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

  • Popular Post
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,453

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 hours ago, Tuco said:

Why not both?

I'd say it's to score political points, and then see what that can be traded for.  It's unlikely there will be enough points to remove the President.  The price is simply too high for the GOP (and basic ethics too lacking.) I think censure is a reasonable, albeit a stretch, target.  A censure "conviction" without Trump acquiescing could open up the Trump/GOP split.  But, political points have value if they can be converted to House and Senate seats. It has values if it even makes it 0.1% less likely Trump gets elected.  It has values if it motivates people to become more involved in politics. 

And maybe, just maybe, both parties will be more concerned about supporting a crooked candidate in the future.  There needs to be damage. 

Image result for lucy football

Goddamnit, how many fucking times are you people going to make me post this? This "maybe if we go slightly easier on him we can get some GOP support" is the absolute dumbest fucking idea in the world. Dumber than the people who literally think the world is flat. Dumber than people who think vaccines cause autism. Dumber than 9/11 truthers. The GOP is an organized criminal syndicate supported primarily by racists and religious fanatics who want to see the rest of us die and burn in hell for eternity. We wouldn't get them to agree with us on what to name a post office if we proposed naming it after Jefferson Davis. If we tried to pass a non-binding resolution that said "water is wet" they'd tell us to get fucked. They've decided to ignore literally all of science and their own lived experiences because we said "holy shit, we're overheating the planet and it's killing people." They're an apocalyptic criminal cult and it's literally impossible to cooperate with them. Stop pretending otherwise.

  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,540

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yet another reason democrats need to advance this process beyond hearings before people lose interest and stop paying attention. 

The iron isn’t going to get any hotter. 

I don't think the Dems should be in any hurry. Drag this on as long as Trump is in office. Their goal is to get Trump out of office whether by the 2020 vote or via impeachment. And there are some other legitimate reasons as well. Force SCOTUS to agree that the House has full ability to force everyone to testify. The Constitution says as much unless someone wants to plead the 5th (or Fif.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,540

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Image result for lucy football

Goddamnit, how many fucking times are you people going to make me post this? This "maybe if we go slightly easier on him we can get some GOP support" is the absolute dumbest fucking idea in the world. Dumber than the people who literally think the world is flat. Dumber than people who think vaccines cause autism. Dumber than 9/11 truthers. The GOP is an organized criminal syndicate supported primarily by racists and religious fanatics who want to see the rest of us die and burn in hell for eternity. We wouldn't get them to agree with us on what to name a post office if we proposed naming it after Jefferson Davis. If we tried to pass a non-binding resolution that said "water is wet" they'd tell us to get fucked. They've decided to ignore literally all of science and their own lived experiences because we said "holy shit, we're overheating the planet and it's killing people." They're an apocalyptic criminal cult and it's literally impossible to cooperate with them. Stop pretending otherwise.

chill out. This has been answered several times.  A censure vote without impeachment can be contingent that the GOP has to support it.  Even up to unanimous consent.  It could actually work in the Democrat best interest to offer a non-penalty option like censure hoping that the GOP would most likely reject, therefore ensuring a trial takes place. 

I bet McConnell would urge his House colleagues to agree to a censure if it made this all go away without a Senate trial. McConnell doesn't want Roberts holding court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,764

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Image result for lucy football

Goddamnit, how many fucking times are you people going to make me post this? This "maybe if we go slightly easier on him we can get some GOP support" is the absolute dumbest fucking idea in the world. Dumber than the people who literally think the world is flat. Dumber than people who think vaccines cause autism. Dumber than 9/11 truthers. The GOP is an organized criminal syndicate supported primarily by racists and religious fanatics who want to see the rest of us die and burn in hell for eternity. We wouldn't get them to agree with us on what to name a post office if we proposed naming it after Jefferson Davis. If we tried to pass a non-binding resolution that said "water is wet" they'd tell us to get fucked. They've decided to ignore literally all of science and their own lived experiences because we said "holy shit, we're overheating the planet and it's killing people." They're an apocalyptic criminal cult and it's literally impossible to cooperate with them. Stop pretending otherwise.

