Peach Mint Two day Q & A 1-29-20 thru 1-30-20

==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 1==
PAGE 1
Did the best i could to be accurate but it goes fast and Roberts doesn't always state clearly who is asking the q. Apologizing in advance for misspelling any names.

__'''Mitch McConnell intro''' 10:15 PST
Answers must be 5 mins or less

'''Q:''' Murkowski, Romney to WH team: how to consider more than one motive re Article 1 (abuse of power)
'''A:''' Philbin: House's theory of abuse of power, that motives will be subjective alone, is not valid. Their own std: must be no legit public purpose. House: no public interest in investigating the Bidens. Mixed-motive situation: as soon as it's mixed, impossible to break down percentages. Must be NO public interest; otherwise, their case fails. 10:21.
'''A:'''

'''Q:''' Dem leader asks of the House mgrs: Any way to render a verdict wo/hearing witnesses & seeing docs?
'''A:''' Schiff: Short answer, no. John Bolton too relevant to turn him away. If any part of the POTUS' motive was a corrupt motive, that's enough to convict. Re q of motive: must ask Bolton. July 26, day after phone call, POTUS' q to Sondland: "is he going to do investigations?"  Burden sharing didn't get raised, which is why we need to hear from Bolton. "If you have any q about it, you can erase all doubt."

'''Q:''' Someone [POTUS' team?] wants response to previous Q from POTUS' counsel
'''A:'' Philbin: POTUS WAS interested burden sharing. It's in the call itself. Re testimony from Bolton: Real q is precedent that will be set re Senate impeachments? They didn't even subpoena Bolton in the House. Will drag on for months--new precedent. House doesn't do the work, Senate must do.

'''Q:''' Senator from Mass (Markey).:  Did House ask Bolton to testify [clarification]
'''A:''' Schiff: Yes--and Bolton refused. When we raised subpoena w/Bolton, he said he would sue. DOJ refused. [Hammers on the point that this is a "trial" and must have witnesses. Schiff always adds moar stuff that's not relevant, not recording his propaganda here.]

'''Q:''' Sen from Tenn: have House mgrs met their evidentiary burden for removal?
'''A:''' Philbin: An impeachment = accusation. Lower std than Senate. House left out key facts.

'''Q:''' Sen Feinstein asks House mgrs: Did POTUS ever link security assistance to any investigations?
'''A:''' Crow: [lists 4 examples he thinks show a link]. Subpoena Bolton and ask that question.

'''Q:''' Sen Lee asks POTUS team: House mgrs say POTUS' actions contravene US foreign policy. Isn't that his place to set foreign policy?
'''A:''' Philbin: That authority is vested solely in the POTUS bc he's directly accountable to be people, unlike staffers.

'''Q:''' Sen from NH (Shaheen) to House mgrs: Necessary for POTUS to break the law to be removed?
'''A:''' Garcia: NO. Plain text of Constitution does not require. Requires abuse of some public trust.

'''Q:''' Sen from LA (Kennedy) to House mgrs & POTUS team: Why did House not challenge POTUS claims of exec privilege during House proceedings?
'''A:''' Jeffries (House mgr): Bc the POTUS never raised the q of exec privilege, just raised issue of "blanket defiance" of subpoenas. [says it's the assertion of "absolute immunity"]
'''A:''' Philbin: Blanket defiance = incorrect. Subpoenas were invalid; many ltrs from OMB, State Dept etc stated that.  Specific legal reasons were given which the House did not take to court.  11:06 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from VT (Leahy) asks House mgrs: Did this POTUS really treat Ukraine more favorably than precedessors?
'''A:''' Demings: Obama admin promised in 2014 that we would be there for them....All the [current] aid has not yet arrived, req'd additional action by Congress (?). [pretty incoherent]

'''Q:''' Sen from TX (Cruz): Does it matter legally if there was quid pro quo?
'''A:''' Dershowitz: NO. Not unlawful. 3 possible motives: in public interest, own political interest, own financial interest. Candidates run for office bc they believe it's in the public interest.  Also, everybody has mixed motives; dangerous basis for impeachment. Notes that House mgrs do not allege a financial interest. 11:16 PST

'''Q:''' Schumer sends a question for House mgrs: Please respond to previous q.
'''A:''' Schiff: Disputes that it's not ok to look at state of mind/intent. Ok to ask if he's operating from a corrupt motive. Brings up Obama's open mic w/Medvedyev. [complete fantasy!] Ok to condition pmt but not if motive is corrupt.

