Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You are indeed.

Post misrepresents House Democrats’ impeachment rules

Calling witnesses
The House resolution says requests from members to call witnesses to provide testimony must be submitted in writing to Schiff. They have three days to do that after a hearing is announced. But the Facebook post overreaches in saying that the rules "do not allow any witness to be called" without his approval.

Here’s what the resolution says about the power of members in the minority:

"To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution."

That means any request from Nunes for additional testimony must go through Schiff.

The impeachment resolution says that if Schiff were to refuse a request for additional witnesses, Republicans can bring the matter to a vote by the entire Intelligence Committee.

There are 22 members of the committee, meaning the ultimate decision to call witnesses would not just come down to Schiff. However, in practice, it’s reasonable to assume that the Democratic majority would vote with Schiff.

Democrats did not come up with these rules out of thin air. They borrowed from House investigation procedures that Republicans passed in 2015, said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri and an impeachment expert, in an email.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Pretty sure.

House committee unveils impeachment resolution text - CNNPolitics
"The resolution also states that the minority may request witnesses to be called and issue subpoenas — but those subpoenas can only be issued "with the concurrence of the chair," meaning that Democrats would have to sign off on any Republican-led subpoenas."

 

[flewism]

He most certainly does need to be convicted of a crime period, and abuse of power is not a federal crime.

Obstruction of congress is the other charge, now there is a law against acting in contempt of congress, so you must hang your hopes on that.

Unless the is a popularity impeachment process doomed to fail or have any substance.

Name any president and you can find somebody throughout history accusing that president of abuse of power.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You are indeed.

Post misrepresents House Democrats’ impeachment rules

Calling witnesses
The House resolution says requests from members to call witnesses to provide testimony must be submitted in writing to Schiff. They have three days to do that after a hearing is announced. But the Facebook post overreaches in saying that the rules "do not allow any witness to be called" without his approval.

Here’s what the resolution says about the power of members in the minority:

"To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution."

That means any request from Nunes for additional testimony must go through Schiff.

The impeachment resolution says that if Schiff were to refuse a request for additional witnesses, Republicans can bring the matter to a vote by the entire Intelligence Committee.

There are 22 members of the committee, meaning the ultimate decision to call witnesses would not just come down to Schiff. However, in practice, it’s reasonable to assume that the Democratic majority would vote with Schiff.

Democrats did not come up with these rules out of thin air. They borrowed from House investigation procedures that Republicans passed in 2015, said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri and an impeachment expert, in an email.

House rules supersedes any other rules, moron. Majority can set any rule they want as long is within House rules.

House rules are clear, so what part of "shall be entitled" you do not understand?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You are indeed.

Post misrepresents House Democrats’ impeachment rules

Calling witnesses
The House resolution says requests from members to call witnesses to provide testimony must be submitted in writing to Schiff. They have three days to do that after a hearing is announced. But the Facebook post overreaches in saying that the rules "do not allow any witness to be called" without his approval.

Here’s what the resolution says about the power of members in the minority:

"To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution."

That means any request from Nunes for additional testimony must go through Schiff.

The impeachment resolution says that if Schiff were to refuse a request for additional witnesses, Republicans can bring the matter to a vote by the entire Intelligence Committee.

There are 22 members of the committee, meaning the ultimate decision to call witnesses would not just come down to Schiff. However, in practice, it’s reasonable to assume that the Democratic majority would vote with Schiff.

Democrats did not come up with these rules out of thin air. They borrowed from House investigation procedures that Republicans passed in 2015, said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri and an impeachment expert, in an email.

House rules supersedes any other rules, moron. Majority can set any rule they want as long is within House rules.

House rules are clear, so what part of "shall be entitled" you do not understand?

LOL.....
These are the rules for the impeachment inquiry, dope. The House passed them.

 

[Taz]

Lots of heat, no light. Until there is a John Dean figure who gives testimony from inside the bunker...the Senate won’t care. I doubt they’ll care then either.

The GOP in the Senate are unpatriotic partisan hacks, which their votes will show and go down in history as such.

