Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[Avnger]

Has any witness said anything that's bolstered the Republicans on the facts? Or has support for the Republicans remained due to sound quips and defiance?

Considering the Republicans on the House "Intelligence" committee advanced four conflicting defenses[footnote]There was no quid pro quo[/footnote][footnote]Trump never ordered the quid pro quo that happened[/footnote][footnote]Trump's quid pro quo is perfectly normal anti-corruption tactics and not political at all[/footnote][footnote]So what if Trump ordered his political rival investigated; he can do that because he's the President[/footnote] at hearings today sometimes within the same damn statement, I'm going with option B.

 

[Agema]

Pentagon official reveals Ukrainians asked about stalled aid as early as July [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/david-hale-laura-cooper-public-hearing/index.html]

So, another timeline complete with receipts broken. And the absolutely ludicrous defense that the president of a nation wouldn't have the knowledge on whether its biggest ally has come through with the military aid they needed to fend off the Russians.

The argument here from the Republican perspective is that if the Ukrainians were not explicitly informed about a "quid pro quo" over aid, then there's nothing wrong.

My response would be that sufficient circumstantial evidence is quite enough to convict in a court of law, and the circumstantial evidence here is overwhelming to reasonably conclude that the intention of withholding the aid was to pressurise Ukraine [into holding investigations into Trump's political opponents].

Has any witness said anything that's bolstered the Republicans on the facts? Or has support for the Republicans remained due to sound quips and defiance?

Nope.

The limit of their possible ambition is to claim that there is not enough evidence, the bar for acceptability which will undoubtedly be set at an official record of Trump personally ordering something. That's obviously why the White House is blocking senior personnel from testifying. The only witnesses the Republicans seem to want are red herrings to distract the public.

 

[Agema]

Has any witness said anything that's bolstered the Republicans on the facts? Or has support for the Republicans remained due to sound quips and defiance?

I was having another think about this on reading a feed of the witness questioning.

What I think is very telling is that the Republicans basically haven't called any witnesses - at least, none that matter. They've mostly just tried to push Hunter Biden into the frame to give more voice to stupid rumours. Their questioning says a lot - they've not significantly tackled the witnesses on the substance of the testimonies at all, just asked them lots of tangential questions relating to Republican conspiracy theories or used their time to rant speeches.

There has been no attempt to meaningfully defend Trump. The reason, simply, is that he's undefendable on the substance of the case. No-one can be found to say it's okay, because everyone involved knows it wasn't. The only reason we don't have the likes of Pompeo and Mulvaney in front of Congress having to admit it or perjure themselves is because the White House has blocked it.

And so it's just been theatre, because all that they have is how to best uphold public opinion enough to make sure it doesn't cost them to vote against impeachment in the Senate. A little part of me does wonder, though, whether the Republicans might decide to use a credible impeachment threat as leverage to oust Trump (i.e. him not stand for 2020) behind the scenes.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I didn't know which piece of news to lead with today, but I'll do both.

Fiona Hill nails the Democrats' case [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/donald-trump-fiona-hill-impeachment-ukraine/index.html]

Fiona Hill, the last witness in two weeks of televised impeachment hearings, made the case against her old boss President Donald Trump better than Democrats ever have.

The former National Security Council official on Thursday distilled the fog of shady dealings and competition between Trump appointees and career bureaucrats with a crystal clear condemnation of his rogue foreign policy operation in Ukraine.

And she also effectively warned that the Republican defense of the President -- by peddling Ukraine conspiracy theories -- was in danger, in itself, of becoming an extension of the 2016 Russian election scheme that is tearing American politics apart and draining public confidence in its democracy.

Hill -- a British-born, non-partisan Russia expert who also wrote a book on Vladimir Putin -- was the star witness in a day of testimony that brought many of the threads of the Democratic case together. Using authoritative and clear language, Hill -- who left the Trump administration earlier this year -- spelled out her reactions to the pressure campaign unfolding before her eyes. But Hill said she only really began to understand the scandal herself while watching testimony from Trump's ad hoc messenger to the new government in Kiev Gordon Sondland.

