Wait, that’s not what he said in the deposition…
My guess is that’s related to the Toronto meeting that he talked almost zero about.
November 8, 2019 Document Drop
Dr. Fiona Hill, in her words, ‘senior director who was overseeing all of the interactions across the interagency pertaining to Europe, our European allies, including also the European Union and NATO, and also including Russia, Turkey, and the subject at hand, Ukraine’ October 14, 2019 Deposition:
Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, NSC Director of European Affairs October 29, 2019 Deposition:
Can you elaborate on this? How confident are you? What’s the latest you think they’ll vote eto impeach?
I actually had a date wrong, it was December 10, and also a little substance error. I found another article that said the final arguments were fast tracked to December 10 to decide on Kupperman’s subpoena. If they were dropping that subpoena, it stands to reason they think they’ll be wrapped up on their investigation before December 10 (not sure if the final arguments could result in a bench decision that day, but there would certainly be appeals that would probably go well into January).
I think the latest they’ll vote is just prior to the Christmas recess, and I saw some stuff that makes it seem like that’s what they’re going for. I think it’s insane to wait that late, but that’s just me. McConnell claimed that he expects a 6 day a week 6 week trial in the Senate, and that would mean that a trial (at the latest) would be wrapped up right around the first primary if they vote before Christmas. I don’t really have an opinion about whether they’ll start a trial before the Christmas recess unless they vote prior to Thanksgiving. That was their original plan, but they have been holding what they’re planning very close to the vest.
I personally do not think they will vote before McGahn’s decision is in which won’t be later than the end of November based on what the Judge said. That puts it unlikely to be voted on prior to Thanksgiving, in my opinion. They’re going to win on McGahn, and it will probably be less than 10 days for the SC to decide whether to weigh in (based on things I’ve seen, it seems unlikely they will). So, if the appeal decision happens around the 25th or so, they’ll already have a decision on McGahn prior to Kupperman’s first round decision on December 10 (at the earliest).
That’s my guess for why they dropped the Kupperman subpoena. They’ll get a decision on McGahn (probably even from SC) before that case is up, and McGahn completely supersedes any argument of someone well below McGahn’s position. The idea behind the McGahn case is that if you get to compel him, no one else can stand up to any executive privilege claims. After writing that, the timing here may have less to do with when they want to file articles of impeachment and be more related to them being able to open a bunch more cans of worms out of the McGahn decision (if the cans of worms thing is on, the inquiry could extend significantly longer).
Cliffs: I originally thought that they would vote on them no later than right before Christmas, but they could be using the McGahn decision to compel a lot more testimony related to other stuff (it’s currently very unclear whether they are willing to do multiple inquiries or are just trying to do it all now). I do not think they will vote before Thanksgiving due to wanting to wait for the McGahn decision which should be all the way through the SC by probably December 5 (as long as they decline to hear it). If the SC does want to hear McGahn (and it’s draw out to February or something), then I think right before Christmas as the latest for a vote is still on.
If the House votes to impeach, the Senate has to have a trial right? Mitch can’t just put this on the backburner and pretend it’s not happening can he?
This is good.
Okay nunn, you have persuaded me. I am on your train.
He can technically do a lot of things, but he has publicly stated and told his Senate colleagues that he will definitely have a trial and that he expects it to last 6 weeks using a 6 day work week. Whether he will actually do that is another story, but he said it.
1 Like
The one thing to add to that is that if the SC decides to hear the McGahn case I think they will move voting on articles of impeachment prior to Christmas (was in the Cliffs but not the main). I’ve always felt their pace was going to be dictated on the McGahn case (prior to Ukraine scandal), and it’s probably taken 6 weeks longer than they originally anticipated it would when they won their first round in what I think was July.
1 Like
I don’t read a date into them dropping that subpoena.
The arguments date is 12/10 and then there are appeals and more appeals. If they wanted to vote 1/15 they wouldn’t expect that one to be done and him to appear before 1/15.
They may decide to vote before XMas, but they’d also then be setting up the Senate to do a 1-2 week sham trial to “wrap up before election year” if they vote this year.
Personally, I want the senate trial to end after the primary deadline so that more senators can vote to remove him because it’ll be too late to be primaried.
I think you need to conflate the McGahn timing into that. Appeals on the Kupperman one would go well into January at the absolute earliest, and McGahn will for sure be decided (unless SC agrees to hear it) before then. Because of that, it’s a superfluous subpoena that was filed before the appeal was heard on McGahn.
If they weren’t getting an initial answer super quickly, there’s no reason for it. They have enough evidence without Kupperman and Bolton. If Bolton gets subpoenaed, he’d join that Kupperman lawsuit, which could destroy the timing if they do want to call him when they win McGahn. If they win McGahn, Bolton has pretty much said he will honor a subpoena (lolhim if he didn’t see this coming).
I think the subpoena drop is much less likely due to timing on impeachment than a decision on the McGahn case making the Kupperman suit irrelevant and a delaying tactic.
Is there a uniform date for this?
1 Like
Sounds like there is a lot of bad shit that can still come out, if Trump thinks that it’s all been fine
1 Like
We aren’t even at the tip of the iceberg. The problem is that most of the people who can really shed light are refusing to testify.
I actually think there’s a decent chance the Stone trial could play into it, as they are letting a bunch of stuff out that looks significantly more damaging than how it was presented in the Mueller report. Stone will obviously need to be convicted for some of that stuff to play a factor, but it looks pretty bad for him just based on initial reporting. I can’t imagine that will be a month long trial either.