In response to a question from Democrat Joe Manchin and Kristin Sinema, and Republicans Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins about whether the White House would assure the Senate that it would not allow private citizens to conduct foreign policy, White House lawyer Patrick Philbin stepped in it, and Rep. Adam Schiff pounced. Philbin answered "I just want to make clear that there was no conduct of foreign policy being carried on here by a private person."
That was all the opening Schiff needed. "We have just heard a breathtaking admission by the President's lawyer," he said. "What the President's counsel said was that no foreign policy was being conducted by a private person here. That is Rudy Giuliani was not conducting U.S. foreign policy. Rudy Giuliani was not conducting policy. That is a remarkable admission," Schiff continued. They have suggested, he said, that "this is a policy issue," about burden-sharing or corruption, but "they have no acknowledged that this was not about policy. […] This was not policy conducted by Mr. Giuliani."
"They have just undermined their entire argument," he added. "If Giuliani wasn't there conducting foreign policy, it must have been a "personal political errand."
xSchiff: “They have now acknowledged that the person in charge of this [Rudy Giuliani] was not conducting policy. That is a startling admission.†https://t.co/kfaqEJJajc pic.twitter.com/078mN8Nojk
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 30, 2020
Thursday is the second day of questions from senators to the House impeachment managers and Donald Trump’s defense lawyers. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with questions alternating between Republican and Democratic senators and answers generally limited to five minutes.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:05:52 PM +00:00 · Barbara MorrillOngoing coverage can be found here.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:06:59 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerRepublicans send Trump’s team a question to allow them to pretend that the Senate “has already seen a lot of witnesses” in this trial and that “testimony was shown to you.” So, no need to talk to anyone.
Even though that has never been counted as Senate witnesses before. And we’re super concerned about precedent.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:12:29 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerAnd Philbin is back to saying that if the case is proven by the House evidence, nobody needs to see a witness. And then says he says that he thinks that his team has knocked down the House case.
Which is the kind of thing that, in a trial, might suggest calling a witness. But Philbin wants to argue that because the House came in with a strong case, they don’t get witnesses. And he’s back to waving the club that says they would make everything long, long, long if anyone dares call a witness.
In case they’ve forgotten, trials work this way.
1. The prosecutor walks in, declares that he has a strong case against the defendant, and makes an opening statement. 2. The defense disputes that case, suggests that there are problems with the prosecutions evidence. 3. And then there are witnesses. Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:15:11 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerTrump’s team gets a question about whether Giuliani was violating the Logan Act by conducting foreign policy … Philbin now claims Rudy wasn’t doing anything, he was just “a source of information.”
Like the source of information where he wrote a letter to the president of Ukraine seeking a meeting. Or when he set up interviews with former officials seeking information on Biden. Or when he directed Volker, Sondland, and others in their actions.
Philbin now makes the case that FDR had a “confidant” during World War II who helped him get information into delicate areas … so, not a problem then.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:21:39 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerKennedy (who really needs to work on that fake accent) goes specifically to Philbin and Nadler. I’m assuming he’s asking for Nadler because he doesn’t want Schiff to beat up his question and feels like Nadler can be shoved into a trap. The question is on whether or not a president can be impeached for ordering an investigation of an American citizen that is “legitimate.”
Schiff answered a very similar one a few minutes ago, and Nadler hews pretty close to his answer, suggesting again that it’s hard to conceive of a case where that would be warranted and that there are other mechanisms. And, Nadler says, that’s not the case here.
Philbin is spending his time again on the pretense that there is a good reason to investigate Joe Biden. To make this claim, Philbin is back to the “mixed motive” claim that if there was any chance of a legitimate reason, it doesn’t matter if the primary reason was invalid.
Roberts objects to the calling out of specific attorneys. Which is too bad, because Democrats could have directed the next dozen questions are Bondi.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:24:00 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSchiff gets a chance to backtrack on the claim from Philbin that Giuliani was “not conducting U.S. policy” … which seems like a conflict with the claims that the whole thing is “a policy issue.”