"He was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged."

The day's testimony, from Hill and US embassy official David Holmes who is stationed in Kiev, was a fitting coda to a dramatic week of testimony on Capitol Hill as the impeachment inquiry went under the bright lights of televised public hearings. Democrats are now meeting to decide if they have enough evidence to proceed toward writing articles of impeachment while the GOP appears to be more entrenched than ever in its defense of Trump.

Hill's comment summed up evidence that build a strong case that Trump -- as Sondland put it in an overheard telephone call in July -- "didn't give a s?t" about Ukraine but wanted the vulnerable ex-Soviet state to cough up political favors.

Hill also helped the Democratic case by exposing the core of the defense of Trump built by GOP lawmakers.

She slammed the "fictional" conspiracy theories that Ukraine meddled in the US election that she said were dreamed up by Moscow in another attempt to fulfill Putin's goal of stoking political division and diminishing America's prestige.

Lesson learned, everyone. Even if you have a testimony like Sondland: understand who your best witness is. Dr. Hill tied everything up in a neat little bow, and has the extra clout of being born out of this country. Therefore she seems 'impartial'.

And I have to say this... Holy Shit, is she so hot to me right now. A woman with Fire is amazing.

But Sadly, we have to go to Devin Nunes. And his ties wit Lev Parnas. As it's coming out that the Indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas helped Devin Nunes with investigations in Europe [https://www.salon.com/2019/11/21/indicted-giuliani-associate-lev-parnas-helped-devin-nunes-with-investigations-in-europe/]

Lev Parnas, an indicted businessman who assisted Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani in his hunt for damaging information about Joe Biden in Ukraine, also helped Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., in the Congressman's attempts to help discredit the Russia investigation, according to his lawyer.

Parnas was Giuliani's man on the ground in Ukraine as he sought to implicate Biden in a baseless corruption scandal in order to help President Donald Trump's campaign for re-election by searching for incriminating information about Biden, which grew out of an effort to find evidence that would discredit former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Parnas' attorneys have said that he is willing to testify about his meetings with the president and Ukrainian officials.

On Wednesday, Parnas' attorney Ed MacMahon told The Daily Beast that Parnas also helped arrange overseas meetings and calls for Nunes in 2018.

MacMahon did not say the meetings were specifically related to Russia but confirmed they were part of Nunes' investigative work. The meetings took place as the then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee led an investigation into the origins of former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

Nunes' aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, MacMahon told the outlet. Congressional records show that Nunes and three aides traveled to Europe in November of last year at a cost of $63,000 to taxpayers.

Nunes, the top Republican presiding over the impeachment hearings - in which Parnas has repeatedly been referenced - was central to Trump's efforts to discredit the Mueller probe. Nunes infamously made a late-night trip to the White House after Congress launched a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and then announced he had discovered evidence of wrongdoing by officials inside the Intelligence Community. Nunes was ultimately forced to step back from the Intelligence Committee's investigation but launched his own inquiry into the origins of Mueller's probe. Attorney General Bill Barr later appointed United States Attorney John Durham to conduct a similar investigation.

Nunes continued to malign the Russia investigation at Wednesday's impeachment hearing, decrying it as the "Russia hoax" even though the Intelligence Committee is now investigating whether Trump lied to Mueller's investigators in his sworn statements. Former Trump campaign official Rick Gates testified in court earlier this month that Trump discussed Democratic emails stolen by Russian operatives and released by WikiLeaks with longtime adviser Roger Stone, who was convicted last week of lying to Congress about WikiLeaks.

While Parnas helped Nunes arrange meetings, he also assisted Giuliani in smearing then-Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who later testified that she was ousted by Trump because Giuliani believed she was interfering with his efforts. The Justice Department in its indictment alleged that Parnas and partner Igor Fruman illegally funneled money into elections to "advance the political interests of ... a Ukrainian government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine."

