You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
APP - Democracy Dies In Darkness
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Republicans argue that the Democrats’ process is unfair because the president is not allowed to have counsel in the deposition room. They say Democrats are rushing the process, cherry-picking material to leak to reporters and classifying material that shouldn’t be classified.
Only six Republican staff members are allowed in the depositions, according to a senior Republican aide, who said Democrats are afforded more. Republicans accuse Democrats of removing chairs that GOP staffers had been using in the hallway of the secured area.
Republicans say Democrats recently clamped down on the process by which committee members can review the interview transcripts. GOP staff can now only review the transcripts in a secure room with what they refer to as a “Democratic minder,” according to a senior Republican aide.
Republicans are allowed to raise objections, but GOP members say such motions are futile because of the Democratic majority on the panel. Schiff can easily dispose of any complaint, they say.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-23/impeachment-deposition-room-stormed-by-republicans
Only six Republican staff members are allowed in the depositions, according to a senior Republican aide, who said Democrats are afforded more. Republicans accuse Democrats of removing chairs that GOP staffers had been using in the hallway of the secured area.
Republicans say Democrats recently clamped down on the process by which committee members can review the interview transcripts. GOP staff can now only review the transcripts in a secure room with what they refer to as a “Democratic minder,” according to a senior Republican aide.
Republicans are allowed to raise objections, but GOP members say such motions are futile because of the Democratic majority on the panel. Schiff can easily dispose of any complaint, they say.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-23/impeachment-deposition-room-stormed-by-republicans
These are not testimony but criminal type hearings (depositions)-even though no formal impeachment has been declared.
That means the members who leak are subject to immediate ethics complaints.
Somehow this doesn't apply to Schiff.
Oh and the testimony is then secret depositions, meaning the witnesses cannot be seen testifying
to "protect"them and the process.. So you can't see their expressions and body languages
That means the members who leak are subject to immediate ethics complaints.
Somehow this doesn't apply to Schiff.
Oh and the testimony is then secret depositions, meaning the witnesses cannot be seen testifying
to "protect"them and the process.. So you can't see their expressions and body languages
Take this week’s testimony by acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., who alleged that President Trump made U.S. aid contingent on “investigations.”
He was deposed inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) in the Capitol, a room that is designed to protect the government’s most highly classified information.
Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.
But the full transcript of his deposition — including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations — remains under lock and key in that SCIF.
The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness.
Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.
Moreover, they are abusing the system to do it. One of the charges Democrats have leveled against Trump is that the White House improperly put the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president on a special server used to protect highly classified information.
Democrats are doing the very same thing, conducting impeachment depositions inside a SCIF, improperly using a classified system to restrict access to nonclassified information not just to the public but to members of Congress. Talk about hypocrisy.
Let’s be clear: There is nothing wrong with holding hearings behind closed doors as long as there is due process. During the Nixon impeachment much of the evidence was presented in closed-door sessions.
But there was not a flood of leaks from those executive sessions, as we are seeing today.
And unlike today, the minority could issue subpoenas, and the president’s counsel was present to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. Secrecy and fairness go hand in hand. One without the other is corrupt.
The partisan nature of the Democrats’ inquiry will backfire in a number of ways.
For one thing, it allows Republicans to make the case to the American people that the process is unfair, and if there is one thing Americans demand, it is fairness.
If the facts are on the Democrats’ side, they have nothing to fear from transparency and due process.
Second, their partisan behavior has given the president justification to refuse to cooperate with the investigation, just as President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to cooperate with the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954.
And finally, it has made it easier for congressional Republicans to rally around the president.
Right now, Republicans are more torn about Trump’s Syria policy than they are about his impeachment inquiry.
By failing to show even a modicum of fairness, Democrats have turned impeachment into a game of shirts vs. skins.
AD
The Democrats’ conduct shows that they are not serious, and that the entire impeachment inquiry is a blatantly political exercise.
Given the Constitution’s requirement of a supermajority in the Senate to remove the president, it is impossible for one party to remove the president of another party from office without buy-in from the other side.
Yet Democrats are making no effort to win over Republicans, much less make an impeachment vote difficult for their GOP colleagues. And that means they’ll have a hard time getting buy-in from the American people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-every-standard-due-process-it-will-backfire/
He was deposed inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) in the Capitol, a room that is designed to protect the government’s most highly classified information.
Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.
But the full transcript of his deposition — including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations — remains under lock and key in that SCIF.
The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness.
Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.
Moreover, they are abusing the system to do it. One of the charges Democrats have leveled against Trump is that the White House improperly put the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president on a special server used to protect highly classified information.
Democrats are doing the very same thing, conducting impeachment depositions inside a SCIF, improperly using a classified system to restrict access to nonclassified information not just to the public but to members of Congress. Talk about hypocrisy.
Let’s be clear: There is nothing wrong with holding hearings behind closed doors as long as there is due process. During the Nixon impeachment much of the evidence was presented in closed-door sessions.
But there was not a flood of leaks from those executive sessions, as we are seeing today.
And unlike today, the minority could issue subpoenas, and the president’s counsel was present to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. Secrecy and fairness go hand in hand. One without the other is corrupt.
