Jump to content
Buffalo

BARR: House Democrat Impeachment Rules Are Made For A Lynch Mob, Not A Legitimate Proceeding

Recommended Posts

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) (C) and fellow Democratic members of the committee speak at the Capitol on July 26, 2019. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

 

 

December 02, 201911:00 AM ET

The impeachment proceedings against President Trump have moved on from the House Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee (which happens to be the only House committee with formal jurisdiction over impeachment). It is chaired by New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who has served on the committee for 27 years. Notwithstanding the change in venue, the proceedings are still a farce. They bear only surface resemblance to those in which I (and Nadler) participated 21 years ago.

The latest move in this game of impeachment took place on Sunday, when White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent Nadler a letter telling him that his client — the president of the United States — would not be participating in the committee’s inaugural impeachment hearing later this week. The lawyer’s letter was blunt; but if anything, it was too polite.

 

Nadler had declared Sunday the date by which Trump must let him know if he accepted the invitation to “participate” in the committee’s activities. The deadline was conveyed to the president in a Nov. 26 letter. For its authority, the letter drew on House Resolution 660, which formally launched the impeachment inquiry when passed by the full House on Oct. 31. It also referenced the procedures subsequently adopted by the Judiciary Committee for its hearings.

Taken together, these three documents establish clearly that whether and however the president might wish to participate in the Judiciary proceedings, it would be within the absolute control of Nadler; just as last month’s impeachment hearings in the Intelligence Committee were controlled completely by Chairman Adam Schiff.

For example, while the rules seem to afford the president authority to call witnesses or demand certain evidence be presented to the committee in his defense, he would first be required to submit a detailed justification for such testimony, which then would be permitted only if the Democrat majority in its compassion were to agree. No trial lawyer worth his or her hourly rate would ever agree to such conditions. Yet Nadler persists in the lie that such a requirement is consistent with the rules that governed the last presidential impeachment, and also that the procedure affords the president robust due process and fairness. That Nadler can make such a claim with a straight face is the only aspect of this entire proceeding that is impressive.

There are other provisions in the Pelosi-Nadler impeachment rule book making it crystal clear that neither the president nor Republican members of the Judiciary are being afforded any real power to influence the proceedings. However, the pièce de résistance is the provision in the committee’s new rules that would punish the president were he to “unlawfully” stop any witness summoned by Nadler from testifying or providing evidence he has demanded.

 
 

Thus, if the president were to submit to the one-sided rules adopted by the Democrats, and thereby agree to “participate” in the proceedings against him; and if he were then to instruct a witness subpoenaed by Nadler to assert “executive privilege” as to certain testimony or as to not testify, then he would be subject to having unspecified “appropriate remedies” levied against him. Such a provision was not part of any of the rules or procedures under which the 1998 impeachment took place; and for good reason — such a provision is one to which only the most ill-advised president would consider agreeing.

As pointed out also by Cipollone, Nadler is demanding that the president commit to “participate” in the scheduled hearings — and thereby accept the rules mandated by the Democrats — without even knowing what witnesses the majority party is planning to call. All that was known by the Dec. 1 deadline, is that the first hearing will be “Impeachment 101” — a topic certain to offer nothing but a veneer of academic respectability for the deeply partisan exercise to which Pelosi has unwisely given her imprimatur.

Toward the close of his Nov. 26 letter, Nadler appears to appeal to the oath the president took upon being sworn in as our nation’s commander-in-chief, by noting the “solemn nature of the work before us.” What is taking place now before the Judiciary Committee, however, is no more “solemn” than one of Sen. Cory Booker’s “Spartacus moments.”

 

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buffalo said:

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) (C) and fellow Democratic members of the committee speak at the Capitol on July 26, 2019. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

 

 

  •  
  •  
  •  
December 02, 201911:00 AM ET

The impeachment proceedings against President Trump have moved on from the House Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee (which happens to be the only House committee with formal jurisdiction over impeachment). It is chaired by New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who has served on the committee for 27 years. Notwithstanding the change in venue, the proceedings are still a farce. They bear only surface resemblance to those in which I (and Nadler) participated 21 years ago.

The latest move in this game of impeachment took place on Sunday, when White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent Nadler a letter telling him that his client — the president of the United States — would not be participating in the committee’s inaugural impeachment hearing later this week. The lawyer’s letter was blunt; but if anything, it was too polite.

