“The lawyers for a whistleblower whose complaint triggered a US presidential impeachment inquiry say Donald Trump’s words are endangering their client.
…
The letter from the whistleblower’s legal team - in which the lawyers call attention to Mr Trump’s language - was sent to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire on Saturday, and made public on Sunday.
“The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client’s identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm’s way,” wrote lawyer Andrew Bakaj.
…
The letter also references a $50,000 (£40,600) “bounty” that two conservative Trump supporters have offered as a “reward” for information about the whistleblower.
“Unfortunately, we expect this situation to worsen, and to become even more dangerous for our client and any other whistleblowers, as Congress seeks to investigate this matter,” Mr Bakaj’s letter adds.”
in
In practice while McConnell is majority leader likely so.
In theory though the majority leader can implement the nuclear option and decide rule changes by a bare majority. For those that aren’t aware, without the nuclear option the rule making filibuster takes a 2/3 vote to overcome not merely 3/5 of the vote like the legislative filibuster. 67 votes vs 60 with every seat full and voting.
It is my understanding that the so-called “nuclear option” requires the Vice President’s assistance. Thus it would not be an option when trying to remove the Vice President from the picture.
~Max
That is a good point, and I’ll concede the argument as Mr. Trump seems to think the memorandum helps his cause.
~Max
Well,McConnell himself is on the record saying that if the House votes to impeach, the Senate has no choice but to hold a trial. He could try and weasel out of it the same way he changed his tune about confirming supreme court justices a year before the election, but the fact that he made this statement in the first place, suggests that he views not holding a trial as more politically damaging than holding one.
Not even a lawyer of Giuliani’s level could have thought it was a good idea. It had to come right from the Extremely Stable Genius, somehow thinking it shows there was *no *quid pro quo when that is *exactly *what it shows.
Though, see here for why we should be cautious when interpreting approval polls during a big news event:
It’s funny because not only did Trump think that the transcript helped him, but he also thought that it was cause for those who oppose him to apologize. Sheesh.
That may be outdated. I think there’s reason to believe the number has risen in the last few years.
Rudy insists he “will be the hero!” How, by contempt of court?
I generally agree with Saint Cad that McConnell cannot stop the Senate trial of the President upon his impeachment. I’ll go one step further - the power to preside over the trial in the Constitution is given solely to the Chief Justice and the power to convict comes with the “concurrence of two thirds of the [Senate] members present.” In my view, if any Senate rule as applied were to restrict the Chief Justice’s power to preside over the trial, that Senate rule is unconstitutional and the Chief Justice can ignore it. If the Chief Justice were to insist, he could announce, “The Senate will convene at the Chinatown Five Guys at noon for the trial of the President. The Senate will vote at one o’clock as long as more than three Senators show up.”
In the real world, the Chief Justice will probably accede to whatever reasonable rules the Senate has prescribed for presidential impeachment but, in my humble opinion, the Chief Justice is fully within his constitutional powers to completely disregard them if he chooses.
But why would he even want to, with the Oval Office and the chance to get to be his own man beckoning?
I don’t think Trump supporters are automatically Pence supporters.
Be careful. Some people get very upset at the mere suggestion that a Rasmussen poll can have a noticeable effect on the 538 model.
Anyway, while some may wish to focus on the issues of “hearsay” and whether it applies to official documents released by the White House as a response to the criticisms made (documents which show clearly that the criticisms were valid), let us not forget that this past Friday, three days ago, we learned that Donald Trump stood in the Oval Office with the Russian ambassador and told him that Trump’s official position regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election was that Trump didn’t care.
Hearsay rings hollow when the phone log released by the White House verifies what the whistleblower said. You want first hand accounts? Then just have the whistleblower give you some names to talk to.
The more I see Giuliani, the more I wonder how he graduated from high school, let alone law school. And McCarthy on 60 Minutes? What a fucking stooge! He obviously never read the transcript of the call in question.
So, suppose the House impeaches but the Senate doesn’t get the 2/3 to remove Trump from office. Will House Democrats try impeaching again, or will they just call it a day for the rest of his presidency?
I believe they’ll keep investigating and will bring additional articles of impeachment if warranted.
The court rulings on document subpoenas, executive privilege and witness compliance are expected in November and December. The rulings are anticipated to favor Congress, because the bases for non-compliance were so idiotic/non-existent. Deutsche Bank, Mazars and Don McGahn have all said they will comply with whatever rulings the courts make. That’s all the House Committees were waiting for before proceeding with their other inquiries into Trump’s impeachable acts.
Remember, Speaker Pelosi instructed her committee chairs to keep on working, irrespective of how the Ukraine investigation goes. And what those reveal may well be far worse than the Ukraine extortion racket.
I think you put everything you’ve got into the first impeachment attempt and if you come up short, put everything you’ve got in the campaign.
Two weeks ago, impeachment was dead in the water. Thanks to the whistleblower, it’s a foregone conclusion. Before, we assumed an acquittal was a lock. Now, I think it’s 50-50. If the witness testimony is damning enough, I think McConnell will tell DJT to resign or be convicted. Then I hope they take his pension and his Secret Service guard away, and put his belongings out in the street.
Well this is interesting. Do you have any links or discussing this further?