Impeachment

[Dos Equis]

[Dos Equis]

So that's it?  No more witnesses or evidence?  You have got to be kidding me.

Dems could draft 4 articles of impeachment, GOP plans for full Senate trial, sources say
By Gregg Re, Chad Pergram | Fox News

Chris Wallace: Censure instead of impeachment seems like 'reasonable compromise'
'Fox News Sunday' anchor Chris Wallace says Democrats standing down on impeachment in favor of a censure might be a more favorable option for lawmakers.

Abuse of power. Bribery. Contempt of Congress. Obstruction of justice.

Those are the four potential articles of impeachment that House Judiciary Committee Democrats could draw up against President Trump as soon as next month, Fox News is told, after all scheduled public hearings before the House Intelligence Committee wrapped up on a testy note Thursday.

At a meeting with top GOP senators and Trump administration officials at the White House on Thursday afternoon, Fox News is told there was a consensus that should Trump be impeached by the House, the GOP-controlled Senate should hold a trial rather than tabling the issue.

Reports have surfaced that Republicans were considering even holding a long trial to disrupt the 2020 presidential primaries. Several Democrats seeking to unseat Trump -- including Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- are senators who would need to divert at least some of their campaigning time toward a potential trial.

"I think most everybody agreed there's not 51 votes to dismiss it before the managers get to call their case," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after huddling with other top Republican senators and White House officials. "The idea you would dismiss the trial before they presented the cases is a non-starter. You're not going to get a motion to dismiss."

Adam Schiff calls out attacks, smears on impeachment witnessesVideo
It remained possible the House Intelligence Committee could schedule more hearings, although no additional hearings are expected during Thanksgiving week. Or, the committee could prepare a report on its findings for the House Judiciary Committee -- which would have the option of holding its own hearings or simply drafting articles of impeachment outright.

Under a resolution passed by House Democrats on the Rules Committee this past October, Trump and the White House potentially would have more rights to defend themselves in Judiciary Committee hearings. For example, attorneys for the president could participate in such hearings. But, in a bid for leverage, Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., would be allowed under the rules to deny "specific requests" by Trump representatives if the White House continued refusing to provide documents or witnesses sought by Democratic investigators.

A possible timetable for impeachment has been unclear. It’s generally thought the Judiciary Committee may hold a "markup" in which it writes articles of impeachment in mid-December. If that were to happen, it's possible the full House could vote on articles of impeachment sometime close to Christmas. That would be a similar timeframe to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton: The House impeached Clinton just before Christmas in 1998. The Senate trial then began in January 1999.

However, the House theoretically could pass articles of impeachment, but delay a vote to send them to the Senate for consideration -- perhaps to delay handing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., control over the proceedings.

The White House
✔
@WhiteHouse
President @realDonaldTrump delivers a statement on the sham impeachment process:

Embedded video
49.7K
8:32 AM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
22.5K people are talking about this
Graham, coming out of the White House discussion, added that "we didn't talk about" how to mount a case to "defend the president."

Instead, Graham said, the discussion centered around "how would the trial start -- you know, they'll make a request for witnesses, but that would have to be granted by the Senate, I guess that's the way we did it before."

Graham continued, "My preference was to try to follow the Clinton model as much as possible."

Clinton was acquitted on both perjury and obstruction counts in February 1999, with each vote falling fall short of the two-thirds majority required for removal.

In the Senate, impeachment procedures would allow witnesses to be called by the president's defense lawyers, GOP senators and a team of House Democrats who essentially would serve as prosecutors. The big catch: Republicans would need enough votes from the 53 GOP senators to muster a majority and prevent Democrats from blocking them.

Assuming Republican senators would stay united -- not a guarantee -- Trump's defenders could try refocusing the inquiry by seeking testimony from people like Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes questions Dr. Fiona Hill, former National Security Council aide, during her public testimony in the House impeachment inquiry.

During his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that led to a whistleblower complaint touching off the impeachment inquiry, Trump suggested Zelensky investigate Joe Biden's dealings in Ukraine, including the former vice president's successful push to have Ukraine's top prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid while the prosecutor was investigating Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden served on the board.

Hunter Biden held that lucrative role despite limited expertise while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president. If Senate Republicans could put forward evidence showing the president's concerns about the Bidens' potential corruption were legitimate, they could undercut Democrats' central argument for impeachment.

On Thursday, Graham strongly signaled that Hunter Biden would be a key GOP focus. He sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting documents "related to contacts between Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, other Obama administration officials and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko."

