TODAY IN CONGRESS:
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
WE’RE BACK IN SESSION!
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 returns from its Thanksgiving holiday and will consider eight bills including one that would grant citizenship to children born outside of the United States to U.S. parents if one of the parents is residing abroad as a U.S. government employee.)
Senate —
9:30 am — Senate Armed Services Committee holds a Hearing on Military Privatized Housing (The Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on a new government report looking into living conditions for military personnel in privatized housing.)
10:00 am — Senate Session (The Senate meets for legislative business with work expected on executive and judicial nominations.)
10:00 am — Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Russia (David Hale, the undersecretary of State for political affairs, testifies on U.S. policy toward Russia before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)
3:00 pm — Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on Fraudulent Trademarks (The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property holds a hearing on fraudulent trademarks.)
Comments:
Today’s Events – Well, with regard to what’s posted by C-Span so far, the Senate Hearing with regard to US policy towards Russia seems worthy of some popcorn. It will be interesting to see how Under-Secretary of State David Hale (from Impeachment Hearing fame) navigates the treacherous dichotomy between the Official US Policy towards Russia and the Backchannel Trump Foreign Policy towards Russia. Also, I would note that the Intelligence Committee will meet sometime this evening (according to Adam Schiff) to vote on sending the Committee’s Impeachment Report to the House Judiciary Committee. However, it is not yet posted on C-Span’s TV schedule.
COMMITTEE SUBPOENA WARS & IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS —
Today’s Impeachment/Subpoena HeadlineS:
DC Court of Appeals to Hear DoJ Appeal of McGahn Subpoena Case on Jan. 3
___________________________________________________________________________________________
House Intelligence Committee To Publicly Release Their Impeachment Report and Vote on it on Tuesday (TODAY)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Judiciary Committee To Hold First Impeachment Hearing on Wednesday
______________________________________________________________________________________
DC Court Judge Jackson Refuses to Extend Her on McGahn Subpoena
Details below under “COMMITTEE ACTIVITY”.
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY:
Introduction:
NOTE #1: 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.
NOTE #2: Because of all the impeachment stuff happening all at once, these TIC diaries are getting way too long. So in a somewhat futile attempt to shorten things a bit, I have removed the Committee subpoenas that have been inactive for weeks. You can still find out about them in my September 26 Diary (CLICK HERE). Also, I will still keep a check on them and if something new happens in any of them, I will post it in future TIC diaries.
NOTE #3: Well my September 26 Diary containing the full backgrounds on each of the subpoena and impeachment activities has gotten too long, so the character limit has made it impossible for me to use this diary to post new background information. So starting November 22, I have posted background information from November 22 going forward in this November 22 Background #2 Diary and I will keep it updated until I run out of space again. I have put in a new link to the November 22 TIC for you to access it in each Committee Activity below. I have also kept the old link to the September 26 Diary so you can obtain the pre-November 22 background information. I hope this makes sense? If not, just send me any questions you have in the comment section.
Now on with the show. (New and Important stuff in bold)
House Judiciary Committee Barr Subpoena for Unredacted Mueller Report —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Post Nov. 22 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — Well we are probably on hold in this case until the Jan. 3, 2020 DC Appeals Court Hearing on the merits of this case.
New Developments — On Monday (Dec. 2), the DoJ filed a Legal Brief with the DC Court of Appeals in opposition to the release of Mueller Grand Jury materials to Congress. According to this NPR Report:
The Justice Department says releasing secret grand jury documents from then-special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe to House lawmakers engaged in the impeachment inquiry could discourage future witnesses to presidential abuse from cooperating with grand juries.
"It is not difficult to imagine that a witness in a future investigation of alleged presidential misconduct might be deterred from testifying fully or frankly if she believed that her testimony would be readily disclosed to the House for use in impeachment proceedings," Justice Department lawyers wrote in a brief filed on Monday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Attorneys for the Justice Department are asking the appeals court to reverse a lower court's decision ordering the transfer of Mueller grand jury material to House investigators on a two-pronged argument: that an impeachment inquiry is not a "judicial proceeding" and that the House does not really need the documents to complete the impeachment investigation.
