Impeachment

[Joe Fan]

Under cross in her impeachment testimony, Democrat Fiona Hill acknowledged she not only had a prior close working relationship with fake dossier author Christopher Steele, but had contacts with Steele during the 2016 campaign

 

[OUBubba]

I'm curious. Was Matt Gaetz on the Committee that was meeting?

 

[mchammer]

I'm curious. Was Matt Gaetz on the Committee that was meeting?

In any sane world, yes

 

[mchammer]

I'm curious. Was Matt Gaetz on the Committee that was meeting?

 

[Joe Fan]

I'm curious. Was Matt Gaetz on the Committee that was meeting?

The answer to that is made obvious within the transcript published, just re-read it

But, what might not be so obvious, is the impact of this event, which I posted about concurrently, even calling it the "Storming the Bastille." It was a turning point. This is what flushed Nancy out in the open. The news coverage really could no longer hide that it was all a secret Soviet trial or Spanish Inquisition. And Dem reps in Trump-carried district began to get wobbly too, as the public finally started to wake up to what was happening. They started pressuring Nancy to make at least some showing of due process. Up until this moment, Nancy had basically had 6 weeks of "free kicks on goal" against Trump, without any pushback. Gaetz' storming of Schiff's SCIF is what changed things. You didnt appreciate it at the time and perhaps you still dont, but someday you will. And you at least should be willing to concede that I tried to point you in the right direction the very moment it was happening.

 

[Joe Fan]

I'm curious. Was Matt Gaetz on the Committee that was meeting?

One more thing, House Dems have been playing game with the various committees in order to keep the more effective Rs out of the room, unable to cross-examine witnesses. This has forced the Rs to respond in kind.

And, for the record, Paul Ryan would never have done this

 

[Seattle Husker]

"...would likely not occur..." seems to leave open the possibility that he did not know what happened.

Is that too nuanced?

Ukraine's response?

 

[Seattle Husker]

In any sane world, yes

This sane Matt Gaetz?

"I love this President so much that I may never love a President again."

 

[mchammer]

This sane Matt Gaetz?

"I love this President so much that I may never love a President again."

Stop beclowning yourself.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Stop beclowning yourself.

Did you mean a different Matt Gaetz?

 

[OUBubba]

The answer to that is made obvious within the transcript published, just re-read it

But, what might not be so obvious, is the impact of this event, which I posted about concurrently, even calling it the "Storming the Bastille." It was a turning point. This is what flushed Nancy out in the open. The news coverage really could no longer hide that it was all a secret Soviet trial or Spanish Inquisition. And Dem reps in Trump-carried district began to get wobbly too, as the public finally started to wake up to what was happening. They started pressuring Nancy to make at least some showing of due process. Up until this moment, Nancy had basically had 6 weeks of "free kicks on goal" against Trump, without any pushback. Gaetz' storming of Schiff's SCIF is what changed things. You didnt appreciate it at the time and perhaps you still dont, but someday you will. And you at least should be willing to concede that I tried to point you in the right direction the very moment it was happening.

The system works like this. Committees hear interviews and things in private. All but one witness in the Benghazi investigations were done behind closed doors. There will be a public phase next week. There will be a more public and more "fair" process in the Senate. That's how it's supposed to work, right? The Committee process keeps the human frat paddles like Matt Gaetz in their lane.

 

[OUBubba]

The answer to that is made obvious within the transcript published, just re-read it

But, what might not be so obvious, is the impact of this event, which I posted about concurrently, even calling it the "Storming the Bastille." It was a turning point. This is what flushed Nancy out in the open. The news coverage really could no longer hide that it was all a secret Soviet trial or Spanish Inquisition. And Dem reps in Trump-carried district began to get wobbly too, as the public finally started to wake up to what was happening. They started pressuring Nancy to make at least some showing of due process. Up until this moment, Nancy had basically had 6 weeks of "free kicks on goal" against Trump, without any pushback. Gaetz' storming of Schiff's SCIF is what changed things. You didnt appreciate it at the time and perhaps you still dont, but someday you will. And you at least should be willing to concede that I tried to point you in the right direction the very moment it was happening.

With all due respect, I'm gonna not use you for directions.

 

[Garmel]

Stop beclowning yourself.

With his smile and mannerisms it looks like a guy talking in jest. If libs think that is crazy they haven't been watching their own side much lately.

 

[Joe Fan]

With all due respect, I'm gonna not use you for directions.

I was trying to think of an issue, any issue, youve been correct about the last couple years -- Hillary, Mueller, Stormy Daniels, Russiagate, Michael Cohen, Antifa? Can you think of one, because I cannot.

 

[Joe Fan]

I would definitely call Hunter
But not Joe, unless it became necessary mandatory (for example, if Hunter perjured himself)...

