The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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]

If you read my posts you will know exactly what I am talking about. I specifically said that my recollection was that the first time the POTUS was invited to participate in the examination of witnesses was when the Democrtats had their day of having law professors testify. This was AFTER the fact witnesses testified.

I also mocked the suggestion that a defendant should play along with a proceeding where he was placed under oath, but did not afford him the opportunity to cross examine witnesses.

It's not that I had a problem with you linking articles, but rather that you apparently did not read them.

Someone already posted this once, but this is an article from November 17th. The last fact witnesses to testify were Fiona Hill and David Holmes, who appeared on November 21st.

Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

www.pbs.org

 

[Beach Friends]

Someone already posted this once, but this is an article from November 17th. The last fact witnesses to testify were Fiona Hill and David Holmes, who appeared on November 21st.

Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

www.pbs.org

Unless I missed it, that article does not say anything other than what I have been saying - Trump was invited to testify himself, but he was not invited to be involved in the questioning of fact witnesses.

If you believe I have misread that, please point out the paragraph you are relying on.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Unless I missed it, that article does not say anything other than what I have been saying - Trump was invited to testify himself, but he was not invited to be involved in the questioning of fact witnesses.

If you believe I have misread that, please point out the paragraph you are relying on.

Are you aware that the Republican counsel, Steve Castor, was allowed to question witnesses?

 

[Beach Friends]

Are you aware that the Republican counsel, Steve Castor, was allowed to question witnesses?

I am aware that Castor is a House staff attorney. He does not work for the POTUS.

As a side note, I am sure Castor is a smart guy but it's clear he is not a litigator. It's hard to understand why House Republicans chose him.

 

[Dadsdream]

I am aware that Castor is a House staff attorney. He does not work for the POTUS.

As a side note, I am sure Castor is a smart guy but it's clear he is not a litigator. It's hard to understand why House Republicans chose him.

Placeholder.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am aware that Castor is a House staff attorney. He does not work for the POTUS.

As a side note, I am sure Castor is a smart guy but it's clear he is not a litigator. It's hard to understand why House Republicans chose him.

Castor was appointed to question witnesses for the Republicans on the committee. He (and the ranking member) were given equal time to question all witnesses. Is it your position that a third lawyer should have been brought in to question every witness or only the witnesses Trump blocked (but would presumably have testified in this scenario)?

 

[SaintForLife]

Lol, he removed his citation that said that whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique so that he could say that no, accusing someone of whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique.

dear lord, do they even hear themselves any longer? It’s patently ridiculous at this point.

he uses whataboutism, gets politely reminded that he is using whataboutism, and then he goes all indignant, accuses someone of being a Russian agent, and cites a source that says the opposite of what he thinks it says.

I read a term, I’ll have to go look it up now, about what happens to people who follow a malignant narcissist.

My attempt at sarcasm obviously didn't read how I wanted it to. I was attempting to accuse someone of Russian tactics like so many do here. I still stand by someone saying whataboutism really means Don't examine whether I apply my principles consistently.

And he accused Jim of whataboutism not me

 

[LonghornSaint]

What the actual .....?

Do you even Sixth Amendment, bro? Seriously, the confrontation clause ... is any of this ringing a bell?

Oops, my bad. I stand corrected. I am not in the legal field, nor have I read the 6th amendment in a really long time.

 

[MT15]

My attempt at sarcasm obviously didn't read how I wanted it to. I was attempting to accuse someone of Russian tactics like so many do here. I still stand by someone saying whataboutism really means Don't examine whether I apply my principles consistently.

And he accused Jim of whataboutism not me

fair enough. I couldn’t remember who engaged in the whataboutism. It’s a tempting trap to fall into (using whataboutism) I’m sure I’ve done it before myself. But we should call it out no matter who is doing it. It’s an attempt to obscure the topic under discussion, over anything else, when used to divert the topic.

we can also call out hypocrisy, but not use that to deflect from admitting a valid point from whoever we are currently discussing with.

 

[Beach Friends]

Castor was appointed to question witnesses for the Republicans on the committee. He (and the ranking member) were given equal time to question all witnesses. Is it your position that a third lawyer should have been brought in to question every witness or only the witnesses Trump blocked (but would presumably have testified in this scenario)?

Yes, and this is an easy call for me. Let's not lose sight of how where we are in this discussion.

We went down this path on the issue of EP. House hearings are an absolute joke. Grandstanding. Making accusations and then not allowing witnesses to respond on the grounds that the House member "controls the time." No effort to comply with basic rules of the introduction of evidence. No impartial judge to reign in the examiner. The types of abuses of witnesses one would rarely, if ever, see in a court of law.