Parnas and Fruman both pleaded not guilty. Both men retained former Trump attorney John Dowd after their arrest, but Parnas later fired Dowd after the president claimed not to know him ? even though they have met several times.

Numerous new details and allegations have emerged in the weeks since Parnas fired Dowd. Parnas told associates that Trump tasked him with a "secret mission" at a 2018 White House Hanukkah party to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens, according to two of his confidants who spoke to CNN.

To put a laser focus on Lev Parnas's dealing with Yovanavitch, let's look at the Timeline of the Campaign to Pressure Yovanovitch [https://democrats.org/news/timeline-the-pressure-campaign-against-yovanovitch/]

APRIL 2018: Lev Parnas told Trump that Yovanovitch was "unfriendly" to Trump and his interests. Trump suggested she should be fired.

Washington Post [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-donor-dinner-giuliani-associate-said-he-discussed-ukraine-with-trump-according-to-people-familiar-with-his-account/2019/11/12/2a1f28e0-0558-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html]: "One of the men, Lev Parnas, has described to associates that he and his business partner, Igor Fruman, told Trump at the dinner that they thought the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was unfriendly to the president and his interests. According to Parnas, the president reacted strongly to the news: Trump immediately suggested that then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had been in the Foreign Service for 32 years and served under Democratic and Republican presidents, should be fired, people familiar with his account said."

MAY 2018: Following a similar conversation with Parnas, Pete Sessions requested Yovanovitch be removed from her post.

New Yorker [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-lev-parnas-worked-for-rudy-giuliani-and-donald-trump]: "'I had a meeting with Pete Sessions that had nothing to do with that. It was about our gas company,' Parnas said. 'In the meeting, Pete asked me, 'Do you know anything about Yovanovitch?' I told him what I heard. Unbeknownst to me, Pete was already looking into it, and when I left he opted to write a letter to [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo that day.'"

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2018: Ukrainian officials confirmed to Yovanovitch that Giuiliani met with Ukraine's corrupt prosecutor general multiple times about plans to hurt her.

Yovanovitch's deposition [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6538652/Marie-Yovanovitch-testimony-transcript.pdf]: "Q: When did you first become aware that Rudy Giuliani had an interest in or was communicating with anyone in Ukraine? A: Probably around November, December timeframe of 2018. Q: And describe those circumstances when you first learned about it. A: Basically, it was people in the Ukrainian Government who said that Mr. Lutsenko, the former prosecutor general, was in communication with Mayor Giuliani, and that they had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me. Q: So you first heard about it from Ukrainian officials? A: That?s correct."

Yovanovitch's deposition [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6538652/Marie-Yovanovitch-testimony-transcript.pdf]: Q: And from your staff members or your own conversations, what did you come to learn about Mr. Giuliani?s interest in Ukraine? A: That basically there had been a number of meetings between Mr. Lutsenko and Mayor Giuliani, and that they were looking?I should say that Mr. Lutsenko was looking to hurt me in the U.S. I couldn't imagine what that was. But, you know, now I see. Q: What do you see now? A: Well, that I?m no longer in Ukraine."

This is important because it's already been shown that Nunes has no bigger priorities than the President and his job [https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/politics/devin-nunes-trump-congress-republican-majority/index.html]. Which his priorities were actually supposed to be the Country and the Laws of the Land. It's not his job to say "If (Attorney General Jeff) Sessions won't un-recuse and Mueller won't clear the President, we're the only ones, which is really the danger ... we have to keep all these seats."

If the President was found wanting, as servants of the Consitution, it's their job to oust him. Not protect him because they think they can get something good from him.

Yet, with this knowledge, Nunes was allowed to be in these 'impartial' proceedings?

 

[Agema]

Yet, with this knowledge, Nunes was allowed to be in these 'impartial' proceedings?

Stripping Nunes of the right to be in these proceedings is difficult territory. He holds his position by accepted means; if the objection to him retaining his place is "bias", we're not talking about a workable reason to remove someone. It's a very dangerous game to have dubious ways to strip politicians of their positions, open to abuse and undermining the credibility of procedures.

