TODAY IN CONGRESS:
Introduction: The Background sections are repeated with each new post, with added details from recent developments. They are intended to help new, first time readers get up to speed on each subpoena and impeachment activity.
Now on with the show. (New and Important stuff in bold)
House Judiciary Committee Barr Subpoena for Unredacted Mueller Report —
Background - Back in May, House Judiciary Chairman Nadler issued a subpoena AG Barr for the full, unredacted Mueller Report and all of the underlying documents. Of course Barr did not hand over any documents in response to this subpoena. So in June, the full House subsequently voted to give Chairman Nadler the power to go to court to enforce the subpoena. Sometime thereafter, Barr allowed Committee members and staff to review some of the underlying documents (i.e., FBI 302 Reports compiled during the Mueller investigation). On July 26, the Committee went to Federal Court to get portions of the Mueller Report released to Congress, arguing they need the information in order to decide whether to impeach President Donald Trump. The interesting part of this (to me anyway) is that these Grand Jury transcripts are held by the Judicial Branch of government not just the DoJ. So the courts can decide to release them directly to Congress instead of having to go through Trump’s DoJ.
On October 1 lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee suggested that the redactions in former special counsel Bob Mueller’s report show that President Trump may have lied about his campaign’s ties to WikiLeaks, according to a court filing obtained by Politico.
The filing noted that one part of Mueller’s report cited former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort saying he “recalled” Trump asking to be “updated” about disclosures of stolen Democratic National Committee emails, but the passage included a grand jury redaction.
“The text redacted ... and any underlying evidence to which it may point are critical to the committee’s investigation,” the attorneys said. “Those materials therefore have direct bearing on whether the president was untruthful, and further obstructed the special counsel’s investigation, when in providing written responses to the special counsel’s questions he denied being aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks.”
I’m not sure of the Committee lawyers have possibly obtained a leaked copy of some Grand Jury material or if they are just fishing. I would have to guess the former, since attorneys usually do not make baseless allegations in court filings.
On October 8, there was a “Motion Hearing” at the DC District Court in front of Judge Beryl Howell according to the DC Court Calendar. The case is about getting the Mueller Grand Jury transcripts released to the Judiciary Committee, since a number of the redactions in the Mueller Report are due to Grand Jury proceedings.
On Tuesday (October 8), lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee and the DoJ appeared before DC Circuit Court Judge Beryl Howell in a Hearing over the release to Congress of the Mueller Grand Jury transcripts. It didn't go well for the Trump DoJ whose claims for why the transcripts should not be shared with Congress were beyond the pale.
Shapiro [DoJ lawyer] argued that if the same Watergate road map arose today, there'd be a "different result" because the law has changed since 1974. She said the judge wouldn't be able to do the same thing absent changes to the grand jury rules and statutes.
To which Judge Howell responded with stunned skepticism. "Wow. OK".
The judge did not say when she would rule on this case, but she did order DoJ to disclose by this Friday whether the Mueller team disclosed grand jury information to foreign entities when it requested assistance from foreign countries during its investigation, in order to establish whether the Justice Department was refusing to give Congress information it had already disclosed to other nations.
On Friday, October 11, DoJ responded to Judge Beryl Howell’s question on whether Mueller had shared protected Grand Jury material with any foreign government by saying that "No grand jury information collected from the Mueller investigation and protected from disclosure was shared with any foreign government as part of a Mutual Legal Assistant Treaty (MLAT) request," and no information was shared pursuant to a rule that governs any mutual assistance treaty with another nation or disclosure to another law enforcement agency, according to court documents. Not sure where this allegation came from, but I don’t think it will have much bearing on the Judge’s decision on the Grand Jury materials, as we await her decision.
On October 17, in what appears to be a partial ruling in the case to get redacted Grand Jury materials from the Mueller Report released to Congress, Judge Beryl Howell ruled that two names were improperly redacted by DoJ lawyers in an Affidavit. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in her opinion that the department erroneously redacted a portion of a document after invoking grand jury secrecy protections, even though the two names that were concealed belonged to individuals who did not testify before a grand jury during the Mueller probe. The redactions in question came in an affidavit submitted to the court by Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, who reviewed Mueller’s report for classified information before it was transmitted to Congress.
Best I can tell this seems to be a side issue, and we are still waiting for the Judge’s decision on the Grand Jury redactions in the Mueller Report.
On October 22, DoJ confirmed to Judge Howell that Don McGahn and Donald Trump Jr. did NOT appear before the Mueller Grand Jury. The disclosure was set in motion by Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., who ruled last week that Justice Department attorneys had deleted too much information from a court filing last month in an ongoing legal dispute over Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to share with House lawmakers grand jury-related information in Mueller’s final report. Howell’s opinion, issued Thursday, suggested it was perplexing why Trump Jr. and McGahn were not subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. “The Special Counsel’s reasons remain unknown,” Howell wrote. “The reason is not that the individuals were insignificant to the investigation. To the contrary, both of the non-testifying individuals named in paragraph four figured in key events examined in the Mueller Report. Assessment of these choices by the Special Counsel is a matter for others.”
On Friday (Oct. 25), Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the DC Circuit Court ordered the DoJ to turn over to Congress all of the Mueller Grand Jury materials by Oct. 30, including both the Grand Jury Transcripts and the portions of the Mueller Report which were redacted on the basis of Grand Jury confidentiality. But what’s most amazing is the way her ruling totally destroyed the Doj’s phoney arguments. Howell said the the DOJ’s interpretation of the law was “wrong.” “In carrying out the weighty constitutional duty of determining whether impeachment of the President is warranted, Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel’s investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information to the grand jury and the Special Counsel that varies from what they tell HJC,” she said. “The White House’s stated policy of non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry weighs heavily in favor of disclosure,” she said alluding to the blanket ban the White House Counsel’s office recently imposed on administration officials participating with the impeachment probe. Howell also dismantled arguments by the Justice Department and the top Judiciary Committee Republican claiming that the impeachment inquiry was illegitimate because it was not opened with a resolution approved by the full house House. “Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” she said.
She also went on to give a few astonishing hints as to what is under the Mueller Grand Jury redactions, in a way that sounds like she is saying “Congress, you really have got to take a look at this.”
In addition, as many expected, DoJ filed an appeal of Judge Howell’s decision and is requesting the DC Court of Appeals to issue a stay to postpone her October 30th deadline until the appeal is resolved.
Two (2) developments on October 29:
First, the House Judiciary Committee argued to a federal judge on Tuesday it has an "urgent" need for access to grand jury secrets from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. "The public interest demands a swift but thorough impeachment investigation," the House wrote in its filing Tuesday. "Delay in this case would not only hinder the House's ability to consider impeachment quickly, but also enhance DOJ's ability to run out the clock on the committee's impeachment inquiry altogether." I would note that the strong statement by the House Judiciary Committee here leaves little doubt that the Mueller findings are still very much a part of this impeachment investigation.
Second, a federal circuit court on Tuesday evening temporarily blocked the release of grand jury materials from former special counsel
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. A three-judge panel, all Obama appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, suspended a lower court’s Wednesday deadline in order to have extra time to consider the merits of a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request.
This was to be expected since disclosure of the transcripts to Congress would have made the Appeal moot. Hopefully, this case will be expedited by the Appeals Court.
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.
On November 12, 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.
There was supposed to be an Appeals Court Hearing on November 12 on granting Congress access to the Mueller Grand Jury materials. However, so far, I have not been able to find any news reports as to what went on (all are too busy with the impeachment thing I guess). I will continue looking and will post anything I can find in a later update. If any of you come across any news on this court hearing, please post in a comment.
Well I found out that a federal appeals court in Washington has set a Nov. 18 hearing to consider a trial judge’s order validating the House’s impeachment inquiry and requiring the U.S. Justice Department to disclose now-secret grand jury materials that were part of the special counsel’s Russia investigation.
So on Nov. 18 the Appeals Court made a ruling to temporarily suspend the release of the Mueller Grand Jury materials to Congress. A three-judge panel, all Obama appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, suspended a lower court’s Wednesday deadline in order to have extra time to consider the merits of a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request. The appeals court in its ruling Tuesday said the purpose of its stay was to provide “sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion” by the DOJ. The judges noted that their temporary suspension of the lower court’s deadline “should not be construed” as a ruling on the merits of the agency’s request. Late Monday, the three-judge panel that heard the case in the morning issued an order scheduling oral arguments Jan. 3 on the merits of the Mueller grand jury fight.
So this is on hold until next year.
I would note that the lawyers for the House who were arguing for release of the Mueller Grand Jury materials during oral arguments, suggested that the materials are needed to help the Congress determine whether Trump committed perjury in his written responses to Mueller’s questions. That is the first time anyone has suggested that Trump may have committed Clinton-Style perjury.
I would also note that there was a discussion involving some Republican appointed Judges, not on the 3 Judge Panel that issued the ruling, over whether it was appropriate for the courts to get involved in any legal fights between the Executive and Legislative Branches when questions of impeachment are involved. This seems nuts to me, because if the Courts don’t decide such matters, who decide which side wins. If they do not rule as suggested by these Republican Judges, The Executive Branch (in this case Trump’s DoJ) automatically wins because they are not compelled by any legal ruling to release the Mueller Grand Jury materials, which I guess is exactly how the Republican Judges, one a Trump appointee, have strategize it.
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — In April, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to former White House Counsel Don McGahn for both documents and testimony regarding his statements documented in the Mueller Report pertaining to Trump’s attempts at obstruction of justice. Trump directed McGahn to defy the subpoena, which he did. In response, the House voted in June to adopt a resolution granting the House Judiciary Committee authority to take former White House counsel McGahn to federal court to enforce subpoenas. In preparation for the anticipated Court battle, Trump’s DoJ provided a legal opinion making the totally fictitious and silly claim that McGahn has “Absolute Immunity” from testifying about any matters he discussed with Trump as WH Counsel. On August 7, the Judiciary Committee exercised the power granted to them by the full House and filed a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Don McGahn, in a long-awaited effort to secure his testimony and defeat the White House’s efforts to block former top advisers from testifying about their West Wing tenure. Most significantly, the court filing finally resolved the question the Media has been hounding Congressional Democrats on for months, “Is this an Impeachment Inquiry?”
The McGahn case has been randomly assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. Jackson has ruled against the Trump administration in prior cases last year, including ruling against the Department of Health and Human Services in June 2018 and striking down executive orders related to federal workers and unions last August.
On August 27, the House Judiciary Committee asked the court to expedite lawsuit seeking Don McGahn's testimony.
On or about September 3, the Judge in the McGahn case set a schedule for the proceedings. By Oct. 1, the Justice Department and McGahn are due to respond to the House's initial filing. The House would then have two weeks to reply to their arguments, and the Justice Department would have until Oct. 25 to respond again.
According to the Court Calendar there will be a Motion Hearing on October 31 (Happy Halloween, Don) in D.C. Circuit Court in front of Judge Jackson on the subpoena case of the House Judiciary Committee vs. Don McGahn in a continuing effort to enforce the Committee’s witness subpoena. This case is critical for two reasons: 1. It is being billed as the test case for Trump’s crazy claim of “absolute immunity” which he has used to try to block testimony by McGahn and a slew of other witnesses to the President’s Obstruction of Justice described in the Mueller Report; and 2. How this case goes will likely determine whether Trump’s Obstruction of Justice with respect to the Trump/Russia investigation will become part of the current Ukraine focused Impeachment process. If the Judge rules in favor of the House Judiciary Committee (which is almost a certainty) and McGahn decides not to appeal and comply with the subpoena, there should be enough time to get his testimony and include the Trump/Russia Obstruction as an Article of Impeachment.
Well on October 31, 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.
House Judiciary Committee Hicks and Donaldson Subpoenas —
Background — On May 22, the Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to both Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, former deputy White House counsel under Don McGahn, seeking both documents in their possession and testimony before the Committee. In response, on June 4, the White House instructed the two former aides to defy congressional subpoenas that sought documents related to allegations that President Donald Trump obstructed justice.
In the case of Hope Hicks, she released a limited number of documents to the Committee in June (presumably pre-cleared by the White House) and appeared before the Committee answering only a few questions and none about her time as WH Communications Director, as she was blocked from responding to over 150 questions on the legally very shaky grounds of “Absolute Immunity” by the White House Counsel sitting next to her.
With regard to Donaldson, she has struck a deal with the Committee to provide written responses to the Committee’s questions and testify in person in November. The deal is to accommodate the fact that Donaldson is in her third trimester of a pregnancy and is unwilling to travel to D.C. at this time.
House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas of Sessions, Kushner and Other Trump Staff —
Background — The House Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize Chairman Nadler to issue subpoenas for 12 of former special counsel Robert Mueller's witnesses — including President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his former deputy Rod Rosenstein, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former chief of staff John Kelly and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
On August 15, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) subpoenaed former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House official Rick Dearborn, marking Democrats’ latest efforts to receive testimony from key figures in the Mueller report.
On September 9 Judiciary Chairman
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who subpoenaed Lewandowski to testify by Sept. 17, announced that he would appear in public on that date.
On September 17, Corey Lewandowski (Trump’s former Campaign Manager) did at least show up to testify publicly in front of the House Judiciary Committee. While he did everything he could to stonewall and make the Hearing into a circus, he did in the end confirm that the President did ask him to meet with then AG Jeff Sessions and try to get him to tell Mueller to stop investigating Trump, even though Lewandowski says he does not consider that to be a crime of obstruction of justice.
On September 18, after Lewandowski’s testimony, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that President Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski should have been held in contempt "right then and there" when he refused to cooperate with Democrats during a hearing the day before.
We will see what Nadler does with this apparent “Green Light” from Pelosi.
Also, other Democrats are ramping up the pressure on House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) .
“He operated in contempt of Congress, and yes, I believe he should be” held in contempt. “And I’ve expressed that to the chair,” Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), a member of the Judiciary panel, told The Hill on Thursday. “The only purpose to do it is to have teeth in it and to send a message to Mr. Lewandowski that he has to come forth, tell the truth and live up to his obligations under the subpoena,” she added. “His performance was an absurdity.”
I have to ask, what type of Contempt are they talking about? If its Inherent Contempt which is enforced by the Congressional Sgt.-of-Arms and involves the detention of the witness in the Capitol, that’s one thing. But if its the more common form of Contempt, that’s useless, since the Barr DoJ will never enforce it and Lewandowski knows it.
House Judiciary Committee Rob Porter & Rick Dearborn Subpoena —
Background — On August 26, the House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to former White House staff secretary Rob Porter and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn, key witnesses in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation into President Donald Trump. Porter, who resigned his post last year amid allegations that he abused his two ex-wives, was at the president’s side during several episodes of potential obstruction chronicled in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s attempts to thwart the probe.