Tell this to my wife.  I'm tired of getting in a fight every time I explain this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted

I am ignoring the polls. Half the time I don't know what I'm looking at anyway. I don't know how many times I can call my Congressperson and the senators before I get labeled a crank, so I've only called twice, not including the calls to Pelosi and Schiff. It's not much, but I am considering calling the Democrat that is running for my District and seeing what's up there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19,120

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I am ignoring the polls. Half the time I don't know what I'm looking at anyway. I don't know how many times I can call my Congressperson and the senators before I get labeled a crank, so I've only called twice, not including the calls to Pelosi and Schiff. It's not much, but I am considering calling the Democrat that is running for my District and seeing what's up there.

The polls only matter insofar as they influence congressional votes. The more Democratic votes for impeachment, the better. It would be nice to peel off some Republicans, but public opinion just isn't strong enough for impeachment to move Republicans on the Hill yet.

Having said that, today's polling news is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22,762

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So who's the R counterpart to Nadler who I assume is going to spew out various nutjob conspiracy theories throughout these hearings?

Doug Collins is the Republican ranking member.  He's also the guy Trump is trying to convince the Governor of Georgia to appoint to Senator when the seat becomes vacant on January 1.  He will do Nunes proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,684

Posted
Posted (edited)

A vote may be taken by the Senate immediately after conviction as to whether the impeached/convicted may hold office again.  Thus implying that conviction itself does not disqualify from holding office.

Also see Alcee Hastings.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,972

Posted
Posted

Hoo wee, who thought there would be more deposition transcripts released today?? I certainly didn't

Here's the chairs statement on these deposition transcripts:

“The testimonies from Ambassador Reeker and Mr. Sandy continue to paint a portrait of hand-picked political appointees corrupting the official levers of U.S. government power, including by withholding taxpayer funded military assistance to Ukraine, to further the President’s own personal political agenda.

“Mr. Sandy confirmed that he was told by the office of Mick Mulvaney, the Acting White House Chief of Staff, that the President himself had directed the hold on security assistance to Ukraine.  However, he was provided no other reason or justification for the hold when he was directed to implement it.  And in fact, after he raised concerns with OMB leadership and lawyers that the withholding of funding for Ukraine may violate the law, his authority for approving security assistance funding was revoked and given instead to a hand-picked Trump OMB political appointee.

“Finally, we learned from Mr. Sandy that he was first informed in early September—approximately two months after the hold was implemented—that the reason for the hold was due to concerns regarding European countries not paying their fair share of foreign assistance.  Given other testimony and the public admission by Mr. Mulvaney that the aid was held to pressure Ukraine to conduct the investigations desired by the President, this constitutes powerful evidence that this justification was concocted as an after-the-fact rationalization to justify the hold.”

Key excerpts from Mark Sandy (Deputy Associate Director for National Security, OMB):

  • On June 19, 2019, President Trump requested information about Ukraine security assistance. (Pages 24-25)
  • On July 12, 2019, the White House Office of Chief of Staff informed the Office of Management and Budget that the President was directing a hold on military support funding for Ukraine. (Page 39)
  • When asked by the Office of Management and Budget about the reason for the hold on Ukraine security assistance, the White House Office of Chief of Staff provided no explanation. (Pages 141-142)
  • When he first learned about the hold on July 18, 2019, Mr. Sandy immediately raised concerns about whether the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act. (Pages 31, 33-34, 34-35)
  • The Office of Management and Budget implemented the hold through an apportionment footnote; Mr. Sandy did not recall ever seeing a hold after a congressional notification. (Pages 86-88)
  • On July 25, 2019, the Office of Management and Budget began the process for implementing the hold. (Page 52, 94-95)
  • On July 30, Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security Programs at OMB, notified Mr. Sandy that he was taking over responsibilities for apportionments because of “interest among the leadership in tracking the issues of moneys closely.” (Page 63-65, 108- 109)
  • Prior to being removed from the apportionment approval process, Mr. Sandy raised concerns about the hold on Ukraine security assistance. (Page 103)
  • An Office of Management and Budget memorandum dated August 7 to Acting Director Russell Vought recommended lifting the hold. (Page 58-60)
  • In mid-August, the Department of Defense could no longer guarantee fully obligating USAI funds by the end of the fiscal year. As a result, the apportionment footnote was changed. (Pages 127-128, 130-131)
  • An Office of Management and Budget attorney resigned because, at least in part, of concerns with the hold on Ukraine Security Assistance. (Pages 151-152, 154)
  • Mr. Sandy was provided no reason for the hold during the months of July and August. (Page 41, 47-48)
  • For the first time in early September, the President requested information from the Office of Management and Budget about other countries’ contributions to Ukraine. Sometime thereafter, at around the time the hold was lifted, Mr. Sandy was for the first time provided a purported reason for the hold: the President’s concerns that other countries provide insufficient aid to Ukraine as compared to the United States. (Page 42, 44-46, 49, 180)
  • After the lifting of the hold on September 12, the Department of Defense was unable to fully obligate USAI funds prior to the end of the fiscal year. (Pages 146-147)

