And, the clear outcome will be yet more division

Ann

I think the last couple days have shown us precisely what the outcome of the so called impeachment will be - complete and total division within the House, the Senate, and the country. Dems see it as a fair and needed process. The GOP sees it as a sham, with a deep state operative staging as a WB, and a process being conducted in an entirely unfair manner. The lines are drawn and there is not now nor, clearly, will there be any bipartisan agreement as this continues. What a shame the country is going through this. I think this will get ugly and I think the impact on the election will be significant.

SaveComment227Like4
Comments (227)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I think the person who will look the very worst when this is said and done is Schiff and, potentially, Pelosi could suffer greatly by association.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I do think the GOP is now more united than I've seen them in as long as I can remember. The Dems are too, but that is far more typical for them.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Ann, when you write "Dems", I sense that you are using that term rather generically.

I do agree with your assessments^^^.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

You are assuming Trump has done no wrong and consequently couldn’t possibly look bad?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shaxhome(Frog Rock, Australia 9b)

Ann, when you wrote "The GOP sees it as a sham, with a deep state operative staging as a WB, and a process being conducted in an entirely unfair manner...", I'm sure you, as the fair and honest person you are, meant to say "I personally see it as..." (Unless you feel you speak for ALL GOP members.)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

I’ll take Laurence Tribe’s word for it ——Harvard law professor, author of book on impeachment (paraphrasing):


The evidence is overwhelming that Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.




13 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Zalco/bring back Sophie!

Laurence Tribe wrote the definitive constitutional law textbook.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

I would hope that if proof of treason comes out, the whole country will be united against it. Alas, I know that won't happen.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lily316

Sherrod Brown was on Colbert and said in private with Republican colleagues they call trump a narcissist, unfit for the job, not understanding problems he has to deal with but they will support him because of the appointments of young even unqualified judges. He said history will not treat these senators kindly. They are afraid of trump and his vindictiveness.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
soupgirl53

History is not going to be kind to those who believed there was a deep state. No political party is perfect but at least the Democrats have come down on the side of sanity and will impeach Trump for abusing the office of the Presidency. That is the legal and appropriate thing to do in a nation that believes in the rule of law, not men.


8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

Ann....and others. What would it take for you to see Trump as guilty?


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Dems see it as a fair and needed process.

I disagree. They know exactly what they are doing. Pushing a false narrative in an attempt to overthrow the American government, and cover for their crimes.

What would it take for you to see Trump as guilty?

Guilty of what?

I would hope that if proof of treason comes out, the whole country will be united against it. Alas, I know that won't happen.

Pfft! The left IS guilty, the proof is everywhere, and the left supports it.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

Well, that answer really surprised me Lurker...not.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

While I do think that the Senate will acquit him due to partisan bias, I do not think all Republican senators will vote to acquit. My prediction.

And yes, there will continue to be many sour grapes expressed by Trump supporters over the impeachment.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Yes sour grapes over an impeachment they once yelled "bring it on" for, just like trump. The gop will go the way of others who have served and done the bidding for their master trump.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

The impeachment will not be thrown out of court. It will proceed all the way through the Senate.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

lol

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

It is such a got mess because this isn't about one, definable, event. New news nearly daily - this morning's: (this brings new info into the investigation, but it all needs corroboration).

"An associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani who was involved in a campaign to pressure Ukraine into aiding President Trump’s political prospects has broken ranks, opening a dialogue with congressional impeachment investigators and accusing the president of falsely denying their relationship.

The associate, Lev Parnas, had previously resisted speaking with investigators for the Democrat-led impeachment proceedings, which are examining the president’s pressure attempts in Ukraine. A former lawyer for Mr. Trump was then representing Mr. Parnas.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Every time someone makes a statement that falls in the category of "mind reading" - the division is fueled.

Every time someone calls a public leader some demeaning name - the division is fueled.

#######

One example is "All Trump Fans are ... racists", etc.

Another is "Dems have had it in for Trump from the beginning."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Guilty of what is right.

I have asked repeatedly for the EXACT crime(s), the STATUTE, and the FACTS which fulfill each of the elements of each crime from those that contend that President Trump is "guilty."

I've got nothing in response, and if anyone had it, they'd have posted it in a heartbeat.

Regurgitation of media points is all I see.


So it's just a dirty witch hunt at this juncture, sour grapes to losing to Donald Trump.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”?

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution details the impeachment power: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The more vague category of “high crimes and misdemeanors” has been treated as a sort of catch-all for either criminal activity or what Congress considers egregious abuse of office.

In 1868, Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing one of his Cabinet secretaries in violation of a law passed by Congress — and also for insulting Congress. In 1974, Richard Nixon was headed toward being impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power related to the Watergate burglary cover-up, but he resigned before it could happen. And in 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for his effort to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

In all those times that you requested repeatedly, did anyone answer that an actual crime is not required? If not, that’d be a good place to start your research.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump


12 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Foodonastump, I am referring to those that have repeatedly said that Donald Trump is guilty of crimes.

It is apparent that the political house can use whatever nomenclature they want to try to impeach, or to impeach.

It's meaningless except it seems to get democrats all excited, which they seem to need to be happy--drama and vengeance is food for that political party.

If Donald Trump is guilty of a crime he would be prosecuted.


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Trump just sees himself as above the law being president. It's just not so, even though he seems to have convinced himself and die hard supporters and power grabbers.

Quotes from Trump:

For instance, Trump has argued -- inaccurately -- that a Constitution written in repudiation of monarchal or absolute power renders him effectively above the law.

"I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President," he said back in July.

------

With that attitude he will just keep abusing his power.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

I don't think President Trump sees himself above the law at all.

I don't think President Trump thinks he has broken any law.

I am still waiting for the statute, facts applied to the elements, and the guilty verdict.

Three years now.

I'm still waiting for Adam Schiff's positive proof of obstruction, oh wait--he's moved on to something else now.

Liar.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

We will all be able to watch the hearings soon. We can already read some of the released testimony transcripts. Abuse of presidential power is impeachable. Holding up tax money that was lawfully appropriated as military aid and using it as leverage for personal political gain is enough. But it’s much, much more than that.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Current Resident(z4 WI)

Heres the thing Stan. Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution or a function of the judiciary branch of govt. Impeachment is a process by which legislative branch removes a president. The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors comes from English common law and does not mean codified as a felony or misdemeanor. The reasons can in fact be things like gross incompetence, negligence, chronic public drunkenness. Chronic lying could be seen as a pattern of being unfit for office.

As far as which specific violation s are being considered for this particular president at this particular time,- all that is readily available online, but warning - you might have to venture off of the far rw sites to find them. Sorry, no one here wants to do your research.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

And yes, Ann, there will be more division.

I thought after Donald Trump won the 2016 election the ridiculous shouting about blowing up the White House, angry women, riots, vandalism, meltdown of media pundits by having fits and crying on air, Hillary voters flopping on the floor crying, all that, would calm down. The YUGE TANTRUM.

IT has in fact not, it has escalated and the left as an institution has been obsessed and determined to overturn a duly elected president because they didn't like the outcome.

For the most part, conservatives have gone about their lives, given President Trump a chance, and we're pretty pleased. We've been amused, and concerned about the vitriol and dirty tricks and lies from the left, but we figured it would all work out.

I think it will, actually, but all the left has done, particularly Schiff and Pelosi and the four nutjobs that hate the United States and want socialism and distributed misery and confiscation of hard work and solid values, has gotten the attention of conservatives.

We're still not shouting about blowing up anyone, we're not wearing genitalia hats except for MAGA hats and that is tantamount to taking your life in your hands to wear a cap with an acronym for "Make Ameria Great Again" which is in itself, something that would have been inconceivable before the GREAT TANTRUM.

But with all the jumping for attention, we see the left.

We see what they were all along, and we're wondering why we thought they were better than they were. So we're no longer deluded about "fair play" and "differences of opinion, respectful."

We get it.

We'll see you all in November.

And if Democrats win, we'll be united.


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

And if Democrats win, we'll be united.

Meaning?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Many of the points you raise are covered in the first pages of McKinley’s transcript, Stan. Link is above. Meadows and other Republicans voiced their objections and those were responded to.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I've got nothing in response, and if anyone had it, they'd have posted it in a heartbeat."

I was just going to answer that I disagreed about nothing in response, but I see FOAS beat me to it in answering that they've previously answered a crime is not required.

Thus, the entire reason for such "great division" IMO.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Stan - Thanks for clarifying. If someone said “crimes” then that’s on them. I’m in “wait and see” mode for crimes, but find the QPQ troubling. How do you feel about withholding aid for personal political gain?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"gotten the attention of conservatives"

You bet it has! Conservatives are unusually and very united. Earlier in the thread, Shaxhome said this:

"Ann, when you wrote "The GOP sees it as a sham, with a deep state operative staging as a WB, and a process being conducted in an entirely unfair manner...", I'm sure you, as the fair and honest person you are, meant to say "I personally see it as..." (Unless you feel you speak for ALL GOP members.)"