Also, there is this:
On Monday, Justice Department lawyers disputed that the 1974 case settled the issue, insisting that since the impeachment inquiry is not a "judicial proceeding," the material cannot fall within the confidential material exception the House lawyers cite.
"Even within the terms of the 'judicial proceeding' exception, the Supreme Court has stressed that secrecy remains the default," Justice Department attorneys wrote in their brief.
So the Trump/Barr DoJ is now trying to re-argue the Nixon case. We will see how far that gets them with the Appeals Court on Jan. 3.
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background —Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Post Nov. 22 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — On Monday [Nov. 25], Federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson handed down a historic ruling in the McGahn subpoena case, ordering him to honor the Congress’s lawful subpoena to appear before and give testimony to the House Judiciary Committee and thoroughly eviscerated the Trump DoJ argument of “Absolute Immunity”. There is already a lot written about this ruling and this DK Diary by Mokurai has links to many of the news reports. So I am not going to try to summarize the Judge’s 120 page ruling. But here’s my favorite excerpt:
Thus, for the myriad reasons laid out above as well as those that are articulated plainly in the prior precedents of the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this Court holds that individuals who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena—i.e., they cannot ignore or defy congressional compulsory process, by order of the President or otherwise.
Sounds to me the Judge is saying, in a roundabout, read between the lines way, that what McGahn did and other witnesses are doing in refusing to comply with a legal Congressional subpoena because the President requested that they ignore it, was/is illegal. They are personally breaking the law and the President’s request is no shield against prosecution.
Although this ruling is not directly applicable to John Bolton and other witnesses since he is not a part of this subpoena case and he has not yet received a Congressional subpoena, it is indirectly related to Bolton and others since it strike’s down DoJ’s argument of Presidential “Absolute Immunity” which the White House has applied to block all its current and former staff from testifying. So far Bolton has been silent on what, if any effect the ruling in the McGahn case may have on him appearing before Congress. The last statement from Bolton’s attorney is that if subpoenaed by Congress, he will abide by the upcoming ruling in the Kupperman case (Kupperman is a Bolton staffer who is asking the court to decide whether he should abide by a Congressional subpoena to testify or abide by the President’s request that he not testify). That case has a Hearing scheduled for December 10.
In response, to Monday’s ruling, McGahn’s attorney says he will testify unless a stay is issued. On Wednesday morning, the DOJ asked Jackson to halt the implementation of the decision while it prepared an appeal. According to this NBC News Report:
Lawyers for the House had told the judge that while they wouldn't oppose a brief stay, they would oppose a longer one that lasted throughout the appeals process.
"Such a stay would impair the House's ongoing impeachment inquiry," they said. And even if McGahn doesn't play a role in the House process, his testimony might be a factor in a Senate trial, they told the judge.
So, as expected, according to this DK FP Post by the GREAT Mark Sumner:
On Wednesday afternoon, Judge Jackson agreed to do so, but, as TPM notes, the administrative stay is limited to a seven days. The judge made it clear in her statement that the stay should in no way “be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of the motion for stay pending appeal.”
Whether Judge Jackson will give the DOJ a requested longer stay is still up in the air, but considering the force of her decision—which declared that there was no such thing as the Trump White House’s claimed “unlimited immunity” for members of the executive branch, and stated bluntly that “presidents are not kings”—she made clear her position that there is absolutely no merit in the case being pressed by the DOJ. That leaves the possibility that the seven-day time-out could expire in the middle of next week, and that Jackson could very well refuse to extend the stay.
Which means the DoJ will have to hustle (over the Holiday) to put together an Appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a request for a longer stay. Let’s be clear, a stay does not prevent McGahn from testifying if he so chooses, it just temporarily keeps him out of legal trouble since it stays the Judge’s order compelling him to testify.
New Developments — On Wednesday [Nov. 27], the same day as Judge Jackson issued her 7 day stay, DoJ Filed an appeal and request for a longer stay the the DC Court of Appeals. In response, the Court of Appeals granted their own stay and agreed to hear the case on an expedited schedule. According to this NBC News Report:
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia acted hours after U.S. District Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson issued a seven-day stay of her own order to give her time to consider the government's request for an even longer stay.
