Dems CAN do things in the Senate if they want

UPDATE 12/02/2023:

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to move forward with subpoenas for wealthy judicial influence-buyers, like Harland Crow and Leonard Leo. The vote was 11-0. That’s because, by the time the vote was called, the Republican members had all walked out of the hearing in a performative huff. The walkout came after they spent nearly two hours acting like ill-behaved chimpanzees, figuratively throwing their own feces at the committee and its chairman, Senator Dick Durbin.

[...]

A few weeks ago, the ranking Republican member on the committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, promised a “shit show” should Democrats try to subpoena their donors. It turns out that every Republican on the committee was willing to show their whole entire ass on C-SPAN in order to protect Crow and Leo from public scrutiny.

[T]he promised festivities began to take shape a couple of weeks ago when Republicans began proposing what would amount to over 170 amendments to the subpoenas.

[...]

Thursday, Durbin and the Democrats had their own procedural games to play. The meeting on Thursday started with what was supposed to be the confirmation of a couple of Biden appointments, with the idea being that the committee would only later get to the subpoenas. But Republicans decided to start their objections early by slamming some of the proposed judges. So Democrats invoked a rule to cut off debate.

That’s when Republicans decided to throw a temper tantrum. The rule Durbin used was something that Senator Chuck Grassley has invoked in the past, when Republicans were in the majority.

[...]

Senator John Cornyn threatened, “You understand, what goes around comes around”—because, I assume, he was unable to process that what the Democrats were doing was the coming around part of what Republicans had started.

[...]

And then, of course, there was Lindsey Graham, who whined and seethed and accused Democrats of pulling a political stunt. Graham has a habit of engaging in fits of pique in which he pretends to have acted in good faith in the past while vowing that he will act only in bad faith going forward. It’s a very strange thing to promise to be a jerk when everybody already knows you’re a jerk.

[...]

After every Republican got their turn to mug for the cameras, they left the hearing room. Graham stayed behind to offer some additional procedural objections but, after those objections were ignored, he too left the room.

The point of the walkout, I believe, was to cause more procedural mayhem. After the 11-0 vote, Senators Cruz and Mike Lee claimed that the subpoena was invalid because the committee lacked a quorum when the vote was taken and because, thanks to the Republican histrionics, the vote took place just after the two-hour mark and Republicans claimed to invoke the “two-hour rule.” I’m not a Senate parliamentarian or an expert on the arcane minutiae of how this antidemocratic institution avoids doing the work of the American people, so I cannot fully assess their claims. I think they’re wrong, because there was a quorum at the start of the meeting, and I know from judicial confirmation hearings that merely walking out of the room does not stop the committee from doing business. But who knows? If there is any possible way for Republicans to shield Crow and Leo, they will take it.

[...]

This is all happening because Republicans are terrified of the committee’s putting Crow and Leo under oath and asking them questions.

  Elie Mystal @ The Nation

The Senate is working on court reform

How far do you think they'll get?

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Monday that they planned to schedule a vote to authorize a round of subpoenas related to their investigation into ethics reform at the Supreme Court.

[...]

“The Supreme Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making,” Chair Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said in a statement and announced that the subpoenas would target Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo and Robin Arkley II, who have all been linked to Thomas and others in recent news stories.

  CNN

No doubt they will fight those subpoenas. And what if they appeal all the way to the Supreme Court?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Will they get Meadows or not?

The jury is still out.

A federal judge has thrown out Mark Meadows’ year-old lawsuit over subpoenas from the House’s Jan. 6 select committee, concluding that the former White House chief of staff was constitutionally barred from bringing it in the first place.

[...]

U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols said that the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause — which prohibits lawsuits against lawmakers for anything associated with their legislative work — applied in the case of the committee’s subpoenas to Meadows issued in the fall of 2021.

“The record makes clear that the challenged subpoenas are protected legislative acts,” Nichols wrote in the decision.

Meadows is likely to appeal the ruling, effectively putting his testimony out of reach for the Jan. 6 select committee, which is slated to dissolve at the end of the year.

[...]

It’s a significant victory for the select committee, but in some ways it’s a hollow one. The panel repeatedly told Nichols it had chosen not to assert its “speech or debate” immunity and wanted the judge — a Donald Trump appointee — to issue a more sweeping ruling on Trump’s efforts to assert executive privilege over Meadows’ testimony.