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified behind closed doors last month that he and other officials had qualms about Hunter Biden's lucrative role on the board of Burisma at the time.

"What Republicans want to do is broaden the story," said David Hoppe, who was chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., during Clinton's impeachment trial.

And, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said Thursday he'd like Senate testimony from the still-anonymous whistleblower, whose House appearance Democrats have blocked. Cramer said he might also like to hear from both Bidens and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

The White House has signaled it will mount an aggressive defense. "When this goes over to the Senate, you know, the people that actually started this thing, they are going to be put on the stand," Eric Trump, the president's son, told reporters Thursday. He said that would include "heads of the Democratic Party."

For his part, Trump has argued that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland's testimony before the Intelligence Committee was a total exoneration."I just noticed one thing and that would mean it’s all over," Trump said on the White House lawn before reading from handwritten notes taken during Sondland’s testimony. Sondland testified about a conversation with Trump during which he asked the president what he wanted from Ukraine.

"It was a very short, abrupt conversation," the ambassador said. "He was not in a good mood, and he just said, 'I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.' Something to that effect."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-articles-senate-trial-republicans

[SOMEPARTS]

The Senate will destroy this and nobody wants to testify there. I just don't believe this gets passed on to a GOP controlled venue given what we've seen.

Barr report is coming around Dec 9th. TICK TOCK.

[IRON CROSS]

Planet Earth is laughing @ Nancy & Co,. 

[Soul Crusher]

In Their Rush to Impeachment, Pelosi and Schiff Overlooked One Little Thing, McCarthy Found It
Red State ^ | 8:18 am on November 22, 2019 | by Elizabeth Vaughn
Posted on 11/22/2019, 12:10:32 PM by Red Badger

In December 2018, the soon-to-be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was busy making changes in the House rules for the incoming 116th Congress. She was actually setting the stage for her anticipated impeachment of President Trump. At the time, The Conservative Treehouse’s “Sundance” wrote, “Remember when we warned [November 8th, 2018] that a convergence of left-wing groups, activists, DNC donors and specifically the Lawfare team, would align with (and meet) incoming Democrat leadership to construct a road-map for the “resistance” priorities? Well, exactly that planned and coordinated outcome is visible as incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi presents her new rules for the 116th congress.”

It appears there was one House rule Pelosi forgot to change and it may come back to bite them. That would be the “Minority Witness Rule (Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI).”

In a letter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), signed by the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) informs the chairman they are exercising their right to “convene a hearing with witnesses selected by the Minority to testify in the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry.”” McCarthy writes:

House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A) states that “the Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.” House Rule XI, Clause 2(j)(1) provides that “the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify…” Notably, this rule was not displaced by H. Res. 660 and, therefore, under House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A), it applies to the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry.”

As the Committee continues to conduct the Democrats’ partisan and one-sided “impeachment inquiry,” there are still important perspectives and serious issues that you have prevented the Committee from examining. We will inform you of the witnesses we intend to call once you have provided a hearing date and time to which we agree. “Your failure to schedule this hearing shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.

Prior to the start of the public phase of the Schiff show, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) submitted a list of witnesses Republicans hoped to call before the committee which included the whistleblower, believed to be Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, former DNC operative and rabid anti-Trumper, Alexandra Chalupa and Fusion GPS researcher Nellie Ohr.

Nunes also requested that Schiff himself testify. Nunes wrote:

As the American public is now aware, in August 2019, you and/or your staff met with or talked to the whistleblower.

Although you publicly claim nothing inappropriate was discussed, the three committees deserve to hear directly from you, the substance and circumstances surrounding any discussions conducted with the whistleblower, and any instructions you issued regarding those discussions. Given that you have reneged on your public commitment to let the committees interview the whistleblower directly, you are the only individual who can provide clarity as to these conversations.

Clearly, Schiff and Pelosi will try to ignore this and, if pushed, will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Although this may be a long shot, it is absolutely fair, especially considering that Democrats are trying to remove a duly elected president from office. The American people, by and large, respect fairness. Attempts to obstruct this will be viewed by Republicans and most independents (and maybe even some moderate Democrats) as unjust and devious. We’ll see how this develops.

Chairman Adam Schiff has repeatedly denied fundamental fairness and due process throughout the course of this sham impeachment.

RT if you agree that he should stop blocking important witnesses from testifying. pic.twitter.com/TyFWxpzFwm

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) November 21, 2019

[Dos Equis]

[IRON CROSS]

Bold man & Botox !.

         

[SOMEPARTS]

Kevin Spacey wannabe.