Key excerpts from Philip Reeker (Acting Assistant Sec. State for European and Eurasian Affairs):

  • Acting Assistant Secretary Reeker dismissed the false allegations directed at Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, and the Foreign Service in general. (Page 240)
  • Responding to the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale suggested that Yovanovitch “should deny on the record anything disrespectful and reaffirm her loyalty as an ambassador” to President Trump and “the Constitution.” (Pages 42-43)
  • Ambassador Reeker described efforts to get to the State Department to issue a statement of support for Ambassador Yovanovitch but was told that “[t]here would be no statement” and was not provided with an explanation. (Pages 46-47)
  • Three days before the State Department decided that there would be no statement, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had already issued a statement stating the Ministry “fruitfully cooperates with the U.S. Ambassador and thanks the American diplomat and her team” for their contribution to the U.S.-Ukraine strategic partnership. (Page 41)
  • On an April 24 phone call Counselor Brechbuhl told Ambassador Reeker that Ambassador Yovanovitch’s situation had become “suddenly much worse” and explained that there was “unhappiness” in the White House that she was still Ambassador to Ukraine, and a “belief” in the State Department that Ambassador Yovanovitch should return to Washington, D.C. for “consultations.” Ambassador Perez subsequently called Ambassador Yovanovitch and directed her to return. (Page 49)
  • During Ambassador Yovanovitch’s April “consultations” in Washington, D.C., she met with Deputy Secretary of State John Hale who told her that she had done “nothing wrong.” Ambassador Yovanovitch permanently departed Ukraine as Ambassador on May 20, 2019. (Pages 51-53)
  • After her recall, Ambassador Yovanovitch still faced media attention asked Mr. Kent to “stand up for the Embassy” because Rudy Giuliani had “denigrated the whole embassy.” (Pages 212-213)
  • Ambassador Reeker described Ambassador Yovanovtich as an “[o]utsanding diplomat, very precise,” and “considered an excellent mentor, you know, a good leader.” (Page 25-26)
  • Ambassador Sondland stated he had a “script” for President Zelensky to use “moving forward.” Ambassador Reeker said that Ambassador Sondland was “sort of the political lead” with the Ukrainians, “including President Zelensky.” (Pages 133-136)
  • In an email exchange, Ambassador Reeker asked Undersecretary Hale why Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland was “so involved” in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, and Hale responded that the “Sondland angle is irregular.” (Pages 100-101)
  • At a May 16, 2019 meeting at the State Department, former National Security Council Senior Director for Europe and Russia Fiona Hill expressed frustration at Sondland’s “irregular role.” (Page 225)
  • Following the May 23, 2019 Oval Office Meeting with President Trump, Ambassador Reeker understood that Perry, Sondland, and Reeker would be the “three leads” of U.S. policy toward Ukraine and that Sondland “was very clear in that the President asked” him to do this. (Pages 148-149)
  • Ambassador Reeker testified that Rudy Giuliani’s desire to investigate the Bidens “was always out there, “the press was writing about it all the time,” and that “Rudy himself was talking about it.” (Page 224)
  • Ambassador Reeker stated there was an “understanding” that Rudy Giuliani was feeding President Trump “a lot of very negative views about Ukraine.” (Pages 144-145)
  • In a text exchange, Ambassador Taylor told Ambassador Reeker that he was “struggling” with the decision about whether to go to Kyiv as Chargè d’Affaires and stated that the “Giuliani Biden issue will likely persist for the next year.” (Pages 63-64)
  • Testifying about the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, Ambassador Reeker stated that it was experience in the past for the contents of a Presidential phone call to be shared with relevant U.S. officials, that had “not been my experience in this current administration.” (Pages 194-195)
  • Ambassador Reeker stated that it was his understanding that U.S. security assistance to Ukraine was “being held by Mr. Mulvaney, the White House Acting Chief of Staff.” (Page 70)

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,830

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Doug Collins is the Republican ranking member.  He's also the guy Trump is trying to convince the Governor of Georgia to appoint to Senator when the seat becomes vacant on January 1.  He will do Nunes proud.

