![]() His one misstep was in his somewhat dramatic reading of the White House transcript of a July 25, 2019, phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In the main, Schiff has rewarded Pelosi’s trust. And Pelosi’s decision to name Schiff as the lead impeachment manager – the tip of the spear, as it were – is also indicative of who she trusts to best handle this hugely delicate matter. But their rift over impeachment is getting harder and harder to paper over amid Democrats’ flailing messaging on the topic and a growing divide in the caucus.”Īs the impeachment drama unfolded in the House, it became clear that Nadler was being sidelined in favor of Schiff – at least somewhat. “Both Pelosi and Nadler, who have served in the House together for more than 25 years, insist their relationship remains strong. ![]() Pelosi was not so secretly unhappy with the aggressiveness of Nadler’s Judiciary Committee in terms of seeking Trump’s impeachment. That relationship stands in stark contrast to Pelosi’s behind-the-scenes clashes with Nadler over impeachment. “She respects his intellect, she respects how he presents himself on television, she respects his judgment. Ro Khanna told the San Francisco Chronicle of Schiff last fall. “Speaker Pelosi has tremendous respect for him and trust in him,” fellow Californian Democratic Rep. Jim Rogan, who, wait for it, had been a House impeachment manager in the Senate trial of Bill Clinton. (Pelosi herself once served as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.) That relationship goes back at least two decades Pelosi was involved in raising money for Schiff’s 2000 race, in which he defeated Republican Rep. California’s Speaker Nancy Pelosi named Schiff the chairman of the committee in 2015 – a decision reflective of their close and long-standing relationship. That was a contrast to the way in which the investigation into Richard Nixon was run, with the House Judiciary Committee handling the bulk of the work in that situation. The primacy of Schiff in the Senate trial comes after a House impeachment investigation in which the Californian – and the Intelligence Committee he chairs – were front and center, conducting the interviews with key witnesses in both public and private. Schiff, with Nadler standing silently by, told Manu: “I’m going to respond to the questions.” To wit: CNN’s Manu Raju tried to ask House Judiciary Chairman (and fellow impeachment manager) Jerry Nadler of New York a question about his decision on Tuesday night to accuse the Trump White House (and Republicans) of a cover-up in the Ukraine investigation. It simply means that, on the basis of these narrow set of documents, there wasn't evidence sufficient for the court to make that finding.īut, of course, we have a much broader body of evidence in our investigation that would be pertinent to that particular issue.THE POINT - NOW ON YOUTUBE! In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. So there are multiple bases the judge could find the privilege was not applicable here.įinally, I would say, if the judge were to rule against us on the crime-fraud exception, that doesn't mean the president or his people haven't committed a crime or a fraud. It should fall on the basis that he's talked publicly about these things with Donald Trump's permission, and, therefore, any privilege would be waived. ![]() It should fall on the crime-fraud exception basis. So his privilege claim should fall on that basis. Just because he's a lawyer doesn't make him the president's lawyer. We don't think, first of all, that Eastman has established he was a lawyer for the president. Now, there are a number of arguments that we have made in the court pleading. ![]() Well, it would affect it in the sense potentially that we might not get access to these records. And we presented that evidence to the court. And, of course, that joint session of Congress was an official proceeding.Īnd given the president was repeatedly advised that the vice president had no authority to decertify electors, that there was no basis to these bogus claims of fraud, we believe that there was that kind of a corrupt intent to interfere with the joint session.īut, also, the promulgation of those false claims, we believe, is part of a conspiracy to defraud. And, here, any number of act by the president and his campaign potentially violate statutes which prohibit the corrupt interference with an official proceeding. That is, if an attorney is helping a client commit a crime, their communications are not protected. And the judge asked us to brief him on whether the crime-fraud exception applies. Well, as you say, it is not our role to prosecute or determine guilt or innocence.īut we are in litigation right now to try to get records from some claiming to be an attorney representing the president.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |