Parsing The Impeachment Resolution
Today, Nancy Pelosi released the text of the House Resolution on the impeachment inquiry that the full chamber will vote on this Thursday. Because this is an important milestone, it's worth a deep dive into the text to understand exactly how the process is going to play out in the next few weeks. Republicans are not going to like certain parts of it, but that was pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway. However, it gives them -- almost -- exactly what they've been demanding, so they'll be left making ever-more-technical arguments about why the process isn't all rainbows and unicorns for the president. Pelosi is betting that this will be enough to allow Democrats to claim a fair and transparent process to the American people, while the facts uncovered in the case will overwhelm all the technical nitpicking.
I should mention before I begin parsing the document that I've attached a full copy of the resolution at the end of this article, which has been cleaned up to be more readable than the original (which you can read elsewhere, if you're that interested), which has line numbers, page breaks, and other odd layout and formatting distractions, as all congressional bills and resolutions regularly use. Not one word of the text was changed in any way, however, so rest assured that my copy is indeed the full and unedited text.
The leading two paragraphs of the resolution lay out exactly what it is for. This section also contains a rather crafty move by Pelosi:
RESOLUTION
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.Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed 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.
When you read this closely, you'll see that Pelosi has not fallen into the trap of actually authorizing or in any way declaring the impeachment inquiry open -- instead, she uses key words and phrases ("continue their ongoing investigations", "the existing... inquiry") to reinforce what has been her position all along: that an impeachment inquiry does not need a full House vote to begin or to be authorized, and indeed is already underway.
This is a rather elegant move by Pelosi, because she can still accurately continue to make that claim. What the House is voting on this Thursday will merely be a clarification of the rules of the ongoing and already-existing impeachment inquiry. This is likely to be denounced by Republicans, but then again anything Pelosi does is routinely denounced by Republicans, so that's really not that big a deal. Pelosi is right, the Constitution does not demand such a vote, and so far the judiciary is backing her up on this. By reinforcing this in the opening of the new resolution, Pelosi shows she is not backing down from her claim. This is a subtle point, but it will allow Pelosi to accurately say she wasn't strongarmed into an unnecessary vote by Trump.
But back to the text. Section 2 outlines what Adam Schiff's committee can do next, which is to hold "open hearings." Paragraph (2) outlines how witnesses can be questioned, and states that both the chair (Schiff, a Democrat), and the "ranking member" (the most-senior Republican) will be able to question the witness directly for up to 90 minutes. This is over and above the usual "five minutes per member" questioning, which will happen afterwards.
What the language seems to indicate is that both the Democrats and the Republicans can yield this period of questioning to one of their staff lawyers ("...or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member"). This is commonly done when the object of the hearing is to actually ascertain solid information rather than just provide a made-for-television spectacle of an endless chain of soundbites. So each public hearing could open with prosecutorial questioning by a professional -- from both sides, if they wish -- before moving on to the individual members' questioning.
Paragraph (3) and (4)(A) -- with its many subclauses and whatnot -- allow the Republicans to call their own witnesses and issue subpoenas for such witness testimony as well as for documents or other evidence to make their case. However, this power is not unlimited or independent, as (4)(B) goes on to clarify. From (4)(A): "Minority witness requests... shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony," which means that the Republicans have to make a request to Schiff for such witnesses, and then justify such requests in writing. As (4)(B) explains, if Schiff doesn't agree that the testimony is relevant, he can turn the request down. If he does, then the Republicans can force the entire committee to vote on the request. Assumably, the Democrats as a whole would back Schiff, vote the request down, and that would be the end of the request.
Paragraph (5) gives Schiff the authority to release transcripts of all the depositions which have already happened, "with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information." This was always going to happen anyway, but it fulfills one of the demands Republicans have been making.
Paragraph (6) and the whole of Section 3 cover the handoff of impeachment between Schiff's committee and the Judiciary Committee, in a report (complete with: "appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views") that will also be made public.
