Drained him, he appointed him. To replace the other ambassador he recalled.

Per Wikipedia:

Testimony in House impeachment inquiry


Opening statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor

On October 22, 2019, Taylor testified before the US Congressional House regarding the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and the Trump-Ukraine scandal in a closed session. Taylors opening statement was made public and directly implicated President trump in a proactive and coordinated effort to solicit a political quid pro quo whereby “everything” -  from a one on one meeting with President Trump to $400 million in military aid to Ukraine - would be held up unless Ukrainian President Zelenskyy agreed to announce publicly that “investigations” would be launched including into former VP Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 election. Taylor’s opening statement and testimony was widely viewed as an inflection point in the impeachment inquiry.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

I don't think the media is emphasizing enough that the inquiry consists of three house committees. each of the three committees has Republican members, and each of them by themselves has the power to subpoena.
there have been Republican members asking questions during each of these depositions.
so the powers are legitimately derived, and the Republicans have an opportunity to participate in the process.
if Matt Gaetz wanted to participate he should have got himself appointed to a different committee.

If you think this is all a waste of time by Democrats that's your right. Vote accordingly in the next election. But what the Democrats are doing is totally within the rules and precedents. Trying to bring a foreign government into the employ of a US political party is not. The Democrats are accusing Trump of this, and it is very serious. As they are the majority party in the house right now, they deserve an opportunity to do a thorough investigation so that they may prove this, or fail to prove it if the evidence is not there.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I couldn't agree more.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

The impeachment inquiry is a publicity stunt.

No, it isn't.

The appropriate investigative House committees investigate, then the House votes whether or not to impeach - based on the results of the committees' investigation. That's how the inquiry works.

Thank you for that but I know how that works.

I'm saying that the way Schiff is handling it is a publicity stunt.

---

I couldn't agree less. Now what the republicans did today by storming in to the hearing, now THAT was a publicity stunt.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

I couldn't agree less. Now what the republicans did today by storming in to the hearing, now THAT was a publicity stunt.

Why can't they both be stunts?


Schiff isn't concerned with these privacy of these meetings when he stops them to meet with the media, release information, and then resume the secret meetings until he gets another tidbit of info he'd like the media to hear.

---

No, it isn't.

The appropriate investigative House committees investigate, then the House votes whether or not to impeach - based on the results of the committees' investigation. That's how the inquiry works.

Thank you for that but I know how that works.

I'm saying that the way Schiff is handling it is a publicity stunt.

It may be a publicity stunt but it is being done with the participation of both parties. it is being done in secret because some of the topics discussed are not for public discussion, at least not yet. That might make you uncomfortable, but there is precedence for committees from Congress holding secret meetings going back at least to the 40s.
What matt gaetz attempted to do was not only a publicity stunt, but also complete disrespect for precedent and rules. He is not on one of the three committees, therefore he is not yet on a "need to know" basis for the facts being discussed.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No, it isn't.

The appropriate investigative House committees investigate, then the House votes whether or not to impeach - based on the results of the committees' investigation. That's how the inquiry works.

Thank you for that but I know how that works.

I'm saying that the way Schiff is handling it is a publicity stunt.

Agreed on his opening remarks. The ongoing process is not a stunt. Appropriate procedures are taking place

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

A small group of thug congressmen trying to stop due process. Sounds like treason to me. Expel them.

---

They were upset because their attempts to expel Schiff earlier in the week failed. Arguably, this effort failed as well, although the message was sent, and the testimony was stalled for five and a half hours. It will be interesting to note what effect that this will have on their respective re-election campaigns.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

The impeachment inquiry is a publicity stunt.

No, it isn't.

The appropriate investigative House committees investigate, then the House votes whether or not to impeach - based on the results of the committees' investigation. That's how the inquiry works.

LIAR!  The appropriate committee has always been the judiciary committee after a vote by the full house to open a formal inquiry.  This has NEVER happened in the history of this country and is a disgrace to fundamental due process, the rule of law, and the basic tenants of free democratic ideals.

