The NY Times had 93 questions on Day 1, so we'll start with #94 today, as I may have missed some while doing TV.
94th question, from Sen. @PattyMurray (D-WA):
Can you further clarify the WH counsel's arguments that the subpoenas issued before the impeachment vote were invalid?
94th question, from Sen. @PattyMurray (D-WA):
Can you further clarify the WH counsel's arguments that the subpoenas issued before the impeachment vote were invalid?
@PattyMurray Rep. Lofgren:
House issued rules on January 9, 2019, and the House's standing rules give each committee subpoena power to conduct their business. We have more power after an impeachment has been authorized.
House issued rules on January 9, 2019, and the House's standing rules give each committee subpoena power to conduct their business. We have more power after an impeachment has been authorized.
@PattyMurray SOME DRAMA on the Senate floor -- 95th question is from Sen. @RandPaul -- and Chief Justice John Roberts declines to read it.
Question presumably includes outing Whistleblower, as multiple outlets report he tried to do yesterday.
cnn.com/2020/01/29/pol…
foxnews.com/politics/justi…
Question presumably includes outing Whistleblower, as multiple outlets report he tried to do yesterday.
cnn.com/2020/01/29/pol…
foxnews.com/politics/justi…
@PattyMurray @RandPaul 96th question, from Sen. @tammybaldwin (D-WI):
Given WH counsel couldn't answer Romney's question of when WH ordered hold on Ukraine, what witness or witnesses could?
Rep. Crow:
Tremendous amount of material out there -- emails, documents, witness testimony, Bolton, etc.
Given WH counsel couldn't answer Romney's question of when WH ordered hold on Ukraine, what witness or witnesses could?
Rep. Crow:
Tremendous amount of material out there -- emails, documents, witness testimony, Bolton, etc.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin 97th question, from @SenToomey (R-PA):
How much weight should we give to decision that removing him would not allow him to run for office this year or in the future?
Sekulow:
We're in an election year, that decision should give huge weight.
How much weight should we give to decision that removing him would not allow him to run for office this year or in the future?
Sekulow:
We're in an election year, that decision should give huge weight.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey 98th question, from Sen. @jontester (D-MT):
Dersh said yesterday a president can do things to help him get re-elected if he believes in public interest.
Schiff:
No limiting principle. This is Consitutional madness. If quid pro quo, it's ok. This is normalizing lawlessness
Dersh said yesterday a president can do things to help him get re-elected if he believes in public interest.
Schiff:
No limiting principle. This is Consitutional madness. If quid pro quo, it's ok. This is normalizing lawlessness
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester 99th question, from Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND):
Is president first innocent defendant not to waive his rights?
Philbin:
No, off course not, this is shocking response from House managers. Contrary to spirit of American justice system. People have rights, asserting them isn't guilty
Is president first innocent defendant not to waive his rights?
Philbin:
No, off course not, this is shocking response from House managers. Contrary to spirit of American justice system. People have rights, asserting them isn't guilty
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester 100th question, from Sen. @DougJones (D-AL):
Aside from House's Constitutional impeachment authority, please identify something in House rules or resolutions authorize the House's subpoenas sent before full House vote authorizing inquiry. Also, which subpoenas came after?
Aside from House's Constitutional impeachment authority, please identify something in House rules or resolutions authorize the House's subpoenas sent before full House vote authorizing inquiry. Also, which subpoenas came after?
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones Schiff:
Subpoenas after passage of resolution: John Eisenberg, Brian McCormick, Robert Blair, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, and Mick Mulvaney. Also impact of WH counsel argument is that you'd be stripped of ability to conduct oversight. They'll obstruct own investigation
Subpoenas after passage of resolution: John Eisenberg, Brian McCormick, Robert Blair, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, and Mick Mulvaney. Also impact of WH counsel argument is that you'd be stripped of ability to conduct oversight. They'll obstruct own investigation
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones 101st question, from Sen. @tedcruz (R-TX):
USA Today reported that Joe didn't speak to Hunter about being on Burisma board. In later report, Hunter said Joe just told him I hope you know what you're doing. Why do they conflict?
Bondi:
Hunter is paid $83k/month with no experience
USA Today reported that Joe didn't speak to Hunter about being on Burisma board. In later report, Hunter said Joe just told him I hope you know what you're doing. Why do they conflict?
Bondi:
Hunter is paid $83k/month with no experience
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz Bondi (cont):
Joe Biden knew the oligarch of Hunter's company was corrupt. He never asked his son to leave the board. In 2015, Biden travels to Ukraine twice, links aid to firing corrupt prosecutor general Victor Shokin. Hunter Biden stayed on that board for 3 more years.
Joe Biden knew the oligarch of Hunter's company was corrupt. He never asked his son to leave the board. In 2015, Biden travels to Ukraine twice, links aid to firing corrupt prosecutor general Victor Shokin. Hunter Biden stayed on that board for 3 more years.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz Demings response:
You've asked about convo between father and son. Plenty of convos between me and my son I can't repeat, so I don't know what was said. If we're serious about why we're here, we should be seeking truth about president trying to cheat and steal citizens' votes.
You've asked about convo between father and son. Plenty of convos between me and my son I can't repeat, so I don't know what was said. If we're serious about why we're here, we should be seeking truth about president trying to cheat and steal citizens' votes.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz 102nd question, from @SenJackyRosen (D-NV):
You've tried to make case president put his personal interests over those of nation, endangering national security. What precedent does that set for future presidents?
You've tried to make case president put his personal interests over those of nation, endangering national security. What precedent does that set for future presidents?
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen Rep. Crow:
We're strong bc we're part of a team, our partners help keep us safe. If they feel like what we say publicly doesn't matter, that we're not reliable and predictable, our handshake is worthless, then they won't stand by us. Since WWII, these alliances we built (cont)...
We're strong bc we're part of a team, our partners help keep us safe. If they feel like what we say publicly doesn't matter, that we're not reliable and predictable, our handshake is worthless, then they won't stand by us. Since WWII, these alliances we built (cont)...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen Crow (cont):
...will fray. Our partners do their job, what we've asked them to do, they rely on our consistency, not the whims and personal interests of president. Will continue to call into question our motivation.
...will fray. Our partners do their job, what we've asked them to do, they rely on our consistency, not the whims and personal interests of president. Will continue to call into question our motivation.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen 103rd question, from @senrobportman (R-OH):
I've been surprised to hear House managers invoke GWU professor Jonathan Turley. Hasn't he opposed this impeachment, and said abuse of power is difficult prove, has never been sole charge, and hasn't been proven in this case?
I've been surprised to hear House managers invoke GWU professor Jonathan Turley. Hasn't he opposed this impeachment, and said abuse of power is difficult prove, has never been sole charge, and hasn't been proven in this case?
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman Philbin:
That's true. In Nixon, they charged more than just abuse of power, alleging unlawful violations of law within that article. Turley doesn't say crime is necessarily required, just that there wasn't sufficient basis or enough evidence for *this* charge. He also (cont)...
That's true. In Nixon, they charged more than just abuse of power, alleging unlawful violations of law within that article. Turley doesn't say crime is necessarily required, just that there wasn't sufficient basis or enough evidence for *this* charge. He also (cont)...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman Philbin (cont)
...was skeptical of the Obstruction of Congress article here, because he said House should have proceeded incrementally, fighting the subpoenas in court, exercising all avenues. Turley didn't think an article needed to be a crime, but that it should include crimes
...was skeptical of the Obstruction of Congress article here, because he said House should have proceeded incrementally, fighting the subpoenas in court, exercising all avenues. Turley didn't think an article needed to be a crime, but that it should include crimes
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman 104th question, from @SenSherrodBrown (D-OH):
Yesterday, WH counsel didn't answer whether foreign info provided to candidate violates law. FBI Director says FBI wants to know about that. What does that tell other countries to interfere, and what can we expect from them and Trump?
Yesterday, WH counsel didn't answer whether foreign info provided to candidate violates law. FBI Director says FBI wants to know about that. What does that tell other countries to interfere, and what can we expect from them and Trump?
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown Rep. Jeffries:
It sends the message that they can do that. They can't. It's wrong. WH counsel arguments are wrong. This is not a banana republic. Lesson we learned from 2016 is no one should seek foreign interference. Now he and his counsel are saying it's ok. It's not...
It sends the message that they can do that. They can't. It's wrong. WH counsel arguments are wrong. This is not a banana republic. Lesson we learned from 2016 is no one should seek foreign interference. Now he and his counsel are saying it's ok. It's not...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown Jeffries (cont):
...it's at the heart of what framers were concerned about. Trump's FBI Director said it wants to know about interference. Chair of Election Commission said it's illegal to accept anything of value from foreigners in U.S. election
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
...it's at the heart of what framers were concerned about. Trump's FBI Director said it wants to know about interference. Chair of Election Commission said it's illegal to accept anything of value from foreigners in U.S. election
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown 105th question, @SenHawleyPress (R-MO):
Federal courts have held that it's not unlawful for public officer to condition official acts on official acts by other public officer. Any implication of that here?
Philbin:
We're not even in quid pro quo here. That hasn't been proven...
Federal courts have held that it's not unlawful for public officer to condition official acts on official acts by other public officer. Any implication of that here?
Philbin:
We're not even in quid pro quo here. That hasn't been proven...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress Philbin (cont):
Ukrainians didn't even know the aid was being withheld. In foreign policy, there are situations where there can be one govt wants something from another. We want you to do more to stop flow of illegal immigration, so we're gonna condition aid
#ImpeachmentTrial
Ukrainians didn't even know the aid was being withheld. In foreign policy, there are situations where there can be one govt wants something from another. We want you to do more to stop flow of illegal immigration, so we're gonna condition aid
#ImpeachmentTrial
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress 106th question, from Sen. @MariaCantwell (D-WA):
In opening remarks, Schiff said the aid-for-investigations scheme was expansive. Any evidence Mulvaney, Pompeo, or others were involved?
Rep. Demings:
Sondland said "everyone was in the loop." Don't just take his word (cont)...
In opening remarks, Schiff said the aid-for-investigations scheme was expansive. Any evidence Mulvaney, Pompeo, or others were involved?
Rep. Demings:
Sondland said "everyone was in the loop." Don't just take his word (cont)...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell Demings (cont):
...there's an email that tells us this. Goes on to explain other evidence that say this should "make the boss happy" in reference to Trump. Barr responded to an NYT article saying he was concerned Trump was giving world leaders the impression he had jurisdiction
...there's an email that tells us this. Goes on to explain other evidence that say this should "make the boss happy" in reference to Trump. Barr responded to an NYT article saying he was concerned Trump was giving world leaders the impression he had jurisdiction
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell 107th question, from Sen. @johnthune (R-SD):
Should Senate take into account partisan nature of proceedings in the House?
Cipollone:
Absolutely. That's dispositive. That should end it. Shouldn't be impeachment. They say they didn't need an inquiry vote. Then why have it? (cont)
Should Senate take into account partisan nature of proceedings in the House?
Cipollone:
Absolutely. That's dispositive. That should end it. Shouldn't be impeachment. They say they didn't need an inquiry vote. Then why have it? (cont)
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune Cipollone (cont):
Because if you're taking away people's votes, then you should be accountable to your constituents. That's why you need a full vote. So they can hold representatives and senators accountable.
Because if you're taking away people's votes, then you should be accountable to your constituents. That's why you need a full vote. So they can hold representatives and senators accountable.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune 108th question, from @SenJackReed (D-RI) for both parties:
Been reported that Trump doesn't pay Giuliani for his services. So who has paid for his services while he's in the Ukraine, etc.?
Schiff:
I don't know. And if he's not being paid by president. Other clients? (cont)...
Been reported that Trump doesn't pay Giuliani for his services. So who has paid for his services while he's in the Ukraine, etc.?
Schiff:
I don't know. And if he's not being paid by president. Other clients? (cont)...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed Schiff (cont):
If it is other clients, that raises a lot of issues. He said he wasn't there for policy, that he was there personally for president. Let's go back to WH argument that quid pro quos are fine. What if he says to China we'll give you good deal over Americans...
If it is other clients, that raises a lot of issues. He said he wasn't there for policy, that he was there personally for president. Let's go back to WH argument that quid pro quos are fine. What if he says to China we'll give you good deal over Americans...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed Schiff (cont)
...but we want investigation into Bidens. They'd say that's ok. It's not. We're not open for business.
Sekulow:
Wanna know who's open for business? The VP in charge of Ukraine policy getting rid of prosecutor looking into his son's company. 3 of you D senators...