It's worth taking a pause here before we move on to the final section. What the resolution has done, up to this point, is to essentially restate the rules it has already been operating under and clarify that these rules will be used in all the public hearings that are to come. None of this is new or startling, in other words. Adam Schiff can continue his fact-finding, and the Republicans can attempt to make the case for additional witnesses. But if the Democrats on the committee don't agree, then those requests can be shut down with a full committee vote. Both Democrats and Republicans are given the chance to ask the witness questions (as they have been doing all along), and furthermore both sides are allowed to have a lawyer also ask questions for an extended period of time. Again, none of this is new or startling.
What isn't said is more important, however. Schiff's committee is going to be allowed to continue to operate pretty much under the same rules it has already been operating under. At the end of their fact-finding, they will write a report and turn it all over to the Judiciary Committee (technically: "the Committee on the Judiciary").
Section 4 deals with what the Judiciary Committee will do next, and this is where the new rules are hinted at, but not explicitly stated. The first two paragraphs, (a) and (b), vaguely lay out what this means (note: I have no idea why these paragraphs only merit lower-case letters rather than Roman numerals, as in the previous sections). The key phrase comes at the end of paragraph (a), which authorizes the Judiciary Committee to: "conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry," which will include: "...such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel."
Paragraph (b) doesn't shed much light on this vague clause either: "The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution," as long as the procedures are consistent with the standing rules of the committee and of the House. Not a word about what "participation of the President and his counsel" is actually going to mean.
The following paragraphs -- (c)(1) through (c)(3) -- merely restate the rules for the minority to request witnesses and documents, which (as previously) can be denied by the chair or by a vote of the full Judiciary Committee.
The final paragraph merely states that the Judiciary Committee: "shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."
Republicans, when they read this section, are likely to complain. It is vague or silent on what the Judiciary Committee will allow in terms of Trump's lawyer questioning witnesses, or whether Trump's lawyer will be able to call his or her own witnesses. The only thing this really does clarify is that Trump won't be able to have a lawyer participate until the Judiciary Committee takes over. In other words, Adam Schiff's fact-finding committee won't have to allow a White House or Trump personal lawyer to participate.
This is as it should be, of course, because Schiff is doing the fact-finding work that should have been done by some sort of independent counsel (as indeed was done in the impeachment proceedings of both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton). Schiff's committee is interviewing witnesses for the first time, rather than calling such witnesses to clarify their former statements and testimony. All of the due process that Trump and the Republicans have been demanding will take place in the Judiciary Committee, which will be responsible for actually writing any articles of impeachment. Exactly what due process rights will be granted to Trump is left unsaid by this resolution, but perhaps this is merely Pelosi punting the ball down the road a bit. She could always return to this apple for another bite, and introduce a much more detailed resolution after Schiff's committee has wound up its work. This second resolution would then go into greater detail about the process the Judiciary hearings would follow.
So my snap prediction is that the Republicans are going to start howling about what precisely the phrase: "procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel" actually means. If read one way, this will give Trump and his defenders exactly what they've been demanding -- a White House counsel sitting in the witness hearings, with the power to question or cross-examine the witnesses during the same hearing. It also allows for the Republicans (assumably including Trump) to call their own witnesses -- but only subject to what is actually relevant. This would preclude, one assumes, allowing the Republicans to go down such rabbit holes as the non-existent Democratic server in the Ukraine and other such nonsense.
This obviously isn't as sweepingly all-powerful as the Republicans had hoped for. But that's what being the minority party is all about, at times. Nancy Pelosi refused to take their bait by authorizing what is already underway, but dodging that bullet is likely not going to be the main bone of contention with the new impeachment resolution. Instead, it will force the Republicans further into the process weeds, arguing very technical points instead of facing the growing mountain of evidence of wrongdoing and abuse of power by Donald Trump.