Yeah, he's a total dirtbag and all-in to defend Trump. He'll be every bit as repulsive as Nunes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Doug Collins is the Republican ranking member.  He's also the guy Trump is trying to convince the Governor of Georgia to appoint to Senator when the seat becomes vacant on January 1.  He will do Nunes proud.

I thought I read last week that he switched with Jim Jordan so that Jordan would be the ranking member but I can't find the article now, so maybe I'm getting it confused from when they moved Jordan to HCI. They knew Nunes was compromised and that Jordan likes to raise a stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22,762

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I thought I read last week that he switched with Jim Jordan so that Jordan would be the ranking member but I can't find the article now, so maybe I'm getting it confused from when they moved Jordan to HCI. They knew Nunes was compromised and that Jordan likes to raise a stink.

My confirmation is only from the House Judiciary Wikipedia page, so it very well could be incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I think they compared his tweets during that time, too. He was off the charts insane.

 

Just in time for table talk at Thanksgiving or, perhaps not:

 

The evangelicals want everyone to die so Christ can come back and trump is their vessel. 

Does that about sum it up or am I missing anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

They can be, when you have an individual applying for residential mortgages, preparing and signing financial statements at odds with his tax returns.

For big corporate interests, and for money laundering, not so much.

A real prosecutor could gin up a case and hand it over to the House, possibly, but, as DNAguy notes, I think it would be an absolute shit show in public hearings.

Re Trump financials, revealing basic facts could have tremendous bearing on the larger context of Trump decision making being driven by active compromise.

Recall in August 2009, Trump was denied a final time for loan for a mere 25 million pounds from Bank of Scotland because the bank considered it "too risky."  Yet here we have Deutsche bank loaning Trump a billion dollars over a decade.  

Also, you may have missed a couple months ago Lawrence O'Donnell reporting a source informed him Trump's DB loans were only made possible being co-signed by Russian billionaires close to Putin.  O'Donnell was forced to retract based on msnbc reporting policy only.  If true, that would glaringly demonstrate our WH occupant is owned by Putin.  100% beholden to survive.

No need for financial gymnastics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5,084

