The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (11 Viewers)

We will see the entire transcript of all the witnesses soon enough. I wonder what will be the objection then?

MT15 said:

We will see the entire transcript of all the witnesses soon enough. I wonder what will be the objection then?

Click to expand...

Won't be any from me. I want them all and no redaction's . Then again I wanted the Mueller report that way and hell I still want every name on the Congressional sexual harassment slush fund.

MT15 said:

We will see the entire transcript of all the witnesses soon enough.

Click to expand...

Don't count on it. If Schiff has his way you will never see all the transcripts from all the witnesses in their entirety.

yuyi64 said:

Shocking I tell you , shocking! Tomorrow Schiff will leak the bombshell that the President is acting like a politician running for re-election.

Click to expand...

this is a clear abuse of power that, had a Democratic President done it you would be screaming for his impeachment. It’s a crime to do what Trump has apparently done, not to mention unethical and immoral.

if Obama had done this, he would be impeached. And deservedly and quickly. We’ve already seen Graham say if something other than a request on a phone call can be proven, he would think it disturbing. Now we have a career diplomat, a graduate of West Point laying out a conspiracy involving several political appointees, Trump’s personal lawyer, and Trump himself.

Beach Friends said:

Really? That seems pretty strange that you would confuse what is happening here to a grand jury.

Click to expand...

D'oh, I definitely should have started my post better... good catch.

My point that should have been phrased better is you said that witness who is not cross-examined doesn't mean much, which I'm not sure you really believe in all cases. Clearly, witness testimony does mean something even if they aren't cross-examined. You can't convict someone based off that, but you can determine whether there is justification to either continue investigate or to bring something to trial like in a grand jury, correct?

Beach Friends said:

You are aware that grand jury testimony is not selectively leaked out correct?

This false comparison to a grand jury proceeding is tiresome. People overlook the fact that, for example, that the leaked opening statement was obviously not subject to cross examination. Someone else says, oh yeah - they can cross examine the witness.
But they conveniently overlook the fact any testimony taken under cross examination is under lock and key.

Certainly you can appreciate that if we can't see the entire testimony that the portion you can see doesn't mean a whole lot.

Click to expand...

So, I actually agree with your distaste for press leaks. It just adds to the political theater. I actually think Trump would have been damaged more if there had been little leaks and discussions in the run up to the Mueller report and just had the Mueller report released.

However, that's the nature of political investigations. Hillary had to deal with it, and Trump has to deal with it now.

And I disagree that what we see doesn't mean a whole lot. I agree that it means less than seeing everything, but what was released or leaked, corroborates what we've seen from other sources, so it's not standing on its own. Could there be something else that we haven't seen that explains everything and exonerates Trump? Sure, it's possible... but I think it's pretty fair to say that this should be investigated.

MT15 said:

this is a clear abuse of power that, had a Democratic President done it you would be screaming for his impeachment.

Click to expand...

No I wouldn't. All Presidents use the power of the office for political gain and I haven't called for any of them to be impeached, not even Clinton. I don't live in a fantasy world where I pretend that Presidents are holy and pure; they're human just like the rest of us and I'm OK with that.

So we see the defense will be whataboutism. The fallacy that every president has been as corrupt as this one. Thankfully, I don’t think the majority of the public will look at it that way. Especially from a politician who ran on “draining the swamp”.

At some point, Republicans will need to consider the Nixon treatment, I truly believe that would be best for the Republican Party. They could run Pence or Nikki Haley and have a better shot at winning the election.

What will be fascinating about that is that I don’t think Trump would ever consider doing anything for the good of the Republican Party, unlike Nixon. They will have to present it to him as some sort of “win” for him personally.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

D'oh, I definitely should have started my post better... good catch.

My point that should have been phrased better is you said that witness who is not cross-examined doesn't mean much, which I'm not sure you really believe in all cases. Clearly, witness testimony does mean something even if they aren't cross-examined. You can't convict someone based off that, but you can determine whether there is justification to either continue investigate or to bring something to trial like in a grand jury, correct?



So, I actually agree with your distaste for press leaks. It just adds to the political theater. I actually think Trump would have been damaged more if there had been little leaks and discussions in the run up to the Mueller report and just had the Mueller report released.

However, that's the nature of political investigations. Hillary had to deal with it, and Trump has to deal with it now.

And I disagree that what we see doesn't mean a whole lot. I agree that it means less than seeing everything, but what was released or leaked, corroborates what we've seen from other sources, so it's not standing on its own. Could there be something else that we haven't seen that explains everything and exonerates Trump? Sure, it's possible... but I think it's pretty fair to say that this should be investigated.

Click to expand...

Well, we do have common ground.

I am, however, a firm believer that the greatest tool for getting to the truth is cross examination.

I was having breakfast once with an attorney and I asked him what the case was about that he was travelling for. His response, "I'll let you know after opposing counsel takes my client's deposition."

That was tounge in cheek of course, but his point was that you don't really know what your witness knows until the opponent starts to dig in. People's testimony crumbles under the scrutiny of cross examination all the time.

That is especially true if they are pushing an agenda. Often they will state as fact things that they really don't have first hand knowledge of at all.

And you really are not going to see issues of credibility explored under direct examination.

Oh, and I really don't assume examination by a House Republican to be effective cross examination. A person being prosecuted has the right to cross examine his accusers. The House Republican may or may not have the same motivation to examine the witness on certain matters. In addition, he may not have the same information that the POTUS would have and he may not be motivated to prepare for the cross like the POTUS would be.

If these proceedings were held in total secrecy then I think we could debate over the extent to which these proceeding should be one sided like a grand jury is. As it is, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that we will not see things continue as they have been, which means a rush to the media with selective leaks.

