Quid Pro Quo

[the other mike]

All 4 applications:

Claimed that the information showing that Carter Page was a Russian Spy was verified, when it was unverified.

Claimed that Steele was honest and trustworthy even though they had fired him for lying.

Claimed press accounts were "corroboration" even though they found out before the subsequent renewals that Steele was the same source for both.

They claimed, under oath that ALL pertinent information had been disclosed to the court, yet they concealed from the Court that the Clinton campaign paid for the Dossier.

They didn't tell the Court the truth because if they had, the warrants would have been denied. Lies aren't suddenly laundered into truth simply because you tricked a FISC judge into approving your spying application.

Well lets dig into that- shall we?
Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application
The FISA warrant on Carter Page claimed that he was a Russian agent- which can mean many things. The FISA application also says that the FBI relied on information from the State Department- and as you are aware- vast amounts of info is redacted. Now in order for it to be a lie it would have be a) false and b) made knowing it is false. We have no evidence at the moment that either is true...

You think that if a vague notion floats through a bitterly partisan government hack's brain that someone is working as a spy for a foreign government that the full weight of Intelligence Communities Vast Spying powers can be brought against an American Citizen? You'll have to provide me links to when anyone with a brain made these claims while any portion of FISA was being passed or reauthorized.

But, I will love watching the deranged clowns making arguments like that to the American People once the Barr Durham and Horowitz reports have been released.

That great power and authority may only be loosed on a US Citizen if based on compelling evidence, the FBI suspects individuals of acting as clandestine agents of a hostile foreign power. Every Warrant requires a Sworn Oath that ALL the information is verified and that the record is accurate and complete. Further, as these are ex-parte proceedings, the government has the highest burden possible to disclose any weak spots in their submission or exculpatory information.

What the upcoming reports are examining is what triggered such an investigation in a democratic republic whose norms strongly discourage an incumbent administration’s use of the government’s spying powers against political opponents?

The Obama administration did not apply this norm to the Trump campaign at a time when they were supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would be elected and that no one would ever know that this vast spy power had been repeatedly unleashed against the Trump Campaign... Ooops!

If all the Obama administration had been trying to do was check out a few bad apples with suspicious Russia ties, the FBI could easily have alerted any of a number of Trump campaign officials with solid national-security credentials — Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie. The agents could have asked for the campaign’s help. Instead, Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a full-blown counterintelligence investigation, an action that could only be justified by unimpeachable fully verified and corroborated evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

...Actually it claimed that Source #1- Steele- was assessed as reliable. And when the first FISA request was granted- Steele was still an FBI informant.- Steele was not removed as an informant for the FBI until a month later when the FBI found out he was leaking info to the press....

Yes. He was fired by the FBI for acting in an untrustworthy manner. At that moment they had a duty to immediately inform the Court of his untrustworthy action. They did not. They also did not disclose to the Court of his actions through 3 subsequent renewals.

...the press issue- so you admit that this wasn't relevant during the initial FISA authorization- but for the subsequent ones authorized by Trump officials?...

As soon as learned, they had a duty to update the Court. They did not and they repeated this "corroboration" through three renewals even though they knew it to be false.

...And regarding 'pertinent information' you are getting nowhere there either because the FBI noted the pertinent information in the footnote. to the FISA application. Not a lie- simply your disagreement with the FBI on what is pertinent...

They did NOT reveal in a footnote that the Clinton campaign was funding Steele. They deliberately concealed this from the Court, and the reason for their deliberately duplicity, on all 4 applications is obvious. The Court wouldn't have approved this information had they known it.

...
I for one am looking forward to the FISA report.
What do I expect? Probably critical on details, and not finding that the FISA warrants themselves were illegal or that anyone did anything actually illegal, but there will be some criticism of the process.

I too am concerned that rather than resulting in criminal charges that through this process we will also find that only administration penalties apply, suspensions, terminations, write ups and the like, basically employment actions. If that's the case, that's a big hole in our legal framework that will need to be addressed through legislation. Trusting in the virtue of the FBI and DOJ clearly is not sufficient. Some very despicable characters ended up in the highest DOJ, IC and FBI positions in the Nation.

a bitterly partisan government hack's brain.....
Speaking of bitterly partisan. Face it you didn't have any problem with FISA until your Messiah felt threatened by being investigated.

There is no evidence that the "Obama Administration" had anything to do with the FISA warrant request.
As far as their obligation to notify the court once they terminated Steele as an informant for leaking information to the press and for lying to the FBI about the leaks- that wouldn't change the fact that the initial FISA was correct. Nor does it establish that the FBI no longer felt Steele was credible.

And finally- there was no obligation to do what you- or your Messiah- have ex post facto- decided must be done with a FISA warrant.

Notice by the way- that Trump has not made any moves to eliminate the FISA courts.......nor have the GOP.

You're either ignorant or you're lying.]

Your a Trumpkin- which means you are ignorant- and lying.

All Americans should be against this attempted overthrow of an elected president, whether they like President Trump or not.

 

[Zorro!]

Impeachment is a dangerous bitterly partisan fraud.

A Trump Impeachment Imperils the Constitution.