I purposely chose the words I did and purposely did not qualify them with IMO, as I so typically do - because I think the GOP has actually reached the highest levels of unity I can remember - almost shockingly high to me. It's unusual for Republicans to get this fired up and this unified and that's a big part of what prompted me to post this thread.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Thank you catt for the transcripts, I was looking for them. Now if everyone would actually read them? But some will be shouting that it's a conspiracy and refuse to on "principal" no matter what numerous people have testified to. Pompeos story is different than everyone else's, wonder why.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Conservatives are unusually and very united.


Unusually? That’s not been my observation. Here on HT or elsewhere. Follow the leader.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Joaniepoanie

I’ll take Laurence Tribe’s word for it ——Harvard law professor, author of book on impeachment (paraphrasing): The evidence is overwhelming that Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Of course you do. It all depends on which statements Tribe makes at any given time.

June 14, 2018

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe wants to teach Americans a lesson about impeachment, warning that it is “too important and too vital a power to be bandied about as ordinary politics.”

Trump’s most ardent critics have been calling for impeachment since the day he was inaugurated, and while Democratic Party leaders have said it’s premature to talk about impeachment, a few House Democrats have already advocated for it.

https://time.com/5306747/laurence-tribe-trump-impeachment-book/

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Unless arguments are presented based on the information to which we have access, it’s not productive to continue. Repeating “no crime” over and over while not making an effort to read the current information isn’t a respectful discussion.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Clearly Tribe has seen a change in information that leads him to support it.

He was right in 2018 (that it is “too important and too vital a power to be bandied about as ordinary politics.”)and he's right now too.

Is it so surprising that someone could change their mind based on facts and new information? Apparently to Trump supporters, it is (surprising).

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Ann, you are using "bipartisan" when it looks like you mean "partisan."

Boy, do I ever agree with this after watching how remarkably partisan this has now become. I think one side will pay a very high price.

From wiki:

Bipartisanship, sometimes referred to as nonpartisanship, is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system (especially those of the United States and some other western countries), in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise. This is in contrast to partisanship, where an individual or political party only adheres to their interests without compromise.

1 Like Save     Thanked by Ann
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

I hope the impact is significant. This has to come to [a] head and a solution found to the divisiveness that defines the US.


ETA: Is that was missing the a? Or did you want me to expound on "this" (*which I did farther downthread)?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nancy, yes, I see I made that mistake this morning, twice in the same comment, and I have corrected it. I also talked about it in the OP and used it correctly there. I did and do know the difference, so I'm not sure where my mind was when I was writing that comment this morning. Thanks.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Rob, I don't understand your second sentence in your most recent comment. Is it my lack of understanding or is there a needed word or two missing?

ETA: In this particular instance, I'm not trying to point out typos, but I actually am trying to grasp your point and can't understand what was meant in that second sentence.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Why does it seem like hostile, extreme partisanship is concentrated mostly on the right? I haven't see or heard proclamations from Democrats or anyone on the left threatening violence if the impeachment inquiry or trial is stopped...

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

My point is the left has accused President Trump of being a criminal without proof.

Congress is determined to impeach him, as I said, doesn't matter to me a bit unless something much different than what I've read, seen, and heard is brought forth.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Repeating “no crime” over and over while not making an effort to read the current information isn’t a respectful discussion.

Cattyles, a respectful conversation has to do with both sides being allowed to present their opinions without degenerating into personal insult, not whether you think someone is qualified to enter the discussion.

The Yovanovitch testimony is 356 pages. (I've started.) The McKinley testimony is 156 pages. Some people will read all, some will read some, some will read none. They all retain the right to voice their opinions here, and none are disqualified.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Why does it seem like the hostile, extreme partisanship is concentrated mostly on the right?

Liberal shaded glasses?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

ETA: I see no typos. Point away. It says exactly what I wanted.


If no one will meet in the middle, something needs to make it happen. We cannot go on with so much hatred, anger, and finger pointing. It's time to be the UNITED states again. It's so stupid that everything has become politicized. The left this, the left that. I'm a conservative and I have never seen such much finger pointing. This is the worst it's ever been. I'm in the middle of the two fighting sides. I don't like either one saying RWNJ or radical left. It's so stupid! What was it I heard the other day? We all breathe the same air!




1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

I think the divisiveness has intensified via social media and the rise in the use of online media. Print media has been around for hundreds of years but this sharing and distributing has made for rapid transfer and group-think.

In addition, Trump has used his voice more than any other president to take potshots and hurl insults at people that don't agree with him. I remember how dismayed some people were when Obama didn't always speak out in support of some black victims.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

My point is the left has accused President Trump of being a criminal without proof.

Some people have. Most are saying that his behavior needs to be investigated.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Iris GW

Clearly Tribe has seen a change in information that leads him to support it.

Mind you, nothing about this sham is clear.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I can certainly disqualify their opinions if they aren’t based in information that is available, mudhouse. Surely it works both ways? Uninformed statements (opinions) aren’t respectful discussion in my opinion, to which I am also entitled.

I said nothing about anyone not “being allowed” to post their opinion. I simply posted mine, too. You don’t wish to inhibit my posting, do you? Why assign that motive to me when my statement was my opinion on respectful discussion?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I remember how dismayed some people were when Obama didn't always speak out in support of some black victims.

Obama couldn't be expected to speak out in support of every victim every time. Besides, why expect him to speak out in support of black victims vs non-black victims?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Besides, why expect him to speak out in support of black victims vs non-black victims?

You'd have to ask the people voicing those opinions. It wasn't me (I remember how dismayed some people were ).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

cattyles

I can certainly disqualify their opinions if they aren’t based in information that is available, mudhouse. Surely it works both ways? Uninformed statements (opinions) aren’t respectful discussion in my opinion, to which I am also entitled.

I said nothing about anyone not “being allowed” to post their opinion. I simply posted mine, too. You don’t wish to inhibit my posting, do you? Why assign that motive to me when my statement was my opinion on respectful discussion?

Okay. So we can infer from here on out that anything you post is strictly your opinion, and not fact. That will be helpful going forward, I'll try to keep that in mind. Your writing in the subject post was this:

cattyles

Unless arguments are presented based on the information to which we have access, it’s not productive to continue. Repeating “no crime” over and over while not making an effort to read the current information isn’t a respectful discussion.

I too, read it to mean that you were making a statement of fact, not opinion.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

“They are afraid of trump and his vindictiveness.”

Why? Has he acted in his usual mob boss fashion and put out hits on all of them? Why would they be afraid of such an ignoremus? I think it has more to do with reelection....their jobs before country.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

elvis

Joaniepoanie

I’ll take Laurence Tribe’s word for it ——Harvard law professor, author of book on impeachment (paraphrasing): The evidence is overwhelming that Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.


Of course you do. It all depends on which statements Tribe makes at any given time.


June 14, 2018

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe wants to teach Americans a lesson about impeachment, warning that it is “too important and too vital a power to be bandied about as ordinary politics.”


Trump’s most ardent critics have been calling for impeachment since the day he was inaugurated, and while Democratic Party leaders have said it’s premature to talk about impeachment, a few House Democrats have already advocated for it.

https://time.com/5306747/laurence-tribe-trump-impeachment-book/


********

Elvis


Naturally you cherry picked the article and what you copied really makes no point whatsoever. Also, it is a year and a half old——much has changed since then.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaux

The Democrats have been consulting with Laurence Tribe and another impeachment expert all along so we know that Tribe doesn't feel this is "ordinary politics".

The division has been building since the 2000 election when the Supreme Court picked our president. Then came the made-up war in Iraq, the election of a black president and the RW's racist response, and the denial of giving Merrick Garland a hearing. It's a little late to be concerned about division now that Trump's in the barrel. We don't care. You keep forgetting that Trumpers are a 40% minority of voters. Once you're gone we will gladly put a nail in the coffin and move on. You can "sit back and enjoy the ride" as Trump says or you can try to fight progress with your guns and your religion and your gerrymandering.

10 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Repeating “no crime” over and over while not making an effort to read the current information isn’t a respectful discussion.

The crimes Trump is accused of are manufactured crimes without any proof to support them. The crats ignore facts and hard evidence and rely on 3rd hand gossip from people who are telling us what they wanted to hear. They literally reject facts to push this crime against America.

Joe confessed, and there is proof. The crats will ignore hard evidence and go with their...imagination.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

They literally reject facts to push this crime against America.

Frankly, the willingness of Trump supporters to ignore what people are saying under oath is no different than what you accuse others of.

And regardless of what Joe Biden said (or you think he said), it is what Trump said and did that is under investigation.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Margaux, The Base is 40%? I’m going to do some reading. That seems high.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Perhaps my question was missed, so I’ll open it up to all from the right:

How do you feel about withholding aid for personal political gain?

