impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[henrygandorf 29191]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't do Twitter . . . is Trump really back on the treason angle?  Links?

no, but ever since the whistleblower, he's been on the same shit.  but today, it's all about anonymous sources and hearsay.  it's just aggravating.

[otisdog 365]

37 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't do Twitter . . . is Trump really back on the treason angle?  Links?

So....you do know that you can read twitter without  being on twitter?

[Patrick Bateman 3913]

Whining incorrectly about process....

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[Message Board User 12395]

Troof.

 

[horncyclist 1387]

So we're pretty soon going to be faced with a situation where there is overwhelming evidence of the very sort of abuse of power impeachable offense that the founders contemplated and created impeachment for. Trump and his enablers' only move is to attack to the process and ignore the Constitution. He will also see himself both invisible after this and more motivated to cover up all of his crimes and corruption. If Senate Republicans do not flip to pressure resignation/remove him, this is it. We have a Trump dictatorship. There's no going back. Don't minimize what's at stake here. If you're considering taking to the streets, now's probably the time. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Imagine if Trump isn’t removed by the Senate and is re-elected. What kind of BS is he going to do during a second term?

[DigglerontheHoof 21199]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Imagine if Trump isn’t removed by the Senate and is re-elected. What kind of BS is he going to do during a second term?

Find a way to run (and win) a third term.  Welcome to the Regarded Fourth Reich.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

I’m trying to understand why the Dems are not publicly pushing forward with these depositions. I assume it’s to get decent testimony from the witnesses and not have the gop spent their questioning going on about conspiracy theories for the tv.

also think that the Dems believe they may have an actual case that even the gop senate will have a hard time ignoring.  And while we all think there is zero chance the senate will convict, there is still the fact that trump has a ~40% approval (bill Clinton has a 70% during his impeachment) and I don’t believe that many gop senators actually like having trump in office. President pence may sound better to them.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Pence is up to his eyeballs in this particular bag of dicks. 

[jimmyjazz 45948]

9 hours ago, otisdog said:

So....you do know that you can read twitter without  being on twitter?

My general give a shit level regarding Twitter is . . . extremely low.  POTUS is literally the only person I'd pay any attention to whatsoever.

[jimmyjazz 45948]

26 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m trying to understand why the Dems are not publicly pushing forward with these depositions. I assume it’s to get decent testimony from the witnesses and not have the gop spent their questioning going on about conspiracy theories for the tv.

When you say "publicly pushing forward" do you mean why are the depositions behind closed doors?  They have told us why.  They don't want witnesses aligning their stories to prior testimony, among other things.

[Message Board User 12395]

And...here...we...go?

 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m trying to understand why the Dems are not publicly pushing forward with these depositions. I assume it’s to get decent testimony from the witnesses and not have the gop spent their questioning going on about conspiracy theories for the tv.

also think that the Dems believe they may have an actual case that even the gop senate will have a hard time ignoring.  And while we all think there is zero chance the senate will convict, there is still the fact that trump has a ~40% approval (bill Clinton has a 70% during his impeachment) and I don’t believe that many gop senators actually like having trump in office. President pence may sound better to them.

Because an investigation where the suspect is permitted to sit in during interviews with witnesses is a bad investigation.  Employers, universities, law enforcement federal agencies--none of them permit suspects to participate in the investigatory process with the exception of giving their own interview and providing their own documents.  Why?  Because it's stupid to permit a suspect to hear what other witnesses have to say.  

It's only once the investigation proceeds to an adjudicatory phase that the suspect is permitted to hear the evidence against them and cross examine witnesses.  We aren't there yet.  Republicans know this.  Most of the right wing media know this.  But the facts coming out thus far in the investigatory phase are so bad that Republicans and right wing media are misleadingly attacking the investigation as unfair despite it following the same process as virtually every other type of investigation that is done. 

It would be stupid for the Democrats to change the fundamental nature of an investigation, thereby undermining it, because Republicans and right wing media are lying, hypocritical pieces of shit.  