If we're going from bias into conflict of interest, he would be well advised to recuse himself, not least because he may damage the reputation of his own cause. The link with Parnas is getting towards iffy, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to require recusal.

* * *

Also, in other news, John Bolton has returned to Twitter, apparently saying the White House stripped him of access. Now, I don't like Bolton, but even people who do have some horrible views can have some virtues too - and Bolton seems to have been on the side of doing things properly in government. He's hinting he's got some interesting stuff to spill - and let's remember he did not depart on good terms.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Yet, with this knowledge, Nunes was allowed to be in these 'impartial' proceedings?

Stripping Nunes of the right to be in these proceedings is difficult territory. He holds his position by accepted means; if the objection to him retaining his place is "bias", we're not talking about a workable reason to remove someone. It's a very dangerous game to have dubious ways to strip politicians of their positions, open to abuse and undermining the credibility of procedures.

If we're going from bias into conflict of interest, he would be well advised to recuse himself, not least because he may damage the reputation of his own cause. The link with Parnas is getting towards iffy, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to require recusal.

* * *

Also, in other news, John Bolton has returned to Twitter, apparently saying the White House stripped him of access. Now, I don't like Bolton, but even people who do have some horrible views can have some virtues too - and Bolton seems to have been on the side of doing things properly in government. He's hinting he's got some interesting stuff to spill - and let's remember he did not depart on good terms.

Having him state that Yovanovitch is not a material fact witness [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-rep-devin-nunes-full-questioning-of-amb-yovanovitch] and then be able to question her when he might have had at least prior knowledge to her dismissal and the smear campaign that got her removed is beyond a conflict of interest.

If true, this is akin to a Mob Lawyer getting to cross examine a Police Officer who was wrongly placed on Desk Duty because of a planted evidence said Lawyer had prior knowledge about. It is unacceptable.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

... and apparently, I was just too early.

Exclusive: Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/nunes-vienna-trip-ukrainian-prosecutor-biden/index.html]

 

[Agema]

... and apparently, I was just too early.

Exclusive: Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/nunes-vienna-trip-ukrainian-prosecutor-biden/index.html]

Oh wow. That's bad. I'd like to see some sort of evidence as well as Parnas's testimony, though, because Parnas is probably the model of an unrealiable witness.

 

[Silvanus]

And? Trump posits himself as anti-corruption. Zelenskyy and Trump agree to work together... against corruption.

No, not against corruption. Against the Republican Party's domestic political opponents specifically. Corruption is fine by him.

Why does Trump's motivation effect Zelenskyy's? Why does that stop Zelenskyy from saying "hey, we both campaign against corruption in our governments, let's work together on that." It doesn't matter if Trump means it, it matters what Ukraine wanted.

Oh, it doesn't stop him saying it. But he's saying it for a very specific reason; he's being essentially blackmailed.

 

[Trunkage]

And? Trump posits himself as anti-corruption. Zelenskyy and Trump agree to work together... against corruption.

No, not against corruption. Against the Republican Party's domestic political opponents specifically. Corruption is fine by him.

When he said Drain the Swamp, he definitely meant all his buds that have gone to jail over the last 3 years becuase they helped him campaign/ lead the country. He's accidentally taken a lot of public figures

 

[tstorm823]

Has any witness said anything that's bolstered the Republicans on the facts? Or has support for the Republicans remained due to sound quips and defiance?

Well, the Republican strategy has been to hammer repeatedly at a few basic ideas: 1) US policy in Ukraine is better now than it was before Trump, basically all the witnesses affirmed this. 2) Hunter Biden's position at Burisma looks bad at best, basically all the witnesses affirmed this, one reported the issue at the time it was happening, and one was briefed on it by the Obama administration before being given her post. And 3) nobody was ordered to exchange favors with Ukraine. The last part is the only part that's really disputed, because they did at some point have that discussion. But notice how the news will point out religiously that Trump only told Sondland "no quid pro quo" after Schiff started making a fuss, but they never point out that Sondland only asked if they were doing a quid pro quo after the idea hit the news. There are a lot of pieces of testimony and evidence where the media or the Democrats report on something, a diplomat sees that and asks "wait, are we actually doing that?", and then the media takes them asking the question as confirmation it was happening.