And just to be clear, I’m asking that without implying he did it. That said, it’s more than a random hypothetical; if you don’t see that there’s enough evidence (including admissions!) to warrant inquiry, then your head is buried beyond hopes of retrieval.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I feel that’s it’s wrong, FOAS, and a clear abuse of power.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

We've asked questions like that before. Trump supporters often respond that it is a trick or gotcha question.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

You know those who back cheetohead won't answer FOAS. That is where the mainstay of the divisiveness lays, no one can ever go against the party or consider the reality of any possibilities of wrongdoing. I cannot fathom how anyone not see what he says and does that is so wrong, is ok by them. I couldn't sleep at night if anyone thought I was friends with him or agreed with him, much less patently backed everything he did. It's so awful. All of what he does is awful. And I try hard to objectively see what the person does, separately from the person. No matter what the occupation. They can be good at what they do and I dislike a person. Not this time. Nothing he's done is morally or ethically right.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
woodnymph2_gw

rob, I agree. It is a question of morally right or wrong. I have higher expectations of my president than other mere mortals.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

There are more than two sides in the impeachment issue.

Trump supporters should not forget the independent voters, and what their reaction to sworn testimony will be.

Also, neither the Republicans nor Democrats in DC can count on those in their party in the rest of the country to be total agreement with their positions.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

joanie poanie wrote:

Elvis
Naturally you cherry picked the article and what you copied really makes no point whatsoever. Also, it is a year and a half old——much has changed since then.

The book was written in May 2018, a month before the article I cited was written (June 2018):

To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment Hardcover – May 15, 2018

by Laurence Tribe (Author), Joshua Matz (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/End-Presidency-Power-Impeachment/dp/1541644883

Do try to keep up.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Ann, I agree. It's divisive and weakens us as a whole. Other countries see this. It's hard enough for any President to navigate the geopolitics when the country isn't this torn apart, but Trump is managing it so well.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

foodonastump

Perhaps my question was missed, so I’ll open it up to all from the right:

How do you feel about withholding aid for personal political gain?

You mean what Biden did with Ukraine, whenJoe Biden, while serving as vice president, pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company.

Well, I don't feel good about that, Food. How do you feel about that?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

If Biden did something wrong, investigate. That’s how I feel about that. Now, back to MY question?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Perhaps you aren't taking in the seriousness of what former VP Biden did. There's even video at the link for more fun.

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

You seem to have strong opinions on this sort of thing. How do you feel about withholding aid for personal political gain?

Specifically our current president, if it wasn’t clear.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Trump as President had more than enough reason to ask about Biden and his son's dealings with Ukraine and Burisma. At face value, it was influence peddling. That's a legit reason to investigate corruption.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

So you’re ok with the QPQ?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

Oh it's clear food. You know it's crystal.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
loonlakelaborcamp(3 A/B)

Dems say he was digging up dirt on future political candidate. Reps say he was investigating past corruption and interference with the 2016 election.


I wish all our Presidents would root out political corruption by our officials overseas.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

So you’re ok with the QPQ?

No way. Why does the left still support that crook?

How do you feel about withholding aid for personal political gain?

Specifically our current president, if it wasn’t clear.

Silly hypothetical.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I have to say it; the avoidance of acknowledging reality has become beyond ridiculous. Way way way way way far away in a different galaxy type ridiculous. Trump is a slimy hill to die on.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

Sad.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Silly hypothetical.

Too deep for retrieval.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

Carro

Trump as President had more than enough reason to ask about Biden and his son's dealings with Ukraine and Burisma. At face value, it was influence peddling. That's a legit reason to investigate corruption.

loonlakelaborcamp(3 A/B)

....< >...

I wish all our Presidents would root out political corruption by our officials overseas.

~~~~

President Trump personally investigates corruption? He doesn't have a Justice Department or a CIA or, you know, a right-hand-man? I guess you have to start somewhere -- first investigate Ukraine, then maybe Philippines or Russia. He'll probably find some underhanded American dealings in those countries too.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lily316

As Sherrod Brown said last night he has deep personal conversations with his republican colleagues and everyone he has spoken to realize trump is a crook and they are afraid of his vindictiveness and smear campaigns. He said they know he's clearly not fit for the job and has committed crimes but speaking out would result in trump campaigning for their rivals.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

President Trump personally investigates corruption?

President Trump, as president, should most certainly do what he can to root out corruption in a situation where US aid is involved. Does he have minions? Certainly, but he's a hands-on kind of president. You know, a worker.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump has Hannity. He allegedly is consulted on foreign policy decisions.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Right, only Trump supporters believe it was just a coincidence that the person Trump asked Ukraine to investigate for "corruption" also happened to be his political rival. Gosh darn, what are the chances?!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

elvis

President Trump personally investigates corruption?

President Trump, as president, should most certainly do what he can to root out corruption in a situation where US aid is involved. Does he have minions? Certainly, but he's a hands-on kind of president. You know, a worker.

~~~~

busy as a bee. And he is only getting started, rooting out corruption wherever it may bee.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

What he wanted from Zelensky not only would have helped trump politically, it was an attempt to clear Russia Russia Russia. What are the chances, indeed?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Trump asked Ukraine to investigate for "corruption" also happened to be his political rival. Gosh darn, what are the chances?

100%. Biden and hillary are the corruption in Ukraine. Common knowledge for years, now.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

IMO, Trump supporters ( not Republicans in general) fall into two categories, those who will never see that he did something wrong and not in keeping with his duties as President and those who know darn well he did and are perfectly OK with it.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

And those who know that everything the left says is a lie, and give no credence to anything they say. Nothing but propaganda and yellow journalism.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

How droll.

Talking about American citizens, trashing them.

"They are either this or that."

No one that matters cares about those opinions.

How about talking about the topics instead of judging people one doesn't know a thing about?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

What information - from whom? - will present us the informative facts vis a vis the issues of QPQ and also Biden's role in Ukraine's corruption?

We clearly do not yet have it - surely it is coming?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Stan, are you addressing folks on all sides here?

"How about talking about the topics instead of judging people one doesn't know a thing about?"

As I see a fair bit of trashing and demeaning comments from Trump supporters here as well as some from the other side. (And approval of that trashing and demeaning.)

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaux

Now Sondland has revised his testimony by "remembering" a September 1 conversation with an adviser to Zelensky. The Ukrainians knew then that the aid that Congress approved would not be released until Zelensky made a statement that would politically help Trump and take the heat off Russia.

It's clearly quid pro quo. Still okay with it?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

elvis

joanie poanie wrote:

Elvis

Naturally you cherry picked the article and what you copied really makes no point whatsoever. Also, it is a year and a half old——much has changed since then.

The book was written in May 2018, a month before the article I cited was written (June 2018):

To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment Hardcover – May 15, 2018

by Laurence Tribe (Author), Joshua Matz (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/End-Presidency-Power-Impeachment/dp/1541644883

Do try to keep up.

********

How about you try to keep up? The book and article are 18 months old—-we were all waiting for the Mueller report at that point. And yes, if Tribe stated then that Trump had not committed impeachable offenses I would have deferred to him, but he never said that. What is pertinent NOW is that Tribe said LAST NIGHT Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and that the evidence is overwhelming against Trump.

This is Tribe last month:

“This is the first time a president will have been impeached for violating his oath in a way that threatens national security. The president deliberately withheld aid to an ally under a military attack by an adversary that had helped the president win an election and that now he is beholden to. This is the case the FF had in mind. A case whereby the president demonstrably, and even by his own confession, used the power of his office to serve his personal interest for reelection.

This is the example of a high crime. It’s a crime against the nation and an abuse of the president’s oath. A high crime is a betrayal of the United States. It’s clear what was meant by “will you do us a favor” and the House now needs to do its Constitutional duty, without regard to what the Senate may or may not do, if it cares about our Republic and saving our Constitution.”

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Food: How do you feel about withholding aid for personal political gain? Specifically our current president, if it wasn’t clear.

Food, you won't be surprised that I don't like the phrasing of the question. It doesn't make clear that the aid wasn't withheld, it was only delayed, for about two months. Ukraine received the aid, and Ukraine has received more meaningful aid under Trump's administration (in the form of military weapons) than it received under Obama.

Second, the question pretends that personal political gain was the reason for the delay. It wasn't; the request for information was about whether or not Ukraine played a role in election interference in 2016.

It now appears that Biden may have played an even larger role than previously thought in using his political office to gain financial benefits for his son, in the same time frame that Trump was asking about. We'll have to see what comes out, in the weeks and months ahead. There was nothing wrong with Trump asking what he did. It's his job. To pretend that he was only asking for information about Biden requires you to skip over about 500 words in the memcon of the phone call, and to leave out parts of the documented conversation, but that's what the left will do, to further the necessary narrative to create the illusion of impeachable offenses.

