IT WAS THE OMB DIRECTOR, MISAPPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR'S OFFICE
Finally, Hill puts Mick Mulvaney at the scene of the crime.
As I’ve said before, one part of this scandal that has gotten far too little attention is that, to extort Ukraine, Trump withheld funds appropriated by Congress, funds about which there was bipartisan agreement.
Last week, CNN and WSJ reported that to do this, OMB changed the way the funds were distributed, putting a political flunkie in charge, also a detail that has gotten far too little attention.
Not only does that raise the Constitutional stakes of the Executive’s refusal to spend the funds Congress had duly appropriated, but it shows consciousness of guilt.
And per Hill’s testimony Mick Mulvaney, serving in the dual role of OMB chief and Chief of Staff, knew that those funds were being withheld for a quid pro quo or (as John Bolton described it) a drug deal.
Senate Republicans might not ever convict Trump for demanding foreign countries invent propaganda on his political allies. They might feel differently once it becomes clear that the crime involves refusing to do what Congress, with its power of the purse, told him to, without even telling Congress he was doing so (or why). They may not care about Trump pressing for any political advantage for their party, but they may care about Trump neutering their most important authority. https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/15/the-significance-of-fiona-hills-testimony-whatever-drug-deal-sondland-and-mulvaney-are-cooking-up/
Now OMB says it does not plan to turn over the documents that impeachment committees subpoenaed. The deadline was today.
Susie924:"That could be difficult for Giuliani, who admitted earlier this year that he had to take a $100,000 loan from another of Trump's lawyers Marc Mukasey as a result of his ongoing divorce proceedings, according to a report from Bloomberg."
If contempt of Congress can’t be enforced, then Congress isn’t a co-equal branch
"Is Rudy having money problems? Giuliani and a key federal agency defy House Democrats' impeachment subpoena"
Our system of checks and balances works only if the legislative branch’s oversight power has teeth.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) plans to announce a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News) (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
By Jack Quinn Jack Quinn served as President Bill Clinton’s White House counsel from 1995-1997 and chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore from 1993-1995. He is a CNN legal analyst and a partner in the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
September 25, 2019 at 4:57 a.m. GMT+10
During Corey Lewandowski’s contentious appearance last week before the House Judiciary Committee — to discuss special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s finding that President Trump asked Lewandowski to encourage then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself from overseeing the investigation — Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told the former Trump campaign manager that his behavior in committee was “completely unacceptable” and that holding him in contempt was “under consideration.” But no contempt vote took place.
[...]
... Congress has broad inherent powers to investigate, including the executive. In Lewandowski’s view, being compelled to testify was about “Trump haters” .. https://www.apnews.com/f7bb368cc17244d88f94db713035af5a .. going down “rabbit holes,” suggesting that he was justified in his selective answers to questions from members of Congress. But that’s not his call to make.
Like anyone else, he can be summoned to provide evidence in any well-lodged congressional investigation, reasonably related to the powers of the Congress defined in Article I of the Constitution. Lewandowski was plainly contemptuous of the Judiciary Committee when he refused to fully to cooperate with an investigation wholly within its power.
On that basis, he deserved to be held in contempt, and the failure of the committee to act immediately to levy meaningful consequences against him drove a nail in the coffin of contempt as a tool the legislative branch can use to maintain its place as an equal branch of the federal government.
[...]
There are logistical impediments, certainly, to the House directing its sergeant at arms to go out and arrest members of the executive branch, and if they tried, it could set up a new constitutional crisis within an existing one.
As Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes notes .. https://www.lawfareblog.com/witness-and-whistleblower-some-thoughts , asserting inherent contempt power in this way “hasn’t been deployed in a long time, and it’s not 100 percent clear that courts would tolerate it.” But there’s a risk that runs in the other direction: If the stonewalling of the current administration, and Congress’s acquiescence so far, wind up demonstrating that there’s nothing the legislative branch can do to enforce its power, then it’s difficult to say that we have an effective system of checks and balances — one of the ideas that animates our system of government.
Executive privilege disagreements are fought out in this area of delicate constitutional balance. As White House counsel during the days when then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tortured the Clinton administration with specious investigations, I personally engaged in a number of those battles: The House Oversight and Reform Committee once voted to hold me in criminal contempt .. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-05-30-mn-10127-story.html .. when we were simply unable to compromise on a committee request for documents. The issue was eventually resolved, in part with the help of a GOP congressman also named Jack Quinn. He would joke that his constituents were outraged that their representative went to work for President Bill Clinton.
After that contempt vote, I called him up and said, “Jack, we have a problem.” He responded, “Yes, we do, and I better help you out of this mess.” It’s hard to imagine that kind of good-humored cross-party cooperation taking place now.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
