tyb
Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 4 Sekulow, Raskin
Pages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259; Page 3 >>7931804
PAGE 4
Jay Sekulow: intros Jane Raskin, who talks about role of Guiliani.
Jane Raskin
if both law and facts are against you….but what if you have neither?
Then focus on a shiny object: use distractions, sensationalism, controvery, distort/ignore relevant facts, conclusionary stmts
Rudy G is the House mgrs' colorful distraction.
First tell? They didn't subpoena him to testify, just wanted his docs.
…… [went fast didn't get all of it]
When POTUS asked Sondland and others to talk to G, they didn't. [no big deal]
Z is the one who wanted to talk to G.
[bottom line: G was not acting as someone telling what Z had to do to get something from POTUS–not there for a "political hit job"]
G's intent: no small matter. "They said his motive was political, undertaken at the President's direction."
But how do we know this?
"Because they….say it–over and over." [no evidence]
G just says he's the President's personal attorney. Doesn't mean his motivations are political.
G has told many news outlets about his motivations.
G started investigating Ukrainian corruption in Nov 2018, not last Spring.
In Nov, he was following a lead by a "well-known private investigator".
House mgrs didn't even "allude to that possibility."
Bottom line: RG defended POTUS during Mueller investigation and in subsequent investigations
House mgrs may not like this style, but "turns out, Rudy was spot-on."
But G is just a minor player when it comes to impeachment.
con't
Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 5 Sekulow, Philbin
Pages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259; Page 3 >>7931804
PAGE 5
Sekulow: introduces Philbin on 2nd article, obstruction of Congress.
Patrick Philbin:
Two fundamental errors: first, no vote by the whole; second, no due process rights for POTUS
FIRST error:
reviews Sat, when he noted that House has to voted in entirety to cede investigatory powers to a House cmte. So inquiry began with "nearly 2 dozen invalid procedures."
Began with a presser by Pelosi; Rodino: Such a resolution is necessary.
SECOND error:
Nadler clip on 4 rights which must be given: notice of charges against you, right to be rep. by counsel, right to cross examine witnesses, right to present evidence. "All those rights were denied" to POTUS.
This was NOT a grand jury proceeding.
More due process problems:
First, in every prior impeachment proceeding, POTUS' lawyers were present but not this one.
No fact witnesses allowed for the defense.
Second, they kept denying him rights bc he wouldn't comply with all of their demand = unconstitutional condition.
Last point: due process is enshrined in Bill of Rights for a reason, part of our legal system bc it's basic for discovering truth.
Especially cross-examination of witnesses.
So why did they devise a process that kept the Pres. locked out for 71 of 78 days?
Bc process was never about finding the truth.
Third due process error: problem with "whistleblower" [didn't want him cross-examining?]
Why does due process matter? [making House bring the evidence not the Senate]
What's been presented so far exonerates the POTUS.
But if Senate starts allowing evidence/witnesses in Senate, this creates a new normal for procedure many more impeachments.
House claims: When we demand docs, exec branch must comply immediately. If they don't it's obstruction. And they can jump "straight to impeachment."
Exec branch defending its rights = impeachable offense.
This damages the separation of powers.
More on Second Article of Impeachment
Principles asserted by Trump admin as to their position viz a vis Exec branch resisting Congressional demands
(but many other admin's before them)
Exec branch officials don't have to comply with [invalid] subpoenas, espec senior-most Exec branch officials
Exec privilege is FOUNDATIONAL to the operation of gov't [SCOTUS upholds]
Nadler called this privilege "nonsense" and said court's have rejected this theory
Not true. Once POTUS asserts immunity for senior advisors, there is a negotiation.
Only been litigated twice [missed a little here bc FOX cut away, went to CSPAN] 1:01 PST
[if i got this right, gets protected by higher courts.]
On agency counsel
[missing info]
Agency counsel: why does it matter? How does a personal atty know the finer points of exec privilege? They don't.
That's why there are "accomodations" over what sr officials can and cannot be compelled to do by Congress.
Why does the assertion of these principles create an impeachable offense?
It does not. "It is absurd and is dangerous for our gov't."
Asserting protected rights is not impeachable.
Both Nadler and Schumer said so in Clinton impeachment. Correct then and correct now.