By staying vague about what's going to happen in the Judiciary Committee, Pelosi can accurately state that nothing in this resolution forbids giving Trump the cross-examination powers that he's been demanding. It just doesn't spell it out in any detail, that's all. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it, in other words, perhaps even with a second resolution like this one that lays out in greater detail how things will operate in the Judiciary Committee.
Republicans will be left to make process arguments which will soon be eclipsed by reality. They may continue to complain about the closed hearings now being held -- but all the transcripts will eventually be made public, so that's a moot point, really. They'll then complain about the rules for the public hearings, but once these public hearings actually get underway, such process complaints will be seen as nothing more than nitpicking -- the American people will be watching the proceedings at that point, and they'll be able to make up their own minds about the fairness of the process. The Republicans will then complain about the vague nature of what the Judiciary Committee will do, but once the Judiciary Committee actually does adopt rules for the proceedings, such complaints will be left by the wayside. In each case, the process nitpicking has a clear shelf life and will eventually (to get into the spirit of the season, in a monstrously mixed metaphor) turn into a pumpkin. In all cases, other than Republican diehards, the public is going to be much more interested in the actual witnesses and their testimony rather than legal arguments about process. This is what Republicans are afraid of facing, since there really is no way to defend what Trump has quite obviously done. Which is why they'll howl to the moon about the new House resolution and all the nitpicky details, until they're blue in the face. Or turn into a werewolf, or something.
Full text of the House Resolution
{Technical editing note: None of the words below were changed in any way. I did make a few technical edits to make it easier to read and understand, however. All the page breaks, line numbers, and line breaks were edited out, and words hyphenated due to line breaks were fixed. I added my own paragraph and line breaks where they seemed appropriate. The bolding and italics are exactly as in the original, except that all outlining numbers and other indicators (paragraph numbers, subparagraph letters, etc.) were also made bold for clarity. Also, rather than indenting to show outlining, I instead put the whole chain of outlining within each subparagraph and subsection indicator (mostly in Section 2 (4), and Section 4 (c), as you can see) so that instead of trying to decipher the difference between: "[Tab][Tab](i)" and: "[Tab][Tab][Tab](I)", I've written them out instead as: "(4)(A)(i)" and: "(4)(A)(i)(I)". All of these edits didn't change one word, once again, just cleaned up the congressional legal document format into something much more readable and understandable.}
RESOLUTION
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.Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed 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.
SEC. 2. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as the "Permanent Select Committee") is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
(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--
(4)(A)(i) by subpoena or otherwise--
(4)(A)(i)(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(4)(A)(i)(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(4)(A)(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.(4)(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.
(4)(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
(6) The Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and materials the Permanent Select Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form, with appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information. The report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
The chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
SEC. 4. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(a) The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House.
(c)(1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation--
(c)(1)(A) by subpoena or otherwise--
(c)(1)(A)(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(c)(1)(A)(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(c)(1)(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.(c)(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), 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.
(c)(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Program Note:
As you can probably tell by the final paragraph there, I'm already getting into the Hallowe'en spirit. Pumpking-carving is about to commence.
For the rest of the week, the schedule here will be: hopefully Wednesday at the regular time, my annual Hallowe'en frightfest article will appear. If dealing with the pumpkins and the photos and all the rest of the formatting takes too long, this may slip to later Wed. evening or even early Thursday. But hopefully it'll be up roughly 24 hours from now.
This article will stay up for all of Thursday and most of Friday, as I'll be taking Hallowe'en off (and getting our regular FTP article together, of course). So there really will only be two more articles this week, but one of them is a fun one and one is the weekly FTP, so hopefully people won't be too disappointed.
In closing, just let me say:
Boo!
-CW
I suppose that as long as your columns keep coming, Chris, we don't have to worry about you?
Balthasar,
In a very general sense, not having to do with Trump or his impeachment, per se, how do you think your country is going to move on from where it is today, politically speaking, to a better place?