The impeachment effort is itself an attempt to subvert our Constitutional scheme.​

By proceeding in secret, Mrs. Pelosi and her designated impeachment hatchet man, Adam Schiff, are violating our Constitutional norms of due process. These violations include the fact that the president has been deprived of the right to confront witnesses, the failure to follow the Nixon and Clinton precedents of initiating impeachment proceedings by a vote of the entire membership of the House, and the failure to accord Republicans the right to summon witnesses to the closed-door hearings.​

The framers understood that impeachment would be politically divisive, and by limiting impeachable offenses to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” they sought to ensure that impeachment would not be simply a tool of a partisan majority, and that it would not be used to frustrate the will of the people. Representative Biggs quite properly believes that what is now occurring is just what the framers feared.​

What’s funny is, people say that we should impeach Trump because he’s a threat to norms and the Constitution.

And of course that again is just pure BS.

The President has no 'right to confront witnesses' in an impeachment investigation according to the Constitution.
The House doesn't have to follow how previous Houses handled impeachments.

Remember your Messiah is the one who has called it treason to even pursue impeachment against him- your Messiah is the one who is endangering the Constitution.

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.

... is just impeachment...

That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!

... JFC, it's like history started for you in 2016. And Scottish law. You're killing me. Who writes your stuff? Hanpatty. LOL

Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

 

[the other mike]

No quid pro quo.

 

[Zorro!]

Impeachment is a dangerous bitterly partisan fraud.

A Trump Impeachment Imperils the Constitution.

The impeachment effort is itself an attempt to subvert our Constitutional scheme.​

By proceeding in secret, Mrs. Pelosi and her designated impeachment hatchet man, Adam Schiff, are violating our Constitutional norms of due process. These violations include the fact that the president has been deprived of the right to confront witnesses, the failure to follow the Nixon and Clinton precedents of initiating impeachment proceedings by a vote of the entire membership of the House, and the failure to accord Republicans the right to summon witnesses to the closed-door hearings.​

The framers understood that impeachment would be politically divisive, and by limiting impeachable offenses to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” they sought to ensure that impeachment would not be simply a tool of a partisan majority, and that it would not be used to frustrate the will of the people. Representative Biggs quite properly believes that what is now occurring is just what the framers feared.​

What’s funny is, people say that we should impeach Trump because he’s a threat to norms and the Constitution.

And of course that again is just pure BS.

The President has no 'right to confront witnesses' in an impeachment investigation according to the Constitution.
The House doesn't have to follow how previous Houses handled impeachments.

Remember your Messiah is the one who has called it treason to even pursue impeachment against him- your Messiah is the one who is endangering the Constitution.

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. l.

Frankly that is just an admission that you have no fucking clue what the Constitution says.

That you think that your Messiah somehow has 'rights' in an Impeachment that are not afforded to any defendant in any criminal investigation just shows how much kool aid you have drunk

The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

What is happening now is an investigation. Not an impeachment.

Until you understand that.....well hell......you will never understand that....

It's simply not true. Schiff is fictionalizing again with his claims that impeachment is "like" a grand jury, it's nothing of the sort.

Impeachment is solely about political accountability. It is a quintessentially public question.

Grand juries, moreover, are presumptively impartial. The grand jury exists as a constitutional protection: Before the state may charge an American with a crime, it must satisfy a body of objective citizens that there is sufficient evidence (probable cause) to proceed to trial.

In marked contrast, this impeachment inquiry is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity, this impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. No one is enough of a moron to believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial fact-finder. This is the same clown who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

Schiff has no response to this. What response could he have, since it could not be more obvious that his impeachment inquiry, which still has not been endorsed by a vote of the full House, is nothing like a grand jury investigation?

So he offers a different rationalization: The witness interviews need to be secret to prevent administration officials from getting their story straight by hearing each other’s version of events before testifying. The implication, of course, is that the public officials he is summoning would otherwise commit perjury, clearly no presumption of innocence, there.

As Schiff well knows, secrecy does not prevent witnesses from comparing notes outside the hearing. Even in criminal investigations, where grand jury secrecy applies, witnesses commonly form joint defense agreements which enable them to share notes about what the investigators are asking.

Andrew McCarthy: Americans deserve a public impeachment inquiry – Schiff and Dems should end the secrecy

 

[Syriusly]

And of course that again is just pure BS.

The President has no 'right to confront witnesses' in an impeachment investigation according to the Constitution.
The House doesn't have to follow how previous Houses handled impeachments.

Remember your Messiah is the one who has called it treason to even pursue impeachment against him- your Messiah is the one who is endangering the Constitution.

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.

... is just impeachment...

That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!

... JFC, it's like history started for you in 2016. And Scottish law. You're killing me. Who writes your stuff? Hanpatty. LOL

Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury investigation. Is not a criminal prosecution. It is an impeachment inquiry.
It is bound only by what the Constitution says about impeachment.


The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

 

[peach174]

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.

... is just impeachment...

That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!

... JFC, it's like history started for you in 2016. And Scottish law. You're killing me. Who writes your stuff? Hanpatty. LOL

Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury investigation. Is not a criminal prosecution. It is an impeachment inquiry.
It is bound only by what the Constitution says about impeachment.


The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

Not just the constitution but what bills were passed and house rules.
All of it being violated.
It's legal but dirty politics .

 

[sealybobo]

Funny you don’t care about the illegal shit trumps doing that’s making people blow whistles.

