Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Oddball]

So solid a case that the only two charges in the flimsy-assed articles are the nebulous accusations of "obstruction" and "abuse of power".

You clowns don't have a popcorn fart.

LOL...
Yes. So solid in fact that all you dopes can do is screech about is how unfair it is.

You haven't heard me say anything about unfairness...So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

And you still have neither jack nor shit.

LOL.....
No, you're just playing deaf, dumb and blind instead of crying.

Where's the proof, fuckwit?

Exactly my point.

If you had it, you'd post it....But you don't have shit, so you just toss empty recriminations.

Now go play out on the freeway, boy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...
Yes. So solid in fact that all you dopes can do is screech about is how unfair it is.

You haven't heard me say anything about unfairness...So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

And you still have neither jack nor shit.

LOL.....
No, you're just playing deaf, dumb and blind instead of crying.

Where's the proof, fuckwit?

Exactly my point.

If you had it, you'd post it....But you don't have shit, so you just toss empty recriminations.

Now go play out on the freeway, boy.

It's in front of your face. All around you. It's been on TV for weeks now.

Yet....you still play dumb.

 

[OldLady]

Okay, thanks. I finally found the relevant rule. Who do the minority want to appear that have not been called?

O. Separate Day of Hearings with Minority Witnesses
At any committee hearing, a majority of the minority members are entitled by House rule XI clause 2(j)(1) to demand at least one separate day of hearings to allow witnesses selected by the minority to testify on the subject of the hearing. Under the rule, minority members must submit a request in writing to the chair before the end of the hearing.

Practice Note: In practice, the minority normally requests in advance of any hearing that its desired witnesses appear as part of the main hearing and negotiates the details with the majority. The right to a minority day of hearings is usually formally invoked only if the chair has refused to call the witnesses requested by the minority. If this minority right is invoked, the chair must schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses requested by the minority must be invited to testify, but the chair retains the discretion to determine the timing of the hearing. The chair may also call witnesses at any such hearing.

Two points, as underlined above. First, Nadler called Turley at the request of Republicans. Second, the "witnesses" Republicans reportedly wanted to call - Schiff, Hunter Biden - had no valid testimony to offer on the "subject" of the hearing, which is Trump's corrupt dealings with Ukraine.

I agree with you and I understand why the chairman has refused to call those witnesses. Not because they are "guilty" but because they have as much to do with the Trump/Zelensky matter as Mother Goose. HOWEVER, the rules do not seem to give the chairman that flexibility. If he has refused to call the witnesses the minority wants, "the chair MUST schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses REQUESTED BY THE MINORITY MUST BE INVITED TO TESTIFY.
Period.
I think it is entirely retarded for the Republicans to go that route, but give 'em the rope and let 'em hang themselves, I guess.

 

[berg80]

The articles of impeachment are as follows................

Articles of Impeachment.pdf

The implication for what the Senate Repubs will surely do, ignore the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt by acquitting him, will be to set up an imperial presidency whereby attempts at congressional oversight can be ignored indiscriminately.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Let the people decide in 2020

The people, especially Trumpians, aren't smart enough to decide this.

No one is dumber than you. At least the "Trumpians" know who they voted for. You do not or are too abashed to state. *****.

 

[flewism]

So in order for President Trump to be impeached and removed from office, he must be convicted of treason, bribery or some other crime.

But nowhere in federal law is “abuse of power” defined as a crime. And that is a huge problem, because how can you convict someone of “abuse of power” when there is no law against it?

Ultimately, “abuse of power” is a very vague phrase that could mean just about anything. After all, is there any president in modern American history that has not abused his power at some point?

And if President Trump does get impeached by the House, that is going to set an extremely dangerous precedent. In the future, are we going to start impeaching presidents for “abuse of power” whenever an opposition party gets control of the House of Representatives?

As for the charge of “obstructing Congress”, at least there is some precedent for that. It is actually properly called “contempt of Congress”,

What actual laws is he being accused of breaking.

 

[berg80]

So in order for President Trump to be impeached and removed from office, he must be convicted of treason, bribery or some other crime.

No. He doesn't have to commit a crime. He only needs to abuse his office or otherwise betray the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.

 

[berg80]

What actual laws is he being accused of breaking.

This is at least one.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

 

[Olde Europe]

Okay, thanks. I finally found the relevant rule. Who do the minority want to appear that have not been called?

O. Separate Day of Hearings with Minority Witnesses
At any committee hearing, a majority of the minority members are entitled by House rule XI clause 2(j)(1) to demand at least one separate day of hearings to allow witnesses selected by the minority to testify on the subject of the hearing. Under the rule, minority members must submit a request in writing to the chair before the end of the hearing.

