TODAY IN CONGRESS:
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
It's Going To Be A Hell Of A Week In Congress. So Buckle Up And Pass The Popcorn!
IMPORTANT PET PEEVE (Repeated) — Before I get started, last Wednesday I included an Important Pet Peeve in my
TODAY IN CONGRESS Post saying I will no longer be using the term “Quid-Pro-Quo” to describe Trump’s criminal conduct against Ukraine, and would use the term
“BRIBERY” instead. For those who didn’t have a chance to read it, here are the jist of my reasons:
1. That is what Trump did when you look at the criminal definition of “Bribery” from
Cornell Law.
2. “Quid-Pro-Quo” is not a legal term and can cannote a friendly mutually beneficial “this for that” agreement (based on its English translation), which is not the case here.
3. “Bribery”, unlike “Quid-Pro-Quo”, is an impeachable offense explicitly listed in the Constitution, which if used by Congressional Democrats, would completely undercut the GOP argument that the Trump “Quid-Pro-Quo” was wrong but not up to the level requiring impeachment and removal from office. It is an untenable position for the GOP to argue that Trump’s crime of Foreign Bribery does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense when Bribery is explicitly listed in the Constitution as an Impeachable Offense.
I would also add a #4 here. When trying to convince the American people of Trump’s damaging crime, not everyone knows what “Quid-Pro-Quo” means, but everyone with an elementary school level of education knows what “Bribery” is.
While I don’t know if my Wednesday post had anything to do with it, I’m glad this Anti-Quid-Pro-Quo thing has caught on. On Sunday, Representative Jim Himes did an excellent job of trashing the term on Meet The Press. Also, there was this NY Times Editorial where 33 writers begged the media to stop using the term. Let’s hope “Quid-Pro-Quo” dies a quick death. BTW — I have also heard some using the word “Extortion” which is also a crime that fits what Trump has done. I’m fine with that, but I still like “Bribery” because it’s spelled out in the Constitution.
Now on with your regular programming!
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 —
2:00 pm — House Session (The House meets for legislative business to consider a number of veterans-related bills.)
Senate —
3:00 pm — Senate Session (The Senate meets to consider the nomination of Chad Wolf to be Homeland Security Undersecretary for Strategy, Policy & Plans.)
Monday’s Votes: No votes in the House or Senate due to the Veteran’s Day holiday.
Comments:
Today’s Events – Not much going on in front of the C-Span cameras today. But tomorrow C-Span could have its biggest audience ever. Even bigger than the Trump Inauguration crowd.
COMMITTEE SUBPOENA WARS & IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS —
Today’s Impeachment/Subpoena HeadlineS:
Public Impeachment Hearings Start With Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor & Deputy Secretary George Kent On Wednesday (Nov. 13)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Alexander Vindman, Fiona Hill & Laura Cooper Transcripts Released
____________________________________________________________________________________
Catherine Croft Transcript Reveals Javelin Missiles to Ukraine Held Up To Not Offend Russia
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Bolton Joins Kupperman Lawsuit While Hinting He Has More Trump Damaging Testimony He Would Like To Give
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Bolton Alleged To Have Released Aid To Ukraine Before Resigning Without Mulvaney’s Knowledge
___________________________________________________________________________________
Mulvaney Defies Subpoena But Joins Kupperman Lawsuit Asking Court To Decide If He Has To Honor Subpoena
___________________________________________________________________________________________
House Republicans Want Hunter Biden And Others As Witnesses In Impeachment Hearings To Advance Unfounded Conspiracy Theory, Schiff Says NO!
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Vindman Removed From Fate At NSC Unclear By National Security Adviser O’Brien
___________________________________________________________________________________
DC Circuit Court Judge Throws Out Trump’s Case Attempting To Block NYS AG From Getting His Tax Returns
Details below under “COMMITTEE ACTIVITY”.
BTW — If you are looking to keep tabs on the fast moving developments on the Impeachment front, POLITICO is running continuous updates.
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.
