Patterico's Pontifications

1/15/2020

Nancy Pelosi Names Impeachment Managers

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:39 am



[guest post by Dana]

Here we go:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday named two House chairmen who led President Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry as prosecutors for Trump’s Senate trial…Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who led the probe, and Judiciary Chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler, whose committee approved the impeachment articles, as among the managers of the prosecution…Schiff and Nadler will lead the seven member team that includes a diverse selection of lawmakers, particularly those with courtroom experience…include Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Sylvia Garcia of Texas, Val Demings of Florida, Jason Crow of Colorado and Zoe Lofgren of California.

President Trump tweeted this during Pelosi’s announcement:

More from Pelosi:

“Time has been our friend in all of this, because it has yielded incriminating evidence, more truth into the public domain…Earlier, she spoke out about newly-released documents linking Trump directly to his attorney Rudy Giuliani’s political digging in Ukraine, saying they highlighted the need for witness testimony at the impeachment trial…”There can be no full & fair trial in the Senate if Leader McConnell blocks the Senate from hearing witnesses and obtaining documents President Trump is covering up.”…“The President has fought tooth-and-nail to keep thousands of documents away from the public…And no wonder — each time new pieces come out, they show President Trump right at the center of the effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.”

Interesting note: The documents — part of the evidence turned over to House impeachment investigators by lawyers for Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate who is awaiting trial on campaign finance charges — include a letter from Giuliani requesting a private meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskiy, then the president-elect of Ukraine, with Trump’s “knowledge and consent.”

The letter, written on Giuliani’s letterhead, was dated May 10, 2018.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

70 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi Names Impeachment Managers”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (643cd6)

  2. Weird how new evidence never seems to make Trump look less guilty. You think that’s maybe because he’s guilty and the thumb headed morons he used as his agents and cut out men are incompetent? Republican Sentor’s don’t care if he did it or not. So let’s get the voting done based on what they actually care about; supporting Trump.

    Time123 (36651d)

  3. “He can never erase that” seems to be the trending meme.

    It’s like that’s all they really wanted.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  4. Who’s “they”, kemosabe? 20 votes. Just 20 little votes. Are there no men in GOP? Are they all girls huddling together in their bunker?

    nk (dbc370)

  5. Was it always going to be the case that the House was going to have to vote a second time to actually send over the Articles of Impeachment (and officially appoint the managers) or is this just Nancy Pelosi seeking cover for her reversal?

    Will there be another hour or two or three of debate? Will we see it or is that not going to be on television, except for C-Span?

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  6. @4 I can’t find evidence to refute your characterization.

    Time123 (36651d)

  7. The documents — part of the evidence turned over to House impeachment investigators by lawyers for Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate who is awaiting trial on campaign finance charges — include a letter from Giuliani requesting a private meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskiy, then the president-elect of Ukraine, with Trump’s “knowledge and consent.”

    The letter, written on Giuliani’s letterhead, was dated May 10, 2018.

    2018 ?

    Or was that actually 2019? Giuliani wasn’t even involved in investigations in Ukraine until the fall of 2018.

    2019 we know, and this is not telling us anything we couldn’t surmise. Trump wanted Giuliani to meet important people in Ukraine:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

    President Zelenskyy: … I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. G1uliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.

    Zelensky brings up Giuliani’s name first and tells Trump he will meet him. This is after Trump mentions that he would like him to find out what happened (in 2016) but before he mentiones Biden or Burisma.

    Zelensky knew that Giuliani wanted to meet the him and believed that Trump wanted Giuliani to so he volunteers that to Trump. I think he was taken by surprise and didn’t expect to hear that, so he quickly added Giuliani to Barr. I think Trump didn’t really have hopes that Giuliani wold meet with Zelensky until Zelensky mentioned it.

    Now the question is: Why didn’t he?

    I think Zelensky was being waved off of that by some people in the State Department, probably including the Acting Ambassador.

    And that he was told Democrats wouldn’t like that and Ukraine needed bipartisan support. The whistleblower complaint points to that, only he attributes the messages waving him off from Giuliani to the wrong people: Sondland and Volker.

