Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 1

PAGE 1

Did my best to be accurate but it goes fast and Roberts doesn't always state clearly who is asking the q. Apologize in advance for misspelling any names.

__Mitch McConnell intro 10:15 PST

Answers must be 5 mins or less

Q: Murkowski, Romney to WH team: how to consider more than one motive re Article 1 (abuse of power)

A: Philbin: House's theory of abuse of power, that motives will be subjective alone, is not valid. Their own std: must be no legit public purpose. House: no public interest in investigating the Bidens. Mixed-motive situation: as soon as it's mixed, impossible to break down percentages. Must be NO public interest; otherwise, their case fails. 10:21.

A:

Q: Dem leader asks of the House mgrs: Any way to render a verdict wo/hearing witnesses & seeing docs?

A: Schiff: Short answer, no. John Bolton too relevant to turn him away. If any part of the POTUS' motive was a corrupt motive, that's enough to convict. Re q of motive: must ask Bolton. July 26, day after phone call, POTUS' q to Sondland: "is he going to do investigations?" Burden sharing didn't get raised, which is why we need to hear from Bolton. "If you have any q about it, you can erase all doubt."

Q: Someone [POTUS' team?] wants response to previous Q from POTUS' counsel

'A: Philbin: POTUS WAS interested burden sharing. It's in the call itself. Re testimony from Bolton: Real q is precedent that will be set re Senate impeachments? They didn't even subpoena Bolton in the House. Will drag on for months–new precedent. House doesn't do the work, Senate must do.

Q: Senator from Mass (Markey).: Did House ask Bolton to testify [clarification]

A: Schiff: Yes–and Bolton refused. When we raised subpoena w/Bolton, he said he would sue. DOJ refused. [Hammers on the point that this is a "trial" and must have witnesses. Schiff always adds moar stuff that's not relevant, not recording his propaganda here.]

Q: Sen from Tenn: have House mgrs met their evidentiary burden for removal?

A: Philbin: An impeachment = accusation. Lower std than Senate. House left out key facts.

Q: Sen Feinstein asks House mgrs: Did POTUS ever link security assistance to any investigations?

A: Crow: [lists 4 examples he thinks show a link]. Subpoena Bolton and ask that question.

Q: Sen Lee asks POTUS team: House mgrs say POTUS' actions contravene US foreign policy. Isn't that his place to set foreign policy?

A: Philbin: That authority is vested solely in the POTUS bc he's directly accountable to be people, unlike staffers.

Q: Sen from NH (Shaheen) to House mgrs: Necessary for POTUS to break the law to be removed?

A: Garcia: NO. Plain text of Constitution does not require. Requires abuse of some public trust.

Q: Sen from LA (Kennedy) to House mgrs & POTUS team: Why did House not challenge POTUS claims of exec privilege during House proceedings?

A: Jeffries (House mgr): Bc the POTUS never raised the q of exec privilege, just raised issue of "blanket defiance" of subpoenas. [says it's the assertion of "absolute immunity"]

A: Philbin: Blanket defiance = incorrect. Subpoenas were invalid; many ltrs from OMB, State Dept etc stated that. Specific legal reasons were given which the House did not take to court. 11:06 PST

Q: Sen from VT (Leahy) asks House mgrs: Did this POTUS really treat Ukraine more favorably than precedessors?

A: Demings: Obama admin promised in 2014 that we would be there for them….All the [current] aid has not yet arrived, req'd additional action by Congress (?). [pretty incoherent]

Q: Sen from TX (Cruz): Does it matter legally if there was quid pro quo?

A: Dershowitz: NO. Not unlawful. 3 possible motives: in public interest, own political interest, own financial interest. Candidates run for office bc they believe it's in the public interest. Also, everybody has mixed motives; dangerous basis for impeachment. Notes that House mgrs do not allege a financial interest. 11:16 PST

Q: Schumer sends a question for House mgrs: Please respond to previous q.

A: Schiff: Disputes that it's not ok to look at state of mind/intent. Ok to ask if he's operating from a corrupt motive. Brings up Obama's open mic w/Medvedyev. [complete fantasy!] Ok to condition pmt but not if motive is corrupt.