[SOMEPARTS]

Net result of all this is the same thing that always happens. Low level people are going to go to jail while the people who made the orders skate by on their privilege.

The guy below is the start of it as they throw bodies under the bus to slow it down.


"The New York Times has revealed that the "low-level lawyer" under criminal investigation for allegedly doctoring materials used to obtain renewals  of the Carter Page surveillance warrant is Kevin Clinesmith - who worked on both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe, was part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, and interviewed Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos."



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/russia-investigation-inspector-general-report.html

[JustPlaneJane]

I am 100% certain that Strawman masturbates to that photo.

[polychronopolous]

Vulnerable Democrats spooked by GOP impeachment ad onslaught




By SARAH FERRIS and ALLY MUTNICK

11/22/2019 06:25 PM EST

Vulnerable Democrats are watching in horror as GOP impeachment attacks deluge their districts back home. And they want a much stronger counteroffensive from their own party and its allies.

Some of those Democrats raised their concerns with party leaders this week as they prepared to leave for Thanksgiving recess, fearing that voters will be bombarded by anti-impeachment ads as families gather around the TV for parades and football, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.

Story Continued Below

GOP-aligned outside groups have spent roughly $8 million on TV spots this cycle in battleground districts, such as Rep. Anthony Brindisi's central New York seat. The vast majority of those ads specifically hammer Democrats over impeachment.

Meanwhile, swing-district Democrats are receiving little reinforcement from their own party or even other liberal coalitions. Democratic and pro-impeachment groups have spent about $2.7 million in TV ads, according to an analysis of spending by the ad tracking firm Advertising Analytics. And more than $600,000 of that total went to ads targeting Republican incumbents, not helping vulnerable Democratic members.

"Many of us have been expressing our concerns to leadership," said a Democratic lawmaker said, who declined to be named in order to speak candidly about strategy. "You don’t want to have to play catch up."

“Everyone knows you don't just take a shot and sit there,” the lawmaker said. “It’s like someone taped our arms to our side and punched us in the face.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/22/democrats-house-impeachment-moderates-072972

[Grape Ape]

The thing is, not one witness has provided direct evidence of any high crimes and misdemeanors, treason or bribery.  If it goes to the Senate, expect a full onslaught by Republicans, calling in any witness they choose. I think rational Democrats may not vote for this.

Given that, house impeachment still feels like a slam dunk at this point, not because the trial proved anything, but because Democrats had already made up their minds and this is a political play.

[jude2]

The thing is, not one witness has provided direct evidence of any high crimes and misdemeanors, treason or bribery.  If it goes to the Senate, expect a full onslaught by Republicans, calling in any witness they choose. I think rational Democrats may not vote for this.

Given that, house impeachment still feels like a slam dunk at this point, not because the trial proved anything, but because Democrats had already made up their minds and this is a political play.

I just can't see them wanting this to go to the Senate, and they will question Hunter Biden.  That would be the end of the dems.

[JustPlaneJane]

I just can't see them wanting this to go to the Senate, and they will question Hunter Biden.  That would be the end of the dems.

If it goes to the Senate, the first witness I’d call would be the Ukrainian prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired.

I’d also put Barry Sotero on the stand and subpoena his bank statements and college transcripts.

And then the coup de grace would be Hillary, Brennan, and Clapper.

[TheGrinch]

If it goes to the Senate, the first witness I’d call would be the Ukrainian prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired.

I’d also put Barry Sotero on the stand and subpoena his bank statements and college transcripts.

And then the coup de grace would be Hillary, Brennan, and Clapper.

and then you woke up and realized ALL rich and powerful people NEVER get brought to justice any longer

[JustPlaneJane]

and then you woke up and realized ALL rich and powerful people NEVER get brought to justice any longer

Let’s start with Alexandra Chalupa.

Then Nellie Ohr.

Then Lisa Page.

See what they have to say when they’re facing 25 years in prison.

[SOMEPARTS]

Good news is when all these low level staffers go to jail for years it will chill this out in the future. Nobody with real name recognition ever goes to jail, but you can be sure the grunts that carried out what Obama, Clinton, Clapper, Brennan and Comey asked will.

[Soul Crusher]

Reports: Since Dems Haven’t Proven Their Case, Pelosi Might Not Do an Impeachment Vote
Red State ^ | 6:00 pm on November 24, 2019 | by Nick Arama
Posted on 11/25/2019, 12:57:51 PM by Red Badger

How badly have the impeachment proceedings gone for the Democrats?