But I'm sure you knew that and you were only asking question. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

[Dnaguy 11964]

20 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

And...here...we...go?

 

 

I don’t know what season we are on right now, but the writers have really stepped it up. Last season kind of sucked. You knew at the beginning the democrats were going to win the midterms. No shocker. They also dragged the Mueller thing way too long.  I mean, it was always going to be hard to replicate the amazing 1st season to be fair. Man that had it all. Clinton’s emails. The Trump reveal he’s running with the escalator. The pee tape talk. The access Hollywood tape. The Russian hack. Obama. Wow.

But the whole thing this season where the Mueller investigation ends only to dove tail into A DIFFERENT impeachment was a much needed way to keep the momentum of the show while ending that played out storyline.

And, having John Bolton get fired only to come back for vengeance to take down Trump? Bolton the anti-hero? Brilliant. I never saw that one coming.

[atomheartbevo 89665]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m trying to understand why the Dems are not publicly pushing forward with these depositions. I assume it’s to get decent testimony from the witnesses and not have the gop spent their questioning going on about conspiracy theories for the tv.

also think that the Dems believe they may have an actual case that even the gop senate will have a hard time ignoring.  And while we all think there is zero chance the senate will convict, there is still the fact that trump has a ~40% approval (bill Clinton has a 70% during his impeachment) and I don’t believe that many gop senators actually like having trump in office. President pence may sound better to them.

Wonder if Trump has seen this week’s Newsweek cover

[horncyclist 1387]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Wonder if Trump has seen this week’s Newsweek cover

President Pelosi would be a political disaster. Put Pence up there and he'll be tainted and a lame duck immediately. About 10 republicans will jump in immediately to challenge him, with Cruz, Kasich and Haley the early frontrunners. If Dems coalesce behind Warren who then leads with her anticorruption message in the general, you're looking at a historic landslide. 

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

President Pelosi would be a political disaster. Put Pence up there and he'll be tainted and a lame duck immediately. About 10 republicans will jump in immediately to challenge him, with Cruz, Kasich and Haley the early frontrunners. If Dems coalesce behind Warren who then leads with her anticorruption message in the general, you're looking at a historic landslide. 

4-5 months of Pelosi anchoring the rope until the next election would be a lot different than a full year.  And the later the exit (by whatever means) of Trump the greater the disarray on the R side around organizing and launching campaigns.

[Biff Tannen 45683]

46 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Should add "pander to my base who are too stupid to know any better!"

[babysdaddy 2724]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

 

I don’t know what season we are on right now, but the writers have really stepped it up. Last season kind of sucked. You knew at the beginning the democrats were going to win the midterms. No shocker. They also dragged the Mueller thing way too long.  I mean, it was always going to be hard to replicate the amazing 1st season to be fair. Man that had it all. Clinton’s emails. The Trump reveal he’s running with the escalator. The pee tape talk. The access Hollywood tape. The Russian hack. Obama. Wow.

But the whole thing this season where the Mueller investigation ends only to dove tail into A DIFFERENT impeachment was a much needed way to keep the momentum of the show while ending that played out storyline.

And, having John Bolton get fired only to come back for vengeance to take down Trump? Bolton the anti-hero? Brilliant. I never saw that one coming.

Rudy is going to be pissed.  He was supposed to be the hero!!!

[Biff Tannen 45683]

15 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Rudy is going to be pissed.  He was supposed to be the hero!!!

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[Lurch 5930]

 
I don’t know what season we are on right now, but the writers have really stepped it up. Last season kind of sucked. You knew at the beginning the democrats were going to win the midterms. No shocker. They also dragged the Mueller thing way too long.  I mean, it was always going to be hard to replicate the amazing 1st season to be fair. Man that had it all. Clinton’s emails. The Trump reveal he’s running with the escalator. The pee tape talk. The access Hollywood tape. The Russian hack. Obama. Wow.
But the whole thing this season where the Mueller investigation ends only to dove tail into A DIFFERENT impeachment was a much needed way to keep the momentum of the show while ending that played out storyline.
And, having John Bolton get fired only to come back for vengeance to take down Trump? Bolton the anti-hero? Brilliant. I never saw that one coming.