Schiff seems to have constructed a nice trap here. Either Rudy Giuliani was a private citizen conducting U.S. policy, or he was Trump’s private attorney driving events in Ukraine for Trump’s personal purposes. Either one of these is an issue.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:26:09 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSchiff offers to “cabin” the depositions to one week, as took place during the Clinton impeachment. The Senate can go back to work, while depositions are collected. This is another really good thrust from the House side and from Schiff particularly.
And of course there is no way in hell Trump’s team will agree to it.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:32:34 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerMurkowski asks for the line between political action and impeachable action. Philbin fields it first for Trump’s team, says (accurately for once) that politicians always have some aspect of their motives looking toward the next election … then hops right over the point where asking for an investigation of a political opponent is corrupt on its face. Philbin is back to rolling in Dershowitz’s mixed-motive defense, claiming that if there was any possible legitimate reason behind Trump’s actions, that makes it okay.
Schiff takes it for the House side and agrees that politicians are politicians, who take political acts. But he points out that impeachable offenses are inherently political crimes. That’s the definition. Shows Dershowitz excusing going after candidates and excusing anything in pursuit of office. Schiff makes the line is that political actions don’t excuse a corrupt act. “There is no limit to what foreign powers will feel they can offer a corrupt president.”
Nice exchange here that was genuinely illuminating of the relative positions.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:37:21 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerHouse managers get a question on why it matters that Trump is soliciting foreign interference.
Jason Crow takes the answer. Starts off by saying not one witness has presented any evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, and that both the FBI and Homeland Security has shot this idea down as a conspiracy theory. And that pushing the Ukraine conspiracy theory is actually helpful for Russia.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:43:55 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerAnd here we go again. About half the Republicans — led by Cruz and Hawley — are punting a question to both sides. So you know it will be a DEEP STATE conspiracy theory.
And the question is about an NSA agent described as as saying he wanted to “take out” Trump. Plus whistleblower. Plus who the hell knows. And this is bullshit.
Schiff calls this a smear, expresses his disgust. “Members of this body used to care about whistleblower production … “ Wheh. Schiff is jumping on these guys both feet. We definitely need a clip of his, because it’s a genuinely key moment. “I don’t know who the whistleblower is, but I know who it should be—it should be every one of us.”
And of course Trump’s team is in on this. Sekulow is standing up to say that the whistleblower is protected against “retribution” but that’s not a promise that they can’t drag the whistleblower into the Senate, smear them with false claims, subject them to threats, and … I don’t know, maybe torture their dog.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:47:02 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSylvia Garcia gets another swing at how voting against Article 2 of the impeachment would be a vote against Congressional authority that would leave both the House and Senate toothless.
I need a camera that looks out on the floor, because I want to see how many senators are still smoking after that last reply from Schiff.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:50:49 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSullivan, Blunt, et al provide a freebie for the Trump team letting Philbin spend a round of patting the Senate on the back for being such good boys and putting up with that nasty House case. This is a nothing question. But hey, Mr. Sullivan, your name is in the record! Sit down now.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 9:54:51 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerOh, wait. Philbin has wandered into talking about Ukraine interfering in the election. Maybe. Or they could have. And just because Trump talks about Crowdstrike and the DNC server doesn’t mean he was asking about Crowdstrike and the DNC server. Chalupa! Oh, Philbin is channeling Doug Collins. And we’re now down to the idea that some Ukrainian officials said bad things about Trump.
How we wandered down this hole on this question is completely unclear. Anyway, Roberts cuts him off.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:01:53 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSen. Leahy provides the House managers with another opportunity to hit the Dershowitz theory, drawing everyone’s favorite comparison — withholding disaster release.
Hakeem Jeffries handles it this time. The answer here is strong, but not surprising, because buying into Dershowitz’s argument required going way out into the boondocks. Jeffries provides a count of founding fathers who have been mentioned so far, declares that Thomas Jefferson “needs more love” and moves to a Jefferson quote about how tyranny deals with things that are illegal specifically because they are done by people in power.