...but we want investigation into Bidens. They'd say that's ok. It's not. We're not open for business.
Sekulow:
Wanna know who's open for business? The VP in charge of Ukraine policy getting rid of prosecutor looking into his son's company. 3 of you D senators...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed Sekulow (cont):
...wrote letter to Ukraine to make sure they were giving info Mueller needed to him. And you're worried about what Giuliani is doing?
...wrote letter to Ukraine to make sure they were giving info Mueller needed to him. And you're worried about what Giuliani is doing?
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed 109th question, from Sen. @jameslankford (R-OK):
We've delivered aid to Ukraine in September in years past. Did it weaken our relationship with Ukraine or our national security to delay the release of this money?
Philbin:
No, happened in years past as you said. Consistent ...
We've delivered aid to Ukraine in September in years past. Did it weaken our relationship with Ukraine or our national security to delay the release of this money?
Philbin:
No, happened in years past as you said. Consistent ...
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford Philbin (cont):
...with what happens in foreign policy. Every fiscal year there's some amount of money that has to be adjusted by Congress bc it doesn't get out on time. Volker testified that brief pause in aid was not significant. Hale testified it's future assistance.
...with what happens in foreign policy. Every fiscal year there's some amount of money that has to be adjusted by Congress bc it doesn't get out on time. Volker testified that brief pause in aid was not significant. Hale testified it's future assistance.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford 110th question, from Sen. @maziehirono (D-HI):
Mulvaney said Trump held up $ bc "we do that all the time in foreign policy" and "get over it." What was different about Trump's hold on Ukraine and other holds? Any other presidents who did that?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
Mulvaney said Trump held up $ bc "we do that all the time in foreign policy" and "get over it." What was different about Trump's hold on Ukraine and other holds? Any other presidents who did that?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono Rep. Schiff:
Will answer Q, but let me start with something in category of "you can't make this stuff up" -- the Justice Dept. is in court today, and was asked by judge "if Congress can't enforce subpoenas in court, what remedy is there? And attorneys said "impeachment" !
Will answer Q, but let me start with something in category of "you can't make this stuff up" -- the Justice Dept. is in court today, and was asked by judge "if Congress can't enforce subpoenas in court, what remedy is there? And attorneys said "impeachment" !
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono Schiff:
There's ways to hold the aid, for U.S. priorities. THat's happened in the past. Aid to Afghanistan subject to periodic review. Not all aid is created equal. Many examples. No one is suggesting you can't condition aid. But I hope we all agree--not for corrupt purpose.
There's ways to hold the aid, for U.S. priorities. THat's happened in the past. Aid to Afghanistan subject to periodic review. Not all aid is created equal. Many examples. No one is suggesting you can't condition aid. But I hope we all agree--not for corrupt purpose.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono 11th question, from Sen. @JohnBoozman (R-AR):
House managers argue president's misconduct can't be decide at ballot box. How would acquitting president prevent voters from making an informed decision in 2020 election?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
House managers argue president's misconduct can't be decide at ballot box. How would acquitting president prevent voters from making an informed decision in 2020 election?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono @JohnBoozman Cipollone:
That's exactly who should decide, the voters. Let's trust them. Maybe they won't like the result. They want to jam up the Senate and make you do the things they didn't do.
That's exactly who should decide, the voters. Let's trust them. Maybe they won't like the result. They want to jam up the Senate and make you do the things they didn't do.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono @JohnBoozman Schiff:
President Trump must be removed from office because of his ongoing corruption. We just showed you video (below), president continues to seek to cheat in the election. That's why Founders didn't say you can't be impeached in election year.
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
President Trump must be removed from office because of his ongoing corruption. We just showed you video (below), president continues to seek to cheat in the election. That's why Founders didn't say you can't be impeached in election year.
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono @JohnBoozman Schiff:
If you make decision that trial can be decided without witnesses, American people won't abide that decision. We'd like to present our case, call witnesses. Americans believe trial should have witness testimony and they wanna hear from Bolton. Let's follow Founders intent.
If you make decision that trial can be decided without witnesses, American people won't abide that decision. We'd like to present our case, call witnesses. Americans believe trial should have witness testimony and they wanna hear from Bolton. Let's follow Founders intent.
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono @JohnBoozman 112th question, from Sen. @timkaine (D-VA):
If Senate acquits president on Article II, after he violated both impoundment control act and whistleblower act to hide Ukraine scheme from Congress, what's to stop him from complete refusal to cooperate with Congress on any matter?
If Senate acquits president on Article II, after he violated both impoundment control act and whistleblower act to hide Ukraine scheme from Congress, what's to stop him from complete refusal to cooperate with Congress on any matter?
@PattyMurray @RandPaul @tammybaldwin @SenToomey @jontester @DougJones @tedcruz @SenJackyRosen @senrobportman @SenSherrodBrown @SenHawleyPress @MariaCantwell @johnthune @SenJackReed @jameslankford @maziehirono @JohnBoozman @timkaine Schiff:
In short, no consequence on this president or any other. We didn't impeach him over an assertion of privilege. We impeached him bc he categorically denied to participate. He put himself above the law. A president that ignores all oversight is a danger...
#impeachmenttrial
In short, no consequence on this president or any other. We didn't impeach him over an assertion of privilege. We impeached him bc he categorically denied to participate. He put himself above the law. A president that ignores all oversight is a danger...
#impeachmenttrial
Schiff (cont):
President thinks he can declare his own innocence. WH counsel letter on Oct 8 was no real offer to accommodate. None of their arguments justifies his order to deny all subpoenas. Absolute immunity and agency counsel representation don't even apply to documents.
President thinks he can declare his own innocence. WH counsel letter on Oct 8 was no real offer to accommodate. None of their arguments justifies his order to deny all subpoenas. Absolute immunity and agency counsel representation don't even apply to documents.
Schiff (cont):
Even with witnesses, he never exerted executive privilege. There's no justification of his phony cover. At recent oral argument in DC Circuit, judge said they can make defiance of subpoenas subject to impeachment, and Trump's counsel agreed.
Even with witnesses, he never exerted executive privilege. There's no justification of his phony cover. At recent oral argument in DC Circuit, judge said they can make defiance of subpoenas subject to impeachment, and Trump's counsel agreed.
113th question, from @SenRickScott (R-FL):
Why were House Republicans denied procedural accommodations and substantive rights afforded to minority party in Clinton impeachment? Why were WH counsel & agency attorneys denied right to cross-examine, etc.?
Why were House Republicans denied procedural accommodations and substantive rights afforded to minority party in Clinton impeachment? Why were WH counsel & agency attorneys denied right to cross-examine, etc.?
@SenRickScott Cipollone:
Great question, if you're confident in your case, then you don't mind hearing witnesses. We respect Congress, but we respect the Constitution. We have obligation to future presidents to vindicate our rights.
Great question, if you're confident in your case, then you don't mind hearing witnesses. We respect Congress, but we respect the Constitution. We have obligation to future presidents to vindicate our rights.
@SenRickScott 114th question, from Sen. @RonWyden (D-OR):
Pompeo said in confirmation it's not lawful to ask foreign government to do what we cannot do domestically. So when Trump asked Ukraine to do it, how is that not an abuse of power?
Schiff:
It is absolutely an abuse of power. (cont)...
Pompeo said in confirmation it's not lawful to ask foreign government to do what we cannot do domestically. So when Trump asked Ukraine to do it, how is that not an abuse of power?
Schiff:
It is absolutely an abuse of power. (cont)...
Schiff (cont):
What's more, what's to stop a president from asking his agencies to investigate a political opponent? WH side is arguing that would be ok. Here we have president on that call pushing out Russian propaganda. DNC server, Ukraine hacked it not Russians.
What's more, what's to stop a president from asking his agencies to investigate a political opponent? WH side is arguing that would be ok. Here we have president on that call pushing out Russian propaganda. DNC server, Ukraine hacked it not Russians.
Schiff (cont):
Barr 2018 memo argues whether president's motives are "improper" is up to people through election process and Congress through impeachment process. Forget Barr or Constitution, common sense that president can't use foreign power to cheat in our election.
Barr 2018 memo argues whether president's motives are "improper" is up to people through election process and Congress through impeachment process. Forget Barr or Constitution, common sense that president can't use foreign power to cheat in our election.
115th question, from Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN):
House managers said Trump doesn't have best interests of American families in mind. Do you wish to respond?
Herschmann:
American people are saying the opposite. His approval rating is going up while we're sitting here. (cont)...
House managers said Trump doesn't have best interests of American families in mind. Do you wish to respond?
Herschmann:
American people are saying the opposite. His approval rating is going up while we're sitting here. (cont)...
Herschmann:
House managers are saying they cannot rely on the 2020 election, because "we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." We think higher of Americans. What's really going on is that they're scared he'll win. Incomes are up, unemployment down, wages up, etc.
House managers are saying they cannot rely on the 2020 election, because "we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." We think higher of Americans. What's really going on is that they're scared he'll win. Incomes are up, unemployment down, wages up, etc.
116th question, from Sen. @MichaelBennet (D-CO):
Could you address president's counsel's claim that the president's advisors are subject to same protections as whisteleblower?
Nadler
If president can defy categorically all subpoenas is to say that Congress has no power (cont)...
Could you address president's counsel's claim that the president's advisors are subject to same protections as whisteleblower?
Nadler
If president can defy categorically all subpoenas is to say that Congress has no power (cont)...
Nadler (cont):
In Nixon, he didn't try to block everything. President has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have abused his power by violating law by withholding aid by extorting a foreign power
In Nixon, he didn't try to block everything. President has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have abused his power by violating law by withholding aid by extorting a foreign power
117th question, from @sendavidperdue (R-GA):
Please address House due process violations during inquiry. Combined with Schiff's leaks, isn't this "fruit of poisonous tree"?
Philbin:
Entire proceeding here is that fruit. Proceeding was fatally deficient in due process (cont)...
Please address House due process violations during inquiry. Combined with Schiff's leaks, isn't this "fruit of poisonous tree"?
Philbin:
Entire proceeding here is that fruit. Proceeding was fatally deficient in due process (cont)...
Philbin:
1st House began proceeding unlawfully without vote of full House. House mgrs today addressing this without getting to issue's core. Speaker doesn't have authority to give committee power to start impeachment. No rule in House gives committee impeachment subpoena power
1st House began proceeding unlawfully without vote of full House. House mgrs today addressing this without getting to issue's core. Speaker doesn't have authority to give committee power to start impeachment. No rule in House gives committee impeachment subpoena power
(cont)
2nd due process flaws - Trump attorneys can't participate in secret hearings in Intelligence. Then again in public Intel hearings. In front of Judiciary, they offered rights but it was illusory, bc Judiciary wasnt going to hear fact witnesses
3rd - Schiff was in charge....
2nd due process flaws - Trump attorneys can't participate in secret hearings in Intelligence. Then again in public Intel hearings. In front of Judiciary, they offered rights but it was illusory, bc Judiciary wasnt going to hear fact witnesses
3rd - Schiff was in charge....
(cont)
...and that's inappropriate because Schiff or his team had advanced knowledge of Whistleblower. They provided a slanted fact-finding mission. Partisan charade to arrive at pre-determined outcome.
...and that's inappropriate because Schiff or his team had advanced knowledge of Whistleblower. They provided a slanted fact-finding mission. Partisan charade to arrive at pre-determined outcome.
118th question, from @SenDuckworth (D-IL):
If hold on aid was supposed to be secret, is there documentary evidence of this? Evidence President was briefed by NSC, DoD, etc.? Or that he requested materials on Ukraine corruption? Did he order policy changes to address corruption?
If hold on aid was supposed to be secret, is there documentary evidence of this? Evidence President was briefed by NSC, DoD, etc.? Or that he requested materials on Ukraine corruption? Did he order policy changes to address corruption?
Rep. Crow:
We've never said that foreign corruption isn't legit to hold aid. What should happen is president goes back to Congress to seek permission to hold aid. Trump's done this in the past. That didn't happen here. Congress then approves or denies request.
We've never said that foreign corruption isn't legit to hold aid. What should happen is president goes back to Congress to seek permission to hold aid. Trump's done this in the past. That didn't happen here. Congress then approves or denies request.
(cont)
Only WH counsel knows why aid was withhold and we don't have any evidence. Not once did Trump go to Amb. Sondland to tell him that he needed to work with EU to get them to pay more $.
Only WH counsel knows why aid was withhold and we don't have any evidence. Not once did Trump go to Amb. Sondland to tell him that he needed to work with EU to get them to pay more $.
