TODAY IN CONGRESS:
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
BTW: I would like to thank those on the DKos Team who saw fit to elevate last Friday’s TODAY IN CONGRESS” Post on to the “Community Spotlight”. I am very grateful! But to be frank it wasn’t one of my best since there is not a lot going on on Fridays in Congress. Still I’m glad for the added publicity, not for myself, but for those readers that I hope will gain a better insight into the workings of our congressional democracy through my posts.
Now on with the show! Oh, and Don’t Forget To Vote, it is Election Day BTW!
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 -
8:30 am — House Intelligence Committee Stakeout (Members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence speak with reporters.)
Senate —
10:00 am — Senate Session (The Senate will resume debate on the nomination of David Tapp to be a judge for a fifteen year term on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims which hears monetary claims cases against the U.S. government.)
2:30 pm — Senate Homeland Security Committee Hearing on Domestic Threats (FBI Director Wray & Acting DHS Secretary McAleenan Testify on Domestic Threats.)
2:30 pm — Senate Subcommittee Hearing on Corporations & Data Breaches (A Microsoft executive testifies on data breaches and cybersecurity before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.)
2:30 pm — Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee Hearing on NASA Workforce & STEM Education (A Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee holds a hearing on STEM education and the future of the NASA workforce.)
Monday’s Votes: No votes.
Comments:
Today’s Events – Not a lot going on today in front of the cameras that is. You could watch the House Committee Stakeout for possible impeachment news though. Later today, the Senate Hearing on Domestic Threats could be interesting viewing.
Monday’s Votes — Both the House and Senate were not in session on Monday, so there were no votes.
COMMITTEE SUBPOENA WARS & IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS —
Today’s Impeachment/Subpoena HeadlineS:
A Total of Six Seven Witnesses Scheduled To Be Deposed This Week By Congressional Impeachment Committees, Including (Possibly) John Bolton (Eisenberg & Ellis Are No Shows)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Lawsuit Victory Will Result In Release Of Mueller Investigation Documents
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Some Impeachment Deposition Transcripts To Be Publicly Released This Week
(Yovanovitch & McKinley Transcripts Released Monday)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling Upholds Manhattan DA’s Subpoena for Trump Tax Returns (Trump To Appeal)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Giuliani Henchman Lev Parnas Announces He Will Cooperate With Congressional Impeachment Investigation
Details below under “COMMITTEE ACTIVITY”.
BTW — If you are looking to keep tabs on the fast moving developments on the Impeachment front, CNN has set up an up-to-the-minute page (Link).
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 — None.
New Developments — None, waiting for Court to set date for Appeals Hearing.,
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — Well the McGahn case finally had its day in court, and as has been the trend, it was not a good one for Team Trump. A federal judge sharply challenged the Trump administration on Thursday over its objections to a House Democratic lawsuit trying to force the testimony of one of Robert Mueller’s star witnesses as part of their broader impeachment inquiry. U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on Thursday struggled to size up the department’s argument. During the hearing, Jackson directed several pointed questions at the Justice Department. James Burnham, arguing for the Justice Department, replied that the dispute between the House Judiciary Committee and McGahn should not be resolved through litigation. He argued that the Constitution and more than two centuries of interactions between the White House and Congress hadn’t required courts to weigh in. And Jackson shouldn’t now, he said. “So the House can never go to court?” Jackson asked. “As a general proposition, that’s correct,” replied Burnham, a former White House aide under McGahn who is now serving in a senior position in the Justice Department’s civil division. Facing a barrage of skeptical questions from Jackson, Burnham later conceded, “If you don’t think the president has absolute immunity, that’s a serious problem for my argument.”
At the close of Thursday’s three-and-a-half-hour hearing, the judge said she was well aware of the interest in her opinion. “You can rest assured I do understand the significance of all of this. I’ll do my best to turn it around as quickly as possible,” she said, explaining that she was about to embark on a two-week trial that would limit her time. Jackson added that she’d be open to issuing an oral opinion from the bench, followed by a written decision, if the attorneys asked for an expedited step.
