Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

[webfact]

Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

By Patricia Zengerle

 

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a Veterans Day Parade and Wreath Laying ceremony in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., November 11, 2019. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump will not be allowed to become a venue for "sham investigations" into Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son, the head of a congressional committee leading the probe said on Tuesday.

 

Representative Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, made the vow as the White House and its Republican allies in Congress set up lines of defence ahead of televised public hearings that begin on Wednesday.

 

Schiff, who is spearheading the investigation into whether Trump pressured Ukraine to target one of the president's domestic political rivals, also said he would not allow the hearings to be derailed by a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine - not Russia - interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

Some Republicans have defended Trump's dealings with Ukraine by saying he was motivated by a desire to root out corruption in the Eastern European nation and get to the bottom of the election meddling four years ago.

The inquiry will enter a critical phase on Wednesday when lawmakers hold their first public, televised hearings and begin to question witnesses. The proceedings are scheduled to start at 10 a.m. EST (1500 GMT).

 

Schiff's comments in a note to committee members suggested he would not allow Republicans to call Biden's son Hunter and the whistleblower who triggered the impeachment probe after a Trump phone call with Ukraine's leader as witnesses.

As leader of the Democratic majority on the intelligence panel, Schiff controls which witnesses testify.

 

The witnesses this week will be U.S. diplomats who voiced concern over Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, on unspecified allegations of corruption.

 

The anonymous whistleblower set off the impeachment probe after Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a phone call on July 25 to investigation the Bidens.

 

After weeks of gathering testimony behind closed doors, Democrats running the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump are ready to make their TV debut. Jonah Green reports.

 

The inquiry and hearings "will not serve as venues for any Member to further the same sham investigations into the Bidens or into debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to undertake for his personal political benefit," Schiff wrote in the note.

 

Schiff, who has become a key target of Trump's attacks in recent weeks, added that the panel would not "facilitate" any effort to threaten, intimidate or retaliate against the whistleblower, a U.S. intelligence official.

 

Only intelligence committee members and staff would be allowed to ask questions in the hearings, said Schiff, adding that Republicans' list of suggested witnesses was being evaluated and additional witnesses would be announced this week.

 

'OUT OF BOUNDS'

The investigation, formally launched six weeks ago by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has shadowed Trump's presidency with the threat that he could be removed from office even as he seeks re-election next year.

 

"President Trump's pressure campaign was 'out of bounds,' and every time he insists that it was 'perfect' he is saying that he is above the law," Pelosi said on Twitter.

 

Trump is the fourth U.S. president to face impeachment. None were removed from office, although Richard Nixon resigned as he faced almost certain impeachment in 1974 over the Watergate scandal.

 

The White House has refused to cooperate with the probe and a number of administration officials have failed to show up to testify behind closed doors.

 

White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said in a court filing on Tuesday that he would not bring a lawsuit challenging a subpoena for his testimony, though he added that at Trump's direction he would not cooperate with investigators.

 

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and branded the investigation a hoax. In a tweet on Tuesday, he said the Bidens should be called to testify. Biden has denied any wrongdoing related to Ukraine by him or his son.

 

The president also suggested on Tuesday that he would likely release the transcript of an April 12 conversation with Zelenskiy "before week's end" but gave no other details.

 

The transcript is from a call with Zelenskiy after the Ukrainian was elected president but before he took office. The White House did not release a summary of the call - known as a readout - when it took place seven months ago.

 

Congressional Republicans on the three House panels conducting the impeachment inquiry, in a memo to party leaders reviewed by Reuters, said that weeks of closed-door testimony have not established that Trump committed an impeachable offence.

 

For the past two weeks, House investigators have been releasing transcripts of interviews conducted behind closed doors with witnesses, including U.S. diplomats who have expressed concerns about dealings with Ukraine by administration officials and the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

 

Trump has intensified his attacks on the investigation ahead of the public hearings, which threaten to crowd out other issues like the economy and immigration as voters turn their minds to the November 2020 election.

 

House Democrats consider the open hearings as crucial to building public support for a vote on articles of impeachment - formal charges - against Trump.

