Trump / Ukraine Public Impeachment Hearings

[ExpandMyMind]

9 hours ago, Tiggs said:

And today appears to be the end of the scheduled public Impeachment hearings.

Congress is now in recess, until December 3rd.

It looks like they'll be coming back from recess with new witnesses.

Impeachment is about to get a Robert Mueller reprise

Quote

Democrats say they have new Mueller-related fodder after Roger Stone’s recent trial raised questions about whether Trump provided false statements to the special counsel’s team. And the hearing could even feature a star witness — former White House counsel Don McGahn. A judge is set to rule in the coming days on whether McGahn must comply with a House subpoena.

Story Continued Below

House leadership signaled the plans in court filings and oral arguments this week, as the Democrats’ attorneys fought to get McGahn’s testimony, as well as access to more of the evidence Mueller used to write his final report.

“This is something that’s unbelievably serious and it’s happening right now, very fast,” House counsel Doug Letter, who consults closely with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told a federal appeals court during a hearing in the Mueller evidence case.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/22/impeachment-robert-mueller-072698

 

[ExpandMyMind]

The House Judiciary begin their Impeachment hearings next week. From what I gather, it's going to concentrate more on explaining specifically why Trump's acts were impeachable, as outlined in the Constitution.

Quote

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday announced it will hold its first public impeachment hearing next week, and invited President Donald Trump and his lawyers "to participate."

"I am hopeful that you and your counsel will opt to participate in the Committee's hearing, consistent with the rules of decorum and with the solemn nature before us," Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said in a letter announcing the hearing.

Nadler said the hearing, which will focus on "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," will take place on Dec. 4. Trump is scheduled to be in London for a NATO leaders meeting on that date.

The hearing will "serve as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the Framers' intent and understanding of terms like 'high crimes and misdemeanors,'" Nadler said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/house-judiciary-committee-announces-first-impeachment-hearing-invites-trump-attend-n1091861

Interesting that both Trump and his lawyers have been invited to attend.

Quote

A Democratic aide working on the impeachment inquiry said that the witnesses for the first Judiciary hearing on impeachment will be "academics" like constitutional scholars and impeachment experts, not fact witnesses.

 

 

[ian hacktorp]

On 11/22/2019 at 6:05 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

“This is something that’s unbelievably serious and it’s happening right now, very fast,” House counsel Doug Letter, who consults closely with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

He got that right...as in, NOBODY believes they are serious.

This is just more of the Democrats turning their dirty undies inside-out and claiming everything is fresh and new.  It isn't, and they still stink.

[Tiggs]

Today (Wednesday), at 10 AM Eastern, the House Judiciary Committee (the committee responsible for drafting Articles of Impeachment) has its first televised Impeachment hearing.

We should hear testimony from Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, Micheal Gerhardt and Jonathon Turley -- all law professors -- on the Constitutional grounds for Impeachment.

Link for online viewing, here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-the-trump-impeachment-hearings-house-judiciary-committee-day-1

 

[+and-then]

Since the D's know he won't be removed without evidence that his supporters believe, one has to wonder what their true endgame is.  Perhaps they hope to damage him in 2020 or maybe knock off enough Senate support to retake the Senate and try the whole business again?  They REALLY don't want to do that...

[+and-then]

4 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, Micheal Gerhardt and Jonathon Turley -- all law professors -- on the Constitutional grounds for Impeachment.

Ken Star mentioned that he knows these folks and that they are highly politicized.  Takes one to know one, I guess.  Seems to me they got the cart well ahead of the horse.  Wouldn't expert testimony on what is "Impeachable" been better heard before all the "witnesses"?

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

Since the D's know he won't be removed without evidence that his supporters believe, one has to wonder what their true endgame is. 

Doing the right thing isnt always popular and some times you get no reward for doing so. Yet it must be done.

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[Buzz_Light_Year]

5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Doing the right thing isnt always popular and some times you get no reward for doing so. Yet it must be done.

 

Democrats doing the right thing?

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Democrats doing the right thing?

Alright those were words id have bet a million dollars id never say just a few short years ago. Im not gonna get on a stump for the Pelosis of the crowd for sure but I do confess to having been moved by the 7 freshmen whose op-ed endorsing impeachment forced Pelosi to go forward.

‘It Feels Like a 1776 Kind of Fight’

Obviously the fact that I agree with them helps but these are vulnerable politicians with credible national security and public service backgrounds that decided to do what they saw as the right thing despite the very real if not likely potential of losing their seats for doing so. 

There does have to be real human beings left in the world right?

Edited December 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[Tiggs]

9 hours ago, and then said:

Ken Star mentioned that he knows these folks and that they are highly politicized.  Takes one to know one, I guess. 

Of the four, Turley's the only name I'm familiar with, as he's written several newspaper articles in recent years. Left-leaning, for sure.

That said -- I believe both Gerhardt and Turley gave expert testimony on the same subject during the Clinton impeachment.