Even George Washington resisted some Congressional demands. Every admin has done so.
The accommodations process addresses such conflicts.
Impeachment = thermo nuclear weapon [shouldn't be invoked so quickly]
House maintains that the House should be the judge of their own powers.
No. Must maintain separation of powers.
[Talks next about Dems' justifications for impeachment–timing and process–mostly stuff heard many times. Take home: process was unconstitutional and justifications re timing were invalid, e.g., wanting quick action in an election year.]
Precedents: important to not allow this kind of approach to set a precedent for the future 1:32 PST
Sekulow/ Bondi next
con't
Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 4 Sekulow, Philbin
PAGE 5
Pages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259 Page 3 >>7931804, Page 4 >>7932640
Sekulow: introduces Philbin on 2nd article, obstruction of Congress.
Patrick Philbin:
Two fundamental errors: first, no vote by the whole; second, no due process rights for POTUS
FIRST error:
reviews Sat, when he noted that House has to voted in entirety to cede investigatory powers to a House cmte. So inquiry began with "nearly 2 dozen invalid procedures."
Began with a presser by Pelosi; Rodino: Such a resolution is necessary.
SECOND error:
Nadler clip on 4 rights which must be given: notice of charges against you, right to be rep. by counsel, right to cross examine witnesses, right to present evidence. "All those rights were denied" to POTUS.
This was NOT a grand jury proceeding.
More due process problems:
First, in every prior impeachment proceeding, POTUS' lawyers were present but not this one.
No fact witnesses allowed for the defense.
Second, they kept denying him rights bc he wouldn't comply with all of their demand = unconstitutional condition.
Last point: due process is enshrined in Bill of Rights for a reason, part of our legal system bc it's basic for discovering truth.
Especially cross-examination of witnesses.
So why did they devise a process that kept the Pres. locked out for 71 of 78 days?
Bc process was never about finding the truth.
Third due process error: problem with "whistleblower" [didn't want him cross-examining?]
Why does due process matter? [making House bring the evidence not the Senate]
What's been presented so far exonerates the POTUS.
But if Senate starts allowing evidence/witnesses in Senate, this creates a new normal for procedure many more impeachments.
House claims: When we demand docs, exec branch must comply immediately. If they don't it's obstruction. And they can jump "straight to impeachment."
Exec branch defending its rights = impeachable offense.
This damages the separation of powers.
More on Second Article of Impeachment
Principles asserted by Trump admin as to their position viz a vis Exec branch resisting Congressional demands
(but many other admin's before them)
Exec branch officials don't have to comply with [invalid] subpoenas, espec senior-most Exec branch officials
Exec privilege is FOUNDATIONAL to the operation of gov't [SCOTUS upholds]
Nadler called this privilege "nonsense" and said court's have rejected this theory
Not true. Once POTUS asserts immunity for senior advisors, there is a negotiation.
Only been litigated twice [missed a little here bc FOX cut away, went to CSPAN] 1:01 PST
[if i got this right, gets protected by higher courts.]
On agency counsel
[missing info]
Agency counsel: why does it matter? How does a personal atty know the finer points of exec privilege? They don't.
That's why there are "accomodations" over what sr officials can and cannot be compelled to do by Congress.
Why does the assertion of these principles create an impeachable offense?
It does not. "It is absurd and is dangerous for our gov't."
Asserting protected rights is not impeachable.
Both Nadler and Schumer said so in Clinton impeachment. Correct then and correct now.
Even George Washington resisted some Congressional demands. Every admin has done so.
The accommodations process addresses such conflicts.
Impeachment = thermo nuclear weapon [shouldn't be invoked so quickly]
House maintains that the House should be the judge of their own powers.
No. Must maintain separation of powers.
[Talks next about Dems' justifications for impeachment–timing and process–mostly stuff heard many times. Take home: process was unconstitutional and justifications re timing were invalid, e.g., wanting quick action in an election year.]
Precedents: important to not allow this kind of approach to set a precedent for the future 1:32 PST
Sekulow/Bondi next
''con't'
Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 3 Sekulow, Purpura
Pages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259; Page 3 >>7931804, page 4 >>7932622, page 5 >>7933237
PAGE 6
Sekulow: talks about Exec. privilege and Nadler's claim that it is "nonsense"
Pam Bondi on Burisma
Public records show that concerns over Burisma was justified.
