Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Dragonlady]

"17 Days Ago The Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi called The President an Imposter"

Just a week ago, Adam Schiff said he wanted to "send The President back to The Golden Throne he came from."

Jerry Nadler said that "we have to move forward with impeachment or we risk The President being re-elected."

These are all BIASED Statements, and there is NO NEUTRAL PERSON running these HEARINGS.

It's a GROSS VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS.

You stupid idiot, it's not mean to be an impartial process. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING, NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS HEARING TO ESTABLISH WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

Your Russian ignorance is showing.

Wrong. Read again. ALL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS are supposed to GUARANTEE DUE PROCESS.

Procedural due process

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials.

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

• Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

YOU STUPID CLOWN!!!

IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES NO "DUE PROCESS", BECAUSE IT IS NOT A TRIAL. THE PROCESS IS WHATEVER PELOSI AND THE HOUSE DECIDE IT TO BE. THE TRIAL TAKES PLACE IN THE SENATE WHERE TRUMP WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND CALL WITNESSES.

 

[OKTexas]

The little commie from harvard just lied. He said Nixon sent people to do the break in, it's been proven Nixon had no foreknowledge of the break in, he got busted for trying to cover it up. Why do I think he will never face charges for his perjury?

.

Someone should have called her on that. She bold faced lied about that fact. Nixon found out about that stupid stunt after the fact. He even went to his grave saying that.
His issue was that he tried to protect a couple of people he knew after the fact when he should have washed his hands of them.

Feldman is from harvard, the woman is from stanford.

.

 

[Nostra]

"17 Days Ago The Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi called The President an Imposter"

Just a week ago, Adam Schiff said he wanted to "send The President back to The Golden Throne he came from."

Jerry Nadler said that "we have to move forward with impeachment or we risk The President being re-elected."

These are all BIASED Statements, and there is NO NEUTRAL PERSON running these HEARINGS.

It's a GROSS VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS.

You stupid idiot, it's not mean to be an impartial process. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING, NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS HEARING TO ESTABLISH WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

Your Russian ignorance is showing.

Wrong. Read again. ALL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS are supposed to GUARANTEE DUE PROCESS.

Procedural due process

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials.

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

• Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

YOU STUPID CLOWN!!!

IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES NO "DUE PROCESS", BECAUSE IT IS NOT A TRIAL. THE PROCESS IS WHATEVER PELOSI AND THE HOUSE DECIDE IT TO BE. THE TRIAL TAKES PLACE IN THE SENATE WHERE TRUMP WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND CALL WITNESSES.

And they have decided to emulate Nazi hearings.

Congrats to your side!

 

[skye]

Goddamn how low can Dem's stoop attacking a 13 year old kid WTF??

They can hardly get lower than that! that's why we say DemRats are pure scum

Hunter Biden is off limits but 13 y/o Baron is not?

This is becoming less of a circus and more like the proper witch hunt it always was!

ENOUGH! Stop this sham NOW!

 

[toobfreak]

The little commie from harvard just lied. He said Nixon sent people to do the break in, it's been proven Nixon had no foreknowledge of the break in, he got busted for trying to cover it up. Why do I think he will never face charges for his perjury?

.

Odd for a "Constitutional Scholar" to be so ignorant of such a huge Constitutionally historic event, huh?

It would seem she is lying............which would be perjury under these circumstances.

No more odd than it is to see 100% of all of Obama's Sotomayor and Kaygan and Ginsberg's decisions ALWAYS favor promoting a leftist agenda instead of the letter of the law!

 

[Politicallyinsane]

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more. Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

 

[White 6]

Really, why is the intel committee not providing all testimony to the judiciary committee. What is shitt hiding?

.

Why do you think testimony was withheld?

Schitler is hiding something.

Adolph Schiffler won't release his transcripts of his conversations with THE SECRET WHISTLEBLOWER, and neither will he let THE GOP interview his staff, or The FAKE Whistleblower.

What can be the argument against seeing transcripts of YOUR conversations with the person central to the investigation? That is evidence!

Whistleblowers are protected from repercussions, not anonymity. With anonymity, anything can be claimed without proof.

Why couldn't the whistleblower appear to testify and answer questions even with his face concealed and his voice altered in a separate booth to protect his identity?

It's the fact that Schiff pulls this crap, refuses to provide reasonable answers and no one in the media even bothers to ask either like they all have a bolt in their brain that makes this proceeding impossible to take seriously as legitimate.

