Sen. Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican, said he thought Trump defense attorney Alan Dershowitz’s presentation yesterday helped senators concerned about the allegations in former national defense secretary John Bolton’s draft book manuscript come to a conclusion that it was not impeachable conduct.
“I think he probably gave a lot more peace of mind to people that were wanting to see how to sort through it, when he made a strong case that each article was ill-founded,” Braun said. “And the key thing, and I asked him about it after he said it, was even a Bolton’s revelation in its full form was true, is that impeachable in your opinion? He said no because it imputes motives.”
About Dershowitz’s comments: At the end of a long day of trial arguments on Monday that largely ignored the new Bolton drama, Dershowitz argued that even if Bolton’s reported claim was true, it would not amount to an impeachable offense. He made a case for expansive presidential power, saying that a quid pro quo alone does not amount to an abuse of power — the basis of the first article of impeachment — which he said was not sufficient in itself to justify ending a presidency.
Braun said that while he doesn’t see a need for Bolton’s testimony, if the Senate does call witnesses he says it has to be reciprocal.
“If you cross that threshold it has to be reciprocal, and I’m guessing Joe Biden would be the one individual you’d want to talk to,” Bruan said.
Asked to clarify if he wanted Joe or Hunter Biden, Bruan said: “Either one — or the whistleblower.”
“Reciprocity, is I think something, if that’s not there, there will be no interest from most of us in the Republican side,” he added.
Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer. Morningstar: Copyright 2018 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc.2018. All rights reserved. Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor’s and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices Copyright S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2018 and/or its affiliates.
President Trump’s attorneys have been calling the Senate “a court” and “tribunal” during proceedings this week — but when they’re in federal court, the administration has tried to keep the House from getting potential evidence against the President by arguing the opposite.
The House general counsel highlighted this doublespeak to federal appellate judges today, in the latest filing in a closely watched and still undecided court case.
“During the Senate impeachment trial, one of President Trump’s attorneys opened his remarks by informing the Senators that they do not sit as jurors,” House counsel Doug Letter wrote to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals today, quoting Ken Starr on Monday saying “We are in court.”
But in the case before the appellate court — where the Justice Department has attempted to keep secret grand jury material collected by special counsel Robert Mueller and sought by the House Judiciary Committee as it investigates Trump — “DOJ’s principal argument in this case is that a Senate impeachment trial is not a ‘judicial proceeding,’” Letter wrote. The House has argued that it should be able to see the typically confidential grand jury information, because it needs to determine whether Trump obstructed Mueller and should be impeached on additional counts.
How we got here: The House won access to the Mueller grand jury material at the trial-court level. The Trump administration appealed the decision — stopping the material from going to the House. The appeals court’s ruling could come any day.
“Because DOJ’s position in this case cannot be reconciled with President’s position in the impeachment, DOJ may wish to withdraw its argument that a Senate impeachment trial does not qualify as a judicial proceeding,” Letter wrote to the appeals court on Tuesday.
The Senate proceedings over the past week have prompted attorneys for the House to grasp onto several contradictions between Trump’s impeachment arguments and the Justice Department’s arguments in court.
Previously, the House notified the appeals court how the Justice Department doesn’t want the judiciary to decide its disputes with Congress, yet Trump’s attorneys told the Senate that the House impeachment votes should have waited for court decisions.
Separately from the court cases, the Trump administration has refused to turn over documents the House requested for its impeachment investigation and several top administration officials did not show up to testify, even when subpoenaed. The House largely chose not to sue over their thwarted subpoenas.
The two ongoing court cases — which began prior to the Ukraine impeachment inquiry, shortly after the Mueller investigation ended — could affect the impeachment proceedings.
- One is the grand jury records case, where the House seeks redacted sections of the Mueller report that are secret under grand jury rules and the evidence related to those sections. This material is important, the House says, because it highlights what witnesses may have told the grand jury about Trump, and could help them determine whether he lied in his written answers to Mueller—potentially another impeachable offense.
- The other major ongoing case seeks to enforce the House’s subpoena former White House counsel Don McGahn, who witnesses many of Trump’s attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. (A trial-level judge ruled that the White House can’t stop its former officials like McGahn from testifying by claiming absolute immunity. A similar ruling from an appeals court and the Supreme Court could throw the standoff over witnesses during the Senate trial into disarray.)