At the very least the executive, whose privilege is at stake, should have competent counsel present who can invoke the privilege. That is not satisfied by having an attorney who works for another branch of government present. To me, that just seems obvious.

 

[JimEverett]

this is not true and as a lawyer you should know better. Why do all people attempting to defend Trump end up untethered from the truth or at least the facts? It’s fascinating actually.

Archie claims that the Mueller report shows there was zero evidence against Trump, when it clearly shows that there wasn’t enough to prove guilt, which isn’t the same thing as zero evidence at all. Mueller was also careful to make the point that there were witnesses who lied and refused to cooperate, and that evidence was destroyed, and that these actions impeded his ability to investigate.

and now you are trying to say that just because charges weren’t brought it means the person investigated was innocent. honestly, I hope that statement was a troll.

Right, because everyone in America is guilty - we are all just waiting until we can prove our innocence. LOL

 

[wardorican]

Castor was appointed to question witnesses for the Republicans on the committee. He (and the ranking member) were given equal time to question all witnesses. Is it your position that a third lawyer should have been brought in to question every witness or only the witnesses Trump blocked (but would presumably have testified in this scenario)?

Furthermore, if the idea that Trump's own lawyer could mount a better cross examination due to knowing information Congress wasnt given, that also isnt fair to the process as there isnt "discovery".

So, if Trumps lawyer would have had information to better exonerate the president (and would tangentially expose that by cross examination), then why not just give that information to Congress and let the Republicans seize on it?

Otherwise, would he just use the same sewing doubt tactic (which is fine) Castor did? In that case, now you are just allowing the Republicans to dominate the questioning time while in the Minority.

Otherwise, as the usual process, he can mount a defense in the Senate. And if the record is deficient of evidence of innocence or to give reasonable doubt (clearly you don't have to prove innocence, I just mean info that helps his case more), then why wouldn't the senate trial allow that?

Furthermore, the Senate could allow discovery, right? Or do they have to?

 

[wardorican]

Also, this assumes Trump's lawyers weren't coordinating with Castor and House Republicans.

 

[dtc]

Yes, and this is an easy call for me. Let's not lose sight of how where we are in this discussion.

We went down this path on the issue of EP. House hearings are an absolute joke. Grandstanding. Making accusations and then not allowing witnesses to respond on the grounds that the House member "controls the time." No effort to comply with basic rules of the introduction of evidence. No impartial judge to reign in the examiner. The types of abuses of witnesses one would rarely, if ever, see in a court of law.

At the very least the executive, whose privilege is at stake, should have competent counsel present who can invoke the privilege. That is not satisfied by having an attorney who works for another branch of government present. To me, that just seems obvious.

The president had the Republican members of the committee grandstanding, talking over witnesses, blatantly lying and gas lighting on his behalf.

That which you are accusing others of is exactly what he did and while it doesn't excuse it from either side, it would be nice if those who still support this piece of human filth would at least remain consistent to their own principles and the truth.

 

[Beach Friends]

Also, this assumes Trump's lawyers weren't coordinating with Castor and House Republicans.

Well no, actually what I am hearing from the other side of the aisle sounds like not only a presumption that they were coordinating, but also a belief that this was sufficient or even required (if the POTUS was expected to have anything that resembles representation by counsel).

I see no reason why the executive branch should accept that presumption. Even if you assumed that the executive branch's and the House's interest were perfectly aligned in this instance, there is the matter of setting a precedence and there is no reason to presume that would always be the case.

 

[JimEverett]

It is impossible for the interests of the members of the House to perfectly align with the Executive. Impossible.

 

[Beach Friends]

The president had the Republican members of the committee grandstanding, talking over witnesses, blatantly lying and gas lighting on his behalf.

That which you are accusing others of is exactly what he did and while it doesn't excuse it from either side, it would be nice if those who still support this piece of human filth would at least remain consistent to their own principles and the truth.

Where did I say that such behavior in House hearings was limited to Democrats?

 

[wardorican]

It is impossible for the interests of the members of the House to perfectly align with the Executive. Impossible.

Do possible defendants mount a defense in front of a grand jury?

Or perhaps more applicable... is it common for anyone under congressional investigation directly or as part of a department to have their own counsel able to cross examine other witnesses?

Like, Clinton for the various Benghazi hearings. At least the one she spent all day testifying in. Only using it, because it was somewhat recent and not involving Trump.