On September 17, both Porter and Dearborn defied the subpoena to appear before the Committee, hiding behind Trump’s September 16 letter granting them “absolute” immunity and instructing them not to testify.
House Judiciary Committee Homeland Security Subpoena —
Background — On September 3, House Judiciary Subpoenaed Homeland Security Over Alleged Trump Pardon Promises. Trump, according to Nadler, citing media reports, “reportedly discussed” pardoning McAleenan if he proceeded with building a southern border wall despite legal obstacles, or taking action to block illegal immigration by claiming to judges there wasn’t enough capacity to allow them into the country. The subpoena requires McAleenan to produce the requested documents on this matter by September 17.
It appears that McAleenan failed to turn over the documents on September 17 as required by the subpoena.
On October 11, Kevin McAleenan, the
acting secretary of homeland security since April and the fourth person to
serve in that post since the Trump presidency began, submitted his resignation to the White House on Friday, President Donald Trump announced Friday.
Now as you may know, McAleenan is in defiance of a Congressional subpoena to produce documents having to do with Trump’s alleged promise to pardon anyone in DHS who defied court orders and proceeded with the building of Trump’s southern border wall. Now that he has resigned, I am not sure what happens to the document subpoena since he presumably no longer has access to the subpoenaed documents.
House Intelligence Committee Subpoena —
Background — Back in May, the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to AG Barr for “documents and materials related Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, including all counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials produced during the Special Counsel’s investigation, the full unredacted report, and the underlying evidence”. Although Barr did not fully comply with the subpoena, he did make a counter offer to the Committee to turn over a limited number of documents. Based on this offer, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) decided to hold off on enforcement action against the Justice Department since it had agreed to turn over documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
In addition, the infamous Felix Sater (of Trump Moscow Project fame) testified voluntarily before the Intelligence Committee in a Closed Door session. However, members of the Committee were not impressed. A committee spokesman accused Sater of being uncooperative and obstructing the panel’s investigation by withholding documents and testimony in defiance of a subpoena.
Also, on June 13, the Committee issued two (2) more subpoenas. The intelligence panel said it had subpoenaed former Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates and former national security adviser Michael Flynn….” “..."As part of our oversight work, the House Intelligence Committee is continuing to examine the deep counterintelligence concerns raised in Special Counsel Mueller's report, and that requires speaking directly with the fact witnesses," Schiff, a Democrat from California, said in a statement.
According to Committee Staff, "General Flynn and his counsel have failed to cooperate with the Committee in all respects — he has provided no documents in response to our subpoena, nor has he engaged with the Committee in an appropriate or satisfactory manner."
The committee is now demanding that Flynn appear on September 25 and provide documents by September 18, according to a letter Chairman Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, sent to Flynn on Friday.
It seems Flynn’s new Counsels who are pro-Trumpers and believe in the “Witch Hunt” theory have caused Flynn to go over to the Dark Side.
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.
November 6: In a sort of related development, it appears Flynn is trying to do a complete 180 in his Court case from the Mueller investigation. He now wants the Judge presiding over his sentencing to completely throw out the case based on alleged claims of Prosecutorial misconduct. He is completely throwing out his plea agreement to cooperate with the Mueller investigation and daring the Judge who is already called him a traitor, to throw the book at him, in what seems to be a Hail Mary pass attempt at a Trump Presidential pardon.
House Intelligence Committee Ukraine Impeachment (Whistleblower) Investigation —
Background — On September 13, Committee Chairman Adam Schiff sent a letter with an attached subpoena to Joseph Maguire (Acting Director of National Intelligence) for a full copy of the Secret National Intelligence whistleblower complaint, the inspector general’s evaluation of the complaint, and any communications about the complaint between the national intelligence director’s office and “other Executive Branch actors including the White House.” Apparently, back in August, a whistleblower in the NIA filed a complaint with the Agencies’ Inspector General (IG) which evidence suggests is about the President or a high level official within the Executive Branch. The IG deemed the complaint credible, serious and urgent and handed it over to the Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire. By Law, the DNI is supposed to turn over the complaint to the House Intelligence Committee within 7 days, which he has not done. So Schiff’s September 13 requires the Acting Director to hand over these documents to the Committee by September 17 and if he fails to do so, he must appear before the Committee on September 19.
On September 17, Acting DNI Maguire informed the House Intelligence Committee that he will NOT turn over the NI Whistleblower complaint to the Committee and he will NOT appear before the Committee on September 19 (claiming too short notice) as requested by Schiff’s September 13 letter.
On September 18, it was reported that the whistleblower report is about a phone call Trump made to a “Foreign Leader” in which he “promised” something. Also, Committee Chairman Adam Schiff announced that the Intelligence Committee will be meeting with the Inspector General (IG) behind closed doors on September 18 and Acting DNI Maguire has agreed to appear before the Committee on September 26.
On September 19, the Intelligence Committee met with the IG behind closed doors. He reportedly informed them that the Whistleblower complaint involves multiple incidences of probable illegal activities involving the White House and a Foreign Government, and he once again stressed the seriousness and the urgency of the matter. He also reportedly expressed a desire to turn the report over to Congress, but was being blocked by the DNI and the White House.
Also, news reports from multiple sources say this complaint has to do with conversations Trump had with the newly elected Ukrainian President in which Trump tried to pressure him into investigating Joe Biden and his son. It is also rumored that Trump is withholding Ukrainian military aid in an attempt to EXTORT the Ukrainian President’s cooperation in launching a politically motivated investigation against Biden.
On September 23, Nancy Pelosi demanded that Maguire bring Congress the Whistleblowers report when he testifies on September 26, and Congressman Ted Lieu says Congress should use its Inherent Contempt powers if he doesn’t. This is all coming to a head on Thursday. Stay Tuned!
Well the BIG NEWS is that on September 25 (yesterday) all hell broke loose on the Whistleblower Complaint. First, the Whistleblower is seeking a way to testify before the House Intelligence Committee and has asked the DNI for “instructions” (the DNI has responded in a rather long letter that simply says he is looking at the matter and will gat back to the Whistleblower. Second, Trump publicly released the Staff Notes (not a transcript) from his July call with Ukrainian President. The notes provide evidence of an apparent Quid-Pro-Quo offer from Trump of restored military aid to Ukraine for their investigating Joe Biden and his son. Third, the DNI has allowed members of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to read the entire (unredacted) Whistleblower Complaint in a secure facility. This
CNN Report provides a good summary of what members who have read it have said about the complaint.
But the BIGGEST of the Big News is that the Whistleblower’s Complaint has been DECLASSIFIED, and will be made public. According to this story from
The Hill:
“The whistleblower complaint at the center of the political firestorm involving President Trump's contacts with Ukraine's leader has been declassified, a member of the House Intelligence Committee announced late Wednesday.
Another source familiar with the matter told The Hill shortly before Stewart's announcement that the declassification process was complete.
The source said that while the declassification process is completed, details about the public release of the complaint remain unclear. The complaint is also expected to have some redactions, according to the source.”
On September 25 all hell broke loose on the Whistleblower Complaint. First, the Whistleblower is seeking a way to testify before the House Intelligence Committee and has asked the DNI for “instructions” (the DNI has responded in a rather long letter that simply says he is looking at the matter and will get back to the Whistleblower). Second, Trump publicly released the Staff Notes (not a transcript) from his July call with Ukrainian President. The notes provide evidence of an apparent Quid-Pro-Quo offer from Trump of restored military aid to Ukraine for their investigating Joe Biden and his son. Third, the DNI has allowed members of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to read the entire (unredacted) Whistleblower Complaint in a secure facility. Fourth, the Complaint is being DECLASSIFIED for public release. And, fifth, the DNI testifies before the House Intelligence Committee in open session.
Well the DNI testified and we have the publically released, lightly redacted Whistleblower Complaint and the IG’s Report. Here’s a brief summary of what we’ve learned:
- There was an obvious Trump Biden Dirt for Military Aid “Quid-Pro-Quo” reported in the complaint.
- Trump was also looking for Ukraine to endorse the crazy conspiracy theory that someone inside Ukraine was coordinating with the DNC to influence the 2016 elections, not Russia.
- The Trump White House engaged in a cover up hiding transcripts of the Ukraine call and other Presidential foreign leader calls on a top, top secret server.
And the icing on the cake, Trump made a veiled life threat against the Whistleblower’s sources.
Here is what happened on October 1:
- Committee Depositions — Depositions were scheduled for the following former and current State Department Officials;
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on Oct. 2 (TOMORROW);
FORMER Ambassador Kurt Volker on Oct. 3;
Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent on Oct. 7;
Counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl on Oct. 8; and
Ambassador Gordon Sondland on Oct. 10
These will all be CLOSED DOOR depositions conducted jointly by staff from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Intelligence Committee and the House Oversight and Reform Committee. No word on whether the transcripts of these depositions will be made public, although I seriously doubt it. We will most likely just have to wait to see what, if anything leaks out. Also, you should know that before the Whistleblower story broke, Pompeo ordered Yovanovitch (Ambassador to Ukraine and an apolitical career professional diplomat) home after she reportedly went rogue on Team Trump/Giuliani. So she should be a cooperative witness. With regard to Volker, he quit as soon as he found out he was to be deposed and has said he will appear. He is another career professional diplomat and will likely be a cooperative witness. Volker had the job of trying to clean up behind the diplomatic mess Giuliani was creating with Ukraine.
- Committee to Meet With IG — The House Intelligence Committee will hold a CLOSED DOOR meeting with Inspector General Micheal Atkinson on Oct. 4 (this Friday). Besides recapping the details of what’s in his report on the Whistleblower Complaint, I expect he will have a lot to say about his debunking of the Trump Republican’s FALSE conspiracy theory on changes to the Whistleblower rules. Details HERE.
- Whistleblower to Testify — On September 29 (Sunday) House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff announced that the Committee had reached an agreement with the Whistleblower (through his/her attorney) to appear before the Committee in a closed door session “very soon”. I expect that, due to the fact that Trump and Barr have spies everywhere trying to identify the Whistleblower and with the threats the Whistleblower’s attorney says he/she is getting, we won’t be given a date or location where this will take place unless it leaks out. Also, beware of phoney leaks that might come out to throw the Trump/Barr spies off the trail.
- Committee Subpoenas Pompeo — On September 27, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in cooperation with the House Intelligence Committee, issued a subpoena to SoS Mike Pompeo for documents related to the Ukrainian Impeachment investigations which Pompeo failed to provide when previously requested. Details in this CNN Report. The subpoena requires Pompeo to turn over the documents by October 4 (this Friday). Will he provide them or continue to stonewall? My guess is the latter.
- Committee Subpoenas Giuliani — Democrats on Monday subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who was at the heart of Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden’s family. With Congress out of session for observance of the Jewish holidays, Democrats moved aggressively against Giuliani, requesting by Oct. 15 “text messages, phone records and other communications” that they referred to as possible evidence. They also requested documents and depositions from three of his business associates. Again, we will soon see what Rudy does in response?
Later in the day on October 1 we learned that Pompeo wrote a letter to the Foreign Relations Committee Chair saying the proposed dates for the depositions were “not feasible”. So it sounds like he is trying to delay (slow walk) the depositions without directly prohibiting them.
Here’s what happened on October 1:
- Committee Depositions — All indications are the deposition of former Deputy Ambassador Volker is still on for Thursday (October 3). Ambassador Yovanovith’s deposition (which was scheduled for October 2) has been rescheduled to October 11. Not sure what the reason is for the rescheduling is or whether Yovanovitch, who I believe is still employed at State, will defy Pompeo’s letter and testify without a State Department lawyer (i.e., minder).
- Committee Chair Responds to Pompeo’s Letter — The chairmen of the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees responded to Pompeo's letter later on Tuesday, saying that "any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from talking with Congress -- including State Department employees -- is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry." The lawmakers also accused Pompeo of "intimidating Department witnesses in order to protect himself and the President," noting that he was on the President's July 25 phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President and "is now a fact witness in the House impeachment inquiry." And on Tuesday night, Schiff, Engel and Cummings sent a letter to Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan claiming Pompeo "now appears to have an obvious conflict of interest" in the Ukraine inquiry due to his reported involvement in the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President.
- STATE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL MAKES URGENT MEETING REQUEST — The State Department’s Inspector General, Steve Linick (a career IG appointed during Obama’s first term) made an URGENT request on Tuesday night to meet with both Democrat and Republican Staff on the Committees involved in impeachment investigations. The inspector general said the reason for the briefing was the office had obtained documents from acting legal adviser in the State Department.
Here’s what happened on October 2:
- Committee Depositions — Former Deputy Ambassador Kurt Volker was deposed by Committee Members and Staff behind closed doors on October 3 (more on his testimony under “New Developments” below). Former Ambassador Yovanovitch scheduled to be deposed on October 11.
- Whistleblower Contacted Schiff Aide Before Filing Complaint — It has been reported that an Aide to Chairman Schiff was contacted by the Whistleblower before filing his/her complaint. The Whistleblower requested guidance on how to inform Congress and the Aide recommended that the Whistleblower follow the established procedures under the law.
- State Department IG Met With Committee Members & Staff — The State Department inspector general provided Congress on Wednesday with documents that included materials President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani had given to the department earlier this year containing unproven claims about Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. There is no real evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.
- Trump involved Pence in efforts to pressure Ukraine’s leader — Shortly after the President’s July 25 phone call, Trump sent Pence to Poland to meet with the Ukrainian President. The President used Pence to tell Zelensky [Ukraine’s President] that US aide was still being withheld while demanding more aggressive action on CORRUPTION. “Corruption” being the code word for investigating the Bidens.