---

I don't think the media is emphasizing enough that the inquiry consists of three house committees. each of the three committees has Republican members, and each of them by themselves has the power to subpoena.
there have been Republican members asking questions during each of these depositions.
so the powers are legitimately derived, and the Republicans have an opportunity to participate in the process.
if Matt Gaetz wanted to participate he should have got himself appointed to a different committee.

If you think this is all a waste of time by Democrats that's your right. Vote accordingly in the next election. But what the Democrats are doing is totally within the rules and precedents.

That's just NOT TRUE.  Either you're lying or you don't know what the heck your talking about.  EVERY IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY has started with a formal vote in the house of representatives.  EVERY ONE granted the minatory subpoena power, and every one Granted the President due process rights in the house. The president should have the right to have his lawyer present at every one of these depositions.  He should have the right to call witnesses and produce evidence.  That was afforded to Nixxon and Clinton.  The idea that you have witnesses come in, testify in secret, and then have their testimonies selectively leaked is a political stunt by the group of people who got BURNED by Bob Mueller embarrassing himself on national television.  

Trying to bring a foreign government into the employ of a US political party is not. The Democrats are accusing Trump of this, and it is very serious. As they are the majority party in the house right now, they deserve an opportunity to do a thorough investigation so that they may prove this, or fail to prove it if the evidence is not there.

Evidence?  What @#$^ Evidence.  

For everyone watching at home, through Inuendo the Democrats in the house are making two basic accusations.  1.) An extortive act.  In order to prove that there was an extortive act you have to prove two things.  a.) that the subject of the extorted act felt pressured and b.) that the external pressure they felt is something that a reasonable person could see as threatening.  in this case THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAYS There WAS NO PRESSURE BROUGHT TO BEAR!  Period.  End of story.  go home.  Not to mention the fact, that the alleged leverage wasn't even known to the subject until a month after the alleged incident.  

2.) That the President pursuing an investigation into the Biden's or Burisma holding represents a CORRUPT INTENT.  Fine.  In order to show that then you have to demonstrate that there was ZERO EVIDENCE to support the reasonable suspicion that the Bidens or Burisma were involved in illegal, illicit, or corrupt acts.  The State Department inspector General already delivered Giuliani's investigative work by which he demonstrates that there are sworn witnesses, including the former prosecutor general of Ukraine, that state that Biden DID IN FACT seek his firing to protect his son and his business interest.  Further, the owner of Burisma Holdings received 1billion dollars plus in Tax Payer dollars.  This while his corruption was so well known that he was barred from having a visa in the united states of America and the British were freezing his assets.  But that Biden, he's Fighting CORRUPTION.  

GIVE ME A BREAK!

---

They were protesting a process which was the same process the Republicans followed in the Bengazi hearings.

---

They were protesting a process which was the same process the Republicans followed in the Bengazi hearings.

Who needs the nutmeg now brother?

---

No, it isn't.

The appropriate investigative House committees investigate, then the House votes whether or not to impeach - based on the results of the committees' investigation. That's how the inquiry works.

LIAR!  The appropriate committee has always been the judiciary committee after a vote by the full house to open a formal inquiry.  This has NEVER happened in the history of this country and is a disgrace to fundamental due process, the rule of law, and the basic tenants of free democratic ideals.

Holy hell, calm down JJ. I pulled my info from two sources aside from the wiki article I referenced earlier: 

One. 

At face value, this is a tough read, but a good one to familiarize one's self with how impeachment works. Specifically, as it relates to our discussion, we can see that this is out of the norm for sitting US presidents, but not necessarily out of the norm for any other impeachment proceedings. I'd suggest reading the section: Authorization of Committee Investigation: 

The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair. Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without 
debate.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a 
resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation. In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take  affidavits and depositions

Two.

Ed Kilgore addresses what seems to be the crux of the debate over the appropriateness of these impeachment procedures. It appears that the House majority determines its own interpretation. So yes, you're correct that impeachment proceedings have historically, with regard to sitting US presidents, initiated out of the Judiciary Committee (or at least left for them to determine the next step(s)) . 

However, based on Ed's below assessment, labeling it as a disgrace is subjective based on the fact that the House majority essentially determines how to proceed. 

