Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[PrimeNumber7]

Judiciary Committee just announced they will have a public hearing next Wednesday, Dec 4th.  (Jerry Nadler is chair of Judiciary committee, all of the previous hearings have been held by the Intelligence committee, chaired by Adam Schiff)

https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/impeachment-inquiry-president-donald-j-trump-constitutional-grounds

Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 - 10:00am
Location: 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment
Subcommittees:
Judiciary (116th Congress)

Trumps council will be able to participate, should be interesting.


I'll be less active for a few days.  Hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving.

Based on the title, and the fact that Trumps attorney can question witnesses, it sounds like this is more of a lesson on the constitution and less about finding an actual basis of wrongdoing by Trump.

There have been multiple polls released in the last week that show declining support of impeachment by independents and there are signs that some democrats in the house are moving away from being in favor of impeachment.

[1715073121]

1715073121

[TwitchySeal]

Republicans released their report on the intelligence committee hearings:

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-02-Report-of-Evidence-in-the-Democrats-Impeachment-Inquiry-in-the-House-of-Representatives.pdf

Haven't read much of it (it's very long) but it seems like their basic defense strategy is:

- Whole thing is a sham
- Democrats are just made they lost, want to 'reverse the election'
- There was no quid pro quo
- Attack every witness separately, even the ones they requested and were appointed by Trump

I guess it's not that surprising, but I still think the best defense would be 'what he did was wrong, but not impeachable, here's why: '  I think they are discrediting themselves by complaining about every single thing and attacking credible witnesses.  Then again, it doesn't seem like there are many people that are willing to have their minds changed either way at this point.

The Senate trial is could to be very interesting, that's for sure.

[TwitchySeal]

Dems released their report.

The summary is laid out very well and easy to read/navigate.  I recommend anyone not caught up to read the first few paragraphs and then skip to the executive summary section and click around: https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Full Report (300 pages): https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

[dupeddonk]

Dems released their report.

The summary is laid out very well and easy to read/navigate.  I recommend anyone not caught up to read the first few paragraphs and then skip to the executive summary section and click around: https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Full Report (300 pages): https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

Not looking good for Rudy.  Phone records of him calling the office that was in charge of freezing the money and a copy of a press release draft that he edited for Ukraine.

Whole thing is just embarrassing for the country.  Makes it look like we run things like the mob just sloppier.

[Viper1]

Those four constitutional lawyers today all sucked. The three, although the middle guy was a bit less so, were all gung ho that it's absolutely impeachable, do it, do it now and between that and her stupid attempts at being funny like the Baron "joke" just made them come across as biased and disingenuous at best... And the other guy's attitude that they should just spend years fighting things out in court making impeachment completely useless just made it easy to discount anything he had to say. So glad I watched all that.. yeah right..

[PrimeNumber7]

Dems released their report.

The summary is laid out very well and easy to read/navigate.  I recommend anyone not caught up to read the first few paragraphs and then skip to the executive summary section and click around: https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Full Report (300 pages): https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

There is one thing that is very damming in this report:

Adam Shift subpoenaed AT&T, before the impeachment inquiry started to get the call logs of Trumps lawyer, and subsequently sent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon to get the call logs of a conservative reporter, and a sitting member of congress on the Intelligence committee.

AT&T should be condemned for complying with the subpoena without fighting it in court, and Shift should be condemned in the strongest way possible for spying on his political opponents for transparent political purposes. Especially concerning is the spying on a US citizens (in this case the President) lawyer, who is supposed to be able to provide legal advice to his client and conduct legal work for his client in confidence.

Being that there was no impeachment inquiry open at the time, there was no legitimate reason for Adam Shift to be obtaining any of these call records, even if attorney-client privilege rights were ignored. There is no reason to be spying on reporters period.

