U.S. House Judiciary panel invites Trump to Dec. 4 impeachment hearing

[webfact]

U.S. House Judiciary panel invites Trump to Dec. 4 impeachment hearing

By Patricia Zengerle

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump walks after welcoming Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borissov at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 25, 2019. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday invited President Donald Trump to its first impeachment hearing, scheduled for Dec. 4, starting the next phase in a process that could lead to formal charges against the president.

 

The hearing, scheduled for 10 a.m. EST (1500 GMT), will have legal experts as witnesses. They have not yet been identified.

 

A House Democratic aide declined to comment on whether the Judiciary Committee expected to receive a formal report on the Intelligence Committee-led investigation into the Trump administration's dealings with Ukraine before the hearing.

 

Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the committee, said in a statement that he had written to Trump to remind him that the committee's rules allow the president to attend the hearing, and for his counsel to question the witnesses.

 

"At base, the president has a choice to make: He can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other presidents have done before him."

 

Nadler said in his letter that the hearing was intended as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the meaning of terms like "high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

The inquiry centers on a July 25 phone call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden as well as a discredited conspiracy theory promoted by Trump that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Hunter Biden had worked for a Ukrainian energy company.

 

Democrats have accused Trump of abusing his power by withholding $391 million in security aid to put pressure on a vulnerable U.S. ally to interfere in an American election by digging up dirt on his domestic political opponents.

 

SUNDAY DEADLINE

"We will also discuss whether your alleged actions warrant the House's exercising its authority to adopt articles of impeachment," Nadler wrote.

 

Nadler gave Trump until 6 p.m. EST (2300 GMT) on Sunday, Dec. 1, to advise the committee on whether he would attend the hearing, and to indicate by then who would be his counsel.

 

The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff, said on Tuesday the committees leading the impeachment probe - Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight - would issue their report on the investigation shortly after lawmakers return to Washington on Dec. 3 from their break for the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday.

 

The intelligence panel last week wrapped up two weeks of public hearings, after several weeks of closed-door witness interviews, in the inquiry, setting the stage for the report lawmakers are working on now and action by the Judiciary Committee.

 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment or respond to Nadler's letter.

 

If the articles of impeachment are approved by the Democratic-controlled House, the Senate, controlled by Republicans, would then hold a trial on whether to convict Trump and remove him from office.

 

Republicans have shown little inclination toward removing Trump, their party's leader, who is seeking re-election in 2020. Trump denies wrongdoing and, echoed by many congressional Republicans, has dismissed the inquiry as a sham, hoax or effort by Democrats to overturn the result of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

 

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; additional reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-27

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tippaporn]

I wouldn't put it past him to do it.  He's brought the idea up.  He's got nothing to hide.  But I'm sure he has his considerations for or against so I won't speculate as to whether he will or not.

[Tug]

I hope he does participate but I doubt it I expect he will attempt to distract from the sidelines and play victim 

[Samui Bodoh]

On 11/26/2019 at 3:53 PM, Tippaporn said:

I wouldn't put it past him to do it.  He's brought the idea up.  He's got nothing to hide.  But I'm sure he has his considerations for or against so I won't speculate as to whether he will or not.

 

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that he will testify as everyone/all know that he cannot be honest; he would sink himself in a matter of hours (if that long).

 

"EX-TRUMP LAWYER TOLD MUELLER THAT TRUMP IS TOO DUMB TO TESTIFY"

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/ex-trump-lawyer-told-mueller-trump-is-too-dumb-to-testify

 

Yes, you have read that correctly. Trump's own lawyer said he was too dumb to testify.

 

Notwithstanding the above, I'd LOVE to see him try!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Scott

[Bluespunk]

54 minutes ago, webfact said:

At base, the president has a choice to make: He can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other presidents have done before him."

He will probably do neither, but rather will instead continue to whine and whinge about how unfair the world is and why everyone should just let him do what he wants to, on twitter. 
 

maga

Edited November 26, 2019 by Bluespunk

[sirineou]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

I wouldn't put it past him to do it.  He's brought the idea up.  He's got nothing to hide.  But I'm sure he has his considerations for or against so I won't speculate as to whether he will or not.

yea , like he said he would release his tax returns, or testify with Muller . I give you 100 to one odds he does not appear. 

