Conservative attorney Phillip Rotner, writing for Bulwark, the conservative anti-Trump site, says that Democrats need to harness everything they have to demand that Rudy Giuliani testify. Rotner believes that Trump cannot survive Giuliani’s testimony, as it would force a significant number of Republican senators to address the extreme danger that Trump represents, in mingling his foreign escapades with domestic presidential politics. “If there is one piece of evidence that might bring around a handful of congressional Republicans to the pro-impeachment side it would be direct, first-hand testimony that Trump personally and unambiguously ordered that the release of military aid to Ukraine be conditioned upon a public announcement that Ukrainewould investigate his 2020 political rival, Joe Biden,” the attorney began. “The evidence we have so far would be sufficient in any court of law, whether the standard was preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.” Yes, he contradicts his own point in the statement. “The evidence we have so far would be sufficient …” That is because we had near direct testimony from Ambassador Sondland that this is exactly what happened. Indeed, we have contemporaneous agreement from two separate sources that heard the damn phone call where Trump asked about the investigations, and Sondland stating Trump only cares about “big things.” One rarely gets that type of evidence in a trial. I suppose his point is that if it came from Rudy, who has been so closely associated with Trump that there would be no room to hide. Even if Rudy took the 5th, Republican senators might be shamed into convicting. Rotner believes Rudy is just too central to ignore if one is a Republican. “It’s obvious that there’s one person who could easily supply the link that Republicans claim is missing: Rudy Giuliani,” he continued. “Guiliani was Trump’s personal lawyer, acting on his behalf, communicating with him frequently, and managing the execution of the quid pro quo. And yet, the Democratic pro-impeachment forces have been oddly hesitant to demand Giuliani’s testimony.” I don’t recall them being “oddly hesitant,” I recall it being that Rudy Giuliani refused to testify on attorney-client privilege grounds. I do agree that attorney-client privilege wouldn’t apply in this matter to any of Rudy’s activity, or at least the vast majority of it. Neither the attorney-client privilege nor anything else would shield Giuliani from testifying about his conversations with Gordon Sondland, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, or any other U.S. or Ukrainian government officials. Or any of the actions he took to implement the quid pro quo,” … …“The attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply to every conversation between an attorney and a client. It applies only to conversations conducted in confidence and in furtherance of receiving or providing legal advice. I will simply add here that engineering an international conspiracy to throw an American election is not “engaging in legal advice.” Rotner does a nice job of dispelling the myth that attorney-client privilege is this wholesale prohibition against attorney’s ever testifying. The fact that I am an attorney in another life, doesn’t prohibit me from testifying about the fact that I heard two people in a waiting room discussing robbing a bank. About the only conversation attorney-client privilege covers is the one that goes like this: [Sitting alone in an office with a client that has […]
Sometimes people in Washington get it plain wrong!
If conservatives support police killing citizens without justification, climate denial, fact denial, science denial, racist and misogynistic behavior, or a litany of other absurd points of view about numerous important issues, we call them out.