I take it as she was there, in person, at the briefing but chose not to take part in it but did not know it was going on...AG 2000' said:
I chose not to attend the meeting I knew nothing about.
Obama really had some mensa candidates working for him, didn't he?
What I have read is that he's in Nat Sec division of DOJ which is the FISA, terrorism and espionage division. Unclear whether he was on Team Mueller but seems he was involved in Crossfire Hurricane before the appointment of Mueller.Quote:
If being against Trump is a reason to strike jurors for cause, than pro Trump juror would also have to be stricken for cause.
The story is light on details about the lady's husband How big is that "division"? What is/was his role there with regard to Russia investigation (I know from different story is an attorney)? If he had anything even tangentially related to Stone, then she should have been let got for cause.
What I read was that she overruled both, was that in error? If so, I retract my statement.BMX Bandit said:
unless Stone can point to a juror that got on to the jury that should not have because he had to use his peremptory challenge on this lady, then there won't be a basis to appeal
The Whistleblower Act is designed to protect a (legitimate) whistleblower from his employer. Ciamarella is neither legitimate, nor is his threat from his employer. Though I cannot understand how the government can justify keeping him employed. He's already been reassigned for leaking.MouthBQ98 said:
A whistleblower who doesn't follow proper procedure and/or is not acting in good faith doesn't meet the definition of a whistleblower and is not entitled to any such protections.
She was not dismissed is what I read. Hence my confusion. She may have been dismissed later in the day, though. Yesterday was chaotic in that Stone himself was sick with food poisoning and a member of the gallery had a medical emergency necessitating the clearing of the courtroom for a time.BMX Bandit said:
not sure what you mean by both of them, but I don't know what happened to this lady ultimately.
I assume Stone used peremptory challenge on her, but thats just an assumption.
324 pages for the jerks to find a sentence or two to run and scream "WE GOT HIM!"aggiehawg said:
Oh joy! Another 300+ pages of mind numbingly boring testimony and lawyers squabbling.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/reading-volker-taylor-and-sondlands-ukraine-texts.htmlQuote:
The crowning dramatic moment of the released texts, however, comes hours later, after midnight on September 9, in an exchange between Taylor and Sondland:Let's pause here to note what Taylor is doing here: A majestic gesture of workplace passive-aggressiveness and careerist ass-covering the State Department ghoul equivalent of "per my previous email." Taylor, a career diplomat (and therefore able bureaucrat), appears to have just spoken on the phone with Sondland, the new boss's new hire, and discussed the impeachable offense they were committing on behalf of the president. He has then moved from the phone to text, memorializing the exchange in a recorded, subpoenable format, at once protecting himself by registering his objections and, simultaneously, incriminating Sondland.Quote:
[9/9/19, 12:31:06 AM] Bill Taylor: The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario.
[9/9/19, 12:34:44 AM] Bill Taylor: Counting on you to be right about this interview, Gordon.
[9/9/19, 12:37:16 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I never said I was "right". I said we are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. Lets hope it works.
[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign
It's a theme for Taylor throughout the texts. On September 1, he texts Sondland: "Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?" (In other words: "Can you confirm for me the specific details of the crime we're committing?") "Call me," Sondland responds. (In other words: No.) Remember the scene in The Wire when Stringer Bell yells at someone for "taking notes on a criminal ****ing conspiracy"? Well, sometimes you want to take notes on a criminal conspiracy, if, for example, you want to get out of the criminal conspiracy.
Thomas Eager from Schiff's staff was in Ukraine 8-24-19 thru 8-31-19 under Schiff's authorization and paid for by the Atlantic Council.Quote:
Isn't there some information out there that Taylor met with someone from Schiff's staff in August after the fake whistleblower met with Schiff's staff? His "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance or help with a political campaign" text to Sondland was September 9th, after he met with Schiff's staff member.
And on September 1st Taylor sent this text to Sondland: "Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"aggiehawg said:Thomas Eager from Schiff's staff was in Ukraine 8-24-19 thru 8-31-19 under Schiff's authorization and paid for by the Atlantic Council.Quote:
Isn't there some information out there that Taylor met with someone from Schiff's staff in August after the fake whistleblower met with Schiff's staff? His "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance or help with a political campaign" text to Sondland was September 9th, after he met with Schiff's staff member.
LINK to House Docs on travel
Don't you know it! Considering that Taylor never ever spoke with Trump, nor Rudy, nor Mulvaney but met with Schiff staffer and then testified he based his opinion of Trump's intentions based on an article in the NYT.Quote:
He should be a fun guy to cross.
LINKQuote:
"[Y]ou've never spoken to Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani?" Taylor was asked.
"No, no," he replied.
"Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?"
"No," Taylor said.
"And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?" Taylor was asked.
"I have not," he said.
"You had no communications with the president of the United States?"
"Correct," Taylor said.
He also admitted he had never spoken to Mick Mulvaney, Trump's chief of staff.
When asked who exactly he had spoken to about the brouhaha, Taylor confirmed that his only contacts about the matter were with John Bolton, the former national security adviser who was fired by Trump, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Tim Morrison. Both Hill and Vindman are rumored to have been sources for the so-called whistleblower who filed a complaint against Trump in August.
Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn't first-hand knowledge.
"And this isn't firsthand. It's not secondhand. It's not thirdhand," Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. "But if I understand this correctly, you're telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?"
"That's correct," Taylor admitted.
Zeldin noted that the only reference to Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden in Taylor's opening statement stemmed from that convoluted game of telephone. The New York lawmaker hammered Taylor for relying on third-hand information about the state of mind of an elected official to whom he had never spoken.
"So do you have any other source that the president's goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?" Zeldin asked.
"I have not talked to the president," Taylor said. "I have no other information from what the president was thinking."
Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn't aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.
"So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,"
Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. "I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid."
"July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance," Taylor testified. "And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed."
"And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?" Ratcliffe asked.
"That is correct," Taylor responded.
Taylor also testified that he didn't see any official readout of the July 25 phone call until it was declassified and released by Trump in late September.
"I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25th," he said.
You obviously don't understand how damning it is to hear it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another Trump demanded a quid pro quo.aggiehawg said:
LINK
And that's Schiff's star witness??
VegasAg86 said:You obviously don't understand how damning it is to hear it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another Trump demanded a quid pro quo.aggiehawg said:
LINK
And that's Schiff's star witness??
I don't know about your experience, but when trial judges are making decisions like this and admissibility decisions in one side's favor, it is because the judge thinks that side is going to lose on the merits, and doesn't want to give that side grounds for appeal.aggiehawg said:What I have read is that he's in Nat Sec division of DOJ which is the FISA, terrorism and espionage division. Unclear whether he was on Team Mueller but seems he was involved in Crossfire Hurricane before the appointment of Mueller.Quote:
If being against Trump is a reason to strike jurors for cause, than pro Trump juror would also have to be stricken for cause.
The story is light on details about the lady's husband How big is that "division"? What is/was his role there with regard to Russia investigation (I know from different story is an attorney)? If he had anything even tangentially related to Stone, then she should have been let got for cause.
How Berman Jackson can just overrule a challenge like that so early is beyond me. Sounds like a potential for reversible error and certainly warranted further discussion on Jackson's part. Weird.
We'll, I'm not going to say "Let's Get It On" but, you could be My Girl.aggiehawg said:
More of a Marvin Gaye fan.