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 — The DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington has set a Nov. 12 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. Two Republican-appointed judges—Neomi Rao and Thomas Griffith—and one Democratic appointee, Judith Rogers, will preside at Tuesday’s hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Rao, appointed by President Donald Trump, last month voted in dissent against House Democrats in a dispute over a subpoena that was issued to Trump’s longtime accounting firm for copies of his financial records. Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia issued a 75-page ruling Oct. 25 siding with the House Judiciary Committee in its quest to obtain the full findings of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III, who in March concluded his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
In a “normal” court system, legal precedence strongly suggests that Congress is entitled to Grand Jury materials especially when they are related to an impeachment investigation. However, in a “Trump Modified” court, I suppose anything is possible.
New Developments — TODAY, The DC Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the DoJ’s Appeal of the DC Circuit Court Judge’s Ruling granting Congress access to the Mueller Grand Jury Transcripts and the related Mueller Report redactions. Staying Tuned!
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — Waiting on Judge’s ruling due any day.
House Judiciary Committee Hicks and Donaldson Subpoenas —
Background — CLICK HERE
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None, waiting in McGahn ruling.
House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas of Sessions, Kushner and Other Trump Staff —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None. Waiting to see if Nadler holds Lewandowski in Contempt.
House Judiciary Committee Rob Porter & Rick Dearborn Subpoena —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None, likely waiting for McGahn ruling on “Absolute Immunity”.
House Judiciary Committee Homeland Security (McAleenan) Subpoena —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
House Intelligence Committee (Flynn) Subpoena —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — No reports saying Flynn turned over the requested documents on September 18 nor on whether he showed up to testify yesterday (September 25) that I could find. I will continue looking, but my guess is the session was either postponed or he was a no show.
New Developments — None.
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:
- House Intelligence Committee Announces Public Impeachment Hearings Will Begin Next Week: The House Intelligence Committee announced it will begin Public Hearings on Impeachment starting on Wednesday, November 13 with Acting Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor followed by George P. Kent, a senior American diplomat who oversees policy in the region. Then on Friday, November 15 they will hear from Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine, about her abrupt recall to Washington this spring amid a campaign to smear her as disloyal. Democrats will focus their Hearing inquiry on three (3) questions. The three questions are:
• Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?
• Did the President – directly or through agents – seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine?
• Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President’s actions and conduct?
I am not sure how widely these Hearings will be televised. Sure C-Span and the Cable News networks will broadcast them LIVE. But will the “on air” networks (e.g., CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) interrupt their daily programming to broadcast them? That’s what happened during Watergate, but that was before there were cable channels. Also, whether you have cable or direct TV, there are literally hundreds of other things to watch, not to mention on-line entertainment and social media to occupy one’s time. So whether these Hearings will get nearly the same level of viewership as the Watergate Hearings when there were no other TV choices remains to be seen.
- Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor On Europe and Russia For Vice President Pence Testified in a Deposition on Thursday: Williams was in on the meeting between Pence and Ukraine President Zelensky and on the July 25 call. In her testimony she basically corroborated the testimony of others regarding the call, but did a good job of keeping Pence above the fray. Jennifer Williams, an aide in the vice president's office and a long time State Department staffer, said the phone call did not have the normal tone of a diplomatic call. Williams did not raise concerns about the call with her superiors. She was asked by lawmakers in her closed-door deposition what Pence knows and she testified that she never heard him mention anything about investigations of the 2016 election, Burisma -- the Ukrainian natural gas company on whose board Joe Biden's son Hunter sat -- or the Bidens. She did not know of any request from Trump to Pence to bring up investigations during a meeting the vice president had in Warsaw with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on September 1. The Pence aide made note of the call and the transcript in her nightly notes but testified she did not know if the vice president read the transcript.
- Bolton was a “No Show” on Thursday, But House Committees Will NOT Issue Subpoena: Bolton did not accept his invitation to testify yesterday. His lawyer indicated that if subpoenaed, Bolton would commence a lawsuit to let a Court decide whether he should honor the subpoena or the White House witness blockade. The House Intelligence committee did not issue a subpoena to John Bolton after his attorney threatened to go to court to fight if it was issued, according to a House Intelligence Committee official. "We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today. His counsel has informed us that unlike three other dedicated public servants who worked for him on the NSC and have complied with lawful subpoenas, Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him," the official said in a statement provided to CNN. The official continued, "We regret Mr. Bolton's decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months. Rather, the White House instruction that he not appear will add to the evidence of the President's obstruction of Congress."
I am not sure this is a wise move by House Democrats to let him off the hook. Bolton has all the makings of a “John Dean” style Star Witness who saw what was going on and expressed grave reservations. He also is/was a respected Republican Icon. On the other hand, Bolton has always been a loose cannon, and what he might say is unpredictable.