Oh fucking spare us the tiresome appeals to patriotism....You're as big a bore as Pelosi.

So from now on any Prez can get a foreign country to help him attack his political opponent?

Irrelevant to your dreary and worn out faux appeal to patriotism.

And your "help him attack his political opponent" narrative is sheer speculation, if not outright bunk...Neither you nor the DNC/media hacks who've pumped that notion into your head are mind readers.

So it's just a coincidence that Trump wanted Biden investigated?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

One can only imagine what must have been going through Trump's mind as Daniel Goldman exposed his extortion scheme point by point, move by move.

I've always wondered how a con artist feels when someone busts them wide open.

Like all con artists, Trump is counting on the willful blindness of his marks despite being exposed.

Kind of hard to extort someone who doesn't know they're being extorted.

Attempting to rob a bank is also a crime, even if you get nothing.

You mean if you don't get anything? Stupid foreign troll.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

The committee chair has a personal vendetta. The committee chair said Trump had to be removed even before Trump was sworn in.

So, just more crying?

The committees are operating under the current rules as established in 2015 by the republican majority.

Choke on your own cuntery.

You'll be crying at this time next year after Democrats lose the House. Corrupt cocksuckers.

 

[Oddball]

Lots of heat, no light. Until there is a John Dean figure who gives testimony from inside the bunker...the Senate won’t care. I doubt they’ll care then either.

The GOP in the Senate are unpatriotic partisan hacks, which their votes will show and go down in history as such.

Oh fucking spare us the tiresome appeals to patriotism....You're as big a bore as Pelosi.

So from now on any Prez can get a foreign country to help him attack his political opponent?

Irrelevant to your dreary and worn out faux appeal to patriotism.

And your "help him attack his political opponent" narrative is sheer speculation, if not outright bunk...Neither you nor the DNC/media hacks who've pumped that notion into your head are mind readers.

So it's just a coincidence that Trump wanted Biden investigated?

Where is the evidence that it was political?

Not speculation, innuendo, supposition, inference, presumption, or begging the question....Real, indisputable evidence.

Hint: There is none....That's why the democrat clowns in the House have to go with nebulous charges of "abuse of power" and "obstruction".

 

[The Original Tree]

Just so everyone knows, there are no crimes listed in US Code that are called

"Abuse of Power"
or
"Obstruction of Congress"

Those Articles are works of fiction and neither is an impeachable offense, let alone are even defined as a crime.

There is a law called "Abuse of Office" but sadly for The Democrats, it only describes how they abused their office to attempt to deny The Constitutional Immunities and Privileges of The Executive Branch.

25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.

§ 11.448 Abuse of office.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his or her conduct is illegal, he or she:

(a) Subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or

(b) Denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

 

[Oddball]

Apparently, saying "Screw you, prove your case!" is "obstructing" congress.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The GOP in the Senate are unpatriotic partisan hacks, which their votes will show and go down in history as such.

Oh fucking spare us the tiresome appeals to patriotism....You're as big a bore as Pelosi.

So from now on any Prez can get a foreign country to help him attack his political opponent?

Irrelevant to your dreary and worn out faux appeal to patriotism.

And your "help him attack his political opponent" narrative is sheer speculation, if not outright bunk...Neither you nor the DNC/media hacks who've pumped that notion into your head are mind readers.

So it's just a coincidence that Trump wanted Biden investigated?

Where is the evidence that it was political?

Not speculation, innuendo, supposition, inference, presumption, or begging the question....Real, indisputable evidence.

Hint: There is none....That's why the democrat clowns in the House have to go with nebulous charges of "abuse of power" and "obstruction".

Where is the evidence that it was political?

There was no corruption by Biden
There was no investigation of any Biden.
Biden acted in an official capacity as the VP.
Biden followed official admin policy.

Trump could have easily asked the State Dept about the former VPs role in Ukraine.

 

[Oddball]

Oh fucking spare us the tiresome appeals to patriotism....You're as big a bore as Pelosi.