Posted
Posted
Hoo wee, who thought there would be more deposition transcripts released today?? I certainly didn't
Here's the chairs statement on these deposition transcripts:
“The testimonies from Ambassador Reeker and Mr. Sandy continue to paint a portrait of hand-picked political appointees corrupting the official levers of U.S. government power, including by withholding taxpayer funded military assistance to Ukraine, to further the President’s own personal political agenda.
“Mr. Sandy confirmed that he was told by the office of Mick Mulvaney, the Acting White House Chief of Staff, that the President himself had directed the hold on security assistance to Ukraine.  However, he was provided no other reason or justification for the hold when he was directed to implement it.  And in fact, after he raised concerns with OMB leadership and lawyers that the withholding of funding for Ukraine may violate the law, his authority for approving security assistance funding was revoked and given instead to a hand-picked Trump OMB political appointee.
“Finally, we learned from Mr. Sandy that he was first informed in early September—approximately two months after the hold was implemented—that the reason for the hold was due to concerns regarding European countries not paying their fair share of foreign assistance.  Given other testimony and the public admission by Mr. Mulvaney that the aid was held to pressure Ukraine to conduct the investigations desired by the President, this constitutes powerful evidence that this justification was concocted as an after-the-fact rationalization to justify the hold.”
Key excerpts from Mark Sandy (Deputy Associate Director for National Security, OMB):
  • On June 19, 2019, President Trump requested information about Ukraine security assistance. (Pages 24-25)
  • On July 12, 2019, the White House Office of Chief of Staff informed the Office of Management and Budget that the President was directing a hold on military support funding for Ukraine. (Page 39)
  • When asked by the Office of Management and Budget about the reason for the hold on Ukraine security assistance, the White House Office of Chief of Staff provided no explanation. (Pages 141-142)
  • When he first learned about the hold on July 18, 2019, Mr. Sandy immediately raised concerns about whether the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act. (Pages 31, 33-34, 34-35)
  • The Office of Management and Budget implemented the hold through an apportionment footnote; Mr. Sandy did not recall ever seeing a hold after a congressional notification. (Pages 86-88)
  • On July 25, 2019, the Office of Management and Budget began the process for implementing the hold. (Page 52, 94-95)
  • On July 30, Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security Programs at OMB, notified Mr. Sandy that he was taking over responsibilities for apportionments because of “interest among the leadership in tracking the issues of moneys closely.” (Page 63-65, 108- 109)
  • Prior to being removed from the apportionment approval process, Mr. Sandy raised concerns about the hold on Ukraine security assistance. (Page 103)
  • An Office of Management and Budget memorandum dated August 7 to Acting Director Russell Vought recommended lifting the hold. (Page 58-60)
  • In mid-August, the Department of Defense could no longer guarantee fully obligating USAI funds by the end of the fiscal year. As a result, the apportionment footnote was changed. (Pages 127-128, 130-131)
  • An Office of Management and Budget attorney resigned because, at least in part, of concerns with the hold on Ukraine Security Assistance. (Pages 151-152, 154)
  • Mr. Sandy was provided no reason for the hold during the months of July and August. (Page 41, 47-48)
  • For the first time in early September, the President requested information from the Office of Management and Budget about other countries’ contributions to Ukraine. Sometime thereafter, at around the time the hold was lifted, Mr. Sandy was for the first time provided a purported reason for the hold: the President’s concerns that other countries provide insufficient aid to Ukraine as compared to the United States. (Page 42, 44-46, 49, 180)
  • After the lifting of the hold on September 12, the Department of Defense was unable to fully obligate USAI funds prior to the end of the fiscal year. (Pages 146-147)
Key excerpts from Philip Reeker (Acting Assistant Sec. State for European and Eurasian Affairs):
  • Acting Assistant Secretary Reeker dismissed the false allegations directed at Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, and the Foreign Service in general. (Page 240)
  • Responding to the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale suggested that Yovanovitch “should deny on the record anything disrespectful and reaffirm her loyalty as an ambassador” to President Trump and “the Constitution.” (Pages 42-43)
  • Ambassador Reeker described efforts to get to the State Department to issue a statement of support for Ambassador Yovanovitch but was told that “[t]here would be no statement” and was not provided with an explanation. (Pages 46-47)
  • Three days before the State Department decided that there would be no statement, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had already issued a statement stating the Ministry “fruitfully cooperates with the U.S. Ambassador and thanks the American diplomat and her team” for their contribution to the U.S.-Ukraine strategic partnership. (Page 41)
  • On an April 24 phone call Counselor Brechbuhl told Ambassador Reeker that Ambassador Yovanovitch’s situation had become “suddenly much worse” and explained that there was “unhappiness” in the White House that she was still Ambassador to Ukraine, and a “belief” in the State Department that Ambassador Yovanovitch should return to Washington, D.C. for “consultations.” Ambassador Perez subsequently called Ambassador Yovanovitch and directed her to return. (Page 49)
  • During Ambassador Yovanovitch’s April “consultations” in Washington, D.C., she met with Deputy Secretary of State John Hale who told her that she had done “nothing wrong.” Ambassador Yovanovitch permanently departed Ukraine as Ambassador on May 20, 2019. (Pages 51-53)
  • After her recall, Ambassador Yovanovitch still faced media attention asked Mr. Kent to “stand up for the Embassy” because Rudy Giuliani had “denigrated the whole embassy.” (Pages 212-213)
  • Ambassador Reeker described Ambassador Yovanovtich as an “[o]utsanding diplomat, very precise,” and “considered an excellent mentor, you know, a good leader.” (Page 25-26)
  • Ambassador Sondland stated he had a “script” for President Zelensky to use “moving forward.” Ambassador Reeker said that Ambassador Sondland was “sort of the political lead” with the Ukrainians, “including President Zelensky.” (Pages 133-136)
  • In an email exchange, Ambassador Reeker asked Undersecretary Hale why Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland was “so involved” in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, and Hale responded that the “Sondland angle is irregular.” (Pages 100-101)
  • At a May 16, 2019 meeting at the State Department, former National Security Council Senior Director for Europe and Russia Fiona Hill expressed frustration at Sondland’s “irregular role.” (Page 225)
  • Following the May 23, 2019 Oval Office Meeting with President Trump, Ambassador Reeker understood that Perry, Sondland, and Reeker would be the “three leads” of U.S. policy toward Ukraine and that Sondland “was very clear in that the President asked” him to do this. (Pages 148-149)
  • Ambassador Reeker testified that Rudy Giuliani’s desire to investigate the Bidens “was always out there, “the press was writing about it all the time,” and that “Rudy himself was talking about it.” (Page 224)
  • Ambassador Reeker stated there was an “understanding” that Rudy Giuliani was feeding President Trump “a lot of very negative views about Ukraine.” (Pages 144-145)
  • In a text exchange, Ambassador Taylor told Ambassador Reeker that he was “struggling” with the decision about whether to go to Kyiv as Chargè d’Affaires and stated that the “Giuliani Biden issue will likely persist for the next year.” (Pages 63-64)
  • Testifying about the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, Ambassador Reeker stated that it was experience in the past for the contents of a Presidential phone call to be shared with relevant U.S. officials, that had “not been my experience in this current administration.” (Pages 194-195)
  • Ambassador Reeker stated that it was his understanding that U.S. security assistance to Ukraine was “being held by Mr. Mulvaney, the White House Acting Chief of Staff.” (Page 70)
 


