Assistant Funding To Ukraine And Its Requests For Certain Investigations To Be Announced By The Government Of Ukraine, If The President’s Counsel Or House Managers Wish To Call Such Witnesses.

Published

7 years ago

December 15, 2019

Oakland Post

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer

Schumer Proposed-Trial Structure Would Require Specific Documents and Testimony from Four Key Witnesses

Specifically, Schumer asks for testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Michael Duffey and Robert Blair; Schumer says Dems are open to hearing from additional witnesses with direct knowledge of admin’s decisions related to the delay in security assistant funding to Ukraine and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the Government of Ukraine, if the president’s counsel or house managers wish to call such witnesses.

Washington, D.C. – In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer today put forward a structure for a fair and honest Senate impeachment trial, should articles of impeachment pass the House of Representatives and be delivered to the Senate. Leader Schumer’s letter is the first move to establish a fair bipartisan process in the Senate. In the letter, Leader Schumer asks for specific documents and testimony from key witnesses that were all withheld in the House inquiry. Leader Schumer’s proposed structure would ensure both sides are treated fairly in the trial and given opportunity for rebuttal during opening presentations.

Leader Schumer’s letter also emphasizes that Senate Democrats and Republicans share the belief that the president deserves to have a fair and open trial process that allows both sides to present all of the evidence and adjudicate the case fairly. The letter also highlights the precedent set in the 1999 impeachment trial, and supported by all Republican senators at the time, that House impeachment managers be allowed to call witnesses.

Leader Schumer’s proposal comes after the White House refused to present any exculpatory documents or witnesses to disprove the evidence revealed in House of Representatives impeachment inquiry, and as some Republican Senators have said they are open to hearing from witnesses and analyzing any new evidence before rendering judgement in trial. The letter also comes after Senator McConnell announced that he was already attempting to corral Republican-only support for a Senate resolution defined by the president and his defense team, rather than one crafted and supported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate.

Specifically, Leader Schumer’s proposal would, among other things, establish that the Senate:

Begin with pre-trial housekeeping measures adopted on Monday, January 6, 2020; swearing-in of the Chief Justice and Senators occur on Tuesday, January 7, 2020; House Managers presentations begin on Thursday, January 9, 2020;
Provide 24 hours to each side for opening presentations and rebuttals and 16 hours for questioning by senators evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats;
Issue subpoenas for Robert Blair, Senior Advisor to the Acting White House Chief of Staff; Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff; John Bolton, former National Security Advisor; and Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security, Office of Management and Budget to testify. All four of these witnesses were asked to testify in the House impeachment inquiry but did not appear;
- Schumer’s letter says that Democrats are open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses having direct knowledge of the Administration’s decisions related to the delay in security assistant funding to Ukraine and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine, if the President’s Counsel or House Managers wish to call such witnesses.
Issue subpoenas for a specific, limited list of documents that will shed additional light on the Administration’s decision making regarding the delay in security assistance funding to Ukraine and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine;
The documents will include communications between administration officials about the withholding of the Ukraine military assistance and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine.
Allow for witnesses to testify and be examined for up to four hours by each side; and
Upon the conclusion of final arguments, the Senate will begin up to 24 hours of deliberations.

The full text of Leader Schumer’s letter to Leader McConnell can be found here and below:

December 15, 2019

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Leader McConnell:

In a short time, the House of Representatives is expected to approve Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J. Trump. In response to the House’s action, as you have noted, our rules require the Senate to conduct a trial to consider and vote on the Articles of Impeachment. This is an enormously weighty and solemn responsibility that was assigned to the Senate by the Framers of the Constitution.

Senate Democrats believe strongly, and I trust Senate Republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts, and that exercises the Senate’s “sole Power of Impeachment” under the Constitution with integrity and dignity. The trial must be one that not only hears all of the evidence and adjudicates the case fairly; it must also pass the fairness test with the American people. That is the great challenge for the Senate in the coming weeks.

In keeping with the bipartisan spirit of the procedures adopted in the trial of President Clinton in 1999, and in order to advance what I believe are our shared objectives for the process in the trial of President Trump, Senate Democrats propose the following provisions for your consideration and in advance of our upcoming discussion. These provisions are modeled directly on the language of the two resolutions that set forth the 1999 trial rules. The first of those resolutions passed the Senate by a vote of 100-0, and the second resolution, allowing House Managers to call witnesses, passed with the support of all Senate Republicans.

