The Daily Blow by Blow Impeachment Hearings and Trial of Donald Trump

Dr.Amber Trichome said:

Wow, I just watched Mitch Responding to Schumer’s letter for calling for witnesses for the senate trial and Schumer’s response. Mitch says that the impeachment’s process in the senate is not for witnesses. The witnesses should have been taken to court first but they want to rush and do it in the senate trial which is not allowed? Then Schumer’s response is that rules can be made prior to the senate trial and these wittiness can be in the senate trial and that if the rules do not allow for them to be called then the trial will be a cover up because they have something to hide. Listening to both sides Schumer makes the most sense and brings completely realistic and strong points. Schumer has a very strong message that I don’t see can be argued with unless there is something to hide because if there wasn’t then we would have heard from these subpoena witnesses by now ? This is fucking crazy. The only argument the republicans are saying is it’s a sham rush impeachment and the constitution backs that up . It’s like the most corrupt vision of
How the legality of impeachment would play out with the courts and it makes me think about how Trump has played his his entire failed criminal life on the skirt tails of lawyers saving him.

Click to expand...

How about all the witnesses that were denied by mr schiff? You guys still reaching.

Dats my bike punk said:

How about all the witnesses that were denied by mr schiff? You guys still reaching.

Click to expand...

What about the witnesses who saw trump rape 13 year old Katie johnson

The GOPs playbook is built on confusing low information voters. Here's the thing, though. Independents have grown tired of having their intelligence repeatedly insulted by the blatant lies and the Reps. warped narrative.
And the hearings arent exactly difficult to follow nor is the process. The impeachment "rules" regarding testimony weren't written by Schiff. Its just another GOP talking point.

Dats my bike punk said:

Dude he was explaining the procedures for charging a sitting president and this was taken out of context. No where does he say that trump committed an act to be charged and that trump himself would be or could be charged.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't, Mueller did not retract that statement, and it is not out of context, he clearly answered the question twice before Buck stuttered and changed the question when he was caught reaching with his questioning. 10 Obstruction acts that would be charged.

If Trump was a govenor asking a nearby state to ask their governor to go on tv to announce his opponent was under investigation by their police, it too would be illegal and that guy would be in prison. Trump is hiding hoping like hell he gets to go back to 2016 when he had a full Republican house and senate (and still didn't get anything done).

Dats my bike punk said:

How about all the witnesses that were denied by mr schiff? You guys still reaching.

Click to expand...

What part in this scam do you think Hunter Biden played in Trump's sending his minions over into Ukraine to shake them down?
Trump only wants him there to smear Joe Biden for a political foil, Hunter has nothing to do with Trump's actions.

Everything the Whistle Blower said was corroborated by people who where closer to the crime, and they have LEGAL protections to not be outed unless they wish to be. And Trump has already tried to intimidate them which is also illegal.
Trump only wants whoever it is (which based on @Bugeye is someone who was on a Russia call too in the Mueller Report) to be able to blow them up before he is out of office and in a criminal trial.

The Republicans are being disingenuous. Nunes is going to be lucky if he isn't in orange too by the end of this.

Why do you push so hard to defend these criminals? Vote in some better people on the Republican side please, owning the libs may have been fun and all, but shit is getting really old and the Russians have hijacked you guys.

The only reason they want to call up Hunter Biden is to shift the focus off Trumps crimes. Period.
I mean c'mon, you don't have to study law or be a political science major or to see through this failed defense strategy...you just have to have a brain larger than a fruit-fly.
Attacking the process is all the Republicans have. Its how they get their 5 second sound bites for Fox and the uniformed repeat it like gospel.
This is not about Hunter Biden. Its not even about "corruption" because Trump made it clear, he didnt care about the actual investigation into the Bidens. Trumps number one concern was that President Zelenskiy announce it on CNN to the American voters.
Its Lock-Her-Up 2.0

Oh, and the nepotism defense? That ship sailed when Trump not only appointed his kids, but pushed their failed security clearances through.