Quid pro quo negotiations are not illegal. They are, as Mulvaney was saying, a routine part of negotiations between countries. When Trump told Mexico he would delay imposing economic sanctions if they started to help stem the flow of asylum seekers streaming through their country, was that not a quid pro quo? And Mexico did, to the benefit of the US.

"A quid pro quo is improper in foreign relations only when a government official is seeking something that is not arguably in the national interest, particularly if it involves self-dealing — e.g., using government power to further a personal or partisan political objective."

(Andrew McCarthy) https://news.yahoo.com/stop-claiming-no-quid-pro-100055477.html

The hurdle the left has is demonstrating to the American public that the sole objective of Trump's conversation with Zelensky (even the part mentioning servers and Crowdstrike, clear references to the 2016 election) was to further his own personal objective in the 2020 election, that there was no mention of anything else in the phone call, and that there was no possible benefit to the country in anything Trump was asking about; only personal gain.

To me, the memcon of the telephone call doesn't demonstrate that, at all.

4 Likes Save     Thanked by Ann
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Back to the topic of division:

Stan: I thought after Donald Trump won the 2016 election the ridiculous shouting about blowing up the White House, angry women, riots, vandalism, meltdown of media pundits by having fits and crying on air, Hillary voters flopping on the floor crying, all that, would calm down. The YUGE TANTRUM.

IT has in fact not, it has escalated and the left as an institution has been obsessed and determined to overturn a duly elected president because they didn't like the outcome.

For the most part, conservatives have gone about their lives, given President Trump a chance, and we're pretty pleased. We've been amused, and concerned about the vitriol and dirty tricks and lies from the left, but we figured it would all work out.

I think it will, actually, but all the left has done, particularly Schiff and Pelosi and the four nutjobs that hate the United States and want socialism and distributed misery and confiscation of hard work and solid values, has gotten the attention of conservatives.

Good post, Stan. Thanks, and I agree. Add to the last paragraph, Kavanaugh and the Mueller Report. Those got the attention of conservatives, too.

I don't think the division is going away for a very long time, and I wish that wasn't true. I think we're looking at a turning point in a very long national conversation about which issues matter the most to us, and what we're willing to focus on first.

Those questions should be decided at the polls by American voters. The sham impeachment is an attempt to undermine the validity of votes for Trump in the 2016 election, and to unfairly influence votes for Trump in 2020. That attempt will be noted and will only harden the degree of division we already have. No way to avoid it, and that's not good for the country.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Well, mudhouse, a Harvard law professor and impeachment expert disagrees with you that it is a sham impeachment or a political ploy. I think he knows more than Trump supporters on the matter.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

The sham impeachment is an attempt to undermine the validity of votes for Trump in the 2016 election, and to unfairly influence votes for Trump in 2020.

I disagree. The impeachment highlights valuable information about Trump and his administration that the voters might not have known about otherwise. In addition, it is a valid procedure for addressing his abuses of office and evaluating whether they rise to the level of removal. As an American citizen, I welcome the inquiry into potential malfeasance.

It's almost like Trump supporters are trying to say that he is above any kind of scrutiny. Above the law.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The Impeachment Inquiry is an opportunity for Trump's role in negotiations relative to our provision of military equipment to Ukraine to become clear.

Certainly, he will soon stop stalling, right? So we can all know the facts?

PS: we don't yet know the full range of that phone call. That "memcon" isn't complete. It doesn't give us all of it.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Wants to Grow

This hostility is both payback to President Trump and a warning, to any future outsider who might attempt to follow in President Trump's footsteps to invade the Establishment of Washington DC. Try it and you too can expect to be subjected to being defamed, vilified and maligned. And it won't be just you, plan on your family and friends to also be harassed.

Who will be brave enough and strong enough to succeed Trump in 2024?

4 Likes Save     Thanked by Ann
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

and you too can expect to be subjected to being defamed, vilified and maligned.

If they act like Trump, sure. All that has been directed at Trump is a direct result of his behavior and/or that of his associates and the people he has tapped to be in his administration and on his payroll.

Four years is enough.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"and you too can expect to be subjected to being defamed, vilified and maligned."

Trump' s strong suit and MO......the master

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Wants to Grow

Hi Chase, You may have not noticed, but Trump doesn't start the attacks. However, he will finish them.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

That is not true...he often attacks people just for disagreeing with him or not overtly supporting him. He has very thin skin. However, I know you see it differently.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

It's almost like Trump supporters are trying to say that he is above any kind of scrutiny. Above the law.

This Trump supporter is not saying that Trump, or any president, is above the law. This Trump supporter is saying that Trump, like any president, should be afforded the same due process that previous US presidents have had in impeachment proceedings. Not because the Constitution requires it, but because impeachment is one of the most serious actions that Congress can undertake. It should be treated as such, so that the American public has faith the end result will be a valid investigation and consideration of the issues in question.

That should have happened with a full House vote, which would have granted both parties, the majority and the minority, the same legal rights to counsel being present in the room both sides being able to call witnesses, both sides being able to issue value subpoenas for documents and testimony.

Instead, the Democrats opened the "inquiry" with a press conference, and proceeded to hold hearings behind closed doors; denied the president the right to have counsel present; denied the Republicans the right to call their own witnesses; told some witnesses they were not required to answer questions asked by the Republicans; and threatened legal action against those who refused to testify...even though, to date, their legal ability to subpoena witnesses for testimony has not been tested in court, since they never had a full House vote.

That may change, based on pending court rulings (Howell, and I think another one) but it won't roll back past weeks of the above sham proceedings, with cherry-picked information leaked to a willing Dem-controlled media, to influence public opinion as much as possible before being forced to proceed with something that looks closer to due process.

When open hearings begin, we'll see how agreeable Schiff is as Republicans ask for his permission to call witnesses and issue subpoenas. We'll see how much more fair the proceedings are, at that late point. (I'm not holding my breath, based on actions to date!)

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump’s and his Birther lie was the beginning of rejecting Obama and anything he would do as the first black President. Trump was saying Obama wasn’t A legitimate President and he kept it up for 8 years without a valid apology even when he was proven wrong.


That was division and racist. It showed what kind of character Trump had. He is a divider and he is racist. If you have enough money and can benefit Trump he will overlook your race but heaven help you if you are poor.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw


"That should have happened with a full House vote, which would have granted both parties, the majority and the minority, the same legal rights to counsel being present in the room both sides being able to call witnesses, both sides being able to issue value subpoenas for documents and testimony."

A full House vote does not guarantee the things you describe. The rules are dependant upon what is written into the specific resolution . There are no rules that are automatically bestowed simply because there is a vote. There is nothing to indicate the resolution would have been written differently had it been written earlier.

Pelosi was brilliant when she wrote the resolution which very specifically states that the Presiden will only be granted subpoena rights IF the WH agrees to stop blocking all testimony and cooperates with legal House subpoenas.

Trump has demonstrated yesterday , and today, that he has no intention of doing that.

Edited to correct ......it is the President's right to have counsel present or call witnesses etc that is dependant upon his cooperating with the House....not the Republicans in general.


"According to a fact sheet released by the House Rules Committee, these procedures include the opportunity for the President or his counsel to present their case, attend hearings, request additional testimony, cross-examine witnesses and raise an objection to testimony given. There is a caveat that "if the President unlawfully refuses to cooperate with congressional requests," then the extent of the administration's participation is at the committee chairman's discretion."

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Why does it seem like hostile, extreme partisanship is concentrated mostly on the right? I haven't see or heard proclamations from Democrats or anyone on the left threatening violence if the impeachment inquiry or trial is stopped..."

I'm just beginning to get caught up with this thread, beginning with this comment. Who is threatening violence?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

''

Kathy

You are assuming Trump has done no wrong and consequently couldn’t possibly look bad?

''

Dems are trying to play the game of ''Gods may do what cattle may not".


Wrong or not, Trump didn't do anything that was never done before.


''You are not getting a billion dollars if you don't fire this son of the gun''. That very guy who said it now runs for a President of the US. Obama wasn't impeached for it either.


Guess what, Dems are going to lose again in 2020 and they can thank their double standards for it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Margarita, still defending Trump? Sondland saw the light. The evidence is clear.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Guess what, Dems are going to lose again in 2020 and they can thank their double standards for it.

And if they win? Well, they must've cheated, right? I'm going to predict that is the line for Dec 2020.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Kathy

Trump’s and his Birther lie was the beginning of rejecting Obama and anything he would do as the first black President

So you're been PO'd for a loooooong time. That explains you.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

I’m not po’d at all. Just pointing out I am not the hater. Trump started the hate he keeps accusing the left of having. I was proud of how Obama conducted himself in spite of all the slurs and hate aimed at him. He was able to rise above it because he was secure in himself, something Trump lacks.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Long thread and haven't gone through it all, but way above stan asked what crimes trump has committed. Let me for starters refer you to this thread:

https://www.gardenweb.com/discussions/5814713/list-of-impeachable-offenses#n=26

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

mudhouse: That should have happened with a full House vote, which would have granted both parties, the majority and the minority, the same legal rights to counsel being present in the room both sides being able to call witnesses, both sides being able to issue value subpoenas for documents and testimony."