But the thing that's really bolstering Republicans? Adam Schiff. And it's not just Republicans. The right and the middle are both thoroughly willingly to punch Schiff in the nose. When he does things like award himself extra time to grandstand. When he wastes Republican time arguing with someone and then doesn't restore it. When he gavels down any question that might confirm the whistleblower's identity as trying to out the whistelblower, while lying boldfaced claiming he doesn't know who it was. (He does). But my favorite moment was this one [https://youtu.be/ds-BQlizdSQ?t=432]. This is the man who very likely would still insist that Donald Trump is Putin's puppet trying to rest his case on the argument that Trump would never follow somebody else's lead. That is eye-wateringly stupid. Nothing any Republican could say will do more to bloster Trump's case than the guy in charge of the hearing lying to our faces.

So if you're looking for the reason why public opinion is moving away from impeachment, (and if you're not aware, it is, and the media and democrats know it or articles like this [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/05/why-dont-democrats-drop-impeachment-just-censure-trump/] wouldn't be popping up), you can put the blame squarely on that guy.

 

[Agema]

3) nobody was ordered to exchange favors with Ukraine.

The last part is the only part that's really disputed, because they did at some point have that discussion.

The "quid pro quo" concept is overstressed and misleading. The issue is simpler than that: was US foregin policy directed towards Trump's personal benefit rather than the USA's national benefit. The answer to that from the hearings thus far is overwhelmingly that it was.

The "quid pro quo" focus is an attempt to constrain the nature of the offence to a much narrower scope that's easier for Trump and allies to defend against.

But the thing that's really bolstering Republicans? Adam Schiff.

Those who would let a politician off for corruption just because they don't like the guy running the investigation deserve to live in a corrupt country.

 

[bluegate]

But the thing that's really bolstering Republicans? Adam Schiff.

Those who would let a politician off for corruption just because they don't like the guy running the investigation deserve to live in a corrupt country.

Too bad that they don't mind as long as they believe the corruption to be benefiting them.

 

[tstorm823]

The "quid pro quo" concept is overstressed and misleading. The issue is simpler than that: was US foregin policy directed towards Trump's personal benefit rather than the USA's national benefit. The answer to that from the hearings thus far is overwhelmingly that it was.

That's not true. If you follow these hearings and ask whose benefit Us policy was working for, the answer is overwhelmingly Ukraine. We got diplomat after diplomat declaring their love for Ukraine and our need to support them like we have the past two years, who seem to have tried to convince Trump that this was in fact all in America's interest. And only gained traction once they started to convince him Ukraine wasn't in the Democrats' pockets. And like, the investigations didn't happen, the status quo is entirely restored, US foreign policy toward Ukraine is once again dedicated to benefiting Ukraine.

The "quid pro quo" focus is an attempt to constrain the nature of the offence to a much narrower scope that's easier for Trump and allies to defend against.

Trump and company didn't decide to focus on quid pro quo, the Democrats did. But if you want to back the scope off of quid pro quo and look at the bigger picture, you're basically saying Congressional Republicans have been asking the right questions the entire time: have US policies toward Ukraine been better under Trump and is investigating the Biden's in America's interest?

Those who would let a politician off for corruption just because they don't like the guy running the investigation deserve to live in a corrupt country.

He's not just the quy running the investigation. It's not like he's the judge, he's more like the prosecutor. A jury letting someone off because the prosecutor is blatantly lying to them to try and make the case is not unreasonable. It's basically "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus". And if you can't trust the man who decided to investigate in the first place, the one who is actively deciding what information to conceal by refusing questions, refusing witnesses, and establishing testimony behind closed doors before deciding what he wants to see the light of day, you can't believe for a moment that he's showing us a true vision of what happened.

