TODAY IN CONGRESS:
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
It’s SONDLAND Day!
(no personal offense intended)
Here’s today’s schedule with the events I think may be the most interesting in bold. You can watch C-Span HERE. NOTE: Sometimes C-Span posts additional Congressional events not on my list, later in the day.
Today’s Events:
House —
8:00 am — House Intelligence Committee Impeachment Hearing (Ambassador Gordon Sondland testifies before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the panel’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump.)
10:00 am — House Morning Session (General Speeches)
10:00 am — House Science Committee Hearing on the Flu Vaccine (Experts on influenza testify before the House Science Committee on improving the flu vaccination.)
12:00 pm — House Session (The House will debate nine (9) bills approved by the Natural Resources Committee including banning the sale of shark fins and renaming the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Long Island, New York after former member of Congress Lester Wolff.)
2:30 pm — House Intelligence Committee Impeachment Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale (Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant Defense secretary, and David Hale, a State Department under secretary for political affairs, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee as part of its impeachment inquiry into President Trump.)
Senate —
9:30 am — Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Department of Defense Audit (Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist testifies on the second-ever full financial audit of the Pentagon before the Senate Armed Services Committee.)
10:00 am — Senate Session (The Senate will vote on the nomination of Barbara Lagoa to be a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Members will also take up a House-passed short-term spending bill to fund the government into December.)
Thursday — Monday’s Votes:
House —
1. House Resolution 3055 (H.R. 3055) Vote on Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment of H.R.3055 - Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2020 (This bill provides FY2020 appropriations for several federal departments and agencies. It includes 4 of the 12 regular FY2020 appropriations bills:
- the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020;
- the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020;
- the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020; and
- the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020.)
Democrats- 219 Yes 10 No 0 Present 3 Not Voting
Republicans- 12 Yes 181 No 0 Present 4 Not Voting
Independents- 0 Yes 1 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 231 Yes 132 No 0 Present 7 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
Senate — No significant votes, only Senate nomination confirmations.
Comments:
Today’s Events – The highlight of today’s events will of course be the House Intelligence Committee Impeachment Hearings, with the highlight of those Hearings being the testimony by Gordon Sondland. Let’s all tune in shall we! And take the poll as to what you think Sondland will do.
Tuesday’s Votes — Well the good news is the House passed one of the Appropriations Bills that the Senate previously amended and passed. However, the bad news is, from the standpoint of actually passing an Appropriations Bill, is that the House appears to have amended the Senate amendment, so it will now have to go back to the Senate for another vote.
BTW — It is expected that the House will be passing a Continuing Resolution (CR) on Wednesday or Thursday (without any Border Wall money) before the Thanksgiving recess to fund the government through December 20 and avoid a government shutdown. It will go to the Senate at the end of the week where the Senate will have to pass it, as is, before they also go on recess to prevent a government shutdown It’s called jamming the Senate, and I’m glad to see Pelosi playing HARDBALL with Mitch). The question remains will Trump sign it without any Border Wall money and without any agreement from the House to end its impeachment investigation. A “normal” President would not even consider not signing it. But we don’t have a “normal” President, so stay tuned!
COMMITTEE SUBPOENA WARS & IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS —
Today’s Impeachment/Subpoena HeadlineS:
Lt. Col. Vindman (the Patriot) Fearlessly Lays Out the TRUTH in His Tuesday Testimony
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jennifer Williams (the Pense Protector) Corroborates Other Witnesses’ Accounts in Her Testimony
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“Republican” Witness Kurt Volker (the Truth Needle Threader) Amends Previous Testimony Corroborating Other Witness Accounts of the Facts
______________________________________________________________________________________
“Republican” Witness Tim Morrison (the Truth Tightrope Walker) Testimony Corroborates Known Facts in His Testimony
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Gordon Sondland, Wednesday’s Star Witness, What Will He Say?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Laura Cooper & David Hale to Testify Wednesday Afternoon to Deepen Trump’s Impeachment Troubles
____________________________________________________________________________________
Judge in McGahn Subpoena Case to Provide Ruling My Monday
Details below under “COMMITTEE ACTIVITY”.