Here’s what happened on October 3:
- Volker Deposition — On October 3, Former Deputy Special US Ambassador to Ukraine, Kurt Volker provided 9.5 hours of testimony in a closed door deposition before members and staff of the House Impeachment Investigation Committees. Based on leaks and members statements, Volker explained his role in Ukraine-Gate as someone who was trying to placate the political demands of Trump and Giuliani in order to get military aid to Ukraine flowing again. He said that Rudy pushed Trump to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch because she was getting in the way of his dealings with the Ukraine government, which of course Trump did. Volker also told investigators that he warned Giuliani that he was being fed some incorrect information on the Bidens from Ukrainian contacts, particularly Yuriy Lutsenko, the country’s former top prosecutor. But the most damning information from Volker came in the form of text messages he provided the Committee. Volker provided Democrats with 60 pages of text messages and other documents that showed some senior State Department officials were outraged that the Trump administration would try to make aid to Ukraine contingent on efforts to help the president’s reelection campaign. One text between Volker and Andrey Yermak, a top Zelensky adviser, on July 25 — the day of the Trump-Zelenksy call — linked a Zelensky visit to the Washington to whether the Ukrainians moved ahead with the Biden probe. Volker said "Heard from the White House. Assuming President Z convinces [T]rump he will investigate/ 'get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington." And in another more controversial text, a senior American diplomat expressed outrage to any linkage between U.S. aid to whether the Ukrainians took the steps Trump and Giuliani wanted. “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” said Bill Taylor, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, in a Sept. 9 text message. But the bombshells from the Volker deposition didn’t end with the text disclosures. Sondland and Volker — under pressure from Giuliani — were also asked to draft a statement saying Ukrainian officials were committed to beginning investigations into Biden and other Trump rivals and convince the Ukraine President to publicly make the statement drafted by US Diplomats. Bottom Line to the Volker deposition was that Trump and Giuliani were attempting to “shakedown” President Zelensky by withholding aid and a desired Washington meeting for a public commitment to investigate (provide dirt on) the Bidens and investigate foreign tampering with the 2016 elections (provide a phoney narrative that it was persons inside Ukraine and not Russia).
- President Requests both Ukraine and China to Investigate Bidens on LIVE TV — Most who saw it couldn’t believe Trump was actually publicly requesting Foreign Interference in our 2020 elections from Ukraine and now China. It should be noted that his China request came after his remarks on Chinese trade negotiations, inferring that the US might be more flexible on trade if China was willing to provide dirt on Biden. AMAZING!
Here’s a brief summary of what happened on October 8 & 9:
- Deposition of EU Ambassador Sondland Scheduled for October 8 — Trump appointee (and political hack who donated millions to Trump campaign to be appointed EU Ambassador) Gordon Sondland was scheduled to be deposed (behind closed doors) on October 8 by Members and Staff from the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees. But of course that didn’t happen. Blocked by White House.
- House Committee Releases All US/Ukraine Diplomatic Text Messages Provided By Volker — The texts reveal the plan to pressure the Ukrainian President to enter into a Investigations for Military Aid deal began with Rudy well before the July 25 call. There is a great run down of these texts and their meaning in this POLITICO Report. Well worth the read!
- IG Interviewed Second Intelligence Community Whistleblower — The head of the intelligence community's internal watchdog office, Michael Atkinson, interviewed a second whistleblower about President Trump's communications with Ukraine's government. This second whistleblower reportedly has first-hand knowledge of Trump's dealings with Ukraine and could support the initial whistleblower's complaint that spurred the congressional impeachment inquiry.
- Ukraine’s Current Prosecutor General To Audit Burisma (Hunter Biden) Case — The new Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Ruslan Riaboshapka, reportedly announced his office is undertaking an audit of all cases closed or settled under his predecessor, including investigations into the oil and gas company Burisma connected to Hunter Biden. The Prosecutor General said the review is being conducted “to make a decision on cases where illegal procedural decisions were taken.” BBC’s Ukraine correspondent, Jonah Fisher, wrote in a tweet, “Important to stress – this is an audit not a re-opening of the investigations. No suggestion (that I’ve seen) that Biden’s are being looked at.”
- Trump Blames Rick Perry for Ukraine Mess and Perry Promptly Announces He May or May Not Resign — President Trump told House Republicans that he made his now infamous phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the urging of Energy Secretary Rick Perry — a call Trump claimed he didn’t even want to make. In the wake of being thrown under the bus by Trump, Perry reportedly will announce his intention to resign as Energy Secretary in November. Then he comes out and denies resignation reports. He says he will cooperate fully with Congressional investigators. No way to tell if he really means it and will spill more beans on Trump or if he means it in the way Trump does when Trump says he will “fully cooperate”.
- Pompeo Subpoena Compliance — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has not yet come into compliance with a subpoena for documents in the U.S. House of Representatives impeachment probe, a top Democrat helping to lead the inquiry said on Sunday. “He’s not complying with the inquiry so far,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel told the CBS news program “Face the Nation.” Engel’s panel issued a subpoena for Pompeo on Sept. 27. The deadline for those documents expired on Friday October 4.
- Judge Orders White House to Preserve ALL Documents — Even though the White House voluntarily announced that it would preserve all documents related to Trump’s interactions with foreign leaders, this judge apparently did not take them at their word, and took the rare step of issuing a Preservation Order.
- Democrats Looking Into Ways To Keep Whistleblower's Identity Secret During Testimony —Democrats fear that revealing the Whistleblower’s identity to GOP Committee Members sympathetic to Trump could cause them to leak that person’s identity to the White House. So, lawmakers have determined that the upcoming interview would not take place on Capitol Hill. The interview would happen at another government location, specifically designed to handle classified briefings. Also, Democrats have discussed other ways to mask the official's identity, including obscuring the person's voice and appearance. The concern, sources say, is that congressional Republicans close to the president could seek to reveal their identity.
Bottom Line is you can’t trust Republicans to obey the (Whistleblower) law.
Here’s what happened on October 10:
- Trump White House Issues Letter Making its Stonewalling Operation Official — On Tuesday the White House issued a letter to Congress saying they will be blocking all witnesses under their control and stop all documents from going to Congress in their effort to OBSTRUCT Congress’s Impeachment Investigation. Their reason was that this was not an official impeachment investigation since the House has not voted to open such an investigation. This is of course pure poppycock.
- Sondland Deposition Blocked and Subpoena Issued — As part of its overall stonewalling campaign to give the House NOTHING, the Trump White House, at the last minute, blocked EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland from being deposed on Tuesday by Committee members and staff. Sondland’s lawyer told the Committees that his client would love to appear if he was not being blocked by the White House. But how cooperative a witness he would be is a matter of debate. Although he did travel from Europe to make his deposition, he is a Trump appointee who has shown nothing but loyalty to Trump so far. It was also revealed on Tuesday, that Sondland had turned over a number of personal e-mails and texts regarding the Ukraine matter to the State Department. Furthermore, it’s been revealed that Sondland spoke directly with Trump right before he texted Ambassador Taylor telling him there was no “Quid-Pro-Quo” between Trump and the Ukraine President and that any further discussion of the matter should only be verbal. Now the Committee has subpoenaed Sondland for his testimony and documents that they say are being withheld by the State Department. The subpoena demands those documents be turned over by Oct. 14, and that Sondland sit for a deposition on Oct. 16 before three congressional panels.
- Contents of Whistleblower Memo Leaked To Press — A Memo written by the Whistleblower the day after Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian President has been described to a Reporter by an unknown source. The memo, dated July 26, is based on a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed White House official who listened to the call. According to the memo, the White House official described the contents of the call as "crazy," "frightening" and "completely lacking in substance related to national security." The whistleblower said the official was "visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call."
Here’s what happened on October 11:
- Yovanovitch Scheduled to be Deposed — Marie Yovanovitch (who is a well respected career diplomat, not a Trump Hack) who was recalled as Ambassador to Ukraine when she was getting in the way of Trump/Giuliani’s extortion scheme, is scheduled to be deposed on October 11 by members and staff from the Congressional Committees involved in the Impeachment investigation. But, Trump on Thursday suggested he might not let Yovanovitch testify. "I just don't think, you're running a country, I just don't think that you can have all of these people testifying about every conversation you've had," Trump told reporters when asked if he would let Yovanovitch testify. Yovanovitch was still expected to testify before the three committees as of Thursday evening, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. Also, we learned last night from The Rachel Maddow Show that Trump political hack, Gordon Sondland (who was blocked by the White House from testifying, but probably welcomed being blocked) unofficially took over Ukraine diplomacy after the Trump/Giuliani Hit Team had Ambassador Yovanovitch recalled for interfering with their extortion scheme. So effectively the career professional diplomat was replaced by an unqualified loyal member of the extended Trump Crime Family. Nice!
- Former US Russian Aide Fiona Hill Scheduled Scheduled to Testify Next Week — Hill, a hawk on Russian, became involved in the Ukraine mess, but left the State Department just before the President’s July 25 call. Fiona Hill, who was until recently President Donald Trump’s top aide on Russia and Europe, plans to tell Congress that Rudy Giuliani and E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland circumvented the National Security Council and the normal White House process to pursue a shadow policy on Ukraine, a person familiar with her expected testimony told NBC News. Congressional committees this week requested that Hill testify on Oct. 14, according to a letter obtained by NBC News, and she agreed. She has not yet been subpoenaed by Congress.
- Giuliani Ukraine Henchmen Indicted By DoJ SDNY and Jailed — Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Giuliani Associates who were working to get Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way and were scheduled to be deposed yesterday and today before Congressional Committees, have been charged with four counts, including conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, false statements to the Federal Election Commission, and falsification of records. Two associates of Parnas and Fruman, David Correira and Andrey Kukushkin, were indicted along with Parnas and Fruman on Thursday. Berman [Geoffrey Berman, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York] said the investigation is ongoing. There are a lot more details to this story then I can post here. So check out the full ABC News Story. Also, check out the segment of last night’s Rachel Maddow Show on this story. She has an interesting angle to this story about how Rudy and his two henchmen were about to go to Vienna to possibly visit Ukrainian Billionaire Dimetry Furtash who is under House Arrest in Austria fighting extradition to the US, in order to get more phoney dirt on Joe Biden since Mr. Furtash previously gave Giuliani phoney Biden dirt. But what intrigues me the most about all this is what’s going on behind the scenes at DoJ? In particular, what’s going on between the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who obtained the indictments of the Giuliani Henchmen, and Trump’s Roy Cohn, AG Barr? Some have suggested that Berman was just following Barr’s orders to arrest these two clowns to prevent them from testifying to Congress. That’s even too crazy for me to believe. So, as I see it, we are left with two possibilities: 1. Berman proceeded in the tradition of an independent SDNY and had rudy’s guys indicted with little warning given to AG Barr. If this is the case, you can bet Trump and Barr are both blowing a gasket right about now; or 2. AG Barr has decided to start distancing himself from the sinking Trump ship and has quietly endorsed what Berman is doing. Personally, I think its #1.
- Rick Perry Gets His Congressional Subpoena — House Democrats issued a subpoena on Thursday to Energy Secretary Rick Perry as part of their impeachment inquiry. The subpoena demands records and communications related to the May inauguration of Zelensky, for which Perry led the U.S. delegation. It seeks records connected to a host of meetings abroad and at the White House that Perry attended along with senior Ukrainian officials. And it requests all records related to “proposed or actual transactions, investments, or projects relating to liquified natural gas (LNG) in Ukraine.” The subpoena has a deadline of Oct. 18.
- Trump Replaced White House Career Budget Staff with Trump Loyal Hack — The White House gave a politically appointed official the authority to keep aid to Ukraine on hold after career budget staff members questioned the legality of delaying the funds, according to people familiar with the matter, a shift that House Democrats are probing in their impeachment inquiry. While career civil servants put an initial hold on the aid, Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs in OMB, was given the authority for continuing to keep the aid on hold after the career staff began raising their concerns to political officials at OMB, according to the people familiar with the matter. Another example of Trump following a key Organized Crime Rule, make sure you have your loyal soldiers running the show.
- Pompeo Senior Advisor Steps Down — Michael McKinley, a career diplomat who has held posts including ambassador to Afghanistan, Colombia and Peru, has stepped down, The Washington Post reported Thursday. McKinley and others were disappointed in Pompeo's lack of public support for diplomats who have been asked to testify before the House as part of an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and that there has been particular concern for former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was dismissed earlier this year and is slated to testify on Friday.
Here’s what has happened on October 12-14:
- Yovanovitch Testimony — On Friday, October 11, Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch bravely chose to defy President Trump and be deposed in a closed door session by Members and Staff from the Congressional Impeachment Committees. While she was originally asked to appear voluntarily, Trump’s threat to block her from testifying (note: Although relieved of her Ambassadorship, she is still a State Department employee) made it necessary for the Committees to serve her with a last minute subpoena which she respected and honored. In her opening statement, obtained by POLITICO, Yovanovitch said Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told her that there was “a concerted campaign” against her — one based on “unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.” “Her willingness when served with compulsory process to follow the law and testify — I think she is a courageous example for others,” Schiff told reporters. Courageous Indeed to stand up to a Bully like Trump. Reminds me of the “Fearless Girl” standing up to the Bull on Wall Street.
- Fiona Hill Testifies — On Monday, October 14, Former US Russian Aide Fiona Hill was deposed for 10 hours in a closed door session by Members and Staff from the Congressional Impeachment Committees. Fiona Hill, President Donald Trump's former top Russia adviser, told lawmakers Monday that she had high praise for Trump's ousted US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and spoke out about her concerns when Yovanovitch was removed, according to sources familiar with her testimony. Hill’s testimony seems to have provided a boatload of damning information about Trump and Giuliani’s escapades leading up to the July 25 Trump call and the illicit osting of Ambassador Yovanovitch. Furthermore, after he exited the Hearing, Representative Denny Heck described Hill’s testimony (paraphrasing now) as the most substantive witness on a per minute basis he has ever heard, with an amazing amount of information provided from a women with a close to total recall memory. Finally, I urge you to check out Durrati's Diary, which has some leaked tidbits from Hill’s testimony, including this one where then National Security Advisor John Bolton tells her: “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”
Calling John Bolton! Your witness chair is ready!
- Gordon Sondland Agrees to Testify — Gordon Sondland, EU Ambassador and Trump’s Ukraine Stooge, says he will honor a subpoena and appear at a closed door Committee deposition this Thursday, October 17. In a Friday statement from Sondland's lawyer, the EU ambassador agreed to appear for a scheduled deposition Thursday but said he won't provide requested documents related to the Ukraine scandal, citing federal law and State Department regulations that "prohibit him from producing documents concerning his official responsibilities." If you remember, Sondland is the person who sent Ambassador Taylor a text telling him there was no Trump/Ukraine “Quid-Pro-Quo” and to stop texting about it, after Sondland had a phone call with Trump.
- Bill Taylor Requested to Testify — House Democrats have requested a deposition from Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, as part of their impeachment inquiry, but his interview has not yet been formally scheduled, multiple sources familiar with the issue told CNN. Taylor was the diplomat who sent EU Ambassador Sondland the text that read, "Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting conditioned on investigations?" Who responded by saying, "Call me." No definite date for the deposition has been disclosed.
- Former US Diplomat Mike McKinley has Agreed to be Interviewed — McKinley is reportedly scheduled to testify TOMORROW, Wednesday, October 16. Michael McKinley, the former State Department adviser who resigned last week, is scheduled to testify Wednesday before the congressional committees leading the House impeachment investigation, according to two congressional sources.
- Giuliani Subject of SDNY Criminal Investigation — It has been reported by multiple sources that Rudy Giuliani is now a “subject” of the SDNY ongoing criminal investigation involving Ukraine which led to the arrest of his two henchmen. The investigation into Giuliani’s business relationship with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman is part of an ongoing investigation by the FBI's New York field office and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.