Interestingly, also seems that Turley was a Republican addition to the list of expert witnesses, this time around.
 

9 hours ago, and then said:

Seems to me they got the cart well ahead of the horse.  Wouldn't expert testimony on what is "Impeachable" been better heard before all the "witnesses"?

Historically, I believe that all impeachments have begun with an investigation.

In modern times, I believe those investigations have been run by the DOJ, via an appointed Special Counsel -- but the DOJ declined to investigate this complaint (or even pass the complaint onto Congress).

Which is why the House Intelligence Committee had no choice but to hold this investigation itself.

The House Judiciary Committee will now take the results of the investigation from the House Intelligence Committee and proceed, as per prior impeachments.

[Tiggs]

No further public hearings this week, but one is being scheduled for next week, where I believe we'll hear testimony from the House Intelligence Committee lawyers, on both sides of the aisle.

[ExpandMyMind]

I think after that it will be straight to the Articles. Pelosi has requested them:

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump.

"Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders, and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment," Pelosi said.

Pelosi's announcement is a formal indication that the House will move forward with impeaching Mr. Trump after weeks of hearings. Democrats have previously insisted that they had not decided whether to draft articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump, although many Republicans believed impeachment to be a foregone conclusion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-update-watch-live-stream-pelosi-delivers-statement-on-status-impeachment-inquiry-2019-12-05/

[acidhead]

 

[Farmer77]

16 hours ago, acidhead said:

 

Lol he thinks THAT was the least successful argument he made 

[+and-then]

On 12/4/2019 at 10:15 AM, Tiggs said:

Which is why the House Intelligence Committee had no choice but to hold this investigation itself.

Do you feel Schiff's decisions on refusing the R's the right to call witnesses and even to restrict which questions their own witnesses could answer was just and equitable?  Most of the nation seems to feel differently.  That move by Schiff cost him significant support from the only audience that matters now...the Independents seem  to have a "thing" about perceived fairness and injustice in this process.  Frankly, I can't wait for the trial.  I doubt that Schiff, Joe or Hunter will do anything other than plead the 5th or possibly just ignore the subpoena.  Either way, they risk alienating even more Independents.  If they aren't careful this thing could blow them right out of the water.

I'm already taking bets on how long they'll wait before their media mafiosi begin screaming in unison over the next great Trump scandal of our time.  Boring, innit?

[Unusual Tournament]

On 12/4/2019 at 4:22 PM, and then said:

Since the D's know he won't be removed without evidence that his supporters believe, one has to wonder what their true endgame is.  Perhaps they hope to damage him in 2020 or maybe knock off enough Senate support to retake the Senate and try the whole business again?  They REALLY don't want to do that...

...your under the mistaken belief that this impeachment is baseless. If it was it wouldn't have had the traction it has. And Trump's ratings would move higher than the 40% base support he seems to be stuck at. Holding the line is all Trumps doing. Barely. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...your under the mistaken belief that this impeachment is baseless. If it was it wouldn't have had the traction it has. And Trump's ratings would move higher than the 40% base support he seems to be stuck at. Holding the line is all Trumps doing. Barely. 

Sadly, all he needs to do in order to be re-elected is hold the line.

[Unusual Tournament]

7 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Sadly, all he needs to do in order to be re-elected is hold the line.

Barely ! And if recent state elections are anything to go by Trumps goose is already cooked. This impeachment inquiry has been a bonanza for the democrats and Trumps refusal to attend, including those of his subordinates is the fuel to this fire. He has perjured himself up to his eyeballs and more importantly so have the Trumpets. It will only take one damning piece of the puzzle to see the light of day to drop Trump off his perch but the whole lot including MaConnell and Co. for supporting him.  

Edited December 8, 2019 by Captain Risky

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...your under the mistaken belief that this impeachment is baseless. If it was it wouldn't have had the traction it has. And Trump's ratings would move higher than the 40% base support he seems to be stuck at. Holding the line is all Trumps doing. Barely. 

Of course, it's baseless.  WHAT crime did he commit?  Statute, please?  You don't have one because your media hasn't provided you with one.  They've slung lots of things against a wall to see what will stick and we've seen that collusion, obstruction, quid-pro-quo, bribery all have failed to resonate.  The last gasp is "obstruction of Congress"  

If you had the least understanding of our form of government you'd understand how pointless, even pathetic that claim is.  You really should do a bit of reading about the term COEQUAL BRANCHES.  As president, he has ZERO OBLIGATION to bend to the will of Congress.  It is only through tradition that presidents tend to accept supreme court judgments.  He has NO Constitutional command to do so.  Our Founders specifically created a tension, a jostling for power between the 3 branches.  They WANTED decisions to be very difficult to arrive at because they understood the danger of government running amok into tyranny.  

I'll leave you with this... IF they managed to get rid of this president due to him claiming executive privilege and calling it "obstruction" of Congress, there will never be another president who isn't neutered by that precedent.  Presidents will become powerless figureheads.  On to the revolution then  

[+and-then]

9 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Sadly, all he needs to do in order to be re-elected is hold the line.

