Impeachment

[Seattle Husker]

BY
The transcript IIRC was complied from people who listened on the call.The transcript was prepared using voice recognition software, along with note takers and experts listening in, according to senior White House officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss White House document preparation.The Listeners prepared the transcript themselves.

I'm sure we'll find out if there was any interference. That will most certainly be investigated after Vindman's reported testimony.

 

[Seattle Husker]

wouldn’t the transcript say Trump ordered the Ukraine to investigate Biden or they won’t get any fundIng? Remember the Ukraine’s had no idea until after the meeting and learned by the press that funds were delayed.

You keep saying that but Taylor's testimony claimed that Zelensky's aids were well aware of the aid being held up before the call.

 

[Seattle Husker]

An opinion piece? Written by the men who were helped write the thing? I think you've stretched it. If the author of any book (say fiction) describe it without it being called "an opinion?"

Check Horn6721's post just above in which he claims Wikipedia is an "opinion piece" which cites the Federalist papers directly. I was playing on his claim but you are more than welcome to join the whole conversation

 

[Horn6721]

Hey JF
You know that link you provided on QPQ is suspect since it is from that known conservative rag, LATimes.
In all this Dem kerfuffle everyone seems to forget Biden openly threatened a foreign leader unless he did not comply with Biden's request
which as we know benefitted his druggy son.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Hey JF
You know that link you provided on QPQ is suspect since it is from that known conservative rag, LATimes.
In all this Dem kerfuffle everyone seems to forget Biden openly threatened a foreign leader unless he did not comply with Biden's request
which as we know benefitted his druggy son.

Nobody is disputing Biden's QPQ. What they are disputing is that Biden's QPQ was advancing America's interests while Trump's was for his own.

 

[Horn6721]

Well we have a He said and a He said
The U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Wednesday night he doesn’t remember informing Ukraine that the White House was withholding aid in exchange for launching investigations into Joe Biden, directly contradicting testimony from the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
We need to add in the Ukrainian President saying he did not know.

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) with some of the details of what Schiff is doing

 

[Joe Fan]

Hey JF
You know that link you provided on QPQ is suspect since it is from that known conservative rag, LATimes.
In all this Dem kerfuffle everyone seems to forget Biden openly threatened a foreign leader unless he did not comply with Biden's request
which as we know benefitted his druggy son.

That is one theory of how this latest version of "Get Trump" got started -- Dems knew that Biden's self-admission of a quid pro quo with Ukraine that he personally engineered was going to hit, so they sought to get out in front of it with this.

 

[Crockett]

Croc
Knowing what you know now do you think Biden did anything inappropriate?

If Biden took action to achieve US national policy objectives, he could be OK on that. If it was for personal benefit, it's out of line. If you are afraid "national security" or medical aid funds will primarily be used to line the pockets of corrupt autocrats, it's appropriate to withhold money.

 

[Garmel]

Nobody is disputing Biden's QPQ. What they are disputing is that Biden's QPQ was advancing America's interests while Trump's was for his own.

One could argue that he was helping his son. Trump getting to the heart of corruption benefits America.

 

[mchammer]

I thought the fact that professional stenographers or the like were the ones who took all the notes for the transcript, and again, that no one has come out besides this guy disputing the transcript. Or am I wrong?

It was transcribed both by humans and by recording. It is consolidated later. This Vindman guy apparently only had minor quibbles with transcript.

 

[mchammer]

Whistleblower outed. Looks like a millennial douche.


https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

 

[Joe Fan]

Whistleblower outed. Looks like a millennial douche.
https://www.realclearinvestigations...biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

Eric Ciaramella --
- Registered Democrat
- Worked for Obama
- Worked with Biden
- Worked for CIA Director John Brennan
- Vocal critic of Trump
- Helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation hoax

 

[Garmel]

Well we have a He said and a He said
The U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Wednesday night he doesn’t remember informing Ukraine that the White House was withholding aid in exchange for launching investigations into Joe Biden, directly contradicting testimony from the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
We need to add in the Ukrainian President saying he did not know.