Jeffries does a really nice job here of taking what could have been just another walk down the same lines that are by now well covered, and refreshes it by comparing Trump’s actions to other crimes. Jeffries introduces the “Fifth Avenue Standard” in describing Trump’s position.
Nicely done.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:09:25 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerCassidy and Risch ignore Roberts request to not call on specific attorneys by calling on Zoe Lofgren to address comments she made during the Clinton impeachment. And then fits both a claim that “impeachment is the ultimate election interference” and an accusation that Lofgren is trying to dodge the question.
Cipollone calls impeachment cheating, then attacks Schiff for refusing to join in a smear of his own staff. “Calumny” says Cipollone. And then declares that it’s time that we stop assuming everyone has horrible motives.
Lofgren does step forward, talks about how Ken Starr spent years, moving from topic to topic, to finally catch Clinton out in a personal lie. On the other hand, in both Nixon and Trump, the question is about an action that directly deals with misuse of presidential power. Which … seems like a pretty good answer.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:15:12 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerHouse managers get a chance to deal with a rather generic “have you ever been involved in a trial in which you were unable to call witnesses.” Val Demings is up for the House team.
Demings compares the trial to her 27 years of experience in law enforcement. Says she’s only been in such a situation when there are no witnesses.
Cipollone is … seriously claiming that the fact that the White House eventually produced some requested documents for the Mueller report means that they didn’t have to give anything this time around. Declares that Trump has “fully cooperated.” Heh.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:18:30 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerLee—who has been about 10x more awful in this than I expected—asks if Obama or Bush would have been subject to possible impeachment under the standard of the House managers. Cipollone is back again to say “I guess.”
Since one of the items that Lee offered up was impeaching Bush for waterboarding, I do want to say absolutely, I would have been down with that.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:25:14 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSplit question on the value of an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens, with a quote of previous cases showing that foreign contributions of all sorts are forbidden.
Philbin says the Barr DOJ has already looked at the whistleblower claims and said it’s not prohibited. And that if it was, campaigns would have to report every time someone gave them information.
Schiff points out the number of steps that Trump was willing to take to secure the investigations as evidence of their value. Cites the heavy use of stolen Russian documents by Trump in 2016.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:31:25 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerAnd now it’s a Graham, Cruz, Cornyn three-way. So expect yet another attack on Biden, or whistleblower, or Schiff. Or all three.
The question here is an extension of the idea that investigating Trump was started because information came in from foreign sources. Schiff is dealing with the answer, but the answer here is that it wasn’t Barack Obama who was getting on the phone to tell the FBI to get on that Trump business. Schiff spends his time pointing out the obvious — what happened in Carter Pages FISA warrant has diddly to do with the current case.
I’m expecting Sekulow on the other side, because this is exactly down his alley… And here he is!
Sekulow of attacking Comey. Now yelling at Schiff for the FBI. Starts to offer a primer on the FISA court. Lots of chiding … still not a damn bit of connection.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:38:22 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerDurbin sends a question to both sides about the distribution of funds and communications between DOD and OMB on the hold.
Crow does something good here by pointing out that Philbin has made claims about what was happening that mean he knows more about it than anyone who has testified, or any document that’s available. Crow points to the email and how the OMB—which acted as Trump’s agent in making the hold—then tried to blame the DOD when the money could not be spent.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:39:32 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerStack of Republican senators give Trump’s team the chance to say that it’s okay for Trump to ask for help with corruption. Shockingly, they say yes.
Isn’t it about time for a break? Surely we get a break soon.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:46:50 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerElizabeth Warren asks the House team to comment on whether it diminishes the legitimacy of Roberts and the Supreme Court to have Roberts sitting there while the Senate refuses to allow witnesses.
