BACKGROUND PRESS CALL
BY SOURCES ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM
ON IMPEACHMENT
Via Teleconference
5:06 P.M. EST
MR. GIDLEY: Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for joining the call regarding impeachment.
This is a background call. The ground rules are as follows: The information on this call can be attributable to “sources on the President’s legal team.” Again, it's on background, attributable to “sources on the President’s legal team.” The content is embargoed until the end of the call.
As a reminder, by participating, you are agreeing to the ground rules I've just set forth. With that, I’ll turn the call over to [source on the President’s legal team].
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Thank you, Hogan. As you know, we concluded the presentation of the President's case in the Senate today. We demonstrated that, both on the facts and on the law, the President should be acquitted; the President did not do anything wrong; and the articles of impeachment, on their face, are constitutionally deficient -- they fail to state impeachable offenses.
We also explained that the entire process that's led to these articles of impeachment being adopted by the House of Representatives was illegitimate and failed to provide due process. That process led to a completely partisan impeachment, and it was really not based on any wrongdoing by the President, any constitutionally sufficient theories for impeaching the President. It was simply a partisan process that was driven by political desires to overturn the last election and to affect the 2020 election.
And in our closing this morning, the Counselor to the President very accurately explained how, in the past, members of Congress have identified the problems with partisan impeachments and foresaw that there could be this sort of a partisan impeachment in the future, and explained why it is essential to stop this process of partisan impeachment, end that process, and quickly and swiftly acquit the President on these charges.
So, with that, I'll open it for questions.
Q Hi, thanks for taking my call. My question is: How concerned are you about John Bolton possibly testifying? And how are you preparing, if at all, to push back? Do you plan to claim executive privilege? Do you foresee any scenario where John Bolton would be able to testify?
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Well, I'm not going to get too much into our strategy for, you know, hypotheticals that may or may not develop. We're not concerned in the sense that we've seen the President's statement; we know that the President hasn’t done anything wrong. We're prepared for any eventuality that arises.
So the fact is that it's not the job of the Senate to start doing an investigation now that the House didn’t pursue. And the House never even attempted to subpoena John Bolton. So we don’t think that there's a basis for the Senate going to get testimony at this point.
Q And a quick follow: With things that are happening outside of the Senate trial, John Kelly today said he believes John Bolton. How much are you factoring in things that are happening outside of these developments? Do you feel like you're going to have to answer to John Kelly's statements if senators call and ask about that, or if senators pull the questions about John Kelly believing John Bolton?
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Well, as I said, I'm not going to get too much into our strategy. We'll deal with the situation as it’s resolved. But this is part of the problem, you know, with having sort of a half-baked impeachment go to the Senate. The job of the House is to do a proper investigation in something that is this serious before going to the Senate. And we don’t think that it's the proper role of the Senate to start opening things up, to be addressing new developments on the fly in the middle of a trial.
Q Thanks for doing this. Since it is a, sort of, background call on strategy, what is your strategy for the Senate Q&A portion? What do you expect from Republicans' and Democrats' questioning? And have you been in coordination or talks with the Senate Majority Leader's team on sort of what questions you might get that are considered perhaps more friendly and what questions you might get that could be considered more combative?
And I also just wanted to follow up. I know that you're saying you don’t think it's the role of the Senate to open things up to new developments, so you obviously -- you can't control that; that's going to be up to the votes of the senators. So, in that eventuality, what witnesses would you want to call? And what are you doing specifically to prepare for the possibility Bolton shows up?
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Well, in terms of preparing for the questions, you know, we’ll be prepared to address whatever questions the senators have for us. That’s their opportunity, if there are things that were not addressed in the presentations by the parties, to get additional information or specific answers, and we’ll be prepared to do that. I’m not going to get into anything more on our strategy on that. It’s really up to the senators what they want to ask.
And, similarly, in terms of your -- you’re right, of course -- it’s up to the senators to decide if they want to vote on more witnesses. And we’ll be prepared for any eventuality there as well. You know, that’s one of the things in litigation: It can go different ways and you just be prepared for it.
Q Thanks guys for doing this call. My question is just: Has anyone on the legal team seen or been briefed on John Bolton’s manuscript?
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: The White House put out -- or I guess it was the NSC put out a statement that made clear that it is the NSC that has the manuscript, and no personnel outside the NSC ever viewed the manuscript.
Q But have you been briefed on it?
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: I’m not going to get into any details beyond that. You know, no one on the legal team has reviewed the manuscript, and we’re not going to get into further details.
Q But you can’t say if he’s been briefed on it?
MR. GIDLEY: Thank you, Kaitlan. Next question.
Q Hi. Thanks for doing this call. Jacqueline Thomsen here. I just wanted to ask: You know, DOJ lawyers and Senate lawyers have both said that it’s their position that, you know, federal courts can’t have any jurisdiction over a Senate impeachment trial, including which witnesses are called. Is that also the legal position of the White House?
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: I’m sorry. Could you repeat that question?
Q Yeah. So it is –- it has been said in federal court, by both DOJ lawyers and Senate lawyers, that they believe that courts can’t make rulings on witnesses for an impeachment trial. Is that also, you know, the legal position of the White House Counsel’s Office?
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Well, I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to, in terms of the Senate lawyers and DOJ lawyers, but –-
Q Well, there was a –- there was a court filing last week where a Senate lawyer said, specifically, “We don’t believe a federal court can make rulings on Senate trial procedures.” And the same argument was made in the –- in the Mueller and McGahn cases at the D.C. Circuit last month.
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Well, let me -– I think there are two -– at least two things there. Let me put it this way: It is the position of the Department of Justice and the Trump administration that, where there is a subpoena from Congress -- whether it’s the House or the Senate -- and either the House or the Senate goes to court to sue the executive branch to enforce that subpoena, that that lawsuit is nonjusticiable. The courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena.
So that position would be the same. The fundamental principles are the same, whether it’s a subpoena from the House or from the Senate.
MR. GIDLEY: Thanks. We have time for one more question.
Q Hey, everyone. Thanks for doing this. I just wanted to ask: House Democrats have argued that and Senate Democrats have argued that your statements about Bolton have kind of strengthened the case for witnesses. I wondered what your response is to that.
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Well, I don’t think that anything that we’ve said strengthens the case for witnesses. In fact, Professor Dershowitz made it very clear last night that even if everything that came out in the New York Times article were true, there would not be an impeachable offense there.
And, I think, the basic principle remains that it is not the role of the Senate now to begin taking in new witnesses that the House didn’t even seek to subpoena. That would fundamentally change the relationship between the House and the Senate in this sort of proceeding.
And remember that the House did have 17 witnesses, and they had subpoenaed John Bolton’s deputy, Charlie Kupperman. And when he went to court, they withdrew the subpoena. So they were not attempting to really pursue these witnesses before.
It’s not the time now to have the Senate to go at it.
Q Thanks.
SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: And then, I should add that the House managers have repeatedly said that they already had overwhelming evidence. That was a pretty big reversal for them to claim now that they need additional evidence to establish their case.
MR. GIDLEY: All right, thanks everybody for joining the call. Again, remember this is attributable to “sources on the President’s legal team,” and the embargo is now lifted.
END 5:16 P.M. EST
|
No comments:
Post a Comment