Dats my bike punk said:

How about all the witnesses that were denied by mr schiff? You guys still reaching.

Click to expand...

Understand that impeachment is about withholding military aid which had been approved and he would have never given it unless the whistleblower complaint was released for one fact of many he conspired. You are wrong about all the witnesses that Republicans wanted because at the impeachment hearings they had Morrison and Volker testify and those 2 were Republicans choices . What I have read about the other witnesses they want are all many people that worked for Burisma like Hunter Biden and they are all distractatory witness that have nothing of significance in the impeachment offenses. Obstruction and Abuse. Trump should not have blocked the subpoenas in the impeachment hearings he might not be getting impeached if he did and if he was innocent. But he is not! He had to keep those witnesses from testifying under oath.
As Chucky said....,,
”This shouldn't be for Democrats to bring in their favorite conspiracy theories and for Republicans to bring in theirs," he continued. "This is an august and solemn proceeding."

"Oh shit, this is going to end my Presidency. I'm fucked!"


Once the pea-brain said that, it was obvious that he was guilty.

all the reps sound like broken records cant wait to see trump out

Here is some of the stuff Mitch is up against in any kind of fair senate trial, don't forget Rudy and his 2 Russian goons, one of whom is eager to roll over on anybody in sight. Donald and his racist base has put Mitch in a very tough spot! The courts might start compelling witnesses to testify soon and I'm surprised they haven't expedited the process concerning such important matters, delays reflect badly on the courts, it makes them look useless and irrelevant. Donald's abuse of the legal system and courts have brought America to this point and allowed him to get away from justice for decades by "gaming" the system. These are matters of black letter law and firmly established precedent, it's a no brainer and excessive unnecessary delay harms the nation, there are no questions to decide here, it's really simple.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump Trial Nightmare? WH Aides Have Legal Duty To Testify | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

Donald Trump’s impeachment is teeing up a clash over whether the Senate will call witnesses to testify about his Ukraine plot, and in this special report, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber breaks down how cabinet officials have a Constitutional obligation to testify. The segment reports on basic fact often overlooked in recent impeachment debates, many of the witnesses key to the case have already testified before Congress several times over matters far less important than the Ukraine scandal that got Trump impeached, including current government officials like Sec. Pompeo and Atty. Gen Barr. Aired on 12/20/19.

Michael Moore: GOP ‘Dying Dinosaurs,’ Impeach Them | The Last Word | MSNBC
Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore talks about witnessing the impeachment vote from the front row of the House gallery. Aired on 12/20/19.

Trump's impeachment is like pulling off a bandage, do it quick and fast with a quick yelp or pull it off slowly with a cantankerous and emotionally unstable moron like Trump. Either way will hurt, but by going slow and calling witnesses, it could mean a secret vote and the end of Donald.

How many days, if not hours after his presidency ends, before the SDNY and or other federal prosecutors indict Donald?
A federal judge to muzzle him with a court order, no twitter?

Shocking new Ukraine revelations could make McConnell’s impeachment scheme even riskier for GOP

Shocking new revelations about President Donald Trump’s pressure scheme against Ukraine show why additional witness testimony is needed in the impeachment trial — and could prove costly to Republicans if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sweeps the whole thing under the rug.

The Kentucky Republican is hoping to make the trial as swift and painless as possible for Trump and Republicans, and but new evidence uncovered by the New York Times could complicate his efforts — or potentially doom the GOP if he pulls off the sham trial, reported the Washington Post.

The report adds layers of new detail on the turmoil inside the administration stirred up months ago by Trump’s demand to withhold military aid from Ukraine in exchange for the announcement of investigations into Joe Biden and his son.

Happy Holidays! As a special thanks for your support this year, you can get Raw ad-free for just $2 a week. Now until Dec. 31.
Top White House and Cabinet officials were implicated in the report, which showed that some officials worked to advance Trump’s demands as others begged him not to go through with the scheme that eventually led to his impeachment.
more....