[...]

The panel has been seeking Meadows’ testimony since September 202.

  Politico

January 6 committee issues subpoenas

[House Minority Leader Kevin] McCarthy (R-Calif.), along with Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) received subpoenas.

It marks the first time the select committee has sent subpoenas to its own House colleagues.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Jan. 6 panel, said the committee decided to issue subpoenas after the GOP lawmakers refused the opportunity to speak with the lawmakers voluntarily

[...]

GOP members could try to challenge the subpoenas with lawsuits, as at least a dozen other potential witnesses have done, raising the possibility that the partisan battle over the select committee’s work will spill into court.

So far, federal courts have largely upheld the panel’s investigative demands and its authority to issue subpoenas in the face of various legal challenges. But any legal challenge from the GOP lawmakers is sure to be tied up in court for months as the panel races to complete its work ahead this year’s midterm elections.

[...]

Brooks in May, after the Jan. 6 committee requested voluntary testimony from him, wrote on Twitter that the panel should subpoena him if it wants to speak.

“I wouldn’t help Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney cross the street. I’m certainly not going to help them and their Witch Hunt Committee. If they want to talk, they can send me a subpoena,” Brooks wrote.

  The Hill

And they did.

Also...

I guess Congressional subpoena power is no power at all

In a two-to-one ruling, a panel of federal appeals court judges on Friday ordered the dismissal of House Democrats’ case seeking the testimony of Donald McGahn -- meaning the former White House counsel would not have to appear before a congressional committee.

[...]

The Justice Department, arguing on the president's behalf, has contended that "the constitution forbids federal courts from resolving this kind of interbranch information dispute."

“We agree and dismiss this case,” the judges wrote in their 88-page opinion.

[...]

In November, a federal district judge ruled that McGahn must comply with a congressional subpoena.

But the Justice Department appealed that ruling and, on Friday, won out in the higher court.

  ABC

And no point asking the Supreme Court to take it up.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas Griffith, in his majority opinion, warned that enforcing the committee’s subpoena would amount to an overreach by "unelected judges" -- and risk politicizing the judicial branch.

As if it's not too late to worry about that. And under that reasoning, why is the Supreme Court considering the cases where various entities are trying to subpoena Trump's tax returns? Hm?

"If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual 'overseer[s]' of our elected officials," Griffith wrote.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Judith Rogers argued that the majority's finding may set the stage for future presidents to block oversight requests from the legislative branch with impunity.

Will. If Trump can get away with it, then subsequent presidents can.

"The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional duties," Rogers wrote.

Exactly.

When the impeachment power and public opinion options fail to produce results - as they will in any case where the majority is in the same party as the subpoenaed party - what's left is the power of the purse, which will also fail if the same party controls the House.  And if it doesn't, what exactly are they going to withhold?

Bingo.  So the courts have just declared that SOME people are indeed above the law when it comes to being held accountable.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Q&A, day 2

This is one of those instances where the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Video of Schiff in the Senate:

I presume all that laughter is from the Democrats.

And, of course, Roberts won't press like a normal judge in a normal trial would, even though he could.

Answer, I'm sure, was no.

Good for Lisa.  How many of her fellow Republicans feel the same way?  We'll see tomorrow.

That must have left a mark.  Roberts will be feeling that for a while. If she's the next president, she'll have to hope none of her policies gets challenged in the Supreme Court.

Smart fella.  (He actually says it reflects poorly "on us".)

This is the guy charged with representing the office of the presidency.

And also at making any sense.  Had Trump asked our own FBI to investigate Biden he wouldn't be getting impeached right now.

Where did this Philbin guy get his law degree?

UPDATE: That question of Warren's was really even more pointed:

Worth repeating

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Say no to Joe

Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) said Friday that he would not comply with a Senate subpoena to testify in President Trump's impeachment trial.

“What are you going to cover?” Biden said when asked about a subpoena in an interview with the Des Moines Register's executive editor Carol Hunter. “You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said. And (Trump’s) going to get away. You guys buy into it all the time. Not a joke."

He went on to say it would be part of Trump's tactic to "take the focus off" himself.