Specifically, I propose that pre-trial housekeeping measures be adopted on Monday, January 6, 2020; that the swearing-in of the Chief Justice and Senators occur on Tuesday, January 7, 2020; that after a period for preparation and submission of trial briefs, the House Managers be recognized on Thursday, January 9, 2020 to make their presentation for a period of not more than 24 hours, followed by the presentation by the President’s counsel, also for a period of not more than 24 hours.

In the trial of President Clinton, the House Managers were permitted to call witnesses, and it is clear that the Senate should hear testimony of witnesses in this trial as well. I propose, pursuant to our rules, that the Chief Justice on behalf of the Senate issue subpoenas for testimony by the following witnesses with direct knowledge of Administration decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine: Robert Blair, Senior Advisor to the Acting White House Chief of Staff; Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff; John Bolton, former National Security Advisor; and Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security, Office of Management and Budget. All four of these witnesses were asked to testify in the House impeachment inquiry but did not appear.

We would of course be open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses having direct knowledge of the Administration’s decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine, if the President’s counsel or House Managers identify such witnesses. In order to ensure that the trial can be completed within a reasonable period of time, I propose that the total time allotted to testimony by each witness be limited to not more than four hours for the House Managers and not more than four hours for the President’s counsel.

I also propose that the Senate issue subpoenas for a limited set of documents that we believe will shed additional light on the Administration’s decision-making regarding the delay in security assistance funding to Ukraine and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine. This will be a narrowly drawn request limited to electronic communications, memoranda and related records of the relevant senior officials in the White House, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of State. Our understanding is that these records have already been collected by the White House counsel and counsel in the relevant agencies, so production in response to the Senate subpoenas should be neither burdensome nor time-consuming.

In addition, I propose that as in 1999 there be a period of not more than 16 hours equally divided for Senators’ questions to the House Managers and President’s counsel, and a period of not more than 6 hours equally divided between the House Managers and President’s counsel for final arguments. Finally, I propose that there be a period of not more than 24 hours for deliberations by Senators followed by votes on the Articles of Impeachment.

We believe all of this should be considered in one resolution. The issue of witnesses and documents, which are the most important issues facing us, should be decided before we move forward with any part of the trial.

We believe this proposal, which is set forth in greater detail in the accompanying document, will allow for a trial in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly, and in which final votes can be taken within a reasonable period of time, without any unnecessary delay. Conducting the trial according to this plan will also allow the public to have confidence in the process and will demonstrate that the Senate can put aside partisan concerns and fulfill its constitutional duty.

I look forward to discussing this plan with you and to working with you to ensure that the Senate can rise to this critically important occasion.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Mavis Staples and Buddy Guy Live at New Jersey Performing Arts Center

Don't Miss

COMMENTARY: Pots and Kettles – Republican Hypocrisy and Double-Talk

Oakland Post

1 Comment

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

Published

2 weeks ago

August 3, 2026

bpusa-syndication

Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.

The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.

Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.

Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”

I call BS!

The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

The pattern has become impossible to ignore.

General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.

Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.

Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.

Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.

Where is Congress?

Its silence has become deafening.

Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.

This is not military reform. It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.

The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.

That is not meritocracy. It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.

No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.

Their records speak for themselves.

The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.

For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.

Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.

The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.

That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.

The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.

America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.

Diversity is not a concession. It is a strategic advantage.

The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.

Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.

That weakens morale. It weakens recruitment. It weakens retention.

And ultimately, it weakens national security.

Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.

America deserves better. The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better. The Constitution deserves better.

And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.

Jim Crow did not strengthen America. Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military. It will only diminish it

Wade Henderson
Strategic Advisor
Civil and Human Rights
wade@wadejhenderson.com

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

#NNPA BlackPress

New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial

By Emilie St. John (Contributor) Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction. Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District […]
The post New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Published

2 weeks ago

July 31, 2026

Oakland Post

By Emilie St. John
(Contributor)

Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction.

Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District Judge John Roach Jr. from overseeing the appeals process.

Two hearings have been scheduled on the motion for Aug. 9 and 10 in the Collin County Courthouse in McKinney, Texas, according to Fox4 News.

On July 14, Senior Judge Sid L. Harle of the 226th District Court was assigned to preside over the defense’s motion to recuse Collin County Judge John Roach. The assignment took effect immediately and authorized Harle to handle all matters related to the recusal request, the filing read.