Lev sure is eager to rat out everybody in sight as fast as he can! It looks like he has evidence that directly impacts on the impeachment trial of Trump too....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lev Parnas Pushes to Share His Info With House Intel
READY TO SPILL
The ex-Giuliani associate asked for permission to send the contents of an iPhone to Hill investigators.


Lev Parnas, a former Rudy Giuliani associate charged with financial crimes, is looking to share more material with congressional investigators, according to a letter his lawyer has sent to a federal judge. The letter, filed in court on Monday evening, indicates that the committee first tasked with helming the impeachment inquiry is gathering additional evidence about Trump World.

In the letter, Parnas’ lawyer Joseph Bondy said the Justice Department will share materials with his client on Tuesday that it seized from his home and at his arrest. The materials include documents and the contents of an iPhone. Bondy then asked Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York to allow him to share those materials with the House Intelligence Committee; a court order currently bars him from sharing them with anyone. The Justice Department has said it does not object to him giving the material to Congress.


“Review of these materials is essential to the Committee’s ability to corroborate the strength of Mr. Parnas’ potential testimony,” Bondy wrote.

The potential new document dump comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deliberates on when to send the House’s articles of impeachment to the Senate. The House voted largely along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment on President Donald Trump earlier this month. The next step, which Pelosi has not yet taken, is to send the articles to the upper chamber for trial.

Trump’s relationship with Ukraine—in particular through his intermediary and personal lawyer Giuliani—is at the center of the impeachment process. Parnas had a front-row seat to much of Giuliani’s Ukraine-related activity.

Federal authorities arrested Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman at Dulles Airport in October and charged them with conspiring to illegally funnel money from a foreign national into an American election. For many months before their arrest, the two worked with Giuliani to investigate allegations about former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who served for a time on the board of a scandal-dogged Ukrainian energy company. At the same time, the trio pushed for the ouster of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch from her post as the top U.S. diplomat in Kyiv. Their efforts succeeded, and Trump removed her from the job in May.

Two months after removing Yovanovitch, Trump had the now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he asked the newly elected leader to work with Giuliani to scrutinize the Biden-linked company, as well as allegations about Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. Trump’s former top Russia official, Fiona Hill, said the Kremlin is pushing those allegations as part of a disinformation campaign designed to harm Ukraine.

Parnas and Fruman, both Soviet-born U.S. citizens, made hefty political contributions through an entity they started called Global Energy Partners. And they built connections on Capitol Hill; after then-Rep. Pete Sessions sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calling for Yovanovitch’s removal, a PAC the pair supported shelled out a huge sum to boost his re-election bid. Sessions’ name was also batted around within the Trump administration as a potential replacement for Yovanovitch, though any efforts to install him there didn’t get traction.

Parnas and Fruman have both pleaded not guilty. And Parnas indicated he would cooperate with the congressional impeachment inquiry. Because of his close proximity to Giuliani, he may have significant visibility into Giuliani’s actions that other witnesses lack. For instance, a senior Zelensky aide confirmed to The Daily Beast that Parnas was present for a meeting he had with Giuliani where they discussed the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.

Parnas’ lawyer also said the Floridian worked to help Rep. Devin Nunes’ team with its investigative work. Phone records released later by impeachment investigators indicated there was communication between Parnas and Nunes himself, though Nunes has said he doesn’t remember talking with the Giuliani pal.

What Democrats Can Do After the Senate Acquits Trump
They can sue to prevent the president from trying to rig the election.

Here’s a message to Democrats and all patriots: Don’t give up when the Senate acquits Donald Trump.

File suit right away to prevent him from going to any foreign government to fix the election.

The House bill of impeachment makes clear that Trump used the power of his office — indeed, compromised his obligation to defend the country — when he held up aid to Ukraine to extract a partisan advantage in 2020. As federal citizens, we have a right under the First Amendment to a free and fair election, without the highest government officer of the land using corrupt means to help his re-election.