////////////
==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 2==
PAGE 2

'''Q:''' Grassely send a q for House mgrs: Does the House's failure to enforce its subpoenas make their approach unprecented?
'''A:''' Philbin: YES. In past impeachments, everything was litigated before Senate trial. They can't have it both way. To resolve the impasse with the Exec branch, they have to go to court. Not to jump to impeach.

'''Q:''' Sen from Michigan (Stabenow): House mgrs want to correct the record on any mischaracterizations from POTUS team?
'''A:''' Lofgren: claims Z WAS pressured (etc). POTUS appeared to be "pursing a corruption"--hard to follow bc of bad logic)

'''Q:''' Sen from Arkansas (  ): Did the House bother to seek testimony in the month it held up the impeachment articles?
'''A:''' NO. They filed no lawsuits.

'''Q:''' Sen from NM (  ) to House mgrs: Plz address argument that decision to remove the POTUS should be left to 2020 election.
'''A:''' Schiff: Impeachment is to protect the country. We're not saying we had to hurry to impeach POTUS b4 next election but bc he was trying to cheat in that election.

'''Q:''' Sen from Ohio ( ) to POTUS team: Implications of allowing House to present an incomplete case to the Senate?
'''A:''' Philbin: House mgrs: how can you have a trial wo/witnesses? You don't show up at a trial trying to call witnesses for the first time. A trial would slow down the regular work of the Senate for months. House didn't make a complete case in the first place--if we allow them to do this--to have the Senate do investigatory work--this sets a dangerous precedent. We shouldn't make partisan, half-baked impeachments a normal thing.

'''Q:''' Sen from ( ) (Hirono?) for House mgrs: Isn't it true that depositions in Clinton case were done quickly?
'''A:''' Jeffries: Can be done quickly.  "This is a trial, a trial involves witnesses...docs...evidence." Why should this be different? Brings up Bolton.

'''Q:''' Sen from TX (Cornyn) to POTUS team: Consequences to POTUS if Senate seeks to resolve claims re exec privilege wo/any determination by an Article 3 court?
'''A:''' Candid advice matters; conversations must be confidential.  That's why there is an accomodations process.  John Bolton is Natl Sec Advisor--highly secret info. That's why the exec privilege may be absolute. That privilege must be protected.  Very serious issue. 11:59 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from HA (Schatz) to House mgrs: Is there evidence to substantiate the claim of natl security interest? Has such evidence been presented by POTUS team?
'''A:''' Crow: NSC, Natl Sec Advisor are there to review what happened. "Those agencies were in the dark." POTUS violated Impoundment Control Act "to execute his scheme."

'''Q:''' Sen from S Carolina (Graham) to House mgrs: If Obama had evidence that Romney's son were being paid $1m per year by a corrupt Russian company, and Romney had acted to benefit that company, would Obama have authority to ask that this be investigated?
'''A:''' Schiff: Hypothecal is off bc it presumes that Obama was acting corruptly [dif than with Trump]. To target a political adversary is wrong, period. It's impeachable.

'''Q:''' Sen from Michigan (Peters) to House mgrs: "Higher crimes and misdemeanors": reqs breaking the law or just breaking public trust?
'''A:''' Lofgren: [goes off into a general discussion of the abuse of power....] Does she ever answer the q? Prior impeachments focused on corruption and violating public trust. Can be non criminal.

'''Q:''' Sen from (  )(him & Murkowski) for POTUS dems: Why are subpoenas before passage of measure 660 invalid?
'''A:''' No authority bc no vote from the House floor.

'''Q:''' Sen from Penn direted to house mgrs: What are the duties of a public servant and how POTUS actions have violated the public trust?
'''A:''' Nadler: [glittering generalities, no facts just opinion.] Exec privilege question: cannot be used to hide wrongdoing. Mentions Bolton again. "I will defy all subpoenas...in other words, I am absolute. Claims of absolute power."

'''Q:''' Sen from Kansas (Roberts) to POTUS team: plz respond to previous q.
'''A:''' Sekulow: Re witnesses: all witnesses had been called/deposed before (not new). Suppose Schiff were called? What would happen?  Re hypotheticals (see Schiff). Fusion GPS situation: basis for FISA warrants against a rival campaign. We don't need hypotheticals, this happened.

