Public Impeachment Hearings

NOVEMBER 8, 2019 / 10:07 AM / UPDATED 11 HOURS AGO
Explainer: What to expect from the televised Trump impeachment hearings next week
Susan Cornwell
7 MIN READ

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democrats launch the public phase of their impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump next week, with open, televised hearings set for Wednesday and Friday in the House of Representatives.

Since launching their inquiry on Sept. 24 into allegations that Trump abused his office for personal political gain, lawmakers in the Democratic-run House of Representatives have been holding hearings with current and former officials behind closed doors. Now they want to take their case for impeachment to the American public.

Here is what to expect from the hearings.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS HOLDING THESE HEARINGS?
Democrats want to build a strong public case that Trump abused his presidential powers by pressuring Ukraine to launch corruption investigations involving the son of Joe Biden, the former vice president who is vying to be the Democratic nominee to run against Trump in the 2020 presidential elections. Democrats want the broadest possible public support should they choose to formally impeach Trump, which could happen by December. Any trial would take place in the Senate, which is controlled by Trump’s Republican Party.

Televised hearings will “be an opportunity for the American people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff said.

In the hearings, the Democrats want to present evidence that Trump’s officials delayed security aid to Kiev and, with the help of Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, used the lure of a possible White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to try to get Ukrainian compliance with Trump’s demands.

Trump has denied doing anything wrong.

HOW DO DEMOCRATS PLAN TO MAKE THEIR CASE?
Democrats have invited three diplomats who have previously testified behind closed doors to recount what they knew or heard about Trump and Giuliani’s dealings with Ukraine. These witnesses will be questioned by committee staff attorneys as well as lawmakers including Schiff and the senior Republican on the committee, Devin Nunes.

The Democrats will ask the diplomats to discuss their understanding of events before and after a July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy. According to a rough White House transcript of that call, the president pressed Zelenskiy to investigate a discredited conspiracy theory involving the 2016 election about a Democratic Party computer server, as well as a Ukrainian energy company in which Hunter Biden had been a board member.

Democrats are also expected to try to use the hearings to show that Trump obstructed justice - the basis of another possible article of impeachment - by detailing how he has blocked some witnesses from appearing and otherwise refused to cooperate with their probe. The White House has called the inquiry partisan and illegitimate as a basis for not cooperating.

Trump has complained bitterly on Twitter that the process does not allow him to be represented in the intelligence committee. “I get NO LAWYER & NO DUE PROCESS,” he wrote in one tweet.

However, Trump and/or his lawyer would be allowed to attend later hearings before the House judiciary committee, which will debate what, if any, articles of impeachment should be filed and sent to the floor for a vote.

WHO ARE THE WITNESSES?
The top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, is considered a critical witness to the case against Trump. Taylor was upset to find out that security aid to Ukraine, as well as a White House meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy, had been delayed for political reasons.

“It’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor wrote earlier this year in a text message released by House investigators.

Another senior U.S. diplomat, George Kent, will appear with Taylor at Wednesday’s hearing. Kent said in closed-door testimony that he had been alarmed by efforts by Giuliani and others to pressure Ukraine to accede to Trump’s demands.

Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch will testify on Friday. She says she was ousted from her post after she came under attack by Giuliani. She says Giuliani’s associates “may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”

The Democrats also could announce additional witnesses they expect to call to testify.

Republicans intend to request their own witnesses, possibly including the whistleblower, the U.S. official whose complaint about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine touched off the impeachment inquiry. Democrats can veto the Republicans’ witnesses.

HOW DO REPUBLICANS PLAN TO RESPOND?
Republicans have painted the Democratic-led inquiry as a partisan exercise and will seek to provide a different narrative for the millions of Americans expected to watch the hearings, while attempting to cast doubt on witness testimony.

They said on Friday Representative Jim Jordan, one of Trump’s most aggressive and tenacious defenders, would move to the intelligence committee for the public hearings phase of the inquiry.

Republicans may also follow the lead of Republican Representative Michael Turner, a member of the intelligence committee who said in September that Trump’s telephone conversation with Zelenskiy was “not ok,” but impeachment would be an “assault” on the electorate.

Republicans are already attacking the Democratic witnesses, saying that Yovanovitch’s recall as ambassador was a side issue, and that other witnesses’ knowledge of key events was largely third-hand.

