Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[cots]

Well @cots, I'll pass on the personal vitriol. I disagree with @Xzi on political issues, but there's more to life. Really. And we're just people at home on Friday night at a keyboard instead of somewhere better. I'm a middle-aged dude with a teenaged daughter out on a date, waiting up till she gets home, so at least I have an excuse lol. But we all here get our one measly vote, and I expect everyone to cast it. (Just one each though, you wascally Democrats )

Point being, we're all just venting thoughts here, debating if you will ... but it doesn't matter for shit. What will happen will happen, regardless of what we say to each other here on a vidya board of ill repute.

That's fine. You don't have to agree with my viewpoints on his lack of intelligence. That's not going the change how I feel. And according to the Liberals my feelings define reality. Who needs those pesky facts. I'm just saying you're wasting your time debating with someone who won't admit he's wrong regardless of what is proven otherwise. I had him on ignore because he refuses to admit he's even wrong about anything and is constantly filled with hatred for Trump. He's never wrong so what's the point? (Though, I'm just suggesting you don't address him. I'm in no way in a position to demand you do anything nor would I listen personally to anyone who demanded anything from me).

 

[Xzi]

That's fine. You don't have to agree with my viewpoints on his lack of intelligence. That's not going the change how I feel. And according to the Liberals, my feelings define reality. Who needs those pesky facts.

I seriously doubt you watched a single minute of public testimony this week. You're such a disingenuous dipshit.

 

[Hanafuda]

Well @cots, I'll pass on the personal vitriol. I disagree with @Xzi on political issues, but there's more to life. Really. And we're just people at home on Friday night at a keyboard instead of somewhere better. I'm a middle-aged dude with a teenaged daughter out on a date, waiting up till she gets home, so at least I have an excuse lol. But we all here get our one measly vote, and I expect everyone to cast it. (Just one each though, you wascally Democrats )

Point being, we're all just venting thoughts here, debating if you will ... but it doesn't matter for shit. What will happen will happen, regardless of what we say to each other here on a vidya board of ill repute.

While I'm at it, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a Republican, never have been. Used to be registered Democrat, now the dreaded (I)ndependent. I like the libertarian platform if I have to sign on to something, but I never seem to like Libertarian candidates.

 

[cots]

I seriously doubt you watched a single minute of public testimony this week. You're such a disingenuous dipshit.

I watched Sonland's entire testimony. Explain to me genius how Pence was aware of quid pro joe if he never said a word to Sonland prior the meeting he attended, during the meeting and after the meeting (remember, it wasn't a meeting between Sonland and Pence. Pence just happened to be in a meeting that contained a lot of other people). Does Sonland's abilities now include not only creating facts out of assumptions, but also telepathy? Maybe I should just whip out the magic 8 ball and create my viewpoint on it's results.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

My brain's starting to hurt a bit now.

Yeah, I never said the jpg images I posted up there was HR660. It's a letter from the House Intel Republicans to Schiff, informing him that HR660 as written does not 'displace' the general House rule guaranteeing the minority party the right to present witnesses of their choosing. I suppose that's something that could've been written into HR660, but they didn't. And the letter was presented to the Chair (Schiff) before the end of yesterday's hearing, so their request to call additional witnesses is timely.

Nifty. Now let's see if Schiff follows the Rules, or violates them.

Ok, moving on.

From HR660:
---
"3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution."


B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.

(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.

----
TLDR: If minority wants a witness, and that witness is submitted to the chair accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution but the chair declines the motion then the minority can refer to the committee to overrule the chair. If that fails then no dice.

This is how I read this set of rules. Feel free to break this document down yourself.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text/eh

TLDRx2:
https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1197542482927636483

All that letter is doing is providing the request. If the chair (Schiff) denies the motion - which I don't see this letter "accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness". If this wasn't provided then this is just a political stunt. If this was provided but just not presented on twitter then the Chairman will make a ruling based on the justification of the relevance of the testimony. If the chairman declines then the minority can appeal to the entire committee, if the committee votes against it then they will not have that witness brought forward.

 

[Hanafuda]

Ok, moving on.

From HR660:
---

All that letter is doing is providing the request. If the chair (Schiff) denies the motion - which I don't see this letter "accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness". If this wasn't provided then this is just a political stunt. If this was provided but just not presented on twitter then the Chairman will make a ruling based on the justification of the relevance of the testimony. If the chairman declines then the minority can appeal to the entire committee, if the committee votes against it then they will not have that witness brought forward.

The letter is not citing HR660 as the basis of their right to present the witnesses they choose. The letter cites House Rule XI, which guarantees the right of the minority party to present witnesses. HR660 doesn't contain an exclusion for House Rule XI, so House Rule XI still applies. And according to House Rule XI, invoking that right only requires notice to the Chair from a majority of the members of the minority party members before the end of the hearing, which is what the letter is.