119th question, from @SenSusanCollins (R-ME) for both parties:
Are there legit circumstances wherevpresident could ask foreign country to investigate U.S. citizen, incl political rival, who is not under investigation by U.S. govt. If so, what are they and how do they apply here?
Are there legit circumstances wherevpresident could ask foreign country to investigate U.S. citizen, incl political rival, who is not under investigation by U.S. govt. If so, what are they and how do they apply here?
@SenSusanCollins Schiff:
Hard to think of circumstance where that would be ok. One of most important post-Watergate reforms is to separate investigations that can be launched from White House to DOJ. May be appropriate for DOJ to do it acting independently.
Hard to think of circumstance where that would be ok. One of most important post-Watergate reforms is to separate investigations that can be launched from White House to DOJ. May be appropriate for DOJ to do it acting independently.
Schiff:
Also on mixed motives, if you conclude Trump acted on mixed motives, some legit some corrupt, you must vote to convict. This goes back far in law.
Philbin:
Trump on call refers to incident in which prosecutor was fired. Doesn't ask specifically for investigation...
Also on mixed motives, if you conclude Trump acted on mixed motives, some legit some corrupt, you must vote to convict. This goes back far in law.
Philbin:
Trump on call refers to incident in which prosecutor was fired. Doesn't ask specifically for investigation...
(cont)
...into Bidens. To answer your question though, yes it's legitimate that we could ask foreign country to investigate they did something overseas, but international desire for understanding into what they've done.
...into Bidens. To answer your question though, yes it's legitimate that we could ask foreign country to investigate they did something overseas, but international desire for understanding into what they've done.
120th question, from @SenSchumer (D-NY):
Yesterday I asked WH to name single document WH turned over in this inquiry. Philbin never answered. I ask again, name single witness or document WH turned over in this inquiry.
Philbin:
As I explained yesterday.....
Yesterday I asked WH to name single document WH turned over in this inquiry. Philbin never answered. I ask again, name single witness or document WH turned over in this inquiry.
Philbin:
As I explained yesterday.....
@SenSchumer Philbin (cont):
...some subpoenas were invalid, some were under absolute immunity, some didn't allow agency counsel. Still, there were 17 witnesses, 18th whose testimony is still secret. Some documents came out in FOIA, I say that because it shows we'll comply if you follow law
...some subpoenas were invalid, some were under absolute immunity, some didn't allow agency counsel. Still, there were 17 witnesses, 18th whose testimony is still secret. Some documents came out in FOIA, I say that because it shows we'll comply if you follow law
Schiff:
Not a single document, not a single witness, and those witnesses that did testify did so in defiance of the administration. Let's go back to mixed motives. It doesn't fly bc then any president could just make up some phony motivation to justify his wrongdoing.....
Not a single document, not a single witness, and those witnesses that did testify did so in defiance of the administration. Let's go back to mixed motives. It doesn't fly bc then any president could just make up some phony motivation to justify his wrongdoing.....
Schiff:
Imagine how that would work. We've demonstrated the scheme is corrupt. But if you have any questions about that, ask John Bolton. Or Mick Mulvaney. Or subpoena the documents. When Trump withheld aid. Any documents to support WH claim that it started from change in RADA
Imagine how that would work. We've demonstrated the scheme is corrupt. But if you have any questions about that, ask John Bolton. Or Mick Mulvaney. Or subpoena the documents. When Trump withheld aid. Any documents to support WH claim that it started from change in RADA
121st question, from Sen. @MikeCrapo (R-ID):
How many witnesses have been presented at this point in this trial? How many pages of documentary evidence? How many other clips and transcripts of evidence?
Philbin:
17 witnesses, 191 clips, arguments for up to 24 hours each side...
How many witnesses have been presented at this point in this trial? How many pages of documentary evidence? How many other clips and transcripts of evidence?
Philbin:
17 witnesses, 191 clips, arguments for up to 24 hours each side...
Philbin (cont)
So at this point, there's been a lot put on here in terms of a trial. You've seen documents in excerpts on screens. As a result, House mgrs kept saying case is overwhelming.
So at this point, there's been a lot put on here in terms of a trial. You've seen documents in excerpts on screens. As a result, House mgrs kept saying case is overwhelming.
122nd question, from @SenatorSinema (D-AZ):
Re: the Logan Act, will the president assure the public will not order private citizens to conduct american foreign policy?
Re: the Logan Act, will the president assure the public will not order private citizens to conduct american foreign policy?
123rd question, from @SenDuckworth (D-IL)
If a president asks for investigation of possible corruption by political opponent, should the president be impeached if a majority of the house believes he did it for the wrong reason?
If a president asks for investigation of possible corruption by political opponent, should the president be impeached if a majority of the house believes he did it for the wrong reason?
@SenDuckworth 124th question, from Sen. @DickDurbin (D-IL) to House:
Can you answer Sen. @kyrstensinema's question?
Schiff:
They're saying Giuliani is not conducting foreign policy. That is a stunning admission. President is telling leaders talk to Rudy, that's not policy, it's an errand....
Can you answer Sen. @kyrstensinema's question?
Schiff:
They're saying Giuliani is not conducting foreign policy. That is a stunning admission. President is telling leaders talk to Rudy, that's not policy, it's an errand....
Schiff (cont):
I'll make deal with opposing counsel. Limit witnesses to 1 week of depositions. In Clinton case, Senate went back to normal business during that week. Let's do the same thing here. Is that too much to ask in terms of fairness?
I'll make deal with opposing counsel. Limit witnesses to 1 week of depositions. In Clinton case, Senate went back to normal business during that week. Let's do the same thing here. Is that too much to ask in terms of fairness?
125th question, from Sen. @lisamurkowski (R-AK):
Would you agree almost any action president takes, or politicians take, is, to 1 degree or another, inherently political? Where is the line between admissable political actions and impeachable political actions?
Would you agree almost any action president takes, or politicians take, is, to 1 degree or another, inherently political? Where is the line between admissable political actions and impeachable political actions?
@lisamurkowski Philbin:
This is what I got at the other day: politicians always have eye on what's good for them politically. This is dangerous path for you to deem what is the motive. It's a malleable standard. It's a substitute for a policy difference. If we don't like policy, it's bad motive
This is what I got at the other day: politicians always have eye on what's good for them politically. This is dangerous path for you to deem what is the motive. It's a malleable standard. It's a substitute for a policy difference. If we don't like policy, it's bad motive
@lisamurkowski Schiff:
Yes,public officials are inherently political animals. Not derogatory. Run for office, hold office, act as political figures. But look at Hamilton: crimes political in character, and remedies political in character. This is political punishment for a political crime....
Yes,public officials are inherently political animals. Not derogatory. Run for office, hold office, act as political figures. But look at Hamilton: crimes political in character, and remedies political in character. This is political punishment for a political crime....
Schiff (cont):
Doesn't mean we can't draw the line of what's appropriate. Plays Dershowitz group. If president does something he thinks will help him get elected cannot be the type of quid pro quo that's impeachable.
Doesn't mean we can't draw the line of what's appropriate. Plays Dershowitz group. If president does something he thinks will help him get elected cannot be the type of quid pro quo that's impeachable.
*Dershowitz clip, from yesterday
126th question, from Sen. @BobMenendezNJ (D-NJ):
Why should Americans be concerned about foreign interference in our elections?
Rep. Crow:
Because it encourages foreign actors, it's a fictional narrative, helps countries like Russia, Putin loves this distraction, scary future
Why should Americans be concerned about foreign interference in our elections?
Rep. Crow:
Because it encourages foreign actors, it's a fictional narrative, helps countries like Russia, Putin loves this distraction, scary future
@BobMenendezNJ 127th question, from @SenRonJohnson (R-WI):
Why did your committee hire Sean Misco the day after the July 25 call, who supposedly was involved somehow with Vindman and the person who may be the whistleblower?
Schiff:
There have been a lot of attacks on my staff (cont)......
Why did your committee hire Sean Misco the day after the July 25 call, who supposedly was involved somehow with Vindman and the person who may be the whistleblower?
Schiff:
There have been a lot of attacks on my staff (cont)......
Schiff:
I'm not going to dignify that question with a response. We used to not do that stuff. Whistleblowers are supposed to come forward when they hear things they're not supposed to. You're threatening not just this WB but all future WBs. I don't know who the WB is....
I'm not going to dignify that question with a response. We used to not do that stuff. Whistleblowers are supposed to come forward when they hear things they're not supposed to. You're threatening not just this WB but all future WBs. I don't know who the WB is....
(cont):
But we should all want to be this person. Because we should all be willing to come forward and report wrongdoing. I fear future WBs will not come forward bc why is it worth it? Why come work for me if just gonna get slandered?
Sekulow:
Schiff put WB front and center....
But we should all want to be this person. Because we should all be willing to come forward and report wrongdoing. I fear future WBs will not come forward bc why is it worth it? Why come work for me if just gonna get slandered?
Sekulow:
Schiff put WB front and center....
Sekulow (cont):
Retribution is protected under the statute. But the idea that there's complete anonymity isn't true. To say the identity isn't relevant isn't true when person conducting the investigation his staff spoke with whistleblower.
Retribution is protected under the statute. But the idea that there's complete anonymity isn't true. To say the identity isn't relevant isn't true when person conducting the investigation his staff spoke with whistleblower.
128th question, from Sen. @PattyMurray (D-WA):
If there are no consequences to openly defying subpoena, how will Congress be able to perform its oversight function to make sure any administration is acting in best interest of American families?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
If there are no consequences to openly defying subpoena, how will Congress be able to perform its oversight function to make sure any administration is acting in best interest of American families?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
@PattyMurray Rep. Garcia:
Voting against Article 2 of this impeachment will give future presidents license to do what they want to do. When administration exerts executive privilege, there might be something available to them. Don't buy WH argument that subpoenas aren't valid.
Voting against Article 2 of this impeachment will give future presidents license to do what they want to do. When administration exerts executive privilege, there might be something available to them. Don't buy WH argument that subpoenas aren't valid.
@PattyMurray 129th question, from @SenDanSullivan (R-AK) for WH counsel:
Given Senate now considering evidentiary record assembled and voted on by House, which Nadler says is overwhelming, how can Senate be engaged in what Nadler says is coverup, if we base decision on same record House did?
Given Senate now considering evidentiary record assembled and voted on by House, which Nadler says is overwhelming, how can Senate be engaged in what Nadler says is coverup, if we base decision on same record House did?
@PattyMurray @SenDanSullivan Philbin:
That's right, it's preposterous to argue this is a coverup if it's supposedly overwhelming. Nadler says it's proved beyond any doubt, not reasonable doubt. Your judgment should be different, bc it hasn't established their case at all. If they say it's all they need...
That's right, it's preposterous to argue this is a coverup if it's supposedly overwhelming. Nadler says it's proved beyond any doubt, not reasonable doubt. Your judgment should be different, bc it hasn't established their case at all. If they say it's all they need...
Philbin (cont):
...take them at their word, it should mean they don't need anything more. You've heard plenty of testimony, heard from witnesses.
We keep hearing that Trump somehow was peddling Putin's conspiracy theory. That it was Ukraine not Russia. Trump's saying both did.
...take them at their word, it should mean they don't need anything more. You've heard plenty of testimony, heard from witnesses.
We keep hearing that Trump somehow was peddling Putin's conspiracy theory. That it was Ukraine not Russia. Trump's saying both did.
130th question, from Sen. @PatLeahyIT (D-VT):
Under WH counsel's view, there's no remedy for him breaking law. What's to stop president from withholding disaster aid from U.S. city until that mayor endorses him? Or any part of $4.7 trillion budget subject to his benefit?
Under WH counsel's view, there's no remedy for him breaking law. What's to stop president from withholding disaster aid from U.S. city until that mayor endorses him? Or any part of $4.7 trillion budget subject to his benefit?
Rep. Jeffries:
Precisely what's outlined in that question could be withheld by president all across America, from mayor, town administrator, governor, etc. That's unacceptable. Can't be allowed to happen. By my count, Framers of Constitution had been quoted directly....
Precisely what's outlined in that question could be withheld by president all across America, from mayor, town administrator, governor, etc. That's unacceptable. Can't be allowed to happen. By my count, Framers of Constitution had been quoted directly....
...138 times. Hamilton 48, Madison 35, Washington 24, Adams 8, Jefferson and Franklin 4. Seems Franklin and Jefferson need more love. Let me do my part. Jefferson once observed tyranny is that which is legal for the govt but illegal for citizens. Trump said he could shoot someone
(cont)
pressured a foreign government. But WH counsel says it's ok because he's president. But citizens can't cheat.
pressured a foreign government. But WH counsel says it's ok because he's president. But citizens can't cheat.