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’ Investigation —
NOTE: 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:
- Full House Passes Impeachment Procedures/Rules Resolution — I am starting to get a little encouraged on the way this thing seems to be timing out, based on the rules/procedures in this Resolution. As I have mentioned in previous posts, I favor having Articles of Impeachment handed over to the Senate in the February/March 2020 timeframe so the trial occurs in the middle of the Senate Primary elections, so as to put maximum heat on GOP Senators running for re-election. If you take into account the number of witnesses still to be deposed and possible delays in getting key witnesses (eg. Kupperman, not until December at the earliest), the length of time for Intelligence Committee Public Hearings, Compiling of a Report by the Intelligence Committee, the length of time for Judiciary Committee Hearings and the drafting of Articles of Impeachment and a Full House Vote, then throw in the Holiday recess, it seems reasonable that we are looking at February at the earliest to hand things over to the Senate. I also think this timeline would allow for inclusion of Mueller Report Obstruction and possibly crimes involving Trump taxes since the courts seem to be expediting things in both these matters.
- Morrison Testimony Confirms Facts Presented By Previous Witnesses — Morrison said in his closed-door testimony that he was concerned the July 25 call transcript between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would leak and could have negative ramifications, according to multiple sources and a copy of his opening statement obtained by CNN. But he also made the point that he saw nothing wrong with the July call. Morrison, whose appearance on Capitol Hill lasted for more than eight hours, backed up last week's testimony from Taylor, currently the top US diplomat in Ukraine, about interactions the two had regarding the President's efforts to press for investigations while US aid to Ukraine was held up. While he did deviate from Taylor on some details, Morrison testified that Sondland told him the President would release the aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced an investigation, according to sources. "I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate," Morrison said.
- Kupperman Lawsuit Hearing Scheduled For December 10 — A federal judge will consider a lawsuit over a key White House official's House subpoena on December 10. The federal judge, Richard Leon of the DC District Court, brought Kupperman's attorneys, the House and the Justice Department into court Thursday because the urgency of the situation. Chuck Cooper, the defense attorney for both Kupperman and Bolton, wouldn't say on Thursday whether Bolton will sue like his former deputy has. The judge pointed out that if he did, he would likely make similar legal arguments.
- NSC’s lead counsel, John Eisenberg Scheduled To Be Deposed On November 4 — As fully explained in this Mark Sumner Post:
When either Fiona Hill or Alexander Vindman talks about going to “the NSC’s lead counsel,” the person that they are not naming is Eisenberg. He’s a man who spends all day, every day, working in a SCIF and dealing with both critical security information and complaints like those raised by Hill and Vindman. He’s notoriously secretive. And he also happens to be the person who sent the transcript of Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president to the tightly controlled national security server—a server under his control.
New Developments — Another Busy Week Ahead, but first a correction:
CORRECTION: Last Thursday, October 31, I incorrectly wrote that a July 10 meeting described in Alexander Vindman’s testimony, was between White House officials and Ukraine President Zelensky. It was not. It was a meeting of White House officials and two members of President Zelensky’s staff. I would like to thank fellow blogger “subtropolis” who pointed out my mistake. I have made the correction in the September 26 Full Background Diary.
Now on with the new stuff:
- Six Witnesses “Scheduled” To Be Deposed This Week — Here are the witnesses scheduled to be deposed this week by members and staff from the Congressional Impeachment Committees, courtesy of the NY Times:
— Monday is a busy day, with investigators scheduled to talk to Robert Blair, an aide to Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff and Brian McCormack, associate director for natural resources, energy & science at the Office of Management and Budget. They’re also supposed to talk to John Eisenberg, the top lawyer on the National Security Council, and his deputy, Michael Ellis. Remember Eisenberg is the person who sent the transcript of Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president to the tightly controlled national security server—a server under his control.
UPDATE — All 4 of the Monday witnesses listed above were NO SHOWS, all choosing loyalty to the Criminal in the White House over loyalty to Country. No word whether House Impeachment Committees will pursue enforcement of the subpoenas on these four. Schiff would only say that this latest witness blockade by the White House would only add to Obstruction case.
— On Tuesday, a White House budget official, Michael Duffey, is scheduled to testify.
— On Wednesday, investigators want to talk to T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a State Department adviser close to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And
— On Thursday — and this is a big one — it could be John Bolton’s turn. The former national security adviser would be the closest person to President Trump to testify. Multiple witnesses have said he objected to the president’s dealings with Ukraine. But his lawyer said he would not appear voluntarily, and it’s not clear how he will respond to a subpoena.