 

Nadler had declared Sunday the date by which Trump must let him know if he accepted the invitation to “participate” in the committee’s activities. The deadline was conveyed to the president in a Nov. 26 letter. For its authority, the letter drew on House Resolution 660, which formally launched the impeachment inquiry when passed by the full House on Oct. 31. It also referenced the procedures subsequently adopted by the Judiciary Committee for its hearings.

Taken together, these three documents establish clearly that whether and however the president might wish to participate in the Judiciary proceedings, it would be within the absolute control of Nadler; just as last month’s impeachment hearings in the Intelligence Committee were controlled completely by Chairman Adam Schiff.

For example, while the rules seem to afford the president authority to call witnesses or demand certain evidence be presented to the committee in his defense, he would first be required to submit a detailed justification for such testimony, which then would be permitted only if the Democrat majority in its compassion were to agree. No trial lawyer worth his or her hourly rate would ever agree to such conditions. Yet Nadler persists in the lie that such a requirement is consistent with the rules that governed the last presidential impeachment, and also that the procedure affords the president robust due process and fairness. That Nadler can make such a claim with a straight face is the only aspect of this entire proceeding that is impressive.

There are other provisions in the Pelosi-Nadler impeachment rule book making it crystal clear that neither the president nor Republican members of the Judiciary are being afforded any real power to influence the proceedings. However, the pièce de résistance is the provision in the committee’s new rules that would punish the president were he to “unlawfully” stop any witness summoned by Nadler from testifying or providing evidence he has demanded.

 
 

Thus, if the president were to submit to the one-sided rules adopted by the Democrats, and thereby agree to “participate” in the proceedings against him; and if he were then to instruct a witness subpoenaed by Nadler to assert “executive privilege” as to certain testimony or as to not testify, then he would be subject to having unspecified “appropriate remedies” levied against him. Such a provision was not part of any of the rules or procedures under which the 1998 impeachment took place; and for good reason — such a provision is one to which only the most ill-advised president would consider agreeing.

As pointed out also by Cipollone, Nadler is demanding that the president commit to “participate” in the scheduled hearings — and thereby accept the rules mandated by the Democrats — without even knowing what witnesses the majority party is planning to call. All that was known by the Dec. 1 deadline, is that the first hearing will be “Impeachment 101” — a topic certain to offer nothing but a veneer of academic respectability for the deeply partisan exercise to which Pelosi has unwisely given her imprimatur.

Toward the close of his Nov. 26 letter, Nadler appears to appeal to the oath the president took upon being sworn in as our nation’s commander-in-chief, by noting the “solemn nature of the work before us.” What is taking place now before the Judiciary Committee, however, is no more “solemn” than one of Sen. Cory Booker’s “Spartacus moments.”

 

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

Schiff failed so badly the dems had to put a different face out there for a while.

 

Even more dem voters will vote for Trump in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, personreal said:

Schiff failed so badly the dems had to put a different face out there for a while.

 

Even more dem voters will vote for Trump in 2020.

Yep, the dim-0-craps, with their partisan impeachment disaster, are ensuring a landslide for trumpy come Nov 2020. LOL!  

Will any of the moonbatty dim-0-crap apparatchiks her on NHB ever admit that the whole goddamn treasonous, illegitimate proceedings are blatantly a one-sided unfair coup attempt against a duly elected President with NOT ONE shred of credible evidence and wil NEVER get anywhere? NAH!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buffalo said:

Yep, the dim-0-craps, with their partisan impeachment disaster, are ensuring a landslide for trumpy come Nov 2020. LOL!  

Will any of the moonbatty dim-0-crap apparatchiks her on NHB ever admit that the whole goddamn treasonous, illegitimate proceedings are blatantly a one-sided unfair coup attempt against a duly elected President with NOT ONE shred of credible evidence and wil NEVER get anywhere? NAH!

 

No they will not.

 

The left here are too invested in the dem swamp and they will never admit anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Buffalo said:

Yep, the dim-0-craps, with their partisan impeachment disaster, are ensuring a landslide for trumpy come Nov 2020. LOL!  

Will any of the moonbatty dim-0-crap apparatchiks her on NHB ever admit that the whole goddamn treasonous, illegitimate proceedings are blatantly a one-sided unfair coup attempt against a duly elected President with NOT ONE shred of credible evidence and wil NEVER get anywhere? NAH!