131st question, from @SenJohnKennedy (R-LA):
Lofgren video talking about Clinton proceedings being ultimate interference -- what is different now from Clinton impeachment to this one?
Lofgren video talking about Clinton proceedings being ultimate interference -- what is different now from Clinton impeachment to this one?
132nd question from Sen. @JoeManchinWV (D-WV):
Have you ever been involved in any trial where you have not been able to call witnesses or evidence?
Have you ever been involved in any trial where you have not been able to call witnesses or evidence?
@JoeManchinWV 133rd question, from Sen. @MikeLeeforUtah (R-UT) to House managers:
Would Obama would have been subject toimpeachment based on his handling of Benghazi, Bergdahl swap or DACA? Or Bush for NSA surveillance, detention of combatants, or use of waterboarding?
Would Obama would have been subject toimpeachment based on his handling of Benghazi, Bergdahl swap or DACA? Or Bush for NSA surveillance, detention of combatants, or use of waterboarding?
Cipollone:
Under these standards, anything would fly. This is the problem. You better put a lock on this door, because otherwise these impeachments will be coming a lot.
Under these standards, anything would fly. This is the problem. You better put a lock on this door, because otherwise these impeachments will be coming a lot.
134th question, from @SenStabenow (D-MI) for both sides:
Campaign contributions are prohibited from foreign nationals, even if small. How valuable would announcement of investigations into Bidens be for Trump's re-election campaign?
Campaign contributions are prohibited from foreign nationals, even if small. How valuable would announcement of investigations into Bidens be for Trump's re-election campaign?
Philbin:
The idea that these investigations were something of value was looked at by DOJ, they announced in September that there was no election law violation, because it didn't qualify as thing of value. Wanna clarify another thing about info from overseas.....
The idea that these investigations were something of value was looked at by DOJ, they announced in September that there was no election law violation, because it didn't qualify as thing of value. Wanna clarify another thing about info from overseas.....
Philbin (cont)
I understood question to be about campaign finance law. The answer was no as a matter of law. Thing of value to campaign from foreign sources is illegal, and domestically it must be reported. That means any info campaign gets must be reported. That's untenable.
I understood question to be about campaign finance law. The answer was no as a matter of law. Thing of value to campaign from foreign sources is illegal, and domestically it must be reported. That means any info campaign gets must be reported. That's untenable.
Schiff:
How valuable? Immensely valuable. If not, why did he go through such lengths to make it happen? Why withhold $ from ally at war? He'd make use of this political help like he did in 2016 when Russians hacked DCCC and DNC. President made beautiful use of that.....
How valuable? Immensely valuable. If not, why did he go through such lengths to make it happen? Why withhold $ from ally at war? He'd make use of this political help like he did in 2016 when Russians hacked DCCC and DNC. President made beautiful use of that.....
Schiff (cont)
over 100 times in last 3 months of election campaign, Trump mentioned Hillary's emails. He obviously thought it was valuable. He'd be doing the same thing again now if he had Biden dirt. Darn right it wouldve been valuable.
over 100 times in last 3 months of election campaign, Trump mentioned Hillary's emails. He obviously thought it was valuable. He'd be doing the same thing again now if he had Biden dirt. Darn right it wouldve been valuable.
135th question, from Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC (R-SC) and others for both parties:
DOJ IG Horowitz testified DOJ had low threshold to investigate Trump campaign. Why is legal standard for investigating Trump so much lower than Biden? Why is it ok from friendly foreign govt?
DOJ IG Horowitz testified DOJ had low threshold to investigate Trump campaign. Why is legal standard for investigating Trump so much lower than Biden? Why is it ok from friendly foreign govt?
Schiff:
IG report found investigation was credibly opened. Also found FISA court made mistakes. Lot of effort to direct attention from this investigation to that one. One does not follow from the other. What you must judge here is whether president did conduct he's charged of....
IG report found investigation was credibly opened. Also found FISA court made mistakes. Lot of effort to direct attention from this investigation to that one. One does not follow from the other. What you must judge here is whether president did conduct he's charged of....
Sekulow:
IG said no one who touched this was vindicated. To say there are two standards is an understatement. Schiff you shouldn't belittle what happened there, you know better than that.
IG said no one who touched this was vindicated. To say there are two standards is an understatement. Schiff you shouldn't belittle what happened there, you know better than that.
136th question, from Sen. @DickDurbin (D-IL):
Why did president persist in withholding funds, when DoD officials were sounding alarm that it would violate law and shortchange our ally?
Philbin:
Deadline for obligating funds wasn't until end of fiscal year.....(cont)
Why did president persist in withholding funds, when DoD officials were sounding alarm that it would violate law and shortchange our ally?
Philbin:
Deadline for obligating funds wasn't until end of fiscal year.....(cont)
Philbin (cont)
...Some funds didn't make it without Congress acting, but every year that happens, a little fix from appropriations or CR to make them carryover.
Rep. Crow:
Of 17 witnesses, Philbin seems to know more than anyone else about this. Every delay in war matters.
...Some funds didn't make it without Congress acting, but every year that happens, a little fix from appropriations or CR to make them carryover.
Rep. Crow:
Of 17 witnesses, Philbin seems to know more than anyone else about this. Every delay in war matters.
137th question, from @SenJohnBarrasso (R-WY):
Is it within president's authority to personally address the issue of corruption with the head of a foreign government when he believes the process has been unsuccessful in the past?
Is it within president's authority to personally address the issue of corruption with the head of a foreign government when he believes the process has been unsuccessful in the past?
Philbin:
Hamilton talks about how having unity in foreign policy is important, how executive has the authority to act "as" the U.S. on the foreign stage. It's entirely within the president's prerogative to act on our behalf with a foreign leader.
Hamilton talks about how having unity in foreign policy is important, how executive has the authority to act "as" the U.S. on the foreign stage. It's entirely within the president's prerogative to act on our behalf with a foreign leader.
138th question, from @SenWarren (D-MA) for House mgrs:
Given how much citizens have lost faith in govt, does fact Chief Justice is presiding over a trial that so far hasn't allowed witnesses or new evidence contribute to a loss of legitimacy of CJ, Supreme Court and Constitution?
Given how much citizens have lost faith in govt, does fact Chief Justice is presiding over a trial that so far hasn't allowed witnesses or new evidence contribute to a loss of legitimacy of CJ, Supreme Court and Constitution?
@SenWarren Schiff:
I don't think he's lost legitimacy. He's served admirably. I don't think trial without witnesses reflects adversely on Chief Justice, it reflects poorly on us (Congress). If we can't have fair trial in face of this kind of misconduct...(cont)
I don't think he's lost legitimacy. He's served admirably. I don't think trial without witnesses reflects adversely on Chief Justice, it reflects poorly on us (Congress). If we can't have fair trial in face of this kind of misconduct...(cont)
Schiff (cont):
This is remedy for presidential abuse. We can't hold this model up for the world. Yes it will feed cynicism about this institution. OMG we can't hear what John Bolton has to say! God forbid. Hear no evil. That cannot reflect well on any of us. Yes it's corrosive.
This is remedy for presidential abuse. We can't hold this model up for the world. Yes it will feed cynicism about this institution. OMG we can't hear what John Bolton has to say! God forbid. Hear no evil. That cannot reflect well on any of us. Yes it's corrosive.
139th question, from @SenShelby (R-AL):
House mgrs stated president's actions constituted criminal bribery. Can this claim be reconciled with Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. U.S.
Philbin:
Because there is no bribery or extortion charge,that's a due process violation....
House mgrs stated president's actions constituted criminal bribery. Can this claim be reconciled with Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. U.S.
Philbin:
Because there is no bribery or extortion charge,that's a due process violation....
Philbin (cont)
They can't raise it because it's not the charge in the article. They can't come to trial and talk about it when it's not what Trump's being charged. Lots of discussion over subpoena power, destroying future oversight, etc. Their subpoenas......(cont)
They can't raise it because it's not the charge in the article. They can't come to trial and talk about it when it's not what Trump's being charged. Lots of discussion over subpoena power, destroying future oversight, etc. Their subpoenas......(cont)
Philbin (cont)
...didn't have authorization bc committees can only subpoena things related to legislation. Impeachments give them right to look at more general facts. That's why they require separate authorization for impeachment proceedings. They never tried to re-issue them.
...didn't have authorization bc committees can only subpoena things related to legislation. Impeachments give them right to look at more general facts. That's why they require separate authorization for impeachment proceedings. They never tried to re-issue them.
140th question, from Sen. @MarkWarnerVA (D-VA):
Is it proper for president encourage other countries (Russia, China etc) to give incriminating information targeting opponents?
Schiff:
Clearly no. This isn't about policy discrepancies. This is about improper help in re-election
Is it proper for president encourage other countries (Russia, China etc) to give incriminating information targeting opponents?
Schiff:
Clearly no. This isn't about policy discrepancies. This is about improper help in re-election
@MarkWarnerVA 141st question, from Sen. @JimInhofe for WH counsel:
Even if additional witnesses are called, do you ever anticipate House mgrs agreeing trial is fair as long as it results in president's acquittal?
Sekulow:
No. Because Schumer says I can have whoever I want....(cont)
Even if additional witnesses are called, do you ever anticipate House mgrs agreeing trial is fair as long as it results in president's acquittal?
Sekulow:
No. Because Schumer says I can have whoever I want....(cont)
Sekulow (cont)
...and those could lead to other witnesses. No matter what happens, they'll say you ended trial right as they were about to get the key witness testimony. They called 17 witnesses. Will only ever be enough if they get a conviction. This has been going on for 3 yrs.
...and those could lead to other witnesses. No matter what happens, they'll say you ended trial right as they were about to get the key witness testimony. They called 17 witnesses. Will only ever be enough if they get a conviction. This has been going on for 3 yrs.
Sekulow (cont)
I also don't believe you can cure here what they did in the House. You can never cure what they did wrong there. Philbin was right, he said FOIA requests were followed because they followed the law, the House didn't.
I also don't believe you can cure here what they did in the House. You can never cure what they did wrong there. Philbin was right, he said FOIA requests were followed because they followed the law, the House didn't.
142nd question, from @SenatorCarper (D-DE) to House mgrs:
How was president's act to withhold aid here different from what we do with other countries? And how should we evaluate the defense argument that this is "done all the time"?
How was president's act to withhold aid here different from what we do with other countries? And how should we evaluate the defense argument that this is "done all the time"?
Rep. Crow:
You don't have to look inside president's mind. Just what was done recently, and what he did last year. Variety of policy reasons to withhold aid. BUt this wasn't one of them.
You don't have to look inside president's mind. Just what was done recently, and what he did last year. Variety of policy reasons to withhold aid. BUt this wasn't one of them.
143rd question, from @SenatorBurr (R-NC):
Under House mgrs standard, would use of Steele dossier count as foreign interference and an impeachable offense?
Rep. Jeffries:
This is just all conspiracy theories. Deep State, Adam Schiff, Burisma, Crowdstrike, Whistleblower....(cont)
Under House mgrs standard, would use of Steele dossier count as foreign interference and an impeachable offense?
Rep. Jeffries:
This is just all conspiracy theories. Deep State, Adam Schiff, Burisma, Crowdstrike, Whistleblower....(cont)
Jeffries (cont)
This is the Senate. America's most exclusive political club. World's greatest deliberative body. President corruptly abused his power to investigate a political opponent. Crime against Constitution.
Sekulow:
I guess you can buy foreign interference? ....(cont)
This is the Senate. America's most exclusive political club. World's greatest deliberative body. President corruptly abused his power to investigate a political opponent. Crime against Constitution.
Sekulow:
I guess you can buy foreign interference? ....(cont)
Sekulow (cont)
Let me debunk conspiracy. Christopher Steele was engaged in dirt on Trump. Utilized his assets, including Russia. Dossier shared with DOJ through Bruce Ohr, #4 member of DOJ, his wife Nellie working for Fusion GPS that was putting dossier together.....
Let me debunk conspiracy. Christopher Steele was engaged in dirt on Trump. Utilized his assets, including Russia. Dossier shared with DOJ through Bruce Ohr, #4 member of DOJ, his wife Nellie working for Fusion GPS that was putting dossier together.....
Sekulow (cont)
Dossier taken by FBI to FISA court to get surveillance order on American citizen. That court issued 2 orders condemning FBI's practice, that some of those orders were not legally issued.