Schiff defends Roberts, launches into a story concerning the loss of U.S. respect abroad because of the actions Trump took in Ukraine. Schiff upholds the impeachment proceeding as the answer to show that the United States still has the rule of law. “This trial is part of our constitutional heritage … I don’t think a trial without witnesses reflects adversely on the chief justice, I think it reflects badly on us.”
Makes a compelling speech about the need for a fair trial. Schiff continues to be so good.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:51:55 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerAnd now Philbin gets another chance to kick the idea that Trump committed bribery. And again, amazingly, Philbin is back to talking about how it is so, so wrong to make a comment about Trump committing bribery when it’s not on the charges by name.
But for Philbin to accuse Biden of bribery, accuse the whistleblower of being corrupt or level evidence-free claims against any number of people is dandy.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 10:58:24 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerWarner asks about Russian interference in the 2016 election, and connects it with the Dershowitz theory that soliciting foreign interference is cool.
Schiff takes the response, calls Dershowitz’s theory a “bastardization of the Constitution.” Takes this time to deal with a number of issues that have come up on subpoenas, the structure of articles—basically, whether the White House can define how impeachment is done.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 11:02:40 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerInhofe throws a snowball. Actually, it’s another softball. Allowing the Trump team to declare that the House will never agree that the trial is fair unless Trump loses.
Sekulow takes it, because there’s no actual facts to be examined here. It’s just an invitation to attack. And now Sekulow makes a convincing case that he can’t do math after he declares that 3 Democratic witnesses and one Republican witness is a 4-1 ratio. He then declares that he wants 4 witnesses in the Senate for every witness called by the House managers.
One of the big revelations from this whole thing is just how awful, Jay Sekulow turns out to be.
L'état, c'est moi. I am the state. That is where we are—a declaration of self as sovereign once made famous by France's Louis XIV, whose pre-revolutionary reign as king lasted 72 years until his death in 1715. This appears to be exactly what Senate Republicans are preparing to embrace on Friday when they will likely vote against hearing witness testimony so they can summarily move to acquit Donald Trump without engaging even the most basic due diligence of any fair fact-seeking trial.
At least we won't have to endure any more insulting bothsidesisms from the media like this New York Times classic from December asserting that "the lawmakers from the two parties could not even agree on a basic set of facts in front of them." Actually, House Republicans hadn't even pretended to deal in facts, they were too busy deploying the distraction of emotional hyperbole.
The failure of House Republicans to lay a factual foundation for Trump’s defense is exactly why, over the course of the past week, the arguments of Trump's legal team have effectively devolved from "he didn't commit a crime" to "it doesn't matter if he did" to "it's perfectly legal and acceptable for a president to break the law in pursuit of his self interests because his interests are the state's interests."
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Alan Dershowitz told U.S. senators Wednesday, only to refute himself on Thursday.
“The idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake,” White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin offered. “Information that is credible that potentially shows wrongdoing by someone who happens to be running for office, if it’s credible information, is relevant information for the voters to know about.”
Trump's so-called "information" seeking about Biden was never credible. But that's clearly immaterial to Philbin. He doesn't even think Trump seeking something of value from a foreign government to win reelection is criminal, when it actually is under 52 U.S.C. 30121. But who cares? C'est la vie. He's president. Get over it.
That's basically the exact same argument Trump made to ABC journalist George Stephanopoulos last June. "It's not an interference, they have information—I think I'd take it," Trump said of dirt offered to him by a foreign government. Trump also told Stephanopoulos that FBI Director Christopher Wray was "wrong" when he advised Congress that politicians should report any approaches made by foreign entities to the FBI.
The next day, Trump was momentarily shamed into walking back his comments, saying "of course" he would report such an instance to the FBI. That whiplash 180 came after Republican lawmakers like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham flatly rejected the idea of accepting foreign help in campaigns. “If a foreign government comes to you as a public official, and offers to help your campaign giving you anything of value, whether it be money or information on your opponent, the right answer is no,” Sen. Graham said on June 14, 2019.
Oh, those were the days, when Trump lackeys like Graham still gave at least some deference to the law.
