October 3, 2019

GOP leader Kevin McCarthy has 10 questions for Nancy Pelosi and a warning that the answer to all the questions had better be "yes," or...

... it will be denying President Trump the basic procedural safeguards that have been given to all previous Presidents subjected to an impeachment inquiry. She must say "yes" to these 10 things or — per McCarthy — the process is "completely devoid of any merit or legitimacy":

95 comments:

readering said...

Looking forward to lots of articles about how things were done for Clinton in both the House and Senate.

Beasts of England said...

McCarthy could end up being the biggest winner in this impeachment farce if he fights the good fight. I hope he keeps up the pressure. This instant fiasco is off to a pitiful start - take advantage of it.

Mike Sylwester said...

Nancy Pelosi declared the "impeachment inquiry" so that the House Democrats could demand grand-jury transcripts, tax returns, White House papers and other documents that normally are protected by privacy rules.

Keep in mind:

* The "impeachment inquiry" was declared by one person -- Pelosi.

* The justification is second-hand accusations from one anonymous person.

* The supposed impeachable offense is blatant nonsense.

* No incriminating evidence will be found in the demanded documents.

* There is zero chance that the Senate will convict Trump.

In these circumstances, legal objections will be raised against the demands for such documents. The courts will consider the objections for many months. The dispute will go all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

In order to prevent many months of delay and to prevent defeats in the courts, Pelosi will have to put the vote to the entire House.

Or she will have to settle for a House censure of Trump. In that case, Trump will issue an executive order censuring the House.

=====

This circus is destroying the candidacy of Joe Biden -- the Democrat most able to defeat Trump in the 2020 election.

Nonapod said...

This assumes that breaking modern precedence with regards to the processes around impeachment is something that matters that much to the Congressional Dems anymore. It also assumes that they are still capable of being publicily shamed even with all the protections of the Media with their attempts at suppresion of the actual facts of all this. I personally don't think the Dems care about any kind of procedural precedence. Getting Trump is all their is.

Obviously Nancy Pelosi is doing what the left hivemind desires. I'm not even sure if she has that much agency in all this. She's putting on a brave face, doing her duty by mouthing all the desires and fantasies of the impeachment crazed loons who are calling the shots at the moment. She's letting the story play out.

Yancey Ward said...

Pelosi will have to hold a vote for an actual inquiry- until she does Schiff and other will have limited success getting subpoenae honored- the Supreme Court is not going to be amused by and impeachment inquiry that has no official imprimatur of a House vote.

Achilles said...

The Democrat party has been operating completely outside the law for decades.

The GOPe traitors have fully supported them in this.

They have no principles at all.

Take note of any of the leftists posting here. They have no principles at all. It is all a will to power for them and they fully support the democrat party and their obvious corruption.

Beasts of England said...

’There is zero chance that the Senate will convict Trump.’

I’d say there’s a ten percent chance the Senate would remove him. He has very few allies. His saving grace may be that Mitch is up for re-election in 2020, and McConnell would like to continue as one of the most powerful peeps on the planet.

Dave Begley said...

Now there is some *effective* lawyering and historical research.

Keep hammering that point Kevin!

henry said...

Any analysis of the content of McCarthy's letter? Is he asking for procedures that were used in the past?

rehajm said...

Formal inquiry or kangaroo court- watcha want Nancy?

Bay Area Guy said...

Or she will have to settle for a House censure of Trump. In that case, Trump will issue an executive order censuring the House.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Executive Order No. 12753

The President

Executive Order

Whereas the successful defense of our Constitution and country requires every possible protection against lies, espionage, fake news and sabotage as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize the following the declaration: Adam Schiff is a delusional fuckhead.

Donald J. Trump

The White House,
October 3, 2019.

rehajm said...

McCarthy’s letter is nit legit since the cadence doesn’t match that of his predecessors...

The location of that signature is off, too...

gilbar said...

Yancey said...
until she does Schiff and other will have limited success getting subpoenae honored-


Schiffty has ALREADY said, ANY resistance to handing over documents, WILL BE CONSIDERED PROOF OF OBSTRUCTION
Schiffty has Already implied, that any thing short of IMMEDIATE resignation will be considered PROOF of Guilt.

Here's How I see their "plan"
1) Say that Trump is GUILTY
2) Say that THAT MEANS that Trump's Reelection is Invalid
simple, huh? No Need for pesky Votes and Trials; Just Declare Guilt, then say he's Illegitimate
I think their Real concern is losing the House

tim maguire said...

Nonapod said...
This assumes that breaking modern precedence with regards to the processes around impeachment is something that matters that much to the Congressional Dems anymore.


N it doesn't. It assumes modern precedence matters to the American people. I imagine McCarthy is hoping Pelosi answers no to some of those questions.

The best explanation I've seen for Pelosi's behavior (assuming, correctly, IMO) that she is smarter than this, is that she wants to get the impeachment farce over and done with before the 2020 campaigns start in earnest. She's trying to save the House by barreling through instead of constantly playing deflection.

