Anonymous ID: 1ecb09 Jan. 29, 2020, 3:20 p.m. No.7958547   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8548 >>8592 >>8608

Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 3

PAGE 3

 

Q: Sen from OK (Armed Services Cmte members) to POTUS team: David Hale said lethal aid was future aid. Which had more impact: POTUS temp pause of future aid or OBAMA's refusal to provide lethal aid?

A: Philbin: Obama's withholding. POTUS funding was for future ops. Ukrainians didn't know the aid was paused.

 

Q: Sen from Maine (King) for both groups. John Kelly: "I believe John Bolton." Do you agree w/Kelly that he should be heard?

A: Sekulow: This is about a possible quote from Bolton's book, not from within the book. Just a perception. Book has other stmts, like one that grossly distorts conversation between Barr and Bolton from NYT. [speaks to credibility of either the book, the NYT or both]. if there ARE witnesses, it should be tit for tat.

A: Schiff: What matters is whether YOU believe John Bolton; you should have the chance to judge for yourself. We should have witnesses. [Tries to make the case that it won't take that long to have witnesses.]

 

Q: Sen from Utah ( ) to POTUS team: It is true that Sean Misko, Abigail Grace and alleged whistleblower were detailed to the NSC Jan 2017 and the present? Do you think they knew each other & coordinated to take out the POTUS?

A: Philbin: All we know comes from public reports, understand whistleblower's name, where he worked (at the NSC staff). We have no knowledge of that otherwise and don't want to speculate. To an unknown extent, may have been addressed in the testimony of Inspector Genl of the Intell Community before Schiff's cmte's. "But that is shrouded in secrecy to this day." Has not been forwarded. Or contacts between S's staff and whistleblower…..to get to the bottom of this, could be relevant.

 

Q: Sen from NM ( ) to POTUS team: When did POTUS' counsel first learned of Bolton's manuscript submission? Any effort to block it?

A: Philbin: Doesn't know exact date. NSC said it hasn't been reviewed by anyone outside of NSC staff. Efforts to block it? Misinfo on this was put out earlier today. NSC sent a letter to Bolton's atty's Chas Cooper on Jan 23, saying that there's a lot that's classified in the book, some of it is at the top secret level. Publication may not be published wo/deletion of this info. 1:37

 

Q: Sen from IOWA to POTUS team: True that Trump admin approved Javelin's to Ukraine? Came after 3 yr debate? Did Obama refuse to do the same, against advise of his staffers in this area?

A: Philbin: Yes, Obama did not provide Javelins. Trump did provide them. Whether contrary to advise of his advisors? Yes.

 

Q: Sen Feinstein to House mgrs: POTUS says no witnesses/docs? Any justification for this blanket refusal?

A: Lofgren: [Trump issued blanket order not to cooperate.] He's trying to "avoid accountability." 1:35 PST

 

Q: Sen from WV to POTUS team: You said Z didn't know about pause in aid until Aug 28 2019 from Politico. But didn't Laura Cooper say there were inquiries about the aid on July 25?

A: Purpura: No. Emails Cooper testified about were from State Dept; but she didn't know substance of the emails. Aug 28–there was a flurry of activity among Ukrainians that indicated they were just finding out about it; they also said so. [cites more evidence that indicated surprise on Aug 28]

 

Q: Sen from MD to House mgrs: Is it true that Z and other Ukrainians didn't know the aid had been paused before Aug 28?

A: Crow: we should subpoena those State Dept emails….[then irrelevant stuff]. Goes back to mindset of POTUS re delay…..

 

Q: Sen from Maine to POTUS team: Witnesses in the House consistently said that POTUS said Ukraine was corrupt. Before VP Biden entered the Pres. race in April 2020, did POTUS ever mention the Bidens in connection to Uk. corruption?

A: Philbin: Nothing in the record; but there is other info helpful for understanding the timeline. Z was just elected in April 2019–that's when POTUS would have wondered whether the new guy was corrupt or not. Second: role of Rudy. Rudy was asking q's going back to Nov 2018. There were articles published in July 2019.

 

Q: Sen Harris & Murry to House mgrs: tape discovered where Trump says to Parnas and Fruman to take out Yovanovich? Likely that new evidence will continue to come to light?