 

rifght because trump now sits at 41% but somehow all those people who are weary of the lies and the cheating are going to change their minds in droves because some dishonest clowns like you fools believe it?

too funny, you are dirty American and you don't want to know the truth because you are that dirty, ghow old are you old man we need to rid

how did you become so dishonest?

were you always dishonest or did trump cause you to be a dishonest old piece of shit?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bob barr? that stupid crap was made a fool of by Borat. man what a stupid clown he is.

barr is a libertarian and that means he is a racist as well since liberturdians are for smelly old white guys only.

yeah, let's hear what this clown has to say, his opinion is important to white trash racists.LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harryramar said:

bob barr? that stupid crap was made a fool of by Borat. man what a stupid clown he is.

barr is a libertarian and that means he is a racist as well since liberturdians are for smelly old white guys only.

yeah, let's hear what this clown has to say, his opinion is important to white trash racists.LOL

Hairball, your condemnation of Barr and others is meaningless to me. I like racist and libertarians.  You may think of me as a "white trash racist" but truth be known (and many here on NHB  will agree with me) YOU ARE FAR WORSE! 

What Barr said about the unintelligent committee's  illegitimate and unConstitutional coup attempt by stacking the rules is true.  But above all that illegitimacy of the proceedings, the dim-0-craps have ZERO evidence of anything impeachable. 

His opinion like yours, mine and everybody elses IS meaningless. But when the Senate tosses this impeachment sh!t in the garbage where it belongs are you and the rest of the NHB dim-0-crap apparatchiks going to shut the fu(k up? Doubtful...

You are nothing but a little twerpy hairball of a moonbat joke. So drivel on little fu(ker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, theLion said:

Oh, that Barr. 

oh those pissed off democrats that lost in 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Buffalo said:

Hairball, your condemnation of Barr and others is meaningless to me. I like racist and libertarians.  You may think of me as a "white trash racist" but truth be known (and many here on NHB  will agree with me) YOU ARE FAR WORSE! 

What Barr said about the unintelligent committee's  illegitimate and unConstitutional coup attempt by stacking the rules is true.  But above all that illegitimacy of the proceedings, the dim-0-craps have ZERO evidence of anything impeachable. 

His opinion like yours, mine and everybody elses IS meaningless. But when the Senate tosses this impeachment sh!t in the garbage where it belongs are you and the rest of the NHB dim-0-crap apparatchiks going to shut the fu(k up? Doubtful...

You are nothing but a little twerpy hairball of a moonbat joke. So drivel on little fu(ker...

sigh. yes i know you like racists because that is what most liberturdians are. at least yo are honest unlike the moral cowards like randy paul and other barfbags.

as for stacking the rules, it has already been established that the dems were playing by the rules the repubs put in place .

and who cares what you scumbags thnk of me?

while there are many decent conservatives here, most of you are just dishonest scumbags and unamerican. 

you lie about everything.

you do not want to know the truth about trump or yo would be insisting that those who were there tell the truth to the American people. you are a traitor for a bum like trump. 

so Bad word you old man. 'America deserves better than you bottom dweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, harryramar said:

sigh. yes i know you like racists because that is what most liberturdians are. at least yo are honest unlike the moral cowards like randy paul and other barfbags.

as for stacking the rules, it has already been established that the dems were playing by the rules the repubs put in place .

and who cares what you scumbags thnk of me?

while there are many decent conservatives here, most of you are just dishonest scumbags and unamerican. 

you lie about everything.

you do not want to know the truth about trump or yo would be insisting that those who were there tell the truth to the American people. you are a traitor for a bum like trump. 

so Bad word you old man. 'America deserves better than you bottom dweller

More meaningless drivel from the little hairball. You really think I give a sh!t what your sorry moonbatty asss thinks of me.

I would be the first to scream impeach trumpy IF there was anything but hearsay bullsh!t by butt hurt deep state swamp apparatchiks. There is NO proof of trumpy doing anything impeachable. If you can produce some evidence, then let's see it. You constantly declaring trumpy got caught is NOTHING.  Show me some hard evidence other than circumstantial and hearsay because that will get tossed in the trash when and if it gets to the Senate.  EVIDENCE or SHUT THE FU(K UP, hairball!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, harryramar said:

rifght because trump now sits at 41% but somehow all those people who are weary of the lies and the cheating are going to change their minds in droves because some dishonest clowns like you fools believe it?

too funny, you are dirty American and you don't want to know the truth because you are that dirty, ghow old are you old man we need to rid

how did you become so dishonest?

were you always dishonest or did trump cause you to be a dishonest old piece of shit?

