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.