Somebody that understands the impeachment process help me out

[hawkssox1]

My understanding is the house didnt subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani, etc. Dems in the Senate want them to be called for the Senate trial, but it doesnt appear that McConnel has any interest in doing that. So, no new witnesses, nobody in the GOP breaks and it's done. Why is that preferable to the house going to court and compelling Bolton, etc to testify as part of their inquiry. The way they are doing it is going to allow the GOP to use the narrative that they weren't called by dems because they would have refuted the Ukraine hoax and that will be all the cover they need. It makes no sense to me. Make the public see the lengths Trump will go to prevent evidence from being made public.

A Democrat and a Cyclone fan I think I will go barf.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Which committee, just FMI?

The House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs Committees as part of their hearings.

 

[hawkssox1]

What I'm hearing now is that the Senate may just dismiss the matter. That just takes a simple majority. Essentially says the House has brought such a weak case that they aren't going to bother with it.

The House Dems made a lot of mistakes, but one of the most glaring was not bothering to try to compel some of those witnesses to testify. Some of them, they wouldn't have gotten -- no judge is going to compel the president's national security adviser to testify about what the two of them discussed -- but some of them they might have. In any case, the fact the Dems didn't even try makes a joke out of the second impeachment item. As Turley testified, you can't reasonably charge the president with obstruction for doing what he has a legal right to do and what his prededecessors have done.

And then Schumer ices the cake by asking to call the witnesses; why would they be available now if they weren't available before?

It will be over quickly sort of like the careers of those driving it.

 

[BioHawk]

What actual crime are we talking about? And we aren't just talking executive privilege. In the case of Giuliani it's attorney-client privilege.

Extortion and/or bribery. But it is also about the oath of office he has failed to uphold as well. While that might not be a "crime", it is extremely relevant to his job and should be regarded as such for the purposes of gathering evidence.

 

[BABiscuit]

People issued subpeonas by the House to either testify, produce documents, or both and the dates of the subpoenas:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27)

Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30)

Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4) And I apologize - Pence was not officially subpoenaed but was asked to provide documents

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 4)

Acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought (Oct. 7)

Defense Secretary Mark Esper (Oct. 7)

Energy Secretary Rick Perry (Oct. 10)

Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman (Oct. 10)

Missed one:

Former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman (Oct. 28)

Yeah, I had that wrong. I should have just noted they arent fighting to get them enforced, which I think is a mistake.

 

[BABiscuit]

Well, I think you're basically fishing. But the time for that was when the House was allegedly investigating. I assume they will do it during the next impeachment -- which you can absolutely bet is going to happen if Trump is re-elected, and maybe even if he isn't.

I agree that the time was when the House was investigating. That's the point of my OP, I dont understand why the dems are playing it this way.

As for fishing, what do we know Hunter Biden did that we dont also know that Guiliani did or is doing?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yeah, I had that wrong. I should have just noted they arent fighting to get them enforced, which I think is a mistake.

If they wait on the courts, there would be no impeachment. If they're fighting them in court, the GOP narrative becomes, "Hold off on the impeachment until the courts rule on these witnesses!!". So the courts rule sometime this summer...maybe...and THEN the narative becomes, "We have an election in a few months...what's the point?".

There really isn't a choice if you want to air the offenses in public while Trump is still president. I'll be satisfied with him being impeached for cause and a spineless Senate allowing him to remain in office.

 

[hawkssox1]

If they wait on the courts, there would be no impeachment. If they're fighting them in court, the GOP narrative becomes, "Hold off on the impeachment until the courts rule on these witnesses!!". So the courts rule sometime this summer...maybe...and THEN the narative becomes, "We have an election in a few months...what's the point?".

There really isn't a choice if you want to air the offenses in public while Trump is still president. I'll be satisfied with him being impeached for cause and a spineless Senate allowing him to remain in office.

Like it matters if you are satisfied!!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Like it matters if you are satisfied!!

Matters to me. I give less than a fvck what matters to you.

 

[Lone Clone]

The House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs Committees as part of their hearings.

Thanks.

 

[Lone Clone]

I agree that the time was when the House was investigating. That's the point of my OP, I dont understand why the dems are playing it this way.

As for fishing, what do we know Hunter Biden did that we dont also know that Guiliani did or is doing?

We don't know what either Biden or Guiliani has been up to.

 

[Huey Grey]

In 24 hours Trump will become just the third president in our country's history to be impeached. He has stained the office. He has stained our democracy. He has stained our Constitution. And he has stained our people.

 

[Nipigu]

Did any member of the House need more witnesses to come to a decision on whether to impeach or not? If so, then the House should have called them.

 

[Rifler]

Matters to me. I give less than a fvck what matters to you.

I think that feeling is pretty mutual around here...