White House Fires Alexander Vindman

[Ridgerunner]

You previously explained to me that I’m ignored by you. Can’t have it both ways, picking and choosing.

 

[Theo520]

This is Schiff explaining about subpoenas.

The fact that it was being reviewed by the courts clearly shows Trump had grounds to refuse the House subpoenas. It was a decision for the third branch to make. No obstruction until the courts made their decision.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment

The House rushed it because they cared about optics, not being right.

 

[dvdjs]

He’s in charge of the book review process. Whether he personally leaked it or not, he’s where the buck stops.

The discussion had been about Alexander. Now it is Yvgeny. As I said: why not?

You can’t tell a jury that a defendant declining to testify is indicative of guilt.

There are many ways of contradicting a witnesses’s testimony other than having the defendant testify.
And you can certainly tell a jury that the evidence not contradicted by the defense is not contradicted.
It is reasonable to accept testimony under oath that is not contradicted as true.

 

[PaulinVA]

The fact that it was being reviewed by the courts clearly shows Trump had grounds to refuse the House subpoenas. It was a decision for the third branch to make. No obstruction until the courts made their decision.

Hmmm… You do know that sometimes the Court grants cert to tell one of the parties to cut that stuff out?

The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.

 

[Theo520]

Hmmm… You do know that sometimes the Court grants cert to tell one of the parties to cut that stuff out?

The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.

The indications here are that the Admin had an argument worth review, the courts didn’t tell Trump to “cut that stuff out”

You disappoint me, you quoted one paragraph but ingonred the one immediately following. You prooftexted.

But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.

 

[PaulinVA]

The indications here are that the Admin had an argument worth review, the courts didn’t tell Trump to “cut that stuff out”

You disappoint me, you quoted one paragraph but ingonred the one immediately following. You prooftexted.

Or, if you read an article not by Alan Dershowitz, you might find:

The Supreme Court has scheduled an hour of argument on the grand jury subpoena issue; the two two cases, centering on congressional subpoenas, will be heard together for an hour. The arguments are set for March. A decision is expected by June, just in time for the presidential campaign to be moving into high gear.

Some leading conservative Supreme Court advocates have suggested that these cases are low-hanging fruit, so to speak. They could be a way for the high court to show that it is not just in the pocket of a Republican president.

On the other hand, some of the justices have strong feelings about protecting the president, any president, from constant harassment; Justice Brett Kavanaugh being the most recent. His writing before joining the Supreme Court proposed that Congress enact a bill to give presidents immunity while in office.

But recall, in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, finding that the president — just like any other citizen — does not have immunity from civil suits.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/13/787963186/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trump-subpoena-cases

 

[Theo520]

But recall, in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, finding that the president — just like any other citizen — does not have immunity from civil suits.

What does a Civil Suit have to do with House Impeachment?

The Supreme Court has scheduled an hour of argument on the grand jury subpoena issue; the two two cases, centering on congressional subpoenas, will be heard together for an hour. The arguments are set for March. A decision is expected by June, just in time for the presidential campaign to be moving into high gear.

This clearly shows the House put the cart before the horse in claiming obstruction, the courts were not allowed to give their verdict.

=============
I’m still waiting for your source on the below

The House rules created by the Republicans specifically forbid attorneys in the deposition room, just like a Grand Jury. He was following the rules.

Edit - found it for grand juries. Not clear if it’s the same for House testimony

Do You Have a Right to a Lawyer If You Are Testifying Before a Grand Jury?

 

[PaulinVA]

What does a Civil Suit have to do with House Impeachment?

All building on what immunity from depositions and how to exert privilege.

Edit - found it for grand juries. Not clear if it’s the same for House testimony

The President’s lawyers repeatedly said that the House Democrats didn’t let witnesses (specifically State Dept) have an Agency Counsel present, and that’s why the Agency didn’t let them testify. Adam Schiff repeated said that the House rules, instituted by the Republicans in the last congress, forbade counsel from being present, just like a Grand Jury.

The President’s lawyers never disputed that. They simply kept saying it was not fair. So, I infer from that that what Schiff said was true.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

What is the evidence of “leaking”? To whom did Vindman “leak”?
What are the criteria of backstabbing? Testifying truthfully?

He admitted under oath that he shared the transcript with others. He would not say with whom.

You could just reply:

Yes but only with people who had security clearance.

To that I would say three things.

1. Just because you MAY share it with a cleared person does not mean you SHOULD.

Retrospectively even if that is all he did, and it turned out to be unecessary or inappropriate, you are still liable to be called-out on bad decision-making.

1. He MAY have leaked to someone that did NOT have proper clearance or to a cleared person for which he knew THEY would leak.

He almost certainly shared this with Ciaramella too so a new question arises over what else transpired between Vindman and Ciaramella. And who else was involved? And WHEN did this all occur? What was the temporal profile of the events?

If these guys were plotting with Schiff, THEN changed the whistleblower rules based on THAT, there is going to be serious trouble and almost certainly some jail-time ahead.

Schiff’s role in protecting Ciaramella from questioning has come to an end. Ciaramella WILL be questioned now. If Schiff was actually protecting HIMSELF, this will come out too.

The intelligence agencies advising President Trump almost certainly have the answers to most of these questions already.

They know exactly what they are doing.

The question is, will Ciaramella try to take Schiff down with him IF there was conspiring? How much trouble is Vindman in too? I am guessing a LOT.

1. Vindman probably has been a leaker in other ways too (and if he is, intel knows about a lot of that too I would guess). He has certainly been suspected of it. The intel people will know if these suspicions are true.

FLASHBACK: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman Was Suspected of Leaking

Former NSC official Tim Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had been suspected of leaking, apart from the Ukraine call.

www.breitbart.com