Democrats set out rules for Trump impeachment

[ExpandMyMind]

Quote

House Democrats will put Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff in the lead of the next phase of its impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump as the investigation moves into public hearings under the terms of a resolution released Tuesday.

The resolution sets no deadlines to finish the investigations or for putting together any articles of impeachment. But it sets out some parameters for the role of Republicans at hearings and, eventually, Trump and his legal counsel.

Six committees in all will continue their existing probes and the scope of their investigations won’t be limited, indicating Democrats will continue to pursue inquiries involving Trump’s finances and won’t focus exclusively on his dealings with Ukraine.

“Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn first hand about the president’s misconduct,” the leaders of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Judiciary panels, which have taken lead in the inquiry, said in a statement.

A vote on the resolution is set for Thursday and it’s likely to be approved on a party-line vote.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-29/house-democrats-set-out-rules-for-trump-impeachment-inquiry

 

 

[BrooklynGuy]

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, BrooklynGuy said:

I guess you'll get to see what Trump did or did not do, since the inquiry is going public.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

9 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-29/house-democrats-set-out-rules-for-trump-impeachment-inquiry

 

 

Quote

The resolution gives the ranking Republican on the Intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, the right to subpoena witnesses with Schiff’s approval. If the chairman declines a subpoena request the minority members can request a vote of the full committee.

And it is still a sham..........................

[ExpandMyMind]

10 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

And it is still a sham..........................

What?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What?

Republicans have to get permission from Adam Shciff to subpoena a witness for the defense and if he refuses the request goes to the committee for vote and if they decide not to allow the witness, then what?

In a U.S. court of law the defense does not have to get permission from the prosecution to subpoena a witness.

IMO it is still a violation of due process.

Would you want that at your trial? To exclude any or all witnesses that could prove your innocence?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Buzz_Light_Year

[ExpandMyMind]

7 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Republicans have to get permission from Adam Shciff to subpoena a witness for the defense and if he refuses the request goes to the committee for vote and if they decide not to allow the witness, then what?

In a U.S. court of law the defense does not have to get permission from the prosecution to subpoena a witness.

IMO it is still a violation of due process.

Would you want that at your trial? To exclude any or all witnesses that could prove your innocence?

Oh, this is juicy. You realise that the Dems are only adhering to laws that the Republicans created in order to go after HRC, right? McConnell's scorched earth policy is coming back to bite him.

It's not a violation of due process, because Republicans changed that process. 

Additionally, the Republicans are not 'the defence' and Congress isn't a court of law. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[BrooklynGuy]

44 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I guess you'll get to see what Trump did or did not do, since the inquiry is going public.

EMM on a serious note I appreciate your insightful posts and your interest in Politics. You may end up being right about this impeachment business but please don't be fooled by the profound insincerity of these people on both sides of the isle. Their primary concern is increasing their power and increasing their individual wealth. Imo in America who the President is has very little impact on the vast majority of American citizens. If it's a Democrat some folks on the lower levels of the income scale like the working poor will benefit and the reverse is true if a Republican is in office with deregulation and income tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy. Any success they have has more to do with luck and timing than intelligence and skill.  Both sides make grand promises of prosperity and government support to their bases and once they are in office they quickly realize that it is next to impossible to get anything done with the gigantic DC bureaucracy. I'm little surprised that more people are not outraged at both sides for their condescending and transparent attempts to sway public opinion with their daily theatrical performances. I'll bet you a Snickers and a Mountain Dew that Pelosi and the Trumpster are having a good laff at all the dopes falling for the pablum they are dishing out everyday all the while counting the cash piling up in their bank accounts.           

[Piney]

22 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

both

Are complete crap. 

[+susieice]

They still have to go through the Judiciary Committee.

[Agent0range]

1 hour ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Republicans have to get permission from Adam Shciff to subpoena a witness for the defense 

 

Please, please stop it with this.  There is no prosecution and defense.  The fact that people think this way is a shame.  The impeachment inquiry is to find out about what happened.  Not to prosecute or defend.  Devin Nunes is lucky to have that much power.  The Republicans made the rules.  The democrats shouldn't bend them in the republican favor now.

[Agent0range]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Oh, this is juicy. You realise that the Dems are only adhering to laws that the Republicans created in order to go after HRC, right? McConnell's scorched earth policy is coming back to bite him.

It's not a violation of due process, because Republicans changed that process. 

Additionally, the Republicans are not 'the defence' and Congress isn't a court of law. 

I wish I would have read this before my post...but I was simply too disgusted by that comment to scroll any further.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Agent0range

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Republicans have to get permission from Adam Shciff to subpoena a witness for the defense and if he refuses the request goes to the committee for vote and if they decide not to allow the witness, then what?

In a U.S. court of law the defense does not have to get permission from the prosecution to subpoena a witness.

IMO it is still a violation of due process.

Would you want that at your trial? To exclude any or all witnesses that could prove your innocence?