And THE ACCUSED has a right to cross examine Adverse Witnesses and see ALL EVIDENCE against them.

Again, there is NO DUE PROCESS In this and it is REQUIRED BY LAW. It is an Illegal Witch Trial.

Easy to tell, you are vary upset. I am not sure you understand. The President has denied permission for those closest to testify and refused to turn over documents and emails. His own lawyers declined to show up today. If it makes you feel better, I am sure they will break down show up at the actual trial is in the Senate. Surely you do not think they will call the inquiry phase off because the President refuses to allow testimony. Very few defense witnesses are called before grand juries and never any to testify about activities 4 years before the fact, but the I am sure the Senate will call for the testimony at the trial, if for no other reason than just to confuse the issue.

 

[OKTexas]

The little commie from harvard just lied. He said Nixon sent people to do the break in, it's been proven Nixon had no foreknowledge of the break in, he got busted for trying to cover it up. Why do I think he will never face charges for his perjury?

.

Odd for a "Constitutional Scholar" to be so ignorant of such a huge Constitutionally historic event, huh?

It would seem she is lying............which would be perjury under these circumstances.

Once again, the fleemale is from sanford, not harvard. Feldman the guy on the left is from harvard.

.

 

[Nostra]

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more. Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

So, they have nothing.

 

[depotoo]

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more. Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

Uh, no. Your handle fits you well.

 

[Nostra]

The little commie from harvard just lied. He said Nixon sent people to do the break in, it's been proven Nixon had no foreknowledge of the break in, he got busted for trying to cover it up. Why do I think he will never face charges for his perjury?

.

Odd for a "Constitutional Scholar" to be so ignorant of such a huge Constitutionally historic event, huh?

It would seem she is lying............which would be perjury under these circumstances.

Once again, the fleemale is from sanford, not harvard. Feldman the guy on the left is from harvard.

.

I'm sorry, did I say anything about where they were indoctrinated?

 

[toobfreak]

Why do you think testimony was withheld?

Schitler is hiding something.

Adolph Schiffler won't release his transcripts of his conversations with THE SECRET WHISTLEBLOWER, and neither will he let THE GOP interview his staff, or The FAKE Whistleblower.

What can be the argument against seeing transcripts of YOUR conversations with the person central to the investigation? That is evidence!

Whistleblowers are protected from repercussions, not anonymity. With anonymity, anything can be claimed without proof.

Why couldn't the whistleblower appear to testify and answer questions even with his face concealed and his voice altered in a separate booth to protect his identity?

It's the fact that Schiff pulls this crap, refuses to provide reasonable answers and no one in the media even bothers to ask either like they all have a bolt in their brain that makes this proceeding impossible to take seriously as legitimate.

And THE ACCUSED has a right to cross examine Adverse Witnesses and see ALL EVIDENCE against them.

Again, there is NO DUE PROCESS In this and it is REQUIRED BY LAW. It is an Illegal Witch Trial.

Easy to tell, you are vary upset. I am not sure you understand. The President has denied permission for those closest to testify and refused to turn over documents and emails. His own lawyers declined to show up today. If it makes you feel better, I am sure they will break down show up at the actual trial is in the Senate. Surely you do not think they will call the inquiry phase off because the President refuses to allow testimony. Very few defense witnesses are called before grand juries and never any to testify about activities 4 years before the fact, but the I am sure the Senate will call for the testimony at the trial, if for no other reason than just to confuse the issue.

So Sock, what you are saying is that The Dems in the House are just as determined to proceed with an Impeachment NO MATTER WHAT the outcome or evidence as much as they were to look the other way on and excuse the most heinous actions of Obama and people under him as nothing but pure racism!

 

[OKTexas]

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more. Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

Still waiting on the quote where Trump asked for anything for himself. What's wrong child, can't back your crap up?

.

 

[BluesLegend]

Goddamn how low can Dem's stoop attacking a 13 year old kid WTF??

They can hardly get lower than that! that's why we say DemRats are pure scum

Hunter Biden is off limits but 13 y/o Baron is not?

This is becoming less of a circus and more like the proper witch hunt it always was!

ENOUGH! Stop this sham NOW!

Dem's and the left now attacking minor children of their political opponents, then laughing about it. I think its time to take this outside.

 

[skye]

Goddamn how low can Dem's stoop attacking a 13 year old kid WTF??

