Anonymous ID: 6aae9a Jan. 30, 2020, 4:07 p.m. No.7970912   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0944 >>0978 >>0979 >>1030

repost from earlier, not in notes

Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 1

PAGE 1

with RAND PAUL's UNKNOWN QUESTION (re CIARAMELLA) ADDED

Also: some q's and answers were redundant. Didn't include stuff that was a complete rehash of previously made points.

 

Q: Sen from WA to POTUS team House mgrs: House didn't reissue subpoenas; why is that ok? 10:08 PST

A: Lofgren: These were validly-issused subpoenas. [!] House cmte's are allowed to issue subpoenas. [She is arguing against the idea that a full vote is first necessary–also, that there was some kind of authorization from the beginning.] Thus, the obstruction charge is valid.

 

Q: Sen from KY to both parties: ["The presiding officer declines to read the Q as submitted"]

[WOW. Wonder what that Q was???….Later it came out: From Ron Paul: "Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings."

 

Q: Sen from WI to House mgrs: Re date the hold on assistance was issued, what witness could answer this?

A: Crow: think there is info in a Bolton and Blair email. Shows a slide called "Ukraine Knew about the Hold." at 10:18 PST. [makes lots of claims made about who might have known, watch this clip to see what they were.]

 

Q: Sen from PA to POTUS team: How much weight should Senate give to impeachment of POTUS, in that it is happening in an election year?

A: Sekulow: This is really taking the vote away from the American people.

 

Q: Sen Tester to POTUS team House mgrs: Any limit to the quid pro quo as long as POTUS believes is in the national interest?

A: Schiff: No. "What we have seen in the last two days is a descent into Constitutional madness." [He implies the quid pro quo would necessarily be "corrupt."] "that is the normalization of lawlessness."

 

Q: Sen from ND to POTUS team: Is the first innocent defendant NOT to waive his rights?

A: Philbin: House mgrs say that POTUS asserting his rights is "not the way innocent people act." This is fundamentally antithetical to all the principles of the American system.

 

Q: Sen from AL to House mgrs: Which provisions in House rules justifies the issuance of subpoenas issed by cmte's prior to Res. 660? Also plz list subpoenas issued afterwards?

A: [Quickly reads list of 6 subpoenas. Rule 10 allows it, he says. Then goes off on a long irrelevant hypothetical and other irrelevancies.]

 

Q: Sen from TX to both parties: VP Biden said he didn't know anything about son's dealings with Burisma but that was contradicted by Hunter. Why the conflict in story? Did House either one that question?

A: Bondi: summarizes HB's involvement. Everyone knows head of B is corrupt. But Joe Biden never asked his son to leave the board. [lots of detail].

A: Demmings: [ducks the q; but says we have no evidence that either Biden has anything to tell us about POTUS shaking down Ukraine. But who does know? Bolton (etc)

 

Q: Sen from NV to House mgrs: If POTUS was personally profiting from his actions, what precedent does that set? 10:50 PST

A: Crow: Will call into q our broader alliances. Shows clips of POTUS calling for looking at the Bidens. Call Bolton to testify.

 

Q: Sen from OH to POTUS team: House mgrs often cite Turley; but didn't Turley oppose impeachment (etc)?

A: Philbin: Yes, Turley was very critical of both articles, neither of which has ever been used alone wo/violations of law.

 

Q: Sen from OH to House mgrs: Re offers of help from foreign actors being acceptable; what message does that send?

A: Jeffries: sends a terrible message. [he was "shocked"]. More of the same…..illegal to receive "anything of value…"

 

Q: Sen from MO to POTUS team: Courts have held that it's ok for a fed public officer to "condition" his official acts on the acts of another public officer?

A: Philbin: there is no application in this case, bc there's no evidence of quid pro quo.

 

Q: Sen from OR to House mgrs: Any evidence that Barr, Mulvaney or Pompeo with in the loop re obstruction of Congress?

A: Sondland said "everyone" was in the loop. Cites others & slows slide she thinks shows they were all in on the "scheme." 11:14 PST

 

Q: Sen from SD to POTUS team: Should we take into acct the partisan nature of House proceedings?

A: Cipollone: Absolutely. Horrible consequences that would tear apart the country for generations.