The lawsuit to stop Trump from continuing this course of action would not seek retroactive relief. This would not be a damages claim, but an order to stop him in the future.

A plaintiff in a lawsuit has a right to seek prospective injunctive relief to stop a pattern of corrupt activity from continuing. Any threat to interfere with rights under the First Amendment is usually “irreparable injury,” which justifies issuing an injunction.

To say the least, there is a pattern of conduct by Trump to justify such action.

Ever since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the federal courts have claimed an inherent equitable power to restrain violations of the Constitution. There is a controversy over whether the courts have the inherent power to award damages as well, but that would not be relevant in a suit to stop Trump from continuing the acts that led to his impeachment.

Nor does the case seek to enforce 52 U.S. Code 30121, which prohibits foreign governments from making contributions. It is arguably not the right of citizens to enforce that spending restriction.

But the quid pro quo the president sought from Ukraine was not about money; it was for a much darker and more sinister way of assisting him in return for the release of U.S. military assistance, which had been allocated to help the country defend itself from Russia.

Trump is likely to try some such tactics again. In 2016 he said he would not accept the outcome of any election he did not win. He made an unprecedented and frivolous threat to imprison his rival if he won — something that even Vladimir Putin is too discreet to say. He also invited the Russians to hack the emails of his opponents. He can and should be imputed with knowledge — at least for civil purposes, unlike the criminal standard used by special counsel Robert Mueller — to show that he sought or would have accepted the assistance of the Russians in 2016.

So the case for an injunction — based on civil, not criminal law standards — is strong, even overwhelming. Apart from a pattern showing he is more than ready to act outside the law, there is Trump’s brazen defense of his shakedown of Ukraine — saying he’s not asking for a quid pro quo when it’s right there in black and white in the White House’s own doctored transcript.

The objections to a claim for injunctive relief are feeble. It matters less, for example, that the impairment of the First Amendment right is small, when there is no legitimacy to the governmental act being challenged.

Let the president deny there was a quid pro quo? Fine, because this opens him up to discovery and a deposition. Let the president claim executive privilege? Also fine, because there is no executive privilege to engage in a criminal act.

Nor would the “political question” doctrine bar relief, because of improper second-guessing of U.S. foreign policy. It’s not “foreign policy” if the president is shaking down a foreign leader to kick in to his re-election. Likewise, it is not a matter of “zoning policy” when a Chicago alderman wants a bribe to make a change.

The “political question” doctrine is a bar only if the Constitution were to commit the right to extortion and bribery to the exclusive discretion of the president. Well, it doesn’t.

In 1952, the Supreme Court enjoined President Harry Truman from seizing a steel mill despite a serious claim that it was a matter of national security. Trump’s squalid quid pro quo is a much easier case by comparison.

Impossible to supervise? No, the order would also bind those around Trump: If they looked the other way, they would be in contempt, too. This is a White House where we can count on leaks aplenty.

Nor do we have to look far for a plaintiff: All readers who are U.S. citizens entitled to vote have standing to bring an action protecting their right to participate in free and fair elections, without interference by foreign powers. It’s a representational injury — a right not to be a victim of election-type racketeering.

The attorneys general of the various states — California, New York and others — would have standing to protect the voting rights of their citizens. Indeed, they have a good record in suing Trump. The Democratic National Committee has associational standing to protect the party’s candidates running in the presidential primaries who may be affected, or the party’s eventual nominee.

As Chief Justice John Marshall might have told us, the federal courts have inherent equity power to stop a president from committing high crimes and misdemeanors that also violate our constitutional rights — even though Congress alone can remove him from office. The misconduct to be enjoined here is of a different kind from what Richard Nixon committed during Watergate. By the time of the Nixon impeachment hearing, he had already been re-elected. There was no danger posed from another Watergate break-in, or even another cover-up.