Such holds, known as administrative stays, are often issued to give lawyers a chance to file their appeals, and Jackson said her order "should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits" of keeping her ruling on a longer hold.
The federal government, which argues that senior White House advisers are absolutely immune to congressional subpoenas, then appealed for the extra time to the circuit court, which set an expedited schedule for the underlying appeal with oral arguments on Jan. 3.
So it looks like Jan. 3 is going to be a Big Court Day. BUT!
UPDATE: In a late in the day decision on Monday, U.S. District Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson issued a ruling denying DoJ’s request for an extension of her seven (7) day stay which expired at midnight on Monday. According to this TPM Story:
U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson denied Monday the administration’s request for a stay. The administration has already asked an appeals court to put on hold her order from last week that McGahn testify. The appeals court has put the ruling on an administrative hold, and has scheduled briefing and oral arguments on the merits of the appeal.
On Monday, the judge said that the Justice Department could not “make a persuasive showing of irreparable harm in the absence of a colorable argument that McGahn’s mere appearance before the Judiciary Committee would, in and of itself, be harmful.”
She also brought up the House Judiciary Committee’s emphasis, in opposing the stay request, on the possibility that McGahn could testify for the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
“[T]the Judiciary Committee would almost certainly lose the chance to question McGahn as part of the present impeachment inquiry if a stay order issues, which would unquestionably harm the ongoing investigation that the Judiciary Committee is conducting, and by extension, would also injure the public’s interest in thorough and well-informed impeachment proceedings,” she said.
But, the TPM Story also states:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that the administrative stay would last “pending further order of” the appeals court. It has scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 3.
So not being a lawyer, I am not sure what effect the Judge’s ruling on McGahn’s testimony. I can only surmise that the Appeals Court “Administrative Stay” will allow McGahn to avoid testifying, if he chooses to avoid testifying, through at least Jan. 3, effectively replacing the Judge’s expired stay. My guess is we will see how McGahn responds soon.
House Oversight Committee Files Lawsuit to Enforce its Subpoenas to Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary) and AG William Barr —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Post Nov. 22 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — If you remember way back when, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed both Ross and Barr for testimony and documents related to Trump’s failed attempt to have a citizenship question added to the 2020 Census form. If you need your memory refreshed, you can go to my August 27 TIC to get it refreshed. As summed up in Hunter's FP Post:
This investigation is over Wilbur Ross' now-proven lies (including perjury) on the origins of the citizenship question the administration attempted to stuff into the 2020 census over the strong objections of census officials.
Both Ross and Barr were held in Contempt of Congress by a House vote for failure to honor their subpoenas, and nothing has happened in this matter since then. Frankly I thought the Committee had decided not to enforce their subpoenas since Trump/Ross decided not to add the citizenship question to the Census. But, on Monday [Nov. 25] the House Committee announced it was filing a lawsuit in Federal Court to enforce these subpoenas. Why, you may ask? I’m really not sure, other than not allowing Barr and Ross to get away with defying Congress. Why Now, you may ask? That’s an easier question. Both Barr and Ross have used the phoney legal argument of “Presidential Absolute Immunity” to defend defying their Congressional Subpoenas. This is the same legal argument that just went down in flames in the Federal Judge’s ruling in the McGahn case. I think that the House Oversight Committee sees this McGahn ruling as adding significant support to their case, and by the time the Ross/Barr case has a Hearing in Federal Court, the McGahn case will have wound its way through the Appeals process and a final decision in that case (if in Congress’s favor as is expected) will make the Barr/Ross case a legal slam dunk.
New Developments — None.
House Intelligence, & Judiciary 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 —Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Post Nov. 22 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — Here are some recent developments:
- President Trump (the Impeachment Defendant) and A Group of GOP Senators (Some of the Impeachment Jurors) Meet Over Lunch to Plot Their Senate Trial Strategy — On Thursday [Nov. 21] a group of Republican senators and senior White House officials met privately to map out a strategy for a potential impeachment trial of President Trump, including proceedings in the Senate that could be limited to about two weeks, according to multiple officials familiar with the talks, according to this Washington Post report. The gang consisted of:
Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), John Neely Kennedy (La.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Tom Cotton (Ark.) met with White House counsel Pat Cipollone, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, senior adviser Jared Kushner, and counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway, according to the officials, some of whom requested anonymity to discuss a private meeting.