'''Q:''' Sen Harris for House mgrs: Article 2 gives me the right to do whatever i want. Show POTUS think's he's above the law. If we let him get away with this, how would it impact our integrity?
'''A:''' Schiff: POTUS identifies the state as being himself. He's not a king.

//////////////

==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]

//////////////
==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

///////////////
==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 5==
PAGE 5

'''Q:''' Sen Burr  from NC for POTUS team: House mgrs want to say that Mulvaney supported their his quid pro quo claims in his presser. What supports that?
'''A:''' Purpura: Mulvaney issued 2 stmts: one after presser and one after NYT article on Bolton book came out. Presser stmt: no quid pro quo. [there's more] Second stmt: Jan 27: Bob Driscoll, Mulvaney's atty: Bolton never conveyed concerns to Mulvaney. Nor did M converse with POTUS about quid pro quo re Biden investigation; does not recall talking to Rudy about this either.

'''Q:''' Senator from MD for both parties: What did Bolton mean re "whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this"? Ever raised in a mtg with Trump?
'''A:''' Schiff: [see Hill testimony; very complex and longwinded story]. Bring Bolton is and he can tell you.
'''A:''' Philbin: This comment is hearsay; there are conflicting accts. Hill vs Sondland.  Not going to speculate.

'''Q:''' Sen from ND for POTUS team: Aid was released to Uk in Sept 2019. Did the Uk govt ultimately meet any of the House-alleged reqt's to receive the aid?
'''A:''' Purpura: Aid was never conditioned upon investigations done on the Bidens.

'''Q:''' Sen from VA for House mgrs: Additional info on Rudy's "conspiracy theories"? Should Senate have this info?
'''A:''' Schiff: See Virginia Williams testimony. There's some other info. 3rd category is from NSA; they are advised not to provide it. Is intel community withholding info due to influence of POTUS? 6:19 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from AL for POTUS mgrs: Dif between maladministration and abuse of power? What is the line between a policy disgreement and an impeachable offense?
'''A:''' Dershowitz: Rejection of maladmin as ground for impeachment bc it's too vague. Gives Congress too much power. [See is comments on Laurence Tribe.] So the Founders struck a balance between mentioning specific crimes and "high crimes and misdemeanors." [Dersh changed his mind based on what he sees w/impeachment of current POTUS.] Abuse of power" as a criteria [is unacceptable].

'''Q:''' Sen from MN for House mgrs:  Senate has wide discretion but must have a constitutionally fair trial. Do we need witnesses for it to be fair?
'''A:''' Schiff: Yes.....then a response to Dersh (above), who previously saw abuse of power as a valid reason for impeachment.  Thinks D was correct previously not now. 4:00 PST

==DINNER BREAK==
==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 5==
PAGE 6

'''Q:''' Sen from AZ to POTUS team: Do the articles of impeachment accuse the President of bribery or extortion?
'''A:''' No. You can't introduce it at this point, either. In a regular trial, it would be an instant mistrial. 4:33 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from Udall NM to POTUS team: Should Ivanka & Jared Kushner's foreign interests also be subjected to same scrutiny as Hunter Biden's?
'''A:''' Demings:  Irrelavant what children do. We're here coz POTUS tried to shake down a foreign gov't.

'''Q:''' Sen from ID to POTUS team: Do evidence show Burisma/Biden investigation would help stop corruption?
'''A:''' Philbin: Yes. HB appted w/no experience. Appt raised red flags at the time [cites examples--Wapo etc]. Reminder of VP Biden's ultimatum.

'''Q:''' Sen from Illinois to House mgrs: same q as above
'''A:''' Garcia: POTUS only looked into corruption after VP Biden announced his run for office of POTUS.

'''Q:''' Sen from SC to POTUS team: What agy has debunked Burisma/Biden corruption?
'''A:''' Herschmann: NONE. There is no evidence of that, no testimony. House mgrs just say "it was debunked."

'''Q:''' Sen from OR to POTUS team: Plz clarify your answer on Bolton manuscript
'''A:''' Philbin: NSC conducted book review not us.

'''Q:''' Sen from AK to : there has been conflicting testimony about how long the trial would take w/witnesses?
'''A:''' Sekulow: a long time. Months. They put this forward in an aggressive and fast paced way--and now want witnesses.