- Intelligence Community Whistleblower May Not Testify — House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff indicated Sunday that the whistleblower at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump might not testify over concerns about the person’s safety.
Here’s what has happened on October 15:
- Career Diplomat George Kent Testifies — Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent testified for 10 hours in a closed-door deposition before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees. An official working on the impeachment inquiry said that "in light of an attempt by the State Department, in coordination with the White House, to direct Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent not to appear for his scheduled deposition, and efforts by the State Department to also limit any testimony that does occur, the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to compel his testimony this morning." "As is required of him, DAS Kent is now complying with the subpoena and answering questions from both Democratic and Republican Members and staff," the official said. In an email from March 27, Kent flagged to his colleagues a "totally manufactured/fake list of untouchables." Then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko had claimed Yovanovitch had given him such a "do not prosecute" list -- a claim the State Department denied and he later walked back. It was nonetheless seized upon by some in conservative media and compounded Rudy Giuliani's campaign against Yovanovitch. In his email, Kent noted that "one key sign of it being fake is that most of the names are misspelled in English." "This list appears to be an effort by Lutsenko to inoculate himself for why he did not pursue corrupt Poroshenko associates and political allies -- to claim that the US told him not to," Kent wrote, referencing the former President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. "Complete poppycock." Reportedly, Kent told the Committee that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney organized a White House meeting at which Energy Secretary Rick Perry, US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker were put in charge of Ukraine policy, according to a lawmaker present for the closed-door deposition. The move circumvented established policy-making channels in the executive branch and undermined US policy to promote the rule of law in Ukraine, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent told Congress, according to Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Virginia.
"Sondland, Volker and Rick Perry declared themselves the three people now responsible for Ukraine policy," Connolly, D-Virginia, told reporters after attending part of the deposition for Kent, whose portfolio includes Ukraine.
"They called themselves 'the three amigos,'" said Connolly, a member of the Oversight Committee. "Volker called them that."
- Former US Diplomat Mike McKinley To Be Deposed on October 16 — Michael McKinley, a former US ambassador and a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, will appear before the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees on Wednesday. The former State Department adviser is appearing for a transcribed interview, according to one of the sources, which indicates he is not coming under subpoena. McKinley was deeply concerned with the silence in the top ranks at State in not defending former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie "Masha" Yovanovitch, and it was one reason he resigned.
- Pelosi Holding Off On House Impeachment Inquiry Vote — In the face of the White House’s and Giuliani’s threat to withhold all testimony and documents because the Full House has not voted for an impeachment inquiry, Pelosi announced yesterday that she is not planning to hold a House vote on an Impeachment Investigation, but she leave the door open to holding a vote in the future. "There's no requirement that we have a vote so at this time we will not be having a vote and I'm very pleased with the thoughtfulness of our caucus with the path that we are on," Pelosi said in news conference Tuesday evening, following a meeting with her caucus. Just so we are all on the same page, there is no Constitutional or Legal requirement for ot the House to hold such a vote to begin an Impeachment investigation, and it is NOT a legal reason to defy Congressional subpoenas.
- Pence & Giuliani Defy Congressional Subpoenas — The office of Vice President Mike Pence declined to comply with a records request from House committees leading an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, while Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, said he doesn’t intend to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents. Giuliani is using the FAKE excuse that without a Full House vote, this proceeding is NOT an official Impeachment Inquiry, therefore he does not have to comply with no stink’en subpoena!
Here’s what happened on October 16:
- US Diplomat Michael McKinley Testifies Before Congressional Committees — Michael McKinley, a former US ambassador and a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who resigned last week, testified behind closed doors before the Congressional Committees conducting the Impeachment investigation. In a nutshell, his testimony corroborated the testimony given by previous witnesses. McKinley, according to people familiar with his nearly five-hour closed-door testimony, said he resigned in part after learning that Trump blasted Yovanovitch during his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. McKinley also said the State Department was not doing enough to shield officials like Yovanovitch from partisan-driven criticisms and pressure, which he believed could undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives.
- Gordon Sondland to Be Deposed TODAY — EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland is expected to honor a Congressional subpoena and appear in a closed door deposition on October 17 conducted by Members and Staff on the Congressional Committees conducting the Impeachment investigation. Mr. Sondland was expected to say that during a meeting in May, Mr. Trump gave him and two other officials the impression that they should coordinate on Ukraine issues with his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. That command effectively created a foreign policy back channel that cut the State Department and National Security Council out of deliberations involving a pivotal ally against Russia.
Here’s what happened on October 17:
- UN Ambassador Gordon Sondland Testifies — UN Ambassador Gordon Sondland honored a Congressional subpoena and provided over 9 hours of testimony in a closed door deposition before members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee. In a nutshell, it appears Sondland was doing everything he could to blame Trump and Giuliani, and portray himself as an innocent victim in the Ukraine scheme. During nearly nine hours of testimony, Sondland said he reluctantly indulged what he described as the president’s efforts to run Ukraine policy through his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. He indicated that he opposed Trump’s orders to reach out to Giuliani, who was pushing the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump’s political rivals. “Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the president wanted a public statement from President [Volodymyr] Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into anti-corruption issues,” Sondland said. “Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two anti-corruption investigatory topics of importance for the president,” he added. While his story appears to fit the facts as expressed by other witnesses, his claim of personal innocents doesn’t ring true to me.
Here’s what happened on October 21:
- Chargé d'affaires for Ukraine William Taylor to Testify on Tuesday, Oct. 22 — If you remember, Bill Taylor is the career diplomat who exchanged text messages with U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and former Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, which were released publicly by Democrats, that showed he was worried the Trump administration was withholding aid to Ukraine to convince its government to conduct political investigations for President Trump. In one of the Taylor’s E-mails he said, “The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance,” Taylor texted to Volker and Sondland, according to the transcripts released by Democrats. “The Russians love it. (And I quit).”
- Career Diplomat Phillip Reeker to Testify on Saturday Oct. 26 — Democrats are interested in talking to Reeker, the acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, because other evidence suggests he might have heard about a campaign to discredit Yovanovitch. The State Department inspector general provided Congress with documents earlier this month that, according to reports, showed Kent [George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who testified on October 15] raised concerns to his superiors at State, including Reeker, that he feared there was a “classic disinformation operation” being carried out against Yovanovitch. Note — The Reeker Deposition was rescheduled to Saturday due to conflicts with the memorial services for Representative Cummings. Yes, they are working Saturdays now as part of the plan to speed up the Impeachment process.
- White House Official Michael Duffy to Testify — The Trump administration gave Duffey, the associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget, the authority to stall Ukraine aid after career civil servants in the White House raised concerns that they did not have the legal power to delay such funds, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month. Duffey’s role in signing off on apportionments is considered odd, the Journal reported, as sources described the responsibility as one that is typically handled by career officers who have years of experience and intimate knowledge of the funding process. The Duffy Deposition which was originally scheduled for Wednesday has been postponed due to the Cumming’s Memorial services. To be rescheduled.
- Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper to Testify on Wednesday, Oct. 23 — Laura Cooper, who was apparently originally supposed to be deposed this past Friday, has had her closed door deposition before members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee postponed until this Wednesday, October 23. Who is Laura Cooper you might ask? As detailed in this Mark Sumner Post, she is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense who knows the details about the military aid that was slated for Ukraine—including when that aid was halted, and what the Pentagon was told. As Yahoo News reports, it was Cooper who actually had charge of the aid package and sent Ukraine a video address almost a year ago saying, “You can count on the United States to remain your strong partner in strengthening Ukraine’s military to defend Ukrainian democracy.” But the aid that Cooper promised was on its way didn’t come. Not that winter, or the next spring, or over the summer. It wasn’t until the White House was aware of the whistleblower complaint about Trump’s actions that the funds were finally released. Trump continued to hold up the money, despite a letter from the Defense Department saying that Ukraine had “taken substantial actions” toward decreasing corruption and improving accountability.
Here’s what happened on October 22:
- Chargé d'affaires for Ukraine William Taylor Lays It All Out In His Closed Door Deposition To House Intelligence Committee — I won’t waste time going into detail on what Taylor said because I’m sure most of you are aware of the devastating testimony he put forth in his opening statement. But here are what I consider to be the two (2) take away BOMBSHELLS:
1. Taylor said he was told by Sondland that “everything” including aid to Ukraine is contingent upon President Zelinsky making a public statement that Ukraine is investing Burisma (Biden’s company) and the 2016 hacking, as decreed by President Trump; and
2. Sondland, according to Taylor’s testimony, is not as innocent as he claimed to be and may have perjured himself during his Congressional Testimony.
So Taylor’ s testimony lends credibility that there was a “Quid-Pro-Quo”. BTW, let's stop calling it a “Quid-Pro-Quo”, which connotes a more friendly “you wash my back, I’ll wash yours. Let’s call it what it is “EXTORTION” since Trump was withholding military aid vital to Ukraine’s survival which is not a friendly deal.
Here’s Bill Taylor’s complete opening statement at the bottom of this NBC News Report.
- Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper to Testify on Wednesday (Oct. 24) — Laura Cooper, who was apparently originally supposed to be deposed this past Friday, will have her closed door deposition before members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. Laura Cooper -- the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia -- is set to appear even though the Defense Department told Congress that it would not comply with a House subpoena to provide documents related to the freezing of US security aid to Ukraine. Cooper is currently believed to be voluntarily appearing before the three House committees leading the Democratic impeachment inquiry and the Pentagon has not yet sought to block her testimony. She will be accompanied by a personal lawyer, according to defense officials.
Here’s what happened on October 23 & 24:
- House Republicans Storm Secure Meeting Room To Try To Shutdown Cooper Deposition — A Republican Riot broke out at the Cooper Deposition. Roughly two-dozen House Republicans on Wednesday stormed a closed-door deposition in secure House Intelligence Committee spaces to rail against the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, a political stunt ratcheting up the GOP complaints about the process that delayed Wednesday's scheduled deposition for five hours. The chaotic scene, with Republicans flouting House rules to make a political point, represented a new and more confrontational phase of the Republican attack on House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and the Democratic impeachment investigation. The worst part of this charade was that many Republican Stormers physically overwhelmed the Security Guards and brought cell phones and other electronic devices into the SCIF which is a BIG No No. Also, as many have already pointed out, the Republicans on the Committees conducting these Impeachment Depositions have always been allowed in, as well as their staffs, and have been given equal time with Democrats to question witnesses. So this whole “we are shut out” whining of the rioters is total BS. As I watched it unfold, I couldn’t help but think this looked like the Brooks Brothers Riot Version 2.0.
- The Cooper Deposition, Post-Riot — After the Riot ended, Cooper did testify, Laura Cooper — the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia — appeared despite an effort by the Pentagon to block her cooperation. Cooper’s testimony could fill in details of an explosive aspect of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry: whether Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine to pressure the ally’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to open two politically motivated investigations into Trump’s Democratic adversaries. Unlike Taylor’s testimony earlier in the week, there were no public releases or leaks regarding what she had to say, except for phoney Republican spin.
- Judge Orders Release of State Department Ukraine Documents Under FOIA — A Ruling on a FOIA case brought by an outside organization may be the first to strike “pay dirt” in the quest for the release of State Department documents on Ukraine-Gate. A judge on Wednesday ordered the State Department to begin producing within 30 days documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, saying the records were of obvious public interest. The documents were sought under a Freedom of Information Act request by American Oversight, an ethics watchdog that investigates the administration. Any release of government documents could shed new light on President Donald Trump’s efforts to prod his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden, the matter at the heart of the Democrat-led House impeachment inquiry. “These records concern a matter of immense public importance,” Daniel McGrath, a lawyer for American Oversight, said during arguments in Washington’s federal court. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said he agreed. That could potentially include any correspondence with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer and a key participant in a backchannel diplomacy effort with Ukraine, since he is not an administration official. “It’s possible that this administration will jump through some legal hoops to try to withhold them, but we have the court today urging the parties to focus on those communications as top priority.” He described the judge’s ruling as “a crack in the administration’s stone wall.” We will have to see what happens, but I smell an Appeal and Stay filing by Trump’s State Department coming on.
Here’s what happened on October 25:
- Acting Assistant Secretary of State Phillip Reeker Testified Before Impeachment Committees on Saturday — In a rare Saturday session, US Diplomat and strong supporter of former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Phillip Reeker sat for more than 8 hours of testimony mainly focusing on the ouster of the former Ambassador. Reeker appeared under a subpoena issued by House lawmakers, despite being ordered not to cooperate by Trump. Reeker testified that he wanted to draft a strongly-worded statement from State Department officials to strike back at the attacks she was enduring in conservative media and by allies of Trump. But that letter was scotched by David Hale, the No. 3 official in the State Department, according to the person familiar with Reeker's testimony. Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts said Reeker's questioning lasted much longer than anticipated because it was "a much richer reservoir of information than we originally expected," but he would not elaborate.
- Former Bolton Aide, Charles Kupperman Was A No Show For His Scheduled Monday Deposition — Former Bolton Aide, Charles Kupperman was supposed to be deposed on Monday by the House Impeachment Committees behind closed doors, but, as expected, he did not show. I say, as expected, because on Friday Kupperman took the unusual step of filing a lawsuit before a federal judge asking if he was obliged to honor his subpoena and testify. Kupperman said he “cannot satisfy the competing demands of both the legislative and executive branches.” Without the court’s help, he said, he would have to make the decision himself — one that could “inflict grave constitutional injury” on either Congress or the presidency. His filing says “an erroneous judgment to abide by the President’s assertion of testimonial immunity would unlawfully impede the House from carrying out one of its most important core Constitutional responsibilities” — the power of impeachment — and subject Kupperman to “potential criminal liability for contempt of Congress.” On the other hand, “an erroneous judgment to appear and testify in obedience to the House Defendants’ subpoena would unlawfully impair the President in amesthe exercise of his core national security responsibilities ... by revealing confidential communications” from advisers, according to the filing.
Finally, Adam Schiff who is not playing games said he will hold Kupperman in Contempt for not honoring the valid Congressional subpoena.