Lance said...

If Pelosi deviates from McCarthy's script, what will McCarthy do about it? Complain to the media? Introduce resolutions in the House? File a lawsuit?

Or, more bluntly, does McCarthy have any way to talk to voters across the nation? Pelosi has her friends in the media. Trump has Twitter and his political rallies. What does McCarthy have? Fox News?

Yancey Ward said...

"Any analysis of the content of McCarthy's letter? Is he asking for procedures that were used in the past?"

As far as I can tell from the Clinton impeachment- yes, all of these were normal procedures the last time. The Republicans allowed all of this for the Democrats and Clinton's attorneys. The only thing I can't fully determine is how often the Republican majority voted to actually approve Democrat subpoenae, but then McCarthy's letter doesn't request rubberstamping the minority's requests, only that they be voted on by the full committee.

Leland said...

Clicked to read the wording at Twitter. What a waste land of human debris. Sad.

Dave Begley said...

If the House issues subpoenas without a vote then they aren't valid. No one needs to show.

I could also see a federal judge issuing an injunction. A federal judge in Nebraska or North Dakota.

Dave Begley said...

I saw Hillary on TV screaming that Trump needed to be impeached. The MSNBC slug put up pictures of young lawyer Hillary working at that time. What was left out was that her Dem boss FIRED her because she wanted to deny Nixon a lawyer.

The Dems are at it again. Firing squad and no due process.

Skylark said...

If they actually came up with anything of substance, I think the R’s might remove. It’s not just the Democrats dipping their beaks now an again. With what they have so far? Nope. I think if they came up with a tape of Trump begging Putin to ease off until after the election, when Trump could be more “flexible” with American security? Then I think that Rs would vote to remove.

As it is, if they impeach on what they have now, and let’s say that Warren wins the national election and the Rs take the House, I would say that the House would be justified in impeaching Warren for wanting to raise taxes.

Michael K said...

If Pelosi deviates from McCarthy's script, what will McCarthy do about it? Complain to the media? Introduce resolutions in the House?

Talk to McConnell about Senate rules. I suspect they have already talked.

Skylark said...

Democrats want it over by Thanksgiving. Ha ha ha ha ha! How many wars have started with soldiers marching off promising loved ones that they will be home by Christmas?

If Schiff wants to impeach Trump for defending himself, which is what he has claimed now, I don’t think even a Senate made up of Paul Ryans on the R side would vote to remove. Romney might even think twice in that case.

Iman said...

There has to be a sharper, better choice than McCarthy. He’s an affable man, but the Republicans need someone with the killer/take no prisoners attitude as Speaker.

Skylark said...

"What was left out was that her Dem boss FIRED her because she wanted to deny Nixon a lawyer. “

Look what they are doing to Giuliani right now. Trying to impeach Trump for mounting a defense against the Russian collusion accusation by Hillary that Schiff has take up.

Once again, don’t look for the press to relay this point to the lumpenproletariat.

JackWayne said...

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

I don’t know what McCarthy is talking about. Apparently he doesn’t realize that the Legislature is run strictly democratically. That means the majority rules and the minority has whatever rights the majority grants them. In this case it can be none. Politically, the Republicans may score points by convincing the voters that they are losing something they never really had. But it’s pretty clear that Pelosi can do whatever she wants. Even Publius acknowledged this, figuratively throwing up his hands and whining that it was too difficult to set down the detailed rules of the impeachment process. Hey, you buy into a confusing mess of a constitution, it’s garbage in, garbage out!

Bay Area Guy said...

At this point, if you are still a #NeverTrumper, after all this political/legal nonsense by the Dems, you must be either: (a) hopelessly confused or (b) being blackmailed by the left with photos of you hosing a farm animal. Nobody could be that dumb.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

If Pelosi moves the inquiry from Schiff to Nadler, as McCarthy has requested, doesn't that help the Democrats?

I would also imagine that the Democrats would be happy to let the President's counsel participate in the ways McCarthy asks, so long as they could be sure President Trump would insist on Rudy Guiliani being his counsel.

Skylark said...

Bill Clinton was caught on tape suborning perjury and he wasn’t removed. If Kafka and Edward Albee dropped acid together and dictated a play, it wouldn’t be this absurd. Shakespeare would have balked at this level of irony.

Dave Begley said...

Andy McCarthy said it best. Without a full House vote, this isn't an impeachment inquiry. It's an impeachment TV show.

YoungHegelian said...

@Mike S & Beasts of E & Skylark,

’There is zero chance that the Senate will convict Trump.’

I’d say there’s a ten percent chance the Senate would remove him. He has very few allies. His saving grace may be that Mitch is up for re-election in 2020, and McConnell would like to continue as one of the most powerful peeps on the planet.


If they actually came up with anything of substance, I think the R’s might remove.

It would have to be a substantial charge indeed, & one clear beyond a doubt (e.g. Trump's example of shooting someone in the head on 5th Ave).

