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.
Glad someone picked this up. I thought that was disturbing in his deposition when I saw Patel’s name show up based on some of the reporting of the last couple of weeks. Also worth noting that Vindman was aware aid was being withheld on July 3 (earliest it had previously been known was July 18), though as I said that was related only to the WH meeting at that time (still in the bribery phase).
I love how the GOP thinks Volker is a good witness. He’s not. I guess he’ll get a chance to show how he didn’t perjure himself the second time around. Same with Tim Morrison probably not going the way they hope, though we obviously haven’t seen his transcript yet.
Biden, Archer, and Chalupa are part of the conspiracy theory stuff they’re pushing so they won’t get those. Plus it’s ridiculous to think they’re getting the WB. And I’ll throw this out there. John Ratcliffe is a scumbag. If you need verification of this, read pages 145-163 of Vindman’s deposition. It’s amazing to think that guy even got close to the DNI post.
1 Like
I finished reading Vindman’s deposition, and a lot of it was a page turner. The GOP tried to smear the guy, and they were incessantly trying to out the whistleblower (claiming they weren’t). It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that they knew this transcript would ultimately be part of the public record, and they were trying to help ‘the detectives’ by dropping as many clues as they could. Vindman’s lawyer was not having it. At one point, a GOP person said, ‘this going to be public’, and the lawyer, ‘I hope it will be’ or something to that effect.
Vindman is a straight shooter who puts everything in military terms (what ‘requests’ from superiors mean, whether he should have an opinion, chain of command, etc.). They tried to cage him in about his ‘opinions’, but that didn’t work at all. He also had several good ‘jokes’, taking every opportunity he could to needle his twin brother when he was brought up.
It’s also interesting that for some period of time after the phone call that it appears that Vindman was retaliated against being shut out of trips and some read outs. He said it didn’t affect anything as he was still able to get the info he needed from elsewhere. But I think it’s a pretty strong suggestion that he was retaliated against for about a month (they probably stopped around the time the military aid was released, and he said it’s relatively back to normal now).
1 Like
Going to xpost that to Trump thread.
1 Like