So if this was going to be like a normal trial (which I would argue the Founding Fathers intended it to be) this would be blatant, out in the open Jury Tampering. But this is an Impeachment trial and unfortunately there is nothing written in the Constitution prohibiting such tampering. Still the meer fact that the Constitution calls this a trial with a Judge and refers to the Senators as the “Jurors”, should be enough of a hint that this sort of pre-trial tampering is just plain wrong. Also, as expressed in this DK Diary by Laurence Lewis, it appears the strategy being cooked up by the Defendant and some of his Jurors, is to rush through the trial with the Jury voting to not hear some witnesses. Can you say reverse Kangaroo Court!
- State Department Releasing Documents in Response to a FOIA Court Order — On Friday evening [Nov. 22], as has been the case most every Friday evening since Trump took office, the media received a document dump. The State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to a Federal Judge’s ruling on FOIA lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a little known non-partisan, nonprofit ethics watchdog group seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine. According to this Press Release by American Oversight:
Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.
American Oversight is reviewing the production to assess whether the State Department has fully complied with the court’s order.
In a statement by American Oversight’s Director Austin Evers:
“We can see why Mike Pompeo has refused to release this information to Congress. It reveals a clear paper trail from Rudy Giuliani to the Oval Office to Secretary Pompeo to facilitate Giuliani’s smear campaign against a U.S. ambassador.
“This is just the first round of disclosures. The evidence is only going to get worse for the administration as its stonewall strategy collapses in the face of court orders.
“That American Oversight could obtain these documents establishes that there is no legal basis for the administration to withhold them from Congress. That conclusively shows that the administration is engaged in obstruction of justice. The president and his allies should ask themselves if impeachment for obstruction is worth it if the strategy isn’t even going to be effective.
“This lawsuit is just one of several American Oversight is pursuing to bring transparency to the Ukraine investigation. The public should expect more disclosures, over the administration’s strong objection, for the foreseeable future.”
Here is a little excerpt of what American Oversight has learned from these documents:
The documents show a March 26, 2019, call between Rudy Giuliani and Mike Pompeo. (Page 39 of document)
A March 28, 2019, email includes a list of scheduled calls for Pompeo. Calls include Rudy Giuliani on March 29, and Rep. Devin Nunes on April 1, 2019.
During his closed-door testimony, career diplomat David Hale mentioned two calls between Pompeo and Giuliani, one on March 28, 2019, and one on March 29. The documents include a March 28 email to Hale indicating that Pompeo had been the one to request a call with Giuliani. (Page 45)
The March 29 call appears on page 46, and the confirmation of its scheduling is on page 44.
You can read the entire 100 pages of released documents HERE courtesy of American Oversight. Yes, these are some of the same documents that were subpoenaed by Congress and which the State Department has refused to turn over.
What baffles me about this release of documents (and apparently there will be much more to come according to American Oversight) is why the State Department didn’t appeal the Judge’s ruling and seek a stay from an Appeals Court to at least delay the document release?
The only thing I can think of is while Pompeo had his best lawyers guarding the front door of the document vault against the Congresses subpoena, he left non-political, career State Department attorneys guarding the back door to the vault against the Citizen Group FOIA request. Those back door guards being career attorneys who simply followed the FOIA law and saw no reasonable grounds for appeal. Pompeo must be pissed.
Anyway they haven’t been 100% forthcoming in providing the FOIA documents according to American Oversight:
The State Department did not produce a formal directive recalling Yovanovitch or a formal readout of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky. Both of these were covered by the court’s production order.
More litigation to come I presume.
- Lev Parnas (Giuliani Stooge #1) Attorney Announces His Client Wants to Sing Like a Bird — On Friday evening (Nov. 22) there was this CNN Report:
The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy,
represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.
"Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December," said Bondy.
Shokin was ousted from his position in 2016 after
pressure from Western leaders, including then-vice president Biden, over concerns that Shokin was not pursuing corruption cases.