This is especially ironic because the impeachment inquiry is alleging that Trump abused his office to have Ukraine investigate someone who happened to be a political rival of criminal wrongdoing. As President, it is Trump's job to enforce US laws, and the US has signed Treaties with Ukraine that requires the Ukraine to investigate crimes that took place in Ukraine that would be illegal in both countries if the crime took place within their jurisdictions. Adam Shift on the other hand, was looking for dirt to smear his political opponents.

If there was ever any question as to who to vote for next November, this should give you all the information you need.

[TwitchySeal]

Those four constitutional lawyers today all sucked. The three, although the middle guy was a bit less so, were all gung ho that it's absolutely impeachable, do it, do it now and between that and her stupid attempts at being funny like the Baron "joke" just made them come across as biased and disingenuous at best... And the other guy's attitude that they should just spend years fighting things out in court making impeachment completely useless just made it easy to discount anything he had to say. So glad I watched all that.. yeah right..

Yeah, that's a pretty good take of the hearing.  Although I didn't mind there jokes as much, nice contrast with all the ridiculous bickering from the Reps.  Was only able to watch the first 45 min, and then a bit of the second 45 mins and then just random bits throughout the day though.

Pretty interesting 2 of the 4 played the exact same roll in Clintons hearings.

here is one thing that is very damming in this report:

Adam Shift subpoenaed AT&T, before the impeachment inquiry started to get the call logs of Trumps lawyer, and subsequently sent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon to get the call logs of a conservative reporter, and a sitting member of congress on the Intelligence committee.

AT&T should be condemned for complying with the subpoena without fighting it in court, and Shift should be condemned in the strongest way possible for spying on his political opponents for transparent political purposes. Especially concerning is the spying on a US citizens (in this case the President) lawyer, who is supposed to be able to provide legal advice to his client and conduct legal work for his client in confidence.

I feel where you're coming from, but subpoenaing phone records isn't spying, and doesn't require a warrant or probable cause.  Cell Providers are required by law to comply with federal subpoenas (assuming they are filed correctly) and it's all in their ToS. They are very transparent about the whole process.  If a subpoena meets the basic requirements that make it valid, they will honor it regardless of what or who it's for.  AT&T gets like 200k subpoenas a year.  

Hate on the laws all you want, but it's not Schifty Schift being Schifty like the outrage in conservative media is trying to make it seem.

Being that there was no impeachment inquiry open at the time, there was no legitimate reason for Adam Shift to be obtaining any of these call records, even if attorney-client privilege rights were ignored. There is no reason to be spying on reporters period.

It's the duty of the House to provide oversight of the Executive Branch, including the president. They don't have to open an impeachment inquiry to open an investigation.  If they didn't have this power, there would be no check on the Executive branch and we wouldn't really be a democracy anymore.  

All the outcry is just politicians playing the game.  The democrats were crying the same song when the Republicans were firing off tons of subpoenas related to Benghazi, Clintons emails, Fast and Furious, That Solar Company, The oil spill, The ACA website, I could go on...

This is especially ironic because the impeachment inquiry is alleging that Trump abused his office to have Ukraine investigate someone who happened to be a political rival of criminal wrongdoing. As President, it is Trump's job to enforce US laws, and the US has signed Treaties with Ukraine that requires the Ukraine to investigate crimes that took place in Ukraine that would be illegal in both countries if the crime took place within their jurisdictions. Adam Shift on the other hand, was looking for dirt to smear his political opponents.

He wasn't just "having Ukraine investigate someone who happened to be a political rival":

Code:

In discussions with Ukrainian officials, Ambassador Sondland understood that President 
Trump did not require that Ukraine conduct investigations as a prerequisite for the White House 
meeting so much as publicly announce the investigations—making clear that the goal was not 
the investigations, but the political benefit Trump would derive from their announcement and 
the cloud they might put over a political opponent.

It's Adam Schiffs job to investigate anything that smells fishy in the Executive Branch.  He's one of only 3 people with the power to subpoena them.  Literally his most important job is to find out if anyone is abusing their power in the Executive Branch, because if he doesn't, nobody else will.