'''Q:''' Sen from NJ to House mgrs: POTUS gave $ to Ukraine previously (2017-2018), why concerned about corruption in 2019?
'''A:''' Crow: He wasn't--it was just political.

'''Q:''' Sen from WI  to POTUS team: Why shouldn't the Senate take the speedy route, just like the House?
'''A:''' Sekulow: That's the issue. His Q: new norm for impeachment? Very dangerous precedent. "We have enough evidence to prove our case--but not really."

'''Q:''' Sen from Schumer to House mgrs: same q
'''A:''' Schiff: It's the POTUS team that will make the trial endless, not us. "I trust the man behind me" (Roberts). 5:10 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from LA to both parties: Nadler said previously that there should never be a partisan impeachment. Does this impeachment typify that?
'''A:''' Philbin: YES. That is clearly what it is turning into. Every President will be impeached.
'''A:''' Jeffries: Evidence is overwhelming that President abused his power.......

'''Q:''' Sen from VT to House mgrs: POTUS' lawyers say, no quid pro quo; but given all his lies, why should we believe POTUS?
'''A:''' Schiff:  [Says POTUS tries to shake down Z even when others were listening bc he believes he's above the law]. False denial. [Calls POTUS "the accused."]

'''Q:''' Sen from CO to POTUS team: Isn't the assertion of executive privilege an indicator of guilt? What protects Exec Privilege in the future?
'''A:''' Philbin: Not evidence of guilt. Also, exec privilege doesn't disappear just bc there's an assertion of wrongdoing. Dems' theory is dangerous to separation of powers.

'''Q:''' Sen from MA to House mgrs: If Z gave bribery $ to POTUS, that would be impeachable; why not the reverse?
'''A:''' Nadler: claims it's been shown.
'''A:''' Philbin. Bribery or extortion is not at issue here. Impermissable, prosecutorial misconduct.

''Q:''' Sen from KS to POTUS team: Can Chief Justice be subject to judicial review?
'''A:''' Philbin: subpoenas would have to be issued, then Senate would have to decide how to handle. Then when resolved, admissability of particular evidence would be next. Votes would be needed. Chief Justice would not determine. Chief Justice could make initial rulings but that's not enough.

///////////////////////
==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 7==
Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020
>>7957050 page 1, >>7957159 page 2, >>7958547 page 3, >>7958548 page 4, >>7958872 page 5, >>7960269 page 6
PAGE 7

'''Q:''' Sen from MN to House mgrs: If POTUS' actions were perfect, why won't he allow people to testify?
'''A:''' Schiff: Bc he doesn't want you to hear what they have to say. Also disputes what Philbin just said in previous.

'''Q:''' Sen from NE to POTUS team: What are the limiting principles of impeachment?
'''A:''' Cippolone: Golden role of impeachment - should NOT be partisan, it's the overturning of an election. Also shouldn't happen near an election. If process is unprecented, that should be a consideration--along with violation of historical precedents that allow POTUS rights like ability to call witnesses, etc. ["Have we got a deal for you!"]

''Q:''' Sen from IL to House mgrs: If POTUS invoked exec privilege, wouldn't he be forced to identify sensitive material that he seeks to protect?
'''A:''' Nadler: exec privilege is very limited; he's has instead claimed absolute immunity. Facts: he tried to extort a foreign gov't. "Those are the facts." What Hunter Biden did is irrelevant. Things like this are a diversion. "The president is a danger to the US, he's tried to rig our elections." 5:50 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from UT to POTUS team: On what date did POTUS submit a hold on security assistance to Uk and did he explain his reason at that time?
'''A:''' Philbin: No evidence of a specific date. Testimony that OMB individuals were aware by July 3. From start of June, he'd expression concern about burden sharing. [timeline layed out.]   5:57 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from NV to House mgrs: Describe due process during House proceedings. Was POTUS unfairly excluded?
'''A:''' Demings: POTUS is not the victim here. Victim is the American people. POTUS was invited to attend and participate in all of the hearings. Could have had Cippolone, Sekulow or any other rep participate--attend the hearings--and cross-examined witnesses, raised objections, and present evidence. Could have requested to have POTUS' own witnesses called. But POTUS refused and tried to obstruct.