BTW, Bolton and Kupperman share the same attorney who came up with the “let’s go to Court and let them decide” idea when Kupperman was subpoenaed. That Court date is December 12, however the Committee has withdrawn the Kupperman subpoena, preferring not to wait for the Court’s decision. So I am unsure if there will even be a Hearing in the Kupperman case on December 12. Also, Representative Sean Maloney who is on the Impeachment Committees told Rachel that a decision in the Kupperman case was unnecessary since it is basically the same issue of subpoena validity as in the McGahn case and a decision in that case is due any day now.
- Mulvaney Subpoenaed to Appear TODAY: The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney for Friday's previously scheduled deposition, an official working on the impeachment inquiry told CBS News late Thursday. "Mr. Mulvaney has the opportunity to uphold his oath to the nation and constitution by testifying tomorrow under oath about matters of keen national importance," the official said. "We hope Mr. Mulvaney does not hide behind the President's ongoing efforts to conceal the truth and obstruct our investigation." The White House confirmed to CBS News that Mulvaney will not be complying with the subpoena.
- House Impeachment Committees Release Transcripts of William Taylor’s & George Kent’s Deposition Testimonies: William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, told congressional investigators that President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was orchestrating an international pressure campaign on Ukraine, was acting in the president's interests and trying to cast former Vice President Joe Biden "in a bad light," according to a transcript of Taylor's testimony released Wednesday. "I think the origin of the idea to get President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy to say out loud he's going to investigate Burisma and 2016 election, I think the originator, the person who came up with that was Mr. Giuliani," Taylor said, referencing Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that Biden's son Hunter sat on the board of. New Jersey Democrat Tom Malinowski followed up, asking Taylor, "And he [Giuliani] was representing whose interests in — " "President Trump," Taylor replied.
You can read the full Taylor transcript HERE.
Now, here is a little of what George Kent told the Congressional Committees. "Politically related prosecutions are not the way of promoting the rule of law. They undermine the rule of law," said George Kent, deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.
You can read the full Kent transcript HERE.
New Developments — The Crazy Pace of the Impeachment News Continues:
- Televised Public Impeachment Hearings Begin on Wednesday With Taylor & Kent — According to CNN:
The first two impeachment inquiry witnesses will testify together publicly on Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET: Kent, from the state department, and Taylor, the charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Kiev.
Taylor's testimony behind-closed-doors was among the most significant so far in the investigation. His opening statement alone was considered an
explosive document, in which Taylor corroborated many of the claims made by the intelligence community's whistleblower,
whose complaint and subsequent inspector general's report prompted the inquiry.
In Kent's testimony, he told lawmakers that Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani had a "campaign of lies" against the former Ukraine ambassador Yovanovitch, according to a transcript of his comments released last week.
It is uncertain whether these Hearings will get the same level of viewership as the Watergate Hearings. As noted in this
Washington Post Article, not only were the Watergate Hearings broadcast LIVE by all the major networks during the day, they were rebroadcast at 8:00 pm by PBS so working Americans could tune into the unfolding drama.
While C-Span, PBS, the Cable News Networks and some or all of the broadcast networks (e.g. CBS, NBC, ABC) will broadcast the Impeachment Hearings LIVE during the day, evening prime time rebroadcasts will be limited.
PBS said Friday the network will broadcast live during the day but will then offer the hearings on-demand on its digital platforms. PBS WORLD, a digital channel carried by 157 public television stations representing about 64 percent of U.S. TV households, will also replay the hearings during prime time, ensuring that “Americans have access to the replay of the hearings when and how they want to view them,” a spokeswoman told The Washington Post.
So as I said previously, how many Americans actually watch some or all of these Hearings remains to be seen. During Watergate the Hearings were the only thing on TV, now folks with Cable or Direct TV have hundreds of other things to watch.
It’s also uncertain just what kind of crap House Republicans will try to pull. Unlike during Watergate where GOP Senators were basically well-behaved during the Senate and House Judiciary Committee Hearings, this class of House Republicans is BAT SHIT CRAZY and cable of just about anything. Even though Chairman Schiff put the Kibosh on their crazy witness list which included Hunter Biden, that doesn’t mean they will pursue a line of questioning that attempts to distract from the REAL Trump crime by trying to make REAL the totally PHONEY Biden crime.