MT15 said:

So we see the defense will be whataboutism. The fallacy that every president has been as corrupt as this one. Thankfully, I don’t think the majority of the public will look at it that way. Especially from a politician who ran on “draining the swamp”.

At some point, Republicans will need to consider the Nixon treatment, I truly believe that would be best for the Republican Party. They could run Pence or Nikki Haley and have a better shot at winning the election.

What will be fascinating about that is that I don’t think Trump would ever consider doing anything for the good of the Republican Party, unlike Nixon. They will have to present it to him as some sort of “win” for him personally.

Click to expand...

I don't think the GOP is anywhere close to going to the POTUS with a demand that he resign. Lindsey Graham indicated tonight that he intends to introduce a resolution condemning the House procedures and informing the House that if they impeach using these procedures the Senate will dismiss it as illegitimate on it's face.

We'll see.

MT15 said:

At some point, Republicans will need to consider the Nixon treatment, I truly believe that would be best for the Republican Party. They could run Pence or Nikki Haley and have a better shot at winning the election.

Click to expand...

Republicans will not consider an alternate candidate unless a fair bipartisan impeachment inquiry determines the President has committed an impeachable crime. The ongoing Schiff Sham will do nothing towards making that happen, on the contrary, it will firm up support for the President due to its perceived partisan and unethical nature.

Beach Friends said:

Well, we do have common ground.

I am, however, a firm believer that the greatest tool for getting to the truth is cross examination.

I was having breakfast once with an attorney and I asked him what the case was about that he was travelling for. His response, "I'll let you know after opposing counsel takes my client's deposition."

That was tounge in cheek of course, but his point was that you don't really know what your witness knows until the opponent starts to dig in. People's testimony crumbles under the scrutiny of cross examination all the time.

That is especially true if they are pushing an agenda. Often they will state as fact things that they really don't have first hand knowledge of at all.

And you really are not going to see issues of credibility explored under direct examination.

Oh, and I really don't assume examination by a House Republican to be effective cross examination. A person being prosecuted has the right to cross examine his accusers. The House Republican may or may not have the same motivation to examine the witness on certain matters. In addition, he may not have the same information that the POTUS would have and he may not be motivated to prepare for the cross like the POTUS would be.

If these proceedings were held in total secrecy then I think we could debate over the extent to which these proceeding should be one sided like a grand jury is. As it is, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that we will not see things continue as they have been, which means a rush to the media with selective leaks.

Click to expand...

Trump has not been charged with anything yet. They are still gathering evidence. Why are you so eager to start the trial before the investigation is over?

yuyi64 said:

Republicans will not consider an alternate candidate unless a fair bipartisan impeachment inquiry determines the President has committed an impeachable crime. The ongoing Schiff Sham will do nothing towards making that happen, on the contrary, it will firm up support for the President due to its perceived partisan and unethical nature.

Click to expand...

Both parties have the ability to ask questions of everyone called to appear.

Beach Friends said:

Testimony from a witness who has not been subject to cross examination is pretty meaningless to me.

Click to expand...

It's an investigation. It's not like the police bring you in for questioning, and then you get cross examined... that happens later.

Lawmakers were also told on the conference call which committees will be handling which aspects of the investigation. The Intelligence Committee will focus on the substance of the president’s alleged actions as outlined in a whistleblower complaint that the Trump administration initially withheld from Congress, while the Foreign Affairs Committee plans to probe the details of the State Department’s possible involvement with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.

The Oversight and Reform Committee, meanwhile, will look into the potential misuse of classification systems at the White House — an apparent reference to the whistleblower’s complaint, which alleged that White House officials sought to “lock down” the transcript of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine's president.

Click to expand...

It's not quid pro quo.. they should want to do this... if they don't do it, we're at a stalemate...

Saying it isn't quid pro quo doesn't' make it true.

wardorican said:

It's an investigation. It's not like the police bring you in for questioning, and then you get cross examined... that happens later.

Dem leaders plot impeachment messaging war with Trump

Pelosi and her deputies are also looking to protect vulnerable lawmakers.

www.politico.com

Click to expand...

The grand jury analogy was flawed but has more appeal than a run of the mill police interview. We are talking about possibly removing the President of the United States. If we give a damn about the nation accepting this it has to be done in a manner that at least has the appearance the proceedings are fundamentally fair.

Having secret hearings and then leaking only those portions of the evidence that favors the side controlling the proceedings is surefire way to further divide an already polarized nation.

yuyi64 said:

All Presidents use the power of the office for political gain...

Click to expand...

How many times is this community going to allow this claim to be repeated without any one of the people repeating it providing a single example of any other president doing something equivalent to what Trump stands accused of doing?

How many times does a completely unsupported factual claim have to be repeated before it's considered a violation of the spirit of and respect for this community?

Beach Friends said:

The grand jury analogy was flawed but has more appeal than a run of the mill police interview. We are talking about possibly removing the President of the United States. If we give a damn about the nation accepting this it has to be done in a manner that at least has the appearance the proceedings are fundamentally fair.

Having secret hearings and then leaking only those portions of the evidence that favors the side controlling the proceedings is surefire way to further divide an already polarized nation.

Click to expand...

Again, it's a lot better than an independent council.

Beach Friends said:

The grand jury analogy was flawed but has more appeal than a run of the mill police interview. We are talking about possibly removing the President of the United States. If we give a damn about the nation accepting this it has to be done in a manner that at least has the appearance the proceedings are fundamentally fair.

Having secret hearings and then leaking only those portions of the evidence that favors the side controlling the proceedings is surefire way to further divide an already polarized nation.

Click to expand...

Would you prefer having an independent counsel be conducting the investigations like how it was done with the previous two impeachment investigations?