In other words, what kinds of things need to happen in order to move toward a less divided and less polarized?
Boo to you too!
I got a kick out of the way you'd say, "but Republicans do that all the time, so we can ignore it", or words to that effect throughout. True.
In other words, what kinds of things need to happen in order to move toward a less divided and less polarized [_______]?
I'm gonna guess that you mean: place. Well, the first step is the defeat of Trump, because you'd never de-polarize the place otherwise. Then you'd consciously and deliberately develop a bunch of bi-partisan stuff that had languished, to establish a good working relationship.
To this end, we'd need some healing, because Trump's high numbers among republicans means that there are actually few that we could work with otherwise. Forgive them, they know not what they do.
Have fun!
Nice breakdown of the rules. Repubs will whine every step of the way but I agree that the substance Americans will be presented with will drown weak-ass process arguments.
Ah, yeah, I meant country or place, thought it was obvious but, whatever.
Then I guess the discussion point is how to beat Trump; how to make a persuasive case to half the country that Democrats today have a better way.
Of course, the economy is key and Trump already gave his play on that - Oh boy, if those do nothing Democrats get in then kiss your retirement savings good-bye; can everyone say depression?
So, Democrats are going to have to counter that in a very, very effective way and it may a bit of a history lesson. I think some sane Republicans - not necessarily of the congressional variety - may be brought on board to hammer the message home.
I think Democrats have to that and a whole lot more AND they have to do it in a very, very non-partisan way.
Ah, yeah, I meant country or place, thought it was obvious but, whatever.
Then I guess the discussion point is how to beat Trump; how to make a persuasive case to half the country that Democrats today have a better way.
Of course, the economy is key and Trump already gave his play away on that - 'Oh boy, if those do nothing Democrats get in then kiss your retirement savings good-bye; can everyone say depression?'
So, Democrats are going to have to counter that in a very, very effective way and it may take a bit of a history lesson. I think some sane Republicans - not necessarily of the congressional variety - may be brought on board to help hammer the message home.
I think Democrats have to do that and a whole lot more AND they have to do it in a very, very non-partisan way. In other words they have be very inclusive and not the least bit divisive.
(There, I fixed it for you and added a bit more! )
Meanwhile, after 10 hours of questioning, Lt. Col. Vindman has apparently testified that the "transcript" of the Ukraine phone call had been doctored - that he tried to get it corrected and was blocked.
Looking forward to details...
Vindman's a great witness.
All of the due process that Trump and the Republicans have been demanding will take place in the Judiciary Committee, which will be responsible for actually writing any articles of impeachment.
Why would this happen now? Due process occurs during the trial portion, the House is not putting the president on trial — the Senate does that. I did not believe that the president had any part in the House’s determining what will be included in the Articles of Impeachment. Criminals do not get to participate in determining what charges they will be indicted on, and I cannot see why the president would be allowed involvement either.
ListenWhenYouHear [11] -
It's historical. Nixon and Clinton got the opportunity, so Trump will too. But only when it hits the Judiciary Committee, who will decide on its own who to call as a witness. Schiff will continue to operate as "the cops" who don't allow any due process to the accused, as they put together their own case. Happens every day, in other words.
You're right, though -- the whole House process is akin to a grand jury, where the accused has ZERO rights to "due process," and that this is much more appropriate for the Senate (trial) phase.
OK, to everyone else, I'm downloading (slowly... very slowly) Jack O'Lantern pix, so I'm going to try to answer some comments reaching back a few days.
-CW
OK, here's some feedback:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/10/28/pelosis-surprising-move-to-hold-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry/#comment-148270
JOL pix are coming along nicely.
What freakin' TIME is it? Gotta get to bed...
Spooktastic stories are looming soon ahead... stay tuned...
:-)
-CW
Halloween nightmare prediction for Republicans: acting president Pelosi ;)
(and the day after she takes office, justices thomas, gorsuch and kavanaugh have heart attacks.)
as for the democratic nightmare, i'll leave that to michale, as he predicts it every day and calls it "fact" ;p
Come on. You can say it. It's ok, they know.