Dossier taken by FBI to FISA court to get surveillance order on American citizen. That court issued 2 orders condemning FBI's practice, that some of those orders were not legally issued.
144th question, from Sen. @tammybaldwin (D-WI) for both parties:
Can you assure us Jennifer Williams were not classified secret for any reasons such as preventing embarrassment. If yes, please describe damage to national security by declassifying document.
Can you assure us Jennifer Williams were not classified secret for any reasons such as preventing embarrassment. If yes, please describe damage to national security by declassifying document.
@tammybaldwin Philbin:
Memorandum submitted is classified because it has to do with foreign head of state. Most of them are classified. That was an exception, president released them bc he weighed balance of public interest.
Schiff:
Read that document yourself. Ask if any legit reason to....
Memorandum submitted is classified because it has to do with foreign head of state. Most of them are classified. That was an exception, president released them bc he weighed balance of public interest.
Schiff:
Read that document yourself. Ask if any legit reason to....
Schiff (cont)
...classify it. We heard from Sondland that aid was held up and tied to these investigations, he told VP, VP nodded. VP says he knew nothing. Classified submission from Williams goes to call between Trump-Zelensky. Read it, see if it's classified for any real reason
...classify it. We heard from Sondland that aid was held up and tied to these investigations, he told VP, VP nodded. VP says he knew nothing. Classified submission from Williams goes to call between Trump-Zelensky. Read it, see if it's classified for any real reason
Schiff (cont)
You read it and ask yourself: is there any reason to classify it other than avoiding evidence? Let the public see it.
You read it and ask yourself: is there any reason to classify it other than avoiding evidence? Let the public see it.
145th question, from Sen. @LamarAlexander (R-TN):
Compare bipartisanship in Nixon, Clinton and Trump proceedings, specifically the authorization to begin formal impeachment inquiries.
Rep. Lofgren:
Parties are as dug in as they are today......(cont)
Compare bipartisanship in Nixon, Clinton and Trump proceedings, specifically the authorization to begin formal impeachment inquiries.
Rep. Lofgren:
Parties are as dug in as they are today......(cont)
Lofgren (cont)
but still many voted against their own president in Nixon. That had real abuse. But Clinton started as very partisan. And continued that way because no real high crime or misdemeanor was alleged. He had an affair and lied about it, but any husband would do that....
but still many voted against their own president in Nixon. That had real abuse. But Clinton started as very partisan. And continued that way because no real high crime or misdemeanor was alleged. He had an affair and lied about it, but any husband would do that....
146th question, from @SenSchumer (D-NY):
Many are worried if we bring documents and witnesses, it would extend trial. What would you say to this being done shortly to limit impact on Senate?
Schiff:
If there was dispute, Chief Justice could decide. This could be quick...(cont)
Many are worried if we bring documents and witnesses, it would extend trial. What would you say to this being done shortly to limit impact on Senate?
Schiff:
If there was dispute, Chief Justice could decide. This could be quick...(cont)
Schiff (cont)
We should be able to reach agreement on concluding that process within a week. We make that proposal to opposing counsel. Constitution mandates reasonable accommodation. We take 1 week, continue with business in Senate, take depos, then come back to Senate
We should be able to reach agreement on concluding that process within a week. We make that proposal to opposing counsel. Constitution mandates reasonable accommodation. We take 1 week, continue with business in Senate, take depos, then come back to Senate
147th question, from Sen. Mitch McConnell @senatemajldr (R-KY):
Can you respond to question from Sen. Alexander about bipartisanship of past impeachments?
Philbin:
Nixon case, authorizing impeachment inquiry was 410-4.
Clinton case, HR 581, passed 258-176, 31 Dems joined Rs....
Can you respond to question from Sen. Alexander about bipartisanship of past impeachments?
Philbin:
Nixon case, authorizing impeachment inquiry was 410-4.
Clinton case, HR 581, passed 258-176, 31 Dems joined Rs....
Philbin (cont)
Trump case, all Rs voted against, 2 Ds also voted against, only Ds voted for the inquiry.
House mgrs keep saying WH counsel says pres can do "anything he wants." There's been questions about campaign finance. One point we made is that info is not contribution
Trump case, all Rs voted against, 2 Ds also voted against, only Ds voted for the inquiry.
House mgrs keep saying WH counsel says pres can do "anything he wants." There's been questions about campaign finance. One point we made is that info is not contribution
Philbin (cont)
Suggestion is WH counsel thinks Pres can do anything he wants bc of Dersh argument that president can do things in his best interest. That's not what he said. Also, there is legit policy interest in Trump raising question about Burisma and Ukraine 2020 interference
Suggestion is WH counsel thinks Pres can do anything he wants bc of Dersh argument that president can do things in his best interest. That's not what he said. Also, there is legit policy interest in Trump raising question about Burisma and Ukraine 2020 interference
148th question, from Sen. @ChrisCoons (D-DE) for both sides:
WH counsel wants to call Bidens and others if House calls Bolton. Can you tell Senate if any of those witnesses have first-hand knowledge of president's actions?
WH counsel wants to call Bidens and others if House calls Bolton. Can you tell Senate if any of those witnesses have first-hand knowledge of president's actions?
Schiff (cont)
Biden can't tell us why aid was withheld, why Trump asked for investigation into him. That's why they don't want Chief Justice to rule on admissibility or relevance. Because they know those witnesses aren't relevant. Why don't they want their own people in?
Biden can't tell us why aid was withheld, why Trump asked for investigation into him. That's why they don't want Chief Justice to rule on admissibility or relevance. Because they know those witnesses aren't relevant. Why don't they want their own people in?
Schiff (cont)
...because they'll incriminate president.
Sekulow:
What Schiff is saying is that we can only call witnesses they want. They say Biden is irrelevant. And Whistleblower is irrelevant. Conversation with Burisma--they raised it. They're not irrelevant to the president.
...because they'll incriminate president.
Sekulow:
What Schiff is saying is that we can only call witnesses they want. They say Biden is irrelevant. And Whistleblower is irrelevant. Conversation with Burisma--they raised it. They're not irrelevant to the president.
149th question, from Sen. @ChuckGrassley (R-IA):
During Clinton impeachment, it was argued that no one was impeached by so narrow a margin. President Trump argues that lack of bipartisan consensus highlights partisan natures of charges. Are those concerns well-founded?
During Clinton impeachment, it was argued that no one was impeached by so narrow a margin. President Trump argues that lack of bipartisan consensus highlights partisan natures of charges. Are those concerns well-founded?
Philbin:
Yes, very well-founded, Hamilton argued against it in Federalist 65, impeachments could become "persecution by an intemperate majority" in the House. Most divisive measure in govt. Reflects poorly on process in the House. And charges that were adopted.
Yes, very well-founded, Hamilton argued against it in Federalist 65, impeachments could become "persecution by an intemperate majority" in the House. Most divisive measure in govt. Reflects poorly on process in the House. And charges that were adopted.
150th question, from Sen. Chris @VanHollenForMD (D-MD) for both sides:
Are you opposed to having Chief Justice ruling on relevance of witness and other?
Sekulow:
We think that should go through the normal process. We're not going to short circuit the system. Don't accept.....
Are you opposed to having Chief Justice ruling on relevance of witness and other?
Sekulow:
We think that should go through the normal process. We're not going to short circuit the system. Don't accept.....
Schiff:
WH counsel says not Constitutionally appropriate. Why not? It's permitted by Constitution. We're not asking you accept our judgment, accept his. We don't want WH to call our witnesses. But why is Mulvaney not their witness? He works for Trump? You'd think he would be.
WH counsel says not Constitutionally appropriate. Why not? It's permitted by Constitution. We're not asking you accept our judgment, accept his. We don't want WH to call our witnesses. But why is Mulvaney not their witness? He works for Trump? You'd think he would be.
151st question, from Sen. @ThomTillis (R-NC) for House mgrs:
You've based your case on proposition that it was sham for Trump to ask for investigation into Burisma and Bidens. Chris Heinz, Kerry's nephew, stopped business relationship with Hunter Biden. Do you agree?
You've based your case on proposition that it was sham for Trump to ask for investigation into Burisma and Bidens. Chris Heinz, Kerry's nephew, stopped business relationship with Hunter Biden. Do you agree?
Schiff:
Reason why Joe Biden is irrelevant to these proceedings, and why Hunter sat on that board, and whether he was compensated properly, is bc he's not relevant to the president's actions. Biden was following U.S. policy and our allies when he asked Shokin be fired...(cont)
Reason why Joe Biden is irrelevant to these proceedings, and why Hunter sat on that board, and whether he was compensated properly, is bc he's not relevant to the president's actions. Biden was following U.S. policy and our allies when he asked Shokin be fired...(cont)
Schiff (cont)
That's the sham. FBI director says there's no evidence of Ukrainian interference in our election. That's why it's a sham. It's a baseless smear against Biden. That's what president wanted--just the announcement of investigations. As WH counsel just admitted....
That's the sham. FBI director says there's no evidence of Ukrainian interference in our election. That's why it's a sham. It's a baseless smear against Biden. That's what president wanted--just the announcement of investigations. As WH counsel just admitted....
Schiff (cont)
Giuliani was not pursuing U.S. policy, so then what was it? It was a domestic political errand.
Giuliani was not pursuing U.S. policy, so then what was it? It was a domestic political errand.
152nd question, from Sen. @RonWyden (R-OR):
AG Barr & Bolton expressed concern Trump was granting favors to autocrats. Also possible conflicts like Trump Tower Istanbul. Has president engaged in pattern of conduct putting personal interest above U.S. national security interests?
AG Barr & Bolton expressed concern Trump was granting favors to autocrats. Also possible conflicts like Trump Tower Istanbul. Has president engaged in pattern of conduct putting personal interest above U.S. national security interests?
Rep. Jeffries:
Let's look at Trump's record. 2 calls w Zelensky, he never mentions corruption once. Trump's DoD said there was no corruption concern related to release of aid. Why did Trump waited until 2019 to pretend he wanted to do something about corruption?
Let's look at Trump's record. 2 calls w Zelensky, he never mentions corruption once. Trump's DoD said there was no corruption concern related to release of aid. Why did Trump waited until 2019 to pretend he wanted to do something about corruption?
Jeffries (cont)
Did Ukraine have corruption issues and did Trump dislike foreign aid back in 2017 & '18? Yes. What did he do about it? Nothing. Did nothing until 2019 after Biden started running against him.
Did Ukraine have corruption issues and did Trump dislike foreign aid back in 2017 & '18? Yes. What did he do about it? Nothing. Did nothing until 2019 after Biden started running against him.
153rd question, from @SenSusanCollins for House mgrs:
House withdrew subpoena to compel Dr. Kupperman's testimony. Why didn't House pursue subpoena?
Schiff:
Practice in House was to invite witnesses voluntarily, then issue subpoena if they refuse. Kupperman immediately....(cont)
House withdrew subpoena to compel Dr. Kupperman's testimony. Why didn't House pursue subpoena?
Schiff:
Practice in House was to invite witnesses voluntarily, then issue subpoena if they refuse. Kupperman immediately....(cont)
Schiff (cont)
...refused subpoena. We took view witness can't do that, DOJ joined us. We asked Kupperman to abide by court's decision in McGahn, he refused. We knew they would just run us around in courts for years. Why did Fiona Hill testify when boss wouldn't?
...refused subpoena. We took view witness can't do that, DOJ joined us. We asked Kupperman to abide by court's decision in McGahn, he refused. We knew they would just run us around in courts for years. Why did Fiona Hill testify when boss wouldn't?
154th question, from Sen. @maziehirono (D-HI):
What's happened to whistleblowers who have spoken out in the past? What will happen to this one if outed?
Schiff:
Not sure we can tell you history, we'll try to get you a list of WBs who confronted retribution later....(cont)
What's happened to whistleblowers who have spoken out in the past? What will happen to this one if outed?
Schiff:
Not sure we can tell you history, we'll try to get you a list of WBs who confronted retribution later....(cont)
Schiff (cont)
But what we know is that if you blow the whistle on an education issue, or housing issue, you can go public. You can't do that in Intelligence community. You can only go to Intel committee or ICIG. Retribution has cooling effect on whistleblowers.
But what we know is that if you blow the whistle on an education issue, or housing issue, you can go public. You can't do that in Intelligence community. You can only go to Intel committee or ICIG. Retribution has cooling effect on whistleblowers.
155th question, from Sen. @RoyBlunt for WH counsel:
What responsibility does President have to safeguard dollars of U.S. aid and corruption around the world?
