House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates

Wow that was really a high crime and misdemeanor....upset out entire democracy...no man ever lies about a blowjob

 

Trump gives the U.S. one every day.

 

Most men dont stick their cocks down the throats of subordinates, at work.

 

Yes most men cheat on their wives the way Trump does it.in a hotel room but most men can't afford the high priced prostitutes that Trump can.

 

Are you playing the two wrongs make a right game?

 

The main defense of Republicans in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump has been to attack what they call the secrecy of the impeachment inquiry. Trump’s defenders point to closed-door hearings and the fact that the House has not yet been allowed to vote on whether to conduct the impeachment inquiry itself. There is some truth to the charges against the way the Democrats are conducting the inquiry, but there are also examples of Republican criticisms being off base.

The fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not allowed a House vote on whether to begin an impeachment inquiry has been a major complaint of Republicans. On Sept. 24, Pelosi merely said, “I am announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry” and the ball started rolling.

Republicans seem to be correct that no other impeachment inquiry has ever been launched without a House vote, but the bottom line is that neither the Constitution nor House rules require a vote to begin an impeachment investigation. As Keith Whittington of Lawfare pointed out, the House leadership chose to use standing committees to investigate Mr. Trump’s alleged abuses of power and were entirely within House rules to do so.

Further, neither the Constitution nor House rules require an impeachment inquiry at all. If the House wanted to bring up an impeachment vote with no investigation at all, it could do so. Such a scenario might happen if a president’s actions were either obvious to the most members of Congress or if the president openly admitted to impeachable acts.

Republicans have also complained about how they are being treated in committee. There have been claims that Republicans were shut out of committee meetings and were not allowed to be present and ask questions at depositions. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff explained the need for some secrecy to Roll Call, stressing that the current inquiry is different from the impeachment investigations into Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon where special prosecutors had already investigated the incidents that led to the impeachment.

“In each of those cases, there were either independent counsels or special prosecutors doing the investigation, doing the initial investigative work, and that was all done behind closed doors,” Schiff said.

Schiff explained that if witnesses were aware of what other witnesses had said, they could tailor their own testimony “either to hide the truth or color the truth or know just how much they can give and how much they can conceal.” It is a basic investigative technique to separate witnesses and to get their individual testimony without having it tainted by hearing others.

“Now, I should tell you, notwithstanding those good and sound reasons, at each of these committee interviews and depositions and when we get to open hearings — and we will get to open hearings — the Republicans are completely represented,” Schiff said.

Schiff said that all members of the Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees and their staffs can attend depositions and ask questions. Republicans are provided equal time for questioning with the sides alternating every 45 minutes to an hour.

“They have been largely staff-conducted interviews. They have been very professionally done, although members, too, get to ask questions and we go until the questions are exhausted so they get to ask all the questions they want,” Schiff said.

In one publicized case, Rep. Matt Gaetz was ejected from a meeting of the joint committee investigating impeachment, but Gaetz was not a member of the committees holding the meeting. Gaetz is a member of the Judiciary Committee but it is the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees that are conducting the impeachment hearings. There is no evidence that Republicans who serve on those three committees have been excluded. In fact, Axios pointed out that, when Republicans raided an impeachment hearing this week, 13 of the Republican protesters already had access to the hearing because they were members of the committees holding the hearing.

Republicans such as Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) don’t buy Schiff’s explanations. “We’re talking about impeaching the president of the United States in secret, based on an anonymous whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge, [who] has a bias against the president, has been reported that he worked with Joe Biden, who when he hears about the call, the next day writes a memo using all kinds of descriptors like crazy, scary, but then waits 18 days before he files a complaint,” Jordan complained. “And who does he run up to see in that interim? Adam Schiff’s staff. And now that guy says, ‘Now I’m going to be the special counsel and the independent counsel.’ That is laughable.”

Jordan’s rant actually undercuts another Republican complaint, namely that the whistleblower has not been called to testify. But if, as Jordan concedes, the whistleblower had no direct knowledge of Trump’s actions, he or she has little to add to the testimony of State Department officials who were in the loop and privy to Trump’s decision-making.

The answer is similar for Republican complaints about being denied access to transcripts of witness testimony. Republicans say that only members of applicable committees have access to the transcripts and then only under the watchful eye of Democratic minders. Democrats answer that the transcripts will be made public after the investigative phase is finished. Left unsaid is that they will be released when the possibility of witness tampering is reduced.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries also pointed to the 1998 House resolution authorizing subpoena power for the Clinton impeachment investigation, noting that Democrats did not have the power to independently subpoena their own witnesses as some Republicans have claimed but had to get approval from either the chairman or the full committee. Jeffries says that the current subpoena rules for the Intelligence Committee are no different.

Many members of the Trump Administration have used their complaints about the impeachment proceedings to justify failing to comply with subpoenas from House committees. Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword since some Republicans, including Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), are on record that refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas is itself an impeachable offense.

A further claim by Republicans is that impeachment requires a criminal act. While the Constitution specifies treason, bribery, and “high crimes and misdemeanors” as grounds for impeachment, the original intent of the phrase included acts that were not explicit crimes. A list of impeachments on the House website reveals that, of 19 impeachments from throughout US history, eight were for noncriminal acts including three cases that specifically cited abuse of power.

