>>7957050 pb repost
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.