''Q:''' Sen from AK to House mgrs: After Cippolone said subpoenas were not authorized in early Oct, why didn't House address the deficiencies or reissue the subpoenas when they would have been valid?
'''A:''' These arguments are a red herring. House gets to decide how to structure its impeachment process, its rules. House is entitled to get info from Executive for that proceeding. There is no req't for the full House to take a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.  6:06 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from OH to POTUS team: Addresses an earlier Q - WH counsel refused to answer a direct q saying he could only cite to the record but later read articles from outside the House record. So again: did POTUS ever mention the Bidens in connection to Ukraine before VP Biden announced his campaign in April 2019? What did he say, to whom and when?
'''A:''' Philbin: did not evade the question. House mgrs had said they would object if we would introduce anything outside or record and/or public domain. Q was answered to the best of his ability. But wants to counter the claim made by Garcia above that there is no req't for a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. This is a fundamental rule of the House for any kind of inquiry, power flows from the House to its cmte's.

'''Q:''' Sen from MI to both parties: Did VP Biden ever ask Hunter to step down from Burisma? [longer]
'''A:''' Philbin: We're not aware of this. We're aware that concerns were raised. No ethics opinion was issued. Biden said he never discussed his son's business dealings overseas.
'''A:''' Demings: Shokin was widely considered to be corrupt. Yovanovich WAS anti-corruption. Cites Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau. 6:17 PST

''Q:''' Sen King to House mgrs: Doesn't POTUS' mention of Giuliani establish the real purpose of the call?
'''A:''' Nadler: Rudy was the gatekeeper in POTUS' pressure campaign. [cites supposed examples of meddling/pressuring].  Rudy focused specifically on two individuals. He represents the interests of the POTUS.

'''Q:''' Sen from FL to POTUS team: How would American people view a partisan impeachment?
'''A:'''  Dershowitz: The criteria set out  - THERE IS NO LAW (Maxine Waters). This is lawless. Intent vs motive. 3 levels of motives: pure, corrupt, mixed. Good for me, good for the country.

/////////////////////////
==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020: page 8==
Peach Mint Highlights: Wed Jan 29 2020
>>7957050 page 1, >>7957159 page 2, >>7958547 page 3, >>7958548 page 4, >>7958872 page 5, >>7960987 page 6, >>7961001 page 8
PAGE 8

'''Q:''' Sen from MN to House mgrs: In a recent judge's impeachment trial there were 26 witnesses, why no witnesses for POTUS' trial?
'''A:''' Schiff: there is no difference.....[S goes back to muh Russia in 2016 and muh China, muh Ukraine for 2020]. The case for witnesses for a POTUS is more compelling than for a LA judge. 6:35 PST

''Q:''' Sen from MT to POTUS team: 8 judges have been removed but never a POTUS; how different?
'''A:''' Dershowitz: POTUS IS the executive. POTUS runs for office every 4 yrs unlike judges. POTUS serves at the pleasure of the voters.

'''Q:''' Sen from DE to POTUS team: POTUS has said he would listen to info from foreigners that would help him in an election, isn't this illegal?
'''A:''' Philbin: involvement of foreigners: mainly applies to contributions, not information. 6:43 PST

==BREAK==

7:08 PST
'''Q:''' Sen from GA  to POTUS team: As a fact witness coordinating with the whistleblower, did Mgr Schiff's handling of impeachment inquiry create a material due process issue for the POTUS to have a fair trial?
'''A:'''  Philbin: Yes. Lack of authorization; lack of basic due process protections;  consulting with whistleblower (staff). Hasn't been probed, all attempts to find out were shut down. There were indicators of political bias. Was w involved in Burisma situation? BC Mgr Schiff was involved, creates a major due process defect. 7:12.

''Q:''' Sen from Mi to House mgrs: Does an impeachable abuse of power require that a corrupt plan actually succeeds?
'''A:''' Lofgren. No. Like attempted murder.....he continues to act in this manner, Rudy continued this scheme.

'''Q:''' Sen from WY to POTUS team: Can the Senate convict a sitting Pres. of obstruction of Congress?
'''A:''' Philbin: No. Obstruction of Congress charge presumes that President [must give them what they want wo/resistance] or he's obstructing Congress--and that it's impeachable. Separation of Powers means there's friction between the branches.