[Cites many sources]
Early 2017, Biden went to Ukraine with the [supposed] goal of rooting out corruption.
Zolchevsky owner of Burisma, where Hunter Biden ends up on board.
Feb 2014: Zolchevsky flees the country. George Kent, Dems first witness, stood out for [corrupt] dealings.
Volker: Burisma had very bad reputations for corruption and money laundering.
So corrupt that Kent intervened to prevent US from consponsor a children's event with Burisma.
Mar 2014: UK Fraud Office opens invest. into Burisma/Zolchevsky.
Next mo, H Biden joins board of Burisma.
Devon Archer/Chris Hines/Hunter Biden are college frens. DA meets with VB Biden at WH.
Two days later, HB joins Burisma.
10 days later, UK authorities seize $23mil in UK bank accts connected to Zolchevsky
They also announced they started a criminal investigation into money laundering
Did HB leave the board after either of these events? NO.
HB joining board raised eyebrows "the world over." (cites Buzzfeed, WAPO, ABC) 4:42 - 4:46
Chris Hines stopped doing business with Archer & HB.
[WAPO and ABC accounts were aired in June 2019]
Dem witnesses also agreed: conflict of interest concerns were widespread
Devon Archer's records showed $83,333 pmts to HB for each of 17 mos from Burisma (one for Devon, one for HB) 1:49 PSD
What duties did he perform? Maybe attending board mtgs, despite no experience in the field
[Shows recent Nightline clip, interview with HB]
HB's time of the board:
Aug 20 2014: Ukrainian prosecutors launch an investigation into Zlochevsky
One of 15 investigations into Burisma
Jan 16 2015: prosecutors put Zlochevsky put on most wanted list for fraud
But a UK court orders Z's money to be unfrozen; probably bribe paid (Kent testimony)
Ukrainian Prosecutor's office also influenced; then that prosecutor was out
Victor Shokin becomes Prosecutor General
After Feb 2015, Kent voiced concerns about HB sitting on board to VP Biden's office
Meanwhile, VP Biden is still in forefront of rooting out Ukrainian corruption
Special Envoy to Obama raised this question with VP Biden 1:55 PST
Wasn't just one reporter who asked questions.
Jan 18 2016: mtg at WH between Obama & Ukraininan officials
Vogel wrote a story but it never ran.
US Dept of State made it clear to Ukraine that dispersal of 1billion to Uk. depended upon dismissal of Shokin.
Feb 2 2016: Ukrainian Pros. Genl obtained new order to seize Zlochevshy assets.
Feb 24 2016: Kiev Post articles said Zlochevsky suspect committing 'illicit enrichment'
Next few weeks: VP had multiple calls to Uk's Porochenko.
Consultant mentions HB as beng on the board.
This email documents that US govt knew Burisma was corrupt.
He/she was seeking a mtg with a very senior State Dept official to discuss US gov't position. 1:59 PST
Pitch: used HB's name. Mtg set for a few days later.
Mar 29 2016: Prosecutor General [SHOKIN] is voted out.
Two days later, VP Biden announces US will provide $335m in security assistance to Ukraine; soon after, $1b in loan guarantees.
con't.
Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 3 Sekulow, Purpura
Pages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259; Page 3 >>7931804, page 4 >>7932622, page 5 >>7932640, page 6 >>7933253
PAGE 7
Pam Bondi on BURISMA con't.
July 2016: Yovanovich becomes ambassador.
Only company they needed to brief her on.
Sept 2016: Ukrainian court cancels arrest warrant for Zlochevsky.
Mid Jan 2017: All legal proceedings against Burisma & Zlochevsky (HUNTER STILL ON BOARD)
April 2019: HB finally resigns from board.
May 2019 - Nov 2019: HB is "unemployed."
July 22 2019: WAPO said Shokin believes his ouster was bc of his Burisma investigation.
Had he remained, he would have questioned Hunter Biden.
July 25 2019: POTUS' phone call with Zelensky, where he asks about HB & Burisma. 2:06 PST
NEXT: Sekulow, Eric Hercshmann
will repost last pages for hearing next bread if too late