So Nunes is not just one of the group of GOP House Members pushing the totally phoney, Russian Born Biden/Burisma Conspiracy Theory being peddled by Shokin, he apparently was in on its creation. The CNN Report goes on:
Bondy told CNN that his client and Nunes began communicating around the time of the Vienna trip. Parnas says he worked to put Nunes in touch with Ukrainians who could help Nunes dig up dirt on Biden and Democrats in Ukraine, according to Bondy.
That information would likely be of great interest to House Democrats given its overlap with the current impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and could put Nunes in a difficult spot.
Bondy told CNN his client is willing to comply with a Congressional subpoena for documents and testimony as part of the impeachment inquiry in a manner that would allow him to protect his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Bondy suggested in a
tweet on Friday that he was already speaking to House Intel though the committee declined to comment.
Yes, the Committee should arrange to have Parnas testify (first in a closed door deposition, and then in a Public Hearing if necessary). But no, they should not grant him immunity from prosecution in advance. And yes, Nunes should be and probably will be brought up on Ethics charges in the House.
- Lev Parnas (Giuliani Stooge #1) Has Turned Over TAPES — On Sunday (Nov. 24) it was reported that indicted conspirator Lev Parnas, (through his lawyer) has turned over video/audio recordings and photographs to the House Intelligence Committee of meetings between Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump. According to this ABC News Report:
The House Intelligence Committee is in possession of audio and video recordings and photographs provided to the committee by Lev Parnas, an associate of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who reportedly played a key role in assisting him in his efforts to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
The material submitted to the committee includes audio, video and photos that include Giuliani and Trump. It was unclear what the content depicts and the committees only began accessing the material last week.
All I can say is: “OH Boy, Oh Boy, We Got Tapes!”
- Internal White House Correspondence Reportedly Shows an Effort to Cook Up Phoney Reasons for Withholding Ukrainian Military Aid and Determine Legality — According to this Washington Post Report:
A confidential White House review of President Trump’s decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal, according to three people familiar with the records.
The research by the White House Counsel’s Office, which was triggered by a congressional impeachment inquiry announced in September, includes early August email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds after President Trump had already ordered a hold in mid-July on the nearly $400 million in security assistance, according to the three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.
That is the one thing that stood out to me during the Hearings. Although, Democrats found it hard to find direct witnesses who said explicitly that Trump told them to withhold the Aid until Zelensky publicly announces the Burisma/Biden/2016 investigations, the Republicans were totally unable to offer any other plausible explanation for why the funds were being withheld. Now we find out that the White House Gang was trying to cook up some phoney reasons, but apparently failed since none were made public (of course Mulvaney did blurt out the real reason). They also were trying to determine reasons why it was legal for the President to withhold funds duly appropriated by Congress and signed into law by Trump himself. Apparently, they failed at that too. The actual E-mails detailing what was being planned have not been released, but I did hear a report that the American Oversight watchdog group has filed a FOIA request to obtain them.
- Transcript of OMB Official Mark Sandy’s Closed Door Deposition Released — The transcript of Mark Sandy’s closed door testimony has been released by the House Impeachment Committees. According to this Wednesday [Nov. 27] CNN Report:
Mark Sandy, a career official in the Office of Management and Budget, said that the White House did not tell his office that the aid was being frozen over concerns about other countries' contributions until months after the hold was put in place. Sandy described deep dissatisfaction within the OMB after the hold was put in place, including questions being raised about the legality of the freeze and the resignations of officials who expressed concerns about the move.
Furthermore,
Sandy said that when he learned the aid was withheld on July 19, after returning from a vacation, he raised legal concerns because the funds had to be obligated by September 30, the end of the fiscal year, under the Impoundment Control Act. The law, passed in the 1970s, prohibits a sitting US president from unilaterally withholding funds that were appropriated by Congress. Some liberal-minded scholars have opined that Trump broke the law when he froze the aid, because the $390 million in military help for Ukraine had been appropriated by lawmakers.
You can read the full Sandy transcript HERE.
- House Judiciary Committee Announces First Impeachment Hearing on December 4 — According to this POLITICO Article:
The House Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing next week on the impeachment of President Donald Trump, as Democrats move quickly to the next stage of a process that is likely to lead to the third-ever presidential impeachment before the end of the year.