"This has been perhaps the most confusing aspect of the current debate over impeaching Trump. In past presidential impeachments, the House has formally voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings. But this step has been skipped on occasion in the impeachment of judges, and it’s entirely the product of custom and internal House rules (themselves interpreted and controlled by the House majority at a given time).

"After the Mueller Report was released and the special counsel himself had finally testified before Congress, House Democrats were deeply divided on whether to “initiate” impeachment proceedings, with Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler voicing reluctance to go in that direction. Then, in what was either a clever or devious maneuver, depending on your point of view, Nadler let it be known in early August that his committee was already engaged in an impeachment “inquiry,” as CNN explained at the time:

     The House Judiciary Committee is now engaged in a full-blown investigation and legal fight with the goal of deciding whether to recommend articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump by the end of the year, according to Democratic officials involved in the effort …As additional House Democrats continue to call for the House Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment inquiry — which more than half the caucus now supports — Democratic sources say the issue is essentially moot since what the panel is doing is basically that: investigating whether Trump should be impeached.

"As I noted at the time, 'According to this interpretation of the situation, there’s no need to ‘launch’ anything, or to put House Democrats on the spot with some vote to begin ‘proceedings’ that are already underway.' House Republicans might (and did) complain that a vital step had been left out, but there wasn’t much they could do about it.

"But what had looked like a successful effort to postpone any House vote until actual articles of impeachment were considered unraveled under the pressure of Trump’s scofflaw behavior – specifically, the Ukraine scandal and rising House Democratic sentiment favoring a more aggressive posture. While Pelosi’s announcement of a formal impeachment inquiry implicitly endorses Nadler’s claim that ongoing House investigations are an impeachment probe, the House could return to its old procedures and formally authorize such proceedings."

Honestly, I look at impeachment as a serious thing that ultimately ends up as a lose-lose for the country. Based on what I've read, I don't agree with your assessment that it's a disgrace (or that I'm a LIAR), but I do agree that there should be formal procedures that aren't left up to the House to determine based on the dominant political party sitting at any given time. I think ultimately, the point is moot because the house, dominated by the DEMs would have voted approval for the formal resolution to begin an investigation if it were brought through previously used channels for sitting presidents. It just would have taken longer. 

As a result, this opens the door for the validity of any impeachment to be challenged going forward...with the House simply referring to its committees' power to begin investigations without a formal resolution. 

I think what happened was the DEMs had two lines of thought prior to Pelosi's formal request for an inquiry:

1. Trump will win the 2020 election, so let's compile our list of what we determine as impeachable offenses and make sure we don't count our chickens before they hatch and push, ultimately, for impeachment when the time is right.

2. After the whistleblower/Ukraine situation began to unravel, the DEMs felt the pressure of potentially removing Trump and securing a victory in 2020; so they turned toward their subjective interpretation of what constitutes formal procedures, speeding up the timeline. 

I would have rather they compile their information and proposed a resolution thru Judiciary, at least keeping some semblance of continuity...then formulating official procedures that leave little room for counter interpretation. Knowing what I know about politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if GOPs acted similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. That's my subjective, pessimistic opinion though.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

LIAR!  The appropriate committee has always been the judiciary committee after a vote by the full house to open a formal inquiry.  This has NEVER happened in the history of this country and is a disgrace to fundamental due process, the rule of law, and the basic tenants of free democratic ideals.

Holy hell, calm down JJ. I pulled my info from two sources aside from the wiki article I referenced earlier: 

One. 

At face value, this is a tough read, but a good one to familiarize one's self with how impeachment works. Specifically, as it relates to our discussion, we can see that this is out of the norm for sitting US presidents, but not necessarily out of the norm for any other impeachment proceedings. I'd suggest reading the section: Authorization of Committee Investigation: 

The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair. Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without 
debate.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a 
resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation. In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take  affidavits and depositions

Two.

Ed Kilgore addresses what seems to be the crux of the debate over the appropriateness of these impeachment procedures. It appears that the House majority determines its own interpretation. So yes, you're correct that impeachment proceedings have historically, with regard to sitting US presidents, initiated out of the Judiciary Committee (or at least left for them to determine the next step(s)) . 

