Rep. Mark Meadows was just asked about the request of writer E Jean Carroll, who alleges that Trump raped her, that Trump submit DNA samples to match her dress. "Is that a serious question?" Meadows says. "We'll take any serious question from a serious journalist"
so much meta tonight for Roberts. He now reads a question about whether counsel thinks it would be proper for the chief justice to make initial ruling on relevance of witnesses and documents. Sekulow says, "We think constitutionally that would not be the appropriate way to go."
"Again, no disrespect to the chief justice," Sekulow adds. Schiff stands up and takes issue with that adverb "constitutionally". Where is this prohibited? Schiff asks. "Of course that is permitted by the constitution."
Trump's defense is not afraid that the chief justice will not be fair, Schiff says. Trump's defense is afraid that the chief justice will be fair.
King question kind of rattles Philbin. King asked whether it would be OK for president to withhold aid to Israel unless Israeli PM came to US during election campaign and smeared president's opponent as an anti-Semite.
"The question really has nothing to do with this case," Philbin says. "It’s totally irrelevant here."
Murkowski cuts to the chase. She notes Trump defense contradicts Sondland that there was a quid pro quo involving military aid. But Bolton contradicts Trump defense. Question is, "This dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses
"with direct knowledge. Why should this body not vote in favor of calling Ambassador Bolton?"
Philbin replies with a critique of the House process. "The House could have pursued ambassador Bolton.. They chose not to subpoena him." Philbin's answer basically is that you just
Philbin replies with a critique of the House process. "The House could have pursued ambassador Bolton.. They chose not to subpoena him." Philbin's answer basically is that you just
can't run impeachments that way. "The idea that something comes out because someone makes an assertion in a book, allegedly... that then we should have this chamber call new witnesses... I think that is very damaging for the future of this institution."
AFTERBURNERS. New question from Dem side for both counsels: "can the White House really not admit that Senator King's hypothetical would be wrong?" Schiff answers first. He says yes, conditioning aid to Israel on an announcement that an opponent is an anti-Semite would be wrong.
Philbin quarrels with Schiff over witnesses. "If the president insisted that a foreign leader come here and lie about someone else and he was holding up military aid... that would be wrong but it's not this case. It has nothing to do with this case." Huh?