Now the Wall Street Journal editorial board is endorsing the presidential exceptionalism that Trump’s lawyers advanced. "Every President equates his re-election self-interest with the public interest. It isn’t grounds for impeachment," read the subhead of the board's jaw-dropping editorial. The board cited Philbin asserting, “All elected officials, to some extent, have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions, will affect the next election. ... It can’t be a basis for removing a President from office.”
In a rebuttal, House Intelligence Committee chair and floor manager Adam Schiff pointed out the disingenuousness of that argument. "We're calling that policy now. It's the policy of the president to demand foreign interference and withhold money from an ally at war unless they get it," Schiff said. "That's what they call policy. I'm sorry, that's what I call corruption."
But by Thursday morning, none other than the GOP chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee was echoing Philbin's folly. “I have no problem with what Philbin said,” Burr told reporters. “I think that the idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake. ... If it’s credible information, [it's] relevant information for the voters to know about.”
In other words, Republicans are removing the origin of the information as the standard of criminality and replacing it with a subjective determination about whether the information is "credible." And according to Trump, the president, his corruption concerns were credible enough to bypass the U.S. Department of Justice on the way to demanding an investigation led by a government so corrupt, he wouldn’t release foreign aid to it.
It doesn't pass the smell test, folks, but Schiff got it right on both counts. That's corruption, plain and simple. And that's also what Republicans call policy now.
Watch Schiff’s rebuttal.
xSCHIFF: "A failed scheme does not make you innocent ... It's a policy of POTUS to demand foreign interference & withhold $ from an ally at war unless they get it. That's what [Trump's lawyers] call policy. I'm sorry, that's what I call corruption." pic.twitter.com/EjgCyD53yj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2020
There were gasps and laughter on the Senate floor when House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff announced this: Even as Trump's lawyers insisted repeatedly, over and over, that a president cannot be impeached for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, his Bill Barr-led Department of Justice is in court, today, insisting that Congress absolutely can respond to a president refusing to abide by congressional subpoenas by ... impeaching that president.
CNN reports, "Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said without hesitation that the House can use its impeachment powers, among other options, like withholding appropriations." The courts have no role in enforcing subpoenas directed at the executive branch—that has been the repeated Trump court argument. In the Senate, in the meantime, Trump's team is simultaneously arguing that impeachment cannot be used in response to a president's team ignoring subpoenas, that it must be argued through the courts.
The Trump defense is inherently corrupt. The Republican defense, in the Senate, is inherently corrupt.
x"You can't make this stuff up... The Justice Department, in resisting House subpoenas, is in court TODAY and was asked: If Congress can't come to the court to enforce subpoenas... what remedy is there?The DOJ lawyers response? Impeachment." - @RepAdamSchiff pic.twitter.com/eUMkaENXHQ
— House Intelligence Committee (@HouseIntel) January 30, 2020
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh shared several polls showing President Donald Trump surging since Democrats began their push for impeachment.
“Schiff had all the witnesses, and they don’t have any facts,” he explained. “It’s been going on since October.”
And it’s only making life harder on their party in the upcoming election …
“In an ABC News/Washington Post poll, Trump has surged by double digits in head-to-head matchups against his competitors,” Limbaugh relayed.
“Against the four most likely winners of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, in October Trump was down 56 to 39 against [Biden],” he continued. “As of now, the gap has closed 13 points. Trump is down four points to [Biden], 50 to 46.”
Limbaugh further noted that the polls show Trump closing the gap between him and “crazy Bernie [Sanders]” – from 14 points to just two.
New Gallup Poll
— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) January 30, 2020
RELATED: Gallup Poll: Race Relations See Double-Digit Increase Since Trump Entered White House
Limbaugh expanded on the matter, touting a recent Gallup poll, as covered here at The Political Insider, which indicates satisfaction with race relations and the position of minorities in America have significantly increased since President Trump took office.
Gallup discovered a trend demonstrating double-digit improvements in several categories – including how Americans view the nation’s economy, security from terrorism, military strength and the state of race relations in our country.