 

If that occurs, the 100-seat Republican-controlled Senate would hold a trial, but Republicans have so far shown little interest in removing Trump from office.

 

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Tim Ahmann and Jan Wolfe; Writing by Paul Simao; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

That will be tough Donald is the master of the diversion and bs it’s all he’s got he is allready starting with the diverting look over here gambits 

[TopDeadSenter]

On the subject of "sham investigations". We all learn recently that the USA threatening to withhold aid to other nations unless they do x,y,z is totally illegal and leads to impeachment for the POTUS. well fair enough, but what this?......

 

"The U.S. has warned Pakistan that it will withhold $300 million in military assistance if Islamabad doesn’t do more to crack down on"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-threatens-to-withhold-pakistan-aid-1440163925

 

 Note. I post this not to make an off topic troll but to prove to the world that US aid is routinely used to pressure the recipient. Something democrats would be wise to consider at this stage.

[PatOngo]

The greatest sham in America IS President Donald Trump!

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

On the subject of "sham investigations". We all learn recently that the USA threatening to withhold aid to other nations unless they do x,y,z is totally illegal and leads to impeachment for the POTUS. well fair enough, but what this?......

 

"The U.S. has warned Pakistan that it will withhold $300 million in military assistance if Islamabad doesn’t do more to crack down on"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-threatens-to-withhold-pakistan-aid-1440163925

 

 Note. I post this not to make an off topic troll but to prove to the world that US aid is routinely used to pressure the recipient. Something democrats would be wise to consider at this stage.

Pakistan was asked to investigate which US politician in exchange?

[Kelsall]

This whole thing is already a sham.  Schiff's "parody" of the phone call while at the same time claiming the impeachment inquiry is "very serious" proves that.

 

Pelosi made two big mistakes:  One was letting the squad talk her into pursuing an impeachment inquiry and the other putting Adam Schiff in charge.

 

Get the popcorn...

Edited November 12, 2019 by Kelsall

[Lungstib]

41 minutes ago, webfact said:

he was motivated by a desire to root out corruption

Something I have an awful problem trying to believe. Its Trumps modus operandi, just look at the recent court ruling on his charity operation which was all about insidious corruption. 

[Tug]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

On the subject of "sham investigations". We all learn recently that the USA threatening to withhold aid to other nations unless they do x,y,z is totally illegal and leads to impeachment for the POTUS. well fair enough, but what this?......

 

"The U.S. has warned Pakistan that it will withhold $300 million in military assistance if Islamabad doesn’t do more to crack down on"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-threatens-to-withhold-pakistan-aid-1440163925

 

 Note. I post this not to make an off topic troll but to prove to the world that US aid is routinely used to pressure the recipient. Something democrats would be wise to consider at this stage.

Catching any fish lol the difference has been explained to you many times you have a learning disability or you are trolling imo it is the latter

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Pakistan was asked to investigate which US politician in exchange?

Politicians belong to some protected immaculate class incapable of wrong doing? And here I always thought politicians represent original sin.

[PatOngo]

49 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

This whole thing is already a sham.  Schiff's "parody" of the phone call while at the same time claiming the impeachment inquiry is "very serious" proves that.

 

Pelosi made two big mistakes:  One was letting the squad talk her into pursuing an impeachment inquiry and the other putting Adam Schiff in charge.

 

Get the popcorn...

Don't take it too hard, you are only one of many that have been conned by the master conman!

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.

 

[Cryingdick]

The only thing I wonder is if there is a time free the senate must act on if this is passed? Can the senate sit on it until after the election? Also can they just quash it for being invalid with no material witness as the blowing whistler won't appear? We already know this is going nowhere I am just wondering the strategy the reps use. 

 

Could the senate hold a one day trial and take a vote? Otherwise it is obvious it is DOA and the only difference it could make is timing. If I had to guess though there is no way knowing how such things work it will ever be concluded before the election. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

On the subject of "sham investigations". We all learn recently that the USA threatening to withhold aid to other nations unless they do x,y,z is totally illegal and leads to impeachment for the POTUS. well fair enough, but what this?......