 

[cots]

While I'm at it, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a Republican, never have been. Used to be registered Democrat, now the dreaded (I)ndependent. I like the libertarian platform if I have to sign on to something, but I never seem to like Libertarian candidates.

I was a Liberal fresh out of high school. They rejected me when I started asking questions I wasn't allowed to ask. So I told them to get fucked. I was then a Republican for a while, but I also found issues with them. While they do encourage you to ask questions and won't try to ruin your life for uttering simple phrases I found a lot of them very intolerant for my personal life style. I'm now an Independent, but not part of the Independent party. Fuck parties. I'll make up my own mind on what I want to say, what questions I'll ask and who I'll vote for.

 

[Hanafuda]

I was a Liberal fresh out of high school. They rejected me when I started asking questions I wasn't allowed to ask. So I told them to get fucked. I was then a Republican for a while, but I also found issues with them. While they do encourage you to ask questions and won't try to ruin your life for uttering simple phrases I found a lot of them very intolerant for my personal life style. I'm now an Independent, but not part of the Independent party. Fuck parties. I'll make up my own mind on what I want to say, what questions I'll ask and who I'll vote for.

Well, this I'll agree with you on.

 

[cots]

The letter is not citing HR660 as the basis of their right to present the witnesses they choose. The letter cites House Rule XI, which guarantees the right of the minority party to present witnesses. HR660 doesn't contain an exclusion for House Rule XI, so House Rule XI still applies. And according to House Rule XI, invoking that right only requires notice to the Chair from a majority of the members of the minority party members before the end of the hearing, which is what the letter is.

What the House maketh the House can taketh.

 

[Hanafuda]

What the House maketh the House can taketh.

I don't think they can make changes to HR660 now.

 

[cots]

Well, this I'll agree with you on.

It's pretty easy to detect bullshit. My parents taught me to trust by verification and to always ask questions. You can learn a lot about a person by questioning what they're demanding of you. Anyone that would prevent you from asking certain questions or speaking your mind should not be trusted.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I haven't finished, I probably should have waited, but for now... In addition, the presented letter makes a claim in the 2nd paragraph that:
---
House rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A) states that "The Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable. House Rule XI, Clause 2(j)(1) provides that "the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify....." Notably, this rule was not displaced by H. Res. 660 and, therefore, under House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A), it applies to the Democrats' "impeachment inquiry."
---

I'm not versed enough to dispute this assertion on congressional rules and procedures. If this is true then maybe? Although I don't see how this would not be covered under HR660 as it seems to be quite clear on how impeachment witnesses may be called forth.

I have reservations that this is just a political stunt, since this was posted on twitter with the subtext:

"Chairman Adam Schiff has repeatedly denied fundamental fairness and due process throughout the course of this sham impeachment. RT if you agree that he should stop blocking important witnesses from testifying."

 

[SG854]

Uh Oh, if the documents release then Trump was right all along and will be freed from all this, and Biden will need to be looked into.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625876.html

 

[cots]

"Chairman Adam Schiff has repeatedly denied fundamental fairness and due process throughout the course of this sham impeachment. RT if you agree that he should stop blocking important witnesses from testifying."

I don't agree with all of this because it's the Houses inquiry and they make the rules. Seeings as they are Democrats there's a good chance they'll just ignore any current rules that gets them into trouble and make new ones. If they lose according to their rules they won't admit defeat and just make up more rules. There's not going to be any "fundamental fairness" in a process controlled by Democrats. How could you expect fairness from people who refuse to accept defeat even after they agreed to the rules?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I don't agree with all of this because it's the Houses inquiry and they make the rules. Seeings as they are Democrats there's a good chance they'll just ignore any current rules that gets them into trouble and make new ones. If they lose according to their rules they won't admit defeat and just make up more rules. There's not going to be any "fundamental fairness" in a process controlled by Democrats. How could you expect fairness from people who refuse to accept defeat even after they agreed to the rules?

I have to ask... you make so many assertions on unfairness of rules, have you even read HR660 or House rule XI? You say trust but verify but I'm not seeing much verification on your part when it comes to republican narratives. Just pointing that out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

For reference

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/02/13/house-section/article/H1572-4

I'm reading this now. I'd like to better understand this. I'm not going to flay others on this thread over rule interpretation but do want us to be able to understand what the rules are before we state the process is unfair or assert the minority is entitled to witnesses without approval of either the majority of the committee or the chairman.

 

[Hanafuda]

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/02/13/house-section/article/H1572-4

I'm reading this now. I'd like to better understand this. I'm not going to flay others on this thread over rule interpretation but do want us to be able to understand what the rules are before we state the process is unfair or assert the minority is entitled to witnesses without approval of either the majority of the committee or the chairman.

These are the House Rules.

http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Ok final thoughts: The letter is correct, there is a rule called the minority witness rule.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22637/11

---
Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI—known as the “minority witness rule”—states: Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
---

This is what can be invoked and what was served on the last hearing.