They aren’t crying wolf. Trump did what they say he did and that’s why he’s getting impeached

Trump is the best president ever. He's never done anything to deserve impeachment.
You Dems are so desperate you're hoping to find some 2 dollar mistake on his taxes to lynch him on.

Impeachment is a dangerous bitterly partisan fraud.

A Trump Impeachment Imperils the Constitution.

The impeachment effort is itself an attempt to subvert our Constitutional scheme.​

By proceeding in secret, Mrs. Pelosi and her designated impeachment hatchet man, Adam Schiff, are violating our Constitutional norms of due process. These violations include the fact that the president has been deprived of the right to confront witnesses, the failure to follow the Nixon and Clinton precedents of initiating impeachment proceedings by a vote of the entire membership of the House, and the failure to accord Republicans the right to summon witnesses to the closed-door hearings.​

The framers understood that impeachment would be politically divisive, and by limiting impeachable offenses to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” they sought to ensure that impeachment would not be simply a tool of a partisan majority, and that it would not be used to frustrate the will of the people. Representative Biggs quite properly believes that what is now occurring is just what the framers feared.​

What’s funny is, people say that we should impeach Trump because he’s a threat to norms and the Constitution.

And of course that again is just pure BS.

The President has no 'right to confront witnesses' in an impeachment investigation according to the Constitution.
The House doesn't have to follow how previous Houses handled impeachments.

Remember your Messiah is the one who has called it treason to even pursue impeachment against him- your Messiah is the one who is endangering the Constitution.

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Not to really get into this with you, but impeachment in the House and Senate does not involve rules of criminal procedure, and if a potus is found guilty by the senate (which ain't happening here LOL), the only punishment is to get out of office. Apples and oranges as it were. See impeachment of Clinton.

I think he was only impeached in the House not senate.

Good! I want republicans to vote to not impeach such bad behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

And of course that again is just pure BS.

The President has no 'right to confront witnesses' in an impeachment investigation according to the Constitution.
The House doesn't have to follow how previous Houses handled impeachments.

Remember your Messiah is the one who has called it treason to even pursue impeachment against him- your Messiah is the one who is endangering the Constitution.

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. l.

Frankly that is just an admission that you have no fucking clue what the Constitution says.

That you think that your Messiah somehow has 'rights' in an Impeachment that are not afforded to any defendant in any criminal investigation just shows how much kool aid you have drunk

The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

What is happening now is an investigation. Not an impeachment.

Until you understand that.....well hell......you will never understand that....

It's simply not true. Schiff is fictionalizing again with his claims that impeachment is "like" a grand jury, it's nothing of the sort.

Impeachment is solely about political accountability. It is a quintessentially public question.

Grand juries, moreover, are presumptively impartial. The grand jury exists as a constitutional protection: Before the state may charge an American with a crime, it must satisfy a body of objective citizens that there is sufficient evidence (probable cause) to proceed to trial.

In marked contrast, this impeachment inquiry is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity, this impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. No one is enough of a moron to believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial fact-finder. This is the same clown who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

Schiff has no response to this. What response could he have, since it could not be more obvious that his impeachment inquiry, which still has not been endorsed by a vote of the full House, is nothing like a grand jury investigation?

So he offers a different rationalization: The witness interviews need to be secret to prevent administration officials from getting their story straight by hearing each other’s version of events before testifying. The implication, of course, is that the public officials he is summoning would otherwise commit perjury, clearly no presumption of innocence, there.

As Schiff well knows, secrecy does not prevent witnesses from comparing notes outside the hearing. Even in criminal investigations, where grand jury secrecy applies, witnesses commonly form joint defense agreements which enable them to share notes about what the investigators are asking.

Andrew McCarthy: Americans deserve a public impeachment inquiry – Schiff and Dems should end the secrecy

I didn't quote Schiff. Schiff doesn't have to be any more impartial than Trump or Nunes- the Constitution doesn't require him to be impartial.

And ultimately the House will vote on Impeachment and the issue will be decided.

But Trump is not having any of his 'rights' being denied- any more than con-man who is being investigated by a Grand Jury is having his rights being denied.

You are correct in one thing though- this is not a criminal trial- this is a political process. One specifically provided for in the Constitution. How the House handles the impeachment is for the House itself to decide.

Impeachment cannot be a 'coupe' because it is provided for in our Constitution. It is not an 'ursurptoin of an election because again- it is provided for in the Constitution.

Once the House votes for impeachment then it goes onto the Senate- which is every bit as partisan as the House.
Would this Senate vote to impeach a Nixon or a Trump regardless of the crimes? We will have to see. At the moment- absolutely not.

By the end of this week......maybe.

 

[sealybobo]

Trump is the best president ever. He's never done anything to deserve impeachment.
You Dems are so desperate you're hoping to find some 2 dollar mistake on his taxes to lynch him on.

Impeachment is a dangerous bitterly partisan fraud.

A Trump Impeachment Imperils the Constitution.

