Democrats set out rules for Trump impeachment

[Agent0range]

4 hours 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  

What has been leaked from the private inquiries that has not been said to reporters in public?  

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

What has been leaked from the private inquiries that has not been said to reporters in public?  

Or released by those testifying themselves.

[ExpandMyMind]

Quote

The top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, is willing to return to Capitol Hill to testify publicly, according to a source familiar with his thinking, making him a potential key early witness for Democrats as they shift their impeachment inquiry into a public phase.

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

Democrats believe that Taylor, a career diplomat who has worked for administrations of both parties, will be an unassailable witness with detailed notes and an impeccable memory. They believe he's someone who will tell a story to the public authoritatively about why efforts to provide aid to Ukraine and bolster relations with that key ally were delayed amid the push by Trump to investigate the Bidens and the 2016 elections. His 15-page opening statement delivered some of the most dramatic and damning testimony that Democrats have heard thus far.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/bill-taylor-willing-testify-publicly/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

 

 

[ian hacktorp]

As I expected they might, the Democrats seem to have contracted a sudden case of cold feet:

House Dem Leaders Won’t Commit To Impeachment Resolution, Table Thursday Vote

Quote

Wednesday morning, however, it became clear that Democrats won’t be bringing the “impeachment resolution” up for a vote on Thursday, or perhaps, given that most legislators leave town to return to their home districts Thursday night, at any time this week.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-dem-leaders-wont-commit-to-impeachment-resolution-table-thursday-vote/

These poor chumps are in such a state of disarray because they know that moving ahead with their impeachment farce is just as fraught with risk as doing nothing at all...and probably much more so.

Eta: Happy Halloween!

Edited October 30, 2019 by hacktorp

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

As I expected they might, the Democrats seem to have contracted a sudden case of cold feet:

House Dem Leaders Won’t Commit To Impeachment Resolution, Table Thursday Vote

https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-dem-leaders-wont-commit-to-impeachment-resolution-table-thursday-vote/

These poor chumps are in such a state of disarray because they know that moving ahead with their impeachment farce is just as fraught with risk as doing nothing at all...and probably much more so.

Eta: Happy Halloween!

That’s just so they can milk “we’re impeaching Trump!” a little while longer in the press.

[DarkHunter]

On 10/29/2019 at 6:18 PM, 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. 

Just about everything is wrong in that post.

First off the democrats are not adhering to laws that the Republicans created since no laws were created.  What the house Republicans did in 2015 was change the rules for some committees on how subpoenas are issued.  Each committee in the house gets to create it's own rules to follow so each committee changing the rules isnt really that significant or unheard of.  As for the rules changed, each committee has it's own exact rules so there is some variation between each committee but in the committees that changed rules, 14 out of 21 committees at the time, changed how subpoenas are issued from requiring a committee vote to letting the chairman of the committee issue them unilaterally, like I said each committee has it's own unique rules so the exact mechanism will be slightly different for each committee.  As for why the Republicans changed the laws it was largely in response to excessive delays to outright refusing to follow rules by Democratic members of the committees to delay or completely stop investigations.

Second McConnell is in the senate and not the house so he had nothing to do with the rule changes of the 14 committees that changed their own rules.  The speaker of the house at the time was Boehner but even then I'm pretty sure he really had little to do with the rule changes since the committees themselves change their own rules and not have their rules changed by someone outside the committee.

You are right that it isnt a violation of due process but it definitely paints everything as essentially a democratic witch hunt/hit job and will further degrade any argument that it is legitimate and not just political theater.

Edited October 31, 2019 by DarkHunter

[ExpandMyMind]

Live, the vote should begin within the hour.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465765-1/us-house-debates-impeachment-inquiry-resolution

 

[Doug1029]

17 hours ago, hacktorp said:

As I expected they might, the Democrats seem to have contracted a sudden case of cold feet:

House Dem Leaders Won’t Commit To Impeachment Resolution, Table Thursday Vote

https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-dem-leaders-wont-commit-to-impeachment-resolution-table-thursday-vote/

These poor chumps are in such a state of disarray because they know that moving ahead with their impeachment farce is just as fraught with risk as doing nothing at all...and probably much more so.