A charge by Jack Langer, a spokesman for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that, “There are no established rules or parameters at all, the Democrats are just inventing them as they go” seems to be untrue. Democrats argue that all of the normal committee rules protecting minority rights are still in effect for impeachment-related hearings.

In fact, it was only four years ago in 2015 when the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), personally dismissed Rep Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) from a hearing during the Benghazi investigation. The reason? Issa was not a member of the committee. The Democrats are following the same rules.

Republicans do have a stronger case in their complaints about not being able to call their own witnesses and present exculpatory evidence, but the test as to whether those claims will stand up will only come when the House moves beyond the investigative phase. Democrats say that there will be open sessions and transcripts will be released after the facts have been gathered. Current indications are the impeachment proceedings might move into the open phase as early as mid-November.

“We do anticipate a time when we’ll be releasing transcripts, and we do anticipate there will be a time when we will hold back some of these witnesses for open session, and we may call witnesses in open session that we haven’t called in closed session. But we will do so giving the GOP members every opportunity to ask questions,” Schiff said. “We want to make sure that we get to the truth, and this is the process, I think, early in an investigation that makes the most sense.”

Democrats seem to be following established congressional guidelines for congressional hearings, even if the decision to use standing committees rather than a select impeachment committee is not how impeachments have traditionally been handled. Before an impeachment vote is taken, critics of the president should make their case to the public. Supporters of the president do deserve a chance to present their side of the story as well. Indications are that the time for public hearings is coming within the next few weeks.

 

Are you playing the hypocrisy game?

 

Did I say one wasn't bad?

 

I don't care what you said . I simply mentioned that Trump was equally as awful or worse since this lying hypocrite ran on how poorly Clinton treated women. So I never implied two wrongs make a right. You did.

 

Lying under oath.....

Perjury: Laws and Penalties

A witness under oath commits perjury by making a statement in a court or other proceeding that the witness knows is not true. The statement must be “material” to the subject of the proceeding, meaning that it must have some relationship to the lawsuit, investigation, or inquiry of the proceeding. All parts of this definition are important, so let’s take a closer look at each

A person convicted of perjury under federal law may face up to five years in prison and fines. The punishment for perjury under state law varies from state to state, but perjury is a felony and carries a possible prison sentence of at least one year, plus fines and probation. Penalties are increased in relation to how much the perjury interfered with the proceeding. When the perjurer was a witness in his own criminal trial, his sentence for the underlying conviction may also be increased, on the grounds that a lying defendant is one who has a bad character and is not likely to be rehabilitated quickly.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/perjury.htm

What made you think lying after swearing "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is alright?

So if you took someone to court and they lied after "swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", you'd be OK with that?

 

Yeah, I know.
You played the two wrongs make a right game.
I already told you that.

 

[

No question that it was wrong and stupid. But how does that become a high crime and misdemeanor.?

 

You told me nothing but your own fantastical idea..
I'm simply pointing out that years after Clinton it became OK for raging hypocrites and liars to vote for Trump. It was also OK for this raging sociopath to attack Clinton after doing the same things but worse. How you got the screwy notion that 2 wrongs make a right is your problem..

 

Most Americans don't care about this run of the mill affair' where Linda Trip secretly recorded Monica Lewinsky to get the goods on Trump. Most Americans don't want to be secretly set up and recorded without their knowledge. That's why Clinton wound up with favorable ratings in the end where as Trump was accused by his ex wife of raping her. Dozens of other Women came forward about Trumps sexual abuse including teenagers who observed Trump entering their locker rooms where they were under various states of undress. In the Trailer tape Trump confessed that he seduced a women by going shopping with her but that in the end "he just couldn't move on the b*** and remarked that years later she was unattractive looking, married and wearing what he described as falsies. This story itself has been corroborated by dozens of women who recognized this exact modus operandi of Trumps when he forced himself on to them. Trump has the largest trail of Women accusers of any President in history but some of his fans only worry about infidelity when it comes to Clinton. Trump is the biggest liar in presidential history with some 12,000 lies having been recorded so far. He's also defying the constitution as we speak, not letting the House perform it's constitutional right to perform an impeachment.

 

Didn't your mommy teach you not to point out somebody else's wrong when a wrong is pointed out to you? Didn't she say, "Two wrongs don't make a right"? Did you forget the lessons you were taught as a kid ?

 

Lol thus proving that you are still in elementary school trying to function in the world of adults

 

Just proving that you failed to learn the lessons of adults and carry on like a child in debate.

But mom,....look what my brother did!

 

Once again your simple elementary school rules don't function in the real world of adults proving that complex notions are way beyond your comprehension skills but keep trying you might reach a first grade level of understanding!

 

You are correct.
You argument did not function and I flushed it.
Now run along and go start a Trump thread and talk about his girlfriends

 

Lol so victory is yours even if you have to claim it yourself. That's the most authentic concession speech I've heard yet. And to boot you're admitting that Trump has betrayed wives, family and even his own mistresses.

 

Like trump?.......”but America...look what Obama did!”

 

You just did it.
Amazing

 

whoooosh, the sarcasm going over your head.

 

Whoosh, you sarcastically did it