[bolverk 29672]

Raise your hand if you thought back in those halcyon days of the "What's going on in the [sic] Ukraine?" thread, it would all lead to this absurd and tragic moment in our nation's history.

(Also, try and recall those -- here and elsewhere -- who at that time defended the ousted pro-Russian president as well as Putin's capture of Crimea.)

[HenryJames 66052]

 

[bolverk 29672]

15 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Solomon recalls first encountering Parnas through Pete Sessions, the once-powerful Texas Republican member of Congress who is now in the middle of the Trump impeachment inquiry. Sessions accepted campaign donations from Parnas and Fruman, and had met with the two men as they sought to oust an American diplomat in Ukraine. Later, Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, urging him to replace the envoy Marie Yovanovitch, who had been the subject of extensive criticism in the conservative media. She was later fired and is a key witness for House Democrats trying to impeach the president.

Sessions, who has denied knowledge of the campaign finance scheme laid out by prosecutors, told ProPublica that he has no connection to Solomon.

“I don’t know John,” he said.

Solomon says his personal attorneys, Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, a husband-and-wife legal team that regularly represents conservative luminaries, set up his first formal meeting with Parnas.

[elfenix 34240]

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

 

10/25 - 5/20 = 5 months. 

#winning

[atomheartbevo 89665]

If the stuff about the Bidens was so damning, why in the hell would they have not sat on it until the election?

oh yeah, 1D Tic Tac Toe

[henrygandorf 29191]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If the stuff about the Bidens was so damning, why in the hell would they have not sat on it until the election?

oh yeah, 1D Tic Tac Toe

all the candidates are playing chess while trump is outside pushing on a pull.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

So there’s no way Rudy’s Ukrainian buddies have ties to Eastern European organized crime right? 

[triplehorn 2664]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So there’s no way Rudy’s Ukrainian buddies have ties to Eastern European organized crime right? 

Executive Privilege lol  VVV

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Remember when some people argued here that the House shouldn't announce an impeachment inquiry because there's no point with a Republican Senate, and several us argued that, at minimum, it would help the Dems in their legal efforts to get documents and testimony from the WH? 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Remember when some people argued here that the House shouldn't announce an impeachment inquiry because there's no point with a Republican Senate, and several us argued that, at minimum, it would help the Dems in their legal efforts to get documents and testimony from the WH? 

Yep, but there were also suppositions that asking first without subpoenas, then with, then progressing later using the force of a formal impeachment inquiry would help demonstrate that it was all justifiable as less intrusive/heavy handed approaches were ineffective.

Also, I still think House Dem leadership working with their hired legal staff (headed by Doug Letter) gamed the timeline out way back at the beginning of the year.  Based on what we're learning about how far back Rudy's Ukraine scheme goes, there's a fair chance Pelosi/Schiff knew something about what was afoot when she took the gavel - and Pelosi's calm observation this summer knowing Trump "would self-impeach" despite the Barr/Mueller Report fiasco tends to support her awareness that more was forming.

When you look at that slate of court cases posted above that will become legally enforceable decisions spilling into next year, it's easy to see why McConnell is eager for impeachment to happen before this Thanksgiving.  The trump shit-storm is only going to gather more energy and flying debris headed into 2020.

[triplehorn 2664]

Quote

 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by triplehorn

[triplehorn 2664]

Hello.

Perfect overlap with Roger Stone/Wikileaks trial and evidence that directly touches Trump campaign awareness/possible proof of coordination with Stone.  Trial slated to start in less than two weeks on Nov 5th.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

Yep, but there were also suppositions that asking first without subpoenas, then with, then progressing later using the force of a formal impeachment inquiry would help demonstrate that it was all justifiable as less intrusive/heavy handed approaches were ineffective.