- Pelosi to put Impeachment Public Procedures up for a House Vote on Oct. 31 — The House vote signals Democrats are preparing to take the probe public, and Democratic leaders say it should neutralize GOP attacks on their process — though Republicans quickly pivoted toward new angles to blast the legitimacy of the probe. The resolution — which Democrats are still finalizing and are expected to introduce Tuesday — will grant investigators authority to sidestep traditional time limits on questioning witnesses in public hearings and spell out specifics of the due process rights Democrats intend to provide Trump and his legal team once the probe moves into the public domain. To be clear this is NOT a vote to begin an Impeachment Inquiry as the Republicans were demanding. It is a vote to lay out the procedures for the public portion of the investigation yet to come. But it still will make it difficult for the White House to continue making their argument that this investigation is illegitimate since it was not voted on by the Full House (which it’s not because neither the Constitution, nor US Law, nor the current Rules of the House require a vote to begin an impeachment investigation). Although Team Trump implied that they would begin to cooperate if an Impeachment Investigation Resolution was passed by the House, guess what, leaks coming out of the White House indicate that they still won’t cooperate with the investigation. Why Am I Not Surprised!
The Resolution will be introduced today, marked up by the House Rules Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday, and voted on by the Full House on Thursday, HALLOWEEN.
- White House National Security Council's top expert on Ukraine, Alexander Vindman To Give BOMBSHELL Testimony TODAY — The National Security Council's top Ukraine expert, Alexander Vindman plans to tell House impeachment investigators that he was so troubled by President Donald Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's President, which he listened in on, that he reported his concerns to a superior on two separate occasions. In an opening statement that he plans to read to the Committees and which he has already released, Vindman says:
"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," Vindman plans to tell lawmakers, according to his opening statement, which was first reported by
The New York Times. "I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained."
"This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel."
You can read the full opening statement
HERE courtesy of NPR.
Vindman will be the first White House official to testify before Congress, in direct defiance of Trump’s witness blockade, that has listened in on the call in which Trump mentioned corruption allegations against Biden and his son Hunter. Furthermore, Vindman is a decorated war hero who fought in Iraq with impeccable credentials as a TRUE Patriot which will make it impossible for Republicans to smear.
-
Timothy Morrison, White House National Security Counsel Advisor on Ukraine is Scheduled to Testify on Thursday, Oct. 31 — Tim Morrison will be a key witness because he was reportedly listening in on Trump’s Ukraine call. An attorney for Morrison said he intends to testify if he is subpoenaed, even if the White House seeks to block him. “If subpoenaed, Mr. Morrison plans to appear for his deposition,” attorney Barbara Van Gelder said in a statement to The Hill.
- Scheduled To Testify This Week - Here are all the folks who are scheduled to be Deposed this week courtesy of CNN Politics:
- Tuesday: Alexander Vindman, the White House National Security Council's top expert on Ukraine
- Wednesday: Kathryn Wheelbarger, acting assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
- Wednesday: Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson, State Department officials who worked for Ukraine diplomat Kurt Volker
- Thursday: Timothy Morrison, a top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump's National Security Council
Here’s what happened on October 29:
- Vindman Testimony Reveals Holes in the Ukraine Call Memo/Notes — As I have said from the beginning, what was released by the White House is NOT the FULL Record of Trump’s Ukraine call. Whether there is a FULL Transcript locked up behind a Top Secret Executive Branch electronic vault is still a matter of speculation at this point. But Vindman’s testimony filled in some of the holes in the released “call record”. Vindman told investigators he tried to change the White House’s rough transcript of the call by filling in at least one of the omitted words, “Burisma,” a reference to the company linked to Biden and his son, according to people familiar with his testimony. But Vindman was unsuccessful. “I was concerned by the call,” Vindman said, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.” Make no mistake about it, this guy is a TRUE US Patriot and Hero. I can’t wait to see Vindman (in full uniform) testify in public, if for no other reason than to watch House Republicans squirm.
- Shouting Match Erupts At Vindman Deposition — Democrats and Republicans got into a shouting match behind closed doors on Tuesday while interviewing a witness in the impeachment investigation, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to out the anonymous whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry, according to five sources from both parties. The back-and-forth led to a heated exchange between Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and GOP Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, according to multiple sources. Other members joined in.
- Impeachment Public Procedures Bill Goes to Rules Committee on October 30 — HOUSE DEMOCRATS ON Tuesday released a draft of a resolution detailing the new guidelines of their impeachment probe that puts the House Intelligence Committee at the center of the inquiry, allowing the Democratic chairman to designate open hearings and extending some authority to the ranking member. The resolution directs the six House committees – the Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Oversight and Reform Committee, the Financial Services Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee – "to continue ongoing investigations" as part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The House Rules Committee will mark up the resolution on Wednesday, with a floor vote slated for Thursday. You can read the Full Text of the Resolution HERE.
- Two (2) State Department Witnesses to be Deposed TODAY — State Department experts on Ukraine Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson are scheduled to testify in separate closed-door hearings before the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees on October 30. They are both foreign service officers, described as "two stars of the midlevel ranks" by a former State Department colleague. They each worked as deputy to then-Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker.
About Croft: She took over the role from Anderson in the summer of 2019. She had previously served at the National Security Council, focusing on Ukraine issues, and on the State Department's Ukraine desk.
About Anderson: He is now taking language courses at the Foreign Service Institute ahead of his next overseas posting. He served at the US Embassy in Kiev.
Here’s what happened on October 30:
- More Revelations from Vindman Testimony — Before the infamous July 25 call, there was a July 10 meeting with two (2) members of Ukrainian President Zelinsky’s staff and White House officials (including Vindman and Bolton) in which Biden/2016 investigations were discussed as needed to arrange a meeting between Trump and Zelensky. Vindman said in his opening statement that he objected to comments made by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, at a July 10 White House briefing, which was also attended by Perry. Vindman claimed that Sondland pressed Ukrainian officials at the meeting to investigate the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma. “I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate; that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security; and that such investigations were not something the [National Security Council] was going to get involved in or push,” Vindman said in his opening statement. The July 10 meeting that Vindman referred to took place after an earlier White House meeting that day where, according to Ukraine envoy Bill Taylor, then-national security adviser John Bolton abruptly ended a meeting with the National Security Council after Sondland allegedly brought up specific investigations for Ukraine to pursue in order to secure a long-sought meeting between Zelensky and Trump. Hill later testified that Bolton instructed her to inform White House lawyers that Sondland took Ukrainian officials aside to a private room and specifically referred to an investigation involving the Bidens. Vindman said he believed there was a quid pro quo in place by July 10 after a meeting between American and Ukrainian officials. During the meeting, Vindman said Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials they needed to ensure “specific investigations in order to secure the meeting” with Trump.
- House Rules Committee Approves Impeachment Procedures Resolution for Floor Vote — Most of you have already heard about this Resolution and will probably be glued to C-Span to watch it happen today. So I won’t go into detail here. You can read the Full Text of the Resolution HERE.
- WH National Security Council Advisor On Ukraine, Tim Morrison Resigns Just Before TODAY’s Testimony — So Tim Morrison quit last night just before his scheduled October 31 Deposition.Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump's National Security Council, is expected to provide one of the most revelatory testimonies to date in the House Democrat led impeachment inquiry on Thursday, one day after it became clear he will soon be leaving his job, according to a source familiar with the situation and a senior administration official. On the eve of his testimony, Morrison told his colleagues of his plans to leave the administration, a decision that was his and has been "planned for some time" given that he was an ally of former national security adviser John Bolton, who was fired by Trump in September, the source familiar said. The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena Thursday morning for Morrison's testimony after an attempt by the White House to direct him not to appear, an official working on the impeachment inquiry told CNN.
- Impeachment Witness Charles Kupperman’s Lawsuit Has Court Hearing — If you remember, Kupperman took the unusual step of filing a lawsuit to basically ask the Court if he should comply with Trump’s Order to stop him from testifying or to comply with a lawful Congressional Subpoena. A federal judge hearing arguments in a potentially critical impeachment inquiry case wants to hear from lawyers for the Trump White House, the House of Representatives and from impeachment witness Charles Kupperman on Thursday after Kupperman filed a lawsuit asking the federal court to decide whether he would need to testify. This case is important for two (2) reasons: 1. It is likely that Congress will prevail in this case. This will not only provide Judicial validation by a Federal Court of Kupperman’s subpoena, but for all subpoenas issued to witnesses currently being blocked by Trump; and 2. John Bolton and Kupperman are sharing the same lawyer, so Bolton may also be seeking this same Court validation before agreeing to testify.
- Bolton Refuses Congressional Invite To Testify, But Leaves The Door Open To Honoring A Subpoena — House impeachment investigators have asked former national security adviser John Bolton and two key White House lawyers to testify next week as part of the inquiry, according to a source familiar with the matter. Bolton is scheduled to be deposed on Nov. 7, while National Security Council attorneys John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis are slated to appear on Nov. 4, the source said. It was not immediately clear whether they plan to appear for testimony. Bolton’s attorney, Charles Cooper, also represents Charles Kupperman, who served as Bolton’s deputy. Kupperman last week asked a judge to decide whether he must comply with a congressional subpoena for testimony, or defer to the president’s direction that he not appear. Kupperman’s case is viewed as a proxy for whether Bolton will end up cooperating. Richard Leon, the judge assigned to Kupperman’s case, will set the briefing schedule at a hearing Thursday. Democrats who serve on the three committees leading the inquiry have indicated they are not sure whether Bolton will end up appearing.
- Testimony By Anderson and Croft Reveal New Wrongdoing and Confirm Known Wrongdoing by Trump — State Department Officer Christopher Anderson revealed new allegations of Pro-Russia / Anti-Ukraine activities by Trump. Anderson stated that back in November 2018 when Russia rammed and took control of Ukrainian ships in Ukraine’s waters, the White House blocked the State Department from issuing any public condemnation of Russia’s actions. Later, Anderson’s replacement, Catherine Croft testified that she was told the military aid to Ukraine was being held up by order of the President.
Here’s what happened on October 31:
- 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.
Here’s what happened on November 4:
- 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, 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, 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. 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.
— 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.
- 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, 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. 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.
So what’s in these 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 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.
- 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. 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.
Here’s what happened on November 5 & 6:
- Sondland Has Sudden Memory Restoration and Drastically “Adjusts” Testimony — Sondland was apparently allowed to “adjust” (i.e., edit) the transcript of his previous testimony before its public release yesterday. He was allowed to include a 4 page addendum at the end of the transcript which altered his original testimony and puts it more in line with the testimonies of other witnesses. In the addendum Sondland states:
"I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland writes, noting that he now recalls a Sept. 1 meeting in which he told that to an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Looks like Sondland’s new attorney made him realize that while its unlikely a Barr DoJ would prosecute him for lying to Congress, it is certainly possible that after the 2020 election, a Dem. AG could prosecute him. You can read Sondland full transcript HERE.
- Volker Transcript Released — In addition to Sondland's deposition, the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump also released the transcript of their interview with Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, according to this NPR Report. In addition to what we already know from his previously released opening statement, Volker also said Pompeo was aware of Giuliani's influence on Trump.
"I described my concern that [Giuliani] is projecting a damaging or a negative image about Ukraine, and that's reaching the President, and that I am trying to work with Ukrainians to correct that messaging, correct that impression," Volker said.
You can read Volker full transcript HERE.
- Two more White House officials skip impeachment depositions — Two more administration officials did not appear Tuesday for scheduled testimony in the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump, making them the latest White House aides to skip planned depositions. Wells Griffith, a special assistant to the president and senior director for international energy and environment on the National Security Council, did not appear for his Tuesday morning deposition. Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was absent for his closed-door hearing slated for Tuesday afternoon.
Two more succumb to the Dark Side of the Force!
- Four (4) More Witnesses Are Scheduled To Testify TODAY — Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale, Russell Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, Ulrich Brechbuhl, State Department counselor and Rick Perry former DoE Secretary are all scheduled for Wednesday Depositions. However, the House also invited Rick Perry, the outgoing energy secretary; Russell Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; and Ulrich Brechbuhl, State Department counselor, to testify on Wednesday. Mr. Vought and a spokeswoman for Mr. Perry have said the two men won’t appear, and people familiar with Mr. Brechbuhl’s plans said he would also skip the deposition. However, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale, a career member of the Foreign Service, is set to appear before House investigators Wednesday, according to two people familiar with the matter, making him the first official to be deposed this week after several others declined.
Here’s what happened on November 8 -11:
- 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.
Here’s what happened on November 12:
- Televised Public Impeachment Hearings Begin on Wednesday With Taylor & Kent — 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. 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. 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.
- 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.”
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. 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. 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. 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.
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?
Here’s what happened on November 13:
- Televised Public Impeachment Hearings Begin With Taylor & Kent — Not much to say here that you probably haven’t already heard. So I will try to be brief so you can get to your respective Watch Parties. Here are just a few of my tidbits to chew on:
— Watch for Committee Republicans to pull some crazy procedural stunt early on, like within the first few minutes. Since their allotted time does not occur until hours after the Hearing begins, I don’t expect them to wait until then to pull their crap since they know some viewers will have tuned out by then. So while Schiff will attempt to block their crap, I would guess they will force him into some sort of procedural vote early on (maybe a vote on ordering pizza. HA!)
— The witnesses may or may not read opening statements. If they do, pay close attention, because such remarks will be a preview of how they will conduct themselves and will set the tone for the rest of the day.
— Since a lot has been testified to behind closed doors and transcripts of those testimonies have already been released, don’t be disappointed if there aren’t any new bombshell revelations. These Hearings are for the majority of the public who has not read the transcripts, not for us. So a lot of what they hear today will be new to them.
— Finally, if you're looking for a drinking game word for your watch Party, may I suggest “BRIBERY”. WARNING: If you use this word as your drinking cue, you may lose consciousness before the Hearing ends.
- The Impeachment Hearing Witness List is out for the rest of this week and next week — Here is the schedule as released by MSNBC:
— Friday (morning) Nov. 15 — Marie Yovanovitch, Fmr. US Ambassador to Ukraine
— Tuesday (morning) Nov. 19 — Jennifer Williams, Aid to VP Pence and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (in full Dress Blues I would assume), Director for European Affairs at the NSC
— Tuesday (afternoon) Nov. 19 — Ambassador Kurt Volker, Fmr. US Special Envoy to Ukraine and Tim Morrison, White House Aid within NSC Focusing on Europe & Russia
— Wednesday (morning) Nov. 20 — Ambassador Gordon Sondland, US Amb. to the EU
— Wednesday (afternoon) Nov. 20 — Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine and David Hale, Under Secretary of State
— Thursday (morning) Nov. 21 — Dr. Fiona Hill, Former NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia. NEW - David Holmes’ (Member of Ambassador Taylor’s staff) added to Thursday Witnesses.
- Schiff Announces “Quid-Pro-Quo” Is Out “Bribery” Is In — As posted in this DK Diary by Jamess, courtesy of The Hill, Schiff had this to say:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested President Trump’s possible impeachable offenses include bribery in an interview set to air Wednesday with NPR’s Steve Inskeep.