The position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation also rose 9 percent since Trump’s first day in office.
The President is making headway with minorities, something that could seal his victory in 2020.
Gallup reveals that in general, Americans haven’t been this satisfied with the direction of the country in nearly 15 years.
The survey finds that Americans are overwhelmingly more satisfied with the state of the country than they were in the final days of the Obama-Biden presidency:
Major Garrett may lose his main stream media credentials if he keeps praising Pres Trump like this:
CBS News’ Major Garrett: Trump’s Agenda of Helping Minority Communities Is a ‘Policy Legacy’ any President would be PROUD to claim! pic.twitter.com/F0JJ5McQS3
— Nashville Tea Party (@NashvilleTea) December 31, 2019
RELATED: CBS Reporter Bombshell: Obama WISHES He Had Trump’s Record With Minorities
Limbaugh explained exactly why race relations actually deteriorated under Obama, America’s first black President.
“No criticism of the president was going to be permitted. Even warranted policy criticism would not be permitted because it was going to be called racist,” Limbaugh elucidated. “So race relations got far more friction with Obama in the White House.”
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has, in the past, concurred that any media narrative that race relations are actually worse under President Trump than they were in the past is ridiculous.
“It sure doesn’t feel worse than when I grew up in Jim Crow Alabama. So let’s drop this notion that we’re worse race relations today than we were in the past,” Rice asserted in an interview with NBC’s ‘Today’ show.
Polling at the time of Obama’s election showed just how the former President was given a lot of credit to work with when it came to race relations and how he utterly squandered it by the time he left office.
One such survey a month prior to the 2016 election showed a majority of Americans believed race relations had worsened under Obama. 54% said the divide had grown worse, while a very low 16% said it had gotten better.
By contrast, in May of 2009, mere months into Obama’s first term, 32% of all Americans believed race relations had improved, while only 6% said they had gotten worse.
That is a massive 64-point turnaround. Obama took the racial harmony that led to his historic election and turned it into a wedge that divided the entire nation.
Just another mess President Trump is cleaning up to keep America great.
The post Rush Limbaugh Touts Polls Showing Trump Surging Since Dems Began Impeachment appeared first on The Political Insider.
Thursday is the second day of questions from senators to the House impeachment managers and Donald Trump’s defense lawyers. Questions are submitted in writing to be read by Chief Justice John Roberts, with questions alternating between Republican and Democratic senators and answers generally limited to five minutes.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:34:43 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerDurbin responds to claims by Sekulow that Democratic senators tried to extract political favors from Ukraine.
“The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.”
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:36:24 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSchiff gets a question about Mulvaney … but puts the question on hold to cite a statement made by the Justice Department this morning in response to a subpoena saying that Congress has a remedy if the White House won’t answer a subpoena … impeachment!
Gets a nice laugh from at least half the Senate.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:38:07 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSchiff hustling through the answer on Mulvaney … not sure he has the time to really deal with this, but he does get in some of the history of the assistance. Talking about the difference between holds that were allowed, and written into legislation, and holds that are illegal and secret.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:39:50 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSchiff gets through a pretty amazing set of examples, and gets his his points across well. He’s good at squeezing in a lot of material into little time — even though Roberts does eventually cut him off.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:46:04 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerAnother heapin’ help o’ Republicans on this question. Which is generally a good sign that this is a rehearsed piece that they’ve already worked out with Trump’s team. Despite that, the question — which seems designed to give Trump’s team another drop-kick on the theme of “tearing up the ballots” (so much so, I’m amazed Cipollone is taking it rather than Sekulow) — isn’t being handled very well.
I take that back. The answer isn’t good at all, and is for the most part simply ignoring the question. That seems true any time “leads” Cipollone or Sekulow stand up. I’m not sure Bondi doesn’t rate about either of them.