Captainant, you are a Golden God. Thank you for doing these summaries. Much better detail and more succinctly than anything the media does.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,540

Posted
Posted

Now with revelations that the OMB officials are contradicting White House stories about the Ukraine funding timelines, I don’t see why the hurry to impeach trump. They need to force trump officials to testify. And it doesn’t even mean Mulvaney or Bolton but low level dept appointees who have followed trumps order to deny congress.

I also don’t see how the court won’t force everyone to testify. If the Constitution gives the House the sole authority to impeach, then they have to be allowed to investigate. If you can’t compel people to testify and hand over govt documents, then you don’t really have the impeach authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,764

Posted
Posted

Good breakdown of what comes next.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/782667888/judiciary-takes-up-impeachment-as-house-intelligence-panel-prepares-to-release-r?utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics

 

Spoiler

House Democrats are moving closer to impeaching President Trump with two big developments this week — the release of the House Intelligence Committee's report summarizing their investigation and the Judiciary Committee holding its first hearing.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said public hearings are over for his panel. He and his staff worked over the Thanksgiving recess to pull together the committee's findings and recommendations. In a letter to lawmakers before the holiday, Schiff noted that the open hearings included testimony from 12 witnesses, and those were supplemented with 17 closed-door interviews conducted with two other panels — the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.

"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," Schiff wrote in a letter to House lawmakers.

The release of the report and the Judiciary hearing, timed with the return of lawmakers this week, indicate that top leaders are still aiming to wrap up House action on impeachment before the Christmas holiday break.

 

Efforts to get testimony and documents from top administration officials such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House Chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, have been blocked.

Schiff had indicated that he won't wait for ongoing litigation about current or former administration officials appearing before Congress, noting in his letter, "we will not allow the President or others to drag this out for months on end in the courts."

On Sunday evening, the White House said it would not appear at Wednesday's Judiciary hearing but declined to comment on future participation.

Here's what the next steps in the impeachment process look like:

Will the public see the report?

Yes. The House resolution setting up the impeachment inquiry requires public release of the Intelligence Committee's report.

What are the requirements for the Intelligence Committee report?

The House resolution directs the House Intelligence Committee to prepare a report with recommendations and send it to the House Judiciary Committee.

The report is also required to be released publicly, but it could have some redactions to protect classified materials. Schiff is also supposed to consult with the chairs of the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees on the report.

Republicans on the Intelligence Committee are expected to produce their own report on the investigation, which is likely to reiterate the complaints that GOP lawmakers have made since the inquiry began — that the process was unfair and did not provide the president or his legal team to respond to allegations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has argued that if the president wanted to correct the record or weigh in with new evidence that he should do so "under oath."

What is the House Judiciary Committee's role and what is it planning?

The committee is holding a hearing with some legal experts on Wednesday on the nature of impeachment and the standard set out in the Constitution for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Under the House impeachment resolution, the Judiciary Committee is directed to review the report from the Intelligence Committee. It is also supposed to take recommendations from the other committees that have investigated the Trump administration about any other possible impeachable offenses.

It will then determine which, if any, articles of impeachment should be drafted. So far Pelosi has signaled that she wants to keep the focus narrowly on the issues around the Ukraine investigation. But some in her caucus have raised the possibility of other articles related to questions about the president's financial dealings and issues stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller's report looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Judiciary would hold a markup on any articles, and if the committee approves any, they would be referred to the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Will the president's team get an opportunity to present evidence or respond to the report?

Yes. After the House adopted the resolution establishing the ground rules for the impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee released its own set of procedures for its part of the process. Those rules provide the president and his counsel the ability to attend any sessions and question witnesses, respond to any evidence presented by Democrats and give a closing argument.