- Alexander Vindman, Fiona Hill & Laura Cooper Transcripts Released — First, courtesy of CNN, here are the transcripts that have been released to date:
If you click on each name above, you can get that person’s transcript.
The first 2 recently released transcripts are Vindman’s and Hill’s. Here are some excerpts courtesy of the NY Times:
Vindman transcript, Page 29: “I heard him [Sondland] say that this had been coordinated with White House Chief of Staff Mr. Mick Mulvaney.”
Hill transcript, Page 69: “And Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. And my director for Ukraine was looking completely alarmed.”
Vindman transcript, Page 54: “President Zelensky specifically mentioned the company Burisma.”
Hill transcript, Page 45: “His [Bolton’s] reaction was pained. And he basically said — in fact, he directly said: Rudy Giuliani is a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up. He did make it clear that he didn’t feel that there was anything that he could personally do about this.
Vindman transcript, Page 67: A. “She [Hill] said that he was upset with what Ambassador Sondland was attempting to orchestrate. And in her account to me, she did specifically say, you know, he was a live hand grenade, or something to that extent.”
Q. “Who was a live hand grenade?”
A. “So, I guess, let me complete that logic. So that Ambassador Sondland was trying to orchestrate an investigation being called by Mayor Giuliani, who was a live hand grenade.”
Look for more of this “pull no punches” testimony from Vindmand and Hill during the LIVE Hearings. Must See TV!
Now, most recently (late Monday), the transcript of Pentagon Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, Laura Cooper has been released. According to this report from CNN:
She described Volker seeking a statement from the Ukrainians about opening investigations into election interference that would trigger a release in the aid.
"I knew from my Kurt Volker conversation and also from sort of the alarm bells that were coming from Ambassador (Bill) Taylor and his team that there were Ukrainians who knew about this," Cooper said, describing the Ukrainians as aware of the freeze on aid in August 2019. "The context for the discussion that I had with Ambassador Volker related specifically to the path that he was pursuing to lift the hold would be to get them to make this statement, but the only reason they would do that is because there was, you know, something valuable."
Cooper testified that at a meeting on July 26 — the day after Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — it first became clear to her that the military aid to Ukraine that was affected by the hold was related to the President's concerns about corruption and that "immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion."
"The comments in the room at the deputies' level reflected a sense that there was not an understanding of how this could legally play out. And at that meeting the deputies agreed to look into the legalities and to look at what was possible," Cooper added.
Cooper testified that individuals at the Department of Defense and other agencies believed Ukraine was making progress in combating corruption, enough to continue providing the aid being challenged by OMB.
"It was unanimous with the exception of the statements by OMB representatives, and those statements were relaying higher level guidance," Cooper said.
What’s interesting to me about Cooper’s testimony is that for the first time she reveals that career officials were questioning the legality of Trump’s order to withhold aid that had been mandated by Congress through passage of an Appropriations “Law”. I hope House Dems. delve more into this legal issue during the public hearings. You can read the Cooper transcript here.
- Croft Transcript Reveals Javelin Missiles to Ukraine Held Up To Not Offend Russia — The Bombshell mystery about the hold up of US Javelin missile sales to Ukraine which was eluded to by a Dem. Congressman a few weeks back as he left the SCIF, is now solved. According to this DK Front Page Post by Kerry Eleveld:
In another all roads lead to Russia revelation, a State Department official and former National Security Council member, told congressional investigators that then-budget chief Mick Mulvaney halted the sale of anti-tank Javelin missiles to Ukraine in late 2017 over fears that it would upset Russia.
Catherine Croft testified that the Mulvaney-led Office of Management and Budget (OMB) put a hold on the decision to sell the missiles to Ukraine over worries that "Russia would react negatively to the provision." Croft said that was how OMB director Mulvaney described the reasoning. Asked if any other agencies involved in approval of the sale were similarly concerned about such a transaction, Croft called OMB the "lone objector." Meanwhile, the National Security Council and State Department both supported selling the missiles to Ukraine, she testified, adding that in her opinion not providing the anti-tank missiles would serve Russia's interests.
Nancy is right! With Trump, “All Roads Do Lead To Russia.” I just hope Dems. in Congress have the courage to venture down those roads. You can read the full Croft transcript here courtesy of NPR.