[Viper1]

Adam Shift subpoenaed AT&T, before the impeachment inquiry started to get the call logs of Trumps lawyer, and subsequently sent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon to get the call logs of a conservative reporter, and a sitting member of congress on the Intelligence committee.

Impeachment inquiry investigation was announced Sep 24th but they had already been looking into things based on the whistle blower complaint. They started issuing subpoenas. The call record ones appear to be around Sep 30th.

AT&T should be condemned for complying with the subpoena without fighting it in court

AT&T has to comply with the laws and the Supreme court has ruled on things like this. I'm sure they had their lawyers look things over and there's no point of fighting it if they would lose. They have to spend their own money as opposed to the government which wastes every ones money even when they know they'll lose.

for spying on his political opponents

Not sure how it can be considered spying when the subpoenas get issued through committees that are made up of both parties. I also don't think that gathering evidence of past acts would in anyway be considered spying either.

[TwitchySeal]

Not sure how it can be considered spying when the subpoenas get issued through committees that are made up of both parties. I also don't think that gathering evidence of past acts would in anyway be considered spying either.

I agree it's not spying.

Just want to note that minority party no longer has any say in who does or doesn't get subpoenaed.  Schiff and Nadler (and whoever took Cummings seat) are the only people with power of subpoena for the House.  The Republicans changed that rule in 2014 so that the Democrats couldn't stop them from subpoenaing the Obama Administration.  Democrats flipped a shit when they did that.  Don't seem to be minding it now though.

[Viper1]

Not sure how it can be considered spying when the subpoenas get issued through committees that are made up of both parties. I also don't think that gathering evidence of past acts would in anyway be considered spying either.

I agree it's not spying.

Just want to note that minority party no longer has any say in who does or doesn't get subpoenaed.  Schiff and Nadler (and whoever took Cummings seat) are the only people with power of subpoena for the House.  The Republicans changed that rule in 2014 so that the Democrats couldn't stop them from subpoenaing the Obama Administration.  Democrats flipped a shit when they did that.  Don't seem to be minding it now though.

Technically, it all depends on the specific committees rules. Under those rules they may or may not delegate sole authority to the chair. So the committee could be operating under majority vote, 2/3rd, chairman plus ranking minority.. just chairman or who the hell knows as they can each do whatever they feel like. Not sure how to read the table in there. It almost seems like the chair, majority vote or some authorized member can authorize subpoenas for Intelligence and Judiciary. In both committees the ranking minority member has to be "consulted" it seems as well.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44247.pdf

[TwitchySeal]

Not sure how it can be considered spying when the subpoenas get issued through committees that are made up of both parties. I also don't think that gathering evidence of past acts would in anyway be considered spying either.

I agree it's not spying.

Just want to note that minority party no longer has any say in who does or doesn't get subpoenaed.  Schiff and Nadler (and whoever took Cummings seat) are the only people with power of subpoena for the House.  The Republicans changed that rule in 2014 so that the Democrats couldn't stop them from subpoenaing the Obama Administration.  Democrats flipped a shit when they did that.  Don't seem to be minding it now though.

Technically, it all depends on the specific committees rules. Under those rules they may or may not delegate sole authority to the chair. So the committee could be operating under majority vote, 2/3rd, chairman plus ranking minority.. just chairman or who the hell knows as they can each do whatever they feel like. Not sure how to read the table in there. It almost seems like the chair, majority vote or some authorized member can authorize subpoenas for Intelligence and Judiciary. In both committees the ranking minority member has to be "consulted" it seems as well.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44247.pdf

Minority chair used to have to concur with Majority.

Now they just have to consult.

Concurs—the ranking minority member must concur with the chair
before a subpoena is authorized or issued.
 Consulted—the chair must consult or notify the ranking minority
member before authorizing or issuing a subpoena.

