Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Crixus]

I would also like to see the order from Trump stopping the Ukrain funds as well. Where is that at?

I think the 'Whistle Blower' has it - he, the Easter Bunny, and Big Foot are holding on to all the 'evidence' that the Democrats have failed to present so far for safe keeping.

This shoul piss people off. This is condescending crap. This shit is exactly why Trump got elected and why he will be reelected again.

 

[The Original Tree]

I'm reposting this just so THE OP cannot continue to lie and propagate Misinformation.

This is from a technical paper on Foreign Aide and addresses suspensions of foreign aide, and conditions placed on Foreign Aide.

The Conclusion is CLEAR:

Foreign Aide is NOT A GIFT WITH NO STRINGS
ATTACHED.

(Full article at the link provided)

Can foreign aid donors credibly threaten to suspend aid? Evidence from a cross-national survey of donor officials
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2017.1302490

ABSTRACT

Under what conditions are foreign aid donors willing to suspend foreign aid to punish political transgressions, such as election fraud, corruption scandals or political repression? Prior scholarship has emphasized that political sanctions, including foreign aid suspensions, are constrained by the geostrategic considerations of donor countries. However, foreign aid suspensions often occur in strategically important countries, and donors respond differently to different types of political transgressions within the same county. To shed light on this puzzle, in this article, I present evidence from an original survey of top-level donor representatives in 20 African countries, including a list experiment designed to elicit truthful responses about the conditions under which donors are willing to suspend foreign aid. I argue that the likelihood of a foreign aid suspension depends not only on the strategic considerations of the donor government, but also on the institutional incentives of the donor agency. A donor agency's institutional incentives are shaped by the agency's organizational design, as well as by its foreign aid portfolio in the recipient country.



Introduction

Citizens in donor countries have a strong preference for conditioning foreign aid on good governance. Over 90% of respondents in the 2011 Eurobarameter, which sampled more than 25,000 individuals from 27 countries, expressed that foreign aid should be conditioned on democracy, human rights and governance (Bodenstein and Faust 2014). But, how willing are aid donors to condition foreign assistance on good governance? Given the strategic nature of foreign aid, can donor agencies credibly threaten to suspend foreign aid, if a recipient government commits a political transgression such as election fraud, corruption or political repression?

In this article, I argue that political conditionality, or the willingness of donors to condition foreign aid on governance (Baylies 1995), only works when the institutional incentives of donor agencies are aligned to allow the threats of donor agencies’ to be credible. By institutional incentives, I mean how costly an aid suspension is to a donor agency in terms of organizational performance and reputation. Such incentives are shaped by both the donor's foreign aid portfolio in the recipient country, and organizational design features of the agency that make it easier or harder for aid to be suspended.

Prior research largely assumes that the main constraint facing political conditionality is the geopolitical motivations of donor countries (e.g. Dunning 2004; Lebovic 2005; Lebovic and Voeten 2009; Nielsen 2013). That is, donor agencies are unwilling to enforce good governance criteria, because it is diplomatically and commercially costly to donor governments. However, donor agencies sometimes sanction recipient governments who are strategically important to donor countries, and donors’ strategic interests cannot explain why donor agencies respond differently to different types of political transgressions within the same country.

 

[berg80]

His opinion is there has not been an underlying commission of a crime and therefore impeachment is not warranted. He's wrong, but for now let's put aside his opinion on that issue.

How can he justify not impeaching Trump given the absolute certainty of his obstruction of the impeachment inquiry (and for that matter the Mueller investigation)?

What part of "Woefully Inadequate" do you not understand?

“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” Turley said.

Do you ignore the words "Woefully Inadequate" when you hear it in The Bedroom?

I understand it is one man's opinion, not supported by the facts, and nothing more.

 

[Crixus]

They're looking at 'obstruction of justice' now ? What a joke.

Now? I think they are BACK on obstruction. Whatever it is it will happen.

 

[easyt65]

This is a democrat commercial at the taxpayers expense.

It seems more like a REPUBLICAN Commercial, as all the Democrats are doing is killing their chances for 2020.....

 

[easyt65]

They're looking at 'obstruction of justice' now ? What a joke.

Now? I think they are BACK on obstruction. Whatever it is it will happen.

They haven't moved on from the Mueller / Weismann Report debacle.....

 

[Nostra]

Some guy on Fox News who claims he is a conservative keeps telling Republicans that Trump should be impeached....

But yea, we should totally go along with what Turley said.....

Nap is a Never Trumper. Always has been.

 

[OldLady]

It appears Turley's opinion is founded on a catch-22.

"Offering an exhaustive and colorful account of the history of impeachment, Mr. Turley agreed with the other panelists that “a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.”

But for that to be the case, he said, the evidence has to be stronger. Witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, must be heard from — not just spoken about by other witnesses. He argued the current case is destined for “collapse in a Senate trial.”
Impeachment Hearing Live Updates: Trump’s Actions Are Impeachable, Scholars Testify

So...........he thinks Trump shouldn't be impeached because some witnesses have not testified even as Trump is obstructing the investigation by blocking witness testimony.

And this is the guy the Repubs wanted????????????

I know very little about criminal court cases and what evidence is and isn't. If the lawyers believe there is not enough hard evidence, that is probably going to be a real issue. I STILL think that any reasonable person can see what has happened here, though. I think Turley is being a little histrionic about how damaging this trial would be, and how there is no hard evidence. But I'm NOT a criminal lawyer. So what do I--or 99% of the posters here--know about it?

No, I don't like Trump. I bitterly opposed him being nominated to run on the Republican ticket. But I would certainly NOT want to see him run out of office on a rail if he were innocent of any wrongdoing. From what I've heard, though, in the testimony of those around him, I have no questions about that.

This Turley guy

 

[bodecea]

Like I have said for the past three years, when you have Evil and Dishonest Intentions they usually blow up in your face.

Psalm 9:16-17

16 The LORD is known by the justice He brings; the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands. Higgaion Selah 17 The wicked will return to Sheol—all the nations who forget God

When you have a rigged 10 month investigation that was run by Comey, and all it does is expose corruption in The Obama FBI and DOJ, and then you hand that off to Mueller for an additional 22 months of investigations, and it does nothing but expose further corruption in his own team, and then you move on to another dishonest proceeding, like we saw Adolph Schiffler had run with secret witnesses, secret testimony, secret meetings, and secret transcripts, and that too blows up in their faces, one can only expect the same to continue.

When you have a Star Witness hand selected by Jerry Nadler, and he tells you that he is not a supporter of the president, and that your case is woefully inadequate, and not only that is sets a "DANGEROUS" precedent, don't you think you should listen to him?

Impeachment legal case is ‘woefully inadequate,’ 'dangerous,' legal expert Turley testifies

An expert legal witness testified Wednesday that the current legal case for impeaching President Trump is “woefully inadequate” and “dangerous,” as the House Judiciary Committee holds its first impeachment inquiry hearing.

In his opening statement, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, told lawmakers that, while he is not a "supporter" of the president, he is concerned about the “integrity” of the impeachment process based on the case being built against Trump.

“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” Turley said.

Not at all, Comrade.....but I certainly am not surprised that your Russian troll farm is frantically working overtime to gas light (or at least try to).

 

[The Original Tree]

What part of "Woefully Inadequate" do you not understand?

“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” Turley said.


You ignore Jerry Nadler's Expert Witness and you Ignored The Technical Paper I posted on Foreign Aide.

Seems to be a pattern here of you IGNORING FACTS.

Why did you IGNORE the White Paper I posted on Conditional Foreign Aide, and The Right of a Donor Nation to suspend it?

Here is another fact, no doubt, you will IGNORE, and so will the rest of your Rabid Leftist Friends.

“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” Turley said.

Can foreign aid donors credibly threaten to suspend aid? Evidence from a cross-national survey of donor officials https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2017.1302490

 

[okfine]

Constitutional scholars testify, before congress, that Trump's actions definitely warrant impeachment.
They warn that if Trump's actions do not warrant impeachment the intentions of the founders would be undermined.
The scholars main goal is to maintain the intentions of the Constitution. They are not advocates for Democrats or Republicans. They are advocates of our Constitution and our Democracy.

The source is the transcript of the congressional hearing

I am enjoying listening to all of them. Norm Eisen's questioning was brilliant. Karlan was very easy to understand. Her analogy on bribery was spot on.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Great testimony. Wonder how many saw it ?

 

[edward37]

If this SOB in office now is not guilty and deserving of impeachment then no president ever will be You really want a king trump??