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY:
Introduction: Before I get started with today’s long list of subpoena and impeachment activity, let me say that I have decided to do away with posting the repetitive “Background” section here on each Committee activity, in an effort to shorten an already too long post. Instead each background section will include a link to my September 26 Diary containing the full backgrounds for those who need to get up to speed. I will keep editing that Diary as time goes on to keep the background up to date. Below, I will post only recent developments (stuff that happened the day before) and any new developments.
Because of all the impeachment stuff happening all at once, these TIC diaries are getting way too long. So in a somewhat futile attempt to shorten things a bit, I have removed the Committee subpoenas that have been inactive for weeks. You can still find out about them in my September 26 Diary (CLICK HERE). Also, I will still keep a check on them and if something new happens in any of them, I will post it in future TIC diaries.
Now on with the show. (New and Important stuff in bold)
House Judiciary Committee Barr Subpoena for Unredacted Mueller Report —
Background - CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — Well I found out that a federal appeals court in Washington has set a Nov. 18 hearing to consider a trial judge’s order validating the House’s impeachment inquiry and requiring the U.S. Justice Department to disclose now-secret grand jury materials that were part of the special counsel’s Russia investigation.
So on Nov. 18 the Appeals Court made a ruling to temporarily suspend the release of the Mueller Grand Jury materials to Congress. A three-judge panel, all Obama appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, suspended a lower court’s Wednesday deadline in order to have extra time to consider the merits of a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request. The appeals court in its ruling Tuesday said the purpose of its stay was to provide “sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion” by the DOJ. The judges noted that their temporary suspension of the lower court’s deadline “should not be construed” as a ruling on the merits of the agency’s request. Late Monday, the three-judge panel that heard the case in the morning issued an order scheduling oral arguments Jan. 3 on the merits of the Mueller grand jury fight.
So this is on hold until next year.
I would note that the lawyers for the House who were arguing for release of the Mueller Grand Jury materials during oral arguments, suggested that the materials are needed to help the Congress determine whether Trump committed perjury in his written responses to Mueller’s questions. That is the first time anyone has suggested that Trump may have committed Clinton-Style perjury.
I would also note that there was a discussion involving some Republican appointed Judges, not on the 3 Judge Panel that issued the ruling, over whether it was appropriate for the courts to get involved in any legal fights between the Executive and Legislative Branches when questions of impeachment are involved. This seems nuts to me, because if the Courts don’t decide such matters, who decide which side wins. If they do not rule as suggested by these Republican Judges, The Executive Branch (in this case Trump’s DoJ) automatically wins because they are not compelled by any legal ruling to release the Mueller Grand Jury materials, which I guess is exactly how the Republican Judges, one a Trump appointee, have strategize it.
New Developments — Well we are probably on hold in this case until the Jan. 3, 2020 Hearing on its merits.
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — Some Progress expected to be made in this case soon, according to this Diary by Lealex:
Today [Nov. 19]: The House Judiciary Committee requested an expedited ruling on cross motions for summary judgment in Judiciary v. McGahn. (After hearing oral arguments October 31, the District Court judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, had said she would be busy with another case for two weeks, but that if requested, could provide an expedited oral ruling afterwards.)
Also today [Nov. 19], the judge responded (see bottom of this page) that the Court plans to issue its Memorandum Opinion and Order on or before next Monday, November 25.
The importance of this imminent ruling cannot be overstated. It may not only decide whether McGahn has to honor his Congressional Subpoena for documents and testimony, but will set a precedent for other witnesses who are honoring the Trump Blockade based on the President’s (phoney) claim of “Absolute Immunity”. In McGahn’s case at least, a ruling in favor of Congress from this Judge, which seems likely based on her statements during the Hearing, may mean we could see McGahn testify before the House Judiciary Committee relatively soon. It seemed from my memory of past reports, that McGahn simply wanted the protection of a Court Ruling before agreeing to testify, so he may not appeal such a ruling. What other subpoenaed and non-subpoenaed witnesses, who are in a similar “Absolute Immunity” boat, will do in light of a ruling throwing out the President’s argument remains to be seen. Some may agree to testify while others may remain loyal to Trump and await their own Court decision if they ever get on. We’ll wait and see!
House Intelligence, Oversight & Foreign Affairs Committees’ Impeachment Investigation —
NOTE #1: This used to be the “House Intelligence Committee’s Whistleblower Investigation”, but I have changed the heading to include the other committees involved and to allow for a broadening of the scope of the investigation.