  The Hill

It doesn't matter. Until Congressional subpoenas are used to throw political dissidents in jail, they're lawful. Defying a Congressional subpoena should have legal consequences. Joe is advocating defiance of a federal subpoena. Just like Trump.

And now I want to know just what Joe IS hiding.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  This was an unforced error on Joe's part, and a disqualifying from office response.  A president who has signaled he won't abide by a lawful subpoena is the president we already have.  A proper response:

UPDATE:

That's what SHOULD happen.  But if it's not what DOES happen, and you happen to get a Congressional subpoena, you have to appear. YOU don't get to decide if there's a legal basis for it or not.  The best you can do is fight it in court and find out.  You can't just refuse to comply.  Otherwise, you're just like the Trump cabal, assuming you're above the law.

He's fighting for FUTURE presidents and the OFFICE

I guess we'll never know what they might say as long as you prevent them from testifying.

He's just worried about future presidents.

Even his own mindless followers don't believe this shit, I feel sure.

UPDATE:

The whole Trump cabal has prion disease

I'm not even providing the link for that nonsense.  Trust me, I listened to it, that's exactly what he did say.  He also said Uber is the big winner in this whole Don McGahn must testify ruling.  Because McGahn will have to get to Congress to testify....and apparently he's forced to take Uber???

Whatever is in the water coolers at Fox and the Republican Congressional offices, it's eating their brains.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Judiciary Committee to get McGahn - maybe

Former Trump White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a House subpoena, a federal court ruled Monday, finding that “no one is above the law” and that top presidential advisers cannot ignore congressional demands for information. The ruling raises the possibility that McGahn could be forced to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry.

U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington found no basis for a White House claim that the former counsel is “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.”

  WaPo

Aka: above the law.

The House Judiciary Committee went to court in August to enforce its subpoena of McGahn, whom lawmakers consider the “most important” witness in whether President Trump obstructed justice in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Trump blocked McGahn’s appearance, saying McGahn had cooperated with Mueller’s probe, was a key presidential adviser, and could not be forced to answer questions or turn over documents. Jackson disagreed, ruling that if McGahn wants to refuse to testify, such as by invoking executive privilege, he must do so in person and question by question.

[...]

The judge ordered McGahn to appear before the House committee and said her conclusion was “inescapable” because a subpoena demand is part of the legal system — not the political process — and “per the Constitution, no one is above the law.”

The president has yet to learn that, as he has yet to be held accountable for anything.

“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires,” Jackson wrote in a 118-page opinion. “Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.”

And McGahn isn't even in the administration any longer.

William A. Burck, McGahn’s attorney, said Monday: “Don McGahn will comply with Judge Jackson’s decision unless it is stayed pending appeal. DOJ is handling this case, so you will need to ask them whether they intend to seek a stay.”

No, we don't need to ask. We already know.

After the ruling, the Justice Department, which represents McGahn, said it would appeal.

See?

Even if McGahn were to appear before the committee, but decline to answer in full or on some matters, his case sets up a potentially landmark Supreme Court test of the Constitution’s checks and balances, pitting Congress’s impeachment and oversight authority against the powers of the presidency.

With a court packed to be biased toward the executive.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Taylor staffer Holmes' opening statement revealed

CNN has a copy.

Excerpts:

Zelensky is going to love that revelation.

That's going to bring Ambassador Taylor's testimony into question.  Taylor said at his public hearing that he had only just heard from Holmes about that lunch and Sondland's phone call to Trump.  I wondered at the time why Holmes had not told him sooner.  This makes more sense, but puts Taylor in a hot spot.  That's unfortunate, to say the least.  Republicans are going to be able to say everybody's lying, hiding things, to try to make the president look bad.  A big misstep by Taylor.

What the hell does the attorney general of the United States have to do with foreign policy?

In this next excerpt, Holmes cleans up for Taylor, but I think Taylor will still get raked.

In Taylor's public testimony, he should have said Holmes had just reminded him of a phone call that Taylor had forgotten.

Taylor's statement:

It appears that this was an unauthorized leak of the statement.  It looks like somebody hastily photographed it, doing so surreptitiously by placing it on the floor.  It looks like carpet underneath it.