    Another point: What Trump wanted was not the same thing as Giuliani wanted. Trump wanted answers to questions:

    I would like you to get to the bottom of it… and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out….

    Giuliani, on the other hand, was content to get investigations going without holding his breath till their conclusion.

    Trump and Giulaini were not quite on the same page. Trump even wanted Zelensky to get rid of “bad people” surrounding him, when Giuliani had already accomplished that (and they weren’t his people anyway.)

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  8. “Nancy Pelosi seeking cover for her reversal”

    Why do you think this is a reversal, rather than a stalling tactic to get more evidence?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  9. Weird how new evidence never seems to make Trump look less guilty.

    Now that Lev Parnas is handing over docs & audio & video, the GOP leadership is in a big hurry to bury it all ASAP.

    Radegunda (39c35f)

  10. Will there be another hour or two or three of debate? Will we see it or is that not going to be on television, except for C-Span?

    It’s on NPR. I listened just long enough to discover what they were broadcasting.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  11. * iI think Trump was taken by surise, when Zelensky, out of the blue (although not before having been coached by Sondland) volunteers that he expects to meet Giuliani Trump had not mentioned Zelensky meeting anybody, and he seems to have beoen hoping only for Attorney General Barr.

    After Zelensky mentions Giuliani, Trump praises Giuliani, like he doesn’t want Zelensky to withdraw his commitment or at least talk to him over the phone and he clearly shows he’d only hoped for Barr:

    Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  12. Is the “instructions -for-assembly” ‘letter’ quilled in Parnas’ hand on “Giuliani letterhead” or the hotel’s letterhead? Also, did he order the Continental Breakfast or go for the full American Braekfast? It’s all getting a little confusing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. ”Are there no men in GOP? Are they all girls huddling together in their bunker?”
    nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2020 @ 9:59 am

    Pierre Delecto means “manly man” in French.

    Munroe (9bf19c)

  14. More from Pelosi: “Time has been our friend in all of this…”

    No. It has not been your friend, dear. In fact, you’ve abuse your ‘friend.’

    Helsinki.

    Censure proceedings should have been initiated the day after that betrayal. But no. Furthermore, Nancy, you had the goods on the twit literally in hand nearly a year ago w/t Mueller Report, squandered your ‘friend’– and did nothing. Then, claiming ‘urgency‘ stalled the impeachment paperwork by squandering ‘your friend’ again for a month.

    Speaking for ‘your friend’–you blew it, dear. She who hesitates has lost. Now why don’t you get the boys in the Senate cloakroom some coffee. Chop-chop! Time’s-a-wastin’, dear.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  15. What does Carolin Gallego mean? Special Bonus at the link: John Barron, John Miller, and David Dennison, included absolutely free.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. …Schiff and Nadler…

    Oh goodie! America’s newest comedy team on all channels!!! ‘Bud and Lou’ do need more television exposure, don’t they!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  17. Nancy should wait until the first Wednesday in November. That way, even more evidence can come in and it could nullify a day old election rather than one four years stale.

    But, given the impending crisis I guess she has to move quickly. Quick, as in a month or two.

    Munroe (9bf19c)

  18. Trump will name Stupid, Stupid, Stupid & Cretin as his law firm, and still be acquitted.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  19. Wonder what the exchange odds are on Trump being convicted.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  20. This impeachment, and the constant addition of more evidence, is really the worst thing that could happen for Iran’s government. He’s got a good thing going there. Ideally both of these initiatives really last all year and they rename streets along the Caspian after Schiff and Pelosi.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  21. Counting coup

    Counting coup was the winning of prestige against an enemy by the Plains Indians of North America. Warriors won prestige by acts of bravery in the face of the enemy, which could be recorded in various ways and retold as stories. Any blow struck against the enemy counted as a coup, but the most prestigious acts included touching an enemy warrior with the hand, bow, or coup stick and escaping unharmed. Touching the first enemy to die in battle or touching the enemy’s defensive works also counted as coup, as did, in some nations, simply riding up to an enemy, touching him with a short stick, and riding away unscathed. Counting coup could also involve stealing an enemy’s weapons or horses tied up to his lodge in camp. Risk of injury or death was required to count coup.

