12/05/19 IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WITCH-HUNT UPDATE
The first two witnesses at the public hearing on Wednesday will be William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state.
Factually, they are not witnesses at all. They heard and repeated the equivalent of gossip from a chattering class of diplomats, then made erroneous assumptions that are belied by the only relevant and reliable evidence –a transcript of the Trump-Zelensky conversation.
EXCLUSIVE: Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a key witness in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, communicated via her personal email account with a Democratic congressional staffer concerning a "quite delicate" and "time-sensitive" matter -- just two days after the whistleblower complaint that kickstarted the inquiry was filed, and a month before the complaint became public, emails obtained Thursday by Fox News showed.
Who faces who in a primary? Which Democrat is moderate enough, and therefore, best positioned, to run against that longtime Republican Congressman in a battleground district? Who can the administration nominate for a key cabinet post - who shares the president’s governing philosophies - but can also secure Senate confirmation?
The House approved a resolution establishing the parameters of the impeachment probe last week. Pelosi asserted for weeks adoption of such a resolution wasn’t necessary for an impeachment investigation. But Pelosi saw the possibility of Democrats gaining their own matchup advantage in the impeachment milieu.
First, Pelosi granted significant power to one of her top lieutenants, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. The Intelligence Committee is running the impeachment process thus far. Both open hearings next week are before the Intelligence panel. Part of the thinking is that Democrats believe they have a matchup advantage on the Intelligence Committee compared to the Republicans. Pelosi also has a lot of confidence in her California colleague.
“The weakest people are on the Intelligence Committee for public hearings,” said one senior House GOP source. The source added that the strongest Republican voices were on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees.
This is why Republicans are mulling a personnel shift of their own. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee. Under the current terms, Jordan’s been in the room for most closed-door depositions. But since he’s not a member of the Intelligence Committee, the Ohio Republican can’t ask questions. Jordan is one of Trump’s most ardent defenders. But, when the hearings go public next week, Jordan and Reps. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y. - other vocal advocates for Mr. Trump – won’t be on the dais to counterpunch.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 168
(House of Representatives - October 21, 2019)
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page H8450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
(Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
seem to think it is appropriate to conduct an impeachment inquiry
behind closed doors, shutting out the American people.
They have denied Republican Members of Congress the right to fully
participate in the inquiry process but expect them to cast a vote to
impeach a duly elected President of the United States without seeing
all the facts.
In addition to all that, Democrats denied us the right to vote on a
resolution to censure Chairman Schiff for his deception of Americans
day in and day out.
This morning, I joined dozens of my colleagues as we stormed into the
SCIF demanding transparency, shedding light on this corrupt process.
Instead of having a conversation, Chairman Schiff abruptly ended the
deposition, taking the witness with him out of the room.
The Speaker of this House is putting her hatred of the President
above what is best for her constituents. She is harming the entire
Nation by conducting this inquiry in such a manner.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We are better than this; our country
is better than this; and the American people certainly deserve better
than this. They deserve better than an impeachment inquiry in a secret
room based on assertions of a phantom whistleblower.
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the House of Representatives should, consistent with long-standing practice and precedent, prior to proceeding any further with its impeachmentinvestigation into President Donald J. Trump, vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections.Sponsor: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] (Introduced 10/24/2019) Cosponsors: (44) Committees: Senate - Rules and Administration Latest Action: Senate - 10/24/2019 Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (text: CR S6160-6161) (All Actions)
1. H.Res.633 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)Requiring that all impeachment inquiry related hearings, witness interviews and communications, document productions and examinations, proceedings, and other related work shall be done in an open setting and in public view.Sponsor: Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5] (Introduced 10/16/2019) Cosponsors:(41) Committees: House - Rules; Ethics Latest Action: House - 10/16/2019 Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on Ethics, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. (All Actions)
THREE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY VOTES:
In December 2017,
January 2018,
July 2019 (under Pelosi's
leadership),
The House held votes on whether to open an impeachment inquiry. The results weren't even close.