[nutildah]

Pelosi just asked Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to go forward with drafting the articles of impeachment. Voting could begin in the House Judiciary by the 9th, with the full House vote on the 16th.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-12-05-2019/index.html

[squatz1]

Pelosi just asked Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to go forward with drafting the articles of impeachment. Voting could begin in the House Judiciary by the 9th, with the full House vote on the 16th.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-12-05-2019/index.html

The biggest part of this is what will the articles of impeachment include. If they include just Ukraine, then Democrats are going to be united in voting and passing this. But if Pelosi caves to the pressure from the left and adds in other allegations they have against Trump -- obstruction, gaining wealth while in the office, etc -- then they're going to have a hard time keeping their caucus united.

I want to see what these articles look like, it will define what comes next.

[Viper1]

Pelosi just asked Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to go forward with drafting the articles of impeachment. Voting could begin in the House Judiciary by the 9th, with the full House vote on the 16th.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-12-05-2019/index.html

The biggest part of this is what will the articles of impeachment include. If they include just Ukraine, then Democrats are going to be united in voting and passing this. But if Pelosi caves to the pressure from the left and adds in other allegations they have against Trump -- obstruction, gaining wealth while in the office, etc -- then they're going to have a hard time keeping their caucus united.

I want to see what these articles look like, it will define what comes next.

Given they got zero documents that they subpoena'd.. and yet documents were delivered to citizens that used the FOIA process, obstruction is guaranteed to be on the list. I saw a potential list that included obstruction of congress and obstruction of justice. Obstruction was on the list for Nixon and Clinton as well even though they did turn over documents freely, while not turning over others.

[squatz1]

Pelosi just asked Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to go forward with drafting the articles of impeachment. Voting could begin in the House Judiciary by the 9th, with the full House vote on the 16th.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-12-05-2019/index.html

The biggest part of this is what will the articles of impeachment include. If they include just Ukraine, then Democrats are going to be united in voting and passing this. But if Pelosi caves to the pressure from the left and adds in other allegations they have against Trump -- obstruction, gaining wealth while in the office, etc -- then they're going to have a hard time keeping their caucus united.

I want to see what these articles look like, it will define what comes next.

Given they got zero documents that they subpoena'd.. and yet documents were delivered to citizens that used the FOIA process, obstruction is guaranteed to be on the list. I saw a potential list that included obstruction of congress and obstruction of justice. Obstruction was on the list for Nixon and Clinton as well even though they did turn over documents freely, while not turning over others.

Oh I'm not talking about obstruction for Ukraine, I'm talking about obstruction in regards to the Mueller probe into Russia. So it's a bit different here. I'm also unsure if they're going to include obstruction when it comes to Ukraine b/c of the fact that the Presidency doesn't typically have to provide information relating to subpoenas if they are to deem it executive privilege. (Which is obviously then tested in court, it is currently being tested)

We'll see what the courts decide, though I don't think we'll have this done b/c of the fact that the Dems are really rushing this process.

[Viper1]

doesn't typically have to provide information relating to subpoenas if they are to deem it executive privilege. (Which is obviously then tested in court, it is currently being tested)

The Supreme Court has already ruled in the past on this and executive privilege, what they can withhold, is narrowly limited to certain things in the case of impeachment (at least I think's that what it is. could be for oversight in general). Their main reasoning for withholding things seemed to do a side step around that and instead said the entire inquiry etc was invalid and talked about due process. And again. They turned over documents to citizens but not the same sort of stuff to congress.

If you're referring to the case about the Mueler report, that's different. That's about whether private Grand Jury testimony can be made available for impeachment. There's also previous case law for that and it was in favor of congress getting it for impeachment. The impeachment trial is considered a judiciary proceeding. Since the investigation and articles of impeachment are required for the trial, all of what the congress does also falls into that. Some Rule 6e about grand jury testimony has an exception for judicial proceedings. So that case will only fail if the dems screw up in some way, or the appeals court etc somehow decides to completely overturn previous case law. If they don't, I doubt the supreme court will hear the case. If they do, then the supreme court probably would.

[TwitchySeal]

I think fewer articles is probably a better path for the Dems at this point.  Make it easier for the public to digest and get the Republicans fewer things to object to.