Practice Note: In practice, the minority normally requests in advance of any hearing that its desired witnesses appear as part of the main hearing and negotiates the details with the majority. The right to a minority day of hearings is usually formally invoked only if the chair has refused to call the witnesses requested by the minority. If this minority right is invoked, the chair must schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses requested by the minority must be invited to testify, but the chair retains the discretion to determine the timing of the hearing. The chair may also call witnesses at any such hearing.

Two points, as underlined above. First, Nadler called Turley at the request of Republicans. Second, the "witnesses" Republicans reportedly wanted to call - Schiff, Hunter Biden - had no valid testimony to offer on the "subject" of the hearing, which is Trump's corrupt dealings with Ukraine.

I agree with you and I understand why the chairman has refused to call those witnesses. Not because they are "guilty" but because they have as much to do with the Trump/Zelensky matter as Mother Goose. HOWEVER, the rules do not seem to give the chairman that flexibility. If he has refused to call the witnesses the minority wants, "the chair MUST schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses REQUESTED BY THE MINORITY MUST BE INVITED TO TESTIFY.
Period.
I think it is entirely retarded for the Republicans to go that route, but give 'em the rope and let 'em hang themselves, I guess.

Here's the text of the rule:

(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

So, the rule actually doesn't say the chair has to call any witness the minority requests - period - just witnesses to testify on the matter at hand. So, no Mother Goose called to testify for the Goobers.

Moreover, as your own text clarifies, the timing is up to the chair. If he closes the hearing on Dec. 12, 2020, scheduling the minority hearing on Dec. 11, 2020, would be enough.

Truth be told, I am of a split mind on all that. On the one hand, the Goobers' abuse of the Committee and the hearings for their PR spectacle cannot be allowed to proceed. So, cutting them out until they are willing to behave like adults would be the way to go. On the other hand, I sense there isn't much to be gained by feeding into the Goobers' whines about how they are being mistreated and terribly victimized. They had their mind set upon smearing the Bidens from the get-go, and, failing that, they have a victim card to play. You see the same play out on here every single day.

 

[The Original Tree]

When is the Minority Day per Rule 2, XI?

 

[berg80]

Okay, thanks. I finally found the relevant rule. Who do the minority want to appear that have not been called?

O. Separate Day of Hearings with Minority Witnesses
At any committee hearing, a majority of the minority members are entitled by House rule XI clause 2(j)(1) to demand at least one separate day of hearings to allow witnesses selected by the minority to testify on the subject of the hearing. Under the rule, minority members must submit a request in writing to the chair before the end of the hearing.

Practice Note: In practice, the minority normally requests in advance of any hearing that its desired witnesses appear as part of the main hearing and negotiates the details with the majority. The right to a minority day of hearings is usually formally invoked only if the chair has refused to call the witnesses requested by the minority. If this minority right is invoked, the chair must schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses requested by the minority must be invited to testify, but the chair retains the discretion to determine the timing of the hearing. The chair may also call witnesses at any such hearing.

Two points, as underlined above. First, Nadler called Turley at the request of Republicans. Second, the "witnesses" Republicans reportedly wanted to call - Schiff, Hunter Biden - had no valid testimony to offer on the "subject" of the hearing, which is Trump's corrupt dealings with Ukraine.

I agree with you and I understand why the chairman has refused to call those witnesses. Not because they are "guilty" but because they have as much to do with the Trump/Zelensky matter as Mother Goose. HOWEVER, the rules do not seem to give the chairman that flexibility. If he has refused to call the witnesses the minority wants, "the chair MUST schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses REQUESTED BY THE MINORITY MUST BE INVITED TO TESTIFY.
Period.
I think it is entirely retarded for the Republicans to go that route, but give 'em the rope and let 'em hang themselves, I guess.

Here's the text of the rule:

(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

So, the rule actually doesn't say the chair has to call any witness the minority requests - period - just witnesses to testify on the matter at hand. So, no Mother Goose called to testify for the Goobers.

Moreover, as your own text clarifies, the timing is up to the chair. If he closes the hearing on Dec. 12, 2020, scheduling the minority hearing on Dec. 11, 2020, would be enough.

Truth be told, I am of a split mind on all that. On the one hand, the Goobers' abuse of the Committee and the hearings for their PR spectacle cannot be allowed to proceed. So, cutting them out until they are willing to behave like adults would be the way to go. On the other hand, I sense there isn't much to be gained by feeding into the Goobers' whines about how they are being mistreated and terribly victimized. They had their mind set upon smearing the Bidens from the get-go, and, failing that, they have a victim card to play. You see the same play out on here every single day.