- Bolton Testimony Still in Limbo — While Bolton continues to release juicy hints about what he says he knows through his attorney, he will not appear to testify without a Court enforced subpoena. According to this story from Vox:
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton claims to have information of interest to those leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, but is refusing to share those insights until a judge rules on a case involving the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
Bolton was involved in “many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed,” according to a letter to House attorneys Bolton’s lawyer Charles Cooper sent Friday. But Bolton will not testify until the completion of a lawsuit filed in October asking a judge to rule on whether witnesses should abide by the testimony requests of lawmakers or White House directives not to testify.
That lawsuit was brought by Bolton’s former deputy Charles Kupperman after he was subpoenaed by lawmakers. The White House argued Kupperman could not be compelled to testify, claiming he had “constitutional immunity.”
The future of the lawsuit is uncertain given that the leaders of the inquiry have withdrawn Kupperman’s subpoena, and have asked the judge who was to hear the case to dismiss it. House leaders also chose not to subpoena Bolton after he missed his scheduled testimony Thursday. Responding to the letter from Cooper, Democratic lawmakers argued the suit would slow the pace of the inquiry unnecessarily, and suggested the White House’s claim of immunity could become an article of impeachment.
“We regret Mr. Bolton’s decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months,” a House Intelligence Committee official told Politico. “Rather, the White House instruction that he not appear will add to the evidence of the president’s obstruction of Congress.”
And there’s this bit of shocking Bolton News from our own chloris creator:
Congressional appropriators were frustrated when their inquiry on Aug. 29 about the status of the State Department funds was greeted by silence. Days passed and on Sept. 9, when they asked again, the State Department’s Legislative Affairs office told them there was no hold on the $141 million, according to a person familiar with the matter.
What they didn’t know, according to one of the people, was that shortly before Sept. 9, Bolton had relayed a message to the State Department that the funding could go ahead. It’s not clear whether Bolton, who resigned from the job a week later, did so with Trump’s approval.
Bolton’s handling of the funding struck officials in the White House as violating protocol and caught Mulvaney by surprise, according to another person familiar with the matter. ✂️
I am still concerned why Schiff has decided to not subpoena Bolton. I get not suspending the impeachment process for months to wait for the Bolton & Kupperman case to wind its way through the entire Federal Court system, but I don’t see the harm in leaving the door open just in case the DC District Court decides in mid-December that they must honor Congressional subpoenas and both Bolton and Kupperman say they will testify immediately if subpoenaed?
- Mulvaney Defies Subpoena and Joins Kupperman Lawsuit — So now things are really starting to get weird, as if things weren’t weird before. Having defied a Congressional subpoena Mulvaney is now asking to join Kupperman’s (and sort of Bolton’s) lawsuit over whether they should honor a Congressional subpoena and testify or obey the White House’s directive against testifying. But unlike Kupperman who is asking for a Court ruling without prejudice to either argument, Mulvaney’s Court filing indicates he is seeking for the Court to uphold the President’s Absolute Immunity claim and rule against the validity of the Congressional subpoena. Which is part of the reason why Kupperman’s attorney is opposing Mulvaney joining their lawsuit. According to this CNN Story:
Kupperman claims in a court filing that Mulvaney shouldn't be allowed to join his lawsuit asking a court for help in a fight between the White House and the House of Representatives. Though Kupperman supports Mulvaney filing a separate lawsuit that would be heard by the same judge, Kupperman doesn't want to share his lawsuit with Mulvaney.
The pushback from Kupperman's team comes hours before federal judge Richard Leon of the US District Court in Washington, DC, will hear arguments about Mulvaney joining Kupperman's lawsuit. That is scheduled for 5 p.m. ET Monday.
Kupperman's lawyer also outlined how different his client's situation is from that of Mulvaney, telling the judge that the two shouldn't be lumped together.
Kupperman is more neutral than Mulvaney, Kupperman's attorney said, describing Mulvaney as having made it "clear that he supports the Executive," according to the filing.
"President Trump, represented by the Department of Justice, will vigorously champion Mulvaney's interest in the President's assertion of absolute immunity overriding Mulvaney's obligation to appear and testify in response to the House subpoena," according to the filing.