Save this reply and let's talk about it again  Dec 5th

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"EX-TRUMP LAWYER TOLD MUELLER THAT TRUMP IS TOO DUMB TO TESTIFY"

And trump supporters are too dumb to think that he would

[Tug]

Trump is dumb but not that dumb the house is using facts and truth trumps enemies lol

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I wouldn't put it past him to do it.  He's brought the idea up.  He's got nothing to hide.  But I'm sure he has his considerations for or against so I won't speculate as to whether he will or not.

I would. No way he'll show.

[Kelsall]

Pelosi was right when she said impeachment should be bipartisan.  Unfortunately she changed her mind and now we are where we are.  The whole process at this point is a farce.  Doubtful Trump will legitimize it by participating.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Pelosi was right when she said impeachment should be bipartisan.  Unfortunately she changed her mind and now we are where we are.  The whole process at this point is a farce.  Doubtful Trump will legitimize it by participating.

And she is still right. It should have being by partizan instead of the the republicans simply running interference.

[DoctorG]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that he will testify as everyone/all know that he cannot be honest; he would sink himself in a matter of hours (if that long).

He has not been invited to testify.

[neeray]

On record: He will not show ! The big showman will be a no-show.

[Skallywag]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel......

Wouldn't matter.  He would never answer the questions directly.  He would only use the questioning as another platform or "rally" , spouting how great the economy is, how low unemployment is, how he captured and killed the worst terrorist in the world, etc. etc. And of course forever deflecting questions by claiming the Clintons or Bidens did worse deeds.

He may use the "through counsel" option though, which likely would be no better or worse. Deflection and whitewashing is what they do best

[Sir Swagman]

Now Top Dead Senter quotes Guiliani, hilarious. To support wildly inaccurate, conspiracy theory claptrap to obfuscate the overwhelming evidence, both factual and circumstantial, of trump’s complete focus on self promotion and enrichment in direct contravention of the oath of office and constitution is mind boggling. Bipartisan this process should be. As it is there is no way this stain will be voted out by a Republican dominated senate. Their refusal to acknowledge facts and the oath of office they took, may well bring the trump party to a low from which it may not recover for years. If, and I shudder to contemplate it, trump is re-elected but there is a swing such as seen in the midterms, there may well be both senate and House that end up under Democrat majority. Nothing to say you can’t impeach again, as his list of crimes and constitutional infringements will only grow. Should not the character of POTUS be ‘unimpeachable’? How did this low life get there? Perhaps a more damning indictment of US politics?

Edited November 27, 2019 by Sir Swagman
Typo

[BobBKK]

The whole process is a circus and people are turning against it. Roll on the Senate!  well worth watching GOP rip into the Dem false narrative, able to subpoena and call witnesses etc. BTW  Trump signed Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act into law recently I bet Dems think that's a bribe too.

Edited November 27, 2019 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

And she is still right. It should have being by partizan instead of the the republicans simply running interference.

How do you work that out?  not allowed to call witnesses, training the witnesses in secret, no counsel allowed, Schiff shuts down any questions he doesn't like. Want a few questions?

 

Q. did you ever here POTUS mention a bribe A. NO

Q. did you ever speak to POTUS  A. NO

Q. were you there personally A. NO

Q. can you name anytime where you directly heard POTUS mention QPQ  A. NO

Q. have ever met POTUS  A. NO

 

what a farce

[TopDeadSenter]

23 minutes ago, Sir Swagman said:

Now Top Dead Senter quotes Guiliani, hilarious.

Whoa there, Hoss! Giuliani may have posted it on his twitter account but the video footage is of your expert witnesses testifying. I advise you to go back and watch it. They have no facts, just hurt feelings, assumptions and presumptions. I wouldn't convict a jaywalker based on such fact-less testimony never mind an elected POTUS that is probably the best America ever had.

[Baerboxer]

35 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

How do you work that out?  not allowed to call witnesses, training the witnesses in secret, no counsel allowed, Schiff shuts down any questions he doesn't like. Want a few questions?

 

Q. did you ever here POTUS mention a bribe A. NO

Q. did you ever speak to POTUS  A. NO

Q. were you there personally A. NO

Q. can you name anytime where you directly heard POTUS mention QPQ  A. NO

Q. have ever met POTUS  A. NO

 

what a farce

 

Indeed. But your description of secretly trained witnesses, not allowing other witnesses or counsel, and the chair shutting down unliked questions describes exactly the sort of show trial / biased controlled hearings the left wing liberals so love. 