First, let me just say how refreshing it is to find intelligent life on this board. Secondly, if the Repub's intention was to have had fact witnesses rebut the matters at hand they would have been allowed. But instead, their intention was to smear the Bidens or otherwise try to create more noise of no pertinence to the facts in evidence about Trump's behavior.

 

[Ame®icano]

So solid a case that the only two charges in the flimsy-assed articles are the nebulous accusations of "obstruction" and "abuse of power".

You clowns don't have a popcorn fart.

LOL...
Yes. So solid in fact that all you dopes can do is screech about is how unfair it is.

You haven't replied to the fact that Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses. Do you think that's fair?

The committee chair decides who testifies. That is as fair as it has ever been.

House rules says otherwise, moron.

Post them, dope.

I posted it in this thread. Here, shitstain.

House rule XI, clause 2.

Calling and questioning of witnesses (j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

[OldLady]

So in order for President Trump to be impeached and removed from office, he must be convicted of treason, bribery or some other crime.

But nowhere in federal law is “abuse of power” defined as a crime. And that is a huge problem, because how can you convict someone of “abuse of power” when there is no law against it?

Ultimately, “abuse of power” is a very vague phrase that could mean just about anything. After all, is there any president in modern American history that has not abused his power at some point?

And if President Trump does get impeached by the House, that is going to set an extremely dangerous precedent. In the future, are we going to start impeaching presidents for “abuse of power” whenever an opposition party gets control of the House of Representatives?

As for the charge of “obstructing Congress”, at least there is some precedent for that. It is actually properly called “contempt of Congress”,

What actual laws is he being accused of breaking.

Let's hope we don't elect another President like Trump for a very very very long time. I don't see this setting a precedent either way. Did impeaching Clinton "set a precedent" by which every President after him was impeached? No.
The President has to do something wrong first. Trump has.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...
Yes. So solid in fact that all you dopes can do is screech about is how unfair it is.

You haven't replied to the fact that Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses. Do you think that's fair?

The committee chair decides who testifies. That is as fair as it has ever been.

House rules says otherwise, moron.

Post them, dope.

I posted it in this thread. Here, shitstain.

House rule XI, clause 2.

Calling and questioning of witnesses (j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The witnesses are still subject to approval by the chair or a majority vote of the committee.

 

[OldLady]

Okay, thanks. I finally found the relevant rule. Who do the minority want to appear that have not been called?

O. Separate Day of Hearings with Minority Witnesses
At any committee hearing, a majority of the minority members are entitled by House rule XI clause 2(j)(1) to demand at least one separate day of hearings to allow witnesses selected by the minority to testify on the subject of the hearing. Under the rule, minority members must submit a request in writing to the chair before the end of the hearing.

Practice Note: In practice, the minority normally requests in advance of any hearing that its desired witnesses appear as part of the main hearing and negotiates the details with the majority. The right to a minority day of hearings is usually formally invoked only if the chair has refused to call the witnesses requested by the minority. If this minority right is invoked, the chair must schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses requested by the minority must be invited to testify, but the chair retains the discretion to determine the timing of the hearing. The chair may also call witnesses at any such hearing.

Two points, as underlined above. First, Nadler called Turley at the request of Republicans. Second, the "witnesses" Republicans reportedly wanted to call - Schiff, Hunter Biden - had no valid testimony to offer on the "subject" of the hearing, which is Trump's corrupt dealings with Ukraine.

I agree with you and I understand why the chairman has refused to call those witnesses. Not because they are "guilty" but because they have as much to do with the Trump/Zelensky matter as Mother Goose. HOWEVER, the rules do not seem to give the chairman that flexibility. If he has refused to call the witnesses the minority wants, "the chair MUST schedule another day of hearings at which the witnesses REQUESTED BY THE MINORITY MUST BE INVITED TO TESTIFY.
Period.
I think it is entirely retarded for the Republicans to go that route, but give 'em the rope and let 'em hang themselves, I guess.

Here's the text of the rule:

(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

So, the rule actually doesn't say the chair has to call any witness the minority requests - period - just witnesses to testify on the matter at hand. So, no Mother Goose called to testify for the Goobers.

Moreover, as your own text clarifies, the timing is up to the chair. If he closes the hearing on Dec. 12, 2020, scheduling the minority hearing on Dec. 11, 2020, would be enough.

Truth be told, I am of a split mind on all that. On the one hand, the Goobers' abuse of the Committee and the hearings for their PR spectacle cannot be allowed to proceed. So, cutting them out until they are willing to behave like adults would be the way to go. On the other hand, I sense there isn't much to be gained by feeding into the Goobers' whines about how they are being mistreated and terribly victimized. They had their mind set upon smearing the Bidens from the get-go, and, failing that, they have a victim card to play. You see the same play out on here every single day.

Thanks, OE.

 

[The Original Tree]

When is The Minority Day Promised in Rule 2, XI?