The impeachment effort is itself an attempt to subvert our Constitutional scheme.​

By proceeding in secret, Mrs. Pelosi and her designated impeachment hatchet man, Adam Schiff, are violating our Constitutional norms of due process. These violations include the fact that the president has been deprived of the right to confront witnesses, the failure to follow the Nixon and Clinton precedents of initiating impeachment proceedings by a vote of the entire membership of the House, and the failure to accord Republicans the right to summon witnesses to the closed-door hearings.​

The framers understood that impeachment would be politically divisive, and by limiting impeachable offenses to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” they sought to ensure that impeachment would not be simply a tool of a partisan majority, and that it would not be used to frustrate the will of the people. Representative Biggs quite properly believes that what is now occurring is just what the framers feared.​

What’s funny is, people say that we should impeach Trump because he’s a threat to norms and the Constitution.

And of course that again is just pure BS.

The President has no 'right to confront witnesses' in an impeachment investigation according to the Constitution.
The House doesn't have to follow how previous Houses handled impeachments.

Remember your Messiah is the one who has called it treason to even pursue impeachment against him- your Messiah is the one who is endangering the Constitution.

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Not to really get into this with you, but impeachment in the House and Senate does not involve rules of criminal procedure...

Yes, rights we ALWAYS enjoy are recognized in the criminal code, but that recognition does not mean we are shorn of them in any other situation.

... if a potus is found guilty...

He won't be found guilty in an unjust process, he will only need to point to the injustice to shame the zealots that attempted to overturn the election and were so pathetic that they used an unjust process to do so. We dare you to try it, we will ram this right down your throats before a National Audience in the Senate.

If you put the nation through this, and frankly, you already are, and you do not have solid unimpeachable proof of bribery, treason or other black letter felonies that are clearly inherently illegal acts, there is going to be holy hell to pay from the electorate, your fancy footwork and fine tuned parsing not with standing.

... See impeachment of Clinton.

Exactly. He committed felonies, but, still the American People and the Senate did not want him removed from office. It's a very high bar and some didn't did your i or cross your T bullshit isn't going to cut it.

As for the application of inherent rights not codified in US law, one of the votes to acquit Clinton invoked ancient Scottish law. The American People have a strong sense of fair play and the anti-trumpers have lost their minds over the 2016 election. You are not thinking rationally and the Senate trial will illustrate just how completely you have lost your minds.

WE DEMAND YOU IMPEACH HIM - WE WANT THE SENATE TRIAL!

We aren’t afraid of your threats.

Trumps bad behavior is going to cause would be supporters into staying home. He’s embarrassing and has to go.

Even military people like mad dog say he’s got to go. Rex tillerson. Michael Cohen told you trumps a rat. He was trumps fixer. Don’t you people care?

 

[K9Buck]

I'm way late to this thread and it seems that it's gone in another direction but, I'll ask anyway.

Isn't most American aid given with expectations attached, you know, "quid pro quo"? I know we something give charity with no strings attached, but as far as I can tell, the U.S. doesn't just hand out money and other aid without an expectation of something in return.

Does anyone dispute this?

 

[Syriusly]

Trump is the best president ever. He's never done anything to deserve impeachment.
You Dems are so desperate you're hoping to find some 2 dollar mistake on his taxes to lynch him on.

Impeachment is a dangerous bitterly partisan fraud.

A Trump Impeachment Imperils the Constitution.

The impeachment effort is itself an attempt to subvert our Constitutional scheme.​

By proceeding in secret, Mrs. Pelosi and her designated impeachment hatchet man, Adam Schiff, are violating our Constitutional norms of due process. These violations include the fact that the president has been deprived of the right to confront witnesses, the failure to follow the Nixon and Clinton precedents of initiating impeachment proceedings by a vote of the entire membership of the House, and the failure to accord Republicans the right to summon witnesses to the closed-door hearings.​

The framers understood that impeachment would be politically divisive, and by limiting impeachable offenses to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” they sought to ensure that impeachment would not be simply a tool of a partisan majority, and that it would not be used to frustrate the will of the people. Representative Biggs quite properly believes that what is now occurring is just what the framers feared.​

What’s funny is, people say that we should impeach Trump because he’s a threat to norms and the Constitution.

And of course that again is just pure BS.

The President has no 'right to confront witnesses' in an impeachment investigation according to the Constitution.
The House doesn't have to follow how previous Houses handled impeachments.

Remember your Messiah is the one who has called it treason to even pursue impeachment against him- your Messiah is the one who is endangering the Constitution.

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Not to really get into this with you, but impeachment in the House and Senate does not involve rules of criminal procedure, and if a potus is found guilty by the senate (which ain't happening here LOL), the only punishment is to get out of office. Apples and oranges as it were. See impeachment of Clinton.

I think he was only impeached in the House not senate.

Good! I want republicans to vote to not impeach such bad behavior.

Impeachment only happens in the House.
Senate decides whether the Impeachment warrants conviction and removal from office.

 

[peach174]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Can't have a quid pro quo, if the other side never knew about, which is what they are all saying.

 

[Zorro!]

All of it. When you lie to FISC to get a FISA warrant, the spying that results is illegal.

What lies to get the FISA warrant?

All 4 applications:

Claimed that the information showing that Carter Page was a Russian Spy was verified, when it was unverified.

Claimed that Steele was honest and trustworthy even though they had fired him for lying.

Claimed press accounts were "corroboration" even though they found out before the subsequent renewals that Steele was the same source for both.

