What The Dems Will Be Reminded Of

[Bobber]

In regard to Trump's response (through his White House counsel) to not participating in the House Judiciary impeachment hearing I wonder if this will be a major thing in the way history looks upon this event....was it fair and unjust or wasn't it. The future I don't think will be kind to the Dems. A fair process and precedent should have meant something. I think they'll take special notice of this statement from White House counsel Pat Cipollone,

"When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate."

We can also consider the Senate will probably find the President innocent of the charges of the Dems thus not impeaching the President if we understand that to mean removal from office. So the election campaign for 2020 will commence.

Out of many things that Trump's campaign will keep reminding people this one about the impeachment issue will be brought up that is look at how the Dems set up an unjust process. How is it that many people won't agree? So how is it that the Dems could be so insensible? Did they not want to do everything possible to give the appearance of a fair process? Didn't they know others would bring forth how Clinton was treated?

 

[Silverback]

No one holding office in DC cares about anything, or, any one but themselves. Any issue supported by any Senator, or Representative directly benefits them first, anything that comes after that, comes after that.

The Democrats in the house are being bought to support the impeachment of the President, the Republicans are being bought to oppose it.

If enough cash, the right vacation, or, the right escorts are offered, there positions on impeachment will flip with republicans supporting, and democrats opposed.

Neither the house, nor the senate does anything, they only sit in session on average 1-2 days a month, the rest of the time they entertain lobbyist, plot and scheme, take bribes, payoffs, and never think about the people they swore to represent.

 

[A Realist]

We can also consider the Senate will probably find the President innocent of the charges of the Dems thus not impeaching the President if we understand that to mean removal from office.

If it makes it to the Senate, that will mean the President has already been impeached. No one who understands anything about the process thinks impeachment means removal from office.

The more you folks who are ignorant of the process post, the more you just look plain silly.

 

[Paulos23]

The vote for impeachment is not the trial, it is more like the grand jury gathering information to decide if there can be an inditiment. People forget that. And that is all. there doesn't have to be someone from the other side to represent them. For that matter, having the GOP even asking questions, and the GOP going off the rails with crazy conspericy questions, shows the Dems have been very fair.

The fact that Trump is fighting so hard to not let evidence get to congress tells me if we ever get the full story to the Senate, Trump knows he will be removed. And that tells me he knows he is guilty.

 

[Speedwell]

In regard to Trump's response (through his White House counsel) to not participating in the House Judiciary impeachment hearing I wonder if this will be a major thing in the way history looks upon this event....was it fair and unjust or wasn't it. The future I don't think will be kind to the Dems. A fair process and precedent should have meant something. I think they'll take special notice of this statement from White House counsel Pat Cipollone,

"When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate."

We can also consider the Senate will probably find the President innocent of the charges of the Dems thus not impeaching the President if we understand that to mean removal from office. So the election campaign for 2020 will commence.

Out of many things that Trump's campaign will keep reminding people this one about the impeachment issue will be brought up that is look at how the Dems set up an unjust process. How is it that many people won't agree? So how is it that the Dems could be so insensible? Did they not want to do everything possible to give the appearance of a fair process? Didn't they know others would bring forth how Clinton was treated?

The Democrats are following the procedural rules laid down by the Republicans during the Benghazi hearings. What's sauce for the goose...

 

[Bobber]

If it makes it to the Senate, that will mean the President has already been impeached. No one who understands anything about the process thinks impeachment means removal from office.

The more you folks who are ignorant of the process post, the more you just look plain silly.

I'm NOT ignorant of how the process works. That's why I made the qualifier, "thus not impeaching the President if we understand that to mean removal from office." I said that for the reason I feel the average person doesn't understand the difference. When they're thinking of impeachment they're thinking of removing from office as one and the same. I've seen many Americans that don't understand the difference.

 

[Sparagmos]

In regard to Trump's response (through his White House counsel) to not participating in the House Judiciary impeachment hearing I wonder if this will be a major thing in the way history looks upon this event....was it fair and unjust or wasn't it. The future I don't think will be kind to the Dems. A fair process and precedent should have meant something. I think they'll take special notice of this statement from White House counsel Pat Cipollone,

"When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate."

We can also consider the Senate will probably find the President innocent of the charges of the Dems thus not impeaching the President if we understand that to mean removal from office. So the election campaign for 2020 will commence.

Out of many things that Trump's campaign will keep reminding people this one about the impeachment issue will be brought up that is look at how the Dems set up an unjust process. How is it that many people won't agree? So how is it that the Dems could be so insensible? Did they not want to do everything possible to give the appearance of a fair process? Didn't they know others would bring forth how Clinton was treated?

The president’s attorneys knew these hearings were coming up, and have had plenty of time to prepare. No attorney advises an innocent client not to take advantage of any opportunity to present a defense. The president himself doesn’t need to be present, just his attorney. Let’s face it: the president’s only defense has been to smear witnesses and criticize the “process,” but he has offered no actual facts that refute the charges against him. His attorneys have decided that their best defense is not to participate.

Also - if the process is unconstitutional or illegal, why isn’t the Republican controlled senate or justice department stepping in?

 

[wing2000]

"When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate."

....the Committee Chair's letter “Please provide the committee with notice of whether your counsel intends to participate, specifying which of the privileges your counsel seeks to exercise,” Mr. Nadler wrote. He said the deadline for responding is 5 p.m. on Dec. 6.

---and in the WH response today:

In any event, this letter responds only to your letter of November 26 and fully reserves the right to respond further when and if you release more information about the December 4 hearing. We will respond separately to your letter of November 29 by your requested deadline of Friday, December 6.


If the White House counsel want's to participate, he can...and make his objections known. As it is, he is reserving the right to respond further until this Friday.

 

[wing2000]

The vote for impeachment is not the trial, it is more like the grand jury gathering information to decide if there can be an inditiment.

....during the Clinton impeachment, the GOP Judiciary Committee had the benefit of using the findings from a special prosecutor. That is not the case this time around.

 

[KCfromNC]

In regard to Trump's response (through his White House counsel) to not participating in the House Judiciary impeachment hearing I wonder if this will be a major thing in the way history looks upon this event....was it fair and unjust or wasn't it. The future I don't think will be kind to the Dems. A fair process and precedent should have meant something. I think they'll take special notice of this statement from White House counsel Pat Cipollone,

"When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate."

I'm sure the committee would be happy to give Donald 2.5 weeks from when he was first asked to participate. How does a week from Monday sound?

Anyone actually think that will get him to show up? Or will that just require Donald's attorneys to come up with another excuse for why he's too scared to appear?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

So how is it that the Dems could be so insensible?

Desperate times call for desperate measures? All of their scams have left them with bupkis. They are left muttering, "But well get him THIS time, you’ll see!" Scripture refers to wicked men digging a pit for others and falling into it themselves. Some in their scheming end up merely being a warning to others.

 

[Bobber]

....during the Clinton impeachment, the GOP Judiciary Committee had the benefit of using the findings from a special prosecutor. That is not the case this time around.

And Ken Starr testified under oath? Tell me will Adam Schiff be doing the same?

 

[A Realist]

And Ken Starr testified under oath? Tell me will Adam Schiff be doing the same?

Apples and oranges. Clinton was impeached based upon the findings from an independent counsel.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare

The first closed door testimony was like a month ago. The first public testimony was weeks ago. I'm sorry the president's lawyers were slacking off and not studying, but they knew this test was coming.

 

[evoeth]

Remember years of Benghazi hearings that resulted in zero convictions? Clinton testified in person for multiple days of testimony.