They can hardly get lower than that! that's why we say DemRats are pure scum

Hunter Biden is off limits but 13 y/o Baron is not?

This is becoming less of a circus and more like the proper witch hunt it always was!

ENOUGH! Stop this sham NOW!

Dem's and the left now attacking minor children of their political opponents, then laughing about it.

Yes

And that's why they are pure undiluted scum!

 

[toobfreak]

house impeachment is an investigation not a trial .....

sooner or later RW dipshits MIGHT figure that out-

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Really, why is the intel committee not providing all testimony to the judiciary committee. What is shitt hiding?

.

Why aren't your scum honoring their subpoenas?? Trump have the right to interfere in their testimonies??

Deflect with someone else, if you have something on what I said, I might entertain your ignorance.

.

That's what your repub friends are doing ,,,anything BUT speaking about the evidence that falls on trumps shoulders
You've learned your lesson well

Actually the republicans are falling way short of what they should be doing in my opinion. They need to go back to the transcript of the call and not allow the commies to misrepresent it.

.

Pretty hard to do when you don't control the hearing or the clock.

 

[BluesLegend]

Goddamn how low can Dem's stoop attacking a 13 year old kid WTF??

They can hardly get lower than that! that's why we say DemRats are pure scum

Hunter Biden is off limits but 13 y/o Baron is not?

This is becoming less of a circus and more like the proper witch hunt it always was!

ENOUGH! Stop this sham NOW!

Dem's and the left now attacking minor children of their political opponents, then laughing about it.

Yes

And that's why they are pure undiluted scum!

Hell scum are offended being compared to this Dem filth.

 

[Zorro!]

Down the Democrat Rabbit Hole of Impeachment.

There is little, if any, solid evidence beyond the evidence that the report is nothing but a one-sided indictment of the president because the Dems have yet to get past the fact they failed to win the 2016 election.

The report also reveals their plan to continue poking and prodding and digging until they find something they can use against Trump:

This report reflects the evidence gathered thus far by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry. . ..”​

Note the “thus far”. Whether Schiff meant to show his hand or not, he has. They will keep at it, no matter what the cost to the country. The only thing he serves is his own interests.

Elizabeth Vaughn brings up something we should all be concerned with.

The most stunning aspect of the report, to me anyway, was the inclusion of telephone records of House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, Nunes’ aide David Harvey, President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and investigative reporter John Solomon. Schiff refused to say how he was able to obtain these records.”​

These records show only that calls were made by these persons and two whom, how long the calls lasted and when they were placed. The content of the calls was not there. Not that it stopped Schiff or the media. The insinuations that there has to be something illicit, if not illegal, going on because they talked with one another are clear. But here’s the thing. It is nothing but speculation, just like so much of this report and the testimony leading up to it.

Paul Sperry, former D.C. bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, had more to say about the report and about Schiff.



Paul Sperry@paulsperry_
BREAKING: Schiff's just-released "Impeachment Inquiry Report" confirms that Eric Ciaramella's former NSC allies and fellow Obama holdovers "Sean A. Misko" and "Abigail C. Grace" are part of Schiff's "Impeachment Inquiry Investigative Staff" and "Oversight Staff," respectively.


3,916
11:59 AM - Dec 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

3,078 people are talking about this





Hmm, it’s starting smell a bit fishy in here, isn’t it?


Paul Sperry@paulsperry_
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1201973711307493376

BREAKING:In his Impeachment Report,Schiff insists Congress cannot publicly name the "whistleblower" b/c IDing him would put his personal safety @"grave risk."Yet Schiff can cite no actual threats made against WB anywhere in his 300pp report,even tho his name was published wks ago


2,607
1:17 PM - Dec 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,587 people are talking about this





This is the Dems’ usual game plan. Claim the potential of harm in an effort to keep anyone from looking too closely at who set out the allegations against Trump–or anyone else–thereby denying them the right to face their accuser. It also denies the public the right to make an informed decision based on all the evidence.


Paul Sperry@paulsperry_
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1201982785067651082

Schiff's 300pp report is DOA; fails to provide evidence to back up his "key finding of fact." Absence of witness testimony & evidence to support his central charge warranting impeachment is a major hole in Dems' overall case for impeachment. POTUS lawyers will drive truck thru it


2,269
1:53 PM - Dec 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,393 people are talking about this





More than that, the Republicans will remember this. The time will come when they decide a sitting Democratic president has overstepped. They will not only take a page out of the Dems’ playbook, they will go a step further. Don’t believe me? Look at what has happened with the nuclear option in the Senate.

