The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (25 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Someone please get Radcliffe some water.

 

[CoolBrees]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, GOP claims on Ukraine corruption

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his GOP allies pressed a defense Thursday that he acted appropriately in withholding military aid to Ukraine out of concern over the country’s corruption and claimed the House impeachment hearings amounted to a rogue process.

apnews.com

This is pretty plain English analysis of the talking points today.

This is one more example of the Truth not mattering. Just muddy the waters.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

What happened? In meetings all day and can't listen.

Dr. Hill went into great detail about a disagreement that she had with Sondland about his activities in Ukraine. She pointed out what he was doing was undermining our national security interest by promoting trump's political interest. Her testimony at that time was in response to Republican counsel questioning.

 

[insidejob]

These Republicans sure look like clowns not even asking questions but rather just screaming at the witnesses.

 

[bdb13]

These Republicans sure look like clowns not even asking questions but rather just screaming at the witnesses.

And not even getting the facts correct from yesterday's testimony.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

These Republicans sure look like clowns not even asking questions but rather just screaming at the witnesses.

I had some meetings, are they just entiriely avoiding Hill? Because since getting back it seems their plan is to soap box and work around her, then like all other days, rely on Fox News to selectively edit everything so they can feed their audience.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I had some meetings, are they just entiriely avoiding Hill? Because since getting back it seems their plan is to soap box and work around her, then like all other days, rely on Fox News to selectively edit everything so they can feed their audience.

And then they get pissy when Schiff let Hill respond after three straight Republican committee members attacked her without letting her respond.

 

[insidejob]

I had some meetings, are they just entiriely avoiding Hill? Because since getting back it seems their plan is to soap box and work around her, then like all other days, rely on Fox News to selectively edit everything so they can feed their audience.

The last three Republicans who had the floor didn't ask either of them a question, just tried to make them look bad. So, yeah, Fox News talking points.

 

[BobE]

I can make use of 3 seconds. TWSS.

 

[st dude]

Well, that escalated quickly!!! I think they may want to stop asking Dr. Hill questions.

I got to watch a little bit of Castor cross examining Hill at lunch today. I am stunned Castor is the best they could do. We do some mass tort pharma cases that typically involve top national defense firms, which means periodically you are in hearings or depositions pitted against ivy league $1000 an hour lawyers. Most are experienced litigators and none of them would make the rookie mistakes Castor made time and time again.

It was obvious to a fifth grader that Dr Hill was a formidable witness. She remembers everything. She is unusually articulate. She doesnt back down and will not let anyone put words in her mouth. And she's got that perfect British accent. I say this seriously, juries just love expert witnesses with German or British accents. They sound smarter. LOL.

So here is cross examination for dummies rule #1. Never give a smart adverse witness the floor. Never. Do not ask open ended questions where they can launch into a narrative answer. Do not ask questions you do not know the answer to, you will rarely like the answer you get. You find that out in depositions and then you mine from the depositions some safe questions you can ask that make points for you, asked in a way where you can get a yes or no answer and keep the witness from going to their talking points.

I have zero idea where Castor was headed. Time again he asked Hill to explains something and she just swallowed him alive with her command of the facts. Even Nunes was smart enough when asking her questions not to go mad dog on her and not let her loose.

We have trial attorneys in my small town that would know better. Hill was a good witness for the democrats. There are a few areas where she lacks personal knowledge and that could be established in a few yes or no questions.

When a witness is hurting you and you think is appealing to the judge or jury, make a point or two on cross, take your lumps and get the witness off the stand. Never ask a smart adverse witness an open ended question that invites a narrative response.

I had a good friend attorney on the other side take a chance and ask my very good expert an open ended question and he got hammered on the answer. He leaned over and whispered to me, "walked right into that punch, didn't I?" Yes he did. LOL Duh Castor. He took a few on the chin today

 

[superchuck500]

He’s a hack

 

[bdb13]

So as to what Hill said in her opener, are there actually Republican members of the intelligence committee who assert that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election instead of Russia?

Or is it more accurate to say that some Republican members believe that both nations meddled?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I got to watch a little bit of Castor cross examining Hill at lunch today. I am stunned Castor is the best they could do. We do some mass tort pharma cases that typically involve top national defense firms, which means periodically you are in hearings or depositions pitted against ivy league $1000 an hour lawyers. Most are experienced litigators and none of them would make the rookie mistakes Castor made time and time again.

It was obvious to a fifth grader that Dr Hill was a formidable witness. She remembers everything. She is unusually articulate. She doesnt back down and will not let anyone put words in her mouth. And she's got that perfect British accent. I say this seriously, juries just love expert witnesses with German or British accents. They sound smarter. LOL.

So here is cross examination for dummies rule #1. Never give a smart adverse witness the floor. Never. Do not ask open ended questions where they can launch into a narrative answer. Do not ask questions you do not know the answer to, you will rarely like the answer you get. You find that out in depositions and then you mine from the depositions some safe questions you can ask that make points for you, asked in a way where you can get a yes or no answer and keep the witness from going to their talking points.

I have zero idea where Castor was headed. Time again he asked Hill to explains something and she just swallowed him alive with her command of the facts. Even Nunes was smart enough when asking her questions not to go mad dog on her and not let her loose.

We have trial attorneys in my small town that would know better. Hill was a good witness for the democrats. There are a few areas where she lacks personal knowledge and that could be established in a few yes or no questions.

When a witness is hurting you and you think is appealing to the judge or jury, make a point or two on cross, take your lumps and get the witness off the stand. Never ask a smart adverse witness an open ended question that invites a narrative response.

I had a good friend attorney on the other side take a chance and ask my very good expert an open ended question and he got hammered on the answer. He leaned over and whispered to me, "walked right into that punch, didn't I?" Yes he did. LOL Duh Castor. He took a few on the chin today

Well it appears that the Republicans have given up asking Dr. Hill or Mr Holmes anymore questions.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

So as to what Hill said in her opener, are there actually Republican members of the intelligence committee who assert that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election instead of Russia?

Or is it more accurate to say that some Republican members believe that both nations meddled?

She tired to clean that up by saying it was their position during her closed deposition.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm so glad Stefanik mentioned the election interference report. I haven't heard a thing about this today...

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Well it appears that the Republicans have given up asking Dr. Hill or Mr Holmes anymore questions.

Stefanik is testing the waters. Bold strategy.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

So as to what Hill said in her opener, are there actually Republican members of the intelligence committee who assert that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election instead of Russia?

Or is it more accurate to say that some Republican members believe that both nations meddled?

Trump/Hannity/Giuliani do, and most Republican members of the intelligence committee are their lap dogs, so regardless of whether they actually "believe" it the answer those members would have to give without being blasted on Fox News as traitors is "yes." Or, at worst, "we need to let the Ukraine investigators get to the bottom of this."

 

[BobE]

don't fart Swalwell