Also, I still think House Dem leadership working with their hired legal staff (headed by Doug Letter) gamed the timeline out way back at the beginning of the year.  Based on what we're learning about how far back Rudy's Ukraine scheme goes, there's a fair chance Pelosi/Schiff knew something about what was afoot when she took the gavel - and Pelosi's calm observation this summer knowing Trump "would self-impeach" despite the Barr/Mueller Report fiasco tends to support her awareness that more was forming.

When you look at that slate of court cases posted above that will become legally enforceable decisions spilling into next year, it's easy to see why McConnell is eager for impeachment to happen before this Thanksgiving.  The trump shit-storm is only going to gather more energy and flying debris headed into 2020.

But if he doesn't get it (before Thanksgiving) won't they just shut it all down?

I have a second question for those of you who follow judges/courts closely. Is it good for it to go to SCOTUS? Aren't they going to rule on behalf of the President?

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

But if he doesn't get it (before Thanksgiving) won't they just shut it all down?

I have a second question for those of you who follow judges/courts closely. Is it good for it to go to SCOTUS? Aren't they going to rule on behalf of the President?

Ain't no one shutting nothing down.

 

Also don't think Chief Justice Roberts shields the Trumpster fire.

 

[TwiceHorn 31469]

A Writ of Mandamus is a specialized procedure with a very narrow scope of review from any appellate court, including the Supreme Court.  Because the House is winning at every stage, I think they would have few or no grounds for such a writ.  Mandamus is for losers, as a general rule.  

I might expect Trump to try to file a Writ of Mandamus.

And no, going to the Supreme Court is not an automatic win for Trump.  His theories of privilege and immunity have almost no basis in law, no matter what the composition of the Court. There might be some room for argument on House subpoena power, but not much. Further, Trump's nominees have been anything but "reliably conservative" and the Court generally is doing somewhat unexpected things, or maybe expected things with unexpected decision splits.  

What I think is much more likely to happen is that Trump will have to ask the Courts of Appeal to stay their decisions ordering release of the records.  The courts of appeal are about 50-50 or better to deny such a stay, forcing Trump to the Supreme Court, which will do an accelerated mini-briefing and argument on the stay and expedite any full argument.  I might well expect the Supreme Court to deny a stay, leading to the release of the records.

Also, motions for stay are initially directed to a single Justice, who presides over that Court of Appeals.  For the DC Circuit, it's Roberts, for the Second Circuit, it's Ginsburg.  The single justices may refer it to the entire Court.

Also, the first one to get to "final decision" will create a precedent probably permitting swift disposal of the rest of them, although the House subpoenas present some different issues from the NY subpoenas.

On this one, https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6467279/10-11-19-DC-Circuit-Mazars-Opinion.pdf the clock's already ticking on the stay.

Edited October 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Jameslaw121 4448]

^^^ Thanks. For the ill informed like me. if the Dems in the House have won the trials on whether to release the info, wouldn't it be on the WH to appeal? Therefore the Writ of Mandamus would be on them?

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

(sorry if this sounds ignorant)

[TwiceHorn 31469]

15 minutes ago, Jameslaw121 said:

^^^ Thanks. For the ill informed like me. if the Dems in the House have won the trials on whether to release the info, wouldn't it be on the WH to appeal? Therefore the Writ of Mandamus would be on them?

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

(sorry if this sounds ignorant)

Yes.  A writ of mandamus is not an ordinary appeal.  It's known as an "extraordinary writ" and generally requires a major fuck up on the part of the lower court and a "cat out of the bag" problem.  The latter is present, the former is not.  It is, like most appeals, for losers.

When I say "stay," that means the court stays or forbears the order to release the records (it's the district court's order,  that the court of appeals affirms), pending the outcome of further appeals. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[deech 2275]

13 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m trying to understand why the Dems are not publicly pushing forward with these depositions. I assume it’s to get decent testimony from the witnesses and not have the gop spent their questioning going on about conspiracy theories for the tv.

also think that the Dems believe they may have an actual case that even the gop senate will have a hard time ignoring.  And while we all think there is zero chance the senate will convict, there is still the fact that trump has a ~40% approval (bill Clinton has a 70% during his impeachment) and I don’t believe that many gop senators actually like having trump in office. President pence may sound better to them.