It seems like there are now at least 4 people who have contradicted Taylor on various issues.

 

[mchammer]

Nobody is disputing Biden's QPQ. What they are disputing is that Biden's QPQ was advancing America's interests while Trump's was for his own.

It is in America’s interest to know if Biden was on the take from a foreign country.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Depositions are not taken in a courtroom before a judge. They are usually in a conference room or maybe someone's office if it's big enough. It is primarily up to the attorneys to settle the differences. In federal court, there is a designated magistrate on call every day to handle disputes, usually by phone, if the parties cant work it out. You dont want to make that call unless you have to. For me personally, I always let the other side get their full objection on the record, but I never let them alter my question. I would just ask the same question again. And if the other side would say, "that's inadmissible" or "it's objectionable" I would tell the witness to answer anyway. I would often want to know their answer even if the response was inadmissible. Sometimes I was actually hoping the other attorney would order the witness not to answer, because that was something I wanted on the record for later use. Sometimes opposing counsel treating these events as trials and would get excited, even angry. But it wasn't a trial and there was really no reason to get so excited.

Depositions transcripts are then used for various purposes (note here that witnesses are always allowed the chance to review and make corrections to their answers -- sometimes there might be a typo or an inaudible answer). For example, a pulled depo section can often become part of a motion (such as for summary judgement). Then at trial, there are multiple other possible purposes. They might be submitted as evidence, which is one place you would get arguments and a ruling by the trial judge, as you mention above. But they can also be used with a witness on the stand-- sometimes to impeach a hostile witness but also to bolster your own witness (such as "refreshed memory").

Depositions are primarily a tool of civil trials. Civil trial attorneys sit through and take 1000s of them (or that was my experience anyway). I dont have the experience to comment on what is done in criminal actions. As I mentioned above, I dont know what rules they are using here, if any.

But it does seem clear these are NOT depositions, even if that is what they are calling them. There are transcripts (I think) so there must be a court reporter (or someone). But I dont even know if the testimony is sworn (does anyone else know this for sure?). So much about this process is secret is hard to know what they are doing. But one thing for certain is that under no circumstances does one of the parties or their representative get to serve as the judge/magistrate at a deposition, which is the one thing we do know is happening in these proceedings. Schiff is the party, the party's representative and the magistrate all in one. This alone disqualifies what is happening here from technically being a "deposition." What it sounds like is that Schiff is just making it up as he goes. This is one of the reasons you see so many people saying what is happening here is inconsistent with due process.

To be clear, when I said objections are resolved by a trial judge, I didn't mean that a judge was present. Like I mentioned, they were generally done in a conference room. When I took depositions, objections were noted on the record, and the question was usually answered anyway. The purpose of the objection was to enable the judge to rule on it later if the deposition was used in the trial of the case. If a question was harassing or asked for information that was privileged or otherwise outside the scope of discovery, the witness would be instructed not to answer the question by his counsel. If a party wanted to, he could try to get a judge to rule on the matter by phone (rare), or he could ask the court reporter to certify the question, file a motion to compel, set a hearing, and get the judge to order an answer at a later time.

 

[LongestHorn]

 

[Crockett]

in Joe's linked story there is a comments section. One comment stood out to me: "Ciaramella even looks like a typical Liberal Hack. I hope this ruins his life"

 

[Horn6721]

In this hyperpartisan world it is sad but not surprising that someone who disagrees with what the public Trump hater is trying to do would be denounced by a Trump supporter

 

[Joe Fan]

.... If a party wanted to, he could try to get a judge to rule on the matter by phone (rare), or he could ask the court reporter to certify the question, file a motion to compel, set a hearing, and get the judge to order an answer at a later time.