 

Lies, cheating, clowns, dirty and dishonest, are you talking about the democrats or Trump? Maybe this is a distinction with out a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, harryramar said:

rifght because trump now sits at 41% but somehow all those people who are weary of the lies and the cheating are going to change their minds in droves because some dishonest clowns like you fools believe it?

too funny, you are dirty American and you don't want to know the truth because you are that dirty, ghow old are you old man we need to rid

how did you become so dishonest?

were you always dishonest or did trump cause you to be a dishonest old piece of shit?

 

Where does corrupt clown biden set? 16-18%? LOL!!! Trumpy draws crowds of 40,000. Biden can't even get 200 people fired up. 

Trumpy will win by a landslide in 2020!

 

The latest polls taken in Iowa, aggregated by Real Clear Politics, show Biden, who was once the clear front runner in the field of Democrats, now trending downward to trail Pete Buttigieg who leads at 24%. Biden currently finds himself closely knotted up with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in the 18.3 to 16.3 percentile range.

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/03/biden-campaign-stop-turns-into-embarrassing-sleepy-joe-ad-when-tiny-crowd-wont-get-excited-859801

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Overview
In the weeks following the July 25 call, during which President Trump had pressed
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do us a favor though,” the President’s
representatives worked to secure from the Ukrainian President a public announcement about the
requested investigations as a condition for the White House meeting.
That meeting would have conferred vital support on a new president who relied on the
United States to help defend his nation militarily, diplomatically, and politically against Russian
aggression. U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland provided testimony and
quoted from documents demonstrating that he kept everyone “in the loop” about the plan,
including the Secretaries of State and Energy.
Ambassadors Sondland and Volker worked closely with Mr. Giuliani, the President’s
personal lawyer, to help draft Ukraine’s public statement. They sought to ensure that President
Zelensky explicitly used the words “Burisma”—a reference to allegations about former Vice
President Biden and his son—and “2016 elections.”
Ukrainian officials were “very uncomfortable” with the provision of this statement,
which they understood to be a requirement and a “deliverable” demanded by President Trump.
The Ukrainian President was elected on a platform of rooting out public corruption, and so he
resisted issuing the statement. Instead, President Zelensky’s aides asked whether an official
request for legal assistance with investigations had been made through appropriate channels at
the U.S. Department of Justice. No such formal request was ever made. Consequently,
Ukrainian officials made clear to Ambassador Volker that they did not support issuing a public
statement because it could “play into” U.S. domestic politics. Nevertheless, U.S. efforts to
secure a public statement continued.

 

 

 

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

Overview
In the weeks following the July 25 call, during which President Trump had pressed
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do us a favor though,” the President’s
representatives worked to secure from the Ukrainian President a public announcement about the
requested investigations as a condition for the White House meeting.
That meeting would have conferred vital support on a new president who relied on the
United States to help defend his nation militarily, diplomatically, and politically against Russian
aggression. U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland provided testimony and
quoted from documents demonstrating that he kept everyone “in the loop” about the plan,
including the Secretaries of State and Energy.
Ambassadors Sondland and Volker worked closely with Mr. Giuliani, the President’s
personal lawyer, to help draft Ukraine’s public statement. They sought to ensure that President
Zelensky explicitly used the words “Burisma”—a reference to allegations about former Vice
President Biden and his son—and “2016 elections.”
Ukrainian officials were “very uncomfortable” with the provision of this statement,
which they understood to be a requirement and a “deliverable” demanded by President Trump.
The Ukrainian President was elected on a platform of rooting out public corruption, and so he
resisted issuing the statement. Instead, President Zelensky’s aides asked whether an official
request for legal assistance with investigations had been made through appropriate channels at
the U.S. Department of Justice. No such formal request was ever made. Consequently,
Ukrainian officials made clear to Ambassador Volker that they did not support issuing a public
statement because it could “play into” U.S. domestic politics. Nevertheless, U.S. efforts to
secure a public statement continued.

 

 

 

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

Of course the intel committee would write such horsesh!t.  And of course that is their version.

The dim-0-craps are going to get their assses kicked! LOL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buffalo said:

Where does corrupt clown biden set? 16-18%? LOL!!! Trumpy draws crowds of 40,000. Biden can't even get 200 people fired up. 