 

"The U.S. has warned Pakistan that it will withhold $300 million in military assistance if Islamabad doesn’t do more to crack down on"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-threatens-to-withhold-pakistan-aid-1440163925

 

 Note. I post this not to make an off topic troll but to prove to the world that US aid is routinely used to pressure the recipient. Something democrats would be wise to consider at this stage.

I see you struggle to understand the difference between US foreign policy in compliance with US federal law, from Trump illegally withholding foreign aid in an attempt to ‘bribe’ a foreign leader to concoct an investigation into a family member of one of Trump’s political opponents.

 

 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Politicians belong to some protected immaculate class incapable of wrong doing? And here I always thought politicians represent original sin.

Yes a political rival investigation must be done legally. Trump did not. Its been explained many times.

[Berkshire]

13 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The only thing I wonder is if there is a time free the senate must act on if this is passed? Can the senate sit on it until after the election? Also can they just quash it for being invalid with no material witness as the blowing whistler won't appear? We already know this is going nowhere I am just wondering the strategy the reps use. 

 

Could the senate hold a one day trial and take a vote? Otherwise it is obvious it is DOA and the only difference it could make is timing. If I had to guess though there is no way knowing how such things work it will ever be concluded before the election. 

An interesting article just came out that suggested one way that Trump could be convicted in the senate.  To put it simply, allow the senators to vote in secret.  Then we'll see if Republican senators really support Trump, or just do so out of fear. 

 

[By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.]

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The only thing I wonder is if there is a time free the senate must act on if this is passed? Can the senate sit on it until after the election? Also can they just quash it for being invalid with no material witness as the blowing whistler won't appear? We already know this is going nowhere I am just wondering the strategy the reps use. 

 

Could the senate hold a one day trial and take a vote? Otherwise it is obvious it is DOA and the only difference it could make is timing. If I had to guess though there is no way knowing how such things work it will ever be concluded before the election. 

The public hearings haven’t yet started and you confidently declare it ‘dead on arrival’.

 

 

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

An interesting article just came out that suggested one way that Trump could be convicted in the senate.  To put it simply, allow the senators to vote in secret.  Then we'll see if Republican senators really support Trump, or just do so out of fear. 

 

[By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.]

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

 

 

 

It would never happen. Secret hearings in the basement and a secret vote. This isn't 1950s communist Russia. The only real question is will there be a vote before or after the election.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The public hearings haven’t yet started and you confidently declare it ‘dead on arrival’.

 

 

 

The reps who control the senate have said with no whistleblower they will declare it invalid and it is DOA.

[Estrada]

8 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

An interesting article just came out that suggested one way that Trump could be convicted in the senate.  To put it simply, allow the senators to vote in secret.  Then we'll see if Republican senators really support Trump, or just do so out of fear. 

 

[By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.]

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

 

 

The vote should be in secret as the Senators that vote against Trump do not want to end up waking up with a horse's head in their bed.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Estrada

[Cryingdick]

11 minutes ago, Estrada said:

The vote should be in secret as the Senators that vote against Trump do not want to end up waking up with a horse's head in their bed.

 

 

Or God forbid be held accountable by their perspective constituencies. I guess I could see it being plausible as long as Shiff came out and did a parody re-enactment of the proceedings to clarify things.

 

Why not bring in a mime to testify for the blower while we are at it?

Edited November 13, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Laza 45]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

On the subject of "sham investigations". We all learn recently that the USA threatening to withhold aid to other nations unless they do x,y,z is totally illegal and leads to impeachment for the POTUS. well fair enough, but what this?......

 

"The U.S. has warned Pakistan that it will withhold $300 million in military assistance if Islamabad doesn’t do more to crack down on"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-threatens-to-withhold-pakistan-aid-1440163925

 

 Note. I post this not to make an off topic troll but to prove to the world that US aid is routinely used to pressure the recipient. Something democrats would be wise to consider at this stage.

Yes.. but not to undermine political opponents..   there is a difference  

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It would never happen. Secret hearings in the basement and a secret vote. This isn't 1950s communist Russia. The only real question is will there be a vote before or after the election.

You are correct insomuch as there is no mandated time line for the vote and that just as Congress sets the procedures and timing for the Impeachment Hearings. the Senate sets the procedures and timing of the Impeachment Trial.