They claimed, under oath that ALL pertinent information had been disclosed to the court, yet they concealed from the Court that the Clinton campaign paid for the Dossier.

They didn't tell the Court the truth because if they had, the warrants would have been denied. Lies aren't suddenly laundered into truth simply because you tricked a FISC judge into approving your spying application.

Well lets dig into that- shall we?
Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application
The FISA warrant on Carter Page claimed that he was a Russian agent- which can mean many things. The FISA application also says that the FBI relied on information from the State Department- and as you are aware- vast amounts of info is redacted. Now in order for it to be a lie it would have be a) false and b) made knowing it is false. We have no evidence at the moment that either is true...

You think that if a vague notion floats through a bitterly partisan government hack's brain that someone is working as a spy for a foreign government that the full weight of Intelligence Communities Vast Spying powers can be brought against an American Citizen? You'll have to provide me links to when anyone with a brain made these claims while any portion of FISA was being passed or reauthorized.

But, I will love watching the deranged clowns making arguments like that to the American People once the Barr Durham and Horowitz reports have been released.

That great power and authority may only be loosed on a US Citizen if based on compelling evidence, the FBI suspects individuals of acting as clandestine agents of a hostile foreign power. Every Warrant requires a Sworn Oath that ALL the information is verified and that the record is accurate and complete. Further, as these are ex-parte proceedings, the government has the highest burden possible to disclose any weak spots in their submission or exculpatory information.

What the upcoming reports are examining is what triggered such an investigation in a democratic republic whose norms strongly discourage an incumbent administration’s use of the government’s spying powers against political opponents?

The Obama administration did not apply this norm to the Trump campaign at a time when they were supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would be elected and that no one would ever know that this vast spy power had been repeatedly unleashed against the Trump Campaign... Ooops!

If all the Obama administration had been trying to do was check out a few bad apples with suspicious Russia ties, the FBI could easily have alerted any of a number of Trump campaign officials with solid national-security credentials — Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie. The agents could have asked for the campaign’s help. Instead, Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a full-blown counterintelligence investigation, an action that could only be justified by unimpeachable fully verified and corroborated evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

...Actually it claimed that Source #1- Steele- was assessed as reliable. And when the first FISA request was granted- Steele was still an FBI informant.- Steele was not removed as an informant for the FBI until a month later when the FBI found out he was leaking info to the press....

Yes. He was fired by the FBI for acting in an untrustworthy manner. At that moment they had a duty to immediately inform the Court of his untrustworthy action. They did not. They also did not disclose to the Court of his actions through 3 subsequent renewals.

...the press issue- so you admit that this wasn't relevant during the initial FISA authorization- but for the subsequent ones authorized by Trump officials?...

As soon as learned, they had a duty to update the Court. They did not and they repeated this "corroboration" through three renewals even though they knew it to be false.

...And regarding 'pertinent information' you are getting nowhere there either because the FBI noted the pertinent information in the footnote. to the FISA application. Not a lie- simply your disagreement with the FBI on what is pertinent...

They did NOT reveal in a footnote that the Clinton campaign was funding Steele. They deliberately concealed this from the Court, and the reason for their deliberately duplicity, on all 4 applications is obvious. The Court wouldn't have approved this information had they known it.

...
I for one am looking forward to the FISA report.
What do I expect? Probably critical on details, and not finding that the FISA warrants themselves were illegal or that anyone did anything actually illegal, but there will be some criticism of the process.

I too am concerned that rather than resulting in criminal charges that through this process we will also find that only administration penalties apply, suspensions, terminations, write ups and the like, basically employment actions. If that's the case, that's a big hole in our legal framework that will need to be addressed through legislation. Trusting in the virtue of the FBI and DOJ clearly is not sufficient. Some very despicable characters ended up in the highest DOJ, IC and FBI positions in the Nation.

a bitterly partisan government hack's brain.....
Speaking of bitterly partisan. Face it you didn't have any problem with FISA until your Messiah felt threatened by being investigated...

I was very concerned about Obama's spying when he spied on Congress to get the Iran deal passed. While we suspected at the time, until this all came out with Trump, no one had any idea of the extent of Obama's illegal use of the IC against Americans. There was stunned dismay among US prosecutors when it finally became clear that they had used the unverified Steele Dossier for FISA warrants as everyone realized how many lies that would involve as it is only after clearing the highest bar of evidence that an American is actively working as a foreign spy that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may be used to authorize spying against domestic Americans.

... There is no evidence that the "Obama Administration" had anything to do with the FISA warrant request...

The DOJ, AG, FBI, CIA and the IC are ALL within the Executive Branch.

... As far as their obligation to notify the court once they terminated Steele as an informant for leaking information to the press and for lying to the FBI about the leaks- that wouldn't change the fact that the initial FISA was correct....

It wasn't correct. Carter Page was never charged with anything. At the point they had a duty to inform the Court of his untrustworthiness. They not only didn't fulfill this duty, but renewed the warrant 3 times, at 90 day intervals, each time swearing oaths to Steele's impeccable integrity, even though the FBI had fired him for not keeping his word not to disclose information.

...Nor does it establish that the FBI no longer felt Steele was credible...

The guy you fired for leaking also has impeccable integrity? Yeah, have fun making that case.

... ex post facto- decided must be done with a FISA warrant...