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — Here are some recent developments:
- Nancy Pelosi Uses the “B” Word, BRIBERY — On Thursday (Nov. 14), Nancy Pelosi followed Schiff’s lead and called the Trump Ukraine Crime for what it is, BRIBERY! Her statement courtesy of POLITICO:
“I am saying what the president has admitted to and said it’s perfect — it’s perfectly wrong. It’s bribery,” Pelosi told reporters during her weekly press conference Thursday. “The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections. That’s bribery.”
I first advocated for the use of the term BRIBERY in this case in my Nov. 6 TODAY IN CONGRESS Post, for all the reasons I presented in that post. At the time, I thought I was the first, but it appears that MSNBC’s Ari Melber penned an Op Ed advocating for the term back in mid-October. Regardless of where the idea came from, I am glad to see the Speaker take up the mantle and make it more likely than not that BRIBERY, as spelled out in the Constitution as an impeachable offense, will be an Article of Impeachment.
- Yovanovitch Testimony Marred By Trump Intimidating Tweet — As most have heard by now, President Trump posted the following tweet about former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in the middle of her televised testimony:
"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors."
During the Hearing Chairman Schiff read the tweet to Yovanovitch and asked for her reaction. In response, unprovoked by Schiff, Yovanovitch described the tweet as “intimidating” and that she felt intimidated by it. At which, Schiff smartly responded by announcing that some on the Committee:
“Take Witness Intimidation VERY, VERY, Seriously”
An obvious shot across the bow suggesting that the crime of witness intimidation may have just been committed on the same day that Roger Stone is convicted for Witness Intimidation (among other things). We will see if this makes it to another Article of Impeachment.
Overall, I was again impressed on how well Chairman Schiff handled the Hearing. He was fair, calm in tone and he kept the Republicans in check when they tried to violate the Hearing Rules established by the House. For the Republicans it was another bad day. While they all tried to be respectful and nice to the Ambassador, they couldn’t make up for the damage caused by Trump’s disparaging tweet.
But the highpoint for me came at the end of the Hearing, just after Chairman Schiff finished his closing remarks and gaveled the Hearing adjourned. Just then I heard one of the Republicans on the Committee starting to repeatedly yell “Point of Order Mr. Chairman”. He then was completely drowned out by the spontaneous standing ovation of applause by the entire Hearing audience.
Hearing the Republican pathetically trying to raise some stupid objection and being drowned out by the pro-Yovanovitch crowd…. PRICELESS!
- The Witness Trickle Becoming A Fire Hose Trained on Trump — On Friday (Nov. 15), David Holmes (Member of Ambassador Taylor’s staff) testified in a closed door deposition before the Congressional Impeachment Committees, and on Saturday (Nov. 16) Mark Sandy (White House Budget Aide) also testified in a closed door deposition before the same committees. I will get into what happened in those depositions in the next two “bullets” below. But here I would like to focus on subpoena witnesses in general. They seem to be fractured into 3 camps: 1. Witnesses who have decided to defy the White House and honor Congressional subpoenas; 2. Witnesses who have decided to defy Congressional subpoenas and obey the White House witness blockade; and 3. Witnesses who are asking the Courts to tell them what to do (Kupperman, Bolton and separately Mulvaney, although Mulvaney wants the Court to tell him to obey the White House witness blockade). The first group seems to be getting bigger with each passing day, while the second group appears to be shrinking. I think this is happening because as time goes by and more witnesses honor subpoenas, those on the fence aren’t seeing any repercussions from the White House which suggests that the White House threats are toothless (i.e., Trump has so far not retaliated against those who have testified). This scares me since Trump must know that he needs to make a sacrificial example and fire someone in order to stop more witnesses from testifying. The White House has already floated Vindman and Inspector General Atkinson as trial balloons for possible firings, but has not pulled the trigger. If Trump doesn’t take some sort of retaliation soon, he will be left with only the true Trump loyalists willing to risk prosecution to protect Trump. Along those lines, I think the witnesses who have come forward have done so not only out of loyalty to Country, but because they (or their lawyers) have figured out that if Trump is not re-elected they could face a Democratic AG that might prosecute them for defying a lawful Congressional subpoena (this was obviously Sondland’s motivation).
