House Democrats release first transcripts from impeachment probe

[JasperL]

The problem, though, is that Nancy's new rules gives all authority for allowing the minority to issue a subpoena to the Chairman. There isn't even the ability to refer the action to a committee vote.

So Jordan is exactly correct.

That's a lie. Text - H.Res.660 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

(4) (A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation—

(i) by subpoena or otherwise—

(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and

(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and

(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.

(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.

It's the same rights the Democrats were granted in the Clinton impeachment.

The question you should ask is why is Jordan lying about something so easily debunked by anyone with Google or your search engine of choice.

 

[JasperL]

Jordan didn't lie and the issue isn't whether the Foreign Affairs committee should be allowed to participate. Rather, the issue is that the Foreign Affairs committee should have been the one running the hearing and that there is no authority for Schiffty to run it.

Smelly Gym Sock Jordan did lie, as I demonstrated. And Smelly Gym Sock knew it, or is a moron, and either is possible although surely he has staff who can look up an old House resolution like I did in three minutes...

And if your focus this morning is on the process, who led the hearing, Schiff or Eliot Engel, you're just trying to divert the discussion. Having Schiff lead it versus Engel doesn't infringe on the privileges of the GOP in any way. Their Foreign Affairs committee staff could have conducted their part of the interviews if they wanted.

 

[JasperL]

See my other comments.

You didn't address my comments, because of course the privileges of the GOP weren't infringed. It's a distraction, the end.

 

[TomFitz]

No, I mean where he confessed to giving Ukraine 6 hours to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect his son, Hunter.

Oh, you made it up.

 

[TomFitz]

That's a lie. Text - H.Res.660 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress



It's the same rights the Democrats were granted in the Clinton impeachment.

The question you should ask is why is Jordan lying about something so easily debunked by anyone with Google or your search engine of choice.

Our friend has repeated this lie several times.

He is also fond of the Schiff “leaks” line,that the AM talk radio types were all parroting last week.

Of course, when confronted with the fact that all we know are what was in the publicly released opening statements, he got confused.

But he recovered, and went back to parroting the false claim. When asked to document his claim, he just repeated it.

 

[upsideguy]

The state Department folks are reporting what they are seeing--- an administration which is attaching corruption standards to aid, a standard they do not approve.
Trump should not have mentioned Biden.
But nothing happened; the money was dispersed and no investigation was required.

Nothing happened? The scam to to light and Trump had no choice to release the aid. The crime of conspiracy is a crime of intent, not a crime of results. Clearly there was a back channel conspiracy happening that was to the benefit of Trump and contrary to the interests of the United States and Ukraine (and NATO) Conspiracy to commit murder is a major crime even if the murder never comes about.

...and, please don't be disingenuous trying to show us that Trump was interested in corruption. He has no history of that (fell free, however, to post the CV of "Donald Trump, tireless corruption fighter here for our amusement). If this were about corruption, it would be 1) consistent with Trump's actions to root out and quash corruption and 2) it would have been handled through State Department channels, not through a corrupt back channel. Again, the is line of reasoning that Trump was trying to stamp out Ukrainian or American corrupt is almost pathetic. Even moderately intelligent people would not be so gullible.

 

[Bullseye]

I would be more concerned about the guy who has lied, mislead, or exaggerated over 13,000 times:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...as-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

Trump didn't testify. Your "whataboutism" is pathetic.

Also, and more importantly, the transcriber has to certify the transcription is correct, and the witnesses in these hearings can check the transcript for errors and request corrections.

The transcriber works for Schiff.

 

[ettoremathedi]

Trump didn't testify. Your "whataboutism" is pathetic.
The transcriber works for Schiff.

Oh my god..

That's what youur going with? The transcription might be a lie because the transcriber works for Schiff? What else, the transcriber is a lifelong crazy left democrat? Everything now is a conspiracy?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Trump didn't testify.

I don't understand why you are making this point. You are trying to claim that the transcript is suspect. The fact that the interview is taken under oath, transcribed and verified by multiple parties would be indications it is a credible document.

Your "whataboutism" is pathetic.

Well, we are engaged in a comparison between Trump and Schiff. This is the argument you agreed to participate in by responding to my post.

The transcriber works for Schiff.

I would assume the transcriber is just some random contractor or worker assigned to various committees on an as-needed basis.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Oh my god..

That's what youur going with? The transcription might be a lie because the transcriber works for Schiff? What else, the transcriber is a lifelong crazy left democrat? Everything now is a conspiracy?

Trump supporters do not view Democrats as equal citizens worthy of participation in the same political system.

 

[Bullseye]

I don't understand why you are making this point. You are trying to claim that the transcript is suspect. The fact that the interview is taken under oath, transcribed and verified by multiple parties would be indications it is a credible document.

