The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (16 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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I zoned out for a sec. Did Swalwell just bring up the revelation that Nunes worked with Lev Parnas?

 

[st dude]

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

I did not get to see much of Holmes. In the first ten minutes of listening to Hill all I could think is that if she were adverse to me how fast I would want to get her off the stand.

Its amazing how many big dollar attorneys do not get this. They feel compelled to ask questions that end up not helping. Sometimes you just take your licks and do not make it worse.

A trial is like a football game. You rarely win 60 to 0. The other team will score points too. Pick your fights. Sondland a sleazy dude, you can go after him and score points on cross. I would have just let the dems score their points with Hill and take my shots at a weaker witness.

 

[bdb13]

I zoned out for a sec. Did Swalwell just bring up the revelation that Nunes worked with Lev Parnas?

Yep. This shirt gets crazier.

 

[Archies Ghost]

You're part of the problem Fiona Hill is currently testifying about. Accept that Russia was trying to help Trump's election with their misinformation campaign because that is what happened. It brought short term gains for them, but is also part of their long term objectives to destabilize our country and by extension all of the west.

The Ukraine had nothing to do with this.

Republicans have contributed and aided Russia in their long term objectives by the incessant spreading of fake conspiracy theories and fake news from law makers, conservative media partners and through their constituents spreading it on social media.

It's time to get your head out of the sand.

You have the situation completely backwards.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

$1000 an hour lawyers.

I feel like I made a wrong life choice somewhere along the way

 

[not2rich]

I did not get to see much of Holmes. In the first ten minutes of listening to Hill all I could think is that if she were adverse to me how fast I would want to get her off the stand.

Its amazing how many big dollar attorneys do not get this. They feel compelled to ask questions that end up not helping. Sometimes you just take your licks and do not make it worse.

A trial is like a football game. You rarely win 60 to 0. The other team will score points too. Pick your fights. Sondland a sleazy dude, you can go after him and score points on cross. I would have just let the dems score their points with Hill and take my shots at a weaker witness.

Sometimes the best cross-examination is a very short one, or none at all.

 

[bdb13]

Conaway coming off very poorly.

To argue that Holmes should have stayed quiet about what he overheard is ridiculous.

Most of these defenses are ridiculous.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

You have the situation completely backwards.

You have the situation completely backwards.




Obviously not a super helpful reply full me, the point being you are an articulate smart poster. I'd actually be interested in hearing why you think the"standard" narrative is backwards.

 

[wardorican]

Well that's just absurd. I worked in a call center before, call after call after call, sitting next to other operators. There were certainly times where you can hear the person on the other end of the line without the phone being on speaker, and there were certainly times where the person on the other end of the phone was speaking loudly and you had to move the earpiece away from your ear.

It's completely asinine to say that what is alleged is impossible.

We should start a hash tag.

#WeCanHearYourCallsEvenIfNotOnSpeaker

 

[bdb13]

I'm pretty sure I have issues with the way the Steele dossier was handled, but it's not very germane to Trump leveraging a White House meeting and $400 million in aide for pure political gain to the direct detriment of a political rival, except maybe to help speak to Trump's motivations.

 

[BobE]

if I have to hear an EC landslide one more time I might lose my shirt. Reagan/Mondale was a damn EC landslide. Trump just beat Hillary.

 

[Saintamaniac]

if I have to hear an EC landslide one more time I might lose my shirt. Reagan/Mondale was a damn EC landslide. Trump just beat Hillary.

Well if you go by the number of lies told by trump just this week and the number of lies repeated by the republicans, they both believe that if you say it, it is true.

 

[BobE]

Well if you go by the number of lies told by trump just this week and the number of lies repeated by the republicans, they both believe that if you say it, it is true.

It's not a lie.....................If you believe it.

 

[bdb13]

Imo Rudy and company for some crazy reason thought they were being sly with plausible deniability by phrasing everything as 'Burisma' and '2016' and not directly invoking the Bidens (even though Rudy had been publicly linking them).

And then Trump went off Rudy's script and named the Bidens on the phone call with the Ukrainian President.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I mean seriously.

Did democrats have any signs like this during the Clinton impeachment?

 

[J-DONK]

Opinion | Pence Is Implicated (Published 2019)

And Democrats should respond.

www.nytimes.com

Makes a good argument for Pence's impeachment as well.

 

[CoolBrees]

I am not sure if I am the only one that missed this piece of news but , This snippet is from the Fact check article I posted from the AP-

“The Defense Department had already certified to congressional committees on May 23 that Ukraine had made enough progress on reducing corruption to receive the military assistance. Before the July hold on the aid, the Trump administration had approved sending aid to Ukraine nearly 50 times without holding it because of corruption concerns.”


So if they were so concerned with corruption, why not the first FIFTY times.

 

[Beach Friends]

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

Yesterday I heard Castor have a moment with one of the witnesses, where he shared that he has been a Congressional staff attorney for 20 years. What the heck, why would the GOP not pull in a true litigator for this job?

Castro might be okay to take depositions, but he doesn't need to be in front of the nation. He has an awkward way of asking questions, and when the witnesses seem unsure in their responses you tend to chalk it up to the fact the question was awkward (as opposed to the witness being untruthful).

If you want Ben Stiller to question the witness, get the real Ben.