Chase: A full House vote does not guarantee the things you describe. The rules are dependant upon what is written into the specific resolution. There are no rules that are automatically bestowed simply because there is a vote. There is nothing to indicate the resolution would have been written differently had it been written earlier.

**********

You're right, my comment did make it sound like legal rights were automatically granted by a House vote. They're not, but the fact is that every impeachment process in the country's history has benefited from both parties working together when setting the rules for an inquiry, and both sides were afforded legal rights. Here's what I mean:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-have-abandoned-clinton-impeachments-bipartisan-format

"The Clinton impeachment inquiry opened in December 1998 with a bipartisan agreement that the rules would be based on those used in 1974 during the impeachment investigation into President Richard M. Nixon. Those rules provided the minority with some rights, including the power to call witnesses and to seek authority to issue subpoenas.

The cooperative deal for the Clinton inquiry was struck by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, and the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan.

“Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked more closely together than at any other time in our careers,” Conyers told Hyde at the launch of the first impeachment hearing, which was open to the public.

“And I want to thank you for the many untold efforts that you have made, including providing Democrats the Watergate rules of operation which we sought.”

Conyers at the time praised a largely bipartisan process to develop many of the rules for the impeachment inquiries.

“You know as well as I,” Conyers told Hyde, “that whatever action this committee takes must be fair, it must be bipartisan, for it to have credibility. The American people deserve no less, and history will judge us by how well we achieve that goal.”

**********************

Trump is not above the law, Chase, but he should be afforded the same rights afforded previous US presidents. Not, as I said above, because the Constitution outlines the process, but because of the importance of the process, and what it means to the future of the process as well.

I agree with Conyers' statement above; to be credible, the process needs to be fair, and bipartisan. And I also agree with him that history will judges elected officials by how well they achieve that goal. Schiff and Pelosi will be judged by their determination to toss both qualities aside in their unilaterial and partisan desire to impeach Trump. This is not a good precedent for the future of the country.

And it will increase the division.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Stan then goes on to say: If Donald Trump is guilty of a crime he would be prosecuted.

One might think that, but the chief prosecutor, if you will, is barr who was hired specifically because he doesn't think one can indict a sitting president. Since then trump's lawyers have been arguing in court that the president can not only be indicted, but not investigated as well for anything he did during or before his presidency.

So if your presumption is correct, then, with barr as AG, then the earliest we could see trump prosecuted would be after he left office...unless the Supreme Court decides differently from the latest ruling of the appeals court.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"every impeachment process in the country's history has benefited from both parties worked together when setting the rules for an inquiry"

Aside from the fact that "every" impeachment is really only two in modern times, in the case of both Nixon and Clinton the opposition party agreed, in a bipartisan way, to an impeachment inquiry. That was never going to be happen this time.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Barr is protecting Trump even if it’s by default. That means the inquiry was totally up to the HOR.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Repeating debunked conspiracy theories makes the repeater seem foolish. That’s what happens when you dwell in FRW tabloid websites.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Regardless of how the Mueller report seems to have slipped from view in light of the Ukraine mess, Mueller actually lays out a very solid case for obstruction of justice by the president which is a crime.

But perhaps the most important one is coming to us from Ukraine where there is clear evidence of a quid pro quo where trump was looking specifically for dirt on his political opponent. That is the flip side of bribery...a specified impeachable offense...known as extortion. It's in the call notes, and it's been confirmed by multiple witnesses and others within the state dept.

I don't think there's any doubt that trump has violated both the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses in the Constitution. So while not a crime in the US criminal code because it only applies to the president, it is a violation of the Constitution.

So, no, this is not a political witch hunt but a process being executed to investigate whether the president should be removed from office for violating the law and his oath of office.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Keep telling yourself that ^^^.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Trump is not above the law, Chase, but he should be afforded the same rights afforded previous US presidents.

The problem is understanding what stage the inquiry is in. The first sessions were held under wraps precisely because there *was no independent prosecutor* who did the investigation and interviewed witnesses. Therefore the house had to play that role. In order to ensure truthful testimony and no coordination among witnesses, it is best done in secrecy. Now that the major witnesses have been interviewed, their testimony is being made public. They've found sufficient evidence to move onto the public hearings. The rules they've signed off on for the next session include that trump & counsel can attend all sessions, they can ask questions and for more evidence, and the gop can request and subpoena witnesses.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: The rules they've signed off on for the next session include that trump & counsel can attend all sessions, they can ask questions and for more evidence, and the gop can request and subpoena witnesses.

Really? Let's look at the details. Pelosi's resolution directs SIX committees to continue their ongoing investigations, but only makes rules for TWO of the SIX committees regarding subpoenas, witnesses, and open hearings:

*********************

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hans-von-spakovsky-in-trump-impeachment-probe-democrats-refuse-to-follow-nixon-and-clinton-precedents

"In the impeachment inquiries of Presidents Nixon and Clinton...resolutions were approved, and authorized the House Judiciary Committee – not six different committees – to conduct impeachment inquiries.

...the new resolution directs the six committees of the House to “continue their ongoing investigations” ...[and] lays out rules governing the discovery process – issuing subpoenas, submitting questions, etc. – but only for two of the six committees: the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

So the other four committees – Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means – can continue to operate however they want to, in secret, denying the minority members the ability to fully participate.

**********************

So, let's repeat that. Four of the six committees (instead of one Judiciary Committee, as has been the norm in the past) that Pelosi has directed to continue their investigations can continue to operate just as they have, in secret, and without allowing minority members to fully participate. You don't see that repeated much in the news, do you? Let's go on:

"Even in the rules set out for the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, Pelosi has changed the rules from the Clinton inquiry to, in essence, give the Democrats a one-sided advantage.

Under the Clinton resolution, H.R. 581, [and the Nixon resolution H.R. 803,] the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking minority member... acted together to decide who to subpoena and what documents to obtain. If one of them disagreed, the other member had to first refer the matter to the committee before acting on his own.

But the Pelosi resolution gives the chairmen of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees the power to act unilaterally – without the approval of the ranking Republican member.

If a Republican wants to issue subpoenas, he or she can only do so with the concurrence of the chairman – that is, the member has to ask: chairman, may I?"

*********************

Even on the two investigating committees (out of six!) that are affected by the rules giving some rights to minority members, Nadler and Schiff have complete unilateral authority to subpoena anything and anyone they want, with no input from the minority party. No process for joint decisions between the chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member, as was true in both the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. AND, Nadler and Schiff will have the ability to deny subpoenas requested by the minority party for any document or any witness they care to.

What do you suppose will happen?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Garland will be denied his seat on the SCOTUS?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, there's a reason for not giving the gop complete rein at this point. It's because we've seen the gop turn what are serious legal proceedings into absolute circuses with the distinct intention of disrupting them. They've even gone so far as to storm the SCIF and throw a pizza party instead. So if they have serious witnesses that will directly address the situation, they will be heard. But if they want to put on a clown show to distract, disrupt and diminish the necessary investigation into trump's criminal behavior and abuse of power, as they have in the past, then no. They don't get to.

Moreover the other committees are doing side investigations which will only be rolled into the impeachment process if what they uncover is significant or plays a direct role in these hearings. They are not going to be doing 6 separate impeachment hearings.

Sorry if it feels like not being in power pinches...it does. Ask the dems who have been pinched by secret closed-door legislating with requiring votes with no hearings, no inputs, no opportunity to even review the legislation, or over 500 house bills passed -- even bipartisan ones -- with none even being brought to the senate floor by moscow mitch. And as cattyles mentions, Garland.

(Dang...I'm trying to remember the hearing that the gop turned into a ridiculous clown show in the morning and it wasn't until the afternoon when the staffer lawyers questioned the witness that the real info came out...but his name escapes me now...it was before this ukraine stuff...anyone else remember?)


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Current Resident(z4 WI)

Mud for the umpteenth time - impeachment is not a criminal trial. The house brings the charges (which is called impeachment) and the Senate holds its own hearings and decides whether to remove or not - that's where Individual 1 can call witnesses, cross examine, etc. THAT is your "due process." He does not get to decide on whether to bring the charges against himself or not - that is sole prerogative of the House.

I'm sorry that Mitch and your other leaders are either totally ignorant or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"So you’re ok with the QPQ?"

Is that what we call foreign aid?


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Well said, Annie and Current Resident.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Mud for the umpteenth time - impeachment is not a criminal trial. The house brings the charges (which is called impeachment) and the Senate holds its own hearings and decides whether to remove or not - that's where Individual 1 can call witnesses, cross examine, etc. THAT is your "due process."