Whatever the Republican establishment may think about the Donald, he is now the only game in town for the Republican electorate. Any Republican House or Senate member who votes for impeachment, unless it's with the clearest evidence of wrongdoing, will face a Republican insurgent candidate in the primaries, & will likely lose.

The Republican electorate's support for Trump is now in the mid to high 80's. That could change, but the floor is limited. I mean, if you're on the Right, how bad does Trump have to be before you're going to let the assemblage of nut jobs that are the modern Democratic Party take the wheel of governance?

Mike Sylwester said...

Dave Begley at 1:49 PM
... her [Hillary Clinton's] Dem boss FIRED her because she wanted to deny Nixon a lawyer.

That is not true.

That accusation comes from a book titled Hillary's Pursuit of Power, written by Jerry Zeifman.

I myself read the book carefully, twice, because I believed the accusation and intended to write an article about it.

Zeifman is a kook. My advice is to not believe any statement he makes on any subject, unless the statement is confirmed by another, reliable person.

An excellent debunking of this accusation was published by Snopes in an article titled Did Jerry Zeifman Fire Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation?.

Snopes is correct about this matter.

Michael K said...

I would also imagine that the Democrats would be happy to let the President's counsel participate in the ways McCarthy asks, so long as they could be sure President Trump would insist on Rudy Guiliani being his counsel.

Left Bank, be careful what you wish for.

gilbar said...

Dave Begley said...
If the House issues subpoenas without a vote then they aren't valid. No one needs to show.

Right, BUT
if anyone refuses to Show, THAT IS AN ADMISSION OF BEING GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!!
Of, Course; The Fact that President Trump Exists, is an Admission of Guilt.

But.
They've ALREADY SAID, that Any (ANY!) attempt at not fully complying with the removal process will be considered Guilt. Now, You're Going to say: The Senate Will NEVER go along with THAT

And I'd SAY: That is the INTENTION. The (Republican) Senate will be considered GUILTY as well.
Now, You'll Say: But they Won't be able to remove him on That Crap
And, I'll Say: They NEVER were going to be Able to remove him, they Never Thought they Could
BUT! They'll be able to besmirch his second term (in the eyes of the left).
Which is ALL they could EVER do. Not only can't they remove him, they can't stop reelection
But, They CAN Tell Their Base: We Tried! and We did what we Could; But those DAMN REPUBLICANS!

narciso said...

whose reliable when it comes to Watergate, Geoffrey shepherd points out that the committee staff was colluding with john Sirica, max Holland points out many of the scenes and supposed evidence in all the presidents men, were either made up, edited, or from partisan sources,

Skylark said...

" would also imagine that the Democrats would be happy to let the President's counsel participate “

The blew a head gasket when Giuliani made an effort to gather evidence in Trump’s defense in the Ukraine, so I am thinking that no attempt at a defense by Trump will be tolerated. As Schiff has said, any attempt by Trump to defend himself or the office of the presidency is impeachable, (My paraphrase is closer than Schiff’s was, BTW)

gilbar said...

In Related News,
the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not apply to elected officials such as the President, but only to certain appointed federal officers.

a 1792 list produced by Alexander Hamilton of "every person holding any civil office or employment under the United States" did not include elected officials such as the President and Vice President; (2) George Washington accepted gifts from the Marquis de Lafayette and the French Ambassador while President without seeking congressional approval; and (3) Thomas Jefferson similarly received and accepted diplomatic gifts from Indian tribes and foreign nations, such as a bust of Czar Alexander I from the Russian government


Tommy Jefferson took time out from boffing his servant, to accept GIFTS from,
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNEMT!

And, YET; NO ONE NOT ONE PERSON charged HIM with emollients clause Violations
How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? Its incredibly obvious isn't it.

Mike Sylwester said...

JackWayne at 2:00 PM
it’s pretty clear that Pelosi can do whatever she wants

Pelosi will not be able to able to obtain grand-jury testimony, tax returns, White House papers or other such documents if the "impeachment inquiry" is merely her say-so.

Her demands for such documents will be refused, and so then she will have to convince the courts that her say-so is enough to obtain such documents.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

She must say "yes" to these 10 things or — per McCarthy — the process is "completely devoid of any merit or legitimacy":

If it's devoid of legitimacy then no need to hold a trial in the Senate. C'mon Mitch just file the articles in the round filing cabinet.

Ken B said...

I look forward to AOC. In one hearing she asked a question. Witness said no. She repeated the question. Witness said no. She said “I'll take that as a yes.”

The witness was Elliot Abrams if anyone wants to google.

Ken B said...

Lance asks good questions. I think I have answers.
The public will be content with an *inquiry* if it appears fair and serious. That is not what the Twitterati want and not what the elite want but I am confident that that is what undecided voters want. Having these questions out there as talking points makes it harder for Pelosi to hide the ball and hoodwink people.

narciso said...

yes Claudius I understand,


https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/10/biden-duped-senators-into-helping-his.html

Jeff Brokaw said...