The hearing, scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 4, will feature a panel of constitutional experts and focus on the definition of an impeachable offense and the “procedural application of the impeachment process,” according to committee aides.
“The impeachment inquiry is entering into a new phase,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct like those against President Trump.”
Most notably, the hearing will give Trump and his legal team the option to participate. The president and his allies have blasted Democrats over their impeachment inquiry, saying it has failed to include meaningful due process for the president.
Nadler sent a letter to Trump on Tuesday notifying him of his lawyers’ opportunity to attend and giving the president a deadline of Dec. 1 to inform him of whether his attorneys plan to participate.
Well, things are moving fast on the impeachment front.
New Developments — A Busy Week Ahead. Let's Get To It!
- House Judiciary Committee Announces Constitutional Expert Witness List — The Committee has released its expert witnesses for this Wednesday’s Hearing. According to this POLITICAL Report:
Democrats will call Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor, Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, and Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.
Republicans on the panel, meanwhile, will call Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has written extensively about the Trump impeachment inquiry, as their witness.
Wednesday’s hearing is set to focus on laying out the constitutional grounds for impeachment, as Democrats look to make the case that Trump violated his oath of office by attempting to leverage military aid and a potential White House visit to pressure Ukraine's president to commit to political probes. Republicans, faced with a damaging set of facts laid out in two weeks of public testimony last month, will argue that Democrats have not uncovered evidence that Trump‘s behavior is impeachable.
I was hoping the Dems. requested former Special Prosecutor Ken Starr or Fox News favorite Judge Andrew Napolitano to testify. Both have been on Fox News arguing that what Trump has done are impeachable offenses. It sure would have put Republicans in a difficult spot having to go against their own kind.
- White House Says It Won’t Participate in First Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing — According to this POLITICO Report:
The White House informed House Democrats on Sunday that it will not participate in the Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing, excoriating Democrats’ impeachment inquiry as a “baseless” and “partisan” exercise in scathing five-page letter to the panel’s chairman.
The decision indicates that President Donald Trump has listened to his allies and some congressional Republicans who argued that a White House presence at the hearing would validate a process they have harangued as illegitimate and partisan.
Sounds like a win win to me. Now we only have to deal with the crazy Republicans on the Committee and not both them and the crazy Trump defense team. Also, this leaves people to speculate that maybe you don’t want to defend yourself because you have no defense.
- House Intelligence Committee Reviewing Final Impeachment Report — Public Release and Vote on Tuesday — According to this POLITICO Report:
Members of the House Intelligence Committee will begin reviewing a report Monday on the panel's investigation of President Donald Trump's efforts to press Ukraine to investigate his Democratic adversaries, a crucial step in the House's fast-moving impeachment inquiry.
Lawmakers on the panel will get a 24-hour review period, according to internal guidance sent to committee members and obtained by POLITICO. On Tuesday, the panel is expected to approve the findings — likely on a party-line vote — teeing it up for consideration by the Judiciary Committee, which is in turn expected to draft and consider articles of impeachment in the coming weeks.
The House has been moving quickly to investigate Trump since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24. Democratic leaders, including Pelosi, have refused to assign a public end date to their investigation but many lawmakers have said privately they hope to wrap up by the end of the year.
After the vote, the ball will be officially in the House Judiciary Committee’s court. Also, on Monday’s Rachel Maddow Show, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff announced that the report will be made public on Tuesday (TODAY). He described it as long, but he did not go into detail.
House Ways & Means Committee & Manhattan DA Subpoenas (Trump’s Tax Returns) —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Post Nov. 22 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 — SCOTUS Issues A Stay In The Case Involving the House Committee’s Subpoena of Trump’s Tax Returns — In a one page ruling on Monday [Nov.25], which you can read HERE courtesy of the DK Diary by MTmofo, SCOTUS granted Team Trump its requested stay in the case of Congress’s subpoena of Mazars (Trump’s former Accounting Firm) for Trump’s financial records including his tax returns. The stay temporarily prevents Mazars from handing over Trump’s financial records/tax returns by the deadline imposed by the Court of Appeals ruling. As stated in the SCOTUS ruling, the stay is to allow for the filing and disposition by SCOTUS of a writ of certiorari by Team Trump by no later than December 5 (i.e., Trump must submit a request for SCOTUS to take the case by December 5, and if he does, the stay will remain in effect at least until SCOTUS makes its decision on whether to hear the case or not).