Current Resident, thanks, but I'm well aware that impeachment is a political process, and how it works.

What I'm saying is, Trump should have the same fair process that previous US presidents have had for this stage in the House of Representatives.

As was explained in the Washington Examiner article I excerpted above, when Representatives Hyde and Conyers developed a bipartisan process for Clinton's impeachment.

Trying to pretend "this is the way it's always been, mudhouse," is not going to fly. What Pelosi and Schiff are doing is absolutely unprecedented in impeachment proceedings.

He does not get to decide on whether to bring the charges against himself or not - that is sole prerogative of the House.

Where do you think I said the president decides whether to bring charges? The House has the power to impeach. But in past impeachments, the president has been afforded legal rights by joint agreements between the two parties, because they understood the importance of credibility provided by bipartisan agreements.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Well said, mudhouse.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

mudhouse, they want to represent impeachment as "not a trial", so due process won't apply. Did the same thing to Kavannaugh.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

What I'm saying is, Trump should have the same fair process that previous US presidents have had for this stage in the House of Representatives.

But the investigative process was not held in the HOR for the other two impeachments. That's different here.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lurker just posted this on another thread and, frankly, I think it pretty much sums it up. Now, the country has no choice but to go through this as the Dems are moving forward with it, but I sure nodded when I read this comment. I'm so sick of the sour grapes games.

"No reason to play make believe with the crats."

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

The problem is understanding what stage the inquiry is in.

Oh, annie, you jokester! My sides!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

But the investigative process was not held in the HOR for the other two impeachments. That's different here.

Iris, that's not right. The House of Representatives always conducts hearings (it's usually the Judiciary Committee in the House, instead of six House committees as specified by Pelosi's resolution this time.) The committee conducts hearings to gather information to develop the articles of impeachment that the House votes on, before the process is sent to the next stage in the Senate.

Up thread, from in my excerpts from the Washington Examiner article:

"The Clinton impeachment inquiry opened in December 1998 with a bipartisan agreement that the rules would be based on those used in 1974 during the impeachment investigation into President Richard M. Nixon. Those rules provided the minority with some rights, including the power to call witnesses and to seek authority to issue subpoenas.

The cooperative deal for the Clinton inquiry was struck by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, and the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan."

This bipartisan agreement on how to proceed, how subpoenas would be handled for testimony and witnesses, occurred in the House of Representatives, as it always has.

The next Senate phase is separate, and it's not what I'm discussing. Does that make sense?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Another way to understand it is that the House of Representatives functions like prosecutors, and the phase we're in right now involves committee members gathering information to make their case that the president should be impeached. That involves hearings, and that means they have to decide on the rules for how to conduct those hearings, to gather the information.

Then the House committee (traditionally the Judiciary Committee) writes the articles of impeachment, and then the full House will vote on whether or not to impeach.

After a vote to impeach, the process moves to the Senate, and the Senate functions like jurors, for the trial phase. That phase also involves more hearings, but the House phase of impeachment always involves investigations in order to gather the info they need to make their decision about whether or not impeachment is warranted.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaux

Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, there's a reason for not giving the gop complete rein at this point. It's because we've seen the gop turn what are serious legal proceedings into absolute circuses with the distinct intention of disrupting them.

Annie, are you thinking of Michael Cohen's hearing?

The truth is that the Freedom Caucus is full of show horses looking for publicity. Now Kevin McCarthy is going to temporarily move Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows, chief prancing ponies, to the House Intelligence Committees for the televised hearings. I'm sure we all remember Jordan's angry and disrespectful display while questioning Cohen. Somehow they think these clowns will help Trump. Sure, if you find Trump's childishness appealing you'll love Jordan, but 60% of voters do not.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Jordon should be in jail not leading a hearing.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Thanks margaux, but no....it was after Mueller and Cohen but before Ukraine...it was a single guy who was giving public testimony, and in the a.m. the gop made a total clown show of it. After lunch ... once the cameras were turned off and the press went away ... the staffers questioned this guy and real info came out that was not favorable to the trump administration.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

After a vote to impeach, the process moves to the Senate, and the Senate functions like jurors, for the trial phase.

Unfortunately, it seems very possible that the senate will not be acting like "jurors" especially Mr Graham who has stated he WILL NOT READ the testimony. This is dereliction of duty and obviously any juror in a court trial who ever made such a remark would be thrown off the jury immediately. He should be removed from the committee for that remark. NOW.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Again, this isn't a trial, and there isn't a jury.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
barncatz

Skimmed the thread.

Stan, I tootled around on your "crimes" question.


But, if Trump’s behavior was an abuse of power, was it also a crime? The leading candidate for a relevant criminal statute is a familiar one in the federal courts, called the Hobbs Act. The law, (9-131.000 - 18 USC € 1951) named for the Alabama congressman who sponsored it, was enacted in 1946. It prohibits what’s known as “extortion under color of official act."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/in-his-dealings-with-ukraine-did-donald-trump-commit-a-crime

Remember Blagojevich, the Governor who extorted a campaign contribution for legislation? They used the Hobbs Act.

Our DD and her fiancee are flying in to visit for the weekend and I just picked up a silly board game called Stupid Things Humans Search For On The Internet, or something like that, so this was good practice.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

Lurker...I think we all recognize this is NOT a court of law but it is a senate trial/ jury. From the Senate site:

Powers & Procedures

Impeachment
Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach a government official, in effect serving as prosecutor. The Senate has the sole power to conduct impeachment trials, essentially serving as jury and judge. Since 1789 the Senate has tried 19 federal officials, including two presidents.

You might have heard several GOPer's referring to their future stints as "jurors".

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Clinton's bad acts did not involve

Foreign countries

State Dept activity

Foreign intelligence

Disbursement of military aid funds

Etc.

###

Thus few Committees had involvement in Clinton's case.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

Had Mueller laid out “a very solid case for obstruction of justice,” Democrats would have run with it.

But it wasn’t “solid” enough to prosecute. Instead, Dems tried orchestrating a lame Whistle Blower narrative with an antiTrump operative. And right off the bat Adam Schiff got caught lying, saying that NO contact took place between his staff and the Fake Whistle Blower.

Schiff seemed to think lying would be more beneficial than telling the truth. Having contact with the FWB must be a pretty big deal, since he was desperate enough to lie in an effort to keep it from the American people.


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

What an amazing conspiracy it has been to get those career diplomats and even a Trump supporter to fully corroborate what the WB alleged.

The only reason the House could not move forward on the obstruction charges is because of Trump's refusal to allow legally subpoenaed testimony and his refusal to release requested documents.

Those issues are stiil before the courts.....they have not been abandoned.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Happening in the UK as well.

"A new investigation reveals that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservative Party has received a surge in cash from Russian donors over the past year, news that comes as his government continues to block publication of a report into Russian influence over recent elections."

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnsons-conservatives-receive-surge-in-cash-from-russians-2019-11

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I wonder, how did they convince all the rock solid, career diplomats to lie about poor trump?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Current Resident(z4 WI)

RE "But it (obstruction) wasn’t “solid” enough to prosecute" - you must have forgotten that Mueller said its not to be prosecuted because of DOJ policy re a sitting president.

Dont worry, it will be likely included in articles of impeachment - it will be a loooooonnnnnng list not confined to only recent Ukraine investigations.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
barncatz

How can this be a sour grapes impeachment when it's a 40 year public servant, a Trump appointee, and a Trump donor/ appointee who have testified under oath that the Trump quid pro quo denial is an out and out lie. They testified under oath that Trump was leaning on Ukraine to discredit the Mueller probe and kneecap a political rival.

Also, this article, about bipartisan pushback to Trump's action also shows this was not a 'sour grapes' resistance:

Bipartisan pressure from Congress and officials within the administration prompted the White House to lift its hold on the defense assistance on Sept. 11. With a mandated 15-day wait period, that left less than a week to secure the money before the legal authority to spend it expired Sept. 30. (Emphasis added)


https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-14/trump-ukraine-aid-congress-impeachment

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

lurker111

Again, this isn't a trial, and there isn't a jury.

Lurker, I believe Mud was trying to explain this process in a way that some might understand, using analogies. It was probably a wasted effort, but Mud keeps trying.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

But, if Trump’s behavior was an abuse of power, was it also a crime?

It was neither.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

His extortion of the Ukrainian government in order to pressure them to investigate political rivals was an abuse of power. Read the testimony....it's right there .

Now if you want to say that yes he did it but it's not impeachable, that's different. However , the testimony across multiple persons could not be more clear.

Unless of course you think is is prefectably acceptable, and within a President's authority , to use his powers for his own personal political gain......now that's an interesting argument that no one seems brave enough to voice.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

People have testified as to their impressions and inferences. There is no smoking gun.