Republicans are seeking to call Hunter Biden, the "whistleblower," his/her sources, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, Devon Archer, Kurt Volker, David Hale and Tim Morrison as impeachment witnesses

" .... At the top of Republicans’ list is former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, ...."​

But, of course, the Democrat claim they can prevent Republicans from calling any witnesses. So we will see

Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses

 

[Joe Fan]

Republicans are seeking to call Hunter Biden, the "whistleblower," his/her sources, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, Devon Archer, Kurt Volker, David Hale and Tim Morrison as impeachment witnesses...

Rs also want Schiff himself to take questions under oath, but in private

https://republicans-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rm_letter_to_chm_re_witness_request.pdf

 

[Joe Fan]

If Swalwell correctly stated their theory^^, I dont see how this gets very far. On top of that are the repeated denials of procedural due process all along the way. The right to confront witnesses against you is fundamental to American jurisprudence and is in the Constitution. Not in some penumbra of a right, but in direct expression. Due process in the US also includes the right of counsel, the right of cross-examination and the right to call witnesses in your defense. Dems have repeatedly denied Trump and House Republicans all of these rights to varying degrees.

When this movement first got started, I argued with Deez Nutz about whether or not John Roberts, effectively the trial court judge, would let this kind of nonsense move forward. I renew that claim as I do not believe he will.

I speculated above, House Rs will make motions (something like if not exactly like Rule 50/civil or Rule 48/criminal) at the very beginning and then again at the close of the House D's case. I cannot imagine they would miss these opportunities. All of the defects with regard to due process will give Roberts a prime way out. He does not even have to address the substantive issues - such as, does replacing an ambassador constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, which appears to be one of their claims. He can take this rare chance to sit there and educate the entire American public what due process is and why it is so important in our system. He will never have another opportunity like this one.

I feel confident saying Roberts does not want anything to do with this matter and will be wishing he was anywhere else. Nor is he going to want to short circuit a full impeachment trial before it ever gets started. He knows well what the blowback will be like (they will probably try to impeach next if he does). But, nonetheless, that will be the proper result and we have to hope Roberts has the courage to do the right thing. We will all find out together if he does.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated.

NPR annotated the complaint line for line with the public transcripts, call log, public statements and media reports. Unfortunately I can't link directly to the images.

I have no idea whether the Whistleblower should have to be deposed given they weren't a firsthand witness but their accuracy in the complaint was spot on.

 

[Joe Fan]

Republicans are seeking to call Hunter Biden, the "whistleblower," his/her sources, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, Devon Archer, Kurt Volker, David Hale and Tim Morrison as impeachment witnesses...

Schiff responded, wont let Republicans call the witnesses they want

 

[OUBubba]

I was trying to think of an issue, any issue, youve been correct about the last couple years -- Hillary, Mueller, Stormy Daniels, Russiagate, Michael Cohen, Antifa? Can you think of one, because I cannot.

I think I’ve been correct on all those issues.

 

[OUBubba]

If Swalwell correctly stated their theory^^, I dont see how this gets very far. On top of that are the repeated denials of procedural due process all along the way. The right to confront witnesses against you is fundamental to American jurisprudence and is in the Constitution. Not in some penumbra of a right, but in direct expression. Due process in the US also includes the right of counsel, the right of cross-examination and the right to call witnesses in your defense. Dems have repeatedly denied Trump and House Republicans all of these rights to varying degrees.

When this movement first got started, I argued with Deez Nutz about whether or not John Roberts, effectively the trial court judge, would let this kind of nonsense move forward. I renew that claim as I do not believe he will.

I speculated above, House Rs will make motions (something like if not exactly like Rule 50/civil or Rule 48/criminal) at the very beginning and then again at the close of the House D's case. I cannot imagine they would miss these opportunities. All of the defects with regard to due process will give Roberts a prime way out. He does not even have to address the substantive issues - such as, does replacing an ambassador constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, which appears to be one of their claims. He can take this rare chance to sit there and educate the entire American public what due process is and why it is so important in our system. He will never have another opportunity like this one.

I feel confident saying Roberts does not want anything to do with this matter and will be wishing he was anywhere else. Nor is he going to want to short circuit a full impeachment trial before it ever gets started. He knows well what the blowback will be like (they will probably try to impeach next if he does). But, nonetheless, that will be the proper result and we have to hope Roberts has the courage to do the right thing. We will all find out together if he does.

The accused will be allowed to confront and question in the senate hearing. Correct?

 

[OUBubba]

The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated.

NPR annotated the complaint line for line with the public transcripts, call log, public statements and media reports. Unfortunately I can't link directly to the images.

I have no idea whether the Whistleblower should have to be deposed given they weren't a firsthand witness but their accuracy in the complaint was spot on.

You’re going to confuse them with simple facts.

 

[mchammer]

You’re going to confuse them with simple facts.

Like this one?

 

[mchammer]

Confirmed: the whistleblower is a millennial douche.