Something that I found noteworthy under the Majority Prerogatives and Minority Witnesses section:

---
It is up to the chairman of the committee to set the day and location of the requested hearing “under a reasonable schedule.” 9 While the committee majority must invite the witnesses chosen by the minority, they are not precluded from inviting additional witnesses of their own choosing. The chairman maintains control over the logistics of how the minority witnesses will testify (i.e., individually or in panels) and also determines whether to administer the oath to the witnesses.10

As is the case with other witnesses, a minority witness may decline an invitation to testify. The committee can elect to issue a subpoena for testimony under the normal procedures of the House and the committee but is not required to do so.

The scope of an additional day of hearings under the minority witness rule is generally limited by the subject of the hearing. A committee is not required to permit testimony by minority witnesses or questioning by committee members or staff that strays from the announced subject of the hearing.11 Of course, if the committee chooses, it may broaden the scope of its inquiry as it sees fit.

Notwithstanding the rights afforded the minority party under the minority witness rule, under clause 2(k)(8) of House Rule XI, a committee is “the sole judge of the pertinence of the testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.” As such, a committee majority, applying a “reasonableness test,” retains the right to determine the relevance of testimony and the appropriate length of a Rule XI minority day of witnesses.
---
TLDR: If the witnesses chosen through a committee vote does not pass a "reasonableness test" and determines that the relevance of testimony isn't subject of the announced hearing then I think it can still be declined. I'm not 100% sure on this.

 

[Hanafuda]

Ok final thoughts: The letter is correct, there is a rule called the minority witness rule.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22637/11

---
Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI—known as the “minority witness rule”—states: Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
---

This is what can be invoked and what was served on the last hearing.

Something that I found noteworthy under the Majority Prerogatives and Minority Witnesses section:

---
It is up to the chairman of the committee to set the day and location of the requested hearing “under a reasonable schedule.” 9 While the committee majority must invite the witnesses chosen by the minority, they are not precluded from inviting additional witnesses of their own choosing. The chairman maintains control over the logistics of how the minority witnesses will testify (i.e., individually or in panels) and also determines whether to administer the oath to the witnesses.10

As is the case with other witnesses, a minority witness may decline an invitation to testify. The committee can elect to issue a subpoena for testimony under the normal procedures of the House and the committee but is not required to do so.

The scope of an additional day of hearings under the minority witness rule is generally limited by the subject of the hearing. A committee is not required to permit testimony by minority witnesses or questioning by committee members or staff that strays from the announced subject of the hearing.11 Of course, if the committee chooses, it may broaden the scope of its inquiry as it sees fit.

Notwithstanding the rights afforded the minority party under the minority witness rule, under clause 2(k)(8) of House Rule XI, a committee is “the sole judge of the pertinence of the testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.” As such, a committee majority, applying a “reasonableness test,” retains the right to determine the relevance of testimony and the appropriate length of a Rule XI minority day of witnesses.
---
TLDR: If the witnesses chosen through a committee vote does not pass a "reasonableness test" and determines that the relevance of testimony isn't subject of the announced hearing then I think it can still be declined. I'm not 100% sure on this.

Yep. 2(j)(1) of Rule 11 is never mentioned in HR660. So it still applies.

 

[cots]

I have to ask... you make so many assertions on unfairness of rules, have you even read HR660 or House rule XI? You say trust but verify but I'm not seeing much verification on your part when it comes to republican narratives. Just pointing that out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

For reference

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/02/13/house-section/article/H1572-4

I'm reading this now. I'd like to better understand this. I'm not going to flay others on this thread over rule interpretation but do want us to be able to understand what the rules are before we state the process is unfair or assert the minority is entitled to witnesses without approval of either the majority of the committee or the chairman.

I've been watching how Democrats go about business for decades. If and when an orange tree starts to produce cherries I'd change my mind about the tree.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Uh Oh, if the documents release then Trump was right all along and will be freed from all this, and Biden will need to be looked into.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625876.html

I tried to find some more information and found these articles which I am linking below. I have a host of reservations when it comes to any Ukrainian involvement in our politics. I think for those who are concerned w/ the Biden's involvement in Ukraine will gain the appropriate insight from our own senate investigation.

BTW, I don't disagree with Lindsey's decision as we can either put out our own information from our own government to the American public or other governments/foreign nationals who may not be working in our interests will fill the void. I think it is a pretty sensitive matter though, and I don't believe he's the most suited member to helm this investigation but he's who we have and my reservations are irrelevant.

I would hesitate to give much credence behind anything asserted by two members Ukrainian Parliament, but if they were to produce some hard evidence it would increase their credibility.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/there...laying-games-with-impeachment-info?ref=scroll

https://www.bigiftrue.org/2019/10/1...that-burisma-paid-joe-biden-almost-1-million/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/intern...ead-among-conservatives-social-media-n1087511