>>7957050

Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 2

PAGE 2

Q: Grassely send a q for House mgrs: Does the House's failure to enforce its subpoenas make their approach unprecented?

A: Philbin: YES. In past impeachments, everything was litigated before Senate trial. They can't have it both way. To resolve the impasse with the Exec branch, they have to go to court. Not to jump to impeach.

Q: Sen from Michigan (Stabenow): House mgrs want to correct the record on any mischaracterizations from POTUS team?

A: Lofgren: claims Z WAS pressured (etc). POTUS appeared to be "pursing a corruption"–hard to follow bc of bad logic)

Q: Sen from Arkansas ( ): Did the House bother to seek testimony in the month it held up the impeachment articles?

A: NO. They filed no lawsuits.

Q: Sen from NM ( ) to House mgrs: Plz address argument that decision to remove the POTUS should be left to 2020 election.

A: Schiff: Impeachment is to protect the country. We're not saying we had to hurry to impeach POTUS b4 next election but bc he was trying to cheat in that election.

Q: Sen from Ohio ( ) to POTUS team: Implications of allowing House to present an incomplete case to the Senate?

A: Philbin: House mgrs: how can you have a trial wo/witnesses? You don't show up at a trial trying to call witnesses for the first time. A trial would slow down the regular work of the Senate for months. House didn't make a complete case in the first place–if we allow them to do this–to have the Senate do investigatory work–this sets a dangerous precedent. We shouldn't make partisan, half-baked impeachments a normal thing.

Q: Sen from ( ) (Hirono?) for House mgrs: Isn't it true that depositions in Clinton case were done quickly?

A: Jeffries: Can be done quickly. "This is a trial, a trial involves witnesses…docs…evidence." Why should this be different? Brings up Bolton.

Q: Sen from TX (Cornyn) to POTUS team: Consequences to POTUS if Senate seeks to resolve claims re exec privilege wo/any determination by an Article 3 court?

A: Candid advice matters; conversations must be confidential. That's why there is an accomodations process. John Bolton is Natl Sec Advisor–highly secret info. That's why the exec privilege may be absolute. That privilege must be protected. Very serious issue. 11:59 PST

Q: Sen from HA (Schatz) to House mgrs: Is there evidence to substantiate the claim of natl security interest? Has such evidence been presented by POTUS team?

A: Crow: NSC, Natl Sec Advisor are there to review what happened. "Those agencies were in the dark." POTUS violated Impoundment Control Act "to execute his scheme."

Q: Sen from S Carolina (Graham) to House mgrs: If Obama had evidence that Romney's son were being paid $1m per year by a corrupt Russian company, and Romney had acted to benefit that company, would Obama have authority to ask that this be investigated?

A: Schiff: Hypothecal is off bc it presumes that Obama was acting corruptly [dif than with Trump]. To target a political adversary is wrong, period. It's impeachable.

Q: Sen from Michigan (Peters) to House mgrs: "Higher crimes and misdemeanors": reqs breaking the law or just breaking public trust?

A: Lofgren: [goes off into a general discussion of the abuse of power….] Does she ever answer the q? Prior impeachments focused on corruption and violating public trust. Can be non criminal.

Q: Sen from ( )(him & Murkowski) for POTUS dems: Why are subpoenas before passage of measure 660 invalid?

A: No authority bc no vote from the House floor.

Q: Sen from Penn direted to house mgrs: What are the duties of a public servant and how POTUS actions have violated the public trust?

A: Nadler: [glittering generalities, no facts just opinion.] Exec privilege question: cannot be used to hide wrongdoing. Mentions Bolton again. "I will defy all subpoenas…in other words, I am absolute. Claims of absolute power."

Q: Sen from Kansas (Roberts) to POTUS team: plz respond to previous q.

A: Sekulow: Re witnesses: all witnesses had been called/deposed before (not new). Suppose Schiff were called? What would happen? Re hypotheticals (see Schiff). Fusion GPS situation: basis for FISA warrants against a rival campaign. We don't need hypotheticals, this happened.

Q: Sen Harris for House mgrs: Article 2 gives me the right to do whatever i want. Show POTUS think's he's above the law. If we let him get away with this, how would it impact our integrity?

A: Schiff: POTUS identifies the state as being himself. He's not a king.

>>7957080

>>7957052 Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 2