IF the hearing was fairly run you'd have a point. It wasn't. "Multiple parties" in Schiff's back pocket don't speak much to veracity.

Well, we are engaged in a comparison between Trump and Schiff. This is the argument you agreed to participate in by responding to my post.

Sorry, No. My comments were what I "agreed to" IRT this conversation. I didn't agree to spew old, tired, clichés that had no bearing on the transcripts or the hearing.

I would assume the transcriber is just some random contractor or worker assigned to various committees on an as-needed basis.

Given the secrecy and ironclad control Schiff imposed on the hearing I doubt that.

 

[Port & Starboard]

This isn’t a characterization the FBI has ever used in public or court documents when describing the dossier. Further, given the publicly available facts known about the dossier and the things referenced in it it’s not a characterization the FBI would use. So where are you getting this idea that people in the FBI warned that the dossier was “junk”, as you put it.

Comey’s confession: dossier not verified before, or after, FISA warrant | TheHill

Unverified = Junk!

Glad I could help you.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Comey’s confession: dossier not verified before, or after, FISA warrant | TheHill

Unverified = Junk!

Glad I could help you.

You are ignorant of how the process works.

You need to read more and opine less

A Note on FISA "Verification" - Just Security

 

[Port & Starboard]

You are ignorant of how the process works.

You need to read more and opine less

A Note on FISA "Verification" - Just Security

Unverified................

You keep shifting, but it doesn't help the nonsense that you spew.

 

[Trump]

Oh my god..

That's what youur going with? The transcription might be a lie because the transcriber works for Schiff? What else, the transcriber is a lifelong crazy left democrat? Everything now is a conspiracy?

have you heard how FBI conducts 302's? no audio no video....just recall....how safe would you feel facing feds with those tactics?

 

[Athanasius68]

Nothing happened? The scam to to light and Trump had no choice to release the aid. The crime of conspiracy is a crime of intent, not a crime of results. Clearly there was a back channel conspiracy happening that was to the benefit of Trump and contrary to the interests of the United States and Ukraine (and NATO) Conspiracy to commit murder is a major crime even if the murder never comes about.

...and, please don't be disingenuous trying to show us that Trump was interested in corruption. He has no history of that (fell free, however, to post the CV of "Donald Trump, tireless corruption fighter here for our amusement). If this were about corruption, it would be 1) consistent with Trump's actions to root out and quash corruption and 2) it would have been handled through State Department channels, not through a corrupt back channel. Again, the is line of reasoning that Trump was trying to stamp out Ukrainian or American corrupt is almost pathetic. Even moderately intelligent people would not be so gullible.

You guys keep having conniptions over things Trump said or didn't say-- not what he did or didn't do.
Trump should never have mentioned Biden. But as the transcript shows, he is also talking about corruption as well as his concern that Europe wasnt offering up enough support.
And at the end of the day, Ukraine received their funds. And no investigation required.

 

[Athanasius68]

Correct, and the ambassador pointed that out repeatedly. The problem is the state department is directed by Trump, so we assume that Pompeo and those below him including the Ambassador in Ukraine are informed of and are carrying out the policy of the President. No one knows what that was, apparently - not Pompeo or his deputies who were the direct bosses of Yovanovitch, so your alternative excuse is the President sets the foreign policy of the U.S. but doesn't share this with those tasked with carrying it out, and so leaves the execution of it to a mobbed up lawyer to the thugs, Rudy, and Hannity, and John Solomon?

Are you really going with that excuse here?

All you are saying here is that apparently chaos with some foreign policy.
A bad precedence for impeachment.

 

[Moot]

Obama is on tape actually calling for a quid pro quo with Russia back in 2012-- tat famous tape of him asking Medvedev to explain to Putin that he will be more flexible after the election.

Obama's 'flexibility' comment was in regards to nuclear missile negotiations with Russia....not for his personal political gain...like Trump is accused of.

 

[Athanasius68]

Obama's 'flexibility' comment was in regards to nuclear missile negotiations with Russia....not for his personal political gain...like Trump is accused of.

He stated flat out he would be more flexible after the election ie. after he won, which I think we can all say with confidence is something most definitely in his personal political interest.

 

[Moot]

He stated flat out he would be more flexible after the election ie. after he won, which I think we can all say with confidence is something most definitely in his personal political interest.

Yes, he said he would have more flexibility [to negotiate nuclear arms] after the election. I fail to see how postponing nuclear arms negotiations until after he was elected benefited him personally. Because even if he had lost the election, the negotiations would have to start all over anyway. So what's the problem?

