Articles Of Impeachment: Making A List, Checking It Twice ...

nohero

Comments about this are scattered among various other topics (particularly "2020 - Candidates").

My first comment on this thread is, that this is a legitimate subject for an investigation of the President.  As it states:

"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well."

The document is available online here:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

[Edited to correct link]


ml1

nohero said:

Comments about this are scattered among various other topics (particularly "2020 - Candidates".

My first comment on this thread is, that this is a legitimate subject for an investigation of the President.  As it states:

"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government offcials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well."

The document is available online here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6430349/20190812-Whistleblower-Complaint-Unclass.pdf

and then there's this:


nohero

The GOP members of the committee keep trying to make a big deal about the whistle-blower using "second hand" information, from "White House officials".

I don't think that's a reason to reject the complaint.  It's a reason to investigate, and ask those others to respond to questions.


PVW

We've seen troubling and corrupt behavior from Trump since the beginning, and one question I've seen asked is, why an impeachment inquiry now?

I've heard two good arguments for this.

One, unlike the Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was about wrongdoing in the past, this is about interference in an upcoming election. Even if this goes to the Senate and stops there, taking action now isn't just about impeachment, but about countering a threat to the integrity of the 2020 elections. Congress has a duty to take strong action here.

Secondly, Congress has been going the more regular investigative route and been met with an extreme level of non-cooperation. An impeachment inquiry should strengthen their hand -- as indeed we already seem to have seen, with the WH releasing the reconstructed transcript and the whistle blower complaint. Given the ongoing threat to the upcoming election, making sure Congress is able to properly investigate in a timely manner has become more important.


RealityForAll

nohero said:

The GOP members of the committee keep trying to make a big deal about the whistle-blower using "second hand" information, from "White House officials".

I don't think that's a reason to reject the complaint.  It's a reason to investigate, and ask those others to respond to questions.

 Wow, you are good!!!  You have found a way to make hearsay evidence to sound as if it is reliable (kind of like a second hand BMW just off of lease).  Call it what is:  "hearsay evidence."  IMHO, your use of such a description (namely, second hand information) for hearsay evidence demonstrates that you are not attempting to discern the truth.  Please let us know what your goal is, if not truth?

======================================================

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hearsay+evidence
HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.
2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.
3. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. 1. Hearsay is admissible when it is introduced, not as a medium of proof in order to establish a distinct fact, but as being in itself a part of the transaction in question, when it is a part of the res gestae. 1 Phil. Ev. 218; 4 Wash. C. C. R. 729; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 275; 21 How. St. Tr. 535; 6 East, 193.
4.-2. What a witness swore on a former trial, between the same parties, and where the same point was in issue as in the second action, and he is since dead, what he swore to is in general, evidence. 2 Show. 47; 11 John. R. 446; 2 Hen. & Munf. 193; 17 John. R. 176; But see 14 Mass. 234; 2 Russ. on Cr. 683, and the notes.
5.-3. The dying declarations of a person who has received a mortal injury, as to the fact itself, and the party by whom it was committed, are good evidence under certain circumstances. Vide Declarations, and 15 John. R. 286; 1 Phil. Ev. 215; 2 Russ. on Cr. 683.
6.-4. In questions concerning public rights, common reputation is admitted to be evidence.
7.-5. The declarations of deceased persons in cases where they appear to have been made against their interest, have been admitted.
8.-6. Declarations in cases of birth and pedigree are also to be received in evidence.
9.-7. Boundaries may be proved by hearsay evidence, but, it seems, it must amount to common tradition or repute. 6 Litt. 7; 6 Pet. 341; Cooke, R 142; 4 Dev. 342; 1 Hawks 45; 4 Hawks, 116; 4 Day, 265. See 3 Ham. 283; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3065, et seq. 10. There are perhaps a few more exceptions which will be found in the books referred to below. 2 Russ. on Cr. B. 6, c. 3; Phil. Ev. ch. 7, s. 7; 1 Stark. Ev. 40; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 20; Rosc. Civ. Ev. 19 to 24; Bac. Ab. Evidence, K; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t. Vide also, Dig. 39, 3, 2, 8; Id. 22, 3, 28. see Gresl. Eq. Ev. pt. 2, c. 3, s. 3, p. 218, for the rules in courts of equity, as to receiving hearsay evidence 20 Am. Jur. 68.


terp

It's a good the the Democrats have credibility on these things.  It's not like they chased wild conspiracy theories for years or anything.