Anonymous ID: 6aae9a Jan. 30, 2020, 4:08 p.m. No.7970944   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0977 >>0978 >>0979 >>0995 >>1030

>>7970912

repost

Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 2

PAGE 2

some q's and answers were redundant. Didn't include stuff that was a complete rehash of previously made points.

 

Q:' Sen from ? (sounds like "Orian") to both parties: Who's paid for Rudy's legal fees and other expenses?

A: Schiff: I don't know, but "it raises profound q's." Implies that Rudy is saying America is now "open for business."

A: Sekulow: I'll tell you who's opening for business–Biden's son. [says focus on Rudy is misplaced]. Also read ltr showing that "foreign investigations" are done all the time.

 

Q: Sen from OK to POTUS team: 2020 pattern of funds allocation to Uk was the same as in previous years (done in Sept). Why ok previously and not this year?

A: Philbin. No damage. [Explains how effects of "pause" were in no way untoward.]

 

Q: Sen from HA to House mgrs: What was different about this withholding of aid?

A: Schiff: [tries to make the point that is WAS different, DID cause problems]. Wants Congress to be informed. Can't condition aid for a "corrupt purpose."

 

Q: Sen from AR to both parties: How would acquitting the POTUS prevent voters from making an informed decision in the election?

A: Cipollone: Yes, voters should decide. BTW, they are still impeaching in the House.

A: Schiff: Must be removed bc he is seeking to cheat in the next election. 11:45 PST

 

Q: Sen from VA to House mgrs: If POTUS is acquitted on Article 2, what stops him from failing to cooperate in the future?

A: POTUS places himself above the law. He's a threat to the American people.

 

Q: Sen from FL to POTUS team: If House dems were so confident, why did they deny POTUS/atty's their procedural rights?

A: Cipollone: Agrees they don't seem very confident. C went to visit with Schiff and others earlier and said they would cooperate–unless what they want violates the Constitution.

 

Q: Sen from OR to House mgrs: Not legal to "outsource" what we cannot do. So why is asking Uk to investigate something not an abuse of power?

A: It IS an abuse of power…."POTUS is standing side by side with Vladimir Putin."…

 

Q: Sen from IN to POTUS team: Pls respond to claim that the country must be "saved" from this President.

A: Herschmann: American people are very happy with economy, etc; POTUS has high approval rating. What's really going on: POTUS is a threat to them….summarizes POTUS' achievements [sounds just like POTUS rally!] Really INSPIRING, worth a listen.

 

Q: Sen from CO to House mgrs: If Senate accepts the idea of "blanket assertion of privilege" what are the consequences to the American people?

A: Nadler: Privileges are limited. There was no info given to Congress. POTUS: Claim of "anarchical dictatorial power." Leads to "total dictatorship." [LOTS of lies and distractions here.]

 

Q: Sen from GA to POTUS team House mgrs: Plz summarize due process violations. Are they the "fruit of the poisonous tree"?

A: Philbin: This entire proceeding is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Shouldn't be happening. Addresses earlier issue re House as a whole delegating power to cmte's, noting that the Constitution gives power to the House NOT to cmte's or to the Speaker. Rule 10 speaks to legislative authority, not to impeachment. [further enumerates 3 key problems–worth a look]. 12:17 PST

 

Q: Sen from IL to House mgrs: Is hold documented w/evidence?

A: Crow: [says what the process should look like–key idea, it should include Congress]. Bolton can provide additional info.

 

Q: Sen from ME to both parties: Are there legit circumstances under which POTUS could request investigative help from another country?

A: Schiff: Initially says no. Then: maybe for the DOJ. then goes back to mixed-motives, saying it's not ok. [he means when motive is corrupt]

A: Philbin: on call, POTUS is asking about Shokin being fired. That's not necessarily calling for an investigation into Biden and his son. Re legitimacy, yes there are circumstances. 12:31 PST

 

Q: Sen from Schumer to both parties: Re absolute immunity: Philbin did not answer the Q: can you name a single witness or doc turned over to cmte?

A: Philbin: It was no absolute defiance: no docs produced to invalid subpoenas and no subpoenas were responded to for senior officials or for testimony wo/agy counsel (not constititional). Still–there was testimony from 17 witnesses plus an 18th witness whose testimony is still secret.

A: Schiff: we need to address the motive–which was corrupt. Ask Bolton.

 

BREAK