The Collin County District Attorney’s Office continues to defend its handling of the case by issuing a statement to NBC 5 DFW.

“The defendant’s new lawyers have filed a motion containing several inaccurate characterizations of the trial proceedings. The entire prosecution team and I conducted this trial ethically and in full compliance with the Court’s rulings and any agreements with defense counsel. We look forward to addressing these claims thoroughly in a Court of law in the coming weeks. The jury heard extensive evidence over the course of the trial and returned a unanimous verdict. We remain confident in that verdict and the fairness of the proceedings.”

Anthony’s new legal team, made up of appellate, civil rights, and criminal defense attorneys, was retained following Anthony’s conviction.

“Our responsibility is to determine whether a legal error occurred and to ensure that every issue supported by the record is fully and vigorously presented on appeal,” the team said in a statement.

“We recognize the profound loss suffered by one young man’s family and the uncertainty facing another, and we extend our respect to everyone whose lives have been forever changed by these events,” the release reads.

Anthony was charged with the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf during a track meet in Frisco, Texas, April 2, 2025. Anthony has long maintained it was an act of self-defense.

The attorneys are representing Anthony pro bono. The nearly 200-page notice of appeal seeks a new trial because his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated.

“The cumulative and practical effect of these provisions was to exclude members of the public from proceedings at every stage,” the filing reads.

The filing also focused on an alleged “handshake deal” that kept Anthony from taking the stand in his defense.

The defense filing said the agreement was that the jury would not hear that Metcalf and his twin brother had been accused of racism and bullying in the past. In exchange, they also would not see Anthony’s cellphone records or his school disciplinary record, according to court documents reported by the Dallas Morning News.

Anthony’s former defense attorney, Mike Howard, said the defense relied heavily on that deal. The team chose not to ask certain questions of witnesses or call on a separate expert witness based on that agreement. It also abandoned plans to introduce testimony and evidence about the allegations against Metcalf and his brother.

Appellate attorney Russell Wilson is now handling post-trial proceedings and Anthony’s appeal. He recently sat down for an interview, stating, “The court committed multiple errors during the June murder trial, preventing him from receiving a fair trial.”

“You know, we file motions that we expect to prevail on, but we understand that there’s two sides to every story. And at the end of the day, it’ll be a judge that has to make these decisions, but we feel confident in the positions that we’re taking,” Wilson said during an interview with WFAA. “There were substantial issues that we thought a reviewing court needed to look at. We thought these were constitutional irregularities, and we could have them addressed now. And so, we put them into a motion for a new trial.”

Bree West, a former Dallas County Assistant District Attorney, found it startling that so little time was given to Anthony’s team for such a serious “life or death” situation.

“I do think that it’s really challenging that potentially a court decided that you have 10 minutes to make that level of decision when it has the potential of being life-altering,” said West during an interview with Fox 4 News.

Judge Harle is no stranger to high-profile cases, having presided over the prosecution of a police officer charged in connection with the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

Anthony was convicted on June 9 of the murder of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The post New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump!

WESTSIDE GAZETTE — The author criticizes Donald Trump’s rhetoric, noting his use of terms like “Dumbocrats” and “Communist” to describe Democrats and democracy. The column asserts that Trump’s current strategy involves creating doubt about midterm elections due to a lack of Republican agenda.
The post COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump! appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Published

2 weeks ago

July 31, 2026

Oakland Post

Frankly Speaking

Wow! Wow! Wow! The swamp drainers have truly stepped down to new levels of stupidity. You remember Weapons of Mass Destruction? We now have Weapons of Mass Distraction. Trump has introduced Dumbocrats and Communists into the conversation about Democrats and Democracy.

Trump lies so much, and his current strategy is to set up doubt about midterm elections because he and Republicans have no agenda!

He has no “Trump “ card, but Iran has a strait! He called it a skirmish; it’s now a War. He said five days; now it’s five months. He said few casualties; now it’s 18 deaths. He knew nothing about Project 2025 but hired its architects! Trump lies about the lies and often forgets these little inventions called cameras and phones

We see and hear and then see and hear the inconsistencies.

I didn’t like 45 and dislike 47 even more!

The post LSMFT! Lord Save Me From Trump! appeared first on The Westside Gazette.

Based on reporting by Westside Gazette.

The post COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump! appeared first on BlackPressUSA.