In announcing the Dec. 4 hearing, Nadler sent a letter to the president notifying him about the hearing and giving his legal team a deadline to respond if they plan to participate.

"At base, the President has a choice to make: he can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other Presidents have done before him," Nadler said.

Democrats maintain that these Judiciary Committee procedures mirror the ones used for both the impeachment proceedings for Presidents Nixon and Clinton. But Republicans on the panel have already complained about the rules and submitted letters to Nadler pushing for "procedural fairness."

On Sunday, the White House said Trump would not participate in the Wednesday hearing but did not comment more broadly on whether the president and his counsel would attend any future sessions.

What articles of impeachment are Democrats considering?

Schiff proclaimed after key testimony in his committee's open hearings that there was evidence of bribery. He has also cited the multiple refusals by Trump administration officials to comply with subpoenas or requests to testify as grounds for an article of impeachment on obstruction of Congress.

Pelosi is expected to consult with House Democrats after the report is released to decide what action the caucus backs. Only two House Democrats opposed the initial resolution formalizing the impeachment inquiry — Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey. But as the process moves closer to taking a vote on the House floor, it's possible some Democrats, especially those from competitive districts, may back away.

When could the House vote on any articles of impeachment?

The full House vote on any articles of impeachment is likely to happen this month.

"Speaker Pelosi remains absolutely committed, so I just think she is hellbent on getting this wrapped up by the end of the year," Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters last week.

Pelosi has been careful not to guarantee whether the House will consider articles of impeachment or put a hard deadline on the process, but she has said the evidence related to the Ukraine matter is "uncontested."

The House is scheduled to be in session through Dec. 20, which is also the deadline for Congress to approve a funding bill to avoid a possible shutdown. It's also possible that the session is extended if lawmakers are still debating the issue.

If the House impeaches Trump will he be removed from office?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that it's "inconceivable" that there are the votes in the Senate to convict and remove the president — a two-thirds majority would be needed (67 votes). McConnell said the Senate will quickly proceed to hold a trial, but it's unclear how long that process would take.

When would a Senate trial take place and how long would it take?

McConnell said he wants to work with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on a resolution establishing the rules for a trial. Those negotiations could happen in early January if the House transmits any articles of impeachment by the end of the year. McConnell has said he didn't know how long a trial would take, noting that the Senate spent two months dealing with the Clinton impeachment once the House transmitted articles of impeachment.

He also recently noted that a trial would tie up those Senate Democrats running for president. "I'm sure they are going to be excited to be here in their chairs — not being able to say anything during the pendency of this trial. So hopefully we'll work our way through it and finish it in not too lengthy of a process."

Republican Senators have already been meeting with White House officials to map out a trial and have discussed the possibility of one lasting just two weeks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33,919

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Good breakdown of what comes next.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/782667888/judiciary-takes-up-impeachment-as-house-intelligence-panel-prepares-to-release-r?utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics

 

  Reveal hidden contents

House Democrats are moving closer to impeaching President Trump with two big developments this week — the release of the House Intelligence Committee's report summarizing their investigation and the Judiciary Committee holding its first hearing.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said public hearings are over for his panel. He and his staff worked over the Thanksgiving recess to pull together the committee's findings and recommendations. In a letter to lawmakers before the holiday, Schiff noted that the open hearings included testimony from 12 witnesses, and those were supplemented with 17 closed-door interviews conducted with two other panels — the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.

"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," Schiff wrote in a letter to House lawmakers.

The release of the report and the Judiciary hearing, timed with the return of lawmakers this week, indicate that top leaders are still aiming to wrap up House action on impeachment before the Christmas holiday break.

 

Efforts to get testimony and documents from top administration officials such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House Chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, have been blocked.

 

Schiff had indicated that he won't wait for ongoing litigation about current or former administration officials appearing before Congress, noting in his letter, "we will not allow the President or others to drag this out for months on end in the courts."

On Sunday evening, the White House said it would not appear at Wednesday's Judiciary hearing but declined to comment on future participation.

Here's what the next steps in the impeachment process look like:

Will the public see the report?

Yes. The House resolution setting up the impeachment inquiry requires public release of the Intelligence Committee's report.

What are the requirements for the Intelligence Committee report?

The House resolution directs the House Intelligence Committee to prepare a report with recommendations and send it to the House Judiciary Committee.