'''Q:''' Sen from CT to House mgrs: Isn't it true that accepting info from a foreign power is a violation of law? Isn't it foreign interference?
'''A:''' Schiff: muh Russia lies about 2016 election; he's claiming it's not collusion but a criminal conspiracy. That's why Mueller didn't address. Everything the POTUS wants to do is ok, as long as it leads to his election

''Q:''' Sen Collins from ME to House mgrs: House mgrs claim that POTUS committed certain criminal offenses but there aren't cited in the articles. Why not included?
'''A:''' Jeffries: [They are basically included in the "corruption" change....tries to make a quid pro quo again.]

'''Q:''' Sen from NY to House mgrs: How it this hold different from others & how's it supposed to work?
'''A:''' Crow: Not a routine withholding, didn't go thru that routine process. Says Obama notified Congress of holds unlike Trump. No legit policy reason for that.

'''Q:''' Sen from MI to POTUS team: What does the super-majority say about the std of proof and type of case to be brought?
'''A:''' Dershowitz: Senate was seen as more mature/sober. Plainly designed to avoid partisanship. To get 2/3, you move beyond partisanship.

''Q:''' Sen from CT to POTUS team: Will you make a commitment not to appeal any decisions made by the Chief Justice?
'''A:'''  Sekulow: No, bc it's not part of the Constitutional design. First surrender your rights, then we'll [make concessions]

'''Q:''' Sen from MS to Dershowitz: What specific danger does this impeachment pose to our country?
'''A:''' Dershowitz: Most divisive time in our history now. Extraordinarily dangerous times. If POTUS is removed today, the decision would not be accepted by many people. Such vague (etc) criteria. Would be the first in a recurring weaponization of impeachment.

'''Q:''' Sen from AZ to POTUS team: Unlike other holds, with this hold, POTUS didn't notify Congress or notify Ukraine of the steps needed to resolve the hold, why not?
'''A:''' Philbin: Wasn't being done to send a signal, POTUS wanted to understand what was going on (mainly whether there was corruption). Ukraine was always making progress.

==END OF LIVE FEED==
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

''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.

////////////////

''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==

//////////////////


==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).

///////////////////////////

==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 4==
PAGE 4
 *some q's and answers were redundant. Didn't include stuff that was a complete rehash of previously made points.*

'''Q:''' Sen from VT to House mgrs: What would stop a POTUS from withholding aid to a city that does not endorse him [or some other partisan act]?
'''A:'''Jeffries: [quid pro quo again, then grandstanding not facts....totally redundant]

'''Q:''' Sen from LA to both parties, ideally mgr Lofgren:  How would Lofgren respond to Jeffries ducking q on why she changed her view since 1996?
'''A:''' Cippolone: Agrees 100% with Lofgren 1996....addresses Schiff's saying he won't put up with people asking "who communicated with the whistleblower?"
'''A:''' Lofgren: During Clinton impeachment, compared what had been done with Nixon. Clinton lied but it was personal, not impeachable. Never thought we would be in a 3rd impeachment [but says nothing about it!].

'''Q:''' Sen from WV to POTUS team House mgrs: Have you ever been in any trial where you were not allowed to call witnesses, etc.?
'''A:''' Demings: "Truly baffles me" why not allowed.
'''A:''' Cippolone''': House mgrs ran this process in the House. And they didn't allow the Repubs to have any witnesses. Reminding us of Mueller investigation: LOT of stuff was produced. What did the House do? Wanted a do-over. When House doesn't like the outcome, they keep investigating. 2:15 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from UT to POTUS team House mgrs: Under the stds used here, wouldn't Obama have been subject to impeachment?
'''A:''' Cippolone: These stds are so lacking that any act might be impeachable. Current process is dangerous, especially in an election year.

'''Q:''' Sen from MI to both parties: Moar on receiving help from foreign nationals. How dangerous is this?
'''A:''' Philbin: a "thing of value" refers [mainly?] to violations of campaign contributions law. Not about information. Credible info is not prohibited.
'''A:''' Schiff: It WAS valuable [ignores legal def of "value" above]. Moar "muh Russia".