PVW

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

The GOP members of the committee keep trying to make a big deal about the whistle-blower using "second hand" information, from "White House officials".

I don't think that's a reason to reject the complaint.  It's a reason to investigate, and ask those others to respond to questions.

 Wow, you are good!!!  You have found a way to make hearsay evidence to sound as if it is reliable (kind of like a second hand BMW just off of lease).  Call it what is:  "hearsay evidence."  IMHO, your use of such a description (namely, second hand information) for hearsay evidence demonstrates that you are not attempting to discern the truth.  Please let us know what your goal is, if not truth?


What do you think Congress should be doing instead? To go from hearsay evidence to first-hand evidence, they need to get testimony from first-hand witnesses. The WH has been doing all they can to prevent such witnesses from testifying. An impeachment inquiry make overcoming WH resistance more likely. Shouldn't those of us who want evidence from first-hand witnesses therefor favor an impeachment inquiry? Please let us know what your goal is, if not to secure evidence and testimony from first-hand witnesses.


RealityForAll

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

The GOP members of the committee keep trying to make a big deal about the whistle-blower using "second hand" information, from "White House officials".

I don't think that's a reason to reject the complaint.  It's a reason to investigate, and ask those others to respond to questions.

 Wow, you are good!!!  You have found a way to make hearsay evidence to sound as if it is reliable (kind of like a second hand BMW just off of lease).  Call it what is:  "hearsay evidence."  IMHO, your use of such a description (namely, second hand information) for hearsay evidence demonstrates that you are not attempting to discern the truth.  Please let us know what your goal is, if not truth?


What do you think Congress should be doing instead? To go from hearsay evidence to first-hand evidence, they need to get testimony from first-hand witnesses. The WH has been doing all they can to prevent such witnesses from testifying. An impeachment inquiry make overcoming WH resistance more likely. Shouldn't those of us who want evidence from first-hand witnesses therefor favor an impeachment inquiry? Please let us know what your goal is, if not to secure evidence and testimony from first-hand witnesses.

Standard investigation is what I would suggest.  The "new normal" (AKA Impeachment Investigation) that you are endorsing is a bad precedent for future presidents (and also for DJT).

Would you have recommended an Impeachment Investigation when BHO asserted executive privilege to block Congress from obtaining documents relating to the Fast and Furious program?

PS  In 2012 BHO ultimately relented and turned over to lawmakers thousands of pages of records (Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt for his role in blocking the release of such documents).

PPS Over-the-top responses make for hard feelings and bad policies.


PVW

RealityForAll said:

Standard investigation is what I would suggest.  The "new normal" (AKA Impeachment Investigation) that you are endorsing is a bad precedent for future presidents.

Would you have recommended an Impeachment Investigation when BHO asserted executive privilege to block Congress from obtaining documents relating to the Fast and Furious program?

PS  In 2012 BHO relented and turned over to lawmakers thousands of pages of records that led to the House holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his role in blocking the release of such documents.

PPS Over-the-top responses make for hard feelings and bad policies.

Democrats did not jump straight to impeachment. This escalation comes after a consistent, established pattern of refusal to cooperate with Congressional oversight across the board. Given the urgent nature of the allegations, where the integrity of the upcoming elections are at stake, Congress has a duty to escalate.

I agree it would have been better if, like the Obama WH, the Trump WH had relented in the face of Congressional pressure. They did not, and here we are.


PVW


RealityForAll said:

Would you have recommended an Impeachment Investigation when BHO asserted executive privilege to block Congress from obtaining documents relating to the Fast and Furious program?

PS  In 2012 BHO ultimately relented and turned over to lawmakers thousands of pages of records (Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt for his role in blocking the release of such documents).

 PS -- do you really see that as equivalent to a president extorting a foreign country for personal political gain?


nohero

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

The GOP members of the committee keep trying to make a big deal about the whistle-blower using "second hand" information, from "White House officials".

I don't think that's a reason to reject the complaint.  It's a reason to investigate, and ask those others to respond to questions.

 Wow, you are good!!!  You have found a way to make hearsay evidence to sound as if it is reliable (kind of like a second hand BMW just off of lease).  Call it what is:  "hearsay evidence."  IMHO, your use of such a description (namely, second hand information) for hearsay evidence demonstrates that you are not attempting to discern the truth.  Please let us know what your goal is, if not truth?