So from now on any Prez can get a foreign country to help him attack his political opponent?

Irrelevant to your dreary and worn out faux appeal to patriotism.

And your "help him attack his political opponent" narrative is sheer speculation, if not outright bunk...Neither you nor the DNC/media hacks who've pumped that notion into your head are mind readers.

So it's just a coincidence that Trump wanted Biden investigated?

Where is the evidence that it was political?

Not speculation, innuendo, supposition, inference, presumption, or begging the question....Real, indisputable evidence.

Hint: There is none....That's why the democrat clowns in the House have to go with nebulous charges of "abuse of power" and "obstruction".

Where is the evidence that it was political?

There was no corruption by Biden
There was no investigation of any Biden.
Biden acted in an official capacity as the VP.
Biden followed official admin policy.

Trump could have easily asked the State Dept about the former VPs role in Ukraine.

That's your story, Chumlee....And irrelevant at that.

Now, where's your inescapable evidence that what Trump did was political?

 

[The Original Tree]

BTW, "ABUSE OF OFFICE" an Actual Crime would include Representatives, like Schiff, Nadler or Pelosi, forcing President Trump to produce 10 years of his tax returns for NO REASON AT ALL.

 

[BS Filter]

 

[The Original Tree]

Apparently, saying "Screw you, prove your case!" is "obstructing" congress.

Obstructing Congress does not exist in US Code. There is no such thing.

You do not have to honor Subpoenas submitted by The House of Representatives.

Now, if both The House and Senate agreed on something like Impeachment, then The Sr. half of The Bi-Cameral Legislative Branch The Senate, acts on behalf of the entire "Congress" and may be able to have some influence here and compel testimony or appearances...but even that is subject to Due Process Rights and Civil Protections, and Civil Liberties.

But The House of Reps, is not "Congress" The House of Reps is one half of Congress, and so therefore "Congress" implies Bi-Cameral Consent, even if there were such a crime as "Obstruction of Congress" You cannot commit the fictional crime of "Obstructing Congress" unless you Obstruct both The Senate and The House in something like an impeachment proceeding, even if this fictional crime were a crime.

They could not accuse The President of "Obstruction of Justice" an actual crime, because he did not commit a crime.

Always remember it like this. The House of Representatives is literally The JV squad when it comes to The Bi-Cameral Legislative Branch we call Congress.

The Senate is the Senior Branch, or The Varsity.

 

[Oddball]

The Addams family is funny....Those losers in the top pictures are just a bunch of desperate and pathetic punks.

 

[Meister]

Where did they find Schiff? Wasn't he MIA?

 

[Olde Europe]

There was no corruption by Biden
There was no investigation of any Biden.
Biden acted in an official capacity as the VP.
Biden followed official admin policy.

Trump could have easily asked the State Dept about the former VPs role in Ukraine.

There is a far simpler way. If they have any evidence for either of the Biden's corruption, take it to the FBI. They'd be eager to see it. The FBI can, if necessary, ask the DoJ to open channels to its Ukrainian counterpart, and ask for documents and testimony required for a successful prosecution.

The problem with that is, of course, rightards' collectively experienced apoplexy doesn't translate to "evidence". The whole "Biden, Biden, Biden!" brouhaha can, however, be effortlessly translated to "squirrel!"

 

[Oddball]

There was no corruption by Biden
There was no investigation of any Biden.
Biden acted in an official capacity as the VP.
Biden followed official admin policy.

Trump could have easily asked the State Dept about the former VPs role in Ukraine.

There is a far simpler way. If they have any evidence for either of the Biden's corruption, take it to the FBI. They'd be eager to see it. The FBI can, if necessary, ask the DoJ to open channels to its Ukrainian counterpart, and ask for documents and testimony required for a successful prosecution.

The problem with that is, of course, rightards' collectively experienced apoplexy doesn't translate to "evidence". The whole "Biden, Biden, Biden!" brouhaha can, however, be effortlessly translated to "squirrel!"

I don't suppose you've heard of a guy named John Durham, have you?