“He (William Taylor) is admitting that he had no first-hand or second-hand knowledge of any of the developments,” a Republican party official told Reuters. “Yet Democrats are presenting him as their star witness for this whole endeavor to impeach the president.”

Republicans can also be expected to argue that Ukrainian officials did not feel pressured because they did not even know the $391 million in security aid had been held up at the time Trump asked them last July for a “favor.” They have also emphasized that the Ukrainians never announced the investigations Trump wanted, and that Zelenskiy said he did not feel “pushed” by Trump.

When the Republicans had the house power they did the same, its all in the political game.
the Dems are using the republicans rules of their past impeachments, actually.

Published 1 hour ago
Schiff denies GOP request to have Ukraine whistleblower testify publicly, warns against 'sham investigations'
By Melissa Leon, Brooke Singman | Fox News

Florida Republican Rep. Ross Spano says he believes Rep. Adam Schiff will reject the GOP subpoena requests.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., rejected a request by Republicans to have the Ukraine phone call whistleblower testify at next week's public impeachment inquiry hearings, saying that their testimony was "redundant and unnecessary."

The GOP witness list, obtained by Fox News earlier Saturday, included Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president Joe Biden, and the anonymous intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky triggered the impeachment inquiry.

"The committee ... will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm," Schiff said in a letter to Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif. " ... The whistleblower has a right under laws championed by this committee to remain anonymous and to be protected from harm."

"The impeachment inquiry, moreover, has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence -- from witnesses and documents, including the president's own words in his July 25 call record -- that not only confirms but far exceeds the initial information in the whistleblower's complaint ... " Schiff concluded his letter. "In light of the president's threats, the individual's appearance before us would only place their personal safety at grave risk."

Earlier in his letter, Schiff had warned Nunes that the impeachment inquiry and the House Intelligence Committee "will not serve as vehicles" for what he called "sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit."

The impeachment inquiry began when a whistleblower reported that Trump had pushed Zelensky to launch an investigation into the Biden family’s dealings in Ukraine— specifically, why former Vice President Joe Biden pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire a top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, where Hunter held a lucrative role on the board, bringing in a reported $50,000 per month.

Republicans noted that testimony from former State Department official George Kent raised concerns about "the appearance of a conflict of interest stemming from Mr. Biden's position on Burisma's board," and added that former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich was prepared by the Obama State Department to address questions about Mr. Biden's position on Burisma during her Senate confirmation process.

Republicans also planned to call the younger Biden's former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand "the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country."

Schiff himself said in September the whistleblower would appear before Congress “very soon,” but in recent weeks has suggested that testimony is unnecessary.

"Because President Trump should be afforded an opportunity to confront his accusers, the anonymous whistleblower should testify," Nunes wrote in his letter to Schiff earlier Saturday. "Moreover, given the multiple discrepancies between the whistleblower's complaint and the closed-door testimony of the witnesses, it is imperative that the American people hear definitively how the whistleblower developed his or her information, and who else the whistleblower may have fed the information he or she gathered and how that treatment of classified information may have led to the false narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats during this process."

Republicans are also requesting that the "more than half a dozen sources" the whistleblower cited in their complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, whose identities also remain anonymous, attend for a public deposition.

The list of witnesses also includes Nellie Ohr, a researcher at opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-infamous anti-Trump dossier; Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American consultant for the Democratic National Committee who allegedly met with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to discuss incriminating information about Trump campaign officials; ex-National Security Council official Tim Morrison; former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker; and high-ranking State Department official David Hale.

Earlier Saturday, the president again called the impeachment inquiry a “witch hunt” and said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Schiff and Biden should be added to the list of witnesses who would be called to testify.

"The witch hunt continues, lot of witch hunt continues,” he told reporters. "The Republicans have never been so united and I think the people of our country have never been so united.”

Temple wrote:

I gotta say-
The election is 16 months away, year n half.
Around 3 months before the election I might become overly interested..

Thinking back, a year n half, all that has happened is stunning.
So- I can only imagine what will happen during the year n half to the election.

not a lot of this crap will matter, then.

The election is one year away.