On the House side, this question gets tackled by Schiff, who directly addresses the question by saying that Trump is trying to cheat in the election. Honestly, Schiff is providing such a more polished and direct answer on this question, you’d think that the Republicans had practiced it with the House team. Schiff uses every second of his time. He’s going to make Roberts play him out on every answer.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:50:02 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerKing gives the House team a set-up by inviting them to explain the danger of letting Trump skate on obstruction.
Schiff takes it again. He’s standing up personally a lot more on Thursday than he did on Wednesday. I expect that’s because the initial set of Wednesday questions were all designed to hit different aspects of the case and assigned in advance to different members of the team.
Now we really seem to be in a place where the incoming questions are topics the teams (or House team, at least) don’t have lined out in advance. So Schiff is taking more things personally.
On the specific topic of obstruction, Schiff concentrates on the blanket denial of documents — which don’t get protection from executive privilege.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:52:07 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerThe court case Schiff mentioned earlier.
“Asked by a federal judge what the House can do to enforce its subpoenas, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said without hesitation that the House can use its impeachment powers, among other options, like withholding appropriations.”
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 7:56:37 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerRick Scott offers a question that is itself a lie, repeating claims that Republicans in the House were denied witnesses, questions, and ‘process.’
Philbin repeats the lie that the minority wasn’t allowed to call “any witnesses at all” and then claims that the House managers are still trying to prevent Republicans from getting any witnesses.
I’m not sure one truthful thing was said in this question or response. And the sad thing is that everyone in the room knows it.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:00:56 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerSchiff gets a question based on the idea that even the intelligence community is prohibited from using foreign sources against U.S. citizens. Cites Barr’s reasoning on motivation in impeachment … which is actually pretty good.
Not that it would take great reasoning to show that what Dershowitz has been pushing is beyond silly.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:08:10 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerBraun gives the Trump team a chance to paint more spangles on Trump. The rarely seen Eric Herschmann steps up to declare that Trump’s approval ratings are “at all time highs” and that the American people are “the happiest they’ve been in fifteen years.”
This will not be followed by a list of things that Trump claims to have done. Wall. Terrorists shot. Unemployment.
It must be nice to have Herschmann’s job, which doesn’t require actually listening to any aspect of the case on either side. Though reading from the Trump PR report seems to be giving him some issues, as he just declared improvements in “creme roll” justice.
We just ended with a complaint of presidential harassment and a proclamation of god bless Trump. Le, sigh.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:11:38 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerJerry Nadler gets to talk about subpoenas and executive power. He’s twice mixed up the abuse and obstruction articles. Nadler is more disorganized here than he’s been so far in this trial. Maybe he’s just tired, but he’s making me wish someone else had taken this answer.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:19:30 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerAnd a group of Republican senators invite the Trump team to again complain about the process violations that did not happen in the House investigation — finishing with an invite to throw out the whole impeachment. Plus this time they also throw in accusations that Schiff “illegally leaked” information.
But … don’t expect anything new here, sine this is at least the fourth time they’ve already hit this today. Process arguments rule!
Secret hearings in the basement bunker! No opportunity to cross-examine witnesses! President completely shut out!
Philbin takes on more accusations that Schiff had “connections with the whistleblower” that gave him “an incentive to withhold information.” Man, it is so good that we’re so concerned about process here, because otherwise it would sound like Philbin is just putting one unfounded and untrue accusation on top of another.
Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 · 8:25:05 PM +00:00 · Mark SumnerTammy Duckworth asks the obvious question — if Trump was concerned about cost sharing with Europe, is there any evidence of meetings on that top, briefings, information, requests to European allies, etc?
Jason Crow takes it. Crow walking the whole process from the beginning, going back to the passage of legislation. Again, I’m worried about the ability to fit all the answer this is going to generate in the time allotted.
We’re pretty deep into this, and Crow hasn’t really gotten around to talking about whether or not there’s any evidence — and the answer is no. We might have started there, then come back to talk about hat a good process would look like. But he does get through it all.
By David Kamioner | January 30, 2020
Well, well.