Here's a secret for you: Republicans would be perfectly fine with Democrats voting for impeachment. Most people think the Senate would just vote it down immediately, but I doubt that. They can have a trial orchestrated by the Senate majority presided over by John Roberts where the Chief Justice does all the questioning. And they can subpoena whomever they want, and Schiff can't do crap about it.

 

[Agema]

That's not true. If you follow these hearings and ask whose benefit Us policy was working for, the answer is overwhelmingly Ukraine. We got diplomat after diplomat declaring their love for Ukraine and our need to support them like we have the past two years, who seem to have tried to convince Trump that this was in fact all in America's interest. And only gained traction once they started to convince him Ukraine wasn't in the Democrats' pockets. And like, the investigations didn't happen, the status quo is entirely restored, US foreign policy toward Ukraine is once again dedicated to benefiting Ukraine.

Uh, no, that's not what happened.

US-Ukraine relations were working fine. Then Trump fixated on a conspiracy theory against the knowledge and advice of every relevant government agency and official, which led to a problem. This finally semi-resolved by Trump getting the US government to pressurise Ukraine into running investigations for Trump's personal benefit, which unfortunately is abuse of power.

Trump and company didn't decide to focus on quid pro quo

The Republicans surely are making a lot of noise about "quid pro quo" just now, like they made a lot of noise about "collusion" in the Mueller report. It's slightly misrepresenting what's going on to make wrongdoing easier to deny.

The "quid pro quo" in the narrowest scope is whether there was an explicit demand for an exchange of backscratching. But abuse of power does not require this, it merely requires abuse of power for personal gain.

But if you want to back the scope off of quid pro quo and look at the bigger picture

The bigger picture is no more and no less than whether Trump abused government power for personal benefit, because that's all that's relevant to a charge of abuse of power.

And if you can't trust the man who decided to investigate in the first place, the one who is actively deciding what information to conceal by refusing questions, refusing witnesses, and establishing testimony behind closed doors before deciding what he wants to see the light of day, you can't believe for a moment that he's showing us a true vision of what happened.

Well, if we're going to compare this to conventional legal practice, it's totally normal for police investigators and prosecuting lawyers to establish evidence behind closed doors before it has to go to a court.

If we want to talk about a "true vision of what happened", I think we really need to hear from more White House staff who know what's been going on, except the White House blocked it. So basically, the Republicans have either blocked relevant people testifying, want to call irrelevant people to testify, or want to expose to public attention someone they've incited potential death threats against. And then they want to argue that's Adam Schiff's fault.

 

[tstorm823]

If we want to talk about a "true vision of what happened", I think we really need to hear from more White House staff who know what's been going on, except the White House blocked it. So basically, the Republicans have either blocked relevant people testifying, want to call irrelevant people to testify, or want to expose to public attention someone they've incited potential death threats against. And then they want to argue that's Adam Schiff's fault.

To my knowledge, every witness subpoena'd to testify has complied. I think the only ignored subpoena's have been broad requests for documents. Democrat's have not attempted to subpoena the people they themselves consider the major players. No Trump, no Giuliani, no Pence, no Pompeo, no Perry, etc. They claim they don't want to pick a fight that will require a court to step in (lol, why not?), but I'm guessing they don't want any of these people to have testimony on the record.

 

[Avnger]

If we want to talk about a "true vision of what happened", I think we really need to hear from more White House staff who know what's been going on, except the White House blocked it. So basically, the Republicans have either blocked relevant people testifying, want to call irrelevant people to testify, or want to expose to public attention someone they've incited potential death threats against. And then they want to argue that's Adam Schiff's fault.

To my knowledge, every witness subpoena'd to testify has complied. I think the only ignored subpoena's have been broad requests for documents. Democrat's have not attempted to subpoena the people they themselves consider the major players. No Trump, no Giuliani, no Pence, no Pompeo, no Perry, etc. They claim they don't want to pick a fight that will require a court to step in (lol, why not?), but I'm guessing they don't want any of these people to have testimony on the record.