Trumpy will win by a landslide in 2020!

 

The latest polls taken in Iowa, aggregated by Real Clear Politics, show Biden, who was once the clear front runner in the field of Democrats, now trending downward to trail Pete Buttigieg who leads at 24%. Biden currently finds himself closely knotted up with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in the 18.3 to 16.3 percentile range.

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/03/biden-campaign-stop-turns-into-embarrassing-sleepy-joe-ad-when-tiny-crowd-wont-get-excited-859801

You are dishonest.

an honest person wants the truth.

you don’t want the truth or you would want to hear from Rudy and Bolton and mulvaney and pompeo.

you are a really dishonest person who fakes patriotism.

trump has drama out that dishonesty but it was there all along.

you are dishonest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans made these rules back when Clinton was in office.  Quit yer whining.  They're Republican impeachment rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, harryramar said:

You are dishonest.

an honest person wants the truth.

you don’t want the truth or you would want to hear from Rudy and Bolton and mulvaney and pompeo.

you are a really dishonest person who fakes patriotism.

trump has drama out that dishonesty but it was there all along.

you are dishonest

You are seriously delusional, hairball. You really have no clue as to what the truth IS.  The dim-0-craps are MAKING up their own goddamn one-sided rules.

 

Democrats Keep Changing The Rules Of Impeachment

In the Trump era, norms are malleable.
 
David Harsanyi
By David Harsanyi
OCTOBER 9, 2019
 

When Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder ignored congressional subpoenas in an investigation into a scandal featuring a body count, White House Spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer argued that administration officials had no duty to participate in what amounted to “political theater rather than legitimate congressional oversight.”

So does the White House get to decide what constitutes a legitimate congressional investigation? Or is it only Democrats who make this determination? Since Pfeiffer now argues that an administration that ignores congressional subpoenas is functioning “above the law”—surely an impeachable offense—I can only imagine the latter.

 

Now, impeachment is political option that should be dusted off far more frequently. It’s a shame House Republicans never used this remedy during the scandal-plagued Obama years. The country, though, needs some consistent standards, or all we have is theater.

For instance, knowing that the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to remove the president over his reckless call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to maximize the political impact of a nebulous “inquiry.”

Part of this political effort means delaying a full House vote, which would likely result in the judiciary committee laying out ground rules and procedures moving forward. This was the bipartisan process used during both Clinton and Nixon sagas.

Now we have a new set of rules.

 

Perhaps Pelosi is looking to solidify a vote total, or maybe she’s trying to protect members in swing districts, or, most likely, she’s waiting for the most politically opportune time to move forward. All of that is her prerogative. They are also political considerations, despite all the distraught coverage, not decisions predicated on protecting the integrity of process or Congress or the Constitution. Let’s face it, the notion that progressives are concerned about process is risible.

The non-vote, however, allows the House Intelligence Committee to shower subpoenas on the White House and create the impression, through the innuendo of activity, that Trump’s call with Zelensky was not merely a high crime (highly debatable) but the tip of widespread conspiracy (less debatable).

 

http://thefederalist.com/2019/10/09/democrats-keep-changing-the-rules-of-impeachment/

 

They have opposed the rules imposed by the majority dim-0-craps...so don't try to imply they are going by agreed upon rules.

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told The Associated Press that the package creates "much more of a politically closed system than an open system."

That echoed Republican complaints that the Democratic-run process has been secretive and tilted against them. Democrats say their plan follows how impeachment efforts against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were run.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mcconnell-impeachment-measure-denies-trump-basic-rights-66635117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RollingRock said:

Republicans made these rules back when Clinton was in office.  Quit yer whining.  They're Republican impeachment rules.

 

Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, personreal said:

No they will not.

 

The left here are too invested in the dem swamp and they will never admit anything.

They still can’t admit the Mueller report was a bust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Buffalo said:

The latest move in this game of impeachment took place on Sunday, when White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent Nadler a letter telling him that his client — the president of the United States — would not be participating in the committee’s inaugural impeachment hearing later this week. The lawyer’s letter was blunt; but if anything, it was too polite.

 

10 hours ago, dontlooknow said:

Sounds like trump is not going to testify. 