This is great news for all the reasons I mentioned in my pet peeve yesterday. I hope they drive this home during the Hearings.
Here is what happened on Nov. 13 — 18:
- First Day of Impeachment Hearings Huge Success for Democrats and for the Country — By now you have likely watched some or all of Impeachment Hearings Day One and have had your fill of the MSM punditry telling you what you heard. So in giving you what I thought were the highlights, I will try to keep it brief:
— The witnesses, Taylor and Kent, truly were the stars of the show. They stoically put forth the facts in true Dragnet, Joe Friday style (“Just the facts Mam”). They told the whole story as they saw it unfold from a career diplomats perspective whose only concern was the welfare of our country. They also didn’t wilt under the Republican spin and often silly conspiracy theories. They either pushed back or simply avoided going down the crazy Republican road.
— Schiff ran the Hearing BRILLIANTLY. He remained calm, cool and steadfast, and kept Republicans from making the Hearing into a Clown Show. He simply shut them down.
— Goldman, Democratic Counsel, was obviously better than his Republican counterpart. Granted he had the easier job since all the facts were on his side, but he got the witnesses to tell a coherent story hitting all the important facts.
— The hearing was a total disaster for Republicans, scoring no points and often looking silly, which is what scares me. It reminded me of the Kavanaugh Hearing on the day Christine Blasi-Ford testified. They couldn’t get the witnesses to go where they wanted and their counsel was totally in effective, just like the Kavanaugh Hearing. What scares me is what they will do next. Will they turn up the crazy in the next Hearing? Will Gym Jordan do a Lindsey Graham type tirade and start yelling and scolding the Dems. and media? Who knows, but if they have more days like yesterday, they and Trump will be toast, and they know it.
— I have to give the quote of the day to George Kent:
“You can’t promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people.”
PRECIOUS!
— At the end of the day, the Committee tabled a GOP motion to have the Whistleblower appear before the Committee in closed session, with a GOP promise to keep his/her identity a secret. HA! (as Chris Matthews would say). The ranking GOP member is David Nunes. The same David Nunes who scampered over to the White House during the Mueller investigation to reveal classified Intelligence Committee information to Trump. So why would we think not to trust Mr. Nunes now.
— And, yes there was an unexpected new information bombshell that I will cover next.
- Taylor Pulls Pin and Tosses New Grenade Into Hearing — Here is the grenade Taylor tossed in his opening statement courtesy of CNN:
Taylor said that on July 26 -- one day after Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that prompted a whistleblower complaint that alleged Trump solicited "interference" from a foreign country to help his 2020 presidential campaign -- Trump spoke by phone with Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, about "the investigations."
Taylor said he was informed of the conversation by an aide, who was accompanying Sondland to meetings in Kiev with a top aide to Zelensky.
Taylor's aide said Sondland called Trump following the meeting in a restaurant. The aide could hear Trump asking Sondland about the investigations, and Sondland "told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward," according to Taylor's opening statement.
Taylor testified that his aide later asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine.
"Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which [personal attorney Rudy] Giuliani was pressing for," Taylor said..
BOOM, goes the dynamite! The Aides name is David Holmes who Schiff has already subpoenaed to give testimony in a closed door deposition on Friday (Nov. 15). This is what I meant in my earlier TODAY IN CONGRESS post when I said, “ The facts should dictate the timeline, the timeline should not dictate the facts.” Getting Holmes to testify in a closed door session before Sondland testifies publicly is BRILLIANT! The only question that remains is should you bring Holmes on to testify publicly before Sondland (Plan A) or the other way around (Plan B)? If you have Sondland go first, he will have no idea what Holmes testified to having heard on the call in his closed door testimony. So Sondland could reveal parts of the phone call that wasn’t overheard by Holmes out of fear falling into a perjury trap. If Holmes goes first, Sondland would simply have to confirm what Holmes heard, but not reveal anything else he might of heard from Trump. I think Schiff is going with Plan A.
Here’s what happened on November 18:
- Nancy Pelosi Uses the “B” Word, BRIBERY — On Thursday (Nov. 14), Nancy Pelosi followed Schiff’s lead and called the Trump Ukraine Crime for what it is, BRIBERY! Her statement courtesy of POLITICO:
“I am saying what the president has admitted to and said it’s perfect — it’s perfectly wrong. It’s bribery,” Pelosi told reporters during her weekly press conference Thursday. “The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections. That’s bribery.”
I first advocated for the use of the term BRIBERY in this case in my Nov. 6 TODAY IN CONGRESS Post, for all the reasons I presented in that post. At the time, I thought I was the first, but it appears that MSNBC’s Ari Melber penned an Op Ed advocating for the term back in mid-October. Regardless of where the idea came from, I am glad to see the Speaker take up the mantle and make it more likely than not that BRIBERY, as spelled out in the Constitution as an impeachable offense, will be an Article of Impeachment.
- Yovanovitch Testimony Marred By Trump Intimidating Tweet — As most have heard by now, President Trump posted the following tweet about former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in the middle of her televised testimony:
"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors."
During the Hearing Chairman Schiff read the tweet to Yovanovitch and asked for her reaction. In response, unprovoked by Schiff, Yovanovitch described the tweet as “intimidating” and that she felt intimidated by it. At which, Schiff smartly responded by announcing that some on the Committee:
“Take Witness Intimidation VERY, VERY, Seriously”
An obvious shot across the bow suggesting that the crime of witness intimidation may have just been committed on the same day that Roger Stone is convicted for Witness Intimidation (among other things). We will see if this makes it to another Article of Impeachment.
Overall, I was again impressed on how well Chairman Schiff handled the Hearing. He was fair, calm in tone and he kept the Republicans in check when they tried to violate the Hearing Rules established by the House. For the Republicans it was another bad day. While they all tried to be respectful and nice to the Ambassador, they couldn’t make up for the damage caused by Trump’s disparaging tweet.
But the highpoint for me came at the end of the Hearing, just after Chairman Schiff finished his closing remarks and gaveled the Hearing adjourned. Just then I heard one of the Republicans on the Committee starting to repeatedly yell “Point of Order Mr. Chairman”. He then was completely drowned out by the spontaneous standing ovation of applause by the entire Hearing audience.
Hearing the Republican pathetically trying to raise some stupid objection and being drowned out by the pro-Yovanovitch crowd…. PRICELESS!
- The Witness Trickle Becoming A Fire Hose Trained on Trump — On Friday (Nov. 15), David Holmes (Member of Ambassador Taylor’s staff) testified in a closed door deposition before the Congressional Impeachment Committees, and on Saturday (Nov. 16) Mark Sandy (White House Budget Aide) also testified in a closed door deposition before the same committees. I will get into what happened in those depositions in the next two “bullets” below. But here I would like to focus on subpoena witnesses in general. They seem to be fractured into 3 camps: 1. Witnesses who have decided to defy the White House and honor Congressional subpoenas; 2. Witnesses who have decided to defy Congressional subpoenas and obey the White House witness blockade; and 3. Witnesses who are asking the Courts to tell them what to do (Kupperman, Bolton and separately Mulvaney, although Mulvaney wants the Court to tell him to obey the White House witness blockade). The first group seems to be getting bigger with each passing day, while the second group appears to be shrinking. I think this is happening because as time goes by and more witnesses honor subpoenas, those on the fence aren’t seeing any repercussions from the White House which suggests that the White House threats are toothless (i.e., Trump has so far not retaliated against those who have testified). This scares me since Trump must know that he needs to make a sacrificial example and fire someone in order to stop more witnesses from testifying. The White House has already floated Vindman and Inspector General Atkinson as trial balloons for possible firings, but has not pulled the trigger. If Trump doesn’t take some sort of retaliation soon, he will be left with only the true Trump loyalists willing to risk prosecution to protect Trump. Along those lines, I think the witnesses who have come forward have done so not only out of loyalty to Country, but because they (or their lawyers) have figured out that if Trump is not re-elected they could face a Democratic AG that might prosecute them for defying a lawful Congressional subpoena (this was obviously Sondland’s motivation).
- David Holmes Friday (Nov. 15) Bombshell Deposition — This is old news for most of you by now, but here is the BOMBSHELL revelation from David Holmes’ (Member of Ambassador Taylor’s staff) opening statement from his Friday (Nov. 15) deposition:
During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard him announce himself several times, along the lines of "Gordon Sondland holding for the President." It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistants. I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor change, and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President's voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.
I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelenskyy "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Ambassador Sondland replied that "he's gonna do it," adding that President Zelenskyy will do "anything you ask him to." Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the President.
After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about "big stuff." I noted that there was "big stuff" going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant "big stuff" that benefits the President, like the "Biden investigation" that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on to other topics.
As indicated by Holmes there are two other staffers who were present at the July 26 lunch and who likely overheard the call, also. It’s unclear at this time if these staffers will also be subpoenaed to corroborate Holme’s testimony. You can read the full opening statement in legible form HERE courtesy of the DK Diary by jamess. Worth the read because besides the above bombshell, Holmes recaps the whole sorted story from before the recallinto the sched of Ambassador Yovanovitch to the release of the aid to Ukraine confirming previous testimony by other witnesses and adding some new damaging information.
This will obviously put Gordon Sondland into even more of a bind before his public testimony on Wednesday. He has already provided an addendum to his original deposition to correct his testimony after other witnesses came forward giving new details that conflicted with his original testimony. Likely due to the fact that his lawyers reminded him that if Trump loses in 2020, he could be facing a Democratic AG (like Kamala Harris) who could prosecute him for lying to Congress. Now he faces new testimony which reveals his phone call with Trump on July 26 that he has not chosen to include in his past testimony. So if you account for his initial fear of prosecution and the fact that he has now seen Roger Stone convicted for lying to Congress, I would have to think he will be singing like a bird on Wednesday. If not, and he decides to risk perjury, it will likely be because Trump has offered him a secret pardon.
UPDATE #1 — David Holmes will testify publicly in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, according to this CNN Story. I have inserted Holmes into the week’s schedule above, but I am not yet certain of the time.
UPDATE #2 — You can read the whole Holmes’ transcript HERE courtesy of the Lawfare Blog.
- Transcript of Ambassador David Hale’s Closed Door Deposition Released — David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (a Trump Appointee) was amazingly candid in his testimony regarding the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch and the subsequent hold on Ukraine Aid. Here are some highlights from this CBS News Story:
By March 24, the stream of social media and other criticism directed against Yovanovitch had grown so intense, Hale said that she had emailed him to say that "she felt she could no longer function unless there was a strong statement of defense of her from the State Department."
Hale subsequently raised the idea of a statement of support with Pompeo. The secretary asked State Department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl to contact those who had been passing around the alleged behavior of Yovanovitch, and any statement would have to wait until those conversations were completed.
Pompeo, according to Hale, spoke with Fox News host Sean Hannity to demand to know what evidence he had to corroborate the accusations against her.
Ultimately, Hale said that "I never met anyone who felt that they had received that credible evidence" that the accusations against Yovanovitch had any validity.
On Ukraine Aid:
Hale was told on July 23 that there had been a presidential directive about pausing the aid, and he learned on July 25 that it was the president who had made the decision through chief of staff Mulvaney.
During what he referred to as a "lower level interagency meeting on July 23rd," Hale said he'd been told the aid was being suspended by a presidential directive. He said he wasn't satisfied by the response:
I wanted clarity. I wanted a name of a named person who was saying: This is the President's wish. I never got that response until we were into the small group meeting, the deputies small group meeting on July 25 in which OMB stated on the record that it was the President through Chief of Staff Mulvaney.
You can read the entire Hale transcript posted within the CBS News Story.
- Mark Sandy (WH Budget Aid) Testifies To Congress — Mark Sandy, a senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) arrived on Capitol Hill Saturday for a more than five-hour closed-door deposition in the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. In that deposition, Sandy spoke about how unusual of a process it was that a political appointee came in, took over the apportionment process and placed a hold on the military aid, a source told CNN. Sandy testified that he raised questions to the OMB general counsel about whether the move violated the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the source said. He would not discuss what the OMB general counsel said because of concerns it could violate privilege. When Duffey, who oversees the office Sandy works in, sidelined him, Sandy told lawmakers he was told that Duffey wanted to learn more about how the process worked and so would be taking over the particular issue, according to the source. Sandy also told lawmakers he tried to explain to Duffey that it wasn't necessary to take over the account to learn about and understand the process, the source said, but Duffey, who was new to OMB, insisted otherwise.
Sounds like Mr. Duffy has some splainin to do!
- Tim Morrison (former NSC official) Deposition Transcript Released — The transcript of Tim Morrison’s closed door deposition was released by the Impeachment Committees on Saturday (Nov. 16). In it Morrison corroborates the testimony of the other witnesses. Former NSC official Tim Morrison testified that he had heard from Sondland that US aid to Ukraine was conditioned on the country announcing an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Morrison's testimony also added additional detail explaining how the call ended up on a highly secure server outside of normal channels.
The heat under Sondland is only increasing as his Wednesday (possible) John Dean moment approaches. You can read the entire Morrison transcript HERE.
- Jennifer Williams (Aide to VP Pence) Deposition Transcript Released — The transcript of Jennifer Williams’ closed door deposition was released by the Impeachment Committees on Saturday (Nov. 16). In addition to corroborating the testimony of the other witnesses, this Axios Report indicates that:
“Ms. Williams testified that the President’s requests were ‘unusual and inappropriate’ and shed light on ‘possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold.’ She also confirmed, like Lt. Col. Vindman, that the Ukrainian President specifically mentioned ‘Burisma’ during the call, even though the White House call record does not reflect that. Importantly, Ms. Williams also testified that in mid-May, President Trump instructed Vice President Pence to cancel plans to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration before the date for the inauguration had been set.“We look forward to the public testimony of both of these officials.”
So a member of Pence’s staff throws a drowning Trump an anvil instead of a life preserver. Poor Mike, he must be getting an earful from Trump. You can read the entire Williams transcript HERE.
House Committees Issue Subpoenas to DoD and OMB -
Background — On October 8, the chairmen of three House Committees— Oversight and Reform, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs—sent similar
letters to subpoena documents from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought. The requested documents pertain to President Trump’s
reported decision to withhold security assistance from Ukraine. In addition to the letters, the chairmen provided a schedule of the documents
Esper and
Vought need to supply.
The deadline for producing the subpoenaed documents is October 15.
On October 15:
OMB Subpoena — The Office of Management and Budget didn’t comply Tuesday with a subpoena for documents about the delay in nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine, according to a senior administration official. House Democrats are seeking documents about why the aid was withheld, probing, among other matters, who was involved in the decision-making process for delaying the money.