 

[upsideguy]

You guys keep having conniptions over things Trump said or didn't say-- not what he did or didn't do.
Trump should never have mentioned Biden. But as the transcript shows, he is also talking about corruption as well as his concern that Europe wasnt offering up enough support.
And at the end of the day, Ukraine received their funds. And no investigation required.

He most certainly did.... top of page 4 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
So, the day after he got a bit of a pass from Mueller's testimony concerning his collusion with Russia, Trump essentially proves is lack of ethical discernment by trying to get the Ukraine to help him.... the very next day. The abuse of power issue aside, the man should be impeached for the stupidity of that alone. A bit like speeding away from a cop that pulled you over for speeding after you talked him out of a ticket.

Meanwhile, 1) that is not an accurate transcript and 2) there is much sworn testimony as to the backdrop of that conversation that clearly establishes Trump wanted an investigation of the Biden's in particular as a condition precedent of the release of Ukraine's money and considering a White House visit.

Again, this line of reasoning that Trump is somehow a champion against corruption is completely ludicrous. There is no evidence that Trump ever cared about corruption, but plenty of evidence that he is ready, able and willing to get foreign help in an election, even if illegal. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming, at the point, that he promoting corruption. Again, if this were legit, it would have been done through the State Department and not by private emissaries that were not only not government employees, they weren't even paid by government to do the government's supposed work. You really should not be risking credibility on this issue. It is a loser for you. Even the Republicans are moving away from the feeble attempts of attempting to justifying this, making all of their abandoned minions to look foolish. Don't be one of those.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes, he said he would have more flexibility [to negotiate nuclear arms] after the election. I fail to see how postponing nuclear arms negotiations until after he was elected benefited him personally. Because even if he had lost the election, the negotiations would have to start all over anyway. So what's the problem?

Beats me. You are the guys arguing that if a president politically benefits from his actions, he can plausably be impeached.

 

[Athanasius68]

He most certainly did.... top of page 4 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
So, the day after he got a bit of a pass from Mueller's testimony concerning his collusion with Russia, Trump essentially proves is lack of ethical discernment by trying to get the Ukraine to help him.... the very next day. The abuse of power issue aside, the man should be impeached for the stupidity of that alone. A bit like speeding away from a cop that pulled you over for speeding after you talked him out of a ticket.

Meanwhile, 1) that is not an accurate transcript and 2) there is much sworn testimony as to the backdrop of that conversation that clearly establishes Trump wanted an investigation of the Biden's in particular as a condition precedent of the release of Ukraine's money and considering a White House visit.

Again, this line of reasoning that Trump is somehow a champion against corruption is completely ludicrous. There is no evidence that Trump ever cared about corruption, but plenty of evidence that he is ready, able and willing to get foreign help in an election, even if illegal. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming, at the point, that he promoting corruption. Again, if this were legit, it would have been done through the State Department and not by private emissaries that were not only not government employees, they weren't even paid by government to do the government's supposed work. You really should not be risking credibility on this issue. It is a loser for you. Even the Republicans are moving away from the feeble attempts of attempting to justifying this, making all of their abandoned minions to look foolish. Don't be one of those.

You guys are saying this is an impeachable issue. When nothing happened.
All that is being said is that it's nonsense to think that Trunp was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, or about whether Europe itself was offering enough aid.
But It's not as if he pulled Biden name out of a hat- Biden said what he said; his son did what he did; and the Obama Admin responded as they did.
Impeachment needs to be reserved for clear and unambiguous acts.
And this isn't it.

 

[apdst]

Nothing happened? The scam to to light and Trump had no choice to release the aid. The crime of conspiracy is a crime of intent, not a crime of results. Clearly there was a back channel conspiracy happening that was to the benefit of Trump and contrary to the interests of the United States and Ukraine (and NATO) Conspiracy to commit murder is a major crime even if the murder never comes about.

...and, please don't be disingenuous trying to show us that Trump was interested in corruption. He has no history of that (fell free, however, to post the CV of "Donald Trump, tireless corruption fighter here for our amusement). If this were about corruption, it would be 1) consistent with Trump's actions to root out and quash corruption and 2) it would have been handled through State Department channels, not through a corrupt back channel. Again, the is line of reasoning that Trump was trying to stamp out Ukrainian or American corrupt is almost pathetic. Even moderately intelligent people would not be so gullible.

I think it's time y'all face reality: the QPQ 'peachment plan is a bigger dud than the Mueller report.

 

[apdst]

Yes, he said he would have more flexibility [to negotiate nuclear arms] after the election. I fail to see how postponing nuclear arms negotiations until after he was elected benefited him personally. Because even if he had lost the election, the negotiations would have to start all over anyway. So what's the problem?

Why not do it before the election?