Latest news from NYT today's Impeachment Inquiry update:
....
- John Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, did not show up for scheduled testimony. Mr. Bolton’s lawyer told the House Intelligence Committee that he would file a lawsuit in federal court if he were subpoenaed, a challenge that could take months to resolve. Democrats have instead decided to use his refusal as evidence that Mr. Trump is obstructing Congress.
- Democrats leading the inquiry released another transcript, this one of testimony from George Kent, a State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy. Mr. Kent told investigators that he and other experienced diplomats were all but cut out of making the foreign policy they were supposed to be involved with.
- One witness did appear on Capitol Hill today: Jennifer Williams, a national security aide to Vice President Mike Pence. Ms. Williams, who listened in on the July 25 conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian president, was expected to answer questions about that phone call, as well as Mr. Pence’s involvement in efforts to pressure Ukraine.....
- https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?uri=nyt://newsletter/9b97fef2-c5a7-48ca-a914-f1f21b3744b2&te=1&nl=impeachment-briefing&emc=edit_ib_20191108?campaign_id=140&instance_id=13702&segment_id=18619&user_id=05a05d28b9044d7cf954b32e3f559ba1®i_id=33430635
What I don't understand is can someone explain how it is that not showing up or answering a subpoena doesn't land these folks in Jail? Why are dems not playing hardball?
That should be on the front page news every day! Why are the dems not talking about that during the whole impeachment mess? ?
Part of the problem is that there is no Sergeant of Arms to arrest these cowards. Trump got rid of him. I heard this on CNN. Second, if you stick by t**** he will just pardon you, and the democrats know this. My belief is that all these cowards will pay the piper once Trump is gone.
Not sure what CNN is reporting. Did this just happen? The Sergeant at Arms, Michael Stenger, is still actively listed under the government website: https://www.senate.gov/reference/common/person/stenger_michael_c.htm
This is part of what it says on the U.S. Senate official site:
"The title is now “sergeant at arms and doorkeeper,” and the sergeant at arms now serves the Senate as its chief law enforcement officer, protocol officer, and executive officer.
Elected by the senators, each sergeant at arms serves from Congress to Congress until a successor is chosen. Since this is an elected position, the majority party in the Senate selects the sergeant at arms, but once elected, sergeants at arms serve all members of the Senate."
The justification the Dems are offering for NOT prosecuting subpoena violations is that they are adding each no-show or refusal to the list of acts of obstruction of justice by Trumpito. They are trying to avoid the optics of jailing people because they know it will further alienate "the base".
Thanks for the info but my opinion is that doesn't make sense. It just gives them all more ammunition to keep not showing up for subpoenas and a lack of rule of law. Mango's base is in his court whether they jail folks or not. It's like a kid who you threaten to punish but you never do...the child becomes a nightmare.
@TriciaCT - I agree completely, I think they should throw them all in jail. It would fall to Pelosi to order that, though, and I don't think she would. As for the sargent-at-arms, while it is his duty, if the post is empty any Capitol Police can follow the orders of the Speaker, as far as I know.
If someone refused to honor a congressional subpoena the normal thing is to refer the violation to the Dept. of Justice, which means AG Barr would basically do nothing. The other option is to ask a judge to order the recipient of the subpoena to comply, and if he/she doesn't, the judge can find the person in contempt and throw them in jail until they decide to show up. But going to court takes time and the administration would fight it for purposes of delay. Hence Schiff's plan to deal with the no-shows as establishing additional counts of obstruction. It's the best he can do.
My apologies, I checked and you are correct. But I did hear a guest on CNN talking about arresting the no shows and he said something to the effect about t* doing away with the SAA. Unless he said that T** would like to get rid of him. In addition to the election and alienating the base, I do believe that they know he will just pardon them and undermine the justice. I believe there was a prediction that all the bad actors will eventually be arrested. With Nixon, some of the people involved were sent to prison years later. I only listen to CNN andMSNBC and NPR.
It’s getting interesting. Remember Mulvaney little hissy fit where he admitted it was a quid pro quo and who cares it happens all the time. Well it’s just go hot form him.
(CNN) - Two White House officials told lawmakers the "blatant" push for politically motivated investigations from President Donald Trump left "no ambiguity" what the Ukrainians needed to do to secure a highly sought meeting — and the effort was coordinated by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, according to deposition transcripts released Friday.
The testimony of National Security Council Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill provides new details on the discussions inside the White House ahead of the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy, in which Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Burisma, he Ukrainian natural gas company that hired Hunter Biden. The officials say they were told that effort was directed by Mulvaney, putting the Ukraine scandal squarely into the office of the President's top aide.
Vindman and Hill testified that US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials in meetings on July 10 they would have to open an investigation to secure the White House meeting. Sondland told them he was acting at the direction of Mulvaney, who on Friday defied a congressional subpoena and did not appear for a deposition.
"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," Hill testified.
Vindman said he was first aware of the hold on Ukraine aid by July 3, and later learned that it came from Mulvaney's office. He said that when the Ukrainians learned the aid had been held up, he they asked whether it was true and "what do we need to do?"