 

[Ame®icano]

You haven't replied to the fact that Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses. Do you think that's fair?

The committee chair decides who testifies. That is as fair as it has ever been.

House rules says otherwise, moron.

Post them, dope.

I posted it in this thread. Here, shitstain.

House rule XI, clause 2.

Calling and questioning of witnesses (j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The witnesses are still subject to approval by the chair or a majority vote of the committee.

Where does it say that? Even if true, which is not, because rule is clear,... did chair set minority hearing day before Article of Impeachment is released?

"shall be entitled" has only one meaning.

"upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing", which they did submit

"to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify", nothing about being approved by the chair.

You're retard.

 

[OldLady]

You haven't replied to the fact that Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses. Do you think that's fair?

The committee chair decides who testifies. That is as fair as it has ever been.

House rules says otherwise, moron.

Post them, dope.

I posted it in this thread. Here, shitstain.

House rule XI, clause 2.

Calling and questioning of witnesses (j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The witnesses are still subject to approval by the chair or a majority vote of the committee.

Are you sure? It seems that rule is there for when the chair refuses to cooperate; I see no language giving the chair repeated opportunities to deny them their witnesses.

I wish Schiff had burst into the hearing room yesterday wearing his pajama pants and carrying his tv remote while Collins was questioning Goldman, saying STOP! I AM HERE! EAT ME, NOT THE BOY!
But he didn't. It seems this is becoming a contest of nerve--can the Dems remain clear eyed and calm in the face of such ridiculous theatrics, escalating every day? Will these tantrums eventually gain what the Republicans wish? A chance to rip and tear Schiff to pieces publicly for daring to bring Trump to justice? For they must know that Schiff has nothing whatever to do with this. They know this. I'm sure they're not THAT far gone. They know.

 

[The Original Tree]

So in order for President Trump to be impeached and removed from office, he must be convicted of treason, bribery or some other crime.

But nowhere in federal law is “abuse of power” defined as a crime. And that is a huge problem, because how can you convict someone of “abuse of power” when there is no law against it?

Ultimately, “abuse of power” is a very vague phrase that could mean just about anything. After all, is there any president in modern American history that has not abused his power at some point?

And if President Trump does get impeached by the House, that is going to set an extremely dangerous precedent. In the future, are we going to start impeaching presidents for “abuse of power” whenever an opposition party gets control of the House of Representatives?

As for the charge of “obstructing Congress”, at least there is some precedent for that. It is actually properly called “contempt of Congress”,

What actual laws is he being accused of breaking.

Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress are not listed anywhere as Impeachable Offenses.

Obstruction of Justice and Perjury are, since those are considered High Crimes and or Grievous Misdemeanors. There was no crime committed so the little Nazis could not accuse The President of "Obstruction of Justice". He did not, like Bill Clinton did, testify under oath in a trial or official proceeding and then lie, so they could not charge him with "Perjury".

With regards to "Abuse of Power" The Democrats were unable to prove that The President does not have to power to conduct Foreign Policy.

It is not an impeachable offense anyways.

With regards to "Obstruction of Congress" Democrats were unable to prove that The President does not have The Right of Executive Privilege. He absolutely does and holds that power over the ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. "Separation of Powers"

You do not have to respond to a subpoena from Congress. No one does. They can make it uncomfortable for you if you don't but they have to go to COURT to make you appear.

This thing is DOA if it even gets to The Senate.

 

[The Original Tree]

The committee chair decides who testifies. That is as fair as it has ever been.

House rules says otherwise, moron.

Post them, dope.

I posted it in this thread. Here, shitstain.

House rule XI, clause 2.

Calling and questioning of witnesses (j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The witnesses are still subject to approval by the chair or a majority vote of the committee.

Are you sure? It seems that rule is there for when the chair refuses to cooperate; I see no language giving the chair repeated opportunities to deny them their witnesses.

I wish Schiff had burst into the hearing room yesterday wearing his pajama pants and carrying his tv remote while Collins was questioning Goldman, saying STOP! I AM HERE! EAT ME, NOT THE BOY!
But he didn't. It seems this is becoming a contest of nerve--can the Dems remain clear eyed and calm in the face of such ridiculous theatrics, escalating every day? Will these tantrums eventually gain what the Republicans wish? A chance to rip and tear Schiff to pieces publicly for daring to bring Trump to justice? For they must know that Schiff has nothing whatever to do with this. They know this. I'm sure they're not THAT far gone. They know.

That was fricking Hilarious!

"I wish Schiff had burst into the hearing room yesterday wearing his pajama pants and carrying his tv remote while Collins was questioning Goldman, saying STOP! I AM HERE! EAT ME, NOT THE BOY!"