But it may be Britt Hume who pokes the final hole in the Democrats’ stance that this report proves Trump is guilty of anything.

The failure to subpoena [national security adviser] John Bolton, who is widely believed to be potentially the most important witness they could call, the fact that they did not even subpoena him,” Hume said on “The Story with Martha MacCallum. “Why didn’t they? They didn’t because they thought it would take too much time to prevail to get him to testify because they’d have to go to court to enforce their subpoena. Well, that’s what you would do if you were very serious.”​

He goes on to say the Democrats have failed to present their best case, not only on Capitol Hill, but to the American public. As a result, he calls the investigation “slightly unserious”. I call it a hatchet job done with only one goal in mind–getting Trump out of office. If they manage to use it to put more liberal butts in seats on the Hill, the better in their eyes.

The Fallout from the Investigation:
As mentioned above, if articles of impeachment are approved in the House, the proceedings move to the Senate. If anyone believes the Republicans (or at least most of them) won’t use the opportunity to not only strike down the allegations against Trump but to go after Biden et al, I suggest you reconsider. As Vaughn noted, “Republicans should obtain Schiff’s phone records, those of the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, and the colleague with whom he had a “bro-like” relationship, you know, Sean Misko, the one Schiff hired as an aide the day after the whistleblower’s complaint was submitted.”

I can hear the squealing in protest already. Can’t you?

But there is more that has happened, something the Democrats didn’t anticipate. The Republican National Committee and President Trump raised “a record-breaking $334 million” as of the last quarter. Compare that to the $8.6 million the DNC had on hand at the end of September. According to Vaughn, the RNC has continued to see donations skyrocketing the last two months. This is directly related to the witch hunt–sorry, impeachment inquiry.

CNN is trying to convince itself and its viewers that the only reason the so-called evidence hasn’t led to a mass uprising of people demanding Trump’s resignation and incarceration is because “[p]ersuadable voters on impeachment aren’t paying close attention to the impeachment proceedings, and impeachment is a low priority for voters overall.” Wow, they must be taking lessons from Hillary Clinton on how to insult your viewers without really trying.

Perhaps they ought to be asking why people aren’t taking the Democrats’ story as gospel. But that would require them looking at the so-called evidence–not to mention the motivation of those bringing the charges against Trump–critically and actually reporting the news instead of acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC.

What Happens Next?
It should be no surprise that Queen Nancy has said not to expect the House to vote on impeachment before Christmas. They want to drag this out as long as they can. What they aren’t considering is that the longer it takes, the more time they give the Republicans in the Senate to not only tear into Schiff’s report, looking for anything they can find to show bad faith on his part.

 

[OKTexas]

The little commie from harvard just lied. He said Nixon sent people to do the break in, it's been proven Nixon had no foreknowledge of the break in, he got busted for trying to cover it up. Why do I think he will never face charges for his perjury?

.

Odd for a "Constitutional Scholar" to be so ignorant of such a huge Constitutionally historic event, huh?

It would seem she is lying............which would be perjury under these circumstances.

Once again, the fleemale is from sanford, not harvard. Feldman the guy on the left is from harvard.

.

I'm sorry, did I say anything about where they were indoctrinated?

Did you read the first sentence of the post you replied to? And my reference was where they teach, not where they were indoctrinated.

.

 

[Slade3200]

they are law professors giving legal testimony. They are literally presenting legal arguments. Brains not working very well today huh? Try taking a nap

leftwing partisans always cloak their biases in the aura of professional expertise.

So what? If they make a false claim then call them on it. Their bias has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the things they say

They aren't witnesses and they aren't presenting evidence. Their very appearance is a violation of DUE PROCESS.

Is The President allowed to Call up his OWN LEGAL Experts to give their contrary opinions?

No.

So this again is an ILLEGAL Proceeding just like that one held in The Intelligence Committee

no shit, they are legal experts giving their analysis of the testimonies and evidence that’s been collected thus far. Do you not understand that?

IN a real trial, do you imagine that only the prosecution gets to call expert witnesses?

It amazes me what a bunch of ******* Stalinist douchebags all the leftwingers in this forum are.

in a real trial? Like a court trial? What are you talking about? This is a congressional impeachment inquiry not a trial, Not a trial. You’re trying to muddy the water but you’re doing a piss poor job at it.