Wonder if another government shut down is in our future.  I could definitely see Trump making things difficult out of spite, but that could backfire.


I've been removing BADeckers shit posts that just link those crap sites.  If you guys (the ones having an actual conversation) think I should leave them let me know.

[dupeddonk]

Seems like the Republicans (who arent even conservatives anymore and loyal to Trump only) have been forbidden from even suggesting that Trump messed up but shouldn't be impeached for his mess up.  Its really the only defense left at this point and not a single one of them have suggested that Trump has behaved anything but perfectly.  Trumps ego is just too big and he doesnt give a damn about reality.  That is just pathetic.

Every decent conservative president up till Raegan is rolling in their grave because of these cowards.

[Viper1]

I think fewer articles is probably a better path for the Dems at this point.  Make it easier for the public to digest and get the Republicans fewer things to object to.

Not sure I'd agree with that. IMO the only solid article would be obstruction of congress and if they all let Clinton off for his stuff, they'll definitely let Trump off for the other articles. i.e. for abuse of power strictly with the Ukrainian thing, I simply don't believe they made a strong enough case as it's far too easy to make a counter case to the masses, who don't follow everything like we've been, that the possibility exists he was in fact interested in investigating corruption but that he's "unconventional" and so didn't do it the way he should have.

However, if they add in a variety of other examples of things he's done in order to bolster the case that he has a history of abuse of power, as well as adding in some of the Mueller stuff to show more cases of obstruction of congress and justice, then they might clearly show that these events were simply a small portion of all the things he's done. They then might be able to sway more of the public to the point where maybe, just maybe more of the senate will vote for removal. But they need to only pick out absolutely clear examples of it. As it stands though, I don't think there's a chance in hell the senate will remove him and he'll then have free reign to do anything he wants. I think that in order to have "enough" stuff there would probably need to be 3-4 articles of impeachment.

Wonder if another government shut down is in our future.  I could definitely see Trump making things difficult out of spite, but that could backfire.

I suspect he would as well. I just don't think he grasps that the sorts of games he likes to play normally, shouldn't be going on right now as he just makes things worse.

[TwitchySeal]

I think fewer articles is probably a better path for the Dems at this point.  Make it easier for the public to digest and get the Republicans fewer things to object to.

Not sure I'd agree with that. IMO the only solid article would be obstruction of congress and if they all let Clinton off for his stuff, they'll definitely let Trump off for the other articles. i.e. for abuse of power strictly with the Ukrainian thing, I simply don't believe they made a strong enough case as it's far too easy to make a counter case to the masses, who don't follow everything like we've been, that the possibility exists he was in fact interested in investigating corruption but that he's "unconventional" and so didn't do it the way he should have.

However, if they add in a variety of other examples of things he's done in order to bolster the case that he has a history of abuse of power, as well as adding in some of the Mueller stuff to show more cases of obstruction of congress and justice, then they might clearly show that these events were simply a small portion of all the things he's done. They then might be able to sway more of the public to the point where maybe, just maybe more of the senate will vote for removal. But they need to only pick out absolutely clear examples of it. As it stands though, I don't think there's a chance in hell the senate will remove him and he'll then have free reign to do anything he wants. I think that in order to have "enough" stuff there would probably need to be 3-4 articles of impeachment.

Yeah, I think I've changed my mind and agree you at this point.  'He did it then, he did it now, he'll do it again' seems like a reasonable approach.

The next hearing is scheduled for Monday.  Intelligence and Judiciary Council will present evidence to the House (I don't know if it's the entire house all in one place, maybe). 
The White House were invited to present a defense,  they just had respond by end of today.  Like 30 minutes before the deadline the White House Council sent their response:



I guess that's a no.

Seems likely we will get to see the Articles middle of next week and the committees will likely vote to impeach by end of the week.

If they're going to get the whole thing done this year, it has to be done by 2 weeks from today.  Zoom zoom.