- David Holmes Friday (Nov. 15) Bombshell Deposition — This is old news for most of you by now, but here is the BOMBSHELL revelation from David Holmes’ (Member of Ambassador Taylor’s staff) opening statement from his Friday (Nov. 15) deposition:
During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard him announce himself several times, along the lines of "Gordon Sondland holding for the President." It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistants. I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor change, and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President's voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.
I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelenskyy "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Ambassador Sondland replied that "he's gonna do it," adding that President Zelenskyy will do "anything you ask him to." Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the President.
After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about "big stuff." I noted that there was "big stuff" going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant "big stuff" that benefits the President, like the "Biden investigation" that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on to other topics.
As indicated by Holmes there are two other staffers who were present at the July 26 lunch and who likely overheard the call, also. It’s unclear at this time if these staffers will also be subpoenaed to corroborate Holme’s testimony. You can read the full opening statement in legible form HERE courtesy of the DK Diary by jamess. Worth the read because besides the above bombshell, Holmes recaps the whole sorted story from before the recallinto the sched of Ambassador Yovanovitch to the release of the aid to Ukraine confirming previous testimony by other witnesses and adding some new damaging information.
This will obviously put Gordon Sondland into even more of a bind before his public testimony on Wednesday. He has already provided an addendum to his original deposition to correct his testimony after other witnesses came forward giving new details that conflicted with his original testimony. Likely due to the fact that his lawyers reminded him that if Trump loses in 2020, he could be facing a Democratic AG (like Kamala Harris) who could prosecute him for lying to Congress. Now he faces new testimony which reveals his phone call with Trump on July 26 that he has not chosen to include in his past testimony. So if you account for his initial fear of prosecution and the fact that he has now seen Roger Stone convicted for lying to Congress, I would have to think he will be singing like a bird on Wednesday. If not, and he decides to risk perjury, it will likely be because Trump has offered him a secret pardon.
UPDATE #1 — David Holmes will testify publicly in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, according to this CNN Story. I have inserted Holmes into the week’s schedule above, but I am not yet certain of the time.
UPDATE #2 — You can read the whole Holmes’ transcript HERE courtesy of the Lawfare Blog.
- Transcript of Ambassador David Hale’s Closed Door Deposition Released — David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (a Trump Appointee) was amazingly candid in his testimony regarding the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch and the subsequent hold on Ukraine Aid. Here are some highlights from this CBS News Story:
By March 24, the stream of social media and other criticism directed against Yovanovitch had grown so intense, Hale said that she had emailed him to say that "she felt she could no longer function unless there was a strong statement of defense of her from the State Department."
Hale subsequently raised the idea of a statement of support with Pompeo. The secretary asked State Department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl to contact those who had been passing around the alleged behavior of Yovanovitch, and any statement would have to wait until those conversations were completed.
Pompeo, according to Hale, spoke with Fox News host Sean Hannity to demand to know what evidence he had to corroborate the accusations against her.
Ultimately, Hale said that "I never met anyone who felt that they had received that credible evidence" that the accusations against Yovanovitch had any validity.
On Ukraine Aid:
Hale was told on July 23 that there had been a presidential directive about pausing the aid, and he learned on July 25 that it was the president who had made the decision through chief of staff Mulvaney.
During what he referred to as a "lower level interagency meeting on July 23rd," Hale said he'd been told the aid was being suspended by a presidential directive. He said he wasn't satisfied by the response:
I wanted clarity. I wanted a name of a named person who was saying: This is the President's wish. I never got that response until we were into the small group meeting, the deputies small group meeting on July 25 in which OMB stated on the record that it was the President through Chief of Staff Mulvaney.
You can read the entire Hale transcript posted within the CBS News Story.
- Mark Sandy (WH Budget Aid) Testifies To Congress — Mark Sandy, a senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) arrived on Capitol Hill Saturday for a more than five-hour closed-door deposition in the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. In that deposition, Sandy spoke about how unusual of a process it was that a political appointee came in, took over the apportionment process and placed a hold on the military aid, a source told CNN. Sandy testified that he raised questions to the OMB general counsel about whether the move violated the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the source said. He would not discuss what the OMB general counsel said because of concerns it could violate privilege. When Duffey, who oversees the office Sandy works in, sidelined him, Sandy told lawmakers he was told that Duffey wanted to learn more about how the process worked and so would be taking over the particular issue, according to the source. Sandy also told lawmakers he tried to explain to Duffey that it wasn't necessary to take over the account to learn about and understand the process, the source said, but Duffey, who was new to OMB, insisted otherwise.