No time to read the letter—anyone know of a law professor who could evaluate the factual claims in it?

Michael K said...

If it's devoid of legitimacy then no need to hold a trial in the Senate. C'mon Mitch just file the articles in the round filing cabinet.

I think this is part of the reason for the questions. If the Dims do not follow precedent, there is no reason for McConnell to do so.

Dave Begley said...

Mike:

Hillary did fail the Bar the first time she took it. I passed. So did Althouse. Hillary is an idiot. If she wanted to run a secret private server she needed to keep it really secret and spend real money making sure it was secure. Idiot.

Mike Sylwester said...

Dave Begley:
Mike: Hillary did fail the Bar the first time she took it.

Is this comment addressed to me?

If so, then I don't understand why it is addressed to me.

Unknown said...

* There is zero chance that the Senate will convict Trump.

If you think the Democrats are doing this for a conviction in the Senate, why, you're simply not cynical enough. They don't care about a conviction. That would be nice, but that's not really on their radar. What they're doing here is setting up a situation where their eventual candidate can run against an impeached Trump. They're doing it specifically as battlespace prep. The DNC ad campaign would almost assuredly center around nothing else because they know their core issues are not resonating with enough people. Given the healthy percentage that are against impeachment, this is a massive gamble, but, honestly, I don't think they've got anything else and they know it.

The Godfather said...

McCarthy seems to recognize that impeachment is a POLITICAL process. Pelosi, et al., hope to use the process to persuade the voting public in 2020 that they should vote against Trump and all Republican candidates. It's part of that strategy to claim that any resistance by the Trump side to anything the Democrats want is evidence of guilt. McCarthy's demand that the House follow established practice is a counter to that strategy. He hopes to show the public that this impeachment process is pure partisan politics. As long as Pelosi insists on making the impeachment "investigation" a Democrats-only process, McCarthy stands a good chance of persuading the public that the Democrats are the villains of the piece.

Ken B said...

I cannot agree with Dave Begley.
I wrote the $500,000,000 Corruptocrat test twice and failed each time. Hillary passed first time.

Bay Area Guy said...

My first and only question to Nancy Pelosi:

"You are one hot octogenarian. May I call you a "Hoctogenarian"?

rehajm said...

As long as Pelosi insists on making the impeachment "investigation" a Democrats-only process, McCarthy stands a good chance of persuading the public that the Democrats are the villains of the piece.

I'm sold...

Lydia said...

Pelosi's response to Kevin McCarthy:

The existing rules of the House provide House Committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction, including impeachment investigations. There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

As you know, our Founders were specifically intent on ensuring that foreign entities did not undermine the integrity of our elections. I received your letter this morning shortly after the world witnessed President Trump on national television asking yet another foreign power to interfere in the upcoming 2020 elections. We hope you and other Republicans share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation’s history.


What's she's referring to is what Trump said today when talking with reporters: “China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

victoria said...

Kevin McCarthy, what a tool. In the Cheeto's back pocket. if he is hoping supporting the Cheeto will get him re-elected, i will contribute to and fight with anyone who wants to replace him.


Vicki From Pasadena
Adam Schiff is my congressman. Thank god.

Dave Begley said...

Mike:

You debunked the "Hillary was fired" story. I don't want you to debunk the "Hillary failed the Bar exam" story.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Adam Schitt is an embarrassment and a fraud. He should be indicted and prosecuted + removed from office and sent to prison.

TJM said...

Anyone who believes the Dem's interpretation of this, just like with the Russian collusion hoax, is either very stupid or just a hardened left-wing ideologue (or both)

Skylark said...

" In the Cheeto's back pocket.”

I find their desperate anger very persuasive. They must have something here if there is all of that smoke coming out of their ears, there must be a fire!

Skylark said...

We hope you and other Republicans share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation’s history.


So first off, no fair looking into election interference coming from the Ukraine!

gilbar said...

Mike Sylvester?
So, you and Snopes are really saying that Hillary wasn't fired
She was let go (terminated) without references?
That's reassuring, because that means
I've Never Been fired...

I was just let go, without references

Francisco D said...

Vicki From Pasadena
Adam Schiff is my congressman. Thank god.


Which god are you thanking Vicki?

I am thinking the god of illusions and mindless stupidity, but that's just a guess.

narciso said...

based on what exactly, this is the first administration, that supplied real weapons, to Ukraine, Obama having given food rations and #hashtags.

wholelottasplainin' said...

gilbar said...
Dave Begley said...
If the House issues subpoenas without a vote then they aren't valid. No one needs to show.
Right, BUT
if anyone refuses to Show, THAT IS AN ADMISSION OF BEING GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!!
****************
Agreed.

Apparently Congress hasn't ever heard of a subpoena being quashed. Plenty of legal reasons justify not responding to subpoenas. Not responding is NOT admission of guilt of anything.