UPDATE — Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor for Europe and Russia from Vice President Pence’s office has been added to the list of witnesses scheduled to testify on Thursday, according to last night’s Maddow Show. She is the first requested witness from Pence’s staff.
- Lawsuit Leads to Release of Mueller Investigation Documents — No, these documents have nothing to do with Ukraine-Gate, but they could figure into the impeachment investigation down the road if the scope is broadened to include wrongdoing documented by Mueller. Anyway, according to this story from The Hill:
BuzzFeed News said its lawsuits requested subpoenas and search warrants Mueller's team issued in addition to any emails, memos, letters, talking points, legal opinions and interview transcripts it created. The DOJ had reportedly pushed back against the request, saying that the records being sought could total 18 billion pages.
But U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said the department should ask Congress for assistance if it couldn't handle the task of releasing the requested documents.
The first batch includes 500 pages of summaries of FBI interviews with witnesses, according to summaries and documents shared by BuzzFeed News. The news outlet said new records will be released every month for the next eight years.
The good news is the records will be released every month for the next eight years, meaning there will be monthly dumps of these documents with likely Trump damaging news headlines right through the 2020 election. The bad news is the records will be released every month for the next eight years, meaning it will be a long while before we get the full picture of the Trump/Russia scandal and there is no way to tell if DoJ won’t hold on to the most damaging documents until the end. Also, DoJ will be allowed to redact the documents before release.
So what’s in these documents? Again, from The Hill:
The first batch includes 500 pages of summaries of FBI interviews with witnesses, according to summaries and documents shared by BuzzFeed News. The news outlet said new records will be released every month for the next eight years.
The summaries include significant information regarding Mueller's investigation and witnesses his unit interviewed over the course of the investigation. For example, Rick Gates, who had served as Trump's deputy campaign chairman, told investigators in April 2018 that Manafort pushed a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, initiated the hack of the Democratic National Committee.
So we now know that the crazy Ukraine conspiracy theory that lead to Trump’s Ukraine EXTORTION being investigated now by Congress, started way back during the Trump/Russia Election Interference Plot and was part of Mueller’s investigation.
- Yovanovitch & McKinley Transcripts Released Monday, Others To Follow: Of the two transcripts released Monday, the Yovanovich transcript was the most interesting. Here’s an excerpt of the Yovanovitch testimony from this NPR Report,
"Did the issue come up in that conversation or others about the Giuliani and his associates' interest in the Bidens and Burisma?" asked a Democratic staff counsel of Yovanovitch in the closed-door deposition.
"Yeah," Yovanovitch said. "I mean, looking backwards to what happened in the past, with a view to finding things that could be possibly damaging to a presidential run."
Asking for clarification, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California interjected: "By Joe Biden?"
"Uh-huh," Yovanovitch replied.
Yovanovitch also noted that she reported her conversation with Avakov back to the State Department, so there is a record.
"Everybody is sort of shocked," Yovanovitch said of the State Department's reaction.
Also, Yovanovitch had this to say:
"If you have the President's son saying, you know, We need to pull these clowns, or however he referred to me, it makes it hard to be a credible ambassador in a country," she said.
According to the transcript, Yovanovitch said she was "shocked" and "apprehensive" when she learned that Trump privately told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that she was "going to go through some things."
For his part, this is what Mike McKinley had to say:
Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. McKinley, a career foreign service officer, said Yovanovitch's treatment "raised alarm bells" and "had a very serious effect on morale" at the State Department, and he described "bullying tactics."
You can read the full Yovanovitch Transcript HERE and the full McKinley Transcript HERE, both courtesy of NPR.
- Giuliani Associate, Lev Parnas to Cooperate With House Impeachment Investigation — Lev Parnas, of Lev and Igor fame and who is under indictment by the SDNY AG, has announced, through his new lawyer, that he will cooperate with the House Impeachment Committees. According to Reuters:
Parnas, who helped Giuliani look for dirt on Trump’s political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, is a key figure in the impeachment inquiry that is examining whether Trump abused his office for personal political gain.
His apparent decision to work with the congressional committees represents a change of heart. Parnas rebuffed a request from three House of Representatives committees last month to provide documents and testimony.
“We will honor and not avoid the committee’s requests to the extent they are legally proper, while scrupulously protecting Mr. Parnas’ privileges including that of the Fifth Amendment,” said the lawyer, Joseph Bondy, referring to his client’s constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.