Kupperman's team also says he is different from Mulvaney because he is a former official and Mulvaney is currently serving in the Trump administration. Kupperman's work in the White House also exclusively concerned national security and foreign affairs and so deserves extra protections, they say, whereas the bulk of Mulvaney's work does not concern national security.
The House Committee is also opposed to Mulvaney joining the lawsuit.
"Given his position in the White House, Mulvaney likely played a role in the decision to assert absolute immunity as to him — a decision that Mulvaney now asks this Court to address. The Court should reject such gamesmanship and deny" Mulvaney's request, lawyers for the House wrote Monday.
House general counsel Doug Letter also wrote Monday that Mulvaney should not be able to "challenge a now-withdrawn subpoena issued to somebody else." The House is still attempting to get the lawsuit from Kupperman dismissed.
UPDATE: Now we are told that Mulvaney has filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion to join an ongoing lawsuit filed last month.
- Alexander Vindman Fate at NSC Unclear — It was first reported here at DK by our own durrati that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had been removed from the NSC. From TPM:
“On Sunday, National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who gave a bombshell testimony in the House impeachment investigation last month on President Donald Trump’s Ukraine scheme, will be removed from his post at the White House National Security Council...”
My understanding is he’s–that Colonel Vindman is detailed from the Department of Defense,” O’Brien said. “So everyone who’s detailed at the NSC, people are going to start going back to their own departments and we’ll bring in new folks.”
Trying to make this sound like a routine rotation is laughable. However, this CBS News Story has poured cold water on the removal:
After "Face the Nation" aired, Vindman's lawyer, Michael Volkov, told CBS News in a statement, "LTC Vindman is still detailed to the National Security Council. His detail ends July 2020. We are not aware of any change in his status. Obviously any retaliatory action against LTC Vindman on a day when we honor our military heroes would be reprehensible."
So is this a real removal or just a sadistic Trial Balloon?
House Committees Issue Subpoenas to DoD and OMB -
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None,
House Financial Services Committee and House Intelligence Committee Deutsche Bank and Capital One Subpoenas (Trump’s Banking Records) —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Mazars Subpoena (Trump Financial Records & Taxes) —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None. But see Trump Tax Returns below.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Subpoena of White House Staff Documents —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
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 — In a Motion Hearing in Federal DC District Court on November 6 with respect to the House Ways & Means Committee’s request/subpoena of Trump’s tax returns, a Trump appointed Judge threw somewhat of a monkey wrench into the case. A federal judge said Wednesday that he’d like to see if compromise is possible in House Democrats’ lawsuit seeking President Donald Trump’s long-hidden tax returns. McFadden, a 2017 Trump appointee, sounded skeptical of the effort but his comments about seeking compromise could be a sign of how the case will eventually proceed. That would be bad news for Democrats, who quickly retorted Wednesday that they didn’t see the possibility of a compromise. “There really isn’t an accommodation that could be had,” said Megan Barbero, a lawyer for House Democrats. McFadden’s comments likely cheered Trump’s lawyers, who have argued compromise is still possible. It’s unclear how you “compromise” on complying with the law. You either give Congress Trump’s taxes or you don’t. Where this goes from here is anybody’s guess.
New Developments — On Monday, November 11, a Federal DC Circuit Court Judge threw out the case of Trump vs. NYS over the releasing of Trump’s State tax returns to Congress. According to this POLITICO Report:
A Trump-appointed federal judge decided Monday that President Donald Trump can't sue New York state officials in a Washington, DC, court at this time to stop the release of his tax returns to Congress.
Effectively, the ruling is a loss for Trump but a less significant one then the blows other courts have dealt him in cases involving Democrats' pursuits of his financial records. Courts have sided with the House multiple times in cases where its committees have subpoenaed Trump's financial records. Trump is still appealing those rulings, keeping the House subpoenas on hold.
If Trump wants to continue to challenge a New York state law that says Congress can request his state tax returns, he'll either need to wait for Congress to make the request or start over with a new lawsuit in a New York court, the judge, Carl Nichols of the federal district court in DC, said Monday.
I’m not sure where this case goes from here. The smart thing to do would be to do nothing unless and until Congress actually requests Trump’s NYS tax returns, because to take the case up in NYS Courts is unlikely to yield a Trump favorable result. But since when has Trump did the smart thing.
That’s all for today. Corrections and Additions are always welcome!