Well, it would be hard to measure and polls are indicating it didn’t convince anyone.

But one good indication might be after all this, after everything Democrats have done, there are now rumblings that Democrats may not try to officially impeach President Donald Trump.

From Daily Wire:

Top Republicans — and even some Democrats and members of the media — now believe Democrats may pull back on officially impeaching the president, particularly as polls haven’t borne out a clear advantage for Democratic candidates.

After two weeks of impeachment hearings, which yielded little in the way of evidence that the president most definitely offered Ukraine a “quid pro quo” agreement trading an increase in foreign aid for an investigation into “corruption” involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is left with a choice: call off the impeachment and look weak or keep going and risk failure at the ballot box.

Multiple polls taken last week reveal that the impeachment hearings are having their most marked effect on independents, who are supporting the impeachment in ever-declining numbers, leaving moderate Democrats at risk of losing their seats and Democratic presidential contenders at a loss going into 2020.

The Hill reports Sunday that “public opposition to impeachment has some Republicans … voicing skepticism that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will go through with a vote on impeachment.”

While Trump said he welcomed a trial, even he seemed to doubt that he would face one, saying it would hard for the House to impeach, “when they have absolutely nothing.”

It’s pretty hard to impeach without one witness who can actually testify that Trump told him/her to condition aid on investigations. Plus all the witnesses who said it never happened.

But polls show voters aren’t enthusiastic about impeachment, and a subsequent multi-state media push from Republicans ripping vulnerable Democrats for supporting Pelosi’s crusade has those same moderate Democrats reportedly begging the Speaker to halt the process.

But now that Pelosi has gone this far, she’s put herself in a box. If she backs out and does nothing, her far left base will eat her alive. If she continues on this course and goes to a vote with nothing, they face getting punished severely at the ballot box. And then a Senate trial in which they call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) could open up a whole can of worms Democrats didn’t originally count on, going into the election.

Here’s Fox’s John Roberts suggesting that they may be considering the option of censure as an out to their dilemma.

You need to read the tweet. Jackson was CENSURED. I was talking about chatter on Capitol Hill that rather than impeach Trump, there may be a move to CENSURE him. Then you can come back and apologize. https://t.co/ttiH9jd9on

— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) November 22, 2019

Officially, however, the Hill says Democrats are still saying they’re proceeding apace.

“The hearings were nearly flawless and extremely damning for the president,” one Democrat aide told the Hill. “While no decision has been made to proceed with impeachment, the key facts are uncontested and not proceeding at this stage will be called a ‘total exoneration’ by the president.”

Everyone told them, they went for it anyway, because of the base.

Hopefully, it costs them big time at the ballot box.

[Board_SHERIF]

libatards do not deal with facts, just whatever they feel at a particular moment. So who knows what they will do next.

[Grape Ape]

The problem is the democrats only view through their own lenses, and aren't seeing  this clearly.

Even if they DO believe they've made a case (despite almost every witess having an exchange with republicans where they say they have nothing), the can't possibly think they've done anything to flip 20 senate votes.

[Thin Lizzy]

The problem is the democrats only view through their own lenses, and aren't seeing  this clearly.

Even if they DO believe they've made a case (despite almost every witess having an exchange with republicans where they say they have nothing), the can't possibly think they've done anything to flip 20 senate votes.

They knew this from the beginning. They figured they could bloody Trump and soften him up for the election. Seems to have had the opposite effect.

[SOMEPARTS]

The heat that Schiff would endure in the Senate would be a thing to behold.

[Thin Lizzy]

The heat that Schiff would endure in the Senate would be a thing to behold.

This is why I’ve been saying that I don’t believe it goes to the Senate. Biden is going to get a hammered as well.

[Dos Equis]

This is why I’ve been saying that I don’t believe it goes to the Senate. Biden is going to get a hammered as well.

I think the main reasons why it may not go to the Senate is the "Whistleblower" and his bias, along with that of Schiff, will be exposed. 

[Thin Lizzy]

I think the main reasons why it may not go to the Senate is the "Whistleblower" and his bias, along with that of Schiff, will be exposed.  

The whistle blower is just a pawn. He’ll be tossed aside one no longer needed. Biden, on the other hand, is the Democratic front runner for president.


Schiff just underestimated how prepared the Republicans were. Everyone of them came out strong. The breakout star of the proceedings was a Republican Congresswoman, Elise Stapanik.

If this goes to the Senate where the Republicans are actually in control, it’s going to be a complete train wreck for the Democrats.