Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Ame®icano]

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.

You don't know the difference in between "resolution" and "rule".

Chair is not above the house rules, moron.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Man Trump has his "A" Game tonight...lol

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

Please quote where exactly he said that "he wants Biden investigated".

Word for word.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

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?

Please quote where exactly he said that "he wants Biden investigated".

Word for word.

Trump said a normal president would be under a table sucking his thumb asking mommy to take him home after all this S........................OMFGLOLOL

 

[basquebromance]

Is Oleg Deripaska the missing link in the Trump-Russia investigation?

 

[Zorro!]

SCHIFF SHOW FAIL: Dem Rep. Collin Peterson Leaning Against Voting for Articles of Impeachment: ‘Too Divisive.’

If that link doesn't work, try this one:

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesot...-vote-against-impeachment-as-its-too-divisive

"I’m certainly leaning that way....I just think it will be too divisive for the country - it doesn’t accomplish anything,"
​

Going to be tough to get almost half of the GOP Senators to vote to remove if you can't even get all the Democrats in the House to support this nonsense.

 

[Zorro!]

BAD RATINGS FOR THE SCHIFF SHOW: Quinnipiac: Opposition to impeachment and removal reaches 51%, highest number since September.

Just a brutal number for Democrats, not only on the merits but because it’s coming from Quinnipiac. Quinnipiac typically has bad numbers for Trump, particularly on his job approval. That’s pretty bad in this poll too, in fact, clocking in at 40/57. He trails every top-tier Democrat head to head as well.

So to find public opinion on impeachment trending in his direction in a Q-poll is a big deal. If it’s this bad in a national poll of registered voters, imagine what a poll of likely voters in battleground states looks like nowadays. Hoo boy.

Support for impeachment and removal has been trending south in Quinnipiac polls for weeks. In late September, before the Ukraine story broke big, the public split 37/57 on removing him. Then people started warming up. Within five days, it was up to 47/47. A month later it had inched higher to 48/46. But then the trend reversed, with support sliding to 45/48 by late November. Today’s number represents the first time since September that a majority has opposed removal.

At no point in any Q-poll has a majority favored it.

I wonder how much of the public’s trend towards opposition is due to growing skepticism about the Democrats’ case and how much is due to other factors influencing public opinion in Trump’s favor, which in turn ends up undercutting support for removal. Right, granted, his job approval is weak here, but check this out. This is a *big* number:

Quinnipiac asked that same question twice before this year and the highest number they saw was 52 percent. The blowout jobs report last week obviously made an impression; check out the split among independents, who are now better than two-to-one in saying that they’re better off financially than they were before. Not surprisingly, the jobs numbers have also pushed Trump’s rating on handling the economy to the highest level it’s been in more than a year — 54/42, the first time he’s been at 50 percent or better in all of 2019.

I don’t know how to square that with his overall job approval except to say that perceptions of Trump the man doubtless heavily color the latter whereas a specific question about his handling of the economy ends up with character assessments being compartmentalized. How will that work out in the booth next November? “He’s really, really obnoxious, even corrupt — and I’ve never made so much money!”

Also not coincidentally, Trump has gained ground head to head against Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg since Quinnipiac’s poll last month. He still trails all three, but if you’re looking for a way to measure whether impeachment is hurting him or not, the fact that he’s gotten more competitive with top Democrats as it’s played out would seem to provide an answer.

Where does all of this fit in the big picture? Well, here’s the RCP average of Trump’s daily job approval over the past six months. The Ukraine story exploded in late September. Trump’s approval did take a hit afterward, but note the trend lately:

His approval today stands at 44.6 percent. The last time he touched that number was September 27. He’s fully recovered from the hit.

Dems clearly are engaged in a kamikaze run.

It will be interesting is Nancy merely whips the vote to 218 and lets the rest of the Dems save themselves, or if she forces more than she needs to fall on their swords. This is clearly a losing effort, and while Nancy has a bullet proof seat, she has 50 or so that in actually competitive districts. In fact, she can't get to 218 without out going into her red districts.