'''Q:''' Sen from SC to both parties: Why is the legal std for investigation Trump so much lower than the std for investigating Biden?
'''A:''' Schiff: IG found that investigation was sufficiently predicated. Does this justify POTUS' "embrace of Russian propaganda"? "The one does not follow from the other."
'''A:''' Sekulow: To Schiff: "You make so light of what the FBI did!"  2:30 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from IL to both parties: [about funds potentially expiring]
'''A:''' Philbim: OMB letter was encouraging DoD to get ready to obligating the funds: funds were released on time on Sept 11, and some funds didn't get out in time (but this happens every year).
'''A:''' Crow: Denies Philbin, says "here are the facts." [Makes it sound especially complicated/difficult.] "Every delay in combat matters." [said although it was for future funding, kek.]

'''Q:''' Sen from WY to POTUS team: Is it normal for POTUS to go direct to another leader when [usual] process has been unsuccessful in the past? 2:38 PST
'''A:''' Philbin: Yes. He is vested with that authority.

'''Q:''' Sen from MA to House mgrs: Re Chief Justice presiding over the Senate trial where Repubs have so far refused to allow witnesses/evidence: does this contribute to a loss of legitmacy in the Chief Justice/SCOTUS/Constitution?
'''A:''' Schiff: [sucks up to Roberts, then goes into story telling mode....]

'''Q:''' Sen from AL to POTUS team: House mgrs have stated that POTUS' actions constitute criminal bribery; can be reconciled with the McDonald case?
'''A:''' Philbin: House mgrs did not charge bribery in Article; they can't now charge it.

'''Q:''' Sen from VA to House mgrs: Claim that intell agys (etc) support "muh Russia." Ok for POTUS to accept info from Russia, China etc as long as he thinks it's credible?
'''A:''' Schiff: No....[tries to say what POTUS did was "akin" to bribery] POTUS conduct "violated our bribery laws, as it understood by the Framers."

//////////////////////////////////

==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 5==
PAGE 5
 *some q's and answers were redundant. Didn't include stuff that was a complete rehash of previously made points.*

'''Q:''' Sen from OK to POTUS team: Will House mgrs ever see the Trial is fair?
'''A:''' Sekulow. The answer is no. They will not agree it is fair. If goes to witnesses and docs, is will go on [indefinitely] and when the Senate says it must be brought to an end, the House mgrs will say it was unfair. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: "that process was so tainted." The taint gets worse over time, not better. There HAVE been witnesses, btw. Will only be enough if they get a conviction, has been going on for 3 years. They said "overwhelming" "proved" 63 times. 3:03 PST

'''Q:''' Sen from DE to House mgrs: Was the process of holding aid to Uk really normal?
'''A:''' Crow: Didn't adhere to process for doing a hold. Subpoena Bolton.

'''Q:''' Sen from NC to both parties: HRC/DNC hired a fo spy to work with Russian contacts to build a dossier of opposition research against Trump; by the House mgrs' standard, would the Steele Dossier be considered a violation of the law/an impeachable offense?
'''A:''' Jeffries. The analogy is not application. Real issue is the avoidance of facts. Says everything present by other side is a CONSPIRACY THEORY...."All you offer us are conspiracy theories?"
'''A:''' Sekulow. "I guess you can buy your foreign opposition research and it's ok. So let me debunk the conspiracy." [Goes on to state facts about Steele Dossier etc. Great job: It is not a conspiracy that" XYZ]. "Not a conspiracy theory, just the facts."

'''Q:''' Sen from WI to both parties: Re Jennifer Williams docs; why not completely declassified?
'''A:''' Philbin: Doesn't have all the info but may have to do with a ref to a conversation with a head of State; usual rule is that such conversations are classified.
'''A:''' Schiff: [encourages Senators to read and implies to viewers that there is some "wrong" reason that it was classified]

'''Q:''' Sen from TN to House mgrs: Compare procedures in this impeachment to those used in previous ones.
'''A:''' Lofgren: Nixon started off partisan but became nonpartisan later. Clinton: more partisan, remained so. Trump: she expected more bi-partisanship but has been "disappointed." Bolton is willing to testify; might help the Senators come together. [KEK]

'''Q:''' Sen Schumer to House mgrs: Why do you think the process won't be too long if we have witnesses?
'''A:''' Schiff: Just one week for depositions and Senate could go on with its business during that time; always, use Roberts to make rulings. Would be a "reasonable accommodation."