Eta: Happy Halloween!

The rule change just passed.  10:45 a.m.

Now then, what were you saying?

Doug

[ian hacktorp]

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Now then, what were you saying?

I said:

20 hours ago, hacktorp said:

moving ahead with their impeachment farce is just as fraught with risk as doing nothing at all...and probably much more so.

I NEVER said they were smart.

Btw, did you hear about Tim Morrison's testimony today?  This erstwhile "star witness" for Schiff apparently got weak in the knees and testified that he neither saw nor heard anything illegal with regard to Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy.

Imagine that...

Edited October 31, 2019 by hacktorp

[Doug1029]

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

I said:

I NEVER said they were smart.

Btw, did you hear about Tim Morrison's testimony today?  This erstwhile "star witness" for Schiff apparently got weak in the knees and testified that he neither saw nor heard anything illegal with regard to Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy.

Imagine that...

Trying to stay in tRUMP's good graces.  He stands or falls with tRUMP.

Doug

[ian hacktorp]

6 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Trying to stay in tRUMP's good graces.  He stands or falls with tRUMP.

Well isn't that interesting?

Morrison has long been described, incl. by Wikipedia, as a "Bolton loyalist"...even "Bolton's Bolton".

Sounds more like a case of a rat jumping ship...

Edited October 31, 2019 by hacktorp

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

Well isn't that interesting?

Morrison has long been described, incl. by Wikipedia, as a "Bolton loyalist"...even "Bolton's Bolton".

Sounds more like a case of a rat jumping ship...

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Doug

[Farmer77]

3 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Btw, did you hear about Tim Morrison's testimony today?  This erstwhile "star witness" for Schiff apparently got weak in the knees and testified that he neither saw nor heard anything illegal with regard to Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy.

Imagine that...

This headline made me think of you and grin

Republicans’ hopeful claims about a new impeachment witness suddenly collapse as his damning statement is revealed

Quote

In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate

Why is that relevant you may ask? Glad I could help! Its relevant because it confirms this tidbit:

Quote

“During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at [a meeting in] Warsaw,” Taylor said. “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.” (Zelenskyy, the spelling used by Taylor in his written remarks, is the preferred spelling in Ukraine.)

 

[RAyMO]

4 hours ago, hacktorp said:

This erstwhile "star witness" for Schiff apparently got weak in the knees and testified that he neither saw nor heard anything illegal with regard to Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy.

Morrison the new Trump saviour - said

"Ambassador Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until¹ my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador [Gordon] Sondland. Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress²..."

So ¹ while initially not having reason to believe their was quid pro quo he came to realise that this was the case

and ² having realised what was going on he hoped the Administration would act differently. A forlorn hope as it turned out.

so while  being helpful to Trump in tone, his words confirm the quid pro quo and don't help Trump at all.

If this is the best Reps have got, then truly they have got nothing.

In fact his comments where as much to protect himself as anything else - but a bit strange at that:

I initially didn't know what was going on, when I did know I hoped it was not supported by the Administration, when it happened I didn't think it was illegal - why then did he hope the Administration wouldn't be aparty to it? Not that his view of what is illegal or not is a barometer.

Edited October 31, 2019 by RAyMO

[ian hacktorp]

37 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

This headline made me think of you and grin

Republicans’ hopeful claims about a new impeachment witness suddenly collapse as his damning statement is revealed

Why is that relevant you may ask? Glad I could help! Its relevant because it confirms this tidbit:

 

While that quote you pasted was a little hard to follow, I realized I've seen that bit before:

 

[ian hacktorp]

20 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

If this is the best Reps have got, then truly they have got nothing.