1. New York 15 D+44 Democratic
2. New York 13 D+43 Democratic
3. Pennsylvania 3 D+41 Democratic
4. California 13 D+40 Democratic
5. Illinois 7 D+38 Democratic
6. New York 7 D+38 Democratic
7. California 12 D+37 Democratic
8. California 37 D+37 Democratic
9. New York 5 D+37 Democratic
10. New Jersey 10 D+36 Democratic
11. New York 8 D+36 Democratic
12. California 34 D+35 Democratic
13. California 44 D+35 Democratic
14. Florida 24 D+34 Democratic
15. Georgia 5 D+34 Democratic
16. Massachusetts 7 D+34 Democratic
17. New York 9 D+34 Democratic
18. California 40 D+33 Democratic
19. Illinois 4 D+33 Democratic
20. Michigan 13 D+33 Democratic
21. Washington 7 D+33 Democratic
22. Ohio 11 D+32 Democratic
23. Florida 20 D+31 Democratic
24. New York 12 D+31 Democratic
25. Michigan 14 D+30 Democratic
26. California 29 D+29 Democratic
27. California 43 D+29 Democratic
28. Illinois 2 D+29 Democratic
29. Missouri 1 D+29 Democratic
30. New York 14 D+29 Democratic
31. Texas 9 D+29 Democratic
32. Texas 30 D+29 Democratic
33. Maryland 4 D+28 Democratic
34. Tennessee 9 D+28 Democratic
35. California 14 D+27 Democratic
36. Illinois 1 D+27 Democratic
37. New Jersey 8 D+27 Democratic
38. Texas 18 D+27 Democratic
39. Maryland 7 D+26 Democratic
40. Minnesota 5 D+26 Democratic
41. New York 10 D+26 Democratic
42. California 17 D+25 Democratic
43. Louisiana 2 D+25 Democratic
44. Pennsylvania 2 D+25 Democratic
45. Wisconsin 4 D+25 Democratic
46. California 19 D+24 Democratic
47. Georgia 4 D+24 Democratic
48. New York 16 D+24 Democratic
49. Oregon 3 D+24 Democratic
50. Arizona 7 D+23 Democratic
51. California 18 D+23 Democratic
52. California 20 D+23 Democratic
53. California 28 D+23 Democratic
54. Texas 33 D+23 Democratic
55. California 2 D+22 Democratic
56. California 51 D+22 Democratic
57. California 5 D+21 Democratic
58. California 6 D+21 Democratic
59. California 11 D+21 Democratic
60. Colorado 1 D+21 Democratic
61. Virginia 8 D+21 Democratic
62. Washington 9 D+21 Democratic
63. Alabama 7 D+20 Democratic
64. California 15 D+20 Democratic
65. Georgia 13 D+20 Democratic
66. Illinois 5 D+20 Democratic
67. California 35 D+19 Democratic
68. Hawaii 2 D+19 Democratic
69. Ohio 3 D+19 Democratic
70. South Carolina 6 D+19 Democratic
71. Texas 29 D+19 Democratic
72. California 30 D+18 Democratic
73. Illinois 9 D+18 Democratic
74. Massachusetts 5 D+18 Democratic
75. North Carolina 12 D+18 Democratic
76. Wisconsin 2 D+18 Democratic
77. California 32 D+17 Democratic
78. California 38 D+17 Democratic
79. Hawaii 1 D+17 Democratic
80. North Carolina 1 D+17 Democratic
81. North Carolina 4 D+17 Democratic
82. Texas 16 D+17 Democratic
83. California 27 D+16 Democratic
84. California 33 D+16 Democratic
85. Maryland 5 D+16 Democratic
86. New Jersey 9 D+16 Democratic
87. New Jersey 12 D+16 Democratic
88. New York 6 D+16 Democratic
89. Virginia 3 D+16 Democratic
90. California 46 D+15 Democratic
91. Nevada 1 D+15 Democratic
92. Texas 35 D+15 Democratic
93. Vermont at-large D+15 Democratic
94. Virginia 11 D+15 Democratic
95. California 53 D+14 Democratic
96. Maryland 8 D+14 Democratic
97. Michigan 12 D+14 Democratic
98. Minnesota 4 D+14 Democratic
99. Mississippi 2 D+14 Democratic
100. Ohio 9 D+14 Democratic
101. Rhode Island 1 D+14 Democratic
102. Arizona 3 D+13 Democratic
103. California 47 D+13 Democratic
104. Maryland 3 D+13 Democratic
105. New Jersey 1 D+13 Democratic
106. Pennsylvania 5 D+13 Democratic
107. Pennsylvania 18 D+13 Democratic
108. California 41 D+12 Democratic
109. Connecticut 1 D+12 Democratic