Also, impeachment requires a Congressional resolution, where a majority in the House actually votes to impeach. It's not something the Speaker can simply announce, as if there really were a resolution.

If Pelosi's announcement were sufficient, ANY SOTH could just issue a decree to "make it so".

It's bullshit all the way down.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Francisco D said...
Vicki From Pasadena
Adam Schiff is my congressman. Thank god.

Which god are you thanking Vicki?

I am thinking the god of illusions and mindless stupidity, but that's just a guess.
***********

If brains were C4, Vicki couldn't blow her nose.

Mike Sylwester said...

gilbar at 5:01 PM
So, you and Snopes are really saying that Hillary wasn't fired

Hillary was not fired from the Congressional staff.

Zeifman is a kook. Read his book (as I did, twice) and you will see for yourself.

Or quicker, read the Snopes article, which debunks Zeifman's accusation quite well.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

In requesting that China investigate Biden, Trump is pursuing an interesting strategy.

Is there any word more inherently ambiguous than interesting?

narciso said...

funny thing, there was a story the day after the call:

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/prezident-ukrayini-zustrivsya-zi-specialnim-predstavnikom-ss-56621

Big Mike said...

Nancy Pelosi is an influential Democrat. Why should an influential Democrat give a rat's ass about laws and regulations and procedures? Hang him first, figure out why later.

Skylark said...

"Is there any word more inherently ambiguous than interesting?”

You could ask Hunter Biden. Or ask Joe why he took his son on Air Force 2 to China and Hunter stuck in his thumb, and pulled out a plumb, and said “what a rich boy am I!"

Skylark said...

"If the House issues subpoenas without a vote then they aren't valid. No one needs to show.”

Trump said “Vote or pound salt!” [I paraphrase.]

Mike Sylwester said...

In 2008, when Hillary Clinton was running for the Democrat Party's nomination, I came upon Zeifman's book. I decided to write an article for The American Thinker about Zeifman's accusation that Hillary Clinton was fired from the Congressional committee that was investigating President Nixon.

I read Zeifman's book once. He is a scatter-brain, so his book jumps all over the place and is hard to read.

Then I read the book a second time, very carefully, taking notes for my intended article. Then I realized that Zeifman is a kook and that his book is nonsense. He is an extremely tendentious person, spinning factoids into elaborate yarns.

I read the book 11 years ago, so I no longer can give details. However, I do remember a couple of general impressions.

1) He had been a government lawyer, and it was quite obvious that his organization wanted to get rid of him. That's how he ended up on the project to investigate Nixon.

2) His major concern was the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. The main purpose of his book was to warn the public that Hillary Clinton would cover up those assassination conspiracies if she became President.

After I figured out that Zeifman was a kook -- several months passed -- I happened to read the Snopes article about Zeifman's accusation that Hillary had been fired from that staff position. I found that the Snopes article was a superb summary of the matter.

Nothing that Zeifman says about Hillary Clinton or about any other subject should be believed -- unless it is confirmed by another, reliable person.

Michael K said...

There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

Especially when she changed the House Rules last January. She and the left are a rendezvous with destiny. No American political party has committed suicide. The Whigs failed to adapt to the slavery issue but they faded away. The Republican Party arose from the anti-slavery wing of the Whigs. The Democrats embraced slavery, then Jim Crow and segregation. Now, their descendants are embracing segregation again and Marxism, which FDR flirted with. I guess we will see if the ahistorical youth, indoctrinated by Zinn, will buy that mess of porridge.

Michael K said...

What they're doing here is setting up a situation where their eventual candidate can run against an impeached Trump.

Yes, but it may not work out as they expect,

Skylark said...

It’s kind of out of character for your persona here, ARM, to be defending kleptocrats like the Bidens and war mongers like the only alternative we had to Trump.

gilbar said...

Mike, I DID read the Snopes Article; did YOU?
She was 'let go' when her work was done; and the guy Refused to give her a reference
exactly LIKE i said
But, since you didn't read it; i'm not surprised you didn't know that
Try reading the Snopes Article, it was interesting

Gk1 said...

The democrats have just been too hurried & sloppy with this Ukraine smear to the point that I think they are trying to muddy the waters on Barr's and Horowitz's revelations. Same with this "impeachment inquiry". Its not well coordinated and seems disjointed. Anytime they get a govt. official to testify it just blows up in their faces. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-10-01-2019/h_50cb4b8d7a00ea1017b42905c01b9134

I had given up hope and started laughing at the Conservative Treehouse folks who were telling us "The Great Pumpkin" was coming and it was just around the corner etc. etc. Just you wait! Huber blah, blah, blah. Indictments galore, eleventy thousand! This has been going on since spring. Then these little nuggets keep popping up. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/world/europe/mike-pompeo-italy-joseph-mifsud.html

Yet here we see the swamp and democrats in sheer panic, tossing anything against the wall to see what sticks. Their "plans" can't survive just a minimum of scrutiny from a friendly media. That doesn't seem like a party in control or even confident of its chances next year. What could be causing all of this panic?

narciso said...