    Escaping unharmed while counting coup was considered a higher honor than being wounded in the attempt. A warrior who won coup was permitted to wear an eagle feather in his hair. If he had been wounded in the attempt, however, he was required to paint the feather red to indicate this.

    After a battle or exploit, the people of a band would gather together to recount their acts of bravery and “count coup”. Coups were recorded by putting notches in a coup stick. Indians of the Pacific Northwest would tie an eagle feather to their coup stick for each coup counted, but many nations did not do so. Among the Blackfoot nation of the upper Missouri River Valley, coup could be recorded by the placement of “coup bars” on the sleeves and shoulders of special shirts that bore paintings of the warrior’s exploits in battle. Many shirts of this sort have survived to the present, including some in European museums.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  22. @20. There has to be a Fifth Avenue in Tehran somewhere — a great place for a shot down plane full of innocent civilians to crash and burn.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  23. 16 – They need some goys not soys on that impeachment team – I wonder if the suburban newbies and Moulton/Tim Ryan took a hard pass.

    15- Carolin Gallego is probably the snakehead or “Jefa” that got Trump Resorts turned on to using illegal immigrants to staff the grounds.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  24. Val Demings…Val Demings…rings a bell. Oh, yes

    We’ve seen plenty of government officials get upset about various things critics have said about them, and Tim writes in to let us know that down in Orlando, Florida, the local police chief is threatening to sue a web critic who put up a site highlighting how the chief had her gun stolen from her car, and then that news was kept secret for a while. While there are some complications here (the site the blogger is using is the chief’s name, ValDemings.com, for example), it’s hard to see how there’s any defamation here at all, despite the Chief’s claims. She does claim that he portrayed the situation in “false light,” but as the article notes, the Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that “false light isn’t a legitimate cause of action and has the potential to chill free speech.”

    But what may be most scary is the following quote from Demings’ attorney:
    “Truth is not always a defense. I hope he [Harris] gets himself a really good lawyer.”
    While it’s true that some have been trying to push the boundaries of libel law to get rid of “truth” as an absolute defense, that troubles most people, and it’s hardly common. Of course, in the meantime, in trying to shut up this blogger, Demings seems to be doing a great job kicking up a lot of attention about the fact she lost her gun…

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090429/0244064692.shtml

    I’m sure she’s a different woman today.

    PTw (894877)

  25. “I’m sure she’s a different woman today.”

    Maybe she and Nunes can compare notes.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  26. Pelosi is the grand wizard of the “Coup Klutz Klan”

    mg (8cbc69)

  27. Looks like RBG is in better shape than Pelosi.

    mg (8cbc69)

  28. Ground Zero Milwaukee

    mg (8cbc69)

  29. . . . the seven member team that includes a diverse selection of lawmakers. . .

    Is there a member of the LBGTQIAA*+ community on the team? Because if not, I think this whole deal is illegitimate.

    Kidding. I’m just laughing at how the word “diverse” has been so completely bastardized by the social justice mob.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  30. O.M.G.

    Good Lord, Nancy, don’t you know anything about television??? Haven’t seen such a videoed procession of self-righteous azzholes since the Romney family camcorded a trip to an IHOP for brunch.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. And so my fellow Americans we have witnessed URGENCY.”

    A funeral procession trundles faster than that crowd. I want Trump acquitted now simply out of spite.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. Is there a member of the LBGTQIAA*+ community on the team? Because if not, I think this whole deal is illegitimate a travesty of a mockery of a sham.

    Indeed.

    Dave (d08084)

  33. Who would go to IHOP for food?

    Kevin M (19357e)

  34. Someone re-living their childhood from the sixties?

    Dave (d08084)

  35. They didn’t waste much time on the resolution against the Iranian government

    frosty (f27e97)

  36. Mark Meadows
    @RepMarkMeadows
    ·
    They claim it’s a somber, serious occasion they’re heartbroken over… and then they pass out impeachment-signing pens with special cases. Folks. You can’t make it up.

    _

    They keep thinking they’re about to sink Trump when instead they are making free re-election commercials.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  37. @34. Romney’s more a 1950’s, Pat Boone-kinda-fella.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  38. Heh!

