Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 6

PAGE 6

Q: Sen from IO to POTUS team House mgrs: Concerns about the narrowness of the vote/partisan nature well-founded?

A: 'Philbin: Yes. Most divisive type of impeachment. Purely partisan. House mgrs: can't allow voters to decide, bc they might make wrong decision.

Q: Sen from MD to both parties: Are u opposed to Chief Justice making rulings on witnesses/evidence?

A:Sekulow: Yes. It's a short circuit.

Q: Schiff: Sekulow says not constitutionally appropriate. Why not?…..same arguments as above)

Q: Sen from NC to House mgrs: Chris Heinz terminated bus relationship w/ Biden due to Burisma; do you agree?

A: Schiff: This is not the issue; the issue is Joe Biden and whether he was trying to protect his son, "and that is a baseless smear." it's bc Shokin was corrupt. Another sham is the Russian propaganda story re Crowdstrike….Russian propaganda coup (etc).

Q: Sen from OR to House mgrs: New reporting suggests that POTUS was granting favors to Erdogan (in exchange for….something). Is this part of a pattern?

A: Jeffries. Maybe but let's focus on Uk phone call. The word "corruption" was not used by Trump once…..(etc)

Q: Sen from ME to House mgrs: Why didn't the House pursue legal remedies to enforce its subpoenas (with e.g., Cupperman?

A: Schiff: On Cupperman, he challenged it. [It would take too much time.] Re Bolton: "You should ask him that question." [Why he said no??]

Q: Sen from HI to House mgrs: What happens to whistleblowers when we "out" them?

A: Schiff: He has no list of those who have experienced retaliation. Can't go public in intel, you can't. [Tries to make the case why not….]

Q: Sen from MI to POTUS team: What responsibility does POTUS have to save taxpayers $ & root out corruption?

A: Cippolone: Trump is committed to make sure $ is used wisely. And that burden sharing matters. 5:11 PS

Q: Sen from ME to POTUS team: Weird hypothetical about whether it would be ok to withhold foreign aid unless an Israeli leader agreed to come to US and charge his opponent with anti semitism?

A: Philbin: Q is irrelevant. Conflict of interest re HB being on board of Burisma concerns WERE raised. There has been NO investigation into this. 5:18 PST

Q: Sen Murkowski to POTUS team: Why should this body not call Amb. Bolton?

A: Philbin: House could have pursued Mr. Bolton, but they didn't. What kind of proceeding should Senate accept? Bad precedent to accept incomplete investigation from the House. Judges are different; handled by the cmte, not the body as a whole.

Q: Sen from HI for both parties: Can the President not admit that Sen King's (ME) hypothetical would be wrong?

A: Schiff: We have no problem saying just how wrong it would be.

Q: Philbin: If POTUS insisted that a foreign leader had to come here and lie, that would be wrong–but that's not this case.

Q: Sen from LA to POTUS team: Has Shokin's claim that he was fired due to investigation Burisma/HB been investigated?

A: Philbin: House did not investigate. And they can't point to anyone who has done so. Why not? Bc Rudy was (re Mueller) investigating in Nov 2018.

>>7973832

Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 7

PAGE 7

Q: Sen from MI to both parties: How would a verdict alter the balance of power betw the exec and legislative branches?

A: Cippolone: Acquittal would sent a positive message. Removing POTUS from the ballot in an election year will alter the balance of power for generations.

A: Schiff: We should take a week to hear from witnesses and let Chief Justice make calls on who. If we allow the POTUS to obstruct Congress, will "evicerate" oversite power of Congress. Will mean POTUS can do "whatever he wants." [doesn't exactly say the words "acquittal"; sounds like he's talking more about "no witness" process]

Q: Sen from SC to both parties: President "abused his power" bc he didn't follow the advice of his advisors. True?

A: Schiff: No. He engaged in corruption, to cheat in an election.

A: Cippolone. You're right. Article 2: POTUS was impeached bc he stood up for Congressional rights. Just look at the articles of impeachment.

Q: Sen from WV to both parties: Why shouldn't process show down & allow Chief Justice to give an opinion on Article 2?

A: Philbin: It won't slow down the process a little bit but a lot. Hamilton: it has to be swift. That's why all the prep needs to be done in the House.

A: Schiff: [shows absolute immunity slide–hard for non-lawyers to follow. Argues again for Chief Justice to make the call.]

Q: Sen from SC to POTUS team: Re Benghazi, where POTUS resisted for 2 years. Higher std applied to Trump?

A: Same is true with Fast & Furious, where Obama exercised Exec privilege. It's not the call of the Chief Justice to adjudicate serious decisions [wo/debate]. "Doesn't make the Constitution happy."

Q: Sen from OH to House mgrs: Re muh Russian conspiracy claims: [If acquitted, he'll continue]: Implications?

A: Crow: No indication that Uk was involved in 2016 (no it was Russia). [Suggests that POTUS is subject to Russian propaganda] 6:00 PST

Q: Sen from ND to POTUS team House mgrs: if House mgrs have really made their case, why the need for more witnesses?

A: Philbin: Yes "proved beyond any doubt" [supposedly]. Re muh Russia not muh Ukraine: Fiona Hall said some Uk officials bet on HRC winning the election; Politico article listed a lot of other officials; Financial Times too. No evidence? Just not true. Also: Schiff keeps saying POTUS team and DOJ differ re their position on litigation. Not true. [reads a doc from DOJ.]

Q: Sen from CT to House mgrs: Apr 24 2019, Jovanovish removed (day after Biden announced). Why did POTUS want to "take her out"?

A: Schiff: Rudy provided the answer–she'd get in the way of his investigations.

BREAK

Q: Sen from IO to POTUS team House mgrs: Re Atkinson testimony: do you believe this transcript would be helpful, if so–why? 6:26 PST

A: Philbin: "We have not been provided with that transcript." Not transmitted to House Jud Cmte and thus not transmitted. Although we don't see the need for more witnesses, if we did have them, he has info on whistleblower (truthfulness, etc). Definitely relevant.

Q: Sen from AL to House mgrs: Should the House have initiated a formal accommodations process after Res. 660?

A: Schiff: It was apparent WH was not interested. "My way or the highway."

Q: Sen from TN to POTUS team: Date of first contact between House Intel Cmte & whistleblower? How many times has that Cmte communicated with the w since then?

A: Philbin: We don't know. Nobody knows. Shrouded in secrecy. BUT if we had witnesses, we would go down that road. Re WH not interested in accommodation: reads ltr saying they were. "My way or the highway" – NO. "Partisan charade from the beginning."

Q: Sen from NV to House mgrs: Re Sondland stmt re phone call with POTUS with coupling of $ and investigations. Isn't that an example of quid pro quo?

A: Schill: Yes, it is. [confusing, complicated explanation….couldn't follow]

Q: Sen from Rubio to POTUS team: Does Congress have other means [short of impeachment] less damaging to our nation?

A: Yes. Constitution requires incremental steps with there's friction between the branches. Not jumping to impeachment. accommodations, other examples. Didn't happen here.

>>7973891

no yet

still have at least one more full page.

SOON.