 

[MarathonMike]

The Impeachment Provision is vague enough that you can get Constitutional "Scholars" to argue either side. What should be clear is the intent of the provision. If you want to believe a phone call about investigating corruption warrants Impeachment and removal, then go ahead and believe that.

 

[bripat9643]

His opinion is there has not been an underlying commission of a crime and therefore impeachment is not warranted. He's wrong, but for now let's put aside his opinion on that issue.

How can he justify not impeaching Trump given the absolute certainty of his obstruction of the impeachment inquiry (and for that matter the Mueller investigation)?

Trump pursued his legal options. Appealing subpoenas is standard court procedure. What your saying is like saying hiring a lawyer is obstruction of justice.

The bottom line is that you're a fucking idiot.

Yes, as he always does he has pursued his legal options.........and will do so until they run out. So far, every court has ruled against his baseless arguments of absolute immunity and blanket privilege.

Then you admit he hasn't obstructed justice.

Thanks for playing.

The opposite is true. You Trumpers really do have a reading comprehension problem.

You just admitted that appealing these subpoenas to a higher court was his option.

 

[bripat9643]

If this SOB in office now is not guilty and deserving of impeachment then no president ever will be You really want a king trump??

Horse manure.

 

[easyt65]

Live Now
CLASS IN SESSION
'Professors take America to law school as impeachment hearing turns academic'

The elitist Liberal Self-Proclaimed Constitutional Experts who infest College / universities - like Barry's domestic terrorist buddy Bill Ayers - are seeking to prove they are smarter than the American people while justifying their classroom liberal indoctrination and oppression / abuse of students who reject their liberal ideology and agendas.

Libtard Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan demonstrated why 'snowflakes' are called 'snowflakes, becoming easily offended and almost running out of the hearing room headed for her 'Safe Space' when R-Doug Collins pointed out the FACT that none of the Democrats' / Nadler's 'witnesses' testifying before the committee today are actually 'witnesses, that they are Liberal Law professors brought in to give their biased political OPINIONS:

"House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., criticized Wednesday’s impeachment hearing during his opening statement by noting that it does not include any fact witnesses, just law professors who will likely only theorize about impeaching President Trump because they were too busy to digest all of the facts at issue."

Impeachment witness snaps at Doug Collins during hearing, tells him she’s ‘insulted’ by comments

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

It appears Turley's opinion is founded on a catch-22.

"Offering an exhaustive and colorful account of the history of impeachment, Mr. Turley agreed with the other panelists that “a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.”

But for that to be the case, he said, the evidence has to be stronger. Witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, must be heard from — not just spoken about by other witnesses. He argued the current case is destined for “collapse in a Senate trial.”
Impeachment Hearing Live Updates: Trump’s Actions Are Impeachable, Scholars Testify

So...........he thinks Trump shouldn't be impeached because some witnesses have not testified even as Trump is obstructing the investigation by blocking witness testimony.

And this is the guy the Repubs wanted????????????

I know very little about criminal court cases and what evidence is and isn't. If the lawyers believe there is not enough hard evidence, that is probably going to be a real issue. I STILL think that any reasonable person can see what has happened here, though. I think Turley is being a little histrionic about how damaging this trial would be, and how there is no hard evidence. But I'm NOT a criminal lawyer. So what do I--or 99% of the posters here--know about it?

No, I don't like Trump. I bitterly opposed him being nominated to run on the Republican ticket. But I would certainly NOT want to see him run out of office on a rail if he were innocent of any wrongdoing. From what I've heard, though, in the testimony of those around him, I have no questions about that.

This Turley guy

This is not a criminal case...this is a political one....

No one alive will admit (without looking like a moron) that what Clinton was impeached for was more over the top than what Trump is being impeached for....

History will look back at this era and wonder why so many people were such cucks about allowing Trump to get away with as much as he did

 

[Dragonlady]

The Democratis Constitutional experts are citing the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the writings of the Founders, and the actions of Congress in prior impeachments, and the laws of bribery and abuse of power in their testimony, and the Republican Constitutional expert cites his wife and dog.

 

[okfine]

The Impeachment Provision is vague enough that you can get Constitutional "Scholars" to argue either side. What should be clear is the intent of the provision. If you want to believe a phone call about investigating corruption warrants Impeachment and removal, then go ahead and believe that.

Tapes vs phones - analog vs digital