First off, those were the rules when the Republicans were in power and Devin Nunes was chairman.  Is it only a sham when the other side is in charge?

Second, and most importantly, this is not a trial, this is not a court of law, there is no judge or jury to determine guilt in which defendants rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Your opinion does not necessarily correspond to what is in the Constitution.

Impeachment is not about crimes normally tried in a court.

There is apparently a vote scheduled for Thursday on whether to  begin Impeachment hearings.   If the vote fails, I think that is pretty much it.

If the vote passes then the proceedings go to the House Floor.  I am sure it will be very public there.

This is not a court trial, but more similar to a grand jury hearing where witnesses are called to see if there is enough evidence to bring charges.  Have you ever served on a grand jury?  A majority of the time, there is not enough evidence to go forward.  And by the way it is the DA who sets the docket, it is the DA who calls the witnesses.  The DA is trying to ascertain whether the case can move to trial.  The defendant might be held at this point but nor formally charged yet,  There are no defense attorneys or defense witnesses present.  That all happens if charges are brought. 

If you have been seated on a trial jury, then you get to hear both sides and decide.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Their primary concern is increasing their power and increasing their individual wealth. 

No lobbyists, no superpacs, no  Citizens United, no revolving door and mandatory  term limits.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

term limits

Term limits would mean that the only people with experience in Washington would be lobbyists.

[Tatetopa]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Term limits would mean that the only people with experience in Washington would be lobbyists.

First two words of the post: no lobbyists.  I must admit to a bit of cynicism here.  Does experience help to govern or just to feather one's nest?  Congress people should be talking to their constituents about their views and needs.  I view them rather like a jury.  To be on a jury one does not need any certain qualifications, convinces the lawyers on both sides of an open mind, hears evidence and renders a decision.  Complex problems that might deal with science or technical issues will not be the forte of any Congressperson in most cases.  There are a number of career experts in all fields that work for the government.  Testimony from relevant agencies might be important to consider during legislation.  And maybe there should be less legislation in general.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

The impeachment inquiry is to find out about what happened.  Not to prosecute or defend. 

True.  But its primary purpose in this context is to allow one party to cherry-pick details from selected witnesses to then leak to the press and build a narrative that they hope will build momentum for Impeachment and removal.  Clinton nor Nixon were treated to such secret testimony and leaking.  What they are doing is a PR sham and every day that passes makes it more obvious.  They are going to gut themselves in this process and it is going to be fun to watch the results.

[ExpandMyMind]

5 hours ago, and then said:

Clinton nor Nixon were treated to such secret testimony and leaking.

Both of them had Impeachment inquiries that began in private. It always begins in private because that's the process. Everything will be made public, as it has done in the past.

Quote

allow one party to cherry-pick details from selected witnesses

Yes, how dare they "cherry" pick the examples of crimes committed by your criminal messiah. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[RoofGardener]

You are all correct. This is not a TRIAL, this is an INVESTIGATION. 

The Democrats want to INVESTIGATE how they can "Get Trump"  

[RAyMO]

22 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The Democrats want to INVESTIGATE how they can "Get Trump"

Following rules put in place by Republicans - seems fair enough to me.

[BrooklynGuy]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Both of them had Impeachment inquiries that began in private. It always begins in private because that's the process. Everything will be made public, as it has done in the past.

Yes, how dare they "cherry" pick the examples of crimes committed by your criminal messiah. 

I had to chuckle at this one, to the idiot mobile Batman. Carry on. 

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, RAyMO said:

Following rules put in place by Republicans - seems fair enough to me.

ROFL... fair point

 

[Robotic Jew]

12 hours ago, and then said:

True.  But its primary purpose in this context is to allow one party to cherry-pick details from selected witnesses to then leak to the press and build a narrative that they hope will build momentum for Impeachment and removal.  Clinton nor Nixon were treated to such secret testimony and leaking.  What they are doing is a PR sham and every day that passes makes it more obvious.  They are going to gut themselves in this process and it is going to be fun to watch the results.

based on the details that have been leaked what information could be added that would make what he had been doing ok?

[RoofGardener]

7 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

based on the details that have been leaked what information could be added that would make what he had been doing ok?

You DO realise that your post actually confirms @and then's point ? E.g. leaks of uncorroborated accusations builds a narrative against the President ? And there you are saying that - based on the details that have been leaked ... "What would make what he had been doing ok ? " 

Oh the irony  

[Robotic Jew]

8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You DO realise that your post actually confirms @and then's point ? E.g. leaks of uncorroborated accusations builds a narrative against the President ? And there you are saying that - based on the details that have been leaked ... "What would make what he had been doing ok ? " 

Oh the irony  

Not really. Just wondering at what point it's ok to solicit a foreign government to investigate a political opponent in exchange for money and/or a meeting? It has been CONFIRMED that this happened by the president and his acting chief of staff already. I just want to know what could be left out that would make this ok because all I can think of is if all of this ended up with laughter and trump saying "jk guys. here's ashton kutcher!"