 

They would whine like stuck pigs if this was done to one of their own chosen elites.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed. But your description of secretly trained witnesses, not allowing other witnesses or counsel, and the chair shutting down unliked questions describes exactly the sort of show trial / biased controlled hearings the left wing liberals so love. 

 

They would whine like stuck pigs if this was done to one of their own chosen elites.

What don't you understand about the fact that an impeachment investigation and hearing is not analagous to a trial? When Nixon and Clinton were impeached investigations were conducted in complete secrecy because there was a special prosecutor. That office no longer exists. Impeachment is analagous to a grand jury where you are not allowed counsel. And the prosecutor doesn't even have to contend with others doing the questioning.

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

The whole process is a circus and people are turning against it. Roll on the Senate!  well worth watching GOP rip into the Dem false narrative, able to subpoena and call witnesses etc. BTW  Trump signed Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act into law recently I bet Dems think that's a bribe too.

Maybe he  thought it was something  related to his own  situation?

[Rimmer]

Off topic post removed

[neeray]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I wouldn't convict a jaywalker based on such fact-less testimony never mind an elected POTUS that is probably the best America ever had.

If this is "the best America ever had", there truly is a need to God Bless America.

[car720]

3 hours ago, Sir Swagman said:

Now Top Dead Senter quotes Guiliani, hilarious. To support wildly inaccurate, conspiracy theory claptrap to obfuscate the overwhelming evidence, both factual and circumstantial, of trump’s complete focus on self promotion and enrichment in direct contravention of the oath of office and constitution is mind boggling. Bipartisan this process should be. As it is there is no way this stain will be voted out by a Republican dominated senate. Their refusal to acknowledge facts and the oath of office they took, may well bring the trump party to a low from which it may not recover for years. If, and I shudder to contemplate it, trump is re-elected but there is a swing such as seen in the midterms, there may well be both senate and House that end up under Democrat majority. Nothing to say you can’t impeach again, as his list of crimes and constitutional infringements will only grow. Should not the character of POTUS be ‘unimpeachable’? How did this low life get there? Perhaps a more damning indictment of US politics?

Yes, stain is possibly the best word for him.  I don't know if American politics will ever recover.

[AgMech Cowboy]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday invited President Donald Trump to its first impeachment hearing

????????????????????????????????????

[Becker]

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Pelosi was right when she said impeachment should be bipartisan.  Unfortunately she changed her mind and now we are where we are.  The whole process at this point is a farce.  Doubtful Trump will legitimize it by participating.

Trump legitimizing?? Anyone and anything Trump gets involved with/in is automatically delegitimized.

[jany123]

3 hours ago, BobBKK said:

The whole process is a circus and people are turning against it. Roll on the Senate!  well worth watching GOP rip into the Dem false narrative, able to subpoena and call witnesses etc. BTW  Trump signed Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act into law recently I bet Dems think that's a bribe too.

A bribe to whom? You do realize that this act was sponsored by the democratic head of the ethics committee, right?

 

So.... maybe it’s the ethics committee head it’s trying to bribe... could be...  I reckon it’s stupid enough to bribe the head of the ethics committee. What say you?

[xylophone]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

........never mind an elected POTUS that is probably the best America ever had.

Surely you cannot be serious with that remark, and if you are, then god HELP America!

 

Quite how a five times bankrupt, pathological liar, pussy grabbing misogynistic, draft dodging and dumb, cheating/stealing POS could be described thus is quite breathtaking and either shows that his supporters are totally blind to his faults, or they themselves are bereft of morals.

 

I just cannot believe that statement.

[BobBKK]

10 minutes ago, jany123 said:

A bribe to whom? You do realize that this act was sponsored by the democratic head of the ethics committee, right?

 

So.... maybe it’s the ethics committee head it’s trying to bribe... could be...  I reckon it’s stupid enough to bribe the head of the ethics committee. What say you?

you missed the sarcasm 

[jany123]

3 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Surely you cannot be serious with that remark, and if you are, then god HELP America!

 

Quite how a five times bankrupt, pathological liar, pussy grabbing misogynistic, draft dodging and dumb, cheating/stealing POS could be described thus is quite breathtaking and either shows that his supporters are totally blind to his faults, or they themselves are bereft of morals.

 

I just cannot believe that statement.

It’s called willful-ignorance. Other expressions or terms are also available, but this is the politest, IMO.

willful-ignorance. Noun. (uncountable) (idiomatic, law) A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.

 

The truth is out there for all to see... empirical evidence shows that  the trump is the worst president in history.