I have heard a lot of legal Pundit speculation that this means SCOTUS is planning to take the case and a lot that this doesn’t provide any indication that they will or won’t hear the case. The most plausible legal opinion I have heard on this is that SCOTUS is just buying itself time to consider whether to hear both Trump tax cases that are now being elevated to the Supreme Court level. The two cases are this Congressional subpoena case and the case of the Manhattan DAs subpoena of Mazars for Trump’s tax returns. Since they are similar with respect to the fact that they both involve the subpoenaing of Trump tax returns from Mazars, it makes sense that SCOTUS would want to decide on whether to hear them at the same time. However, the cases are different in that Congress is seeking the returns as part of its Executive Oversight role and the Manhattan DA is seeking them as part of a criminal investigation into Trump’s payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels for which Michael Cohen was convicted and incarcerated. They could decide to hear both cases, hear neither case or hear one and not the other. We will see.
New Developments — None.
COMMENTARY — So WHAT’S THE RUSH?
All indications are that the House Judiciary Committee will put out Articles of Impeachment in the next couple of weeks so that a full House vote on Impeachment can vote on impeachment before the end of the year Holiday Recess. They seem likely to focus solely on Trump’s Ukraine crimes and ignore his multitude of other crimes as enumerated in the Mueller Report and other Committee investigations. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead! But I have not heard a single credible reason why? If the goal is to get a Senate Trial over with before the Presidential Primaries begin in February, what makes them (Dem. Leadership) think that #MoscowMitch will go along. Why wouldn’t McConnell, who stalled Obama’s Merrick Garland SCOTUS nomination for over a year, just delay the start of a trial for just one month in order to cause Dem. Presidential Candidates who happen to be Senators the most difficulty. This is political hardball 101 for Mitch.
I went into detail on my concerns over this hasty, single bullet impeachment process in my SPECIAL EDITION TIC last week (I encourage you to read it HERE). So I won’t go into repeat myself now. Also, I would encourage you to read This Diary by Liberal Thinking which argues for a broad scope of impeachment articles.
But let me leave you with this:
What’s the Rush? I honestly can’t see why the House wants to wrap up Impeachment before the end of the year and leave out a bunch of Trump crimes that are part of ongoing and incomplete investigations. It leaves my with a bunch of unanswered questions.
What happens to all the other ongoing House oversight investigations of Trump? Do they just drop them? Do they continue them to use their results against Trump in the 2020 elections?
What if they yield crimes as bad or worse than Ukraine? Do they just adopt the Republican’s line of letting the voters decide Trump’s guilt or innocence (which BTW, is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, voters are not supposed to be Jurors)? Do they start a second impeachment process (I doubt it)?
What will Trump do having not even been impeached for most of his crimes? Will he simply behave himself until January 2021 (I doubt it)? Will he go totally off the deep end and plunge our whole nation into a war or economic disaster? Will he go full tilt pro-Putin to insure Russia’s help in 2020?
These are just some of the important questions that Dems. who are in favor of rushing through impeachment should have to answer.
P.S. — To be fair to Adam Schiff, he did say on Monday’s Rachel Maddow Show that although the Intelligence Committee will submit its report the Judiciary Committee today, they will be continuing their investigations. He mentioned possibly subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses, and said that if significant new evidence is turned up, they will issue a supplemental report to the Judiciary Committee. To that end, Schiff mentioned that his committee was talking to attorney’s for indicted Giuliani Associate Lev Parnas and the SDNY about allowing Parnas to testify in front of the committee. Also, the Judiciary Committee Court cases over subpoenas for Mueller Grand Jury materials and McGahn testimony are still being pursued by the committee as part of the Impeachment Inquiry as they continue to use impeachment as the basis of their legal arguments. So I’m not giving up on a comprehensive, well timed out set of t Articles just yet.
That's All For Today! Comments and Corrections Welcome!