You don't have very good comprehension skills, don'tknowsh!t. The letter stated that trumpy would not be "participating in the committee's inaugural hearing". It did not preclude him from testifying later. Although, were I trumpy, I would tell nadler to stick his goddamn one sided, partisan, circus farce of a coup attempt up his treasonous asss.

They do not have any evidence of even 1 impeachable offense against trumpy.  This is an illegal power grabbing attempt by butt hurt dim-0-craps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Buffalo said:

You are seriously delusional, hairball. You really have no clue as to what the truth IS.  The dim-0-craps are MAKING up their own goddamn one-sided rules.

 

Democrats Keep Changing The Rules Of Impeachment

In the Trump era, norms are malleable.
 
David Harsanyi
By David Harsanyi
OCTOBER 9, 2019
 

When Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder ignored congressional subpoenas in an investigation into a scandal featuring a body count, White House Spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer argued that administration officials had no duty to participate in what amounted to “political theater rather than legitimate congressional oversight.”

So does the White House get to decide what constitutes a legitimate congressional investigation? Or is it only Democrats who make this determination? Since Pfeiffer now argues that an administration that ignores congressional subpoenas is functioning “above the law”—surely an impeachable offense—I can only imagine the latter.

 

Now, impeachment is political option that should be dusted off far more frequently. It’s a shame House Republicans never used this remedy during the scandal-plagued Obama years. The country, though, needs some consistent standards, or all we have is theater.

For instance, knowing that the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to remove the president over his reckless call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to maximize the political impact of a nebulous “inquiry.”

Part of this political effort means delaying a full House vote, which would likely result in the judiciary committee laying out ground rules and procedures moving forward. This was the bipartisan process used during both Clinton and Nixon sagas.

Now we have a new set of rules.

 

Perhaps Pelosi is looking to solidify a vote total, or maybe she’s trying to protect members in swing districts, or, most likely, she’s waiting for the most politically opportune time to move forward. All of that is her prerogative. They are also political considerations, despite all the distraught coverage, not decisions predicated on protecting the integrity of process or Congress or the Constitution. Let’s face it, the notion that progressives are concerned about process is risible.

The non-vote, however, allows the House Intelligence Committee to shower subpoenas on the White House and create the impression, through the innuendo of activity, that Trump’s call with Zelensky was not merely a high crime (highly debatable) but the tip of widespread conspiracy (less debatable).

 

http://thefederalist.com/2019/10/09/democrats-keep-changing-the-rules-of-impeachment/

 

They have opposed the rules imposed by the majority dim-0-craps...so don't try to imply they are going by agreed upon rules.

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told The Associated Press that the package creates "much more of a politically closed system than an open system."

That echoed Republican complaints that the Democratic-run process has been secretive and tilted against them. Democrats say their plan follows how impeachment efforts against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were run.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mcconnell-impeachment-measure-denies-trump-basic-rights-66635117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by your fruit you are known, and your fruit is rotten. you can distract with hunter biden and make excuses for trump but in the end you cannot claim to want the truth while hiding those who were eyewitnsses to the truth. that just confirms yo are little more than some old hypocrite.

now yo may feel proud to do your bit to help dirtydon conceal the truth but it insults the intelligence of those that have some when you claim to want to know the truth while you support trump ordering those who were there to not tell the truth, to not squeal. are you that stupid or just that corrupt. sorry pops but I call bullshit on you.big time

imagine that, bluffy says he wants the truth but out of the other side of his asss he is delighted that trump is concealing the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buffalo said:

 

You don't have very good comprehension skills, don'tknowsh!t. The letter stated that trumpy would not be "participating in the committee's inaugural hearing". It did not preclude him from testifying later. Although, were I trumpy, I would tell nadler to stick his goddamn one sided, partisan, circus farce of a coup attempt up his treasonous asss.

They do not have any evidence of even 1 impeachable offense against trumpy.  This is an illegal power grabbing attempt by butt hurt dim-0-craps.

right because the liar in chief is going to testify under oath. you dumb old toad he always pretends that he will do something so you suckers have ground cover but he never follows through. 

what do they call the mental affliction of people who never learn?

jesus you dipstick trump doesn't want his own eyewitnesses to tell that truth so you really thisnk that scumbag will tell the truth. even you cannot be that naïve.

brain damaged maybe, but no one is that dumb

jesus man up for once and just admit you are ok with trumps lawlessness. I mean it isn't like it ain;t obvious.'stop humiliating yourself with bull hooey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...