Because the process was set up by Boehner and approved by the Republicans.  It was used with Benghazi.  They will win the vote in House guaranteed.. 

Do you want Jim Jordan or whatever damn monkey on the Committee to grand stand politically like they did with the Mueller investigation?   In the closed door session no one is grandstanding.  Just a series of clowns like Gaetz, Gohmert, and others.  Likely Rs on the commmittees are asking legit fact finding questions but no cameras so no obligation to perform for the audience.  The hope is the Rs on the committee tell everyone that impeachment is going to happen and the President is dead in the water.Every single witness thus far is backing up the whistleblower 100% and each witness is making things worse and worse for the President based on what we've seen from public statements, etc. 

The best strategy Dems have:  Keep doing these private depos in the House.  Lock the case down totally.  No wiggle room.  Then turn it over to the Senate on a platter.  Let the best witnesses take the stand in the Senate trial if the Republicans want to stand by their man.  Their testimony is going to be much more damaging and effective when the public hears it for the first time IMHO. 

It is maximum internal political pressure on the R's, limits grandstanding, and when the Senate votes all witnesses will be heard. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by deech

[RayDog 682]

I would still think the House Democrats would want to call a few witnesses back to testify in open session to lay out the grounds for the impeachment charges with the public.

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes.  A writ of mandamus is not an ordinary appeal.  It's known as an "extraordinary writ" and generally requires a major fuck up on the part of the lower court and a "cat out of the bag" problem.  The latter is present, the former is not.  It is, like most appeals, for losers.

i'm not an attorney, but wouldn't all appeals be for losers, just by definition?

[deech 2275]

9 minutes ago, RayDog said:

I would still think the House Democrats would want to call a few witnesses back to testify in open session to lay out the grounds for the impeachment charges with the public.

Why?  To better educate Gaetz and others who are going to vote No?  To better educate the Dems who are going to vote yes?  

The deed is done in the House.  This is about the Senate.  I am sure they will outline the key points before the House votes.  But public hearings on Mueller were a disaster of epic proportions for Dems as the R's had to play to their base and act like jackasses for Hannity and Rush.

[RayDog 682]

Pubic perception and Trump's approval rating guide what the senate does. If the House does not make a case with the public the Senate won't either.

[deech 2275]

1 minute ago, RayDog said:

Pubic perception and Trump's approval rating guide what the senate does. If the House does not make a case with the public the Senate won't either.

They've been making a public case.  Each witness is dropping a prepared statement.  You also seem to get a summary when something damning comes out (quid pro quo from  Taylor).  How is his numbers doing?  Dropping steadily.  They don't need to do a public deposition.  Keep doing their leg work and I am sure they will find some way to present this to the full house that will help move the needle for impeachment. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Step 1) Put Trump's shit on blast in the House over Ukraine.

Step 2) Impeach him.

Step 3) Send it over to Mitch.

Step 4) While the Senate is conducting their show trial, put Trump's shit on blast over Turkey/Emoluments/Obstruction of the Russia investigation/Pick any of the others.

Step 5) Impeach him again.

Step 6) Send it over to Mitch. 

Repeat until public outcry forces Mitch's hand or every citizen in the county is aware that the GOP is keeping a criminal in office and every citizen has taken a side. 

[elfenix 34240]

i'm not an attorney, but wouldn't all appeals be for losers, just by definition?

You could win your case but appeal the damage award as being too small.

 

Technically mandamus isn't an appeal, it's an original proceeding. Basically it's when a government agent who has no discretion on whether or how to act (so, statute says "shall") doesn't do what they're supposed to. You then file suit against that agent. For clerks or anyone but courts the case is filed in trial court. If it's against a court, it's filed in an appellate court.