It just gets more desperate from the Left.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Guess you haven't read the testimonies...it was way more than impressions and inferences......but I have come to understand it doesn' t matter.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

My impression is that the gun, right in front of me, and which I saw being fired, is indeed smoking.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

There's no denying that the ever growing evidence is against trump, his supporters just believe he's being framed by the "deep state". It's an easy out for them.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

This is curious.

Trump wanted Barr to hold a news conference saying Trump broke no laws in call with Ukrainian leader. He's mentioned in recent conversations that Barr wouldn't do it.

https://t.co/Ehncvypyd4?amp=1


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
barncatz

People have testified as to their impressions and inferences.

No, they haven't. They've testified about actual conversations, real emails and texts, including written scripts Ukraine officials were asked to read publicly.

There is no smoking gun.

Yes, there is. Read the [deposition] transcripts.

Former Rep. David Jolly (R-FL) was interviewed by MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace on “Deadline: White House.”

Jolly said. “I agree they inevitably will make the case this is not impeachable. The problem is it requires every single Republican to align with Donald Trump and say that only Donald Trump speaks the truth, that Lieutenant Colonel [Alexander] Vindman — a man of honor and Purple Heart recipient — does not speak the truth. Ambassador [Michael] McKinley — somebody who’s referred to as the Dean of the foreign service corps — does not speak the truth. Ambassador [Marie] Yovanovitch — somebody who dedicated her life to promoting freedom and U.S. ideals on the world stage does not speak the truth. Only Donald Trump does.”

“And there is no greater example of selling your soul to a charlatan than what Republicans are doing right now in the House and the Senate,” he continued. “And their legacies are on the line just as much as Donald Trump’s.”


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

"President Trump wanted Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference declaring that the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so, people familiar with the matter said."



1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I’m astonished. Barr has a limit to his toadiness? Good for him.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Ah, the fickle...

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

I’m surprised too, but didn’t Barr blow off the WB when the phone call was initially brought to him? He just didn’t hold a news conference to announce it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Is the definition of fickle taking in information and responding on a situational basis? Barr’s a toad but I can admit when he does something right. It didn’t hurt a bit. It’s called honesty. Try it. Open your mind and realize the world won’t end if you admit trump might have been a mistake. You’ve got to be exhausted.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Barr wouldn't do the press conference and Barr is holding back on the Horowitz report.........interesting

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Even Barr can't bring himself to say that trump is innocent, he knows trump all to well by now. Barr will keep one hand on a lifeboat.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Yeah, where's that Horowitz report again? Trump needs a distraction.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

So Trump has tweeted 3 times about this claiming he and Barr both deny it, but not a word from Barr.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"The court’s precedents make it clear that impeachment is the business of Congress, not the courts. And when he presided over the Clinton impeachment, Rehnquist emphasized the complete role the Senate played in determining the rules of the hearing.

One of the few objections Rehnquist ruled on was a senator’s concern about House members referring to senators as the equivalent of jurors. The objection, Rehnquist said, is “well taken, that the Senate is not simply a jury; it is a court in this case.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-impeachment-trial-to-test-chief-justice-who-has-tangled-with-trump/2019/11/05/1c220a7e-fb3e-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nah, we don't want the Horowitz report quite yet. I think we've got better news to be covered first - with Mr. Fake WB.

We need to give the current news time to breath right now:) Horowitz and Durham can wait.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Given all the corroborating evidence presented in sworn testimony and given the IG found the WB credible, what do you base calling him a " fake" WB on?

Is the IG and are all the witnesses lying?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Fake news.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

This was kind of an interesting take on impeachment and the election. My guess is the 5th of the 7 potential outcomes described.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-7-ways-impeachment-could-shape-the-2020-election/

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Here is a thorough new discussion of the public polling of impeachment (and impeachment and removal). At the bottom of the article, there are many polls included. Monmouth and ABC/WaPo are the two pollsters with an A+ rating (according to fivethirtyeight). Both were asking the "impeach and remove" question recently. On HT, we've recently/already discussed the ABC/WaPo poll (10/27-10/30) where 82% of Democrats said yes and 82% of Republicans said no. Among Independents, 49% said no and 47% said yes. The (also A+ rated) Monmouth poll (10/30-11/3) shows a wider gap. In that one, 85% of Democrats said yes and 92% of Republicans said no. Among Independents, 51% said no and 42% said yes.

"In addition to tracking the polling averages for and against impeachment among all Americans, we are also keeping tabs on how opinion breaks down by party. As you can see below, Democrats are strongly in favor of impeachment, Republicans are strongly opposed and independents hover somewhere in between."


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

Why don't we just let the process roll along....polls aren't going to impact anything. Anyone else sick and tired of these damn things? They're so frequent now they change everytime someone farts.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

It's rolling along:) That's exactly why I want Horowitz to not release his report right yet and Durham to take his time. I want the news focus right where it is right now - on this rolling along impeachment. I think it's heading to just where I had hoped it would.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I think it's heading to just where I had hoped it would.

I agree, Ann^^^. As to the 7 possible outcome predictions, too soon to tell, for me!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

Ann...You DO realize from the many conversations here that we know Trump won't be found guilty by the senate? We've seen the GOP "patriotism" for 3 yrs now. We know how this is going to end.

What this impeachment will do is to demonstate that corruption, abuse of power will NOT be tolerated therein setting a precedent. This would hold true for either party as I'm sure you can understand.... right?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

So, if Joe Biden wins the nomination and forbid he wins jama, do you agree Biden should be impeached then? DO YOU?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

If he does something impeachable, yeah. You’re so stuck on Ukraine and sure it’s not a conspiracy theory. But weren’t you sure about Pizzagate, birtherism and the Rich conspiracy?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

If one conspriacy doesn't work then try try again.....The Conspriators motto.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

What this impeachment will do is to demonstate[sic] that corruption, abuse of power will NOT be tolerated therein setting a precedent.

Um, no. This is not precedent-setting.

_____________

If one conspiracy[sic] doesn't work then try try again.....The Conspriators[sic] motto.

This works: If one witch hunt doesn't work then try try again.....The leftist progs' motto

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Interesting story on Tucker's show tonight. Yovanovitch was contacted via email, by a Dem staffer, a couple days after the WB/operative complaint came out. The staffer wanted to discuss delicate Ukraine info. Yovanovitch claimed she didn't respond to the email (under oath, in her recent testimony behind closed doors). In fact, she did indeed respond to the email, expressing interest in meeting with the staffer. I can't find a print source yet, but will post a link as soon as I can find this story in written media.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Wonder what the politics are of all the witnesses who have corroborated the WB' s statements?

It is beyond absurd to be, an indication of the weak arguments in defense of Trump , that a person's politics determines their loyalty and truthfulness.

It's a far reach......but the only one they got.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Good luck finding proof of that email from Yovanovitch!

Looking forward to seeing this 'proof'...

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

^^^Butbutbut:

carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Good luck finding proof of that email from Yovanovitch!

Looking forward to seeing this 'proof'...

So, carol. You've been "looking forward to" this. Hope it made your day!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

LOL- I imagine carol will pretend not to see this.

Made my day tho;))

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

This works: If one witch hunt doesn't work then try try again.....The leftist progs' motto

Well, the witch leaves a trail that makes the hunting all too easy elvis, the spell he has cast over you and others here is even more evidence of the witch, nyuk.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Yovanovitch is scheduled to testify in public next week. We'll see what she has to say about it. Unless, of course, that public testimony is cancelled for some unknown reason.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

"Yovanovitch did not indicate that she had responded to Carey's first email in any way, and testified explicitly that she did not reply to Carey's follow-up email concerning whom she should contact at the State Department.

However, emails obtained by Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" showed that in fact, Yovanovitch had responded to Carey's initial Aug. 14 email, writing that she "would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you."


Where did she lie? Did she testify that she did not reply to the initial email? It says she explicitly testified that she did not reply to the follow-up, and Fox only has the initial reply. Where is the lie?

Fox also (unsurprisingly) left off the rest of her reply. Here is the whole thing - sounds a lot more official.

"I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly.”

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The staffer, Laura Carey, reached out to Yovanovitch at the ambassador’s personal email address, a breach of State Department protocol. Yovanovitch testified before the House Intelligence Committee earlier this month that she passed along staffers’ requests to the Legislative Affairs Office at the State Department and never personally responded to Carey.

However, the emails obtained by Fox show that after Carey sent an email to Yovanovitch on August 14, the former ambassador responded directly to Carey."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Can you find where she swore she never responded to her directly, ever? I can't find an easy way to search the transcript and I don't have all day to read it, but Fox says...

"Asked directly whether she responded to Carey's overtures, Yovanovitch testified only that someone in the "Legislative Affairs Office" at the State Department had responded to Carey, to the best of her knowledge."