There is nothing after the fact about the FBI and DOJ holding the highest possible burden to show the utmost integrity when getting the authority to spy on an American Citizen. They were only granted that power, they do not possess it inherently, by US, with the firm expectation that all these processes would be handled by those with impeccable character reaching and achieving the highest possible standards.

...Notice by the way- that Trump has not made any moves to eliminate the FISA courts.......nor have the GOP.

The Court was misled. Right now the investigation is dealing with how they came to be misled. I'm sure you join me in looking forward to Horowitz, Barr and Durham getting to the very bottom of this so that we can ensure that this never happens again and if any crimes were committed that those that were engaged in this illegal scheme are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But back to impeachment:

Schiff is conducting his meetings in secret, yet any hearing he is involved with leaks like a sieve. Schiff’s secrecy does not prevent witnesses from learning a quite selective version of what the other witnesses told the committee. They need only watch the news or read the papers.

In this Great Nation we conduct trials in public. Secrecy is antithetical to the legitimacy of tribunals. To be assured that proceedings are fair and consistent with due process, the public must see them.

The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is an outrageous departure from due process and public legitimacy. The People’s representatives are supposed to do the public’s business in public.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm way late to this thread and it seems that it's gone in another direction but, I'll ask anyway.

Isn't most American aid given with expectations attached, you know, "quid pro quo"? I know we something give charity with no strings attached, but as far as I can tell, the U.S. doesn't just hand out money and other aid without an expectation of something in return.

Does anyone dispute this?

Certainly there is plenty of quid pro quo- generally something like: If we give you $100,000,000 in farm aid, you will only buy American made tractors.

Not generally "if we are going to give you money to defend yourselves, you have to make a public announcement that you are investigating my political rival"

Its bad when a government official uses his office for a quid pro quo for his own benefit- as Trump did.

 

[Syriusly]

What lies to get the FISA warrant?

All 4 applications:

Claimed that the information showing that Carter Page was a Russian Spy was verified, when it was unverified.

Claimed that Steele was honest and trustworthy even though they had fired him for lying.

Claimed press accounts were "corroboration" even though they found out before the subsequent renewals that Steele was the same source for both.

They claimed, under oath that ALL pertinent information had been disclosed to the court, yet they concealed from the Court that the Clinton campaign paid for the Dossier.

They didn't tell the Court the truth because if they had, the warrants would have been denied. Lies aren't suddenly laundered into truth simply because you tricked a FISC judge into approving your spying application.

Well lets dig into that- shall we?
Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application
The FISA warrant on Carter Page claimed that he was a Russian agent- which can mean many things. The FISA application also says that the FBI relied on information from the State Department- and as you are aware- vast amounts of info is redacted. Now in order for it to be a lie it would have be a) false and b) made knowing it is false. We have no evidence at the moment that either is true...

You think that if a vague notion floats through a bitterly partisan government hack's brain that someone is working as a spy for a foreign government that the full weight of Intelligence Communities Vast Spying powers can be brought against an American Citizen? You'll have to provide me links to when anyone with a brain made these claims while any portion of FISA was being passed or reauthorized.

But, I will love watching the deranged clowns making arguments like that to the American People once the Barr Durham and Horowitz reports have been released.

That great power and authority may only be loosed on a US Citizen if based on compelling evidence, the FBI suspects individuals of acting as clandestine agents of a hostile foreign power. Every Warrant requires a Sworn Oath that ALL the information is verified and that the record is accurate and complete. Further, as these are ex-parte proceedings, the government has the highest burden possible to disclose any weak spots in their submission or exculpatory information.

What the upcoming reports are examining is what triggered such an investigation in a democratic republic whose norms strongly discourage an incumbent administration’s use of the government’s spying powers against political opponents?

The Obama administration did not apply this norm to the Trump campaign at a time when they were supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would be elected and that no one would ever know that this vast spy power had been repeatedly unleashed against the Trump Campaign... Ooops!

If all the Obama administration had been trying to do was check out a few bad apples with suspicious Russia ties, the FBI could easily have alerted any of a number of Trump campaign officials with solid national-security credentials — Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie. The agents could have asked for the campaign’s help. Instead, Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a full-blown counterintelligence investigation, an action that could only be justified by unimpeachable fully verified and corroborated evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

...Actually it claimed that Source #1- Steele- was assessed as reliable. And when the first FISA request was granted- Steele was still an FBI informant.- Steele was not removed as an informant for the FBI until a month later when the FBI found out he was leaking info to the press....

Yes. He was fired by the FBI for acting in an untrustworthy manner. At that moment they had a duty to immediately inform the Court of his untrustworthy action. They did not. They also did not disclose to the Court of his actions through 3 subsequent renewals.

...the press issue- so you admit that this wasn't relevant during the initial FISA authorization- but for the subsequent ones authorized by Trump officials?...

As soon as learned, they had a duty to update the Court. They did not and they repeated this "corroboration" through three renewals even though they knew it to be false.

...And regarding 'pertinent information' you are getting nowhere there either because the FBI noted the pertinent information in the footnote. to the FISA application. Not a lie- simply your disagreement with the FBI on what is pertinent...

They did NOT reveal in a footnote that the Clinton campaign was funding Steele. They deliberately concealed this from the Court, and the reason for their deliberately duplicity, on all 4 applications is obvious. The Court wouldn't have approved this information had they known it.