All three votes came up as "privileged resolutions."
Under Congressional rules, members can vote to “table” the resolution or to “proceed”.
To affirmatively table a privileged resolution kills it, meaning the resolution has failed.
Though the first two impeachment’s votes came up during the Republican majority, the votes to reject or table them were indisputably bipartisan.
In December 2017 there were 126 Democrats who joined House Republicans to reject Rep. Al Green's impeachment resolution 364-58.
A month later, a new resolution was introduced with similar results: Again, 121 Democrats voted to table.
Support for impeachment rose from 58 votes in December,2017 to 66 in January 2018,
But that was before Democrats won a majority in 2018 and Nancy Pelosi became Speaker.
With Democrats having won dozens of new seats, Rep. Green tried again just three months ago in July 2019.
His impeachment resolution was one of four introduced in the 116th Congress. This time even more Democrats voted against an inquiry – 137 up from 121 in the previous Congress.
After this third rejection to pursue impeachment, Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, introduced a resolution to dethrone Chairman Nadler from the House Judiciary Committee for pursuing impeachment proceedings after the House had voted explicitly not to move forward with impeachment.
No wonder why Speaker Pelosi is reluctant to hold a fourth vote. It could fail again.
And that’s true despite the fact that she gets the added benefit of a supportive press thoroughly lacking intellectual and professional curiosity.
The Speaker’s quest for impeachment gets the benefit of the daily drip of negative propaganda against President Trump and no accountability or pressure for following the rule of law, fairness, precedent, or respect for the will of “the people’s house.”
Many Republicans, including President Trump, are calling on Speaker Pelosi to hold an impeachment vote. But the truth is – she already has. Until she holds another vote, the previous vote should stand. The House has explicitly voted against pursuing an impeachment inquiry, hence the current proceeding is invalid.
(Letter from POTUS ATTY reply to three committee Chairs - NOT to cooperate, illegitimate Impreachment inquiry).
Do any of us want to live in a country where Congress can unambiguously reject legislation and the Speaker of the House can force it through anyway?
Pelosi claims to have the impeachment votes, but how do we know she has the votes? Like everything else about this impeachment inquiry, facts and evidence are being carefully hidden.
Just because Speaker Pelosi decrees there is an (impeachment inquiry) doesn't make that inquiry valid.
To the contrary, that motion was brought to the floor of the House and it failed three times.
(These are the seeds of a Constitutional crisis).... is
Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News contributor who was the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee when he served as a representative from Utah. He is the author of “Power Grab: The Liberal Scheme to Undermine Trump, the GOP, and Our Republic.”
The doctrine of the separation of powers – which is the backbone of the Constitution – states that Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. It also offers that the governmental roles of the three branches cannot be intermingled or traded without doing violence to the personal liberties that the separation was intended to secure.
The doctrine of the separation of powers – which is the backbone of the Constitution – states that
- Congress writes the laws,
- the president enforces them,
- courts interpret them.
It also offers that the governmental roles of the three branches cannot be intermingled or traded without doing violence to the personal liberties that the separation was intended to secure.
best outcome would be for Schiff to apologize, and the next-best outcome would be for a referral to the Ethics Committee. Buck said other Republicans agree that Schiff's conduct did not meet the standard for censure.
K
"Each member of Congress must uphold a high standard of honesty and integrity. When it comes to matters of our national security, that responsibility is even greater," McCarthy said. "Chairman Schiff has fallen short in his duty. From claiming he had evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to covering up his committee’s relationship with the whistleblower, he has demonstrated a pattern of lying to the American people on matters of intelligence."
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Schiff a "patriot" in her own statement.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, echoed the frustrations of many Republicans over a perceived lack of transparency in the handling of the impeachment inquiry led by House Democrats.
She also expressed concerns that a hyper-partisan impeachment inquiry would “tear apart” the country. “I've long expressed my concern about going through impeachment proceedings in a very, very partisan way because it will only further tear apart an already divided country.”