But the 2020 election is still to come, and when the Senate acquits him, Trump is free to commit yet another enormity like the shakedown of Ukraine. The impeachable offense could happen again and again.

How many ways do ya have to nail this moron's ass? These are crimes as well as impeachable offenses and any court in America would put all these clowns away for conspiracy and if Trump is removed from office by the senate or the 2020 election they might.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White House budget official told Pentagon that order to hold Ukraine aid came from Trump, national security site reports

Washington (CNN)In the face of warnings from the Pentagon that the hold on military aid to Ukraine could be illegal, an official from the Office of Management and Budget made it clear that the order to keep the freeze in place came directly from President Donald Trump, according to unredacted documents reviewed by Just Security.

The documents, including emails from officials at the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget that were released under court order last month but were either partially or completely blacked out, offer new details about tensions between the two agencies tasked with carrying out Trump's unexplained hold on aid to Ukraine.
They also raise serious questions about why the newly revealed contents were redacted by the Trump administration in the first place amid congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act litigation.
"These redactions at least raise eyebrows. The categories that the Freedom of Information Act allows the government to withhold are sufficiently vague that it's hard to say whether these redactions were actually in violation of that law," said Josh Geltzer, executive director and visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
"But does it appear suspicious given the damning nature of what was withheld, and the current government's obvious motivation for withholding it," he told CNN.
'Clear direction from POTUS'
Among the documents viewed by Just Security, a website focusing on reporting and analysis of national security law and policy, was an August 30 email from Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at OMB to Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, stating the freeze on aid to Ukraine would continue at the explicit direction of the President despite growing legal concerns within the Pentagon and mounting external questions prompted by news of the hold becoming public just days prior.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold," Duffey wrote in that email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now and was not handed over to House investigators conducting the impeachment inquiry into the President, according to Just Security.
The August 30 email was sent on the same day Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Trump to discuss the hold, which had already been in place for roughly two months.
more...

Katyal: McConnell Trying To Hide The Truth | The Last Word | MSNBC
ormer Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal tells Lawrence O’Donnell that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is afraid of what Former National Security Adviser John Bolton could say about President Trump during the impeachment trial. Aired on 01/08/20.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Not Backing Down On Impeachment | The Last Word | MSNBC
Lawrence O’Donnell talks with Jonathan Alter and Joy Reid about the pressure Speaker Pelosi has put on Mitch McConnell and Republican senators by demanding a fair impeachment trial. Aired on 01/08/20.

Rep. Adam Schiff: NYT New Russian Hacking Report 'Deeply Disturbing' | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, reacts to a new report from the New York Times that Russia has hacked the Ukrainian company at the center of the Trump impeachment case, and shares his concern that he has not learned of the incident from U.S. intelligence services first. Aired on 01/13/20.

Adam Schiff: Investigation Of New Trump Impeachment Evidence Continues | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about the ongoing investigation into new evidence and witnesses in the Donald Trump impeachment case even though the articles of impeachment have already passed and will soon go to the Senate. Aired on 01/13/20.

It looks like there might be some interesting witnesses at Donald's impeachment trial, a secret vote in the senate would be very bad for Donald. If they have a full open trial in the senate Donald will go nuts, if they have a secret vote in the senate I figure he's fucked! Mitch and the other republican senators running in 2020 can say they tried to get Donald off, but the majority ruled, so the base can't blame them. Meanwhile ex president Trump will be quickly indicted (pick a charge there's lots to choose from) and muzzled by a judge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: Russia Hacked Ukrainian Company At Center Of Impeachment Case | The 11th Hour | MSNBC

One day before Speaker Pelosi meets with Democrats to finalize the transfer of impeachment articles, new reporting reveals Moscow’s cyberattack on the firm linked to the Ukraine scandal. Aired on 01/13/20.

Dats my bike punk said:

How about all the witnesses that were denied by mr schiff? You guys still reaching.

Click to expand...

which ones were denied?