 

However, it’s all political and as you say it will not be conducted behind closed doors. The deciding ‘political’ issue will be public opinion and with that the electoral futures of Senators.

 

Mitch McConnell has already said he ‘will’ and ‘must’ put any Impeachment to a Senate Trial. 

 

Perhaps he he could sit on it, if he wishes to go through the whole of the election year withholding the Impeachment trial.

 

Or he could do what he always does, what’s best for Mitch McConnell and follow public opinion.

 

The recent Kentucky election result is a prompt for McConnell to stay focused.

 

McConnell has already signaled he has stepped away from Trump over his Ukraine ‘bribery’ and pointedly exposes Trump’s lie that tried to drag McConnell into Trump’s mess.

 

Mitch McConnell is the last man Trump and his supporters should hang their hopes on.

 

McConnell has a full time job looking after himself.

 

 

 

[Boon Mee]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

That will be tough Donald is the master of the diversion and bs it’s all he’s got he is allready starting with the diverting look over here gambits 

The Biden Crime Cartel's actions in the Ukraine, China etc says different. 

[TopDeadSenter]

10 minutes ago, Estrada said:

Senators that vote against Trump do not want to end up waking up with a horse's head in their bed.

And you of course have credible links of Trump having put severed horse's heads in his detractors beds? Right? You could not be making up such a terrible smear to besmirch Trump's character? Right? 

 

 The world has gone well and truly mad over Trump's rise and incredible  achievement after achievement. It will take more than fallacious smears to bring this stallion down.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The Biden Crime Cartel's actions in the Ukraine, China etc says different. 

What crimes did they commit.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

And you of course have credible links of Trump having put severed horse's heads in his detractors beds? Right? You could not be making up such a terrible smear to besmirch Trump's character? Right? 

 

 The world has gone well and truly mad over Trump's rise and incredible  achievement after achievement. It will take more than fallacious smears to bring this stallion down.

What achievements

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

And you of course have credible links of Trump having put severed horse's heads in his detractors beds? Right? You could not be making up such a terrible smear to besmirch Trump's character? Right? 

 

 The world has gone well and truly mad over Trump's rise and incredible  achievement after achievement. It will take more than fallacious smears to bring this stallion down.

 

Don't take the bait. The suggestion they conduct a inquest in the basement and a vote in secret is only the fantasies of people completely detached from reality.  It isn't even worth a discussion it isn't how America works. Let them live in dream land. The election is under a year and I would guess there isn't time for a trial before then. What they are saying now is crazy talk and the result of desperation.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Kelsall]

52 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The only thing I wonder is if there is a time free the senate must act on if this is passed? Can the senate sit on it until after the election? Also can they just quash it for being invalid with no material witness as the blowing whistler won't appear? We already know this is going nowhere I am just wondering the strategy the reps use. 

 

Could the senate hold a one day trial and take a vote? Otherwise it is obvious it is DOA and the only difference it could make is timing. If I had to guess though there is no way knowing how such things work it will ever be concluded before the election. 

Good points.  I believe the Senate has a lot of options and could do any of the things you suggest.  I would like to see them move slowly, calling the Bidens, Adam Schiff, and the others involved in the coup.  That, timed with the indictments provided by Durham and Barr, would provide the leverage to destroy the current communist Democrat party which would be a good thing for America.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Kelsall

[Skallywag]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

House Democrats consider the open hearings as crucial to building public support for a vote on articles of impeachment

How are they going to measure "public" support?  Another poll / statistic on who has their televisions on a certain channel during the hearings?  It is like saying, we aren't impeaching POTUS for breaking constitution laws/high crimes/ quid pro quo if the public does not support it (because we might not get re-elected)  Democracy at its lamest

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Good points.  I believe the Senate has a lot of options and could do any of the things you suggest.  I would like to see them move slowly, calling the Bidens, Adam Schiff, and the others involved in the coup.  That, timed with the indictments provided by Durham and Barr, would provide the leverage to destroy the communist Democratic party which would be a good thing for America.

The Senate will receive the result of the Confessional hearings within the election year.

 

You are kidding yourself if you believe they want to drag it out.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Chomper Higgot