110. Florida 5 D+12 Democratic
111. Massachusetts 1 D+12 Democratic
112. Florida 10 D+11 Democratic
113. Florida 23 D+11 Democratic
114. Indiana 7 D+11 Democratic
115. Maryland 2 D+11 Democratic
116. New York 26 D+11 Democratic
117. Illinois 10 D+10 Democratic
118. Massachusetts 8 D+10 Democratic
119. Texas 20 D+10 Democratic
120. Texas 34 D+10 Democratic
121. Virginia 4 D+10 Democratic
122. Washington 2 D+10 Democratic
123. California 16 D+9 Democratic
124. Colorado 2 D+9 Democratic
125. Connecticut 3 D+9 Democratic
126. Florida 21 D+9 Democratic
127. Illinois 11 D+9 Democratic
128. Massachusetts 2 D+9 Democratic
129. Massachusetts 3 D+9 Democratic
130. Massachusetts 4 D+9 Democratic
131. New Jersey 6 D+9 Democratic
132. Oregon 1 D+9 Democratic
133. Texas 28 D+9 Democratic
134. California 9 D+8 Democratic
135. California 31 D+8 Democratic
136. Illinois 8 D+8 Democratic
137. Indiana 1 D+8 Democratic
138. Maine 1 D+8 Democratic
139. New Mexico 3 D+8 Democratic
140. New York 25 D+8 Democratic
141. California 24 D+7 Democratic
142. California 26 D+7 Democratic
143. Connecticut 4 D+7 Democratic
144. Florida 14 D+7 Democratic
145. Missouri 5 D+7 Democratic
146. New Mexico 1 D+7 Democratic
147. New York 17 D+7 Democratic
148. New York 20 D+7 Democratic
149. Ohio 13 D+7 Democratic
150. Pennsylvania 4 D+7 Democratic
151. Tennessee 5 D+7 Democratic
152. Texas 15 D+7 Democratic
153. California 52 D+6 Democratic
154. Colorado 7 D+6 Democratic
155. Delaware at-large D+6 Democratic
156. Florida 22 D+6 Democratic
157. Florida 26 D+6 Democratic
158. Georgia 2 D+6 Democratic
159. Illinois 3 D+6 Democratic
160. Kentucky 3 D+6 Democratic
161. Maryland 6 D+6 Democratic
162. Massachusetts 6 D+6 Democratic
163. Rhode Island 2 D+6 Democratic
164. Washington 1 D+6 Democratic
165. Washington 6 D+6 Democratic
166. California 3 D+5 Democratic
167. California 21 D+5 Democratic
168. Florida 9 D+5 Democratic
169. Florida 27 D+5 Democratic
170. Michigan 5 D+5 Democratic
171. Washington 10 D+5 Democratic
172. Arizona 9 D+4 Democratic
173. Massachusetts 9 D+4 Democratic
174. Michigan 9 D+4 Democratic
175. New York 4 D+4 Democratic
176. California 7 D+3 Democratic
177. Connecticut 2 D+3 Democratic
178. Illinois 17 D+3 Democratic
179. Nevada 4 D+3 Democratic
180. California 36 D+2 Democratic
181. Colorado 6 D+2 Democratic
182. Connecticut 5 D+2 Democratic
183. Florida 13 D+2 Democratic
184. New Hampshire 2 D+2 Democratic
185. Pennsylvania 6 D+2 Democratic
186. Iowa 1 D+1 Democratic
187. Iowa 2 D+1 Democratic
188. Minnesota 3 D+1 Democratic
189. New York 3 D+1 Democratic
190. Pennsylvania 7 D+1 Democratic
191. Virginia 10 D+1 Democratic
192. California 10 EVEN Democratic
193. California 25 EVEN Democratic
194. California 39 EVEN Democratic
195. Florida 7 EVEN Democratic
196. Oregon 4 EVEN Democratic
197. Oregon 5 EVEN Democratic
198. Washington 8 EVEN Democratic
199. Wisconsin 3 EVEN Democratic
200. Arizona 2 R+1 Democratic
201. California 49 R+1 Democratic
202. Iowa 3 R+1 Democratic
203. New Jersey 2 R+1 Democratic
204. New York 18 R+1 Democratic
205. Pennsylvania 8 R+1 Democratic
206. Arizona 1 R+2 Democratic
207. Illinois 6 R+2 Democratic
208. Maine 2 R+2 Democratic
209. Minnesota 2 R+2 Democratic
210. Nevada 3 R+2 Democratic
211. New Hampshire 1 R+2 Democratic
212. New Jersey 3 R+2 Democratic
213. New York 19 R+2 Democratic
214. California 45 R+3 Democratic
215. New Jersey 5 R+3 Democratic
216. New Jersey 7 R+3 Democratic
217. New Jersey 11 R+3 Democratic
218. New York 11 R+3 Democratic