Surprise, you're not well informed... again...

2 minutes of google tells me that, at a minimum, the following have been subpoenaed but refused to testify on orders from the White House.

Mick Mulvaney - Acting White House Chief of Staff[footnote]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/us/politics/impeachment-witnesses.html[/footnote]
Charles Kupperman - Former Deputy NSC Advisor[footnote]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obey-white-house-subpoena-witness-impeachment-probe-asks/story?id=66636082[/footnote]
Donald McGahn - former White House Counsel (separate investigation than the main impeachment proceedings)[footnote]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obey-white-house-subpoena-witness-impeachment-probe-asks/story?id=66636082[/footnote]

Also, honorable mention to John Bolton, former NSC Chief, who has been asked to testify (though no subpoena yet) and refused.[footnote]https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-22/bolton-dangling-testimony[/footnote]

Finally, I have to ask whether you understand that a formal subpoena is not required to testify. This is rather basic, but a subpoena is a method of compelling testimony. There are invitations and requests for testimony sent out prior to resorting to a subpoena.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Late find (still under 5 minutes of searching here) of more people who refused to answer subpoenas:

The four who defied the subpoenas are John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, as well as Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

 

[tstorm823]

Surprise, you're not well informed... again...

2 minutes of google tells me that, at a minimum, the following have been subpoenaed but refused to testify on orders from the White House.

Mick Mulvaney - Acting White House Chief of Staff[footnote]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/us/politics/impeachment-witnesses.html[/footnote]
Charles Kupperman - Former Deputy NSC Advisor[footnote]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obey-white-house-subpoena-witness-impeachment-probe-asks/story?id=66636082[/footnote]
Donald McGahn - former White House Counsel (separate investigation than the main impeachment proceedings)[footnote]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obey-white-house-subpoena-witness-impeachment-probe-asks/story?id=66636082[/footnote]

Also, honorable mention to John Bolton, former NSC Chief, who has been asked to testify (though no subpoena yet) and refused.[footnote]https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-22/bolton-dangling-testimony[/footnote]

Finally, I have to ask whether you understand that a formal subpoena is not required to testify. This is rather basic, but a subpoena is a method of compelling testimony. There are invitations and requests for testimony sent out prior to resorting to a subpoena.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Late find (still under 5 minutes of searching here) of more people who refused to answer subpoenas:

The four who defied the subpoenas are John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, as well as Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

Perhaps not perfectly informed, but a little bit of looking tells me that the Democrats didn't really want any of those. Mulvaney refused a closed door hearing he was called to with like 48 hours notice, and then they just gave up. Those guys you found at the end? Subpoena'd on Sunday for Monday depositions. Oh, they didn't make it? More to throw on the obstruction pile! The courts want to actually decide proper procedure when two coequal branches of government conflict? Nah, too slow, we've got enough evidence anyway. Giuliani? Why would we even subpoena the guy who supposedly knows everything going on?

 

[TrulyBritish]

snip

Fairly certain Giuliani has already refused to answer a subpoena related to Ukraine.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/giuliani-won-t-comply-congressional-subpoena-n1066586

 

[Agema]

To my knowledge, every witness subpoena'd to testify has complied. I think the only ignored subpoena's have been broad requests for documents. Democrat's have not attempted to subpoena the people they themselves consider the major players. No Trump, no Giuliani, no Pence, no Pompeo, no Perry, etc.

Right. Because if the WH won't hand over documents, sure they'll let staff testify. And until Sondland's late spill, there was no clear justification to request Pence, Pompeo, Perry. Trump was always a non-starter. And they can demand from the courts... but when is the Trump-stuffed SCOTUS going to get round to hearing it? 2021 maybe?

This isn't the actual impeachment trial, remember. It's just the preliminary to establish whether there's sufficient case to send it to trial.

Perhaps not perfectly informed, but a little bit of looking tells me that the Democrats didn't really want any of those.

That's one of the flimsiest fob-offs in this thread.