"Second hand" is the word used by GOP representatives at the hearing, but "hearsay" is just as applicable a word.

And hearsay can't be used to prove the truth of the statement.  So if the whistle-blower says, "White House officials told me that they were 'directed' by White House lawyers", that's not evidence that those officials were told that.  

It is evidence that the whistle-blower heard those statements.  That, in turn, supports a subpoena to those "White House officials" to answer questions about what they were told to do and what they did.  Which is why I wrote, in the post you quoted, "It's a reason to investigate, and ask those others to respond to questions."


nohero

Meanwhile, this is the jerk who we have to believe is 100% honest and accurate when he denies wrongdoing.

“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Mr. Trump said. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-spy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share


RealityForAll

nohero said:

Meanwhile, this is the jerk who we have to believe is 100% honest and accurate when he denies wrongdoing.

“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Mr. Trump said. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-spy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 Agreed, another asinine statement by DJT.  DJT has a way sometimes of making even legitimate questions appear suspect.

PS However, I do NOT believe that asinine statements (without more, such as an attempt to erect a gallows on the south lawn for traitors) change the standard of evidence or proofs.


ml1

the people trying to discredit the complaint as "second hand" information are conveniently ignoring that Trump himself and the White House have already admitted to actions that correspond with the main allegation.  In addition, the fact that the summary of the July 25 call that was released was not a full transcript corresponds with another of the allegations in the complaint.  Hearsay evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum.  The complainant's allegations, taken alongside Trump's own admissions and the information contained in the July 25 memo are more than enough credible evidence to move forward on a fuller investigation.


RealityForAll

Whistleblower identified as Edmund Hillary.  See pic below.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


ml1

RealityForAll said:

Whistleblower identified as Edmund Hillary.  See pic below.

I won't say this isn't funny. Because it seems to get some people's knickers in a twist if I do. 

So instead I will humbly ask if you can explain to me how this is supposed to be funny. 


DaveSchmidt

Now we know RfA can Edmund Hillary.

But can RfA Everest?


Morganna

There's no avoiding it. We need this.


DaveSchmidt

If you’re here, Morganna, this must be the VIP room!  cheese  I’ll escort myself out.


galileo

RealityForAll,Not funny. I wish you would get rid of that picture. It's disgusting.I still  have a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton.     Thank you for changing the picture!!


paulsurovell

The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.

A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.

And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.

Here's a taste of what the Republicans will push:

drummerboy

paulsurovell said:

The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.

A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.

And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.

Here's a taste of what the Republicans will push:

you have become a full time Trump propagandist/conspiracist

congrats!


nohero

paulsurovell said:

The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.

A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.

This statement is a fiction, which Trump may believe (only because he's a delusional narcissist), but which many of his defenders know is a lie:  "Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company"

They will be counting on the repetition of the lie, to overcome the reporting of the facts.  They will be helped in many ways, for example by having the lies spread by people on social media platforms.  The people who help them by spreading the lies are either too ignorant to know that's a lie, or who know but want to join in the dishonesty.


ml1

Morganna said:

There's no avoiding it. We need this.

 it's not just that I don't think it's funny. I don't even understand why it's supposed to be funny. I don't get what Edmund Hillary has to do with any of this. 

Someone please  explain. 


cramer

paulsurovell said:

The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.

A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company

"But there's little evidence he acted to help his son: Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851

"The gist of Trump’s theory: Biden played a role in the removal of Ukraine’s top prosecutor in 2016; Trump, repeating a conspiracy theory popularized by his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, maintains the former vice president did so to protect his son. Biden and the Ukrainian prosecutor, Trump claims, is the “real story” — not a whistleblower’s complaint that Trump improperly used his influence over foreign policy to damage a political rival.

The evidence suggests Biden actually may have placed his son in legal danger by advocating for the prosecutor’s removal because he was widely accused of stymying anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine — replacing him could have led to further investigations into a company Hunter Biden had ties to."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/23/20879611/joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-prosecutor-burisma-donald-trump-whistleblower-complaint

  • "Before Shokin was fired, he had been conducting an investigation of Burisma, and Hunter Biden allegedly was a subject. But the investigation had been inactive for over a year by the time Joe Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/09/25/heres-what-happened-with-the-bidens-and-ukraine/#2f3ce2de3938


nohero

ml1 said:

 it's not just that I don't think it's funny. I don't even understand why it's supposed to be funny. I don't get what Edmund Hillary has to do with any of this. 