Watch Schiff try to instruct Taylor on answering GOP's question

Varney: Dems’ hatred of Trump is suspending government

Obi Obi Obi..
I could post many more of the republicans nonsense ..
It's a long way to go..
More to come, closer to the end when all is more ironed out
that's when it will have my total attention..

((too early..

[quote="Grackle"]

Temple wrote:

Quote :

I can only imagine what will happen during the year n half to the election.

You will have missed the election ... that's one thing that will happen ...lol ..

That is a possibility.. ahaa

-------- It's Quite Short---

Published 37 mins ago
David Bossie: Impeachment case against Trump is falling apart – Democrats want to hurt him in 2020 election
By David N. Bossie | Fox News

The supposedly devastating case for the impeachment of President Trump that partisan Democrats have been hyping in endless media interviews began falling apart Wednesday as the House Intelligence Committee opened its televised witch hunt against the president.

Desperate Democrats know they have no chance of removing President Trump in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate. But they are determined to use their House majority to impeach him and send their ridiculous case against him to the Senate for a pointless trial for one reason only: to hurt his reelection chances.

This is what the whole disgraceful publicity stunt Democrats are calling an impeachment inquiry is all about – pure politics and nothing else.

Absurdly, these hearings were sparked by a routine phone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

Rep. Andy Biggs: Trump impeachment hearings prove that 'whistleblower' must appear and testify
RNC Chair McDaniel: At impeachment hearing, Democrats pursue deluded dream to overturn Trump’s election

A so-called whistleblower hiding behind a cloak of anonymity started this whole costly and time-wasting nonsensical impeachment process. It will ultimately collapse – but not until Democrats have days of free TV time to level their baseless charges against the duly elected president of the United States.

Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified before the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday in the opening act of this televised impeachment farce.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chose to kick-off his exercise in Trump-bashing with the public testimony of Taylor and Kent – despite the fact they were not even on July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call and therefore have no firsthand knowledge of what was discussed.

This is what the whole disgraceful publicity stunt Democrats are calling an impeachment inquiry is all about – pure politics and nothing else

In fact, Schiff’s star witness – Ambassador Taylor – testified that in three meetings with President Zelensky, the issue of “linkage” never came up. This involved a supposed quid pro quo under which Ukraine would only be able to get U.S. foreign aid if it investigated the role of the nation’s previous government in helping Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, along with what appear to be blatantly corrupt activities by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine.

The truth is that everything Taylor claims he knows about the facts of the case is based on hearsay. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, was right when he stated at the hearing Wednesday that hearsay very often turns out to be untrue.

Furthermore, Kent testified in his deposition that he’d “never in 27 years been on a call made by a president of the United States” and he had “no knowledge of the specifics of the call record” between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.

One person who was on the call – President Zelensky – has stated repeatedly that there was no pressure from President Trump and nothing inappropriate was discussed on the call.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, deftly questioned Ambassador Taylor about his so-called “clear understanding” of linkage between investigations and U.S. foreign aid.

Jordan rebuffed Taylor’s hearsay-inspired testimony by showing him a sworn declaration from another impeachment witness – U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland – that was about as clear as mud.

The Sondland declaration stated in part that “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.”

Jordan described the perplexing statement in epic fashion:  “We got six people taking about four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding?”

This exchange led by the highly effective Jordan was the highlight of Wednesday’s questioning. The fact that Democrats are relying on indecipherable testimony such as this is exactly why their case is collapsing.

Democratic impeachment addicts in the House have a fundamental problem that is insurmountable. There was no quid pro quo with Ukraine; there was no abuse of power and there was no “extortion scheme” because Ukraine received the U.S. foreign aid without initiating any investigation.

The big takeaway from the opening impeachment hearing is that Schiff – the ringleader of the Democrat coup attempt against President Trump – has a Clinton problem. He’s a liar who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Schiff will never build public support for his pathetic impeachment theory with the American people because he has no credibility and no evidence.

First off, at the Wednesday hearing Schiff obviously lied when he said he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. It strains credulity that Schiff’s staff didn’t tell him the identity of the whistleblower once they were in contact with him.

Not to mention, some news organizations and social media have identified a person they claim to be the whistleblower for weeks. The idea that Schiff is oblivious to all of this is not possible.