Cipollone:
he has a huge responsibility. Wants to make sure taxpayer dollars are used appropriately....(cont)
What responsibility does President have to safeguard dollars of U.S. aid and corruption around the world?
Cipollone:
he has a huge responsibility. Wants to make sure taxpayer dollars are used appropriately....(cont)
@RoyBlunt 156th question, from @SenAngusKing (I-ME):
Would it be permissable for president to inform prime minister of Israel that he was withholding military aid unless he came to U.S. and charged his opponent with anti-semitism in the midst of a campaign?
Would it be permissable for president to inform prime minister of Israel that he was withholding military aid unless he came to U.S. and charged his opponent with anti-semitism in the midst of a campaign?
@RoyBlunt @SenAngusKing Philbin:
The question really has nothing to do with this case, trying to get at most extreme hypothetical due to misunderstanding of Dershowitz's argument and charges brought here. House mgrs argue the Biden/Burisma connection was debunked. By whom? When? Where's the report?....
The question really has nothing to do with this case, trying to get at most extreme hypothetical due to misunderstanding of Dershowitz's argument and charges brought here. House mgrs argue the Biden/Burisma connection was debunked. By whom? When? Where's the report?....
Philbin (cont)
Chris Heinz broke off business relationship with Hunter Biden after he took that job. Hasn't been inquiry on whether there's any there there or not. His father was doing Ukraine policy when Hunter was put on board. All witnesses said at least appearance of conflict
Chris Heinz broke off business relationship with Hunter Biden after he took that job. Hasn't been inquiry on whether there's any there there or not. His father was doing Ukraine policy when Hunter was put on board. All witnesses said at least appearance of conflict
157th question, from Sen. @lisamurkowski (R-AK) to WH counsel:
Amb. Sondland and Sen. Johnson said Trump specifically said he denied quid pro quo. Reports on Bolton's book says Trump did tell him they were tied. That conflict supports calling witnesses. Why shouldn't we?
Amb. Sondland and Sen. Johnson said Trump specifically said he denied quid pro quo. Reports on Bolton's book says Trump did tell him they were tied. That conflict supports calling witnesses. Why shouldn't we?
@lisamurkowski Philbin:
House chose not to subpoena Bolton. Most important consideration from Senate, perhaps, is precedent established here for what kind of impeachment proceeding this body will accept from now going forward. Whatever you accept here will set precedent from here on....(cont)
House chose not to subpoena Bolton. Most important consideration from Senate, perhaps, is precedent established here for what kind of impeachment proceeding this body will accept from now going forward. Whatever you accept here will set precedent from here on....(cont)
Philbin (cont)
If you allow witnesses, you're sending message to House that you don't have to do all the work, do the investigation, you can just send half-baked impeachment and then this chamber has to issue subpoenas and deal with that. That's not what Senate should allow.
If you allow witnesses, you're sending message to House that you don't have to do all the work, do the investigation, you can just send half-baked impeachment and then this chamber has to issue subpoenas and deal with that. That's not what Senate should allow.
Philbin (cont)
Lots of talk yesterday about Judge Porteus impeachment. That's different. That happens within committee. Here, the whole body would be hearing witnesses. Also, this is only reporting. Bolton hasn't confirmed. It's just alleged. That's damaging to this institution.
Lots of talk yesterday about Judge Porteus impeachment. That's different. That happens within committee. Here, the whole body would be hearing witnesses. Also, this is only reporting. Bolton hasn't confirmed. It's just alleged. That's damaging to this institution.
158th question, from Sen. @brianschatz (D-HI) to both parties:
Can WH really not admit that Sen. King's hypothetical would be wrong?
Schiff:
Of course it would be wrong. Let me go back to question of Trump interfering in business dealings. Under WH argument, that's ok too!......
Can WH really not admit that Sen. King's hypothetical would be wrong?
Schiff:
Of course it would be wrong. Let me go back to question of Trump interfering in business dealings. Under WH argument, that's ok too!......
Schiff (cont):
That may not be criminal, but it should be impeachable. That's the implication of what they say. We should be careful about precedent we set here--one party can deny the other party witnesses in an impeachment trial, we shouldn't set that precedent....
That may not be criminal, but it should be impeachable. That's the implication of what they say. We should be careful about precedent we set here--one party can deny the other party witnesses in an impeachment trial, we shouldn't set that precedent....
Philbin:
It's rich for one party to deny witnesses to the other party, it was president who was denied calling witnesses. In King's hypothetical, that's wrong. But that's not this case. Bolton's book now says Barr told him something. Barr says it's not correct, so does Mulvaney
It's rich for one party to deny witnesses to the other party, it was president who was denied calling witnesses. In King's hypothetical, that's wrong. But that's not this case. Bolton's book now says Barr told him something. Barr says it's not correct, so does Mulvaney
159th question, from Sen. @JohnKennedyLA (R-LA):
Has the House in #impeachment investigated veracity of statement by former Ukraine prosecutor general Victor Shokin that his ouster was due to interest in Burisma, and that if he had stayed he would have looked into Hunter Biden?
Has the House in #impeachment investigated veracity of statement by former Ukraine prosecutor general Victor Shokin that his ouster was due to interest in Burisma, and that if he had stayed he would have looked into Hunter Biden?
@JohnKennedyLA Philbin:
No, House did not investigate truth of that report about Shokin. That was part of point. House Dems position is that Burisma/Bidens issue is debunked, but they didn't investigate it, they can't point to anyone who has. Every witness who was asked said at least.....(cont)
No, House did not investigate truth of that report about Shokin. That was part of point. House Dems position is that Burisma/Bidens issue is debunked, but they didn't investigate it, they can't point to anyone who has. Every witness who was asked said at least.....(cont)
Philbin (cont)
...appearance of conflict of interest. Questions raised about why now--House mgrs say it's just bc Joe Biden announced candidacy. Rudy Giuliani started exploring Ukraine issues since Fall 2018, looking for origins of Russian interference, Steele Dossier, etc.
...appearance of conflict of interest. Questions raised about why now--House mgrs say it's just bc Joe Biden announced candidacy. Rudy Giuliani started exploring Ukraine issues since Fall 2018, looking for origins of Russian interference, Steele Dossier, etc.
Philbin (cont)
....and Biden firing Shokin. Giuliani made a package about it, delivered it to State Dept. in March 2019. Tried to get Shokin to come here, couldn't get visa (ED: Yovanovitch blocked it), another article in July three days before Trump-Zelensky call on July 25
....and Biden firing Shokin. Giuliani made a package about it, delivered it to State Dept. in March 2019. Tried to get Shokin to come here, couldn't get visa (ED: Yovanovitch blocked it), another article in July three days before Trump-Zelensky call on July 25
160th question, from Sen. @GaryPeters for both sides:
How would verdict in this trial alter balance of power between Executive and Legislative branches?
Cipollone:
Acquittal would be best thing for our country. This is impeachment with no crime, no due process.....(cont)
How would verdict in this trial alter balance of power between Executive and Legislative branches?
Cipollone:
Acquittal would be best thing for our country. This is impeachment with no crime, no due process.....(cont)
Cipollone (cont)
...in an election year. Who thinks it's a good idea to remove president from ballot months from election? Only result that won't damage country for generations, maybe forever, is acquittal. On witnesses: Schiff is up here "Let's make a deal".....
...in an election year. Who thinks it's a good idea to remove president from ballot months from election? Only result that won't damage country for generations, maybe forever, is acquittal. On witnesses: Schiff is up here "Let's make a deal".....
Cipollone (cont)
If Senate can decide there's no executive privilege, with all respect, how would that work? Dangerous road.
Schiff:
When anybody begins sentence with "I have greatest respect for..." you have to look out for what follows. Chief Justice has conducted these.......
If Senate can decide there's no executive privilege, with all respect, how would that work? Dangerous road.
Schiff:
When anybody begins sentence with "I have greatest respect for..." you have to look out for what follows. Chief Justice has conducted these.......
Schiff (cont)
....proceedings in the most fair way. We trust Chief Justice. With respect to question: our relationship w Ukraine will survive, but if we hold president can deny all subpoenas, make bad faith argument and tie us up in courts for years, if president can decide....
....proceedings in the most fair way. We trust Chief Justice. With respect to question: our relationship w Ukraine will survive, but if we hold president can deny all subpoenas, make bad faith argument and tie us up in courts for years, if president can decide....
Schiff (cont)
...when to comply and when not to, there's no oversight left in House or Senate. If you acquit, and president feels like he can abuse his power, Article II will mean what Trump really thinks it means: that he can do what he wants.
...when to comply and when not to, there's no oversight left in House or Senate. If you acquit, and president feels like he can abuse his power, Article II will mean what Trump really thinks it means: that he can do what he wants.
161st question, from Sen. @marcorubio (R-FL) and others to both parties:
If I understand House mgrs case, Trump abused his power bc he acted against advice of his advisors, but guilty of obstruction bc he acted in accordance with advice of his advisors.
If I understand House mgrs case, Trump abused his power bc he acted against advice of his advisors, but guilty of obstruction bc he acted in accordance with advice of his advisors.
@marcorubio Schiff:
That's not our argument, he can follow advice. What's not permitted is for president to withhold Congressionally appropriated money for corrupt purpose, and for cheating in an election. And on Obstruction, he wasn't following their advice, they were following his...(cont)
That's not our argument, he can follow advice. What's not permitted is for president to withhold Congressionally appropriated money for corrupt purpose, and for cheating in an election. And on Obstruction, he wasn't following their advice, they were following his...(cont)
Schiff (cont)
Ask Don McGahn about that. Mueller Report found several instances of obstruction, including telling counsel to fire James Comey and then lie about it.
Cipollone:
You're right, that's yet another way House mgrs theory of impeachment are incorrect and dangerous....
Ask Don McGahn about that. Mueller Report found several instances of obstruction, including telling counsel to fire James Comey and then lie about it.
Cipollone:
You're right, that's yet another way House mgrs theory of impeachment are incorrect and dangerous....
Cipollone (cont)
House process violated all precedent. Trump is looking out for future executives. If he had said, you're right, no due process, but here's everything you're asking for. That would damage precedent. Just look at articles. They don't allege a crime....
House process violated all precedent. Trump is looking out for future executives. If he had said, you're right, no due process, but here's everything you're asking for. That would damage precedent. Just look at articles. They don't allege a crime....
Cipollone (cont)
They're arguing let's confront deep issues of Constitutional rights, and let's do it in a week. It's not right to argue that someone is fighting for their rights and therefore they're guilty. Theyve been respected for hundreds of years, let's continue to respect
They're arguing let's confront deep issues of Constitutional rights, and let's do it in a week. It's not right to argue that someone is fighting for their rights and therefore they're guilty. Theyve been respected for hundreds of years, let's continue to respect
162nd question, from Sen. @JoeManchinWV for both parties:
Over past 2 weeks, WH counsel detailed all problems with House mgrs rushing impeachment. Why shouldn't we heed their advice and slow down to at least hear judge's ruling in McGahn case?
Over past 2 weeks, WH counsel detailed all problems with House mgrs rushing impeachment. Why shouldn't we heed their advice and slow down to at least hear judge's ruling in McGahn case?
@JoeManchinWV Philbin:
McGahn case won't resolve all issues, just absolute immunity. DC Circuit court ruling will come soon, but then likely to go to Supreme Court. This body shouldn't keep this case open that long. Hamilton addressed that in Federalist 65, when he was debating....
McGahn case won't resolve all issues, just absolute immunity. DC Circuit court ruling will come soon, but then likely to go to Supreme Court. This body shouldn't keep this case open that long. Hamilton addressed that in Federalist 65, when he was debating....
Philbin (cont)
...having other officials come try the impeachment. He rejected that bc he wanted a swift trial from House to Senate to conviction/acquittal. That's why he wanted House to do investigations, so there was no trial hanging over the country for months on end
...having other officials come try the impeachment. He rejected that bc he wanted a swift trial from House to Senate to conviction/acquittal. That's why he wanted House to do investigations, so there was no trial hanging over the country for months on end
Schiff:
District Court said in McGahn case: executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from Congressional process no matter how many times they argue it. DOJ is arguing in that case that House committee lacks authority to compel with subpoenas. But that's what...
District Court said in McGahn case: executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from Congressional process no matter how many times they argue it. DOJ is arguing in that case that House committee lacks authority to compel with subpoenas. But that's what...
Schiff (cont)
...they're arguing in court. To what end? How long will that last? Let Chief Justice make the decision. We respect his decision.
...they're arguing in court. To what end? How long will that last? Let Chief Justice make the decision. We respect his decision.