If the 'rule of law' mattered, there would be inductments but clearly it doesnt matter

steve uhr said...

The trial is in the senate. The impeachment is akin to an indictment. That said, most of the requests seem reasonable, with reasonable limitations. Prob bad strategy for trump to show his hand. Best to wait for trial in senate. Don’t want witnesses to testify twice and risk inconsistencies in testimony

Mike Sylwester said...

gilbar at 7:26 PM
She [Hillry Clinton] was 'let go' when her work was done; and the guy Refused to give her a reference

The House Judiciary Committee issued its final report about Nixon on August 22, 1974. Then the Committee wound up its work, and therefore Clinton's job ended. She was paid through September 4, 1974.

In no way was she "fired". She had been hired temporarily to help write the report. When the report was published, her employment ended.

Zeifman did not supervise Clinton in any way. They were not even in the same unit. Clinton's supervisor was John Doar.

It was not Zeifman's position or business to write a reference for Clinton, who did not work for Zeifman in any way whatsover.

-------

My lasting impression from reading Zeifman's book, twice, is that he was a kook who was assigned to the Nixon investigation in 1974 because his organization wanted to get rid of him.

In 1974, Clinton was a temporary, extremely low-ranking lawyer participating in the Nixon investigation. There's no reason why Zeifman would have paid any attention to her at all.

Zeifman always was obsessed with proving that JFK, RFK and MLK had been assassinated by government conspiracies. He wrote his book in 2008 because Hillary Clinton was running for President. Zeifman wanted to derail her candidacy because he thought she would cover up the government's roles in those accusations. He concocted a preposterous story where she had been a major villain in the Nixon investigation.

Zeifman is a scatter-brained, lying kook.

Michael K said...

The trial is in the senate.

You are assuming that Pelosi will hold a vote in the House, which puts members in Trump districts in jeopardy.

Without that roll call vote, there is no formal impeachment. This is, in my opinion, a sham impeachment in an attempt to influence the 2020 election. Watch what happens.

Chief Executive Lawbreaker - Whiny Weasel Trumpkins said...

The Republican Party arose from the anti-slavery wing of the Whigs. The Democrats embraced slavery,

Hilarious. It's like Michael K. couldn't figure out that slavery was the law of the land going back to 1619 and allowed by all political parties prior to the Civil War. Or that Democrats in the north didn't and weren't looking to own slaves. What great revisionism in the service of rank partisanship. I wonder what Lee Atwater would have made of it.

I guess now I know why black Americans don't vote Republican. Who can deal with presumptive condescension that ignorant?

wholelottasplainin' said...

ydia said...
Pelosi's response to Kevin McCarthy:

The existing rules of the House provide House Committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction, including impeachment investigations. There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

***************

What a load. IOW in a constitutional republic, the minority is allowed no input regarding the process for removing the POTUS. It's majority rule, all the way down.

But's that not the procedure used for Clinton:

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry.


>>>> Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon [and Clinton]) there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial."

*************

In this case Pelosi puts the inquiry in the hand of the Intelligence committee, under Schitf, NOT the Judiciary Committee. She is not allowing Minority input. She is conducting the proceedings in secret.

So...she--not the House---unilaterally changed the rules, and is pretending there ARE no rules, except for the ones she makes. IOW Nancy Pelosi is holding herself out as not just the SOTH, but its dictator. The Minority can FOAD as far as she is concerned.

But if she never allows a floor vote on the articles that her kangaroo court issues, she will give Mitch plenty of room to say: no floor vote following historic standards (minority input)......no trial.

Bring it on.

SNORT

wholelottasplainin' said...

steve uhr said...
The trial is in the senate. The impeachment is akin to an indictment. That said, most of the requests seem reasonable, with reasonable limitations. Prob bad strategy for trump to show his hand. Best to wait for trial in senate. Don’t want witnesses to testify twice and risk inconsistencies in testimony

****************************

The "witnesses" don't have to testify. They won't.

And if the dems deny the minority any role in the process, Mitch will likely tell the House he won't hold a trial until they do. How does that meet American standards of Due Process?

How could any vote be based on the majority holding secret meetings the other side isn't privy to?

Or do you think it constitutional to deny the POTUS and House minority any role in the process? Is that how a constitutional republic works?

Do you think the Framers would endorse a policy of "STFU" to defenders of the POTUS, esp a constitutional officer person elected in a national election??

Free clue: this ain't going nowhere.

Disagree? I suspect you will slink away and not respond...as you **always** do.

Drive-by slimings are your stock in trade.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Andy McCarthy said it best. Without a full House vote, this isn't an impeachment inquiry. It's an impeachment TV show.”