Sounds like Mr. Duffy has some splainin to do!
- Tim Morrison (former NSC official) Deposition Transcript Released — The transcript of Tim Morrison’s closed door deposition was released by the Impeachment Committees on Saturday (Nov. 16). In it Morrison corroborates the testimony of the other witnesses. Former NSC official Tim Morrison testified that he had heard from Sondland that US aid to Ukraine was conditioned on the country announcing an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Morrison's testimony also added additional detail explaining how the call ended up on a highly secure server outside of normal channels.
The heat under Sondland is only increasing as his Wednesday (possible) John Dean moment approaches. You can read the entire Morrison transcript HERE.
- Jennifer Williams (Aide to VP Pence) Deposition Transcript Released — The transcript of Jennifer Williams’ closed door deposition was released by the Impeachment Committees on Saturday (Nov. 16). In addition to corroborating the testimony of the other witnesses, this Axios Report indicates that:
“Ms. Williams testified that the President’s requests were ‘unusual and inappropriate’ and shed light on ‘possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold.’ She also confirmed, like Lt. Col. Vindman, that the Ukrainian President specifically mentioned ‘Burisma’ during the call, even though the White House call record does not reflect that. Importantly, Ms. Williams also testified that in mid-May, President Trump instructed Vice President Pence to cancel plans to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration before the date for the inauguration had been set.“We look forward to the public testimony of both of these officials.”
So a member of Pence’s staff throws a drowning Trump an anvil instead of a life preserver. Poor Mike, he must be getting an earful from Trump. You can read the entire Williams transcript HERE.
New Developments — It’s Sondland Day! But first a recap of yesterday’s developments:
-
Tuesday’s Impeachment Hearings — Before I get into the individual witnesses and what they testified to, let me summarize the Hearings in general. Schiff once again conducted the Hearings in an orderly and serious fashion, with a firm hand on the gavel and a calm, cool temperament. His summary at the end gave provided a great explanation of what the BRIBERY was in this case, easy for the public to understand. On the Republican side, the score was Witnesses 4; GOP 0. They once again failed to make any convincing arguments in defense of the President and Nunes just kept spreading the sh*t from his cow. Now on to the individual witnesses:
— Lt. Col. Vindman (the Patriot) Fearlessly Lays Out the TRUTH — The highlight of Vindman’s testimony for me and probably many of you came at the end of his opening statement:
”I also recognize that my simple act of appearing here today, just like the courage of my colleagues who have also truthfully testified before this Committee, would not be tolerated in many places around the world. In Russia, my act of expressing my concerns to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions and offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life. I am grateful for my father’s brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.
Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth. Thank you again for your consideration, and I would be happy to answer your
questions.”
A powerful truth as to what it means to live in our country. It always amazes me how recent immigrants to our nation (and their immediate offspring) from poor or oppressive countries always seem to have a greater appreciation of our freedoms in the US than us native born folks. Anyway here are some other highlights courtesy of POLITICO:
So he reported Trump’s July 25 comments to Eisenberg “without hesitation,” he testified. “It was my duty to report my concerns to the proper people in the chain of command.”
“It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play,” Vindman added. “This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia’s strategic objectives in the region.”
Vindman testified that he gave two pieces of advice during a bilateral meeting: “To be particularly cautious with regard to Russia and its desire to provoke Ukraine, and to stay out of U.S. domestic" politics.
Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intel panel, and Vindman tangled over Nunes’ referring to the military officer as “Mr.”
“Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistle-blower.”
“Ranking member, it's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please,” Vindman interjected.
Slap Down! Then there was this.
In response to GOP Rep. Stewarts attempt to call Trump’s request a “favor” and not a “demand” as Vindman previously described it, Vindman stated:
“I made that judgement and I stand by that judgement.”
POWERFUL! Score Vindman 1; GOP Stewart 0.