And more news on this from CNN:
The attorney, Joseph Bondy, told the team from CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" that he had sent a letter to congressional investigators saying Parnas will comply with a congressional subpoena for his documents and testimony.
However, Bondy said he would not use the word "cooperate."
Bondy also accused President Donald Trump of falsely denying he had a relationship with Parnas.
Rut Roh Rudy!
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 two cases going on aimed at getting 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, and the other is the case brought by Trump against the Manhattan DA to block his 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.
Recent Developments — There will be 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.
New Developments — The Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled against Donald Trump on Monday in his lawsuit to prevent his former Accounting Firm, Mazars, from honoring a Manhattan DA’s (Cyrus Vance Jr.) Subpoena for 8 years of Trump’s tax returns in his investigation into the 2016 payoffs made to Stormy Daniels and others for which Trump was named an Unindicted Co-Conspirator. According to this CBS News Report:
President Trump's tax returns can be turned over to state criminal investigators, a federal appeals court in New York ruled Monday. The ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is certain to be challenged, follows arguments from Mr. Trump's lawyers that he is immune from state criminal law — even if he shoots someone — because he's commander in chief.
"Any presidential immunity does not extend to investigative steps like the grand jury subpoena at issue here," ruled the three-judge appeals panel.
But, the judges said they only decided whether a state prosecutor can demand Mr. Trump's personal financial records while he is in office. The appeals court said it did not consider whether the president is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office or whether the president may be ordered to produce documents in a state criminal proceeding.
There are a couple of important points here that go beyond the core issue of Trump’s taxes. If you remember back to when Trump first argued his case in front of US Southern New York District Court Judge Victor Marrero, his legal team was arguing a case of “Absolute Presidential Immunity” from prosecution while in office and they were basing their argument, at least in part, on the Nixon Era DoJ Policy Memos which concluded sitting Presidents should not be prosecuted. In his ruling on this case Judge Marrero said:
Because the arguments the President advances are so substantially grounded on the supposed constitutional doctrine and rationale the DOJ Memos present, a close review of the DOJ Memos is called for. On such assessment, the Court rejects the DOJ Memos? position.
The heavy reliance the President places on the DOJ Memos is misplaced for several reasons. First, though they contain an exhaustive and learned consideration of the constitutional questions presented here, the DOJ Memos do not constitute authoritative judicial interpretation of the Constitution concerning those issues. In fact, as the DOJ Memos themselves also concede, the precise presidential immunity questions this litigation raises have never been squarely presented orfully addressed by the Supreme Court.
So the Judge not only dismissed Trump’s case regarding his tax returns, he also threw out the DoJ Memos saying a President cannot be indicted while in office, saying first that the memos have never been tested in court and then going on to rejecting them altogether which would allow for prosecution of a sitting President.
However, as can be seen above, in Monday’s Court of Appeals Ruling, the three (3) Judge panel didn’t go that far, saying only that the DoJ Memos do not preclude the investigation of a President, leaving out any judgement on whether the Court thinks the memos legal prevent a President from being indicted while in office.
Now that Trump’s legal team has announced they will appeal this case to SCOTUS, it will be interesting to see how this matter of the DoJ memos plays out. There are of course 3 possibilities:
1. SCOTUS Declines To Hear The Case — In this scenario, the Court of Appeals ruling would stand and Mazars would have to turn over the tax returns to the DA. But because that ruling sidestepped the issue of the DoJ Memos, the legal validity of those memos would go unanswered. BTW, it takes four (4) SCOTUS Judges to agree to hear the case. That means the 4 conservative Justices on the Court could force SCOTUS to take the case. However, part of me feels that they won’t take the case. Justice Thomas has indicated he is not a fan of Presidential privilege in past cases and Justice Roberts, who may not want the Court to wade into this political mess, may use his influence on the other 4 conservative Judges to keep this out of SCOTUS. In addition, from a legal perspective, Trump’s arguments have no legal merit and are totally Ridiculous. So while part of me agrees with Laurence Tribe who said on last night’s “The Last Word” that he thinks SCOTUS won’t take this case based on the logical norms that are supposed to govern such SCOTUS decisions, part of me worries that that they may just pull a Bush v. Gore and take the case.
2. SCOTUS Hears The Case And Punts On The DoJ Memos — Meaning they could rule on turning Trump’s tax returns over to the DA without ruling on the validity of the DoJ Memos, in the same way the Appeals Court did.
