That was responding to Ann Hedonia post that has been edited.
I missed today, painting on a mural.
So apparently the GOP wanted Volker because he previously backed them on the “no quid pro quo” thing, but then today he said he’s of a different persuasion now that new info has come to light? Is that accurate?
How did his testimony go…and how did the Reps treat him? Was his reputation besmirched?
The closing statements to today’s hearings were an interesting contrast.
GOP Ranking Member Nunes launched into a canned sounding speech that simply claimed Witch Hunt Witch Hunt Witch Hunt. He didn’t address anything that came up today, just recited what sounded like White House talking points.
Chairman Schiff went back and thanked the two witnesses for their testimony and highlighted the parts that make the extortion and attempted bribery crystal clear. I will post a link when I can find it but the difference is amazing.
The GOP is desperate to avoid discussing the evidence. Sondland’s testimony could be make or break for POTUS.
(I am currently only at post #5020 in this fast moving thread)
Quick question: as CinC of the military, why didn’t Trump simply order Lt.Col. Vindman not to testify? I can think of all kinds of reasons a normal president wouldn’t do that; even if he was fighting for his political life. But why did the Trumpster Fire allow the Col. to testify?
My take was that the Republicans were hoping that Volker’s changed testimony was changed so subtly that people wouldn’t really see it as a change. Certainly Volker was NOT saying, today, that he’s now convinced that Trump’s conduct was impeachable. Between Volker and Morrison, the Republicans were hitting heavy on the ‘Trump did nothing improper’ theme, and neither Volker nor Morrison did any real damage to that position.
And no, the R’s didn’t try to take down either man. They were too busy saying that Lt. Col. Vindman was a terrible, terrible person, who failed to follow proper channels (which appears to be a lie) and who is generally shady and awful.
I started a Pit thread if anyone would like to add a little ranting to their analysis.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21982772#post21982772
It would also be fascinating to know what pressure may have been brought to bear on Sondland. I don’t mean from his own lawyers, but from…other interested parties. Carrots? Sticks? We may never know for certain, but it’s difficult to believe no one has employed one or the other.
Choice number 2 would be remarkably tough for Sondland to carry through, given the number of people who’ve interacted with him on the “deliverable” and associated issues.
Could be a choice #3: clam up completely. Go the 5th route (amendment, not beverage. Or then again, maybe both).
I’ll take a stab at the 4th amendment argument regarding Trump’s taxes.
It’s not as simple as saying that the investigators are seeking the records from the IRS, and not Trump. The courts have ruled that police have to get a search warrant to examine your phone records, even though they are in the possession of your phone carrier.
Rather, 4th amendment analysis begins with the threshold question as to whether there is an “expectation of privacy” that society recognizes as reasonable. The classic place which has the highest expectation of privacy is the home.
In certain circumstances, meanwhile, there is no expectation of privacy, which explains why a warrant is not needed. (As an example, if you are walking down the street, an officer doesn’t need a warrant before seizing the illegal drugs you are waving in front of everybody, because you have no reason to believe you have privacy while acting openly when you are out in public).
And, so, here, I think there is a pretty solid argument that a President has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his taxes. By virtue of the laws passed by Congress (and in direct response to corruption in the executive branch), Congress has determined that society would not recognize an absolute expectation of privacy in the President’s tax returns, at least as far as Congress is concerned. This is further underscored by the practice, since Nixon, of Presidential candidates voluntarily releasing their returns publicly.
Under that standard, Trump as President doesn’t have a reasonable expectation in keeping his taxes completely private, and disclosure to a limited congressional group, pursuant to statute, is eminently reasonable.
(If the courts DID recognize an expectation of privacy in Trump’s tax returns, then the question becomes whether there is probable cause to believe that the returns would demonstrate evidence of a crime. While I don’t think Congress needs to meet this threshold, they certainly can, if only based on the sworn statements of Michael Cohen that Trump provided false info on the taxes. Cohen is in a position to know such matters, and there is independent evidence that Trump obfuscates, which should be enough to justify the search).
I find it fairly unbelievable that these phone calls ended up in a secret server by mistake.
Right??? This was far from a good day for POTUS and his toadies.
It is precisely that simple. Richard Neal is chairman of the committee that has oversight over the IRS. Phone carriers are not government agencies and those entities have 4th amendment rights. Government agencies do not have 4th amendment rights.
I’ve been following the impeachment news and testimonies pretty darn closely since it all came out in September. One thing that I keep hearing, and that I don’t quite understand and haven’t seen explained anywhere, is that people who were concerned “talked to the lawyers”. Or were told to"talk to the lawyers". I think I heard it five or six times today alone during the testimony.
Who are “the lawyers”. In whose interest do they work? Who are they meant to protect? What is their function? Why did none of “the lawyers” bring these things to light long before the whistleblower was forced to by the inaction of appropriate oversight partners?
If Bolton, for example, thought that taking to “the lawyers” was an imperative after Hill overheard details of “the drug deal”, if Vindman’s immediate action after listening to the phone call was to go see “the lawyers”, what outcome was this supposed to achieve?
If I see something wrong at work, I go tell my boss. She might tell me to call HR, or the ethics hotline, or she may intervene herself. In any case, reporting to the appropriate authority usually results in… something. There is some result. What result are “the lawyers” supposed to effect?
Looking at this from outside, I understand “talk to the lawyers” to mean “get legal advice as to what the law says you may/must (or may/must not) do about what you now know or believe you know”.
I suspect what it means here on the inside is pretty much the same thing.
Each department, such as State, the National Security Council, FBI, CIA, etc., etc. has at least one legal adviser assigned to it. These are lawyers meant to act independent from the agency and among other tasks, to make legal calls when required. Employees who have concerns about the legality of an action are supposed to take their concerns to those lawyers for a determination about whether those concerns should be formally pursued.
In the case of the National Security Council, the attorney assigned to the position of legal adviser is John Eisenberg. This is “the lawyer” whom Lt. Col. Vindman and Fiona Hill notified of their concerns. Rather than referring the matter to DOJ, he buried the call transcript on the secret server and instructed Vindman not to say anything further about the matter. Eisenberg was subpoenaed to testify and explain himself to the Intelligence Committee and has refused.
In the case of the CIA, weeks before the whistleblower complaint was submitted, their (Trump-appointed and confirmed) general counsel made a criminal referral to DOJ about the Ukraine irregularities. (NBC News) DOJ failed to open an investigation.
There were other referrals made to DOJ by various lawyers acting on behalf of their agencies as detailed here (CNN). In 3 separate instances, Bill Barr chose to ignore the referrals instead of opening a formal investigation – which is why the House committees have ended up doing the investigation instead of a special counsel being appointed à la Mueller. All referrals were ignored.
Duh… of course! Trump DID order him not to cooperate but Vindman did anyway.
We are so fucked. We have criminals deciding what is legal and what isn’t.
Yes. I laughed out loud when the witness said it was a “clerical error” or some such.