    Column: Republican senators must acquit Trump in impeachment trial before any more truth leaks out
    As a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, I demand that Republican senators in charge of the upcoming impeachment trial swiftly acquit the commander in chief before any more truth leaks out.
    ….
    Look, I remain convinced Trump did nothing wrong and is totally great and innocent, but that’s only because, like most in the MAGA community, I’m smart enough to ignore evidence that might otherwise change my mind.
    ….
    Which is why we have to act fast before any more truth leaks out. We, the Trump fans, might have the inner strength to look away from details that point to a massive abuse of power and the sanctioning of dime-store-thug behavior on an international stage, but the weakling liberals out there are too chicken to wear our truth blinders.

    And that’s a real threat to our president, who just Tuesday night was at a rally in Milwaukee doing all he can for the forgotten men and women of America by railing against the injustice of low-flow faucets, toilets and showers.

    “Sinks, toilets and showers — you don’t get any water!” Trump said. “So we’re getting rid of the restrictors, you’re going to have full shower flow.”

    Click the headline to read the whole thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. Who would go to IHOP for food?

    Someone just looking for bacon, eggs, and pancakes? It’s not like you need to go gourmet for that fare.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  40. nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2020 @ 4:29 pm

    Ah yes, let’s have a standing murder indictment against a Tribune columnist. We don’t have enough evidence to convict, and we don’t know that he actually killed anyone, but we’ll have it at the ready in case the evidence rolls in.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  41. nk, you left out the best paragraph…

    The last thing we need is to see a great president, who we Trump supporters have built up to be an avatar of American strength and decency, get knocked down by stupid things like facts. Next thing you know we’ll be hearing evidence that suggests Trump-aligned actors were plotting against a U.S. ambassador using language that sounds like they watched too many episodes of “The Sopranos” while drunk!

    Gotta love that dry-as-bone sarcasm.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  42. Oh my God.

    .@SpeakerPelosi: “Listen my children and you will hear about an assault on the Constitution of the United States undermining the republic for which our flag stands by the President of the United States.”

    https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1217509030639345670?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1217509030639345670&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fdougp-3137%2F2020%2F01%2F15%2Fwhat-a-joke-nancy-pelosis-fresh-impeachment-spin-on-the-midnight-ride-of-paul-revere-sends-heads-crashing-to-desks%2F

    Pelosi, bringing her usual spot on take to a serious political issue.

    Calfed (f67f21)

  43. Calfed (f67f21) — 1/15/2020 @ 5:32 pm

    Slim shady she isn’t

    frosty (f27e97)

  44. 8. Davethulhu (fab944) — 1/15/2020 @ 10:58 am

    Why do you think this is a reversal, rather than a stalling tactic to get more evidence?

    The she should have waited longer.

    Of course, if they were just waiting for more evidence, they shouldn’t have pushed it to a vote in December in the first place. (but maybe she did just to get it out of the way.)

    Nancy Pelosi decided on impeachment when a false version of the July 25 Trump Zelensky telephone call was leaked to the Wall Street Journal.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176

    Trump Repeatedly Pressed Ukraine President to Investigate Biden’s Son

    …Updated [Saturday] Sept. 21, 2019 10:35 am ET .

    ..President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.

    “He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” if his lawyer’s assertions that Mr. Biden acted improperly as vice president were true, one of the people said…

    Now that second paragraph is true, but not the first

    And it wasn’t only Biden that Trump wanted to know about. That’s why Patterico and everybody else was all surprised by the mention of Crowdstrike when we got the transcript. That wasn’t leaked. But Crowdstrike etc is mentioned in the whistleblower complaint. As well as nonexistent Trump praise of Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, combined with a request that Volodymyr Zelensky retain him in office. (Despite this glaring error, which they tried to interpret the transcript as saying, which it didn’t, the Democrats kept on repeating later, on the BIG LIE principle I suppose, that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth, that everything the whistleblower said was borne out.)

