Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Well, sometimes you act like you don't know this is about counting votes and nothing else.

This was the excuse regarding impeachment before and the evidence now clearly shows public opinion reacts when the democrats show a fucking spine and lean into their case.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18860

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This was the excuse regarding impeachment before and the evidence now clearly shows public opinion reacts when the democrats show a fucking spine and lean into their case.  

It's never going to move enough to unify the Democrats and pull off Republican votes.

That's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31472

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that's pure cert right there.  Vance has agreed not to seek enforcement of the subpoena until appeals exhausted, so the whole stay game is off the table.

Also think it's inaccurate to state that a decision was "postponed."  We know when briefing is complete and it's ready for decision and we know when cert conferences are.  It's a bit of a guess whether/when they take up a petition in a given conference.

Oops, didn't realize that also addressed the Congressional subpoena case.

Where there is a stay application.  And the stay will be decided by Roberts alone unless he chooses to send it to the full court.

That one isn't dependent on cert conferences.  It's ripe for decision right now.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted (edited)
Spoiler
Dear Colleague:
 
 
The House Intelligence Committee has just concluded two weeks of public hearings as part of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, during which time the American people heard from twelve witnesses, including three witnesses requested by the Minority. These hearings were conducted pursuant to House Resolution 660 in a fair and open manner, and in a way that put the witnesses' own words and testimony front and center.
These hearings were supplemented by seventeen depositions and transcribed interviews conducted by the Intelligence Committee, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs. In addition, the Committees issued dozens of document requests and subpoenas over the previous six weeks. We have been working expeditiously and have uncovered a massive amount of evidence in short order, despite wholesale efforts to obstruct the investigation by the President and his Administration.
I am immensely grateful to the Members and staff of the three Committees, who have worked long nights as a team for months, doing their work selflessly and skillfully. I am proud of the work we have done, and I believe the American people should be as well. I particularly want to thank our dear friend and colleague Elijah Cummings, who remains our North Star although he is no longer with us, as well as my colleagues Eliot Engel and Carolyn Maloney. I also want to acknowledge the important work of Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, and Richie Neal's committees.
Over the course of our inquiry, we have uncovered a months-long effort in which President Trump again sought foreign interference in our elections for his personal and political benefit at the expense of our national interest. As the evidence conclusively shows, President Trump conditioned official acts—a White House meeting desperately desired by the new Ukrainian president and critical U.S. military assistance—on Ukraine announcing sham, politically-motivated investigations that would help President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign. The corrupt intent made plain in the record of the July 25 call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky has been supplemented by significant evidence showing the extent of the President's abuse of power both before and after the July 25 telephone call. This conduct directed by the President not only became more "insidious" over time, but was known to the Vice President, the President's Chief of Staff, the Secretary of State, and others down the line.
As required of them by duly authorized subpoenas, many witnesses came forward to present the facts of the President's misconduct to the Committees. Several witnesses did this despite great risk to their careers as public servants, and at great personal risk, as well. The testimony and documents we have succeeded in acquiring reveal a fact pattern that is overwhelming, unchallenged, and damning.
However, it is also the case that the Administration undertook an unprecedented campaign of obstruction in an effort to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump's order to defy lawful subpoenas, and the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Energy have provided no documents in response to subpoenas. In fact, the Committees did not receive a single document from any executive branch agencies pursuant to our subpoenas. And, yet, this effort to stonewall failed in the face of repeated witness testimony that provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President's actions and identified records documenting the President's effort and the complicity of senior officials in it.
The investigative work continues, and we are learning additional information almost every day. But while we will continue with our investigative work and do not foreclose the possibility of further depositions or hearings, we will not allow the President or others to drag this out for months on end in the courts. The President has accepted or enlisted foreign nations to interfere in our upcoming elections, including the next one; this is an urgent matter that cannot wait if we are to protect the nation's security and the integrity of our elections.
As required under House Resolution 660, the Committees are now preparing a report summarizing the evidence we have found this far, which will be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess.
We will catalog the instances of non-compliance with lawful subpoenas as part of our report to the Judiciary Committee, which will allow that Committee to consider whether an article of impeachment based on obstruction of Congress is warranted along with an article or articles based on this underlying conduct or other presidential misconduct. Such obstruction was the basis of the third article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Further, we will be forced to infer from this obstruction that the testimony of these witnesses would tend to incriminate the President further since he would have encouraged—rather than blocked—the testimony of senior officials like Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton, if he believed it would somehow be helpful to him. The fact that the President has uniformly instructed all executive branch agencies and senior officials to obstruct the investigation further demonstrates consciousness of guilt on the part of the President.
Even as we draft our report, we are open to the possibility that further evidence will come to light, whether in the form of witnesses who provide testimony or documents that become available. If other witnesses seek to show the same patriotism and courage of their colleagues and deputies and decide to obey their duty to the country over fealty to the President, we are prepared to hear from them. We will follow up on any additional evidence, even as we proceed with the preparation of our report.
But the evidence of wrongdoing and misconduct by the President that we have gathered to date is clear and hardly in dispute. What is left to us now is to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the office of the Presidency, and whether the Constitutional process of impeachment is warranted. It has been our hope all along that our Republican colleagues would seek the facts and give due consideration to the weighty constitutional decision before us, placing country above party. We still hope that will be the case. But we cannot relinquish our constitutional responsibilities because others may choose to do so.
Chairman Nadler and the Members and staff of the Judiciary Committee will proceed in the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. I urge all members to find guidance from our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. For the people, we must defend our democracy.
I hope that all of you and your families have a restful and reflective Thanksgiving holiday.
Sincerely,
Adam B. Schiff
Chairman; House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Sorry, left out title. Schiff's letter.