Republicans don't need anything...it's the Dems who need hard evidence.  Of which they have none.

Unless of course we've all slipped into the Demoverse, a dimension where conservative folks are guilty of any and all accusations until proven innocent in a Democrat-run kangaroo court of fake law.

Edited October 31, 2019 by hacktorp

[RAyMO]

8 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Republicans don't need anything...it's the Dems who need hard evidence.  Of which they have none.

Unless of course we've all slipped into the Demoverse, a dimension where conservative folks are guilty until proven innocent.

Off course by your [US] system innocence or guilt in totally irrelevant - it comes down to numbers of the parties in the Senate. The senate will vote on party lines - unless the public clearly see something - perhaps that often heralded piece of paper, you lot refer to in tones of reverence, being trashed - which puts pressure on the senate members.

Personally I can't see it. He will be impeached by the house (or whatever the term is) and cleared by the Senate. Innocence nor guilt will not be an issue.

Edited October 31, 2019 by RAyMO

[ian hacktorp]

3 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Personally I can't see it. He will be impeached by the house (or whatever the term is) and cleared by the Senate. Innocence nor guilt will not be an issue.

I can't see it getting even THAT far.  The house would eventually need to vote for actual articles of impeachment, which would give both sides of the aisle REAL subpoena powers, and that seems pretty unlikely.  To date, no legal subpoenas have been issued...it's all fake kabuki.  The Dembots love it...but it's all smoke and mirrors.

[Farmer77]

15 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I can't see it getting even THAT far.  The house would eventually need to vote for actual articles of impeachment, which would give both sides of the aisle REAL subpoena powers, and that seems pretty unlikely.  To date, no legal subpoenas have been issued...it's all fake kabuki.  The Dembots love it...but it's all smoke and mirrors.

It's starting to set in huh? 

I know I know you're gonna say you have no idea what I'm talking about but your posts are starting to look less and less like propaganda and more and more like classic denial. 

[Tatetopa]

36 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Personally I can't see it. He will be impeached by the house (or whatever the term is) and cleared by the Senate. Innocence nor guilt will not be an issue.

If he keeps getting up the noses of too many more GOP Senators, they might  not  be so accommodating.  Ol Mitch is probably asking his wife and anybody else he trusts how he can shove Pence and Pelosi aside and become President.

Rumors today of Trump giving campaign funds to Republican senators.  Any truth to this?   Buying votes?  Smart senators might take the money and once the check clears vote to impeach to prove they were not unduly influenced

[Tatetopa]

35 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

.it's all fake kabuki.

What is fake kabuki?  I don't Noh.

[ian hacktorp]

42 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

What is fake kabuki?  I don't Noh.

What is it that you don't know?  How to search the meaning of a word?

[ian hacktorp]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

I know I know you're gonna say you have no idea what I'm talking about but your posts are starting to look less and less like propaganda and more and more like classic denial.

Actually, I was gonna say that YOU have no idea what you're talking about...but here's your chance to prove me wrong:

Do you claim that the so-called "subpoena letters" sent out by Schiff are legally enforceable?  As in, are there legal penalties for ignoring them?

[Farmer77]

16 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Do you claim that the so-called "subpoena letters" sent out by Schiff are legally enforceable?  As in, are there legal penalties for ignoring them?

Well obstruction of congress is an impeachable offense for sure and while there are a shitton of variables that can change the answer to your question in general yes contempt of congress is a crime. How enforceable is it is another question and how it goes about being enforced is yet a whole other story however. 

Considering the DOJ is corrupt there would be no assistance from them so there's that too. 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Farmer77

[ian hacktorp]

Meanwhile, as Adam Schiff hands out counterfeit subpoenas for his kangaroo kabuki, word is that John Durham has empaneled a Grand Jury in Connecticut where former members of the Obama State Department have been seen entering over the past few days to give testimony.

Bill Barr has apparently scheduled a press conference for tomorrow.