The partisan nature of the Democrats’ inquiry will backfire in a number of ways.
For one thing, it allows Republicans to make the case to the American people that the process is unfair, and if there is one thing Americans demand, it is fairness.
If the facts are on the Democrats’ side, they have nothing to fear from transparency and due process.
Second, their partisan behavior has given the president justification to refuse to cooperate with the investigation, just as President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to cooperate with the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954.
And finally, it has made it easier for congressional Republicans to rally around the president.
Right now, Republicans are more torn about Trump’s Syria policy than they are about his impeachment inquiry.
By failing to show even a modicum of fairness, Democrats have turned impeachment into a game of shirts vs. skins.
AD
The Democrats’ conduct shows that they are not serious, and that the entire impeachment inquiry is a blatantly political exercise.
Given the Constitution’s requirement of a supermajority in the Senate to remove the president, it is impossible for one party to remove the president of another party from office without buy-in from the other side.
Yet Democrats are making no effort to win over Republicans, much less make an impeachment vote difficult for their GOP colleagues. And that means they’ll have a hard time getting buy-in from the American people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-every-standard-due-process-it-will-backfire/
Democrats appear to be pressing the case that Trump "extorted" Zelensky.
The idea is that Trump withheld U.S. aid to Ukraine until Zelensky began investigations into events during the 2016 election in Ukraine and the sketchy business dealings of Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Zelensky was also to make a public announcement that the investigations were taking place.
Assume that was Trump's demand — the president denies it, but Democrats contend it is an open-and-shut case.
There are still problems with the allegation.
One, a number of people close to the matter say the Ukrainians did not know that Trump had placed a hold on the aid at the time Trump spoke to Zelensky in their now-notorious July 25 phone call.
Even if the Ukrainians did know, it appears Zelensky did not do anything — no investigation, no announcement — and Trump gave up and sent the aid.
By the beginning of September, former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker testified in the impeachment proceeding,
There were similarities between the quid pro quo matter and the Trump-Mueller situation:
Trump wanted something done. It wasn't done. He dropped it.
Now, after several days of still-secret testimony, Democrats say the quid pro quo has been definitively established.
But it would be more accurate to say the attempted quid pro quo has been established.
And even if that is true, not all of the attempted quid pro quo was improper.
*Why couldn't the president lean on Ukraine to investigate events related to the 2016 election?
* U.S. law enforcement has already done that with several other countries, and investigating the 2016 election has been going on for three years.
The attempted quid pro quo that, if proven, would damage Trump politically is the request for an investigation into the Bidens.
Still, the bottom line is:
1) Trump withheld the aid,
2) he asked for an investigation and a statement,
3) the investigation and statement did not happen,
4) Trump released the aid.
If that is what happened, will Republicans agree to remove the president on the basis of those facts?
Will a majority of voters?
It's always wise to add a warning that there still might be shocking evidence that the public doesn't know that could change the situation. But right now, the Democratic case is perhaps not as strong as they would have you believe.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...emocrats-focus-on-trump-intent-and-not-result
The idea is that Trump withheld U.S. aid to Ukraine until Zelensky began investigations into events during the 2016 election in Ukraine and the sketchy business dealings of Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Zelensky was also to make a public announcement that the investigations were taking place.
Assume that was Trump's demand — the president denies it, but Democrats contend it is an open-and-shut case.
There are still problems with the allegation.
One, a number of people close to the matter say the Ukrainians did not know that Trump had placed a hold on the aid at the time Trump spoke to Zelensky in their now-notorious July 25 phone call.
Even if the Ukrainians did know, it appears Zelensky did not do anything — no investigation, no announcement — and Trump gave up and sent the aid.
By the beginning of September, former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker testified in the impeachment proceeding,
By law, the aid had to be given to Ukraine by Sept. 30, and it began flowing on Sept. 11. Nothing was held past any deadline."I think the Ukrainians felt like things [were] going the right direction, and they had not done anything on — they had not done anything on an investigation, they had not done anything on a statement, and things were ramping up in terms of their engagement with the administration."
There were similarities between the quid pro quo matter and the Trump-Mueller situation:
Trump wanted something done. It wasn't done. He dropped it.
Now, after several days of still-secret testimony, Democrats say the quid pro quo has been definitively established.
But it would be more accurate to say the attempted quid pro quo has been established.
And even if that is true, not all of the attempted quid pro quo was improper.
*Why couldn't the president lean on Ukraine to investigate events related to the 2016 election?
* U.S. law enforcement has already done that with several other countries, and investigating the 2016 election has been going on for three years.
The attempted quid pro quo that, if proven, would damage Trump politically is the request for an investigation into the Bidens.
Still, the bottom line is:
1) Trump withheld the aid,
2) he asked for an investigation and a statement,
3) the investigation and statement did not happen,
4) Trump released the aid.
If that is what happened, will Republicans agree to remove the president on the basis of those facts?
Will a majority of voters?
It's always wise to add a warning that there still might be shocking evidence that the public doesn't know that could change the situation. But right now, the Democratic case is perhaps not as strong as they would have you believe.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...emocrats-focus-on-trump-intent-and-not-result