Secondly, Schiff lied about President Trump’s call with Zelensky during an earlier congressional proceeding. The Democratic congressman falsified the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call at a public hearing for political purposes. Schiff doctored what was said on the call because the call itself was routine and undramatic.

Next, Schiff lied about his staff’s contact with the anonymous whistleblower. Why did he lie?  Because Schiff doesn’t want the whistleblower’s complaint to appear concocted or politically inspired.

As it turns out, Schiff’s staff was in contact with the whistleblower in the lead-up to the complaint being filed because this entire circus is an orchestrated conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2016 election and nullify the votes of 63 million Americans who cast ballots for Donald Trump.

Schiff’s staff is made up of partisan Democrats and the whistleblower is also reportedly a partisan Democrat.

After that, Schiff lied about allowing the whistleblower to testify. At some point Schiff came to the conclusion that the whistleblower’s alleged political bias is too big a risk and his testimony to the committee would destroy the already flimsy case the Democrats have put together.

In light of this suspicious change in direction, shouldn’t Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson answer questions about why he disregarded the whistleblower’s reported political bias and pushed ahead with sending the complaint to Congress as a matter of urgent concern?

The American people have a right to know why Schiff no longer thinks the whistleblower’s testimony is important, even though Atkinson believed the information he possessed was of urgent concern.

Schiff also lied about conducting the impeachment inquiry in a fair and impartial manner. If Schiff was interested in fairness in his crazed pursuit to impeach President Trump for trying to root out Biden-related corruption in Ukraine, why won’t he allow Republicans to call the former vice president and his son to testify about what they were doing in Ukraine?

If Schiff was interested in the truth, obtaining these facts would be an essential part of the record. Schiff’s refusal to allow this testimony smacks of politics and further damages his credibility and greatly damages his case.

As the leader of the coup attempt against President Trump, Schiff is incapable of telling the truth and has no credibility. Every American should keep that in mind when this witch hunt reconvenes on Friday with Schiff again running the show.

Published 45 mins ago
Fox News beats all broadcast, cable networks in impeachment hearing viewership
By Brian Flood | Fox News

Fox News’ coverage of the first day of impeachment hearings Wednesday outperformed all broadcast and cable news networks in total viewers, according to early Nielsen Media Research data.

Fox News Channel’s coverage, led by Bret Baier, Martha MacCallum, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, Bill Hemmer, Sandra Smith and Dana Perino, averaged 2.9 million viewers between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET during the hearing before the House Intelligence Committee.

MSNBC averaged 2.7 million viewers to finish second after its pre-hearing coverage featured liberal pundits comparing the event to everything from the O.J. Simpson murder trial and Super Bowl to the series finale of “Game of Thrones.”

CNN’s heavily promoted coverage failed to crack the two-million viewer plateau, averaging 1.8 million to finish last among cable news.

Fox News also topped broadcast coverage, as ABC and CBS averaged two million apiece and NBC picked up 1.7 million total viewers.

FNC also topped cable news among the key demographic of adults age 25-54, averaging 444,000 during the impeachment hearing compared to 427,000 demo viewers for CNN and only 364,000 for MSNBC.

FNC’s audience carried over to primetime, averaging 4 million viewers from 8-11 p.m. ET while MSNBC averaged 2.8 million and CNN lagged behind with 1.3 million. “Hannity” was the most-watched show on cable news, averaging 4.4 million total viewers followed by “Tucker Carlson Tonight” with 4 million.

Rep. Stefanik Makes Schiff Squirm Pointing Out His Hypocrisy on the Whistleblower

AOC Just Accidentally Admitted The Dems' REAL Impeachment Plan I White House Brief
• Premiered 9 hours ago

The impeachment hearings are so boring! Sorry — it’s the truth! So there won’t be a play-by-play on this show. Instead, Miller looks at all of the attempts the Democrats have made and looks at the one thing they all have in common: They’re bogus! AOC even admits it on CNN. Then, President Trump promised to stop endless wars. Our congressional correspondent Nate Madden spoke to Navy vet Tyler Lindholm, the co-founder of the “Bring Our Troops Home” group, who is in D.C. to push Congress to do just that.

One of Temple's friends attended the impeachment hearings:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/drag-queen-sashays-trump-impeachment-hearings-n1081261

Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry
Associated Press • November 17, 2019

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

Pushing back against accusations from the president that the process has been stacked against him, Pelosi said Trump is welcome to appear or answer questions in writing, if he chooses.