Someone please  explain. 

 Don't ask, don't encourage.  Let it scroll until it's on a previous page and we shan't discuss it again.


drummerboy

ml1 said:

Morganna said:

There's no avoiding it. We need this.

 it's not just that I don't think it's funny. I don't even understand why it's supposed to be funny. I don't get what Edmund Hillary has to do with any of this. 

Someone please  explain. 

 I think, if I remember correctly, that Hillary has said she was named after Edmund Hillary.

Still doesn't make it funny.


RealityForAll

drummerboy said:

 I think, if I remember correctly, that Hillary has said she was named after Edmund Hillary.

Still doesn't make it funny.


I find it absurd/funny that this Biden-Ukraine scandal was first made public by Hillary (in order to prevent Biden from entering the presidential primary race in 2016).   As a result, HRC is the first whistle-blower regarding the Biden-Ukraine scandal (albeit not the current whistleblower regarding the DJT-Zelensky telephone call).   Hence, a little play on the word "whistleblower."

Every whistleblower needs an alias.  What better alias for HRC than Edmund Hillary the person that she asserted that she was named after.

PS I will change the current HRC-in-disguise pic to a conventional pic of HRC.

===============================================

Representative Devin Nunes asserted the following:  "These stories first originated back when Hillary Clinton was trying to make sure Biden didn’t get in the race."  With the implication that HRC was involved in first leaking about the Biden-Ukraine situation.  Later, Biden bragged about the situation.  See:  https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/04/02/joes-undoing-biden-bragging-about-threatening-to-cut-off-1b-in-ukrainian-loan-guarantees-comes-back-to-bite-740179 

Excerpt from above link:

"It was January of 2018 when Biden let slip in front of an audience at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), with video rolling, that in March 2016 he threatened Ukraine President Poroshenko that the Obama administration would not come through with $1 billion in loan guarantees unless he immediately fired top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. If those loan guarantees were pulled, the country would become insolvent."

===============================================

And, yes Hillary claimed that she was named for Edmund Hillary.  See:  https://www.theodysseyonline.com/8-lies-hilliary-told-the-american-people

Excerpt from above link:

"Hillary Clinton claims that she was named after climber Sir Edmund Hillary who became one of the first climbers to reach the summit of Mount Everest. This claim was proven false when it was discovered that Sir Edmund reached the summit six years after Mrs. Clinton was born. While this lie may not seem like a big deal, this is a piece of evidence that shows how Clinton lives a lifestyle of casual lying."


ridski

RealityForAll said:


I find it absurd/funny that this Biden-Ukraine scandal was first made public by Hillary (in order to prevent Biden from entering the race in 2016).   As a result, HRC is the first whistle-blower regarding the Biden-Ukraine scandal (albeit not the current whistleblower regarding the DJT-Zelensky telephone call).   Hence, a little play on the word "whistleblower."

What better alias for HRC than Edmund Hillary the person that she asserted that she was named after.

PS I will change the current HRC-in-disguise pic to a conventional pic of HRC.

===============================================

Representative Devin Nunes asserted the following:  "These stories first originated back when Hillary Clinton was trying to make sure Biden didn’t get in the race."  With the implication that HRC was involved in first leaking about the Biden-Ukraine situation.  Later, Biden bragged about the situation.  See:  https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/04/02/joes-undoing-biden-bragging-about-threatening-to-cut-off-1b-in-ukrainian-loan-guarantees-comes-back-to-bite-740179 

Excerpt from above link:

"It was January of 2018 when Biden let slip in front of an audience at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), with video rolling, that in March 2016 he threatened Ukraine President Poroshenko that the Obama administration would not come through with $1 billion in loan guarantees unless he immediately fired top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. If those loan guarantees were pulled, the country would become insolvent."

========================================================

And, yes Hillary claimed that she was named for Edmund Hillary.  See:  https://www.theodysseyonline.com/8-lies-hilliary-told-the-american-people

Excerpt from above link:

"Hillary Clinton claims that she was named after climber Sir Edmund Hillary who became one of the first climbers to reach the summit of Mount Everest. This claim was proven false when it was discovered that Sir Edmund reached the summit six years after Mrs. Clinton was born. While this lie may not seem like a big deal, this is a piece of evidence that shows how Clinton lives a lifestyle of casual lying."

 



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.