    And everybody misses Trump’s concern about personnel in or close to Ukraine’s government. Yes, it was probably all lies, but he was getting disinformation about some people in Ukraine.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  45. When they ceremoniously walked the Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate, Mitch McConnell revealed that he could also delay things, and he refused to accept them and told them t come back tomorrow at noon.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  46. I’m sure that Pelosi knows that Trump isn’t going to be removed, probably no matter what. So here’s the question Does she win either way, the more and more information comes out? There isn’t any good for Trump info coming out, so to the public he’s likely to look guiltier and guiltier (even if there’s mostly a lot of circumstantial stuff) which is likely to lose independents up to possibly some medium firm Rs and some conservatives. If the Senators vote to keep Trump, do they also lose those independent up to medium firm Rs and some conservatives? Do they lose seats? Maybe more than they can afford? OTOH, if they vote to remove Trump, they will lose the hard Rs and probably be primaried by and lose to a harder R candidate who is a yelling Trump supporter. The independents up to medium Rs and some conservatives are still not about Trump, so do the Rs still lose those votes and those seats? I really think Pelosi gets a win no matter what at this point.

    Nic (896fdf)

  47. Nic, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but this is not about who wins or loses. It’s about Principles, and the Imminent Threat to Our Democracy.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  48. Pelosi has made it harder, and with the mopes she picked as managers continues to make it harder, for any GOP Senator with a smidgen of testosterone to vote for removal. As far as I can see, she has two goals:
    1. To aggrandize herself; and
    2. To make sure that Trump, but a dirtied-up and weakened as much as possible Trump, is still the Republican candidate in November.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. “I’m sure that Pelosi knows that Trump isn’t going to be removed, probably no matter what. So here’s the question Does she win either way, the more and more information comes out?

    Her risk is that more and more voters conclude that this is simply partisan and not principled.

    Calfed (f67f21)

  50. Denonstrating that the GOP complaints about Obama’s abuses of power and Democratic lack of integrity were hypocritical partisanship, is a win for the Democrats.

    Kishnevi (dc4324)

  51. Not if Trump wins again, Kish.

    Leviticus (7fcc89)

  52. Kishnevi (dc4324) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:35 pm

    Agreed. Impeaching Obama was a total mistake.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  53. Speaking of GOP integrity, Devin Nunes’s memory was refreshed about knowing Lev Parnas tonight. What an amazing coincidence.

    JRH (52aed3)

  54. The same Parnas who had the President’s lawyer on his payroll for some reason.

    JRH (52aed3)

  55. @47 I’ve got some really good farmland in the Everglades for you if you are looking to buy. 😛

    @51 Only if the Rs also pick up seats in the House and at least maintain in the Senate.

    Nic (896fdf)

  56. 53

    Speaking of GOP integrity, Devin Nunes’s memory was refreshed about knowing Lev Parnas tonight. What an amazing coincidence.

    JRH (52aed3) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:57 pm

    Nunes gets alot of phone calls, as does any other high profile Congress-critter. This here, I don’t blame him not remembering (or, putting 2 and 2 together) that particular call was Parnas.

    So, I find this a strange criticism.

    whembly (51f28e)

  57. Phone records show that Nunes called Parnas, at least twice. So it’s not just a rando call that he received.

    Moreover, Parnas says they met, Nunes says they never met. Whether Nunes is lying about that too remains to be seen, but it shouldn’t be hard to verify.

    JRH (52aed3)

  58. 45. I heard something on TV yesterday about the delegation being told to come back today at noon, but I’m not reading anything about the delivery being rejected or postponed, so maybe that is wrong or a distortion. But on the other hand that report wss probably not based on nothing.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  59. Entry of the gladiators:
    — The video of the march of the Managers from the House to The Senate and their reception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s99yxVJOY9I
    — The music, by Julius Fucik, as performed at circuses everywhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0

    A what-you’d-call an aversion-aversion dilemma: Vote “Guilty” and give these mopes the satisfaction, or vote “Not Guilty” and give Trump the satisfaction.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. 54. JRH (52aed3) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:58 pm

    The same Parnas who had the President’s lawyer on his payroll for some reason.

    To corrupt his judgment.

    But I don’t think that makes Giuliani into a foreign agent, because Giulaini didn’t understand he was being corrupted.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  61. The former mayor of NY and prosecutor of SDNY just doesn’t understand corruption? On the contrary I think he has marinated in it most of his life, as have his bosses, Parnas and Trump.