~my cousin vinny
JL
Oh... Oh.... Oh....
What's this???
Appeals court temporarily blocks release of Mueller grand jury material to Democrats
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-material-to-democrats
Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this would happen!!???
Oh... Wait.. :D
It's funny.. For someone who ya'all claim I am ALWAYS wrong..
I, more often than not, nail it.. Dead on ballz accurate.. :D
Aside to JL..
as for the democratic nightmare, i'll leave that to michale, as he predicts it every day and calls it "fact" ;p
Yep.. And I am factually accurate a HELLUVA lot more than I am wrong.
As this latest prediction PROVES.. :D
Peace out... :D
Biden's "Electability" argument is fading fast...
Biden’s Edge Over Trump Wanes, Polling Shows
Former VP leads the president in a hypothetical matchup by 5 points, down from 11-point advantage in June
https://morningconsult.com/2019/10/30/bidens-edge-over-trump-wanes-polling-shows/
Amazing - after all the shit thrown his way by republicans, Biden is still leading Trump in the polls. I'd be shaking in my boots if I were you.
Hmm.. that Morning Consult also has a story about how the Hunter Biden/Ukraine narrative isn't getting very many converts:
55% of Democratic voters said Hunter Biden’s ties to Burisma Holdings would have no impact on their vote in 2020.
32% of Democratic primary voters back the former vice president as their first-choice candidate, unchanged since mid-September.
41% of Democratic voters said Biden has the best chance to beat Trump, unchanged since a poll conducted after the Houston debate.
I have say that CW's lightly edited version of the Impeachment Resolution is a lot easier to read than the official released copy.
Pelosi knows what she is doing with the Impeachment Resolution. This resolution is a rake, specifically a well designed muck rake compatible with modern media formats.
Boldly mixing metaphors here, it's also kind of like bob sled run, designed to quickly get thru all the loops and hairpins in watchable fashion. There are bound to be a few entertaining crashes, but most nearly everything is going to end up the bottom.
"Gosh Mr. Peabody, how can that be?"
"It's obvious, Sherman, The House is well known for its gravity."
Pelosi is not attempting to win a conviction of Trump in the Senate, it will never come to that. She attempting to force the Senate, most specifically the Republican majority, to march into the White House with a resignation letter for the President to sign....with the helicopter revving up on the White House lawn, golf clubs in the hold. "It's over buddy, you are toxic and we can't and we won't even try to ignore or deny it. We just can't be friends with you any more. It's nothing personal."
It's a good plan, Nixon provides a precedent and it seems to have a reasonable chance of succeeding. It will definitely be "must see TV" - must see YouTube - must read Tweets.
Maybe this what The Framers intended. Not that it matters.
[21] TS: Yep. I've always thought there was a high likelihood this would all end with Blotus resigning as you describe. Blotus may not cooperate, of course, since his strongest instinct is to brazen it out but he can't survive without Repub enabling. The test of chicken would be him daring the Repubs to abandon him publicly - he might do that. And Repubs may well blink. I think they'll need Dems to help them by offering Blotus some sort of deal that reduces the humiliation - which I think Dems would agree to on the theory that Blotus leaving peacefully is better for the country.
It all depends on how effective the public hearings are and if the "approve impeachment" numbers keep rising.
A wrinkle in this is the degree to which other Repubs are entangled. Some of them are going to have to go down too. So it's complicated.
In rather astonishing but good news: Twitter has decided to ban political advertising. There will be a few exceptions - they will allow ads that say "register to vote" for instance.
They will not allow candidates or pacs etc. to purchase/run ads.
The CEO's rationale is here: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952
Amazing - after all the shit thrown his way by republicans, Biden is still leading Trump in the polls.
And that lead is SHRINKING...