Don't be sad.  Buck up little camper, it's only another 5 years of winning.  Hell, Oz might even see some economic improvement - if your government doesn't take it all in taxes 

[Grim Reaper 6]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

Of course, it's baseless.  WHAT crime did he commit?  Statute, please?  You don't have one because your media hasn't provided you with one.  They've slung lots of things against a wall to see what will stick and we've seen that collusion, obstruction, quid-pro-quo, bribery all have failed to resonate.  The last gasp is "obstruction of Congress"  

If you had the least understanding of our form of government you'd understand how pointless, even pathetic that claim is.  You really should do a bit of reading about the term COEQUAL BRANCHES.  As president, he has ZERO OBLIGATION to bend to the will of Congress.  It is only through tradition that presidents tend to accept supreme court judgments.  He has NO Constitutional command to do so.  Our Founders specifically created a tension, a jostling for power between the 3 branches.  They WANTED decisions to be very difficult to arrive at because they understood the danger of government running amok into tyranny.  

I'll leave you with this... IF they managed to get rid of this president due to him claiming executive privilege and calling it "obstruction" of Congress, there will never be another president who isn't neutered by that precedent.  Presidents will become powerless figureheads.  On to the revolution then  

Presidents are already powerless figure heads, so go lead the charge Paul Revere i am sure we can spare a Drone for you. You do realise the US Military has bigger guns, well maybe you don't.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

Of course, it's baseless.  WHAT crime did he commit?  Statute, please?  You don't have one because your media hasn't provided you with one.  They've slung lots of things against a wall to see what will stick and we've seen that collusion, obstruction, quid-pro-quo, bribery all have failed to resonate.  The last gasp is "obstruction of Congress"  

If you had the least understanding of our form of government you'd understand how pointless, even pathetic that claim is.  You really should do a bit of reading about the term COEQUAL BRANCHES.  As president, he has ZERO OBLIGATION to bend to the will of Congress.  It is only through tradition that presidents tend to accept supreme court judgments.  He has NO Constitutional command to do so.  Our Founders specifically created a tension, a jostling for power between the 3 branches.  They WANTED decisions to be very difficult to arrive at because they understood the danger of government running amok into tyranny.  

I'll leave you with this... IF they managed to get rid of this president due to him claiming executive privilege and calling it "obstruction" of Congress, there will never be another president who isn't neutered by that precedent.  Presidents will become powerless figureheads.  On to the revolution then  

Oh your just under the assumption that because Trump is throwing a hissy fit calling bullchit that it makes him innocent. How cute. 

[+and-then]

10 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Barely ! And if recent state elections are anything to go by Trumps goose is already cooked. This impeachment inquiry has been a bonanza for the democrats and Trumps refusal to attend, including those of his subordinates is the fuel to this fire. He has perjured himself up to his eyeballs and more importantly so have the Trumpets. It will only take one damning piece of the puzzle to see the light of day to drop Trump off his perch but the whole lot including MaConnell and Co. for supporting him.  

I guess time will tell    I'm fine waiting for the outcome of the trial.  You should probably start building your repertoire of excuses now.  He'll be acquitted, of course.  That won't matter to the 40% who are frothing at the mouth with hate (recognize yourself?) but the Independents are slowly getting onboard the Trump train.  It's going to be pure HELL trying to run against a record breaking economy, troops beginning to come home, stock market setting records and generally strong positive attitudes about the future by everyone EXCEPT the frothers.

BTW, care to make a guess about what scandal or Constitutional crisis will hit the news next?  They have someone on deck warming up, I'm sure. At some point, even the frothers are going to lose steam.  Unless they decide to take it to the level of violence in the streets on a wide scale.  They won't surprise me if they do that next November.  That move will blow up in their faces though.

[+and-then]

9 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Presidents are already powerless figure heads, so go lead the charge Paul Revere i am sure we can spare a Drone for you. You do realise the US Military has bigger guns, well maybe you don't.

Where did you go to school?  Are you serious about not knowing that the Executive is a co-equal branch or are you just frustrated, Nancy?  I'm pretty confident that you are NOT representative of most armed services members.  In fact, my guess is you've got a lot of pent up anger and frustration about a lackluster career that saw you terminal as a relatively junior NCO.  That's how you come across, anyway.  The sad truth is that if such a conflict broke out there WOULD be many traitors under arms like yourself and the first battles would be between them and those who actually are willing to keep their oath to the Constitution and not their officers.  

And that's all the time I have for you today, Nance...

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Don't be sad.  Buck up little camper, it's only another 5 years of winning.  Hell, Oz might even see some economic improvement - if your government doesn't take it all in taxes 

Humpty Trumpty already has a crack in his shell, that self professed brilliant eggs innards may spill out soon. 

Please don't be sad

Edited December 8, 2019 by Manwon Lender