The Dems seem to believe that they need the same sort of evidence and information that the Mueller investigation had. But they aren’t going to get it directly. Trump has asserted Executive Privilege (EP) (which he had waived for Mueller). AG Barr is backing him up. Pretty much everything that they think that they need to build a prima facie case of a high crime or misdemeanor, is locked up in the White House behind a wall of EP. The courts aren’t going to override here on the grounds of Congressional oversight because their oversight power doesn’t apply to the White House. Their one chance at overcoming EP is the precedent set in the Nixon impeachment case. One of the goals of the Republicans demanding Due Process, etc, is to distinguish the Trump impeachment from the Nixon impeachment investigation on Due Process grounds. In the case of both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, both the minority party and the President had Due Process Rights, including the right to subpoena their own witnesses, cross examine the majority’s witnesses, etc. The Republican argument is that without these Due Process Rights, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is purely political, thus illegitimate, and, since it is illegitimate, there is no justification for overriding EP.

The other aspect here is that impeachment is supposed to be limited to high crimes and misdemeanors. Starting an impeachment inquiry without having made a prima facie case of a high crime or misdemeanor makes obvious the political nature of the inquiry. The obvious purpose is to engage in a fishing expedition to discover crimes that Trump may have committed. Overriding EP in this way would be horrible precedent, encouraging House majorities in the future to declare an impeachment inquiry whenever they are faced with an assertion of EP by the Executive. This is a Separation of Powers issue, which courts are typically loathe to interfere in. Effectively eliminating EP this way would destroy this separation.

That is why, I think, that Schiff, for one, seems to have colluded with the alleged “whistleblower” to manufacture a crime for Trump to have committed right before opening the impeachment inquiry. This would help legitimatize the impeachment inquiry soon to be opened, thus removing one barrier for the courts to override EP (and acquire the Mueller evidence, as well as tax returns, etc) by following Nixon. Except that Trump got inside their OODA loop, effectively destroying this line of attack.

Bruce Hayden said...

The House Dems have another problem on their hands, and that is timing. They never expected to have to fight EP when they embarked on impeachment well before the 2018 election. Instead, the plan very likely was for the Mueller investigation to just turn over everything they had when asked. Except that the Trump Administration again got inside their OODA loop, getting AG Barr confirmed, and the Mueller investigation shut down internally, before Mueller and the House Dems could do the expected pass off. And they did this before the newly elected Dem majority could get properly organized. They should have dropped the impeachment at that point. They didn’t.

Their problem in the timing is that they have maybe six more weeks of being in session this year and four months before the Iowa caucus. They aren’t going to be able to litigate the EP issue up through the court system quickly enough that their impeachment inquiry won’t interfere with their Presidential nominating process, esp with the Republicans delaying as much as they can, with the first delay being a claim that the courts don’t have jurisdiction until the House votes the Executive Branch, notably Trump and Barr, in contempt of Congress. The conflict for airspace between the Dems’ impeachment inquiry and Presidential nomination process will likely harm both of them, together increasing the likelihood of Trump being re-elected. Oh, and then they have to worry about the Senate holding their trial right before the elections, where the accumulated dirt and corruption of the last several years trying to delegitimize Trump will invariably be aired. All because Trump and Barr moved faster than the Dems did early this year.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Yet here we see the swamp and democrats in sheer panic, tossing anything against the wall to see what sticks. Their "plans" can't survive just a minimum of scrutiny from a friendly media. That doesn't seem like a party in control or even confident of its chances next year. What could be causing all of this panic?”

Two things. One is that they are just now realizing that Trump and Barr have destroyed their timing by repeatedly getting inside their OODA loop (wonder how many of them really understand OODA). Best thing that they could do to retake the Presidency and the Senate, and retain the House, would be to walk away from impeachment right now, and forget that they ever mentioned it. Except that they can’t. Tens of millions of dollars were spent on the campaign, combined with a lot of election cheating, costing millions more, paid for by a couple of billionaires (notably including Soros) winning that House majority, with their primary aim being the impeachment of #OrangeManBad.

The other is that at least some of the reckoning is coming due for all of the cheating and rampant criminality that the Crooked Hillary campaign, along with allied Deep State bureaucrats, engaged in over the last 3-7 years. Everyone knows why AG Barr and USA Durham were in Italy this week - to prove that Joseph Mifsud was a western, and not Russian, intelligence asset. That would mean that the entire Russian collusion hoax was initiated as a CIA operation. This has also been corroborated by the Australians in the case of their Ambassador to the UK, Alexander Downer, and the British government in the case of Stefen Halper. Western intelligence assets all three, which implicates Brennan, and therefore Clapper and maybe even Obama. Meanwhile the the DOJ OIG FISA abuse investigation is complete, and the report is undergoing final review by principals, which means that it should be released before the end of the month despite maximum foot dragging by the Deep State operatives still embedded in the DOJ and FBI (very likely including the IC IG, whose previous job was as senior counsel to the DoJ NSD AAGs at the time the fraudulent FISA warrant applications were filed). It has been variously reported that the DOJ has decided to indict CNN contributor and former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, around whose $70k conference room table, most of the FBI’s side of the criminality was plotted. (His team had also organized and setup the Mueller investigation, and he is the one who talked DAG Rosenstein into opening up the Mueller SC investigation).