'''Q:''' Sen   from McConnell to POTUS team: Plz respond on bipartisanship and to responses by House mgrs about any previous q:
'''A:''' Philbin: In Nixon inquiry, only 4 voted again. Many Dems joined Repubs to vote for. In Trump, not so--all Repubs voted against along with 2 Dems. Addresses issue of "value" of foreign contributions: only applies to $ not info. Dems theory posits an abuse of power in which no laws were broken. Based on Dems' theory of subjective motives. "That is a theory that is infinitely malleable. It provides no real standard at all."

'''Q:''' Sen from DE to both parties:  Would any witnesses called [by the Repubs?] have firsthand knowledge of the charges against POTUS?
'''A:''' Schiff: [construing 'relevancy' very narrowly here, says Biden is not a relevant witness.] How about Mulvaney, Pompeo, Head of OMB? They don't want Roberts to adjudicate bc they want witnesses that ] are irrelevant.
'''A:''' Sekulow: [Attacks Schiff's idea that certain witnesses--like the Bidens--are "irrelevant."] Irony: we can call anyone we want as long as these are the witnesses THEYwant! 3:39 PST

==DINNER BREAK==


==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.

////////////////////////////////

==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:  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.

//////////

==Q & A Peach Mint Highlights: Thurs Jan 30 2020: page 8==
PAGE 8
>>7970912 page 1, >>7970944 page 2, >>7971081 page 3, >>7971086 page 4, >>7971091 page 5, >>7973832 page 6, >>7973832 page 7


'''Q:''' Sen from MA to House mgrs: Recent report of Russians hacking Burisma. If POTUS is later found to have gotten Russia to do this, what recourse is there under Dershowitz standard, which requires a statutory crime?
'''A:''' Schiff: No recourse whatsoever. You can't say it's criminal using Dershowiz std.

'''Q:''' Sen from SC to POTUS team:  Assuming Bolton testifies, wouldn't it be irrelevant to impeachment?
'''A:''' Philbin: Right. Even so, the articles don't rise to an impeachable offense. Not high crimes and misdemeanors.

'''Q:''' Sen Durbin to House mgrs: Plz respond to same q.
'''A:''' Schiff: "I think we all know what happened here." That POTUS cheated in an election. What they just told you--is "too bad, there's nothing you can do."

'''Q:''' Sen from GA to POTUS team: In 1999, Sen Joe Biden argued against deposing additional witnesses. Schumer agreed. Why should Biden rule not apply here?
'''A:''' Sekulow: [reads the Biden doctrine]. Many agreed. House mgrs are asking you [the Senate] as a body, to vote to waive executive privilege on the President of the United States. Think about that. I think you should adopt the Biden rule.

'''Q:''' Sen from CO to House mgrs: Q re effect of witnesses.
'''A:''' Jeffries: All we want is a full & free trial--with witnesses. Talks about Benghazi, saying Obama admin DID cooperate w/Gowdy.

'''Q:''' Sen from UT to both parties: Any evidence that Ukrainians were told about the hold conditional upon investigations into the Bidens?
'''A:''' Schiff: references Sondland and Mulvaney again. Quid pro quo argument.
'''A:''' Purpura: No, there was no evidence anyone told the Ukrainians directly. Sen Johnson asked POTUS directly if there was a link. Sondland told Johnson, but he had not asked POTUS. Just his assumption.

'''Q:''' Sen from OR to House mgrs: Re POTUS saying "I can do what I want"--isn't this an imperial presidency?
'''A:''' Re last q: argues his point again. Says Sondland got info directly from POTUS. Re Deshowitz argument [Schiff's interpretation of it]: Yes, POTUS can do whatever he wants. POTUS can extort an ally, etc.

'''Q:''' Sen from IN to POTUS team: Under Dershowitz's theory is what Joe Biden is alleged to have done potentially impeachable?
'''A:''' Philbin: If purely financial gain (w/no public interest), yes. 7:35 PST

'''Q:''' Sen Klobachar to House mgrs: Plz respond to the q just asked.
'''A:''' Nadler: From the POTUS counsels, "the usual nonsense." there are only 3 things to remember: it's a trial, we should have witnesses. Distractions--that's what they offer. It's beyond doubt that POTUS that he abused his power by withholding aid to a country to extort that country by slandering his opponent. House mgrs have proved that "beyond any doubt." They afraid of more witnesses.

==END OF TWO-DAY Q & A==