    JRH (52aed3)

  62. 59 nk (dbc370) — 1/16/2020 @ 7:23 am

    . A what-you’d-call an aversion-aversion dilemma: Vote “Guilty” and give these mopes the satisfaction, or vote “Not Guilty” and give Trump the satisfaction.

    They could vote to hear witnesses, both the ones (or some of them *) that the Democrats want to call, and the ones Trump wants to call, and give neither of them the satisfaction.

    ——————
    * Particularly John Bolton who will very probably testify and not claim immunity because of executive privilege. Executive privilege does not preclude someone from testifying about conversations he or she had with the president. It on;y gives them the right to refuse. What could get Bolton in trouble is some kind of non disclosure agreement, but that is overcome by a subpoena. The legal issue that Bolton has trouble with I think is: Do they a have right by virtue of a subpoena to demand answers </b in defiance of apresident's claim of executive privilege?

    Bolton wants to testify and will just take a risk of being found to be on the wrong side of the law if he has to take arisk

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  63. Bolton anyway could only face a civil lawsuit from Trump and such a lawsuit has probably never been filed by an officeholder. And Trump won’t want the precedent of a ruling against him. (there is no issue of Bolton disclosing something to sell a book)

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  64. Sorry to disagree, Sammy. The executive privilege belongs to the President, not his staff; just as the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client not the attorney; the priest-penitent privileges belongs to the parishioner and not the priest; the doctor-patient privilege belongs to the patient not the doctor, etc., etc.. Bolton can only invoke it; only Trump can either invoke it or waive it.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. I noticed the woman who “prays for the President every day” Went on the house floor and intentionally misquoted the President on the Ukrainian phone call.

    Then I thought “wait, silly me, she could be praying for him to drop dead of a painful and cancerous pancreas in less than 7 days please God”

    steveg (354706)

  66. Lawfare has a piece on privilege. Here’re a few paragraphs:

    But the White House could again direct Mulvaney and Blair not to appear at all on the basis of testimonial immunity. Unlike the litigation that would likely have been required to force their testimony in the House inquiry, however, the Senate itself could vote on the validity of that immunity claim. As congressional experts have explained, Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the trial, would probably not be the one to decide their immunity or any privilege claim; ultimately, 51 senators are likely necessary to require the testimony. (The question of what happens in the event of a tie is more complicated, but in general, a 50-50 tie means a motion fails—though Roberts could potentially vote to break a tie in some circumstances.) As NPR’s Nina Totenberg put it, “under Senate rules, it is the senators themselves who have the first and last word.”
    […]
    In short, executive privilege as understood in United States v. Nixon and as acknowledged by OLC across administrations is a qualified privilege. And, in an impeachment inquiry, Congress’s needs almost certainly overcome that privilege. Thus, even if OLC is right that the privilege “applies”—which I disagree with as a theoretical matter—it is overcome and cannot be utilized to withhold information.

    But that still comes down to a Senate vote. The Senate rules for impeachment don’t really address executive privilege, and it would be a good reason to add a rule where the Chief Presiding Officer could serve as a Special Master to decide on what is privileged and what is not.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  67. 64. Executive privilege is so that staff members can feel free to say what they want to the president. The president has no special right to have his staff not reveal what he says to them.

    Executive privilege only protects a staffer, or ex-staffer, from being forced to testify about his exchanges with the president; it doesn’t preclude him from voluntarily revealing anything. Otherwise any time anyone wanted to write about or reveal in an interview what happened in an administration they’d have to get permission from the president or ex-president, and they don’t.

    (of course if he is still working for the resident and wants to keep his job, he might keep secrets

    Talking about classified information, or the possible validity of a non disclosure agreement, is another matter.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  68. 45. 58.

    I saw this in yesterdays New York Times. This cold explain the “come back tomorrow at noon” report I heard but I don’t understands this:

    Mr. McConnell accepted the aticles late Wednesday afternoon and invited the managers to exhibit them at noon Thursday.

    Now, I have no idea what that means. Exhibit them?

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  69. The four Reublican senators most likely to vote for witnesses are Susan Collins of Maine (who already said she would) Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

    Susua Collins is or was still trying to make sure there would be a guarantee of having a vote on whether to call witnesses in the rules.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3867 secs.