163rd question, from @SenatorTimScott to WH counsel:
Benghazi committee concluded Obama did not comply with investigation for 2 years. But House has only fought this for 2 months. Does Trump owe more compliance than other presidents did?
Benghazi committee concluded Obama did not comply with investigation for 2 years. But House has only fought this for 2 months. Does Trump owe more compliance than other presidents did?
Sekulow:
Supreme Court would definitely have to decide issues of this magnitude. District Court cannot do that. Fast & Furious resulted in AG Holder being held in contempt. Constitutional process was followed. At least 10 times tonight we have complete confidence in Chief...
Supreme Court would definitely have to decide issues of this magnitude. District Court cannot do that. Fast & Furious resulted in AG Holder being held in contempt. Constitutional process was followed. At least 10 times tonight we have complete confidence in Chief...
...Justice, ignoring that it's not his call.
164th question, from @SenSherrodBrown (D-OH):
If acquitted, what's to prevent Trump from continuing to side with Putin and other foreign entities over U.S. intelligence and diplomats, and what are implications on national security agenda if such behavior continues unchecked?
If acquitted, what's to prevent Trump from continuing to side with Putin and other foreign entities over U.S. intelligence and diplomats, and what are implications on national security agenda if such behavior continues unchecked?
@SenSherrodBrown Rep. Crow:
This idea that it's ok that we continue to peddle in these conspiracy theories--none of the 17 witnesses had any data that it was real. All of the intelligence community concluded it was Russia not Ukraine. And don't buy red herring that it can only be Russia......
This idea that it's ok that we continue to peddle in these conspiracy theories--none of the 17 witnesses had any data that it was real. All of the intelligence community concluded it was Russia not Ukraine. And don't buy red herring that it can only be Russia......
Crow (cont)
...we never said that. Lots of countries could, and do try to attack us. But with respect to *this*issue, law enforcement and intelligence say Russia interfered in 2016, and no data that Ukraine was involved. Precedent is that adversaries, including Putin, will.....
...we never said that. Lots of countries could, and do try to attack us. But with respect to *this*issue, law enforcement and intelligence say Russia interfered in 2016, and no data that Ukraine was involved. Precedent is that adversaries, including Putin, will.....
Crow (cont)
...understand that they can play to the whims and interests and ambitions of 1 person, and get that individual to play into their propaganda. That's what's at stake.
...understand that they can play to the whims and interests and ambitions of 1 person, and get that individual to play into their propaganda. That's what's at stake.
165th question, from @SenJohnHoeven:
House mgrs. contend their case is overwhelming and they've made it in clear and convincing fashion. Doesn't their request for witnesses contradict that assertion?
Philbin:
Yes of course it contradicts them. Also on Ukraine interference....
House mgrs. contend their case is overwhelming and they've made it in clear and convincing fashion. Doesn't their request for witnesses contradict that assertion?
Philbin:
Yes of course it contradicts them. Also on Ukraine interference....
Philbin (cont)
...Fiona Hill testified that some Ukrainian officials bet on Hillary. Also some media reports that multiple officials "intervened" in U.S. election.
Also Schiff is saying we say one thing here and DOJ says other in court. Not true, we're saying their subpoenas....
...Fiona Hill testified that some Ukrainian officials bet on Hillary. Also some media reports that multiple officials "intervened" in U.S. election.
Also Schiff is saying we say one thing here and DOJ says other in court. Not true, we're saying their subpoenas....
Philbin (cont)
...are not justiciable in court. If they disagree, Constitution requires incrementalism: they could hold in contempt, hold up funding, refuse to confirm nominees, pass legislation he disagrees with, etc. It's not just that they should run to impeachment.
...are not justiciable in court. If they disagree, Constitution requires incrementalism: they could hold in contempt, hold up funding, refuse to confirm nominees, pass legislation he disagrees with, etc. It's not just that they should run to impeachment.
166th question, from @SenBlumenthal (D-CT):
Amb. Marie Yovanovitch was widely respected foreign diplomat. Why did President Trump want, in his words, "to take her out."
Schiff:
Giuliani already said--it's because she was going to get in the way of these Biden investigations....
Amb. Marie Yovanovitch was widely respected foreign diplomat. Why did President Trump want, in his words, "to take her out."
Schiff:
Giuliani already said--it's because she was going to get in the way of these Biden investigations....
Schiff (cont)
That tells us a lot. She's at a ceremony for another anti-corruption fighter who died a horrible death after having acid thrown in her face when she's told she has to come back to U.S. immediately. Why did they smear her? Why not just recall her? Don't know
That tells us a lot. She's at a ceremony for another anti-corruption fighter who died a horrible death after having acid thrown in her face when she's told she has to come back to U.S. immediately. Why did they smear her? Why not just recall her? Don't know
Schiff (cont)
Re: arguments against testimony of John Bolton--long list of other advisors who have been called to testify, Poindexter, Berger, Condi Rice, Susan Rice, etc. Ample precedent, where necessary, to have testimony of national security advisors.....
Re: arguments against testimony of John Bolton--long list of other advisors who have been called to testify, Poindexter, Berger, Condi Rice, Susan Rice, etc. Ample precedent, where necessary, to have testimony of national security advisors.....
Schiff (cont)
Re: court arguments, shows the bad faith here. When you have bad faith assertions of privilege, attempts to coverup, cheat in election....process of going up and down courts with duplicitous arguments shows flaw with precedent Congress must exhaust all remedies.
Re: court arguments, shows the bad faith here. When you have bad faith assertions of privilege, attempts to coverup, cheat in election....process of going up and down courts with duplicitous arguments shows flaw with precedent Congress must exhaust all remedies.
167th question, from @SenJoniErnst (R-IA) for WH counsel:
Members of Intel committee conducted # of depositions, including of ICIG Michael Atkinson. Has this depo been turned over to WH counsel? Do you think it would be relevant, and why?
Members of Intel committee conducted # of depositions, including of ICIG Michael Atkinson. Has this depo been turned over to WH counsel? Do you think it would be relevant, and why?
@SenJoniErnst Philbin:
We haven't seen it, was done in executive session of Intel committee and stayed there, not part of House impeachment record. We don't believe we need more witnesses and documents here, but if we go that road, we'd like to see it. What's his bias, motivation.....
We haven't seen it, was done in executive session of Intel committee and stayed there, not part of House impeachment record. We don't believe we need more witnesses and documents here, but if we go that road, we'd like to see it. What's his bias, motivation.....
Philbin (cont)
....connection to Bidens, Ukraine, policy, etc.
....connection to Bidens, Ukraine, policy, etc.
168th question, from @SenDougJones (D-AL) and others for House mgrs:
Should House have initiated a formal accommodation to negotiate for more documents and witnesses? Regardless of House record, what duty does Senate owe American people to find facts in this trial and not future?
Should House have initiated a formal accommodation to negotiate for more documents and witnesses? Regardless of House record, what duty does Senate owe American people to find facts in this trial and not future?
@SenDougJones Schiff:
Apparent from beginning no desire on part of president to reach accommodation. Said he'd defy all subpoenas. If they'd showed any agreement to work with us, we wouldn't be here right now. We'd be arguing with them over arguments of privilege, those issues, etc.....
Apparent from beginning no desire on part of president to reach accommodation. Said he'd defy all subpoenas. If they'd showed any agreement to work with us, we wouldn't be here right now. We'd be arguing with them over arguments of privilege, those issues, etc.....
Schiff (cont)
Trump could have made this difficult case by arguing privileges. But he didn't. Wholesale denial made it easy. What does Senate owe? Circumstances here different from Nixon. You have sole power to try impeachment. If you decide 1 week is not too long......
Trump could have made this difficult case by arguing privileges. But he didn't. Wholesale denial made it easy. What does Senate owe? Circumstances here different from Nixon. You have sole power to try impeachment. If you decide 1 week is not too long......
Schiff (cont)
...for depositions and witnesses, that's up to you to decide. You get to make those decisions. If you decide to trust Chief Justice, you have that sole power. WH counsel says Constitution doesn't require that. It also doesn't prohibit it. Fully within your power.
...for depositions and witnesses, that's up to you to decide. You get to make those decisions. If you decide to trust Chief Justice, you have that sole power. WH counsel says Constitution doesn't require that. It also doesn't prohibit it. Fully within your power.
169th question, from Sen. @MarshaBlackburn (R-TN) and others for WH counsel:
What was date of first contact between any member of House Intel committee staff and whistleblower? How many times have they communicated with WB since first date of contact?
What was date of first contact between any member of House Intel committee staff and whistleblower? How many times have they communicated with WB since first date of contact?
@MarshaBlackburn Philbin:
Answer is, we don't know. Nobody knows. Not first contact, how many, substance of contact. Still shrouded in secrecy. We think way this case has been presented, this body should acquit. No reason to go down road of more witness testimony. But if we do, that's relevant...
Answer is, we don't know. Nobody knows. Not first contact, how many, substance of contact. Still shrouded in secrecy. We think way this case has been presented, this body should acquit. No reason to go down road of more witness testimony. But if we do, that's relevant...
Philbin (cont)
How did that staff play role in shaping complaint? Schiff keeps saying Trump said my way or highway. Oct 8 said we'll go back to regular order as we have in past. Oct 18 letter outlining our objections said same thing. If anyone said my way or highway, it was House
How did that staff play role in shaping complaint? Schiff keeps saying Trump said my way or highway. Oct 8 said we'll go back to regular order as we have in past. Oct 18 letter outlining our objections said same thing. If anyone said my way or highway, it was House
170th question, from @SenJackyRosen (D-NV) for House mgrs:
In Sondland call w Trump, he said "no quid pro quo" but he also said stalemate over aid would continue until Zelensky announced investigations. Isn't that the exact quid pro quo the president just said didn't exist?
In Sondland call w Trump, he said "no quid pro quo" but he also said stalemate over aid would continue until Zelensky announced investigations. Isn't that the exact quid pro quo the president just said didn't exist?
Schiff:
Yes, exactly what a quid pro quo is. When someone says "I'm not gonna ask you to do this, but I'm gonna ask you to do this," that's what's happening. When Trump randomly says "no quid pro quo" when Sondland called him, that's odd enough. No quid pro quo over money....
Yes, exactly what a quid pro quo is. When someone says "I'm not gonna ask you to do this, but I'm gonna ask you to do this," that's what's happening. When Trump randomly says "no quid pro quo" when Sondland called him, that's odd enough. No quid pro quo over money....
Schiff (cont)
...but that's exactly what he wants Zelensky to do.
...but that's exactly what he wants Zelensky to do.
171st question, from @JerryMoran and others for WH counsel:
Does Congress have other means, such as appropriations, confirmations, and others short of impeachment?
Philbin:
Yes, that's what I was saying moments ago regarding court case today. The Constitution requires....
Does Congress have other means, such as appropriations, confirmations, and others short of impeachment?
Philbin:
Yes, that's what I was saying moments ago regarding court case today. The Constitution requires....
Philbin (cont)
...incremental steps to resolve friction. George Washington denied information request from Congress in regard to a treaty. These steps have been there from the beginning. First step should be accommodation, negotiation between branches. Courts have said....
...incremental steps to resolve friction. George Washington denied information request from Congress in regard to a treaty. These steps have been there from the beginning. First step should be accommodation, negotiation between branches. Courts have said....
Philbin (cont)
...that's actually constitutionally mandated. Congress has other measures, including funding, passing or not passing legislation president likes or doesn't like, holding up nominees, that can be effective.
...that's actually constitutionally mandated. Congress has other measures, including funding, passing or not passing legislation president likes or doesn't like, holding up nominees, that can be effective.
172nd question, from @SenMarkey (D-MA):
Recently reported that Burisma was hacked, likely by Russia. If Trump is acquitted, what happens under Dershowitze standard if we later find out Trump committed a crime?
Schiff:
"Absolutely no recourse"......
Recently reported that Burisma was hacked, likely by Russia. If Trump is acquitted, what happens under Dershowitze standard if we later find out Trump committed a crime?
Schiff:
"Absolutely no recourse"......
Schiff (cont)
Let's say Trump asked Putin in private meeting to hack Burisma for dirt on Biden, promises to stop sending money to Ukraine, and eliminate sanctions. Under Dersh argument, that's "policy difference" and perfectly fine. Not criminal. And what's WH counsel arguing?...
Let's say Trump asked Putin in private meeting to hack Burisma for dirt on Biden, promises to stop sending money to Ukraine, and eliminate sanctions. Under Dersh argument, that's "policy difference" and perfectly fine. Not criminal. And what's WH counsel arguing?...