“If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it,” she said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’s "Face the Nation.” Trump “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants,” she said.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer echoed that suggestion.

“If Donald Trump doesn’t agree with what he’s hearing, doesn’t like what he’s hearing, he shouldn’t tweet. He should come to the committee and testify under oath. And he should allow all those around him to come to the committee and testify under oath,” Schumer told reporters. He said the White House’s insistence on blocking witnesses from cooperating begs the question: “What is he hiding?”

The comments come as the House Intelligence Committee prepares for a second week of public hearings as part of its inquiry, including with the man who is arguably the most important witness. Gordon Sondland, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, is among the only people interviewed to date who had direct conversations with the president about the situation because the White House has blocked others from cooperating with what they dismiss as a sham investigation. And testimony suggests he was intimately involved in discussions that are at the heart of the investigation into whether Trump held up U.S. military aid to Ukraine to try to pressure the county’s president to announce an investigation into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 candidate, and his son, Hunter.

Multiple witnesses overheard a phone call in which Trump and Sondland reportedly discussed efforts to push for the investigations. In private testimony to impeachment investigators made public Saturday, Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council aide and longtime Republican defense hawk, said Sondland told him he was discussing Ukraine matters directly with Trump.

Morrison said Sondland and Trump had spoken approximately five times between July 15 and Sept. 11 — the weeks that $391 million in U.S. assistance was withheld from Ukraine before it was released.

And he recounted that Sondland told a top Ukrainian official in a meeting that the vital U.S. military assistance might be freed up if the country’s top prosecutor “would go to the mike and announce that he was opening the Burisma investigation.” Burisma is the gas company that hired Hunter Biden.

Morrison’s testimony contradicted much of what Sondland told congressional investigators during his own closed-door deposition, which the ambassador later amended.

Trump has said he has no recollection of the overheard call and has suggested he barely knew Sondland, a wealthy donor to his 2016 campaign. But Democrats are hoping he sheds new light on the discussions.

“I’m not going to try to prejudge his testimony,” Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said on “Fox News Sunday.” But he suggested, “it was not lost on Ambassador Sondland what happened to the president’s close associate Roger Stone for lying to Congress, to Michael Cohen for lying to Congress. My guess is that Ambassador Sondland is going to do his level best to tell the truth, because otherwise he may have a very unpleasant legal future in front of him.”

The committee will also be interviewing a long list of others. On Tuesday, they’ll hear from Morrison along with Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, Alexander Vindman, the director for European affairs at the National Security Council, and Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine.

On Wednesday the committee will hear from Sondland in addition to Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, and David Hale, a State Department official. And on Thursday, Fiona Hill, a former top NSC staffer for Europe and Russia, will appear.

Trump, meanwhile, continued to tweet and retweet a steady stream of commentary from supporters as he bashed “The Crazed, Do Nothing Democrats” for “turning Impeachment into a routine partisan weapon.”

“That is very bad for our Country, and not what the Founders had in mind!!!!” he wrote.

He also tweeted a doctored video exchange between Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, in which Schiff said he did not know the identity of the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the inquiry. The clip has been altered to show Schiff wearing a referee’s uniform and loudly blowing a whistle.

In her CBS interview, Pelosi vowed to protect the whistleblower, whom Trump has said should be forced to come forward despite longstanding whistleblower protections.

“I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistleblower,” Pelosi said.

Trump has been under fire for his treatment of one of the witnesses, the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, whom Trump criticized by tweet as she was testifying last week.

That attack prompted accusations of witness intimidation from Democrats and even some criticism from Republicans, who have been largely united in their defense of Trump

“I think, along with most people, I find the president’s tweet generally unfortunate,” said Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Still, he insisted that tweets were “certainly not impeachable and it’s certainly not criminal. And it’s certainly not witness intimidation,” even if Yovanovitch said she felt intimidated by the attacks.

Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, said Trump “communicates in ways that sometimes I wouldn’t,” but dismissed the significance of the attacks.

“If your basis for impeachment is going to include a tweet, that shows how weak the evidence for that impeachment is,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

And the backlash didn’t stop Trump from lashing out at yet another witness, this time Pence aide Williams. He directed her in a Sunday tweet to “meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!”