DoD Subpoena — The Defense Department, meanwhile, faced a deadline Tuesday to turn over documents to Congress as part of the inquiry. The department had no comment but Mr. Schiff said at a news conference that initial signals that the Pentagon would comply appeared to have been overridden by the White House.
On October 16:
DoD Subpoena — The Department of Defense has formally announced it will not comply with the Congressional subpoena for documents related to the withholding of military aid to Ukraine. In a letter from Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs Robert Hood on Tuesday, the Defense Department took issue with the House’s authority to launch an impeachment probe without a full House vote — the line of attack that the White House and top Republicans have been peddling for weeks. It also argued that the documents requested in the subpoena were protected by executive privilege and would require “careful review” before they could be handed over.
On October 17:
Trump White House Blocked DoD subpoena compliance. The White House has ordered the Defense Department to not comply with a subpoena for documents related to an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to the House’s lead investigator of the probe.
On October 21:
Trump White House Blocked DoD subpoena compliance. The White House has ordered the Defense Department to not comply with a subpoena for documents related to an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to the House’s lead investigator of the probe.
House Financial Services Committee and House Intelligence Committee Deutsche Bank and Capital One Subpoenas (Trump’s Banking Records) —
Background — Back in May, the aforementioned Committees issued subpoenas to two banks for Trump’s financial records. However, Trump went to court to try to block the turn over. Then on May 23, a federal judge took a rare step of ruling from the bench and rejected President Trump's effort to block congressional subpoenas seeking his financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. But the Trump Organization filed an Appeal (of course). On July 19, Lawyers for President Donald Trump on Thursday filed a motion the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking to reverse a lower court’s decision denying Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Deutsche Bank from releasing financial records to the House Committee on Financial Services.
On August 23, the Judicial Hearing on Trump’s financial records was held. Both sides said during Friday’s hearing that they might be willing to negotiate about the scope of the subpoena, and that they had made such offers before. But the Committee’s lawyer said he believed Trump’s offer to negotiate was “insincere,” which Trump’s lawyer denied.”
But in a surprise question from the bench, Circuit Judge Jon Newman asked lawyers for Deutsche Bank and Capital One if they have Trump’s tax returns or those of his children.
On August 27, Deutsche Bank Confirmed to the Court that It Has Tax Returns Requested by Subpoenas for President Trump and Family. However, Capital One said it does not possess any tax returns responsive to the subpoena.”
So if the Judge decides in the Committee’s favor, they could also get some of the Trump family tax returns in addition to other financial records, pending an appeal of course.
On October 10 it was reported that Deutsche Bank said in a court filing in August that it has tax returns relating to the subpoenas, but the public version of the filing redacted the identities of the taxpayers. However, in its ruling on October 10, the appeals court said the unredacted version of Deutsche Bank's August letter "reports that the only tax returns it has for individuals or entities named in the subpoenas are not those of the President." So no Donald Trump Sr. tax returns from Deutsche Bank.
On October 11 it was reported that Deutsche Bank may have destroyed Trump’s tax returns. A former Deutsche Bank executive suggested that the financial firm may have “destroyed” physical copies of President Trump’s tax returns after the bank told a court that it no longer had them. The Big question that remains that if true, were they destroyed before or after the issuance of the Congressional subpoena. The latter is of course a criminal offense.
On October 16, House Oversight Committee has filed a Motion asking the Court to expedite the Mazars case. The motion on Wednesday asked the court to forego that period and enforce the subpoena immediately or at least to shorten the period in which Trump can ask for the decision to be reviewed.
It appears Trump’s lawyers will ask the Full DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case, but not before the court compels them to.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Subpoena (Mazars Financial Records) —
Background — Way back in April (I think) the House Oversight and Reform Committee issued a subpoena requiring Trump’s former accounting firm (Mazars) to hand over Trump’s financial records. Of course Trump went to Federal Court to block this subpoena and on May 20, Federal Judge Amit Mehta handed down a ruling which stated that Congress was well within their oversight authority in requesting the records and that Mazars must honor the subpoena in 7 days. Of course Trump appealed this ruling. So on July 12 a three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held a Hearing on Trump’s appeal in the Mazar’s case and it didn’t go well for Team Trump. Note — There was an actual voice recording made of this Hearing. C-Span has the Oral Argument HERE. Although the panel expressed significant doubts about Trump’s arguments, they decided to delay issuing a ruling in this case to let DoJ chime in on this case. ”
On August 5, Trump’s DoJ headed by his own Roy Cohn (AG Barr), weighed in on the Mazars’ case with this:
“The department argued in the court document that the House subpoena amounted to little more than presidential harassment, claiming the subpoena serves no “legitimate legislative purpose.”
Why am I not surprised!
A Three (3) Judge Panel on the DC Court of Appeals ruled on Friday October 11 that Trump’s claims that he is immune to congressional oversight have no basis in law. That means the House Oversight Committee may soon gain access to many of Trump’s financial records — potentially including his tax forms. Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, wrote the majority opinion in Mazars. And, as his opinion explains, the law governing this case is pretty straightforward. As a series of Supreme Court decisions that stretch back to the 1920s Teapot Dome scandal lay out, Congress has broad authority to conduct investigations so long as those investigations have a “valid legislative purpose.” Such a purpose exists as long as the investigation touches upon a matter “on which legislation could be had.”
Let’s be clear, this case is separate from the House Ways & Means Committee case involving their request that the IRS turn over Trump’s tax returns to Congress, and separate from the Deutsche Bank case above. It is also separate from the Manhattan DA’s case which subpoenaed Trump’s taxes as part of a criminal investigation. In this case, Mazars, Trump’s former accounting firm, has previously told the court that the Trump financial records in their possession include 8 years of Trump’s tax returns, which would now have to be turned over to the Committee, along with other Trump financial documents. Axios has a great story which attempts to sort out the multiple cases related to Trump’s taxes.
Trump’s only has two options at this point: 1. He could request that the case be heard by the entire DC Court of Appeals; or 2. He could ask SCOTUS to hear the case. We will likely find out this week.
On October 15, the DC Circuit case, Trump v. Mazars, is in limbo. Though the appeals court ruled against Trump on Friday, the court announced shortly thereafter that the order would not take effect right away — and could likely be delayed even further if Trump files a petition asking all eleven of the DC Circuit’s judges to rehear the case. Still, waiting to see what Trump lawyers will do?
Trump filed an Appeal on Friday, October 25 with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. President Donald Trump has asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear his attempt to stop a subpoena of his longtime accounting firm, this time with Trump asking the full appellate court to reconsider his case. To be clear, the appeal is not really to “rehear” the case. The 2 to 1 ruling was handed down by a 3 Judge panel from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump is now asking the full Appeals Court to review the case, which is the last step before going to SCOTUS. We are now waiting to see if the full court will hear the appeal and on what time table.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Subpoenas of White House Staff Documents —
Background — On July 26, the House Oversight and Reform Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for senior White House officials’ communications via private email accounts and messaging applications. On a party-line vote, the committee authorized Cummings to subpoena all communications sent or received since President Donald Trump took office that were not forwarded to official email accounts within 20 days, as required by law.
On October 2 Chairman Elijah Cummings sent the full Committee a Memorandum providing notice of an impending White House document subpoena to be issued on Friday, October 4. From my skimming of the draft subpoena attached to the Memorandum, it appears it is for phone records and any/all documents pertaining to the Ukraine matter. It does not appear to ask for phone records/transcripts of other Trump calls (Putin, MBS, etc.) which are also reportedly locked up in the TOP TOP Secret database.
October 3 events:
- Impeachment Vote Dare — It appears that the White House will not be voluntarily turning over any documents in advance of today’s Congressional subpoena. The White House plans to argue that U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi must have the full House vote to formally approve an impeachment inquiry, a source familiar with the effort said. Without a vote, White House lawyers believe Trump can ignore lawmakers’ requests. Notice that they don’t say that they will turn over everything if the House votes for an Impeachment investigation.
- Where’s the Transcript — Its becoming increasingly clear that the “phone record” of the Trump/Ukraine call, are notes or excerpts from the call transcript, not the entire transcript. That’s because the numerous ellipses (“...”) in the released document indicate left out text and because the released document can be read in 10 minutes and this was a 30 minute call. So we now know that even though the released document seems very damaging, it likely represents a cherry-picking of the entire transcript which is still locked up in Trump’s electronic TOP TOP SECRET Safe.
On October 4, House Democrats subpoenaed the White House on Friday for documents and records related to President Donald Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president, escalating their standoff as the impeachment inquiry continues. House Democrats subpoenaed the White House on Friday for documents and records related to President Donald Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president, escalating their standoff as the impeachment inquiry continues. The subpoena is presented within the ABC News Report, and requires the documents to be provided by October 18. But since the White House issued its “You Get Nothing” letter to Congress, I am sure they will blow this off.
On October 17, Energy Secretary and Member of the “Three Amigos”, Rick Perry is facing a subpoena to turn over documents related to Trump's call with Zelensky and Perry's potential role in reinforcing that request during a trip to Ukraine. Perry has only said that “The House has sent a subpoena over for the records that we have, and our general counsel and the White House counsel are going through the process right now," Perry said on Fox Business in a Wednesday morning interview. "I’m going to follow the lead of my counsel on that.” Also, Trump has confirmed that Perry’s on again, off again resignation is back on. "We already have his replacement. Rick has done a fantastic job. But it was time," Trump told reporters.
On October 21:
The Energy Department, formerly under the now gone Rick Perry, said it will not comply with the Congressional document subpoena at this time. Assistant Secretary of Energy Melissa Burnison told the three committees involved in the House impeachment inquiry that the Energy Department is "unable to comply with your request for documents and communications at this time." In a letter dated Friday, Burnison argues about the validity of the inquiry and contends the request is for confidential communications "that are potentially protected by executive privilege and would require careful review."
House Ways & Means Committee Subpoena (Trump’s Tax Returns) —
Background — The Committee is in the process of enforcing its subpoena against Mnuchin and the IRS. However, in anticipation of the legal battle ahead DoJ has now filed a legal opinion with respect to Trump’s taxes. In it “the DOJ acknowledged that a plain-language reading of Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code required compliance and an obligation on the part of the IRS to turn over the requested tax returns — but then the DOJ divined and opined that Chairman Neal’s request had no legislative justification and was a pretextual means to a public disclosure end result that was ultimately motivated by politics.” So they acknowledge Democrats have a strong case via a plain reading of the law, but they can’t have Trump’s tax returns because the DoJ feels the Democrats have illicit motives. Yeah, that will fly in Court when a pig flys.
But with regard to Trump’s NYS Tax Returns, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Monday signed a bill that would allow certain members of Congress to access President Donald Trump's New York state tax returns.
However, House Ways & Means Committee Chairman McNeal has said he does not expect to request Trump’s State taxes since he fears it weakens his case to obtain Trump’s Federal Taxes. It’s Complicated! However, the Committee did file a lawsuit in Federal Court on July 2 against both Mnuchin and IRS Director Rettig. Let’s hope the Courts see the urgency of these matters.
On July 23, Trump went on offense by firing a retaliatory strike. He filed suit in Federal Court to block the release of both his Federal and State tax returns to the House Ways & Means Committee and to the NYS AG.
Also, some possibly unscrupulous dealings have been revealed involving Trump’s tax returns. “A federal employee turned over “credible” evidence to House Democrats of possible “inappropriate efforts to influence” the IRS presidential audit process,
On September 6, Trump lawyers asked a federal judge to dismiss House Democrats’ lawsuit seeking to force him to turn over his federal tax returns. The move comes after the judge hearing the case, Trevor McFadden, last week rejected House Democrats’ bid to fast track their suit.
On September 9, President Trump’s lawyers argued in a court document that a federal judge should deny a motion to dismiss his lawsuit challenging New York's law that allows Congress to request his tax returns. The New York officials argued in their motion to dismiss the president's suit that the case should not be heard in federal court in Washington, D.C., and should either be dismissed or heard in federal court in New York.
There is a Motion Hearing in D.C. Circuit Court on September 18 before Judge Nichols in the case of TRUMP v. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
In a related matter, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance's office (the son, hot the father in case you’re curious) has subpoenaed eight years of President Donald Trump's tax returns from Mazars USA, the longtime accounting firm to Trump and the Trump Organization, as part of its investigation into hush money payments, according to a person familiar with the matter.
On September 18, the Motion Hearing in front of Judge Nichols resulted in another legal blow for Team Trump. In his ruling from the bench he indicated that Trump has not yet been harmed by a New York law allowing the U.S. House of Representatives to request his state tax information.
It sounds like the Judge has told Trump that until the Committee actually requests Trump’s NYS tax returns (which they haven’t yet), he has no standing to sue. At least that’s my interpretation.
In the related matter of Trump’s tax returns being subpoenaed from Mazars by New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Trump got a last minute reprieve by filing a lawsuit just before the September 18, 2:00 pm subpoena deadline. Just hours after President Donald Trump sued to block a subpoena seeking his tax returns, he secured a temporary reprieve. Manhattan’s top prosecutor agreed Thursday to at least briefly suspend the subpoena, pending the results of a September 25 court hearing.
But here’s the kicker. In their Court filing, Trump’s lawyers argue that the president is immune from all criminal investigations while in office. Get that! Not only can he not be indicted while in office, according to crappy DoJ policy, but Trump's lawyers are now arguing he can't even be investigated while in office. AMAZING AUDACITY!
On September 23 NY prosecutors asked the judge to dismiss Trump suit over subpoena for tax returns. In a filing, the district attorney's office asked the judge in the case to dismiss Trump's complaint and his call for a temporary restraining order preventing Mazars USA, Trump's accounting firm, from complying with the subpoena.
The filing argues that the correct venue for any challenge should be New York state court and not federal court.
On September 25 a Judge granted a brief stay in the matter of the NY Prosecutor’s subpoena of Trump’s tax returns. According to this CNN Story:
”A New York federal judge granted a one-day stay until Thursday in a dispute over a subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney's office for President Donald Trump's tax returns.
US District Court Judge Victor Marrero also set a deadline for Monday for the Manhattan US Attorney's office to determine whether it wants to participate in the case, and said if it chooses to do so it must file a brief with the court by October 2.
"Go home. Sober up. Decompress," Marrero told both sides after a 90-minute hearing. He advised them to "get together again and see whether some way could be found to accommodate the concerns expressed by both sides."
Wednesday's decision further delays broader constitutional questions at the heart of the dispute over the subpoenas, including whether the President can be criminally investigated.”
On September 25, a Judge granted a brief stay in the matter of the NY Prosecutor’s subpoena of Trump’s tax returns. The New York federal judge granted a one-day stay until Thursday in a dispute over a subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney's office for President Donald Trump's tax returns. US District Court Judge Victor Marrero also set a deadline for Monday for the Manhattan US Attorney's office to determine whether it wants to participate in the case, and said if it chooses to do so it must file a brief with the court by October 2.