Schiff (cont)
That we could hold up a nominee. That's wholly inadequate compared to gravity of his actions. What do you think he'll do after being acquitted here? He'll think 'my AG says I can't be investigated, can't be indicted, my other attorneys say I can't be impeached...
That we could hold up a nominee. That's wholly inadequate compared to gravity of his actions. What do you think he'll do after being acquitted here? He'll think 'my AG says I can't be investigated, can't be indicted, my other attorneys say I can't be impeached...
Schiff (cont)
Remedy for that is impeachment. Not holding up a nominee. As one legal expert said in House, if this conduct isn't impeachable, then nothing is.
Remedy for that is impeachment. Not holding up a nominee. As one legal expert said in House, if this conduct isn't impeachable, then nothing is.
173rd question, from Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC and others for WH counsel:
Assuming Bolton were to testify, isn't it true that allegations would still not rise to level of impeachment, and therefore, for this and other reasons, his testimony wouldn't add anything to this case?
Assuming Bolton were to testify, isn't it true that allegations would still not rise to level of impeachment, and therefore, for this and other reasons, his testimony wouldn't add anything to this case?
@LindseyGrahamSC Philbin:
Let me make clear, there was no quid pro quo, and that has not been proven. But assuming for sake of argument, Bolton testifies, and it is what NYT report says, then no the articles don'trise to level of impeachment. 2 reasons. 1) as matter of law, an impeachable....
Let me make clear, there was no quid pro quo, and that has not been proven. But assuming for sake of argument, Bolton testifies, and it is what NYT report says, then no the articles don'trise to level of impeachment. 2 reasons. 1) as matter of law, an impeachable....
Philbin (cont)
...offense must be a crime. 2) Theory of impeachment they've alleged doesn't meet "high crimes and misdemeanors." They've based it on subjective intent, Dersh says that's equivalent to maladministration, which Framers rejected. Doesn't allow for objective...
...offense must be a crime. 2) Theory of impeachment they've alleged doesn't meet "high crimes and misdemeanors." They've based it on subjective intent, Dersh says that's equivalent to maladministration, which Framers rejected. Doesn't allow for objective...
Philbin (cont)
...determination. In other court you'd say you demure. Even if everything he says is true, the abuse of power is too malleable, it goes to subjective intent. 3) We've demonstrated there is legitimate public policy interest in both matters raised on the call......
...determination. In other court you'd say you demure. Even if everything he says is true, the abuse of power is too malleable, it goes to subjective intent. 3) We've demonstrated there is legitimate public policy interest in both matters raised on the call......
Philbin (cont)
the Ukraine 2016 interference and Biden/Burisma issue. It's a legitimate foreign policy interest in both of those issues, so there would be nothing wrong with linking those investigations to the aid. But we've proved there was no linkage anyway.
the Ukraine 2016 interference and Biden/Burisma issue. It's a legitimate foreign policy interest in both of those issues, so there would be nothing wrong with linking those investigations to the aid. But we've proved there was no linkage anyway.
174th question, from Sen. @DickDurbin (D-IL):
Please respond to answer just given on last question.
Schiff:
Long few days. I think we all know what happened here, what president did. Why military aid was withheld, why Zelensky couldn't get into Oval Office. Why Trump wanted....
Please respond to answer just given on last question.
Schiff:
Long few days. I think we all know what happened here, what president did. Why military aid was withheld, why Zelensky couldn't get into Oval Office. Why Trump wanted....
Schiff (cont)
...investigations into Bidens, etc. WH counsel is trying to distance itself from Dersh argument, but still embracing the idea that even if Trump did it, it's not impeachable. POTUS now can withhold hundreds of millions in aid, illegally, to coerce ally, cheat in....
...investigations into Bidens, etc. WH counsel is trying to distance itself from Dersh argument, but still embracing the idea that even if Trump did it, it's not impeachable. POTUS now can withhold hundreds of millions in aid, illegally, to coerce ally, cheat in....
Schiff (cont)
...election, and we just hold up a nomination. This or next president, can abuse power all they want, as long as they think their re-election is in national interest. That's where we've come now after 2 1/2 centuries of our history. I think Framers would be aghast
...election, and we just hold up a nomination. This or next president, can abuse power all they want, as long as they think their re-election is in national interest. That's where we've come now after 2 1/2 centuries of our history. I think Framers would be aghast
Schiff (cont)
Any pres can now ask foreign power to interfere in election simply bc reelection is in the national interest. Or is this exactly what they had in mind when they provided constraint on executive power. Beautiful Constitution. But only as good as people who uphold it.
Any pres can now ask foreign power to interfere in election simply bc reelection is in the national interest. Or is this exactly what they had in mind when they provided constraint on executive power. Beautiful Constitution. But only as good as people who uphold it.
175th question, from Sen. @SenatorLoeffler (R-GA):
As reported by Politico, in January 1999 then-Senator Joe Biden argued against seeking new witnesses ahead of Clinton impeachment trial. Politico reports Schumer agreed with Biden. Why should Biden rule not apply here?
As reported by Politico, in January 1999 then-Senator Joe Biden argued against seeking new witnesses ahead of Clinton impeachment trial. Politico reports Schumer agreed with Biden. Why should Biden rule not apply here?
@SenatorLoeffler Sekulow:
(ED: Sekulow reads from the article I'm attaching below, which was just published an hour ago:)
politico.com/news/2020/01/3…
(ED: Sekulow reads from the article I'm attaching below, which was just published an hour ago:)
politico.com/news/2020/01/3…
@SenatorLoeffler Sekulow:
Want to address something else, two District court judges don't make the determination. My first Supreme Court case, we lost in district, lost in appellate court, but won 9-0 in Supreme Court. That's why you go to the courts. They're asking you to waive....
Want to address something else, two District court judges don't make the determination. My first Supreme Court case, we lost in district, lost in appellate court, but won 9-0 in Supreme Court. That's why you go to the courts. They're asking you to waive....
Sekulow (cont)
...executive privilege in this case. That's what they think is appropriate for this body.
...executive privilege in this case. That's what they think is appropriate for this body.
176th question, from Sen. @MichaelBennet (D-CO):
Sekulow says if we call witnesses, he'll call many, but isn't it true that Senate decides who gets called? Also, other impeachments included witnesses who did not testify in House?
Sekulow says if we call witnesses, he'll call many, but isn't it true that Senate decides who gets called? Also, other impeachments included witnesses who did not testify in House?
@MichaelBennet Rep. Jeffries:
All we're asking is hold full and fair trial, consistent with Senate's ability for "sole power" to try impeachments. During the 15 different impeachment trials in this body's prior history, all had witnesses. Including ones who didn't testify in House.....
All we're asking is hold full and fair trial, consistent with Senate's ability for "sole power" to try impeachments. During the 15 different impeachment trials in this body's prior history, all had witnesses. Including ones who didn't testify in House.....
Jeffries (cont)
Gowdy said in Benghazi that WH didn't participate. But Flynn, Panetta, Clinton, Rhodes, Susan Rice, multiple others showed up. Here? No documents, no witnesses, no accommodation, blanket defiance.
Gowdy said in Benghazi that WH didn't participate. But Flynn, Panetta, Clinton, Rhodes, Susan Rice, multiple others showed up. Here? No documents, no witnesses, no accommodation, blanket defiance.
177th question, from Sen. @MittRomney for both parties:
Do you have any evidence that anyone was directed by President Trump to tell Ukrainians that security assistance was being withheld upon condition of investigation into Bidens:
Schiff
Amb. Sondland and Taylor testified...
Do you have any evidence that anyone was directed by President Trump to tell Ukrainians that security assistance was being withheld upon condition of investigation into Bidens:
Schiff
Amb. Sondland and Taylor testified...
Schiff (cont)
...what they'd been told, Sondland acknowledged tie between two. So did Mulvaney due to press briefing comments. Tried to walk it back, but he was adamant. Reporter (@jonkarl) even followed up, 'what you're saying is quid pro quo' and Mulvaney doubled down.....
...what they'd been told, Sondland acknowledged tie between two. So did Mulvaney due to press briefing comments. Tried to walk it back, but he was adamant. Reporter (@jonkarl) even followed up, 'what you're saying is quid pro quo' and Mulvaney doubled down.....
Schiff (cont)
3rd direct witness would be John Bolton. But there already are witnesses and evidence in the record that conditionality was made clear.
Purpura:
.........(missed full answer).....
3rd direct witness would be John Bolton. But there already are witnesses and evidence in the record that conditionality was made clear.
Purpura:
.........(missed full answer).....
Purpura (cont)
Sen. Johnson asked Trump directly if there was a linkage, he said no, never do that, who told you that. Sondland asked at one point, Trump said no quid pro quo
Sen. Johnson asked Trump directly if there was a linkage, he said no, never do that, who told you that. Sondland asked at one point, Trump said no quid pro quo
178th question, from @SenJeffMerkley (D-OR):
Dersh said Pres can't be impeached for soliciting foreign interference if he thinks in public interest. WH counsel says can't be prosecuted. Pres says can do what he wants. Aren't these arguments exactly what framers worried about?
Dersh said Pres can't be impeached for soliciting foreign interference if he thinks in public interest. WH counsel says can't be prosecuted. Pres says can do what he wants. Aren't these arguments exactly what framers worried about?
@SenJeffMerkley Schiff:
There's no limiting principle here as long as he thinks it's in interest for his re-election. @SenAngusKing's hypothetical was perfectly appropriate. They repeated it today, you can accept Trump did this, and it's ok. Ask foreign leaders to do sham investigations, even...
There's no limiting principle here as long as he thinks it's in interest for his re-election. @SenAngusKing's hypothetical was perfectly appropriate. They repeated it today, you can accept Trump did this, and it's ok. Ask foreign leaders to do sham investigations, even...
Schiff (cont)
...if you acknowledge they are shams. That is recipe for exeuctive with no restraint
...if you acknowledge they are shams. That is recipe for exeuctive with no restraint
179th question, from @SenatorBraun (R-IN):
Under Dershowitz's theory, is what Joe Biden has done potentially impeachable, in contrast to what has been alleged against Trump?
Philbin:
Dersh argued 3 buckets: wholly public motivation, mixed motivation, and personal motivation...
Under Dershowitz's theory, is what Joe Biden has done potentially impeachable, in contrast to what has been alleged against Trump?
Philbin:
Dersh argued 3 buckets: wholly public motivation, mixed motivation, and personal motivation...
Philbin (cont)
And it's the 3rd bucket that's important. Biden was in charge of Ukraine policy, prosecutor was investigating son's company, son is on board, one can put together a family financial benefit coming from end of that investigation. That would be purely private.....
And it's the 3rd bucket that's important. Biden was in charge of Ukraine policy, prosecutor was investigating son's company, son is on board, one can put together a family financial benefit coming from end of that investigation. That would be purely private.....
Philbin (cont)
...pecuniary motivation. That's the distinction there.
...pecuniary motivation. That's the distinction there.
180th question, from @SenAmyKlobuchar (D-MN) to House mgrs:
Could you please respond to previous question, and any other comments Senate would benefit from before we adjourn?
Nadler:
What we've just heard from WH counsel is nonsense. 3 things to remember: 1) this is a trial....
Could you please respond to previous question, and any other comments Senate would benefit from before we adjourn?
Nadler:
What we've just heard from WH counsel is nonsense. 3 things to remember: 1) this is a trial....
Nadler (cont)
...any 10-year-old knows it should have witnesses. We've proved our case, but there can always be more info. 2) only 1 real question. Did Trump violate law to extort foreign country to help reelection by slandering his opponent. Everything else is a distraction.....
...any 10-year-old knows it should have witnesses. We've proved our case, but there can always be more info. 2) only 1 real question. Did Trump violate law to extort foreign country to help reelection by slandering his opponent. Everything else is a distraction.....
Nadler (cont)
We've proved that case beyond any reasonable doubt. That's why they don't want witnesses, because they know it will prove.
We've proved that case beyond any reasonable doubt. That's why they don't want witnesses, because they know it will prove.
That's it, Senate stands adjourned until 1pm Friday, January 31, 2020.
They actually just came back for some procedural matters: McConnell asked for unanimous consent that journal of proceedings be approved to date, and that Senate move to immediate consideration of HConRes86 received from House. House Concurrent resolution 86, providing for joint..
...session of Congress to receive message from the president.
Senate now adjourned again until 1pm Friday, January 31, 2020.
Senate now adjourned again until 1pm Friday, January 31, 2020.
@threadreaderapp if you have time, could you unroll this please? Thank you