However, based on Ed's below assessment, labeling it as a disgrace is subjective based on the fact that the House majority essentially determines how to proceed. 




Honestly, I look at impeachment as a serious thing that ultimately ends up as a lose-lose for the country. Based on what I've read, I don't agree with your assessment that it's a disgrace (or that I'm a LIAR), but I do agree that there should be formal procedures that aren't left up to the House to determine based on the dominant political party sitting at any given time. I think ultimately, the point is moot because the house, dominated by the DEMs would have voted approval for the formal resolution to begin an investigation if it were brought through previously used channels for sitting presidents. It just would have taken longer. 

As a result, this opens the door for the validity of any impeachment to be challenged going forward...with the House simply referring to its committees' power to begin investigations without a formal resolution. 

I think what happened was the DEMs had two lines of thought prior to Pelosi's formal request for an inquiry:

1. Trump will win the 2020 election, so let's compile our list of what we determine as impeachable offenses and make sure we don't count our chickens before they hatch and push, ultimately, for impeachment when the time is right.

2. After the whistleblower/Ukraine situation began to unravel, the DEMs felt the pressure of potentially removing Trump and securing a victory in 2020; so they turned toward their subjective interpretation of what constitutes formal procedures, speeding up the timeline. 

I would have rather they compile their information and proposed a resolution thru Judiciary, at least keeping some semblance of continuity...then formulating official procedures that leave little room for counter interpretation. Knowing what I know about politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if GOPs acted similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. That's my subjective, pessimistic opinion though.

1998

---

Holy hell, calm down JJ. I pulled my info from two sources aside from the wiki article I referenced earlier: 

One. 

At face value, this is a tough read, but a good one to familiarize one's self with how impeachment works. Specifically, as it relates to our discussion, we can see that this is out of the norm for sitting US presidents, but not necessarily out of the norm for any other impeachment proceedings. I'd suggest reading the section: Authorization of Committee Investigation: 

Two.

Ed Kilgore addresses what seems to be the crux of the debate over the appropriateness of these impeachment procedures. It appears that the House majority determines its own interpretation. So yes, you're correct that impeachment proceedings have historically, with regard to sitting US presidents, initiated out of the Judiciary Committee (or at least left for them to determine the next step(s)) . 

However, based on Ed's below assessment, labeling it as a disgrace is subjective based on the fact that the House majority essentially determines how to proceed. 




Honestly, I look at impeachment as a serious thing that ultimately ends up as a lose-lose for the country. Based on what I've read, I don't agree with your assessment that it's a disgrace (or that I'm a LIAR), but I do agree that there should be formal procedures that aren't left up to the House to determine based on the dominant political party sitting at any given time. I think ultimately, the point is moot because the house, dominated by the DEMs would have voted approval for the formal resolution to begin an investigation if it were brought through previously used channels for sitting presidents. It just would have taken longer. 

As a result, this opens the door for the validity of any impeachment to be challenged going forward...with the House simply referring to its committees' power to begin investigations without a formal resolution. 

I think what happened was the DEMs had two lines of thought prior to Pelosi's formal request for an inquiry:

1. Trump will win the 2020 election, so let's compile our list of what we determine as impeachable offenses and make sure we don't count our chickens before they hatch and push, ultimately, for impeachment when the time is right.

2. After the whistleblower/Ukraine situation began to unravel, the DEMs felt the pressure of potentially removing Trump and securing a victory in 2020; so they turned toward their subjective interpretation of what constitutes formal procedures, speeding up the timeline. 

I would have rather they compile their information and proposed a resolution thru Judiciary, at least keeping some semblance of continuity...then formulating official procedures that leave little room for counter interpretation. Knowing what I know about politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if GOPs acted similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. That's my subjective, pessimistic opinion though.

1998

Shoe on the other foot....today. I say that because today's politics seem (perhaps due to social media/increased accessibility) more vehement than 2 decades ago. Perhaps my naivete is showing as I was just a teenager two decades ago.

---

I'll play you in ping pong.