I think that the question is not going to be whether Trump, Barr, and the DoJ will act but rather how thorough a house cleaning we are going to see. The more and higher the heads that roll, the better it will be for the organizations (DOJ, FBI, CIA, and maybe ODNI) involved. I have some hope for DOJ and maybe FBI. Much less for the CIA and ODNI, esp with the heavy involvement by people working for these organizations to destroy Trump with the Ukrainian phone call hoax that they just tried to pull off.

Michael K said...

The real reason for the impeachment frenzy.

First, VIPS concluded that the DNC data were not hacked by the Russians or anyone else accessing the server over the internet. Instead, the data were downloaded by means of a thumb drive or similar portable storage device physically attached to the DNC server.

How was this determined? The time stamps contained in the released computer files’ metadata establish that, at 6:45 p.m. July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes (not megabits) of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. This took 87 seconds, which means the transfer rate was 22.7 megabytes per second, a speed, according to VIPS, that “is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.” Such a speed could be accomplished only by direct connection of a portable storage device to the server. Accordingly, VIPS concluded that the DNC data theft was an inside job by someone with physical access to the server.


Seth Rich could not be reached for comment. Also:

And then came the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his band of Hillary Clinton sycophants. On March 13, 2019, a month before the Mueller report was released, VIPS submitted a memorandum to the attorney general in which they accurately predicted that Mueller would choose to “finesse” the key issue of whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC computers by relying on the purported analysis by “CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations.”

VIPS stated that “direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement” in any valid forensic analysis. The memorandum then set forth VIPS’ additional analysis of the WikiLeaks DNC files which revealed “a FAT (File Allocation Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them” (Emphasis in original).


Mueller never inquired about this.

Now, if moderation is ever resumed, someone might see this. Blogger is also determined to stop the post.

Skylark said...

Hey Pee Pee Tapes the Unembarrassed! How do you feel about defending a kleptocrat like Biden? It kind of seems out of character for you. Don’t you WANT to know where all of that fake dirt on Trump that you swallowed whole came from?

Skylark said...

"Seth Rich could not be reached for comment.”

Democrats would have known exactly who downloaded the file from badge reader info, login, cameras, etc. Rich was a Bernie supporter. Donna Brazille’s book explains exactly why a Democratic insider would have been motivated to leak that stuff. Not to mention that a “true believer” in the goodness of his beloved Democratic Party would have experienced quite a bit of stomach churning reading how Hillary ran the party like Boss Tweed redux. Except Boss Tweed was competent.

Big Mike said...

Trump and McCarthy are the Republicans we’ve been waiting for. I hope Republican senators are taking notes.

Michael K said...

allowed by all political parties prior to the Civil War.

Ritmo thinks the Republican Party, founded in 1856, had the power to prevent slavery. I would recommend a book, "The Pioneers, by David McCullough, which points out that the Northwest Territory, north of the Ohio river, established by "The Northwest Ordinance" of 1787, banned slavery in the territory. The parties had nothing to do with it.

Education would be good for you, Ritmo.

Howard said...

Are we there yet, Dad?

stlcdr said...

It seems this whole impeachment thing is for the ignorant masses - Pelosi cannot simply 'declare' anything (needs to be a vote to begin the impeachment inquiry).

But then, Pelosi was blaming Trump for the government shutdown at the beginning of this year yet the house never sent anything to Trump to sign or veto - it was the House fault (sic) for the extended government shutdown.

The Media and politicians (aka. democrats) are just lying about all this crap.

Rusty said...



Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"In requesting that China investigate Biden, Trump is pursuing an interesting strategy.

Is there any word more inherently ambiguous than interesting?"

Shhhhh. pay attention. He isn't asking China. He's telling the press to do their jobs.

Drago said...

Michael K: "Ritmo thinks the Republican Party, founded in 1856, had the power to prevent slavery."

Oh, its worse than that.

HoaxPPT is also doing his lying lefty part to advance the moronic assertion that the US was somehow founded in 1619 in alignment with the establishment dems anti-American political strategy.

Remember way back in 2016 in the dem primary when HoaxPPT pretended to not be a tool of the dem establishment?

LOL

Good times, good times.....

Skippy Tisdale said...

"It's like Michael K. couldn't figure out that slavery was the law of the land going back to 1619"

The USA was not a country in 1619, so not so "law of the land"ish.

Michael K said...

slavery was the law of the land going back to 1619"

I don't know if this was from a Ritmo comment now deleted.

Slavery was NOT "The law of the land." History is very good for getting this stuff correct. I even gave him the link,.

We'll do it again.

The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the geographic divide between slave states and free states from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River (an extension of the Mason–Dixon line). It also helped set the stage for later political conflicts over slavery at the federal level in the 19th century until the Civil War.

I guess there is no cure for stupid if you won't read.