Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 3
PAGE 3
some q's and answers were redundant. Didn't include stuff that was a complete rehash of previously made points.
Q: Sen from ID to POTUS team House mgrs: How many witnesses/clips/pgs of doc evidence have been presented in this [Senate] trial? 1:04 PST
A: Philbin: You've seen a lot of witnesses via slides. 17 witnesses, 192 vid clips, 28578 pages of docs submitted by Dems. You've seen the witnesses in the clips. House dems said they had an overwhelming case, everything "proven." We don't think that's true, but they've had sufficient evidence to make their case. Witnesses do not need to be live.
Q: Sen from AZ to POTUS team: Re Logan Act: will POTUS assure the public that private citizens will not be directed to conduct American foreign policy unless formally designated to do so? [obvious Rudy q]
A: Philbin: Ref to Giuliani. Rudy is just source of info, not conducting foreign policy; Uk officials asked for him as an info conduit. POTUS' policy is always to abide by the laws. Worth pointing out that many POTUS' have relied on trusted confidantes who were not actual gov't employees [gives examples].
Q: Sen from LA to Nadler and Philbin: If a POTUS asks for an investigation of a political rival under circumstances that objectively are in the national interest, should a POTUS be impeached if a majority of the House thinks he did it for the wrong reason?
A: Nadler: POTUS only wanted to smear a political rival. "That is so clear."
A: Philbin: No, the POTUS should not be impeached. Mixed-motive q again. Should he be impeached if there is some dispute about his motives? No. But House will have to show that the is NO legit basis for these investigations–"not a scintilla" of evidence. They know they can't get into a mixed-motive scenario.
Roberts now objects to specifying particular members of the teams
Q: Sen Durbin to House mgrs: Plz respond to POTUS' counsels to Sen Sinema's q:
A: Schiff: Philbin said Rudy was not conducting foreign policy. [S wants to say he WAS–a "startling admission"],
Q: Sen from AK to both parties: [Many actions are political.] Where is the line between permissable political actions and impeachable political actions?
A: Philbin: Motives of politicians are always somewhat political. Calling it "corrupt" when someone does something for a political advantage: if you start down that path, it's totally amorphous. Analyzing subjective motive–and using such motive as a basis for impeachment–is dangerous. The other party will always attribute bad motives.
A: Schiff. Public officials are always political animals.
Q: Sen Menendez to House mgrs: Re supposed Russian attack on 2020 elections: why should Americans be concerned about foreign interference? [also presumes POTUS wants it]
A:Crow: Let's outline the facts. None of the 17 witnesses thinks there's evidence to support the idea that it was Ukraine, not Russian that interference with 2016 election….more 'muh Russia'. Claims intel community has proven this.
Q: Sen from WI to both parties: Two hold-over NSC staffers were overheard saying they wanted to take out POTUS. One of them, Misko then joined Schiff's staff. What did your committee hire Shawn Misko and what role did he play in this investigation?
A: Schiff: "There have been a lot of attacks on my staff." It's a smear. ["shocked and appalled"–won't reveal anything leading to revealing id of whistleblower either–on and on about this]
A: Sekulow: Whistleblower issue is front and center; they are protected from retribution, but that doesn't guarantee them complete anonymity. We can't say it's not a relevant inquiry, about who was in communication with that person. 1:40 PST
Q: Sen from WA to House mgrs: If Presidents can ignore q's from Congress, how do we make sure any admin is following the law and acting "in the best interests of American families"?
A: Garcia: Allowing POTUS to resist Congressional subpoenas: if we ignore Article 2, this gives future Presidents the power to ignore Congressional requests for information.
Q: Sen from AK to POTUS team: Senate has same info House did [well not quite but close–ed]. If it was enough to impeach, why not enough for Senate trial?
A: Philbin: This evidence is not complete but if House says it is, should be sufficient….responding to the idea that POTUS was a pawn of Putin: Obviously not true. Many countries could try to interfere in elections. It's not a "binary world" (Russia or Ukraine).