One thing about DC is that everyone has said everything at one time or another for every reason.
So it is with former temporary Democrat savior and darling John Bolton. The Democrats wanted him on the witness stand in the senate impeachment trial of President Trump because, in an illegally leaked book passage to gin up book preorders, Bolton claimed that the president directly told him that Ukrainian military aid was completely tied to a political hit on Joe Biden by the Ukrainians.
Turns out, it was all a gimmick to sell books.
RELATED: Rand Paul and Justice John Roberts Battle Over Whistleblower
We know this because the president and the busy bees on his opposition research staff have unearthed a video in which former Trump National Security Advisor Bolton makes no mention of any quid pro quo in the Ukrainian matter. None.
They also found clips of Schiff personally trashing Bolton.
Given the Democrats obsessed on Bolton and his supposed damning indictment of the president during the entire Wednesday session of the trial they have some explaining to do when the Thursday session rolls around. No doubt Jay Sekulow and Alan Dershowitz can’t wait to hear it.
The first video is an August 2019 clip from Radio Free Europe. In the interview Bolton says the presidential relationship with Ukrainian president Zelensky was “warm and cordial.” He says not a word about misconduct on the part of President Trump. He even makes the GOP president’s case by saying fighting corruption in Ukraine was a “high priority” for Trump.
But now, with Bolton needing cash for a post White House career, he changes his tune. Well golly, what a surprise.
Seeing the clip the President Trump tweeted: “Game over.”
And what of the honesty and credibility of prospective Democrat star witness Bolton? Let Adam Schiff explain it to us, “This is someone who’s likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories,” Schiff said to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on March 22, 2018.
RELATED: Wednesday Senate Trial Got More Heated as it Got Later
And in 2005…
“And particularly given the history, where we’ve had the politicizing of intelligence over WMD [weapons of mass destruction], why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly, and that is John Bolton’s politicization of the intelligence he got on Cuba and other issues, why we would want someone with that lack of credibility, I can’t understand,” Schiff said, emphasis mine.
The GOP legal team will most probably be ready with those clips at the trial on Thursday. Fun will ensue.
This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.
Read more at LifeZette:
Actress Evan Rachel Wood Gets Major Backlash For Calling Kobe Bryant A ‘Rapist’ After His Death
‘The View’ Goes Off The Rails As Impeachment Lawyer Alan Dershowitz ‘Triggers’ Hosts By Defending Trump
Senate Impeachment Trial Moves Coming Fast and Furious, Biden Livid
The post Bolton Video Guts Democrat Witness Strategy appeared first on The Political Insider.
“Get over it,” acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said in October about Donald Trump’s Ukraine quid pro quo. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” Hours later, under pressure, he walked it back in a statement attacking the media and denying that he said what he said.
Guess which of these accounts Trump’s impeachment team has decided to focus on? What Mulvaney said of his own accord, or the careful statement presumably written by the official White House ass-covering committee?
Yeah, obviously the second one. Two members of Trump’s defense team made that effort during Wednesday’s question-and-answer period. According to Patrick Philbin, “it’s been clear in the record since that press conference that what he was saying was garbled and or misunderstood” and “He immediately clarified, and said on that day, quote, The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. End quote.” Hearing that, you might think that Mulvaney immediately clarified in the same press conference, realizing as he spoke that he was coming across wrong and correcting himself on the fly. He did not. The line Philbin quotes as coming “immediately” was in the statement later the same day.
But more importantly, Mulvaney was not “garbled.” He was crystal clear. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy” and there was “no question” that Trump had, in blocking the aid to Ukraine, mentioned his conspiracy theory about Ukraine and 2016.
Trump defense lawyer Mike Purpura also read out Mulvaney’s walk-back statement on Wednesday, in response to a softball question from Republican Sen. Richard Burr. Because Mulvaney’s brash honesty in his original press conference is really inconvenient for Republicans hoping their cover-up won’t look too obvious. So sad for them that the cover-up is right out in the open and everyone sees it.