I once had a witness refuse to answer something. I made the effort but eventually had to get the magistrate on speaker phone. He calmly explained to the witness why he had to answer. Witness still refused. The magistrate grew somewhat frustrated, and eventually invited us all over to chambers. Took awhile to get the court reporter packed up but the courthouse complex was just across the street. In chambers, the magistrate went over it all again. Witness still refused to answer. So next the courtroom was opened, various personnel took their places, witness took the stand with oath re-administered. I guess the magistrate thought all the majesty of his courtroom would get the witness' attention. But he still refused to answer. Magistrate did not want to but found him in civil contempt, all on his own, without any prompting from me. He was processed directly from the courtroom into to the MCC. Guy couldn't believe it. Began to scream about the Constitution, then cry. He later sent word he was ready to answer questions and so ~3 hours later we were back in the original conference room. Took another 30m and we were done. That was my most extreme depo ever.

 

[mchammer]

in Joe's linked story there is a comments section. One comment stood out to me: "Ciaramella even looks like a typical Liberal Hack. I hope this ruins his life"

He could raise $500k on a gofundme

 

[Joe Fan]

Hey JF
You know that link you provided on QPQ is suspect since it is from that known conservative rag, LATimes.
In all this Dem kerfuffle everyone seems to forget Biden openly threatened a foreign leader unless he did not comply with Biden's request
which as we know benefitted his druggy son.

One thing Ive noticed is if they cannot attack the source, they go quiet. Just wait for tomorrow mornings new outrage. Because there will be one. As sure as the sun rising in the East.

 

[horninchicago]

He could raise $500k on a gofundme

Liberals, and Crockett is very reasonable, so I'm not lumping him in here, seemed happy to ruin Kavanaugh's life, Flynn, any other republican.

 

[Joe Fan]

.... "Ciaramella even looks like a typical Liberal Hack. ..."

Is that part true?

 

[Joe Fan]

...."Ciaramella even looks like a typical Liberal Hack...."

Is that part true?

OK, I see what you were getting at

 

[Joe Fan]

I imagine Zelensky thinking his translator must really suck --

Zelensky: There was no pressure.

Democrats: Yes, there was.

Zelensky: I didn't feel any pressure.

Democrats: Yes, you did.

Zelensky: I was ON THE CALL. How do you know how I felt?

Democrats: We heard about it.​

 

[nashhorn]

Sooooo Bidin’s crony knows if his quid pro quo, hears of this conversation with Ukraine and says aha! I get it now.

 

[Garmel]

I imagine Zelensky thinking his translator must really suck --

Zelensky: There was no pressure.

Democrats: Yes, there was.

Zelensky: I didn't feel any pressure.

Democrats: Yes, you did.

Zelensky: I was ON THE CALL. How do you know how I felt?

Democrats: We heard about it.​

Democrats: TAYLOR SAYS TRUMP COMMITTED QUID PRO QUO AND PRESSURIZED YOU!!! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION TAYLOR'S INTEGRITY!!!!

 

[Garmel]

 

[Mr. Deez]

I once had a witness refuse to answer something. I made the effort but eventually had to get the magistrate on speaker phone. He calmly explained to the witness why he had to answer. Witness still refused. The magistrate grew somewhat frustrated, and eventually invited us all over to chambers. Took awhile to get the court reporter packed up but the courthouse complex was just across the street. In chambers, the magistrate went over it all again. Witness still refused to answer. So next the courtroom was opened, various personnel took their places, witness took the stand with oath re-administered. I guess the magistrate thought all the majesty of his courtroom would get the witness' attention. But he still refused to answer. Magistrate did not want to but found him in civil contempt, all on his own, without any prompting from me. He was processed directly from the courtroom into to the MCC. Guy couldn't believe it. Began to scream about the Constitution, then cry. He later sent word he was ready to answer questions and so ~3 hours later we were back in the original conference room. Took another 30m and we were done. That was my most extreme depo ever.

That's greatness. I can't top that. I very loudly threw a Nationwide Insurance adjuster and his fraud investigator out of my conference room at the close of an Examination under Oath once, bitched them out, and threatened to sue them. They initially got combative, and I threatened to beat their asses if they didn't leave. (Obviously, I waited until the court reporter was packed and leaving before I threatened them.) I scared the hell the hell out of my staff who ran to the conference room, because I was generally pretty quiet and reserved.

As much fun as that was, it's like watching paint dry compared to actually getting somebody tossed in the slammer for contempt.