"We always learn more when witnesses come in, and today we learned a lot more," Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said Friday night as he left the closed-door deposition. "The arrows continue to point in the direction of a shakedown scheme, led by the president of the United States [and] operated by agents like Rudy Giuliani, Gordon Sondland and Mick Mulvaney," he continued.

[...]

Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, is one of Taylor's top staffers in Kyiv.

  The Hill

And now Holmes undermines a central claim in Sondland’s testimony: That Sondland didn’t know that Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani’s interest in investigating a Ukrainian company that employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden had anything to do with the Biden family.

[...]

“But I did not understand, until much later,” Sondland said as of late May, “that Mr. Giuliani’s agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President’s 2020 reelection campaign.”

[...]

Sondland explained in his testimony that he hadn’t read the news coverage, even though aides compiled it for him and he was focused on Ukraine policy during this time.

Holmes’s testimony quotes Sondland explicitly referring to this as the “Biden investigation” in July, which suggests there was a reason the ambassador’s testimony didn’t make sense. Sondland will testify alongside others on Wednesday, and his hot seat just got significantly hotter.

  WaPo

Sondland is up to his neck in lies and corruption.

Holmes says Taylor told him that on a June 28 call he had with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and the “three amigos” — Sondland, special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry — “it was made clear that some action on a Burisma/Biden investigation was a precondition for an Oval Office meeting.”

This call, notably, was not part of Taylor’s own testimony, though Taylor quickly came to believe that such a meeting was indeed conditioned on Ukraine launching such an investigation.

More problems with Taylor. Slight but still problems. Perhaps he's old enough to be forgetful. I know I would be.

Taylor testified that on the June 28 call, before Zelensky was added to the line, Sondland said he didn’t want interagency officials on the call, because “he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelensky to the call.”

Sondland's Wednesday hearing is goig to be lit.

It’s worth noting that, despite early GOP attempts to portray Holmes as a partisan — on Friday they promoted a photo of him shaking hands with Barack Obama — he won an award in 2014 after raising concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy. Holmes, who served in Afghanistan, was awarded for his “constructive dissent.”

Holmes doesn’t directly say that his testimony contradicts the GOP’s arguments, but it’s certainly suggested. And it makes his full deposition, which we have yet to see, worth paying close attention to.

Also, there's another closed door hearing being held today.

A longtime career employee at the White House Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify Saturday in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the holdup of military aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy would be the first OMB employee to testify in the inquiry, after OMB acting director Russell T. Vought and two other political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to appear. The White House has called the impeachment inquiry unconstitutional and ordered administration officials not to participate.

  WaPo

Which is totally outrageous. Unconstitutional? Do they not understand the Constitution?

Unlike these other OMB officials, Sandy is a career employee, not one appointed by the president. He has worked at the agency off and on for over a decade, under presidents of both parties, climbing the ranks to his current role as deputy associate director for national security programs.

He'll be getting the boot.

Typically, witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have been served with subpoenas immediately before their depositions are scheduled to begin, an approach Democrats say is designed to give them cover against an administration that has ordered officials not to comply with the inquiry.

[...]

“If he is subpoenaed, he will appear,” Sandy’s lawyer, Barbara “Biz” Van Gelder, said Thursday evening.

[...]

Sandy could provide insight into the process by which some $400 million in military and security aid to Ukraine was held up over the summer. He was among the career staffers who raised questions about the holdup on the aid, people familiar with the matter said, and his role gave him responsibility for signing the documents required to hold it up.

So we're going to at least find out who ordered him to sign them.

Sandy’s signature appears on at least one of these so-called apportionment letters in July that prevented the money from going to Ukraine, according to copies of the documents discussed during an earlier deposition in the impeachment inquiry, a transcript of which was made public. But after that, the process for approving or denying such funds was taken over by a political appointee at OMB, Michael Duffey, who defied a congressional subpoena to testify earlier this month.

All those people who defy Congress should, in the end, pay some price for it. Otherwise, Congressional power is a farce and we might as well admit we're an authoritarian state.

Dude, could you not have laid it out flat and photographed it?

UPDATE:

UPDATE:

It’s also faintly hilarious that the whole case may be broken because two old men talked too loudly on their cellphones.

  Charles P Pierce

UPDATE:

Holmes transcript