...
I for one am looking forward to the FISA report.
What do I expect? Probably critical on details, and not finding that the FISA warrants themselves were illegal or that anyone did anything actually illegal, but there will be some criticism of the process.

I too am concerned that rather than resulting in criminal charges that through this process we will also find that only administration penalties apply, suspensions, terminations, write ups and the like, basically employment actions. If that's the case, that's a big hole in our legal framework that will need to be addressed through legislation. Trusting in the virtue of the FBI and DOJ clearly is not sufficient. Some very despicable characters ended up in the highest DOJ, IC and FBI positions in the Nation.

a bitterly partisan government hack's brain.....
Speaking of bitterly partisan. Face it you didn't have any problem with FISA until your Messiah felt threatened by being investigated...

But back to impeachment:
\

In this Great Nation we conduct trials in public. Secrecy is antithetical to the legitimacy of tribunals. To be assured that proceedings are fair and consistent with due process, the public must see them..

And there is no trial going on.

Impeachment is not a trial.

I can't repeat it often enough.

 

[Zorro!]

I'm way late to this thread and it seems that it's gone in another direction but, I'll ask anyway.

Isn't most American aid given with expectations attached, you know, "quid pro quo"? I know we something give charity with no strings attached, but as far as I can tell, the U.S. doesn't just hand out money and other aid without an expectation of something in return.

Does anyone dispute this?

Certainly there is plenty of quid pro quo- generally something like: If we give you $100,000,000 in farm aid, you will only buy American made tractors.

Not generally "if we are going to give you money to defend yourselves, you have to make a public announcement that you are investigating my political rival"

Its bad when a government official uses his office for a quid pro quo for his own benefit- as Trump did.

Getting to the bottom of foreign interference in 2016 campaign is of the utmost importance to the United States. Trump had a duty to secure Ukraine's cooperation in our ongoing investigation. He could not let the possibility that he might benefit deter him from doing his duty as President.

 

[Zorro!]

All 4 applications:

Claimed that the information showing that Carter Page was a Russian Spy was verified, when it was unverified.

Claimed that Steele was honest and trustworthy even though they had fired him for lying.

Claimed press accounts were "corroboration" even though they found out before the subsequent renewals that Steele was the same source for both.

They claimed, under oath that ALL pertinent information had been disclosed to the court, yet they concealed from the Court that the Clinton campaign paid for the Dossier.

They didn't tell the Court the truth because if they had, the warrants would have been denied. Lies aren't suddenly laundered into truth simply because you tricked a FISC judge into approving your spying application.

Well lets dig into that- shall we?
Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application
The FISA warrant on Carter Page claimed that he was a Russian agent- which can mean many things. The FISA application also says that the FBI relied on information from the State Department- and as you are aware- vast amounts of info is redacted. Now in order for it to be a lie it would have be a) false and b) made knowing it is false. We have no evidence at the moment that either is true...

You think that if a vague notion floats through a bitterly partisan government hack's brain that someone is working as a spy for a foreign government that the full weight of Intelligence Communities Vast Spying powers can be brought against an American Citizen? You'll have to provide me links to when anyone with a brain made these claims while any portion of FISA was being passed or reauthorized.

But, I will love watching the deranged clowns making arguments like that to the American People once the Barr Durham and Horowitz reports have been released.

That great power and authority may only be loosed on a US Citizen if based on compelling evidence, the FBI suspects individuals of acting as clandestine agents of a hostile foreign power. Every Warrant requires a Sworn Oath that ALL the information is verified and that the record is accurate and complete. Further, as these are ex-parte proceedings, the government has the highest burden possible to disclose any weak spots in their submission or exculpatory information.

What the upcoming reports are examining is what triggered such an investigation in a democratic republic whose norms strongly discourage an incumbent administration’s use of the government’s spying powers against political opponents?

The Obama administration did not apply this norm to the Trump campaign at a time when they were supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would be elected and that no one would ever know that this vast spy power had been repeatedly unleashed against the Trump Campaign... Ooops!

If all the Obama administration had been trying to do was check out a few bad apples with suspicious Russia ties, the FBI could easily have alerted any of a number of Trump campaign officials with solid national-security credentials — Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie. The agents could have asked for the campaign’s help. Instead, Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a full-blown counterintelligence investigation, an action that could only be justified by unimpeachable fully verified and corroborated evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

...Actually it claimed that Source #1- Steele- was assessed as reliable. And when the first FISA request was granted- Steele was still an FBI informant.- Steele was not removed as an informant for the FBI until a month later when the FBI found out he was leaking info to the press....

Yes. He was fired by the FBI for acting in an untrustworthy manner. At that moment they had a duty to immediately inform the Court of his untrustworthy action. They did not. They also did not disclose to the Court of his actions through 3 subsequent renewals.

...the press issue- so you admit that this wasn't relevant during the initial FISA authorization- but for the subsequent ones authorized by Trump officials?...

As soon as learned, they had a duty to update the Court. They did not and they repeated this "corroboration" through three renewals even though they knew it to be false.

...And regarding 'pertinent information' you are getting nowhere there either because the FBI noted the pertinent information in the footnote. to the FISA application. Not a lie- simply your disagreement with the FBI on what is pertinent...