— Jennifer Williams (the Pense Protector) Corroborates Other Witnesses — Not a lot of news here, so let me quickly summarize. In a nutshell, Williams did a good job of corroborating the testimony of the other witnesses, while at the same time doing her best to keep her boss VP Pence out of the conspiracy mud, even if she did it by making it look like he doesn’t necessarily read her reports or is stupid.
— “Republican” Witness Kurt Volker (the Truth Needle Threader) Amends Previous Testimony Corroborating Other Witness Accounts — Volker had a sudden recollection of the facts by admitting that in hindsight, this was a BRIBERY scheme. Although he did not use that word he did say that Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky that he would investigate Burisma and 2016 elections before Trump would agree to a meeting and release the aid. But in a thinly veiled effort to espouse his innocence, Volker tried to make it look like he never knew Burisma was a company liked to the Biden family. Funny he never thought to use the GOOGLE machine.
— “Republican” Witness Tim Morrison (the Truth Tightrope Walker) Testimony Corroborates Known Facts in His Testimony — Similar to Volker, Morrison did corroborate the testimony of other witnesses, but also tried to keep himself out of trouble. Fortunately for him, he was not involved in any calls or meetings where the BRIBERY Scheme was discussed, except for the infamous July 25 call which he listened in on. In that case his defense was that he saw nothing wrong with the call (no BRIBERY) but for some unknown reason he saw fit to immediately inform NSC Counsel Eisenberg of what transpired on the call, something he never did in the past. Stretches credulity beyond the limit.
- Sondland To Testify, What Will He Say? — That of course is the Billion $$$ question. So here are the extremes as I see it. He could do an “Oliver North” falling on his sword and remaining completely loyal to Trump in hopes of a pardon and totally perjuring himself by implying all the other witnesses are lying. Unlikely, since he has already revised his testimony once in a way that did not help Trump. The other extreme is he could do a “John Dean” completely throwing Trump, Rudy and the other clowns under the bus by fully corroborating the other testimonies and confirming that he helped orchestrate the BRIBERY scheme. Somewhat more possible, but unlikely. My guess is somewhere in the middle. He will corroborate what he can, but avoid anything that would put him in legal jeopardy by weasley answers and pleading the fifth. What do you think. Take the poll!
House Ways & Means Committee & Manhattan DA Subpoenas (Trump’s Tax Returns) —
Background — CLICK HERE. BTW — I know this gets confusing but there are really three (3) cases going on aimed at Trump’s tax returns. One is the case brought by the House Committee to get the IRS to turn over Trump’s taxes as required BY LAW. The second is the case brought by Trump against the Manhattan DA to block the DA’s subpoena of Mazars, Trump’s former accounting firm, to provide the DA with Trump’s tax returns as a part of a State criminal investigation. The third is a case brought by Trump against NYS to block his State tax returns from being turned over to Congress in accordance with a recently passed NYS Law. I hope this helps keep things straight!
Recent Developments — Trump’s lawyers filed an appeal to SCOTUS on Thursday in the Manhattan DA Subpoena case , and on Friday, Trump’s lawyers filed a request for a stay from SCOTUS in the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s Subpoena case. Trump lost in both cases in the lower courts. According to this story from CNBC:
On Thursday, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a lower-court ruling that would allow the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to obtain eight years’ worth of Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns from his accountants as part of its criminal investigation.
In their emergency application filed on Friday, Trump’s lawyers asked the justices to temporarily halt another subpoena for his tax returns to issued to his accountants at Mazars USA by the House Oversight Committee. The firm has said it will hand over the records if it is required to.
It take five justices to vote to grant a stay.
The nine-member high court has five Republican appointees. Two of them, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, were appointed by Trump.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to grant the stay before Wednesday, when the subpoena would otherwise be enforced.
So let’s try to clear up the possible confusion a bit. Based on what I heard MSNBC legal pundits say on Sunday, it takes 4 Justices for SCOTUS to agree to hear Trump’s appeal of the Manhattan DA’s case, but it takes 5 Justices to grant a stay to prevent Mazars (Trump’s former accounting firm) from turning over Trump’s tax returns to the Congressional Committee on Wednesday (Nov. 20). Now according to the MSNBC pundits, SCOTUS is likely to grant Trump a stay, for no other reason but to allow the Court more time to decide on whether to hear Trump’s appeal in one or both of these tax cases. However, they felt that there would NOT be 4 Justices voting to take up Trump’s appeals. They sight two reasons for their opinion: 1. Trump’s “Presidential Absolute Immunity” argument is settled law because of both the Nixon and Clinton cases; and 2. The lower courts have all ruled against Trump in both cases so there is no disagreement among the lower courts for SCOTUS to resolve. Let me add a third. I don’t think there are 4 Justices who want SCOTUS to venture into this highly political fight, unless of course they are actively seeking a Bush v. Gore type decision.