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

I'll take those numbers.

42% of all Americans think he withheld aid to compel an investigation of Biden.  31% do not think he did. 66% of Americans believe that would be impeachable/inappropriate, while only 16% believe it would be appropriate. 

For indies - 34% believe he withheld aid, while 23% believe he did not.  58% believe that would inappropriate or impeachable, compared to 11% who believe it would be appropriate.  

Assuming the evidence will continue to support my belief that he did withhold aid based on a Biden investigation, we should get a lot more of the "Not Sures" of the first question converted to "he did."  (I would imagine if they were frequent FoxNews/Brietbart devotees, they'd already conclude that he did not withhold the aid.) 

And there is no question: "Are you disappointed in the Democrats for holding impeachment hearings."  The questions they are asking requires the respondent to answer either neutral or negative for Trump.  You can be personally against impeachment, and not really care the Democrats are pursuing it.  I'm sure there are Republicans who would answer they think Democrats are holding a coup, but when you have only 11% of indies thinking withholding aid is appropriate and 23% who think that he did not withhold aid, I'm not worried about a backlash.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, that’s the problem.  If the democrats wanted to win they would have this process mapped out with no breaks.  Just a sustained unrelenting offense.  They have all the ammunition but are deciding not to use it because?!?

Maybe they want to push off the vote so it is less likely Trump district Dems get liberal third party challengers on the ballot, should they vote against impeachment. 

Edit: ...and maybe make it less likely that waffling Republicans get a conservative third party challengers, should they vote for impeachment, making it more likely they'd risk such a vote. 

Edited by Tuco
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8719

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oops, didn't realize that also addressed the Congressional subpoena case.

Where there is a stay application.  And the stay will be decided by Roberts alone unless he chooses to send it to the full court.

That one isn't dependent on cert conferences.  It's ripe for decision right now.

The stay is a closer call than the merits. I actually don’t think Gorsuch or Kavanaugh will vote with the admin on the subpoena issue. Only Thomas and Alito are intellectually bankrupt enough to write a dissent in favor of absolute immunity despite precedent from Nixon and Clinton

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89670

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The stay is a closer call than the merits. I actually don’t think Gorsuch or Kavanaugh will vote with the admin on the subpoena issue. Only Thomas and Alito are intellectually bankrupt enough to write a dissent in favor of absolute immunity despite precedent from Nixon and Clinton

Yeah, some of them are thinking in terms of future Presidents.  If they make it okay for Trump, that will be applied down the line to a Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Hugo and Dennison trying to out-pundit each other is my least favorite song.

Just going on the record now as I did back in January when I said the democrats should have started the impeachment process immediately for the crimes already in the public record.  

They dragged their feet then and got played by Barr. They are dragging their feet now which will allow the regime to play them again.  Of course, I have been of the view the democrats never had any intention of removing Trump.  They always wanted him on the 2020 ballot for political expediency.  

However, Trump was so awful they had to put on the show we’re seeing now to save face. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Red Five said:

Trump denied that the voice on the “grab em by the pussy” tape was his.

And Prince Andrew suggested the photo of him with Epstein and the underage girl may have been doctored.  (sorry for the thread drift but it kinda fits here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How much is the McGahn testimony really worth? 

Isn't this what Bolton and others have been waiting on? And McGahn is the one who was ordered to to tell the DOJ to stop the russia investigation. Could be interesting to hear from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Disco Strangler

Disco Strangler 1877

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sachick said:

Isn't this what Bolton and others have been waiting on? And McGahn is the one who was ordered to to tell the DOJ to stop the russia investigation. Could be interesting to hear from him.