3. SCOTUS Hears The Case And Rules on the DoJ Memos — Meaning that they could rule in favor of Trump, prevent the DA from getting Trump’s taxes and validate the DoJ Memos protecting both Trump and all future Presidents from investigation and prosecution while in office OR they could rule in favor of the DA, requiring Mazars to turn over Trump’s taxes and declare the DoJ Memos null and void allowing Trump and all future Presidents to be investigated and prosecuted while in office.
COMMENTARY:
In the past, I have stated my strong opinion on this impeachment process in diaries posted here, here and here, in which I have favored the “Shotgun” method (i.e., combining all Trump’s abuses and crimes (e.g., Ukraine extortion, Mueller Report Obstruction of Justice, Southern District Campaign Finance violations, Emoluments Clause violations, etc.)) into Articles of Impeachment, over the “Single Shot” method (i.e., crafting Articles of Impeachment solely around the Ukraine extortion). Please feel free to go back and read my previous posts if you want to know my detailed arguments which I won’t bother to repeat here. But what I’d like to express today is that my opinion on hitting Trump with Articles of Impeachment on ALL his Abuses of Power and Criminality is stronger than ever.
The Courts are now giving Congress victory after victory in their battle to get the White House to turn over documents and witnesses in matters dealing with Mueller investigation and Trump’s tax returns, and these victories are coming at an accelerated pace, in comparison to normal legal timelines. What if these victories yield documents and witnesses in the coming weeks while the Ukraine-Gate investigation is going on, which is becoming increasingly likely? Does Congress just ignore this other stuff and move on with drafting only Ukraine-Gate Articles of Impeachment? For example, what if McGahn decides not to fight a court order for him to obey his Congressional subpoena and testify in the next few weeks, and lays out multiple instances where Trump directed him to obstruct justice? Or what if, in the next few weeks, Congress is given the Full transcripts from the Mueller Grand Jury complete with new evidence of uncharged Trump crimes? Or what if Congress, of the Manhattan DA, is successful in getting Trump’s tax returns which show multiple connections with Russia and alleged money laundering? Can and should Congress just ignore all of this stuff and move on with its single Ukraine based Article of Impeachment? NO! And what if it does, and more damaging stuff is revealed from the Mueller investigation or Trump’s taxes (more damaging and criminal than Ukraine-Gate) after the House sends its Ukraine based Article of Impeachment to the Senate for trial. Does Congress start a second Impeachment Investigation on Non-Ukraine Abuses of Power and Criminality or just gives Trump a pass on the rest of his crimes leaving it for voters to decide?
Now, I fully understand that the House cannot wait around for every last bit of evidence of Trump’s crimes to come to light which could take all of 2020 or longer. And I also understand that at some point the House needs to pull the plug and send what it has in terms of Impeachment articles over to the Senate in order to have a trial well before the election. Furthermore, I understand the logic in striking while public sentiment on impeachment is going our way, but it seems to be increasing with each passing day and new development, and shows no signs of going the other way, So I don’t see why there is this perceived rush to get it done before the end of the year. I don’t see how what the benefits are in the rush.
Also, what about the crime that Trump has already been indirectly charged with (i.e., named by the SDNY AG as an “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” in the Campaign Finance violations associated with Michael Cohen’s payoff of the women of Trump’s sexual affairs)? Do this get left out of the impeachment process even though there is already enough documented evidence to charge Trump with a crime?
In closing, I will say as I have said before in previous post, if the goal is to exert the maximum pressure on GOP Senators, which should be our goal, than we should send over Articles of Impeachment in late Winter/early Spring 2020 during or after the GOP Primary season and include ALL Trump’s Abuses of Power and Criminality that can be documented at that time, not just Ukraine-Gate. A Ukraine-Gate Only Impeachment allows GOP Senators to make up reasons to give Trump a pass for this single “minor” transgression despite his numerous other less/more serious transgressions. It will also allow Trump to claim that he is totally innocent of all of his other multiple offenses for which the House did not see fit to file Articles of Impeachment.
BOTTOM LINE here is Congressional Democrats need to have the need for evidence control the timeline, and not let the timeline control the need for evidence.
Feel free to agree or disagree in your comments below.
That’s All for today! If I missed some new development, I apologize. See You on Tuesday! Have a Fun Weekend!