So what happens if SCOTUS declines to take these cases (BTW — It is highly unlikely that they would take up one but not the other)? Answer, Both the Manhattan DA and the Congressional Committee will get Trump’s tax returns from Mazars which has already said they would comply with the subpoenas. So when would the public see them? In the Manhattan DA’s case, probably not anytime soon, since he is under no obligation to release them and probably would not do so until his criminal investigation is complete and then only in an open court criminal trial (if he brings charges) where he would likely only release the portions of the taxes relevant to his case. However, the tax returns provided to the Congressional Committee could be released to the public with a simple majority vote of the Committee. I don’t see the Democrats on the Committee voting to release them right away since they will want to study the returns thoroughly first. But I would expect they will not keep them under wraps for very long, and will release them as soon as they have their talking points ready.
UPDATE: As I and other legal pundits expected, SCOTUS has granted Trump a stay against the lower courts ruling for Mazars to hand Congress Trump’s tax returns. According to this DK Diary by GoodNewsRoundup:
The Supreme Court on Monday gave itself a little more time to decide whether a House committee gets to see President Trump’s financial records.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put on hold “until further order” a lower court’s ruling that said the accounting firm Mazars USA must turn over eight years of personal and business financial records to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
To be clearthe stay has to do with the House Oversight and Reform Committees’ subpoena of Trump’s tax returns, NOT the Manhattan DA’s subpoena. According to this CNBC Report:
The temporary stay order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts gives the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform until Thursday to respond. The document did not note any public votes or dissents.
The move was expected and does not provide new information about how the justices may ultimately vote on the matter. It generally requires five votes to grant a stay, though in some cases one justice may do so pending review by the full court.
A spokesperson for the committee did not immediately provide comment after the chief justice’s order. The justices are scheduled to meet in a private conference on Friday.
In the other Tax Case:
Trump’s attorneys submitted a petition last week to the justices in a separate case involving his tax returns. In that case, the president is seeking to overturn the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals requiring Trump’s accountants to provide his returns to the Manhattan district attorney. The justices have not yet said whether they will consider that appeal.
If they decline to do so, it will effectively mandate that the accounting firm provide the tax returns. The firm, Mazars USA, has said it will provide the returns if legally required.
I am not going to try to speculate, as I have above, what SCOTUS will do in either of these cases, except to say the “stay” is simply to give SCOTUS more time to decide whether they should take on these cases. Doesn’t mean they will.
New Developments — There has been a legal ruling in the third case which is the one brought by Trump against NYS to block his State tax returns from being turned over to Congress in accordance with a recently passed NYS Law. In this case, according to this report from POLITICO:
A federal judge late Monday ordered House Democrats to notify President Donald Trump contemporaneously if they seek his state tax returns from New York, and barred the Democrats from receiving any records for 14 days after a request so the court can decide whether it's lawful.
D.C. District Judge Carl Nichols rejected Trump's request for advance notice from Democrats if they decide to use a recently passed New York law to obtain the president's state returns.
Nichols said his ruling would "place this matter in roughly the same procedural posture as the typical subpoena case, while treading as lightly as possible on the separation of powers and Speech or Debate Clause concerns raised by" House Ways and Means Committee Democrats.
The order came several hours after the Democrats volunteered to alert Trump if they seek his state tax returns under the New York law. The offer came in response to a push from Nichols for a compromise in the dispute over the law.
Remember, Congress has not yet requested Trump’s NYS tax returns, so this ruling simply sets up a legal process in case they do. My guess is they will wait to see what SCOTUS decides in the other two tax cases before going down this NYS path.
That’s all for today. Corrections and Additions are always welcome! Now Let’s All get our popcorn popping for today’s Impeachment Hearing Watch Parties!