 

[Zorro!]

Virginia Democrat Faces Constituents’ Wrath Over Her Support for the Impeachment Inquiry.

 

[Thomas Henry Miller]

Let the people decide in 2020

The people always decide, however The Constitution gives equal power to the three branches of government - a wise decision on the part of The Founders. IF the PEOPLE decide to change The Constitution then that option is available through amendment. But only with approval of Congress and 2/3 of The States.

 

[FA_Q2]

What question was it? I missed it.

Who ordered the subpoenas of phone records. Who ordered the cross checking and identifying the numbers.

Why is that important? Does anyone know? How do we know baby lawyer knew?

It goes to personal biases of those investigating and illegal use of our governmental systems. Schiff was spying on TRUMP and his staff just like the FISA abuse was done. He selected a close contact and then obtained the data and records which exposed Trump and Guliain to unwarranted search and seizure.

Isn't that part of an investigation? It's not called spying when there is an investigation. Same as the FISA thing, which Durham could find no fault with.

...

The findings with the FISA 'thing' was anything but kosher. The fact that the process was so corrupt in a case that has the absolute highest scrutiny should tell all Americans exactly how corrupt the process itself is. I am confident that this particular case is an example of their best work - work that includes doctoring documents.

This is horrible for the impeachment process even if it has no absolutely no material effect on the investigation. It is going to be a LOT easier for Trump and his supporters to make claims of deep state and the like with things like this besmirching the investigation.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

First, 'witnesses selected by the minority to testify on the subject of the hearing' does not mean that the chair can just arbitrarily decide that those witnesses have nothing to add and therefore cannot be called. Asserting such is asinine. Second, the chair has refused to allow witnesses to be called by the minority and that is well known. The republicans have been quite vocal about the fact that an extremely small number of the witnesses they want to call are being blocked by the chair.

I don't really care how much of the minorities witness list is garbage or political games - hell ALL the witnesses so far have been nothing but political games - but not adhering to the rules is an asinine move by the left here. They are just handing more and more ammo to the right to call the process corrupt. If they actually want to succeed here they really need to stop handing the right useful headlines.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Sure, they can set those dates in that manner. Of course that will play into the rights whining as well.

The fact is, unless I missed something, that they have given no date at all and everything points to Shiff denying the minority hearing outright.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Let the people decide in 2020

The people always decide, however The Constitution gives equal power to the three branches of government - a wise decision on the part of The Founders. IF the PEOPLE decide to change The Constitution then that option is available through amendment. But only with approval of Congress and 2/3 of The States.

Yes but impeachment was never designed to be a partisan tool. In this case only one party is pushing for it. Let the people decide.

 

[Olde Europe]

There is nothing stopping the Republican Senate from investigating that [Biden] hoax.

And yet they aren't.


Hmmmm...

Because it's a nothing burger hoax invented in Trump's head to slander Biden.

You are wrong on that - Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating Biden:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) requested records from the State Department on Thursday related to then-Vice President Joe Biden’s efforts to oust a Ukrainian prosecutor in 2016.

The letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo comes as Republicans seek to train scrutiny on Biden’s actions in Ukraine amid impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump over his own efforts to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate his would-be rival for the White House.​

You are perfectly right in declaring it all, including Graham's "investigation", "a nothing burger hoax invented in Trump's head to slander Biden."

 

[Cellblock2429]

There is nothing stopping the Republican Senate from investigating that [Biden] hoax.

And yet they aren't.


Hmmmm...

Because it's a nothing burger hoax invented in Trump's head to slander Biden.

You are wrong on that - Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating Biden:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) requested records from the State Department on Thursday related to then-Vice President Joe Biden’s efforts to oust a Ukrainian prosecutor in 2016.

The letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo comes as Republicans seek to train scrutiny on Biden’s actions in Ukraine amid impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump over his own efforts to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate his would-be rival for the White House.​

You are perfectly right in declaring it all, including Graham's "investigation", "a nothing burger hoax invented in Trump's head to slander Biden."

/——/ Rush: “Nancy Pelosi said, “This isn’t even about Ukraine. It’s about Russia.” I said, “Wait a minute. What happened to this whole thing being about Trump asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden?” She said last week, “It’s not about Ukraine; it’s about Russia, and it’s about weakening Ukraine for Putin.” It’s mind-boggling!”

Cellblock: “ And what about bribery, what about collusion, and what about quid pro quo? What happened to Adam Shytface’s rock solid evidence? And now the democRATs are think of backpedaling impeachment and going with censor.”

 

[Mac-7]

Lindsey Graham gave a great opening statement at the IG Horowith testimony

He really blasted the DOJ/FBI anti trump conspiracy

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

I just gave it to you, dope. You just don't possess the critical abilities necessary for understanding.

 

[Oddball]

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?

I just gave it to you, dope. You just don't possess the critical abilities necessary for understanding.

You didn't give me shit, fuckwit....You gave me media talking points....None of of which themselves are is a single shred of evidence against Trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You don't know the difference in between "resolution" and "rule".

Chair is not above the house rules, moron.

Those are the rules for the impeachment inquiry, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

I just gave it to you, dope. You just don't possess the critical abilities necessary for understanding.

You didn't give me shit, fuckwit....You gave me media talking points....None of of which themselves are is a single shred of evidence against Trump.

Like I said. You're incompetent.