A: Schiff: Yes. [Goes back to Bolton book….to need for calling witnesses…he knows what the new evidence is going to be….suggests it's not coincidental that Biden inquiry happens when B is running for President]

Anonymous ID: 1ecb09 Jan. 29, 2020, 3:20 p.m. No.7958548   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8608

>>7958547

Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 4

PAGE 4

 

Q: Sen from NE to POTUS team: At what point did the US have concerns about Burisma?

A: Philbin: POTUS brought up burden-sharing and Shokin firing. Everyone was concerned about Uk. corruption [historically]. Received specific info from Rudy [since Nov 2018]. Lists other articles from early 2019 onward. He wouldn't have raised the issue while Porochenko was still Pres.

 

Q: Sen from CT (Blumenthal) to POTUS team: Re Bolton book, did anyone tell anyone in the WH Counsel's Office that it would be a political problem for POTUS?

A: Philbin: No.

 

Q: Sen from TX (Cruz) for House mgrs: Aug 26 letter discussing whistleblower suggesting that w worked with Joe Biden? If so, on issues involving Uk?

A: Schiff: Why we want to protect the w: [total bs stuff….says he doesn't know who w is; calls idea that he colluded with w is a "conspiracy theory"]. His staff acted with "complete professionalism."……complains about safety of his staff…..and of he w….on and on….

 

Q: Sen from RI to House mgrs: Should we apply the missing witness rule? [re adverse inference idea = legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence]

A: Schiff: [POTUS is concealing witnesses; yes, invoke (indignantly)] 2:20 PST

 

Q: Sen from SD to POTUS team: Plz repond to previous q.

A: Philbin: hasn't read case re missing witness rule. But would bet it doesn't apply in this case. Also addresses the idea expressed by House mgrs that FOIA requesters were more successful in getting docs than their subpoenas: the reason is that they were sloppy and didn't follow thru where the FOIA requesters did.

 

Q: Sen from NH to House mgrs: Did Mulvaney waive exec privilege in his Nov 17 presser in which he stated there was pol influence in Trump decision to withhold aid to Uk?

A: Jeffries: No–he has never asserted exec privilege. Never asserted for any of the 17 witnesses. [more "phony arguments"] Mulvaney subpoenaed AFTER Oct 31….

 

Q: Sen from AK to both parties: What std of proof should be applied for impeachment? preponderance of evidence? beyond a reasonable doubt?

A: Lofgren: Nixon was preponderance (over 50%); Clinton no std articulate

A: Philbin: Constitution makes it clear that it's more like criminal than civil. Higher std. Prepondence std not sufficient. Must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Q: Sen from NJ to House mgr: On Jan 22, POTUS said we have all the material. Can it be concealed from Congress?

A: Jeffries: [back to blanket defiance]; shouldn't be concealed using "privilege" argument.

 

Q: From Sen from LA to POTUS team: What did Hunter Biden do for the money he earned from Burisma?

A: Bondi: he attended one or two Board mtgs a year. There was Norway on a fishing trip, two of Joe Biden's children, with Zlochevsky

 

Q: Schumer to both parties: House mgrs say POTUS demands absolute immunity while the other side disputes this.

A: Philbin: House mgrs muh blanket defiance argument: subpoenas til Oct 31 weren't validly authorized. But Mulvaney wasn't called til after that–WH team used different rationale (the idea that very senior advisors are immune). There was a different problem with others: that they were not allowed to bring an Exec branch counsel.

A: Lofgren: "we've received nothing." [stands on rejection of absolute immunity but ignores specific arguments made by Philbin].

 

Q: Senator from GA for both parties: You refuse to answer the q on political bias. Are the House mgrs refusing to tell the Senate whether or not the so called whistleblower had an actual conflict of interest?…Are they unwilling to say whether he was a fact witness?….And why did you refuse to transmit to the Senate the testimony of the Inspector Gen'l?

A: Schiff: Re ICIG Michael Atkinson: there's been an effort to insinuate wrong doing on his part. Not disclosed bc info is too "sensitive." ICIG found w "credible". For that, he is being attacked.

A: Sekulow: ICIG did see political bias on the part of the w. Schiff just talked about the process of controlling the process when it concerns sensitive info. Wouldn't this also apply to POTUS?

 

Q: Sen Manchin for both parties: Re impeachment under English law and no req't for law breaking. What has happened in the last 22 yrs to change the way we view impeachment?

A: Dershowitz: have changed my views, concluded that a crime is not req'd but criminal like behavior was req'd. But abuse of power / maladministration is not impeachable. No.

A: Nadler: defends abuse of power as meaning high crimes and misdemeanors. 3:03 PST