And do I **REALLY** have to remind you how HILLARY lead Trump in the polls!!???
REALLY!!???
BBBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
I'd be shaking in my boots if I were you.
I *AM* shaking in my boots...
WITH LAUGHTER!!!
BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I noticed how you ignore how badly you were bitch-slapped with the Mueller Report ruling, eh? :D
You lose again.. JUST as I predicted you would.. :D
55% of Democratic voters said Hunter Biden’s ties to Burisma Holdings would have no impact on their vote in 2020.
32% of Democratic primary voters back the former vice president as their first-choice candidate, unchanged since mid-September.
41% of Democratic voters said Biden has the best chance to beat Trump, unchanged since a poll conducted after the Houston debate.
Yea, DEMOCRATIC voters.. :eyeroll:
You DO realize that it's Independents and NPAs who decide elections..
Right???
I really should be more considerate of ya'all's feelings..
I really should.. I mean.. Ya'all are going thru some real traumatic times, what with ya'all LOSING to President Trump at **EVERY** juncture...
So, I really should be more compassionate and understanding...
On the other hand.. I treat people as they treat me...
So...
PPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFBBBBBBBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT :D
Puala-22
I don't think the Republicans would offer up a resignation letter unless they were prepared to go Full Monty and vote for conviction.
CW
Very nice rundown!
Section 4 deals with what the Judiciary Committee will do next, and this is where the new rules are hinted at, but not explicitly stated. The first two paragraphs, (a) and (b), vaguely lay out what this means (note: I have no idea why these paragraphs only merit lower-case letters rather than Roman numerals, as in the previous sections).
You sneaker! (my highest praise) Great catch! What do you want to bet that this means the Judiciary Committee wrote this particular portion of the resolution using a different numbering template?
Still, you've got to give credit to the House Dems... their representatives on the various assorted committees seem to have a flair at doing something the Chief Executive hasn't demonstrated he has any ability whatsoever to do: compose the written word in coherent fashion and spell!
_____
Of course I know Obama said not to "dis" spelling... virtually assuring that I would do it just because I can if I decide to. ;)
How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html
Is anyone surprised that the Democrat plant, the so-called "whistle blower" is a connected at the hip to Brennan and Schiff...
Everything that has been found to date is now tainted and inadmissible..
For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower" who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway.
More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.
But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.
Yep.. Democrats are petrified that they will lose it all..
I was wrong on one point though.. My sources had initially identified the "whistle blower" as "Erica Ciaramella"... Which is why I continued to use the "she" pronoun..
Apparently, I misheard when the name was relayed to me..
But the secret is out..
This "whistle blower" is nothing but a Schiff-head/Brennan stooge...
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.)
Yep..
A WELL-DOCUMENTED Trump/America hater..
This is going to totally decimate the Democrat's case against President Trump..
The vote tomorrow??? Democrats will DEFINITELY lose now.. :D
During Tuesday’s deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower. Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns regarding Trump’s call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the questions, which reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.
Determined to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
Yep.. Schiff-head tried to silence the GOP and protect his stooge/plant..
But, to no avail..
Everyone knows who he is now..
Nothing but a Democrat Trump/America hating stooge...
Democrats have totally lost... :D
In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by RealClearInvestigations.
Ciaramella allegedly argued that “President Putin suggested that President Trump fire Comey,” the report said. “In the days after Comey’s firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to investigate ‘Russia collusion.’ “
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin. Ciaramella’s email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only Ciaramella’s name, the date and the recipients “Kelly et al.” Former colleagues said the main recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly..
Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford, where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. “He didn’t have that kind of access to that kind of information,” Tony Ciaramella said. “He’s just a guy going to work every day.” The whistleblower's lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, “Anything on the whistleblower, we are referring to ODNI.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
Democrats are SOOOO toast!!!! :D
The whistleblower filed his “urgent” report against Trump with the I.C. inspector general on Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.
Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff’s Democratic staff for “guidance." At first, the California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet with the whistleblower early on.
Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.
During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.
Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.
Dumbocrats tried to hide Ciaramella and protect him so he couldn't be deposed..
THAT is all over with now!!! Schiff-head LIED about contacts with Ciaramella!! Schiff-head and Ciaramella are joined at the hip!!! :D
Democrats have royally scrooed da pooch!!! :D
Oh what a glorious day!!! :D
[27] TS: You don't think they wouldn't TRY to get Blotus to resign to save them from having to make the choice? If they end up between a rock and hard place - knowing the evidence against Blotus was rock-solid but fearing his base? Might they bluff Blotus?
Oh what a glorious day!
Oh stuff it - I wouldn't put it past republicants to randomly run names up the flagpole just in case they get it right.
But even if Ciarmella was the whistleblower, so what? Were the Republicants so dumb that they thought that there were no democrats still working in the White House?
Besides, all of the details have now been confirmed by other (more senior) aides. You're too late.
Program Note:
Hallowe'en column is now up! Enjoy, everyone...
:-)
-CW
Paula [35]
If Trump doesn’t resign, he won’t be able to work it so he is pardoned for his crimes!
Trump may be stupid enough to believe his money will keep him out of jail because he has been able to avoid it thus far, but I am guessing even he isn’t THAT stupid! He wants that pardon... he NEEDS that pardon!
Of course, the pardon powers of the president are not necessarily absolute when it comes to crimes a person has not been convicted of at the time the pardon is granted, as the courts have never been tasked with answering that question.
Trump can try to pardon himself, but that will fail. So the best chance he has at avoiding federal criminal charges will definitely be if he resigns before he can be impeached.
Trump looks our for Trump! He doesn’t have any loyalty to the Republican Party and does not care how he damages them in his quest to save himself.
So the Republicans chose to ignore the protections guaranteed to a person reporting government wrongdoing under our whistleblower laws and were successful in their attempts to expose the whistleblower’s identity. That should open them up to being liable for paying for the protection the person they claim is the whistleblower will have to secure for their own safety. Sure hope they named the right person!
Mike
Is anyone surprised that the Democrat plant, the so-called "whistle blower" is a connected at the hip to Brennan and Schiff...
You mean like conjoined triplets?
It's not a "so-called" whistleblower, Mike. It's a whistleblower who followed the longstanding rules to file a whistleblower claim. The QAnon crowd (chocked full of Tea Party wingnuts/your gullible ilk) have been floating his name for almost three weeks now along with all kinds of "don't panic" and "it's happening" predictions that include the ever-present words "Durham" and "any day now."
The QAnon loons are also claiming that it wasn't Lt. Col. Vindman that testified at all yesterday... nope!... it was his identical twin brother who testified... the old "evil twin" conspiracy theory bullshit is a nice touch.
Everything that has been found to date is now tainted and inadmissible..
Your serious? Heh. :)
Mike
17
Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this would happen!!???
Everybody... since it's knee-jerk normal for an appeals court to give a temporary stay when orders to produce materials are appealed; it's standard operational procedure. The stays generally last a short duration so the appeals court can review the appeal. Same shit, different day. :)
Mike
30
I was wrong on one point though..
Don't sell yourself short, sunshine; you were wrong on way more than "one point."
My sources had initially identified the "whistle blower" as "Erica Ciaramella"... Which is why I continued to use the "she" pronoun..
Well, you did do that over and over... so much so I was forced to refer to you as "stuck on stupid."
Apparently, I misheard when the name was relayed to me..
It's not easy functioning on a single brain cell prone to believing whatever conspiracy theory wingnut lunacy it sees and intent on spewing it all back on another man's reality-based column; we here in Weigantia are infinitely aware of your problem. *laughs*
Russ
38
Poor Donald... I would wager the State of New York will still be pursuing his ass and his assets and not generally giving two shits about whatever crimes he manages to weasel out of at the federal level. :)