Am I missing something? I still don't see the lie. Did she swear she didn't reply to the initial email? Her email said someone would be contacting Carey, and her testimony seems to back that up.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Yovanovitch got contacted through the official email channel, to which she didn't respond ... but then turned around and contacted that person through a private email regarding the subject in the official email.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

And she sounded cozy, familiar and eager to reconnect.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Chi, she's due to testify in public next week. I think you can rest assured that, should she actually testify as scheduled, she'll be asked about and able to explain it all in great detail:)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

And we know that Schiffty's aids met with Taylor before his testimony, too.

Don't be surprised if Republicans ask Taylor about that meeting in the open hearing next week and ask Yovanovitch about her perjury at her open hearing.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Sounds good, Ann. Maybe some of the gleeful people here can wait and see if there was actual perjury first.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

"Yovanovitch got contacted through the official email channel, to which she didn't respond ... but then turned around and contacted that person through a private email regarding the subject in the official email."

Where did you hear that? Here's what the article says:

"The staffer, Laura Carey, reached out to Yovanovitch at the ambassador’s personal email address, a breach of State Department protocol."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Well , I should actualty clarify. So she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And she emailed me again and said, you know, who should I be in touch with?

MR. ZELDIN: Did you receive any subsequent requests to testify to the House Foreign Affairs Committee or to come in to speak to someone at the House Foreign Affairs Committee following that initial email? Was there any fo11ow-up?

MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Well, as I said, there was the second email where she said, oh, okay, you know, who should I be talking to? I didn't respond to that email, because I had already transferred everything to the State Department and I figured they would be in touch, and they were.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

"I didn't respond to that email". Well, yes Yovanovich did. Through PRIVATE email, saying she'd just love to chat.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Okay. Where did she say she did not reply to the first email? She said she did not reply to the second email. Is there proof she did?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

However, the emails obtained by Fox show that after Carey sent an email to Yovanovitch on August 14, the former ambassador responded directly to Carey."

She sure did. With "love", no less! "I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking..."

Chuckling.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

""I didn't respond to that email". Well, yes Yovanovich did. Through PRIVATE email, saying she'd just love to chat."

She said she didn't reply to the follow up email. Where she said she would love to chat and the EUR would contact her is the first email. She did not deny responding to the first email.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

It's so fun to watch the goalposts moving.

She lied! Okay she didn't actually lie but she sure sounded friendly! Lock her up!

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

Oh good grief -- the Trumpsters and Tucker are becoming more and more pathetic in their desperate quest for straws to grasp. Here is the exact text of the exchange in the testimony about this:


MR. ZELDIN: When was the last time you had communicated

with that person?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Well , I should actually clarify. So

she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you

know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And she

emailed me again and said, you know, who should I be in touch

w'i th?

MR. ZELDIN: To try to get you to come in and testify to

the House Foreign Affairs Committee?

MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: It wasn't clear to me whether it was

going to be whether this was a discussion with her,

whether this was a discussion with other staffers, whether it

was a deposition. I mean, i t just didn't get that far ,

because I transferred that information to the State

Department lawyers well , H, actual1y.

MR. ZELDIN: And what specifically was she asking you to

speak about?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: I think I think it was the

circumstances of my departure, or maybe she just kept it more

general and said to catch up, but I understood it as that.

MR. ZELDIN: Do you know if she had reached out to other

people about that?

M5. YOVAN0VITCH: I don't know.

MR. ZELDIN: And you one more tjme. And what did you

do after you received the email?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: I alerted the State Department,

because I'm sti11 an employee and so matters are generally

handled through the State Department.

MR. ZELDiN: Was that person responded to by you or

in (blacked out)

MR. ZELDIN: Did you receive any subsequent requests to

testify to the House Foreign Affairs Committee or to come in

to speak to someone at the House Foreign Affairs Comm'ittee

following that initia1 emai1? Was there any fo11ow-up?

MS. Y0VANOVITCH: We11, as I said, there was the second

email where she said, oh, okay, you know, who should I be

talking to?

I didn't respond to that emai1, because I had already

transferred everything to the State Department and I figured

they would be in touch, and they were.


First, Yovanovitch does not say she didn't reply to the first email in her testimony (and implied that she had, actually, with what she said about the second email, "I didn't respond to that (my emphasis) email, because..."), and, second and in any case, her reply to the staffer in that email was not substantive, just a polite reply to let the staffer know that she had referred the matter to the State Department. While Yovanovitch indicates she's not adverse to a chat, it's clear it's in the State Dept.'s hands:


"Thanks for reaching out — and congratulations on your new job. I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly."


So, Zeldin asks her what she did in response to the staffer's email and she tells him what her substantive response was, to refer it to the State Dept. Yovanovich does explicitly testify that she didn't reply to the staffer's second email pushing the issue, because she regarded it as being the State Department's responsibility at that point. If evidence arises that she did respond to the second email, that would be an issue,


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I just saw a very interesting interview about this topic with John Yoo (attorney and law professor at UC Berkeley). He said he doesn't think Yovanovitch's conflicting story (and potential lie) is nearly as damaging as the timing of her contact from and to the Dem staffer.

He discussed what the timing points to is that this whole thing is appearing more and more like a coordinated partisan effort, including witness coaching. We now have the info of the WB first meeting with Schiff and/or Schiff's staff, the WB lawyer's political motivations, and now Yovanovitch being contacted 2 days after the WB complaint. Yoo feels this is providing evidence about the coordinated political situation - rather than an independent WB and witnesses. He said in order to convince the Senate or the American people, the situation needs to appear non-partisan and non-political. All signs are now pointing toward a very coordinated and orchestrated political partisan situation.

Once again, a "planted" basis seems to be at the bottom of this.

Some of us and not the least bit surprised.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

.........smells more like coordinated desperation to discredit people and invent conspiracy theories because the facts are damming and indefensible.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

John Yoo (attorney and law professor at UC Berkeley)

and who helped to write the infamous memo (pre-Bybee) justifying the use of torture by the US, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Clearly, the man can justify just about anything.

(I'm surprised that Cal has him as a professor.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Where's that hilarious nothing burger meme that somebody shared in the past?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Apparently simply appearing on FOX automatically makes a person credible to some. It is astounding to me how often pundits are quoted in a manner that makes it sound like " they said it so it must be true".

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

Well, I'm going to keep suggesting that Trumpers change that channel or website from time to time. I cannot believe the grasping and stretching I'm reading...lol.

According to Trumpers, these conspiracies and plots are so massive, so complex that they involve gawd knows how many people ranging from dems in congress to evil, preppy WB's to govt employees with different agencies, depts, some still there, some gone...even some repubs!

And then there's the more likely truth. Occams razor....he's guilty.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Yovanovitch is above reproach. She is/was more worried about the security of US than Trump. Fox alludes to certain scenarios without all the info. Maybe she meant she never discussed anything with the person who contacted her. Saying she looked forward to chatting was merely a response not a discussion. It is such petty nitpicking compared to the total evidence against Trump.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

It is interesting that they have yet to come up with a conspiracy theory involving Sondland who is by far and away the most damning witness given his amended testimony and the fact he is a Trump supporter.

I do recall some vague suggestions that he received some sort of quid pro quo for his revised testimony but that's as far as it went.

He fully corroborates the WB and then some!!!! What stay you to that Trump supporters?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jama7(6)

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation."

So...we have an extremely complex conspiracy requiring many, many elaborate assumptions as stated by his supporters in this thread OR he's a lying, corrupt, ignorant narcissist who fancies himself above the law. Like he's been his entire life. And which all the evidence so far points to, including his own words and that of his chief of staff.

Gee...it's hard to choose.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

It's funny how there is all this GOP focus on smearing & outing the whistleblower, when the allegations in the original complaint have been corroborated in witness' testimonies, IOW, none of the whistleblower's allegations has been proven false.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

Last night Maddow read part of Fiona Hill's testimony. Remember, Hill was a political appointee at the White House who worked there longer than almost anyone else. She didn't hold back. She chewed up and spit out the staffer trying to push Ukraine conspiracy theories. Hope she testifies publicly.




2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

soupgirl53

History is not going to be kind to those who believed there was a deep state.

_________________________________________________________

Oh yeah?

Former ACTING CIA DIRECTOR says "Thank God for the Deep State."










2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

jama7(6)

Ann...You DO realize from the many conversations here that we know Trump won't be found guilty by the senate? We've seen the GOP "patriotism" for 3 yrs now. We know how this is going to end.

What this impeachment will do is to demonstate that corruption, abuse of power will NOT be tolerated therein setting a precedent. This would hold true for either party as I'm sure you can understand.... right?


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Can't wait for the treason trials.

1 Like Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Most Popular Bedroom Color: The Secret to More Sex and More Sleep
Look to surprising revelations about bedroom wall colors to get more of what you want
Full Story
Feel-Good Home 10 Tips for a More Peaceful Home
Turn your everyday living space into a serene retreat by clearing visual distractions, softening your lighting and more
Full Story
Architecture A Clear Solution for Zoning an Open-Plan Space
Break up an area without blocking light with a gorgeous glass divider like these
Full Story