The report is also required to be released publicly, but it could have some redactions to protect classified materials. Schiff is also supposed to consult with the chairs of the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees on the report.

Republicans on the Intelligence Committee are expected to produce their own report on the investigation, which is likely to reiterate the complaints that GOP lawmakers have made since the inquiry began — that the process was unfair and did not provide the president or his legal team to respond to allegations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has argued that if the president wanted to correct the record or weigh in with new evidence that he should do so "under oath."

What is the House Judiciary Committee's role and what is it planning?

The committee is holding a hearing with some legal experts on Wednesday on the nature of impeachment and the standard set out in the Constitution for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Under the House impeachment resolution, the Judiciary Committee is directed to review the report from the Intelligence Committee. It is also supposed to take recommendations from the other committees that have investigated the Trump administration about any other possible impeachable offenses.

It will then determine which, if any, articles of impeachment should be drafted. So far Pelosi has signaled that she wants to keep the focus narrowly on the issues around the Ukraine investigation. But some in her caucus have raised the possibility of other articles related to questions about the president's financial dealings and issues stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller's report looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Judiciary would hold a markup on any articles, and if the committee approves any, they would be referred to the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Will the president's team get an opportunity to present evidence or respond to the report?

Yes. After the House adopted the resolution establishing the ground rules for the impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee released its own set of procedures for its part of the process. Those rules provide the president and his counsel the ability to attend any sessions and question witnesses, respond to any evidence presented by Democrats and give a closing argument.

In announcing the Dec. 4 hearing, Nadler sent a letter to the president notifying him about the hearing and giving his legal team a deadline to respond if they plan to participate.

"At base, the President has a choice to make: he can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other Presidents have done before him," Nadler said.

Democrats maintain that these Judiciary Committee procedures mirror the ones used for both the impeachment proceedings for Presidents Nixon and Clinton. But Republicans on the panel have already complained about the rules and submitted letters to Nadler pushing for "procedural fairness."

On Sunday, the White House said Trump would not participate in the Wednesday hearing but did not comment more broadly on whether the president and his counsel would attend any future sessions.

What articles of impeachment are Democrats considering?

Schiff proclaimed after key testimony in his committee's open hearings that there was evidence of bribery. He has also cited the multiple refusals by Trump administration officials to comply with subpoenas or requests to testify as grounds for an article of impeachment on obstruction of Congress.

Pelosi is expected to consult with House Democrats after the report is released to decide what action the caucus backs. Only two House Democrats opposed the initial resolution formalizing the impeachment inquiry — Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey. But as the process moves closer to taking a vote on the House floor, it's possible some Democrats, especially those from competitive districts, may back away.

When could the House vote on any articles of impeachment?

The full House vote on any articles of impeachment is likely to happen this month.

"Speaker Pelosi remains absolutely committed, so I just think she is hellbent on getting this wrapped up by the end of the year," Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters last week.

Pelosi has been careful not to guarantee whether the House will consider articles of impeachment or put a hard deadline on the process, but she has said the evidence related to the Ukraine matter is "uncontested."

The House is scheduled to be in session through Dec. 20, which is also the deadline for Congress to approve a funding bill to avoid a possible shutdown. It's also possible that the session is extended if lawmakers are still debating the issue.

If the House impeaches Trump will he be removed from office?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that it's "inconceivable" that there are the votes in the Senate to convict and remove the president — a two-thirds majority would be needed (67 votes). McConnell said the Senate will quickly proceed to hold a trial, but it's unclear how long that process would take.

When would a Senate trial take place and how long would it take?

McConnell said he wants to work with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on a resolution establishing the rules for a trial. Those negotiations could happen in early January if the House transmits any articles of impeachment by the end of the year. McConnell has said he didn't know how long a trial would take, noting that the Senate spent two months dealing with the Clinton impeachment once the House transmitted articles of impeachment.

He also recently noted that a trial would tie up those Senate Democrats running for president. "I'm sure they are going to be excited to be here in their chairs — not being able to say anything during the pendency of this trial. So hopefully we'll work our way through it and finish it in not too lengthy of a process."

Republican Senators have already been meeting with White House officials to map out a trial and have discussed the possibility of one lasting just two weeks.

 

This part got my spidey senses tingling:

Under the House impeachment resolution, the Judiciary Committee is directed to review the report from the Intelligence Committee. It is also supposed to take recommendations from the other committees that have investigated the Trump administration about any other possible impeachable offenses.

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...