McGahn also received orders from the president to fire Muller (which he did not follow), but the president lied about and was and was one of the largest pillars of obstruction of justice included in Muller's report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yuk

Yuk 1532

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, some of them are thinking in terms of future Presidents.  If they make it okay for Trump, that will be applied down the line to a Democrat.

Precedent is just a slight inconvenience when the law is this partisan.  Attorneys can take the same facts with some slight variation and they'll issue a whole new opinion for us all and explain in detail how this time it's different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18860

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Trump.

It's a fairly scathing opinion.  I didn't remember that this had been done before with Harriet Miers.  There's a prior DDC ruling on pretty identical issues.

The thing I don't get is Bolton and McGahn are under no obligation to listen to anything Donald Trump says. Not one thing.

I guess they are worried about their careers in conservative professional circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10710

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The thing I don't get is Bolton and McGahn are under no obligation to listen to anything Donald Trump says. Not one thing.

I guess they are worried about their careers in conservative professional circles.

This, I think Bolton wants back on Fox News. Dickhead has been tweeting about his book, the scumbag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31472

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The thing I don't get is Bolton and McGahn are under no obligation to listen to anything Donald Trump says. Not one thing.

I guess they are worried about their careers in conservative professional circles.

True enough.  There's no real remedy for breach of executive privilege, just as there isn't for breach of most other privileges.  Even if the administration had a leg to stand on there's nothing they could do to the witnesses.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's only a stay on the district court's order pending certiorari review.

If they don't grant cert, poof.  On the other hand, if they do grant cert, it seems likely the order will be stayed pending the ruling on the merits.

Which could push it to Summer 2020. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Here's an explanation on the  SCOTUS taxes case. TL;dr: (1) they still may not hear it letting the D.C. Circuit decision stand (and would decide whether to by early January) and (2) if they do hear it, would be decided by the end of this Term, so looking at summer 2020. 

 

Seeing it noted by another: 'Trump is required to file his request for cert by 12/5. The deadline had been February, so this is a *significant* acceleration of the case.'

If the acceleration of the deadline date to request cert is any indication, given the circumstances of this case having specific and urgent bearing on an active impeachment inquiry, perhaps it follows that SCOTUS will expedite all facets or the process involving it to the extent it can.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As usual, Scotusblog has excellent coverage.  https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/justices-block-enforcement-of-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records/#more-290438

Thanks, good read.  So 12/5 has the potential to be a very bad news day for Trump in that Mazars could be compelled to turn over Trump's taxes and other subpoenaed financials per the Circuit ruling Trump lost.  Mazars has already indicated it will comply.  Nothing Donald could do to stop it.  And if SCOTUS grants review, although the deadline for this term is June 2020, in all likelihood it would happen a lot sooner given the urgency related to the active impeachment inquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31472

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

Thanks, good read.  So 12/5 has the potential to be a very bad news day for Trump in that Mazars could be compelled to turn over Trump's taxes and other subpoenaed financials per the Circuit ruling Trump lost.  Mazars has already indicated it will comply.  Nothing Donald could do to stop it.  And if SCOTUS grants review, although the deadline for this term is June 2020, in all likelihood it would happen a lot sooner given the urgency related to the active impeachment inquiry.

Although the immunity issues are similar, I don't really see the tax returns as that big a deal as pertains to impeachment.  AFAIK, the tax returns are all pre-election as would be any tax or loan fraud charges.  

I mean it will probably help make him look like an asshole, which is always a good thing, but I don't see the tax returns and financials being particularly germane to impeachment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Although the immunity issues are similar, I don't really see the tax returns as that big a deal as pertains to impeachment.  AFAIK, the tax returns are all pre-election as would be any tax or loan fraud charges.  

I mean it will probably help make him look like an asshole, which is always a good thing, but I don't see the tax returns and financials being particularly germane to impeachment.

Maybe no one should be struck by the fact that the deadline to appeal the Mazars Trump tax returns decision was moved up from Feb.11th to Dec 5th by SCOTUS.  But what other explanation is there other than it being a response to a sense of urgency associated with ongoing impeachment investigations ?  I can't find a date range for his requested returns apart from it spanning 6-8 years.  If that includes 2017 and 2018, then it certainly could involve crimes actively committed while occupying the WH as Trump has engaged in personal business and profiteering full steam ahead.

Deutsche bank financials tied to his loans could link directly to foreign financial compromise.  Evidence of money laundering would likely also have a direct bearing on foreign compromise/financial alliances and could directly spill over into ongoing campaign finance.

The Second Circuit should be ruling on the Deutsche Bank Trump financials any week now with an anticipated appeal to SCOTUS to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...