They did NOT reveal in a footnote that the Clinton campaign was funding Steele. They deliberately concealed this from the Court, and the reason for their deliberately duplicity, on all 4 applications is obvious. The Court wouldn't have approved this information had they known it.

...
I for one am looking forward to the FISA report.
What do I expect? Probably critical on details, and not finding that the FISA warrants themselves were illegal or that anyone did anything actually illegal, but there will be some criticism of the process.

I too am concerned that rather than resulting in criminal charges that through this process we will also find that only administration penalties apply, suspensions, terminations, write ups and the like, basically employment actions. If that's the case, that's a big hole in our legal framework that will need to be addressed through legislation. Trusting in the virtue of the FBI and DOJ clearly is not sufficient. Some very despicable characters ended up in the highest DOJ, IC and FBI positions in the Nation.

a bitterly partisan government hack's brain.....
Speaking of bitterly partisan. Face it you didn't have any problem with FISA until your Messiah felt threatened by being investigated...

But back to impeachment:
\

In this Great Nation we conduct trials in public. Secrecy is antithetical to the legitimacy of tribunals. To be assured that proceedings are fair and consistent with due process, the public must see them..

And there is no trial going on.

Impeachment is not a trial.

I can't repeat it often enough.

Someone claimed this was like a grand jury proceeding to explain the secrecy, this nothing of the sort.

If Chairman Schiff, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and their fellow Democrats truly believe President Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, they should welcome public hearings. They should be proud to go on record by voting to hold an impeachment inquiry, and – as in prior impeachments – they should be fearless about giving the president and the Republican minority due process rights to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses.

Instead, they refuse to vote, hide behind closed doors, withhold key documents and testimony, and provide their media friends with selectively skewed leaks. It is the Russia “collusion” phantasm 2.0 – the construction of a partisan narrative, not the fulfillment of a public duty.

 

[sealybobo]

this is Trump's Waterloo my friends. it will break him!

Most voters will listen to all the people who quit or got fired working for trump. They’ll believe he is unstable. Embarrassing. Even former generals are speaking out against his irrational behavior

 

[sealybobo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Can't have a quid pro quo, if the other side never knew about, which is what they are all saying.

What? We catch trump trying to mafia the guy into lying about his political opponent, the foreigners doesn’t get it, and you say because of that trumps innocent of not trying to shake the guy down?

This is the kind of argument a good lawyer makes up for his clearly guilty client.

 

[Zorro!]

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. l.

Frankly that is just an admission that you have no fucking clue what the Constitution says.

That you think that your Messiah somehow has 'rights' in an Impeachment that are not afforded to any defendant in any criminal investigation just shows how much kool aid you have drunk

The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

What is happening now is an investigation. Not an impeachment.

Until you understand that.....well hell......you will never understand that....

It's simply not true. Schiff is fictionalizing again with his claims that impeachment is "like" a grand jury, it's nothing of the sort.

Impeachment is solely about political accountability. It is a quintessentially public question.

Grand juries, moreover, are presumptively impartial. The grand jury exists as a constitutional protection: Before the state may charge an American with a crime, it must satisfy a body of objective citizens that there is sufficient evidence (probable cause) to proceed to trial.

In marked contrast, this impeachment inquiry is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity, this impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. No one is enough of a moron to believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial fact-finder. This is the same clown who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

Schiff has no response to this. What response could he have, since it could not be more obvious that his impeachment inquiry, which still has not been endorsed by a vote of the full House, is nothing like a grand jury investigation?

So he offers a different rationalization: The witness interviews need to be secret to prevent administration officials from getting their story straight by hearing each other’s version of events before testifying. The implication, of course, is that the public officials he is summoning would otherwise commit perjury, clearly no presumption of innocence, there.

As Schiff well knows, secrecy does not prevent witnesses from comparing notes outside the hearing. Even in criminal investigations, where grand jury secrecy applies, witnesses commonly form joint defense agreements which enable them to share notes about what the investigators are asking.

Andrew McCarthy: Americans deserve a public impeachment inquiry – Schiff and Dems should end the secrecy

....Trump is not having any of his 'rights' being denied- any more than con-man...

I see you have no difficulty with the presumption of innocence!

... who is being investigated by a Grand Jury...

Impeachment is nothing like a Grand Jury.

How the House handles the impeachment is for the House itself to decide...

The Whole House. Your problem is the secret underhanded process that violates Trump's rights discredits impeachment an important check on the Judiciary and the Executive Branch.

Impeachment cannot be a 'coupe' because it is provided for in our Constitution. It is not an 'ursurptoin of an election because again- it is provided for in the Constitution...

You are rendering it ineffective by denying the president and the Republican minority due process rights to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses.

Instead, you refuse to vote, hide behind closed doors, withhold key documents and testimony, and provide their media friends with selectively skewed leaks. It's very ugly what you are doing and it not only will not work, it weakens a constitutional check that helps secure our Liberty.

... goes onto the Senate ...

They aren't going to impeach him based on the Dem's shameful kangaroo court.

... Would this Senate vote to impeach a Nixon or a Trump ...

With Courtroom Quality Evidence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the individual in front of them was guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes? Absolutely. The vote would likely be 100-0