On September 26, the Manhattan district attorney’s office agreed not to enforce a subpoena for President Donald Trump’s tax returns until a federal court rules on the office’s motion to dismiss Trump’s suit to block the subpoena and an injunction sought by the president. In a letter to federal Judge Victor Marrero, attorneys in the DA’s office said they “reached a temporary arrangement” with Trump’s attorneys to delay enforcement of the subpoena until 1 p.m. two business days after Marrero rules or until 1 p.m. Oct. 7, whichever comes first.
On September 30, House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) said he’s looking into making public a complaint by another whistleblower who claims to have evidence of misconduct regarding the Internal revenue Service’s auditing of President Trump. The allegations, made by a federal employee, says there were “inappropriate efforts to influence” the audit process. According to Neal, the complaint’s release to the public hinges on whether or not House lawyers think it’s a good idea.
With regard to the Manhattan DA’s Subpoena case, the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York said Monday that it plans to participate in the lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump to block a subpoena by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for eight years of his tax returns. In a letter sent to the judge in the case, the office's civil division chief said it would file a submission in the case by Wednesday, the deadline set by the judge last week. Broader constitutional questions are at the heart of the dispute over the subpoenas, including whether the President can be criminally investigated.
Later in the day we learned that Barr did apparently order the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York to interject himself into the New York DA’s case to get Trump’s Taxes ON TRUMP’S SIDE! They will reportedly argue that a President cannot be prosecuted while in office. This is of course a DoJ policy, not a law. So this is a risky gamble for Trump, because if SCOTUS were to decide that this DoJ policy wrongly puts a President above the law, he could be indicted.
On October 1, Deutsche Bank revealed a bit more about the tax returns it has that are related to President Donald Trump on Friday. In a new court filing, the embattled bank said it has the tax returns of two individuals that could be turned over to the
House of Representatives under a subpoena focused on Trump, if a court orders it. “Based on Deutsche Bank's current knowledge and the results of the extensive searches that have already been conducted," the new filing reads, "the Bank has in its possession tax returns (in either draft or as-filed form) responsive to the Subpoenas for two individuals, not entities, named in the Subpoenas.”
Since the House had subpoenaed financial documents the bank has for Trump and his children -- Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump -- as well as two redacted names or entities and for their immediate family members, odds are good that the two individuals Deutsche Bank has tax returns of are Trump family members.
On October 2, as expected the DoJ, under the direction of Trump’s Roy Cohn (AG Barr), has weighed in on the court case over the Manhattan DA’s subpoena for 8 years of Trump’s tax returns. The Justice Department has filed a document taking President Trump’s side as his personal attorneys fight to prevent Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance from obtaining his tax returns. The 16-page court filing — signed by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman — asks a judge to allot enough time to allow “considered deliberation” in the case. The DOJ stops short of trying to convince the judge to toss the subpoena, issued to longtime Trump accountant Mazars USA LLP. Instead, the government asks the court to delay proceedings long enough to account for the “serious constitutional issues at stake.” “It is both correct and important that the President’s challenge to the subpoena on account of his office be resolved in federal court rather than in state court,” the filing reads.
On October 3, the IRS Whistleblower who is alleging tampering with the audit of Trump’s tax returns provided some new information. Citing "multiple people familiar with the document," The Washington Post says, "An Internal Revenue Service official has filed a whistleblower complaint reporting that he was told that at least one Treasury Department political appointee attempted to improperly interfere with the annual audit of the president's or vice president's tax returns."
On October 4, the IRS Whistleblower who is alleging tampering with the audit of Trump’s tax returns provided some new information. Citing "multiple people familiar with the document," The Washington Post says, "An Internal Revenue Service official has filed a whistleblower complaint reporting that he was told that at least one Treasury Department political appointee attempted to improperly interfere with the annual audit of the president's or vice president's tax returns."
Here’s what’s happened on October 8 & 9:
- Treasury Department IG to Investigate Handling of Trump’s Taxes — Acting Inspector General Rich Delmar said he will investigate who was consulted on the issue and how the department came to reject Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal’s demands for the records, a decision the Massachusetts Democrat is now fighting into court. Delmar said it’s unclear yet whether his inquiry will also consider a whistleblower's allegations that someone tried to improperly influence the IRS's audits of Trump.
- Judge Rules Against Trump in Tax Case — US Southern New York District Court Judge Victor Marrero DISMISSED Trump’s lawsuit against Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. to block the DA’s subpoena for 8 years of Trump’s tax returns from Mazars, Trump’s former financial firm. You can read the Judge’s scathing ruling against Trump HERE. Then, the president filed an emergency appeal with a federal appeals court. Then, the 2nd Circuit wasted no time in issuing a temporary stay for Trump’s tax returns. So no tax returns! Let’s be clear, this case is about getting the Trump tax returns turned over to the Manhattan DA who is investigating violations of New York State law associated with these returns. It is different from the case being pursued by the House Ways & Means Committee to get Trump’s taxes. Even if the DA were to get Trump’s tax returns, there is no guarantee the DA will be released to the public.
On October 21:
- House Democrats Asked To Be Dismissed From Trump Lawsuit — To start off, this is the lawsuit filed by Trump against the recent New York State law which would allow release of Trump’s NY State tax returns to Congress upon their request. House Democrats on Monday urged a federal judge to dismiss them from President Trump’s lawsuit challenging a New York law that allows congressional committees to request his state tax returns. The House’s lawyers noted that the Ways and Means Committee is participating in the House’s impeachment inquiry of Trump, and that the committee’s deliberations related to any actions it could take as part of that inquiry are protected from a legal challenge.
To be clear, House lawyers are arguing that although they have not yet requested Trump’s NY returns, any deliberations on requesting such returns are protected from any such lawsuit because they are in an impeachment inquiry. It will be interesting to see if the Judge agrees with this argument.
- Manhattan DA and Trump Lawyers Reach A Deal on Trump Tax Returns — First, going back to October 9, Judge Victor Marrero DISMISSED Trump’s lawsuit against Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. to block the DA’s subpoena for 8 years of Trump’s tax returns from Mazars (Trump’s former financial firm) and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on turning over the returns to the DA pending appeal. But now, Manhattan district attorney and attorneys for President Donald Trump have come to an agreement to pause the enforcement of a grand jury subpoena for Trump's tax returns until after an appeals court issues their opinion and perhaps until after the Supreme Court is asked to hear the case.
On October 23, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on Trump’s Appeal of the lower court Judge Victor Marrero dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit against the subpoena issued by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. for 8 years of Trump’s tax returns. But beyond Trump’s tax returns, this case could be monumental for President Trump and all President’s to follow. You see Trump’s lawyers are arguing a case of “Absolute Presidential Immunity” from prosecution while in office and they are basing their argument, at least in part, on the Nixon Era DoJ Policy Memos which concluded sitting Presidents should not be prosecuted. IMO, this was a BIG legal blunder on the part of Trump’s legal team since it calls into question the legality and constitutionality of the old DoJ Memos which have so far protected Trump from prosecution while in office. Faced with this argument, Judge Marrero did not sidestep the issue in his ruling, calling Trump's claims of immunity as "repugnant" and an "overreach of executive power." But more importantly is what he had to say about the DoJ Policy Memos in his ruling:
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.
In a nutshell, what could be decided by this case, is not just Trump’s taxes, but the Constitutionality of the DoJ Memos which were used by Mueller in his report as the reason he did not prosecute Trump for Obstruction of Justice. Furthermore, if these Memos are deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS as a result of this case, this President and all future Presidents will be subject to prosecution while in office.
On October 22 — 24:
A three (3) Judge Panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on Trump’s Appeal of the lower court Judge Victor Marrero dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit against the subpoena issued by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. for 8 years of Trump’s tax returns. It would be an understatement to say it didn’t go well for Team Trump. The panel expressed skepticism that President Trump had a right to block state prosecutors in Manhattan from enforcing a subpoena that sought his personal and corporate tax returns for the last eight years. The 3 judges peppered a lawyer for Mr. Trump with questions, expressing skepticism about the president’s argument that he was immune from criminal investigation. Carey R. Dunne, the Manhattan district attorney’s general counsel, cited the president’s famous claim that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support. Mr. Dunne asked what would happen in that extreme scenario? “Would we have to wait for an impeachment proceeding to be initiated?” he said. Later, Judge Denny Chin posed the Fifth Avenue hypothetical to William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, and asked for his view. “Local authorities couldn’t investigate? They couldn’t do anything about it?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?” “That is correct. That is correct,” Mr. Consovoy said.
Strains credulity doesn’t it. Make no mistake, while this case was originally about the Manhattan DA’s subpoena of Trump’s tax returns, it now is taking on the far more weighty issue of whether a sitting President can be prosecuted. BTW, if you have not heard the whole Hearing, you can still go and listen to it on C-Span here.
Also, 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.
Here’s what happened on November 4:
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. 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.
On November 6:
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.
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. 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. 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.
On Wednesday (Nov. 13), Trump was dealt another Court loss in his battle to keep his tax returns secret. This is the case brought by the House Committee to get the IRS to turn over Trump’s taxes as required BY LAW. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to re-visit an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel that allowed Congress to subpoena the president's tax records. The House Oversight and Reform Committee subpoenaed those records in March. The divided three-judge panel ruled in October that the House had a legitimate legislative pursuit in seeking Trump's personal tax returns. The president's lawyers had asked that the full D.C. Circuit reconsider the case.
This means the ruling by the 3 Judges stands, requiring the IRS to hand over Trump’s taxes to Congress. But Congress likely will not see those documents soon. The D.C Circuit already had said it would give the president seven days to file an appeal. Trump's outside legal counsel, Jay Sekulow, told NPR that he and his client "will be seeking review at the Supreme Court."
So this is the second case involving Trump’s taxes that is bound for SCOTUS, the first being the Manhattan DA’s subpoena for his taxes as part of their criminal investigation of Trump’s payoffs to women he allegedly had affairs. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS agrees to hear one, both or none of these cases? If you ask me, a “normal” SCOTUS would likely steer clear of this political mess allowing the lower court rulings to stand. But this SCOTUS with two Trump appointees on it might just take it on. If they do and are thinking about deciding in favor of Trump, they would have to weigh the fact that this would set a precedent making it possible for all future Presidents to hide their tax returns. Of course if they take it on it could be a sign that a majority on the court want to decide against Trump and set an “open government” precedent for the future. We’ll see!
Here’s what happened on November 18:
Trump’s lawyers filed an appeal to SCOTUS on Thursday in the Manhattan DA Subpoena case , and on Friday, Trump’s lawyers filed a request for a stay from SCOTUS in the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s Subpoena case. Trump lost in both cases in the lower courts. According to this story from CNBC:
On Thursday, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a lower-court ruling that would allow the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to obtain eight years’ worth of Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns from his accountants as part of its criminal investigation.
In their emergency application filed on Friday, Trump’s lawyers asked the justices to temporarily halt another subpoena for his tax returns to issued to his accountants at Mazars USA by the House Oversight Committee. The firm has said it will hand over the records if it is required to.
It take five justices to vote to grant a stay.
The nine-member high court has five Republican appointees. Two of them, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, were appointed by Trump.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to grant the stay before Wednesday, when the subpoena would otherwise be enforced.
So let’s try to clear up the possible confusion a bit. Based on what I heard MSNBC legal pundits say on Sunday, it takes 4 Justices for SCOTUS to agree to hear Trump’s appeal of the Manhattan DA’s case, but it takes 5 Justices to grant a stay to prevent Mazars (Trump’s former accounting firm) from turning over Trump’s tax returns to the Congressional Committee on Wednesday (Nov. 20). Now according to the MSNBC pundits, SCOTUS is likely to grant Trump a stay, for no other reason but to allow the Court more time to decide on whether to hear Trump’s appeal in one or both of these tax cases. However, they felt that there would NOT be 4 Justices voting to take up Trump’s appeals. They sight two reasons for their opinion: 1. Trump’s “Presidential Absolute Immunity” argument is settled law because of both the Nixon and Clinton cases; and 2. The lower courts have all ruled against Trump in both cases so there is no disagreement among the lower courts for SCOTUS to resolve. Let me add a third. I don’t think there are 4 Justices who want SCOTUS to venture into this highly political fight, unless of course they are actively seeking a Bush v. Gore type decision.
So what happens if SCOTUS declines to take these cases (BTW — It is highly unlikely that they would take up one but not the other)? Answer, Both the Manhattan DA and the Congressional Committee will get Trump’s tax returns from Mazars which has already said they would comply with the subpoenas. So when would the public see them? In the Manhattan DA’s case, probably not anytime soon, since he is under no obligation to release them and probably would not do so until his criminal investigation is complete and then only in an open court criminal trial (if he brings charges) where he would likely only release the portions of the taxes relevant to his case. However, the tax returns provided to the Congressional Committee could be released to the public with a simple majority vote of the Committee. I don’t see the Democrats on the Committee voting to release them right away since they will want to study the returns thoroughly first. But I would expect they will not keep them under wraps for very long, and will release them as soon as they have their talking points ready.
UPDATE: As I and other legal pundits expected, SCOTUS has granted Trump a stay against the lower courts ruling for Mazars to hand Congress Trump’s tax returns. According to this DK Diary by GoodNewsRoundup:
The Supreme Court on Monday gave itself a little more time to decide whether a House committee gets to see President Trump’s financial records.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put on hold “until further order” a lower court’s ruling that said the accounting firm Mazars USA must turn over eight years of personal and business financial records to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
To be clearthe stay has to do with the House Oversight and Reform Committees’ subpoena of Trump’s tax returns, NOT the Manhattan DA’s subpoena. According to this CNBC Report:
The temporary stay order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts gives the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform until Thursday to respond. The document did not note any public votes or dissents.
The move was expected and does not provide new information about how the justices may ultimately vote on the matter. It generally requires five votes to grant a stay, though in some cases one justice may do so pending review by the full court.
A spokesperson for the committee did not immediately provide comment after the chief justice’s order. The justices are scheduled to meet in a private conference on Friday.
In the other Tax Case:
Trump’s attorneys submitted a petition last week to the justices in a separate case involving his tax returns. In that case, the president is seeking to overturn the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals requiring Trump’s accountants to provide his returns to the Manhattan district attorney. The justices have not yet said whether they will consider that appeal.
If they decline to do so, it will effectively mandate that the accounting firm provide the tax returns. The firm, Mazars USA, has said it will provide the returns if legally required.
I am not going to try to speculate, as I have above, what SCOTUS will do in either of these cases, except to say the “stay” is simply to give SCOTUS more time to decide whether they should take on these cases. Doesn’t mean they will.