The Radicalizing of Eric Ciaramella | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

 

[UTChE96]

Schiff responded, wont let Republicans call the witnesses they want

He's doing Republicans a favor. The Senate will dismiss the impeachment fairly quickly based on the partisan nature of the investigation in the House.

 

[Joe Fan]

The accused will be allowed to confront and question in the senate hearing. Correct?

One thing you good people fail to grasp now is that all of this is going to come back and bite you in the *** if you ever find someone who can win the presidency again. We are going to use the rules you have established now against you in the future. Starting with the fact that impeachment will begin the moment the results become final. The hearings will be held in secret, before a very limited audience, with no tv or press. We will call whoever we want but you will not be allowed to subpoena anyone. You will only be allowed to cross-examine witnesses when we say you can and then only about topics we approve. And articles of impeachment will then be railroaded through the House. Many of you want the US to adopt "the Chinese system," well this will be getting us pretty close to that ideal.

And guess what you will be crying about then? A lack of due process.

But here is the thing, due process is a principle of jurisprudence. You do not get to apply it selectively. It applies to equally all citizens in all cases. And so if you think you might want your future president to enjoy it, you need to speak up for it now. Otherwise, the rules you are creating now will be "the rules" then too. And we are going to railroad your person out of town using your rules. Foresight has never been a strength for you guys, but there is still time in this matter. But you better speak up pretty quick.

 

[Joe Fan]

He's doing Republicans a favor. The Senate will dismiss the impeachment fairly quickly based on the partisan nature of the investigation in the House.

A lot of this will be up to John Roberts. The Senate is just the jury. Roberts is the trial court judge in a courtroom with not much in the way of established rules or tradition.

If the trial is going to be dismissed before a final vote by the Senate, then (I think) it will have to be on a motion by the House Republicans. So Roberts will first have to agree to hear the motion, then he will have to rule on it (does that sound like John Roberts to you?).

In order for this to happen, they will first have to agree upon rules that allow for a motion (are Senate Rs smart enough to establish rules that allow for pretrial and mid-trial dispositive motions?). I hope they simply adopt and incorporate the FREs and FRCPs, because if they do, I can map out a resolution for you pretty quickly. But we wont know what rules they are going to use until they actually tell us. There is no "book" for this.

 

[bystander]

I know that you're a smart guy/gal. You seem to be pretending not to be for some reason. Unclear.

What do you want to hear me say? We should have invoked the 25th Amendment some time ago. We tried to impeach a President over lying about inappropriate sexual situations. Given that Russia is currently in an active war with Ukraine (an ally of ours), potentially aiding their enemy by extorting personal benefits derived from taxpayer funded resources seems, as the kids say, sketch. If it were on the up and up we would not have seen the ambassador removed, Rudy involved, Bolton wouldn't have quit, McKinley wouldn't have resigned. There would not have been any moving the conversations to secure servers if they were "perfect". They'd release a transcript that wasn't a summary and not a transcript. It smells worse than anything Nixon did. His was all domestic. If we placed presidential misdeeds on a monopoly board this would be on Pennsylvania Avenue but maybe a little less, Marvin Gardens. Clinton's were over on Oriental Avenue.

I feel the GOP made a mistake impeaching Clinton but we had this:

"Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky."

Do we ignore perjury or not? Is the underlying activity material or not?

If we are to wait for an actual high crime or misdemeanor and not just "sketch" then we are still not there in my book.

 

[UTChE96]

A lot of this will be up to John Roberts. The Senate is just the jury. Roberts is the trial court judge in a courtroom with not much in the way of established rules or tradition.

If the trial is going to be dismissed before a final vote by the Senate, then (I think) it will have to be on a motion by the House Republicans. So Roberts will first have to agree to hear the motion, then he will have to rule on it (does that sound like John Roberts to you?).

In order for this to happen, they will first have to agree upon rules that allow for a motion (are Senate Rs smart enough to establish rules that allow for pretrial and mid-trial dispositive motions?). I hope they simply adopt and incorporate the FREs and FRCPs, because if they do, I can map out a resolution for you pretty quickly. But we wont know what rules they are going to use until they actually tell us. There is no "book" for this.

I dont think the Senate is forced to even act on the Impeachment. Could just let it wither (ala Garland nomination).

 

[Mr. Deez]

I dont think the Senate is forced to even act on the Impeachment. Could just let it wither (ala Garland nomination).

They aren't forced to act, but Cocaine Mitch says they will. I don't agree with Joe Fan's characterization of what everyone's roles would be. The issue of whether senators act purely as jurors came up in the 1999 Senate trial. One of the senators objected to being addressed as a "juror." Chief Justice Rehnquist sustained the objection and ruled that though senators decide questions of fact like jurors do, they also decide substantive questions of law such as what constitutes an impeachable offense. Knowing that, I highly doubt that Roberts would grant any dispositive motion in the case and would instead put it to the senators themselves to decide.